Should you optimize In D&D 5e?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 фев 2024
- This Video is Sponsored by Dragonheir: Silent gods: allsha.re/a/ckoMYwcX4up
Please check them out and if you like what you see, use the gift code (dragon23) for the Dragonheir and DND Phase II collaboration, effective from 2024/2/23 (UTC-0)!
How to Redeem:
1. Tap on settings.
2. Go to Service.
3. Select Redeem Code.
4. Enter the code: dragon23
Thank you Dragonheir: Silent gods for sponsoring this video!
3 styles of resource management: tabletopbuilds.com/three-styl...
Proposed standards of Optimization levels: tabletopbuilds.com/proposed-s...
Flagship Ranger: • Flagship Ranger Build!...
Link to patreon, merch shop, discord and twitter:
www.patreon.com/Packtactics?f...
/ discord
/ pack_tacticss
my-store-c2baed.creator-sprin...
Gator art by Drakeven: / drakeven1
Kobold reading a scroll art by Novatonix:
ruclips.net/channel/UCmJF... 
Хобби
This Video is Sponsored by Dragonheir: Silent gods: allsha.re/a/ckoMYwcX4up
Please check them out and if you like what you see, use the gift code (dragon23) for the Dragonheir and DND Phase II collaboration, effective from 2024/2/23 (UTC-0)!
How to Redeem:
1. Tap on settings.
2. Go to Service.
3. Select Redeem Code.
4. Enter the code: dragon23
Thank you Dragonheir: Silent gods for sponsoring this video!
What's the "autocron" Wizard build you keep talking about in the video? I've never heard of it.
Just remember: Every time you optimize, a baby Gnome cries.
You wouldn't want to make a baby Gnome cry, now would y- HEY! STOP KICKING IT!!!
You should match your table. Read the room.
I AGREE
Not just the table, but the intentions of the DM are important too, but this kinda bleeds into all aspects of players, from those who want to always talk things out to ones who have a specific character idea in mind.
@@LouSassole420 bro thinks hes the main character
Sometimes you have to be the anchor however. It is the DM's responsibility to take into consideration the players' strengths and weaknesses. I'm not suggesting you have to have the best build of all time every time, but at least make a viable character that can survive encounters and help your part survive. Maybe play a support role if you think you are going to overshadow your party mates. Do meaningful things, but let your friends feel like they are contributing as well. Lock down the enemies and let the others pick them off, and maybe make some suggestions along the way as to how they might utilize their own resources efficiently (if they are open to it).
@@kdaviper optimizers dont play supports, all they care abt is damage and wizards (mostly both).
0:12 "I normally assume you have really difficult days"
Ouch, I didn't think Kobold would bring my real life into this
I just wished what was optimal matched expected flavors. You would think a Melee Dwarf Fighter with an Axe and Shield would work well enough, and in the context of most DMs it is enough, but in the broader sphere of optimization it sucks. Because any Martial that isn't Human is pretty lacking, with niche cases for Old Kobold and New Bugbear.
People will say that it's the players job to make builds suitable for the table and the DM's job to balance for the table, but it should be the system's responsibility to make sure the floor and ceiling aren't wide enough to make this anyone's job to begin with.
@@seacliff217 I don't think I agreed with a take more then yours. It is odd how the responsibility is suddenly dropped on the player who wanted to play a less then average character or DM who wanted to have an interesting battle instead of pointing to the source that made such an option to be so bad and problematic to begin with.
@@Sulferlines I apologize for the deleted comment, I originally misread your comment.
I agree. I think a lot of people who come into TTRPGs through 5e do have a warped perception of what the DMs should have. Feels like every year the DM is given five new jobs to do.
@@seacliff217 Dw, its alright. And yeah, the more the game "develops" the more it feels like DM's are being seen as lesser or not as important compared to the players. Player experience is streamlined to a chokehold and DM experience is basically a glorified management game with 60 other problems to manage within each management aspect.
@@Sulferlines Not to mention half the system is just "oh your DM will figure it out or create it on his own".
Like tell me what tools actually do.
Even with xanathar giving some suggestions for how to craft scrolls etc there is a whole crafting and resource system your DM needs to fully build from scratch for you to simply craft a potion or armor.
Most of the skills themselves have wonky rules up to DM interpretation, well maybe this DM doesnt want to interpret and would prefer a clear rule that everyone can get used to for every table.
The freedom of roleplaying should be in the roleplay not the rulesystem that governs the boundaries.
"Very scaly, little angry chihuahua..."
I think this might be my favorite description of Kobolds to date.
Only difference is there's actual thoughts in a Kobold's brain. Even if those thoughts are simply "make traps, eat moss."
Oh snap he said that as I read this
Another note about self nerfing: it can lead to incredibly powerful RP moments. When your back’s against the wall you can drop the proverbial weights and go all out to save the party from disaster.
The problem with that is that it tends to lead to one really powerful RP moment that then hurts future RP. Once the genie's out of the bottle how do you continue with that character? If the entire rest of the party knows that you could be solo-ing the entire adventure and choose not to, putting them at risk in the process, how do you resolve that? Also, the other players now know that you could freely end any encounter if you wanted to and are choosing not to, which can cause some tension and lower the stakes.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's hard to pull off in a satisfying way unless you have an enforced limitation.
@@aurtosebaelheim5942 That 's not quite what benjrc was referring to IMO.
For example, one of my players told me that they were playing an aasimar, and they knew that assimar could transform, but the character wasn't aware of this fact. And then when they were backed into a corner they did an RP and "'accidentally" activated the transformation, thereby gaining an edge in that scenario. Afterwards they knew they could do this and added it to their toolbelt.
@@StarstormHUN I understand that from an RP perspective, but consider it from the mechanical perspective. There are 2 options:
- Full-power character is appropriate for the table and the self-nerf puts them below table standard.
- Full-power character is inappropriately powerful for the table and the self-nerf puts them on par with table standard.
The first option can be a satisfying arc, but it's often frustrating to play a character that's contributing less than they should be, especially if you're waiting for an RP situation to become a 'full' character. If it's an "in times of dire need" type deal, the player is incentivised to create scenarios where the party is on the ropes.
The second option is more fun to play before you go full-power, but once you've gone full-power you now have a character who isn't suited for the table. Sure you can self-nerf again, but how do you narratively justify that? How do you maintain dramatic stakes when you can bust out an auto-win at the drop of a hat? How does the DM design encounters that are engaging whether you self-nerf or go at full-power?
I don't think these are insurmountable problems by any means, but I think it often goes poorly if it's not extensively thought-out and most of what it provides is already provided by levelling up - mid-battle level-ups aren't something I've ever used personally, but it isn't too hard to say "you level up, you don't gain the health until you rest, get all the features now and treat your prof bonus as 1 higher, we'll run the numbers and pick feats properly once the session is over".
