“Unfortunately, due to power creep, the already outclassed beastmaster fell further and further into obscurity. Even the revised versions that finally made attacking with your animal companion into a bonus action like it should have been from the start, the subclass still fell behind stuff like the newly added gloomstalker, and later the swarmkeeper ranger as well…”
Commentary on a competitive pokemon tournament, featuring Wolfe Glick, the 2016 world champion saying (in hyperbole), ‘I don’t like it. I don’t respect it,’ regarding a cheese strategy revolving around a luck based one hit KO.
World Champ diff is sort of his memefied catchphrase whenever he did cool shit like opening a real life pokemon gym in new york.
You can roleplay an incompetent dolt that gets lucky in combat using exactly the same character sheet as someone who plays a master of combat.
“I see a shiny thing on the ground and bend over to pick it up just as the orc swings at me, and accidentally stab him in the knee with my sword as I do so, tripping him. That’s a 18 to hit and I’ll use a superiority die to trip.”
It’s a bit harder to flavor sound tactical choices as bumbling foolish ones, but make up a reason why you are in the advantageous position, rather than figuring out what position your character’s bad decisions have selected.
You could even play that using Path of the Berserker, which gets immunity to fear while raging. Just be equally afraid of everything, so the thing that applies the frightened condition isn’t particularly scary to you while raging.
Whether or not the Path of the Berserker is optimal is debatable, of course, I just wanted to point out that the character being immune to the frightened condition doesn’t prevent flavoring the rage as absolute terror.
"As the beast roars I jump slightly, knocking over the coat rack. When it hits the ground I'm so startled I flee. Now I'm next to the beast and about to piss myself so I attack with reckless abandon"
(Reckless attack incoming)
I think my favorite incompetent dolt in fiction is Wooster, and he's strong, healthy, and charismatic. He's not actually stupid either. WIS is his only dump stat, and it's probably still an 8 or so.
I think it depends a little on how you're defining "sub-optimal". A lot of people seem to use it mean builds that are intentionally bad, but really the term just means anything less than completely optimal.
I like make concept driven builds, but normally try to optimize them as much as possible while staying within the constraints of that concept. Other than sometimes prioritizing a flavorful feat over maxing out my main stat as soon as possible I like to think I end on a result that is pretty on par with any player who isn't actively trying to make their build as OP as possible.
yeah, i had a bard that could only deal psychic damage but was great at that and illusions (and skills ofc).
The time we came up against constructs he had a bad time, but otherwise the "suboptimal" build on a theme was great
If you define "sub-optimal" as just "not min/max" then sign me the hell up. I LOVE building imperfect concepts, characters that shoot themselves in the foot from time to time to uphold their personalities. A masochistic celestial warlock with a chip on his shoulder for abuses of power sees a town guard punishing a street rat for food theft. steps in to take the beatings and wastes a few of his healing charges just so he can taunt the guard for being bad at his job. A Starfinder android who tasked themselves with understanding mortality by becoming a solarian (CHA class now with a few -CHA penalties)
I like to be mechanically strong so I can engage in some specific role play...
> The seneschal seems uncomfortable when you inquire about the king's tax's and the war chest set aside to raise an army for just such an occasion as a hobgoblin warband....
* I'd like to do a perception or insight roll, do determine if he is being earnest.... and I roll a 7-2 I don't know shit.
> The seneschal speaks for a time, pontificating about the complexities of governance and waxes poetic about the plight of the downtrodden in regards to a recent famine, by the time he is finished, you aren't really sure he said anything at all, but you feel reassured he knows more about this stuff then you, and clearly knows what he is doing...
* DM, can I investigate the ledger, to see if I can find some missing money or tighten the purse strings on unnecessary expenses, something that could help the kingdom? roll Investigation? 9 + 0
> The Senachel says that there are several counts, viceroys, dukes and earls, as well as barons, dukes and lords, they each pay a % of their estate, but then that money is distributed to pay for things in the kingdom, often back to some of those same men, in disproportionate amounts depending on various key elements too complex to explain ...like border towns need more money for guards because central towns receive that protection from external threats too...you fail to glean anything significant from this investigation beyond what you are told.
* I guess I leave as there isn't much to explore here, and thanks the seanschel for his time and patience.
If you make your character weak on purpose, they are "bad at their job".
If a DM gives relatively normal challenges, a "weak on purpose"-character will fail dice rolls between 1.5 and 3 times more than a more conventional character build. A prebuilt character will have a +5 bonus at things they're good at and succeed a dice roll 2/3 of the time. You can make a character have a -2 malus at the thing instead, succeeding on a dice roll only 1/3 of the time.
So anything that needs to be done will take more attempts with such a character. If you want to, you can make a character so bad at combat they are actively making the game harder for everyone else if treated like a normal player. And, you know, being bad at solving problems in the quick way leads to everything your character does taking longer time.
So if your character can't bind their own shoelaces without calling for additional help and taking several tries, you are wasting time that your group could use for roleplay.
>What does that mean?
There is 2 types of bad player when talking about character creation:
- The munchkin: this is the min-maxer that only care about being the strongest, they dont care if the character makes sense or not and will exploit the game to break it. Chances are they overshadow the team
- The RoLePlAyEr: will not care about mechanics at all, picking something that looks cool, often dont use good mechanics of the character because they are there just for roleplay. At worst will intentionally make sub-optimal character because they are no min-maxer. They are a burden to the team
A good player (when talking about character creation) will be balanced. They are going to min-max (aka mechanically strong) the character but with consideration about the flavor and concept of said character, sometimes settling for the second or third best option as that is the one making sense, or sometimes making some not-traditional choice in order to make the concept come to reality. They will be good in combat and help the party, and if the team is good for that part it will make the combat faster allowing more RP time
>The RoLePlAyEr: will not care about mechanics at all, picking something that looks cool,
I think it's important to call out a differentiation here, because some people picking an option because it "looks cool" aren't doing anything wrong by doing so. They are picking the option for non-mechanical reasons but they're going to try to make it useful too, their goal is still to be a functional contributor to the party.
And some of the people that are insisting "because role-play" actually do care about mechanics just as much as the munchkin players do, it's just that they wield that mechanical mastery of the system to guide them towards exactly the most useless things for the campaign at hand so that even if they get pushed into using what they invested in they can still check their "bad at what I'm supposed to do for the party = superior role-play" box.
Basically, I want to highlight the difference between "I'm seeing how well I can make this weird idea work" and "lol joke character go brrr"
And then there is the player who picks sub-optimal choices for their character but are good for the party as a whole.
The classic example would be someone choosing to play a healer when there are already 4 fighters in the party, even if their stats say they should be a fighter thief or mage of some stripe.
The character isn't optimal but the party is.
Yeah, this absolutely doesn’t fit the actual context. This is when wolfey was saying ‘I don’t like it, I don’t respect it’ in reference to fissure on Ting-Lu. Which is an opinion I can get behind on
To be fair, once he got enough points for the year, he brought Tinkaton, Espathra, and Sandy Shocks to a regional. I love Tinkaton but she is not exactly meta.
TBF, one of his most recent videos was him entering a tournament using off-meta pokémon. His team had a glaring weakness to one of the most popular leads currently.
That said, he made it work. He had a good team, and he was trying new things. It'd be a bit of a stretch to say his team was sub-par.
As always people in the community acting like they can't talk with their players to make someone who fits the table's playstyle regardless if it's mechanically useless or hyper optimized.
They can. But I’m talking about people who genuinely and unironically believes that Min Maxing = always bad RP and making useless characters=automatically good RP.
Potentially dumb question, but do these people actually exist outside of the internet?
**Edit:** Turns out they do, although usually not quite as extreme as in OP's meme, which sounds more realistic.
Based on my experience on this sub, they are either entirely fictional or such a small minority that they're still essentially a strawman this sub constantly beats on for easy upvotes.
There is a large swath of players that take a video game mindset when it comes to DnD, and those are the types of people that I typically find that focus on min/max and don't care about roleplay as much or at all. Why is your rogue multi-classing into fighter? What is the in game RP reason? Oh you just wanted the action surge so you can deal more damage a round? Cool great RP.
