PDA

View Full Version : Optimisation VS Survivability



Saph
2007-04-20, 10:04 AM
Something I’ve been thinking about for a while is the relationship between character optimisation (how powerful your character is) and character survivability (how long your character lasts in the campaign before dying, and how much he accomplishes first).

Now it’s common knowledge that under-optimised characters, along with all characters that are much too weak compared to the party’s power level, tend not to last very long. The reasons are easy enough to guess:

Accidental death. Sooner or later, every character gets attacked. If you aren’t strong enough to survive for a round or two against most monsters, you’re likely to die before the rest of the party can pull you out of trouble.
Party irritation. No-one likes having a useless teammate, particularly when they have to give them a share of the XP and treasure even when they don’t pull their weight. Unless you’re new or the party have some other reason to protect you, they aren’t going to be all that motivated to keep you safe.
GM wipeout. After a while, every GM gets tired of having to soft-pedal encounters. Eventually they’re going to say ‘screw it’ and chuck something powerful at you just so that they don’t have to design adventures around your weaknesses anymore.

In general, I’ve found that underpowered characters only survive when made by new players. If you’re new to the game and the rules, the rest of the group will cut you some slack - for a while.

But now we get to the interesting bit. When I look back and track the number of PC deaths I’ve seen, a lot of them are underpowered characters. But just as many of the deaths were overpowered characters. In fact, the hardcore powergamers had a much shorter life expectancy than the newbies!

My current group matches this pattern. Nearly all the character deaths have been racked up by two players. One is a carefree type who knows nothing about optimisation and couldn’t min-max if his life depended on it. The other is the group’s resident munchkin who reads all the character optimisation boards and is constantly working on new and more powerful builds. He’s always producing characters which are stronger than anyone else in the party, and they always die.

I’ve come to think that this isn’t a coincidence, and that over-optimised characters are as likely or more likely to die than under-optimised ones. The reasons:

GM overcompensation. If you create a character that can only be challenged by overpowered enemies, then overpowered enemies are exactly what you’ll get. Often the GM will overcompensate, and guess who’s going to be the number one target when he does?
Overconfidence. Overpowered characters tend to jump into battle first and ask questions later - it’s the weaker characters who stop and think. Usually they get away with it, but sooner or later you’re going to run up against something tougher than you are.
Lack of interest. If your character is designed as an optimisation build, then it’s unlikely you’re going to develop any deep feelings for him (or her). You can just make another one, right?
GM dislike. GMs have a universal hatred for munchkins, and a near-universal hatred for characters that are too powerful. Few GMs will actively go out of their way to kill an overpowered character, but they will often tilt the scales against you. (By the same token, GMs will often bend over backwards to keep interesting characters, or characters that they like, alive.)
PC dislike. A character is respected for his strengths, but liked for his weaknesses. This is why Mary Sue characters are loathed so much. A character with no weaknesses is impossible to relate to, and so, impossible to like. In addition, a character who’s obviously way more powerful than the rest of the party is likely to be attract resentment, since no-one likes to feel redundant.

So where’s the sweet spot? If character optimisation can be measured on a scale, where 0% is Gimpy the Paraplegic Commoner and 100% is Pun-Pun the Omnipotently Invincible, what level should you aim for if you want your character to last?

My estimation, based on the games I’ve seen, is that it’s around the 60%-80% mark. This means that your character is pretty well designed, about as strong or a bit stronger than the monsters in the Monster Manual of equal challenge rating, but nowhere near what you’d get from a build off the WotC Character Optimisation boards. You’ll have most of the optimal choices for a character of your class and level, but a few sub-optimal ones and a few more that are mostly flavour (but not useless). You might have a prestige class, but it won’t be one of the uber-cheese ones like Planar Shepherd.

If your optimisation level drops below this, to around 40%-50%, then you’ll still be able to contribute, but the party are going to have to stop depending on you. You won’t be seen as a drag, but there’s an increasing risk that you’ll be accidentally killed by something that was a tough-but-beatable challenge for the others. If your optimisation level’s around 0%-30%, then you’re (mostly) walking deadweight. You may be able to help the party in other ways, but chances are that you’re going to get swatted the first time you get caught by something. If your optimisation level goes up to the other extreme, 90%-100%, then you’ll have a different set of problems. It’s unlikely that anyone, even you, is going to be all that attached to your character due to how out of place he is and how much trouble he causes for the GM and the campaign in general, and so no-one will miss him much when he gets blown away.

All of the above assumes an average D&D campaign setting. Obviously it doesn’t apply to extreme cases - if you’re playing something like Tomb of Horrors that's designed to kill PCs then uber-optimisation is the way to go, and if you’re doing a RP-heavy campaign with no combat then trying to put a value on how ‘optimised’ your character is becomes pretty near meaningless. But for most D&D campaigns, if you want your character to survive as long as possible, a character that’s 60%-80% optimised is the way to go.

Thoughts?

- Saph

Sahegian
2007-04-20, 10:22 AM
It really only matters in the context of the rest of your group. If you've got 5 people and only one of them is really powerful it brings the fun down for everyone else. If you're the only one that isn't powerful in the same group it probably isn't any fun for you.

In my experience I've seen a lot more sub-optimal characters die than heavily optimized. I suppose it depends on GM style though. If the only person getting attacked is optimized he/she will eventually die. If the attacks are spread out a bit more the optimized character seems more likely to live through it.

Leush
2007-04-20, 10:40 AM
Sahegian: I think you're dead on on focused attacks- and stemming from this, sub-optimal (health-wise) characters start to die once the party comes up against fireball wielding sorcerers, but before that, the optimised ones die, so builds that are crap from levels 1-4 and then get good (but not dm wrath good) should do best.

Saph: Mostly correct. Although I have a couple of things to add:

Characters which are focused on, but not completely optimised for defense, will survive very well, because since they are not optimised too much, the dm doesn't try to kill them. Because they are focused on defense, sudden attempts to kill them usually fail. Therefore they survive. Doubly so if they do something useful for the party.

Sub-optimal characters have a long lifespan if they keep out of the thick of battle and are useful to the party and let the grown ups do the works. Works extra well if they buff and heal the grownups too. Bards are good for this. That is why I like bards.

Indon
2007-04-20, 10:48 AM
Well, considering that the D&D dynamic works best in a group where characters are all about even in their levels of power/optimization, it seems to me that it's good to have a game which culls both extremes, thus helping to regulate the party.

Piedmon_Sama
2007-04-20, 10:53 AM
I've been pretty fortunate as a DM in that none of my players are really munchkins or powergamers. We had one lady who was always looking for an edge before she left the group, but she wasn't very good at it.... the closest thing I have to deal with is one guy (who's not in my current campaign) who always wants to play a monstrous character. He doesn't do it for power, he just likes playing anything weird/bizarre.

I understand, intellectually, that some people play D&D because trying to make the most optimised build possible is the fun for them. But really, prosaically, I just don't get it. That seems like math, not fun. I'm sure that if I had a real hardcore optimizer in the party, he'd immediately dwarf all the other players, and I'd either have to ask him to change his style, or go to the trouble of helping everyone else (including me) with their builds. Barring both, he'd just have to leave. My group's style isn't really set up for optimization, and no one at my table is so familiar with the rules that anyone would ever accuse us of being "rules lawyers."

