D&D 5E Dealing with optimizers at the table

[Lanefan]

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, [to the BM] ...

For the ranger, you give out Flamedancers.

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.

---

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).

The problem here is that the solution requires powering up the weaker to match the stronger and then powering up the opposition to match both.

And so it just becomes an arms race: in other words 3e all over again.

Far preferable IMO is to de-power the stronger to more closely match the weaker, thus stopping the arms race before it begins.

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.

This is how we already do it and have for many years: Speak With Dead compels truthfulness in the answers given (though that truth can sometimes be lawyered or nuanced if the target was that sort of person).

All it takes is to do this in 5e is a five-minute rewording of the Speak With Dead spell and you're good to go.

 

[iserith]

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.

Nobody is obligated as DM or player to continue engaging in an interaction that has run its course. Attacking to end one that has isn't a good move in my view. The player is better off using his or her inside voice and saying, "Hey, there's not much left on the bone here - can we move on as a group?"

 

[Lanefan]

Nobody is obligated as DM or player to continue engaging in an interaction that has run its course. Attacking to end one that has isn't a good move in my view.

I'd say this one's open to debate, as it depends on circumstance and-or who the interaction is with and why.

Attacking an overly-garrulous but otherwise innocent bartender is poor form.

Attacking a BBEG to cut short his monologue is a capital move every damn time!

The player is better off using his or her inside voice and saying, "Hey, there's not much left on the bone here - can we move on as a group?"

My preferred option as a player is somewhere in between - using actions rather than words to signal it's time to move on but not necessarily attacking someone or provoking violence.

 

[ad_hoc]

"Optimization" in 5e is largely smoke and mirrors. There is no great secret. The people are not the greatest strategists on the planet (go to an optimization board and ask them what accomplishments they've gotten in competitive games and you will get crickets).

It takes 3 main forms:

#1 Choosing the stronger option. Leather or Studded Leather? Well the latter is 1 more AC so if they both fit the character concept most people will choose the better one. Everyone can do this and it is expected. People who don't fancy themselves optimizers usually create a character concept first then find options to realize it while optimizers choose options first and then seek to justify those options with narrative explanations. This is fine.

#2 Incorrect rules. Sometimes this is rules abuse. The answer here is to just say no and don't engage in an argument. Everyone knows what is going on. If they argue don't play with them. Sometimes this is misinterpreting the rules, though it is almost always done in the favour of the PC. A common example of this is the Rogue Assassin having auto-crits even if they lose initiative. Another example is Darkvision granting full sight even though darkness is only considered dim light. Ability Checks are often misunderstood too. As a DM if something doesn't feel right it probably isn't. Sometimes official rulings are bad too. Feel free to change rules to fit your game.

#3 Expecting the DM to cater their game to them. This is the big one. Optimizers tend to create hyper specialized characters and then cry foul if the DM doesn't change the game so that their character can be the star of the show and trivialize everything. The answer here is to just not allow the player to dictate the game. If they make a character who is probably going to have trouble warn them ahead of time. Then tell them if they are into optimization they should create a PC who will be good in many situations, as D&D is often a game of unique situations. All rounder and adaptable characters are secretly the strongest, having the more moments to shine.

Some examples:

