If I made a character with AC 30+ the DM take foes which can deal with it.
If I made a character with DR 20+ the DM take foes which can deal with it.
If I made a charakter with Att +50 the DM take foes which can deal with it.
If I made a charakter with DMG 500+ the DM take foes which can deal with it.
If I made a charakter with 5+ attacks/round the DM take foes which (...)
If I made a character which is useless, the DM also can deal with it.
So, the question is:
_________________________________________________________________________
btw.: There was a Thread before which says: Why Optimizing Does Not Make Sense and linked to this and other pictures: Multiclass
I understand how you feel on this topic. Many times have I had a GM who not only one time or another, but repeatedly overpowered, change on the fly, change something that shouldn't be into something more. It happens now and then to any group.
However, if it's a repeated occurrence, it not only gets annoying, but sometimes, idk, rude? We're all trying to play a game, including the GM. If my way of having fun is making my character concept, or roleplay, or background, or whatever, then whats the problem of me having some fun. I understand i can't always get my way, because the game is not built on easy mode, everything goesmour way style, there must be challenges. No problem. But if its practically every single occurence of it coming up as an issue, then there is an issue, and not over the character.
If the first thing to cross the GM's mind is "how can I mess with that (negatively)," then there is an issue amongst the group, or rather between the DM and what his issue is with the character(s).
Maybe he isn't planning stuff out, so on the fly stuff is a common occurrence. Remedy:write long term plans, and details for role playing and combat.
If he doesn't like having you guys have all the fun, have the GM introduce an NPC perhaps, even though that in itself causes issues. If not, have him make his NPC/ enemies be tougher/more resilient/smarter. (too many times GM's play their. Characters roles as not true smart characters, but those with some above intelligence. If the party is fighting demons, and they can summon or gate in friends, DO IT.
My, now not so short answer is thus, either talk tot the GM about it, or make a character that is not optimized in one way,,must great all around. You cover more territory with broader strokes than with pinpoint accuracy on one particular function. The last option, even if funny, is what you already said, create a crap character. Focused in not one particular thing, and even if so, is horrible at it. (zen archer, with low wisdom; barbarian with a penalty to con, Druid who picks a bird as an animal companion and not a pouncing cat or something else.)
Edit: Also, if players have issue with your character for optimizing, is it because they aren't and dislike your use of it, or are they optimizing as well, just don't like what your doing? It's just as likely the situation as with the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many GMs follow the guidelines or run APs mostly as they are written. Most stay in the same ballpark. That means you can and will get yourself killed or be underwhelming if you make a weak character in most games. You'll also stay alive and kick ass if you optimise to some extent.
Having a party with very mixed levels of optimisation also leads to some outshining the others. Encouraging optimisation means it will be easier for the gm to appropriately challenge the group without telling anybody to change their character because "he's too powerful"
It can also work the other way: Imbalance between the classes has always been a controversial issue, but if you're playing a very powerful class and I'm playing a very weak one, I can just optimise more and suddenly the gap is smaller and the GM has an easier time challenging you without killing or side-lining me.
Then there's the fact that we're not all concerned with beating the encounter when we optimise. Maybe what we want is to beat bigger and better encounters? It's not so much "I survived an adventure" as "I conquered the citadel of the screaming god".
You are also confusing optimisation with power building. Optimisation is about making the rules do what you want them to. It's about finding a way to make a character concept as well as you can. Whatever your goal is, optimisation will help you achieve it, even if you're not interested in overall power.
Think of it like this: If I decide I want to make a fighter who's very smart and does some magic, optimisation skill lets me make a smarter fighter who can use more magic while still keeping his essential fighter-ish-ness. Without system mastery, he's likely to wind up really bad at magic, have an unremarkable IQ or barely qualify as a fighter, even though he might be more powerful that way.
Reasons to optimize usually run closer to competing with your fellow players than the GM. I don't usually care, even if I make a weak character my GM will enable me so I just focus on having a character that I find enjoyable and fun to (role)play and contributes fairly to the groups efforts in some way. I find I have a lot of fun with characters that enable others, especially if they would not otherwise be able to contribute much and characters that enhance the GM's story/campaign rather than challenge it.
Because the GM should not do that? Frankly, I don't think the GM should ever be the one picking what the PCs fight, never mind the fact that the other PCs won't have those things, necessarily, so picking enemies to face you screws them over. What you describe in your post sounds like you're playing a very different game than I am.
It differs a LOT from table to table, and even within the table from game to game. As usual, the answer is to _communicate_ as a group both before and during a campaign.
