D&D 5E Dealing with optimizers at the table

[Ruin Explorer]

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 lack of detail makes me extremely skeptical that optimizers are the problem at your table, I have to say. Especially as you complain about "breaking the game", which is not at all easy to do In 5E and typically easily fixed, usually by banning a single specific spell, feat or race.

A lot of people are taking you at face value here but the lack of detail and total lack of examples, in a 5E context makes me feel that they should not.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Overgeeked hasnt given examples but I’ll give an example myself of something in my game that I consider optimized to an unhealthy degree. I’ve seen this around levels 3-5

AC 22+. With a shield spell ready to tack on just in case a hit gets through.

This can be done with very little difficulty. Plate, a shield, and divine shield and the shield spell which requires little or no sacrifice. Either in action economy, ability points or feats and needs no magic items. The sorcadin can do it without blinking at level 3.

My personal feeling on this is that it cheapens the combat because regular attacks no longer threaten that character meaningfully... and no they aren’t weaker than normal against other attacks. The above mentioned sorcadin can have very respectable saves even better as a level 6 Paladin.

It is painful to DM with. Combined with a sorcerer who optimized in fire magic to a obscene degree it spelled the end of a campaign at around level 8 that could have gone on and on. My feeling is that players that want a campaign to have longevity and for them to reach high levels should consider not optimizing.

He hasn't given examples because, quite frankly, he's making it up.

You having to work incredibly hard to even come up with one dubious and weak example shows this. Your example is laughable. The character actually has AC19, not "22+" and constantly has to burn relatively limited spell slots to go any higher. Plus it's a joke to deal with, you just work around them. Sure their AC is good but what about the rest of the party? Mix in slightly more spellcasti g enemies than usual, creatures with auras and so on and said Sorcadin is likely looking pretty lame. Worst case ban multiclassing and boom done fixed forever and you didn't even have to ban normal optimisation.

 

[Emerikol]

I think a lot of things are not game breaking but if they are gaming breaking then I am obligated as DM to rule 0 them. When players know that their discoveries will always end up being rejected, if they are truly weird game breaking choices they won't bother or they will quietly come to you to make their case.

I always tell my players that to the degree their characters know the rules it's like our own understanding of science. I understand that a car cannot fly. I also understand that if I see a car flying by overhead that I will have to change my conception of the rules and not the fact the car is flying by overhead. As DM, I provide the information to them about the environment. So my group knows with certainty that game breaking stupid tricks are not going to end well. This is why they come beforehand to getting a ruling. They know it's better to be sure than to jump and find out there trick doesn't work as planned. I attribute this to what any person would do in real life. They'd do an experiment to see if something works.

 

[Horwath]

My advice is twofold:

First, focus more on the other two pillars of play.

Second, make the spotlight explicit. If a scene involves one PC and the player of another PC tries to interject, tell them, "Yep, player X, I heard that, but right now the spotlight is on Y's character."

Yes, this works great if characters are not in the same location.
But, what if they are together and player Y is muddling clumsy through social situation and player X has something good to say about the problem? Do you shut him up? how would that works?

Yes, if player's X character has int 8 and cha 8, you could say that his character is too withdrawn or just too stupid to make that argument, but this is also somewhat bad solution to that situation.

 

[TwoSix]

This can be done with very little difficulty. Plate, a shield, and divine shield and the shield spell which requires little or no sacrifice. Either in action economy, ability points or feats and needs no magic items. The sorcadin can do it without blinking at level 3.

Plate is expensive enough that it should really be considered a magic item. It really shouldn't be obtainable before tier 2.

As a practical matter, heavy armor users shouldn't have better than chain at Tier 1, maybe upgrading to splint if they get some gold saved up. Just because something is on the mundane equipment list doesn't mean it's appropriate for Tier 1 characters; starting funds are an important consideration for low-level balance.

 

[overgeeked]

The lack of detail makes me extremely skeptical that optimizers are the problem at your table, I have to say. Especially as you complain about "breaking the game", which is not at all easy to do In 5E and typically easily fixed, usually by banning a single specific spell, feat or race.

A lot of people are taking you at face value here but the lack of detail and total lack of examples, in a 5E context makes me feel that they should not.

