I appreciate the back and forth on this :) Please don't take this as a rebuttal, as I don't disagree with your position on this matter. But lets discuss the finer points anyhow.
The lower point buy you play, the stronger domination an optimized PC show over his fellow party members. If you want to make suboptimal PC feeling more useful, shafting the available resources isn't the right thing to do.
All attempts to curb optimization are a form of shafting available resources. Strong arming someone into taking "flavorful" feats over "optimal" feats is the same as taking away feats. Removing spells from the roster, lowering point buy, forcing players to multiclass, etc.
Lower Point Buy is the worst way to curb optimization, except for every other way.
It is not a different conversation. Optimization is the proper use of the available resources for the optimal choices. The lower those resources are, the bigger gap there is between an optimal PC and a suboptimal PC.
Heh, we're entirely agreeing here. And that is why Lower Point Buy would serve the OPs purposes. I explained why your argument actually validates my suggestion in my last post. The original conversation was on curbing optimization. You've been having one about the finer points of what optimization is. I'm not having that conversation, as "optimized" is a relative term. Relative to what? Well, to Stock bad guys. I've enjoyed following your conversation, but its irrelevant to the question at hand, which asks "How to Stop?" not "What is the bar?" The Bar is subjective, and so listing options from which a concerned GM may pick is the only useful way to proceed. Your optimization may be someone elses chillaxed. Actually, the many arguments back and forth over the example group pretty much show this to be true.
I'm trying to gauge your position in this thread, and it seems as if you're arguing against the need to force suboptimization; again that is a different conversation. If a player were abusively optimized, say they have some form of Pun Pun, what would you do in such an obvious case?
Optimization often leads to weaknesses elsewhere. The thread by one of the biggest optimizers on the boards commenting on the difficulty of Adventure Path illustrates how a little bit of story and non-combat requirement can flummox such builds.
What thread is that? (?_?)
I must not have been clear. My druid is very definitely NOT dead weight by any measure.
My point on the druid was that she is extremely effective in combat in spite of being "poorly" optimized.
I doubt you are going to see many optimized druid builds with the archery feat tree....
But optimized build, and cookie cutter build aren't synonimous. You have a character that has the right archery feats (hence the 4 attacks through manyshots and rapid shots), and combine it with a mount (for added mobility). She uses the bow to keep relevant in combat while saving spells for the right battles, that's optimal choice too.
She might not be a cookie cutter druid build, but she is optimized. An example of a non-optimized archer druid would be an archer with low DEX, or using far shot, prone shooter, focus shot with only 13 int, without precise shot or the rapid-firing feats.
That's what I mean with optimizing. The character concept (a druid archer in a companion mount) might be the same, but properly done, the character contributes beautifully to the party both in and out of combat, while being interesting and unique. I could present a character with exactly the same concept, and completelly mess it with wrong choices, building a char who can't contribute either in or out of combat. And then whine because everybody else is being three times as effective as me, even if those didn't made anything cheesy, just take a two handed sword, power attack, and start with 15+racial bonus in STR.
Optimization often leads to weaknesses elsewhere. The thread by one of the biggest optimizers on the boards commenting on the difficulty of Adventure Path illustrates how a little bit of story and non-combat requirement can flummox such builds.What thread is that? (?_?)
I'm not sure which thread he's referring to (I brought it up in several), but I think he is referring to me.
Our groups regularly fail against the adventure paths despite our 25-point buy optimized characters. TPKs are common and our characters lose connection to the overall story by the time we make it to the 3rd module.
(Though I think that has less to do with our unbalanced characters and more to do with an overzealous GM who probably isn't following the adventure paths as written.)
All attempts to curb optimization are a form of shafting available resources. Strong arming someone into taking "flavorful" feats over "optimal" feats is the same as taking away feats. Removing spells from the roster, lowering point buy, forcing players to multiclass, etc.
Lower Point Buy is the worst way to curb optimization, except for every other way.
It depends on what do you want to stop about optimization. If you want to stop the player power in the equation Player vs Enviroment, then yes. If you try to avoid the disparity between optimizing and non-optimizing players, quite the oppossite.
If you are concerned about some player overshadowing the rest of them, what you should do is giving all of them more points. More stuff make the gap lower. To quote the Incredibles, "if everybody is special, then nobody is".
This might make an issue with regards to NPC. But that's a different beast, and not the one that the OP is concerned IMHO.
I'm trying to gauge your position in this thread, and it seems as if you're arguing against the need to force suboptimization; again that is a different conversation. If a player were abusively optimized, say they have some form of Pun Pun, what would you do in such an obvious case?
I would talk to the player and tell him that is not proper. That's what my DM did to me, I was playing a blaster sorcerer optimized for blasting. I was blasting the great majority of encounters, where everybody else was doing irrelevant damage (including the dwarf using lame shield & sword build I mentioned). The players were in disconfort. So the DM and I talked, and I started to slowplay the character. I use little blasting, and started to buff the rest of the party more.
Then we entered a fight (vs Armag in Kingmaker, if you know the AP) and it was nearly a TPK. I was holding punches for most the encounter, the rest of the party included characters that couldn't pull their weight (or barely), and we only barely survive (1 character on his feet, at less than 10 hp). There I asked the DM to help the other players to revamp their Chars. I did, and suddenly they were happy again.The problem is not that one of the players do 50 (or whatever) damage. If some player does 50 dmg, and the others do 35, everybody has fun. But if one player does 50 damage, and the other does 1d6+2, then the complaints start. But that's not because doing 50 damage is overpowered. It's not. It's the average damage of an average fighter with average stats at lvl 7, without any optimizing at all (unless taking power attack counts as optimized character). The problem is that the character doing 1d6+2 is *abysmally bad*. Teach that player to be competent, and nobody complaints. He doesn't need to be fully optimized. He doesn't need to be overpowered. He just need to be able to pull his weight. That's enough to keep him happy to play the char he wants to play.
