"Optimized" characters or parties?

[Bears With Lasers]

Um, focus on two things at once? 99% of the roleplaying stuff happens in-game. Optimizing happens before the game.

[Leush]

So that depends on how you look at it: Shopping for weapons, spells, splitting up treasure, choosing tactics, preparing spells, levelling up, looking at the pluses on your character shee, keeping your character's strength and weaknesses in mind, bragging about your charcter... This can all be viewed from the optimising side of things. Not to say that it always the case or that everyone looks at it that way, in fact it may make an interesting poll of worded neutrally, but it's like the picture of the vase and faces- sometimes when you get one, it's hard to change to the other. It is harder still to see both at the same time.

EDIT: Although I think you're spot on on the roleplaying being 99% in game.

[Indon]

Playing a character optimally is in-game, and it seems to me that this is a part of optimization as well.

Say you have two (low-level) sorcerors, one is cocky and arrogant, the other is pensive and clever.

Say you have two orcs charging these sorcerors.

The cocky and arrogant one readies an action for Burning hands, or Shocking Grasp, or something that clearly demonstrates his power and superiority, 'cause he rocks, you know.

The pensive and clever one casts grease or sleep, knowing that you can vanquish a foe without neccessarily harming him.

Now say you're using optimal tactics. First thing, you probably cast grease or sleep. All well and good, but your characters' personality could, theoretically, have dictated your actions instead of character optimization.

[Bears With Lasers]

...

But the pensive and clever one is pensive and clever. That's his personality. He's playing his personality just fine. What's more, the arrogant one could use spells like Sleep just as arrogantly, snapping his fingers and making his enemies topple.

[Knight_Of_Twilight]

...

But the pensive and clever one is pensive and clever. That's his personality. He's playing his personality just fine. What's more, the arrogant one could use spells like Sleep just as arrogantly, snapping his fingers and making his enemies topple.

"Foolish Kobolds! Watch how my amazing power dictates you're every action! You shall sleep on my command!"

Grease may be harder...but...

"Hah! Even the simplest of tools becomes mighty in hands such as these!"

There you go. Its hard for me to imagine a sorcerer as anything but Arrogant- Wizards slightly less so.

[JaronK]

No-one is doing this. No-one is advocating doing this. No-one is even talking about doing this, except for the people making these ridiculous straw man arguments. I suggested sinking two or three skill points. TWO OR THREE.

Actually, some are. The earlier arguement was "I am a better roleplayer because I don't optomize. Instead, I put skill points into craft: baking because my fighter is going to be a baker."

If he doesn't optomize, then those points in craft bakering must somehow make the character non-optimal, which means he's lost skill points that would make him more powerful. If he's a fighter, perhaps he has a horse but didn't put his points into Ride instead. He really was removing his ability to fight as effectively by instead putting points into craft baking. If he was just putting points into craft baking when he already had all the skill points he needed, then he was in fact optimizing fully... he just threw a few free skill points that he didn't need anyway into something else, which negates his arguement.

So yes, people ARE argueing that they're better roleplayers because they put skillpoints into Craft: Baking that they could have put somewhere necessary or at least significantly more useful.

JaronK

[Kiero]

I've come to a realisation on reading some of these threads (and this one in particular): optimal builds are dull. Why? They're all the same. If you want to be a melee combatant, there's only one option: greatsword and a bunch of pre-selected Feats to maximise it's efficiency, along with heavy armour. If you want to be a ranged person, again there's a "best" set of combos and deviating from it nerfs you.

No colour, no differentiation, no personalisation. And that's before we touch on the cheesy, ridiculous nonsense involving spikes and/or chains.

[Bears With Lasers]

I've come to a realisation on reading some of these threads (and this one in particular): optimal builds are dull. Why? They're all the same. If you want to be a melee combatant, there's only one option: greatsword and a bunch of pre-selected Feats to maximise it's efficiency, along with heavy armour. If you want to be a ranged person, again there's a "best" set of combos and deviating from it nerfs you.

No colour, no differentiation, no personalisation. And that's before we touch on the cheesy, ridiculous nonsense involving spikes and/or chains.

Except that's not true. If you want to be a melee combatant, you could be a greatsword hacker, a guisarme battlefield controller, a mounted or unmounted charger, a gish, a cleric, a psychic warrior weapon- or claw-wielder, a Martial Adept...

[Vyker]

Eh. Again, the presumption is that roleplaying and stats are somehow inexorably intwined. While either might limit the other, they can also enhance.

