| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, a recent event has made me think of my own nature as an optimizer. Most of the time, I choose a random concept and roll with it. But I do tend to try to play wisely. I eliminate as many weaknesses as I can, and try to make the character as powerful as possible to survive. So, I thought it might be worth creating a sort of "optimizers code". For those times where you want to show the GM that you are aware of the inherent power of your character, and that you are able to adapt to a group that optimizes less than yourself. I've jotted down a few things that I think are important to remember (most of which I have seen mentionned on the board before) and I'm wondering if anybody has some other ideas.
1) We are all here to have fun. Take into account the fun of others (including the GM) while playing your character.
2) Favor scalable classes. Classes with activated abilities and spells can more easily choose to control their strength.
3) Be willing to accept compromise. Be open to limiting powers if they marginalise the rest of the group.
4) If all else fails, find another group. Some groups like to mess around, some like to play seriously. Be conscious of these differences.
Any ideas?
Good point Duiker. Greater system mastery can also allow you to better know how to support others.
As for the whole "dont be a dick" thingy, that's universally true (in all situations). But it's also very vague, and vagueness tends to breed arguments. So I'm trying to be comprehensive. And this can act as educational for me as well. I dont want to become a problematic optimizer, and I am sure there are others that can use the advice as well.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal optimizer's code (aside from some stuff already posted):
-Don't try and work around the rules, or violate their spirit (as you understand it). There's plenty of really badass things you can do using the rules as they are.
-If a GM bans something for being too powerful, and it is indeed powerful, don't argue. It's their game.
-Help the other players optimize. I may be in a privileged position to do this, since I usually GM for my group and thus have more...authority (I guess) than if I didn't. But simply politely helping the other players to reach a higher level of optimization within their concepts brings the whole party closer to parity, and makes the other players much less likely to be upset with your optimizing.
-Play something that can't do everything. This one's hard if you really like Wizards, but very doable otherwise. Leave all the other players things to do (that actually come up) that they are just unambiguously better at than you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I had to make a single declarative statement to add to such a code:
Conceptualize first; Optimize second.
Case in point, my current gnome/sorcerer/monk character joined the party late, and was discovered in a "lock him up and throw away the key" dungeon cell. I built him at third level, and he was optimized to have survived 25 years in a 10 x 10 room with no outside intervention.
He can't hit hard, or sling a lot of magic, or take much damage, so he's built for mobility, rapidly dropping nasty conditions on badguys, and buffing the tall people. At 7th level now, I can count the number of foes he's actually killed on one hand, but he definitely pulls his weight in an encounter. Most importantly, he's fun to play, and doesn't regularly oustshine anybody.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's easy. You just gotta follow the Commandments:
Caelic's "The Ten Commandments of Optimization"
I. Thou shalt not give up caster levels.
II. Wieldest thou thy two-handed weapon with alacrity; but two weapons shalt thou not wield, excepting that thou hast a source of bonus damage such as Sneak Attack.
III. Doubt not the power of the Druid, for he is mighty.
IV. Avoid ye the temptation of Gauntlets of True Strike, for they shall lead thee astray down the Path of Non-Rule Cheese.
V. Thou shalt not give up caster levels. Verily, this Commandment is like unto the first; but of such magnitude that it bore mentioning twice.
VI. Makest thou no build with an odd number of fighter levels, for such things are not pleasing to the Spirits of Optimization.
VII. The Rules of 3.5 are paramount; invoke not the rules of 3.0 if a newer version be available.
VIII. When beseeching the Bretheren of Optimization, come thou not empty handed, lest they smite thee; rather, bringest thou thine own build, that they may offer suggestions and guidance.
IX. Invoke not "common sense," for it is not common.
X. Thou shalt call no build "The Ultimate X" unless his name be Pun-Pun, or thou shalt see thine "Ultimate" build topped by the Bretheren within five minutes of posting.
Obviously Rule VII needs updated, but I didn't want to defile the 10 by replacing words.
