D&D 5E Dealing with optimizers at the table

[Non-Proficient]

I wasn't specifically thinking of 5e; more of 3e where such things were quite possible, and of 1e where it's kinda possible if the DM lets it happen.

I hear ya. That explains why I didn't catch on. I only played a few games in that edition. An unoptimized ranger that picked up a Grey Render companion that I didn't even know at the time what it was. It was explained as sort of a blue slaaad, but friendlier & gray. That's when my bowstrings would always be breaking on nat 1's. I never bought a single book from that era. 5e is my first WotC D&D purchase. I played more isometric 3e video games (gasp) than in-person. WHFB consumed my gaming time. It toughens your skin to "WAAC" play. Far more wailing and gnashing of teeth in that realm. Nothing I've seen or heard in 5e would get more than a smirky eye-roll out of me. There was army comp. scores if you were trying to be competitive to consider. I took fluffy armies that got steamrolled and picked up best sportsman pity awards lol. Nothing like a comp. score to in 5e to curtail poor form besides bent feelings of other players I suppose. That's not gonna cut it with some types of players.

 

[fearsomepirate]

At lower tiers, this can sort of be attempted with a knowledge domain cleric casting enhance ability on themself for advantage on the skill check. It only lasts for 10 minutes once per day though. I don't think that goes far enough for what you mean, so might I inquire about any more egregious examples that exist in 5e that make excelling at everything possible? Preferably something coming online pre-10th level that doesn't rely on theory-crafting like some proposed power-builds involving the unlikely availability of a minecraftesque purple worm farm for venom in their calculations...

A lot of them revolve around 2-dipping warlock, particularly the Hexblade, to break a class out of its niche for a fairly low cost, since

a) Eldritch Blast+Agonizing Blast+Hex is martial-tier damage, not cantrip-tier damage
b) EB scales with player level, so delaying Extra Attack isn't as big a deal
b) Hexblade removes MAD from several classes, so delaying an ASI isn't as big as deal
c) Hexblade's Curse is on par with a paladin's Channel Divinity in power

It's not quite on par with some of the ridiculousness people concocted in 3.5, but you do end up with classes that feel almost as powerful as their single-classed version while gaining a disproportionately huge boost in something outside their normal niche compared to what you'd get from a 2-level dip in any other class.

 

[Non-Proficient]

A lot of them revolve around 2-dipping warlock, particularly the Hexblade, to break a class out of its niche for a fairly low cost, since

a) Eldritch Blast+Agonizing Blast+Hex is martial-tier damage, not cantrip-tier damage
b) EB scales with player level, so delaying Extra Attack isn't as big a deal
b) Hexblade removes MAD from several classes, so delaying an ASI isn't as big as deal
c) Hexblade's Curse is on par with a paladin's Channel Divinity in power

It's not quite on par with some of the ridiculousness people concocted in 3.5, but you do end up with classes that feel almost as powerful as their single-classed version while gaining a disproportionately huge boost in something outside their normal niche compared to what you'd get from a 2-level dip in any other class.

Ah. Thank you for the rundown. More Warlock dipping. Looks like their rules (warlock) and/or multiclassing could get revised in the future (maybe). Then everyone will rush to the next best thing. It's not my style, but I personally wouldn't care if my team-mate brings it. It's too samey. It's an MtG net deck. And that genre is rife with that kind of stuff. If you wanted to play at an LGS with a heavy competitive meta (aren't they all to some extent it seems?), you'd have to bring a top-tier deck to compete at a consistent rate. If you didn't want to do that, too bad- you don't have a say in it. But OP does. Not that it matters, but is this kind of warlock dipping thing allowed in AL? I know about the (soon defunct?) PHB +1 rule, but never having played at one wasn't sure what flies at most of those tables.

I have seen so many games wherein an arms race ensues cheapening the experience overall for some while making others thrive on it. Heroclix teams taking whatever mix of DC/Marvel plastic crack synergizes best that month, I was left thinking: "Wouldn't the Fantastic Four vs. the Brotherhood of Evil make for a better game? Oh, the Brotherhood of Evil is statistically worse off in that matchup and you want to win. Okay. Hand me Silver Surfer, Batman and Mephisto I guess"* We've all experienced this, and it's not just video games either, -it's hobby gaming in general, it's fantasy entertainment: Geralt/Drizzt/Gary Stu types/approximations of Vin Diesel's Melchor ...apparently... not some schlep on page 199 of the PHB even if he has a way better backstory. It's everywhere in life. Move over thematically rich characters with superior backstory, we're gunning for "serviceable" -and we've finally hit that in the director's cut -Subscribe Today.

True, D&D is widely understood to be a co-operative experience, but it can easily be viewed as a "my character vs. trolls, giants, & dragons" simulator. Good luck overriding that outlook with a shared-storytelling vision. You can guide them to bold print saying as much in the "What is a role-playing game?" section, but they'll still cling to the power fantasy if that's what they want from it. And they're not wrong to do so. Ergo optimization, ergo munchkinism, ergo ergo ergo...

