Optimized and Non-Optimized in the same group.

[ForeverSlayer]

As long as you accept that everything I say is right and true, we won't have an argument.

Well it's hard to accept what you know is wrong, so I'm afraid I can't even give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Horatio]

I have 2 optimisers, 1 genuinely bad lucker non-optimiser, and one regular non-optimiser in the group I DM for. I just tailor the encounters so in average, everyone has his/her spotlight, excitement, and usefullness, as well as hard time and troubles.

I even went so far as granting our bad lucker (explanation: no matter what die he uses, his average on d20 is around 5.9, we actually took the time to write them down in several seesions and his best average for one session was 7.1) a special background "feat", named (you guess it) Badlucker, causing him, but also his enemies, haveing bad luck. Now his rolls don't have to be adjusted, since he already has "the curse", I just adjust the numbers of NPCs/monsters nearby him (and NPCs in non combat situations too).

And since I'm blessed with good players, they, too, sometimes play along, roleplaying a jinx here and there while being physically close to him.

 

[S'mon]

I know people who NEVER EVER act 'in character', and yet are excellent role players...

Does not compute...

 

[Geffor]

The Bad Lucker

1 genuinely bad lucker

We have one of those too

We worked round this by heavily optimising their character for combat (high bonuses, multiple rolls etc.) while the rest of the party members are substantially less focused. This means that encounters are satisfying for all and the party functions nicely as a whole.

Having good players really helps doesn't it

 

[Argyle King]

I've had some problems with it both from the player side of the table and the DM chair.

In one of the games I was running, I had one player who was hitting on single digit rolls, and then there was another player who could barely hit anything (my memory is fuzzy, but I think he had a 14 or 16 in his primary stat, was using an axe, and a few other things; I asked why he put a high score in one of the abilities he didn't need, and he said he made the character he wanted to roleplay...) This meant that there were some fights where one member of the party had a hard time contributing, and he was visibly frustrated by it; especially when he'd look over at the other player rolling like dirt and still hitting.

As a player, I've been on both sides of the coin. One of my first few D&D 4E characters turned out pretty horrible. I understood the concept of primary stats, but I didn't realize that it was so important to pump up that number (this was before expertise or any of those options.) I arranged my stats in a way that were how I saw the character. After that, I slowly learned that I needed to number crunch more than I was doing with 4E.

On the other hand, I've also have a wizard character of mine who comes to mind who I had to intentionally hold back with. I didn't intend to uber-optimize (even though I did make more of an effort to number crunch at this point) or anything; the pieces I picked just seemed to fall into place and mesh well. There were times when I would do nothing or choose subpar options (like trying to punch and kick) during the first few rounds so as to give the rest of the party a chance to do something rather than just having my character dominate the encounter.

 

[Pentius]

I've had some problems with it both from the player side of the table and the DM chair.

In one of the games I was running, I had one player who was hitting on single digit rolls, and then there was another player who could barely hit anything (my memory is fuzzy, but I think he had a 14 or 16 in his primary stat, was using an axe, and a few other things; I asked why he put a high score in one of the abilities he didn't need, and he said he made the character he wanted to roleplay...) This meant that there were some fights where one member of the party had a hard time contributing, and he was visibly frustrated by it; especially when he'd look over at the other player rolling like dirt and still hitting.

As a player, I've been on both sides of the coin. One of my first few D&D 4E characters turned out pretty horrible. I understood the concept of primary stats, but I didn't realize that it was so important to pump up that number (this was before expertise or any of those options.) I arranged my stats in a way that were how I saw the character. After that, I slowly learned that I needed to number crunch more than I was doing with 4E.

On the other hand, I've also have a wizard character of mine who comes to mind who I had to intentionally hold back with. I didn't intend to uber-optimize (even though I did make more of an effort to number crunch at this point) or anything; the pieces I picked just seemed to fall into place and mesh well. There were times when I would do nothing or choose subpar options (like trying to punch and kick) during the first few rounds so as to give the rest of the party a chance to do something rather than just having my character dominate the encounter.

Hmmm...you remind me of my own first 4e experiences. I was playing a mechanically terrible defender(assault swordmage, trying my hardest to be a Striker). I stand by the character concept, it was fun as hell, but I was playing it pretty badly(except my funny, faux-Russian accent. That killed)). Our party Striker(a Twin Strike Ranger, no less) was optimizing well, and the smaller gap between our characters* showed me that I could go ahead and optimize if I wanted to. The game could handle it. Maybe it's because I was fresh off of 3.5, where imbalance meant CoDzilla vs. single-classed Fighter.

 

[SSquirrel]

We have one of those too

We worked round this by heavily optimising their character for combat (high bonuses, multiple rolls etc.) while the rest of the party members are substantially less focused. This means that encounters are satisfying for all and the party functions nicely as a whole.

Having good players really helps doesn't it

We're running Revenge of the Giants and I have a Halfling Rogue Daggermaster. He's heavily optimized to the point where against most of our enemies, I hit on a 4, 2 w/combat advantage. If I charge, it's even better. Of course, last session I still missed w/3 attacks in a row. There's a reason I optimized him so heavily, my rolls SUCK!

 

[Nullzone]

ITT: Trolls trolling trolls


On topic, everyone interested in this issue should read this. tl;dr- CharOp matters far less than group tactics and teamwork. A poorly optimized group that works together will be more effective than a super optimized one that doesn't. The only exception is blatantly bad choices, like giving a two-weapon ranger bow expertise.