D&D 5E Dealing with optimizers at the table

[UngeheuerLich]

Oh yea, that's a great combo. Didn't DM that game, but the player who ran it did a really great job.

To be clear, I wasn't talking about Archfey Warlock specifically; I meant a player who took a terribly suboptimal MC choice for the sake of flavor. I'd rather build something for them that both has similar flavor AND is more cohesive on a mechanics level.

I think there are only few really bad combinations. But as a DM you should indeed warn a player that the combat effectiveness might suffer. Usually a warlock druid however could do quite a lot using wild shape, an invisible familiar, a balance of at will, encounter and daily spells and abilities.
And both classes are quite stat independant with the right choice of spells and can be elusive and durable.
A druid of the moon can even bring some combat power if needed.

 

[iserith]

Another way to deal with optimizers is to play without feats and multi-classing. They are optional in 5e. That is how we play with my 5e group. They get ASI and I give them fun magic items.

Yep, not every optional rule, variant, and UA needs to be on the table. Does it support your campaign's theme and goals? Include them. Otherwise, don't. (Or include some feats but not others.)

The only time I include feats in my game is when I expect there to be a lot of PCs (e.g. 2 to 3 PCs per player in a player pool of 6+ players) so that it reduces the chances of overlapping concepts or when the PCs are expected to be Big Damn Heroes like in my Eberron games. Otherwise, no feats.

 

[TwoSix]

I think there are only few really bad combinations. But as a DM you should indeed warn a player that the combat effectiveness might suffer. Usually a warlock druid however could do quite a lot using wild shape, an invisible familiar, a balance of at will, encounter and daily spells and abilities.
And both classes are quite stat independant with the right choice of spells and can be elusive and durable.
A druid of the moon can even bring some combat power if needed.

Sure, I mean it comes down to the player's choice, of course. They might want that specific mix of options. But a lot of players, in my experience, assume that the stuff in the books is their only option, and I like to make sure they know that in my games that is definitely not the case.

Like, I had a player who was running a necromancer wizard/spore druid for maximum zombie flavor, he was much happier (and more effective) when I pointed him towards a custom necromancer class from a Patreon I support.

 

[NotAYakk]

Not gamebreaking for you.
Look, if I were in the OP’s situation, I would probably do something similar to what @NotAYakk suggests. However, I can recognize that this is more difficult for certain DMs, who may have difficulty in adjusting combat challenge upwards (either because there aren’t as many strong monsters or because the new encounter doesn’t make narrative sense) or have trouble designing weapons that can close the gap (or are worried about perceived favoritism).

Yep, the trick was the equally awesome item that just happens to not make the problem worse, innocent look.

I don't agree with this. These aren't masterclass DM techniques (believe me, I'm hardly a masterclass DM). Tweaking encounters and giving out targeted items has been in the game forever, and are easily usable unless you have a commitment to a pure procedural sandbox and/or never using anything that isn't straight RAW, out of the books.

So, I have decades of experience in RPGs.

That "trick" is not an obvious one. Most people playing D&D are not people with anywhere near my level of experience.

And the DMG doesn't tell DMs to do that either.

Oh yea, that's a great combo. Didn't DM that game, but the player who ran it did a really great job.

To be clear, I wasn't talking about Archfey Warlock specifically; I meant a player who took a terribly suboptimal MC choice for the sake of flavor. I'd rather build something for them that both has similar flavor AND is more cohesive on a mechanics level.

As DM, I'd rather just change the rules so that the Archfey warlock is less incompetent.

But I like charop and game mechanics, and I suspect I'm decent at both. (dunning-krugar to the courtesy phone, dunning-krugar)

Adjusting challenges upward is what makes the game even more frustrating for the non-optimizers.
The better way is just targetting the more dangerous foe with save or suck spells that take them out of combat.
And when they ask why they are more heavily targeted, you ask them what they would do when presented with a foe they know who is more powerful than the rest...

I'd say "no".

Taking players out of combat is something you should do rarely, because "you don't get to play" is not fun. You don't fix a fun problem by making it not fun for other players. That is a zero-sum solution to a non-zero sum problem.

Sometimes doing that is great, doing it as a systematic solution to an overpowered PC is a bad one. Just kick the player from the group if you intend to do that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yep, the trick was the equally awesome item that just happens to not make the problem worse, innocent look.


So, I have decades of experience in RPGs.

That "trick" is not an obvious one. Most people playing D&D are not people with anywhere near my level of experience.

And the DMG doesn't tell DMs to do that either.


As DM, I'd rather just change the rules so that the Archfey warlock is less incompetent.

But I like charop and game mechanics, and I suspect I'm decent at both. (dunning-krugar to the courtesy phone, dunning-krugar)

I'd say "no".

Taking players out of combat is something you should do rarely, because "you don't get to play" is not fun. You don't fix a fun problem by making it not fun for other players. That is a zero-sum solution to a non-zero sum problem.

Sometimes doing that is great, doing it as a systematic solution to an overpowered PC is a bad one. Just kick the player from the group if you intend to do that.

That is just in the worst case of optimizers that resist every hint that their behaviour is taking all the fun out if the game.
But increasing the difficulty for everyone is just making things worse for the non optimizers.
At some point you need to let the optimizers know that the enemies (who in the story should have heard of the heroes) will send someone to deal with them, while the enemy's support cast deals with the rest of the party.

