The Levels of Optimisation (sticky please)

[Prime32]

(Courtesy of JanusJones)

1. "I'm a ROLE-player!": This is the dimwitted "I took WP Focus 'cuz my wizard has this dagger he really likes!" level.  Woo.

2. Competent: A Wizard with Color Spray at 1st.  This is the level for most competent players, at which they don't make DUMB moves and know what things do.

3. Slick: This is when some totally legal, inarguable, but pretty unique and effective tricks come out.  Entangling Exhalatiion on a 1st-level DFA, Tomb-Tainted Soul on a Dread Necro, Dragonfire Strike + Shape Soulmeld - Dissolving Spittle for a 3d6 touch attack at-will at level 1, etc.

4. Slightly Cheesy: This is where things are still legal, but you run the risk of annoying a DM.  Examples include using the Half-Minotaur, White Dragonspawn Kobold + 1 level of Binder as a 1-level entry into Anima Mage, etc.

5. Limburger: Pun-pun's the worst of these, but there's a big list.  Candles of Invocation, using Racial Emulation and Assume Supernatural Ability to change into a crazy templated were-form with a Changeling at 1st, etc.  These are pretty much game-breaking and not worth it, on the whole.

[PhoenixInferno]

Please don't sticky this thread.  Only the truly vital things should go up there.  Posting guidelines (which, honestly, don't need to be up right now) and Handy Links are vital.  This is not.

[Llochlyn]

I agree with not stickying, but good scale. 3 for me.

[ShaggyShaggs]

Doesn't need to be stickied, but it might fit well into an article of terminology and/or useful links.  I was looking for this yesterday and couldn't find it actually, glad to see it now. *saves*

[Squash Monster]

This scale has to catch on before it ends up in a sticky.  Once we're all familiar with it and describing our builds in terms of it, we can put it in the posting guidelines.  It would be pretty groovy if build help requests came with an appropriate optimization level for their campaign.

Also, in the thread that list is from I mentioned the idea of making a level 2 build with level 3 complexity by making one quirky or weird decision.  I recommend adding that to the list, as it's likely the most healthy choice for many campaigns.  Something like:

2.5. Quirky: At this point, the build is intricate enough to be a level 3 build, but either the central combination behind it is not utterly effective or the build is held back by another unusual choice.  Examples include Arcane Archer gishes and anything that involves Fochlucan Lyricist.

(I'm not sure those are good examples, somebody else can pick better ones)

[Cyrocloud]

there seems to be a large gap imbetween 1-2.  level 2 shows both moderate experience with the system and decent tactical ability.  Level one shows someone being thick headed and with little to know understnading of how the mechanics of the game works.  There is no real level for the average gamer, which is kinda odd.

[DaveTheMagicWeasel]

If we redefine 1 as slightly less idiotic, then maybe we could add this into the Posting Guidelines?

i.e. as well as what books, etc, also tell us what level of cheese you want?

[Sunic_Flames]

there seems to be a large gap imbetween 1-2.  level 2 shows both moderate experience with the system and decent tactical ability.  Level one shows someone being thick headed and with little to know understnading of how the mechanics of the game works.  There is no real level for the average gamer, which is kinda odd.

The average gamer is assumed to be at least of average intelligence and not deliberately trying to screw up. For example, it is obvious at a glance direct damage spells are suboptimal at best - this is the sort of thing even a new player can catch. Likewise for stuff like rogue does not attempt to bull rush the giant due to low-average strength + no improved bull rush vs thing that is obviously big, powerful, and hard to push.

[Farodin]

For example, it is obvious at a glance direct damage spells are suboptimal at best - this is the sort of thing even a new player can catch.

Obvious to us maybe, but definitely not to most new players. To find that out you actually need to compare your spells with the average damage a fighter does and the statistics of the monsters in the monster manuals. Now if I start playing some new game (DnD, computer or other) I generally do look at the formula's involved, and the abilities to choose from compared to everything else. A lot of people on these boards probably do the same. A whole lot more people out there do not though.

It's indeed just plain common sense a halfling rogue is not going to push over a giant, but it's not common sense it's better to kill stuff by blinding it and having others hit it with sticks than to just set it on fire right away. Some more basic knowledge is required for that.

[ShaggyShaggs]

True, but even trial and error will tend to show pretty clearly that when you've got your first 3rd-level wizard slots, fireball doesn't make all the badguys stop coming to kill you, but haste helps you stay the hell out of their way and your friends wreck them easily, and invisibility sphere can help you just ignore them and sneak past.

[jameswilliamogle]

I kind of agree w/ a 1.5.  My first 3.5 character was a Rogue / Wizard going into Arcane Trickster.  I wasn't trying to gimp the character, and managed to keep the vital skills up throughout, but it just turned out very sub-par (as you all can imagine). 

