To powergame or not to powergame...

[Idea Man]

I see plenty of posts pointing out the fundamental weaknesses of one feat, build, or class over another. People pointing out how foolish it would be to play anything that isn't, at least, a well conceived, designed character, or, at most, batman.

I was wondering how many of us really play only super-optimized uber-beings, or if that's just forum fluff. Have you ever played a concept that you knew was "sub-optimal", or not taken a spell/power/ability because you knew it would take over the game? Things like "not taking the fly spell" or "not taking the natural spell" feat or "fighting two-weapon style without any of the feats to make it easier"?

One of my favorite characters was a straight-class fighter with spring attack and whirlwind attack. Using medium mithril armor/shield and a longsword, he was the most mobile low-level meat shield I've ever played, but couldn't dish out damage to save his life. As a monster slayer, he was sub-par (wizards had to do all the dirty work), and, as a fighter, he sucked out in the skills department, but he was lots of fun anyways.

How many of us really play these "perfect builds"? I just have to ask.

[Ulzgoroth]

I had/have a cleric with 12 strength and 14 dex. Not an archer either. That probably counts.

But, um, those examples in the middle paragraph are well out past the boundary of sub-optimal, somewhere between 'bloody stupid' and 'deliberate self-injury'. Except maybe not taking natural spell.

Your character may have been not particularly effective, but at least he wasn't going for the self-inflicted injury level.

[Xefas]

Please excuse me, but this comes up often, so I borrowed some material.

-------

I see plenty of posts pointing out the poster's problems with powergaming. People pointing out how foolish it would be to consider the usefulness of a character in a combat situation, even though D&D is a tactical combat system first and foremost, and doesn't even take into consideration roleplaying of any kind.

I was wondering how many of us really play only sub-optimized poorly-executed-beings, or if that's just forum fluff. Have you ever played a concept that you knew was reasonably optimal, or taken a spell/power/ability because you knew it would actual accomplish something? Things like "not taking only damage spells" or "not refraining from being mechanically useful because you think it reduces the enjoyment to be had in the game" or "fighting in such a way so that the DM doesn't have to coddle you the entire way"?

One of my favorite characters was a straight-class cleric with divine power and righteous might. Using heavy armor/shield and a longsword, he was the most powerful meat shield I've ever played, and could dish out damage to save everyone's life. As a monster slayer, he was above-par, and, as a cleric, he also had out-of-combat utility, and was lots of fun, let me tell ya.

How many of us really play these "terrible builds" out of some fallacy that it helps us enjoy the game more or roleplay better? I just have to ask.

[Titanium Dragon]

Define "powergamed".

Really, it depends on the game. If I'm expected to be broken, I'll make a broken character; if I'm expected to be reasonable, I'll make a reasonable character. But you don't really have to optimize to make Clericzilla or Batman, and those are the "big problems", and it leads to the uncomfortable situation where the fighter has to be completly optimized to even really compete at high levels.

The solution? Don't play high level campaigns, obviously...

Really, my characters have varied considerably. I've made a half-dragon, half-giant anthropomorphic boa constrictor monk fighter blahblahblah cheese character before. I've also made a straight up fighter who wielded a shield and longsword and wore plate mail and really wasn't tricky (though, thanks to Improved Knockdown in NWN, he was probably still broken...) and a mage with six consititution (yeah, he had like 20 hp at level 15... good thing he had boots that brought his constitution up to, well, 10... :s). I've made a fighter who wielded a halberd and a fighter 1/sorcerer blah who, along with the Master of Many Forms, were pretty much capable of doing everything (and he had no cheese at all, just spells... :\).

The degree of optimization varies considerably, but in general, I don't play to win as hard as I can save when the DM tells me to in terms of character creation.

[TheOOB]

There really is no problem with wanting your character to be effective, in fact it's a bigger problem if you do not. Adventuring is the most dangerous profession known to man. People who are not exceptional in some aspect find they don't have the abilities necessarily to realistically be taking into an adventuring party, and those people with glaring weaknesses find they don't live long once they join a party.

I remember once in a campaign we had a player who believe the (false) idea that players with powerful characters where bad roleplayers, and players with weak characters where good role players. To that end she created a fighter with 6 Con to join our party, and we rejected her character on a note of horrible role playing. First of all, such a sickly person is extreamly unlikely to take up armed combat as a profession, second there is no way they would have survived the training neccesary to become a full fledged fighter being so weak, third 16 strength doesn't work with 6 con, and finally when her character has to rest from walking a couple of blocks our party figured is was prudent to ditch her rather then lead her into a dungeon and her untimely death.

