A curious question (please be gentle)

[MellowMelon]

It has become quite apparent that the classes are not balanced per se. I am not asking for balance or how powerful a caster can be. Please do not start arguing in this thread. Okay...
I haven't played or DMed extensively above level 10 at all. I am wondering to all those DMs out there who have far more experience than I, do campaigns fall apart when players run strong (I am not going to use the word overpowered) builds? What about more flavorful (tasteful term for weak) builds? Is it crucial for the primary caster to use only spells which are considered very powerful in order to win?
I guess what I am truly trying to ask is a complicated issue...
Is the fuss about imbalance necessary? Can casters "cool it" and still work with the party to save the day?
I am not trying to step on anyones toes or offend. I just want to know if optimization is necessary to fight CR appropriate creatures.
Okay... I'm ready for response now...

[Ranis]

You play whatever it is that you want to. Don't let anyone else take away from your enjoyment in whatever it is you want to do with your classes.

"CR Appropriate" is a misnomer. CR's are more along the lines of guidelines than actual rules; your DM should know how to balance encounters appropriately for your party.

((Anyone who caught the reference gets a cookie. :D))

[Galathir]

Good question. I am currently playing in a campaign at level 13 and playing a Beguiler. The rest of the party consists of a monk, elemental savant, ranger/rogue, and rogue/shadowdancer. Our party works really well and no one really has a spotlight. I often neutralize enemies before they are a threat, and if they make their save or are immune to mind-affecting, the elemental savant can deal the massive damage that I can't do. The rogue, ranger, and monk often finish off enemies, and keep them occupied while the two casters are involved with other things. In addition, the ranger is invaluable while traipsing through wilderness. So while yes, me and the elemental savant are slightly more powerful, with the work of the players and the DM, we all play a useful role.

I don't think the party needs to be "optimized". It is directly up to the DM to balance the party with the encounters. If I was DMing a party and they wanted to play weaker characters, I would be fine with that. I might have to adjust some things, but that is all part of DMing.

Edit: As Ranis said above, CR is just a suggestion, not a "save or die" law set in stone.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Really, if you just want to swing a sword around, then don't let the fact that casters will be more effective than you stop you from picking out your favorite blade. A good DM ultimately has to pander to the choices the players make, so there shouldn't ever be a circumstance where you're a fighter and just feel neglected because of that.

Besides, fighters might not be as powerful, but a dude in full plate swinging around a greatsword on the back of his steed is a cool sight.

[jjpickar]

Pirates of the Caribbean=Good movie but loathsome sequel. As to the actual thread, I agree with Mellow. Play what you want you can usually have fun with most classes.

[storybookknight]

Yay! Cookies!

From my experience, CR appropriate creatures are usually pretty easy, especially with strong builds but even just in general. If you want to play around with, say, encounter CR's 4 above party level, then you're going to need some fairly optimized builds, as well as good teamwork.

[Stormcrow]

Min Max builds can and in my experience do kill campaigns. So does the DM leaving behind the bezer curve and handing out powerful treasure beyond the ratio that the party should have. Flavour over Power.

[Krellen]

I ran a campaign from 1-20 in 3.0 and despite the fact that one of the characters was a Monk focusing on Strength as his primary attribute (by all accounts, this should make him an overwhelmingly weak character), his player never had any less fun than the other characters. It probably helped that, due to a lack of a rogue, he was the skillmonkey of the party, and the only character actually played continuously from 1st to 20th (the other players replaced their characters partway through, some multiple times, due to deaths; the monk only died on the TPK.)

The Loremaster and the Weapon Master did not grossly outshine the Monk - so no, power builds don't have to break enjoyment or kill campaigns.

[Starbuck_II]

I ran a campaign from 1-20 in 3.0 and despite the fact that one of the characters was a Monk focusing on Strength as his primary attribute (by all accounts, this should make him an overwhelmingly weak character), his player never had any less fun than the other characters. It probably helped that, due to a lack of a rogue, he was the skillmonkey of the party, and the only character actually played continuously from 1st to 20th (the other players replaced their characters partway through, some multiple times, due to deaths; the monk only died on the TPK.)

