Why hate optimization?

[Hyperversum]

Everything is based, imo, on a single question: "What is optimization?".

Well, to me, and not only me, optimization is the act of picking Law Devotion on a Paladin rather than Weapon Focus.
In general, it's the act of avoiding sub-optimal options in favor of good options with a single target: making my character work.

All of this is based on how I play RPGs.
I want to play a character, I want to have him being a badass at whatever he is doing, in order to be meaningful in the world he lives not only because he is a PC rather than a NPC.
Badass doesn't mean "winning everytime", it means being good at something and actively doing something in the plot.
We all know the definition of CR, and starting from it I want that my Level 20 Paladin COULD be able to win a 1vs1 against a Balor.

Therefore, he will have Law Devotion over Weapon Focus. He will have Dinamic Priest rather than trying some DMM tricks on him, which will be mostly wasted. See the pattern?

It's something completely different from going Munchkin.
Making an effective build/optimization is something done, imo, to make that character the badass he is supposed to be. How is that related to ask for a +2 LA race as a +0? It's absurd to me, and we play a pretty high-powered game!

Anyway, that's how I see Optimization. And why some people would hate it? I don't have a particular precise answer, if not that they are:
1) Players that won't spend time in optimizing their characters, even when picking the right thing is something entirely part of the game just as shouting "I charge at the troll"
2) DMs without a good system mastery that gets butt****ed by a wizard because he does something more that blasting. Which is a general way to speak about all those cases where a DM wants to keep giving challenges that are appropriate for PCs at level 1-4 to 11+ PCs, in a high magic setting.
3) Those that for some reason think that building kills the RP. Still gotta understand this.

[AnimeTheCat]

It's more the issue that Sunder is kind of lopsided/broken when used against PCs as taken in context with the rest of 3.PF rules. In a game system where magic items are actually NECESSARY to succeed past a point, since the game math is all built on the assumption that you'll have +X weapons, Y Armor Class value, Z save bonuses, etc. to determine the ability DCs, armor class, and special abilities of monsters, Sunder is an insanely overvalued tactic for monsters. You put a monster with six attacks up against a PC and they can easily cripple the PC permanently by just sundering their Cloak of Resistance, Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, Belt of +X stat, Headband of +Y stat, and taking a solid stab at their weapon.

Bear in mind that your example is only one possible outcome, and it is one of a monster or creature that does not care about magic items or treasure themselves. A bandit on the other hand would almost certainly never sunder all that magic gear, they would be just like a PC sundering all of the potential loot. The sunder or disarm would be more likely to be used to sunder weapons or non-magical equipment with the intent to loot the magical equipment off of the corpse.

Additionally, if the party has been in an area for a prolonged period of time, such an intelligent foe would likely have heard of the efforts and seen how they fight and analyzed their tactics. If it is in the best interest of the villain to destroy the ubercharger's sword in the first round of combat to prevent ubercharging death, that should certainly be a priority.

Spoiler: Example

Show

Think of it as if you were the leader of a band of bandits that regularly prey upon a small surrounding area. You would probably have some people in each of the towns/villages that you are targeting so that you can get a feel for what is going to be transported, when it will move, and where it's going. You of course know you're wanted, so you know that the local towns/villages will likely post rewards for the removal of your group. The adventurers will probably go after you but that gives you a chance to see how they fight which will allow you the chance to counter them. It doesn't take much, maybe just one combat to see what you're dealing with. Have a lookout in the woods off to the side of the road/passageway you're targeting and prepare to take notes (a level 1 expert would be perfect for this). expert simply takes shorthand notes "the one with black hair casts spells" "the warrior charges and kills instantly" "The blonde one just sang..." and from there you formulate how you're going to defend yourself from an attack by these adventureres. If you get more chances to learn more, you could eventually see that the fighter only charges and never does anything else. You could see that the wizard prefers spells that change the battlefield as opposed to damage spells or is always just using a rod or wand to cast spells.

