How Do You Handle Over-Optimization Player Characters And Enemies?

[Lord Raziere]

The issue is, something as simple as that is optimization. Building anything competent requires optimization.

It's over-optimization that's an issue, not optimization itself. I'd dare say that a totally unoptimized character (that being a character who actively sucks at everything they try to do) is going to be pretty damn bad, just like a character who's too good.

So? I don't care. No matter how true you are. Learn to read the social situation, the real message I'm sending: word it differently. The way your refer to it is rude. Because your assuming that I share the viewpoint when I don't. I don't value this, what your saying. Its not low-level optimization, be polite and stop assuming that your lens, your viewpoint is the only one that matters.

Because no matter how times you crow this point, I have heard it a thousand times before, gotten tired of it, and still don't care for it. It is a tired, eye-rolling point that vastly misunderstands what a non-optimizing player cares about or values, that I'm sick to death of, and doesn't contribute to the conversation other than to say "technically its all the thing you hate" as if thats somehow helpful, when its not, its anything but helpful, and is not productive because it only makes me want to not optimize even more. So please, stop saying it and come with up with a better way to get your point across, because its nothing but grating and annoying.

I don't care about technicalities, pointing out technicalities is just signaling to me that you care more about niggling details than respecting someone else or their viewpoint or helping them despite not being accurate to your point of view. I don't care for it. Please stop making this point, because its long become old for me.

[JNAProductions]

So how would you word it? What would you call building a character who's good at their specialty, and can contribute outside it, if not as well?

What word should I use instead?

[RazorChain]

So putting a 16 in your Fighter's strength score is not fun? Because that's optimization. It's very low-level optimization, but it still is.

Depends. If all your other stats are higher then clearly it isn't optimization. If you decide that your fighter was a blacksmith apprentice then you might have a roleplaying reason for having high strenght rather than an because you were optimizing.

Optimize

1. to make as effective, perfect, or useful as possible.
2. to make the best of.

[JNAProductions]

Depends. If all your other stats are higher then clearly it isn't optimization. If you decide that your fighter was a blacksmith apprentice then you might have a roleplaying reason for having high strenght rather than an because you were optimizing.

True, but I'm talking about a typical situation. And roleplay and optimization are not mutually exclusive.

It could go "I want a strong character-a blacksmith's apprentice used to working the hot forges. So I'll make a Fighter who needs a big Strength score."

Or it could be "I want to play a big, strong Fighter. Being a blacksmith would make sense with the big burliness, so I'll make that my backstory."

Edit: And actually, even if Strength isn't your highest stat, it can still be optimization. A well-optimized character is one who can perform their role well-if all you need is 16 Strength to do that, then that's still being a good optimizer.

[Bartmanhomer]

How can you possibly tone down an over-optimizing character?

[JNAProductions]

How can you possibly tone down an over-optimizing character?

Talk to your DM and other players to figure out a solution. The specifics aren't really system agnostic.

[RazorChain]

True, but I'm talking about a typical situation. And roleplay and optimization are not mutually exclusive.

It could go "I want a strong character-a blacksmith's apprentice used to working the hot forges. So I'll make a Fighter who needs a big Strength score."

Or it could be "I want to play a big, strong Fighter. Being a blacksmith would make sense with the big burliness, so I'll make that my backstory."

Edit: And actually, even if Strength isn't your highest stat, it can still be optimization. A well-optimized character is one who can perform their role well-if all you need is 16 Strength to do that, then that's still being a good optimizer.

Not optimizing in my book....but when you pick that race only for the +2 to strenght and -2 to charisma (which you have chosen as a dumpstat) then you have started some glorious optimizing.

[JNAProductions]

Not optimizing in my book....but when you pick that race only for the +2 to strenght and -2 to charisma (which you have chosen as a dumpstat) then you have started some glorious optimizing.

