Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[Umbran]

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.

I dunno about you, think the game is designed, explicitly and intentionally, to accommodate a pretty wide range of character effectiveness.

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.

And, there are guidelines on what to do if they're above *or below* those guidelines.

I haven't run enough 4e to speak to it, but my experience with 3.x is that the guidelines are set pretty low - folks who spend effort on optimization regularly find the guideline encounters to be cakewalks. But that's just my experience.

Really, dude, you're making it sound like it is rocket science to softball a little bit for underpowered characters. You and I both know rocket science - this ain't it

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Whoops!

 

[Spatula]

Guys, how do you reconcile the idea that the OP talks about spending *hours* going through the process of optimizing , and coming up with characters that are better than those at the table, and the idea that somehow the system isn't built to do sub-optimal characters?

The idea that the system doesn't support this, or doesn't even nod to this being possible, flies in the face that system mastery, time, work, and analysis is required to optimize.

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. Every level 1 PC is a skilled soldier, wizard, warrior-priest, etc. possessing martial and/or magical skills that require years of training.* Your typical peasant farmer doesn't know how to wear plate armor or how to effectively swing a sword. But Jeremiah the level 1 fighter does, and (post-UA) is probably a sword master to boot. His player can say that Jeremiah is fresh off the farm and has never swung a sword before, but a simple examination of the character sheet vs an average NPC (a level 0 1d4 HP nobody in AD&D, or a level 1 commoner in 3e) shows that that can't be the case. Or that Jeremiah is an exceptional individual, one clearly cut out for a life of swordplay and danger.

* with the possible exception of the AD&D thief.

Now, a player could intentionally gimp their character in any number of ways, and the DM can alter the game to suit that, but I think it's fair to say that you're playing against the game's expectations at that point. It can be done, but the game design, which devotes most of its attention to dangerous activities and doesn't have much to say about situations that aren't life threatening, is largely being ignored in that case.

 

[Pbartender]

I dunno about you, think the game is designed, explicitly and intentionally, to accommodate a pretty wide range of character effectiveness.

In regards to 4E, "range", I'd agree with... "Wide range" I'm less certain of, depending on your definition of "wide".

But yes, D&D (and especially 4E) is a game that expects the PCs' abilities to be within a certain range for a particular level. If their stats deviate wildly (in either direction) outside range, problems can occur, unless you make significant (not necessarily difficult, but significant) adjustments to the game in general.

Really, dude, you're making it sound like it is rocket science to softball a little bit for underpowered characters. You and I both know rocket science - this ain't it

A little bit of futzing to make up for a few missing bonuses isn't a problem... I won't argue with that. It's a lot more troublesome, though, when you're running a game that's designed for Conan the Barbarian, but you've got someone playing a character like Fflewddur Fflam (or vice versa, for that matter).

I'm saying that having a game that contradicts the play style of the players can be just as much of a problem as having players that contract each other's play styles.

 

[Jimlock]

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.

ok, to me this is one of the most offending and wrong conclusions I've ever read in this forum.

Optimization = logic ?

Non optimization = non logic?

you 've got to be kidding me....

 

[Kzach]

Yes it does. A lot of things in game (and combos) shouldn't exist, or be able to exist. How many sources do you have to mine in order to pull that off?

Normal Attack + Quick Rapier (daily power) + Furious Assault (half-orc racial) + Takedown Strike (Mercenary theme) + Backstabber (feat) + Sneak Attack + Backstab (thief class ability) + Action Point + Bracers of Mighty Striking.

It takes three successful hits against a target in one turn to pull off (normal attack + quick weapon daily + action point).

Again, none of this is particularly hard to find or even illogical to take. Mercenary is a pretty obviously good choice for a rogue. Backstabber is an almost standard rogue feat choice. Bracers of Mighty Striking and a Quick Weapon again are quite obvious choices for a melee striker to take if they can get them.

