Um... that's generally how paragraph structure goes. Typically the first sentence is the main point and the subsequent sentences are in support of the main point. Kind of like this paragraph that I'm writing right now. Let's break down the first two sentences.
" I will never understand this sort of combative vitriol some DM's have against us players who like to optimize. <-- main pointIf you have players who wisely choose attributes, spells, and abilities, <--i.e players who optimize then give us more challenging encounters."
The subsequent sentences were just an example of how to make the encounters more challenging. Hell, there's a myriad of ways. Aside from making them fight smarter (which really doesn't have to involve excessive brainstorming), you can give them more hit points, use higher CR monsters, use more of them, backup can arrive if they're losing too easily, resistances, flying, spellcasting, hazardous terrain, etc. Again, if you can handle non-optimized level 8 PC's, you should be able to handle optimized level 4, correct?
Although I appreciate how you responded to my apology and explanation that I misunderstood your point, I noticed you left out the multiple insults. I was hoping you would "break down" why you seem to think that I can't get it through my head that you don't want encounters to be steamrolled.
Honestly. Do you really think that DM's don't consider all of these points and more? Do you really think that as a DM, I haven't watched that video, and dozens upon dozens of hours of more D&D tips? Again, your problem seems to be that DM's are idiots who can't grasp basic DMing concepts like "add more monsters", or "give it more hit points".
I'm done being insulted for trying to explain that IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS IT SEEMS.
Um... that's generally how paragraph structure goes. Typically the first sentence is the main point and the subsequent sentences are in support of the main point. Kind of like this paragraph that I'm writing right now. Let's break down the first two sentences.
" I will never understand this sort of combative vitriol some DM's have against us players who like to optimize. <-- main pointIf you have players who wisely choose attributes, spells, and abilities, <--i.e players who optimize then give us more challenging encounters."
The subsequent sentences were just an example of how to make the encounters more challenging. Hell, there's a myriad of ways. Aside from making them fight smarter (which really doesn't have to involve excessive brainstorming), you can give them more hit points, use higher CR monsters, use more of them, backup can arrive if they're losing too easily, resistances, flying, spellcasting, hazardous terrain, etc. Again, if you can handle non-optimized level 8 PC's, you should be able to handle optimized level 4, correct?
Although I appreciate how you responded to my apology and explanation that I misunderstood your point, I noticed you left out the multiple insults. I was hoping you would "break down" why you seem to think that I can't get it through my head that you don't want encounters to be steamrolled.
Honestly. Do you really think that DM's don't consider all of these points and more? Do you really think that as a DM, I haven't watched that video, and dozens upon dozens of hours of more D&D tips? Again, your problem seems to be that DM's are idiots who can't grasp basic DMing concepts like "add more monsters", or "give it more hit points".
I'm done being insulted for trying to explain that IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS IT SEEMS.
You said "I'm sorry" then you proceeded to make an excuse, and THEN you proceeded to misrepresent what I wrote, AGAIN. Speaking of which, how about you quit editing out parts of my posts when you quote them? Mmmkay? That would be greaaat.
The below part is what you cut out. It IS my position and IS my point, and that should be obvious to anyone. Yet, it's the only part you removed. It's almost like you're trying to create a narrative.
"And this isn't about me making demands of a DM. If you, as a DM, are having a tough time balancing an encounter - **I am understanding** - but IT IS NOT THE PLAYERS' FAULT. Irrespective of whether they optimize. Don't disparage players who are following the rules and who are not violating any sort of game etiquette."
And by the way, since we both know I'm specifically addressing DM's who disparage optimizers.... and you wrote: "I was hoping you would "break down" why you seem to think that I can't get it through my head that you don't want encounters to be steamrolled."
Since you're saying I was directing that at YOU, is this an admission that you disparage players who optomize their builds?
And by the way, since we both know I'm specifically addressing DM's who disparage optimizers.... and you wrote: "I was hoping you would "break down" why you seem to think that I can't get it through my head that you don't want encounters to be steamrolled."
Since you're saying I was directing that at YOU, is this an admission that you disparage players who optomize their builds?
No, actually. I explain to them that the kind of game I run is not well suited to min/maxed characters, and they are welcome to make one if they would like, but they are going to find themselves bored and not particularly challenged.
Then I work with them to develop a real character. I have yet to have a player who didn't love their new character, and have tons of fun playing them.