The Loremaster and the Weapon Master did not grossly outshine the Monk - so no, power builds don't have to break enjoyment or kill campaigns.

Loremaster isn't a power build, it isn't a bad (Prc) build as it gives out something for nothing except requirements.

Weapon Master (depends on exotic weapon).

[roninkelt]

It has become quite apparent that the classes are not balanced per se. I am not asking for balance or how powerful a caster can be. Please do not start arguing in this thread. Okay...
I haven't played or DMed extensively above level 10 at all. I am wondering to all those DMs out there who have far more experience than I, do campaigns fall apart when players run strong (I am not going to use the word overpowered) builds? What about more flavorful (tasteful term for weak) builds? Is it crucial for the primary caster to use only spells which are considered very powerful in order to win?
I guess what I am truly trying to ask is a complicated issue...
Is the fuss about imbalance necessary? Can casters "cool it" and still work with the party to save the day?
I am not trying to step on anyones toes or offend. I just want to know if optimization is necessary to fight CR appropriate creatures.
Okay... I'm ready for response now...

As a preface to my real answer - IME and opinion, the classes are balanced as well as can be done. What is really imbalanced is the play style of most games. That is why one person claims that class X is overpowered or class Y is uber and another person thinks that the opposite is true. Any GM has a favored playing style that enables one or another class. In my games, rogues, bards and skill heavy classes tend to dominate since it is heavy on role play and skill use. I've played in games where Fighter types have been the dominant force as well....
Given that, a GM has to be aware of his party's limitations. Any creature can come across as overpowered if the party isn't equipped to deal with it. Werewolves are a classic example - if the characters have no silver weapons then a werewolf can be a real pain in the neck, conversely if they are all armed with silver then the same encounter can be a pushover. A bard can easily deal with a roleplaying encounter that would give a fighter fits, etc.
Short answer is - no they don't have to be optimized, if an encounter meets their strengths and yes they do have to be optimized if an encounter attacks their weaknesses.

[Emperor Tippy]

After level 10 the game should become a lot more intrigue and RP based. Hack'n'Slash goes right out the window unless you want to throw the party in the middle of the bloodwar.

[BrokenButterfly]

I DM for a group in which half the players are pure meta-gaming power-gamers. That does tend to irritate me, purely because there seem to be few obstacles that a Frenzied Berserker/Barbarian/Berserk and a utility mage can't bypass, even at eighth level. I have two party members which are obscenely strong and two which are pretty rubbish.

I feel that these sorts of optimising power-builds can really start to damage a campaign, but it hurts the DM more. It's not cry-baby time here, but it can break your heart when a cool encounter is steamrollered over by one of the best warriors levels can buy and there's nothing you can do about it.

The answer is generally just to create something that tackles their weak points every so often, but I'm playing The Savage Tide so I'm loath to add something randomly like that.

Oh, and I would say that optimisation/party composition is required to some extent for any encounter, but if the party are power-gamers then they should be able to handle threats of a few CRs higher than them too.

[Krellen]

Loremaster isn't a power build, it isn't a bad (Prc) build as it gives out something for nothing except requirements.

Loremaster is a power build, precisely because it gives something for nothing. The wizard behind the Loremaster was a Diviner, too, meaning free spells for only one school sacrifice.

Weapon Master (depends on exotic weapon).

Not a Complete Warrior Exotic Weapon Master, but the Sword and Fist Weapon Master - the guy that could do maximum damage, increase the crit multiplier of his weapon, and completely broke the critical hit rules.

[its_all_ogre]

THAT weapon master was awesome.
and could whirlwind attack as standard action.
crit on 10+ with rapier/falchion! yay!

[Raum]

...do campaigns fall apart when players run strong (I am not going to use the word overpowered) builds? What about more flavorful (tasteful term for weak) builds? Is it crucial for the primary caster to use only spells which are considered very powerful in order to win?

It depends on the people and extremes involved. With a group willing to work together to have fun, balance seldom comes up. But if one person decides he needs to hog the spotlight or if you have intra-party conflict...well issues can arise. The other things I've seen cause issues are the true extremes...a poorly built bard, for example, can be nearly unplayable.

