D&D 5E Characters are not their statistics and abilities
Arilyn
Hero
Yes, you are absolutely right. Realistically, the most competent adventurers should have a mix of moderate stats. Versatility is the key to survival, in my opinion. Taking a look at movies and literature this is also what you see. Heroes usually have above average stats that only very rarely get as high as 17 to 20, and as low as 8.
The only rude, selfish players are the ones who deliberately act out in order to ruin everyone else's fun, or who criticize their fellow player's choices and decisions.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
Except, that's demonstrably not true in practice. The fighter with Strength 20 and Int 8, when paired up with a wizard who has Int 20 and Strength 8, is going to be a far more effective group than the fighter with Strength 16 and Int 12 who is paired up with a wizard that has Strength 12 and Int 16. The nature of the challenges which adventurers face in a D&D world rewards individual specialization over versatility; you make up for the lack of individual versatility by having 3-6 individuals in each group.
The jack-of-all-trades might be more effective as a solo adventurer than someone who is more specialized, but they won't have much chance to contribute in a group, since there will usually be someone else who is better suited for any given task that comes up.
OB1
Jedi Master
While it is certainly more effective I'm not sure it's far more effective. 8-9 points of extra damage a round in mid levels may make a difference at deadly or deadly++, but will have almost no effect on normal or hard combats. Combat is balanced on the assumption of a +2 in your primary attack stat, so an Int 16 Wizard or Str 16 Fighter is already ahead of the expected curve.
I would make the argument that in 5e any ability over 16 is wasted, and true optimization lies in the focus of how to be maximally effective in one of the other two non combat pillars.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Sure, just look at the sheer page count D&D has historically devoted to combat rules. The emphasis is obvious.
Entirely depends upon pacing. You could also get yourselves killed grinding against a trap-filled dungeon with no combat opportunities whatsoever. You could keep raiding the same cavern complex indefinitely, if you had a safe enough place to retreat to and refresh spells for healing, just by the rules - unless the DM intervened.
Which also applies to the trap-filled dungeon. It's not showing the game is designed to discourage combat, just that it modeled risk in a rather swingy manner. Heck, there were enough save-or-die (or just die-no-save) cursed items, that even collecting treasure could be pretty lethal.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
That assumes combat is balanced, but there's no guarantee that you'll ever get a fair fight. And I would argue that their suggested balance assumes you start with a 16, rather than that you maintain a 16 and never improve it, but that's somewhat tangential to the point at hand.
If an encounter (not necessarily combat) is so easy that you're going to win regardless, then stats don't matter at all, and it's a moot point. And if it's so hard that you have no chance, then stats also don't matter, because they won't be enough to save you. Your degree of optimization only matters when you're somewhere in the middle, such that bad stats would cause you to fail where good stats would allow you to succeed. For any given encounter, it's more likely to fall into the survivable range of a specialized group than it is to fall into the survivable range of a less-specialized group.
There is some benefit to specialization, at least some of the time, whenever the difference between specialization and marginal ability would matter; the Dex-based character is going to make plenty of Dex-based checks - dozens per session - so the difference between a 16 and a 20 is likely to come up. To contrast there is little benefit to individual versatility, since you will rarely be called upon to make a check for something that isn't your specialty; a character with straight twelves will not likely be making any particular stat check with any sort of real frequency - maybe two or three times per session - so the fact that they have a 12 instead of an 8 is unlikely to make any difference.
Although really, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the topic of this thread.
I never really understood that philosophy. Personally I have found that there is actually winning and losing in a RPG and if I was playing in that Dragon TPK then I would not walk out of that game feeling like I have "won".
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Maybe. We might not lose an actual leg, or we might not actually get captured and sent to prison, or we might not actually all get eaten by kobolds; but we do lose out on the potential to make a good story, we lose out on the potential futures those characters and stories that may have spawned, and I think, we lose out on good memories.
Sure, we may go home laughing about us all getting killed by giant rats on the first day of our first adventure, or maybe failing that diplomacy check to not be taken slaves by the ogres, or even just talking our way out of a pickle with the city guard. But these aren't the stories people talk about on here and I suspect that these aren't the stories we savor and tell our buddies and kids in order to get them enthused about the game.
To say that D&D has no consequences is inherently begging the question of: "then why play?" We're obviously trying to accomplish something by sitting down at the table and I think I can speak for most people when I posit that thing is "fun". Which as much as people don't want to hear it, is accomplished by "winning at D&D" that is: overcoming challenges in a way that creates lasting memories and a positive experience. You may create lasting memories and a positive experience by failing to overcome challenges sometimes. I'm sure everyone has experienced a great battle in which they lost but still generally went home feeling positive and probably still remember that loss fondly. But again, I will posit that long-standing fondness for a loss stems from positive experiences leading up to that loss. IE: "We played a good game, even though we lost."
The "consequences" of failing at D&D basically lead to a dislike for the game. You die often enough, in inglorious ways enough, you fail to generate good memories and go home thinking about D&D as "that game you died in a lot for no reason." I mean, there's no consequences to video games, but dying a lot, often enough, early enough will lead to a dislike for the game. Just as losing quickly, regularly and often will do in any game, even in real-life games!
Any time you go home from D&D feeling like you've wasted you time, wasted your effort and wake up with no fond recollection of your playtime is a time you have "lost" at D&D. So yes, there are consequences to failing at D&D, on the grand scale those consequences may be nothing more than no longer being interesting in playing D&D; but for a niche hobby, I'd say that's a pretty big deal.
Now there are plenty of ways to "win" at D&D and not all of them are going to rely on dice rolls but unless you disregard the numbers entirely, at which point I would question why you're playing D&D, and those that are are going to rely on being backed up by "good" (lets say good means +X's and "bad" means -X's) stats. So if you have bad stats, at least when it comes to rolling, you are more likely to "lose" at D&D then when you do not. The rest is your ability to role-play and think on your feet and if you're not good at that well then....
Why is it ridiculous?
If I turn up to play a team sport with you and don't bring my shorts and runners, you might reasonably be upset. If I turn up to play bridge with you and am drunk, you might reasonably be upset.
Not everyone plays D&D in that sort of spirit, but it's not ridiculous to do so, and hence not ridiculous to expect those who turn up to play to be ready to bring their best game.
I think this would particularly be the case in a pick-up game - if in doubt, at least bring a character who is mechanically competent.
It seems like the proper correlation with your analogy is if I were to fail to bring my character sheet, dice and a pencil. But that's not what you are implying, is it?
How about this to turn your analogy around: Let's say I show up to play that team sport with you. And I *do* bring my shorts and runners. But I'm not quite as good at the sport as you--yet we are having fun playing--I guess you'd still be upset? Even if I bring my "A game" and roleplay the heck out of a really interesting and fun character, that happens to be less optimized than yours--yet we all had fun playing--we still have a problem?
I ignored the "show up drunk" part because its equally bad form for TTRPGs (unless the group is cool with it) as it would be to a game of bridge.
Similar Threads
