Why do we optimize for level 20?

[OzDragon]

Why do we optimize builds for level 20? There seems to be a lot of players(including me) who never make it that far. Although I am sure there are some.

Why do we not optimize for level 10 or maybe 15? This would make much more sense to me anyway.

[Solaris]

Combination of the inertia of tradition and misguided optimism.

[holywhippet]

Optimization is intended for a character to be "all they can be". At level 20 they are essentially all they can be, barring magical items. Building to a target level will generally lead to different results than a character that has made it's way from level 1 I find.

[OzDragon]

Optimization is intended for a character to be "all they can be". At level 20 they are essentially all they can be, barring magical items. Building to a target level will generally lead to different results than a character that has made it's way from level 1 I find.

Why can't a character be all it can be at level 10? If the campaign ends there then that is all it can be, right?


Yes it would and it would help more players create better "made" characters. Although it's hard to make a truly bad character in 5e. Some of us have trouble deciding when to MC (if its allowed) due to not knowing when a campaign is going to end and knowing it will never get to 20.

Optimizing for 10 would be more beneficial to the player base as a whole due to this. In my opinion anyway.

[CTurbo]

I may have a general character concept for level 20 like Fighter 11/Barb 9 but I never ever optimize for level 20.

I need my characters to be useful at every level in between.

[Unoriginal]

Why can't a character be all it can be at level 10? If the campaign ends there then that is all it can be, right?

Optimization doesn't care about a campaign's reality, only with how powerful/best at X quirky thing a character can hypothetically be.




Yes it would and it would help more players create better "made" characters. Although it's hard to make a truly bad character in 5e. Some of us have trouble deciding when to MC (if its allowed) due to not knowing when a campaign is going to end and knowing it will never get to 20.

Optimizing for 10 would be more beneficial to the player base as a whole due to this. In my opinion anyway.

This presuppose that the purpose of optimization is to be useful or beneficial for characters that are actually played in a campaign.

[OzDragon]

Optimization doesn't care about a campaign's reality, only with how powerful/best at X quirky thing a character can hypothetically be.




This presuppose that the purpose of optimization is to be useful or beneficial for characters that are actually played in a campaign.

Why would you not optimize for characters that will be played? While some might find it a fun mathematical exercise most (in my opinion) use it for in play PCs.

I will say this though. I appreciate those that do find it a fun mathematcial exercise it helps those like me that are not mathematically inclined.

[Jera]

In my experience, optimizing for level 20, or just min-maxing in general, is just a fun thought exercise. Character creation is one of the few aspects of role playing games that can be done by yourself, granted most of the characters created will never see the table, or even a character sheet, but it gives you something to do outside of your actual game sessions.

It also teaches you the game, I've created several characters for pretty much every class in the game, but since 5e came out I've only played a phb standard lore bard, and am currently playing a fey pact warlock. Knowing how to build characters gives me the ability to play pretty much whatever I want, and help other players play what they want.


Why would you not optimize for characters that will be played? While some might find it a fun mathematical exercise most (in my opinion) use it for in play PCs.

Because often the most optimal character does not fit the narrative. I am currently playing an archfey pact warlock, despite the fact that it's clearly a suboptimal choice.

[OzDragon]

In my experience, optimizing for level 20, or just min-maxing in general, is just a fun thought exercise. Character creation is one of the few aspects of role playing games that can be done by yourself, granted most of the characters created will never see the table, or even a character sheet, but it gives you something to do outside of your actual game sessions.

It also teaches you the game, I've created several characters for pretty much every class in the game, but since 5e came out I've only played a phb standard lore bard, and am currently playing a fey pact warlock. Knowing how to build characters gives me the ability to play pretty much whatever I want, and help other players play what they want.



Because often the most optimal character does not fit the narrative. I am currently playing an archfey pact warlock, despite the fact that it's clearly a suboptimal choice.

Do you not at least try to make even your "suboptimal" choice as optimal as possible? (I'm not trying to be a douche with this question.)

[Waazraath]

Do we? Speaking for myself, I never did, I always optimize for 1-20, this edition, and earlier ones. Not speaking for myself: see relative few optimization threads for level 20 builds; most optimization threads are for lower levels, or even starting level. And most handbooks also focus on the entire 1-20 range, for as far as I've seen.

[Unoriginal]

An Archfey Warlock isn't any weaker than any other Warlock...

