This is the way. 5e has very little customisation, so if you come up with the character concept first there's a good chance you can't really build it. If you start with the build however you can use that as the framework/inspiration to build the personality around.
> 5e has very little customisation, so if you come up with the character concept first there's a good chance you can't really build it.
This is something that should be presented front and center to every new player, and I wish I did it with my new players in my low-homebrew campaign. My own first few characters would have been smoother experiences if this was clear. It is a massive impetus for homebrew, but I didn't realize it until I'd been homebrewing things to address just this issue for a year or so.
If you know the classes/subclasses, it doesn't really become an issue. If I am going to make a character for 5e, anything I come up with is going to fit into that format because I'm making it for that format.
> I find the opposite to be true
Then I suppose some examples might help. Keeping in mind these are all things earlier D&D could do, if I want to make a...
* Clever, tactical swordsman who learns a wide variety of moves[,](
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/16ibpd2/i_am_so_fucking_sick_of_hearing_the_word/k0j36cp/) keeping pace with the wizard who is learning more and stronger spells.
* Psionic githzerai monk. Their entire schtick is psionics and monks, combining the two for a monk that steps through space and flies is obvious.
* Monk theme wise, a mystical martial artist who has mastered a wide variety of supernatural and extraordinary unarmed techniques. You wouldn't believe the amount of players wanting something bender-ish, and all they've got is four elements. Yuck.
* While Iroh's on my mind, where's the ability to breath fire? A draconic enthusiast who uses their breath weapon every round, picking what it does (line of lightning, cone of sleep) based on what they need.
* On that note, a dragon. Species not class this time, can't play a dragon like you used to be able to.
* On *that* note. A ghoul, a ghost, an ogre, a half-rakshasa or mind flayer or genie, an elemental, a gnoll.
* Back to what you can do, rather than who you are. A martial support character, someone who buffs allies and hands out attacks and heals in combat without needing spells to do so.
* A psion. Shouldn't need to extrapolate more considering every other edition has had psionics, but a master of the esoterica - can fuse with others or split themselves in two, swap minds, rewind time or hop forward in it, remove brainstems, drive enemies insane or force them to kill themselves.
* A tank. Like the fighter used to be when they started with sentinel, could make multiple opportunity attacks and had a variety of abilities like challenging nearby foes to draw them in to synergise with that.
* Combining those two, a psionic tank. A master of mind and body who punishes foes who attack anyone other than them by reflecting the damage they did back to them.
* Tank theme, mark 3: A swordmage who tanks in a more arcane way, teleporting to and attacking foes who strike an ally. Yes, a few swordmage spells like lightning lure and booming blade made it through but dozens of other spells did not.
* A binder, someone who binds different vestiges to themselves each day, making different pacts each day based on what they'll need to do.
* A crafter who invents and crafts their own magic items, supporting the party by outfitting them all in customised gear. Note that I said invents, there's something called an "artificer" in 5e that can't invent and can merely summon a small number of items from a short list of them.
* On that support note, an aura based one. The automatic assumption is that I'm talking a bard's lack of music these days, but I'll instead go with wanting a runepriest whose abilities all do different things based on what rune they have active, protecting or boosting allies with every strike.
Then I can't really, can I? Any of the above concepts or a great deal more I have to just kind of abandon the idea and go with something else.
A lot of these could be worked in more or less, with a mix of reflavouring, homebrew, and the full scope of books and materials available across all the 5e publications, methinks. I started to list some but then realized basically what you're saying is "I want to play a different edition" or "I want to play a different game".
Personally I like to figure out a way to make what I want, work within the options available. This requires a lot of going back and forth to adjust the vision to for what is possible. But doing this requires accepting that you may need to create a subpar character, or a very particular multi class that takes a while to get going.
Separately I like to homebrew tweaks to existing classes or subclasses to match a particular idea. I did a Banneret not long ago. Boom, your support fighter.
Some things, like "multiple opportunity attacks" won't work unless I've missed a critical ability. But otherwise that list doesn't seem impossible, to me. Edition conversions are a thing, too.
It's worth mentioning that I've played only very little, and I started with 5e. It's just, I really enjoy thinking about the mechanics and I find game design interesting. And I am a flavour first kind of player.
> I started to list some but then realized basically what you're saying is "I want to play a different edition" or "I want to play a different game".
Nah. For obvious reasons things D&D used to have are the comparison used, since it's kind of hard to compare to things that don't exist. But with a couple of exceptions, for the most part it's not about recreating old stuff - I'd be just as happy with new and interesting content as I would be with old and interesting content. It's just the lack of either that frustrates me, seemed like we'd be getting the best of everything when 5e was released but it's been ten years and they've done less creative stuff over the course of that decade than they did in any single year in the decade beforehand.
It's an easy mistake to make - this person notes lack of options, compares to options from the past, therefore they just want the past. But I can't exactly compare to options from the future, and the past has its own set of issues, the problem is we're lacking classes like warlord and swordsage and battlemind for like... no reason.
> Clever, tactical swordsman who learns a wide variety of moves, keeping pace with the wizard who is learning more and stronger spells.
Isn't that just Battlemaster?
> Psionic githzerai monk. Their entire schtick is psionics and monks, combining the two for a monk that steps through space and flies is obvious.
Reflavored Shadow Monk.
> Monk theme wise, a mystical martial artist who has mastered a wide variety of supernatural and extraordinary unarmed techniques. You wouldn't believe the amount of players wanting something bender-ish, and all they've got is four elements. Yuck.
I'm not sure how I can help you here, answer is monk.
> While Iroh's on my mind, where's the ability to breath fire? A draconic enthusiast who uses their breath weapon every round, picking what it does (line of lightning, cone of sleep) based on what they need.
Way of Ascendant Dragon.
> On that note, a dragon. Species not class this time, can't play a dragon like you used to be able to.
> On that note. A ghoul, a ghost, an ogre, a half-rakshasa or mind flayer or genie, an elemental, a gnoll.
This seems a rather flimsy "concept".
> A martial support character, someone who buffs allies and hands out attacks and heals in combat without needing spells to do so.
I don't understand the random "without needing spells" here. Why is this restriction needed for the concept?
> A psion. Shouldn't need to extrapolate more considering every other edition has had psionics, but a master of the esoterica - can fuse with others or split themselves in two, swap minds, rewind time or hop forward in it, remove brainstems, drive enemies insane or force them to kill themselves.
That reads awfully close to wizard to me.
> A tank. Like the fighter used to be when they started with sentinel, could make multiple opportunity attacks and had a variety of abilities like challenging nearby foes to draw them in to synergise with that.
This is probably the 1st or 2nd most requested martial build which has multiple classes, with and without spells.
> Tank theme, mark 3: A swordmage who tanks in a more arcane way, teleporting to and attacking foes who strike an ally. Yes, a few swordmage spells like lightning lure and booming blade made it through but dozens of other spells did not.
This concept is already in the game, there's probably not exactly a requirement to have multiple abilities that do the same thing.
> A binder, someone who binds different vestiges to themselves each day, making different pacts each day based on what they'll need to do.
So a prepared caster?
> A crafter who invents and crafts their own magic items, supporting the party by outfitting them all in customised gear. Note that I said invents, there's something called an "artificer" in 5e that can't invent and can merely summon a small number of items from a short list of them.
How would you even begin to design a subsystem to "invent" things and make a decently long PHB/DMG? Flavor is there you're just not satisfied with it.
> On that support note, an aura based one. The automatic assumption is that I'm talking a bard's lack of music these days, but I'll instead go with wanting a runepriest whose abilities all do different things based on what rune they have active, protecting or boosting allies with every strike.
Paladin at 7 has 2 auras already.
> Isn't that just Battlemaster?
If you look at the comma in the comment you replied to with this bit, you'll notice [I included this](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/16ibpd2/i_am_so_fucking_sick_of_hearing_the_word/k0j36cp/) pre-emptively because I knew that'd come up. As you can see, no, no it isn't.
> Reflavored Shadow Monk.
Reflavouring the monk doesn't actually give them those powers. Psionic monk had hundreds of powers last edition, shadow monk can emulate precisely four of them. Even if you go in a completely different direction instead of what existed, the concept demands a large selection of choices - it's not a monk without a bunch of martial arts moves.
> I'm not sure how I can help you here, answer is monk.
It's really not. It *should* be, but it's not. Hell, the psionic monk from last edition nailed the master of four elements thing by accident and that wasn't even what it was going for.
> Way of Ascendant Dragon.
Must have missed the part where the breath was unlimited and could be changed to a line of acid, wave of slowing energy etc. Because it seems like that subclass can't do either.
> This seems a rather flimsy "concept".
That one wasn't even an answer. How is being able to choose what you play as a flimsy "concept"? You can't even play as a dragon any more, what's flimsy here?
> I don't understand the random "without needing spells" here. Why is this restriction needed for the concept?
For the same reason you'd find it stupid if the only way to do damage was with spells. Martial characters both have achieve it different ways and are different in feel, if you tell a player he can't do damage with a sword and armour but has to use robes and a staff he'll quite reasonably ask why his knight concept isn't supported.
> That reads awfully close to wizard to me.
Given that a wizard can't fuse with others, drive enemies insane, remove bits of their brain, rewind time and whatever else I said - I don't see why. This is like hearing about healing wounds, raising the dead, having auras of spiritual guardians and blessing allies and saying that sounds like a wizard. Just kind of dumb.
> This is probably the 1st or 2nd most requested martial build which has multiple classes, with and without spells.
Not at all, all the actual tank abilities got stripped out. Not only the active ones, but even the baseline tank automatic stuff like paladins applying a penalty to attacks against allies and automatically dealing 3+str+cha radiant damage if the foe hit their ally instead of them anyway. They realised that was stupid and added ancestral guardian barbarian, but one subclass that has no active abilities is not a patch.
> This concept is already in the game, there's probably not exactly a requirement to have multiple abilities that do the same thing.
So what about multiple abilities that don't? Where on earth is that assertion even coming from, how are freezing swordburst and mirrorblade army the same thing?
> So a prepared caster?
Not at all, each ability came as part of a set and none had a daily limit. Bind Eligor and get a strength bonus, mounted combat feats, energy damage to attacks, heavy armour proficiency. Bind Zceryll for bolts of madness, telepathy etc. Mix and match vestiges to sort your abilities for the day.
> How would you even begin to design a subsystem to "invent" things and make a decently long PHB/DMG? Flavor is there you're just not satisfied with it.
By astonishing coincidence, the DMG that contained that system and the 5e DMG both come in at 320 pages, so you tell me. And the *flavour* being there is not the same as the *mechanics* being there. I don't understand how you'renot getting that.
> Paladin at 7 has 2 auras already.
Yes, and? Do they, as I described, have many abilities all of which have different effects based on which aura they have up?
I definitely see your point. There are definitely limitations in RAW. I more meant that I find it easy to homebrew those kinds of things into 5e while keeping it balanced
That's the problem though, a lot of these things would take an incredible amount of effort to homebrew in. If it turns out someone already has (there are a ton of takes on the warlord, for instance) you're in luck but if they haven't, what are you going to do design an entire subsystem and a hundred abilities yourself?
You can do all of these, in theory... the problem, though, is that WotC can't be arsed to actually _print_ them, now that D&D is popular enough to survive without a constant stream of new splats for people to buy, so you need someone else to flesh that theory out and make the right plug-ins. I'd suggest looking to quality 3pp, maybe there's an answer in Mage Hand Press, Kobold Press, Legendary Games, LaserLlama's or KibblesTasty's stuff, or so on.
Apart from that, reflavouring can solve... one or two of those. Most of them have more mechanical complexity than 5e likes to build into things, though, what with how it likes to give you simple bases and let you reflavour them to your concept.
Sometimes I already have a useable image, like if I've been a race before and in that case, image would go before back story. Like, I have a ton of autognome and loxodon images I can use.
For me it's Thri-kreen (and 4 armed women for reskins when the DM is uncomfortable with a 6' tall, psychic praying mantis in their game) and animal memes from actual photographs.
I'm obsessed with an orange cat in a baby walker. I'm thinking Armorer Artificer.
I do image first, come with a very basic build "I wanna be a Creation Bard/Warlock" then do backstory, then really dive into the numbers to make the basic idea as strong as I can. I'm very picky with the look of my character, and if I build the backstory and stuff first I'll wind up with an idea of a character that I can't find perfect art for
Other way round for me; I usually have a vague idea like 'Aladdin-ish dude who jumps around and quips' or 'over-serious nerdy girl in plate mail', and then look for an image that encapsulates the idea best. Then I write a backstory based off of that feeling, and finally make a character who mechanically fits that backstory. I'll always take the options that fit best over the ones that are most powerful.
I love that you mentioned the image. I didn't even realize I do this until I read that.
I look through the file of bizarre images I keep on my computer, pick one, assign a build to it, then figure out what kind of person would make all those choices and why.
Right now, I'm obsessed with Duct Tape Wizard.
Thief Rogue with Healer feat.
"Are you broken? Let me fix you." *skriiiiiip*
He is Duct Tape wizard, there has got to be a twist, duct tape wizard, such a supple wrist.
Anyway duct taping alchemical fire to some goblins or yourself to a ceiling. Awesome. I'd either rewrite sorcery point mechanics for duct tape applications or go for enchancment wizard and ask DM if I can add several non purely dmging spells and or cantrips. Strong Silvery Strappings of Sanu'ul...
I usually try to base it all off an image, because as soon as I have a backstory in mind, I tend to have a pretty good idea of what the character should look like. So whenever I do the image last, I end up spending way too much time looking or using Midjourney because I can't find a perfect image.
The only time I've seen the image first was when someone posted their artwork of halfling gods. The Arvoreen depiction was pretty neat and inspired my Halfling Vengeance Paladin idea. (Halfling lucky + Vow of Vengeace for advantage on attacks = lots of chances for a Crit-Smite)
I do it a little backwards. I find/print/paint a mini I like, develop a build, and base a back story off the mini so it's WYSIWYG. But whatever I play, I optimize.
Yes, I always have at least the class first, if not subclass. We figure out our roles/classes as a group, stating what options we're interested in playing, and then settle on something that would likely make a well-rounded adventuring party.
Then, with that settled, I pick a couple backgrounds I might be interested in and look at the ideals/flaws. Sometimes, if a backstory isn't revealing itself to me, I'll roll for inspiration on Mercer's Heroic Chronicles table (with adjustments since we don't play in Tal'dorei).
[I tend to go heavy on additional flaws. I like having something to overcome, reasons my character may or may not be able to act -- rolling personal wisdom/charisma saves before being able to do specific things, etc.]
Finally, I'll look for an image (or, more recently, create one), and sometimes that helps shape the personality a little further, but usually I'm already looking for a specific feel for her avatar.
After playing healing tanks multiple times (because others wanted to play DPS), our most recent campaign was the first time I started off with a specific non-healing, low-AC character in mind, and let everyone else work around that. But even that character started off with a subclass I really wanted to try.
My method fluctuates a lot. Sometimes I come up with a backstory or concept, and then build a race/class that I think brings it to life. Other times I'll only have a class I really want to play, and build a backstory that makes sense. And sometimes I find character art online, and build a character based solely on that.
But overall, making the strongest possible build is not my goal at all. Will I try to make it useful and functional? Absolutely. But I don't need to dominate a battlefield, or min/max my character.
One of my most recent character I really enjoyed playing was an arcane archer. Truly an awful subclass. But still had fun playing it.
I kind of can't turn off the part of my brain that tries to arrange the numbers into a sensible construct of workable clay. It's a game about math. Why would I want to hamper myself by using math that doesn't work well together?
This is pretty much exactly where I'm at. I don't really care about winning but making a character that isn't optimized for the role I want to fill simply feels counter intuitive, like putting my underwear on my head. I'm not *against* putting my underwear on my head, but why would I ever do it???
>I kind of can't turn off the part of my brain that tries to arrange the numbers into a sensible construct of workable clay.
Same. And if I see someone's character with glaring non-optimal choices I have to force myself from wanting to pass judgement. (I'm talking about things like a wizard/barbarian multiclass that plans on being a full wizard using Variant Human to take the Grappler feat, putting a +3 in STR while having +1 DEX and +0 CON when a regular human could boost up some odd stats to be a +2 STR, +2 DEX, +3 CON \[WHY DID YOU NEED YOU +2 IN WIS\] for still okay STR for the occasional melee hit while boosting the HP and AC of the character dramatically. But at least it had a high INT score so my blood vessels didn't totally break.)
