D&D 5E Dealing with optimizers at the table

[iserith]

I certainly do that, but enjoying the NPC interaction part of the game is a legitimate playstyle and I don't mind supporting it.

Sure. It's just good to know when the conversation has run its course in my view. Just like when talking to people outside the context of the game.

 

[TwoSix]

If instead, the baseline of your game is a Archfey warlock (pseudodragon familiar) who multiclasses druid for the nature theme, than yes, the sorcadin will probably break your game.

I've had a few players who have tried to go that route, we usually sit down and build something homebrew that gets them closer to what they want instead.

 

[TwoSix]

Just make sure the other players aren't falling asleep during these conversations (I'm the other player in this scenario. I sometimes play with a guy who insists on talking to every npc in the village every time we go there - it can take 2-3 hours of playtime.)

I'm accommodating, I'm not a martyr.

 

[NotAYakk]

You know what, you;ve changed my mind: Optimization could be part of the problem

I still think OP isn't going to fix their game by fixing the optimization issue - the optimized players aren't playing in good faith - but I previously would have said optimization isn't a problem without broken houserules/rulings.

And what is worse is that the BM+PAM+GWM fighter I sketched out isn't particularly super optimized.

It is a simple and effective damage dealing single classed character.

If you have a game that almost always has at most 1 real fight per day and doesn't use gritty rests, making one of many flavours of nova-paladin will outdamage the above fighter, and have damage spikes that are just ridiculous.

While dealing 200+ damage 1 round in 4, and ~50 damage otherwise, doesn't outdamage the above BM fighter, it does feel more impressive at the table, and makes the "I am not a competent combatant" feeling worse for non-optimizers.

---

This issue really isn't new to 5e D&D. It existed in almost every edition of D&D in my experience, going back to the edge of my functioning memory.

In 3e and 4e it was worse due to the removal of one of the DM's levers, magic item distribution. Both 3e and 4e "wealth by level" rules meant that the DM was implicitly constrained to handing out similar quality items to each PC.

The fact that 5e removes wealth by level -- and the expectation that a PC can pick and choose optimal magic items -- gives the DM an additional lever, and it is a very strong one.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Yea, but 2x, maybe 3x damage isn't game breaking, it's just slightly annoying. As @NotAYakk has pointed out, it's easy to fix with targeted buffs via magic items.

Not gamebreaking for you.
Look, if I were in the OP’s situation, I would probably do something similar to what @NotAYakk suggests. However, I can recognize that this is more difficult for certain DMs, who may have difficulty in adjusting combat challenge upwards (either because there aren’t as many strong monsters or because the new encounter doesn’t make narrative sense) or have trouble designing weapons that can close the gap (or are worried about perceived favoritism).

 

[TwoSix]

Not gamebreaking for you.
Look, if I were in the OP’s situation, I would probably do something similar to what @NotAYakk suggests. However, I can recognize that this is more difficult for certain DMs, who may have difficulty in adjusting combat challenge upwards (either because there aren’t as many strong monsters or because the new encounter doesn’t make narrative sense) or have trouble designing weapons that can close the gap (or are worried about perceived favoritism).

I don't agree with this. These aren't masterclass DM techniques (believe me, I'm hardly a masterclass DM). Tweaking encounters and giving out targeted items has been in the game forever, and are easily usable unless you have a commitment to a pure procedural sandbox and/or never using anything that isn't straight RAW, out of the books.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I've had a few players who have tried to go that route, we usually sit down and build something homebrew that gets them closer to what they want instead.

Our Archfey warlock with mask of many faces and actor feat did "break the game" by just beeing able to prevent combats from happening more often than not.

And with "break the game" I mean making the game a lot more interesting.

 

[TwoSix]

Our Archfey warlock with mask of many faces and actor feat did "break the game" by just beeing able to prevent combats from happening more often than not.

And with "break the game" I mean making the game a lot more interesting.

Oh yea, that's a great combo. Didn't DM that game, but the player who ran it did a really great job.

To be clear, I wasn't talking about Archfey Warlock specifically; I meant a player who took a terribly suboptimal MC choice for the sake of flavor. I'd rather build something for them that both has similar flavor AND is more cohesive on a mechanics level.

 

[Marc_C]

Another way to deal with optimizers is to play without feats and multi-classing. They are optional in 5e. That is how we play with my 5e group. They get ASI and I give them fun magic items.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not gamebreaking for you.
Look, if I were in the OP’s situation, I would probably do something similar to what @NotAYakk suggests. However, I can recognize that this is more difficult for certain DMs, who may have difficulty in adjusting combat challenge upwards (either because there aren’t as many strong monsters or because the new encounter doesn’t make narrative sense) or have trouble designing weapons that can close the gap (or are worried about perceived favoritism).

Adjusting challenges upward is what makes the game even more frustrating for the non-optimizers.
The better way is just targetting the more dangerous foe with save or suck spells that take them out of combat.
And when they ask why they are more heavily targeted, you ask them what they would do when presented with a foe they know who is more powerful than the rest...