Toning it down: hiding optimization

[warmachine]

Bard is a good choice but I'd vote for Cleric, as long as you stay away from the DMM cheese. Or at least stay away from the Nightsticks. Cleric spells are mostly healing, buffs and defensive magic. The others will love your Deathwards, Freedom of Movements, Magic Circle Against Evil etc. You'll still have a bag of tricks and can go melee if needed. The DM will still hate you but the other players will love you.

God wizard is also good but watch out for excessive battlefield control.

[gdiddy]

One of the best memories I have playing was when myfriend was playing a Halfling bard who went around calling himself "King of the Gypsies". Gypsies do not listen to anyone, but it might have been true. He spoked with a neutral Eastern European accent and "loved all women, regardless of their people or Level adjustment." He duel wielded whips and had a custom feat called Greater Improved Sunder: Lady Garments.

This resulted in many hijinks and made him the most hated member of our party to our Evil Duchess BBEG. Invariably, he would be able to diplomance her into loving him, every time he was captured.

I miss the little guy.

[oxinabox]

B
God wizard is also good but watch out for excessive battlefield control.

Batman wizard has a bad (undeserved) rep.
He has only 1 damage spell, (+ everysave or die he can get his hands on, admittedly)
and considers doing damage to be other peoples job.

But he has a bad rep, and you want a good rep,
Buffer! buffer! buffer!
Then skip a sesson, and everyone relieses how much you contibute.

[Curmudgeon]

Bard is a good choice but I'd vote for Cleric, as long as you stay away from the DMM cheese. Or at least stay away from the Nightsticks. Cleric spells are mostly healing, buffs and defensive magic.

You haven't played enough Clerics, I think. I can make a Cleric be the dominant melee character and dominant spellcaster in a game without a Wizard. When used by an optimizer, Clerical domains and undead turning attempts can be a very powerful advantage. While it's true that much of Clerical spells are healing and defensive magic, because they know all spells on the class list there are enough options that you can prepare your spells with a different emphasis. After all, non-Evil Clerics can always get Cure spells anyway.

A Cloistered Cleric with CHA 12 can take the Travel domain and swap it for a free Travel Devotion feat. Then for 3 encounters daily the CC gets to move their speed as a swift action 10 times in a row, powered by those undead turning attempts. CCs also get Knowledge as a free third domain, and can swap that for Knowledge Devotion. Knowledge Devotion gives bonuses to hit and damage vs. everything if you put points into the 6 Knowledge skills related to creature types -- and CCs get 6 + INT mod skill points each level. A 1st level Cloistered Cleric with INT 14 using Knowledge Devotion has +0 BAB -- but will also get an average of +1.6 to hit and damage against all foes.

So that would be a decent start to make a melee Cleric, and it still leaves all the normal feats and spell choices freely available. You want to be a surprise round hitter? Take Improved Initiative (or choose Time as your third domain and get it included). Do a partial charge on the surprise round (since your WIS makes for good Spot and Listen even without ranks) and whale away with your Knowledge Devotion bonuses. Then on the next round (since you've got superior initiative) you full attack, and use Travel Devotion to move to interpose obstacles so the enemy can't charge in turn. No surprise round? Cast Rhino's Rush as a swift action and get double damage on your charge instead -- including doubling that Knowledge Devotion bonus. Or you could cast Hemorrhage and with a touch attack deal bleeding damage that lasts up to 5 rounds -- with your Knowledge Devotion bonus added to the damage roll each round, while you do other things. And that's just level 1 spells.

No Divine Metamagic. No Nightsticks. No arcane spells (although you can get those via items with the Magic domain if you want). And you'll still dominate the game.

