General question

[denthor]

I continue to read that we must build the ultimate. ...character.

Why?

It has been my experience in life that what we lack can become the best thing for us.

Why must you be so driven to take the fun from the game.

By doing the most damage having the best mechanical spell slots. The lowest level with the most optimal performance?

In my view it is a game we play to have fun. Especially when there is no winning this game it survive and win or die and start over.

Examples you need this character with a 1 level dip of this combined with unchained this to get 4 levels of the ultimate.

I simply don't get it play roll dice and laugh.

[Yora]

I think it comes from the assumption that if a game gives you thousands of customization options, then the designers meant that you should engage in high precision fine tuning. Why else have 20 books with player options? They must be getting cranked out for a reason.

[Scots Dragon]

I think it comes from the assumption that if a game gives you thousands of customization options, then the designers meant that you should engage in high precision fine tuning. Why else have 20 books with player options? They must be getting cranked out for a reason.

Honestly I don't even get that mindset.

The best thing about the sheer number of options is the amount of cool ideas in there. Even when it does in fact correlate with the Unlimited Power™ options, the fact of the matter is that I'm going to be playing for lore, flavour, and what appeals to me as a fun thing to play, rather than some kind of misguided idea of 'optimal'.

[Becca Stareyes]

I assume for some people, it's part of the fun -- to take a lot of information and synthesize it into a character that does the most damage, or has the highest spell DCs or so on. To beat encounters the game designers intended as difficult to impossible for PCs of your level.

I mean, look, I once spent an hour figuring out the atmospheric dynamics of a O'Neill cylinder, complete with starting to lay out the math before realizing I left my reference books elsewhere. I am comfortable with the fact that people, including myself, have weird ideas about what 'fun' is.

(Also, I should get back to that. I never did answer my question.)

As long as everyone at any given gaming table is working with similar ideas about 'what is fun about D&D[1]', I don't see a problem. You do run into problems when someone wants to build a highly optimized 'can totally end combat encounters in a single round' character and everyone else is playing from core books only, or being very 'roleplay drives character advancement', or just wants to set everything on fire. Or, really, vice versa.

[1] Or whatever system one is playing.

[Nifft]

Winning conflicts is fun.

Being good at my chosen role is fun.

Finding ways to do unexpected things and yet still win is fun.

Overcoming challenges with my wits -- including my wits as a player when I built the PC -- is fun.

[KillianHawkeye]

Why must you be so driven to take the fun from the game.

Just a thought, but maybe people should stop judging each other on the way people play the game and what different things we consider to be fun? Just because it doesn't sound fun to you, everyone else should stop doing it? No.

"You're playing the game wrong!" No, I'm not. Actually, reading through the rules and character options to figure out which ones are good and which ones aren't was part of designers' intentions. Monte Cook is on record saying that some things (such as certain Feats) are bad on purpose, and that players are supposed to develop a degree of system mastery in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

Now, there's nothing wrong with being a casual player, but it's not cool to criticize other people's enjoyment of different aspects of the game.

I simply don't get it play roll dice and laugh.

I'm curious what makes you think that optimizers don't do this, too. Most of the work of optimization happens at home when designing the character. We still laugh and joke at the table like everyone else. We aren't unfeeling automatons.

[Jay R]

Football players try to develop the best possible combination of skills.
Chess players try to develop their minds and memories.
Race car drivers want the most well-built engines.

Why wouldn't D&D players also want to develop the best possible tools and opportunities?

[Having said that, I recognize that many people in sports, games, and other competitions aren't driven to improve the mechanics of the game, and there's nothing wrong with that. But many are, and there's nothing wrong with that, either.

[Scots Dragon]

Football players try to develop the best possible combination of skills.
Chess players try to develop their minds and memories.
Race car drivers want the most well-built engines.

Why wouldn't D&D players also want to develop the best possible tools and opportunities?

[Having said that, I recognize that many people in sports, games, and other competitions aren't driven to improve the mechanics of the game, and there's nothing wrong with that. But many are, and there's nothing wrong with that, either.

