PeteNutButter's 10 Rules to Character Optimization

[PeteNutButter]

10 Rules to Character Optimization

This is the most important rule for obvious reasons. It is also a catch all for minor rules that didn't quite make the list.

What I almost made the rule was "Don't break the game too hard." Remember that no one is having fun if you break the game in half, or completely overshadow everyone else. Even if you lack any sense of empathy for your fellow PCs, these things usually result in the game breaking up and thus no more fun.

Keep in line with what your team is capable of but just... do it well.
This is one of those odd rules that early optimizers often fall prey to.
Anyone who frequents these forums can attest to the endless amount of posts that are, "make me an OP character at x level." That's all well and good, but what if the player doesn't like playing spellcasters? They will end up breaking rule #1.

For me it's sneaky characters. I can't stand the feel of a traditional stealth character, and have always preferred the kick the door in type. If I'm playing a game where rogues are the best class, I'll probably make something else or build a rogue that doesn't sneak.
This rule is a tough one to get through to on more old school players. When my rogue rolls up in plate, because he took first level in fighter, and doesn't even have stealth proficiency, it rubs some players the wrong way. I like to get past that. If you refuse to be a wizard in heavy armor, you miss out on a lot of cool opportunities.

A paladin can totally multiclass into warlock. Make up a cool backstory.

Yes, I am telling you to use game mechanics to inspire a backstory.

If everyone was a cookie cutter character then we'd never have original characters that break the stereotype, like a drow that isn't an evil mook or a hobbit that isn't useless. This is of course the most DM dependent rule here, but if you are creative enough with your fluff you should be able to convince most DMs of odd combinations.
This is the most important mechanical rule of optimizing. The game provides you with an action, a bonus action, and a reaction every turn. Any round they aren't all used is potentially a wasted action. Build your character in such a way that you can frequently have a use for every action. This is naturally easier to do with some characters than others but a few good ones can make their way on most characters.

For bonus actions there are things like hex/hunter's mark, shield master, TWF and PAM. Sorcerers can quicken, bards have inspiration and healing word, clerics have healing word and spiritual weapon, warlocks have hex, wizards have the least options here and can benefit from a dip in another class.

Reactions are a bit more defensive usually, but for casters useful reactions include spells like shield, counterspell and absorb elements. Most martials are served well with a dip to provide shield or PAM/sentinel for more attacks. BM fighters have riposte, rogues have uncanny dodge.

Far and away the best characters in play are ones that work that action economy to the bone.
Simple rule, easy application, easy to break. Multiple Attribute Dependence is a tough thing to balance as characters go up in level due to the limited number of ASIs. Most odd multiclass combinations can get away with a 13 in a stat or two (to meet requirements), but start spreading around 14s and you'll often end up spread too thin and breaking rule #8.
I almost titled this rule "Get the build online early," but I really wanted to drive the point home that high level abilities, we'll say tier 4 abilities, are not something most people should be building their characters around. Too often games never make it that far and if they do, there is a lot more play time on the way that would possibly justify getting something else much sooner, even if you are the kind of person that saves the marshmallows in your lucky charms for last. (The obvious exception is if the game starts at higher level.)

I generally try and have my characters fully online by about level 7-8 at the latest, with everything coming afterwards to be just bonuses.
Another simple rule that I've seen optimizers fall prey to. You could carry nukes, but if you don't go first on initiative you might never get to fire them.

Characters built for solely offense start crumbling under long fights or long adventuring days as those hits that get through get through hard.

Get as good of an AC as possible. If its still crap, use cover. Run out shoot/blast/control or whatever than run around the corner every round. No optimized character is running around with a 10 con. Most characters need a 14, and remember the lower your class hit die the more important con is as it makes up a greater percentage of your hp per level.
I've seen this rule be broken more often with casual players who want to do everything. They spread too thin and end up better than no one at the party in everything. The skill system works such that generally the best person at it does it for most things, and being decent at everything isn't all that helpful in 5e. Pick something, and do it well. Generally that means pick one ability score and try and max it, but it can mean a variety of things.
This rule is a bit tough to find the fine line, because one trick characters are a common thing in optimized characters. The key difference between a one trick pony and an optimized character that is really good at one thing is what those characters do when their trick fails. A one trick pony ends up with almost nothing effective while an optimized character can have its gimmick fail and still have several solid options to fall back on.

