Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Loopy 11-29-06, 01:11 AM	Many of my players like to optimize and I don't reward them for it. I despise coming up with overly complex encounters in order to make the encounters deadly. If I spend more than 15 hours on an 8-hour session, I get grumpy... I have a lot going on other than the D and the D. Instead, I usually put together an encounter, and if it uses up 10% of their resources, I give them XP based on an encounter of their level, no matter what CR it really is. They're a party level of about 15 and if they take out a CR 15 without using up hardly any resources, I give them about a 12 or 11's worth in XP. So... am I a Jerk or is this pretty much what everyone does?
Thomas_Covenant 11-29-06, 01:30 AM	Jerk? Not from your post. It certainly looks you are rewarding laziness, poor planning, and overall lack of effort with increased EXP. Or punishing planning or "optimizing" by reducing exp. As a DM, if the party comes up with a brilliantly effective tactic, or simply wins surprise and initiative, I don't punish them for it. I'd go far as to say most DM's don't do as you describe.
Clockwork_Apparition 11-29-06, 01:37 AM	Nah, the technical definition of a jerk is a foolish person. You just insightfully determined that your players make obsolete the CR system developed by WotC. Your methods seem as legitimate as the next guys. You could always throw larger, higher CR challenges at the group to keep the challenge up, then reward them the RAW-appropriate reward and compound the problem.
Clockwork_Apparition 11-29-06, 01:41 AM	It certainly looks you are rewarding laziness, poor planning, and overall lack of effort with increased EXP. Or punishing planning or "optimizing" by reducing exp. True, though. I usually just plan a playing session with the idea that the characters are going to gain a level at the end of this. It rewards the player, it simplifies the process for me, and I can always adjust. The key then becomes simply planning a challenging, fun, enjoyable session.
KurenaiYami 11-29-06, 01:43 AM	Many of my players like to optimize and I don't reward them for it. I despise coming up with overly complex encounters in order to make the encounters deadly. If I spend more than 15 hours on an 8-hour session, I get grumpy... I have a lot going on other than the D and the D. Instead, I usually put together an encounter, and if it uses up 10% of their resources, I give them XP based on an encounter of their level, no matter what CR it really is. They're a party level of about 15 and if they take out a CR 15 without using up hardly any resources, I give them about a 12 or 11's worth in XP. So... am I a Jerk or is this pretty much what everyone does? Maybe a little. Just because you're awarding them less than they earned by RAW. At the same time, RAW doesn't seem to fit four Players who are decently optimized, as a CR equal to their level will get shredded like tissue paper. I could see where they could be upset, but I see where you are coming from as well.
Sim_antix 11-29-06, 01:44 AM	Just remember to send in higher CR encounters that way it will equal out to their optimized CR and they can get decent xp and you dont have to do any additional work. WIN/WIN :cloud9:
Chrono Nexus 11-29-06, 01:45 AM	Start using the MM2 and MM3. Optimized monsters for optimized characters.
CharlieRock 11-29-06, 01:59 AM	Start using the MM2 and MM3. Optimized monsters for optimized characters. Or use optimized NPC adventure parties as the bad guys. Remember Warduke and Foxblood? :cool:
Vaelan 11-29-06, 03:30 AM	Just remember to send in higher CR encounters that way it will equal out to their optimized CR and they can get decent xp and you dont have to do any additional work. WIN/WIN :cloud9: Until you run into an opponent that has abilities one cannot counter or cope with at a lower level. It usually takes a combination of many different factors (optimization, good tactics from the players, power-creep supplements like ToB) that throw off CR to get to this point, though.
Sim_antix 11-29-06, 04:07 AM	Until you run into an opponent that has abilities one cannot counter or cope with at a lower level. It usually takes a combination of many different factors (optimization, good tactics from the players, power-creep supplements like ToB) that throw off CR to get to this point, though. I figure start slow and bump the CRs up by 1 and see how that works. If they are still pasting them then go to +2 and so on until you feel they have been sufficently challenged for their level.
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 11-29-06, 09:59 AM	Not a jerk, but you are punishing good players (the ones who come up with creatave ideas and cunning plans to meet chalanges with minimal loss and expendature, and who buid capable, effectave charicters) while rewarding slovenly half intrested people hard pressed to scare a goblin, who are from my expereance the least intrested and least motavated kinds of players. The Cunning plans show there engaing with your adventure,seems wroung to backhandedly punish the people who are moast intrested in the game.
Bob Loblaw 11-29-06, 10:44 AM	Are your players unhappy with how you run things? If not, then there is no problem. From your post, it sounds like you aren't happy with things, but you didn't mention anything about how they feel. Personally, I just give the party XP that I feel is appropriate. They never know if I reduced or increased the value based on circumstances.