I guess what I am truly trying to ask is a complicated issue...
Is the fuss about imbalance necessary? Can casters "cool it" and still work with the party to save the day?

First, the vast majority of the balance discussions are based on RAW and not on how the contributors actually play. Just because I nerf my wizard by banning both Enchantment and Necromancy doesn't mean there isn't a RAW balance issue.

So just because players can self nerf does not mean the game mechanics shouldn't be balanced.

I am not trying to step on anyones toes or offend. I just want to know if optimization is necessary to fight CR appropriate creatures.
Okay... I'm ready for response now...

There are some creatures which do require certain classes to "optimize" in order to be at all effective. However, the only time I'd really worry about your adversaries when creating a character is if you know you'll spend most of the time fighting one type of creature. It'd suck to play a straight rogue if your only adversaries are golems.

[Matthew]

Challenge Ratings generally work on the assumption (if they work at all) that Characters will have the 'Elite Array'. Often, they don't even manage to do that. Frankly, there are far too many factors involved to answer this with any precision.

Experience is really your best guide. I find that motivated and balanced players are much more important than balanced Characters.

[JaronK]

The main problem is if you have both weak characters and strong characters in the same party. Four strong characters just means you should lower CRs a little and go for it. Four weak characters just mean you should raise the CRs of monsters and go with that.

A party with three strong characters and one weak one, however, will often result in the weak one feeling meaningless.

JaronK

[Mr. Moogle]

as far as casters go i LOVE warlocks, sre they dont do as much damage but they can keep a continual stream of hurt that sends enemys into cover.but what i love most of all is the darkness+devils sight combo it OWNS. also if you throw in a little maximize spell like ability blasts it could be just the nockout punch you need on that peskey recourring villan.

[McDeath]

The best way to build your character is to decide who they are and their general history, drop in a plot point or two for your DM, and build your image of them in your mind, on paper. Also, interaction can be very important later on - when the party gets in trouble with a king who has dozens of Inevitables, the uber-powerful wizard/Batman/thing isn't going to talk you out of it. The character who has fifteen ranks in Diplomacy because he believes in avoiding combat wherever possible? He can.

You should always play your character - even if it means you have to stop playing your character.

[geek_2049]

Who is to say wizard/Batman vs King+army of inevitables is not going to use and have 15 ranks in diplomacy? Wizards do not use diplomacy, wizard/Batmen do.

[Saph]

I haven't played or DMed extensively above level 10 at all. I am wondering to all those DMs out there who have far more experience than I, do campaigns fall apart when players run strong (I am not going to use the word overpowered) builds?

Not really, but the DM does need to be able to handle it. The real problems only come when the players are better at D&D tactics than the DM is.

What about more flavorful (tasteful term for weak) builds? Is it crucial for the primary caster to use only spells which are considered very powerful in order to win?

Not at all, it's the other way around. You can and should be able to win fights as a caster without using any of the cheese/broken spells. It's what the game is balanced for.

I guess what I am truly trying to ask is a complicated issue...
Is the fuss about imbalance necessary? Can casters "cool it" and still work with the party to save the day?

It depends . . .

It's completely viable for a high-level caster to play in such a way as to work with the rest of the party without outshining them. You don't even have to give up any significant amount of power to do it, and it has several side benefits in the long run. So yes, a caster can do this with no problems.

The problems start when:

a) You have non-caster players who want their characters to be just as powerful as the casters, and will get into a bad mood and complain if they're not.

b) You have caster players who feel they have a right to optimise their characters to the max, even if it breaks the game, and will get into a bad mood if they're not allowed to.

I am not trying to step on anyones toes or offend. I just want to know if optimization is necessary to fight CR appropriate creature.

Definitely not. Just look at the 'iconic' Wizards of the Coast characters that are presented as the standard of what a D&D character is assumed to be. They're horribly weak compared to the kind of stuff you'll see on the CharOp boards.