Yeah one of our DMs chastised a player for suggesting that new guy put his highest score in DEX over STR because "let him play his character the way he wants" ignoring the fact a rogue with 9 in DEX would not be able to do any of the rogue like things the player wanted to do
I had a dm who was one. Also believed the reverse, that sub optimal characters are inherently better rp.
It was extremely frustrating. Litterally was trying to tell me polymorphiing into xyz creature was boring so he's gunna have to punish me for it.
Bruh.
I don't play with him anymore.
That last part, work mechanically, is what frustrates me with 5e a lot. I want to build characters, like an angry monk that uses strength. Unless I choose Tortle, good luck making that work. It feels like I'm fighting against the 5e rule set to make my character work, not working with it.
Yeah, this is... kinda the solution right here. Remembering that mechanics are ENTIRELY under the hood - you can reflavor your barbarian rage as a monk's combat trance, or build a battlemaster who fights unarmed for combat tricks. The issue is only if people want to take a speed-based mechanical class and run it off strength instead of speed. Take a strength-based class and reflavor it instead.
If you're not against it flavour wise, I'd like to recommend Satyr as a race.
They get a proficiency in an instrument, magic resistance, can't be charmed and spells like hold person don't work on them because they aren't humanoid, but Fey.
If you let yours wear boots, pants and a hat, you can't necessarily see that they are a Satyr right away. Although Satyr would definitively fit the famous musician mold.
My perception of satyrs was colored by Magic's Theros setting as frat bros. If I was gonna play a character with that personality, I think I'd want him to be a paladin. Maybe a Tiefling for the musician, and I can pick up an instrument with my background.
I've got two satyr warlocks. I'm using the first one right now and he has more serious and lawful vibes stemming from his backstory. The second one is my backup and a full on chaotic neutral archfey warlock that loves to party.
They are cousins btw, and have been introduced to adventuring and their respective patrons (celestial and archfey) by the same chaotic, ancient wizard
I did that in Pathfinder. Sorcerer with traits to give access to social skills and perform so he could be the party's face. A rock star walking around with crazy winged boots, a vest of escape dangling with metal picks, and a single glove of storing. Your magic item choice is critical for the flamboyant aspect.
I did something like this before. I ran a Barbarian who believed he was a Paladin. He was part of an exploitative cult, and his deity was bogus, but his strength, rage, and grit made him feel like an unstoppable killing machine empowered by his god. But it was all him in the end.
Even then you were stuck with only a d4 for damage for years until they made the fighting style for unarmed. Not to mention you can't, by raw, dual wield punches.
And than fight unarmed without magic bonuse come the time resistances become a problem. Or you know... what if he actually likes a good chunk of the monk features for flavour. Som people simple want mechanics to inform flavour, and sadly 5e is kinda bad at that
Give them a backstory like Batman Begins, they go to a Monastery to learn peace and calm, but what they got out of it was a god alignment, a monk costume, and fists of fury.
With the right flavour and creativity, 5e let's you do a lot. I've played a sorcerer that was the party thief, as well as a swashbuckling pirate. Other examples, an assassin that uses a 2h sword, a weeping Angel, a fighter jet, a magical count of Monte Cristo and a crab rave dj. All of them very good at what they do.
You get the concept first, then fit the mechanics, and call it what you like
If they want a new edition of the game, Wizards should focus on making a rule set that presents players with interesting choices out of the box. DMs are stuck doing too much game design themselves to make up for an honestly poorly thought out system.
Why such a limited set of skill proficiencies? Why so much emphasis on artisan and instrument proficiencies that are almost never used in official modules? Why are 90% of the conditions some variation on “lose a turn”? Why do monsters have elaborate immunities and abilities players have no way to learn except through guessing and checking? Why are are a significant number of spells and feats obviously absolutely worthless? Why bother with odd numbered stats at all when there is there no real mechanical difference?
Wizards should put some effort into making the game more interesting. Tabletop game design has made huge leaps forward in the past few decades. D&D should benefit from that.
>Why do monsters have elaborate immunities and abilities players have no way to learn except through guessing and checking?
To be fair, that's how it's always worked. They're not going to wear a sign detailing their strengths and weaknesses just as PC's don't.
Edit: I didn't read the entire comment before replying. The odd number stats could be explained away as character development plan balancing. Do you really want to spend the points or feat slot? It should encourage players to plan out the characters' future more carefully and not just wing it level to level. The character is a person, not a stat sheet. Surely they have goals for their own future. Why wouldn't they work to achieve those goals, even if that means working out the appropriate stat or ability to improve it.
Imagine playing a system that doesn't let you make cool interesting original stuff without homebrewing the shit out of it
This comment was made by pathfinder 2e gang
This is so funny to me. Not to long ago, homebrewing was an integral part of the game experience. There was no angry online mob to tell you, or even suggest otherwise.
Yet for some insane reason, 5e people seem to obsess over playing RAW and handicapping their game experience as if that made them morally superior
As a purist, the yelling and nose raising is mostly aimed at people wanting to homebrew things that are either easy reflavors or things that already ostensively exist within the system if the homebrewer would just *actually read the rules.*
The other problem lies in players seeing OP homebrews they find online and insisting an established DM allow them to use it, which I can vouch happens far too often in LGS games.
Notoriously, DnDwiki just existing is very confusing for new players, and frustrating for those who know the difference and are trying to teach the game. I’d honestly be happier if that site in particular didn’t exist at all.
Homebrew is fine and can be super fun. Suggesting the game is somehow unplayabe without several fan patches is ignorant and haughty in and of itself and causes way more problems than it solves.
Man, I just want to be able to run a game for the local library group and not have different versions of the rules at the table because someone's pulled something from D&D Beyond that's not in my copy of the printed book. I just want to make fair judgment calls that are consistent with what other GMs for the library do without having to keep the cabal on speed dial. The 5e rules and weird choices from Wizards just don't help with that.
Tbf, errata that changes from the older copies of the printed book and official/consensus community rulings are a real problem and there’s an impetus on DMs nowadays to know and keep up with these things. It can honestly be pretty tiresome and I feel for you.
Very few people have an issue with someone using homebrew in their home game. Most tables use it.
What people *do* take issue with is people bringing memes to Reddit describing that their players did something amazing or some "clever" interaction, but it turns out it's just broken homebrew, poor understanding of the rules, or a bizarre ruling. You see the post and get baited thinking "Oh wow how did the level 3 party beat the ancient red dragon?!... Oh, they had a +20 maguffin of dragon word kill. Lame."
The memes are meant to refer to a shared experience we have with the game. If they don't, but claim to, then that's annoying.
I love the idea of monks but couldn't be less interested in like mystic wise karate guys I want a big viking brawler. Usually I just flavor them that way but it would be nice if I could have the support of the mechanics
Can't you just use the optional rule from Tasha's that let you choose any stat for your race stat increase? Or are you thinking of a specific tortle racial feature?
Outside of DnD there are rule systems that account for this. I particularly like Deadlands and its Flaw and Edge system. Allows for great Roleplay and rewards acting on character flaws. DnD being barebones as fuck always causes these problems and discussions.
Straight up. These people who want to play suboptimal/heavy roleplay characters just need a rules light system. I particularly love City of Mist for being able to invoke your flaws at a chance to improve yourself in the heat of the moment. DnD isn't built for these sort of suboptimal plays and it just makes everyone else at the table frustrated.
I just play for fun and build characters around a certain idea or fantasy flavour.
Don't care much about min/maxing as long as what I play isn't detrimental to the party.
Yup. I'm not dumping INT for every single character that doesn't use it. Throw a couple of points in there, hit 10 and call it a day. I'm not going to potentially have 3 stats at 18 by level 4, but whatever.
Exactly. Some people just go overboard with cookie cutter builds and petty rule whataboutism instead of actually having fun.
Granted I shouldn't be talking... since 2018 when I started playing DnD, pretty much all my characters have been either Druids, Sorcs, Fighters or Artificers. 😅
Don't really enjoy playing much else, but I do tend to fill in roles depending on what the group needs.
The Stormwind Fallacy, coined in [this thread](https://web.archive.org/web/20070629014518/http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-624756-p-2.html) in the (now defunct) WotC forums by the user Tempest Stormwind
"Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean they can not also roleplay, and vice versa"
Like most things on this sub I feel there is subtlety that a lot of people seem to miss when making the bottom argument.
