Am I selfish if I optimize?

[tedcahill2]

In general terms, does optimizing a character simply mean that you have optimized damage output?

If so, does that mean that abilities that are helpful outside of combat, or useful to my party members, are generally shunned if an ACF exists that improves damage is available? Is optimization all about combat?

I recently posted a thread asking for help optimizing a ranger, whom I wanted to focus on taking the Distracting Strike ACF, and maximizing the number of attacks he can get in a round. My thought was, I can get 3 or 4 attacks off and, assuming they all hit, I can flat foot 4 enemies and line up some really sick combos with anyone in my party with sneak attack damage.

I got some great responses on that thread, but I got a lot of responses about how it's tough to optimize an E6 character with 4 levels of ranger (apparently rangers are weak?). So I'm thinking that I misunderstood what I was asking when I asked for help with optimization.

[Grod_The_Giant]

"Kill it until it's dead" is perhaps the default expectation when someone asks for help, but it's hardly the only thing we optimize for. You can optimize a character for anything-- defenses, support abilities, utility, and so on. If you have a specific idea in mind, let us know and we can help.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Optimizing is about making your character better. That can mean better damage output, or excelling at non-combat roles, but not necessarily by definition.

Optimizing is more of a way to achieve a goal, rather than a goal unto itself. It's also subjective; what's optimized to one person may be weak to another.

[NOhara24]

It depends on what your end goal is. If you're optimizing a Wizard with the intention of "putting the team on your back" (which a wizard is very much capable of doing), that can be considered selfish because you're not only taking away the limelight from the other PCs, you're limiting how useful the actual player him/herself is. No one likes being useless, or being made obsolete, it's not fun.

However, based on your post you're trying to optimize a ranger - which is like putting lipstick on a pig. I don't think you have anything to worry about there when there are multiple classes in the game that make a better ranger than the ranger itself.

[Pleh]

I got some great responses on that thread, but I got a lot of responses about how it's tough to optimize an E6 character with 4 levels of ranger (apparently rangers are weak?). So I'm thinking that I misunderstood what I was asking when I asked for help with optimization.

E6 was more or less designed to weed out the "tippyverse" with prejudice. There's not going to be a lot of game breaking options in E6 (that's half the point).

That said, yes. Rangers are not exactly the most powerful class you can choose.

[Uncle Pine]

It's not necessary to optimize your damage output: optimizing something just means that you have the highest (or way higher than normal) possible bonus to that something. You can optimize damage output and deal hundreds or thousands damage/attack, or you could optimize your Escape Artist modifier to be able to sneak inside someone's anus with a +90 bonus. You can also optimize the number of followers, familiars, animal companions, your AC, your skills and anything, really. Limiting yourself to optimizing damage is probably going to make yourself look like a munchkin to "non-optimizers".

[SimonMoon6]

Optimizing is the most generous thing you can do. It is not selfish at all.

After all, the point of the game is for the group to succeed. If you optimize, you are enabling the group to succeed more often than they would if you did not optimize. Thus, you are helping the group. That's generous of you. Case closed.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It depends what you optimize for. A Ranger in E6 doesn't have much to optimize other than damage.
Since "maximum number of attacks" is generally part of "maximum damage" it's kinda natural for people to combine the two when offering suggestions.

Generally optimizing for support roles (broadly defined as "anything that makes the whole party stronger") isn't selfish. Buffing, debuffing, that kind of thing is generally okay.
Turning yourself into a damage machine that kills whole encounters in the first round before the other players get to act? Or summoning whole rooms full of optimized beatstick summons despite there being a fighter in the party? That's selfish.
If you're stealing the spotlight in every fight you've either optimized too much or in the wrong direction. If everyone gets to contribute some of the time you're probably fine.


Optimizing is the most generous thing you can do. It is not selfish at all.

After all, the point of the game is for the group to succeed. If you optimize, you are enabling the group to succeed more often than they would if you did not optimize. Thus, you are helping the group. That's generous of you. Case closed.

While that's true from an in-character perspective the goal of the players is generally to have fun. And nobody likes being useless or playing sidekick to your Mary Sue character.

