Why hate optimization?

[Crake]

That's. . . wow. Way to go idiots, you got rid of the most reliable sunder protection in the game, which had the perfect roots in "only a powerful artifact can match another" tropes. Wonder if whoever wrote that errata even knew what they were doing?

Because guess what? 3.0 DMG didn't have that discrepancy. I always remembered the rule as applying to both weapons and armor and shields, and hey look that's how it was. Some einstein decided to mess with it in 3.5. One of these days I really need to catalogue a list of all the moronic updates that made things worse (there's a whole pile of SpC spells that got jacked up in power), just to make a point of why RAW is a terrible god.

Well nevermind then I guess.

3.5 did get rid of a lot of "you need at least +X to continue" things, like DR 50/+4 or stuff like that, where if you didn't have a +4 weapon, the DR was practically insurmountable. I suspect that change followed a similar like, where magic is magic, and a +5 weapon is no more special than a +1 weapon, except you're a little more accurate and deal a bit more damage.

[Fizban]

Sure, but the DR thing was actually well thought out. Who would stop and think "hey, it should be easier to sunder things?" Maybe someone on the team was sour about not being able to sunder things with their minimum +1 weapon? Or sour about not being able to sunder things with monster's +1 weapons?

But the old rule made sundering actually work for the PCs: you can't accidentally sunder a weapon better than yours, and you don't have to worry about your weapon (or shield) being sundered by something that doesn't have a suitably impressive weapon. It's got a thing to it, rather than just "rawr my damage one-shots your sword loser."

And it is probably that +1 weapon thing- since as we know, most optimizers refuse to use higher than a +1, so their "better" weapons could already be broken easily and they would have issues sundering (or beating +x DR), and GMW was nerfed as well. So a direct response to optimizers by nerfing their favorite buff and making it easier to use their favorite weapons, including for sunder.

And that's often the response you get to optimization. I mention frequently that the later books screw with balance worse and worse- as the writers start pandering to the optimizing forum crowd over time. Because when you write mechanics to please people that are playing the game completely differently from how you originally intended, even the little things can mess things up, especially when there's no way it could ever have been perfect to begin with.

[ayvango]

If I doesn't miss anything then character with enough strength to bypass DR, could sunder adamantine sword with wooden stick? You could shatter the sword to pieces and wooden stick would still be intact?

[Blue Jay]

if head on that is still 2/3 chance to hit the square not covered by the roadblock. and if left or right 1 space thats still 1/2.

I'm not sure where your chances are coming from, but you seem to have overlooked an important piece of my argument there. The rule says, "When it's important to determine the closest square to a creature..." When the defender is trying to decide where to position his roadblock, it's important to him to know which square is the closest square. That means the chance roll ought to take place before he takes his action. So, there should be a 0% chance of you hitting the right square when somebody is actively trying to block the path of your charge attack.

In my personal opinion, I don't think there's any ambiguity about which square you're allowed to charge into, anyway. Here's the wording from the SRD on charge attacks: "You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent." I interpret this to mean you can't veer left or right, so you have to go head-on. This wording was removed for Rules Compendium though, so it's possible that my interpretation is not what was intended; nevertheless, I feel it's better to favor the defender in this case, so I'll hold to my interpretation. And, I feel like the only ambiguities come into play when you've got a creature whose space is bigger than a 5-by-5 square.

again IF you are blocked for that creatures just pick a different one this round and go after primary targer next round.

Agreed. But, I only entered this discussion to defend the notion that roadblocking against a charge does work, so I don't have much to say about these other tactics.

-----

To actually answer the OP: I think the problem is usually perception. This thread has more than shown that people's perception of optimizers and "anti-optimizers" is far more important to the view of optimization than any actual effect optimization has on the game. Because in a perfect world, everyone would build to the optimization level appropriate for their table and never get in arguments about it with people they've never played with.

I think you're right about this. I think all of us can tell that Darth Ultron is just conflating all "optimizers" with the more extreme, minmaxer/munchkin types; and I think that just about all of the rest of us agree that it's clearly misrepresenting what a typical "optimizer" is. On the other hand, I think the "optimizers" are also emphasizing the most moderate examples of optimization to prove the opposite point, which I think also doesn't accurately represent what a typical "optimizer" is.

In reality, there's a gradient of optimization, and most of us are balancing somewhere in the middle, making compromises between the "ideal" of our interesting character concept and the "reality" of our need for functional mechanics. Frankly, seeing this kind of debate become so polarized is giving me whiplash, because I really don't see why it should be this contentious.

I think I largely side with the "optimizers" in this discussion: optimizing is an essential and important part of the game, and it's not just the recourse of the mindless masses who only find enjoyment in a soulless game. But in some ways, Darth Ultron's points are resonating with me. "Optimization" can sometimes feel like some sort of oppressive force that's trying to force me to give up some of my creative freedom, and it can sometimes feel like a strain on my immersion. And I do get bitter about it sometimes.

