Bothered By Optimization


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 450 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

tcharleschapman wrote:

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.

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?)

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.

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.

I'm not going to read through this whole thread to see if my opinion has been stated by others, but I do want to put in my 2 coppers.

The problem with most of these games is the higher the level the longer the combat takes so you see people wanting to speed up combat by optimizing their characters to deal more damage faster and be able to soak up damage that comes at them. Combat is a huge part of the game.

Personally, I like a good balance between combat optimization, skill optimization, and role playing. The game shouldn't just be about 1 thing, it should be about all of them as they all play a part in my enjoyment.

I don't like people who optimize to the point of being 1-trick ponies or who tread in the grey areas to exploit loopholes, but I respect people who make a survivable character.

Each group/table has different opinions on what is fun to play and what is badwrongfun. If you have a problem with the over optimization you need to talk to your fellow players/GM's about it. Open communication is key to everyone having fun and most people are willing to negotiate and compromise so that everyone does enjoy themselves. If you have a group that doesn't want to work with you, then my suggestion is to either stop complaining and keep playing or move on to another group that enjoys your style of play.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:

I'm having more of a problem with people who just seem to think all optimizers are going to act like jerks...

...
It really isn't helping anyone to over-generalize and attack an entire playstyle just for the actions of a few people someone has personally encountered.

Bingo. That's my main concern in all this; I don't care about all these definitions of the difference between "effective" and "optimized", whether "optimized" includes things other than DPR, etc. I'm not interested in talking about optimization itself. I really just don't care that much about it.

But I can't stand a bully, so the main thing I care about in all these optimization threads is how people treat each other. And what I keep seeing is (along with plenty of reasonable posts on both sides) a certain contingent of people berating and attacking entire categories of people for playing the game wrong, and I see it a lot more coming from anti-optimizers than from optimizers.

Quote:
It seems the main issue appears to stem from PFS play, which really doesn't surprise me. Throwing half a dozen players with different styles together isn't something I'd normally approach without a full suit of powered armor. I don't really know what the solution is in that case (especially for those for whom PFS is their only real option), but I do know that using PFS to gauge the whole player base isn't going to yield accurate results.

The key there is communication. If two players are stepping on each other's toes because they've each only played one way before and the other person isn't playing that way, there needs to be some talking going on. Typically, if there are issues, you have a table of people who are "close enough" and one or two people who are far enough outside that paradigm to cause disruption. The best thing then is for the GM to recognize the tension, call a break, and talk to that person (whether that's asking them to slow down in combat, Aid Another on someone else's skill checks instead of doing it all themselves, or adjusting their roleplaying to be less disruptive). Usually, that'll fix it. (Or if it doesn't and it's really a true "problem player", the GM can boot them.)

Unfortunately, two obstacles keep coming up:
1) Newer GMs either aren't comfortable handling it or mistakenly think they don't have the authority to intervene.
2) More experienced GMs are used to a lifetime of GMing in home games where the easiest way to stop anything they didn't like was to just ban it, so they either threaten to not GM or they recognize that banning isn't an option and mistakenly conclude that there's no other way left to handle the situation.

It baffles me how often I've seen GMs throw up their hands and say "But I couldn't say anything about it because it's PFS" or "Since I can't ban it and I can't alter encounters, I don't have any options!"

Apparently just talking to people isn't on the radar...?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
18+2,16,14, 7,7,7, is hyper-optimized and I think is a problem build. This is the issue. OK? It doesn't really matter what *YOU* call "optimized', it's what folks here are complaining about. And they are not complaining about the 16+2, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10 they are compaining about the 18+2,16,14, 7,7,7- ESPECIALLY when that player then complains about the rest of the party being "useless".

DPR only goes so far even in combat; remember that a successful save-or-lose spell does "all" points of damage in one round. And, as someone previously pointed out, if you dump your Will save and spend most of every game either held or attacking your own party, you're a net liability in combat and all of your DPR is counting against your own party. There is no sense of the word by which I can apply the word "optimal" to that.

Unless as DM I'm taking pity on them (I don't), PCs like that die quickly enough that I don't consider them problematic at all.

The only time "optimization" of ANY kind is a problem at my table is when there's a mismatch in the level of optimization. And by that I mean what I said before: "being able to handle whatever challenges exist within the game rules." If one character contributes strongly towards that, that character is "well-optimized." If another interferes in comparison, he/she isn't.

"Optimization" and "specialization" are not synonyms.
"DPR" and "combat effectiveness" aren't synonymous, either.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Kirth, I'm liking you more and more. :)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
That you think "Munchkin" is more of a moral slight than "weak" is more a function of your position in the debate.

I never once said that "munchkin" was a moral slight at all.

I said that "you're ruining the game" and "you need to grow up" and "you're obnoxious" are moral slights.

Please stop misrepresenting me.

And "weak" and "stooge" are better?

Word choice has no impact on the point.

That you are bothered because someone says you need to grow up because your playstyle is ruining the game is no different than someone saying that the useless character is getting everyone killed and ruining the game.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
It's the scale of the reaction that I worry about. "You wearing blue is offensive to me! But you just had to go and wear jeans, and you told me to suck it up, and now you have the gall to lie there and ask why I shot you in the knee? Some people!

And some of us view the scale of shouting "Useless", "Racist", "Closedminded", "Uncreative", "Tyrant", etc....excessive reaction.

