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

[Oofta]

I would add: there is no one size fits all. There's a tendency amongst optimizers to think average PCs "suck". Same way they tend to put optimization above all other aspects of the game.

However, that can be a broad over generalization. Some people that are optimizers are otherwise fun to play with and excellent role players.

About the only time I have issues with optimizers is when they insist on giving unsolicited advice ad nauseam or lord it over everyone else.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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?

Optimisation is a spectrum. On one end of the spectrum you've got people who can only play one or two characters. At the other you've got a bunch of clowns not taking the game seriously, in character or out, either by not taking threats seriously or by OOC abusing the social contract to have people lug their useless asses around IC. But honestly if you aren't touching multiclassing there isn't that much of a gap from level 1-10.

As a DM, it depends what sort of optimising. The two I hate are ultra-high AC (think plate armour, a shield, and the Shield spell), and regenerating effortless temp hit points - both of which make me feel my monsters are being useless and without even using resources. These are the ones likely to get parties killed as I adapt.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The two I hate are ultra-high AC (think plate armour, a shield, and the Shield spell), and regenerating effortless temp hit points - both of which make me feel my monsters are being useless and without even using resources.

A really high AC character taking the Dodge action in a chokepoint can really muck up my plans.

 

[Blue]

To me, the game plays fine as long as all of the players are roughly around the same power level. I mean power-level twofold, both able to contibute in their way in combat (the most mechanically-lengthy common part of the game) and equally able to gain spotlight out of combat. I'll say this is roughly comparable to "how optimized are your characters" to answer your question. (And a note that party optimization is actually one of the most powerful force multipliers specifically in D&D 5e game), more than individual optimization.)

So as long as everyone "optimizes" the same amount, and of course the DM actually adjusts, optimization has absolutely no effect on game play. Everyone equally incredibly min/maxed or "hopeless", and a DM makign challenges to a suitable level, and we're all good. A DM thjat doesn't adjust, including pre-written adventures, is failing at an important part of their job.

The problem occurs when a minority of players are much weaker or stronger than the rest of the party. The DM can tune thigns to deal with both sides simultaniously but not perfectly on an every-time basis. In reality, things are often catering to one side or the other, and the other side gets boredom (either from not being able to contribute or by not having any challenge).

Though even that has a caveat that if the single/minority are "more optimizing" are playing characters to make the other PCs shine like support characters, healers, defenders, then they know what they did but others don't feel slighted and it works well. Note that it doesn't work the other way, so in that corner case more optimization beats less optimization for making everyone have fun, while in other cases it has little effect on game play unless uneven.

 

[overgeeked]

I would add: there is no one size fits all. There's a tendency amongst optimizers to think average PCs "suck". Same way they tend to put optimization above all other aspects of the game.

However, that can be a broad over generalization. Some people that are optimizers are otherwise fun to play with and excellent role players.

About the only time I have issues with optimizers is when they insist on giving unsolicited advice ad nauseam or lord it over everyone else.

I have yet to play with an optimizer that cares about RP or that doesn’t give unsolicited advice or lord it over everyone else. I know my experience isn’t unique, but neither is it universal.

 

[Blue]

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

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.

Wow, I am honestly surprised that there are still people clinging to this antiquated and much disproven belief. Level of system mastery is a completely different axes then either depth of roleplay or cleverness/"tactical"ness of play. Just becasue someone can enjoy the minigame of character building away from the table in no way lessens the contribution they can make at the table any more then the person who improves their character by working on voice, drawing art, writing a good and usable backstory, or other away-from-the-table character activies lessens the contribution they can bring during a session.

This is outdated thinking. YES, you can have people who focus on just one aspect of play. NO, that is not limited to players putting effort into crafting their character.

 

[Blue]

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

Combat is one thing they optimize for. But I've also seen people optimize out of combat, such as to be the best thief. Picking backgrounds, multiclassing to get more expertise or pick up utility spells, etc.

Anything where you can hold the spotlight, or redirect the spotlight to yourself by turning challenges into your particular strength, is one that people will end up optimizing for. Combat is just an obvious one because it's a common element in most games.

 

[Blue]

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.

I'm sure you know people like this, but it is insulting to tar all "optimizers" with this brush.

 

[Steampunkette]

Wow, I am honestly surprised that there are still people clinging to this antiquated and much disproven belief. Level of system mastery is a completely different axes then either depth of roleplay or cleverness/"tactical"ness of play. Just becasue someone can enjoy the minigame of character building away from the table in no way lessens the contribution they can make at the table any more then the person who improves their character by working on voice, drawing art, writing a good and usable backstory, or other away-from-the-table character activies lessens the contribution they can bring during a session.

This is outdated thinking. YES, you can have people who focus on just one aspect of play. NO, that is not limited to players putting effort into crafting their character.

Yeah... No.

At no point do I say anything about "Lessens the Contribution" they make. Nor any of the other arguments you put forth. Nor did I try to say that only optimizers can limit themselves in this way.

This is not "Antiquated" thinking. This is experience and fact.

People who optimize themselves, whether for Seducing Barmaids or Kicking Butt, will narrow the game by looking for that specific piece of gameplay. A guy who builds their character for combat will be spoiling for a fight. A character who made a horndog Bard is gonna try and seduce... literally everything. Like freaking doors are not out of the question.

The fact that I used both of those examples in the post you quote-mined in order to make me look bad for thinking Roleplayers are immune to this kind of thing is just aggravating beyond reason.

Pick up your strawmen and burn them. I have no interest in kicking over fake arguments.

 

[Blue]

Yeah... No.

At no point do I say anything about "Lessens the Contribution" they make. Nor any of the other arguments you put forth. Nor did I try to say that only optimizers can limit themselves in this way.

This is not "Antiquated" thinking. This is experience and fact.

People who optimize themselves, whether for Seducing Barmaids or Kicking Butt, will narrow the game by looking for that specific piece of gameplay. A guy who builds their character for combat will be spoiling for a fight. A character who made a horndog Bard is gonna try and seduce... literally everything. Like freaking doors are not out of the question.

The fact that I used both of those examples in the post you quote-mined in order to make me look bad for thinking Roleplayers are immune to this kind of thing is just aggravating beyond reason.

Pick up your strawmen and burn them. I have no interest in kicking over fake arguments.

You are tarring all optimizers with the same brush, with obsolete thinking that playing the character build minigame off-table requires a specific approach in game. Don't deny it, you've said it in both posts.

You are the one saying that optimizers play only one way - they always try to turn things into what they are good at - and that is not "fact". That may be your anecdotal experience, but trying to pretend it's a universal fact is trivially shown not to be true. And then you are muddying the issue with throwing in "evidence" that a horndog bard - an RP descision without a way in 5e to optimize for - is the fault of an optimizer.

Sorry, for all of your offended language you are the one with a strawman that all optimizers play the same way.