Optimization levels

[Ogre Mage]

At the 5E site Tabletop Builds, they came up with standards for character optimization levels: (https://tabletopbuilds.com/proposed-standards-of-optimization-levels/)



No optimization. Players in this category have built atypically “underpowered” characters and have (purposefully or not) hampered them in some significant way. This could be from a lack of fundamental knowledge about the game, trying something really unusual that just didn’t work in practice, or a complete focus on adhering to a roleplaying concept at the expense of even a hint of choosing aspects of your character on the basis of power, flexibility, or survivability.

Low optimization. Low optimization builds don’t overtly eschew effectiveness but are usually not built with power as a priority. These builds can perform passably at tables where combat isn’t a focus. Characters with a generally appropriate Ability Score allocation (maximized primary ability score for class during character creation, 2nd highest ability score is typically Constitution), and are likely increasing their primary Ability Scores with ASIs. Spellcasters are not choosing powerful spells, and martial weapon users are not taking high quality damage feats (Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter, Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, et cetera).

Low-mid optimization. Low-mid optimization builds are usually created with effectiveness in mind but perhaps not as the top priority. These builds can perform passably at many tables. Spellcasters are selecting and casting some good spells (at least one reliable combat spell per spell level) and have taken a good half-feat or concentration protection feat. Martials have taken a bonus action attack or power attack feat, with a few exceptions.

Mid optimization. Mid optimization level characters are usually created with effectiveness as a factor among others and can contribute well at most tables. A mid optimized martial likely has both a bonus action attack and a power attack feat. A mid optimized spellcaster has a concentration protection feat and multiple highly effective spells for each spell level.

Mid-high optimization. Mid-high optimization builds are created with effectiveness as a top priority and can perform excellently at any table. Depending on the table, mid-high optimized characters may be able to “carry” a party or contribute more than half of the party’s effectiveness. Spellcasters here are taking targeted multiclass dips in order to obtain access to defensive powerhouses such as shield and absorb elements, as well as getting armor proficiencies cheaply to maximize Armor Class ... Expertly built straight full casters of the best subclasses and spell choices are in this category as well. Martial weapon users at this level are typically multiclassing out of their primary class in tier 2 so as to maximize damage and overall potency.

High optimization. Subclass selection shrinks to the top few subclasses available. The only martials in a high optimization party are primarily Paladins and Rangers that multiclass mostly into full caster classes after core features come online (Aura of Protection or subclass aura for Paladins, Extra Attack or conjure animals for Rangers). Parties are mostly composed of primarily full caster characters. Party optimization comes to the fore ...


More details and examples can be found on their site. What optimization level has the majority of your characters been? What is the overall optimization level at the tables you play/have played at?

The majority of my characters are made at mid optimization level with a considerable minority at the mid-high level. From 2018 on, mid optimization is the level for most of the tables I play at. In 2015-17 I saw a lot of low and low-mid optimized characters but in recent years this has gotten rarer. A few people I play with always have characters at mid-high optimization.

[Unoriginal]

At the 5E site Tabletop Builds, they came up with standards for character optimization levels: (https://tabletopbuilds.com/proposed-standards-of-optimization-levels/)



More details and examples can be found on their site. What optimization level has the majority of your characters been? What is the overall optimization level at the tables you play/have played at?

The majority of my characters are made at mid optimization level with a considerable minority at the mid-high level. From 2018 on, mid optimization is the level for most of the tables I play at. In 2015-17 I saw a lot of low and low-mid optimized characters but in recent years this has gotten rarer. A few people I play with always have characters at mid-high optimization.

I reject any premise that declares high optimization is not something for most martials.

[sithlordnergal]

My parties tend to be Mid-high optimization. I do have a player that says he dislikes optimization, but even he optimizes in my games.

[tokek]

I think the scale they use is useful partly to point out how useless higher levels of optimisation are at most tables.

Mid level is the highest I would recommend for AL for example, anything above that will typically trivialise the whole thing to the point that it is boring. Yet a lot of optimisation chat uses AL build limits and overall restriction as a basis for discussion. I would be bored senseless playing even a min-high optimised character in AL.

The thing is that AL is pitched only just slightly at the easier end of most gaming tables.

Unless you are setting out as a group to push the limits of D&D as a tactical wargame and really pushing the difficulty limits I think mid-high is usually a bit too much and high is going to be an unfun win button experience lacking any challenge. It even says it in their description for low-mid optimisation "These builds can perform passably at many tables" - which is to say there will be a challenge and you might get sweaty palms at times where you fear for your characters' life.

For most games I would not look above mid optimisation. For typically easier ones like AL I would not look above mid-low usually.

But then I enjoy the challenge, that is part of the game for me, and don't want to trivialise the challenge out of the game.

[stoutstien]

I reject any premise that declares high optimization is not something for most martials.

I think the site is using it it terms of absolute optimization rather than relative when one take the totality of content into account.
In that case no martial would make the list because they can't use questionable interpretation of content and know flaws as a defense for purposely breaking a setting.

[Unoriginal]

I think the site is using it it terms of absolute optimization rather than relative when one take the totality of content into account.
In that case no martial would make the list because they can't use questionable interpretation of content and know flaws as a defense for purposely breaking a setting.

Which is another reason for me to reject their premise.

[kazaryu]

I think the site is using it it terms of absolute optimization rather than relative when one take the totality of content into account.
In that case no martial would make the list because they can't use questionable interpretation of content and know flaws as a defense for purposely breaking a setting. if they're taking a totality of content into account they'd have to include martials...because the only reason caster's actually leave them behind so badly is when you assume certain playstyles. don't get me wrong, the playstyles are common. But caster's are absolutely not, objectively, that much stronger than martials. Subjectively, however, within the confines of the games that lean into their strength, they are.

this is actually one of my biggest complaints about the article...most of it is about them essentially saying 'hey here's what we mean when we say X'. and that would be fine..but the opening language tries to make it useful on a general level...and its just not. from what i've seen of tabletopbuilds they have rather specific ideas about what an 'optimized' character looks like...and its just not a good standard for general discussion.


I reject any premise that declares high optimization is not something for most martials. any scale that bakes its conclusions into the scale itself is inherently flawed. it would be one thing to set up a truly objective meter, and then attempt to demonstrate independently that no pure martial can possibly reach the highest tier. but i agree that by baking it into the scale it can't truly be a good objective scale.




At the 5E site Tabletop Builds, they came up with standards for character optimization levels: (https://tabletopbuilds.com/proposed-standards-of-optimization-levels/)



More details and examples can be found on their site. What optimization level has the majority of your characters been? What is the overall optimization level at the tables you play/have played at?

The majority of my characters are made at mid optimization level with a considerable minority at the mid-high level. From 2018 on, mid optimization is the level for most of the tables I play at. In 2015-17 I saw a lot of low and low-mid optimized characters but in recent years this has gotten rarer. A few people I play with always have characters at mid-high optimization.

i mean...using a %of party contribution as part of a 'standard for optimization' (mid-high) is pretty dumb because its now longer objective, its subjective. (to make this more clear, based on this scale, its impossible to have a party comprised of mid-high optimized characters.

overall, this article should not be taken as any kind of gospel, its important to keep it within its own context. Which is for the site to establish a standard for how they see optimization. thus allowing them to clearly communicate to their readers what they mean when they say 'x build is of of y level'. nothing more.unfortunately..it does say 'proposed standard'. and the language at the beginning implies the author considers it to be useful generally. but the authors own bias' are way too baked into it for that to work.



with that said, even though i don't like the scale, i can still answer the question.

most of my characters have been in the mid ranges of optimization.....except thats a bit of a misnomer. i've had 2 characters that are very high optimization, but they're optimized for sub-optimal attributes (i.e. one was optimized to maximize his carrying capacity. the other was optimized around having the maximum number of spells available at any given time). most characters i build start of with some core concept (i.e. 'high carry capacity, 'how many spells can i know' 'strength rogue might be fun' 'what if EK, but they RP more similarly to a paladin' and from there i optimize for that concept. At this point, none of my core concepts have been things like 'damage' or 'ultimate utility'. and generally the groups i've played in are the same.

my most recent group is rather low optimization...but thats partially because they're all new players and i have specifically avoided giving them mechanical advice, and instead reserve my advice for how they can realize the character they're trying to play...this has resulted in multiple party members still only having a +2/3 in their primary ability modifiers at level 7. which is fun.

