How much do your trust the advice of others?

[Warpiglet]

I am just posting this in order to foster conversation...but here goes...

Not terribly long ago I posted a thread about conventional wisdom and character creation. In short, my concern is that some newer players might get discouraged and more veteran players might miss out on novelty in character design due to "it's a trap!" and other such pronouncements.

I am equally amazed when such advice is predicated on small statistical advantages. Specifically, looking down on a greataxe vs. greatsword or taking a rapier (shudder) instead of shortsword when the avoided choice might be more appropriate flavor.

I am hoping that we are seeing a selection bias here...that the more maximizing player is simply over represented in the online environment.

I hate to think of starry eyed kids in their first or second campaign all lined up with paladins wielding rapiers!

I also wonder if this sort of advice we see is predicated on game store groups with adversarial underpinnings, but that is wild conjecture.

Next up for me is a strength rogue (dwarf) that grapples and stabs with a shortsword...or even more heretical a duergar ranger warlock (pact of the blade). The horror!

 

[LordEntrails]

...
I am hoping that we are seeing a selection bias here...that the more maximizing player is simply over represented in the online environment...

^ This ^
IMO, the online community is very 'enthusiast' based. And ENWorld is very GM based on top of that. Neither does a good job of representing what is probably the average D&D player/DM.

 

[Gradine]

The optimization crowd is certainly over-represented on internet forums, which is to be expected, considering the nature of optimization (particularly it focus on research and community consensus).

I do think there's a certain danger in new players seeking out advice from some people, because, as you mention, it could easily scare them away from options they might have otherwise enjoyed, slight mechanical disadvantage be damned.

My personal approach to DMing new players is providing a smorgasbord of different playstyles in the first few sessions; this gives both me and them insight in what parts of the game excite or engage them the most. If I have a player that seems most engaged when battling a difficult foe and least engaged when everyone's standing around talking, that's when I might consider introducing them to CharOp Class Guides and the like.

 

[Nevvur]

Strongly agree with LordEntralis and Gradine.

I also wonder if this sort of advice we see is predicated on game store groups with adversarial underpinnings, but that is wild conjecture.

Doubt it. As long as wild conjecture is permitted, I think game store groups are a minority of the total player base, and groups with adversarial underpinnings are a minority of that minority. Probably not a very influential lot when it comes to setting the tone of conversation around CharOp.

 

[outsider]

I want to know what the best options are. Even if I don't choose them. I tend to have a "sub optimal choice budget" for my characters. I'll use a shortsword instead of a rapier sometimes. But I won't pair that suboptimal weapon choice with a 14 dex, for example.

Make whatever choices you want. Being educated on them is prudent though.

 

[aco175]

I am still amazed by the builds and DPR talk. Maybe I do not see it in my home game. PCs doing 50-100 points damage per round on regular attacks is out there in my game. I think once the 10th level thief crited for 50 points.

That being said I agree that the 'normal' games do not have an online count as much as others as previously stated. It may be more an age thing where I'm in my 40's and not as concerned with optimized vs just getting together. I remember in my teen years I was more a power gamer.

 

[Shiroiken]

One of the key differences between 5E and the last 2 editions is the lack of "trap options." The difference between optimal builds and less than optimal builds really isn't great enough to be noticed by the average player (deliberately bad builds, such as an 8 attack/spellcasting ability or an 8 Con, however, will be significantly worse). Because of this, being sub-optimal really isn't significantly hurting the group overall, and thus seems to keep the munchkin players from pestering the rest of the group IME.

 

[The Thrasson]

A great topic that has produced terrific ideas so far. As a player, it's more important these days to have as much fun as I can. Being successful in combat is enjoyable, but; I like hamming it up in and out of combat. Rolling a critical without an in game exclamation just isn't what I want these days. It is a ROLE PLAYING game and should be emphasized to newcomers.

Unless my character has a low Int., making the wisest choice possible in character creation and development makes a lot of sense. As long as I ham it up.

I agree that you have to really love this game to post often. Lurking shows the same love, it's just you're a little bashful.

If the group I'm in is adversarial, I'm out. You put to much time and effort into the game to have to deal with that crap. Deal breaker. Dealing with this as a DM is even worse. I'll toss someone if they persist. Everyone in the group needs to have fun. As a DM, I need to adjust to different playing styles. I need to make sure everyone has a role in achieving their goals.

Just an idea, have separate subforums for players and DMs.

 

[jgsugden]

It all depends on their persuasion skill.

If you're looking for advice, evaluate it and use it as you see fit.

If you don't want advice, avoid it or ignore it.

If you get bad advice: You're responsible for taking that advice. Fortunately, there are very few character creation / development decisions that will ruin the game.

 

[Sleepy Walker]

I started out reading all those guides and looking into what they recommended. I could see the logic behind the choices. Then I decided to DM a game I would enjoy and took a hard look at the entire rule set and what would be considered broken. Of course I broke the heck out the game and looked for all the bits that were vastly underpowered or vastly overpowered. I'm even playing one of my early attempts at a broken character from a class that most people said was garbage (ranger) (can consistently do 50 damage in a turn in melee with sub-optimal weapons and is really hard to hit with high AC).

It was then that I realized that many of the recommendations and proven though processes are not necessarily the most effective thing, nor are they the necessarily fun.

So I started making every broken character I could while avoiding any often produced logic. A high charisma eldritch knight with low strength and intelligence, sorcerer wizard with only a focus to mental abilities and the highest AC of 11, an orc bardbarian with a charisma dump stat (focus on trying to get to gargantuan level of strength to show off, plays maracas, grapples). After all that I realized that I can really do whatever I want as a character, so long as the game is at least level 8, because feats and multicasting will generally get me what I want.

-The damage dice for weapons do not really matter, except something like 2d6 or a d12 vs 1d4.
-Nearly all characters are playable, and enjoyable, if you understand the rules and do not mind NOT being optimized out the wazoo.
-Don't listen to people tell you that something is a garbage combination/choice, because I can almost guarantee that there is a way to make it shine.
-Investing in the main spellcasting stat is rarely necessary, since all magic lists have plenty of options that do not rely on it
---- Really only high DC for spells or abilities requires a real focus into that ability.
-Proficiency will be bonus enough at later level in many cases, allowing for respectable attack bonuses or saves with lower ability scores.

Statistically one thing is better than another (short sword vs rapier). Realistically the difference is so small that it simply is not worth thinking about, at least not for me any more. Flat damage bonuses and multiple attacks are so much more reliable than how many sides your damage die has.
similar argument for different armors, since any real focus at a higher AC results in very similar results, just with different weights and ability score investments.


So to answer the fear, Yes, new players are most certainly looking at those guides and reigning in their choices. Should they? To get a better grasp of the game quickly, yes. To find the "correct" way to play, no.

If the player is dedicated enough to reading those guides, a lot of them contradict each other and some are very good at giving different strategies to making said class. If the player is really really dedicated, then they will eventually notice how everything is put together and realize that they have a whole host of options. Takes time, but I think a new or low effort player is not exactly expected to field something amazing and unique. (the few low effort players I have seen have a hard enough time remembering what their characters can do from week to week or how to do combat).