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

[Bill Zebub]

See above.

I had a caveat

The part about "as long as nobody creates silly characters"?

What do you mean by 'silly'?

 

[Yaarel]

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.

Yeah.

The optimized character I had in mind, is one that was difficult to hit. The character had various ways to evade damage, from ac, speed, flight, various reactions, and attacking from a distance. The character was rarely hit. The character kited from a distance while troubleshooting to help teammates in danger.

The slipperiness of the character was super-flavorful and fun to play, and the players liked the kind of support he offered. In this case, the optimization enhanced roleplaying, actualizing the character concept in a vivid way.

The downside was, around level 10, the character was especially vulnerable in a combat encounter with an unusual monster, where all attacks were ranged area attacks with ongoing damage. I dont think the monster was especially powerful, but nature of the attacks werent obvious, we were unsure how to do deal with it tactically, and it seemed resistant to most of our attacks. Heh, we all went down together in the same round. We should have ran away, but fleeing didnt occur to us! Technically, my character might still be alive, because we ended the game after the character teleported away but before resolving the ongoing damage versus defenses, and the character would have been unconscious and vulnerable in an unfamilar place anyway.

Anyway, he was one my favorite characters.

 

[tommybahama]

An unoptimized party leads to DMs complaining about the five minute adventuring day where the party insists on resting after every encounter. The DM will also complain about whack-a-mole healing of downed characters.

An optimized party allows for the standard 6-8 encounters per adventuring day as they will have the resources (including HP) to meet those challenges without a TPK.

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.

 

[Umbran]

The part about "as long as nobody creates silly characters"?

What do you mean by 'silly'?

I think he meant the part about using a WotC published adventure as a reference, rather than "the GM can always adapt". Say the GM doesn't change the written adventure, what happens?

I think using a standard reference is important, because while it may be given that the GM can attempt to adapt, their ability to succeed at adapting is not a given. Adapting is a skill learned for each rule set, not an automatic success.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think he meant the part about using a WotC published adventure as a reference, rather than "the GM can always adapt". Say the GM doesn't change the written adventure, what happens?

I think using a standard reference is important, because while it may be given that the GM can attempt to adapt, their ability to succeed at adapting is not a given. Adapting is a skill learned for each rule set, not an automatic success.

Oh, well then I don't have a good answer, because (in my opinion) without some DM improvisation the size/level of the party is already a vastly more influential variable than is optimization. Some of the DDAL stuff has guidance for how to adjust the party based on size/levels, but the hardcovers do not. (And in many ways the most powerful tool in the DM's toolbox isn't quantity of adversaries, it's how intelligently you play them.).

And then there's just optimal play, which I think is still a greater factor than optimal builds.

So if the DM isn't going to adapt to any of this there's already so much variability in challenge that I don't think whether or not players optimize their characters is relevant.

 

[Umbran]

Oh, well then I don't have a good answer, because (in my opinion) without some DM improvisation the size/level of the party is already a vastly more influential variable than is optimization.

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

And then there's just optimal play, which I think is still a greater factor than optimal builds.

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

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Oh, well then I don't have a good answer, because (in my opinion) without some DM improvisation the size/level of the party is already a vastly more influential variable than is optimization. Some of the DDAL stuff has guidance for how to adjust the party based on size/levels, but the hardcovers do not. (And in many ways the most powerful tool in the DM's toolbox isn't quantity of adversaries, it's how intelligently you play them.).

And then there's just optimal play, which I think is still a greater factor than optimal builds.

So if the DM isn't going to adapt to any of this there's already so much variability in challenge that I don't think whether or not players optimize their characters is relevant.

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.

 

[Nefermandias]

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!

That's a pretty interesting question.
Back in the two previous editions, I was really into optimization and I always expected my players to be fully optimized.

But now in 5e? In most of my campaigns we dont even use feats or multiclassing. I believe it's partly because 5e don't come even close to 3e or 4e when it comes to character building, but it's also because now we have a different approach to adventuring, more akin to 2e than WotC era D&D.
Not sure if that makes sense to you though, it's kinda hard to explain.

 

[Umbran]

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".

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.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Look at it this way; 4E was developed with optimization in mind...