"Applied" Min/Maxing and you

[Summerstorm]

Applied Minmaxing.

Preamble:

Hoi,

I have been thinking about the different aproaches of optimizing characters for "problem resolution" in D&D.

There are so many build, tips& tricks... and flat-out insane monstrosities out there, and in this forum to excel in combat, casting, world-changing magics, or simple weird stuff like using the highest jump ever to impress people to become fanatical groupies, fastet running speed and so on.

Now my question is: How well does this work in a REAL game. Real campaigns, adventure books and so on?

Many of these optimizations are so narrow, so specialized that they need a certain set of conditions to works, certain rulings of the DM to be possible. Others are handicapped by their own "advantages". Others are fun to think up and build (I myself love to see what i can create – not only in this game, but in every game), but are utterly terrible to play.

So i wanted to ask of your opinions and experiences.

For example:

1. It is ultimately said that being large or even bigger is good for melee (Better combat maneuvers (Trip, Grapple, Bullrush etc.), possible strength-enhancements, more threatened space.) But when i played a large fighter i felt the disadvantages: Most "Dungeons" and such are build for medium  characters, i was squeezing a lot (losing speed, AC, and Attack). I was too big and shutting down placement of my collegues(taking too much space). I was giving the enemies cover from my friends ranged attacks... and i was hit alot more by area-attacks. And denying others coverage by auras and good area-effect (or didn't get them myself) – of course it is better to be able to choose your size on the fly... but how often a day can you do that?

2. Casters: While one can just say that HOLY crap, Full Casters are so much more powerful than everybody else... The limits are significant. In one campaign we were fighting through a canyon. Any encounter was such a drain on spells (ressources) that we had to take breaks ... DAYS of it... to get through a few hundred feets of a "dungeon". But the campaign itself somehow had an urgent feeling to it. It just didn't sit well with me. A Group of melee-combatants and healers might have been faster. People were saying things like: "Eh, caster has used up his once-a-day kill all spell... now he is useless". This is slightly alleviated by reserve feats of course (Damn, they are GOOD) but overall... weird feeling.
Also: until you get to the point where you can have your safeguards, contingencies and divinations: You ARE frail, you can't be alert and buffed 24/7. And you can be overwhelmed or fall for simple traps. Sure there are theoretical saves... buy you can't have them all.

3. The Level 20 build. Many builds do get amazing powers/skills/combos... but way to late. How did they get there? Some are severely crippled UNTIL they reach a certain level. How would you play such a character in lower levels until you reach the point of awesome? Being a deadweight in fear of constant threat is no fun.

4. The Tauric, Multiheaded, Half-dragon (Force), Ghost Gestalt Swordsage, Wizard, Ur-Priest, Factotum etc.: Did your DM ever said: Yeah, that sounds like a fun character to have in my campaign? I mean for more than an arena or one-shot? Like i said: Fun as an exercise, to see what this system does and does not... but pretty much unplayable. (I know my DM limits us to base ruleset + 2 books of our choice maximum at character generation to limit the silliness – Works very well so far)

So what are your experiences with optimizing and min/maxing ingame. What are your observations on practicability. What does really work? What is fun to do, which isn't weirding the other players/DM out, or breaking the game?

[Generic_PC]

Optimizing in-game (or before it, for chargen) can be really simple. If you start a game at level 3, don't worry about how the character would play at level 1. Whisper Gnome is better than the PHB Gnome for pretty much any build. Strongheart Halfling usually trumps the PHB Halfling. Water Orc is a free +2 Con over the MM Orc. Dragonborn is a great template to get rid of things like the Orc's light sensitivity.

I think the problem is that people look at optimizing as making your character the best character in its niche, rather than just improving it. Optimized is a comparative term: nothing you use in a game will be optimized compared to Pun-Pun, but compared to the Monk who is focusing on running fast?

Looking, in particular, at caster design: the last caster I played was a Wizard. His first level spells were Sleep and Colour Spray, plus whatever else I had that I can't remember. I could have had Magic Missiles, but Sleep ended every encounter it was used in, and I could plink away at enemies with my crossbow when I didn't feel like a spell was justified. When I used Colour Spray, 3 or 4 enemies were knocked out, removing them from the fight. That makes those spells far more damaging to a group of bad guys than Magic Missile, and therefore, optimized compared to your average evocation focusing caster. Did I try and pump the will save DCs? Not really. I was a PHB Gnome, not a Whisper Gnome, and I was only using PHB spells, so I probably didn't have the BEST spells in 3.5 in my spellbook. Optimization, in a game, is all comparative, as opposed to the TO builds which are usually built in isolation.

[SorO_Lost]

So i wanted to ask of your opinions and experiences.

