Min/Maxing and rule zero

[quiet1mi]

Hey people in the playground... I have a Dilemma... I am an optimizer by nature... I just cannot help it.

This leads me to the issue... any Dm would be annoyed if they had to deal with a character who deals more damage then they have HP, is able to Mind Rape anything because the save DC is usually 20 higher than the average monster's save or is able to summon Legions of monsters to out muscle the opposition.

What I have noticed in the past is this sort of behavior leads to "The Arms Race". Simply put...

If you Power attack for 100 I will add ~100 Hp to every monster, so you do not one shot it...

If you can Mind Rape anything, I will add ~7 to all their saves so they will save around 40% of the time....

If you summon legions of Minions, I will either reduce the space you could fight in, allow the monsters you fight to use more AOE attacks or just increase the number of opponents you face...

Naturally, this will only entice the players to resort to adding to the arms race, whether it be doing more damage, not allowing saves, or summoning stronger monsters over more monsters...

So what I am asking you guys, is there a balance between optimization and the Dm... Is there a way to prevent "The Arms Race"...

Personally, I Dm with the philosophy of the PCs are like super heros, with strengths and weaknesses, You got to let them have their massive damage attack, mindraping powers, or summonable monsters because it allows you to create moments of weakness something special rather than a challenge to overcome...

For example: There is one encounter where the main monster of the group an intelligent Wraith... Thus it is memorable because it is difficult to hit (50% miss chance) and immune to mind rape, battlefield control, and resistant to illusions... This makes the PCs step outside their MO and think of something new.

[Aron Times]

I find that you can get away with just about anything as long as you don't act like a munchkin. Basically, roleplay well, work with the party, and don't brag about what your character is capable of. This is how people get away with playing the almighty Batman Wizard in 3.5.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Hey people in the playground... I have a Dilemma... I am an optimizer by nature... I just cannot help it.

Ok. With this in mind, let us continue.

This leads me to the issue... any Dm would be annoyed if they had to deal with a character who deals more damage then they have HP,

So what you're saying is that if your character had nigh-infinite HP, then his high damage potential would not be a problem?

So what I am asking you guys, is there a balance between optimization and the Dm... Is there a way to prevent "The Arms Race"...

See how the DM reacts when you decide to play an Adept? It could be fun...

[Yukitsu]

I start using things either with no saves, and no checks for the negative effect on the enemy that happens to be debillitating, or where you get screwed over even if you pass. Then when everything is immune to those effects, I switch to doing uberdamage with the same build. Then, when no one can do anything against any of the encounters, the rest of the players protest their inability to do anything at all. When the DM says it's my fault for using all those tricks, I counter by saying "Ya shoulda let a few of my tricks work once in a while. Then these guys wouldn't be immune to all of them."

[Myrmex]

I start using things either with no saves, and no checks for the negative effect on the enemy that happens to be debillitating. Then when everything is immune to those effects, I switch to doing uberdamage with the same build. Then, when no one can do anything against any of the encounters, the rest of the players protest their inability to do anything at all. When the DM says it's my fault for using all those tricks, I counter by saying "Ya shoulda let a few of my tricks work once in a while. Then these guys wouldn't be immune to all of them."

And then the DM kicks you out of his game.
Why not just play nice?

[drengnikrafe]

Have you ever been one of the 'other' PCs?

You know, when you're campaigning and you somehow ended up playing a Monk 3 / Paladin 3 / Figther 5 / Barbarian 1, whereas your buddy is playing an amazingly broken Wizard with whatever prestige classes make it completely overpowered? Have you ever got to sit there and watch as your character was completely outclassed, and you weren't able to do anything?

Alternatively, have you ever been that DM? The DM that had a player who built perfect builds. Who, no matter how awesome the task you created was, would simply blow it away with his sheer awesomeness?

Characters that use and abuse the rules are not good for DMs, unless the DM is capable of actually challenging the party as a whole. It's like when a 7th level party's fighter gets a +5 Vorpal, Shocking, Keen, Spell Stealing Greatsword. Yes, it is awesome, but the imbalance it creates, and the fun it takes away is a hefty price.

EDIT: I, too, am an optimzer. However, if one of my PCs stepped up to the plate, and asked to DM, I would not break his game with an optmized build (unless I really disliked him, for some reason). You like playing characters that are well built. Why? Is it perhaps because it gives you the chance to shine? The chance to be that awesome? What about the DM. All he gets to do is repeatedly smack you (or your character) with the fist of DM wrath. Where is his chance to shine?

[Yukitsu]

And then the DM kicks you out of his game.
Why not just play nice?

It's usually against DMs that decide everything from 3-20 has mindblank, because he doesn't like charm person etc. That's just unreasonable. Under normal circumstances, I have no reason to step out of my niche, which is usually battlefield control anyway.