[Deeds]

Is it selfish to optimize? Nah. It's only natural to cut ineffective strategies in a game in favor of better tactics. By asking a forum how to optimize your build you can expect someone to propose a different starting point for your class.


Limiting yourself to optimizing damage is probably going to make yourself look like a munchkin to "non-optimizers".
Agreed. In my experience, Tome of Battle catches a lot flack because of this. A coworker once argued that Warblades are OP because they can do +100 damage with one attack at level 10 (or something like 11-12.) I argued that a cleric with the 5th level spell Slay Living must be the definition of broken then. Ignore the spells Lesser Planar Ally and Scrying; Slay Living is OP.

I dunno. Some people want to see their fighter do 2d6+6 damage at every level.

[Dagroth]

Yes you are... optimization is bad and you are bad for even thinking about it.

More seriously, no you were not what most people here would call "optimizing". You were Focusing your build, which is basically a lower form of optimization.

It is really hard to "optimize" in E6. But level 9+ regular 3.5 rules? Optimization can break the game faster than you can blink. A Warblade doing 100 points of damage in a hit is paltry and almost laughable to a true optimizer.

[icefractal]

Besides, if you wanted to be selfish, you should optimize for screen time, not for damage. A fairly straightforward way to do this (although I don't condone doing so):
1) Have the best social skills and stealth skills in the party.
2) You only need enough combat skill that scouting alone is not a death sentence.
3) Give the character a somewhat secretive personality.

That's it, you're set to monopolize all screen time until the GM and/or other players get fed up and throw books at you. It's logical IC for you to be the one to talk to people ... and then go scout stuff solo ... and then go talk to other people ... and so forth, without informing the rest of the party of any of this until it's 90% done with.

Combat? Eh, people take turns in combat, there's only so much you can do there. Although for maximum annoyance I guess you should summon/animate/control as many minions as possible, just to maximize the length of your turn.

And yes, I have seen someone do this (minus the summoning part), until the rest of the group (including the GM) got so fed up we just started ignoring him when he said he did anything solo.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Agreed. In my experience, Tome of Battle catches a lot flack because of this. A coworker once argued that Warblades are OP because they can do +100 damage with one attack at level 10 (or something like 11-12.) I argued that a cleric with the 5th level spell Slay Living must be the definition of broken then. Ignore the spells Lesser Planar Ally and Scrying; Slay Living is OP.

I dunno. Some people want to see their fighter do 2d6+6 damage at every level.

The issue is more likely that he has never seen an optimized fighter. Mages are limited by spell slots, and there's a disconnect here "because it's magic".
And since a Warblade is kind of a fighter that's what people compare it to.
If you're used to your sword & board fighter doing 2d6+6 damage per hit martial adepts seem very broken. And not only do they do "super-high damage", they also get all that other stuff that's like spells!

To get someone to accept that ToB isn't broken you first have to get them to accept that it's okay for a fighter to oneshot mook opponents.
That's easy when you're used to a Dungeoncrasher fighter with Shock Trooper and Leap Attack charging with a Valorous Greatsword. If you're used to a S&B fighter with no Power Attack that's a little different.

It doesn't help that martials kinda have to go splatbook diving to shine.
To the casual gamer (who either lacks the interest or the time to really dive into the material) splatbook diving is what munchkins do.
So even if you show him an optimized fighter or barbarian chances are his answer will be "it's munchkin stuff, that doesn't count".

[Venger]

In general terms, does optimizing a character simply mean that you have optimized damage output?

If so, does that mean that abilities that are helpful outside of combat, or useful to my party members, are generally shunned if an ACF exists that improves damage is available? Is optimization all about combat?

I recently posted a thread asking for help optimizing a ranger, whom I wanted to focus on taking the Distracting Strike ACF, and maximizing the number of attacks he can get in a round. My thought was, I can get 3 or 4 attacks off and, assuming they all hit, I can flat foot 4 enemies and line up some really sick combos with anyone in my party with sneak attack damage.

