D&D 5E Characters are not their statistics and abilities

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[OB1]

That assumes combat is balanced, but there's no guarantee that you'll ever get a fair fight...

...There is some benefit to specialization, at least some of the time...

As to combat being balanced, you are exactly right, DMs can throw any level challenge at any party. I was referring to the suggested combat difficulty guidelines in the DMG, which assume only that you took the standard array and put the highest score (15) in your primary combat spot, giving you a +2. All other combat math in the game is based off of your proficiency bonus and does not assume raising that stat either through synergy with your race or spending ASIs on it. That is the baseline for the easy, average, hard, and deadly encounter guidelines. Any increase to your combat abilities ASIs will make combat easier than the expected curve.

As to specialization, there is possibly some benefit here, until your figher is facing a INT save or your Wizard a STR save and have to face the consequences of having a -1 in those saves. All I'm suggesting is that there are multiple ways to optimize a character in 5e and that the traditional sense of make sure your character can do as much DPR as possible doesn't matter as much. In many cases, you are better off using ASIs and Feats to increase non proficient saves to protect against getting locked down by high DC saves in Tier 4 combat, where a single failed save can spell doom for the party.

That's a far cry from making an inept character, as the OP is discussing. I would say here that purposefully dumping your main combat stat should only be done with agreement of the other players. If I make a fighter with 8 STR, DEX, CON and 15 INT, WIS, CHA, I'm making the game more difficult on myself and my team, so everyone should buy in. Like choosing to play a video game at a higher difficulty level, this can be a fun and new challenge.

 

[Sacrosanct]

From Gygax's AD&D PHB (pp 7, 104) and DMG (p 61):

The Dungeon Master will act the parts of "everyone else", and will present to you a variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure with, and often fight with! . . .

Combat occurs when communication and negotiation are undesired or unsuccessful. The clever character does not attack first and ask questions (of self or monster) later, but every adventure will be likely to have combat for him or her at some point. . . .

Combat is a common pursuit in the vast majority of adventures . . .​

I don't think AD&D was presented as a game in which combat was to be avoided. And once the PCs reach 2nd or 3rd level and start to make their way out of single-digit hit points, the risks of death tend to drop somewhat.

Um, the part you quote tells you right there that combat happens after every other option fails. Your own quoted material contradicts your statement lol. I'm not saying combat should never happen in AD&D. What I am saying, is that from 1974 to 2000 (before 3e came out and boosted all the PCs), the game was more about avoiding combat when possible. For several reasons

1. RAW, if you used combat as your first choice and ran the game like you would in say 4e, your PCs would die all the time. A single hit from a kobold or orc has the potential of outright killing a 2nd or 3rd level PC. That's literally impossible in WotC editions. Monsters has several save or die features like poison, and good luck if you ever run across a life draining undead
2. You didn't get hardly any XP for defeating monsters. You got most of it from treasure. And you also still got monster XP for defeating them no matter what way you did it, even if you totally avoid them.
3. The vast majority of PCs only went to name level before retiring. A 9th level thief will only have an average of 32 hp. So even at higher levels, the risk of death remains and doesn't drop as much as you're presenting. An owl bear will rip that PC to shreds in one on one combat
4. A dragon's breath weapon can wipe out an entire party in one go. Game over. An 11 HD red will do 88 hp of damage, and only something like a level 14 fighter with a decent Con bonus can absorb that
5. 2e didn't change this much, mechanically. In 2e you didn't get xp for treasure so much, but you got a lot more for roleplaying, and the game was still just as deadly

So no, AD&D hasn't always been a combat first game. Anyone who's played AD&D anywhere near RAW knows AD&D was "combat as a last option" game. Every group I've played with from 1981 to 2012 (when AD&D was our game of choice) would agree. The rules of AD&D clearly show that PCs won't survive long if they view combat as the go to option. Only when 3e came out and PCs got boosted in power exponentially, and then 4e made it all about combat. To make an argument to the contrary ignores 2/3 of D&D's entire history as a game.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I completely agree (and gave XP). I also noted that it's not all optimizers.

