OP Characters for Non-OP groups?

[Gwazi Magnum]

Basically, what kind of builds would you suggest to Optimizers who are in a game among non-optimizers?
Mainly for the sake of player balance, being fair to the DM, or quite simply maybe making a subpar class like Monk actually comparable to the other players?

Though for the sake of this exercise let's try to avoid buff builds.
That one's kind of an obvious option since the optimization becomes party optimization.

[tadkins]

I've always thought downgrading to a lower tier would work well, and still keep the character flavor in a lot of cases.

For instance, instead of a wizard, play a warmage, beguiler or dread necromancer. Instead of a cleric, play a healer, favored soul or paladin. Just stuff like that.

[Zanos]

Honestly, regular Wizard works fairly well.

People seem to think they did all the work in an encounter when the wizard buffed them all into engines of mass destruction while also splitting the fight into three mini-encounters with control spells. Low-OP folks are, in my experience, the least likely to notice this, especially if you don't contribute actual damage. I've honestly heard people say that wizards who weren't casting fireballs were useless.

As treantmonk wisely said, let the mortals have their victory.

[jaydubs]

To what level do you optimize? To what level do they non-optimize? Because some options that work quite well when the gap is small, become just as problematic as everything else if the gap is huge.

[Troacctid]

I would go super-obvious, super-straightforward, playing the class exactly the way it was intended, exactly how the designers expected it to be played, using simple no-frills itemization (cloak of resistance, ring of protection, and so on). Most likely, I'd pick a cool flavorful prestige class that interests me--maybe a Demonbinder, or a Stormsinger, or an Ordained Champion--and use the obvious expected entry with thematically appropriate spells and feats.

[Gwazi Magnum]

To what level do you optimize? To what level do they non-optimize? Because some options that work quite well when the gap is small, become just as problematic as everything else if the gap is huge.

For the sake of the exercise let's assume there's a sizeable difference between the two.
For the most common example.

The non-optimziers barely look into efficient builds, rather grabbing whatever 'feels' right. And if they do, it's just something like "what's a good race?" or grabbing one or two good feats.

While the optimizer has a good and solid grasp of the mechanics, source books and potential builds and combinations.
They refrain from cheese and other completely broken combinations, but still use more than enough that it makes non-optimziers red with rage.

[jaydubs]

Some things that probably won't cause your non-optimizing party members to rage:

-Giving them re-rolls. No one minds getting to re-roll those nat 1 attack rolls and saving throws.
-Stealth/scouting/trapfinding. Since these tend to involve preventing bad stuff from happening to your team, more than anything else.
-Versatility. Aim for being second best at a lot of things, but only really good at your "schtick." "I can help" doesn't bother people nearly as much as "I can do that better than you."
-Knowledge skills. Party members like knowing which of their tools will work in a battle. DMs like being able to drop exposition.
-Control builds. Though this may frustrate your DM, more so than your party members.
-Utility. Things like, letting them fly. Turning the scout invisible. Making them food and water. Finding plot items or characters. Etc.
-Healing.

Like Zanos pointed out, a non-flashy, low-damage wizard can do a lot of that. So can a bard, factotum, or similar versatile skill-monkey type. Again, don't optimize the damage side of things.

And as Troacctid mentioned, you can always go with trying something powerful, but unobjectionable. For instance, steal the build from a pre-gen character somewhere. Or a surprisingly well-optimized NPC. It's pretty hard to call someone a dirty power-gamer, when you can point to a page and say "but this is what WOTC wants me to play."

Oh, and don't duplicate someone else's niche.

[Karl Aegis]

How bad are we talking? No ranks in spot, not enough ranks in balance, no special abilities to speak of, poor accuracy and no recognizable defenses? Are they getting a form of flight before level 10 at least? Are you going to have to play this game solo with occasional interruption by minor characters?

[rrwoods]

Some things that probably won't cause your non-optimizing party members to rage:

-Giving them re-rolls. No one minds getting to re-roll those nat 1 attack rolls and saving throws.
-Stealth/scouting/trapfinding. Since these tend to involve preventing bad stuff from happening to your team, more than anything else.
-Versatility. Aim for being second best at a lot of things, but only really good at your "schtick." "I can help" doesn't bother people nearly as much as "I can do that better than you."
-Knowledge skills. Party members like knowing which of their tools will work in a battle. DMs like being able to drop exposition.
-Control builds. Though this may frustrate your DM, more so than your party members.
-Utility. Things like, letting them fly. Turning the scout invisible. Making them food and water. Finding plot items or characters. Etc.
-Healing.