Back to my bad group example, you could build a Swashbuckler, healer cleric, Sage concept wizard and ranged rogue that don't suck. They don't need to be incredibly powerful, they don't need to be cookie cutter classes. They can be what the player want to play (a grumpy dwarf with axe and shield, a ranged rogue, a swashbuckler, whatever). They just don't have to *suck* for being it, leading to a party TPK.
In rereading my flood of posts in the past hour or so I think my attempt to multi-task between this and my actual job has meant that some of my comments should be clarified.
The original purpose of this post was to discuss how to discourage "optimizing", and the rationale given was that optimized characters tended to make the GM's job less fun and/or more difficult.
My first point was to suggest that "optimization" itself is poorly defined and that the real problem was optimization of combat mechanics, but that optimization of character concepts was something to encourage, not discourage.
My second point was to use my two currently active PF characters as examples of the results of character concept optimization, with one example (the druid) showing that concept optimization can result in highly effective combat builds, and the other example (the witch) could result in a less effective combat build, but that BOTH of those options provided rich role-playing opportunities and that combat was only a part of the game, so focusing on combat effects was actually part of the problem itself. If combat optimized builds are creating problems for the GM, my first reaction is to reduce the importance of combat itself.
Give the party other things to accomplish. Social interaction goals. Rescuing a hostage. Solving a riddle. Negotiating a treaty. Finding a MacGuffin. Unveiling the imposter. Seducing the Princess.
I realize that some, perhaps most, GMs run commercially available modules, but that doesn't mean you can't modify them. And this becomes a self-correcting thing over time. The more the GM makes non-combat things important to the gaming session, the more the players will adjust to optimizing for non-combat abilities, which will divert some character building resources away from combat specific improvements.
That's my real point.
So, went through this thread a bit, and having had a home-brew campaign that was just finished with equal parts roleplay and combat (as war, not as sport), I can safely say that discouraging optimization is as simple as the GM saying 'no'.
For example, the GM was new to pathfinder, so one of the players asked if he could involve 3.5 spells, since the spell selection for wizards kind of sucked. The GM said yes...that player, the Mystic Theurge took spell perfection (Greater Fireburst) and levels in Archmage, shaping the spell into a line and destroying encounters with ease.
The monk asked if 3.5 feats and a couple custom items would be allowed. The GM said yes...the monk eventually had an AC of 61 when he felt like it (45 normally, I think?) and could do 77 points of damage per attack...while doing a Flurry of Blows.
I played a Stealth of Shadows Halfling Ninja who focused as a sniper with a Great Crossbow from Races of Stone. The GM grumped because the enemies could never find me (I eventually took Hellcat stealth) and after a while, I retrained some levels and become a Ninja/Fighter using two weapon fighting. In comparison to the rest of the characters, I had sub-par AC, sub-par damage (relying on sneak attack for damage is not a good idea above level 15...), and I could control the RP and political situations we occasionally got into.
The halfling had a great back story...but because I felt absolutely useless in combat, I didn't have any fun. In fact, the GM had to throw in gimmicks (Well, if you disable the pylons you can help your friends out! Sure, you won't be dealing damage...but who needs to do damage?) so that my character would be useful in combat. As a result of this campaign (As well as the knowledge that Sneak Attack is a liability above level 12), I will probably never play a rogue/ninja again.
On the other hand, can you imagine if that same GM had said 'No' to a variety of player requests? The monk wouldn't of been impossible to hit and dealing over 500 points of damage with flurry, the theurge wouldn't have been ending encounters with a single spell, and I probably wouldn't of had the Great Crossbow.
How do you stop a player from optimizing? The DM does his job, says "No" occasionally, and makes sure the players are playing in the rules.
It depends on what do you want to stop about optimization. If you want to stop the player power in the equation Player vs Enviroment, then yes. If you try to avoid the disparity between optimizing and non-optimizing players, quite the oppossite.
Cool, Mr. Touc was talking about optimization relative to Stock material. For ease of conversation, here is the OP:
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.
If this were a thread on hypothetical Class imbalance, which are very fun conversations to have, then I'd be cheer leading your position of granting a Higher Point Buy. You're right on the money with your assessment on how to close the power gap, but it will not stop optimization.
Power Disparity is a flaw in the rules, Optimization is a behavior. Game mechanics are mind control, tweak the various buttons and dials to achieve the desired behavior.
Optimization often leads to weaknesses elsewhere. The thread by one of the biggest optimizers on the boards commenting on the difficulty of Adventure Path illustrates how a little bit of story and non-combat requirement can flummox such builds.What thread is that? (?_?)I'm not sure which thread he's referring to (I brought it up in several), but I think he is referring to me.
Our groups regularly fail against the adventure paths despite our 25-point buy optimized characters. TPKs are common and our characters lose connection to the overall story by the time we make it to the 3rd module.
(Though I think that has less to do with our unbalanced characters and more to do with an overzealous GM who probably isn't following the adventure paths as written.)
Well it's admittedly been a while since I've done an AP (though I've ran a couple of modules, but mostly been doing my own stuff for my groups when I have time to play), but Pathfinder isn't exactly easy.
At least not when encounters and obstacles are dynamic, which is the goal of all great GMs. When you take into account things like terrain, lighting, distance, environmental effects, and so forth, the game is really well designed and quite difficult. I mean, if your GM actually follows the rules and applies modifiers for things like distance and lighting (that Critter with the +11 Stealth is 70 ft. away, so that's more like +18; but he sees you 'cause you're carrying a torch), or cover and concealment (fighting kobolds inside a burning building with tables and chairs scattered about), or using universal rules as creatures would ("Did...did that wyvern just surprise-round charge into Jimmy, make a free grapple check via grab, then fly off with him as a grapple-move?" - "Yup." - "Well damn."), then things aren't exactly a cakewalk (I describe the opposite of this sort of thing as "monsters jumping on swords).