Really, though, the key to both is the player. A good RP'er can take a highly twinked-out character and still make it a vibrant, fresh character. A good optimizer can take an incredibly detailed set of fluff and make a functional character out of it.

And, of course, a bad player can horribly maul both and make everyone else groan.

[Roethke]

I've come to a realisation on reading some of these threads (and this one in particular): optimal builds are dull. Why? They're all the same. If you want to be a melee combatant, there's only one option: greatsword and a bunch of pre-selected Feats to maximise it's efficiency, along with heavy armour. If you want to be a ranged person, again there's a "best" set of combos and deviating from it nerfs you.

No colour, no differentiation, no personalisation. And that's before we touch on the cheesy, ridiculous nonsense involving spikes and/or chains.

Um, in the very thread you mentioned, there's this suggestion...

Use an alternative fighting style - not archery or TWF. The rules are optional, but you can replace the feats you get at 2, 6, 11 with:

Imp Un Str, Imp Grapple, Stunning Fist (bear-wrestling, lol!)

Ride-by attack, spirited charge, trample (mounted)

Power attack, imp sunder, great cleave (strong-arm)

Quick draw, pbs, far shot (throwing)


Strong arm looks good for you - free power attack, works GREAT with a big sword or axe. Be a glass cannon - light armour so you're fast and scoutey, but massive damage when you charge (leap attack etc.).

Proposing three viable builds, not specifying what weapon to use.

And yes, for melee-oriented classes, it's been argued that the easiest way to do the most damage is to hit something while using two hands and power attack.

Certainly there are some feats that are common for an 'optimal' build. But, in particular if you play a fighter, you have so many feats to play around with that you can end up with a specialty outside those common feats. It's just how the game hangs together.

Finally, you miss the point of optimization-- given the set of constraints, whats the best I can do? you can build an 'optimal' 2-weapon fighter. He probably just won't do as much damage as the two-hander.

[Kiero]

Eh. Again, the presumption is that roleplaying and stats are somehow inexorably intwined. While either might limit the other, they can also enhance.

Really, though, the key to both is the player. A good RP'er can take a highly twinked-out character and still make it a vibrant, fresh character. A good optimizer can take an incredibly detailed set of fluff and make a functional character out of it.

And, of course, a bad player can horribly maul both and make everyone else groan.

Yet when it goes pear-shaped, the two guys who fight with greatswords are going to be using the same maneuvers in the same fashion.

Really, I just find the notion that there are a finite number of "viable" character builds (and not even a very large number without going well outside any particular concept) rather sad. Which is probably why I don't play D&D.

[Roethke]

Probably shouldn't respond, but seeing where the thread already is....

Yet when it goes pear-shaped, the two guys who fight with greatswords are going to be using the same maneuvers in the same fashion.

Not quite sure what you mean by 'pear-shaped' but they're probably not both using greatswords. One might be defense focused, the other offense focused. One might be mobile, one stand-your ground, controlling. Mounted, vs. unmounted (and that's before you even get into the different kinds of mounts). And there's more.

All that's just the crunch. Any decent roleplayer will augment the differences above with a good description of what's going on, and it's not just going to be "I swing my sword at my opponent".

Really, I just find the notion that there are a finite number of "viable" character builds (and not even a very large number without going well outside any particular concept) rather sad. Which is probably why I don't play D&D.

Those three I quoted were just one person's suggestion off the top of their head. There was plenty of very varied advice in the thread.

Now, if your complaint is that there's maybe something like 20 factorial decent warrior 'builds' in D&D, and that's a finite number, I'll grant you that. It's not completely freeform combat. But for some folks that's a feature (as is the ability to wargame some battles with miniatures). Saying you find it 'sad' is all well and good, but a little annoying to the people who do like it, without at least offering up an alternative.

[Nahal]

Hey, the campaigns I've played in have required optimization just to SURVIVE. My GM has this habit of putting us in plots with the forces of "light" (or rather the forces of "PC's and people that don't want us dead") arrayed against vastly superior foes with truly epic and machiavellian plans for domination. But I see where the "base the stats on the concept" argument comes from. So long as your character concept isn't "use x loophole from combining y feats and z spells to break the game" I don't see anything preventing you from using the RAI to optimize your wizard, fighter, rogue, or what have you. If you want to gimp your character because you like the challenge of playing from a disadvantage, that's a perfectly legitimate point of view. Just bear in mind that not everyone shares it, and it doesn't necessarily stop them from being effective roleplayers.

[Vyker]

Yet when it goes pear-shaped, the two guys who fight with greatswords are going to be using the same maneuvers in the same fashion.

