Is optimising characters actually suboptimal?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 359 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've noticed that there are a lot of threads discussing how to optimise a character. Many of these seem to focus on how to maximise one or two aspects for level 20 characters. I'm wondering whether doing this actually means the character is sub-optimal for the majority of their playing career.

Is a character following a design path for an optimal level 20 character actually suboptimal at level 15 compared to a character optimised for level 15? What about levels 5 and 10? Would a character actually be better for more of the game by picking a feat etc that was actually suboptimal in the long term but is a better choice through the middle of the game?


I'd imagine many builds will be less optimal before the point were they come "online", yes.

Dark Archive

Many highly optimized and fine tuned builds also require the perfect set of equipment. Unless you know a mage crafter though, this isn't always possible. Any build that requires having a highly specific array of feats, traits, and equipment can be kind of weak until the build starts coming together.

As an example, Xao Li Quin is a monk. His Str is low, but dex and wisdom are fairly high. At the moment, he's kind of meh. He doesn't deal high damage when he connects, or at least he didn't. Now that he's level 5 and has power attack though this will start to change. But at level 1 he had improved initiative and toughness (to make up for lower Con). He didn't get weapon finesse till level 3, so had trouble hitting things till then. So really, until level 5 the build didn't start to come together. And until I can get feats like vital strike it'll still not be a great build.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
I'd imagine many builds will be less optimal before the point were they come "online", yes.

Of course, most actual optimizers would say that a build needing a long time to come online is a sign that it's not quite optimal, or at least that it has a weakness one should consider carefully and try to find ways to address. Such as Kahel's example: a good optimizer would probably suggest putting more priority on power attack and weapon finesse if lagging damage is a major concern.

Simply put, someone only caring about how their build performs at level 20 with no consideration for performance at lower levels is usually a bad optimizer (Unless it's for something like a campaign that starts at level 20).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Of course, most actual optimizers would say that a build needing a long time to come online is a sign that it's not quite optimal, or at least that it has a weakness one should consider carefully and try to find ways to address

Yeah, generally you optimize a character so the are either online immediately or within two levels at most from the start of play.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Then again, not all builds can do that right away. Especially ones that suffer from MAD (Multiple Attribute Dependency) like monks. A monk NEEDS high wisdom and high dex or they have tissue paper defense. They need good con so they can survive getting in the face of those nasty enemies. Then need good Str so they can hurt said enemies too... It's a tricky class to build well.

Eventually Xao will (hopefully) have

20 Str
22 Dex
20 Con
11 (or 17) Int
24 Wis
7 (maybe 13) Cha

But that assumes a +6 Str/Dex/Con belt and a +6 wis (maybe int/wis/cha) headband. This is by no means assured though. In addition, idealized equipment would be a +8 bracer of armor, +5 ring of protection, and either +5 ghost touch amulet of mighty fist or a +5 amulet of natural armor. Still undecided on which I'd rather have, the extra AC or extra damage.

In the end, the build should be fairly strong. But low levels have been a little painful. Me, I prioritized weapon finesse over power attack. Why? Because if I can't hit the enemy, it doesn't matter how hard I could have hit them if the blow had connected.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

it's the difference between practical optimization and theorhetical or fun optimization.

Like, guides will often tell you how to optimize practically because it assumes your character will start at one and keep going.

But DPR threads only care about getting a big number so other aspects of the character get sacrificed in favor of that number.

Sometimes to make a build work you have to survive a suboptimal level or two. Like playing a Dex based melee character before slashing/fencing grace/dervish dance.

So a lot of practical optimization is about leveraging those earlier disadvantages into big returns later or reducing those disadvantages early on to ensure survival. Neither way is wrong. However suggesting living through 5+ crappy levels to get to some good ones is generally considered pretty awful.

Dark Archive

It was harder, but not crappy. Levels 1 and 2 though were the worst. +1 to attack (-1 when flurry was used) while only dealing 1d6+1 damage? Not that good. But I had enough AC (especially with mage armor) to avoid being hit all the time, in theory at least. And enough HP to probably survive the hits I'm going to take. I should finally start doing Flurry of Blows instead of Flurry of Misses.