Apologies for the post, I think I'm dumping some recent aggravation here.
I think I need to adopt this code, but I'm not sure that I can. Maybe I'm too new to the game, or too focused on "winning". Maybe you guys, being optimizers yourselves, can help.
Here's my situation.
I take the game pretty seriously, like Diablo Hard Mode serious. You die, it's game over. I don't like the "If I die, I'll just make a new char" mentality. Nor the "the GM will give you a way to resurrect" deus ex machina way of playing. Neither one feels very heroic to me.
Half of the group I'm playing with does not share my inclinations. One in particular has a tendency to act out whenever he gets bored and make things "interesting". His method of disabling traps is to just activate them and see what happens. Now, most times, this won't kill him, or the party. I know that. But sometimes, it can be a TPK (and very nearly was, when we recently triggered a symbol of insanity trap although this particular blunder was due largely to poor rolling).
This attitude, combined with the fact that this player was responsible for two other player's characters (new players, his wife and friend) has left gaping holes in the "things a party should be able to do" list. Slowly, I started picking up additional roles in the party to the point that I'm doing way more than I should.
This, naturally, has caused some tension.
It kills me to "hold back". I don't like to fail at things. I want not only to succeed, but to send our enemies weeping to Hell. It just seems so stupid to do otherwise.
If he confined his pointless "zany" activities to things that only affected himself, I wouldn't have an issue. If he didn't argue with me every time I propose a smart solution to the problem (instead of ALWAYS kicking the door down and rushing in), I wouldn't have as much of a problem. If he didn't actively fight any attempt I make to follow through on such plans (let's pretend our ship is in trouble by making some smoke; okay, I light...
A) You're just competitive, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Play a class like a Bard, and buff your teammates into being more effective, whether they realize they are or not
B) What game are you playing where death is game over, man? Death is just a 5000 gold piece luxury tax.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This attitude, combined with the fact that this player was responsible for two other player's characters (new players, his wife and friend) has left gaping holes in the "things a party should be able to do" list. ... I like the group, with the exception of this one player (and, really, it's just his playstyle I don't like; he's not a bad guy).
"responsible for two other player's characters"= doing what?
Dude, it's simple. Sit down and talk it out like adults.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as a "code" goes: "Well, you see- those of us who have a certain level of skill mastery only optimize our characters to be a notch above the newer players. Thus- fun for all.
Yes, it does take even more system mastery that the optimizers use here on these boards to do it, but it's worth it.
You design a PC who is fun, optimized just enough, and survivable. No need to be the biggest bad-$$$ at the table- the game is not a competition, there are no "winners".
Help the newbs avoid the more crippling mistakes without railroading them. if they want to play a rogue, do tell them about Bards or that super archetype the Ninja- but then if they don't like that idea, just make a few suggestions. Don't say "Oh Noes, rouges are teh suxxor, you CAN'T play one of those, it's badwrongfun."
I find I enjoy the game way, WAY more when the whole table is having fun."
Apologies for the post, I think I'm dumping some recent aggravation here.
I think I need to adopt this code, but I'm not sure that I can. Maybe I'm too new to the game, or too focused on "winning". Maybe you guys, being optimizers yourselves, can help.
Here's my situation.
I take the game pretty seriously, like Diablo Hard Mode serious. You die, it's game over. I don't like the "If I die, I'll just make a new char" mentality. Nor the "the GM will give you a way to resurrect" deus ex machina way of playing. Neither one feels very heroic to me.
Half of the group I'm playing with does not share my inclinations. One in particular has a tendency to act out whenever he gets bored and make things "interesting". His method of disabling traps is to just activate them and see what happens. Now, most times, this won't kill him, or the party. I know that. But sometimes, it can be a TPK (and very nearly was, when we recently triggered a symbol of insanity trap although this particular blunder was due largely to poor rolling).
This attitude, combined with the fact that this player was responsible for two other player's characters (new players, his wife and friend) has left gaping holes in the "things a party should be able to do" list. Slowly, I started picking up additional roles in the party to the point that I'm doing way more than I should.