That's not what I'd call "glorious" optimizing. More like basic op-fu. :P

And that could be a fun character (loud, abrasive, good-hearted, and crass but funny) or a really annoying one (loud, abrasive, crass, jerkish, not funny). All depends how good the person behind it is.

[Bartmanhomer]

Not optimizing in my book....but when you pick that race only for the +2 to strenght and -2 to charisma (which you have chosen as a dumpstat) then you have started some glorious optimizing.

That reminds me. Doesn't an over-optimized character have some weakness? (Like an all 18 plus it's lower racial penalty)

[JNAProductions]

That reminds me. Doesn't an over-optimized character have some weakness? (Like an all 18 plus it's lower racial penalty)

Not necessarily. Pun-Pun, for instance, has no weaknesses. And if you discover he has one, he can fix it immediately. And then kill you before you were born.

But sometimes, yes. A combat monster who specializes solely for combat might be toast in a social situation, or even when faced with, say, a good trap. A Diplomancer could crumble before a mindless army.

[RazorChain]

How can you possibly tone down an over-optimizing character?

As another player or as a GM? Oh never mind....as a PC then you could murder him in his sleep, trick him to accept a cursed item that will forever gimp him, if he is a halfling you could eat him when the party runs out of supplies, kick him out of the party because....reasons....kill stealing or he makes the other looks bad.....don't tell him though....when he asks why? Tell him it's not him but you, you aren't good enough for him.

As a GM: Simple, tell him to stop it. If he doesn't the hit him where it hurts. If you don't know how? Here you go http://johnwickpresents.com/product/play-dirty/

[JNAProductions]

As another player or as a GM? Oh never mind....as a PC then you could murder him in his sleep, trick him to accept a cursed item that will forever gimp him, if he is a halfling you could eat him when the party runs out of supplies, kick him out of the party because....reasons....kill stealing or he makes the other looks bad.....don't tell him though....when he asks why? Tell him it's not him but you, you aren't good enough for him.

As a GM: Simple, tell him to stop it. If he doesn't the hit him where it hurts. If you don't know how? Here you go http://johnwickpresents.com/product/play-dirty/

As a player, you should still handle it OOC, rather than IC.

[RazorChain]

That's not what I'd call "glorious" optimizing. More like basic op-fu. :P

And that could be a fun character (loud, abrasive, good-hearted, and crass but funny) or a really annoying one (loud, abrasive, crass, jerkish, not funny). All depends how good the person behind it is.

What's op-fu? You must pardon my ignorance I'm not a teenage hipster and I mostly stopped playing D&D 20 years ago...I even had to google BBEG.....I used to call them villains...and still do.

[Lord Raziere]

So how would you word it? What would you call building a character who's good at their specialty, and can contribute outside it, if not as well?

What word should I use instead?

playing the game normally.

[JNAProductions]

What's op-fu? You must pardon my ignorance I'm not a teenage hipster and I mostly stopped playing D&D 20 years ago...I even had to google BBEG.....I used to call them villains...and still do.

Op-fu is just optimization. like kung-fu... But Optimizing. It's not really standing for anything.

playing the game normally.

Great, let me roll up a 3.5 Monk and be competent at NOTHING! :P

[RazorChain]

As a player, you should still handle it OOC, rather than IC.

Nah...if he does it OOC he'll just come across as a whiny git and it turns out something like this.

Player 1: Stop optimizing, you are ruining the game for the rest of us

Player 2: Whiny git, go home to your mommy and cry because my L33T character Roflstomps everything and you're just jelous because I'm an munchkin GOD!

/player1 runs to the forums to complains.

So it's obvious that he has already taken it OOC. So now it's time to bribe the GM to kill player2's character.

[Bartmanhomer]

Not necessarily. Pun-Pun, for instance, has no weaknesses. And if you discover he has one, he can fix it immediately. And then kill you before you were born.

