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

[WayneLigon]

Optimization took away Dungeon Magazine years ago during the dark Paizo years.

Eh, the minute you choose one feat over another because it enhances something you already do, you're optimizing. It's very difficult not to optimize to some degree when you have choices as to what abilities to take. The degree of optimization is what you're looking at, not optimization itself.

 

[essenbee]

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



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.

Good for you; I have been feeling that roleplaying is dead looking at the number of people who treat it as an exercise in mathematics rather than a game of the imagination. Concept over so-called optimisation is the roleplaying way.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Good for you; I have been feeling that roleplaying is dead looking at the number of people who treat it as an exercise in mathematics rather than a game of the imagination. Concept over so-called optimisation is the roleplaying way.

I think the problem is - we don't roleplay (mostly) when posting about role-playing games. You can't role-play alone at home (at least it's not really satisfying for most). So, people do other stuff. Some build their game worlds. Others optimize their characters.

In the end, all hope to use this later in the game, but that doesn't mean that the worldbuilding DM only wants the players to look at his awesome setting and railroads them through some plot, or the PC just wants to dominate all combat (or social interaction rolls - you can optimize a Bard, after all). That can happen, but does it happen usually?

 

[Nifft]

To avoid stupid choices in 4E, I'd like re-introducing "minimum ability score" requirements for each class (like the Paladin of earlier editions). You just can't become a Fighter if you don't have at least a Strength of 13 (or 15).

It hadn't occurred to me before, but you could view the ability requirements on the multi-classing feats as exactly this.

There are various definitions of Optimization, Power-gaming and Munchkins.

Here's my favorite:

I optimize.
You powergame.
They are munchkins.

Cheers, -- N

 

[DM_Blake]

Well... in 3.5e you could play a weak fighter and focus on the bow...& in any addition your clumsy rogue could focus more on social skills and less on trapfinding (not a far stretch for some games/settings). I'll give you the wizard.

I beg to differ.

While you could do this, the mechanics of 3.5 made bow damage so puny that if you wanted to actually hurt anything you fought, you virtually had to use bows that allowed your STR damage (mighty in 3.0, compound in 3.5) to be added to the damage rolls.

Otherwise, your weak fighter with his bow is doing 1d8+x where x is the enchantment on the bow, and along side him is a strong fighter with a longsword doing 1d8+x+STR, and you'd fall way behind in the damage curve.

At least you could hit things.

But, following your argument, you could still do this without focusing on the bow by simply using the Weapon Finesse feat to use your DEX modifier on your attack rolls with any weapon a "weak" fighter would prefer to use - which kinda invalidates your argument (though again, your damage would be quite a bit less than a real fighter).

 

[DM_Blake]

I call Shenanigans on all this talk of optimization.

If you're a power-gamer (loosely defined as anyone who cares about the statistics and numbers involved in their character) then you're going to optimize - it's intrinsic to the concept of "power-gamer".

If you're a roleplayer, then role-play your character. Think about your character as he relates to his world. Why is he an adventurer? Just so he can die in some far off cave? I doubt it. He knows adventuring is dangerous. He knows he has to bring his A game. He knows he has to make some, preferably many, choices about his training and his knowledge so that he can survive some of these dangers.

If you're roleplaying a suicidal character, make sure you clear this with your DM, and with your fellow players who might not want to die with you.

But if you're roleplaying a character who plans "in character" to seek out danger and find his fortune as an adventurer, then part of the "role" you should be playing should include his desire to survive that danger.

Don't you think?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

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.

Yeah you basically summed up what I really kinda meant with more word that made more sense.

 

[Larrin]

Hmmm.....

See, for me, Optimization is an intentional attempt to achieve 100% power in a specific concept. key words to me are INTENTIONAL and 100%. Optimization is trying to make the best. If its not the best it can be, it isn't optimal! Isn't that what the word means? People who don't optimize can quite easily "try to make a good" or "happen to have some best things". If a 20 STR fighter is optimal, a 18 str fighter isn't 'kida of optimized' or 'optimized to a degree' nor is he 'poorly made' or 'sub-optimal', he's just a pretty good fighter. This happens, it is natural and good. Players should feel free to make good characters without the head-ache of "is this the best possible combo". A non-optimized character can certainly have some of the same qualities as an optimized character, an optimized character simply is REQUIRED to have them (or else it isn't optimal!), and non-optimized character has what-ever the maker wanted.

Optimized does NOT mean the same as effective, good, efficient, playable. Optimized is the best, or at least trying to be. Accusing people who simply made effective, good, efficient, playable choices of optimization renders the word meaningless. Save optimization for describing the level 30 orcus killer, on the wizards who can give the BIGGEST penalty to saving throws., or the mage/fighter who can get the maximum benefit from its classes. Then the word will have meaning.

 

[jimtillman]

I agree, 100%. I'm sick of optimizing power gaming number crunchers ruining my fun.


They got creamed in fights because the DM was an idiot who didn't tailor the encounters to the group.

to be fair it was hard in 3rd to take a party that had characters like thoses listed and balance a cr fight around them, it could of course be done but it was easy to get the party in over its head. the system assumed certian things such as a party of 6th level characters having fireball level spells, some characters with babs of +6, certian level of magic items etc

 

[jimtillman]

What I find funny is people keep referencing "The weak fighter with a fat charisma".

Isn't that just a Warlord? A fighter who isn't that impressive with a sword, but who is greatly charismatic?

A weak-str but dextrous fighter is a, well, a rogue.

4th allows you to make a perfectly functional light fighter with high dex and mid level str.