Tevish Szat 11-29-06, 11:34 AM	not a jerk. quite fair. i beleive the DMG even mentions after-the-fact effective CR editing for encounters that turned out far easier or harder than you expected. I generally have almost no tailored encounters, so I have come to realize that even agaisnt an average group, YMMV with printed CRs (Except the [3.0, where i mostly draw from] Remorhaze. That thing is ALWAYS tougher than its numbers). I do, however, have an extensive library from which i can pull monsters for most every ocassion, using a quick flip through a rolled book Also, I tend to award XP based on the humbers, with slall bonus/subtraction for the diffuculty that actually happened: with a party that hasn;t been purposuly optimixzed, it about eenns out. with a party skewed systematically one way or the other, i might increase the alterations even more. Also, consider the circumstance. if an encounteri s hard because of their own stupidity and not anythign inherant to the opponent, hand your players a darwin award (if the character died) and not extra XP. similarly, a roleplaying bonus to XP for good tactics, and not overpowered builds being the deciding factor shoudl be instituteed to reward players who are genuinley interested and clever. Overall, the sentiment of the system is correct, but you coudl consider fine-tuning the implimentation.
Lord_Tirian 11-29-06, 11:42 AM	Also, consider the circumstance. if an encounter is hard because of their own stupidity and not anything inherent to the opponent, hand your players a Darwin award (if the character died) and not extra XP. Similarly, a role-playing bonus to XP for good tactics, and not overpowered builds being the deciding factor should be instituted to reward players who are genuinely interested and clever. Good things he mentioned. Additionally (if it doesn't **** your players off), don't award them after combat, but rather after each sense-unit of the adventure, or the end of each session. Just total up the XP they would've got by the XP table, then eyeball if you think if that's correct, otherwise adjust up to +/- 50%. Makes everything less fiddly, and makes it easier to award good role-playing (because you have the entire sense unit/session in mind).
Pallin Rahl 11-29-06, 12:58 PM	CRs are guidelines. If your party of PCs are noticeably powerful (optimized) for their level, then adjust the CRs to reflect this. Remember what a CR is supposed to represent... and shift the listed CRs accordingly. My group likes to optimize a bit. Not in "broken" ways... we don't go over the top with it. However, it does yield PCs that are stronger than the norm that the CRs are based on. So commonly the PCs find themselves fighting opponents that are of a higher "by the book" CR than you might normally expect... as that is what is required for the encounter to be of moderate difficulty to the group. Of course, I'm not married to the book calculations for xp distribution... and we certainly don't dole out xp after every encounter. Put your PCs up against some higher-"by the book"-CR opponents to provide them with a moderately challenging encounter and award them xp as though it were an even-CR encounter ...as essentially that is what it was (for their optimized party). If it takes a "by the book" CR 7 monster to give your party of optimized level 5 PCs a moderate challenge, than by what an opponent's CR is supposed to represent, that monster should be considered CR 5 for this party. Experiment a bit and find the sweet spot for your party.
Sim_antix 11-29-06, 01:24 PM	Put your PCs up against some higher-"by the book"-CR opponents to provide them with a moderately challenging encounter and award them xp as though it were an even-CR encounter ...as essentially that is what it was (for their optimized party). If it takes a "by the book" CR 7 monster to give your party of optimized level 5 PCs a moderate challenge, than by what an opponent's CR is supposed to represent, that monster should be considered CR 5 for this party. Experiment a bit and find the sweet spot for your party. Yeah what I said...
Loopy 11-29-06, 03:00 PM	Thanks for all the great advice. The players were not aware of my style of XP-dealing (I do it at the end of the night) until I mentioned on our message boards that, for the new campaign, that they should consider playing something funky, different, and fun because I award XP based on the actual difficulty of the encounter and not CR. The normally active message boards have been silent ever since, so it started to eat at me that it's possible some folks didn't like hearing that. To answer one of the poster's questions, the last time we played, I had the party (which consists of two 15s, three 14s, and a 13, fight the Aboleth mage from the MM. That pretty much used up 10% of their resources. I used the monster's invisibility underwater to advantage, and traded out some of its spells.
Bruunwald 11-29-06, 03:26 PM	What really ought to happen, is that the DM ought to have a conversation with the players about how he doesn't have time to compete with their uber-builds and would prefer (and better reward them for) a mid-powered game. Or he ought to let someone else DM. He doesn't sound like a jerk. Just either distracted or lazy. There's nothing wrong with that. It is only a game, after all. But if your heart's not in it...
