D&D 5E Dealing with optimizers at the table

[NotAYakk]

I disagree. Who cares what type the trees are if one is trying to avoid the forest? It's not about how optimized the builds are, it really doesn't matter.

The OP says their is a forest that they want to avoid, so how do they go about going around the forest or even cutting it down? Never does it matter what type of trees are in teh forest if you are going to drive/fly/walk around the outside of it. There are very few situations that it matters what type of tree you are cutting down. You're still going to use an axe or a chainsaw or a bulldozer, depending upon what you have.

And then you run into a redwood.

 

[Horwath]

That’s a bit of hyperbole there. There are plenty of spells to chose beyond those four.

I was just explaining how play-a-wizard-like-it-is-champion looks, more or less.

You shouldn’t need to go through Treantmonks tiers of spell list selected the most effective at each level to have fun in the game.

why not? nothing wrong in finding advice from people who spent more time on D&D than you. Especially if it is a good advice.

Optimizing spell choice, so everyone takes the same spells on every wizard, like a computer game is utterly boring. The flaming sphere/booming blade combo shouldn’t be trotted out on every bladesinger because it’s most effective. Neither should shadow blade be an automatic choice.

There is quite a few good spells for every level. No need to make a carbon copy of every wizard. But learning to spot a trap spell choice is very nice skill to have as a player.

 

[CleverNickName]

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'm a little late to the thread, but this is what I've done in the past: PHB only, no optional books, but the occasional exception will be made for the sake of an interesting character story. And then we have "the talk" about what they should expect in the game.

I'll explain that combat will be infrequent, and won't happen every gaming session...and the combat that does happen will have lower stakes. I'll tell them that we are going to be using milestone leveling, and that rewards are going to be based on how well they roleplay their characters' Bonds, Goals, Ideals, and Flaws. How many monsters they kill, or how quickly they can kill them, will never be in the spotlight.

And most importantly: I'll explain that things like paladin Oaths and warlock Patrons aren't going to be hand-waved, they are going to be primary and recurring focal points for the characters, and plot hooks for the whole party. Your bard belongs to a College, so over the next 20 levels, we are going to meet your headmasters, we are going to explore your campus, we are going to meet rival students and mentors, etc.

That sort of thing. Once the expectations are laid out and everyone understands them, things usually get better.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The only real solution is for a version of D&D (or Pathfinder) to finally implement a dynamic rulebook much like a videogame, where feedback can be used for timely patches.

In short: if the feedback data suggests one option yields higher than expected DPR and/or sees disproportionate usage, it would be reined in fairly quickly (no slower than 12 months later at the utmost).

I’m thinking...something involving stickers?

 

[LordEntrails]

And then you run into a redwood.

lol, can't admit a view other than yours huh?

Redwoods can still be driven around, or through!. They also can be cut down. Other than size, you still use the same tools to cut down a redwood as you do a ponderosa.

But to re-iterate; it matters naught how optimized a PC is. It matters naught what the PC build is. It matters that the OP has a problem/issue with a player and would like practical and useful discussion on how to solve that problem. Not discourse that they don't have a problem or other distractions.

 

[FrozenNorth]

If we were talking about 3.x then I would be right there with you. But I have not run across that level of game breaking optimization in 5th. Which does not mean anything, I am not a great optimizer myself, but I have lurked and read around and tried to find the game breaking builds. Like others, the only builds I have seen that approach game-breaking are higher level and using multiclass.

The only difference may be where you and overgeeked are drawing the line at “breaking the game”. As a DM, I would consider that one PC that did 3x the damage of others would be breaking the game. I would consider that one PC who could render trivial most combat encounters with a single spell (not always the same one) to be breaking the game. Finally, I would consider that any PC for whom I would have to consistently rebalance combat encounters to be breaking the game.

If 4 of overgeeked’s players consistently do around 1d8 + 3 dmg on their turn, a player consistently doing around 3d8 + 9 damage could feel like it was breaking his game. I’m pretty sure that there are several builds that can do this level of damage pre-level 5. Likewise, there are several 2nd and 3rd level spells that can trivialize encounters.

There are several ways of dealing with these situations, including cracking down on 1 encounter workdays, using misdirection, and varying encounters. Implementing some of these may even make you a better DM in the long run. But that IS extra work, and it is extra work for the person who is already doing the most work on the campaign.

So, too summarize “breaking the game” is a relative term, and I don’t think it is productive to pretend that large disparities in character effectiveness can’t make the DM feel like his game is broken.

 

[FrozenNorth]

No it's not.

As with these 5 feats, you are just about the same in power level of taking +2 to primary stat.

If a feat cannot compete with +2 to primary stat(not just combat, but overall value) then it is not designed properly.

That’s just... completely wrong. Let’s consider a theoretical feat, worth +1.5 a character’s main stat.

Further, let’s ignore that the value of the feat may be subjective, that the feat may be more useful for certain builds, or for RP purposes, or for certain campaigns... Let’s ignore all that. Just a feat that is functionally equivalent to a 1.5 to the character’s primary stat.

Just off the top of my head, that is still a good feat for a variant human to take (since he can’t take the +2), or to take once you’ve maxed out your primary stat.

 

[TwoSix]

I'll explain that combat will be infrequent, and won't happen every gaming session...and the combat that does happen will have lower stakes. I'll tell them that we are going to be using milestone leveling, and that rewards are going to be based on how well they roleplay their characters' Bonds, Goals, Ideals, and Flaws. How many monsters they kill, or how quickly they can kill them, will never be in the spotlight.

And most importantly: I'll explain that things like paladin Oaths and warlock Patrons aren't going to be hand-waved, they are going to be primary and recurring focal points for the characters, and plot hooks for the whole party. Your bard belongs to a College, so over the next 20 levels, we are going to meet your headmasters, we are going to explore your campus, we are going to meet rival students and mentors, etc.

Divination or Enchantment Wizard, then. That was easy.

 

[CleverNickName]

@TwoSix I'd love it if someone at my table would roll up a Diviner or Enchanter. I'm pretty weary of Evokers and Necromancers.

 

[TwoSix]

@TwoSix I'd love it if someone at my table would roll up a Diviner or Enchanter. I'm pretty weary of Evokers and Necromancers.

If you're telling players you only do combat every couple of sessions, and they're still choosing Evokers, I question some of their thought processes.