| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on what type of game the participants are after. I used to run two campaigns concurrently: one for a party of optimized characters, for hard-mode gaming full of quick death; and one for a party of unoptimized characters, enabling us to try all kinds of goofy things that would normally get an adventurer killed. That way we could pick whichever one suited our mood that week.
I really, really enjoy hard-mode optimized games. I also enjoy easy-mode beer 'n' pretzels games. It's nice to be able to switch off, instead of playing only one of them all the time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of my players are stuck in this "We have to do as much damage as possible and can't pick this spell/power because I'll not do as much damage as possible" mentality. I kind of blame MMOs for that and I keep pointing out that no one is going to rage kick a player because their fun to play character isn't pulling exactly 40 points of damage a round.
It's kind of bothersome to me, just play your character and have fun, if no one is dying, then you're doing exactly what you're suppose to do.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the push for optimization is exaggerated by the boards: Because you can't quantitatively debate the merits of flavour and role-play, you end up discussing AC, saves, hit points, DPR, and spells you can cast instead. When you debate the merits of class A vs class B here on the boards you compare optimized builds because these are indicative of relative strengths and weaknesses, not because they are something you would actually use.
Ultimately, every character in a party should be doing something positive and useful regularly for the party success; that's my "bar" because there isn't much point being adventurers without it. Beyond that, having fun is what the name of the game is all about, and you optimize or not as you want to and as the group you are playing with prefer. However, if the mechanics of your build mean you aren't having fun (nobody likes to be beat up on every fight) - or if someone else's character outshines yours to the extent that they dominate the game and make it less fun - then there is a problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can sympathize with the OP. Game focus varies from group to group. My table has a surprisingly high level of system mastery, but it nevers actually gets used to make anything super optimized.
Usually, system mastery is just used to make off-kilter builds or to feed a concept. There is nothing wrong with optimization, but it can be a real drag if everyone else in your group prioritizes it to the exclusion of all else while you don't.
There is no wrong way to play, but if you are in a group that has different goals and plays in a very different way, then maybe its the wrong group.
I pretty much agree with dabbler, it's just an issue of fun in the end. But dont forget, if everyone is having fun except you, you've pretty much got to deal with it yourself.
There are plenty of less optimal builds, but in the end you've got to have fun. Forcing people not to optimize is as much of a fun killer as forcing people to do so.
@ tcharleschapman: I've got to agree with you about optimization (it's nice & easy to stat something up). Although I have been working to make fairly optimal builds with weird weapons. It's fun, though yeah, I generally aim for "most optimal possible" rather than "optimal". Sometimes I get lucky, and find weird stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of my players are stuck in this "We have to do as much damage as possible and can't pick this spell/power because I'll not do as much damage as possible" mentality. I kind of blame MMOs for that and I keep pointing out that no one is going to rage kick a player because their fun to play character isn't pulling exactly 40 points of damage a round.
It's kind of bothersome to me, just play your character and have fun, if no one is dying, then you're doing exactly what you're suppose to do.
This was around well before MMO's, but you also need to realize that not every table runs the same type of games. You just have to find someone that plays like you do.
And if nobody is dying, that does not mean the party feels like you are pulling your weight. Now if you are pulling your weight, then you will likely be left alone even if you are not doing as much as everyone else.
Example of not pulling weight: Not effective in combat, not effective in social situations, not able to solve problems in the game, or very rarely being able to do so.
At some tables the GM makes up for this, but like I said how good you need to be will vary by table for too many reasons to mention. Optimizing and not optimizing are both valid options, as long as everyone is on the same page.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dabbler, how would you approach an over-optimized build at your table? It is like one of those third-rail conversations that could end friendships. Pointing out that someone is so powerful that no one else gets to do anything is like saying their idea isn't a good one.
To be honest, I've had more problems with overbearing personalities than with over-optimization. Given the structure of an adventuring party, it's actually hard for an over-optimized character to dominate the whole game in my experience because most characters end up specialised and not overlapping much. It could be an issue in one of my games, as I have now got 8 players in total, and overlap is inevitable.
However, in the event of it taking place, I'd draw the player aside and mention to them that while they were performing well, they might want to hang back and let the rest of the party use their resources so that his character could go for longer and deal more easily with the tougher enemies. Or I would phrase it as a question of them focussing their build into some arenas where other characters were not so focussed (advice I would give the other players, too).
