Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[Mallus]

I'll echo what some people have been saying: there's nothing wrong with optimization per se, but there is a problem with groups that have wide power disparities between PCs.

And it's a pretty big problem: it makes the game harder to run for (most) DMs.

The guiding principle in PC design should be: build a character that fits into your specific group. The best PCs are the ones who work well with others, not necessarily the ones with the maximized chances of survival.

I've been thinking a bit about optimization w/r/t different systems lately...

I might join a Pathfinder group soon. Since it's a 3e-framework game, a certain level of optimization is practically required. There are a lot of options, a lot of synergies, a fair number of traps, and by deciding not to spend a little time on the mechanical implementation of your PC, you miss out on one best features of the system.

We've also played Savage Worlds recently. I have no idea how to optimize a SW character. But it is fun to play around with the character build options, since the system gives you, for a compact rules set, a lot of interesting mechanical dials to twiddle, though they seem more geared to character modeling, and not so prone to "killer builds".

Then there's our AD&D campaign, where character optimization amounts to the magic-user acquiring Sleep and Web, the fighter double-specializing in a sword, and everyone buying 10' poles, war dogs, and as much flame oil as they can carry !

 

[Umbran]

I say what follows in an attempt to help you see some things that you apparently don't. I'm sorry it is not flattering, but I hope it is helpful.

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

Hardly. I've been a moderator for years - it takes a whole lot to offend me, personally. I'm telling you it came across as a snotty tone, and there's a purpose in my saying so...

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.

Here it is in a nutshell - it is my considered opinion (and, in this, as a moderator you probably should consider me a "trained observer") that it was in *not* obvious that you were joking. To use the vernacular, there was squat-all in that to indicate you were being light-hearted. It read like something would have been reported for rudeness, had you said it to someone else.

And, on top of that, your response was to actively and publicly try to lay the entire blame for the misunderstanding on faults in me, rather than take it to be simple misunderstanding, take some of the blame for yourself, or even (*gasp*, perish the thought) apologize for giving offense.

Which brings me to what I said before. Many folks interact very differently in-person than they do online. But, right here, and from other threads I've seen you in, it looks like communication style is an issue for you.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

again, this is not an indictment on you or your style of play, but when you say "this item seems good for me" what you really mean is "this item does killer damage." You took the "quick item" because to paraphrase you : quick = thief ... you took the mighty item because.............mighty = more damage.

I'm not seeing anything about those items that would make the theif not think "these are good for me". Some might only want items that summon biscuits of tea enjoyment +1 or fancy hats or whatever, but normally professional murderers (aka adventurers) are at least somewhat interested in things that increase their killing power. Similarly, those min-maxed real life firefighters often use equipment that protects themselves from flames...

None of this equipment is that crazy (damage boosting arms are weapon users default slot, the weapon is an uncommon). The background doesnt add much, and its not like the theme power is a damage roll or minor action attack (so no extra static mods from it).

Given the character used 2 encounters, an action point and a daily, the damage doesnt seem that absurd, when you realize he's tapped for the rest of the encounter. The thief is designed partly around spike damage. Our paladin puts out similar damage with Blood of the Mighty and Righteous Rage.

 

[Spatula]

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 wasn't addressing the optimization argument, but rather the game design tangent. As I was trying to say in my post, the classes come equipped with the abilities that a competent PC needs, but the players can always choose to hurt their effectiveness in various ways. And the game design generally assumes that the players aren't doing that. Which doesn't mean that it can't be done, but it's not exactly supported by the game.

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.

Yeah. When 3e came out I loved all the character customization possibilities. 10 years later I realized that it was more of a problem than a boon for some players. The lack of customization in AD&D turned out to be a good thing after all, when playing with a mixed group anyway.

When 4e came out, I thought that they had mostly solved that problem. But then the PC math didn't work, and WotC released new feats to fix that, and then those feats became mandatory to those who knew the system, and anyone who didn't take them obviously didn't know what they were doing... And then there's the ridiculous synergies that resulted from the explosion of options... And we're right back where we started.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

This is a strange thread. I've never witnessed ridicule or scorn from moderate optimization...and I'm in the 30+ club for role-playing experience.

I guess managing to find your own way to enjoy the game without proselytizing it as being correct allows everyone a smoother platform toward enjoyment.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If play testing ran through the QA process that hardware/software goes through in a big company, they'd have made huge matrices to list out all the build combinations, and testets would be working through those combinations (or at least random points).

