I think I messed up a gaming group and don't know how to fix it

[Azoth]

I introduced a gaming group I recently joined to the concept of optimization as we know it on this board. This started when I joined the group and they wanted a tank, so I rolled up a Warder and got access to the Silver Crane Discipline and played it like a Crusader from 3.5. Intending to only have modest damage but high defenses and self healing, I somehow had highest damage, AC (including touch), and saves in the party.

Another player asked me to help bring his bard up to snuff as he was constantly being overshadowed in the group even in social scenes, and the DM signed off a rebuild where he could pick new feats, spells, and skills if he hadn't actively used them. (Note this is a first time player) So some Inspire Courage optimization later and a few choice buff/debuff spells shuffled in and the bard was giving everyone +9 to hit/+8 damage off his performance and greasing, slowing, or glitterdusting enemy groups while invisible like a champ. In social situations he was two turning hostile enemies into fanatical followers like it was as natural as breathing.

So the bard player starting feeling good about himself and his character much to the chagrin of the DM, but it was still manageable. Then the other 4 players talked their ways into rebuilds because they were feeling overshadowed by the party buffer and myself. So a week later they turn up with builds almost ripped from class guides that they poured over. Now the DM is struggling to keep his campaign alive against a 6 man party of well built characters. His only saving grace is that the others have yet to learn how to work cohesively as a unit when trying to do something.

How do I help this poor DM save his game and unopen the can of worms I popped open?

[BWR]

You can work with the DM to bring his game up to speed but the best thing you can do is apologize for unbalancing things and offer to nerf your existing character or bring in someone wussier, and encourage the others to do the same. If the DM doesn't mind a backseat driver, you can point out tactical and build options during play that he wasn't aware of during play.
Forcing a GM to get better to keep up with players has poor results, IME.

[Namfuak]

I think that the cat's out of the bag here. If your DM isn't willing to look into putting you guys against tougher encounters (which may mean putting you against encounters that prey on your weaknesses rather than trying just to outscale you, like Tucker's Kobolds), you can look into reducing your power level, but it will obviously feel forced and people may not have fun playing an intentionally weaker character after tasting the "forbidden fruit" of greater optimization.

[eggynack]

You don't even really have to point out build and optimization options necessarily. The difficulty associated with optimizing a PC can be papered over by adding levels or HD onto monsters. Really though, things seem pretty fine. You're in a higher powered game, and the only thing not keeping up is the DM. If he keeps up, either through skill or brute force, then things will work themselves out.

[Feint's End]

Offer to help everybody to tone their builds down. Is this pf or 3.5 btw?

To be honest +9 to hit and damage is past any reasonable point for most groups and turning enemies fanatical from hostile is similary frustrating for most dms (me included). So this is a case of excessive amounts of optimization on your part. A bard can be effective without using enormous amounts of optimisation.

Sorry if this came off harsher than I meant it but from my perspective this is a case of a player not understanding the limits of what is acceptable.

[Azoth]

Offer to help everybody to tone their builds down. Is this pf or 3.5 btw?

To be honest +9 to hit and damage is past any reasonable point for most groups and turning enemies fanatical from hostile is similary frustrating for most dms (me included). So this is a case of excessive amounts of optimization on your part. A bard can be effective without using enormous amounts of optimisation.

Sorry if this came off harsher than I meant it but from my perspective this is a case of a player not understanding the limits of what is acceptable.

This is pure pathfinder with no 3.5 allowed. We are also only lvl9, so yeah I might have gone a tad overboard on the inspire optimization. The hostile to fanatical isn't always successful, but dude's dice love him on skill checks.

*edit* I do admit to having a penchant for optimizing due to my previous groups.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I think the obvious thing to do is send your DM here for help. Others have already mentioned how it's easier for a DM to inflate the numbers on enemies than it Is for the players. Also, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Troacctid]

Isn't fanatical a 3.0 thing? I'm pretty sure it's not in Pathfinder. Also, PF Diplomacy only lets you change their attitude by 2 steps at a time (unless the DM says otherwise), so the best you can do is hostile to indifferent.

