How much is too much? The optimizer's conundrum

[jaappleton]

I'm an optimizer. If I'm a Monk, I want high Dex, and a race that gets a bonus to Dex. I'll almost never consider making a Monk with a race that doesn't get a Dex bonus.

That's just an example.

At what point, though, are you SO GOOD at something, that its... Its not fun?

As an example, here's something I stumbled on:

Forged Cleric 6
+2 Shield (Rare)
Cloak of Protection (Uncommon)
Plate
Warforged

That's an AC of 26. Twenty Six Armor Class. And with other items, it can go higher, that's for certain.

And that character is by no means invulnerable; force dex saving throws, charm effects (Though most key off Wisdom), etc.

Additionally, by no means are you guaranteed to get those two magic items. Though I do feel it shouldn't be too difficult to get your hands on a particular uncommon magic item like the Cloak of Protection, and there's plenty of others which boost AC besides a +2 Shield. Regardless, I think you get the point.

So at what point, as an optimizer, do you say "Ok, that's enough for that"?

[KorvinStarmast]

It depends.
Are you still having fun?
At the other players having fun?
Is the DM having fun?

[Honest Tiefling]

Can't be answered, as for most people, they still want a challenge of some sort even with such a highly optimized character...Even if that challenge is in facing off against an Ancient Red Dragon at an insanely low level. However, if you didn't optimize well, you're not likely to survive when the optimizer decides to grapple the dragon and the dragon gets upset.

If the DM can't make interesting encounters or is scrambling to find ways to have everyone be involved, that's less time for them investing in story and other bits of the game, and more stress. It typically does not make for a happy DM, and an unhappy DM does not DM well.

So, you're probably going overboard if other players feel useless or overshadowed in too many areas, especially ones they try to be useful in. And if your DM is having a headache trying to balance things, you should probably stop that.

However, I've seen groups where everyone did optimize and they had a blast. So it's really more a matter of compatibility then anything else.

[DMThac0]

To answer your question directly, there is no stopping point for an optimizer. The goal is to create the ultimate character that has the best of whatever it is you're trying to do. The optimizer strives to answer how can I get the most attacks per round, highest ac possible, highest burst damage, highest sustained damage, et al. To that end, it's enough when there are no other possibilities available to them to reach higher, until the next book is released and they need to re-calculate numbers.

To answer the side question, when does it stop being fun, the answer is simple, when the table is no longer enjoying the experience. As it is generally accepted that the table is under an unspoken social contract, you're in a position to try to take into account the enjoyment of everyone else present in the game. Do the players tend to say "Let him do it, he can't roll under a 23 anyhow." or "Hey, come here, we need you to fix this npc's problem..you know...breathing." You should be able to gauge the table's attitude and adjust your play to accommodate a fair compromise.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I consider myself an optimizer. I will sit down with a new character sheet and concept and squeeze the books of whatever game I’m playing dry to get as much super juice into the character as I can.

By the time I’m done the character is finished. As in his/her entire life is completely mapped out and all I have to do is play ge character when it’s time to play.

This part is fun. Almost like finishing a puzzle and cracking a code at the same time. It’s very fun as a process.

At this point waiting to play is killer. It’s like I just bought a new book and can only read it at certain times and with everyone. Waiting once a month for a few hours of play of a character you’ve already completed is very unfun.
Playing the character is fun yes but unless you can play often you’re in a bittersweet cycle. You don’t even get to wonder what your character will become next, you know.

If this is the optimization you do, my advice would be to either have multiple games with multiple characters that you cycle through often so you have fun with the change and will be happily surprised when each one comes up. OR don’t write out the characters life. Just make a starting point and change each session (like a ‘normal ‘ player does I guess I don’t know. )



If however you asking is it at some point not fun to have a super good character then I say you be playing wrong. But try to make restrictions on yourself and keep to them. “Being the best at X” may not be as fullfilling as “being the best at X, despite restrictions Y and Z” so try that.

[Armored Walrus]

The concept in the OP wouldn't bother me at all. The only "optimization" behavior that will eventually get on my nerves is what I'll call "rulings fishing." Scouring the rule books for edge cases, interpreting every ruling that's left to DM judgement in a munchkinish way, these bother me as a DM after a certain point. Not that I enjoy squashing creativity, and building a character to take advantage of a specific interpretation of the rules is ok to a point, but if every moving part of your character concept needs my cooperation, probably everyone at the table will be happier if you come up with a different concept.

[jas61292]

But try to make restrictions on yourself and keep to them. “Being the best at X” may not be as fullfilling as “being the best at X, despite restrictions Y and Z” so try that.

