Optimization isn't the Only Road to Effectiveness
In the vein of what I was getting at
earlier, there is a lot of room (a
lot of room) between effective characters and what I'd call optimized characters (alternate terms might be min/maxed or powergamed characters). I'll offer some definitions, so everyone is clear on how I'm framing this proposition:
* 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.
As you can tell from my definitions, I believe that non-optimized characters can make valuable contributions to the group in rules-mechanical ways. This is what I mean by being effective but not being optimized. I'll give an example:
Say I set out to play an effective but not optimized melee'er; it's easy to do: Barbarian with a high strength and a greatsword, plus decent armor, Dex, and Con. Almost everyone agrees that this would be simple and obvious. Two or three feats are oriented at dealing damage, no wacky prestige classes, no particularly combat-oriented race (say, Human), and just taking whatever is sensible out of the party loot and not purchasing any specific magic items. That character is still effective at dealing a lot of melee damage and standing up to a fair quantity of punishment, and that's useful to the adventuring party on a pretty regular basis in standard D&D gameplay.
That and his other talents (skills and other feat selections) would make the character effective enough to warrant inclusion in most D&D campaigns.
This is only one example; there are many others.