The CR system is nice and tends to work very well. But it's definitely not a cakewalk. There's a fair chance of death even in equal-CR encounters. Especially in any situation where the badguys have strategies (either instinctual or planned out of cunning) that they follow. This is especially true since you are typically expected to encounter foes in their environment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this were a thread on hypothetical Class imbalance, which are very fun conversations to have, then I'd be cheer leading your position of granting a Higher Point Buy. You're right on the money with your assessment on how to close the power gap, but it will not stop optimization.
.
Well, I understand the OP different then.
I see the "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." as a competition among players (they don't do X build because it is only 82% as effective as the cookie cutter tried and proved Y build), not because it's a race vs the DM.
If the DM concerns are that the PC defeat the monsters too easy, then yes, low point buy will make the encounters a harder challenge. But if the OP concern is that the PC shoehorn themselves into a few cookie cutter builds and "dull characters" as noted in "it's my observation that optimized characters are...dull. Optimized characters tend to be mechanical", then reducing the point buy will only increase this.
with 30 point buy, some player might feel creative and try a dex based monk with multiple abilities needed. Or some sort of sorcerer that use a bow as primary weapon, or whatever. But if the player doesn't have enough points to experiment with that (for example, not enough points to buy DEX for his shiny archer sorcerer), they'll rely even more in specialization, dull cookie cutter, and true&tried builds with single ability dependance.
Lowering point buy will make the encounters harder. But will not help PC variance, creative builds, "non-dull" characters, new attempts of new tricks, or non-optimal choices. And making the encounters harder is not the OP priority (hence the "I don't ask about advanced templates to make encounter harder"). Prevailing background-based and organic characters over mechanical choices seem to be his priority. Low point buy hurt that.
Power Disparity is a flaw in the rules, Optimization is a behavior. Game mechanics are mind control, tweak the various buttons and dials to achieve the desired behavior
Two players can build a fighter, and one be much more powerful than the other. Two players can build a wizard, and one be much more powerful than the rogue. Power disparity between classes is a flaw in the rules. Power disparity between PC is a matter of optimization.
I like batman. I have never liked super man.
Put batman in a group. Super man, Wonder woman, Flash,Martian Man Hunter.
Wow Batman is suboptimal, pew pew pew. Bats sucks.
WHEN did Bats start sucking?
In the olden days BIIF BAM POW! he kicked everyones butts!
In the olden days superman COULDNT EVEN FLY! he jumped really far had no laser vision and often got pummeled by 5 or 6 guys at once.....
What happened here? SUPS got reimagined and 'optimized'
But some one forgot to "change the game" so his ultimate bad guy is lex luthor.
Hmpf....so SUPS doesnt just squash lex, why? OH yea the paladin code...riiiight.
So the only way to make the story a STORY is all of the sudden this SUPER RARE material, kryptonite is suddenly growing on TREES!!
every cliff hanger was always hinged on kryptonite everything. LAME.
THEN after they figured out the kryptonite plot hook was BORING, then they amped up ALL the super villains.
NOW you have bats, flash, sups, wonder woman oh yea and green lantern who can all beat up the utlimate villains of doom, while bats fights the Mooks off.
Now bats sucks.
Was the a REASON why SUPs needed to be optimized?
What came first the chicken or the egg.
I have the answer. I was there when it happened.
Optimized loop holed characters came first, more powerful monsters and challenging scenarios became a result of it.
DMs are free to TOTALLY Ignore CR and WBL. It's NOT how the game works, it's a suggestion.
You aren't stuck with it.
This is the source of all craziness in this game, WBL, CR, yada yada.. the benchmarks that made a mess of the game. The source of all stuff that made WoTC fall off the top of the gaming heap.
Crumble up those pages of the rule books, throw them out BE FREE.
Stop beng a slave to a matrix.
I play this game to get AWAY from that IRL. Everything about my life is a table, a chart, a matrix. A Budget.
I don't need another system saying I must have a +2 belt that I can buy at magi mart by this benchmark with my character and if I dont Im sub optimal.
I hate, despise and spit on magi mart, what's magical about it? It's just gear now. A nice pair of shoes and a shinier sword. Bleck.
IF I put superman in green rights with a yellow cape, he's still superman.
Pendagast, heh... nice rant. :) I concur with most of it.
I've mentioned before that I pretty much totally ignore WBL and CR when I design my encounters. I just do what seems right to me. For example, in my current campaign the player party just completed negotiating a critical agreement between warring factions to join forces against a demonic horde, and now they have to go find an item that will allow the leaders of the "good" armies to figure out how to defeat the invading hordes. And that item is located in some super secret location in the Underdark.
So I am creating encounters for the underdark. How am I doing that? Am I pulling out the bestiary and looking for CR appropriate monsters?
Maybe I should, but I'm not. I'm asking myself, "Self, what do you think should be in this area?" and then working through that. Once I decide what type of encounter the setting calls for, I'll figure out how to massage it so that its an appropriate challenge for the player party.
It is quite possible that they will encounter something that is beyond their ability to defeat in combat. If so, they better choose something other than combat to deal with it.
Here is my current thought. While the world above is getting invaded and is engaged in armageddon-like conflict, the Underdark is so far mostly untouched. However, the denizens of the underdark have heard something about the conflict above, and so different factions are sending scouts to see if they need to worry about the surface conflict. That means the party is likely to encounter one of those scouting parties. What is the scouting party looking for? Information about the conflict above. What does the party have tons of? Information about the conflict above. Hmmmm...... Seems like there might be something besides hitting each other with pointy sticks that could be worked out here...