For example, my experience with PbP games over the past few years is that there are a lot of people who overstate their roleplaying abilities, and overstate how much they "emphasize the roleplay." And I've seen a lot of people that routinely pick only high-powered options while simultaneously claiming that what they really want is just to play "fun and flavorful characters." I'm kind of embarrassed to admit that I've developed a bit of an impulsive cynicism towards people who claim to be good at balancing mechanics and roleplay. My first impulse is to say in my head, "Sure, buddy: I don't know you, but I'm going to guess that you're actually basically a minmaxer, and you're just saying you 'emphasize roleplay' because you're trying to distance yourself from the 'munchkin' stigma." Basically, I assume that everyone's a munchkin, and force to prove to me that they're not. Obviously, this is a very unfair and self-righteous thing for me to think, but I can't deny that it goes through my head, and that it does so more often than I want to admit.

I think I find that the bitterness goes away when you just learn to let go of stuff. Optimizing isn't a bad thing: it's part of the game. And if you're a creative, story-driven type, you can always find a story to tell, even if you have to optimize your mechanics a little while you look for it.

[Crake]

Sure, but the DR thing was actually well thought out. Who would stop and think "hey, it should be easier to sunder things?" Maybe someone on the team was sour about not being able to sunder things with their minimum +1 weapon? Or sour about not being able to sunder things with monster's +1 weapons?

But the old rule made sundering actually work for the PCs: you can't accidentally sunder a weapon better than yours, and you don't have to worry about your weapon (or shield) being sundered by something that doesn't have a suitably impressive weapon. It's got a thing to it, rather than just "rawr my damage one-shots your sword loser."

And it is probably that +1 weapon thing- since as we know, most optimizers refuse to use higher than a +1, so their "better" weapons could already be broken easily and they would have issues sundering (or beating +x DR), and GMW was nerfed as well. So a direct response to optimizers by nerfing their favorite buff and making it easier to use their favorite weapons, including for sunder.

And that's often the response you get to optimization. I mention frequently that the later books screw with balance worse and worse- as the writers start pandering to the optimizing forum crowd over time. Because when you write mechanics to please people that are playing the game completely differently from how you originally intended, even the little things can mess things up, especially when there's no way it could ever have been perfect to begin with.

To be fair though, something like a treant, one of their things is that they sunder stuff. With that rule in place, they cannot sunder a magic item ever, which, by their CR level, everyone will be wielding.

[Nifft]

I think you're right about this. I think all of us can tell that Darth Ultron is just conflating all "optimizers" with the more extreme, minmaxer/munchkin types; and I think that just about all of the rest of us agree that it's clearly misrepresenting what a typical "optimizer" is. On the other hand, I think the "optimizers" are also emphasizing the most moderate examples of optimization to prove the opposite point, which I think also doesn't accurately represent what a typical "optimizer" is.

In reality, there's a gradient of optimization, and most of us are balancing somewhere in the middle, making compromises between the "ideal" of our interesting character concept and the "reality" of our need for functional mechanics. Frankly, seeing this kind of debate become so polarized is giving me whiplash, because I really don't see why it should be this contentious.

There are examples of the sort of optimizer that garners complaints -- recently for example someone on this forum was saying, "there's no point in playing a Bard unless you go into Sublime Chord".

I would argue that putting undue value on pure mechanical strength is merely a phase that many people go through on the path to true enlightenment.

Spoiler: Stages of the Optimizer

Show

Stage 1: Naive Stumbling - "Ser Comflex is a tough-as-nails Paladin, so I took Toughness."
- Chooses options based on flavor text rather than mechanics.
- Often frustrated by inability to perform as flavor advertised.
- Gets angry at "optimizers", which are usually Stage 2, because they seem to be playing a different game.
- Doesn't really notice Stage 3, except in curiosity as Stage 3 players aren't frustrated.


Stage 2: Grasp of Mechanics - "My character is a spiked-chain trip ubercharger, with pounce, and regional feats from three settings. Oh, what's his name? Uh..."
- Has learned to use the internet.
- Chooses options based on maximum mechanical impact; plays a "build".
- Over-compensated for past frustration by attempting to build over-powered self-reliant characters.
- Often frustrated by lack of engagement with ongoing game, or frustrated by how games die when a whole session devolves into a fight between the player and the DM about the weird rules abuses that the internet told the player to use.
- Looks down on Stage 1 because they can't perform as well mechanically.
- Doesn't understand Stage 3 motivation.


Stage 3: System Mastery - "Three-Finger Alyx was a thief from the streets, but after being taken in by Avadu the Water-Blade, Alyx is now proud to claim the title of best duelist in the kingdom."
- Mechanical expertise in service of character concept.
- Can make a vast number of different character concepts work.
- Uses mechanics intelligently, but isn't solely focused on finding a way to break the game.
- Frustrated with Stage 2 players who keep making the same few boring OP builds.
- Tries to help Stage 1 players become functional; frustrated when the Stage 1 picks a bad option based on bad flavor text rather than re-fluffing a more appropriate mechanical option.

