True,
but in a class based system where so many powers are based upon class advancement over character advancement taking a level dip can hurt a character more then it helps.
for example my Magus (Kensai/Bladebound) has one level of Samurai (Sword Saint)
I can not improve ANY aspect of my samurai level though feats I must take a class level, and even then until 3rd level the gains are minimal and truly inferior to taking 2 levels in Magus.
I did because I wanted my character to be a magic based Samurai...
now if this was a class-less talent based game I would be able to use a feat or two to improve my samurai abilities and not take such a huge hit to my Magus abilities.
5.) DM creates the characters and allows the players to play them. As the characters level, the DM makes the choices on what feats they take.
5) That plain sucks and does little for Optimization: they will just optimized with the character through gear.
Not true. One of the coolest characters I ever played was in a campaign where the GM created all characters. It was very low-op Shadowrun. Instead of the standard super-optimized band of professional Shadowrunners, we were a group of nobodies living in a neighbourhood where a central figure was organizing some people to deal with some trouble.
My character was an English earl (who loved car racing and was cybered for that) who, during a visit to Seattle got mugged and lost his ID. He was unable to get home, unable to prove who he was. And everybody thought that he was just some stim-sense junkie who got so deep into the stim-sense that he truly believed he was that earl from the stim-sense he used. And maybe he was. As a player, I had no idea who my character really was, and that was an awesome experience.
Hopefully this starts a trend. I'm going to begin a new campaign soon and told my players to chill out on the builds so we can just get back to enjoying the game itself. I been trying to keep the communication open durring character creation so the can be useful AND flavorful without breaking the game. Simply put I told them that there is a limit on my prep time and I can spend it writing a fun adventure or looking for work arounds to tame the cheese, it's their choice. Though I wasn't going to bother to run a game if they chose optimizing.
Hah this is funny. I get slapped around on these boards when I talk about this.
We played Second Darkness with the Beta Rules when the AP was new.
we hit about 13th level and no one was having fun.
The characters were largely optimized except for two.
1) was a half orc wizard (to start), as back then the rage of the boards was half orcs couldnt be wizards, so we made one on purpose, he eventually became an EK but at level 1 he was a wizard.
2) the fighter was non optimized, he had a higher wisdom and some other things because of the rage on the boards about how fighters were weak and could just be dominated yada yada.
Basically the argument was you couldnt make a good fighter unless he was min maxed.
The fighter eventually became a sword and board twfer and took things like a 13 wis and 13 int, and iron will etc.
The end result is the characters by 13th level were ALL insanely powerful, and everyone got bored.
Most of the players didn't want to play anymore and finishing the AP became a chore.
All but the Two super min max WOW type players thought this way.
So we changed how we played. 3d6 re roll 1s became the character generator and we generally try to make a party on purpose, meaning that gold is shared between players to get the fighter heavy armor, and everyone picks a role that will compliment the party.
We generally don't end up with dedicated healers most of the time... for whatever reason.
The newer gaming style has totally tamed the cheese. Occasionally there might be a mxed out type of character (one of the girls played a knife throwing acrobat to try out some new feats that had come out) but it wasnt game breaking and although the build looked minmaxed on paper it was rolled and didn't come out in play overly so.
The result in character generation is also fun, because the die rolls 'speak to us'...hmmm what am i going to do with that?
Maybe Jim bob was going to be a fighter, but Sara really only has one good stat, so Sara is going to play the fighter and jim Bob decided his stats could actually let him be the rogue.
It usually takes us a game session and a half to make the characters and get the party together with all their gear.
Our Current Group is:
Oracle/ninja half elf
Magus Human
Barbarian/Inquisitor Human
Ronin/Bard Elf
Originally, the Oracle was going to be straight classed and the Barbarian was going to be an Inquisitor/Magus. The Ronin was going to be a monk/alchemist.
They decided they needed a sneaky type with some rogue skills and the Oracle moved stats to eventually multi class (shes a blind oracle/ninja who focuses on shuriken sneak attacks)
At 5th level,Tamarie the Oracle/ninja is : Str 11 Dex 18 Con 11 Int 10 Wis 15 Cha 18.
Her 4th level bump went to dex and her +2 for half elf went to cha
so she rolled 11 17 11 10 15 16.
Cilk, The Magus Hexcafter is Str 13 Dex 14 Con 12 int 17 wis 10 cha 9
she's using a scorp whip and following the whip mastery feat chain
her 4th level bump went to int and her +2 human went to int.
She originally rolled 13 14 12 14 10 9
Kai (formerly known as Jo Yimbo) the Ronin/Bard is Str 12 Dex 18 Con 10 Int 13 Wis 8 Cha 16
His +1 boost when to str, his elf gave him +2 dex,-2con,+2 cha
He originally rolled 11 16 12 13 8 14
Rance is now a Oracle/Barbarian/inquisitor (going for rage prophet) with:
Str 14 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 9 Wis 14 Cha 11 as a human his +2 went to dex as did his 4th level boost.
He's a TWF with sawtooth sabres.
He originally rolled 14 13 14 9 14 11
At 5th level the party has no magic armor or weapons, and has a few wands and recently acquired rings (like a+1 protection)
There is currently no issues with this party save 1. The end fight with illeosa in CotCT will be a wipe out. The End boss is way to powerful and super min maxd.
Ill have to change her, possibly using a 15 point buy and not using some of those 3.5 feats.
I've considered making her a bard/dragon disciple. But thought about sorceress/DD as well.
Other than that this party has done and will do fine, with the possible exception of trying to fight an Otyguh at level 1 in the city streets. Which was darn near a TPK.
Ronin was able to ride her horse and kite the beast. Melee with this thing was folly.
As far as armor and weapons in the city streets.
1) not all THAT uncommon. Watch Conan movies, or some other similar genre.
Knights didnt take off their armor or weapons just to ride through town.
2) are you spending a good amount of TIME in town or traveling through staying at the Inn?
3) I live in alaska, it's not all that uncommon to see cops chatting it up leaning against a snow machine with a guy with a slung rifle and three buddies near by with rifles. (so there is a RL example)
4) In non first world countries were danger is constant you see people wandering the streets armed regularly as well AK 47s in plain view (another RL example)
With that aside, in the CotCT AP the party are residents of their city.
IT depends on what my players are doing.
1) the oracle doesn't look armed or armored at all. She wears a chain shirt under her clothes, fights mostly with concealable shuriken, and has a wakizashi sword cane (staff).
2) the Magus like wise wears a chain shirt has a longsword and a whip. the whip is easily rolled up and kept out of view, The sword maybe not so much, but she doesnt walk around with it in her hand either.
3) The ronin, an elf fights mostly as a switch hitter between her bow and katana. He was wearing some oriental armor (which in my world there is no Tian Xia,all oriental is elven) which is designed to be worn under clothes, but recently switched to a chain shirt as well, it hink this was a max Dex issue. His katanas are kept in a Katana walking stick. The bow he doesnt always have unless they are planning something. Bow stays with his horse often. But not always. The sight of an elf with a bow isnt entirely uncommon either.
4) the Urban barbarian wears leather studded armor, carries a few throwing axes and wears a pair of sheathed mwk sawtooth sabres.
He's probably the most threatening looking of them all.
IT would be odd, for example for a fighter or paladin to walk around town every day with his full plate, shield and sword. Or a guy wandering around with a greatsword always at the ready.