You going to keep swinging? I like to think that I clarified what you wrote, and said the things that you strongly implied with your wording. You might not have called DM's stupid, but asking why cant they just get it through their heads, and comparing the tactics of a DM who is trying to juggle an entire game to a shitty old Atari system is sure as hell insulting.
I'm actually trying to tell you why some DM's disparage "optimizers". Because the rules are not designed to easily run an optimized group, and it requires an inordinate amount of effort to customize monsters and encounters. Running encounters for power gamers is -EXTREMELY- difficult, and most DM's run a more story based game, which the rules are actually designed for (i.e a +1 Greatsword can help balance a fighter who starts off with 15 strength, but becomes overpowered in the hands of a fighter who starts off with 17 strength). That's not an opinion either, go read through the character creation portion in the PHB, specifically the "Building Bruenor" sidebars. The suggested way to build a character is very clearly stated.
"Bob is sitting down to create his character. He decides that a gruff mountain dwarf fits the character he wants to play. He notes all the racial traits of dwarves on his character sheet, including his speed of 25 feet and the languages he knows: Common and Dwarvish."
"Bob imagines Bruenor charging into battle with an axe, one horn on his helmet broken off. He makes Bruenor a fighter and notes the fighter’s proficiencies and 1st-level class features on his character sheet."
You're supposed to pick a dwarf character because you want to play a beer chugging, plate wearing, gruff, straightforward, hammer-wielding badass. Not because you want +2 to Con and poison resistance. You're supposed to pick a fighter because you imagine hitting something in the face with an axe, not because you did some math and your taking fighter at level 1 because if you also take this feat and multiclass into this class at level 7 then by level 13 you'll be able to do 300 damage in a single round!
Don't get me wrong, power-gamers are welcome to play that way, but if you bring that sort of mentality into the average game, it's probably going to annoy a lot of DMs, because that's not what D&D is about for a majority of players. There is a fundamental mechanic built into D&D called "bounded accuracy", which basically determines the likelihood of success of any given roll. By intentionally designing characters with the express purpose of achieving the highest possible rolls, you are actually messing with the very core balance of the game, and the DM will have to work overtime to rebalance everything.
You seem pretty intent on being unreasonable though. I'm starting to think that it's not the DM's you've encountered who are the issue. If you really have THAT big of an issue with the way that DMs run their games, there's nothing stopping you from starting your own game and DMing it as you see fit. I actually highly suggest doing so, it's quite a lot of fun.
It also wasn't my intent to misrepresent what you said. I was simply quoting the relevant parts of your messages that I was referring to (as is common in publishing). I don't think anyone else really cares about our argument, and if they do, they will have read your original message, with the parts I did not quote directly.
Prerequisite: Half-Orc, must be taken at level one.
You are a Half-Orc. You gain the following benefits:
Increase your Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You have darkvision. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.
When you are reduced to 0 hit points but not killed outright, you can drop to 1 hit point instead. You can’t use this feature again until you finish a long rest.
When you score a critical hit with a melee weapon attack, you can roll one of the weapon’s damage dice one additional time and add it to the extra damage of the critical hit.
I love seeing it in this format. It would be pretty awesome to split down each race's feats in this way, as it would make comparison much easier. It would also, potentially, allow a homebrew lineage system which beats Tasha's: You could pretty much just skin a Vuman as any race you want, esp if you include height/weight/speed mods into the feats.
As for optimisation, I don't think there is much wrong with it per se, but it's yet another thing which must be considered in the context of the whole game. Are other players in the group optimising, or are you the only one? Are you still creating a flavourful character and RPing well?
I think most DMs who criticise players who optimise are thinking of optimisers:
in groups where the rest of the players don't. This makes the optimised character more powerful than the rest, which can make things less fun for the rest of the group. It also presents a massive challenge for the DM to build encounters which challenge the whole party without TPK: It's much easier if the party is balanced.
who do not create a character to RP with it, just a meat grinder with a face painted on the front.
Toshly: "Then I work with them to develop a real character."
An optimized character *IS* a real character! Don't you think that was an incredibly arrogant remark?
Toshly: "I like to think that I clarified what you wrote, and said the things that you strongly implied with your wording."
I'm sure you like to think that, but you actually misrepresented what I wrote to create your own narrative.
Toshly: "Because the rules are not designed to easily run an optimized group, and it requires an inordinate amount of effort to customize monsters and encounters."
Balancing encounters is a hard and takes practice either way. I've had many DM's, and it's never been a problem for any of mine.