@@aurtosebaelheim5942 You say that it's often frustrating to play such a character, but DnD is about way more than just about how useful your character is for advancing the plot. Moreover, people who don't wanna play a nerfed character, well, they're entirely free to not do so! It's definitely not something that would fit everyone
For option 2 to happen the DM would have to agree to that... that just sounds like a problem tbh
I do what I call RoleMax. It’s like MinMax, but puts the character and his roleplay first. If I have a MinMax multiclass-but can’t figure out the backstory, character arc, and how to roleplay-then it’s shelved.
I remember another channel’s top comment was “Coffeelock is a MinMax build only. You can’t make it into a proper character.”
Aisha is an Elven Nurse, using her Divine Soul to ease people’s golden years. One night in the hospice, she heard scratching and muttering coming from a room. When she opened the door, that action broke the ritual circle, releasing a wave of necrotic energy.
When Aisha came to, the hospice was destroyed, and while she alone survived her soul was tainted by Undead energy. The only object to survive: the patient’s Tome.
Aisha journeys to find somebody who can decipher the ritual used and lift her soul’s corruption. Until then, she skips as many Long Rests as possible, focusing on purifying her corrupted soul.
I played Aisha for a Spelljammer campaign. When we had to convince a war-loving alien race to join our armada, the others failed their charisma check. Their leader attacked, so I stepped forward. I cast Hold Person, Silvery Barb’d him to fail, then used Repelling Blast to shove him back into his seat. Before the rest of the party could join the initiative, I spoke: “I can take you on, with skills that any nurse uses to handle unruly patients. Imagine how glorious a battle against trained warriors of my people would be.” My words reached the general, so he accepted our battle plan.
Aisha was not a DPR, at all. But she had Healing Word, Silvery Barbs, Fear and control spells, and could shove with Eldritch Blast to let allies disengage.
She didn’t have awesome battle moments herself aside from Hold Person on that general and the BBEG, but everyone cheered when the Rogue or Paladin used my Silvery Barbs to Crit. She also was an Astral Elf, so she was the party face for several moments.
Aisha is now my second favorite character to play, and is modular enough to fit into any setting or campaign.
so question: was the hold person into repelling blast over two turns or did you dip into fighter for action surge because i don't think a person can cast hold person and eldritch blast on the same turn otherwise.
@@Solaris2000APB Couldn't they quicken the eldritch blast?
@@Solaris2000APB Quicken Hold Person, Action Repelling Blast. RAW, it has to be in that order, since even a Cantrip as a Bonus Action locks you out of leveled spells during your turn.
That's awesome!
The key to getting there is good communication and table etiquette. If you talk with your DM and fellow players, explain your plans to the DM up front and are open to changing things as needed, you're golden! Just remember to not hog the spotlight and support your other players, both in the game and over the table.
@@RaethFennec Whenever I make a backstory, I always include DM Inserts. For examples:
- My Fighter made a deal with a [Type] Giant to learn their Runes.
- My Fairy made a Fey deal to forget about [village secret] in return for Warlock powers.
If any of them are obscure, like [village secret], I offer 3 or 4 examples of what it can be. Sometimes the DM doesn’t care, sometimes he fills it in, sometimes he has his own idea and either shares or hides it from me until it’s time… one time the DM loved the deal and added on a mild curse (you forgot about evil dragons since one is sealed under your village, so by the Fey deal you also can’t see or hear them anymore), and I loved it too. That DM decided my backstory would become a side quest, for whenever we reached that level and/or he had nothing prepared and could just use that stat block with a setting I describe.
I also always tell the DM what I plan to do with the character. Any multiclass, the main combo, and 3 ways his character arc can progress/end. One of the arcs even had PTSD involved, for crying out loud!
I know this is a team game, and everyone tells stories. Most of my characters are support types both in and out of combat, and it takes DM intervention or party paralysis for them to step up. As much as I want my characters’ arcs to be fulfilled, I know to give everyone else a chance at the same thing.
Usually at the tables I play at: most of the players have what I would call “light optimization” characters for the most part. So I tend to go towards power that assists to bring the fantasy of my character out, rather than build the fantasy around an optimized build.
But when we do one shots, I usually just try to build as powerful of a character as I can for whatever concept I want to use in the dungeon crawl.
I don’t think there is a one size fits all answer to Optimization at your table. But as another comment said “read the room”
Still love watching optimization content to see the level of power reachable though!
I mean I think the answer is line up with your table, but it’d be nice if the base game were better balanced around its options, so the gap could be tremendously dropped.
It’s wild how much most alternatives are so well balanced in comparison to 5E.
I come up with a character idea FIRST and then try and optimize around whatever suboptimal idea I have. I wanted a gauntlet blasting Paladin so I went with sun soul monk. It is fundamentally a BAD multiclass but I’m making it work and I’m having fun. To me that’s optimal optimization.
Coby from D4 dnd deep dive always gives his builds some kind of story so obviously it's possible.
I love Colby's builds, and you really can! I've made interesting backstories, personalities, and motivations for every character I've made, and a couple of them have been at least mid or higher optimization. I've never had an issue, from playing a tri-class powerhouse with newbies, to taking the initiative and re-rolling a straight-class monk after the DM became uncomfortable running a game for an optimized wizard. All of it was good fun!
One of my favorite characters is a peacechron (the cleric dip variant). Was able to make an interesting backstory with em, and it's a character others I play with enjoy greatly. Yet too many people spread the information that making an optimized character is a red flag, so I hope that this video can help with destroying that myth.
Personal experience time: people generally feel better if your character is a support character or a controller. Even if in terms of contribution blocking the encounter with Hypnotic Pattern does more than the damage one character deals, people will not mind that because they get an huge headstart. As such, I would say that generally optimizing based on control/support will have a better chance of eneing well than optimizing for damage or similar.
Playing an optimized character IS a red flag! But red flags aren't inherently bad unless there's a bunch of them. :P It's worth investigating, but you can easily assuage concerns by communicating well, asking good questions, and being willing to change as needed to fit the campaign and DM's comfort level.
A support character is GREAT advice. But while it's true that optimized support flies under the radar better, I think that's a bad way to look at it. Rather than trying to sneak optimization into games, you should start by talking with the DM and asking if optimization is welcome, and how much is too much. Let the DM review your build and character plans, ask about rules clarifications and tech, and be honest and up front about the kind of things you want to do. If they say no, be prepared to be okay with that and accept their limits, or respectfully bow out and find a table that suits your needs. It's fine to negotiate, but best to not argue, and that can be a fine line to walk.