This is something I consider important. I'm not always an optimizer, but I do find optimizing fun. That said, optimizing just means trying to be the best at something. It does not define what that something is. And the more general and vague the something is, the less fun I have optimizing it.

I would never have fun optimizing the concept of "monk." That is too basic and straight forward, and will end up being just ripped from some forum thread. On the other hand, a concept such as "gnomish monk who utilizes his monk talents to be a skilled street performer" would be much more interesting to me. Only two elements are defined (race and class), but I have an optimization goal beyond being the best at combat with a class. I have to find ways to balance the conflicting elements of the concept, and still be as good as possible at both.

So, for me personally, so long as the concept I am optimizing is fun, optimization never goes too far. It only ever does so when the concept becomes too vague or generic, and I end up feeling like I'm playing an optimized stat block, and not an optimized character concept.

[Gorgo]

For me, optimizing stops being fun if I build a character who wildly outclasses the others in my party to the point where they have less fun. One thing I've tried when playing with less optimization-focused players is to pick a character concept that seems fun but I know has effectiveness issues and see if I can optimize it to the point where it's competitive with the rest of the party.

[the secret fire]

Additionally, by no means are you guaranteed to get those two magic items. Though I do feel it shouldn't be too difficult to get your hands on a particular uncommon magic item like the Cloak of Protection, and there's plenty of others which boost AC besides a +2 Shield. Regardless, I think you get the point.

So at what point, as an optimizer, do you say "Ok, that's enough for that"?

This is why buying and selling magic items is no longer a part of the standard rule set...so that DMs can decide how much is too much without players crying and taking their dice home.

[strangebloke]

1: If you're optimizing within a niche that no one else is optimized for, you literally can't push the numbers too high.

"If barty has +55 to his stealth check, nobody cares because he was going to be better than them anyway."

2: If you're optimizing your defenses, nobody will care, probably, because all that being tough means is that you don't die, and not dying, while cool, isn't something people really get competitive over.

"Has Jerry never hit 0 hp? I guess he hasn't. Huh."

3: If you are trying to be better at something that other people are also trying to be good at, and you completely blow them out of the water, this may be a problem. The most common thing here is DPR. Even then, the gap between optimized/competent/bad is pretty small.

so long as you don't have someone misoptimizing horribly to try and be good at something in the same party as a guy who is optimizing very well for the same thing... you should be fine.

[Armored Walrus]

the gap between optimized/competent/bad is pretty small.

I tend to agree with this. Mechanically, there is only so much optimizing you can do.

Someone who can optimize their behaviors, tactically, is usually going to outshine every other player at the table even if they play a gnome 4e monk, if the other players are "average" players. (ie. forget they can use bonus actions, end their turn without thinking about how they might be able to use their reaction this round, don't focus fire enemies, etc.)

[Jama7301]

2: If you're optimizing your defenses, nobody will care, probably, because all that being tough means is that you don't die, and not dying, while cool, isn't something people really get competitive over.

"Has Jerry never hit 0 hp? I guess he hasn't. Huh."


The only thing that worries me about this one is that if the DM tries to challenge the high defensed character by throwing tougher enemies at the party. This could cause a situation where the impenetrable player starts to feel some danger, but the rest of the party could be outmatched.

[Armored Walrus]

If the DM is focusing on hitting one player then the DM is doing it wrong. If two PCs drop in a fight, it was a challenging fight. It doesn't matter if Jeff never got hit in that fight.

[strangebloke]

The only thing that worries me about this one is that if the DM tries to challenge the high defensed character by throwing tougher enemies at the party. This could cause a situation where the impenetrable player starts to feel some danger, but the rest of the party could be outmatched.


If the DM is focusing on hitting one player then the DM is doing it wrong. If two PCs drop in a fight, it was a challenging fight. It doesn't matter if Jeff never got hit in that fight.

Yeah, it took me a while to realize this, but the Walrus has the right of it. Even then, in 5e, I don't think anyone is invincible... Though a high-level abjurer wizard or a moon druid are pretty hardy.

A moon druid will quickly find that their immortality has the sharp cost of barely being able to do jack in combat.

[Armored Walrus]

A moon druid will quickly find that their immortality has the sharp cost of barely being able to do jack in combat.

"I, well, I guess I claw and bite again. <miss> <miss> Ok, I'm done I guess."

[strangebloke]

"I, well, I guess I claw and bite again. <miss> <miss> Ok, I'm done I guess."

"I deal... 15 damage."
"On the first attack?"
"Total."
"Okay, Maximus, you're up."
"Hit. 23? no, sorry, 28. Hit. 23 damage. Bonus action attack... Hit. 15 damage."