My preamble is I'm always Lawful Evil playing as Chaotic Good. So...

1. Big People are Big.
Big people do get in the way, that's why you invest in Reach that doesn't change your size. FF has an evil based Graft that does this for like 5k or so. Spike Chains, Warshaper, ToB, and so on all give Reach as well.

2. My casters took days to rest.
Casters don't take more than 9 hours to rest and it sounds more like you were bogged down in a very low level game where everyone forgot to bring the walking bandage. Anyway, spell drain is a known concept, it's where the entire God concept comes from. It's why even Nuker aim to deal so much you only need one spell. It's more bang for your spell slot.

3. Level 20 builds focus on level 20.
Most do, because like any plan you need to know the long term. Plus, they are at heart suggestions. Maybe you like Empower over Maximize, maybe your game world deals with army sized battles so Enlarge is better than Quicken. Even the PHBII retraining allows you to pick up Feats/Skills/Entire_Levels in any order you wish reoptimization for your current level. It doesn't mean the low levels are totally forgotten.

4. The Tauric Multiheaded Half-dragon (Force) Ghost Gestalt Swordsage/Wizard nobody ever plays.
You would be surprised. Like
a. Loredrake is for TDs only and book says so if you can read the entire entry rather than a half-assed quote.
b. Dragonwrought Kobolds are not TDs no matter how much you think the rules on who you can create a dragonpact with say.
c. Dragonspawn is humanoid only (not dragon) but used as well, oww my head hurts at this point.
e. E6 is built on the concept anything over lv6 is broken as hell and you should NEVER become stronger than a lv6 with a dozen feats.
f. Gestalt however is the concept of more power, at lower levels, at a faster rate.
And just last week, there was a guy using all of those elements. Because he wanted a 10th level spellcaster//something_else or whatever in a hard capped level 6 game. There are people out there that play like this.

But if your asking me, no I don't use those things. In fact, I rarely even use them in suggestions. I really don't like the concept of gestalted and consider it a handicap. You don't need to break the rules to break the game, you don't need to make up house rules to break the game, you don't need cheese to break the game, and you certainly don't even need a spellcaster to break the game. So why do it? Why offer or play as those things all the time? For me, my answer is a simply "I don't". And like most people I do certainly view certain other choices as the "wrong" one and believe I have good reason to, however I don't give a crap about your game and I'm not playing in it. So if you're going to ask something and I like your post enough to respond in some manner, I'll offer my input regardless.

[sirpercival]

Just to throw in my 2cp here, there ARE games where you can play ridiculous things.  My games in general tend to be very permissive, along the lines of "play what you want, you'll need it".  Sometimes I even have to encourage my players (even players from these boards) to optimize more, because they're being too conservative.

[Tshern]

Just to throw in my 2cp here, there ARE games where you can play ridiculous things.  My games in general tend to be very permissive, along the lines of "play what you want, you'll need it".  Sometimes I even have to encourage my players (even players from these boards) to optimize more, because they're being too conservative.

This. Applied minmaxing is a very difficult term to use in a general discussion simply because there are thousands of groups playing with different sets of rules, expectations and skills.

The face-to-face games I participate in are usually under the supervision of one of the two keen DMs I have known for ages and between them the styles change a lot and their individual styles have varied over time. One of them used to loathe casters and had very peculiar views about balance until I educated him, while the latter has always been in favour of high powered campaigns although only the last couple of years have given him the proper expertise to create encounters that are challenging enough to accomodate optimised Wizards or something like that. As a result, I too have been tacitly allowed to increase the power level of my characters as the DMs have become more and more attuned to the intricacies of D&D.

All in all, the vast majority of players would probably agree that infinity loops have no room in normal games and I am inclined to believe most groups that have played together for a good while find a level of power they are all comfortable with. Should both of these assumptions be true, philosophising about practical applications of optimisation and feasibility of various concepts is not exactly a pertinent issue.

[Nytemare3701]

And just last week, there was a guy using all of those elements. Because he *needed* a 10th level spellcaster//OMFG! or whatever in a hard capped level 6 game. There are people out there like this do not underestimate them.

That was me BTW. It's a running thing in our campaign world that Kobolds are "better than everyone, but get no respect", as a nod to pun-pun and the like. The character was used as a boss monster, not a PC. Please don't use me as example of a bad player -_-

[Unbeliever]

I think the OP should distinguish between OMG! optimizing and just ordinary stuff.  It's a little weird to see Spellcasting -- an ability that, what half of all classes and prestige classes in D&D have -- put on the same list as Tuaric, Multiheaded, Half-Force Dragons ...