Characters who arn't powerful and have no easily exploitable massive flaws don't become PCs, they become NPC characters. D&D is heroic fantasy, not a reality show.

[Porthos]

There really is no problem with wanting your character to be effective.

And who said you have to have characters who are optimized in order for them to be "effective"? Seriously, if people want their characters to be as powerful as they can be, go for it. There's nothing wrong with that. And nothing says that powergamers/optimizers can't be great role players either (Yes I am very familiar with the Stormwind Fallacy, thanks ).

But please don't try to couch it in language that says that you're "just" trying to be effective. Cause you're not fooling anyone.

There are plenty of examples of characters that aren't the end all and be all of DnD that are plenty effective. After all, as the old saying goes, "It ain't what you got, but how you use it." A "pure fighter" can be plenty effective in many games. A Master Blaster can succeed in life. Are they very pinnacle of DnD evolution? No. But that doesn't mean that they can't be "effective".

As long as you can defeat your enemies and live to tell the tale, then you have won. It doesn't need to be anymore complicated than that.

So to sum up:

Players who want to play "optimized" characters can be good role players.
Players who want to play "realistic" characters can be effective participants in DnD.
Players who want to play "optimized" characters can be bad role players.
Players who want to play "realistic" characters can be deadweight participants in DnD.

It seems to me that the common element in all of those points is.... The Player. Who would have thunk it.

[Hectonkhyres]

In most of the campaigns I have been in, nobody powergames until some jackass decides to try to show up everybody else. Once that happens, the arms race is on and anything can happen. Minmax the frenzied berserker with every powerattack trick ever concieved of, druids diving into obscure literature for abominations that the gods never intended, the Batman philharmonic orchestra...

Then, one fateful session, one of our number tried powergaming and pushed it just a little too far. The DM had Asmodeus pop in, rip out the guy's soul, and drag him back to be his (literal) buttmonkey for all time. No explanations given. The bastard has to reroll and things still looked a little too freakishly unbalanced so Asmodeus pops in again and further expands his harem. Our former powergamer finally got the hint.

Last campaign we had a cloistered cleric with the Night and Dream domains, an urban druid, two fighters and a kobold rogue. We ended up founding an (entirely cheeseless) mercantile empire with a secret society one step behind the scenes. A war was fought, tyrants were deposed and crowned, women were bedded, rivers were redirected, gnomes were punted, and our kobold (previously thought to be a male even by herself) became a proud mommy.

It was fun as hell and, best of all, we were eternally on the defensive. We actually had to think things through rather than playing flamethrower.

[namo]

We ended up founding an (entirely cheeseless) mercantile empire with a secret society one step behind the scenes.

An empire without cheese ? No wonder you attacked it. I hope you introduced everybody to the joys of fermented milk.

The important is to be in adequation with the level of the other players and the DM. So I optimize my characters - I like it - then take a look at my neighbour's sheet and tone them down as needed. I also try to explain to the DM what my character can do, in order to avoid bad surprises.

[Jerthanis]

How many of us really play these "terrible builds" out of some fallacy that it helps us enjoy the game more or roleplay better? I just have to ask.

I'm kind of sick of this being the response to every single thread that even tangentially makes powergaming out to be in any way a negative aspect of the game. We get it, Stormwind said something reasonable that you buy into.

This thread is about "Do you always play super-optimized characters, or do you sometimes play Fighters, Rangers, Rogues, Bards and the like?" not "Isn't optimization lame!?!?!lol" To be fair, the examples provided by Idea Man were not the best thought out... TWF is cripplingly bad when you simply don't optimize, not taking the feats that make it work at all is a whole other animal.

To answer the question, yes, I play a lot of classes other than optimized ones. I don't go out of my way to pump the one stat I need because I'll have a 5% increase in battle efficacy, but I do understand that there's way more RP potential in playing a living person than playing a rotting corpse. I also play wizards and clerics to the best of my abilities quite often. The wise Wizard is my favorite archetype, and the Cleric is my favorite class in terms of Mechanics/flavor blend/interaction. (The cleric's abilities, class skills, and nuances of their spells are determined in part by the character's personality, as well as the class itself, which is IMHO, the perfect blend in a class system)

My favorite unoptimized character was a Fighter who tripped using a Halberd, which means no reach. He would also take his follow-up attack as a disarm against weapon wielding foes, and as they lie on the ground disarmed, he would demand they surrender themselves to the law. He struck for subdual damage more than half the time, and cross-classed skills into search and sense motive to represent his detective bent. He was a town guardsman, and he was damn good at his job... but wasn't an optimal trip build. He still practically soloed the endboss of that game, but that was because my party was useless and I had the right potions for the job.

