Optimization and the true spirit of D&D

[Atsull]

Optimization is a big part of D&D for some players, but I've always felt it's wrong. I always thought Dungeons and Dragons was a game about creating the best story and character possible, and if a character lacked strength in numbers, it was the DM's job to make up for it the create the best story possible.

What are your opinions on optimization? It makes me feel uneasy, but I would love to hear the thoughts of those who enjoy optimization.

[Eldan]

"True spirit" is very hard to define. I could just as well argue that since D&D came from wargames and later brutal dungeon runs, gaming the system is an essential part of it and very traditional.

Also, it is essentially a game about heroes who go into dangerous situations. Shouldn't "I need to be stronger to do this" be an essential part of their story?


My opinion is that one doesn't interact with the other much. I like optimizing, I also like stories. There's a huge thrill in diving through large piles of books to find weird new abilities and trying to make them work. There's just as huge a thrill in playing out various stories.

Optimization is not playing the strongest character possible. We already know what that is, it's Pun-pun and he's unplayable. Optimization is trying to make the best out of what you want to play. There's Theoretical Optimization, too, which is a different beast entirely and mainly a fun forum activity that is only remotely connected to the actual game.

[Atsull]

I don't think gaming the system is a valid strategy in D&D, because being stronger to me doesn't mean making everything as perfect as possible. to me, It is Roleplaying that you know exactly what you're doing and having the courage to charge headfirst into the dark room.

[Gwendol]

I fail to see the conflict here. There is nothing to say that you can't optimize and roleplay: the two are not mutually exclusive.

[Atsull]

I fail to see the conflict here. There is nothing to say that you can't optimize and roleplay: the two are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, but I think that optimization is used as an excuse to not roleplay.

[ben-zayb]

I fail to see the conflict here. There is nothing to say that you can't optimize and roleplay: the two are not mutually exclusive.

/thread

C'mon, we're in the last quarter of 2014. Stormwind Fallacy is nearly a decade ago.

[Extra Anchovies]

A character in a heroic roleplaying game such as Dungeons and Dragons not only needs to be well-developed from a roleplay perspective; they also need to be, well, heroic. And heroic characters need two things: coolness and efficacy.

Coolness is derived from character concept. For example, gishes are really cool, because why choose between casting spells and punching enemies in the face when you can do both?

Efficacy is derived from character optimization. A character can take ten levels of fighter and ten levels of wizard, call themselves a gish, and royally suck at everything they do (compared to characters of the same level, that is). Alternately, they can assemble a moderately complex Wizard/Warblade/Swiftblade/Abjurant Champion build, and be much more effective (to be specific, seven caster levels more) than Fighter 10/Wizard 10, without sacrificing an ounce of fluff beyond casting haste fairly often (which any gish would be doing anyways).

Thus, optimization does not make characters on its own, but it takes characters and makes them work.

ETA:The fun in an RPG comes from overcoming challenges. If the DM saves the players regardless of how poorly they build characters and/or attempt to handle challenges, then eventually the players and the DM will grow tired of the lack of challenge and of being forced to save the PCs' butts, respectively. And when everyone at the table knows that the PCs can't lose? That's when people stop having fun.

[Gwendol]

Yes, but I think that optimization is used as an excuse to not roleplay.

I'm sorry for you, but that doesn't change the reality that I already stated.

[Roxxy]

D&D means something different things to different players. Some enjoy this aspect, some enjoy that aspect. Some still play 3.5, some moved on to PF. None is inherently right or wrong. Personally, my favorite thing is character generation. I create my characters as 5th, 8th, or 12th level characters, and post them for critique. I never actually play them. I'm perpetual GM, and gaming is usually on hold because of school anyway. I've spent more time crafting characters I've never used than I have preparing and running games. That isn't wrong, it's just a very different way of getting my entertainment from the game.

