Could someone explain "optimization"?

[quark12000]

This came up repeatedly in another thread I started and I'm looking for a clear definition, please. Thank you.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

This came up repeatedly in another thread I started and I'm looking for a clear definition, please. Thank you.Optimizing in the context of D&D in specific is choosing game options that help you to perform your chosen party role(s) effectively, which includes staying alive in the face of various dangers (combat, traps, magic, etc), and actually pulling your weight within the group. Note that it is not at all at odds with roleplaying. In fact, optimizing enhances roleplaying, as it allows you to use the mechanics of the game to realize the character you want to play. After all, if you want to play a character who is a master of fighting with your fists, optimizing your unarmed fighting techniques so that you actually are a master of fighting with your fists means that you can actually live up to your own hype.

"High op" is generally said of a character or group that chooses extremely effective options and gets far more out of them than the developers apparently assumed would be the case.

"Low op" is on the opposite end of the scale, where said character or group isn't nearly as effective at solving the problems that come their way.

Note that the developers of 3rd Edition, especially early on, didn't exactly have a high bar to clear on the optimization front.

[Gnaeus]

Guide in my sig.

[Daefos]

optimize
verb
1. to make as effective, perfect, or useful as possible.

Optimization is, at it's core, the attempt to make a given character good at the job they're intended to do. For example, a Fighter who has selected feats that improve his ability to kill things and not get killed back would be considered more optimized than a Fighter who keeps spending all his feats on Skill Focus and Toughness, because killing things and not getting killed back is generally what a Fighter is intended to do. A wizard who casts Glitterdust and blinds three goblins for the Fighter to pick off at his leisure is usually considered to be behaving more optimally than a wizard who casts Scorching Ray and merely damages one. It's about making a character as efficient at a task as the limits of the system will allow.

With that being said, it does not always have to mean making the most powerful character possible (although, barring information to the contrary, this is usually the default assumption if someone asks for help optimizing something). A character can optimize their Spot check, or their Trip modifier, or their strength of their Turn Undead ability. Optimization happens in a context, and choices that may lead to a stronger character overall may be ignored in favour of choices that support the theme you're trying to create or ability you're trying to focus on. This is still optimization, it's just a little more focused.

Now "optimization" doesn't sound like a word anymore.
Edit: And double-swordsage'd.

[Oracle71]

It is basically choosing a combination of classes, PrCs, feats, spells, powers, and tactics, that boost their effectiveness when used together.

For example, using a 2 handed weapon is good for inflicting damage. So is charging. The power attack feat is good for increasing damage. The leap attack feat is good for increasing power attack damage. So using a 2 handed weapon to charge and using a leaping power attack, you inflict A LOT of damage.

[Inevitability]

It's picking certain options over inferior ones whenever the game lets you pick a character element.

Everybody naturally optimizes. When you play a wizard and prepare spells other than Hold Portal because you feel they'll be more useful against monsters, you are optimizing. When your fighter uses a greatsword instead of a club, because you think it'll deal more damage, you're optimizing. When your rogue puts skill points in Hide, rather than Forgery because the former will be used more, you're optimizing.

In the context of these forums, there is debate on what option is 'superior', with people backing up their arguments with anything from anecdotes to rulebook examples to probability math. Over time, a consensus develops, and any 'I want to play a X and be good at X' question can be answered with a fraction of the possible answers thanks to this established consensus.

Optimization is useful because it helps people determine what characters fit what games, and additionally encourages a deeper understanding of the game and the underlying mechanics, which many people find interesting.

[quark12000]

I don't know. It sounds like optimizing takes a lot of the fun out of the game. I like my characters to be a little offbeat. For example, I took Literacy at first level for my Barbarian. Or, in Pathfinder, I took Weapon Finesse for my Cavalier because it fits his background. That would seem like a wasted feat to many here, I believe, but I like it for him.

[Oracle71]

I don't know. It sounds like optimizing takes a lot of the fun out of the game. I like my characters to be a little offbeat. For example, I took Literacy at first level for my Barbarian. Or, in Pathfinder, I took Weapon Finesse for my Cavalier because it fits his background. That would seem like a wasted feat to many here, I believe, but I like it for him.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Some people like to play that kind of low-op game, others like to play a much, much higher optimization level. As the saying goes, whatever floats your boat.

I personally like to optimize just enough to be really good at one thing, without sacrificing everything else. I also like to describe a character's background and personality, and then see if I can make a good character build that is based on that, but is still reasonably well optimized. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I don't know. It sounds like optimizing takes a lot of the fun out of the game. I like my characters to be a little offbeat. For example, I took Literacy at first level for my Barbarian. Or, in Pathfinder, I took Weapon Finesse for my Cavalier because it fits his background. That would seem like a wasted feat to many here, I believe, but I like it for him.It's a matter of making the character as you envision it and being good at what you want it to be good at.

Do you like being ineffectual and frustrated when trying to do something you should be good at? Do you like having your character die after potentially spending hours on making him? Me neither.

The game devs expect you to build toward goals on a mechanical level. That's what prereqs are for. If you don't put in at least some effort into building a character, you'll never be able to take prestige classes or fulfill prerequisites for feats. This is absolute baseline optimization, but it's still there. Plus, some people really like putting together pieces of a character to get interesting results. It's like constructing a puzzle or a model. You might not care for it, but a lot of people do.

[Nifft]

Optimization is about doing the best with what you've got.


I don't know. It sounds like optimizing takes a lot of the fun out of the game. I like my characters to be a little offbeat. For example, I took Literacy at first level for my Barbarian. Or, in Pathfinder, I took Weapon Finesse for my Cavalier because it fits his background. That would seem like a wasted feat to many here, I believe, but I like it for him.

Define "what you've got" as something off-beat, and then optimize that.

As long as you're not trying to be bad at your job, optimization can help you be better at your job.

[Florian]

@quark12000:

The d20 game system (both, 3.5E and PF) has a certain fundamental math to it and you´re actually expected to find out what it is and how it works. Your character should have X AC, hit AC X without a problem, deal a certain amount of damage on a regular basis and also have a certain amount of magical equipment.

Take a look at monsters. They all come with a "CR"-value, that indicates how appropriate a challenge it is for a character that manages to fall within the expected range.

[martixy]

I don't know. It sounds like optimizing takes a lot of the fun out of the game. I like my characters to be a little offbeat. For example, I took Literacy at first level for my Barbarian. Or, in Pathfinder, I took Weapon Finesse for my Cavalier because it fits his background. That would seem like a wasted feat to many here, I believe, but I like it for him.

Depends on how you find the fun in the game. Many notions of fun do not require optimization to achieve. Some players may have nothing against having an optimized character, but the process itself detracts them. So you might ask yourself: What is your primary incentive for playing the game? And what could you do without?

[Darth Ultron]

I don't know. It sounds like optimizing takes a lot of the fun out of the game. I like my characters to be a little offbeat. For example, I took Literacy at first level for my Barbarian. Or, in Pathfinder, I took Weapon Finesse for my Cavalier because it fits his background. That would seem like a wasted feat to many here, I believe, but I like it for him.

It does for a lot of people. This is why you see a lot of opposition to optimization.

And there is the Big Dark side to optimization: It Ruins the Game.

You see the ''great'' things about optimization are mostly theoretical, and they don't happen in the game.

At best, when a player has a demigod optimized character it makes for a dull and boring game. When the character can just do anything with no effort, it is really pointless to even play the game.