Count Arioch the 28th 11-29-06, 05:16 PM	To answer one of the poster's questions, the last time we played, I had the party (which consists of two 15s, three 14s, and a 13, fight the Aboleth mage from the MM. That pretty much used up 10% of their resources. I used the monster's invisibility underwater to advantage, and traded out some of its spells. Aboleth mage is actually CR 13, not CR 17 like the MM says, it's wrong. Yeah, I know, it's shameful that the MM would have such a silly error in it. So, your players pretty much should have flattened it no problems. I would have either awarded the CR 13 reward, or given the aboleth mage some more levels. The party level average is 14, and there's sixe members, so that's a +1 to your party's CR. An easy challenge for your group should be around CR 15, since your party is so large. If your party hadn't flattened that CR 13 aboleth mage, I'd feel sorry for them.
Loopy 11-29-06, 05:40 PM	CR 13? Are you referring to the +1 cr every 3 or 4 hit die rule (depending on monster type)? I am certain that that only counts towards levels in monster, not character classes. Edit: Okay, I see it... Nonassociated Class Levels If you add a class level that doesn’t directly play to a creature’s strength the class level is considered nonassociated, and things get a little more complicated. Adding a nonassociated class level to a monster increases its CR by ½ per level until one of its nonassociated class levels equals its original Hit Dice. At that point, each additional level of the same class or a similar one is considered associated and increases the monster’s CR by 1. Wow! Didn't know that rule. >rubs hands together< Mua hahaha
Sim_antix 11-29-06, 05:53 PM	What really ought to happen, is that the DM ought to have a conversation with the players about how he doesn't have time to compete with their uber-builds and would prefer (and better reward them for) a mid-powered game. Or he ought to let someone else DM. He doesn't sound like a jerk. Just either distracted or lazy. There's nothing wrong with that. It is only a game, after all. But if your heart's not in it... He doesn't have to compete. He can just send in higher CR encounters and everyone wins. His heart is in it he just is not an optimizer.
Orbb_was_railed_by_God 11-29-06, 06:04 PM	I'm wondering exactly what the characters the CR system is based on are supposed to be like. 10's across the board or typical min/maxing for a character of that class?
Sim_antix 11-29-06, 06:06 PM	I'm wondering exactly what the characters the CR system is based on are supposed to be like. 10's across the board or typical min/maxing for a character of that class? 25 point buy
Pandaemoni 11-29-06, 06:20 PM	I don't see this behaviour as jerky. It seems to me that "experience" is more than just a counter of how many things you've killed, but a measure of how much danger you faced and overcame. If players overcome a truly dangerous encounter easily, either by dumb luck or through a cunning tactic, that is one thing...but if they were never in any danger in the first place because they were optimized well beyond the encounter's ability to challenge them, that's quite different. The lower the actual danger actually faced, the lower the XP, that seems to me to be the logic underpinning the XP system.
Nathreet 11-29-06, 06:38 PM	It does seem to be rewarding stupidity / punishing tactics, though. I'd just increase the CR of their encounters but reward experience based on 1 CR lower (or 2 or whatever). This way you'll be challenging them more. And adjusting the CR to reflect the actual challenge the encounter poses, before or after the encounter, is always good. This is adjustment to the CR is based on the actual difficulty, not based on how clever they happen to be that night nor how well designed their characters are.
Bloodsbane 11-29-06, 09:19 PM	If you don't want your group to breeze through levels at turbo-speed (by throwing them high-CR enemies and rewarding full XP), how about looking beyond xp and gold for rewarding their heavy involvement in the game. What do they primarily want out of the game? If they're passionate character optimizers, how about occasionally recruiting one of them as a helper, throwing him a level and concept and asking him to build something cool that'll challenge his mates. A bit harder to implement in a concrete way of course, but it can be a pretty cool feeling when your actions have given you a greater control over your destiny. Just musing over the concept of rewards without boosting the level progression :)
Loopy 11-30-06, 12:26 AM	Interesting ideas! I do, indeed, reward the PCs for A) Challenges overcome (monsters/traps) B) Cunning play (good planning/tactics... basically a "Surprise the DM" bonus LOL) C) Good, honest role-playing (I have to... it's a fairly RP-heavy campaign a good deal of the time) I have some good role-players, some good optimizers, and some that are good at both. I do consider myself lucky... they're great and they LOVE the campaign... they wouldn't let me hand it off to someone else. It's just that I don't want to have to come up with completely inexplicable situations or unbelievable Magic: the Gathering style combinations just to challenge them. I build the world and the story and add opponents that fit... not the other way around. Thanks again for the great ideas!
