Why WOULDN'T you optimize your character for power? (and other mechanics things)

[dipolartech]

Seems to fit, which would make Reed Richards an artificier?

Maybe Doom has a few floating feats that he can change day to day? Isn't that something from Chameleon?

[Pencil]

And with Thors hammer he can control the magnetic poles and everything fucks up.

Wait what?

I feel that this discussion went in a strange direction.

so BTT!

Why don`t I always optimize?

1.To let others shine for a change  ()

2.To make the game challenging

3.Time reasons

4.Ironically I felt that you can be more creative when actually not optimizing.By putting restrictions on you more options suddenly become viable and you can play around with weirder stuff.

5.RP  reasons.

Just my 2 Cents.The list can obv go on.

[Mithril Leaf]

I feel the same way as mentioned in the original post. Dwarf Fortress taught me how to optimize for survival. When your Fortress gets overrun by giant bat monsters wielding steel weaponry (I play with difficulty mods often) you learn to play cheap to survive. Its not really starting strong that's the thrill, it's making the most of the limits you set yourself. For example, I wanted to make a good monk with no casting multiclass or all that. A normal person would just make a monk and hope to roll good. I (and I'm sure many of you would consider it) decided to make a fist of the forest deepwarden. I managed to get really high AC and used some cheap tricks which I've forgotten to get really good unarmed damage. Now, was it as strong as an ubercharger? No. Was it a strong character made out of a weaker base class? Yes, and I'm proud of it. That's the joy of optimization for me.

[ImperatorK]

That's why I play mostly mundanes. Casters are just easy mode.

[belowyn]

Well, its mostly the same way for me. Also a bit of the same background (billied etc), but instead of wanting the power, I want to know I master the game, and would be able to omtimize.
Yes, I dont need to minmax everything, but optimize most stuff, as long as it makes sense.

In example, my Pathfinder toon atm, an Inquisitor, is human, and not Half-Orc, even tho for the build with intimidation etc, a half-orc would do better. But, within my character, it should be as good as it could be. Why not live up to your potensial?

I love finding small quirks, and exploit/use/have fun with them. A lot of the time its often about reading what others have done, and then change it so that everything fits my style the best. Still, the toon isnt supposed to suck! (Yes, the last group I was in the Rogue opened with a crossbow, with 1d4 attack, then spent the next round putting it away, and drawing one hidden blade, then after that drawing the other hidden blade, and moving forth. Result, after 3 rounds, the rouge had fired one 1d4 bolt, which missed. I could never play like that. It goes against my nature)

One of the most interesting toons Ive played was a Savage Bard/Crusader/Jade Phoenix Mage/Lyric Thaumaturge/Sublime Chord. Figuring that toon out was pure joy, and he kept up with my buddys druid as well
He was also riding a Dire Warbeast Battle Mount Badger (yes, that one was maybe a bit sidetracked, but it was damn fun) as he was Gnome, and he didnt want some stupid riding dog!

Im okay with not everyone wanting to omtimize their toons, but they should at least try to not play chaotic stupid (both as alignment and behaviour) during sessions. Basic knowledge about your toon should be expected, and if you can play your toon to some degree, even mundanes can perform decent enough, at least at the levels I have played at. (I started playing D&D last christmas, and havent had a toon in a real group that went past 8)

Imo, why play if you cant play it properly?

[brislove]

I once came up with a wizard/runesmith//artificer gestalt for doom but he also does things like catching Captain America's shield which imply a high martial arts ability too...

Or a persisted Divine power and deflect/catch arrows feats. Doom (as I see him) is basically artificer/factotum gestalt. He has a million skills and is unreasonably intelligent; in addition he has the knowledge and means to make nearly anything. He casts spells, but rarely, and there is nothing saying that it couldn't be powered by items, his armor, ect.

If you wanted to play doom, artificer is the best choice.

Back on topic: There is a difference between pun-pun level optimization and waste of space de-optimization.
There are also a lot of ways to be powerful.
I have seen many games in which tier 1-2 classes aren't performing as well as tier 4-5 classes; Not because they are built poorly, but because the game favored dudes stabbing things with swords. Lots of dungeon crawls, filled with "death of 1000 papercuts" type of encounters.
I played in another game where burning hands was among the best spells in the history of games being printed. (lots of swarms)

There are things people do that are wrong; mechanically, it just doesn't make sense. Greatsword is better than greataxe, why would you use a greataxe?

However, there are a lot of things that happen in games, diplomacy is a big deal. Bards are totally nuts if you're in a war campaign and you can buff your military allies as well as your party. Smaller parties need less pure combat power, but more versatility to handle more situations.

I am with you however; I will never understand why people who have "x Character concept" won't choose the classes that mechanically perform that the best. Ex: My friend wanted to play a Vampire hunter archer. He chose inquisitor because he wanted to be an inquisitor, but for everything he was doing mechanically; ranger is significantly better.

[kitep]

I do it because I don't want to unbalance the group.  25 damage seems like a lot to the people I play with - if I do 250 damage, then the game isn't as good for the other players.

I do it because I don't want to upset the DM.  I know he stops having fun if I one-shot his creatures, and I want him to have fun.