As an aside, my most commonly played class, when everything in terms of options is on the table, is paladin. I only play wizards when the interesting options found in splat books are banned.

[Arakune]

And then the DM kicks you out of his game.
Why not just play nice?

There are ways to prevent a trick abuse without simply saying "no, they are immune just because".

[Sir.Swindle]

I'm inclined to agree with Joe on this one. You made a character. A character is more than the sum of it's class and race, if you don't act like a douche then your DM doesn't need to.

Example: I'm planning on playing a damage immune character (multiheaded lernean half clay golem). The only reason i don't expect my DM to spam me with earthquakes, move earths and disintegrates (only things that get past immunity). Is to not be a jerk about it.

Don't flaunt your power, don't kill gaurds for no reason other than no one being able to stop you. If you realy need to, comprimise your self, add a template that makes you lol or would be an interesting RP experience, or roll for one if you lack creativity.

Mostly all it come down to is
DON'T BE A ****

[Myrmex]

It's usually against DMs that decide everything from 3-20 has mindblank, because he doesn't like charm person etc. That's just unreasonable. Under normal circumstances, I have no reason to step out of my niche, which is usually battlefield control anyway.

Oh, gotcha. Yeah, I hate when DMs do that.

[Skorj]

As a DM, I don't care how powerful you are relative to your opponents. There is no "Arms Race" - you're on a point buy system, and no matter how good your op-fu, I'm not. Your opponents will be as challenging as I want them to be. But it's not supposed to be a competition, it's supposed to be cooperative storytelling.

However, players generally want to feel powerful most of the time, to have the hard fight that they might lose be a boss fight, or dramatically interesting in some way. So I often select minions to be weak against whatever colorful ideas my players had on how to be strong. I create encounters that can be easily solved by some forgotton ability a player put on his sheet for laughs 2 years ago. Or encounters that are easy to solve by thinking "in character", but hard to solve through random firepower.

Mix/Maxing is only a problem when there's a great disparity between players. Then trying to give everyone a chance to shine and have fun can get so contrived that it breaks immersion. Batman builds are great in a game IMO, because they mostly help others shine, so there's no problem anywhere (when played that way, anyhow).

[Tyndmyr]

I do the same thing. I use the power necessary to overcome the obstacle. If the obstacle is a lonely kobold with a pointy stick, I'm not going to bother optimizing. If the obstacle is a munchkiny DM with ever-inflating hitpoints, ridiculous saves, etc, I'll find a way to destroy it that circumvents those limitations.

I mean, the point of D&D isn't to show up every week to fail, yknow? Characters are *supposed* to find ways to win.

I wont be a jerk about it, but I will call you out if you have a bard casting a sorcerer only spell without using an item(or being sublime chord, etc). I'll then happily obliterate your cheesy, illegal mob with a perfectly legit tactic. You *can* throw me out of the game for doing this, I guess. I've never had it happen. Generally, the players get pissed at the DM for breaking the rules and getting ever more ridiculous.

[Sir.Swindle]

A DM is allowed to homebrew what ever monster or class or NPC only PrC he wants, it's his say.

I get pissed when the DM tries to disguise it as rules.

Only time i called out a DM he had us roll initiative then take actions with no opponents on the field and then threw a group at us so they got a "suprise round" and their turn.

[BRC]

I find that when the situation arises where you have an Experienced DM and one or two people who are capable of optimization far above that of the rest of the party is capable of/wants to do (which is where problems arise), the best solution is a sort of "Social Contract".
The Optimizers agree to tone down their characters to that of the rest of the party. Which means that if the party consists of Sneaky the Rogue, Slashy the TWF fighter, and Healbot the Cleric, you don't have Lord Destromas the 12th, known as "He who makes his enemies heads explode with a thought".

At the same time, the DM agrees to use encounters appropriate to the party's level of optimization, so the Optimizers don't have to worry about "Making up" for their Teammates lack of min/maxery. To put it another way, if the Player agrees to play Blasty the Sorceror instead of Lord Destromas the 12, known as "He who makes his enemies head's explode with a thought", the DM won't throw teleport them into a deep pit with an adamant grate halfway up and a wizard at the top with a wand of Create Water who slowly fills the pit until they all drown (and because it's technically just a 2nd level wizard up there, the encounter is CR appropriate!).

[Signmaker]

Just be a wolf in sheep's clothing. Use only the appropriate scale of your attacks to deal with the situation at hand, rather than excessive amounts of force. That way you stay at the same general level as the rest of the party, while having an ace in the hole when things go sour.