I myself play D&D for the opportunity to spin a story. And like you said, a protagonist without flaws is a poor one indeed. I encourage my PCs to accept imperfect characters who are more interesting than hulked-out combat Gods. In fact, I enforce it by always using 25-point buy, which forces players to neglect some stats if they want to have a few really good ones. It forces my players to make hard choices during character generation--is 20 str worth dropping my cha to 6, etc.--which I like. I've played a few games with point buy as high as 36, but I'm just never comfortable in that kind of game; it pretty much forces you to play a guy who's lowest stat is 12, and as a roleplayer I can only see a few personality types emerging from such an Übermensche. I like superheroes, but to me the best D&D story is the one about ordinary people thrown into extraordinary circumstances, forced to rely on their wits and teamwork to survive.

Before someone tries to throw the Stormwind Fallacy at me, I'd point out that high stats and high point buys elliminate a lot of rich possibilities. People with low Int, people with low Cha, and particularly people with low Wis can be fun to roleplay. A barbarian who's worst stats are 12 Int & Cha just strikes me as boring.

Counterspin
2007-04-20, 11:25 AM
I personally find low point buys annoying because they restrict my useful tactical options and make it harder to play the MAD classes. But of course, different strokes, no harm, no foul. :)

Low point buys restrict character concepts. If your barbarian build has enough room for a Cha of 12, you can still play him as blunt and barbaric, but you can make up for it in other ways, such as leadership, or just stick to intimidation if you like. You can also play him a little like Gibson in Braveheart, witty, charming, all that good stuff. You have an option.

A barbarian in a low point buy inevitably has a low Cha and Int because they have to suffer, there just aren't enough points to go around. He has much fewer choices because he's restricted by his stats. He can't play Gibson, because he's not smart enough, and not charming enough.

People with low stats aren't any more fun or better to roleplay, your choices are just more restricted by your numbers.

storybookknight
2007-04-20, 11:27 AM
I do something similar, except I use an array that, while it's better than the "elite array", nonetheless has a non-negotiable 8. You could get rid of it racially, true, but that still makes you a clumsy elf.

I haven't really seen the 'overpowered' people die excessively - then again, few enough people in my group bother to play them. The only time I've seen any instance of an overpowered person being targeted to death was when someone played a spiked-chain cheeseball and the players killed him.

What's funny is that my games have a lot of roleplay, but they have a lot of roleplay that's centered around the consequences of extreme violence. It's not one of those games that takes you half a year to hit second level.

As to underpowered characters, well - it's mainly a question of how intelligent the player is, whether they put themselves in a position to die. Someone sitting in the back row doing minor healing and buffing might be targeted with a suggestion or something like that, but rarely would a full attack or a death effect be wasted.

Roethke
2007-04-20, 11:57 AM
I personally find low point buys annoying because they restrict my useful tactical options and make it harder to play the MAD classes. But of course, different strokes, no harm, no foul. :)

Low point buys restrict character concepts. If your barbarian build has enough room for a Cha of 12, you can still play him as blunt and barbaric, but you can make up for it in other ways, such as leadership, or just stick to intimidation if you like. You can also play him a little like Gibson in Braveheart, witty, charming, all that good stuff. You have an option.

A barbarian in a low point buy inevitably has a low Cha and Int because they have to suffer, there just aren't enough points to go around. He has much fewer choices because he's restricted by his stats. He can't play Gibson, because he's not smart enough, and not charming enough.

People with low stats aren't any more fun or better to roleplay, your choices are just more restricted by your numbers.

Well, as you say different strokes, but
14 STR
14 DEX
12 CON
13 INT
8 WIS
12 CHA

is a just dandy, smarter-than-your average bear, 25-point Barbarian. What the lower point-buy options will keep you from, is having exceptional stats at lower levels, that is, there will be a preponderance of 14's and 12's.

clericwithnogod
2007-04-20, 12:40 PM
Having multiple Prestige Classes and Classes isn't indicative of your level of power. You can take 6 different things over 13 levels and be even with or below the level of power you would have if you had run straight through for one or two classes. But, you might have some nifty tricks out of it that make the game more fun to play for you.

Optimizing your character properly in no way limits your survival. You can optimize your character to be well rounded and fit your character concept as opposed to just trying to get the highest numerical score. If your character is fearless, you have limited ways to create that effect in game. Knowing those ways and finding the one that best fits your character concept is optimizing.

If your DM is arbitrarily killing you off because he doesn't like your character or the other players are hanging you out to dry, that's a problem with the group you're in, not how optimized you are.

Trying and failing to optimize your character properly (most often through over-specialization) will get you killed quickly. Even if challenges aren't pumped up to meet your level of specialization in one area, standard encounters of your level can be deadly if you dumped your defenses to pump your attack. If you received a higher point buy, then most likely so did significant NPC opposition. In cases where their best stat goes against your worst, the margin will be even wider.

For point buy, average stats in a high level of competition is a disadvantage. Think of kickers, punters and quarterbacks, many of whom are easily in the top 1% of physical ability among the entire population trying to make tackles in the NFL or a president with average or slightly above average intelligence/wisdom. If the characters are heroes competing at the highest level, their average and slightly above average attributes are a hindrance. A 10 or 12 INT with the fighters limited skill points makes you an idiot compared to the 14-16 INT rogue and the 18-22+ INT wizard. Average = Inferior.

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin

Counterspin
2007-04-20, 12:59 PM
Roethke- My point is that with a low point buy there are only so many points to go around. You shouldn't have to bleed to create weird character concepts.

Your example is of course entirely correct, you can shift the points around, but you've traded things that are vital for your character's survival for what amounts to fluff. This barbarian has fewer hitpoints, or does less damage, or has a lower AC, or has a worse will save than the unfortunate cookie cutter barbarian that you're likely to get in a low point buy game.

Point buy is a restriction. Because of the way the system is designed, they are a restriction on what kind of character you can make. I find this unfortunate and compensate with a very strong stat array, which could just as easily be a high point-buy.

Rebonack
2007-04-20, 01:29 PM
Before someone tries to throw the Stormwind Fallacy at me, I'd point out that high stats and high point buys elliminate a lot of rich possibilities. People with low Int, people with low Cha, and particularly people with low Wis can be fun to roleplay. A barbarian who's worst stats are 12 Int & Cha just strikes me as boring.

I disagree. To see why I point you to the archetype barbarian, Conan.

He lead armies and ruled a kingdom, implying above average charisma.

He was a master strategist in combat, implying above average intelligence.

He had an indomitable will and sharp senses, implying above average wisdom.

He was able to survive hideous amounts of damage and could drink like a fish, implying above average constitution.

He had the reflexes and agility of a tiger, implying above average dexterity.

He had raw physical prowess that no other mortal was able to match, implying very above average strength.

So there you go, a barbarian with very good all around stats. I would hardly call the original protagonist of the sword and sorcery genre upon which DnD is pretty much based a boring character.

Roethke
2007-04-20, 01:50 PM
Roethke- My point is that with a low point buy there are only so many points to go around. You shouldn't have to bleed to create weird character concepts.

Your example is of course entirely correct, you can shift the points around, but you've traded things that are vital for your character's survival for what amounts to fluff. This barbarian has fewer hitpoints, or does less damage, or has a lower AC, or has a worse will save than the unfortunate cookie cutter barbarian that you're likely to get in a low point buy game.