In these cases, I normally ask the players if they are wearing anything different or leaving certain weapons in their room or busting out the front door ready to slay some orcs.
Most players have their "city kit" (like a suit of +3 padded armor they found and their rapier)
while others insist on wearing their armor and weapons, if that's the case, I usually adjust the social scene depending on that. Shops wont haggle down and usually start at higher prices when dealing with openly armed and armored adventuring types. The DCs for information or often higher, but I give them a pew extra points for intimidation and they are usually the first suspects at starting any fights or trouble....
Ok lets talk about the 100lb dire ape in the room..
PF punishes off builds, every class based system does.
If the system was class-less then we would see more players growing into their characters instead of planing it out over 10 levels.
Threats are designed to face characters with Y capabilities by X level, it's right there in the math.
If feats possessed less requirements (maybe 1 or so) you would see more "off builds" you would see more switch-hitters, dabblers, and so on.
the system it self demands a specific level of optimization, its the nature of the beast.
It has nothing to do with "class-based". In someways the class based part lessens the optimization, by packaging abilities together so you can't just pick and choose the ones you want. It's the places where you actually have more choices that optimization shines. In D&D3.5 it was combinations of multiclassing. In PF it's more about feats and gear, sometimes archetypes or class dips.
In AD&D, it was pretty minimal, other than basic assignment of your stats and what class you picked.In point-based systems it's all about optimizing how you spend your points. In those I've played, it's been more about the initial build and less about planning eventual growth, but that's because most of them didn't span the same extremes of power as D&D does.
The assumption here is the DM is a Robot and must use this CR at that level, and the characters must have a certain WBL, all of which creates this BUILD phenomenon. which ALL stems from MMORPG. in that setting everything IS stagnant. IF you go into the wild wood, which you cant access until level 9 there are these sets of monsters and no locks can be picked with out maxed skills etc. so you have to "Build a toon" not to get creamed and even make it through the adventure.
The DM is not a robot. There is nothing wrong with seeing a white dragon at level 1, heck you can choose to swing at it if you want. The choice is yours.
Goblins at level 7 why not?
You adventure and see things and interact with them. The assumptions that you will fight these monsters at this level leads to 'builds' so you can be successful, then end result is a arms race that if the DM doesnt keep up with you or you dont keep up with the DM bang....min max optimization becomes the only way to play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's simply not possible.
I find my players approach the characters they create from the technical side—meaning they will select things like class, race, traits, etc, based on the mechanical advantages it will give them, rather than pick things for flavor.
Like a player picking a particular deity, even when they don't know the first thing about the deity, just to be able to have access to a religion specific trait. Personally, I start the other way around, and one of the most important choices for me is what deity my character worships, as I find that defines the character a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, my fav. character I ever played was multiclassed to hell because he just went where the plot drove him. I had a LOT more fun playing him like that then playing any of the optimized characters that I've ever ran.
Rather than try to build rules to negate their tendency to optimize, why not try to do it organically? Start by saying to them,
"Hey guys. I'm the sort of GM that doesn't really get a kick out of over optimized characters. Lets just have fun and go where the game takes us. I'll make sure to scale encounters to your characters."
I'd also suggest awarding more roleplaying EXP then combat EXP, but that's just a personal choice.
*didn't read thread*
Discourage players from optimizing? Bwahahahahahaha!
That's simply not possible.
If you give a player the choice between a rock and a twig as a weapon, they're going to choose the rock every time, unless of course they are "roleplaying" a twit who is too stupid or crazy to care about his personal survival.
Again, this goes back to the definition of "optimizing".
Sure, any player would choose a rock over a twig. But a short sword vs a dagger? A falchion vs a longsword?
Choosing a rock over a twig would not qualify as "optimizing" to me. That would qualify as "not being an idiot." Choosing a falchion over a longsword is potentially a flavor choice where the player would choose longsword because they didn't like the image of using a falchion, or they feel their character would not be likely to have encountered a falchion.
"Not being an idiot" =/= optimizing.
So, the message is: don't enter arms races with your players unless they tell you that is what they want. Chances are, if they made their characters unstoppable killing machines, it's because they didn't want their killing to be stopped.
I marked your post as a favorite, I fully agree with the underlyig message there.
However, I'd like to point a single exception to that last advice. You shouldn't be fighting the desires of your player, unless those desires make the game unfun for the rest of the party.
If your optimization goal is "getting a high AC and never being hit", I'm all for it. Do it, and have fun. But if your optimization goal is "finishing the combat in my first action, at high initiative, before everyone else has any chance to act", or "doing everything better than everyone else, and getting all the spotlight", then you should talk to the player. Because chances are that, by making that player happy, you are making everyone else unhappy.
Other than that, I support your idea. GM shouldn't *fight* the PC. This is not a GM vs Players game. It's collaborative, and the only meassure of success in a game is "having fun".
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Again, this goes back to the definition of "optimizing".Sure, any player would choose a rock over a twig. But a short sword vs a dagger? A falchion vs a longsword?
Choosing a rock over a twig would not qualify as "optimizing" to me. That would qualify as "not being an idiot." Choosing a falchion over a longsword is potentially a flavor choice where the player would choose longsword because they didn't like the image of using a falchion, or they feel their character would not be likely to have encountered a falchion.
"Not being an idiot" =/= optimizing.
Is it a sign of the end times when you are agreeing with me? ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't stop my players from optimizing because honestly, their character and abilities are the only things they get control of and I don't want to take that away. I'm okay with them scouring feats for their character concept. It's honestly not an issue. However, I also understand that every optimization has weaknesses I can use in some encounters to challenge them, as well as strengths to reward than in others. In addition, I always tell the players before creation what kind of game this'll be. For example, for my Kingmaker game, I told them that survival skills in the wilderness would count. Suddenly, you see people grabbing Climb and Swim and Knowledge skills. Hell, someone took Knowledge Nobility for it and that got useful when they started meeting other countries.
There's also a huge difference between optimizing and minmaxing. Optimmizing is needed because you want to make your character concept effective. Very few people want to play an inept character. Minmaxing is when you take it to extremes and if that's what you want to stop, just talk with your players. But, you can't force them to take flavor-only options or whatever build you want because at that point, it's not everyone's game; it's your game.
This hobby truly needs firm definitions for the various terms that describe the process of perfecting a character concept...
Probably not gonna happen though.
One myth I'd like to see debunked is that creating a super powered character requires min-maxing. It doesn't. In fact I would say that min-maxing is like remedial character power gaming. True power gamers know how to out-perform min-maxers without obvious indications of the power gaming techniques.
The assumption here is the DM is a Robot and must use this CR at that level, and the characters must have a certain WBL, all of which creates this BUILD phenomenon. which ALL stems from MMORPG. in that setting everything IS stagnant.
Well, WBL and CR came from D&D 3rd edition. By that time, there wasn't a lot of people accusing D&D of copying MMORPGs (which were kinda minor at that time). The roar was it was copying Diablo (because of feats, specially those like Whirlwind)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Organic rolls. 6 sets of 4d6 let the dice fall as they may and determine your stats. Also use the random npc generator for your PCs, random race/ class combo, and use the Npc stats as starting off point. It's a great way to challenge your players and potentially break them out of their comfort zone and try something new. You can roll random traits and archetypes as well if you wish. There can be a theme in your game of chaos bringing together the most unlikely of heroes to accomplish a certain mission (a cruel wager of some chaotic deitys).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe certain players find playing as characters that actually succeed at the jobs they give themselves to be more fun that playing characters that can only reliably use the Aid Another action.
