Other forms of optimizing

[ZorroGames]

Not just on this forum but generally also in AL games (especially modules) I see the frequent assumption that “optimization” is combat whether Melee or spell or whatever.

After the latest thread I wondered what general other form of “optimized” characters people design.

The Day of Clerics only Heal are diminished, (Thank the Lord,) but what other optimization modes exist in 5e?

I see “Templeton Peck” aka “Faceman” Social Warrior types depending on Persuasion, Deception, or even Intimidation to move the party to succeeding in their mission.

I see the Scout/Ninja/Rogue type out of combat as another type of “optimization” though imaging them staying on the edge of combat, preying on targets of opportunity, certainly is a combat role.

And Skill Monkeys are certainly Force Multipliers outside of combat.

What other primarily “not combat” types of optimization have you seen or thought about in 5e, AL or not.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I basically think that if it can be expressed mechanically, someone's going to be optimizing for it.

[nickl_2000]

I think there is the assister optimization as well. This would be someone who works to bolster others both in and out of combat (Pass without a trace, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, Enhance ability, etc).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

A project I'd be interested in is the optimized backstory, to encompass race, level 1 class, custom Background and anything else available to a PC at level 1.

[Unoriginal]

A project I'd be interested in is the optimized backstory, to encompass race, level 1 class, custom Background and anything else available to a PC at level 1.

How do you want to optimize that? Writing a short backstory including all this isn't complicated, but what about it would you call "optimized"?

[2D8HP]

Optimizing for ability checks i.e. Bard (lore)/Cleric (knowledge)/Rogue,

So, what are some ways you can pad an ability check? How high can you get?

Obvious things are

• Proficiency,as of 17th Level (+6)
• Expertise, as of 17th Level (+6)
• Maxed out ability score (+5)

If you have access to magical items, the ability score can go higher, theoretically up to +10.

Guidance and Bardic Inspiration can get you +1d4 and +1d12, respectively.

Certain abilities and spells give out specific bonuses, like Pass Without Trace granting +10 (!) to Stealth....

[No brains]

A project I'd be interested in is the optimized backstory, to encompass race, level 1 class, custom Background and anything else available to a PC at level 1.

How do you want to optimize that? Writing a short backstory including all this isn't complicated, but what about it would you call "optimized"?

You could speedrun the backstory; using the fewest words with clearest meaning.

One alternate form of optimization I rarely see discussed but have experienced as effective is setting up a character to be able to handle other pillars of play than combat. The rules flesh out combat the most, but exploration and interaction still contribute to an interesting campaign, especially when the players can feed back into those experiences.

It is for this reason that I found Trickery Cleric very fun to play. While I wasn't perfect at combat, I was able to throw my hat into every ring we came across and make the story weird wherever we went.

[TheFryingPen]

You could always optimize your edginess :)

Joke aside, I think you can focus on performing better in other aspects of the game but not really optimize / theory craft them like combat. There is a whole system for handling it. In the context of combat, players are basically granted control over the world to a certain degree, which they can utilize however they want. Other ways of interacting with the world have much more blank space to be filled by the DM and do not grant that form of regulated direct control. There are mechanics for other parts of the game, but they are much more shallow. It's hard to theory craft for something when you don't know how it will work within a campaign. That's why in my opinion, if you plan to be extraordinary in something other than combat, you should talk with your DM first.

[JellyPooga]

You could always optimize your edginess :)

Joke aside, I think you can focus on performing better in other aspects of the game but not really optimize / theory craft them like combat. There is a whole system for handling it. In the context of combat, players are basically granted control over the world to a certain degree, which they can utilize however they want. Other ways of interacting with the world have much more blank space to be filled by the DM and do not grant that form of regulated direct control. There are mechanics for other parts of the game, but they are much more shallow. It's hard to theory craft for something when you don't know how it will work within a campaign. That's why in my opinion, if you plan to be extraordinary in something other than combat, you should talk with your DM first.