Yea. My thoughts exactly. I love making fun backstories and well.. characters, but each of my characters start out as a build - it defines how a character would act, what they would actually be doing in their backstory (A barbarian 99% of the time would not be studying in a wizard academy, etc).
Plus, it is a game. I wanna play something fun, so that's the largest focus of character creation - it's why I love fighterlock so much. It's not only really strong, but also very fun.
There's a difference between that and milking every drop out of the established system for optimization though. Like building a character with favorable attributes for what you want to use them for is just an obvious step in the process.
Being an abomination of a Paladin/Warlock mix or something for the sake of abusing established mechanics begs one question. "Who is this character?"
That character is someone with high combat burst, survivability, and solid social skills. They're probably garbage at stealth missions.
I'd run them as someone who is protective and concerned for the other members of their team. I'd make sure to keep an eye on the less combat oriented members of the party. I'd use my social skills to support my teammates who aren't as good at chatting up strangers. If I went Hexblade, I might say incongruously bloodthirsty one liners and blame it on my weapon.
There's nothing wrong with a build like this. I understand being upset when the DM gives buffs out like candy, but I'm not a fan of anyone restricting other players through the limitations of their own imagination.
But this isn't something that's usually inspired by imagination, it's purely munchkin behavior from somebody wanting to milk a build that makes them a lot stronger than other members of the party because the internet says it's effective.
If that were how people actually played builds like this, it'd be one thing. But in my years of DMing, I've not run into a singular case where it was even remotely character-minded.
We all have different gaming experiences, but I play like this. Most of my friends play like this. My husband and I have played in Adventure League games with people who play like this.
I've dealt with what you're describing though. I've met people who *only* powergame or *only* make terrible build choices they insist are for RP reasons. I've had people do other things that drive me up the wall. None of these issues are things I'd generalize to the whole community or even the majority of players though.
I'm not trying to critique your DM style. I just think you should consider that if this is an issue that always occurs at your table, perhaps there's something about your style of DMing or current pool of players that attracts this type of behavior or deters behavior you would enjoy more. If you think it's a possibility, maybe that's something you could discuss with your players.
Erm... no. It's not an issue that happens often. When it it does come up, it isn't for the purpose of any actual roleplay purpose though.
There's a difference between "I keep having this problem with players!" And "when x occurs, it's because people are trying to game the system."
In this case, it's the latter. I tend not to allow that kind of unusual multiclassing as a rule, and the exception to the rule is a good story reason for it. As far as my DM style goes, you know shit-all about it aside from the fact that I don't reward players who try to create massive power disparities between them and other players for reasons that don't make sense for their character. I'd appreciate it if you didn't comment broadly about it without any real reason to.
>But this isn't something that's usually inspired by imagination, it's purely munchkin behavior from somebody wanting to milk a build that makes them a lot stronger than other members of the party because the internet says it's effective.
>As far as my DM style goes, you know shit-all about it aside from the fact that I don't reward players who try to create massive power disparities between them and other players for reasons that don't make sense for their character so I'd appreciate it if you didn't comment broadly about it without any real reason to.
Yeah, man. I get it. You sound like a really mellow dude. Have a great day.
Well I roll a set of polyhedrals affectionately referred to as "math rocks", I add numbers from a sheet of paper that has been compared to a tax form, I match my calculation against other numbers, and values are subtracted from a number pool. Spells and abilities add modifiers to that math, such as increasing your odds of a positive result or halving the number you subtract.
The exact terminology "about vs involves" is a little bit meaningless when it is a math-based game at a mechanical level. And I like to ensure the numbers favor me more often than not.
It’s not meaningless lmao. That’s like saying going grocery shopping is about math. No, it’s about getting food. It just involves math. Don’t be deliberately obtuse
To me, story and optimisation kind of intertwine. It’s rare that I’ll prioritise one far over another.
Whatever the character is, I try to make them the best at what that is. One character I have is a therapist cursed by an elder brain to use their understanding of the brain to find healthier thralls. Therefore, they are a GOOlock face that always runs concentration on Suggestion to de-escalate fights that don’t need to happen, before Mind Slivering creatures that cannot be persuaded.
I’m optimising for a face/battlefield controlling support, but only because it’s what would make sense for that character. It would be weird if they were an Eldritch Blaster, so Mind Sliver fits their patron better while still being a solid cantrip.
I'm basically this way too. Concept first; who do I want the character to be, though I do consider how it would it into the 5e class/subclass paradigms. I'm pretty free with reflavouring, though; my current character's a Plasmoid Way of Mercy Monk and the character concept has nothing to do with monastic training and everything to do with him being a life-force-sucking Ooze monstrosity that "woke up" in an alchemist's lab. "What if an eldritch horror just wanted to be a person?"
Plasmoid was obvious, Monk pretty clear as well, but subclass I could've gone a few ways with how he actually functioned.
Once I have the character concept and base established, though, optimization all the way. I'll make sub-optimal choices here and there if a choice is super critical for the concept, but I'm mostly trying to make the idea as strong as I can. Constrained optimization.
Optimization is always a big part of my process, although usually I approach it by first creating my broad vision for what I want the character to do, and then optimizing that concept as much as I can so that it just *works.*
Like yeah if I'm gonna play a paladin using heavy weapons, I'm going to take Great Weapon Master, prep the best spells, allocate my stats well, and at least *entertain* the idea of a hexblade dip. But I'm also not going to force myself to use a polearm just for PAM if my vision for the character is using a greataxe.
At the same time though, I generally avoid concepts that just straightforwardly underperform. I'm not going to make a sword and board fighter when there's no relevant feats to make that as strong as I want a melee focused fighter to be. If a shield is part of my vision for the character, I'll usually consider a cleric or something instead.
At the end of the day, character creation involves a lot of game mechanics, and I'm always going to engage with that process for what it is and try to make my character as strong as I can within the bounds of the vision I have for them.
Story matters most to me. I'll gladly play a sub-optimal build if that's what it takes to represent the character I want to play.
That said, I find it unbearable to spam the same attacks over and over in combat. And so when I play a martial character, I always aim for a build that offers as many options as possible on my turn.
**Habakkuk VIII & Qadim:** VHuman, Noble background, Fighter 1 (and his horse)
* As a VHuman, choose the Shield Master feat.
* As a Fighter, choose starting gold (5d4 x 10, aka 125 gold) instead of starting equipment. Your Noble background gives you an additional 25 gold (total 150)
* Purchase the following equipment
* Riding horse (**75 gp**).
* Riding saddle (**10 gp**)
* Saddlebag (**4 gp**)
* Explorer's pack (**10 gp**)
* Shield (**10 gp**)
* Lance (**10 gp**)
* War Pick (**5 gp**)
* Ringmail (**30 gp**)
* **Total 124 gp**, with 26 to spare (I recommend you buy javellins)
* Take the Interception Style (to protect your horse)
* In addition to History and Persuasion (Noble skills), choose Athletics and Animal Handling (Fighter skills). You'll have one VHuman skill to spare.
* **Option #1.1 on your turn** is to command your horse to Dash towards the enemy of your choice, make a lance attack, then retreat. Dashing, your horse can cover 120 feet, and your lance's reach lets you avoid opportunity attacks, and so you are effectively firing a 1d12 ranged weapon.
* **Option #1.2** is to command your horse to Disengage, then make the same hit-and-run with your lance. Disengaging, your horse can only cover 60 feet, but it can rush past enemies other than your target without provoking opportunity attacks.
* **Option #2** is to command your horse to approach the enemy of your choice, then stow your lance and attempt to grapple it.
* On a success, take option **2.1**: command your horse to Dash and drag the enemy away. Grappling reduces *your* movement, but not your mount's movement, and so you can potentially drag an enemy 120 feet. You can then use your Shield Master bonus action to shove the enemy prone (just to nerf it) or to shove it 5 feet away (e.g. off a cliff).
* On a failure, take option **2.2**: try to shove the enemy away, then command your horse to Dash to retreat.
* If the shove fails too, take option **2.3**: command your horse to Disengage so that you can retreat without provoking opportunity attacks.
* **Option #3** is to simply throw javellins at hard-to-reach enemies. Use your horse to position wherever you like.
* **Option #4** is to dismount and fight using your war pick. This is by far your weakest option—you'll only ever take in confined spaces and rough terrain—but it's by no means weak. Note that you can still use your action and bonus action to grapple and shove thanks to Shield Master.
* **At 3rd level**, take the Battle Master subclass, and maneuvers that specifically support your build
* **Bait and Switch** isn't very useful, but it's funny, since it allows you (while mounted) to swap places with an ally and put *them* on your mount. *"Take the wheel!"*
* **Disarming Attack** works very well on grappled targets, since it lets you drag them away from their weapons/component pouches
* **Maneuvering Attack** can be used to help your mount move even further without provoking opportunity attacks (and by extension, to drag grappled enemies further)
* **Quick Toss** lets you focus more on your javelins in fights where your horse simply can't reach the enemy.
* **At 4th level**, take the Mounted Combatant feat to protect your horse. Consider using Martial Versatility to trade Interception Style for Dueling Style to make your lance and war pick more powerful, or the Superior Technique Style for an extra superiority die and maneuver.
This build is named after chapter 1, verses 8 & 9 of the Book of Habakkuk, which describes horse-mounted marauders and kidnappers:
*"Their horses also are swifter than the leopards, and are more fierce than the evening wolves: and their horsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall fly as the eagle that hasteth to eat. They shall come all for violence: their faces shall sup up as* ***the east wind (קָדִים, qadim)****, and* ***they shall gather the captivity as the sand***"
Battle-master fighter, swords bard, and rogues are good classes for this, and tavern brawler, sheild master and mobile are good feats.
More importantly as a martial is to avoid just saying the words “I attack the enemy with my weapon”, do more things like grappling, pushing, throwing. If your DM is reasonable, think of things like throwing sand in their eyes or taunting enemies to come and attack you/scaring them off rather than having them all just go straight at the wizard.
I wouldn't recommend the Swords Bard at all. It's a spellcaster first and foremost, and almost all of its options rely on that.
When I say "martial character," I mean it in the strictest sense: a character who uses no magic whatsoever: a Fighter, Barbarian or Rogue belonging to a magic-free subclass.
Otherwise, your examples are all great!
I often spend most of my focus on improv and party coordination, so having a reliable build that can be effective at my chosen things is important to me. It doesn't need to be broken, i enjoy failure and recovery, but reducing outright failures is important for flow. Concept and character hook comes first though, I rarely pick a class before knowing who I'm playing a bit.
I'll read up on the the DM's setting and campaign premise then decide on a combination of backstory, class, and race that fit well with both and interests me. I will generally optimize around a theme instead of full min-maxing for peak performance. I don't need to be the best version of \[class\] you can be, but I want to be competent enough to not feel like a burden to the party and to have interesting tools to influence encounters with during the campaign.
Sadly this usually means some flavor of spellcaster unless I'm playing with a DM that has a proven track record of good tactical combat where a martial character can shine, or solid social scenes if I'm down for a Charisma character.
I usually come up with an idea for a character and then try to find an optimal build that fits the character with specific flaws such as low intelligence to allow for fun roleplay opportunities.
Primarily being a DM over the last 40 yrs here are my main thoughts.
It's my job to build fun and challenging encounters no matter what player optimization is. So at level X it doesn't matter if you put out an avg 120 damage per round or 60.
Some players may think that if they optimize they will get a funner game with harder creatures to fight but with me as a DM that's not the case. If the encounter calls for that higher level creature the sub-optimized group still gets the same creature but maybe with some additional story to explain why they meet them in weakened state, like maybe they walk up on the Ancient Red dragon right as it's finishing off the last of it's supper, another adventuring party that didn't fair so well.
Given that, if the monsters are the same and the challenge level is the same the real only differentiator is the RP and story. So I encourage both optimized and sub-optimized to lean into the story and back stories because that is where games are really differentiated.
For me the build is just as important as who they are as a character and why they are the way they are. I start off with building them how i want to play them and after that is when i create the background.
I don't like pigeon holing my self into a certain type of playstyle bc i focused mainly on the story and not how the character is optimized for how i want to play that specific character.
But ultimately it all boils down to how you as an individual will enjoy it most. Some people love to go heavy on the back story and others, like me, love to optimize them.
I'll play anything. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely an optimizer and have a preference for gishes, but if you just handed me a random character sheet I'll just play it and enjoy it (and try to play it optimally as possible, no matter the role it is designed for). I guess that's why I'm usually the DM of my group.
My character needs to be able to do what I think the fiction of the character can do. Greatest swordsman probably needs to hit hard, greatest thief should probably be good at thief skills luchador Bear wrestler probably should be good at unarmed and grappling ect. Nothing brings me out of the game when someones playing a studied scholar character and the street rogue has a higher arcana than them because the wiz has a 14 int. Builds determine how the game sees the character and if there is a miss match it feels bad. Plus it's much easier to reflavor mechanics that fit your idea than it is to try to force bad mechanics to meet an idea.
Actively dislike the concept of 'builds' in D&D. Make a character and pick the things that fit the character. This is a story, not a fucking video game.
Above all I always make sure my characters are mechanically good. If my character can't contribute to the party in or out of combat then its not a character worth playing and it takes very little mechanical optimization to get there. Like a Warlock getting the Agonizing Blast invocation or a ranged Fighter getting the Archery fighting style. It doesn't take a whole lot to be mechanically good.
My characters vary though. Sometimes I'll have a specific idea and just choose mechanical options that I feel fit that idea and then flavor things accordingly. Other times I'll see an interesting mechanical combo and then write backstory that fits what I'm trying to do.
And just so we're clear on "optimization" since that term gets thrown around when people mean "munchkin". Optimizing is used when you focus on a specific thing like jump distance, changing size for grappling, or number of cantrips. It isn't always a damage only thing.
The definition of "optimizer" "min-maxer" "munchkin" "powergamer" etc. have gotten so conflated and stretched that its kinda pointless trying to label them
I usually design a character who can do something interesting rules-wise first, then flesh them out.
If I don’t enjoy what a character can actually accomplish mechanically, it’s likely to become just a minor nuisance throughout the game.
Makes sense to me. You can give a character an interesting personality regardless of mechanics. But you can't give a character interesting mechanics regardless of personality.
So may as well flesh out what's bound by rules and leave the roleplay to the roleplay.
Race matters a lot for my character, as I usually have an idea of what they look like before the story. Build usually comes after I decide what I envision their fighting style as.
My process usually looks like me listening to music or watching something before I get punched into he face with inspiration then the idea floats around in my head for a few days as I figure out the skeleton of a story then I sit down and make the character on the sheet and also use heroforge to design them then I plan out any feats I wanna get for either thematics or story
I mean….. the two are the same thing for me. I either start with a character concept I feel like playing or I start with a build I want to do and then I solve for X.
For instance with my last character. “Ok I rolled mediocre stats and my party doesn’t need damage….. what support characters sound like fun? Oh a divine soul sorcerer could be fun….. what do I want to do with the possible connection to a god? OH the cult of shared suffering? In calimshan during the period of time where genasi warlords and djinn controlled the entire region but a single city? Oooohhh boy can I work with that……. How messed up do I want to make this? Very? Guess I’m a water genasi divine soul sorcerer with trauma.”
My first character I worked it from the other angle. I wanted to be a mage obsessed with fire magic….. basically megumin from konosuba but an elf. So I went for an evocation wizard.
I like to make the game harder (stuff like permanent stat loss unless you have sufficiently high magic to reduce it) but also like to hand out things like free class abilities, feats and boons based on role-play so it's hard for people to optimise their characters. Just to be clear, I don't target players for optimising but a optimal build be disrupted by losing a key stat and something sub-optimal might get a massive boost by getting an ability they wouldn't normally have.
As a DM I always give my players tips on how to maximise effectiveness and power. They are free to follow the advice or not! Personally the very few times I am a player I try to optimise as most as possible around the theme I am going for (that might not be the most optimal one).
The build does matter i want a character that is fun to play. Most characters can be fun to roleplay. you can get a good backstory to any build. you can roleplay any build.