However, unlike football, chess, and motorsports, Dungeons & Dragons is not an inherently competitive game.

[Satinavian]

I continue to read that we must build the ultimate. ...character.

Why?

That the rules provide so many option means that character creation becomes a minigame.

The challange is to do X best with all build options available.

What could X be ?

- A character concept you want to play and fits into a particular group/campaign

- A character concept which is difficult to do because the rule writers didn't have it in mind.

- A character which is the best in Y.

You will find all three cases on internet forums discussed in detail. But the first one relies so heavily on the group of the player that the internet is not much help and you don't see a lot of discussion or even advice if the TO is not really a beginner needing some basic rules help. It is the other two cases which get the long threads and which attract all those guys who are really intereste in the game rules.


Which means most of the optimisation discussed everywhere is never intended to see play, not even by the people bringing it up. The rules savvy players always stick to group powerlevel regardig their own played characters which might be way lower than would they could do.

[Asmotherion]

The way I see it:

You have a limited amount of levels to represent a character concept. Within those levels you can design something original, almost like an art form, or something that's more of the same. Then, effectiveness comes to play, and thinking of covering your own party issues; Not everyone has to be a damage dealer, not everyone needs to be good at tanking or in melee.

Just decide what your primary job will be, and make sure that you're good at it so that nobody else will need to do it for you; That's the amount of optimisation that's necesary for a party to be functional IMO. The rest is there for RP reasons mostly. When I play a Hexblade Sorlock and take Agonising Blast as an invocation, in a party with an Evocation Wizard and a Crosbow-Focused Fighter I know I took Agonising Blast for RP reasons mostly, and I will be in melee most of the time for example.

[Darth Ultron]

Winning conflicts is fun.

Being good at my chosen role is fun.

Finding ways to do unexpected things and yet still win is fun.

Overcoming challenges with my wits -- including my wits as a player when I built the PC -- is fun.

Why wouldn't D&D players also want to develop the best possible tools and opportunities?

As you can see there is a huge disconnect. Somehow people are mixing having a super powerful optimized demigod character with doing any type of action what so ever in the game.

It is the huge disconnect you can see from just ''being good at a chosen role'' . A normal gamer can accept that they might have a character that is not, automatically, ''good'', and not an all powerful demigod optimized blight. So the normal gamer can accept that the character might only have a low plus and might even fail when they try to do something. And should the character fail to do something, the player can just keep playing the game and try something else. But then you have the player obsessed with being good every second of the game play, they can't accept their character failing even once in a while: they must automatically do everything.

So if your idea of the game is just that you ''must win'' everything...well your trapped in the optimization loop.

And the optimizers miss out on all the other 99% of the ways of gaming as they are locked into that one way. For example it can be tons of fun to be a more goofy character or a misfit character or even a young character just starting out.

[KillianHawkeye]

However, unlike football, chess, and motorsports, Dungeons & Dragons is not an inherently competitive game.

That doesn't mean that there isn't some skill to making a good character or that people shouldn't want to improve that skill.


Also, Darth Ultron, please stop arguing against your ridiculous straw man. Most optimizers don't need their characters to be horrible demigods or to win at everything all the time. If your arguments don't work in a real discussion, revise your arguments instead of falsely inflating your opposition's position into something outlandish.

The only thing that's a huge disconnect here is the reality of optimization versus your clownish portrayal of it.

[denthor]

That doesn't mean that there isn't some skill to making a good character or that people shouldn't want to improve that skill.


Also, Darth Ultron, please stop arguing against your ridiculous straw man. Most optimizers don't need their characters to be horrible demigods or to win at everything all the time. If your arguments don't work in a real discussion, revise your arguments instead of falsely inflating your opposition's position into something outlandish.

The only thing that's a huge disconnect here is the reality of optimization versus your clownish portrayal of it.

KillanHawkeye that is kinda the point of this rant.
Most optimizers do want the character to beat the band ,party go it alone and be unstoppable.

What bought about this question is I have been in a game for decades players float in in out but a core group has split in two. One group mine doesn't care who plays.

