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.
The point of view expressed here I feel, is completely reversed depending on which side of the screen you are sitting on.
Personally, I've found that combat improving feats are less useful to my NPCs and that having powerful townsfolk gains my players nothing. Taking feats like Prodigy and Skill Focus, while borderline useless to a combat heavy, optimized PC, are beyond optimal for an NPC designed to craft a masterwork weapon in half the time it would take a PC with twice the quality.All the feats in the book have a reason to exist and if you look at the game from only one perspective, you are missing out on half the fun IMO.
If you "optimize" your character in a simplistic, predictable and easily countered way, then the GM will usually just do the minor adjustments to their encounters to deal with your number-crunching.
Too high AC? Go for touch attacks, save-or-suck spells or simply tie up the character some way while targeting the rest of the hittable party.
Too high damage? Boost AC or HP of monsters.
Optimized for specific spells? Send monsters that are least affected by those spells.
If, on the other hand, you optimize for versatility, then the GM can't really negate your optimization and that means he/she has to work harder to design encounters that challenge the party.
Most of my characters would not appear "optimized" by most people's normal definition of "optimization". However in actual game play it is rare for my characters not to be the most effective characters in the party. Not because they do the most damage, are the hardest to hit or have the most devastating magical attacks. Instead my characters tend to be effective because they have so many options to deal with encounters that there isn't really any way to negate them short of just knocking them unconscious or killing them.
I have played with many "optimizers" who go all out to create the most amazing two handed greatsword power attacking great cleaving nightmare of a half-orc barbarian who then gripe continuously about how the GM is throwing flying creatures or swarms or grapplers or any number of other options that make the awesome two handed attacks more or less pointless.
I optimize my characters for fun, which usually means that they are rarely, if ever, made ineffective by simple, common, predictable tactics.
YMMV.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just my stance:
I want to see optimized characters in my game, but I have no love for munchkins. I want the PCs to win, but I don't want to give it away. I want the party to be composed of heroes...and still, not every character needs to be amazing in combat...though if you can't fight at all, you probably shouldn't be a part of an adventuring party. Yes, I have a seat for the guy who wants to play a merchant, especially if he's able to defend his wares...and the scholar whose primary input is his knowledge, especially if it includes ways of defeating monsters, and some ability to do that.
They can be played right along side of the battle-hardened veteran who has a reputation of never having lost a battle, and the capability to show that he might well not...but that veteran likely understands that a wizard can break the rules...if he doesn't get to him first.
IMO it's only a problem if one character is tremendously optimized while others are not. In all other situations the GM can easily adjust to challenge the whole party accordingly.
Character optimization is a problem when the character is crazy good in one area and virtually useless in others.
We had a half-orc greatsword power attacking great cleaving barbarian in our party in the last major campaign I played a character in.
In the final boss encounter he lasted one round. Why? Because his only tactical option was to go toe-to-toe with a monster, and when you go toe-to-toe with a dragon, well, you tend not to last too long.
While it was true that when he could full attack a critter with his sword, he did more than twice the damage my character could do, in roughly half of the encounters we had he was either overpowered (does 120 damage in one attack against mooks with 40 hp) or he was totally useless (flying creatures, ranged attackers out of reach, spells, swarms, oozes...). In the end, if you totaled up actual damage done for the entirety of encounters involving super-half-orc and my "less awesome" character, I'd guess we did about the same total damage overall. The difference was that my character contributed in every fight.
In a party full of "optimized" builds that only excel in one dimension, encounters become a series of individual efforts while the non-effective members of the party mill around or attempt attacks with minimal effectiveness just to have something to do.
I'd take a party full of versatile characters who are effective in every area, but not awesome in any single area, over a party of hyper-optimized characters any day.
What could possibly be more interesting and clever than the most tactically optimal choice? ;-)
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 etcwhile 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
Did you play in the latter years of living Greyhawk?
Did you play in the latter years of living Greyhawk?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 etcwhile 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
is this a trick question
am I being punk'd
So if the DM doesn't pick what the party fights, who does? The party?
The GM creates the world. The PCs decide what happens in it.
