Optimizers, oh my!

[Dannyalcatraz]

Are you arguing against the things I'm saying or just arguing to argue? The point itself is primarily hypothetical, but theoretically possible.

The main things I'm arguing about are:

1) language: it does not help persuade others to your side if you use demeaning terminology like "silly" or "gimp". It does the opposite. In the particular, it makes me wonder if you are the kind of optimizer I dislike.

2) attitude: that assumption that one way is better than another. When I got into this hobby back in 1977, you made your character, then sat down and played the game with your buddies. Nobody gave a bag of rats asses if you did things a bit off, like used a short sword as your primary weapon instead of a 2 hander or if you used some of the weirder spells in the game. Over time, in certain games like 3.5Ed (my favorite version of D&D), there arose a new attitude- if your character wasn't combat optimized in some way, you were letting everyone down. I don't buy that. It's a roleplaying game, not a wargame; it is a group game, not a team game.

Do the other players like pulling your weight as well as their own?

My PCs always contribute, but not necessarily in combat, and not necessarily in the way people expect. For the most part, people I game with are mature enough to realize that not every member of the group need be equally capable on the battlefield.

Again, if the DM has no problem with my PC, what business is it of yours what I'm playing? In LotR, they didn't have a test to see which hobbit(s) they thought could make the trip.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Lots of cowardly fighters out there? I've seen one done, well, and that's about it. A Paladin taking him under his wing, giving him some guts, and getting him moving. Just basic character development.

I've played with a couple of cowardly fighters/paladins/rangers. Mostly played by the same player, but there's another one likes to make his characters pretty cowardly as well.

He just doesn't like his characters to die, so he plays them very defensively. He'll do a "Vampires? They can drain your life. I don't want to be near them. I hang outside in the hallway and I delay my action." And the rest of the party will run in and nearly die because the one person with all the armor and hitpoints refused to enter combat. He likely will enter battle the 3rd round of most combats, after he sees that there is a chance of winning and when at least a couple of enemies are dead.

It's extremely frustrating. It has caused a number of In Character arguments that quickly escalated into OOC arguments.

And the Pacifist Priest? Between healing, blessings, and protection, and other means a cleric does have the ability to just not need to actually battle... And could again provide for a great type.

I've played with this character as well. Though played a lot more obsessively Pacifist. Helping people in combat in any way was a breach of his idea of pacifism. Protection spells were a no go, after all, he wasn't supposed to be HELPING you defeat monsters, that's violence. He even refused to heal us while were were still up. After all, healing us would allow us to continue with the violence.

The only thing we got from him was that he'd run forward to one of us when we dropped unconscious and stabilize us. After combat was over, he'd heal us. Then he'd give us a lecture about fighting and how it was evil.

He ended up dying to some monsters when they attacked him and he wouldn't fight back. No one mourned him.

If those two characters can't go, and you don't want them? That's fine... People leave your game. But burning too many of the slightly offbeat character types will give you the DM karma that brings about a Cavalcade of Mary Sues.

I know I LIKE archetypes and would much prefer a game of entirely stereotypes than one filled with characters that don't mesh with what D&D is. People who are bad at combat or completely non-heroic are the kind of characters I can't stand in my games.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm sure it would be possible to build a version of 3e (admittedly, heavily revised) in which the major discrepancies were eliminated. But the problem is that if I can slap together a character at random using just my PHB, and have it be close to as good as the best possible option, where's my motivation to spend another $1,500 on all the rest of the books to get that best possible option?

I think the motivation in this case is more, new, and different options. You might be bored of playing Fighters, but that new Mechromancer class sounds like something you'd like to try. It isn't more powerful, but you get to animate robots and attack people with them. That's AWESOME.

Or you are just happen to really want to try a different type of fighter, one that fights barehanded that didn't have rules support before then.

The same applies to 3e: yes, in an ideal world I would simply switch to a far better edition of the game that doesn't have the underlying issues, in which case it wouldn't matter if people shone a bright light on quadratic wizards, the item creation rules, high-level play, and so on. Sadly, there is no such edition. If the choices are "play on with a broken edition" or "don't play on at all" - given that there is no prospect of the edition ever being fixed - what do you choose?