[Blackhawk748]

I think the obvious thing to do is send your DM here for help. Others have already mentioned how it's easier for a DM to inflate the numbers on enemies than it Is for the players. Also, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Im gonna second this, also its good that is PF as the monsters in there are a bit deadlier than their 3.5 counterparts. Send him our way and we can give him a hand, having the monsters fight intelligently will help as well as applying templates.

[Yahzi]

Tell the DM to add 5 to the CR of every encounter, either by upping the creatures HD or multiplying the number of creatures by 4.

Y'all are in super-hero territory now. Your foes should know that, and only attack when they have a chance.

[Seerow]

I'm curious, if this is a strictly PF game with no 3.5, how did you get the bard's IC up so high? I thought they reigned most of those stacking bonuses in big time.

[atemu1234]

Optimizing is like the cage. Once seen, it cannot be unseen. You now have to accept reality. It sounds fairly benign to me. No one is breaking the campaign world; the DM should probably try his hand at gitp style optimization, too, if he wants to keep on par with his players.

[RoboEmperor]

Make the DM copy your builds too, unless he's running an all monster campaign, in which case add class levels to the monsters. Hes got dragons with craft contingency, any creature with added spellcasting levels, mislabeled CR monsters (I think there was some swarm that can wipe out a party 8 levels higher than its CR), etc.

But yeah, just add class levels to the monsters. Think of it as "hard mode".

[Andezzar]

While inflating the numbers is probably the easiest thing to do, I suggest that he just starts playing the opposition smart. Intelligent creatures should know what a bard is and should recognize him as force multiplier, thus take him out first, just as the guy in the dress that makes funny gestures and noises. Also independent of their knowledge of the PCs tactics like battle field control, use of cover and similar things are always a good choice.

Oh yeah and send the DM over here, I'm sure he will get lots of inspiration.

[RoboEmperor]

Oh right, maximize everything. Max hp, max HD, max SIZE, etc.

Maxxed out hd alone should be enough imo.

42hd stone golem? 54hd iron golem?

[Azoth]

I'm curious, if this is a strictly PF game with no 3.5, how did you get the bard's IC up so high? I thought they reigned most of those stacking bonuses in big time.

He is treated as a lvl17 bard for Inspire Courage despite being level 9. The extra 8 pseudo levels are from the Aasimar racial favored class bonus of adding +1/2lvl for a specific performance taken 8 times for 4 levels higher and another 4levels are from Banner of the Ancient King. This gets us to Inspire Courage +4. Next are the feats Master Performer for another +1 and Grand Master Performer for another stacking +1. Total so far is +6. That is his actual Inspire Courage. When you add in the Flagbearer feat and Banner of the Ancient King you get a +2 moral bonus to hit and damage. Total is +8. The bard usually opens the first round with Haste giving a +1 to hit. This brings us to +9 To Hit/+8 Damage. All the bonuses stack for being +6 Competence +2 Moral +1Insight.

It takes a specific race, an 18k item, and eats 4 feats (Flagbearer, master performer, extra performance *prereq*, and grand master performer) to pull off but at level 9 it is harder to find better buffing for 1 round of actions.

[ericgrau]

Ask to rebuild all the characters again to give the DM less headaches. Be nice about what abilities you pick. Not forum optimized. Done and done.

The bard's issue for example is untyped stacking. Dunno what PF RAW is on this but the effective levels shouldn't be allowed to stack regardless. Even a large scaling bonus of an uncommon bonus type is a little bit out there. Common bonus types should scale. Others should stay around +2. Or +4 if very strong. Total.

[eggynack]

Ask to rebuild all the characters again to give the DM less headaches. Be nice about what abilities you pick. Not forum optimized. Done and done.

It just doesn't seem like the right move to me. Sure, the DM is the main game person, but when everyone but one person wants to game in a particular way, it seems to make a lot more sense to have the one person change. This is especially true because encounters are easier to modulate than an encounter, as even at the lowest order of a desire for change, you can always add more monsters/numbers. There might be some issue I'm not seeing with just upping the difficulty, but if there is one then the OP hasn't mentioned it.

