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

[PallidPatience]

Optimization and Roleplaying are two different axes. Being an optimized character does not mean being a character with a non-interesting background or story. It does not mean having no personality. It ONLY means being good at what the character does, mechanically.

To bash the mechanics for ONLY being concerned about the mechanics isn't productive. Instead. find ways to make your character interesting and unique. And insulting others' play styles isn't very nice.

 

[renau1g]

What is this, edition wars? Who cares how it worked in previous editions? In 4e, fighters are strong. If you're not strong, and you become a fighter, you should sue your guidance councilor. Pick a concept which fits into some class, don't pick a class and expect the class to fit into your concept. This is a class based game, if you don't like that, play a classless game. There are several fine ones out there.

Your concepts from previous editions don't necessarily have the same class in this one. Fighters are not archers. They're not weak but agile melee combatants. They don't fight unarmored with one hand empty. If you want to play the fighter class in some atypical fashion, then you need to find some rules that allow this character to be effective, or play a different class that suits your concept more closely.

Rogues still work... you can be a brutal rogue with a high CHA & high STR, no edition wars here... you seem a mite touchy about that. Your comment was edition neutral so I brought up 2 examples that went against your statement. Also, fighters aren't agile by the class description...they are strong as you said.

 

[RigaMortus2]

There's a difference between not seeking to create the most mechanically optimized characters and purposely creating suboptimal ones. And just because one's character creation/development goal isn't optimization doesn't mean their PCs will automatically be suboptimal, either. Of course most people are going to give their fighter a decent Str and wizard a decent Int. This has been a given since the inception of D&D. It's pretty much passive or inherent "optimization".

I think the OP is talking about going beyond that as some players do and milk every power, feat, skill, item and rules loophole for the "best" choices for that high Str Fighter or high Int Wizard.

Non-optimizers (like myself) still often make choices to the benefit of the character which match those of the Optimizers, because they're logical or just seem plain cool for the character concept.

Then I think what you are describing is more on Theory Optimization than actual in-game optimization. These are the people from the CharOp boards who look for ways to break the game (within the rules, as opposed to a munchkin who bends the rules). An example would be 3.5 Pun Pun or the Cheater of Mystara. By the book/RAW, they are legit builds. But would anyone really try to slip this past a DM? Maybe, but I don't think they would by the large.

It depends on what your goal is. If you envision a character that carries a big sword and kills things with only a couple hits, you are going to automatically pick certain ability scores, weapons, powers and feats to accomodate this. I don't see that as an optimization problem any more than I do someone who wants to play an Inspiring Warlord and uses his feats on Skill Training in the social skills. You aren't optimized for combat, but you are for other things.

Usually, optimizers have a goal in mind (ie to do the most sneak attack damage in 1 round) and then try to accomplish this. Same thing with a person that builds concept first (ie I want to be a charismatic Fighter, who is decent at combat, but is good in social situations and is a wooer of women).

 

[billd91]

Optimization, from a game rules standpoint, is rarely a problem. It's mainly a table problem. Any time you have choices to make between different options, optimization is a possibility and a potential strategy to follow. The problem only really comes up when specific players do it while other players do not. Then, it becomes a player competition problem in a cooperative game. PC1 is so tricked out that everybody else has trouble getting spotlight time. Or PC2 is so tricked out the DM has to annihilate everyone else to challenge him.
In most cases, characters in just any D&D edition did not need to be optimized (and I thank 3e, in particular, for reducing the high stats necessary to start to gain bonuses on the things PCs did because it reduced the need for stats that were off the charts)... until other PCs at the table were.
So chalk me up as someone who thinks optimization is not a problem. Conflicting play styles is the primary problem.

 

[Rechan]

Rogues still work... you can be a brutal rogue with a high CHA & high STR, no edition wars here... you seem a mite touchy about that. Your comment was edition neutral so I brought up 2 examples that went against your statement. Also, fighters aren't agile by the class description...they are strong as you said.

Except that if you're a clumsy rogue (i.e. low dex) then you're not going to hit anything because all of your abilities hinge on dex vs. (Insert).

 

[Nifft]

There's a difference between not seeking to create the most mechanically optimized characters and purposely creating suboptimal ones. And just because one's character creation/development goal isn't optimization doesn't mean their PCs will automatically be suboptimal, either. Of course most people are going to give their fighter a decent Str and wizard a decent Int. This has been a given since the inception of D&D. It's pretty much passive or inherent "optimization".

