Power is Relative

Hjorimir · Apr 19, 2018

As a DM, I find extreme character optimization efforts to be funny. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a player trying to make an effective character and I do it also when I’m the player, but not at the sacrifice of what I consider to be an interesting character to role-play. As a DM, it always makes me chuckle.

Players will often claw and scratch their way to being as powerful as they possibly can in some desperate hope to tilt the game to their advantage. I don’t know how most of you other DMs do it, but I write encounters specifically to challenge the PCs. Meaning, the more powerful the PCs are, the more powerful of an encounter I present.

Oh wow, you’ve made quite a monster for a character there! Excuse me while I push an extra couple of ogres into this encounter. Power is relative. Viola!

How far do your players go for power? Do you adjust accordingly, or do you let them run roughshod over the monsters?

There’s no right or wrong answer here.

The Crimson Binome · Apr 19, 2018

I never look at the PCs before determining which monsters live in an area, or how those monsters are organized. At most, I'll keep in mind the concept of level advancement when I design a world, such that characters might progress through successively stronger areas as they move further away from civilization.

If I were to change the monsters to keep them in line with the PCs, then it would result in degenerate gameplay, such as a fighter who doesn't use armor or weapons because they know that there's no point. I would rather that the players make decisions as their characters would, which means they should optimize themselves to the best of their abilities, because they know that the world isn't going to go easy on them just because they're incompetent.

TheSword · Apr 19, 2018

By that logic adventures would be the same whether they were written for 3 players or 8 players and whether they were written for 1st or 20th level.

Ranthalan · Apr 19, 2018

It varies by player. My wife cares most about getting the most out of spell use (I find this amusing as she's a rogue), others in my group have spreadsheets to calculate maximum physical power (i.e. damage). Of course as a DM, I control what they encounter whether it's a physical or mental. I like a variety so I plan for that. I try to vary encounters so each member of the party can take the lead for a bit. I'll also have more complex encounters that have stages that require the use of specialties of a majority of the party. It's also nice to make encounters where killing everything turns out to not have been the most optimal route. Just to keep them on their toes

TheSword · Apr 19, 2018

I adjust everything so the adventure is stretching but achievable. I use a similar principal I use when I’m setting targets.

Tony Vargas · Apr 19, 2018

Hjorimir said:
As a DM, I find extreme character optimization efforts to be funny. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a player trying to make an effective character and I do it also when I’m the player, but not at the sacrifice of what I consider to be an interesting character to role-play.

I find the two often go hand-in-hand. If I have a good, interesting, nuanced concept, there'll be a lot more opportunity to optimize it in an interesting, broadly effective way. If you just go by some absolute optimization to a specific goal (DPR or whatever), you end up with a one-trick pony who's trick eventually lets you down.

Players will often claw and scratch their way to being as powerful as they possibly can in some desperate hope to tilt the game to their advantage.
I don’t know how most of you other DMs do it, but I write encounters specifically to challenge the PCs. Meaning, the more powerful the PCs are, the more powerful of an encounter I present.

Nod. It's a way of coping. It can snowball, a tad. As you boost encounters their exp value rises and the PCs gain in power faster.

Oh wow, you’ve made quite a monster for a character there! Excuse me while I push an extra couple of ogres into this encounter. Power is relative. Viola!

Of course, power is relative in another sense, too, relative power among the PCs. One optimonster of a character can ruin the campaign for a few players less inclined that way.

How far do your players go for power? Do you adjust accordingly, or do you let them run roughshod over the monsters?
There’s no right or wrong answer here.

I've gotten a mix over the years. The group I ran for last night had two players who have optimized for damage, another that's more generally optimized, two who are more concept-driven and the last two just kinda ineptly thrown together (one of them /played/ ineptly, as well). Had I been running 3.5, it'd've been an ongoing trainwreck for the last year or two, with anything remotely challenging to the first three leaving the remaining four sidelined or messily dead.