That's just one example of how my mind works in creating encounters. If the party decides to cooperate with the scouting party, perhaps they might even be rewarded by the faction. Or maybe they'll be attacked. A lot has to do with how the party reacts.
Ill agree with that and I pretty much do the same. There might be several situations that you can't beat.
No wait, that would NEVER be here, we're only 5th level...it's an illusion charge! (start rolling 3d6 to generate a new character...i dont use illusions much)
7th level party might meet a band of hobgoblins in the forest too...because those monsters might just be there.
Case in point, in CotCT the players have several 'scenes' through out the first two AP modules that are really only meant to be background "this happens" and "you see that".
Well they "saw" one too many of those things and decided to get involved. OH no. impromptu unplanned encounter.
Assigned HPS, ACs and BaBs on the fly and let her rip.
Several rounds later I introduced a group of gray maidens marching toward the brawl to put a stop to the "lawlessness"
This was something the characters HAD to run from.
They chose to look for a sewer grate to slink into. I made one available (although they took a round of arrows in the back because they failed their strength checks to get the grate open the first time)
They could never have beaten the Gray Maidens and their leaders in those numbers, although several of them really wanted to.
Ive seen adventuring several many times things I knew were better left alone, and came back later when we were ready. (once to find the dragon already slain and the treasure room swept clear of treasure! Drats!)
I frequently see and play fighter types with 14-16 str.
I even played a paladin with a 12 back in 1E when that gave no bonus to combat at all.
Stats are so much more powerful now than they used to be.
Only the highest stats used to give any + bonus...but for some reason, we all must have those super high stats.
All that does is create "Queen Illeosa" at the end of an AP with a ridiculous stat array and unattainable DCs
That just brings us back to the whole "lets just multiply all our damage by ten.... will that be more fun?"
the problem with optimization is, it can only be done so far, until someone prints a new rule that can exploited. but until then i can still "make up" a monster you can't defeat.
So when you have your full optimized party and get killed are you going to cry 'no fair' because it wasn't CR appropriate??
what happens if your party runs across bad guys that are routed from a battle with a higher level party over yonder? Those 100hp 'mooks' for that level 15 party are going to vaporize you.
The game is not set in stone everything is relative.
Nunspa, my druid started with a 16 wisdom at level 1. Her wisdom at level 9 is now 20, but that includes magic items. She rarely summons. In most combat she uses her bow. She reserves her spellcasting for major battles. With the archery feat tree and riding her animal companion she gets three attacks and four arrows per round, and she's a pretty good shot. In major fights she tends to use battlefield control spells with an occasional big blast to finish off a BBEG if possible.
16 isn't really dead wieght stat. Now if it had been 12 then we would be worrying (remember the Dead weighters used 1d6+1 as a example).
Starbuck, according to some folks, putting a 16 in a main stat is clearly optimizing behavior. According to others it is needlessly gimping the character to the point of unplayability.
In retrospect I sort of wish I had given her lower wisdom and higher dex. Many of her most useful spells don't depend on DCs. The few that do are mostly battlefield control and will end up getting some of the enemy anyway.
Had I gone with a lower wisdom and higher dex, she would benefit from a +1 to her bow in the vast majority of combat rounds and would have suffered a loss in DC on a few spells only.
But c'est la vie. It is what it is and I enjoy the heck out of playing her.
My only real concern is that if I ever get to the mid-teens with her, that 3/4 BAB could start to really hurt. But I've been playing her in our group for six years now and she's only level 9, so that's not really a great concern. I expect she will be retired around level 12 like the vast majority of my characters...
I like batman. I have never liked super man.
Put batman in a group. Super man, Wonder woman, Flash,Martian Man Hunter.
Wow Batman is suboptimal, pew pew pew. Bats sucks.
WHEN did Bats start sucking?
In the olden days BIIF BAM POW! he kicked everyones butts!
In the olden days superman COULDNT EVEN FLY! he jumped really far had no laser vision and often got pummeled by 5 or 6 guys at once.....What happened here? SUPS got reimagined and 'optimized'
But some one forgot to "change the game" so his ultimate bad guy is lex luthor.
Hmpf....so SUPS doesnt just squash lex, why? OH yea the paladin code...riiiight.
So the only way to make the story a STORY is all of the sudden this SUPER RARE material, kryptonite is suddenly growing on TREES!!
every cliff hanger was always hinged on kryptonite everything. LAME.
THEN after they figured out the kryptonite plot hook was BORING, then they amped up ALL the super villains.
NOW you have bats, flash, sups, wonder woman oh yea and green lantern who can all beat up the utlimate villains of doom, while bats fights the Mooks off.
Now bats sucks.
Was the a REASON why SUPs needed to be optimized?
I don't want to derail this any further, but have you actually read any comics with that group in the last 30-40 years? Batman doesn't get stuck fighting the mooks most of the time. He plans. He's always prepared. He's often the one saving the whole team. Without superpowers. Because he's the g$*#$+ned Batman.
That doesn't work well in a game, because your players aren't Batman. They don't obsessively prepare for every possibility and they don't have the power of plot to have the right gimmick on hand, etc.
But the whole escalation of Superman and kryptonite and everything happened before most of us were born. He could fly and had heat vision since the 40's.
1E was before half the players here were born. So?
If the DM fed the 1d6+1 suck guy all the plot hooks he could do all sorts of amazing thing too, especially if he didnt have to roll and they automatically worked.The analogy is comparing what batman can do vs. the other members of the team, adding in DM fiat/Writers privilege doesn't do anything here.
Villains are amped up to make the supers not boring, leaving everything else behind.
The same arms race that occurs in the game, things like:
AC is irrelevant after a certain level and all those other symptoms
that are caused by optimization and the thirst for more power and more cool.
Why walk when you can wuxia through the trees?
