Optimizers, oh my!

[CroBob]

Ah no, power-optimizers are about being better than core, better than average, better better better.

So? How's that a bad thing? Even in only core, allowing exclusively PHB options in 3.5, the wizard is vastly more powerful than the fighter anyway, so who cares about trying to balance things in a mixed party in the first place, and how does it prevent him from being an active and fun RPer?

 

[Sunseeker]

You sure you can.

And that's why we're having this discussion.

Ah no, power-optimizers are about being better than core, better than average, better better better. A dual-flail-wielding fighter would work out fine in my game. Disarming with one attack than attacking with another doesn't sound bad at all. I once had a female barbarian who liked to use a whip and shield, or whip and weapon combo. Worked out fine and it was an interesting character overall. I actually like it when characters have interesting ideas. So I guess I haven't ran into any "traps" that needs to power-optimized away. To make it clear again, power-optimization is about being better, squeezing out more power, not about maintaining the status quo (that's one thing it is differently not about). The status quo is met by NOT power-optimizing any characters unless everyone power-optimizes including the creatures and enemies of the game world.

I'm getting a distinct feeling of moving the goalposts here.

In 3.5, as in other editions or other games, some classes are significantly less powerful than others in various areas of the game. To some this is a feature, not a bug, what it truly is will always be a matter of opinion, but if you build to any given classes strengths, utility wizards, skillful rogues, meatshield fighters, you are inherently optimizing. What differentiates this from powerbuilding? The desire to for more?

No again, the game is completely playable by a power-optimizers they just expect something different. It's just my style of DMing. I'm not penalizing them deliberately or need to. They soon realize after a few sessions that power-optimizing was pointless.

Do they? I think it's fair to say the expectations of people who power-build are as different as their results. My friend, who specifically builds to "roll lots of dice" because he enjoys that sort of thing may always be looking for "more", but that doesn't make him a poor RPer, in fact his RP is some of the best in my game, among people who I generally regard as being very qualified RPers.

But back to "what they are looking for", to be better than anyone else? Maybe. He certainly does an incredible amount of damage. Is he looking to have others look upon him as a God of the game? No. That's just his thing. What does he expect the game to do about it? Maybe he doesn't want a life-and-death challenge. Even among non-optimizers how possible death should be varies. Maybe he just wants to take on powerful monsters and kick ass? Well, I give them that at times. Does that justify his power-building? No. I would have done that anyway. What's the point in being a hero if you don't do heroic things?

If your players are finding that their playstyle is pointless, that's certainly an introspection issue, because the reasons are different for different people. In your game, perhaps people really only want to be more awesome than anyone else, and if that is their case, I feel sorry for them.

It's not sad, It's just my experienced opinion. The problem seems to be that people don't want the definition of optimizer to be objective. I, on the other hand, do and so I talk about the power-optimizer only.

It's a game played by people. There is no objective answer, there cannot be, because perceptions differ, experiences differ. As mathematical as the game gets, the only thing objective that can be said about power-builders is that their characters are powerful.

Furthermore, I don't understand your objection to a player desiring for "more". Isn't that why the game has levels? Why stats increase? Why classes provide more and greater options as a player progresses? Why dungeon crawls, one-shots, and campaigns provide bigger and more impressive challenges?

Speaking "objectivly", part of the purpose of D&D is to grow in power. Be that power of the pen or the sword. And the game provides incentive for players to want to keep progressing, a proverbial "carrot on a stick". So to say that is it badwrongfun for a player to desire more is contrary to basic principles of the game.

 

[pemerton]

In a well designed system the difference between the power a character that someone comes up with with no knowledge of the game at all but picking what looks as if it fits a strong concept and a completely min/maxed character should be low. If the difference is too high, this is because the system is fundamentally broken somewhere.

I agree with this.

Try to make a more powerful character in Traveller by using every little advantage the rule books offer, because what you get out of a career is quite random.Try to make a more powerful character in Runequest because advancement gets harder as your skill increases. Try to make a Heroquest character more powerful through taking advantage of the system because the system works against you to limit a combination of power and versatility in the same ability. And those are just three RPG examples, two extremely well known.

I'm glad you mentioned these, as I was going to post the same three examples! And there are other games too.

3E D&D is fairly distinctive, I think, in making PC build be a major site for expressing skill at the game. Moldvay Basic, for example, is very different in this respect, and so is 4e (for the sorts of reasons Neonchameleon has pointed out).

I never understand this viewpoint. A well-intentioned amateur should be just as good at a game as a seasoned expert?

It favors something, doesn't it? It favors whoever has more talent or puts more work into winning, among other things.

