| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone does to a degree, otherwise you'd see more wizards with 7 int I'd imagine.
Can you define optimization a little more clearly?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using mechanics to get versatility is also a way of optimizing. So is specialization. The point of optimizing is to be good at whatever goal you set for the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every fighter who puts his highest stat in a physical attribute is optimizing. Every wizard who has a high intelligence is optimizing. Heck, everyone who plays something that isn't either a commoner or a randomly determined character is optimizing.
There is nothing wrong with optimizing.
Or to paraphrase the old joke/statement: "We have established what you are, gamer. We are now merely haggling over the term."
For most games, yes. But to address what you are saying, being familiar with your GM's style is also a factor in optimization.
I think the OP is talking about hyper-optimization, which is largely theorycrafting and rarely occurs IRL table-top games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mathematically speaking, yes. There is always some degree of "optimization" that occurs. For instance, say you're playing a two-handed paladin wearing a full plate. You decide that you will not raise your dexterity higher than 12 because the only thing that 14 dex will give you is a bonus to some dex-based skills that you're not even interested in. Therefore, putting points into something other than Dex is optimizing your character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anything really exist?All we are is dust in the wind.
All we are is ink on a paper sheet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the OP is talking about hyper-optimization, which is largely theorycrafting and rarely occurs IRL table-top games.
I'd call it "min-maxing" because I think using the word optimization just continues to confuse the issue. An optimized character works in real play, a min-maxed one does not. The optimized character is designed to have the flexibility to handle most situations (or as many as can be expected from the class, an optimized Wizard is going to be able to handle a wider variety of situations than an optimized Fighter) while the min-maxed character is more just a math game in order to pump one ability into astronomical heights at the expense of everything else.
Min-maxing can be an interesting experiment for people who are into that sort of thing, but I think most people who have the level of system mastery required to do it will also know that such a character isn't applicable in real play. The character sheet itself is the game, not Pathfinder. The people who believe these characters work are the ones reading the threads, not posting them. Which is a separate issue involving how the internet has allowed people to obtain information much quicker than they can learn how to use it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually the term min/maxing comes from "minimizing waste / maximizing effect". It is by its very nature optimization. It doesn't mean wrecking yourself and being a one-trick pony, it means getting the most out of the mechanical side of your character.
For example, most of us "optimizers" agree that you get bad diminishing returns on ability scores for pushing them too high. As a result, it is exceedingly rare that I bother buying an 18 in an ability score when a 16 will do just fine. Then I can drop those points that I would have spent into something else to improve my character at a better return. That is, in itself, a form of min/maxing / optimization.
As an optimizer, I recognize that what that 18 would have cost me, +1 Hp / level, +1 fortitude, +1 AC, +1 Reflex, +1 Initiative, +1 Will saves, and some +1s scattered about over skills is going to do more for me than +1 to my saving throw DCs. Why? Because Pathfinder is the Old Testament.
Most of the "optimizers" on these boards aren't generally ones pushing one-trick ponies, because one-trick ponies don't work. They're not optimal. Instead, you're more likely to see us talking about well-rounded defenses, obtaining solid offense without making yourself a glass cannon, and discussing various aspects of the whole game outside of combat.
I mean, even if I could get 50% more DPR from a Fighter than another core martial (AFAIK the gap is no where near that big), I'd still end up picking Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin, because having one trick is a recipe for savage and merciless FAILURE in this game, and those other classes are all much more well-rounded and equipped, even if they are missing a couple of +1s in some cases.
Ah, woops. Misunderstood the terminology.
I suppose there just isn't a word for the strawman that some people refer to as optimization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, woops. Misunderstood the terminology.
I suppose there just isn't a word for the strawman that some people refer to as optimization.
You know...that's entirely true. I think that's why it keeps getting confused. We need a word that legitimately describes the act of pushing a single super-powerful wonky aspect that results in a one-trick poney.
Munchkining...usually indicates a cheater or someone who pulls the ol' "but it doesn't say I can't" nonsense.
Min/Maxing...usually an early-term for optimization, though it generally is associated most closely with ability scores, as most of the optimization in oldschool games occurred at the ability score generation, where min/maxing meant arranging your scores in the most efficient ways possible, which often drew attention to how useless a lot of those scores were in old versions of D&D.
Optimization...kind of an evolution of min/maxing. Functionally the same for the most part, it revolves around getting the most out of your goals. While min/maxing doesn't assuredly revolve solely around numbers that was what it generally centered around. Optimization on the other hand is more general, as one can optimize most any aspect of their characters, even if those aspects aren't strictly numerical. For example, everything from wisely picking ability scores to deciding what potions or mundane gear to purchase, to what spells to select, can be a form of optimization. It's more of an overall goal of seeking efficiency in what you're going for.
Theoretical Building/Optimization...the force that gave us Pun Pun, theoretical optimization is a game unto itself and revolves around approaching the system as a puzzle, where you acquire a goal such as "what's the largest amount of healing that can be done under these conditions", or "how much damage can I get a character of X class to do", etc. In general theoretical optimization is good as a learning exercise and for seeing how far you can go with the system. However, theoretical optimization is generally not intended for actual play and shouldn't be considered as such (IE - pun pun, hulking hurler stuff, ELH Diplomancy, the masterwork psionic sandwich, etc).
