Not Everyone is Interested in Powergaming [merged]

[Warren Okuma]

And the 20th Wiz I posted is absolutely not optimized, and utterly useless. In fact Mu-Mu calls your barbarian an optimized, power gaming, munchkin.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Behold the Mu-mu min-min build...

Halfling Wizard level 20 (Commoner is way too easy)
Feats: Four bonus feats: Empower Spell, Enlarge Spell, Extend Spell, Heighten Spell,
Level feats: Maximize Spell, Quicken Spell, Silent Spell, Improved Counter Spell, Scribe Scroll, Widen Spell, Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration.
Weapons: None.
Skills: Swimming (Cross class) Level 11, Jumping (Cross class) Level 1/2 (not there yet.). (Skills are at is -16, due to no armor proficiencies)
Equipment: Has -1 full plate (so he can sleep in armor... he can't take it off), and -1 tower shield (so he always has it ready) he has a spell failure rate of 85%, and he punches without improved unarmed attack so he provokes and attack of opportunity (and cannot do lethal damage, or use spells) the rest he keeps on his self, plus spell book.
Spells: None. Too stupid.
Tactics: Punch
Stats (elite array, point buy too easy)
Str 11-2 = 9
Dex13+2 (Halfling) =15
Con 12
IQ 8
Wiz 14 (so he knows he is silly)
Chr 15+5 (level) = 20 (so he can recruit others)
BAC +10/+5
ref 8, fort 7, wil 14 (ah well)
-6 armor check penalty full plate, -10 armor check penalty tower shield, -2 for tower shield encumbrance penalty, -1 for str, for a total penalty of -19.
Thus Moo-moo has a -9/-14 to hit melee.
Unarmed damage 1D2+1 subdual.
AC 10 +1 (dex)+1 (size)-2 (curse)+12 (armor/shield bonus)=22 Ah well, touch is AC10.
Hit Points: 72

Just what are you trying to prove here? There is a middle ground where characters are effective and useful, not just the categories "Optimised" and "Largely useless at their role"/

Incidentally, Mu-mu would be dealing normal damage with his unarmed strike since he's wearing full plate. Full plate comes with gauntlets. Unless he left them at home, of course.

 

[Warren Okuma]

Just what are you trying to prove here?

That this is a min-min build, one of the more anti-optimized builds.

There is a middle ground where characters are effective and useful, not just the categories "Optimised" and "Largely useless at their role".

Yes.

Incidentally, Mu-mu would be dealing normal damage with his unarmed strike since he's wearing full plate. Full plate comes with gauntlets. Unless he left them at home, of course.

Good call. I get to save another pound! Woo hoo!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The dwarf barbarian I mentioned above, for example - he was not optimized. He didn't have PA, WF: Greatsword and Cleave. However, he could pass almost any saving throw shot at him, which meant he was there for the entire fight, and was thus an effective character

He was optimised for saving throws. As a dwarf, he gets +2 to many (probably most) saves ha has to make, his con helps, and the class with its rage ability is also good for this. Finally, he used feats to get even better saves.

 

[jasin]

* Effective characters: Characters that are useful to their adventuring parties on a regular basis, in many or few ways.
* Optimized characters: Characters that are designed by careful intent to approach maximization of usefulness in a small number of ways or one specific way.

So, would you say that a human paragon/wizard/loremaster is effective or optimized or both or neither?

He gives up a level of spellcasting to get a 8 more hp (somewhat irrelevant later, but a nice boost at low levels), diplomacy as a class skill forever, some ranks in other non-wizard skills (mostly to get synergies to diplomacy, a head start on UMD before getting into loremaster, and search to fill in for the rogue) and +2 to Int (improves save DCs and spells per day, so it offsets the lost spellcasting a bit, and give yet more skills). Also, free MWP. Loremaster gets even more skills, and improves saves (through secrets).

It's a character designed by careful intent to be useful to his adventuring party, but the very point of the careful intent is making him useful in more ways than he would be if designed the "obvious" way (straight wizard), even if that means he is a bit less useful in his primary role.

And another question: is the "optimized" label about the process or the result? If you bend over backwards to make the best halfling barbarian/bard you can, he'll probably end up less effective than a casually built half-orc barbarian. Which of these is (more) optimized?