Maybe they also find characters that are well-suited for their designated roles to be more believable (and thus easier to relate to) than characters who suck at their jobs.
The focus on story immersion and roleplay cuts both ways in this discussion. If a would-be adventurer isn't even as good in his chosen role as an NPC hireling, then why isn't the party saving money by firing him and hiring said NPC?
Again, this goes back to the definition of "optimizing".
Sure, any player would choose a rock over a twig. But a short sword vs a dagger? A falchion vs a longsword?
Choosing a rock over a twig would not qualify as "optimizing" to me. That would qualify as "not being an idiot." Choosing a falchion over a longsword is potentially a flavor choice where the player would choose longsword because they didn't like the image of using a falchion, or they feel their character would not be likely to have encountered a falchion.
"Not being an idiot" =/= optimizing.
Look change definition of the word optimizing if you wish, but it is optomizing.
You optimize in the real world all the time. You just don't register it.
Again, this goes back to the definition of "optimizing".
Sure, any player would choose a rock over a twig. But a short sword vs a dagger? A falchion vs a longsword?
Choosing a rock over a twig would not qualify as "optimizing" to me. That would qualify as "not being an idiot." Choosing a falchion over a longsword is potentially a flavor choice where the player would choose longsword because they didn't like the image of using a falchion, or they feel their character would not be likely to have encountered a falchion.
"Not being an idiot" =/= optimizing.
Look change definition of the word optimizing if you wish, but it is optomizing.
You optimize in the real world all the time. You just don't register it.
You and I must read the definition differently then Starbuck. Because "optimize" means to make the BEST choice, not just a BETTER choice. In the silly example of twig vs rock there's no difference between "better" and "best" but in MOST situations there is a lot of difference and most people tend to choose "better" but not necessarily "best" choices all the time.
You and I must read the definition differently then Starbuck. Because "optimize" means to make the BEST choice, not just a BETTER choice. In the silly example of twig vs rock there's no difference between "better" and "best" but in MOST situations there is a lot of difference and most people tend to choose "better" but not necessarily "best" choices all the time.
Again, this goes back to the definition of "optimizing".
Sure, any player would choose a rock over a twig. But a short sword vs a dagger? A falchion vs a longsword?
Choosing a rock over a twig would not qualify as "optimizing" to me. That would qualify as "not being an idiot." Choosing a falchion over a longsword is potentially a flavor choice where the player would choose longsword because they didn't like the image of using a falchion, or they feel their character would not be likely to have encountered a falchion.
"Not being an idiot" =/= optimizing.
Look change definition of the word optimizing if you wish, but it is optomizing.
You optimize in the real world all the time. You just don't register it.
See, this is an actual definition of the world though: to make the best of.
While being perfect is a possible definition. I find the one I listed as the most common useage.
See, this is an actual definition of the world though: to make the best of.While being perfect is a possible definition. I find the one I listed as the most common useage.
And that definition restates my point. "Make the best of." Not "Make better."
It is pretty easy in most circumstances to identify the set of options which improve our situation. However, it can be incredibly difficult to identify which SINGLE OPTION is the "best". So most people quickly choose an obviously "better" one and move on.
Maybe certain players find playing as characters that actually succeed at the jobs they give themselves to be more fun that playing characters that can only reliably use the Aid Another action.
Maybe they also find characters that are well-suited for their designated roles to be more believable (and thus easier to relate to) than characters who suck at their jobs.
Sucking at your job? If by fifth level you consider "Sucking at your job" to be anything less than only being hit by 20's and hitting enemies on everything but a 3 or less, then you are probably stuck in the minmax culture.
Ok lets talk about the 100lb dire ape in the room..
PF punishes off builds, every class based system does.
If the system was class-less then we would see more players growing into their characters instead of planing it out over 10 levels.
We had a nickname, back in the 90s when we played World of Darkness. It was "XP Plan-character". It means a character built with the cost of raising stats in mind, and long term efficiency in XP. For example, a character with STR 4 DEX 3 and STA 4 was a much poorer choice, min/maxing wise, than a character with STR 5 DEX 1 STA 5. Because raising DEX from 1 to 2 is trivial, and raising it from 2 to 3 cost waaaaaaaay less than raising STR and STA from 4 to 5.
Some other game systems allowed for even more minmaxing and better build optimization. HERO system, and any system that use point buy, come to mind. There's always a way to spend your points that is more efficient than other.
So it's not true that class level systems are more prone to optimizing. You can optimize any system that has choices, that's optimizing, taking the optimal choices.
If feats possessed less requirements (maybe 1 or so) you would see more "off builds" you would see more switch-hitters, dabblers, and so on.
the system it self demands a specific level of optimization, its the nature of the beast.
The way to make switch-hitters more present in the game, is to make switch hitting more valuable. If flying wasn't that overused in the game, switching to range weapons would be a good idea. Right now, it's not, because it's much better, in resource efficiency, to spend resources to be able to fly (like flying potions), that spending those resources in being able to shoot. Because flying is so damn cheap, that everybody and his dog can fly by level 7.
Sucking at your job? If by fifth level you consider "Sucking at your job" to be anything less than only being hit by 20's and hitting enemies on everything but a 3 or less, then you are probably stuck in the minmax culture.Maybe certain players find playing as characters that actually succeed at the jobs they give themselves to be more fun that playing characters that can only reliably use the Aid Another action.
Maybe they also find characters that are well-suited for their designated roles to be more believable (and thus easier to relate to) than characters who suck at their jobs.
My definition of "sucking at your job" is when your pressence isn't noticed. As Rambo said, "when you don't go to the party, and nobody notices".
If an average monster at a given level has 100hp, and the average party member at that given level does 50 damage, and your character does 1d6+1, then your character suck at his job (assuming his job is to do damage, and not some other such as healing or buffing). If you weren't in the party, nobody would notice. The monsters don't die faster, the party don't take less damage, the challenge isn't easier to overcome. So you are dead weight, the only difference is that the party split treasure in more parts, and spend more charges of CLW wand to heal you from the AOE that targeted the party. That's what I call as "you suck at your job".
PD: If your job is not doing damage, but healing, you suck at your job when nobody notices if you heal or dont. If the party has resources to heal 300hp back after every combat, and your contribution is 1d8+5, then you don't contribute at all, and nobody notices if you heal or you dont. If your job is buffing, and everybody has as much chances to defeat the challenge with or without your buffs, then you suck at buffing. And so on.
Monsters with 100 hp are supposed to last a while.
Characters that do 50 hp in a regular turn are supposed to kill things fast.
Putting these two things together and saying 50hp guy does his job in two rounds is good and 1d6+1 guy is useless : IS THE PROBLEM.
That's power gaming, min maxing and the issues caused by optimization.
THAT guy is an extreme example of efficiency, NOT the standard by which all characters must be measured.
So if you have a 5th level part that come up against 100hp monster blob
The fighter, with his 16 STR +5 BAB and his +1 great sword....
Lets say he has weapon focus, weapon spec, and power attack.
his STR gives him +3, +1 for the sword and 5 for the BAB so he's +9 to hit
+6 damage, without power attack.
So if he uses power attack let's say his damage is +8.
average for his sword is 6+8 is 14. at 5th level he only gets one attack still.