With all of that very basic information someone even with an int of 8 could collect, a villain can easily formulate plans on how it will target the party and will prepare accordingly. The villain should lay a trap (or series of traps) to coerce the party into fighting on the terms set by them, not set by the party. If the wizard likes casting battlefield control spells, have the opposition run as soon as the spell is cast to pull the battle away from the spell, prefferably into another chamber with traps in it. Be waiting in ambush so as to not allow the rogue to search for the traps you have set.

As much as the party can prepare, the enemy too can prepare. This, I think is how Darth Ultron would "break" the one-trick pony optimizers, or even the wizard optimizers. Nothing in any book ever says that all enemies must keep fighting after the wizard/cleric/druic/etc. casts a battlefield control spell.

[Fizban]

Incidentally, if you hate sundering then you oughtta check out the wording on those oozes with their acid: " the opponent’s armor and clothing dissolve and become useless immediately." That's not an AoE that could incidentally damage magic gear, that's something that specifically affects clothing which you already failed your save against. It gone.

(The expected counter for an ooze is to not fight it in melee you buffoon).

[quark12000]

And shouldn't the ideal optimized character be based on available source material? Speaking for myself, the books for 3.5 that are available are from the PHB, DMG and MM. Now, how to optimize a character with that material. Some of you would say it can't be done, I believe. But we work with what we've got!

[Deophaun]

(The expected counter for an ooze is to not fight it in melee you buffoon).

Is spending 500gp on the durable ability good optimization or bad?

[Rynjin]

Bear in mind that your example is only one possible outcome, and it is one of a monster or creature that does not care about magic items or treasure themselves. A bandit on the other hand would almost certainly never sunder all that magic gear, they would be just like a PC sundering all of the potential loot. The sunder or disarm would be more likely to be used to sunder weapons or non-magical equipment with the intent to loot the magical equipment off of the corpse.

Correct that it is the tactic of a creature that both has no need for loot and is intelligent enough to deliberately identify and smash small objects on someone's person, but that logic is generally suspended by someone that wishes to "break" their players anyway.

Additionally, if the party has been in an area for a prolonged period of time, such an intelligent foe would likely have heard of the efforts and seen how they fight and analyzed their tactics. If it is in the best interest of the villain to destroy the ubercharger's sword in the first round of combat to prevent ubercharging death, that should certainly be a priority.

Keep in mind I did not say the tactic should NEVER be used, only used in moderation and with clear understanding you know what you're doing and the long term effect it will have on the PC and your campaign.

Much like optimizing.

[AnimeTheCat]

Correct that it is the tactic of a creature that both has no need for loot and is intelligent enough to deliberately identify and smash small objects on someone's person, but that logic is generally suspended by someone that wishes to "break" their players anyway.

Keep in mind I did not say the tactic should NEVER be used, only used in moderation and with clear understanding you know what you're doing and the long term effect it will have on the PC and your campaign.

Much like optimizing.

I must have misunderstood your overall tone then. My bad.

It would appear we're on the same page then. I prefer using Improved Disarm on many of my bad guys, regularly making use of both that and subdual damage. It does a few things like making my bad guys never kill a PC (hostages are more valuable if they're alive) and creates a challenge for the party. Wands, rods, etc. can be disarmed when used against wizards. It can even be done without much resource expendature (like using a quarterstaff instead of an expensive two handed weapon).

I definitely don't always do this... more of a thing if the villain has time to prepare. If the party is quick and doesn't give the villain time to prepare, I adjust accordingly (such as fighting defensively to evaluate tactics prior to attacking).

[Galacktic]

Y'all are taking your Elf Games way too seriously.

[WesleyVos]

It's more they don't understand.

I lot of modern players play under the silly ''agreement'' where the DM bows down to the players and lets them do whatever they want. I don't play that way.

For example, in my game you will find foes that use things like disarm and sunder.....and they will use them against the PCs. A lot of modern DMs won't do that......after all if you break/destroy the special characters one trick item....then that character is ''useless''.