Plan to be good at something, but don't neglect what you do when that something fails.
Simple rule, easy to follow. When examining another PC's sheet last week, he claimed I advised his cleric to have a 10 int. "Not on my life," I responded. If you want a 10 int for RP reasons that's fine, but if you're optimizing and it's a dump stat just dump it. Two points in your key stat or con is generally far far more useful than a 10 int or cha or dex or str. The only thing I generally don't dump is wisdom for the saves/perception, and of course con as per rule #7.

Most stat arrays I use come like 16, 16, 14, 10, 8, 8 for variant humans, or 16, 16, 16, 8, 8, 8 with half feat. For most other races you should be looking at either 16, 17, 15, 8, 8, 8 to boost those odd ones on first ASI or maybe 16, 16, 14, 12, 8, 8. Half elves can rock 16, 16, 16, 10, 8, 8
There is the list of rules I always tell my fellow PCs when helping them create a character. I'm sharing it here by request, but would be happy to hear input. Feel free to suggest more rules, and I'll update accordingly. As a note, when talking about stats, I'm assuming point buy. Also keep in mind that these "rules" are more guidelines and not hard fast rules. There are always reasonable exceptions.

[Corran]

1. I disagree. This isn't just a game..... Heh, no I am kidding. Golden rule this one is. I've sometimes played builds and not characters (or builds that didnt manage to evolve into an amusing and interesting character), and from personal experience I can attest to that rule. I usually fix up the choices that matter to me for what I have in mind (usually it's race and class/classes, skills, and perhaps a feat or two), and then I go about trying to optimize everything else around my given basis (avoiding what would make no sense, or little sense, to ME).

2. Heh, for me it's monks (though I will have to try one at some point). Agreed, obviously. Not from a point of not trying new things (that may end up changing your mind), but from a point of putting optimization above preferences, as it will lead to less fun (this ties with the prevous rule).

3. Couldn't agree more!!! Contrary to point 1, sometimes I envision a character who is good at doing thing A. Or who is good at two or more things at the same time. If I can achieve this better (or else, if it fits better what I have in mind) by multiclassing, then that's the best way to go about it and a better approximation of the fictional character I was going for (for example, if I want to make a chararacter who is the bard-equivalent of Robin Hood, then I will have my bard take a level in fighter for the archery fighting style, and this is not munckining, as mechanics influence the impact your character has when playing the game, and thus the feeling the character gives to you). Also, dnd revolves enough around combat, so sometimes I like to think of how my characters fight, aprat from how they talk and behave when out of combat. If I wan my character to fight in a particular fighting style that requires of me to take a dip in some class so I can pull it off, then so be it (this is very much alike to taking combat feats instead of feats that enhance some roleplaying element or your ability scores).

4. Actually, I can agree more with something, than with the previous point. And this is point 4.
Half of the times I read the word shillelagh in an optimization post, I just move on uniterested, because I instantly know that the person suggesting (or inquiring about) this idea, probably (99% to leave some room for exceptions) never took into account action economy. And it is really tiring to try and convince someone that the brilliant idea wont be as brilliant in actual play, so I just move on saying nothing most of the time.

5. Certain exceptions to that rule (but you point out about exceptions at the end of the post), but generally very very true. Amazing rolled stats interact interestingly with this topic, but then again amazing rolled stats cannot be taken into account when we are talking about general optimization.

6. I disagree. I half-agree and half-disagree with this one. I'll go ahead and admit you are right, but I still cannot agree 100% with this. When I am starting a campaign, unless specified otherwise (like if told that the campaign will go up to that level, or the campaign will run for, say, 3 months -never like hearing stuff like that), I simply cannot assume that this is NOT going to be the campaign that NEVER ENDS (or at the very least, the campaign that will go up to level 20 and we keep on playing until everyone -rather, until me- are bored. And I know that this is an unreasonable assumption (odds wise), but I choose to fool myself. And I do that very convincingly. So... whenever creating an ''optimal'' character build, I ALWAYS take into account what it can do at the higher levels, BUT.... I also try to check how the ''power'' advances during the previous levels too. Yes, I wont choose to play a build that is mostly uses, or at least subpar, and only catches on fire when at levels 19-20 (if I aim to play an optimal build, that is), but I will also never play a build that peaks, say, at level 10, and every level thereafter it is ''declining'', reaching a quite suboptimal state at the high levels (because every moment after I hit the golden level, I will keep thinking that my build is on a free fall -again, if optimizing is the aim). So, I guess what I am trying to say, is that I want my build to be exactly where I want it to be when I hit the end game (from a theoritical point of view, ie level 20), or at the very least to have something exciting waiting for me there, mechanic-wise, all while the build keeps me satisfied enough during the earlier levels.
Again, I'll admit, from a practical point of view, all levels are not equally important, but personally I cannot be practical in this matter and I want the cherry when I hit 20 (even if I know I probably wont, actually, I still want to know that theoritically my build moves towards a very positive outcome).

