| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Optimizing is important to me in the sense that I want to be good at whatever it is my character does. It isnt always going to be the 'best' possible character as development that fits where the character itself is going in game is important to me too. But I certainly pay attention to things like my to hit bonus if im a warrior, or how high my dcs are and what spells i have as a caster and try to make them as good as possible within reason.
For instance I was for a while playing a changeling druid that focused on fighting with the changelings claws and didnt have wildshape or an animal companion (traded away for alternate features). Its by far not the most optimal a druid can be, but I did endeavor to be as good at using the claws in combat as I could be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I optimize as much as possible. I have fun with all the math and calculations and running through dozens of options, and my first games were pretty killer if you weren't exceptional. I always do this during my down time though and never let it interfere with the game. I'm never out to make a character who one shots all the encounters however, just someone who can do many things and making sure I'm meeting the character concept in the best way possible. I never try to steal the spotlight, but I like being able to do what I'm supposed to and a little more when its needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's important to the extent that your character needs to be able to do his job effectively.
If you are supposed to be the party tank and you do no damage, and because of that the enemies don't seeyou as a threat and attack your allies instead then you have a problem.
If you are supposed to be doing something, and someone else in the party does your job better than you, then you should consider a little more optimizing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, it's about optimizing the concept first. That way, I end the process with a character that is fun to play.
Otherwise, the result gets you something like the 3.5 spiked chain tripper. Mechanically effective, but there's just something lacking when the answer to every problem is "trip it with my spiked chain". That's not fun for me to play.
In addition, at least in the games I play, there's a wide variety of problems and encounters. Having a broad range of abilities IS a kind of optimizing.
So, I decided to build a cleric of Desna, focused on travel and liberation, who fights to end the menace of slavery. Monk 1/cleric 5 means solid on acrobatics and quarterstaff fighting, but also can use diplomacy skills to get through situations. Or travel powers. Or clerical spellcasting.
Even so, I wish that I had more skill points to work with, the 2/level from cleric is just painful, and I have almost nothing in the way of knowledge skills. Access to Augury and Commune helps a bit, but it's still a challenge.
|
So, I decided to build a cleric of Desna, focused on travel and liberation, who fights to end the menace of slavery. Monk 1/cleric 5 means solid on acrobatics and quarterstaff fighting, but also can use diplomacy skills to get through situations. Or travel powers. Or clerical spellcasting.
If you have fun with said cleric, more power to you - the game is supposed to be about fun. I personally like playing spellcasting clerics, so while I'd never put in a non-cleric spellcasting level, I might pick some quirky or amusing spells.
Enough to make my character good at skills and other challenges and what would make sense for them being good at with a backstory. A changeling druid that was alone has a bonus of +9 to survival at second level and good perception as well. I also try to make decent stats and try to improve con and dex to make my characters a little resilent.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Optimization (in the sense of always taking what is considered the best mechanical option, flavor regardless) has long since grown stale.
Optimization (in the sense of picking solid options that will let a character mechanically fulfill his flavor) has not.
My two primary outlets for Pathfinder are PFS and two home games with a skilled, knowledgeable player group.
I like being good at what I do, so I take the time to research my builds, plan them out and make them as solid as possible.
At the same time, I try my best to bring a character to the table who when I breathe some life into that piece of paper, is fun, engaging and interesting for those around me to party up with.
For me, optimization is just as important as the concept, background and roleplaying execution of my character.
I used to be a heavily optimized-focused player. So much that if someone else in my group wasn't on the same thinking level, they were worthless to me (but that was back in 3.5 days).
Pathfinder has opened up the world to me in that my old ways of "optimization" is no longer possible. To me, now, there are no more bad choices a player can make.
You will be BA one way or another, but now I need an actual reason of taking someone along an adventure, which always prompts the question of "So... what's your story?"
|
I play with a lot of players who love to optimize. Even in the meta game they know that games never really last past 8th level, so they create characters that are amazing levels 1-8 and then fall off hard core. Wizards are hardly seen and i don't think i've ever played with a bard or rogue unless it was for just a one or two level dip.
I Never optimize. i make my characters with very real flaws. Now i do believe that you must be good at SOMETHING, but that isn't optimizing, thats just creating a character. even if I'm a martial class i don't dump charisma/wisdom/int unless i have a reason too. If i want to play the dumb guy i will drop some int, but i'll generally put them right back into wisdom or charisma for flavor. Or if i want to play the social recluse and get 7-8 charisma i'll put them into int or wisdom.
