I would say no, optimized characters are not the best characters. I agree with the others who are saying you want a "good enough character" that way while you aren't in constant danger and/or drain on the party, you still feel like you are gambling when it comes to combat.
Optimization is a spectrum, but I think for the purposes of this discussion, the intended question is, "Do heavily specialized PC's make the game less enjoyable? While it is very subjective, I think the answer is yes, for both players and GM's.
If your PC is not participating in an encounter in an adequate way, or worse, not participating at all, you're probably not going to be having much fun. For example, if you are playing Ugh the Rageful, a barbarian with a 6 Int, and 6 Cha, you probably will have great difficulty participating in social situations in a positive way. Likewise, if you are Charmy Charmerson, the enchanting bard, you might have difficulty participating in an encounter with mindless creatures or undead.
The thing is, you don't have to be great at something to have fun doing it. I have found that if your PC is adequate or better, you can have fun doing that thing. The more you specialize in one thing, the less situations you can adequately participate in. The more versatile you are, the more opportunities you will have for fun. Also, there are serious diminishing returns on PC power as it relates to fun. Beating the monster to death in an epic slugfest is often considered far more enjoyable then one-shotitng it in the surprise round. Contrary to many internet heroes, the game does not require such levels of power to be survivable/successful.
I recommend making a character who is good or very good at one thing, decent or adequate at two others, and weak in one area. For example, you can easily make a Fighter who is very good in melee combat, decent at ranged combat and diplomacy, but weak at sneaking and bluffing.
Note: Some classes optimize differently then others, and some tasks or encounters are not intended for the entire group to participate in. Not everyone needs to be able to pick a lock, but everyone should have something to do in a social encounter (even if it is keeping your mouth shut and using sense motive.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a difference between "an optimized character" and "a character that always takes the mechanically better choice for their specific build." In many of my characters, I purposefully make a choice that is not the best mechanical option for that character's build because I have a character concept in mind. In that sense, I sometimes choose "fun" over "optimization".
I had one martial character who was obsessed with wands and collected them, always trying to Use Magic Device (UMD) to activate them. If someone else at the table could cast the spell, she would still try several times before handing the wand over. If someone pulled out their own wand, she would beg to try and cast it first. When I took a barbarian level, someone suggested that I should take bloodrager instead so that the character could have a spell list and cast some wands without UMD. But the character *wanted* to UMD: the chance of failure was part of the fun for her. She even had a charisma penalty, and I specifically didn't use one of the options to replace charisma with a different stat for UMD. Clearly, these decisions were not optimal for this character build, but it was fun for me.
I was playing with a two-weapon fighter build and considered using a (chained/original) monk wielding dual nine-ring broadswords. A friend asked me why the character would bother dual-wielding the swords when he could get the same number of attacks wielding a single sword in both hands AND do more damage with each attack. The only answer I had was, "Because I want to use two swords with this character."
I was asking about Zen Archer builds and lamenting that the Zen Archer doesn't qualify for Stabbing Shot without paying a feat tax (Rapid Shot), and someone pointed out that the build didn't provoke shooting in melee, so why on earth would I ever want to use Stabbing Shot? My answer--"Because it looked really cool when Legolas did it in the movie"--was met with mild derision, and I was chided for wasting my time with something because it was "cool" instead of "doing my job" for the party and doing as much damage as that build could do.
Note that none of these characters were "useless" and they all contributed both in and out of combat, but each one had at least one aspect where I chose "fun" over "optimized."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um, no. Who would really advocate for the other position? If you are optimizing a character, then it ought to be the one you wanted to make in the first place to have fun.
I can't believe this is a thread.... Derp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um, no. Who would really advocate for the other position? If you are optimizing a character, then it ought to be the one you wanted to make in the first place to have fun.
Some people get their fun from building the most mechanically powerful build they can. Others seem to get more enjoyment out of success then in playing a character a specific way. This outlook seems more common in PFS where players often feel required to handle situations without the option of assistance from others at the table. Also, failure in PFS seems to have more defined penalties then in home games.