[Mojo_Rat]

One thing that surprised me when i first started reading on-line information about D&D IS that alot of the time the Game talked about on the Wizards forums (and to a lesser extent here) does not seem to be entirely the same game as the one i play around a table every sunday with my friends.

However that said the only real issue i have with power gaming is that alot of the time the justification for a particular class/feat/race combo is often weak and thinly veiled. Players need to be able to use common sense. If everyone in a game is power gaming it works well. If 3 of 4 players are playing fun non optimized characters and the 4rth completely dominates the game then heres a problem.

[sikyon]

If your character is too strong, your DM is going to have to throw encounters.

If your character is too weak, your DM is also going to have to throw encounters.

People sort of assume:

Oh, I'm going to be a level 20 monk. And my friend here is a level 20 fighter, and we have a level 20 rouge (no UMD) and a level 20 healer cleric. Oh look, here comes a tarrasque. Oh look, we got totally owned.

It's just as bad as if you totally owned the tarrasque.

Then, one fateful session, one of our number tried powergaming and pushed it just a little too far. The DM had Asmodeus pop in, rip out the guy's soul, and drag him back to be his (literal) buttmonkey for all time. No explanations given. The bastard has to reroll and things still looked a little too freakishly unbalanced so Asmodeus pops in again and further expands his harem. Our former powergamer finally got the hint.

If I were your player, I would have then rolled a character who was multiclassed into 1 level of everything he could be, with a very rich backstory like "I wanted to be everything when I was a kid and now that I'm an adventurer I can!", have very high charisma, wisdom, no synergy, vow of poverty, and extremely poor combat ability. When he quickly and inevitably died, I would then make another, pretty much asking the DM "Do you want my character to be overly powerful, which may degrade other playing experiances because they don't get to fight that much with their favorite characters, or do you want me to be overly weak, so that I get their favorite characters killed. Which would you prefer?"

Honestly, if a DM pulled that on me I would begin the Player vs DM conflict.

[Skjaldbakka]

I optimize appropriately for the game I will be playing in.

Examples:

I was invited to play in an 18th level gestalt game, with a very-high powered stat generation method (best of 4d6, reroll all 1s). It is an 'evil overlord' game. So I am playing a very heavily optimized persistent spell abusing cleric, to match the assumed power level of the game.

I was invited to join an Arcana Evolved game. I decided I wanted to take the opportunity to play a Skymage, and so I am. Short of a sub-optimal PrC, I am doing everything I can to be an optimal buff-caster, as there are two PCs that are going to need the help (we have one with a barely viable gish build, and one that is a solid character, but the player tends to forget to use his class features).

I am currently playing in an online game, where I chose to roll my stats, and wound up with 52 pt. buy. So I am playing a somewhat under-par gish build (what I like to call my 'elf' build: Elf Paragon/Wizard/Fighter/Bladesinger).

"Do you want my character to be overly powerful, which may degrade other playing experiances because they don't get to fight that much with their favorite characters, or do you want me to be overly weak, so that I get their favorite characters killed. Which would you prefer?"

Way to promote a false dichotomy. Personally, I aim to either match the optimization level of my fellow players, or if I am feeling really nice, build a character that makes them better at what they do, and fills gaps in the party.

[Porthos]

One thing that surprised me when i first started reading on-line information about D&D IS that alot of the time the Game talked about on the Wizards forums (and to a lesser extent here) does not seem to be entirely the same game as the one i play around a table every sunday with my friends..

It really does depend on the "culture" of a board. For instance EN World doesn't seem to me to have nearly the same focus on "number crunching" as Gleemax or GitP. Why? Beats me. But I definitely feel a different vibe here than I do over at EN World.

Mind you there's nothing wrong with either place. In fact, I enjoy both myself.

[The_Werebear]

Lets see...

