TaranTheWanderer
Legend
I’m going to have to apologize for this post. After going back through the thread, I saw the post where the OP explained why they didn’t want to give examples. My bad.
D&D 5E Dealing with optimizers at the table
- Thread starter overgeeked
- Start date
Marc_C
Solitary Role Playing
The players can also deal with a disruptive optimizer. It's not always up to the DM. I recall one instance in which the player intervened using their characters.
The optimizer always forced combat if a social encounter was taking too long (for him). He just wanted to fight, fight, fight. Undergournd PCs were negotiating safe passage with a tribe of cavemen. Things were slow because of cavemen's limited speech skills but they were moving along. The optimizer attacked the cavemen chief with no apparent reason. The PCs where clearly outnumbered. The other players decided not to intervene when the optimizer's PC was attacked and killed by the cavemen. Their PCs took five steps back. After they gave more equipment to the cavemen as compensation.
The optimizer didn't force combat for no reason after that. Once again lesson learned.
The optimizer always forced combat if a social encounter was taking too long (for him). He just wanted to fight, fight, fight. Undergournd PCs were negotiating safe passage with a tribe of cavemen. Things were slow because of cavemen's limited speech skills but they were moving along. The optimizer attacked the cavemen chief with no apparent reason. The PCs where clearly outnumbered. The other players decided not to intervene when the optimizer's PC was attacked and killed by the cavemen. Their PCs took five steps back. After they gave more equipment to the cavemen as compensation.
The optimizer didn't force combat for no reason after that. Once again lesson learned.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I have some sympathy for players who do this because I have definitely been in social interactions that should have ended already but are still just droning on long after anything interesting or meaningful was wrung out of them. A lot of DMs don't know when to end the scene and move on.
My model isn't that a build ruins the game, my model is that a build compared to other party members ruins the experience.
A level 11 BM PAM GWM fighter can more than double the damage output of a naively built level 11 Ranger. They can hit 5 attacks/round reliably, connect for 20+ damage per hit, and connect reliably.
The naively built level 11 Ranger gets no noticable combat features from their subclass, mixes melee and ranged attacks (has TWF style), and does 2 attacks for about 10 damage at about the same hitrate at the BM's attacks.
If the player playing the level 11 ranger has in their head "I am a competent combatant" as part of their character image, this is completely broken. They are basically a non-combatant next to the more optimized PC.
A party where everyone is in the same league as that Battlemaster is a playable game of D&D.
A party where everyone is in the same league as the Ranger is a playable game of D&D.
A party where both are in it, well, it sort of breaks down. Making combat hard enough that the BM is challenged makes the Ranger into a speedbump. Making combat where the Ranger can contribute is trivial.
---
If your position, as a DM, is "I don't want to do anything" to deal with party power differences, then this is frustrating.
On the other hand, this specific case is fixable as a DM.
You give out the Glaive of Lost Souls, a +2 glaive that lets you cast "Soul Cage" 1/rest when you kill someone with it (only 1 at a time), and grants temporary HP on a hit. This doesn't boost the BM's offensive capabilities much more than a +2 weapon, but is awesome cool. If this is the only +2 polearm the BM is likely to find, they should still find it combat-optimal.
For the ranger, you give out Flamedancers. These rings can manifest either a pair of scimitars or a longbow. As a pair of scimitars, they are +2 scimitars that deal an extra 2d6 fire damage, and when using the two-weapon fighting bonus action you can attack twice instead of once. As a bow, it is a +2 bow that summons +2 arrows with Flame Arrow cast on them, and when you cast a spell as an action or bonus action you can also fire the bow once. In either mode, when you are hit by an attack as a reaction you can attack back; if your reaction attack hits, the triggering attack has to reroll with disadvantage.
The ranger goes from dealing 20-30 damage if everything hits (+7-10 if using HM) to dealing 66-85 (ranged-melee) (+10-14 if using HM).
The BM goes from dealing 100 damage if everything hits to dealing 105 damage.