These posts, to me, seem to exhibit the idea that PC building is part of playing the game with skill. Whereas I think that PC building should be about finding the way, within the system, to express the PC you want to play - and if a beginner is having trouble, it's the job of the other players, and the GM, to help out.

I also have a strong reason for disliking the constraints "don't optimise" puts on roleplaying.

Me too, though maybe for a slightly different reason.

I like a game in which I, as GM, push the players hard and they, playing their PCs, push back. If the PC build rules don't deliver mechanically viable (and at least somewhat comparable, in terms of their impacts on play) PCs, this playstyle will break down.

If I as GM, or the players in playing their PCs, regularly have to hold back, then the playstyle breaks down - because now we're not all pushing hard any more, but instead moving into some sort of fuzzy "cooperative storytelling" zone.

If I, as GM, have to fiat things to make the game work, then the playstyle I prefer breaks down, as now its my decisions, not the players' decisions, that are determining resolution.

Now if a few marginal mechanical subsystems don't meet my specifications, of course we can all just ignore them (eg banning individual broken items, or feats, is easy), or reach some gentlemen's agreements in respect of them. But if the game has problems in fundamental ways, it's a different story.

This is why I very much liked [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION]'s posts upthread, which characterised optimisation as poking the broken arm of bad rules. Although, because I think I'm coming from a different play preference to delericho's, my solution is different - rather than trying to moderate the optimisation, I prefer to change systems!

 

[pemerton]

The problem with optimizers is that most of the time their character is planned out in advance and they will stick to that plan no matter if it fits or makes sense for the campaign they are in.

That's never been my experience. Apart from anything else, sensible optimisation involves changing your plans in response to new evidence!

Sure, in character, that thief who lives on the street has never been in a fight in his life and he got swept up in some plot to kill the king and is traveling with a rag tag group of adventurers who are beset by challenges they've never knew they'd have to face. However, out of character, you knew the DM was going to be throwing those challenges against you

I liked this, and agree that the metagame has to be distinguished from the fiction.

The answer to the particular situation you describe, in my view, is that the thief who has never been in a fight in his life is nevertheless built by the player as combat capable. When that comes out in play, it just gets narrated as beginner's luck!

In 4e, you could even build that thief as a lazy warlord with a bit of thief or bard multiclass.

The way I look at it, if the game "needs" fun character creation, then it's because the play itself is not fun enough. I consider fiddling around with character builds to be basically the player's equivalent of the DM toiling away on setting details that will never be important for play. It's the sort of pointless, not-really-playing time-waster that I don't think the game should encourage. Character creation is not the main course of D&D, it's just an appetizer.

I don't completely agree with this - I think it is important, in a heroic fantasy RPG, that players be able to build PCs that express their desired character conceptions - but I definitely agree that PC building is not play.

combat options tend to be the most expensive, most complicated parts of the game. It's possible to be very very good at combat, but we don't ever expect people to become unstoppable. By comparison, the rules for these other aspects of the game, like for instance diplomacy, or even trapfinding, are simple, and even a moderate investment results in absolute domination if the rules as followed as written.

For me, that's indicative of a bad ruleset - that it lets people build PCs which break the action resolution mechanics.

There are at least two solutions - change the PC build rules to reduce the capacity for the sort of specialisation you are talking about, or change the action resolution rules to make them more robust. 4e went for a bit of the first and a lot of the second.

 

[Ahnehnois]

These posts, to me, seem to exhibit the idea that PC building is part of playing the game with skill.

Yes. In fact, I'd say that besides being arguably the most fun part of the game, it's also the part that involves the most skill.

Whereas I think that PC building should be about finding the way, within the system, to express the PC you want to play - and if a beginner is having trouble, it's the job of the other players, and the GM, to help out.

Well, I do think the other players and the DM should be helping, but I think that building a PC is naturally an involved process where things can either go very right or very wrong. It's the time when you have the widest spectrum of choices. It's the time when you actually read and use the rulebooks. It's generally the time when you have the most freedom to go off the book.

If anything, I think that players learn to express their characters during play, and that it should be easier to do that, which is the problem with metagame mechanics. Asking a player to track how many uses of something they have or understand tactical positioning on a battlegrid is counterproductive unless the character would also have to understand those things; a player who has built (perhaps with aid) a good fighter, should simply be able to describe a logical course of actions (I attack) and achieve the desired result.

This concept really touches on-outside of D&D-the broad "nature vs nurtue" discussion.

 

[B.T.]

Ah no, power-optimizers are about being better than core, better than average, better better better. A dual-flail-wielding fighter would work out fine in my game. Disarming with one attack than attacking with another doesn't sound bad at all.

