Closet Optimizing

[IZ42]

Hello playground! Today I was wondering: Have you ever played with someone who denies they optimize characters, or honestly don't think they optimize their characters? I know a lot of you guys are rather... Gung-ho about optimizing (grumble grumble Spirit Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy Barbarian grumble), but I was recently asked by my RL campaign GM to tone down the opti-fu, and I had not been aware I optimized. What are your thoughts on this?

[Curmudgeon]

Unless you're picking feats and class levels at random, everyone is trying to build and play their character effectively (optimally). There's no such thing as "not optimizing".

[Sewercop]

Yeap, no.

Everyone optimizes, everyone. Even the choice of class is a choice based on optimal selection based on what you want to play.
Ask why the clerics wis is hight, the fighters strength, the etc etc..

[Psyren]

In your DM's defense though I will say this - optimization is a sliding scale, not binary. It's not "I optimize, or I don't" - it's "does my degree of optimization match what my table can handle?" ('Table' applies to both the DM who has to come up with your challenges, and the rest of the group who want their characters to occasionally shine too.)

If the DM is asking you to tone it down, the most likely answer to the above question is that you and your table are out of sync somehow.

[WeaselGuy]

In your DM's defense though I will say this - optimization is a sliding scale, not binary. It's not "I optimize, or I don't" - it's "does my degree of optimization match what my table can handle?" ('Table' applies to both the DM who has to come up with your challenges, and the rest of the group who want their characters to occasionally shine too.)

If the DM is asking you to tone it down, the most likely answer to the above question is that you and your table are out of sync somehow.

This happens at my table quite often, but we're a pretty good natured bunch, and work around it. It actually started when my wife (who really doesn't "do" optimization) decided to make a Pixie Scout. We didn't realize at the time that Improved Invisibility + Skirmish + Flyby Attack was so ridiculous.

That was followed by me going from Shadowcaster/Rogue into Spellwarp Sniper/Arcane Trickster (DM helped me with some fiat on this one), our friend doing a tripmaster Monk later in that session, the DM going with a Venerable Kobold Battle Sorcerer/Abjurant Champion in the next campaign (my wife DMed that one), our other buddy using a Wilder/Diabolist in our current campaign, and culminating in me pulling off a DMM:P Deepwyrm Lesser Drow beatstick Cleric right before this deployment. But, I'm pretty sure the Diabolist is working on a DFI Snowflake Wardancer for when I get home in September.

[IZ42]

Oh, I suppose I didn't explain my thoughts well enough. I didn't mean optimizing by doing basic things to make an actually usable character, I mean optimizing to the point of Spirit Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy Barbarian Totemist etc. Basically building am extremely optimized character beyond basic choices made sub-consciously.

Edit: to answer your question Psyren, I have the best understanding of the system (pathfinder) than anyone at the table beyond maybe my DM. Not to say the others are inexperienced, they definitely not, I just have more stuff that I understand in the system.

[Greenish]

I didn't mean optimizing by doing basic things to make an actually usable character, I mean optimizing to the point of Spirit Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy Barbarian Totemist etc.That Barbarian/Totemist sounds like a usable character for mid-power games, though I guess if you have higher-powered game you'd want a caster instead.


Basically building am extremely optimized character beyond basic choices made sub-consciously.So if you think about it, you're optimizing?

[atemu1234]

I once accidentally made a gish that made both the party fighter and the party wizard angry.

[Telonius]

It's going to depend a little bit on whether or not your DM counts it as part of a complex skill check (crafting a house might involve stonemasonry; thatching; woodworking; painting; Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate to get the permit from the local authorities) or a separate single-room issue (Craft: Carpentry). Stronghold Builders' Guide should have the rules for it. Either way you'll want to pump up your craft skills as much as you can. (Cleric would probably be your best bet, for Guidance of the Avatar, at least until you get access to the Fabricate spell). As far as materials go, you'll want something that can withstand being set on fire, but isn't an obvious call-out for being full of Vests of Resistance and Robes of the Archmagi. The deluxe version would probably be the center of a permanent Private Sanctum spell (complete with Forbiddance and other assorted defenses), and include a permanent Gate to your private demiplane. Maybe make it an Intelligent Item?

... That aside, "optimized" is a relative term. It's definitely possible to accidentally become more powerful than the rest of the table, or at least more powerful than the DM had planned for. It could be that they're having trouble figuring out an encounter that would both challenge you and not kill the rest of the party.

[MorgromTheOrc]

My group always claims I over-optimize because of all the builds I make for fun, but most of my in game characters are only at mid-optimization level which is a minimum or our party would TPK daily since my DM re-fluffs giants and minotaurs as guards and bandits and no matter how broken we house rule them they don't know how to play casters(they always try to turn them into some kind of blast based rogues), only doing damage(although A LOT) and no defending themselves in any way. But no matter how hard I try not to have my characters steal the spotlight they always complain about them OP and when I ask how they basically describe being OP as being the groups tank(Which I have to because otherwise they'd die) and curiously they always reference my first character which always stole the spot light and did all the damage as an overly optimized fighter, and they say it was their favorite. That character also had no existing RP beyond "Is there a blacksmith or enchanter nearby?"

[eggynack]

Oh, I suppose I didn't explain my thoughts well enough. I didn't mean optimizing by doing basic things to make an actually usable character, I mean optimizing to the point of Spirit Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy Barbarian Totemist etc. Basically building am extremely optimized character beyond basic choices made sub-consciously.
Unless you allow all of your character decisions to be made by your dream self, you're probably making your choices consciously. Optimization is, as was mentioned, a sliding scale, and balance is relative. Your example character could plausibly be too much in some games, when you're hanging out with basic monks and fighters (who are themselves almost certainly optimized in some fashion through conscious decision making, even if it's something as low power as weapon focus), but in other games it could easily be too little, if you're trying to contend with wizards and druids. Point is, you're optimizing because literally everyone optimizes unless they make choices randomly, and if there are issues, then you're either too far towards the optimal end of the spectrum, or your DM has a poor understanding of game balance.

[Segev]

To the OP: The best thing you can do when a DM asks you to tone down the optimization is not to say, "I don't think I am optimized," but rather to ask him directly, "What do you see as being overpowered in my build?"

Be careful the tone you ask that in; you're not challenging him. You want to ask him so that you know what to tone back. Ideally, if the problem is that your numbers are "too big," you can ask him where he'd like to see your numbers. Then optimize to hit those numbers exactly.

If the problem is that you've got tactical options with which he doesn't know how to deal, you can remove those and replace them with something else, or you can offer him suggestions on how to handle them. Maybe even do it while playing, "Man, I'm glad these guys can't fly," or just broadcast your next moves and plans. If you're playing a wizard and he's upset that your fireball is overpowered because it's nuking the entire fight, lampshade it for him next time. "Are they all bunched up together? Because that'll make my fireball able to take them all out." Then graciously ignore it if he *ahem* reveals they'd *ahem* always totally been spread out in tactical groups *ahem*.

Basically, help him out as politely as possible, and work with him to get your character in line with what he'd like to see. If it looks like he's even subconsciously abusing it, let your character suck it for a game, and discuss it with him afterwards. If needs be, keep track of die rolls, results after bonuses/penalties, and end results (hits, misses, how much damage,etc.) you and the other PCs and the monsters do, so you can show him how often things are hitting, how hard, average damage per attack, etc.

People have a tendency to over-emphasize in their own memories the things that "go wrong" in their view. They see your major success as a chronic problem rather than the one lucky roll you got all night, while you see the times you missed as a trend rather than as just something statistically normal.

[prufock]

In your DM's defense though I will say this - optimization is a sliding scale, not binary. It's not "I optimize, or I don't" - it's "does my degree of optimization match what my table can handle?"
Spot on. You (OP) should ask the DM what about your character is too powerful for the group. Dealing too much damage? Casting sidestepping all the challenges? Diplomacy check too high and used too much? Weird combos or classes/feats/abilities from uncommon sources? The first step to solving the problem is specifying it; "optimized" is way too vague.

[lycantrope]

Had a guy swear he wasn't optimizing and then proceed to take on ~30 at-or-higher level enemies in three waves while half the party bled on the floor and the other non-bleeder flew around casting fog and delaying the waves.

It's definitely a thing, and likely a result of comparing the end result to a best in show wizard, rather than the rest of the party.

[Segev]

Had a guy swear he wasn't optimizing and then proceed to take on ~30 at-or-higher level enemies in three waves while half the party bled on the floor and the other non-bleeder flew around casting fog and delaying the waves.

It's definitely a thing, and likely a result of comparing the end result to a best in show wizard, rather than the rest of the party.

Again, it's misusing "optimize." He was optimizing. What he meant was that he wasn't "power-gaming." And he may not have thought he was. That doesn't mean he is right if he thinks that means his PC is not too powerful for thet able. It does mean that you need to go over, with him, where you see his character as too powerful.