[stoutstien]

if they're taking a totality of content into account they'd have to include martials...because the only reason caster's actually leave them behind so badly is when you assume certain playstyles. don't get me wrong, the playstyles are common. But caster's are absolutely not, objectively, that much stronger than martials. Subjectively, however, within the confines of the games that lean into their strength, they are.


Yea and no. They assume multiclassing which is a surefire way for "casters" to grab all the martial low hanging fruit with minimal investment and they take forum think to the extreme by subverting RaW and disregarding DM fiat.

*In some regards they are correct. Stuff like 1 life cleric/ X celestial pact warlocks isn't just power as a meme. They are Mary death by Sue Sue.

[Unoriginal]

Yea and no. They assume multiclassing which is a surefire way for "casters" to grab all the martial low hanging fruit with minimal investment and they take forum think to the extreme by subverting RaW and disregarding DM fiat.

Which makes the premise too flawed to use anything it's based on.



*In some regards they are correct. Stuff like 1 life cleric/ X celestial pact warlocks isn't just power as a meme. They are Mary death by Sue Sue.

The term "Mary Sue" isn't about how powerful a character is, it's avout how the character is treated by the narrative (or at least, the reaction of the audience to how the narrative treat said character).

.
That is not something any game mechanics can give.

[stoutstien]

The term "Mary Sue" isn't about how powerful a character is, it's avout how the character is treated by the narrative (or at least, the reaction of the audience to how the narrative treat said character).

.
That is not something any game mechanics can give.

......who is often portrayed as inexplicably competent across all domains, gifted with unique talents or powers, liked or respected by most other characters, unrealistically free of weaknesses, extremely attractive, innately virtuous, and/or generally lacking meaningful character flaws.....

I'd say over half that list would be represented solely by mechanical interactions so 50/50?

[Unoriginal]

......who is often portrayed as inexplicably competent across all domains, gifted with unique talents or powers, liked or respected by most other characters, unrealistically free of weaknesses, extremely attractive, innately virtuous, and/or generally lacking meaningful character flaws.....

I'd say over half that list would be represented solely by mechanical interactions so 50/50?

The Mary Sue concept is often paired with power fantasy, but they are distinct.

"Liked/respected by all because the narrative said so", "innately considered virtuous regardless of what they do and don't do" and "without any of their flaws being acknowledged as flaw by the narrative" are what makes a Mary Sue a Mary Sue.

For example, Sherlock Holmes in the original Conan Doyle stories is a genius, strong, skilled in combat, art and science, attractive, well-off and with characters ready to sing his praises... but he also has legitimate flaws which are acknowledged, sometime commits blunders or outright fail (and sometime disaster is averted only by luck), and none of the characters treat him like some sort of inherent saint. Therefore he is not a Mary Sue in the original stories (while he can be in some later adaptations who do not get or care about the character's nuances and depths).

Meanwhile you have the protagonist of Twilight, who despite startingbas weaker than all of the supernatural creatures and a good share of the humans, and being meant as genericly average in look and capacity overall, still has every character she mets willing to kill for her or die for her within minutes of sharing a scene with her, plus habing an always-Right-opinion and none of her flaws being considered flaws by the narrator, making her a Mary Sue.

[stoutstien]

There isn't a lack of irony here.

[Unoriginal]

There isn't a lack of irony here.

Would you mind explaining what you consider ironic, please? I admit I do not see it.

[kazaryu]

Yea and no. They assume multiclassing which is a surefire way for "casters" to grab all the martial low hanging fruit with minimal investment and they take forum think to the extreme by subverting RaW and disregarding DM fiat. thats just a fancy way of reiterating what i said...they have a specific idea in mind of how games are played, and thus a skewed perspective on how powerful certain features are (i.e. they only value martials for their native armor/weapon proficiencies...and basically nothing else). that isn't a 'yes and no' its a...yes. thats exactly what i was saying.


*In some regards they are correct. Stuff like 1 life cleric/ X celestial pact warlocks isn't just power as a meme. They are Mary death by Sue Sue.im sorry, i must be missing something big but...why life cleric specifically? as far as i can tell, celestial warlocks don't get anything that synergizes well with dsiciple of life...no Heal over times, or AoE heals. i can understand dipping cleric for armor proficiencies but it seems to me that:

for a mary sue character you're way better off going knowledge cleric for their expertise (thus reinforcing the 'good at everything'

if you really want the AC benefits forge clerics gets you +1 heavy armor

for jsut..general power something like order domain...


idk, i just don't see what you're getting out of life cleric here...

[da newt]

Yeah - I'm not touching that.

As for the OP, I'm not 100% behind this description of which PC builds are XX optimization tier, but to answer the question - I mostly play AL and see a wide variety of PC power from very low to pretty darned high (although rarely played at a high level of skill - IOW the build might be a copy paste from a high end guide, but the player isn't getting the most out of it due to their implementation of the build). I mostly gravitate to mid-lo and mid builds myself.


WRT Tokek's AL observations - I agree. The AL game is not a high end challenge unless the DM takes some significant liberties with the written mods to amp them up considerably. A party of 5 mid-low OP tier PCs played by a group of clever/competent players will cake walk 95% of the adventures after adjusted for 'very strong' party.

Furthermore, I think party teamwork and tactics are every bit as powerful as the individual builds. Tiers like this don't capture that side of the game at all.

[RogueJK]

While I love theory-crafting optimized builds, most of my actual played characters would be considered Mid- to Mid-High according to this chart.

I like having full use of my action economy by building in reliable uses of my Bonus Actions, since I hate leaving that unused turn after turn. I like having spell/abilities that synergize well together, especially when they follow a similar theme that I can start to build the character concept around. I like putting together creative and effective builds that may not be the most powerful, but that make interesting uses of multiclass combos or novel uses of less common spells.

I don't like totally overshadowing everyone else at the table, dominating every combat, and trying to make it all about myself. Or playing the same three types of builds over and over because they're "the best" from a damage output standpoint.

Luckily, most of the players in my group are also mid-level optimizers, so it creates some parity when we're all somewhat optimized.



idk, i just don't see what you're getting out of life cleric here...

Yeah, Life Cleric doesn't really have much synergy with Celestial Warlock. Life Cleric 1 boosts your healing spells, but Celestial Warlocks get the vast majority of their healing from non-spell abilities that don't benefit from that. A Life Cleric 1/Celestial Warlock X doesn't even get access to healing spells higher than 1st level's Cure Wounds/Healing Word...

Either a Life Cleric 1/Shepherd Druid X or a Life Cleric 1/Lore Bard X would be significantly better examples of optimized Life Cleric dip builds.

[stoutstien]

Would you mind explaining what you consider ironic, please? I admit I do not see it.

