Why a desire to play an especially low-op game?

[Concerned Ninja Citizen]

The Rambling vs Orienteering article is accurate when it comes to competitive vs non competitive roleplaying.

However, this conversation is not about that. This conversation is about two different styles of non competitive roleplaying. Scored roleplaying has not been mentioned, is entirely irrelevant to the discussion and so is that article.

The idea that interest in mechanical optimization and interest in story and roleplaying are mutually exclusive is incredibly confusing to me. I would not be able to enjoy D&D without both of those things.

In fact, I often find that my optimization drives my backstory creation to interesting places it would not otherwise go.

[linklord231]

And, again, this just strikes me as dead wrong.  And, maybe even pernicious.

I am a dyed in the wool optimizer.  But, I have no desire to "win" at D&D.  Do I want to play a character who is awesome?  Yes.  Although "awesome" often takes on very different values, driven by the kind of game and the concept.  Do I want to play an invincible god that stomps all over every challenge?  Absolutely not.  And, I recognize that it is often easier, practically speaking, for the players to be less optimized rather than asking the poor DM (often me) to customize every encounter. 

Linking optimization with competition (e.g., "scoring in RPGs) is a mistake.  It's a mistake that, maybe, many optimizers make, but it's still a mistake.  Optimization in an RPG (note, different than in other, more competitive games) is a tool, a means to an end.  That end, for me, is making the game work and being able to play character concepts that do what the concept is supposed to do and mechanically-interesting.  I don't see how anyone could possibly have a problem with that goal.

I didn't mean to link competitive role-playing with optimization; but rather to compare high-op players and low-op players with ramblers and orienteers.  Not everyone who optimizes plays RPGs competitively, nor vice versa. 

High op campaigns are not about "winning" d&d.  No one said they were.  They are about taking on bigger challenges, making awesomer characters, and generally kicking more ass than lower-op campaigns are capable of.  As you said yourself, "awesome" takes on different values in different campaigns.  In a high-op setting, the "awesome" bar is set much higher.
Now, there's nothing wrong with playing with a lower optimization level.  But I can totally understand the resentment from people used to low-op campaigns who suddenly realize that their character concept is inherently too weak to take on certain challenges.  And I can also understand the vitriol from people who see that resentment as an attack on the high-op playstyle. 

This article does a pretty decent job of explaining why optimizers and non-optimizers have different needs in RPGs, and how those needs are by nature incompatible.

And? That's exactly what I said. That our individual needs may well be utterly incompatible, but we do have at least one need in common (having fun and being entertained) and that means that we should be working together to get all our incompatible needs satisfied simultaneously, instead of squabbling over who gets to have their needs satisfied at the expense of everyone else's.

Just because two needs are incompatible doesn't mean that a product is incapable of satisfying both at once. Like I said before, what it takes is flexibility, choice, freedom and modularity. Let the players decide what they want to put into the game and what they want to take out. Let the optimisers play with certain mechanics and let the non-optimisers play without them. Or viceversa.

Does it take work on the part of the designers? Yes. Is that an excuse not to do it? Absolutely not.

The problem is that a game so "modular" as to appeal to both high-oppers and low-oppers is fundamentally 2 different games.  It's more than fine for there to be 2 games, but you'll run into problems if you try to design a single game for all people, especially when the needs of one group is diametrically opposed to the needs of another. 
The simple fact that more powerful choices exist will be offensive to low-op players, and high-oppers need choices of varying power levels for optimization to even exist. 

[Concerned Ninja Citizen]

I didn't mean to link competitive role-playing with optimization; but rather to compare high-op players and low-op players with ramblers and orienteers.

That comparrison doesn't work because the difference between ramblers and orienteers is precisely and entirely to do with competitive vs non competitive pursuit of a hobby.

We're all ramblers here. Even the optimizers.

[Unbeliever]

...
We're all ramblers here. Even the optimizers.

Thanks, that's what I was trying to say. 

And, don't get me wrong, when we come onto these boards and ask for optimized builds, and similar game resources, we are kind of adopting the Orienteering mindset. But, in my view, that's kind of a side hobby.  It's like painting miniatures:  it's connected to playing RPGs, and useful to it in some fashion, but it's not the same.  Like most people, I go through the various handbooks or solicit advice to figure out various ways of building the concept I have in mind.  And, again, like most of us, I typically don't pick the "best" or "most powerful" one.