An optimized character is a red flag, and that's okay. It's a great chance to show off your soft skills. Trying to 'get away with' optimizing is the kind of problematic behavior that people use red flags to find. Start by optimizing your out-of-game skills, and you'll always have a good time!
(Not targeted at you, @gammalolman580 just some 'yes, and' for others reading!)
@@RaethFennec@RaethFennec, I disagree; optimization isn't a red flag; optimization to the detriment of the table IS.
I've played at a table where my PAM BattleMaster Fighter got outclassed in damage, support, and general ability by a Warlock/Paladin MC and the GloomStaker Ranger. It got to the point where we weren't enjoying fights since the GloomStalker trivialized them. The DM struggles to make balanced encounters.
You shouldn't be punished or considered a "problem player" for making a character that's effective in the most essential pillar of the game (combat).
However, I do agree that you should make your character fit the table. Bringing a fully decked-out Druid to a table with a Barbarian and a Rogue who picked so-so feats isn't the best idea.
The point of DnD IS to slay monsters and have adventures; if anything, the fact people have to fight between making a good character or making people still enjoy the game points to the major design and balancing flaws in the system.
@@RaethFennec While I understand what you are trying to say, I do believe that the situation about "DM comfort level" fits within the discussion of the power level of the table that the video spoke about. You know, if you bring a build that erases encounters in a 1 medium encounter day it's not going to be nice. The DM *is* a player, even if less direct than others. This doesn't make *optimizing* a red flag. At most, "building a character not fit for the table" is the red flag.
I'm unsure if I explained my support argument properly, so lemme re-iterate: even if the bonus you give to the encounter is higher than another class, optimizing in that sense is less problematic because you aren't really invalidating someone, you're boosting everyone's performance. In my hypnotic pattern example, while the spell blocked more damage from the foe than just an all out bonk, the other allies attacking have a much more wide possibility of dealing with the encounter because of Hypnotic Pattern. So even if people see the strength of your play, you are more likely to play well with your table because you're **enhancing** others. I would argue that you can even play in a low-mid optimization table with such a character with little self-nerfing necessary.
Ofc one always has to remember that taring themselves to tables is important, but as the video explains, the possibly dangerous thing isn't "optimizing", it's "building a character not fit for the table".
This is why it's really difficult for the idea of buffing martials to take off: there's so much more bias against damage builds that can take out 2-3 enemies a turn vs. the controlling spellcasters that beat entire encounters with a terrain change or incapacitation effect, because people see the former as taking the spotlight when both builds are just trying to do their jobs.
I think a lot of popular optimization content differs from this channel in that they go for impact maximization, which is flashier at the tables most people play at with 1-2 encounter days, buffing on the first couple of rounds to triple crit smite overkill the boss by 90 damage is dope. While that stuff is lots of fun, I'm really glad we have this channel and ttb as resources for advice how to survive the extreme adventuring days.
I think another important thing to consider is that you should also consider the relative skill level of your fellow players.
I've had to deal with a optimizer power gamer in my first campaign, but the issue is a large percentage of the players were newbies, myself included, who were still learning the game, and most of the party wasn't close to optimized, and the DM was a long time player, first time DM. The power gamer did also make his PC important to the setting. End result was most of the party having nothing to do in combat because he kept killing everything his first turn. That was not fun.
Personally, I'm someone who values my character's characterization over what is optimal, but will do both if it fits them. One of my PCs Acias, was a Cleric who had no idea what a Cleric was (Dragonlance: Shadow of the Dragon Queen, no Divine classes in 300+ years) and in terms of her actual personality and fighting style was more suited for a rogue. So she was a Grave Cleric who was the party infilitrator. Optimal? No, fun? Yes. She was also an Aarakocra, which I nerfed by giving her a backstory reason and mental block that meant she rarely flew when others were watching and hid her wings most of the time. She overcame that block, but it made her more balanced at lower levels.
On the other hand, my Battlemaster Fighter/Paladin for a werewolf campaign was optimized to a degree because I know the DM and knew competence was expected from our PC and he's basically a 'hard mode DM.' So Gemma was made to be an experienced soldier (if rusty from retirement) who knew what she's doing and was very skilled.
I thought this video was just going to be about optimizing for combat so I loved that you touched on the different ways you can power game. Also a fun example of a character optimized for role-playing can be seen in Dimension 20: A court of Fae and Flowers. Most characters are built specifically for social interactions and not for fights.
Here's the thing about D&D 5e.
If its played with 6-8 encounters at medium level difficulty, or a few encounters at higher level of difficulty, most classes will play just fine. Usually, there's one or two ways to make every class perform much better than the standard "move forward & make attacks" gameplan.
Recently, because I've played D&D 5e so much, I've started randomly generating my characters, including my ability scores. I'm playing a dexterity-based paladin character with +0 to their charisma modifier. In the first session, the party met two dragon riders, and my character, who is a Glory paladin, was the first to confront them.
Even with my "terrible" build, the 1st level party did just fine. Turns out, good rolls, proficiency in persuasion, and good roleplay is enough to circumvent many dangerous encounters. And the same can be said for most other classes and options.
In other words, D&D 5e is normally very easy, so optimizing is only important when;
a. The GM is building encounters for optimized characters.
b. The rest of the party is optimized.
This is my favourite video you've done and easily the most helpful to me. See, I'm not much of an optimiser -- I may borrow some fun ideas here and there but overall I'm in the Low to Mid optimisation tiers as a player. (This puts me above one of my comrades who I would fairly classify as an no optimiser, deliberately building terrible characters because they enjoy the flaws more than the strengths.) But the reason I follow this channel and TTB is because as a DM, I want to know what players might throw at me and how to cater to people who play very differently as myself! I found the 'three types of optimisation' discussion very helpful in particular. My question would be this: For a DM in (say) an Adventurer's League type situation, where they have new players each week and only a short time to assess, what questions would be the most helpful to assess what someone wants from a game if they're an optimiser?
Thank you very much for your kind comment. So when you DM for an optimizer at a table like that is pretty straight forward, you just run the game like you normally would. That's usually what they want they're like any other player really or at least usually. If they want something specifically in the game then they will ask you for it and usually its about rulings like rest casting for example. If they want you to run a gauntlet then just run a small gauntlet. 3 encounters. Boom. These encounters don't need to be hard or anything, just throw what you think is interesting and fair. Optimizers and non-optimizers like it when you do that.
I'm in a similar boat. I've accidentally played a character that was too optimized for the table in a one-shot, and I felt kinda bad about it because I basically was killing everything with the ol pole arm master hexblade cheese. Meanwhile we've got two other players, one of whom is a complete newbie and the other is "hee hee I'm gonna derail the plot of this one-shot by refusing to engage." It was kind of a bad time D:
Ideally you optimize for fun.
Optimize what makes the most fun for you and the table.