Don't accuse him of power-gaming, and don't talk about optimization at all. The former gets people's hackles up, and the latter is technically something you're actively doing when toning down the PC: you're optimizing it to fit in with the table.

Figure out where others' bonuses are, and figure out the ACs and attack bonuses of the monsters you plan to use. Determine a maximum amount of time you want "misses" to happen against the PC and "hits" against the monsters, and tell him to get his numbers such that, on a d20, he hits or is missed no more often than that, if the d20 rolls "as expected."

Identify any abilities he has which make challenges impossible to pit against him without destroying the party, and either come up with ways to make challenges work, to get the rest of the party similar abilities, or remove that from this character and replace it with something else.

But the key is discussion and knowing what your goals are. Optimize the character to fit in with what the table needs.

[VariSami]

Well, matters other than actual optimization may also affect the DM's judgment. The fact that you attend a forum like this means that you probably utilize a larger than average pool of resources, both your own time and those published by Wizards. Even being aware of such dedication to character creation might influence the attitude of a DM and the hints you will have inevitably received here will likely also affect your own judgment of options unless you consciously avoid the proper options.

Of course, I am not implying that this is even likely true in this case, but I know from experience that acquiring a reputation as an optimizer will bias the evaluation of your new characters. In this regard, I speak of experience, having played a few... template-ridden warrior characters in my time. As in, Feral Mineral Warrior Half-Minotaur Goliath Fig/Bar/Wrb. Even when I played a Wild Elf Spellthief after that, I was suspected of somehow secretly optimizing the character (who did, admittedly, survive the particularly deadly campaign from its beginning to his retirement).

[IZ42]

To the OP: The best thing you can do when a DM asks you to tone down the optimization is not to say, "I don't think I am optimized," but rather to ask him directly, "What do you see as being overpowered in my build?"

Be careful the tone you ask that in; you're not challenging him. You want to ask him so that you know what to tone back. Ideally, if the problem is that your numbers are "too big," you can ask him where he'd like to see your numbers. Then optimize to hit those numbers exactly.

If the problem is that you've got tactical options with which he doesn't know how to deal, you can remove those and replace them with something else, or you can offer him suggestions on how to handle them. Maybe even do it while playing, "Man, I'm glad these guys can't fly," or just broadcast your next moves and plans. If you're playing a wizard and he's upset that your fireball is overpowered because it's nuking the entire fight, lampshade it for him next time. "Are they all bunched up together? Because that'll make my fireball able to take them all out." Then graciously ignore it if he *ahem* reveals they'd *ahem* always totally been spread out in tactical groups *ahem*.

Basically, help him out as politely as possible, and work with him to get your character in line with what he'd like to see. If it looks like he's even subconsciously abusing it, let your character suck it for a game, and discuss it with him afterwards. If needs be, keep track of die rolls, results after bonuses/penalties, and end results (hits, misses, how much damage,etc.) you and the other PCs and the monsters do, so you can show him how often things are hitting, how hard, average damage per attack, etc.

People have a tendency to over-emphasize in their own memories the things that "go wrong" in their view. They see your major success as a chronic problem rather than the one lucky roll you got all night, while you see the times you missed as a trend rather than as just something statistically normal.

I never denied that I was optimizing for a higher per level than the rest of the party when my DM mentioned it, because I saw what he was saying, my first character (guess what class?) was as powerful unbuffed as the rest of the party was buffed, except for maybe the Druid. Which still wasn't the intent of the original question.

Yeah, this wasn't a player help "My DM wants to nerf mah character ermagurhd"(not to sound rude), there was no issue between us, it was my character being powerful without me realizing it that sparked the question, which would be better phrased as "Have you ever made a character that was more powerful than the rest of the party without realizing it, and/or what are your thoughts on it?"

[VariSami]

Oh, in that case (although I never misunderstood you as complaining about the DM):

The most obvious case of this was actually with my first 4th edition character ever. I had already racked up some recognition for system mastery among my playgroups but that was a completely different beast so I though I would go with whatever whimsical combination of a race and a class would suit me. Thus, I made a Tiefling Fighter... Who turned out to be able to solo the rest of the group when they ganged up on him due to a misunderstanding. He was one level above them (3rd level, as opposed to a party of level 2s) due to the circumstances surrounding this misunderstanding. But in 4th edition, being able to do this was a clear mark that the character was much more optimal than the rest. (Oh, and Core only.)

Then there's the case of Jürgen "Wolverine" the Druidic Avenger. This was a Witcher-inspired E6 game with Core and Unearthed Arcana as basically the only available books (this particular DM had decided that this was the best way to balance the party). I made the Druid a Druidic Avenger (no animal companion and penalty to Wild Empathy; capacity to Rage) with Whirling Frenzy and Deadly Hunter (no Wildshaping or armor profiencies; Wis to AC, fast movement and ranger benefits). Basically, I had intentionally nerfed the character by quite a bit. Of course, being a Druid is bad enough (I wanted to try it for once), and I was deemed an optimizer simply because I was using alternative class features.

And yes, even my Wild Elf Spellthief - the second most non-optimal character I have ever created - was deemed somewhat cheesy simply because he managed to survive a crazy deadly campaign until I decided to retire him for my secondary character (the game was deadly enough that most players needed to utilize secondary characters just to have one ready at all times). This was someone whose greatest trick was shooting with a non-composite shortbow while borrowing the ability to Spider Climb from our Warlock. All of his utility came from being a somewhat decent trapsmith due to a very good Search check as well as the ability to detect magic reliably. Basically, what allowed him to thrive was good luck and being out of harm's immediate vicinity.

[LooseCannoneer]

Yeah, I tend to do that. Whenever I meet a new group, I tend to play a Bard, since I can shore up weak points in the group and adjust myself to their level of optimization.

[Psyren]

I never denied that I was optimizing for a higher per level than the rest of the party when my DM mentioned it, because I saw what he was saying, my first character (guess what class?) was as powerful unbuffed as the rest of the party was buffed, except for maybe the Druid. Which still wasn't the intent of the original question.

Yeah, this wasn't a player help "My DM wants to nerf mah character ermagurhd"(not to sound rude), there was no issue between us, it was my character being powerful without me realizing it that sparked the question, which would be better phrased as "Have you ever made a character that was more powerful than the rest of the party without realizing it, and/or what are your thoughts on it?"

My thoughts are pretty much exactly what Segev suggested you do - have a dialogue, find out what the DM and/or group considers to be reasonable, and aim for that. And if you feel like doing that is playing down or hobbling yourself, start with a weaker base (e.g. a low-tier class) and scale it up.

[Flickerdart]

Novice gaming groups are easy to scare with phrases like "alternate class feature," splatbooks, or even multiclassing. It takes some experience to realize that taking something from a different book doesn't make it overpowered, and taking something from the PHB doesn't make it balanced.

The best way to expedite the process is to have solid roleplaying reasons for your choices. Have your character take Spirit Lion Totem not just because it's more killy, it's because worshipping the lion is a major part of this character. Grab some other options like Wild Cohort (for a lion) or even describe your character as having hair like a lion's mane. Whirling Frenzy? Well, lions aren't tanks - they strike with many limbs and teeth instead of beating the enemy about the head and neck with a big ol' club.

Of course, the classic piece that completes the trifecta is Wolf Totem, which might be harder to justify in RP terms, but anything is possible if you think outside the box and don't have a total buzzkill DM trying to control everything.

[Necroticplague]

Of course, the classic piece that completes the trifecta is Wolf Totem, which might be harder to justify in RP terms, but anything is possible if you think outside the box and don't have a total buzzkill DM trying to control everything.

Two words: fleshraker totem. Like the jungle predator that you revere, you launch yourself at your foe, bringing them to the ground in a flurry of blows, where they can then be easy prey for your predatory wrath.

[jedipotter]

{scrubbed}

[Flickerdart]

Two words: fleshraker totem. Like the jungle predator that you revere, you launch yourself at your foe, bringing them to the ground in a flurry of blows, where they can then be easy prey for your predatory wrath.
Ye Olde Buzzkille DM will hold you to the existing fluff of the abilities. If it's called lion, that means lion. If it's called barbarian, you're an unwashed, uncivilized hide-wearing viking.

Your real trouble comes from said DMs making up their own fluff for these abilities and trying to force it on you.

[Greenish]

Two words: fleshraker totem.I've toyed with that idea, making a character with Pounce, Imp. Trip, Scorpion's Grasp (representing Imp. Grab), and Touch of Golden Ice (representing the poison). Requires more than a little finagling, but sticks to the theme. Well, presuming fleshrakers were Exalted Good.

[Curmudgeon]

{scrubbed}
Where are the rules for "Just Playing"?

[Psyren]

{scrubbed}

Storm Windy, some might say :smalltongue:

[LooseCannoneer]

{scrubbed}


Really? I don't believe so. (http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=7795549) Although, you have said:

Logic just does not fit in with the real world. And only the guilty throw fallacy's around.

