What happens to the "suboptimal?"

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't think sub optimal matters unless someone else in the group is better than you at "your job".

Well, it CAN be funny, though. Pierre, my suboptimal Ranger/Fighter/Diviner/Spellsword was nearly as skilled a rogue as the rogue (at certain tasks). So instances when my PC stepped up and succeeded because the dice had betrayed my fellow player were juuuuuust numerous enough to become a running gag. “Hold my wineskin, watch, and learn...”

(To be fair, dice ARE equal-opportunity traitors, so when Pierre was scouting and rolled a sequence of 1s, 2s and so forth that resulted in his being captured by gnoll slavers, stripped naked, and chained until rescuerd by the party was karmically necessary.)

 

[Li Shenron]

Online, you see so many admonitions about optimization. What happens if you do not follow them? Even if it is called broken or a trap?

I have turned suboptimal after a couple of years of playing 3.0 and been since then. The web is full of people who tell you how you should or should not play the game, they are also the same people who generally say that any edition is flawed to the point of being unplayable. In fact, they probably don't play at all. Not following them will only make your life easier.

Does not playing with feats count as sub-optimal?

If feats are not allowed to anyone, then you are sub-optimal versus who? If you mean that you are allowed to take feats but choose not to, then see how many people around are claiming that it's totally insane to choose feats instead of ASI: they are about the same amount of people claiming it's totally insane to choose ASI intead of feats.

I don't think sub optimal matters unless someone else in the group is better than you at "your job".

I think this is the only point when some optimization or rather some focus-fire may be important. It's only on narrow tasks however, not general tasks such as "melee fighting" or "healing", where it doesn't matter who is the best at the job because many people are doing it. On narrow tasks such as for example tracking, lockpicking or deception, it might be healthier for the group to have a dedicated character and have the others take care of other tasks (of course two dedicated characters improve the chances, but stepping on each other toes can be annoying and you'll have other tasks neglected). However, it's not so much a fault of the dedicated character not being optimized enough, but rather of the fact that two characters are investing resources into the same thing.

 

[Warpiglet]

I have turned suboptimal after a couple of years of playing 3.0 and been since then. The web is full of people who tell you how you should or should not play the game, they are also the same people who generally say that any edition is flawed to the point of being unplayable. In fact, they probably don't play at all. Not following them will only make your life easier.



If feats are not allowed to anyone, then you are sub-optimal versus who? If you mean that you are allowed to take feats but choose not to, then see how many people around are claiming that it's totally insane to choose feats instead of ASI: they are about the same amount of people claiming it's totally insane to choose ASI intead of feats.



I think this is the only point when some optimization or rather some focus-fire may be important. It's only on narrow tasks however, not general tasks such as "melee fighting" or "healing", where it doesn't matter who is the best at the job because many people are doing it. On narrow tasks such as for example tracking, lockpicking or deception, it might be healthier for the group to have a dedicated character and have the others take care of other tasks (of course two dedicated characters improve the chances, but stepping on each other toes can be annoying and you'll have other tasks neglected). However, it's not so much a fault of the dedicated character not being optimized enough, but rather of the fact that two characters are investing resources into the same thing.

Your points are well taken. Even more than that of course is the fact that there are millions of new possibilities and varieties open to you if you buck conventional wisdom and take a chance!

 

[Krachek]

Suboptimal can be a wide range of characters.
You roll stats and the result is under the usual point buy, is this a suboptimal character?
You can optimize as hell a character with a bunch of 12s, you won’t beat an average stat beast master ranger.

Suboptimal is group depending.
Standard rules and Dm guideline are pretty forgiving for suboptimal characters.
The pressure to optimize usually came from inside the group, not from the rules.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I am going to come out and say it. Suboptimal characters are nothing more than a condemnation of the DM.

End of story.

No "optimal" character is good at everything and if another character is "suboptimal" in comparison then the DM has failed by not varying the challenges and has turned his gaming table into a paper version of a computer game.