And, I'm not even sure that high-OP games are about taking on greater challenges.  Challenges are obviously on a sliding scale, so I don't even know if I go into games looking to go higher or lower on that scale.  It's not something that typically even comes up, we're more concerned with intra-party parity and not making the DM's life too miserable while still doing something cool mechanically. 

Reading over the posts again, though, this seems accurate, though perhaps sad: 

But I can totally understand the resentment from people used to low-op campaigns who suddenly realize that their character concept is inherently too weak to take on certain challenges.  And I can also understand the vitriol from people who see that resentment as an attack on the high-op playstyle. 

Although I think the fact that some character concepts are inherently too weak to take on certain challenges, provided those challenges are part of and central to the game, is a failing of any game system.


I'd like to add that I disagree with Shadowknight.  You can optimize in any game.  Although in some it will be more or less interesting and rewarding to do so.  D&D happens to support optimization in a neat way b/c it has lots of fiddly bits that can make neat combos.*  There should, however, be no problem in having a game that is mechanically interesting enough and has enough options that supports the optimization sub-hobby and one that doesn't require or demand it.  Something with fewer trap options or fewer options with wildly disparate effects (e.g., not all 4th level spells are created equal) might pull that off just fine. 

A game where whole classes, especially where the classes are intimately related to concepts, less so.

*Believe it or not, D&D supports optimization better than most games, too.  It's not often the case that a single low-level ability can completely wreck a game.  A number of White Wolf games have this property. 

[veekie]

The biggest difficulty really, is getting both sides to see that the other is also a valid mode of play. People just find it so hard to understand that others might truly find other styles more enjoyable.

For me, optimizing, past casual 'pick useful options' stuff(which is still upper middle opt), optimization is a lot of work on every side of the table. It doesn't often expand capabilities to enjoy new types of adventures, the most common optimizations are directly related to combat, what with the numerous number of ways to dedicate to enhancing damage, and accuracy, while capability expanding options tend to actually close off types of gaming even as they open up new ones.
All that sums up is greatly increasing the amount of work to make enemies provide a challenge without being  capable of finishing the party off in a round, providing challenges they cannot trivially bypass, providing events for when they use special abilities...in short, work.

[Shadowknight12]

The problem is that a game so "modular" as to appeal to both high-oppers and low-oppers is fundamentally 2 different games.  It's more than fine for there to be 2 games, but you'll run into problems if you try to design a single game for all people, especially when the needs of one group is diametrically opposed to the needs of another. 
The simple fact that more powerful choices exist will be offensive to low-op players, and high-oppers need choices of varying power levels for optimization to even exist.

As part of the LGBT community, I am quite familiar with the attitude that goes something like "It won't affect me or anyone I know, but I am still dead set into denying you equal standing with me." I have no pity for that kind of people, whether they're low-op or high-op. If you don't like the idea that someone is no longer catering exclusively to you and are now catering to other people without it affecting you in any way, then screw you, you selfish ass (this is a generic "you", not aimed at anyone in particular).

The problem here is that Group A being served cake while Group B starves or gets crumbs has been seen as "normal" so whenever the bakers start baking cakes for both Group A and Group B, Group A reacts against it due to fear of change and not longer feeling "special". And, of course, low op and high op both see each other as Group B and see the other group as Group A, which is why the debates are never ending. High op people say that low op have been always catered to, since it's obvious that the game designers designed the game with the idea that players wouldn't optimise too much (as proven by the fact that the game breaks like stained glass when they do), and low op say that powergamers have always existed and have always been optimising, that the designers have always known this and have made design choices that cater to them (like the Incantatrix). This debate is never going to end so long as each side keeps thinking that the other one is a threat to their enjoyment. That's the mentality that has to change. Nobody is a threat to anybody and more options solve everything.

Modularity is the fairest answer, objectively speaking. If someone's angry that the option to play a different game than yours exist, then clearly there's much about the world they need to be educated about.

[Unbeliever]

...
For me, optimizing, past casual 'pick useful options' stuff(which is still upper middle opt), optimization is a lot of work on every side of the table. It doesn't often expand capabilities to enjoy new types of adventures, the most common optimizations are directly related to combat, what with the numerous number of ways to dedicate to enhancing damage, and accuracy, while capability expanding options tend to actually close off types of gaming even as they open up new ones.
All that sums up is greatly increasing the amount of work to make enemies provide a challenge without being  capable of finishing the party off in a round, providing challenges they cannot trivially bypass, providing events for when they use special abilities...in short, work.

