D&D 5E Dealing with optimizers at the table

[overgeeked]

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.

 

[jgsugden]

Optimizers crave the "win" in tactics. Allow them to be the one getting it with their overpowered PCs. It makes them happy.

Reward the other players by focusing the story around their PCs. Give them the spotlight from a story perspective. It does wonders. This is obviously harder in a prepublished adventure, but you can work in elements to give the less optimized PCs a chance to shine.

In the end, if the optimization is so disruptive that it is ruining the fun of other players despite your best efforts to make it fun for them, then follow the final course of action:

1.) Talk to the rest of the group to make sure they see the same problem. If so, continue on below.
2.) Have the conversation with the player and lay out the ramifications of a failure to adjust.
3.) Let them know when they've reached the final warning. Make it clear to them that it is the final warning.
4.) LEt them know that they're out of the current campaign and that you look forward to including them in other games.

 

[Hriston]

Yes, you have to choose, and you should choose to play with people who share your gaming priorities. To do that, you need to ascertain what those are.

 

[overgeeked]

Optimizers crave the "win" in tactics. Allow them to be the one getting it with their overpowered PCs. It makes them happy.

I make a distinction between tactics in character building and tactics in play. Optimizers seem to want to win a game that can’t be won (D&D) by building the optimized character and steamrolling combat in game. There’s basically zero in-game tactics used other than “use optimized character as designed”.

And “letting them have the win” is basically option four I described above. Let all the tension evaporate from combat.

 

[ninjayeti]

Ultimately as the DM you decide what options are being used at your table and how the rules are being interpreted. I know lots of DMs who disallow some feats (SS/GWM) or all feats, some multiclass combos (Loc 2/anything) or multiclassing generally, etc. Most DMs house ruled Healing Spirit before the official change, and lots house rule other options they find OP. I think it is probably a bad idea to retroactively nerf stuff or take it away, but I don't think it is bad form to put stuff off limits before the game starts.

Since you seem to be having major issues I'd say tell your players the default is PHB only, no feats, no multiclassing - anything else is DM's discretion and subject to later change if you don't think it is working. If you think there is still some gamebreaking options let the players know upfront what is off the table or has been changed. The players that find this unreasonable are probably ones you would be happier without.

I'd also say that in my experience this is something DMs can overreact to. Yeah there are a few things in 5E that genuinely problematic, but letting one PC be a bit more effective because of savvy character building is not going to trivialize your encounters or ruin other player's fun.

 

[TheSword]

Can you give an example of something optimized. It would help to ascertain how bad the problem is.

There are degrees of this situation right? It’s not all the same.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

You already have your answer, it's right there in your first paragraph!

You're the DM - which means in this case you're also the designer. Your game, your rules.

So, by all means let your optimizers find the breaks so you-as-DM can remove or fix them.

This would, of course, need an up-front statement of intent at the start of the campaign along the lines of "Guys, optimize to your heart's content; if something comes up as broken as we go along I'll let it go for that session but by the following session you can assume I'll have tweaked the rules to whatever extent I have to in order to fix it."

 

[Flamestrike]

Doesnt really exist in 5E. All classes are pretty balanced against other classes, and most 'dips' are painful elsewhere now, even if they give you a situational benefit elsewhere. Even if for nothing more than delaying 5th level class features.

3.P is a totally different kettle of fish. Optimization and 'system mastery' was the whole point of the game.

 

[Dausuul]

One possibility, which may or may not work depending on your optimizer-players: Rather than asking them to tone down their builds, ask them to find builds that synergize with the other PCs.

Taking myself as an example: I usually play casters specializing in battlefield control. There's nothing I like better than a fellow player who just wants to hit stuff with a big sword. I'll buff Big Sword Dude till he glows in the dark, clear out the chaff with AoE damage, and watch Big Sword Dude unload on the boss for obscene damage. The monster is super evasive and likes to shoot from a distance? cracks knuckles We can fix that. I'll cast a movement-denial spell, or a teleport spell to put my ally next to the monster. Say hello to Big Sword Dude.

The more I optimize my caster, which is what I want to do, the more Big Sword Dude gets to roll dice and announce ridiculous numbers, which is what he wants to do. Everybody wins and has a good time. Except the monsters.

The key for optimizers is not to step on other people's toes. Find a niche, excel in that niche, and let other people have their own niches. This is a much easier pitch than "Just stop optimizing."

 

[Greg K]

There are several types of optimization and not all forms include powergaming or mini-maxing, I distinguish between the three and none of which need include cheating. With powergaming I also split it between being motivated by accumulation of power (leveling up and accumulating items) which does not require optimization and those trying to buiild powerful characters wanting to play a powerful character that easily defeats challenges, is more powerful than everyone else, or to meet a minimum threshold of power that they have set (e.g. equal to special forces, olympic athletes, etc.). That stated, I have no issue with some forms of optimization. However, min-maxing, powergaming, and cheating all result in conversations.
Power builds (if they exceed the campaign that I am running), Min-maxing, and cheating, all lead to conversations. with the player. The min-maxers and power builds (when an issue) have their builds shutdown as in the characters cannot be used at the table without modification. Ideally, it should not have come to this, because we have had conversations about characteer concepts and mechanical realization of the the concept. Plus, the player needs to provide their character's sheet. Furthermore, players were interviewed to ensure compatibility with mine and the group's playstyle. However, things do happen and I give the player the players feedback on what needs to be changed for the character to be acceptable and a chance to adopt to the style of game that I am running. If they are unwilling to adapt, they don't get to play.
Conversations with cheaters are to determine if the cheating was intentional or not. Accidental mistakes or misunderstanding are easilyI dealt with. However, if cheating it is determined to be intentional or is obviously intentional, the player receives a warning that cheating is not tolerated. They get one chance to change the behavior or they are out.