So, I guess I'm guilty for pointing out that that is wrong.

EDIT: Swordsaged. I did get the cool graphic, though.

[Troacctid]

Am I the only one who saw the title of this thread and thought about how to optimize a closet? You could use magic to boost its hardness, line it with lead to block divinations, and maybe coat the interior with blue ice so that it doubles as a refrigerator.

[Greenish]

Where are the rules for "Just Playing"?Rule 1: The DM is as inerrant as Orcus is omnipresent.
Rule 2: Play exactly like the DM wants you to, or rocks fall.
Rule 3: They might fall anyway.
Rule 4: Only these 5 rules matter.

[LooseCannoneer]

Okay, I know you want someone to ask, so I'll do it.

What's the fifth rule?

[jedipotter]

{scrubbed}

[Greenish]

What's the fifth rule?You're too obsessed with numbers, Real RoleplayersTM don't go around counting things. Rocks fall, you die.

[Xerlith]

Am I the only one who saw the title of this thread and thought about how to optimize a closet? You could use magic to boost its hardness, line it with lead to block divinations, and maybe coat the interior with blue ice so that it doubles as a refrigerator.

Needs more haunt shifted undead Aleaxes.

[Flickerdart]

Am I the only one who saw the title of this thread and thought about how to optimize a closet? You could use magic to boost its hardness, line it with lead to block divinations, and maybe coat the interior with blue ice so that it doubles as a refrigerator.
Be an Urban Druid, which adds Small Animated Object to your list of animal companions. Select an ambulatory closet.

[LooseCannoneer]

{scrubbed}

Wait, what? What's this about air?

I roleplay. Anyone who's gamed with me knows that. I also approve of high strength for my fighters, high charisma for my bards, etc. I also will use a tiny bit of optimization-fu in groups that like high-optimization games. As I do both, I guess that I am a living example that you are WRONG!

Yes, I am alive. I'm not so much a cheating optimizer that I took the Necropolitan template in real life.

[Oneris]

{scrubbed}

I'm currently playing an Incantatrix in my game. Together with the Shadowcraft Mage, we can cast 9th level spells at only character level 9. I don't think I would be exaggerating if I said 80% of my time in the game is spent roleplaying in ways that do not take my class choice and abilities into account and that her character arc has so far been one of the most emotionally complex in the game.

[Aegis013]

Wait, what? What's this about air?

{scrubbed}

In regards to the OP, it's easy for people with good system mastery to have different expectations of characters than people with less. The new guy might think the "veteran warrior" with +4 to hit for 1d8+2 damage is pretty good, but the person with higher system mastery might expect a veteran warrior to at least be capable of fighting an Owlbear alone and winning, a measuring stick a newer player probably wouldn't even consider.

I agree with other posters, discuss what's too strong about your build with your DM, and tone it back. Also let him know countermeasures he can use, but in my experience, toning it back is going to be much more effective.

[LooseCannoneer]

Be an Urban Druid, which adds Small Animated Object to your list of animal companions. Select an ambulatory closet.

Closets aren't small, though. Maybe you should try to convince your GM to let you take it anyway, or maybe settle for a cupboard.

[IZ42]

I think that my answer got lost in the flood of conversation sparked.This isn't a "DM and I disagree, halp" problem, in fact I'm deliberately playing a Tier 4 (?) Character, a Goliath Brawler (Shield Champion)//Magitech Templar, which is still kinda strong the way I built it, and is at an okay level of power for the party. Nothing to do with disagreements between me and the DM. I appreciate you trying to give me advice, but it is unneeded for the discussion at hand.


Just so you are aware: My first character was a Human (reincarnated into an elf due to reasons and me making a poor decision) MoMS Hungry Ghost Monk using VoP ported over from 3.5. Stronger than you'd expect.

[Psyren]

{scrubbed}


I think that my answer got lost in the flood of conversation sparked.This isn't a "DM and I disagree, halp" problem, in fact I'm deliberately playing a Tier 4 (?) Character, a Goliath Brawler (Shield Champion)//Magitech Templar, which is still kinda strong the way I built it, and is at an okay level of power for the party. Nothing to do with disagreements between me and the DM. I appreciate you trying to give me advice, but it is unneeded for the discussion at hand.

So is the topic really just "have you ever made something that turned out stronger than you thought it would?"

That can easily happen with a new group; with a DM and party you've played alongside for awhile, you generally get a sense for what their optimization tolerance is.

I will admit that Pathfinder adds a new wrinkle, in that there are occasionally new classes, items, feats and spells that people misjudge at first blush and become a problem later. But a mature group takes this in stride.

[Seto]

Ok, I haven't read the whole thing, so I apologize if I'm touching something that was just debated. Important remark : my starting point here is that Optimization applies to the character concept as a whole, and saying that if a basic choice (such as class choice) is optimized and everything else is not, then the Character is optimized but just a little, has no meaning. If you disagree with that statement, we're not talking about the same thing and both our arguments can be valid without contradiction.

I just don't agree with statements such as
Unless you're picking feats and class levels at random, everyone is trying to build and play their character effectively (optimally). There's no such thing as "not optimizing".
(or the other ones that defended the same thesis).

I'd distinguish between "effectiveness", or "strategic choices" that aim at making your character good at what he wants to do, and "optimization" that, as the word indicates, aims at making your character the best possible character, second to none at what he wants to do.
Now, you can argue that everyone would like their character to be the best possible, that may be defensible. But it's really not a given. Besides, what also counts is the effort one is ready to put forth. Choosing good options is, well, something you do just because you want to play a strong character. To me, optimization is more of a thought exercise : of course you'll do it to have an awesome character, but it's already its own reward to know that you've spent a lot of effort to find ze right combination.

Optimization is a scale in that :
1- you can be good or bad at it (you're optimizing to the extent of your abilities)
2 - you can have self-imposed or group-imposed restrictions (optimizing with a character concept such as "a mediocre warrior that will not outshine others" is still optimizing).

But to me, taking Weapon Focus because it's simple to remember and gives an easily seen bonus, or going through 10 manuals to find the right feat just can't be said to be both optimizing, but to a different extent. You either are willing to spend the effort required to make the best character you can do or you're not.

[Greenish]

I'd distinguish between "effectiveness", or "strategic choices" that aim at making your character good at what he wants to do, and "optimization" that, as the word indicates, aims at making your character the best possible character, second to none at what he wants to do.How do you define "best" here?

[atemu1234]

Ok, Optimization =/= trying to play the perfect character. You can run an optimized fighter, but it just won't be as good as a wizard would be. It's that kind of thinking that makes the mess.

A character can be optimized without being full-OP.

Also, the Stormwind Fallacy still applies to other arguments against optimization. There's no reason to not optimize, if you roleplay it and everyone still enjoys the game.

Certain people seem convinced that DMs should be at war with the PCs, and as soon as PCs start to grow in power, the DM should smite them. This shouldn't happen. The DM is as much a piece of the game as the player, and should be largely impartial.

[NichG]

Ignoring the definitional debate here and rephrasing the original question to be more general...

Yes, its pretty often that I encounter players who claim they're doing on thing but really are doing another. Sometimes its intentional social manipulation, or sometimes its just that the player isn't used to thinking about how they appear from the outside point of view. For example, I encountered a player who believed that he needed to have the strongest character at the table in order to feel that he 'kept up'. His character had an attack that dealt something like 10x the damage of what anyone else could manage, and when the DM nerfed it to be only a little bit more powerful than what the other characters could do, he would complain that it was too weak to bother with and things like that.

Similarly, I've had players who didn't realize e.g. that their character had the highest AC in the party and actually felt their AC was 'too low' or things along those lines. What happened was, e.g., they went into melee with an enemy and got hit once out of a bunch of attacks, whereas the ranged character would hang back and not be a target - so in their mind, they said 'I am getting hit more often than this other guy, so my AC is too low'. Meanwhile the other player might be thinking 'if that were me in melee, all of those attacks would have hit and I'd be paste!'. This kind of thing can lead to an arms race between players, which isn't the end of the world but its a bit annoying since it means you rush through the game and often leave the sweet spot sooner than you'd like.

You also get this a lot with justifying actions vs alignment, e.g. 'I'm not evil, I'm just pragmatic'.

Much of the time, people reason based on how they feel during play rather than trying to be objective and doing a third-party analysis of the situation as a whole before drawing their conclusions. Someone who weights failures more strongly than successes in their memory will always feel as though their character is weak because no matter how often their character succeeds, they mostly remember when the character fails.

[eggynack]

{scrubbed}
You are mistaken, primarily because you are incorrectly defining optimization. Optimization is not, after all, defined as "A thing done only by optimizers." Let's say you build a commoner, and you want him to be really bad at hitting stuff but reasonable at farming. Then, you might give said commoner a low strength score, say 8, full ranks in profession (farming), skill focus in that selfsame skill, and maybe a 10 or 12 in wisdom. This character, despite being likely unable to contribute in a significant way to any problem not related to farming, and actually possibly unable to contribute to a number of problems directly related to farming, would still have optimization behind it.