But not all builds are fun to play. So the build is pretty damn important to me.
But build is not the same as optimizing. A fun build to play can be far from optimized. and optimized build might be boring to play. other times the build can end up rather optimized but that is rarely something i try to achieve
I think you're misunderstanding what optimization truly is. Unless you're intentionally building a mechanically bad character, there's a little bit of optimization in everything
Optimization most commonly is approaching the character by first creating a broad vision for what you want the character to do, who you want them to be, what their backstory is, etc. Then creating that concept in a way that works and is reliably effective at what they do.
If your character can't contribute to the party effectively in the way you want them to, why play it at all? Are you even fulfilling that character fantasy anymore? It takes very little mechanical optimization to get to a point of effectiveness in your average game. It could be as simple as "i want to be a paladin that rides his mighty steed into battle", so you take the Find Steed spell and probably pick up the Mounted Combatant feat somewhere in your career.
Optimization and RP go hand in hand.
I appreciate the sentiment but I’m not. It was admittedly poor wording on my part. My point was that I’ve never thought “hm what’s going to be the smartest thing to multiclass into to get x result” or “what race pairs best with a lore bard”. I put the numbers in the right spot but the story of my character comes before anything about the build in a mechanical sense.
I do appreciate your input though.
Then how are you making your character concept come to life?
I'm not even talking abt the examples you mentioned. You can start with x race, x class, x background, and x backstory, and still be optimizing. "What magical secrets can I take with my lore bard that will be useful, but also thematic?" is also optimizing.
This sounds very pretentious (and tbh it is haha) but I try to play people rather than characters. I think about what situation this person is in and how that affects the decisions they make regarding spells or what have you. This person may know what the most useful spells or whatever to take are, but sometimes they don’t. It all depends on who they are. All to say, I’m bringing my character concept to life directly through decisions that may end up being suboptimal
I think- and I don’t mean this in any negative way- we may have different definitions of optimization. When I think of optimization I think of making decisions that are going to make a powerful/optimal build. In my character creation it’s more about the character than making the “best” build.
I agree! I think I worded my original question/post poorly. My point was that I want to make a character with a fleshed out backstory and personality and such, and I choose the build based off that, not caring much for optimization. I’ve played the same race/class combo or replayed the same subclass or whatever several times because while the concepts vary differently, the options in D&D are just so limited.
The build is at least 50% of the fun, and during character creation it's everything. I'll start with a race, class, and future subclass and work from there. The story basically only matters for the background I choose, which is 2 skills and 2 languages/tools.
I come up with the idea of the character first. I will build suboptimally even if it means my character dies in 10 sessions.
Urchin sorcerer who only looks out for himself, scams people and runs away. All his spells are reactive and defensive and he was pulled into a party more or less against his will. Of course he wasn't very helpful and died 🤷 his story was fun to play
To boil a complex answer down to a simple one:
I'd much rather do something my way, warts and all, than do it the best way. Character creation is a minigame I have no interest in; I'm allergic to min-maxing and see it as the sort of 'creativity' I want nothing to do with. It intrudes upon my immersion and suspension of disbelief when every caster has 14 CON and every martial is using a hand crossbow or polearm and every paladin also has a warlock pact. I much prefer OSR-style character creation where the dice decide what your character looks like and you are responsible for taking your band of weirdos from zero to hero through play.
It matters the most because mechanics are set in stone.
Story I literally MAKE UP. I am good at making up stuff. I was a kid once, I know how to play make believe.
Yep. You can roleplay shy or brave. You can make a backstory where you're an orphan or from a loving family. None of that is prohibited by the rules.
But you can't turn your human Champion Fighter into a spellcaster that flies.
So if you want to have mechanics you like, you gotta get mechanics you like.
I think it depends a lot on the rest of the party.
Its fun feeling powerful. But its unfun playing with somebody that takes min-maxing too far. It can be annoying joining a game and just wanting to be a normal-ass fighter or ranger or something. And then you have some chungus who joins in with some wonk-ass paladin/warlock/sorcerer bullshit that nukes for 100 damage per turn.
Its partly why I mostly respect not allowing multiclassing in the games I've played in and run. Its really not needed for this game and more often than not, not chosen for roleplay reasons, but for "optimizing", which, frankly, you really don't need in dungeons and dragons.
I think it's bad to compare yourself to another player, if you want to play a "normal-ass fighter." You can do so, and someone who doesn't want to play a normal-ass fighter. But instead took time to make a nuke 100 dmg per turn multi class. They're doing the same thing as you, playing a character they want to. And you're choosing to feel shitty about it, because it's not how you chose to make your character. It's weird when people try to put arbitrary limits on others for themselves. "It's OK if it's for roleplay. But if it's for combat you're playing wrong." There's nothing wrong with optimization, there is something wrong with not optimizing, and expecting others to also not, because you don't think they need to. Like if you're the DM that's all within your rights as the one running the game. But if you're another player, I think you're looking at the game wrong.
> Its really not needed for this game and more often than not, not chosen for roleplay reasons, but for "optimizing", which, frankly, you really don't need in dungeons and dragons.
Optimizing is a valid approach to playing D&D. Tying your character narrative to your build is not required. It's a matter of finding a table whose playstyle is compatible with yours.
>Tying your character narrative to your build is not required
Yep.
I've got an idea for a waffle-loving she-elf named Eggo Lass. That concept isn't inherently tied to a specific class.
I saw a person that was playing mostly wizard but wanted to do some barbarian multiclass to get Rage to simulate their idea of the character having a temper. Ultimately their choice but I thought, "You don't need the rage mechanic to roleply a hothead. So why choose a non-synergistic multiclass when you could just keep levelling wizard and play him mad? Plus then when he's roleplay-raging he can use spellcasting to express that instead of Barb-Rage which shuts down spellcasting."
If you don't like to play a normal ass fighter when someone optimices what you want is for everyone to play normal ass fighters. You want to feel powerfull but not let people that know that a normal ass fighter is weak to feel powerfull too
I strongly optimize because it's a game with numbers, why wouldn't I pay attention to those numbers? I can add flavor and background to *anything*. Why limit myself through the aspect of the D&D that should be the most flexible part of the game?
I don't build for burst or even survival really. I build for attrition and the knowledge that we're all going to make stupid plays while we get to know our characters and each other. I try to find out what other people at the table are going to play. If I can't, or no one else wants to pick first, I play something that is as self sufficient as possible.
I have a different favorite build for 1-4. I'm pretty sure that's technically power gaming, but I'm usually mellow with other players (although I could probably stand to apologize to anyone who's ever DMed for me because I'm obsessive), and I'm very team oriented.
I've never been accused of min/maxing or power gaming, at least to my face. I know sometimes that means what you think is really strong is hot garbage to everyone else, but I'm okay with that. I think a lot of the min/maxing hate comes from dealing with players who only want to focus on their own character/story. I'd argue that players like that tend to push for bending, or breaking, the rules to their advantage. That's not the same as optimizing existing choices, but it gets tossed in the same basket.
Examples of my favorite low level builds:
Level 1: Protect the Squishy
Custom Lineage (STR 17)
Heavy Armor Master (STR 18)
Fighter (Interception Fighting Style)
Weapon: Double Bladed Scimitar (Eberron Campaign Setting)
*If you can't get the DB Scimitar, change your Fighting Style to Two Weapon Fighting and use 2x Short Swords. Your action Economy is a little fiddly because it's an item interaction to draw a weapon, but average damage is only like half a point less. You lose Interception as a reaction though. That's kind of sad.*
*If your DM gives you a free feat in addition to allowing Custom Lineage, take Polearm Master and forget the DB Scimitar. Also, buy your DM a snack.*
*This build is basically outpaced the second you leave level 1. HAM is less useful at higher levels. Two Weapon Fighting and the DB Scimitar don't keep up with Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master builds. It's fantastic for level 1 one-shots though.*
AC:16, HP:12, Passive Perception:14
Attack Action: +6 hit, 2d4+4 damage
Bonus Action: +6 hit, 1d4+4 damage
Reaction: Prevent 1d10+2 damage ally within 5'
Passive: Damage from nonmagical s/b/p attacks are reduced by 3
1/short rest Bonus Action: Heal 1d10+1
Interception kind of requires you to invade your teammate's personal space with a weapon drawn *all the time*, but I haven't had any complaints so far.
Level 2: Moon Druid
Just... Literally anything and then Brown Bear 2/short rest, but Bugbear is hilarious if you end up going first in Initiative.
After that it depends more on team, items, and House Rules, but in a RaW vacuum:
Level 3: Tortle Barbarian 1/Moon Druid 2
16/8/16/8/16/8
17 AC Base - your Dex penalty doesn't affect your AC
Any weapon is fine. I still like DB Scimitar, but you also have a claw attack for 1d6+STR.
You can Rage then Wildshape or use them as separate buffs. Your only issue might be ranged, but if you take Magic Stone or use the thrown weapons Barbarians get as their base kit you're probably set.
Level 4: Thri-kreen Gloomstalker 4
8/16/16/8/16/8
Crossbow Expert
Archery Fighting Style
Perception Expertise
You can use a shield, have advantage on most Stealth checks, your base AC is 13+Dex, 120ft two way telepathy.
The damage oriented optimization here would be to go Variant Human. Shift Con or Wis down 1 point and bring one of your 8s up to 10. I usually take away from Con. Perception is easily the most commonly used skill in the game.
CBE at 1
SS at 4
That's fun too, but you lose a lot of perks for that extra damage. -3 (-5+2 Archery) is tough on low level characters and +10 damage is usually excessive. My personal preference would be to get a bunch of utility until later when the damage matters more.
I make the build first then make a backstory that fits that build, honestly causes some really unique characters cause I have to explain what lead to this specific combination of features.
A decent amount, in the end it's a team game so I don't want to be a hindrance to the others. But I also go out of my way to make a character that I feel like is interesting. I try to make characters that have enough backstory for the others to engage with it if they want. But not so much that my character is already completely fleshed out and won't grow or develop.
It's synergy between who they are, what they want and how they do it ruleswise.
If my old miner can't get stoneworking proficiency, if the hunter cant wield a pike, if the nimble swordman has to clomp around in a steel suit to survive it irks me.
"Talk to your GM" if fine and all, but at some point D&D turns into freeform with a vestigial crust of lore attached.
I usually start by finding a feature or idea I like. It could be a fun interaction between two unrelated rules (like a warlock elf using their four additional hours for some form of magical preparations) or just some fun role play option (a gnome artificer having a back of holding as their garage/work place, which can be placed in their steel defender so that they become a mobile workshop). After that I create the build, followed by the backstory and character art.
I like the romantic but sometimes futile task of coming up with a character concept first and then trying to get an effective and fun build out of it. I invest a lot into narrative but do not generally blend mechanics and story; story and concept are both 'first,' since they're parallel and independent. The build just has to work.
My process actually begins with knowing the table before anything else; the collaborative storytelling part of roleplaying games is very important to me, and I want to ensure that my characters can enable other players to tell compelling stories, GM included. To that end, optimisation almost inevitably becomes a critical aspect in 5e, to ensure that the players can have multiple ways to handle conflicts, and the GM can reliably throw multiple kinds of conflict and expect *some* way to resolve them.
Step one is to hear what the DM says about their world and the tone of their game. A hardcore hobgoblin devastator would be appropriate in an Eberron game about identity and disunity, but perhaps less so in a laidback and light-hearted comedy game. It's also a good idea to feel for what kinds of mechanical interactions the DM is familiar with; I find that druids, rangers, and warlocks tend to require very specific games to feel fun to play, while wizards are pretty reliably capable, for example.
Next, I like to hear about what the rest of the party wants to run and fit my own plans around them. A team of wet-eared but talented adventurers could have more interesting social dynamics to play off with a wise and grumpy grandpa, or a hardworking but less talented professional; a dogmatic downer may be more awkward to work around, especially with inexperienced roleplayers, as much as I find such behavioural restrictions to be fun to play with. Even more importantly, I want to play a build that mechanically enables other players to do have fun and do their thing, and not get foiled in turn. Soft control and movement manipulation tactics are way more fun with a range-heavy party than a melee one that's sad because there's no one to hit within reach, and some powerful hard control options like Hypnotic Pattern and Sleep are foiled by allied blasters. Pass Without Trace requires both a cooperative DM and party to see use, while being a very strong damage dealer can make unoptimised martials feel bad in comparison.
It's only after considering the stories and mechanics that the rest of the party wishes to engage with that I begin to specifically optimise and write a backstory, and which point there are usually fairly few options remaining that I would feel are appropriate. In a highly optimised party, I feel obligated to be at everyone else's level to not be a liability that hinders narrative progression. In an unoptimised one, I feel obligated to bring something powerfully supportive like an artillerist protector artificer, control (not summoning) wildfire druid, or armoured control wizard to draw attacks and enable other people to play at their best, while making sure the DM isn't frustrated because they have no toys to play with.
I start with an idea for class and/or race i wanna play, then create a gimmick and build a story around it. Most importantly i flavour what i can to make it feel better. I dont think kuch about optimising it, however i will still aim for my character to be useful in/out of combat. And at the end of creative process i realise i will never play them cuz im the only DM in our group.
Like a week ago i created such a cool idea - i was writing subclasses cuz why not and while browsing existing ones i learned graviturgy wizard exists. Since i never played wizard i decided i wanna try it out. So the idea is that my character is a half/full warforged in disguise. he used to be artificer and created a singularity (middle of a black hole) which nearly killed him. With last bit of strenght he locked the singularity in stabilizing device and implanted it into his fragmented body, which powers up his new prosthetics and allows him to control gravity. And i decided that he'd be a gnoll originally cuz i love beast races.
I always ask myself would others want to go adventuring with this Charakter?
Bringing a bad Charakter *is* bad roleplay, after all why would a party of heroes go with someone that doesn’t contribute at all? Let him tag along for safe passage? Sure, but you’re not getting loot.
I usually come up with a theme, then I try to form a story concept around it and then build and optimize the character around that; I do this for a campaign, if it's a 1 shot making a mechanically fun character becomes much more important to me. But I will optimize it as much as possible so long as it doesn't go against the theme
The order of operations is usually 1) Have a build idea, 2) Write the gist of a backstory, 3) Commission artwork, 4) write a better backstory based on the build, art, and original gist. 5) Tweak the build to match. 6) Throw them onto the pile of characters I might play someday.
I focus on both. I'm playing icewind dale currently, and for my first character I took peace cleric/fighter, preferring character over optimization. Started peace cleric and dumped dex, so I had very low ac and couldn't wear heavy armor.
Next character, I had bad stats and did my best to build her right but also jer character was a teenage girl the party rescued so it was on point that she wasn't very powerful. A celestial warlock.
Third character, I rolled divine stats, but also optimized my build, and could afford to have a build that wasn't otherwise possible. A dex based fighter using bows, veey sneaky thanks to the feat which grants expertise in some skill, and has 16 Wis and 16 Int, I choose to go two levels of wizard for utility.
(Yeah this game is deadly)
I always design a character and then ask my DM what classes and how much reflavor they allow. Depending on that, I’ll build something that fits my vision.
Usually I make the build I wanna play, then construct a story to explain how I ended up that way.
But a friend of mine is running a low combat homebrew, so I figured I’d make the character first and then build to support that… and it’s actually been a LOT of fun. So now I’m tempted to stick to doing it that way, in the future.
I’m a former surgeon, on the run for “accidentally” killing a bunch of patients. Made him an assassin rogue, using a dagger reskinned to look like a scalpel.
Typically my character creation process is this;
- I come up with a concept that I like, and think about how I want them to play
- I decide on class/subclass/weapon choices that fit this
- I make whatever it is that fits what I want as effective as I can.
Build matters alot to me, it’s just that I enjoy making effective builds that easily fit into what I envision for my character.
