D&D 5E Dealing with optimizers at the table

[auburn2]

First, let me start by saying that I think optimizers are great at finding breaks in the rules. Though I do think their dark powers should be used for good. When new material is being designed, optimizers should be set loose on the stuff so they can find all the breaks...so the designers can remove them. Theorycrafting is fine. It's a fun thought experiment and I don't have issues with white-room theorycrafting at all. My problem is when optimal builds are actually brought into a game. And that's what the thread is about. How to handle optimizers at the table.

To be crystal clear and define my terms, I'm not talking about low-hanging fruit like synergizing race/lineage bonuses with your chosen class, or a rogue taking expertise in stealth or sleight of hand. What I'm talking about are the game breaking combos that...well, break the game.

In my experience, optimizers relish the thrill of the hunt away-from-the-table and want to show off their finds at the table. The trouble is being a DM at a table with optimizers. There seems to be one of four possible approaches to dealing with an optimized character and an optimizing player. First, you outright ban optimization. Second, you ramp up the combat challenges to such a degree that the optimized character is properly challenged...which will almost guarantee the non-optimized characters die regularly. Third, just never feature combat. Fourth, do nothing and let the optimized characters constantly walk all over any and all combat challenges.

None of these solutions are particularly great. Banning optimization cuts out a chunk of fun for an apparently significant segment of the gaming population. Ramping up combat challenges grinds through the non-optimized characters and basically forces them to optimize or die. This is an especially bad solution given that a not insignificant segment of the gaming population does not care to optimize, so essentially forcing them to is bad. Never having combat kinda defeats a major part of the fun of D&D...having tense combats. And letting the optimized characters always trivially defeat any combat challenges also defeats a major part of the fun of D&D...having tense combats.

And yes, I've tried the standard "why don't you try talking to your players" routine. Doesn't help. The optimizers just keep doing it. They literally refuse to stop. This makes the non-optimizers have no fun because they either stop playing the way that's fun for them or stop playing entirely. So I basically have to choose. Which group of players will I run the game for. I don't have time for both. I don't want to exclude either group from my table, but they simply do not mesh.

TL;DR: optimizers ruin the fun for everyone but themselves at my table. Help.

Ok when you say optimization, I assume you mean optimized for combat. I don't kn9ow exactly what you are talking about, is GWM "game breaking". I don't think so. I have not really ran into game-breaking optimizations a lot. That said here are some easy ways to discourage that sort of metagaming:

1. focus your table more heavily on role play and less on combat. Go multiple sessions without a single combat. The optimized character might be optimized, but not for the play at your table. To be honest most players will find this more fun as well. Someone that is optimized for combat will necessarily not be optimized for most out of combat interactions. When I am playing my most common race is PHB half-elf and most common class is Rogue. The reason is the skill proficiencies and this IMO makes an "optimal" character for the type of game I play. However, in terms of combat the character is decidedly sub-optimal compared to other available options and most people focused on combat would consider half-elf to be one of the "weaker" races.

2. Virtually no character is optimized for everything, so cash in on his or her weakness. You can have an optimized party, but not really an optimized single character in 5E. Someone who is optimized against one sort of foe will be mediocre or often poor against another. If the character is a warrior, hit him with wisdom, charisma or intelligence "save or suck" enemies. If it is a spell caster, put him in melee. If your whole party is optimizers, this is harder to do.

3. Combine ranged, melee and caster opponents in your ememy encounters. A typical party has at least 1 ranged guy who is hanging back shooting weapons or ranged cantrips and another who is the tank and running into melee and at least 1 caster. No reason enemies should not be the same. When they walk into that guard barracks, instead of 6 thugs, have them face 2 thugs, 1 scout, 1 spy and 1 priest. This affords them the same sort of battlefield control options the party has. In particulara spy that can hide every turn like a PC Rogue can be very disruptive to the party in terms of action economy.

 

[S'mon]

First, let me start by saying that I think optimizers are great at finding breaks in the rules. Though I do think their dark powers should be used for good. When new material is being designed, optimizers should be set loose on the stuff so they can find all the breaks...so the designers can remove them. Theorycrafting is fine. It's a fun thought experiment and I don't have issues with white-room theorycrafting at all. My problem is when optimal builds are actually brought into a game. And that's what the thread is about. How to handle optimizers at the table.