This, naturally, has caused some tension.
It kills me to "hold back". I don't like to fail at things. I want not only to succeed, but to send our enemies weeping to Hell. It just seems so stupid to do otherwise.
If he confined his pointless "zany" activities to things that only affected himself, I wouldn't have an issue. If he didn't argue with me every time I propose a smart solution to the problem (instead of ALWAYS kicking the door down and rushing in), I wouldn't have as much of a problem. If he didn't actively fight any attempt I make to follow through on such plans (let's pretend our ship is in trouble by making some smoke; okay, I light the ship on fire)... Or if his "zaniness" was in any way clever or amusing instead of just ridiculous, I wouldn't have as much of problem with it.
I like playing PF. I like the group, with the exception of this one player (and, really, it's just his playstyle I don't like; he's not a bad guy). I want everyone to have fun and feel useful. I don't like player conflict and I don't want to "Be a dick". But I also don't like to act like a moron. How do I reconcile this?
"Don't be a dick" isn't a rule exclusively for optimizers.
In a group of mixed styles, it's on everyone to adapt and meet somewhere in the middle, and that includes the guy running through the traps to set them off.
|
His method of disabling traps is to just activate them and see what happens.
This is hilarious. I would love to play with him. I think that's where "Some groups like to mess around, some like to play seriously. Be conscious of these differences" comes into play. Like others have said, try to talk to him, but it may just be that what's fun for him (and possibly others) is not fun for you (and possibly others). If that's the case, those in the minority might want to look for another group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Next up, the Roleplayers' Code.
Followed by the Fun Players to Play With Code.
And then the Chipping In For Pizza When The Group Orders Pizza Code.
I dunno, man. To make a code makes it sound like optimizing is more inherently dangerous than not optimizing in a group full of reasonable, communicative people and that it somehow needs to be contained. Every group has its own dynamics and needs, and most people should and will do their best to accommodate that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Code?
When it stops being about the character and all about the build...
You have gone too far.
Unless you prefer the building and testing of said build to making of characters. In which case continue getting down with your bad self because this is a game and here for everyone's enjoyment, yours included!Code?
When it stops being about the character and all about the build...
You have gone too far.
What mean by that is...
If you come to a point where you have a choice between staying true to your character concept or optimizing and you choose to optimize you have probably taken it too far.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you prefer the building and testing of said build to making of characters. In which case continue getting down with your bad self because this is a game and here for everyone's enjoyment, yours included!Code?
When it stops being about the character and all about the build...
You have gone too far.What mean by that is...
If you come to a point where you have a choice between staying true to your character concept or optimizing and you choose to optimize you have probably taken it too far.
This seems a little silly to me. Optimizing is how you bring a concept to life; it doesn't mean going for the most power available in the game, it means taking an idea and trying to bring it to life with strong mechanics.
You're 'optimizing', at its most basic level, when you do things like place your highest ability score in your casting stat. Optimization can be about broad concepts ("Evoker," or "Greatsword user") but it can also be about narrow, flavorful ones ("Lyra Songheart, a sad-eyed bard who lost her first adventuring party and is terrified of losing her second") or even niche concepts ("Whip fighter"). Whatever you start with, if you try to execute it in a planned, potent fashion, you've optimized.
For me its simple. Have fun, everyone. If something I am doing takes away fun from one of my friends I am going to re-examine it. In general I've found enjoyment in optimizing character concepts that dont normally function as effectively. Like a natural weapon ranger in an E6 game, or I think my next character is going to be a goblin alchemy focused archer. That way my system master takes a relatively weak concept, and set it up to work effectively, rather then taking the most powerful ideas and making them dominant.
I also have a strong desire for character that can do lots of things. In general that helps because it means that not only is my character generally able to be involved, and fill in where needed, but when you spread things out its harder to over shadow any one person. Like playing a highly optimized bard, you might be good in combat, but you wont outshine the dedicated combat character.
