Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[Greg K]

Spend enough time and you could justify any sort of chimera, whether they be superpowerful, incredibly weak or somewhere in between. It could also recreate the Stormwind Fallacy. "You're not an X, I think you're leaning toward powergaming and not RP" as if there's a sliding scale between them, when there isn't.

Yep. Powergaming and and RP are on different sliding scales.

 

[nightwyrm]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of "chimera" characters either (but mostly due to the need to browse through a bunch of books and not necessarily due to flavour issues), but one should remember that the most powerful characters in 3.x are Druid 20, Cleric 20 and Wizard 20. You can mix in some prestige classes but 20 pure levels of the big three are perfectly optimized just by their lonesome. It's the melee and odd concept characters who needs extensive op-fu and multiclassing in order to play catch up with the standards set by the tier 1 casters.

 

[Greg K]

B
My point was simply that, if you look at all the choices available for characters in D&D -- classes, feats, powers, equipment, etc. -- and you look at the challenges that those characters will face, it becomes obvious that the game was specifically designed with high-powered, high-action, high-fantasy heroics in mind.

However, you don't know the challenges that the PC will face. Those are determined by the DM and/or the actions of the party depending upon how the game is played at the table (unless the group just uses random modules).

With some groups, it is pure dungeon crawling. Other groups, never enter dungeons or they do so, maybe, once or twice.

Some groups are all about combats. Other groups may go sessions without combat.

The presence of a DM capable of adapting and players not stuck to a program allows a lot of leeway into how the game is played.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of "chimera" characters either (but mostly due to the need to browse through a bunch of books and not necessarily due to flavour issues),

One of the upsides and downsides of the Character Builder.

but one should remember that the most powerful characters in 3.x are Druid 20, Cleric 20 and Wizard 20. You can mix in some prestige classes but 20 pure levels of the big three are perfectly optimized just by their lonesome. It's the melee and odd concept characters who needs extensive op-fu and multiclassing in order to play catch up with the standards set by the tier 1 casters.

Yes... and no.

For starters, a cleric 10/PrC 10 could still be more powerful, and some PrCs are more powerful than others. There's always an avenue for a powergamer.

It is also possible to not be an optimized cleric, especially if you lack system mastery, based on such things as picking good spells, picking feats, using decent tactics, knowing which stats to buy up and which ones not too, etc. About six years ago, in a 3.5 campaign that had reached 13th-level, our group had two clerics in it. The difference was like light and day - one player seemed to pick good spells, but could not wrap his head around the concept that just because three buff spells all stack doesn't mean they should. (Translation: He would waste three rounds buffing, by which time the battle would be over, the enemies dead, and at least one PC was screaming for healing right now.)

I agree that the other classes were less powerful, but you could still optimize within those classes, too. Like the difference between a rogue who takes Weapon Finesse and one where the player of an elf rogue refuses to use any weapon but a longsword.

 

[Greg K]

I think you and Umbran are taking the "hours" comment a little to the extreme. "Hours" can easily represent one hour, twice a week, or two hours once a week. I think the longest I've ever spent on one character is about four hours spread out over two weeks. That's hardly extreme.

It is still more time than required unless you are not familiar with the material or creating a character above first level.

 

[Pbartender]

However, you don't know the challenges that the PC will face. Those are determined by the DM and/or the actions of the party depending upon how the game is played at the table (unless the group just uses random modules).

That's a fallacious argument... Certainly any given DM, with enough effort, can do what ever like with any game. That's not what I talking about. I'm talking about what the game is designed to do.

The rules of 4E, for example, have very explicit guidelines on what kinds of encounters a character of a particular can handle and how powerful that encounter should be. There is a chart that lays out the DCs of "easy", "moderate" and "hard" skill checks at each level. The same goes for monster defenses and attacks at each level. PCs are expected to have attacks and defenses and damage and skills at a certain typical value in order to be able to meet those encounter with the proper amount of challenge.

Also, take a look at the options available... You won't find a Shopkeep class. You won't find a Gourmand paragon path. You won't find a Watercolor Expertise feat. All of the occupation and hobby based skills are gone. The majority of the rules based around a wargame-style, tactical squad combat system.

An ambitious DM can modify D&D to suit a low-powered unlikely-heroes-rising-up-from-the-gutter sort of game, but that's not what the game what built for.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Again, it's really just about making logical and intelligent decisions in character creation. If you can't invest the time in doing so, then again, why are you playing a game that REQUIRES a pretty hefty investment of time?

I think this right here gets to the very heart of the problem.

The fact is... many people just aren't "logical". And no amount of explanation on the part of the "logical" person will make the "non-logical" person see or feel things differently.

So while it seems like such a "well, DUH!" concept to you that game about imagination should ask its players to use their imagination to create characters and a game that requires an investment of time to actually play should ipso facto also require some time to prepare to play... many people just don't accede to those ideas. Regardless of how "obvious" it seems.

So Kzach... what you're stuck with is playing with a group that is not thinking or experiencing the game the same way you are, and who seem as though will NEVER think or experience it that way, despite how many attempts you might make to "up their game". Because so-called "logical" thinking is just not as universal as you might think or hope. There's a reason why us human beings aren't ALL scientists, you know.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Synergistic optimization is perfectly fine with me. Exploiting loopholes is not. One method I truly abhorred was 3E cherry-picking. A mish-mosh of (pr)classes just grinds at my enjoyment of the game.

I also dislike players that purposefully de-optimize. I can agree with Kzach over many of his "obvious" choices. Like choosing training in skills that you have the stat or racial bonuses to support. I disagree over the 18 in your primary stat, unless you mean after racial adjustments.

What I dislike is when one player uses synergistic optimization and another merely makes the right choices to not de-optimize and the power gap is still too wide. But, in that case, I no longer blame the players, I blame the system. I like a wide array of options in the games I run and play, but 3E cherry-picking ruined that as more options came out for me. I find the power gap between the two moderate ends of the spectrum to be closer in 4E, even as we see more and more supplements.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Perhaps there needs to be a new term? Someone who balances between optimisation and personality?

More jargon never solved anything.

 

[Greg K]

, but 3E cherry-picking ruined that as more options came out for me. I find the power gap between the two moderate ends of the spectrum to be closer in 4E, even as we see more and more supplements.

The problem with 3e multi-classing was players are assumed by default to have access to trainers, equipment, etc. The DMG section on training addresses this, but with variants when, in my opinion, they should have been the default