For example, one game I ran with six players had three front-line warriors: a ranger/rogue, a straight fighter, and a paladin. Each, thanks to varying the builds, played very differently:
The ranger/rogue was up-front, using acrobatics to get into the action, disrupt the enemy, and do general crazy-stuff as well as whack things with his falchion. The fighter was a steam-roller, he just hammered in with his greatsword at the thickest concentration of the enemy. The paladin was defensively much stronger than the other two, and often effects that could floor them left her standing; she would target enemy leaders and use her smite and her longsword to cut them down to size, then healed everyone afterwards.
So it didn't matter that the ranger/rogue was better optimized than the paladin; the paladin was doing a slightly different job in a different way. Both players were getting their time in the limelight, as was the fighter that everyone enjoyed watching cleave through hordes of enemies.
The same was true of that party's spell-casters: a sorcerer blew things up, the bard buffed everyone up, and the druid controlled the battlefield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone else get bothered by the push for optimization of characters? More and more I get tired of sitting down to a table of outrageous damage output where battles end ridiculously fast. Using feats to make a monster characters that immediately win the battle in the first round just is boring. It turns into the one optimized character getting all the fun each and every fight.
This sin't optimization. This is power gaming. Optimization is merely the tool that allows for power gaming. You can optimizae a character and still not marginalize the others.
I've also run into the problem lately of bringing my characters to games that are not optimized for damage but are fun to play and everyone looking down on them.
-Mounted paladin gnome of erastil (why not be medium sized with a big weapon?)
-Combat Maneuver monk specializing in trip and grapple (Wait...you don't do damage?)
-Sea Reaver barbarian that, when raging, has a swim and climb speed (aquatic campaign) (why didn't you take all these ridiculous rage powers to cause a bunch of ridiculous damage?)
Again this is a power gaming mentality and one damaging to the game. Frankly whoever made that paladin comment doesn't know what they're talking about anyway.
Society games are the worst. I witnessed one guy a few months ago convince someone not to use archetypes of the bard class until the person played a bunch of games with a base bard and learned how the class worked. Getting to level 5 in PFS is a 60 hour investment. The guy knew what he wanted his character to do and an archetype would have served that better and he didn't want to play every week. This awful advice came from a 5-star GM.
Was this a new player unfamiliar with the class? I don't even play PFS and I'd advise the same thing. It simply makes sense to get used to the foundation of a class before fiddling with it. It allows you to make informed decisions about the value of one class ability over another.
I'm not out to change the world with this, but man...powergaming can be pretty obnoxious. Who cares if that wizard didn't prepare "Create Pit"? If everyone built the same character all the time the game would die.
Man it's a good thing people are capable of creating different stories, personalities, and even make slight alterations to the same character to make them appear a completely different character. Otherwise literally every greatsword fighter would be named Bob the Strong and Fair.
Honestly it doesn't sound like optimization is the problem but people being pushy on you about it. If you're often the weak link in a group they may be trying to get you to be better. If not then just ignore it. They're bugging you because they want to succeed. If everyone optimized a little people would have no good excuse to optimize a lot.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I might find the comedian that was the inspiration for this later, but the basic point he had was that sex is like tennis (or optimizing): you need to find someone at your own level. There's nothing wrong with strapping on the rising sun flag, using yoga training and bolting bunjee cords to the ceiling... as long as everyone involved is ready for it. Otherwise someone is going to pull a muscle.
Optimization isn't bad by itself, its just that different levels of optimization tend to not work together. Usually you're ok with one standard deviation at the table, but more than that causes problems.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a society perspective in defense of optimization of characters:
If I've invested 40+ hours of game play into a character, I am pretty invested into it. I don't want it to die or be ruined (due to having to spend all of the prestige or gold for a res) due to some party load causing a wipe or dead PC. Often a weak character doesn't actually die, its the guy being forced to cover for the weak character that dies. Similar to how a geriatric driver doesn't get into accidents, but they sure do cause a lot of them.
Being forced to carry a party just sucks, and I've had to do so in the past, even taking my witch into melee combat since it had the best AC and damage potential (in a party with a figher and oracle...)
PFS scenarios are very hit and miss when it comes to lethality. Some are cakewalks you can hop and skip through, others are brutal multiple PC deaths are the norm scenarios. Season 4 is particularly brutal at that. Some GMs are also more brutal and less forgiving. PCs that are played by people who complain the most about optimization are often party loads that do nothing other than waste spot in the party. This is not an exaggeration. The most annoying wastes of space are the "skill monkey" and the party white mage that only heals. The skill monkey is utterly worthless when life and death is on the line 90 percent of the time, and the healing make specializes in fixing failures instead of contributing to success. Instead of running to a downed PCs side to cast stabalize, perhaps you could help the combat actually end?
