Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[Doug McCrae]

I agree with Oryan77, powergaming/optimising/min-maxing (I regard them all as the same thing) adds nothing of value to the game and creates more work for the GM. As a GM I want it to be easy to challenge the PCs. I don't want to have to build challenges like intricate puzzle boxes, taking account of the fact that the PCs will all be flying, invisible and never enter the dungeon because they use their 50 mile range telekinesis or summoned minions to deal with everything. I want to be able to use archetypal foes, I want big brute Tarrasque-style monsters to be a threat. I want to spend my time creating quality content - good names, flavorful NPCs, semi-original ideas, variety of situation.

Even if all the players powergame to an equal degree it can still cause a number of problems. Character options become more limited because only the most powerful feats, powers and abilities are viable. Certain archetypal characters - knights with no ability to deal with a flying ranged attacker, The Thing-like bricks in superhero games - types that are really fundamental to genre and should be supported, become unplayable.

 

[S'mon]

Yeah, that nova round for your Thief sounds alot more impressive before you factor in that it uses an action point, a daily power, three encounter powers and then relies on three attacks hitting.

Did Kzach apply Sneak Attack (w Backstabber) bonus more than once? You only get it once per Turn - so +2d8, not +6d8. Then the Backstab Encounter Power adds +1d6, or +1d8 if your kind DM lets it count as Sneak Attack damage.

Apart from that, the only issue I can see is with the Rapier - Essentials PCs are not designed to work with free purchase of Adventurers Vault magic items; they're supposed to be restricted to a limited list of Common items, which would not include anything with a Daily power. An E-PC should only be getting that kind of things as treasure from the DM, not a purchase.

All that said, my own 3rd level E-Thief's nova damage output is not that vastly less than Kzach's, and I'm using a +2 dagger of distance, no UA stuff, no Themes. Plus I get to throw it from range, whereas Kzach's build requires his rather squishy Thief PC to get up close & personal.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And I totally get that. I really do. I've played with those kinds of players for years and it's fine.

But, don't then turn around and bitch about the fact that you can't hit anything, can't succeed at anything you try and your character is a complete failure while the guy sitting beside you can function quite nicely.

I no longer bother with games if success is based on decisions primarily made away from the situation at hand. If not having the right benchmark numbers = fail then I will seek a more sensible game.

I agree with Oryan77, powergaming/optimising/min-maxing (I regard them all as the same thing) adds nothing of value to the game and creates more work for the GM. As a GM I want it to be easy to challenge the PCs. I don't want to have to build challenges like intricate puzzle boxes, taking account of the fact that the PCs will all be flying, invisible and never enter the dungeon because they use their 50 mile range telekinesis or summoned minions to deal with everything. I want to be able to use archetypal foes, I want big brute Tarrasque-style monsters to be a threat. I want to spend my time creating quality content - good names, flavorful NPCs, semi-original ideas, variety of situation.

Even if all the players powergame to an equal degree it can still cause a number of problems. Character options become more limited because only the most powerful feats, powers and abilities are viable. Certain archetypal characters - knights with no ability to deal with a flying ranged attacker, The Thing-like bricks and superhero games - types that are really fundamental to genre and should be supported, become unplayable.

Aye. I want to play an enjoyable game not participate in some rules driven arms race.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Unless the products came out at the same time and nobody saw all the products at the same time, how could that combo be missed? Is it a wizards policy that each book should be reviewed in isolation or something? It's a pretty straightforward combination of thematically appropriate elements.

It's not a policy, it's the amount of time you get to playtest a product. You don't get told by WotC (at least not in 3.x - that's when I got to playtest) to only playtest just one class, but rather, a whole book.

If you're playtesting the thief, for instance, you should playtest multiple builds with different races over all levels (for instance, try Tactical Trick, Ambush Trick, etc... I don't think you can get them both - that's what I mean by build, as opposed to Charismatic vs Brutal Scoundrel). The playtesters don't necessarily have access to all of the products either. The same playtesters are then playtesting the other classes in the books (three builds for the mage, for instance), which takes even more time, and they're supposed to playtest every power, every feat, etc that's in the one book.

By the time you're done, you haven't been able to playtest the thief with every thief-usable power/feat/item in every previously published book. There's just not enough time. And the issue just escalates as more products are released. WotC publishes a cool new feat, but it turns out it's broken if you're playing a bugbear Slayer charging build who has taken this Dragon Magazine item and that Heroes of Shadow feat along with the Retired Dungeoneerer background and Primal Guardian theme and has multiclassed with Vampire ... I guess the feat wasn't adequately playtested because none of the playtesters saw that "obvious" combo coming.

