The impact optimization has on your playstyle?

[Typewriter]

So, I've been reading these forums for a while now and there are certain things that come up a lot. Monks suck, wizards rule, fighters/melee can't have nice things, etc. etc.

All of these are true. If you disagree then I am fine with that, but I don't intend for this thread to be about those old arguments. I'm curious about something completely differently, and I'll explain:

Do the rules of optimization and RAW determine your actual playstyle?

I know that, by comparing optimizations, monks suck and are the worst of the core classes, but because nobody in my group really optimizes they do just fine. The wizard is a blaster with occasional spells to do something else. Clerics are healers. Nobody worries about scrolls/wands/UMD because nobody wants the hassle of dealing with those items.

So, in your games, do the wizards always prepare spells like Batman, or do they just grab a random mish-mash? If you want to post your spell list I'd be interested in reading it :P

Do the melee in your games constantly get outclassed by everyone else, or are they just as fun and effective to play as the party wizard or cleric? Do you play melee but heavily houserule it?

These may be weird questions, but I've just been getting more and more curious the more time I spend on these forums. Almost every conversation is made from the viewpoint of easy access to WBL/RAW rules/optimization, yet I occasionally see people making comments about playing these things that they say elsewhere suck.

[mootoall]

It's really all dependent on play style, really. There's a journal on here by Zaq where even the Truespeaker can be relevant throughout a campaign. It required a buttload of optimization, but he did it. Most people, however, will say that it's unplayable. That's pretty exemplary of the question you're asking.

[Typewriter]

It's really all dependent on play style, really. There's a journal on here by Zaq where even the Truespeaker can be relevant throughout a campaign. It required a buttload of optimization, but he did it. Most people, however, will say that it's unplayable. That's pretty exemplary of the question you're asking.

That's not really what I was asking. You answered "Can anything be made to work within a group" when my question was "Do the conversations people have here on the forum where RAW is law, and optimization is king actually represent the ways they play".

Obviously the answer is going to be different for different people, but I'm curious to see what people say/how many people say what.

[valadil]

So, in your games, do the wizards always prepare spells like Batman, or do they just grab a random mish-mash?

This is where my group differs the most from theoretical optimization. I have a fudge happy group. They would never let a single spell shut down 3/4 of the enemies. SoD is even less effective. The first time I played a caster with this group, I was told not to bother with control spells because the GM would all but ignore them. Damage didn't get fudged as much, so those kinds of spells were encouraged.

This group also didn't have a magic mart. And item prices weren't always by the book. This made it very hard for wizards to learn all the spells they'd ever need.

To be honest, I didn't really mind those changes. It was annoying to be unintentionally gimpy because I didn't know what I was getting into. But I liked that it was a new environment to play in. I enjoy having to reevaluate instead of relying on the spells that the internet told me to take.

[Tyndmyr]

That's not really what I was asking. You answered "Can anything be made to work within a group" when my question was "Do the conversations people have here on the forum where RAW is law, and optimization is king actually represent the ways they play".

Obviously the answer is going to be different for different people, but I'm curious to see what people say/how many people say what.

I have in fact played a long running campaign in which I was an Incantatrix/Iot7v who used things like invisible solid fog, and the entire party could be assumed to be flying at any given point in time. We had a pair of invisibile, blinking, flying assassins as probably the lowest tier characters in the group.

It was epic. The group broke up around level 15 due to lots of people moving/deployed elsewhere. Started at level 1.

[big teej]

Do the rules of optimization and RAW determine your actual playstyle?

I know that, by comparing optimizations, monks suck and are the worst of the core classes, but because nobody in my group really optimizes they do just fine. The wizard is a blaster with occasional spells to do something else. Clerics are healers. Nobody worries about scrolls/wands/UMD because nobody wants the hassle of dealing with those items.

So, in your games, do the wizards always prepare spells like Batman, or do they just grab a random mish-mash? If you want to post your spell list I'd be interested in reading it :P

Do the melee in your games constantly get outclassed by everyone else, or are they just as fun and effective to play as the party wizard or cleric? Do you play melee but heavily houserule it?