While I agree with the overall point here, I think you exaggerate the scale of it.

Many non-combat features are unjustly labelled "ribbons", when what it mostly means is "you don't use this in combat";

- Barbarian: Spirit Seeker, Aspect of the Beast and Spirit Walker (Totem)
- Bard: Song of Rest
- Cleric: Many Divine Domain features e.g. Knowledge of the Ages (Knowledge), Charm Animals and Plants (Nature), Blessing of the Trickster (Trickery)
- Druid: Druidic and pretty much every Circle of Land feature above 2nd level
- Fighter: Remarkable Athlete (Champion), Student of War and Know Your Enemy (Battlemaster)
- Monk: Yeesh, where do you want to start on this one!? Almost everything but Martial Arts, Flurry of Blows and Stunning Strike?
- Ranger: Favoured Enemy, Natural Explorer, Primeval Awareness, Land's Stride, Hide in Plain Sight
- Rogue: Second-Story Work, UMD (Thief), Infiltration Expertise, Impostor (Assassin)
- Sorcerer: Dragon Ancestor (Draconic)
- Warlock: Many Invocations
- Wizard: Minor Conjuration (Conjurer), Expert Divination (Diviner), Alter Memories (Enchanter), Minor Alchemy, Master Transmuter (Transmuter)

That's setting aside Spells Known or chosen for purpose, Skill/Tool Proficiencies and Expertise, as well as Background Features and I'm sure a bunch of stuff I missed just casually flicking through the PHB alone. Sure, combat gets a lot of focus in D&D and always has, but 5ed does a remarkably good job of giving attention to the other two pillars in a relatively engaging manner that makes it worthwhile actually building a character that isn't a warrior or warmage before anything else. Yes, the social and exploration pillars are left open to GM interpretation more than combat is, but the Players still have a heap of stuff they can dictate in those circumstances, if only they're built for it.

Just by mixing and matching some of the features I've mentioned above, you can optimise for a great many non-combat situations, whether they be bypassing environmental hazards, being the "faceman", the scout, the loremaster and so on and so forth. There's even option to specialise within those broad categories; not just any faceman but the Animal-whisperer, not just a Scout but a Trapfinder, not just a Loremaster but a Historian, etc. Many Feats help with this sort of optimisation/specialisation of non-combat roles; particularly some of the ones often relegated to the junk-pile, such as Dungeon Delver and Athlete.

[TheFryingPen]

[...]
Just by mixing and matching some of the features I've mentioned above, you can optimise for a great many non-combat situations, whether they be bypassing environmental hazards, being the "faceman", the scout, the loremaster and so on and so forth. There's even option to specialise within those broad categories; not just any faceman but the Animal-whisperer, not just a Scout but a Trapfinder, not just a Loremaster but a Historian, etc. Many Feats help with this sort of optimisation/specialisation of non-combat roles; particularly some of the ones often relegated to the junk-pile, such as Dungeon Delver and Athlete.

Most campaigns I played in would have only had real use/need for one heavily specialised out of combat (OOC) character: face, which is commonly represented by a cha caster. And all could do without them. Meanwhile every campaign featured a fair amount of combat. Fighters (as in characters with decent combat ability) were pretty much always needed. For an OOC specialist to have as much spot light as fighters all these campaigns would have needed adjustment / content / DM improvisation to allow them play their role. Also, GMs rarely make you miss what you don't have:

Lack a crafter? Just buy the things you need with all your adventuring money. No mending cantrip in the party? Things don't break. Heavily guarded castle you have to get into (aka really calling for an infiltrator)? Surely there's a way to combat yourself in. No purify food & drink available? Everything you find is edible / you can get by with rations. Lack an explorer / guide? You find stuff and get from A to B anyway. This can be interpreted as a mistake by the DM, but backtracking and sinking time for some of these shortcomings, when you actually want to progress in an adventure, isn't fun for anyone. So it rarely gets played out / applied. And you don't miss what you never had.