Point buy is a restriction. Because of the way the system is designed, they are a restriction on what kind of character you can make. I find this unfortunate and compensate with a very strong stat array, which could just as easily be a high point-buy.

Well, the diminishing returns aspect mitigates the 'only so many points to go around' part. To me, at least, it doesn't seem a huge sacrifice. Say you strip away all the points from mental stats, you have 9 left to play with.
you'd end up with two out of three: +1 AC, +1 to hit & damage , +1 hp/level, and you'd be sacrificing skill points, as well as innate bonuses to useful skills like handle animal, diplomacy, bluff, intimidate.

Compare the 16,16,13,8,8,8 Barbarian and the 14,14,12,13,8,3 in combat, and you won't see a huge difference at low levels. And at high levels, it'll be the luck of the equipment draw that makes the final difference.

For myself, that doesn't constitute a "restriction on what kind of character I can make", especially since all the other PCs are making the same choices.

I do agree that stat arrays tend to be an elegant solution, and I'd probably favor them over point buy. You may still have to make hard choices, but like you say, you don't bleed.

Vyker
2007-04-20, 01:57 PM
Saph,

I'd like to paraphrase something from one the of the old WEGSWRPG3rdEd books (and with an acronym like that, you know you can trust it!):

"Creative players can cause more trouble with low-level characters and modest equipment than poor ones with epic-level characters overflowing with gear."

What are your thoughts on that, Saph?

Saph
2007-04-20, 02:02 PM
Saph,

I'd like to paraphrase something from one the of the old WEGSWRPG3rdEd books (and with an acronym like that, you know you can trust it!):

"Creative players can cause more trouble with low-level characters and modest equipment than poor ones with epic-level characters overflowing with gear."

What are your thoughts on that, Saph?

Uh, sounds more or less accurate, I guess. It's because poor players usually have no idea how to use more than 20% of their high-level abilities. Not sure what you're saying, though.

- Saph

asqwasqw
2007-04-20, 02:05 PM
If the DM wants to kill your character, it dies, no matter how optimized. If the rest of the PC's want to kill your character, it dies, normally. Lesson? Don't make anybody hate you. Be useful, but not too optimized. And have some decent flavor, or at least play well with the rest of your group.

Counterspin
2007-04-20, 02:17 PM
Roethke - The most rudimentary balance thing I do in the 24 point buy game I play in is 14,14,14,10,10,10. That's a total of +6 in stat bonuses. So moving one of those from a survival stat to a fluff stat(Which is which is of course dependant on class) is a 6th of your stat resources. Low point buy characters have very little to work with, which makes their individual stat bonuses more valuable.

Roethke
2007-04-20, 02:37 PM
Roethke - The most rudimentary balance thing I do in the 24 point buy game I play in is 14,14,14,10,10,10. That's a total of +6 in stat bonuses. So moving one of those from a survival stat to a fluff stat(Which is which is of course dependant on class) is a 6th of your stat resources. Low point buy characters have very little to work with, which makes their individual stat bonuses more valuable.

Huh. I never thought about it that way. Not sure it makes sense (to me) to do so. I mean, taking +1 away from strength doesn't take away 1/6th of your combat ability. It takes away 1/20th of your to hit, an 1 pt of damage from each hit.

For example, lets say there was a REALLY low point buy, where all your stats started at 10, and you had 2 points to distribute. putting those two into a 'fluff' stat really wouldn't change your character that much, even if it did consume ALL of your stat resources.

But it's a matter of perception and if you're feeling the stat squeeze, you're feeling it.

What I will grant you, though, is limiting are stat-based feat prerequisites. Feats can add a lot of flavor to a character. I'm not sure if I'd do away with them whole cloth, or maybe just cap them at 13, or something. (13 representing at least a little natural aptitude).

Townopolis
2007-04-20, 03:42 PM
The difference between the two styles seems to me to be based on how the stats are abstracted and who the PCs are supposed to be.

I like to run games with low stats, in which the PCs are closer to normal human beings than in games I've been a player in. I also abstract stats a bit differently (again, compared to other games I've played in.)

10=Average, 12=talented, 14=exceptional, 16=mighty/genius, 18=Savant.

similarly, a low score doesn't necessarily indicate a glaring flaw. a barbarian with an Int of 8 would be slow on the uptake and a bit dull (but not the idiot I was told to play my last barbarian as.) low stats only become glaring flaws around 6.

Since I determine 14 to be the highest that is expected of anyone, and 8 to be well within the accepted norm, having a character with a mere 14 in his/her highest stat and an 8 to go with it is expected and the model the campaign is based on.

However, in a campaign where the PCs are the cream of the crop, chosen heroes of the gods, or whatever you want. Or in a campaign where 10 int is a dumb character and someone with 10 dexterity can't do a forward roll, you would definitely want to build a character with 25 or 32 point buy.

NullAshton
2007-04-20, 03:54 PM
The way I keep alive in any campaign is that I make sure I always have weaknesses. It may seem silly, but if you play the right way you can always avoid your weaknesses. For example, a fighter with high damage but low AC could be compensated for by always having a cleric nearby, or spiked chain and hold the line.

Dausuul
2007-04-20, 03:58 PM
Huh. I never thought about it that way. Not sure it makes sense (to me) to do so. I mean, taking +1 away from strength doesn't take away 1/6th of your combat ability. It takes away 1/20th of your to hit, an 1 pt of damage from each hit.

Well, okay, let's say we're looking at a greatsword wielder with Str 14 versus Str 12, level 1.

The Str 14 guy has a +2 attack, 2d6+3 damage.
The Str 12 guy has a +1 attack, 2d6+1 damage.

Now figure the Str 14 guy dumps one point into Power Attack, which puts them on an even footing in terms of attack bonus. Now the Str 14 guy is inflicting 2d6+5 (average 12) per hit, while the Str 12 guy is inflicting 2d6+1 (average 8) per hit. That +1 Strength is resulting in a 50% increase in damage output!

Granted, this is not entirely a fair trial, since Str 14 is an even-numbered bonus and therefore yields an extra +1 damage to a two-handed weapon. But even if we say the Str 12 guy is getting 2d6+1.5, that's still a major increase.

Roethke
2007-04-20, 04:30 PM
Well, okay, let's say we're looking at a greatsword wielder with Str 14 versus Str 12, level 1.

The Str 14 guy has a +2 attack, 2d6+3 damage.
The Str 12 guy has a +1 attack, 2d6+1 damage.

Now figure the Str 14 guy dumps one point into Power Attack, which puts them on an even footing in terms of attack bonus. Now the Str 14 guy is inflicting 2d6+5 (average 12) per hit, while the Str 12 guy is inflicting 2d6+1 (average 8) per hit. That +1 Strength is resulting in a 50% increase in damage output!

Granted, this is not entirely a fair trial, since Str 14 is an even-numbered bonus and therefore yields an extra +1 damage to a two-handed weapon. But even if we say the Str 12 guy is getting 2d6+1.5, that's still a major increase.

You're right, it's a particularly bad scenario. But even then, the above is not really a fair comparison, as you're assuming 14-str guy is using a feat. Maybe, instead of power attack, 12-str guy has weapon specialization-- then you've made back a good chunk of the difference. Or, assuming 12-str guy is allowed have power attack (or becomes str-13 guy), then he can be still at -1 to hit relative to the 14-str guy, but be doing 2d6+3.5, instead of 2d6+5, which is less than a 15% damage advantage. Nothing to sneeze at, but hardly character shattering.