For an Optimized non powerful concept-

Rorymac Crosswater
Halfling Paragon 3/ Paladin of Freedom 2
Stats- All 14's, save for dex which is 16.
Weapon of Choice- Merciful Sling

He fights by rapid shotting bullets into his foes. The DM ruled that Rapid reload would work for this purpose. He is a halfling, so the paragon and his race give him some nifty bonuses to damage, so he is firing off a pair of bullets a round for d3+d6+7 each.

The thing to remember though- The sling is a POS weapon. Who cares if he's good with it when it is fairly useless. The paladin levels are dead weight at the moment. My DM uses fluid alignment, so Detect Evil doesn't help much. Smite can't be used ranged, which is almost always what he does. Lay on hands can heal 4 hp a day for him.

I love playing him though. He is a surly, angry halfling who loves exploring and fighting in equal proportions. He took up paladinhood and a merciful weapon after he let his rage get the best of him and nearly killed his sister and his party. Once that incident was passed, he took up a personal vow to use lethal force as a last resort. Now, he tries to balance his anger with his compassion, focusing hard to avoid repeating the incident. To that end, he has a phylactery of faithfulness. Whenever he thinks he is straying, he uses that to keep on the path of righteousness. From a mechanical standpoint, he could have bought a lot better items. This fits him though.

SO- Example of an underoptimized concept taken to the best I could make it while staying in the bond of his character. And I love it.

[Titanium Dragon]

If I were your player, I would have then rolled a character who was multiclassed into 1 level of everything he could be, with a very rich backstory like "I wanted to be everything when I was a kid and now that I'm an adventurer I can!", have very high charisma, wisdom, no synergy, vow of poverty, and extremely poor combat ability. When he quickly and inevitably died, I would then make another, pretty much asking the DM "Do you want my character to be overly powerful, which may degrade other playing experiances because they don't get to fight that much with their favorite characters, or do you want me to be overly weak, so that I get their favorite characters killed. Which would you prefer?"

Honestly, if a DM pulled that on me I would begin the Player vs DM conflict.

Actually, you made several large flaws in your argument:

1) A character with a level in everything, while not the most effective of beings, could potentially be interesting with the RIGHT levels in things.
2) The DM would simply leave the encounters at a reasonable challenging level.

See, the DM has the power here, and knowing what the party can take, he can throw such challenges at the party, tailoring them properly to the party's power level. So your character most likely wouldn't die horribly and simply would survive and contribute little (unless you were actually useful after taking all those levels, which wouldn't surprise me - you do, at least, have a wide -variety- of powers, if not much power at anything).

Not to mention, that kind of behavior indicates you aren't suitable for the group. You see, the way you're behaving is ruining it for everyone, so the correct thing to do is to tell you to change your ways or kick you out if you can't.

Indeed, if you exhibited that sort of behavior and told me that the options were you having an overpowered character or trying to get everyone else's characters killed, I'd tell you to hit the road and never come back.

[Fuzzy_Juan]

Well...plenty of people play 'sub optimal' characters...mainly because they don't always have access to every single suppliment and/or just don't know all the nifty tricks out there. Also, sometimes it just is impossible in the campaign (take the all good campaign in which there were only 9 blackguards and they were all servants of the big bad evil guy...one player asked if he could join the blackguards...heh...didn't turn out too well)

Also note that people might have one idea for a character but then switch their build to focus on what is happening in game rather than what they wanted...they could have been making a pure two handed damage build to start but then switched to crowd control and anti small fry tech.

Sometimes people just choose what is available...if they don't have access to all manner of custom items...there will be no optimizing cheese like you see on the boards...just characters doing what they can with what is on hand.

Only a DM can really allow a player to 'powergame' since they have final say over what players can use...but any player will try and be as clever as they can with whatever their options are.

[Dausuul]

Honestly, if a DM pulled that on me I would begin the Player vs DM conflict.

I wouldn't start the "player versus DM" business. That only perpetuates the problem. I'd simply walk away from the gaming table. Life is too short to waste my time on DMs who feel that the way to deal with power imbalances (or any other issue among the players) is to say "Rocks fall, you die."

[Saph]

I'm kind of sick of this being the response to every single thread that even tangentially makes powergaming out to be in any way a negative aspect of the game. We get it, Stormwind said something reasonable that you buy into.