System Mastery in the above means than just a solid grasp of mechanics -- it also means you are free from the idea that mechanics are the only thing that matters.

Competent freedom is better than ignorant freedom.

[Fizban]

If I doesn't miss anything then character with enough strength to bypass DR, could sunder adamantine sword with wooden stick? You could shatter the sword to pieces and wooden stick would still be intact?

Depends on what damage the DM is giving the stick: if it's a twig that is ruled to deal non-lethal damage, it won't harm an object, but if it's an improvised club then it deals lethal damage and yes you can do that. A +5 adamantine weapon has hardness 30 and 63 hit points, if no one's trying to kill you with it you can bash it apart in about 5 minutes by level 10.

People like adamantine because it bypasses harness (actually it only bypasses hardness less than 20, so 19 or less), but with high str, a greatclub, just a bit of the "mandatory" power attack, you can chop through it by 5th level. That's probably why Mountain Hammer is allowed to bypass it at 3rd, because Power Attack already lets you damage adamantine slowly so who cares right? Just let people slap through walls. Basically Power Attack messes with a lot of conceptual things -but if you expect people to punch through walls in core it is pretty mandatory.

There's also the falling damage trick I learned from War of the Burning sky: objects don't have any special defense against falling damage, so almost anything you drop off a 200' cliff is destroyed by the ~70 damage impact.


Edit: if I'm being pretentious, I might add a stage 4 since I also feel like I'm past the assumption that stage 1 characters aren't actually functional. The phrase "system mastery" is already pretty pretentious itself, implying no higher state, so-

Stage 4: Master of System? The Circle is Complete? - "What level of optimization are you on my dude? I've got just the tweak for that."
-Mechanical expertise in service of a homogeneous game
-Can make the game work for a vast number of optimization levels
-Tweaks base mechanics to suit end goals with minimum fuss, or designs new systems rather than forcing square pegs into round holes
-Frustrated with stage 2 and 3 players who refuse to change the rules or game style when it would be easier than optimizing or ignoring them.
-Can run games for stage 1 players, but can't change game mechanics for any game if they're not the DM or highly influential of them.

Though I wouldn't claim I can run the game for a "vast" number of optimization levels. I won't actually run something for uberchargers/ubertrippers, RAW is god glitches, etc, even though I know what's behind them and could theoretically do so.

[DMVerdandi]

Stage 4: FOREVER DM? The Spiral is never ending? - "What level of optimization are you on my dude? I've got just the tweak for that."
"Wanna try my home-brew, famalam?"

-Mechanical expertise in service of a homogeneous game

-Can make the game work for a vast number of optimization levels, except when ideas don't fit his campaign.

-Tweaks base mechanics to suit end goals with minimum fuss, or designs new systems rather than forcing square pegs into round holes. Also makes rules while not realizing gravity of how it affects things like in game economy, societal hierarchy, etc.


-Frustrated with stage 2 and 3 players who refuse to change the rules or game style when it would be easier than optimizing or ignoring them.

-Can run games for stage 1 players, but can't change game mechanics if they're not the DM or highly influential of them.

- Rocks a DMPC with home-brewed class or race. Promises not to hog spotlight. Proceeds to make game about said DMPC.

- Tries to convince LARP-stage acting is the best way, and banishes rolls on social skills and would rather have "convincing dramatic exposition"

Kek, jk.

[Nifft]

Kek, jk.

You actually make a very good point.

Stage 3 optimizers are really good on the dark side of the DM's screen.

[Fizban]

Actually I was thinking more:

Stage 5: Ascendant Negative Zero Rules - "What kind of scrub needs a book to tell them what to do?"
-Some gamers eventually get tired of 3.5's excessive rules altogether, and ascend to rules-light or even freeform roleplaying, from which they may never return, or may come back in who knows where.


And while I haven't run any DMPCs, I did convince one of the other players to DM specifically because I wanted to play an awesome homebrew, which in hindsight was a little too high power compared to the low-end of the group (worked fine alongside the other accomplished optimizer though). As for social skills, I already suggested that if you want rules for Social Encounters you need to fix the design yourself, 'cause 3.5 ain't built for it.

[vasilidor]

ok, there seem to be some confusion with terminology.
lets try to define different types of optimizers!
type 1: the un-optimizer: does not really care for trying to optimize his character at all, will play a str6 kobold in a group of trolls as a front liner, may or may not complain when the guy gets pasted.
type 2: the unknowing noob: tries to make something that works, likely to fail on there own due to lack of system knowledge.
type 3: has some level of system knowledge and can make one type of character that will work in most games in the system he or she plays.
type 4: has achieved system mastery of the game they like, can make multiple functioning character types with ease.
type 5: the cheating munchkin: has type 3 ability most likely, but intentionally builds their character in the wrong way in their favor, be it miscounting feats, incorrectly calculated bonuses, etc.
type 6: the guy likely to be stuck as the game master, because he understands how the game is broken and how to fix it.
type 7: the guy who looks like type 5, but really just knows how the game is broken and how to exploit it.
I thin this covers most instances, did I miss any potential major categories?