And at worst, the player with the optimized character does not even bother to think about role playing...they just want to ''roll play'' and ''win the game'', but not ''play the game''.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

It does for a lot of people. This is why you see a lot of opposition to optimization.

And there is the Big Dark side to optimization: It Ruins the Game.

You see the ''great'' things about optimization are mostly theoretical, and they don't happen in the game.How does "I am actually good at what I'm supposed to be good at; I don't die to a mosquito bite every session; and my character is fun to play" ruin the game? How is it theoretical?

[edit] Remember, a fighter placing his two highest ability scores in Strength and Constitution is optimization. Not doing so is the next best thing to suicide.


At best, when a player has a demigod optimized character it makes for a dull and boring game. When the character can just do anything with no effort, it is really pointless to even play the game. And when a player puts in no effort in making a decent character, his fun suffers because he can't do anything effectively. His party's fun suffers because they have to drag his useless arse around and make up for his shortcomings. And suspension of disbelief suffers because why is he actually adventuring, again, when he doesn't know his sword point from a hole in the ground?


And at worst, the player with the optimized character does not even bother to think about role playing...they just want to ''roll play'' and ''win the game'', but not ''play the game''.Sorry, but no. Roleplay suffers when the supposed "master of combat" is no good at fighting, and the "master of magic" can't even identify the spells he casts.

Otherwise, roleplay is almost entirely divorced from optimization.

[KillingAScarab]

This came up repeatedly in another thread I started and I'm looking for a clear definition, please. Thank you.
Obligatory xkcd

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/shopping_teams.png (https://xkcd.com/309/)

[Necroticplague]

Optimization: how to get the best results out of a finite set of resources.

However, note that in order for this definition to work, you need both a definition of 'set of resources', and a definition of 'best results'. Once that hurdle is taken care of, however, it works in a broad array of circumstances. The main differences is circumstances is just those two definitions changing.

[Darth Ultron]

How does "I am actually good at what I'm supposed to be good at; I don't die to a mosquito bite every session; and my character is fun to play" ruin the game? How is it theoretical?

So your comparing an optimized fighter with tons of hit points vs a fighter with like one hit point?

It is bad enough that players think they ''must'' have tons of hit points, and it only gets worse with the optimizing players who ''can't'' play a 1st level fighter with less then 20 hit points......and can't role play the fighter character's personality at all, unless they have them 20 hit points.



And when a player puts in no effort in making a decent character, his fun suffers because he can't do anything effectively. His party's fun suffers because they have to drag his useless arse around and make up for his shortcomings. And suspension of disbelief suffers because why is he actually adventuring, again, when he doesn't know his sword point from a hole in the ground?

Notice how your mixing ''optimizing'' and ''decent character''. You can have a ''decent character'' that is not ''optimized''.



Sorry, but no. Roleplay suffers when the supposed "master of combat" is no good at fighting, and the "master of magic" can't even identify the spells he casts.

Otherwise, roleplay is almost entirely divorced from optimization.

Everyone can divorce the two, except the optimizer.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

So your comparing an optimized fighter with tons of hit points vs a fighter with like one hit point?

It is bad enough that players think they ''must'' have tons of hit points, and it only gets worse with the optimizing players who ''can't'' play a 1st level fighter with less then 20 hit points......and can't role play the fighter character's personality at all, unless they have them 20 hit points.



Notice how your mixing ''optimizing'' and ''decent character''. You can have a ''decent character'' that is not ''optimized''."Not optimized" means "not making any decisions that positively affect your character." Any positive decision at all is optimization, which you say is a bad thing.


Everyone can divorce the two, except the optimizer.So if you make any decision to positively affect your character's stat block, you can't roleplay properly?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Hecuba]

Notice how your mixing ''optimizing'' and ''decent character''. You can have a ''decent character'' that is not ''optimized''.

Everyone can divorce the two, except the optimizer.

Mechanics and role-playing shouldn't be divorced: part of the point of an RPG is to have them reflect each other.

And, ultimately, optimizing is just choosing mechanical elements that match up well to the concept they were chosen to represent.

The concept being represented is up to you: it can be "powerful melee combatant" or "pacifist priest" or "insane young man with powers caused by exposure to that which should not be known."

The key is to represent the idea mechanically without falling flat. If your melee combatant is supposed to be a legendary swordsman, it helps if his swordsmanship sufficient to handle relevant challenges. If your rogue is supposed to be a master of sneaking in the shadows, it helps if they can make a level-relevant hide check. I have a long running character who, in addition to being a powerful wizard, is optimized for his day job of running his family's vineyard.

Optimization only really equals powerful if the concept being targeted involves the character being powerful. The fact of the matter, however, is that that is part of the expectation many people bring to high fantasy RPGs.

If someone brings a very high op build to a gritty campagin, the isssue is not with the fact that they brought a mechanically intricate character to the table. The issue is that they brought a metaphorical demigod to a noir story: that concept would be disruptive even if the build mechanics did not hold up to it in execution.

[TheIronGolem]

It is bad enough that players think they ''must'' have tons of hit points, and it only gets worse with the optimizing players who ''can't'' play a 1st level fighter with less then 20 hit points......and can't role play the fighter character's personality at all, unless they have them 20 hit points.

The players you are describing exist solely within the imaginations of incompetent GMs.

[ngilop]

The players you are describing exist solely within the imaginations of incompetent GMs.

Except.. they DO exist. well maybe no the 'i need mad HP, yo" type of players.. but the ones who feel that unless they are optimized they are better off not playing


Thanks to 'teirs' and forums like these. you have people who fully believe that if you are not playing an optimized 'tier'1 character you are worthless

If you take toughness, you are worhtless

and a whole slew of other things.


People come to GiTP and other games sites ( more so this one that others) seeking advice on character concepts and what-not and even thouhg there might be VERY clearly stated parameters of what is and is not allowed. people just pop the elven Generalist domain wizard incantrix divine oracle and say ' this or go home'


The first rule of optimizing is ' don;t lose caster levels, cuz if you do, your worhtless'

people now look at a character that has the 10, 14, 12, 14, 10, 13 and see 'well this character is worthless' But that is more just how gaming has developed not so much optimizers of forums advice fault, I blame video games for this mostly.


There is a HUGE line between making a competent character and making an optimized one.

[Mutazoia]

The players you are describing exist solely within the imaginations of incompetent GMs.

Really? Because I've run into quite a few.


I guess a good way to describe optimization would be to liken it to tuning a car for racing.

You want your car to perform the best it can, so you can win races. So you tune your car for a higher top end speed, or for greater acceleration off the line, depending on the race you are running.

The problem with optimization comes when people take it too far. At some point you are going to tune your car to the point where it isn't street legal any more, and you can only run it on a track. The same can be said for your character. Eventually, you can optimize your character to a level that the game wasn't intended to handle.

If your in a car, you run the risk of getting a ticket and/or your car impounded. In an RPG, the GM has to inflate the difficulty of the rest of the world to compensate.

This is fine, if the entire group of players has over-tuned their characters to the same degree. This is generally what happens with a group of players that meet regularly, and have played together for a long time. (Usually a group that meets physically, but it can happen in online games as well).