Well, if by that you mean, "they hit the baddies 'til they fall down," I can't really dispute that. A greatsword... well, there's only so many ways to kill a man with a greatsword. Most of them involve hitting the other guy with the sharp end.

But that's just straight mechanics. Are all rogues the same because they all sneak attack with the same mechanic?

You could take the exact same character sheet (stats, or "how to hit the baddies with my greatsword 'til they all fall down") and roleplay it many different ways. Two players might target different enemies, even with the exact same stats. Two players might describe their attacks in different ways. Heck, one player might not even choose to fight (it sounds weird, but check out Durkon in this sequence!). There's a wide variety within just "I stick sharp pokies into the bad guys."

Again, I think there's too much equating of roleplaying and stats going on without regard for the differences and seperation between them.

If you want to gimp your character because you like the challenge of playing from a disadvantage, that's a perfectly legitimate point of view. Just bear in mind that not everyone shares it, and it doesn't necessarily stop them from being effective roleplayers.

Emphasis is mine, but thanks to Nahal for expressing that.

Stats do no, DO NOT, determine your ability to roleplay.

[Indon]

If you want to gimp your character because you like the challenge of playing from a disadvantage, that's a perfectly legitimate point of view. Just bear in mind that not everyone shares it, and it doesn't necessarily stop them from being effective roleplayers.

I don't generally 'gimp' my characters because I like playing from a disadvantage. I don't optimize them (or optimize them around highly sub-optimal, or 'gimped' I guess you'd put it, concepts), because a story with conflict that causes the characters to change and grow seems to me to be more interesting than a story with conflict that doesn't.

Say you have a theoretical character who can solve all problems. This character never needs to grow or change; not a very interesting story character. In that way, optimization can restrict the possibility of character growth (at least, character growth that has anything to do with the game mechanics).

Though, I can definitely understand needing to optimize because you're in a campaign designed for a high degree of optimization; a high power campaign, as it were. Challenges designed to, well, challenge a more optimized character could well get around the lack of spice that same character would have in a less 'optimized' campaign.

[Counterspin]

Indon - I don't avoid optimizing out of fear that a campaign won't be challenging because I presume that the GM will respond to the power level of the party. And they always have. Though I suppose if one is dealing with a premade adventure that could be a problem.

[Dausuul]

Indon - I don't avoid optimizing out of fear that a campaign won't be challenging because I presume that the GM will respond to the power level of the party. And they always have. Though I suppose if one is dealing with a premade adventure that could be a problem.

Indeed. RP questions aside, the real danger in optimizing heavily is that if another player isn't as good at it as you are, that player may end up feeling useless and unable to contribute. This is especially the case if the two of you are filling similar roles--the sword-and-board fighter next to the Tiger Claw dual-wielding warblade.

[Indon]

I agree that the largest danger of optimizing is an uneven level of optimization between players, or between the players and the DM's expectations.

[Vyker]

Indeed. RP questions aside, the real danger in optimizing heavily is that if another player isn't as good at it as you are, that player may end up feeling useless and unable to contribute. This is especially the case if the two of you are filling similar roles--the sword-and-board fighter next to the Tiger Claw dual-wielding warblade.

I don't deny this, though in your specific example I don't think it's so much a problem of optimizing as it is poor coordination between players before/during the game. If you've got two very similar characters whose spheres overlap to such a degree that the difference between their effectiveness is "who optimized better," y'all might want to take a long hard look at your character creation process.

Still, it is possible for one character to outshine the rest of the party. Though again, I think that's as much a player problem as a stat problem. If one character proves to be more effective, that's one thing. If that character keeps being more effective to the detriment of the other players, that's quite another. A good player will be able to "throttle back."

Heck, TLN's Batman Wizard guide was pretty explicit about how many of your spells are group buffs or designed to let your party deal with the mobs in small, easily manageable chunks. Even the Batman exists for the party.

[Kiero]

Stats do no, DO NOT, determine your ability to roleplay.

I'm not quite sure who you're arguing with here, since I've never said anything of the sort. But what optimal builds do is curtail the scope of differentiation, assuming everyone is going for the most efficient characters they can.

Having to rely on the magnanimity of other players is not what I'd call a defense.

[Annarrkkii]

But what optimal builds do is curtail the scope of differentiation, assuming everyone is going for the most efficient characters they can.

