D&D 5E Dealing with optimizers at the table

[overgeeked]

If I am understanding you the "optimizer" doing more DPR than the others at the table is what is causing problems?

This is silly and it sounds like you have a bunch of insecure players. When the Paladin sitting next to me hits the BBEG for 60 points of damage I am celebrating and high five-ing and the fact my Rogue's short sword did 5 damage one turn before is of no consequence .... By the same token they are cheering and calling my Rogue a "legend" (true story) because I tricked an employer into paying us 6 times what we were owed for a job by twisting the agreement and embellishing what we did a bit. My Rogue has a 14 Charisma, expertise in Deception and proficiency in persuasion.

My bladesinger was the most combat "optimized" character I ever played and she did the least DPR off any of my 5E characters. She was extremely hard to hit with a sky-high AC and enemies getting disadvantage and went several levels in a row without being hit by an attack at all, despite the fact she was the first person into melee on every combat. I surely never felt underpowered or overshadowed at the table and the rest of the party was pretty stoked when she would eat up 14 attacks without a hit and just flat walk away from multiple opponents and shrug off opportunity attacks like they didn't matter. She never suffered from damage envy, the length of the fighter's greatsword was never a problem for her and I don't think her "invulnerability" was a problem for anyone else.

No, you are not understanding. This is a tangent of what I’m talking about. It’s the weeds.

The problem is game breaking optimization and the typical optimizer attitude of needing to win an unwinnable game. Putting the mini-game of character creation ahead of the fun of the group. The problem is a storyteller DM trying to play with optimizers.

 

[NotAYakk]

When everyone is super, nobody is.

Are you, as a DM, at all good at optimization? If so, you can have some fun.

Most optimized 5e builds are good at certain things. By providing items that selectively improve PCs that aren't that optimal build, you can change the playing field.

The dirty little secret of 5e is that monster HP and damage and stuff is within the DM's perview. If players figure out a way to deal 10x damage, you can literally take the monster manual, and add a 0 to every monster's HP.

I don't recommend doing exactly that, but on the other hand I sort of do.

First things first, what level of optimization are we talking about?

# Gonzo

Gonzo optimization is anything from 3e batman wizard to pun-pun. This level of optimization completely changes the game. You can deal with gonzo optimization, but it means the game you are playing changes from "traditional" D&D to something else.

But it is more likely that you'll just veto someone playing pun-pun and becoming an overgod. And that is ok, that is an option.

# Smash

Smash optimization is where someone becomes capable of dealing relatively insane amounts of damage. In 5e, this can vary from a nuclear wizard build, to a pure class paladin in a 1 fight/day game, a hexblade assassin samurai paladin whispers bard surprise critboomer frankenbuild (and I know, that isn't viable), a XBE+SS fighter, or even the only player in your group that bothers with a 20 in their attack stat.

They are dealing more damage than 2 other players, or maybe the rest of the party put together, or maybe even twice that. It makes the cooperative component of D&D of "reduce enemy monster HP" irrelevant, because only that player (or players) matter.

This one is the easiest to deal with. Odds are that the player has one particular attack style -- magic missile, daily damage boost, ranged weapon or great weapon. In that case, simply provide magic items that don't synergize with that build that are stronger than ones that do synergize with that build.

As an example, I have a bardcher in a game. I randomly rolled a class, googled the strangest build for that class, and the one I found was unfortuentally overly effective; it did damage on par or higher than damage dealers in the party, and had bard utility to boot.

The fix was simple; weapons make the flametongue look like toys (paired set of +2 finesse weapon that deals 3d8 cold damage, requires 1 attunement slot). The bardcher has a good weapon (heavy crossbow +2 that deals +1d6 necrotic and has some fun riders), but the damage gap collapses.

Once you have that, you just need to have beefier monsters (HP wise or whatever), and the problem evaporates.

By providing some items that align with the optimizer's abilities, you give them toys to play with; by providing better items for other players, you reduce the gap.