Be a good DM and no one is suboptimal. You tailor the game so everyone has a chance to shine.

The only time this does not happen is AP adventures where the DM has limited leeway and I could care less about those.

 

[Gradine]

I am going to come out and say it. Suboptimal characters are nothing more than a condemnation of the DM.

End of story.

No "optimal" character is good at everything and if another character is "suboptimal" in comparison then the DM has failed by not varying the challenges and has turned his gaming table into a paper version of a computer game.

Be a good DM and no one is suboptimal. You tailor the game so everyone has a chance to shine.

The only time this does not happen is AP adventures where the DM has limited leeway and I could care less about those.

I mean, I'm sure some people care about APs. Granted, even in that case a DM should either:
a) still make adjustments based on the PCs in their party, or...
b) warn their players ahead of time what kind of AP it is

Otherwise I have no objections to your post.

I'm sure some would consider this to be completely unacceptable metagaming on the part of the DM, of course.

 

[77IM]

I have discovered a new pithy aphorism:

"Sub-optimal is fine; sub-competent is not."

 

[ClaytonCross]

I think this is the only point when some optimization or rather some focus-fire may be important. It's only on narrow tasks however, not general tasks such as "melee fighting" or "healing", where it doesn't matter who is the best at the job because many people are doing it. On narrow tasks such as for example tracking, lockpicking or deception, it might be healthier for the group to have a dedicated character and have the others take care of other tasks (of course two dedicated characters improve the chances, but stepping on each other toes can be annoying and you'll have other tasks neglected). However, it's not so much a fault of the dedicated character not being optimized enough, but rather of the fact that two characters are investing resources into the same thing.

Not disagreeing but Healing and Damage can just as easily be the same as the rest. That is why in most groups you usually have a "Primary Healer" and back up healers who usually have some other task they are good at. DPR is interesting because you might need a melee fighter to tank as a role or they might be a high DPR like a my groups paladin who is both our primary Tank and Primary DPR. Now other people add to the groups total DPR but their is no question who our number one DPR is. It also happens that if someone became the primary DPR the paladin would still be the primary tank and would not feel shorted in the group. However what I do see is that when you get 2 players max/min power gaming for to be the best DPR then generally the one that comes in second usually feels like the primary is stepping on their toes. So I recommend that every character in a group have a role goal that they are primary other than DPR. Then try to remember DPR is the most group effort capable job in any group since every class can contribute to DPR but only most skill tests are 1 player performing the test with a possible second player proficient in the same skill providing advantage with the help action and/or possibly guidance/Bless/Auras.

While it is useful for everyone to add to damage its also more likely to add conflict the more people who try to take that as a PRIMARY role. While other skills if you have more than 2 people with the skill they are simply not useful and step on each other toes unless they can take another role in the group. Since all classes "can" try to be the primary damage for the group when other jobs are hard to take without a dedicated build, I think we see this as the big optimization, , min/maxer, power gamer offender. I for example have never seen a group competing to be stealthy as a problem since despite all testing for it individually and adding the group as a whole just like damage it doesn't continue through out the battle reminding players who is number 1. I think all this combine means people who are drawn to want to steel the spot light and hold it tend to trying to take the primary damage role from the group, instead of for it.

 

[Ancalagon]

I have discovered a new pithy aphorism:

"Sub-optimal is fine; sub-competent is not."

Well said.

If for the party tank, I had built an archer specialist ranger with no con bonus... that would have been incompetent.

 

[Ancalagon]

I am going to come out and say it. Suboptimal characters are nothing more than a condemnation of the DM.

End of story.

No "optimal" character is good at everything and if another character is "suboptimal" in comparison then the DM has failed by not varying the challenges and has turned his gaming table into a paper version of a computer game.

Be a good DM and no one is suboptimal. You tailor the game so everyone has a chance to shine.

The only time this does not happen is AP adventures where the DM has limited leeway and I could care less about those.

You should consider though that not all choice are equally good, and that some choices are *rather bad*. Make enough of those and your character is... sub-competent.