The same way if your a 15th level character and you charge a lich...he will cast a high level attack spell, lets say Deathbolt...and not attack with like Buring Hands.

DU, what this sounds like is that you optimize your encounters. So you are yourself an optimizer, by the common definition being used in this thread.

The problem, I think, is that you have a unique definition of what defines an optimizer, which most people in this particular discussion (and, in my experience, on this forum) do not share. You are equating someone who optimizes with a jerk player. Now, as I DM more than I play, I have met my share of jerk players. They are what you describe, though, to be honest, they are not as prevalent as you seem to think. My guess would be that you've had some bad luck in getting stuck with more than your fair share of such, again (I would guess) at the beginning of your DM career. That made you wary of such players, which created an adversarial relationship between you and your players, which in turn created more of such jerk players by the nature of the relationship.

However, I believe you are mistaking some limited correlation for causation - you are seeing optimization as the cause of the jerkish behavior rather than seeing the players' jerkish behavior as the cause of the jerkish "optimization" (which, in my opinion, is not actually optimization but is rather more akin to true munchkining or even cheating at the game). I am sorry that is the case, and I would love to figure out a way to show you that optimization (as it is intended by most of the posters in this thread, myself included) is not the cause of the behavior you have experienced. I am sorry that you have had such players; I know what a burden they can be.

[Nifft]

Y'all are taking your Elf Games way too seriously.

It's six hours of time each week, multiplied by five adults with jobs and families and other obligations, plus the DM's time out-of-game doing planning, plus the players' time out-of-game doing book-keeping and writing campaign journals and doing character or encounter art.

In terms of sheer man-hours, it's collectively more time & effort than a single adult job.

All that time spent by those people should be well spent.

It ain't about the elf, it's the people.

[unseenmage]

It's six hours of time each week, multiplied by five adults with jobs and families and other obligations, plus the DM's time out-of-game doing planning, plus the players' time out-of-game doing book-keeping and writing campaign journals and doing character or encounter art.

In terms of sheer man-hours, it's collectively more time & effort than a single adult job.

All that time spent by those people should be well spent.

It ain't about the elf, it's the people.

Well said and heartily agreed.

[Jormengand]

When your job does not require hitting things, you don't need to hit all the time. Contrary to popular belief, the fighter's job is not killing, it's surviving. A standard fighter attack bonus progression hits often -but not all the time, as you are aware.

What you're missing is that a fighter with a positive strength bonus and full BAB isn't a mediocre fighter, they're an optimized fighter. A mediocre fighter would have 10 or even 8 str, and maybe a level of commoner or expert from before they became a fighter.

If you really believe that having full bab on your fighter - achieved literally by being a fighter - is optimisation, and that the fighter's true job is a glorified roadblock (jeez man clue's in the name) I have literally no idea what to tell you.

Plus, if you are a standard fighter, then unless you are in a 5 foot corridor there's nowhere you can stand that will actually impede enemies unless you can hit, because all you get for things walking past you is attacks of opportunity which need to hit in order to be effective. So your fighter, even your roadblock with a cause, needs to be able to hit things.

[Galacktic]

It's six hours of time each week, multiplied by five adults with jobs and families and other obligations, plus the DM's time out-of-game doing planning, plus the players' time out-of-game doing book-keeping and writing campaign journals and doing character or encounter art.

In terms of sheer man-hours, it's collectively more time & effort than a single adult job.

All that time spent by those people should be well spent.

It ain't about the elf, it's the people.

I play twice a week, four hour sessions each, and it's my primary hobby! I still do it as a way to spend time with my friends who I don't get to do that much with otherwise.

Y'all are still taking this all way too seriously.

Each table does its own thing, and there's no sense in arguing about all this because this is really just four posters all repeating themselves over each other in giant blocks of text that most people wouldn't even read. Each one of us is well set in our style of play and DMing and there's little reason to get so worked up about all of this.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with any of you, mainly because at this point the argument has gone on for long enough that it doesn't matter. Nothing that any one of you can say will dissuade anyone else's viewpoints because let's face it: almost all of us are in our late twenties to thirties. We're all pretty set in our ways, and some stranger on the internet saying things that we violently disagree with about our own variation of Elf Games is going to change that.