That's really all 4e asks of you. If you want to play a Fighter: prioritize Strength. You'll be (at the very least) adequate if you start with an 18 Strength, no matter what other choices you make.

The trouble is, to some people what you describe as "passive" or "inherent" is more than they can stomach. Thus, fights about optimization.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Stogoe]

Your comment was edition neutral so I brought up 2 examples that went against your statement.

This forum isn't edition neutral. It's for 4e. 3.x isn't anywhere near relevant.

And as for optimization, I no longer find 'Theory' optimization worthwhile, relevant, or interesting. It's loophole-twisting, hyper-literal kerning taken to its most humorless and most pedantic.

I understand that the optimization game is where most of the fun of D&D lies for certain people. I used to find it valuable, once. Nowadays it just reminds me of infinite oregano.

 

[Gloombunny]

I like optimizing, not so I can make the strongest character possible, but so I can take an offbeat concept and make it work as well as the straightforward characters.

 

[Runestar]

I still find theory optimization fun. What's not to like about pushing the boundaries of the existing rules and seeing how far you can stretch them? It is not as if I will be allowing a fighter who can manage 6000+ attacks/round in my 3e game anytime soon, but being involved in such discussions is still a blast. In the very least, it has helped improved my understanding of the rules. People who claim that optimizers are inherent powergamers don't seem to realize that such theoretical optimization are basically just that - fun with the RAW.

Typically, a player can be categorized into 1 of 4 groupings.

1) Lousy roleplaying, can't design an effective build to save his life.
2) Adequate/good roleplayer, but does not make an effort to optimize (be it intentional or otherwise).
3) Can manage effective builds, but poor roleplaying skills.
4) Able to mesh good character builds and stellar roleplaying into a harmonious whole.

From what I have gleemed in my short time here, most members seem to belong to group 2 (or at least, they seem to take pride from claiming to belong to group 2). My point is basically that of the stormwind fallacy - you can be in (4), roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive. It is an ideal I feel that is worth attempting to strive towards, not shun it and remain in your own comfort zone, much as it may suffice for you.

What is not to like about finding a way of marrying the 2 into one harmonious whole? It ends up being a win-win situation. You get the dual satisfaction of playing a deep, immersive character, and an effective one who is able to excel at all the tasks you want him to be capable in.

Let me give you a 3e example (note: this is not an edition war, but my experience with 4e is still fairly limited, so I am using a 3e scenario I am more familiar with in the hopes of better expressing my point across).

[sblock=ExampleA long while back I went to the Character Optimization board with a build request, and I ended up with a character build with eight classes -- two base, six prestige. My request wasn't for the most power available short of Pun-Pun, or to heavily focus on one thing so as to be unbeatable in that area, nor was I just looking for the most multiclassed build possible. My request was more along the lines of "My werebear barbarian PC and his redeemed succubus wife have children, how can I assemble a character that demonstrates the capabilities of that mixed heritage, for when the kids grow up into playable characters?" After a lot of discussion a build was worked out: Bard 4/Barbarian 1/Spellsword 1/Dragonslayer 1/Rage Mage 2/Bear Warrior 1/Sublime Chord 1/Eldritch Knight 9. This grants BAB +17/+12/+7/+2, Charisma-based spontaneous casting of a small number of level 1-9 spells on the bard and sorcerer/wizard spell lists, a limited ability to ignore arcane spell failure, limited bardic knowlege, rage, the ability to cast spells while raging, and the ability to transform into a bear while raging, as well as some other minor abilities that aren't so important.

You might look at that class combination and cringe, thinking "What an overcomplicated, unfocused, dipped mess of a class collection." I look at it and think "This is Rachel Lovato, an energetic and outgoing young woman who's a capable warrior. She can draw on the bestial strength passed down from her father David, the compelling presence and magical talents of Seneca her mother, and the fiery temper she inherited from both. She prefers to get by with her cunning and charm, but she's a bit of a tomboy and likes a good brawl more than is proper for a lady. She hasn't seen as much of the multiverse as her parents, but she learned a little about everything from the stories they told her as a child, and it serves Rachel well in her own adventures." (I also think that from a raw power perspective, a single-classed Druid 20 would defeat Rachel easily.)[/sblock]

This is one aspect I find weird about this forum. For most part, the members here come across as quite likable and rational. But make any mention about optimization, and suddenly, they start descending on you like some angry lynch mob as though I am advocating that they become munchkins and break their own games or something.