Instead of being in different leagues, they are now in the same league.
If the BM is a sharpshooting XBE, then you'd have to do a different approach. A cloak that lets you cast HM when you hit a creature without expending concentration, and makes it deal 3d6 damage? Why not!
You, as the DM, have that lever.
---
Now, quite rightly this will trivialize the combats the party was facing prior to that kind of upgrade. But they where already trivial due to combat optimization of the 2 of the PCs.
Now, however, you are free to 2x, 3x or even 4x the HP of enemy monsters, or grant them resistance to all BPS damage, or whatever. (Don't do the same thing every time).
Come up with story reasons why these evil humanoids all have resistance to BPS. Maybe they are all frothing barbarians, or are life-linked to the liches soul cages with a tattoo.
And the game continues on.
---
Things go poorly if you mix the crazy items (or boons) with the high charop PCs. And the temptation to go overboard, and boost the non-charop combat abilities way over the charop PCs, is there (I'd resist it; the goal is not to punish, but to make the game fun).
A side benefit of making items customized to boost the non-combat abilities of the combat-charop PCs (like the soul cage thing above) is that people, when given toys, want to use those toys.
When they kill a creature, they get to ask the killed creature a question and get an honest answer. They get to compel the DM to give them a strait answer for once. For many people trapped by the "combat mechanics is the only way I can reliably get to impose my vision on the narrative" damaged players, that is like heroin, and can get them interested in the story.
Some DM using one of those annoying Cagey NPCs dropping hints? Just kill them and interrogate their soul.
Get in a fight with some assassins hunting you down? Kill the boss, and get an honest answer who hired them and why.
This might seem like a dead-weight loss. But by giving the PCs mechanical ways to interact with the plot, odds are they start giving a naughty word about the plot. And sure, they end up killing annoying NPCs.
But at least they are engaged in a plot.
Last edited:
Marc_C
Solitary Role Playing
I partiale agree with you but I say so as a player. I don't force the situation with an ill advised character action.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Yes, that is the better way to resolve it. "Let's wrap this up..." is better than "I attack this NPC we just spent 30 minutes talking to because I'm bored."
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Depends on how often they pull that crap and if the other players are interested in it the scenes he's sabotaging. If the other players are into it and it isn't a once in a blue moon kind of thing, I have zero sympathy for it.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I think the real issue in your example is that the ranger's player has the wrong expectations. I play a beast master ranger, for example. I do decent enough damage, just not as much as the barbarian in my group. But when it's time to travel to our next destination, everyone absolutely looks to me to make sure the party travels swiftly, doesn't get lost, and is aware of what kinds what monsters we might face ahead so they can prepare. He's better at combat. I'm better at exploration. The bard in the group is better at social.
In the hexcrawl campaign that I run, the ranger in the group won't make the session tonight. The party has been fretting at his absence all week in Discord. Not because he's great in combat, but because they know they will likely get lost and, due to events that have arisen organically during play, they really can't afford a lot of wandering around right now, nor fighting a lot of monsters despite the combat ability of some in the group. In this case, they really need someone good at exploration and they don't have it.
If, however, two PCs who are actually supposed to be capable in combat have a big disparity, to your point, this can be a problem of sharing the spotlight. I don't tend to care about this as a player though because I put the party first and a teammate who is better than me in certain areas - even areas I try to be good in - helps everyone. Granted not every player sees things this way.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Yes, well, obviously I'm talking about a scene that is well past its expiration date. Because that is a thing a lot of DMs do in my experience. They don't know when to say "CUT!"
FrozenNorth
Hero
Coffeelocks were also specifically mentioned.
If most PCs aren’t optimized, I could see sorcadins overshadowing the other players.
Honestly, it feels like the whole “you can’t break 5e” crowd has blinders on. If 5 of the players aren’t focussed on optimization (which the OP has already told us), it is pretty easy to make a moderately optimized character that outputs 2x or 3x the damage of the majority of the party.
Similar Threads