Lol, this character would be mechanically awful. You'd have to handwave dice rolls to make up for such a hugely ineffective character.

1. Dual-wielding is weaksauce in 3e, and you'd have huge penalties for not wielding a light weapon in your off-hand.

2. Disarming is hard to pull off on opponents you're going to want to disarm (big dudes with weapons) and it's not going to affect the rest (things that bite).

3. Loss of damage due to not full attacking.

You're better off just making a by-the-book greatsword fighter. That's not how the game should be, but that's how 3e is built.

I once had a female barbarian who liked to use a whip and shield, or whip and weapon combo. Worked out fine and it was an interesting character overall.

There should be mechanical support for a whip-and-shield or whip-and-weapon character. These options should be supported, and they should be mechanically balanced against the great weapon barbarian. Unfortunately, 3e doesn't do this--not well, at least. A whip-wielding barbarian is terrible on so many different levels. Low damage, ineffective Power Attack, ability score requirements, and feat investment all make that character mechanically weak.

 

[billd91]

Lol, this character would be mechanically awful. You'd have to handwave dice rolls to make up for such a hugely ineffective character.

1. Dual-wielding is weaksauce in 3e, and you'd have huge penalties for not wielding a light weapon in your off-hand.

2. Disarming is hard to pull off on opponents you're going to want to disarm (big dudes with weapons) and it's not going to affect the rest (things that bite).

3. Loss of damage due to not full attacking.

You're better off just making a by-the-book greatsword fighter. That's not how the game should be, but that's how 3e is built.

Thank you for that demonstration of why a lot of people don't like optimizers.

 

[B.T.]

Thank you for that demonstration of why a lot of people don't like optimizers.

I know, right? Having an ineffective character is not fun. Having someone tell you your character is terrible is less so. It's why the game should be balanced, so that jerks like me don't come in and ruin everything. Because if you're playing your dual-disarming flail fighter, there's a chance someone I'm going to play a greatsword fighter and do everything you want to do but way better, or I might just play a self-buffing war cleric or a polymorphing wizard or a druid and do everything your character does while having spells left over to do fancy tricks.

That I can do that is a problem with the system. The fact that you can't play your dual-wielding flail disarming fighter without being outclassed by the person who happened to pick a class with 9th-level spells is a flaw with the system.

 

[billd91]

I know, right? Having an ineffective character is not fun.

Back up right there. Just because it is less effective as devoting a lot of effort to a great sword doesn't mean it is ineffective. That's the conceit of the tunnel vision optimizer.
As a DM, I'd encourage the PC to not not dual-wield a pair of flails (a light weapon really would be better in the off hand), but there's nothing wrong with dual wielding in general. Plus, a lot depends on the campaign. If you're fighting huge beasts a lot, sure a greatsword is better. But if the campaign deals mostly with humanoid-types of opponents that depend on their own weapons, a disarm/strike routine could be pretty effective. It does damage and denies return attacks.

That I can do that is a problem with the system. The fact that you can't play your dual-wielding flail disarming fighter without being outclassed by the person who happened to pick a class with 9th-level spells is a flaw with the system.

Outclassed by whose standards and for doing what? Is the disarming flail-wielder having fun? If so, who cares if the wizard can do some pretty powerful things?

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Back up right there. Just because it is less effective as devoting a lot of effort to a great sword doesn't mean it is ineffective. That's the conceit of the tunnel vision optimizer.
As a DM, I'd encourage the PC to not not dual-wield a pair of flails (a light weapon really would be better in the off hand), but there's nothing wrong with dual wielding in general. Plus, a lot depends on the campaign. If you're fighting huge beasts a lot, sure a greatsword is better. But if the campaign deals mostly with humanoid-types of opponents that depend on their own weapons, a disarm/strike routine could be pretty effective. It does damage and denies return attacks.

Outclassed by whose standards and for doing what? Is the disarming flail-wielder having fun? If so, who cares if the wizard can do some pretty powerful things?

Just going along with the concept of dual-wielding flails, the character would need TWF and Oversized TWF as well as needing Combat Expertise going into Improved Disarm. The good news is disarm is an attack action so it doesn't prevent full attacks at all. It does somewhat negate using the first attack for Power Attack, but with 1h weapons that's probably not a fully effective route especially once higher weapon damage means accuracy is more important.

Whether the concept itself is effective will depend highly on the campaign and how the DM does things, yes. The perception of TWF being weaker is one of it being provably lower damage than going 2h except for with stuff like Sneak Attack optimizing. If the player is okay with that and it doesn't hold back the rest of the team then that's okay.