So let's all just take a step back, because at this point this thread is just a bunch of echos.

[Malimar]

I play twice a week, four hour sessions each, and it's my primary hobby! I still do it as a way to spend time with my friends who I don't get to do that much with otherwise.

Y'all are still taking this all way too seriously.

Each table does its own thing, and there's no sense in arguing about all this because this is really just four posters all repeating themselves over each other in giant blocks of text that most people wouldn't even read. Each one of us is well set in our style of play and DMing and there's little reason to get so worked up about all of this.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with any of you, mainly because at this point the argument has gone on for long enough that it doesn't matter. Nothing that any one of you can say will dissuade anyone else's viewpoints because let's face it: almost all of us are in our late twenties to thirties. We're all pretty set in our ways, and some stranger on the internet saying things that we violently disagree with about our own variation of Elf Games is going to change that.

So let's all just take a step back, because at this point this thread is just a bunch of echos.

You're having fun wrong.

[Deophaun]

If you really believe that having full bab on your fighter - achieved literally by being a fighter - is optimisation, and that the fighter's true job is a glorified roadblock (jeez man clue's in the name) I have literally no idea what to tell you.

If the fighter's job was to kill things, then he would be called a killer instead. Fighting is the worst way to kill things. If there's a fight, then you've allowed your enemy the opportunity to win.

[Jormengand]

If the fighter's job was to kill things, then he would be called a killer instead. Fighting is the worst way to kill things. If there's a fight, then you've allowed your enemy the opportunity to win.

I am aware of the critical existence failure inherent in the fighter's base concept, yes, but the point that the fighter's job is "Fight things" not "Stand in stuff's way" remains true.

[Lord Raziere]

You're having fun wrong.

No he isn't, stop being a jerk, Galacktic is the only one speaking Truth here. you guys ARE taking your elf games too seriously.

[Jormengand]

No he isn't, stop being a jerk, Galacktic is the only one speaking Truth here. you guys ARE taking your elf games too seriously.

I'm like, 87.6% sure that despite lack of blue text that was actually sarcasm.

[Lord Raziere]

I'm like, 87.6% sure that despite lack of blue text that was actually sarcasm.

too bad, you be subtly sarcastic on the internet, you take that risk. obvious sarcasm is a different story.

also blue text is totally the only way to express sarcasm

[Hyperversum]

So let's all just take a step back, because at this point this thread is just a bunch of echos.

Imo, the point is that the approach of many people to this part of RPG just kills the possibility to make more people enjoy it.

There isn't anything wrong in the "I PLAY HALFORC BARBARIAN. DRINK PISS KILL **** RAPE LOOT AHAHHA" playstyle, but if you force it on a table, you are probably annoying someone (if I play at that table those character don't last long anyway. I am speaking not as a GM, but as a player).

The same goes for "HOW DO YOU DARE PICKING GOOD FEATS" or "AHAHAHAH ****ING NOOB HOW CAN YOU PLAY CLASS X AND TAKE FEAT Y OVER FEAT Z". Just this.

[Malimar]

No he isn't, stop being a jerk, Galacktic is the only one speaking Truth here. you guys ARE taking your elf games too seriously.

This comment, which I can't tell if sarcastic or not, is a fitting and just punishment for my comment where it wasn't clear whether I was being sarcastic or not.

(I think I was being approximately 87.6% sarcastic. We enjoy taking our elf games this seriously, so telling us to stop is telling us we're having fun wrong, so I was calling that out by sarcastically saying that taking your elf games unseriously is having fun wrong.)

[Jama7301]

Since I'm curious, and shared an answer to the question in the thread title, let me turn the question back around.

Why optimization?