Like Zanos pointed out, a non-flashy, low-damage wizard can do a lot of that. So can a bard, factotum, or similar versatile skill-monkey type. Again, don't optimize the damage side of things.

And as Troacctid mentioned, you can always go with trying something powerful, but unobjectionable. For instance, steal the build from a pre-gen character somewhere. Or a surprisingly well-optimized NPC. It's pretty hard to call someone a dirty power-gamer, when you can point to a page and say "but this is what WOTC wants me to play."

Oh, and don't duplicate someone else's niche.
Man, where's the +1 button? Quoting this mostly so the OP can read it again.

[Sam K]

For the sake of the exercise let's assume there's a sizeable difference between the two.
For the most common example.

The non-optimziers barely look into efficient builds, rather grabbing whatever 'feels' right. And if they do, it's just something like "what's a good race?" or grabbing one or two good feats.

While the optimizer has a good and solid grasp of the mechanics, source books and potential builds and combinations.
They refrain from cheese and other completely broken combinations, but still use more than enough that it makes non-optimziers red with rage.

Why are the non-optimizers red with rage? Do they object to feeling less powerful, or does the mere idea of optimization anger them? Also, how willing is the optimizers to tone down their gameplay?

Anyway, in my opinion downgrading tiers is a BAD idea. While an optimized wizard can actually be played with some subtility, not seeming excessively powerful, there's only so much you can do to "tone down" an ubercharger. Optimized lower tier characters just tend to shine at a couple of very obvious tricks: there's a reason why many low-OP games find the monk overpowered! Obvious things like very high AC or throwing around boatloads of dice tend to be the most infuriating things to low-OP players.

My suggestion would be archivist. While very high powered, it doesn't SEEM that strong assuming it uses the right spells: use utility and support spells mostly, combined with some buffs. Also, you can restrict spell availability somewhat, restricting the most powerful combos. Ofcourse, this is assuming the high OP player is trying to play nice.

[Madbranch]

Optimize your character flavor wise. Just make a wizard that loves (really loves) fire. All its spells have fire descriptor or sth. Or a rogue that really likes to steal. Even when fighting he will try to steal from the opponnent. Or ... You know what I mean.

Or as it was already said play a lower tier class.

I also like the idea, that Jaydubs came up with. Optimize to be the best helper out there. xD

[Gwazi Magnum]

-Giving them re-rolls. No one minds getting to re-roll those nat 1 attack rolls and saving throws.

I like the post as a whole, but this part specifically I'm curious about.
How would you enable your allies to re-roll?


How bad are we talking? No ranks in spot, not enough ranks in balance, no special abilities to speak of, poor accuracy and no recognizable defenses? Are they getting a form of flight before level 10 at least? Are you going to have to play this game solo with occasional interruption by minor characters?

Basic investment in spot and listen.

Balance most likely neglected.

Any special abilities that's typical for core classes.
But not much you'd need to really dig for.

Decent defense, but doesn't scale well (like most AC).
Accuracy stays decent but nothing brag worthy.

Flight could be seen as high priority for them, so yes they would have that at least.

Not a solo campaign.


Optimize your character flavor wise. Just make a wizard that loves (really loves) fire. All its spells have fire descriptor or sth. Or a rogue that really likes to steal. Even when fighting he will try to steal from the opponnent. Or ... You know what I mean.

Or as it was already said play a lower tier class.

I also like the idea, that Jaydubs came up with. Optimize to be the best helper out there. xD

So optimize in a really silly area? :P
Would a one handed duelist fall under this?
As in use a weapon and nothing in the off hand?

[WeaselGuy]

I normally play a Beguiler or a Mounted Paladin when I'm in a group of low-op players, but that's just me. Rogue/Assassin can work well too.

[Firest Kathon]

I like the post as a whole, but this part specifically I'm curious about.
How would you enable your allies to re-roll?
Fortune witch hex (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/witch/hexes/common-hexes/hex-fortune-su) is one option.

[Azoth]

You can also try playing an optimized crafter* to not get the party mad at you. No one hates on the guy giving them cool gadgets at a discounted price. Especially, if those gadgets make them more awesome at whatever it is they view as a key part of their character.