The flaw in your reasoning here, however, is that everyone will try to play THE MOST efficient character they can, and not just a more efficient character. Sure, if your fighter plays a bruising orc Shock Trooper, your Rogue TWFs, you Wizard is a generalist Batman, and your Cleric CoDzilla's his way to an Ur-Theurge, you're going to have a less wide of a scope. However, if your fighter optimizes AFTER he's already come up with a concept—say, and elven rapier-wielder—then he isn't going to take the Shock Trooper tree. If your caster is a warlock, and then optimizes, he won't be a Batman, but just a more powerful warlock. If your halfling Cleric decides he wants to multiclass to Bard, take a few levels of Divine Trickster, and THEN optimize, you're fine. Maybe then your Rogue decides he wants to do archery and then optimizes, then you're set.

Optimization doesn't determine what character you play, just how you play the character you choose.

[Rasumichin]

If i would live in a place where everybody plays a system designed for good, clean, numbercrunching fun, where every gamer optimizes and people clinging to the stormwind fallacy where a neglectable minority, instead of living in a place where more than half of all gamers are somehow ashamed of min/maxing and feel a need to excuse for it, internal setting plausibillity and stimmungsgewichse are commonly taken to extremes where narrative possibilities outside of stale clichés are just plain strangled and you get flamed on rpg-forums for not fudging dice as a DM, then i might possibly consider to advocate cutting back on optimizing and focussing more on "character history" or whatever (and might, quite probably, also think about writing shorter sentences ).

But since this isn't the case, i'll just go and second this :

Optimization doesn't determine what character you play, just how you play the character you choose.

[Vyker]

Stats do no, DO NOT, determine your ability to roleplay.

I'm not quite sure who you're arguing with here, since I've never said anything of the sort. But what optimal builds do is curtail the scope of differentiation, assuming everyone is going for the most efficient characters they can.

It was a statement disagreeing with folks over the last eight pages who hold to one of the following beliefs: that stats determine roleplay, that stats somehow prove dedication to roleplay, or that a combat optimal character is somehow worse for roleplaying.

There are many, many optimal builds. Whether you subscribe to the belief that "optimal" means making your character the "most accurate portrayal of your concept" or the "most effective within the concept," there's a wide variety of mechanical options and a nigh-infinite number of fluff ones. Heck, even if "optimal" means "BEST" to you, there's a lot of ways to go about that. Like Bears said,

If you want to be a melee combatant, you could be a greatsword hacker, a guisarme battlefield controller, a mounted or unmounted charger, a gish, a cleric, a psychic warrior weapon- or claw-wielder, a Martial Adept...

...which is, even for a short list, a variety of "best" close combat characters well beyond Kiero's claim that:

"If you want to be a melee combatant, there's only one option."

And, since it is my belief that stats do not determine roleplay, even if you've got "THE ONE PERFECT BUILD!" you can still get a lot of different characters out of that build. The fluff, the style, the goals, the personality, all of that can change without changing the stats.

It is my belief that a good roleplayer can make any character interesting. If given a set of stats and no fluff, that does not prevent a creative player from coming up with said fluff. Five different players with the same character sheet (however optimal) will come up with five different characters. These characters may not, as you claim, have "no colour, no differentiation, no personalisation," but instead could all be very vibrant, detailed characters.

Actually, I'd like to prove that empirically. Take a set of optimal-build stats and see what fluff-rich characters can be made from that. Any volunteers?

[Dausuul]

Actually, I'd like to prove that empirically. Take a set of optimal-build stats and see what fluff-rich characters can be made from that. Any volunteers?

Count me in.

[JaronK]

Actually, I'd like to prove that empirically. Take a set of optimal-build stats and see what fluff-rich characters can be made from that. Any volunteers?

Sure, I'm game. I can either make some optimal characters or some fluff to fit, either way.

JaronK

[Matthew]

I like my game to be optimised for maximum fun...

[Bears With Lasers]

The obvious first step is taking the Improved Fun feat.

[Matthew]

It's just a pity that Perfect Fun is an Epic Feat...

[JaronK]

The obvious first step is taking the Improved Fun feat.

The DM doesn't get to take an Attack of Opportunity at you when you're having fun?

In some groups, I've needed that feat...

JaronK

[Tor the Fallen]

I was reading that thread on monks and how swordsage20 would make a better monk than the monk class.

Then it struck me- wizard 20 would make a better monk than the monk class. And since fluff and crunch are seperate, I could call him a monk. Neither wear armor. Forcecage is like a grapple. They can both dimension door. Um. Wizards can put buffs on that make them hard to hit, and monks are hard to hit. They can also wear monk's belts, to gain wis to ac.
Right? The two are seperate of each other.