In particular, this character would be one optimized to be good at farming and bad at fighting. Is this character crazy optimized, or even significantly optimized? Definitely not. It's a character about as far away from fully optimized as one can theoretically be, though I can imagine one less optimized. By the same token, I can say the same about just about any character you can name. You chose to have a +1 instead of a +10? Well, then you're only optimized up to a +1 in that area, as opposed to a character with a +0, or a -2. You built a character to be worse than everyone at everything to a ridiculous degree? Well, then you optimized a character for that exact purpose, and if you want your claims of badness to hold, it's probably going to take some decent understanding of mechanics. Thus, as long as you are making conscious decisions about the game, and not just blindly pointing at character options until you have a legal character, you are optimizing, whether you like it or not.

[Seto]

How do you define "best" here?

Basically, as "given the character I want to play and the goal I'm trying to achieve by building them, I definitely couldn't have picked better mechanical options (although maybe I could have gone a slightly different route with an equivalent result)".


Ok, Optimization =/= trying to play the perfect character. You can run an optimized fighter, but it just won't be as good as a wizard would be. It's that kind of thinking that makes the mess.

A character can be optimized without being full-OP.



Optimization applies to the character concept as a whole
[...]
2 - you can have self-imposed or group-imposed restrictions (optimizing with a character concept such as "a mediocre warrior that will not outshine others" is still optimizing).
(emphasis added)


Also, the Stormwind Fallacy still applies to other arguments against optimization. There's no reason to not optimize, if you roleplay it and everyone still enjoys the game.

Certain people seem convinced that DMs should be at war with the PCs, and as soon as PCs start to grow in power, the DM should smite them. This shouldn't happen. The DM is as much a piece of the game as the player, and should be largely impartial.

That's true. There's no contradiction between optimizing and roleplaying. It's just that when someone basically says "everyone always optimizes", I get the impression that they're defending against a (real or perceived) accusation by saying "being an optimizer can't be a bad thing because it's intrinsic to building a character", when I'd say "although some optimizers let that concern be detrimental to roleplay, being an optimizer in itself isn't a bad thing, and can make up an interesting part of the game that not everyone experiences". To me, optimizing characters is interesting precisely because you don't necessarily do it everytime you build a character.

[Necroticplague]

I actually ended up with an issue like this in a game I tried out for. Didn't realize how much damage my character could push out until a rule argument (not even related to may character) came up and one person argued 'If you rule this* true, than that character has a damage in the mid-500's". Then, I ran the numbers, and realized that , if everything I had hit, my damage was in the low thousand range (something like "if all my damage rolls turn up ones, I do 1064 damage"). The DM actually complimented me on how well everything in my build synergized with each other. Still didn't get in to that game, though (though judging from reading the IC of those who did, the problem appears to be more related to "Dungeon crawling is hard when you're Huge and need to squeeze to fit in through doors wide enough to accommodate a horse").

*the rule in question was if each hand counted as a separate unarmed strike for Multiweapon Fighting. Rules pointed solidly to "No".

[Segev]

jedipotter, reread the block you quoted and then commented, "It's called 'just playing.'"

I do not think it says what you think it said.

It said that, if you choose your feats, class, etc. with any deliberation at all (say, "I'm playing a swashbuckler with a glib tongue; I'm putting ranks into Bluff,"), you're optimizing.

The implication of your reply to the quoted block is that the only way to "just play" is to literally randomly choose all of your feats, skills, class levels, and even your race. Further, by engaging in the Stormwind fallacy in the same breath, you state that anybody who does not randomly choose every aspect of their character, with no thought as to whether the mechanics reflect any aspect of the character, is not roleplaying.

So...is that what you meant to say? That the only way to roleplay is to "just play," and that this means you cannot choose your abilities based on your concept, but instead must choose them entirely at random?

[IZ42]

If at the end of your discussion with the DM you feel that your natural experience & intent toward the game is always going to be too strong, I recommend making optimised support characters. No DM can complain when all your ability is going toward everyone else wooping the opposition.

In the front line, see how far you can tweak warblades/crusaders with White Raven maneuvers for group bonuses & healing, Marshals, Tactical Soldiers etc.

or behind the line maxing out buffers like Halfling War Weaver mages, War Chanter bards, dual casters etc - or nauseating/stunning opponents so your allies can tear them apart.




You're still mentally stimulated - and balancing the party brilliantly.

Arghablarghl. This thread has nothing to do with DM/Player disagreement, staaaaaahp(and it's pathfinder with 3.5 okay, but I prefer using pathfinder classes, except maybe Magitech Templar, which is 3.5 homebrew). This thread is discussing thoughts and opinions on players who unintentionally end up at (much) higher levels of optimization than their party, and how the Playground feels about such things, as well as optimizing your closet.

[Nightraiderx]

I'd say probably not, I usually play a strong melee chargers for the most part
so it's very straight forward to what damage I needed. I have however, unintentionally misread spells
and thought they did more than I realized. I had a sorcerer one time that used Flaming Sphere incorrectly
and didn't realize it had stopped after it met the first target and cleared out a tunnel of goblins using it.

[Aegis013]

This thread is discussing thoughts and opinions on players who unintentionally end up at (much) higher levels of optimization than their party, and how the Playground feels about such things, as well as optimizing your closet.

Ending up at a much higher level of optimization than the group tends to mean a couple things in my experience:
1. I didn't have access/the ability to see, or even conceptually know, what the other players were building, and my system mastery is much higher than others, so what I think is a competent character, they view as an overpowered character.

2. The DM ok'd things that in hindsight even I think he shouldn't have.

3. The group are all totally new and the Wizard happened to try casting Evard's Black Tentacles instead of Fireball (or similar).

I've done the last one the most, personally. I played Wizards from 3.5's release, and it was unusual due to my inexperience, but I still resolved a number of encounters with a single spell, often throwing the DM for a loop.

I've done the first one a couple times while applying to PbP games here, admittedly. One application I didn't think to look at other submissions and match their appropriate op-level and ended up quite a bit ahead. When it was pointed out I withdrew my application because I didn't want to disrupt the game by causing power disparity. The second time I matched the power of the only other applicant with a character submission, but the following submitters were, in my humble opinion, very-low-op.

In meat-space based games, since I've become more experienced with these games, 3 pretty much never happens. I'm very inquisitive in order to prevent 1, and I'm very clear about the capabilities and intentions for things I want, helping to mitigate 2, though it still happens, or I perceive it to happen because most people who DM only do so for 1 session after promising an extensive campaign.

[The Insanity]

My optimizing is always concious and intended. I'm too stupid to make a good character accidently without realizing. IF, by some chance, I would make a good character eccidently, I'm perceptive enough that I would realize it pretty fast. So this situation could never come up for me.

[ahenobarbi]

Ignoring the definitional debate here and rephrasing the original question to be more general...

Yes, its pretty often that I encounter players who claim they're doing on thing but really are doing another. Sometimes its intentional social manipulation, or sometimes its just that the player isn't used to thinking about how they appear from the outside point of view. For example, I encountered a player who believed that he needed to have the strongest character at the table in order to feel that he 'kept up'. His character had an attack that dealt something like 10x the damage of what anyone else could manage, and when the DM nerfed it to be only a little bit more powerful than what the other characters could do, he would complain that it was too weak to bother with and things like that.

Similarly, I've had players who didn't realize e.g. that their character had the highest AC in the party and actually felt their AC was 'too low' or things along those lines. What happened was, e.g., they went into melee with an enemy and got hit once out of a bunch of attacks, whereas the ranged character would hang back and not be a target - so in their mind, they said 'I am getting hit more often than this other guy, so my AC is too low'. Meanwhile the other player might be thinking 'if that were me in melee, all of those attacks would have hit and I'd be paste!'. This kind of thing can lead to an arms race between players, which isn't the end of the world but its a bit annoying since it means you rush through the game and often leave the sweet spot sooner than you'd like.

In both cases players may have been right. Melee characters typically need much morze AC than ramged characters. Because ranged characters can not get hit by staying away. Meleeer can't do that (if they want to be effective).

First one is less clear but if rest of the group focuses on battlefield control, buffs and debuffs leaving actuall killing to the charakter it's perfectly ok for the PC to deal much morze damage than others.

[emeraldstreak]

Players who armsrace are stoopid.

Players who synergize are smart.

[(Un)Inspired]

Players who armsrace are stoopid.

Players who synergize are smart.

The a pretty bold absolute declaration. How can you prove that all players that do the former are stupid while those who do the later are smart?

I'm willing to grant that it's possible that some players may be stupid and some may be smart. From where does you certainty that this is the correct way to divide them derive?