[MrStabby]

Why do we optimize builds for level 20? There seems to be a lot of players(including me) who never make it that far. Although I am sure there are some.

Why do we not optimize for level 10 or maybe 15? This would make much more sense to me anyway.

Generally speaking we don't. When people ask questions about optimisation they usually put a level range and people generally optimise for the level of campaign they are playing in. There are throwaway comments sometime about "can do up to x damage per hit at level 20" because a maximum is a natural comparison point.

For example look at every thread on multiclassing where someone points out the a dip into a class will delay core class features - to consider the path not just the destination. These people are optimising over the range of levels.

An alternative question is why to people post disproportionately about high level optimisation, if indeed that is what we see? A possible answer is that people ask for feedback where they lack personal experience. If campaigns rarely go above level 14 then it is only the high level optimisation that people are less familiar with.

[Mordaedil]

I saw this a lot in 3rd edition, some character builds that were garbage to play until they hit a certain "crack point" and they became really powerful, sometimes only good for 1-2 hits.

5th edition optimization seems to me to be a lot better honestly, in how they allow you to be fairly playable at all levels up until the very last. At least, that is my experience thus far, but people usually plan for level 20, just in case, albeit I think most never get that far.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Proper practical optimization doesn't optimize for level 20 performance, even if a level 20 build stub is provided. Expected levels of play should always be taken into account, as should the necessary time for build-up of performance.

[clash]

I always optimize for levels 3, 5, and 11. If my character doesn't feel awesome at those breakpoints then it wont be overly fun to play for some significant part of my career.

[MaxWilson]

Why do we optimize builds for level 20? There seems to be a lot of players(including me) who never make it that far. Although I am sure there are some.

Why do we not optimize for level 10 or maybe 15? This would make much more sense to me anyway.

Because there are no rules in 5E for level 30.

Look, some people enjoy long-term planning, and dislike playing PCs that will dead-end. (What's the fun in earning experience if you know that no amount of experience will get you to a place you want to be?) Those people, like me, plan out levels 1-20 even if they don't expect to reach level 20 with any given character.

If you're not one of those people--if you're someone who can be perfectly happy with a Barbarian 5/Moon Druid 3 because he's fun at level 8--then play what makes you happy. You don't have to play what makes me happy. But I do.

[DMThac0]

Why do we optimize builds for level 20? There seems to be a lot of players(including me) who never make it that far. Although I am sure there are some.

Why do we not optimize for level 10 or maybe 15? This would make much more sense to me anyway.

I think this question has been answered best by MrStabby and Solaris, and I'll echo the sentiment.

I believe your perception is skewed by the prevalent number of optimization threads using level 20 as a comparison for maximum output vs the build idea. It seems as though players are building their ideas around a level 20 goal where as it's more looking for how fast they can get their build to a level 20 standard.

I believe you're also seeing a trend that is just as ingrained into D&D as saying "Bless You" has become in society. We used to say "Bless You" to people who sneezed because we thought there were demons in their heads, then we said it because the black plague was a death sentence, now we say it because it's been used for so long it just seems social etiquette. In pre 3.X eras, optimization was necessary because death was very prevalent, in 3.X eras optimization was there because it was easy to build stupidly powerful characters with the right combinations, now we build it because it seems to be the way of making the "best there is".

[ZorroGames]

I don’t.

I play what appeals to then look for ways to suboptimize at Tier 1 and 2.

Fighters types who do “things” like spells or maneuvers appeal to me.

I do like casters but usually MC or Dip to make them more “functional” in Tier 2.

I figure Tier 3 is to be considered when I get closeer and Tier 4... well when it happens I will adapt my character.

Mountain Dwarf, Standard Human, Forest Gnome, Variant Human, and a single Earth Genasi are my current focus.

Anyway, that is why I don’t usually ironclad cast a character to level 20. And when I do it is an intended path, not a contract. Characters for me take on a life all their own.

[Willie the Duck]

Why do we optimize builds for level 20? There seems to be a lot of players(including me) who never make it that far. Although I am sure there are some.