[death390]

I~snip~ (not relevant to what im replying to)

Not necessarily- the bonus damage on some maneuvers is way more than you'd get power attacking.

For the extreme examples, Emerald Razor lets you add +2/level by Power Attacking away your full BAB (which means you can still totally miss things with actual touch AC, which is more than you might think). At 3rd level when you get it, Mountain Hammer is already adding. . . +7, more than two handed PA, and works on a single handed attack. Go up a few levels and take a look at the best damage/level ratio and there's Divine Surge starting at level 7, which adds a whopping 36 damage on average to a single attack, which PA can't match on a single until 16th level (the more common Bonecrusher adds 10 at 5th, and Elder Mountain Hammer has 21 at 9th, almost like the damage is meant to be comparable with something. . . )

As always, PA gain supremacy is dependent on the other guy not having bonus damage, or you automatically hitting with multiple attacks.


Uh, total cover is exactly immunity to attacks, and immunity to burst type AoE effects, which includes lines and cones. Fireball is a spread, and spreads (and maybe cylinders) are the type of AoE you need to get past a tower shield, against which you gain no bonus from the tower shield because they're going around it.

the thing about maneuvers is whenever it lets you add bonus damage to an attack it is inherently better to use a 2h weapon. because the 2h weapon get 1.5x Str even without PA, with PA it is even better. of course you don't always use PA since it does reduce your accuracy. but when all else is equal other than the weapon you use 2H is still better. the tiger strike style has some two weapon fighting stuff though which 2H doesn't get as much benefit from (unless armor spikes but even still meh). also at 3rd level you can PA -3 attack for +6 damage. do that WITH a mountain strike and thats +13 compared to just mountain strike. or 1h weapon PA -3/+3 with mountain strike (3 damage can decide between kill this round or another round, doesn't always though)

as for total cover you can't make an attack against a target that has total cover. this is true HOWEVER you can attack the shield itself since that doesn't have total cover! also you can attack the targets space (it hits the shield if it hits), or AoE including the targets space.

hell this in particular i ripped from my PHB PDF. "The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spell caster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding" PHB page 125 in shield, Tower section. pretty sure if the druid casts a line of lightning at you that still counts since "magic"

bursts CAN affect those in total cover, as long as the point it bursts from is not in total cover. IE if i set the fireball to explode in your 5'x5' square you are the point it bursts from and boom fireball in your face.

[Florian]

Some gamers eventually get tired of 3.5's excessive rules altogether, and ascend to rules-light or even freeform roleplaying, from which they may never return, or may come back in who knows where.

My feeling on this subject is that a lot of people misunderstand the "game" parts of D&D altogether.
Yes, the underlying system enforces a rigid structure and you'll never be able to simulate anything coming close to a regular person. You can love that, you can hate that, but mainly it´s a matter of perspective and what you expect from a "game system", instead of, say, a "narrative framework" or tools to manage freeform.

[death390]

I'm not sure where your chances are coming from, but you seem to have overlooked an important piece of my argument there. The rule says, "When it's important to determine the closest square to a creature..." When the defender is trying to decide where to position his roadblock, it's important to him to know which square is the closest square. That means the chance roll ought to take place before he takes his action. So, there should be a 0% chance of you hitting the right square when somebody is actively trying to block the path of your charge attack.

In my personal opinion, I don't think there's any ambiguity about which square you're allowed to charge into, anyway. Here's the wording from the SRD on charge attacks: "You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent." I interpret this to mean you can't veer left or right, so you have to go head-on. This wording was removed for Rules Compendium though, so it's possible that my interpretation is not what was intended; nevertheless, I feel it's better to favor the defender in this case, so I'll hold to my interpretation. And, I feel like the only ambiguities come into play when you've got a creature whose space is bigger than a 5-by-5 square.



Agreed. But, I only entered this discussion to defend the notion that roadblocking against a charge does work, so I don't have much to say about these other tactics.

-----
~snip~ not relevant to what i'm replying to.

hmm part of that idea is "what came first the chicken or the egg?" in that how does the road blocker know i am going to charge before i decide to? i mean yes if a build a charger i know i am going to charge beforehand. but the fact that until i say that i am going to charge i yada yada obnoxious tangent moving on.

so i pulled from the srd for the specific rules since it has the errata'd version. "you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent."

EDIT: changed the example format to actually show.
sorry for this bad looking example: C is charger, B is blocker, T is target, x is possible attack locations(same distance)
---C ----C--- this is how i got the 2/3 and 1/2 numbers. since unless blocker is extremely close to charger
---B-------B- he normally can only block 1 line from me to the target. so because of that the remaining x's
-x-x-x---x-x- are viable charge options (or more due to reach).
---T-------T

i think the reason they removed that particular line was because it was to "easy" to be a roadblock against charging enemies. (big cats usually had pounce)

[death390]

There are examples of the sort of optimizer that garners complaints -- recently for example someone on this forum was saying, "there's no point in playing a Bard unless you go into Sublime Chord".