Combat is also the part of the game you can always do as a group. Not all, but some specialists can't really manage to incorporate the party in their actions (e.g. infiltrating, scouting, lengthy negotiating). What might sound fun for you might actually be pretty boring for other players.

If you plan/create any OOC specialist without consulting the DM you risk the campaign not having any content for them at all. Worse, even if there is a situation you could apply your skills in, when the campaign is rather railroad-y, it won't make much difference. If you create a character that is at least partly focused on combat, odds are you won't miss what you gave up more than the other way around. I see more merit in theory crafting for a known and shared system (combat), that is likely to appear plenty in any adventure than trying my luck with too much thematic but unreliable OOC focus that could end up having very little influence. I think OOC specialists can surely be compelling to play in the right campaign, but their creation has to involve the DM and account for the setting.

I guess the gist of it is that out of combat optimization, while valid, relies much more on what type of game you run and how your DM handles it. The context is always different. To properly describe and share how a character works within your campaign you'd need to explain a lot more than just what features / abilities you took.
Combat optimization only relies on playing with the rules by the book. Thus it is the same for everyone playing by those rules, and little adjustments are easily communicated. This makes it more feasible to create a character concept that can work the same in any context. It is easier to communicate and share with the community.

[MilkmanDanimal]

A Warlock/Lore Bard multiclass is a heck of a "Charisma monkey". Get Expertise in Deception, Mask of Many Faces . . . heck, be a Tomelock and pick up Guidance for that extra d4.

[GlenSmash!]

You could speedrun the backstory; using the fewest words with clearest meaning.

This is always my goal.

Pick background, pick background traits, decide why my PC became an adventurer, tell the DM so they can make plot hooks out of my background if they choose.

No muss no fuss, plenty of opportunity for Roleplay.

[Innocent_bystan]

I think there is the assister optimization as well. This would be someone who works to bolster others both in and out of combat (Pass without a trace, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, Enhance ability, etc).

This. Optimizing for others to shine. It causes a lot less drama at the table than single handedly ending encounters.

There's also the one-man-party kind of optimalization: being able to do absolutely everything.

[Beelzebubba]

I'm optimizing my Mountain Druid to live without any equipment or items.
Whenever I'm able to cut something and watch my encumbrance, drop, I get a little giddy.

Thorn Whip meant ditching his scimitar.
Druidcraft / Produce Flame means no Tinderbox, oil, or torches.
Outlander's Foraging / Goodberry means no rations.
Goodberry every morning means no Healer's kit.
Meld Into Stone meant ditching his bedroll.

...I could go on, but my most fun upcoming RP development will be to start wild shaping into a Panther and eating things we kill - humanoids included - instead of busting out the Mess Kit and cooking.

I'm debating how to ditch armor. I'm considering Magic Initiate: Sorcerer for Mage Armor. But, there's also dipping one level as a Draconic Sorcerer: White Dragon and re-theming as him getting stony skin. That would give me the +3 AC, cold resistance to ignore the weather of high mountain ranges, and the ability to grab every elemental 'control' cantrip to make him ridiculous at RP magic.

(My DM has agreed to let me swap the language from Draconic to Primordial, and swapping the advantage on Cha checks from Dragons to Elementals, making it even more enticing. He's also said if we ever make it to 20th level, then after we retire my character would eventually make it to Archdruid as an NPC, so the dip wouldn't affect his ultimate fate.)

So, I'm definitely not optimizing for power here.

[JellyPooga]

Most campaigns I played in would have only had real use/need for one heavily specialised out of combat (OOC) character: face, which is commonly represented by a cha caster. And all could do without them. Meanwhile every campaign featured a fair amount of combat. Fighters (as in characters with decent combat ability) were pretty much always needed. For an OOC specialist to have as much spot light as fighters all these campaigns would have needed adjustment / content / DM improvisation to allow them play their role.