These may be weird questions, but I've just been getting more and more curious the more time I spend on these forums. Almost every conversation is made from the viewpoint of easy access to WBL/RAW rules/optimization, yet I occasionally see people making comments about playing these things that they say elsewhere suck.

point 1: do the rules of optimization and RAW affect playstyle

Not in the slightest, I'm the only one in the group who even crunches the numbers enough to find best armor, but I'll still pick something that fits the character better if necessary (mammoth leather vs chain shirt for example)*

*despite our super-low-op group, I plan on optimizing my upcoming monk a bit, just to be safe.


point 2: wizards

so far the only casters our group has ever had are 1) a Elf Druid (which is being outclassed by the rest of the melee centered party) and 2) a cleric that does NOTHING but heal.
in combat

I plan on playing a sorc/wiz (haven't decided yet) soon (after the monk dies) at which point, I'll play a blaster, because that is more fun for me than to play batman.

also, given our games, batman is UTTERLY uncalled for.

point 3: our group plays almost exclusively melee
we have 2 campaigns going
my campaign
party:
Human Paladin
Dwarf Fighter
Half-Elf Ranger
Human Barbarian
Human Ranger
Human Ranger
Elf Druid
and maaaaaaaaaaaybe a Dwarf Barbarian, pending player commitment.

alt campaign
Human Knight - me
Pathfinder Alchemist - considered OP/strongest member by entire group
Halfling rogue
Half-Orc Barbarian
Dwarf Fighter
Human Cleric
Halfling Fighter

so given that we have no casters, no, they do not outstrip melee, and despite the differences in capabilities, the meleers consistently (always) out-perform the casters

the druid occaisionally casts entangle, thus making life easier (happened 3 times I think)

the Cleric hides behind the knight, half orc, and dwarf and heals them. refusing to wage into combat.

point 4: wierd questions
no, not at all, I often feel the same thing. but to be fair, unless someone posts in EXQUISITE detail about their campaign, build, spending power, op level etc.

the boards can't help but assume average WBL, and thus make suggestions accordingly

granted. occaisionally the suggestions are not helpful at all.
but other times they're an absolute goldmine of information.

for example, My first wizard is coming up soon, and I asked the playground several questions about how to play a wizard,
this got me mixed responses of
a) things I were actually looking for, such as: how I add spells to my spellbook, how many spells I start with, etc
b) things I will never read if I can help it, such as: links to "the guide to being batman", "so-and-so's guide to being a god"

the things in B have 0 interest to me whatsoever

in another thread, about monks, I also recieved polarized responses
response type a) you should do xyzabcaopsdfoig to make your monk more effective

response type b) don't play a monk.

it's at this point I'd like to go on a quick tangent

Spoiler

Show

"don't do that, do x instead is THE MOST USELESS RESPONSE IN EXISTENCE, PLEASE STOP

*that can be: build, class, spell choice, etc.
** x can be: anything not already stated that the poster is GOING to do.
such as play a monk. or a blaster wizard.

/ramble.

[The Rabbler]

That's not really what I was asking. You answered "Can anything be made to work within a group" when my question was "Do the conversations people have here on the forum where RAW is law, and optimization is king actually represent the ways they play".

I always made effective characters (usually with terrible combinations of classes, feats, and PrCs) but since joining the forum, I've noticed a change in the way I play. I don't pick the terrible combinations anymore, rather I pick strong combinations and underplay them. My group is incredibly unoptimized (monks and fighter/rogues applenty) and they have a habit of making spontaneous and facepalm-inciting plans. I've started building my characters around having a lot of options so I can be prepared for when absolutely everything goes wrong all at once (not uncommon).

TL;DR: I'll make the wizard but not play him like batman until everything goes wrong.

[Earthwalker]

My DnD game was 3.5 now slowly turning pathfinder.
The group
Forest Gnome Druid level 6.
Human Monk level 6
Human Ranger 5/barbarian 1 (I suggested he take one level of barb, this is the base barb not the lion totem)
Me – Rogue 3 / Wizard(spec divination) 3 / arcane trikster 1.
Spells know for me wizard (going from memory)

Level 1
Mage armour
Sheild
Minor image
True strike
Identify
Comprhend language

Level 2
Cats grace
Detect thoughts
See Invis
Spider Climb
I think most people will see this isn’t optimized at all. The GM does not allow scrolls to be copied to my spell book, so far no other wizard has been willing to trade spells.

So far the ranger does the most damage and is most effective. Then the druid then the monk, then me as a rogue wizard. Of course I am always doing something, just it doesn’t effect much.

[Tyndmyr]

In my experience, everyone optimizes. It might be at the level of, "ooh, you shouldn't take elf if you're going fighter. You need that con", but it's still optimization.