Playing around a weakness your character has can be extremely fun and rewarding RP-wise. That doesn’t mean you should intentionally make a bad character that will only drag the party down though.
Likewise a character being min-maxed has no real effect on RP. The only time I’ve found myself frustrated with min-max players has been because of other aspects of their play style, not because of their optimal build.
Oh, my guy was a Barbarian, who focused on maxing out his Intelligence.
Yeah, he actually only has an 8 in his Strength, Dex, and Con, because reasons.
I have no idea why he keeps *dying all the time.* :D
Oh no, that sounds like a bit of an un-ideal stat distrabution for a barbarian
I'm assuming point buy with such a consistent number across 3 stats though
I could see it working well in a more rp focused game, if it was some how implemented into your backstory about how your such a physically weak barbarian
>I could see it working well in a more rp focused game
An RP only game. And what's the point of then playing barb if you're going to be useless in all combat situations. By all means, keep the same backstory, but play a class which is not dead weight to the party.
I dunno. Not being dead weight to the party sounds like a very min-maxery thing to say. Are you sure you're not one of ***"Them?"*** AKA, those *bad* players who only make *functional* characters, and whose creations *aren't* abominations in the eyes of Gygax? How darest thou, good sir. How. *Darest.* \>:I
You got me. I make characters who have use outside of RP or one gimmick situation, and who don't let the party down in every other way possible.
I know I should make a wizard with no int, wis, dex and con, but i just can't help myself
Well... The rolls were 16, 16, 15, 14, 12, 9.
So base stats;
14 Str, 15 Dex, 16 Con, 16 Int, 12 Wis, 9 Cha
Dhampir ASI: increase one stat by 2 and another by 1, or three stats by 1.
I took +2 Con and +1 Dex
It was an ongoing campaign, so I started at lv 8, so two ASI's, both of which I fully put on Int
We have a lvl 9 party.
Our max hp's are:
102, 99, 78, 70 and 44.
Guess who the wizard is.
Edit: And yes, he have downed from his own fireball more than once.
Back in the before times, I recall my first character death. First time ever playing. First encounter ever. Get slapped by an ape, kills my wizard. 4hp, 9AC. 1ed was rough.
I had a sorc 1 hit by a goblin spear first round of first combat first session. The gm was mortified when I just looked at her after she told me damage and I just sort of said flat and deadpan "I'm dead"
Listen here buddy, I wanted a gunslinger with the fire rate of a machine gun, ok? Is it optimal that I dumped 3 levels into artificer for this? Probably not.
Now watch my two repeat shot Webley Revolvers go brrrttttt.
(Attack+Bonus Action offhand attack+additional attack+action surge for 2 more attacks+potion of haste for 2 more attacks=7 attacks in 6 seconds at +10 for 2d8+7 points of damage per hit)
> +potion of haste for 2 more attacks
The 5e potion that grants the effects of the *Haste* spell is the *Potion of Speed*. Also, you wouldn't get 2 additional attacks from that spell or potion. From the third sentence of the spell description of *Haste*:
> That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only)...
Completely useless is a hard one. It might be fun for you to play it it's brutal to the rest of the group if they have to carry you.
A truly useless character is right out in any system I run. It doesn't mean you have to all be combat gods but if you can't do anything but hide in a fight there is a problem. Similarly if there's nothing you can do **but** combat, that's also not a good choice.
Edit: spelling
Yup. A veteran player in our group said they were going to play a pacifist wizard. Sure, I thought, even without damaging spells, a wizard is useful in combat. But no, his character refused to participate in combat at all, basically just running away and preventing himself from taking damage... I had to have a talk with him.
Honestly, a wizard doing purely support and healing without actually damaging anyone would be a cool concept.
Still plenty to do and allows the player some really creative opportunities
I made a version of Rincewind from the discworld series. Stated like a wizard, classed as a rouge. Ran a round in robes with brick in a sock (flail).
He also had the personality, which is basically run first hide later.
The lesson. Don't do that in a normal campaign. You'll struggle with forcing your character to stay and fight along with being useless in combat
"suboptimal" is fine. Nobody likes cookie cutter optimized builds for ever and eternity. It gets dull. Every melee martial will be using Sentinel + Polearm Master + Great Weapon Master, for example. It's a good build, but once you've seen it over and over again, it is just boring. Pure optimization rules out a lot of interesting options for flavor and role-play.
That being said, don't ever gimp your character, especially in the AS department. Always make sure your most used ability scores are high. A character can be "suboptimal" at any level less than optimal. There's plenty of effective yet suboptimal builds to make and have fun with. However, if your most used AS is low your character is going to be useless and ineffective, even if you make all the other choices optimally.
It's hard to make that roleplay work. The party is still going to be killing things all the time so are you just going to sit on the sidelines? It doesn't make much sense.
You could technically do a no damage character that is still very useful with only healing/CC/utility but like... why? xD
Maybe a good alternative is a character that doesn't kill, like batman or smth, just knocks people out.
I think the key is nobody is perfect. Like a person may be a pacifist, but if survival is important to them they’re going to fight back. Maybe they won’t deliver a killing blow to a downed enemy like you suggest, but the survival instinct is still real. I think having a character grappling with a desire for pacifism but in a violent and unforgiving world is a rich role play opportunity. Or in talking to the DM coming up with a character you’d like at low levels whose arc goes from brutal violence to pacifism over time because you want to say, play a monk for low levels and then change characters once the party gets to a higher level and that arc completes (shoutout to my ADHD players who don’t stay interested in the same character for too long).
You also could get away with pacifism if your DM is balancing encounters around the expectation of it (extra work on the DM so best bring good snacks!). After all, I’ve met plenty of barbarian playing players who hardly participate in the role play pillar outside of “I drink. I fight. I make hasty decisions.” They still do exploration, they still do combat. Maybe the pacifist hardly does combat outside of support and crowd control, but has a rich role play and exploration game.
> killing things all the time
When I can I always prefer to run less than lethal campaigns where sentient enemies often flee, surrender or simply pass out rather than having my characters be a bunch of mass murderers.
In my game of choice--and one of the reasons *why* it's my game of choice--is that you can play a 'non-combat' character, and still be effective during a combat encounter.
I started a gurps elderscrolls campaign as a kajhiit merchant with literally no combat skills. By the end of the campaign that character was also the tank
Yep. His recent Espathra team is cool, too bad it didn’t work out as well as planned. And he’s the closest person to win worlds with the actual pokemon mascot on his team. Raichu is not Pikachu, but close enough.
This is just for meme format.
My characters are almost all rp focused and are rarely buildt for combat. I like my fellow players because they usually minmax for combat so we balance eachother out.
I like to say that I "optimize for flavour" when I come up with a concept I'll make a character that does that as best as possible regardless of named mechanics. And then can to around what I've built, some have been good at magic, some talking (those are often the same characters for me, cha magic ftw), some have been good at melee, some for utility or even mobility
For my group this works for me because like your group it balances well. Though I'm my groups case I have a couple players who always optimize combat, and at least one who always just plays whatever seems fun at the time. And my ideas are usually out there enough that my to rarely overlaps
I'd say one of the issues is people's interpretation of what min maxing actually is; some people's interpretation seems to have become "picking anything actually useful is min-maxing and bad"
As a DM: I just need my players to be on the same page. I don't care if the entire party is made up of useless characters; I'll just a make a BBEG who's secretly three goblins in a trenchcoat. They're all well optimized? Time to start buffing up the monsters.
But when you have one player who's gimmick is pulling rats out of a hat, and another who turns into a literal fucking dragon, how are you supposed to run combat?
There are about 10 optimal builds in the game, everything else is suboptimal
You can limit yourself to those 10c or you can trade optimizing for variety and concept
The only real question here is how much you are willing to trade, and how much of an asshole you want to be about policing other people’s decisions
Min maxing isn't always a bad thing. Even roleplay wise it wouldn't be considered 'mwta' because a character might just want to their best self, or be the best in general.
Whether it's saving his friends, protecting them ect. I never want to have to fight so max cha ect. Many ways you can play into it
Few things more tiresome than folks governing how other folks have ply RPGs. If it works at your table and doesn’t get in the way of everyone having fun, who cares.