With 5e being the best-selling RPG how could this pervasive gaming/cultural mentality not spill over into our tables? OP is in one of the better positions to curate the experience at a private table and enjoy that [sparkly font] something more [/sparkly font]†, but it requires dealing with the world of people of other stripes with counter-productive priorities. "The optimizers" -as OP likes to put it.

Nuke them from orbit -it's the only way to be sure. Or some other solution offered, or something of your own design, Silver Bullets or Cold Iron maybe. My personal recommendation: A 5e Mouseguard adaptation... because then at least I can read on the internet about broken warlock-sorcadin mice whacking owls & rattlesnakes disproportionately to the rest of the troupe.

​

* I have no clue what the current best line-up of Clix is obviously. I got to play the more thematic match-ups at home.
† just to clarify, I'm elevating this phrase not making fun. My prose comes off more Crass than a punk band from Essex, but that is just my curse.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Yeah, multiclassing is allowed in AL. While a lot of "ultimate" builds rely on a dodgy reading of the rules or 5-minute workdays, both of which are easily countered by a DM without invoking house rules, 2-dipping warlock is straightforward cheese.

Aside from goofball builds, there's also been power creep in the expansions. As of Tasha's, Mountain Dwarf is +2 to any two abilities of your choice, darkvision, poison resistance, medium armor proficiency, and a pile of tools. While Mountain Dwarf used to be an interesting choice for a full caster, sacrificing INT/WIS/CHA to become harder to kill, it's now a top-tier racial choice for any caster, since now the only tradeoff is 25' move speed. XGtE introduced the aforementioned Hexblade and some overpowered Bard subclasses. Someone who isn't doing anything fancy, but comes to the table with splat classes instead of core classes, may make a newer player with just the PHB feel frustrated that he's completely outshone by that College of Swords bard or whatever.

 

[Mort]

Yeah, multiclassing is allowed in AL. While a lot of "ultimate" builds rely on a dodgy reading of the rules or 5-minute workdays, both of which are easily countered by a DM without invoking house rules, 2-dipping warlock is straightforward cheese.

Aside from goofball builds, there's also been power creep in the expansions. As of Tasha's, Mountain Dwarf is +2 to any two abilities of your choice, darkvision, poison resistance, medium armor proficiency, and a pile of tools. While Mountain Dwarf used to be an interesting choice for a full caster, sacrificing INT/WIS/CHA to become harder to kill, it's now a top-tier racial choice for any caster, since now the only tradeoff is 25' move speed. XGtE introduced the aforementioned Hexblade and some overpowered Bard subclasses. Someone who isn't doing anything fancy, but comes to the table with splat classes instead of core classes, may make a newer player with just the PHB feel frustrated that he's completely outshone by that College of Swords bard or whatever.

Other than the hexblade dip (for the CHA synergy), the biggest offenders are still right out of the PHB. Certainly limiting to PHB only but not watching out for the combos mentioned in this thread won't stop a player dedicated to abuse.

The swords bard is fine, and frankly, after seeing it in play, slightly inferior to a lore bard.

Reason : the class spends significant resources buffing itself to try and compete in melee so has much less to buff others - generally the bards true strength.

I suppose combining it with Paladin would get some nice synergy (and ridiculous AC potential) but not that much better than a Lore bard.

Glamour bards are pretty beefy, true, though I haven't seen one in play.

 

[TwoSix]

Aside from goofball builds, there's also been power creep in the expansions. As of Tasha's, Mountain Dwarf is +2 to any two abilities of your choice, darkvision, poison resistance, medium armor proficiency, and a pile of tools. While Mountain Dwarf used to be an interesting choice for a full caster, sacrificing INT/WIS/CHA to become harder to kill, it's now a top-tier racial choice for any caster, since now the only tradeoff is 25' move speed. XGtE introduced the aforementioned Hexblade and some overpowered Bard subclasses. Someone who isn't doing anything fancy, but comes to the table with splat classes instead of core classes, may make a newer player with just the PHB feel frustrated that he's completely outshone by that College of Swords bard or whatever.

Power creep is only really relevant when it raises the ceiling of optimal capability, not when it simply juggles the meta and makes different options the "best choice". Post-Tasha's Mountain Dwarves are absolutely a top-tier for a lot of classes, but they haven't knocked off VHuman as the overall best choice. Monks have absolutely had some "power-creep" after Tasha's, but they still aren't a power choice.

 

[jmartkdr2]

At lower tiers, this can sort of be attempted with a knowledge domain cleric casting enhance ability on themself for advantage on the skill check. It only lasts for 10 minutes once per day though. I don't think that goes far enough for what you mean, so might I inquire about any more egregious examples that exist in 5e that make excelling at everything possible? Preferably something coming online pre-10th level that doesn't rely on theory-crafting like some proposed power-builds involving the unlikely availability of a minecraftesque purple worm farm for venom in their calculations...