I'm pointing out that based on my anecdotal observations, there is a subgroup of optimizers that is most vocal about the "playing wrong," if you're not optimizing. I have my own personal theories as to why this is which may or may not be wrong-

1. Math! Optimization necessarily involves math, math is a certain thing, and you're finding the "best" solutions for a problem. To a certain mindset, this means that you are correct. You have solved a problem with the right solution.

2. Playstyle. Many (although not all) optimizers favor much more combat-oriented games, and combat is the most math-intensive part of D&D. As such, it's the most amenable to optimization.

3. "You're doing it wrong." Character creation, as it has become such a large part of D&D, creates a number of options (and resources on the web to help you through those options). Many optimizers, in good faith, attempt to choose the best options at all times, and cannot fathom why someone might choose character options that don't advance their own characters in ways that the optimizer believes would maximize that character's utility.

4. We're all geeks here. Let's face it- D&D is a relatively niche product, and the people that play it are idiosyncratic. People like to say that their way is best. And, yes, Kirk is the best.

I'm not sure if this fits into one of your existing buckets, but here's one that I've experienced:

(5) It sometimes disrupts suspension of disbelief. If you're playing a 20th level spellcaster with Int 22 who blows his 9th level spell slots on Chromatic Orb of all things, in a obviously misguided belief about its efficacy, I as another player at the table can't take you seriously as a real Int 22 spellcaster.

The combination of "munchkin", "stupid", and "ostensibly highly-intelligent and very experienced" just doesn't work for me. If I'm going to play with someone who is twice the level of everyone else at the table, with much higher stats, and tons of magical items, I expect that person to be more effective than me in combat and non-combat, not less. I'd rather you be an effective powergamer who outshines me in every way than a stupid ineffective munchkin who should outshine me but doesn't.

This probably wouldn't bother me for any other stat except Int, but player/PC mismatches for Int can be very jarring.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I was referring to the suggested combat difficulty guidelines in the DMG, which assume only that you took the standard array and put the highest score (15) in your primary combat spot, giving you a +2. All other combat math in the game is based off of your proficiency bonus and does not assume raising that stat either through synergy with your race or spending ASIs on it.

That's not a reasonable assumption, though. I'm not sure if it actually says that anywhere, but there's no way that they could not expect you to put your ability boosts into your main stat as soon as possible. They certainly didn't balance anything around the assumption that a fighter would throw their +2 into Intelligence.

As to specialization, there is possibly some benefit here, until your fighter is facing a INT save or your Wizard a STR save and have to face the consequences of having a -1 in those saves.

Right, except the way that the game math works, the fighter making an INT save isn't going to perform any differently whether their score is 8 or 20, because that's just one save that they have to make and the variability in the die is a larger factor than your ability modifier.

On average, in order to see any difference whatsoever between a modifier of -1 and a modifier of 0, you need to make twenty checks with that stat. To see a difference between -1 and +2, you need to make around six or seven checks with that stat. And unless your fighter has a sage background, you might see a total of six or seven Intelligence checks over the course of twenty levels. To contrast, you'll see hundreds of Strength or Dex checks, and the wizard will have their Intelligence modifier factor into hundreds of checks as well.

If the goal of optimizing your bonuses is to succeed more often, then you get more bang for your buck by investing in stats that you'll be using more often. That's why the fighter maxxes Strength, the rogue maxxes Dex, the wizard maxxes Int, and the cleric maxxes Wisdom; by putting your high stats where they'll see the most use, you guarantee the highest success rate for the party as a whole.

 

[Azzy]

Go back to D and D's original 3 brown books. Read them and look at the sample dungeons therein (like Blackmoor's). It's a miniatures game turned into an individual combat game (in fact, ranges are indicated in inches), with the purpose of killing/circumventing stuff and getting treasure. Look at lost of the modules put out for first decade. The role-playing aspect generally consisted of some background....then you go in the dungeon, beat the guardians with a club over the head (or a garrote to the neck in the dark), get their loot, and eventually have enough to go buy a castle and retainers.