But the problem occurs when not everybody at the "table" over-clocks their characters, which is quite common in online games. The players who over-clock their character feel superior to the one who doesn't, and accuse him of dragging the rest of them down, or forcing them to prop him up. Plus, the player who hasn't over-clocked his character feels left out, because all of the over-clocked characters are running roughshod all over him, and the entire world has gotten a huge power-up to compensate for them, which means he is now doubly screwed, because he can't effect the things that he should, because they are on steroids now.

You can see this attitude in MaxiDuRarity's posts. By his logic, the guy who builds a character more for fun, than for mechanical supremacy, is dragging everybody else down. And what's worse, is that these people can't see the flaw in their logic.

[Nifft]

Sorry, but no. Roleplay suffers when the supposed "master of combat" is no good at fighting, and the "master of magic" can't even identify the spells he casts.

Otherwise, roleplay is almost entirely divorced from optimization.

This.

If I want to play a skillful duelist, then my duelist better damn well be skillful.

He'd better be able to demonstrate his prowess in the field of dueling against practically anyone the campaign setting could plausibly present.

My character better NOT be a buffoon who fails at literally everything -- unless that's the specific concept which I'm trying to role-play, in which case I should be able to guarantee that failure. (This is not a concept which I'm inclined to role-play but I won't judge others, comedy does exist and stuff.)

[MaxiDuRaritry]

You can see this attitude in MaxiDuRarity's posts. By his logic, the guy who builds a character more for fun, than for mechanical supremacy, is dragging everybody else down. And what's worse, is that these people can't see the flaw in their logic.The character had better at least bring something to the table, else why is he even there?

Let's say you've joined a special ops unit, who spend most days in the field, invading enemy territory, setting up stings, ransacking enemy encampments, and so on. You regularly put your life on the line, and the everyone in the group has saved everyone else in the group dozens of times over. You're very good at your jobs.

This is the life of most D&D adventurers.

Along comes Bozo the Weird, who just isn't good at what he does, and he has no real skills that are relevant to the group. Sure, he can hit people with a sword if they stand there and let him, but would the group above want to put their lives in his hands?

No.

It honestly makes no kind of logical sense for a group of adventurers to do that exact thing when they bring a poorly made character along for the ride.

If the character is done that way on purpose, the rest of the group doesn't mind bringing along such a liability, and the DM is willing to make allowances, sure, go ahead. You be you.

Either way, my point is that optimization is NOT at all a bad thing. It's simply building in such a way that your character does what it's supposed to competently, so there's no fluff/crunch disconnect. If you build to be a literal clown, but you choose things that make his pratfalls useful to the party because you know what you're doing, you have your metaphorical cake and eat it, too. But if you just throw darts at a board to keep from having to make any optimization decisions because optimizing (that is, making competent decisions when building your character) is "bad," you might as well be the Bozo described above. And you're likely to annoy the rest of the party in doing so, especially if they didn't agree to it beforehand.


Thanks to 'teirs' and forums like these. you have people who fully believe that if you are not playing an optimized 'tier'1 character you are worthlessWhich isn't what I've been saying, and I haven't seen anyone else in this conversation who's saying it, either. Optimization is simply making competent decisions that make a competent character. One that succeeds at its chosen roles more often than it fails.

D&D is a game. It has rules. It's generally more fun to play a game when you succeed than when you fail. To succeed, you need to be competent at the rules. To be competent, you need to know what you're doing and make informed decisions. That is D&D optimization.


If you take toughness, you are worhtlessToughness is a trap feat. It's used for prerequisites, but it's near-useless once you've hit level 2 and beyond. Meanwhile, you could've taken a feat that gives you more options, or makes you more successful at one of the things you can already do, and furthers your opportunities for character development. Toughness just doesn't have the impact necessary on a character's performance that it will be noticeable past level 1 or so. It doesn't make your character more interesting. It doesn't make him better at what he does. It's about as bland and boring as a feat can be, and is only useful insofar as it's not an active detriment to the character that takes it.

And if you want more HP? Improved Toughness does the same thing, but better. Faerie Mysteries Initiate is vastly better for anyone with a decent Int score. A toad familiar does the same thing, along with giving you a pet you can do things with. There are many other feats that also grant hit points while giving considerably more of them.

Toughness just doesn't have enough impact to make it worth bothering with.

All of that is what makes it a poor feat, It just doesn't give you anything notable at all.


People come to GiTP and other games sites ( more so this one that others) seeking advice on character concepts and what-not and even thouhg there might be VERY clearly stated parameters of what is and is not allowed. people just pop the elven Generalist domain wizard incantrix divine oracle and say ' this or go home'Can you point out anyone in this thread who has said anything even resembling that?


The first rule of optimizing is ' don;t lose caster levels, cuz if you do, your worhtless'Horrible grammar aside...

If you're a caster? It's definitely far better to not lose caster levels than to give them up without something very nice in return. If you're playing a caster that's supposed to be good at casting, giving up the very thing you're supposed to be good at without anything to show for it is bad. That's just common sense. Very few things can't also be done without losing caster levels, just because 3rd Edition has so many fantastic options for casters. That doesn't mean you can't lose a caster level here or there, especially if your concept only needs a little casting, but if casting is central to your idea, it's best to not lose many -- or if possible, any.

Let's say that you, as in, you in real life, want to learn how to juggle. You want to become really good at it, so you want to do things like work on your hand-eye coordination, and do a lot of practicing.

What you're not going to want to do is start lopping off your own fingers, because that's counterproductive to your goal of becoming a good juggler.

Optimization is all about making good choices. It's about being rational about the decision making process. That's all it is. Not even the best choices, just good ones. What those choices are will be determined by what it is you're wanting to become good at, but any choice you make will be optimizing so long as you're not doing something that's blatantly counterproductive...like throwing away caster levels unnecessarily or taking Toughness when there are vastly better options for doing the same or similar things.


people now look at a character that has the 10, 14, 12, 14, 10, 13 and see 'well this character is worthless' But that is more just how gaming has developed not so much optimizers of forums advice fault, I blame video games for this mostly.I blame you making non-rational statements.


There is a HUGE line between making a competent character and making an optimized one.A competent character IS an optimized one.

Your statement makes no sense.

[Baby Gary]

Except.. they DO exist. well maybe no the 'i need mad HP, yo" type of players.. but the ones who feel that unless they are optimized they are better off not playing


Thanks to 'teirs' and forums like these. you have people who fully believe that if you are not playing an optimized 'tier'1 character you are worthless

If you take toughness, you are worhtless

and a whole slew of other things.


People come to GiTP and other games sites ( more so this one that others) seeking advice on character concepts and what-not and even thouhg there might be VERY clearly stated parameters of what is and is not allowed. people just pop the elven Generalist domain wizard incantrix divine oracle and say ' this or go home'


The first rule of optimizing is ' don;t lose caster levels, cuz if you do, your worhtless'

people now look at a character that has the 10, 14, 12, 14, 10, 13 and see 'well this character is worthless' But that is more just how gaming has developed not so much optimizers of forums advice fault, I blame video games for this mostly.


There is a HUGE line between making a competent character and making an optimized one.

I can't think of a nicer way to day this. You are wrong.

Optimization IS about making a certain thing more powerful, what you are making more powerful does not have to be game breaking. I can make an optimized character with zero caster levels.

Optimization IS NOT about only making pun pun, or other things in that area of cheese. That is on of the many ways that character in D&D can be optimized.