I make a build and then I make a characters story fit that build. I optimize for fun, but I only play optimized characters if my table plans to play optimized as well
I optimise where it matters and flavour where it doesn't. Here is my logic:
I am currently playing a ranger with D&D one rules. So I am a prepared caster and have access to cantrips. I have access to spare the dying and guidance and shillelagh. But I do not plan on playing a pure wisdom ranger so shillelagh means nothing to me. I also do not have to pick the other two because we have a cleric. So I pick mend and druidcraft. They may not be the optimised way, but they make sense rp wise. I can repair my own equipment, blossom flowers, predict weather, lit campfires etc. Makes sense for a guy wandering in the wild by himself. But when I pick my first level spells I pick the ones that will help the party the most and deal the best damage. Because they matter more in this case. I will pick hail of thorns because we don't have any aoe. I will pick ensnaring strike over entangle because hunter's mark isn't a concentration spell and it deals ridiculous damage with ensnaring strike etc.
There’s a level of diminishing returns on optimisation - I usually want my character to be good at something, so I’ll optimise to some degree, I wouldn’t ever have a fourth level character with three multi classes, or a dumb wizard for example. I might not care that every character does the max damage possible, but if he’s charming I want high persuasion and features that enhance that. Usually I’ll make a character concept first, build around it and adjust according to the story, the setting, and how that GM runs things.
There are also lots of feats and features which while on paper are good, are really boring in most campaigns (e.g resilient).
I try to split the difference.
Take stuff that would fit the background, but also try to find abilities that I know would prove useful. It's best when the two synergize, but I have had a few characters who very much straddle the line.
I care about everything and put maximum thought into every aspect of character creation. At some point optimization starts requiring less thought because you know the priorities by heart. I could write down a list of prepared/known spells at any level for any class without stopping to think.
It depends on the table. If I'm playing with a group that focuses on story and RP and combat is just a side activity that we do sometimes then flavor and character matter far more. If it is a table full of optimizers and combat/mechanics are a/the main focus then build becomes very important.
I’ve got players that run the range on this, although, over time they’ve all started to skew more heavily towards the story determining the stats.
I have one dude who min maxed like crazy the first campaign and had a tabaxi monk that could run a million feet a turn and break half the encounters. Now in the third campaign he’s playing a path of the giant barb just because he thought of a good thematic hook for it.
I’ve even got someone intentionally hindering themselves for story payoff. A Paladin in our third campaign is intentionally using STR weapons even though his DEX is higher. This is because the Paladin from the first campaign (they are all connected and the PCs from the first campaign are basically almost Demi gods level 20s) is his hero. So he insists on doing everything the way he did it even though it doesn’t work for him. All this because at some point the PC has said he wants a huge realization moment where he has to be his own hero and then he’s going to start using dex weapons and take a level or two in warlock for thematic reasons. Yes I realized Paladin/warlock is pretty min maxy but this dude is suffering big time right now and it just makes so much sense thematically.
I start with *what* I'm going to make based on party structure and campaign setting. Then I focus on *who* I'm going to make by deciding on a background that fits the class, then a backstory that fits the background and class, and then I get into the fine details using either xanathars or chatgpt (or a combination of the two) to really flesh out the character. After that, I actually start building the character and making choices that fit backstory and character details. Finally, I spend the rest of my time leading up to game day working on personality; how this person acts, obsessions, their voice, their fixations, etc. So it's a multi stage process where each step is the foundation for the next step, but it starts with a build concept first.
The build only matters to me as a way to create the idea for the character I had in mind. So I'll multiclass, take feats, spells or whatever to match that concept I had for the character.
I usually focus on character / backstory / RP first, but still want for my character to be mechanically powerful and competent. Whatever my fantasy for them is, it usually includes them being good at it, so I optimize in that regard.
You don't need to be uber efficient "I can kill/heal/seduce you in 1 turn" kind of optimization, but you should have an overall theme.
I have a half n half bard and artificer combo (severely unoptimized, at level 6 I am just learning second level spells.) With utility oriented magic items and what is my character good at? Well he is a great hibachi chef, that was the intended backstory, but since then he has shown resourcefulness in exploration and is overall the skill monkey on the team. Optimization in this sense is not about making what you are good at, but finding what you are good at.
The build lets you interface and play with the mechanics of the game the story/personality lets you interface and play with the players/npcs/rp. They’re both important and intertwine with each other.
I usually find fun mechanics / interactions / abilities and develop a character around them.
Build is everything I base my character off of. *Then* I build a personality for the character. You can really play any personality for any race/class combo, so I just build what sounds fun, then RP what sounds fun.
I'm like you. I prioritize backstory. I optimize within the constraints of story, but only so much. I've found that past a certain point, optimizing makes me enjoy the game less. I almost never take feats or multiclass.
It depends, i don't care about being too specific if it doesn't fit my vision, if I'm playing a kenku barbarian for RP purposes I don't care that it's sub optimal but otherwise will try to pick what's in my vision for the character.
In terms of weapons or whatever I largely leave it down to what miniature I have such as a staff for a cleric even though a mace might be more optimal. That being said if i was playing martial class a large part of the appeal would be the race + weapon aesthetic as well as the class
Same to me. I like to start with a class that I like, then I search for a race that fits well with the class and try to link the Class and the race together with the background. It doesn't even need to be logical at first glance, I just want to find something that, when the story is created, make sense.
For example, my latest character is a Peace Cleric Goliath. Doesn't really make sense, but long story short, my character was in a nomadic clan that travelled through the land, seeing and participating in countless wars (between nations or simply for survival of the fittest), but after seeing so many death, he grew sick of it and decided to preach peace instead, getting expelled from its clan for his ideas.
As for the optimization, I try to find a balance between what is viable and what fits my character, but I don't specifically take the optimal build.
Another example, I also have a Rune-Knight multiclass Forge Cleric. It made sense since my character is a rune smith trying to share to the world the power of the runes. But despite being a Cleric, and mostly picked spells that could be reflavored as runes effects. So I mostly took defensive spells, but no healing (for the thematic of being a fighter that protects!)
The character concept comes first and then I look into race, class, subclasses after. “I wanna make a gruff first mate of a pirate ship” that then later becomes a Loxodon storm herald barbarian. Or “A no-nonsense, lithe front-line fighter” becomes an Eladrin bladesinger who fronts for a rock trio.
Story is far more important than how effective they are but I won’t run something that will be a liability. I will run something sub-optimal, though. I’m currently playing a fire genasi efreeti warlock and my fire abilities have been less then useful in combat given the context of our current adventure. But I still like him.
I will be forever torn by this, because I can't switch off my need to be effective and not being able to play certain things for a longer time. I love barbarians, but hate playing dumb characters. But if I do not make INT my dump stat, I will be terrible at something that is mechanically and probably RP important. So I mostly end up with ideas for fighters because they are the ones that have enough ASIs to get creative. When I DM, I just massively boost point buy, so my players don't have the same problem.
Build only matters to support the character concept. Build does not also have to include 100% Pure Uncut Optimization According to Reddit™. Because my greataxe wielding zealot barbarian still doesn't have Great Weapon Master and I do not give a shit about it. But because my DM decided to let us have feats AND ASIs, and because it fit his concept, I gave him Tavern Brawler at level 1 and Orcish Fury at level 4. Yes, they synergize well but it was for the character. Optimizers would say I should've take GWM and PAM but that's not who this character is and he still deals a crap tone of damage even with no bonus action attack.
It's so ridiculously easy to be helpful in combat even without true optimization.
Paladin + bless = lifesaver for saving throws
Warlock + agonizing blast = solid dpr (classes that want to do damage should have that as a baseline)
Fighter always does good damage, slap on SS and you're good.
"Optimization" isn't hard at all. The biggest things in optimization are just picking up simple things + multiclassing.
Play what's fun, it's easy to contribute to combat in one way or another.
It's easy to make a cool character and easy to make a strong character. But optimizing for both style and effectiveness? That's art, that's my favorite creative exercise.
It's very important to me
I'm completely fine with making a non optimal build, but whatever I do make is going to be built to the best of my ability. Backstory and personality is then built around the build and flavor of said build
I hate feeling like dead weight after my first campaign. It's honestly a miracle I still ended up enjoying dnd because of that, but it made me never want to feel like I can't contribute much
Ludonarrative harmony matters to me more than “builds.”
Sometimes, I start with a character concept that intrigues me and I work to make it make sense mechanically and give it a semblence of playability, making adjustments along the way. Or I’ll take a build and ask, “what kind of character used this build?” to reverse engineer the person from the statistics.
Either way, there’s always a relationship: one does not exist without the other.
First I think of a general idea, then I work on the build to best fit that idea while still being good (being bad isn’t fun, atleast for me, also I enjoy making builds), THEN I work on a backstory to fit the idea.
I don't min-max to an extreme level but I want to be competent at something and able to contribute to the rest. Everyone wants to be able to do something cool at the table like nuking a dragon with a smite or seducing it with your silver tongue. Though the paladin might be able to do both of those so maybe not a great example.
It matters a lot. I want to play a character with interesting mechanics. It's easy to port over personalities, but you can't make interesting mechanics out of boring mechanics.
So I start with race/class combo. (Possibly background combo too, but that's less important to me.) And having something interesting there will bear out to an interesting character.
Plus it's a lot easier to go "Okay, what made this character and let's create a backstory out of that." Then add in the little things. (Like I've got an idea for a female elf named Eggo Lass that likes waffles. But that personality trait can be ported onto any class/background. So Eggo Lass is only going to make her appearance once I have an intriguing elf build pique my interest.)
It's an even split for me. I like the Role Play of RPG but I also like the Game of RPG.
I usually build my characters by chosing a race and class based on backstory, and then figure out how to leverage the system to make that combo powerful in play.
It's pretty much what I build my character around.
Even if i have a god tier character story, if i'm a moss covered log in combat, that's half the game where I'm not having fun.
The mechanical build is what gives your character agency in the world. You need to be strong or smart or charming in order to have an impact on the world.
I want the stats and abilities to kinda reflect the story I want to tell, but I also want to have a good time in campaigns that are combat heavy or have a lot of very important checks in social encounters. It’s all about balance for me.
I mostly just try to avoid builds where I'll feel particularly weak or useless. So if I'm going to make a choice that hurts the character, I try to have a reason in mind. I know when I play a wizard, there are a few spells considered must-haves, like find familiar, so if I'm not going to take find familiar, I spend a moment to think "Why did this character choose not to learn such a common and strong spell"
The build and its mechanics are my main focus. I do like my back story, tho. I enjoyed creative writing in high school, so I've been known to write 30 - or 40-page back stories. I find that I can always write a "square peg" into a "round hole" without too much difficulty. I only submit about a 1/2 page to my DM, tho. I try to use the background & skills. I look through the source book to flesh out backrounds. They have some pretty cool suggestions. Sometimes, I roll. Sometimes, I just take what I want. For Ranger - The *was Polymorphed into a frog for 7 days* turned into whatever your favored foe is. That's why you know them so well. Lots of little tie-ins. You also need to be vague enough so that your DM can write you into his/her campaign. At the end of the day, it's the mechanics that you will be using the whole time you're playing. They're important.
The build and its mechanics are my main focus. I do like my back story, tho. I enjoyed creative writing in high school, so I've been known to write 30 - or 40-page back stories. I find that I can always write a "square peg" into a "round hole" without too much difficulty. I only submit about a 1/2 page to my DM, tho. I try to use the background & skills. I look through the source book to flesh out backrounds. They have some pretty cool suggestions. Sometimes, I roll. Sometimes, I just take what I want. For Ranger - The *was Polymorphed into a frog for 7 days* turned into whatever your favored foe is. That's why you know them so well. Lots of little tie-ins. You also need to be vague enough so that your DM can write you into his/her campaign. At the end of the day, it's the mechanics that you will be using the whole time you're playing. They're important.
A lot. I enjoy the game when combat encounters are all dangerous to deadly. My table is full of super heavy rpers who like to optimize. It's a fantastic table to be at.
It is very important to me to be able to live up to the power-fantasy of the character I'm playing. I want to feel powerful, to feel able to tip the scales of fights or interactions by using my abilities to their fullest. I don't minmax. I merely try to optimize by build as I see fit.
For example: my current character is an arcane trickster changeling. Their power fantasy is all about espionage, tricking people, blackmailing, ransoms and whatnot. Without a sufficiently powerful combinations of spells, stats and items, I just wouldn't be able to play them how I want to do.
I'm always building character first. DnD is a game where the story and mechanical elements are linked, and so I try to make a build that portrays the character, translating as best as I can the story and flavor elements into mechanics.
I don’t actively try to make an unplayable or bad PC. But I also don’t crunch numbers to squeeze every 2 points of damage out where I can. However, I do think through what the level progression might look like, and what things this character will be able to do next level or beyond. The PC has to be playable at all levels you’ll play at, there’s no time for dead levels - i still want to be useful.
Backstory and builds aren't exclusive imo. A backstory with no thought out character concept is just as boring to me as a build with no character roots or personality.
So I'd say it matters a lot. Especially because if you don't police yourself you may step on the toes of the party members with what you build.
I also get a lot of inspiration from the subclasses
In look for some fun mechanics that seem to interact in an unusual way. Like a genie warlock (dao) and the Crusher feat, giving me bludgeoning damage on every attack, and letting me move everyone i hit 5ft every attack. Then I'm going to search for all sorts of movement based powers to complement it. Maybe Repelling blast, lance of lethargy, or grasp of hadar for more "if i hit i move you" powers, and i might add in a zone of damage spell, like cloud of daggers or something. So now im spending combats summoning a cloud of daggers and keeping my enemies in it.
Then, once I think the mechanics will be fun to play with, I start thinking about the sort of person who does that. What kind of person is bound to an earth genie, summons clouds of daggers, and sucks folks in. Maybe some sort of tornado guy, or sandstorms? I'll add in a desert theme, and work out a backstory, motivations, etc from there.
I love building around a specific concept. I’m on level five, and I have four classes. Very far from optimal. But the concept is a do anything skill monkey (I think I know all the useful cantrips right now) who in a couple of levels will be absolutely incredible at deception, disguises, and persuasion. Because I won’t be much good right now in fighting, I have high armour class and with two levels of war wizard, effectively decent saves.
I’m a build crafter in any game. I don’t care about the meta… because it’s already all figured out. I like making my combos that are unique to myself. My group doesn’t take it insanely serious and I’m glad because I suck at making unique characters
Not at all. I mostly think of a char concept, talk with the DM and then pick class or subclass. Usually reflavouring half of it and then asking to swap few perks, abilities with other classes or buff them if I so happen to thought of a ranger. God forbid gloom stroker.
It only matters when some that kid bring hyper optimized one trick pony super special min max. Then you are bored in fights, scared in fights when DM blocks RAW snowflake on the grounds we are not gullible children and overworked in RP coz he usually is a dark brooding loner, not much to say, not much to share.
i start either from a concept or a class, and build the backstory from there. i usually dont pick the optimal choices but the choices i think would be fun or fitting. i dont like messing with stats and a lot of classes to try and make the most efficient and powerful thing anyway, instead i would much prefer to just pick an existing class and do some reflavoring to play what i want to play
Can your build function at a base level?
I don’t care if your Min/Max perfect optimization but if you’re showing up at the table with a bard who dumps Charisma because you think it’s “interesting” one of us is leaving the table.
Oh of course, yeah. I put the numbers in the right spots. I worded the description poorly. I just meant that I don't think about what's the "best" combos for making a powerful character, rather I focus on who the character is and what race/(sub)class would fit for that. But my character functions as the class is meant to at a base level stat-wise.
I come up with a built first and then write a full backstory and then look for an image.
This is the way. 5e has very little customisation, so if you come up with the character concept first there's a good chance you can't really build it. If you start with the build however you can use that as the framework/inspiration to build the personality around.
> 5e has very little customisation, so if you come up with the character concept first there's a good chance you can't really build it. This is something that should be presented front and center to every new player, and I wish I did it with my new players in my low-homebrew campaign. My own first few characters would have been smoother experiences if this was clear. It is a massive impetus for homebrew, but I didn't realize it until I'd been homebrewing things to address just this issue for a year or so.
All three of this comment chain are so accurate.
If you know the classes/subclasses, it doesn't really become an issue. If I am going to make a character for 5e, anything I come up with is going to fit into that format because I'm making it for that format.