In my experience the CR system assumes that characters are not optimised. If you take a normal party of not-particularly-optimised Xth-level characters against a CR X encounter, the challenge will usually be just about right. An optimised party of level X, on the other hand, will destroy an average CR X encounter unless the DM is just as good at optimising and tactics as the players are.

As an aside, Tippy's right about higher level encounters. The higher level the PCs get, the less time they should be spending on dungeon crawls and killing things and the more time they should be spending out of combat. High-level encounters are very dangerous and high-level PCs and high-level monsters alike will die quickly if they're not careful, so there's a lot more diplomacy, scouting, preparation, and use of agents.

- Saph

[DruchiiConversion]

I DM for a group in which half the players are pure meta-gaming power-gamers. That does tend to irritate me, purely because there seem to be few obstacles that a Frenzied Berserker/Barbarian/Berserk and a utility mage can't bypass, even at eighth level. I have two party members which are obscenely strong and two which are pretty rubbish.

Having done the unthinkable and barred the very potent Necromancy, I set myself up as somewhat less of a powergamer than you might think. By choosing not to bypass vast swathes of the adventure by agreeing 'Ok, let's not fly over the mountain', and 'Ok, I'll stop playing this Psychic Warrior if you want', I do the same. By having less treasure than a 4th level character's recommended wealth total...

Other people, please be my judge: The last character I played was a Monk/Paladin who used two handaxes. Focus stats: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom, and Charisma. Is that powergaming?

The group had no arcane caster; I made one. I didn't make a character with the plan of going Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil or anything cheesy, I went Master Specialist in Transmutation. That's not broken. Is it powerful? Sure - I have to compensate for two characters who, as you say, are just not that good.

I feel that these sorts of optimising power-builds can really start to damage a campaign, but it hurts the DM more. It's not cry-baby time here, but it can break your heart when a cool encounter is steamrollered over by one of the best warriors levels can buy and there's nothing you can do about it.

That's the whole point of D&D. The PCs are meant to win. Every time. I seem to recall us losing plenty of characters on the way, too. You can take the coolest encounter in the history of existence: The PCs were meant to beat it. A set of PCs who had prepared fairly well for it should walk all over it.

That's what we're doing. We're pretty good at beating down individual scary things. Against things with decent DR and mobility (like those gargoyles we were up against which tore a chunk out of us?) we're pretty hopeless. Good against some things; bad against others. Sounds like balance to me!

[Laurellien]

I DM for a group in which half the players are pure meta-gaming power-gamers. That does tend to irritate me, purely because there seem to be few obstacles that a Frenzied Berserker/Barbarian/Berserk and a utility mage can't bypass, even at eighth level. I have two party members which are obscenely strong and two which are pretty rubbish.

I feel that these sorts of optimising power-builds can really start to damage a campaign, but it hurts the DM more. It's not cry-baby time here, but it can break your heart when a cool encounter is steamrollered over by one of the best warriors levels can buy and there's nothing you can do about it.

The answer is generally just to create something that tackles their weak points every so often, but I'm playing The Savage Tide so I'm loath to add something randomly like that.

Oh, and I would say that optimisation/party composition is required to some extent for any encounter, but if the party are power-gamers then they should be able to handle threats of a few CRs higher than them too.

Is it worth mentioning that the weak characters are a cleric and a druid?

[Ethdred]

That's what we're doing. We're pretty good at beating down individual scary things. Against things with decent DR and mobility (like those gargoyles we were up against which tore a chunk out of us?) we're pretty hopeless. Good against some things; bad against others. Sounds like balance to me!