Some groups run AP's straight out of the book. Optimization will mean you can go through them with ease, generally.
Some groups adjust the opponents to the wanted level of challenge, whether it is "the party should always win unless they do something extremely stupid" or "the party should always have to be on the edge of their seats or be killed brutally" or somewhere inbetween.
There isn't a single "right" or "wrong" way and it's not that DM's "shouldn't do that", these things are a matter of what the group wants, what playstyle suits them. We've had games where everyone optimized to hell and they knew I'd be doing the same thing as a DM. We've had other games where really unoptimized characters had no issues going through the enemies.
The issues with opimization and class balance are as I see it:
- When there is a large disparity within the party, since that makes some party members feel useless and the players will often get bored.
- When the DM and players are prepared for completely different things.
You are also confusing optimisation with power building.
Yes, I mean what be called munchkin, powergamer,
... but I also mean optimisation like this:
If I decide I want to make a fighter who's very smart and does some magic, optimisation skill lets me make a smarter fighter who can use more magic while still keeping his essential fighter-ish-ness. Without system mastery, he's likely to wind up really bad at magic, have an unremarkable IQ or barely qualify as a fighter, even though he might be more powerful that way.
For example my Elf Barbarian, which I try to optimize for fighter, rogue, magus and kingdombuilding aspects ...
Reasons to optimize usually run closer to competing with your fellow players than the GM.
Thats why I build my character like it is and why I have to optimize him (I start at lvl 1 while the others has lvl 3).
What you describe in your post sounds like you're playing a very different game than I am.
I think - like Ilja said - that it differs a LOT from table to table, and even within the table from game to game. But the most things EVER the same.
If the PCs are weak - the foes are weak.
If the PCs are mighty - the foes are mighty.
If the players build stronger PCs - the foes get stronger.
Well, opimization is a matter of perspective. The general view is that D&D/Pathfinder = combat, thus the better a PC is at neutralizing foes the most optimized he/she is.
However, if a DM is influenced by other rpgs such as Vampire or his/her favorite book is Machiavello's The Prince and thus he/she intends to make a campaign about courtesan intrigues then -who knows?- a skill monkey Rogue or just a regular Bard might be better than even the Wizard and the Sorceror and other main casters. In that particular table, that is.
Actually I'd say the less combat focused a campaign gets, the more focused spellcasters will flourish. I mean, they're great at killing things, but other classes tend to be not so great at other stuff.
Think about it, a rogue in a social campaign can have max ranks in all the social skills and gets a few talents that help him. Wizards can have just as many ranks (though no favoured class bonus without the right traits), illusions, mind control, divination, polymorph effects...
For an intrigue based campaign they get mending at will. That's huge. You can break into places and cover your tracks, destroy messages to encode them knowing the recipient can put them back together, restore wax seals and reset some traps after you set them off. All automatically, instantly and at-will.
That's not even starting on the social/political power you can get from the ability to heal the sick and raise the dead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think the answer is "don't optimize."
Shoot, instead, for a consistent power level with the other PCs so that the GM can challenge all of you with the same encounter and everyone can contribute.
I couldn't disagree more. That IS optimising, to an extent. Without any attempt to optimise at all, you will find your groups power level all over the place and people's characters will not match their concepts well.
My brother made a musketeer luring cavalier who just wasn't good at shooting people. His entire role was to shoot people. That's a terrible let-down. His second character was built much, much better and does his job frighteningly well. Everybody at the table is having more fun because his gripli ninja excels at the things he's supposed to.
Intriguing indeed, Mortuum. But the ability of casting spells can backfire as well.
-The duke's son has been murdered but the door and window are closed and intact. How can be this possible? It looks like witchcraft. Oh, wait...
-The cleric is gaining popularity with the commoners with all that healing the sick and creating food. Let's have him killed or enslaved in our dungeons so we can be the ones gaining popularity forcing him to use his powers for us.
It's a double edged sword.
|
I couldn't disagree more. That IS optimising, to an extent. Without any attempt to optimise at all, you will find your groups power level all over the place and people's characters will not match their concepts well.
If you honestly think optimizing means using the resources available to balance the party and make everyone useful, then optimizing is great!
I'm not really sure other people will know what you're talking about, though.
Cheers!
Landon
That never happens at tables IMObservafion.
Players tend to expect a certain social standing. Even if they are seedy adventurerers, they expect to be treated like dangerous exotic animals, and get cranky when they get politicked by the faceless masses.