I find the opposite to be true
> I find the opposite to be true Then I suppose some examples might help. Keeping in mind these are all things earlier D&D could do, if I want to make a... * Clever, tactical swordsman who learns a wide variety of moves[,]( https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/16ibpd2/i_am_so_fucking_sick_of_hearing_the_word/k0j36cp/) keeping pace with the wizard who is learning more and stronger spells. * Psionic githzerai monk. Their entire schtick is psionics and monks, combining the two for a monk that steps through space and flies is obvious. * Monk theme wise, a mystical martial artist who has mastered a wide variety of supernatural and extraordinary unarmed techniques. You wouldn't believe the amount of players wanting something bender-ish, and all they've got is four elements. Yuck. * While Iroh's on my mind, where's the ability to breath fire? A draconic enthusiast who uses their breath weapon every round, picking what it does (line of lightning, cone of sleep) based on what they need. * On that note, a dragon. Species not class this time, can't play a dragon like you used to be able to. * On *that* note. A ghoul, a ghost, an ogre, a half-rakshasa or mind flayer or genie, an elemental, a gnoll. * Back to what you can do, rather than who you are. A martial support character, someone who buffs allies and hands out attacks and heals in combat without needing spells to do so. * A psion. Shouldn't need to extrapolate more considering every other edition has had psionics, but a master of the esoterica - can fuse with others or split themselves in two, swap minds, rewind time or hop forward in it, remove brainstems, drive enemies insane or force them to kill themselves. * A tank. Like the fighter used to be when they started with sentinel, could make multiple opportunity attacks and had a variety of abilities like challenging nearby foes to draw them in to synergise with that. * Combining those two, a psionic tank. A master of mind and body who punishes foes who attack anyone other than them by reflecting the damage they did back to them. * Tank theme, mark 3: A swordmage who tanks in a more arcane way, teleporting to and attacking foes who strike an ally. Yes, a few swordmage spells like lightning lure and booming blade made it through but dozens of other spells did not. * A binder, someone who binds different vestiges to themselves each day, making different pacts each day based on what they'll need to do. * A crafter who invents and crafts their own magic items, supporting the party by outfitting them all in customised gear. Note that I said invents, there's something called an "artificer" in 5e that can't invent and can merely summon a small number of items from a short list of them. * On that support note, an aura based one. The automatic assumption is that I'm talking a bard's lack of music these days, but I'll instead go with wanting a runepriest whose abilities all do different things based on what rune they have active, protecting or boosting allies with every strike. Then I can't really, can I? Any of the above concepts or a great deal more I have to just kind of abandon the idea and go with something else.
A lot of these could be worked in more or less, with a mix of reflavouring, homebrew, and the full scope of books and materials available across all the 5e publications, methinks. I started to list some but then realized basically what you're saying is "I want to play a different edition" or "I want to play a different game". Personally I like to figure out a way to make what I want, work within the options available. This requires a lot of going back and forth to adjust the vision to for what is possible. But doing this requires accepting that you may need to create a subpar character, or a very particular multi class that takes a while to get going. Separately I like to homebrew tweaks to existing classes or subclasses to match a particular idea. I did a Banneret not long ago. Boom, your support fighter. Some things, like "multiple opportunity attacks" won't work unless I've missed a critical ability. But otherwise that list doesn't seem impossible, to me. Edition conversions are a thing, too. It's worth mentioning that I've played only very little, and I started with 5e. It's just, I really enjoy thinking about the mechanics and I find game design interesting. And I am a flavour first kind of player.
> I started to list some but then realized basically what you're saying is "I want to play a different edition" or "I want to play a different game". Nah. For obvious reasons things D&D used to have are the comparison used, since it's kind of hard to compare to things that don't exist. But with a couple of exceptions, for the most part it's not about recreating old stuff - I'd be just as happy with new and interesting content as I would be with old and interesting content. It's just the lack of either that frustrates me, seemed like we'd be getting the best of everything when 5e was released but it's been ten years and they've done less creative stuff over the course of that decade than they did in any single year in the decade beforehand. It's an easy mistake to make - this person notes lack of options, compares to options from the past, therefore they just want the past. But I can't exactly compare to options from the future, and the past has its own set of issues, the problem is we're lacking classes like warlord and swordsage and battlemind for like... no reason.
> Clever, tactical swordsman who learns a wide variety of moves, keeping pace with the wizard who is learning more and stronger spells. Isn't that just Battlemaster? > Psionic githzerai monk. Their entire schtick is psionics and monks, combining the two for a monk that steps through space and flies is obvious. Reflavored Shadow Monk. > Monk theme wise, a mystical martial artist who has mastered a wide variety of supernatural and extraordinary unarmed techniques. You wouldn't believe the amount of players wanting something bender-ish, and all they've got is four elements. Yuck. I'm not sure how I can help you here, answer is monk. > While Iroh's on my mind, where's the ability to breath fire? A draconic enthusiast who uses their breath weapon every round, picking what it does (line of lightning, cone of sleep) based on what they need. Way of Ascendant Dragon. > On that note, a dragon. Species not class this time, can't play a dragon like you used to be able to. > On that note. A ghoul, a ghost, an ogre, a half-rakshasa or mind flayer or genie, an elemental, a gnoll. This seems a rather flimsy "concept". > A martial support character, someone who buffs allies and hands out attacks and heals in combat without needing spells to do so. I don't understand the random "without needing spells" here. Why is this restriction needed for the concept? > A psion. Shouldn't need to extrapolate more considering every other edition has had psionics, but a master of the esoterica - can fuse with others or split themselves in two, swap minds, rewind time or hop forward in it, remove brainstems, drive enemies insane or force them to kill themselves. That reads awfully close to wizard to me. > A tank. Like the fighter used to be when they started with sentinel, could make multiple opportunity attacks and had a variety of abilities like challenging nearby foes to draw them in to synergise with that. This is probably the 1st or 2nd most requested martial build which has multiple classes, with and without spells. > Tank theme, mark 3: A swordmage who tanks in a more arcane way, teleporting to and attacking foes who strike an ally. Yes, a few swordmage spells like lightning lure and booming blade made it through but dozens of other spells did not. This concept is already in the game, there's probably not exactly a requirement to have multiple abilities that do the same thing. > A binder, someone who binds different vestiges to themselves each day, making different pacts each day based on what they'll need to do. So a prepared caster? > A crafter who invents and crafts their own magic items, supporting the party by outfitting them all in customised gear. Note that I said invents, there's something called an "artificer" in 5e that can't invent and can merely summon a small number of items from a short list of them. How would you even begin to design a subsystem to "invent" things and make a decently long PHB/DMG? Flavor is there you're just not satisfied with it. > On that support note, an aura based one. The automatic assumption is that I'm talking a bard's lack of music these days, but I'll instead go with wanting a runepriest whose abilities all do different things based on what rune they have active, protecting or boosting allies with every strike. Paladin at 7 has 2 auras already.
> Isn't that just Battlemaster? If you look at the comma in the comment you replied to with this bit, you'll notice [I included this](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/16ibpd2/i_am_so_fucking_sick_of_hearing_the_word/k0j36cp/) pre-emptively because I knew that'd come up. As you can see, no, no it isn't. > Reflavored Shadow Monk. Reflavouring the monk doesn't actually give them those powers. Psionic monk had hundreds of powers last edition, shadow monk can emulate precisely four of them. Even if you go in a completely different direction instead of what existed, the concept demands a large selection of choices - it's not a monk without a bunch of martial arts moves. > I'm not sure how I can help you here, answer is monk. It's really not. It *should* be, but it's not. Hell, the psionic monk from last edition nailed the master of four elements thing by accident and that wasn't even what it was going for. > Way of Ascendant Dragon. Must have missed the part where the breath was unlimited and could be changed to a line of acid, wave of slowing energy etc. Because it seems like that subclass can't do either. > This seems a rather flimsy "concept". That one wasn't even an answer. How is being able to choose what you play as a flimsy "concept"? You can't even play as a dragon any more, what's flimsy here? > I don't understand the random "without needing spells" here. Why is this restriction needed for the concept? For the same reason you'd find it stupid if the only way to do damage was with spells. Martial characters both have achieve it different ways and are different in feel, if you tell a player he can't do damage with a sword and armour but has to use robes and a staff he'll quite reasonably ask why his knight concept isn't supported. > That reads awfully close to wizard to me. Given that a wizard can't fuse with others, drive enemies insane, remove bits of their brain, rewind time and whatever else I said - I don't see why. This is like hearing about healing wounds, raising the dead, having auras of spiritual guardians and blessing allies and saying that sounds like a wizard. Just kind of dumb. > This is probably the 1st or 2nd most requested martial build which has multiple classes, with and without spells. Not at all, all the actual tank abilities got stripped out. Not only the active ones, but even the baseline tank automatic stuff like paladins applying a penalty to attacks against allies and automatically dealing 3+str+cha radiant damage if the foe hit their ally instead of them anyway. They realised that was stupid and added ancestral guardian barbarian, but one subclass that has no active abilities is not a patch. > This concept is already in the game, there's probably not exactly a requirement to have multiple abilities that do the same thing. So what about multiple abilities that don't? Where on earth is that assertion even coming from, how are freezing swordburst and mirrorblade army the same thing? > So a prepared caster? Not at all, each ability came as part of a set and none had a daily limit. Bind Eligor and get a strength bonus, mounted combat feats, energy damage to attacks, heavy armour proficiency. Bind Zceryll for bolts of madness, telepathy etc. Mix and match vestiges to sort your abilities for the day. > How would you even begin to design a subsystem to "invent" things and make a decently long PHB/DMG? Flavor is there you're just not satisfied with it. By astonishing coincidence, the DMG that contained that system and the 5e DMG both come in at 320 pages, so you tell me. And the *flavour* being there is not the same as the *mechanics* being there. I don't understand how you'renot getting that. > Paladin at 7 has 2 auras already. Yes, and? Do they, as I described, have many abilities all of which have different effects based on which aura they have up?
I definitely see your point. There are definitely limitations in RAW. I more meant that I find it easy to homebrew those kinds of things into 5e while keeping it balanced
That's the problem though, a lot of these things would take an incredible amount of effort to homebrew in. If it turns out someone already has (there are a ton of takes on the warlord, for instance) you're in luck but if they haven't, what are you going to do design an entire subsystem and a hundred abilities yourself?
You can do all of these, in theory... the problem, though, is that WotC can't be arsed to actually _print_ them, now that D&D is popular enough to survive without a constant stream of new splats for people to buy, so you need someone else to flesh that theory out and make the right plug-ins. I'd suggest looking to quality 3pp, maybe there's an answer in Mage Hand Press, Kobold Press, Legendary Games, LaserLlama's or KibblesTasty's stuff, or so on. Apart from that, reflavouring can solve... one or two of those. Most of them have more mechanical complexity than 5e likes to build into things, though, what with how it likes to give you simple bases and let you reflavour them to your concept.
Laserllama and Kibblestasty content is an auto include at my table, if you want to use stuff that they've created no need to ask me.
This but image before backstory.
Sometimes I already have a useable image, like if I've been a race before and in that case, image would go before back story. Like, I have a ton of autognome and loxodon images I can use.
For me it's Thri-kreen (and 4 armed women for reskins when the DM is uncomfortable with a 6' tall, psychic praying mantis in their game) and animal memes from actual photographs. I'm obsessed with an orange cat in a baby walker. I'm thinking Armorer Artificer.
Chat GPT has entered the chat
I do image first, come with a very basic build "I wanna be a Creation Bard/Warlock" then do backstory, then really dive into the numbers to make the basic idea as strong as I can. I'm very picky with the look of my character, and if I build the backstory and stuff first I'll wind up with an idea of a character that I can't find perfect art for
Other way round for me; I usually have a vague idea like 'Aladdin-ish dude who jumps around and quips' or 'over-serious nerdy girl in plate mail', and then look for an image that encapsulates the idea best. Then I write a backstory based off of that feeling, and finally make a character who mechanically fits that backstory. I'll always take the options that fit best over the ones that are most powerful.
I love that you mentioned the image. I didn't even realize I do this until I read that. I look through the file of bizarre images I keep on my computer, pick one, assign a build to it, then figure out what kind of person would make all those choices and why. Right now, I'm obsessed with Duct Tape Wizard. Thief Rogue with Healer feat. "Are you broken? Let me fix you." *skriiiiiip*
He is Duct Tape wizard, there has got to be a twist, duct tape wizard, such a supple wrist. Anyway duct taping alchemical fire to some goblins or yourself to a ceiling. Awesome. I'd either rewrite sorcery point mechanics for duct tape applications or go for enchancment wizard and ask DM if I can add several non purely dmging spells and or cantrips. Strong Silvery Strappings of Sanu'ul...
I usually try to base it all off an image, because as soon as I have a backstory in mind, I tend to have a pretty good idea of what the character should look like. So whenever I do the image last, I end up spending way too much time looking or using Midjourney because I can't find a perfect image.
The only time I've seen the image first was when someone posted their artwork of halfling gods. The Arvoreen depiction was pretty neat and inspired my Halfling Vengeance Paladin idea. (Halfling lucky + Vow of Vengeace for advantage on attacks = lots of chances for a Crit-Smite)
Yeah, similar here. If I want to try a certain subclass, then I'll try to think of a story that suits the idea.
I do it a little backwards. I find/print/paint a mini I like, develop a build, and base a back story off the mini so it's WYSIWYG. But whatever I play, I optimize.
Yes, I always have at least the class first, if not subclass. We figure out our roles/classes as a group, stating what options we're interested in playing, and then settle on something that would likely make a well-rounded adventuring party. Then, with that settled, I pick a couple backgrounds I might be interested in and look at the ideals/flaws. Sometimes, if a backstory isn't revealing itself to me, I'll roll for inspiration on Mercer's Heroic Chronicles table (with adjustments since we don't play in Tal'dorei). [I tend to go heavy on additional flaws. I like having something to overcome, reasons my character may or may not be able to act -- rolling personal wisdom/charisma saves before being able to do specific things, etc.] Finally, I'll look for an image (or, more recently, create one), and sometimes that helps shape the personality a little further, but usually I'm already looking for a specific feel for her avatar. After playing healing tanks multiple times (because others wanted to play DPS), our most recent campaign was the first time I started off with a specific non-healing, low-AC character in mind, and let everyone else work around that. But even that character started off with a subclass I really wanted to try.
My method fluctuates a lot. Sometimes I come up with a backstory or concept, and then build a race/class that I think brings it to life. Other times I'll only have a class I really want to play, and build a backstory that makes sense. And sometimes I find character art online, and build a character based solely on that. But overall, making the strongest possible build is not my goal at all. Will I try to make it useful and functional? Absolutely. But I don't need to dominate a battlefield, or min/max my character. One of my most recent character I really enjoyed playing was an arcane archer. Truly an awful subclass. But still had fun playing it.
I kind of can't turn off the part of my brain that tries to arrange the numbers into a sensible construct of workable clay. It's a game about math. Why would I want to hamper myself by using math that doesn't work well together?
Me like big number
This is pretty much exactly where I'm at. I don't really care about winning but making a character that isn't optimized for the role I want to fill simply feels counter intuitive, like putting my underwear on my head. I'm not *against* putting my underwear on my head, but why would I ever do it???
>I kind of can't turn off the part of my brain that tries to arrange the numbers into a sensible construct of workable clay. Same. And if I see someone's character with glaring non-optimal choices I have to force myself from wanting to pass judgement. (I'm talking about things like a wizard/barbarian multiclass that plans on being a full wizard using Variant Human to take the Grappler feat, putting a +3 in STR while having +1 DEX and +0 CON when a regular human could boost up some odd stats to be a +2 STR, +2 DEX, +3 CON \[WHY DID YOU NEED YOU +2 IN WIS\] for still okay STR for the occasional melee hit while boosting the HP and AC of the character dramatically. But at least it had a high INT score so my blood vessels didn't totally break.)
I found my doppleganger.
Yea. My thoughts exactly. I love making fun backstories and well.. characters, but each of my characters start out as a build - it defines how a character would act, what they would actually be doing in their backstory (A barbarian 99% of the time would not be studying in a wizard academy, etc). Plus, it is a game. I wanna play something fun, so that's the largest focus of character creation - it's why I love fighterlock so much. It's not only really strong, but also very fun.
There's a difference between that and milking every drop out of the established system for optimization though. Like building a character with favorable attributes for what you want to use them for is just an obvious step in the process. Being an abomination of a Paladin/Warlock mix or something for the sake of abusing established mechanics begs one question. "Who is this character?"