It gets old being the only character talking in social situations even though the sorcerer has 20 charisma and my dwarf has 6. But this is what i generally have to deal with because i live in the middle of nowhere not many people play RPGs here.
I want my character to not suck completely at what he does. Of course what counts as sucking is entirely relative to the other characters and the challenges and monsters we're facing. I would like the game to require a bit less optimization in that regard.
This is how I tend to build my characters.
Mechanical concept (grapple monk, wildshape focused druid, etc. This includes race and class)
How it fits in the world (Homeland, personality, any organizations)
Mechanical details (feats, skills)
Lore details (Favorite food, modus opirandi, quirks, likes/dislikes)
Is this optimizing? Possibly. But I don't completely ignore lore. My current crafter character is sub-optimal compared to what he could be, but in terms of character he is fun to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really enjoy optimization, but mostly to the extent of having a character who does one thing REALLY well, even if that means having weaknesses elsewhere. Of course, I'll try to plug these weaknesses if possible, but almost never at the expense of their specialization.
I really enjoy figuring out the strengths and weaknesses of the other characters in the parties that I play in too, and seeing how we can create the best synergy between them.
Optimization is unnecessary. Ensuring that your character can contribute in SOME way to party success is all you need to worry about. Beyond that, explore what interests you and have fun.
If you want a high-Charisma wizard or high-Int fighter, don't let anyone tell you you're 'supposed to make that a dump stat.' As long as you can defeat the monsters and help everyone stay alive, optimization is unimportant.
I think the real point here is, "make sure you can do your job before you worry about flavor and optimizing."
I can't tell you how awful it is playing with someone who's character can't do anything well and we get screwed because of it time, and time again. If you can do your job well enough, knock yourself out. Max CHA if it pleases you, but I don't want someone in my party who's schtick is "my character actually sucks at his job, but he's so charismatic that people like him anyway."Theres a balance between flavor and favor.
Like many on these boards, I optimize enough to make my character heroic at what he is supposed to be heroic at. As a DM, however, I often make NPCs that may be sub-optimal, an orc sorcerer for example.
But yes, as a player I make sure I am really good at my job but also have one or two other mechanical facets to round it out a bit.
It depends. Now i'm optimizing my rogue to support as best as i can our barbarian. We lack a real tank, so i do this because if i had played a master spy (for example) i would be more social but weaker in combat, and this would force our cleric to heal him every round. So i thinked that for my team will be better if i optimize for combat. This is just an example but it's valid for all situation. If you can help all party to have more fun, optimize. If you play a paladin at the actuat state maybe it's better to not optimize :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoy finding unpopular build designs and then optimizing them to demonstrate that they can work.
Whether or not I have a backstory when I make up the character or not really isn't that central. I think of one eventually as we go along if I didn't start with one.
Examples of this would be a chakram throwing paladin, and a dervish dancing ranger. Neither is optimal by any means, but I went to a good bit of trouble to make sure both work pretty well. Both are more about the build concept than the character.
Most of my playing is in PFS, so I do go to some lengths to make sure I cover the patterns of weak spots that I have seen hurt tables. Perception is something I see as a must on characters now for example.
In my home campaign, I play casters because the other players are not as good at the game, and hence don't want to deal with the complexity. Honestly I don't much care for casters myself, but I do optimize those because I know I need to act as a backstop for that party. I generally, though, sit back and throw buffs until excrement gets to the ventilator.
I optimize a little... mostly this happens after I have a concept for who this persona IS. Why is she adventuring? What are her gifts and liabilities? Where did she come from? What events forged her outlook? Only AFTER I have a complete idea about my persona do I look at the optimization of her fighting style. Do I even need to optimize her? If I do need to up her game a little to make her more believable then how did she learn these combat tricks? Why?
This tends to lead to less optimized starts for most of my characters. BUT I do look long term. And when planning her class build I always optimize as long as it doesn't hurt her role play concept.
I don't like to overshadow my fellow players much so I generally settle in a supporting role with a concept I find pleasing.
I got an 11th level abjurer, lawful good, highest scores in intelligence, wisdom and charisma, but dexterity and constitution are still passable at 12. I picked my spells based on a supporting role, few flashy spells, and mostly aim to protect and make other characters shine. I also avoid spells that change the game like teleport, my feats are aimed at the same purpose, and when I craft something I do so in collaboration with the GM and will deliberately not try to optimize those feats.
I will make sure I pull my weight in the party though and do optimize within these self made constraints to play my role efficiently.
So I guess I optimize enough to do my part in the party and do it well but I won't try to make every potential bonus count since I find that restricts my playing experience too much.