First and foremost, who is this that you are talking about? Are there people who come onto these boards who talk about what the build they have percolating in their heads can do at level 20? Undoubtedly. Is it a big, oft-rewarded-with-praise thing? Not really. Certainly not like it was in (ex.) the OP boards on the Wizards forums back in the pinnacle of 3.5e. As it stands today (so far as I can tell), when people come here and present builds that others recognize as being utterly awesome at level 20, but really not coming online until late-game (perhaps such that it is unclear how someone would get said character to survive up until the point where its combo or whatever comes online), people tend to point it out as a flaw in the design.

As to why going up to 20 at all (when most games don't get that high), I think most people tend to recognize that a build that is awesome, but only up to threshold X (and then either falls apart completely or just has nowhere really to go) is a less impressive than the same level of accomplishment, but where it does have somewhere to go. So, (and this is treating optimization as a sort of competition with the end goal of others agreeing that you have designed a good build, which might be a controversial statement but I highly doubt it), posting your favorite build which peters out at level 14 but you don't care because you'll never see that level just isn't going to bring the thumbs-ups you might be desiring if you are posting optimization builds in the first place.


Why would you not optimize for characters that will be played? While some might find it a fun mathematical exercise most (in my opinion) use it for in play PCs.

I think most people play the game to play the game (treading on a tautology there, but I think it is appropriate). I think the question of why people post builds on forums such as this is a much more open question. I think I'm right in my above post that for some people they are competing (against others or their own previous 'high score'/best accomplishment) to come up with impressive acts of inventiveness (not unlike any other build-art, like modeling or hotrodding, etc). I think others it's a matter of the sheer mental exercise of exploring all the possibilities of the build rules and seeing what you can come up with.

[beargryllz]

I optimize for every level. If a build has dead levels it's basically a bad build. If your character is getting carried hard by party members that have functional builds, it's because your build is kinda bad

[Corsair14]

I think its more of a sub game with the power gamer crowd. Seeing who can come up with the most powerful character. I would be willing to guess 80-90% of gamers never go 1 to 20. I have been playing for almost 30 years and I have never had a character past 13 and that one started at 8. My friends have had an ongoing once a month 2nd edition ravenloft game for close to 15 years, I think they are around level 12 now.

So I think its more of a what can we be capable of doing rather than any serious possibility of getting there.

[OldTrees1]

Why do we optimize builds for level 20?

Um, we don't? We optimize for the range the character will be played in (and some include the range below that too for verisimilitude). However when there is no campaign in mind, the potential play range is minimum to maximum which explains the 1-20 builds (so the reader has a good idea of how they would work in an X to Y game) and the 1-10 campaign specific characters.

[MaxWilson]

It's worth asking also: why don't more DMs design their campaign worlds to support level 20 play? The whole reason play peters out at high levels is because DMs build their worlds for mid-level play and then can't make the transition to high-level play, e.g. they feel obligated by PHB fluff on tiers to make level 20 PCs demigods who save the world on every adventure. But with bounded accuracy, level 20 PCs aren't that powerful in the first place, and you could run a campaign from level 1 that already interacts with level 20 NPCs/challenges from the get-go. In that campaign, rising in level isn't so much about saving the world as much as rising in rank and taking center stage. For examples in fiction, look at e.g. The Malazan Book of the Fallen. Ganoes Paran doesn't start out as a level 20 Deckmaster, more like a level 3 lieutenant, but Quick Ben maybe is the equivalent of level 12-15 wizard already, and Onos T'oolan and Kilava Onass are level 20 (and have been for hundreds of thousands of years), and Anomander Rake is 20+ with tons of epic boons. Yet they share screen time, and the narrative does not break when Ganoes comes into his power.

Why don't most DMs plan for level 20 campaign worlds just as hard as players plan for (but don't expect) level 20 PCs?

[Malifice]

Optimising to level 20 annoys me nearly as much as people who create builds and not characters.

I always start with a character and from there do the build.

My Shadowvar refugee from the city of Shade; last heir to High Prince Telamont Tanthul? Hexblade/ Shadow sorcerer. Elof Tanthul, last true scion of Netheril.

My martyrs progeny ex cleric of Torm, who turned his back on the God of justice, blaming him for his families death and turning to Bane? Human Vengance paladin of Bane. Malifice Flamestrike.

My Witch Hunter from Salem on Earth shunted to Ravenloft? A human monster slayer Ranger/ inquisitive rogue with a pistol and pilgrim hat: Mattius Von Drakenhoff.