Well, there’s a few reasons I’m not providing details. None of which are I’m making it up. But thanks for that. First, some of my players have accounts here. And despite my frustration I’m not quite ready to jettison the problem players. Second, any details given will inevitably devolve into utterly unhelpful nitpicking about those specific builds rather than the continuing general problem. Missing the forest for the trees. Third, despite the details I did give, more than a few people didn’t bother to read the initial post, so kinda don’t see the point of further engagement. Fourth, the thread quickly devolved into yet another defense of problematic behavior and deflection of blame...and frankly that’s maddening.

Players that go out of their way to break the game is the problem. Short of banning every broken combo as it comes up, the only solution is to ban the problem players from my table. Though it would be a refreshing change of pace to be able to actually talk about why players actively breaking the game is problematic rather than the inevitable deflection and defense of problematic behavior.

 

[dave2008]

AC 22+. With a shield spell ready to tack on just in case a hit gets through.

This can be done with very little difficulty. Plate, a shield, and divine shield and the shield spell which requires little or no sacrifice. Either in action economy, ability points or feats and needs no magic items. The sorcadin can do it without blinking at level 3.

Of course you have to use the optional multiclassing rules and have the money to get plate armor. So you need DM buy-in to get that with your build.

My characters couldn't afford plate until about 10th lvl and we don't multiclass (of course we don't have a paladin or sorcerer either).

 

[Horwath]

Though it would be a refreshing change of pace to be able to actually talk about why players actively breaking the game is problematic rather than the inevitable deflection and defense of problematic behavior.

Wow, players that are good at the game, are good at the game. Shocking...

It's simple, good players(or if you want to say, players with good system mastery) know how to "see" bad options in the game and not even consider them.

What do you want from a player that wants to play an archer?
having max of 12 dexterity and taking Ritual caster feat instead of Sharpshooter? Is that non-optimized enough for you?

If players are dealing too much damage, add more monsters. More monster, more HP to go through.

If players are all taking same 5 feats every time, look at the rest of 90% of junk feats and improve them.

 

[dave2008]

Wow, players that are good at the game, are good at the game. Shocking...

It's simple, good players(or if you want to say, players with good system mastery) know how to "see" bad options in the game and not even consider them.

What do you want from a player that wants to play an archer?
having max of 12 dexterity and taking Ritual caster feat instead of Sharpshooter? Is that non-optimized enough for you?

If players are dealing too much damage, add more monsters. More monster, more HP to go through.

If players are all taking same 5 feats every time, look at the rest of 90% of junk feats and improve them.

I think your missing the point of the issue.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Wow, players that are good at the game, are good at the game. Shocking...

See, this is what @overgeeked is saying.

There is nothing "wrong" with being an optimizer (min/maxer, powergamer, munchkin, etc.). It's a playing style that people like! But it's not always fun for everyone.

To put this another way-

Imagine (try, really) that there are a group of people that get together and play some recreational basketball every weekend. For them, it's a fun way of re-connecting. They get a little exercise, catch up, chat, have a few drinks afterwards. It's all good!

Now ... they invite someone else to the game. This person take it very seriously. Michael Jordan seriously. He is trash talking. He is going all out. He is trying to make sidebets. He is belittling other players. He is committing hard fouls ("if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'"). He is going all out to WIN.

Of course, he would say that he is "good" at the game. And maybe he is! But he is not good for that game. Everyone there is playing basketball, and everyone there is trying to have fun, but the type of fun that people have, playing the exact same game, can be different. Which is okay!

The new guy would be better off playing in a competitive league. Not the friendly game.

The issue is that there is a mismatch in playing styles; which leads to a few observations:

1. The answer was already provided by @Blue on the first page- the problem isn't that the player(s) is optimizing. The problem is that the player is a jerk. If you talk to someone, and they don't change or try to change, then the issue isn't playing style- it's the player.

2. In addition, constant comments that a person who is articulating an issue is either lying (like we just saw), doesn't understand their own table, or needs to understand what "good play" is are not only not helpful, but pretty insulting. If you wish people to respect the way you play, a good way to start is by listening to them and respecting what they have to say, and then offering advice that is helpful. IMO.