Toshly: "You're supposed to pick a dwarf character because you want to play a beer chugging, plate wearing, gruff, straightforward, hammer-wielding badass. Not because you want +2 to Con and poison resistance."
You're supposed to pick a dwarf for any fricking reason you darn well please! Who the hell are you to tell others why they're "supposed" to make character choices? The arrogance is astounding. How many Warlocks and Sorcerers do you see making Charisma their dump stat? Like seriously, darn near ALL Sorcerers and Warlocks are the most likable people in the world for *role play* reasons? Why do the large majority of the race choices for them by coincidence have a bonus to Charisma? Coincidence?
What *role play* purpose to feats and abilities that do NOTHING besides improve game mechanics (in the payer's favor) serve?
Toshly: "I'm starting to think that it's not the DM's you've encountered who are the issue."
I realize that's the narrative you are actively trying to push, but I've had zero issues with any of my DM's. Just with people online (DM's and players alike) who disparage and snub their nose at "min-maxers" with ignorant stereotypes and such.
... Again, if you can handle non-optimized level 8 PC's, you should be able to handle optimized level 4, correct?...
Hi. It's me, the guy whose disparaging of min-maxers you cannot understand or tolerate. Just to clarify my opinion - the problem of an optimized character is not the situation you describe above of handling 4 optimized characters. The problem is handling 3 normal characters and 1 optimized power-player. It inherently throws the balance of every encounter out and some parties are always either going to feel useless or unchallenged.
But I admit my objection is more emotional than rational. I just feel that someone optimising the mechanics of their character is doing it in an attempt to "win" the game, win against the DM, win D&D. Someone trying to win this game has already departed completely from the sort of game I want to be involved in. I openly admit that other people do not share this philosophy. I also would never get involved in AL for similar reasons.
I do actually understand why a player wants to optimize (and that having done so, they still want a challenging game), and I don't run my combats like an archaic video game (do you know how hard it is to assign individual agency to 12 goblins at once and have them act like unique characters, because we're out here trying to do it all the damn time). I don't think that my comment was particularly vitriolic - just that variant humans feel best suited to min-max players, and that I am not well suited to games involving min-max power optimisation.
"The problem is handling 3 normal characters and 1 optimized power-player. It inherently throws the balance of every encounter out and some parties are always either going to feel useless or unchallenged."
This is a perfectly legitimate concern, and it certainly calls for meaningful and constructive dialog for how to deal with that situation. But it says nothing about the optimizer's love of the game, of roll paying, nor of character and story development. And almost everyone optimizes to a large degree, just some are better at it or focus more on it. How many Wizards do you see with Intelligence as their dump stat? Almost never. You see them pumping Intelligence, picking up the Warcaster Feat, etc. etc.
"But I admit my objection is more emotional than rational. I just feel that someone optimising the mechanics of their character is doing it in an attempt to "win" the game, win against the DM, win D&D. Someone trying to win this game has already departed completely from the sort of game I want to be involved in. I openly admit that other people do not share this philosophy."
I greatly appreciate your admission. It was this attitude that was implied by your "min-maxer's wet dream" remark. I actually find other otimizers to (typically) also be very engaged in the story, character development and such. I'm in the US Army. If the real me is in the game situations, I'm going to prepare like hell with all the right tools to accomplish my missions. If the enemies have a spellcaster in the back, I'm going to go for that SOB first. If I'm a melee character and an enemy is prone, yay free advantage - I'm going to whack him if I can. It's not about "winning the game" but rather making the situation more real for myself.
I don't want to steamroll the DM's encounters. To me the perfect combat encounter would be an all out, epic battle where we almost died, and barely managed to take down crazy high CR creatures we had no business trying to mess with. I also want to come up with creative solutions to problems, both in and out of combat. I want to help develop the story, build alliances, and turn a random NPC encounter into a deep interpersonal connection that lasts the rest of the campaign. I love political intrigue.
Most of those you dub "min-maxers" dedicate an enormous amount of time and thought into the game as a whole, not just building a super strong character. So the condescending remarks can be quite grating. SO, I apologize for my strong reaction.
Although I appreciate how you responded to my apology and explanation that I misunderstood your point, I noticed you left out the multiple insults. I was hoping you would "break down" why you seem to think that I can't get it through my head that you don't want encounters to be steamrolled.
Honestly. Do you really think that DM's don't consider all of these points and more? Do you really think that as a DM, I haven't watched that video, and dozens upon dozens of hours of more D&D tips? Again, your problem seems to be that DM's are idiots who can't grasp basic DMing concepts like "add more monsters", or "give it more hit points".