So they guy in the party who does 1d6+1 might be I dunno a bard or a cleric.
his average is 4.
moving forward in level say at 7th the fighter might be in the 30s range for damage
this guy is still averaging 4 per attack or 8 for a full attack.
But the fighter is the main melee attack.
It think its almost HARD to make a fighter who is only going to do 1d6 +1
so that bard or cleric might have something else they do besides 1d6+1, but then the general idea always seems to be: Do your thing magic man, no dont swing your sword you suck at that!
In a 'tame party' the front line fighter might swing his one handed sword for 1d8+5, so an average of 9.
the d6+1 guy all of the sudden doesn't suck so much with 4.
But there is this idea that 50 damage a round isn't an extreme build...its a "MUST" to be effective.
When the fighter (or wizard or whatever) is slicing through everything at an every other round basis, this just makes the encounters have a need to be ramped up. Which makes d6+1 guy "useless".
Our groups tend to have several 3/4 Bab types as "fighters" because of our play style. (like magi and monks and inquisitors)
a 1d6+1 guy isn't great but not 'insignificant'.
Also the guy makes contributions toward action economy, flanking,
Im trying to think of what's "normal" in our games... but 50 damage a round vs. 100 hp creatures would definitely fall in "extreme" for us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sit down and say, "I plan on using your PCs as the template for every single NPC you will face in combat."
I also like the Die Pool system
Im not getting the reroll dice and 63 thing?
Also if you mix and match dice, it's really just going to give you more min/max.
You can chose to roll 18d6 and match out all the 18s you want leaving you with 6 and 7s elsewhere. It's not exactly organic and just gives you a) the same result as point buy or b) more extreme results than point buy (example in point buy you can't have a natural stat of 3. with this method you could)
3d6 = 10.5 average x 6 stats = 63. If you fall below an average person, you get reroll.
In a perfect world, you would end up with three of each number. Highly improbable, but in theory, you end up with (given a perfect distribution)
6x3
5x3
4x3
3x3
2x3
1x3
= one 18, one 15 once 12, and then mix and match to get three sixes. Sure, you will not end up with that, but it will be close ... in theory. I have seen many 18s, but I have also seen many a 15 top stat. average 10.5. Cost to buy said stats -6, -6, -6 +2, +7, +17 = +8. Again, assuming perfect distribution, which is highly improbable. Not many people would min max to get a -2 in three stats though. Or, to put it another way, statistically, you end up with a 3 point buy. (3 10s and 3 11s) that you can shuffle to do a moderate amount of min/maxing.
This gives you different than a point buy how?
Looks like a lot of work just to get the same results?
Monsters with 100 hp are supposed to last a while.
at what level? At level 15 that's a regular mook.
Characters that do 50 hp in a regular turn are supposed to kill things fast.
Once again... at what level? At level 15 that's pretty much what you do with a single attack.
That's power gaming, min maxing and the issues caused by optimization.
THAT guy is an extreme example of efficiency, NOT the standard by which all characters must be measured.
Notice that I didn't say "an optimized character", but "an average character". When you are in a level where everybody is doing 50+ per round (which isn't that much in a full round, honestly), then the character who is doing 1d6+1, sucks. Whatever that level is. It might be a lvl 5 optimized party, a lvl 10 regular party, or a lvl 15 quite sloopy party. But when everybody in your party is doing 50+, vs mobs that have 100+ hp, your average 1d6+1 isn't going to cut it. And you suck at your job, because there is absolutely no difference in the combat challenge with or without you there.
So if you have a 5th level part that come up against 100hp monster blob
The fighter, with his 16 STR +5 BAB and his +1 great sword....
Lets say he has weapon focus, weapon spec, and power attack.
At lvl 5, even using the standard array (15, 13, etc), a human fighter has 18 str (15, +2 racial, +1 level pump)
his STR gives him +3, +1 for the sword and 5 for the BAB so he's +9 to hit
+6 damage, without power attack.
So if he uses power attack let's say his damage is +8.
average for his sword is 6+8 is 14. at 5th level he only gets one attack still.So they guy in the party who does 1d6+1 might be I dunno a bard or a cleric.
his average is 4.
moving forward in level say at 7th the fighter might be in the 30s range for damage
this guy is still averaging 4 per attack or 8 for a full attack.
At lvl 7 the fighter is doing 2d6+17 with a two handed sword, with no kind of optimization. Just a 15 in str (from the standard array), +2 racial, a +2 belt, a +1 greatsword, weapon specialization, and weapon training, with power attack. That's an average of 24 per hit, or 48 in a full round, not including any buff from his party (like haste and a bard's song, which pushes him into the 75+ per round)
But the fighter is the main melee attack.It think its almost HARD to make a fighter who is only going to do 1d6 +1
Not really. I have seen it done. A non-optimized one handed rapier-using fighter. High Dex, weapon finesse, no str, levl 3. Half scoundrel, half-daredevil, full of suck.
But there is this idea that 50 damage a round isn't an extreme build...its a "MUST" to be effective.
50 damage a round is an extreme build at lvl 3. It's an absolutelly normal build at lvl 7, and a lackluster build at lvl 12. By lvl 20, a fighter can be doing 50 damage *per hit*, not per round.
Our groups tend to have several 3/4 Bab types as "fighters" because of our play style. (like magi and monks and inquisitors)
a 1d6+1 guy isn't great but not 'insignificant'.
I like magi and inquisitors a lot. Fun characters with a lot of things to do in and out of combat. They aren't shabby in the damage dealing part, specially the magi. Same goes with the inquisitor, his judgment and Bane ability, plus spells. I have an inquisitor archer in may game, we are at lvl 7 now, and he does 50+ per round without sweeting.
a 1d6+1 guy isn't great but not 'insignificant'.
Also the guy makes contributions toward action economy, flanking,
Im trying to think of what's "normal" in our games... but 50 damage a round vs. 100 hp creatures would definitely fall in "extreme" for us.
Sure, he contributes with flanking, aid another actions, and taking hits. But a commoner can do that. Or a trained dog. The trained dog doesn't take a share of the treasure also.
Not every PC who isn't optimized are useless. Most of them aren't, actually. They might not do as much damage as optimized characters (which aren't the examples given here. 50 dmg per round isn't optimized. 400 dmg per round is), but they contribute. However, *some* charactes aren't pulling their own weight. The character fighter doing 1d6+1 with his rapier, the wizard that never learn the right spells, the rogue archer whithout a relaible way to sneak with the bow... several builds are dead weights.
Some characters don't do damage, but that doesn't mean they are dead weight. A bard with a lot of face skills, and inspire courage, isn't a dead weight. It's, actually, a great addition to a party. Sometimes, specially in social heavy campaigns, it's probably the "best" character, even if it's combat prowess is limited. But he doesn't suck at his job. His job is just not combat related. However, I remember a skill monkey character in a 3.5 game set in mythic China, who spent full ranks in appraise, proffesion (cook), use rope and escape artist. He NEVER rolled any of them, in the whole campaign. That character was a dead weight too. Both in and out of combat.
Monsters with 100 hp are supposed to last a while.
Characters that do 50 hp in a regular turn are supposed to kill things fast.
Putting these two things together and saying 50hp guy does his job in two rounds is good and 1d6+1 guy is useless : IS THE PROBLEM.
That's power gaming, min maxing and the issues caused by optimization.