That would be a help. It wouldn't stop Pun-Pun (not that any DM would allow it), but it might control the ridiculousness of the Monster Vault owlbear.

Level 8 elite brute:

At-Will: Double Attack. Each attack does an average of 20 damage and can grab a target. Then follow up (by spending an AP) Beak Snap, which only targets grabbed opponents and deals an average of 40 damage. That's 80 damage against a single opponent in one round!

And apparently perfectly legal by the monster math, though I suspect beak snap should be doing an average of 30 damage.

I wonder if WotC even realizes the problem? I get the impression once they're done with something, they don't really look at it again. I wasn't a playtester often, and have no informed opinion on the matter.

 

[Pentius]

I think averaging 69.5 damage in a turn for a 2nd level character is broken. It's just my opinion, of course.

I don't. If that were every turn, then yeah, but for a an AP, a Daily, and three encounter powers, that's fine. It also wouldn't be that much average damage. That much average damage assumes that all three attacks hit. With that selection of magic items, that level, blowing all my resources in a turn and with the assumption that all attacks hit before calculating average damage, I'm going to bet that a number of characters can hit in that ballpark.

again, this is not an indictment on you or your style of play, but when you say "this item seems good for me" what you really mean is "this item does killer damage." You took the "quick item" because to paraphrase you : quick = thief ... you took the mighty item because.............mighty = more damage.

I might be missing something here. How is this an issue?

my next question for you - and this is 100% off topic - after doing 60+ damage in round 1, what do you do in round 2?

You turn and face the three to four remaining standard enemies in the fight.

 

[Gryph]

I don't. If that were every turn, then yeah, but for a an AP, a Daily, and three encounter powers, that's fine. It also wouldn't be that much average damage. That much average damage assumes that all three attacks hit. With that selection of magic items, that level, blowing all my resources in a turn and with the assumption that all attacks hit before calculating average damage, I'm going to bet that a number of characters can hit in that ballpark.

I might be missing something here. How is this an issue?


You turn and face the three to four remaining standard enemies in the fight.

You're right. It isn't broken amounts of damage for the complete use of all encounter/daily powers a 2nd level Thief has (and AP).

I think there is a system hole that allows that character build to trigger 2 encounter and 1 daily power from a single successful attack role, though.

Honestly, though, that is a rules issue and tends to be the hardest to deal with for Essentials strikers for the reasons that Kzach eventually pointed out. To make up for the lack of a class daily they have even more (and earlier) static damage bonuses than AEDU builds.

I can get a PHB1 Rogue to 7d8 on a nova round that uses a daily, AP, encounter combo but I don't really know anyway to approach the +39 static damage. I stall around +20 and Thief is usually more accurate than Rogue builds (Backstabber in Kzach's example adds +3 to the hit roll on top of the +2 for CA he needed to use it. Added to the expected +12 base attack I think he would have at 2nd level he can only miss with that first attack on a 1 against standard same level monsters).

I build for accuracy and haven't managed that high a bonus for a PHB Rogue build.

 

[Janx]

targets grabbed opponents and deals an average of 40 damage. That's 80 damage against a single opponent in one round!

Judging by the words used and the damage levels cited, does 4e have a higher damage ammount in general?

Has there been a damage inflation in the game?

I've gotten big numbers for damage in 3e. On my >15th minotaur fighter with a great axe and 24str (belt of giant strength) and improved crit and rolling max damage. And yes, that was awesome.

but that was a maxed out crit. And those same characters wouldn't last 2 rounds taking 80/a round in return.

Once upon a time, 12 damage from a big weapon + strength + 1 was the most a 1st level PC could pretty much do.

And HP couldn't keep up if the enemy swung that, so it sounds like 4e gave PCs more HP. And then in return, made monsters hand out more damage to eat those HP faster.

It sounds like the game additions and charops behaviors have created an arms race.

 

[Pentius]

You're right. It isn't broken amounts of damage for the complete use of all encounter/daily powers a 2nd level Thief has (and AP).

I think there is a system hole that allows that character build to trigger 2 encounter and 1 daily power from a single successful attack role, though.

It's actually weaker that way than with multiattacks. If he just had three consecutive attacks, it'd be stronger, because he could use the rest of the combo even if the first attack failed.