1. Super high AC. All creatures, unless they have a specific reason not to, should just go attack other PCs. Don't play all monsters as zombies.
2. Low AC ranged spellcaster. Creatures should be getting into melee and attacking these characters a lot. On optimization boards it is assumed that if a PC doesn't engage in melee that they simply won't be in melee and will be 'safe.' And a DM who has creatures attack them is 'out to get them.' Well yeah, combat is dangerous.
3. Don't let players choose their magic items. This again is something common on optimization boards. They assume they will have specific items for their 'builds'. Polearm Mastery is a good feat, but if a player wants to take it on a low level character warn them that the odds of finding a magic one is pretty low.
4. The character who sneaks ahead of the party to get in some preemptive attacks is going to have a good time, until they don't. Sometimes the hunter becomes the hunted and without a party around to save them, they're probably going to die. Warn the player ahead of time that splitting the party is usually a bad idea. If the character dies don't engage in their whining.
5. Concerning Ability Checks. Not all actions which result in an Ability Check only require 1 combat action. When I set a scene I ask everyone what their characters are doing and then I resolve their actions. The Cleric might say they are helping another character and casting Guidance for them, but that means they aren't helping someone else. In practice Guidance should not be used on all Ability Checks. If the characters have no pressure and can do everything they want then you probably shouldn't be making Ability Checks anyway. Just because only 1 PC decides to talk to a NPC(s) doesn't mean they are the only one to roll the check. Make Charisma checks group checks since the whole group is there and those other characters who are just standing around will be making an impression whether they want to or not (give them all a chance to say or do something first, if they choose to not do or say anything that is on them).
6. There should be consequences to long rests. If they can just rest whenever they want without consequence then why are you playing out the adventure? Where is the excitement? The drama? Just narrate that they loot the dungeon and move on to something more exciting. There should be stakes. 8 hours is a long time in a dynamic environment. What are the character's goals? How are other creatures reacting to them? Etc. You should have answers to what happens if they attempt to rest before the adventure begins. Optimizers will cry 'DM fiat!' and 'you're taking away my agency!'. This is both how the game is structured and how action/adventure stories are structured.

Intentionally or not, optimizers need to bully the DM to get their feeling of being powerful. At the end of the day tell them that this is a group game telling an ensemble story. They don't get to be the star. If they create a hyper specialized character then they should be prepared to rarely shine. That's on them, not you.

 

[TwoSix]

Nobody is obligated as DM or player to continue engaging in an interaction that has run its course. Attacking to end one that has isn't a good move in my view. The player is better off using his or her inside voice and saying, "Hey, there's not much left on the bone here - can we move on as a group?"

Yea, that's what I typically do as a DM, too. Switch over to meta-voice and say "I'm happy to let you guys keep talking to this NPC if you're enjoying it, but you've probably gotten about as much relevant information as you can."

 

[iserith]

Yea, that's what I typically do as a DM, too. Switch over to meta-voice and say "I'm happy to let you guys keep talking to this NPC if you're enjoying it, but you've probably gotten about as much relevant information as you can."

My players are the type to keep an NPC alive and talking just to make me do some silly accent longer than I want to, not because they're having some kind of deep conversation. They refused to slay a crawfish monster in Tamoachan because I named him Zatarain and he had a Cajun accent.

 

[cmad1977]

It was kinda rhetorical. I don’t want to stop them from having fun. I want them to stop destroying the fun of the other players. They don’t care and I don’t know how to make them care. As you say, incompatible playstyles.

They seem like the type of people I wouldn’t play with.
Start a new table without them.

 

[cmad1977]

Two PCs working together - let's burn them at the stake!

Broken combo!

 

[cmad1977]

I really can't agree as a player. I could care less how much someone outstrips me in damage. I get that not every player thinks this way. But I'm more team-oriented - a teammate who does well is good for me and everyone else.

Yeah... the concept of being “outshone” is really weird to me. It’s very.... computer game.

 

[Non-Proficient]