This is a flaw of adventure design, or at least those playing those adventures (no criticism of you and yours; just an observation); while old-school roleplaying had a pretty heavy focus on combat, combat and more combat, modern roleplaying is much wider in scope. The proof of which is in game design. So while playing through a modified "classic" adventure, yeah, you're going to get a lot of combat and very little of anything else. When designing your own campaigns, it's easy to fall back on what used to work and write similar adventures yourself. This, I contend, is perhaps a faulty practice because this...

Also, GMs rarely make you miss what you don't have:

Lack a crafter? Just buy the things you need with all your adventuring money. No mending cantrip in the party? Things don't break. Heavily guarded castle you have to get into (aka really calling for an infiltrator)? Surely there's a way to combat yourself in. No purify food & drink available? Everything you find is edible / you can get by with rations. Lack an explorer / guide? You find stuff and get from A to B anyway. This can be interpreted as a mistake by the DM, but backtracking and sinking time for some of these shortcomings, when you actually want to progress in an adventure, isn't fun for anyone. So it rarely gets played out / applied. And you don't miss what you never had.

...is (as far as I'm concerned) the worst kind of GMing, gaming I can possibly imagine. Nothing is good about handwavium of this degree. It encourages the kind of hyper-specialisation of builds you see on forums and the massive focus on combat to the exclusion of all else, creating the combat-bias in adventure design and gaming that is so common. It becomes circular; "I don't need non-combat abilities because we just hand-wave that stuff, so I'll build an entirely combat character, which means the GM needs to hand-wave stuff...". See the problem?

Combat is also the part of the game you can always do as a group.

This is a very valid point. It doesn't, however, invalidate the existence of non-combat group activites, nor the benefit of having a specialist available for that particular activity e.g. having a climbing expert handy, makes scaling a cliff a lot easier for everyone else present.

If you plan/create any OOC specialist without consulting the DM you risk the campaign not having any content for them at all. Worse, even if there is a situation you could apply your skills in, when the campaign is rather railroad-y, it won't make much difference. If you create a character that is at least partly focused on combat, odds are you won't miss what you gave up more than the other way around. I see more merit in theory crafting for a known and shared system (combat), that is likely to appear plenty in any adventure than trying my luck with too much thematic but unreliable OOC focus that could end up having very little influence. I think OOC specialists can surely be compelling to play in the right campaign, but their creation has to involve the DM and account for the setting.

Arguably, consulting the GM is as necessary for any character build. You'd feel pretty stupid in your confidence that your combat-character will definitely be useful, if the game turns out to be a city-based game of intrigue and guile where the only combats are of the PC's own devising and are generally a bad idea that only brings the long arm of the law down on the groups head and ruining the game. I agree that it's a fairly safe bet that if you're playing D&D, you're going to get into a scrap. What I don't agree with is the assumption that combat is the only thing worth focusing on in a vacuum. True, a non-combat specialist might not see too much spotlight in a pre-written or published campaign, but any GM worth his salt takes the Players choices into account, re-writing (often on the fly) encounters, scenarios, even whole campaigns to accommodate those choices, including character build.

I guess the gist of it is that out of combat optimization, while valid, relies much more on what type of game you run and how your DM handles it. The context is always different. To properly describe and share how a character works within your campaign you'd need to explain a lot more than just what features / abilities you took.
Combat optimization only relies on playing with the rules by the book. Thus it is the same for everyone playing by those rules, and little adjustments are easily communicated. This makes it more feasible to create a character concept that can work the same in any context. It is easier to communicate and share with the community.

I disagree on this point. Combat optimisation runs a gamut of variables that can't be assumed any more that non-combat. For one group, all experienced players and used to high-optimisation; these guys will fight the longest odds, TEN Double-Deadly fights a day...and win! For the next group, a bit more casual on the optimisation front; for these chaps a single Medium or Easy fight might spell doom for one of their number, let alone a Deadly one. If the second group was thrown into a campaign written for the first group, they'd have no fun at all. Yeah, they could "optimise" to come up to par, but maybe the players don't want to, maybe the GM isn't using the optional Multiclassing rules or Feats required by Group 1 to reach the giddy heights of optimisation they play at, perhaps one group uses Third Party and Homebrew material and the next does not, perhaps one group likes adventuring in the Forgotten Realms and the next Planescape, or one is set at sea, the next a dungeon, the next the Elemental Plane of Air (i.e. optimisation will mean different things in different settings or campaigns)...I could go on.