[ericgrau]

It just doesn't seem like the right move to me. Sure, the DM is the main game person, but when everyone but one person wants to game in a particular way, it seems to make a lot more sense to have the one person change. This is especially true because encounters are easier to modulate than an encounter, as even at the lowest order of a desire for change, you can always add more monsters/numbers. There might be some issue I'm not seeing with just upping the difficulty, but if there is one then the OP hasn't mentioned it.
Reverting or at least toning it down is the simplest solution by far. He says the DM is struggling and failing to make the encounters work. And this is typical unless the player optimization is perfectly matched to both each other and to higher level characters. If it is mismatched to each other, the DM risks killing one while failing to challenge another. If they fight higher level monsters with their awesome offense but don't have hp and saves to match, it becomes rocket tag. Leveling and treasure are also accelerated requiring brand new adaptation to new tricks. Everything the DM planned out has to be redone. If the other players really are stuck on their new characters and only the OP wants change, then they can fight to make it work but it is extremely difficult. Or they can live with it: roll over encounters that are slightly harder because anything more difficult may frequently insta-kill the player with the worst defense and cause the DM to repeatedly redesign everything.

[Azoth]

Yeah, I think trying to convince the group to tne it down is going to be a better option than having the DM rev up the encounters. These guys found strong builds but lack the experience and understanding to handle higher op challenges. I am all for letting the game evolve into something higher op over time, but to start throwing challenges that match the current optimization level at them would be a TPK waiting to happen.

So I think my best options are to work with the DM to gradually increase difficulty and the optimization level of the enemies, or convince the group to power down a bit.

[JusticeZero]

Go over builds, justifying everything in character. It slices the edge of the wacky off a little. Have everyone commit to a concept first, then the build has to be slaved to the concept.

[atemu1234]

Yeah, I think trying to convince the group to tne it down is going to be a better option than having the DM rev up the encounters. These guys found strong builds but lack the experience and understanding to handle higher op challenges. I am all for letting the game evolve into something higher op over time, but to start throwing challenges that match the current optimization level at them would be a TPK waiting to happen.

So I think my best options are to work with the DM to gradually increase difficulty and the optimization level of the enemies, or convince the group to power down a bit.

How else are they going to learn to use high-op builds, then?

[Ssalarn]

Ask to rebuild all the characters again to give the DM less headaches. Be nice about what abilities you pick. Not forum optimized. Done and done.

The bard's issue for example is untyped stacking. Dunno what PF RAW is on this but the effective levels shouldn't be allowed to stack regardless. Even a large scaling bonus of an uncommon bonus type is a little bit out there. Common bonus types should scale. Others should stay around +2. Or +4 if very strong. Total.

I think this is the wrong way to go. The cat's out of the bag and the group knows how to optimize, they know about "guides" and "forums", and some things just can't be unseen. I, for example, have a really high level of system mastery, and even when I think I've toned down a character, I find that I'm still leagues ahead of what new players bring to the table, despite the fact that I never use gimmicky or questionable builds.
The better way to go, IMHO, is to direct the GM to his version of the same guides and forums the party has become privy to. He'll get to learn how to brign his game up a notch and everyone will likely discover that the game is even more fun now that everyone has hit that next level. One of my favorite tricks as a GM that also happens to be one of the things my players have said they love about my games, is raising the challenge level of an encounter not by boosting up the opponents (though I'll do that too), but by taking advantage of the setting and making the environment part of the challenge. Something as simple as putting the BBEG in a cavern that can only be accessed by traversing a series of underground lakes, some of which must be swam through to reach underwater tunnels, can vastly increase the challenge of a series of encounters for characters in the level 1-10 range, as they deal with cover and concealment granted by the water itself, aquatic hazards, and other challenges related to that battlefield. Learning all these tricks makes for better GMs, which makes for better experiences all around. Rather than forcing the party to nerf themselves (and it just sounds like a bunch of competent Tier 3's, not T0-T2 gamebreaking), is a temporary fix that probably isn't going to do anything to actually make the game more fun for all involved.

[Azoth]

How else are they going to learn to use high-op builds, then?

