D&D 5E Char Ops forums: Something I wish hadn't come over.

[Treantmonklvl20]

Total tangent: one thing I find frustrating about the bard fluff is that it conflicts with the mechanics. I love the idea of roleplaying Cutting Words by flinging actual silly insults ("You fight like a dairy farmer!")--but how can you roleplay doing that in the middle of someone else's sword swing when you see they're about to hit in the midst of chaotic melee, while you're busy Inspiring another comrade and casting a spell? Just how fast is this bard talking? It ends up disrupting my sense of immersion and, as a DM, I wind up wanting to reflavor the bard as just using magic for these tasks, even if it's not the newfangled wizardly-type spell magic. (Cutting words = you hum a chord of dissonant notes which resonates strangely in the enemy's mind. Also explains why language doesn't matter.)

In our group we don't get too "crunchy" so it works fine. If it takes me longer than 6 seconds to complete what I'm saying, then maybe that round was a bit more than 6 seconds, or my character's action spills a bit into a round where he wasn't using one of these abilities. Of course, my insults are a bit more involved, "What's the difference between your mother and a Mind Flayer? If I ever sleep with a Mind Flayer I'll let you know!"

However, if worrying about the correct length of time of each round is of concern to you, maybe cutting words is just that, "You're dead!!!" "Try again loser!" "Eat dirt!"

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In our group we don't get too "crunchy" so it works fine. If it takes me longer than 6 seconds to complete what I'm saying, then maybe that round was a bit more than 6 seconds, or my character's action spills a bit into a round where he wasn't using one of these abilities. Of course, my insults are a bit more involved, "What's the difference between your mother and a Mind Flayer? If I ever sleep with a Mind Flayer I'll let you know!"

However, if worrying about the correct length of time of each round is of concern to you, maybe cutting words is just that, "You're dead!!!" "Try again loser!" "Eat dirt!"

While I wouldn't use that exact insult, that is about the minimum length for a believably funny insult, especially if you have to deliver it well instead of just blurting it out, which is why I find the fluff so frustrating. It clocks in at something something between 5 and 7 seconds, and while I could live with that for Vicious Mockery ("he's spending the next few seconds delivering an insult so bad it makes blood pour out of the guard's ears"), doing it as a Cutting Words reaction while I'm also casting a spell and making an inspiring speech to another PC is... I just can't construct a narrative where that all makes sense simultaneously. Mechanically they're a reaction and a bonus action respectively, but the description and the mechanics don't match, so it makes me want to change the description.

At least this isn't hyperkinetic GURPS though. In GURPS, each combat round is one second, and the typical complicated fight is over before you can speak a sentence.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

While I wouldn't use that exact insult, that is about the minimum length for a believably funny insult, especially if you have to deliver it well instead of just blurting it out, which is why I find the fluff so frustrating. It clocks in at something something between 5 and 7 seconds, and while I could live with that for Vicious Mockery ("he's spending the next few seconds delivering an insult so bad it makes blood pour out of the guard's ears"), doing it as a Cutting Words reaction while I'm also casting a spell and making an inspiring speech to another PC is... I just can't construct a narrative where that all makes sense simultaneously. Mechanically they're a reaction and a bonus action respectively, but the description and the mechanics don't match, so it makes me want to change the description.

At least this isn't hyperkinetic GURPS though. In GURPS, each combat round is one second, and the typical complicated fight is over before you can speak a sentence.

Yeah, GURPS plays pretty much opposite. Every combat takes very little in-game time and a marathon of the players time. Attack/Block/Attack/Block/Attack...

 

[Psikerlord#]

I just started a new campaign earlier tonight. I play a halfling Bard that uses Vicious Mockery (with a list of funny insults I've pre-selected). (Eventually he'll be using these insults with "cutting words", but right now he's level 1)

I made Charisma my highest ability. I chose to do this so his Vicious Mockery would work more often (higher save DC). This of course is optimization. I'm curious how you think this reduced my fun?

Edit: More importantly (frankly FAR more importantly), I'm curious how this reduces your fun? If there's one thing that is crystal clear from this thread, my choosing Cha as my highest stat somehow creates great offense to many on these boards, and I don't really understand why?

thats not "optimising". see the post below yours for my answer.