I do it because I want to have fun.  I like the challenge.  I could play a character who walks thru the adventure like a 20th level character in a 1st level dungeon - but I wouldn't enjoy it.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

... I was the prime bullying victim for many years of my life ...

[rant tangent]  ... the recent Bully movie
was gonna be rated-R so the people
who wanted to see it couldn't.  Ironic 
that the kids bullied have to deal with
that everyday.  But oh the parents
they can't handle seeing it, no ?!

Handicapped people are FOUR times
more likely to be bullied.  What the hell (!)
is wrong with people (not a question).
[/rant tangent]

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Handicapped people are FOUR times
more likely to be bullied.

Really? That's messed up. We know very different people...

[snakeman830]

Anyone familiar with my builds should have an idea as to why I limit my optimization.  I like being powerful, but more than that, I like a challenge (seriously, how many of my builds have you seen that use any spellcasting/manifesting?  Not my projects, that's for sure.)  I put restrictions on myself whenever I do mechanics just to prove to myself and others that I can accomplish a lot more than is expected.

[veekie]

Optimization, as I use it, is mostly to serve to extend roleplaying opportunities.

You have certain minimum capabilities where being weaker than that undermines the story, the group never sees or hears anything, knows nothing about the situation, and when faced with a situation cannot attempt to resolve it without a third party, whose aid they cannot obtain. In most games, this includes combat, you can't play if you can't survive.

You have maximum capabilities, where you break the game, story and party's premises. Exceeding these makes the game more fun...for you, and for a short while, it undermines long term and group fun in the end. Again, combat capabilities stand out here. Its not a matter of effectiveness or inter-PC balance. Melee dealing enough damage to oneshot enemies is as much of a problem as save or die spells existing and melee having no options OTHER than mauling for absurd damage. That one party is broken doesn't mean everything should be as broken.

So optimize somewhere between the two. Where this gets interesting is then creating less plausible concepts that still work and fall within the two lines rather than below.

[Nytemare3701]

Optimization, as I use it, is mostly to serve to extend roleplaying opportunities.

^This. I had a Ghost SCM with insane casting capabilities, and I chose to limit him to being a pacifist, JUST because it would be more fun that way. The more excess power you start with, the easier it is to choose suboptimal choices without falling behind the curve.

[DonQuixote]

Well, at this point, I'm almost always playing a class that I wrote myself.  I don't bake broken combos into the classes, since that would rather defeat the point of trying to write balanced material.  Generally, I strike a balance between making powerful choices and not breaking my own material.  And, if things ever get out of hand, I tend to apply errata that weakens any truly broken combos I've found.

That said, I do still optimize to some extent.  So, I'm not sure that I can answer the question of why one wouldn't.  I think I know someone who can, though, so let me ask him.

Edit: "Because there are certain combinations of classes and feats and other material that seem interesting, and may play well, but aren't at the peak of power.  Sometimes, you wanna play the guy that draws runes in the air with his fingers, even if you lose two spell levels because of it.  Sometimes, it is worth exploring how well you can make a scout.  This is akin to the question 'Why drive at all if you aren't going at exactly the speed limit?'  Sometimes, you just want to cruise around town at 15, taking in the sights."

When he puts it that way, I must say that I can see his point.

[FlaminCows]

"Why not optimise?" The answer is: optimisation is too easy.

Not that it isn't work, of course, but once you take the time to do the leg/paperwork you can inevitably find a way to give a character and unlimited or at least arbitrary large amount of power. Its easy in the sense that success is inevitable, not that it doesn't take time. Even if the DM cracks down on such things, you will eventually get a character past him that's more powerful than the rest of the group and there you go, you've won D&D. The DM now cannot make an encounter that challenges your character without the encounter completely destroying anybody else in the party. Yay.

Its at this part that one realises that striving to make your character as powerful as possible is a self-defeating effort. The ultimate goal of character optimisation is not to give you the most powerful character, but rather the character that will be most fun to play.

I'm an optimiser myself, its pretty much an addiction. There have been plenty of times where I have spent days, even weeks reading the rules, comparing, and writing up the most powerful character possible only to discard it in the end and play something else because I knew that playing that character will only cause problems. It is good to optimise, but it should always be about optimising for maximum fun rather than maximum power. Fun and power aren't mutually exclusive, but fun and being overpowered are.

[zugschef]

So I can be a better roleplayer. Obviously.

tempest_stormwind

[Zionpopsickle]

So I can be a better roleplayer. Obviously.

tempest_stormwind

I think you failed a spot check against sarcasm Zug.  Of course if you were properly optimized you would have detect sarcasm persisted.

[ImperatorK]

So I can be a better roleplayer. Obviously.

tempest_stormwind

Really?

[caelic]

So.. Factotum?

DMPC.

[zugschef]

So I can be a better roleplayer. Obviously.

tempest_stormwind

I think you failed a spot check against sarcasm Zug.  Of course if you were properly optimized you would have detect sarcasm persisted.

i obviously thought IK capable of being serious. sorry, my bad. ;-)

[SorO_Lost]

I'm too awesome to role play. You should have seen me in the WWII play I was in...