Broken PCs = Broken NPCs?

[Umbran]

But in the hypotheical case that a DM has decided to pay the munchkin back, it's possible to do it more subtly than overtly, you know...

While I understand the feeling behind this, I am not myself a proponent of passive-aggressive GMing techniques. One may be tempted, but that way lies hard feelings and crappy play sessions.

 

[Stormonu]

I play and experiment with combos so much as a DM that very rarely is an optimised PC a problem. I don't go out of my way to counteract cheese with cheese (I'd rather reign things in), but I do tend to stumble onto 'interesting' combos every so often. Sooner or later something crops up that gets optimizers/munchins in hot water. Though, I have to say I'm a lot more merciful to those I feel have been playing in the bounds of fair play than out.

 

[Umbran]

Sooner or later something crops up that gets optimizers/munchins in hot water.

This is a useful point. In the game, optimization also requires focus. If the character can pull off one of a few very specific combinations, they become machines of death. But, usually, there is a cost in that if they can't pull off the combination, they become very sub-optimal.

F'rex, a character highly optimized to make Diplomacy/Persuasion checks. It is all well and good if the character can persuade a guard into selling his own mother to the PC, this means nothing if the target is an automaton or unintelligent, such that it cannot be persuaded.

If a GM chooses to deal with a highly optimized character, one technique to manage is to make these situations rather more common than you'd otherwise expect. Thus forcing the optimized character to take a back seat for a while, to allow other PCs to shine.

Which is, by the way, the major problem I see with highly optimized characters - their tendency to overshadow everyone else. I don't usually care that much about how powerful the characters are, so long as the players are happy with it.