Those are all the right reasons.  But, it does nothing to address the character concept elimination problem. 

Permit me to be more precise.  I doubt many people would consider the following build low OP:  Druid X with Natural Spell and a reasonably intelligent spell selection.  I don't know if people would consider that high OP, or really high OP, or just baseline OP.  Personally, it's kind of the baseline I operate against, but I make no judgments on it. 

Now, if that's not low OP, then saying "I'm running a low OP game" cuts off that build.  The relevant question is does it cut off that concept.  Is there a credible way of building a nature-themed spellcaster that would be low OP?  If so, then there's no problem.  None readily occurs to me, though.  And, if it takes massive levels of system mastery to do it, then it sort of defeats the low work, simplicity point. 

That would be the advantage of my personal default, which would be probably "practical OP."  Not the most powerful or TO characters ever (obviously broken), and not even the most cracked out version of God Wizards or whatever.  But, that Druid character is fine, as would be something even slightly more OP than it.  The reason being that while Ranger 20 is (typically) a crap build, one can build something that credibly fits the ranger concept -- and numerous variations on it -- with not too much work.  Hell, a Tiger Claw-oriented Warblade gives you one cut on it out of box. 

Two caveats.  As I mentioned earlier in this thread, this perspective may be guilty of myopia.  I have a value judgment -- playing the widest array of genre-appropriate and mechanically-interesting concepts is a good -- which I think is uncontentious.  And, I have spent most of my time figuring out ways to make badass versions of the ranger concept (and monk, knight, etc.) within the admittedly flaw framework of 3E D&D's ruleset.  And, I freely admit that using optimization to paper over the game's flaws in this regard is dangerously close to an Oberoni stance.

Second, in practice, none of the above really matters.  Despite what I've just written, I'd happily play or run a low OP game.  Wouldn't bother me in the slightest.  I'd want to spend a few minutes to get a rough handle on what we meant by low OP, but after, game on.  And, the reason is b/c I have had and continue to have plenty of opportunity to play Aberration Wildshape Druids or Supermount equivalents where the dragon mount is the character.  So, it's no big loss for me. 

Indeed, as I was just discussing with my girlfriend, participating in a low OP game, at least an intelligently designed one, doesn't strike me as much different than participating in any other game.  I come up with a concept and look for options within the game to realize it mechanically.  And, invariably, I choose not to use some options b/c I deem that they would be too powerful in my judgment.  My suspicion would just be that a low OP game would just push that bar down.  That has been my experience in the few I've participated in. 

As a side note, I haven't found the optimization level I'm thinking of (see above) to be a whole lot of work.  We tend to almost always use stock monsters with very slight modifications.  I tend to up their hit points (I usually do double, but the DMs I know vary on this and it depends on the firepower of the party) and give them a few feats that I think are interesting or spell-likes or magic items.  Nothing major.  It's possible that these experiences are driven by gaming groups that are relatively well-behaved, and so while there are what would typically be high OP choices (druids, conjurers, supermounts, etc.) there's a lesser level of OP in practice. 

[InnaBinder]

...
For me, optimizing, past casual 'pick useful options' stuff(which is still upper middle opt), optimization is a lot of work on every side of the table. It doesn't often expand capabilities to enjoy new types of adventures, the most common optimizations are directly related to combat, what with the numerous number of ways to dedicate to enhancing damage, and accuracy, while capability expanding options tend to actually close off types of gaming even as they open up new ones.
All that sums up is greatly increasing the amount of work to make enemies provide a challenge without being  capable of finishing the party off in a round, providing challenges they cannot trivially bypass, providing events for when they use special abilities...in short, work.

Those are all the right reasons.  But, it does nothing to address the character concept elimination problem. 

Permit me to be more precise.  I doubt many people would consider the following build low OP:  Druid X with Natural Spell and a reasonably intelligent spell selection.  I don't know if people would consider that high OP, or really high OP, or just baseline OP.  Personally, it's kind of the baseline I operate against, but I make no judgments on it. 

Now, if that's not low OP, then saying "I'm running a low OP game" cuts off that build.  The relevant question is does it cut off that concept.  Is there a credible way of building a nature-themed spellcaster that would be low OP?  If so, then there's no problem.  None readily occurs to me, though.  And, if it takes massive levels of system mastery to do it, then it sort of defeats the low work, simplicity point. 