7. True, so true. And so that this sinks better for the younger optimizers out there...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0182.html


8. Tell that to the bard. Oh wait...

9. Learned that the hard way. It took one of those weird multiclass assassin builds and several levels of play for me to finally understand that (and rebuild my abomination of a build), but I finally learned my lesson. It's good to be really good at something, and in order doing so you always hurt your overall efficiency (which is only logical and natural), but always place a limit. After a point, you lose increasingly more overall power for decreasingly less gain. Find the golden spot. This can be objective sometimes (as it deals with preferences), but you can factor in your preferences and still find that red line which you must NOT cross.

10. Agreed, so long as it doesn't conflict rules 1 and 2, which for some people it seems to do (I dont know why...).



ps: I understand this is about character optimization, but may I suggest a rule which still has to do with optimization? Well, I'll do it anyway :smalltongue::

Party optimization > character optimization (sometimes the optimal path is to make suboptimal choices from a character optimization perspective, in order to achieve better general optimization). It is a team game afterall, and this trully means (pardon the hybris) to be a true optimizer.

[nickl_2000]

Party optimization > character optimization (sometimes the optimal path is to make suboptimal choices from a character optimization perspective, in order to achieve better general optimization). It is a team game afterall, and this trully means (pardon the hybris) to be a true optimizer.

I cannot possibly agree with this statement more. It is way more useful to optimize the party than to make yourself the best. I'm in a campaign where I took the healer feat as a Vhuman Moon Druid. This is no where near the best option for a moon druid, however we needed the extra healing to fill in a gap in the party. My character's ability there has been used way more often than other feats would have, and the ability has actually brought cohesion to a party that normally wouldn't have any reason to be together.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think the title of 3 would need to be reworded. Going by the title, it seems like the rules are throwing out character and setting fluff, which is the number 3 way to troll a group.

I'd rephrase it as 'Don't be afraid to break class sterotypes'. Because there is nothing about abandoning or changing the fluff of the class. The paladin/warlock might be an awesome defender of freedom empowered by a protector fey spirit, but it's still a Paladin/Warlock. Neither class is being refluffed, just given a reasonable explanation that falls well within the examples listed in the PHB.

Changing the fluff of the Warlock/Paladin for me is calling it a hexblade and chucking out mention of a hexblade and pretending the paladin powers are arcane. I think some groups might have an issue with that, and it is a matter of taste.

[Tetrasodium]

with regards to that point 10, there's nothing wrong with a 10 instead of 8 in a stat like int, especially if the benefit of poutting those points elsewhere is not going to be all that bog of a deal or you are intentionally leaving something odd with the intention of taking a feat that adds +1 later. the phb talks about 15 15 15 8 8 8 in point buy, but 8 10 10 14 14 15 can be just as (if not more) optimal by not taking a bunch of useful skill/save penalties.

[Sirdar]

@PeteNutButter: 10 very good rules. I would never obey rule 10 myself (dumping Int is not an option for me), but I can see why it's in the list.

Rule 3 is particularly interesting since it involves your fellow players and DM as well. Can you get the Hexblade feeling if everyone else think you are an Paladin/Warlock munchkin abomination?

[Tetrasodium]

@PeteNutButter: 10 very good rules. I would never obey rule 10 myself (dumping Int is not an option for me), but I can see why it's in the list.

Rule 3 is particularly interesting since it involves your fellow players and DM as well. Can you get the Hexblade feeling if everyone else think you are an Paladin/Warlock munchkin abomination?


It depends on how you view things.

