Optimizing min/max. Expected?

[Mordante]

Most character builds I see here are heavily min/maxed. Is that just pure theory crafting or do most people here play optimized characters? Is playing a min/max character actually expected by a DM? I think some optimizing is nice, but creating a character just for maximum damage output seems rather silly/limited to be. Especially since combat is just one part of the DnD or most RPGs. No each session has combat or even dice rolling for that matter.

Also how do GM deal with a mixed party of min/maxed character and pure fluff characters?

[Zombimode]

You won't get a general answer to this, only personal anecdotes.

[Mordaedil]

Most character builds I see here are heavily min/maxed. Is that just pure theory crafting or do most people here play optimized characters?
A lot of theory-crafting happens on this board, but some optimizations do make it into games. It's often a lot like trying to find a bunch of puzzle-pieces that makes the character do interesting things I find, than just straight up optimized for the sake of optimized.


Is playing a min/max character actually expected by a DM? I think some optimizing is nice, but creating a character just for maximum damage output seems rather silly/limited to be. Especially since combat is just one part of the DnD or most RPGs. No each session has combat or even dice rolling for that matter.
I don't think DM's should expect optimized characters at the table, but it's a very individualized taste. Some DMs love playing the optimization game and cater to players who do the same and vice versa. But everyone in my experience play D&D differently. We've had sessions with no combat whatsoever and charisma based characters that carry the party.


Also how do GM deal with a mixed party of min/maxed character and pure fluff characters?
This always makes for some matter of debate or discussion, but if the gap is too wide you always run the risk of the fluff characters feeling under-catered for as the "important characters do all of the work". Ideally, you have the fluff characters that are less optimized try their hand at something and the optimized characters save them from a bad situation when things go out of hand.

While you could just play the classes very straight and not really optimize at all, I feel like if you don't really explore the options fully, you'd almost be better served playing a different edition of D&D. 3.5 and Pathfinder is interesting because it has so many moving parts I feel and if you aren't going to use that, well there's no reason not to just play 5e.

[Mechalich]

The d20 system, by its very nature essentially demands at least some measure of min/maxing. Characters are expected to hit specific benchmarks for outputs at certain levels in order to remain competitive against CR-equivalent enemies. This includes bonuses built into gear, never mind just internal character stats (PF actually codified this by creating an alternative advancement progression that just gives characters innate bonuses to match the expected gear they would otherwise need). Players that do not min-max their characters or, perhaps more commonly, deliberately build characters against type, are walking into a trap. Even certain stereotypical archetypes, like Wizards with a low constitution score, are essentially doomed against standard level-based challenges.

The d20 system also encourages additional min-maxing for other reasons such as classes positioned at radically different power tiers - which means a fighter must min-max extensively simply to remain relevant in a party with any full casters at all - the considerable time investment in building a higher-level character which encourages players to do everything they can to avoid having to roll up a new character, and the truly insane benefits offered by properly synergistic specialization (while generally not fun for GMs, many players absolutely love a good game-breaking power trip).

As a result the question about min-maxing in d20 (and specifically in 3.PF D&D) is not whether players should min-max at all - since some measure of doing so is mandated, but about how much min-maxing is good vs bad, which elements are truly broken when combined with others and should be banned, and at the design level, whether building a system this way was a good idea. The last question is the most contentious one.

On the one hand 3.PF D&D is quite possibly the most min-max friendly TTRPG ever played by a large audience and seeing as it is also probably the most popular TTRPG ever published this would seem to suggest that an openness to min/maxing is something favored by a significant portion of the hobby. On the other hand, abuses of min/maxing, or issues adjacent to the same, are perhaps the most commonly complained about problem with the system, so, ups and downs I guess.

[Asmotherion]

I usually use optimisation as a guidline, and change stuff to fit my character's story.

As a DM, I watch what level of optimisation the party hits, and hit them back with the same.

[RexDart]

I usually use optimisation as a guidline, and change stuff to fit my character's story.

As a DM, I watch what level of optimisation the party hits, and hit them back with the same.

My approach as a player (in 3.5 or most any RPG) is to optimize within my character concept. My character concepts are usually a bit off the beaten path, but never to the point of the delightful-but-terrible character of "Abserd" from this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZCIh_3b5K8), who multiclassed one level in every class for which he was eligible.

[Batcathat]

My approach as a player (in 3.5 or most any RPG) is to optimize within my character concept. My character concepts are usually a bit off the beaten path, but never to the point of the delightful-but-terrible character of "Abserd" from this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZCIh_3b5K8), who multiclassed one level in every class for which he was eligible.

This is a pretty good description of my philosophy as well. I almost always have a concept in mind before I start thinking about builds and mechanics but I usually try to make something reasonably powerful within those limits. If I have to pick one or the other, I usually go with what suits my character (for example, even if I have literally no use for a stat I will almost never dump it completely unless it's part of the character idea for them to be exceptionally dumb or weak or whatever).

[Xervous]

Most discussions here generally set limits and then explore concepts fully within those limits. As most tables playing 3.PF nowadays are veterans they know what hazards to avoid in advance so we don’t see too many “how do I fix this character that is outside the balance range of the party?”

If you sample the posts that are asking about what would fit with a given party you’ll see a far less intense min/max drive.

[aglondier]

I usually use optimisation as a guidline, and change stuff to fit my character's story.

As a DM, I watch what level of optimisation the party hits, and hit them back with the same.


My approach as a player (in 3.5 or most any RPG) is to optimize within my character concept. My character concepts are usually a bit off the beaten path, but never to the point of the delightful-but-terrible character of "Abserd" from this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZCIh_3b5K8), who multiclassed one level in every class for which he was eligible.

Yes, this. Come up with a character concept, then do the best I can within that framework. I've played with rabid optimisers before, and did not enjoy the experience. As a GM, I have only had a couple of players over the last 25 or so years that were serious munchkins. Both left after a short time due to pressure from the other players.

[Gallowglass]

From my own experience, I've never played IRL with anyone with levels of optimization. They just make a character and make decisions at each level, not up front. I've picked up a few tricks here and there I use now and then, but two of the three DMS I play with don't run games in ways that encourage optimization (such as not being able to buy specific magic items, having a lot of social/non combat encounters that you can't solve by rolling a simple diplomancy check, etc.)

Most "optimization" theories on this board fall apart in real games pretty quick. My opinion is that a lot of the optimizers on this board never actually play in real life, they just enjoy making optimized characters. There's nothing wrong with that. I've seen several high-end optimizers complain over and over again about leaving games at the slightest provocation when things don't go their way. It doesn't seem to breed good social skills.

Not saying every optimizer is that way, but several on this board are. Enough to notice the pattern.

[Quertus]

Most character builds I see here are heavily min/maxed. Is that just pure theory crafting or do most people here play optimized characters? Is playing a min/max character actually expected by a DM? I think some optimizing is nice, but creating a character just for maximum damage output seems rather silly/limited to be. Especially since combat is just one part of the DnD or most RPGs. No each session has combat or even dice rolling for that matter.

Also how do GM deal with a mixed party of min/maxed character and pure fluff characters?

Balance to the table. Optimizing outside that range is poor sportsmanship.

If there *is* a problem, the GM should do nothing, as the *players* should take care of it.

At my tables, the range is reasonably large, and reaches reasonably high… but not as high as I'd like. :smallfrown:

And "having a personality" goes a long way for things outside of combat. And even for combat, come to think of it. :smallwink:

[Max Caysey]

Most "optimization" theories on this board fall apart in real games pretty quick. My opinion is that a lot of the optimizers on this board never actually play in real life, they just enjoy making optimized characters. There's nothing wrong with that. I've seen several high-end optimizers complain over and over again about leaving games at the slightest provocation when things don't go their way. It doesn't seem to breed good social skills.

I think that’s a gross over-generalization... I would argue that very few fall apart, but that people dislike too high optimization if the table as a whole isn’t on the same level...

[Zanos]

Most character builds I see here are heavily min/maxed. Is that just pure theory crafting or do most people here play optimized characters? Is playing a min/max character actually expected by a DM? I think some optimizing is nice, but creating a character just for maximum damage output seems rather silly/limited to be. Especially since combat is just one part of the DnD or most RPGs. No each session has combat or even dice rolling for that matter.
Combat is just one part of D&D, yes, but it is principally a system based around combat resolution, nearly all class features relate to combat, and the ones that don't are usually one offs, even the majority of the Rogues class features relate to combat in some way. The out of combat conflict resolution is skill based, which still involves dice rolls.


Also how do GM deal with a mixed party of min/maxed character and pure fluff characters?
IMO, there's no such thing as a 'pure fluff' character. D&D is not a video game RPG, there's much less segregation between gameplay and story. Your character does not have abilities that aren't on their sheet; you can't be a master diplomat with a 6 charisma and no ranks in diplomacy. And I probably wouldn't adventure with a guy who was supposed to hold the line and collapsed every fight because of his 8 constitution. The game was explicitly designed to some degree as an optimization problem, with the developers acknowledging that there are options that are strictly worse for certain characters.

Your characters don't have to be functionally invincible, and I think some people take it too far, but you should be competent at your role. For the characters after all, adventuring is life and death.

All of that said, party balance is a table issue. If the entire party is permanently mind swapped into the bodies of pit fiends, you probably aren't going to want to play a gimped character. And in the reverse, if the toughest party member is a fighter with a bunch of weapon focus feats, it's kind of a jerk move to roll in with a wizard gish just to show the guy up. So yeah, balance to the table. But it's not the kind of table I like to play at if the party is packed with deliberately incompetent characters.

[Telonius]

When I'm not behind the DM screen, I usually play a Cleric or some kind of sneaky caster, and optimize to roughly match what the rest of the party is doing. The DM knows I'm capable of breaking the game into little tiny pieces the next time I prepare spells, but I'm usually the only one who has the know-how to do that.

My bigger problem isn't with my own characters. The other gamers in my group have been pretty casual, so I usually help them out when they level-up. Sometimes I have to watch that I'm not giving them something that's either too powerful, or too hard-to-remember in combat. The Bardblade from the last campaign was pretty deadly, but would have been even more so if the player had remembered half the stuff on the character sheet. And I had to seriously restrain myself for not building my wife an Incantatrix. (It would have matched the character concept so well, but I was not about to spring that insanity on the DM).

[Troacctid]

I don't think you need to min-max. I think if you just, like, choose options that are good, and avoid options that are bad, you'll probably be fine. Laser-focusing your build on just one thing is...I mean, it's a strategy, I guess, but in my experience, playing a one-trick pony is just not that much fun. You should have at least, like, four tricks, minimum.

That's kind of why my handbooks are all like, "Here is literally every possible option. Pick your favorites."

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Character builds and the optimizing thereof are pretty much mandatory in 3.PF, if only because so many build options require prereqs -- and therefore planning. And the amount of planning you have to do in order to fulfill prereqs means you have to spend time considering how the build will go together, which is pretty much optimizing, by definition.

[Troacctid]

I've never worried about prerequisites. That's a sucker's game IMO. You don't know how long the campaign is going to run, so there's a decent chance you're just wasting feats for a payoff you'll never see. Better to take feats that benefit you now, and retrain them later if you change your mind.

[Particle_Man]

The key is not being bored. If I am too low powered, I get bored because I can't do anything useful. If I am too high-powered, I get bored because I stomp over the opposition too quickly.

But it does pay to stick with one's group level. Right now my group is very low optimization, and the DM matches that, so I am playing a fun-themed character but not Pun-Pun or anything. Heck, this might be the group for me to try out a Green Star Adept. :smallsmile:

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I optimize for my character -- and I tend to play characters that are incredibly highly optimized, but they use abilities that work well regardless of the optimization level of the group. Like, using psionic minor creation to create tools and such, which complement what the rest of the party can do, rather than running over them. Or using buffs or action economy boosts (such as white raven tactics) to help the rest of the party do their jobs better, and they scale with how effective the party is.

That doesn't change the fact that I try for super-optimized; I just try to do so in a way that doesn't outshine everyone else, because I'm working on a meta-level.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

I'd also argue that optimization can be a great tool for building flavorful, good-for-RP characters. Every weird feat or class feature is more than just a mechanical boost to your character; it's a quirk that can be mined for personality and backstory.


A few easy examples:

Totem Barbarian - Does your tribe favor that animal, or do you just have a personal connection to it? Perhaps you went against tradition by picking that animal? Do you treat wild animals of that type specially when the party encounters them? Do you have any mannerisms or physical traits reminiscent of your spirit animal?

Craven - Your character scares more easily. Are they just generally less bold, leading to them advocating safe options over guts and glory? If so, what made them become an adventurer; where they forced into the life, or perhaps they carefully calculate the odds of risk/reward, taking the risks only when the rewards are potentially great, even though it scares them? Or are they haunted by something specific in their past, something they see whenever they're hit with a fear effect?

