How did you lose your CO virginity?

[Nytemare3701]

I don't understand the question. Anyone who takes a cursory look at 3.5's core, possibly 3.0's, and definitely 2nd's splats can immediately see a plenitude of game-breaking abuse.

Everyone who has read core and done grade, what, 3(?) maths would be able to spot things like the crafting inconsistency or the fact that some spells render 50% of classes useless without going through any of the inherent balance mechanisms (e.g. saves) of the system.


The implication that anyone who has read the rules can't make a nigh-unstoppable character is illogical.

Humans are innately bad at math, statistics, and probability. If you were among the few that enjoyed math class in school and paid attention, you will easily spot much of the broken bits of D&D. For most, however, fireballs and running really fast are cool, and cool = OP.

You hit the nail on the head there. To the average player, Cool=OP. Because it elicits a positive emotional response, it must be better, right? Unfortunately, politics tends to go the same way >.>

[muktidata]

I don't understand the question. Anyone who takes a cursory look at 3.5's core, possibly 3.0's, and definitely 2nd's splats can immediately see a plenitude of game-breaking abuse.

Everyone who has read core and done grade, what, 3(?) maths would be able to spot things like the crafting inconsistency or the fact that some spells render 50% of classes useless without going through any of the inherent balance mechanisms (e.g. saves) of the system.


The implication that anyone who has read the rules can't make a nigh-unstoppable character is illogical.

The question is "what did you first notice" and "what first got you excited/what did you first try." I play with medical doctors, professors, and psychologists who are likely much smarter than you, yet have a very feeble grasp of the power curve in DnD despite years of play. Why would you expect what you define as logic? Because you defined it? Oh, right.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Yeah, comparing game maths to losing your (co) virginity ...
 

I might be the only board member that would claim that to be even
remotely true ... (bad kitty avatar bad) ... imaginary or otherwise.
  

[Scottzar]

I posted something similar to this before but it was eaten by the board, so tell me if I skip a sentence.

The question is "what did you first notice" and "what first got you excited/what did you first try." I play with medical doctors, professors, and psychologists who are likely much smarter than you, yet have a very feeble grasp of the power curve in DnD despite years of play. Why would you expect what you define as logic? Because you defined it? Oh, right.

First off, I'd like to say that starting by moving the goalposts followed by an insult is incredibly creative. 10/10, would be called stupid again.

""The question is "what did you first notice" and "what first got you excited/what did you first try."""
No, it isn't. The question is:

What was the first time you went "Holy crap!" and built a character around something you thought was powerful? Your first build, as it were? How'd you get into CharOp?

Which is illogical. When I see an inconsistency such as crafting cl idiocy, I don't immediately abuse it because I'm not a game ruining asshole, at least not intentionally.
You don't bring it to a CO forum because that sort of thing is incredibly basic and known by 99.99% of any CO community, and our theoretical past self at this point doesn't even know about CO communities (which makes no sense who doesn't research a product before buying it?).

I love the baseless insult, really classy. The fact that someone is academically proven and even intelligent has no bearing on whether they have read the rules or not. 90+% of people who play 3.5 don't read the rules, they just sort of roll along and look stuff up when it comes up, or houserule it past.

I would expect what I implied to be logical because the moment I read core crafting I saw the cl clause, which is clearly open ended and broken. The moment I read forcecage or solid fog I saw that it basically instantly beats any character (solid fog on the condition that FoM isn't in play). Anyone who reads wildshape or polymorph can clearly see the potential for stealing OP creature abilities, which then continued into the potential for stealing creature spellcasting (though I'll admit the idea I had at that time was for a solar!wizard who abused a superior spell-list and stats for great justice). It didn't take me long to see that awaken has massive abuse potential, to start with on the druids animal companion, and then following with wildshape shenanigans.
I wouldn't say I'm the most intelligent person in the world, and in particular my creativity, which is what most CO really measures, is one of my worst (and probably sub-average) mental attributes. And yet I could easily break the core with a cursory glance. Obviously anyone with average+ creativity could do better.

[Nytemare3701]

Scottzar, You are assuming that these things are obvious steps of logic, when to a non-CO, they are completely outside of the realm of reason. Remember, there are active and vocal groups that (while not all at once) believe:

• That core is balanced
• That splatbooks are balanced
• That monks are OP
• That crafting is bad.
• That fighters are stronger than wizards
• That Pathfinder "fixes" everything unbalanced about D&D
• That 4E "Fixes" everything about D&D
• That 3.5 "Fixed" 3E, and that 3E was super broken in comparison.

Many of these people are otherwise reasonably intelligent or creative folks, but they are approaching the game from a different perspective. They aren't looking for an optimal character numerically, they are just picking whatever fits their mental image of their character and the game they are in. From their perspective, a player doesn't become a planar shepherd unless the story calls for it, or it was already a character motivation (not a player motivation for a build). They are playing a different game. One with self imposed limits that make the game enjoyable to them. I suspect if they were dropped into SirPercival's High Arcana they would get stomped, but that's because it's not their game, it's ours, and we have different expectations of a character.