Thanks to 'teirs' and forums like these. you have people who fully believe that if you are not playing an optimized 'tier'1 character you are worthless

no, no, and no. You can easily make an optimized character WITHOUT it being tier one, this (https://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=1372955), this (https://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=1261040), and this (https://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=1391821) are all optimized character that are not tier one. The first one is optimized to trip, is that character tier one? no, is he optimized? yes. the second on has optimized Inspire Courage, is that character tier one? no, is he optimized? yes. And the third character is (going) to be optimized for unarmed combat, is that character tier one? no, is he optimized? yes. I have a couple question for you. Are any of those characters worthless? in the games that I am playing they all have strong rolls and contribute to the party, I don't thing of that as being "Worthless"


If you take toughness, you are worhtless

and a whole slew of other things.

why would someone take toughness? to get more HP. Is trying to make you character have a lot of HP by using toughness acceptable? Of course, you can do whatever you want with your character. Is making a character that is trying to get as much HP as possible optimization? yes


People come to GiTP and other games sites ( more so this one that others) seeking advice on character concepts and what-not and even thouhg there might be VERY clearly stated parameters of what is and is not allowed. people just pop the elven Generalist domain wizard incantrix divine oracle and say ' this or go home'

Give me one example of this. In all my time here I have never seen anyone say anything like that


The first rule of optimizing is ' don;t lose caster levels, cuz if you do, your worhtless'


No, No, and No. take another look at all those builds that I showed you, ALL OF THEM HAVE "LOST" CASTER LEVELS!!!!!!


people now look at a character that has the 10, 14, 12, 14, 10, 13 and see 'well this character is worthless' But that is more just how gaming has developed not so much optimizers of forums advice fault, I blame video games for this mostly.


again give me an example of this. I would see that as a challenge to make an optimized character, not a worthless one. Also why are video games at fault


There is a HUGE line between making a competent character and making an optimized one.

As I have said THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! an optimized character IS BY DEFINITION competent in what ever field they specialize in.

[Nifft]

There is a HUGE line between making a competent character and making an optimized one.

There is a HUGE line between making a "practical optimization" character and making a "theoretical optimization" one.

But both are exercises of optimization.

[ngilop]

No, a competent character is just that. Competent.

Maybe in your definition they are one and the same, but by and large the are wholly separate things.

Competent (an adjective) means; being adequately or well qualified; having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully

Optimized (a past tense verb) means; to make as effective, perfect, or useful as possible.

If you make a competent character You make a character that can reasonably succeed on whatever tasks they might come across, or at least not be totally useless when in a situation where their specific speciality is not the focus of said task.

To make a character optimized, you make that character to squueze every last drop of 'yes' out of the mechanical rules, which can totally be supported by roleplay, sometimes to the detriment of the game system as a whole or just to other player's character. That is not always the case though.

Here is the difference in D&D terms

player A competent melee guy. gets 2 levels in fighter, then the rest in barbarian takes some charge supported feats, like leap attack and shock trooper as well as various feats to shore up his RP concept such as diehard and endurance as he has a reputation for not going down when he should. At level 20 on a charge full attack does about 650-700 damage, enough to 'one shot' anything

player B optimized melee guy. I have no idea what this build is exactly because I do not have time to look it up, but at level 20 on a charge full attack is doing over 5 thousand damage ( Keld Denar is the one who made the build if you wanna do the searching) Generally, but not always so, because of the optimization, the 'space' for 'fluff' feats is non-exhistant so those fall by the wayside to make room for 'bigger stuffs' feats.


EXTREME optimization is when the charger does damage in scientific notation, and yes, those builds actually exist.

Now, There are games where optimization is expected and extreme optimization is the norm for the table (Such as empoeror tippy) That is the beauty of the game, well any game. There are multiple

But in all my years of playing D&D a face to face gaming session tends to be more on the lets make competent characters scale than lets make optimized characters

And you are just willfully ignorant or just plain ignoring ANY forum post when people post stuff completly ignoring the OPs request

but I will post one example myself on my own because i do not want anybody taking shots at anyone else 'for playing wrong' (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?512429-Help-with-an-ogre-character) I could also post the threats and insults that I have had PMed to me, or if they saved older posts/threads I could link those as well where people have said some pretty nasty things to me becuase I am not an optimizer or I am of the 'if your having fun, play your way' style of advice giver.

[Matthias]

This thread is a really clear case of people talking past each other.

People who consciously dislike optimization, I think, have in mind optimization for generalized adventuring usefulness. Their fear is that this leads to homogenous choices as everyone races to the bottom and quirky flavors get outcompeted.

People who consciously like optimization tend to have in mind more restricted exercises: "how do I make this wacky concept viable?" Obviously, viability is group-dependent.

Tiers are orthogonal to optimization but really are most useful for making things less optimization-dependent: if I restrict the available tiers then the amount of variance declines, which makes the variance introduced by {different levels of optimization towards general adventuring effectiveness} less dangerous.

[RoboEmperor]

"Let's play football!"
"Yeah football is fun!"
"I love to ram into people to see if I can push em over and continue"
"It's awesome"

ENTER THE OPTIMIZER

6 months later, after excessive steroid use, high protein diet with protein supplements, and the state of the art workout gym and a workout routine designed by a top end personal trainer.

"This sucks, I can't do anything to the big guy"
"He ruined the game. He just grabs the ball and walks over to the endzone. There's nothing we can do."
"Football is a terrible game. It should be designed on skill not muscle mass"
"No one should be that strong."
"I don't want to work that hard to enjoy this game."
"Ban all optimizers. You're an optimizer because you jog everyday so you're banned. You take walks with your dog everyday so you're banned too."

[ayvango]

The problem with optimization comes when people take it too far. At some point you are going to tune your car to the point where it isn't street legal any more, and you can only run it on a track.
I'm need some examples. Suppose, I'm optimizing my car for the gallons/km parameter, the less gasoline is needed to travel 100 km the best. So, how could I optimize that parameter to made my car illegal?

[Raven777]

I'm need some examples. Suppose, I'm optimizing my car for the gallons/km parameter, the less gasoline is needed to travel 100 km the best. So, how could I optimize that parameter to made my car illegal?Run it with a fission reactor. Zero gasoline!

[Matthias]

I'm need some examples. Suppose, I'm optimizing my car for the gallons/km parameter, the less gasoline is needed to travel 100 km the best. So, how could I optimize that parameter to made my car illegal?

Strip out everything that has mass and isn't directly contributing to the car moving efficiently.

[Nifft]

I'm need some examples. Suppose, I'm optimizing my car for the gallons/km parameter, the less gasoline is needed to travel 100 km the best. So, how could I optimize that parameter to made my car illegal?

Add a particle canon which removes matter from an arc in front of your car.

No stopping == better mileage.

Mass-murder == illegal.

Q.E.D.

[ayvango]

Add a particle canon which removes matter from an arc in front of your car.
Could you provide efficiency calculation? I believe eliminating obstacles costs more energy than bypassing them.

[Raven777]

You asked us to reduce gasoline, don't move the goal posts! :smallbiggrin:

[Nifft]

Could you provide efficiency calculation? I believe eliminating obstacles costs more energy than bypassing them.
The particle cannon is not powered by gasoline.

We are optimizing for reduced gasoline consumption, per your request, not for total energy consumption.


You asked us to reduce gasoline, don't move the goal posts! :smallbiggrin:
This, exactly and precisely.

[Florian]

I'm need some examples. Suppose, I'm optimizing my car for the gallons/km parameter, the less gasoline is needed to travel 100 km the best. So, how could I optimize that parameter to made my car illegal?