Then again, levels 1-4 are always harsh as a monk no matter how you build it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Try doing it as an Investigator.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Investigator is a really good example of a class that's incredibly fun to play... When it all comes together at ~level 4. Most investigators I see at my table actually take a level in a different class to make the early levels more manageable, then retrain the dip away later on. One level of Inspired Blade swashbuckler is especially popular.

I actually had a chance to play a half-orc archer investigator when I filled in an open slot at a friend's level 9 RotRL game. To be honest, if I'd have played in that campaign from level 1 I would have picked a different character concept - investigators have zero bonus feats and pay a two-feat tax in order to use Studied Combat with bows, so for me playing an investigator archer from level 1 would have been excruciating.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
Is a character following a design path for an optimal level 20 character actually suboptimal at level 15 compared to a character optimised for level 15? What about levels 5 and 10?

By definition, at level 15, a character optimized for level 15 will be more optimized than a character not optimized for level 15, such as one that will be optimized for level 20, but is currently still 15. Same logic applies for levels 5 and 10.

Hugo Rune wrote:
Would a character actually be better for more of the game by picking a feat etc that was actually suboptimal in the long term but is a better choice through the middle of the game?

I think so. I'd also keep in mind that retraining feats / class feature choices is a thing. In case you're not using downtime rules, many classes have built-in retraining, including but not limited to Fighter's combat feats, Sorcerer's spell known choices, etc.

Dark Archive

On the other end of the spectrum, fighters and barbarians are really easy to optimize. And you can do so practically from level 1. They can become truly beastly combat monsters right out of the gate.

But what they gain in ability to chew through most encounters with ease, they make up for with low skill points and having the personality of an offensive rock. And you'd better hope they didn't ignore wisdom. :)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Neither Fighter or Barbarian have those problems anymore unless you choose to have those problems. You can easily make a fighter with 8 effective skill ranks a level with a 10 Int, 9 ranks if human. Both have options for good will saves. And personality of an offensive rock isn't necessarily a class thing.


Deighton Thrane wrote:
Neither Fighter or Barbarian have those problems anymore unless you choose to have those problems. You can easily make a fighter with 8 effective skill ranks a level with a 10 Int, 9 ranks if human. Both have options for good will saves. And personality of an offensive rock isn't necessarily a class thing.

I wouldn't describe that as "easy". Easy would be a ranger picking good archery feats. Effectively getting 6 extra ranks requires knowing your way around the system quite well (or following a guide).

I am also curious how this 10 int fighter looks across their first 5 levels (oh hey, I might have gotten the example I asked for).

Scarab Sages

I'm just going to echo what other posters have said: if a build struggles to be effective at any point, it probably isn't worth playing. I don't want to wait X levels to play an effective character: I want to play it NOW.

That having been said, optimization planning isn't a bad thing. You just have to factor in the in-between stuff.

Dark Archive

Deighton Thrane wrote:
Neither Fighter or Barbarian have those problems anymore unless you choose to have those problems. You can easily make a fighter with 8 effective skill ranks a level with a 10 Int, 9 ranks if human. Both have options for good will saves. And personality of an offensive rock isn't necessarily a class thing.

No, but many fighters and barbarians have a 7 (or lower due to racial adjustment) Charisma score. :)

Liberty's Edge

Snowblind wrote:
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Neither Fighter or Barbarian have those problems anymore unless you choose to have those problems. You can easily make a fighter with 8 effective skill ranks a level with a 10 Int, 9 ranks if human. Both have options for good will saves. And personality of an offensive rock isn't necessarily a class thing.

I wouldn't describe that as "easy". Easy would be a ranger picking good archery feats. Effectively getting 6 extra ranks requires knowing your way around the system quite well (or following a guide).

I am also curious how this 10 int fighter looks across their first 5 levels (oh hey, I might have gotten the example I asked for).

I don't know what kind of build you're looking for, but the bones of it are: take lore warden, take advanced weapon training at level 5 and either 9 or 10, depending on whether you want a second weapon training or an extra feat. For added fun, instead take a level of brawler to pick up advanced weapon training for whatever bonus is handy at the time for a move action.