No. Optimization is simply letting your character be the best he can be, within the limits set by your own campaign. There is nothing dirty about the O word.

 

[firesnakearies]

I still find theory optimization fun. What's not to like about pushing the boundaries of the existing rules and seeing how far you can stretch them? It is not as if I will be allowing a fighter who can manage 6000+ attacks/round in my 3e game anytime soon, but being involved in such discussions is still a blast. In the very least, it has helped improved my understanding of the rules. People who claim that optimizers are inherent powergamers don't seem to realize that such theoretical optimization are basically just that - fun with the RAW.

Typically, a player can be categorized into 1 of 4 groupings.

1) Lousy roleplaying, can't design an effective build to save his life.
2) Adequate/good roleplayer, but does not make an effort to optimize (be it intentional or otherwise).
3) Can manage effective builds, but poor roleplaying skills.
4) Able to mesh good character builds and stellar roleplaying into a harmonious whole.

From what I have gleemed in my short time here, most members seem to belong to group 2 (or at least, they seem to take pride from claiming to belong to group 2). My point is basically that of the stormwind fallacy - you can be in (4), roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive. It is an ideal I feel that is worth attempting to strive towards, not shun it and remain in your own comfort zone, much as it may suffice for you.

What is not to like about finding a way of marrying the 2 into one harmonious whole? It ends up being a win-win situation. You get the dual satisfaction of playing a deep, immersive character, and an effective one who is able to excel at all the tasks you want him to be capable in.

Let me give you a 3e example (note: this is not an edition war, but my experience with 4e is still fairly limited, so I am using a 3e scenario I am more familiar with in the hopes of better expressing my point across).

[sblock=ExampleA long while back I went to the Character Optimization board with a build request, and I ended up with a character build with eight classes -- two base, six prestige. My request wasn't for the most power available short of Pun-Pun, or to heavily focus on one thing so as to be unbeatable in that area, nor was I just looking for the most multiclassed build possible. My request was more along the lines of "My werebear barbarian PC and his redeemed succubus wife have children, how can I assemble a character that demonstrates the capabilities of that mixed heritage, for when the kids grow up into playable characters?" After a lot of discussion a build was worked out: Bard 4/Barbarian 1/Spellsword 1/Dragonslayer 1/Rage Mage 2/Bear Warrior 1/Sublime Chord 1/Eldritch Knight 9. This grants BAB +17/+12/+7/+2, Charisma-based spontaneous casting of a small number of level 1-9 spells on the bard and sorcerer/wizard spell lists, a limited ability to ignore arcane spell failure, limited bardic knowlege, rage, the ability to cast spells while raging, and the ability to transform into a bear while raging, as well as some other minor abilities that aren't so important.

You might look at that class combination and cringe, thinking "What an overcomplicated, unfocused, dipped mess of a class collection." I look at it and think "This is Rachel Lovato, an energetic and outgoing young woman who's a capable warrior. She can draw on the bestial strength passed down from her father David, the compelling presence and magical talents of Seneca her mother, and the fiery temper she inherited from both. She prefers to get by with her cunning and charm, but she's a bit of a tomboy and likes a good brawl more than is proper for a lady. She hasn't seen as much of the multiverse as her parents, but she learned a little about everything from the stories they told her as a child, and it serves Rachel well in her own adventures." (I also think that from a raw power perspective, a single-classed Druid 20 would defeat Rachel easily.)[/sblock]

This is one aspect I find weird about this forum. For most part, the members here come across as quite likable and rational. But make any mention about optimization, and suddenly, they start descending on you like some angry lynch mob as though I am advocating that they become munchkins and break their own games or something.

No. Optimization is simply letting your character be the best he can be, within the limits set by your own campaign. There is nothing dirty about the O word.

I agree with this post. Well said.

Optimization as such is fine, and it's bizarre to hate or attack someone who likes to create characters that way.

The only time it becomes a problem is when optimizers tell the other players that their characters suck, that they're useless, that they HAVE TO build their character some other way in order to be a decent member of the party. That sort of thing irritates me a lot.