If you are irritating the people around you, you are irritating the people around you. It may be you, it may be them, but either way continuing the behavior in the setting isn't exactly behavior I would praise.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ciretose wrote:
And "weak" and "stooge" are better?

That is nothing like what I'm saying.

Quote:
That you are bothered because someone says you need to grow up because your playstyle is ruining the game is no different than someone saying that the useless character is getting everyone killed and ruining the game.

I never claimed otherwise.

"Your optimization is badwrongfun" and
"Your lack of optimization is badwrongfun" are both statements that get made.

You seem to think I've been saying that one is worse than the other.

That's not what I said.

What I've said is that one is more frequent than the other.


ciretose wrote:
And some of us view the scale of shouting "Useless", "Racist", "Closedminded", "Uncreative", "Tyrant", etc....excessive reaction.

You've never had a problem calling someone who proposes something outside the comfort zone of the DM or the rest of the group a "problem player."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

DPR only goes so far even in combat; remember that a successful save-or-lose spell does "all" points of damage in one round. And, as someone previously pointed out, if you dump your Will save and spend most of every game either held or attacking your own party, you're a net liability in combat and all of your DPR is counting against your own party. There is no sense of the word by which I can apply the word "optimal" to that.

Unless as DM I'm taking pity on them (I don't), PCs like that die quickly enough that I don't consider them problematic at all.

The only time "optimization" of ANY kind is a problem at my table is when there's a mismatch in the level of optimization. And by that I mean what I said before: "being able to handle whatever challenges exist within the game rules." If one character contributes strongly towards that, that character is "well-optimized." If another interferes in comparison, he/she isn't.

"Optimization" and "specialization" are not synonyms.
"DPR" and "combat effectiveness" aren't synonymous, either.

Well, that’s great Kirth, if that’s what “optimization” means then there’s no disagreement or argument. So, there’s no eight page 250+ post thread on why folks hate optimization, either, I guess… oh, wait….

But for most of the rest of us, those with a problem with “optimization”, then we’re talking about “hyper-optimized’ PC’s.

So, we are in complete 100% agreement. Those with simply well built characters, those who YOU want to define as ‘optimized’ are not a problem. OK?

But many of us are having issues with the other, “hyper-optimized’ characters. So, if you’d like to discuss THAT problem, rather than just repeating over & over than to you a well built character is “optimized” and no one should have a problem with that, please join us.

I agree, you agree, we all agree, a 'well built" character is not a problem.

Many of us think a “hyper-optimized’ character *IS* a problem.

So, can we discuss those rather than the defintion of 'optimized"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

PEOPLE SHOULD GET THIS THROUGH THEIR SKULLS. NO GOOD OPTIMIZER WILL EVER DUMP THEIR WILL SAVE. Seriously unless you are permanently controlled by a caster on your team you do not dump will save. Period.

Wow. Have you checked out the handbooks yet? Dumping WIS is common, and I almost never see any feats or traits added to get it back.

Are we doing the “no true Scotsman” thing, then? Because I see those "dumped WIS with no Will feats", etc builds all the time, and by those who claim they are expert optimizers. I suppose by your defintion they are not a "good optimizer" but THEY claim they are, folks link to their handbook, and agree with the build, etc etc. It's pretty common.

Which handbook has that nonsense? Fort and Will saves are not to be dumped. They end encounters, and are the mainstay of SoD or SoS spells. Now admittedly I have not ready every guide out there, but I might have to talk to some writers if that is their advice. I would reccomend doing this if playing on easy mode.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
ciretose wrote:
And some of us view the scale of shouting "Useless", "Racist", "Closedminded", "Uncreative", "Tyrant", etc....excessive reaction.
You've never had a problem calling someone who proposes something outside the comfort zone of the DM or the rest of the group a "problem player."

No I haven't. Although I would say "demanding" rather than proposing.

You can ask for what you want. But if you don't get it you declare "Closeminded" "racism" etc...I'm probably not going to be on your side of the discussion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
But for most of the rest of us, those with a problem with “optimization”, then we’re talking about “hyper-optimized’ PC’s.

Whatever you're talking about, in this case you're still butchering the English language. "Optimized" doesn't mean "specialized." The very phrase "hyper-optimized" is something of a tautology.

"Hyper-specialized" is a lot closer to what you mean.
"Obsessively focused on DPR" is what you seem to really mean.
If so, just call it that. "I don't like characters built only for DPR." That avoids all the confusion then, no?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:

@Calybos1: you are mixing optimization with min-maxing.

Optimization is using a kukri instead of a dagger because it does a few points more damage.

Min-maxing is having 7 starting CHA for your dwarf barbarian.

We agreed that for purposes of this discussion that by “optimization” we mean over-optimized or “hyper- optimized” Otherwise there’s just too much debate on what “optimization’ means.

Fr example, I would not call that one choice of a weapon= ‘optimization”. It when you do dual wielding kukris, with all feats towards DPR and all stats towards DPR that you’re really “optimized” to me. Other might disagree, so let's stick with that sort of "hyper-optimization" not just making a single better choice.

Hang on, someone stole the goalposts. I don't remember anyone agreeing to that definition, or at least not anyone who wasn't here for the sole purpose of insulting people who prefer to play characters who value competence in people who accompany them into life or death situations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What did I walk into? Guess maybe I should've read a little of the thread lol.