Over time with a learning curve. You don't take a guy who just went from unoptimized blaster wizard to trying out a God Wizard build and say, "Yeah orcs and giants aren't cutting it anymore. Oh, here is Team Solar as your next encounter."

Suddenly busting out the big guns to match their builds is a good way to kill a party if the players aren't remotely experienced at that level of play. To put their previous to current optimization in perspective. Picture a group of people who have never played D&D before suddenly trying to use the Twice Betrayer of Shar, That Damn Gnome, Cheater of Mystra, and the Incantrix/Iot7V god wizard builds to full fruition. Yeah the build is powerful and can do and handle a lot easily, but the player can't. You throw out things the build can handle, but player does not know how to effectively counter and that is a dead character.

[eggynack]

You don't have to jump into the deep end with ridiculously high power opponents. The current set of enemies is too easy. Some massively more powerful set of enemies would be too hard. There's definitely an in between point that would work well with your group's current power level.

[Faily]

I feel that entering ridiculous optimization-waters is sometimes a nescessary evil for some groups or players to be able to leave behind some of the more flawed views on the game. Like the player who thinks his character is so overpowered because he maxed everything into Strength, but has the AC of an ooze and the saving throws of a door. It's sometimes a nescessary evil to learn the new layers of the game and to realise some true potential in some classes (how Fireball isn't the best Wizard spell).

Now it's time to rein things in. They've now learned to optimize based on handbooks and guides on the internet. Now they need to learn how to make characters that are suitable to bring to the table. As someone I know says "if you're looking for a build, look at optimization boards. Take a build, then cut away some of the cheese on it". That's the next step in learning to grow in the system of both Pathfinder and 3.5; to learn to make characters that are good at what they are supposed to do and don't leave you feeling useless, but also balances with what the GM is willing and able to handle, as well as what is comfortable for the rest of the group.

At this point, it might just be better to make new characters all around and toss out the rebuilt ones. And then make them with the GM (even, have a session dedicated to character creation. I'm personally a fan of those), and let him have final call on things.

[Ssalarn]

*** As someone I know says "if you're looking for a build, look at optimization boards. Take a build, then cut away some of the cheese on it". That's the next step in learning to grow in the system of both Pathfinder and 3.5; to learn to make characters that are good at what they are supposed to do and don't leave you feeling useless, but also balances with what the GM is willing and able to handle, as well as what is comfortable for the rest of the group.
***

Another lesson along those lines that a friend of mine will tell players is "Look at the optimized build you found online. Count how many books are required to make it. Now cut that in half and only use the remaining."

Tends to help the Gm a lot too, since he doesn't need to read through 6 different splatbooks to make sure everythign works like you think it does.

[Seerow]

Another lesson along those lines that a friend of mine will tell players is "Look at the optimized build you found online. Count how many books are required to make it. Now cut that in half and only use the remaining."

Tends to help the Gm a lot too, since he doesn't need to read through 6 different splatbooks to make sure everythign works like you think it does.

For what it's worth, my usual method of toning stuff down is usually doing just the opposite.

Most optimized builds are optimized for a particular thing. So I'll take that, and decide I want to add on some extra thing to it. That extra thing usually involves taking a couple of class levels, a feat or two, a few trained skills, all of which requires sacrifices from the main schtick, bringing down the overall power level. But it usually ends up with a wider list of source books rather than more limited.

[Faily]

Agreed.

It's also about tweaking a build to suit your playstyle. Personally, I prefer more all-rounded characters to one-trick ponies and I don't mind sacrificing some of the focus on that one-trick to be more versatile and capable in other fields. My current Pathfinder Paladin could've been much more optimized than I made her to be, but I've given 2 levels of Ranger for fluff and haven't even picked up the Furious Focus feat which is supposedly a no-brainer to use with Power Attack. :smallwink:

What you could do if you sit down to make new characters together, is that each player can write down three keypoints they want to see for their character and work from there. Or say "I want to play a character like [insert name of character from movie/anime/tv show/comic/manga/game]". I find that keeping a vision often helps in balancing optimization and actually creating a decent character, but YMMV.

Do you play strict-Pathfinder, or do you allow Dreamscarred Press, 3.5 material, or other 3PP sources?