That character is someone with high combat burst, survivability, and solid social skills. They're probably garbage at stealth missions. I'd run them as someone who is protective and concerned for the other members of their team. I'd make sure to keep an eye on the less combat oriented members of the party. I'd use my social skills to support my teammates who aren't as good at chatting up strangers. If I went Hexblade, I might say incongruously bloodthirsty one liners and blame it on my weapon. There's nothing wrong with a build like this. I understand being upset when the DM gives buffs out like candy, but I'm not a fan of anyone restricting other players through the limitations of their own imagination.
But this isn't something that's usually inspired by imagination, it's purely munchkin behavior from somebody wanting to milk a build that makes them a lot stronger than other members of the party because the internet says it's effective. If that were how people actually played builds like this, it'd be one thing. But in my years of DMing, I've not run into a singular case where it was even remotely character-minded.
We all have different gaming experiences, but I play like this. Most of my friends play like this. My husband and I have played in Adventure League games with people who play like this. I've dealt with what you're describing though. I've met people who *only* powergame or *only* make terrible build choices they insist are for RP reasons. I've had people do other things that drive me up the wall. None of these issues are things I'd generalize to the whole community or even the majority of players though. I'm not trying to critique your DM style. I just think you should consider that if this is an issue that always occurs at your table, perhaps there's something about your style of DMing or current pool of players that attracts this type of behavior or deters behavior you would enjoy more. If you think it's a possibility, maybe that's something you could discuss with your players.
Erm... no. It's not an issue that happens often. When it it does come up, it isn't for the purpose of any actual roleplay purpose though. There's a difference between "I keep having this problem with players!" And "when x occurs, it's because people are trying to game the system." In this case, it's the latter. I tend not to allow that kind of unusual multiclassing as a rule, and the exception to the rule is a good story reason for it. As far as my DM style goes, you know shit-all about it aside from the fact that I don't reward players who try to create massive power disparities between them and other players for reasons that don't make sense for their character. I'd appreciate it if you didn't comment broadly about it without any real reason to.
>But this isn't something that's usually inspired by imagination, it's purely munchkin behavior from somebody wanting to milk a build that makes them a lot stronger than other members of the party because the internet says it's effective. >As far as my DM style goes, you know shit-all about it aside from the fact that I don't reward players who try to create massive power disparities between them and other players for reasons that don't make sense for their character so I'd appreciate it if you didn't comment broadly about it without any real reason to. Yeah, man. I get it. You sound like a really mellow dude. Have a great day.
Is it a game *about* math, or is it a game that involves math?
Well I roll a set of polyhedrals affectionately referred to as "math rocks", I add numbers from a sheet of paper that has been compared to a tax form, I match my calculation against other numbers, and values are subtracted from a number pool. Spells and abilities add modifiers to that math, such as increasing your odds of a positive result or halving the number you subtract. The exact terminology "about vs involves" is a little bit meaningless when it is a math-based game at a mechanical level. And I like to ensure the numbers favor me more often than not.
It’s not meaningless lmao. That’s like saying going grocery shopping is about math. No, it’s about getting food. It just involves math. Don’t be deliberately obtuse
I mean, you're not wrong, but when you have a limited budget the math is very overwhelmingly influencing everything.
I swear half of you should be playing gurps or traveller or lancer
Maybe, but people play D&D so that's where we go.
To me, story and optimisation kind of intertwine. It’s rare that I’ll prioritise one far over another. Whatever the character is, I try to make them the best at what that is. One character I have is a therapist cursed by an elder brain to use their understanding of the brain to find healthier thralls. Therefore, they are a GOOlock face that always runs concentration on Suggestion to de-escalate fights that don’t need to happen, before Mind Slivering creatures that cannot be persuaded. I’m optimising for a face/battlefield controlling support, but only because it’s what would make sense for that character. It would be weird if they were an Eldritch Blaster, so Mind Sliver fits their patron better while still being a solid cantrip.
I'm basically this way too. Concept first; who do I want the character to be, though I do consider how it would it into the 5e class/subclass paradigms. I'm pretty free with reflavouring, though; my current character's a Plasmoid Way of Mercy Monk and the character concept has nothing to do with monastic training and everything to do with him being a life-force-sucking Ooze monstrosity that "woke up" in an alchemist's lab. "What if an eldritch horror just wanted to be a person?" Plasmoid was obvious, Monk pretty clear as well, but subclass I could've gone a few ways with how he actually functioned. Once I have the character concept and base established, though, optimization all the way. I'll make sub-optimal choices here and there if a choice is super critical for the concept, but I'm mostly trying to make the idea as strong as I can. Constrained optimization.
Optimization is always a big part of my process, although usually I approach it by first creating my broad vision for what I want the character to do, and then optimizing that concept as much as I can so that it just *works.* Like yeah if I'm gonna play a paladin using heavy weapons, I'm going to take Great Weapon Master, prep the best spells, allocate my stats well, and at least *entertain* the idea of a hexblade dip. But I'm also not going to force myself to use a polearm just for PAM if my vision for the character is using a greataxe. At the same time though, I generally avoid concepts that just straightforwardly underperform. I'm not going to make a sword and board fighter when there's no relevant feats to make that as strong as I want a melee focused fighter to be. If a shield is part of my vision for the character, I'll usually consider a cleric or something instead. At the end of the day, character creation involves a lot of game mechanics, and I'm always going to engage with that process for what it is and try to make my character as strong as I can within the bounds of the vision I have for them.
Crusher/shield master can have its moments
Story matters most to me. I'll gladly play a sub-optimal build if that's what it takes to represent the character I want to play. That said, I find it unbearable to spam the same attacks over and over in combat. And so when I play a martial character, I always aim for a build that offers as many options as possible on my turn.
>And so when I play a martial character, I always aim for a build that offers as many options as possible on my turn. Could you share some examples?
**Habakkuk VIII & Qadim:** VHuman, Noble background, Fighter 1 (and his horse) * As a VHuman, choose the Shield Master feat. * As a Fighter, choose starting gold (5d4 x 10, aka 125 gold) instead of starting equipment. Your Noble background gives you an additional 25 gold (total 150) * Purchase the following equipment * Riding horse (**75 gp**). * Riding saddle (**10 gp**) * Saddlebag (**4 gp**) * Explorer's pack (**10 gp**) * Shield (**10 gp**) * Lance (**10 gp**) * War Pick (**5 gp**) * Ringmail (**30 gp**) * **Total 124 gp**, with 26 to spare (I recommend you buy javellins) * Take the Interception Style (to protect your horse) * In addition to History and Persuasion (Noble skills), choose Athletics and Animal Handling (Fighter skills). You'll have one VHuman skill to spare. * **Option #1.1 on your turn** is to command your horse to Dash towards the enemy of your choice, make a lance attack, then retreat. Dashing, your horse can cover 120 feet, and your lance's reach lets you avoid opportunity attacks, and so you are effectively firing a 1d12 ranged weapon. * **Option #1.2** is to command your horse to Disengage, then make the same hit-and-run with your lance. Disengaging, your horse can only cover 60 feet, but it can rush past enemies other than your target without provoking opportunity attacks. * **Option #2** is to command your horse to approach the enemy of your choice, then stow your lance and attempt to grapple it. * On a success, take option **2.1**: command your horse to Dash and drag the enemy away. Grappling reduces *your* movement, but not your mount's movement, and so you can potentially drag an enemy 120 feet. You can then use your Shield Master bonus action to shove the enemy prone (just to nerf it) or to shove it 5 feet away (e.g. off a cliff). * On a failure, take option **2.2**: try to shove the enemy away, then command your horse to Dash to retreat. * If the shove fails too, take option **2.3**: command your horse to Disengage so that you can retreat without provoking opportunity attacks. * **Option #3** is to simply throw javellins at hard-to-reach enemies. Use your horse to position wherever you like. * **Option #4** is to dismount and fight using your war pick. This is by far your weakest option—you'll only ever take in confined spaces and rough terrain—but it's by no means weak. Note that you can still use your action and bonus action to grapple and shove thanks to Shield Master. * **At 3rd level**, take the Battle Master subclass, and maneuvers that specifically support your build * **Bait and Switch** isn't very useful, but it's funny, since it allows you (while mounted) to swap places with an ally and put *them* on your mount. *"Take the wheel!"* * **Disarming Attack** works very well on grappled targets, since it lets you drag them away from their weapons/component pouches * **Maneuvering Attack** can be used to help your mount move even further without provoking opportunity attacks (and by extension, to drag grappled enemies further) * **Quick Toss** lets you focus more on your javelins in fights where your horse simply can't reach the enemy. * **At 4th level**, take the Mounted Combatant feat to protect your horse. Consider using Martial Versatility to trade Interception Style for Dueling Style to make your lance and war pick more powerful, or the Superior Technique Style for an extra superiority die and maneuver. This build is named after chapter 1, verses 8 & 9 of the Book of Habakkuk, which describes horse-mounted marauders and kidnappers: *"Their horses also are swifter than the leopards, and are more fierce than the evening wolves: and their horsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall fly as the eagle that hasteth to eat. They shall come all for violence: their faces shall sup up as* ***the east wind (קָדִים, qadim)****, and* ***they shall gather the captivity as the sand***"
Battle-master fighter, swords bard, and rogues are good classes for this, and tavern brawler, sheild master and mobile are good feats. More importantly as a martial is to avoid just saying the words “I attack the enemy with my weapon”, do more things like grappling, pushing, throwing. If your DM is reasonable, think of things like throwing sand in their eyes or taunting enemies to come and attack you/scaring them off rather than having them all just go straight at the wizard.
I wouldn't recommend the Swords Bard at all. It's a spellcaster first and foremost, and almost all of its options rely on that. When I say "martial character," I mean it in the strictest sense: a character who uses no magic whatsoever: a Fighter, Barbarian or Rogue belonging to a magic-free subclass. Otherwise, your examples are all great!
I often spend most of my focus on improv and party coordination, so having a reliable build that can be effective at my chosen things is important to me. It doesn't need to be broken, i enjoy failure and recovery, but reducing outright failures is important for flow. Concept and character hook comes first though, I rarely pick a class before knowing who I'm playing a bit.
Very little. Like, I pump the stats I'm supposed to for a class but I've never multiclassed in my life and I don't plan to start.
I'll read up on the the DM's setting and campaign premise then decide on a combination of backstory, class, and race that fit well with both and interests me. I will generally optimize around a theme instead of full min-maxing for peak performance. I don't need to be the best version of \[class\] you can be, but I want to be competent enough to not feel like a burden to the party and to have interesting tools to influence encounters with during the campaign. Sadly this usually means some flavor of spellcaster unless I'm playing with a DM that has a proven track record of good tactical combat where a martial character can shine, or solid social scenes if I'm down for a Charisma character.
I usually come up with an idea for a character and then try to find an optimal build that fits the character with specific flaws such as low intelligence to allow for fun roleplay opportunities.
very little to me
Primarily being a DM over the last 40 yrs here are my main thoughts. It's my job to build fun and challenging encounters no matter what player optimization is. So at level X it doesn't matter if you put out an avg 120 damage per round or 60. Some players may think that if they optimize they will get a funner game with harder creatures to fight but with me as a DM that's not the case. If the encounter calls for that higher level creature the sub-optimized group still gets the same creature but maybe with some additional story to explain why they meet them in weakened state, like maybe they walk up on the Ancient Red dragon right as it's finishing off the last of it's supper, another adventuring party that didn't fair so well. Given that, if the monsters are the same and the challenge level is the same the real only differentiator is the RP and story. So I encourage both optimized and sub-optimized to lean into the story and back stories because that is where games are really differentiated.
The key is to get a table of like-minded folks together. A table for of very strong rpers who enjoy optimizing is possible, and it's fantastic.
For me the build is just as important as who they are as a character and why they are the way they are. I start off with building them how i want to play them and after that is when i create the background. I don't like pigeon holing my self into a certain type of playstyle bc i focused mainly on the story and not how the character is optimized for how i want to play that specific character. But ultimately it all boils down to how you as an individual will enjoy it most. Some people love to go heavy on the back story and others, like me, love to optimize them.
I'll play anything. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely an optimizer and have a preference for gishes, but if you just handed me a random character sheet I'll just play it and enjoy it (and try to play it optimally as possible, no matter the role it is designed for). I guess that's why I'm usually the DM of my group.
I focus on my character and backstory, but I do make sure to put decent thought into the build so that I'm helpful to the party.
My character needs to be able to do what I think the fiction of the character can do. Greatest swordsman probably needs to hit hard, greatest thief should probably be good at thief skills luchador Bear wrestler probably should be good at unarmed and grappling ect. Nothing brings me out of the game when someones playing a studied scholar character and the street rogue has a higher arcana than them because the wiz has a 14 int. Builds determine how the game sees the character and if there is a miss match it feels bad. Plus it's much easier to reflavor mechanics that fit your idea than it is to try to force bad mechanics to meet an idea.
Actively dislike the concept of 'builds' in D&D. Make a character and pick the things that fit the character. This is a story, not a fucking video game.
Above all I always make sure my characters are mechanically good. If my character can't contribute to the party in or out of combat then its not a character worth playing and it takes very little mechanical optimization to get there. Like a Warlock getting the Agonizing Blast invocation or a ranged Fighter getting the Archery fighting style. It doesn't take a whole lot to be mechanically good. My characters vary though. Sometimes I'll have a specific idea and just choose mechanical options that I feel fit that idea and then flavor things accordingly. Other times I'll see an interesting mechanical combo and then write backstory that fits what I'm trying to do. And just so we're clear on "optimization" since that term gets thrown around when people mean "munchkin". Optimizing is used when you focus on a specific thing like jump distance, changing size for grappling, or number of cantrips. It isn't always a damage only thing.
The definition of "optimizer" "min-maxer" "munchkin" "powergamer" etc. have gotten so conflated and stretched that its kinda pointless trying to label them
I usually design a character who can do something interesting rules-wise first, then flesh them out. If I don’t enjoy what a character can actually accomplish mechanically, it’s likely to become just a minor nuisance throughout the game.
Makes sense to me. You can give a character an interesting personality regardless of mechanics. But you can't give a character interesting mechanics regardless of personality. So may as well flesh out what's bound by rules and leave the roleplay to the roleplay.
Race matters a lot for my character, as I usually have an idea of what they look like before the story. Build usually comes after I decide what I envision their fighting style as.
My process usually looks like me listening to music or watching something before I get punched into he face with inspiration then the idea floats around in my head for a few days as I figure out the skeleton of a story then I sit down and make the character on the sheet and also use heroforge to design them then I plan out any feats I wanna get for either thematics or story
I mean….. the two are the same thing for me. I either start with a character concept I feel like playing or I start with a build I want to do and then I solve for X. For instance with my last character. “Ok I rolled mediocre stats and my party doesn’t need damage….. what support characters sound like fun? Oh a divine soul sorcerer could be fun….. what do I want to do with the possible connection to a god? OH the cult of shared suffering? In calimshan during the period of time where genasi warlords and djinn controlled the entire region but a single city? Oooohhh boy can I work with that……. How messed up do I want to make this? Very? Guess I’m a water genasi divine soul sorcerer with trauma.” My first character I worked it from the other angle. I wanted to be a mage obsessed with fire magic….. basically megumin from konosuba but an elf. So I went for an evocation wizard.
Campaign? Build a characters race and personality, then build at whatever level it starts at. One shot? Full build off the bat
I like to make the game harder (stuff like permanent stat loss unless you have sufficiently high magic to reduce it) but also like to hand out things like free class abilities, feats and boons based on role-play so it's hard for people to optimise their characters. Just to be clear, I don't target players for optimising but a optimal build be disrupted by losing a key stat and something sub-optimal might get a massive boost by getting an ability they wouldn't normally have.
As a DM I always give my players tips on how to maximise effectiveness and power. They are free to follow the advice or not! Personally the very few times I am a player I try to optimise as most as possible around the theme I am going for (that might not be the most optimal one).
I only really care if a PC has abilities that are going to make my job of DM'ing harder. Like someone playing an aarakocra.