[OldTrees1]

The optimizer's conundrum only occurs when the optimizer does not know what they want.

I want to find a mechanical representation for the character concept I have in mind. I want the mechanical representation to accurately reflect the character concept while being fun to play for me and the others in the group. This almost always involves trying to also balance my character compared to the group (upper bound) and making sure it covers what it needs to (lower bound). Less obvious is that I want to balance my character for the kinds of encounters I want. Too weak means my character is ineligible for the kinds of encounters I enjoy. Too strong means the DM will resort to the kinds of encounters I don't enjoy.

Knowing what you want puts upper and lower bounds on everything that needs them.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

So at what point, as an optimizer, do you say "Ok, that's enough for that"?

I keep to two general rules: diversify, and manage your ego.

First, I want all of my characters to be the best at one thing, good at two things, and able to contribute with three things. If continuing to push optimization in the direction of being the best at Thing A starts to mean I can't contribute Things D, E and F, I've gone too far with Thing A and need to pull back a bit.

Second, I'm usually the most experienced player at the table, but I'm not there to show off. I just want to play and have a good time. D and D is a collaborative experience between everyone at the table, and whether you're an optimizer or not you're part of the social contract that you accept when you sit down to play. A core part of that contract is being a pleasant person who avoids being obnoxious or vainglorious and controls their ego. My current group hasn't had an issue at the table in the five or so years we've been playing together. One reason for that is that we're all invested in success or failure as a group; it's not a pissing contest between Drizzit and Raistlin to see who can be more implausibly powerful.

[Kane0]

I know I've had enough optimization when I bring up one of these (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3yyEV0sAHjTSTVZZWl6NWxpN0k) not because I want to, but because I think it's necessary to be 'competitive'.

[JellyPooga]

Optimisation is taken too far when it creates problems. A fairly common one, in my experience, is the level 1 V.Human Rogue with Wis:16, Observant and Expertise in Perception, for a Passive Perception of 22. It trivialises any other party members Perception scores as well as any reasonable challenge the GM might set, making any encounter involving Perception either a non-event or so forced that it stretches credibility. Yes, a player or party should not be penalised for being good at something, but when they're so good at a thing that the game simply ceases to be a challenge and as such removes the fun of the risk-reward paradigm...that's when optimisation is a problem.

[Pex]

For me optimizing means somewhere the character will have a weakness. I have to accept that weakness. When the weakness reaches a point I cannot get over it then I know I need to dial back what I'm optimizing and settle for something a little less to make the weakness tolerable.

[Laserlight]

As long as all the PCs are similarly optimized (which includes "Optimized for what? Damage? Survivability? Flexability?") and the DM has a feel for what effect that has on encounter design, go for it. It's when the one guy has significantly higher/lower attack or defense stats than everyone else that it gets to be a problem.

[jaappleton]

Optimization is always a struggle when it comes to me dealings DPR, as I can get it to insane levels. It’s easy to out-shine the party, I did it before as a Barbarian. Things can get to fairly insane levels. Well, in 5e terms, anyway.

But I find when you slide into a Support role and enable characters to kick that much more ass because of your help? I think everybody wins in that scenario.

I mean, Hold Person + Grave Cleric comes to mind. That’s not even optimization, that’s just good strategy, but you get what I’m going for.

[Jerrykhor]

By not fun, do you mean when everything becomes too easy? Or getting accused or munchkinry? Or just having a lack of choices because there is always clearly a best choice, which is the one thing you are built for?

Your example of messing with the bounded accuracy is a common knowledge among DMs, i have yet to encounter a DM who would even give out a +1 shield or armour. +1 weapons seems fine to them. I'm not sure why, because most players tend to maximize damage instead of survivability anyway.

[LudicSavant]

I'm an optimizer. If I'm a Monk, I want high Dex, and a race that gets a bonus to Dex. I'll almost never consider making a Monk with a race that doesn't get a Dex bonus.

That's just an example.

At what point, though, are you SO GOOD at something, that its... Its not fun?

As an example, here's something I stumbled on:

Forged Cleric 6
+2 Shield (Rare)
Cloak of Protection (Uncommon)
Plate
Warforged

That's an AC of 26. Twenty Six Armor Class. And with other items, it can go higher, that's for certain.

And that character is by no means invulnerable; force dex saving throws, charm effects (Though most key off Wisdom), etc.

Additionally, by no means are you guaranteed to get those two magic items. Though I do feel it shouldn't be too difficult to get your hands on a particular uncommon magic item like the Cloak of Protection, and there's plenty of others which boost AC besides a +2 Shield. Regardless, I think you get the point.

