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

[Willie the Duck]

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

There's never going to be a consensus. Mostly what 'counts' is going to be relative -- a level of dedication towards mechanical optimization above the baseline of those around you, or against whom you are comparing yourself.

This is my own categories, I tend to think in broad groups-- unoptimized(silly), unoptimized, non-optimized, optimized, and highly optimized.

• Unoptimized (silly): a wizard who in point-buy ends up with 8 in Str, Con, and Int who insists on mixing it up in melee and fighting with a greatsword with which they are not proficient. This is technically possible in the game, but really not worth including in comparisons because it doesn't really prove anything (except that the game doesn't have guard rails stopping you from making this character).
• Unoptimized: Maybe a dual-weapon Fighter, a great-sword-and-longbow fighter that someone played in AD&D and wants to port to 5e, or Monk-Paladin multiclass, or other things that a reasonable person might want to play, but the rules (or implied rules, such as MAD with regards to the Monk-Paladin) kinda get in the way of making work.
• Non-optimized: a not-bad choice someone might want to play that simply don't include any combos that the rules deliberately or accidentally make highly powerful. An example that fits your 'useful in many situations' criteria might be a fighter who spend their first ASI on the feat Ritual Caster: wizard or druid -- it's actually really helpful and fleshes out your utility, but an optimizer might come by and say, 'why didn't you let someone else take that and you take [PAM/GWM/SS/XBE/Sentinel/etc.]?'
• Optimized: This is stuff that anyone opening up the books will eventually stumble upon and realize have really good synergy. The -5/+10 feats go really well with the ones that give bonus action attacks (and classes, subclasses, and fighting styles which have easy access to advantage or pluses to-hit). Warlocks have the ability to cast darkness and to see through magical darkness. Sorcerers and bards are Charisma-based full-advancement-casters that can power paladin smites at a faster advancement than the paladin proper. Quarterstaves can be wielded one-handed (so, with a shield), get a bonus to damage with the dueling fighting style, and get a bonus action attack with Polearm Master. And so on and so forth. They are easy, often 'the optimal choice,' and at most are controversial in that people find them annoying or something (or why doesn't such and such preferred weapon-fighting style have an optimal feat combo to match, or the like).
• Highly Optimized: the cutoff line here is going to be arbitrary, but this is going to be things that come down to hair-splitting reading of rules (the nuclear wizard), massive combinations of classes clearly not done for flavor reasons (some hexblade1/paladin 2 or 6/ sorcerer X concoction being a common example). Generally, a guideline might be 'this would not make sense to do, and is too complicated to be something you just wanted to try out natively, were it not for some very specific ways the game rules panned out.' Again, the distinction between this and normal Optimized is going to be a hazy one.

Once again, whether it is fine or not in your campaign is mostly based on whether it excessively steals the limelight or drags the effective party contribution (and presumably challenge faced to match) to the point where others aren't having fun.

 

[Steampunkette]

@aco175

I'm not saying "Make Wolverine for a PC!" I'm saying that the creators of Wolverine made him good at regenerating so they want to show that off by putting him in situations where he regenerates even if he should logically avoid getting badly hurt. Similarly, a player who creates a character who is good at fighting is going to want to fight so they can show off and enjoy that aspect of their character.

Or a character who is good at seducing barmaids, or talking themselves out of a bad situation, or clambering out of combat situations by using skill checks, or whatever special thing they've got for their character. Whatever thing that helps them define that character as who they are.

 

[Bill Zebub]

@aco175

I'm not saying "Make Wolverine for a PC!" I'm saying that the creators of Wolverine made him good at regenerating so they want to show that off by putting him in situations where he regenerates even if he should logically avoid getting badly hurt. Similarly, a player who creates a character who is good at fighting is going to want to fight so they can show off and enjoy that aspect of their character.

Or a character who is good at seducing barmaids, or talking themselves out of a bad situation, or clambering out of combat situations by using skill checks, or whatever special thing they've got for their character. Whatever thing that helps them define that character as who they are.

One of my characters recently acquired a ring of fire resistance. I'm probably taking more fire damage than I would have otherwise because I'm gleefully charging into those situations. (However, the net result might be less overall fire damage taken by the party.)

