D&D 5E Dealing with optimizers at the table

[S'mon]

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.

Yeah, definitely. A good optimiser in the party can be the GM's ace-in-the-hole. I have to worry a lot less about TPKing my less-than-powergamey adult players, if I know my 13 year old son's flame Sorcerer will cast some devastating fire spell combo when things get really bad. Which then lets me relax and Unleash Hell with a clear conscience.

 

[Arvok]

Some concrete examples would be helpful...I think a lot of us don't know exactly what you're dealing with so the advice you're receiving might not be as helpful as it could be.

That being said, I've found that when players tend to optimize they focus on one aspect of something (usually combat) at the cost of some other aspect. For example, a player might be great at melee combat with a certain weapon but punch below his weight at ranged combat or with another weapon. Building encounters that emphasize a character's weaknesses can be humbling, challenging, and fun. It also lets the other players step in and save the power gamer's (let's be honest--I think that's what we're talking about here) bacon.

It's fine (IMO) to have a character that outshines more balanced characters in most combats as long as he's occasionally faced with something his one trick pony can't beat but the other characters can. For instance, a power gamer who has built a devastating archer finds himself in a dense forest and/or thick fog. Swarms of monsters come at the party and because of visibility restrictions ranged weapons are useless.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

Doesn't that lead to the optimised characters dominating the fights and showing up the players of the mechanically weaker characters?

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.

Making a post like that to mock the OP is quite a . . . strong reaction. Did you feel that the initial post was in some way saying that optimising was bad in and of itself or opposed to roleplaying?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

In my experience non-optimizers at the table are a bigger problem than optimizers.

 

[S'mon]

Doesn't that lead to the optimised characters dominating the fights and showing up the players of the mechanically weaker characters?

The optimisers are happy to dominate. The casual players are happy that their PCs don't die!
There's one player in between the two extremes. She will complain if fights are 'too hard' (an issue with running sandboxy Princes of the Apocalypse) but I've not seen her complain that my son's PCs are too effective. It would be a bit hypocritical if she did since her own PCs are much more effective than 3/4 of the group.

 

[Seramus]

Doesn't that lead to the optimised characters dominating the fights and showing up the players of the mechanically weaker characters?

In my personal experience, most players don't mind an optimized PC kicking the butt of evil as long as their personal niche is protected. But this is also contingent upon each character contributing more to the party than DPS, which is a problem if both players choose something as competitive as pure damage to be their "niche."

 

[Arial Black]

Making a post like that to mock the OP is quite a . . . strong reaction. Did you feel that the initial post was in some way saying that optimising was bad in and of itself or opposed to roleplaying?

The point was not to mock, although I knew it might come across that way. That's why I mentioned my motive, which was to demonstrate that exactly the same points could be made to cast the actor-types as the villains and the optimiser types as the innocents, showing that neither version would be valid because it's not really optimisers versus actors that is at the heart of his problem.

The problem is that some players are playing selfishly.

Sure, you can be an optimiser who plays selfishly, but you can also play an optimised support PC, or any variety of optimised PC who cares about the experience of all the players.

You can also be an actor-type, who only cares about the talky stuff and gets bored by the game play aspects, fighting and so on, and still be a total jerk who monopolises the game for their own enjoyment at the expense of the other players.

You could put up a scenario and tell us that your group is divided between optimisers and role-players, and also tell us that one group is spoiling the game for the other group, and we simply could not know which group was selfish and which was not.

So, making optimising harder is irrelevant! That's not the problem! The problem is selfishness, and that behaviour could come from either group!

The OP wants advice on how to deal with those nasty optimisers, who everyone knows are always the cause of trouble, right?

Yeah, that bothered me. As both an optimiser AND a role-player, that bothered me.

The way to solve his problem would have been to ask us how to solve the problem of some players being selfish, and the advice he would get would apply equally whether the problem players were optimisers OR role-players, or both.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Try to identify what makes the characters too powerful.
Some times it is the wrong kind of healing rules used. Some times it is just falling in the trap of trying to do an arm's race.

Optimizers tend to overkill. They are so good that it trivializes some tasks.
But that is a good thing. A rogue should be able to sneak around, doing their job.

If you start upping the DCs, not only do you take away the niche, you make those tasks impossible for the non optimized characters.
If you don't continously up the challenge, the optimizer might feel that optimization in a certain aspect yields diminishing return.

And then, once in a while, you can bring in someone with better tricks up their sleeves. Or you can have a different kind of challenge.

Optimzers often don't want to win the game, but they just don't want to lose. And they want to feel progression. Becoming better.
In 4e for example there was the assumption that you roughly get +1 per level. Your default bonus was +1/2 per level. So optimization had to make up for the rest, just to not fall behind. Frustrating.

 

[Raith5]

How do you aggressively optimize in 5e? I am asking for a friend...

 

[auburn2]

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).

None of those things is game breaking IMO. They all bring unique abilities to the table, but when built, or especially when optimized around these builds they all have weaknesses, in some cases glaring weaknesses.

Put a party of those 4 you mention into tomb of annihilation and play it as written and the party will be seriously UNOPTIMIZED for the campaign. They will end up spending a year wandering around the jungle lost, on the rare occasion they are not lost; they lack divination spells and will not be able to figure out many of the clues they do find. If they don't starve to death, there is a high chance they will get killed in random encounters they can't avoid with stealth in the jungle and they will get slaughtered by traps if they make it in to the tomb itself ..... and that is assuming your sorcadin can turn undead, if he can't-add that as a another glaring weakness. A lame Ranger-Cleric-Wizard-Rogue party is going to be better "optimized" for this particular campaign, due in large part to the class-specific skills they bring to the table (Ranger natural explorer, Cleric Undead and divination, Rogue stealth and traps, wizard-rituals like comprehend languages). Yeah in a straight-up Party-V-Party duel the "optimized group" beats this "lame group", but the "optimized group" probably can't find the fight in the first place.

As far as the spells you mention -
1. Hypnotic pattern is overhyped and hardly gamebreaking. It was my go-to offensive 3rd level spell for my last bladesinger and it is a good spell, but not game breaking. First, it is tough to pull off to maximum effect without catching allies unless the caster wins initiative. Second, as soon as the charmed are damaged the spell is broken, meaning you get exactly one with advantage hit on each enemy before it is over. Third about 25-30% of the bad guys are going to save, and on their action they are going to shake the ones in the stupor out of it. I cast this a lot, and it was effective but I almost never had this last more than three rounds, and the main effect was a penalty to action economy for the enemy, with "lost" actions both for the charmed and uncharmed, but little else. Often I and others at my table never even got to take advantage of an attack on a charmed enemy because we were buys focusing on trying to kill the ones who were not charmed, lest they free all their brethren. It is a good spell, no doubt, but hardly game breaking.

2. Simulacrum is a very powerful spell. You also need to be 13th level to cast it, it takes 12 hours, costs $1500 and has no equipment (to include no spellbook if you duplicate a wizard). This is probably the most powerful 7th level spell, however I need to point out that taking any of the "gamebreaking" multiclasses you mention means it is going to take longer to reach a level to get access to this spell.