So at what point, as an optimizer, do you say "Ok, that's enough for that"?

Eh, that's not even one of the more optimized PCs I've seen at a table, and as a DM I haven't had too much trouble dealing with a high AC. The more dangerous things in the game often hit other defenses anyways.

[Pex]

I'm an optimizer. If I'm a Monk, I want high Dex, and a race that gets a bonus to Dex. I'll almost never consider making a Monk with a race that doesn't get a Dex bonus.

That's just an example.

At what point, though, are you SO GOOD at something, that its... Its not fun?

As an example, here's something I stumbled on:

Forged Cleric 6
+2 Shield (Rare)
Cloak of Protection (Uncommon)
Plate
Warforged

That's an AC of 26. Twenty Six Armor Class. And with other items, it can go higher, that's for certain.

And that character is by no means invulnerable; force dex saving throws, charm effects (Though most key off Wisdom), etc.

Additionally, by no means are you guaranteed to get those two magic items. Though I do feel it shouldn't be too difficult to get your hands on a particular uncommon magic item like the Cloak of Protection, and there's plenty of others which boost AC besides a +2 Shield. Regardless, I think you get the point.

So at what point, as an optimizer, do you say "Ok, that's enough for that"?

That's quite a lot of assumptions. Forge Cleric ok. Plate Armor, at some level > 1 but ok. Cloak of Protection? If the DM was so generous. Now you're going to throw in a +2 Shield and be a warforged? I call shenanigans, not optimization. That's not the player optimizing. That's the DM permitting the race and giving those two specific magic items. It cannot exist without DM cooperation. If the DM is cooperating no way is that AC 26 going to be a problem. Certainly it's nice and the character will enjoy plenty of times when the bad guys miss because of it, but the DM will have the means to deal with it because he's the one who made it happen. Worst case the DM didn't know what he was doing so he and the player work out a means to fix it if the AC 26 is a problem.

No way is this an optimization conundrum or have anything to do with optimization at all.

[Jerrykhor]

That's quite a lot of assumptions. Forge Cleric ok. Plate Armor, at some level > 1 but ok. Cloak of Protection? If the DM was so generous. Now you're going to throw in a +2 Shield and be a warforged? I call shenanigans, not optimization. That's not the player optimizing. That's the DM permitting the race and giving those two specific magic items. It cannot exist without DM cooperation. If the DM is cooperating no way is that AC 26 going to be a problem. Certainly it's nice and the character will enjoy plenty of times when the bad guys miss because of it, but the DM will have the means to deal with it because he's the one who made it happen. Worst case the DM didn't know what he was doing so he and the player work out a means to fix it if the AC 26 is a problem.

No way is this an optimization conundrum or have anything to do with optimization at all.

You too made an assumption that the DM knows how to deal with high AC just because he allows it. I've seen quite a few posts where DM complains about their players using flying races when they allowed it in the first place. Or gave the player an OP magic item and regret later.

Some DMs are just new, or never put much thought in the consequences.

[Pex]

Worst case the DM didn't know what he was doing so he and the player work out a means to fix it if the AC 26 is a problem.

No way is this an optimization conundrum or have anything to do with optimization at all.


You too made an assumption that the DM knows how to deal with high AC just because he allows it. I've seen quite a few posts where DM complains about their players using flying races when they allowed it in the first place. Or gave the player an OP magic item and regret later.

Some DMs are just new, or never put much thought in the consequences.

I accounted for that.

The thread question is good one, but my point stands the opening example is not a proper one.

[Pelle]

IMO, when what you are optimizing is the game mechanics, rather than matching your stats to a fictional character.

[Mikal]

For me personal optimization goes to far when I start trying to help others with their builds.
It's not necessarily cause I think the other players aren't smart or the like, but it comes from my personality- I fix things for a living, optimizing processes and workflows and stuff. That bleeds into my gaming. I want to make sure that any flaws are minimized, while strengths are leveraged (though not necessarily completely eliminated or choosing choices purely for mechanics. See below for details), and when I see others building sub-optimally, I want to provide them assistance.

When it gets to the point where I start getting annoyed at them or they get annoyed at me, that's where I know (sometimes too late) that it's gone to far.

With regards to my own personal optimization? I build it to the point that I feel comfortable, there's no hard and fast line. For example, if playing a dex favored character yeah, I'll usually use a dex race or V-Human... as long as they look mostly human or can pass as one.
For example, I'll never play a Tortle. I just find them to be too goofy. Same for like Aacockra (sp I'm sure, away from books). I also don't like the "smaller races" so no halflings, gnomes, or even dwarves for me!