Also, I have a monk with a charisma of 5, who's one of the most fun characters I'm playing right now. Just because they're not great at influencing other people doesn't mean they can't have a personality or be fun to play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:

Investigator is a really good example of a class that's incredibly fun to play... When it all comes together at ~level 4. Most investigators I see at my table actually take a level in a different class to make the early levels more manageable, then retrain the dip away later on. One level of Inspired Blade swashbuckler is especially popular.

I actually had a chance to play a half-orc archer investigator when I filled in an open slot at a friend's level 9 RotRL game. To be honest, if I'd have played in that campaign from level 1 I would have picked a different character concept - investigators have zero bonus feats and pay a two-feat tax in order to use Studied Combat with bows, so for me playing an investigator archer from level 1 would have been excruciating.

Investigator's a great example of dip-phobic class design. A lot of their vital class features get bumped back way too far, lest the class look too good for dipping.

Dark Archive

Timothy Kynoch wrote:

Also, I have a monk with a charisma of 5, who's one of the most fun characters I'm playing right now. Just because they're not great at influencing other people doesn't mean they can't have a personality or be fun to play.

I know, I played a 2nd edition AD&D barbarian with a int, wis, and cha of 3. I rolled really bad that day for them. He was so much fun to play. And I didn't say "personality of a rock", I said "personality of an OFFENSIVE rock". Why does this person rub people the wrong way? that's half the fun of playing such a character. When I RP Xao he often comes across as rather passive. His Cha is 7 after all. But he makes insightful comments regularly. They just tend to not get noticed. Which he philosophically notes and thinks "oh well, I tried".

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In a game of infinite possibilities, there is no such thing as "optimal."


Timothy Kynoch wrote:
I don't know what kind of build you're looking for, but the bones of it are: take lore warden, take advanced weapon training at level 5 and either 9 or 10, depending on whether you want a second weapon training or an extra feat. For added fun, instead take a level of brawler to pick up advanced weapon training for whatever bonus is handy at the time for a move action.

I know my players wouldn't ever come up with that, especially since none of them by golarion products.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Kudaku wrote:

Investigator is a really good example of a class that's incredibly fun to play... When it all comes together at ~level 4. Most investigators I see at my table actually take a level in a different class to make the early levels more manageable, then retrain the dip away later on. One level of Inspired Blade swashbuckler is especially popular.

I actually had a chance to play a half-orc archer investigator when I filled in an open slot at a friend's level 9 RotRL game. To be honest, if I'd have played in that campaign from level 1 I would have picked a different character concept - investigators have zero bonus feats and pay a two-feat tax in order to use Studied Combat with bows, so for me playing an investigator archer from level 1 would have been excruciating.

Investigator's a great example of dip-phobic class design. A lot of their vital class features get bumped back way too far, lest the class look too good for dipping.

That said. Toughing it out with an INT based build is terrifyingly effective as I suspected and recently confirmed.

Loads of synergy when you have a very large pool of inspiration, skill points, and ways to extend/enhance potions.


Kahel Stormbender wrote:
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Neither Fighter or Barbarian have those problems anymore unless you choose to have those problems. You can easily make a fighter with 8 effective skill ranks a level with a 10 Int, 9 ranks if human. Both have options for good will saves. And personality of an offensive rock isn't necessarily a class thing.
No, but many fighters and barbarians have a 7 (or lower due to racial adjustment) Charisma score. :)

If my fighter has a 7 charisma that's because her intelligence is high and I have clever wordplay as a trait.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
In a game of infinite possibilities, there is no such thing as "optimal."

Infinite possibilities, parsed down to a finite set of challenges: ACs to hit, saving throws to make, Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate checks to make, traps to spot and deal with, barriers to overcome with Climb or Fly, etc. There are different definitions of optimal depending on context, but "there is no such thing as optimal" is simply false.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I'm having more fun playing my Charisma 8 barbarian less as 'grunt kill smash' and more as a confused teenager who's still trying to sort out who and what she is in the world, especially after having done what modern folk call the teen rebellion thing and taken up a different line of work than expected.