Leaving aside the references to the specific campaign, I think that's a good general point. All characters/parties have strong and weak points, and a good DM should ensure overall balance in the encounters. For example, I'm in a campaign that is mainly wilderness so we've concentrated on ranged combat (though we are by no means optimised). Last session, we had an encounter with frost giants that was well above our CR, but because my ranger has them as favoured enemy and rolled well, we started very far apart - the poor giants only got to throw one rock each before they dropped. Then the DM decides to take us on a dungeon crawl (an 'old school dungeon crawl' as he put it). So the first encounter is an ambush of hook horrors - our DM likes grappling - and bang, my ranger's dead and the others get munched on, only surviving once the Bear Warrior got going. So if all our encounters were long range ones with giants, things would get very boring, but if they were all ambushes with grapplers, things would get very deadly. As it is, by mixing things up, the DM keeps a good interest level going, and allows different characters to shine at different moments. I don't see why that can't be the case at all levels. I think what gets harder at higher levels is that there are more options and the DM has to be much more on top of play. You can be all 'Here's a CR5 monster, I'll put four of those in a room', but the same won't work with CR15

[Bassetking]

That's the whole point of D&D. The PCs are meant to win. Every time. I seem to recall us losing plenty of characters on the way, too. You can take the coolest encounter in the history of existence: The PCs were meant to beat it. A set of PCs who had prepared fairly well for it should walk all over it.

I once ran with a DM that Did not feel that "The Players are Supposed to win every time."

It gets...difficult to self-justify a diplomacy build when you know that you're going to be going up against CR +5 over party level; So you make another beef-machine, and stumble through all the political intrigue he throws at you, because when it comes time for combat, "He's going to manage to get us one of these times!"

[Olethros]

I have trouble imaginig a good, initially stable, gaming group falling apart over "your too tough now." I can see a DM needing to adjust the game here and there, players having to re-visit there rolls in the group, and the like, but if you were having fun at level 10, you should still be able to have fun at 11.

[Aquillion]

Fundimentally, it's a matter of play styles. I've had very fun games with highly-optimized characters, and very fun games with random fun characters.

I actually prefer the optimized one, but not for the reasons you'd think: In a "random fun" game, someone always ends up making someone who ends up stronger than everyone else, even by accident--often to the point where other characters are sitting there much of the rest of the time asking "why am I even here?" That's just not fun. And it's all well and good to for people to talk about 'roll-playing vs. role-playing', but, fundimentally, D&D's system is among the most roll-playing-ish system out there. In earlier editions it barely devoted more than a page or two to things outside of combat, and even now the overwhelming majority of written D&D material exists to cover, to be frank, wargaming with fancy names and a paragraph of background. You don't have to play it that way, no, but my feel is that if deep character development is what you want, D&D is simply not the system for you. D&D is designed to go into dungeons and kill things for gold and experience points so you can go up levels and kill bigger things for more gold and more experience points; everything else the system offers was badly-grafted on later. There are much better systems out there if "genuine role-playing" is what you're looking for. Playing D&D while trying to avoid thinking about how much damage you do or how effective you'll be in combat is like taking a shower while wearing a raincoat--why are you using all of the system's detailed wargaming rules if you're not interested in them?

I can enjoy real role-playing, sure, but not with D&D. That's just not what it's designed for. It has nine options (all of exactly two words) to define your character's basic moral background, and hundreds of feats to help you kill goblins more effectively. You do the math.

...one important point, though. Power creep is a real issue; as it stands now, a genuinely optimized party will demolish supposedly-approprate challenges. An experienced group of players requires an equally experienced DM, someone who knows how to adjust things to keep the game fun, and it requires that everyone have enough experience to keep up. As long as you have that, though, you can really play any way you want and enjoy it.

[lin_fusan]

In my games there are three issues:

1) Is each character "balanced" with each other?
- If three characters have classes that are there for variety and experimentation, and the fourth for optimization, then there is an issue. In one campaign, one character was triple classed, another with wizard/barb, another triple classed, and another a "non-optimized" cleric.

I scaled the adventure to take into account that they had flexibility, but no punch. The game ran smoothly.

Then one of the triple-classers switched out to a single class super-optimized wizard. The campaign starting having trouble. The wiz had a high-level of power compared to the others, and there was a couple of sessions where the other three were unable to do anything, but the wiz was casting this spell, that spell, and thusly using up hours of game time soloing.

That was not fun.

Solution? Either nerf the wiz or find ways to build up the other three

(Another solution would be to make each encounter specifically designed to counter the wiz and give the other three something to do. However, that takes a lot of work and pre-planning. More than I thought was a good use of my time.)

2) Is each player having fun?