[Oneris]

Players who armsrace are stoopid.

Players who synergize are smart.

Correction:
Players who arms-race are smart.

Players who synergize are smart.

Players who sabotage are stupid and should be kicked.

[jedipotter]

{scrubbed}

[Psyren]

"Arms-racing" is ill-advised because it will just prompt the DM to escalate further when he/she perceives there is no challenge to that player. This generally ends in either some players being left behind as their own optimization talents or their class features cannot keep up, or they all do keep up and the campaign becomes exponentially more complex until it falls apart, or both.

[eggynack]

{scrubbed}
Again, you are mistaken. Optimizing is a thing done by everyone.


{scrubbed}
Making a normal character involves optimizing. Making any character involves optimizing,


{scrubbed}
Yes, it is optimizing. Every character is optimized to do something. Doesn't really matter what that thing is.


{scrubbed}

See, you're tossing out all of these definitions, but they're utterly baseless. Optimizing just means making something better, generally at a particular thing. If the thing you're optimizing for is being completely impossible to kill, or if they thing you're optimizing for is farming kinda well, it's all still along the same spectrum. It doesn't really help that your definitions don't even really define hardcore optimizers. It's mostly unrelated to what it really means to build a character to the best of your ability, and is rather pointlessly offensive.

[Vhaidara]

Ok, from this brief example, it sound like you might be a role player. Though I'd wonder why you bother with the ''bending'' of the rules with your extreme optimization.

Because she's doing it entirely within the rules? As the person who helped her with the build, I can vouch for this. Just because your rules have nothing in common with DnD doesn't mean that anyone with actual players uses them

[Oneris]

Ok, from this brief example, it sound like you might be a role player. Though I'd wonder why you bother with the ''bending'' of the rules with your extreme optimization.

Because Optimization and Roleplaying are distinct and separate. A good Roleplayer can make Pun-Pun into a compelling character. A Bad Roleplayer couldn't make a bard interesting. (disclaimer: I am in no ways saying that bards are easy to roleplay)

I, for one, like to have options I can choose not to take. As the Player, I want to be able to say "Either these kobolds can die in a single spell, or my character can fail to prepare it and get captured. Let's see what happens when she gets captured (GM willing, of course)."

@Keledrath: Your preexisting bias is showing. Try to remain civil, please.

[atemu1234]

{scrubbed}

[Zarrgon]

I'm currently playing an Incantatrix in my game. Together with the Shadowcraft Mage, we can cast 9th level spells at only character level 9. I don't think I would be exaggerating if I said 80% of my time in the game is spent roleplaying in ways that do not take my class choice and abilities into account and that her character arc has so far been one of the most emotionally complex in the game.

How does this work? How can a 9th level character get 9th level spells?

[atemu1234]

How does this work? How can a 9th level character get 9th level spells?

Well, with Incantatrix you could easily get a spell's effective level up to 9.

[Flickerdart]

How does this work? How can a 9th level character get 9th level spells?
Hyper-real cantrips heightened into shadow miracles. Look up the Killer Gnome.

[jedipotter]

{scrubbed}

[eggynack]

{scrubbed}

Not really. It's just a fact. There doesn't exist a character not constructed randomly that doesn't involve optimization on some level. I don't really think being an optimizer is a bad thing in any way shape or form, so I don't exactly see why I would try to construct some weird defense for myself based around everyone being one or something. It's not a thing that I think needs to be justified.

[jedipotter]

{scrubbed}

[TheIronGolem]

{scrubbed}

How can you accept the existence of "non-extreme" optimizers after you put forth a definition of the term that explicitly requires extreme behavior?

And on that subject, that same very definition lists mechanical optimization, opposition to roleplaying, and antisocial behavior as distinct elements, thus undermining your position that they are the same thing.

[eggynack]

{scrubbed}
Not really. Optimization just gets you to particular places. Kinda a value neutral thing on its own.


And making a non random character is not automatically optimizing. Optimization has set goals.
Are you saying that your characters don't have set goals behind them, even on a micro level? Every time you pick a feat, even weapon focus or toughness, you're choosing those feats because you have set goals, particularly increasing to-hit or HP.

[atemu1234]

{scrubbed}

[jjcrpntr]

I'd say to an extent people closet optimize. I think most players want their character to be the best versions of that character. I have a buddy that plays a lot of barbarians. So in 3.5 his barb had the rage feats, leap attack stuff like that. He didn't take it because he was trying to optimize he just wanted to hit things as hard as he could (which I know is him optimizing for being a heavy hitter) but he didn't sit down and say "I want to take the most optimal feats possible".

I think the bigger problem is power gaming.

Optimizing is one thing. When people start power gaming and intentionally looking for ways to cheese or break the game that's when issues start up. For me anyway.

[Karl Aegis]

{scrubbed}


Person A is tasked with digging a hole. Person A decides that they were going to try to dig the hole with a pair of scissors and some scotch tape. They make no discernible progress.

Person B shows up and hands Person A a spade. Person B tells Person A to stop goofing off and get the job done. Person A cannot leave until the hole is dug. The only way Person A can have fun later is if they use the spade now to get the job done. Person A refuses to use the spade and instead tries to dig the hole with bubblegum and marshmallows. Person B, instead of using more of his time explaining how a spade would be more optimal, digs the hole himself. Person B makes discernible progress and finishes the hole in a reasonable amount of time. Person B is rewarded for finishing the task. Person A gets punishment for not making discernible progress on their assigned task.

Person B fits your definition of an optimizer. Is Person A the better person for it?

[Oneris]

Optimizing is one thing. When people start power gaming and intentionally looking for ways to cheese or break the game that's when issues start up. For me anyway.

Replace every instance jedipotter mentions 'Optimizing' with 'Power Gaming' and suddenly a lot of what he says begins to make sense.

[atemu1234]

{scrubbed}

[Oneris]

{scrubbed}

Now that's just unnecessary and rude. :smallannoyed:

[atemu1234]

{scrubbed}

[eggynack]

{scrubbed}

[Oneris]

Not really. Mostly just accurate. Not all that sure how else to take stuff like, "The player is doing it specifically for very negative reasons. Often to just ''ruin the day'' for others," or, "The player demands that the game world be ''beyond lame'' and ''low powered''." That's not powergamer stuff. That's just jerkass stuff.

That's not Optimizer stuff either, and should never have been on the list at all. Remove #3 and #5, and possibly #4, and the list seems rather solid for Power Gamers to me.

[JBPuffin]

On Optimizing Closets

This is what I thought the OP meant too...good job there, buddy.

I've always played with people either new to the system or who built with fewer books. Or I've been the only player, with three characters, all more optimized than absolutely necessary - mind you, this was 4e, but I have done a good deal with 3.5 as well, just not playing the game :shrug:.

Wait a minute, jedipotter has posted in this thread...ah. This makes more sense now.

See, a major break in the discussion is where we have people who don't consider making something usable optimizing - idk what they'd call it (perhaps jedi could answer that - what's it called when a character has stats that line up with their class?), but they are adamant that to "optimize" is to "power game". Other side - those who define optimize as "make efficient", which is what some would call a "dictionary definition". Colloquial usage has killed the dictionary among many groups, but that original meaning kinda matters.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Now that's just unnecessary and rude. :smallannoyed:

{scrubbed}

On Topic: I've had a Truenamer declared godly. She was just optimized enough to use her abilities a reliably few times a day each on equal CR opponents. On a side note, I still enjoy ice cream.

[eggynack]

That's not Optimizer stuff either, and should never have been on the list at all. Remove #3 and #5, and possibly #4, and the list seems rather solid for Power Gamers to me.
Indeed, if you ignore the majority of the list (even more than you stated, because 2 doesn't make all that much sense either, and optimization isn't particularly numerical in D&D anyway, calling 1 into question), then the list might start pointing to this arbitrary thing that you thought it was pointing to on the basis of almost none of the list.

[Oneris]

Indeed, if you ignore the majority of the list (even more than you stated, because 2 doesn't make all that much sense either, and optimization isn't particularly numerical in D&D anyway, calling 1 into question), then the list might start pointing to this arbitrary thing that you thought it was pointing to on the basis of almost none of the list.

So....Munchkinism?

[Tohsaka Rin]

Look, if you have a problem with JediPotter, fine. Not everyone gets along. Grit your teeth and just mutter to yourself, stop derailing the discussion, please.

As Oneris had a good idea, just do this; Every time Potter says 'Optimizing' replace it mentally with 'Power-Gaming'. Done and done.

On topic, sometimes, when you play a lot of DnD/find yourself making a lot of characters, you wind up falling into some routine mental patterns. It's usually not a conscious decision, your hand/mind tends to move along familiar paths.

I want to copy and paste a paragraph? I hit ctrl+c, then ctrl+p. I don't really think about it.

I want to be a good melee fighter/striker? I take Scout/Psion, Power Attack, Leap Attack, Deep Impact, and always move to support the frontline heavy.

