D&D 5E How does “optimization” change the game?

[Warpiglet-7]

I am genuinely curious what folks find in their games.

I want to say from the outset that I don’t find any play style “wrong” so long as it promotes fun for the table.

but to my question….

If we avoid hard optimization and follow a more casual approach, how does the game change? In other words, if I take some feats for flavor (perhaps not all top tier “effective” or push my prime score mostly without “dumping” everything to an 8?) how does this change things?

1. How much more likely is the party to die?

2. How much more challenging is the game?

3. How much if any is balance improved?

I ask with genuine curiosity from the standpoint of someone who does not greatly care about balance and is happy to be challenged and to retreat from encounters when necessary.

I look forward to learning what others find! I have essentially one primary group of friends and really am most familiar with what we have done and found over the years…

After writing this it occurs to me that folks will say the DM can always adapt. So let’s say with typical published WOTC adventures!

 

[overgeeked]

If we avoid hard optimization and follow a more casual approach, how does the game change?

I think that's backwards. The default is a more casual approach, optimization is something people opt into. Not-optimizing is the steady state of the game. Optimizing changes how the game works.

In other words, if I take some feats for flavor (perhaps not all top tier “effective” or push my prime score mostly without “dumping” everything to an 8?) how does this change things?

It balances things out more. Your character won't be stupid-good at one niche thing but will have fewer glaring weaknesses in other areas, i.e. they won't be a glass cannon.

1. How much more likely is the party to die?

Much less likely, actually. With hardcore optimizers in the party it forces an arms race with the DM. Encounters cannot be balanced and must instead focus on the areas where the characters are weakest simply to provide anything resembling a challenge. So optimizing results in more swinginess and more deaths, not fewer. Not optimizing results in less swinginess and fewer deaths, not more.

2. How much more challenging is the game?

5E is basically easy mode already, and optimizing makes it LOL-mode, so if you default to optimization and pull back from that the game becomes "more challenging" by comparison but it's not really a game that's designed to be challenging.

3. How much if any is balance improved?

Quite a lot. You don't have to worry about the DM accidentally inflicting a TPK with one good hit because they had to tune the monsters so drastically high just to have any chance of effecting the party. It de-escalates the arms race, lets everyone calm down, and just enjoy the game instead of it being some kind of surreal "play to win an unwinnable game" scenario.

 

[Lyxen]

If we avoid hard optimization and follow a more casual approach, how does the game change? In other words, if I take some feats for flavor (perhaps not all top tier “effective” or push my prime score mostly without “dumping” everything to an 8?) how does this change things?

Or if you avoid feats which are, you know, only an option ?

1. How much more likely is the party to die?

It has absolutely no bearing on how likely the party is to die. This is determined solely by how the DM sets up the encounters.

it actually makes it easier for the DM, as the encounter builder is made for standard character without feats and multiclassing which are options, the justification being that people playing in optimised groups always brag about encounters being too easy and the encounter builder being broken.

2. How much more challenging is the game?

IF you read the introduction to the PH with an open mind, the intent of the game is not to be challenging, it's to have fun telling stories with friends, and not optimising, IMHO, brings you closer to this intent.

It does not mean that it's not challenging to characters, but it's very different from making it a challenge to players.

3. How much if any is balance improved?

The power gap between really optimised characters using the best builds and other characters diminishes, so as long as some people don't create silly characters, it makes it easier for the DM to re-balance the game in the end, assuming that he wants a balanced game, which is not mandatory in story mode.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't think anything changes one way or another. The level of challenge is 100% up to the DM.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I don't think anything changes one way or another. The level of challenge is 100% up to the DM.

See above.

I had a caveat

 

[Willie the Duck]

[quote cut down to salient parts for size]
1. How much more likely is the party to die?
2. How much more challenging is the game?
3. How much if any is balance improved?
...
After writing this it occurs to me that folks will say the DM can always adapt. So let’s say with typical published WOTC adventures!

Okay, against a constant benchmark of challenge it is. I would say that.. assuming both an optimized and unoptimized party both are relatively similar in having basic roles filled (front-liner, someone with heals, someone with an answer to swarms), the relative 'power' of the party improves about 20-25% when you optimize. Optimization doesn't double or triple your effectiveness, it just enhances it some.