I've never seen a problem with Optimizing. I see more problems with rolling stats and having most of party roll an equivalent of 15-20 point buy and one play getting 50 pt character. High stats amplify optimization. Then there are those people who as for specific GM permission to play with house rule, a 3rd party feat or play a home made race they designed from the ARG. Then they optimize those and it is a problem. If I see that then I toss the others a in the party a boon from the Gods to balance it wall out.
Apologies for the post, I think I'm dumping some recent aggravation here.
I think I need to adopt this code, but I'm not sure that I can. Maybe I'm too new to the game, or too focused on "winning". Maybe you guys, being optimizers yourselves, can help.
Here's my situation.
I take the game pretty seriously, like Diablo Hard Mode serious. You die, it's game over. I don't like the "If I die, I'll just make a new char" mentality. Nor the "the GM will give you a way to resurrect" deus ex machina way of playing. Neither one feels very heroic to me.
Half of the group I'm playing with does not share my inclinations. One in particular has a tendency to act out whenever he gets bored and make things "interesting". His method of disabling traps is to just activate them and see what happens. Now, most times, this won't kill him, or the party. I know that. But sometimes, it can be a TPK (and very nearly was, when we recently triggered a symbol of insanity trap although this particular blunder was due largely to poor rolling).
This attitude, combined with the fact that this player was responsible for two other player's characters (new players, his wife and friend) has left gaping holes in the "things a party should be able to do" list. Slowly, I started picking up additional roles in the party to the point that I'm doing way more than I should.
This, naturally, has caused some tension.
It kills me to "hold back". I don't like to fail at things. I want not only to succeed, but to send our enemies weeping to Hell. It just seems so stupid to do otherwise.
If he confined his pointless "zany" activities to things that only affected himself, I wouldn't have an issue. If he didn't argue with me every time I propose a smart solution to the problem (instead of ALWAYS kicking the door down and rushing in), I wouldn't have as much of a problem. If he didn't actively fight any attempt I make to follow through on such plans (let's pretend our ship is in trouble by making some smoke; okay, I light...
Not much you can do. Some people don't take the game seriously and play character do the strangest things and end up be very disruptive. I have friend like that. I just don't game with him very often. He just comes up with too much off the wall stuff. Like he's making a character based off batman. Not bad idea could be cool except he meant the campy 1960s batman. That just didn't fit the game at all.
|
|
My only code, that I designed right now to formalize why I will sometimes not use every RAW corner-case and loophole :
- Do not use a combo/loophole that you would not accept as a GM.
The only other limits are how much we can all (myself included) enjoy the game, but then that should go without saying for any player or GM, whatever his personal style.
Unless you prefer the building and testing of said build to making of characters. In which case continue getting down with your bad self because this is a game and here for everyone's enjoyment, yours included!Code?
When it stops being about the character and all about the build...
You have gone too far.What mean by that is...
If you come to a point where you have a choice between staying true to your character concept or optimizing and you choose to optimize you have probably taken it too far.This seems a little silly to me. Optimizing is how you bring a concept to life; it doesn't mean going for the most power available in the game, it means taking an idea and trying to bring it to life with strong mechanics.
You're 'optimizing', at its most basic level, when you do things like place your highest ability score in your casting stat. Optimization can be about broad concepts ("Evoker," or "Greatsword user") but it can also be about narrow, flavorful ones ("Lyra Songheart, a sad-eyed bard who lost her first adventuring party and is terrified of losing her second") or even niche concepts ("Whip fighter"). Whatever you start with, if you try to execute it in a planned, potent fashion, you've optimized.
I agree we all optimize to a point. But it is best to know when to stop.
When the Optimization gets to the point where you have a choice between staying with your concept or violating it and you choose to violate because it is "optimal" thing to do and now your character is not as fun to play...You have taken it too far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I came to this thread thinking that you were looking for Matlab or C code for optimizing DPR.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I came to this thread thinking that you were looking for Matlab or C code for optimizing DPR.