Of course, I disagree about there not being an edition that fixes most of these problems. However, even from my point of view of liking 4e, it isn't immune to issues either. As time goes on, it is receiving the same powercreep that 3.5e did and some of the same issues are coming up(although, I admit, to a lesser extent than they did in my 3.5e game).

I have a character in 4e who, when he charges turns invisible and gets so many bonuses that he hits enemies 3 levels above him on a 2 and does nearly half their health in damage due to powergaming. Then, his defenses go up so high that monsters can't hit him. It's become no fun to run encounters since they are not even a challenge.

Not quite as bad as the average encounter at the end of 3.5e when the powergamers in our group would kill demons whose CR was 4 above the average level of the party in round one before it got to act.

I'm looking forward to D&D Next if mainly for a system that will, at least at the start not be broken this way. But I keep playing with the broken system I have, so I know the feeling.

 

[MoonSong]

Not really. The 3e approach is as you describe. The 4e approach isn't broken stuff. It's to expand the range of detailed playable options with every new splatbook that comes out. Brawler fighters aren't broken in any way - but they are really worth having and it's inspiring to see sword and fist done properly. You might have bought 3e splat books for broken stuff. You buy 4e ones for good balanced options (which might explain why fewer books were produced).



Honestly, most of that was that the PHB1 and DMG1 were seriously under-playtested.



Because you can't slap a brawler fighter together with either the 3e or the 4e PHB and not have it be a bad joke. Neither edition's PHB will do Bravura (reckless) Warlords. Or self-harming invokers.



I'd say that both oD&D and 4e are a whole lot less broken than 3e.



I'd say that's a lot less frustrating than the 4e situation where the "flaws" highlighted by edition warriors are normally things that are straight up misconceptions about the game - and few of the anti-4e lobby seem willing to be corrected when they have flat out said what happens is the opposite of what the rulebooks say.



No. It's degrees and degrees. A well intentioned amateur should be able to sit down at the table with a seasoned expert and neither look nor feel like a supernumerary. D&D is largely cooperative and the difference shouldn't be at the level where the amateur's PC makes very little difference as to whether the amateur is there or not. I'm always going to be a strong player - I don't want to make others feel pointless because of it.



Once more I say you mean 3e character optimisation leads to the same (boring) results. With 4e the range is narrow enough and there are enough benefits given with most concepts that two 4e fighters can look almost as different as a 3e illusionist who's banned evocation and conjuration, and a 3e evoker who only casts direct damage spells. Probably more different given that both the wizards wear simmilar armour and cast from a spellbook while one of the fighters can be a rapier and dagger armed burglar with more skill proficiency than a 3e rogue and wearing studded leather armour - and the other a polearm wielder who sends the enemy flying while wearing scale. Given that the best way to optimise in 4e is to take any concept and turn it up to 11, it does not lead to the same (boring) results unless the concept is "highest dpr".



Fallacy of the excluded middle. What is being asked for is that the edge achieved in character creation should be small. You'll always get a reward for system mastery if there are any choices to be made. Getting rid of it is impossible - and undesirable.

And in 4e the direct competative edge is fairly small. The reward for system mastery is the ability to easily make offbeat concepts that are competative. To take one trivial example, I believe Frank Trollman has been known to claim that you can't play a lightly armed spear and shield figher in the 4e PHB. This is entirely false - the options are there and very effective in the PHB, but you need system mastery to notice that powers such as Rain of Blows and Armour Piercing Thrust synergise with the spear and with high dexterity in such a way as to make up for the poor weapon and going for light armour. This is where 4e rewards system mastery. Beginners get decent characters using the options that are presented obviously (for a fighter that would be heavily armoured sword and board and two handed sword in the PHB), experts can either make their sword and board fighters about 10% stronger - or make less obvious builds such as polearm fighters or light armour, spear, and shield sing.

We haven't got rid of system mastery or even tried to. We've just made it so not having it doesn't reduce peoples' fun at the table.

Which makes the entire remainder of your criticism irrelevant.