The GM creates a burrow with 30 goblins living in it. If the PCs go in, they face 30 goblins. They chose that, though, not the GM--the GM only chose that the goblins exist.
If the PCs are built in a very specific manner that trivializes a fight with 30 goblins, then they can waltz in and slaughter them with no problem. The GM does not make more goblins or make stronger goblins--they exist already. There are 30 of them at a set strength. The PCs walked all over them by choice.
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.
Again, that's just such a different game than I'm playing. The world exists already. The PCs interact with it. The PCs choose what to face by, well, by facing it. If they wander into an ancient dragon's den at 1st level, that sucks.
Besides, all this talk of making sure the encounter is challenging is nonsense.
For people that build optimized characters, the challenge is pre-game when they're building the character. They don't need challenge during the game, they already had that fun. During the game, they just watch their superior planning pay off.
Same challenge--different time frame.
Actually, yes, the DM should do that- to a point. It’s his job to make encounters fun & challenging.
I am very much opposed to the "designed encounters" movement that has plagued modern RPGs.
Actually, yes, the DM should do that- to a point. It’s his job to make encounters fun & challenging.I am very much opposed to the "designed encounters" movement that has plagued modern RPGs.
True, such as the "modern" RPG known as AD&D, since we were doing this since the 1970's.
True, such as the "modern" RPG known as AD&D, since we were doing this since the 1970's.Actually, yes, the DM should do that- to a point. It’s his job to make encounters fun & challenging.I am very much opposed to the "designed encounters" movement that has plagued modern RPGs.
I didn't say that it didn't exist in older games, just that it wasn't so prevalent, nor was it considered the default, at least not in my experience.
oh good my gridless stat-roll grognard neck tattoo is about to come in handy
You should optimize a character because you like to optimize characters. It's a game. That's the point of games. Fun. If it's not fun, don't do it. If it's not fun to play with optimizers, don't play with them. There are groups who play at all levels of seriousness and with all different styles.
The problem comes from people who think optimizing is an inherently good or bad activity. It's not. What is good is playing with likeminded people whose ideas of fun are compatible with yours. Play the way you like to play, and either adapt to, compromise with, or amiably part ways with the other people you play with.
|
|
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.
Actually, true optimizers delight in the challenge of getting the most of a system/build, including its constraints and restrictions. Non-optimal options are like a magnet to them because they are a greater challenge.
Those who go for the the One Build to rule them all (usually DPR) and get bored after that are fakes.
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.
You mean, like Ninja for Jade Regent ? ;-)
Or just maybe this new set of rules expands the stories we can tell and makes in fact total sense for the AP (like Ninja for Jade Regent).
|
|
Now you see, I don't believe that every character has to rock hard in combat...and if someone comes to my table with a character that's optimized in a different way (like maybe a merchant) I make sure to feature things that allow him his time under the spotlight. If that same gamer then whines that the guy next to him is a half-orc Bbn, optimized for combat, and he can't compete, it's the first player that has the problem.
Combat is a HUGE part of the game. I have no issue with people not optimizing for it...and will even highlight that character's strengths...but he shouldn't expect to shine as much...he should know the main thrust of the game. As long as he's good with that, there isn't a problem. He just needs to be very careful in any combat.
Mythic will appeal to the optimizer crowds, but there are plenty that will leave it on the shelf unbought.
What does Mythic have to do with optimizing? It isn't like the players get to choose when and if they gain their mythic tiers.
I find sandbox campaigns to be fun, but require a LOT of well-done metagaming by the players to work well.
If they don't metagame they'll either stumble into something they can't handle thinking they can, or avoid areas that would be dead easy for them. If they metagame too much or not in an appropriate manner all the usual kinds of metagame issues appear.
I think you can make a sandbox game work pretty well if the party does most of its adventuring based on adventure hooks and has some capability to gauge threat levels based on gathering information (from rumors, ancient tomes, the tales of dungeon survivors, etc). Making nastier threats denser in more remote regions can also help.
Regarding optimizing, I think it can let you play some fun and unusual characters. I consider finding a way to make weird builds work the most entertaining form of optimization. When I optimize for power it is usually as a way of helping my PC survive the rigors of adventure. Granted, the DM might adjust encounters to challenge the "strongest" PC, but there will always be a "strongest" PC even if it isn't mine.