Why ride a horse when you can ride a griffon.
All fun and games, to be sure.
NOW we have people who are trying to exploit the system to fly at 1st level etc etc.
Because the power level isnt good enough for them, no I dont want to walk at 1st level... that destroys my whole character concept.
Devs and authors just write what there is demand for so they can keep themselves employed.
I fully expect to see int he next little while, flying at level 1 etc etc.
this is escalation caused by optimization. this is the number 1 reason to discourage players from doing it.
If you want to fly at level 1 and don't want to be hurt by anything unless its green and glowing and the rarest material in the universe (even tho it shows up every gaming session) then optimize and power game away. And like Raving dork says there is NO way to get people like this to NOT do it, because it's what they want, they are LOOKING for it.
But there is a 1/3 of the people who think they have to do it to keep up. which isn't true and another 1/3 of the people that DON'T want it.
But because of sensationalistic trends in our society today, UBER MEGA gets all the attention, and most other people DON'T know there i another way to do it.
Re stats
Ironically, AD my inquisitor only has a Wis of 14. At 6th level. But most of his spells are buffs and spiritual weapon. :-)
Yeah, if I had gone with a wis of 14 to start, at level six my druid would have had wis of 15. And I doubt it would have made any difference at all. But a +1 to her bow would have hit a lot more targets. Especially since she started doing iterative attacks and rapid shot...
In this case a reflexive desire to put a highest stat in a "prime attribute" may actually have hurt my character concept.
A lesson I've learned, but too late for her.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't work well in a game, because your players aren't Batman. They don't obsessively prepare for every possibility and they don't have the power of plot to have the right gimmick on hand, etc.
Apparently none of said players have ever played wizards.
Apparently none of said players have ever played wizards.That doesn't work well in a game, because your players aren't Batman. They don't obsessively prepare for every possibility and they don't have the power of plot to have the right gimmick on hand, etc.
Hah true, "A wizard is never late, he just alters reality so he is actually early!"
heres a quote from wiki ABOUT superman:
The powers of DC Comics character Superman have changed since his introduction in the 1930s. The extent of his powers peaked during the 1970s and 1980s to the point where various writers found it difficult to create suitable challenges for the character. As a result his powers were significantly reduced when his story was rebooted by writer John Byrne after the Crisis on Infinite Earths series. After Byrne's departure, Superman's powers were gradually increased again, although he still remains weaker than his pre-Crisis incarnation.
This is EXACTLY what Im talking about, no a derailment.
the extent of his powers peaked...to the point writers found it difficult to create suitable challenges...
What do the do next? REBOOT. The ultimate face slap for a comic reader...remember ALL those comics you bought...well that actually didn't happen....here's REALITY....greeeeat.
as a result his powers were significantly reduced.... ah to bring it back down to a challengeable level.
Then...what happens... Superman's power levels are gradually increasing AGAIN.....
Can't. Help. Myself. Must. Have. More. Crack.....
Go through the trouble of fixing it and do the same thing all over again, because the same ole same ole isnt fun and the only way to make more fun is.... power increase?
IF you self regulate, and do things in moderation, nothing becomes an issue. If you go for the gullet, eventually it's the only choice, because no matter what you do, the best way is always going to be the best way, until a writer gives you a power increase....
That's the reason not to over optimize, that's the logic to know when enoughs enough.
Rebooting is also a business strategy. A lot of people don't read certain comics because they would have to start somewhere in the middle, or else spend a ridiculous amount of time, money, and energy hunting down old issues. But when you reboot a comic, you allow the opportunity for newer audiences to become fans in their own right--and that means more money.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've still seen NOTHING in this thread that can't be fixed with treasure drops.
There is NOTHING in the rules that states each character must have standard wealth-by-level. There is NOTHING in the rules that states that each party member must have equal treasure.
This fixes BOTH of the optimization problems - "Arms Race/Monster Stomping" and "Party Power Disparity." If your party is crushing everything they see, start limiting treasure. If some players are so much weaker than the party that they are no longer having fun, drop them an awesome magic item to help them participate.
Just make sure your players know before building their characters that you are going to balance out the party with treasure drops. Let them know that you aren't going to let them be the superhero with his crew of sidekicks, and that they should build for fun, not build for power, because "overpowered" builds will end up behind in WBL and lose their edge. Make it clear that Rogues will get more loot than Wizards.
I've seen other "solutions" in this thread that I disagree strongly with:
1) Limiting point buy. Limiting the point buy favors SAD classes, including many of those that are already the most powerful (like wizards.) This "solution" will only enhance the "Party Power Disparity" problem.
2) Dice pools. Dice pools encourage min-maxing, because with a point buy going from a 17 to an 18 costs 4 pts, and dropping from a 9 to an 8 gets you 1 pt. With a dice pool, going from 17 to 18 essentially "costs" 1 pt and going from 9 to 8 gets you 1 pt. So, there's less limitation to min-maxed stats (compounding the "Arms Race" problem.
3) Limiting books. The original problem was that people aren't willing to play interesting characters because they think they "have" to ragelancepounce, so all the characters end up looking the same. Limiting books means that they have less freedom to make their "concept character", and will be forced to play more "vanilla" builds than if they had more resources.
Rebooting is also a business strategy. A lot of people don't read certain comics because they would have to start somewhere in the middle, or else spend a ridiculous amount of time, money, and energy hunting down old issues. But when you reboot a comic, you allow the opportunity for newer audiences to become fans in their own right--and that means more money.
Well when DnD was REBOOTED as PF, it was 'cleaned up heavily' and there was at the basic level of the classes more power, in a way.
But it was contained, with the issuing of more books we now have the near levels of 'what int he world is going on' as 3.5 had, and if we continue at the rate we are traveling, we will pass 3.5 quickly.