You should be able not just contribute, but contribute well and contribute in a way that is actually needed. Often people who complain the most about other people being "optimized" or "powergaming" can't even pass this low bar. I would say the majority of people who get butthurt over optimization I've met in person are in this camp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the same time, the guy who went and decided that playing a Sorcerer/Monk/Oracle would be a good idea and is not doing anythign when his idea inevitably fails, is going to be nothing more than a burden on his party. You NEED to optimize atleast a little, otherwise you are nothing more than a useless body that hte party will use to set off traps or something...
I've also run into the problem lately of bringing my characters to games that are not optimized for damage but are fun to play and everyone looking down on them.
-Mounted paladin gnome of erastil (why not be medium sized with a big weapon?)
-Combat Maneuver monk specializing in trip and grapple (Wait...you don't do damage?)
-Sea Reaver barbarian that, when raging, has a swim and climb speed (aquatic campaign) (why didn't you take all these ridiculous rage powers to cause a bunch of ridiculous damage?)
I can see your point here, but for this:
If I've invested 40+ hours of game play into a character, I am pretty invested into it. I don't want it to die or be ruined (due to having to spend all of the prestige or gold for a res) due to some party load causing a wipe or dead PC. Often a weak character doesn't actually die, its the guy being forced to cover for the weak character that dies. Similar to how a geriatric driver doesn't get into accidents, but they sure do cause a lot of them.
Now if someone says "I'm bringing a barbarian" or "I'm bringing a paladin" to a game, I expect them to do damage because that is what barbarians and paladins DO. Making a paladin or barbarian that can't do damage is like making a wizard with an intelligence score of 11. If you make them not able to do that, they should be able to do something else at least. Personally, I like the aquatic barbarian idea, it sounds like good thinking. The mounted gnome I am less sure of - a mounted character works if he's lance charging, even at small size, but Erastil implies an archer, and an archer doesn't gain much at all.
I don't have an issue with a player building for a concept that is off-beat and whacky, but as I said above, they should bring something to the table.
The mounted gnome I am less sure of - a mounted character works if he's lance charging, even at small size, but Erastil implies an archer, and an archer doesn't gain much at all.
Mounted characters work just fine either using archery or lance. With mounted archery you have the luxury of being able to move and full attack. This is a thing most archers can't effectively do.
At the same time, the guy who went and decided that playing a Sorcerer/Monk/Oracle would be a good idea and is not doing anythign when his idea inevitably fails, is going to be nothing more than a burden on his party. You NEED to optimize atleast a little, otherwise you are nothing more than a useless body that hte party will use to set off traps or something...
I would argue that a competent character and a truly optimized character are two different things. You are talking about making sure your character is competent enough to pull his own weight. The game does that on its own, for the most part, so long as you are building a character within normal parameters.
Optimization, as it is commonly understood on these boards, is torquing up beyond normal parameters, and specializing in some aspect that might cause you to detract from your character's other aspects (though not always).
Personally, I believe a good player can take a nine-year-old girl in pigtails as a character and make her work somehow, but that is another thread.
Competency is the issue. As to the build you mentioned, over many years of gaming, I've seen a lot of crazy class combinations such as that, succeed more often than fail. It's not the class combinations, but what you do with them that counts.
Mounted characters work just fine either using archery or lance. With mounted archery you have the luxury of being able to move and full attack. This is a thing most archers can't effectively do.The mounted gnome I am less sure of - a mounted character works if he's lance charging, even at small size, but Erastil implies an archer, and an archer doesn't gain much at all.
Yes, but do you need to move much when you are an archer? An archer gains less than a charger, is my point, and maybe not enough to justify small size. Still as long as the character is contributing and not leaving the party exposed, I don't have an issue.
|
As another poster said, there's a big difference between optimization and powergaming. There are also ways to powergame without being obnoxious.
When I create a character — any character, mind you — I keep in mind what I want to achieve. I will have a very basic personality, and I'll have a few different tactics in mind. Optimization is what makes my character not suck at what I want him or her to be good at.
The difference between optimization and powergaming is that powergaming looks only for optimizing the best possible tactics. Optimization can help you make just about any character concept work, and that includes mounted gnomes and pirate barbarians.
As for the advice from a 5-star GM to not archetype a class until you have played the base version, that is EXCELLENT advice. Archetypes make a class much more complicated, and until you have experienced the base class in some form, I wouldn't recommend making things more complicated for yourself.
I would argue that a competent character and a truly optimized character are two different things.