I would argue that putting undue value on pure mechanical strength is merely a phase that many people go through on the path to true enlightenment.

Spoiler: Stages of the Optimizer

Show

Stage 1: Naive Stumbling - "Ser Comflex is a tough-as-nails Paladin, so I took Toughness."
- Chooses options based on flavor text rather than mechanics.
- Often frustrated by inability to perform as flavor advertised.
- Gets angry at "optimizers", which are usually Stage 2, because they seem to be playing a different game.
- Doesn't really notice Stage 3, except in curiosity as Stage 3 players aren't frustrated.


Stage 2: Grasp of Mechanics - "My character is a spiked-chain trip ubercharger, with pounce, and regional feats from three settings. Oh, what's his name? Uh..."
- Has learned to use the internet.
- Chooses options based on maximum mechanical impact; plays a "build".
- Over-compensated for past frustration by attempting to build over-powered self-reliant characters.
- Often frustrated by lack of engagement with ongoing game, or frustrated by how games die when a whole session devolves into a fight between the player and the DM about the weird rules abuses that the internet told the player to use.
- Looks down on Stage 1 because they can't perform as well mechanically.
- Doesn't understand Stage 3 motivation.


Stage 3: System Mastery - "Three-Finger Alyx was a thief from the streets, but after being taken in by Avadu the Water-Blade, Alyx is now proud to claim the title of best duelist in the kingdom."
- Mechanical expertise in service of character concept.
- Can make a vast number of different character concepts work.
- Uses mechanics intelligently, but isn't solely focused on finding a way to break the game.
- Frustrated with Stage 2 players who keep making the same few boring OP builds.
- Tries to help Stage 1 players become functional; frustrated when the Stage 1 picks a bad option based on bad flavor text rather than re-fluffing a more appropriate mechanical option.

System Mastery in the above means than just a solid grasp of mechanics -- it also means you are free from the idea that mechanics are the only thing that matters.

Competent freedom is better than ignorant freedom.

i said something close to that. but that is NOT what i said. it was which is in the which is better bard/ battle sorcerer. the guy was looking to gish. i seconded that if he wanted to play a bard he should play sublime chord since it gets 9th level spells. reason was 9th level spells are better than anything else you can get as a bard. i was saying battle sorc was better the entire time. also in that thread i asked why people like the bard in the first place since i always end up playing my minion instead of the bard itself.

hell i was asking what type of gish they wanted since they wanted an armored caster. even sent a list of pre-styled armored casters based by level. SOMEONE ELSE suggest sublime chord and i said this.

EDIT: added small my first post on that thread

my first post from that thread.

between the two of them? battle sorcerer. hands down. you would get better casting, earlier access to spells, and more spells.

if you know what style of play you want to do there are some armored casters out there already that i would suggest looking at. these all have armored casting.

enchantment/ illusion: beguiler, get free light armor casting, trapfinding, skill monkey, fixed list though.

evocation: duskblade, up to medium armor casting (can get heavy with 1 feat by lvl 7?), 6s caster, channel touch spells though weapon, massive # of lower level slots (10 each?)

evocation: warmage, medium armor casting, int to evocation damage, sudden metamagics.

if none of those work then i suggest looking at the sorcerer handbook and finding what else for alternate class features would be useful as well.

2nd post that thread after someone else suggest sublime chord.

it gets 2 9th level spells and honestly you HAVE to go sublime chord if you play bard purely for that reason. i honestly don't get why everyone actually likes the bard to be honest. it is one of the weakest casting classes on its own, the few times i tried it i ended up playing as whatever minion i picked up with a bard cohort.

literally ended up with an improved familliar which was better than the actual character.

so thanks for that. look at the whole thread leading up to it not just a section. (its not far from the top)

[PersonMan]

Well, your making the huge jump to ''do I think it's a good idea and fun for the players to gather intelligence and plan ahead?'' And that would be yes.

But your making the huge jump away from:

A Game: You accept failure as something that happens. It is not a desirable thing, but even if it happens you accept it and keep playing the game and learn to live with it.

A Real Life: You don't ever want to fail at anything ever.

But, if you're going into the kobold den, you are accepting failure may happen. You've prepared and worked to reduce it, because failure is not desirable, but if it happens you'll keep playing. I don't see the disconnect with life, really.

If I want to build something in real life, and I screw it up, I'm going to try and minimize the damage and keep going.

If I want to build something in a game, and I screw it up, I'm going to try and minimize the damage and keep going.

I'd say life is where you need to accept failure and its potential more, really. In a game, spending 10 days to prepare for something is easy. In real life, it's harder, and you don't know if you're reducing the potential failure chance by 10% or 2%, so it's not clear if it's worth it, and - hey, if we don't start at some point we'll never be done - so you get going.

[Florian]

death390, you´re more or less completely wrong. You must first draw a imaginary line between C and T to see where the charge is going and ending, that will determine in which square(s) the charge will be Cs ending position for it.