The first issue here is how you view classes. Are classes a construct that exists in the world exactly as they exist in the rules? Does every member of a class have access to all the choices within that class? Or are they simply mechanical tools that allow us as GMs and players to model the characters we want to play? Does every sorcerer in the world recognize “I am a sorcerer?” Or is that a term we use to identify anyone using this rule set, but not something they would recognize?

-source (http://keith-baker.com/sorcerers/)

[Cybren]

#3 seems to demonstrate you don't actually know what "fluff" means, or rather, further exemplifies why there's no such thing as "fluff"

[Corran]

#3 seems to demonstrate you don't actually know what "fluff" means, or rather, further exemplifies why there's no such thing as "fluff"
This argument has been done to death over and over in many threads, and it never leads nowehere. So while I acknowledge that this is a point where many dnd players have different opinions, I think it would be a shame that this thread becomes another one of these threads.

[PeteNutButter]

I think the title of 3 would need to be reworded. Going by the title, it seems like the rules are throwing out character and setting fluff, which is the number 3 way to troll a group.

I'd rephrase it as 'Don't be afraid to break class sterotypes'. Because there is nothing about abandoning or changing the fluff of the class. The paladin/warlock might be an awesome defender of freedom empowered by a protector fey spirit, but it's still a Paladin/Warlock. Neither class is being refluffed, just given a reasonable explanation that falls well within the examples listed in the PHB.

Changing the fluff of the Warlock/Paladin for me is calling it a hexblade and chucking out mention of a hexblade and pretending the paladin powers are arcane. I think some groups might have an issue with that, and it is a matter of taste.

I can reword it a bit. I was implying the first bit, keeping the classes as is fluff-wise but just having a good reason to combine them. I was NOT thinking arguing for a total refluff.

I mean things like rogues or even monks wearing heavy armor, or the like.

I have a Goliath grapple bard with only a 13 cha. He is only really a bard on paper, but in game he doesn't feel or act like a stereotypical bard. He casts cloud of daggers and drags people in it. It's brutal and the PC is evil and completely devoid of any "musical" feel.

I played a barbarian monk lizardman who wore armor and used his bite as flurry of blows. Didn't at all feel like a monk, despite the majority of his class levels there.

I had a life cleric fiend warlock who had a good reason for his pact.... etc.

[ZorroGames]

It is a, perhaps not "the", guide to optimization.

I think fluff is a bad term to get discussion going on because it is both meanings of the word ambiguous.

I will use and ignore parts of it as I design a character.

[Honest Tiefling]

I can reword it a bit. I was implying the first bit, keeping the classes as is fluff-wise but just having a good reason to combine them. I was thinking arguing for a total refluff.

Maybe present it not as a refluff, but to consider new or strange character archetypes while maintaining the setting and class fluff of the game, and to explore different character concepts then the traditional ones for each class. That to me makes it seem more like the optimizer is trying to work with the setting and game the DM is trying to run, not break it six ways to Sunday.

[PeteNutButter]

Maybe present it not as a refluff, but to consider new or strange character archetypes while maintaining the setting and class fluff of the game, and to explore different character concepts then the traditional ones for each class. That to me makes it seem more like the optimizer is trying to work with the setting and game the DM is trying to run, not break it six ways to Sunday.

To be fair I didn't say refluff. I said to be creative with fluff. To clarify by fluff I mean the backstory of the character, while mechanics would represent the actual numbers on the sheet.

So as Corran said, please don't let this thread devolve into what is and isn't fluff. The rule should probably just be, "Don't be afraid to think outside the box."

[ZorroGames]

"Don't be afraid to think outside the box."

Unless you are a cat, then stay inside the box.

So my Mountain Dwarf Monk is a slight example of what you are talking about with that rule?

Several people seemed to think I wanted a Hill Dwarf (more optimal in many ways) when I mentioned it.

I was going for a character more than a mechanic.

[joaber]

The defense one is so completly true, but missed for 80% of optimization topics. The fast is, you're a terrible damage dealer when you're unconsious, and burning half of psrty resources to heal you isn't "optimization".

To all the topic with "I will get 2 lvl in barbarian for reckless attack, so I can attack with advantage all the time!". Don't forget that you'll be attacked 2x more, and without barbarian resistance and HP, you'll stay sleeping in the ground half of the day.

[Tetrasodium]

The defense one is so completly true, but missed for 80% of optimization topics. The fast is, you're a terrible damage dealer when you're unconsious, and burning half of psrty resources to heal you isn't "optimization".