[Armored Walrus]

Optimization is always a struggle when it comes to me dealings DPR, as I can get it to insane levels. It’s easy to out-shine the party, I did it before as a Barbarian. Things can get to fairly insane levels. Well, in 5e terms, anyway.

Eh, even there, there's nothing wrong with a character being good at what it's good at. Sure the barb might have done 150 damage to the boss last round, but are you going to outshine the party when it's time to negotiate with the queen, or disarm the magical grenade, or decipher the encrypted note in the murder victim's bloody hand?

Now, if everyone at the table built their character around DPR, and some just did it poorly, and you're regularly doing 3x more damage than they are? Well, I suppose that could cause a problem at the table. Do your friends get pissed at you for being really good at basketball and won't play with you any more because you're too good? Mine woudln't, but I guess this would be the same sort of situation.


But I find when you slide into a Support role and enable characters to kick that much more ass because of your help? I think everybody wins in that scenario.

I do agree with this. No one is going to complain that your buffs are too strong, except maybe the DM.

[Honest Tiefling]

IMO, when what you are optimizing is the game mechanics, rather than matching your stats to a fictional character.

I have to disagree with this, because I build characters from their build and then give them a story, not the other way around. I find it easier to try to figure out how the character got to the point in which they start the game then to try to bend things for concepts as some are still harder to translate into 5e effectively. Others can do it, but I'm just terrible at it.

[Asmotherion]

I first make a character concept, and then optimise. This way, I will sometimes consiously have a less than optimal Race to work with, and still go for it. Wile I won't go for something that won't give me a +1 to a Key ability at least, I'm oppen to working alternative concepts, and this makes more fun characters, who are still optimal.

A High Elf monk might not seem like a great idea, when you think "why would I not be a Wood Elf instead?". On the other hand, this question may oppen up the story, backround and possible multiclass/dipping of the character, making something optimal and unique.

Overall, I go for lighter optimisation, that is still solid, but focuses on the story rather than the numbers themselves, and that's how I still have fun with every character I roll.

[mephnick]

I exercise my optimization in a group of friends by picking a terrible concept and trying to make it viable. Generally ends up on par with the rest of the group and makes for memorable characters.

[jaappleton]

I exercise my optimization in a group of friends by picking a terrible concept and trying to make it viable. Generally ends up on par with the rest of the group and makes for memorable characters.

Scanlan Shorthalt, attorney at small.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Optimization outside limits is pointless. It will always lead to the same conclusions. It's the confines you choose to work in that make the project meaningful.

[Tanarii]

It's too much if I can look online and find a variation of whatever shenanigans combo you're using.

It's too much if I quirk my finely tuned DM eyebrow at your shenanigans.

Most of all, it's too much if you step outside whatever character build limits I've put in place.

[the secret fire]

I have to disagree with this, because I build characters from their build and then give them a story, not the other way around. I find it easier to try to figure out how the character got to the point in which they start the game then to try to bend things for concepts as some are still harder to translate into 5e effectively. Others can do it, but I'm just terrible at it.

And what do you do with 1st level characters who have no "build"?

[RazorChain]

So long as you don't step out of the limits I imposed then you can't have optimized too much.


DPR, High Saves or Godly AC aren never going to break the game for me. I have endless supplies of mooks, I have endless supplies of antagonists that are better than your character.....and I have the internet! So if I feel the need to "put you in your place" then I have all the resources in abundance.

But then agains my games are maybe 10% combat and people mostly optimize for combat then they are not optimizing, they are gimping themselves. When they show up with that INT 8 character and come up with a brilliant plan or tactic I just look at the and ask them "Who was the most stupid kid in your class? Now act like him/her"

[Zalabim]

Optimisation is taken too far when it creates problems. A fairly common one, in my experience, is the level 1 V.Human Rogue with Wis:16, Observant and Expertise in Perception, for a Passive Perception of 22. It trivialises any other party members Perception scores as well as any reasonable challenge the GM might set, making any encounter involving Perception either a non-event or so forced that it stretches credibility. Yes, a player or party should not be penalised for being good at something, but when they're so good at a thing that the game simply ceases to be a challenge and as such removes the fun of the risk-reward paradigm...that's when optimisation is a problem.
That passive perception isn't really a problem though. It's only 12 if you're going fast and in dim light. That's still not safe. It's 17 if you're going fast with light, or sneaking around in darkness/dim light. That's useful, but also just seems like the rogue doing what the rogue is intending to do. There's not anything wrong with that, and 17 PP still isn't foolproof yet either. If the group forgoes both stealth (by bringing light) and speed (by moving normal or slow pace), then not being surprised just seems like the natural result of being so cautious. "Not being surprised" in combat just applies to the rogue in this case, too.