[tyckspoon]

A Cloistered Cleric with CHA 12 can take the Travel domain and swap it for a free Travel Devotion feat. Then for 3 encounters daily the CC gets to move their speed as a swift action 10 times in a row, powered by those undead turning attempts. CCs also get Knowledge as a free third domain, and can swap that for Knowledge Devotion. Knowledge Devotion gives bonuses to hit and damage vs. everything if you put points into the 6 Knowledge skills related to creature types -- and CCs get 6 + INT mod skill points each level. A 1st level Cloistered Cleric with INT 14 using Knowledge Devotion has +0 BAB -- but will also get an average of +1.6 to hit and damage against all foes.

Cloistered Clerics have all Knowledge as class skills because of their free Knowledge domain. Trading it away for the Devotion means you're left with the standard Cleric skill list, which misses out on Know: Local, Nature, and Dungeoneering. If you're going to swap it for early access to Knowledge Devotion, you'll need the Education feat to make up for it.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Well, then; use the Mind or Inquisition domain to get Knowledge Devotion through equivalency. You still have one extra domain free, while still setting up the Knowledge Devotion combo without blowing a feat.

[riddles]

i thought once a class skill, always a class skill?

[Tyndmyr]

i thought once a class skill, always a class skill?

If you have a skill as a class skill for any level, then it's treated as a class skill for purposes of skill caps. It's only treated as a class skill for purchase price for that level.

Note that this does not apply to substitions. If you somehow traded off class skill x for y, so that you never actually took skill x as a class skill for any level, then it does not act as a class skill.

Hopefully that was clear enough.

[Curmudgeon]

Cloistered Clerics have all Knowledge as class skills because of their free Knowledge domain. Trading it away for the Devotion means you're left with the standard Cleric skill list, which misses out on Know: Local, Nature, and Dungeoneering. If you're going to swap it for early access to Knowledge Devotion, you'll need the Education feat to make up for it.

Yes, I understand this. I was just providing options without going through all the variations. For instance, if you're building a one-shot character at a particular level you could use the Knowledge domain up through the last level to develop the CC's Knowledge skills, and then trade the domain for Knowledge Devotion. There's no requirement about when you make the trade, so it's a player option at any time (but just once, of course). Foryn Gilnith provided some other options. Or you could take Able Learner at 1st level and the cost is still 1 point/rank thereafter. Your Education suggestion is even better for this specific application, and it's a choice I've used in the past. And of course you can just take Knowledge Devotion normally and still keep the domain.

[potatocubed]

I miss the little guy.

See, bards may not be combat monsters, but they are optimised for style.

[ericgrau]

He was polite, and nice. Very nice. Vow of Peace nice. I scavenged these and other boards, and made him give +9/+9 to all his Inspire Courage, and a diplomancer, I think it was upwards of +45 for a 9th level character. We could no longer fight anything sentient, as I would talk them out of being evil. Anything we did fight, we killed in a few rounds, since even the helplessly built rogue was now a murder machine. The DM ran exactly 3 sessions of this before he kinda gave up, and didn't know what to do anymore.

I'm using this as an example since I didn't see the OP give any specifics. +9 and can't fight anything sentient? That's just plain silly. This kind of thing is the problem with excessive optimization. Nothing is challenging any more when you utterly overwhelm the encounter and the game is no longer any fun. Soon it ends because no one wants to play any more, unless they're the strange kind of person that needs to maintain their fragile self esteem by saying "I win" over and over again.

Current path based on thread title: Your build doesn't look broken so it gets allowed. Soon you're saying "I win" every encounter, then your trick is revealed, but only after the campaign is ruined. Ever think of just dumping the insane cheese instead of hiding it? Optimization within reasonable bounds is great, but making a build full of cheesy tricks to get insane bonuses only means that you won't be playing D&D anymore. Good job? IMO just make a nice strong build, but make an effort to stay away from any known cheesy tricks or even combining a few feats or special abilities to add up to a crazy bonus to X. Enough +1's can really add up.

[Deastorm]

I'm using this as an example since I didn't see the OP give any specifics. +9 and can't fight anything sentient? That's just plain silly. This kind of thing is the problem with excessive optimization. Nothing is challenging any more when you utterly overwhelm the encounter and the game is no longer any fun. Soon it ends because no one wants to play any more, unless they're the strange kind of person that needs to maintain their fragile self esteem by saying "I win" over and over again.