[eggynack]

Optimization has a lot going for it, mostly related to one of the things you noted as being important to D&D: creating the best character possible. Even looking at it on the most basic level, there's a big difference between saying, "Gorthag is the best fighter out there," and having Gorthag actually be the best in his field. If your character is supposed to be good at this thing, it makes things really dissonant when he's playing second fiddle to a melee cleric or even an animal companion. That's a basic numerical comparison, as you noted, but between a character and other characters in the party. Not something the DM can particularly make up for.

Beyond that though, things get way more interesting, because we can start talking qualitative differences. Sure, your DM can adjust numbers, but if Gorthag is trying to keep foes away from casters in the back of the party, then that's a thing you're going to have to figure out. As Gorthag the Unoptimized is pitifully asking enemies to attack him, Gorthag the Awesome is getting those foes to fall over themselves before they even come close. Those qualitative differences are more common in optimization than their quantitative counterparts, and they're ridiculously important because they fundamentally change how a character can act.

That segues into the next point, which is that while arbitrary upward pointing optimization can be a bit pointless sometimes, optimizing towards a theme is much less so. On a perfectly designed character, every element on that character's sheet should reflect something about that character, or fit into a thematic whole. As was the case with Gorthag, it's the difference between saying, "My druid really likes the cold," and pointing every feat, every spell, every everything, towards the development of that idea.

Most of the time, optimization isn't about making the most powerful character possible. Doing that would be pointless on the face of it, because the most powerful character is just pun-pun. Instead, it's about designing everything to match the character in your head. By my estimation, getting the actual character and the head character to match is better than the alternative, and doing that often requires optimization, especially if you're going for something weird.

Finally, optimization is just intrinsically interesting. This is a game with a ton of moving pieces and parts, so figuring out the best ways to make them fit together can make for a really interesting puzzle. There's a lot of creativity to that process too, and some characters could best be defined as art. If you want to see some stuff like that, check out the Iron Chef threads (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?371835-Iron-Chef-Optimisation-Challenge-in-the-Playground-LX). Some of those builds are just absolutely beautiful, approaching that character perfection I noted above.

[Necroticplague]

Depends. The main discussion here relies on two things, both of which are subjective: what "optmization" is, and what the "true spirit of dnd" is.

Now, for me, optimization is simply trying to make a character who has their abilities match up with what their stated abilities are. If I claim my character is a wrestler who breaks necks of creatures larger than him, than, as a minimum, he should be at least capable of competently grappling. So not optimizing would be to make a fluff-crunch disconnect for the character, which nver strikes me a a good idea.

[Atsull]

D&D means something different things to different players. Some enjoy this aspect, some enjoy that aspect. Some still play 3.5, some moved on to PF. None is inherently right or wrong. Personally, my favorite thing is character generation. I create my characters as 5th, 8th, or 12th level characters, and post them for critique. I never actually play them. I'm perpetual GM, and gaming is usually on hold because of school anyway. I've spent more time crafting characters I've never used than I have preparing and running games. That isn't wrong, it's just a very different way of getting my entertainment from the game.

I think that the idea of this is very interesting, because while I enjoy creating characters, I have never been excited/interested in a character from a stats perspective. for me, all the fun in making a character is creating the character's life, interests, and personalities.

[Atsull]

Optimization has a lot going for it, mostly related to one of the things you noted as being important to D&D: creating the best character possible. Even looking at it on the most basic level, there's a big difference between saying, "Gorthag is the best fighter out there," and having Gorthag actually be the best in his field. If your character is supposed to be good at this thing, it makes things really dissonant when he's playing second fiddle to a melee cleric or even an animal companion. That's a basic numerical comparison, as you noted, but between a character and other characters in the party. Not something the DM can particularly make up for.

Beyond that though, things get way more interesting, because we can start talking qualitative differences. Sure, your DM can adjust numbers, but if Gorthag is trying to keep foes away from casters in the back of the party, then that's a thing you're going to have to figure out. As Gorthag the Unoptimized is pitifully asking enemies to attack him, Gorthag the Awesome is getting those foes to fall over themselves before they even come close. Those qualitative differences are more common in optimization than their quantitative counterparts, and they're ridiculously important because they fundamentally change how a character can act.