# Indestructible

Another kind of optimization is being impossible to kill. This one is actually easier to deal with; you can just accept it.

Have monsters sometimes attack the impossible to kill PC, but not always. When they do, the PC gets to shine. When they don't, the puzzle becomes "how to get them to attack the PC that is impossible to kill".

Include debilitating effects that aren't what that PC is immune to sometimes occur. These can vary from "suffer a level of exhaustion on it", or "you get a death save when hit", or slowed, or anything else. Such effects level the playing field; don't use them always; the goal is that the "build work" made to make the PC indestructible is rewarded narratively, but isn't a constant trump card.

You can also boost the durability of non-indestructible PCs to make the playing field less ridiculous. I mean, suppose the problem is a bear-barian with high HP. Any level of damage you could do to threaten the bear-barian flattens everyone else on the first blow.

The bear-barian's edge is two fold; one, more HP, and two, resistance to everything (except psychic).

An example of spreading the durability, you can have:

Shield of Blocking: When you suffer damage, you can expend a reaction to get resistance to that damage.

Now, the big bad guy who hits for 100 damage per swing (in order to threaten the barbarian) can now sometimes swing at another PC; if it hits, that PC gets a 1 shot resistance. This isn't as good as the Bearbarians's "resist everything". The item isn't as useful for the Bearbarian, because resistance doesn't stack.

# Control

Battlefield control is another thing. Here, the PC shuts down creatures, from minions to a boss, through use of game mechanics.

One approach is to just throw more naughty word at them, ideally in waves and geographically separate. The control-PC then shuts down wave 1 (probably with a concentration spell), and wave 2 the rest of the PCs have to handle.

The control-PC gets to shine (great), and there rest of the party gets fun stuff to do (and feels that if they where absent, the control-PC would be screwed).

# Minionmancy

Honestly this is the hardest one here. While minionmancy is in theory based off of "more damage" and "more toughness" and "more control", the big problem with minionmancy is how much time it takes up at the table.

Fixing the damage/toughness and control elements of minionmancy doesn't fix the time problem. Here is a case where you may be forced to swing the nerf bat hard, just because controlling a dozen buffed-up sub-CR 1 monsters is a problem even if they didn't do anything at all.

An approach I'm considering in my next game is twofold. First, a limited stable of monsters; a given spell known only gives you (proficiency bonus) "true names" to summon; that reduces "search through MM" issues. Second, it is to systematically nerf the mass-summon spells creature count, while at the same time buffing the individual monsters. Because I can deal with a player summoning 1 beefy summon; that is just damage, toughness and control (see above). I can't deal with 20 of them, D&D mechanics aren't simple enough; and mass combat rules are still too clunky.

The spells that summon 1/2/4/8 creatures are changed to summon 1/2/3/4 creatures. They share an animating spirit, which means they have one shared mind (including concentration and dismissal). They get a built-in buff of "add caster's proficiency bonus to AC/ATK/Damage/DCs" (this makes the 4 sub-CR 1 monsters about as nasty as before, and the 1 count monsters tough). At higher levels, you add 8/5/4/3 HP per slot level (8*1, 5*2, 4*3 and 3*4 give roughly the same number of HP per slot level), and every 2/3/5/6 levels they get a (single) extra attack. (2/1 = 2, 3/2 = 1.5, 5/3 = 1.7 and 6/4 =1.5 gives roughly the same number of slot levels per extra attack; in theory CR 2 taps are harder than CR 1/0.5 and 0.25 taps).