 

[Chaosmancer]

As with many times discussions like this pop up amongst gamers, what we are defining is important.

For one person Optimization comes in at UA Ranger 1/ Warlock 3/ Rogue 8/ Fighter 8 characters who can explode and reform at will to auto kill enemies. For others it is Wizards with very specific spell chains that render other party members moot.

I'll admit, those two could get tiring after a while and as a DM they'd be hard to deal with.

But for other people that is called powergaming and it is an attitude of wanting to show up the rest of the party, while optimizing is saying "My wizard is an oracle, what's the best stuff I can get to make him feel like a prophet and scrier (scry-er?)" or "I want to play a fighter with a whip and leather armor who explorers ancient tombs, what should I do so that I'm still contributing to the party?"

And before people bold that "still contributing to the party" part and claim that is a false ideal, no it isn't, unless your group and player greatly enjoy escort missions where the goal is to make sure the that the ranger with a 6 Dex (-2) who only fights by throwing darts at enemies dealing no damage and wears no armor (giving him an AC of 8), because he can't contribute. Any fight you get in, he can't effectively deal with the enemy. Now maybe you play in an intrigue campaign, but then what do you do with a character who can't find clues or interact socially? I'm not saying people can't have fun this way, but the pendulum swings both ways. It doesn't matter if you groan and say "Redgar's turn guys, he'll deal 100 damage to all enemies and kill everything again, fight over, again" or "Trimble's turn guys, he'll miss and that gnoll's gonna drop him again, ready to heal him, again?"

Everything in moderation. Whether it be optimization or "I'd never play with an optimizer"

 

[MechaPilot]

As with many times discussions like this pop up amongst gamers, what we are defining is important.

For one person Optimization comes in at UA Ranger 1/ Warlock 3/ Rogue 8/ Fighter 8 characters who can explode and reform at will to auto kill enemies. For others it is Wizards with very specific spell chains that render other party members moot.

I'll admit, those two could get tiring after a while and as a DM they'd be hard to deal with.

There is one other type of optimization: I call it optimization within a concept. What that means is that you build a character according to a non-mechanical concept, and then you work to make that character as effective as possible without straying from the chosen concept. I do this all the time, because I believe that characters would strive to be the best at what they do, especially when it can mean their lives (or those of their friends) are hanging in the balance.

I don't think this type of optimization is all that offensive; in fact, I've never really seen anyone complain about it. I only mention it because it is technically optimization, and because it gets a pass in every group I've ever played in.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

thats not "optimising". see the post below yours for my answer.

I'm assuming this one:

<snip>just three sessions ago, while playing Pathfinder, the rogue finally stopped showing up after the powergamer player showed his wizard can do everything the rogue can do, in addition to dozens of other things the wizard can do. His DCs make it hard to challenge the whole group, and his cherry-picking of spells and powers makes me want to go back to just core rules...

Powergaming: Building/playing a character with the goal of overshadowing the other characters in the party.
Optimizing: Building/playing a character that works effectively within a team to meet team challenges.

Let me demonstrate. I have been making Wizard guides since 3.5, they've been fairly well received. They are optimization guides. This is the preface to my current guide (and has been since I wrote it this spring):

I’ve told this story before, but here it is again. A player in a D&D group I belonged to invited me to join another group he ran with another group of friends. The group was playing a “killer” campaign and the party had been TPK’d and character individual deaths were rampant and he figured they could use another player. He told me to build an optimized character.

What he neglected to mention was that this group did not optimize their characters, so when I arrived with my Goliath charge-build, I overshadowed the rest of the fighter-types in the group entirely. Nevertheless, the party sorcerer died in one of the fights. I felt really bad and retired the character at the end of the session and promised to build something less dominating.

I had an idea how I could help the group without dominating the action, and I came back with a Wizard character. In the first combat, I was encouraged to use my fireball, and the group was quite confused when I told them that I didn’t have Fireball, lightning bolt or even magic missile. I still remember the DM asking me, “So what DO you do then?” When I explained I would be putting up walls, fogs, buffing, debuffing, etc. My character was declared “useless”

A couple months of playing and my character did not directly cause a single HP of damage to an enemy, nor did he use a single “save or die”. The campaign completed, and since my wizard was introduced, not a single character had died.