*This is excluding the free hospitals/brothels with auto resisting spell traps of to create ambrosia or liquid pain as a substitute for XP. This also excludes Thrallherd using dark sacrifice rules to kill followers for free crafting xp.

I am also not sure wierd flavorful builds necessarily help much. In a pathfinder game I am in, I have a character who weapon finesses a Fauchard and uses poisons/drugs as his main means of combat, at ECL11 (Master of Many Styles Monk2/Stalker9. Heavy focus in Steel Serpent with a split focus of Veiled Moon and Piercing Thunder as secondary disciplines). The group still considers him vastly OP even after only seeing him go all out once in a fight that was a near TPK until I took the kid gloves off.

[OldTrees1]

Quick question: Why not optimize to hit their power level rather than optimize to hit the sky?

Alternative suggestion: Do they have access to user generated content? If they suggest their own feats and you balance the feats with the DM, then their optimization level will rise without stepping on their toes.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Quick question: Why not optimize to hit their power level rather than optimize to hit the sky?

There's no hard number's dictating what a certain character should be at.
Since skill level, builds etc. vary immensely.
And we can even measure it with popular online builds, because it's measuring for a lack of a better word the noobs.
Not the ones who know what they're doing.


Alternative suggestion: Do they have access to user generated content? If they suggest their own feats and you balance the feats with the DM, then their optimization level will rise without stepping on their toes.

They have access to 3rd party books.
But no homebrew.

It could be possible for them to make up a feat and have it DM approved.
I've done it a few times in past campaigns to patch things I felt were lacking (ex: a one handed duelist style).
So for the sake of this, yes. But it needs to be used sparingly.

[Spore]

I usually go one of three-ish routes:

1) Support. Boni, healing, forming the battlefield, summoning (in moderation).

2) Optimizing the poorest class I can find. Monk, Cavalier, etc.

2.5) One-trick-pony with several useful but not defining powers. (Like a mounted paladin doing insane damage with some face potential and some support powers).

[OldTrees1]

There's no hard number's dictating what a certain character should be at.
Since skill level, builds etc. vary immensely.
And we can even measure it with popular online builds, because it's measuring for a lack of a better word the noobs.
Not the ones who know what they're doing.

Um. You have been playing with these "noobs", you even recognize their optimization level is not your own. You don't need to be much more observant than that to begin the process of aiming at their power level. Gather more data each attempt and refine your estimation.


They have access to 3rd party books.
But no homebrew.

It could be possible for them to make up a feat and have it DM approved.
I've done it a few times in past campaigns to patch things I felt were lacking (ex: a one handed duelist style).
So for the sake of this, yes. But it needs to be used sparingly.
I did mean in house homebrew and it would be important for them to be the ones with the idea rather than a patch idea from you. You would be using your optimization knowledge to balance (with the DM) the idea they come up with.
Why would user generated content need to be used sparingly?

[Gwazi Magnum]

Um. You have been playing with these "noobs", you even recognize their optimization level is not your own. You don't need to be much more observant than that to begin the process of aiming at their power level. Gather more data each attempt and refine your estimation.

Yes, but this is also being asked on two assumptions.

1. Character needs to be fully made at the start of the campaign. Constantly going off mid-campaign and rebuilding wouldn't be allowed.
2. This is acting as a more generalized thread for anyone in this situation, not me specifically. When I answer questions from others for more specifics I might be drawing 'some' inspiritation off of my group, but I'm mainly making efforts to simulate an average D&D group in general.


Why would user generated content need to be used sparingly?

DM's are just generally more accepting of something that's been approved/put in a book than a player made homebrew.
At least in my experience with groups who although open to more sources are also not super knowledgeable about the game.

[Necroticplague]

Play a support roll. Low-power players tend to not realize how much work a mere support is doing. So you could probably go rainbow beguilersnake and still seem at their level because it seems all you do is just stand back and occasionally fling a spell. Nevermind that each spell makes the encounter significantly easier, because you have the versatility to pick the exact BFC you need.

[Karl Aegis]

You can make a decent psychic warrior with only the Expanded Psionics Handbook. Just pick up Psionic Body, Psionic Talent ten times and pick some long duration powers to go with your cool powers. Cool powers include but are not limited to: Strength of my Enemy, Expansion, Hustle, Psionic Lion's Charge and (with Expanded Knowledge at level 17 or 18) Metamorphosis. Long duration powers last at least 10 minutes per manifester level and include Expansion(augmented), and Personal Mind Blank. Use dorjes for stuff you don't want to use a power known on like Chameleon and Synthesete. You can pick up powers that can target something other than AC like Breath of the Black Dragon later in your career.

