What's the Point?

[glitterbaby]

So recently I've been building a character for an upcoming campaign. It's a pretty unique character creation going on with a custom low-magic campaign setting. Basically spellcasting is limited to level 8 and then anything beyond that is sometimes capable as a ritual, the campaign's equivalent of Epic Magic. Anyone who isn't a spellcaster get's to gestalt with any other non-spellcasting class. So I'm making my character and he's coming together pretty nicely. I've decided to go with an int-based melee using Factotum and Kung Fu Genius Monk as well as a 3 level dip in Swashbuckler. At level 3 I'm able to pop inspiration points, rage (via Raging Monk acf), charge, knowledge devotion, and full power attack for a +14(1d10+22) attack against the enemy's flat-footed ac if I pop a swift-action invisibility from Invisible Fist acf.

That's all at level 3. So I'm thinking that if I do that, the DM is going to have to balance encounters such that enemies are able to defend themselves better against my attacks and hit me harder so that we're not just steamrolling encounters. So what's the point of optimization? I can understand optimizing for versatility because you're not going for bigger numbers you're going for more solutions to problems. I guess I'm just rather curious to see what everyone has to say about this and the discussion that'll ensue.

[Solaris]

Ideal optimization is to balance the DM against what the players bring, and the players against what the DM brings.

Also, can I get a level-by-level on that build? 'Cause it looks gnarly.

[Theodred theOld]

Playing an optimized character in real game is an exercise in restraint. Just because you can send a tornado full of bears at your enemies hideout doesn't mean you always should. Sometimes it's more fun to help the rogue sneak in through the rooftop entrance or whatever. If things go wrong you can alway just earthquake the whole thing away and eat anything that comes running out of the rubble.

[Honest Tiefling]

The point of optimization is not power. The point of optimization should be to achieve a certain build goal, which CAN include power.

If you are in a high power game and you're punching deities left and right? Time to bring out the big guns and build as ridiculously powerful as you can, so that you have a character that the player can enjoy and add to the game. If you are in a low power game, it can be as simple as to make a monk that doesn't suck utterly or a decent sword and board fighter. Bringing the uber-demigod into the low power game is as much as a bad idea as bringing the underwater basket weaver is to the high power game. The problem is that the game and the character were built with different goals in mind. Good roleplaying or a good attitude to the game can fix this, but very often it is best if everyone has similar or compatible goals for their optimization.

So in your case, I assume you are OP in terms of the rest of the party which is a problem, else the DM wouldn't have to balance nothing). My suggestion is to take something you like but is horribly underpowered. Something you'd enjoy the mechanics or flavor, and optimize that. You'll be able to try out a build you wouldn't normally, but probably be able to fall within the ball park of everyone else.

[ComaVision]

My roommate and I recently had a similar discussion about this and my thoughts basically boil down to this: Optimization means that nobody's character is ever left out or useless in the vast majority of situations. When you have characters that are only good under specific, favourable circumstances then it's going to happen more often. Thus the point is that people have more fun.

[Amphetryon]

The point of optimization is not power. The point of optimization should be to achieve a certain build goal, which CAN include power.

If you are in a high power game and you're punching deities left and right? Time to bring out the big guns and build as ridiculously powerful as you can, so that you have a character that the player can enjoy and add to the game. If you are in a low power game, it can be as simple as to make a monk that doesn't suck utterly or a decent sword and board fighter. Bringing the uber-demigod into the low power game is as much as a bad idea as bringing the underwater basket weaver is to the high power game. The problem is that the game and the character were built with different goals in mind. Good roleplaying or a good attitude to the game can fix this, but very often it is best if everyone has similar or compatible goals for their optimization.

So in your case, I assume you are OP in terms of the rest of the party which is a problem, else the DM wouldn't have to balance nothing). My suggestion is to take something you like but is horribly underpowered. Something you'd enjoy the mechanics or flavor, and optimize that. You'll be able to try out a build you wouldn't normally, but probably be able to fall within the ball park of everyone else.

In addition to this, which I agree with, optimization is useful for situations that come up more often than some DMs would like to admit. I'm talking about those situations where either a miscalculation in actual CR, or where some combination of tactics and luck turns an appropriate encounter into one far more dangerous than anticipated. The ability of an optimized Character to function in an encounter where she suddenly appeared to be outmatched because one or more of her companions fell to an unlucky crit - or an even unluckier 1 on a saving throw - is a potentially campaign-saving ace to have up your sleeve.

[Togo]

It makes the game harder to survive. Under-optimised characters tend to do quite well. Optimised characters die more often, because the DM ends up ratcheting up the difficulty to compensate, and you get correspondingly more instant-death situations occuring.

[glitterbaby]

Ideal optimization is to balance the DM against what the players bring, and the players against what the DM brings.

Also, can I get a level-by-level on that build? 'Cause it looks gnarly.