Sliced_Mustard 11-30-06, 01:46 AM	It does seem to be rewarding stupidity / punishing tactics, though. I'd say that's an unfair characterization, so is the "lazy" comment mentioned earlier. players can come to these forum and go to the character optimization section and find the über build or other clever ideas. that's not tactics, that is lazy. if they came up with their own über build or actually used clever tactics during the game, I wouldn't at all lessen their xp reward no matter how easily they shred through something. even still, I would allow full xp for the first time the build pays off in a given way, but would modify xp of later encounters according to how difficult (or easy) the encounters actually are regardless of CRs. this way, everyone wins. players who do come up with their own clever ideas see some payoff, players who use someone else's ideas aren't singled out (and there's no reason they should be for taking advantage of someone else's insight into the rules), and DMs aren't going to lose control of their game. instead of modifying xp based on CRs, though, you might like to do as I do. I have a player with a character that has an unusually high strength score (carried over from 2nd edition, using the conversion guide that came with the 3.0 PHB). over time, I kept an eye on his progress and decided to give him an ECL +1 to account for the bonus. so, if you have multiple characters outperforming their level, make notes behind your DM screen and assign each an ECL based on their overall performance (remember, that some chararacters may suffer shortcomings to achieve their über builds and take that into account fairly). you could also, if someone was playing a gimped character, apply the same idea in reverse and give them a negative ECL to reflect their increased challenge in any given encounter. sometimes a build or strategy doesn't hold true at different levels. a character may start out average enough and work into his/her überness... apply the ECL when necessary. also, a character may be optimized from the start but switch focus at some point in the game (an awesome combat machine becoming a wizard, for example), and their überness may dwindle. always be ready to modify those ECLs, and don't tell the characters what they are (because it may lead to arguments or other conflicts).
Echodork 11-30-06, 02:19 AM	Jerk? No. But it sounds like you just throw some stuff down on the grid, and when they players roll over it, you assign them an arbitrary amount of experience and move on with the game. Do your players enjoy this style? If so, then great. You DM to have fun and to make your players happy, not to win the approval of the WotC forum. Would I enjoy your game? No.
Sim_antix 11-30-06, 02:50 AM	Jerk? No. But it sounds like you just throw some stuff down on the grid, and when they players roll over it, you assign them an arbitrary amount of experience and move on with the game. That isn't what I took from it at all. It sounded to me like he does not have an optimizers mind or at the very least lacks the desire to optimize. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever. Although if you would like some optimized NPCs to throw at them just let me know :evillaugh
High Octane 11-30-06, 02:55 AM	First off, Try to stop the overoptimization. Look into their builds. Stop the half-templates and the paragon builds. If necessary, make a point buy system. They start protesting, explain to them that the character optimization, though legal (if it is) is unbalancing the game.
Sim_antix 11-30-06, 03:00 AM	First off, Try to stop the overoptimization. Look into their builds. Stop the half-templates and the paragon builds. If necessary, make a point buy system. They start protesting, explain to them that the character optimization, though legal (if it is) is unbalancing the game. I am going to have to disagree. Limiting your players and therefor limiting your players enjoyment is not a good idea. This problem is easily solved by throwing larger numbers of creatures at higher CRs at the party thus giving them a sufficient challenge to earn decent XP. No additional work for Loopy no unnecessary nerfs for the players
KurenaiYami 11-30-06, 03:11 AM	I am going to have to disagree. Limiting your players and therefor limiting your players enjoyment is not a good idea. This problem is easily solved by throwing larger numbers of creatures at higher CRs at the party thus giving them a sufficient challenge to earn decent XP. No additional work for Loopy no unnecessary nerfs for the players Second.
Vaelan 11-30-06, 05:06 AM	This problem is easily solved by throwing larger numbers of creatures at higher CRs at the party thus giving them a sufficient challenge to earn decent XP. Then the party runs into a creature that can use a Holy Word variant or another ability that screws them especially hard thanks to their level being slightly lower than expected and they get to make new characters.
Sereno 11-30-06, 12:18 PM	I've always found it difficult to deal with highly optimized PCs ... most combat-style encounters become what I've "knife-edge" encounters -- the PCs either succeed dramatically (2-round kills, etc) or it's a TPK/near-TPK. It "feels" that you are never really "challenging" them, just handing them cakewalks or nearly killing them. Optimized PCs are (most likely) great combat damage dealers (using feat combos and specialized gear) but all of that optimization often makes them specialists and vulnerable to other tactics. They trounce standard combat critters effortlessly, but can often fall to certain spells/effects in dramatic fashion. It's just one more reason why I prefer organically grown PCs, IMC. Directly to the OP's question ... you aren't being a jerk. There's a whole section in the DMG about adjusting XP. XP is based on overcoming challenges, not just the CR of the things you kill. If a CR10 creature falls in one round to the leaping-pouncing-charging-raging-frenzying-barbarian-with-a-valorous-lance, with almost no other expenditure of resources, it isn't really a CR10 creature for your party. A CR should be considered equal to the party level if they have to expend about 25% of their resources to defeat it ... that's a MUCH better judge than the numbers in the book.