Let me get this straight, you are just saying "system mastery no longer leads you to uber power but rather to play charater concepts that didn't needed it before"? that is even worse. Elven Rogue archer is so iconic I shouldn't need to wait for 10 splatbooks before it is viable! It is entirely possible on Ad&D, 2nd ed and 3.x from phb alone, and it has so much easy synergies it is trivially easy to be one, 4e made the big sin of assuming people only want to play stereotypes, and many things remained broken all the way through the edition.

System mastery is unavoidable, not very likeable for many, but actively oppossing it ends up harming fun and interacting on weird ways. 4e's constant stream of nerfs was annoying. Your group is having fun with two lazy warlords and a bunch of strikers? too bad, now the nerf stick says you are breaking the math and your warlords get in the way of each other as a result. Did your storm sorcerer had fun counting the times he hit with a storm power for the purposes of Echoes of Thunder? too bad the guys in charge had a change of heart and turned it into a dull +1 to damage. On a complex system, every change you make has overarching and unforeseen consecuences, and most of the consecuences are suffered by the groups that play "unapproved" game styles. If you don't play one of the few officially sanctioned cookie cuters, you have to develop system mastery and be preppared to face the fact your character will just stop working without a warning. 4e didn't got rid of system mastery, it just made it mandatory and it does reduce fun at the table.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I consider that a faulty assumption and pretty much all game systems with substantial customization options, particularly point-based systems, would qualify as poorly designed under that assumption. Frankly, I have too much respect born from experience for both Champions and Mutants and Masterminds and their ability to handle superhero (and other) genres to buy into that assumption.

As a fan of GURPS, I couldn't disagree more. The point buy is one of the two weakest parts. And I don't know Champions, but claiming that M&M covers the superhero genre well is really not in line with my experience (which is, admittedly, of 1e). Knowing how many ranks in a given skill Batman has is not in line with the superhero genre; he's the Goddamn Batman. You just assume he's trained in ... just about anything and move on. When I wanted to do my professional stage magician street level PC in M&M I forget how many skills she took. In MHRP I'd just say "Covert d10, Psych d8" and give her "Watch the hand" as a distinction, and move on. I wouldn't be spending points on escape artist, bluff, sleight of hand, etc. And that isn't how superhero comics or movies work.

As for the point buy actually being balanced, yeaaaahhhh. It claims to be. Generic and point buy doesn't mix (see the GURPS ultratech/strength issues for a clear example; a TL11 form fitting suit can give you a strength of 80 - way into the superpowered brick range). Point buy is only balanced along the single axis that the points were designed for. And I speak as someone with more GURPS books on his shelf than any other system.

The reason that optimizers get a lot of negativity is that min/maxers are considered optimizers, and the entire WotC forum devoted to character optimization was a canker sore on the hobby. The prevailing attitudes therein reinforced the idea that D&D was a numbers game. (When one of your core optimization conceits involve clerics taping nightsticks to themselves, you may have a problem.)

The CharOp forum was at times ridiculous. It was also the area that best understood how the rules of the game worked. It was therefore invaluable if you didn't take it seriously.

Whenever this happens, I have to ask "Where's the effing GM and why isn't he involved in harmonizing these characters?!?" That's one of his jobs, as far as I'm concerned.

The GM is used to playing a well designed system that doesn't land the game designer's job on his shoulders.

Optimizes are just as likely to be good role-players as any other player.

The problem is, optimizing is a potentially disruptive behavior. It can - and has - broken games.
...
Any other behavior that impacts the fun of the rest of that much of the table could not be shouted down fast enough. But optimizing gets a pass. Heck, even the term "optimizing" is a rebranding to get away from earlier terms like "munchkin" and "power gamer".

The problem is that optimising in a badly designed system is a Scylla and Chyribdis matter. On one side you have a disruptive behaviour if you engage in it too much in some systems. On the other side, people who aren't optimising at all are either RPing someone who is fishmalk-insane or not accepting the conceits of the setting they are roleplaying in and are therefore not roleplaying or rping in a setting that the character isn't invested in.