Anyhow, 12 <-->14 STR is a pretty bad breakpoint, but I think that's about as bad as it gets, because of the power-attack multiplier effect. I think you'd agree that the difference is a lot less significant in CON, or even DEX.

And, as I mentioned above, the ability requirements for some feats are fairly arbitrary, IMO. I don't see a great mechanical reason why fighter 12-STR shouldn't be allowed power attack, other than 'It's not RAW'

~R.

Talya
2007-04-20, 06:53 PM
Low point buys actually help balance out a lot of caster/melee things, but they also make character abilities terribly one dimensional, and screw over MAD types even more. Druids are also mostly immune to low point buys. Going 8, 8, 14, 12, 16, 14 is no big deal to them, they'll just wildshape.

Subotei
2007-04-20, 07:15 PM
I just find it odd that people go to the nth degree to optimize characters, when its not like the game is a competition between them and the DM to see who can win. You may be the best ranger6/rogue4/blah blah blah ever constructed, but its the DM who decides whether that Black Dragon you just managed to take down, costing you 3/4s of you hit points, has a mate and two angry young...

At the end of the day, it about having a fun game, where everyone can contribute something to the event.

NullAshton
2007-04-20, 07:23 PM
I just find it odd that people go to the nth degree to optimize characters, when its not like the game is a competition between them and the DM to see who can win. You may be the best ranger6/rogue4/blah blah blah ever constructed, but its the DM who decides whether that Black Dragon you just managed to take down, costing you 3/4s of you hit points, has a mate and two angry young...

At the end of the day, it about having a fun game, where everyone can contribute something to the event.

One of the reasons why I try optimizing my characters is to survive. I don't really care if my character is powerful or not, I just care if it can survive. Thus I'm usually obligated to buy a cloak of resistance for all of my characters.

Indon
2007-04-20, 07:46 PM
My favorite minor magical item is a Ring of Feather Fall. Soooo useful for so little cost.

But really, isn't optimization for survivability just a matter of giving your character a good AC and Con modifier, at least at low levels, and then picking practical magic items at higher levels?

Diggorian
2007-04-20, 07:55 PM
I think the key to survival with sub/uber optimization is the old axium: When in Rome, do as the Romans. I'd further add if you cant do as they do make the Romans like you atleast.

I've played a subpar warlock that was so entertaining with madness the others forgave me for not being a full caster class. He even filled in for an absent rogue by shattering doors to eliminate traps. His highlight was defending the party against a charge of heresy before a Church tribunal. Had the campaign continued he'd have been debuff master with Voracious Dispelling.

I've also played a optimized paladin/cleric 2 hander (charge+power attack + smite + feat of strength + eagle's splendor+ ??? = less evil) with a group that barely knew this was third edition. He was the reasonable upright party leader, like Roy, whom served as straight man for all their silliness. He kicked @$$ and saved his teamamates with the courage and understanding that showed true lawful goodness (with a capital Good).

It's about playing on your weakness and/or strengths to help the game.

Telok
2007-04-20, 09:41 PM
Another set of variables in character survival are the concepts of backstory, cunning, and understanding.

My simple rule of thumb is that characters with backstory get taken prisoner, characters without backstory die. This isn't based on personal preference (although I have used it) but on personal experience. A character with a backstory is a useful tool for the GM to start a plot from or hook into the plot, this creates value in the character for the GM. The really tough fights in most campaigns are plot driven, and plot driven BBEGs can always have a plausable reason to take prisoners. The backstory will also make it more likely that the GM will create encounters around capturing PCs rather than simply splattering them all over the landscape. Characters without backstory are intrinsically more disposable in the eyes of both the player and the GM. It dosen't even have to be alot of backstory, one page with a couple of paragraphs and a simple timeline of the character's life to date will do.

The GM can even help with it, here's an example from a Traveller game I ran once. People picked characters from a premade list (a spread of around 300+ characters) and I put several of these together for people who had never played anything but fantasy or computer games. It's just multiple choice or write in your own bit.

In 3218 _______________________

was born
a) during a civil war on New Africa in Veliaze.
b) to a pair of asteroid miners in the Anayeth system before it became an Imperial colony.
c) on Lave. An utterly boring little planet with a suprisingly good starship pilot school.

He almost immediately
a) got into trouble fighting with gangs in the streets.
b) got off planet ASAP by studying astro-navigation and getting on with the next ship out.
c) fell in love with shooting stuff and hanging around disreputable bars at the spaceport.

Eventually he,
a) somehow managed to steal an Imperial Courier ship with some friends, got it shot out from under him, and has been traveling away from the Empire under assumed names.
b) ended up playing bodyguard to a prominent indepentent abolitionist diplomat and "accidentally" shot shot a snotty Imperial noble "because he looked like a likely assassin." Thus requiring several years of exile untill somebody gets over a "diplomatic incident" requiring getting both kneecaps replaced.
c) became embrioled in an adventure to hijack an Imperial space dredger (a huge mining and manufacturing space ship several miles long) and free all the slaves on it. Unfortunately all the slaves died from a genetic poison and most of the adventurers died when Imperial clone troopers re-captured the space dredger.

Strength 6 brawling - 2
Dexterity 7 starship pilot - 2
Constitution 6 navigation - 2
Intelligence 8 streetwise - 2
Education 11 autopistol - 3
Social 7


Cunning is inherent in the player rather than the character. A cunning player will try to be prepared for CR appropriate encounters, think about what encounters are likely to come from the plot and the party's actions, and generally plan and play to survive the campaign. No matter how well built a character or how powerful the gear, a lack of cunning can kill. In a 17th level game that recently ended several characters (including one full caster) lacked any counters or defenses for scrying or teleportation, did not use potions of any sort, and relied solely on an NPC cleric cohort for all thier healing. The favorite tatic of this group? Scry something, teleport in, kill everything (target the clerics first), take the loot and leave. Every time this tatic was used on the party it involved multiple deaths and loss of gear.

This goes hand in hand with understanding. If players don't understand what thier characters can do, what thier opponents can do (quite often the exact same bloody thing), and what effects thier actions can or do have, then they can't survive. The most optimal leap-shock 5000 damage crit-monkey is dead meat when faced with anything he can't hit. Wizard, rogue, whatever, if he can't find or hit the opponent he's then no amount of optimization will save him. Same with a caster, or anyone really, if you can't understand that annoying an entire evil religon on two continents will result in multiple equal CR encounters featuring clerics with Death and Destruction domains, plus thier sorcerer cohorts (specifically mentioned by the GM as a favorite feat/class combo of that religon)... Well, then there's no saving you from your just rewards.

No amount of optimization can save a character from a CR appropriate encounter, that's what makes it CR appropriate. No amount of optimization can save a character from bad player decisions. But a bit of backstory? That might save a character sometimes.

Kantolin
2007-04-21, 02:15 AM
Huh. I actually have a few complaints about this idea.


Party irritation. No-one likes having a useless teammate, particularly when they have to give them a share of the XP and treasure even when they don’t pull their weight. Unless you’re new or the party have some other reason to protect you, they aren’t going to be all that motivated to keep you safe.

Okay, useless? Sure, that I can see.

At the same time, you have to kind of work to be utterly useless. I mean, useless is the dagger-weilding fighter who has no combat feats or something, but few people do that. To go by your optimization scale, almost nobody is below 10%.