Loopy 11-30-06, 12:56 PM	I've always found it difficult to deal with highly optimized PCs ... most combat-style encounters become what I've "knife-edge" encounters -- the PCs either succeed dramatically (2-round kills, etc) or it's a TPK/near-TPK. EXACTLY! You know my pain! When I have tried to cater to the PCs, I go through an elaborate process... spending HOURS on cunningly-crafted NPCs and encounters, some of which making NO sense, but I had to in order to give them a challenge. Sometimes, it's over in minutes! 5 hours of work into NPCs and it's over in 20 minutes! That's just not reasonable for someone with a full time job and a wife. Either that, or, I've optimized an encounter (usually involving advanced versions of monsters in the MM with an elite array of attributes) and it literally tears through the party like butter. I have found that liberal use of dispel magic is very helpful with a Shaper in the PC party... that's a good bit of it right there.
High Octane 11-30-06, 01:34 PM	I've always found it difficult to deal with highly optimized PCs ... most combat-style encounters become what I've "knife-edge" encounters -- the PCs either succeed dramatically (2-round kills, etc) or it's a TPK/near-TPK. It "feels" that you are never really "challenging" them, just handing them cakewalks or nearly killing them. Optimized PCs are (most likely) great combat damage dealers (using feat combos and specialized gear) but all of that optimization often makes them specialists and vulnerable to other tactics. They trounce standard combat critters effortlessly, but can often fall to certain spells/effects in dramatic fashion. It's just one more reason why I prefer organically grown PCs, IMC. Directly to the OP's question ... you aren't being a jerk. There's a whole section in the DMG about adjusting XP. XP is based on overcoming challenges, not just the CR of the things you kill. If a CR10 creature falls in one round to the leaping-pouncing-charging-raging-frenzying-barbarian-with-a-valorous-lance, with almost no other expenditure of resources, it isn't really a CR10 creature for your party. A CR should be considered equal to the party level if they have to expend about 25% of their resources to defeat it ... that's a MUCH better judge than the numbers in the book. Smart man. The other option besides downplaying the players optimization is to play up the opponents optimization. In other words, their opponents suddenly have an elite array rather than standard. That means opponents have more hit points, do more damage, higher DCs, etc, while still having the same attacks. Hopefully your players wont notice, but if they do, explain why you did it. They are high powered PCs, they need high powered enemies, and jumping CRs would A. Cause way too rapid an exp. gain and B. Open up a ton of possible enemy abilities that could break characters your level without problem. Around 10th level, save or die doesnt have THAT much effect. 5k in diamonds and the cleric can revive him in a day (10 minutes if he has the spell prepared). But at level 8, the cleric does not have access to that spell. On that note, creatures with disintegrate effects leave characters as dust, so clerics at level 10 with raise dead that are WITHOUT full on Resurrection are left unable to revive their allies who have been given the Soot template.
Sereno 11-30-06, 01:35 PM	Limiting your players and therefor limiting your players enjoyment is not a good idea. I disagree that one (limiting) leads to the other (limiting their enjoyment). I've been playing DnD for 30+ years, and it's only recently (probably since 3.0/3.5) that I have come across the concept of "optimized builds" (like over on the CO Boards). I've had years and years of experience playing organically-grown (I guess un-optimized) PCs and I've had great fun, no limits on my enjoyment. I don't mean playing gimped PCs, either ... just not ones that are driven off the latest "kewl" combo of PrCs, items and feats to achieve "1337 P0ww3rz!!1one!" Playing in a game with optimized builds, in general, feels like playing a FPS in "God mode" ... I get much more enjoyment from playing a "merely" heroic PC than a optimized "build" that needs to face Orcus to have a "challenge".
Sereno 11-30-06, 01:40 PM	EXACTLY! You know my pain! When I have tried to cater to the PCs, I go through an elaborate process... spending HOURS on cunningly-crafted NPCs and encounters, some of which making NO sense, but I had to in order to give them a challenge. Sometimes, it's over in minutes! 5 hours of work into NPCs and it's over in 20 minutes! That's just not reasonable for someone with a full time job and a wife. Oh, man ... I am so right there with you, my brother! Suggestion: consider asking your players if they'd at least TRY a campaign where they grow their PCs organically, rather than plan out a 20-level build from the CO Boards. You can even give a generous 30 point buy (we use it in my Eberron campaign, but there are no "builds") so they don't feel "gimped".... Organic PCs "feel" more connected to the campaign and the world and, IMO, are far more fulfulling in any kind of game other than a "Kill Monsters!! Get Phat Lewt!!!" campaign.... Spending a huge amount of time on the NPCs/Monsters is a very low reward activity for the DM. DMs deserve to have fun, too. I'd much rather work on the plot elements, twists and surprises than one NPC that's going to last 2-3 rounds against a bunch of PCs! :)
Downtym 11-30-06, 01:42 PM	Many of my players like to optimize and I don't reward them for it. Define optimizing?