The other group insists that they are superior because they can dominate if given the same power levelof character. DM in forces start late lower level. Top is 11th 9th rest are 6th 7th. Start is 6th

They have stated 1 of the 9 may stay if they play and they must all start at 9th or higher.

They min/max till the hilt. No fun to play with no laughter make a mistake /take the wrong spell they kill your character do it right next time. Glad they left. Do it wrong survive we still do not like your choice of. ...

Play/laugh/roll dice.

I do not understand the mind set. One of them alone can be fun as a group of three or seven no good.

[RazorChain]

I continue to read that we must build the ultimate. ...character.

Why?

It has been my experience in life that what we lack can become the best thing for us.

Why must you be so driven to take the fun from the game.

By doing the most damage having the best mechanical spell slots. The lowest level with the most optimal performance?

In my view it is a game we play to have fun. Especially when there is no winning this game it survive and win or die and start over.

Examples you need this character with a 1 level dip of this combined with unchained this to get 4 levels of the ultimate.

I simply don't get it play roll dice and laugh.

I've always maintained that people seek different things from RPGs. Some people like the gaming/mechanic aspect of rpgs, it's about the numbers, building a strong character and beating encounters.

For others it's about portraying a character and stats just play a second fiddle, it's about a character concept and the stats are only there to support the concept. This player might even be trying to play a character despite the mechanics getting in the way.

Some are in it for a good story, a narrative.

Others to immerse themselves in a fantasy world, so the game is a immersive experience to them.


Most of us want different things from the game and the those who are interested in the build/gaming/mechanical aspect are treating their character like a gaming piece while you want a immersive experience where you try to portray your character. Neither are wrong, it's just a clash of styles. What I did was to find players who have the same style and goals, they want the same thing as I from RPGs.

[Kaptin Keen]

I continue to read that we must build the ultimate. ...character.

Why?

It has been my experience in life that what we lack can become the best thing for us.

Why must you be so driven to take the fun from the game.

By doing the most damage having the best mechanical spell slots. The lowest level with the most optimal performance?

In my view it is a game we play to have fun. Especially when there is no winning this game it survive and win or die and start over.

Examples you need this character with a 1 level dip of this combined with unchained this to get 4 levels of the ultimate.

I simply don't get it play roll dice and laugh.

We're not playing the same game.

Or, maybe you and I are - but roleplayers in general play different games. Based on the same rules, but in no other way comparable.

Some people play a game of optimization, where the challenge is - as you say - to build the most extreme thing possible inside the rules.

I play a game of collective storytelling and problemsolving within a social group. We strive be inclusive, cooperative, and to somehow land in a place where all characters are of similar power levels, and able to contribute evenly.

Two radically different games.

[PersonMan]

Most optimizers do want the character to beat the band ,party go it alone and be unstoppable.

Do you know this, though? Because I don't think it's something anyone can know, honestly. What do "most optimizers" want? What is an "optimizer", really?

I'd say I'm an optimizer, but I certainly wouldn't get angry at someone for picking or using something because it's suboptimal - unless it crosses the line into purposefully screwing with other people at the table in a mean way. I don't want my characters to go out and be unstoppable, never fail and not need a party. Almost everyone I know who I play with is like this. I'd say 'no, most optimizers are not like that at all', but I'm just speaking from my own experience, just like you are. I've just had better luck and not run into jerks.

[KillianHawkeye]

KillanHawkeye that is kinda the point of this rant.
Most optimizers do want the character to beat the band ,party go it alone and be unstoppable.

What bought about this question is I have been in a game for decades players float in in out but a core group has split in two. One group mine doesn't care who plays.

The other group insists that they are superior because they can dominate if given the same power levelof character. DM in forces start late lower level. Top is 11th 9th rest are 6th 7th. Start is 6th

They have stated 1 of the 9 may stay if they play and they must all start at 9th or higher.

They min/max till the hilt. No fun to play with no laughter make a mistake /take the wrong spell they kill your character do it right next time. Glad they left. Do it wrong survive we still do not like your choice of. ...

