Optimizing Core Druid

[Arrowhawk]

Nobody has mentioned so far the ridiculous overpowering that you can get from a relatively cheap consumable wondrous item:



Trivial to get several of these from his expected wealth of 200,000gp (and he ought to get the feats to allow himself to make them.

When you need to bring down the pain, prepare a whole set of maximised flame strikes, call lightning storm, fire seeds etc. Especially if you are likely to be active outdoors - arrange for stormy weather in one of several ways and cast one call lightning storm and you summon a 50 damage bolt every round for 15 rounds! Set off 8 holly fire seeds with a command word and do 184 damage (Ref save for half). Poison spell being maximised is a killer against living creatures. Each flame strike does 90 damage.

A standard strand of prayer beads is also great - +4 caster level on all spells for 10 mins per day? yes please!

The druid has access to really kick-ass damage spells, and access to typically overpowered divine magic items that allow him to REALLY take advantage of them.

Cheers

At what point does a person, especially a player, step back and say just because someone put it in a book doesn't mean it was a good idea? It's not like the authors have some robust scientific method for determining what things should be allowed. Making characters more powerful doesn't necessarily make the game better or more enjoyable.

Eh, I know I'm barking up the wrong tree here (pun intended).

 

[Plane Sailing]

Probably not in an "optimising ..." thread!

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

But if you're just going to abuse things from the core books, why stop there when the dust of sneezing and choking is so darn cheap?

In the face of grossly unbalanced rules, I'm definitely a fan of holding off / "gentlemen's agreements"...

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

"Powerful" is a relative term. If the Player makes a Druid/Planar Shepherd alongside his Wizard/Incantrix buddy, that's pretty powerful.

However, if the DM responds with higher DC monsters with templates and modified spell lists, Balance is maintained.

It always comes down to what the DM is comfortable with allowing, and everyone considers fun.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Probably not in an "optimising ..." thread!

I know ...I know. What was I thinking?

EDIT:

But let me poke the bear, PS and ask if, as a player, you know something is probably broken (virtual exploit), does it cheapen the experience to use it? Do optimizers ever cheese themselves out to the point of no longer enjoying the game?

 

[PureGoldx58]

I know ...I know. What was I thinking?

EDIT:

But let me poke the bear, PS and ask if, as a player, you know something is probably broken (virtual exploit), does it cheapen the experience to use it? Do optimizers ever cheese themselves out to the point of no longer enjoying the game?

The beauty of "Broken" things is that the DM can use and use it better. That incense you use and have to actually spend time near, the DM can just have that buff on the next enemy Cleric you fight.

In fact that is a general rule in my parties, if you as a player use it, the DM will also. In the group I DM I actually go the opposite way, anything I use I have available to my players.

Now to directly answer your questions: No and no. Optimization isn't a bad thing, you are confusing power-gaming with not wanting to suck.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I know ...I know. What was I thinking?

EDIT:

But let me poke the bear, PS and ask if, as a player, you know something is probably broken (virtual exploit), does it cheapen the experience to use it? Do optimizers ever cheese themselves out to the point of no longer enjoying the game?

I don't know that I can speak for any optimizers, let alone all optimisers but for things which I notice I guess it depends where you draw the line between 'extra effective' and 'broken/cheese'

For me personally, things get into the 'broken/cheese' area where there is a perhaps unintended consequence of bringing things together - such as Shapechange granting supernatural attacks and defences, and being based on HD rather than CR of target creatures, allowing some extra-cheesy creatures being taken - Choker for the extra standard action per turn being a notable example. Similarly there are probably combinations of feats (or later, less carefully thought-through feats) which give cheesy consequences.

Cheers

 

[Arrowhawk]

I don't know that I can speak for any optimizers, let alone all optimisers

Oooo. A typo on the Internet...what a scoop!

For me personally, things get into the 'broken/cheese' area where there is a perhaps unintended consequence of bringing things together

But that's the point of my original question. It's not clear that any given option was fully explored for "intended" consequences. In fact, it seem the extremes were the things that were specifically not tested. One can imagine an author testing a feat/spell to make sure it functioned in a nominal build or context, but specifically not looking to see what happened at the extremes. So in essence none of what is possible at the extremes was arguably "intended."

This discussion reminds me of many I've seen on MMO boards where the players are constantly asking for buffs/boosts to various powers/archetypes. In a few cases, I've seen the lead developers bring out the risk vs reward philosophy. And while I'm sure many players understand it conceptually, they didn't understand it intuitively. One of the best quotes I ever saw was from a poster called Lady Mage, who in an attempt to mock the rabble, posted:

"The game is balanced when my character is the strongest."

Years later, this still brings a smile to my face.

Ultimately, my observation is that those who optimize, by necessity, refuse to impose any self-restraint. My question is do they ever perceive a sense of being too effective i.e. their DM struggles to make the game challenging in a meaningful way.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Oooo. A typo on the Internet...what a scoop!

No typo - I'm humouring you by including an Americanism as well as my normal way of spelling


I would observe that PC optimisation is very much a thing of the 3e+ era (although I admit it may have come in during 2e skills and powers, as I never saw those). Back when I played OD&D and 1e and a little early 2e I don't think anyone thought about optimisation in terms which are meaningful today.

Sure, fighters gravitated towards the 2H sword as it was better than any other melee weapon. Darts were popular with both fighters and MU's because of the number of attacks they gave, and so on. But these were minor in comparison to the degree of variation that PCs can easily pick up in the last decade when creating and growing their character.

Cheers

 

[Hassassin]

But let me poke the bear, PS and ask if, as a player, you know something is probably broken (virtual exploit), does it cheapen the experience to use it? Do optimizers ever cheese themselves out to the point of no longer enjoying the game?

Personally, I think all but the most ridiculous exploits are still fun once. You just have to know when to stop.