Builders - Question. (And no, not LEGO MOVIE Builders...)

[Tawmis]

So I see quite a few threads here, where people ask for advice on optimizing a good build?

I've always been curious about folks who do specific, optimized builds?

So I am curious - why? Why ask for specific, optimized builds?

(Not that there's any wrong answer here)...

Just curious, is it to maximize your character's impact (best build for a fighter to do damage, magic type with best spell pool?)

I've typically revolved my character around whatever backstory I come up with. So I am just curious to see the other side of the coin.

[Coyote81]

Some people are not great at doing the story/character part of the characters they play, so to feel like a hero, they have to roll well, and just outdo the DM at all points, that is how they feel successful. I myself like quarky, "snowflake" type builds. Like My Barbarian Shaman I made as a Totem Barb6/Runepriest5 W/ Ritual Caster, it was like having a magic and rage at the same time.

[Draco4472]

I suppose some people are just unsure of what is and isn't good for a character build, and want to hear the voices of others on what the best option is. I've asked for a couple build ideas for this reason, and suspect the same for several others who ask.

I myself will choose a race and class and work backwards to construct a story around that.

For example, for Rage of Demons, I wanted to play a ranger with the Underdark favored terrain. I then thought "What race makes for a good ranger of the Underdark?" which led to "What races live in the Underdark?" and "Which of those races are in the PHB?" leaving me with Drow. I didn't want to play a Drow Ranger, being the cliche it is, and so chose half-elf, specifically half-drow, and went from there to figure out why they're so skilled at tracking and swordplay.

Is the outcome of this process always optimized? No. That's why I have a Dragonborn Rogue/Sorcerer, and plans for a Warlock/Wizard if there is ever a lovecraftian inspired campaign.

[8wGremlin]

There are many differing kinds of players out there.

Your view is one of many,

there are those players who don't care about backstory or mechanics, they love the game due to the social aspect of meeting their friends
there are those who care about solving problems
there are those who love a carefully constructed backstory
there are those who want to see how the story unfolds
there are those who want to see interpersonal character development
there are those that love a mechanically elegant build
there are those who want to do massive amounts of damage
there are those that want one or more of the above


Whatever your play style is, what you want to get out of the game that is one of Dungeons and Dragons successes
and why I'm still playing for over 38 years now.

[Gignere]

Some of us just want to build stuff that inspired us when we were growing up. For example Batman and Superman is not an unoptimized version of their classes if they had a class analog. They were paragons and champions of their respective race/class.

Nothing wrong with wanting to play a paragon within the rules structure of a game as much as possible because that is what inspired our dreams and imaginations.

[XmonkTad]

Sometimes optimization isn't for when you have to make meaningful choices; it's for when you have two options that you consider equivalent, and want to pick the one that actually does more damage.
For example, let's say you're playing a warlock that uses eldritch blast+agonizing blast all day. You've just hit level 4 and you really want to grab the spell sniper feat. However, this feat also gives you a cantrip that requires an attack roll, and you're not really planning on using anything besides eldrich blast. So what do you choose? Optimization threads can help you decide, because maybe a helmed horror is just around the corner!

[Naanomi]

Character Optimization is in someways a 'game' all on its own. While 5e doesn't lend itself well to the silly days of theoretical optimization 3.5 style; there is fun to be eeked out of throwing the system components together in different ways and see what shakes out. It isn't always about maximizing combat ability (though it sometimes is)... what if I want a blaster that only does fire damage with every spell, can the system support that? Just how stealthy can one character be? What if I want proficiency in all skills... how quick can I do that, and how can I functionally contribute to the party once I have gotten there?

Does it mean I will always play an optimized build? No, probably not... and the ones I do tend to be 'optimized' for silly things rather than mechanically powerful ones (I currently play a sorcerer who took no spells with material components, arguably an 'optimization' exercise)

[CaptainSarathai]

I had this fight a lot when I played Warhammer and posted armies online. Eventually you got these "net lists," which were standardized builds. Want to play Warriors of Chaos? You use these units, in this configuration, with these options.

People asked why it was necessary to be so competitive, and why can't you just play the army however you like, why is winning always everything.

But here's the thing:
This is the internet, and we don't know what your definition of 'fun' is
So our only option is to tell give you objective advice, such as what the maximum damage is.

Nobody can tell me how to play my superstitious, self-serving, airship sailor 'Jackie Ironside' in a way that will most please me. It's my fun, and I'll have it however I please.
They can however, tell me that my decision to make him a dual-wielder is sub-optimal compared to what he could do with a Greatsword or a shield.