I've played suboptimal characters but had tremendous amount of fun. Because I like the challenge to taking what I have and working with it. Sure, I'll get smacked a lot, but the one out of five (or ten!) instances where I save the day makes me feel like I've played the character right.

In the campaign I'm running, one guy made a half-orc bard . In three separate instances his Diplomacy helped the party get out of a nigh-impossible encounter. However, he felt that he was failing, because they "should be" "defeating" those nigh-impossible encounters (I gave them XP for it anyway).

As a matter of perception, both examples are of sub-optimal builds, but one person was having fun, another not. Both are legit in a game.

3) Does the setting/campaign give each player/character a chance to shine?

This take a lot more work on the part of a DM, but is satisfying if pulled off. The skill-monkey gets to do something, the basher gets to do something, the arcanist gets to do something, and the religious guy gets to do something, just not all the same time.

This reinforces that the party needs each other, keeps people humble when they can't do certain things, but makes them feel good about themselves when they get to shine.

[Helgraf]

An 'optimized' party requires optimized opponents.

It's really that simple.

Of course, one of the best optimizations you can give your opponents is brains. Shuffle the stat array on a model or two. Give 'em a smart tactical goblin or the like as a subchief or something. Someone who can teach the gobbos what to do and not do (though in extreme stress they may still snap and make poor decisions, of course).

Figure out what sort of treasure they have ahead of time and use that to optimize them. Sure, the coin may still be coin, but if they have any magic items, arm as appropriate. If they're in a place being raided by parties of adventurers regularly (like the oooold school Keep on the Borderlands scenario), it's perfectly appropriate to decrement some of the loot into things like alchemicals - it's not hard to imagine a goblin expert with craft alchemy and Skill focus (Craft Alchemy), and Intelligence as his high stat (even better if you give him the elite array, of course).

In that setting, you can go further - if adventuring parties go into the caves and don't come out, that's extra loot the goblins/whathaveyours can use to improve their own armaments, make crude (or not so crude) traps, or trade to their cave neighbors/rivals for other things they can use (or just to appease the bigger bullies for a while).

The same progressions of thought can be applied at higher levels, as magic and magical items become more common, and you move away from hordes of monsters to small clusters of more powerful foes.

Don't let WBL / WBE / CR be a straightjacket. Conversely, if the adventurers hit well prepared creatures and get a load of loot, it's possible some of their other encounters will be against very dangerous but low loot monsters - animals, plants and the like. It tends to balance itself out as long as you pay attention to what you're giving out and how often.

[PnP Fan]

I skipped straight to the end of the thread, so my apologies if I'm repeating.

1. No, it isn't necessary to have cheesed-out, "optimized" builds in order to deal with CR appropriate encounters. It helps, but it is not necessary. As the DM, though, you should be aware that, if they entire party is completely below average, you may have to tone things down a bit, maybe one CR bump. Also you need to look at what the weaknesses are in the party. If no one can deal damage to get past DR -/silver, then the encounter will be more difficult that if everyone is carrying a silver dagger. Conversely, if you are running a lycanthrope heavy campaign, and everyone is walking around with two handed weapons of alchemical silver, then lycanthropes become just like any other encounter.
2. One problem that you can encounter is if you have a mix of optimized builds and "flavorful" builds. In order to build an encounter that it challenging for an optimized build, you wind up making encounters that will kill your "flavored" characters. Anything appropriate for flavored characters will be a cake walk for your optimized pc. I usually solve this problem by creating mixed encounters, or encounters filled with characters that can work together. That way, I can pile on enemies against the optimized characters, while still fighting one-on-one with the flavored characters, and everyone gets to do something.
3. mid-level spellcasters (~10-14th level): I dont' have a lot of experience with the optimized spellcasters, but many of the strengths of the casters are AoE spells (fireball, various noxious clouds, tentacled movement deterents, etc. . ). To equalize those sorts of effects, I try to make some of my encounters start at close range (in the same room, for example) so that the casting of some of the AoE spells will inevitably catch some of the other PC's in the AoE. That will slow down some of that effect, unless your casters are jerks.