More specifically:

@1  Query whether "most" dungeons are built for medium characters.  Many, if not most, monsters are larger than medium size.  Certainly many of the iconic ones (e.g., chimeras, beholders, dragons, trolls, giants) are.  So, in most cases the monsters are at just as much of a disadvantage as you are. 

And, sure, there are some disadvantages to being big, like area effects.  But, I think the OP overstates them quite a lot.  I don't know how big the map is you play on, but I've rarely found a situation where I can't hit most of the PCs with ye olde Fireball.  Whether one of them is big or not has rarely mattered.  This is doubly true in a dungeon. 

@2  As SorO notes, this is the double-edged sword of Vancian casting.  But, it's the case that this weakness of the Vancian casters essentially disappears by about 9th level, maybe before.  At that point it's rarely the case that you have so many encounters in a given "day" that you run out of spells, and there are wands, staves, and reserve feats to paper over the weakness. 

I will agree that the firepower of casters if often a bit overstated on the boards.  There seems to be some slippage between a given build's potential power, i.e., that it can craft an impressive response to any given threat by a given combo of spells, and it's actual, day to day adventuring make up and power.  In all fairness, though, the TreantMonk guide to god wizards doesn't suffer from this much. 

As a side note, my group is really good about making this a real weakness.  We tend to just press on regardless, usually motivated by plot reasons.  We've also adopted a slightly more narrative "you are rested and regain your stuff" type of approach, though that's kind of haphazard.  We often just do it when we insert the opportunity to level up as well.

As a general rule, I talk about my characters quite a bit with my fellow players and the DM.  I try to highlight things that might be annoying, and sometimes potential house rules or nerfs based on those. 

EDIT: 

...
I am inclined to believe most groups that have played together for a good while find a level of power they are all comfortable with.

This has been my experience as well.  And, when it hasn't worked it's been b/c the person flat out lied about what he was ok with or not.  I'd just want to add that it's a bit more of an art than a science, so some course correction, even within the bounds of a given campaign, should be treated as standard and not as a failing by anyone involved.

[SorO_Lost]

Please don't use me as example of a bad player -_-

Umm.

I was talking about some other guy, on some other forums, on some other month, totally.

The overall point was people do in fact play in ways that would be strange to me or the OP, but necessarily you shouldn't ignore them. So it's a good thing?

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Yeah the local home game ... is NOT the place
to play out any specific semi-T.O.-ish fantasies.

You can build a Full Caster that could go
CoDzilla but doesn't, rather just survives very well.
The rest of the party might catch on to the slight deception ... 

People play Poker and enjoy it even when
they sit at the table with a TV star player. 
It's just that in the D&D meets CO game
some of the other people, have no idea at all
what is about to happen.

[caelic]

I think the best way to sum up practical optimization is to paraphrase Sun Tzu:

One who knows the group and knows himself will optimize well.

One who does not know the group but knows himself will sometimes optimize well,  and sometimes optimize poorly.

One who does not know the group and does not know himself is almost certain to optimize poorly.




What I mean by this is that optimizing requires two major things: a knowledge of what is necessary to make the game fun for you, and a knowledge of what is needed to make the game fun for the rest of the group.


If you know that you're going to enjoy playing a degenerate Shadowcraft Mage build that spams Holy Words capable of killing anything with fewer than 50 hit dice, that's great--but if you fail to take into account the fact that nobody else in the campaign is interested in playing at that power level, it's not likely to result in a fun game.

Know the group, know yourself, and fine-tune your optimization accordingly.

[Tshern]

What I mean by this is that optimizing requires two major things: a knowledge of what is necessary to make the game fun for you, and a knowledge of what is needed to make the game fun for the rest of the group.

This is what I meant too. Very well said!

[The_Laughing_Man]

I like Sun Tzu.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

+1

[Libertad]

+1 too, for a total of +2!

[Alexei]

Showing off also has a place, if it gets the other players interested in learning -and after that you adapt to the OP level they enjoy, of course- so let me elaborate a bit on this:
Applied min-maxing can be used as a way to show how to improve a character so he isn't totally incompetent unless the DM gives him +15 Vorpal Energy burst haste swords.

That's because many groups have mixed people in them, and maybe one person doesn't like to optimize even a bit and says "No. I'm a ranger 5 because I want to be a *insert concept here*" and won't listen about how they can be the very same character using different classes and be better at what they do. In my group we tend to see classes as "cost templates" instead of developed concepts, because it's what they were in our previous systems. Just templates of how much it costs to get skills and combat capabilities.