How do you feel about buying all new rules sets with a REBOOT?
The CRB was good. Loads of Fun.
The APG was Wow.
UM? I really dont find anything in there except magus and a few archetypes, occasionally I look in there for a feat but it usually not where i think it is, so it's distracting me form the book it's really in.
UC put a lot of there that kinda changed the way the game is played... not sure it's for the better.
The Real creep comes in the soft covers thou... called splatbooks in 3.5.
It's also the source of a problem in that not everyone has them, so it's always 'what feat? where??" which is what optimizers thrive on...other people not knowing the rules so their optimization is even more out of whack.
It all just creates a spiral until an inevitable reboot.
This si good for the individual gamer why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like batman. I have never liked super man.
Put batman in a group. Super man, Wonder woman, Flash,Martian Man Hunter.
Wow Batman is suboptimal, pew pew pew. Bats sucks.
Batman don't sucks. He's actually part of the Holy Trinity of JLA. And he is bassically the most heavily optimized character in the history of Comics. No other character uses his available resources so well as him. If being underoptimized is being bad at your job, Batman is the f%~#ing best one in the world at his job
I think we still disagree in the meaning of optimization. What you call optimization, is being overpowered. Muchkinism =/= optimization. Combat prowess =/= optimization.
About the rest of your rant, nobody *forces* you to take the +2 STR belt. You can build your PC however you want. Me too. I don't tell you what to take or how to play. So if I take a perfectly reasonable 2h fighter with 15 str +2 racial +1 lvl +2 enhancement, and I do ~50 damage at lvl 7, please don't complain. Please don't tell me my way to play is wrong. Please don't tell me I should be using some other feat instead of power attack, I should be using a one handed sword instead of a two handed one. Please don't ask me to nerf my character because yours do 1d6+3 and is not relevant.
You built your character. You are happy with it. I don't complain about your character. Please don't complain about mine. It's a freaking average array fighter with a Core feat using a standard martial weapon. It's not like I'm bending the rules, creating Pun Pun, or using a syntheists Shiva Build with 3pp obscure feats. It's a simple, core, basic figther. If he does 50 damage per round when your character does 8, so what? Aren't you playing for the story? Aren't you happy with your character background? Then enjoy it. And let me enjoy mine.
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...
I think you've hit on something very intriguing. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that the players always expect to face challenges commensurate with their abilities strictly based on the party CR. Is that more or less correct?
I must admit I've always disliked the formulaic aspect of using CR to create 'balanced' encounters. It probably helps newer GMs not use creatures that will result in a TPK. "So the Tarrasque roars again and then swallows your character and his horse in one gulp. Make up a new character." I want my players* to decide on the adventure hooks they will follow. If, at 1st level, they hear about the ancient red dragon up on her mountain and decide to go take her on, well, that's their problem. ;-) I don't like the idea (similar to video games that you mention) that artificially restrict things because the characters aren't X level. The game world is not that neat and, well, cooperative. :-D
* I only expect this of experienced players. New players get lots of advice and hints from me.
<back to read the thread at the quoted post>
As a player my level optimization depends on the GM. The more difficult the encounter the more I optimize. I would suggest telling the players that they dont need the best possible character just to survive.
Being good in combat also has to do with tactics. You have have to ask them to "play down" also.
As a player my level optimization depends on the GM. The more difficult the encounter the more I optimize. I would suggest telling the players that they dont need the best possible character just to survive.
Being good in combat also has to do with tactics. You have have to ask them to "play down" also.
Last time my DM told us that, we almost TPK. We play APs so the encounters are mostly written.
I think you've hit on something very intriguing. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that the players always expect to face challenges commensurate with their abilities strictly based on the party CR. Is that more or less
Here I agree with Pendagast. There os nothing wrong with seeing a dragon at level 1, or basic kobolds at 12. There is nothing wrong with "must flee" encounters, they are even healthy.
But I fail to see what does it have to do with optimization. Optimization =\= easy mode. You could play a group of fairly optimized chars and make them run in encounters (no level 1 party can take down a dragon), and you could have a bunch of rather mediocre PC and making them feeling like gods throwing them low level encounters an fairly unoptimized NPC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a pretty serious optimizer. I enjoy the puzzle of building a character, of selecting synergistic feats, etc. I don't feel like this hampers my RP, since my characters personality, history, foibles, etc. aren't predicated on his mechanical attributes. While others in my group may not spend as much time at it, several of them are long-term (20+ years) gamers, and definitely have a solid level of rules mastery. They don't build their characters to be weak either.
We've never had any drama that one character was "outshining" the others.
Our DM has never had trouble throwing challenges at us that were appropriate for our power level.
I can understand the concept of a DM wanting to save himself the work of having to power up pre-written adventure foes for a stronger group. But such a DM should understand that he may be buying his convenience at the cost--at least partially--of his players' enjoyment of the game.
|
I sometimes have less fun when an encounter just folds in front of my optimized Archer Ranger in RotRL.
I often have less fun when I play my Halfling Jinx Sorceress, who is not really optimized, in Serpent Skull.
I had almost zero fun playing a wonderful aristocratic character who was a beast at social interactions and was zero-optimized at combat in Living Arcanis.
So, in my experience, a player will have more fun (though not necessarily in each and every encounter) if he plays a more optimized PC. YMMV.
BTW, I realize that we are mixing 2 different topics in this thread about optimization :
- underoptimized PCs vs overoptimized PCs in the same party
- overoptimized PCs vs standard encounters
Those 2 are not the same, though they interact.
|
|
Optimization often leads to weaknesses elsewhere. The thread by one of the biggest optimizers on the boards commenting on the difficulty of Adventure Path illustrates how a little bit of story and non-combat requirement can flummox such builds.What thread is that? (?_?)I'm not sure which thread he's referring to (I brought it up in several), but I think he is referring to me.