The higher the average optimization in a game, the more fun it has generally been for me. Why? Because people who know games well enough to optimize decently, well...they know the game well. It means you're all familiar with the game and on the same page as far as tactics and things.

Practical Optimization is just fine. The only problem is when you've got people at wildly different levels of it.

[Aemoh87]

Pathfinder is good if your group optimizes alot.

But the key is your playing a game that isn't incredibly challenging, it is not a show of your mental fortitude based on your character build. What it really is a way to create a character with role play ideas, which game mechanics to help you express them. So many players build mechanics first, but the game is much more fun if you do it the other way around as well as it adds a unique challenge.

I am playing a cleric right now who is essentially Tier one. I build him on my own based on flavor ideas and he even has a fiend of possession cohort. I appear guilty of OP'ing it up but really he is a cleric seeking acention with the help of demons. I know that if I go full power with this character there could be some very serious issues, so I tend to focus more on what he would do, not what is optimal. (He is a bestial fury/delay death cleric with lots of deathward effects... but he has some serious bestial fury being a half-minotaur)

[Devils_Blind]

My group has two kinds of campaigns. We have our low to bid optimization campaigns where fighter 20 is common. Then we have our campaigns run by that guy. "10 pages of character devolpment and racial culture that I asked you to write? Excellent! We'll never use it, and BTW, you're a mercenary now. Never mind that you were a paladin, you're a merc. And your god of valor and righteousness totally doesn't give a flip about what you do. Slaughter everything."

No one warned me in the first campaign I played that he was a hack and slash high optimizing sort of guy. So I came with a character, a son of a noble family who was looking to make his mark on the world. "Okay, so, you're all on the slave ship." Wait, what? "You've been captured and sold into slavery." But... my character wasn't. "He is now. Anyway there's a storm..." Blah blah. After that, and spending several three hour fights literally waiting for the session to end because he didn't think consider the non-magic, non-geared character when sending us against a flying wizard, I stopped trusting my DMs to pull me into the story.

Now, I optimize. I don't optimize for ultimate power, I don't batman. But, all of my characters, all of them, have the ability, in some form or another, to tell the DM "No. The campaign goes down like this." Other than thay, I tend to build solid tier three. I buff up fighters. I lock doors. Only when the DM stops playing a game about the party do I run tier one.

[Yora]

Do the rules of optimization and RAW determine your actual playstyle?

Hell, no!!!

I don't care for optimization and usually play with players who have only few to none experience with RPGs and are happy to go with the plot without looking into any books. So we play really plain old vanilla.

And I always use the core rules by RAIPT. Rules as I prefer them. There's a huge bunch of feats and spells I kicked completely out and I handwave most of the RAW exploits as "this does not work in this game".

You can not cast rope trick and freedom of movement does not apply to grapple. I decide that, end of story.

[Typewriter]

I have in fact played a long running campaign in which I was an Incantatrix/Iot7v who used things like invisible solid fog, and the entire party could be assumed to be flying at any given point in time. We had a pair of invisibile, blinking, flying assassins as probably the lowest tier characters in the group.

It was epic. The group broke up around level 15 due to lots of people moving/deployed elsewhere. Started at level 1.

Group breaking up sucks. I've often wanted to try getting my group more into optimization, but I fear that once I get them down that road I'll never be able to go back, and right now it's nice having monsters at the appropriate CR actually be a challenge at times :P

Long post

Yeah, I understand why people talk the way they do on the forums, you have to assume RAW/WBL and the like, but you can never tell. I often wondered if my group was some kind of anomoly for playing the way we do.

And yes, I hate it that when asking about a specific thing you often get answers that are completely off. Q: "How do I be a good healer", A:"Don't bother!". Q:"What feats make a monks XYZ better?", A: "Play a swordsage". That's actually the main reason I never ask for advice in builds on these forums. Even when I see someone explain they're class isn't up for negotiation and certain things are off limits, people will still try to tell them to switch class and/or use disallowed books.

I always made effective characters (usually with terrible combinations of classes, feats, and PrCs) but since joining the forum, I've noticed a change in the way I play. I don't pick the terrible combinations anymore, rather I pick strong combinations and underplay them. My group is incredibly unoptimized (monks and fighter/rogues applenty) and they have a habit of making spontaneous and facepalm-inciting plans. I've started building my characters around having a lot of options so I can be prepared for when absolutely everything goes wrong all at once (not uncommon).