I'm playing as part of an optimized team (D&D: Optimized Battery and the Blender; episode #26) in a campaign now. It didn't start out that way- my first character was an Ice Witch modeled after Tzarina Bokha from the Warhammer Total War trailer. Vos (Birthright) cleric, Winter Domain homebrew that I got the DM nod for. Then I found out we weren't actually playing Birthright, but a few parts of the lore was grafted onto a generic homebrew setting. Bleh. We had just exited a campaign set in Eberron (at least that's what we bought into) that ended up just being a 2e module with nary a mention of a steam pipe. I wanted to save the concept on the off chance we'd play WHFRP.
I set out to play a commoner (generic setting - generic concept) but since we were starting at level 3, opted to play a cult fanatic instead. Point buy matching stats, Fighter 1/Cleric 2 Knowledge Domain. two-weapon fighting with curved ceremonial daggers, it was a near-direct copy/paste of the back of the Monster Manual stat block [besides the level 2 spells (the sub-optimal cultist fanatic needs that 4th level to come online fully)] His cult was MLP -a secret Brony. The group (hopefully) was never to find out that tidbit- he wore a leather cap/cowl that hid his rainbow-dyed mop. Since the character was confined to leather armor by the design constraints and rolled a 17 on the 5d4 he had as starting gold- he had enough funds for a donkey named Peanut & cart kit and about 900 lbs. of common gear & rations -cart included. Extra sets of clothes, extra lanterns, shovels, -you can buy a lot of gear with the money you save if you don't care about optimization. Once my DM saw the cleric Dolf's extensive array of exploration trappings, a text went out to the group as a reminder that there are no roads & we'd be traveling through the woods. Fine, it's not like I didn't forsee manticores, hippogryphs, and chimeras to start circling overhead salivating over Peanut's hindquarters the moment our ship dropped anchor, but it peeved me a bit that we only got this information after the fact --our previous instructions were to gear up and come prepared.
After that news, I just looked online, saw an optimized team-build, and went with that. Patterened the Order Cleric as Victor Von Doom and flavored all of the spells to fit his Doom Domain that is just Order Domain renamed. He's a fallen prophet of doom, yay. The 'blender' player, my partner in crime, is his zealot follower/bodyguard.

Since 5th came out, our game has slowly devolved over the years. It is rewardless: milestone leveling at a snail's pace, the treasure ends up on a scrap of paper in somebodies papers that likely won't be there next session that will never get divvied out anyway, theatre of the mind combat that starts sometimes more often than not 300 yards away because -reasons (yet I still don't roll a Warlock because it would then be cramped dungeons all the way down from then on), we play online but never seen a map, the initiative is group initiative and the characters go in the same order (by initiative bonus) every combat. And just like op, I've asked patiently at the start of each new campaign (they peter out around 5th level out of boredom usually) for some player concessions to our playstyle that have gone nowhere because if it makes combat any longer than the 33% of the time begrudgingly allotted to us so that we show up, verboten! When I presented our build to the DM they said they understood the concept but didn't like =power builds= (yet presumably we live in a world where BBEG the likes of Rhuobhe Manslayer exist - "Illusionist? Not today. Archer? I'm immune to bolt throwers son.", besides that, does anyone familiar with that build consider it overly op?). My mind was on fire silently screaming "Well if you would've let me take the donkey cart, we wouldn't be here!" The point I'm trying to make is- there can be a lot of little things, minor things, that pile up leading up to players behaving like this and it can be complex and nuanced to the point that OP isn't aware enough to report on. I can assure you, my DM thinks his games are g-r-e-a-t. I'm a grumpy old grognard with slightly different opinions of his lazy methods, but I grin and bear it for now because it's just a game after all and I'm just as lazy about finding a better table for my desired playstyle. So in the meantime, the DM & I engage in petty passive-aggressive tit-for-tat measures on the sidelines. It spills over in-game in subtle ways I believe.

I'd be totally willing to swap out an optimized character if my DM gave us XP leveling back, or grid play, or something. It should be more of a two-way street since all of our time is equally valuable, but for the majority of the decisions about how we play, the DM has been willing to brush suggestions aside in favor of their own preferred ways. So while the perceived notion is that these two terrible optimizers are wholly at fault and should be kicked (a sentiment I agree with albeit for different reasons), I can't rely on one person's account of things to know that there aren't other things at play because of my biased experiences.

If it's anything like my situation- You should kick them out AND they should have already quit. But sometimes we stay way past the point of the obvious.