You disagree with the premise that the site having authority to decide what is optimized but you yourself have decided that you have authority of the terminology I use to describe characters based on subjective literary terms over what a purposely built to purposely circumvent and overshadow others regardless of theme and desires role fulfilment. Additionally the comment was obviously made in jest so you are adamantly defending... nothing?


thats just a fancy way of reiterating what i said...they have a specific idea in mind of how games are played, and thus a skewed perspective on how powerful certain features are (i.e. they only value martials for their native armor/weapon proficiencies...and basically nothing else). that isn't a 'yes and no' its a...yes. thats exactly what i was saying.

im sorry, i must be missing something big but...why life cleric specifically? as far as i can tell, celestial warlocks don't get anything that synergizes well with dsiciple of life...no Heal over times, or AoE heals. i can understand dipping cleric for armor proficiencies but it seems to me that:

for a mary sue character you're way better off going knowledge cleric for their expertise (thus reinforcing the 'good at everything'

if you really want the AC benefits forge clerics gets you +1 heavy armor

for jsut..general power something like order domain...


idk, i just don't see what you're getting out of life cleric here...

Well if you want to supercharge it grab mark of healing halfling bit it's overkill. Life cleric allows you to maximize your return for using your unused SR slots to heal and gives you the two spells you would likely want to prepare of that list automatically. It adds a different way they can recycle resources so regardless of pacing or pressure they come out ahead.
You could take a different domain and it would be functional and just as bad but it was meant as purely as an example of such things that are objectively are optimized just due to the extreme depth and flexible of tools to the point they can invalidate other who didn't take the same approach.

[Mastikator]

I'd say I'm mid to mid-high on this chart. But will occasionally choose low-mid if it makes more sense for a character concept, or as an outcome of specializing less and diversifying more. Most of the people I play with range from no optimizing to mid anyway, if I go into high then all I'm accomplishing is sabotaging the DM's ability to create fun and balanced encounters and stealing the spotlight from other players. Even if I go mid-high I'll try to hold back during play.

As a DM I prefer it when all the players are roughly on the same level, whatever that level happens to be. It's better to have a group of pure non-optimizers than to have a wide range IMO, I can just scale the encounters to easy and medium and it will work out just fine.

[RogueJK]

Life cleric allows you to maximize your return for using your unused SR slots to heal and gives you the two spells you would likely want to prepare of that list automatically.

At best, it's getting you +7 HP healed to a single target per Healing Word/Cure Wounds. (2+5 from the maximum 5th level Pact slot.) That's not really very optimized at all.

Whereas Lore Bards or Shepherd Druids can get the Disciple of Life's healing bonus across multiple characters with a single spell via higher level multi-target healing spells like Goodberry, Mass Healing Word, Mass Cure Wounds, Prayer of Healing, or Aura of Vitality, and if the Shepherd Druid has their Unicorn Spirit running they can also heal additional HP equal to their Druid level to all creatures within it when they cast that healing spell. Those can result in many dozen bonus HPs being healed per spell cast, not just 7.

[stoutstien]

At best, it's getting you +7 HP healed to a single target per Healing Word/Cure Wounds. (2+5 from the maximum 5th level Pact slot.) That's not really very optimized at all.

Whereas Lore Bards or Shepherd Druids can get the Disciple of Life's healing bonus across multiple characters with a single spell via higher level multi-target healing spells like Goodberry, Mass Healing Word, Mass Cure Wounds, Prayer of Healing, or Aura of Vitality, and if the Shepherd Druid has their Unicorn Spirit running they can also heal an additional HP equal to their Druid level to anyone within it when they cast that healing spell.
Then take the halfling or a different domain? . Boom done. Just because there are different option doesn't make this one less intrusive.

Seems like an odd sticking point

[kazaryu]

Well if you want to supercharge it grab mark of healing halfling bit it's overkill. Life cleric allows you to maximize your return for using your unused SR slots to heal and gives you the two spells you would likely want to prepare of that list automatically. It adds a different way they can recycle resources so regardless of pacing or pressure they come out ahead. so you limit your own spell level progression for a tiny bit of extra healing when you happen to cast cure wounds using your SR spell slots?

domain spell lists just make life cleric worse...you don't want to cast cure wounds as a cleric spell, you're literally losing healing that way. you'd have to go mark of healing halfling, in order to grab aura of vitality at level 6 in order to make the life cleric dip worthwhile...if you don't go mark of healing, then the only real benefit you get from life cleric is heavy armor prof...you're probably just better off going celestial warlock straight through..



You could take a different domain and it would be functional and just as bad but it was meant as purely as an example of such things that are objectively are optimized just due to the extreme depth and flexible of tools to the point they can invalidate other who didn't take the same approach. you suggested what is basically a straight celestial warlock with heavy armor...who is getting invalidated?

[RogueJK]

Seems like an odd sticking point

My point was you were confusingly holding Life Cleric 1/Celestial Warlock X out as the most egregious example of an over-the-top optimized build, when it barely even begins to scratch the surface of optimization, being hardly even optimized itself...

(And Mark of Healing Halflings, nay all Dragonmarked races, are overpowered as it is, especially if your the only player who deliberately cherry-picked a Dragonmarked race as a power grab while everyone else is running standard races. Which is why they're generally not available outside of specifically the Eberron setting. Same goes for the poorly-balanced MtG stuff.)

[stoutstien]

My point was you were confusingly holding Life Cleric 1/Celestial Warlock X out as the be-all and end-all, most egregious example of an overly optimized build, when it barely even begins to scratch the surface of optimization...

(And Mark of Healing Halfling, nay all Dragonmarked races, are overpowered as it is, especially if your the only player who cherry-picked a Dragonmarked race while everyone else is running standard races. Which is why they're generally not available outside of the Ebberon setting.)

No I said it was an example of low hanging martial stuff with minimal costs that can over shadow others. Where did i say it was anywhere near the end of the any spectrum.

The whole point was the optimization chart is completely subjective with even minor factors.

[RogueJK]

Where did i say it was anywhere near the end of the any spectrum.

Here: "Stuff like 1 life cleric/ X celestial pact warlocks isn't just power as a meme."

Life Cleric 1/Celestial Warlock X is hardly "power as a meme", let alone beyond that... It's barely "powerful" at all, in the grand scheme of the optimization spectrum, which is the topic of this thread.

[stoutstien]

Here: "Stuff like 1 life cleric/ X celestial pact warlocks isn't just power as a meme."

Life Cleric 1/Celestial Warlock X is hardly "power as a meme", let alone beyond that... It's barely "powerful" at all, in the grand scheme of the optimization spectrum, which is the topic of this thread.

It is powerful. Just not in an obvious obtuse fashion so it's more likely to be applicable because it goes unnoticed.

If you disagree so be it but I'm not the one who is trying to codify optimized levels of play or anything.

[Frogreaver]

At the 5E site Tabletop Builds, they came up with standards for character optimization levels: (https://tabletopbuilds.com/proposed-standards-of-optimization-levels/)



More details and examples can be found on their site. What optimization level has the majority of your characters been? What is the overall optimization level at the tables you play/have played at?

The majority of my characters are made at mid optimization level with a considerable minority at the mid-high level. From 2018 on, mid optimization is the level for most of the tables I play at. In 2015-17 I saw a lot of low and low-mid optimized characters but in recent years this has gotten rarer. A few people I play with always have characters at mid-high optimization.

I'm not really understanding the difference between what it's calling High Optimization and Mid-High Optimization. Sounds like the same thing to me?

I guess I could also say the same about Mid and Low-Mid.

[Kane0]

I'd be soundly in the low-to-mid optimization for virtually every character i've played or DM'd for, but then again the measurements look wonky to me

[Waazraath]

I reject any premise that declares high optimization is not something for most martials.

+1 (and some extra characters)

[Eldariel]

It's amazing that we have to setup this stuff again for every edition even though the same system is perfectly functional. What's wrong with just Tier 0 for unplayable-broken stuff (Simulacrum chains and the like), Tier 1 for best stuff (just basic Wizards, Druids, Lore Bards, etc. with loop restrictions in place), etc. That's simple and convenient and you don't need to argue the semantics of what "High", "Mid-high" or whatever means: you just have numbers and then each number can be given a definition.

