D&D 5E Do you feel 5e pressures you to build strong over fun?

Caliban · Mar 11, 2017

For me, and for a lot of other people, strong is fun. I enjoy coming up with new and interesting ways of beating the bad guys. Sometimes through my character build, sometimes through effective use of spells or combinations of spells, sometimes through using the environment against them, and occasionally through talking my way out of the fight.

Some editions make it easier to build overly effective characters (and conversely overly weak characters) by giving you so many options that you can find synergies no one intended (or combinations of abilities that sound good on the surface but really don't work together in practice). 3rd edition was like this, and Pathfinder is really like this.

5e gives you enough options to make strong characters, while still allowing non-optimized builds to be mostly viable.

Sunseeker · Mar 11, 2017

R P Davis said:
I dunno.

One of the stories this discussion brings vividly to mind is the 1999 "The Mummy," starring Brendan Fraser. In that movie, Rick O'Connell is optimized to survive in the way we're discussing. Evie is also optimized, but more to the "sage" or "scholar" side of things; she grows somewhat used to the adventuring life over the course of the story, though she never becomes the adventurer Rick is.

And then there's Jonathan. If ever there was a cliché, non-optimized character in a party, it's Jonathan. He's utterly useless as an adventurer. Yet he manages to survive, and at least once he saves the day.

My point is, without Jonathan the story would suck. SUCK. If the party consisted of all rugged O'Connell types, all theoretically optimized to survive the adventuring environment, they'd never have made it 20 minutes into the film. They'd have been stymied by the first puzzle which required something more than combat aptitude.

Jonathan requires saving. He also brings a certain amusement and flair to the thing. He's the damsel in distress as well as the jester. All of which builds tension, builds drama, builds a better, more interesting story. And isn't that what we're supposed to be about when we're gathered around a table, eating horrible-for-us snack foods and rolling dice?

Further, there'd be precious little of the tension which characters with different foci and goals provide. You'd have "Predator," which is a bloody awful story: All the characters are carbon copies, combat-optimized in ever-so-slightly different ways. The only drama, the only tension is the question of who dies next, and in what grisly way. I think that's what shidaku's first paragraph describes, and I can think of nothing less interesting to play. Of course, that's just my opinion. If that's your preferred play style, go for it.

That's why I agree with shidaku's assessment that we're discussing a style-of-play thing more than an edition or game-dependent thing.

Cheers,

Bob

That's a fair comparison I think. Even in games with good stories when you have a very high chance of dying I find myself less inclined to make "creative" or "role-play" choices, but on the flip-side, D&D does not particularly provide a good structured system for character development. I still maintain that D&D need a more structurally expressed system, basically "character feats" or turning the Background system into personal-development side-class sort of thing containing non-crunch personal development options.

SmokingSkull · Mar 11, 2017

For me it depends entirely on the campaign and the character I wish to play. Current campaign I'm in has a little of all the pillars so everyone at my table gets a moment to shine. After refining our house rules a bit we've settled on a certain feel for our game, it's heroic with a very real possibility of death but with quick wits and decisive action we manage to win the day. For me I say neither fun nor strong characters are mutually exclusive, another example being our table is made up of all different kinds of players. For instance I myself am a specialist, one player is a roleplayer, another is a storyteller and the last player is a tactician.

What this means is there are varying degrees of optimization or lack thereof but yet we all play together (Our DM is a professed powergamer) and it's a blast! Sometimes we get a little envious of what the other can do but we don't mean anything by it, all in good fun and such. But tldr; No I don't necessarily feel the need to make strong over fun characters in 5E, I can have fun either way.

seebs · Mar 11, 2017

Corwin said:
A conversation in another thread spurred me to want to start this one so as not to derail that one further.

First, I get that there are plenty of perfectly legit playstyles out there. I'm no OneTrueWay believer or BadWrongFun caller-outer. This isn't about "I can't believe you guys play that way! How dumb!" or anything like that. If anything, it may be about expectations and preconceived notions of what 5e expect of its players. And yes, I'm an unabashed power gamer and experienced optimizer. Going back decades. So there's that caveat.

But it feels like there are people out there who believe they are required by 5e to build purely for maximum possible strength/power just to survive. The example given in the other thread: If you were a fighter 4, and your wizard friend started encouraging your interest in magic, would you take a level of wizard before getting that "precious" extra attack from fighter 5? That's the key issue here. Do you feel like you *need* that extra attack before you would consider broadening your horizons resulting from story development?

I think that games in general tend to push this, but that 5E does so the least of any D&D I've yet seen. So I have players who feel like they have to make optimal choices, but also players who don't care.
I don't think it'

Tony Vargas · Mar 11, 2017

(OH, and another thing: 5e doesn't pressure you to prioritize 'strong.' DEX builds are, like, totally better. ;P )

(Oh, here's another one: even if you were being pressed to death under a stack of 5e D&D books, you would't feel pressured for quite a while.. at only 3 books/year!)