Still, as far as optimising? The original poster cited focusing on 'how to maximise one or two aspects'. That's actually par for the course; even fighters and barbarians have aspects they can favour, and emphasise (is your fighter a whirling two-weapon death machine or Raine of Arrows? Is the barbarian two-handing a greatsword through everyone's face, or going beast mode and beast totem to rip people apart?). Of course, some of these can 'peak' at different times.

This might be what the OP's asking about. The naturally-attacking barbarian is giving up a few things for a feature that can peak early, then be overshadowed by other options. Or the reverse. It's ... a decision one has to make, I suppose.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally am a concept gamer. Kind of like a power gamer, but I don't play to be the best or save the day, but to have a particular fighting style that I find fun. Sometimes, I end up waiting 6ish.levels to really play what I want, but that's what makes playing that awesome character so much sweeter.

Of course, character deaths and retraining kind of solve the issue.


Not all builds go all the way up, either. Sometimes, there is very little to add, and the build stagnates.

I had a druid 8/Unbreakable ftr 3/stalwart defender build focused on being a huge earth elemental through feat-boosted wildshape, with wild stone plate, cave domain for tremorsense, a huge dorn-dergar for close and reach smashage, improved by cleave etc etc etc. In short, this guy was hilarious to play and could lock down a huge area of the battlefield, earth glide anywhere, and cast a few piddly spells. At 12, when I started him, he was great. At 16, when the campaign ended, he was dealing only mediocre damage. There wasn't much that really could take the concept further.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Optimize: make the best <whatever> you can.

Optimizing to do damage is possible, and a really dumb idea (in general). It neglects defense, out of combat contributions, and everything else.

Optimizing for general adventuring is super useful and helps make well-rounded characters. This is actually what people are probably referring to when they say optimization, the really ridiculous builds that sacrifice everything are generally called "theoretical optimization" because it's understood that they're, well, not practical.

Optimizing for the game you're playing in is even better as you can focus on the specific challenges you expect to face and build the best person to do them you can.

Now, these usually come with some mitigating factor like "...who is a bard" or "...who is a gnome" or "...has no spells" or whatever, and that's fine, that's also part of optimizing.

If the build doesn't come online until 15th level and you're starting at 1st, it's actually poorly optimized unless you plan on spending most of your game time at level 15+. Well, unless the thing it does at 15th is so amazing it makes up for the first 14 levels of not doing it, but short of Pun-Pun I can't think of any.

As for the specific question, a build planning on 20 levels could quite easily be worse off at level 10 than a build that only plans for up to level 10. The level 10 build is done, the level 20 is still building and may have put off some feats until later levels. The example I always use here is Strength Surge. If you're going the Spell Sunder/Greater Beast Totem route your Rage Powers are fairly locked in. In addition, at low levels you really don't need Strength Surge (CMB is still good, the bonus is very small). I think I put it off until level 8. A build that never plans on hitting level 6 probably doesn't care about Beast Totem and can't get Spell Sunder so has a lot more flexibility in both Rage Powers and feat choices (instead of taking Extra Rage Power repeatedly). So yes, some builds are optimized to work better at certain levels. They probably sacrifice long-term growth to do so, or possibly take options that are more effective at low levels but no longer give as much benefit at higher levels as other options.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Optimizing for general adventuring is super useful and helps make well-rounded characters. This is actually what people are probably referring to when they say optimization, the really ridiculous builds that sacrifice everything are generally called "theoretical optimization" because it's understood that they're, well, not practical.

Be my valentine! :D

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or in other words... Take away Hal Jorden's ring and he's rather helpless. Take away Batman's utility belt and gadgets, and he's still the freaking Batman. Hell, take away his ability to walk... and he's STILL the freaking Batman, he's going to kick your butt.