That segues into the next point, which is that while arbitrary upward pointing optimization can be a bit pointless sometimes, optimizing towards a theme is much less so. On a perfectly designed character, every element on that character's sheet should reflect something about that character, or fit into a thematic whole. As was the case with Gorthag, it's the difference between saying, "My druid really likes the cold," and pointing every feat, every spell, every everything, towards the development of that idea.

Most of the time, optimization isn't about making the most powerful character possible. Doing that would be pointless on the face of it, because the most powerful character is just pun-pun. Instead, it's about designing everything to match the character in your head. By my estimation, getting the actual character and the head character to match is better than the alternative, and doing that often requires optimization, especially if you're going for something weird.

Finally, optimization is just intrinsically interesting. This is a game with a ton of moving pieces and parts, so figuring out the best ways to make them fit together can make for a really interesting puzzle. There's a lot of creativity to that process too, and some characters could best be defined as art. If you want to see some stuff like that, check out the Iron Chef threads (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?371835-Iron-Chef-Optimisation-Challenge-in-the-Playground-LX). Some of those builds are just absolutely beautiful, approaching that character perfection I noted above.

Ah. I think this all is fantastic, but you define optimization very differently than me. I think optimization is creating a character that is more capable of going through a monster-filled dungeon and coming out standing up. To me, optimization is the pursuit of creating a machine that is the best possible combinations of race, class, skills, and spells.

[Actana]

I'll propose an opposing statement: the "True Spirit" of D&D does indeed include optimization. Why? Because the system is a huge part of the game to begin with. By ignoring or just skimming the mechanics you ignore the entire system. Why play D&D if you're not going to utilize the system and its mechanics to a significant degree? 3.5 is a massively complex system, and if storytelling is what you feel is the "true spirit" of D&D you might want to play a game that actually focuses towards storytelling, instead of a system that places its focus on the mechanics (I don't think anyone will disagree that 3.X has a high focus on its mechanics).

This is, of course, not to say that D&D isn't also about storytelling. It is about that, but it's also about the system. About utilizing what the game has to offer. Because if you're not going to do that, why play D&D?* Nor does this mean that everyone must optimize to their fullest capacity, because as already stated that ultimately leads to Pun-Pun. Optimize for what you're trying to accomplish.

*Of course, there are a variety of reasons, like "nobody wants to play anything else". :smallsigh:

[JusticeZero]

Seriously, what in the heck gives people the idea that the guy who makes a dumb as nails wizard who can only cast Magic Missile, then multiclasses in Monk and wears hide armor to melee with a dagger is obviously the uberest most interesting character EVER?

You have two characters in front of you.
Sir Puffington (Fighter) is a newly minted Knight who fights with a sword and shield from a farming town.
Sir Stuffington (Warder - DSP PoW initiating class built up with extra tricks to be a better tank) is a newly minted Knight from a farming town who fights with a sword and shield and has an interesting back story involving witnessing a scandalous event of significance, but only because of his own failure of duty that he must keep secret..
By your reasoning, Puffington is clearly a more interesting and better character..

[eggynack]

Ah. I think this all is fantastic, but you define optimization very differently than me. I think optimization is creating a character that is more capable of going through a monster-filled dungeon and coming out standing up. To me, optimization is the pursuit of creating a machine that is the best possible combinations of race, class, skills, and spells.
That stuff is certainly a part of it. Figuring out the best way to fit all of these pieces together can be a very interesting thing. However, this isn't either definition being wrong or right. The answer is that there are just lots of ways to optimize. Sometimes you optimize everything around a vermin theme, making use of the obscure murder of crows option of summon swarm, and sometimes you just build a generally useful character, and pick boreal wind over superior magic fang.