I got some great responses on that thread, but I got a lot of responses about how it's tough to optimize an E6 character with 4 levels of ranger (apparently rangers are weak?). So I'm thinking that I misunderstood what I was asking when I asked for help with optimization.

no. optimization is just an umbrella term for competency/versatility/power/etc. it's more than just dealing a lot of hit point damage.

it depends on what kind of game you're playing, honestly. if you're doing a dungeon crawl and just genociding everything you meet, social skills are less important. if you're in an intrigue game, something like changeling rogue is worth its weight in gold.

that sounds pretty fine. the problem isn't your acf choice, as you said, it's that ranger is just a weak class.

[logic_error]

Although I am only adding to something that already been adequately explained, I think you should always optimise to the role the party needs performed. Being the tank that can take a bazillion damage might be necessary if your party is all glass cannons. Being able to wipe the floor with the enemies might be a good thing when your party is bards, or worse, Monk/bard hybrid. This is the trick; knowing where limitations of the rest of your team are. And trust me, even if what you did was *necessary* to save the situation, you are still going to be begrudged your success if the DM can not tailor encounters for other players as well, may they be social ones or not. In D&D success is frequently measured in dice rolls. Players who either have bad rolls by fortune or are simply unoptimized are going to suffer the pangs of defeat and then the successful maybe the one to be blamed.

Finally, it will all boil down to what kind of people you play with. In general, try to emphasise your RP aspect even when you optimise There is NO need to be the ultimate warrior unless the situation demands it. Sometimes some slight intentional gimping to give your character depth (feats like Apprentice, Investigate, Educated etc.) will allow your DM (assuming he gets it) to write around these features and give you a more nuanced and balanced story that will help you to grow outside combat. For example, when you are a ranger of the wilds, you must be able to play that part in some way, all the while being a good combatant. A wizard should be able to have some personality: the absent-minded professor, the knowledge seeker or whatever innovation you bring to play. D&D although *is* a war game of sorts RP is NOT NOTHING.

[Honest Tiefling]

In general terms, does optimizing a character simply mean that you have optimized damage output?

No. For martials, such as the Ranger, Barbarian, and Fighter, this is typically the case. I would argue that it is rarely the focus of a spell casting build unless they're doing something unusual like a Hellfire Warlock. But martials? Damage is probably what you do.


If so, does that mean that abilities that are helpful outside of combat, or useful to my party members, are generally shunned if an ACF exists that improves damage is available? Is optimization all about combat?

Depends on your goal. If your goal is damage, then that's probably your role. Do you have fun with that? Then go ahead. Unless you have agreed to perform another role I don't see any reason you can't go ahead and specialize in what makes you happy. Maybe if the group is already 5 damage dealers, but even then, they should probably communicate if they want you to perform that role.


I got some great responses on that thread, but I got a lot of responses about how it's tough to optimize an E6 character with 4 levels of ranger (apparently rangers are weak?). So I'm thinking that I misunderstood what I was asking when I asked for help with optimization.

Some people have fearsome powers when it comes to optimization and can do scary things...Which usually means spellcasting. As has been said, rangers are not considered a upper tier class, but if it works with your group, that's what matters.

So no, optimizing isn't selfish as long as you optimize to the best of your ability for your own fun and the fun of others. Don't optimize a wizard if you have a PHB only sorcerer played by a newb. Don't bring in some terribly optimized build to a game with a healbot cleric, a blaster mage and a sword and board fighter. Don't optimize in such a way that it disrupts the story.

You're probably fine, OP, don't worry.

[DEMON]

In general terms, does optimizing a character simply mean that you have optimized damage output?

If so, does that mean that abilities that are helpful outside of combat, or useful to my party members, are generally shunned if an ACF exists that improves damage is available? Is optimization all about combat?

I recently posted a thread asking for help optimizing a ranger, whom I wanted to focus on taking the Distracting Strike ACF, and maximizing the number of attacks he can get in a round. My thought was, I can get 3 or 4 attacks off and, assuming they all hit, I can flat foot 4 enemies and line up some really sick combos with anyone in my party with sneak attack damage.