But most people at, say, 30%... are perfectly okay insofar as the rest of the party is concerned. Now, granted, the particular unit who is at 30% optimization may feel overshadowed, but playing a rapier-weilding fighter who has a highish charisma and skill focus (Diplomacy) is okay, even next to the power attacking fighter who's contributing far more effectively.

Of course, this depends heavily on the groups you're playing with - and I assume playing with strangers, that point would have more merit. But for most friends, doing less damage isn't too big a deal, so long as the suboptimal character is hazily geared towards what he wants to be doing.


In general, I’ve found that underpowered characters only survive when made by new players. If you’re new to the game and the rules, the rest of the group will cut you some slack - for a while.

That's another thing I don't run into. Again, this may be more accurate for a group of strangers, but most of my friends are utterly cool with someone playing a, say, dual-weilding-dagger Paladin or something. So long as you can pseudo do what you're aiming to do, then all's good.

I'm not, note, saying this is a better method of play, just that the theme seems a bit more hostile than I'm used to. For me, it's party equality that makes things best - so long as everyone in the party's at hazily the same level, nobody minds. But in addition, the only people that have minded there being an underpowered unit in the party... are the underpowered units themselves, since you end up contributing comparably little to combat.

To shoot through a few other of your points...



GM overcompensation. If you create a character that can only be challenged by overpowered enemies, then overpowered enemies are exactly what you’ll get. Often the GM will overcompensate, and guess who’s going to be the number one target when he does?That sounds highly like the GM doesn't want people to be over-optimized in his game. If that is the case, then that sounds more like a situation where the DM should talk with the player and try to tone things down. Acts like the above sound more like general spite.


Overconfidence. Overpowered characters tend to jump into battle first and ask questions later - it’s the weaker characters who stop and think. Usually they get away with it, but sooner or later you’re going to run up against something tougher than you are.Wha? That's roleplay - overconfidence is purely a roleplay trait. I suppose if you were roleplaying that your character was weak and ineffective you'd question things a lot, but the seasoned fighter who knows just how to kill his target isn't nearly as likely to just jump into battle as the young man out to prove himself by making a big showing with the rapier he just bought from the store. Nothing to do with optimization or the like.


Lack of interest. If your character is designed as an optimisation build, then it’s unlikely you’re going to develop any deep feelings for him (or her). You can just make another one, right?Again, that has nothing to do with optimization. Personally, most of the munchkins I know rather suck at it, while most of the optimizers I play with place deep roleplay within their characters.


GM dislike. GMs have a universal hatred for munchkins, and a near-universal hatred for characters that are too powerful. Few GMs will actively go out of their way to kill an overpowered character, but they will often tilt the scales against you. Yeek. I'd expect to be notified to tone things down a bit.

On the other hand, if the group is at a high power level, and the DM is throwing interesting and difficult encounters at you because you can handle it... then everyone is having more fun than fighting goblins in an open field. :P Net gain.



(By the same token, GMs will often bend over backwards to keep interesting characters, or characters that they like, alive.)This is true. Still, this is a function of munchkin v RPer, having nothing to do with optimization. People who have more backstory tend to have more ties into the actual story, whether your character is optimized or not has little bearing on this.


PC dislike.Again, I dunno. The only time I'd have trouble with things as a PC is if the roleplay is to be a commoner - and even that can be fun at times. Heck, in one of the campaigns I was in, one of the players was a commoner.

So eh. This could, once again, be because I'm not comparing it to playing with strangers, or in a more public setting where you're not just playing it with friends, but most people I've run into really don't mind suboptimal characters being present. The troubles I've run into are units with lousy roleplaying abilities, or possibly concepts they like/dislike (For example, anyone playing an elf with two scimitars is reviled no matter how useful or not they are).

But eh. Does it really bother people that badly if you have a sub-par unit around? I'm not even talking about the almost-literally can't do anything units... I mean the barbarian who is wearing hide and not mythril full plate because hide is traditional to his tribe, and the Half-elven wizard who took Weapon Proficiency (Longsword).

(Now, I can see being bothered by the people who play sub-par units, then insist that anyone who plays a stronger unit is being a munchkin and so forth, but ignoring that.)

Zincorium
2007-04-21, 04:38 AM
I think all of the listed drawbacks for optimizing are for people who obviously optimize their characters, or say so. "I could probably take anything." is the DM's cue to send pretty much anything at you and see how it works.

As a DM, I like optimized characters. I can count on most encounters to do what they're supposed to, reduce resources, without nearly as high a chance of killing characters. And I can always bring out the builds that have no other purpose but to destroy others in combat as the BBEG. A great wyrm red dragon has nothing on the king of smack.


And lastly, right now in my RL campaign, which I only rarely DM for, my character simply has a stupidly large number of hit points compared to everyone else. 286 in bear form for a lvl 13 character is nothing to sneeze at. Has this caused the DM to attempt to kill me? Sure. I just enjoy the fact that he has to send that much more against me to take me down. I'm not worried about death in these instances not because I don't care about the character (I do, I very much do) but because it would give the cleric a chance to shine. Hasn't happened as yet, though. It'll pretty much have to be a TPK to put me down for good.

Saph
2007-04-21, 04:56 AM
I'm not, note, saying this is a better method of play, just that the theme seems a bit more hostile than I'm used to. For me, it's party equality that makes things best - so long as everyone in the party's at hazily the same level, nobody minds. But in addition, the only people that have minded there being an underpowered unit in the party... are the underpowered units themselves, since you end up contributing comparably little to combat.

I said that, in my experience, severely underpowered characters will tend not to survive as long, and other players will tend to get annoyed. Obviously it won't always happen, and if you're all close friends, then players are much more likely to overlook stuff like this. Still, it is a source of friction. No-one minds having someone useless around when they're winning, but what about when they lose a battle that could have been turned around if all the characters had pulled their weight?


That sounds highly like the GM doesn't want people to be over-optimized in his game. If that is the case, then that sounds more like a situation where the DM should talk with the player and try to tone things down. Acts like the above sound more like general spite.

What else is the GM supposed to do? If he doesn't send overpowered challenges back at the party, the over-optimised character will tear through them. And if he sends overpowered challenges at the party but has them target the weaker characters, then the less optimised and averagely optimised characters are highly likely to die for no good reason. Sounds more like a natural consequence to me than spite.


Yeek. I'd expect to be notified to tone things down a bit.

You might be, might not be. As I said, GMs will rarely actually kill a player, but pretty much all of them will tilt the scales to one degree or another, sometimes without even realising it.


But eh. Does it really bother people that badly if you have a sub-par unit around? I'm not even talking about the almost-literally can't do anything units... I mean the barbarian who is wearing hide and not mythril full plate because hide is traditional to his tribe, and the Half-elven wizard who took Weapon Proficiency (Longsword).

In my experienece, under-optimised characters have a better survival chance than over-optimised ones. I don't think it bothers people to have a sub-par unit around, and it's not like they're going to murder your character for being too weak (unless it's an evil campaign) but they are likely to get tired of having to protect you all the time, and when an emergency comes, you're going to be the least critical member of the group.

Of course, by the same token, the under-optimised types who manage to stay out of the direct line of fire tend to survive pretty well, like Leush was saying earlier.