I don't think optimization is usually as cold as you imply it is though. People rarely if ever choose the actual best options for everything, because pun-pun, and even if you're going for a bunch of good stuff, folks usually try to make that stuff fit some sort of theme. Even without pun-pun and like game objects, boiling everything down to absolute best options makes the process of optimization much less interesting. After all, in the perfect optimization world, what room is there for VoP druids and non-incantatrix wizards?

[Tommy2255]

Ah. I think this all is fantastic, but you define optimization very differently than me. I think optimization is creating a character that is more capable of going through a monster-filled dungeon and coming out standing up. To me, optimization is the pursuit of creating a machine that is the best possible combinations of race, class, skills, and spells.

Then you're simply using a different definition from everyone else here, and from the dictionary. Optimazation means accomplishing a design goal as effectively and efficiently as possible. For a character designed to be played, that goal is a character concept. For a theoretical build, the goal is a high number in one of several categories. Both fall under the definition of optimization.

[Sir Chuckles]

Optimization is building a character that is capable of performing it's concept (gishing it up, summoning hordes, et al) in a way that is entertaining for the character sheet's user to play and is interesting for those around it to watch, participate with, or challenge.

Optimization does not have to be about massacring dungeon inhabitants, though optimization is often about coming up with best combination of elements of a character. However, you can optimize to do things other than dungeon-delving. Builds such as the Jumplomancer, while somewhat difficult to bring into the characterization aspect, display this. Yes, in a way, you are building a machine, but that does not mean they are lifeless.

When you sit down to optimize, some may say "I want to build the most powerful Wizard", others might say "I want to build the most powerful Halfling Samurai". Halfling Samurai may be a terrible choice for a character, but if that's what the player wants to build, good optimization will tell the player "Strongheart Halfling".

[Eldan]

Ah. I think this all is fantastic, but you define optimization very differently than me. I think optimization is creating a character that is more capable of going through a monster-filled dungeon and coming out standing up. To me, optimization is the pursuit of creating a machine that is the best possible combinations of race, class, skills, and spells.

See, that's sort of pointless? As I mentioned above, any optimizer who's spent some time on the internet knows the strongest possible character. Pun-pun. It's been done. There's no sense in doing it again, whether in theory or practise.

There are many very cool concepts and stories out there that just don't work well in the rules. Optimizing means taking your idea of a character and making him work in the rules.

There's simple things.
"I want to play an unarmed martial artist". Nice, but the monk is a terrible class. If you are in a party with, say, a medium-capable wizard, a melee cleric who buffs himself just a little and a barbarian, you'll spend your time doing almost nothing.

Now, you say the DM can adjust numbers. He can. The problem is, if enemies are made weaker, the monk can kill some, but the rest of the party will probably cut through them like they were made of butter before the monk ever gets there.

Optimization, then, is to say "Build a Swordsage instead".

Or, if we really get down to it? Everything is optimization. "Wizards need intelligence to cast spells, so put a good stat (15+) into that" is optimization. "Give your fighter a weapon and armour" is optimization. It's optimization so basic people don't even think about it when building characters, but it still is.

Optimization is thinking about whether an option does what you want or not. It is making good choices.

[Roxxy]

I think that the idea of this is very interesting, because while I enjoy creating characters, I have never been excited/interested in a character from a stats perspective. for me, all the fun in making a character is creating the character's life, interests, and personalities.

I like both. I start with deciding who my character is and where she came from, and build something to suit that image.