In d20, the CR/EL system is the yard stick that measures both, risk (in the form of expected resources expended.) and reward (the XP chart.).

Take BAB vs. AC as an example that works in both ways. The system has some underlying numbers that you should optimize towards, like highest unmodified BAB being 20, while monsters at that level having a standard AC of 40 and a modified to hit of 30 themselves. So we basically now what to do when the goal is to hit that monster with a 75% chance and have it hit us with a 25% chance, which are the expected numbers. System mastery also tells us that this high level of AC is unattainable without adding some source of percentile miss chance, be it cover, concealment or a spell like Displacement.

So far, so good. Going beyond the point is also fine, actively searching for ways to take one of the points out of the game is not, like trying to have everything done by a Simulacrum or perma-Astral Projection, because we simple left the rules framework that the game was designed around.

[ijon]

The particle cannon is not powered by gasoline.

We are optimizing for reduced gasoline consumption, per your request, not for total energy consumption.

then clearly the best option is to push the car wherever you want to go

absolutely no gas consumption whatsoever, and you're getting good exercise in the process!

[Peat]

To echo a few others in the thread, optimisation is simply using the resources available in the most efficient way to achieve one's aims.

The problem arises when the assumption is that the aim should be the most powerful possible character all the time. But optimisation is the tool that problem uses, not the problem itself.

[Hecuba]

but I will post one example myself on my own because i do not want anybody taking shots at anyone else 'for playing wrong' (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?512429-Help-with-an-ogre-character) I could also post the threats and insults that I have had PMed to me.

To be blunt, that thread seems to read very differently to me than how you imply it reads to you. The only person I took to be rude in that thread was you.

Yes, it would perhaps have been more actively polite to ask how firm a requirement the Ogre race was before suggesting half-ogre: but ultimately, what the half-ogre posts amount to people saying "Are you sure? Ogre doesn't hold up as well as it did in 2E. This other option seems thematically close and will likely play better."

It's certainly reasonable to expect that line of discussion to drop after you politely note that, yes, you're sure you want an Ogre proper.

You then went accusing people of casting aspersions about your intellect 2 posts later. And, pointedly, the one reply in between was posted less than 20 minutes after your prior post: while they had not yet dropped the half ogre thing, it's quite possible they started working their post before your prior post was submitted. I've certainly spent at least that long on this post this far.

You responded by sidestepping the profanity filter to post an f-bomb in big, bold letters. And insulting the community as a whole.

Since you indicate you are getting extremely uncivil PMs, it is quite possible that I am missing a significant portion of the interaction. Anyone posting threats - PM or otherwise - is trash undeserving of social recognition. I hope that you used the little exclamation point to report them.

But I'm only in a position to see the thread you linked. And the only villian I see there is you.

[Fizban]

Someone misinforming about AC again?

Take BAB vs. AC as an example that works in both ways. The system has some underlying numbers that you should optimize towards, like highest unmodified BAB being 20, while monsters at that level having a standard AC of 40 and a modified to hit of 30 themselves. So we basically now what to do when the goal is to hit that monster with a 75% chance and have it hit us with a 25% chance, which are the expected numbers. System mastery also tells us that this high level of AC is unattainable without adding some source of percentile miss chance, be it cover, concealment or a spell like Displacement..
Standard AC cap: 10 base, 8 armor, 2 shield, 5 armor enhance, 5 shield enhance, 5 ring, 5 amulet: 40 base AC cap. Cost: 150,000gp and change, vs 20th WBL of 760,000gp.

Options to increase (core-only): Tower Shield (+2), Fight Defensively (+2-3) Combat Expertise (+5), Dodge (+1), Dwarven Defender (+4 all the time, another +4 in defensive stance).

If you want to prove AC doesn't work, at least pick a level where it's not so easy to do the math.

Oh, and standard/lowball PC attack: 20 base, 4 base str, 3 belt of str, 5 weapon: +32 attack. Cost: 86,000gp.

Now, if char-op refuses to use shields, AC boosting feats, or weapons with higher than +1 enhancement bonus, that's not the game's problem.


As for ngilop's other thread- not enough specificity in the goal, which was placed in the middle rather than at the top. Looks like they wanted a faithful conversion as the primary point, but by posting a general help statement as the thread title and having gestalt in the game rules, that's gonna put people right into op-fu mode. More reason I think people shouldn't go straight to op-fu mode, but I can see how in that context it would be the first reaction.

[johnbragg]

Dunno if OP has run away screaming yet, but.....

Optimization is also a matter of degree. It's important relative to the context of your party and the challenges your DM is throwing at you.

In some ways, you're playing a game where you want your guy to "score well." IF your character is mechanically behind the curve of your party and your enemies, that's usually not fun--if your monk can't seem to even hit the minion's AC in most fights, then that's bad.

In other ways, you're participating in a collective storytelling experience. So if your character can't perform their role in the story effectively, that's bad.

3X shines a huge spotlight on all of this because of
1. The incredible variety of material out there to build characters with, giving you a wide varieity of optimization levels even (or maybe especially) if you don't pay attention to that.
2. Design problems built into the DNA of 3rd edition--caster supremacy means that it's a LOT easier to built a competent caster than a competent mundane.

I support tweaking build choices to match background information. that's good storytelling and good character development. But, especially for a martial in a 3X campaign, I'd ask your DM for that stuff (weapon finesse on a Cavalier, +2/+2 skill booster feats because your were raised as X) as bonus feats at character creation. Feats and skills are resources, often scarce resources, that you need to have your character help the party overcome challenges.

(I just went through a thread in the 5e forum learning how my halfling archer assassin rogue could have been very good at unarmed combat, just because I had the nagging background question of "what did he do all day before he started adventuring")

[Coretron03]

"Snipped"

I don't really understand some of this post. If a competent Character does enough damage to "one shot" everything (I Don't know what the quotes are supposed to be for), why is it game ruining that a Optimized character can do 5000, which can also one shot everything? Is it because the former had to fluff to not going down when he should? I see know reason the why the latter can't have the fluff because it's open-ended enough that simply have 200 hit points means you stay standing for longer than a normal person. I don't actually see the point in increasing your damage past 1000, because that's going to be enough to gib everything pre-epic, meaning those increases are wasted. You seem to be taking the word Optmized to mean "The very peak" which is a dictionary definition but isn't necessarily what the gitp (and others) community refers to. This definition seems to fit better, even though it refers to computing, its much for in lines with what people mean: rearrange or rewrite (data, software, etc.) to improve efficiency of retrieval or processing.

Sure, TO exists. Otherwise known as Theoretical Optimisation. People create those builds for fun. Some people like pushing the limits of the system, give us hulking hurler+festering anger kind of shenanigans. That doesn't mean people should use them in games (Unless your Tippy/people who play at a simliar power level, which I daresay isn't the majority of people).

I guess my main point is, what you classify as Competent seems arbitrary. You say it's a "character that can reasonably succeed on whatever tasks they might come across, or at least not be totally useless when in a situation where their specific speciality is not the focus of said task". The charger who can one shot anything it can charge likely cannot contribute well outside their focus of charging. The optimised one is just your charger on a higher scale, dealing more damage but still unable to contribute well outside combat (at least, thats what the typical high op charger that gets high damage numbers looks like). By your own definition, if the first one is a competent, the second one likely is too.