[Felyndiira]

My experiences are that groups with less rules mastery tends to balk at high numbers - things like high damage, high hit, high AC, and such. As such, a batman wizard is actually perfect for those groups, since you can contribute in ways that do not involve huge numbers, and thus your group won't (hopefully) roll their eyes at your character.

This also solves the issue of a group being too concerned with "what a melee can do in real life", because magic. (EDIT: or psionics)

[Spore]

Just a random tidbit I wanted to get out there. Optimize for defense. I don't mean AC while hitting like a wet noodle. I mean defense: I've created a nice Paladin using Bastion of Good (basically the defensive version of Smite Evil), some Shield feats (that intercept attacks) and the commonly referred to Oradin to siphon the remaining damage.

[atemu1234]

Honestly, regular Wizard works fairly well.

People seem to think they did all the work in an encounter when the wizard buffed them all into engines of mass destruction while also splitting the fight into three mini-encounters with control spells. Low-OP folks are, in my experience, the least likely to notice this, especially if you don't contribute actual damage. I've honestly heard people say that wizards who weren't casting fireballs were useless.

As treantmonk wisely said, let the mortals have their victory.

Now I want to see a human wizard who dips into rogue. And betrays the party at the end.

[Killer Angel]

I usually go one of three-ish routes:

1) Support. Boni, healing, forming the battlefield, summoning (in moderation).

2) Optimizing the poorest class I can find. Monk, Cavalier, etc.

2.5) One-trick-pony with several useful but not defining powers. (Like a mounted paladin doing insane damage with some face potential and some support powers).

That's exactly how i do it.
The downiside or route 2-2.5, is that some people will still complain about your raw damage (because non-optimizers, reason in terms of "a wizard with fireball")

[johnbragg]

This also solves the issue of a group being too concerned with "what a melee can do in real life", because magic.

Tell them that it isn't "real life", it's a magical universe with different physics.
Rule 1 is magic--bending reality to your will.
High-level casters do it through spells.
High-level mundanes do it Chuck Norris-style.

So most 15th level fighters-type CAN divide by zero during combat. (Their attack bonus is good enough to hit Zero's maxxed AC, and their damage is good enough to overcome its DR, and since Zero has 0 hp to start, it gets to -10 very quickly.)

[Felyndiira]

Tell them that it isn't "real life", it's a magical universe with different physics.
Rule 1 is magic--bending reality to your will.
High-level casters do it through spells.
High-level mundanes do it Chuck Norris-style.

So most 15th level fighters-type CAN divide by zero during combat. (Their attack bonus is good enough to hit Zero's maxxed AC, and their damage is good enough to overcome its DR, and since Zero has 0 hp to start, it gets to -10 very quickly.)

I wish it was that easy to change people's opinions, to be honest :smalltongue:.

[Sian]

run some kind of meatshield.

Its tricky, as only Crusader and Knight really have obvious tools to go at it, but its very much possible, even without going at those. Constant Guardian/Dutiful Guardian Feats from Drow of the Underdark is a good starting point, and focusing at debuffing your opponents is a good alternative way to make others feel more useful

[Flickerdart]

Most likely, I'd pick a cool flavorful prestige class that interests me--maybe a Demonbinder, or a Stormsinger, or an Ordained Champion--and use the obvious expected entry with thematically appropriate spells and feats.
Eh, I'd watch out for this. Players who are bad at optimization usually don't know the game very well, and are likely to have unreasonable reactions ("he can smite any creature how many times a day?" or "he can turn into freakin' demons?") to content that is actually unoffensive. Consider the monk or mystic theurge, which seem ridiculously broken unless you actually understand the game.

I would play off these assumptions - pick a class that is traditionally considered to be okay (wizard is an excellent choice, as is cleric - so long as you heal the party sometimes!), avoid PrCs, and aim for solid but consistent output rather than effective spike abilities, since those are the ones that are memorable.

If you feel like you're getting too strong, start putting resources in your defenses. Nobody will notice, since damage is a lot flashier than armor - especially if you're not a front-liner and rarely get attacked.

[johnbragg]

Play a Core-only martial, doing something besides Two-Handed Power Attack. GO!