- Saph

Rasumichin
2007-04-21, 06:08 AM
I understand, intellectually, that some people play D&D because trying to make the most optimised build possible is the fun for them. But really, prosaically, I just don't get it. That seems like math, not fun.

Optimizing is fun.
Like Lego with numbers.

Besides, if the survivability of my character would not depend on my skills as a player and my luck at rolling dice, but on the DM liking or disliking my character concept, i would most definitely go look for another group to play with.
Just personal preference, don't feel offended, please.

Furthermore, if a build turns out to be gamebreaking, i'd rather blame it on broken rules than on a desire to be effective that can be considered just natural in the lethal environment an average RPG setting is.
My consequence would be not to punish the player, but to fix the rules.

A functional game should enable me to play RAW without having to resort to practises as "using the rules responsibly" or chucking tailor-made encounters at evil powergamers.
If this means sticking to the core rules and ignoring how WotC churns out splatbook after splatbook, so be it.
Saves money, too.

Sir Giacomo
2007-04-21, 07:58 AM
What else is the GM supposed to do? If he doesn't send overpowered challenges back at the party, the over-optimised character will tear through them. And if he sends overpowered challenges at the party but has them target the weaker characters, then the less optimised and averagely optimised characters are highly likely to die for no good reason. Sounds more like a natural consequence to me than spite.


Very true! Not only from a game mechanics perspective, but also from a perspective of realism. Opponents will always try to remove whatever they feel is threatening them most. The more intelligent they are, the more likely it is that this "felt" threat is also, objectively speaking, the most dangerous threat. This is the reason why the "strongest" character in the group may draw the flak. Note, though, that who is the most powerful in the group may also change over time...
Overall it seems we have found another balancing mechanism in the game beyond that of the numbers...:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

clericwithnogod
2007-04-21, 09:53 AM
No-one minds having someone useless around when they're winning, but what about when they lose a battle that could have been turned around if all the characters had pulled their weight?




In my experienece, under-optimised characters have a better survival chance than over-optimised ones. I don't think it bothers people to have a sub-par unit around, and it's not like they're going to murder your character for being too weak (unless it's an evil campaign) but they are likely to get tired of having to protect you all the time, and when an emergency comes, you're going to be the least critical member of the group.


This is very group dependent. In the group I play with as one of the clerics, the priority on healing, condition removal, defensive buffs and escape spells goes pretty much in order of ability to contribute to party goals. So the less useful you are, the more likely you are to die by a wide margin. If your character is so weak that the cleric has to burn spells and actions constantly just to keep him alive, that is incredibly bothersome. It's just as bothersome in fact as the over-specialized, optimized-for-offense-at-the-expense-of-defense character that expects the cleric to do nothing but pour cures and removes into him all combat long.


What else is the GM supposed to do? If he doesn't send overpowered challenges back at the party, the over-optimised character will tear through them. And if he sends overpowered challenges at the party but has them target the weaker characters, then the less optimised and averagely optimised characters are highly likely to die for no good reason. Sounds more like a natural consequence to me than spite.




As I said, GMs will rarely actually kill a player, but pretty much all of them will tilt the scales to one degree or another, sometimes without even realising it.


The problem with this is that many DMs have misconceptions about optimization and power levels and can't identify a character that is overly optimized for power. You can go through any board on the net and see posts saying that creating any character with more than one or two prestige classes is munchkin-like, powergaming, over-optimizing; warlocks and monks are overpowered; power attack is broken; etc. So they murder characters or pick on players based upon what "looks" or "feels" wrong rather than what is actually overpowered or game-breaking.

It really doesn't take much to tilt an encounter into a murder of a PC or even a TPA, particularly if the DM doesn't understand the law of large numbers and overestimates how powerful the "overly optimized" the character is.



Of course, by the same token, the under-optimised types who manage to stay out of the direct line of fire tend to survive pretty well, like Leush was saying earlier.


Don't do anything to survive, while it works in some cases, doesn't really add a lot of fun for the player. Spending 6 or 8 hours in a session once a week for a year or two trying to avoid doing something to survive is a lot of boredom. In one-offs or short mods, roleplaying a weaker, less powerful or incompetent character can be fun sometimes, but in an extended campaign it almost always gets old for the player and the rest of the party.

(I moved the quotes around a bit to address similar points from different places in Saph's original post together.)

Kantolin
2007-04-21, 02:49 PM
What else is the GM supposed to do?

I was actually focusing more on:


Often the GM will overcompensate, and guess who’s going to be the number one target when he does?

I mean... if the GM is 'targetting' someone, or particularly gunning for someone, then something's generally wrong. But either way, that sounds more like a 'talk to them' scenario than a 'target them'.


No-one minds having someone useless around when they're winning, but what about when they lose a battle that could have been turned around if all the characters had pulled their weight?

but they are likely to get tired of having to protect you all the time, and when an emergency comes, you're going to be the least critical member of the group.

Whoa, one moment. There's a significant difference between 'under-optimised' and 'useless'.

I mean, useless is the fighter with 8s in his physical stats. That unit simply can't do anything.

But under-optimized is the, say, wizard who took martial weapon proficiency (longsword), and uses a sizeable amount of direct-damage spells with maybe a couple buffs like haste. They can still actually contribute to combat, can still help out, and aren't just a lump of worthlessness that needs to be protected; it's just that they don't have an optimized setup.

I'd imagine that most people wouldn't have a particular problem with this. If you're in an optimization-heavy group, people may ask the wizard to memorize some battlefield controlling spells instead, but most people don't mind if the wizard likes blasting things with fireball, and wasted a feat - he's still a wizard, and still fairly capable. And still provides flanking. These facts are especially true when you have no other arcanist in the party, which tends to be the case.

Underoptimized =/= Utterly useless. Being a sword-and-shield unit does not make you utterly incapable of doing anything useful to the party, it's simply not an optimized option. So if your group is very, very optimization-happy then yes; you need to optimize to keep up, so everyone continues to have fun. But on average, I really don't think most groups care so much about having a sub-par character provided he can still do something.

However, you did state:


I said that, in my experience, severely underpowered characters will tend not to survive as long, and other players will tend to get annoyed. Obviously it won't always happen, and if you're all close friends, then players are much more likely to overlook stuff like this. Still, it is a source of friction.

And that's true, I suppose. I can indeed see it causing tension with some people, even a large amount of people. Mrr... not something I run into personally, but my personal gaming group does not stand for all the gaming groups in the world, so hey. :P

But, while I'll concede that it can be a source of friction... that depends heavily on the group. If the group consists of a bunch of people who are significantly unoptimized, then making an optimized character can be a source of friction - you're making the game less fun for the group as a whole. Personally, if stepping into a new group, I'd go for slight optimization at first to 'test the waters', then scale up or down depending.

Indon
2007-04-21, 03:03 PM
I mean, useless is the fighter with 8s in his physical stats. That unit simply can't do anything.


He could collect Circlets of Blasting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#circletofBlastingMinor). He doesn't really need a weapon aside from a rusty dagger to threaten with, so he can put his cash into more circlets. He just uses one, swaps it out to the next, uses it, etc. He could take Quick Draw or something so he can do it faster, too.

...okay, so I'm really grasping at straws here.

Roethke
2007-04-21, 03:10 PM
He could collect Circlets of Blasting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#circletofBlastingMinor). He doesn't really need a weapon aside from a rusty dagger to threaten with, so he can put his cash into more circlets. He just uses one, swaps it out to the next, uses it, etc. He could take Quick Draw or something so he can do it faster, too.