Play/laugh/roll dice.

I do not understand the mind set. One of them alone can be fun as a group of three or seven no good.

Okay, but just because you had a bad experience doesn't make your statement that "Most optimizers do want the character to beat the band ,party go it alone and be unstoppable" to be true. Certainly, there are some people like that, and certainly, D&D and similar games are a haven for the socially inept, but I still say that you're over-generalizing.

I am an optimizer, but I don't try to break the game or "win D&D", and I like to roll dice and laugh and have fun just like you. They're not mutually exclusive, and I'm sorry your experiences have given you a negative impression.

Merry X-mas!

[Nifft]

Do you know this, though? Because I don't think it's something anyone can know, honestly. What do "most optimizers" want? What is an "optimizer", really?

A happy little pile of secrets.

BUT ENOUGH TALK, HAVE AT YOU!

I'd say I'm an optimizer, but I certainly wouldn't get angry at someone for picking or using something because it's suboptimal - unless it crosses the line into purposefully screwing with other people at the table in a mean way. I don't want my characters to go out and be unstoppable, never fail and not need a party. Almost everyone I know who I play with is like this. I'd say 'no, most optimizers are not like that at all', but I'm just speaking from my own experience, just like you are. I've just had better luck and not run into jerks.

You sometimes need to optimize in order to help your party sufficiently.

You sometimes need to optimize vigorously in order to make an unusual character concept contribute in a competent way.

You sometimes don't need to optimize much at all.



Optimization doesn't make a player a jerk.

However, a jerk player can make optimization into an issue.

That's not the fault of optimization. That's the fault of the person who is a jerk.

[Jay R]

However, unlike football, chess, and motorsports, Dungeons & Dragons is not an inherently competitive game.

No but most of the combats in it are, and that's the part they seem to be optimizing most often.

[RazorChain]

You sometimes need to optimize in order to help your party sufficiently.

You don't, really! Optimizing your imaginary character to help your imaginary pals out fighting imaginary monsters isnt needed...like at all.

It's not like bringing extra set of hands to move boxes in the real world. That helps.

You sometimes need to optimize vigorously in order to make an unusual character concept contribute in a competent way.

Making an suboptimal choice optimal
kinda negates each other

Making a weak choice and making it strong is a + and - and evens out.

Making a strong choice and making it stronger gives you ++ making it the optimal choice.

[PersonMan]

You don't, really! Optimizing your imaginary character to help your imaginary pals out fighting imaginary monsters isnt needed...like at all.

It's not like bringing extra set of hands to move boxes in the real world. That helps.

I wouldn't recommend going down that route. If you do, then be prepared to answer 'well then why does it matter that I like to play it this way, it's just imaginary pals fighting imaginary monsters?' and similar questions.

EDIT: Especially since your example could fairly easily be argued to be on the same level!

Making an suboptimal choice optimal
kinda negates each other

Making a weak choice and making it strong is a + and - and evens out.

Making a strong choice and making it stronger gives you ++ making it the optimal choice.

Sort of. 'Optimal' is like 'best' in that it means different things in different contexts. If I want to go from LA to NYC, then the best way might be a direct flight, but that's outside of my price range. On the other hand, another way goes to Toronto, then 2-hour layover, then one going to NYC - and is affordable. I can call it "my best option" even though it's technically inferior to the flight directly from LA to NYC because I'll get there later and have to deal with a layover.

'Good', 'bad', 'optimal', 'suboptimal' - all of these are meaningless without context. 'Need' is too, really. Without the unspoken 'to do X' or 'under Y circumstances', it's all gibberish. In theory, the optimal move in any game with a GM-type figure would be to be the GM, because then you can make your character infinitely powerful. But no one is going to recommend this when someone asks how they can make their character more effective, because it's outside of the unstated parameters of the question.

So, in this example, you can make optimal decisions based off of an intentionally suboptimal start, since all you've done is change the parameters - the unspoken "assuming XYZ" just points to somewhere else.