I think theoretical optimization might be where some people are getting some of this stuff from, because people that they know don't understand that while Pun Pun (or some other crazy theoretical build) is do-able in the rules, such things aren't even intended to be played by the people that conceived them. In many cases such characters are actually really bad in a real game.
For example, if we wanted to see how high we could get a Paladin's DPR at 20th level from a theoretical perspective, we might devote all of her WBL to pushing offense as hard as possible, all of her feats, all of her ability scores, and her spells, against an evil creature of the correct type. With all the right conditions met, you might be able to get a DPR measured in the hundreds or even thousands, but the character would be pretty lousy in an actual game, where a well-rounded Paladin is more likely to survive and do well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, woops. Misunderstood the terminology.
I suppose there just isn't a word for the strawman that some people refer to as optimization.
I prefer the term "crippling overspecialization"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
or this
Optimization does not equal maximized DPR. Optimization is the act of building to meet a goal, and using the correct tools to accomplish this. The statement should generally hold true if you aren't trying to pidgeonhole players into thinking in only one form.
I'm not saying optimization is a requirement to a successful character, but optimization is a tool in helping you to "mechanically successfully match your character concept with your role playing character concept". Whatever that means ;)
This, so much this:
Actually the term min/maxing comes from "minimizing waste / maximizing effect". It is by its very nature optimization. It doesn't mean wrecking yourself and being a one-trick pony, it means getting the most out of the mechanical side of your character.
For example, most of us "optimizers" agree that you get bad diminishing returns on ability scores for pushing them too high. As a result, it is exceedingly rare that I bother buying an 18 in an ability score when a 16 will do just fine. Then I can drop those points that I would have spent into something else to improve my character at a better return. That is, in itself, a form of min/maxing / optimization.
The reason I asked the question is I am beginning to wonder whether, unless you consciously design a 'bad' character, are not most characters playable to some degree? You can have a 'sub-optimal' archetype or class and a 'sub-optimal' stat array and as long as that is within the relative 'challenge range' of the game it's all actually playable.
A commoner is playable, depending on your game of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that would add to his legacy a bit.
1. Have the first 3PP D&D supplement ever.
2. Ruin skills for every class other than thief for a couple of decades.
3. Have a gamer subtype named after him.
That's more RPG cred than my hero Tempest Stormwind (god I miss him).
Optimization: Selecting the mechanically best options for your character. Almost all character engage in optimization to some extent.
Min Maxing: a form of optimization where you minimize your investment in aspects of the character that don't help you in order to maximize your investment in those that don't. example: dumping charisma on a fighter for more points to put into strength.
Everyone engages in the first two to some extent.
Munchkining: Using the unclear rules, especially the weaker interpretation of a rule, for its mechanical advantage.
To me what he's probably asking are the ridiculous "builds" people post on these boards as legitimate characters. You see them post all the time. It's the same ones that use this "tier" system, call rogues useless, and wizards as the ultimate class.
The ones that will say taking such and such a class is stupid and ridiculous and such.
You see it on these boards constantly (heck, there's several threads up already discussing how useful or useless martials are compared to casters and whether rogues are useful or not...with "optimization" in them).
It's this kind of optimization focus to the exclusion of everything else thing that I think he's asking about.
And yes, though there are VERY few in real life (the only one I met that way made the worst PC ever...not because the PC was bad at something, but because the player picked fights with others and was disruptive to the game) I think that actually play that way. Whether they play well or not...who knows...I haven't actually run into enough to say anything else except there are those who think and try to play that way.
There may be groups in the world where if you don't focus solely on optimization...you are considered a bad player. I have no idea, but I have met one or two that focus on this type of play.
It's not the type that I PREFER to play though...but they do exist.
optimisationspecialisationWell, which are you talking about? They're not the same thing. That's probably why you're confused.
The do correlate a fair bit though. For example, the ability to use two weapons equally well is not twice as powerful as the ability to use one weapon, and there are some pretty steep diminishing returns after that.
I find it best to think of optimization as a skill not a title. Everyone does optimization some are clearly better than others. So that when you talk about an "optimizer" your actually just talking about someone who enjoys the numbers side of the game... it doesn't mean they will make specialized or even effective characters. Just that they will have fun building around the numbers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Example of optimization
Hey, I want a lore warden/alchemist with a lot of skill points. I'll up my intelligence from 12 to 13 and take fast learner, that gets me more skill points on some levels. OR...
You take toughness and put the favored class bonus into skill points: same effect, and you don't lose the hit point when you multiclass, and don't need the odd level stat to make the pre requisite. All for the cost of... nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ask this because I'm not convinced it does beyond the page. In actual game-play every character has a weakness and diverse game challenges will expose these. Therefore over-specialisation could even be viewed as a weakness in itself.
If the thought of this intrigues you, I'd welcome your thoughts, even if you disagree (that's because I'm demonstrating behavioural flexibility...)
Optimization always means "optimized toward a specific purpose." In general, I view hyper-specialized characters as very flawed, and not well optimized for general play.