People get so upset at each other here.

How about this folks: take a step back, breathe, realize that your opinion isn't the only right one, respect the other posters and just agree to disagree.

Fighting here makes no sense, people will troll just to troll and laugh at you for getting upset. You will never ever play at a table with the others, each table is different and each table has their own ways of doing things that someone else on the interwebs will find abhorrent. By the time a thread gets this long, your arguments have gone around and around and around in circles and you are now just re-re-re-repeating yourselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With hyperoptimized PC's they tend to be good at one thing, and suck everywhere else. I will use the term "hyperoptimized" for the purpose of this post, but to me it is not optimization because of the glaring weakness(es) it brings. I let them have their fun, but eventually, due to how I run games, they will come across something that gives them a lot of trouble and/or renders them mostly ineffective.

I understand that(me changing up encounters) can't happen in PFS, but in home games it can be dealt with, and the player might complain, but he has to realize that the others want to have fun also.


I've played characters that dumped con, only to 8, because I didn't need any more points, but still, its doable. There are more forms of damage mitigation than having a big health pool. Positioning, high AC, miss chance, cover, making use of enviromental and situational bonuses... Heck my PFS witch had a 10 con, and didn't take a single point of damage till 4th level despite being forced to "tank" some enemies due to party incompetence (partially build incompetence, but also tactical).

Nearly every drawback that comes from optimizing one area at the expense of another can be mitigated with magic, items, tactics, or RP in my experience. Tank wisdom on a barbarian? Well he is superstitious and took some nice traits to help that out, and wears a cloak. Tank Charisma? Well normally other party members can do that part, since they have Cha as a primary or secondary focus (cleric, sorc, pal ect) but if not you can erase deficits in character creation through trait use and skill points, and you can roleplay for those super nice situational bonuses to diplomacy (bribes work too), and perhaps pick up some items (which are cheap honestly, gold solves most problems) that boost your diplomacy.

In all honesty it doesn't actually matter what your Charisma score is as much as how high your skill is in Charisma based skills. The -2 that you get for a full dump is not going to invalidate your build, favored class bonus, trait bonus, and a skill rank more makes up for taking a low score, not to mention racial mods like half orcs and intimidate, or class mods like stern gaze.

Some classes get no real benefit from INT, like clerics. They get 2 points for class, INT does nothing for them, they don't get a generous allotment of class skills, they can use magic for most things, dropping down to 7 still gives them 1 skill point for being a character, and they can favored class for 1 more (and they can be human for a third if they really want another). An 8 actually gets them the same number of skill points. Since they usually have good scores in most other skills, they can afford to spread their paltry skills out a bit and still be adequate for what you need clerics to do. Fighters are in the same boat, and unless they need 13 int for feat chains there is not any real reason not to tank further.

Now if you say that perhaps people shouldn't play mono task characters that only do damage, then I can agree with that, fighters kind of suck at most things, but man they are good at dealing damage. Why give up the ability to deal damage when you have 3-5 other guys who don't do so much damage, but can handle the others stuff? I mean once you choose the role "fighter" you aren't really seeking to play diplomat, professional sailor, burgler, merchant or anything other than a guy who fights. Same thing goes with Barbarians, Why invest in diplomacy when you are the freaking barbarian?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
But for most of the rest of us, those with a problem with “optimization”, then we’re talking about “hyper-optimized’ PC’s.

Whatever you're talking about, in this case you're still butchering the English language. "Optimized" doesn't mean "specialized." The very phrase "hyper-optimized" is something of a tautology.

"Hyper-specialized" is a lot closer to what you mean.
"Obsessively focused on DPR" is what you seem to really mean.
If so, just call it that. "I don't like characters built only for DPR." That avoids all the confusion then, no?

Can we stay on the issue rather than definitions, please?


ciretose wrote:

No I haven't. Although I would say "demanding" rather than proposing.

You can ask for what you want. But if you don't get it you declare "Closeminded" "racism" etc...I'm probably not going to be on your side of the discussion.

OK, so three people want to play a hunter-killer team, and stat up Rambo-like PCs. The fourth person makes an Int 8 wizard with no spellbook and an obsession with bunny rabbits. In that context, the bunny-lover is demanding to play something that's disruptive to the group. His/her character actually is useless in the context of what the others are trying to accomplish.

Now, that said, if three players all want a "pacifist wizards and their pet bunnies" camapign, and the fourth guy shows up with Rambo, the fourth guy, in that context, deserves an equal amount of abuse.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Can we stay on the issue rather than definitions, please?

OK, here it is: if one PC is so focused on DPR that he dumped his Wis to 7, he likely fails Perception checks and gets eaten by a pouncung lion, or fails a save vs. hold person and gets a coup de grace. Then he rolls up a new character.

I don't see what the problem is.


Atarlost wrote:
Hang on, someone stole the goalposts. I don't remember anyone agreeing to that definition, or at least not anyone who wasn't here for the sole purpose of insulting people who prefer to play characters who value competence in people who accompany them into life or death situations.

Ok, sure. So, what would YOU like to make the 'goalposts'? I don't think anyone has a problem with characters who are simply well built.

So, if that's the definition of 'optimized' then no one has a issue with "optimizers' so there's no debate.