Same here, my friend.
Unless you prefer the building and testing of said build to making of characters. In which case continue getting down with your bad self because this is a game and here for everyone's enjoyment, yours included!Code?
When it stops being about the character and all about the build...
You have gone too far.What mean by that is...
If you come to a point where you have a choice between staying true to your character concept or optimizing and you choose to optimize you have probably taken it too far.This seems a little silly to me. Optimizing is how you bring a concept to life; it doesn't mean going for the most power available in the game, it means taking an idea and trying to bring it to life with strong mechanics.
You're 'optimizing', at its most basic level, when you do things like place your highest ability score in your casting stat. Optimization can be about broad concepts ("Evoker," or "Greatsword user") but it can also be about narrow, flavorful ones ("Lyra Songheart, a sad-eyed bard who lost her first adventuring party and is terrified of losing her second") or even niche concepts ("Whip fighter"). Whatever you start with, if you try to execute it in a planned, potent fashion, you've optimized.
I agree we all optimize to a point. But it is best to know when to stop.
When the Optimization gets to the point where you have a choice between staying with your concept or violating it and you choose to violate because it is "optimal" thing to do and now your character is not as fun to play...
You have taken it too far.
In my...one moment, I've gotta do some remembering here...
In my 15 years of roleplaying so far, this has never happened to me. Starting at the tail end of 2e, continuing through 3.5, side-swiping into White Wolf, Palladium, Shadowrun, & Legend, and now (sorta) in Pathfinder, this has yet to happen to me. Is this honestly a problem that's come up in your game? Like, I'm not trying to sound condescending here, I'm trying to understand where you're comin' from and what might've happened.
I self identify with optimizers, but I'm very much the problem player you are aggravated with.
...
One in particular has a tendency to act out whenever he gets bored and make things "interesting". His method of disabling traps is to just activate them and see what happens. Now, most times, this won't kill him, or the party. I know that. But sometimes, it can be a TPK (and very nearly was, when we recently triggered a symbol of insanity trap although this particular blunder was due largely to poor rolling).
...
It kills me to "hold back". I don't like to fail at things. I want not only to succeed, but to send our enemies weeping to Hell. It just seems so stupid to do otherwise.
...
If he confined his pointless "zany" activities to things that only affected himself, I wouldn't have an issue. If he didn't argue with me every time I propose a smart solution to the problem (instead of ALWAYS kicking the door down and rushing in), I wouldn't have as much of a problem. If he didn't actively fight any attempt I make to follow through on such plans (let's pretend our ship is in trouble by making some smoke; okay, I light...
I hacked your quote apart to hopefully respond to some specifics and build some empathy for the other party.
We have a campaign on indefinite hold right now (due to player / DM friction on many sides, we switched GM within the group and ran a different campaign... well that right there kinda destroys my credentials, but please if you do take this with a grain of salt, do at least consider it.)
In this group I'm playing a rogue with two levels of paladin, as a character (and to a degree a player) he thinks he is indestructible. He rarely sneaks only when the mission requires it, never out of consideration for his or groups well being, he would always rather kick in the front door and go toe to toe with the biggest baddest in the room (feint rogue). And it sure came across as willful stupidity. But there is a player motivation behind it:
- I would rather have three sloppy, fast encounters in a session than one perfectly executed work of tactical genius. -
I would get frustrated by all the planning and talk going into a CR or CR +1 encounter and would willfully do something to force things moving again. It does not need to be perfectly executed, a sloppy victory is fun and pushes the blessed by the fates character meme.
I hope this defends the willfully stupid player in the group and adds perspective from his angle. And now that I typed that out I realize I as a player failed at a previous posters "don't be a dick" rule, so I'm going to corner to cry a little and reassess my actions.
P.S. Rogue + Paladin saves! Of course I disarmed traps by triggering them! Twice as fast and practically the same risk!