I've played every level except 1 and 5, otherwise (though I have played at 4.9 before... dang epic druids w/ a single level of cleric to get dmm: persistant and all that cheese...  bad james... shouldn't do that to new DMs...).

[Redeemer of Ogar]

True, but even trial and error will tend to show pretty clearly that when you've got your first 3rd-level wizard slots, fireball doesn't make all the badguys stop coming to kill you...

Fireball remains solidly used in every campaign I've ever played in.  These days of course, Scorching Ray slaps it around pretty handily in most situations you care about, and Fireball usually just saves the fighter from the boredom of clearing out all the low-level grunts, but it still gets used as a fairly iconic solution when you have more than 3 targets.  There are still few better ways to take out a swarm, and it's good for clearing a bunker (and yes, the cloud spells are probably better, but you don't have to wait for a fireball to dissipate). Players tend to do the math based on assuming fireball will hit 4+ creatures, and also like the "cool factor" of being the person doing the damage. If they wanted to buff people, they'd be playing clerics you know. May not be accurate but it is a common perception.

Personally I haven't played a wizard since the spells got screwed up going from 3.0 to 3.5, completely wrecking my persist/extend semi-gishy mercenary wizard build. I've been playing with Tome of Battle instead, and having much fun with it. That said, there have still been a couple times when the Heavy Fire Artillery came in more useful than Haste. It's all about the numbers.

[Sunic_Flames]

Even without getting technical, one need only look at the Evocations, especially the low level ones (Hello, Burning Hands!), then look at some of the Necromancy ones (Instant death? Yes please.) and it becomes self evident direct damage = meh, even if similar parallels are not drawn to say... Hold Person.

Also, look at your own character sheet. Shrimpy wizard has on average 14 HP + con modifier * 5. Seeing as said Con modifier is likely positive as even the core books get it right by recommending it, 19, or perhaps even 24.

Now consider everything is likely tougher than your shrimpy wizard because he is a shrimpy wizard, and that 5-30 (average 17.5) save for half is probably less than 19 or 24 and that being hurt does not impair his fighting in any way until his HP reach 0 or lower... Simple logical deduction makes it clear that while blowing things up might be cool, it is not the best course of action. Especially if the Fighter is in the fray and gets burned too.

[RobbyPants]

I think before I came to the WotC boards, I was about a 2.5, and would now rate myself at about a 3.

I remember the first 3.0 game I ran.  We'd all played 2E together, so thsi was new material.  I'd put half of the players at a 1.  One played a cleric of Vecna who ran around with a punching dagger as his primary weapon because the dagger was the favored weapon of Vecna.  Because he was evil, he had to blow half of his slots on healing spells too.

It's no wonder he got bored of it a few sessions in and made a new character

[Runestar]

I don't think it would be obvious to the newcomer that direct damage is suboptimal, simply because they don't have any other yardstick to base it off, and that the most (seemingly) rational means of stopping foes in their tracks would be to reduce their hp to 0 ASAP (basically tri-hero nuke + focus fire concept from WC3).

Speaking off personal experience, my first few spellcasters were all blaster-oriented. My rationale was that everyone in the party revolves around doing damage, so it seemed natural for me to chip in this aspect wherever possible. Initiating battle with a fireball, then have the delayed initiative fighter charge in with great cleave while the rogue sneaks attack from the side looked like a rather efficient mode of doing battle. It didn't help that many FR novels and PC games seemed to advocate this sort of fighting method.

It was only until the dnd forums started extolling the benefits of battlefield control spells that my players started taking a serious second look at them and realizing their latent power, just waiting to be broken...

Likewise, while one can certainly understand the effects of debuffing spells like glitterdust and web, it is easy to underestimate their true potential. While I know what blinding the enemy will result in, I may not be immediately aware of the huge impact this have in actual gameplay, until I actually experience it for myself.

Then there is the "face" factor. When we sit around for meals after a long game, we will naturally start to joke and boast of our feats and conquests, and the most common (though not necessarily the best indicator) means of measuring one's contribution is by the amount of damage he did. It can get frustrating when you hear your friends bragging about his fighter dealing well over 500+ points of damage over the course of the adventure, while your wizard's best accomplishment is blinding the horde of orc barbarians attacking you, much less convincing them of the extent and significance of your accomplishments. Never mind that it was probably your contribution that turned what would likely have been a TPK into a possible victory for the whole party.

That and you can't deny the thrill that comes with toasting the enemies with a well placed sculpted fireball...

I too think there is enough room between points 1 and 2 for a new label. Something where players actually make an attempt to build decent characters, but are hampered by a lack of guidance and overwhelming options and "tricked" into making suboptimal build decisions which look good on paper and in concept, but fall apart in actual gameplay. They have the right mindset at least (that you don't have to suck deliberately to be able to roleplay well), and can be educated.