OK?

But seemingly, there *IS* a debate... 8 pages, 350+ posts of it. Thus, that must not be the definition of "optimized' many of us are using.

Characters who simply " value competence" are not an issue. So, we're not debating them.

Thereby, in order to stop endless argle-bargle over defintions, I was willing to set the goalpost at "hyperoptimized" just for the sake of debate. Otherwise, there is no debate.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

I don't think anyone has a problem with characters who are simply well built.

So, if that's the definition of 'optimized' then no one has a issue with "optimizers' so there's no debate.

OK?

Nope.

There was a somewhat infamous summoner locally that people had issues with specifically because he didn't have the weaknesses that you seem to associate with your idea of hyper-optimization. He had ridiculous skill bonuses, an eidolon that also had ridiculous skill bonuses while still being a DPR monster, neither had dumped saves, etc. Whatever the situation, he was able to handle it, and would do so as though the other players weren't there.

He fit Kirth's definition of "optimized", and very emphatically not yours, but people had a problem with it. In fact, the vast majority of PCs that I see people complain about (at the tables/threads I frequent) are far closer to Kirth's definition than yours.

So yes, there ARE issues and there IS a debate even with his definition of "optimized".


DrDeth wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Hang on, someone stole the goalposts. I don't remember anyone agreeing to that definition, or at least not anyone who wasn't here for the sole purpose of insulting people who prefer to play characters who value competence in people who accompany them into life or death situations.
Ok, sure. So, what would YOU like to make the 'goalposts'? I don't think anyone has a problem with characters who are simply well built.
tcharleschapman wrote:

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.

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.

...

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.

Seems there are people complaining about characters just being well built: the OP.

The bard example is particularly telling. The OP is complaining about GMs trying to keep new players from falling into Timmy Traps so they don't get disgusted with their character and quit the hobby after a few weeks. When you came into this thread to rag on "powergamers" that's where you staked your flag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unfortunately terms like optimized and hyperoptimized don't exist in a vacume. They come from relative speeds

Normal: His character looks like my character
Optimized: His character is better than my character!
Hyper optimized: Why did i bring my character if his character is here?
Sub optimized: his character is worse than my character
Paste eater: Why did we bring his character if my character is here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tcharleschapman wrote:

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.

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?)

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.

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.

Indeed. Some want to win, they want the most powerful rocket tagger they can get, and they don't actually want a challenge.

Then the dm is saddened there is no challenge, or he keeps trying to balance the monsters to the power of the party, and risks killing THEM immediately.

A vicious cycle. I learned years ago that d20 is best when the numbers are not too crazy for pcs and monsters. Keep it on a level playing field and tone down the massive numbers.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Unfortunately terms like optimized and hyperoptimized don't exist in a vacume. They come from relative speeds

Normal: His character looks like my character
Optimized: His character is better than my character!
Hyper optimized: Why did i bring my character if his character is here?
Sub optimized: his character is worse than my character
Paste eater: Why did we bring his character if my character is here?

Optimized does not always mean better than my character, at least in my gaming circles. Your definition doesn't work when a group has optimized characters and they are chatting about it without malice or complaint as to who is the bottom and who is the top (lol). Dispel the inferiority complex from the definition.

Opt is strong and effective, but can risk being OP or making the game way too easy.

One of the biggest problems I think with optimization is its weakness.

What...?

Yes, its weakness. If specific tactics and spells are used over and over, if certain strengths are mighty, then that char is in real trouble if they get a supreme counter, or their main stat crazy level stat is drained, or if distance and engagement is better controlled by the enemies.

E.g.

Skirmish the alchemist to death from long range. Ahh, I see your bombs don't work out here, twang twang.

Pincushion the lightly armoured "quick" barbarian from height and multiple angles.

Rust monster eats the greatsword fighter's weapon.

Summoner has his summons lured off and is ganked by rogues.

Sorcerer is fully loaded and ready to go, gets grappled.

Combat wombat magus taken out by traps.

Archer ranger meets a very strong ranged foe, that is protected from arrows. If in doubt use beholders abjurers or the like.

Mighty melee fighter/barb/ranger, loses a lot of strength to poison/spell/curse.

Two weapon combatant takes high dex drain. Lols.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

I don't think anyone has a problem with characters who are simply well built.

So, if that's the definition of 'optimized' then no one has a issue with "optimizers' so there's no debate.

OK?

Nope.

There was a somewhat infamous summoner locally that people had issues with specifically because he didn't have the weaknesses that you seem to associate with your idea of hyper-optimization. He had ridiculous skill bonuses, an eidolon that also had ridiculous skill bonuses while still being a DPR monster, neither had dumped saves, etc. Whatever the situation, he was able to handle it, and would do so as though the other players weren't there.

He fit Kirth's definition of "optimized", and very emphatically not yours, but people had a problem with it. In fact, the vast majority of PCs that I see people complain about (at the tables/threads I frequent) are far closer to Kirth's definition than yours.

So yes, there ARE issues and there IS a debate even with his definition of "optimized".

And Pun Pun's was a problem specifically because it was built as an exploit.

Which is where the criticism comes in. If you build specifically to exploit, and someone calls you an exploiter, I feel like it is that scene from Casablanca where the inspector is shocked, shocked that gambling is taking place...as he accepts his winnings...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

I don't think anyone has a problem with characters who are simply well built.