Focused Specialist Wizard - What made you pick that school? Is it a family tradition? Your wizarding college's/mentor's specialty? Did the character just crunch the numbers and come to the conclusion that this was the best strategy for their chosen path in life (much like the player presumably did)? What did your fellow students think of it, and how did your decision to hyperfocus affect your social life and other studies? How did you manage to learn so much about that school of magic compared to your peers, anyway?


I may be very well be preaching to the choir here, but I do think it's worth a reminder that optimization and roleplay are not opposite ends of some scale. Rather, mechanics and fluff should always inform one another.

[gijoemike]

I have been on the opposite end of optimization. Once I was in a campaign in which the melee paladin didn't take power attack. He was level 16 and with each attack he did 1d8 for the longsword + str (22 for +6) + d6 fire + magic modifier. Crits and smites happened but average damage per attack was 15 with a max of 23. I repeat --At level 16--. That shield was for AC only as he didn't 2 weapon fight with it.

This was a detriment to the party. One must apply basic levels of optimization as to not be a detriment. One needs to crest T4 at the very least. One may stay in character or within concept but figure out a way to get to T4.


The GM must play to the level of the players not just the level of the PCs.

[Troacctid]

Just to be clear...min-maxing is not the same as optimization. It is a particular optimization strategy that focuses on a single aspect of the character at the expense of everything else, i.e. maximizing that attribute while minimizing the others. A focused specialist evoker incantatrix blaster is min-maxed. An elven generalist urban savant utility caster, on the other hand, may be optimized, but probably isn't min-maxed.

[Zanos]

Just to be clear...min-maxing is not the same as optimization. It is a particular optimization strategy that focuses on a single aspect of the character at the expense of everything else, i.e. maximizing that attribute while minimizing the others. A focused specialist evoker incantatrix blaster is min-maxed. An elven generalist urban savant utility caster, on the other hand, may be optimized, but probably isn't min-maxed.
Minmaxing is shorthand for minimizing disadvantages and maximizing advantages. Massive specialization can be a a minmax strategy if specialization has many advantages and few disadvantages, but a FS Evoker Incantatrix would have 4 banned schools of magic, and does not really qualify for 'minimized' disadvantages.

A character that is overspecialized to a crippling degree is not minmaxed.

[Elves]

My opinion is that a lot of the optimizers on this board never actually play in real life, they just enjoy making optimized characters.
It's instagram vs reality a little bit for sure. I always DM because it's what I enjoy in a real game. But I've learned a lot about 3.x since joining this forum and most of it is from charop threads.


An elven generalist urban savant utility caster, on the other hand, may be optimized, but probably isn't min-maxed.
Sounds minmaxed for generality :smallwink:

[icefractal]

Most "optimization" theories on this board fall apart in real games pretty quick. My opinion is that a lot of the optimizers on this board never actually play in real life, they just enjoy making optimized characters. There's nothing wrong with that. I've seen several high-end optimizers complain over and over again about leaving games at the slightest provocation when things don't go their way. It doesn't seem to breed good social skills.Some theories, but "most" is a real big stretch.

Like - "At 10th level I will have these exact items and hire a 20th level caster with these specific feats to cast this series of spells on me ..." Ok, that may not pan out that way in a given campaign.

But something like - "Conjurer Wizard with Abrupt Jaunt works well. Int and Initiative are important. Pick spells that either defeat foes, help your party significantly, or provide good utility." That all holds up in practice, IME.

Optimization doesn't just mean the high-end extreme stuff, it means making choices based on their impact in play rather than the name of the feat/class. It means considering which (of the many options out there) suits a given character the best. And it means taking the rules as they are, not having a preconceived idea of how a concept should be built. All of which are applicable to low-power-level games as well.

[Fizban]

Also how do GM deal with a mixed party of min/maxed character and pure fluff characters?
By recognizing this as a potential problem before the game begins, and not letting it happen. Trying to run a game for a party with characters at wildly different power levels is, if not absoutely destined for failure, then at least a heck of a lot harder than it needs to be.

Player agency does not give one player the right to make a character that is wildly out of balance with the rest of the party, whether over or under-powered. The DM is responsible for making sure this doesn't happen. If the group happens to be split down the middle, half power characters and half making zero effort, then you're just gonna have to keep dragging everyone back to the drawing board until they've got close enough in the middle for things to work.

[BaronDoctor]

The way I see it, D&D is a social game. As such, heavy optimization is more the Angel Summoner vs BMX Bandit problem.

For which even a comedy sketch arrives at a plausible solution: optimize for support. Sure, use DMM: Persist...for mass lesser vigor and recitation to make everyone better. Go book diving...for inspire courage to strengthen weapon attacks. Take multiple caster prestige classes...if they're war weaver and Spellguard and you use those to help your buddies.

If you are working to raise the effectiveness floor for everyone, go as wild as you like. Even something as small as your melee character acquiring the flank from anywhere stance because your group's rogue is struggling to flank is a step in the right direction.

Phenomenal cosmic powers should be used for the good of all. This also includes being a good teammate and friend out of game. It's just a better time for everyone concerned.

[Batcathat]

For which even a comedy sketch arrives at a plausible solution: optimize for support. Sure, use DMM: Persist...for mass lesser vigor and recitation to make everyone better. Go book diving...for inspire courage to strengthen weapon attacks. Take multiple caster prestige classes...if they're war weaver and Spellguard and you use those to help your buddies.

This is a common advice and maybe it works great in some groups but personally I would be more annoyed if I was, say, a fighter in a group with a wizard like this than one that just stole the show and solved every problem by themselves. At least that's honest, instead of patting the lowly martial on the head and pretending they need them. Again, I can see how it actually works in some groups but I don't think it's for everyone.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

3.5/PF games I've played in have run the gamut between low and high optimization. It really depends on the table. Bringing a character whose optimization level doesn't "fit in" with the rest of the group, either because the PC is way too good or is dead weight, is poor form (though the latter case is likely to be unintentional).

[Elkad]

I have been on the opposite end of optimization. Once I was in a campaign in which the melee paladin didn't take power attack. He was level 16 and with each attack he did 1d8 for the longsword + str (22 for +6) + d6 fire + magic modifier. Crits and smites happened but average damage per attack was 15 with a max of 23. I repeat --At level 16--. That shield was for AC only as he didn't 2 weapon fight with it.

This was a detriment to the party. One must apply basic levels of optimization as to not be a detriment. One needs to crest T4 at the very least. One may stay in character or within concept but figure out a way to get to T4.


The GM must play to the level of the players not just the level of the PCs.

And I'm sure the party helped out by.. Polymorphing him into a giant, or at least casting enlarge on him, or something?

Or did you just let him struggle...

Depending on the table, Power Attack may not even be that great an idea. I tend to push AC and resistances on the enemies I throw at the party. It adds challenge, without the monsters one-shotting people like a blanket CR increase does.
If you need a 17 to hit, Weapon Specialization (generally considered a terrible feat) is going to add as much damage as Power Attack.

[Mordante]

The d20 system, by its very nature essentially demands at least some measure of min/maxing. Characters are expected to hit specific benchmarks for outputs at certain levels in order to remain competitive against CR-equivalent enemies. This includes bonuses built into gear, never mind just internal character stats (PF actually codified this by creating an alternative advancement progression that just gives characters innate bonuses to match the expected gear they would otherwise need). Players that do not min-max their characters or, perhaps more commonly, deliberately build characters against type, are walking into a trap. Even certain stereotypical archetypes, like Wizards with a low constitution score, are essentially doomed against standard level-based challenges.

The d20 system also encourages additional min-maxing for other reasons such as classes positioned at radically different power tiers - which means a fighter must min-max extensively simply to remain relevant in a party with any full casters at all - the considerable time investment in building a higher-level character which encourages players to do everything they can to avoid having to roll up a new character, and the truly insane benefits offered by properly synergistic specialization (while generally not fun for GMs, many players absolutely love a good game-breaking power trip).

As a result the question about min-maxing in d20 (and specifically in 3.PF D&D) is not whether players should min-max at all - since some measure of doing so is mandated, but about how much min-maxing is good vs bad, which elements are truly broken when combined with others and should be banned, and at the design level, whether building a system this way was a good idea. The last question is the most contentious one.

On the one hand 3.PF D&D is quite possibly the most min-max friendly TTRPG ever played by a large audience and seeing as it is also probably the most popular TTRPG ever published this would seem to suggest that an openness to min/maxing is something favored by a significant portion of the hobby. On the other hand, abuses of min/maxing, or issues adjacent to the same, are perhaps the most commonly complained about problem with the system, so, ups and downs I guess.

You are correct3.PF is is very min max friendly. But it can lead to difficult situations. Some people love to dig up obscure books and use interesting feat/ability combos. BuT I know other people who like to play 3.PF but have never looked at any book besides the PHB.


I usually use optimisation as a guidline, and change stuff to fit my character's story.

As a DM, I watch what level of optimisation the party hits, and hit them back with the same.

Me as well, at low level it is doable. But at high level it's hard. We had a devine oracle player, who was very good, but we also has a lvl 17 illusionist who is an absolute passivist.


From my own experience, I've never played IRL with anyone with levels of optimization. They just make a character and make decisions at each level, not up front. I've picked up a few tricks here and there I use now and then, but two of the three DMS I play with don't run games in ways that encourage optimization (such as not being able to buy specific magic items, having a lot of social/non combat encounters that you can't solve by rolling a simple diplomancy check, etc.)
Most "optimization" theories on this board fall apart in real games pretty quick. My opinion is that a lot of the optimizers on this board never actually play in real life, they just enjoy making optimized characters. There's nothing wrong with that. I've seen several high-end optimizers complain over and over again about leaving games at the slightest provocation when things don't go their way. It doesn't seem to breed good social skills.

Not saying every optimizer is that way, but several on this board are. Enough to notice the pattern.
Good point optimizing a character for lvl12 or higher is fun to do. But many people will never reach those levels. Resulting in characters who are gimped at low level. Also even if you reach these high levels who guarantees you that your character will be able to learn these.


Combat is just one part of D&D, yes, but it is principally a system based around combat resolution, nearly all class features relate to combat, and the ones that don't are usually one offs, even the majority of the Rogues class features relate to combat in some way. The out of combat conflict resolution is skill based, which still involves dice rolls.
IMO, there's no such thing as a 'pure fluff' character. D&D is not a video game RPG, there's much less segregation between gameplay and story. Your character does not have abilities that aren't on their sheet; you can't be a master diplomat with a 6 charisma and no ranks in diplomacy. And I probably wouldn't adventure with a guy who was supposed to hold the line and collapsed every fight because of his 8 constitution. The game was explicitly designed to some degree as an optimization problem, with the developers acknowledging that there are options that are strictly worse for certain characters.
Your characters don't have to be functionally invincible, and I think some people take it too far, but you should be competent at your role. For the characters after all, adventuring is life and death.
All of that said, party balance is a table issue. If the entire party is permanently mind swapped into the bodies of pit fiends, you probably aren't going to want to play a gimped character. And in the reverse, if the toughest party member is a fighter with a bunch of weapon focus feats, it's kind of a jerk move to roll in with a wizard gish just to show the guy up. So yeah, balance to the table. But it's not the kind of table I like to play at if the party is packed with deliberately incompetent characters.
So how do you balance a party? If some people in the part play a pure PHB fighter or monk would you consider them incompetent characters? I used to play with some people who were decent enough role players but still after 2 years didn’t know the difference between the ability stats. Or had no clue what to look for on their sheet if the DM asked for a skill check.
We did have fun, Covid-19 sort of ended it.


I optimize for my character -- and I tend to play characters that are incredibly highly optimized, but they use abilities that work well regardless of the optimization level of the group. Like, using psionic minor creation to create tools and such, which complement what the rest of the party can do, rather than running over them. Or using buffs or action economy boosts (such as white raven tactics) to help the rest of the party do their jobs better, and they scale with how effective the party is.
That doesn't change the fact that I try for super-optimized; I just try to do so in a way that doesn't outshine everyone else, because I'm working on a meta-level.
I sometimes do the same. My Archblade is an IMHO absolute monster in close combat. However since the creation of him I have most avoided combat at all. He is a veteran, and kind of been there done that. Seen to many fights, and now knows that fighting changes things but often not improves things. That is why he is weary of fighting. So yes even if a character is OP compared to the party on paper it doesn’t mean he needs to be OP in the game.

I have been on the opposite end of optimization. Once I was in a campaign in which the melee paladin didn't take power attack. He was level 16 and with each attack he did 1d8 for the longsword + str (22 for +6) + d6 fire + magic modifier. Crits and smites happened but average damage per attack was 15 with a max of 23. I repeat --At level 16--. That shield was for AC only as he didn't 2 weapon fight with it.
This was a detriment to the party. One must apply basic levels of optimization as to not be a detriment. One needs to crest T4 at the very least. One may stay in character or within concept but figure out a way to get to T4.
The GM must play to the level of the players not just the level of the PCs.
Don’t know what you mean by T4. To me 23 damage doesn’t sound to bad. If he has 3 to 4 attacks per round the paladin can do 60+ damage in a round. Not bad.