Yes! And sometimes that's being mechanically powerful. But the most efficient route is to optimize your out-of-game skills first. Communication, flexibility, and good attitude are cornerstones to success in TTRPGs.
Yes. If you want.
Das it all you need.
I think it's okay to do what you would in an RPG Casual playthrough; Lean into your build, make sure you take strength weapons for your barbarian, maybe upgrade them when you can, and take strength-based feats, the jist, but don't minmax, per se. It's okay to use an axe talisman on your strength build, but maybe don't put on three different hats while giving yourself 3 different status effects to pump your damage and oneshot the boss, if that metaphor makes sense to anyone. It's okay to use a sneak attack rogue, but maybe don't go full gremlin with it.
I love this video. I like to optimize my builds because I'm not the best in the moment of combat player, by making my build strong and having strong spells or feats etc I feel like even if I make a less optimal choice its still going to be solid and not harm my party. As a DM I have a player who is playing a wildly unoptimized character for RP reasons but we've talked about it as a table and everyone is on board with it. Does it lead to some occasionally drawn out fights? Yep. Has it actually harmed the party? Nope. And everyone agree's its led to some great table wide RP moments as the reasons for his underpoweredness comes out. It also has allowed other PCs to shine in combat and he's totally fine taking a backseat in that aspect.
Oddly (or maybe not oddly) I associate in-game effectiveness with the power of the character I play. If the character doesnt work well in combat, that character is weaker, while a deadly assassin doing tons of damage feels like a character who's good at their job
You know, it reminds me of how I'm weird in that the more powerful my character's build is, the more likely I am to give them a complex personality and history. But if they're a weaker character, I often build them to be a much simpler persona who can be read well in just 2-3 personality notes.
Yeah, in most games I have played resource conservation is irrelevant and resource value maximization is king just because of 1/2 encounter days where all the difficulty of 10+ small encounter is crammed into one (often getting to 3+ times deadly with homebrew and little to no methods of cheese like doorways or kiting). This makes classes like paladin. fighter and many casters often feel really strong due to their ability to use up all their most powerful resources to impact a combat in the first 1/2 rounds at the expense of resourceless classes like Rogue or short rest reliant classes like Monk (who even with such rules manages to run out of ki) or Warlock (who still runs out of spells slots at most tiers of play), it is important to understand the table both to know if optimizing is necessary but also to know what kind of optimization works and what doesn't.
Oh boy is that true. I played a warlock in my first ever campaign with a bunch of other newbies. The DM and module relentlessly punished us for resting, so the whole party became VEHEMENTLY anti-short-rest. I did not have a good time. lol I think the average day had about 0.5 short rests. I took Pact of the Tome and Book of Secrets as a result, though, and eventually got a magic staff that helped immensely. Because of this experience, JoCat's warlock video had me in stitches for about a month. Eldritch BLAST!
@@RaethFennec Same, except it doesn't even take DM intervention or module rules, sometimes players are just so against resting, it gets handwaved anyways, it's not like you actually have to sit there for an hour irl because your character is resting... some characters are so gimped without it (plus I have spent more time trying to convince players or listening to other players trying to convince others to take a short rest than actually short resting in the pat 4 years of playing D&D)
I play a 5e game with some of my friends, we're all new to the game, and we have 1 to 2 encounters per day maximum. I still watch this channel and learn about optimization regardless because I like to learn about the game. Also, Love the content!
I am of the strong opinion that the more you learn about the game, the better the game becomes because its easier to play. Thank you very much for watching my content!
Fun is optimal.
I self-nerf every spellcaster I play by never taking fireball. It's really great when the 3rd level spells open up, and I don't just auto-pick fireball.
Fireball is too good to pass on in most games.
I help people build MTG commander decks, and I ask them what they want to use and how they want it to play. I then show them optimized cards and ways of playing to that strat, but I always ALWAYS tell them "it's your cards and your deck, you can play or use anything you want, as long as you enjoy it, you win!" It's something I try to live by, I optimize what I choose, and sometimes the flavor just has me vibing. I appreciate that message you put into these videos. great work!
I find that the most entertaining roleplay happens when you lean into your character's flaws. The more interesting those flaws, and the more they arise in the storytelling, the better. Whenever I create a new character for myself, one of the first things I think about is how that character will be flawed. Flaws need not be mechanical, and so this is not necessarily at odds with optimization, but I have on more than one occasion incorporated self-nerfing into the process, and never regretted it.
I agree wholeheartedly as long as those flaws aren't purposefully a detriment to everyone else
Rolling an 8 int wizard who failed out of wizard school isn't gonna be fun for your party
@@Helldragon789 Actually, you can play a very decent wizard with low int. You would be limited in effectiveness with spells that require saves, but there's a good amount of spells that don't use them, like most buff spells and some area control spells like wall of force/stone
@@Brandenfascher fffffaaaiiirr enough
I concede that my example was not the best, but I do believe the core of my argument is sound
@@Helldragon789 Absolutely. There is a world of difference between giving your character meaningful and interesting flaws vs. building a character who cannot contribute to the party at all.
That said, the 8 int aspiring wizard who failed out of wizard school is a great seed for a character with a meaningful flaw. Suppose that character, in his frustration and desperation, decides to take a shortcut to achieving magical greatness, forming a Warlock pact with less-than-favorable contract terms. Now we've got all sorts of great hooks: His bitterness, jealousy, and spite for the wizards who rejected him, the internal conflict of his pride at acquiring magic warring with his dissatisfaction at not being a "real" wizard, and the terms of his contract coming back to bite him, just to name a few. Of course, this particular example offers plenty of flaw to RP without the need for self-nerfing.
Agreed. That's also a reason why I love optimization, because putting all your eggs in one basket and being super good at one thing mechanically naturally makes you weaker in other areas. Which is really fun to roleplay.
As an Aside, have you all seen Trekiros' D&D combat simulator? That guy is an absolute legend for dungeon masters. He's got a tutorial on RUclips. Basically, he programmed the entire monster manual, MMOTM and has a program that runs like hundreds of simulated combats against the party to see what final health of all creatures will be, and how many rounds the combat is likely to last. It's highly customizable meaning you can program in attacks and standard attack order (smite on crits, heal if party member down, etc.). You can also program how enemies will target players (strongest, weakest, etc.) It can't take everything into account, such as kiting, but it's pretty good for DMs to get a general feel for making an encounter require tactics/optimization to survive
There was a situation that happened in my current campaign between me (wizard) and the sorcerer. I picked polymorph as one of my spells when I leveled but I didn’t know they did as well. So when I first cast it I felt bad seeing that the sorcerer wanted to use it later but was a little down because it didn’t feel as unique to their character. They were totally cool with it and all but I make a point to know what spells they pick now so I can avoid those and pick other ones
That's a valuable story to share, thanks! I've seen this happen with players before, and while I don't want anyone to feel like they can't pick what they want to, I also like to encourage players to communicate outside the game about their build choices and tactics. It specifically helps mitigate situations like this. I also remind players that it's okay to play the same class or even build, as long as they talk to each other about it. You can even team up and be a duo! Or play out being rivals, constantly pushing each other to new heights! Good stuff.