Morrowner 11-30-06, 01:57 PM	I'm always wary of these threads because what is considered optimized can vary so much. I would love to see some pictures of sheets or actual bit-by-bit breakdowns of the offending players or at the very least a summary of what makes these characters so impervious in combat even after the DM plots out "Aha! Now I gotcha!" brawls for over 15 hours.
Edymnion 11-30-06, 02:15 PM	Actually, no, your method is, if anything, *MORE* in line with the spirit of the rules than you think. An equal CR encounter is supposed to drain roughly 25% of the party's daily consumables (hp, spells, etc). If it is not doing that, then either the encounter was not as threatening as it was supposed to be, or the party is more powerful than they should be. The DMG even has written rules for adjusting CR (and hence xp) based on the difficulty of the encounter. I would suggest you start going by that. Make up your encounters like normal, and then depending on how easy or hard of a time they have handling the encounter, you raise/lower the CR of the encounter to match. Bottom line in my book, if you designed a deadly high CR encounter, and they breeze through it without so much as breaking a sweat, then there's no way I'm going to give them full xp for it either.
Yalon 11-30-06, 02:16 PM	In any campaign I run, the majority of enounters are 2 to 4 ECL above the party level. I find that's the easiest way to give a serious challenge. CR=party level is never interesting. And if they advance quickly, so what? How is that a problem? I'm used to seeing everyone go up a level from each (4-6 hr) session, assuming they actually did anything. Is that odd?
High Octane 11-30-06, 02:21 PM	In any campaign I run, the majority of enounters are 2 to 4 ECL above the party level. I find that's the easiest way to give a serious challenge. CR=party level is never interesting. It should be after 3 equal CR battles that day and they have most of their spells for the day and a good portion of their hit points gone.
Sim_antix 11-30-06, 03:03 PM	I disagree that one (limiting) leads to the other (limiting their enjoyment). I am going to have to stand by it. Yes sometimes you must impose imits but it will always kill a little bit of the fun that your players where having/could have had. For example I have one player who constantly wants to play a Black Dragon. I can't allow him to play it with the party since it would be over powered and ridiculous and I think he understands this but it was still something he wanted to do and I couldn't let him therefor I limited him and his fun. I've been playing DnD for 30+ years, and it's only recently (probably since 3.0/3.5) that I have come across the concept of "optimized builds" (like over on the CO Boards). I've had years and years of experience playing organically-grown (I guess un-optimized) PCs and I've had great fun, no limits on my enjoyment. I don't mean playing gimped PCs, either ... just not ones that are driven off the latest "kewl" combo of PrCs, items and feats to achieve "1337 P0ww3rz!!1one!" Playing in a game with optimized builds, in general, feels like playing a FPS in "God mode" ... I get much more enjoyment from playing a "merely" heroic PC than a optimized "build" that needs to face Orcus to have a "challenge". I think you might have gotten the wrong impression of the CharOp boards. They build nice characters and have some crazy "thought experiments" but there is nothing wrong with the characters they churn out. It is mostly little things like dont take combat castinig when skill focus concentration is better.
Sereno 11-30-06, 03:10 PM	Define optimizing? IMO, this is optimizing (Optimized Artificer (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=287275)) ... 11+ pages of discussion on what feats, in what order (levels 1-20), and what gear will yield a PC with the most power possible.... Little or no thought, what-so-ever, about what the PC experiences as an adventurer, or what the campaign world is like. Just a plan to get the most power by level 20 (and, at each intermediary level, too). Plus, lots of rules arguments about what is a valid combo and what isn't. I'll admit it, the guys over there are good at what they do ... I'm just really glad I don't have any of them in my game....
Sereno 11-30-06, 03:22 PM	I am going to have to stand by it. Yes sometimes you must impose imits but it will always kill a little bit of the fun that your players where having/could have had. For example I have one player who constantly wants to play a Black Dragon. I can't allow him to play it with the party since it would be over powered and ridiculous and I think he understands this but it was still something he wanted to do and I couldn't let him therefor I limited him and his fun. I guess it really comes down to what "fun" means in any particular game. If someone's idea of "fun" comes from having the most power or the toughest character or the "best" anything ... they're going to be disappointed in any game with limits. Why, for example, does that particular player always want to play a Black Dragon ... for the interesting role-play of taking on the role of a powerful monster in a world in which he is largely hated ... or because a Black Dragon is a combat machine? Especially since he seems to be wanting to play a Black Dragon in a party of normal PCs, I bet on the latter. Some people like playing in "God mode." There's no *right* or *wrong* was to play DnD ... but there are certainly ways *I* don't like.... I think you might have gotten the wrong impression of the CharOp boards. They build nice characters and have some crazy "thought experiments" but there is nothing wrong with the characters they churn out. It is mostly little things like dont take combat castinig when skill focus concentration is better. I don't think I have the wrong impression at all. I read the CharOp boards a lot ... don't mistake my thinking that their goal as being "misguided" in what *I* believe a good DnD game is, as a blind hatred for optimization or a lack of understanding. However, I think it's completely fair to note that threads that argue which feats taken at which levels (combined with which items/races/PrCs) are "better" are very common over there. Requests for "optimization" are far more numerous than requests for help with a concept, too.