I think most characters should also be useful without their sword/magic or thing, and be an actual character. If you ask a person what do you play? And they answer by just stating the class and nothing else they miss the pointof the game.

[gijoemike]

And I'm sure the party helped out by.. Polymorphing him into a giant, or at least casting enlarge on him, or something?

Or did you just let him struggle...

Depending on the table, Power Attack may not even be that great an idea. I tend to push AC and resistances on the enemies I throw at the party. It adds challenge, without the monsters one-shotting people like a blanket CR increase does.
If you need a 17 to hit, Weapon Specialization (generally considered a terrible feat) is going to add as much damage as Power Attack.

At earlier levels, yes. But by the time you hit lvl 12 the casters can do WAY better in a round than casting enlarge person. Polymorphing was a no because he then couldn't use a bunch of his gear and the wizard liked to blast out AOE spells. Also, polymorhing the enemy ends the fight completely. Extended enlarge and such happened from time to time. This game was very early on in 3.0 btw. We didn't have a lot of options and splat books. In fact because we were assisting him at earlier levels we/he didn't see how bad the high levels would going to be when the basic low level buff spells cease to work and the caster ceases dropping short term buffs in combat anymore.

It doesn't matter how you push AC and resistance. There are dozens of situational bonuses that will keep ones to-hit higher than the enemies AC. Charge, attack from higher ground, flanking, assist attack, tip a foe, blind a foe, etc. This paladin was hitting with 6 or 7 extra points to spare even on his 3rd attack of the round. 6 damage would have been a ~40% increase to his damage. I agree one need never full point power attack. I would be very curious to see a game where power attack was just never an option. I have never seen that happen. The closest I have seen that was a PF game where one of the PCs was playing a syncsiest and got up to a 56 AC mostly touch. That was not campaign wide that was a single example.

We also had a bard in the party so there was a bit of assistance from IC. But this was before badge of courage and song of the heart. The bard didn't take the feat words of creation as they didn't build for that cheese. Other players provided a flank, made the weapon a full +5 hit/damage magic weapon, inspired and we could get to 25 damage an attack. But still that is painful at lvl 16 when the wizard can drop 15d8(avg 67) on a groups of 3+ enemies, or just maze the big dumb brute and we worry about that in 4+ rounds later. Or the 2 handed ranger barbardian multiclass can attack 5 times with his dual long swords while raging and get +30 damage on each swing before any assistance.


The point is the party shouldn't need to bring your character up to par. You should start at a competent base and work up.

[Learn34]

DonÂ’t know what you mean by T4.
The tier system of D&D base classes (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?269440-Why-Each-Class-Is-In-Its-Tier-(Rescued-from-MinMax)).


To me 23 damage doesnÂ’t sound to bad. If he has 3 to 4 attacks per round the paladin can do 60+ damage in a round. Not bad.
By mid-teens a bruiser's DPR should be well north of 100. As was the apparent case in that game, 60-DPR wasn't even close to cutting it. In the games you've played in that may have been enough, but it would have been more a function of your DM tailoring-down to you party's competency.


I think most characters should also be useful without their sword/magic or thing, and be an actual character. If you ask a person what do you play? And they answer by just stating the class and nothing else they miss the pointof the game.
Again, this comes to a difference in philosophy. Except by DM fiat, a player has literally no ability to influence the game world other than what abilities are on their character sheet: they don't exist except as an assemblage of swords/magic/skills/"things". Specifically if playing 3./PF, they've completely missed the point if they don't answer with their race/class, or at least their mechanical roll: "I'm a charger/tripper" or "I'm the party face, usually". Another system? All bets are off, but imo 3.PF is a game first, roleplay vehicle second.

To answer the OP's question more directly: if you want to play a game of mother-may-I, where your every success or failure has, in truth, nothing to do with you and everything to do with what your DM wants then you don't need to "optimize" (or for that matter, play a rules-heavy, optimization-friendly system). If you want genuine agency, you pick what you want your character to do and find out how to make them really good at those things (you will generally want multiple things you can do). The Same-Game Test (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Same_Game_Test_(DnD_Guideline)) is something I wish I had known about before I started running my current table, so my 1-on-1 discussion/play-test sessions with my players could have given them a better idea of what to expect.

[gijoemike]

Don’t know what you mean by T4. To me 23 damage doesn’t sound to bad. If he has 3 to 4 attacks per round the paladin can do 60+ damage in a round. Not bad.


I think most characters should also be useful without their sword/magic or thing, and be an actual character. If you ask a person what do you play? And they answer by just stating the class and nothing else they miss the pointof the game.


So there is a widely accepted tier system on this boards, well, really the whole internet as I have seen in on several other forum boards related to 3.X and PF. Tier 1 is theorycrafted mages and clerics that are insane. Batman Wizards, infinite clones with timeless demiplanes, clerics who could easily best their own deity at ANYTHING, druids that take down entire countries in a few rounds, etc. T1 characters singlehandedly defeat CR +6 encounters several times a day. Tier 6 is PHB core only monk, straight class fighter with near random feat selection sort of builds. T6 cannot possibly hope to beat level appropriate CR encounters and they are without any out of combat capability.

Tier 3 and Tier 4 is the sweet spot in my opinion. These are your typical barbarians, rangers, regular specialist wizards, etc. They don't hold the party down with concepts like I am a combat class that doesn't fight, or I am in int based fighter but have no tactical awareness. In T3 and T4 one normally doesn't see a 5 or 6 way multiclass templated monster. These classes also all have skills to contribute to things that are not combat.

Things like lion totem water orcs with whirling frenzy, Uber spirited charge centaurs, half dragon minotaur are upper T3 lower T2. These builds can get to 400 damage per round at range.



23 damage when at level 16 is TRASH sir. TRASH. The level 16 is the important part.

lvl 15 with 26 str melee warrior 2 handing a +2 flaming great sword takes a 10 pt power attack (Note this part. This is way less than it could be) and gets 3 attacks
20 (from power attack) + 2d6 sword + d6 fire + 12 str + 2 weapon = minimum 37 damage with a max of 52. If all 3 hit that is over 110 damage at the absolute minimum.

lets look at a lvl 15 rogue who just got their 3rd attack.

+1 rapier and +8d6 sneak attack. That is a d8+1+ (8 to 48) for min to max of 10 to 57. The average dmg on one attack is still in the mid 30s. So there is a good possibility of over 90 damage from a straight class rogue who barely has a magic weapon.


Averaging 60 damage in a round when the minimum is almost double that is a failure to understand math.


But I totally agree with you when a player says I am a greatsword fighter and leaves it at that. They have misunderstood everything.

[Elkad]

At -10 to hit (-20 on the third swing), "all three hit" is not only not guaranteed, it's downright unlikely.

[Beni-Kujaku]

This was a detriment to the party. One must apply basic levels of optimization as to not be a detriment. One needs to crest T4 at the very least. One may stay in character or within concept but figure out a way to get to T4.

At earlier levels, yes. But by the time you hit lvl 12 the casters can do WAY better in a round than casting enlarge person. Polymorph can end an entire encounter on its own.

The bard didn't take the feat words of creation as they didn't build for that cheese.

The point is the party shouldn't need to bring your character up to par. You should start at a competent base and work up.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with almost everything you said. D&D is a tabletop roleplaying game. Which means it's played on top of a table and people play a role, yes, but it more importantly means that it is a game. Before everything else, if one player doesn't have fun, then why are you even playing? This is no competition, there are no stakes in there beyond spending a good time with your friends. And this is definitely no fight against your DM. They are, too, only trying to give you a world in which you can play. That is why they wrote the campaign, or took the time to buy it and read it. Not to torture you and make you need to use polymorph to end encounters before they even begin. I will just ask you. What does it accomplish to use everything the game has to offer to just remove encounters from the game? The DM will just put one more encounter that day. Or make everything immune to polymorph and death effect. Or anything that will make the game just challenging enough to be interesting.

There is nothing good that comes out of optimizing on its own, except lack of balance in a party and some people being overshadowed by others. Almost everyone on this forum has a lot of experience in playing d&d 3.5. Half of them could recite all the worthwhile metamagic feats, the book they are from and what cheese they allow. A beginner will never have that level of knowledge, nor should they.

One member of this forum, Kazyan, once said "Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor". Optimizing a character so that he keeps up with the rest of an experienced and optimized party is comparable, and if a player does not want to put in so much of their free time, you should not force them into it. Calling them a detriment, and shaming them for having a weak character will not make them build better. It will not make them look up everything you want him to put in his build. It will only make them give up the game. If they feel like they cannot do anything in the game, they will just stop trying. Why shouldn't they? It's supposed to be a game and they are not having fun.

What you should do in this situation is three-fold.

First, before the game, make sure the player knows what they're going into. If you want to have an optimized level in your party, tell everyone from the start. If somebody doesn't want this kind of game, then it will give them the chance to drop out. If not everyone is on the same page about this, it will give them a chance to speak up and come to a compromise between casual and optimized.
Second, teach them. If they are receptive when you tell them that you might know how to improve their build, you can suggest some new feats or classes, by focusing on things that will make playing the character more enjoyable, not only on numbers. And with time, maybe you can make them want to learn about the game on their own. But if they don't want to, please accept that it is their choice.
And third, adapt. It must never be the beginner who has to adapt to more experienced players. Always the opposite. When you go skiing with your 4-year-old brother or cousin, you do not go on level 5 slopes immediately, you start easy. It is the same with D&D. If you see that a character struggles to keep up, then help the character, and the player, in-game and out of it.

Finally, you can look at the replies of the thread. The gist of it is almost always "I personally like to optimize my characters in-game", never "I expect other people to optimize their characters". Optimizing can be fun, I personally enjoy it a lot, but nobody, especially a beginner, should ever be forced to do it, and they should absolutely not be shamed for it.

[Quertus]

I think that’s a gross over-generalization... I would argue that very few fall apart, but that people dislike too high optimization if the table as a whole isn’t on the same level...

I think you've got that backwards: it's the low-optimization characters that tend to fall apart. :smallbiggrin:


This is a common advice and maybe it works great in some groups but personally I would be more annoyed if I was, say, a fighter in a group with a wizard like this than one that just stole the show and solved every problem by themselves. At least that's honest, instead of patting the lowly martial on the head and pretending they need them. Again, I can see how it actually works in some groups but I don't think it's for everyone.

You… tend to be annoyed… by buff-bots?

Arkham Horror, iirc the Researcher gave people a reroll 1/turn. Would you find this character annoying (rather than the "very welcome" that it was in our group)?

[Gavinfoxx]

Don’t know what you mean by T4. To me 23 damage doesn’t sound to bad. If he has 3 to 4 attacks per round the paladin can do 60+ damage in a round. Not bad.



Look at the actual AC and hit points and self healing capacity and damage reduction options of CR 15-18 melee brute type monsters.... That level of damage is really, really below par if one is expecting to go up against that kind of opposition!

I believe this is the most recent version of the thread, to my knowledge, not the one posted earlier:

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?600635-Why-each-class-is-in-its-tier-2019-update!

[Elves]

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?600635-Why-each-class-is-in-its-tier-2019-update!

I vaguely remember that. Interesting that beguiler and dread necro got voted to 2.25 and mystic ranger to 2.5 when MR plateaus at 10th. Would have pegged them at 2.5/2.5 and 2.75 respectively.

[Batcathat]

You… tend to be annoyed… by buff-bots?

Depends. I'm fine with them as long as they do it as a genuine and effective strategy, I'm annoyed by them if it's a deliberate choice to avoid outshining other characters in situation where they could solve things on their own.

[Quertus]

Depends. I'm fine with them as long as they do it as a genuine and effective strategy, I'm annoyed by them if it's a deliberate choice to avoid outshining other characters in situation where they could solve things on their own.

Ah, OK, gotcha.

One more: Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, is a highly optimized / minmaxed, ridiculously powerful / OP character… who *happens* to not outshine the party for RP reasons. In particular, he's tactically inept, and unreasonably paranoid about running out of juice (between Spell Thieves (and other things that erase spells), inability to rest to recover spells, and having been a 1st level 2e Wizard with just a single spell, it's been a real concern). Hypothesis on whether you would find adventuring with him enjoying vs annoying?

[Mordante]

The tier system of D&D base classes (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?269440-Why-Each-Class-Is-In-Its-Tier-(Rescued-from-MinMax)).


By mid-teens a bruiser's DPR should be well north of 100. As was the apparent case in that game, 60-DPR wasn't even close to cutting it. In the games you've played in that may have been enough, but it would have been more a function of your DM tailoring-down to you party's competency.


Again, this comes to a difference in philosophy. Except by DM fiat, a player has literally no ability to influence the game world other than what abilities are on their character sheet: they don't exist except as an assemblage of swords/magic/skills/"things". Specifically if playing 3./PF, they've completely missed the point if they don't answer with their race/class, or at least their mechanical roll: "I'm a charger/tripper" or "I'm the party face, usually". Another system? All bets are off, but imo 3.PF is a game first, roleplay vehicle second.