I'd imagine many builds will be less optimal before the point were they come "online"
Depending on how you build your character that is the case. I have a Barbarian/fighter who at the first few levels he was okay. But in his case I knew he wouldn't be hitting his stride until about seventh. He really won't be awesome until like tenth. Right now he's 8th level and really starting to do what I meant him to do. With two levels of a Prestige class he will be even better.
Some classes give you the best abilities at low levels some at much higher levels. If you build a character knowing this and expect some weakness until higher levels then optimizing your character isn't bad.
Something I've been seeing in most cases on these threads is people complaining about their characters being so sucky at low levels since most seem to start with a higher level character in most cases. News flash low level sucks. Had a player who hated low level. The minimum level he wanted to start at was 5th preferring 7th. At those levels you start to see your character start to get powerful. Spells and abilities in between those levels for most classes get impressive. Me I like low level mostly as a GM since high level adventures even modules require a lot of work. As a player I don't mind too much. I wouldn't want to play at low level forever using the slow progression though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Derek Dalton wrote:
News flash low level sucks. Had a player who hated low level. The minimum level he wanted to start at was 5th preferring 7th. At those levels you start to see your character start to get powerful. Spells and abilities in between those levels for most classes get impressive.

I didn't realize that it was a controversial statement that Pathfinder, like every other D&D clone out there, had a "golden zone" where most people enjoy playing the most. Common wisdom puts it (for 3.5/3.P) roughly from 6-10th level. Third level spells become available, which are the first really interesting problem-solving spells and also the first really impressive combat spells, martial types get their second attack, which roughly doubles their combat effectiveness, and you are starting to get enough choices (including prestige classes) to customize your character instead of playing a two-handed fighter like every other.

This is also where many of the iconic abilities appear, such as a druid's wild shape, a wizard's improved familiar, and so forth. One of the deliberate decisions made in the design of 4.0 was to try to expand the golden zone, so that people could arrive there more quickly but also stay there longer without becoming game-breakingly powerful.

But this has little to do with character optimization and more to do with game design. Almost any fifth level cleric is more powerful and versatile (and hence more fun) than a first level cleric -- almost any fifth level cleric is less confusing (and hence more fun) than a 17th level one, unless you have a tremendous amount of system mastery.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:


Optimizing for the game you're playing in is even better as you can focus on the specific challenges you expect to face and build the best person to do them you can.

I feel this all too much.

I have a Psychic Detective archetype Investigator currently running through Mummy's Mask who's optimized for making those knowledge checks.
With some lucky rolls and a few "trap" feats, I was breaking DC 35 Knowledge(History) rolls at level 1.
He's a blast to play, and I can see him doing what I need him to do for as long as he survives (which barring TPK seems like the better part of the campaign).


optimizing is kinda waste of time.

if you make your character OP your gm has to waste time trying to challenge him instead to prepare his story.

if you are more optimized than the rest of the party, they will kick you out.

Dark Archive

And if the entire party is overly optimized... Well, that's actually kind of detrimental to the campaign IMO. The GM has to work extra hard to challenge the players. And published adventures become a snooze fest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
In a game of infinite possibilities, there is no such thing as "optimal."

For me, optimal means a character that can be effective and successful across a wide array of scenarios.

Not the highest possible DPR, but can still kill.

Not the highest possible social skills, but not afraid of attending a formal gala.

Has a decent chance of finding/disabling traps.

Can usually identify whatever he is fighting.

Has magic, does not have to rely on it.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
And if the entire party is overly optimized... Well, that's actually kind of detrimental to the campaign IMO. The GM has to work extra hard to challenge the players. And published adventures become a snooze fest.

God forbid a GM has to work to challenge my group when we're utilizing our best tools rather than our worst.

Not like I want to actually think and pay attention to the fight or anything. Or want my GM to up his game and give us smarter, tougher enemies that feel threatening.

Dark Archive

You have any idea how hard it is to create adventures that can challenge a party composed entirely of min/maxed power gamers? Especially in mid to late levels? There's only so many times you can throw dragons and demon lords at the party. And not every encounter can be a greater fiend. Nor will most power gamers be content to do the whole court intrigue thing more then once in a great while.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
You have any idea how hard it is to create adventures that can challenge a party composed entirely of min/maxed power gamers? Especially in mid to late levels? There's only so many times you can throw dragons and demon lords at the party. And not every encounter can be a greater fiend. Nor will most power gamers be content to do the whole court intrigue thing more then once in a great while.

No dragons and demon lords are required. Just good encounter design and picking your monsters for more than just big numbers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
You have any idea how hard it is to create adventures that can challenge a party composed entirely of min/maxed power gamers? Especially in mid to late levels? There's only so many times you can throw dragons and demon lords at the party. And not every encounter can be a greater fiend. Nor will most power gamers be content to do the whole court intrigue thing more then once in a great while.