First 3X character I designed (besides "we could really use a healing cleric"--> roll up Durkon) was a fighter built around the ZOMG d8/d8 Orc Double Axe. EWP-Orc Double Axe, TWF, Weapon Focus (yes I know). Added Power Attack later (also a level of Wizard because Shield, plus cantrip shenanigans and I think I figured out "Holy scrolls are 25 gp, Batman!"), Two-Weapon Defense (I know, I know). (My DM houseruled that I got the Strength bonus on both attacks with the double weapon--I had planned to take Ambidexterity, but 3.5 dropped that feat.)

See what you could do with a quarterstaff instead? Go Barbarian and get Rage, or just go Ranger.

Ask the DM about a Warrior//Expert gestalt, SRD only?

[Sam K]

Play a Core-only martial, doing something besides Two-Handed Power Attack. GO!

First 3X character I designed (besides "we could really use a healing cleric"--> roll up Durkon) was a fighter built around the ZOMG d8/d8 Orc Double Axe. EWP-Orc Double Axe, TWF, Weapon Focus (yes I know). Added Power Attack later (also a level of Wizard because Shield, plus cantrip shenanigans and I think I figured out "Holy scrolls are 25 gp, Batman!"), Two-Weapon Defense (I know, I know). (My DM houseruled that I got the Strength bonus on both attacks with the double weapon--I had planned to take Ambidexterity, but 3.5 dropped that feat.)

See what you could do with a quarterstaff instead? Go Barbarian and get Rage, or just go Ranger.

Ask the DM about a Warrior//Expert gestalt, SRD only?

This is madness! Two-weapon fighting is a favorite of low-op players! Again, it's big numbers: "You have HOW many attacks??? That's so unfair!"

[jaydubs]

I like the post as a whole, but this part specifically I'm curious about.
How would you enable your allies to re-roll?

If your DM is allowing homebrew, ask if he'd allow PF material. My personal experience was from playing a dual-cursed oracle, and using the misfortune revelation (immediate action reroll a d20 if within 30 feet, once per creature per day, no save) to keep my allies from crit failing, and to force enemies to re-roll their critical threats. But there's also the alter fortune spell from 3.5 (though it costs xp to cast, so I'd rarely use it). And as Firest Kathon mentioned, PF Witches can do it as well.

[Flickerdart]

This is madness! Two-weapon fighting is a favorite of low-op players! Again, it's big numbers: "You have HOW many attacks??? That's so unfair!"
Yeah, pretty much. Frankly, a group of beginners might balk at a fighter getting more than one attack at all (vs a wizard only being able to cast one spell per round).

Druid would actually be a good option, I think. While it's hard to screw up a druid accidentally, it's very easy to play it weak on purpose - don't take a combat companion, don't adopt combat forms, don't wear wild armor. Keep all of that stuff in reserve and stick to a mixture of healing and blasting, with the occasional summon to subtly even the odds.

[Magesmiley]

I'd suggest that the optimizer set a challenge for him/herself and play something that is out of the area he/she usually plays and/or is hard to optimize well.

Sounds like a good time to try playing a truenamer. :smalleek:

[Flickerdart]

Sounds like a good time to try playing a truenamer. :smalleek:
A class that can use magic, but without limited spells per day? Sounds like a cheating optimizer to me.

[Elder_Basilisk]

A lot will depend upon how your group approaches the game. A group that takes a team approach where the party shares the same goal will have one approach and a group that does a lot of group solitaire subplots or active backstabbing will require another.

I enjoy playing the game primarily from the first approach and will approach the question from that angle.

1. Forget everything you think you know about class "tiers." The class tiers analyze how characters are able to handle situations in the game using only their own resources, not how well they fill a role in a party of adventurers. Therefore, analyzing this kind of situation with class tiers is actively misleading. The wizard is tier 1 because, given proper warning and proper preparation, he can equip himself to deal with any situation. A warmage is not tier 1 because their limited spell selection only allows them to do certain things. However, in the context of an adventuring party, an optimized warmage is more likely to spoil the fun for other players than an optimized batman wizard. (In pathfinder, an appropriate contrast would be a blockbuster blaster wizard rather than a warmage). Why? The warmage is optimized to kill everything before anyone else has a chance to go or do anything meaningful. The batman wizard, on the other hand has a spell to counter any opponents' strategy and to enable his companions to defeat any situation, but the contribution of his companions is still an essential part of the encounter.