Like, I start out in my campaign setting. Like most, it is loosely based off of and flavored by a real world region. In this case, California. Native American, Asian, European, and African inspired characters are all thematically appropriate, since this is a cosmopolitan immigrant nation. I decide I want an Asian character. So I pick a name that sounds Vietnamese, and say she is an immigrant. I choose human as my race. I imagine her as a loyal patriot towards her new nation and an intelligent person who has to wear glasses. She is friendly and talkative, and incredibly polite and courteous. She takes duty seriously, and has sonrthing of a hero complex. She had to sail to get to this country, so maybe she liked it. She's patriotic, smart, wants to be heroic, and likes the sea. So, maybe she joined the Navy? Since she's smart and bookish, maybe they decided she'd be a good spellcaster? The most common spellcasting class in the campaign setting is the Alchemist, and Naval vessels always have some on board, so the Navy taught her alchemy. I want an archetype, and Grenadier looks good. So I fill out the ability scores for the role, pick my feats and discoveries and equipment, and post it. Isn't quite good enough though, so I take another look. Chirurgeon looks cool, and medics have all sorts of stuff to do on a vessel. Alchemists do the bulk of the world's magical healing (Clerics exist, but are rare), so the role makes sense. Change ability scores, feats, and discoveries. Keep her there for a few years, then have the government monster hunting agency that the setting focuses on come and recruit her.

That's about how it goes.

[paperarmor]

Optimization is a big part of D&D for some players, but I've always felt it's wrong. I always thought Dungeons and Dragons was a game about creating the best story and character possible, and if a character lacked strength in numbers, it was the DM's job to make up for it the create the best story possible.

What are your opinions on optimization? It makes me feel uneasy, but I would love to hear the thoughts of those who enjoy optimization.

I optimize as a hobby I find tinkering with the numbers to realize an in game concept relaxing. However, optimization can have roleplay value as eggynack pointed out above you can always fluff the optimization as (Tropes away) Training From Hell (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrainingFromHell). Remember PCs in dnd are supposed to be the best of the best of the best, and without some help via optimization that just isn't the case for many classes.

[lytokk]

Optimization isn't always about obtaining ultimate power. Unless you're actively trying to break the game (which normally results in fun for only one person), there's no reason to get to that power level. I've only begun flexing my optimization muscles, and usually my goal is to get to complete concept fruition by a certain level. Usually around level 6, as that's where most of the games I've played in have ended. I want to get to my final concept by that point. I also like to make sure my characters have a good backstory, and interesting personalities.

[Telonius]

The true spirit of D&D is about having fun with your friends while pretending you're a bunch of fantasy characters. (Monty Python quotes optional). If optimizing helps you do that in your particular group, it's in the true spirit of D&D. If it doesn't, it's not.

[Morty]

The true spirit of D&D is about having fun with your friends while pretending you're a bunch of fantasy characters. (Monty Python quotes optional). If optimizing helps you do that in your particular group, it's in the true spirit of D&D. If it doesn't, it's not.

I was just about to say more or less this exact thing.

Honestly, though, "optimization" is such a nebulous, vague term as to be practically useless. The author of this thread clearly defines optimization as soulless number-crunching at the expense of roleplaying. It's an awful thing... and also something few people actually do when it comes to actual play, so protesting against it is tilting at windmills. Then there's the fact that 3e D&D practically forces you to "optimize" to make certain character concepts work properly. Even in a better system, it's better if your character concept is actually supported by mechanics and abilities provided by the rules. Which, sometimes, involves something called optimization...

...unless we decide to just let go of pointless labels.

[Frozen_Feet]

Optimization has always been part of D&D, but not in the way it's commonly thought of in the context of 3.x.

As noted, D&D evolved from wargames and exploration - genres where tactics, strategy and logistics play a key part. The optimization in early iterations of the game was about what to do within the game with the pieces you were given. Optimizing what the character could do, as is the trend of modern optimization, wasn't all that prevalent largely because it couldn't be done to nearly the same extent. All characters that shared a class were pretty much the same, and the parts that weren't the same were often randomly determined and out of player control.

Starting with 2nd edition and Player's Options especially, the pre-game preparation became increasingly prominent feature. The modern form of 3.x. optimization isn't playing the game per se, but a complex metagame - trying to ensure your character can survive within the established bounds of the larger game system (whether RAW or RAI).