That would be the advantage of my personal default, which would be probably "practical OP."  Not the most powerful or TO characters ever (obviously broken), and not even the most cracked out version of God Wizards or whatever.  But, that Druid character is fine, as would be something even slightly more OP than it.  The reason being that while Ranger 20 is (typically) a crap build, one can build something that credibly fits the ranger concept -- and numerous variations on it -- with not too much work.  Hell, a Tiger Claw-oriented Warblade gives you one cut on it out of box. 

Two caveats.  As I mentioned earlier in this thread, this perspective may be guilty of myopia.  I have a value judgment -- playing the widest array of genre-appropriate and mechanically-interesting concepts is a good -- which I think is uncontentious.  And, I have spent most of my time figuring out ways to make badass versions of the ranger concept (and monk, knight, etc.) within the admittedly flaw framework of 3E D&D's ruleset.  And, I freely admit that using optimization to paper over the game's flaws in this regard is dangerously close to an Oberoni stance.

Second, in practice, none of the above really matters.  Despite what I've just written, I'd happily play or run a low OP game.  Wouldn't bother me in the slightest.  I'd want to spend a few minutes to get a rough handle on what we meant by low OP, but after, game on.  And, the reason is b/c I have had and continue to have plenty of opportunity to play Aberration Wildshape Druids or Supermount equivalents where the dragon mount is the character.  So, it's no big loss for me. 

Indeed, as I was just discussing with my girlfriend, participating in a low OP game, at least an intelligently designed one, doesn't strike me as much different than participating in any other game.  I come up with a concept and look for options within the game to realize it mechanically.  And, invariably, I choose not to use some options b/c I deem that they would be too powerful in my judgment.  My suspicion would just be that a low OP game would just push that bar down.  That has been my experience in the few I've participated in. 

As a side note, I haven't found the optimization level I'm thinking of (see above) to be a whole lot of work.  We tend to almost always use stock monsters with very slight modifications.  I tend to up their hit points (I usually do double, but the DMs I know vary on this and it depends on the firepower of the party) and give them a few feats that I think are interesting or spell-likes or magic items.  Nothing major.  It's possible that these experiences are driven by gaming groups that are relatively well-behaved, and so while there are what would typically be high OP choices (druids, conjurers, supermounts, etc.) there's a lesser level of OP in practice.

How do you play a mundane rapier-wielder, a la The Three Musketeers, in a mid-to-high OP game?  Say the baseline is Gnome Druid 6, SF (Conjuration), Augment Summoning, Natural Spell, which is both straight out of the PhB and considered the benchmark for "you must be this tall to ride."  If you can play the mundane rapier-wielder in that game, how?  If you can't, hasn't "the character concept elimination problem" reappeared?

[ImperatorK]

Swordsage or Warblade. Maybe with a 3 level Swashbuckler dip.

[littha]

Elf Crusader 1/Warblade X/Champion of Corellon Larithian 2 with Weapon Finesse gets you Dex to hit and damage (in addition to Str) with a rapier but it would be better to use an Elven Courtblade for 2 handed power attacking goodness. If you used a rapier you could have Shadow Blade too for another lot of Dex to damage


Possibly Half Elf Crusader 1/Swashbuckler 14/Rogue 3/Champion of CL 2
That gets you 17 levels of sneak attack progression too (Daring Outlaw). Using the Half Human variant in Races of Destiny you can then take Able Learner and thus max out your UMD and rock that too.

[ImperatorK]

Rapier isn't a Shadow Hand weapon.

[InnaBinder]

Rapier isn't a Shadow Hand weapon.

It's only a Diamond Mind weapon, in fact (barring homebrew).

Two things - neither directed to anyone in particular:
1.  Is a Diamond Mind focused initiator 'mundane?'  Did you have to mentally exclude any maneuvers, stances, or schools in order to day 'yes?'

2.  Is a Diamond Mind focused initiator going to be able to avoid being outclassed in a party where the OP baseline is set at Natural Spell using, Augment Summoning Druid, or is he - in the context of that party and that baseline - just BMX Bandit with a really spiffy BMX?

[littha]

Could have sworn it was, guess I got it mixed up with diamond mind... either way though you could get an aptitude rapier.

[Concerned Ninja Citizen]

1.  Is a Diamond Mind focused initiator 'mundane?'  Did you have to mentally exclude any maneuvers, stances, or schools in order to day 'yes?'