I'm done being insulted for trying to explain that IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS IT SEEMS.
You said "I'm sorry" then you proceeded to make an excuse, and THEN you proceeded to misrepresent what I wrote, AGAIN. Speaking of which, how about you quit editing out parts of my posts when you quote them? Mmmkay? That would be greaaat.
The below part is what you cut out. It IS my position and IS my point, and that should be obvious to anyone. Yet, it's the only part you removed. It's almost like you're trying to create a narrative.
And by the way, since we both know I'm specifically addressing DM's who disparage optimizers.... and you wrote: "I was hoping you would "break down" why you seem to think that I can't get it through my head that you don't want encounters to be steamrolled."
Since you're saying I was directing that at YOU, is this an admission that you disparage players who optomize their builds?
No, actually. I explain to them that the kind of game I run is not well suited to min/maxed characters, and they are welcome to make one if they would like, but they are going to find themselves bored and not particularly challenged.
Then I work with them to develop a real character. I have yet to have a player who didn't love their new character, and have tons of fun playing them.
You going to keep swinging? I like to think that I clarified what you wrote, and said the things that you strongly implied with your wording. You might not have called DM's stupid, but asking why cant they just get it through their heads, and comparing the tactics of a DM who is trying to juggle an entire game to a shitty old Atari system is sure as hell insulting.
I'm actually trying to tell you why some DM's disparage "optimizers". Because the rules are not designed to easily run an optimized group, and it requires an inordinate amount of effort to customize monsters and encounters. Running encounters for power gamers is -EXTREMELY- difficult, and most DM's run a more story based game, which the rules are actually designed for (i.e a +1 Greatsword can help balance a fighter who starts off with 15 strength, but becomes overpowered in the hands of a fighter who starts off with 17 strength). That's not an opinion either, go read through the character creation portion in the PHB, specifically the "Building Bruenor" sidebars. The suggested way to build a character is very clearly stated.
"Bob is sitting down to create his character. He decides that a gruff mountain dwarf fits the character he wants to play. He notes all the racial traits of dwarves on his character sheet, including his speed of 25 feet and the languages he knows: Common and Dwarvish."
"Bob imagines Bruenor charging into battle with an axe, one horn on his helmet broken off. He makes Bruenor a fighter and notes the fighter’s proficiencies and 1st-level class features on his character sheet."
You're supposed to pick a dwarf character because you want to play a beer chugging, plate wearing, gruff, straightforward, hammer-wielding badass. Not because you want +2 to Con and poison resistance. You're supposed to pick a fighter because you imagine hitting something in the face with an axe, not because you did some math and your taking fighter at level 1 because if you also take this feat and multiclass into this class at level 7 then by level 13 you'll be able to do 300 damage in a single round!
Don't get me wrong, power-gamers are welcome to play that way, but if you bring that sort of mentality into the average game, it's probably going to annoy a lot of DMs, because that's not what D&D is about for a majority of players. There is a fundamental mechanic built into D&D called "bounded accuracy", which basically determines the likelihood of success of any given roll. By intentionally designing characters with the express purpose of achieving the highest possible rolls, you are actually messing with the very core balance of the game, and the DM will have to work overtime to rebalance everything.
You seem pretty intent on being unreasonable though. I'm starting to think that it's not the DM's you've encountered who are the issue. If you really have THAT big of an issue with the way that DMs run their games, there's nothing stopping you from starting your own game and DMing it as you see fit. I actually highly suggest doing so, it's quite a lot of fun.
It also wasn't my intent to misrepresent what you said. I was simply quoting the relevant parts of your messages that I was referring to (as is common in publishing). I don't think anyone else really cares about our argument, and if they do, they will have read your original message, with the parts I did not quote directly.
I love seeing it in this format. It would be pretty awesome to split down each race's feats in this way, as it would make comparison much easier. It would also, potentially, allow a homebrew lineage system which beats Tasha's: You could pretty much just skin a Vuman as any race you want, esp if you include height/weight/speed mods into the feats.
As for optimisation, I don't think there is much wrong with it per se, but it's yet another thing which must be considered in the context of the whole game. Are other players in the group optimising, or are you the only one? Are you still creating a flavourful character and RPing well?
I think most DMs who criticise players who optimise are thinking of optimisers:
Toshly: "Then I work with them to develop a real character."
An optimized character *IS* a real character! Don't you think that was an incredibly arrogant remark?