Sim_antix 11-30-06, 03:28 PM	I know that they focus on mechanics and let the players come up with the fluff but they do not make things like the omnificer to be playable. Those are thought experiments. Most of the actual optimization is well within the bounds of reason.
Loopy 11-30-06, 03:48 PM	I'm always wary of these threads because what is considered optimized can vary so much. I would love to see some pictures of sheets or actual bit-by-bit breakdowns of the offending players or at the very least a summary of what makes these characters so impervious in combat even after the DM plots out "Aha! Now I gotcha!" brawls for over 15 hours. I'm sorry. I don't want to create a hole in the conversation, but I won't break my players' trust by posting their characters on the boards. The high-level party is... Halfling - Level 7 Shaper / level 8 Constructor Human - Level 2 Paladin / level 3 Monk / level 1 Fighter / level 5 Devoted Defender / level 4 Iaijatsu Master (I think! LOL) Human - Level 14 Gunslinger (http://harvestmooncampaign.com/classParser.py?classFileName=classes/core/gunslinger.harvest) Human - Level 7 Sorcerer / level 7 Blood Mage Level 13 Astral Deva (Don't have the level progression on-line, sorry) The low-level party is... Human - Swashbuckler 3 / Rogue 2 / Dread Pirate 1 Orc - Level 5 barbarian / level 1 crazy class from the 9 swords book Undead (a VERY low-powered Vampire race) - Cleric 6 Corax (http://harvestmooncampaign.com/cursed.py) - Wizard 6 Kiloren - Wilder 6 Human - Paladin 6
Sereno 11-30-06, 04:01 PM	I know that they focus on mechanics and let the players come up with the fluff but they do not make things like the omnificer to be playable. Those are thought experiments. Most of the actual optimization is well within the bounds of reason. I'm not talking about the "World Records" thread(s) ... I'm talking about threads like the one I posted above, the Optimized Artificer thread. That's NOT the "omnificer," "Pun-pun", or the "Hulking Hurler" ... nor one of Lord of Procrastination's ultra-uber builds.... It is fairly typical of what happens, there, though....
Loopy 11-30-06, 04:37 PM	or the "Hulking Hurler" Hey! That's what the Orc character is going for! He said he'll be able to lift very heavy things. Can you supply me a link to this build?
Count Arioch the 28th 11-30-06, 05:00 PM	Personally, I find that unoptimize characters are harder to write adventures for, since I tend to inadvertantly squish them. I don't mean to, I just don't know my own strength when I make adventures. But really, you're the DM. You can adjust the experience however you want to, just as long as it's fair.
High Octane 11-30-06, 05:03 PM	Hey! That's what the Orc character is going for! You have to be large sized or larger. By the way, DO NOT ALLOW THIS CLASS! For the love of dice and all that is roleplaying DO NOT ALLOW THIS!
Sim_antix 11-30-06, 05:05 PM	Hey! That's what the Orc character is going for! He said he'll be able to lift very heavy things. Can you supply me a link to this build? Him telling you that he will "be able to lift heavy things" is like saying that superman "is slightly resistent to damage" I had no idea that you meant they were optimizing to the point of omnificer levels. Kill them all in their sleep...
High Octane 11-30-06, 05:16 PM	Kill them all in their sleep... And then do something about their characters.
Loopy 11-30-06, 05:44 PM	Really? Large sized? I don't recall that being mentioned as a problem for him. Perhaps he's found a feat or something... hmm...