You've seen exactly the point then. It WAS silly. It was a very deliberate, behind the scenes, game-breaker. I had taken exception to having my very reasonable character taken away for no real reason, and fought fire with napalm.

[ericgrau]

Ah, Mutually Assured Destruction. And then the (campaign) world blows up. IMO destruction should be a last resort to resolving problems. Always look for a peaceful way first, then take more forceful action, but still with the goal of fixing things.

[Sploosh]

Current path based on thread title: Your build doesn't look broken so it gets allowed. Soon you're saying "I win" every encounter, then your trick is revealed, but only after the campaign is ruined. Ever think of just dumping the insane cheese instead of hiding it? Optimization within reasonable bounds is great, but making a build full of cheesy tricks to get insane bonuses only means that you won't be playing D&D anymore. Good job? IMO just make a nice strong build, but make an effort to stay away from any known cheesy tricks or even combining a few feats or special abilities to add up to a crazy bonus to X. Enough +1's can really add up.

I suppose I should clarify the abuigity I am presenting with the title and the post. I am not trying to sneak a campaign breaker into the game or trick my DM. I am trying to find a build that allows me to have the fun that is sitting up at 3 AM with some coffee, going over every known book, Dragon Mag and Errata to find what I enjoy and what would benefit my character but at the same time, not have that hog the spotlight.

I would never timestop celerity with this group and I haven't. I merely took a rogue, roleplayed him with a Jack Sparrow style feel, and cranked up the SA dice. I assumed that was fine since I purposefully gave myself low will saves, did not take any golemstrike/ghoststrikes and I even left out UMD.

Don't get me wrong, I have DMM'd clerics, scry and died, ubercharged other groups before but I knew that was okey in those situations.

I appreciate all the suggestions I've gotten so far and am rolling up a Bard and Beguiler to ask them which they would prefer. I loved the idea of a Bard but the post about how delicate their balance is was a little frightening.

I'm going to downplay either one a little bit and I hope one day I'll be able to go "I'm not really left handed".

[Tyndmyr]

Dude...if trying to get a good SA on a rogue constitutes power gaming worthy of instadeath in that group....

You're going to have to do something ridiculously gimped, like playing a sorcerer using melee weapons for it to be accepted by them. This sounds like one of those groups that rails about monks being overpowered because they get so many abilities and stats.

[jiriku]

I suppose I should clarify the abuigity I am presenting with the title and the post. I am not trying to sneak a campaign breaker into the game or trick my DM. I am trying to find a build that allows me to have the fun that is sitting up at 3 AM with some coffee, going over every known book, Dragon Mag and Errata to find what I enjoy and what would benefit my character but at the same time, not have that hog the spotlight.

Hear, hear! I salute you, sir. You are a D&D player at his finest.

Bonus points if the coffee is espresso.

[Aldizog]

I'd be very interested in seeing your math and assumptions; I'm a bit of a number cruncher myself, and I admit I threw that out there based more on my experience than on actually calculating things.

I think I'll reply here rather than in a PM. Since the OP is dealing with a mostly non-optimized game, might be worth taking a look at what that math looks like.

My numbers for "basic core non-optimized":
Standard Array (15/14/13/12/10/8), humans, rogues have 10 Str (to make the TWF math simple), all stat increases to primary attribute.
Weapons: Bastard Sword (S&B), Greatsword (THW), Rapier (Rog), Short Swords (TWF Rog).
Feats: Weapon Focus for all, WS/GWF/GWS for fighters, Improved Crit at 9 for fighters and at 12 for rogues, Finesse for rogues at 3, TWF chain as fast as possible for TWF rogue. EWP for S&B.
Magic weapons: +1 per 4 levels (rounded down).
AC margin: 15+APL
Permanent stat-boosters at levels 9 (+2), 13 (+4), 17 (+6).
Optimal Power Attack doesn't add much to expected damage against an AC margin of 15 under these assumptions.