And before someone brings it up, no I'm not saying that they are all Stormwind Fallacy sufferers. I'm saying that they don't even acknowledge CO as a part of THEIR game.

[SorO_Lost]

Wait people, hold up.

Ok, so my post boils down to I never had a cherry to pop and Multi got all bitchy with me. Scottthebeholder also had about the same thing, but now we're at the point where Multi is all like "I know f*cking Doctors!"

What we have here is Multi had a bubble of innocence and D&D popped his virginity like the youngin he was and there is a lot of assumptions being made from there. CO means intelligent, anyone not in CO is stupid, having a cherry to pop means you were a fool, X is smarter than Y, apparently everyone on the forum is the same snot nosed nine year old when 3E came out, etc.

This simply isn't the damn case. Your expectations and experience weigh in more than quote on quote intelligence. IE starting with a group of optimizers then you'd never have the idea that +20 to Saves is *high*. Your expectations were set higher, probably on the infinite side (like pun-pun was a so that's how you to it to me), and experience of the game will lead you certain ways (level 1~3 starter pack has the standard four vs young black dragon, we can do this with Fighters!). How you got into the game, why you did it, and taught you a play style is the largest factor, there is no intelligence pissing contest to be had here.

Also Multi, it sounds like we're getting close to stage four with you. You're asking for advice to expand your horizon, but you're still being held back by your expectations. Just remember there is a lot of us here and those oddities will pop up.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

What was the first time you went "Holy crap!" and built a character around something you thought was powerful? Your first build, as it were? How'd you get into CharOp?

I noticed that Pazuzu took more time than the H.I.V.E. did ...  ...
That wasn't a "Holy crap!" moment ; that was an "Un-Holy CRAP!!" moment.

then 
then 
Oh those silly Pazuzu Cultists.

[nijineko]

Well, yeah, I suppose I was an optimizer when I chose peach baby food over peas baby food, but I'm talking about DnD here.

What I'm saying is I was optimizing before D&D. But if you want my D&D start date, it was Boy Scout sumer camp in the 3.0 era. Not sure exactly which year because I can't pin down what Merit Badges I took in the same year.

oddly enough, i have a very similar history. optimizing from before i played d&d, and my first d&d optimizing experience was at a scout camp as well. but, that was back in the 1e era.

[muktidata]

You can create parallel examples of optimizing in anything to optimizing in DnD. That's why I used the silly one of choosing which baby food tastes better. Yes, everyone is an optimizer and has been since making their first simple economic decisions in childhood. Yes, the analogy grows in similarity when we use video games and board games and other tabletop rpg's. No, the fact that you got a golden chocobo to go and find Knights of the Round does not count as an example of the first time you started optimizing in DnD/approached the CO boards.

[Shadowstalker]

I've always been an optimiser, but really focused on CO after I opened the 3.0 PHB for the first time, read through the spell lists and classes, and saw how overpowered spellcasters were in comparison to non-spellcasters.

I've always been partial to physical combatants, archers and nonmagical rogues (as well as mindbenders and characters with telepathic/telekinetic ability), so I've had to optimise the hell out of these nonmagical characters just to keep pace with the wizards, druids and clerics being played with any degree of competence. But I'm only interested in practical optimisation, with characters that can be fleshed-out backstory-wise and who would be good throughout a campaign - not, for instance, builds which can inflict 6000 damage in a charge, but only once per day.

[SorO_Lost]

I've always been an optimiser, but really focused on CO after I opened the 3.0 PHB for the first time, ... But I'm only interested in practical optimisation, with characters that can be fleshed-out backstory-wise and who would be good throughout a campaign - not, for instance, builds which can inflict 6000 damage in a charge, but only once per day.

Doesn't count, Multi only wants your 1st post in WotC's CharOP forums. Something about too many people played other stuff before D&D...

Most Uberchargers can deal 6,000 damage on a Charge. Meaning on a Charge, not because they are Raging once per day. Once a day crap is 4th edition, and given you're still here that's kind of expected.

[Concerned Ninja Citizen]

You can create parallel examples of optimizing in anything to optimizing in DnD. That's why I used the silly one of choosing which baby food tastes better. Yes, everyone is an optimizer and has been since making their first simple economic decisions in childhood. Yes, the analogy grows in similarity when we use video games and board games and other tabletop rpg's. No, the fact that you got a golden chocobo to go and find Knights of the Round does not count as an example of the first time you started optimizing in DnD/approached the CO boards.

My impression of your goal with this post was for people to pin down the moment when they started thinking in terms of optimization rather than in terms of tossing things they liked together and calling it a day.

If that's the case, what Sor0 is saying really does apply. You can have an optimization ah hah moment in a venue other than D&D and, for many people, it translates. Once you start thinking like an optimizer in one game you approach other games with the same mindset.