[Azoth]

It is only pathfinder but if you can produce the book, PDF, or pull it up on the pathfinder SRD he will look it over and usually allows it. He won't allow D&D 3.0/3.5 material period.

To me the non allowance of 3.5 material has helped as much as hurt. It has kept me away from optimizing to my normal potential, but also removed a lot of less powerful flavor options.

[JusticeZero]

The other thing is to get the GM to realize that it's not all about "challenging" the group. It's OK for the party to absolutely steamroll the "challenges" in combat, just make sure the challenges are more integrated into the story and narrative, so that the actual "challenges" becomes more about the choices rather than whether they can overcome the CR.

[ericgrau]

There can be a middle ground too. You can use some tricks without it getting too out of hand. The DM can learn a few things and adapt. But full blown optimized forum builds take time and many books to develop. Multiply that by multiple foes and multiple encounters to match and/or to counter all the tricks and you have to realize the DM can't devote a part time job to DMing. At least try a few tricks to start to ease him into it.

You can make it more about the story and less about the mechanics, but that's more of an escape than a solution. There are many simpler systems you could be playing if you don't care about mechanics. And that is unlikely to be the case for people who have already gotten together to play D&D. Story itself is wonderful, just not a solution for mechanical problems.

[Mystral]

I introduced a gaming group I recently joined to the concept of optimization as we know it on this board. This started when I joined the group and they wanted a tank, so I rolled up a Warder and got access to the Silver Crane Discipline and played it like a Crusader from 3.5. Intending to only have modest damage but high defenses and self healing, I somehow had highest damage, AC (including touch), and saves in the party.

Another player asked me to help bring his bard up to snuff as he was constantly being overshadowed in the group even in social scenes, and the DM signed off a rebuild where he could pick new feats, spells, and skills if he hadn't actively used them. (Note this is a first time player) So some Inspire Courage optimization later and a few choice buff/debuff spells shuffled in and the bard was giving everyone +9 to hit/+8 damage off his performance and greasing, slowing, or glitterdusting enemy groups while invisible like a champ. In social situations he was two turning hostile enemies into fanatical followers like it was as natural as breathing.

So the bard player starting feeling good about himself and his character much to the chagrin of the DM, but it was still manageable. Then the other 4 players talked their ways into rebuilds because they were feeling overshadowed by the party buffer and myself. So a week later they turn up with builds almost ripped from class guides that they poured over. Now the DM is struggling to keep his campaign alive against a 6 man party of well built characters. His only saving grace is that the others have yet to learn how to work cohesively as a unit when trying to do something.

How do I help this poor DM save his game and unopen the can of worms I popped open?

Teach him optimisation, too. If he can't handle it, agree as a group to scale it down to a level that everyone is comfortable with. If someone doesn't want to adjust and continue to roflstomp, kick him or her out.

[Deaxsa]

The other thing is to get the GM to realize that it's not all about "challenging" the group. It's OK for the party to absolutely steamroll the "challenges" in combat, just make sure the challenges are more integrated into the story and narrative, so that the actual "challenges" becomes more about the choices rather than whether they can overcome the CR.

Right, but all that matters is having fun. Now, this is an opinion, but I don't think winning no contest matches is very fun. Additionally, the dm needs to have fun too. If he derives fun by giving the players an appropriate challenge and then watching them come up with an intelligent solution to that problem, then no longer being able to create an appropriate (or meaningful) encounter would probably ruin his fun. And finally, to the people who are telling the dm to adapt: it is much, much easier to build and properly use a high-op character than world.

[big teej]

I have two things to "contribute"

1. personally, I think you were out of line grossly overstepping the average level of optimization in the group. personally, I (as a DM) have a table rule about helping people optimize. the most vulgar, and succinct, way of stating this policy is "Don't."

2. my suggestion to 'fix' this problem, not that I believe it will work if everyone is enjoying their high-op characters, is to implement a policy that accompanies the one in my previous point. "everyone at this table plays down to the lowest level of op-fu at the table."

if we have a brand new player who thinks his dual-nunchuck wielding sorcerer Sword and Board fighter is the greatest thing ever. then Ubercharger builds are out of bounds.

and then I'll have a talk with the sorcerer's player. cause that's silly.