So, if that's the definition of 'optimized' then no one has a issue with "optimizers' so there's no debate.

OK?

Nope.

There was a somewhat infamous summoner locally that people had issues with specifically because he didn't have the weaknesses that you seem to associate with your idea of hyper-optimization. He had ridiculous skill bonuses, an eidolon that also had ridiculous skill bonuses while still being a DPR monster, neither had dumped saves, etc. Whatever the situation, he was able to handle it, and would do so as though the other players weren't there.

He fit Kirth's definition of "optimized", and very emphatically not yours, but people had a problem with it. In fact, the vast majority of PCs that I see people complain about (at the tables/threads I frequent) are far closer to Kirth's definition than yours.

So yes, there ARE issues and there IS a debate even with his definition of "optimized".

And Pun Pun's was a problem specifically because it was built as an exploit.

Which is where the criticism comes in. If you build specifically to exploit, and someone calls you an exploiter, I feel like it is that scene from Casablanca where the inspector is shocked, shocked that gambling is taking place...as he accepts his winnings...

Ciretose, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Optimized does not always mean better than my character, at least in my gaming circles. Your definition doesn't work when a group has optimized characters and they are chatting about it without malice or complaint as to who is the bottom and who is the top (lol). Dispel the inferiority complex from the definition.

Opt is strong and effective, but can risk being OP or making the game way too easy.

One of the biggest problems I think with optimization is its weakness.

What...?

Yes, its weakness. If specific tactics and spells are used over and over, if certain strengths are mighty, then that char is in real trouble if they get a supreme counter, or their main stat crazy level stat is drained, or if distance and engagement is better controlled by the enemies.

E.g.

Skirmish the alchemist to death from long range. Ahh, I see your bombs don't work out here, twang twang.

Pincushion the lightly armoured "quick" barbarian from height and multiple angles.

Rust monster eats the greatsword fighter's weapon.

Summoner has his summons lured off and is ganked by rogues.

Sorcerer is fully loaded and ready to go, gets grappled.

Combat wombat magus taken out by traps.

Archer ranger meets a very strong ranged foe, that is protected from arrows. If in doubt use beholders abjurers or the like.

Mighty melee fighter/barb/ranger, loses a lot of strength to poison/spell/curse.

Two weapon combatant takes high dex drain. Lols.

Most of what you are describing is actually attacking the strengths so only weakness remains. Problem is most of your examples are pretty easily surmounted:

Alchemists have ranged feats, lots of them. They also carry a longbow if they know what they are doing. Or can fly.
Nothing stops the lightly armored quick barbarian from using ranged attacks. Or drinking a potion of fly.
Greatsword fighter has back up weapons. If not his fists are mighty enough to take out a rust monster if he has to.
Summoner summons more. Or uses create pit or other spells do to the right job. This one is so easy I don't know why you even stated it I mean rogues? Really? really? Laughable. Glitterdust those idiots and laugh all the way.
Archer ranger vs ranged foe that has protection from arrows? as per the spell? As in the spell that doesn't actually work against magic arrows? I don't know what beholders abjurers is supposed to be, but beholders aren't in PF at all.
Most melee fighter/barb/ranger have back up plans if the player isn't an idiot, and after combat is over they chug a potion of restore or give over some gold for a restore/remove spell. Cost of doing business. They are also still full BAB, so will still hit more frequently than a 3/4 BAB or low strength same class would in the same situation. I mean a 14 strength fighter cursed for -6 strength is a joke. A 18 strength fighter still can do some stuff, and is barely worse than the weakling is normally.
Two weapon combatant is already fighting at a disadvantage by going with 2 weapons. He wises up and fights with one hand and loses a couple of attacks. As long as those attacks weren't light slaps he is still effective.


Ciretose wrote:
You seem to be asserting that Optimizers are some kind of victims, yet not being willing to acknowledge that as many, if not more threads exist attacking anything deemed "suboptimal" by the victimized optimizers.

The difference is bolded.

An optimizer is a person. The anti optimization crowd is angry about people engaging in behavior they consider wrong.

A feat, class ability, archetype etc is not a corporatio.. ermm. person. It doesn't have feelings to hurt, its considered entirely on its own merits for what it does.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ciretose wrote:
You seem to be asserting that Optimizers are some kind of victims, yet not being willing to acknowledge that as many, if not more threads exist attacking anything deemed "suboptimal" by the victimized optimizers.

The difference is bolded.

An optimizer is a person. The anti optimization crowd is angry about people engaging in behavior they consider wrong.

A feat, class ability, archetype etc is not a corporatio.. ermm. person. It doesn't have feelings to hurt, its considered entirely on its own merits for what it does.

And people who don't play how they play or agree with how they adjudicate the rules.

Not to mention the developers themselves are people...

Arguably the biggest jab against optimizers is that they rules lawyer the game to force people to play their style.

The boards don't seem to disprove this sentiment.

If people who optimize and min-max are upset they are called optimizers and min-maxers, they might want to consider why those terms are considered derogatory.

Because a large number of people have had bad experiences with players who subscribe to this style.

Not all. But enough that 18 people have favorited the OP already, and this topic keeps coming up.

If the response is "Stop judging us, stormwind 4eva! RAW 4LIFE!" is it any wonder why the description of "optimized" meaning something very positive as a word, is instead considered an negative?