But sometimes, yes. A combat monster who specializes solely for combat might be toast in a social situation, or even when faced with, say, a good trap. A Diplomancer could crumble before a mindless army.

Pun-Pun may be powerful but he can be killed by an overdeity. Just like overdeities can killed overdeities.

[JNAProductions]

I'm pretty sure the OP is a hypothetical situation. Bartmanhomere, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just a "what-if", right?

Edit: And that's not a weakness, that's DM fiat. That can do anything.

Especially since, by the rules, Pun-Pun is more powerful than any given overdeity. :P

[Lord Raziere]

Great, let me roll up a 3.5 Monk and be competent at NOTHING! :P

Intentional incompetence is not playing normally. I am not a stormwind idiot who intentionally makes my character failures. But neither am I a person who thinks optimization is the be-all end-all of everything and that everything mechanical should be defined by it. If I want to play a competent character that is not optimal, I won't pretend as if the latter is the former, and just play the competent character.

it is true that mechanical competence and roleplaying competence are not inversely related. But I refuse to associate competence with optimization.

[The Insanity]

I tried not optimizing once. It was awful.

[Bartmanhomer]

I'm pretty sure the OP is a hypothetical situation. Bartmanhomere, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just a "what-if", right?

Edit: And that's not a weakness, that's DM fiat. That can do anything.

Especially since, by the rules, Pun-Pun is more powerful than any given overdeity. :P

Yeah let keep it a what if. And I'm aware of Pun-Pun powers and stats. It's crazy. It can even killed Superman.

[RazorChain]

Op-fu is just optimization. like kung-fu... But Optimizing. It's not really standing for anything.

Oh I get it......so choosing a race to become more optimized is just the basics? So what is considered munchkinism in D&D land these days? Selling your mother into a bordello so you can buy the newest splat book with the newest OP races and classes?

It surely must follow the Games Workshop trend where each race/faction is more OP than the next

Great, let me roll up a 3.5 Monk and be competent at NOTHING! :P

You could tend a garden and submissively turn the other cheek? Or throw a bible at someone

[JNAProductions]

Intentional incompetence is not playing normally. I am not a stormwind idiot who intentionally makes my character failures. But neither am I a person who thinks optimization is the be-all end-all of everything and that everything mechanical should be defined by it. If I want to play a competent character that is not optimal, I won't pretend as if the latter is the former, and just play the competent character.

it is true that mechanical competence and roleplaying competence are not inversely related. But I refuse to associate competence with optimization.

So playing a core class is not normal playing?

[RazorChain]

Yeah let keep it a what if. And I'm aware of Pun-Pun powers and stats. It's crazy. It can even killed Superman.

Now we're talking. Just buy your GM a pizza and ask him that the offending optimizing player has a random encounter with a Pun-Pun when he's buying his garters of godly might for his ill gained loot.

[Lord Raziere]

So playing a core class is not normal playing?

Well you have 11 other choices, and presumably because of your attitude your playing it intentionally badly because you don't like it, so no. normal play assumes that you like what your playing. it also assumes that you have enough respect to other people not to even try anything over-optimizing.

[JNAProductions]

Well you have 11 other choices, and presumably because of your attitude your playing it intentionally badly because you don't like it, so no. normal play assumes that you like what your playing. it also assumes that you have enough respect to other people not to even try anything over-optimizing.

*Sigh*

So two new players roll up characters. One thinks druids are cool, and does that. The other thinks monks are cool, and does that. That's a completely normal play scenario, but at the same optimization levels (newbie) the druid will ridiculously outshine the monk.

In order to make a monk good, you HAVE to optimize your pants off. And here's the thing-I like monks! I like punching things! It's cool! But playing a straight monk in 3.5 is just a bad idea without a lot of work.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's a perfectly good chance that people will end up with characters too powerful for the table without trying to be mean. For instance, a DM describes his table as "Cutthroat, tough players" so I roll up a God-Wizard, but it turns out they think Fighters are the most powerful class. I'm now WAY TOO POWERFUL for this table because the DM and I had different ideas of what constitutes powerful characters.