R P Davis said:
One of the stories this discussion brings vividly to mind is the 1999 "The Mummy," starring Brendan Fraser. In that movie, Rick O'Connell is optimized to survive in the way we're discussing. Evie is also optimized, but more to the "sage" or "scholar" side of things; she grows somewhat used to the adventuring life over the course of the story, though she never becomes the adventurer Rick is.

And then there's Jonathan. If ever there was a cliché, non-optimized character in a party, it's Jonathan. He's utterly useless as an adventurer. Yet he manages to survive, and at least once he saves the day.

My point is, without Jonathan the story would suck. SUCK. If the party consisted of all rugged O'Connell types, all theoretically optimized to survive the adventuring environment, they'd never have made it 20 minutes into the film. They'd have been stymied by the first puzzle which required something more than combat aptitude. ... Further, there'd be precious little of the tension which characters with different foci and goals provide. ...

Jonathan requires saving. He also brings a certain amusement and flair to the thing. He's the damsel in distress as well as the jester. All of which builds tension, builds drama, builds a better, more interesting story. And isn't that what we're supposed to be about when we're gathered around a table, eating horrible-for-us snack foods and rolling dice?

Thing is, D&D has rarely done much to enable the participation of a character like that. He probably wouldn't've been a PC in most editions, just some~~thing~~one the players need to acquire and safeguard long enough to get through the one challenge that requires ithim.

UngeheuerLich · Mar 11, 2017

I think suboptimal choices are great. As long as your character can do something that is fun and can help the party, everything is fine.
I really used to optimize... but not only for combat. Instead I try to make the best cjaracter of a concept that usually can do something in most situations... combat and non combat. My natural choice in adnd 2e was bard.

Corwin · Mar 11, 2017

Tony Vargas said:
(OH, and another thing: 5e doesn't pressure you to prioritize 'strong.' DEX builds are, like, totally better. ;P )

(Oh, here's another one: even if you were being pressed to death under a stack of 5e D&D books, you would't feel pressured for quite a while.. at only 3 books/year!)

Do you ever tire of coming up with these none-too-subtle backhanded compliments, or damning with faint praise? Are you trying to gaslight 5e or something?

I'd think someone who constantly finds things they don't like about a current version of a game would just save themselves the headaches and go back to the edition they clearly liked better. <shrug> But whudda I know, I guess?

Kabouter Games · Mar 11, 2017

shidaku said:
That's a fair comparison I think. Even in games with good stories when you have a very high chance of dying I find myself less inclined to make "creative" or "role-play" choices, but on the flip-side, D&D does not particularly provide a good structured system for character development. I still maintain that D&D need a more structurally expressed system, basically "character feats" or turning the Background system into personal-development side-class sort of thing containing non-crunch personal development options.

5e does a far better job providing a "structured system for character development" than any other version of D&D of which I'm aware. There are other games which have far better character-development strategies.

I'm not sure where you're going with the rest of that, because backgrounds already consist of "non-crunch personal development options" - they provide some skills, and one kit/game/whatsit proficiency, and another thing which is entirely RP.

Tony Vargas said:
(OH, and another thing: 5e doesn't pressure you to prioritize 'strong.' DEX builds are, like, totally better. ;P )

(Oh, here's another one: even if you were being pressed to death under a stack of 5e D&D books, you would't feel pressured for quite a while.. at only 3 books/year!)

Thing is, D&D has rarely done much to enable the participation of a character like that. He probably wouldn't've been a PC in most editions, just some~~thing~~one the players need to acquire and safeguard long enough to get through the one challenge that requires ithim.

Oh, I dunno. He appears to be the inspiration for the bard one guy is playing in my Wednesday evening Roll20 game. And it's awesome great fun.

Cheers,

Bob

www.r-p-davis.com

Tony Vargas · Mar 11, 2017

Corwin said:
Do you ever tire of coming up with these ?

No.

My sense of humor is a congenital defect inherited from my father. But I was poking fun at optimizer complaints about stat balance (which I get, but don't consider monumental, nor unique to 5e), and dissatisfaction with the slow pace of release (being quite comfortable with it, myself), and I'm sorry if anyone's as wrapped up in either of those issues as I can be in my edition-war-PTSD, and might have been offended or felt like it was personal.

Argyle King · Mar 11, 2017

I think 5E does a better job at not forcing players to choose between fun and effectiveness than 3rd or 4th did. Though, to some extent, I think a little bit of that conflict is to be expected in a lot of d20 games due to a somewhat linear math design. Still, as I said already, 5E does better at not forcing the choice than 3rd or 4th.

Even so, I feel that feats are possibly a problem area. I wish they were implemented differently. I also feel that a lot of things viewed in Unearthed Arcana lean me toward believing that my views concerning mechanical balance are different from those of the design team (and seemingly much of the online D&D community.)

D&D 5E Do you feel 5e pressures you to build strong over fun?

Caliban

Rules Monkey

Sunseeker

Guest

SmokingSkull

First Post

seebs

Adventurer

Tony Vargas

Legend

UngeheuerLich

Legend

Corwin

Explorer

Kabouter Games

Explorer

Tony Vargas

Legend

Argyle King

Legend

Similar Threads

Voidrunner's Codex