pming
Legend
Hiya!
I couldn't answer because "optimization" is relative to, er, "options used".
The base 5e game assumes PHB, MM, DMG...no Feats, No MC, no "Variant Human", etc. So, if this is the base, and the Players "optimize" their PC's...then my answer would be "No"; because the game assumes they have nothing unexpected. A group of Players creating characters that all help each other out so that THE GROUP is optimized for success (re: a F, MU, C, T in the group; group-shared equipment for specific tasks; spells chosen to offset/enhance other PC's special abilities; maximum number of Skills in the group with Prof bonuses; etc). This, imnsho, isn't actually "optimization" so much as it is "smart play and thinking".
Now...if you mean "optimization" in the full sense of the word regarding access to Feats, MC, other books, other 'sage advice' beta tests, etc?
Then a solid and vociferous YES! Not just "Yes", but "Yes...and if the DM doesn't do this they are failing miserably at their 'job' as DM". It'd be like playing poker where the dealer declares that all number cards are wild...except for the dealers cards where only 2's are wild. It's not going to work.
If the DM allows Feats and MC, for example, but that's it...then the "adjustments" to the campaign will need to be tweaked a bit here and there. A Goblin Forest that would normally have "Goblins Encountered: 1d6", might need to be re-written to "Goblins Encountered: 1d8 + 1d2 wolves". If the DM is also allowing one or two of the optional books (Tasha's, Mordenkainen's), then it might need to be "Goblins Encountered: 2d4 + 1d4 wolves/trained war eagles".
BUT...that "adjustment" needs to be across the board and campaign-oriented.... NOT specifically PC CAPABILITY oriented!
I have a saying I used to describe this sort of optimization crawl: "The Final Fantasy Effect". Back in FF (the first one), you started off doing 10 damage to things with 100 HP. You gained a level. Now you do 15 damage to things with 150 HP. You gained a level. Now you do 25 damage to things with 250 HP. Eventually you are doing 1500 damage to things with 15000 HP. The result.... 0. Nada. Nothing. Just bigger numbers with no sense of accomplishment.
It's a slippery slope though...Optimization-oriented (or "option oriented") Players expect their choices to be impressive because it is...on paper. But the books lie. They are lying to you, making you THINK you're "super elite mega whamdiddly", when in fact, so are all your opponents now. You swing, roll 1d20, add your +9 to hit, get a total of 26, and... miss. Because the creature doesn't have an AC 19 now...it has an AC 28. You gained nothing other than disappointment.
(Ok..should be obvious now that I am NOT a fan of "options optimization"...sue me! ).
Bottom Line: If the DM wants to allow more options/choices, he must build a world around those options/choices in order to maintain balance. Once the balance is obtained, and it all makes logical sense in his world...well then, the PC's can go nuts! Chances are there will be a lot of "glass canons" or "one-trick ponies", but hey...they made the choices. If a Fighter is absolutely AMAZING when fighting a Large creature alone, but suddenly find himself fighting a bunch of Small creatures...tough noogies. (True Story: Highest level PC in any of our games, level 7 barbarian, MOWED through almost anything...I let him play a Goliath and use a Giant Sized weapon to test the system; but, he had a 6 Int; he eventually encountered a creature that drained INT points...and died in one round after loosing initiative and 8 points of Int; and no, the player wasn't mad...he knew this day might come and he knew his number would be up).
^_^
Paul L. Ming
I couldn't answer because "optimization" is relative to, er, "options used".
The base 5e game assumes PHB, MM, DMG...no Feats, No MC, no "Variant Human", etc. So, if this is the base, and the Players "optimize" their PC's...then my answer would be "No"; because the game assumes they have nothing unexpected. A group of Players creating characters that all help each other out so that THE GROUP is optimized for success (re: a F, MU, C, T in the group; group-shared equipment for specific tasks; spells chosen to offset/enhance other PC's special abilities; maximum number of Skills in the group with Prof bonuses; etc). This, imnsho, isn't actually "optimization" so much as it is "smart play and thinking".
Now...if you mean "optimization" in the full sense of the word regarding access to Feats, MC, other books, other 'sage advice' beta tests, etc?
Then a solid and vociferous YES! Not just "Yes", but "Yes...and if the DM doesn't do this they are failing miserably at their 'job' as DM". It'd be like playing poker where the dealer declares that all number cards are wild...except for the dealers cards where only 2's are wild. It's not going to work.
If the DM allows Feats and MC, for example, but that's it...then the "adjustments" to the campaign will need to be tweaked a bit here and there. A Goblin Forest that would normally have "Goblins Encountered: 1d6", might need to be re-written to "Goblins Encountered: 1d8 + 1d2 wolves". If the DM is also allowing one or two of the optional books (Tasha's, Mordenkainen's), then it might need to be "Goblins Encountered: 2d4 + 1d4 wolves/trained war eagles".
BUT...that "adjustment" needs to be across the board and campaign-oriented.... NOT specifically PC CAPABILITY oriented!
I have a saying I used to describe this sort of optimization crawl: "The Final Fantasy Effect". Back in FF (the first one), you started off doing 10 damage to things with 100 HP. You gained a level. Now you do 15 damage to things with 150 HP. You gained a level. Now you do 25 damage to things with 250 HP. Eventually you are doing 1500 damage to things with 15000 HP. The result.... 0. Nada. Nothing. Just bigger numbers with no sense of accomplishment.
It's a slippery slope though...Optimization-oriented (or "option oriented") Players expect their choices to be impressive because it is...on paper. But the books lie. They are lying to you, making you THINK you're "super elite mega whamdiddly", when in fact, so are all your opponents now. You swing, roll 1d20, add your +9 to hit, get a total of 26, and... miss. Because the creature doesn't have an AC 19 now...it has an AC 28. You gained nothing other than disappointment.
(Ok..should be obvious now that I am NOT a fan of "options optimization"...sue me! ).
Bottom Line: If the DM wants to allow more options/choices, he must build a world around those options/choices in order to maintain balance. Once the balance is obtained, and it all makes logical sense in his world...well then, the PC's can go nuts! Chances are there will be a lot of "glass canons" or "one-trick ponies", but hey...they made the choices. If a Fighter is absolutely AMAZING when fighting a Large creature alone, but suddenly find himself fighting a bunch of Small creatures...tough noogies. (True Story: Highest level PC in any of our games, level 7 barbarian, MOWED through almost anything...I let him play a Goliath and use a Giant Sized weapon to test the system; but, he had a 6 Int; he eventually encountered a creature that drained INT points...and died in one round after loosing initiative and 8 points of Int; and no, the player wasn't mad...he knew this day might come and he knew his number would be up).
^_^
Paul L. Ming