I object to number four. Just because the group isn't into heavy optimization doesn't mean they are 'just messing around' or 'not playing seriously'. It might not be the style you like ... But that doesn't make it not seriously playing.So, a recent event has made me think of my own nature as an optimizer. Most of the time, I choose a random concept and roll with it. But I do tend to try to play wisely. I eliminate as many weaknesses as I can, and try to make the character as powerful as possible to survive. So, I thought it might be worth creating a sort of "optimizers code". For those times where you want to show the GM that you are aware of the inherent power of your character, and that you are able to adapt to a group that optimizes less than yourself. I've jotted down a few things that I think are important to remember (most of which I have seen mentionned on the board before) and I'm wondering if anybody has some other ideas.
1) We are all here to have fun. Take into account the fun of others (including the GM) while playing your character.
2) Favor scalable classes. Classes with activated abilities and spells can more easily choose to control their strength.
3) Be willing to accept compromise. Be open to limiting powers if the rest of the group.
4) If all else fails, find another group. Some groups like to mess around, some like to play seriously. Be conscious of these differences.Any ideas?
I guess it was more of a general statement that was clouded by the specific examples. But the general idea is "find a group that enjoys playing like you do".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find optimization problematic in that most optimized characters I have seen are very much one-trick ponies. This typically means that outside the classic combat scenes, they have little to add. They are also extremely dependent on the conditions of said fight - take away their adaptive spiked chain of heavy fortification or whatever, and they can do nothing - making doing so a serious problem to deal with when the player gets cranky. Finally, I find the default position of optimizers that outshine everyone else, that they should tone down their ultra-megadeath attacks and not use them - reserving them for the situations when the party needs saving, rather provocative. I find that a silly conclusion, akin to saying "I have to have a guarantee I can be the most powerful whenever I want to, or I won't play".
If you can make truly powerful characters, that gives you the option of taking even a silly or stupid concept and make it viable.
I am sure you guys don't agree with this, but it's how I see it.
If I had to make a single declarative statement to add to such a code:
Conceptualize first; Optimize second.
Case in point, my current gnome/sorcerer/monk character joined the party late, and was discovered in a "lock him up and throw away the key" dungeon cell. I built him at third level, and he was optimized to have survived 25 years in a 10 x 10 room with no outside intervention.
He can't hit hard, or sling a lot of magic, or take much damage, so he's built for mobility, rapidly dropping nasty conditions on badguys, and buffing the tall people. At 7th level now, I can count the number of foes he's actually killed on one hand, but he definitely pulls his weight in an encounter. Most importantly, he's fun to play, and doesn't regularly oustshine anybody.
I actually disagree with this. The power game can actually lead to some really interesting character ideas. For example, looking through the Cavalier beastrider rules, I realized that you can ride a cheetah. This got my wheels a-turning. The main weakness of the charging lance build is you are often in situations where you can not get to your enemies.
So I built as a human, and took the alternate race feature to add +2 to my cheetah's intelligence. Then I gave it unarmed strike and taught it dragon style so it could charge through difficult terrain. All remaining feats are used to increase speed. Once an hour, a cheetah can charge 10 times it's base speed. And low: it was the t#~~ (he clocked in over 96 miles per hour eventually; though if the charge was from standing still, that implied a much higher speed at incredible acceleration).
Then I built my character's history. He was a knight obsessed with speed and racing. Unsatisfied with horses he searched the world for a mount that could slake his need; his need for speed.
At last he found Chester, a mount worthy of his racing skill (I eventually was able to get Wheeling Charge so I could Tokyo Drift all over the g%~#$*n place). Together, the Knight and Chester searched the world for some foe that could escape their righteous speed and ways to grow ever faster.
You have titled this thread wrong. This is more of a guide to check yourself, for optimizers. Not an optimizers code at all
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Not everything needs to be stated explicitly in the rules; some things just are.
A human doesn't have a hundred and fifty-seven arms, even though the rules don't explicitly say that he doesn't. A character doesn't continue running around after he dies, even though the rules don't explicitly list any negative effects for death. If the designers spelled out every single thing explicitly...even the glaringly obvious...the core rulebooks would be larger than the Encyclopedia Brittannica, and would likely cost as much as a Ferrari.2. "The rules don't say I can't!" is not practical optimization.