You do point out an aspect of the game that is intriguing, one where being a spell aster has a significant downside in social settings. But that's gm fiat on flavor. Players don't usually like being the pariah. Unless it's a moody, emo, dark elf pariah, then it's cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The purpose of optimization is to see how much you can push the GM. If the GM is thowing CR APL+5 monsters at you just to give you a challenge, that is the measure of how awesome you are.
The purpose of optimization is to make the rest of your group look bad. For example, if you have a character with incredible AC and DR, and the GM creates an overpowered monster to hurt him, hang back and let the one of the less optimized PCs get killed.
REAL optimization is when you make a powerful character, but find a way to conceal her true power from your GM through strategic incompetence. That way, the GM will not increase the threat level to neutralise you, but if a difficult challenge ever comes along, you can use all the abilities you normally keep in reserve to suddenly become an incredible machine of death.
The problem is the GMs. Instead of making more powerful enemies, they should just have enemies turn up, realise they can't hurt my character, and run away, or let me kill them. That is what makes a fun game.
Pick the answer you like most.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The purpose of optimization is to see how much you can push the GM. If the GM is thowing CR APL+5 monsters at you just to give you a challenge, that is the measure of how awesome you are.
The purpose of optimization is to make the rest of your group look bad. For example, if you have a character with incredible AC and DR, and the GM creates an overpowered monster to hurt him, hang back and let the one of the less optimized PCs get killed.
REAL optimization is when you make a powerful character, but find a way to conceal her true power from your GM through strategic incompetence. That way, the GM will not increase the threat level to neutralise you, but if a difficult challenge ever comes along, you can use all the abilities you normally keep in reserve to suddenly become an incredible machine of death.
The problem is the GMs. Instead of making more powerful enemies, they should just have enemies turn up, realise they can't hurt my character, and run away, or let me kill them. That is what makes a fun game.
Pick the answer you like most.
Actually, many GMs see optimization as a selfish player's attempt to "win" the game.
The fundamental flaw in these player's minds is that this is a game about "winning."
It's not a video game!
Games may vary, but in general, most GMs see the game as a means of cooperative storytelling where the goal is for everyone to have fun. If a min-maxer is ruining everyone else's idea of what fun is, then I see no problem with nerfing the optimized PC through GM fiat.
|
REAL optimization is when you make a powerful character, but find a way to conceal her true power from your GM through strategic incompetence. That way, the GM will not increase the threat level to neutralise you, but if a difficult challenge ever comes along, you can use all the abilities you normally keep in reserve to suddenly become an incredible machine of death.
Been there.
Done that.
After the 3rd or 4th character, the other players and DMs in the area started to catch on.
The purpose of optimization is to make the rest of your group look bad. For example, if you have a character with incredible AC and DR, and the GM creates an overpowered monster to hurt him, hang back and let the one of the less optimized PCs get killed.
Even better when combined with a character concealing his true power: when the DM realizes your just coasting and throws something in designed specifically to wreck your character. You survive and beat the encounter without serious injury. Everybody else dies by round 3.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, many GMs see optimization as a selfish player's attempt to "win" the game.
The fundamental flaw in these player's minds is that this is a game about "winning."
If optimization is in the eye of the GM, how is the flaw in the player's mind ?
It's not a video game!
Games may vary, but in general, most GMs see the game as a means of cooperative storytelling where the goal is for everyone to have fun. If a min-maxer is ruining everyone else's idea of what fun is, then I see no problem with nerfing the optimized PC through GM fiat.
Some GMs will feel that a min-maxer is "ruining everyone else' s fun" when he is in fact only ruining some of the GM's fun (and the rest of the party is still having fun).
I feel that it is most often GMs who develop the adversarial view of them (the players) vs me (the GM) rather than the other way around. As if the PCs defeating the monsters somehow meant that the GM failed.
Also nerfing through GM fiat should be avoided at all costs. If you have houserules, state them BEFORE the game begins and allow players' feedback. And if you really need to weaken a PC's abilities, get the player on board with it.
|
|
Actually, many GMs see optimization as a selfish player's attempt to "win" the game.
The fundamental flaw in these player's minds is that this is a game about "winning."
If optimization is in the eye of the GM, how is the flaw in the player's mind ?
It's not a video game!
Games may vary, but in general, most GMs see the game as a means of cooperative storytelling where the goal is for everyone to have fun. If a min-maxer is ruining everyone else's idea of what fun is, then I see no problem with nerfing the optimized PC through GM fiat.