What I found really surprising is that everyone in the group still considered my character “useless”. Not a single player seemed to notice that my character had been introduced at the same time that the party death-toll had stopped. They had thought the campaign had become “easier” during the second half.

This was something I found absolutely terrific and I was inspired to write my first Wizard guide: Treantmonk’s Guide to Wizards, being a god (3.5).

What I find myself constantly explaining is that “being a god” doesn’t mean godlike power. I chose the name based on Greek Myths, where a god would get some hapless mortal to do their dirty work, merely interfering by magic to ensure that the hero always had the advantage. This is what a god wizard is, a wizard who lets the rest of the party have the glory, but subtly ensures through Battlefield Control, Buffing and Debuffing that the party always achieves victory.

I’ve since softened my view on blast spells, and I assure you my Wizards once again hurl fireballs and the like, but it’s not their primary focus. The primary focus in 5e remains the same as it did in editions past: Provide tactical advantage to the team.

Sorry for the length of this post...

 

[cmad1977]

This falls under the umbrella of 'not really a problem, but I don't like it so go away'

I don't like players that are hyper focused on squeezing every + out of their character build either... I just don't care if there are threads.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

A couple months of playing and my character did not directly cause a single HP of damage to an enemy, nor did he use a single “save or die”. The campaign completed, and since my wizard was introduced, not a single character had died.

What I found really surprising is that everyone in the group still considered my character “useless”. Not a single player seemed to notice that my character had been introduced at the same time that the party death-toll had stopped. They had thought the campaign had become “easier” during the second half.

The scientist in me feels compelled to point out that if the DM also considered your character "useless", and if he were one of those DMs who likes to tweak his adventures to his party, it could have gotten easier simply by virtue of your character not being quite as useless as the DM thought it was.

I'm not saying that is what happened--after all, you were there and you have more data than I do on how the encounters were structured. I'm just saying that from what you've told us above, the reader cannot rule out the possibility and therefore cannot infer how useful an unobtrusive controller wizard actually is.

BTW, I strongly disagree with your definition of "powergaming" as being focused on intra-party competition. I often refer to myself as a natural powergamer but I have not a lick of that competitive instinct in my body. I enjoy keeping other people alive, and I also enjoy beating challenges that should be lightyears out of my league, and I enjoy doing so while expending close to zero resources. I'd characterize powergaming as an instinctive awareness of tactical potential and an inclination towards maximizing that effectiveness even if that requires roleplaying rationalization. If you hate the fluff for paladin the paladin/warlock multiclass but you can rattle off three or four ways, off the top of your head, why it would be advantageous, and you're tempted to multiclass your paladin in spite of the fluff... you are probably a powergamer by my standards.

In short, there are multiple definitions of "powergaming" out there.

 

[clearstream]

There is one other type of optimization: I call it optimization within a concept. What that means is that you build a character according to a non-mechanical concept, and then you work to make that character as effective as possible without straying from the chosen concept. I do this all the time, because I believe that characters would strive to be the best at what they do, especially when it can mean their lives (or those of their friends) are hanging in the balance.

I don't think this type of optimization is all that offensive; in fact, I've never really seen anyone complain about it. I only mention it because it is technically optimization, and because it gets a pass in every group I've ever played in.

I like your point, albeit it applies a common conflation of meanings for optimise, that are probably better kept separate. We might call one meaning concept optimising, i.e. your example. Mechanically best choices constrained by an RP concept. And then the post you were responding to is taking issue with what we could call minimax optimising. Minimaxed mechanical choices without heed to RP constraints (there could be other constraints, like a chosen class). Generally speaking, an argument in support of concept optimising will not refute an argument taking issue with minimax optimising. They're about different things.

I suppose I am suggesting that "it is technically optimization" could be misleading, because it appears likely that it is not technically the same "optimization" as is discussed in the post you were responding to.