That's a good approach. I've never forgotten the guy who practically ordered me to leave the game when he found out my rogue had taken ranks in Craft: Cobbler (because he came from a family of cobblers!).
Thats a thing? I love it when players have points in silly things like craft: Basketweaving and the like! It makes your character look like he has a life outside of being an adventurer. Or has skills. Thought it was wierd that one time Craft: Torture Device came up.
Thought it was wierd that one time Craft: Torture Device came up.Clerics of Calistria need love too!
Cheliaxian fighter actually. The last cleric of calistria I ran into was a chelaxian "rope salesman". I always wondered why there were quotes...
|
|
Cheliaxian fighter actually. The last cleric of calistria I ran into was a chelaxian "rope salesman". I always wondered why there were quotes...
My Pathfinder Society cleric of Calistria has max ranks in bluff and diplomacy, both over +25 at this point (with help from a trait and a feat). A few adventures ago he introduced himself to the contact by saying, "Hello, I'm Venture Captain Jorza Wood, the Pathfinder Society values your resources and friendship and that's why I've brought this adventuring party with me."
The NPC's sense motive was nowhere near good enough to catch the lie so the GM took off and ran with it.
Roleplaying ideas and concept before optimization, but I tend to play characters that have "really good at combat/magic" as part of the concept.
I'll optimize some - but while I love playing wizards I like blaster wizards, so I play the character less than potential. I also won't dip in this class or that for nothing but a mechanical benefit.
But then I tend to play solo - just the GM and me, and so to help 1 character cover a group's worth of abilities I tend to play Gestalt characters. And I make sure the synergy of classes work.
I have a few possible ways of going about it, but in general, I tend to go something like this:
-Come up with a concept I like. A lot of times this involves some good combat ability, simply because I do like playing characters that are moderately kickass.
-Review options. This is where most of the crunch/optimization is done. If the idea I originally had would turn out to be pretty subpar, I will work harder to try and figure out ways to get it to be successful. If it's already strong mechanically though, I'll be less focused on optimizing.
-Put the main stuff together and fluff out some of the more vague details (skills that fit the character, for example).
-At this point, I probably have a pretty good idea of the character's personality at least, and maybe a good idea for backstory (unless this was already part of the concept).
-Do another quick review to make sure I like everything. I might actually deoptimize at this point if the character has grown in a bit of a different direction than I had originally started with.
I would say that's probably my usual way to go about it. Obviously there are other possibilities, and this can vary depending on the games (more combat focused games that are likely to be difficult for the party would probably warrant more focus on the mechanical optimization).
So, optimization is relatively high on my list, as I certainly like my characters to be able to contribute well to the party. But if it doesn't fit the concept well enough, then it's unlikely to be included.
My 2cp.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me it depends on the group.
If the group optimizes i will, if the group does not i wont.
I also apply the same to how I do things. In some groups iv basically played my wizard as close to 100% blaster, in other groups iv been able to display the power that wizards are known as.
|
I... really couldn't care less for optimization.
As long as there's something that my character can contribute to the party, I go with concept over gameplay.
For instance, right now I'm playing a Samsaran Thassilonian Abjurer in Reign of Winter. At level 3, she's pretty much useless in combat. And since I'm going for Riftwarden, I've dumped both Str and Con to have high Cha (the array as it is is 10 8 10 20 14 15 if memory serves me, considering racial mods and a boost at the end of book 1).
Is this character in any way optimized? Heck no. Her chances of survival are next to zero. But she manages to contribute thanks to Linguistics and having decent Diplomacy and Bluff scores.
So, in answer to the OP, not at all. As long as the character is fun to play and not a complete disadvantage to the party, I'll play it.
A char can be optimized to be strong alone, or to be strong with the party (support role). Usually the second really makes a difference.
I enjoy optimizing in a couple of different ways. When playing, I like optimizing within the concept I've created for my character. I don't go too crazy with it, but if I play an Evoker, I'm going to take feats and the like that help him evoke.
On the other hand, I also very much enjoy coming up with as much crazy optimized stuff as I can when not planning to use that character for a game. I look at it sort of like a puzzle to see how far I can take it and make something that's fairly game-breaking.
I... really couldn't care less for optimization.
As long as there's something that my character can contribute to the party, I go with concept over gameplay.
For instance, right now I'm playing a Samsaran Thassilonian Abjurer in Reign of Winter. At level 3, she's pretty much useless in combat. And since I'm going for Riftwarden, I've dumped both Str and Con to have high Cha (the array as it is is 10 8 10 20 14 15 if memory serves me, considering racial mods and a boost at the end of book 1).