[RazorChain]

I wouldn't recommend going down that route. If you do, then be prepared to answer 'well then why does it matter that I like to play it this way, it's just imaginary pals fighting imaginary monsters?' and similar questions.

EDIT: Especially since your example could fairly easily be argued to be on the same level!

But I really do want to go down that route :D The need to optimize is rarely there. So let's say we have 3 players, then 4 or even 5 players should be better as then the party is stronger or the 3 players could put some effort to optimize to get their 3 character to be as strong as a party of 5 characters. But to what end? Ultimately it is up to the GM to provide challenge and the only thing that matters is power disparity between PC's....and that only counts if somebody is unhappy about it.

Then you could have a game where the GM claims he has this super tough dungeon so make your strongest characters to try to get through it. There you have the need to optimize.

Sort of. 'Optimal' is like 'best' in that it means different things in different contexts. If I want to go from LA to NYC, then the best way might be a direct flight, but that's outside of my price range. On the other hand, another way goes to Toronto, then 2-hour layover, then one going to NYC - and is affordable. I can call it "my best option" even though it's technically inferior to the flight directly from LA to NYC because I'll get there later and have to deal with a layover.

'Good', 'bad', 'optimal', 'suboptimal' - all of these are meaningless without context. 'Need' is too, really. Without the unspoken 'to do X' or 'under Y circumstances', it's all gibberish. In theory, the optimal move in any game with a GM-type figure would be to be the GM, because then you can make your character infinitely powerful. But no one is going to recommend this when someone asks how they can make their character more effective, because it's outside of the unstated parameters of the question.

So, in this example, you can make optimal decisions based off of an intentionally suboptimal start, since all you've done is change the parameters - the unspoken "assuming XYZ" just points to somewhere else.

Let's say that you have choice of 3 classes. One is optimal, one average and one is sub optimal. During the course of character creation you have 3 choices, one is optimal, one is average and one is sub optimal. So picking the sub optimal class and taking the optimal choice would make your character average so the question is then; is making the best out of a bad choice optimizing?

[PersonMan]

But I really do want to go down that route :D The need to optimize is rarely there. So let's say we have 3 players, then 4 or even 5 players should be better as then the party is stronger or the 3 players could put some effort to optimize to get their 3 character to be as strong as a party of 5 characters. But to what end? Ultimately it is up to the GM to provide challenge and the only thing that matters is power disparity between PC's....and that only counts if somebody is unhappy about it.

Then you could have a game where the GM claims he has this super tough dungeon so make your strongest characters to try to get through it. There you have the need to optimize.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying before - this is a different point than the one I thought you were making.

However, you did leave the door open there with:

the only thing that matters is power disparity between PC's....and that only counts if somebody is unhappy about it

What if someone wants to play a weak class in a party full of characters who are using normal classes, but don't want to introduce a power disparity? It seems like 'well then make decisions during character building that allow the character to be roughly as powerful as the others, despite having a weak class' would be an elegant solution there. While not necessary, as other solutions are present, something has to be done if this goal is to be accomplished.

Or perhaps the situation is such that, either someone beefs up their character, the party starts to have problems due to being overwhelmed by the challenges the GM is using, or the GM makes things easier for the party of weak characters. While there are other solutions, for an individual other than the GM, the best way to solve the problem on one's on is to strengthen their character enough to allow the current level of challenge to continue without the party suffering. Especially if there are other factors at play (for example, this is a new GM) that would make adjustments by other people less likely to succeed at solving the problem.


I'd actually say I agree with you, in that optimization is generally not necessary. However, I do think that in many cases it is the most elegant, or at least easiest, solution to a problem or potential problem.

[...] is making the best out of a bad choice optimizing?

Yes. By my definition of optimizing, at least.

In more detail: Making a good X under certain parameters is what I'd call optimization. Making suboptimal decisions during part of the process will lower the degree of optimality (unless they're part of the parameters - for "a character good at using guns", using a musket may be a suboptimal choice when modern firearms are available, but for "a character who uses muskets" it's the expected decision) but doesn't change that you're still making decisions to, well, make the best out of something, and I'd say that is definitely optimizing.