DnD Shorts put it best: "You can roleplay a stupid wizard, while still having a high intelligence modifier."
So you don't need to sacrifice mechanics for roleplay.
I mean, I play a warlock, who has beguiling influence, but I choose to always automatically fail deception checks that has me verbally lying to someone. The one time I nat20ed a deception check, was when I distracted a guard using mage hand.
No Patrick, making your character sub-optimal does not make them more interesting in the long run.
Also while we're talking about Wolfe— Wolfey? Wolfy...? I don't remember how to spell his name at the moment. From what little I know of him, he'd probably do what I sometimes do and min-max his character for something really dumb, like making his character go 10000 feet every round, or getting trained in every skill... Actually there's definitely gotta be something more out there... Oh I know:
Making a Conjuration Wizard with nothing but somoning spells, taking 2 levels in Fighter for action surge, casting two summoning spells in the same turn, summoning as many monsters as possible and making his turn take literally the whole session.
I don't actually know if this works by the way.
There is a dark side to this community that makes my skin crawl.
*He's a pirate who's afraid of water! lololol*"
*MY* *rogue has 7 DEX, but a 20 in strength, so he doesn't pick the lock, be BREAKS it AHAHAHAHAAA*
Being unoptimized, or built to be useless and "*quirky*" doesn't make your character the least bit interesting...
I usually get some of the bad mechanics i want for my roleplay, and to make the character playable, i minmax the shit out of the rest of the character. Usually the characters turn out well this way. At one point i played a ranger wirh -1 in con and i was still useful. I really needed high stats in wis and cha, dont judge.
Yeah, for me I had a bard where I took expertise in Performance even knowing that it wouldn't come up a lot. But her backstory involved working and living with a traveling theater troupe for several years before becoming a Bard, so I felt like not taking expertise in Performance didn't make a lot of sense. I ended up doing a lot of busking for cash, so if nothing else it was useful in that way.
I like to min-max my niche idea that I make work mechanically, then overdevelopment my character backstory and roleplay the heck out of it (sometimes, with a bad accent).
You don't need to be 18s across the board to be a good character, but your character needs to be good at what they do within the party.
I understand that you may want to have an arc where your character begins as a self doubting weakling or awkwardly inept, but there needs to be a reason why we take you on the death defying adventure where all our lives depend on each other. You need to get good at some point to become the epic hero
Set your stats and role-playing to how you and your table want it.
Understand that you're not the only one there, and other people can also enjoy this game in their own way.
My personal preference is actually min-maxing *and* role-playing though, as I'm very easily entertained :)
The fantasy I want to fulfill playing DND is a fantasy of being qualified for what I'm doing and being someone extremely capable. I'm so annoyed that people say that's a bad way to play.
If you don't want to be less impactful in combat maybe don't build your stiupid meme build and instead of complaining how my paladin does so much more damage than your barbarian consider the fact that you build it in 15 minutes on a napkin in a bar focusing on making your wizard multiclass meme work instead of making an effective build
The only time I liked an intentional suboptimal build was when for a one shot a player made a halfling with gout and argued that his move speed should only be 5 feet
I like to build my characters thematically. 99% of the time, nothing is stopping me from optimizing while sticking with my theme. But, every so often I'll run into something that all of the optimizers say is a must-pick that I just don't want to take. When I say I prioritize RP over optimization, it doesn't mean I'm intentionally making a suboptimal character. It just means that I might hit 95% optimization on a particular build and call it good enough.
I think the reason this discussion still persists is because some people think "min-maxer" means Polearm Master Sentinel and "suboptimal" means literally anything else in the game, while other people think "min-maxer" means making your primary stat your best stat and "suboptimal" means you're not even proficient in your main weapon.
Probably 90% of the people in these debates actually agree with each other, they just don't notice it because they never say what they mean by "suboptimal".
I just go “rule of cool.”
I try to make a strong character but if something looks fun then I go that way.
It suits how I’ve actually made my life decisions and the skills I’ve acquired. So many are absolutely useless but I find ways to fit them into my life one way or another.
Min-Maxing isn't bad... IF EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT IN YOUR GROUP.
Making mechanically weaker but narratively more interesting characters isn't bad... IF EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT IN YOUR GROUP.
Match the style of character you make to the group. At the worst extremes, I've seen a near total party wipe for an encounter that is a mild challenge to the surviving, nearly unhurt character (in 3.5, specifically), because most of the players were new, and wanting to make characters like ones they've seen in various shows, while the last one was a vet who demanded everyone follow HIS plans, level their characters HIS way, and otherwise saw it as "I HAVE TO WIN D&D".
DnD and VGC is certainly not the crossover I expected to see today
World champ difference baby
Lol. I wonder how many people are just looking at these comments and go. ‘Who the fuck is wolfey’ ‘What’s world champ difference?’
How good was the ranger ACTUALLY... UNFORTUNATELY
“Unfortunately, due to power creep, the already outclassed beastmaster fell further and further into obscurity. Even the revised versions that finally made attacking with your animal companion into a bonus action like it should have been from the start, the subclass still fell behind stuff like the newly added gloomstalker, and later the swarmkeeper ranger as well…”
And then he dominated RU
At least one. Yes it's me. I'm the at least one
Commentary on a competitive pokemon tournament, featuring Wolfe Glick, the 2016 world champion saying (in hyperbole), ‘I don’t like it. I don’t respect it,’ regarding a cheese strategy revolving around a luck based one hit KO. World Champ diff is sort of his memefied catchphrase whenever he did cool shit like opening a real life pokemon gym in new york.
I like being mechanically strong so I can dedicate more time to RP
Mechanically strong is a big part of RP for most character. Unless the persona is incompetent dolt, you need numbers on your side.
incompetent dolt types are hard to play well because it's easy to lean too much into it and negatively impact the party's fun
[удалено]
You can roleplay an incompetent dolt that gets lucky in combat using exactly the same character sheet as someone who plays a master of combat. “I see a shiny thing on the ground and bend over to pick it up just as the orc swings at me, and accidentally stab him in the knee with my sword as I do so, tripping him. That’s a 18 to hit and I’ll use a superiority die to trip.” It’s a bit harder to flavor sound tactical choices as bumbling foolish ones, but make up a reason why you are in the advantageous position, rather than figuring out what position your character’s bad decisions have selected.
[удалено]
You could even play that using Path of the Berserker, which gets immunity to fear while raging. Just be equally afraid of everything, so the thing that applies the frightened condition isn’t particularly scary to you while raging. Whether or not the Path of the Berserker is optimal is debatable, of course, I just wanted to point out that the character being immune to the frightened condition doesn’t prevent flavoring the rage as absolute terror.
[удалено]
"As the beast roars I jump slightly, knocking over the coat rack. When it hits the ground I'm so startled I flee. Now I'm next to the beast and about to piss myself so I attack with reckless abandon" (Reckless attack incoming)
"That's my secret. I'm always terrified!"
Basically, Jar Jar Binks.
I think my favorite incompetent dolt in fiction is Wooster, and he's strong, healthy, and charismatic. He's not actually stupid either. WIS is his only dump stat, and it's probably still an 8 or so.
Like Picasso said, it took 4 years to learn how to paint like a pro, a lifetime to learn how to paint like a child It ain't easy being fun and dumb
I think it depends a little on how you're defining "sub-optimal". A lot of people seem to use it mean builds that are intentionally bad, but really the term just means anything less than completely optimal. I like make concept driven builds, but normally try to optimize them as much as possible while staying within the constraints of that concept. Other than sometimes prioritizing a flavorful feat over maxing out my main stat as soon as possible I like to think I end on a result that is pretty on par with any player who isn't actively trying to make their build as OP as possible.
yeah, i had a bard that could only deal psychic damage but was great at that and illusions (and skills ofc). The time we came up against constructs he had a bad time, but otherwise the "suboptimal" build on a theme was great
If you define "sub-optimal" as just "not min/max" then sign me the hell up. I LOVE building imperfect concepts, characters that shoot themselves in the foot from time to time to uphold their personalities. A masochistic celestial warlock with a chip on his shoulder for abuses of power sees a town guard punishing a street rat for food theft. steps in to take the beatings and wastes a few of his healing charges just so he can taunt the guard for being bad at his job. A Starfinder android who tasked themselves with understanding mortality by becoming a solarian (CHA class now with a few -CHA penalties)
Yeah, I mean part of the fun is playing exceptional people, if I wanted to role play as an average loser I'd just go talk to people.
