I don't optimize. Forked Thread: Dragon Magazine #365's Character Concepts

Forked from: Dragon Magazine #365's Character Concepts: Masterful optimization advice by WotC

Runestar said:

I do hope that wotc also remembers to include a footnote that their builds are far from optimized. Last thing I want to see is someone being mislead into believing that it is a perfectly viable build to emulate and end up playing a sub-optimal character build which he mistakenly believes is more effective than it really is, while not knowing what went wrong if/when he falls flat on his face.

Click to expand...

Optimization is a nightmare from which I wish D&D would wake.

I don't optimize. I play characters I like, with cool abilities that seem effective and I have a good time. Optimization creates cookie cutter builds, pointless rules-wankery and obscures personalization. Optimization took away Dungeon Magazine years ago during the dark Paizo years.

Nothing is stopping you from playing a character you feel is flavourful, even if is not necessarily optimized in the sense of the word.

The problem with the builds in dragon (this goes all the way back to when it first appeared for 3e, such as the cringe-worthy fighter/wizard/spellsword/palemaster build before 3.5) is that they are for most part woefully underpowered, yet wotc continues to misrepresent these builds as perfectly viable.

The problem with this comes when people start copying these builds, thinking that they are playing an optimized PC, then start getting frustrated when their characters start dying like flies (because they are too weak to hold their hold, and will just end up being a liability to the party and dragging everyone down).

Having DM'ed before, I can say from personal experience the frustration of trying to dissaude my players from trying to replicate builds from said dragon articles, because I know fully well that they suck (part of the perks of being a regular on gleemax back then), and wouldn't last 1 encounter in my games, yet my players keep insisting on playing them because he (mistakenly) believes that those builds are optimized (his rationale was that the build involved 2 base classes and 2 prcs - it had to be viable to some extent).

Wotc should learn to start advocating simple yet good and effective builds which actually work, rather than traps (ie: stuff which sound good on paper but stink in actual gameplay) like great-weapon fighter or paragon multiclassing. It is like you are already lame in one foot, and are intent on shooting yourself in the other!

In the very least, I don't see why it would be impossible for wotc to offer articles detailing flavourful, yet optimized builds which are fun to play and can hold their own. The wizards dnd forum is chock-full of them, and the agreement we signed when we registered means that wotc reserves the right to essentially plagiarize the information wholesale. I myself have played optimized builds which possess deep and immersive personalities, and are a blast to roleplay. So I can say that they are far from being mutually exclusive.

Same goes for this article. I can virtually guarantee that anyone trying to follow the gish build (after making allowances for the myriad of glaring rules inconsistencies) will be gnashing his teeth in frustration, because of one inescaple reason.

You can't roleplay if you are dead. And it is not the most flavourful character which lets you stand toe to toe with a dragon but cold hard stats. The most beautifully roleplayed PC is just another corpse littering its lair if it lacks the capability to take hits, deal damage and do all the stunts required/expected of him/her.

This is a serious bug, not a feature. All the multiclassing it does serves nothing but to dilute its effectiveness. If anything, this article is simply testament that multiclassing just sucks (save for the initiate feats). There are certainly many other ways of designing a gish build which does not suck.

If you want an idea of the sort of caliber I should be expecting from wotc, here is a sample 3.5 character build posted by another member. I know this is 4e, but I feel the article displays the sort of standards wotc should be working towards.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=974454&highlight=warblade+swordsage+monk+master

There are degrees of optimization. I try to blend my character concept with a reasonable degree of optimization. I think 4e primarily encourages this.

If someone wants to play a Fighter with a 14 strength and 18 charisma, I'll point them toward the Paladin instead of the Fighter. Yes this is optimization. And yes this is expected by the system.

On the other hand, there are choices a character can make that may not be the optimal combat choice, but fits their concept. For instance a Human Trickster Rogue may be better served with Action Surge and Backstabber, but he may be looking for a more defensive build and go for Human Perseverance and Toughness. There is nothing wrong with those choices, eventhough many would not consider them optimal. However, if the Trickster Rogue went for Chainmail and Bastard sword proficiency, I'd say there is something horribly wrong with those choices.

There are viable Gish builds aplenty ...
The best IMO will be when FRPG gets released ... so you can play a Swordmage and MC Wizard.

I agree with the degrees of optimization analysis.

I think its important that teh system doesn't require every fighter to have an 18 strength to feel useful. On the other hand a fighter with a 10 strength is just asking for trouble.

I think one thing that 4e does is it uses feats to help suboptimal builds. So many of the feats use stats that are not normally important for that class, and that give a big benefit.