Our groups regularly fail against the adventure paths despite our 25-point buy optimized characters. TPKs are common and our characters lose connection to the overall story by the time we make it to the 3rd module.
(Though I think that has less to do with our unbalanced characters and more to do with an overzealous GM who probably isn't following the adventure paths as written.)
I was, and I am. Based on your description of the APs, you missed a bunch of things in the role playing portion of the AP that would have made the encounters much easier.
My experience with "optimized" player is that someone in the group has to fill the gaps they leave in their builds. Because to optimize "X" you need to give up "Y".
This is not a bad thing, no build can be all things to all people. But if you have a group of optimizers without at least one or two people who like to fill gaps and holes, your party is going to have trouble in an adventure path or well written campaign.
We just started a game where the DM knew none of us where optimized. And yet he had us fighting enemies that where of a higher CR then we were at lvl 1 :/. We did not know that was going to happen ahead of time.
On the one hand, that seems unfair. On the other hand, we actually pulled through, and it was a lot of fun.
I don't see why people make optimized characters. Pathfinder's combat isn't interesting enough to focus soley on it, and not on roleplay. The only guy I've ever seen make an optimised character retooled it because he didn't have enough skill points, and when he dropped his STR it didn't drastically reduce his damage.
I don't see why people make optimized characters. Pathfinder's combat isn't interesting enough to focus soley on it, and not on roleplay. The only guy I've ever seen make an optimised character retooled it because he didn't have enough skill points, and when he dropped his STR it didn't drastically reduce his damage.
Yours is a common misconception. That optimization reduce the amount of roleplaying.
You can optimize your skill points too.
I don't see why people make optimized characters. Pathfinder's combat isn't interesting enough to focus soley on it, and not on roleplay. The only guy I've ever seen make an optimised character retooled it because he didn't have enough skill points, and when he dropped his STR it didn't drastically reduce his damage.Yours is a common misconception. That optimization reduce the amount of roleplaying.
You can optimize your skill points too.
Yeah, it's really just a problem for a class where int is one of the dump stats. It's kind of bland when all I have to work with for backstory is that I learned to climb or something. Also, ignoring your sheet works wonders for roleplay.
|
|
I don't see why people make optimized characters. Pathfinder's combat isn't interesting enough to focus soley on it, and not on roleplay.
Combat is the phase in modules that takes the longest RL time.
If you have nothing to do that contributes to combat besides some Aid another and all-out defense and hoping no opponent even notices you, you are spending a long time IRL looking at your friends enjoying the combat scene while you don't.
Trust me, I've been there. It is absolutely zero fun.
And in my PC's case, the fact that her forte was in non-combat social roles did not help at all. Because while the combat system is designed at depth to NOT be an all or nothing situation, such is not the case for social interaction.
Thus if you are a beast at Diplomacy and Sense Motive, social situations are a breeze, that is until the GM gets fed up with his social scenes being zero challenge and either avoids them completely ("okay, you convince the BBEG to repent his ways, blah, blah") or ups the DCs like crazy. In both cases, you are not shining anymore.
Indeed the same happened recently to the Rogue in our RotRL group. Since he could make every roll to check and disable the traps, the GM was frustrated that all the trap encounters were doing nothing and he just stopped describing them. Much to the frustration (even anger) of the Rogue's player who had purposefully invested resources in his character's skill at finding and managing traps but got zero return on investment in terms of RL time when the gaming group was interested in what his character did.
IMO, being overoptimized in skills is even worse than being overoptimized at combat for all involved.
|
Yeah, it's really just a problem for a class where int is one of the dump stats. It's kind of bland when all I have to work with for backstory is that I learned to climb or something. Also, ignoring your sheet works wonders for roleplay.I don't see why people make optimized characters. Pathfinder's combat isn't interesting enough to focus soley on it, and not on roleplay. The only guy I've ever seen make an optimised character retooled it because he didn't have enough skill points, and when he dropped his STR it didn't drastically reduce his damage.Yours is a common misconception. That optimization reduce the amount of roleplaying.
You can optimize your skill points too.
Umm what does skill points have to do with backstory?!? I have a character who's backstory is that he is the son of a disgraced Taldan admiral who died at sea when he was a small child. His mother quickly forgot the father and married a noble and left him in his father's manor with one servant to take care of him. Having grown up so isolated and in a decaying manor, he is very moody and has a very glum outlook. Having seen how his mother quickly moved on, he became ruthless. By the time he became of age, he was cut off from even that. Left to fend for himself, he headed off to the shackles to make his fortune. And this isn't even all that great of a backstory as I will admit that I am not that great at making up backstories much.
Not one bit of that is tied to any skill points. Now details to flush that out IS based on more mechanical crunch...like his love for the ocean and his much spent youth there as it reminds him of his father is represented with the heart of the sea trait for example. He learned to sail to follow (well sorta as he's gonna be a pirate and not the navy...) his father's footstep is represented with profession sailor.
Seriously, you say ignore your sheet for roleplaying right after saying that you can't have a good backstory without skill points...make up your mind (and really neither are correct). You can make up grand backstories with int as your dump stat. You can have wonders with roleplaying by weaving your mechanical crunch into your narrative about your character.
|
I've been gaming for 28 years now and in all those years min/maxing almost always leads to DM vs Players. This happens because each side keeps upgrading their optimization to keep up with one another.
I know there is no wrong way to play but at the end of the day, it is a role playing game and not purely a mechanical one.
How about this instead of point buy?
you roll 4d6 six times, discarding the lowest die each time. Place in order (Str, Dex,Con, Int, Wis, Cha) as rolled. Reroll any one ability score of your choice, taking the new roll if it’s higher. Then switch any two ability scores. Organic baby...I love it. drawing from my "old school" project, you could have ability scores cap at 18/20 and have them put the ability score point they get every four levels into the lowest or second lowest stat. Couple that with some ability score prereqs for classes and you're golden. Then again, I've got a group who are into this kinda thing.