This thread is about "Do you always play super-optimized characters, or do you sometimes play Fighters, Rangers, Rogues, Bards and the like?" not "Isn't optimization lame!?!?!lol"

Yeah, this gets to me too. I used to join these arguments, and every time I made a post saying that optimising your character to the maximum wasn't always the best way to play the game, I always, always, within a few hours, got someone responding to me with "So I have to gimp my character and make them useless??? Huh??? Huh???" as though I'd told them to play a 6 strength Kobold Warrior. Always. Every single time. They seemed to have the attitude that there were only two ways to make characters: Twinkus Rex the Combat Monster, and Wiffly McFeeble the Commoner, with nothing in between.

Fact is, everyone with some knowledge of the D&D ruleset underoptimises their characters to at least some degree. Do you avoid using Polymorph? Avoid Diplomacy cheese? Not buy Candles of Evocation? Then you're making your character less powerful than they could be . . . for completely sensible reasons. It's really not that difficult for any character past level 5 or so to be totally unbalanced in power. Anyone can figure out how to do it with a bit of searching. It's just that the smart ones don't, because they know what the consequences are.

Players who don't optimise are generally much less of a problem than players who over-optimise, because one overpowered character messes with the party dynamics much more than one underpowered one does. It's also much easier to power up a weak character than to power down a strong one. If a newbie joins my party with his terribly weak Ranger, I can coach him, direct him to good magic items, and over time get him up to the level of everyone else (assuming that's what he wants, of course), but it works a bit differently when it's the other way round.

- Saph

[Project_Mayhem]

Twinkus Rex the Combat Monster, and Wiffly McFeeble the Commoner

Wiffly McFeeble, utter comedic hilarity. Totaly cheered me up after reading the Terry Pratchet thread. That truely is awesome, I'm going to have to steal it for something.

On Topic, we don't have too much trouble with optimization, coz we play a lot of Call of Cthulhu. 18 in all your stats and 98% in Desert Eagle is going to do diddly squat to a Star Spawn. Player intelligence/skill is much more of an impact than cheesy characters when the eldar gods are involved

[Neon Knight]

They seemed to have the attitude that there were only two ways to make characters: Twinkus Rex the Combat Monster, and Wiffly McFeeble the Commoner, with nothing in between.

That's because their is no standard for reasonable power. Everyone can agree that a commoner with 3s in every stat is underpowered, and that Pun-Pun is overpowered, but no can agree what is the right level of power, because the answer is so subjective. Some people only avoid outright cheese, while others tend to avoid merely upper tier levels of power, while some just build and play without concern for power and never establish standards for power regardless of what their final power level may be.

With no common point of view for reasonable, there literally is no middle ground, only a nebulous X.

[Tormsskull]

Yeah, this gets to me too. I used to join these arguments, and every time I made a post saying that optimising your character to the maximum wasn't always the best way to play the game, I always, always, within a few hours, got someone responding to me with "So I have to gimp my character and make them useless??? Huh??? Huh???" as though I'd told them to play a 6 strength Kobold Warrior. Always. Every single time. They seemed to have the attitude that there were only two ways to make characters: Twinkus Rex the Combat Monster, and Wiffly McFeeble the Commoner, with nothing in between.

Oh yeah, I see that all the time too. The thing is, if a group sat down and said "Let's make the most powerful characters we possibly can, just for fun" I'd say more power to them. Heck, if they have fun working with the mechanics of the system and seeing what the most powerful character they can create using the ruleset, that's cool.

When you create a character for that purpose, you try to min-max a character that would be able to do some incredibly phenominal things, or maybe the goal is to make the most powerful character that would win an a 1v1 arena duel style thing. Whatever, that's totally cool.

But when players use that same mentality to craft a character for a typical D&D game that includes roleplaying, and then claim that just because they crafted their character with that mentality doesn't mean that it impacted the RP/story/fluff of their character, I find that laughable.

I think it all comes down to many of the players that like playing kick-in-the-door (hack n slash) don't like to say that they like playing that style because they are afraid other D&D advocates are going to chastise them for not roleplaying.

I wouldn't do that, as my only beef is when players play kick-in-the-door and try to say it is RP because it only serves to confuse the typical player as to the differences between kick-in-the-door and RP.

[Jayabalard]

Yeah, this gets to me too. I used to join these arguments, and every time I made a post saying that optimising your character to the maximum wasn't always the best way to play the game, I always, always, within a few hours, got someone responding to me with "So I have to gimp my character and make them useless??? Huh??? Huh???" as though I'd told them to play a 6 strength Kobold Warrior. Always. Every single time. They seemed to have the attitude that there were only two ways to make characters: Twinkus Rex the Combat Monster, and Wiffly McFeeble the Commoner, with nothing in between.