Polar Bear as a 3rd level spell (level 5 PC) is then
AC 15, 42 HP, +10 ATK, 1d8+8 damage/2d6+8 damage
27.5 DPR (before, was 21.5 DPR, at -3 to hit)
As a 9th level spell (Level 17 PC) the polar bear becomes:
AC 18, 90 HP, +13 ATK, 1d8+11 damage/4* (2d6+11) damage
86.5 DPR (before, was 110 DPR, at -6 to hit)

A flying snake as a 3rd level spell (level 5 PC) is then
AC 17, 5 HP, +9 ATK, 4+7 poison damage (times 4)
44 DPR (before, was 64 DPR, at -3 to hit)
As a 9th level spell (Level 17 PC) the snakes become:
AC 20, 17 HP, +12 ATK, 2*(7+7 poison damage) (times 4)
112 DPR (before was 256 DPR, at -6 to hit)

but that is just detailed numbers. The point is that minionmancy (and certain kinds of optimization) can lead to table-time problems, and the above techniques don't help with that.

Back in 4e, this also occurred with "tap-mancy", where you made a character that attacked 10 times per round for buckets of dice each time, including 1-2 off-turn interrupts every round. The damage issue was separate from the "oh my god this takes too long to resolve" issue.

 

[CapnZapp]

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 only real solution is for a version of D&D (or Pathfinder) to finally implement a dynamic rulebook much like a videogame, where feedback can be used for timely patches.

In short: if the feedback data suggests one option yields higher than expected DPR and/or sees disproportionate usage, it would be reined in fairly quickly (no slower than 12 months later at the utmost).

For instance, spells rated red by guides would be brought up to at least green status a year later, significantly increasing the menu of viable choices. A particular build would no longer be nearly as OP some time later, allowing you the DM to simply trust the game system to sort out minmaxers itself.

In other words, the main culprit of your woes is the entirely obsolete publication model, where useless features (and entire subclasses) are left to languish - and attract attention from non-min-maxers - for years and years.

 

[Istbor]

No, you are not understanding. This is a tangent of what I’m talking about. It’s the weeds.

The problem is game breaking optimization and the typical optimizer attitude of needing to win an unwinnable game. Putting the mini-game of character creation ahead of the fun of the group. The problem is a storyteller DM trying to play with optimizers.

Then it is time to talk to the play or change the make-up of the group. You (and possibly the other players?) and the optimizer(s) find fun in different things.

Myself, I enjoy character creation. It is fun to theorize to me. Fun to see what the potential is. I would consider myself optimizing to an extent. I have no intention of pooing on anyone's fun because I enjoyed the process of building a character that in some cases is good at killing things. I just wanted someone good at killing things. That is the niche I sought out that particular game.

Now, maybe there is someone else in the group that also wanted to be good at killing things. If it is then mentioned that my characters ability to do so, seems to be overshadowing another's, something can be done. I can either lay off at certain times to give them the spotlight. Which I am totally fine with, or I can try and diversify my niche. Thus that other killer is on more equal footing and we are both still having fun.

If I get that sense or talk that I am overshadowing someone, and just like amp it up? Then I guess I am a jerk. You should talk about how I am a jerk to me, or tell me to eventually leave.

However, if I am told that it isn't my actions, but just how I build characters that is the problem with the group, I can understand that, and probably start looking for a group where I can have the fun I enjoy. I know that if I had like... a concept and was told not to do it, I can try something else. If I am then told all my presented concepts are bad because it might make someone feel bad, then I am probably going to shuffle on to buffalo, and find a new group where me being me isn't stepping on toes.

I guess I am a bit confused. As typically the people I play with seek out a role they would like to do, and try and be good at it. Sometimes that means being the face, or support, or investigating, sometimes that means being stealthy, tanky, or an efficient killer. When I am an efficient killer, which seems to be the crux of this situation, my party enjoys my participation, as they expect me to do the killing.

I think my last one was a Zealot Barbarian with PAM. Really good fun. I didn't even need GW.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Awww now he's deleted all his posts except the original one! And it removes the quotes. We will never again experience the perfection of someone honestly and straightforwardly stating that doing more damage than other PCs is inherently abusive!

 

[Umbran]

Oh for god's sake. Are you remotely serious?

Mod Note:

This reads like the foundation of your argument is your own incredulousness. You cannot believe what they say, so you construct your own version of the situation. That's not much of an argument.