TL;DR: I'll make the wizard but not play him like batman until everything goes wrong.

I've found that these forums have affected my DMing more than my playstyle personally. I like creating baddies that are a bigger challenge, and when I get to play I almost always jump towards my favorite class(Monk...).

@Earthwalker

That looks kind of similar to what you would find from some of my players. Of course the only thing that would be prepared is damage, but they would have several known :P

[Saph]

That's not really what I was asking. You answered "Can anything be made to work within a group" when my question was "Do the conversations people have here on the forum where RAW is law, and optimization is king actually represent the ways they play".

No, and I suspect the same is true for virtually all games. No-one I'm aware of plays by RAW, firstly because it's impossible (oh hey, turns out 90% of the terms in the D&D rules aren't precisely defined, have fun deciding the 'correct' interpretation) and secondly because no-one except for a small minority actually cares.

As for optimisation, the conversations on this board again have little relevance to actual games, because optimisation discussions usually assume that the character's only goal is to be as powerful as possible, which doesn't reflect the priorities of most players.

This is why my groups have been running mixed parties of casters and meleers (who have plenty of nice things, thank you very much) with no real problems for years.

[Zaydos]

In my experience, everyone optimizes. It might be at the level of, "ooh, you shouldn't take elf if you're going fighter. You need that con", but it's still optimization.

The higher the average optimization in a game, the more fun it has generally been for me. Why? Because people who know games well enough to optimize decently, well...they know the game well. It means you're all familiar with the game and on the same page as far as tactics and things.

Practical Optimization is just fine. The only problem is when you've got people at wildly different levels of it.

While I'm not sure if the second paragraph is true for me (it's been a while since I've played long term; I'm usually the one behind the screen) the 1st and 3rd are definitely true.

Do I let RAW affect my playstyle? If the big bad fails his Will save he fails his Will save. I might give him stuff so that he doesn't fail his Will save, but I'm not going to fudge the dice so he doesn't... I'm actually a little too fudge happy to save the players though. I'm cutting down on that (I lack a killer DM instinct). Edit: To clarify no it doesn't, but that doesn't mean I ignore it to help my monsters.

Wizards? Casters are my preference; even in the older editions I liked casters. Blaster mages are my most common although I've found (due to a DMPC ) that I actually prefer buffing an ally, myself, or my animal companion/familiar/pet and then letting loose. A fully buffed tiger and A polymorphed familiar makes me go

On that note I've only really built for power once and the character is fun; mostly because he's a crazy CG conjurer with an imaginary friend who just so happens to be very much real. I only played him in 2 sessions and one he cast Orb of Fire once and other wise did nothing (I had followed the batman's guide and didn't get a chance to use any of the all-powerful spells in it); thankfully it was a test to see which of 3 character ideas I'd actually enjoy playing the most and he beat out Red Dragon and Dwarf with Talking Armor. The second time I threw Polymorph and blasting onto him and he and the druid took out the CR 12 dragon with Fly and Bite of the Weretiger respectively, he took out the magic redirecting wall with a little help from the sorceress, and he was the exact middle of the group when it came to killing incorporeal creatures (the ghost touch unarmed swordsage, and the force specced sorceress beat him there). It was fun to go all out, but I could only do it because the DM requested it and everyone else did too (by which I mean my girlfriend had me make her character, and everyone else asked me for help in making theirs).

@Rabbler: Yeah I like wizards; I don't enjoy playing Batman. I can, but... I only do it when it's a moment. Unfortunately my above wizard only played with his finished spell list in an adventure that was, in order, a list of types of encounters that should be most difficult for him (I'd given it to the DM in case I unbalanced the game; I also knew he liked incorporeal creatures so I avoided most force effects).

[Tyndmyr]

Group breaking up sucks. I've often wanted to try getting my group more into optimization, but I fear that once I get them down that road I'll never be able to go back, and right now it's nice having monsters at the appropriate CR actually be a challenge at times :P

Ideally, it's more of a slow slide. A lot of us had played together for a few years, at least, so it was just an evolution of us saying "hey, check out this combo" and so forth. Everyone liked having decent characters, and finding cool new tricks was regarded as interesting.

I do agree that there is another type of player...the one what doesn't actually understand optimization, and just copies builds off the internet. These are bad, and should be avoided like the plague.

Yeah, I understand why people talk the way they do on the forums, you have to assume RAW/WBL and the like, but you can never tell. I often wondered if my group was some kind of anomoly for playing the way we do.