The second commandment is like unto the first. There are many things that the rules don't explicitly say you can't do. The rules don't explicitly say you can't do the "I'm a Little Teapot" dance and instantly heal back to full starting hit points as a result. The rules don't explicitly say your first level character can't have a titanium-reinforced skeleton and cybernetic weaponry.This is because the rules are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do--not what you can't. An underlying assumption is that, apart from common-sense actions which anyone can perform, the system will tell you if a given character has a given ability.
3. RAW is a myth.
This is one of the dirty little secrets of the board. The Most Holy RAW is invoked continuously by those who want to give their arguments the veneer of officiality. The problem is, RAW is generally applied not as "The Rules as Written," but rather as "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." The RAITAYCPIWN. Not quite as catchy an acronym, granted, but that's what it boils down to.This game cannot be played without interpretation and the judicious application of common sense. Try to play the game strictly and exclusively by the rules as written, and you have an unplayable game.
Using "RAW" as a defense is similarly meaningless--particularly when your defense rests on interpretation. If you're going to claim that your build is RAW, you'd better be able to make sure that the rules specifically uphold your claim...not simply that they're sort of vague and COULD be interpreted in such a way as to not FORBID your claim.
This becomes particularly important when your claim is especially controversial.
Yes, builds should adhere to the rules as written. Yes, any exceptions to that should be noted. But the RAW as some sort of entity unto itself, capable of rendering a build immune to criticism, is not a useful construction, and causes more problems than it solves.
4. Common sense is not a bad thing.
The rules were designed to be read with common sense. Yes, common sense will vary from person to person, but there has to be some basic level at which we agree on core assumptions, or the game is meaningless.If we have one interpretation of the rules where two levels of a prestige class give you infinite caster level, and another interpretation where two levels of that same prestige class give you two caster levels, then common sense tells us that the latter interpretation is the correct one. If a character reaches negative ten hit points and dies, common sense tells us that he doesn't spring back to his feet and continue fighting unimpeded.
5. Intent matters.
I know, I know..."Blasphemy! No man may know the intent of the Most Holy Designers!"Except that, in some cases, we can. In some cases, the intent is glaringly, painfully obvious. In other cases, the intent has been clarified by various WotC sources, such as CustServ.
It makes sense to take these sources at their word, people. They work with the folks who design the game, they have access to them. If a conflict comes up, then it can be resolved, but I can't help but notice that for all the talk about how CustServ never gives the same answer twice, they've been remarkably consistent of late.
It's one thing to say "This rule is vaguely worded, and we don't know the intent." It's another thing to say, "The rule is vaguely worded, and therefore I can ignore the intent."
The first is sensible caution; the second is rules lawyering. When an ambiguity has been clarified, that should be the end of it.
6. Mistakes happen.
Everybody's human. You're human; I'm human; the folks at WotC are human. Sometimes, humans make mistakes.That shouldn't be seen as an opportunity to break the game.
Take the Vigilante from Complete Adventurer, for instance. Anyone out there seriously believe that his rather abrupt jump from 1 third level spell at level 6 to 20 at level 7 is NOT a mistake?
There are two ways to deal with a mistake like this: a sensible way, and a silly way.
The sensible way: "Hmm. There's a column for fourth level spells with no numbers in it, and a column for third level with numbers that can't be right in it. Clearly, this was a typesetting error, and the second digit in the third level spells column is supposed to be in the fourth level spells column."
The silly way: "Rules are rules! The rulebook says 20 third level spells at seventh level! If you do it any other way, you're houseruling! I'm gonna make some GREAT builds based on this rule!"
Basing a build on an obvious mistake isn't optimizing; it's silly.
7. Simple Is Good.
There are a LOT of WotC sourcebooks out there. I did a rough estimate on the value of my collection just of hardcover rulebooks; it cost more than my car.