So racially I went with a Gray Elf for the int and because of character reasons. My DM is allowing me to trade all my racial weapon proficiency feats for EWP: Elven Courtblade, something I'd be taking anyway because it's a two-handed weapon that can be Weapon Finessed. This is important because Insightful Strike (Swashbuckler 3) only applies to weapons that can be finessed. I went and grabbed the Arctic template from Dragon Magazine 306(I think?) to help me out with the Con penalty. My DM came up with a setting specific template called Lore giving a -2 con, -2 str, +2 int. Probably not worth it in the long run since I'm still using str for damage and con penalties always hurt but it's pretty nice for flavor and it adds a sort of racial Bardic Knowledge which is pretty neat. My DM banned Faerie Mysteries Initiate for not fitting the setting. This would have allowed me to dump con, but not too far it's still needed for fortitude saves. For character creation we were allowed 2 flaws and 2 traits. My DM has a particularly nasty version of Murky-Eyed which gives two feats so I went ahead with that. I made some custom traits for flavor reasons. I think it says somewhere that flaws may be applied at whatever levels during character creation. If it doesn't, we use that as a houserule. We've just always done it.

Racial Ability Mods: -4 str, +2 dex, -2 con, +4 int, -2 cha
28 Point-Buy
Final Ability Scores: 8 str, 14 dex, 12 con, 22 int, 6 wis, 6 cha


Level 1: Factotum 1// Swashbuckler 1
Lvl 1 Feat: Font of Inspiration
Flaw Feat: Font of Inspiration
Swashbuckler Bonus: Weapon Finesse
Swashbuckler Class Feature: Arcane Stunt (Expeditious Retreat) 7/day, 1 round duration, swift action
Racial Bonus Feat: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Elven Courtblade)

Maxed HD at level 1 and 4xSkill Points so I'm going with Factotum and Swashbuckler to maximize this. The order I get my feats in is actually incredibly important because I can't qualify for them otherwise. The only two feats I qualify for at first level are Font of Inspiration

Level 2: Invisible Fist Raging Wushu Monk 1 // Swashbuckler 2
Flaw Feat: Kung Fu Genius
Flaw Feat: Knowledge Devotion
Monk Bonus Feat: Improved Initiative (Wushu)
Monk Bonus Feat: Improved Unarmed Strike
Monk Class Feature: Rage 1/day (Raging Monk)

Level 3: Invisible Fist Raging Wushu Monk 1// Swashbuckler 3
Lvl 3 Feat: Keen Intellect
Monk Bonus Feat: Power Attack (Wushu Monk)
Swashbuckler Class Feature: Insightful Strike (int to damage on finessable weapons)
Monk Class Feature: Invisible Fist (immediate action Invisibility for 1 round once every 3 rounds)
Skill Trick: Collector of Stories (to really pump knowledge devotion)

Skill Point attribution got pretty wacky but I ended up getting everything in order after I drew out exactly what I needed to qualify for feats and stuff. My DM actually included a few unique things in character creation for that as well. The people in the setting are all really focused on education so we all get 5 free skill points to be put in any knowledge, craft, or profession. We were also allowed to purchase skill points with money to a cap of 1+(2xIntMod) for 25 gp each so I definitely took advantage of that. With my current skills and miscellaneous modifiers my minimum Knowledge Devotion bonus is a +2, rolling an 8 I get a +3.

I end up with 5 Inspiration Points per encounter and I can add a +6 to any attack roll, saving throw, or damage roll. Seven times per day I can add a +30 to my movement with a swift action using Arcane Stunt. Invisible Fist lets me use an immediate action to get invisibility which would probably be used mostly to get people flat-footed or to avoid AoO's. I can link the sheet if you want to see how it all comes together.

[glitterbaby]

The point of optimization is not power. The point of optimization should be to achieve a certain build goal, which CAN include power.
So in your case, I assume you are OP in terms of the rest of the party which is a problem, else the DM wouldn't have to balance nothing). My suggestion is to take something you like but is horribly underpowered. Something you'd enjoy the mechanics or flavor, and optimize that. You'll be able to try out a build you wouldn't normally, but probably be able to fall within the ball park of everyone else.

The game hasn't kicked off yet, we're still in the character building phase. We're doing a Session0 of sorts coming up this week where we make sure our characters aren't complete loners and can cooperate and also to make sure nobody is over, or under, powered. If my build is a bit too strong I'll look at toning it back after seeing what other people are bringing in. I'm never great at determining where I should be in terms of power especially with all the unique character creation stuff happening. We're gestalt if we're not casters so that really does bump up the power a bit, I want to make sure I'm not doing to much.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Optimizing for greater power is pointess. It's a zero-sum exercise because the DM will simply raise the enemy's power to match.

Something people tend to forget, however, is that any choice deliberately made to improve a character is optimization. You took toughness because you thought it would improve your character (somehow:smallconfused:), that's optimization (albeit with little skill). What people who rail against optimization are actually taking issue with (when they're not invoking stormwind) is not optimization itself but, rather, optimization taken to extreme or of a certain kind or both.