Yes and no. Diamond Mind is the ToB take on fighters like Mas Oyama. The ability to achieve seemingly superhuman results through extreme focus.

2.  Is a Diamond Mind focused initiator going to be able to avoid being outclassed in a party where the OP baseline is set at Natural Spell using, Augment Summoning Druid, or is he - in the context of that party and that baseline - just BMX Bandit with a really spiffy BMX?

What qualifies as "Diamond Mind Focused"? Does a Warblade who has mostly DM manuvers except for Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics count? If so, then yes. That Warblade can do lots of things that summons can't and can do most of the things they can do (beating the shit out of stuff) equally or more effectively.

[Unbeliever]

[snip, my own ramblings]

How do you play a mundane rapier-wielder, a la The Three Musketeers, in a mid-to-high OP game?  Say the baseline is Gnome Druid 6, SF (Conjuration), Augment Summoning, Natural Spell, which is both straight out of the PhB and considered the benchmark for "you must be this tall to ride."  If you can play the mundane rapier-wielder in that game, how?  If you can't, hasn't "the character concept elimination problem" reappeared?
[/quote]
Yes, completely.  That's the exact question.  If you think it's possible to pull that off, then you're going to tend towards favoring high OP (or highish OP, for lack of a better term). 

Off the top of my head, my approach would be some flavor of TWF type of character.  In part, that's b/c D&D doesn't support a guy with a single one-handed weapon well at all, regardless of OP or mundanity.  So, rapier + main gauche or unarmed strike would be my approach.  The options that readily occur to me are: 

• Swift Hunter -- my preferred one takes a dip into Cloistered Cleric of Travel Devotion.  Run through Richilieu's ranks and carve them to pieces.  Favored Enemy (organization) may be particularly apt here.
• Bard or Bardblade or Bardsader -- pretty much Inspire Courage + TWF.  The alloy of classes depends on what you want to emphasize.  Even just 1 level of Bard + Able Learner gives you perhaps the kinds of skills you want. 
• Some Flavor of Duelist Rogue -- either use flanking or feinting to set up sneak attacks.  Similar to the Swift Hunter, though I think the former fits better and is more fun.
• Disciple of Dispater Crit Fisher builds -- they work just as well with a Rapier as they do with a Kukri, or close enough to be solid.

Those all cover various levels of mundanity and OP.  I am confident that any one of them can be put on par with our baseline Druid.  And, others have already pointed out Champions of Corellon Larathein and ToB characters. 

2.  Is a Diamond Mind focused initiator going to be able to avoid being outclassed in a party where the OP baseline is set at Natural Spell using, Augment Summoning Druid, or is he - in the context of that party and that baseline - just BMX Bandit with a really spiffy BMX?

In my experience, such a character, if built with a reasonable amount of intelligence, will be awesome.  And not outclassed at all.  I've played Rogues and ToB characters and all sorts of others that have rubbed elbows with Druids, etc. and never been outclassed.  I had a long discussion about this in some other thread a while back, which I could try and dig up if it's helpful. 

Just to clarify, we're not talking about the most rarefied heights of OP.  Not the sort of stuff you see shooting back and forth in the dubiously useful X v. Y threads.  My intention was to peg the scale at a straightforward Druid, which is a powerful spellcasting class with a solid chasis and nice class, arguably broken, class abilities.  fwiw, some years ago I played a fairly well-optimized Crusader/Master of Nine alongside an OP'ed Beguiler and an Anima Mage with Persistent Spell and I felt like a total badass.  I was a terror in melee combat, inspiring (RP choice), and athletic and mobile. 

[Shadowknight12]

I'd like to add that I disagree with Shadowknight.  You can optimize in any game.  Although in some it will be more or less interesting and rewarding to do so.  D&D happens to support optimization in a neat way b/c it has lots of fiddly bits that can make neat combos.*  There should, however, be no problem in having a game that is mechanically interesting enough and has enough options that supports the optimization sub-hobby and one that doesn't require or demand it.  Something with fewer trap options or fewer options with wildly disparate effects (e.g., not all 4th level spells are created equal) might pull that off.

The thing is, there's no point in splitting the game in two when we are all united by the same appeal to the same game. Besides, splitting the game up into D&D Lite and D&D Hardcore is only going to foster more rivalry and enmity as the "us vs them" thing grows stronger than ver and we fight to see which is "the true D&D".

No, all the options you propose can well coexist in the same game. We can learn to coexist in peace, enjoying what we like and letting others do the same.