Downtym 11-30-06, 06:01 PM	The high-level party is... Halfling - Level 7 Shaper / level 8 Constructor Human - Level 2 Paladin / level 3 Monk / level 1 Fighter / level 5 Devoted Defender / level 4 Iaijatsu Master (I think! LOL) Human - Level 14 Gunslinger (http://harvestmooncampaign.com/classParser.py?classFileName=classes/core/gunslinger.harvest) Human - Level 7 Sorcerer / level 7 Blood Mage Level 13 Astral Deva (Don't have the level progression on-line, sorry) The low-level party is... Human - Swashbuckler 3 / Rogue 2 / Dread Pirate 1 Orc - Level 5 barbarian / level 1 crazy class from the 9 swords book Undead (a VERY low-powered Vampire race) - Cleric 6 Corax (http://harvestmooncampaign.com/cursed.py) - Wizard 6 Kiloren - Wilder 6 Human - Paladin 6 I think I found your problem. The MM was written with certain design assumptions in mind. One of the very key assumptions that you can bank on is that the MM did not assume the existence of almost any of the combinations in the high level party above. As for the low level party, Dread Pirate, 9 swords, Wilder, and vampire races beyond the vampire template were not assumed in the creation of the MM. So, if you're trying to just use "core" material while the PC's are using "Non-core" material, there's the reason you feel like you're not challenging them - honestly, a lot of the non-core material provides vastly improved options over character creation then the core, but with that improvement come the obviously powerful combinations/builds/etc. My suggestion would be: Start using enemies, monsters, etc. from the books which they acquired the non-core material. Often those books present you with a limited subset of creatures with which to challenge the party. Also, if you're going to include non-core material, you have to accept that a lot of the assumptions that the core materials of the game were built around are routinely violated in awfully hilarious ways. Which means you might want to invest some time figuring out how the players play their classes, what those classes provide, and what would be appropriate challenges to those classes.
Downtym 11-30-06, 06:10 PM	IMO, this is optimizing (Optimized Artificer (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=287275)) ... 11+ pages of discussion on what feats, in what order (levels 1-20), and what gear will yield a PC with the most power possible.... That is the least frightening thing I've seen in a long time. Creating a niche character like that would make for a useful dd spell caster, but it still has flaws.
Edymnion 11-30-06, 08:16 PM	I think you might have gotten the wrong impression of the CharOp boards.No, I think he has the right impression. I've tried, multiple times, to get help with a build off the charop boards, and it has never turned out well. When I ask for "How do I get the most damage using this race, this class, limited to this weapon?", all I get is people telling me to change the race, cherry pick from 3 differant classes, 5 prc, etc. Even when specifically told that you don't want to cherry pick, they do it anyway. No, the charop boards are purely the land of number crunching hypotheticals. I have never seen them actually churn out something that was playable by anyone with the least amount of common sense.
Chrono Nexus 11-30-06, 08:25 PM	I am going to have to disagree. Limiting your players and therefor limiting your players enjoyment is not a good idea. This problem is easily solved by throwing larger numbers of creatures at higher CRs at the party thus giving them a sufficient challenge to earn decent XP. No additional work for Loopy no unnecessary nerfs for the players Limiting your players does not necessarily limit their enjoyment. The pleasure a player derives from a challenging and continuous game is more fulfilling than a short explosive battle that is either easy or hopeless for the players. Throwing overpowered opponents at the players won't balance the game.
kelvinaw273 11-30-06, 08:28 PM	Many of my players like to optimize and I don't reward them for it. I despise coming up with overly complex encounters in order to make the encounters deadly. If I spend more than 15 hours on an 8-hour session, I get grumpy... I have a lot going on other than the D and the D. Instead, I usually put together an encounter, and if it uses up 10% of their resources, I give them XP based on an encounter of their level, no matter what CR it really is. They're a party level of about 15 and if they take out a CR 15 without using up hardly any resources, I give them about a 12 or 11's worth in XP. So... am I a Jerk or is this pretty much what everyone does? Wrong question. Are you having fun? Are your players having fun? If nobody has complained, you are doing it right.
Loopy 11-30-06, 09:32 PM	Wrong question. Are you having fun? Are your players having fun? If nobody has complained, you are doing it right. Very valid point.
Sliced_Mustard 11-30-06, 11:39 PM	and if any players are complaining, maybe they're the jerks. ;)
Gold Medal Jedi 11-30-06, 11:43 PM	Yep
Sereno 12-01-06, 08:52 AM	Hey! That's what the Orc character is going for! He said he'll be able to lift very heavy things. Can you supply me a link to this build? Hulking Hurler (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142565) I stopped reading when they started discussing the number of hit points a planet has because the HH can probably destroy one. :rolleyes:
Sereno 12-01-06, 08:56 AM	That is the least frightening thing I've seen in a long time. Creating a niche character like that would make for a useful dd spell caster, but it still has flaws. I think you are proving my point about character optimization and the CharOp Boards....
Sim_antix 12-01-06, 09:33 AM	Hulking Hurler (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142565) I stopped reading when they started discussing the number of hit points a planet has because the HH can probably destroy one. :rolleyes: Its been awhile but isn't he able to lift something the size of pluto? I seem to remember that...