What level of optimisation is desirable is a balance - and it's where you strike the balance that matters. Optimising gets a pass because it is necessary - and desigining a system where optimisers can walk away with the game without serious effort merely shows that the game is badly designed.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Let me get this straight, you are just saying "system mastery no longer leads you to uber power but rather to play charater concepts that didn't needed it before"? that is even worse. Elven Rogue archer is so iconic I shouldn't need to wait for 10 splatbooks before it is viable! It is entirely possible on Ad&D, 2nd ed and 3.x from phb alone, and it has so much easy synergies it is trivially easy to be one, 4e made the big sin of assuming people only want to play stereotypes, and many things remained broken all the way through the edition.

Not giving the rogue shortbow proficiency was stupid. I'm not denying that. But that's the only reason the elven rogue archer is not viable - an utterly stupid oversight that requires about two lines of errata to fix.

On the other hand pick whatever splatbooks you like from whatever edition. Then show me how to play a bravura or lazy warlord. For that matter show me how to play The Grey Mouser - after all he's in Appendix N - he should be easy. But there's precisely one edition you can play him in - 4e straight out of the PHB.

If you don't want the game to guide you towards stereotypes don't play a class based game. The classes are based on stereotypes. 4e just has 25 viable classes pre-Essentials, and between two and eight subclasses before you start customising powers. It's more flexible than most point buy games at that rate.

And if you want a game that allows you a massive number of stereotypes, or to subvert them, 4e is leagues ahead of any other edition.

I think the motivation in this case is more, new, and different options. You might be bored of playing Fighters, but that new Mechromancer class sounds like something you'd like to try. It isn't more powerful, but you get to animate robots and attack people with them. That's AWESOME.

Or you are just happen to really want to try a different type of fighter, one that fights barehanded that didn't have rules support before then.

Yup!

Of course, I disagree about there not being an edition that fixes most of these problems. However, even from my point of view of liking 4e, it isn't immune to issues either. As time goes on, it is receiving the same powercreep that 3.5e did and some of the same issues are coming up(although, I admit, to a lesser extent than they did in my 3.5e game).

Yup! Although I'd argue it's still to a lesser extent than PHB-only 3.5. And you play a Feycharger?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And if you want a game that allows you a massive number of stereotypes, or to subvert them, 4e is leagues ahead of any other edition.

Personally, I think 3.5Ed is still ahead of it.

There are certain PC designs I have found 4Ed supports better than previous editions- sometimes, MUCH better- but, overall, I have found too many of my designs not supported by 4Ed to agree with your statement.

 

[MoonSong]

Not giving the rogue shortbow proficiency was stupid. I'm not denying that. But that's the only reason the elven rogue archer is not viable - an utterly stupid oversight that requires about two lines of errata to fix.

On the other hand pick whatever splatbooks you like from whatever edition. Then show me how to play a bravura or lazy warlord. For that matter show me how to play The Grey Mouser - after all he's in Appendix N - he should be easy. But there's precisely one edition you can play him in - 4e straight out of the PHB.

If you don't want the game to guide you towards stereotypes don't play a class based game. The classes are based on stereotypes. 4e just has 25 viable classes pre-Essentials, and between two and eight subclasses before you start customising powers. It's more flexible than most point buy games at that rate.

And if you want a game that allows you a massive number of stereotypes, or to subvert them, 4e is leagues ahead of any other edition.

It wasn't an innocent oversight, the thing was actaully hardcoded into the system, every single ranged rogue power was "crossbow or sling", fixing it takes more than just a line of errata. And yes it eventually was fixed for elves and half-elves only, but for the rest of the characters it was completely unresolved. Want to be an archer rogue? only elves and half elves bother to apply. How is that stereotype subversion?. And that is only the tip of the iceberg, archer fighters? archer paladins? out of luck. swashbuckling paladin? (possible in 3e from core) no, friend to all living things that refuse to kill or contribute to killing?. Minstrel that gets do do something with a lute all the way through his career? Berseking Rangers? Mind controlling sorcerers? Dual wielding monks?

Warlords are though to respresent under 3.5 and before, because they weren't integrated into the system, they have no precedents beyond the Marshal, yes 4e does them better than any previous edition could, (thugh I made a 2nd edition priest once who was very, very lazy). But beyond that making a point for you, it makes a point for me, if it isn't a sanctioned and officially approved don't expect to be able to paly it without a serious amount of reflavoring and system mastery.