Is this character in any way optimized? Heck no. Her chances of survival are next to zero. But she manages to contribute thanks to Linguistics and having decent Diplomacy and Bluff scores.
So, in answer to the OP, not at all. As long as the character is fun to play and not a complete disadvantage to the party, I'll play it.
A lot of people would argue that a caster starting off with a 20 in their casting stat has been a bit optimized.
As for the central topic of the thread, I'll toss another vote in on the side of starting with a character concept, and then trying to get the mechanics to back that concept up. After all, pretty much all of my character concepts include basic competence in their chosen fields of expertise.
That said, as long as the character usually make a useful contribution, I don't get too bothered over the details. I only get annoyed over a lack of optimization if it's something like a level eight fighter that's dealing a whopping 1d4+1 damage when it hits, which he almost never does because he's taking a -4 for dual wielding and not using light weapons (True story).
I... really couldn't care less for optimization.
As long as there's something that my character can contribute to the party, I go with concept over gameplay.
For instance, right now I'm playing a Samsaran Thassilonian Abjurer in Reign of Winter. At level 3, she's pretty much useless in combat. And since I'm going for Riftwarden, I've dumped both Str and Con to have high Cha (the array as it is is 10 8 10 20 14 15 if memory serves me, considering racial mods and a boost at the end of book 1).
Is this character in any way optimized? Heck no. Her chances of survival are next to zero. But she manages to contribute thanks to Linguistics and having decent Diplomacy and Bluff scores.
So, in answer to the OP, not at all. As long as the character is fun to play and not a complete disadvantage to the party, I'll play it.
Maxing you casting stat, and coming up with a secondary role as a party face and making sure you can do it well by putting extra points into CHA are definitely signs of being somewhat optimized.
Someone who is not optimized would be someone with your characrer's concept, but only a 16 into INT and more into STR and DEX making so they cannot do any job well. Your character does not suffer from this.
|
|
The process goes like this for me.
A wild GM appears and says "I want to run 'X'. Who is coming with me!"
I think about 'X' and come up with ideas of things that I would enjoy playing in 'X'. If I can't come up with any, I don't play, if I can I forward them to the GM and ask which ideas he thinks would work best.
I take the feedback from the GM and then roll dice and see what the dice gods give me. Then I make the concept as strong at doing whatever it is supposed to be doing as I am able. I run it by the GM for final approval and then off we go into the world of illusion...
So setting > concept > optimization.
My thoughts on optimization:
-- For me optimization generally is well subordinate to a fun concept. That said, I enjoy making even a very sub-optimal character an important part of a party, and it take some optimization to do that.
-- Our group, by long tradition, rolls for stats (4d6 in order, drop lowest, can do one swap of any two scores, one time can increase a score by 1 by taking a 2 point penalty in another, if your first set of rolls totally sucks, you may roll again, but you are stuck with that second set, even if it worse than the first). Our method produces pretty generous, but definitely not optimized scores, and generally lets everyone play the kind of character they want. Rolling definitely reduces avenues for optimization and produces more varied characters, at the cost of "fairness" and "equality" - some times the dice gods just hate you. Thus the sub-optimal characters above. I've never had one (and I've played characters with no score higher than 14) that wasn't able to contribute to the party.
-- If everyone at the table optimizes and you don't, they are probably going to be annoyed with you. Vice versa, if noone ooptimizes and you do, they are likely to be annoyed with you.
-- When I GM I find extreme optimization to be annoying as it creates more work for me, since I then have to optimize encounters to provide the same level of challenge. Not that hard to do, but with a wife, two kids, a professional job that requires well more than forty hours a week, and other responsibilities like coaching my kids' sports teams, it can be annoying. It's just a pointless arms race, in my opinion, you're just using bigger numbers to provide the same exact game experience.
I think optimization is absolutely necessary for being a good player. To avoid confusion though, I should probably define what optimization means to me.
I consider optimization to be rendering a character optimal for their purpose and concept. If my character's concept is a former butcher turned adventurer, optimization might involve putting ranks into Profession (Butcher) or Craft (Cooking). It might also involve using a high number for their primary ability score and low numbers for unimportant ones. It's just as important for an optimized character to properly represent their concept; they need to both fulfill their concept and be capable of contributing effectively to an adventuring party.
A character with all the mechanically "right" point buy, feat, and skill rank decisions is badly optimized if their concept involves being a famous singer and they have no ranks in Perform (Sing). They're just as badly optimized as a greatsword fighter with 7 Str.