To be crystal clear and define my terms, I'm not talking about low-hanging fruit like synergizing race/lineage bonuses with your chosen class, or a rogue taking expertise in stealth or sleight of hand. What I'm talking about are the game breaking combos that...well, break the game.

In my experience, optimizers relish the thrill of the hunt away-from-the-table and want to show off their finds at the table. The trouble is being a DM at a table with optimizers. There seems to be one of four possible approaches to dealing with an optimized character and an optimizing player. First, you outright ban optimization. Second, you ramp up the combat challenges to such a degree that the optimized character is properly challenged...which will almost guarantee the non-optimized characters die regularly. Third, just never feature combat. Fourth, do nothing and let the optimized characters constantly walk all over any and all combat challenges.

None of these solutions are particularly great. Banning optimization cuts out a chunk of fun for an apparently significant segment of the gaming population. Ramping up combat challenges grinds through the non-optimized characters and basically forces them to optimize or die. This is an especially bad solution given that a not insignificant segment of the gaming population does not care to optimize, so essentially forcing them to is bad. Never having combat kinda defeats a major part of the fun of D&D...having tense combats. And letting the optimized characters always trivially defeat any combat challenges also defeats a major part of the fun of D&D...having tense combats.

And yes, I've tried the standard "why don't you try talking to your players" routine. Doesn't help. The optimizers just keep doing it. They literally refuse to stop. This makes the non-optimizers have no fun because they either stop playing the way that's fun for them or stop playing entirely. So I basically have to choose. Which group of players will I run the game for. I don't have time for both. I don't want to exclude either group from my table, but they simply do not mesh.

TL;DR: optimizers ruin the fun for everyone but themselves at my table. Help.

The obvious solution is not to ban optimisation but to constrain it. I don't use Feats or Multiclassing IMC. I do use Point Buy and free use of PHB + XGTE, but a long rest is 1 week & max 3 short rests/day - this cuts out a lot of shenanigans such as Leomund's Tiny Hut being OP, and Battlemasters spamming rerolled temp hp grants to everyone. Magic items purchasable are a curated selection.

Within those constraints, sure, go to town. I'm still going to see a lot of variation in effectiveness depending on stat build, subclass selection, and especially spell selection & use. But nothing game breaking I think - and if you only want to play a game you can break, I don't want you anyway.

 

[Umbran]

In my experience, optimizers relish the thrill of the hunt away-from-the-table and want to show off their finds at the table. The trouble is being a DM at a table with optimizers. There seems to be one of four possible approaches to dealing with an optimized character and an optimizing player. First, you outright ban optimization. Second, you ramp up the combat challenges to such a degree that the optimized character is properly challenged...which will almost guarantee the non-optimized characters die regularly. Third, just never feature combat. Fourth, do nothing and let the optimized characters constantly walk all over any and all combat challenges.

You missed the zeroth option - speak with your players like mature adults before play ever begins about expectations and play styles.

 

[S'mon]

I find a degree of player optimisation can be a good thing. I run a fairly tough campaign typically, some of my players are not so great at the mechanical stuff. If I banned the more combat-effective players from optimising, the mechanically weaker players would lose a lot of PCs unless I intervened to nerf the combats, which would make me unhappy.

 

[GlassJaw]

Really need more specifics. What is the core of the problem?

Are you struggling to challenge your group in combat? Do you not like players making characters based on stats or combos? Do you not like players spamming the same ability over and over again?

Unlike 3ed, 5E is fairly bullet-proof with regards to broken combos. I'll admit that I don't like warlock/paladin/bard dips but whatever. I might have concerns but that it was going to break the game wouldn't be one of them.

 

[DemoMonkey]

I'm going to assume that your only goal is to run a game that everyone will enjoy, and that this is not about trying to modify anyone's behaviour. (That rarely works, and the RPG table is not the place to try.)

A strict policy of PHB+1 will solve most of these problems before they start.

For the rest, the monsters that the optimizers fight have a behind the screen bonus of +2 to hit, +2d6 damage and Resistance to everything. (which mysteriously disappears when anyone non-optimized fights them).

Because reasons.

 

[Dausuul]

A strict policy of PHB+1 will solve most of these problems before they start.

It will do no such thing. Sorlock, sorcadin, Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert, GWM/Polearm Mastery... virtually all of the most OP builds in the game are straight out of the PHB with no supplements at all. The same is true for the most overpowered spells (e.g., hypnotic pattern, simulacrum).