 

[airwalkrr]

Oh this old rag again.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Again, if the DM has no problem with my PC, what business is it of yours what I'm playing? In LotR, they didn't have a test to see which hobbit(s) they thought could make the trip.

My answer to this is simple: When I'm relying on you to keep me alive in a dangerous situation, it's my business if you are capable of doing that job. My life depends on it.

Suboptimal characters certainly work in some games. Mostly, in games where the DM isn't trying his best to make really hard encounters.

But in most of our games, our DM is looking at it from the point of view of "I don't pay 100% attention to the numbers on everyone's characters, it would drive me crazy to keep that all in my head." So instead, they estimate the amount of damage the party puts out by min-maxing in their own head(20 strength to start, so someone at level 12 has 23 strength, with a +6 stat enhancer, so 29 strength, they have a +5 weapon, have +4 more damage from feats, so they have a minimum of +14 damage, with buffs up, likely +20). Then they pretty much take that as "average" damage" and then try to find monsters that can survive a party of 6 each doing 25 damage twice per round(i.e. 300 hitpoints worth of monsters or greater so they don't die during the first round, likely 600 to 900 hitpoints of enemies so that it lasts a couple of rounds).

Then, when you have people in the group whose combat effectiveness is WAY below the optimal, people start dying because of the difference between expected power and actually power.

Oddly enough, it's almost never the suboptimal PC who dies. They sit there round after round missing entirely, or hitting for 1d6+3 points of damage, or hiding under a table. Meanwhile, the powergamed Barbarian is hitting for 75 damage a round, so the DM has all the monsters focus him. Then, some round of combat comes along where the monster is at 10 hitpoints and the Barbarian is at 10, and knows that when he drops out of Rage, he'll be very close to dead. But don't worry, the enemy doesn't go next and everyone in the group can deal 10 damage minimum. Except, the person who goes next is the suboptimal character. He misses due to low attack bonuses...or even more disappointingly hits for 8 points of damage. Then the enemy goes, hits for 30 damage on the Barbarian and kills him.

At that point, the player of the Barbarian is frustrated, he loved his character and didn't want to die. Does it become his business that you've chosen to play a character that is purposefully bad at combat? In fact, wouldn't it be proper roleplaying to test members of the group to make sure they could hold their own in combat before they joined? If you are going to rely on people to keep you alive, it would only be prudent. But that doesn't happen because no player wants to have their character kicked out of the group before they even get to start playing. So, mostly via social contract we HAVE to accept new characters into the group, no matter how bad they are.

In LotR, they didn't have a test to see which hobbit(s) they thought could make the trip.

No, they didn't. But then again, they didn't have much of a choice. They just started following them. I haven't read through the whole book, but I believe there was definitely concern brought up about bringing a bunch untrained people with them on a really dangerous mission. To the point where they felt the need to train the hobbits to a suitable level of combat training so they could hold their own and wouldn't need to be protected all the time.

Plus, there's a severe difference between a book with a bunch of characters in it and a game being played by players. Characters are fighting for their lives and most people who aren't very good at fighting wouldn't be caught anywhere NEAR a fight...or they'd be practicing every day to get better because being bad means death. Plus, often you don't have a choice of your companions. They lost their family and you need to protect them. The fact that they don't know how to fight isn't their fault. And the author of the book can simply write about how these weak characters miraculously survive. They were never in any danger, the author never intended on them dying.

Meanwhile, when you are playing a game, there's a bunch of metagame expectations that go on top of the normal game. Each player makes up his character using the same rules and the same options. You know there's going to be 4-6 of you and that whatever characters they make, you'll be stuck with them because you are all playing in a D&D game that you've agreed to play weekly. You know the DM is going to throw challenges against you and you'll have to work together to defeat them. It only makes sense that if the point of the game is to work together to defeat these challenges that everyone should try their best to help in that goal. Choosing options that are really bad ON PURPOSE is going against the cooperative nature of the game.

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 and one player decided to play a Rogue with no combat ability making the chance of the group surviving those challenges lower. That's kind of jerky.