But nobody is putting a gun to my head. Yeah, I know that Jackie won't do as much damage as he probably could. That's okay with me. Better to have the info and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

I also play on the other side of the screen, as a DM. I'm happy to see the community throw around these top-tier builds, as it gives me a better perspective of things. Is that Warlock really as OP as he seems, or is the rest of the party just running very unoptimized builds? If every "optimized" Fighter is running a combo of Great Weapon Master and PoleArm Master, maybe I should consider a house-rule for those feats to make them a little less ubiquitous.
I had a DM recently ask me "not to play any OP characters this time." Thing is, he obviously hasn't come to GitP, because the build I was running wasn't even optimized, let alone OP.
Later in the campaign, our Fighter "discovered" the GWM+PAM combo. Our DM didn't realize how powerful it was, until the guy suddenly got Extra Attack and started taking the -5/+10 on the Bonus attack. The DM was like, "wait - you can do that 3 times per turn at 5th level?!"
If he had been here on GItP, he would have seen that coming from a mile away and known to fix it if he didn't think it was fair. Instead, he didn't have that info and so he was totally blindsided.

[AvatarVecna]

While it's certainly less relevant in 5e than in 3.5/PF/4e (due to the simplified chargen process and the relative differences in floors and ceilings being much smaller than previously), it generally comes down to one thing for me: I can come up with whatever fluff I want, but I can't change the rules without having to consult with the other people I'm playing the game with. I don't have much trouble coming up with a character concept I'm interested in RPing out in a game, but I can get pretty frustrated when my fluff can't match up with my mechanics, and the potential disparity grows as you get more resources to throw around (and thus more resources to potentially waste). I don't like spending time coming up with a great backstory for my character telling of how awesome they are when it turns out I'm either over or underestimating them.

In short, I like for me fluff and mechanics to align, and one of those things I can do whatever I want, while the other I'm a bit more limited.

[BillyBobShorton]

To put it simply, you level up and get better. People want to get the most out of their "better".

More specifically, the design of 5e is such that one can see the entire class, race, and background sections as a big pile of building blocks-like legos, actually, not to mock the OP. Some interlock with one another easily and get a nice, squared off efficient creation; some do not. And some require various other blocks to form a bridge so that uncooperative blocks can still be part of the same construct. Many players are trying to get a tidy, rock solid chunk of blocks that all fit well and give them the most "bang for buck", ie. Optimization.

Monks synergize with Clerics because wisdom helps priest spells and buffs monk armor. Bards and Warlocks both use charisma, and have a trove of unique class abilities that become stronger when combined with the other's class abilities.

Paladins "normally" don't mix well with... say, a wizard because they need almost every ability score to be viable.

Then there's concepts that could be awesome, if the proper "blocks" are layed out properly, or a complete disaster if the mix of skills, feats, spells, etc are not put together properly. That's kinda like just taping the lego's together because they won't lock.

Players don't always want to outdo the party or be a glory hog, or be almost immune to alit of what a DM can throw at them. They are simply enjoying the science of the build, treating it almost as a game withing a game. At hogher levels, you're going to want some kind of usefulness out of your charavter besides being an interesting character that's fun to play.... because creatures like Liches, The Tarrasque, and Dragons don't care how fun and colorful a personality is, or about how you manage to keep things fresh despite having little effect on the game or in combat.

It was not Bilbo's clever riddles and small size that brought down Smaug, nor was it Dwarven prode and honor. It was a freaking level 18 fighter with a mighty weapon and multiple attacks that killed it. The Empire didn't fall because C3P0 and R2D2 were so much fun and had a lot of utility. It fell because 2 of the mightiest Paladins ever decided enough was enough.

So while role playing and quirky oddball PC's (see my thread for more on that) can be fun and enlugh for some players to enjoy the game, eventually powers, damage, hit probability, hit points and action economy are going to become critical. So players try to create these contructs that grant them the most badass, hard to kill PC's they can, or the best healer, or elemental master, or shadow-walker or mind-f*cker they can dream up.

It pretty much comes down to wanting to get the most out of each your legos, because you only get so many to build a house.

[SmokingSkull]

This reminds me of something I read about MtG but it can be applied to D&D as well. There are three player types: Timmy, Johnny and Spike.

Timmy: This is the kind of player who likes to make big plays. Is all about having fun and doing stuff because why not? They may not be optimized or trying to show off their creativity but that's not the goal. The goal is to play viscerally and just enjoy themselves.

Johhny: This player is more about the theme, the feel and the immersion. They play the game to express themselves, show off a little creativity and in general plays on their terms. They revel in the moments where they shine but also know that they won't always shine, and that's perfectly fine for them.