To answer the OP's question more directly: if you want to play a game of mother-may-I, where your every success or failure has, in truth, nothing to do with you and everything to do with what your DM wants then you don't need to "optimize" (or for that matter, play a rules-heavy, optimization-friendly system). If you want genuine agency, you pick what you want your character to do and find out how to make them really good at those things (you will generally want multiple things you can do). The Same-Game Test (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Same_Game_Test_(DnD_Guideline)) is something I wish I had known about before I started running my current table, so my 1-on-1 discussion/play-test sessions with my players could have given them a better idea of what to expect.

It really depends on the group I think. But I don't think my lvl 17 fighter can get past 60DPR to 80DPR. But that is still more the some others in the party. However due to covid19 I haven't check his stats in a while. How do you calculate DPR. It really depends on the hit chance. A no armour blob of flesh vs a ethereal dragon.

[Zanos]

So how do you balance a party? If some people in the part play a pure PHB fighter or monk would you consider them incompetent characters? I used to play with some people who were decent enough role players but still after 2 years didn’t know the difference between the ability stats. Or had no clue what to look for on their sheet if the DM asked for a skill check.
We did have fun, Covid-19 sort of ended it.
You balance it with discussion. If some people's characters aren't strong enough for the challenges the DM presents, have the DM or more veteran players help them pick better options. If some people's characters are too strong, ask them to dial it back. If people refuse to compromise in a way that lets folks have fun, remove the people who aren't willing to compromise.

I guess there's no 'wrong' way to play 3.5 if you're having fun, but I would immeasurably frustrated with people who didn't know how to roll an attack after 2 years of play. I like to roleplay, but I also play 3.5 for the game part. If you're not really invested in the combat resolution or skill mechanics of 3.5 you'd probably be better suited with a rules light system.

[Xervous]

It really depends on the group I think. But I don't think my lvl 17 fighter can get past 60DPR to 80DPR. But that is still more the some others in the party. However due to covid19 I haven't check his stats in a while. How do you calculate DPR. It really depends on the hit chance. A no armour blob of flesh vs a ethereal dragon.

I recall frequent references to average AC by level used for DPR.

A 2h fighter vs an average 28AC CR17 critter.

Fighter with 18+4(level up) + 6 STR, for a STR mod of +9. Tack on a +5 greatsword. Averages 79.75 DPR with crits, 72.5 without. Yes this is bare bones, assume for the sake of politeness that +5 sword is really a +1 carrying a GMW buff.

Add on something as simple as the +1 property magebane (which applies overwhelmingly to most high CR threats that aren’t trivialized by flight + a bow) +2 / +2d6, and the fighter’s dpr jumps to 117.8 (107 no crit).

+6 STR item
L3 pearl of power
+2 (effective) greatsword
18 STR start
17 BAB

We’ve done nothing with feats, little with items or potential buffs. Adding Haste pushes this to 157 dpr. Adding enlarge person (why not permanent?) lands it at 177.87. Assuming the fighter only took the weapon focus/specialization feats from PHB along with power attack and you’ll see 222~ dpr


Again it really depends on group and how many hoops you want to jump through. The alchemist fire L17 rogue is dropping 54d6+6 at 95% accuracy for 185 dpr. For some tables that’s insane, others may laugh it off since it’s sneak attack damage and easily resisted energy damage, and not that high to begin with. It’s also too many feats imo (all the TWF, QuickDraw, stuff for piercing magical miss chances that are self inflicted).

[Mordante]

I recall frequent references to average AC by level used for DPR.

A 2h fighter vs an average 28AC CR17 critter.

Fighter with 18+4(level up) + 6 STR, for a STR mod of +9. Tack on a +5 greatsword. Averages 79.75 DPR with crits, 72.5 without. Yes this is bare bones, assume for the sake of politeness that +5 sword is really a +1 carrying a GMW buff.

Add on something as simple as the +1 property magebane (which applies overwhelmingly to most high CR threats that aren’t trivialized by flight + a bow) +2 / +2d6, and the fighter’s dpr jumps to 117.8 (107 no crit).

+6 STR item
L3 pearl of power
+2 (effective) greatsword
18 STR start
17 BAB

We’ve done nothing with feats, little with items or potential buffs. Adding Haste pushes this to 157 dpr. Adding enlarge person (why not permanent?) lands it at 177.87. Assuming the fighter only took the weapon focus/specialization feats from PHB along with power attack and you’ll see 222~ dpr


Again it really depends on group and how many hoops you want to jump through. The alchemist fire L17 rogue is dropping 54d6+6 at 95% accuracy for 185 dpr. For some tables that’s insane, others may laugh it off since it’s sneak attack damage and easily resisted energy damage, and not that high to begin with. It’s also too many feats imo (all the TWF, QuickDraw, stuff for piercing magical miss chances that are self inflicted).

Just did a quick check on my lvl 16 fighter (I thought he was 17)

+4Falchion damage 2D4+4
Strength 18 damage 9
Belt of giant strength +4
weapon specialization +2
melee master +2

2D4+4+9(str*1.5)+2(specialization)+2(melee master)

That is about it, yes I have power attack but since most of the time you need 12 to 14, power attack isn't that great.

STR22
DEX16
CON19
INT10
WIS14
CHA08

[Gnaeus]

Just did a quick check on my lvl 16 fighter (I thought he was 17)

+4Falchion damage 2D4+4
Strength 18 damage 9
Belt of giant strength +4
weapon specialization +2
melee master +2

2D4+4+9(str*1.5)+2(specialization)+2(melee master)

That is about it, yes I have power attack but since most of the time you need 12 to 14, power attack isn't that great.

STR22
DEX16
CON19
INT10
WIS14
CHA08

My first questions would be things like “what did you do with your other 14 feats?” And “where is your WBL going?” Followed by “So are you happy being useless?” and “Will you accept help?”

As a DM I would have made repeated attempts to encourage better optimized options. Starting at the top with fighter 16, which should really only exist if you are cool playing Hawkeye next to Thor and just don’t care/that is your concept, or if you are deliberately self gimping because your other players are so bad.

As a player it would depend on the group dynamic. In a competitive game, you are doomed. I wouldn’t even bother PVPing you because whatever you rolled next would almost have to be a bigger threat. You would be fighting an uphill battle to justify why you get an equal share of the treasure when the summons are better than you.

In a cooperative game, or if I liked your character, I would try to fix it. Maybe you always wanted to be a giant and now is your chance. Or if you gave me all your money and gear I could craft you enough stuff to bring you to the point of usefulness. Probably. Or give you a cohort via planar binding to follow you around and buff/heal.

[icefractal]

So are you happy being useless?
...
You would be fighting an uphill battle to justify why you get an equal share of the treasure when the summons are better than you.
...
Or if you gave me all your money and gear I could craft you enough stuff to bring you to the point of usefulness. Probably.
Lol, this is kinda why people have a bad impression of optimization. :smalltongue:

Like, improvement is good, but "justify why you're in the party"? Unless the GM is running a meatgrinder so deadly that the team can't afford any inefficiency, that's quite a bit excessive. (And if they are running that kind of meatgrinder, unoptimal characters would be dying off in short order anyway).

Tangentially, this doesn't exactly make sense IC either - the fact that a replacement PC would even exist, much less be 16th level as well, is an artificial construct for metagame reasons. In-world, you boot that Fighter 16 out of the party, maybe the best replacement you can find is like 9th level.

On the character, this is why I don't like the cumulative/Voltron way that most martial classes are designed in 3.x. Being behind in little ways (Str 22 is low for this level, but not that low, +4 weapon instead of +5, etc) can snowball into being significantly behind as a whole. Which tends to create one-trick ponies. The fact that most spells (except blasting) are self-contained and don't require or benefit from much beyond CL and (sometimes) DC is a much better way for things to work. ToB takes some steps in that direction at least.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Lol, this is kinda why people have a bad impression of optimization. :smalltongue:

Like, improvement is good, but "justify why you're in the party"? Unless the GM is running a meatgrinder so deadly that the team can't afford any inefficiency, that's quite a bit excessive. (And if they are running that kind of meatgrinder, unoptimal characters would be dying off in short order anyway).

Tangentially, this doesn't exactly make sense IC either - the fact that a replacement PC would even exist, much less be 16th level as well, is an artificial construct for metagame reasons. In-world, you boot that Fighter 16 out of the party, maybe the best replacement you can find is like 9th level.

Incidentally, this is why I don't like the cumulative/Voltron way that most martial classes are designed in 3.x. Being behind in little ways (Str 22 is low for this level, but not that low, +4 weapon instead of +5, etc) can snowball into being significantly behind as a whole. The fact that most spells (except blasting) are self-contained and don't require or benefit from much beyond CL and (sometimes) DC is a much better way for things to work. ToB takes some steps in that direction at least.To be fair, the prototypical party is putting their lives on the line several times a day. If this were a real-life situation, would you want to bring someone along who is, at best, a glorified NPC? And if the rest of the party is carrying someone like that along, would a real-life version willingly toss an equal share of profits to someone very clearly not doing an equal share of the work and actively dragging everyone else down?

[Zanos]

Tangentially, this doesn't exactly make sense IC either - the fact that a replacement PC would even exist, much less be 16th level as well, is an artificial construct for metagame reasons. In-world, you boot that Fighter 16 out of the party, maybe the best replacement you can find is like 9th level.
More than likely he would have gotten the boot at 5th level, so there never would have been a 16th level fighter to begin with. Hell, WotC basically admitted fighter was badly designed when they released Tome of Battle.

That said at some tables a 16th level fighter is fine. Their numbers aren't actually bad and intelligently equipped really don't have problems killing CR equivalent threats. They struggle to deal with abilities that aren't related to getting a higher modifier, though.

[Elves]

Just did a quick check on my lvl 16 fighter (I thought he was 17)

+4Falchion damage 2D4+4
Strength 18 damage 9
Belt of giant strength +4
weapon specialization +2
melee master +2

2D4+4+9(str*1.5)+2(specialization)+2(melee master)

That is about it, yes I have power attack but since most of the time you need 12 to 14, power attack isn't that great.

STR22
DEX16
CON19
INT10
WIS14
CHA08
It looks like you started with a low Str or put your ASIs into other ability scores. That's +7 dmg right there when converted to PA, which is significant when you're currently at 22 avg.

A fighter's feats are its class features. So what are the rest of your feats? Sounds like you have PA, wf, wspec, & mwm, but that's 4 of 15-16 you'd have. The rest are where you have to give yourself something to do.

[ciopo]

I wouldn't confluence optimizing and min/maxing. Minmaxing is going for extremes, optimizing in the small scales I would say is common sense? Like the very simple decision process of comparing stuff that fit the same niche and taking the "better" one? Power attack vs monkey grip is a very baseline example in the theme of "how do I hit harder with my 2hander"

Putting aside at the very least "planning your character so you have the prereqs in a timely fashion for the prcs you want", which I dub here "playing 3.5 and it's been out for years"

[Gnaeus]

Like, improvement is good, but "justify why you're in the party"? Unless the GM is running a meatgrinder so deadly that the team can't afford any inefficiency, that's quite a bit excessive. (And if they are running that kind of meatgrinder, unoptimal characters would be dying off in short order anyway).

Tangentially, this doesn't exactly make sense IC either - the fact that a replacement PC would even exist, much less be 16th level as well, is an artificial construct for metagame reasons. In-world, you boot that Fighter 16 out of the party, maybe the best replacement you can find is like 9th level..

I could create or bind better things with a share of party wealth. If he is taking 1/4 of party loot, he is an active liability. I don’t need to replace him with fighter 9. I’m 16th level. I can replace him with a planetar. A very freaking happy planetar if I want to make donations comparable to 16th level income.

If it’s a cooperative game I’m going to try to fix him. If it’s a non-cooperative one he is a non-entity.

And my group is pretty low op by board standards. For example:

More than likely he would have gotten the boot at 5th level, so there never would have been a 16th level fighter to begin with. Hell, WotC basically admitted fighter was badly designed when they released Tome of Battle.

That said at some tables a 16th level fighter is fine. Their numbers aren't actually bad and intelligently equipped really don't have problems killing CR equivalent threats. They struggle to deal with abilities that aren't related to getting a higher modifier, though.

I agree.

We have had fighters play in our group. Our Barbarian did fine at high level play. I’ve seen a couple of chain trippers do very well. I don’t think you need to be a T1 at high level of effective play to function. That doesn’t mean a T5 with no effort who won’t accept help gets to walk around pretending to be an equal member of the team, when he quite clearly isn’t.

[icefractal]

But that's the thing - the idea that there needs to be a "slot opened" for that Planetar is purely a metagame construct. IC, you would keep the Fighter and add in the Planetar. If there's a Wizard 16 who wants to join your cause (and is trustworthy enough, and has compatible goals, etc) then ... you just have them join. There's nothing magic about a 4-6 person party.

As far as shares of the loot (if that's even still a big motivation at 16th level), I think the reason you pay them equally is that you don't have the authority not to. Most parties I've been in didn't have a leader, we operated by loose democracy, which involved basically sharing things equally. And nobody would have accepted "lackey status" with a smaller share.