I do not share either outlook myself, but I have encountered both attitudes in my home games. I have never played PFS, so I don't have table experience with that myself, but it comes up on the message boards enough that I have seen it expressed often.
Um, no. Who would really advocate for the other position? If you are optimizing a character, then it ought to be the one you wanted to make in the first place to have fun.Some people get their fun from building the most mechanically powerful build they can. Others seem to get more enjoyment out of success then in playing a character a specific way. This outlook seems more common in PFS where players often feel required to handle situations without the option of assistance from others at the table. Also, failure in PFS seems to have more defined penalties then in home games.
I do not share either outlook myself, but I have encountered both attitudes in my home games. I have never played PFS, so I don't have table experience with that myself, but it comes up on the message boards enough that I have seen it expressed often.
I understand that building characters can be fun on its own, but it has little to do with the game at the gaming table. The drive to succeed is usually reactive in the sense that, if you have a hard line GM(who are far from uncommon) you are taught, psychologically, to eliminate weaknesses that everyone miraculously seems to know and be built to exploit.
I recommend to GM's who hate this to ask themselves how they are contributing to the behaviour in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have yet to have fun with an optimizer at the table.
I have yet to have fun with an optimizer at the table.
Using the definition of optimizer = person who tries to obtain mechanical power without any regard to the storyline, their character concept, role-playing, etc., I actually have, but it involved a steadfast GM that is comfortable saying "No."
One of the best characters that the problem player ever played was one I as the GM forced him to play after he kept trying to suicide characters so that he could re-roll.
Turned out to be a memorable character and removed the pressure from the player to have the best character because it was out of his control. He actually role-played the character very well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have yet to have fun with an optimizer at the table.
I'd love to understand the logic behind this. Do you feel inadequate or something?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am an optimiser. I have not really been having fun this last 30 years, maybe I should change my ways. Also I have been ruining the game for the groups I play with which is why they keep breaking up!
Oh wait, no that isn't actually a thing - except the first sentence, that bit was true!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Contrary to what the closet-lurker assumes, this has actually been quite a common type of thread for quite some time. It seems that every week someone posts asking, "Should rollplaying outweigh roleplaying?", or "Is it okay to play a weak class if it's fun to play?" It's all part of the same false dilemma*. It's an incredibly obvious question that's meant to counter an argument nobody really makes.
Of course it's more important to have fun than to optimize. But "have fun" is a nebulous term used to describe a reaction to an unstated activity. Pathfinder is very difficult to really have fun in if you're unable to play the role you want to play, and guess what? That requires optimization. It requires rules-savvy to make your character's build match their abilities, even if you want the character to be only relatively competent. If you don't like that, go play a rules-light game like...I dunno, something that uses D6s.
And when people critique the system that you don't follow super-closely—when they say 5E is better, or that the classes are poorly balanced—that's not an attack on how you play the game. Pathfinder is an optimization game. You can minimize optimization if you like, but that's not what the system is supposed to be made for. The system is made to be customizable. And when people critique how successful it is (say, pointing out that the fighter designed to wield massive weapons is actually kind of bad at doing so, or that fighters in general can't really do that much), they're not being anti-fun.
In Pathfinder, fun and optimization go hand in hand.
And maybe if the system was a bit better-balanced, they wouldn't have to also walk in step, wear the same clothes, and never be seen more than three inches apart. But that's a whole other story.
*And not a strawman. People use the term "strawman" way more they it really merits—this is a scarecrow sub-breed, not a true example. Know your fallacies.
Well, it depends on what you're talking about. I assume you mean legitimately evil and barbaric acts, like making it carry you through lava or something. Those aren't really optimized at all (better to use a summoned ally than a tedious-to-replace animal companion).
But when your Druid always optimizes the use of her Animal Companion such that it's really just a Meat Shield... well, the rules allow that but, unless your Druid is NE and otherwise sadistic, it seems contrary to the spirit of the game. Does it not?