As for saying that people don't understand the same 'logic' as I do and that we aren't all 'scientists', well, I'm sorry, but this isn't science and it's especially has nothing to do with rockets. You're a striker, so what do you want? You want to attack a lot, you want to hit a lot, and you want to do lots of damage. Choosing items and feats and powers that let you do all that isn't brain surgery. Does any of that really require an IQ above 90 to figure out?

(And your DM is allowing themes and backgrounds?)

Sure, why not? Both are standard rules for characters in the Character Builder.

They enjoy the costuming and have greater ability - they don't generally expect me to go to the same lengths to costume as they do.

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.

 

[Kzach]

Normal Attack + Quick Rapier (daily power) + Furious Assault (half-orc racial) + Takedown Strike (Mercenary theme) + Backstabber (feat) + Sneak Attack + Backstab (thief class ability) + Action Point + Bracers of Mighty Striking.

I want to also point out something about this particular combination.

It occurred to me whilst I was making a character for a game where I had mistakenly read that I was allowed a 3rd-level magical item and a 2nd-level magical item and we were to make 2nd-level characters. It turned out that the 2nd-level item was my misread because I was half asleep at the time of reading (and half asleep during the character creation).

Now, although I had already thought that the concept of a half-orc with the Gritty Sergeant background and Mercenary theme would make for a cool thief character, I hadn't actually made one up until this point.

From making it up from scratch, choosing the two magical items, and determining that combo above, took all of ten minutes for me. I'd never heard of Bracers of Mighty Striking or the Quick Weapon before this, so I found them simply by using the Character Builder search engine and limiting my choices to 3rd-level.

So all this talk of being 'hardcore' and taking 'hours' and somehow being a character building genius is nonsense. If I can do it in ten minutes, whilst on the verge of collapsing from sheer exhaustion and bone-weary tiredness, why can't anyone else? I assure you, I'm not a genius.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Normal Attack + Quick Rapier (daily power) + Furious Assault (half-orc racial) + Takedown Strike (Mercenary theme) + Backstabber (feat) + Sneak Attack + Backstab (thief class ability) + Action Point + Bracers of Mighty Striking.

I don't recognize half this stuff.

Thieves don't get daily powers, so I don't even know where Quick Rapier came from. You can't use Bracers of Mighty Striking with Backstab, Takedown Strike or Quick Rapier, as it only works with basic attacks. (Let me know if Backstab just adds damage to a basic attack - but there's no way that works with Quick Rapier or Takedown Strike.)

Again, none of this is particularly hard to find or even illogical to take. Mercenary is a pretty obviously good choice for a rogue. Backstabber is an almost standard rogue feat choice. Bracers of Mighty Striking and a Quick Weapon again are quite obvious choices for a melee striker to take if they can get them.

You can't use some of that combo. Where is Quick Rapier from? Is that compatible with Essentials?

A lot of what you said earlier made sense. Having an 18 makes sense - or at least a 16 if you're, say, an elven fighter (you couldn't have a Strength 18 without gimping yourself elsewhere) - I once saw a thread on this forum about a dwarven fighter PC with a Strength of THIRTEEN - but some of your points do seem odd. Crawling through the character builder for hours looking for options from numerous sources ... I don't think the CB even works properly, if it's letting you use those Bracers with non-basic attacks. The CB lets you access stuff from the Sword & Fist of 4e.

Sure, why not? Both are standard rules for characters in the Character Builder.

That's not necessarily standard. Both are more powerful options that you would need to clear with your DM. Although I assume you did, and your main points were about something else entirely. But I have to wonder why you thought that was "standard". I'm not seeing that in the PH1 (or any PH) or in HoFK (the first one).

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've got people who can't figure out how to optimize on one side and people who might be breaking the rules (I'm sure not deliberately) on the other. You've got people who can't distinguish between numbers and RP attacking you in your own group.

Find a new group. You don't fit in with them.

Clarify with your new DM what is "standard".

Learn about your new players; get them to optimize as much as you, and/or cut back on your own. You might not realize this, but crawling through the CB for hours and then building a character who can deal MASSIVE damage in one round is not "standard", even if it's possible or even legal.