I've recently become a fan of the idea of running things "by the book" such as going through an AP without altering the encounters except as needed such as adding +1 CR for a group of 6 or larger. In a "by the book" campaign we're in at the moment the DM feels that the PCs are blowing through the encounters and hardly ever face a real challenge. Meanwhile the players seem to feel that there's a good level of challenge. We've had at least 1 PC death in 10 levels despite hero points and probably would have had 4-5 without them (we will always debate whether my PC could have survived the green slime trap without a +4 on his save to avoid falling in)
If we hadn't agreed to go "by the book" then the DM probably would have ratcheted up the encounters almost out of the gates, like, "Oh no, the mites are getting KILLED by the PCs. They had no chance, almost like they were meant to lose! (which of course they were) I need advanced mites, giant advanced mites, giant advanced mites riding fiendish giant advanced giant ticks...yeah!"
If that happened the players probably would have tried to ratchet up the PCs. Pretty soon any PC who wasn't optimized for survival would be dead, and the DM would be going nuts adding templates and class levels to everything in a desperate if misguided attempt to prove that he's in control because he can kill us all if he wants to. At least this is how I think it often goes.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best way to deal with optimisation is throw masses of lesser challenges at them. Works for all classes.
A fighting type designed to deal 100+ damage a round who is attacking mooks with 50 hit points is wasting damage potential.
A casting type that needs to spend large spell numbers to control the influx of hordes and try to out damage the damage types is wasting spells for the big guns alter on.
What's more, by throwing these lower level challenges, the less optimized classes still compete and have a challenge, they're just not killing as many as the others.
I had a combat where this happened. The fighter of awsome damage got surrounded by mooks and couldn't get to the big bad.
The mage kept having to negotiate his way out of similar situations with certain spells so he wasn't caught in combat.
The big bad had to be taken down by our monk and inquisitor instead. It was a hard fight for everyone.
The trick is to generate mooks that still pose a minor threat to your optimizers while not overwhelming your less optimized players.
So my advice is optimising is ok if everyone is good at it. If only one or two are good at, make their optimisation wasted potential instead.
This works the opposite way as well btw. You can make a big bad who needs the damage and caster in my situation to deal with him. Meanwhile the monk and inquisitor hold the doorways to prevent the mooks getting in to aid said bad guy. (note, this is an anecdote based on a party I GMed for, not a comment on relative class power.)
In short, more opponents in Pathfinder always adds more challenge than less, but more powerful opponents. Use this to create challenging situations no matter what the party build.
Someone also mentioned that DM's shouldnt be deciding what you fight. I've never heard anything so silly in my life. The DM runs the world, determines the actions ofeverything that isn't a player character and determines the challenges for the group. Even the AP's are written with options for DM's to determine how things play out, including "Random encounter tables" etc. They set DC's for social situations and make decisions on the fly to compensate for player actions. You ask them to do all this but then demand they can't determine what you fight. Wow.
Cheers
|
|
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.
Actually, true optimizers delight in the challenge of getting the most of a system/build, including its constraints and restrictions. Non-optimal options are like a magnet to them because they are a greater challenge.
Those who go for the the One Build to rule them all (usually DPR) and get bored after that are fakes.
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.You mean, like Ninja for Jade Regent ? ;-)
Or just maybe this new set of rules expands the stories we can tell and makes in fact total sense for the AP (like Ninja for Jade Regent).
The samurai gets no love. I thought about Jade Regent when I was writing this (and Skull and Shackles a little bit). I believe that I just have a major distaste left in my mouth from some other munchkin gamers in my early years that talked non-stop about taking down Thor or becoming gods in every campaign. It's a matter of taste. I suppose I'm less opposed to Jade Regent because of the original Oriental Adventures influence. I am more opposed to Mythic because it feels like the death knell that Powers and Options was to 2nd ed. Epic didn't feel right, either.