Your example of messing with the bounded accuracy is a common knowledge among DMs, i have yet to encounter a DM who would even give out a +1 shield or armour. +1 weapons seems fine to them. I'm not sure why, because most players tend to maximize damage instead of survivability anyway.
That's because bounded accuracy means the game doesn't scale DC's into the stratosphere under the assumption that your +to hit is going to increase equally high. This is especially true in combat, where HP and damage value scales more than to hit and AC value. The game's DCs are Armor Class, ability check DC, and saving throw bonus. The game's to hit values are attack bonus, ability check bonus, and saving throw DC. A club with +100 to hit would be useful in some circumstances, but wouldn't break the game. A club with +100 damage would be far more noticeable.

[Pelle]

I have to disagree with this, because I build characters from their build and then give them a story, not the other way around. I find it easier to try to figure out how the character got to the point in which they start the game then to try to bend things for concepts as some are still harder to translate into 5e effectively. Others can do it, but I'm just terrible at it.

It's just personal opinion. I just dislike it when people play the game as a tactical boardgame first, and exploration of a fictional setting second. Nothing wrong with it though. You can build a mechanical powerhouse and also roleplay/engage with the fiction perfectly, no disagreement, but it's just the attitude that bothers me. And it's quite easy to see when people build to be the mechanically most effective in combat, not to represent their fictional vision of the character. "Wow, the GWM feat is awesome, with this and that combo I can make a build that does this much DPR" versus "Wow, the GWM feat looks awesome, swinging a large weapon around to deal a lots of damage fits really well for how I picture my character Thog".

To me, I want the challenges in the game to be in play, doing the best with what you have. I don't want the character creation minigame to be a part of the challenge. You can take on the challenges you can, and either way it will be fun, so it is rather pointless to optimize for damage potential etc.

I think this is also why I like systems where it is intuitive to build your character concept. If you want to play a great warrior who excels in personal combat, you play a Fighter with high strength, not a mage with a lot of buff spells etc.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

And what do you do with 1st level characters who have no "build"?

There's always a build, even if you're not very far along in it. I don't know anyone who starts a level 1 monk and doesn't already have some idea of which archetype they're going to take, for instance.

[Willie the Duck]

So at what point, as an optimizer, do you say "Ok, that's enough for that"?

I've found that optimizing on forums like this one and the like is usually an intellectual exercise/ form of competitive theorizing. In that vein, the only real limit/"enough" tends to be the point where you've stretched the boundaries such that no one else will go along with your interpretation. Ex: somewhere along the way, we've all seemed to have come to the conclusion that "yes, we all see the Wish+Simulacrum trick, and yes it appears to be RAW legal, but if you use it in your 'how OP can I make my wizard' thread, we'll all just kinda roll our eyes and ignore you." That appears to be an optimization too far.

In-actual-play, optimizing is almost never opportunity-cost free. Thus the usual too-far line is a very real point of diminishing returns. Getting one more point of armor class isn't going to benefit you if opponents stopped routinely hitting you long ago, and the time (and time at the table in front of your DM is a real limited resource for almost all of us) spent on hunting down that Cloak of Protection may well mean that you didn't spend the time getting XYZ that would have actually benefited you or the party.

[Honest Tiefling]

And what do you do with 1st level characters who have no "build"?

Well, they have a class, skill choices, a race and I presumably have some idea of what I am building to. So I don't get how they have no build? Either way, there's usually enough information to build a backstory of, and I imagine most PCs would have some idea of the subclass they'll eventually take so that can be a consideration. Such as the wizard trying to learn more of illusions, or the druids studying the way of beasts.


It's just personal opinion. I just dislike it when people play the game as a tactical boardgame first, and exploration of a fictional setting second.

This is actually pretty hilarious, as I actually roleplay first, game second. I'm actually not that good at the tactical stuff to begin with. So...Uh, good that you know what players you like?

[PeteNutButter]

I've always optimized to as unkillable as possible, as it tends to not overshadow other players as much.

BUT, my current character has pushed it to the limits of reason, and I find myself looking for new challenges/limitations to put onto my next character. There is just no more room for growth. I cannot make a tankier character that I'd want to play.

Right now, I'm thinking I ought to take something sub-optimal and optimize it. In doing so I think I'll attempt to avoid helping others build their PCs. There is a certain amount of irony in being out-shined by other players whose characters you designed while you sit there playing some intentionally sub-optimal thing.