[Gnaeus]

But that's the thing - the idea that there needs to be a "slot opened" for that Planetar is purely a metagame construct. IC, you would keep the Fighter and add in the Planetar. If there's a Wizard 16 who wants to join your cause (and is trustworthy enough, and has compatible goals, etc) then ... you just have them join. There's nothing magic about a 4-6 person party.

As far as shares of the loot (if that's even still a big motivation at 16th level), I think the reason you pay them equally is that you don't have the authority not to. Most parties I've been in didn't have a leader, we operated by loose democracy, which involved basically sharing things equally. And nobody would have accepted "lackey status" with a smaller share.

I can’t see any of my characters at 16th level agreeing to equal treasure distribution with that speed bump. How they would handle it would vary by how nice they were. But it isn’t like the fighter can follow us when we teleport away from him. If I like him I may set him up as lord of a keep somewhere that he isn’t likely to hurt himself, or leader of an adventurers guild.

This is again assuming that the fighter player was so uncooperative as to be upgraded into something useful. So a player who isn’t low op, but willfully low op and refusing help.

[Particle_Man]

Surely it depends on the group. If a high-op player complained about the low-op fighter to the point where the fighter was about to be forced from the party, it could be that Jack, Mary and Bill like Duane more than Richard and so they leave that party (which was presumably led by Richard’s high-op character) too and stick with the low-op fighter of Duane, forcing Richard the high-op player to make a new, lower-op character if he wants to keep playing with Jack, Mary and Bill under the current DM, who is also Duane’s sister.

[False God]

Most character builds I see here are heavily min/maxed. Is that just pure theory crafting or do most people here play optimized characters? Is playing a min/max character actually expected by a DM? I think some optimizing is nice, but creating a character just for maximum damage output seems rather silly/limited to be. Especially since combat is just one part of the DnD or most RPGs. No each session has combat or even dice rolling for that matter.

Also how do GM deal with a mixed party of min/maxed character and pure fluff characters?

I typically optimize, but to a 7-8/10 range. Good, but not supreme. It enables me to do what I want to do, while still staying within my class' lane (most of the time). Optimizing isn't just about damage. It's about being successful at what you want to do. Being able to steal from right in front of someone or to seduce every dragon is also optimizing. Being the best at resolving every situation with diplomacy is still optimizing. It's just about very tight math producing very high numbers in certain situations.

When I DM I expect my players to be skilled enough in the system to not make terrible characters. If they are not, I am happy to help in order for them to be good at what they want to be good at. I expect my skilled players to help the unskilled ones when I cannot. I tend to disregard the most and least powerful characters, and aim for the middle of the remaining ones when tuning my games. It usually works.

Not quire sure how you're using "fluff" here. In news, a "fluff" piece is an otherwise meaningless report, but it makes viewers feel good. Arguably, a "pure fluff" character can only be created by someone who knows how to optimize, and doesn't to such a degree that they are optimized for un-optimization.

Frankly, I tend to pause the game and as my table what they want from it. The end result tends to be that either the super-optimizier or the super-fluffer was really a troll. And then I remove that element from the group.

[gijoemike]

My first questions would be things like “what did you do with your other 14 feats?” And “where is your WBL going?” Followed by “So are you happy being useless?” and “Will you accept help?”

As a DM I would have made repeated attempts to encourage better optimized options. Starting at the top with fighter 16, which should really only exist if you are cool playing Hawkeye next to Thor and just don’t care/that is your concept, or if you are deliberately self gimping because your other players are so bad.

As a player it would depend on the group dynamic. In a competitive game, you are doomed. I wouldn’t even bother PVPing you because whatever you rolled next would almost have to be a bigger threat. You would be fighting an uphill battle to justify why you get an equal share of the treasure when the summons are better than you.

In a cooperative game, or if I liked your character, I would try to fix it. Maybe you always wanted to be a giant and now is your chance. Or if you gave me all your money and gear I could craft you enough stuff to bring you to the point of usefulness. Probably. Or give you a cohort via planar binding to follow you around and buff/heal.

No no. That is a falchion. Excellent crit range. I see improved crit being taken especially with weapon spec. Feats to spare So on average every 4th hit is 4d4+8(magic)+18(str)+4(feats). That average damage is 40 from one hit. With 3 attacks a round a crit could easily happen every other round. On those rounds average damage is ~80.


80 is a bit on the low side but is easily workable. I do have a question for Mordante though. There are dozens of magical item properties listed in the various books. Many in the DMG. Why do you have a naked +4 weapon? There are abilities that do not even add to damage but are very flavorful.


Competitive D&D or party backstabbing D&D as that is the only way I have seen it played is not... great. As a soldier/fighter you have to rely on your team and backup. The Suicide Squad style of group or dirty dozen style parties wind up with a lot of dead PCs for weak story reasons most of the time.

[Particle_Man]

I typically optimize, but to a 7-8/10 range. Good, but not supreme. It enables me to do what I want to do, while still staying within my class' lane (most of the time). Optimizing isn't just about damage. It's about being successful at what you want to do. Being able to steal from right in front of someone or to seduce every dragon is also optimizing.

Now I am thinking of a setting where half-dragons didn’t exist until 25 years ago, and are all due to *one* randy bard. :smallwink:

[gijoemike]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with almost everything you said. D&D is a tabletop roleplaying game. Which means it's played on top of a table and people play a role, yes, but it more importantly means that it is a game. Before everything else, if one player doesn't have fun, then why are you even playing? This is no competition, there are no stakes in there beyond spending a good time with your friends. And this is definitely no fight against your DM. They are, too, only trying to give you a world in which you can play. That is why they wrote the campaign, or took the time to buy it and read it. Not to torture you and make you need to use polymorph to end encounters before they even begin. I will just ask you. What does it accomplish to use everything the game has to offer to just remove encounters from the game? The DM will just put one more encounter that day. Or make everything immune to polymorph and death effect. Or anything that will make the game just challenging enough to be interesting.

And I thank you for respectfully doing so. But, I don't think we are disagreeing. I, too, dislike having to use the game to its full effect to accomplish defeating monsters. Adversarial DMs are just not fun, it does become a job. I think it is absurd to polymorph the fighter so s/he doesn't suck. I also think Save or lose/die spells as the first 2 actions in most combats are incredibly dull.




There is nothing good that comes out of optimizing on its own, except lack of balance in a party and some people being overshadowed by others. Almost everyone on this forum has a lot of experience in playing d&d 3.5. Half of them could recite all the worthwhile metamagic feats, the book they are from and what cheese they allow. A beginner will never have that level of knowledge, nor should they.


At this point in time it takes months to learn those tiny bits of class specific info. Even if a pro was teaching a complete beginner it would still take months. T1 and T2 levels of optimizing just breaks the party.



One member of this forum, Kazyan, once said "Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor". Optimizing a character so that he keeps up with the rest of an experienced and optimized party is comparable, and if a player does not want to put in so much of their free time, you should not force them into it. Calling them a detriment, and shaming them for having a weak character will not make them build better. It will not make them look up everything you want him to put in his build. It will only make them give up the game. If they feel like they cannot do anything in the game, they will just stop trying. Why shouldn't they? It's supposed to be a game and they are not having fun.

I REMEBER THAT. And I 100% agree. Early in the thread I gave my opinion that the sweet spot is T3 to T4.



What you should do in this situation is three-fold.

First, before the game, make sure the player knows what they're going into. If you want to have an optimized level in your party, tell everyone from the start. If somebody doesn't want this kind of game, then it will give them the chance to drop out. If not everyone is on the same page about this, it will give them a chance to speak up and come to a compromise between casual and optimized.
Second, teach them. If they are receptive when you tell them that you might know how to improve their build, you can suggest some new feats or classes, by focusing on things that will make playing the character more enjoyable, not only on numbers. And with time, maybe you can make them want to learn about the game on their own. But if they don't want to, please accept that it is their choice.
And third, adapt. It must never be the beginner who has to adapt to more experienced players. Always the opposite. When you go skiing with your 4-year-old brother or cousin, you do not go on level 5 slopes immediately, you start easy. It is the same with D&D. If you see that a character struggles to keep up, then help the character, and the player, in-game and out of it.

Finally, you can look at the replies of the thread. The gist of it is almost always "I personally like to optimize my characters in-game", never "I expect other people to optimize their characters". Optimizing can be fun, I personally enjoy it a lot, but nobody, especially a beginner, should ever be forced to do it, and they should absolutely not be shamed for it.

First, You have made an incorrect assumption. I never said it was a new player that was playing a paladin. His PC was higher level and he had been playing in the campaign longer. I was the new player. This was so early on in 3.0 that none of us really know what was going on in levels 13+. They did inform me to stay back and avoid melee to learn the game. It was good advice.

He liked the paladin concept as a judge/warrior of the land. His deity had the Law domain and he played it up. And we won't going to make him rewrite his character. But we could easily demonstrate that the barbarian, dwarven fighter with an axe, the fireballing wizard, and even the rogue if they got Sneak Attack could easily do better in melee than he could. Not just do better but far exceed everything he could possibly do. And yet he concept was the sword of the law that brought criminals to justice.

There is playing low to assist new players. There is self gimping to bring oneself down a few pegs. Those are fine, especially when it is to match the table. We didn't force him to take it, he never did through the whole campaign up to lvl 18 i think.

But, taking power attack as a STR based fighter isn't optimizing. And game designers actually attempted to correct this in PF with the extended ranger fighting styles. Fighters SHOULD have had a option of strength or dex style at first level and should have been given a feat like power attack to help them achieve their vision of the character. Either way paladins didn't have that and still don't. His inefficiency at dropping enemies that are straight out of the MM and are level appropriate wound up causing PCs to die. Some of those PCs were the newer players. Sometimes we just had to use WAY more resources to defeat a group of enemies because combat would last 3 or 4 rounds longer. None of us were optimized. Not even T3 levels.


I ask this question to the forum posting with the intent to show my viewing of the potential problem. There are a few ways I can do this but I will chose this because one of the following actually happened and I had to talk the player out of it.

A player declares he will play a straight class PHB fighter that uses a single dagger for combat.
A player declares he will play a PHB monk who is a pacifist. It is a combat heavy game.
A player decides he will play a PHB barbarian with a 10 str, 10 dex, and 18 cha.

No multiclass. No ACF, no spat books. Said player has a concept in their mind. Would you as a GM allow the player to roll straight into a combat game using standard CR MM entries? Say it is a pre printed mod.

In my opinion it is the requirement of the table to assist these ppl to achieve a workable character in the confines of the game before them. Otherwise the GM would have to dumb down the monsters as to not kill everyone. Or just kill everyone and it is very very rare that a random TPK is a fun night. It is the exact opposite of what Beni-Kujaku quoted at the top of the post. Over optimizing means the Gm will just have 1 more encounter a day. I agree. But I say that under-optimizing will result in there being 1 fewer monster in this fight, 1 fight less, and it is just a much of a job for the gm to tweak the encounters in order to provide a fun challenge. The players have to work harder just to stay at what the game considers to be par.


tl;dr: Over Optimizing is very bad. We all agree. Super under optimizing is just as bad for the same reasons. Meet in the middle, come together, and have fun playing a game.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

But, taking power attack as a STR based fighter isn't optimizing....What? No, that's exactly optimizing. Not a whole lot, but it is optimizing. Otherwise, the fighter would be taking things at random, or the worst things he could, like Toughness. Power Attack is a good choice on a Str-based fighter, which is optimizing. Unless it was chosen 100% randomly without really looking?

[gijoemike]

I could create or bind better things with a share of party wealth. If he is taking 1/4 of party loot, he is an active liability. I don’t need to replace him with fighter 9. I’m 16th level. I can replace him with a planetar. A very freaking happy planetar if I want to make donations comparable to 16th level income.

snip



Speed bump?
If a fighter survives the fight and was standing in front of a monster swinging a hammer/sword and took a hit or two, they were doing there exact job. They distracted the big bad tentacle monster, even for a second. They get full share of the loot. It is true they didn't get the killing blow. WHO CARES????! You acknowledged in your post the fighter is doing EXACTLY what is needed.


Now if the fighter ran off and hid or was mind controlled for the Xth time (and we told him how to fix it) and HE was the one trying to kill me AGAIN, those are totally different stories. Those cases are an active liability.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

...What? No, that's exactly optimizing. Not a whole lot, but it is optimizing. Otherwise, the fighter would be taking things at random, or the worst things he could, like Toughness. Power Attack is a good choice on a Str-based fighter, which is optimizing. Unless it was chosen 100% randomly without really looking?

I think the point is that it's not "optimization", it's "a necessity", or perhaps "the baseline". If you can't keep up with what the system expects, then the combats become unexpectedly lethal, or the DM has to do a lot more work to bring things back into balance.