I got some great responses on that thread, but I got a lot of responses about how it's tough to optimize an E6 character with 4 levels of ranger (apparently rangers are weak?). So I'm thinking that I misunderstood what I was asking when I asked for help with optimization.

No, optimizing isn't solely about damage. In fact, it's oftentimes about different aspects.

To be fair, you didn't actually specify what you were trying to optimize (for) in that archer/Ranger thread.
At first, you asked for help with optimizing an archer. That being a combat role, it makes sense our advice revolved also around (and not exclusively) damage.

There's actually nothing wrong with Ranger 4, for what you're looking for (both me and Grod suggested some Ranger 4 builds). And it would actually be perfectly fine to just go with Ranger 6 in many cases (if you weren't planning to trade away both your animal companion and your spells, that is). Ranger 4 / Thug Fighter 2, that you have considered, however, is strictly worse on all accounts than just going Ranger 6.

And going back to the Distracting Attack ACF, it's fine that you were planning on assisting your sneak attackers with this. The question really is, how reliably can your 3-4 attacks hit and how many of your team mates will actually benefit from that multi-flanking you can provide them. Part of this optimization is comparing this benefit to other options your AC (or another ACF) can provide you and going for the best one.

[schreier]

To me, it depends on how you play. I have a fairly optimized wizard in an optimized group ... that being said, there are several combats that I could win outright but instead I seek to strengthen my party. I use spells like the four hearts (heart of air, earth, fire, and water) to improve my survivability, use web and slow to debuff enemies, use haste to help my party ... use fireball to take out mooks ... it's all in how you play

[syryous]

Yes.

Optimization requires you take the best ability/spell/skill when it becomes available. What happens when the campaign you're playing in doesn't require it? Are you picking feats because they are purple in some online handbook, or is it relavent to your game? Optimization is for theorycrafting, not real life.

Play your character and have fun,. Don't worry about optimization and have fun!

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Optimizing is about being better at what you do.

If dealing damage is what you do, then it's what you try to be better at.

If supporting the rest of your party is what you do, then it's what you try to be better at.

If solving noncombat challenges is what you do, then it's what you try to be better at.

If doing taxes is what you do, then it's what you try to be better at.

If building houses is what you do, then it's what you try to be better at.

If driving racecars is what you do, then it's what you try to be better at.

Why would anyone try to make a career out of something they're not even good at? If someone is bad at math, they're not going to become an accountant, they'll find something they're good at and become better at it as they make a career out of it.

There are some people who aren't good at anything at all, and it seems like they've all managed to find a job in the office I work in. Those people are selfish, they do the bare minimum because they've convinced management that it's as much as they're capable of, and they never seek to become any better at their job. Everyone else has to pick up their slack, and when the department (party) does well they get just as much credit (XP) as every one else. Don't be like them, don't make characters who are like them, build characters who are actually good at what they do.

Here's something I posted a while back on the topic:

A party of adventurers is going into lair/dungeon/ruin/whatever full of groups of opponents, so they decide to recruit a wizard or other type of character who can AoE through them. There are two applicants for the job:

Nickelan is a Grey Elf Wizard/ PrC/ PrC, extremely high save DCs, good spell selection, metamagic feats/rods, wands for backup, and is a very good wizard overall. He is however a very shallow character and doesn't have much personality or dialogue.

Kerrek is a Half-Orc, Half-Orc Paragon 2/ Wizard using the Fighter Feat variant, he's taken Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Orc Double Axe, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Extra Rage, though his physical ability scores aren't spectacular. His Int is barely high enough to cast the highest level spells he has access to, he gets few bonus spells and his save DCs are fairly low, and he has very few useful/powerful spells. In combat he only casts spells until his opponents get close, then without using any buffing or protection spells he goes into a rage and jumps in to melee, rarely hitting anything, even though he's poured all his funds into putting Enhancement bonuses and special properties onto his double-axe. Despite all of this, he has an exceptional personality, witty banter, and is generally very well role-played.