I also have a wushu themed monk (Human [refluffed aaracrocka for the flight], Jian using Kensai/ battlemaster), an ex Thayan Knight who had to flee the red wizards after his latent talent for sorcery flared (human polearm using paladin sorcerer), an archaeologist background explorer with a whip and a hat who is afraid of spiders (human thief with the archaeologist background)*, etc etc.

I always start with a concept and character idea and work backwards from there.

That's the beauty of 5e. There really aren't any trap builds and you can make anything work and work well.

* blatant and intentional Indiana Jones rip off - saving it for ToA. I'm also famous for Elric of Melinbone blade warlock RIP offs, Brad Pitts achillies from Troy rip offs (in 3e they were Warblades) and the occasional black robed wizard that speaks like the Emperor from star wars.

[strangebloke]

I optimize for every level. If a build has dead levels it's basically a bad build. If your character is getting carried hard by party members that have functional builds, it's because your build is kinda bad

100%

What's starting level? Cool. I plan out every level from there until 15, step by step, weighting delay payoff things like class capstones lower because who the frick is going to spend a lot of time at 20th level?

[Mortis_Elrod]

For me it’s just an excercise to fill time, and yes the math is fun and so is scrounging every book and UA for something I missed (even though I probably didn’t since I can probably write them all verbatim by now).

Most of the time I’m not doing this for me, Just for those who don’t know the games rules/mechanics/options as well as me.

I on the other hand sit with my 50 pre built character waiting for new content to devour like it’s freshly made bacon.

[Malifice]

I'm sick of seeing builds and not characters really.

'What's best' instead of 'what's the best way to represent this character and his abilities?'

I have zero problems with optimisation. I have a lot of problems when it comes at the expense of (or absent) any characterization or keeping to the fluff of a concept.

The stormwind fallacy shows us you can do both. But when was the last time you saw a build advice thread that contained any information on characterisiation?

You know: My characters name is blah blah, and he hates xyz. His main goal is xxx. I envision him as a kind of a similar kind of guy as (Batman, Wokverine, a Spanish conquistador, chow yun fat, a chaos knight from warhammer, Darth Vader, James Bond, Raistlin from Dragonlance etc).

There is nothing wrong with slapping together a build then trying to work out the character it represents after the fact I guess.

I'd rather play a character concept I really want to play and imagine over playing a build that I'm trying to imagine as a uniform character concept.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why do we optimize builds for level 20? For the mental exercise. I have a tier 3 character who is currently level 14. I decided to take the ASI. (He's a Champion. I now have Str 20, woo hoo! I also have Dex 16 and the Medium Armor Master Feat. yay me. I am still unsure what I'll do at 15, and I am pretty sure our game will stay together that long.

Combination of the inertia of tradition and misguided optimism. To be honest, I am surprised that this got another answer, since this was a fine "/end threat" style post. :smallbiggrin: Oh, wait, not surprised, we all have our two bits to toss into the pot ...

Why can't a character be all it can be at level 10? Who says it can't?

I always start with a character and from there do the build.
I do both at the same time. It's an iterative process, and I sometimes change my mind before our first "roll for initiative" happens.


* blatant and intentional Indiana Jones rip off - saving it for ToA. Hell yes. And they do have an Archaeologist background if you want to go there. (We have an on again/off again ToA that I am enjoying).

[PeteNutButter]

I optimize for about level 8, 13 at max.

That’s rule #6 in my optimization rules.

[GlenSmash!]

I'm not much of an optimizer, but I do like to play characters out to around level 6. If I can't realize my concept by 6 it's too complicated.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I agree that it makes poor sense to plan for level 20. I start by trying to see what the bare minimum that I can get the mechanical abilities that best reflect my character online at, try to massage the math so that I don't end up falling behind in whatever my stated party role is, and then, then, I start planning for the future.

One of my favorite things to do is consider why I get certain abilities at certain levels. Like, what changed for my character? I recently played an eldritch knight that switched to war wizard because our party seriously needed an arcane caster more then another melee tank. Since I was from Cormyr, I decided that I was remembering the training I'd had as a child to become a war wizard before ditching it to join the army, and was finally fulfilling my potential- something I had always been against until I realized I'd need that power to protect my friends.

[Jerrykhor]

Speak for yourself, munchkin!

[galaxia]

now we say it because it's been used for so long it just seems social etiquette.
It has an overtone of religious proselytizing so it's not only etiquette. In some circles, it's not tactful.