Even under your dictionary definition, one-shotting everything does not strike me as "adequate" at the job.

On a more personal note, you, in one post, managed to pretend thst everyone had called you an idiot for wanting to play an ogre, said that the majority of the site are jerks because how dare they suggest that you could play something that would be better and that you could refluff (Because they are incredibly simliar to eachother that i suspect most DM's wouldn't care) the half-ogre into a full ogre, made a statement that people assume the OP to be a complete moron. Sure, you might have got those kind of things in PM's, but thats not what is shown. You also say someone sent you death threats, but I would assume it wasn't anyone in that thread, as noone appears to be banned.

Considering just that thread, I would say you weren't justified to insult the majority of people.

[Fizban]

Okay, having gone back and looked over the last page, we've got plenty of effective definitions of optimization, but as usual people are arguing about "competence" and "optimization levels," so we'll get to that. But first:



people now look at a character that has the 10, 14, 12, 14, 10, 13 and see 'well this character is worthless' But that is more just how gaming has developed not so much optimizers of forums advice fault, I blame video games for this mostly.
I'd like to highlight this, which actually has nothing to do with optimization: this is just stat generation. Stat generation is a pretty serious problem though, since there is a massive difference between games which use 25 point buy/elite array (what the designers thought was fair for avoiding the chance of bad rolls) and those who use 30/32/more point buy, beefed up rolling methods (including extra rerolls), or just massive stat arrays.

Char-op wisdom says that MAD classes need more stats, but SAD classes get even more out of those free stats and the game does not actually expect you to have phat stats. It expects you do to just fine with a starting 14 or 15 in your main stat and 12s in your other stats. Standard PHB stat generation only considers your stats too low if you have so many penalties that adding up all your modifiers gives +0, or you lack a score higher than 13. MAD classes aren't supposed to need all those stats high- they're supposed to do just fine with 12s and 13s in them (and if they aren't then you should fix the class, not jack up everyone's stats at the same time).



player A competent melee guy. gets 2 levels in fighter, then the rest in barbarian takes some charge supported feats, like leap attack and shock trooper as well as various feats to shore up his RP concept such as diehard and endurance as he has a reputation for not going down when he should. At level 20 on a charge full attack does about 650-700 damage, enough to 'one shot' anything


And now it's time to bring out the definition of overpowered. Florian got close,

In d20, the CR/EL system is the yard stick that measures both, risk (in the form of expected resources expended.) and reward (the XP chart.).
But didn't mention the crucial bit, the bit that leaves everyone arguing about "competent" and "useless" and "contributing" and all the rest, which is what exactly that expected resource expenditure is:


An encounter with an Encounter Level (EL) equal to the PC's level is one that should expend about 20% of their resources- hit points, spells, magic item uses, and so on. (emphasis added)

This right here is the crux of every single argument about power levels. Because that "competent melee guy" who one-shots a foe of equal CR to the party level? He just single-handedly wiped an encounter that was supposed to cost 20% of the party's spells. That guy is not competent, he is overpowered by definition (unless some 40 or 50% of the time he instead fails and loses all his hit points and the party has to bail him out so the average cost is still 20%).

And a spellcaster who ends the encounter without spending 20% of the party's spells is also overpowered- though the spellcaster is always spending some amount of spells at least. Spells can be converted into hit points and survial buffs, so the melee guy can actually be rated in number of spells it takes to heal and buff them up vs number of spells they saved by putting out extra DPS- or the spellcaster can be rated in how much the instant spell did vs what the melee guy could have done with the buff. This is all just fiddling with details though.

It doesn't matter what the monsters are or how much the DM is optimizing them or dumbing them down- if the party is spending less resources than they should be on average, then they are currently overpowered. If this is the fault of a specific character or characters, those characters are overpowered. The only way a character can ever be underpowered is if they are personally driving up the resource cost beyond 20% while everyone else is fighting at maximum efficiency- which is rather difficult to prove for anything short of "takes too much damage and deliberately wastes resources." And once again, it does not matter what the monsters are or how the DM is optimizing or dumbing them down. The DM makes the encounters, the party fights the encounters, no rating means anything without considering both. A character can only be underpowered (or overpowered) in the context of a specific game.

The point is that if you are expecting a melee character to solo monsters equal to their level without losing nearly all their hit points or requiring a bunch of buff spells to survive special attacks, you are expecting a higher power level of that character than the CR/EL system is explicitly built around.

So we get a bunch of nerds together (see: xkcd). Everyone wants to make the best characters they can, including the DM, so they all optimize to their preferred levels and then throw the results together. Because the core design of the game puts a significant portion of the party's overall power in the hands of the spellcasters, and it's easier to optimize magic, the sorts of encounters that can force a spellcaster to expend 20% of their resources can actually cost more if the non-casters get involved (since the buffs and heals that were orignally expected to go to the non-casters have been more efficiently optimized into offensive spells), at which point those characters are underpowered- in the context of those games only.

And technically even then that's only if the DM is jacking up the encounters without boosting the CR- if the DM is just throwing over EL'd encounters at the party, and the casters are winning 2 or 3 or 4 or more over-leveled encounters per day where the non-casters are considered a liability- that's still just those characters being overpowered in a game full of overpowered encounters. The melee characters could still be normally powered vs those encounters, if they were fought spaced out with normally powered casters, and a normally powered party should be dead after fighting a bunch of over-EL'd encounters in a single day (barring a significant run of luck, resource injection, NPC help, etc- if you give them more resources to do it).

If you've powered up the monsters (directly or by reducing the CR/xp/treasure of higher CR monsters) to the point where non-casters are a liability. . . that's on you mate. That's not the game overall, it's just a particular game with a particular DM and group of players. You can talk about that sort of game, but it's not the base game: it's a game where encounters have been powered up beyond what certain classes can follow.


And that's all it is. Some people like to make more powerful offensive spellcasters, which require more difficult encounters, which the non-casters have less room to optimize their way out of, and so they are unjustly deemed underpowered. The only way to stop arguing about it in circles is to understand all of that and stop pretending everyone's personal games are the default when they're not.

There is a baseline for a lot of comparisons, but that baseline is not a single class- it's the full standard party playing in a defensive dungeoneering style against a given encounter. People want to talk about RAW, you've got RAW monster stats, you just need to add your assumptions about party and playstyle.

Edit: and to be clear, it's not like people don't know about this. They call it the 4 encounter day after all. But that's backwards. It's not a 4 encounter day because you never fight more or less than four (you should fight four on average, so every 1 encounter day means 5, 6, 7 encounters in one or more days to come), it's just the result you'd get if you ran nothing but equal EL encounters at 20% resources per encounter. Boss fights should still have higher EL and thus have fewer fights that day or risk running out of resources. Mooks are still lower EL and you should be able to fight more of them spaced over the day or thrown in at random. Going up or down drastically changes the possible resource expenditure, so you can't really gauge power based on that either. And fighting four encounters at higher EL should be running the party out of resources and possibly killing them.

[Deophaun]

(you should fight four on average, so every 1 encounter day means 5, 6, 7 encounters in one or more days to come)I would hope not. Fortunately, there are three different types of averages. 4-5 should be the median adventuring day.

A day where you're engaged in 7 encounters, each designed to deplete 20% of your resources, is a day the party wipes in the afternoon. That must mean that DMs and adventure modules that have parties engaged at that level but still intend for the party to be able to triumph must expect those encounters to consume a mean average of 14% (and likely less) of the party's resources each.