To all the topic with "I will get 2 lvl in barbarian for reckless attack, so I can attack with advantage all the time!". Don't forget that you'll be attacked 2x more, and without barbarian resistance and HP, you'll stay sleeping in the ground half of the day.

Yea, it's not unusual for people to jump into guides & go on angrily about how the guide makes a huge mistake by not focusing on how to do some crazy multiclass/feat/etc combo to max out dps at the expense of ignoring all else.

[bid]

but 8 10 10 14 14 15 can be just as (if not more) optimal by not taking a bunch of useful skill/save penalties.
Yep, that array is the sweet spot. Most races have +2/+1 which yields 2 16 and Con14. Although 12 8 8 is just as good.

[Capt Spanner]

10 Rules to Character Optimization

<SNIP>

Yes, I am telling you to use game mechanics to inspire a backstory.

<SNIP>

This is the line that rang truest with me, because it can lead to some interesting characters.

Here's an anecdote which demonstrates why this is such a good idea: I was at a session 0 / character building session.

One player (I'll call him "Dave", because ... why not?) came in with little idea of his character, beyond "playing a paladin sounds fun". (He's actually a very experienced D&D player, but has only ever played 3.5, and usually hack 'n' slash / munchkiny [not used pejoratively] / dungeon-crawly type games, and was joining this game for an opportunity to play a less optimised character.)

As he looks through races he sees Tiefling. Charisma bonus: awesome! (His habit of trying to optimise is hard to break.) But, he comments "it's kind of weird for a tiefling to become a paladin. There must be some weird backstory there."

We found the backstory as he was picking backgrounds. He liked the look of the "entertainer" background (useful social skills to go with high charisma), and saw the ideal (or bond, I can't remember which) about being inspired by the heroes of stories he'd read as a child.

And suddenly there it was: a tiefling who got their hands on the world's equivalent of Hans Christian Anderson's stories, or whatever, and was inspired to overcome their background to become a knight in shining armour.

There's something really compelling about that story, and I can't wait to see where it goes.

[ZorroGames]

This is the line that rang truest with me, because it can lead to some interesting characters.

Here's an anecdote which demonstrates why this is such a good idea: I was at a session 0 / character building session.

One player (I'll call him "Dave", because ... why not?) came in with little idea of his character, beyond "playing a paladin sounds fun". (He's actually a very experienced D&D player, but has only ever played 3.5, and usually hack 'n' slash / munchkiny [not used pejoratively] / dungeon-crawly type games, and was joining this game for an opportunity to play a less optimised character.)

As he looks through races he sees Tiefling. Charisma bonus: awesome! (His habit of trying to optimise is hard to break.) But, he comments "it's kind of weird for a tiefling to become a paladin. There must be some weird backstory there."

We found the backstory as he was picking backgrounds. He liked the look of the "entertainer" background (useful social skills to go with high charisma), and saw the ideal (or bond, I can't remember which) about being inspired by the heroes of stories he'd read as a child.

And suddenly there it was: a tiefling who got their hands on the world's equivalent of Hans Christian Anderson's stories, or whatever, and was inspired to overcome their background to become a knight in shining armour.

There's something really compelling about that story, and I can't wait to see where it goes.

That is a very inspiring example, thanks.

Yeah, I am prone to not optimize to the m aximum for role play and back story purposes.

[xroads]

Good set of rules. Well done. :smallsmile:

[KorvinStarmast]

Party optimization > character optimization (sometimes the optimal path is to make suboptimal choices from a character optimization perspective, in order to achieve better general optimization). It is a team game afterall, and this trully means (pardon the hybris) to be a true optimizer. Yeah.

I cannot possibly agree with this statement more. It is way more useful to optimize the party than to make yourself the best. I'm in a campaign where I took the healer feat as a Vhuman Moon Druid. This is no where near the best option for a moon druid, however we needed the extra healing to fill in a gap in the party. My character's ability there has been used way more often than other feats would have, and the ability has actually brought cohesion to a party that normally wouldn't have any reason to be together. Amen deacon.

To be fair I didn't say refluff. I said to be creative with fluff. To clarify by fluff I mean the backstory of the character, while mechanics would represent the actual numbers on the sheet.