After a game in which my god wizard forced a use of Miracle from a level 20 opponent - Widened Stinking Cloud-  I have offered my help to teach how BFC works, and why debuffs are so awesome instead of "I cast a Fireball" mages, and basic optimization. Also, our group enjoys obscenely overpowered encounters, so OP is nice there and it has only taken me 5 months to teach the basics to all of them, so now there won't be any more insane Mary Sue NPCs doing the work instead of the PCs to balance heroic battles...

[Dkonen]

We've heavily house ruled our game to allow for the kind of things that would make most optimizers assume we're insane. They only work because of the agreement that we're all here for fun and looking to play a group of adventurer heroes/villains tromping through a high fantasy tale. Not "Tim and his backup nobodies".

To be fair, this has proven somewhat difficult for one of our GMs..(we had a single incident of far too optimized characters as an entire party) he has since stopped being too worried and learned the joy of relaxed GMing.... adding templates, HD, class levels, feats and abilities to monsters to make the encounters more enjoyable for all of us (incidentally something I realized may have been necessary since two of our players knew the material backwards and forwards).

We could make characters with the house rules we have to roll past nearly everything, but ... why? Having a character who can hand wave everything gets very boring very fast.

Optimization is a tool, and as such, should be used in a constructive fashion.

[caelic]

We've heavily house ruled our game to allow for the kind of things that would make most optimizers assume we're insane. They only work because of the agreement that we're all here for fun and looking to play a group of adventurer heroes/villains tromping through a high fantasy tale. Not "Tim and his backup nobodies".

Interestingly, "Tim and his backup nobodies" CAN work well as a method of play.  The Ars Magica troupe system was built around the premise.

Their approach to the problem of wizards being more powerful than anyone else was to embrace it.  Yes, wizards are more powerful, and everything revolves around them.  So everybody plays a wizard.  But, here's the catch: not everybody plays their wizard all the time.  Everybody also has a "companion," a non-wizard who still has unique and useful skills.  There's also a pool of "grogs"--basically, the dumb grunts and spear-carriers--which are held in common.

The system achieves what I call "dynamic balance."  You'll never have a game where all of the characters are equally powerful and important.  This session, you might be playing your wizard, off searching for the Lost Fabled Jeweled Doodad of Wahini, while I'm playing Bob the Grog, whose job is to watch your back and say "Yessir" when you give an order.

NEXT week, though, YOU might be the one playing a grog, while I play MY wizard.  The spotlight falls on different players at different times.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

... paraphrase Sun Tzu:

... One who does not know the group but knows himself will sometimes optimize well,  and sometimes optimize poorly ...

I know most of my avatar  ... and most of the time.
I ~know most of my group ... some of the time.


I wanna know how hard it is to play the worst character ever,
but not as a sandwich, instead as a pizza. 
Oh, and I want half of the damage to be infernal heart (or heat) burn.

[Dkonen]

We've heavily house ruled our game to allow for the kind of things that would make most optimizers assume we're insane. They only work because of the agreement that we're all here for fun and looking to play a group of adventurer heroes/villains tromping through a high fantasy tale. Not "Tim and his backup nobodies".

Interestingly, "Tim and his backup nobodies" CAN work well as a method of play.  The Ars Magica troupe system was built around the premise.

Their approach to the problem of wizards being more powerful than anyone else was to embrace it.  Yes, wizards are more powerful, and everything revolves around them.  So everybody plays a wizard.  But, here's the catch: not everybody plays their wizard all the time.  Everybody also has a "companion," a non-wizard who still has unique and useful skills.  There's also a pool of "grogs"--basically, the dumb grunts and spear-carriers--which are held in common.

The system achieves what I call "dynamic balance."  You'll never have a game where all of the characters are equally powerful and important.  This session, you might be playing your wizard, off searching for the Lost Fabled Jeweled Doodad of Wahini, while I'm playing Bob the Grog, whose job is to watch your back and say "Yessir" when you give an order.

NEXT week, though, YOU might be the one playing a grog, while I play MY wizard.  The spotlight falls on different players at different times.

That's sort of how we handle it when one optimizer gets out of hand...or at least one of the ways... we tend to focus on someone else for awhile.

However the Tim comment was more meant as a reference to those who make the most powerful characters and monopolize the spotlight, dragging everyone else around as support. I *have* done this as a part time thing (I enjoy playing the buffbot standing behind the big guy), but being stuck on the bench constantly while one player does all the.. well... playing? Why am I even there? Forcing your fellow players to come by session after session to help you play D&D...not at my table. Not in any game I would even think of playing. It is viable. Not for an entire game around one person (unless everyone has agreed on it)

And I actually have the dictinct uh... pleasure... of owning a copy of Ars Magica. It was introduced to me by a third party and it was one of those systems I just had *no* interest in...mostly due to mechanics. I like to dabble around, but.. wasn't my cup of tea.