My brain doesn't really turn on in combat, unless there's something big, like a giant or a dragon. I just ask the heavy where he wants me to hit, and go there. A lot of times, he was using Combat Reflexes and a polearm, and covering the healer/caster.

I never really think of my builds as 'odd hodge-podges' until another player asks me for suggestions on his next feat to take.

I'm not sure 'closet optimization' is the right term, so much as 'unconscious pattern repetition' happens to be more of a thing. But it's usually clear that once a player figures out what works for them, unless they're deliberately trying to veer out of their comfort zone, they're going to make some similar choices, because for them, they know that eating soup works better with a tablespoon than a teaspoon.

It's not the only way, but in their eyes, it works better.

[eggynack]

So....Munchkinism?
Closer, probably. 3 is still kinda weird in that context. I dunno that there's necessarily a perfect player archetype that fits around doing stuff specifically to cause harm.

[NichG]

In both cases players may have been right. Melee characters typically need much morze AC than ramged characters. Because ranged characters can not get hit by staying away. Meleeer can't do that (if they want to be effective).

First one is less clear but if rest of the group focuses on battlefield control, buffs and debuffs leaving actuall killing to the charakter it's perfectly ok for the PC to deal much morze damage than others.

Regardless of what the players needed to succeed in the game (both were well past the point where their high abilities were actually causing the GM to have to modify the game to maintain any pretense of challenge, but its impossible to actually demonstrate that without giving every detail of the situation which takes it outside of the scope of this thread), in both cases the players perceived their character as being worse at things than the rest of the party that, objectively, they were better than the rest of the party at. This is a psychological effect rather than a game-mechanical one.

[One Step Two]

Closet or, unintentional Optimization has happened at my group before a long time back. Not in a single character context, but for the group. Me and two other friends joined an existing gaming group, taking the total party number to around 8, with the intention to complete the World's largest dungeon. We all discussed how we were going to build the group, and we came up with two main concessions: 1) Everyone in the party should have access to Darkvision, because it gave us a large stealth element, and 2) Due to the size of the group, two clerics would be needed to keep us moving efficiently.
This incident in itself was an optimization ceiling for the DM, having two Clerics in the party was unprecedented, apparently. I pointed out that my Fighter was going to take cleric at second level as well, because I had planned on taking the prestige paladin, since he had approved it's use in unearthed arcana, which also made him seriously reconsider his options, due to the amount of healing the group had at it's disposal.

We're good friends still, but he still refers to me as a "stack monkey" for the incidental optimization that occured. Especially when one of the clerics and myself worshiped Bahamut and took the Luck Domain, the free re-roll was apparently frustrating.

In short, we were able to progress through the dungeon at a prodigious rate, before we were defeated by a deck of many things, but it was a fun time :smallbiggrin:

Also, in the same group, when we were playing a D20 game based in ancient Rome where magic was re-awakening during the height of Julius Caesar's power, a feat called Polyglot I took from the setting source book that allowed my Egyptian wizard to learn any new language in 1d4 days, caused a similar amount of frustration as I made him somewhat of a party face. The entire point of taking the feat was not just a roleplay decision for making a diverse group of Romans, Celts, Egyptians, and a single misplaced Chinese monk work, but for the sole purpose of being able to meet and parley with new monstrous races, like Elves. Being able to stop a fight against Hobgoblins when a strange human begins to speak goblinoid asking if they are mercenaries, and giving Ceasar's infantry some new shock troops was both interesting, and troublemaking for the GM.

[Oddman80]

I can't believe there have been 3 pages of responses so far. I haven't taken the time to read them all - so sorry if I repeat something someone else mentioned, but I just wanted to throw my 2cp in. I found the Algot wall bracket system from Ikea to be extremely efficient and also versatile. They have a lot of options for any sized closet (including drawer, basket, shoe storage, hanger rods and even hung hampers). And, while it might not look as nice as their Pax system, you get so much more bang for your buck with the bracket system. Don't forget to mount a shelf above any hanger rods. Oh, and lastly, if you are tall enough to reach, I totally recommend stacking clothing rods - you lose a row of high shelves, but you double your hanging capacity. That just screams optimized!
K, good luck with your closet.

P.S. Give it a rest JP - the entire premise of the OP completely invalidates everything you claim in your "list of things optimizerrs do". Find a different thread to derail. This one is about ideal closet design. :wink:

[kardar233]

I think Gazebo Jones (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9823824&postcount=132) is a beautifully optimized closet.

[Troacctid]

Is there a good cheap way to increase a closet's hardness? I'm sure I've seen one before, but all I can find are hardening (which has an annoying material cost) and matter manipulation (which has an annoying xp cost). Or is it best to just go for broke and make it out of riverine?

[kardar233]

Rubik would be the one to ask about Hardness-related issues, as he has a Monk build that uses Hardness for defence.

[IZ42]

Actually if you can get mythic, and take one of the powers that let's you ignore material components under some amount of money, you could just Stoneskin the closet after making it an animated object, and maybe apply permanency if youp GM's lenient about it, but that's just DR, not hardness. For hardness, I think the most efficient material would be living steel, which has the added bonus of giving the broken condition to weapons on a natural one. Excuse me while I look this up.

[Oddman80]

People, people, people.... When has the hardness of a closet ever increased the functionality or performance of that closet. Trying to turn a closet into a bank vault, while a good theoretical exercise in its on right, is not helping to actually optimize the closet itself as it fulfills its role of simply being a closet.

Now there are all sorts of different closets. There are linen closets, arts and crafts closets, you closets, storage closets and the classic archetype - the clothes closet. Now as I mentioned before, stoneskin would be a poor poor choice for most of these buillds as the cool surface of the stone has a tendency to form condensation on the clothing - that wil lead to a damp and musty closet - clearly not the goal of anyone's closet build.

A mid/low level optimization choice would be standard gypsum wall board. Sure it's bland - not too flavorful - but it gets the job done... There's a reason its so common in most people's closet builds. But if you really want to up your closet optimization level, you should consider using a vertical cedar plank application on the interior while filling the wall cavity with a mineral wool insulation.

[IZ42]

I heard some good things about maple or rose wood. Also, Stoneskin gives it the texture and hardness of adamantine, but doesn't actually turn into stone in and of itself. I prefer my closets to double as bomb shelters.

[jedipotter]

{scrubbed}

[eggynack]

Other players have different kinds of goals. A role player, for example, has role playing goals that have nothing to do with mechanics.

So this role player, they just pick feats out of a hat? They assign skill points based on the alphabetical listing of their class' skill list? They use an RNG to determine both learned and daily spells?

[TheIronGolem]

{scrubbed}

Even if that were true - which it isn't - the mere existence of any non-extreme optimizers proves that optimization can and does coexist with roleplaying.

You also still haven't accounted for the self-defeating nature of your offered definition.

[Telonius]

People, people, people.... When has the hardness of a closet ever increased the functionality or performance of that closet. Trying to turn a closet into a bank vault, while a good theoretical exercise in its on right, is not helping to actually optimize the closet itself as it fulfills its role of simply being a closet.

Now there are all sorts of different closets. There are linen closets, arts and crafts closets, you closets, storage closets and the classic archetype - the clothes closet. Now as I mentioned before, stoneskin would be a poor poor choice for most of these buillds as the cool surface of the stone has a tendency to form condensation on the clothing - that wil lead to a damp and musty closet - clearly not the goal of anyone's closet build.

A mid/low level optimization choice would be standard gypsum wall board. Sure it's bland - not too flavorful - but it gets the job done... There's a reason its so common in most people's closet builds. But if you really want to up your closet optimization level, you should consider using a vertical cedar plank application on the interior while filling the wall cavity with a mineral wool insulation.

While wood is the classic default, I'd be a bit concerned about the typical adventurer's tendency to attract (and cause) fire. Stone is a much more fire-resistant material. If you're concerned about dampness, spread out some Dust of Dryness as a precautionary measure.

[jedipotter]

So this role player, they just pick feats out of a hat? They assign skill points based on the alphabetical listing of their class' skill list? They use an RNG to determine both learned and daily spells?

A role player is not random. The will pick feats and skills based on the role they want to play. The best way to tell an optimizer is the dreaded ''have to''. Take a character idea, a role player will look over things and pick a couple that fit the character. The optimizer ''has to'' pick A and B and C.


Even if that were true - which it isn't - the mere existence of any non-extreme optimizers proves that optimization can and does coexist with roleplaying.

You also still haven't accounted for the self-defeating nature of your offered definition.

{scrubbed}

[Karl Aegis]

Person B is not an optimizer, they are just competent. And that is the tricky part as some mix ''optimize'' with ''competent''.

{scrubbed}


Compared to Person B, Person C has gone so far away from what would be considered optimal (using the spade to dig) they have made a sub-optimal choice. The situation did not call for the making of a hole, it wanted a hole dug. "Optimizers" seem to deviate just as far from the optimal situation as an incompetent person would. The only difference is the direction they deviate.