Here´s the text from the PRD, as that's actually the newest and best explained version:

"Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.

If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.

You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.

If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn."

As for why you should position for blocking, I can give you a PF-specific answer, that martial classes, especially the Fighter, have more pronounced tactical options when it comes to AoOs and initiating combat maneuvers than their 3.5E counterparts. You basically look forward to meeting a shock trooper ubercharger, as it will kill itself against a decent Fighter.

[Florian]

3.5 did get rid of a lot of "you need at least +X to continue" things, like DR 50/+4 or stuff like that, where if you didn't have a +4 weapon, the DR was practically insurmountable. I suspect that change followed a similar like, where magic is magic, and a +5 weapon is no more special than a +1 weapon, except you're a little more accurate and deal a bit more damage.

I don´t know whether that development actually was that good.

The old, AD&D-based system divided the game into different "tiers" that did not directly correspond to level and raw personal power. The "mundane" section was way broader than it is now, the "planes" section was also well defined.

[PersonMan]

Maybe the problem comes from a player's expectation that they won't have their gear sundered, and thus don't bother to carry around an appropriate backup weapon?

It can also depend on the player's preferences for things like aesthetics and (to some degree) perceived tone/mood.

A more Witcher-esque game that puts a lot of emphasis on preparing to deal with the enemy, having multiple weapons to counter different defenses, etc. would probably lead to more prolific use of backup weapons.

On the other hand, people like me will build towards an image, which is generally of someone with a weapon (or two if they're TWFing but you know what I mean), so carrying around a bunch of extra swords can seem silly.

[Florian]

On the other hand, people like me will build towards an image, which is generally of someone with a weapon (or two if they're TWFing but you know what I mean), so carrying around a bunch of extra swords can seem silly.

Tangent: Would this behavior be logical in a d20-based game world? I means, wouldn't it be relatively common knowledge that type (B/P/S) is a thing, as well as material (Silver, Cold Iron..)?

I mean, yea, I get where you're coming from (Samurai and Katana, Knight and his Sword, etc.), that's all somehow iconic, but at the same time off with in-game reality.

Edit: I tend to build with a specific weapon in mind that I´ll push to the point that it can overcome most DR and regeneration, but I try not to use feats that need a specific weapon if I can and will never plan with anything greater than +4 in mind, but a set of back-up (specialized) weapons instead.

[Blue Jay]

I would argue that putting undue value on pure mechanical strength is merely a phase that many people go through on the path to true enlightenment.

Spoiler: Stages of the Optimizer

Show

Stage 1: Naive Stumbling - "Ser Comflex is a tough-as-nails Paladin, so I took Toughness."
- Chooses options based on flavor text rather than mechanics.
- Often frustrated by inability to perform as flavor advertised.
- Gets angry at "optimizers", which are usually Stage 2, because they seem to be playing a different game.
- Doesn't really notice Stage 3, except in curiosity as Stage 3 players aren't frustrated.


Stage 2: Grasp of Mechanics - "My character is a spiked-chain trip ubercharger, with pounce, and regional feats from three settings. Oh, what's his name? Uh..."
- Has learned to use the internet.
- Chooses options based on maximum mechanical impact; plays a "build".
- Over-compensated for past frustration by attempting to build over-powered self-reliant characters.
- Often frustrated by lack of engagement with ongoing game, or frustrated by how games die when a whole session devolves into a fight between the player and the DM about the weird rules abuses that the internet told the player to use.
- Looks down on Stage 1 because they can't perform as well mechanically.
- Doesn't understand Stage 3 motivation.


Stage 3: System Mastery - "Three-Finger Alyx was a thief from the streets, but after being taken in by Avadu the Water-Blade, Alyx is now proud to claim the title of best duelist in the kingdom."
- Mechanical expertise in service of character concept.
- Can make a vast number of different character concepts work.
- Uses mechanics intelligently, but isn't solely focused on finding a way to break the game.
- Frustrated with Stage 2 players who keep making the same few boring OP builds.
- Tries to help Stage 1 players become functional; frustrated when the Stage 1 picks a bad option based on bad flavor text rather than re-fluffing a more appropriate mechanical option.

System Mastery in the above means than just a solid grasp of mechanics -- it also means you are free from the idea that mechanics are the only thing that matters.

Competent freedom is better than ignorant freedom.

I like this quite a bit, and yes, I think it does help answer some questions in this debate over optimization.

I don't think the main differences between "optimizers" and "anti-optimizers" are explained by differences in "developmental stage," though: I think it's more about a spectrum of different personality types, with different types being driven by different motivations: competitiveness, creativity, self-expression, personal goals, etc.

I read about how WotC builds cards for MTG with specific player archetypes in mind (there's "Timmy," "Johnny" and "Spike"); and in a lot of ways, there are similar personality archetypes in D&D, and I think these are having a bigger impact on this debate than anyone's progression towards "enlightenment."