Survival of the fittest :P
We aren't talking about whether or not it's druid-legal (cruelty to animals is a pretty natural thing, see cats and orcas, but we had a whole other stupid argument about that). We're talking about whether it's "in the spirit of the game". I guess.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have yet to have fun with an optimizer at the table.
How would you define 'optimizer'?
Because it's a term with a lot of different meanings. By some definitions (ie: enjoying mechanically effective characters and building them to be so, someone who enjoys the process of working out a particular and powerful mechanical trick) I'm an optimizer, by others (ie: someone who cares more about optimization than roleplaying or characterization, someone who always plays the most powerful character possible) I'm not.
So its important to understand exactly what's being discussed here. Because I've certainly had fun in games with people who like playing around with character options...the problems only seem to come up when, as I alluded to in my last post, they want to be comparatively optimized (ie: better than the other PCs), or wind up that way by accident, I suppose (though that rarely happens, since I'm one of the best optimizers I know in terms of skill-set and try and help out people with slightly below par characters as compared to the rest of the group).
So...once again, what do you mean when you say 'optimizer'?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a bit of a disconnect here that I think needs to be underlined.
Group A's Definition of "Optimizer": Rulescrafter, 'one who optimizes', someone who uses the rules to optimize the character to be effective at their chosen role, someone with strong rules mastery.
Group B's Definition of "Optimizer": A#&&#!~.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
KC climbs out of the hood of Group B's car. "Here's yer problem, buddy—" *Holds up an obnoxious player* "Y'got wunna these stuck in your engine. Now that 'e's out y'oughta be fine."
"just playing my character," the obnoxious player says, biting KC's arm.
"Whoa! He's feisty! Better get this one off to the furnace 'fore he starts laying eggs."
"this is how the master summoner is SUPPOSED to be played," the obnoxious player goes on, clawing at KC's face.
"Yikes. This 'ere's why we wear protective gear. I'll be off, now. That'll be $87.50. Evil blighter..."
"actually i'm chaotic neutral"
Group A's Definition of "Optimizer": Rulescrafter, 'one who optimizes', someone who uses the rules to optimize the character to be effective at their chosen role, someone with strong rules mastery.
Group B's Definition of "Optimizer": Dick.
Everyone's experience will be different. In my experience, we always just had players. Players made mechanical decisions to fit the kind of character they wanted to play.
When describing the game to a new person, we'd actually ask them to explain the kind of character they want to play, and then help them pick a class.
Then, during the 3/3.5 era, we noticed one of the players was making choices in order to accrue mechanical power even when it didn't fit his character concept.
At first, we just called this person a bad role-player.
Then I discovered online forums and found that there were entire groups of people that played this way and even celebrated the fact that they did.
So, to me, the term "optimizer" has always had a negative connotation.
If you're a player that enjoys building powerful characters, but the mechanical choices you make always fit your character concept, then why the need for a label? To me, that's just a player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is kind of the problem. That's an arbitrary definition many people don't follow. When half the boards believe "optimizer" to be a general term for someone who optimizes their character and half the boards believe it to be a specific term for a type of problem player, is it really smart to try to use the word at all?
I will point out, though, that our definition is a bit more intuitive. You guys already have "powergamer". You don't need to make every "rulesmastery" word inherently negative. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A party of super optimised characters often has glaring capability holes and can easily beat some types of high CR encounter but get slaughtered by other types of low CR encounter. Where as an optimised party should be able to handle any type of level appropriate encounter.
Not really. What you are referring to are hyperoptimized, which are one trick ponies.
A superoptimized character is really really good at one thing competent at others, and doesnt do things like be able to slice mountains in half, but then have a -10 will save.|
|
I build my characters to be as enjoyable to play as possible; I optimize fun.
Problem with this (that I'm having right now) are those people that do this:
You: "I wanna try this build 'cause it looks fun."
Them: "Oh do this instead it's better at what you're trying to do." (Note this suggestion is generally not helpful or more convoluted)
You: "Noooo I wanna try THIS build because [Reasons]."
Them: "But this build is BETTER."