From what I can glean, it's about more power, including the ability to avoid trap options. More power = more fun, since, in most cases, failure is not fun. The places where the line as drawn seem to vary from person to person on how much is Too Much optimization, but the vibe I'm getting is more power = more fun.

Am I missing something?

I wanted to try to reset the tone of the thread and see if I could learn anything.

[Nifft]

I play twice a week, four hour sessions each, and it's my primary hobby! I still do it as a way to spend time with my friends who I don't get to do that much with otherwise.

Y'all are still taking this all way too seriously.

Each table does its own thing, and there's no sense in arguing about all this because this is really just four posters all repeating themselves over each other in giant blocks of text that most people wouldn't even read. Each one of us is well set in our style of play and DMing and there's little reason to get so worked up about all of this.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with any of you, mainly because at this point the argument has gone on for long enough that it doesn't matter. Nothing that any one of you can say will dissuade anyone else's viewpoints because let's face it: almost all of us are in our late twenties to thirties. We're all pretty set in our ways, and some stranger on the internet saying things that we violently disagree with about our own variation of Elf Games is going to change that.

So let's all just take a step back, because at this point this thread is just a bunch of echos.

Let me see if I understand your argument:

You have fun, therefore nobody else has ever had a problem which merits discussion.

Is that your argument?

Because that would not be a good argument.

[Jormengand]

the vibe I'm getting is more power = more fun.

Am I missing something?

Sort of, to both your statement and your question. In general, if you're not making plays, you're not having fun, if your plays aren't doing anything, you're not really making plays, and if the thing that your play does isn't actually worth doing, then your plays aren't really doing anything.

That is, if you're standing in stuff's way, that's not a thing that's worth doing because they can walk around you at no cost to themselves, so it's not a play that's doing anything, so you're not really making plays so you're not having fun. If you're attacking and missing, you're not doing anything so you're not making real plays so you're not having fun. Unless you're one of a rare breed of players who enjoy doing nothing with their actions and claim that anyone who doesn't is bad at the game, I guess. But optimisation is the act of giving your character the chance to have meaningful interactions with the game world - and why would a DM want to dissuade people from having the chance to have meaningful interactions with the game world, unless they were railroading hard?

[WesleyVos]

Since I'm curious, and shared an answer to the question in the thread title, let me turn the question back around.

Why optimization?

From what I can glean, it's about more power, including the ability to avoid trap options. More power = more fun, since, in most cases, failure is not fun. The places where the line as drawn seem to vary from person to person on how much is Too Much optimization, but the vibe I'm getting is more power = more fun.

Am I missing something?

I wanted to try to reset the tone of the thread and see if I could learn anything.

Yes. More power does not always mean more fun. What does mean more fun is optimizing to the level of the party and the campaign. It's not just about more power; it's about power in the right circumstances at a level that makes things fun for you and the rest of your gaming group.

That said, you are right in that the line varies from person to person, but I think everyone in this thread generally agrees on where the line is - we just all have different ways of expressing it. Everyone agrees that jerk players are bad, and jerk players who optimize in jerk ways are bad. Everyone agrees that theoretical optimization has little to no place in actual gaming. Everyone (except maybe Darth Ultron, and then only because he equates high-power optimization with jerk players) agrees that high-powered optimization only works if everyone involved is practicing high-power optimization.

[Jama7301]

Sort of, to both your statement and your question. In general, if you're not making plays, you're not having fun, if your plays aren't doing anything, you're not really making plays, and if the thing that your play does isn't actually worth doing, then your plays aren't really doing anything.

Maybe this is where the disconnect with me is happening. From this, it sounds like the End Result is the part that's most important, compared to everything leading up to that point. The hitting, damaging, moving, stunning, charming, jumping, whatever the task is out weights the opportunity to take that chance in terms of 'worth', in this context.

Sorry if I'm just stating the obvious or misrepresenting what you're saying. There's something that's not clicking quite right with me, and I'm trying to work my way to connect the dots in my head.

