Results 91 to 100 of 100
-
2009-10-06, 12:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: Toning it down: hiding optimization
Originally Posted by Tackyhillbillu
Ideally OPTIONSfighter * POWERfighter options = OPTIONSwizard * POWERwizard options, but in practice it turns out that generally OPTIONSfighter * POWERfighter options << OPTIONSwizard * POWERwizard options; however, in either case, having more options is better than having fewer.
-
2009-10-06, 01:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Toning it down: hiding optimization
Hardly anybody's like that, and yeah I wouldn't want to play with them either. Optimization is more like what you talk about later, taking a concept and making it work to the best of your ability. Strict powergaming died the day someone built a lvl1 Pun-Pun; the rest is about "Practical Optimization", and I don't know anybody who confuses that with "Theoretical Optimization", which is also fun but fairly obviously unplayable. TO is about the absolute limits of the system, akin to theoretical physicists attempting to determine the temperature of a Black Hole. PO is about making things work on a playable level, akin to an engineer attempting to design the strongest bridge with the materials at hand. It's possible that his answer involves black holes, but he'll discard that out of hand because that's not the sort of answer he cares about.
If anyone was playing TO in a normal game, yeah, kick them out. If anyone's playing PO, well there's a chance they'll overshadow others, but they'll generally respond well if the DM gives them special unique limitations to work under, like what's discussed in my Optimizing Weakness thread. If anyone's playing a Werebear Halfdragon Celesial Karsite... well, they may LOOK nasty but their HP will be in the gutter and they'll probably go down in a round the first time they meet someone who can reliably affect them.
Thank you! I do consider myself pretty good at PO, I'm just not in the TO big leagues. I'm not the guy who discovers new combos, or creates famous builds. I do think I have pretty reliable good advice for practical gaming though, and I'm very gratified that you feel the same way. Thanks. =)
-
2009-10-06, 07:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: Toning it down: hiding optimization
There is nothing on earth that we share; it is either Valjean or Javert!
"A wizard can in fact be thought of the custodian to a familiar, a terrifying beast that charges its foes, slashing them to shreds while delivering their master's touch spells and bestowing upon their masters incredible bonuses to their hp or skill checks. A wizard is nearly powerless without one."
Need to find a God? or Spell or Feat?
-
2009-10-06, 07:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Laughing with the sinners
- Gender
Re: Toning it down: hiding optimization
I would just play closer to my friends' level.
We play with the groups available. Sometimes because we like these people outside of game and want to hang out, sometimes because there aren't more options. If you play together for a long time, you tend to arrive at a consensus, at least in my experience.
If four people are having fun and the optimizer is bored, I think it's up to him to compromise. If the party is all about the min/maxing and I try to bring an unoptimized Sword and Boarder, and complain that I don't get to contribute, then I need to compromise.
"Proving a point" never ends well. It may trash the campaign, or piss people off, or make you feel superior while you look for another group or play with four sullen, angry, resentful players, but it never makes the rest of the group suddenly see your side and agree with you.
Needs of the many and all that.
-
2009-10-06, 07:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Maryland
- Gender
-
2009-10-06, 10:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- Reading, England
- Gender
Re: Toning it down: hiding optimization
Yeah, I forgot how much Cleric can be cheesed out. I don't scour the expansion books and optimization boards looking for tricks during character concept.
Try core-only Cleric and every spell that you prepare is only prepared once. You'll have a trick for most situations and you'll only pull powerful tricks, such as Divine Power or Flame Strike, when the fight looks tough. You can be effective and others will be grateful when you're really effective.
If you can't stand this kind of holding back, leave the group. They can't do what you want from a game.Matthew Greet
My purpose in life is to play games.
-
2009-10-06, 10:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Tampa, FL
- Gender
Re: Toning it down: hiding optimization
Wow, there are some real ***hole DMs out there.
You seem to be confusing "optimizing" and "twinking." The former means being good at your job, the latter means overshadowing the other players. You CAN do the former without doing the latter.
-
2009-10-06, 10:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Maryland
- Gender
Re: Toning it down: hiding optimization
Yeah...when vastly level inappropriate encounters are being whipped out just to kill you...the point of the game has been lost somewhere along the way.
That said, if such a thing happened to me, and I did drop the first two, I'd demand my xp before fighting the second. That should be enough to level, at least.
-
2009-10-06, 11:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- I wish I knew...
- Gender
Re: Toning it down: hiding optimization
Hehe, that was a fun exercise in making the worst class strong enough to use. I'm trying to improve it by finding some way he can render opponents "Helpless" so he can CDG his opponents and make it go by *much* faster.
Back on the original topic, however:
If you want to Optimize, but don't want to out-shine everyone, then optimize Party Support!
I built a Cleric a while back. Used DMM, but not Persist. He used DMM Chain Spell. + Reach Spell. And would be a party buff bot and healbot. Alone? He was weak and almost helpless. His BAB was abysmal, and he didn't even *HAVE* the Divine Power or Righteous Might spells (Spontaneous variant), he didn't 'nuke' and didn't have many Save or Screwed spells. What he *DID* have, in spades, was party buffing, and fix-it type spells.
Basically, unless the entire party died in the surprise round, they won, because they couldn't match my character's ability to negate what they could do.
