Playing the underdogs

[Markh3rd]

Who out there in RPG land has picked a class or subclass that was ruled "underpowered" or "why would you ever pick this option over the others" and had a great time in spite of being the underdog? I would love to hear your stories.

I myself enjoy playing the underpowered class from time to time, just to show that in many cases it's the players skill, not the classes strengths, that can really bring fun and success to a table. Teamwork trumps individual strength. And roleplaying can trump roll-playing in the right circumstances.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Who out there in RPG land has picked a class or subclass that was ruled "underpowered" or "why would you ever pick this option over the others" .

Ruled underpowered by whom?

 

[Krachek]

He mean rated red in popular guide, like the original and maybe the current beast master ranger, elemental monk,.
Or classe-race match like half orc wizard.

My opinion is you play the race and classe you want, choose archetype, features and spell that look cool to you, it it will be fine.
Unless you actively screw things it is hard be an true underdog.

But if you roll stats, things can go bad.
A rolled 13,13,12,11,9,8 can feel underdog compare to a 18,18,15,12,12,10.

I usually play standard human. But I don’t think it qualify as a underdog choice.

 

[Blue]

For one-shots I'll play anything.

For ongoing campaigns I'm going to pick something that *I* think can contribute well to the group dynamic. Sometimes those are not considered powerful by others, sometimes they are. I get far too few chances to make characters and play them so I'd rather they have the flaws *I* want them to have instead of "built-in" mechanical ones.

For example I play a halfling bard with the lowest AC & HPs who is he's constantly getting into melee and "protecting" other characters who are really in a better place then him. Because I'm intentionally overplaying the "Brave" racial feature. It's not his only flaw by a long shot, but it's a mechanical aspect I chose to turn into a flaw instead of it having forced on my because the math / mechanics for a class doesn't work well or is a poor fit for my table.

Other times my concept fits well with popularly underpowered options. Like wanting to play a melee warlock (prior to Xanathar's). Then I go for it.

 

[Swedish Chef]

In 3.5 I opted to play a mage that didn't use the typical "firepower" spells. No fireballs, lightning bolts, etc. I went for Area of Control, focusing on the various Pit spells. The other players, at first, thought I was nuts just creating 10' deep pits, but as I leveled up and they became 20, 30 and 40 foot deep (or more), with the option of acid or spikes or other neat add-ons, the party combat tactics simply became "manoeuvre the bad guy into the pit". Baleful Transposition also became quite popular. Suddenly our strongest fighter was amongst the enemy spell casters, thanks to my imp familiar having successfully flown to them invisibly and then willingly accepted the swap in location.

The other fun one was a plain human cleric of a trickster god. He was an alcoholic scam artist, always collecting donations for the orphans (said donations never made it to the orphanage). Plenty of spells for hiding, escaping, drinking, but not many for general party healing. But the roleplaying was such fun that the party never cared that they had to keep buying healing potions from local temples.

 

[bedir than]

I've played fewer optimized characters than any other label. Being able to do a couple more points of damage doesn't really matter to me with how I play.

Plus, if I die the real death I just make a new character, which is fun

 

[Salamandyr]

This is one of those topics that always cause me to wonder, "what does this person mean by underpowered?"

Some people like the challenge of taking an apparently underpowered choice, and through clever optimization, or top notch gameplay, dominate anyway. I find this no different than those who like to play video games on hard mode, or set themselves challenges like playing the entire game with the starter weapons. It's another way to powergame (that is not a criticism); this time through choosing an intentional handicap.

And some people like to pretend they're taking an underpowered choice, because the interplay of the game rules actually make it an overpowered choice, but they believe they are being unique because it's not a standard fantasy trope. Like dart specialists in 1st edition, or the god wizard who eschews evocation in favor of control spells. Or the diplomancers in 3rd edition, who are "underpowered" because they've traded all their combat ability for social skills, that, coincidentally, mean they never need to fight.

And then some people do like it from a roleplay standpoint...either they enjoy roleplaying out the complications that arise from having a severe lack in a certain area, or sometimes they enjoy how that lack causes the game to often center around their character. It makes me wonder though, if it would be less fun if the other players didn't make allowances for their characters frailty.

For myself, to get that underdog feeling, instead of looking for weaker characters, I go for stronger challenges.

 

[Markh3rd]

To be clear, I mean underpowered as in "all the guides says this choice is not good." Or "everyone at my store/home game says this sucks". But you make it work, and even surprise people and show them that it's not always about picking the most optimal choices, but about teamwork and fun.

This also includes not meaning purposefully making something that is a burden on your group or directly trying to screw your group over. That's just not the spirit of the game and breaks rule number one.

 

[Lord Twig]

Yes, I definitely do this. My standard human sword and board champion fighter worked out real well. As the main tank with the protection fighting style and the shield master feat he paired up brilliantly with the rogue. He would impose disadvantage on any attack against the rogue and knock the opponent prone to give the rogue advantage on their sneak attack.

Honestly I don't think there are that many under-powered options in 5e, with the exception of the beast master ranger. I tried that it a one shout and it was horrible. Mostly because the animal companion kept taking a ton of damage and had to retreat from the fighting, removing any advantage the ranger received from their subclass.

I would totally play an elemental monk and think they would work out fine. Really most of the power of the monk is in the main class anyway.

 

[Immortal Sun]

I just love the imagery of the monk class. Also, I'm a big fan of those cheesy kung-fu movies. I can't help it. No matter how bad it is in any edition I just love the idea of it, the visuals of it, the feel of it, just the whole package.