Some GMs will feel that a min-maxer is "ruining everyone else' s fun" when he is in fact only ruining some of the GM's fun (and the rest of the party is still having fun).
I feel that it is most often GMs who develop the adversarial view of them (the players) vs me (the GM) rather than the other way around. As if the PCs defeating the monsters somehow meant that the GM failed.
Also nerfing through GM fiat should be avoided at all costs. If you have houserules, state them BEFORE the game begins and allow players' feedback. And if you really need to weaken a PC's abilities, get the player on board with it.
True. Communication should be the first option.
If you honestly think optimizing means using the resources available to balance the party and make everyone useful, then optimizing is great!
I'm not really sure other people will know what you're talking about, though.
I don't think it means that, I think that's a convenient side-effect of optimisation.
If everybody takes whatever looks like it might be interesting with no regard for practicality, power levels will be all over the place. The Barbarian might pick power attack and reckless abandon, while the Fighter takes spiked chain proficiency and skill focus in knowledge (history).
You can't ban all strong builds, but you can warn people when they make a weak one and strongly recommend they up their game.
black raven, 100% with you on the nerfs. That really bugs me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the GM should not do that? Frankly, I don't think the GM should ever be the one picking what the PCs fight, never mind the fact that the other PCs won't have those things, necessarily, so picking enemies to face you screws them over. What you describe in your post sounds like you're playing a very different game than I am.
So if the DM doesn't pick what the party fights, who does? The party?
Fighter: That was a good combat. Let's fight more giants!
Cleric: No! It's been giants twice in a row. I want some undead.
Rogue: Undead suck! I vote for -- something weak.
Wizard: Dragons! We haven't done dragons for weeks.
Rogue: Yikes!
Fighter: But I don't own a bow. You always want to make me useless.
DM: When you guys figure it out, let me know and I'll dutifully serve up a cakewalk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I couldn't disagree more. That IS optimizing, to an extent. Without any attempt to optimize at all, you will find your groups power level all over the place and people's characters will not match their concepts well.If you honestly think optimizing means using the resources available to balance the party and make everyone useful, then optimizing is great!
I'm not really sure other people will know what you're talking about, though.
Cheers!
Landon
A certain amount of optimization and good character design is necessary in order for a character to work properly and contribute to a fight.
A good example is this: a friend of mine in a game we just started is playing a tripping focused + dex based flowing monk. His starting feats were Dodge and Agile Maneuvers. I had to quickly explain to him that he *needed* weapon finesse to be able to hit things consistantly with normal attacks, and that he also *needed* Improved Trip as his first level monk feat if he didn't want to be provoking attacks of opportunity until level 6 (the next time he could get Improved Trip while ignoring prerequisites).
Sure, he could have just not picked these 'optimal' feats, but he would have regretted it. Even if the gm was going to scale enemies for him he at least needed Improved Trip to avoid getting beaten to death.
As for whether or not there is any point to higher level optimization.... I have to point out that if you are tracking EXP, and the GM scales enemies to suit the party, then the party is going to level up much faster if they are well optimized. That could be considered a plus.
The fundamental flaw in these player's minds is that this is a game about "winning."
It's not a video game!
Games may vary, but in general, most GMs see the game as a means of cooperative storytelling where the goal is for everyone to have fun.
If it's about co-operative storytelling and not about winning, then why try to provide a challenge to optimised characters? Challenging the players isn't co-operative. Winning is about overcoming challenges; co-operative storytelling is what happens between the encounters.
The only exception is if the GMs idea of co-operative storytelling is the stories that are created as a result of PCs dying in battle.
No reason, really. The GM tailoring encounters to the group is a good thing. Unless your group all agrees that it's part of the fun, then optimization to that degree is just going to be disruptive and you shouldn't get any significant benefit from it.
But 'optimization' is sort of a meaningless word these days; it can mean anything from natural 'take options that synergize well together' to 'try to break the game over your knee.'
So if the DM doesn't pick what the party fights, who does? The party?
Options:
(1) The DM picks the enemies, based around the capabilities of the party. Optimisation is neutralised.(2) The DM picks the enemies, based around a 'typical' party. A poorly optimised party will die; a well optimised party will find it (too?) easy.
(3) A published adventure - basically the same as (2).
(4) Random encounters.
(1) The DM picks the enemies, based around the capabilities of the party. Optimisation is neutralised.
Yes, but as long as the GM isn't just picking on the party's weaknesses this should mean the players get to fight more awesome enemies much earlier. :D
the cold war arms race, pathfinder edition
If I made a character with AC 30+ the DM take foes which can deal with it.