So as Corran said, please don't let this thread devolve into what is and isn't fluff. The rule should probably just be, "Don't be afraid to think outside the box." Then you can edit it to say that. Isn't editing a nice thing? :smallbiggrin:

[PeteNutButter]

Then you can edit it to say that. Isn't editing a nice thing? :smallbiggrin:

I had changed it to Never Be Constrained by Tradition. Hopefully that conveys point without getting people's pitchforks out.

[nickl_2000]

I had changed it to Never Be Constrained by Tradition. Hopefully that conveys point without getting people's pitchforks out.

I never get out a pitchfork, that's an improvised weapon at best. I personally prefer to get out the Trident and Torches, gives the same feel while doing real damage :smallwink:

[PeteNutButter]

I never get out a pitchfork, that's an improvised weapon at best. I personally prefer to get out the Trident and Torches, gives the same feel while doing real damage :smallwink:

Hah!

Well then you ought to probably ditch the torch as well, just assume you have darkvision or the light cantrip.

[nickl_2000]

Hah!

Well then you ought to probably ditch the torch as well, just assume you have darkvision or the light cantrip.

That certainly is more optimized, but based on #1 of your rules a Trident and Torch is more fun.

[KorvinStarmast]

I had changed it to Never Be Constrained by Tradition. Hopefully that conveys point without getting people's pitchforks out. Nice job! That is a good way to encourage "hey, how about this" kind of ideas. (I had a warlock who used speak with animals as an invocation (he ran away to the circus as a youngster) and had the background as entertainer so he had tool profs with voice and instrument. Yeah, he was the party face, but he was also openly a bard to everyone but the party (Arch fey/Pact of chain).

[Maxilian]

#3 seems to demonstrate you don't actually know what "fluff" means, or rather, further exemplifies why there's no such thing as "fluff"

Can't the fluff be reacommodated to fix the new build? or just refluff it into something else (like one of those many ADND classes)

[ZorroGames]

Can't the fluff be reacommodated to fix the new build? or just refluff it into something else (like one of those many ADND classes)

Please, the OP asked this not be (my paraphrase) a debate thread on the definition and meaning of "fluff" and I wish we would honor that request.

Otherwise, point acknowledged.

[Waazraath]

I agree with most of it, but don't know about nr. 10. Most builds don't need 3 good ability scores, only two (main casting / attacking stat, and constitution). And constitution 16 is nice, but really not needed. Having a tertiarry stat really high isn't needed. From an optimization point of view, I don't like to have a negative attribute. A negative strength simply sucks with grappling, shoving, and similar, a negative charisma really hurts when you walk into the occasional banishment. A negative dex is always annoying, also because of initiative. And in my experience, there are circumstances where you will need to roll skill checks in skills that aren't naturally 'yours'.

Covering for painfully weak areas is imo at least as good as getting your teriarry score as high as possible. 8 / 8 / 8 / 15 /15 / 15 would almost never be my choice because of that.

[Maxilian]

I agree with most of it, but don't know about nr. 10. Most builds don't need 3 good ability scores, only two (main casting / attacking stat, and constitution). And constitution 16 is nice, but really not needed. Having a tertiarry stat really high isn't needed. From an optimization point of view, I don't like to have a negative attribute. A negative strength simply sucks with grappling, shoving, and similar, a negative charisma really hurts when you walk into the occasional banishment. A negative dex is always annoying, also because of initiative. And in my experience, there are circumstances where you will need to roll skill checks in skills that aren't naturally 'yours'.

Covering for painfully weak areas is imo at least as good as getting your teriarry score as high as possible. 8 / 8 / 8 / 15 /15 / 15 would almost never be my choice because of that.

Have in mind that for most casters, they will need 3 stats, casting stat (CHA, INT or WIS), constitution to survive, and DEX for AC.

Also there are some stats that can be more easily dropped than others (INT or CHA for those that don't use them as their main stats), unlike WIS that is almost always useful (even for those that do not use it for casting).

Note: I normally think that 14 in CON is OK, and would always prefer that to put 10 in WIS at least.

[krunchyfrogg]

Thank you for posting this great guide!!!