Honestly, it's also because it's a common ground. Almost everyone has *some* house rules, but what they are varies pretty wildly. That group tended to be slightly over WBL in most, but not all cases. Interparty conflict was also considered legitimate, so people did steal from each other on occasion, so WBL might not be equal. Other games I've played have varied pretty widely. Still, WBL makes a decent base assumption, and many games have used it for starting at any point after 1st level.

And yes, I hate it that when asking about a specific thing you often get answers that are completely off. Q: "How do I be a good healer", A:"Don't bother!". Q:"What feats make a monks XYZ better?", A: "Play a swordsage". That's actually the main reason I never ask for advice in builds on these forums. Even when I see someone explain they're class isn't up for negotiation and certain things are off limits, people will still try to tell them to switch class and/or use disallowed books.

Those are good bits of advice for people who are new, and do not yet understand the issues involved with them. For people who do know the issues, and are doing it anyhow(challenges are fun, after all), they are spectacularly unhelpful. Unfortunately, sometimes the post doesn't clarify which is which, and sometimes people don't read posts. *shrug*

I've found that these forums have affected my DMing more than my playstyle personally. I like creating baddies that are a bigger challenge, and when I get to play I almost always jump towards my favorite class(Monk...).

One of the fun things about getting good at optimization is being better able to play sub-par concepts.

[Cogidubnus]

Before I came to these forums, I used to love wizards. Loved 'em. Just thought they were cool. Now I find it hard to touch them because either I'm thinking too hard about how to make them awesome or I'm worried I'll ruin everyone else's fun. All sorts of feats and classes seem to lose their cool factor for me cos of the optimisation discussions I've had.

This is especially true because I've played a lot of PbP here, and the last thing I want to do is be left out of/left behind in a game I really like the idea of because of my power level. This is sad.

To fix the fact that I ended up thinking only about level 20+ Gestalt with ACs of 60-70 minimum, I am now running a level 1 campaign as DM, where the PCs are simply trying to survive a local apocalypse. Totally different ball game, having loads of fun planning it.

[bokodasu]

One of the fun things about getting good at optimization is being better able to play sub-par concepts.

Oh yeah, this. Go right ahead and put how you're an expert swordsman in your backstory, see how that works for you when you've got a +1 to hit and are up against something with an AC of 40.

I've played in groups that range from "we're using the names of stuff but the only rule is the Rule of Cool" to near-Curmudgeon levels of RAW. And if that doesn't affect your playstyle, then you're not going to have much fun. (UGH, THAT GUY who always picks bad spells on purpose and then refuses to use them on the rare occasion when they would be useful because "I hate ROLL playing!", I am LOOKING AT YOU. Also at you, Mr. Blastsfirsts McPunchyfist, who insists on starting bar fights in our high-diplomacy political intrigue game.)

Less rantily, I have too many character concepts to be able to just pick one and write it up; I'm much more inspired by the limitations of picking a class and feats first and then writing a character that explains those things. So yeah, that too. I'd never play a (D&D) monk or paladin because I've never been interested in playing either of those things, but I certainly put together and play low-op characters when they sound like fun.

[Aharon]

I have more fun playing

My first serious 3e character was a Psychic Warrior. 3e, mind you, not 3.5. I didn't know what to focus on to make them work. Predictably, he sucked, couldn't contribute, and was killed.

My second character (still 3e) was a cleric. 1hour/level Bull's strength? Divine Favor? Hell yes!

The difference was extreme. Not succeeding isn't fun. And holding back is more reliably possibly than achieving success through lucky rolls.

[Tyndmyr]

(UGH, THAT GUY who always picks bad spells on purpose and then refuses to use them on the rare occasion when they would be useful because "I hate ROLL playing!", I am LOOKING AT YOU. Also at you, Mr. Blastsfirsts McPunchyfist, who insists on starting bar fights in our high-diplomacy political intrigue game.)