Can we at least acknowledge that while some optimizers are also good gamers, many are problem players who cause major disruptions and annoyance as a lot of tables?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Can we at least acknowledge that while some optimizers are also good gamers, many are problem players who cause major disruptions and annoyance as a lot of tables?

As soon as you acknowledge that while some "Roleplayers, not ROLLplayers" are good gamers, many are problem players who cause major disruption and annoyance at a lot of tables.


ciretose wrote:

[

Arguably the biggest jab against optimizers is that they rules lawyer the game to force people to play their style.

That is a munchkin. Separate issue. The slumber hex happy witch, monkchinegun zen archer or druid and friend pair of pouncing velociraptors with holy amulets of mighty fists are all black and white by the book and legal.

Quote:
If people who optimize and min-max are upset they are called optimizers and min-maxers, they might want to consider why those terms are considered derogatory.

Ponders.

Stormwind fallacies.

Moving on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Optimization and roleplay are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they totally unrelated.

You generally choose which one you wish to lead with.

Lets say person A wishes to play a elven fey bloodline sorcerer. He finds out that half-elves get an awesome favored class bonus while elves don't, so he decides to change his race to half-elf.
Person B on the other hand just plays his elven fey sorcerer.

Now person A1 during the game roleplays his half elven pc awesomely, gets totally in character and is great fun to have at the table. He reads half elven rp advice on the net and applies in the game any ideas he finds internet. Ofcourse what he really wanted to play was an elf so not everything flows perfectly, but still he is grea fun to have around. Not to mention he seems to have all these spells handy.

Person B1 on the other hand roleplays his character awesomely and because he does what he really wanted is actually better at it than person A1. That said he doesn't like being a push over, so he reads some guides in the net about which spells and feats are good to choose from. He goes with what fits his pc concept and easily pulls his weight in the game.

On the other side person A2 doesn't care about how his pc views the world. He cares about winning. Gaining levels as fast and as easy as possible, minimizing his chance to die and squashing the oposition. His decisions depend only on what gives him the biggest advantage in game. He may even craft his roleplaying story to eliminate any chance of being "forced" to do stuff that put him at a tactical disadvantage, so he has no siblings or parents or anything. If someone tells him that his pc is too powerful he may say that he wont use his awesome power but only in times of Great Need or that he could totally have made something soooo much worse. He changes his bloodline to arcane(sage) and his race to human. He tries to get his hands on dazing and persistent metamagic rods as quickly as possible.

Similarly person B2 is pretty fun to have around until at somepoint he decides that he wants to be able to wield a greatsword, because its cool. So he grabs a level in fighter. At another point he wants to be able to be more sneaky so he gets a level of rogue. He imagines himself as a very subtle charismatic type of dude so as his first level 2 spell he gets detect thoughts, because what's better than knowing what other people are thinking? Knowledge is power after all. With a sorcerer4/thief1/fighter1 party member who casts detect thoughts, the teams resident straight up fighter dies against a hard encounter, hoping that next time he will play with a sorcerer who casts haste.

I don't think anyone will have a problem with 1s and I do think almost everyone will have a problem with 2s.
Yes A1 might be a little worse at roleplaying than B1, and B1 slightly worse as a teamate, but noone really cares.

So to sum up, most likely you will have to choose with which, optimization or roleplay, you will lead with, and at which point you will stop catering to them. But that doesn't mean you can't be good at both.

Me? I always lead with optimization, I try to roleplay and never metagame as much as I can and see, when I am going too far with a build.


notabot wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Optimized does not always mean better than my character, at least in my gaming circles. Your definition doesn't work when a group has optimized characters and they are chatting about it without malice or complaint as to who is the bottom and who is the top (lol). Dispel the inferiority complex from the definition.

Opt is strong and effective, but can risk being OP or making the game way too easy.

One of the biggest problems I think with optimization is its weakness.

What...?

Yes, its weakness. If specific tactics and spells are used over and over, if certain strengths are mighty, then that char is in real trouble if they get a supreme counter, or their main stat crazy level stat is drained, or if distance and engagement is better controlled by the enemies.

E.g.

Skirmish the alchemist to death from long range. Ahh, I see your bombs don't work out here, twang twang.

Pincushion the lightly armoured "quick" barbarian from height and multiple angles.

Rust monster eats the greatsword fighter's weapon.

Summoner has his summons lured off and is ganked by rogues.

Sorcerer is fully loaded and ready to go, gets grappled.

Combat wombat magus taken out by traps.

Archer ranger meets a very strong ranged foe, that is protected from arrows. If in doubt use beholders abjurers or the like.

Mighty melee fighter/barb/ranger, loses a lot of strength to poison/spell/curse.

Two weapon combatant takes high dex drain. Lols.

Most of what you are describing is actually attacking the strengths so only weakness remains. Problem is most of your examples are pretty easily surmounted:

Alchemists have ranged feats, lots of them. They also carry a longbow if they know what they are doing. Or can fly.
Nothing stops the lightly armored quick barbarian from using ranged attacks. Or drinking a potion of fly.
Greatsword fighter has back up weapons. If not his fists are mighty enough to take out a rust monster if he has to.
Summoner summons more. Or uses...