[Foxolicious]

Why do we optimize builds for level 20? There seems to be a lot of players(including me) who never make it that far. Although I am sure there are some.

Why do we not optimize for level 10 or maybe 15? This would make much more sense to me anyway.

I find it's good for just planning out your character just in case there's a what if u get to 15+ lvls I usually tell my players to plan out there characters for back story and mechanics it speeds up the time spent where u wanna go next

[DMThac0]

It has an overtone of religious proselytizing so it's not only etiquette. In some circles, it's not tactful.

Fair enough, I was merely presenting it as a loose analogy to facilitate a point.

[darknite]

Gosh, for years I didn't think more than a couple of levels ahead because you never knew how long the campaign would last. But I've been playing 5e mainly in AL and have three 20th level PCs - in fact a goal of mine when I started playing was to get a PC to 20th level.

[Pex]

I optimize for the level we're starting and the few levels there after. I'll keep in mind the higher levels as reference points and possibilities. As the levels progress I make my decisions.

[UrielAwakened]

Yeah I've never understood people who argue about "missing 20th level capstones" as an excuse not to multiclass.

You will not reach 20th, and even if you do, you will enjoy that capstone for one level.

Optimize your builds so that they come online early and stay relevant.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The stormwind fallacy shows us you can do both. But when was the last time you saw a build advice thread that contained any information on characterisiation?

You know: My characters name is blah blah, and he hates xyz. His main goal is xxx. I envision him as a kind of a similar kind of guy as (Batman, Wokverine, a Spanish conquistador, chow yun fat, a chaos knight from warhammer, Darth Vader, James Bond, Raistlin from Dragonlance etc).


A decent amount of the time, but usually a character's personality information isn't actually relevant to the question being asked. I respond to optimization request threads every now and then, and I'm turned off by reading through a bunch of - or really any - words about the character that aren't mechanics. Tell me what you want to do and what problem you're encountering, not what color your cat is.

[Deathtongue]

Let's get real here. 5E D&D such supports a number of builds that from the low levels to the end levels that it's just not interesting if your build stalls out. This is true even if it stalls out after 99.5% of games are completed.

Post-Xanathar Bladesinger Wizards and Gloomstalker Rangers and GMW Eldritch Knights and Sorlocks kick butt right out of the gate and continue kicking butt until the last train leaves the station. A build that peters out at the mid-point of the game such as a Barbarian / Moon Druid or a Fighter / Melee Cleric or a pre-errata Four Elements Monk is just straight-up not impressive in the context of these 'good until the last drop' builds. The same goes for builds that take a few levels to get going such as Circle of the Shepherd Druids and Grapplemaster Bards and Sorceradins and Circle of the Open Hand Monks.

Yes, most of the times these 'good to the last drop' builds don't actually get to the last drop, but so what?

[rmnimoc]

People build to level 20 because a build is done at level 20. Once you hit level 20, there are no more levels to be gained so you can't build farther. If you build to level ten, you've got as many possibilities left as you've built to. A build to level ten simply isn't finished.

It's not like the game never gets to level 20 either. I just got done with a campaign where we had almost as many sessions at level 20 as we had getting there. It was great. If we hadn't planned out characters to level 20 though it would have lost quite a bit of the feel, since some of the characters would have ended up a lot less competent than others.

When you make a build, the whole point is realizing a concept. Maybe that concept is Indiana Jones, maybe it's generic fighter, maybe it's just "be better than everyone else at the table". Doesn't matter. The more levels you plan for, the more accurately you can make that concept a reality. You don't have to make it through all the levels. You don't even have to make it through most of them. You just have to be ready to make it through as many as the campaign requires. Back in my earlier days I saw a lot of characters lose steam and start losing the interest of their player because they stopped being a match for the concept because the player only built the character to level five or ten and so they fell behind the other players. It's rarely fun knowing your character is dead weight past level 10, or level 15, or whatever.

Basically what I'm trying to say is there are a lot of reasons people build to level 20. It's fun, it doesn't feel incomplete, and being incompetent (while occasionally fun) typically isn't something you want to make a habit of. Those are the main three as I see it.

[ciarannihill]

When I make a build I start with a feel I want, then try to realize that feel at as low a level as possible, but also keep in mind how it will grow until level 20 (usually). I want as many possible levels to maintain the build being useful to the party at all levels in between as well.