This is true at the lower end of the tier spectrum too. An optimized archery focused fighter can do a ton of damage very reliably every round. That is all that they can do (which is why they are generally considered to be a "bad tier" character), but they are actually more likely to make other characters' contributions meaningless than an optimized support cleric or bard.

"Going down a tier" or "playing an optimized martial (because everyone knows they suck)" could actually make the situation worse, not better.

2. Pick a role that won't step on other peoples' toes. If there is an archer fighter, don't make a better archer. Play a melee character if you want to play a martial. If there is a cleric and you want to play a cleric, see if he's going to be a buff and bash cleric, a support cleric, or focused on offensive spellcasting. If he wants to go buff and bash, he'll probably be happy to have an optimized support cleric picking up the healing duties and letting him get into the fray earlier by casting buffs on him.

3. Focus on support, preparation, and the number of situations that you are prepared for rather than doing one thing really well. Going back to the previous example, an optimized archer fighter is going to cause more problems than an optimized switch-hitting ranger and an optimized one-spell ends the encounter warmage/blockbuster wizard will cause more problems than a batman wizard or a support cleric/bard.

4. Give yourself a deliberate challenge.
A.Try a generic, low-optimization build such as "what would I get if I just played a fighter and picked all the obvious choices and tried to do it well."
B. Pick a disadvantageous race/class/build choice. "I'm going to make a strength-based halfling martial who does damage without sneak attack."
C. Pick a feat, prestige class, or build that you think is really flavorful but underpowered and try to make it work.
D. Take an arbitrary restriction like "no prestige classes" and run with it.
E. Try to construct your character "in the moment" without planning more than a few levels in advance and choosing your feats/abilities/items in order to counter the problems you see right now and see how you can make it work. For example, construct a fighter at level 1. At level 3, you're starting to see ogres and you are taking AoOs crossing their reach so you either switch to a reach weapon and take combat reflexes or take mobility. At level 6 you've been taking damage from fireballs and spending a lot of time in the wilderness so you take a level of Ranger (wilderness skills and +2 Reflex) and Lightning Reflexes. Obviously, if you do this too much, you could easily end up no-op, but you could restrict your options to ones that make sense in that context and see how much optimization you can squeeze in.

[Felyndiira]

A class that can use magic, but without limited spells per day? Sounds like a cheating optimizer to me.

This is where you give that cheating, Universal Aptitude-using truenamer a +5 typeless bonus to Orcus.

[sideswipe]

truenamer, be as optimised as you want (but not cheesy).

healer is good for low op.

play a ninja, and cry because you could have been a swordsage.

play a tripper but with no damage and only manipulation. let the others steal the kill.

[Troacctid]

Eh, I'd watch out for this. Players who are bad at optimization usually don't know the game very well, and are likely to have unreasonable reactions ("he can smite any creature how many times a day?" or "he can turn into freakin' demons?") to content that is actually unoffensive. Consider the monk or mystic theurge, which seem ridiculously broken unless you actually understand the game.

What's important is that they have fun, not that they have a good understanding of the relative power level in the abstract. Tell them to give it a chance, have a little faith in the game designers, and see how it is in actual play before crying "Overpowered."

[Flickerdart]

What's important is that they have fun, not that they have a good understanding of the relative power level in the abstract. Tell them to give it a chance, have a little faith in the game designers, and see how it is in actual play before crying "Overpowered."
That's likely to have extremely little traction with most people, for obvious reasons. Humans are not rational actors.

[johnbragg]

"Going down a tier" or "playing an E. Try to construct your character "in the moment" without planning more than a few levels in advance and choosing your feats/abilities/items in order to counter the problems you see right now and see how you can make it work. For example, construct a fighter at level 1. At level 3, you're starting to see ogres and you are taking AoOs crossing their reach so you either switch to a reach weapon and take combat reflexes or take mobility. At level 6 you've been taking damage from fireballs and spending a lot of time in the wilderness so you take a level of Ranger (wilderness skills and +2 Reflex) and Lightning Reflexes. Obviously, if you do this too much, you could easily end up no-op, but you could restrict your options to ones that make sense in that context and see how much optimization you can squeeze in.

"What skills, feats, abilities is my guy working on?" is a very good way to approach it.

[Troacctid]

That's likely to have extremely little traction with most people, for obvious reasons. Humans are not rational actors.

