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

[tetrasodium]

It depends on the edition. In past editions ab optimized character could be orders of magnitude beyond an unoptimized character, superman vrs Starbucks barista levels of disparity in some cases. In 5e however there is so little room for optimization that it pretty much amounts to an archer taking sharp shooter instead of actor... yea it makes a difference, but the default game math crunch assumes no feats & no magic items as a baseline so literally anything is optimized once you use those two things if they impact your party role in any way

 

[Steampunkette]

So in other words you hate gnomes.

Gnome-hater.

That is both aggravating and accurate.

I -do- hate Gnomes. Violently. They're a waste of space in practically every setting and story.

whoah...really?

I must be way behind on my Wolverine lore because I didn't know half that stuff.

By the way...X-Men #205: best Wolverine story EVER.

Depends on perspective and continuity, but yeah.

Born in the late 1800s (Or early 1800s, in the Movies at least) he fights all over the place from Canada to Japan and back all the way through the whole future thing where Apocalypse and Sentinels and all that stuff win and Mutants are being exterminated and Cable is an old man.

 

[AtomicPope]

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.

1. The DM and the dice decide whether or not the PCs live or die.
2. Again, the DM decides what the challenges are. When PCs are optimized then neither are the challenges.
3. Balance is usually decided by WotC and what they publish. Some classes fill roles better than others.**

** This is probably the only way a DM can balance the PCs against one another by excluding certain options, whether it's feats, spells, abilities, or subclasses, or buffing them with houserules. In my own experience, we have a Beastmaster Ranger that uses the best options from the UA or PHB, her choice. That seemed to fix the character quite nicely.

What a DM should focus on is bringing balance through encounter design. The invincible Fighter is probably useless when it comes to magical traps. If you don't think that's possible, then look to #3 and excluding or altering something with houserules.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

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.

My views aren't antiquated, they're lived experiences.

 

[TheSword]

To the OP I would say that optimization begins an escalation that ends with more risk in combat. The optimizer is able to achieve more… take more hits or deal more damage being the usual two. So foes become harder to prevent combat being a cakewalk.

the combination of the two means when bad luck happens or there’s a misjudgement, combat is less forgiving.

Im definitely an optimizer in the Ops sense. I like a fun character that can get stuff done. Most of our group do. It does make most pre-written adventures relatively easy though.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I am not a mod, this is simply a voicing of an opinion.
Declaring things antiquated, dueling accusations of strawmen, dueling accusations that the other side is being offended (or seeing sides in general), and so forth don't help anything. Everyone not directly invested will tune out and certainly no one cares who 'wins.' Nor will it change anything. Optimizers in groups where everyone is on board with it work just fine (although I still think if both Players and DMs raise the optimization level, TPKs increase), and that won't change. Groups not on board with the bar-raising will resent the one person coming in and disrupting the table norms, and this fight won't change that.

Depends on perspective and continuity, but yeah.

Born in the late 1800s (Or early 1800s, in the Movies at least) he fights all over the place from Canada to Japan and back all the way through the whole future thing where Apocalypse and Sentinels and all that stuff win and Mutants are being exterminated and Cable is an old man.

Plus I'm pretty sure at some point in the late-80s/early-90s he battled Jesus to a draw on the moon with matching Masamune katanas (or maybe that's just what I dreamed up at the time as a way for the writers to 'tone him down a little').

To the OP I would say that optimization begins an escalation that ends with more risk in combat. The optimizer is able to achieve more… take more hits or deal more damage being the usual two. So foes become harder to prevent combat being a cakewalk.

the combination of the two means when bad luck happens or there’s a misjudgement, combat is less forgiving.

Im definitely an optimizer in the Ops sense. I like a fun character that can get stuff done. Most of our group do. It does make most pre-written adventures relatively easy though.

Some of the adventures can scale to the meet the PC's ascendency. Descent into Avernus -- PCs can simply take on more monsters (there's an effectively infinite supply). Tomb of Annihilation -- the final dungeon is choose-your-own-pace anyways, so again the party can just take on more challenge between rests (I guess it makes it slightly more likely that the PCs will succeed before their employer succumbs to the wasting, but that doesn't change much excepting if they continue to play the PCs afterwards).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

But you need to go out of your way in 5e to actually build a fighter that can't fight...

 

[aco175]

Is this super-optimization much different than DMs having a DMPC that is more powerful than the PCs?

Creating characters is generally what players do, and making 'Wolverine' is an image or crutch on how to make a cool character. It is not a bad method, I'm sure I made PCs based on Robin Hood, or Luke Skywalker since I could use the idea of a movie/book person as an image. How many threads have we had over the years about stating out the Avengers or what alignment is Han Solo, or making a swordmage a jedi. I think a lot of people find making PCs with backgrounds and flaws easier when you have an image of another person.

I feel that there are different levels of optimization. There are combos I have seen here talking about dealing 100 points of damage each round. I have not had any PC in my games deal that much but can see where some combos allow that. I have also not seen in a long time a PC that is built to not be good at anything and was more a drag on the rest of the party. There is some sort of middle ground where the PC is good at some things over what the rest of the party is in that category. I would expect that the party fighting man is better at sword damage than the mage or cleric, but I would expect other things from the cleric over the fighter.

I know 5e makes more builds be able to do more in other roles traditionally set for each class. 5e does not need a rogue to open locks when you can just have someone with the urchin background. But when the rogue takes that background, it is not optimization to me.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I usually optimize to be useful in many situations... Does that count?

 

[Bill Zebub]

It lessens the game. Instead of emphasizing characters, roleplay, and interaction, it pushes the game towards character sheets and numerical bonuses.

I disagree here. I think you have cart and horse reversed. Optimization doesn't cause a focus on character sheets and numerical bonuses. Rather, a player who focuses on character sheets and numerical bonuses will also optimize the degree to which a player focuses on character sheets and numerical bonuses will be reflected in their interest in optimization. If you put that player in a game with pre-gen characters they will still play the same way.

(edited to reflect that it's a continuum, not a binary thing)