I enjoy optimizing for its own sake, first off. I'll just do builds sometimes, whether or not I expect to be able to play the character anytime soon. Sometimes those are purely mechanical concepts, sometimes they are full character concepts where the personality and/or background influence the mechanics.
But the other thing I do is try to get a feel for the optimization level in the party, and avoid massively overshadowing the party. Being awesome is great and all, but that doesn't mean I'll enjoy making the rest of the party feel redundant, or sticking the GM in those situations where he can challenge the optimizer (and wipe out the rest) or challenge the rest (but the optimizer will wipe the floor with the threat, so there's no challenge).
So at the moment I'm playing:
- A high-charisma fighter with insane saves (too much of his offense is tied up in an extremely valuable weapon)
- A blaster wizard (without the crossblooded sorcerer dip) with a history of accidentally destroying his masters' labs
- A James Bond wannabe bladebound magus (2 levels of rogue)
By a wide margin, the fighter is the most optimized, which is actually necessary for that campaign. In his case every level, feat, and even skill point was planned in advance.
The wizard I have a partial plan; I've got a solid list of what feats he wants, and key spells, but I don't have them arranged for when I'll get them, and I work out skill points each level (after spellcraft and the big knowledges, I distribute leftover skill points semi-randomly in Intelligence skills).
The magus, really all I have planned is a short list of desired feats. I often struggle with spell selection every level on him.
I think that, with more going on in my life, I do have less time to invest in fully detailed builds, which may be why I'm not getting the builds as completely specified anymore. (Also, the material for the latter two characters isn't fixed; new material coming out is available, while for the fighter the list is totally fixed.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Optimizing is different from min-maxing and power gaming. If that was the OP's question, power gaming is not important to a player who is actually sitting down at a table with other people who plan on actually having an adventure. Optimizing itself is only as important as your job to your party. If your party doesn't have a job for you to do, then why is your character with them?
Optimizing is different from min-maxing and power gaming. If that was the OP's question, power gaming is not important to a player who is actually sitting down at a table with other people who plan on actually having an adventure. Optimizing itself is only as important as your job to your party. If your party doesn't have a job for you to do, then why is your character with them?
Totally this. If you can't give a legitimate answer to the question "Why doesn't the rest of the party ditch my character and hire someone else?" there's a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Optimizing is different from min-maxing and power gaming. If that was the OP's question, power gaming is not important to a player who is actually sitting down at a table with other people who plan on actually having an adventure. Optimizing itself is only as important as your job to your party. If your party doesn't have a job for you to do, then why is your character with them?Totally this. If you can't give a legitimate answer to the question "Why doesn't the rest of the party ditch my character and hire someone else?" there's a problem.
Sorry, couldn't resist responsing to this, even if it sounds provocative.
My answer would be: Umm, maybe because your character is a friend and colleague they have worked, struggled and bled with, rather than just a replaceable set of stats on a piece of paper. Or maybe because there are not an infinite number of potential partners out there for them to choose from.
Seriously, if all the character is is a set of stats on a piece of paper, then they are infinitely and easily replaceable, and why wouldn't you replace them with a better set of stats?
If, on the other hand, they actually have a personality and a history and contribute to the party and the story (even if they don't carry their weight in combat, which, let's face it, is pretty much what most people optimize for) it's not so easy to kick them to the curb. Do you kick your less than optimal friends to the curb every time someone "better" or "cooler" shows up? Assuming you answer no, why would your characters be any different?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My answer would be: Umm, maybe because your character is a friend and colleague they have worked, struggled and bled with, rather than just a replaceable set of stats on a piece of paper. Or maybe because there are not an infinite number of potential partners out there for them to choose from.
Seriously, if all the character is is a set of stats on a piece of paper, then they are infinitely and easily replaceable, and why wouldn't you replace them with a better set of stats?
If, on the other hand, they actually have a personality and a history and contribute to the party and the story (even if they don't carry their weight in combat, which, let's face it, is pretty much what most people optimize for) it's not so easy to kick them to the curb. Do you kick your less than optimal friends to the curb every time someone "better" or "cooler" shows up? Assuming you answer no, why would your characters be any different?
Adventuring is the world's most lethal profession. If someone isn't capable of performing their job in an adventuring party adequately (in other words, pulling their weight) they have no business being there. They are a danger to themselves and everyone else they're adventuring with.
You could be the most amazing person I've ever met. Great! Let's be friends. But if you can't pull your weight in a dungeon I'm not going to go with you. We can sip ale in a city but if I can't depend on you I'm sure as hell not going to place my life in your hands.