Conversely, another group I ran for a while back was uniformly not-so-optimized (some cool concepts though, that were fun to RP). The first part of the adventure was a tad grueling and they were thoroughly brutalized by relatively modest encounters. This was at a public event though, and one week a player with a more optimized character, a variant human in heavy armor, sat in, and with that character acting as a damage sink, the combats went more according to their nominal ratings.

Relative character power can be a boon or bane, depending.

Blue · Apr 19, 2018

I find that everyone has the most fun if most of the characters are around the same power level. I don't care if it's high or low - I've got as many foes and hazards as I want.

BTW, this goes when I am a player as well - I've voluntarily de-tuned my characters when they were too potent for the group.

As a DM, i mention to my players. Though a mix of detuning some and optimizing others they can usually end up better balanced vs. each other. Especially easy if there is just one real outlier.

That said, a well optimized support character who makes others shine, I'm fine with. Even if they are built "more efficiently" than the other characters.

Besides a player who won't try to join the team, about the only other "wrong" I see along those lines are DMs who just throw bigger challenges because one character is more powerful and then run roughshod over the un-optimized characters, penalizing them. Or worse, play adversarial DM and specifically target the more optimized characters. If you have a problem, talk it out.

Warpiglet · Apr 19, 2018

Saelorn said:
I never look at the PCs before determining which monsters live in an area, or how those monsters are organized. At most, I'll keep in mind the concept of level advancement when I design a world, such that characters might progress through successively stronger areas as they move further away from civilization.

If I were to change the monsters to keep them in line with the PCs, then it would result in degenerate gameplay, such as a fighter who doesn't use armor or weapons because they know that there's no point. I would rather that the players make decisions as their characters would, which means they should optimize themselves to the best of their abilities, because they know that the world isn't going to go easy on them just because they're incompetent.

I am usually only a few ideas ahead in terms of encounters. I have a fairly detailed world (sans map!) and the story almost writes itself but I might try to do what you are doing.

What I LOVE about the approach though is the sense of wonder and danger. Players should know and try to be prepared to run from fights, get clues, figure things out and SURVIVE.

It takes some work though.

Blue · Apr 19, 2018

Saelorn said:
I never look at the PCs before determining which monsters live in an area, or how those monsters are organized. At most, I'll keep in mind the concept of level advancement when I design a world, such that characters might progress through successively stronger areas as they move further away from civilization.

I tend to focus world-building on what I need, not spending much time detailing out specifics of encounters for areas my PCs aren't going to soon. But I agree - I've often had encounters where we don't bother to roll initiative - either it's too low and I'd rather we just spend 3 minutes doing a quick montage around the table giving everyone a chance to narrate a quick bit of awesomeness, or it's too-high and the challenge is to RUUUUUUUUUN!

Now, for challenges for PCs, these I always keep an eye on the players. I don't want the same type of challenge time after time so I vary it up - hazards, lots of foes or few, casters, ranged, special abilities. Something that each fight stands out as something different. And occasionally hazards or special abilities that move PCs out of their comfort zones. Negate a special ability, hidden reinforcements coming from behind, what have you. Not often and challenging different PCs when it happens - but make them stretch.

Lillika · Apr 19, 2018

There is a difference between making a character that works and power gaming. There is also a difference between making the most of a character that they play as well. For example a rogue that works very hard at getting advantage and hiding as much as they can, are getting the most out of their character. This same character might take feats and abilities to help them hide better and do the most damage on a successful sneak attack.

In the same tone if the rest of the party is just not making the most of their characters for example a monk thinking they can just tank everything or a wizard who uses fireball when not needed and then doesn't have it when its needed (or takes feign death and uses it alot). Then said character who just plays his character to his or her strengths just looks like a power gamer in comparison.

Also while taking paly2 sorcererx and finding a way to abuse booming blade with a lance is far different than trying to make Shadow Blade work on a single class sorcerer. Both look the same but one is about pure power and the other is about making something cool and flavorful and both take about as much work. Sometimes its finding the difference between the two that is all the difference.

That said in my home campaign I ran several years ago, I had several very very powerful characters that did what they did very well and liked it. So it was my job to give them a challenge but still let feel good for being badasses.