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

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)

Agreed. But having more methods of numerical tweaking and number-crunching and character sheet statistics creates a game that emphasizes those aspects of gameplay. It's a feedback loop. I like my games with a bit o' crunch, mind you, but it can become the focus of the game very quickly.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Agreed. But having more methods of numerical tweaking and number-crunching and character sheet statistics creates a game that emphasizes those aspects of gameplay. It's a feedback loop. I like my games with a bit o' crunch, mind you, but it can become the focus of the game very quickly.

Oh, sure, the system itself influences how much of this takes place. I'm just saying that if somebody plays in a way that annoys you it's not because of they character they made. Convincing them to build a less (or more) optimized character isn't going to change the way they play.

This was hashed out in the thread on fixed vs. floating ASIs. Well, maybe "discussed" more than "hashed out". Some people seem to have remain convinced that floating ASIs would cause more optimization.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

Oh, sure, the system itself influences how much of this takes place. I'm just saying that if somebody plays in a way that annoys you it's not because of they character they made. Convincing them to build a less (or more) optimized character isn't going to change the way they play.

Absolutely. I'd like to see a much greater emphasis on skills and specializations within D&D rather than combat doodads. Backgrounds, for example, are my number one favorite addition to D&D, and not for the skill proficiencies. The little roleplaying benefit is exactly the kind of mechanic I love to see.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Absolutely. I'd like to see a much greater emphasis on skills and specializations within D&D rather than combat doodads. Backgrounds, for example, are my number one favorite addition to D&D, and not for the skill proficiencies. The little roleplaying benefit is exactly the kind of mechanic I love to see.

Another effect I've seen is changing Inspiration to be after-the-roll. As it is now people forget they have Inspiration and never use it. But when it's after the roll people suddenly remember they have it after a failed important roll, and then they start thinking about how to get it again, and pretty soon they're looking at their Traits/Bonds/Flaws/Ideals looking for an opportunity to express them. Then the next time they make a character they put a lot more thought into it. Virtuous cycle.

 

[Blue]

Thanks, @Umbran, for the support. But they're not just turning generalization into Absolute. Blue is actively putting words into my mouth. And I cannot abide that. Never have been able to. Never will be able to. It's an ugly, deceitful, and aggravating tactic that I do not appreciate.

If you honestly feel like I've been putting words in your mouth, I'm sorry. I'll quote your words on why I feel you have been saying what I was responding to. From my perception this has been what you are saying. I admit and apologize that when your responses felt like an attack - calling about quote mining, declaring strawmen - I responded angrily which I should not have.

Wow... Yeah... no. Just no, Blue. You don't get to tell me what I think or what I mean. NO ONE gets to tell me what I'm "Really" saying.

You directly posted it twice, that optimizers will focus the game on what they optimize for. Here are the earlier quotes:

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.

and

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.

(Bolding mine, for a point below.)

I am not in any way trying to tell you "what you really think", I am taking the words you have communicated to us at face value.

I read these as you saying optimizers will try to focus on one mode of play - whatever they have optimized for. That seems to me you saying that they will all play the same way - to focus on what they optimized for.

No freaking CLUE how you took the Horny Bard as the "Fault" of Optimizers. I have a feeling you're not reading my posts in good faith. Could be wrong, though. Lemme try -one- more time.

Please look at the bolded section above where you talk about optimizing for seducing barmaids, and narrowing the game to that aspect. That's pretty explicit that you have linked the fault of seducing barmaids to optimizing seducing barmaids. I think it's unwarrented to take a tone that that's not a reasonable reading. It may not be what you intended - I have not tried to say what you are thinking - but it is what you wrote, which is what I have been responding to.

If a player creates a Noble Diplomat, whose whole schtick is talking their way out of situations rather than fighting, they're -going- to try and talk their way out of every situation they can rather than fight. 'Cause that's what they made their character to do.

Schtick and optimization are not the same thing. Yes, characters will follow their schtick, regardless if they have "optimized for it". Most character have a schtick: "I'm the nature loving druid who loves animals and adopts strays", I'm the failed knight trying to prove that I'm worthy", "I'm the orphan who acts tough but doesn't realize he's looking for a found family".