Then again, assessing builds this way is a bit suspect. TTB has some interesting ideas but ultimately they restrict themselves to single character optimization, which means that if you take four of their "flagship" builds and form a party out of them, it's still going to be worse than a solid party built to complement one another and cover all the bases together as opposed to having every character try and cover all bases. Plus basically all of their builds are actively self-nerffing by multiclassing. Which leads their high op ultimately not being the strongest you can do in the system simply because it's not using the resources of multiple characters optimally but instead wasting them on trying to have them all cover all bases by themselves.

[GeneralVryth]

I will throw my hat in the ring of disagreeing with the premise that high optimization is half-caster+ only. That is only true if you are talking about overcoming an obstacle as quickly as possible with no regard to resource utilization. As soon as you start try to optimize for for overcoming as many obstacles as possible in a given time frame (which is really what you should be doing and the game was clearly designed for), the optimization balance shifts dramatically.

As one example (which I acknowledge is not perfect because of the limits of video games), I recently played through a Solasta campaign where I created a 2 parties and tried to have them race getting as much done as they could in a few adventuring days as possible. One party was martial heavy (a Paladin, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue), and the other was caster heavy (an Artificer, Druid, Ranger, and Wizard). By the end (around level 10/11) the caster party was struggling at points in time where the martials just kept on chugging without issue. The one place where the casters shined is when they could approach an encounter fully loaded and knew they could burn everything that battle.

As to the question at hand I mostly build mid to mid-high optimization levels.

[Unoriginal]

It's amazing that we have to setup this stuff again for every edition even though the same system is perfectly functional. What's wrong with just Tier 0 for unplayable-broken stuff (Simulacrum chains and the like), Tier 1 for best stuff (just basic Wizards, Druids, Lore Bards, etc.), etc.

5e uses the term "tier" to mean something else, it's just confusing to use the 3.X-context definition.



Furthermore, there is a large difference between "best class mechanics" and "most optimized build". Stating that the 3.X Druid is among the best classes in the game does not mean you cannot have a Druid build perform far below that if built in a way that doesn't work.

In other words, there is a difference between stating that X class is strong and stating that X class class is strong regardless of which option you take. Otherwise no one would say "don't take Witch Bolt, it's a bad spell".

[JNAProductions]

It's amazing that we have to setup this stuff again for every edition even though the same system is perfectly functional. What's wrong with just Tier 0 for unplayable-broken stuff (Simulacrum chains and the like), Tier 1 for best stuff (just basic Wizards, Druids, Lore Bards, etc. with loop restrictions in place), etc. That's simple and convenient and you don't need to argue the semantics of what "High", "Mid-high" or whatever means: you just have numbers and then each number can be given a definition.

Then again, assessing builds this way is a bit suspect. TTB has some interesting ideas but ultimately they restrict themselves to single character optimization, which means that if you take four of their "flagship" builds and form a party out of them, it's still going to be worse than a solid party built to complement one another and cover all the bases together as opposed to having every character try and cover all bases. Plus basically all of their builds are actively self-nerffing by multiclassing. Which leads their high op ultimately not being the strongest you can do in the system simply because it's not using the resources of multiple characters optimally but instead wasting them on trying to have them all cover all bases by themselves.

In 3.X terms, 5E classes are pretty much all Tier 3-4.

Some specific interactions could be Tier 2, like Wish-Simulacrum chaining.

[Kane0]

I recently played through a Solasta campaign where I created a 2 parties and tried to have them race getting as much done as they could in a few adventuring days as possible. One party was martial heavy (a Paladin, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue), and the other was caster heavy (an Artificer, Druid, Ranger, and Wizard). By the end (around level 10/11) the caster party was struggling at points in time where the martials just kept on chugging without issue. The one place where the casters shined is when they could approach an encounter fully loaded and knew they could burn everything that battle.


That's pretty cool to hear actually.

[Ogre Mage]

As one example (which I acknowledge is not perfect because of the limits of video games), I recently played through a Solasta campaign where I created a 2 parties and tried to have them race getting as much done as they could in a few adventuring days as possible. One party was martial heavy (a Paladin, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue), and the other was caster heavy (an Artificer, Druid, Ranger, and Wizard). By the end (around level 10/11) the caster party was struggling at points in time where the martials just kept on chugging without issue. The one place where the casters shined is when they could approach an encounter fully loaded and knew they could burn everything that battle.


Totally unrelated, but I found the best optimized party in Solasta to be a paladin, battle domain cleric, ranger with thieves tools proficiency (lowlife background) and wizard with medium armor (sellsword background).

[GeneralVryth]

That's pretty cool to hear actually.

It's something that struck me that's for sure. You can regularly find talk on forums about how much better casters are, especially in a various white room settings, but trying to test it anything approaching a real campaign is easier said than done. Solasta seemed like a gem for that, the campaigns aren't super long, it's a very faithful implementation of 5e (including having more interesting terrain than a lot of DMs will have). Of course being a video game you are on rails and you are limited in your ability to get "clever" with the rules, but in some ways maybe that helps the experiment.

In the end it really ends up illustrating what many people actually say about the martial versus caster debate. It depends on what you are optimizing for and how you play. If you are optimizing to achieve as many encounters as possible in a set time period martials tend to be more important (but casters can give you extra oomph to overcome tough encounters). if you are optimizing to have one encounter and then rest (or are just allowed to do that because of no narrative pressure), casters tend to be better.


Totally unrelated, but I found the best optimized party in Solasta to be a paladin, battle domain cleric, ranger with thieves tools proficiency (lowlife background) and wizard with medium armor (sellsword background).

I am not sure I buy that. There so many good combinations I doubt there is anything approaching one right answer. I will say battle domain seems like the best of the clerics by far, paladins are also always good. A commander fighter is something I underestimated until I saw it in action, it's tankiness is kind of unreal, and lots of party wide temp hp per short short rest means you keep chugging along on those for awhile. Archer rogues also tend to be really good, if they are stealth specialists they can just hand back getting sneak attacks with advantage every round doing as much damage as any other martial could do if all their attacks hit (and they usually don't have advantage). The survival monk also really plays to its name at higher levels.

[Kane0]

I will say that my default party are all half-elves: fighter or paladin, cleric, ranger, warlock. Not sure if that's just my preference/style or something that is specific to the Solasta environment though.

[animorte]

I've only ever had mid-high+ optimized characters for some one-shots.

Based on their apparent descriptions, most of my characters are apparently low-mid. I've never been ineffective at combat and some of my spells are theme/motivation driven.

I think it's important to note that this is strictly a combat scale. It doesn't seem to include out-of-combat circumstance, but I haven't looked at the site either. Most skill/communication experts would fall comfortably in low or low-mid, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are sub-optimized whatsoever.

There is one very important concept I have seen across many platforms on the subject of tier lists. You can always pick the absolute best options all the time for your particular concept, but that means nothing unless you know how and why it applies.

[Bosh]

My normal group is a mix of non-optimizers and people who try to optimize but aren't very good at it, which often works out the a pretty decent amount of balance (with exceptions like the one player who played a moon druid in one campaign and then a rogue/ranger in another who constantly forgot to sneak attack unless specifically reminded).

Personally in M:tG terms I'm often a Johnny player (www.thegamer.com/magic-the-gathering-player-type-guide-vorthos-spike-timmy-johnny-mel-explained). I like offbeat or weird synergies. Figuring out ways to make a heavy armor monk or a low int single-classed wizard not suck just bring me joy. So playing optimization games is fun for me, but in a way that doesn't really make overpowered characters.

I also like to make tactically interesting characters rather than one trick ponies, despite one trick ponies often being more powerful. Since I also like playing martials that often leads me to focus on specific builds that give me a lot of tactical choices (thief rogues I love you so...) over raw power.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That's pretty cool to hear actually.