For me this exchange usually ends with me telling them to STFU before I stab them in the throat with a pencil (or similar).
Right now I'm having an exchange with another player about how I wanna make a dual-shield bull-rush fighter (Slayer 6/Brawler Fighter 3) and he's like "OMG Go Warder (Path of War) it's so much better!" and he's not getting that I wanna do the build my way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I build my characters to be as enjoyable to play as possible; I optimize fun.Problem with this (that I'm having right now) are those people that do this:
You: "I wanna try this build 'cause it looks fun."
Them: "Oh do this instead it's better at what you're trying to do." (Note this suggestion is generally not helpful or more convoluted)
You: "Noooo I wanna try THIS build because [Reasons]."
Them: "But this build is BETTER."
That's not a problem with optimization. That's a problem with people being bad at optimizing. If it really was better at what you're trying to do, I would agree with them that you should play it instead.
I haven't seen these sorts of arguments on the forums, though. The Advice threads I've seen are generally quite helpful and civil up until someone shows up who gives a variation of, "I want to play a warrior who is tough, good at grappling, and wears super heavy spiky armor. No, I want it to be a pre-Unchained rogue/wizard multiclass. No, I don't care, rogue/wizard. Has to be rogue/wizard all the way. Guys, I just want build advice, stop giving me build advice! Hey, where's everyone going?"
That's the worst sort of situation I've seen.
|
|
I build my characters to be as enjoyable to play as possible; I optimize fun.Problem with this (that I'm having right now) are those people that do this:
You: "I wanna try this build 'cause it looks fun."
Them: "Oh do this instead it's better at what you're trying to do." (Note this suggestion is generally not helpful or more convoluted)
You: "Noooo I wanna try THIS build because [Reasons]."
Them: "But this build is BETTER."That's not a problem with optimization. That's a problem with people being bad at optimizing. If it really was better at what you're trying to do, I would agree with them that you should play it instead.
I haven't seen these sorts of arguments on the forums, though. The Advice threads I've seen are generally quite helpful and civil up until someone shows up who gives a variation of, "I want to play a warrior who is tough, good at grappling, and wears super heavy spiky armor. No, I want it to be a pre-Unchained rogue/wizard multiclass. No, I don't care, rogue/wizard. Has to be rogue/wizard all the way. Guys, I just want build advice, stop giving me build advice! Hey, where's everyone going?"
That's the worst sort of situation I've seen.
A lot of the problem I find after some examination is that there's a disconnect between what Person A wants and what Person B THINKS Person A wants.
Case in point, the dual-shield fighter. I (Person A) want a character that's got a healthy amount of armor and AoOs and can Shield Bash => Bull Rush => AoO Shield Bash => Bull Rush etc. on a full attack and just force an enemy around the battlefield. Person B (the guy I was arguing with) was under the impression that I wanted to play a super tanky character and continued to suggest the Path of War Warder with the Iron Tortoise maneuvers even though it wouldn't have done much for the build I was trying to go for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Foolish Athaleon! If you don't enjoy the game exactly the way I'm Hiding In Your Closet does, you're a minmaxing rollplayer having badwrong fun!Badwrong fun is the best kind of fun.
But in this thread, I think IHIYC is just pointing out most optimized characters are not overpowered, but just aggressively specialized and actually quite weak in many situations. So it is well-possible to have lots of fun with any character you want to play, and you might be pleasently surprised that it holds its own quite well against all us minmaxers.
But if that's the case, then they aren't optimized...
I wonder how much of IHIYC opinions is based on ignorance about what optimization actually means and how much is based on condescending attitude.
It does seem like whenever some people read the word optimization, they see it as "an intense love of brutally murdering puppies and kittens."
Which is kind of the problem. That's an arbitrary definition many people don't follow. When half the boards believe "optimizer" to be a general term for someone who optimizes their character and half the boards believe it to be a specific term for a type of problem player, is it really smart to try to use the word at all?