[Andezzar]

2. my suggestion to 'fix' this problem, not that I believe it will work if everyone is enjoying their high-op characters, is to implement a policy that accompanies the one in my previous point. "everyone at this table plays down to the lowest level of op-fu at the table."

if we have a brand new player who thinks his dual-nunchuck wielding sorcerer Sword and Board fighter is the greatest thing ever. then Ubercharger builds are out of bounds. That thing goes both ways. Just as the players with lower optimization skill/desire may not have fun alongside those with a higher one, players used to more optimized characters may not have fun if they have to drag along the dual-wielding sorcerer. So basically you are not solving the problem just replacing it with a different one.

[Crake]

If the problem is that the DM is too busy to, or incapable of, challenging the players, it may be time to bring in a co-DM, either one of the players that he trusts to not meta the information in, or one willing to stop playing to help co-DM, or a third party.

Either that, or someone else takes over DMing completely, and you abandon that game, with a new, more capable DM running the show.

[The Insanity]

I'm for teaching the DM to play the fun way. Fun for his group, that is. Asking, or worse, forcing the players to nerf themselves might work, depending on how mature/understanding they are, but IME it's most likely going to make the game less fun to them, and that's not right.

[big teej]

That thing goes both ways. Just as the players with lower optimization skill/desire may not have fun alongside those with a higher one, players used to more optimized characters may not have fun if they have to drag along the dual-wielding sorcerer. So basically you are not solving the problem just replacing it with a different one.


touche

however, I still feel it's the lesser evil. at least, it always has been with my group. (being the person who always has to play down... and sometimes failing to do so in a meaningful way. )

[Honest Tiefling]

I think you should ask the DM what their favored level of OP-fu is. Is the problem that they cannot keep up, or have they left their comfort zone? Do they want to keep these PCs engaged as is, or would they feel better about the game if people toned things down? Ask, and then suggest they bring it up with the party if it is the later, and everyone gets rebuilt to be lower OP. And I suggest having a serious discussion with anyone who does not obey this, even possibly booting them.

Screwing up once is fine (not 100% sure you realized how OP your character was, seems like there was miscommunication or an honest mistake). Purposefully being more OP after continued discussion of how it ruins the game for others should get the boot.

If you have not already, give the DM copies of the characters somehow. If it is the former, knowing their abilities better might help with planning. Also, offer to make him some encounters or tips on such that he can plug into the game without ruining the surprise for you. Say, suggest nice feats or monsters that your PC cannot immediately recognize.

[Ssalarn]

touche

however, I still feel it's the lesser evil. at least, it always has been with my group. (being the person who always has to play down... and sometimes failing to do so in a meaningful way. )

I've had the optimization thing backfire on me before; new players who couldn't quite make that next step into higher system mastery started bombarding me with questions about how to improve/refine their builds, and for a while I was spending as much time on other people's characters as my own :P

I think the important thing is that everyone at the table has a character that's contributing roughly as much as the other characters at the table, and that that communal level is something the GM can handle. I've played a few characters who actually involved a ton of system mastery, but with all of it turned towards acting as a buffer/force multiplier for the rest of the party. Generally, no one's going to complain about your character being too powerful if his main schtick is making everyone else more awesome.

[madtinker]

If I were the DM wanting to tone down the group's power level I would start with the prescribed XP penalties for multiclassing. Most groups ignore that rule, but I think it was made for a reason.

[big teej]

I've had the optimization thing backfire on me before; new players who couldn't quite make that next step into higher system mastery started bombarding me with questions about how to improve/refine their builds, and for a while I was spending as much time on other people's characters as my own :P

I think the important thing is that everyone at the table has a character that's contributing roughly as much as the other characters at the table, and that that communal level is something the GM can handle. I've played a few characters who actually involved a ton of system mastery, but with all of it turned towards acting as a buffer/force multiplier for the rest of the party. Generally, no one's going to complain about your character being too powerful if his main schtick is making everyone else more awesome.