Personally, if a player gets into one of my games with no concept nor intent of optimization, they're begging to get their character killed in horrible and amusing manners. It certainly isn't the GM's job to ensure the player succeed at doing whatever they want, because that would undermine the point of the players playing the game, as well as having an extensive game system in the first place. Rule 1 of any game involving dice or any sort of player freedom: you have to be able to accept players losing. And the players have to accept that too, because no-one likes sore losers.

[Pan151]

To me, optimization is the pursuit of creating a machine that is the best possible combinations of race, class, skills, and spells.

So, in short, as long as you're not building Pun-Pun you do not consider it optimisation?

[Noldo]

The true spirit of D&D is about having fun with your friends while pretending you're a bunch of fantasy characters. (Monty Python quotes optional). If optimizing helps you do that in your particular group, it's in the true spirit of D&D. If it doesn't, it's not.

This, my fellow readers, is the key to D&D. Optimization, or lack thereof, is problem only if there is vast difference in the expectations and performance of the members of the group in this respect. Playing an optimized wizard in a group which consists of non-optimized monk, vanilla fighter and healbot cleric could be disruptive, but making non-optimized characters in very optimized-oriented environment may be equally disruptive.

[Gwendol]

This, my fellow readers, is the key to D&D. Optimization, or lack thereof, is problem only if there is vast difference in the expectations and performance of the members of the group in this respect. Playing an optimized wizard in a group which consists of non-optimized monk, vanilla fighter and healbot cleric could be disruptive, but making non-optimized characters in very optimized-oriented environment may be equally disruptive.

I don't think you are right here. Optimization, as has been noted, is not a well-defined term. It's relation to role-play is none in that there is no conflict between making your character concept work mechanically within a given set of boundaries (one way to define optimization) and acting out said character. Disruptive play is something else and again has nothing to do with the mechanics of character generation/building. What you are describing is the disconnect of different playstyles which can be done within and without roleplay (so, another topic in fact).

[Fax Celestis]

Optimization is a big part of D&D for some players, but I've always felt it's wrong. I always thought Dungeons and Dragons was a game about creating the best story and character possible, and if a character lacked strength in numbers, it was the DM's job to make up for it the create the best story possible.

Let me counter with a question of my own: why do you think these are mutually exclusive concepts?

[Amphetryon]

How does a character progress, or become reasonably capable of doing the things you imagine your character can do, without optimization?

[Eonir]

Optimization is a big part of D&D for some players, but I've always felt it's wrong. I always thought Dungeons and Dragons was a game about creating the best story and character possible, and if a character lacked strength in numbers, it was the DM's job to make up for it the create the best story possible.

This is the exact opposite of how my group plays. Those who cannot keep up are left behind or eaten. It's a world full of big, scary things that go bump in the night, and non optimized characters just don't make it.

This doesn't mean there isn't any roleplaying. Our last group consisted of a HIGHLY optimized artificer, a HIGHLY optimized Druid, and my shenanigan-filled Dread Necromancer, and that was some of the best roleplaying I've ever participated in.

[Extra Anchovies]

Optimization is thinking about whether an option does what you want or not. It is making good choices.

Do you mind if I sig this? It pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject.

[Eldan]

Sure, go ahead.

[Red Fel]

I think, first off, that optimization partially eludes definition. As the responses in this thread (and in others) indicate, there are many views on what optimization means in the context of D&D. I think the one concept at the core of all of these definitions is this: Optimization involves making the character better. The question is, making the character better how?

I think, OP, that you see optimization as "making the character better at everything," which I don't believe is the goal of most optimizers on this board. Playing a god-character is fun precisely once, if at all, and then gets incredibly old.

My personal definition of optimization, and I think one in which I'm not alone, is this: Optimization means making my character better at a specific role. And really, that's not alien to the great epic sagas. Every story involved the mercenaries who wanted to get richer, the swordsmen who wanted to master the blade, the spiritualists who wanted to perfect self control, the wizards who wanted absolute power over the arcane. Everyone wants to be better at who they are and what they do.