Whether you're optimised for combat on non-combat, it's going to rely heavily on A) the game you're playing, B) the rules you're playing by (and no, the PHB is not a good guide for what those might be) and C) who you're playing with.

[XmonkTad]

A project I'd be interested in is the optimized backstory

You mean "Old Man Henderson" right?

[TheFryingPen]

This is a flaw of adventure design, or at least those playing those adventures (no criticism of you and yours; just an observation); while old-school roleplaying had a pretty heavy focus on combat, combat and more combat, modern roleplaying is much wider in scope. The proof of which is in game design. So while playing through a modified "classic" adventure, yeah, you're going to get a lot of combat and very little of anything else. When designing your own campaigns, it's easy to fall back on what used to work and write similar adventures yourself.

I'm not writing my own adventures, I merely play with friends (of which some have more experience in older editions). The adventure design is not really an issue for us because that's just the kind of game we play. We mostly do official adventures and are light on the RP. We also tend to stick to RAW where it's possible and die quite often (sometimes to our mistakes, sometimes thanks to the dice and our DM rarely fudging anything from what I can tell).

This, I contend, is perhaps a faulty practice because this...
...is (as far as I'm concerned) the worst kind of GMing, gaming I can possibly imagine. Nothing is good about handwavium of this degree. It encourages the kind of hyper-specialisation of builds you see on forums and the massive focus on combat to the exclusion of all else, creating the combat-bias in adventure design and gaming that is so common. It becomes circular; "I don't need non-combat abilities because we just hand-wave that stuff, so I'll build an entirely combat character, which means the GM needs to hand-wave stuff...". See the problem?

We are a fairly combat heavy group. Our DM challenges us with other things but only to the extent of our abilities. We had OOC specialists in the past and they got to do their thing too, so it's not like we're forced to heavily optimise for combat (though one could argue characters getting killed quite often is an encouragement to do so). As you say yourself: "[...] any GM worth his salt takes the Players choices into account [...]". Unwillingness to provide ways to circumvent situations where an ability or spell we simply don't have is required would just be the other side of the coin.

This is a very valid point. It doesn't, however, invalidate the existence of non-combat group activites, nor the benefit of having a specialist available for that particular activity e.g. having a climbing expert handy, makes scaling a cliff a lot easier for everyone else present.

Are there any official or homebrew rules for this?

Arguably, consulting the GM is as necessary for any character build. You'd feel pretty stupid in your confidence that your combat-character will definitely be useful, if the game turns out to be a city-based game of intrigue and guile where the only combats are of the PC's own devising and are generally a bad idea that only brings the long arm of the law down on the groups head and ruining the game. I agree that it's a fairly safe bet that if you're playing D&D, you're going to get into a scrap. What I don't agree with is the assumption that combat is the only thing worth focusing on in a vacuum. True, a non-combat specialist might not see too much spotlight in a pre-written or published campaign, but any GM worth his salt takes the Players choices into account, re-writing (often on the fly) encounters, scenarios, even whole campaigns to accommodate those choices, including character build.

Concerning the first few sentences: you argue that it's not guaranteed that a combat character will be useful, but then accept the argument that it is more likely to be? That's pretty much my point. When you craft a character without knowing much details of a campaign, that concept is more likely to work when it includes a fair amount of combat prowess.
I don't assume combat is the only thing worth focusing on, I only prefer do so to a higher degree when pre-planning characters for yet unknown scenarios because combat ability is likely to apply to any campaign. And official campaigns are made for parties of characters capable of fighting. I add fluff and OOC options to my characters flesh out their concepts where it fits but I tend to do the "core" (combat abilities / tactic / spell & feature selection) first and add the fluff / backstory / utility when I know enough about a campaign to better connect it to the world.
I don't think it's fair to take it for granted that a DM will put in the extra work to make his/her setting fitting for you. Depending on what you want to play that's no simple task. If most campaigns by default have less problems incorporating combat-heavy characters than different OOC-specialised ones, it's one more reason to not plan OOC-specialists before you know more about the campaign. Also, a re-writing of what's happening on the fly is what impedes any pre-planning. Optimisation relies on being able to count on known rules staying the way they are.