It is a lot like M:TG in that aspect, when swords to plowshares and juzam djinns were shunned, while healing salve was popular because it granted life.

[Ubernoob]

Option 1.5:  You are Matt.  You built a wood elf fighter 5 and put all your feats towards whirlwind attack instead of EWP, Imp. Trip, and PA.  Hitting more times is good, right?

Sidenote: My DM actually did this to the new guy yesterday.  He picked a goal that did sound good, but was trapped.  After seeing the character sheet I calmly disarmed the trap and did a quick rebuild explaining it to the new player.

[Snizor]

I've played every level except 1 and 5, otherwise (though I have played at 4.9 before... dang epic druids w/ a single level of cleric to get dmm: persistant and all that cheese...  bad james... shouldn't do that to new DMs...).

Same here.

My lvl 4+ game involved LA Buy-off + Savage Progressions to completely buy-off the Ghost template. He just couldn't rest in peace until he engaged in sexual relations with a pink Gelatinous Cube

[yellerSumner]

-1. "I'm a ROLE-player!": This is the dimwitted "I took WP Focus 'cuz my wizard has this dagger he really likes!" level.  Woo.

1. Green: New to the game and with little to no experience min/maxing any system. Often enticed by iconic spells like magic missile and fireball.  Play experience is limited and/or has lacked sufficient challenge to show the difference between optimized and unoptimized play.

[Prime32]

-1. "I'm a ROLE-player!": This is the dimwitted "I took WP Focus 'cuz my wizard has this dagger he really likes!" level.  Woo.

1. Green: New to the game and with little to no experience min/maxing any system. Often enticed by iconic spells like magic missile and fireball.  Play experience is limited and/or has lacked sufficient challenge to show the difference between optimized and unoptimized play.

Maybe "I'm a ROLE-player!" should be level zero?

This scale has to catch on before it ends up in a sticky.  Once we're all familiar with it and describing our builds in terms of it, we can put it in the posting guidelines.

It's been referenced a few times already - it seems to be catching on. Besides, wouldn't a sticky help it catch on faster? Even if it's not a sticky, I feel it should be linked to or quoted in a sticky.

[Alastar]

I don't think it would be obvious to the newcomer that direct damage is suboptimal, simply because they don't have any other yardstick to base it off, and that the most (seemingly) rational means of stopping foes in their tracks would be to reduce their hp to 0 ASAP (basically tri-hero nuke + focus fire concept from WC3).

Speaking off personal experience, my first few spellcasters were all blaster-oriented. My rationale was that everyone in the party revolves around doing damage, so it seemed natural for me to chip in this aspect wherever possible. Initiating battle with a fireball, then have the delayed initiative fighter charge in with great cleave while the rogue sneaks attack from the side looked like a rather efficient mode of doing battle. It didn't help that many FR novels and PC games seemed to advocate this sort of fighting method.

It was only until the dnd forums started extolling the benefits of battlefield control spells that my players started taking a serious second look at them and realizing their latent power, just waiting to be broken...

Likewise, while one can certainly understand the effects of debuffing spells like glitterdust and web, it is easy to underestimate their true potential. While I know what blinding the enemy will result in, I may not be immediately aware of the huge impact this have in actual gameplay, until I actually experience it for myself.

Then there is the "face" factor. When we sit around for meals after a long game, we will naturally start to joke and boast of our feats and conquests, and the most common (though not necessarily the best indicator) means of measuring one's contribution is by the amount of damage he did. It can get frustrating when you hear your friends bragging about his fighter dealing well over 500+ points of damage over the course of the adventure, while your wizard's best accomplishment is blinding the horde of orc barbarians attacking you, much less convincing them of the extent and significance of your accomplishments. Never mind that it was probably your contribution that turned what would likely have been a TPK into a possible victory for the whole party.

That and you can't deny the thrill that comes with toasting the enemies with a well placed sculpted fireball...

I too think there is enough room between points 1 and 2 for a new label. Something where players actually make an attempt to build decent characters, but are hampered by a lack of guidance and overwhelming options and "tricked" into making suboptimal build decisions which look good on paper and in concept, but fall apart in actual gameplay. They have the right mindset at least (that you don't have to suck deliberately to be able to roleplay well), and can be educated.

It is a lot like M:TG in that aspect, when swords to plowshares and juzam djinns were shunned, while healing salve was popular because it granted life.

I entirely agree with your assessment right there.

For 4 years I played D&D 3.5 apparently having no idea what i was doing until last november when I started reading these boards and understanding quite a few things.  It was quite revolutionary for me.  But does it mean I insisted on having weapon focus with my wizard? FUCK NO!

My lvl 19 wizard was a wizard 7, loremaster 10, archmage 2, he focused on evocation (ray damage spells) and enchantment spells.

He was pretty weak compared to my new conjurer type wizard that i play in another game, but he was still one of the most powerful members of the party and did his fair share each session.