To me, it just feels like we're already playing in a super hero game (you can raise people from the dead and make wishes for crying out loud). Do we really need more? And if we really need more than that to take on some of the extra challenges out in the Pathfinder campaign setting multiverse, then is it a flaw with the rules that we are forced to play with or is it a flaw with the Pathfinder campaign setting multiverse? Shouldn't some things remain untouchable by the PCs (or else risk having a "Time of Troubles" continuity destruction period like in the Forgotten Realms?).
To each their own, but if Mythic becomes the new definition of "optimized" then I'm done playing with optimizers altogether.
Wrath of the Righteous will also be the first AP that I won't even consider purchasing. It's sad for me, because it feels like there is a six-month gap in my regular product line-up.
I'd be curious to know how Jade Regent's sales figures matched up against the average AP.
The optimizer of non-optimal choices is sort of an oxymoron. I see your point, and I've seen this in actual builds, but I probably wouldn't call them optimizers...maybe mechanics doctors?
|
|
Mythic will appeal to the optimizer crowds, but there are plenty that will leave it on the shelf unbought.What does Mythic have to do with optimizing? It isn't like the players get to choose when and if they gain their mythic tiers.
If GMs take this as the queue to ratchet up power creep, then it does become the new optimal standard. If the players demand it in order to have fun, then GMs will have hard decisions to make.
|
|
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.
The point of view expressed here I feel, is completely reversed depending on which side of the screen you are sitting on.
Personally, I've found that combat improving feats are less useful to my NPCs and that having powerful townsfolk gains my players nothing. Taking feats like Prodigy and Skill Focus, while borderline useless to a combat heavy, optimized PC, are beyond optimal for an NPC designed to craft a...
Corrosive Touch in a game with Shocking Grasp? I still think that there are options in the game that are only good if you are not overly concerned with optimization.
If GMs take this as the queue to ratchet up power creep, then it does become the new optimal standard. If the players demand it in order to have fun, then GMs will have hard decisions to make.Mythic will appeal to the optimizer crowds, but there are plenty that will leave it on the shelf unbought.What does Mythic have to do with optimizing? It isn't like the players get to choose when and if they gain their mythic tiers.
Gaining a mythic Tier is like gaining a level (or rather, half a level). Saying that it has anything to do with optimization makes as much sense as saying that gaining a level is a part of optimization.
Optimization has to do with maximizing your power at your current level. Mythic doesn't help with optimization than any more than playing an Adventure path that ends at level 18 rather than level 15. It just means that you will end the campaign with a bit more power (because the GM wants you to rather than because of optimization), and will be fighting more awesome foes because of it.
I agree and disagree with the OP of this thread. For me, optimizing is about being able to what I think is fun while meeting my character's core fighting concept. As others have said, at its heart Pathfinder is a game about combat, so I usually plan my characters as such. My current character is a kitsune samurai who is a bigger class mutt than Luke Skywalker in Star Wars Saga Edition; I think I'm rocking 2 levels of Samurai, 4 of Lore Warden (Fighter), and 1 of Thug (Rogue) right now. My build is fun as heck, and it lets me fill a unique role in our group; I'm the debuffer.
And that's where I part with the optimization / power munchkin crowd. If I wanted to build my character to do 50 DPR a round, I probably could. But that's not fun for me; that's not a challenge. I have more fun playing a character who kicks buns by supporting my younger brother's glass cannon magus. Optimization threads seldom realize that not everyone in a party needs to be doing optimized damage to clear most encounters. Sometimes it just takes a party member who is providing a +8 bonus to all of his allies by providing crucial elements such as demoralize, flanking, and by tripping everyone on their faces.And sometimes, when I'm in a really good mood, I use aid another too.
I would like to close with a conversation that I had with my friend. I was the party bard in a 3.5 game that otherwise had only melee characters optimized to do damage.
FRIEND: "Man, your character sucks! He did nothing but sit back and play the viola during that combat."
ME: "Yeah, but how often did Inspire Courage help you to hit? An extra +2 is like a 10% increased chance to hit, and you did +2 damage every time you hit, right?"
FRIEND: "Right."
ME: "So you'll concede that 2 points of damage per round that you deal is actually my DPR? Multiplied by three players is 6 DPR? And then 10% of the attacks each of you made during the combat would have missed without my bonus, so all of the DPR from those attacks belongs to me too?