[Ogre Mage]

It is NEVER too much. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :belkar::sabine:

[Tanarii]

There's always a build, even if you're not very far along in it. I don't know anyone who starts a level 1 monk and doesn't already have some idea of which archetype they're going to take, for instance.Clearly you've never played with newer players then. They regularly don't have any idea what subclass they're going to play until they get there.

I've played characters where almost every decision point, except primary attribute matching the class, was randomly determined. Random race, random background, random non-primary attributes. random class skills, random features when a choice is made, random subclass. It's a testament to 5e's robustness that they were not ineffective characters.

[Ganymede]

It certainly isn't very fun to be immersed in a world where virtually every hero has made a minor pact with an otherworldly patron.

Moloch would have been able to ascend to ruler of Hell by now based on all those PCs that dip to make warlock pacts with him.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Clearly you've never played with newer players then. They regularly don't have any idea what subclass they're going to play until they get there.

I've played characters where almost every decision point, except primary attribute matching the class, was randomly determined. Random race, random background, random non-primary attributes. random class skills, random features when a choice is made, random subclass. It's a testament to 5e's robustness that they were not ineffective characters.

My goodness aren't you special!

[Theodoxus]

Optimisation is taken too far when it creates problems. A fairly common one, in my experience, is the level 1 V.Human Rogue with Wis:16, Observant and Expertise in Perception, for a Passive Perception of 22. It trivialises any other party members Perception scores as well as any reasonable challenge the GM might set, making any encounter involving Perception either a non-event or so forced that it stretches credibility. Yes, a player or party should not be penalised for being good at something, but when they're so good at a thing that the game simply ceases to be a challenge and as such removes the fun of the risk-reward paradigm...that's when optimisation is a problem.

A player in a game I'm playing in, as opposed to running, did this. Level 1 rogue, 24 Perception (rolled stats, 18 Wis). We're playing modified Revenants (it's kinda high powered). He's died twice already because he can't "rogue" on his rogue. He's all Perception and Investigation. Stealthing into a bugbear hideout hasn't been going too well.

I'm an optimizer. I love tweaking the numbers and making the character I think will be fun to play. I love even more when the DM throws curveballs to bypass the optimization and make the game challenging. I do that when I run. It's not adversarial - I let the optimization shine often enough. Afterall, building for a specific purpose, and never getting to enjoy it isn't fun... but also testing things outside your comfort zone, for me at least, is really fun.

All that being said, In AL games - which is basically all I'm getting to play, outside of the monthly Revenant game - I tend to latch onto an idea and run with it, in all its iterations. Currently, I'm stuck on the idea of a "Graveknight" (a better name than Doomguide, imo) for a follower of Kelemvor. vhuman Fighter 1 with Heavy Armor Mastery and Dueling FS, going S&B and basically being an Inquisitor for Kelemvor (using the Investigator background). At 2nd level, he is ordained into the order of Graveknights, taking a level of Paladin. At 3rd, another paladin level (with Defense FS), and then from 4th on, he's a full on ordained minister of Undead Butt Kicking: Grave Domain Cleric. It's mad as hell, and with PB stats, 16 Str, 8 Dex, 16 Con, 8 Int, 13 Wis, 13 Cha (+1 for HAM, +1 to Con and Cha) - at 7th level (4th cleric, boosting Wis and Cha) then Str next two ASI and Con for the 4th (at 19th level...) I've gotten him to 4th level so far, and he's playing exactly as I was hoping.

I've optimized him, mechanically, as much as I can - the fluff fits perfectly, and all that is left is trying to get into specific AL games to grab the specific rewards I want (seriously might be easier to do it with DM quests, if I can break into the local DM social sphere... they're pretty cliquish...) - How amazing would this guy be with CoS cleric love...

[Wryte]

If the DM is focusing on hitting one player then the DM is doing it wrong. If two PCs drop in a fight, it was a challenging fight. It doesn't matter if Jeff never got hit in that fight.

It does if combat regularly becomes rounds of Jeff fighting the enemy while everyone else makes death saving throws.

[djreynolds]

A good DM will challenge his players, and good players will respond to this.

Yeah you have a 26AC, awesome, but the rogue doesn't so I'm going after him. After a while no one is going to attack you, or they are going to adapt and find another weakness.

When your rogue is dead, you'll have to search for traps or sneak past the dragon

A tank that cannot be destroyed by infantry, invites "attack helicopters"

[Tanarii]

My goodness aren't you special!
Eh, the second part was mostly about something fun you can do as an experienced player.

Point being IMX newer players almost never have subclasses or "builds" in mind when starting to play. Even with experienced players, it's only the relatively fixed nature of 5e classes, with very few decision point after character creation in some cases (subclass), that makes builds an almost automatic thing. Most people are referring to something involving optional rules (multiclassing or feats) when they talk about it.