If they have it, if they get to do it. If you don't think they work at all, try them against your players. If a skirmishing ranged foe can't beat an alchemist with a bow, they need to be a bit stronger. I've also never seen an alchemist with a longbow yet, for the steampunk and bomb obsession be high (it really clashes with the English yeomen idea). The confidence in their very powerful bombs over other weapons also restricts them.

On various counters to ranged magic arrow spam:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?201479-Protection-from-quot-mag ical-quot-arrows
One beautiful one I heard was a dungeon with a lot of dex drain, leading into a long skirmish boss fight with highly mobile archers. Could be fun!

Take the summoner and the invis rogues. If you think your summoner can take multiple sneak attacks from previously invisible foes while he is commanding his battle line to attack forward, try it against the summoner as the dm. The circle of shank can be very unforgiving. I'm not sure how many hp your summoners have. Especially if they leave one invis rogue to disrupt whatever spell that summoner was going to derisively throw at the rogues, after being shivved by multiple rogues already. Hp flies off.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

If they have it, if they get to do it. If you don't think they work at all, try them against your players. If a skirmishing ranged foe can't beat an alchemist with a bow, they need to be a bit stronger. I've also never seen an alchemist with a longbow yet, for the steampunk and bomb obsession be high (it really clashes with the English yeomen idea). The confidence in their very powerful bombs over other weapons also restricts them.

On various counters to ranged magic arrow spam:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?201479-Protection-from-quot-mag ical-quot-arrows
One beautiful one I heard was a dungeon with a lot of dex drain, leading into a long skirmish boss fight with highly mobile archers. Could be fun!

Take the summoner and the invis rogues. If you think your summoner can take multiple sneak attacks from previously invisible foes while he is commanding his battle line to attack forward, try it against the summoner as the dm. The circle of shank can be very unforgiving. I'm not sure how many hp your summoners have. Especially if they leave one invis rogue to disrupt whatever spell that summoner was going to derisively throw at the rogues, after being shivved by multiple rogues already. Hp flies off.

MY PFS has a longbow. It's an elf, which is the iconic alchemist. Bows are really good. Bombs are limited. Both have overlapping feats. You would have to be stupid to not see the synergy. Alchemists don't have to be steam-punk, in fact alchemy predates steam by centuries.

Most of your "solutions" sound like tactics a control freak GM might use if they feel like they don't like how their players are playing and need to punish them for building characters by the rules they don't like. Sure once and a while its good to through a variety of encounters at the party to let other people shine, but if every encounter is against dex draining/distored longer range than the PCs fly aways, it gets really old really fast.

Also, rogues do crap damage. Sure, if you want to throw multiple rogues of a level that can combined one shot a PC, go ahead. You are likely blowing right past the CR guidelines to do it. 4 rogues vs a PC would have to be several levels below the level of the summoner for it to be a legit challenge, as 4 enemies is normal CR+4. Since a normal NPC PC class is CR=lvl-1, the rogues would have to be at least 2 levels below the level of the summoner. And that would be really vindictive because that is asking a single PC to face a total challenge 2 CR higher than his level, when that is a hard encounter for a party of 4. Way to go GM, you can use fiat to murder PCs, what an amazing discovery. Any thing lower than that and the summoner is likely to survive in my experience. Which is more of statement about how much rogues suck. Also Summoners are 3/4 BAB classes that have access to good AC boosting things, while rogues are 3/4 BAB guys that for some reason like to lower their to hit by being edgy and duel wielding light weapons.

Also, my vanilla summoner is IN the battle-line. Summoners are legitimate combatants if you know how to build them.


ciretose wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ciretose wrote:
You seem to be asserting that Optimizers are some kind of victims, yet not being willing to acknowledge that as many, if not more threads exist attacking anything deemed "suboptimal" by the victimized optimizers.

The difference is bolded.

An optimizer is a person. The anti optimization crowd is angry about people engaging in behavior they consider wrong.

A feat, class ability, archetype etc is not a corporatio.. ermm. person. It doesn't have feelings to hurt, its considered entirely on its own merits for what it does.

And people who don't play how they play or agree with how they adjudicate the rules.

Not to mention the developers themselves are people...

Arguably the biggest jab against optimizers is that they rules lawyer the game to force people to play their style.

The boards don't seem to disprove this sentiment.

If people who optimize and min-max are upset they are called optimizers and min-maxers, they might want to consider why those terms are considered derogatory.

Because a large number of people have had bad experiences with players who subscribe to this style.

Not all. But enough that 18 people have favorited the OP already, and this topic keeps coming up.

If the response is "Stop judging us, stormwind 4eva! RAW 4LIFE!" is it any wonder why the description of "optimized" meaning something very positive as a word, is instead considered an negative?

Can we at least acknowledge that while some optimizers are also good gamers, many are problem players who cause major disruptions and annoyance as a lot of tables?

Nope! Since optimizers have a higher level of system mastery we tend to be able to produce characters that are consistent in power level (even if we hide some it so we have a panic button), while non-optimizers without system mastery can accidentally stumble into any one of the many game breaking spell combinations, or build a non-contributing character and marginalize themselves. Truthfully, I have to worry much more about the non-optimizers in games I run than the optimizers. The optimizers all know to put together functional designs and can support the less optimal characters. Thus on the whole I find optimizers significantly less disruptive to running a game especially since they almost never start threads like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
notabot wrote:
Most of your "solutions" sound like tactics a control freak GM might use if they feel like they don't like how their players are playing and need to punish them for building characters by the rules they don't like. Sure once and a while its good to through a variety of encounters at the party to let other people shine, but if every encounter is against dex draining/distored longer range than the PCs fly aways, it gets really old really fast.