[Chronos]

Or to put it another way, optimization is not the same thing as powergaming. Optimization is all about working within some set of constraints, to do as well as possible at something. Now, the set of constraints might be "whatever the DM will let me get away with", and the something you're trying to do well at might be "defeating everything": In that case, yes, it's powergaming. But on the other hand, you might also be constraining yourself to use Vow of Poverty on a Truenamer, or trying to do as well as possible at emulating the style and abilities (including limitations) of a particular fictional character. That's still optimization.

[nedz]

Looking at your level 3 character from a DMing point of view: it would seem to be able to nova quite well but run into trouble if facing larger numbers of opponents since your invisibility would run out of uses quite quickly and you would exhaust your inspiration points fairly quickly also. Multiple encounters in a day would exhaust your raging too. You would also struggle against flying encounters or ones which didn't rely on sight. Opponents using ranged attacks would also be an issue for you as would most spellcasters. Challenging this character would not be hard, but you are only level 3.

You should be able to handle many skill type challenges but it's unclear which skill sets you have focussed on.

[glitterbaby]

Looking at your level 3 character from a DMing point of view: it would seem to be able to nova quite well but run into trouble if facing larger numbers of opponents since your invisibility would run out of uses quite quickly and you would exhaust your inspiration points fairly quickly also. Multiple encounters in a day would exhaust your raging too. You would also struggle against flying encounters or ones which didn't rely on sight. Opponents using ranged attacks would also be an issue for you as would most spellcasters. Challenging this character would not be hard, but you are only level 3.

You should be able to handle many skill type challenges but it's unclear which skill sets you have focussed on.

And that's a good thing, really. I was kind of hoping the large numbers would be more of a nova than something I'd have up all the time. I like making those types of decisions during combats and stuff, it makes me feel as though I'm doing more and that my decisions matter. I don't expect to see too much flight because of the low-magic setting but once I get Brains Over Brawn I'll have about a +20 to jump if I use my Expeditious Retreat so I'm hoping that'll make up for it. I'll be using the same strategy against ranged opponents, moving fast that is. It's a rather soft fix but I want answers to my weaknesses, not solutions. I don't want to be too much. For skills I've focused on the trapfinding/knowledge/acrobatics/craft skills

[Flickerdart]

Optimization is, fundamentally, about goals. You set your goal as building a powerful alpha-strike guy, and clearly succeeded in the context of your game (though as a gestalt character, that's not all that special). However, that's one of the least fun goals because it ends encounters quickly. It's also extra not-fun for your friends because they will remember your peak (the alpha strike) and not your trough (when you roll low on Knowledge Devotion, when you run out of Rage, round 2 when your Inspiration pool is empty).

When I optimize, I choose to focus on something quirky and weird. Can I optimize Overrun, the crappiest combat maneuver? The answer is yes and it's hilarious. Can I optimize a wizard who only casts sword spells, the crappiest kind of blasting? Also yes.

You can also choose to optimize something less visible. God wizards are a good example. Defensive or passive abilities are also good because you don't get the whole "did you just activate 50 abilities in one turn" look. Starting with a class everyone knows is weak is also a good way to avert the judgmental eyes of your peers.

[SimonMoon6]

Optimizing for greater power is pointess. It's a zero-sum exercise because the DM will simply raise the enemy's power to match.

Unless he's the sort of lazy DM who just runs modules. I've run into far too many of those kinds of DMs.

[ComaVision]

Unless he's the sort of lazy DM who just runs modules. I've run into far too many of those kinds of DMs.

Mm, I run modules. I'm more than willing to rebuild enemies or change sections of them if it makes it better for my group.

[Aegis013]

To me, as a forever DM, optimization, and encouraging it among my players, is actually just a way to let me make more complicated challenges while comfortable in the knowledge that my players' characters are actually equipped to handle the challenges. If for some reason it turns out they're not equipped for the challenge, which does happen on rare occasion, I know they have tools available to them like Psychic Reformation or just buying or crafting up a couple magic items to help them address the challenge.

As much as people say things like (and this is just a single example) teleport gets rid of so many story opportunities, I view it the other way. The kind of game and the story I'm looking to run goes more smoothly when the players can cut out the travel and get straight to the area they need to be dealing with. They can have hirelings or minions handle the smaller scale stuff off screen if the group decides they want that to be important.


Unless he's the sort of lazy DM who just runs modules. I've run into far too many of those kinds of DMs.

Just because you're running modules doesn't necessarily mean you're lazy. I've run a game probably about 5 of 6 sessions were the players going through modules, but the whole game had a connected plot. I adjusted the module plots as needed, but since the players I was DMing for at the time were not particularly familiar with the game, or skilled at op-fu, the modules still provided great challenges with very little tweaking.