D&D 5E Dealing with optimizers at the table

Horwath

Legend
If +2 to prime stat is so good that only five feats can match it, then it's that +2 benchmark that's too high.

Make it +1 instead, rein in those five feats, and you're good to rock. :)
yes, let's remove all tangible sense of character progress. If everything is equally bad, then we are all equal.

It vaguely reminds me of something...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think the general problem is that the OP did not actually say this; in fact they specifically stated that in a group of other optimisers, the game works fine.

This leads to the situation of people misrepresenting the OP by accusing them of views that they have not stated, in order to defend behaviour that is leading to an active loss of enjoyment to the DM and some of the players of a D&D group.

(Note that your post wasn't the worst of the personal attacks people appear to be making on someone asking for help. It was just the point at which I hit my personal "They can't all be misreading; they're doing it deliberately." point of disbelief. Don't take the face that I replied to you as an indictment that your post was any worse than some of the other ones in this thread.)
I would guess that the issue is that OP uses a word that the community defires one way to describe a totally different situation.

If someone comes asking for help, saying that they have situation X, and that they would like advice about solution Y, because solution Z is something they are not in a position to do. - Do you really think that telling them "Just do solution Z. lol" is helpful.
If someone comes asking for help with problem X, and get a bunch of suggestions for dealing with problem X, the respondent's aren't dismissing OP if OP really has problem P.

Not to say that rudeness is justified, but the confusion is obvious - he's got a mild munchkin problem, not an optimizer problem.
 

NotAYakk

Legend
If +2 to prime stat is so good that only five feats can match it, then it's that +2 benchmark that's too high.

Make it +1 instead, rein in those five feats, and you're good to rock. :)
Tne problem with this is that ASI levels are already mediocre.

So now multiclassing breaks further, as you can avoud ASIs better, Figgter and Rogue get worse.

Also ASIs have half feats; ban them all?

And ASIs have diminishing return on some classes; monks and barbarians have more use for more than wizards. Weakening ASIs makes wizards stronger and monks/barbs weaker.
 

TheSword

Legend
I’m with Overgeeked on this one. It can be much harder to ‘just have a serious conversation with’ or ‘kick to the cub’ someone who is a long time friend or someone’s partner.

Players who optimize usually have no problem spamming such effective tactics. While I as a DM have no desire to spam a solution. I’m trying to facilitate interesting experiences and spamming anything is anathema to that. Sure one encounter in 5 or 6 might have an area of effect that ignores an obscenely high AC. However I don’t want to exclude 70% of creatures in a game by focusing on these.

It has also been suggested that a way round a high AC is to target other players. This has the effect of rewarding the optimizer who gains even thicker plot armour as enemies divert around them like a train’s snow plough. Targeting PCs that haven’t optimized. This is unsatisfactory for me.

It is not satisfying to feel overshadowed. There is a big difference between what a character using an action, bonus action, multiple attacks and a reaction can do in a round vs a character that casts one spell or makes one attack. A big part of optimization involves making all these options hit hard. We know there can be problems with sentinel, polearm mastery, shield spells, some of the battlemaster techniques. Now it has also been suggested that multiclassing or feats be banned. Stopping everyone to else using things that are fun because some people combine them in the most efficient way possible and then spam that is not satisfactory either.

My piece of advice is to speak to one of the players in question out of game and say, that you aren’t enjoying the experience of DMing because of the optimization. Ask them to DM. Let them have the challenge of picking monsters and maintaining the balance of difficulty. Let them see the faces and reactions of the players when they feel overshadowed. Let them struggle to come up with reasonable reactions on an ongoing basis. Even if it’s for a couple of sessions it might open their eyes.

You never know, they may be great at it, if they apply all that ingenuity to something more supportive. If it doesn’t, well at least you tried. It’s then a question of bad gaming or no gaming. Time is precious. If it really can’t be resolved play Lords of Waterdeep instead and save the aggro.

PS. This is a genuine question to @Ruin Explorer how is Plate Armour and a shield AC 19?

PPS. The shield of faith can be cast as a bonus action and lasts all combat. @Horwath it doesn’t need to be used in every encounter, only needs to be used where the enemy is tougher or in big numbers. Enemies already struggle to hit AC 20+. The same applies for shield. You only need to use it in the 5-10% of hits that penetrate regular AC. This kind of Plan B casting where protection comes at little action economy cost and can be used as needed is extremely efficient (and optimized).