If I made a character with DR 20+ the DM take foes which can deal with it.
If I made a charakter with Att +50 the DM take foes which can deal with it.
If I made a charakter with DMG 500+ the DM take foes which can deal with it.
If I made a charakter with 5+ attacks/round the DM take foes which (...)If I made a character which is useless, the DM also can deal with it.
So, the question is:
_________________________________________________________________________
btw.: There was a Thread before which says: Why Optimizing Does Not Make Sense and linked to this and other pictures: Multiclass
The point is, if your DM throws things at you that can hit you with less than a 30 AC, then I need a 30 AC to deal with it.
If the DM throws monsters at me that can do 40+ damage per hit, I may need to pick up some DR to deal with it.If my DM has monsters whose ACs are in the 40's, I need to get my attack in the 50's to deal with it.
If we keep seeing monsters that have more than 500+ HP, I need to be able to do enough damage to deal with it.
Some DMs throw weak monsters at you, and for those campaigns sure, you can be a little underpowered and still have fun. Sometimes you need to optimize to balance yourself out with the party, because if one member can do 50+DPR and you can only do 10+, you will suffer because the DM is compensating for someone else, and either you or he needs to tone it down or step it up to make the game balance.
It's a two-way street, and typically there is a balance between what level of optimization you need to reach, and what level you will overblow the competition with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the question is:Because if you make a character with 5 AC and 1 DPR the DM probably can't use any foes against you.
Not true. Your DM could have you beat a dead horse (like many on the message boards do).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think the answer is "don't optimize."
Shoot, instead, for a consistent power level with the other PCs so that the GM can challenge all of you with the same encounter and everyone can contribute.
Cheers!
Landon
That is the most sensible reply I have read on the forms to date.
in my opinion over Optimization leads to one trick ponies and causes the party to be over powerful in one way or another (usually combat). For me its all about party balance so that everyone has an equally good time.
|
|
The fundamental flaw in these player's minds is that this is a game about "winning."
It's not a video game!
Games may vary, but in general, most GMs see the game as a means of cooperative storytelling where the goal is for everyone to have fun.
If it's about co-operative storytelling and not about winning, then why try to provide a challenge to optimised characters? Challenging the players isn't co-operative. Winning is about overcoming challenges; co-operative storytelling is what happens between the encounters.
The only exception is if the GMs idea of co-operative storytelling is the stories that are created as a result of PCs dying in battle.
I suppose that depends on each individual group's opinion of the definition of "fun."
This also leads into something I'm seeing a lot of on the boards lately. Players are whining about rogues being underpowered. Sure, they may be underpowered in certain game circumstances, but I've seen plenty of "soft skills" builds that can totally own non-combat encounters.
It all depends on the game that you are playing in and what you expect to get out of the game. If the game only consists of one combat encounter after another, then a rogue is likely not the uber-optimized choice, but they are not designed to be solely combat-oriented.
With the removal of immunity to precision damage on some creature types, the rogue is a lot better than they used to be in combat.
I would also like to re-posit something about optimized builds that draws together some of what was said in prior posts. If you take the game options as a whole, you can likely classify options similar to this:
1.) Severely sub-optimal choices
2.) Choices only good in very slim range of situations
3.) Average choices
4.) Good choices in most situations
5.) Optimal choices
If you apply the bell-curve to these choices, and players only play with the very few optimal choices, your campaign is going to end up with something like 5 Drizz't characters and maybe one Elminster character (just for the sake of illustration). How fun is that going to be?
|
Because the GM should not do that? Frankly, I don't think the GM should ever be the one picking what the PCs fight, never mind the fact that the other PCs won't have those things, necessarily, so picking enemies to face you screws them over.
Lol.
What you describe in your post sounds like you're playing a very different game than I am.
Indeed.
-Skeld
I can feel it coming in the air tonight, oh lord
there is a stormwind fallacy on the horizon
maybe that is why my shoulder is aching
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The stormwind fallacy doesn't mean that optimizers can do no wrong. All it means is that optimization is not necessarily exclusive with actual roleplaying.
If you have an optimizer who's doing it to 'win' to the detriment of the other players, they might still totally have a great concept and a lot of roleplaying ability! That doesn't change the other potential flaws in the system, though, any more than someone being bad at or preferring not to engage in optimization means that they're thus a good roleplayer.
Mystery Meep -1
Rest of the Thread- 0
The stormwind fallacy doesn't mean that optimizers can do no wrong. All it means is that optimization is not necessarily exclusive with actual roleplaying.