[RazorChain]

What if someone wants to play a weak class in a party full of characters who are using normal classes, but don't want to introduce a power disparity? It seems like 'well then make decisions during character building that allow the character to be roughly as powerful as the others, despite having a weak class' would be an elegant solution there. While not necessary, as other solutions are present, something has to be done if this goal is to be accomplished.

Or perhaps the situation is such that, either someone beefs up their character, the party starts to have problems due to being overwhelmed by the challenges the GM is using, or the GM makes things easier for the party of weak characters. While there are other solutions, for an individual other than the GM, the best way to solve the problem on one's on is to strengthen their character enough to allow the current level of challenge to continue without the party suffering. Especially if there are other factors at play (for example, this is a new GM) that would make adjustments by other people less likely to succeed at solving the problem.


I'd actually say I agree with you, in that optimization is generally not necessary. However, I do think that in many cases it is the most elegant, or at least easiest, solution to a problem or potential problem.

Playing a weaker character is alright if the player doesn't mind. The thought of contributing to the party is mostly taken into consideration if adventures consist of strings of combat encounters. Otherwise contribution might be measured in fun roleplaying and a character doesn't need to be powerful to do that, hence power disparity is only important if somebody makes it an issue.

If the party is getting overwhelmed by the challenges the GM is using then the issue might be on the GMs side. I have usually found out that showing up with bigger guns just means that the bad guys show up with more body armor.

[Mutazoia]

I think it comes from the assumption that if a game gives you thousands of customization options, then the designers meant that you should engage in high precision fine tuning. Why else have 20 books with player options? They must be getting cranked out for a reason.

That the rules provide so many option means that character creation becomes a minigame.

The challange is to do X best with all build options available.

What could X be ?

- A character concept you want to play and fits into a particular group/campaign

- A character concept which is difficult to do because the rule writers didn't have it in mind.

- A character which is the best in Y.

You will find all three cases on internet forums discussed in detail. But the first one relies so heavily on the group of the player that the internet is not much help and you don't see a lot of discussion or even advice if the TO is not really a beginner needing some basic rules help. It is the other two cases which get the long threads and which attract all those guys who are really intereste in the game rules.


Which means most of the optimisation discussed everywhere is never intended to see play, not even by the people bringing it up. The rules savvy players always stick to group powerlevel regardig their own played characters which might be way lower than would they could do.

There are so many options for one reason, and one reason only:



Game companies are just that: Companies. They are there to make money first and foremost. It is far easier to keep adding splats to an existing I.P., than it is to keep cranking out new I.Ps every few months. If you want to make the dollar bills, yo, you need to keep producing stuff for people to buy, plain and simple.

Just because all of those options exist, doesn't mean that you have to use them, or, for that matter, that they were ever intended to be used together. Each splat is written with out considering how it will combine with splats that have come before it. They are just (seemingly) endless cycles of "HERE! GIVE US YOUR MONEY!"

If you truly believe that WoTC (or any other game company) gives you all of those options because they want you to use them all in the same game, you are only fooling yourself.

[PersonMan]

Playing a weaker character is alright if the player doesn't mind. The thought of contributing to the party is mostly taken into consideration if adventures consist of strings of combat encounters. Otherwise contribution might be measured in fun roleplaying and a character doesn't need to be powerful to do that, hence power disparity is only important if somebody makes it an issue.

I wouldn't say "if somebody makes it an issue", because then it sounds like they're a bad person for being upset by something. I think that it's entirely legitimate to want to be on par with one's teammates in terms of power in a party-based game, so I wouldn't want to give that impression.

But I do agree that playing a weaker character is not an issue in of itself.

If the party is getting overwhelmed by the challenges the GM is using then the issue might be on the GMs side. I have usually found out that showing up with bigger guns just means that the bad guys show up with more body armor.

It's certainly an issue that can/does have multiple causes and potential fixes. I was thinking of scenarios in which a GM new to the game may not be good at figuring out what is too much for their party, and 'toning down' the bad guys is tricky for them (either because they're just using premade ones and don't have a good enough grasp of the rules to do the right type of quick changes, or because they can't tell where exactly the problem is), making change by a player a simpler solution.