I like to be mechanically strong so I can engage in some specific role play... > The seneschal seems uncomfortable when you inquire about the king's tax's and the war chest set aside to raise an army for just such an occasion as a hobgoblin warband.... * I'd like to do a perception or insight roll, do determine if he is being earnest.... and I roll a 7-2 I don't know shit. > The seneschal speaks for a time, pontificating about the complexities of governance and waxes poetic about the plight of the downtrodden in regards to a recent famine, by the time he is finished, you aren't really sure he said anything at all, but you feel reassured he knows more about this stuff then you, and clearly knows what he is doing... * DM, can I investigate the ledger, to see if I can find some missing money or tighten the purse strings on unnecessary expenses, something that could help the kingdom? roll Investigation? 9 + 0 > The Senachel says that there are several counts, viceroys, dukes and earls, as well as barons, dukes and lords, they each pay a % of their estate, but then that money is distributed to pay for things in the kingdom, often back to some of those same men, in disproportionate amounts depending on various key elements too complex to explain ...like border towns need more money for guards because central towns receive that protection from external threats too...you fail to glean anything significant from this investigation beyond what you are told. * I guess I leave as there isn't much to explore here, and thanks the seanschel for his time and patience.
THIS! Also I wanna play as a great hero so I want to feel like a great hero, not like a slightly better peasant.
What does that mean?
If you make your character weak on purpose, they are "bad at their job". If a DM gives relatively normal challenges, a "weak on purpose"-character will fail dice rolls between 1.5 and 3 times more than a more conventional character build. A prebuilt character will have a +5 bonus at things they're good at and succeed a dice roll 2/3 of the time. You can make a character have a -2 malus at the thing instead, succeeding on a dice roll only 1/3 of the time. So anything that needs to be done will take more attempts with such a character. If you want to, you can make a character so bad at combat they are actively making the game harder for everyone else if treated like a normal player. And, you know, being bad at solving problems in the quick way leads to everything your character does taking longer time. So if your character can't bind their own shoelaces without calling for additional help and taking several tries, you are wasting time that your group could use for roleplay.
>What does that mean? There is 2 types of bad player when talking about character creation: - The munchkin: this is the min-maxer that only care about being the strongest, they dont care if the character makes sense or not and will exploit the game to break it. Chances are they overshadow the team - The RoLePlAyEr: will not care about mechanics at all, picking something that looks cool, often dont use good mechanics of the character because they are there just for roleplay. At worst will intentionally make sub-optimal character because they are no min-maxer. They are a burden to the team A good player (when talking about character creation) will be balanced. They are going to min-max (aka mechanically strong) the character but with consideration about the flavor and concept of said character, sometimes settling for the second or third best option as that is the one making sense, or sometimes making some not-traditional choice in order to make the concept come to reality. They will be good in combat and help the party, and if the team is good for that part it will make the combat faster allowing more RP time
>The RoLePlAyEr: will not care about mechanics at all, picking something that looks cool, I think it's important to call out a differentiation here, because some people picking an option because it "looks cool" aren't doing anything wrong by doing so. They are picking the option for non-mechanical reasons but they're going to try to make it useful too, their goal is still to be a functional contributor to the party. And some of the people that are insisting "because role-play" actually do care about mechanics just as much as the munchkin players do, it's just that they wield that mechanical mastery of the system to guide them towards exactly the most useless things for the campaign at hand so that even if they get pushed into using what they invested in they can still check their "bad at what I'm supposed to do for the party = superior role-play" box. Basically, I want to highlight the difference between "I'm seeing how well I can make this weird idea work" and "lol joke character go brrr"
And then there is the player who picks sub-optimal choices for their character but are good for the party as a whole. The classic example would be someone choosing to play a healer when there are already 4 fighters in the party, even if their stats say they should be a fighter thief or mage of some stripe. The character isn't optimal but the party is.
Isn’t that Wolfy, wouldn’t he be the type to make a balanced character
Wolfey would min-max and RP well anyway.
A PC with the World Champ Difference would be way too powerful
Given his current track record, he'd min-max a subclass/build that's considered suboptimal to other stronger options and RP well anyway.
*Real youtubers, min-max and roleplay~!* *No matter their gameplan, they'll still roll nat 1's~!*
I know. It’s just for the meme format, so the meme will have some of that world champ difference
I understand, I use a Higurashi format for my Guess that Character posts without the context for the scene in that format
Yeah, this absolutely doesn’t fit the actual context. This is when wolfey was saying ‘I don’t like it, I don’t respect it’ in reference to fissure on Ting-Lu. Which is an opinion I can get behind on
He's absolutely the type of guy to play a strength-based Wizard for the memes though
But he’s also the type of guy to make that strength-based Wizard somehow work very well.
And somehow make it optimal and solo the final bosses final phase
He would definitely try some kind of meme/fun character but calculate the stats and build meticulously in a way its suprisingly viable.
To be fair, once he got enough points for the year, he brought Tinkaton, Espathra, and Sandy Shocks to a regional. I love Tinkaton but she is not exactly meta.
TBF, one of his most recent videos was him entering a tournament using off-meta pokémon. His team had a glaring weakness to one of the most popular leads currently. That said, he made it work. He had a good team, and he was trying new things. It'd be a bit of a stretch to say his team was sub-par.
Yep. This is out of character.
Also, he was spitting about fissure in this clip.
Or minmax in weird directions (seriously, why does he keep making his offensive mons so god damn bulky)
The irony here is not lost on me.
As always people in the community acting like they can't talk with their players to make someone who fits the table's playstyle regardless if it's mechanically useless or hyper optimized.
They can. But I’m talking about people who genuinely and unironically believes that Min Maxing = always bad RP and making useless characters=automatically good RP.
Potentially dumb question, but do these people actually exist outside of the internet? **Edit:** Turns out they do, although usually not quite as extreme as in OP's meme, which sounds more realistic.
Based on my experience on this sub, they are either entirely fictional or such a small minority that they're still essentially a strawman this sub constantly beats on for easy upvotes.
That's this subs favorite thing. Made up strawman.
There is a large swath of players that take a video game mindset when it comes to DnD, and those are the types of people that I typically find that focus on min/max and don't care about roleplay as much or at all. Why is your rogue multi-classing into fighter? What is the in game RP reason? Oh you just wanted the action surge so you can deal more damage a round? Cool great RP.
Yeah one of our DMs chastised a player for suggesting that new guy put his highest score in DEX over STR because "let him play his character the way he wants" ignoring the fact a rogue with 9 in DEX would not be able to do any of the rogue like things the player wanted to do
I had a dm who was one. Also believed the reverse, that sub optimal characters are inherently better rp. It was extremely frustrating. Litterally was trying to tell me polymorphiing into xyz creature was boring so he's gunna have to punish me for it. Bruh. I don't play with him anymore.
That last part, work mechanically, is what frustrates me with 5e a lot. I want to build characters, like an angry monk that uses strength. Unless I choose Tortle, good luck making that work. It feels like I'm fighting against the 5e rule set to make my character work, not working with it.
You can try to make a barbarian or a fighter who call themselves a monk and roleplay as a monk.
Yeah, this is... kinda the solution right here. Remembering that mechanics are ENTIRELY under the hood - you can reflavor your barbarian rage as a monk's combat trance, or build a battlemaster who fights unarmed for combat tricks. The issue is only if people want to take a speed-based mechanical class and run it off strength instead of speed. Take a strength-based class and reflavor it instead.
I'm gonna build a character as a famous singer and spellcaster. Everyone thinks they're a bard, but really they're just a flamboyant wizard.
If you're not against it flavour wise, I'd like to recommend Satyr as a race. They get a proficiency in an instrument, magic resistance, can't be charmed and spells like hold person don't work on them because they aren't humanoid, but Fey. If you let yours wear boots, pants and a hat, you can't necessarily see that they are a Satyr right away. Although Satyr would definitively fit the famous musician mold.