Having said that there are plenty of known build types that are clearly not more viable at level 20 than just going purely for the class capstone (Barbarian 1/Moon Druid X) but are excellent at numerous levels in between (for the example given especially at level 3 until level 10 or so).

[Helliquin]

misguided optimism.

Thread could have stopped there

*sobs in to his pile of character sheets who never made it*

[Elminster298]

Thread could have stopped there

*sobs in to his pile of character sheets who never made it*

Show us on the doll where life hurt you. 😢

[Deathtongue]

misguided optimism.

Thread could have stopped there

*sobs in to his pile of character sheets who never made it*I think regret, or rather, negative regret is just as much of a factor as optimism. By negative regret, imagine if one of your roommates offered to sell you a possible winner of a $150 million lottery ticket not for one dollar, but for one nickel. Just going by brute expected value, that's still a huge rip-off even at a twentieth of a price, but how many people do you know who would turn down an offer like that 30 minutes before the Powerball came on?

Same thing for character builds. 95% of non-AL games that start from level 1 aren't going to get you to level 20 or even level 15. So you'd think you'd optimize for the level 5 - 8 range to maximize your payoff. However, imagine what happens if your table is one of those 5% games that just so happened to go the distance? Imagine the amount of regret you'd have now that you're stuck with a character that plateaued, like a Wolf Totem Barbarian / Moon Druid. That regret you feel would overwhelm the marginal utility you'd feel over playing a build that was good to start with but really took off at the level 11 range, such as a Sharpshooter Eldritch Knight or a Sorlock.

This is especially important to keep in mind as there are builds that are 'good to the last drop'. Why take a risk on a build that plateaus before most game ends or one that requires a few levels to get going, when you could instead be something like a Gloomstalker Ranger which starts strong and ends it amazing?

[Elminster298]

To be 100% honest... I have ALWAYS built my characters all the way to max standard level ever since 2nd ed. When I build a character, it is intended to be played as a whole concept. Yes, certain things that happen during a campaign can change some of the decisions that I have already made, but to me that really makes my character feel alive to me. It SHOULDN'T be an easy decision to change how "you" have planned your life from the start. Just my own two pence.

[MaxWilson]

Just going by brute expected value, that's still a huge rip-off even at a twentieth of a price, but how many people do you know who would turn down an offer like that 30 minutes before the Powerball came on?

Uh, all of them?

Certainly I would decline, and I'd be really surprised and disappointed in anyone who took someone up on such an offer. Propinquity doesn't turn worthless trash into worthwhile goods.


To be 100% honest... I have ALWAYS built my characters all the way to max standard level ever since 2nd ed. When I build a character, it is intended to be played as a whole concept. Yes, certain things that happen during a campaign can change some of the decisions that I have already made, but to me that really makes my character feel alive to me. It SHOULDN'T be an easy decision to change how "you" have planned your life from the start. Just my own two pence.

Remark (not disagreement):

In 2nd edition, the only thing you had to do to make a good "build" was play either a human or a half-elf or maybe an elf. As long as you avoided level limits, or keep the level limits high enough not to cause you regret, the sky is the limit.

5E has a lot more focus on "builds" because there are more irreversible choices built into the game. If you take five levels in Barbarian you can never learn 9th level spells, ever. AD&D wasn't like that.

[Deathtongue]

Uh, all of them?

Certainly I would decline, and I'd be really surprised and disappointed in anyone who took someone up on such an offer. Propinquity doesn't turn worthless trash into worthwhile goods.That laughing sound you hear is several generations of psychologists, sociologists, and game theorists incredulous that someone could be so naive as to not only pit their Rationalism (large-R) against empirical evidence but also get snooty about it.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/

[KorvinStarmast]

That laughing sound you hear is several generations of psychologists, sociologists, and game theorists incredulous that someone could be so naive as to not only pit their Rationalism (large-R) against empirical evidence but also get snooty about it.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/ Yearh, but I believe that propinquity was correctly used in that sentence. :smallbiggrin:

[Pex]

If you won't multiclass you only need to optimize to 8th level. That will cover your ability scores, subclass, and feat choices. By the time you reach 12th level all the feats you haven't taken aren't important enough for you, so you made all the decisions you need by 8th level and let the class features continue on from 9th level. Get your prime ability score to 20 then whatever you feel like to increase later.