Key thing to note about Solasta, however, is that a few of the Martial Subclasses unique to the game are very specific to the setting*. Ranger receives a lot of rebalancing, I'd go so far as to say I prefer them over Fighter. The available magic items also favor martials, belts of giant strength (up to Fire, if I recall) and +2 weapons/armor are plentiful.

Martials are actually pretty good in Solasta because the developer gave them many tools to be good. The casters are good too (I'd say very good since the recent expansion, which added some powerful spells to the relatively bare spell lists) and they're given substantially less.

I think Solasta actually did a pretty good job making both appealing.

*Edit: for context, since I forgot to add it, they're specific in a way that makes them more powerful mechanically.

[Quietus]

I don't care for how these are presented. There's really not a lot of differentiation between mid-high and high optimization, and "no optimization" feels misnamed. I'd go by something more like...

Anti-optimization : Characters are underpowered, either due to the player not understanding the rules or going out of their way to build suboptimally as a challenge. Characters will struggle to meaningfully contribute in a mechanical way.

Low optimization : Characters are built according to basic PHB baselines. They will prioritize their most relevant stat(s), ASIs will be used to increase stats or take flavor feats. Features and spells are taken without considering how they synergize. This is the optimization level assumed by most first-party adventures/modules. Characters can contribute, but will be overshadowed in their area of specialization by those with higher optimization levels.

Mid optimization : Choices in feats and multiclassing are made with consideration for how they will interact, and with an eye to mechanical effectiveness. Powerful feats may be common, possibly alongside features that boost their effectiveness, such as Sharpshooter + archery fighting style, or GWM + reckless attack. Characters can expect to have at least one area of expertise where they cannot be overshadowed expect in rare cases.

High optimization : Choices in all areas of character build are made with strong consideration for how they affect the character's performance. Powerful feats will be common, and characters will have either one area of extreme power, a multitude of areas of competency, or both. Characters will be able to contribute in a variety of mechanical ways or will trivialize situations that cater to their area of specialty. Characters will risk overshadowing those of lower optimization levels.

Theoretical optimization : Characterized by unexpected and often abusive combinations of abilities to achieve feats typically not expected by the developers. This is the realm of coffeelocks and simulacrum chains, and these characters are typically not appropriate at most tables without explicit buy-in from the DM and other players.




Without the bounds as I've described above, I often shoot for high optimization, but I prefer playing at the level of mid optimization, so I often include some roleplay limit on my characters to drop me back down to that level. For example, I have a death cleric built around the core of "make vampiric touch good", but I included backstory reasons that she refuses to use AoE spells. That limitation keeps her squarely between the two, and the only reason she flirts with "high optimization" is because the death cleric smite is actually much better than I anticipated.

[Waazraath]

In 3.X terms, 5E classes are pretty much all Tier 3-4.

Some specific interactions could be Tier 2, like Wish-Simulacrum chaining.

+1


I don't care for how these are presented. There's really not a lot of differentiation between mid-high and high optimization, and "no optimization" feels misnamed. I'd go by something more like...

Anti-optimization : Characters are underpowered, either due to the player not understanding the rules or going out of their way to build suboptimally as a challenge. Characters will struggle to meaningfully contribute in a mechanical way.

Low optimization : Characters are built according to basic PHB baselines. They will prioritize their most relevant stat(s), ASIs will be used to increase stats or take flavor feats. Features and spells are taken without considering how they synergize. This is the optimization level assumed by most first-party adventures/modules. Characters can contribute, but will be overshadowed in their area of specialization by those with higher optimization levels.

Mid optimization : Choices in feats and multiclassing are made with consideration for how they will interact, and with an eye to mechanical effectiveness. Powerful feats may be common, possibly alongside features that boost their effectiveness, such as Sharpshooter + archery fighting style, or GWM + reckless attack. Characters can expect to have at least one area of expertise where they cannot be overshadowed expect in rare cases.

High optimization : Choices in all areas of character build are made with strong consideration for how they affect the character's performance. Powerful feats will be common, and characters will have either one area of extreme power, a multitude of areas of competency, or both. Characters will be able to contribute in a variety of mechanical ways or will trivialize situations that cater to their area of specialty. Characters will risk overshadowing those of lower optimization levels.

Theoretical optimization : Characterized by unexpected and often abusive combinations of abilities to achieve feats typically not expected by the developers. This is the realm of coffeelocks and simulacrum chains, and these characters are typically not appropriate at most tables without explicit buy-in from the DM and other players.


This one makes more sense then the one in the original post. In my own games player are mostly mid or high optimized.

[Mastikator]

I don't care for how these are presented. There's really not a lot of differentiation between mid-high and high optimization, and "no optimization" feels misnamed. I'd go by something more like...

Anti-optimization : Characters are underpowered, either due to the player not understanding the rules or going out of their way to build suboptimally as a challenge. Characters will struggle to meaningfully contribute in a mechanical way.

Low optimization : Characters are built according to basic PHB baselines. They will prioritize their most relevant stat(s), ASIs will be used to increase stats or take flavor feats. Features and spells are taken without considering how they synergize. This is the optimization level assumed by most first-party adventures/modules. Characters can contribute, but will be overshadowed in their area of specialization by those with higher optimization levels.

Mid optimization : Choices in feats and multiclassing are made with consideration for how they will interact, and with an eye to mechanical effectiveness. Powerful feats may be common, possibly alongside features that boost their effectiveness, such as Sharpshooter + archery fighting style, or GWM + reckless attack. Characters can expect to have at least one area of expertise where they cannot be overshadowed expect in rare cases.

High optimization : Choices in all areas of character build are made with strong consideration for how they affect the character's performance. Powerful feats will be common, and characters will have either one area of extreme power, a multitude of areas of competency, or both. Characters will be able to contribute in a variety of mechanical ways or will trivialize situations that cater to their area of specialty. Characters will risk overshadowing those of lower optimization levels.

Theoretical optimization : Characterized by unexpected and often abusive combinations of abilities to achieve feats typically not expected by the developers. This is the realm of coffeelocks and simulacrum chains, and these characters are typically not appropriate at most tables without explicit buy-in from the DM and other players.




Without the bounds as I've described above, I often shoot for high optimization, but I prefer playing at the level of mid optimization, so I often include some roleplay limit on my characters to drop me back down to that level. For example, I have a death cleric built around the core of "make vampiric touch good", but I included backstory reasons that she refuses to use AoE spells. That limitation keeps her squarely between the two, and the only reason she flirts with "high optimization" is because the death cleric smite is actually much better than I anticipated.

I like this scale more.

I'm usually in the mid to high.

Two people I play with are anti or low, and one thinks that it makes her a better roleplayer (she's a fine roleplayer, but I don't think playing weak characters is a part of that recipe, I think she has low self esteem and is afraid to try to be awesome)
Four people I pay with are low to mid. (one is a cheater who effectively has a very powerful character, not when I'm DM though.)
One is usually mid.

[Corran]

Then again, assessing builds this way is a bit suspect. TTB has some interesting ideas but ultimately they restrict themselves to single character optimization, which means that if you take four of their "flagship" builds and form a party out of them, it's still going to be worse than a solid party built to complement one another and cover all the bases together as opposed to having every character try and cover all bases. Plus basically all of their builds are actively self-nerffing by multiclassing. Which leads their high op ultimately not being the strongest you can do in the system simply because it's not using the resources of multiple characters optimally but instead wasting them on trying to have them all cover all bases by themselves.
Do you have an example of this? I dont need a full breakdown or anything too detailed. Because I like builds that try to cover all (or maybe most) bases usually, so that the group does not suffer too much when the enemy has the initiative, but at the same time I can get that there is a point from where on you are just spreading yourself thin.

[animorte]

I don't care for how these are presented. There's really not a lot of differentiation between mid-high and high optimization, and "no optimization" feels misnamed. I'd go by something more like...