PPS. Really disappointed to see how personal things got at Overgeeked for sharing an opinion... particularly one that while debatable, isn’t extreme or even unusual. Seeing the reactions to my apparently ‘weak’ example of high AC, I can understand them not wanting to give their own adding fuel to the fire.
 
Last edited:


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
yes, let's remove all tangible sense of character progress.
Sometimes I wonder if that might not be a better idea than we give it credit for.

I'd far rather see level-up and mechanical progress as merely infrequent side-effects of play rather than being the reason for play.
If everything is equally bad, then we are all equal.
Bad or good notwithstanding, if everything is equal then balance concerns go away quite nicely. :)

And yes, a lower power baseline is preferable to a higher power baseline, mostly because it's easier to add things in later than it is to take them out.
It vaguely reminds me of something...
Oh?
 

dave2008

Legend
Why is the solution never have the optimizers stop? Why is the solution always to simply put up with it or mangle the rules to deal with them?
That is not true. Several people have told you to get rid of the player. Given the information you have provided, that is the only solution. You should listen to those you have suggested it,
 

TheSword

Legend
That is not true. Several people have told you to get rid of the player. Given the information you have provided, that is the only solution. You should listen to those you have suggested it,
I think Overgeeked means stop optimizing, not stop playing.

Even getting rid of a player is the nuclear option though. On par with stopping playing D&D. For some groups booting one integral player is the same same thing. The OP did say that was his last resort.

I really do think trying to get them to DM at some point is a good shout. I’m definitely a better DM having been a player at times, and have more respect as a player having DM’d. It’s a very different view from the other side of the screen.
 
Last edited:

hirou

Explorer
I don't hate either of them. I don't think they're bad people. I think they're incredibly rude. Because they're putting their fun over the fun and cohesion of the group. [...] And now that we're playing that, he's refusing to stop optimizing despite being asked and having other players voice their problems. He cares more about being able to optimize his characters for his enjoyment than the enjoyment of anyone else at the table
I'm focusing on a relatively minor point out of context, but I feel this is important enough. In a modern society there is a set of expected norms and behavior patterns, which in theory helps us coexist. Empathy. A bit of modesty. Politeness in speech. The problem is, when someone disregards these paradigms when others comply with them, he can usually achieve a temporary boost in individual success, "winning the D&D" in your case.
A friend of mine recently mentioned that one advice she would have told to herself from a decade ago is "you're not indebted to anyone for simply being nice to you". I've been reading this discussion from the start, and it gives me the impression that you feel obliged to somehow settle with the particular player's idea of a game, for whatever reason.
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 is from the very first post.
You say that they're not bad people, but through the thread you describe time and again that their style of play is barely tolerable to you and other players. You are angry at a (admittedly) flawed system, but you refuse to even call the culprit a bad person. Why? If you feel that "bad guy" is too strong of a moniker, at least admit that they are a dick. Everyone can be a dick, most people can even get better. And it's possible to be a dick in a particular set of activities, I am a sore loser in boardgames, but easily bet with awful cards in preferans and laugh at myself afterwards. If a person, verbally or otherwise, breaks the established covenant of your game (even after voiced concerns) and refuses to update either his habits or your game as a whole (a power gamer at my 4e table improved his public image significantly by politely discussing with other players their builds and team combos in battle) - there's no solution. You're allowed to have fun with this person in other spheres of life, but not in D&D.
 

Horwath

Legend
I think Overgeeked means stop optimizing, not stop playing.

Even getting rid of a player is the nuclear option though. On par with stopping playing D&D. For some groups booting one integral player is the same same thing. The OP did say that was his last resort.

I really do think trying to get them to DM at some point is a good shout. I’m definitely a better DM having been a player at times, and have more respect as a player having DM’d. It’s a very different view from the other side of the screen.
We cannot say no more is the player in fact (over)optimizing, or is the player just doing most damage because it is players role in party to do so.

After some people(me included) that the said player could be just a jerk, OP stated that the player did not in any way said something rude or threw around characters damage performance in others players face.

Now without precise specific build of named PC, we cannot give any sound advice how to proceed with this (false) accusation of optimization or give any direct advice on it.

but at this point I would not be surprised if OP is complaining that barbarian is dealing more melee DPR than a bard...
 

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Top