Have you tried it in an actual game? It might not be as underpowered as it looks. :smalltongue:

Seriously though, it's worked well for me in the past. You're just "The Wizard" or "The Cleric" to them, and those are standard roles that they intuitively understand and accept. I played an Incarnate once at a table where nobody knew the first thing about incarnum--I was like, he's an Incarnate, and they were like, the heck is an Incarnate, and I was like, he's a melee tank with some extra utility magic, and they were like, cool, we need a tank. And for the rest of the campaign, they just called him "The Tank". He stayed in the front lines, had high AC and HP, and occasionally flew or walked on water, and it was all good.

[Kesnit]

Eh, I'd watch out for this. Players who are bad at optimization usually don't know the game very well, and are likely to have unreasonable reactions ("he can smite any creature how many times a day?" or "he can turn into freakin' demons?") to content that is actually unoffensive. Consider the monk or mystic theurge, which seem ridiculously broken unless you actually understand the game.

This is very true. I recently switched to a Barbarian (Spirit Lion Totem/Wolf Totem) 2/Totemist X in a game where the other players are low-OP. When I shaped Blink Shirt and used it to continually escape from a grappling monster, another player asked how many times a day I could use dim door. He was incredulous when I told him I could use it at-will.

[Flickerdart]

Have you tried it in an actual game? It might not be as underpowered as it looks. :smalltongue:

Seriously though, it's worked well for me in the past. You're just "The Wizard" or "The Cleric" to them, and those are standard roles that they intuitively understand and accept. I played an Incarnate once at a table where nobody knew the first thing about incarnum--I was like, he's an Incarnate, and they were like, the heck is an Incarnate, and I was like, he's a melee tank with some extra utility magic, and they were like, cool, we need a tank. And for the rest of the campaign, they just called him "The Tank". He stayed in the front lines, had high AC and HP, and occasionally flew or walked on water, and it was all good.
Now compare that to the post I quoted, where you have "the cleric" usurping the paladin's schtick, but better.

[Troacctid]

Now compare that to the post I quoted, where you have "the cleric" usurping the paladin's schtick, but better.

Don't be an Ordained Champion if there's a Paladin in the party. That should go without saying. Team-building 101, right? Avoid redundancy? *shrug*

I'd introduce the Ordained Champion as a Cleric specialized in front line melee fighting. And I'd make sure to prepare healing spells in order to match their expectations for Clerics (and because Close Wounds is a legitimately good spell anyway). I think it would go over fine. If the party had enough melee fighters already, I'd pick something else instead.


This is very true. I recently switched to a Barbarian (Spirit Lion Totem/Wolf Totem) 2/Totemist X in a game where the other players are low-OP. When I shaped Blink Shirt and used it to continually escape from a grappling monster, another player asked how many times a day I could use dim door. He was incredulous when I told him I could use it at-will.

In fairness, teleportation is a pretty overpowered ability. :smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

Don't be an Ordained Champion if there's a Paladin in the party. That should go without saying. Team-building 101, right? Avoid redundancy?
It has nothing to do with a paladin in the party, and everything with the paladin role. This is a big part of why Mystic Theurge seems overpowered - a character that's a wizard and a cleric at the same time is grabbing two roles, even if he's the only party caster.

[Spore]

Don't be an Ordained Champion if there's a Paladin in the party. That should go without saying. Team-building 101, right? Avoid redundancy? *shrug*

Uhm, I feel a Holy Gun (PF) Paladin/Mysterious Stranger works perfectly fine with a Sacred Shield (PF) Paladin/Oracle of Life (PF). One is entirely defensive, the other needs the protection and both are GREAT against evil creatures.

[Hellborn_Blight]

I'm totally of the school that thinks if you have to optimize, then pick something that is only playable if you optimize. Not casting spells is usually a good place to start. That way you don't feel like you have to hold back, and everyone else doesn't have to feel like they are just bonus HP for you.

I also like the idea of being the buffer as some have mentioned. Being the absolute best at making everyone else their absolute best is just gonna earn you high-fives, or at worst, indifference.

I also find that rarely does anyone begrudge the skill optimizer. Knowledge devotion and epic uses aside, party's love having an ultra skilled character around.

Picking a theme that is generally considered weak compared to alternative is another way. Sword and board is hated (I think unreasonably) in optimization circles. Be that Captain America inspired Superior Unarmed Strike/Shield Sling guy.

Oh and another good idea. Optimize a build to be as representative of a specific character as possible. Make that medieval Han Solo, or Hawkeye, or Deathstroke as close to the original as you can.