The unarmed combatant illustration mentioned by Eldan is a classic. The Monk is, unfortunately, a poorly-designed class. If the player wants to play a cool martial arts-themed character, he is going to be sadly ineffectual. If, as you say, the goal is to create the best story possible - and I don't disagree - having somebody who flops around uselessly with his pathetic pugilism really fails to achieve that goal. By contrast, having him play Swordsage gets him the cool kung-fu action. Having him play a Cleric with Improved Unarmed Strike and Divine Power helps to convey a deeply spiritual figure who draws on inner strength and faith to become a mighty warrior. Having him play a Totemist with a Spirit Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy Barbarian dip conveys a martial artist who channels the inner rage of beasts to strike with the fury of nature's mightiest predators. Suddenly, he's good at unarmed combat, awesomely so.

As others have pointed out, the Stormwind Fallacy illustrates that optimization and roleplay are not - and should not be - mutually exclusive. What matters is the player, not the character sheet. A player who optimizes to the exclusion of roleplay will not contribute to a great story, as you note. But one who optimizes to supplement his roleplay will contribute gloriously to a story.

The thing to remember is that optimization, with a few exceptions, deals almost exclusively with mechanics. Mechanics like class selection and feat selection. These don't define who your character is, or even what he is; they simply define how he mechanically does what he does. What is the RP difference between a Fighter, Crusader, Knight, Paladin, and Samurai? The answer is, very simply, how they're placed. They could all be identical nobles in identically shining armor on identical horses with identical banners. Or they could be completely different. Things like class and feat selection generally don't impact how a character is roleplayed, but simply how he accomplishes what he does.

As a result, you could have one player taking Paladin 20, and another taking mixed levels of Cleric, Prestige Paladin, Ordained Champion and Fist of Raziel. Both are paragons of Lawful Goodness, smiting evil and protecting the innocent, radiating goodness and divine magic. But one is better at his job than the other. One has some lackluster spells and a smite ability. The other has impressively potent spells, augmented smiting, and the direct affiliation of a god of war and goodness. That is roleplay gold if you want it to be. But technically? The two characters can be played identically in terms of who they are as individuals. In terms of the person behind the classes, there's no substantial difference. One is simply better at his job than the other.

That's optimization. At least in one villain's opinion.

[SimonMoon6]

The true spirit of D&D, the original spirit of D&D, was DM vs players in all-out war. The DM will throw all sorts of horrid things at the PCs with an attitude of "I bet you can't survive that!", while it is the job of the players to do *whatever is necessary* to survive, no matter how sneaky and underhanded (or optimized).

You don't have to play the game that way (and you probably shouldn't) but that's what D&D is all about.

[Sith_Happens]

Ah. I think this all is fantastic, but you define optimization very differently than me. I think optimization is creating a character that is more capable of going through a monster-filled dungeon and coming out standing up. To me, optimization is the pursuit of creating a machine that is the best possible combinations of race, class, skills, and spells.

Yes and no, it depends on what you want out of your character in the first place. Sometimes you want to be good at fighting your way through a monster-filled dungeon. Sometimes you want to be good at getting through that same dungeon without a fight, grabbing the treasure, and running off with it without the monsters being any the wiser. Sometimes you don't care about dungeons and want to be the world's greatest detective. And sometimes you just want to be really good at being on fire, and the fact that that helps you accomplish anything in particular is just a happy side-effect (:smallwink:).

[Morty]

Let's say I want to make a ranged rogue, with a bow or crossbow - or maybe even thrown weapons. Someone who stays on the sidelines and puts missiles in enemies' backs. It's a lot less straightforward than close combat, because of how restrictive Sneak Attack is. If I use feats, multi-classing and other measures to make it work, does it make me an optimizer who sacrifices role-playing for power?

[The Insanity]

If your definition of Optimization is "The opposite of Roleplaying" or "things that are wrong" then of course you'll see a problem with it (not that anyone said that, it's just a thought I have on the topic). The solution is to learn and use the Right definition.

Personally I use optimization to make my roleplay better.