I will point out, though, that our definition is a bit more intuitive. You guys already have "powergamer". You don't need to make every "rulesmastery" word inherently negative. :P
The thing is, most of the prior "good at rules" terms have undergone a similar transformation. "Powergamer" and "Min-maxer" used to be pretty positive terms back when they were first coined. There's been a pretty consistent trend to try and demonize any term that's used to describe folks who like the mechanical side of the game.
As for the main topic, I'll just echo what everyone else has already said. Nothing trumps fun; that's the whole point of playing the game.
That said, often a degree of optimizing is often necessary for the game to be fun. Unless someone's character concept is "incompetent guy who contributes nothing to the group" the character needs to have some things they're good at. In a game with rules, optimizing is how you make a character who's good at doing things.
I build my characters to be as enjoyable to play as possible; I optimize fun.Problem with this (that I'm having right now) are those people that do this:
You: "I wanna try this build 'cause it looks fun."
Them: "Oh do this instead it's better at what you're trying to do." (Note this suggestion is generally not helpful or more convoluted)
You: "Noooo I wanna try THIS build because [Reasons]."
Them: "But this build is BETTER."That's not a problem with optimization. That's a problem with people being bad at optimizing. If it really was better at what you're trying to do, I would agree with them that you should play it instead.
I haven't seen these sorts of arguments on the forums, though. The Advice threads I've seen are generally quite helpful and civil up until someone shows up who gives a variation of, "I want to play a warrior who is tough, good at grappling, and wears super heavy spiky armor. No, I want it to be a pre-Unchained rogue/wizard multiclass. No, I don't care, rogue/wizard. Has to be rogue/wizard all the way. Guys, I just want build advice, stop giving me build advice! Hey, where's everyone going?"
That's the worst sort of situation I've seen.
A lot of the problem I find after some examination is that there's a disconnect between what Person A wants and what Person B THINKS Person A wants.
Case in point, the dual-shield fighter. I (Person A) want a character that's got a healthy amount of armor and AoOs and can Shield Bash => Bull Rush => AoO Shield Bash => Bull Rush etc. on a full attack and just force an enemy around the battlefield. Person B (the guy I was arguing with) was under the impression that I wanted to play a super tanky character and continued to suggest the Path of War Warder with the Iron Tortoise maneuvers even though it wouldn't have done much for the build I was trying to go for.
Dual-Shield...
Well, you can only ever follow them for 5 feet so far as I know (and still full attack, anyway), so Iron Tortoise still does that as well or better with the Maneuvers that let you launch someone a flat 20 feet with a single Strike and such anyway. Just saying.
|
|
Well, you can only ever follow them for 5 feet so far as I know (and still full attack, anyway), so Iron Tortoise still does that as well or better with the Maneuvers that let you launch someone a flat 20 feet with a single Strike and such anyway. Just saying.
At least according to the SRD, you push the enemy 5 feet, then you may push them an additional 5ft for every 5 you beat their CMD (Keyword is may), and you may follow them so long as you have movement for the round.
I was going to comment about the Bull Rush provoking AoOs but in looking at Greater Bull Rush it looks like the movement from Bull Rushing gives ALLIES AoOs as opposed to the Bull Rusher. Needless to say this throws a kink into the build.
....Well now I feel silly.
Clearly the solution is a whole party of dual-shield fighters. :)
|
|
....I'm not seeing a downside. MAKE IT HAPPEN!
In all seriousness I'll probably just make a Titan Fighter. Me and the guy that was giving me grief about the build have a bet going. He bets I can't make a standard Strength-based fighter (I generally go all Dex), I bet he can't play a Chaotic Evil character that gets along wonderfully with a party of Good and Neutral characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using the definition of optimizer = person who tries to obtain mechanical power without any regard to the storyline, their character concept, role-playing, etc.
The word for that is power-gamer. An optimizer is someone who comes up with a concept (like a dual-rapier-wielder) and then tries to do it well.
The word for that is power-gamer. An optimizer is someone who comes up with a concept (like a dual-rapier-wielder) and then tries to do it well.
The terminology is group-dependent. In all of my f2f games, optimizer has a negative connotation.