Anti-optimization : Characters are underpowered, either due to the player not understanding the rules or going out of their way to build suboptimally as a challenge. Characters will struggle to meaningfully contribute in a mechanical way.

Low optimization : Characters are built according to basic PHB baselines. They will prioritize their most relevant stat(s), ASIs will be used to increase stats or take flavor feats. Features and spells are taken without considering how they synergize. This is the optimization level assumed by most first-party adventures/modules. Characters can contribute, but will be overshadowed in their area of specialization by those with higher optimization levels.

Mid optimization : Choices in feats and multiclassing are made with consideration for how they will interact, and with an eye to mechanical effectiveness. Powerful feats may be common, possibly alongside features that boost their effectiveness, such as Sharpshooter + archery fighting style, or GWM + reckless attack. Characters can expect to have at least one area of expertise where they cannot be overshadowed expect in rare cases.

High optimization : Choices in all areas of character build are made with strong consideration for how they affect the character's performance. Powerful feats will be common, and characters will have either one area of extreme power, a multitude of areas of competency, or both. Characters will be able to contribute in a variety of mechanical ways or will trivialize situations that cater to their area of specialty. Characters will risk overshadowing those of lower optimization levels.

Theoretical optimization : Characterized by unexpected and often abusive combinations of abilities to achieve feats typically not expected by the developers. This is the realm of coffeelocks and simulacrum chains, and these characters are typically not appropriate at most tables without explicit buy-in from the DM and other players.
Exponentially better. The original scale description vs this one bumps me from low-mid to high. I like to be very good at one thing while finding other tools to cover some additional bases with what I have left over.

I really don't like how the original one assumes mechanical combat is the only thing worth building for.

[kazaryu]

It is powerful. Just not in an obvious obtuse fashion so it's more likely to be applicable because it goes unnoticed.

If you disagree so be it but I'm not the one who is trying to codify optimized levels of play or anything.

you literally called it a mary sue combination (while implying that that was a power level, and one that was above 'power as a meme')


Stuff like 1 life cleric/ X celestial pact warlocks isn't just power as a meme. They are Mary death by Sue Sue.

thats why we're confused. you basically made a lateral trade (slower spell progression for heavy armor) and called it a super powerful build...it was weird.


I don't care for how these are presented. There's really not a lot of differentiation between mid-high and high optimization, and "no optimization" feels misnamed. I'd go by something more like...

Anti-optimization : Characters are underpowered, either due to the player not understanding the rules or going out of their way to build suboptimally as a challenge. Characters will struggle to meaningfully contribute in a mechanical way.

Low optimization : Characters are built according to basic PHB baselines. They will prioritize their most relevant stat(s), ASIs will be used to increase stats or take flavor feats. Features and spells are taken without considering how they synergize. This is the optimization level assumed by most first-party adventures/modules. Characters can contribute, but will be overshadowed in their area of specialization by those with higher optimization levels.

Mid optimization : Choices in feats and multiclassing are made with consideration for how they will interact, and with an eye to mechanical effectiveness. Powerful feats may be common, possibly alongside features that boost their effectiveness, such as Sharpshooter + archery fighting style, or GWM + reckless attack. Characters can expect to have at least one area of expertise where they cannot be overshadowed expect in rare cases.

High optimization : Choices in all areas of character build are made with strong consideration for how they affect the character's performance. Powerful feats will be common, and characters will have either one area of extreme power, a multitude of areas of competency, or both. Characters will be able to contribute in a variety of mechanical ways or will trivialize situations that cater to their area of specialty. Characters will risk overshadowing those of lower optimization levels.

Theoretical optimization : Characterized by unexpected and often abusive combinations of abilities to achieve feats typically not expected by the developers. This is the realm of coffeelocks and simulacrum chains, and these characters are typically not appropriate at most tables without explicit buy-in from the DM and other players.



this is a great example of a scale that actually could function as a generalized standard, or at least form the basis. nice.

[Kane0]

Good work Quietus.

Guess i'm a mid-op player on that scale too.

[stoutstien]

you literally called it a mary sue combination (while implying that that was a power level, and one that was above 'power as a meme')



thats why we're confused. you basically made a lateral trade (slower spell progression for heavy armor) and called it a super powerful build...it was weird.


It's a Mary Sue because it can do anything well enough that the gap between it and any other PC that would be considered specialized isn't large enough to note. you can insert druid or whatever for the 1 lv but cleric has the highest return for minimal costs.
It's an annoying build because it won't necessarily set off any alarms based on charts like this because nothing in isolation is bad.

It's bad because it can do:

At will damage
Burst single/aoe
Healing
Face
Utility
Healing
Mitigation
Mobility
Information gathering
Access to full range of spell progression

With no trade offs. Honestly It's more annoying than any hex blade combo because at least they have to give up something.

The point was looking at PC options in tiers like this usually fails to address subtle things that actually effect games

Y'all are hung up on a pun.

[Aimeryan]

The AL game is not a high end challenge unless the DM takes some significant liberties with the written mods to amp them up considerably. A party of 5 mid-low OP tier PCs played by a group of clever/competent players will cake walk 95% of the adventures after adjusted for 'very strong' party.

Which is why I think people argue that martials are just as high op as casters - essentially because any combat challenge in the game can be solved by having a Champion say 'I attack'. There isn't much point optimising any further.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Which is why I think people argue that martials are just as high op as casters - essentially because any combat challenge in the game can be solved by having a Champion say 'I attack'. There isn't much point optimising any further.

I'll note that this is very much by design. The "you must be this tall to ride/must have X abilities to succeed" gatekeeping was discarded for this edition.

Generally, I find that most optimization that goes significantly beyond the basics of "don't dump your core stat, use your features, use stuff you're proficient in" misses the point and as played often[1] causes more problems than it solves. Unless the whole party including the DM is affirmatively excited about optimization, it generally creates un-fun for someone. Whether that's the people who don't optimize and suddenly are relegated to being lackies while the real protagonist solves everything with a wave of his wand (some sarcasm there) or it's the DM who now has to completely rethink things, often in ways that make zero in-fiction sense, or it's the optimizer who never really gets to show off. More optimization is not always better. In fact it's often much worse for the table. Which is what matters.

In fact, I'd bet that it's easier and poses less risk to game stability for a DM to adjust to weaker-than-expected characters than it is, often, to adjust to what the OP's source calls "Highly Optimized" characters. Toning down encounters and challenges is always easier than accommodating loophole hunters. The game shows its cracks when people really pull out all the stops. Which is expected and normal--every game has a "region of viability". And using it outside that is "some breakage expected" in my opinion.

[1] not always, just...more often than is accounted for in these discussions.

[sithlordnergal]

I don't care for how these are presented. There's really not a lot of differentiation between mid-high and high optimization, and "no optimization" feels misnamed. I'd go by something more like...

Anti-optimization : Characters are underpowered, either due to the player not understanding the rules or going out of their way to build suboptimally as a challenge. Characters will struggle to meaningfully contribute in a mechanical way.

Low optimization : Characters are built according to basic PHB baselines. They will prioritize their most relevant stat(s), ASIs will be used to increase stats or take flavor feats. Features and spells are taken without considering how they synergize. This is the optimization level assumed by most first-party adventures/modules. Characters can contribute, but will be overshadowed in their area of specialization by those with higher optimization levels.

Mid optimization : Choices in feats and multiclassing are made with consideration for how they will interact, and with an eye to mechanical effectiveness. Powerful feats may be common, possibly alongside features that boost their effectiveness, such as Sharpshooter + archery fighting style, or GWM + reckless attack. Characters can expect to have at least one area of expertise where they cannot be overshadowed expect in rare cases.

High optimization : Choices in all areas of character build are made with strong consideration for how they affect the character's performance. Powerful feats will be common, and characters will have either one area of extreme power, a multitude of areas of competency, or both. Characters will be able to contribute in a variety of mechanical ways or will trivialize situations that cater to their area of specialty. Characters will risk overshadowing those of lower optimization levels.