[Hurnn]

Most character builds I see here are heavily min/maxed. Is that just pure theory crafting or do most people here play optimized characters? Is playing a min/max character actually expected by a DM? I think some optimizing is nice, but creating a character just for maximum damage output seems rather silly/limited to be. Especially since combat is just one part of the DnD or most RPGs. No each session has combat or even dice rolling for that matter.

Also how do GM deal with a mixed party of min/maxed character and pure fluff characters?

The first question is purely subjective, and 50% irrelevant. I have been accused in a group of being a power gaming min/maxer by a guy playing a druid who was planning on going into draconic wildshape. I Spent all my WBL on hirelings and wardogs while playing a healing domain cleric whose high stat was a 16. The irrelevant half of the question comes in later. I can build the most highly tuned Ubercharger ever, and will still be outclassed by the guy playing a druid who took great weapon fighting and a bunch of other meaningless feats. My guy can hit things real hard, he can do that, heal, travel to a different plane, turn into a god damn dragon, and summon Godzilla.

The answer to the second questions is: either tailor things so the low op guys can just survive, try to get the high op guys to dial it back, or try and get the low op guys to try and optimize a bit more. However see the first half of my answer: the fluffy druid will still be a druid and the max op fighter is still just a guy who hits things hard and in that case you actually have to still build around the guy who has the max op character, because he is largely irrelevant in a lot of situations.

[Mordante]

I can’t see any of my characters at 16th level agreeing to equal treasure distribution with that speed bump. How they would handle it would vary by how nice they were. But it isn’t like the fighter can follow us when we teleport away from him. If I like him I may set him up as lord of a keep somewhere that he isn’t likely to hurt himself, or leader of an adventurers guild.

This is again assuming that the fighter player was so uncooperative as to be upgraded into something useful. So a player who isn’t low op, but willfully low op and refusing help.

Treasure? I can't remember the last time there was a treasure at the end of a quest. Non of the characters in my level 16 party are powerful enough to set up a lord anywhere. My level 16 fighter doesn't own anything he can't carry. Before he took up adventuring again, the land was in turmoil he was just a drunk bouncer in a bar. No one knows him. he tends to disappear between adventure. Gambles his money away, a few visits to the local red house. Then when something happens he picks up his gear and tries to solve the troubles if he can and if he can be bothered. He has maybe a few hundred gold in cash.

[Mordante]

It looks like you started with a low Str or put your ASIs into other ability scores. That's +7 dmg right there when converted to PA, which is significant when you're currently at 22 avg.

A fighter's feats are its class features. So what are the rest of your feats? Sounds like you have PA, wf, wspec, & mwm, but that's 4 of 15-16 you'd have. The rest are where you have to give yourself something to do.

We roll our stats

1x5D6, highest 3
4x4D6, highest 3
1x3D6.

Reroll ones one time. but if you roll really bad, all stats between 8 and 12 then you can reroll.

[Fouredged Sword]

My goal is always to optimize for the game I am playing. The goal is to have the maximum amount of fun while also encouraging as much fun amongst the group as possible.

Optimization is, at it's core, the ability to take the system and produce a result that is desirable by intent.

The true mark of optimization isn't the ability to produce infinite loops and other silliness. It's the ability to produce a character who performs at a specific level on demand.

And it's far easier to dial something down than up. So build presented to an unknown opsonization goal tend to be presented at their maximal state. They are not intended to be used in this state unless that is the goal of the game they are introduced to.

[Quertus]

But that's the thing - the idea that there needs to be a "slot opened" for that Planetar is purely a metagame construct. IC, you would keep the Fighter and add in the Planetar. If there's a Wizard 16 who wants to join your cause (and is trustworthy enough, and has compatible goals, etc) then ... you just have them join. There's nothing magic about a 4-6 person party.

As far as shares of the loot (if that's even still a big motivation at 16th level), I think the reason you pay them equally is that you don't have the authority not to. Most parties I've been in didn't have a leader, we operated by loose democracy, which involved basically sharing things equally. And nobody would have accepted "lackey status" with a smaller share.


Speed bump?
If a fighter survives the fight and was standing in front of a monster swinging a hammer/sword and took a hit or two, they were doing there exact job. They distracted the big bad tentacle monster, even for a second. They get full share of the loot. It is true they didn't get the killing blow. WHO CARES????! You acknowledged in your post the fighter is doing EXACTLY what is needed.


Now if the fighter ran off and hid or was mind controlled for the Xth time (and we told him how to fix it) and HE was the one trying to kill me AGAIN, those are totally different stories. Those cases are an active liability.

Suppose you have a choice: 1 million gold, minus however much it costs you to build constructs / summon angels to help, or 500,000 gold, while trying to keep your kid sister with a wooden sword alive, without summons or constructs (because they'll make your kids sister look bad). Which do you think, in character, most characters would choose?

I've been at tables where Hufflepuff comradery ran high, and Sentient Potted Plants were carried (figuratively and literally) by Not!Thor.

And I've been at tables where Gryffindor players would proudly proclaim, "and we beat the module with a Fighter *and* a Monk", knowing how much of a status symbol for their bravery that was.

And I've been at tables where ambitious Slytherin players would drop the load in a heartbeat.

And I've been at tables where wise Ravenclaw would promote "balance to the table", and suggest options from their encyclopedic knowledge to facilitate such efforts.

Point is, *any* of these stances is perfectly reasonable, IC or OOC.

I've kinda hinted at why it makes sense IC: because you can spend *less* money to get a *better* Fighter replacement via summons, constructs, etc. You're simply not taking a replacing the PC. Like you said, "There's nothing magic about a 4-6 person party". Tough luck for that player, but, IC, "that's what my character would do". (Now, if someone comes along later who is actually *worth* a share of the XP and treasure, well, we'll talk.)

OOC? It's just polite. "I don't want you to sacrifice your concept for your Paladin of Justice / venerable Ogre Monk / Sentient Potted Plant, but balance to the table - they're just not a good fit for our power level. Pick someone else, closer to our power range, if you want to play.".

[Mordante]

My first questions would be things like “what did you do with your other 14 feats?” And “where is your WBL going?” Followed by “So are you happy being useless?” and “Will you accept help?”

As a DM I would have made repeated attempts to encourage better optimized options. Starting at the top with fighter 16, which should really only exist if you are cool playing Hawkeye next to Thor and just don’t care/that is your concept, or if you are deliberately self gimping because your other players are so bad.

As a player it would depend on the group dynamic. In a competitive game, you are doomed. I wouldn’t even bother PVPing you because whatever you rolled next would almost have to be a bigger threat. You would be fighting an uphill battle to justify why you get an equal share of the treasure when the summons are better than you.

In a cooperative game, or if I liked your character, I would try to fix it. Maybe you always wanted to be a giant and now is your chance. Or if you gave me all your money and gear I could craft you enough stuff to bring you to the point of usefulness. Probably. Or give you a cohort via planar binding to follow you around and buff/heal.

It's a bit of a custom character. I have a feat that improve my crit, it's 15 or 16*3, cant remember no roll required to confirm crit. An extra attack at full bab. I have a feat so I can summon and dismiss my armor and weapon. A feat that mean I get full dex AC in heavy armor. And I do extra damage vs casters.

WBL is not used in most games I play.

PvP in DnD that sounds awfull. PvP in computer games is bad enough. In DnD it sound blood awful.

[Xervous]

PvP in DnD that sounds awfull. PvP in computer games is bad enough. In DnD it sound blood awful.

Well D&D isn’t designed for PvP, so it’s not surprising it handles it terribly compared to something like Tekken that is purely PvP.

We don’t talk about league, just the same as we don’t talk about Monopoly.

[Mordante]

I typically optimize, but to a 7-8/10 range. Good, but not supreme. It enables me to do what I want to do, while still staying within my class' lane (most of the time). Optimizing isn't just about damage. It's about being successful at what you want to do. Being able to steal from right in front of someone or to seduce every dragon is also optimizing. Being the best at resolving every situation with diplomacy is still optimizing. It's just about very tight math producing very high numbers in certain situations.

When I DM I expect my players to be skilled enough in the system to not make terrible characters. If they are not, I am happy to help in order for them to be good at what they want to be good at. I expect my skilled players to help the unskilled ones when I cannot. I tend to disregard the most and least powerful characters, and aim for the middle of the remaining ones when tuning my games. It usually works.

Not quire sure how you're using "fluff" here. In news, a "fluff" piece is an otherwise meaningless report, but it makes viewers feel good. Arguably, a "pure fluff" character can only be created by someone who knows how to optimize, and doesn't to such a degree that they are optimized for un-optimization.

Frankly, I tend to pause the game and as my table what they want from it. The end result tends to be that either the super-optimizier or the super-fluffer was really a troll. And then I remove that element from the group.

Fluff meaning, my character grew up in the kitchen of a small village inn. That is why he loves cooking and spent skill points in cooking, stuff like that. I have known a few players like that. Or players who put skill points in skills for which they rolled a few high dice during the sessions

[Mordante]

No no. That is a falchion. Excellent crit range. I see improved crit being taken especially with weapon spec. Feats to spare So on average every 4th hit is 4d4+8(magic)+18(str)+4(feats). That average damage is 40 from one hit. With 3 attacks a round a crit could easily happen every other round. On those rounds average damage is ~80.


80 is a bit on the low side but is easily workable. I do have a question for Mordante though. There are dozens of magical item properties listed in the various books. Many in the DMG. Why do you have a naked +4 weapon? There are abilities that do not even add to damage but are very flavorful.


Competitive D&D or party backstabbing D&D as that is the only way I have seen it played is not... great. As a soldier/fighter you have to rely on your team and backup. The Suicide Squad style of group or dirty dozen style parties wind up with a lot of dead PCs for weak story reasons most of the time.

The weapn give and extra attack at full BAB and a small bonus to AC when I step out of combat.

[gijoemike]

Suppose you have a choice: 1 million gold, minus however much it costs you to build constructs / summon angels to help, or 500,000 gold, while trying to keep your kid sister with a wooden sword alive, without summons or constructs (because they'll make your kids sister look bad). Which do you think, in character, most characters would choose?

I've been at tables where Hufflepuff comradery ran high, and Sentient Potted Plants were carried (figuratively and literally) by Not!Thor.

And I've been at tables where Gryffindor players would proudly proclaim, "and we beat the module with a Fighter *and* a Monk", knowing how much of a status symbol for their bravery that was.

And I've been at tables where ambitious Slytherin players would drop the load in a heartbeat.

And I've been at tables where wise Ravenclaw would promote "balance to the table", and suggest options from their encyclopedic knowledge to facilitate such efforts.

Point is, *any* of these stances is perfectly reasonable, IC or OOC.

I've kinda hinted at why it makes sense IC: because you can spend *less* money to get a *better* Fighter replacement via summons, constructs, etc. You're simply not taking a replacing the PC. Like you said, "There's nothing magic about a 4-6 person party". Tough luck for that player, but, IC, "that's what my character would do". (Now, if someone comes along later who is actually *worth* a share of the XP and treasure, well, we'll talk.)

OOC? It's just polite. "I don't want you to sacrifice your concept for your Paladin of Justice / venerable Ogre Monk / Sentient Potted Plant, but balance to the table - they're just not a good fit for our power level. Pick someone else, closer to our power range, if you want to play.".


That is not what you described in your earlier posts, nor what I was talking about. If there is a fighter (little sister) in the party that takes a few hits per combat and also stands in front of the monster even for a round she is good at her job of meat shield. Maybe you don't like her job, but she is good at it.

Also, you don't need to replace. You just add the construct or the summon. Just be a 4 to 6 player party with a construct and bound devil. You don't need to trample on the fighter's existence so you can do a thing. Just do the thing.

Now, perhaps their system mastery isn't up to your own. It is possible to stay in the realm of the concept but just be built a bit different.

OOC. That is not polite. Telling someone they cannot play because they don't understand or aren't good enough in a friendly game is a bully behavior. Forcing them to do as you say even though they are following the rules of the game is not a good thing. We aren't talking about competitive sports, or listening to the coach/team lead/ Game Master. If we are playing Monopoly and I want to buy one of the really cheap colors even though I will not get a monopoly from it, another player can't deny them as long as the rules are being followed. You can explain why that isn't a good idea, but one cannot flat out stop them.

[Batcathat]

That is not what you described in your earlier posts, nor what I was talking about. If there is a fighter (little sister) in the party that takes a few hits per combat and also stands in front of the monster even for a round she is good at her job of meat shield. Maybe you don't like her job, but she is good at it.

I'm no optimizer but shouldn't the bar for being good as a fighter (or even good at only specifically being a meatshield) a little higher than "stand in front of monster, occasionally get hit"?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'm no optimizer but shouldn't the bar for being good as a fighter (or even good at only specifically being a meatshield) a little higher than "stand in front of monster, occasionally get hit"?They're not even good at being literal meat shields. For that, they'd have to have some way of forcing enemies to attack them instead of others (or just moving around them), which they don't have, mitigating damage to themselves in significant quantities, which they don't have, healing themselves of damage they've taken, which they don't have, or otherwise having abilities that make them good at being meat shields, which they don't have.