Just as in 3E, the worst balance issues in 5E come from the books released earliest in the edition's life cycle: The PHB, DMG, and Monster Manual. The situation is not nearly as extreme as it was back then, but it remains true that splatbooks are not the source of the problem.

Banning multiclassing and feats will take care of most of the cheese, but that is a heavy hammer to bring down on the entire group. My preferences would be a few targeted bans and house rules to take care of the worst offenders, combined with steering the optimizers away from other PCs' niches.

 

[Larnievc]

First, let me start by saying that I think optimizers are great at finding breaks in the rules. Though I do think their dark powers should be used for good. When new material is being designed, optimizers should be set loose on the stuff so they can find all the breaks...so the designers can remove them. Theorycrafting is fine. It's a fun thought experiment and I don't have issues with white-room theorycrafting at all. My problem is when optimal builds are actually brought into a game. And that's what the thread is about. How to handle optimizers at the table.

To be crystal clear and define my terms, I'm not talking about low-hanging fruit like synergizing race/lineage bonuses with your chosen class, or a rogue taking expertise in stealth or sleight of hand. What I'm talking about are the game breaking combos that...well, break the game.

In my experience, optimizers relish the thrill of the hunt away-from-the-table and want to show off their finds at the table. The trouble is being a DM at a table with optimizers. There seems to be one of four possible approaches to dealing with an optimized character and an optimizing player. First, you outright ban optimization. Second, you ramp up the combat challenges to such a degree that the optimized character is properly challenged...which will almost guarantee the non-optimized characters die regularly. Third, just never feature combat. Fourth, do nothing and let the optimized characters constantly walk all over any and all combat challenges.

None of these solutions are particularly great. Banning optimization cuts out a chunk of fun for an apparently significant segment of the gaming population. Ramping up combat challenges grinds through the non-optimized characters and basically forces them to optimize or die. This is an especially bad solution given that a not insignificant segment of the gaming population does not care to optimize, so essentially forcing them to is bad. Never having combat kinda defeats a major part of the fun of D&D...having tense combats. And letting the optimized characters always trivially defeat any combat challenges also defeats a major part of the fun of D&D...having tense combats.

And yes, I've tried the standard "why don't you try talking to your players" routine. Doesn't help. The optimizers just keep doing it. They literally refuse to stop. This makes the non-optimizers have no fun because they either stop playing the way that's fun for them or stop playing entirely. So I basically have to choose. Which group of players will I run the game for. I don't have time for both. I don't want to exclude either group from my table, but they simply do not mesh.

TL;DR: optimizers ruin the fun for everyone but themselves at my table. Help.

One of my guys loves coming up with combos that are pretty sweet. I recycle them back into the game to be used against him (and the rest of the party).

 

[Arial Black]

First, let me start by saying that I think optimizers are great at finding breaks in the rules. Though I do think their dark powers should be used for good. When new material is being designed, optimizers should be set loose on the stuff so they can find all the breaks...so the designers can remove them. Theorycrafting is fine. It's a fun thought experiment and I don't have issues with white-room theorycrafting at all. My problem is when optimal builds are actually brought into a game. And that's what the thread is about. How to handle optimizers at the table.

To be crystal clear and define my terms, I'm not talking about low-hanging fruit like synergizing race/lineage bonuses with your chosen class, or a rogue taking expertise in stealth or sleight of hand. What I'm talking about are the game breaking combos that...well, break the game.

In my experience, optimizers relish the thrill of the hunt away-from-the-table and want to show off their finds at the table. The trouble is being a DM at a table with optimizers. There seems to be one of four possible approaches to dealing with an optimized character and an optimizing player. First, you outright ban optimization. Second, you ramp up the combat challenges to such a degree that the optimized character is properly challenged...which will almost guarantee the non-optimized characters die regularly. Third, just never feature combat. Fourth, do nothing and let the optimized characters constantly walk all over any and all combat challenges.

None of these solutions are particularly great. Banning optimization cuts out a chunk of fun for an apparently significant segment of the gaming population. Ramping up combat challenges grinds through the non-optimized characters and basically forces them to optimize or die. This is an especially bad solution given that a not insignificant segment of the gaming population does not care to optimize, so essentially forcing them to is bad. Never having combat kinda defeats a major part of the fun of D&D...having tense combats. And letting the optimized characters always trivially defeat any combat challenges also defeats a major part of the fun of D&D...having tense combats.