[EldritchWeaver]

People have been using EIHP, but what does that abbreviation mean?

ok, there seem to be some confusion with terminology.
lets try to define different types of optimizers!
type 1: the un-optimizer: does not really care for trying to optimize his character at all, will play a str6 kobold in a group of trolls as a front liner, may or may not complain when the guy gets pasted.
type 2: the unknowing noob: tries to make something that works, likely to fail on there own due to lack of system knowledge.
type 3: has some level of system knowledge and can make one type of character that will work in most games in the system he or she plays.
type 4: has achieved system mastery of the game they like, can make multiple functioning character types with ease.
type 5: the cheating munchkin: has type 3 ability most likely, but intentionally builds their character in the wrong way in their favor, be it miscounting feats, incorrectly calculated bonuses, etc.
type 6: the guy likely to be stuck as the game master, because he understands how the game is broken and how to fix it.
type 7: the guy who looks like type 5, but really just knows how the game is broken and how to exploit it.
I thin this covers most instances, did I miss any potential major categories?

Which type covers the following: The player chooses the beastmaster archetype for the ranger, because he likes being able to control more than one animal companion. He ends up only getting two, with one only getting assigned one druid level, because the other one needs to be strong to fight. But being behind 4 level compared to a pure druid, the AC isn't used because it may die. Which improved a bit since we passed level 12, so AC is now behind just one level. The ranger is both used for ranged and melee combat, but puts out below expected DPR.

The players plays a second character in the same campaign, a supposed enchantment focused sorcerer, but has some other spells like dispel magic, fireball and haste. The sorcerer is supposed to be the face and has for that the Cosmopolitan feat to get the missing class skills. The sorcerer is also used as supposed as a jack-of-all-trades (admittedly, the stat generation allowed for 18 Int and 20 Cha) and has in number of skills ranks, which results in the main skills being heavily underranked (like about 10 ranks below max-ranking). To complement the skills with a class skill bonus, one level of a bard has been taken as well, without retraining the Cosmopolitan feat. From the bard level basically nothing else has seen actual use.

This player complained a lot about my characters, because they are capable to cover several niches, including the ones he claimed for this own. Despite not going out to be better in those niches (I expected to be second place due to my broadness), I outclass him because the build strategies used are anti-optimizing compared to pure ranger/sorcerer builds. And he denies changing past decisions on the ground that any change should result in retroactively being capable to solve the past obstacles in the same way. Which precludes changing to classes which would support his concepts better.

(Please don't discuss, what's wrong with my group here. I already know and can point out who made which mistake, including myself.)

Looking over the types, I think they aren't independent enough. Cheating doesn't depend on system mastery, for example.

[Darth Ultron]

ok, there seem to be some confusion with terminology.
lets try to define different types of optimizers!
type 1: the un-optimizer: does not really care for trying to optimize his character at all, will play a str6 kobold in a group of trolls as a front liner, may or may not complain when the guy gets pasted.
type 2: the unknowing noob: tries to make something that works, likely to fail on there own due to lack of system knowledge.
type 3: has some level of system knowledge and can make one type of character that will work in most games in the system he or she plays.
type 4: has achieved system mastery of the game they like, can make multiple functioning character types with ease.
type 5: the cheating munchkin: has type 3 ability most likely, but intentionally builds their character in the wrong way in their favor, be it miscounting feats, incorrectly calculated bonuses, etc.
type 6: the guy likely to be stuck as the game master, because he understands how the game is broken and how to fix it.
type 7: the guy who looks like type 5, but really just knows how the game is broken and how to exploit it.
I thin this covers most instances, did I miss any potential major categories?

Hummm, maybe:

Type 0: Does not care about optimization at all. This is a fair number of Role Players right here.
Type 1:The Casual Player or Noob. They simply lack the system knowledge to do more then the most basic game things like ''roll a d20''.
Type 2: The Experienced Gamer. Has some level of system knowledge. This is most normal average gamers right here.
Type 3: The System Master: Has great system mastery over the game and vast knowledge about the game.
Type 4: The Optimizer: The few good ones here Uses their system mastery to roll play, but they also have the ability and wish to role play and do so.
Type 5: The Optimizer Monster(aka the cheating munchkin) The anti-role player who is just roll playing the game to win, to show off and most of all ruin the fun of others.

[death390]

death390, you´re more or less completely wrong. You must first draw a imaginary line between C and T to see where the charge is going and ending, that will determine in which square(s) the charge will be Cs ending position for it.

Here´s the text from the PRD, as that's actually the newest and best explained version:

"Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.

If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.

You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.

If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn."

As for why you should position for blocking, I can give you a PF-specific answer, that martial classes, especially the Fighter, have more pronounced tactical options when it comes to AoOs and initiating combat maneuvers than their 3.5E counterparts. You basically look forward to meeting a shock trooper ubercharger, as it will kill itself against a decent Fighter.