Now, since we've had misunderstandings before, you might be talking about mechanical schticks only, I'm unsure. But what I am trying to show is that every character has a schtick or elevator pitch on who they are they try to play towards, it's not limited to mechanical schticks nor to optimizers.

To address your specific example I've played a Noble Half-Elf Paladin who tried to talk his way (or buy his way) through things and not start fights. He wasn't "optimized for it" any more than the noble background grants the Persuasion skill and he had a high charisma. If anything he was optimized for keeping the party alive in a fight (Oath of Ancients for both base and subclass aura, Inspiring Leader @ 4th, sword and shield to act as a tank, etc.), yet I actively played not to get into fights. Against my mechanical schtick but very much in line with the character schtick. That's anecdotal - what some are calling "my experience" - so just assign it the same weight as other anecdotal claims.

Having a schtick is not the same as optimization. A friend played a sorcerer entertainer who's schtick was ice spells. It was pretty far from optimized - any one non-fire element will find the spells aren't nearly as common or varied. You can't conflate a character having a schtick and being optimized. If he was optimized, it would have gone for fire.

If a player creates an Optimized Killbot, whose whole schtick is killing everything in their path with awesome efficiency, they're -going- to try and fight whenever possible. 'Cause that's what they made their character to do.

Again, this is you stating an opinion where there are plenty of counter-examples. Combat is the most common optimization place because it's the most mechanically-lengthy individual scene. ("Mechanically" is an important distinction in there, as optimization works with the mechanics. I am not saying it is the most common scene or the longest.) Players often use their knowledge of the system to be good in combat. That does not mean that they try to turn everything into combat. Often players will make sure their characters are good mechanically at combat and have some other schtick, such as my "talk/buy your way through everything" noble paladin from above.

If a player creates a Skill Monkey, whose whole schtick is overcoming every encounter by bypassing it through skill checks around stealth and thiefliness, they're -going- to try and roll those skill checks whenever possible. 'Cause that's what they made their character to do.

Yes, if you have a schtick you will play towards it. Rogues get expertise at 1st level and are primarily DEX based - if you want your schtick to be sneaking or thieving, common activities for someone picking the rogue class, you're looking at normal choices - not optimization - in fulfilling that schtick. It's like saying a player is optimizing a fighter when they get extra attack at 5th level. It's not, that's just normal play.

The summary of all this: players will play their schtick, which often has to do with why they picked a class or background. And making normal choices for base features in that class isn't "optimizing" that we can try to pin the behavior style on optimizers. I don't think I need to go through the other schtick example to repeat again so let's move on.

This is "People create the character they want to play, and play to whatever strengths they've created for their character."

Absolutely. But that statement has little to do with optimization. Everyone creates a character because they want to play it.

And people will get REALLY BORED if what they -want- to do isn't front and center a reasonably amount of the time. With "Reasonable" being incredibly variable and determined entirely by the player in question. Try putting a player who put together a DPR Optimized character into a game with minimal opportunities for Combat and a whole lot of RP and you're liable to frustrate that player.

I don't disagree with this, but I do with the implication I am getting from context that it's optimizers only. Since we just established that everyone creates a character they want to play, it seems to me like this statement is saying that every player out there gets bored if what they want to see isn't there a reasonable amount of time. Which again, I agree with - if I enjoy RP and it's a pure dungeon crawl, I get bored.

But nothing links this to only optimizers - it's not a statement about them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There's never going to be a consensus. Mostly what 'counts' is going to be relative -- a level of dedication towards mechanical optimization above the baseline of those around you, or against whom you are comparing yourself.

This is my own categories, I tend to think in broad groups-- unoptimized(silly), unoptimized, non-optimized, optimized, and highly optimized.