At L8, total attack bonuses are +15/+10 (fighters), +12/+7 (rogue), and +10/+10/+5 (TWF rogue, who picks up ITWF next level). The opponent's AC is 23 at this point. Damage per hit is 13.75 (S&B), 16.5 (THW), 20.33 (Rog), and 20.05 (TWF), assuming sneak attacks. Expected damage per round is 14 (S&B), 17 (THW), 15 (Rog), and 19 (TWF). That's with no Haste or IC. Take one fighter and one rogue for your party, with the wizard throwing 14-pt Magic Missiles each round, and an enemy will take about 45-50 damage per round, plus whatever the cleric does. Most core MM brutes at CR7-9 seem to have around 80-120 hp, so 2-3 rounds to drop. I think the design intention was more likely this than 1-shotting everything of equal CR.

Add in Inspire Courage and the average damage is 20, 23, 21, and 28. That's a pretty nice increase in damage that the bard can take credit for, and he can also directly deal damage with a bow, or disarm with a whip, while singing. IC will also help if the cleric attacks or the wizard is using ray spells. At lower AC, IC matters less, but the bard's direct damage is higher.

- At mid levels (3-7), it scales too slowly. This is the level range I've played with the most, and my impression is that the majority of games are around here. The Bard's Inspire Courage is still a piddly +1/+1, while the Cleric is starting to be able to cast Prayer which adds to a whole lot more thing and equally debuffs the enemy with no save. Really, by level 5 most characters are starting to become dangerous inside their own idiom, but the Bard lags sorely behind. Only the Barbarian waits longer for his definitive class feature to improve, but at least he has Core feats to improve his style and can easily stay competitive, while the Bard's still tossing out the same +1/+1 that he was at first level.

At level 5, the cleric has maybe one Prayer to cast each day, if that (given that many other level 3 spells are also very compelling). The bard has 5 uses of Inspire Courage and a decent selection of spells beyond that. The design intention of ~4 combats per day would, at these levels, lead to parties saving the Prayer (and Haste) for a really tough fight and using IC in every fight.

And even a +1 is pretty good in non-optimized core at low levels. It's often around +10-15% hits (if you need an 11+ or a 14+), and +1 damage is often about +10-15% (if you're doing 1d10+5 or 1d8+2). It doesn't sound like much, but +1/+1 is often +20-30% damage. But, yes, that boost to +2 at L8 is quite welcome.

- At higher levels, it doesn't matter enough. Attack bonus scales way faster than AC, and by the time the Bard can be adding the really big numbers to attack rolls, it really isn't anything to write home about.

Attack bonus does scale faster than AC, but then iteratives start to matter. It's not "Can I hit the giant?", it's "Can I hit the giant with my second and third attacks?" So that +2 or +3 is very useful. And then you start getting the really good abilities (well, for Core anyway) like Inspire Greatness and Inspire Heroics.

True, many of the bard's abilities are in his out-of-combat role. He'll likely have the best social skills, the best UMD, the most languages, and Bardic Knowledge, which is a really fantastic ability. But Inspire Courage is actually quite effective, more than it is often acknowledged to be.

[sonofzeal]

At L8, total attack bonuses are +15/+10 (fighters), +12/+7 (rogue), and +10/+10/+5 (TWF rogue, who picks up ITWF next level). The opponent's AC is 23 at this point. Damage per hit is 13.75 (S&B), 16.5 (THW), 20.33 (Rog), and 20.05 (TWF), assuming sneak attacks. Expected damage per round is 14 (S&B), 17 (THW), 15 (Rog), and 19 (TWF). That's with no Haste or IC. Take one fighter and one rogue for your party, with the wizard throwing 14-pt Magic Missiles each round, and an enemy will take about 45-50 damage per round, plus whatever the cleric does. Most core MM brutes at CR7-9 seem to have around 80-120 hp, so 2-3 rounds to drop. I think the design intention was more likely this than 1-shotting everything of equal CR.