Optimization at creation and/or post-creation builds are certainly possible in 5e, but it's not really a big aspect of the game. Playing is.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Eh, the second part was mostly about something fun you can do as an experienced player.

Point being IMX newer players almost never have subclasses or "builds" in mind when starting to play. Even with experienced players, it's only the relatively fixed nature of 5e classes, with very few decision point after character creation in some cases (subclass), that makes builds an almost automatic thing. Most people are referring to something involving optional rules (multiclassing or feats) when they talk about it.

Optimization at creation and/or post-creation builds are certainly possible in 5e, but it's not really a big aspect of the game. Playing is.

In my experience new players essentially always come to the table with an idea of what they want to do mechanically with their characters.

[Tanarii]

In my experience new players essentially always come to the table with an idea of what they want to do mechanically with their characters.
No idea where you're playing then. I've seen many new-to-D&D players in official play over the last two editions, and it's rarely the case where they understand the mechanics of the game well for first level characters, let's alone think ahead to what they will be doing after they've gained some levels.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No idea where you're playing then. I've seen many new-to-D&D players in official play over the last two editions, and it's rarely the case where they understand the mechanics of the game well for first level characters, let's alone think ahead to what they will be doing after they've gained some levels.
It depends on what we mean. Most new players know what they want at a high level: blow it up with magic, hit with big weapons, sneak and stab, etc. Beyond that, no clue.

[Theodoxus]

IMX, new to the genre players have no clue what they want. 10/10 have brought the pre-gen human fighter that rolls into Champion - and so far, none have even known what that really meant, even after reading their sheet.

I've worked with 3 specific gentlemen in my time at AL over the last 2 months. All have brought the same fighter pre-gen. For all of them, once they hit 2nd level, I brought out the PHB, SCAG and XGtE to go over all the options that fighter archetypes offer. And each and every one of them have chosen to stick with Champion (one guy has had the opportunity to play in three different AL games, and each one is basically a clone. Though the last one was actually a vhuman because he finally understood the value of feats).

So, sure, new players might have a real basic concept of 'hit it with a sword, or blow it up with a spell', but without groking the underlying mechanical chassis the game is based on, it's all hand-holding anyway. In a lot of instances, the new player becomes an autotonom of another experienced player. "Roll this die, no, that one, the BIG one, yeah, ok, now add this number to the roll. No, the 5, yeah. Ok, you got a 14." It's literally cringeworthy.

When I run a game for new, like really new players, I start with the dice. I get them to understand that everything - no matter what - starts with the d20. If possible, I give them a different colored d20 to use while playing at my table, so it's super obvious which it is. I explain the two different d10s. If they're using a longsword or warhammer, I take away the 1's die and leave the 10s - so they can instantly recognize it from the d8. (or provide them with a different colored d8 if necessary.)

I'd rather baby them with toys and let them organically learn on their own, than hand-hold them and let them meander confused at all the new terminology.

And my method has results; from what I've witnessed, the newbies I've fostered grok the game faster, go on to make unique characters for themselves sooner and aren't wasting valuable table time scanning their sheet for a bonus; rolling a d12 instead of a d20; rolling the d20 and then stating what they rolled for their attack instead of adding their bonus...

Teach someone to play and you'll have a player for life. Treat someone like a robot and you'll have a plaything for an evening.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's odd. I play with new players almost exclusively--at 3-ish years I'm the most experienced player in any of my groups.

Here's what people have picked in the last year or so based on what they've wanted to play (with only the broadest descriptions of the classes):

Kids (teenagers):
* TWF AT Rogue (kid always plays a wood elf rogue).
* BM Fighter, INT-high
* Moon druid (made her character without help)
* High elf wizard (Necro, but hasn't done any necromancy)

Adults (now on the second campaign):
* Open Hand Monk / Evo wizard
* GOO tome lock / Ancestor Barbarian
* AT rogue (the only experienced player) / GM
* Land druid / Ancients paladin

I have yet to have a champion fighter. I see people picking things mainly based on thematics, not mechanics. And as to the dice? Some occasionally pick up the wrong one. But I've seen them come up with unorthodox solutions to things that completely caught me off guard. Because they're not playing the rules, they're playing the characters.

I had a completely newbie group with pregens playing a one-shot--the one with the soldier background figured she'd use it to try to cow the attacking bandits. I had one use his character's background to shmooze in on an NPC. They played as characters, not as game pieces. And that's with zero rules explanations other than "that one's the d20. It's the most common one to roll. Tell me what you want to do and we'll figure out how to translate that into the game." They had a blast.