Our party of adventurers is going to be relying on whoever they recruit to help them get through the challenges ahead. Their lives will be depending on this person's ability to fill their intended role in the party. Which applicant do you think they'll be recruiting? Chances are, they couldn't care less about their new ally's personality (or lack thereof) as long as he can do his job and keep them (and himself) alive. Which of those two do you think will have the more successful adventuring career, and which is likely to end up dead before he even gets to a decent level?

[Thurbane]

Am I selfish if I optimize?

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/57827339/reverend-lovejoy-oh-short-answer-yes-with-an-if-long-answer-no-with-a-but.jpg

[Doctor Awkward]

In general terms, does optimizing a character simply mean that you have optimized damage output?
No.
Optimizing a character means doing whatever mechanical tweaking you can to increase the likelihood that your character will succeed at the given role you wish it to succeed.


If so, does that mean that abilities that are helpful outside of combat, or useful to my party members, are generally shunned if an ACF exists that improves damage is available? Is optimization all about combat?
No. It depends on player desires.


I recently posted a thread asking for help optimizing a ranger, whom I wanted to focus on taking the Distracting Strike ACF, and maximizing the number of attacks he can get in a round. My thought was, I can get 3 or 4 attacks off and, assuming they all hit, I can flat foot 4 enemies and line up some really sick combos with anyone in my party with sneak attack damage.
Sure, but that plan requires several party members with sources of Sneak Attack damage.


I got some great responses on that thread, but I got a lot of responses about how it's tough to optimize an E6 character with 4 levels of ranger (apparently rangers are weak?). So I'm thinking that I misunderstood what I was asking when I asked for help with optimization.

Stock PHB Rangers are generally on the side of Not Awesome. I made a Swift Hunter build that is Scout 4/Ranger 2, since the extra skill points and bonus feat were far more valuable than the extra BAB.

On the other hand a Mystic Ranger 6 (variant from Dragon Magazine that delays several features for increased spellcasting) with the Wild Shape (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#ranger) variant is capable of soloing most E6 games a DM might come up with.

[Pleh]

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/57827339/reverend-lovejoy-oh-short-answer-yes-with-an-if-long-answer-no-with-a-but.jpg

I believe Thurbane has won the thread.

[Dagroth]

Optimizing is about being better at what you do.

If dealing damage is what you do, then it's what you try to be better at.

If supporting the rest of your party is what you do, then it's what you try to be better at.

If solving noncombat challenges is what you do, then it's what you try to be better at.

If doing taxes is what you do, then it's what you try to be better at.

If building houses is what you do, then it's what you try to be better at.

If driving racecars is what you do, then it's what you try to be better at.

Why would anyone try to make a career out of something they're not even good at? If someone is bad at math, they're not going to become an accountant, they'll find something they're good at and become better at it as they make a career out of it.

There are some people who aren't good at anything at all, and it seems like they've all managed to find a job in the office I work in. Those people are selfish, they do the bare minimum because they've convinced management that it's as much as they're capable of, and they never seek to become any better at their job. Everyone else has to pick up their slack, and when the department (party) does well they get just as much credit (XP) as every one else. Don't be like them, don't make characters who are like them, build characters who are actually good at what they do.

Here's something I posted a while back on the topic:

You know... if your RPing is Srs Bidness, then yeah you want the first guy.

If you're all about having fun, win or lose, then yeah you want the second guy.

I bet I could take that second character and make it work in such a way that you'd want him in the party... unless, of course, it's all about the winning and not about the playing.

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder714/500x/68484714.jpg

[Florian]

In general terms, does optimizing a character simply mean that you have optimized damage output?

In general terms, D&D is at its core a game based on attrition of resources. You engage challenges and encounters, you slowly deplete spells, items and hp. Keep in mind: An standard encounter should cost you around 25% of your total resources.

At its heart, optimization is centered around a characters resources then, either by upgrading them, protecting them or finding a means to not spent/lose them when engaging in an encounter, leading your character/party to last longer before running dry.

So, optimizing damage output actually protects your hp. You kill faster/more efficient, you take less damage, you need less healing, in turn helping the cleric player have more fun, as he doesn´t have to be a healbot then.

the bad form of optimization, what can be called selfish, is either stealing another characters niche or hogging the spotlight all the time, by being able to do nearly anything.