Toshly: "I like to think that I clarified what you wrote, and said the things that you strongly implied with your wording."
I'm sure you like to think that, but you actually misrepresented what I wrote to create your own narrative.
Toshly: "Because the rules are not designed to easily run an optimized group, and it requires an inordinate amount of effort to customize monsters and encounters."
Balancing encounters is a hard and takes practice either way. I've had many DM's, and it's never been a problem for any of mine.
Toshly: "You're supposed to pick a dwarf character because you want to play a beer chugging, plate wearing, gruff, straightforward, hammer-wielding badass. Not because you want +2 to Con and poison resistance."
You're supposed to pick a dwarf for any fricking reason you darn well please! Who the hell are you to tell others why they're "supposed" to make character choices? The arrogance is astounding. How many Warlocks and Sorcerers do you see making Charisma their dump stat? Like seriously, darn near ALL Sorcerers and Warlocks are the most likable people in the world for *role play* reasons? Why do the large majority of the race choices for them by coincidence have a bonus to Charisma? Coincidence?
What *role play* purpose to feats and abilities that do NOTHING besides improve game mechanics (in the payer's favor) serve?
Toshly: "I'm starting to think that it's not the DM's you've encountered who are the issue."
I realize that's the narrative you are actively trying to push, but I've had zero issues with any of my DM's. Just with people online (DM's and players alike) who disparage and snub their nose at "min-maxers" with ignorant stereotypes and such.
Hi. It's me, the guy whose disparaging of min-maxers you cannot understand or tolerate. Just to clarify my opinion - the problem of an optimized character is not the situation you describe above of handling 4 optimized characters. The problem is handling 3 normal characters and 1 optimized power-player. It inherently throws the balance of every encounter out and some parties are always either going to feel useless or unchallenged.
But I admit my objection is more emotional than rational. I just feel that someone optimising the mechanics of their character is doing it in an attempt to "win" the game, win against the DM, win D&D. Someone trying to win this game has already departed completely from the sort of game I want to be involved in. I openly admit that other people do not share this philosophy. I also would never get involved in AL for similar reasons.
I do actually understand why a player wants to optimize (and that having done so, they still want a challenging game), and I don't run my combats like an archaic video game (do you know how hard it is to assign individual agency to 12 goblins at once and have them act like unique characters, because we're out here trying to do it all the damn time). I don't think that my comment was particularly vitriolic - just that variant humans feel best suited to min-max players, and that I am not well suited to games involving min-max power optimisation.
Hello, Regent. I'll address your main points.
"The problem is handling 3 normal characters and 1 optimized power-player. It inherently throws the balance of every encounter out and some parties are always either going to feel useless or unchallenged."
This is a perfectly legitimate concern, and it certainly calls for meaningful and constructive dialog for how to deal with that situation. But it says nothing about the optimizer's love of the game, of roll paying, nor of character and story development. And almost everyone optimizes to a large degree, just some are better at it or focus more on it. How many Wizards do you see with Intelligence as their dump stat? Almost never. You see them pumping Intelligence, picking up the Warcaster Feat, etc. etc.
"But I admit my objection is more emotional than rational. I just feel that someone optimising the mechanics of their character is doing it in an attempt to "win" the game, win against the DM, win D&D. Someone trying to win this game has already departed completely from the sort of game I want to be involved in. I openly admit that other people do not share this philosophy."
I greatly appreciate your admission. It was this attitude that was implied by your "min-maxer's wet dream" remark. I actually find other otimizers to (typically) also be very engaged in the story, character development and such. I'm in the US Army. If the real me is in the game situations, I'm going to prepare like hell with all the right tools to accomplish my missions. If the enemies have a spellcaster in the back, I'm going to go for that SOB first. If I'm a melee character and an enemy is prone, yay free advantage - I'm going to whack him if I can. It's not about "winning the game" but rather making the situation more real for myself.
I don't want to steamroll the DM's encounters. To me the perfect combat encounter would be an all out, epic battle where we almost died, and barely managed to take down crazy high CR creatures we had no business trying to mess with. I also want to come up with creative solutions to problems, both in and out of combat. I want to help develop the story, build alliances, and turn a random NPC encounter into a deep interpersonal connection that lasts the rest of the campaign. I love political intrigue.
Most of those you dub "min-maxers" dedicate an enormous amount of time and thought into the game as a whole, not just building a super strong character. So the condescending remarks can be quite grating. SO, I apologize for my strong reaction.