[Troacctid]

It has nothing to do with a paladin in the party, and everything with the paladin role. This is a big part of why Mystic Theurge seems overpowered - a character that's a wizard and a cleric at the same time is grabbing two roles, even if he's the only party caster.

Well... I've never had that discussion with anyone at an actual table, but if it came up, I'd talk about it, get a sense of why they feel that way, and either argue the point or come up with a compromise, or both.

I did have a player in the first campaign I ever ran who thought Blood Magus was an overpowered class (on his Warmage chassis) because the caster level boost added an extra 4d6 damage to his Scorching Ray. I pointed out that in only one more level, he would have gotten that extra damage anyway, and considering that he had to waste two feat slots to get the benefit, it was a pretty reasonable trade compared to what he could have done normally. He was like, well, okay, yeah, that's true.

The same player later switched to a Changeling Wizard, and on his first stealth mission, he complained that he was useless because the Dragonfire Adept could use Invisibility indefinitely while he could only do it for a minute or two. I was like, well, Dragonfire Adepts are awesome, but they're not very versatile; you'll be needed for other things soon enough. And sure enough, later that session, he Knocked open the door to the enemy stronghold, used Invisibility Sphere to help the whole party sneak in, dispelled a key ward, and polymorphed into a dragon and kicked the boss's ass. So it turned out okay in the end, I think.

[GilesTheCleric]

I concur with the sentiment of aiming at less-flashy optimization: skillmonkeying, BFC, buffing, tanking, healing.

My favourite approach is a "drunken master" method. In this, my character ends up coincidentally helping out the party without realizing it. If I'm playing a cleric, then I can slowly walk up to the meanest foe, plant myself directly in front of it, then roll 1d2 for choosing to either smack it with my mace for 1d8-4 damage (avg of .5), or casting a low-level debuff or blasting spell (eg alicorn lance [with fell drain], doom [with flash frost and fell drain]). Once the party is up to higher levels (7+), I do the same, but I spend the first few rounds doing nothing but casting dimensional anchor, vulnerability, and random low-level BFCs (ice slick, obscuring mist), then move in to hit the big bad with my mace for 1d8-2 (yay, two more damage! Because clerics aren't fighters, duh).

If the party is in trouble, then I can easily cast shield other, grant rerolls, remove debuffs, redirect or counterspell foes' spells, or the like. My favourite trick is to use Knight's Move on the party fighter (he doesn't need to know the chicanery to cast personal-range on him, and it's a non-core spell so he won't bother to look it up) to put them behind the big bad I've been swinging my mace at for a few rounds. Did I forget to mention my mace has been doing con damage and negative levels every hit, and even if I don't do any damage, I never miss an iterative? Eh, doesn't matter because the fighter gets to PA for the kill shot against a creature with 20 less con than it had at the beginning of the fight.

For times when it's necessary to actually do something, then have the GM do the rolling behind the screen. It could be a hold person, stay the hand, sound burst, anything. Those are spells that the party has seen all game, but might not realize shouldn't ordinarily still have DCs that ECL-appropriate encounters can't beat. In-character, 40 wis looks the same as 18 wis.

Likewise, if the party needs something dead right now and I'm casting a spell with a CL of party level+15, they don't need to know that; only the GM does. They also don't need to know the damage is twinned, repeated, maximized, energy admixtured and empowered for free, or that I'm casting a spell with no damage cap (SoDs are too overpowered in low-op groups, and they'll recognize what's happening if I use slay living or something. If I use a blasting spell, then clearly the creature had just already taken enough damage that my *cough* 4d6 *cough* damage was enough to kill it).

However, that approach relies on the GM keeping your secret, and does mean that they have some extra work to do. If that's not an option, then doing nothing but casting assay resistance, vulnerability, dimensional anchor, delay death, revivify, close wounds, and revenance means no extra work on the GM's part, but that battles will take longer. This doesn't even require optimizing CL or DCs, so you can instead focus on defenses like other posters have mentioned.

[ComaVision]

1d8-4 damage (avg of .5)

Average of 1.75 damage. You can't deal less than 1.

OT: That can backfire really easily if the rest of the group catches on. I don't think it's a very good approach. It kind of breaches the trust between the DM and players, in my opinion.

[GilesTheCleric]

Average of 1.75 damage. You can't deal less than 1.

You're technically correct (the best kind!); my point was that it's likely to only deal 1 damage.