I disagree.
You can optimize into incompetence.
Optimization is merely a tool. A means to an end. The end itself is up to the player. If a player decides to up himself beyond "normal" then you can call it powergaming since they are optimizing purely for the benefit of gaining a stronger character.
However you can optimize to be good at supporting your group, good at healing, good at skills, you can optmize a character who is an absolutely crappy combatant but can weave baskets like no man on earth. All these are optimization.
Even in the examples the OP gave they are all arguably optimized characters. Barbarian with swim based powers in an aquatic game? Sounds good. Small character on a mount? Sounds like every cavalier pfs advice thread ever. Grapple/Trip monk? Sweet. Monks can't do that much damage anyway so let's lock em down.
In terms of competent player making up for crappy character? I think that's unfortunately rather subjective as an excellent player can get side swiped by missteps and missed cues in any scenario. This is why optimization discussions often focus on math and mechanics as you can't have a meaningful discussion based purely on player skill between two anonymous people playing in different games in different timezones with two gms practicing vastly different styles. It just doesn't work.
And ultiamtely even a competent player can be crushed by bad math.
@Dabbler: Well, yeah if the enemy is in your face you're not going to stand there and let him smack you around. Likewise if they push by dipping between cover then being able to move and full attack gives you a distinct advantage over the non-mounted archer. Your mount can also overrun a target and with snapshot grant you an AoO on them. I seem to recall a ratehr convincing guide about archery rangers taking the mount and why.
Any tips, especially on these pre-written scenarios, on how to make them more threatening? I've tried using the Advanced templates, and I try to fudge rolls as rarely as possible. I just want to ensure that there is excitement in the game.
Read the battle tactics of the monsters. Look at the monster and think if they can do better. Then do better.
A lot of fights can potentially wipe a party.
I recall a fight in an AP where an npc "boss" was suggested at using a siege engine with his negative dex. I found this ridiculous when he had minions who could fire the thign for him with higher numbers. So they switched places and the fight was far less embarassing for the npcs. They still lost but I didn't feel really silly rolling -6 on the siege engine rolls.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh Lord here we go again
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh Lord here we go again
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't played in any campaigns where that occurred. In one stand alone game, yes.
My guess it that it mostly is theorycrafting, not IRL gaming. But yes, theorycrafting, while useful, has problems.
I remember a thread where a new player was asking for advice how to do his new paladin. Several suggested dumping WIS & Int. I suggested no dump stats.
He dumped. His first game was NO FUN, due to dumping. The DM had a lot of Perc rolls, which is pretty standard, and of course he had a -2, so made almost none. He failed a will save and was out for a whole encounter. He failed a Sense motive check and got scammed.
All for getting an extra 1 or 2 points of damage per round. And how many DPR do you get if you fail a Will save and don;t get to attack?
But this seems to mostly occur here on the boards, not IRL.
There's an easy fix.
Run encounters that use all the rules. Terrain, weather, visibility, skill checks, etc.
Then, over-optimization in any one area will sting you when you have to work in another.
----------------------------------------------
It's also problematic when there's an optimization difference BETWEEN the players. That's got to be dealt with immediately.
I don't worry about the Player/GM gap, because the GM can always increase the difficulty.
|
|
There's an easy fix.
Run encounters that use all the rules. Terrain, weather, visibility, skill checks, etc.
Then, over-optimization in any one area will sting you when you have to work in another.
----------------------------------------------
It's also problematic when there's an optimization difference BETWEEN the players. That's got to be dealt with immediately.I don't worry about the Player/GM gap, because the GM can always increase the difficulty.
I think you'll find that an optimized character copes better with varied situations when compared with a character that has not been optimized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you'll find that an optimized character copes better with varied situations when compared with a character that has not been optimized.
Well he did say "over" optimized.
Like I said, it's possible to optimize into incompetence. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I try to find a balance between the two...optimize for what I want to play but also not to be a hinderance to the party...
Between the players can be one of the good party-bonding/creation activities that gets you a group that really works well together. Whoever's really good or particularly enjoys optimizing should help those with difficulty to get what they WANT to do as good as it gets.
Don't stop the rogue from being a crossbow sniper if he wants to be, but use that knowledge to help him almost be useful with that theme.
I absolutely positively agree with this sentiment.
Talking as a group before the game starts on actually improving characters and going in with an open mind can save a lot of grief.
The caveat here is that just because you give advice doesn't mean they have to take it.
But sitting down and discussing group strengths and weaknesses? That to me is vital for a successful group.