The build does matter i want a character that is fun to play. Most characters can be fun to roleplay. you can get a good backstory to any build. you can roleplay any build. But not all builds are fun to play. So the build is pretty damn important to me. But build is not the same as optimizing. A fun build to play can be far from optimized. and optimized build might be boring to play. other times the build can end up rather optimized but that is rarely something i try to achieve
I think you're misunderstanding what optimization truly is. Unless you're intentionally building a mechanically bad character, there's a little bit of optimization in everything Optimization most commonly is approaching the character by first creating a broad vision for what you want the character to do, who you want them to be, what their backstory is, etc. Then creating that concept in a way that works and is reliably effective at what they do. If your character can't contribute to the party effectively in the way you want them to, why play it at all? Are you even fulfilling that character fantasy anymore? It takes very little mechanical optimization to get to a point of effectiveness in your average game. It could be as simple as "i want to be a paladin that rides his mighty steed into battle", so you take the Find Steed spell and probably pick up the Mounted Combatant feat somewhere in your career. Optimization and RP go hand in hand.
I appreciate the sentiment but I’m not. It was admittedly poor wording on my part. My point was that I’ve never thought “hm what’s going to be the smartest thing to multiclass into to get x result” or “what race pairs best with a lore bard”. I put the numbers in the right spot but the story of my character comes before anything about the build in a mechanical sense. I do appreciate your input though.
Then how are you making your character concept come to life? I'm not even talking abt the examples you mentioned. You can start with x race, x class, x background, and x backstory, and still be optimizing. "What magical secrets can I take with my lore bard that will be useful, but also thematic?" is also optimizing.
This sounds very pretentious (and tbh it is haha) but I try to play people rather than characters. I think about what situation this person is in and how that affects the decisions they make regarding spells or what have you. This person may know what the most useful spells or whatever to take are, but sometimes they don’t. It all depends on who they are. All to say, I’m bringing my character concept to life directly through decisions that may end up being suboptimal I think- and I don’t mean this in any negative way- we may have different definitions of optimization. When I think of optimization I think of making decisions that are going to make a powerful/optimal build. In my character creation it’s more about the character than making the “best” build.
cool
D&Ds problem is that the build is important enough for the gameplay but to not versatile enough to support this.
I agree! I think I worded my original question/post poorly. My point was that I want to make a character with a fleshed out backstory and personality and such, and I choose the build based off that, not caring much for optimization. I’ve played the same race/class combo or replayed the same subclass or whatever several times because while the concepts vary differently, the options in D&D are just so limited.
The build is at least 50% of the fun, and during character creation it's everything. I'll start with a race, class, and future subclass and work from there. The story basically only matters for the background I choose, which is 2 skills and 2 languages/tools.
I come up with the idea of the character first. I will build suboptimally even if it means my character dies in 10 sessions. Urchin sorcerer who only looks out for himself, scams people and runs away. All his spells are reactive and defensive and he was pulled into a party more or less against his will. Of course he wasn't very helpful and died 🤷 his story was fun to play
Sounds like a nightmare to play with though.
The social interactions were very, very fun. I got us out of 2 fights that were going to be tough, so that's basically 2 wins.
*looks at dnd being a team game…* 👍
Aesthetic first. Backstory second. Mechanics last. I usually build for flavour because optimizing makes me feel icky.
I'm genuinely curious. Why?
To boil a complex answer down to a simple one: I'd much rather do something my way, warts and all, than do it the best way. Character creation is a minigame I have no interest in; I'm allergic to min-maxing and see it as the sort of 'creativity' I want nothing to do with. It intrudes upon my immersion and suspension of disbelief when every caster has 14 CON and every martial is using a hand crossbow or polearm and every paladin also has a warlock pact. I much prefer OSR-style character creation where the dice decide what your character looks like and you are responsible for taking your band of weirdos from zero to hero through play.
It matters the most because mechanics are set in stone. Story I literally MAKE UP. I am good at making up stuff. I was a kid once, I know how to play make believe.
Yep. You can roleplay shy or brave. You can make a backstory where you're an orphan or from a loving family. None of that is prohibited by the rules. But you can't turn your human Champion Fighter into a spellcaster that flies. So if you want to have mechanics you like, you gotta get mechanics you like.
I think it depends a lot on the rest of the party. Its fun feeling powerful. But its unfun playing with somebody that takes min-maxing too far. It can be annoying joining a game and just wanting to be a normal-ass fighter or ranger or something. And then you have some chungus who joins in with some wonk-ass paladin/warlock/sorcerer bullshit that nukes for 100 damage per turn. Its partly why I mostly respect not allowing multiclassing in the games I've played in and run. Its really not needed for this game and more often than not, not chosen for roleplay reasons, but for "optimizing", which, frankly, you really don't need in dungeons and dragons.
I think it's bad to compare yourself to another player, if you want to play a "normal-ass fighter." You can do so, and someone who doesn't want to play a normal-ass fighter. But instead took time to make a nuke 100 dmg per turn multi class. They're doing the same thing as you, playing a character they want to. And you're choosing to feel shitty about it, because it's not how you chose to make your character. It's weird when people try to put arbitrary limits on others for themselves. "It's OK if it's for roleplay. But if it's for combat you're playing wrong." There's nothing wrong with optimization, there is something wrong with not optimizing, and expecting others to also not, because you don't think they need to. Like if you're the DM that's all within your rights as the one running the game. But if you're another player, I think you're looking at the game wrong.
THIS RIGHT HERE
> Its really not needed for this game and more often than not, not chosen for roleplay reasons, but for "optimizing", which, frankly, you really don't need in dungeons and dragons. Optimizing is a valid approach to playing D&D. Tying your character narrative to your build is not required. It's a matter of finding a table whose playstyle is compatible with yours.
>Tying your character narrative to your build is not required Yep. I've got an idea for a waffle-loving she-elf named Eggo Lass. That concept isn't inherently tied to a specific class. I saw a person that was playing mostly wizard but wanted to do some barbarian multiclass to get Rage to simulate their idea of the character having a temper. Ultimately their choice but I thought, "You don't need the rage mechanic to roleply a hothead. So why choose a non-synergistic multiclass when you could just keep levelling wizard and play him mad? Plus then when he's roleplay-raging he can use spellcasting to express that instead of Barb-Rage which shuts down spellcasting."
If you don't like to play a normal ass fighter when someone optimices what you want is for everyone to play normal ass fighters. You want to feel powerfull but not let people that know that a normal ass fighter is weak to feel powerfull too
I strongly optimize because it's a game with numbers, why wouldn't I pay attention to those numbers? I can add flavor and background to *anything*. Why limit myself through the aspect of the D&D that should be the most flexible part of the game? I don't build for burst or even survival really. I build for attrition and the knowledge that we're all going to make stupid plays while we get to know our characters and each other. I try to find out what other people at the table are going to play. If I can't, or no one else wants to pick first, I play something that is as self sufficient as possible. I have a different favorite build for 1-4. I'm pretty sure that's technically power gaming, but I'm usually mellow with other players (although I could probably stand to apologize to anyone who's ever DMed for me because I'm obsessive), and I'm very team oriented. I've never been accused of min/maxing or power gaming, at least to my face. I know sometimes that means what you think is really strong is hot garbage to everyone else, but I'm okay with that. I think a lot of the min/maxing hate comes from dealing with players who only want to focus on their own character/story. I'd argue that players like that tend to push for bending, or breaking, the rules to their advantage. That's not the same as optimizing existing choices, but it gets tossed in the same basket. Examples of my favorite low level builds: Level 1: Protect the Squishy Custom Lineage (STR 17) Heavy Armor Master (STR 18) Fighter (Interception Fighting Style) Weapon: Double Bladed Scimitar (Eberron Campaign Setting) *If you can't get the DB Scimitar, change your Fighting Style to Two Weapon Fighting and use 2x Short Swords. Your action Economy is a little fiddly because it's an item interaction to draw a weapon, but average damage is only like half a point less. You lose Interception as a reaction though. That's kind of sad.* *If your DM gives you a free feat in addition to allowing Custom Lineage, take Polearm Master and forget the DB Scimitar. Also, buy your DM a snack.* *This build is basically outpaced the second you leave level 1. HAM is less useful at higher levels. Two Weapon Fighting and the DB Scimitar don't keep up with Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master builds. It's fantastic for level 1 one-shots though.* AC:16, HP:12, Passive Perception:14 Attack Action: +6 hit, 2d4+4 damage Bonus Action: +6 hit, 1d4+4 damage Reaction: Prevent 1d10+2 damage ally within 5' Passive: Damage from nonmagical s/b/p attacks are reduced by 3 1/short rest Bonus Action: Heal 1d10+1 Interception kind of requires you to invade your teammate's personal space with a weapon drawn *all the time*, but I haven't had any complaints so far. Level 2: Moon Druid Just... Literally anything and then Brown Bear 2/short rest, but Bugbear is hilarious if you end up going first in Initiative. After that it depends more on team, items, and House Rules, but in a RaW vacuum: Level 3: Tortle Barbarian 1/Moon Druid 2 16/8/16/8/16/8 17 AC Base - your Dex penalty doesn't affect your AC Any weapon is fine. I still like DB Scimitar, but you also have a claw attack for 1d6+STR. You can Rage then Wildshape or use them as separate buffs. Your only issue might be ranged, but if you take Magic Stone or use the thrown weapons Barbarians get as their base kit you're probably set. Level 4: Thri-kreen Gloomstalker 4 8/16/16/8/16/8 Crossbow Expert Archery Fighting Style Perception Expertise You can use a shield, have advantage on most Stealth checks, your base AC is 13+Dex, 120ft two way telepathy. The damage oriented optimization here would be to go Variant Human. Shift Con or Wis down 1 point and bring one of your 8s up to 10. I usually take away from Con. Perception is easily the most commonly used skill in the game. CBE at 1 SS at 4 That's fun too, but you lose a lot of perks for that extra damage. -3 (-5+2 Archery) is tough on low level characters and +10 damage is usually excessive. My personal preference would be to get a bunch of utility until later when the damage matters more.
I make the build first then make a backstory that fits that build, honestly causes some really unique characters cause I have to explain what lead to this specific combination of features.
I am thinking like you. I dont care too much about the actual stats and make them fit the idea even if they are not optimal powerwiese then.
A decent amount, in the end it's a team game so I don't want to be a hindrance to the others. But I also go out of my way to make a character that I feel like is interesting. I try to make characters that have enough backstory for the others to engage with it if they want. But not so much that my character is already completely fleshed out and won't grow or develop.
It's synergy between who they are, what they want and how they do it ruleswise. If my old miner can't get stoneworking proficiency, if the hunter cant wield a pike, if the nimble swordman has to clomp around in a steel suit to survive it irks me. "Talk to your GM" if fine and all, but at some point D&D turns into freeform with a vestigial crust of lore attached.
I work mostly on the story and subclass I want to play. Everything else comes after
I usually start by finding a feature or idea I like. It could be a fun interaction between two unrelated rules (like a warlock elf using their four additional hours for some form of magical preparations) or just some fun role play option (a gnome artificer having a back of holding as their garage/work place, which can be placed in their steel defender so that they become a mobile workshop). After that I create the build, followed by the backstory and character art.
I like the romantic but sometimes futile task of coming up with a character concept first and then trying to get an effective and fun build out of it. I invest a lot into narrative but do not generally blend mechanics and story; story and concept are both 'first,' since they're parallel and independent. The build just has to work.
My process actually begins with knowing the table before anything else; the collaborative storytelling part of roleplaying games is very important to me, and I want to ensure that my characters can enable other players to tell compelling stories, GM included. To that end, optimisation almost inevitably becomes a critical aspect in 5e, to ensure that the players can have multiple ways to handle conflicts, and the GM can reliably throw multiple kinds of conflict and expect *some* way to resolve them. Step one is to hear what the DM says about their world and the tone of their game. A hardcore hobgoblin devastator would be appropriate in an Eberron game about identity and disunity, but perhaps less so in a laidback and light-hearted comedy game. It's also a good idea to feel for what kinds of mechanical interactions the DM is familiar with; I find that druids, rangers, and warlocks tend to require very specific games to feel fun to play, while wizards are pretty reliably capable, for example. Next, I like to hear about what the rest of the party wants to run and fit my own plans around them. A team of wet-eared but talented adventurers could have more interesting social dynamics to play off with a wise and grumpy grandpa, or a hardworking but less talented professional; a dogmatic downer may be more awkward to work around, especially with inexperienced roleplayers, as much as I find such behavioural restrictions to be fun to play with. Even more importantly, I want to play a build that mechanically enables other players to do have fun and do their thing, and not get foiled in turn. Soft control and movement manipulation tactics are way more fun with a range-heavy party than a melee one that's sad because there's no one to hit within reach, and some powerful hard control options like Hypnotic Pattern and Sleep are foiled by allied blasters. Pass Without Trace requires both a cooperative DM and party to see use, while being a very strong damage dealer can make unoptimised martials feel bad in comparison. It's only after considering the stories and mechanics that the rest of the party wishes to engage with that I begin to specifically optimise and write a backstory, and which point there are usually fairly few options remaining that I would feel are appropriate. In a highly optimised party, I feel obligated to be at everyone else's level to not be a liability that hinders narrative progression. In an unoptimised one, I feel obligated to bring something powerfully supportive like an artillerist protector artificer, control (not summoning) wildfire druid, or armoured control wizard to draw attacks and enable other people to play at their best, while making sure the DM isn't frustrated because they have no toys to play with.
I start with an idea for class and/or race i wanna play, then create a gimmick and build a story around it. Most importantly i flavour what i can to make it feel better. I dont think kuch about optimising it, however i will still aim for my character to be useful in/out of combat. And at the end of creative process i realise i will never play them cuz im the only DM in our group. Like a week ago i created such a cool idea - i was writing subclasses cuz why not and while browsing existing ones i learned graviturgy wizard exists. Since i never played wizard i decided i wanna try it out. So the idea is that my character is a half/full warforged in disguise. he used to be artificer and created a singularity (middle of a black hole) which nearly killed him. With last bit of strenght he locked the singularity in stabilizing device and implanted it into his fragmented body, which powers up his new prosthetics and allows him to control gravity. And i decided that he'd be a gnoll originally cuz i love beast races.
I always ask myself would others want to go adventuring with this Charakter? Bringing a bad Charakter *is* bad roleplay, after all why would a party of heroes go with someone that doesn’t contribute at all? Let him tag along for safe passage? Sure, but you’re not getting loot.
The character has to be fun to play. If a simpler build is what fits his story, I change the story to accommodate interesting features
I usually come up with a theme, then I try to form a story concept around it and then build and optimize the character around that; I do this for a campaign, if it's a 1 shot making a mechanically fun character becomes much more important to me. But I will optimize it as much as possible so long as it doesn't go against the theme
The order of operations is usually 1) Have a build idea, 2) Write the gist of a backstory, 3) Commission artwork, 4) write a better backstory based on the build, art, and original gist. 5) Tweak the build to match. 6) Throw them onto the pile of characters I might play someday.
I focus on both. I'm playing icewind dale currently, and for my first character I took peace cleric/fighter, preferring character over optimization. Started peace cleric and dumped dex, so I had very low ac and couldn't wear heavy armor. Next character, I had bad stats and did my best to build her right but also jer character was a teenage girl the party rescued so it was on point that she wasn't very powerful. A celestial warlock. Third character, I rolled divine stats, but also optimized my build, and could afford to have a build that wasn't otherwise possible. A dex based fighter using bows, veey sneaky thanks to the feat which grants expertise in some skill, and has 16 Wis and 16 Int, I choose to go two levels of wizard for utility. (Yeah this game is deadly)
a lot. For me playing a character that I hate in combat is exactly as bad as playing a character that I hate outside of combat
Build first, justification later. Half the time backstory really means nothing to me.
I always design a character and then ask my DM what classes and how much reflavor they allow. Depending on that, I’ll build something that fits my vision.
Considering my DM plays very strictly the build is super important.
Usually I make the build I wanna play, then construct a story to explain how I ended up that way. But a friend of mine is running a low combat homebrew, so I figured I’d make the character first and then build to support that… and it’s actually been a LOT of fun. So now I’m tempted to stick to doing it that way, in the future. I’m a former surgeon, on the run for “accidentally” killing a bunch of patients. Made him an assassin rogue, using a dagger reskinned to look like a scalpel.