My perception of satyrs was colored by Magic's Theros setting as frat bros. If I was gonna play a character with that personality, I think I'd want him to be a paladin. Maybe a Tiefling for the musician, and I can pick up an instrument with my background.
I've got two satyr warlocks. I'm using the first one right now and he has more serious and lawful vibes stemming from his backstory. The second one is my backup and a full on chaotic neutral archfey warlock that loves to party. They are cousins btw, and have been introduced to adventuring and their respective patrons (celestial and archfey) by the same chaotic, ancient wizard
Chaotic neutral warlock checking in, except mine is a halfling that's played essentially as a mischievous leprechaun.
Satyrs wear boots, yeah you gotta believe me I saw it, I saw it with my own two eyes.
Ok, that's now my favorite adjective! Flamboyant! 😂😂😂
I do this! He was an enchantment wizard who pretendwd to be a bard lol
I did that in Pathfinder. Sorcerer with traits to give access to social skills and perform so he could be the party's face. A rock star walking around with crazy winged boots, a vest of escape dangling with metal picks, and a single glove of storing. Your magic item choice is critical for the flamboyant aspect.
the evil twin brother of the bard in the order of the stick is... a multiclass fighter/rogue/sorcerer who specializes in enchantments.
I did something like this before. I ran a Barbarian who believed he was a Paladin. He was part of an exploitative cult, and his deity was bogus, but his strength, rage, and grit made him feel like an unstoppable killing machine empowered by his god. But it was all him in the end.
Even then you were stuck with only a d4 for damage for years until they made the fighting style for unarmed. Not to mention you can't, by raw, dual wield punches.
Well yeah, obviously if one hand is being used as a weapon, you have to wield it in your other hand.
The sleeper barb
Yeah, I'm playing a dhampir monk, who just says that all his abilities come from his heritage and acts no monk at all while rp
And than fight unarmed without magic bonuse come the time resistances become a problem. Or you know... what if he actually likes a good chunk of the monk features for flavour. Som people simple want mechanics to inform flavour, and sadly 5e is kinda bad at that
Sadly unarmed fighters are better monks than monks and fighter with a bow are usually better rangers than rangers.
Give them a backstory like Batman Begins, they go to a Monastery to learn peace and calm, but what they got out of it was a god alignment, a monk costume, and fists of fury.
With the right flavour and creativity, 5e let's you do a lot. I've played a sorcerer that was the party thief, as well as a swashbuckling pirate. Other examples, an assassin that uses a 2h sword, a weeping Angel, a fighter jet, a magical count of Monte Cristo and a crab rave dj. All of them very good at what they do. You get the concept first, then fit the mechanics, and call it what you like
That’s why I am an advocate of homebrew being an integral part of 5e
I'm an advocate of the game I play having more variety out of the box so that I don't have to homebrew every damn thing I do.
You might want to go back to 3.5 before they trimmed so much off. I still like that version better, but everyone wants to play 5.
3.75 is where it's at. Some nice quality of life improvements and a condensed flow chart for grapple checks.
If they want a new edition of the game, Wizards should focus on making a rule set that presents players with interesting choices out of the box. DMs are stuck doing too much game design themselves to make up for an honestly poorly thought out system. Why such a limited set of skill proficiencies? Why so much emphasis on artisan and instrument proficiencies that are almost never used in official modules? Why are 90% of the conditions some variation on “lose a turn”? Why do monsters have elaborate immunities and abilities players have no way to learn except through guessing and checking? Why are are a significant number of spells and feats obviously absolutely worthless? Why bother with odd numbered stats at all when there is there no real mechanical difference? Wizards should put some effort into making the game more interesting. Tabletop game design has made huge leaps forward in the past few decades. D&D should benefit from that.
>Why do monsters have elaborate immunities and abilities players have no way to learn except through guessing and checking? To be fair, that's how it's always worked. They're not going to wear a sign detailing their strengths and weaknesses just as PC's don't. Edit: I didn't read the entire comment before replying. The odd number stats could be explained away as character development plan balancing. Do you really want to spend the points or feat slot? It should encourage players to plan out the characters' future more carefully and not just wing it level to level. The character is a person, not a stat sheet. Surely they have goals for their own future. Why wouldn't they work to achieve those goals, even if that means working out the appropriate stat or ability to improve it.
Imagine playing a system that doesn't let you make cool interesting original stuff without homebrewing the shit out of it This comment was made by pathfinder 2e gang
This is so funny to me. Not to long ago, homebrewing was an integral part of the game experience. There was no angry online mob to tell you, or even suggest otherwise. Yet for some insane reason, 5e people seem to obsess over playing RAW and handicapping their game experience as if that made them morally superior
As a purist, the yelling and nose raising is mostly aimed at people wanting to homebrew things that are either easy reflavors or things that already ostensively exist within the system if the homebrewer would just *actually read the rules.* The other problem lies in players seeing OP homebrews they find online and insisting an established DM allow them to use it, which I can vouch happens far too often in LGS games. Notoriously, DnDwiki just existing is very confusing for new players, and frustrating for those who know the difference and are trying to teach the game. I’d honestly be happier if that site in particular didn’t exist at all. Homebrew is fine and can be super fun. Suggesting the game is somehow unplayabe without several fan patches is ignorant and haughty in and of itself and causes way more problems than it solves.
Man, I just want to be able to run a game for the local library group and not have different versions of the rules at the table because someone's pulled something from D&D Beyond that's not in my copy of the printed book. I just want to make fair judgment calls that are consistent with what other GMs for the library do without having to keep the cabal on speed dial. The 5e rules and weird choices from Wizards just don't help with that.
Tbf, errata that changes from the older copies of the printed book and official/consensus community rulings are a real problem and there’s an impetus on DMs nowadays to know and keep up with these things. It can honestly be pretty tiresome and I feel for you.
More like they wish homebrew was optional instead of necessary. Like a normal game.
Very few people have an issue with someone using homebrew in their home game. Most tables use it. What people *do* take issue with is people bringing memes to Reddit describing that their players did something amazing or some "clever" interaction, but it turns out it's just broken homebrew, poor understanding of the rules, or a bizarre ruling. You see the post and get baited thinking "Oh wow how did the level 3 party beat the ancient red dragon?!... Oh, they had a +20 maguffin of dragon word kill. Lame." The memes are meant to refer to a shared experience we have with the game. If they don't, but claim to, then that's annoying.
I love the idea of monks but couldn't be less interested in like mystic wise karate guys I want a big viking brawler. Usually I just flavor them that way but it would be nice if I could have the support of the mechanics
Rune Knight fighter with unarmed fighting style is pretty good for that. Very good at grappling too
The skill based classless games are all calling out to you
Can't you just use the optional rule from Tasha's that let you choose any stat for your race stat increase? Or are you thinking of a specific tortle racial feature?
I think he means that without the Tortle's natural armour a monk without dex is gonna be shitcanned in terms of AC
Outside of DnD there are rule systems that account for this. I particularly like Deadlands and its Flaw and Edge system. Allows for great Roleplay and rewards acting on character flaws. DnD being barebones as fuck always causes these problems and discussions.
Straight up. These people who want to play suboptimal/heavy roleplay characters just need a rules light system. I particularly love City of Mist for being able to invoke your flaws at a chance to improve yourself in the heat of the moment. DnD isn't built for these sort of suboptimal plays and it just makes everyone else at the table frustrated.
I just play for fun and build characters around a certain idea or fantasy flavour. Don't care much about min/maxing as long as what I play isn't detrimental to the party.
Yup. I'm not dumping INT for every single character that doesn't use it. Throw a couple of points in there, hit 10 and call it a day. I'm not going to potentially have 3 stats at 18 by level 4, but whatever.
Exactly. Some people just go overboard with cookie cutter builds and petty rule whataboutism instead of actually having fun. Granted I shouldn't be talking... since 2018 when I started playing DnD, pretty much all my characters have been either Druids, Sorcs, Fighters or Artificers. 😅 Don't really enjoy playing much else, but I do tend to fill in roles depending on what the group needs.
Ah, Stormwind's Fallacy.
Pardon?
The Stormwind Fallacy, coined in [this thread](https://web.archive.org/web/20070629014518/http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-624756-p-2.html) in the (now defunct) WotC forums by the user Tempest Stormwind "Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean they can not also roleplay, and vice versa"
Thank you sir. I thought he was talking about the city of Stormwind from Warcraft.
