|2 people marked this as a favorite.|
I would say, "optimization rewards offense over defense." Optimization creates a game where PCs are required to one-shot opponents to stay relevant. In this kind of game, initiative and offense is 100%, and defense is irreverent. The GM can easily optimize monsters for similar offensive capability, however, frequently killing characters through rocket-tag is generally considered not fun by players, and is typically very disruptive to a campaign. The default for Pathfinder is that the GM is supposed to lose almost every battle, and optimization requires that lose to be immediate.
Since PCs and monsters have access to most of the same stuff, Pathfinder rules balance offense and defense fairly well, however it is fairly easy to disrupt this balance (within the rules) and encounter design and pacing can have a huge effect. Sadly, even many published adventures feature many single monster encounters or other recipes for disruption.
** spoiler omitted **
Experienced players will optimize the design of their characters to the typical design methodologies of scenario/module writers. In most combat encounters I read, the only creative attack most of the opponents can do is attack AC. Also, the number of opponents in an encounter are frequently less than the number of player characters. In other words, typical combat encounters have opponents who have little action economy and their most lethal attacks are against defenses that Player Characters can easily bolster against. If an opponent attempts to attack something other than AC, players take advantage of their action economy and overwhelm the opponent.
Seriously, when was the last time an experienced player picked the Elf race primarily because the player was afraid of being hit with the Sleep spell in combat?
So long as designers continue with the same combat encounter design methodology they've had for years, the optimization of offense over defense will continue.