D&D 5E Game design allow sub optimal class build. Confirmed by M Mearls

[Satyrn]

Well, try remaking the character as a varient human or a dwarf and I think you will fine it superior in everyway that acuually matters .

Are you just talking bad 'bout orcs because you're a hobgoblin?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

What this confirms for me is that optimization is quixotic by design. You're not missing out if you don't bless the half orc barbarian with GWM. It's fine.

Not only that, but it also confirms that those few folks around here that insist WotC has failed because the game is too easy for optimized characters as the suggestions for play are written are just having a difference of opinion on what the design goals should have been, rather than proving that WotC didn't nail their intended goals for the game.

 

[ThePolarBear]

Yes, this is the intent of 5e I believe. The assumption is that once players become more advanced and "know what they are doing" so does the DM, who can then adjust encounter difficulty appropriately. But the base game is designed to be both accessible to new players and also to encourage taking choices that interest you rather than choices you need in order to succeed in the combat pillar.

Maybe I'm confused. The title of the thread, with the quoted tweet, seems to imply to me that people weren't sure if they could make a non-optimized character and that's somehow a revelation with Mearls' response? "Does game design allow suboptimal PCs?"

Of course it does. Not only does the game not force you to make an optimized PC, but most gamers don't even play that way. Optimizers have always been the minority of gamers. Most everyone else play what they feel is the coolest PC to play for what they want. Did we really need confirmation on this? That probably explains his sarcastic response, because I'd probably respond the same way.

Well, try remaking the character as a varient human or a dwarf and I think you will fine it superior in everyway that acuually matters .

Oh, and i was thinking that what is written in the manual and the meaning of that tweet is that 5e was actually a business product based around letting your customers enjoy the game and have fun, feeling rewarded for money well spent, and that was what actually mattered. Silly me. /jokinglysarcasticalbutspecifyingthatrightnowihaveabigsmileonmyfaceandmeannooffencetoanyonewhilewritingthissincewrittenwordsloseallthepartsofcommunicationthatwouldletmeexpressthis,sincei'mnoprizewinningwriterandhavenotbeengiftedwithamazingwritingcapabilities*anf*thisisalongphrase.

For me the problem is not that 5E allow suboptimal class built you can have fun with, it's when people don't have fun when there's one at their table.

And the solution is trying to have fun together by discussing and changing! Have some xp (as soon as i can give some )!

 

[JonnyP71]

This often happens with casters who for RP reasons forego the usual fireballs for mechanically weaker spells.

"Pffft, who needs the crudity of fire when you can use Cloudkill, lock the doors, and take joy from listening to the warm-bloods choking on their own vomit?"

Professor Ferdinand Fiddleweed, Necromancer, defier of the Raven Queen.

 

[Tormyr]

That one of my players can effectively run a Paladin with an 8 Charisma tells me that this game is well put together.

 

[Sacrosanct]

For me the problem is not that 5E allow suboptimal class built you can have fun with, it's when people don't have fun when there's one at their table.

This is another thing that's confusing me. Are you saying that someone who doesn't optimize their character is taking away from the fun of other players? How is that even possible, unless you're a selfish player? I mean, I can't think of a single example of a player playing a character so bad mechanically that it ruins my ability to have fun playing my character. Do you have players who play wizards who don't cast spells and wade into battle with a greatax or something? Because I've never seen stuff like that and that's about the only way I can see someone playing their PC so badly that it screws up everyone else. The only alternative way I can interpret your statement is that unless all other players play exactly with the same priorities as you, you blame them for you not having fun. And needless to say, that's a pretty poor attitude IMO. I'm hoping that interpretation is wrong and not what you actually meant.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Its a good that 5E allow suboptimal class to be playable and enjoyeable, what i was saying is i've seen players getting annoyed at other player's suboptimal character or tactics to the point of sucking the fun by consistently pointing it out to them as if they were doing something badwrongfun like the english saying goes, when they're just having fun too because the system allows it.

 

[Henry]

"Pffft, who needs the crudity of fire when you can use Cloudkill, lock the doors, and take joy from listening to the warm-bloods choking on their own vomit?"

Professor Ferdinand Fiddleweed, Necromancer, defier of the Raven Queen.

I SO want to rename my Pathfinder Halfling Void Oracle as Professor Ferdinand Fiddleweed.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Are you saying that someone who doesn't optimize their character is taking away from the fun of other players?

Over the years I've seen some players get bent out of shape when they are playing an optimized character and someone else at the table isn't. It is usually because that person getting bent out of shape has expectations of the game that optimization is necessary in order to have appropriate chances at being successful in adventures, and this expectation might even be true if the DM is tailoring the game so that optimized characters are effectively the "baseline" rather than letting the extra power squeezed out of the character by optimization actually be extra. So there is a perception that this other player isn't "pulling their weight" and their character should be regarded as a "liability."

It's a thing that, in my experience, complete leaves the table when the DM runs the game with the "baseline" being met by any character not deliberately handicapped by their player (by which I mean things like having the character rely upon a sub-par ability for their primary features, like playing an 8 strength heavy armor wearing front-line fighter that only uses strength-based weapons), meaning that the optimized character kicks tons of butt and the player either is satisfied (because their goal when optimizing was to kick tons of butt, and they are doing just that) or backs off of the optimization a bit (because their goal when optimizing was to match the challenges they would face, so playing a less optimal character is now the way to reach their goal).

I mean, I can't think of a single example of a player playing a character so bad mechanically that it ruins my ability to have fun playing my character.

Neither can I, but I do have some experience with a player who thinks their character is mechanically bad spoiling the mood at the table with their negative attitude - which is sort of similar. The player is too busy lamenting "All my spells suck" or "I probably won't even hit if I try, so why bother?" or that kind of thing so they really aren't doing anything, and their contributions to the game are all poisoned by their bad attitude (that the other players at the table get frustrated by because they want to help everyone at the table have fun, but their suggestions and encouragements are just met with more, often baseless, negativity).

 

[Parmandur]

That one of my players can effectively run a Paladin with an 8 Charisma tells me that this game is well put together.

Precisely; optimization is purely unnecessary.