I disagree on this point. Combat optimisation runs a gamut of variables that can't be assumed any more that non-combat. For one group, all experienced players and used to high-optimisation; these guys will fight the longest odds, TEN Double-Deadly fights a day...and win! For the next group, a bit more casual on the optimisation front; for these chaps a single Medium or Easy fight might spell doom for one of their number, let alone a Deadly one. If the second group was thrown into a campaign written for the first group, they'd have no fun at all. Yeah, they could "optimise" to come up to par, but maybe the players don't want to, maybe the GM isn't using the optional Multiclassing rules or Feats required by Group 1 to reach the giddy heights of optimisation they play at, perhaps one group uses Third Party and Homebrew material and the next does not, perhaps one group likes adventuring in the Forgotten Realms and the next Planescape, or one is set at sea, the next a dungeon, the next the Elemental Plane of Air (i.e. optimisation will mean different things in different settings or campaigns)...I could go on.

Again referencing to what you said previously, non-combat mechanics more often rely on being adjusted / added on the fly. Combat rules remain the same throughout the whole game. Combat has a whole system of rules, interacting with NPCs or the environment in a creative way has nothing as extensive. Thus, even without a session 0 you can assume that a combat concept will work as long as it follows the rules of combat.
A character decent at fighting enemies works regardless of how difficult combat is. And yes, when you don't optimise your DM might adjust the difficulty accordingly but that's the same as "handwaving" missing utility aka taking the players choices into account. And combat will also work the same in homebrewed content. Of course, when you introduce more specific options or limitations for character building with the homebrew, everything regarding optimization is bound to change, but that's far from the norm. And things like "no feats", "PHB+1", "official material only", "no MC" are all very simple restrictions to be taken into account when creating a combat character, even when you know nothing else.

Whether you're optimised for combat on non-combat, it's going to rely heavily on A) the game you're playing, B) the rules you're playing by (and no, the PHB is not a good guide for what those might be) and C) who you're playing with.

Wait, are you saying the players can't rely on the PHB as the rule reference the game is going to get played by? If that's the case for you, then you're not playing dnd 5e with additional content, but a different game using modified dnd rules. This means you can't plan / optimize anything using official dnd rules.

[Theodoxus]

To Zorro's comment specifically, since you play AL (almost?) exclusively, and for a while I was, until I got bored and started running my own content with players I met there - AL doesn't reward non-combat encounters. Not traps, not social intrigue - nada. It's only combat that gets you XP, so only combat matters, and thus, only combat is optimized for.

Now, I personally know every AL DM at my FLGS cheats in this respect - but, they also are very open with "your character will not be AL legal for conventions or other scrutinized events." So, it ultimately falls on the player to decide how "legal" they want to remain within the AL confines - and most are quite happy to schlep around the 7 or 8 tables on a weekly basis, knowing that they're "stuck" in our personal little crystal sphere of AL-esque play.

However, even DMs who encourage RP through rewards are still following official modules and hardbacks, and unless you're improvising your butt off, there isn't much to exploration or socialization in the official products available.

I think Paizo got that aspect much better than WotC ever did. Converting Pathfinder APs to 5th ed is super easy though, even porting Golarion locales to Forgotten Realms isn't particularly noisome - if for some reason you didn't want to play in Golarion proper.

Though of course, there's nothing AL legal about that... but mining the APs for ideas on how to work exploration and socialization into your games wouldn't be remiss.