[ahenobarbi]

Regardless of what the players needed to succeed in the game (both were well past the point where their high abilities were actually causing the GM to have to modify the game to maintain any pretense of challenge, but its impossible to actually demonstrate that without giving every detail of the situation which takes it outside of the scope of this thread), in both cases the players perceived their character as being worse at things than the rest of the party that, objectively, they were better than the rest of the party at. This is a psychological effect rather than a game-mechanical one.

Ack.


I heard some good things about maple or rose wood. Also, Stoneskin gives it the texture and hardness of adamantine, but doesn't actually turn into stone in and of itself. I prefer my closets to double as bomb shelters.

I think refluffing bag of holding as a closet is more practical (and if you hide there you're safe from anything happening outside (as long as you remember to close it), you just will need to use Plane Shift to get out).

True it's really costly compared to masterwork closets but I think it's gold well spent.


While wood is the classic default, I'd be a bit concerned about the typical adventurer's tendency to attract (and cause) fire. Stone is a much more fire-resistant material. If you're concerned about dampness, spread out some Dust of Dryness as a precautionary measure.

Wood may burn but it's not a concern; it's a well-known fact that nonmagical fire does not damage wood (as it deals 1d6/2 - 5 damage per round). And having a burning closet looks really cool too (I'll admit it's a little impractical if you don't have fire resistance / immunity yourself).


Well a dozen does not compare to the thousands. But just as they are not extreme, does not make them role players...they are still optimizers after all: they are not playing the game to play a role.

Well there is only so much you can roleplay as a burning closet.

EDIT: This could work pretty well as a legacy item (so you can make it intelligent). If I get my group to play some one shot I'll play character riding an intelligent ever-burning Legacy closet. Any suggestions for a race?

[NichG]

If you really want to calculate the degree to which someone is OOC emphasizing some particular form of optimization above just making competent IC decisions, look at the choices that they as a player make which in-character their character would have no way to control.

For example, if we have some pattern of fantasy demographics such as, e.g., the world is 40% human, 10% elf, 15% dwarf, 20% halfling, 5% goblin, etc, etc, we can look at how rare of a choice of race the player makes - something which the character has no control over. Similarly, we can compute the statistics of their stat distribution relative to a random distribution based on their point buy, look at Lv1 only feats that represent backgrounds, etc. To ask specifically about optimization towards a particular purpose, we can apply this calculation for every factor which contributes to the character's ability to fulfill that purpose and discard incidental rare factors that are irrelevant to it.

Its hard to justify 'this is just playing a competent character' if, statistically, there should be on average fewer than one such character in existence with the same pattern of uncontrollable factors given e.g. the population of the modern world (in most fantasy settings, this is probably around ~1 in 100 million). The logic of 'well, people not suited to be adventurers shouldn't join adventuring parties' falls apart if there's fewer than one such 'suited' person in existence at any given time.

[ahenobarbi]

If you really want to calculate the degree to which someone is OOC emphasizing some particular form of optimization above just making competent IC decisions, look at the choices that they as a player make which in-character their character would have no way to control.

For example, if we have some pattern of fantasy demographics such as, e.g., the world is 40% human, 10% elf, 15% dwarf, 20% halfling, 5% goblin, etc, etc, we can look at how rare of a choice of race the player makes - something which the character has no control over. Similarly, we can compute the statistics of their stat distribution relative to a random distribution based on their point buy, look at Lv1 only feats that represent backgrounds, etc. To ask specifically about optimization towards a particular purpose, we can apply this calculation for every factor which contributes to the character's ability to fulfill that purpose and discard incidental rare factors that are irrelevant to it.

Its hard to justify 'this is just playing a competent character' if, statistically, there should be on average fewer than one such character in existence with the same pattern of uncontrollable factors given e.g. the population of the modern world (in most fantasy settings, this is probably around ~1 in 100 million). The logic of 'well, people not suited to be adventurers shouldn't join adventuring parties' falls apart if there's fewer than one such 'suited' person in existence at any given time.

I don't think that's a good way to measure this - this measures how rare choices you make. So for example playing a rare race/class mix because it's cool (even if it's not particularly strong) (say half-orc Dread Necromancer) is considered "more optimized" than combos that actually is stronger (but uses more common ingredients) (for example human Wizard).

[Greenish]

If you really want to calculate the degree to which someone is OOC emphasizing some particular form of optimization above just making competent IC decisions, look at the choices that they as a player make which in-character their character would have no way to control.

For example, if we have some pattern of fantasy demographics such as, e.g., the world is 40% human, 10% elf, 15% dwarf, 20% halfling, 5% goblin, etc, etc, we can look at how rare of a choice of race the player makes - something which the character has no control over. Similarly, we can compute the statistics of their stat distribution relative to a random distribution based on their point buy, look at Lv1 only feats that represent backgrounds, etc. To ask specifically about optimization towards a particular purpose, we can apply this calculation for every factor which contributes to the character's ability to fulfill that purpose and discard incidental rare factors that are irrelevant to it.

Its hard to justify 'this is just playing a competent character' if, statistically, there should be on average fewer than one such character in existence with the same pattern of uncontrollable factors given e.g. the population of the modern world (in most fantasy settings, this is probably around ~1 in 100 million). The logic of 'well, people not suited to be adventurers shouldn't join adventuring parties' falls apart if there's fewer than one such 'suited' person in existence at any given time.If you start with the outcome and then start to calculate how unlikely it is, you can easily come to the conclusion that great many things that actually happen are so unlikely as to never happen.

[ahenobarbi]

If you start with the outcome and then start to calculate how unlikely it is, you can easily come to the conclusion that great many things that actually happen are so unlikely as to never happen.

Yup (http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2659). character limit, eh

[Brookshw]

So, I guess I'm guilty for pointing out that that is wrong.


Just to speak briefly to that quote I'm extremely fond of it as it strikes a resonating cord, for me at least, with the position of Rationalism and common arguments against it. Camus and others had quite similar feelings on the matter regarding the inadequacies of logic. The full implications of it, within the scope of philosophy, is very woven into a great many debates and works quite well to exemplify, to some extent, the empirical position.

Also loving the idea of the ever burning closet.

[Tohsaka Rin]

...I just had a thought.

If a person is playing a role (their character properly), works together with the party, doesn't showboat, gets along with NPCs fairly (depending on how they treat him in the first place, civility unto civility, evil unto evil) and doesn't do stuff with the intent to screw the DM's plot over, derail the campaign, or prevent other people from having fun...

Does it matter if he's optimized out the wazoo?

[atemu1234]

...I just had a thought.

If a person is playing a role (their character properly), works together with the party, doesn't showboat, gets along with NPCs fairly (depending on how they treat him in the first place, civility unto civility, evil unto evil) and doesn't do stuff with the intent to screw the DM's plot over, derail the campaign, or prevent other people from having fun...

Does it matter if he's optimized out the wazoo?

Nope. Not in the slightest. Fun in D&D is NOT a finite concept. Enjoying yourself by optimizing in no way 'removes' other players' fun.

[Satinavian]

...I just had a thought.

If a person is playing a role (their character properly), works together with the party, doesn't showboat, gets along with NPCs fairly (depending on how they treat him in the first place, civility unto civility, evil unto evil) and doesn't do stuff with the intent to screw the DM's plot over, derail the campaign, or prevent other people from having fun...

Does it matter if he's optimized out the wazoo?Yes, it does.

It has the following effects :

- The usual challanges for the group are not challanging for this character. The player thus loses the ability to overcome real difficulties ingame. And that might be boring.

- The GM can't know, how much of his power the player will use in a given situation which makes planning encounters difficult. Will he tone it down or will he go all out ? Guessing wrong might ruin the whole scene or the whole campaign. That is especcially difficult for situations where the group can't asses the challange either.

- Sooner or later both players and other characters will know, how to solve problems using this particular characters' power. And then it is really difficult to justify not doing it. It strains credibility of the game.

So, yes. Even with rational, cooperative players a different level of optimization might have drawbacks.


OTOH it's usually not worth avoiding it at all cost. Sometimes people just want to play certain concepts with different powers. And In-Game-Power is only to a certain degree dependent on build. System mastery is usually far more important and there is no way of enforcing similar system mastery in the group.

[eggynack]

A role player is not random. The will pick feats and skills based on the role they want to play. The best way to tell an optimizer is the dreaded ''have to''. Take a character idea, a role player will look over things and pick a couple that fit the character. The optimizer ''has to'' pick A and B and C.

Well, there ya go then. The role player is optimizing based on the role they want to play. Simple as that.

[ahenobarbi]

Yes, it does.

It has the following effects :

- The usual challanges for the group are not challanging for this character. The player thus loses the ability to overcome real difficulties ingame. And that might be boring.