Nor is it very polite or respectful. Remember those words, please, and apply them more often, and you can avoid the red text. Thanks.

 

[LordEntrails]

It's not about absolutes, imo. Not the problem and certainly not the solution(s). You have also cornered yourself into thinking their are only certain black/white ways of dealing with things. Here are some strategies I would suggest;

• random initiative. Especially useful if you have players who are very tactically 'smart'.
• random NPC hitpoints and damage. Helps increase randomness and hinders an optimizer's planning (ok, if I we do this he will be dead in x rounds and only do x damage to use.
• increase randomness and variety in other ways. Give NPCs abilities they don't normally have. Change up numbers. All of this hinders an optimizers plans and planning and increases the feeling of chaos in combat. (I've got a math savant in my group, without these things he knows the results of a combat as soon as it starts.)
• Give the non-optimizers magic items to keep them up to pace the optimizers
• In combat, have the bad goes focus on the optimizers. They're not (always) dumb and are going to take out the PCs that are the biggest threat. Occasionally target one of the weaker ones so the optimizers are forced to change tactics and protect others.
• Add terrain and other challenges to combat, things that hinder optimizers because now they need none-combat skills, and allow the non-optimizers challenges and to shine. Who care if someone has AC25, resistance and a ton of hit points and output lots of damage if their are 20,000 kobolds and the only way to defat them is to overcome terrain, hazards and challenges to close the portal the kobolds are coming through?

In short, change things up. Adapt and make it so that optimizers are not optimized for the challenges you present to them!

 

[iserith]

No, you are not understanding. This is a tangent of what I’m talking about. It’s the weeds.

The problem is game breaking optimization and the typical optimizer attitude of needing to win an unwinnable game. Putting the mini-game of character creation ahead of the fun of the group. The problem is a storyteller DM trying to play with optimizers.

What does it mean to you to be a "storyteller DM?" What is it you are specifically doing that is being thwarted by optimized characters?

 

[overgeeked]

When everyone is super, nobody is.

Are you, as a DM, at all good at optimization? If so, you can have some fun.

Most optimized 5e builds are good at certain things. By providing items that selectively improve PCs that aren't that optimal build, you can change the playing field.

The dirty little secret of 5e is that monster HP and damage and stuff is within the DM's perview. If players figure out a way to deal 10x damage, you can literally take the monster manual, and add a 0 to every monster's HP.

I don't recommend doing exactly that, but on the other hand I sort of do.

First things first, what level of optimization are we talking about?

# Gonzo

Gonzo optimization is anything from 3e batman wizard to pun-pun. This level of optimization completely changes the game. You can deal with gonzo optimization, but it means the game you are playing changes from "traditional" D&D to something else.

But it is more likely that you'll just veto someone playing pun-pun and becoming an overgod. And that is ok, that is an option.

# Smash

Smash optimization is where someone becomes capable of dealing relatively insane amounts of damage. In 5e, this can vary from a nuclear wizard build, to a pure class paladin in a 1 fight/day game, a hexblade assassin samurai paladin whispers bard surprise critboomer frankenbuild (and I know, that isn't viable), a XBE+SS fighter, or even the only player in your group that bothers with a 20 in their attack stat.

They are dealing more damage than 2 other players, or maybe the rest of the party put together, or maybe even twice that. It makes the cooperative component of D&D of "reduce enemy monster HP" irrelevant, because only that player (or players) matter.

This one is the easiest to deal with. Odds are that the player has one particular attack style -- magic missile, daily damage boost, ranged weapon or great weapon. In that case, simply provide magic items that don't synergize with that build that are stronger than ones that do synergize with that build.

As an example, I have a bardcher in a game. I randomly rolled a class, googled the strangest build for that class, and the one I found was unfortuentally overly effective; it did damage on par or higher than damage dealers in the party, and had bard utility to boot.