Add in Inspire Courage and the average damage is 20, 23, 21, and 28. That's a pretty nice increase in damage that the bard can take credit for, and he can also directly deal damage with a bow, or disarm with a whip, while singing. IC will also help if the cleric attacks or the wizard is using ray spells. At lower AC, IC matters less, but the bard's direct damage is higher.

See, I approach it slightly different. Of course having a Bard is going to improve the situation over not having anything; the issue is whether adding a Bard is of equivalent value to adding another of... anything else.

Since we're talking about damage here, and given the roll Bards fill in most group, their closest alternative is the Rogue (a UMD social rogue specifically, but that doesn't hinder the Rogue's combat ability). The standard party is Arcane + Divine + Skill + Melee, with Bard competing for the Skill slot. Let's assume the Cleric is performing roughly as a S&B Melee, while the Fighter is TWF, and the Wizard is doing his own thing.

Expected Total Party Damage Output with a rogue is: 14 (S&B) + 17 (THW), 19 (Rog) + ??? (Wiz) = 50 + Wiz

Expected Total Party Damage Output with a bard is: 20 (S&B) + 23 (THW) + not a whole lot (Bard) + ??? (Wiz) = 43 + Bard + Wiz

....closer than I thought, actually. The numbers are a lot better if you replace the Fighter or Arcanist instead, but you lose a lot more too. You could easily make up the difference with animal companions, summons, or other similar bonuses. Still, this is a pretty good scenario for Bards; they'll do a lot worse at 12-13 or 6-7.

Now, one could argue the utility of Bard spells is more valuable than the missing damage from not having a Rogue. I'm still unconvinced; I've seen UMD Social Rogues be massively effective, while most Bards I've seen have been dead weight, but that's merely anecdotal and there's a selection bias at work in who chooses to play Rogues (in my groups, often the cleverest and most cunning player) over who chooses to play Bards (in my groups, often the one who just wants to look cool).

In any case, I'll withdraw my complaint that Core Bards are massively underpowered; I still think there's a gap, but it's not as significant as I thought, and they do make a good addition to larger teams where there's more people making attack rolls. I still think that they're not particularly fun inside Core, but that's just me.

[Tyndmyr]

There's always the option of playing an NPC class. It gives your optimization skills a workout, while artificially lowering your effectiveness enough that your party might not mind said optimization.

[Riffington]

I suppose I should clarify the abuigity I am presenting with the title and the post. I am not trying to sneak a campaign breaker into the game or trick my DM. I am trying to find a build that allows me to have the fun that is sitting up at 3 AM with some coffee, going over every known book, Dragon Mag and Errata to find what I enjoy and what would benefit my character but at the same time, not have that hog the spotlight.

Very good to hear. One alternative solution (not to reject your "playing left-handed approach", but it can backfire if done wrong): optimize for something other than power. You can optimize for any parameter given the character creation restraints - why must power always be the chosen parameter?
Example: you could optimize for eclectic knowledge (Bardic Knowledge + Loremaster or Paragnostic Apostle + Different Knowledge Skills; favored enemy and sneak attack are both forms of applied knowledge; Jade Phoenix Mage gives knowledge of past lives; etc. The goal would be the biggest knowitall, not the biggest contributor to combat.
Or you could optimize for the most organizations/individuals hunting you (Changeling or Doppleganger helps a lot here). Or for the largest landholdings.

[Tyndmyr]

Landholdings is fun, grab the stronghold builder's guide, and enjoy. I actually enjoy the admittedly rudimentary economy/building stuff side of D&D as much as the combat side.

And your party members should love the idea of having various safehouses.

[Mike_G]

... I am trying to find a build that allows me to have the fun that is sitting up at 3 AM with some coffee, going over every known book, Dragon Mag and Errata to find what I enjoy and what would benefit my character ...

