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

[Warpiglet-7]

Another way to think of it is that a character isn't just "optimized". They are optimized to do some particular thing. Optimization tends to lead to characters with a small number of very highly developed tools.

And, as they saying goes, if all you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail. Approaches to problems can become pretty formulaic for an optimized character.

True.

so I would say a party that is not optimized for their chosen niches/roles/routines.

good/capable vs min maxed out.

I don’t find survival to be a huge issue generally which is part of what prompted the question.

that and the fact that I sometimes pick what is “good” over cool as a natural tendency.

that said I am a blade pact warlock fan…but probably take moderately armored and say “good enough.”

 

[Nefermandias]

When people talk about character optimization, it's usually safe to assume they are talking about combat.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

When people talk about character optimization, it's usually safe to assume they are talking about combat.

Yes, but I do remember fondly the days of 3e's diplomancer and other weird skillmonkey builds.

 

[dave2008]

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!

5e is not really geared for the optimizer. It works best out of the box, IMO, for casual play. Now, it is not hard to modify the game for optimizers, you just need to know what to do and the DMG doesn't give you any guidance. Only experience and forums like EnWorld will give you that guidance.

 

[Cadence]

I don't think "optimization" is a useful term. I think "competency" should be the goal. The player should create a competent character that can meet the challenges of adventuring. So no low intelligence wizard that only casts acid spells or low constitution barbarians, both of which I've seen. There are a few traps in character design. A good DM will help the player avoid them or help them fix a broken character build.

Optimization strikes me as very different from competent. I picture optimization as looking at the numbers to be able to accomplish something the best - 3.5/PF seemed designed to allow folks to coble together things with no story basis that could blow apart challenges. There is a lot of room for "competent" in between that and something ill-conceived and poorly designed like a really low int mage trying to fight with things they aren't proficient in (say a mage that is two points lower in int than the max but otherwise made reasonably solid choices would be competent).

It feels in MtG that optimized is going for the deck that has cards you know will be banned because it's stomping everything or bringing a cEDH deck to a more casual table. Competent feels like a tier 1 or 2 deck that isn't doing the latest broken thing or a solid 75% EDH deck (even a not quite tier 2 deck or a commander precon with a $20 upgrade feels at least competent). Competent seems a lot better than random jank, but will still get curbstomped a lot by the top of the line thing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I honestly had no earthly idea what you were talking about with “silly characters.”

still don’t as I did not reference them.

the only caveat I had was about a common metric such as a published adventure.

“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!”

that was my only caveat.

Yeah, my bad; I scrolled up to look to see what your "caveat" was but landed on somebody else's post by mistake.

 

[overgeeked]

Optimizers tend to do this really weird thing where pure, perfect, and peak optimization is described as “good” or “okay” at something and anything less than that “sucks”. So a normal 5E character “sucks” because they’re not optimized. Not really, no. The default is broad competence and being slightly better at one or two things. The optimizers push the baseline to the absolute top, the highest bonus...the biggest list of skills...the most hit points...the most damage...the perfect X build...and claim anything less than that is trash.

You can easily replace “good” or “okay” above with “competent”. A character isn’t “competent” unless they’re optimized. BS. A bog standard 1st-level non-variant human fighter with the standard array and no feats is competent at fighting...as long as you don’t dump stat their main attack stat or CON. The quick builds are all competent characters. What they’re not is optimized to the gills to pump out maximum damage. Optimized (aka the best you can possibly be at one task) is not a synonym for competent.

 

[Campbell]

Feats can make a huge difference in player power, but there's generally only one or two for a given character that make a significant difference. You will usually have opportunities for a fun feat or two.

Multiclassing combos can be a much bigger deal. If you allow multiclassing it can be helpful to be somewhat mindful.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Fine, but then you can ask, "all other things being equal" - same size party, same level.



Assume that choices are as good as they can be, given the builds.

Ok, so if:
1. Party size/level stays consistent
2. Everybody plays with equal skill
3. The DM does not adjust for difficulty, either in foes used or the intelligence with which they are played
4. Official adventure paths are used as written

…how big of a factor is character build optimization in 5e?

Uhhh…I guess I will bow out because I don’t have anything useful to add.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Optimizers tend to do this really weird thing where pure, perfect, and peak optimization is described as “good” or “okay” at something and anything less than that “sucks”. So a normal 5E character “sucks” because they’re not optimized. Not really, no. The default is broad competence and being slightly better at one or two things. The optimizers push the baseline to the absolute top, the highest bonus...the biggest list of skills...the most hit points...the most damage...the perfect X build...and claim anything less than that is trash.
.

They sound like terrible, terrible people.