Add class levels where appropriate.

And I don't just mean fighter/caster. Adding a couple levels of bard/skald to a minion changes the entire encounter.

Imps with kineticist levels are hilarious :p

Dark Archive

None of which actually matters when the entire party can reliably splatter anything without at least 150 HP in a round or two, without using up any significant resources. Each.

Which is why IMO an entire party of min-maxers is actually detrimental. It reduces what options the GM has to actually challenge the party. I've seen one party that due to everyone being a power gamer, by level 15 they had a decent chance at taking on a tarrask... and winning. If the only thing that can challenge the party as an apocalyptic event, maybe the characters need to be retired.

And no, it wasn't a monty haul campaign.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
None of which actually matters when the entire party can reliably splatter anything without at least 150 HP in a round or two, without using up any significant resources.

If you think the best way to neutralize monsters is via hit point attrition, that reflects more about you as a tactician than about the game. And the same applies the other way -- a well-played set of monsters doesn't simply do a toe-to-toe slugfest with the opposition.

Google for "Tucker's kobolds" if you want to see a famous example of how to challenge the party.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:

None of which actually matters when the entire party can reliably splatter anything without at least 150 HP in a round or two, without using up any significant resources. Each.

Which is why IMO an entire party of min-maxers is actually detrimental. It reduces what options the GM has to actually challenge the party. I've seen one party that due to everyone being a power gamer, by level 15 they had a decent chance at taking on a tarrask... and winning. If the only thing that can challenge the party as an apocalyptic event, maybe the characters need to be retired.

And no, it wasn't a monty haul campaign.

I DM for groups like this all the time. Heck, I regularly run GESTALT optimizing groups.

Your tears are delicious.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, from an actual practical optimization perspective, the builds referred to in the OP aren't optimized unless the game is starting at 20th level (or perilously close, like 19th or something).

TarkXT wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Investigator's a great example of dip-phobic class design. A lot of their vital class features get bumped back way too far, lest the class look too good for dipping.

That said. Toughing it out with an INT based build is terrifyingly effective as I suspected and recently confirmed.

Loads of synergy when you have a very large pool of inspiration, skill points, and ways to extend/enhance potions.

Just for the record, Str-based (and by that I mean Str at 16+, regardless of Int score) melee Investigators are fine from level 1. They don't really start to sing at combat until level 3-4, but they do fine (ie: as well as anybody but Barbarians and Bloodragers...nobody else has huge combat bonuses at levels 1-2).

Dex-based Investigators definitely have some issues early on barring dipping or the like, though. And Archery Investigators are hurting for a bit there (not actually at super low levels, if human...levels 3-6 are the basic problem).

Kahel Stormbender wrote:

None of which actually matters when the entire party can reliably splatter anything without at least 150 HP in a round or two, without using up any significant resources. Each.

Which is why IMO an entire party of min-maxers is actually detrimental. It reduces what options the GM has to actually challenge the party. I've seen one party that due to everyone being a power gamer, by level 15 they had a decent chance at taking on a tarrask... and winning. If the only thing that can challenge the party as an apocalyptic event, maybe the characters need to be retired.

And no, it wasn't a monty haul campaign.

Eh. My group are debatably at this level of optimization [there's a TWF guy with kukris and Butterfly Sting, all melee characters have Outflank and mostly x3 crit weapons or more (there's a Magus with a light pick), and the TWF guy has a Menacing weapon...it gets ugly, and that doesn't get into the Arcanist or the Archer Bard]. They're currently level 14 and tend to wreck a lot of stuff, especially anything that fights in melee. There's also 5 of them, plus 4 cohorts at the moment (two of which are former PCs...we've lost some players to real life).

I almost killed them all last session. In an AP. With almost no changes to, well, anything (okay, it was CotCT so I updated it to Pathfinder)...they just alerted people to their presence and wound up fighting 3 (actually 5 due to their inherent summoning) Barbed Devils (who all used Order's Hammer on them), and then not getting to rest/heal before fighting an Evoker.

And that's an encounter I barely changed from the published one. My personally designed encounters are much scarier.