See, this I don't get at all.

And the other players probably don't get at all.

To me, sitting up all night with a pile of books is masturbation, while the actual give and take at the table is like sex. Nothing against the one, but when it detracts from the other, well....

I know I'm in the minority on this forum, but apart from a thought exercise, I don't see the joy of hardcore optimization. Every thread seems to want to build the ultimate win button pusher, which just seems so unsatisfying in actual play.

It's perfectly fun to play a Sword and Board Fighter and gank you some orcs with a table full of buddies on a Thursday night. When CharOp the Twinked casts Heightened Quickened Contingent I Win, Bitches in the first round, interrupting the enemy surprise round since he's a Diviner and never surprised, how is that fun?

[sonofzeal]

There's always the option of playing an NPC class. It gives your optimization skills a workout, while artificially lowering your effectiveness enough that your party might not mind said optimization.

One of the ideas in Optimizing Weakness was to play a traditional caster, but voluntarily limit yourself to Adept spell slots. Invent a story reason for the limit, and a way to temporarily remove it in-game, and give the power to remove it to one of the weakest party members. That way you can still bail them out when need be, and the one with the reigns gets to feel like he was a part of it too.

[sonofzeal]

See, this I don't get at all.

And the other players probably don't get at all.

To me, sitting up all night with a pile of books is masturbation, while the actual give and take at the table is like sex. Nothing against the one, but when it detracts from the other, well....

I know I'm in the minority on this forum, but apart from a thought exercise, I don't see the joy of hardcore optimization. Every thread seems to want to build the ultimate win button pusher, which just seems so unsatisfying in actual play.

It's perfectly fun to play a Sword and Board Fighter and gank you some orcs with a table full of buddies on a Thursday night. When CharOp the Twinked casts Heightened Quickened Contingent I Win, Bitches in the first round, interrupting the enemy surprise round since he's a Diviner and never surprised, how is that fun?

Sitting up to 3am making characters satisfies a totally different set of urges as actually playing. It's like comparing the joy of making a really awesome Halloween costume against the joy of going trick-or-treat with your friends. Some people really enjoy the costuming part, and put a lot of effort into making something fantastic; some just slap on some silly old thing and enjoy themselves. Some people only like making the costumes, some only enjoy the actual event if they look awesome, and some enjoy both the costuming and the event tremendously.

Should any of those people be denied the right to make a fantastic costume, just because their friends don't want to put in the same effort?

[Mike_G]

Sitting up to 3am making characters satisfies a totally different set of urges as actually playing. It's like comparing the joy of making a really awesome Halloween costume against the joy of going trick-or-treat with your friends. Some people really enjoy the costuming part, and put a lot of effort into making something fantastic; some just slap on some silly old thing and enjoy themselves. Some people only like making the costumes, some only enjoy the actual event if they look awesome, and some enjoy both the costuming and the event tremendously.

Should any of those people be denied the right to make a fantastic costume, just because their friends don't want to put in the same effort?

If they used it as Contingent Quickened Give Me All The Candy, then yes. Yes they should be denied.

You said it yourself, making the nine splatbook PC satisfies different urges than playing the game. Satisfy those urges online or whatever, but satify the game playing urges in gameplay.

Optimizing is generally a solo activity. Actually playing is a group activity. If the group is bored and the campaign in tatters because you twinked out and won the game in round one, then you have lost D&D, not won it.

Optimizing is a spectrum, not a binary condition, so everyone falls somewhere along it. The key is to play with a group that is close enough that everyone enjoys the gameplay while at the table.