The fix was simple; weapons make the flametongue look like toys (paired set of +2 finesse weapon that deals 3d8 cold damage, requires 1 attunement slot). The bardcher has a good weapon (heavy crossbow +2 that deals +1d6 necrotic and has some fun riders), but the damage gap collapses.

Once you have that, you just need to have beefier monsters (HP wise or whatever), and the problem evaporates.

By providing some items that align with the optimizer's abilities, you give them toys to play with; by providing better items for other players, you reduce the gap.

# Indestructible

Another kind of optimization is being impossible to kill. This one is actually easier to deal with; you can just accept it.

Have monsters sometimes attack the impossible to kill PC, but not always. When they do, the PC gets to shine. When they don't, the puzzle becomes "how to get them to attack the PC that is impossible to kill".

Include debilitating effects that aren't what that PC is immune to sometimes occur. These can vary from "suffer a level of exhaustion on it", or "you get a death save when hit", or slowed, or anything else. Such effects level the playing field; don't use them always; the goal is that the "build work" made to make the PC indestructible is rewarded narratively, but isn't a constant trump card.

You can also boost the durability of non-indestructible PCs to make the playing field less ridiculous. I mean, suppose the problem is a bear-barian with high HP. Any level of damage you could do to threaten the bear-barian flattens everyone else on the first blow.

The bear-barian's edge is two fold; one, more HP, and two, resistance to everything (except psychic).

An example of spreading the durability, you can have:

Shield of Blocking: When you suffer damage, you can expend a reaction to get resistance to that damage.

Now, the big bad guy who hits for 100 damage per swing (in order to threaten the barbarian) can now sometimes swing at another PC; if it hits, that PC gets a 1 shot resistance. This isn't as good as the Bearbarians's "resist everything". The item isn't as useful for the Bearbarian, because resistance doesn't stack.

# Control

Battlefield control is another thing. Here, the PC shuts down creatures, from minions to a boss, through use of game mechanics.

One approach is to just throw more naughty word at them, ideally in waves and geographically separate. The control-PC then shuts down wave 1 (probably with a concentration spell), and wave 2 the rest of the PCs have to handle.

The control-PC gets to shine (great), and there rest of the party gets fun stuff to do (and feels that if they where absent, the control-PC would be screwed).

# Minionmancy

Honestly this is the hardest one here. While minionmancy is in theory based off of "more damage" and "more toughness" and "more control", the big problem with minionmancy is how much time it takes up at the table.

Fixing the damage/toughness and control elements of minionmancy doesn't fix the time problem. Here is a case where you may be forced to swing the nerf bat hard, just because controlling a dozen buffed-up sub-CR 1 monsters is a problem even if they didn't do anything at all.

An approach I'm considering in my next game is twofold. First, a limited stable of monsters; a given spell known only gives you (proficiency bonus) "true names" to summon; that reduces "search through MM" issues. Second, it is to systematically nerf the mass-summon spells creature count, while at the same time buffing the individual monsters. Because I can deal with a player summoning 1 beefy summon; that is just damage, toughness and control (see above). I can't deal with 20 of them, D&D mechanics aren't simple enough; and mass combat rules are still too clunky.

The spells that summon 1/2/4/8 creatures are changed to summon 1/2/3/4 creatures. They share an animating spirit, which means they have one shared mind (including concentration and dismissal). They get a built-in buff of "add caster's proficiency bonus to AC/ATK/Damage/DCs" (this makes the 4 sub-CR 1 monsters about as nasty as before, and the 1 count monsters tough). At higher levels, you add 8/5/4/3 HP per slot level (8*1, 5*2, 4*3 and 3*4 give roughly the same number of HP per slot level), and every 2/3/5/6 levels they get a (single) extra attack. (2/1 = 2, 3/2 = 1.5, 5/3 = 1.7 and 6/4 =1.5 gives roughly the same number of slot levels per extra attack; in theory CR 2 taps are harder than CR 1/0.5 and 0.25 taps).