Challenging optimized characters is only a problem if you, the GM, are worse at optimizing and/or tactics than your players are.


Davor wrote:

I DM for groups like this all the time. Heck, I regularly run GESTALT optimizing groups.

Your tears are delicious.

Well, he puts effort into GMing and especially into challenging his party, so I don't see any reason for sarcasm.

If you can run those high-powered games well, that's good for both your players and you. But some GMs have trouble with such a playstyle - I will include myself here. Hence they are sceptical or even prohibitive when it comes to optimization.

So I'd answer the initial question the following way: From GM perspective, optimised PCs can be suboptimal. It widens the gaps between the PCs, it needs more preparation and it can escalate into unwanted TPKs more easily. And what does the group get for it? The satisfication from beating strong challenges early on - sure. But what else?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
None of which actually matters when the entire party can reliably splatter anything without at least 150 HP in a round or two, without using up any significant resources.

If you think the best way to neutralize monsters is via hit point attrition, that reflects more about you as a tactician than about the game. And the same applies the other way -- a well-played set of monsters doesn't simply do a toe-to-toe slugfest with the opposition.

Google for "Tucker's kobolds" if you want to see a famous example of how to challenge the party.

Basically speaking.

150 damage a round is only as meaningful as the character's capacity to actually get to that point. Charging barbarian's are scary up until they meet someone who doesn't allow them to charge or get close. Flying wizards seem impossible until they're crawling around in 3ft. high tunnels trying to fight off fiendish giant ants.

First thing to understand at the point where your players are building straight forward excellent characters is that CR is merely a guideline. The second thign to realize is that big numbers only matter in your capacity to use them and lots of little numbers add up.

Often the most dangerous thing to a high level character is a bunch of low level critters with a hard to impossible to defend against ability.


I'm an older gamer as is most of my group. We minmaxed and optimized our characters because in 1st Ed you had to. 1st ed and even 2nd ed the game was stacked against the players. The game broke the rules for the GM while it piled on stupid rules for PCs.
Pathfinder is easier but old habits die hard. As a GM I've had to struggle against specialized minmaxed characters. I have learned a few tricks to this making it easier the more I run. I have no issue to optimizing my character since everyone I know does this. For us it doesn't make our characters any more powerful then anyone else. It's not the character that is the issue even. It's the power gamers who want to be the best. These are the players that regardless of what they play are going to dominate almost every aspect of it. Even in a social situation where his character sucks at he is going to be the face man because he wants to be in charge. Some don't realize this and need to be told. Others know this and don't care. Their attitude is I've created my character and I don't care what you do because I'm the star of this adventure don't forget that.

Dark Archive

And that's even assuming the first tool in the bag the party reaches for isn't "Chaaaarge and slay" by default. You can have the most interesting encounter planned out in the world. One where it's going to require dancing skill checks, musical capability, acrobatics, and generally be a fun and novel way to defeat the threat. But if the party's only tactic is to behead everything with their 70 points of average damage per swing, it was all for naught.

And when the group keeps turning court intrigue adventures into "Behead the noble who annoys me and every royal guard, town guard, and sheriff that tries to apprehend me" adventures... Well, you stop trying such adventures.

I actually like it when I get players who favor roleplay over rollplay. Sure, they may not have the most optimized characters. There may not be any combat monsters or skill monsters. But they're easier to challenge, and actually engage in role playing. Thus telling a story greater then "you see monsters, you cut monsters into itty bitty chunks" becomes possible.


TarkXT wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
And if the entire party is overly optimized... Well, that's actually kind of detrimental to the campaign IMO. The GM has to work extra hard to challenge the players. And published adventures become a snooze fest.

God forbid a GM has to work to challenge my group when we're utilizing our best tools rather than our worst.

Not like I want to actually think and pay attention to the fight or anything. Or want my GM to up his game and give us smarter, tougher enemies that feel threatening.

The interesting thing about having an entire party of highly optimized combat characters is that combat actually becomes more deadly for the characters. Honestly, anything that makes combat more deadly is worse for the players because their characters will see so many combats in their playing career.

1 to 50 of 359 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is optimising characters actually suboptimal? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.