I agree.

Personally I find it more than a little ironic that these same people often repeat the "stormwind fallacy" as if it were some sort of holy mantra; if they can't come up with a better argument than this false dichotomy, then they obviously don't understand what makes the stormwind fallacy a fallacy.

[Neon Knight]

Oh yeah, I see that all the time too. The thing is, if a group sat down and said "Let's make the most powerful characters we possibly can, just for fun" I'd say more power to them. Heck, if they have fun working with the mechanics of the system and seeing what the most powerful character they can create using the ruleset, that's cool.

When you create a character for that purpose, you try to min-max a character that would be able to do some incredibly phenominal things, or maybe the goal is to make the most powerful character that would win an a 1v1 arena duel style thing. Whatever, that's totally cool.

But when players use that same mentality to craft a character for a typical D&D game that includes roleplaying, and then claim that just because they crafted their character with that mentality doesn't mean that it impacted the RP/story/fluff of their character, I find that laughable.

I think it all comes down to many of the players that like playing kick-in-the-door (hack n slash) don't like to say that they like playing that style because they are afraid other D&D advocates are going to chastise them for not roleplaying.

I wouldn't do that, as my only beef is when players play kick-in-the-door and try to say it is RP because it only serves to confuse the typical player as to the differences between kick-in-the-door and RP.

You know, some of the best builds are perfectly plausible to come across by accident. I mean, Shock Trooper's Heedless Charge? Perfect for a big tough bruiser who throws himself howling at his enemies without any regard for his own personal safety.

And DMM Persist? Isn't is feasibly possible that ti could be taken by a cleric who believes that whenever he is subject to a buff he is being enlightened by his god's power, and seeks to prolong this state whenever possible?

It annoys me just as much when people assume the only way to arrive at a powerful build is to deliberately seek it out while ignoring every other concern.

[Jayabalard]

You know, some of the best builds are perfectly plausible to come across by accident. I mean, Shock Trooper's Heedless Charge? Perfect for a big tough bruiser who throws himself howling at his enemies without any regard for his own personal safety.

And DMM Persist? Isn't is feasibly possible that ti could be taken by a cleric who believes that whenever he is subject to a buff he is being enlightened by his god's power, and seeks to prolong this state whenever possible?

It annoys me just as much when people assume the only way to arrive at a powerful build is to deliberately seek it out while ignoring every other concern.

you seem to have mis-read his statement.

if a group sat down and said "Let's make the most powerful characters we possibly can, just for fun"

Means that no, he's not talking about people who come across such things by accident.

When you create a character for that purpose, <snip>
But when players use that same mentality<snip>

Still not talking about people who create a powerful character by accident

His beef (which I heartily agree with), is when people who are intentionally trying to push the power of their character to the limit try to claim that it has no effect at all on the RP/story/fluff of their character.

[Grizzled Gryphon]

Wiffly McFeeble, utter comedic hilarity. Totaly cheered me up after reading the Terry Pratchet thread. That truely is awesome, I'm going to have to steal it for something.

On Topic, we don't have too much trouble with optimization, coz we play a lot of Call of Cthulhu. 18 in all your stats and 98% in Desert Eagle is going to do diddly squat to a Star Spawn. Player intelligence/skill is much more of an impact than cheesy characters when the eldar gods are involved

I DMed a group that was so bad at "optimization" I had to use the Gestalt option and many other tricks just to have them somewhat close to the level of power of a standard group of four characters. If I hadn't done this, I would have ended up having them face challenges under there ECL, and hoping they survived. But, they and I had a blast with that game, so I can't complain.

The last group I played in, I played a Scout. I used the same pregened stats as everyone else, and all the house rules like eveyone else. I had this scout more as a skill monkey than anything else. Even so, he not only out sneaked the rogue, he out damaged everyone with his bow. Eventually, the caster was able to deal more damage, but not by much. I didn't "optimize" him. Heck, most of my feats were to up his stealthiness and init. but he was real good at finding and harrasing the enemy until backup got there. In one case, he soloed a Draconic Hill Giant. Ironically, the fighter in the group tried to stay back and fire his crossbow at it, as he was sure it would just own him. He didn't hit, and my scout got right in this things face (so that skirmish would work) and was hit several times. I killed it, and wasn't all that wounded after the fight. Everyone in that sizable group didn't mind that I was more impressive then they were. They were mostly glad that I was there to kick butt as well as I did.