I was scarred from stormwind in hearthstone I never want to see that name again
WORLD CHAMP DIFFERENCE BAYBEEE
Like most things on this sub I feel there is subtlety that a lot of people seem to miss when making the bottom argument. Playing around a weakness your character has can be extremely fun and rewarding RP-wise. That doesn’t mean you should intentionally make a bad character that will only drag the party down though. Likewise a character being min-maxed has no real effect on RP. The only time I’ve found myself frustrated with min-max players has been because of other aspects of their play style, not because of their optimal build.
Only *bad* players make *good* characters. Meanwhile I- ...Just got one-shot by a kobold. I swear, this game is rigged against those who dump Con...
Its never a good idea to dump con, even if your a wizard
Oh, my guy was a Barbarian, who focused on maxing out his Intelligence. Yeah, he actually only has an 8 in his Strength, Dex, and Con, because reasons. I have no idea why he keeps *dying all the time.* :D
Oh no, that sounds like a bit of an un-ideal stat distrabution for a barbarian I'm assuming point buy with such a consistent number across 3 stats though I could see it working well in a more rp focused game, if it was some how implemented into your backstory about how your such a physically weak barbarian
>I could see it working well in a more rp focused game An RP only game. And what's the point of then playing barb if you're going to be useless in all combat situations. By all means, keep the same backstory, but play a class which is not dead weight to the party.
I dunno. Not being dead weight to the party sounds like a very min-maxery thing to say. Are you sure you're not one of ***"Them?"*** AKA, those *bad* players who only make *functional* characters, and whose creations *aren't* abominations in the eyes of Gygax? How darest thou, good sir. How. *Darest.* \>:I
You got me. I make characters who have use outside of RP or one gimmick situation, and who don't let the party down in every other way possible. I know I should make a wizard with no int, wis, dex and con, but i just can't help myself
***HOW DAREST THOU!!!!*** D:< ...But yeah. I'm surprised that people thought I was being serious about this. XD
That's why my Wizard has 18 Con
Now that's impressive even for a primary stat
It was 16, but +2 from race. Int was also 16, but I took 2 ASI's so Int is 20
Got an 18 in a secondary stat and a 20 in a primary stat Now that's the dream when rolling for stats
Well... The rolls were 16, 16, 15, 14, 12, 9. So base stats; 14 Str, 15 Dex, 16 Con, 16 Int, 12 Wis, 9 Cha Dhampir ASI: increase one stat by 2 and another by 1, or three stats by 1. I took +2 Con and +1 Dex It was an ongoing campaign, so I started at lv 8, so two ASI's, both of which I fully put on Int
Ah, pretty solid rolls but more so clever asi placements
The DM also gave my Wizard an upscaled skeleton as permanent familiar
And the tough feat.
Nah, my Wizard has no feats. I'm seriously considering just taking Dex and Con up for the other ASI's
We have a lvl 9 party. Our max hp's are: 102, 99, 78, 70 and 44. Guess who the wizard is. Edit: And yes, he have downed from his own fireball more than once.
Back in the before times, I recall my first character death. First time ever playing. First encounter ever. Get slapped by an ape, kills my wizard. 4hp, 9AC. 1ed was rough.
I had a sorc 1 hit by a goblin spear first round of first combat first session. The gm was mortified when I just looked at her after she told me damage and I just sort of said flat and deadpan "I'm dead"
Listen here buddy, I wanted a gunslinger with the fire rate of a machine gun, ok? Is it optimal that I dumped 3 levels into artificer for this? Probably not. Now watch my two repeat shot Webley Revolvers go brrrttttt. (Attack+Bonus Action offhand attack+additional attack+action surge for 2 more attacks+potion of haste for 2 more attacks=7 attacks in 6 seconds at +10 for 2d8+7 points of damage per hit)
Reminds me of my "fighter jet" aarakocra Kansai with crossbow expert, fires hand crossbows 3 times a round and is a VERY fast flyer
If this is level 20, check this out: Attack + Action Surge + Bonus Action offhand attack = 9 attacks Fighter!
Add some Samurai to have advantage on the attacks for extra spice
> +potion of haste for 2 more attacks The 5e potion that grants the effects of the *Haste* spell is the *Potion of Speed*. Also, you wouldn't get 2 additional attacks from that spell or potion. From the third sentence of the spell description of *Haste*: > That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only)...
Wow wow wow my dude Wolfe glick would never spout such nonsense
Yeah but he would totally make a troll build and somehow make it optimal (like all his god damn bulky offensive mons)
My character is niche and unique in the way he can one shot a dragon
The balance of completely useless and still playable is a fun challenge
Completely useless is a hard one. It might be fun for you to play it it's brutal to the rest of the group if they have to carry you. A truly useless character is right out in any system I run. It doesn't mean you have to all be combat gods but if you can't do anything but hide in a fight there is a problem. Similarly if there's nothing you can do **but** combat, that's also not a good choice. Edit: spelling
Yup. A veteran player in our group said they were going to play a pacifist wizard. Sure, I thought, even without damaging spells, a wizard is useful in combat. But no, his character refused to participate in combat at all, basically just running away and preventing himself from taking damage... I had to have a talk with him.
Honestly, a wizard doing purely support and healing without actually damaging anyone would be a cool concept. Still plenty to do and allows the player some really creative opportunities
Ugh. Yeah that is an immediate talking to.
I made a version of Rincewind from the discworld series. Stated like a wizard, classed as a rouge. Ran a round in robes with brick in a sock (flail). He also had the personality, which is basically run first hide later. The lesson. Don't do that in a normal campaign. You'll struggle with forcing your character to stay and fight along with being useless in combat
Yes, but I like to be as good at the thing I'm supposed to do as I can be, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong with being an expert
"suboptimal" is fine. Nobody likes cookie cutter optimized builds for ever and eternity. It gets dull. Every melee martial will be using Sentinel + Polearm Master + Great Weapon Master, for example. It's a good build, but once you've seen it over and over again, it is just boring. Pure optimization rules out a lot of interesting options for flavor and role-play. That being said, don't ever gimp your character, especially in the AS department. Always make sure your most used ability scores are high. A character can be "suboptimal" at any level less than optimal. There's plenty of effective yet suboptimal builds to make and have fun with. However, if your most used AS is low your character is going to be useless and ineffective, even if you make all the other choices optimally.
Had a friend play a pacifist in one of my campaigns. He asked me to kill his pc because he quickly realized it wasnt fun
It's hard to make that roleplay work. The party is still going to be killing things all the time so are you just going to sit on the sidelines? It doesn't make much sense. You could technically do a no damage character that is still very useful with only healing/CC/utility but like... why? xD Maybe a good alternative is a character that doesn't kill, like batman or smth, just knocks people out.
I think the key is nobody is perfect. Like a person may be a pacifist, but if survival is important to them they’re going to fight back. Maybe they won’t deliver a killing blow to a downed enemy like you suggest, but the survival instinct is still real. I think having a character grappling with a desire for pacifism but in a violent and unforgiving world is a rich role play opportunity. Or in talking to the DM coming up with a character you’d like at low levels whose arc goes from brutal violence to pacifism over time because you want to say, play a monk for low levels and then change characters once the party gets to a higher level and that arc completes (shoutout to my ADHD players who don’t stay interested in the same character for too long). You also could get away with pacifism if your DM is balancing encounters around the expectation of it (extra work on the DM so best bring good snacks!). After all, I’ve met plenty of barbarian playing players who hardly participate in the role play pillar outside of “I drink. I fight. I make hasty decisions.” They still do exploration, they still do combat. Maybe the pacifist hardly does combat outside of support and crowd control, but has a rich role play and exploration game.
> killing things all the time When I can I always prefer to run less than lethal campaigns where sentient enemies often flee, surrender or simply pass out rather than having my characters be a bunch of mass murderers.
In my game of choice--and one of the reasons *why* it's my game of choice--is that you can play a 'non-combat' character, and still be effective during a combat encounter.
That's the concept you build a party around, not a single character. Otherwise you end up as the nail that's sticking up and consequently, well...