Again, just one of the later options when difderent things fail.
And on top of that, that might be fun for the optimizers, making them think about their defenses and so on.
And fun for the rest who can deal with foes they can take.

Look at buffy: she is clearly the optimized character. The rest (at least for the first few seasons) are sidekicks with social or knowledge focus. More often than not they are decoys to allow buffy to deal with the real foe.

Edit: to go back to the game. When the optimizer is disabled, a single melf's acid arrow might make it hard for the enemy to keep concentration up.

 

[LordEntrails]

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.

Actually the OP did give examples. They gave into pressure around page 10 or 12. But then of course as expected the debate turned into, "That's not broken..." "But if..." and other white room theory crafting. Most of what is not useful to the OP.

 

[TwoSix]

Actually the OP did give examples. They gave into pressure around page 10 or 12. But then of course as expected the debate turned into, "That's not broken..." "But if..." and other white room theory crafting. Most of what is not useful to the OP.

The OP has boxed themselves in so thoroughly that no useful advice could be generated. Fortunately, the thread turned into more constructive advice around how to deal with differing levels of effectiveness at the table, rather than just commiseration that building strong characters is evil.

 

[NotAYakk]

That is just in the worst case of optimizers that resist every hint that their behaviour is taking all the fun out if the game.
But increasing the difficulty for everyone is just making things worse for the non optimizers.
At some point you need to let the optimizers know that the enemies (who in the story should have heard of the heroes) will send someone to deal with them, while the enemy's support cast deals with the rest of the party.

I am saying this isn't a good solution. You do not need to do that.

This assumes your only levers are changing what NPCs and monsters do in the world. And that is not your only options.

Your position seems to be that the rules of D&D, the monsters in and NPCs in the world, and the treasure in the world are all fixed and out of your control as a DM.

And the only thing you control is the behavior of the NPCs.

This is explicitly not the case. You, as the DM, are not just the player of the NPCs and monsters. You are in charge of the world and how it works.

If you are playing D&D as if you are "the player of the monsters", then yes, this becomes your only choice. I am saying that this is not a good plan.

This is basically a trap.

Again, just one of the later options when difderent things fail.
And on top of that, that might be fun for the optimizers, making them think about their defenses and so on.
And fun for the rest who can deal with foes they can take.

Look at buffy: she is clearly the optimized character. The rest (at least for the first few seasons) are sidekicks with social or knowledge focus. More often than not they are decoys to allow buffy to deal with the real foe.

So there is an RPG bulit around the buffy universe.

In it, the slayer character has a bunch of mechanical things that nobody else can match. The slayer is awesome at slaying.

The support characters both get narrative abilities that let them impact the game, and have the ability to invest in abilities that the slayer doesn't have an advantage in (like knowledge, social, whatever).

But here, the game (a) seeks buy in, where only one player plays the slayer, and everyone knows they are the combat-god, and (b) has mechanical systems to make it so that the other characters get spotlight time as well.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am saying this isn't a good solution. You do not need to do that.

This assumes your only levers are changing what NPCs and monsters do in the world. And that is not your only options.

Your position seems to be that the rules of D&D, the monsters in and NPCs in the world, and the treasure in the world are all fixed and out of your control as a DM.

And the only thing you control is the behavior of the NPCs.

This is explicitly not the case. You, as the DM, are not just the player of the NPCs and monsters. You are in charge of the world and how it works.

If you are playing D&D as if you are "the player of the monsters", then yes, this becomes your only choice. I am saying that this is not a good plan.

This is basically a trap.

So there is an RPG bulit around the buffy universe.

In it, the slayer character has a bunch of mechanical things that nobody else can match. The slayer is awesome at slaying.

The support characters both get narrative abilities that let them impact the game, and have the ability to invest in abilities that the slayer doesn't have an advantage in (like knowledge, social, whatever).

But here, the game (a) seeks buy in, where only one player plays the slayer, and everyone knows they are the combat-god, and (b) has mechanical systems to make it so that the other characters get spotlight time as well.

Ok, so don't...

You can do that though and it is a solution.
No, I don't only play monsters and NPCs,
and if you read my posts more carefully you'd see that in my games combat is not mandatory at all and there are a lot of other solutions.
I am not sure if you are the one who made a special flaming double scimitar thing to power up the other players...
Yes, that is also a part of the solution. As is limiting options for everyone (no feats, no multiclassing).
I also have changed the resting rules to make the game more balanced (so the assumption 6 to 8 combats per long rests is more easily achieved on which class balance used to be based.

Used to be, because per short rest in newer books seems to be replaced by prof bonus per long rest.

There are a lot of parts in this puzzle. Playing foes that have knowledge about the group use it to their advantage is one of them. And since this knowledge is based on previous encounters, it is one of the last solutions in and out of game.

Edit: you can count the times I used this last solutions one one hand, and the message was well received in all cases. Made the optimizers think a bit more about defenses.
I do agree however, that you must be careful to not get into an arm's race against the optimizer. You should not put someone against them, that is just nullifying their stengths by being better. Instead you need to target their weak spot and need to be ready to have a real in game explanation.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

It takes two to tango: clearly at least one other player was still engaging in the interaction, thus giving it a reason to continue.

Either that, or the DM was talking to him/herself.

And yes, if my PC gets bored (some have a considerably higher boredom threshold than others) I'll have it do something, even if it's just to walk out of the scene and start exploring.