You should do a artichron video. Thanks for another great vid!
One (possible) buff to the Rune Knight, is the rune carver background that comes with the rune shaper feat. The benefits from the RK feature and rune shaper feat don't say that they only work with the runes learned with just the feature. At level 3, you will know 3 runes and both features say to inscribe all runes you know at the end of a long rest.
Rune shaper says that you learn a spell for each rune you inscribe, that you can use once per long rest with no spell slot or material cost.
Rune Knight has a rune list and each rune's individual description says "While wearing or carrying an object inscribed with this rune,"
This looks like (RAW) that as long as a rune is on both lists, you double up on benefits from both features for each rune you learn. (That's 3 runs at level 3 and 6 runes at level 10)
And it looks like most of the Rune Knight's feature work in an antimagic field (except for Giant's Might).
We love you your Angry Scalie Chihuahua
These topics are important and we should encourage session 0 culture, or at the very least two-ways communication
I've always played an optimized build, and it has always helped the table tremendously. I've played a bard/lock college of swords, pact of the chain that could keep up with martials, had good spellcasting, and been able to give healing word when needed, with an Imp scout. I've played a level 1 cleric of the grave/ wizard necromancer build that got our party through OOTA. The armor proficiencies from cleric covered the weaknesses of the wizard class, and I was the only healer we had. My skeletons also acted as bodies that took hits that the players didn't have to worry about. I've played an optimized Druid/ barbarian that has tanked over 200 damage a session and helped get the party through Icewind Dale. Being a fire based druid that could melt ice, wild shape into a wolf to knock things prone and give other players advantage, and give everyone good berries to bring back downed party members was a very diverse character. I've also played a rogue/ bard college of whispers with crossbow expertise that took down enemies at range, with sneak attack and bard spells, while also being able to be the "party face". I've played multiple optimized multi class builds and have been able to cover several weaknesses in multiple parties, in multiple campaigns
The difference between a bad one and you is you arent stealing the show. You are, by your own description, supporting the party. You arent one shotting everything so they do nothing. You are also using your optimization to boost THEIR characters too. Your healing and Im sure buffing them. Your tanking for them, and by your own words arent overshadowing them either (your bard KEPT UP WITH, not annihilated the martials). A bad optmization player isnt doing all that. Not only that, but I have a strong feeling you still roleplayed them as well and they didnt feel like the same person over and over just with a new OP weapon/ability.
@@freedomandguns3231 very true. There have been a few times (mainly with my bard/lock) where I was a little worried that I was giving off too much "main character energy" and might have overshadowed other players, but we always talked after the sessions and nobody else ever felt that way.
Yes if thats how you have fun and dont hinder your table.
No if you feel pressured into doing it, or your table/dm cannot visibly handle it. Choosing the thematic choiche can be as fun as well.
i currently play a 10 twilight cleric/ 2 stars druid at a modern magic 5e game where i am VASTLY over built to my table, to ease my DMs time i make some concessions in play-style like
Step of night is used for RP moments only (teaching another party member how to fly on their broom for example)
i tend to play healbot/supportive until someone goes down or the fight is starting to wind down then i drop some damage and help close it out
i kept a 6 Charisma when my DM gave me a chance to re-roll it
he's also not the brightest, when i was rolling him up i rolled 16/16/18/9/18/6(after racial bonuses) i almost put his Strength score into Intelligence and went 2 war wizard instead, more inline with the tabletop builds cleric, BUT having access to goodberry fit his goal of a humanitarian more and as someone who wanted to help feed people.
i (so far) have only used divine intervention to ask for sandwiches (and am 2 for 2 so far)
I've never played a really optimized game before, but I just like your videos. Love the bagpipes.
Thank you! That's me actually playing the pipes. I'm a bagpiper.
@@PackTactics Not just any, you're quite good!
Man I really love this channel, Kobold is so very articulate and intelligent. Yeah, I really don't understand that kind of thought that being really good at your job is taking away from your ability to roleplay. Like, think of Colonel Mustang from Fullmetal alchemist. He's a straight optimized evocation wizard. But there's nothing wrong with his character. He's just really good at blowing shit up, and a fantastic character to watch on screen. I don't think it's a stretch to say that you can accomplish the same thing in d&d.
Wrath from Fullmetal alchemist looks like my RL Dad. Except for the eye patch. I'm not joking.
@@PackTactics lmaoooo that's awesome, does he have that deep sultry voice too?
I literally got an ad for your sponsor before the video lol
Optimizing money making! 💰🐊
Our group is extremely experienced, we’ve been playing 2-3 weekly campaigns for 5 years now. Our approach is to build optimised characters and use them in a conservational way, letting characters who should shine (depending on the story) be the standouts who dump their resources to feel impactful. We’ve found a love for this and we mix multiple encounter days with complex story and it’s the best of both worlds. Of course everyones characters have different strengths and power levels but most have optimised well and the story of competent adventures is one that we all enjoy.
I think I tend to optimize for resource conservation, often at the expense of progression optimization. this often leads to tanky builds with high saves, HP and AC in the 23-28 range, with crit mitigation. This leads to characters that can often out-survive traditional damage focused optimizations, but it makes the same combats significantly longer
optimise the fun !
For me optimization is part of the fun of making a character for the game. You just need to know how to balance yourself, i normally take a look at the party, pick a theme then work out the build to optimise that theme. It can be Support Druid, Witch Doctor, Maximum Maul, they are all fun builds to optimise and play that have there place and power level.
In my party, there is one optimized player, and the rest of us just made whatever we wanted without much thought. We personally love it, because he has bailed us out of a lot of tough situations. However, this can only work if the rest of the party is okay with being overshadowed from time to time.
Good video. 10/10
I once played a sentinel polearm master great weapon master Fightarian, but due to his backstory he only ever used rage if a friend was in a life or death situation
Match the table but always keep an ace up your sleeve for big moments and when all eyes are on you then you can smirk and unleash your combo
Example sorcerer+hexblade warlock save your hexblades curse+magic missle for those moments that need it
@@izzetfactory7828Get Hex in there first so you look baseline. Then bring out Hexblade's Curse on the big bad. Then next turn, upcast Magic Missile and quickened spell eldritch blast and hit them 6-7 times in one turn. :P
@@RaethFennec yup
I personally do a little bit of min-maxing and just whatever I feel like lol
11:20 - Wait, does that mean we can carry you around in a satchel? :D
You can optimize a little bit. As a treat.