THAT guy is an extreme example of efficiency, NOT the standard by which all characters must be measured.So if you have a 5th level part that come up against 100hp monster blob
so that bard or cleric might have something else they do besides 1d6+1, but then the general idea always seems to be: Do your thing magic man, no dont swing your sword you suck at that!
In a 'tame party' the front line fighter might swing his one handed sword for 1d8+5, so an average of 9.
the d6+1 guy all of the sudden doesn't suck so much with 4.When the fighter (or wizard or whatever) is slicing through everything at an every other round basis, this just makes the encounters have a need to be ramped up. Which makes d6+1 guy "useless".
I know the 1d6+1 is hyperbole, but I'll take the bait.
If at level 5, you deal no more than 1D6+1 no matter the situation: then you planned on feeling useless, don't blame the Fighter.
Why I meant Situation? A rogue might normally be 1d6+1, but sneak attack raises this when he achieves it.
That Cleric can buff his damage with Bull Str, etc. So he has no excuse either.
I can't think of any class that can't have better if they wished.
Putting these two things together and saying 50hp guy does his job in two rounds is good and 1d6+1 guy is useless : IS THE PROBLEM....
This quote raises an important point. There's two kinds of optimization, and one's not that bad. The other is fatal.
The first is optimization relative to the GM. Problematic is the GM does nothing, but almost trivial to fix. If the monster is supposed to last four rounds, and one guy does 50 HP a round, well, then he's now got 200 HP. Add more monsters, or give them max HP, or just add +1 to the CR of the group, lots of easy fast fixes.
The second is optimization relative to the rest of the players. There is simply no way for d6+1 guy to feel good about his contribution. It's the party which needs to optimize to compatible levels, and if this is where your game is falling down, character rebuilds might be needed.
I wonder if we can get a handicap system, like in golf. "I'm such a great player, I only get a 15pt buy."
The first is optimization relative to the GM. Problematic is the GM does nothing, but almost trivial to fix. If the monster is supposed to last four rounds, and one guy does 50 HP a round, well, then he's now got 200 HP. Add more monsters, or give them max HP, or just add +1 to the CR of the group, lots of easy fast fixes.
That won't work if the others are dealing 1/4th that guy's damage: that makes them feel more useless.
The second is optimization relative to the rest of the players. There is simply no way for d6+1 guy to feel good about his contribution. It's the party which needs to optimize to compatible levels, and if this is where your game is falling down, character rebuilds might be needed.
True, at higher levels something is wrong if he is accidently doing only 1d6+1 at higher levels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone worked with their players to encourage them to not over-optimize?
To clarify, I'm not looking to apply the "advanced template" to every encounter to provide a challenge. Rather, it's my observation that optimized characters are...dull. Optimized characters tend to be mechanical, so much so that there are "guides" to creating the superior combat engine whose sole goal is to ensure the enemy is not just beaten but shellacked.
Anyone have gentle ideas to nudge characters away from the notion that they must optimize to survive, that they must take the Reactionary trait, that certain spells should never be learned because they are 24% less effective than another, that if you don't take Pounce as a barbarian you're a fool? I'll never impose straight-jackets (play how I want you to play), but I'd like to encourage players that it's ok if they take an archetype or make a build that is only 82% as effective as another.
I'm a newb to Pathfinder, but I've spent almost 30 years running various game systems, from class and level to a lot of point-buy systems like GURPS and HERO (which, honestly, give you a LOT more opportunity to optimize than Pathfinder does). I'm not tooting my own horn, but I'm also not 100% sure how much of this you can directly do in Pathfinder. Here's my own advice, which might need to be translated into Pathfinder-ese:
Let them be exceptional: Give the PCs a generous creation, and let them know that most people aren't going to be as good as they are. In Pathfinder, you might give them the 20 point-buy, but also let them know that most people aren't going to be that heroic. This gives them the comfort zone to know that they can be good, without having to be 'the best'. In GURPS, for example, even though you can buy a 20 STR, people with STR 14+ are 'really strong'.
Identify the 'Pro from Dover': I'm guilty of this one as a player. I want to be the 'best there is at what I do'. However, it's a class and level based system. I'm not really supposed to be 'the best', at least not when I am starting up. If your group and your own interests will support it, maybe let them start at a higher level, so that they don't feel the pressure to max out something right away. If you do have a "Pro", let him know what the benchmark is, and respect it. If Joe wants to play the Mighty Barbarian, let him know that an 18STR is pretty mighty, and stick to it. Don't immediately throw out enemies who are stronger than he is (unless it's obvious they should be, like a giant). In GURPS, I will let them know what skill levels they need to have in a skill to be 'better than almost anybody".
Let them show off. Give them plenty of challenges which can be met by 'good enough' people. DC 10 checks which require training, etc. Let the guy who has a +4 in some skill use it, and use it successfully. Give them opponents they can hit, not opponents they can barely hit.
Make specialists look like chumps. Throw out a LOT of skill checks, not just ones that the party specialist can handle. Have peasants and townsfolk expect this stuff of them. Have some DC 10 Ride checks, or some DC 10 Diplomacy checks. What kind of mighty hero doesn't know how to swim, or ride a horse, or flirt with the ladies? Make it clear that you can't just go through life doing ONLY what you are really good at. This is easy in GURPS, where you can throw 1 point into a skill, playing a 200 pt character. It's harder in Pathfinder, but PF also has like, one percent of the skills of GURPS.
Play by the same rules. Don't expect them to play well-rounded balanced PCs, and then throw over-specialized optimized builds at them. Or better yet, throw some at them, and let them find their weakness (the gunslinger they can toss into the drink, or the fighter who can't fight at range).
Reflect their concept back at them. If someone comes in with a INT 7, CHA 7 murdernaut, have people keep reacting to the rude, stupid psychopath in their midst. Make sure that a low characteristic is an established, intentional roleplaying choice, and not a 'points sink' and nothing else. Track encumbrance for the STR 6 Gnome. In GURPS, this would be 'earning your disadvantage points".
Eliminate magic item shopping. Don't just allow someone to buy up magic items to eliminate their weaknesses. This may or may not be possible in your campaign, depending on item crafters in the party, but it's one thing to take a low Wisdom when you just plan on buying up stuff to boost your Will save, and another thing when you don't know if there will be any sort of those items around.
Talk to your players. You are going to do it every time you play, anyway. Explain what you are looking for in the game, and what you are hoping for. See what they want out of the game, too.
One way my DM limits optimization is by very rigidly controlling access to equipment. You have to be sure you're in an area where what you're looking for will be accessible from a NPC, which is determined by random rolls and RP elements.
On the one hand, this helps prevent every barbarian from wielding a Furious Greatclub, but on the other it makes it hard when you know what you want and instead of getting the weapon that best compliments your build, you end up getting a choice of potentially useless, or highly situational spells (a Seaborne Warhammer is available for the Bard in the desert)
I see the utility of the method, and it helps direct people towards new ideas when they're offered something they hadn't thought of before, but it can be bothersome when one has done their research and knows what they are looking for, then hears "Nope, the enchanter doesn't know that 2nd level spell" because the dice didn't go the right way or the caster who's able to cast it is a pacifist and won't provide damaging enchantments.
It's a way to prevent equipment based min-maxing, and reduce cheese, but it can lead to some player dissatisfaction so try to work with them when it's reasonable.
Monsters with 100 hp are supposed to last a while.
at what level? At level 15 that's a regular mook.