Whoa, there. That was going out of style by the early 80s so that the Mentzer edition BXCMI edition D&D and its modules featured more roleplaying. Then there was Dragonlance. Then there was 2e...

 

[Corwin]

And unless your fighter has a sage background, you might see a total of six or seven Intelligence checks over the course of twenty levels.

...in my games.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't agree with this.

As far as I can tell, from posting on these boards, I am more inclined to "indie-style"/narrativist RPGing than the typical ENworld poster. As far as I know, I am the only regular poster who is also GMing a fairly regular BW game.

But in these sorts of threads, I generally find myself more sympathetic to the "optimisers". Because, like "indie" RPGers, optimisers recognise that action resolution, and hence the mechanics of PC building, are pretty central to RPGing. (Without mechanics it's either negotiation between players and GM over the content of the shared fiction, or GM fiat. I guess player fiat is a third alternative, but many ENworlders seem to be against that.)

I know I'm not a very good wargamer (I have friends who are, and they utterly clean my clock in those sorts of games). But I appreciate the wargamer's or optimiser's eye for the difference that mechanics make.

I'll go back to the example of Rufus. That character would be viable in BW. That he is presented as an obvious example of deliberate sabotage tells us something about D&D, and it's focus as a game. For instance, in D&D overcoming challenges is taken to be quite important. In BW, the mechanics of the game make it much more important to confront challenges than to overcome them. That mechanical difference makes a big difference to the tone and content of the RPGing that results. It makes a difference to the ways in which players can shape the shared fiction.

Once you recognise that, in D&D, overcoming challenges is where it's at, you've already set a floor. Rufus is out. I'm happy to accept it as true that, in 5e, "merely competent" characters are good enough (or, to put it another way, that the marginal increase in success rates resulting from "optimisation" is not noticeable at the typical table running the typical 5e adventure); but look at the amount of design and development work that WotC had to put in to achieve this! Even with the learning of 40 years of D&D design, it still took them a two-year playtest.

If the OP sets the floor a bit higher, well, who are we other D&D players to judge?

I think how Rufus is presented says more about the argument his presenter is making. A low Str fighter can be perfectly viable in D&D. Especially in 5E where there are alternate paths for characters built into the game. Rufus will simply have to try to succeed by relying on something other than his strength...whether it be his dexterity, husband tactical skill, or his teammates. There's no reason such a character MUST be some kind of burden.

And even if that does play an element...is that the worst thing? I mean, do we need to search far to find a group of characters...a fellowship, let's say...where every member contributes meaningfully to their eventual success despite not all of them being physically capable individuals?

My personal style lies lies somewhere in between, and my guess is most others do as well. There is nothing wrong with playing D&D as a tactical minis game. There's nothing wrong with playing it as pure role play. I personally think that either extreme suffers without the other element to balance it.

Go back to D and D's original 3 brown books. Read them and look at the sample dungeons therein (like Blackmoor's). It's a miniatures game turned into an individual combat game (in fact, ranges are indicated in inches), with the purpose of killing/circumventing stuff and getting treasure. Look at lost of the modules put out for first decade. The role-playing aspect generally consisted of some background....then you go in the dungeon, beat the guardians with a club over the head (or a garrote to the neck in the dark), get their loot, and eventually have enough to go buy a castle and retainers.

You can also go back and look at the characters they created, and the stories they told. Yes, the characters started out as simple cyphers...mostly with a name that was a pun on the player's name and so on. But a whole mythology built up around these early characters. So it seems that Gygax and Arneson and Kuntz and all their players quickly added that element to the game. They were building a story, not just playing a tactical game.

It's why we know a ton about Mordenkainen and Bigby and Rigby....but we have no idea what kind of tank Gary liked to use when playing war games.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

...in my games.

Unless you're playing an "Against the Illithids" campaign, or your DM makes you roll an Intelligence check to remember where you parked your horse.

Even taking into account the wide variety of playstyles, fighters are highly unlikely to be making many Intelligence checks. If that's not true at your own table, then take that into consideration on your end. If everyone in this forum filtered everything they said through every unlikely circumstance, we'd have no common ground for discussion.