The playtesters aren't necessarily CharOp experts. It'd be nice if they were, as they've got a lot of system mastery. In 3.x, anytime something broken came out, the CharOp experts immediately noted it, and people would wonder why they weren't consulted.

 

[jasper]

...Which is:

Every RPG is designed with a particular purpose... A genre it's meant to emulate or a play style it's meant to support, for example. A game can be forced out of its comfort zone, with enough time, effort and house rules, but it will never perform quite as well as a game that is designed for that purpose.

.....

Pour me another shot PB. Over the years from all the editions, I have see the company(ies) produce sources which force the game away the original comfort zone. No need for house rules to get into the mix.
but generally this is not a bad thing. As long as everyone at the table wants to play "Teeny Tiny Teen Titans Twiddwinks" Or "Cursed Conan Clones Cut Cuthlu" it is okay. But when a poor DM opens the door to both sources and allow cross bulids or player wants mine specfic builds from any source. Then there is trouble at the table.

 

[Umbran]

There's a difference between "possible" and "supported," I think. D&D has never really supported the "hero (reluctant or otherwise) who isn't really cut out for the job" archetype, as every level 1 PC is automatically cut out for the job at hand.

Apparently not, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. If non-optimized characters performed were really ready, and thus performed well enough, then there'd be no clash between the optimizers vs the non-optimizers, now would there?

I am not talking about someone who has 8s for all his stats. I'm talking about the character who hasn't got a 17 or 18 in his prime, and who hasn't specifically chosen feats and powers and skills that stack together. Apparently, these perform poorly enough to cause frustration, and therefore, in some sense, aren't cut out for the job.

 

[jasper]

It's all legal.

..I don't think anyone playtested all that stuff together. ..., but I'm reasonably sure they weren't all playtested together.

...



..IM.

HOUSTON WE HAVE LAUNCH! And that is problem I found with games which have any source goes. Especially when everyone is 1st level. Bill is happy with CLW potion, the mage is happy with a magic missle scroll. Bob is unhappy I didn't allow His Purple Paladin of Panama keep his +5 holy avenger. And whines about not being over powered compare to rest of group. The +5 holy avenger happen at my table.

 

[Umbran]

You missed one of my posts where I addressed this. Get it? AdDRESSED?

Like I said in that post, I play side-by-side with people who play lame-ducks and don't complain or whine about their characters, but they most certainly complain and whine about my characters. Hence one of the reasons I'm tired of it and posted this thread.

You probably want to avoid taking the snotty tone like that, when you seem to have missed the paragraph in the very post you quoted, where I addressed this. Get it? AdDRESSED?

To wit:

The reaction you may see may be as much a reaction to the suggestion that they ought to have the same tastes as you. It may also depend upon your delivery - if you come across as trying to "correct" their mistakes, or that they don't know what they are doing, or that you know the "right" way to play, well, you can easily look pretty condescending and that puts people right off.

Now, I wasn't at the table when you approached them, but if you talk to them like you talk to us, I am completely unsurprised that they rejected your suggestions. Similarly, based on the example here, I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't nearly so good at covering your frustration with their lack of optimization as you claim, which wouldn't be helping matters.

Maybe this has less to do with the clash between optimizer and non-optimizer, and a bit more with interaction style.

 

[Kzach]

You probably want to avoid taking the snotty tone like that, when you seem to have missed the paragraph in the very post you quoted, where I addressed this. Get it? AdDRESSED?

Snotty? Are you for real? You're seriously taking offence to what I posted?

Over-reaction much? Thin-skin much? It's pretty obvious I'm joking around and being light-hearted and yet you come back with a flame. You need to start moderating yourself, dude.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I agree with Oryan77, powergaming/optimising/min-maxing (I regard them all as the same thing) adds nothing of value to the game and creates more work for the GM. As a GM I want it to be easy to challenge the PCs. I don't want to have to build challenges like intricate puzzle boxes, taking account of the fact that the PCs will all be flying, invisible and never enter the dungeon because they use their 50 mile range telekinesis or summoned minions to deal with everything. I want to be able to use archetypal foes, I want big brute Tarrasque-style monsters to be a threat. I want to spend my time creating quality content - good names, flavorful NPCs, semi-original ideas, variety of situation.

Ok, I think we all agree that permanent invisibility, flying minion-summoning demigods are not likely to be much fun in a game that's trying to simulate what most people see as medieval fantasy fiction.

I'm not sure what your second paragraph is trying to say: knights without any ranged effectiveness aren't a staple of the genre, and the lack of ranged effectiveness in D&D is a pure product of lack of preparation. Supers with one and only one thing they do well ARE a staple of the genre (that's why the thing is a member of a team, and not a solo act, after all), and I've not yet found a supers game that stops you from doing that. Or that is easy to DM for...