It's a fair point; at the end of the day, the GM can easily kill even the most optimized PC because they run the world. Just throw an APL +8 encounter at them and call it a day (Yes, a control freak GM did this to a group I was in once).

A properly optimized PC can survive a lot more than a poorly built one, but if the GM wants any character dead badly enough, they will die.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
notabot wrote:
Most of your "solutions" sound like tactics a control freak GM might use if they feel like they don't like how their players are playing and need to punish them for building characters by the rules they don't like. Sure once and a while its good to through a variety of encounters at the party to let other people shine, but if every encounter is against dex draining/distored longer range than the PCs fly aways, it gets really old really fast.

It's a fair point; at the end of the day, the GM can easily kill even the most optimized PC because they run the world. Just throw an APL +8 encounter at them and call it a day (Yes, a control freak GM did this to a group I was in once).

A properly optimized PC can survive a lot more than a poorly built one, but if the GM wants any character dead badly enough, they will die.

The funny thing is at high enough levels even a APL+8 encounter can be beaten if the party is built right and can spike damage or boost DCs by enough. I've seen it done. Hell had a party do 1/3 of the health of Yamasoth, a CR24 qlippoth lord. At level 12. It was a "cinematic encounter" but it was still crazy that they did that so i had to shorten his appearance by a round.


C'mon, you don't have to imply I am a control freak Gm, just because I like to present my players a challenge. That is poor form. Being a control freak and setting up a difficult encounter are not the same thing, one wants to challenge and see how the players get out of it, one wants to control and prevent the players from doing all they can.

It really comes down to this, players can optimize however they wish, they can make the most powerful builds around, and they can still be challenged and countered. There is also the very simple matter that if a APL+8 encounter can be beaten by a party, those players have no excuse to complain about a +4 coming their way. They are clearly optimized over and above what they are expected to be taking--in short, powergamers pushing the crunch up hill until breaking point.


Atarlost wrote:
Hang on, someone stole the goalposts.

That was me. I put them back now. While you all arguing here me was play Ettin Headball with friends.

Ignore bites missing. Hungry after game.

Atarlost wrote:
...anyone who wasn't here for the sole purpose of insulting people.

Sorry. Was busy. Do job now.

Erchem. Ettin Headball fun game. Me team there won! Your team here fun and win? Sun still shining outside.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

C'mon, you don't have to imply I am a control freak Gm, just because I like to present my players a challenge. That is poor form. Being a control freak and setting up a difficult encounter are not the same thing, one wants to challenge and see how the players get out of it, one wants to control and prevent the players from doing all they can.

It really comes down to this, players can optimize however they wish, they can make the most powerful builds around, and they can still be challenged and countered. There is also the very simple matter that if a APL+8 encounter can be beaten by a party, those players have no excuse to complain about a +4 coming their way. They are clearly optimized over and above what they are expected to be taking--in short, powergamers pushing the crunch up hill until breaking point.

Player assassinations particularly going above and beyond the normal CR scaling and targeting specific weakness that can't be overcome by ANY of the party sounds like controlling behavior and not creating a challenging encounter.

Your scenarios involve: out ranging range specialists, the melee characters in that sort of party are hardly going to be able to contribute at all. Specifically murdering a PC using over CR rogues with no chance to respond whatsoever. Destroying weapons on the weapon specialist, note that this doesn't really work since he can just club it to death with a chair leg if he has to. Draining the strength of the melee specialist, which doesn't' work because he is still better than any other combatant in the same situation (in fact it could KILL other characters against many enemies). Draining all of the dex of the range characters, not that this doesn't actually work due to similar issues that appear in the melee example.

It all smacks of heavy handed attempts to control the party and/or punish players. And that is poor form. You can challenge a party without such ham fisted tactics and without going beyond APL+3-4 range.


notabot wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
notabot wrote:
Most of your "solutions" sound like tactics a control freak GM might use if they feel like they don't like how their players are playing and need to punish them for building characters by the rules they don't like. Sure once and a while its good to through a variety of encounters at the party to let other people shine, but if every encounter is against dex draining/distored longer range than the PCs fly aways, it gets really old really fast.

It's a fair point; at the end of the day, the GM can easily kill even the most optimized PC because they run the world. Just throw an APL +8 encounter at them and call it a day (Yes, a control freak GM did this to a group I was in once).

A properly optimized PC can survive a lot more than a poorly built one, but if the GM wants any character dead badly enough, they will die.

The funny thing is at high enough levels even a APL+8 encounter can be beaten if the party is built right and can spike damage or boost DCs by enough. I've seen it done. Hell had a party do 1/3 of the health of Yamasoth, a CR24 qlippoth lord. At level 12. It was a "cinematic encounter" but it was still crazy that they did that so i had to shorten his appearance by a round.

True; this case probably wouldn't have been quite as terrible if not for the fact that it was a CR 12 lich against an APL 4 party, and the lich opened up with a DC 22 Save or Die.

351 to 400 of 450 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Bothered By Optimization All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.