That's how it worked for me. I didn't have a moment where I first got interested in optimization in D&D because by the time I started playing D&D I thought that way about all games. The first thing I did upon discovering the SRD and deciding to start building characters was to google optimization resources and find BG. From there I spent quite a while reading up on various things and came out with a decent handle on CO.

That wasn't when I discovered optimization, though. That probably started with the LOTR TCG. It was my first competitive TCG and I progressed from playing things because I thought they were cool to playing things because I thought they would work, to realizing what actually did work and why. That seems to be precisely what you're talking about.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

" ... baby food ... "

Well I didn't quite get that one figured out right away,
but if you have Psi Recharge and Minor Creation
you can eat an unlimited amount of whatever flavor
of baby food you can stomach ... and then the power
expires and it doesn't go to your waist.  iirc I got that
around '09.

Call it:  The Baby Food Diet with Sparkles.

[SneeR]

Perspective does a lot.
I have a friend who started playing Magic seriously when he was very young and learned about D&D from adults who had set out to make uber wizards. He helplessly minmaxes the heck out of characters, often to the dismay of lesser-optimized party members.

I DMed with my friends when I was 12 with the expectation of telling a cool story, and in the stories, the fighter is always as useful as the wizard! I assumed the limited resources per day balanced out the absurd collection of spells. The fact that the Special Abilities chart for casters is virtually empty in Core helped in that fallacious assumption.

It actually took me moths of DMing to seriously sit down and read the 3 Core books cover to cover because the mechanics didn't really matter, as long as everyone had fun (viciously referred to as "magical tea party" here in a derogatory way). Once i started memorizing obscure mechanics, it made me honestly wonder how a fighter could actually take on a high-level monster and survive. However, my friend who introduced me to the game assured me that characters die at high levels all the time, so I shrugged off my suspicions.

My EUREKA moment came when I decided to make a non-magical variant of the ranger. I started comparing the ranger class with the fihter class and the druid class on a level-by-level basis. I came to the realization that druids have way too many abilities, and that fighters are virtually barren. I looked online and found BG, where I immediately started asking how to make a homebrew class. I thought maybe I was doing something wrong: why couldn't I seem to make a nonmagical ranger that was as good as a druid in a balanced system?

Then I found one of JaronK's Tier threads and read all 50 pages in two sittings, reading every argument against them and JaronK's rebuttal.

WHAT HAS BEEN SEEN CANNOT BE UNSEEN.
  

I'm still not a very good optimizer because I would rather have a cool ability than a good one. I am a Timmy-Vorthos mix, if we are talking Magic stereotypes.

[beardman]

It started back in the storied days when there was an "A" in front of D&D. I remember thinking to myself, why is your elf Bladesinger so much more powerful than my human fighter? I have an 18/99 strength dammit! The folks I ran with back in those days were power-gamers and min-maxers rather than COers but that started me on the path to where I be now.

[Nytemare3701]

I'm still not a very good optimizer because I would rather have a cool ability than a good one.

Part of optimizing under the radar is making crunch abilities fit the fluff of your character, and scaling down the OMFG aspect.

[dracoemyrs]

I first started thinking in CO terms when I joined a group that had a player with a level 3 halfling rogue that the DM couldn't find without throwing stuff at us that was WAY beyond us in CR. I then started looking around the net and reading the books straight through instead of just what I needed. Next thing I knew the warlock I was running started doing a ton more damage as I started focusing on a blaster build. Right now I am working on my version of a nightcrawler build, trying to balance optimization with the flavor of the character idea.

[Von Krieger]

My optimizing occurred long before I'd even seen my first game book. Single digit age me became fascinated with this wonderful device for my NES that would let me have access to all sorts of things that were overpowered. <3 Game Genie.

Character wise, I think the first character I actually aimed for being optimized was when I decided to make a character with the fastest movement speed possible, which with my handful of sourcebooks at the time was an Anthro Cheetah Monk.

[SorO_Lost]

Game Genie, now that brings back memories. Terrible ones at that. I honestly had no clue what I was doing when I was punching in made up codes, more often that not I crashed things. It wasn't until GBC's Gameshark that I understood things. They didn't tell you swap K for V or some other half-assed notation like Game Genie did, but explained things more like 01159583 & 15 was the data value of 9583's address. So the trends in codes vs what you *should* change around finally made sense. Which pretty much started my "hacker" days on the GBC/N64/PS1.

Next gen saw encoded codes, thanks to Action Replay buying out the vastly superior Gameshark. Without having the computer on next to you handling translations code experimentation was fruitless. And now... Well lets just say PC gamers have always had the fun, I hope you console people enjoyed playing in our world.

[DonQuixote]

The first game I played in, I was a bard/dragon disciple/crusader.  It was...something.

By the time I had a chance to roll a second character, I had homebrewed an entire subsystem.

Arguably, this means that I've never actually popped the CO cherry, since I'll usually just tweak class features or formulae to balance them to the rest of the party, rather than making any optimization decisions during character creation.