I think you'll find that an optimized character copes better with varied situations when compared with a character that has not been optimized.There's an easy fix.
Run encounters that use all the rules. Terrain, weather, visibility, skill checks, etc.
Then, over-optimization in any one area will sting you when you have to work in another.
----------------------------------------------
It's also problematic when there's an optimization difference BETWEEN the players. That's got to be dealt with immediately.I don't worry about the Player/GM gap, because the GM can always increase the difficulty.
Umm, no, just the opposite. "Optimized" generally means, at least here on the boards as optimized towards one thing, usually DPR. Look at my paladin example above.
Umm, no, just the opposite. "Optimized" generally means, at least here on the boards as optimized towards one thing, usually DPR. Look at my paladin example above.
No, that's just min-maxing which is just a method of optimization. Not necessarily a good one.
All optimized means is that it's good at its intended job. If the intent is to build a character that does loads of damage.
Example of not pulling weight: Not effective in combat, not effective in social situations, not able to solve problems in the game, or very rarely being able to do so.At some tables the GM makes up for this, but like I said how good you need to be will vary by table for too many reasons to mention. Optimizing and not optimizing are both valid options, as long as everyone is on the same page.
Got a guy who is like this in our group...he does something good every 2-4 sessions...and he is good at spellcraft checks...other than that...he has a magus, but plays like a wizard/sorcerer, and is scared to get his character into the mix of combat...smh...
We've been giving him a lot of leeway but it's getting to a point...
|
I love to optimize, creating characters has always been one of my favorite things to do.
But I like to go outside the normal bounds. What about that Magus that focuses on frostbite for his damage? Or the Mounted Barbarian that spends most of his resources optimizing his mount?
The person who does nothing but heal is considered "wasted space", yet in some of my campaigns they made it extremely fun in the sense that encounters take longer, adding to the fun of the optimized characters, but kept the margin of safety high.
Having unoptimized characters is a real life situation! Don't forget that!
The magus I played once upon a time focused on electricity for his attacks...
I favor a cleric focused on the channeling feature and I know that spells are more powerful.
As long as your character can do well what you intended him/her to do then I think that you are fine, and optimization be damned.
Well, also what your character do ought to have relevance. For instance, having enemies in the game being of the type chosen by the Ranger to be his/her favored enemy.
Optimization is merely a tool. A means to an end. The end itself is up to the player. If a player decides to up himself beyond "normal" then you can call it powergaming since they are optimizing purely for the benefit of gaining a stronger character.
This.
Grapple/Trip monk? Sweet. Monks can't do that much damage anyway so let's lock em down.
Sadly they aren't all that hot at maneuvers either (save for a few archetypes), and maneuvers themselves are not that hot - although they can be really good at low levels. But that's a discussion for another thread!
I try to find a balance between the two...optimize for what I want to play but also not to be a hinderance to the party...
This, again.
|
|
Umm, no, just the opposite. "Optimized" generally means, at least here on the boards as optimized towards one thing, usually DPR. Look at my paladin example above.I think you'll find that an optimized character copes better with varied situations when compared with a character that has not been optimized.There's an easy fix.
Run encounters that use all the rules. Terrain, weather, visibility, skill checks, etc.
Then, over-optimization in any one area will sting you when you have to work in another.
----------------------------------------------
It's also problematic when there's an optimization difference BETWEEN the players. That's got to be dealt with immediately.I don't worry about the Player/GM gap, because the GM can always increase the difficulty.
That's just not correct. If I'm making a fire-focused blasting sorcerer, it is not good optimization to squeeze out every bit of damage I can. It's optimizing to make sure that my character is OPTIMAL. That means I need to be good in a large variety of situations, and if I encounter something immune to fire, that I have other answers.
To optimize: to make the best or most effective use of a situation or resource.
If I'm a melee-focused character who is stymied by terrain, then I haven't optimized. If I'm a ranged character who can be beaten by obscuring mist, then I haven't optimized. The poster I quoted earlier was referring to over-optimization, but I don't view that as optimization at all. "Over-optimization" is just poor character building.
That's optimizing for an effective character. The other way is optimizing for maximum fire damage. Both are optimizing, but in different ways.
Yeah, it's like the Barbarian who only has an axe and no other weapon...
uhh, dude, you can't slice everything with an axe...gotta have contingencies...
Well , as long as the guy made himself useful , i dont mind.
But if someone comes up with some crazy concept that does not help and wants to be protected during fights ... well , he better pray , cause there is 0% chance im risking myself for him.
Better dead and making a more useful char next time.