...okay, so I'm really grasping at straws here.

Well, without turning the fighter into a Pseudo-Wizard :smallsmile:,

I'd say your best bet as a fighter with 8's in the physical stats is a Mounted Archer. Hopefully your INT has been boosted a bit, so you have at least a few extra points to throw at your Ride Skill. You're highly mobile, so hopefully you can stay away from the bad guys. Your mount can actually fight quite decently at low levels, and at higher levels, hopefully your gear will begin to cover some of your deficiencies. And you have feats to spare, so skipping power attack, etc. and getting that weapon focus/specialization is almost like having some of your strength and dex back.

Kantolin
2007-04-21, 03:22 PM
^_^ Wow would that be a useless unit still. You couldn't even get most of the archery feats sans gloves of dexterity.

But either way, then you're optimizing, and the point is explicitly to not. :P

Indon
2007-04-21, 03:26 PM
Optimizing is making an optimal character.

An archer that needs Gloves of Dexterity to get an archery feat does not strike me as very optimal at all. Arguably, it is optimizing in a sense, but I don't believe it's the sense used when the term 'optimized character' is used.

Kantolin
2007-04-21, 03:29 PM
I suppose so. But this particular unit has gone out of his or her way to not optimise said fighter with the specific intent of being useless, so spending effort optimizing them is against the direct goal. :P

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-21, 03:47 PM
Could be that the powergamer likes building characters as much as playing the, so doesn't mind as much when they die.

Counterspin
2007-04-21, 03:51 PM
As a optimizer, I agree with Tor's suggestion. I like making characters, so the simple fact of having to make a new one doesn't bother. If there's RP going on in the game, I might grieve missing out on some yet to occur event, but otherwise I don't mind when characters die.

Saph
2007-04-21, 05:09 PM
As a optimizer, I agree with Tor's suggestion. I like making characters, so the simple fact of having to make a new one doesn't bother. If there's RP going on in the game, I might grieve missing out on some yet to occur event, but otherwise I don't mind when characters die.

This was one of the points I was trying to make. I think one of the reasons the optimiser-heavy guy in our group dies so often is that he doesn't really mind losing characters. From his point of view, it's just a chance to try out a new build - and he's always got a new one he wants to try out.


Don't do anything to survive, while it works in some cases, doesn't really add a lot of fun for the player. Spending 6 or 8 hours in a session once a week for a year or two trying to avoid doing something to survive is a lot of boredom. In one-offs or short mods, roleplaying a weaker, less powerful or incompetent character can be fun sometimes, but in an extended campaign it almost always gets old for the player and the rest of the party.

I think this is obviously wrong. Lots of people do enjoy playing not-very-powerful characters, for long periods of time. Just ask them. And they can survive reasonably well - as long as they stay off the front lines, as Leush pointed out. Bards are good at this.

- Saph

Indon
2007-04-21, 06:08 PM
I suppose so. But this particular unit has gone out of his or her way to not optimise said fighter with the specific intent of being useless, so spending effort optimizing them is against the direct goal. :P

A player who makes a fighter with all 8's for physical stats, and then builds him from there to be as effective as possible is neither optimized, nor useless; on the contrary, I'd consider such a character to be quite interesting both mechanically and otherwise.

Zincorium
2007-04-21, 06:13 PM
I think this is obviously wrong. Lots of people do enjoy playing not-very-powerful characters, for long periods of time. Just ask them. And they can survive reasonably well - as long as they stay off the front lines, as Leush pointed out. Bards are good at this.

- Saph

Well, bully all for them, they're having fun, but I couldn't stand trying to play that way. I'll be honest, I'm not a physically aggressive person in real life, so one of the things I like to do in-game is play people who use flashy and over the top tactics to dominate the field.

In all seriousness, being required, in every major battle, to stand back and support the party indirectly would very quickly lose it's allure. The bard in our RL party retired his character because the one time he tried to go melee, against reasonably CR'ed opponents, he went down in one round due to bad rolls. I'm no stranger to the number 1 myself, but since all my character does is wade into melee, I can handle some setbacks.

The player is currently playing a paladin, for the first time anyone has done so in the campaign, and it's going rather well.

Saph
2007-04-21, 06:22 PM
Well, bully all for them, they're having fun, but I couldn't stand trying to play that way. I'll be honest, I'm not a physically aggressive person in real life, so one of the things I like to do in-game is play people who use flashy and over the top tactics to dominate the field.

Well, sure, but the guy I was responding to was saying that it must be boring to have to hang back, which, like I said, is pretty obviously wrong. There's certainly no shortage of people who like bards.

I like both types, personally. Playing a back-row buffer and spellcaster can be fun, but I've found that the party often works a lot better if you can say "follow me!" and charge into the centre of the battle.

- Saph

Leush
2007-04-21, 07:09 PM
Forgive me for any harsh words (unless you don't feel like it):



In all seriousness, being required, in every major battle, to stand back and support the party indirectly would very quickly lose it's allure. The bard in our RL party retired his character because the one time he tried to go melee, against reasonably CR'ed opponents, he went down in one round due to bad rolls. I'm no stranger to the number 1 myself, but since all my character does is wade into melee, I can handle some setbacks.

You know, I'm sure that anyone who went melee with a non polymorphing wizard would also die in one round, even without bad rolls, and then you'd complain about wizards being boring because you can't wade into melee with them. Bards are almost like that They're not primary melee characters! (well they can be deadly melee opponents if correctly built- not melee fighter deadly, but medium BAB, decent armor if you can afford the mithral, buffs and trippage/disarming sort of deadly, doubly so if you debuff your opponent thoroughly before hand)... But that's not the point...

...The point is that being party support is only boring for... certain people... The sort who don't get a buzz out saying things like "oo look, fighter did 27361635187365418234 worth of damage this round, of which 13361635187365418234 was due to my buffs. Oh and look, due to said buffs, he also passed his save against Fear... I rock so much!" Also being able to say "Ahah! I cast that CLW just in time! Otherwise that crack in clerics skull would be widened sufficiently by said orcish axe for his brains to spill out of it."

I'm not saying that you have to enjoy playing weak characters (but deciding/not being able to enjoy something usually decreases the amount of fun you have in life), just that, I can tell from experience that it does not get dull if you're not overly concerned with shining/standing out or doing things personally: You can look at it as shining because you're adding significantly to the party output by doing nothing-something which anyone I would expect should enjoy, not to say that you get to partake in other people's victories and be happy for them... Ahh who cares... What matters is that support is important- without the foundation that supports a house there would be no house (or a very rickety, prone to destruction house)- a weak character who supports the rest of the party makes it strong. (Funnily enough this is a sort of optimisation unto itself).

Oh, and charging buffing characters sound fun- but I like to live as long as possible, therefore I only use that tacti when invisible.:smalltongue:

Zincorium
2007-04-21, 07:25 PM
Forgive me for any harsh words (unless you don't feel like it):



You know, I'm sure that anyone who went melee with a non polymorphing wizard would also die in one round, even without bad rolls, and then you'd complain about wizards being boring because you can't wade into melee with them. Bards are almost like that They're not primary melee characters! (well they can be deadly melee opponents if correctly built- not melee fighter deadly, but medium BAB, decent armor if you can afford the mithral, buffs and trippage/disarming sort of deadly, doubly so if you debuff your opponent thoroughly before hand)... But that's not the point...