[Corran]

Covering for painfully weak areas is imo at least as good as getting your teriarry score as high as possible. 8 / 8 / 8 / 15 /15 / 15 would almost never be my choice because of that.
Agreed. To my knowledge this is usually a case of 16 CON, 8 DEX, 8 WIS vs 14 CON, 10 DEX, 10 WIS. I would always choose the second array. Hard to translate how they compare vs each other, but my money is on 14 CON, 10 DEX, 10 WIS.
(Edit: Though assuming a non-EK fighter, I would easily say that the optimal stat array -excluding perhaps edge cases?- would involve an 8 CHA and an 8 INT.)

ps: I think the OP mostly means when people dont want to put an 8 in INT because they think that this will greatly affect how their character is percieved by NPC's or other PC's (could be wrong interpreting the op's intention or people's reasoning here). Which always struck weird to me, since imo intelligence is the least important mental stat regarding what ''people'' get to make out of your character (I think CHA and WIS ''show'' easier, while to make a judgement about someone's INT will probably take longer and to get to know them better).

[PeteNutButter]

ps: I think the OP mostly means when people dont want to put an 8 in INT because they think that this will greatly affect how their character is percieved by NPC's or other PC's (could be wrong interpreting the op's intention or people's reasoning here). Which always struck weird to me, since imo intelligence is the least important mental stat regarding what ''people'' get to make out of your character (I think CHA and WIS ''show'' easier, while to make a judgement about someone's INT will probably take longer and to get to know them better).

Basically this.

Not saying you have to use the all 15s and 8s, just saying that cha and int are useless on classes that don't use them. On the very rare occasion that you have to make a saving throw on cha or int, there is only a 1 point difference.

Almost everyone typically needs either str or dex for AC, everyone needs con, and most classes need something else. In my experience it's usually con that suffers when people refuse to dump these stats. Even if you ignore hit points, con saves and possibly concentration con saves are far more common and far more deadly.

[Waazraath]

Ah, check, in that case it makes more sense to me. For int and cha specificly, an 8 isn't that bad. For str, dex and wis, I wouldn't dump 'em to 8 because they are frequent saves and often used skills/ability checks, con I won't talk about dumping it in an optimization thread. Though even for int and cha, beside the occasional save (with really sucks if you fail it), there are occasional skill and ability checks as well. Even it's just +1, I rather have it than not.

Looking at it from the other way: what classes / subclasses / combinations would really like to have 3 high ability scores? I can come up with a number of 'em:
- casters without armor (needing dex, con and casting stat)
- barbarians (str, dex, con)
- monks (dex, con, wis)
- paladins (dex/str, con, cha)

But a lot of builds don't need 'em:
-any fighter (dex/str, con)
-any rogue (dex, con)
- rangers (dex/str, con)
- any cleric and druid (wis, con)
- any caster with armor (doesn't need to max both dex and con, imo)

secondary casting stats for EK, ranger and AT don't need a high score, imo. And even playing a paladin, that arguably needs 3 high scores most of all, I'd prefer half elf with 16 /16 /14 / 10 /10 /10, above anything with an 8. Dumping your dump stats as high as possible is defintely an option, and often a good one, but as one of the 10 rules for optimization, I'm not totally convinced.

[Crusher]

And even playing a paladin, that arguably needs 3 high scores most of all, I'd prefer half elf with 16 /16 /14 / 10 /10 /10, above anything with an 8. Dumping your dump stats as high as possible is defintely an option, and often a good one, but as one of the 10 rules for optimization, I'm not totally convinced.

I assume the 16/16/14 are CHR, STR (or DEX) and CON? Why would you go 10 WIS/10 INT rather than 12 WIS/8 INT? I just don't see the upside...

[Maxilian]

I assume the 16/16/14 are CHR, STR (or DEX) and CON? Why would you go 10 WIS/10 INT rather than 12 WIS/8 INT? I just don't see the upside...

I agree here, 12 WIS will always be more useful and better than 10 WIS 10 INT, though i understand the feeling of wanting to evade using "not so smart" characters

[Klorox]

Great work again! Thank you so much for posting this!

[Waazraath]

I assume the 16/16/14 are CHR, STR (or DEX) and CON? Why would you go 10 WIS/10 INT rather than 12 WIS/8 INT? I just don't see the upside...

Yeah, and eeeeh... fair question. In general, wis is so much better that, talking optimization, 12/8 is better. I can make up some reasoning, that wis is high enough with proficiency + cha to saves, but tbh, this is more 'feeling' than numbers.