Conversely, that one encounter day was probably at a relatively high CR that consumed 50-80%.

And then you have the players that don't so much as optimize their characters as their tactics. They'll foil the BBEG's plans to open a gate to the abyss with a piece of twine, some moldy cheese, and that seemingly inconsequential detail the DM casually dropped without thinking. Then, it's the player that's OP, not the character.

[Fizban]

I literally addressed that in next two sentences

Boss fights should still have higher EL and thus have fewer fights that day or risk running out of resources. Mooks are still lower EL and you should be able to fight more of them spaced over the day or thrown in at random.
Arguments based on the four encounter day are assuming only equal level 20% resource fights, which are only supposed to be half the encounters of the game. But it's also the only stable point for which any attempt at a statement of power level can be made.

As for tactics, yup that's a whole 'nother bag of worms. Coast though on auto-pilot until a boss shows up, then suddenly it's 20 minutes per turn and they're the new god of tactics and cast half a dozen spells that they just had silently waiting on their list. If the players aren't playing consistently you've got even more layers to deal with.

[ayvango]

An encounter with an Encounter Level (EL) equal to the PC's level is one that should expend about 20% of their resources- hit points, spells, magic item uses, and so on. (emphasis added)

And what you do with a warlock or a fighter than has no spells to spend? How could they deplete their resources? Fighter loses HP? It can be healed back with wand of lesser vigour. Which is virtually infinite.

For X enemy HP, semi-optimized fighter spend 1/2 X HP to defeat his counterpart. Then he need some small portion of obtained treasure/XP to fully recover. So now he could end another encounter.

This is a basic trading principle: turnover is better then margin. You should never conserve on one-use resources that allows you to keep your business going. The same goes for wizard's wands.

[Necroticplague]

And what you do with a warlock or a fighter than has no spells to spend? How could they deplete their resources? Fighter loses HP? It can be healed back with wand of lesser vigour. Which is virtually infinite.

If it's a Crusader or the fighter has Fast Healing, the wand is unnecessary.

[Florian]

Which is virtually infinite.

That is basically a bug in the system and a lot of spells even widened the gap by ignoring basic principles of the game system.

[ayvango]

That is basically a bug in the system
Do you mean that all healing spells is bug in the system? And you need some external hack to make things works smoothly? Like the future edition introduced healing surges.

[Nifft]

then clearly the best option is to push the car wherever you want to go

absolutely no gas consumption whatsoever, and you're getting good exercise in the process!

That is an excellent solution, yes.

Optimizing further, we can replace the car with a vehicle that doesn't protect you much from the elements (since you'd be outside pushing in either case), and which gives you some kind of mechanical advantage while pushing.

In this case, the optimized car-you-push might be called a "bicycle".

Bicycles are a remarkably viable gas-conservation solution.

[Fizban]

Good thing there are encounters that cost more than hp damage and require more than a sword and eldritch blast to beat. But yes, if your DM is using only hp damaging encounters which you can defeat with nothing more than funneling heal wands through your fighter, and you have an unlimited source of healing wands, then your party is overpowered. Bit of a straw DM though, when so many monsters have non-hp targeting effects, or even hp targeting effects that will simply kill the fighter before they can kill the monster.

You've also invoked a non-core warlock (and crusader), the allowance of which is on the DM and must be accounted for by them (such as by using more monsters with non-hp attacks and their own regeneration or critical dps to resist attrition), and assume free access to healing wands as desired. If I were to consider a DM that only used hp damaging fights that could be won without limited spell support, this would not be a DM that allowed unlimited spellcasting items.

You can squirm all you want- trying to find loopholes just proves that you understand the concept and are looking for loopholes. The DM is not vulnerable to loopholes, the game is not vulnerable to loopholes.

[Necroticplague]

Do you mean that all healing spells is bug in the system? And you need some external hack to make things works smoothly? Like the future edition introduced healing surges.
I think he's referring to the fact that lesser vigor is vastly more efficient than other healing spells when put in a wand as a bug.

Healing Surges actually force healing to be a finite resource. Since healing without surges is near non-existent (at least in 4e), you will never have any 'as long as I'm not dead, I'm fine' an infinite amount of times (like you could in 3.5 with Fast healing). Each time you heal up, you're using up a finite (for the day) resource.

[tyckspoon]

Do you mean that all healing spells is bug in the system? And you need some external hack to make things works smoothly? Like the future edition introduced healing surges.

Healing coming from somewhere other than daily slots is probably .. I wouldn't call it a bug, but likely an unintended consequence of a couple of things. 1st level spells at caster level 1 are really cheap, because they mostly aren't going to have significant impacts. At the point in the game where you can afford a functionally limitless number of them, you don't really care about them - you're not going to waste your actions throwing around CL1 Magic Missiles or Sleeps or Burning Hands when you're level 5+. But Cure Light Wounds/Lesser Vigor is an exception, because you are practically always going to care about your HP total.

The other part of the problem is that the Cure series of spells scales really poorly. Casting Cure (Moderate/Serious/Critical) Wounds is literally exactly the same as casting Cure Light Wounds 2,3, or 4 times. This is.. really weird for spells, actually - in general, a spell level's worth of potency is more than just stapling two lower-level slots together. A Level 2 spell is more than just 2 level 1 spells. A level 4 spell should be dramatically more powerful than just casting a level 1 spell 4 times (this is why Versatile Spellcaster is good, aside from early-entry Prestige Class shenanigans - it lets you turn your lower level slots into higher level spells, which should give you better results than just casting the lower level slots.) And the pricing for getting magic effects from items reflects that scaling; the cost of a wand/scroll/potion includes both the caster level and the spell level, which means pricing for higher level spell effects increases quite quickly.

So.. the thing break downs when you look at healing. Higher-level healing spells *aren't* more effective than lower level ones, but you pay for them as if they were. Which means the 'best' way to do healing, especially not-in-active-danger healing where action efficiency isn't really a concern, is to get the most low-level healing spells you can for the lowest cost. Enter: The Wand of Cure Light Wounds or Lesser Vigor.

[ayvango]

When playing wizard I'm buying wand with 12 charges of Light of Lunia (using familiar to relay beams). It'is enough to lvlup twice. Then I'm buing 12 charges of ray of stupidity to make fast progression hunting animals. Healing belt is good investment too. Knowing foe's vulnerability you could prepare specific wands and spells to win encounters without spending daily resources. It works for complex encounters too.

[Nifft]

This is.. really weird for spells, actually - in general, a spell level's worth of potency is more than just stapling two lower-level slots together. A Level 2 spell is more than just 2 level 1 spells.

Summon Monster II: Summon 1d3 monsters from the Summon Monster I list.

[ayvango]

Higher-level healing spells *aren't* more effective than lower level ones
The same goes for direct damaging spells. I suppose that designers consider action economy as part of spell power. Damaging or healing considerable amount of HP at one go is worth itself.

[tyckspoon]

Summon Monster II: Summon 1d3 monsters from the Summon Monster I list.

The high degree of randomness makes it less certain, but you can't cast two Summon Monster 1 and wind up with 3 monsters. And no matter how many times you cast Summon Monster 1, it will never call a Riding Dog, a Wolf, or a Giant Bombardier Beetle - and if you're looking for extra useful bodies on the battlefield, the difference between the CR 1/3 or 1/2 things you can get from SM1 and the CR 1 or 2 (although I think the Beetle is probably over-cr'd with a rating given entirely on that acid spray ability) from SM2 is pretty significant.