Polar Bear as a 3rd level spell (level 5 PC) is then
AC 15, 42 HP, +10 ATK, 1d8+8 damage/2d6+8 damage
27.5 DPR (before, was 21.5 DPR, at -3 to hit)
As a 9th level spell (Level 17 PC) the polar bear becomes:
AC 18, 90 HP, +13 ATK, 1d8+11 damage/4* (2d6+11) damage
86.5 DPR (before, was 110 DPR, at -6 to hit)

A flying snake as a 3rd level spell (level 5 PC) is then
AC 17, 5 HP, +9 ATK, 4+7 poison damage (times 4)
44 DPR (before, was 64 DPR, at -3 to hit)
As a 9th level spell (Level 17 PC) the snakes become:
AC 20, 17 HP, +12 ATK, 2*(7+7 poison damage) (times 4)
112 DPR (before was 256 DPR, at -6 to hit)

but that is just detailed numbers. The point is that minionmancy (and certain kinds of optimization) can lead to table-time problems, and the above techniques don't help with that.

Back in 4e, this also occurred with "tap-mancy", where you made a character that attacked 10 times per round for buckets of dice each time, including 1-2 off-turn interrupts every round. The damage issue was separate from the "oh my god this takes too long to resolve" issue.

If some players go for super optimized builds while others go for RP and character builds, you get some super characters and some not. That’s part of the problem.

The stuff causing issues is gonzo, high end smash, and unkillable. I’ve DM’ed for decades so I know a lot of tricks to deal with this stuff. My real problem is the attitude and lack of consideration for others.

The thing some of my players love to do and have fun doing is directly causing my other players to not have fun.

The only real solution is for a version of D&D (or Pathfinder) to finally implement a dynamic rulebook much like a videogame, where feedback can be used for timely patches.

In short: if the feedback data suggests one option yields higher than expected DPR and/or sees disproportionate usage, it would be reined in fairly quickly (no slower than 12 months later at the utmost).

For instance, spells rated red by guides would be brought up to at least green status a year later, significantly increasing the menu of viable choices. A particular build would no longer be nearly as OP some time later, allowing you the DM to simply trust the game system to sort out minmaxers itself.

In other words, the main culprit of your woes is the entirely obsolete publication model, where useless features (and entire subclasses) are left to languish - and attract attention from non-min-maxers - for years and years.

No. The problem is inconsiderate optimizers. If they didn’t need to break the game the flaws in the rules wouldn’t matter. But sure, if the system were perfect, there’d be no flaws to exploit. But that’s like blaming a burglary on an unlocked door. The fault isn’t the door, it’s the burglar.

What does it mean to you to be a "storyteller DM?" What is it you are specifically doing that is being thwarted by optimized characters?

Player types. Actor. Storyteller. Instigator. Explorer. Power gamer. Etc. My priorities are story and immersion and character. My priorities do not mesh well with those focused on power gaming and combat. I enjoy a good combat, of course, otherwise I wouldn’t be playing D&D. But that’s not the most important part of the game.

 

[Dausuul]

No, you are not understanding. This is a tangent of what I’m talking about. It’s the weeds.

The problem is game breaking optimization and the typical optimizer attitude of needing to win an unwinnable game. Putting the mini-game of character creation ahead of the fun of the group. The problem is a storyteller DM trying to play with optimizers.

You've got some players whose chosen playstyle is incompatible with what you want at your table. So boot them from the campaign. Or quit and let someone else DM. Or figure out a way to run the game that works for both you and them. Or do none of these things, and continue to be unhappy.

And that's about all I can say. You claimed that the optimizers were "naughty word-talking and dunking on the other players," and then it turned out that you considered the mere act of building an optimized PC to be "naughty word-talking and dunking." That shows your assessment of the situation cannot be taken at face value, and you are unwilling to provide specifics that would allow us to make our own assessments, so there's no way to have a productive discussion.

Dausuul out.