Theoretical optimization : Characterized by unexpected and often abusive combinations of abilities to achieve feats typically not expected by the developers. This is the realm of coffeelocks and simulacrum chains, and these characters are typically not appropriate at most tables without explicit buy-in from the DM and other players.


I like this much better. I still fall on the higher end of optimization, usually on the "High Optimization" scale, outside of a few preferences that I have. No matter how bad it is, I can never give up my love for Wild Magic Sorcery...

That said, I have begun using some theoretical optimization in AL games. Things that do heavily rely on abusive combinations top pull stuff off. However, it ends up being balanced out since I go in optimizing for really weird things. Case in point, because I know I could get the items, I optimized for the greatest amount of movement speed possible. It literally takes me a full round to activate my movement buffs, and I have never needed high speed...but I did it. DMs find it stupid and hilarious, and it is stupid, but I did it.

[strangebloke]

snip

good tier list.

I think the thing to understand is that 'optimization' begs the question of "what is being optimized for." I think the original list assumes some kind of all-encompassing 'general utility' optimization, which, yeah at high levels favors casters. But you can optimize for anything. What's the highest HP character? What's the highest effective HP character? What's the highest AC you can get? Etc. You can deliberately make a weak build that's very good in some niche way that's compelling to you but nobody else. Such a character is very 'optimized' even if it doesn't have much utility in general.

I think the best example of this are the thorns builds, where people take a powerhouse class like wizard and then build a strategy around getting hit in melee. It's not something you're going to do by accident! It takes some doing! The character will mostly be strong for reasons unrelated to optimization!

With respect to this specific community/YT channel, I've seen some of the builds they put together... and its not to my taste. They're usually feature salads where every character has shield and silvery barbs no matter how contorted the route to got there, and the end result is universally less powerful than "any well-built wizard" by t3 anyway.

[Hael]

As one example (which I acknowledge is not perfect because of the limits of video games), I recently played through a Solasta campaign where I created a 2 parties and tried to have them race getting as much done as they could in a few adventuring days as possible

Solasta is an interesting take on 5e, b/c it actually recreates some of the problems of the system quite faithfully and we can show problems quantitatively. In some sense, its the most martial favorable base you could possibly make. Everyone gets magic items, there are few out of the norm scenarios (fliers etc) the devs took some time in actually making martials base class and subclass a bit stronger etc etc. Meanwhile most of the bad spells that create most of 5es problems are heavily nerfed.

Despite this, casters are ultimately the best classes in the game by a considerable margin at the highest difficulty levels.

For instance in base solasta, the best class in the game is the ridiculous battlecleric (which is a busted overtuned subclass), but after that its basically wizard land.

Other than paladins, you really only want martials for their lvl 1-3 prowess (which is actually kinda important b/c its the hardest stage of the game on the highest difficulties), but even that has been altered by the druid class (which has an amazing early game).

With mods that make things more like 5e, it actually helps martials level things a bit, b/c power attack builds become relevant (eg buffed GWM/PAM vhuman barbarians with magic items will perform quite well). But even that is ultimately not enough, b/c when you start dropping tons of enemies with high to hit (in modded nightmare scenarios) martials simply drop too fast. You need access to caster defenses to really survive, and that gets you right back into party comps that sound eerily familiar to what most optimizers talk about (eg hexadin/sorlocks/bardadin/sorcadin, artiwizards, overtuned cleric sublasses, conjuration druids etc) and thats where things like baseclass fighter/barbarian/rogue/monk have almost no shot of being relevant.

[Theodoxus]

As one example (which I acknowledge is not perfect because of the limits of video games), I recently played through a Solasta campaign where I created a 2 parties and tried to have them race getting as much done as they could in a few adventuring days as possible. One party was martial heavy (a Paladin, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue), and the other was caster heavy (an Artificer, Druid, Ranger, and Wizard). By the end (around level 10/11) the caster party was struggling at points in time where the martials just kept on chugging without issue. The one place where the casters shined is when they could approach an encounter fully loaded and knew they could burn everything that battle.

My best was 4 warlocks of the Moonlit pact [community pack]. Summoning darkness, causing everyone to be invisible, which caused the AI to just stop and be confused, was by far the most powerful and optimized thing I could find to do. I haven't booted the game up since the last patch though, so I have no idea if the official warlock is similarly capable. I did port the Moonlit Pact into my home game, and the player who is using it is enjoying it, though it hasn't been head and shoulders over other times he's played warlock... so that's good, I guess :)


As to the question at hand I mostly build mid to mid-high optimization levels.

Same, though I've played some very high optimization builds in AL - but mostly to get back at a jerky DM who didn't appreciate being reminded how the rules of play actually worked... Ruining his fun was my own kind of fun for a month - and then I got bored and jumped to a different table. Yeah, high op in AL isn't really all that...

[Ogre Mage]

Anti-optimization : Characters are underpowered, either due to the player not understanding the rules or going out of their way to build suboptimally as a challenge. Characters will struggle to meaningfully contribute in a mechanical way.

Low optimization : Characters are built according to basic PHB baselines. They will prioritize their most relevant stat(s), ASIs will be used to increase stats or take flavor feats. Features and spells are taken without considering how they synergize. This is the optimization level assumed by most first-party adventures/modules. Characters can contribute, but will be overshadowed in their area of specialization by those with higher optimization levels.

Mid optimization : Choices in feats and multiclassing are made with consideration for how they will interact, and with an eye to mechanical effectiveness. Powerful feats may be common, possibly alongside features that boost their effectiveness, such as Sharpshooter + archery fighting style, or GWM + reckless attack. Characters can expect to have at least one area of expertise where they cannot be overshadowed expect in rare cases.

High optimization : Choices in all areas of character build are made with strong consideration for how they affect the character's performance. Powerful feats will be common, and characters will have either one area of extreme power, a multitude of areas of competency, or both. Characters will be able to contribute in a variety of mechanical ways or will trivialize situations that cater to their area of specialty. Characters will risk overshadowing those of lower optimization levels.

Theoretical optimization : Characterized by unexpected and often abusive combinations of abilities to achieve feats typically not expected by the developers. This is the realm of coffeelocks and simulacrum chains, and these characters are typically not appropriate at most tables without explicit buy-in from the DM and other players.


I like this as well!

[kazaryu]

Y'all are hung up on a pun.no. We're 'hung up' because you misused a term, and then got defensive when it comfused us, and rather than trying to clear up the confusion, you doubled down on it. I dont particularly care that you misspoke originally, **** happens. All ive been trying to get out of you is an explanation of your point. Which, thankfully, i now have.



It's a Mary Sue because it can do anything well enough that the gap between it and any other PC that would be considered specialized isn't large enough to note. thats not what a mary sue is...but more poignantly, thats not even remotely true.

First of all, the only benefit youre getting from the cleric dip is armor proficiency...it literally does nothing for any of the stuff you later list

But even beyond that, you think that a basic warlock can do all that stuff as well as someome specialized in it...bro...i wont go in depth since this is kind of a side issue, but you should probably actually look at what optimized builds can do if youre going to comment on them.






The point was looking at PC options in tiers like this usually fails to address subtle things that actually effect games thats not an untrue statement, but i dont think its really a relevant point to this discussion.

The article being discussed isnt trying to address problematic builds. Its about establishing a standard of communication so that that sites readers know what its authors mean when they say things like 'mid tier'.

[Quietus]

I'm glad my take on those optimization tiers was appreciated! I was quite proud of it.