[jiriku]

As a player, I often have this problem, as I am a very good optimizer and I enjoy making and playing optimized characters. As a DM, I never have difficulty building challenging encounters, for the reason described above, but I often have group balance issues where some players build average or moderately good characters while others construct truly useless characters.

Observation #1: Optimization presents a challenge to the DM. The DM must solve it -- the players cannot.

Observation #2: The most common mistake DMs make in response to optimization is to build tougher encounters and more powerful monsters. This triggers the dreaded "spiral of escalation."

Observation #3: The correct DM response is to build encounters of equal difficulty, featuring larger numbers of weaker monsters using clever tactics.

Why does this work?
A) Weaker monsters don't require optimization to kill. Tougher monsters would encourage escalation on the part of the optimizer, but this 'reverse escalation' actually creates a disincentive for further excess.
B) Larger groups of bad guys mean that even if the optimizer well and truly splatters his foe, there are plenty of targets for the other characters to take on.
C) Mechanically powerful monsters can be defeated with even more mechanically powerful PCs (escalation again), but clever tactics can only be defeated with even more clever tactics among players. This promotes teamwork, inclusiveness and fun.

[Sir.Swindle]

As a player, I often have this problem, as I am a very good optimizer and I enjoy making and playing optimized characters. As a DM, I never have difficulty building challenging encounters, for the reason described above, but I often have group balance issues where some players build average or moderately good characters while others construct truly useless characters.

Observation #1: Optimization presents a challenge to the DM. The DM must solve it -- the players cannot.

Observation #2: The most common mistake DMs make in response to optimization is to build tougher encounters and more powerful monsters.

Observation #3: The correct DM response is to build encounters of equal difficulty, featuring larger numbers of weaker monsters using clever tactics.

Why does this work?
A) Weaker monsters don't require optimization to kill. Tougher monsters would encourage escalation on the part of the optimizer, but this 'reverse escalation' actually creates a disincentive for further excess.
B) Larger groups of bad guys mean that even if the optimizer well and truly splatters his foe, there are plenty of targets for the other characters to take on.
C) Mechanically powerful monsters can be defeated with even more mechanically powerful PCs (escalation again), but clever tactics can only be defeated with even more clever tactics among players. This promotes teamwork, inclusiveness and fun.

In short use Tucker's Kobolds.

[Yukitsu]

As a player, I often have this problem, as I am a very good optimizer and I enjoy making and playing optimized characters. As a DM, I never have difficulty building challenging encounters, for the reason described above, but I often have group balance issues where some players build average or moderately good characters while others construct truly useless characters.

Observation #1: Optimization presents a challenge to the DM. The DM must solve it -- the players cannot.

Observation #2: The most common mistake DMs make in response to optimization is to build tougher encounters and more powerful monsters. This triggers the dreaded "spiral of escalation."

Observation #3: The correct DM response is to build encounters of equal difficulty, featuring larger numbers of weaker monsters using clever tactics.

Why does this work?
A) Weaker monsters don't require optimization to kill. Tougher monsters would encourage escalation on the part of the optimizer, but this 'reverse escalation' actually creates a disincentive for further excess.
B) Larger groups of bad guys mean that even if the optimizer well and truly splatters his foe, there are plenty of targets for the other characters to take on.
C) Mechanically powerful monsters can be defeated with even more mechanically powerful PCs (escalation again), but clever tactics can only be defeated with even more clever tactics among players. This promotes teamwork, inclusiveness and fun.

This also encourages the only good thing to have come out of theory op (IMO) which is battlefield control wizards that assist the party with minimal effort on the casters part. Of course, not all caster players have the proper attitude to accept that most people won't notice their contribution.

[BRC]

In short use Tucker's Kobolds.

not exactly, but you have the right idea.


4 1st level elf warriors standing 20 feet from the party is a pushover. 4 1st level elf warriors crouching behind rocks each 150ft away from the party in different directions with uneven terrain in between is very difficult.
An Ogre and 2 goblins' isn't much. An Ogre with two goblins riding on his shoulders, throwing flasks of acid and taking potshots with a crossbow, is difficult.

A CR Appropriate giant is boring. A Gian above the Party's CR in a room full of traps the party already knows about but the Giant does not, is interesting.

[Yukitsu]

An Ogre and 2 goblins' isn't much. An Ogre with two goblins riding on his shoulders, throwing flasks of acid and taking potshots with a crossbow, is difficult.

I recommend nixing that one, not because it's overpowered, but because you can expect the players will start doing such things. You'll really be hoping you gave the NPCs penalties when the entire party is running through walls when the adamantium warforged charger is rampaging through the city whilst being ridden by the party, who is using full round fire support.