Yeah, it's really just a problem for a class where int is one of the dump stats. It's kind of bland when all I have to work with for backstory is that I learned to climb or something. Also, ignoring your sheet works wonders for roleplay.I don't see why people make optimized characters. Pathfinder's combat isn't interesting enough to focus soley on it, and not on roleplay. The only guy I've ever seen make an optimised character retooled it because he didn't have enough skill points, and when he dropped his STR it didn't drastically reduce his damage.Yours is a common misconception. That optimization reduce the amount of roleplaying.
You can optimize your skill points too.
You can optimize your character having INT. In some characters, it's even required.
Backstory has nothing to do with your skill points. You can have a very rich backstory without ever naming any skill.
Your last sentence seem a bit contradictory. If you can roleplay ignoring your sheet, why does it matter if you have skill points or not?
I've been gaming for 28 years now and in all those years min/maxing almost always leads to DM vs Players. This happens because each side keeps upgrading their optimization to keep up with one another.
I know there is no wrong way to play but at the end of the day, it is a role playing game and not purely a mechanical one.
Isn't combat fundamentally the GM placing challenges in front of his players? It only becomes a meta-battle of GM v Players if any one at the table takes an encounter personally. As a GM, I want my players to win, but I also want them to walk away from a challenging experience with the feeling that they succeeded by their own cleverness and cooperation. I'm happy when they feel this way. Though you are right that Min/Maxing can lead to off the table aggravations, maturity can keep everything in perspective.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been gaming for 28 years now and in all those years min/maxing almost always leads to DM vs Players. This happens because each side keeps upgrading their optimization to keep up with one another.
I know there is no wrong way to play but at the end of the day, it is a role playing game and not purely a mechanical one.
So in 28 years of gaming, you NEVER managed to find a group of mature adults who can discuss things reasonably?!? Because you know what stops what you just said? TALKING LIKE MATURE ADULTS.
So you say there is no wrongbadfun...except there is if you like a purely mechanical crunch games (and yes I do play in such games and they can be quite fun)?!? WTF...seriously dude?
|
|
Isn't combat fundamentally the GM placing challenges in front of his players? It only becomes a meta-battle of GM v Players if any one at the table takes an encounter personally. As a GM, I want my players to win, but I also want them to walk away from a challenging experience with the feeling that they succeeded by their own cleverness and cooperation. I'm happy when they feel this way. Though you are right that Min/Maxing can lead to off the table aggravations, maturity can keep everything in perspective.I've been gaming for 28 years now and in all those years min/maxing almost always leads to DM vs Players. This happens because each side keeps upgrading their optimization to keep up with one another.
I know there is no wrong way to play but at the end of the day, it is a role playing game and not purely a mechanical one.
Monsters work on the same mechanics as PCs so you can optimize the hell out of monsters just like you can PCs and classes are you used in conjunction with monsters and using classes as an enemy. What happens is you have players that powergame their characters which blow through an encounter. Well the DM then starts making his encounters harder by applying the same tactics. Well the next encounter isn't an easy slam dunk so the PCs enhance their characters even more so we basically have a tit for tat situation.
|
|
I've been gaming for 28 years now and in all those years min/maxing almost always leads to DM vs Players. This happens because each side keeps upgrading their optimization to keep up with one another.
I know there is no wrong way to play but at the end of the day, it is a role playing game and not purely a mechanical one.
So in 28 years of gaming, you NEVER managed to find a group of mature adults who can discuss things reasonably?!? Because you know what stops what you just said? TALKING LIKE MATURE ADULTS.
So you say there is no wrongbadfun...except there is if you like a purely mechanical crunch games (and yes I do play in such games and they can be quite fun)?!? WTF...seriously dude?
The game wasn't actually designed for that kind of play in mind, it just happens to be a way you can play. It is still a role playing game in the end.
Its not about sitting down as mature adults. Also, you cant assume that all groups that play arr groups that play on a regular basis. You could be playing with one group one week and a totally different one the next.
Also, you cant assume that all groups that play arr groups that play on a regular basis. You could be playing with one group one week and a totally different one the next.
I couldn't stand that, personally. I cancel my games if more than one person can't make it. If I didn't have a constant group, I'd either only run occasional one-shots when everyone can make it, Play-By-Post, or nothing at all.
|
|
Isn't combat fundamentally the GM placing challenges in front of his players? It only becomes a meta-battle of GM v Players if any one at the table takes an encounter personally. As a GM, I want my players to win, but I also want them to walk away from a challenging experience with the feeling that they succeeded by their own cleverness and cooperation. I'm happy when they feel this way. Though you are right that Min/Maxing can lead to off the table aggravations, maturity can keep everything in perspective.I've been gaming for 28 years now and in all those years min/maxing almost always leads to DM vs Players. This happens because each side keeps upgrading their optimization to keep up with one another.
I know there is no wrong way to play but at the end of the day, it is a role playing game and not purely a mechanical one.
Yes and no.
Combat is the GM choosing a challenge the players are a) likely to win in front of the players and b) Are challenging to the players.
Min/Maxing only works in groups where the challenges are consistently against the max and never against the min.
Also, you cant assume that all groups that play arr groups that play on a regular basis. You could be playing with one group one week and a totally different one the next.
A agree with your assessment in your reply to my post :) Though the optimization arms race caps out eventually, at which point the table has set its culture and expectations at that level of play. There's nothing inherently antagonistic about that, not as I see it anyhow.
As to this quoted bit, I'm not sure it behooves anyone to worry about how other hypothetical groups will operate. Since we are the transient player in this scenario, we would be kind to assimilate to the existing culture.