Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dealing with optimizers at the table
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 8225053" data-attributes="member: 72555"><p>There are 7 defences in 5e. AC is one of them.</p><p></p><p>At lower levels, AC targetting attacks are more common. Making them become less common is reasonable, and it doesn't have to be AOEs.</p><p></p><p>...</p><p></p><p>Ignoring 70% of the creatures in the game is a strange statement. You are the DM. You determine what creatures are in the game. You determine their stats. The MM provides a buffet of options.</p><p></p><p>Ie, that giant requires a dex save, deals 1d6*10 minus your AC damage per hit; no armor can block the swing it can only reduce the damage of the blow. You <strong>have</strong> to dodge it.</p><p></p><p>This isn't ignoring armor, but doesn't make AC a veto on being hit.</p><p></p><p>Someone with infinite AC who isn't attacked until the battle is lost has failed at optimization.</p><p></p><p>If there are 7 attackers, and 3 go after the super-tank and the other 4 attack those who aren't super-tanks, then both the super-tank gets to laugh at the attacks missing them, <em>and</em> there is peril for everyone.</p><p></p><p>The tactical problem, of how to force more foes to attack the super tank, becomes an interesting shared one.</p><p></p><p>Yes, this "rewards" the optimizer, in that they get to laugh at attacks missing them. But the game remains interesting and fun, so who cares?</p><p></p><p>I guess the problem is, some other PC has the image "I am tough" and looks weak compared to the optimizer.</p><p></p><p>Indestructible optimization often rely on specific techniques, much like Smash optimization does. As a DM, if you find the gap is too large, you can fix it.</p><p></p><p>There was the shield I wrote that lets you spend a reaction to halve damage from an attack. If the problem is AC instead, items that let you expend your reaction for a +3 bonus to AC (or even +5 against one attack, resistance if it still hits) compete with the reaction slot; so such an item is only useful to the non-optimizers. At the same time, it means that you have reduced the AC gap in your party.</p><p></p><p>And with reduced AC gap... adding +3 to every monsters ATK makes the optimizer hittable, and the AC gap reduction work made the other PCs still missable.</p><p></p><p>You don't have to just add +3 to every monster's ATK, but you <strong>can</strong>. You can instead give reasons why there is a +3 bonus to ATK. Boost the monsters you use attack stat by +6, for example. Give them magic weapons (so long as you don't use a fixed magic item price chart and they are weaker than PC weapons, this has near zero balance impact), steroid potions (with nasty side effects, so PCs don't abuse them).</p><p></p><p></p><p>So, you have identified resources that the optimizer uses.</p><p></p><p>To repeat myself, provide uses for those resources that are not as good as the optimizers uses in the form of magic items or houserules.</p><p></p><p>Then turn up the game difficulty to match.</p><p></p><p>One player has PAM+GWM+BM reaction attacks at level 11, to make 5 attacks/round at +10 to damage with their +2 glaive? Neat. That is a lot of damage. The 16 dex ranger dual wielding short swords isn't going to keep up with that.</p><p></p><p><strong>Flamedancers: </strong>This pair of +2 scimitars deals +1d6 fire damage on a hit. When you have both equipped and use two weapon fighting, your bonus action attack lets you attack twice. When you are hit by an attack you can expend a reaction to attack back; if your reaction attack hits, the triggering attack must reroll with disadvantage.</p><p></p><p>If I did my math right, this still does less damage than the BM PAM GWM fighter does, but it (a) closes the gap, and (b) is really fun.</p><p></p><p>As the DM you have mechanical levers. They aren't the only things you have, but they are part of your toolkit.</p><p></p><p>You are in charge of magic items. You are in charge of monster stats.</p><p></p><p>Part of the DM's job is to use those levers.</p><p></p><p>This might be "show favitorism", but you can give similar customized items out for the PAM fighter.</p><p></p><p><strong><strong>Glaive of Lost Souls</strong>: </strong>This +2 Glaive is imbued with the souls of those it kills. Whenever you damage a creature, you gain 5 temporary HP; if the blow killed the creature, you also gain temporary HP equal to 1/10s of the creatures max HP on top of that. As a reaction when you reduce a creature to 0 HP, you can cast Soul Cage without components to capture the soul of the creature. You can only cast Soul Cage this way once before completing a long rest.</p><p></p><p>You'll note that this Glaive is super cool and strong, but <em>doesn't boost the thing the optimizer has already boosted</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Honestly, shield is enough of a problem that I have houseruled it. Shield on a non-low-AC caster breaks bounded accuracy, and getting enough slots to keep it up 100% of the time isn't hard if you can make a full caster with a high-AC kit.</p><p></p><p>The problem is less the +5 than the "until the end of your next turn" part of it.</p><p></p><p>Overgeeked has been using loaded language to treat people who like the optimization mini-game as bad people.</p><p></p><p>When your opinion is "that is bad wrong fun, how do I stop them", yes, people who like that fun may treat it personally.