[unseenmage]

Sort of, to both your statement and your question. In general, if you're not making plays, you're not having fun, if your plays aren't doing anything, you're not really making plays, and if the thing that your play does isn't actually worth doing, then your plays aren't really doing anything.

That is, if you're standing in stuff's way, that's not a thing that's worth doing because they can walk around you at no cost to themselves, so it's not a play that's doing anything, so you're not really making plays so you're not having fun. If you're attacking and missing, you're not doing anything so you're not making real plays so you're not having fun. Unless you're one of a rare breed of players who enjoy doing nothing with their actions and claim that anyone who doesn't is bad at the game, I guess. But optimisation is the act of giving your character the chance to have meaningful interactions with the game world - and why would a DM want to dissuade people from having the chance to have meaningful interactions with the game world, unless they were railroading hard?

Wish I had the skills to put this post to music.

As it is I already read it in this cadence.

[Jormengand]

Maybe this is where the disconnect with me is happening. From this, it sounds like the End Result is the part that's most important, compared to everything leading up to that point. The hitting, damaging, moving, stunning, charming, jumping, whatever the task is out weights the opportunity to take that chance in terms of 'worth', in this context.

Sorry if I'm just stating the obvious or misrepresenting what you're saying. There's something that's not clicking quite right with me, and I'm trying to work my way to connect the dots in my head.

One of my favourite examples of incapability disconnect comes from an example in the Inquisitor system, where someone - who is clearly heavily invested in their character's jumping skills, says that their character shouts "In the Emperor's name, on wings of fire I fly!", makes a dramatic jump, and...

Flunks it, dropping his power axe as he narrowly grabs the edge. Now, sure, that's sorta a success, and might even have been a play worth making, but it sucks when you were hyped for your character actually to do his job and he doesn't. The build up, the tension, and the anticlimax as you fail, not even because the villain did anything to stop you but just because you messed up.

Now, having variable degrees of possible success is fine - having tasks that you might not always be able to do is fine, so long as you're not totally wasting your turn on them (for example, you might not make as much progress disarming the bomb/deal as much damage with your longsword/whatecer as you would have liked - you might even accidentally hit your ally with that spell, so long as you did something with your turn). But it's awful to be sitting there at first level, with no strength and no BAB (because according to a real person in this thread, anyone who takes fighter levels instead of commoner levels or has a strength bonus is a dirty cheating optimiser) repeatedly missing AC 16 goblins honestly sucks. Oh, I missed. I cannot possibly tactically position myself to help my allies under these circumstances. Oh, I missed, oh I can't position myself anywhere useful, oh, I missed, oh, I dealt one damage with my dagger because using a morningstar is chea... rudisp... uh, optimising. To me, at least, that's no fun.

[Pleh]

RE: "Fighters are fine just threatening space"

I want to remind people that many other classes can summon creatures to fill this role.

It doesn't seem super great to have your whole class and role summed up in one of many features belonging to classes that have so much more power.

Why optimize the fighter? Well, the only way to play speed bump better than an animal companion or a summoned creature is optimizing a reach weapon and trip.

Optimization, for some low tier classes, may be the only way to not end up a sidekick to a higher tier (and even then only if the higher tier character isn't trying to optimize your competition).

Edit: plus, threatening space mostly only matters if you have the combat reflexes to make good on your threats... and the ability to hit with your extra attacks.

Past that, you really just give a flanking bonus.

[Jama7301]

But it's awful to be sitting there at first level, with no strength and no BAB (because according to a real person in this thread, anyone who takes fighter levels instead of commoner levels or has a strength bonus is a dirty cheating optimiser) repeatedly missing AC 16 goblins honestly sucks. Oh, I missed. I cannot possibly tactically position myself to help my allies under these circumstances. Oh, I missed, oh I can't position myself anywhere useful, oh, I missed, oh, I dealt one damage with my dagger because using a morningstar is chea... rudisp... uh, optimising. To me, at least, that's no fun.

I gotcha.

Don't think I fully agree that a miss is a completely wasted turn, but thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. I understand a bit more now about the mindset behind this.