If you will multiclass then you need to figure out cut-off points of when to level in what class and switching back if any. That is where planning to 20th level might matter because you need to know which class features, ASIs, and feats come into play at which level.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

I optimize at 20th so I can see what abilities the character will have eventually. I just made a character I optimized but at 5th not 20th an he is much less cool. I now try to optimize at 5th 10th 15th and 20th.

[Willie the Duck]

Yearh, but I believe that propinquity was correctly used in that sentence. :smallbiggrin:

No, because the correct use of said word is to not use it at all (particularly on the internet, home of all lazy attempts to sound smart), and instead use an appropriate synonym. :smalltongue:
Mind you, not saying that's what Max was attempting to do. Just that the potential of that being the case is why using such words in this context actually makes one seem less smart instead of more.


People build to level 20 because a build is done at level 20. Once you hit level 20, there are no more levels to be gained so you can't build farther. If you build to level ten, you've got as many possibilities left as you've built to. A build to level ten simply isn't finished.

I think that that is the long and short of it. 20 is the basic template of the 'scope' that a potential build might normally occupy. So that's what people build it out to, because not doing so makes it look open ended and incomplete.

It is like painting. There's no fixed size for a painting, but once you have framed out the back to your canvas, that's the size you are going to paint out to.

[MaxWilson]

No, because the correct use of said word is to not use it at all (particularly on the internet, home of all lazy attempts to sound smart), and instead use an appropriate synonym. :smalltongue:
Mind you, not saying that's what Max was attempting to do. Just that the potential of that being the case is why using such words in this context actually makes one seem less smart instead of more.

No one worth exchanging ideas with is threatened by succinct verbiage, or cares about "seeming smart."

[Joe the Rat]

I've always felt every 20 Op build needs a couple of stats: Online Level (when the "goal" profile or gimmick becomes baseline functional), and Set Level (when the required pieces are all in place - you could go in any direction without breaking the gimmick - though there would be better choices than others for optimization). That would give you a sense of when you can do the Cool Thing.

[Willie the Duck]

No one worth exchanging ideas with is threatened by succinct verbiage, or cares about "seeming smart."

Trust me, no one felt threatened. And neither you nor I get a vote in whether people will interpret someone using propinquity in place of a less (oh shall we say) sagacious synonym as trying to 'seem smart' or not. I think it is a bad idea, you are free to disagree.


I've always felt every 20 Op build needs a couple of stats: Online Level (when the "goal" profile or gimmick becomes baseline functional), and Set Level (when the required pieces are all in place - you could go in any direction without breaking the gimmick - though there would be better choices than others for optimization). That would give you a sense of when you can do the Cool Thing.

That is really the most important concern. I do think 'does this build continue to deliver after it peaks' is a real concern, but what I remember from other editions was seeing a lot of builds that were great... once you got up to level 6 or 8 or 12 or something. That should definitely be noted in a build (particularly if you are doing something like delaying extra attack or 3rd level spells or the like).

[Sorlock Master]

Why do we optimize builds for level 20? There seems to be a lot of players(including me) who never make it that far. Although I am sure there are some.

Why do we not optimize for level 10 or maybe 15? This would make much more sense to me anyway.

Personally I usually have a lvl 10 optimization setup and a 20.

[KorvinStarmast]

No, because the correct use of said word is to not use it at all (particularly on the internet, home of all lazy attempts to sound smart), and instead use an appropriate synonym. :smalltongue: Heh, I guess it violates Churchill's principle that goes something like this:
Whenever one is tempted to use a word with three syllables or more, one must first satisfy one's self that a shorter word won't do before using that long word.
(From vague memory of summer 1978, public speaking class, college level)

[noob]

Why do we optimize builds for level 20? There seems to be a lot of players(including me) who never make it that far. Although I am sure there are some.

Why do we not optimize for level 10 or maybe 15? This would make much more sense to me anyway.

Most characters for adventuring optimally with a level under 20 are done best with a single classed prepared spellcaster(wizard or druid or cleric)
So the answer will often be "do a single classed character"(the exception is if you only want fighting power which is not the best option for adventuring(less polyvalence and stuff like that) unless you are level one or two(few campaigns tells you "ok we will finish at level 2"))
After level 17 you have the highest level spells and then you have afterwards 3 levels you can use on anything you want but before you want all the cool stuff spellcasting provide as early as possible(like teleport and plane shift and web and so on)