In the beginning, he would DMM Chain Greater Magic Weapon, DMM Chain Reach Spell Magic Vestments, DMM Chain Mind Blank (Protection Domain), and I would reserve spells for DMM Chain Reach Spell Shield of Faith and DMM Chain Reach Spell Barkskin for when we got into combat. I would also be sure to be able to drop a DMM Chain Spell Reach Death Ward or a DMM Chain Spell Reach Freedom of Movement spell in the event the whole party needed it.
In other words, the whole party had +5 gear, and was immune to mind-affecting and divination. If necessary, they could also be immune to Negative Energy effects (including Enervation), movement hampering effects (like Slow or Solid Fog), or both. If opponents did nasty things when they hit (like Rust Monsters), Shield of Faith would go off, and possibly Barkskin as well, if it would help.
If we got hurt, then I would simply Heal whomever got hurt. If it was everyone getting hurt, I'd DMM Chain Reach it. If anyone would get negative effects, I'd negate those too.
In other words, I wasn't strong because I could kill everything. I was strong, because as long as I was up, nothing could really hurt the party, who could then mop up anything they encountered.
There was an arcane variant which used War Weaver and Arcane Disciple to great effect. Rather than Heal, he had more Battlefield Control, which again went along with the theme of "I didn't hurt anything, I just made it easier for the party to win"Last edited by ShneekeyTheLost; 2009-10-06 at 11:32 AM.
SpoilerQuite possibly, the best rebuttal I have ever witnessed.
Joker Bard - the DM's solution to the Batman Wizard.
Takahashi no Onisan - The scariest Samurai alive
Incarnum and YOU: a reference guide
Soulmelds, by class and slot: Another Incarnum reference
Multiclassing for Newbies: A reference guide for the rest of us
My homebrew world in progress: Falcora
-
2009-10-06, 11:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Toning it down: hiding optimization
It's honestly not that easy. I could take any core class and overshadow them without even having to consult a book or go searching for feats. I don't have to be out to "prove a point", or even put much effort into it. When I hear "Sword and Board Fighter", I immediately think Shield Ward, plus Animated Shield or TWF with Improved Shield Bash, plus Goad or Martial Stance: Iron Guard's Glare. I immediately think that a Ranger dip for the TWF would be a great idea, that I should pack a longbow and weapons of various metals, that being a Dwarf would open up some nice PrC options as well as helping defend against magic, and that a detour through PsiWar 2 could be well worth it for the bonus feats, and if I did so that Warmind could be fantastic. And then I might actually start thinking about it.
By contrast, here's an example of what I'm "up against":
In one campaign I was in, we'd started around level three and worked our way up to eight, and there was this one Human Fighter who was.... interesting. He never once spent any of the gold we got, never claimed a magic item (note: this wasn't a part of his character, the player just "never got around to it"), was using a longsword onehanded with no shield, and his feats were Alertness, Dodge, Endurance, Improved Critical (longsword), Improved Initiative, Self-Sufficient, Weapon Focus (Long-sword), and Weapon Specialization (Long-sword). He had an AC of 19 and was attacking with +13/+8(1d8+5), and had no other significant combat options. At level eight. And actively resisted any friendly advice I tried to give on how to be more effective.
That player may have been an extreme case, but that gives you some idea about the rest of the group. Playing on that level is going to make me feel horribly confined. Have you ever played in a campaign where the DM made character sheets for everyone and told you right up front who you had to play and how you had to play them? It generally doesn't make for a particularly fun experience, and this would feel the same way to me.
Now, I personally have a lot of good ideas for making this work, after the whole Optimizing Weakness thread. I posted one or two of those ideas already, and there's a bunch more I'd definitely consider playing next time I'm in a group like that. There's a whole lot more people like me though, and not all of them have that one obscure thread. Asking them to play deliberately crippled characters is going to damage their enjoyment of the game, just as being horribly overshadowed is going damage everyone else's. Yeah yeah, "needs of the many" and all that, but this is a game, and games are supposed to be fun for everyone. Compromise is in order, and that involves accommodations on both sides. Here's three ideas.
1) The veteran works with the others at character creation. This is popular, but a lot of mediocre players really resent it and actively resist any attempt to improve their character. Still, it's a good place to start.
2) The DM makes the veteran's character plot-significant in some way. Perhaps he's a noble the players have to protect and all the NPCs are gunning for. Perhaps he's re-fluffed as wielding some ancient power that's significant to the plot. Making it a part of the game world removes some of the pressure from the other players, and helps them feel like it's not a direct competition. It doesn't matter as much if you're not quite as powerful as the walking macguffin, as long as the DM pitches the campaign to you and makes sure you have plenty to do.
3) The DM puts special limits or challenges on the veteran's character. This is what's covered in Optimizing Weakness, conditions the veteran can operate under that bring him back into line. Perhaps he's banned from using Core material, perhaps he has to use 3d6 organic stats, perhaps he has to use only Tier 5/6 classes. Whichever way, defining the handicap at the outset is a great way to bring things back into line. It's what they do in a lot of real-world sports!
In my experience, DMs are uncomfortable doing some of these things, but I personally would downright appreciate it. I'd far rather start working under limited conditions and get to flex my optimization might within them, than have stuff get nerfed/banned later on. It's the DM's job to make sure everyone's having fun, so it's their job to work with the veteran too.