As for likelihood of 'the party to die'... even with a fixed challenge I think the likelihood of TPK still goes up when you optimize. When you have more power, you take on larger threats (and are less likely to run away when the nest of owlbears is 5 instead of 3 like you thought, etc.). There's a tendency in games (not just D&D or even TTRPGs) where as both sides increase in power, the likelihood of victory on one side occurring as a catastrophic route for the loser increases. That seems to play out in 5e -- at low OP failure is more likely to be a 'run away!' or 'they killed Kenny!' moment, but in high-OP the point of failure is often a TPK or one-survivor situation.

 

[Yaarel]

Okay, against a constant benchmark of challenge it is. I would say that.. assuming both an optimized and unoptimized party both are relatively similar in having basic roles filled (front-liner, someone with heals, someone with an answer to swarms), the relative 'power' of the party improves about 20-25% when you optimize. Optimization doesn't double or triple your effectiveness, it just enhances it some.

As for likelihood of 'the party to die'... even with a fixed challenge I think the likelihood of TPK still goes up when you optimize. When you have more power, you take on larger threats (and are less likely to run away when the nest of owlbears is 5 instead of 3 like you thought, etc.). There's a tendency in games (not just D&D or even TTRPGs) where as both sides increase in power, the likelihood of victory on one side occurring as a catastrophic route for the loser increases. That seems to play out in 5e -- at low OP failure is more likely to be a 'run away!' or 'they killed Kenny!' moment, but in high-OP the point of failure is often a TPK or one-survivor situation.

Good answer.

In my experience too, being more optimized while doing an official adventure, makes the party less likely to think of running away as a good option, thus more likely to TPK.

 

[Oofta]

I am genuinely curious what folks find in their games.

I want to say from the outset that I don’t find any play style “wrong” so long as it promotes fun for the table.

but to my question….

If we avoid hard optimization and follow a more casual approach, how does the game change? In other words, if I take some feats for flavor (perhaps not all top tier “effective” or push my prime score mostly without “dumping” everything to an 8?) how does this change things?

1. How much more likely is the party to die?

No difference. Even with a completely optimized group, a DM always has infinite dragons.

2. How much more challenging is the game?

I've run multiple groups, using exactly the same options. One group could handle greater threats so as DM I had to adjust to match group expectations. The optimized group did make it a bit more of a challenge to build encounters. But again, infinite dragons.

3. How much if any is balance improved?

There can be a bit of an issue if you have some optimizers and some that are not.

I ask with genuine curiosity from the standpoint of someone who does not greatly care about balance and is happy to be challenged and to retreat from encounters when necessary.

I look forward to learning what others find! I have essentially one primary group of friends and really am most familiar with what we have done and found over the years…

After writing this it occurs to me that folks will say the DM can always adapt. So let’s say with typical published WOTC adventures!

I don't use published adventures often, but I assume that I'd have to adjust for every group. After all, they seem to be targeted at a 4 person non-optimized party. More players, feats, more magic and so on will affect things.

 

[Steampunkette]

Optimization changes the game by... making people focus on the gameplay aspects.

That's it. That's the whole of it. People who are focused in on making sure their character hits the most often possible, hurts the enemy as deeply as possible, gets hit as little as possible, and so forth is going to be focused on that specific aspect of their character. Because that's what their character "Is" or "Does".

Making less optimized characters, or characters designed to do many things, doesn't really -change- that, much. You're still going to focus on what your character can do because you know you'll be good at it. Whether that's covering a lot of gameplay pillars or being -exceptional- at seducing barmaids.

But earnest and deep optimization play is much more likely to narrow your game down than just throwing together characters for fun.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

How does “optimization” change the game?

It lessens the game. Instead of emphasizing characters, roleplay, and interaction, it pushes the game towards character sheets and numerical bonuses. That being said, it's the nature of the beast, and the game mandates it. I expect players to optimize (within reason) because it's written into the rules. A fighter who can't fight things is not a good fighter.