It all comes down to what the players and DM want in a game. If they all like powergaming, great. If not, that is great too. That group I ran sucked as far as making characters. We had a blast though, and that is all that matters.

[Baxbart]

Optimised?

If I dared to speak that word around my D&D group, I'd probably get lynched (plus, they wouldn't give me booze). In fact, I get ribbed enough as it is for being able to quote rules from memory - Hell, these guys have been playing 20 years, and they found that while serious roleplay is all well and good, its a hell of a lot funnier to drink polish vodka and play a very surreal... I suppose, discworld-ish game. We don't have a serious bone amongst the four members of the party... and the DM hasn't written anything in the way of plot for 6 months...

Take last night for instance:
Our party currently consists of (though is regularly subject to change) four level 2 characters - a Gender-confused dwarf with no beard and a shaved head (Fighter 2), a human fighter (2) who insists on speaking with a heavy russian accent and wears furry hats. A female elf rogue (2), who keeps trying to convince us that she is a paladin - She has very high tumble/diplomacy etc, but can do little else. In fact, the player's handwriting is so bad that the DM revoked the 'Trapfinding' class ability and replaced it with 'Trafficking' - Which has yet to have been used to much effect. She also has ranks in Perform: ********, and Oil camel... Then lastly, we have a high and mighty cleric (also 2, myself) who rants endlessly about the Gods, and then turns a blind eye every time the rogue does something blatantly evil. Last week, the Cleric got drugged and ate a candle by accident.

Our DM doesn't use rulebooks (except occasionally when he feels like throwing a random encounter at us and can't be bothered to make some numbers up) - Combat is a chaotic and disorganised affair (We have initiative, but thats about it - Don't even mention AOO near these guys, thats another lynching offense), and often ends up with half the party or more bleeding to death (yes, my entire allowance of spells per day goes on healing party members).

We are being followed around by Death (Who introduces himself as Mr Dee-arth) - He wears a long black cloak with hood, rides a ghostly horse, carries a scythe and perpetually challenges party members to games of chess (Which has resulted in the death of at least one character). Unfortunately, since we lack plot, Death has become our guide as we blunder aimlessly through the desert to reach what is described as our 'Final Destination'. So far, we've convinced him to carry the torch for the party, and we also tried to blame him for an uprising we caused.

Last night's session pretty much consisted of us riding through the desert, being chased by desert pirates - Who are, quite literally, stereotypical pirates (except they have a West Country accent instead of the typical pirate accent, so its more 'ooh arr' than 'yarr'). Their 'ships' are camels with tall mast arrangements tied to them, and each one carries a small cannon. Out of about a dozen of them, I think half were killed by cannon mishaps, and the rest were just knocked over by the recoil. The only thing they managed to hit was the cart that we were dragging around a bunch of dead dogs in (The dead dogs being our food source.... another ingenious idea by the Cleric - Purify food/water on carrion meat )

Somehow, the Rogue bested their captain in one on one combat, and then preceeded to declare herself the new captain. This was shortly after she made such a good tumble check that everyone in combat was forced to stop and clap (and a gnome with a flaming ring appeared out of nowhere for her to jump through).

Who needs plot when you have pirates? In fact, I don't think anyone could write a module that wouldn't get totally derailed by these guys.

I don't ever expect to live to see level 3, and because of the disorganisation, optimising is ultimately useless most of the time, but damn is it fun anyway.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that the DM awarded the Rogue with a Supernatural ability - Detect: Plot. It points us in the direction of the nearest interesting event (Which... also usually results in PC death).

[Counterspin]

Someone starts a discussion about a pretty much entirely subjective term that's often used as a slur, up with munchkin, and people are shocked when it devolves into an argument? People really find that surprising? Unfortunately there's no equivalent word for "excessive harmful RP," so let's start with grandstanding. I'm gonna go start a "To grandstand or not to grandstand," and I'm sure it will turn into a great discussion, full of insight on either side.

[Duke of URL]

There's nothing wrong with wanting to play a powerful character. That said, character concept should always come ahead of optimization.

Of course, if the two happen to coincide...

[Miles Invictus]

It all comes down to what the players and DM want in a game.

Thank you. I wish more people were capable of admitting this.

[horseboy]

In D&D? Sure. In a respectable game system? Well, it's not nearly as easy or readily condoned.

Not to sound like Jay or anything, but the only thing D&D has over other systems is it's inherent brokenness. If you want something more, you should play a different game.