Characters that do 50 hp in a regular turn are supposed to kill things fast.Once again... at what level? At level 15 that's pretty much what you do with a single attack.
That's power gaming, min maxing and the issues caused by optimization.
THAT guy is an extreme example of efficiency, NOT the standard by which all characters must be measured.Notice that I didn't say "an optimized character", but "an average character". When you are in a level where everybody is doing 50+ per round (which isn't that much in a full round, honestly), then the character who is doing 1d6+1, sucks. Whatever that level is. It might be a lvl 5 optimized party, a lvl 10 regular party, or a lvl 15 quite sloopy party. But when everybody in your party is doing 50+, vs mobs that have 100+ hp, your average 1d6+1 isn't going to cut it. And you suck at your job, because there is absolutely no difference in the combat challenge with or without you there.
So if you have a 5th level part that come up against 100hp monster blob
The fighter, with his 16 STR +5 BAB and his +1 great sword....
Lets say he has weapon focus, weapon spec, and power attack.At lvl 5, even using the standard array (15, 13, etc), a human fighter has 18 str (15, +2 racial, +1 level pump)
At lvl 7 the fighter is doing 2d6+17 with a two handed sword, with no kind of...
his STR gives him +3, +1 for the sword and 5 for the BAB so he's +9 to hit
+6 damage, without power attack.
So if he uses power attack let's say his damage is +8.
average for his sword is 6+8 is 14. at 5th level he only gets one attack still.So they guy in the party who does 1d6+1 might be I dunno a bard or a cleric.
his average is 4.
moving forward in level say at 7th the fighter might be in the 30s range for damage
this guy is still averaging 4 per attack or 8 for a full attack.
You just made a HUGE ton of assumptions about where the fighters stats would be at a certain level, having a +2 belt, and on and on and on. That IS optimizing, power gaming, min maxing etc.
Assumption of WBL, Assumption of putting the best scores no matter what forward.You just argued that a 5th level fighter COULDNT have a 16 strength, as in he MUST have an 18??
That's the cloned christmas tree.
A fighter of this level WILL have 18 STR, WILL have a +2 belt, so what happens when you get to that level and DONT have a +2 belt?
Does every THF you have ALWAYS have an 18 strength by a certain level or else "it's worthless" and "sucks at his job"?
at level 5, 14 is the highest STR in the party, and that's the one with the levels of barbarian...
assuming certain minimum benchmarks creates the arms race that is optimization.
thats what people here are trying to avoid, assumed minimums that lead to optimization.
the 5th level oracle/inquisitor/barbarian has 46 Hps and an AC of 16, is that useless too?
|
When the fighter (or wizard or whatever) is slicing through everything at an every other round basis, this just makes the encounters have a need to be ramped up. Which makes d6+1 guy "useless".
And therein is the dilemma. In a game where a "d6+1" group (that doesn't perfectly optimize stats, gear, feats and skills) can still succeed, it only takes one (who has to 100% perfectly plan out stats, feats, gear, and skills to maximize a combat concept, who knows there's spells you don't waste your time on ever and only weapons with superior damage to crit ratios should be utilized) to leave other players feeling inferior for having dared to go with something outside the "must-have" guide. If the GM ramps up encounters to "challenge" the over-optimized (and note, I'm referring to over-optimized who really should be facing CR +2 encounters, not those who make common sense choices like putting a wizard's highest stat in INT), it only punishes those who aren't by making encounters even more difficult. In return, they'll learn a valuable lesson. Don't step outside the "must-have" box of characters or you can't contribute as well in combat.
Putting these two things together and saying 50hp guy does his job in two rounds is good and 1d6+1 guy is useless : IS THE PROBLEM....
This quote raises an important point. There's two kinds of optimization, and one's not that bad. The other is fatal.
The first is optimization relative to the GM. Problematic is the GM does nothing, but almost trivial to fix. If the monster is supposed to last four rounds, and one guy does 50 HP a round, well, then he's now got 200 HP. Add more monsters, or give them max HP, or just add +1 to the CR of the group, lots of easy fast fixes.
The second is optimization relative to the rest of the players. There is simply no way for d6+1 guy to feel good about his contribution. It's the party which needs to optimize to compatible levels, and if this is where your game is falling down, character rebuilds might be needed.
I wonder if we can get a handicap system, like in golf. "I'm such a great player, I only get a 15pt buy."
The first solution is not a solution at all. It makes the things even worse. If the monsters now have 200hp, then the character doing 1d6+1 is even more useless. (BTW: yes, it is hyperbole. He could be doing 1d8+3, and he'd be just as useless when the 2h fighter is doing 50+ and the paladin archer is doing 75+)
The problem is not that the fighter is killing mobs in two rounds (that's actually even expected, mooks are there to die. BBEG are a different kind of beast, and have defenses to pose a challenge). The problem is, when 4 members of the group are doing 200+ damage per round together, if the 5th member is doing 5 damge per round, his contribution is meaningless. He's a dead weight. He sucks at his job.
I've seen several characters that weren't optimized, but were decent and could pull their weight. That's fine. I've also seen several characters that were dead weight. Most of them, done by the same player, actually. The bright side, is that he doesn't really care if he sucks. (I think he doesn't even notice). So he's happy with it. The rest of the party has to face increasing CR (as you have to kill your mobs, AND his mob). But it doesn't really matter, as there are always effective PC around, so it¡s a wash. But if 2 or more of those characters are in your 4 player party, in an AP, you probably face tough times when you fight the BBEEG.
I also have seen characters that suck due to a lack of system mastery. To those, I ussually help them to build it properly (both as a player and as a DM). I remember a dwarf fighter with a lame attempt to be a shield-fighter (fighting with both shield and axe, hitting with the shield). But he lacked the sytem mastery need to make it work. So his character was meaningless in combat. He didn't hit, ever, and when he rarely did, his damage was so low that nobody care if he hit or not (when the sorcerer is doing 60+ to all monsters in 20' radius, that you do 9 damage to one of them charging with your shield, is irrelevant). I help the player to revamp it (with DM permission), and he became much better and more relevant. He was exactly the same character, RPG wise. The same grumpy dwarf, with axe and shield, focus in defense. But he wasn't irrelevant. And the player was much happier. He killed a golem with a well placed crit, and he suddenly felt an important part of the group, instead of a pet.
I may not have as much experience as some others, and it has been mentioned previously by some other posters.
From what I've played though, I do enjoy planning ahead. Not so I can become the greatest powerhouse ever made, but because I simply do not want to do a "done goofed" with my character concept that I wanted to roll with, nor be too weak to really contribute to the party in some manner other than a potential other meatbag that can soak some damage. If I say to myself "for this campaign I wouldn't mind being a sadistical pyromatic goblin alchemist thats lobbing off chemicals left and right while riding on a mount", I want to make sure I can do that effectively by researching and strategize ahead of time. Can this potentially lead to a potentially powerful character build? Possibly. Can this lead to some issues with balancing between GM campaign building? Absolutely, although it is within his power to change aspects of the game to ensure it may not be as noticeable while keeping the entire party enjoying the game, not just the player. This can also lead to that player trying to think of other safety measures in the case that what he had difficulty dealing with is encountered again in some other shape or form.