To clarify, my point about melee is only with the character I am currently playing. Previously I was a warlock. Due to the fact that we ended the campaign with him the only surviving character, you can probably guess I didn't melee with him. Debuffing is good. Battlefield control is good, blasting, cohorts, etc. I just don't like my only purpose being to not get squished while my fellow adventurers get +1s and +2s. It's a role I have tried and did not find interesting.



...The point is that being party support is only boring for... certain people... The sort who don't get a buzz out saying things like "oo look, fighter did 27361635187365418234 worth of damage this round, of which 13361635187365418234 was due to my buffs. Oh and look, due to said buffs, he also passed his save against Fear... I rock so much!" Also being able to say "Ahah! I cast that CLW just in time! Otherwise that crack in clerics skull would be widened sufficiently by said orcish axe for his brains to spill out of it."


Y'know, all this buffing you talk about, I rarely see it. Occasionally a haste or the like will get tossed my way, and the dragon shaman's auras were really nice when he was in the party, but generally I'm on my own until the battle is over and the cleric has a chance to repair the damage I sustained. That's just the party dynamic we have going, and it's been best for the casters to take care of themselves so they can bring out the big guns when the time is right.



I'm not saying that you have to enjoy playing weak characters (but deciding/not being able to enjoy something usually decreases the amount of fun you have in life), just that, I can tell from experience that it does not get dull if you're not overly concerned with shining/standing out or doing things personally: You can look at it as shining because you're adding significantly to the party output by doing nothing-something which anyone I would expect should enjoy, not to say that you get to partake in other people's victories and be happy for them... Ahh who cares... What matters is that support is important- without the foundation that supports a house there would be no house (or a very rickety, prone to destruction house)- a weak character who supports the rest of the party makes it strong. (Funnily enough this is a sort of optimisation unto itself).

Oh, and charging buffing characters sound fun- but I like to live as long as possible, therefore I only use that tacti when invisible.:smalltongue:

Right. I could indeed decide to deliberately skew my perspective to take away a sort of odd glory from buffing my friends. Or I could play any of the many other party roles and not have to convince myself of anything. Non-passive buffs take time to put on, and the longer combat goes, the more chance people will die. That's just the way things are. It's only if you can acquire information before hand and thus have several rounds to prepare (3+ being the general number we find optimal) that significant buffing makes sense.

clericwithnogod
2007-04-21, 07:36 PM
Well, sure, but the guy I was responding to was saying that it must be boring to have to hang back, which, like I said, is pretty obviously wrong. There's certainly no shortage of people who like bards.

- Saph

"It almost always gets old" isn't the same as "must be boring." Regardless, if you "have to hang back" it is almost always boring. Hanging back by choice because you enjoy it isn't doing it because you have to. Having to play an under-optimized character that hangs back as a way to survive isn't a good thing.

Playing an under-optimized character that hangs back as a way to survive by choice is fine as long as rest of the party is happy with the level of contribution you make toward party goals for your equal share of experience and loot. This becomes particularly thorny if your character starts advancing in level beyond the characters who have lost XP to character death as a result of taking the risks that your character isn't. (AKA - sleeping your way to the top gamer style)

Generic PC
2007-04-21, 08:01 PM
I would also point out, many of these examples are based on combat. Whatcha gonna do when you need money, like 100 gp or something in a town, but cannot sell any of your equipment? Bard to the rescue... not even spells like shatter can mimic that(prestidignation might...) just because a character isnt optimized doesn't mean said character is useless. I have never seen a Bard without full ranks in perform (string instrument/wind instrument/comedy/dance) NEVER. can fighters perform to the same extent? No. Wizards? No. Any other PHB class other than Bard, and possibly suboptimized rogue? No. then the Bard isn't useless (note that Monks also apparently have perform...)

clericwithnogod
2007-04-21, 10:10 PM
I would also point out, many of these examples are based on combat. Whatcha gonna do when you need money, like 100 gp or something in a town, but cannot sell any of your equipment? Bard to the rescue... not even spells like shatter can mimic that(prestidignation might...) just because a character isnt optimized doesn't mean said character is useless. I have never seen a Bard without full ranks in perform (string instrument/wind instrument/comedy/dance) NEVER. can fighters perform to the same extent? No. Wizards? No. Any other PHB class other than Bard, and possibly suboptimized rogue? No. then the Bard isn't useless (note that Monks also apparently have perform...)

You can Tumble to entertain an audience in the same fashion as using the Perform skill. Rogue and Monk both tend to max Tumble. Going beyond the PHB (this is a discussion on optimization after all) you can add Warblade, Scout, Spellthief, Ninja, Swordsage, Beguiler, Swashbuckler and a whole host of prestige classes to ways to get Tumble.

Zincorium
2007-04-21, 10:33 PM
I would also point out, many of these examples are based on combat. Whatcha gonna do when you need money, like 100 gp or something in a town, but cannot sell any of your equipment? Bard to the rescue... not even spells like shatter can mimic that(prestidignation might...) just because a character isnt optimized doesn't mean said character is useless. I have never seen a Bard without full ranks in perform (string instrument/wind instrument/comedy/dance) NEVER. can fighters perform to the same extent? No. Wizards? No. Any other PHB class other than Bard, and possibly suboptimized rogue? No. then the Bard isn't useless (note that Monks also apparently have perform...)

Do you regularly require 100 gold, and the penalty for not getting it is a gruesome death and dismemberment? Nope. Even occasionally would be a bit odd.

The plain and simple reason that combat is what people optimize for because it's one of the things that regularly threatens death, which for a low level party can be a permanent state of affairs. If the bard can keep my character from dying and thus save me the trouble of coming up with a new character idea and inserting it into the game, then I have no problem with the bard.

Dausuul
2007-04-21, 11:57 PM
To clarify, my point about melee is only with the character I am currently playing. Previously I was a warlock. Due to the fact that we ended the campaign with him the only surviving character, you can probably guess I didn't melee with him. Debuffing is good. Battlefield control is good, blasting, cohorts, etc. I just don't like my only purpose being to not get squished while my fellow adventurers get +1s and +2s. It's a role I have tried and did not find interesting.

I think this is a problem more with certain types of support.

I, too, am generally bored by the character whose function is to hand out +2. On the other hand, I take great pleasure in being the character who can say, "Hey, that saving throw versus imploding, that you just failed? Reroll that. Whoa, incoming fireball--better shut that down before someone gets singed. Oh, and you who just got stunned and there's a monster standing over you getting ready to pound you into the ground with a full attack? You're 400 feet away now, take a minute to shake it off."

In other words, I like support where the effect of my support is clearly obvious; I enjoy being able to pull my fellow players' fat out of the fire, or give them huge buffs that make them kick lots of ass. Of course, it helps that my fellow players are duly grateful when I do this. If they took my support for granted, I'd probably find it a lot less satisfying.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-22, 12:27 AM
Even the character with Knowledge: Obscure Lore can contribute a lot to a group, especially if playing homebrew. Those can be very crucial rolls. "Don't throw that lightning bolt at the shambling mound!", etc.

Diggorian
2007-04-22, 12:42 AM
A bard in one game of mine cast Neutralize Poison, Haste, then Mirror Image to run infront of a colossal Centipede and soak attacks and AoO's so we could get away easier.

Saved the meatshields and survived.