 

[Kzach]

Thieves don't get daily powers, so I don't even know where Quick Rapier came from. You can't use Bracers of Mighty Striking with Backstab, Takedown Strike or Quick Rapier, as it only works with basic attacks. (Let me know if Backstab just adds damage to a basic attack - but there's no way that works with Quick Rapier or Takedown Strike.)

Thieves only use melee basic attacks, modified by... whatever they're called... stances? See, I can't even remember that! Some system genius I am.

Quick Rapier is a 3rd-level magical weapon type with a daily power. The daily power gives you a free action melee attack against any target after you've successfully hit a target already in the turn. It's from Adventurer's Vault (I just looked it up on Compendium).

Takedown strike is no action, again triggered by hitting someone and just adds damage and a prone.

Backstab just adds damage to any attack. So... yah, they all stack.

Clarify with your new DM what is "standard".

Well, I consider anything in the character builder (aside from setting specific stuff) to be standard, as do a lot of people I encounter and play games with. For the record, the DM said anything in the character builder was fine and these are both big green buttons in the Character Builder.

Learn about your new players; get them to optimize as much as you, and/or cut back on your own. You might not realize this, but crawling through the CB for hours and then building a character who can deal MASSIVE damage in one round is not "standard", even if it's possible or even legal.

Hard to do when you have to bring characters to a game either online or before the game starts, like at a game store where you don't know who or even how many people will be playing. In a home game, ok, you might discuss these things before playing, but even then it depends on who you're playing with and how well you know each other.

 

[TheUltramark]

Well, I'm not AIMING to, but as I said, I come to a lot of the same conclusions that charoppers do, simply because they're logical deductions based on casual analysis of the available system options, ie. I trawl through the character builder looking for things to either fit my concept of the character, or to fit a certain schtick, or just for synergies that I think will be fun to play.

But as I said, I also don't like a lot of the super-hulk charop builds. To me they're not only impractical but ugly and inelegant. Take the thief, for example, the charop guide recommends going a certain route to get Kulkor Arms Master. Now, I know why that is, and I can see the logic in it, but I don't freaking want Kulkor Arms Master because it means I have to wield a hammer, and my concept of my character doesn't suit wielding a freaking hammer.

On the flip-side, I'll also sometimes alter my character concepts to suit certain synergies. For instance, I really loved the idea of a half-orc thief with the Gritty Sergeant background and Mercenary theme: his name is Sarge. Now, I never would've thought of this character if it wasn't for the fact that I realised that the Rapier was the best choice for the thief (pretty obvious and logical deduction) and that the best way to get a Rapier proficiency is through that background.

For me, the process of building a character is... organic. There aren't steps to it. It evolves and grows as I build it. I usually don't think beyond mid-heroic so most of my characters only have concepts that take them that far, but I definitely engineer the mechanics around the concept, and the concept around the mechanics.

Im late to this party, so forgive me if this is old hat.
I don't have a problem the way anyone plays d&D, aside from the 7 folks sitting around the same table as me, and even then, as long as we are all having fun I could care less what style someone uses.
That said, let me interject one thought here. I have found that "optimizers" may claim their creation is all about the concept, but when played it is clear that concept is damage per round, and in my opinion this lacks as an actual concept for a character.
Now don't pull away just yet, I have no idea about you, your style of play, the games you sit in on, or your characters, so I want to make sure nobody thinks I am accusing anyone of "power-gaming" or anything else like that.
I also want to add that it seems power-gamers (for lack of a better term) are just as quick to get mad at other players at the table for ..."not pulling their weight" by not power-gaming. Isn't this just as destructive to the table dynamic?

I say if making Uber killers is your thing, and you have fun, thats one thing, but make sure the entire table is cool with it too, that way you don't have a "Teen Wolf" situation on your hands. If they are cool with it, then drive it til the walls fall off...if the table thinks it sucks you kill everything, either nerf up or find a new table....right?