PRD is pathfinder documentation right? if so then that is part of the disconnect i am talking mostly about 3.5 which is why i pulled off the SRD. doesn't look really any different though, might just be my eyes i just got off work. eh like i said i don't tend to play chargers without some way around the limitations (like 1 turn in a charge: twisted charge skill trick).

[Jormengand]

PRD is pathfinder documentation right? if so then that is part of the disconnect i am talking mostly about 3.5 which is why i pulled off the SRD. doesn't look really any different though, might just be my eyes i just got off work. eh like i said i don't tend to play chargers without some way around the limitations (like 1 turn in a charge: twisted charge skill trick).

Yes, Florian is indeed trying to imply you're wrong about 3.5 because what you're saying contradicts the rules in his favourite fantasy heartbreaker which is not 3.5.

[Florian]

Yes, Florian is indeed trying to imply you're wrong about 3.5 because what you're saying contradicts the rules in his favourite fantasy heartbreaker which is not 3.5.

Maybe it´s you that should sit up and take notice, Jorm? 3.0E/3.5E split that up into two topics, targeting and charge, PF combined both into one text, which doesn't deviate from the 3.5 core. There's something to be learned here on how to phrase rule text.

[Blue Jay]

hmm part of that idea is "what came first the chicken or the egg?" in that how does the road blocker know i am going to charge before i decide to? i mean yes if a build a charger i know i am going to charge beforehand. but the fact that until i say that i am going to charge i yada yada obnoxious tangent moving on.

Why would the blocker have to know what you're going to do? One of the challenges of playing defensively is that you have to try to predict your opponent's action.

But the random die roll isn't there to simulate what the sneaky charger is going to do: it's there to define what a straight line is on a grid system that doesn't handle low-angle diagonals well. There is only one square you are allowed to charge into, and it makes no sense to say that the defender can't tell which square that is.

so i pulled from the srd for the specific rules since it has the errata'd version. "you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent."

Okay, to be clear, there is no errata for this, and the quote that I provided also came from the SRD. Here is the section from the other SRD site. The only conflict is whether you accept PHB or Rules Compendium as the primary source (and I emphatically do not want to debate that right now).

i think the reason they removed that particular line was because it was to "easy" to be a roadblock against charging enemies. (big cats usually had pounce)

That makes very little sense to me. Playing roadblock is not exactly a powerhouse option, and it doesn't even stop your opponent from charging: it just restricts their choice of targets.

[Nifft]

I like this quite a bit, and yes, I think it does help answer some questions in this debate over optimization.

I don't think the main differences between "optimizers" and "anti-optimizers" are explained by differences in "developmental stage," though: I think it's more about a spectrum of different personality types, with different types being driven by different motivations: competitiveness, creativity, self-expression, personal goals, etc.

I read about how WotC builds cards for MTG with specific player archetypes in mind (there's "Timmy," "Johnny" and "Spike"); and in a lot of ways, there are similar personality archetypes in D&D, and I think these are having a bigger impact on this debate than anyone's progression towards "enlightenment."

Thanks!

I think what I've written is an informative generalization -- which is to say it's not going to be proscriptively true for any particular person, but that it's statistically accurate over a large sample of people over time.

It also shows how attribution errors (like DU's "optimizers can't stand failure") can arise. A stage 2 Optimizer has just learned that he can say "No" to the DM -- he can deny SR, he can deny saving throws, he can hit when he needs to hit -- he feels powerful because he can (within limits) overcome the frustrations that defined his Stage 1 experience.

When he wants to share that knowledge, and gift the liberating power that he feels to others -- well, it does sound a bit like he can't stand failure. And why should he stand failure? He just learned how to say "No" to the universe (sometimes, and within limits).

So what DU is saying isn't really accurate, but it's at least understandable within the context of developmental grognard-ology.

[vasilidor]

Hummm, maybe:

Type 0: Does not care about optimization at all. This is a fair number of Role Players right here.
Type 1:The Casual Player or Noob. They simply lack the system knowledge to do more then the most basic game things like ''roll a d20''.
Type 2: The Experienced Gamer. Has some level of system knowledge. This is most normal average gamers right here.
Type 3: The System Master: Has great system mastery over the game and vast knowledge about the game.
Type 4: The Optimizer: The few good ones here Uses their system mastery to roll play, but they also have the ability and wish to role play and do so.
Type 5: The Optimizer Monster(aka the cheating munchkin) The anti-role player who is just roll playing the game to win, to show off and most of all ruin the fun of others.

this may fit better than my original... and it is simpler. there is, in my own personal opinion, a difference between someone who straight up cheats, and the guy who builds pun-pun though. the guy who cheats does not really care about he rules, the guy who builds pun-pun notices that pun-pun is (maybe in loose interpretations) a legal build, and will try to slip that or some variation there of under the radar, heck I have seen some one do such a thing without realizing what they were doing, it took about half a year and a second set of eyes to realize that the character had a broken combo built in. not that it happens often.

[Remuko]

People have been using EIHP, but what does that abbreviation mean?

I think only one person is using that and it means Easy If Handled Properly