Spike: This player is interested in the optimization, being the best and outplaying their opponents. For them the rush of victory and the challenge of an equal or stronger opponent pushes them onward and it's the joy they get from playing. They will more likely look for builds, copy others ideas and think in a more meta sense to figure out how to play the "best".

I should also mention, not everyone is beholden to one type. Everyone can be a little of all three, two or whatever they feel, and it can vary from game to game. Now I'm sure someone might reference the 7 player types for RPG's but that digs deeper than what I type here. This is just something I reference every so often when I question what kind of fun other players have.

[xyianth]

For me, optimization came from necessity. When I first started, the DM I played with had certain tendencies. First, PCs died quickly and often. Second, he loved the situations that left you stranded in the middle of nowhere without your gear so you had to survive off of your abilities. (The old naked in a hole in the middle of the desert scenarios) Third, he had the nasty habit of figuring out a PCs weakness and then abusing it endlessly. Now, I eventually wised up and found others to play with, but for a few years he was the only DM I knew. As a result, I got good at optimizing for survival. In games, I try and use that to shore up weaknesses rather than maximize strengths. This goes well with my preference of playing a support role.

[Herobizkit]

I've always felt that optimizers see the dungeon as an obstacle course and they want to "win" as efficiently and as gloriously as possible.

Give the randomness of character and player types in, say, Adventure League, one might want to go into the game with a character that isn't going to hold the group back - nor will they be held back by any one player/character.

Consider, some MMO's limit which players can randomly form a raid party by (for example) their quality of gear. If they didn't meet x requirements, they weren't able to participate. D&D doesn't have such a limitation, but by the same token, it's very difficult to make a clearly broken/wrong 'build', even by accident.

[EDL]

Well, as a player I find more fun in role-playing then in "winning", but I agree with xyianth that depending on the situation optimization is a question of survival in some cases.
For example, I have one PC playing in the campaign with my friends. I don't care about optimizing him, i even make him weaker sometimes by taking some class dips just for fluff and role-play reasons and it's fine for me. But I also have another PC who is playing AL expeditions mostly with random parties and DM's. And I try to optimize him just because I will not be able to enjoy playing him if he falls dead after very first encounter.

[Innocent_bystan]

I optimize a fair bit.

For me, it's all about efficiency. I'll choose a concept like, for instance, an illusionist. And then I'll read up on the rules concerning that concept.
Then I'll search for classes/feats/spells/cowbell that let me build that concept. I'll even make a couple of sample characters at different levels to gauge to strength and flexibility of the build. Then I have to decide the balance between raw power, flexibility and delay of key features.
At the end of this whole process I'll have a pretty good illusionist. I don't really care if the concept might not be the strongest, but within the boundaries of the concept I want to be good, if not the best, at what I do.

[Naanomi]

This reminds me of something I read about MtG but it can be applied to D&D as well. There are three player types: Timmy, Johnny and Spike.

Timmy: This is the kind of player who likes to make big plays. Is all about having fun and doing stuff because why not? They may not be optimized or trying to show off their creativity but that's not the goal. The goal is to play viscerally and just enjoy themselves.

Johhny: This player is more about the theme, the feel and the immersion. They play the game to express themselves, show off a little creativity and in general plays on their terms. They revel in the moments where they shine but also know that they won't always shine, and that's perfectly fine for them.

Spike: This player is interested in the optimization, being the best and outplaying their opponents. For them the rush of victory and the challenge of an equal or stronger opponent pushes them onward and it's the joy they get from playing. They will more likely look for builds, copy others ideas and think in a more meta sense to figure out how to play the "best".
In my mind; all three are optimizers (which makes sense, because they were originally ways of categorizing deck building styles).

Timmy wants to optimize to do big things (usually with big numbers), probably Nova damage

Johnny wants to optimize around *his or her* idea, make the best 'summoner' even if that ends up being a messy Druid/Sorcerer/Conjurer

Spike wants to win, they are the ones figuring out the intricacies of RAW for Devil's Sight + Darkness and doing the math on GWM breakpoints

Of the other two 'player profiles', Melvin is also somewhat of an optimizer sometimes. Melvin likes the 'nuts and bolts' of the mechanics, finds elegance in the way you can *just* squeeze Expertise in Stealth, Pass Without Trace, and Hide in Plain Sight in a build (or something like that)

Only Vorthos really escapes the idea of an Optimizer... he's the purely story driven type who plays his Dragonborn Monk because that is the common inhabitant of Arsthwhile Vale, only three miles from the campaign starting point in Speilshen Castle