• Unoptimized (silly): a wizard who in point-buy ends up with 8 in Str, Con, and Int who insists on mixing it up in melee and fighting with a greatsword with which they are not proficient. This is technically possible in the game, but really not worth including in comparisons because it doesn't really prove anything (except that the game doesn't have guard rails stopping you from making this character).
• Unoptimized: Maybe a dual-weapon Fighter, a great-sword-and-longbow fighter that someone played in AD&D and wants to port to 5e, or Monk-Paladin multiclass, or other things that a reasonable person might want to play, but the rules (or implied rules, such as MAD with regards to the Monk-Paladin) kinda get in the way of making work.
• Non-optimized: a not-bad choice someone might want to play that simply don't include any combos that the rules deliberately or accidentally make highly powerful. An example that fits your 'useful in many situations' criteria might be a fighter who spend their first ASI on the feat Ritual Caster: wizard or druid -- it's actually really helpful and fleshes out your utility, but an optimizer might come by and say, 'why didn't you let someone else take that and you take [PAM/GWM/SS/XBE/Sentinel/etc.]?'
• Optimized: This is stuff that anyone opening up the books will eventually stumble upon and realize have really good synergy. The -5/+10 feats go really well with the ones that give bonus action attacks (and classes, subclasses, and fighting styles which have easy access to advantage or pluses to-hit). Warlocks have the ability to cast darkness and to see through magical darkness. Sorcerers and bards are Charisma-based full-advancement-casters that can power paladin smites at a faster advancement than the paladin proper. Quarterstaves can be wielded one-handed (so, with a shield), get a bonus to damage with the dueling fighting style, and get a bonus action attack with Polearm Master. And so on and so forth. They are easy, often 'the optimal choice,' and at most are controversial in that people find them annoying or something (or why doesn't such and such preferred weapon-fighting style have an optimal feat combo to match, or the like).
• Highly Optimized: the cutoff line here is going to be arbitrary, but this is going to be things that come down to hair-splitting reading of rules (the nuclear wizard), massive combinations of classes clearly not done for flavor reasons (some hexblade1/paladin 2 or 6/ sorcerer X concoction being a common example). Generally, a guideline might be 'this would not make sense to do, and is too complicated to be something you just wanted to try out natively, were it not for some very specific ways the game rules panned out.' Again, the distinction between this and normal Optimized is going to be a hazy one.

Once again, whether it is fine or not in your campaign is mostly based on whether it excessively steals the limelight or drags the effective party contribution (and presumably challenge faced to match) to the point where others aren't having fun.

I like your categories, although I think a dual weapon fighter still fits into not-optimized instead of unoptimized. They are quite good for a large part of the game, especially if you go the strength route, and you can multiclass out of them after level 8 or so if you think extra attack (3 attacks) is too sad with twf. Probably the fighter ability should also allow for a 2nd bonus action strike at level 11...

Other than that, I would add an optimized(silly), where you exploit a rule that is technically legal but does look very dodgy (quarterstaff and shield with polearm mastery, crossbow expert + shield (without an artificer repeating shot crossbow).

 

[Willie the Duck]

I like your categories, although I think a dual weapon fighter still fits into not-optimized instead of unoptimized. They are quite good for a large part of the game, especially if you go the strength route, and you can multiclass out of them after level 8 or so if you think extra attack (3 attacks) is too sad with twf. Probably the fighter ability. Should also allow for a. 2nd bonus action strike at level 11...

Other than that, I would add an optimized(silly), where you exploit a rule that is technically legal but does look very dodgy (quarterstaff and shield with polearm mastery, crossbow expert + shield (without an artificer repeating shot crossbow).

I think discussions about what fits what category probably belong in another thread, but it does highlight my point that they are arguable.

Regarding Optimized(silly), it sure could be there, but I'm not sure that it serves a purpose. Unoptimized(silly) is a category I include because it demarks a section of rules-wise-possible builds that I don't think ever sensibly would exist in the wild (outside of someone trying to make some point) and that include a lower bound of what technically is possible in the game, but really doesn't need to be considered. For example, if for some reason you are trying to come up with an 'average effectiveness' metric or the like, you don't really need to include the non-proficient greatsword-wielding wizard (and in fact including it would skew the results towards something less meaningful to actual-play situations). I don't know if a parallel situation arises with Optimized(silly). One-handed quarterstaff and shield with PAM is powerful, similar to other good options like halberd-PAM-GWM or the like, but not over and above. I suppose nuclear wizard skews discussions about damage potential to the point where including it and excluding it change the results, so there is that. It will all depend on how deep into the weeds one gets on this.