And yes, I've tried the standard "why don't you try talking to your players" routine. Doesn't help. The optimizers just keep doing it. They literally refuse to stop. This makes the non-optimizers have no fun because they either stop playing the way that's fun for them or stop playing entirely. So I basically have to choose. Which group of players will I run the game for. I don't have time for both. I don't want to exclude either group from my table, but they simply do not mesh.

TL;DR: optimizers ruin the fun for everyone but themselves at my table. Help.

Fiist, let me start by saying that I think role-players are great at finding ways to ignore the rules. Though I do think their dark powers should be used for good. When new material is being designed, role-players should be set loose on the stuff so they can find all the breaks...so the designers can remove them. Theorycrafting is fine. It's a fun thought experiment and I don't have issues with white-room theorycrafting at all. My problem is when role-playing builds are actually brought into a game. And that's what the thread is about. How to handle role-players at the table.

To be crystal clear and define my terms, I'm not talking about low-hanging fruit like synergizing race/lineage with your cool concept, or a rogue taking expertise in deception or persuasion. What I'm talking about are the game breaking combos that...well, break the game by letting the PCs talk their way out of getting into the fights I've so carefully set up for them.

In my experience, role-players relish the thrill of the hunt away-from-the-table and want to show off their finds at the table. The trouble is being a DM at a table with role-players. There seems to be one of four possible approaches to dealing with an role-playing character and an role-playing player. First, you outright ban talking in character. Second, you ramp up the social challenges to such a degree that the role-player cannot talk his or the party's way out of the upcoming fight. Third, just never feature role-playing. Fourth, do nothing and let the role-playing characters constantly talk their way out of any and all combat challenges.

None of these solutions are particularly great. Banning role-playing cuts out a chunk of fun for an apparently significant segment of the gaming population. Ramping up role-playing challenges become unachievable for the non-optimized-for-role-playing characters and basically forces them to roll up role-playing PCs or become irrelevant. This is an especially bad solution given that a not insignificant segment of the gaming population does not care to role-play, so essentially forcing them to is bad. Never having talking scenes kinda defeats a major part of the fun of D&D...having tense social interactions. And letting the role-playing characters always trivially sidestep any combat challenges also defeats a major part of the fun of D&D...having tense combats.

And yes, I've tried the standard "why don't you try talking to your players" routine. Doesn't help. The role-players just keep doing it. They literally refuse to stop. This makes the non-role-players have no fun because they either stop playing the way that's fun for them or stop playing entirely. So I basically have to choose. Which group of players will I run the game for. I don't have time for both. I don't want to exclude either group from my table, but they simply do not mesh.

TL;DR: role-players ruin the fun for everyone but themselves at my table. Help.

Okay, you might detect a slight hint of sarcasm there, but my point is this: your post suggests that some of your players are having fun wrong.

I've DMed games where the players demanded I stop the boring talky stuff and get to the good bits, the fighting! I've been a player where one guy is monopolising the DM's time and attention by having his PC have a meaningless conversation with a random NPC that is in no way connected to the plot, while the other five players sit and twiddle their thumbs for three quarters of an hour!

So which group are playing the game wrong? Having fun wrong?

Have you heard of the Stormwind Fallacy? Basically, the fallacy is that someone who is interested in and good at optimising PCs cannot also be interested in or good at the role-playing/talking in character part of the game, and vice versa.

I. Like. Both.

I'm good at both. I enjoy both. I want my games to feature both.

Because I want both, I have had opposite reactions. I really have had one group criticise me for making PCs who are actually good at what they are supposed to be good at. After all, it's a role-playing game, not a roll-playing game, right?

And I really have had a group criticise me for having my PC talk to the NPC and find a way to achieve our mutual goal without casualties on either side. After all, it's supposed to be a game, not an amateur dramatics society, right?

Neither side is wrong. Casting one side as the villains and the other as the angels isn't the answer.

 

[Seramus]

A good optimizer knows how to avoid stealing the spotlight at the table. In fact, they might make sub-optimal choices during most encounters, and only bring out the Big Guns when brown stuff hits the fan. Most people call this the "Voltron Sword" after the famous cartoon sword that only gets brought out when things get really bad, instead of starting off with the sword right away.

If your optimizer is stealing the spotlight and not playing well with others at the table, that's an issue with their behavior, and you should sit down to have a talk with them OOC. Preferably in private, and maybe over e-mail where they won't get defensive. There's nothing wrong with optimizing, but there is something wrong with stealing the spotlight or making other players feel incompetent. And that's a behavior issue.