FRIEND: ....
The point of view expressed here I feel, is completely reversed depending on which side of the screen you are sitting on.
Personally, I've found that combat improving feats are less useful to my NPCs and that having powerful townsfolk gains my players nothing. Taking feats like Prodigy and Skill Focus, while borderline useless to a combat heavy, optimized PC, are beyond optimal for an NPC designed to craft a masterwork weapon in half the time it would take a PC with twice the quality.
All the feats in the book have a reason to exist and if you look at the game from only one perspective, you are missing out on half the fun IMO.
This line of logic is a good thought, until you realize the NPC could have crafted the masterwork weapon in half the time with twice the quality, anyway. If you want the NPC to be able to do it, the Skill Focus feat doesn't determine whether they have the requisite skill to do so, you as the DM do. One of the bigger annoyances about some schools of thought with regards to DMing is the feeling that everything has to be determined by some immutable rules which govern the way everything works. The problem is that these rules are largely invisible to the players, since the players never see the NPC's stats. Even in cases where there are clear rules in place, like an assassin who just poisoned the duke attempts to flee by using a scroll of dimension door. There is a chance that he would fail, by the rules, but if the adventure needs him to succeed, you DM fiat it, and depending on how much the group is beholden to the rules, you can either be honest with them and say "Listen, this is by DM fiat; he makes his UMD and uses the scroll" or roll a die pretending that it matters.
Though honestly, I like it a lot more when systems don't make you lie to the players about this (one of the many reasons I like Mutants and Masterminds even for non Supers games; the rules state very simply that GM fiat is a thing that happens, and the GM is not cheating you, but instead filling the necessity of the role), but the player empowerment that 3e provided has some downsides when taken to the extreme the way some people do.
The point of view expressed here I feel, is completely reversed depending on which side of the screen you are sitting on.
Personally, I've found that combat improving feats are less useful to my NPCs and that having powerful townsfolk gains my players nothing. Taking feats like Prodigy and Skill Focus, while borderline useless to a combat heavy, optimized PC, are beyond optimal for an NPC designed to craft a masterwork weapon in half the time it would take a PC with twice the quality.
All the feats in the book have a reason to exist and if you look at the game from only one perspective, you are missing out on half the fun IMO.This line of logic is a good thought, until you realize the NPC could have crafted the masterwork weapon in half the time with twice the quality, anyway. If you want the NPC to be able to do it, the Skill Focus feat doesn't determine whether they have the requisite skill to do so, you as the DM do. One of the bigger annoyances about some schools of thought with regards to DMing is the feeling that everything has to be determined by some immutable rules which govern the way everything works. The problem is that these rules are largely invisible to the players, since the players never see the NPC's stats. Even in cases where there are clear rules in place, like an assassin who just poisoned the duke attempts to flee by using a scroll of dimension door. There is a chance that he would fail, by the rules, but if the adventure needs him to succeed, you DM fiat it, and depending on how much the group is beholden to the rules, you can either be honest with them and say "Listen, this is by DM fiat; he makes his UMD and uses the scroll" or roll a die pretending that it matters.
Though honestly, I like it a lot more when systems don't make you lie to the players about this (one of the many reasons I like Mutants and Masterminds even for non Supers games; the rules state very simply that GM fiat is a thing that happens, and the GM is not cheating you, but...
At my table, the rules are not invisible to the players. I will get questions like "why can they craft something in only one day but it takes me a week? I know there isn't a feat that lets you do that!" I have a big problem with DM fiating something that there are already mechanics for, and then no one at the table can b*tch about it because I followed to rules to the letter.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And sometimes it's fun to not optimize. Or to optimize a deliberately weak concept, bringing it up to par.Why is no one stating the obvious?
Sometimes its just fun to optimize. It's not about beating the GM. It's just fun optimizing, seeing how far out you can push the limits.
Optimization, or lack of, is only an issue when it results in characters of vastly differing power levels within the same group.
PFS comes to mind: You can have a poorly developed character sitting next to a hyper-optimized death machine and the GM cannot tailor the encounters.