</p><p></p><p>When it is pointed out that it isn't bad wrong fun, Overgeeked has doubled down and continued to insult people who like doing optimization and seeing it in actual play.</p><p></p><p>Badwrongfun results in negative responses.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NotAYakk, post: 8225053, member: 72555"] There are 7 defences in 5e. AC is one of them. At lower levels, AC targetting attacks are more common. Making them become less common is reasonable, and it doesn't have to be AOEs. ... Ignoring 70% of the creatures in the game is a strange statement. You are the DM. You determine what creatures are in the game. You determine their stats. The MM provides a buffet of options. Ie, that giant requires a dex save, deals 1d6*10 minus your AC damage per hit; no armor can block the swing it can only reduce the damage of the blow. You [B]have[/B] to dodge it. This isn't ignoring armor, but doesn't make AC a veto on being hit. Someone with infinite AC who isn't attacked until the battle is lost has failed at optimization. If there are 7 attackers, and 3 go after the super-tank and the other 4 attack those who aren't super-tanks, then both the super-tank gets to laugh at the attacks missing them, [I]and[/I] there is peril for everyone. The tactical problem, of how to force more foes to attack the super tank, becomes an interesting shared one. Yes, this "rewards" the optimizer, in that they get to laugh at attacks missing them. But the game remains interesting and fun, so who cares? I guess the problem is, some other PC has the image "I am tough" and looks weak compared to the optimizer. Indestructible optimization often rely on specific techniques, much like Smash optimization does. As a DM, if you find the gap is too large, you can fix it. There was the shield I wrote that lets you spend a reaction to halve damage from an attack. If the problem is AC instead, items that let you expend your reaction for a +3 bonus to AC (or even +5 against one attack, resistance if it still hits) compete with the reaction slot; so such an item is only useful to the non-optimizers. At the same time, it means that you have reduced the AC gap in your party. And with reduced AC gap... adding +3 to every monsters ATK makes the optimizer hittable, and the AC gap reduction work made the other PCs still missable. You don't have to just add +3 to every monster's ATK, but you [B]can[/B]. You can instead give reasons why there is a +3 bonus to ATK. Boost the monsters you use attack stat by +6, for example. Give them magic weapons (so long as you don't use a fixed magic item price chart and they are weaker than PC weapons, this has near zero balance impact), steroid potions (with nasty side effects, so PCs don't abuse them). So, you have identified resources that the optimizer uses. To repeat myself, provide uses for those resources that are not as good as the optimizers uses in the form of magic items or houserules. Then turn up the game difficulty to match. One player has PAM+GWM+BM reaction attacks at level 11, to make 5 attacks/round at +10 to damage with their +2 glaive? Neat. That is a lot of damage. The 16 dex ranger dual wielding short swords isn't going to keep up with that. [B]Flamedancers: [/B]This pair of +2 scimitars deals +1d6 fire damage on a hit. When you have both equipped and use two weapon fighting, your bonus action attack lets you attack twice. When you are hit by an attack you can expend a reaction to attack back; if your reaction attack hits, the triggering attack must reroll with disadvantage. If I did my math right, this still does less damage than the BM PAM GWM fighter does, but it (a) closes the gap, and (b) is really fun. As the DM you have mechanical levers. They aren't the only things you have, but they are part of your toolkit. You are in charge of magic items. You are in charge of monster stats. Part of the DM's job is to use those levers. This might be "show favitorism", but you can give similar customized items out for the PAM fighter. [B][B]Glaive of Lost Souls[/B]: [/B]This +2 Glaive is imbued with the souls of those it kills. Whenever you damage a creature, you gain 5 temporary HP; if the blow killed the creature, you also gain temporary HP equal to 1/10s of the creatures max HP on top of that. As a reaction when you reduce a creature to 0 HP, you can cast Soul Cage without components to capture the soul of the creature. You can only cast Soul Cage this way once before completing a long rest. You'll note that this Glaive is super cool and strong, but [I]doesn't boost the thing the optimizer has already boosted[/I]. Honestly, shield is enough of a problem that I have houseruled it. Shield on a non-low-AC caster breaks bounded accuracy, and getting enough slots to keep it up 100% of the time isn't hard if you can make a full caster with a high-AC kit. The problem is less the +5 than the "until the end of your next turn" part of it. Overgeeked has been using loaded language to treat people who like the optimization mini-game as bad people. When your opinion is "that is bad wrong fun, how do I stop them", yes, people who like that fun may treat it personally. When it is pointed out that it isn't bad wrong fun, Overgeeked has doubled down and continued to insult people who like doing optimization and seeing it in actual play. Badwrongfun results in negative responses. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dealing with optimizers at the table
Top