There are certainly plenty of situations in which a player beefing up their character won't help, however. And solving one problem can always cause another.

[Vitruviansquid]

I continue to read that we must build the ultimate. ...character

I have never seen this idea on this forum or anywhere else that RPGs are being discussed, especially D&D3.5.

It's always more like, "here is the ultimate character, but you don't want to play this in an actual game" or "there are a bunch of different power levels my character can be. Which works best in this game?"

But if the question is why optimize the power of your character in the first place, then it is quite simple - optimization is the game.

Pretend that you and your friends have gathered to play a co-op game like Arkham Horror or Pandemic or something. Why should you play this game to win it instead of doing whatever moves willy-nilly because you felt like it?

You do this because you want to win.

Why do you want to win? You're not competing against anyone and you're not going to get any prizes for winning, and nothing will happen to you if you lose. You want to win because, temporarily, you pretend that winning this game is important in order to make the game engaging by giving yourself stakes. The game does not work if this illusion is not present.

And people will say you cannot truly win in an RPG because the GM can always give you something else to do or because the GM can always increase or reduce difficulty based on what the players are doing. But those reasons shouldn't stop you from pretending winning matters when the GM says Grashar the Impaler, that notorious orc warlord, is bearing down on your heroes' hometown.

[Nifft]

You don't, really! Optimizing your imaginary character to help your imaginary pals out fighting imaginary monsters isnt needed...like at all.

Yes, sometimes you do. Sometimes you really, really do.

It's not like bringing extra set of hands to move boxes in the real world. That helps.

That's a great analogy, but you're on the wrong side of it. In some games, the DM will balance encounters for the number of characters. Add more hands and you get more boxes to move. If you're adding a character who causes more boxes but who can't move his or her share of boxes, then you're actively harming the party by deliberately failing to do the job you signed up to do.

Making an suboptimal choice optimal
kinda negates each other

Making a weak choice and making it strong is a + and - and evens out.

Yes, that's exactly why you may want to do optimization -- so a different choice, which is sub-optimal and yet is somehow key to the character's concept, does not drag the group down.

Compensating for flaws or weaknesses is a valid type of optimization, and it's pretty harmless in terms of intra-party balance.

You've helpfully showcased some situations where optimization is helpful and might be necessary.

[denthor]

2nd page? New question.

If a 7th level Rouge and a 3rd level wizard are engaged against say a 4th level fighter.

Wizard can hit but must roll very high on d20.

Wizard out of spells Maneuvers around to give the Rogue of flank.

Wizard uses a little-known rule in the book hit a C10 to hinder the fighter.

This gives the Rogue the ability to either take a Plus two on their next attack or a plus 2 to their AC for the attack that's to come. This can be combined with a flanking bonus if wished.

I was The Wizard was told was not a good option to use since it was worthless to everybody on the field. It did no damage therefore should not even thought of or performed.

How would you feel if your character was help in this manner?

[KillianHawkeye]

2nd page? New question.

If a 7th level Rouge and a 3rd level wizard are engaged against say a 4th level fighter.

Wizard can hit but must roll very high on d20.

Wizard out of spells Maneuvers around to give the Rogue of flank.

Wizard uses a little-known rule in the book hit a C10 to hinder the fighter.

This gives the Rogue the ability to either take a Plus two on their next attack or a plus 2 to their AC for the attack that's to come. This can be combined with a flanking bonus if wished.

I was The Wizard was told was not a good option to use since it was worthless to everybody on the field. It did no damage therefore should not even thought of or performed.

How would you feel if your character was help in this manner?

Well first, I wouldn't call Aid Another a "little-known rule". And second, there's nothing wrong with doing it to help your teammates, especially if you're a wizard who is literally out of spells. Your friends were wrong.

This is even more true when the Rogue is much higher level than the Wizard, but now I have to ask why a 7th-level character and a 3rd-level character are in a party together, as that seems like too big of a level difference to me.