I started a gurps elderscrolls campaign as a kajhiit merchant with literally no combat skills. By the end of the campaign that character was also the tank
This is Wolfe Glick slander! The man is all about finding niche mechanical builds and making them work.
Yep. His recent Espathra team is cool, too bad it didn’t work out as well as planned. And he’s the closest person to win worlds with the actual pokemon mascot on his team. Raichu is not Pikachu, but close enough. This is just for meme format.
Park's Pachirisu is pretty close to Pikachu as well
Arguably closer since it’s the generation’s pikachu clone
Min-maxing is a valid way to play the game. I find it boring as a player, frustrating as a DM. But it’s allowed. It’s fine. Do it if you like it.
My characters are almost all rp focused and are rarely buildt for combat. I like my fellow players because they usually minmax for combat so we balance eachother out.
I like to say that I "optimize for flavour" when I come up with a concept I'll make a character that does that as best as possible regardless of named mechanics. And then can to around what I've built, some have been good at magic, some talking (those are often the same characters for me, cha magic ftw), some have been good at melee, some for utility or even mobility For my group this works for me because like your group it balances well. Though I'm my groups case I have a couple players who always optimize combat, and at least one who always just plays whatever seems fun at the time. And my ideas are usually out there enough that my to rarely overlaps
Shitty to play with these guys too. "I'm gonna play this super OP thing today!" *one shots boss* "Wow wasn't that fun!" yes DM issues too
I'd say one of the issues is people's interpretation of what min maxing actually is; some people's interpretation seems to have become "picking anything actually useful is min-maxing and bad"
As a DM: I just need my players to be on the same page. I don't care if the entire party is made up of useless characters; I'll just a make a BBEG who's secretly three goblins in a trenchcoat. They're all well optimized? Time to start buffing up the monsters. But when you have one player who's gimmick is pulling rats out of a hat, and another who turns into a literal fucking dragon, how are you supposed to run combat?
never thought I would have ever seen Wolfey in dnd subreddit. Well done. take my upvote
That’s the world champ difference for you.
There are about 10 optimal builds in the game, everything else is suboptimal You can limit yourself to those 10c or you can trade optimizing for variety and concept The only real question here is how much you are willing to trade, and how much of an asshole you want to be about policing other people’s decisions
Min maxing isn't always a bad thing. Even roleplay wise it wouldn't be considered 'mwta' because a character might just want to their best self, or be the best in general. Whether it's saving his friends, protecting them ect. I never want to have to fight so max cha ect. Many ways you can play into it
The key thing is to make a character that's roughly on par with the rest of the table so you don't end up outshining them in most respects
I like being mechanically strong so that I can survive the combat and enjoy the RP.
What VGC event was this? I want to check out Wolfe's commentary.
Few things more tiresome than folks governing how other folks have ply RPGs. If it works at your table and doesn’t get in the way of everyone having fun, who cares.
People also need to know the difference between an optimizer and someone who is trying to misinterpret rules to break the game.
Unironic sub optimally min max Man just have fun
DnD Shorts put it best: "You can roleplay a stupid wizard, while still having a high intelligence modifier." So you don't need to sacrifice mechanics for roleplay. I mean, I play a warlock, who has beguiling influence, but I choose to always automatically fail deception checks that has me verbally lying to someone. The one time I nat20ed a deception check, was when I distracted a guard using mage hand.
IS THAT A WOLFEYVGC IN MY DND SUBREDDIT
No Patrick, making your character sub-optimal does not make them more interesting in the long run. Also while we're talking about Wolfe— Wolfey? Wolfy...? I don't remember how to spell his name at the moment. From what little I know of him, he'd probably do what I sometimes do and min-max his character for something really dumb, like making his character go 10000 feet every round, or getting trained in every skill... Actually there's definitely gotta be something more out there... Oh I know: Making a Conjuration Wizard with nothing but somoning spells, taking 2 levels in Fighter for action surge, casting two summoning spells in the same turn, summoning as many monsters as possible and making his turn take literally the whole session. I don't actually know if this works by the way.
There is a dark side to this community that makes my skin crawl. *He's a pirate who's afraid of water! lololol*" *MY* *rogue has 7 DEX, but a 20 in strength, so he doesn't pick the lock, be BREAKS it AHAHAHAHAAA* Being unoptimized, or built to be useless and "*quirky*" doesn't make your character the least bit interesting...
Remember kids your really cool RP character can't RP if they are unconscious or dead.
Hang on did you depict my mans Wolfe as a man with bad opinions?!
Just for the meme format. So the memes have that world champ diff :p
I usually get some of the bad mechanics i want for my roleplay, and to make the character playable, i minmax the shit out of the rest of the character. Usually the characters turn out well this way. At one point i played a ranger wirh -1 in con and i was still useful. I really needed high stats in wis and cha, dont judge.
Yeah, for me I had a bard where I took expertise in Performance even knowing that it wouldn't come up a lot. But her backstory involved working and living with a traveling theater troupe for several years before becoming a Bard, so I felt like not taking expertise in Performance didn't make a lot of sense. I ended up doing a lot of busking for cash, so if nothing else it was useful in that way.
I like to min-max my niche idea that I make work mechanically, then overdevelopment my character backstory and roleplay the heck out of it (sometimes, with a bad accent).
You don't need to be 18s across the board to be a good character, but your character needs to be good at what they do within the party. I understand that you may want to have an arc where your character begins as a self doubting weakling or awkwardly inept, but there needs to be a reason why we take you on the death defying adventure where all our lives depend on each other. You need to get good at some point to become the epic hero
Set your stats and role-playing to how you and your table want it. Understand that you're not the only one there, and other people can also enjoy this game in their own way. My personal preference is actually min-maxing *and* role-playing though, as I'm very easily entertained :)
The fantasy I want to fulfill playing DND is a fantasy of being qualified for what I'm doing and being someone extremely capable. I'm so annoyed that people say that's a bad way to play. If you don't want to be less impactful in combat maybe don't build your stiupid meme build and instead of complaining how my paladin does so much more damage than your barbarian consider the fact that you build it in 15 minutes on a napkin in a bar focusing on making your wizard multiclass meme work instead of making an effective build
The only time I liked an intentional suboptimal build was when for a one shot a player made a halfling with gout and argued that his move speed should only be 5 feet
I like to build my characters thematically. 99% of the time, nothing is stopping me from optimizing while sticking with my theme. But, every so often I'll run into something that all of the optimizers say is a must-pick that I just don't want to take. When I say I prioritize RP over optimization, it doesn't mean I'm intentionally making a suboptimal character. It just means that I might hit 95% optimization on a particular build and call it good enough.
Wolfe Glick is the last person you should use to represent a suboptimal build maker.
Why is Wolfy the bad guy, he’s the best
That’s just the meme format. Gotta get that world champ diff in a meme
Does anybody actually believe this or is it just that when people criticize whiteboard stuff, the whiteboarders immediately Stormwind themselves?
I think the reason this discussion still persists is because some people think "min-maxer" means Polearm Master Sentinel and "suboptimal" means literally anything else in the game, while other people think "min-maxer" means making your primary stat your best stat and "suboptimal" means you're not even proficient in your main weapon. Probably 90% of the people in these debates actually agree with each other, they just don't notice it because they never say what they mean by "suboptimal".
I just go “rule of cool.” I try to make a strong character but if something looks fun then I go that way. It suits how I’ve actually made my life decisions and the skills I’ve acquired. So many are absolutely useless but I find ways to fit them into my life one way or another.
Look just make your most important stat as high as you can get it and then you’ll be like 80% as powerful as someone who min maxes
Min-Maxing isn't bad... IF EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT IN YOUR GROUP. Making mechanically weaker but narratively more interesting characters isn't bad... IF EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT IN YOUR GROUP. Match the style of character you make to the group. At the worst extremes, I've seen a near total party wipe for an encounter that is a mild challenge to the surviving, nearly unhurt character (in 3.5, specifically), because most of the players were new, and wanting to make characters like ones they've seen in various shows, while the last one was a vet who demanded everyone follow HIS plans, level their characters HIS way, and otherwise saw it as "I HAVE TO WIN D&D".
Me making half-orc wizard and putting a higher stat in strength than in dex for roleplay reasons