[InnaBinder]

Unbeliever,
Setting aside for a moment that making our rapier-wielder a TWFer is (potentially) messing with the player's desired archetype, if you are confident that a Rogue Duelist is "on par" with a Druid (and his companion) with Augment Summoning and Wildshape, then our concepts of parity are disparate enough that I fear finding common grounds for discussion of the concepts in this thread may be nigh impossible.

[littha]

Notably the elf build I posted earlier can take your standard ubercharger stuff too if they go with the elven courtblade.


Even then, with UMD use and ubercharging it still doesn't match up to a druid but that is about as far as you can take the weapon finesse/duellist idea...

[Unbeliever]

Unbeliever,
Setting aside for a moment that making our rapier-wielder a TWFer is (potentially) messing with the player's desired archetype, if you are confident that a Rogue Duelist is "on par" with a Druid (and his companion) with Augment Summoning and Wildshape, then our concepts of parity are disparate enough that I fear finding common grounds for discussion of the concepts in this thread may be nigh impossible.

At any level of OP running around with just a single weapon is subpar in D&D.  That's just the way it is, there's little support for it.  Even in a low OP game he'd be superseded by the greatsword wielder or the sword and board guy.  ToB is really the only way to go there.  And, saying Rapier + unarmed strike violates the concept is being too restrictive.  Even without seeing the film I'm confident that someone gets kicked. 

More generally, yes I am confident I can build a Rogue or Duelist type that can wreck anything, actually.  Although credit be given, I'm confident that I with the help of the min/max forum and various handbooks can.  I played one for over a year, which made use of pretty much what you expect it to.  I'm actually pretty confident that nearly any archetype can be made "tough enough" where that is defined as "tough enough that any tougher will annoy the DM." 

If I can't figure out how I'm confident I can mosey on over to another subforum and figure it out.  The last sneaky character I made was highly mobile, inflicted a fairly absurd number of negative levels, tripped and did skirmish damage.  It was certainly "tough enough." 

The actual characters I was referring to were ToB characters, which was responding to the BMX Bandit question.  If the ability to deal 250-600 damage in a single round with great accuracy, along with locking down enemies and having miss chances all in a single round consistently, not to mention counters, etc. combined with teleportation, stealth, in-combat healing that actually works, and various other bits of utility isn't enough to keep up with the baseline Druid I proposed, I'll readily concede that we're speaking a different language.  That level of OP seems to me to be ... rarefied, though. 

Alternatively, if you believe even the most optimized Swift Hunter (or Rogue) build, one that cranks out a ton of damage combined with a bit of battlefield control or debuffing, is mobile and athletic, and also fairly good at some non-combat things like stealth, etc. just cannot possibly be on par with the proposed baseline Druid, then yes, the restrictive character concept issue is going to bite in both cases.  I happen to believe that this is demonstrably false.  There are builds I have in mind, but it also strikes me as hard to imagine that characters who can dungeoncrash the entire battlefield, stagger a ton of enemies, or lock everyone down are automatically < Druid. 

In that case, though, you'd be left with a decision to which side of the aisle you'd like to prune.  Do you hack off one end of the game (Druids, full 9s spellcasters, etc.) or another (Rangers, Rogues, etc.)?  Then it'd be a toss up, I think, guided by preferences, assuming there are still some magicky classes left to be played (e.g., Warlock in place of Wizard, though I don't know what's in place of other spellcasters).

[InnaBinder]

Alternatively, if you believe even the most optimized Swift Hunter (or Rogue) build, one that cranks out a ton of damage combined with a bit of battlefield control or debuffing, is mobile and athletic, and also fairly good at some non-combat things like stealth, etc. just cannot possibly be on par with the proposed baseline Druid, then yes, the restrictive character concept issue is going to bite in both cases.  I happen to believe that this is demonstrably false.  There are builds I have in mind, but it also strikes me as hard to imagine that characters who can dungeoncrash the entire battlefield, stagger a ton of enemies, or lock everyone down are automatically < Druid.

The reason I believe this, personally, is because I was in a group where I was the Swift Hunter, and everyone else was a full caster of some sort; the only times I was relevant were when a) the other party members chose to buff me rather than themselves or their pets/summons, or b) the DM clearly and obviously went out of his way to attempt to create a situation where I'd shine.  Even in those situations, my moments essentially boiled down to someone else in the game going "Guys, let's give IB a crack at this one."