It's their fun and I think it's a good idea to let players if they want to have fun playing powerful character (and risk boredom because of lack of challenge (not necessarily true; you might play wizard with spontaneous access to all the spells and still exercise creativity by trying to minimize cost of everything you attempt)) of less powerful character and more challenge (at risk of feeling useless).


- The GM can't know, how much of his power the player will use in a given situation which makes planning encounters difficult. Will he tone it down or will he go all out ? Guessing wrong might ruin the whole scene or the whole campaign. That is especcially difficult for situations where the group can't asses the challange either.

That's true.


- Sooner or later both players and other characters will know, how to solve problems using this particular characters' power. And then it is really difficult to justify not doing it. It strains credibility of the game.

Nah. If the player is cooperative this shouldn't be to much of a problem. Say something like "Guys, you know I have a limited number of spells so yeah I could Disintegrate that door but I think it's much better to conserve high-level spells and have our Rogue handle them." or "Sorry I didn't prepare Scrying today (everybody roll Sense Motive), I can do it tomorrow but until then let's investigate without magic.". Sure that doesn't work with some PC personalities but it's responsibility of a player to create a character that goes well with rest of their group (so if you want to be super-powerful you might need to build in some soft limiting factors into character so it'll work in the group).


OTOH it's usually not worth avoiding it at all cost. Sometimes people just want to play certain concepts with different powers. And In-Game-Power is only to a certain degree dependent on build. System mastery is usually far more important and there is no way of enforcing similar system mastery in the group.


Agreed.

[NichG]

I don't think that's a good way to measure this - this measures how rare choices you make. So for example playing a rare race/class mix because it's cool (even if it's not particularly strong) (say half-orc Dread Necromancer) is considered "more optimized" than combos that actually is stronger (but uses more common ingredients) (for example human Wizard).


If you start with the outcome and then start to calculate how unlikely it is, you can easily come to the conclusion that great many things that actually happen are so unlikely as to never happen.

Yes, thats why you have to condition it with regards to contribution towards the optimization target. E.g. you don't ask 'is this particular combination rare in an absolute sense', you ask 'is this particular degree of optimality in a specific area rare, considering only those things which are outside of IC control?'

For example, take all race/point buy combos and look at the distribution of, say, the dominant stat scores of Lv9 characters who put their levelup points into their dominant stat, independent of feat choice/gear choice. There will be some baseline distribution of these scores (you can look at the dominant score only on the basis that e.g. a character with high Str and low Int could choose to be a Swordsage rather than a Wizard). Since we expect a big difference in the distribution for dominant stat being Str vs Int vs whatever due to races with Str bonuses being more common than races with Int bonuses, we can also condition based on which stat is the dominant one and assume that that's an even chance (given that the statistics will be dominated by point buy ergodicity except in the tails).

So if we find a Lv9 character with, say, a 30 Strength before gear, we can determine how unlikely it is for a random character in the world with Strength as their highest stat to actually be able to have a 30 Strength at Lv9. If that is extremely unlikely, and we don't have too many hypotheses compared to the unlikelihood (e.g. if we test 100 hypothesis, then our threshold of significance should be a factor of 100 smaller), then that's strong evidence.

[HyperDunkBarkly]

{scrubbed}
really now?

I play a lordless knight, lost and a bit unsure of what to do with herself after the loss of her kingdom. After the fall she took freelance work with the desert patrol for a neighboring land to make ends meet, eventually coming across the party fighting giant sandworms and leading them to town. She takes a fancy to the rather business-oriented mage of the group and signs a long-term contract to serve as bodyguard, finally giving peace.

basically I made a masochistic knight maid with a fixation of attachment through paperwork and servitude. Lawful-Neutral allignment, she doesn't care what her employer needs doing, she'll do her job and that's what puts her at ease.

her feat list level 10(Human, 2 flaws)?
Combat Expertise
Combat Reflexes
Improved Trip
Power Attack
Exotic Weapon Proficiency(Spiked Chain)
Knock-down
Mage Slayer
Mounted Combat
Endurance
DieHard

I basically exited "in-character" mode, and went straight to trip everything. By 20, I'll be a specialist that isn't a distinct part of my RP.
My character isn't flashy, instead she spends most of her time very straight-faced or smiling at over-the-top antics. Or getting drunk with her boss. There's been more attention placed upon the cleric that's in love with the local minotaur and seduced the hell out of him.

Am I closeted about my optimization? I literally just trip people and occasionally sunder weapons. but I made conscious, out of character decisions to specialize in a field while playing in a campaign where the DM has the power scaling through the roof. my character manages to stay relevant in fights where we have to deal with DC 60 Con damage and effectively saved the day by crushing the enemy ranger's bow because the DM was BSing exceptionally hard that day. I proceeded to trip him, break his ****ty bow, break his friend's scimitars, trip the hell out of both of them, and keep them locked down until the cleric cleanse the barbarian to come smash their faces in half.

really, what we have to come to terms with is that roleplaying is about actions at the table, and optimization is about decisions made at the character sheet. they can intermingle and they can stay separate, but most likely they do both over the course of a campaign.

[Oddman80]

JP,
If someone is maxing out their characters to a point that it breaks the game (i.e., nobody else is having fun or the GM simply can no longer design meaningful encounters for the group)... That is not optimal. They were not optimizing their character for the game, because playing the character leads to there being NO GAME to play.

Let's take another, more blunt example. I like to rough house with my son. Now if I happened to become a krav-maga master overnight, and then proceeded to snap my sons neck with my wicked awesome skills... That would not be optimized. People wouldn't look at me and say "woah- look at that krav-maga master" no... They'd call mean a child murderer.

That does not mean that doing martial arts with my son is a bad thing. If he happens to be at the same skill level as me, we could spar together and it would be awesome. But even then - I would be unlikely to give it my 100% as the risk is too great.

Your definition of optimizer is that of the person that insists on killing children with his martial arts skills because he knows how. Everyone else in this forum's definition is the sensei who knows how to execute those deadly skills, but is able to adapt his performance of those skills to an appropriate level based on who he is sparring with.

Stop calling everyone who likes optimizing their characters "child murderers"

[Sam K]

...I just had a thought.

If a person is playing a role (their character properly), works together with the party, doesn't showboat, gets along with NPCs fairly (depending on how they treat him in the first place, civility unto civility, evil unto evil) and doesn't do stuff with the intent to screw the DM's plot over, derail the campaign, or prevent other people from having fun...

Does it matter if he's optimized out the wazoo?

Optimization is like tuning your car for racing performance.

Powergaming is like driving that car at top speed in a 20mph zone because its "not your problem if people can't get out of the way".

[Elricaltovilla]

How have all you closet optimizers neglected the ironwood (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/ironwood) spell? It gives any wood you cast it on the better qualities of Iron on up to 5 lbs. of wood/level. It lasts 1 day/level and you can even use it to give the closet a +1 enhancement bonus. And Ironwood explicitly does not burn, which solves the issue of adventurers' tendency to be on fire frequently.

As for the starting wood, I'd recommend either cherry or cedar. Both are good options as they repel termites and moths (respectively), something you definitely don't want in your optimal closet.

[TheIronGolem]

{scrubbed}
Yes it does, especially when those numbers were pulled out of your imagination as they are in this case. Even one exception proves that a blanket rule is wrong.


{scrubbed}
And here you contradict yourself again, because it's the "extreme" optimizer who doesn't roleplay according to you. The fact is, someone can do #1 on your list and none of the others. It's way more common than you want to admit.

You don't get to define "optimizing" as "optimizing AND other stuff".

[goto124]

We could make a horde of closets, ironwood then animate/awaken them to form a Closet Army. Watch the wizard attempt to Fireball them :D

[Sam K]

We could make a horde of closets, ironwood then animate/awaken them to form a Closet Army. Watch the wizard attempt to Fireball them :D

The sheer amount of "in the closet" jokes that could be made...

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Locked for Review.

EDIT: Thread re-opened after review. Please keep it civil guys.

[Oddman80]

Well, phew... I though it had been my snark that had shut it down

[nedz]

Hmm, I'd been ignoring this thread because, well I think it's obvious — anyway: back on target.

I've had people accidentally produce optimal characters simply because they got carried away with an idea, took it to it's logical conclusion and then discovered that everyone else called them out, erroneously, for power-gaming.

I've played in games where players have made overpowered character because they want to showcase their system mastery rather than face the challenges — though to be fair the game generally lacked those.

I DM'd one game where the party had some cool semi-extraplaner transport and one player optimised his character to the point where he was ahead of the curve. Now this was 2E and everyone had about three followers/henchmen and depending upon the player's whim either the OP character would turn up or he'd stay in the closet (only 2 characters a round could come in or out). This was a nightmare since the party had a variable power level so throwing encounters at them was a crap-shoot, depending upon whether the OP character was deployed or not. Eventually other PCs caught up so this problem went away.