Yes, these people, in all their many forms, have caused me far more grief than any optimization ever has.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

When I DM, I DM as close to RAW as possible, with the caveats that (A) if everyone in the group votes to ignore something we all think is stupid and pointless (currently, just the multiclass XP penalties and the CPsi power nerfs) we will houserule them and (B) anything the PCs do the NPCs can do, so while I've run one game with chain-gating solars and infinite loops and several with slightly lower optimization levels, my players have never done anything too "out there" like drown-healing or the Omniscifier or things like that. (Though once one player asked what would happen if he were to abuse the drown-healing loophole, and I told him I was perfectly willing to make the BBEG and his minions fanatical followers of a new goddess, She of the Healing Waters in the Bottom of a Bucket, with new tactics to match if he so desired. He declined. )

All of my current players played Guild Wars, WoW, and other games where builds are paramount, so after I convinced everyone to give D&D a try, every one of them was looking for combos and and optimal spells before you could say "If you want to go beyond the PHB, there are several expansion books...." without any input on my part. We had two people freshman year who had played D&D before and initially disliked this "power-gamey" attitude, but after one of them mentioned that he really liked playing fighters and rogues but tended to feel outclassed by the blaster casters in his home group, I showed him how he could build warblades to feel like he wanted his fighters to feel and how he could make sneak attack work better for him. After that, they gave some of those builds a spin in a one-shot I ran and they found it more fun that way; now they can build with the best of them.

And lest you think it's my particular DMing style that forces them to play that way, this semester I'm actually taking a break from DMing to play for once. In our current party we have:

• The archer (a mystic ranger with Sword of the Arcane Order, going into abjurant champion by way of an Abrupt Jaunt focused specialist conjurer dip)
• The summoner (a shaper psion with all the shaper ACFs and the constructor PrC, ignoring the CPsi astral construct nerf for the usual reasons, with manifester arrows to keep his PP up)
• The sniper (a pixie hellfire warlock/legacy champion with Shape Soulmeld [Strongheart Vest] and several sources of sneak attack; this PC's player is one of the people mentioned above who thought us too power-gamey before)
• The scout (a changeling UMD rogue/binder with Darkstalker, Mindsight, Lifesense, and a Hide/MS in the stratosphere)
• The tank (a bard/anima mage focusing on debuffing and melee combat)
• The face (an artificer with a dip into incarnate who does a very nice Iron Man impression)
• The buffer (my character, a cleric/Hathran/war weaver/Spellguard of Silverymoon with an acorn of far travel)

We're all having fun and our "rollplaying" doesn't overshadow our roleplaying in the least (the tank is a crotchety old guy, the sniper is chaos incarnate, and I'm a very sanctimonious paladin-type, so our current negotiations with the githyanki are always...interesting), but optimization definitely has an impact on our playstyle.

[Unrest]

@bokodasu: "near-Curmudgeon levels of RAW"

@OP: Aaaaghaww! When I first came to read the "Roleplaying" section here on the forum, do you think I knew that Dodge was a terrible feat? Did I know that the fighter is outclassed by the wizard by level 3? Could I have ever determined what tier the OA Samurai is just by looking at the picture? NO!

AND I WAS HAPPY!

Now... now, if I'm up for some PbP, I try to optimize. I mean, nothing I would ever see as not elegant or not making sense by fluff for the character... but then the fluff mayget a bit changed around to well, accomodate the crunch. I will read ALL spells from Spell Compendium and PHB - and any other book that's explicitly stated to be available - if building a mage; and would NEVER be able to play any melee class other than ToB. S***! I hate you, Playground, for making me know what minmaxed and optimized power is, and making me LOVE IT while I lash out at its enslaving chains in my soul-burning hatred!

[Typewriter]

Yes, these people, in all their many forms, have caused me far more grief than any optimization ever has.

In one of my games recently I was playing a Bard. When it came to my turn I said, "I cast haste centered on myself". Another player pointed out that if I cast on another person it would affect the entire party, to which I responded, "If you think my character would ever cast an AoE buff centered anywhere other than himself you have not been paying attention".

So, yeah, I guess I'm that guy to a certain degree :P

[Eldariel]

To answer the question in the topic:
- Optimization has lead to me realizing the inherent flaws in the system alongside the awesomeness of Psionics and ToB.
- These realizations have lead to me using the system in a heavily houseruled manner with plenty of homebrew content (mostly ToB saturation to bring all the basic classes up to speed, and Psionic expansion to replace vancian casting as desired; oh, and some sweet PrCs).
- Most characters we play are competent at what they do; that is to say, we design characters together, discuss the fluff we want and then work out the best mechanical representation (be it homebrew or official, single-class or a multiclass monstrosity) for it. Generally, our non-casters are ToB-base, half-casters are ToB/Psionic homebrew with occasional Incarnum or Binding thrown in, and casters are Psionic or ToM-based. Though with other groups and online I still play games with Vancian casting and all that and don't usually mind what others play but tend to play some stronger classes myself just so I have lots of leeway in adjusting to how powerful I need to be.