[Zaydos]

Personally I love sitting up till 3 AM making a character (I don't like coffee but soda, or milk do fine), maybe watching a show on tv and looking at a dozen books and Dragon mags. That doesn't mean I always have to have the strongest character, I often get asked to help make my friend's characters (especially when I DM) but I like having a character that really fills his role. Sometimes this is game mechanic, sometimes RP, usually I try and make #1 fit #2, but sometimes its reversed. For example I made a cleric who was supposed to be a full-power heal bot. Turned out he was still better in combat than the party knight when he needed to be but not usually (he didn't use DDM persist or any of that and with his gear and feats turned towards healing it rather weakened him till he loosed a powerful harm spell which crippled the mini-boss and then a second which crippled the boss of the adventure). Another was my wizard-druid who I simply chose the feats required to be a wizard-druid (natural bond, practiced spellcaster, and natural spell) along with some maximized spell fun. Was he the most powerful character ever? No. Was he fun and did he involve staying up and looking through a dozen sourcebooks? Every time he leveled. It's possible to do it for RP purposes, and when you make a character around a concept you should be able to actually play it and not be penalized because it works.

[sonofzeal]

If they used it as Contingent Quickened Give Me All The Candy, then yes. Yes they should be denied.

If someone's deliberately hogging all the loot in-game, well that's something else entirely. But usually an optimized character in an unoptimized group gets the same gold, the same xp, often even the same fame as everyone else. They're not "getting all the candy", they're just being generally more awesome as they go about stuff.

You said it yourself, making the nine splatbook PC satisfies different urges than playing the game. Satisfy those urges online or whatever, but satify the game playing urges in gameplay.

Part of the joy of making costumes is actually wearing them. You can easily imagine how that would work, and how a pro costume designer would feel hurt and unsatisfied if they were forbidden from wearing their Halloween masterpieces just because they happened to be better at it than others.

Optimizing is generally a solo activity. Actually playing is a group activity. If the group is bored and the campaign in tatters because you twinked out and won the game in round one, then you have lost D&D, not won it.

Agreed. The game should be fun for everyone. But that's just it, it should be fun for everyone. Banning optimizers, or insisting that they play characters far beneath their skill, will often ruin their enjoyment of the game and leave them frustrated or unsatisfied. Mixed groups should work to accommodate eachother; the optimizer should be considerate, the other players should be tolerant, and the DM should even the playing field as much as possible.

Optimizing is a spectrum, not a binary condition, so everyone falls somewhere along it. The key is to play with a group that is close enough that everyone enjoys the gameplay while at the table.

Often not possible. I don't know anyone in my extended gaming circle who's even remotely close to my level of rules-knowledge and optimization skill. I'm not one of the bigshots, but most of my IRL gaming group is in the "cutting holes in bedsheets to make ghost costumes" stage, to continue the Halloween analogy. Do I dump my friends and deny myself any chance to play, just because I can't find a group that's closer to my level?

[Aldizog]

there's a selection bias at work in who chooses to play Rogues (in my groups, often the cleverest and most cunning player) over who chooses to play Bards (in my groups, often the one who just wants to look cool).

Whereas in the 1-20 campaign I played in, the bard's player was an admitted powergamer who played a weaker class to avoid letting those tendencies wreck the game. As well as a great roleplayer. His Brb1/BrdX was a fantastic character who pulled off some amazing things in and out of battle. AND looked cool doing it. So I got a different perspective on the 3.5 bard.

Now, I played the druid, but I tried hard *not* to powergame. Even nearly-core-only (just Rapid Spell), no Animal Companion at high levels, non-dumped physical stats, and never buying a single magic item, the power in that class is just so hard to avoid.

[Akal Saris]

I know I'm in the minority on this forum, but apart from a thought exercise, I don't see the joy of hardcore optimization. Every thread seems to want to build the ultimate win button pusher, which just seems so unsatisfying in actual play.

It's perfectly fun to play a Sword and Board Fighter and gank you some orcs with a table full of buddies on a Thursday night. When CharOp the Twinked casts Heightened Quickened Contingent I Win, Bitches in the first round, interrupting the enemy surprise round since he's a Diviner and never surprised, how is that fun?