To me it seems this is just pointless quibbling over semantics. Optimized is the new minmaxed is the new munchkin: the term you use to note your disapproval of the power level of a character, with the threshold varying wildly even for the same person depending on their opinions of the character concept, the other player's personality, the way they think the game should be played...

 

[billd91]

He was optimised for saving throws. As a dwarf, he gets +2 to many (probably most) saves ha has to make, his con helps, and the class with its rage ability is also good for this. Finally, he used feats to get even better saves.

I don't think we can say he was optimized for saving throws without knowing where his highest stats went. He was built with an emphasis on saving throws. But to be optimized for saving throws, I would say his best stats would have to be in Con, Dex, and Wis.

 

[billd91]

So, would you say that a human paragon/wizard/loremaster is effective or optimized or both or neither?

He gives up a level of spellcasting to get a 8 more hp (somewhat irrelevant later, but a nice boost at low levels), diplomacy as a class skill forever, some ranks in other non-wizard skills (mostly to get synergies to diplomacy, a head start on UMD before getting into loremaster, and search to fill in for the rogue) and +2 to Int (improves save DCs and spells per day, so it offsets the lost spellcasting a bit, and give yet more skills). Also, free MWP. Loremaster gets even more skills, and improves saves (through secrets).

It's a character designed by careful intent to be useful to his adventuring party, but the very point of the careful intent is making him useful in more ways than he would be if designed the "obvious" way (straight wizard), even if that means he is a bit less useful in his primary role.

And another question: is the "optimized" label about the process or the result? If you bend over backwards to make the best halfling barbarian/bard you can, he'll probably end up less effective than a casually built half-orc barbarian. Which of these is (more) optimized?

To me it seems this is just pointless quibbling over semantics. <snip>

I don't think it's a pointless quibble. There is a wide gulf between effective and optimized and a different process behind each.
Whether or not a PC is effective or not is proven by the way things play out. If the PC has been proven to be a contributer in the party, he's effective whatever else the build may indicate. It doesn't mean he can't get better at various things or become even more effective at certain things.
An optimized PC, if the situation for what he's built for never comes up, may well be an ineffective PC in the end. Optimization is always toward a specific goal. It might be toward making diplomacy checks or toward dishing out melee damage or, in the case above with the halfling barbarian/bard, toward being the best singing berserker this side of the Crystalmist Mountains. But even that doesn't guarantee effectiveness. Nor is there any way to really optimize a PC for everything, there's always a trade-off.

 

[Odhanan]

My problem between powergaming and role-playing is which seems to be the strongest factor in character creation.

This kind of consideration is faulty in my opinion, because it considers that one is different from the other, or worse, one is the opposite of the other.

I don't consider it that way. I think that both can coexist and both can be prime concerns of the player. If a character is optimized, it does not mean it has no or less potential for role-playing. If the character has a dramatic concept filled with potential role-playing hooks for the campaign, it does not mean it is ineffective mechanically speaking, or that the player can't appreciate the acquisition of levels, capacities and items.

 

[hong]

I don't think it's a pointless quibble. There is a wide gulf between effective and optimized and a different process behind each.
Whether or not a PC is effective or not is proven by the way things play out. If the PC has been proven to be a contributer in the party, he's effective whatever else the build may indicate. It doesn't mean he can't get better at various things or become even more effective at certain things.
An optimized PC, if the situation for what he's built for never comes up, may well be an ineffective PC in the end. Optimization is always toward a specific goal. It might be toward making diplomacy checks or toward dishing out melee damage or, in the case above with the halfling barbarian/bard, toward being the best singing berserker this side of the Crystalmist Mountains. But even that doesn't guarantee effectiveness. Nor is there any way to really optimize a PC for everything, there's always a trade-off.

If what you mean is that characters can be SPECIALISED, then why not use that word, instead of inventing more auxiliary meanings for an already-overloaded and connotation-heavy word?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I don't think we can say he was optimized for saving throws without knowing where his highest stats went. He was built with an emphasis on saving throws. But to be optimized for saving throws, I would say his best stats would have to be in Con, Dex, and Wis.

I can say a lot of things

I bet he did have decent scores in those stats, and if not, he was moderately optimised. Moptimised, so to say.