[gourdcaptain]

I play the closest thing to an optimizer in the two in person groups I'm in (4e/Pathfinder), where the rest of the players are pretty non-build focused in what they do. I mostly take the opportunity to go with the occasional weird choices and try to catch up with the abilities be relevant to them playing unoptimized full casters. (Currently, I'm trying this with in a Pathfinder game with an end goal Kobold Fighter 2 /Rogue 8 /Duelist 10. Yeah, this will be interesting once we get to higher levels (LV 3 currently). Yes, I realize this will probably work terribly.)

I've only ever gone too far over power level of the rest of the party (and the DM) once, in a 4e game with a Revenant Tempest Fighter who took on half the enemy force by himself and won every fight. That character got retired quickly for other reasons, but still...

[Zanatos777]

In one of my games recently I was playing a Bard. When it came to my turn I said, "I cast haste centered on myself". Another player pointed out that if I cast on another person it would affect the entire party, to which I responded, "If you think my character would ever cast an AoE buff centered anywhere other than himself you have not been paying attention".

So, yeah, I guess I'm that guy to a certain degree :P

That is an acceptable degree though. I know people who would refuse to play a warblade over a fighter simply because the warblade is a better class. No flavor reasons (the warblade would actually fit better) just spite.

Edit: On topic though I tend to play casters who do not focus on damage (though I try to always have some to fall back on) but on messing with the bad guys or powering up the good guys. I have always liked casters (not so much clerics though) so knowing how best to use my spells is something I love. I don't get into the TO and don't make use of ridiculously broken things though the people I play which assume I am simply because I know how to use them.

[Aemoh87]

That's awful that some one would pick fighter over warblade. I recommend ToB to everyone since it makes combat much more interesting. Also they balance better. If some one decides after looking at that to play fight that is good for them, but usually a ToB class has something to offer them.

[Draz74]

My previous group used a moderate amount of houserules but was pretty wary of any non-Core material. At least half the group (newbies and old veterans alike) didn't care at all for optimization (we had a bastard-sword-and-board Fighter going into Horizon Walker, but I don't think he even cared about the HW's Dimension Door ability. He had Power Attack but seldom used it. We also had, for example, a Half-Elf Bard with the Run feat and mostly utility spells).

So I had to reign in my natural powergaming inclinations with this group. That being said, I definitely used some optimization principles to come up with characters that I would actually find interesting to play -- no Archer-Rangers whose turns always consist of "I shoot the monsters again," thank you.

My two characters with this group were a Dwarf Rogue with a Fighter 2 dip, who used a Waraxe and a Spiked Shield to TWF; and a Wizard who focused on battlefield control and buffing, but I nerfed him a bit by dipping a level of Rogue and avoiding any "violent" spells.

[aquaticrna]

I play in a group that optimizes pretty heavily, but because we all know what we're doing we can get away with making subpar characters and still have fun with them. Though we usually worry more having fun through role playing... our current group:

Favored soul of st cuthbert (heavily obsessed with justice) mostly melee

Bard w/ monk cohort (all about the role play, party face, though the monk has been built to work reasonably well via lots of money investment and some tattooed monk levels)

Wizard (enchanter, effective, occasionally dominates or insta ends combat but we usually enjoy what he's doing and play off each other's victories)

Fighter/rogue (brand new to the game, can't say much about him)

and me the swash/fighter/dervish (usually primary damage dealer, mostly due to a combination of dervish dance and bardic music, though is really awesome because of his character)

basically the more we've gotten into optimizing the more we choose to play weird or sub-optimal classes for the challenge, and then role play the **** out of them making them all the better.

[Typewriter]

That's awful that some one would pick fighter over warblade. I recommend ToB to everyone since it makes combat much more interesting. Also they balance better. If some one decides after looking at that to play fight that is good for them, but usually a ToB class has something to offer them.

I actually have to go the other direction in my group most of the time. I allow people to use ToB if they want, but I try to get people to avoid it for balance issues.

Yes, yes, I know the immediate response to that is "If your DM thinkg ToB is broken, roll up a core only wizard/cleric/druid, blah blah blah". In a group where no one optimizes one person playing a class that makes them awesome with zero optimization needed does tend to make things unbalanced.