Right now I’m playing a shepherd druid and all of my teammates are new or martial characters so I limit what I summon for the others and recently I’ve just been using giant insect which is very good but not the most optimal
I never realized... but I guess I am a progression optimizer. Would like more videos about this.
I don’t really optimize, I just like doing things, so having tips from optimizers about making strong characters helps a lot
Most of the people I play with aren't optimizers, so I've found my favorite way to power build is to power build support characters. The better I am at that, the more powerful they feel so no one feels overshadowed
It’s simple, adapt, if the table or party are doing it then you just might need to, but that doesn’t mean you’ll technically know how so that’s when you get the chance to experiment.
Comment for the algo. Good vid. Thanks.
I'd say yes.
But my understanding of optimisation is making all the choices to *optimally* create and develop a _character,_ not just a collection of stats. It's for this reason that I highly recommend first having a concept, maybe even a backstory, before deciding on the mechanics (though this concept can certainly be based on a particular mechanical interaction you want to try out). Doing this will push you towards taking the options that make sense for the _character,_ their personality, goals, talents, and knowledge, rather than engaging in the harmful type of metagaming where the options picked are based entirely on out-of-game knowledge. The character being powerful can certainly be part of the concept - in fact, it usually is -, but having a distinct concept shapes and give limitations on _what the power looks like._ This is also why I don't see roleplaying and optimising as being in conflict, but rather as being entirely _complimentary,_ with each one shaping the other.
As an example, I'm currently playing a drow ranger in Out of the Abyss. The most powerful option would certainly have been to play a Gloom Stalker, but what made sense for my character was to be a Swarm Keeper with a swarm of bats. And I didn't take Hunters Mark, since other spells worked better for her backstory and (likely) future development. Those options _will_ make her powerful, but in a different way than if I'd chosen the cookie-cutter most powerful options.
Even if you're a power gamer, this approach still works, it's just that the concept is reduced to power and nothing else. Power gaming and roleplaying aren't in conflict either, but the relationship _is_ different, with the roleplaying being entirely subordinate to the power gaming, the allowable character options being limited entirely to the most powerful builds. Just make sure everyone is having fun and you should be fine.
Personally I like to do thematic self nerfing for instance if I am playing a druid I might theme them around a specific part of nature. Like if I themed my druid around plants I'll take mostly spells that reflect that such as good berry, entangle, and spike growth. Where as if I was theming my druid around insects and bugs I would likely take spells like infestation, giant insects, or insect plague. I like to think it makes things interesting
D&D combat exists to have cool dramatic moments together
Recently one DM friend of mine has implemented a rule where long rests recover only half of your resources and are called half rests while a true long rest takes significantly longer, almost never happening in the middle of a quest, this is because due to how the narrative plays out and the rarity of many clumped up encounters (I.E. dungeons) in our games it was the best way we found to make resource management matter.
Playing with it has been a mixed bag, on one hand I enjoy thinking more about what resources I use, on the other just casting a single bless and then being like "That's it, or I won't recover what I used with today's rest" feels frustrating, I wonder how this will feel as we level up.
Since there was some confusion with a reply and some may be curious I will explain the rest rules we use:
Short rest: Mostly same as normal D&D but can be done in 10 minutes and only Prof bonus per half rest can be taken.
Half Rest: Takes 8 hours like a long rest and heals HP fully like one, but any resource or ability that comes back on a long rest you only get back half the uses of (rounded down)
Long rest: Same as a normal long rest but can only done by spending a few days resting in a safe and comfortable environment (town with longing and such)
What are they going to do about magic items like wands and staves that regain charges each day? Or something like a sorlock? Or literally any decently-built artificer?
@@RaethFennec Anything that recharged on dawn is effectively once per day so once per long rest in normal D&D, so it can just be treated as such.
Sorlock and warlock in general we had to fix by limiting how many short rests you can take because of the new rest times.
We have an artificer and I do not see how they would ever be a problem, in a normal game or here.
For me it depends. I like multiclassing to represent complex characters. But very often that multiclassing doesn't work well together. Say Cleric of the grave + Swarmkeeper (flavored as sand) to make an Anubis like character. An artificer with a dip in Fighter to get... unarmed fighting style? (don't ask). So yeah, trust me that once I commit to one of these "themes" I will try to optimize everything else as much as I can to try to make it suck less.
I play a moon druid (because I like turning into monsters), and for conjure animals, the rule is: only two creatures summoned at most during combat, RAW summons out of combat. This way I'll either summon two giant constrictor snakes, two giant eagles for the party to ride, two giant spiders, etc. It's not as op as velociraptors, but everytime those two big serpents show up, the party cheers and I feel pretty cool, plus the restrained condition makes the party have an easier time beating on the enemy.
"If you are mean at your table part no one will like you, optimised or not" reminds me of one of my friends characters. I love my friend a lot and they are very good at roleplay but they have a character that they said prioritises themself and their friend, another party member. They will not join a battle meaningfully unless there is a threat to them or their ally. We have a big party so it's fine, but we have literally had an avoidable character death from a monster on literally 1 HP that would have been killed if they didn't skip two turns.
Whenever I introduce people to the game, I generally only feel it's important to explain action economy when it relates to optimizing. If people have ways of using their bonus action and reaction and parties work to reduce the action economy of their enemies, that tends to be more than enough optimizing to keep everybody interested and feeling effective. Everything else they can figure out with time and experience.
When it comes to it I usually find a middleground between the concept of a character and it's mechanical optimization
Right now I'm playing thri kreen reflavored to moth. It's a sorlock and she doesn't wear armour that the hexblade gives her
You've matrixed me with optimisation , I can't think of anything else when making a new character ☹️. ( amazing content tho. ❤)
ב"ה
In a group where everyone else play a champion fighter I will play a twighlight cleric. When I play with non-optimizers, I just optimize a control or support build, and that way other players don't feel their character is overshadowed.
My main go to self nerf whenever i play wizard (which is often) is: NO FIREBALL!
Not even having the temptation of it is great to do other stuff with my 3d level spellslots and making very different wizard concepts thats no less optimised. One was a bladesinger who survived being thrown in the 9 hells, ofcourse he wouldnt learn fireball all devils are immune to fire. Or a very buff centric biomancer wizard (a subclass from helianas guide to monsterhunting) that heals a little hp if using a biomancy/transmutation spell on themselves or others and became a pretty interesting and very tanky support. I have a third wizard in the works thats going to focus a lot on dreams and psychic spells so no fireball there either.