[noob]

Most character builds I see here are heavily min/maxed. Is that just pure theory crafting or do most people here play optimized characters? Is playing a min/max character actually expected by a DM? I think some optimizing is nice, but creating a character just for maximum damage output seems rather silly/limited to be. Especially since combat is just one part of the DnD or most RPGs. No each session has combat or even dice rolling for that matter.

Also how do GM deal with a mixed party of min/maxed character and pure fluff characters?

At high enough optimisation you do max maxing(maximise all at once)
Min maxing is mid level optimisation.(ex: minimise weapon damage and maximise everything else is mid level optimisation)

[Gnaeus]

It's a bit of a custom character. I have a feat that improve my crit, it's 15 or 16*3, cant remember no roll required to confirm crit. An extra attack at full bab. I have a feat so I can summon and dismiss my armor and weapon. A feat that mean I get full dex AC in heavy armor. And I do extra damage vs casters.

WBL is not used in most games I play.

PvP in DnD that sounds awfull. PvP in computer games is bad enough. In DnD it sound blood awful.

So, on the one hand, you are underestimating your DPR. You have an extra attack and a crit fishing strategy.

On the other hand, straight fighter is not simply worse but significantly worse in a game with very low WBL. It all but ensures that the high tiers have to do all the heavy lifting to make you able to contribute to encounters, protect you from common threats etc. From what I hear I highly doubt you have the tools to handle common melee issues unless your DM gave you a custom flight/see invisibility/hit the swarm device.

3.PF, and most RPGs are a spectrum. On the one end you have highly organized parties. Like “you are the special forces team sent by X to do Y.” So your goals are unified, biggest issues are likely tactical rather than strategic in nature. On the opposite end you have things like many evil campaigns, or political campaigns where PCs have wildly different, even conflicting, goals. I play in some groups that are predominantly ex-larpers, so their table environments tend to put “how would your character react” far above “how do we get along as a group”, and the worst accusation of another player isn’t “you aren’t a team player”, it’s “you are meta gaming, by allowing OOC concerns to override IC issues”. Since everyone there has been murdered by other people at table, often repeatedly, they take it good naturedly and build something non-confrontational to the victor. There’s a huge range in between. In the classic “we met in a tavern” or “we were all taken prisoner by the same bad guy” scenarios, you aren’t likely to be killed so much as left behind, because you don’t actually owe a lot to a guy just because he was in the next cell over. On the extreme cooperative end, I’m likely to care a lot about your effectiveness. On the extreme competitive end, you probably get a pass as long as you don’t get in anyone’s way. But your goals better align closely with some other PC or they won’t be achieved. And when some important item pops up, you should probably put your hands behind your head and back away slowly.


That is not what you described in your earlier posts, nor what I was talking about. If there is a fighter (little sister) in the party that takes a few hits per combat and also stands in front of the monster even for a round she is good at her job of meat shield. Maybe you don't like her job, but she is good at it.

Also, you don't need to replace. You just add the construct or the summon. Just be a 4 to 6 player party with a construct and bound devil. You don't need to trample on the fighter's existence so you can do a thing. Just do the thing.

Now, perhaps their system mastery isn't up to your own. It is possible to stay in the realm of the concept but just be built a bit different.

OOC. That is not polite. Telling someone they cannot play because they don't understand or aren't good enough in a friendly game is a bully behavior..

Nah. It’s more like playing baseball with someone on your team, but despite the fact that you keep telling them that you shouldn’t use a ruler for a bat and wear flip-flops instead of shoes, they keep doing it anyway. Team play is pointing out ways to carry out their concept that are also functional within the system, and providing them with tools to fix their problems. Making a short list of better spells to consider for the underperforming Druid. Polymorphing the Barbarian into a war troll. 3.PF is one of the crunchiest combat RPGs I know. If they don’t want to participate, there are dozens of systems better adapted to casual play.


You can explain why that isn't a good idea, but one cannot flat out stop them.
In monopoly you can’t. In 3.PF you absolutely can. In a whole bunch of ways.


Then when something happens he picks up his gear and tries to solve the troubles if he can and if he can be bothered. He has maybe a few hundred gold in cash.
Many of my characters would be happy to know that there will be no hard feelings when I teleport you back to your tavern to minimize your bother.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

At high enough optimisation you do max maxing(maximise all at once)
Min maxing is mid level optimisation.(ex: minimise weapon damage and maximise everything else is mid level optimisation)Err, what?

"Min" is short for "minimizing weaknesses." So you're suggesting that people should maximize them, instead?

[noob]

Err, what?

"Min" is short for "minimizing weaknesses." So you're suggesting that people should maximize them, instead?

The poster here did speak about minimising useful things since they did speak of a character able to do little else than dealing damage(yes with a way to reliably inflict damage you win a lot of fights all you need is some ways to ignore damage immunity, bypass regeneration, ignore total cover, truesight, blindsight, mindsight, ignoring concealment, attacking through obstables such as the ground and attacking aerial stuff, winning initiative and a bunch of other things but that is what dealing damage involves).
Maybe your min in min maxing means minimising weaknesses but I do not think it was the case for the first poster in that thread.

[Learn34]

Ok, so at this point I should point out that your (Mordante) current character/adventure is so far off the rails of actual 3.5 rules that you're hedging towards custom-system territory. Your experience with this character is the direct result of your DM changing whatever parts of the 3.5 system they didn't like. This is fine, but it is essential to note that it isn't what people are going to think when they hear that you're playing D&D 3.5. Because you really aren't. A "3.5-based/inspired homebrew/custom-system" sure, but not really 3.5.

In 3.5, wealth-by-level (WBL) is essential for characters like fighters, and so you're GM's either not giving you level appropriate challenges or shifting a whole lot more behind the scenes to keep you from getting pancaked.


OOC. That is not polite. Telling someone they cannot play because they don't understand or aren't good enough in a friendly game is a bully behavior. Forcing them to do as you say even though they are following the rules of the game is not a good thing. We aren't talking about competitive sports, or listening to the coach/team lead/ Game Master.
Except that person is asking/choosing to play at that table, and if the other people at that table are playing a challenge-driven game, they are absolutely within their right to say no if the new person is unwilling to play a challenge-driven game. Why should the (multiple) people at the table gimp their own fun for the sake of 1 person?


Lol, this is kinda why people have a bad impression of optimization.
Like, improvement is good, but "justify why you're in the party"? Unless the GM is running a meatgrinder so deadly that the team can't afford any inefficiency, that's quite a bit excessive...

Tangentially, this doesn't exactly make sense IC either - the fact that a replacement PC would even exist, much less be 16th level as well, is an artificial construct for metagame reasons... the idea that there needs to be a "slot opened" for that Planetar is purely a metagame construct. IC, you would keep the Fighter and add in the Planetar...

As far as shares of the loot (if that's even still a big motivation at 16th level), I think the reason you pay them equally is that you don't have the authority not to.

To the fist quote: I kind of agree with you, but given that the kind of game I want to play is that kind of a meat grinder, where any given day could bring character death if we don't pay it smart/right, it's a moot point. Basically, if you aren't interested in D&D for the challenge-driven gameplay, then yeah there's little need to be competent.

To the metagame vs IC arguements: That's very setting-specific; for instance, the setting I'm working on has a fundamental premise of "The PCs are nothing special and easily replaceable". As for keeping both: the Planetar's service requires payment. the loot pool is being treated as fixed, therefor the money would be better spent on the Planetar than this fighter.

To denial/allocation of loot: If he can't fight monsters, chances are he can't fight other, better built-and-equipped PCs. So they can beat him up and take his lunch money. Again, though, this is a party and player philosophy thing. It's a d*** move, but IMO so is refusing to build and play at the competency of the table.

[Quertus]

That is not what you described in your earlier posts,

Probably not. I was probably describing *my* stance earlier, whereas, in that post, I was describing various valid stances? I'm too senile to remember my previous posts in this thread :smallredface:

Senility willing, I'll read through the thread, to see what I've said.


nor what I was talking about.

Huh. My apologies if I've misinterpreted you.

Your post seemed to indicate that it was completely fair to pay a Fighter… or, in my example, your kid sister with a wooden sword… 500,000 gold for distracting the monsters.

Which I'm not saying that you're wrong.

I'm just saying that it is not unreasonable for someone to be *unwilling* to pay your kid sister 500,000 gold to wave a wooden sword at monsters to distract them, *especially* when they could get more mileage out of paying outsiders far less.


If there is a fighter (little sister) in the party that takes a few hits per combat and also stands in front of the monster even for a round she is good at her job of meat shield. Maybe you don't like her job, but she is good at it.

Good at? Arguable. "Kid sister" is important and weak; "outsider" is tough and expendable.

There *are* good meat shield builds (I'm a fan of and have played Devoted Defender before; there's a popular stance for +4 AC to allies; etc), but your *average* Fighter in 3e really *isn't* a good meat shield.

Also… I usually play Wizards. Squishy, d4 HD Wizards. I'm kinda a *fan* of meat shields, tbh.


Also, you don't need to replace. You just add the construct or the summon. Just be a 4 to 6 player party with a construct and bound devil. You don't need to trample on the fighter's existence so you can do a thing. Just do the thing.

While I don't disagree, my point is that some do. And that neither you nor they are "wrong".

Some disagree because they decide to earn more gold and XP by simply dropping the useless / superfluous Fighter at that point.

Others disagree because all those powerful minions make the Fighter feel / realize that he is useless / superfluous, and that is unfun for some people.

Me? I prefer to play with Hufflepuff tables, where Not!Thor carries the Sentient Potted Plant.


Now, perhaps their system mastery isn't up to your own. It is possible to stay in the realm of the concept but just be built a bit different.

Well, *I* am the one voted most likely to try to run a Sentient Potted Plant, so… it's not *always* a system mastery issue. Otherwise, yeah.


OOC. That is not polite. Telling someone they cannot play because they don't understand or aren't good enough in a friendly game is a bully behavior. Forcing them to do as you say even though they are following the rules of the game is not a good thing. We aren't talking about competitive sports, or listening to the coach/team lead/ Game Master. If we are playing Monopoly and I want to buy one of the really cheap colors even though I will not get a monopoly from it, another player can't deny them as long as the rules are being followed. You can explain why that isn't a good idea, but one cannot flat out stop them.

… huh.

Others have already given some good answers for some facets of this; let me try a different approach.

Most tables have a social contract - albeit, often an unspoken (and, worse, an unspeakable) one. If that contract said "no PvP" or "no kleptomaniac Kender", you wouldn't be defending someone who broke the contract, right?

Well, most tables have an expected balance range. Thus my mantra of "balance to the table".

If a character lies outside the balance range? One way to be "polite" is to attempt to "help" them get within the expected range (be it higher or lower than what they brought). Another is to ask if they have a *concept* that more readily / naturally lives within that range.

As I *generally* have the skills to build the characters at most any level of aptitude, *and* will *ask* if I know I need help, I personally respond much better to the latter.

But I recognize the former as *trying* to be polite.


I'm no optimizer but shouldn't the bar for being good as a fighter (or even good at only specifically being a meatshield) a little higher than "stand in front of monster, occasionally get hit"?

Depends on the party, I guess? Great wording - thanks for the laugh!

[ciopo]

That is not what you described in your earlier posts, nor what I was talking about. If there is a fighter (little sister) in the party that takes a few hits per combat and also stands in front of the monster even for a round she is good at her job of meat shield. Maybe you don't like her job, but she is good at it.

Also, you don't need to replace. You just add the construct or the summon. Just be a 4 to 6 player party with a construct and bound devil. You don't need to trample on the fighter's existence so you can do a thing. Just do the thing.

I'd like to chime in, "Just do the thing" doens't really work, in perspective.

I BUILD character while intentionally making them less powerful than they could be, usually I do that by taking PRC that do not advance spellcasting, and that suits me fine because I like gishing and it's a fun character building puzzle making do with self imposed limits.

I do not feel comfortable PLAYING at less than my best within the bounds I've set for myself, because it makes no sense for a character to IC not know they can "do X". But if "doing X" upstages another player, I feel bad about that. But it is also very much not fun pretending my character can't "do X" , if that makes sense?

[icefractal]

without summons or constructs (because they'll make your kids sister look bad).I feel like this is conflating the IC/OOC sides, or at least the relationship/pragmatic sides.

Like - pure IC, pure efficiency focused:
* You bring the constructs and you don't give a **** what the kid sister thinks.
* If you're even still dungeon-delving for loot at 16th level, and you're willing to cut out former associates for a greater share, then why do you have anyone else who isn't under your command with you? Wouldn't a solo Conjurer with a bunch of bound minions get rich faster, even if they had to take on somewhat weaker challenges as a result?

IC, but you care about the kid sister:
* Then benefiting said kid sister is the point. Asking why you do it makes as much sense as asking why you'd give up 36k gp for a Headband of Intelligence when that's the thing you'd been saving up for.