I think the thing to understand is that 'optimization' begs the question of "what is being optimized for." I think the original list assumes some kind of all-encompassing 'general utility' optimization, which, yeah at high levels favors casters. But you can optimize for anything. What's the highest HP character? What's the highest effective HP character? What's the highest AC you can get? Etc. You can deliberately make a weak build that's very good in some niche way that's compelling to you but nobody else. Such a character is very 'optimized' even if it doesn't have much utility in general.


This was something I considered while writing that out, but I couldn't find a way to include the idea of these weird niche builds (tabaxi speedsters, pure AC builds, etc) outside of turning the tier list into a grid of some kind, and that was a level of complexity I didn't feel would help. There's definitely points where you can put a lot of work into becoming extremely good at one specific thing, which requires high levels of optimization in general, where it won't line up with the overall mechanical effectiveness of the character - generally these kinds of builds tend to require the skill/attention to achieve one level of optimization, but will be SO overly specific that their actual effectiveness will drop a half level to a full level, depending on the area of specialization and the base class in question.

I definitely tried to specifically avoid "You are X good in combat", because damage might be the easiest thing to optimize for, but it's also the most boring (to me - personal taste and all that). Hence the catch-all "mechanically effective", I felt that was a better way to phrase things.

[animorte]

Hence the catch-all "mechanically effective", I felt that was a better way to phrase things.
Yes, because mechanics apply to far more than just damage numbers.

Some things are optimized at the expense of the damage output, while others can do so without the side effect. It's difficult to separate all the variables.

[strangebloke]

This was something I considered while writing that out, but I couldn't find a way to include the idea of these weird niche builds (tabaxi speedsters, pure AC builds, etc) outside of turning the tier list into a grid of some kind, and that was a level of complexity I didn't feel would help. There's definitely points where you can put a lot of work into becoming extremely good at one specific thing, which requires high levels of optimization in general, where it won't line up with the overall mechanical effectiveness of the character - generally these kinds of builds tend to require the skill/attention to achieve one level of optimization, but will be SO overly specific that their actual effectiveness will drop a half level to a full level, depending on the area of specialization and the base class in question.

I definitely tried to specifically avoid "You are X good in combat", because damage might be the easiest thing to optimize for, but it's also the most boring (to me - personal taste and all that). Hence the catch-all "mechanically effective", I felt that was a better way to phrase things.

Yeah, and as I've said elsewhere its hard to measure, because people don't really think of 'effectiveness' in terms of utility. It might be really useful to have the spell identify but I don't think most wizards consider that a major reason for playing their character. If people really cared about simple utility....

....well you'd have a lot more people taking ritual caster.

[Quietus]

Yeah, and as I've said elsewhere its hard to measure, because people don't really think of 'effectiveness' in terms of utility. It might be really useful to have the spell identify but I don't think most wizards consider that a major reason for playing their character. If people really cared about simple utility....

....well you'd have a lot more people taking ritual caster.

I'm sometimes shocked that I have never played a character who really made use of the Ritual Caster feat. It's probably the single most flexible utility add for any martial character.

[Rukelnikov]

I'm sometimes shocked that I have never played a character who really made use of the Ritual Caster feat. It's probably the single most flexible utility add for any martial character.

I took it as my first feat with my Sorlock, went Chain instead of Tome.

I think from your definition I'd usually fall either in Anti or Mid optimization.

[strangebloke]

I'm sometimes shocked that I have never played a character who really made use of the Ritual Caster feat. It's probably the single most flexible utility add for any martial character.

I have a character concept i want to play. A failed scholar who insists on being called by the title "wizard."

He is a barbarian with the ritual caster feat, and gets very annoyed if you suggest his credentials might be fabricated.

[Zuras]

Yeah, and as I've said elsewhere its hard to measure, because people don't really think of 'effectiveness' in terms of utility. It might be really useful to have the spell identify but I don't think most wizards consider that a major reason for playing their character. If people really cared about simple utility....

....well you'd have a lot more people taking ritual caster.

The idea that optimization only means “combat optimization” gets stuck in people’s heads. Lots of optimization revolves around making characters specialized for other pillars of the game still reasonably competent in combat.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

At the 5E site Tabletop Builds, they came up with standards for character optimization levels: (https://tabletopbuilds.com/proposed-standards-of-optimization-levels/)



More details and examples can be found on their site. What optimization level has the majority of your characters been? What is the overall optimization level at the tables you play/have played at?

The majority of my characters are made at mid optimization level with a considerable minority at the mid-high level. From 2018 on, mid optimization is the level for most of the tables I play at. In 2015-17 I saw a lot of low and low-mid optimized characters but in recent years this has gotten rarer. A few people I play with always have characters at mid-high optimization.

I disagree with the vast majority of the scale. About the only thing that clearly rings true to me is the bit about subclasses in the top tier; there is a significant variation in many within many classes where subclass is going to significantly impact the overall power of the character.

[Witty Username]

I am not sure where practical optimization (optimization within the framework a DM can be expected to allow, and in concordance with the table and playgroup) would fit in with this, which is how I tend to aim, along with thematic optimization (prioritizing storytelling, fun, and favored astectics at character creation and progression).

High optimization stuff I have noticed tends to neglect context, which is vital for the effectiveness of a build. A playmaker control mage sounds good, until you have no fighter to anchor your team's damage for example.

The only thing that is usually reliable is multiclassing as almost every class has a point where either gains stop (wizard and sorcerer are pretty done at 17th level) or gains stagnate for large swathes of game time (barbarian gets a good feature at 20th, but that requires the road from 6-19th which is a terrible experience for most subclasses)

[Rukelnikov]

The only thing that is usually reliable is multiclassing as almost every class has a point where either gains stop (wizard and sorcerer are pretty done at 17th level) or gains stagnate for large swathes of game time (barbarian gets a good feature at 20th, but that requires the road from 6-19th which is a terrible experience for most subclasses)

I think Wizard 18 is pretty good.

[stoutstien]

no. We're 'hung up' because you misused a term, and then got defensive when it comfused us, and rather than trying to clear up the confusion, you doubled down on it. I dont particularly care that you misspoke originally, **** happens. All ive been trying to get out of you is an explanation of your point. Which, thankfully, i now have.


thats not what a mary sue is...but more poignantly, thats not even remotely true.

First of all, the only benefit youre getting from the cleric dip is armor proficiency...it literally does nothing for any of the stuff you later list

But even beyond that, you think that a basic warlock can do all that stuff as well as someome specialized in it...bro...i wont go in depth since this is kind of a side issue, but you should probably actually look at what optimized builds can do if youre going to comment on them.




thats not an untrue statement, but i dont think its really a relevant point to this discussion.

The article being discussed isnt trying to address problematic builds. Its about establishing a standard of communication so that that sites readers know what its authors mean when they say things like 'mid tier'.

That's like your option man and since I'm not trying to set any kind of standard I can consider dipping for armor whatever I want. I don't need to look at what "real optimized" because I don't care what you consider what real is. There no point in trying to add categories to stuff you don't want.

You can't set standard of communication for this because it disregards table level factors which are the only level that matters.

[Witty Username]

Which is why I think people argue that martials are just as high op as casters - essentially because any combat challenge in the game can be solved by having a Champion say 'I attack'. There isn't much point optimising any further.

There is also that martials tend to be more on demand than casters, most martials (barbarian and monk are outliers for a reason) tend to be about the same amount of effectiveness all the time, where casters, by necessity, have moments of high power with an low baseline.
In games with more than a couple encounters a day, characters that have strong baseline performance are very helpful.

[Rukelnikov]

That's like your option man and since I'm not trying to set any kind of standard I can consider dipping for armor whatever I want. I don't need to look at what "real optimized" because I don't care what you consider what real is. There no point in trying to add categories to stuff you don't want.

You can't set standard of communication for this because it disregards table level factors which are the only level that matters.

True, the last time my table played late T3, we were fighting enemies with ACs in the high 20s or some even low 30s as challenging encounters, I get the impression that's not whats commonly optimized for.