I optimize so I can step in when needed. I've always enjoyed playing support and if that's taught me anything it is that the best support is not always healing, transportation, or buffs. Sometimes it's supressing fire (preventing enemy actions) and and airstrikes (nova damage). I love having extra power to bring out if my party is on the ropes or find themselves in deep trouble with no plan on how to get out. As much as I can't stand kids IRL, I do enjoy playing the party parent who will step in if the kids get in trouble. 🤣
So I prepare my spells and builds to be able to boost my party, get them out of danger or to the right position and/or act as a distraction in combat that wastes or directs enemy actions, so that my party can shine on their turns. But I also try to keep nova options open, in case a round or two of nova is what the situation needs to avoid a death spiral.
So, how's this fifth Cleric doing for you?
@@RaethFennec only ever done 1 level of life cleric, recently (for Lifeberry), so I can't claim much experience with the cleric at all. More of a paladin player, as in I enjoy it for the smites and 1st level spells, as they pair well with a full caster. Thus far I really love the wizard, with some emergency healing. Easy multiclass to play as either support through buffs and debuffs, or just a blaster, and it worked way better than expected to pair Paladin with Bladesinger for nova. Druid is always solid if you want to be effective while holding back too, in my experience, as you can excert a lot of control.
Latest experiment has been a Changeling (orphan) Divine Sorcerer 1, Life Cleric 1, Circle of Stars Druid for the rest. They were sheltered by an old priest, who died unmourned after years of drinking. My character took his place and does good things as the priest, so that when he is eventually found to be dead people (other than my character) will mourn him.
The lifeberries are food, and I exchanged the thieves tools for cooking tools, as the orphan learned to cook instead of picking locks to take care of the old priest in exchange for shelter. He may have been a useless drunk to most people, but he was nice and important to my character.
I also think it's funny to roll around adventuring as a fat old balding recovered alcoholic in his late 60's with the heroes. He's just there to feed them and help patch them up, but obviously does more than hand out cookies, pastries, and little homemade juice packs (aka. Lifeberries).
Also, yeah I'm the DM like 95 % of the time. So I get to fight a lot as is and don't feel the same need to do "just fight good" for my characters (I suppose?). My players come more for goofy fun times with drinks and snacks, and not very tactical and deadly combat. Then again, I killed 8 characters and 1 mount over the last 2 sessions. But that was meant to be a deathmarch. The players knew that going in and just brought a list of names each as prep. 🤣
If they later decide to continue as any of the survivors, the deadly expedition is their backstory and the disease they were infected with in the final fight is their reason to adventure (as they know where the cure is and what it eventually turns you into without it).
I feel like optimizing adds another fun level of complexity to the game that enriches the strategy and challenge! If there's something about your flavour or character concept that doesn't fit optimization, of course don't optimize in ways that clash with that. Similarly, if something in the team or world you're a part of, don't optimize in the ways that clash with your team or the DM's world. But... when optimization doesn't clash with those things, I think it's a fun extra level of challenge, to see how much you can squeeze outta the rules of the game.
Honestly i dont think it does. 5e is pretty much solved optimization wise imo
I wouldn’t say I’m a min-maxer but I’d never self nerf for no reason…
For example, I play wizard 9/10 times but I’ve never taken silvery barbs. I’ve also never decided not to use my best spell for the situation.
5:59, "If you're REALLY good at communicating, you win!"
...I lost before I could even play? ... Yeah, that sounds right.
Always optimize, and tone it down to match your group/party. If you get in real trouble, bust out the big guns
Another element of optimization. If you're playing an optimized character in an unoptimized party, the DM might take more effort to target you.
My CBE/Sharpshooter gish is the only player that has increased their damage with feats. The rest of the party is an unoptimized spellcaster and two melee martials, one with unarmed style and the other sword and board. The monsters we've been fighting have had in-character reasons to target my character specifically and use swimming speeds or burying speeds to get into close range.
The nail that pokes up the highest gets the hammer first.
As a DM I've had to deal with some players going for very powerful optimized builds while the rest stick to low optimization characters. It's difficult to manage. You either need to bring the op character a bit more in line with the rest (which isn't fun for them) or lift the rest up in power level without boosting the optimizer.
I was once in a game where I was playing a highly optimized barbarian and everyone else was a full casters. I guess we were at the point in the game where I was doing as much or more damage than everyone else and tanking damage like crazy. The DM told me he was having a hard time balancing encounters because my character was way stronger than everyone else, so I worked with the DM to create a good story reason for my character to do something stupid and get kimself killed. I very nearly soloed a mini boss before the party could catch up and finish the job. Then I introduced my new character, a half caster more on par with the party.
Just a good example of communication saving a campaign.
Something to note is I don't think anyone (but the dm) will mind an optimized healer or support. You can't overshadow people if you rely on the others to do anything. You would be raising the bar for the others alongside yourself, and thats always fun
I prefer making suboptimal characters with abilities that lean into their backstory. I’ve never been at a table where I needed to optimize to keep up, and it’s more fun to have a somewhat unique character (Monk with decent charisma and entertainer background, for example).
I am super ok with optimizing as a DM and a player. It’s been my observation that bad DMs usually are the ones that have issues with optimizers and nerf/ban things as a knee jerk reaction. You should strive to challenge and any all play styles at your table and welcome any and all play styles so long as that player isn’t harmful to your table in someway as I have seen toxic/harmful behavior at tables from both sides of the isle.
For me its less of a question whether I should optimize, and more a question of whether I can't optimize. With the way my brain works it just gets under my skin when something I can control isn't done in an optimal manner within human limits of course I don't get worked up over wasting a minute or two writing a comment about my obsession with optimization that most will probably skim over if they see it at all.
Is rule of cool optimized to utilize?
As someone who has both played super optimized builds and DM'ed for well optimized players, I think the goal is for the challenge to match the players. Battles where the players mow down enemies all the time isn't fun. Some battles should be easy, but others they should be surviving by the skin of their teeth. I like to reward unorthodox thinking, but if you rely on the same tactics again and again, I will exploit them. Maybe it's a sharpshooter ranged fighter who finds themselves in close quarters. Or a wizard who loves banishment having to deal with banishment cast on them (not all the time, but a taste from time to time.) Other times though, I give them lots of low HP enemies to mow down and let them have that power rush.
Before watching the video: yes as long as it is second to roleplay (for my table at least)
I made a bugbear gloom stalker and in the first game the surprise "+2d6 dam to all attacks if going first" got nerfed. The table doesn't optimize so it stood out too much.
Yes, this is usually a good idea
so what is an articon?
Artificer 1 Chronurgy wizard X
You should of you want to but only to the point it's still fun for everyone else including the dm
An optimized algorithm bump 🐊
I personally feel you should optimize to the degree it's still fun.