OOC:
* Overshadowing the kid sister character by using bound creatures could be rude, but booting them out of the party is more rude.
* Also, referring to someone's character as "the kid sister", unless they really are, would definitely be rude. :smalltongue:

[Mordante]

So, on the one hand, you are underestimating your DPR. You have an extra attack and a crit fishing strategy.

On the other hand, straight fighter is not simply worse but significantly worse in a game with very low WBL. It all but ensures that the high tiers have to do all the heavy lifting to make you able to contribute to encounters, protect you from common threats etc. From what I hear I highly doubt you have the tools to handle common melee issues unless your DM gave you a custom flight/see invisibility/hit the swarm device.

3.PF, and most RPGs are a spectrum. On the one end you have highly organized parties. Like “you are the special forces team sent by X to do Y.” So your goals are unified, biggest issues are likely tactical rather than strategic in nature. On the opposite end you have things like many evil campaigns, or political campaigns where PCs have wildly different, even conflicting, goals. I play in some groups that are predominantly ex-larpers, so their table environments tend to put “how would your character react” far above “how do we get along as a group”, and the worst accusation of another player isn’t “you aren’t a team player”, it’s “you are meta gaming, by allowing OOC concerns to override IC issues”. Since everyone there has been murdered by other people at table, often repeatedly, they take it good naturedly and build something non-confrontational to the victor. There’s a huge range in between. In the classic “we met in a tavern” or “we were all taken prisoner by the same bad guy” scenarios, you aren’t likely to be killed so much as left behind, because you don’t actually owe a lot to a guy just because he was in the next cell over. On the extreme cooperative end, I’m likely to care a lot about your effectiveness. On the extreme competitive end, you probably get a pass as long as you don’t get in anyone’s way. But your goals better align closely with some other PC or they won’t be achieved. And when some important item pops up, you should probably put your hands behind your head and back away slowly.

Nah. It’s more like playing baseball with someone on your team, but despite the fact that you keep telling them that you shouldn’t use a ruler for a bat and wear flip-flops instead of shoes, they keep doing it anyway. Team play is pointing out ways to carry out their concept that are also functional within the system, and providing them with tools to fix their problems. Making a short list of better spells to consider for the underperforming Druid. Polymorphing the Barbarian into a war troll. 3.PF is one of the crunchiest combat RPGs I know. If they don’t want to participate, there are dozens of systems better adapted to casual play.

In monopoly you can’t. In 3.PF you absolutely can. In a whole bunch of ways.

Many of my characters would be happy to know that there will be no hard feelings when I teleport you back to your tavern to minimize your bother.

I think the parties I play in or DM are very different from yours. Often we have 3 or 4 straight sessions without any combat what so ever. The illusionist in our party, her most offensive spell is illusionary pit. She has no direct damage spells and hardly any buff spells. She just bounces along and makes things look pretty. The party ranger has been trying to get rid of me. Since my fighter is kind of boorish and she certainly is not. It's a lot of fun but we hardly ever get anything done. The campaign has been running over a decade and just recently (before covid 19) thee party reached lvl 16. I have only been in the party for 2 year I think. Gained 1 level, no wealth.

3.5 is not about being an epic hero.

The gear of my lvl16
Belt of giant strength +4
Sac of everlasting Ale 5L. Replenish once per day
Mindarmor Full plate +4
wardancing Falchion +4
Ringe of Mind Shielding
Table cloth of Tavern Food
450gold

[Mordante]

Ok, so at this point I should point out that your (Mordante) current character/adventure is so far off the rails of actual 3.5 rules that you're hedging towards custom-system territory. Your experience with this character is the direct result of your DM changing whatever parts of the 3.5 system they didn't like. This is fine, but it is essential to note that it isn't what people are going to think when they hear that you're playing D&D 3.5. Because you really aren't. A "3.5-based/inspired homebrew/custom-system" sure, but not really 3.5.

In 3.5, wealth-by-level (WBL) is essential for characters like fighters, and so you're GM's either not giving you level appropriate challenges or shifting a whole lot more behind the scenes to keep you from getting pancaked.

doesn't everyone customize the game? I have been playing 3.5 for a few years now in different parties. The world setting was different from in each party and never an official 3.5 approved world. If a player has a good idea for a magic item that is not in the book and not OP they can often have if it fits in the game.

[Gnaeus]

I apologize. This isn’t an optimization issue. This is a game system issue.

What you are doing is driving nascar in a tractor. The tractor goes around the track. But not very well and you would really do better in a car. Then you get confused at all the other people racing past you. Isn’t there a speed limit?

3.PF is one of the crunchiest, most combat intensive RPGs. It’s pretty much what it is good for. It is designed around concepts like 4 combats per day. Wealth by level. It is THE murder hobo game.

I can imagine having fun in the game you describe. But I have a hard time imagining enjoying it in 3.pf. Because there’s like a hundred systems that are better for rules light RP than 3.x. I’d want either a system with more emphasis on social interaction and less in combat, or a more rules light system.

[Gavinfoxx]

I apologize. This isn’t an optimization issue. This is a game system issue.

What you are doing is driving nascar in a tractor. The tractor goes around the track. But not very well and you would really do better in a car. Then you get confused at all the other people racing past you. Isn’t there a speed limit?

3.PF is one of the crunchiest, most combat intensive RPGs. It’s pretty much what it is good for. It is designed around concepts like 4 combats per day. Wealth by level. It is THE murder hobo game.

I can imagine having fun in the game you describe. But I have a hard time imagining enjoying it in 3.pf. Because there’s like a hundred systems that are better for rules light RP than 3.x. I’d want either a system with more emphasis on social interaction and less in combat, or a more rules light system.


This. 3.5e, objectively, is a game where 99% of the rules are regarding violent conflict with monsters and player character interactions for violent conflict with monsters. And there are many, many other systems that do all other aspects of roleplay better than what 3.5e does.

[False God]

Fluff meaning, my character grew up in the kitchen of a small village inn. That is why he loves cooking and spent skill points in cooking, stuff like that. I have known a few players like that. Or players who put skill points in skills for which they rolled a few high dice during the sessions

So, when I talk about optimizing at 7/10, I mean putting a few points into things that are not directly beneficial for my class, but enjoyable for me to play out as a part of my character. Like, having a hobby of whittling, or baking.

So a character I would imagine as "pure fluff" would be a character who, when given the opportunity to put points in somewhere relevant to their class, instead puts them somewhere irrelevant to their class. To reverse my optimization above, a "pure fluff" character would be a 1-3/10 on the optimization chart. Purposefully unoptimized. Purposefully bad at what the class is supposed to do.

And then I circle back to what I said above, unless the whole table is going for this approach, I tend to find that people who make purposefully bad characters are just trolling the game. Like the uber-optimized, they're there to have their fun at the expense of everyone else.

[Jay R]

I optimize in order to have room to be able to include some non-optimal character notes. I'm currently playing a Shadowcraft Mage gnome build with an Ancestral Relic.

The Shadowcraft Mage build is very feat-intensive, so having the Relic puts me behind. That's why I have to be careful to optimize all my other choices.

[Quertus]

I feel like this is conflating the IC/OOC sides, or at least the relationship/pragmatic sides.

Like - pure IC, pure efficiency focused:
* You bring the constructs and you don't give a **** what the kid sister thinks.
* If you're even still dungeon-delving for loot at 16th level, and you're willing to cut out former associates for a greater share, then why do you have anyone else who isn't under your command with you? Wouldn't a solo Conjurer with a bunch of bound minions get rich faster, even if they had to take on somewhat weaker challenges as a result?

IC, but you care about the kid sister:
* Then benefiting said kid sister is the point. Asking why you do it makes as much sense as asking why you'd give up 36k gp for a Headband of Intelligence when that's the thing you'd been saving up for.

OOC:
* Overshadowing the kid sister character by using bound creatures could be rude, but booting them out of the party is more rude.
* Also, referring to someone's character as "the kid sister", unless they really are, would definitely be rude. :smalltongue:

Note, I'm too senile to know *for sure* what I was thinking, but…

What you feel as dissonance, as conflating things? That's me intentionally making the picture complex to address the multiple sides of the coin.

The question is, even if - or, perhaps, especially if - you care about your little sister, are you going to be happy with her risking her life to protect you worse than constructs / summons, *and* cost you more than the same? Won't you want to get rid of her, either out of fear of her getting hurt, or even to keep from resenting how much she is costing you by being there?

And this is even ignoring the difference between "little sister gets captured in battle" and "summoned angel (or Construct?) gets 'captured' in battle".

And, while it's *usually* discussed as an OOC thing, fear of overshadowing and disheartening your little sister with a wooden sword can *absolutely* be an IC thing, too.

Make more sense now?

[icefractal]

The question is, even if - or, perhaps, especially if - you care about your little sister, are you going to be happy with her risking her life to protect you worse than constructs / summons, *and* cost you more than the same?IRL no, but in a D&D world, maybe yes.

The question is whether non-dangerous practices can produce the same kind of level growth that adventuring does. If said sister can achieve similar results by non-lethal practice, then I'd more encourage her toward that (and that's what I'd be doing myself rather than risking my life on other planes). Although even then, if she's determined to go out adventuring, I'd want to make sure she had at least one competent, non-backstabbing party member - ie. me.

But on the other hand, if deadly adventuring really was the only way to grow more powerful - powerful enough not to be dead when one of the many hostile groups or wandering monsters that seem prevalent in the world decides to attack one's town - then adventuring (under as good conditions as possible) might actually be the best option long-term. And people helping their friends/family not get killed in the process seems pretty sensible.

[Quertus]

IRL no, but in a D&D world, maybe yes.

The question is whether non-dangerous practices can produce the same kind of level growth that adventuring does. If said sister can achieve similar results by non-lethal practice, then I'd more encourage her toward that (and that's what I'd be doing myself rather than risking my life on other planes). Although even then, if she's determined to go out adventuring, I'd want to make sure she had at least one competent, non-backstabbing party member - ie. me.

But on the other hand, if deadly adventuring really was the only way to grow more powerful - powerful enough not to be dead when one of the many hostile groups or wandering monsters that seem prevalent in the world decides to attack one's town - then adventuring (under as good conditions as possible) might actually be the best option long-term. And people helping their friends/family not get killed in the process seems pretty sensible.

In the D&D world, where you were willing to forgo 500,000 gold to help your little sister, wouldn't you also potentially forgo the entire quest, and choose one less likely to get her killed, with even lower reward?

Or might you not also simply perform the 1,000,000 GP quest solo, and then use the money to craft / summon her "at least one competent, non-backstabbing party member" as a more cost-effective means of meeting all of your goals?

IIRC (darn senility), my goal is simply to let people see that there is more than one answer that is not entirely unreasonable, and I think I've achieved that.

[JoeNapalm]

The most common refrain in TTRPGs debates..."You're having fun wrong!"

3.5e is a high-crunch game, with one of the largest...if not the largest...pool of resources ever created.

Throw in a sliding scale of players that range from your people who just show up to hang out/RP to your mad scientists and beyond into squinting rules lawyers, and it's going to cause some friction if you don't hammer out expectations Session 0 or before.

You need to coordinate, as a party, before the game starts...or live with the consequences. And in 3.5e, there ARE consequences.

Your Total Drama and Coattail gamers point their fingers and your Munchkins point back -- most experienced players in D20/3.x systems are somewhere in between.

-Jn-

[Morty]

I think that in practice, min-maxing is done more often to realize a particular concept than to gain power. If you want power, min-maxing isn't really necessary. You can just play a full caster above level 7 or thereabouts, without making terrible mistakes like banning conjuration/transmutation. But there are concepts that, due to 3.5's egregious imbalance and general slipshod design, require min-maxing just to function.

For instance, if you want to dual-wield, you need to jump through some hoops just to achieve the same level of "hitting things with a weapon" that you can otherwise accomplish with a big weapon and good strength. If you want to play a swashbuckler, you've got your work cut out for you, because the duelist PrC and swashbuckler class are both terrible. But if you do min-max such concepts, you're still going to end up with a basically competent warrior, nowhere close to being actually powerful or versatile.

[Endarire]

Power levels are best negotiated within a team. I don't like toning down my power level beyond, "Infinite and near-infinite loops end the game." Others are OK with disregarding years of research for the sake of a character concept.

My position on character/party power also differs depending on if I'm GMing or PCing. As GM, I enjoyed having PCs with save-or-die abilities since that meant combat ended sooner. As a PC, it was frustrating to find groups that didn't understand/enjoy/use optimization anywhere near as much as I liked since 3.5 was my effective undergraduate college program and I wanted to use the information I learned!

Something that's probably been understated is just how lethal 3.5's system is expected to be. This isn't "hold the autoattack button to win" assumed level of optimization, but a CR3 cockatrice (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/cockatrice.htm) and a CR 5 basilisk (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/basilisk.htm) can each permanently petrify (effectively kill) a character that fails its save! Similarly, a damage-focused character can one-shot or one-round whatever it hits, even at low levels. In short, 3.5 - and Pathfinder 1e to a similar but probably lesser extent - just want to cut the fluff and focus on the most important parts of the action.