I see the "optimize a party buffer" argument quite frequently, it's never had a whole lotta traction with me. I'm not criticizing people who enjoy those characters by any stretch, but *I* don't have anywhere near as much fun sitting around doing nothing except making everyone else look good, and I've encountered maybe 1 player who did. and even then... it didn't last.

[atemu1234]

I see the "optimize a party buffer" argument quite frequently, it's never had a whole lotta traction with me. I'm not criticizing people who enjoy those characters by any stretch, but *I* don't have anywhere near as much fun sitting around doing nothing except making everyone else look good, and I've encountered maybe 1 player who did. and even then... it didn't last.

Really? I've seen a lot of players who just want to run a backup healer (not Healer, but like a good-aligned cleric optimized for healing) and didn't particularly care for combat. This strikes me as a bit of a similar niche.

[Andezzar]

If I were the DM wanting to tone down the group's power level I would start with the prescribed XP penalties for multiclassing. Most groups ignore that rule, but I think it was made for a reason.I don't think that will matter much. Many "optimized" builds do not suffer from it either because one of the base classes in it is favored or the build only includes one base class and PrCs.

[Ssalarn]

I see the "optimize a party buffer" argument quite frequently, it's never had a whole lotta traction with me. I'm not criticizing people who enjoy those characters by any stretch, but *I* don't have anywhere near as much fun sitting around doing nothing except making everyone else look good, and I've encountered maybe 1 player who did. and even then... it didn't last.

I like things like the Warlord from DSP's Path of War, or the Cavalier. Sure I'm charging and dealing boatloads of damage, or pulling off some awesome maneuver, but if I'm simultaneously giving every extra actions or big buffs, everyone tends to be pretty happy. Even a bard can be badass in their own right while improving everyone else; my fiancee's Arcane Duelist was the primary tank and DPR for our party, and generally awesome at most out of combat things as well, and it never bothered anyone because most of her buffs were helping them just as much.

[Troacctid]

If I were the DM wanting to tone down the group's power level I would start with the prescribed XP penalties for multiclassing. Most groups ignore that rule, but I think it was made for a reason.

You kidding? The most powerful characters in the game are full casters, and they're completely unaffected by multiclassing penalties. The classes that are hit hardest are the Fighters and Monks. You'd basically be saying "Hey guys, those T5 classes are too strong--you should switch to T1s instead!" That's not how you tone down power levels.

[Azoth]

Okay, for the person saying that I can intentionally over optimized, my Warder was built without knowing the other player's builds. I asked what people were playing and got told druid, alchemist, inquisitor, bard, and a multi class crit fisher. So optimizing a T3 class wasn't even a thought of being overpowered.

Secondly, I optimized defensive features. Something that most of us here consider to be not worth it and far from game breaking. So really not something I thought would be an issue considering the Warder's built in "aggro lock" features.

The bard's upgrade made him a scary force amplifier, and he got a good grasp of his class from working with me to optimize it. So he started playing it correctly to its strengths. His buffing is a large part of us blowing through encounters.

The others optimizing their builds added features of debuffing and battlefield control to the mix. So the DM didn't know how to keep up. All of us also have ways to self heal, so even attrition tactics became less valuable to him.

Last session, he started coming at us with save or lose and completely one sided environmental situations. So he is starting to feel the pressure, and after the session he and I spoke. He is wanting to learn the ways of op-fu. So I am going to be dedicating a few hours a week to teaching him how to do what we do here as a second nature.

[Andezzar]

Sounds like a solution everyone is happy with. Congratulations.

If you want a few more surprises send him over here, so he does not only learn what you already know.

[Azoth]

I will mention this forum, paizo's, and a few others as places to draw inspiration from. I got a chuckle when he didn't know of the tier list. Also the look of pure shock and horror on his face when he realized that the characters he had the most problems with were lower tier.

Still thinking I should have held off on showing him some caster optimization tricks for a bit. Things like Dazing Heightened Snapdragon Fireworks, Quicked Waves of Fatigue + Black Tenticles, Fairy Dragon Familiar with the manservant archetype and a bag of scrolls, using low level summon monster spells to dial a god instead of trying to scry, the time delayed planar binding city wrecker....yeah I am in for it.