Not everyone has that kind of cash to spend on this hobby. Not only that--a lot of people simply don't have the time to commit several thousand pages of rules, hundreds upon hundreds of prestige classes, and thousands of feats to memory.
So: builds which are simple are good. There's nothing WRONG with a build that incorporates eight different prestige classes from seven different sources, and then tosses in feats from five more...but that build is going to be useful only to the people who have those sources, whereas the Druid 20 build that doesn't go outside of Core is useful to everybody.
Sometimes, simplicity is worth more than raw power.
8. Tricking the DM is Bad.
We see a lot of "Help me trick my DM!" or "Help me make my DM cry!" requests on these boards. We see builds that are designed to look innocuous while at the same time being devastating to campaign balance. The idea is to lull the DM into allowing the character, then unleash its full power.Bad idea. Bad, BAD idea.
At all times, two things should be borne in mind about the DM. One: he's in charge. If you try to trick him, he's totally within his rights to toss your character or YOU out of the game. Two: he's your friend. Trying to deceive your friends is bad.
Be honest with your DM about what you want to do. If he says "No," deal with it. That's part of a DM's job. If you don't think he's going to say "Yes" to something, then trying to sneak it into the game on the sly is a sure way to make him mad.
9. Respect the parameters of the request.
This used to be a given, but people have been backsliding a lot lately. Someone comes on and says, "Hey, I'd like to play a Bard 4/Cleric 4. Can anyone help me optimize this? He immediately gets responses which boil down to, "Only an idiot would play that! You should be playing Pun-Pun, he's MUCH more powerful!" Sometimes they're more nicely phrased than this, other times they're not.The point is: people aren't offering him suggestions on how to make his character of choice better. They're telling him that he's "wrong" for playing that character, and that he should be playing a different character.
The same goes for threads in which the poster explains the DM's house rules and restrictions at the beginning of the thread. More often than not, if these restrictions amount to more than "No infinite power at first level," someone will respond with the oh-so-helpful suggestion "Your DM sucks. Quit his game and never talk to him again."
I only wish that were hyperbole. It's word-for-word from a thread a while back.
Optimization is about working within the rules to greatest effect. ANYONE can optimize in an environment with no restrictions. It takes skill to optimize where options are limited.
Threads like these should be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate that skill...not belittle the poster or the DM.
10. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
I remember bounding onto the boards many moons ago, shortly after the first release of the Persistent Spell feat, to declare that I had discovered (ta da!) the UNBEATABLE COMBO. Since Time Stop was a Personal effect spell, it could be Persisted!(Oooh, aaah!)
I couldn't imagine why nobody had thought of this before. Of course, as it turned out, LOTS of people had thought of this before. Within about five minutes, I was directed to a ruling that said, "You can't do it."
I was disappointed, sure...but I accepted it and moved on.
There are a LOT of folks here with a lot of knowledge of the rules. Some of 'em are a little scary. They love nothing better than to go over a new rulebook with a fine-toothed comb looking for hidden gems.
Sometimes, a genuinely overlooked concept will turn up. The recent builds using Sanctum Spell are a good example. The feat's been around for a while, but nobody really looked at what could be done with it.
More often, though, if a seeming "rules loophole" is being ignored by the boards, it's because it's been hashed out in the past and found not to work. Perhaps there's something elsewhere in the rules that nullifies it; perhaps there was a clarification. Very occasionally, there's simply a board-wide agreement that the rule is wrong...as with the recent FAQ claiming that Polymorph allowed the use of templated forms.
If it turns out that your discovery falls into this category, the best thing to do is accept it and move on. Maybe the next one won't.
So: there they are. Make of them what you will.
Of course I disarmed traps by triggering them! Twice as fast and practically the same risk!
You wouldn't think that if the trap was Tport naked into a cell. Or demagic everything you own. Or a vat of rust monster spit. Or simply save or die.
I mean, traps that just do damage are so unimaginative.