Or refer back to my new player examples-the druid will outshine the monk in nearly every way, but not because they tried to. Just because they happened to like a concept that, in 3E, is inherently more powerful.

So, in conclusion... Stop using "optimize" like it's a dirty word.

[jscape2000]

And... If the player's build is terrible? Do the other players get cursed items? Or do you provide the helpless character with extra swag?

See, me, I stopped playing a character for several levels, to help him fall (further) behind the party, because he just wasn't comparatively weak enough for my tastes (for playing that particular character) any more.

But, at the same time, when I don't know a system well enough to build a good character... I'd be torn. From a gameplay PoV, I would appreciate the boost, so I could contribute, but, from a realism PoV, why do these random tombs that we didn't research always seem to contain "appropriate" items?

And, um... Shouldn't "multiclass psion" likely fall in the "wtf, need some help there, noob?" category, at least at most levels of optimization?

Not something I need to do often. But I have a couple guys at my table who know their Pathfinder forwards and backwards, while the others are less fluent. I tossed Stone of Good Luck their way in mid-levels and they were immediately focused on trying to sell it so they could turn around and buy "better" gear. So they couldn't find a buyer who'd meet "standard" price.

Part of it is communication with the players- tell me what kind of build and tools you're wishing for, and let me put those within your reach. But for the same reasons characters don't level up mid-adventure, not every class is open to every character at all times.

For those tombs- I'd rather not let the game mechanics get in the way of the story. Hercules and Thor didn't stumble across magic items they couldn't use.

Yeah, the psion was meant as an example of a dip that's far outside the CRB that a new player wouldn't consider as well as outside the current RP goals of the character, but that seems (to me) to pop up in many "broken" builds. Maybe that was more so in 3.5. Feel free to substitute Radiant Servant or Wizard or Gunslinger or whatever else you'd like.

[RazorChain]

I tried not optimizing once. It was awful.

Tried implies you failed. My advice is to try harder...keep going and at some point in the future you might not fail. Not Optimizing is a skill that is hard to master but once you have seen the light, reached enlightenment then you can call yourself a roleplaying Guru....or a method actor. That is much better than to practice the evil ways of op-fu

[Lord Raziere]

*Sigh*

So two new players roll up characters. One thinks druids are cool, and does that. The other thinks monks are cool, and does that. That's a completely normal play scenario, but at the same optimization levels (newbie) the druid will ridiculously outshine the monk.

In order to make a monk good, you HAVE to optimize your pants off. And here's the thing-I like monks! I like punching things! It's cool! But playing a straight monk in 3.5 is just a bad idea without a lot of work.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's a perfectly good chance that people will end up with characters too powerful for the table without trying to be mean. For instance, a DM describes his table as "Cutthroat, tough players" so I roll up a God-Wizard, but it turns out they think Fighters are the most powerful class. I'm now WAY TOO POWERFUL for this table because the DM and I had different ideas of what constitutes powerful characters.

Or refer back to my new player examples-the druid will outshine the monk in nearly every way, but not because they tried to. Just because they happened to like a concept that, in 3E, is inherently more powerful.

So, in conclusion... Stop using "optimize" like it's a dirty word.

If you know the system so much, why haven't you fixed it then? Why haven't you made the classes truly competitive with another than pointing out the problem and doing nothing about it, and claiming various exploits that take more time to learn fix the problem?

[2D8HP]

How do I handle optimization by players?
Simple, I just don't DM anymore.
As a player I'm content to just sneak and fire arrows, and have the flashy abilities that other PC's utilize just be part of the fantastic world I RPG to explore.
I just prefer to play more mundane characters exploring a magical environment, and I leave the super powers to other PC's.
I sometimes have tiresome conversions with other players who want to "encourage" me, but most "get it" or don't care.