If you have an optimizer who's doing it to 'win' to the detriment of the other players, they might still totally have a great concept and a lot of roleplaying ability! That doesn't change the other potential flaws in the system, though, any more than someone being bad at or preferring not to engage in optimization means that they're thus a good roleplayer.
okay now it is over the horizon and riding into town
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the GM should not do that? Frankly, I don't think the GM should ever be the one picking what the PCs fight, never mind the fact that the other PCs won't have those things, necessarily, so picking enemies to face you screws them over. What you describe in your post sounds like you're playing a very different game than I am.
Actually, yes, the DM should do that- to a point. It’s his job to make encounters fun & challenging. If there’s no challenge, there’s not much fun (well, at least for us.ymmv). That being said, not every encounter needs to be such a special challenge, and some can be challenging without taking the optimization into account.
Why optimize then? Well, there’s one good RPing reason- “My PC is the bestest there is at ….”. “Fastest sword in the West” etc. Very traditional and even heroic RPing.
There are two not so good reasons:
Your DM is a push-over or a naïf, and sends in weak sauce, which you guys enjoy tromping on with no risk. Or maybe the DM is just catering to you. To me, this is boring. ymmv.
Or- only you optimize. You don’t care about the others, and watching them dies or fail is fun for you. After all, *YOU* get to survive, and then *YOU* get the Phat Lewt, thus making you even more powerful. To me, thsi is being a "Richard".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The farther your game gets ramped up in difficulty, the fewer concepts can be made effective enough to survive it.
this is what this thread should be about, not optimization
but I would clarify to say that it is not quite 'difficulty', but the escalation of oneupsmanship between the players and the GM.
1. One side brings it
2. The other side brings it in response
3. The first side brings it harder in response
4. The second side brings it even harder
5. escalate
6. escalate 2: escalate harder
etc etc etc
while some people may thrive on the concept of the challenge and the competition, I would venture to say that for most groups this is not a healthy game and that it will eventually generate bad feelings
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if you remove all of the flaws in the system, from an optimizers point of view, then what you get is something like 4th edition where the initial precepts are that everyone has equal capability in all situations (or as close as possible).
I think optimizers as a whole are the types of players that play a system to conquer it, and once it's conquered they move on to the next big thing (probably a video game or in some situations, the next splat book that promises the next incremental step in power creep). They have no interest in exploring the entire rich tapestry of the game system because non-optimal options are discarded. Those options don't allow you to "win" like your optimized build does. It gets boring playing the same uber-optimized combinations campaign after campaign, so I don't blame them for moving on.
If you're a gaming company, you cater to the optimizers by releasing splat books with more and more powerful options. Sure, it makes lots of money for the short-term, but eventually you "Jump the Shark."
If you're a wise gaming company, you explore options without "Jumping the Shark" to keep your long-term loyal fans inspired. Mythic will appeal to the optimizer crowds, but there are plenty that will leave it on the shelf unbought. Paizo was wise to keep it completely optional. Making it nearly necessary for one of their APs, though, IMHO, is a mistake. It's a poisoning of their core product line with something that will not appeal to a majority of their customers. I can't get excited about it no matter how much I hear about it.
If you choose to play anything beyond a level 1 commoner with 7 in all attributes you are optimizing your character to some extent or another.
Please. In context the OP is clearly talking about hyper-optimized characters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's about co-operative storytelling and not about winning, then why try to provide a challenge to optimised characters? Challenging the players isn't co-operative. Winning is about overcoming challenges; co-operative storytelling is what happens between the encounters.The only exception is if the GMs idea of co-operative storytelling is the stories that are created as a result of PCs dying in battle.
As I GM I used to enjoy seeing how hard I could push a group without actually killing them.
Walking that narrow edge between challenging and TPK was what I enjoyed.
If I made a character with AC 30+ the DM take foes which can deal with it.
If I made a character with DR 20+ the DM take foes which can deal with it.
If I made a charakter with Att +50 the DM take foes which can deal with it.
If I made a charakter with DMG 500+ the DM take foes which can deal with it.
If I made a charakter with 5+ attacks/round the DM take foes which (...)If I made a character which is useless, the DM also can deal with it.
So, the question is:
_________________________________________________________________________
btw.: There was a Thread before which says: Why Optimizing Does Not Make Sense and linked to this and other pictures: Multiclass
Most GM's won't boost every encounter to match so it does help. I mostly just boost the boss fights.
And if you optimize in several area the GM won't counter you in all of them so it still helps.