4 warlocks with Devilsight and Darkness can chew through almost anything without devilsight+, but the combats would get really boring.
Personally i like to pick a theme for my character.
Do i want to make a speed god? I make a speed god.
Do i want to make a happy little twink with a bigass sword, i do so.
I wanna make a wizard with so much utility he can basically cheat in combat? I do that.
I optimize, but ONLY if it fits with my character. If it is anethema to the character theme i want to go for, or there is a better thing playing into the theme, then i don't pick it.
If you want to and if the table is right for it. Some people don't mind if you outshine them. They will probably cheer you on. Others may not. If you're a group of optimizers, absolutely or maybe you want to meme. Read the room and follow what you want to really do. Just be considerate of everyone else playing with you.
You also don't have to read the room. You can communicate with your party and DM and ask what they'd like best! Is it okay to go hard? Would they prefer you play something weaker if you're more experienced? The real flex is being flexible.
The way my DM is, you better!
I think a lot of people forget that optimization doesn't always mean "play the strongest build in the game". Optimization is great to practice, because sometimes I want to build a character around using something sub-optimal, and the only way to keep up with everyone else is to optimize the really sub-optimal thing. I love playing characters with zero spellcasting options. That's super not-optimal. So learning how to mitigate the power differential between me and other party members that have access to magic is really important.
Before watching the video: as a player I'll always try to optimize. What varies from table to table is how optimized/min maxed my character can be without making the rest of the party useless.
I still have no interest in building anything but Paladin 4 Sorcerer the rest of my level tree. 5e is now perpetually underfilled, did they EVER add full new classes after launch or was it just Artificer? Or was even Artificer at launch?
You can always optimise but the way you do it depends on the table. For instance, I joined a campaign with a bunch of newbies and decided to play Treantmonk’s god Wizard build instead of a gloomstalker bc I would rather make the game easier and funner for them then just destroy everything
Honestly even while i love watching optimizing videos
I do think whats important is what about the other players and DM want on the Table
Maybe some DM want you to have a chill game or doesnt want their encounters be beaten by optimizing but rather some random things the players come up
I DO however watch Optimization videos to stop missinformation, like preventing people from saying "Hunters mark and Hex good spell" or "Ranger class bad, Rogue and Monk better"
I am firmly of the opinion that Optimization is a net positive, regardless of the table, it's just how it's used that determines whether or not it's a good idea. Having extra power, but choosing not to use it in the most optimal way still keeps an over-powered character in line with an under-powered party, but keeps an ace in the hole in case the party is at risk of a TPK. It's the player's choices that determine whether or not a build is good for one's party/campaign, not the build itself. If the player lacks the self-discipline to restrain themselves from overshadowing the rest of the party, they probably need to improve themselves as a player before they're ready for a collaborative roleplaying game.
Yes. This is how you do it. I like optimizing for utility once meeting 'good enough' damage and then using the extra power 'in character' so I don't have to hold every resource close to the chest. I let others use their expertise first and then be the guy that can turn the tide in the party's favor so everyone feels good.
That is, unless the tension and possibility of a TPK is a part of the desired campaign experience. Robbing players of that environment if they want it would be problematic. But generally, I agree with you, in a slightly further zoomed-out sense. Optimization is a tool that you can use to build a variety of characters of all levels of power and for all levels of player skill. There's a right AND wrong time and place for using it to varying degrees. Knowledge of optimization always benefits the DM, too. Understanding the performance ceiling of your players is a great way to let you balance encounters and tweak things in a campaign so that players don't fall behind or outshine others, and let your players have better freedom of choice without being shackled by the mechanics and design.
That said, sometimes a player really does need a weaker character to help them grow and realize they can have fun without being able to be OP or nigh-immortal. I would posit the opposite of what you suggested is actually more true. If you MUST have an optimized character to enjoy play, you have a lot of opportunity for growth and I would consider that player's experience to still be beginner-level. Learning to communicate with your well-vetted DM and trust their judgement, as well as accepting risk to your character, are valuable skills for any TTRPG player and will always enhance the experience significantly.
It's also okay to not be Corellon Larethian's gift to Toril. We don't need to be perfect, and neither do our characters. D&D can be a great place for the players behind the characters to level up together as both players and people. Optimizing that side of the game will always be a win.
Optimisation and Roleplay are not polar opposites. Rather, they can are entangled because mechanics are attached to some fundamental flavours. Race, class, etc. This can mean that certain roleplay choices restrict optimisation freedom, or for certain optimisation choices to restrict roleplay freedom.
Maybe you have a player who wants to play a Half-Orc who starts his journey as his clan has always done so, as a Berserker Barbarian. Eventually, they are able to find their own path and realise the mysteries of the arcane are for them, in particular illusions and how what is not real can still impact others, becoming an Illusionist Wizard first picking any Illusion spells available before any other School choices.
Ok, this character is behind in Wizard levels (at least three) with only anti-synergies for doing so. The race doesn't provide any benefit. The stats are also unsynergistic. Focusing on the Illusion School almost to the exclusion of all other Schools (would likely need to find Scrolls or Spellbooks to get any non-Illusion spells) makes picking the best spells at any level considerably more difficult (there are enough Illusion spells to consume all the free pickups gained with Wizard levels). Optimising has been really curtailed by the roleplay choices.
There is a problem if this player comes into a game where everyone else has better optimised characters (almost certain). Now, underperforming by being say two optimisation levels below is not likely to be so problematic, especially if the player *does* particularly resonate with the roleplaying concept they have created (therefore, less likely to be annoyed). However, the real problem here is that it is easy enough for at *least* one character in this case to be say three optimisation levels ahead, even by accident.
For example, if someone else chooses to be a Ranger who uses stealth to pick off targets (an equally valid, and probably quite likely to be played, roleplay choice) they could very easily go down the route of a Gloomstalker Assassin multiclass build that chooses Pass Without Trace as a spell - a build that will be far more optimised naturally than the Berserker Illusionist. This could lead to a 'discussion' at the table that the Gloomstalker Assassin is too optimised (by being one optimisation level ahead of the rest of the party and three ahead of the Berserker Illusionist), when in reality the Berserker Illusionist (two behind the rest of the party, three behind the Gloomstalker Assassin) is more problematic for the party.
So, while the optimisation differences *are* the problem in such a case, the cause of those differences is actually the blind grab at roleplay without consideration for the mechanics attached, rather than a player particularly trying to optimise. Basically, if you are leaning into a character with particularly low optimisation OR particularly high optimisation, whether naturally or on purpose, you need to consult with the rest of the table first and be prepared to shelf that concept if it doesn't mesh.
The question to answer isn't "Are you optimizing?", it's "what are you optimizing FOR?" Does your character do what you want it to be doing? Is what you want to do a good fit for your table?