[BRC]

I recommend nixing that one, not because it's overpowered, but because you can expect the players will start doing such things. You'll really be hoping you gave the NPCs penalties when the entire party is running through walls when the adamantium warforged charger is rampaging through the city whilst being ridden by the party, who is using full round fire support.

You're saying that like it's not an awesome idea.

[Skorj]

As a player, I often have this problem, as I am a very good optimizer and I enjoy making and playing optimized characters. As a DM, I never have difficulty building challenging encounters, for the reason described above, but I often have group balance issues where some players build average or moderately good characters while others construct truly useless characters.

Observation #1: Optimization presents a challenge to the DM. The DM must solve it -- the players cannot.

Observation #2: The most common mistake DMs make in response to optimization is to build tougher encounters and more powerful monsters. This triggers the dreaded "spiral of escalation."

Observation #3: The correct DM response is to build encounters of equal difficulty, featuring larger numbers of weaker monsters using clever tactics.

Why does this work?
A) Weaker monsters don't require optimization to kill. Tougher monsters would encourage escalation on the part of the optimizer, but this 'reverse escalation' actually creates a disincentive for further excess.
B) Larger groups of bad guys mean that even if the optimizer well and truly splatters his foe, there are plenty of targets for the other characters to take on.
C) Mechanically powerful monsters can be defeated with even more mechanically powerful PCs (escalation again), but clever tactics can only be defeated with even more clever tactics among players. This promotes teamwork, inclusiveness and fun.

There's a lot to be said for this - I do it - but it's not the only way.

Let's say the party has a min/maxing Wizard who's great at SoL spells. For ordinary encounters, I'd have groups of monsters roaming the land in service of the Big Bad who are terrifying for most, but only slightly challenging to the party because of the Uber SoL spells. The wizard feels like his op-fu has been rewarded, and is happy.

As the story progresses, the Big Bad reacts to the party, and changes his minions (or minibosses, or whatever) in some fashion where suddenly the Uber SoL is SOL. It makes sense in-character, and gives the rest of the party a chance. If the Wizard changes to his second-favorite tactic in time to obliterate the Big Bad - great! That's a good story right there.

But on the the next adventure, and the minions are back to being weak against the min/maxer. It's not an arms race, because there's no need to continue escalation. Easy ecounters are appropriate at certain points in a story arc - let the min-maxer have his fun at that time, and you can keep it in-character when suddenly he has to move to his second or third favorite approach (or however far down the chain until the rest of the party is doing most of the work).

[quiet1mi]

not all caster players have the proper attitude to accept that most people won't notice their contribution.

This Player typically does battlefield control, the other players did not notice until I launched a Solid fog on the big bad beholder... another player followed up with darkness on a rock and stuck it to the beholder's head with Sovereign glue...

DM: Ok... the Beholder can see you guys using the antimagic eye...
ME: Too bad, he cannot fire into his antimagic cone...

[Myrmex]

This Player typically does battlefield control, the other players did not notice until I launched a Solid fog on the big bad beholder... another player followed up with darkness on a rock and stuck it to the beholder's head with Sovereign glue...

DM: Ok... the Beholder can see you guys using the antimagic eye...
ME: Too bad, he cannot fire into his antimagic cone...

With the AMF eye, he could move out of the solid fog in a direction that you couldn't see and proceed to blast your party with three eye rays, all in the same round.

[erikun]

Observation #3: The correct DM response is to build encounters of equal difficulty, featuring larger numbers of weaker monsters using clever tactics.

The times I've seen it happen, this has worked for me. Even the best optimized fighter, who can deal 1000+ damage a round, and the best optimized wizard, who can toss out multiple save-or-dies a round, have trouble killing off large numbers of weaker enemies. They really need to work to keep the party from getting swamped.

Then again, I've had players who love diving into the middle of two dozen enemies. Usually they're the ones with low AC, too...

[jiriku]

With the AMF eye, he could move out of the solid fog in a direction that you couldn't see and proceed to blast your party with three eye rays, all in the same round.

Hehehehe not in the dark, he couldn't. That was CLEVER!

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I can only assume it was 3.0 Darkness.

[Myrmex]

Hehehehe not in the dark, he couldn't. That was CLEVER!

Ohh, I missed the part with the rock. Yeah, that's brilliant.

[Ravens_cry]

Mostly all it come down to is
DON'T BE A ****

I am Ravens_cry, and I approve this message.
Seriously, don't be a four-asterisks, just don't.
Min-maxing isn't the problem, uber-goober optimization isn't even the problem, in the right group. It's been a four-asterisks, that's the problem.

[Pyro_Azer]

Another way to control your own minmaxing is to optimize classes for roles they were not meant for. This results in you having fun optimizing, creating a useful character, but not unbalancing the game. An example of this is I have played wizards like skill monkeys before and barbarians as sneaks.