Take spell focus for example, great great feat for a wizard, but requires Cha 13+. That's a sacrifice for a wizard, he has to actually invest some points in cha (which doesn't help his wizardlyness). So this is a benefit for someone playing a more social wizard, they actually get a nice strong benefit that a more optimized wizard (going straight int and maybe wisdom or dex) doesn't get.

The problem isn't characters that aren't completely optimized in every way. The problem is characters whose concept makes them inherently less optimized than others, compounded with being poorly optimized even within that concept. At the very least you should be optimized within the framework of your concept.

Branduil said:

The problem isn't characters that aren't completely optimized in every way. The problem is characters whose concept makes them inherently less optimized than others, compounded with being poorly optimized even within that concept. At the very least you should be optimized within the framework of your concept.

Click to expand...

I agree that this should be the desired goal, however, one does not need to be "fully optimized". Just being decent is ok.

It's up to the DM to understand his players. If he has a few subpar players (either the abilities of the PCs, or the abilities of the players themselves to make good tactical decisions), he should scale his combats accordingly. Typically, this just means a slight adjustment.

This is no different than the DM having to understand the gaming goals of his players. Some are combat monsters, some are romantic, some are genre fiends, some are rules lawyers, whatever. A good DM finds out what makes his players tick and gives each of them time under the spotlight.

So, slightly suboptimal PCs are ok as long as they are not too far out in left field and as long as the DM accounts for it.

There are only a couple of things that you cannot "fix" if you see them not working, which is definite plus.

Stats, Race, Paragon Path and Epic Destiny are the only things that are "fixed" once you chose them. Only stats I'd say, can get you in REAL trouble if you mess them up. There is no compensating for a low primary attack attribute, which I do feel is a slight weakness in the system. Every +1 is so important now that there is a real, tangible difference between a fighter with 16 str and one with 18 (or 20).

Aside from that though, mistakenly taken feats, powers or whatever can be retrained if you find them poor. In our group we've been retraining powers like mad just because they arn't living up to expectations. I find that alone reduces the need to plan out builds too far into the future which was a pretty big issue in 3/3.5. Optimization CAN comie through playing the game now in the form of retraining.

I'm definitely not a die-hard optimizer. I am not convinced a Great Weapon Fighter or even a Fighter that Paragon Multiclasses into Wizard is going to instantly stink so bad they are worthless to the party.

But there is Optimization (making choices based on power-effectiveness), Organic Creation (making choices based on character role-play concept), and then there is Shooting Yourself in the Foot (making choices that the game actively discourages due to some misguided principles).

Fighters with low strength or Longsword wielding rogues are obvious example of Shooting Yourself in the Foot. I have issues with Dragon giving out builds put together that make shooting yourself in the foot decisions.

The Eladrin Soldier/Weapon Focus/Bastard sword issue is one of those decisions that SYitF. There is no reason to have those three feats AT ALL. If you want to be good with a Bastard Sword, take Weapon Focus and Weapon Proficiency. If you want to be good with a Longsword, take Eladrin Soldier and then retrain it to Weapon Focus somewhere during Paragon or Epic Tier.

The Tide of Iron/Heavy Shield/Wand Use/Sword Use also SYitF. The article doesn't recognize that you don't have 3 hands and that it is reasonably time-resource consuming to have to juggle an implement, a weapon, and a shield. Planning like you have 3 hands is dumb unless you have 3 hands. Fighting Sword/Wand as the article suggests means that you have decided that it is okay to only have one useable at-will. This is ASSININE. If you want a meaningful choice every round, you need two viable at-wills.

I can get over the fact they ignored Dex prereqs and took feats like alertness. If you want an Alert character, Alertness fits the character concept and gives you at least SOME band for your feat use. But these two decisions are somewhat unforgivable in that they make decisions that expend character creation resources without giving the PC ANY BENEFIT of ANY KIND.

Charwoman Gene said:

I don't optimize. I play characters I like, with cool abilities that seem effective and I have a good time.

Click to expand...

You do optimize (to a degree), unless by "seem effective" you also mean "but really aren't effective", but I don't think that's what you're saying. (I get the feeling you're a Stage 1 optimizer looking with distaste at Stage 2 optimizers, but that's just my feeling.)

4e requires a very basic degree of optimization: you shouldn't play a low-Strength Fighter, for example, or a spellcasting Cleric with a low Wisdom. (In 3e, it's entirely possible to play a powerful Cleric who starts with a 15 Wisdom, because you don't have to use your spells to attack. In 4e, you both hit more and heal more with an 18 Wisdom.)

However, unlike 3e, 4e doesn't allow much optimization beyond the basics. There are loopholes (like the old Blade Cascade, or the new Relentless Assault), but they are specific exceptions -- nothing as generally abusable as Wild Shape or Polymorph or Cheater of Mystera exists in 4e.

Cheers, -- N