Example: A mage encounters a null-magic zone. This could be a VERY dreadful experience, but can be a lessened blow if he's thought about it ahead of time or is preparing from a past experience. Perhaps accommodating such an encounter with a crossbow, or a quarterstaff, or possibly multiclassing to get a bit more edge without relying on magic, possibly going into a spellsword of sorts. Having too many of such encounters targeted at a player could, however, make the game less enjoyable for said person, and at the same time you do not want to make his choices entirely null and void, but use it as a learning tool to make him ponder additional possibilities and possible threats.
Additionally it is usually good to have a decent balance between both social aspects, skill based aspects, as well as combat related aspects. One character is not likely able to cover every single feature that a party may encounter. Spreading the love to players that have not optimized in the same way can go a long ways to still let the non-optimizing players enjoy the game. With all this said though, there is no clear-cut way to solve the delima of optimizing, mostly because of the different perspectives of what players want and their goals of optimizing. Some want to optimize to be the absolute best, while others wish to optimize just so their characters do not feel gimped comparatively to others, and some just want to ensure that the character they have so strongly conceived will live long enough to see the campaign through to the end if there is one.
You just made a HUGE ton of assumptions about where the fighters stats would be at a certain level, having a +2 belt, and on and on and on. That IS optimizing, power gaming, min maxing etc.
Assumption of WBL, Assumption of putting the best scores no matter what forward.
You just argued that a 5th level fighter COULDNT have a 16 strength, as in he MUST have an 18??
I made the same amount of assumptions that you did. You assumed STR 16. I assumed 18.
sure, he CAN have 16. He CAN have 12 too. Or 10. If he has 10, and a rapier, he'll be he 1d6+1 guy in my example.I didn't say he HAS to have 18. I said 18 is fairly standard. it's the standard array, with a human character. Nothing crazy, you know. It's not like it's a 25 point buy character with the half ogre template. It's a STANDARD ARRAY HUMAN. Even a NPC with substandard array has 16 at lvl 5 (13 from the array, +2 human, +1 level)
That's the cloned christmas tree.
A fighter of this level WILL have 18 STR, WILL have a +2 belt, so what happens when you get to that level and DONT have a +2 belt?
I didn't say it WILL have 18. To be honest, it'll probably have more, as that was a 15 starting guy. With 4d6 drop lowest, you have 80% chances of having 15+ in a stat.
If he doesn't have the belt (which is fairly common, check any AP published so far, there are belts of +2 in most of them at that level. hence the assumption), the he'll do a wooping 1 point less of damage. So that's 23 on average, 46 in a full round, 69+ with buffs from his party (just haste) . The guy with 1d6+1 rapier is just as outclassed as it was before.
Does every THF you have ALWAYS have an 18 strength by a certain level or else "it's worthless" and "sucks at his job"?at level 5, 14 is the highest STR in the party, and that's the one with the levels of barbarian...
15 starting in STR is very low assumption. Even rolling, using the suggested methods, a 15 isn't that hard to come. The average roll is rougly 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9, using 4d6. Which means 17 with a human, and 18 at 5th level. Anyways, your 14 str barbarian also has 18 str in rage.
assuming certain minimum benchmarks creates the arms race that is optimization.thats what people here are trying to avoid, assumed minimums that lead to optimization.
the 5th level oracle/inquisitor/barbarian has 46 Hps and an AC of 16, is that useless too?
No, that depends on his spells, and how he uses them. But he could be, potentially.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like that if the players are stomping on encounters as written you let them.
The caveat?
Oh that fight was too easy. You learned nothing. no xp. Might as well have been fighting fluffy kittens.
You quickly find out just how much challenge rating those optimizers really built for because the enemies just keep getting tougher and tougher, but until things get challenging the players just stay the same.
No challenge means no growth. It 'adds realism'.
Works particularly well with adventure paths. Party not a high enough level for the caster to have a spell that the adventure path expects you to be able to cast by now? Oh thats going to suck.
Thankfully society play concerns me not a lick.
Sadly that means I have no comment on, or solutions for, it.
Okay, let's say 50 damage is "average" per round. Then, at what point does someone become dead weight? what about 40 damage? 30 damage?
Instead of 2 handed weapon, maybe the player has a sword and shield concept. He has the strength 18, but dosn't have the dex to do two weapon (say, has a dex of 13). He takes weapon focus, weapon specializaion, power attack, and has the same +2 belt of strength and a +1 weapon. Now at level 7, he's doing 1d8+13, for maybe 35 pts a round.
But his AC is something like 4-5 points higher, so he takes less damage per round.
I'd say he is still effective. Perhaps not quite as effective as the 2 hander, but still able to contribute.
|
I agree with all the advice given here. If the players super-optimize then the GM has to as well. This just creates a zero-sum benefit but everyone had to do more math.
I tried explaining this to a player that wanted higher point buy in a 4e campaign I ran.
Him: I want higher point buy so I can be more powerful and heroic! You can compensate by just increasing the difficulty to match.
Me: Couldn't we just multiply all damage and hitpoints by ten and accomplish the same thing?
Him: I guess...
I don't think I really understand the need to compulsively optimize. =/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And therein is the dilemma. In a game where a "d6+1" group (that doesn't perfectly optimize stats, gear, feats and skills) can still succeed, it only takes one (who has to 100% perfectly plan out stats, feats, gear, and skills to maximize a combat concept, who knows there's spells you don't waste your time on ever and only weapons with superior damage to crit ratios should be utilized) to leave other players feeling inferior for having dared to go with something outside the "must-have" guide.
In my last long-term game as a player, we had some PCs that were clearly stronger powerhouses than others. This didn't create any of the problems that are currently being touted as inevitable in this thread. The two strongest PCs, the paladin and the fighter/barbarian, knew their job was to engage the biggest threats on the field. Our enemies (especially by 20th level, but also long before that) were not stupid. We never faced one guy. We went up against large groups.
The fact that the fighter and paladin could dish out a lot of damage wasn't a weakness. The group depended on it. And there were plenty of kills to go around.
Dunno. I hate these threads where folks seem to intimate that optimization is naughtybadfun. Some people (myself included) enjoy the technical aspect of character creation. We enjoy the puzzle. So long as the DM is experienced enough to handle it, it doesn't have to be a problem.
There are games within this game. One of those games is "optimization". Some people like to play that game. Even those people fall into categories from "low" to "extreme" optimization. Most players, in fact, fall into that range somewhere. Here's a quick description of the basic levels of optimizers:
1. Non-optimizer - Really doesn't care about stats. Doesn't research feats or care much about archetypes. Generally allows other players to guide their character building mechanics. Mostly just tries to blend in with the rest of the party. May be a heavy role player, but may just not care. When given proper guidance will have reasonably competent combat impact.
2. Low optimizer - Applies the basic concepts of character building, knows the most basic feats for the most common builds, will pursue the most common "big six" items. When following a well-known combat concept results in perfectly adequate combat impact.
3. Medium optimizer - Optimizes mostly for flavor to support character concept. Understands many, if not most, optimizing principles but applies only those that "make sense". Will synergize feats, seek suitable archetypes, research weapon and armor enchantments, and chooses suitable items for most, if not all slots. Characters will challenge a GM to provide a suitable challenge.
4. High optimizer - Optimizes obsessively. Builds multiple spreadsheets to analyze options. Reads books on feats, items, enchantments, spells, etc. while in the bathroom. Knows not only the best options for "big six" slots but has identified unusual synergies with other game elements which can result in explosive combat results. Characters will frustrate most GMs and can overshadow other party members.