View attachment 134595​

A quick search uncovered a few skill-monkey builds that aimed to get all the skills, some variants attempting to get expertise on many skills but it took all ASI levels grabbing feats and level 18 to fully realize. You give up being a combat god of course, and reverse construct your build from a mechanical gimmick instead of organically developing a solidly grounded-in-the-lore thematic character first and foremost but that's good in that role-playing purists at the table will have cause to feel superior. I don't see a problem. Half-elves breeding with gnomes. There's your problem.

WWGGS?
Does Robilar Dream of Eclectic Munchkins?

I've only see this in 5e when three things come into play at once:

1. Rolled stats, and at least one player rolls way outside the normal range (either really good or really bad),
2. AND there's highly different levels of optimization at some point in play, again where at least one is way outside the 'normal' range,
3. AND the player of the lower-powered character cares about character power. (that is, they were trying to optimize but are really bad at it).

IE: The dex-based drow sorcadin with crazy good rolls starts with a 20 dex and 18 cha, has a +7 stealth at level 1, while the half-orc rouge with a 14 dex on has a +4 because they took expertise to shore up weak skills... and now the rogue's player doesn't feel "sneaky" because they're noticeably less sneaky than the other guy.

The further into the game you get, the bigger this can become if the less-optimized player keeps making bad choices. And they're making these choices not because it fits their concept/story/rp-goal better, but because they think the choices are good but they aren't. There's also the aspect of optimizing individual actions: a rogue who always takes disadvantage on the attack to go for a called shot rather than go for a sneak attack can look fine on paper but be really ineffective in play, and thus feel overshadowed by a well-optimized fighter in the same party since the rogue isn't even getting the occasional big hit that's supposed to be their balance point.

But, as I noted, it takes a lot to come together like that in 5e. I would also note that "being bad at optimization/gameplay" is probably the core issue here, not the rules themselves. While I haven't seen it in 5e, hypothetically #1 or #2, if more than one character falls outside the normal ranges in opposite directions, combined with #3, you could get the same result.

 

[jasper]

But power creep is the gawd when playing in early books, and modules. I have seen it occasionally. But with AL opening most of books, i will see it more. So either I have play the module as written whit 4 players of x level which matches the APL of module. Or I occasionally say, BEEP Twosix has sat at my table, bumping the combats one notch tonight. But why I have banished people from my table, (yet) I have not invite some people over to the house to play AL games.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Other than the hexblade dip (for the CHA synergy), the biggest offenders are still right out of the PHB. Certainly limiting to PHB only but not watching out for the combos mentioned in this thread went stop a player dedicated to abuse.

The swords based is fine, and frankly, after seeing it in play, slightly inferior to a lore bard.

I've never seen a Lore bard be even remotely competent in melee.

Reason : the class spends significant resources buffing itself to try and compete in melee so has much less to buff others - generally the bards true strength.

It sounds like the players you saw are just trying to play as Fighters. The baseline I'm going by is Valor Bard, which IME is appropriately balanced for a full caster with a bit of weapon skill. My experience with both Swords and Whispers has been with players who are quite adroit at mixing up casting & fighting, e.g. casting Greater Invisibility on self before hopping in, triple-attacking, and boosting their AC above 20 for a round. The Whispers Bard in particular plays the way people expect Arcane Trickster to play, combining powerful spells and deadly attacks. They're both just so much better than Valor Bard. The new, selfish uses of BI have immediate payoff and is quite powerful, so anybody hoping for help from the Bard wasn't getting it.

IMO powerful selfish uses of BI go completely against the purpose of the class. Valor Bard could grant one die's worth of damage to an ally; the Whispers Bard in my last campaign could give 5d6 to himself.

 

[Mort]

I've never seen a Lore bard be even remotely competent in melee.

No, they make the melee competent character even more competent in melee, all the while doing amazing support stuff.

My point is the Sword Bard is more melee focused - which is a weakness.

It sounds like the players you saw are just trying to play as Fighters. The baseline I'm going by is Valor Bard, which IME is appropriately balanced for a full caster with a bit of weapon skill. My experience with both Swords and Whispers has been with players who are quite adroit at mixing up casting & fighting, e.g. casting Greater Invisibility on self before hopping in, triple-attacking, and boosting their AC above 20 for a round. The Whispers Bard in particular plays the way people expect Arcane Trickster to play, combining powerful spells and deadly attacks. They're both just so much better than Valor Bard. The new, selfish uses of BI have immediate payoff and is quite powerful, so anybody hoping for help from the Bard wasn't getting it.

IMO powerful selfish uses of BI go completely against the purpose of the class. Valor Bard could grant one die's worth of damage to an ally; the Whispers Bard in my last campaign could give 5d6 to himself.

But Sword bard abilities are much more self focused (blade flourish, defensive flourish etc.) - that's the design of the class. They have the inspiration die of other bards - but the other stuff - self. Spells are still excellent for support though. I will say that the Xanathar's guide bards are better than the Valor bard (IMO) but not better than the lore bard.

Regardless, the main point: The PHB has plenty of exploitable material. There may be some power creep, but unlike prior editions, it's not the main cause of the problem.