Best just to define how you're using the term in the post so as to minimze confusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Best just to define how you're using the term in the post so as to minimze confusion.
Better still stop using a word as an insult when it's a label half the people here apply to themselves.
Better still stop using a word as an insult when it's a label half the people here apply to themselves.
You can do your things your way, I'll continue to do my things my way.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I'm not sure what the question of this thread is going to accomplish other than verifying once again, that yes indeed, different groups enjoy different playstyles.
I mean, my personal threshold for an effective build is far below what many people on these boards would consider "optimal" or even "viable;" the groups I play with would welcome a 10 PB CRB-only monk. But that doesn't mean those other posters are "Wrong," just that our playstyles differ.
The point of playing is to have fun. The only way you're doing it wrong is if your fun is ruining someone else's. Otherwise game on.
Besides, building the closest approximation to the character you have in your imagination is a form of optimization. You can optimize for concept just like you can optimize for statistics. They are not even always orthogonal. When I pick a trait because its fluff exactly matches something I had in mind for a PC's backstory, regardless of whatever mechanical benefit it has, that's still a kind of optimization.
Besides, building the closest approximation to the character you have in your imagination is a form of optimization. You can optimize for concept just like you can optimize for statistics.
You can, but that changes the meaning of the term.
The reason the term optimizer came about in the first place was to differentiate those players from other players that did not engage in optimization.
It started off as a negative connotation, but then many of the individuals that participated in optimization tried to change the definition into a positive.
So, depending on when you first became acquainted with the term, it's definition can vary.
Which is why I think its best to define the term before using it - it helps avoid confusion.
As far as expecting other people to conform to the definition you prefer, seems kind of silly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, building the closest approximation to the character you have in your imagination is a form of optimization. You can optimize for concept just like you can optimize for statistics.You can, but that changes the meaning of the term.
The reason the term optimizer came about in the first place was to differentiate those players from other players that did not engage in optimization.
It started off as a negative connotation, but then many of the individuals that participated in optimization tried to change the definition into a positive.
So, depending on when you first became acquainted with the term, it's definition can vary.
Which is why I think its best to define the term before using it - it helps avoid confusion.
As far as expecting other people to conform to the definition you prefer, seems kind of silly.
How many derogatory terms do you need to belittle a whole subcategory of people?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have yet to have fun with an optimizer at the table.I'd love to understand the logic behind this. Do you feel inadequate or something?
I don't feel inadequate. I feel that I would like to preserve my hearing and roleplaying experience. See below.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Upon a little further reflection, if you're optimizing because you feel you have to, but you don't enjoy it, that could be a problem. If you're stuck in that kind of situation I feel for you. In such a circumstance I'd suggest a discussion with your group about expectations, just like any situation where one player might not be enjoying themselves.
If you feel compelled to optimize for PFS, I'd simply share my feelings that, having played a bit of PFS, you really don't. I have played terrible race/class combos like dwarven sorcerer, with all spells picked for theme instead of utility and been fine. There's a huge gap between supremely efficient and dead weight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is very difficult to really have fun in if you're unable to play the role you want to play, and guess what? That requires optimization.
Then I must be awesome at this because I haven't optimized a single character and yet I have fun every time.
And maybe if the system was a bit better-balanced, they wouldn't have to also walk in step, wear the same clothes, and never be seen more than three inches apart. But that's a whole other story.
We kicked out the guy who was doing that. Noone missed him.
. And when people critique how successful it is (say, pointing out that the fighter designed to wield massive weapons is actually kind of bad at doing so, or that fighters in general can't really do that much), they're not being anti-fun.
No. They are being anti fun when they show up for character creation, start screaming when someone does something they wouldn't do, quiets down only when told that they will be kicked out if they don't stop, refuse to interact with the player in game because their character "will only hold them back", gets mad when told he is being a jerk, and goes on a half hour long diatribe(with page references) regarding the ineffectuality of said character because [insert class here] by raw sucks and the DM is allowing it to not suck only because they are clearly running their own system based on pathfinder, and is confused when they are not asked to return.