As you yourself said, there is always a spectrum of optimization. And not every optimization thread is about being the ultimate win pusher - some threads are about making the best of a bad class or race, or coming up with neat combos and under-used spells, or creating a strong character modeled on a fantasy character, or creating a character that is awesome at XYZ like jumping or appraise, or simply advice for a good character build to fit the party's needs.

To use your 2 examples above, I've actually used each character type in the same pvp arena game.

The Sword & Board character took all of the shield-focused feats I could find, and was a mediocre character by most standards (at 6th level, he dealt 1d6+3 a hit, I think), but mechanically he was quite fun, as nobody had ever fought somebody like him before, and he was able to pull off quite a few nifty tricks - one time having his shield bonus to touch AC won a fight against somebody abusing touch attacks, and another few times his Shield Slam tripped opponents who hadn't expected that tactic from a S&B fighter - and often the opponents simply hadn't expected to fight somebody with a high AC and missed him a lot while he slowly shield bashed them. Would I play him in a normal campaign? Definitely!

The 'God' wizard was a conjurer who focused on crowd control spells and summoning, and was a blast to play because of the huge amount of flexibility he had. It helped that he was only 5th level, and I had to work with very limited resources to build him. Would I play him in a normal campaign? Yes, but a lot of his spells don't work well in actual play compared with theory - solid fog and stinking cloud are hard to use if the party is in melee with the opponents or can't see into the cloud.

Still, even my level 2 wizard in PF that I'm playing now feels like he has 10x more options than the other PCs at the table because I bought a bunch of scrolls - and generally, options are fun - especially when you use them to help the other PCs out or have an unexpected solution to an encounter. I liked the S&B fighter that I built because he had a few unexpected options - but if my only choice was to walk forward and hit every round, it would have gotten boring fast - especially if I hadn't designed the character.

CharOp the Twinked Diviner (and I can tell he's a PF one from your example!) is probably only fun to play if he's on the same team as Super-Cleric and Ragnaros the Charging 1-Shot-1-Kill Wonder. I actually don't especially like designing the ridiculously powerful characters like that, since it's like masturbation - you're never actually going to play that level 17 wizard who can stop time all day long, so why bother getting excited over it?

Finally, I think of min/maxing as being a little like an auto enthusiast who tinkers with cars. It's one level of fun to design and build a cool engine - and then it's another level of fun when you can take something you've built and race it. Especially when you're like me and enjoy creating playable characters who are strong and fun at all levels of play (1st to 14th is usually the range I shoot for), so as you play, you can enjoy the gradual progression of options and flexibility and the way that each feat and class level adds an element to the build.

Oh, and sonofzeal, I think you underestimate yourself - I consider you quite skilled at min/maxing from what I've seen on this board and BG/339.

[Tackyhillbillu]

This is something for another thread, but frankly, I disagree with the notion that "Options are fun."

That's my problem with the Wizard as a whole. He replaces every single class in the game, given a few levels and some gold. Rather then just having an infinite number options, I actually prefer having a very limited toolset, ala Melee (with the exception of ToB, which I like because they are the best made WoTC base class.)

Your Sword and Board Fighter sounds way more fun then the Wizard. You have to think about how you use the very limited mechanics availible to you to achieve victory, and are forced to rely on your Party Members effort. The Wizard just picks the assorted set of "I Win" buttons, and that's that.

Options can be fun, but not when they allow you to obliterate the need for other players to even sit at the table.

---

And SonofZeal, frankly, yes. If the only way you will play is to make the rest of your friends feel completely unneeded, then yeah, you probably shouldn't play with them.

It all depends what you mean by optimizing. If you mean making a character that blows away every other single one in the party, then yes, you are causing a problem. If you are talking about taking a concept, and realizing it to the fullest, go ahead.

If you have to, take up some of the challenges those here have mentioned. Make the best of bad situation which you give yourself. Explore esoteric options. Try something like the CA Swashbuckler, and make it fun to play, and equitable with the other party members.