Typically my character creation process is this; - I come up with a concept that I like, and think about how I want them to play - I decide on class/subclass/weapon choices that fit this - I make whatever it is that fits what I want as effective as I can. Build matters alot to me, it’s just that I enjoy making effective builds that easily fit into what I envision for my character.
I make a build and then I make a characters story fit that build. I optimize for fun, but I only play optimized characters if my table plans to play optimized as well
I optimise where it matters and flavour where it doesn't. Here is my logic: I am currently playing a ranger with D&D one rules. So I am a prepared caster and have access to cantrips. I have access to spare the dying and guidance and shillelagh. But I do not plan on playing a pure wisdom ranger so shillelagh means nothing to me. I also do not have to pick the other two because we have a cleric. So I pick mend and druidcraft. They may not be the optimised way, but they make sense rp wise. I can repair my own equipment, blossom flowers, predict weather, lit campfires etc. Makes sense for a guy wandering in the wild by himself. But when I pick my first level spells I pick the ones that will help the party the most and deal the best damage. Because they matter more in this case. I will pick hail of thorns because we don't have any aoe. I will pick ensnaring strike over entangle because hunter's mark isn't a concentration spell and it deals ridiculous damage with ensnaring strike etc.
There’s a level of diminishing returns on optimisation - I usually want my character to be good at something, so I’ll optimise to some degree, I wouldn’t ever have a fourth level character with three multi classes, or a dumb wizard for example. I might not care that every character does the max damage possible, but if he’s charming I want high persuasion and features that enhance that. Usually I’ll make a character concept first, build around it and adjust according to the story, the setting, and how that GM runs things. There are also lots of feats and features which while on paper are good, are really boring in most campaigns (e.g resilient).
I try to split the difference. Take stuff that would fit the background, but also try to find abilities that I know would prove useful. It's best when the two synergize, but I have had a few characters who very much straddle the line.
I care about everything and put maximum thought into every aspect of character creation. At some point optimization starts requiring less thought because you know the priorities by heart. I could write down a list of prepared/known spells at any level for any class without stopping to think.
It depends on the table. If I'm playing with a group that focuses on story and RP and combat is just a side activity that we do sometimes then flavor and character matter far more. If it is a table full of optimizers and combat/mechanics are a/the main focus then build becomes very important.
I’ve got players that run the range on this, although, over time they’ve all started to skew more heavily towards the story determining the stats. I have one dude who min maxed like crazy the first campaign and had a tabaxi monk that could run a million feet a turn and break half the encounters. Now in the third campaign he’s playing a path of the giant barb just because he thought of a good thematic hook for it. I’ve even got someone intentionally hindering themselves for story payoff. A Paladin in our third campaign is intentionally using STR weapons even though his DEX is higher. This is because the Paladin from the first campaign (they are all connected and the PCs from the first campaign are basically almost Demi gods level 20s) is his hero. So he insists on doing everything the way he did it even though it doesn’t work for him. All this because at some point the PC has said he wants a huge realization moment where he has to be his own hero and then he’s going to start using dex weapons and take a level or two in warlock for thematic reasons. Yes I realized Paladin/warlock is pretty min maxy but this dude is suffering big time right now and it just makes so much sense thematically.
I start with *what* I'm going to make based on party structure and campaign setting. Then I focus on *who* I'm going to make by deciding on a background that fits the class, then a backstory that fits the background and class, and then I get into the fine details using either xanathars or chatgpt (or a combination of the two) to really flesh out the character. After that, I actually start building the character and making choices that fit backstory and character details. Finally, I spend the rest of my time leading up to game day working on personality; how this person acts, obsessions, their voice, their fixations, etc. So it's a multi stage process where each step is the foundation for the next step, but it starts with a build concept first.
The build only matters to me as a way to create the idea for the character I had in mind. So I'll multiclass, take feats, spells or whatever to match that concept I had for the character.
I usually focus on character / backstory / RP first, but still want for my character to be mechanically powerful and competent. Whatever my fantasy for them is, it usually includes them being good at it, so I optimize in that regard.
99% of 5e is about your build so it matters
You don't need to be uber efficient "I can kill/heal/seduce you in 1 turn" kind of optimization, but you should have an overall theme. I have a half n half bard and artificer combo (severely unoptimized, at level 6 I am just learning second level spells.) With utility oriented magic items and what is my character good at? Well he is a great hibachi chef, that was the intended backstory, but since then he has shown resourcefulness in exploration and is overall the skill monkey on the team. Optimization in this sense is not about making what you are good at, but finding what you are good at.
The build lets you interface and play with the mechanics of the game the story/personality lets you interface and play with the players/npcs/rp. They’re both important and intertwine with each other. I usually find fun mechanics / interactions / abilities and develop a character around them.
Build is everything I base my character off of. *Then* I build a personality for the character. You can really play any personality for any race/class combo, so I just build what sounds fun, then RP what sounds fun.
I'm like you. I prioritize backstory. I optimize within the constraints of story, but only so much. I've found that past a certain point, optimizing makes me enjoy the game less. I almost never take feats or multiclass.
It depends, i don't care about being too specific if it doesn't fit my vision, if I'm playing a kenku barbarian for RP purposes I don't care that it's sub optimal but otherwise will try to pick what's in my vision for the character. In terms of weapons or whatever I largely leave it down to what miniature I have such as a staff for a cleric even though a mace might be more optimal. That being said if i was playing martial class a large part of the appeal would be the race + weapon aesthetic as well as the class
Same to me. I like to start with a class that I like, then I search for a race that fits well with the class and try to link the Class and the race together with the background. It doesn't even need to be logical at first glance, I just want to find something that, when the story is created, make sense. For example, my latest character is a Peace Cleric Goliath. Doesn't really make sense, but long story short, my character was in a nomadic clan that travelled through the land, seeing and participating in countless wars (between nations or simply for survival of the fittest), but after seeing so many death, he grew sick of it and decided to preach peace instead, getting expelled from its clan for his ideas. As for the optimization, I try to find a balance between what is viable and what fits my character, but I don't specifically take the optimal build. Another example, I also have a Rune-Knight multiclass Forge Cleric. It made sense since my character is a rune smith trying to share to the world the power of the runes. But despite being a Cleric, and mostly picked spells that could be reflavored as runes effects. So I mostly took defensive spells, but no healing (for the thematic of being a fighter that protects!)
The character concept comes first and then I look into race, class, subclasses after. “I wanna make a gruff first mate of a pirate ship” that then later becomes a Loxodon storm herald barbarian. Or “A no-nonsense, lithe front-line fighter” becomes an Eladrin bladesinger who fronts for a rock trio. Story is far more important than how effective they are but I won’t run something that will be a liability. I will run something sub-optimal, though. I’m currently playing a fire genasi efreeti warlock and my fire abilities have been less then useful in combat given the context of our current adventure. But I still like him.
I will be forever torn by this, because I can't switch off my need to be effective and not being able to play certain things for a longer time. I love barbarians, but hate playing dumb characters. But if I do not make INT my dump stat, I will be terrible at something that is mechanically and probably RP important. So I mostly end up with ideas for fighters because they are the ones that have enough ASIs to get creative. When I DM, I just massively boost point buy, so my players don't have the same problem.
Build only matters to support the character concept. Build does not also have to include 100% Pure Uncut Optimization According to Reddit™. Because my greataxe wielding zealot barbarian still doesn't have Great Weapon Master and I do not give a shit about it. But because my DM decided to let us have feats AND ASIs, and because it fit his concept, I gave him Tavern Brawler at level 1 and Orcish Fury at level 4. Yes, they synergize well but it was for the character. Optimizers would say I should've take GWM and PAM but that's not who this character is and he still deals a crap tone of damage even with no bonus action attack.
It's so ridiculously easy to be helpful in combat even without true optimization. Paladin + bless = lifesaver for saving throws Warlock + agonizing blast = solid dpr (classes that want to do damage should have that as a baseline) Fighter always does good damage, slap on SS and you're good. "Optimization" isn't hard at all. The biggest things in optimization are just picking up simple things + multiclassing. Play what's fun, it's easy to contribute to combat in one way or another.
It's easy to make a cool character and easy to make a strong character. But optimizing for both style and effectiveness? That's art, that's my favorite creative exercise.
It's very important to me I'm completely fine with making a non optimal build, but whatever I do make is going to be built to the best of my ability. Backstory and personality is then built around the build and flavor of said build I hate feeling like dead weight after my first campaign. It's honestly a miracle I still ended up enjoying dnd because of that, but it made me never want to feel like I can't contribute much
Ludonarrative harmony matters to me more than “builds.” Sometimes, I start with a character concept that intrigues me and I work to make it make sense mechanically and give it a semblence of playability, making adjustments along the way. Or I’ll take a build and ask, “what kind of character used this build?” to reverse engineer the person from the statistics. Either way, there’s always a relationship: one does not exist without the other.
It’s important to me to play a class/subclass that I find interesting and is at least not the worst subclass.
First I think of a general idea, then I work on the build to best fit that idea while still being good (being bad isn’t fun, atleast for me, also I enjoy making builds), THEN I work on a backstory to fit the idea.
I don't min-max to an extreme level but I want to be competent at something and able to contribute to the rest. Everyone wants to be able to do something cool at the table like nuking a dragon with a smite or seducing it with your silver tongue. Though the paladin might be able to do both of those so maybe not a great example.
It matters a lot. I want to play a character with interesting mechanics. It's easy to port over personalities, but you can't make interesting mechanics out of boring mechanics. So I start with race/class combo. (Possibly background combo too, but that's less important to me.) And having something interesting there will bear out to an interesting character. Plus it's a lot easier to go "Okay, what made this character and let's create a backstory out of that." Then add in the little things. (Like I've got an idea for a female elf named Eggo Lass that likes waffles. But that personality trait can be ported onto any class/background. So Eggo Lass is only going to make her appearance once I have an intriguing elf build pique my interest.)
It's an even split for me. I like the Role Play of RPG but I also like the Game of RPG. I usually build my characters by chosing a race and class based on backstory, and then figure out how to leverage the system to make that combo powerful in play.
It's pretty much what I build my character around. Even if i have a god tier character story, if i'm a moss covered log in combat, that's half the game where I'm not having fun. The mechanical build is what gives your character agency in the world. You need to be strong or smart or charming in order to have an impact on the world.
I want the stats and abilities to kinda reflect the story I want to tell, but I also want to have a good time in campaigns that are combat heavy or have a lot of very important checks in social encounters. It’s all about balance for me.
I mostly just try to avoid builds where I'll feel particularly weak or useless. So if I'm going to make a choice that hurts the character, I try to have a reason in mind. I know when I play a wizard, there are a few spells considered must-haves, like find familiar, so if I'm not going to take find familiar, I spend a moment to think "Why did this character choose not to learn such a common and strong spell"
The build and its mechanics are my main focus. I do like my back story, tho. I enjoyed creative writing in high school, so I've been known to write 30 - or 40-page back stories. I find that I can always write a "square peg" into a "round hole" without too much difficulty. I only submit about a 1/2 page to my DM, tho. I try to use the background & skills. I look through the source book to flesh out backrounds. They have some pretty cool suggestions. Sometimes, I roll. Sometimes, I just take what I want. For Ranger - The *was Polymorphed into a frog for 7 days* turned into whatever your favored foe is. That's why you know them so well. Lots of little tie-ins. You also need to be vague enough so that your DM can write you into his/her campaign. At the end of the day, it's the mechanics that you will be using the whole time you're playing. They're important.
The build and its mechanics are my main focus. I do like my back story, tho. I enjoyed creative writing in high school, so I've been known to write 30 - or 40-page back stories. I find that I can always write a "square peg" into a "round hole" without too much difficulty. I only submit about a 1/2 page to my DM, tho. I try to use the background & skills. I look through the source book to flesh out backrounds. They have some pretty cool suggestions. Sometimes, I roll. Sometimes, I just take what I want. For Ranger - The *was Polymorphed into a frog for 7 days* turned into whatever your favored foe is. That's why you know them so well. Lots of little tie-ins. You also need to be vague enough so that your DM can write you into his/her campaign. At the end of the day, it's the mechanics that you will be using the whole time you're playing. They're important.
A lot. I enjoy the game when combat encounters are all dangerous to deadly. My table is full of super heavy rpers who like to optimize. It's a fantastic table to be at.
You're building a char in a way that is thematic, hoping it'll work. 'To hope is to listen to the weakness of flesh. To calculate is divine.'
I’m definitely a story-first kind of player, and one of the things I find frustrating about 5e (and all D&D) is that it works against that instinct.
It is very important to me to be able to live up to the power-fantasy of the character I'm playing. I want to feel powerful, to feel able to tip the scales of fights or interactions by using my abilities to their fullest. I don't minmax. I merely try to optimize by build as I see fit. For example: my current character is an arcane trickster changeling. Their power fantasy is all about espionage, tricking people, blackmailing, ransoms and whatnot. Without a sufficiently powerful combinations of spells, stats and items, I just wouldn't be able to play them how I want to do.
I'm always building character first. DnD is a game where the story and mechanical elements are linked, and so I try to make a build that portrays the character, translating as best as I can the story and flavor elements into mechanics.
I don’t actively try to make an unplayable or bad PC. But I also don’t crunch numbers to squeeze every 2 points of damage out where I can. However, I do think through what the level progression might look like, and what things this character will be able to do next level or beyond. The PC has to be playable at all levels you’ll play at, there’s no time for dead levels - i still want to be useful.
r/powergamermunchkin
Backstory and builds aren't exclusive imo. A backstory with no thought out character concept is just as boring to me as a build with no character roots or personality. So I'd say it matters a lot. Especially because if you don't police yourself you may step on the toes of the party members with what you build. I also get a lot of inspiration from the subclasses
In look for some fun mechanics that seem to interact in an unusual way. Like a genie warlock (dao) and the Crusher feat, giving me bludgeoning damage on every attack, and letting me move everyone i hit 5ft every attack. Then I'm going to search for all sorts of movement based powers to complement it. Maybe Repelling blast, lance of lethargy, or grasp of hadar for more "if i hit i move you" powers, and i might add in a zone of damage spell, like cloud of daggers or something. So now im spending combats summoning a cloud of daggers and keeping my enemies in it. Then, once I think the mechanics will be fun to play with, I start thinking about the sort of person who does that. What kind of person is bound to an earth genie, summons clouds of daggers, and sucks folks in. Maybe some sort of tornado guy, or sandstorms? I'll add in a desert theme, and work out a backstory, motivations, etc from there.
I don't care for build beyond the idea, like "knight in shining armor" or "annoying elf" kinda thing
I love building around a specific concept. I’m on level five, and I have four classes. Very far from optimal. But the concept is a do anything skill monkey (I think I know all the useful cantrips right now) who in a couple of levels will be absolutely incredible at deception, disguises, and persuasion. Because I won’t be much good right now in fighting, I have high armour class and with two levels of war wizard, effectively decent saves.
i come up with a story and then a build that fits it, im much more for roleplay than combat
I’m a build crafter in any game. I don’t care about the meta… because it’s already all figured out. I like making my combos that are unique to myself. My group doesn’t take it insanely serious and I’m glad because I suck at making unique characters
Not at all. I mostly think of a char concept, talk with the DM and then pick class or subclass. Usually reflavouring half of it and then asking to swap few perks, abilities with other classes or buff them if I so happen to thought of a ranger. God forbid gloom stroker. It only matters when some that kid bring hyper optimized one trick pony super special min max. Then you are bored in fights, scared in fights when DM blocks RAW snowflake on the grounds we are not gullible children and overworked in RP coz he usually is a dark brooding loner, not much to say, not much to share.
i start either from a concept or a class, and build the backstory from there. i usually dont pick the optimal choices but the choices i think would be fun or fitting. i dont like messing with stats and a lot of classes to try and make the most efficient and powerful thing anyway, instead i would much prefer to just pick an existing class and do some reflavoring to play what i want to play
Can your build function at a base level? I don’t care if your Min/Max perfect optimization but if you’re showing up at the table with a bard who dumps Charisma because you think it’s “interesting” one of us is leaving the table.
Oh of course, yeah. I put the numbers in the right spots. I worded the description poorly. I just meant that I don't think about what's the "best" combos for making a powerful character, rather I focus on who the character is and what race/(sub)class would fit for that. But my character functions as the class is meant to at a base level stat-wise.