The same goes for direct damaging spells. I suppose that designers consider action economy as part of spell power. Damaging or healing considerable amount of HP at one go is worth itself.

In active combat, doing more damage in a single action does have value, because taking out opponents faster means you are that much closer to winning the fight and taking less risk in return. There's also some consideration for more return on caster level - Fireball isn't that much better than Burning Hands when you first get it. But scale them both to their max, and a 10d6 Fireball is definitely superior to casting 2 5d4 Burning Hands or a single (4d6+4d6) Scorching Ray at the same Caster Level. There's definitely room to argue about if there's enough improvement in damage done versus expected enemy HP, but you can see the improvement. Cure spells don't get that - the caster level based portion of them increases by +5 for each spell level. It's just stapling on another d8+5 healing. No quantitative improvement over casting Cure Light (Spell Level) number of times, no increased range, no extra targets.. no incentive to not just spam Cure Light instead of a higher-level, more expensive spell until you get all the way up to Heal.

[Necroticplague]

So.. the thing break downs when you look at healing. Higher-level healing spells *aren't* more effective than lower level ones, but you pay for them as if they were. Which means the 'best' way to do healing, especially not-in-active-danger healing where action efficiency isn't really a concern, is to get the most low-level healing spells you can for the lowest cost. Enter: The Wand of Cure Light Wounds or Lesser Vigor.

Higher level healing spells are more effective. They're just not sufficiently more effective to justify the cost. A Lesser Vigor wand contains 550 HP, stored in 50 11-hp chunks. A wand of Vigor heals 1500 HP, stored in 30-HP chunks. So it's clearly a roughly 3 times effective as a Lesser Vigor wand. The only problem is that it costs 15 times as much, making it a worse deal. A Lesser Vigor wand has each HP cost .73 GP, while a normal Vigor has each cost 1.33 GP.

[ayvango]

In active combat, doing more damage in a single action does have value
Same goes for in-combat healing. The problem is how in-combat healing interacts with out-of-combat options. Honestly, there should be two different HP pools: in-combat and out-of-combat. Something like effective but temporary in-combat HP and hard to acquire out-of-combat.

But that would fix partially only one side of resource economy. As long as there is complicated magic system with spells capable of doing anything and wands to store them, you always could "buy" resources to continue levelling up without resting.



There's definitely room to argue about if there's enough improvement in damage done versus expected enemy HP, but you can see the improvement.

fireball is pivoting point, where wizard damage begin exceed that of warlock. 3rd level of damaging spells is when they become the most efficient. They deal dramatically bigger damage that spells of lower level, and higher level spells does not scale as good.

Cleric has the same spell, which outperforms all low levels and no high level spell is as good comparing to lo level as it. The spell called Heal.

[Mutazoia]

I'm need some examples. Suppose, I'm optimizing my car for the gallons/km parameter, the less gasoline is needed to travel 100 km the best. So, how could I optimize that parameter to made my car illegal?

Gas mileage can be extended in several ways. The easiest way is to drop weight. If you start stripping parts off of your car, you will eventually strip off parts that are required safety features. And then you can strip off the body....

Here...watch this...you'll get the idea.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIJBt1p0a5A

[EldritchWeaver]

I'd like to address the (mis)understanding of competent vs optimized characters. Optimization is inherently a matter of degree. So you have a number of choices. Some are comparatively better than others. Some are exclusive with each other. For an optimizer, each choice should contribute to some arbitrary goal, or it is wasted. (Now we could talk about that many people want more than one goal and that a choice benefiting more than one goal is certainly better than one which only supports one, but the latter still better than a choice which supports just one. But I keep it simple here.) For people who decry optimization, such a "wasted" choice has still value. They even seem to oppose choosing "optimizer picks".

So for comparison purposes and simplicity, I stipulate the following abstract optimization game: For any arbitrary goal, you can make ten choices overall. Each choice gives 0, 1, or 2 points. The higher the sum of points is, the better a character is at that arbitrary goal. That means, you can have at most 20 points. Now my questions are:

How many points does a character need to be competent? How many points does a character need to be optimized? Is there a difference in how you achieve the goal (e.g. assume 10 points are required. Are 5 2-point choices and 5 0-point choices for a single character different to a character who has chosen 10 1-point choices?)?

My personal opinion:

Basic competency is situated at 5-10 points. Optimized characters have 10-15 points. Really focused characters require 16+ points.

Choosing high-value options has the advantage you simply get more bang for the buck. That means that even if you are ok with a competent character, choosing high value-options provides you the opportunity to branch out into a second competency. Thus you have nice backup character for two specialists instead merely playing always the second fiddle.

[Gnaeus]

If you make a competent character You make a character that can reasonably succeed on whatever tasks they might come across, or at least not be totally useless when in a situation where their specific speciality is not the focus of said task.

To make a character optimized, you make that character to squueze every last drop of 'yes' out of the mechanical rules, which can totally be supported by roleplay, sometimes to the detriment of the game system as a whole or just to other player's character. That is not always the case though.

Here is the difference in D&D terms

player A competent melee guy. gets 2 levels in fighter, then the rest in barbarian takes some charge supported feats, like leap attack and shock trooper as well as various feats to shore up his RP concept such as diehard and endurance as he has a reputation for not going down when he should. At level 20 on a charge full attack does about 650-700 damage, enough to 'one shot' anything

player B optimized melee guy. I have no idea what this build is exactly because I do not have time to look it up, but at level 20 on a charge full attack is doing over 5 thousand damage ( Keld Denar is the one who made the build if you wanna do the searching) Generally, but not always so, because of the optimization, the 'space' for 'fluff' feats is non-exhistant so those fall by the wayside to make room for 'bigger stuffs'

But in all my years of playing D&D a face to face gaming session tends to be more on the lets make competent characters than let’s make optimized characters.

The funny thing is that player A isn’t just optimizing, he is optimizing a lot. That’s solidly a mid op character.
He is multiclassing for effect. Like, he’s not Elminster dipping muggle levels, he has realized that 2 levels of fighter is the best number and taken that.
He is built towards a goal, charging.
He is taking suboptimal choices to get to a stronger future result. There was some level where that guy clearly said “bull rush sucks, but I need it to get to shock trooper later in game.
He’s using a lot of sources. He didn’t just look at the phb feat list, he did research
He is making some fairly sophisticated mechanical decisions. He has either read a guide or has a very good grasp of game mechanics. For example, he knows that a solid charger really wants leap attack and shock trooper, but not powerful charge and improved powerful charge.

He’s hit every single hallmark I would use to distinguish a mid op character. Filthy optimizer.

[ericgrau]

This came up repeatedly in another thread I started and I'm looking for a clear definition, please. Thank you.

Power level of group. Achieved via the choices they make.

It is not fair for people who use 20 books and 50 hours to find the strongest choices to play next to people who use 3 books that they don't read very long.

Therefore it is a common question in these forums to ask "What is your optimization level?" We want to make sure you are playing fairly next to the other people in your group and will not make them mad. When we know the answer it helps us give better advice.

Because many people in the forums are experienced with dungeons and dragons, what is "normal" here might be high for other people. So if you are new here, instead of saying "low optimization", "medium optimization" or "high optimization", it is better to say: "I use these 5 books and I know this much about the game. We allow things like ____, but not things like ____."