I'm a medium optimizer. Although I have fits of high optimization that strike from time to time.
In general, I think the problems with optimization is based on how varied the optimization is within a group. e.g. If you have one player who Adamantine Dragon would classify as a High Optimizer, and the rest are Non-Optimizers then you will have issues. Generally, I find non-optimizers to be more devastating for party balance than High Optimizers. Having a character you have to carry through every single encounter, and never contributes meaningfully, or requires the constant focus of two or three other members to keep afloat is horrible. Then again, see the point of High Optimizers making the encounters simpler than intended. Unfortunately, it is the non-optimized characters that are preventing you from balancing. So back to my original statement. I think that the problem is not having all the optimization at roughly the same level.
I have been thinking about this and I have the following to add to the conversation.
Please understand that this is only my opinion and I am not accusing anyone of wrongbadfun.
I would first like to state my assumptions.
1.) The game itself is based upon characters having a certain level of power out of the box.
Explanation: What this means to me is that to defeat a stock challenge such as a monster from the Bestiary or a social scene from an AP a certain power level is expected. This power level is based upon the total power of the group.
In example if a monster has a certain attack pattern and defensive ability then it is assumed that it will take "N" number of PC's who total their power to equal "X" to defeat it. If a scene requires a certain set of DC's to be met then the same "N" PC's will total their power to equal the same "X".
Please note I am using the word "Power" not the word "Damage" so as to include things like save or dies, save or impairs, skills, and special abilities.
2.) While some classes are weaker and some are stronger there is a range in all of them and all classes can be made to meet the minimum standard that the designers have set.
Explanation: I am making this assumption based upon some of my own theory-craft and my play experience, in short it is an opinion.
I do not believe any class is worthless, some are weaker than others or require more system mastery and not all have the same top end however this means only that with "X" system mastery and "Y" class a player can achieve "Z" result, while with the same system mastery and a different class a player would achieve "Z-1", where "Z-1" > minimum required.
It also means that class "A" will be able to achieve power = 10 at its maximum and class "B" may only be able to achieve power = 8 at its maximum.
1.) Player characters are made so that their power level exceeds the value of X:N. Colloquially being refereed to in this thread as optimization. This means that the group has power value of X+(Variable) where the variable is some function of the number of PC's and there degree of "Optimization".
Explanation: The reasons that in my opinion this can be a problem are two. Which may occur alone or in combination. If neither of these are occurring and fun is being had by all then no action is necessary.
___a.) GM is not having fun due to challenges being in his opinion "Too-Easy".
___b.) PC's are not having fun due to in their opinion insufficient difficulty of stock challenges.
___I.) Players can reduce the power level of their PC's by a mutually agreed upon amount.
Problems with this solution:
_______A.) Some players do not like to reduce their own power or simply enjoy a more powerful game play style, they may have objections to any power reduction.
_______B.) Some players do not like taking character input from others or allowing others information about their characters.
_______C.) Player may have selected a concept that they feel requires their PC to be at their current power level.
If solution I is not palatable to the table then solution II can be employed.
______II.) The GM may increase the difficulty level by increasing the power level of stock challenges in various ways.
Problems with this solution:
_______A.) Some GM's may not wish to or may not have the time/ability to do the extra work this involves.
_______B.) This may lead to GM burn-out due to increased workload.
If solution II is unpalatable to the table then Solution I may be applied.
It is possible to mix both solutions if there is table agreement.
If neither solution is palatable then further compromise should occur. If compromise cannot occur then the group may have insufficient common ground upon which to game.
2.) Player characters are made so that their power level is less than the value of X:N. This means that the group has power value of X -(Variable) where the variable is some function of the number of PC's and there degree of "Optimization".
Explanation: The reasons that in my opinion this can be a problem are two. Which may occur alone or in combination. If neither of these are occurring and fun is being had by all then no action is necessary.
___a.) GM is frustrated by the fact that PC's are unable to overcome stock challenges.
___b.) Players are frustrated at continued failure or ineffectiveness in the face of stock challenges.
___I.) Players can increase the power level of their PC's by a mutually agreed upon amount.
Problems with this solution:
_______A.) Some players do not like to select any ability that they feel is "too-powerful" or simply enjoy a less powerful game play style, they may have objections to any power increase.
_______B.) Some players do not like taking character input from others or allowing others information about their characters.
_______C.) Player may have selected a concept that they feel requires their PC to be at their current power level.
If solution I is not palatable to the table then solution II can be employed.
______II.) The GM may decrease the difficulty level by decreasing the power level of stock challenges in various ways.
Problems with this solution:
_______A.) Some GM's may not wish to or may not have the time/ability to do the extra work this involves.
_______B.) This may lead to GM burn-out due to increased workload.
If solution II is unpalatable to the table then Solution I may be applied.
It is possible to mix both solutions if there is table agreement.
If neither solution is palatable then further compromise should occur. If compromise cannot occur then the group may have insufficient common ground upon which to game.
3.) Player characters are made so that the power level of some PC's is less than the value of X:N and the power level of some PC's is greater than X:N. This means that the group has power value of X +([+/-]Variable) where the variable is some function of the number of PC's and there degree of "Optimization".
Explanation: The reasons that in my opinion this can be a problem are two. Which may occur alone or in combination. If neither of these are occurring and fun is being had by all then no action is necessary.
___a.) GM or Players are frustrated that some PC's are unable to meet their portion of X:N.
___b.) GM or Players are frustrated that some PC's are exceeding their portion of X:N.
___I.) Players can increase the power level of the PC's who are not meeting the groups agreed upon difficulty level by a mutually agreed upon amount.
Problems with this solution:
_______A.) Some players do not like to select any ability that they feel is "too-powerful" or simply enjoy a less powerful game play style, they may have objections to any power increase.
_______B.) Some players do not like taking character input from others or allowing others information about their characters.
_______C.) Player may have selected a concept that they feel requires their PC to be at their current power level.
If solution I is not palatable to the table then solution II or solution III can be employed.
______II.) Players can Decrease the power level of the PC's who are exceeding the groups agreed upon difficulty level by a mutually agreed upon amount.
Problems with this solution:
_______A.) Some players do not like to reduce their own power or simply enjoy a more powerful game play style, they may have objections to any power reduction.
_______B.) Some players do not like taking character input from others or allowing others information about their characters.
_______C.) Player may have selected a concept that they feel requires their PC to be at their current power level.
If solution II is unpalatable to the table then Solution I may be applied.
______III.) The GM may attempt to cater the difficulty level by manipulating the power level of stock challenges in various ways.
Problems with this solution:
_______A.) Some GM's may not wish to or may not have the time/ability to do the extra work this involves.
_______B.) This may lead to GM burn-out due to increased workload.
_______C.) This may lead to very contrived situations where challenges do not make sense in the opinion of some of the table.
It is possible to mix any or all of the solutions if there is table agreement.
If none of the solutions are palatable then further compromise should occur. If compromise cannot occur then the group may have insufficient common ground upon which to game.
In short the game has a stock power level and if any PC is not designed at that level then someone at the table either GM or Player may if fun is in someway impaired be required to compromise/change.
No power level is inherently bad as long as all involved are having fun.
It is all about finding a power level at which the entire group can have fun and in which there is an acceptable amount of compromise for all.
TL;DR: Talk to each other, the point of the game is to have fun. Compromise and do so.
Just my 2 cp.