D&D 5E Game design allow sub optimal class build. Confirmed by M Mearls
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Kind of an extreme reaction, man.
Just as a bit of a thought experiment...
The Spellbook of Cleetus, 'Wizert.'
Cantrips: Light, Mage Hand, Prestidigitation
1st Level Spells: Comprehend Languages (Ritual), Detect Magic,Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Shield, Unseen Servant (Ritual)
Spells added from level-ups:
2nd: Find Familiar (Help action!), Sleep
3rd: Darkness, Mirror Image
4th: Misty Step, Rope Trick
5th: Haste, Fly
6th: Animate Dead, Gaseous Form
7th: Arcane Eye, Conjure Minor Elementals
8th: Greater Invisibility, Stoneskin
9th: Animate Objects, Wall of Force
10th: Conjure Elemental, Creation
11th: Create Undead, Globe of Invulnerability
12th: Arcane Gate, True Seeing
13th: Etherealness, Teleport
14th: Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, Plane Shift
15th: Antimagic Field, Power Word: Stun
16th: Demiplane, Mind Blank
17th: Time Stop, Wish
18th: Astral Projection, Power Word: Kill
19th: Foresight, Shapechange
20th: Clone, Gate
None of those use spell attacks or saving throws. In the end, looks like Cleetus is a pretty dang fine "utility mage," though he's pretty reliant on buffs and summons. He's actually quite like a conjurer - all planar breaches and calling extraplanar beings. I might substitute some of those high-level spells for more broadly useful low-level spells (he doesn't have magic weapon, for instance, though you'd probably be using that more often than....demiplane). There's lots of options he didn't take that still don't use your spellcasting ability modifier. It might also be "fine" if the player puts points into INT over the course of the character's career (he'd never get to 20, but he'd get to 18) to shore up the occasional direct-attack spell he might learn or gain from a scroll or something...but probably not necessary.
A sorcerer could do a lot of that, too, though their lower-level spell choices might look pretty different, and there'd be a few swaps. Sorcs have a bit more of an "attack and damage" focused spell list, but it's not so narrow that they don't have enough options, if they wanted to dump CHA.
I think clerics fare even better, thanks to their focus on healing/buffing/defensive magic, which doesn't rely on spellcasting ability modifier much.
Like I said, if you want to ban INT 8 Wizards or whatever, go for it and good gaming. But I don't think you need to consider such a thing necessary from a balance perspective, even if it is something you want to do.
Rhenny
Adventurer
Mindset is everything. Sometimes it is a lot of fun to play weaker PCs. The challenges change, and the focus of games changes too. Physically weaker PCs (low con/low hp) have to be played differently than more hearty PCs. As long as everyone knows this (DM included) it works.
D&D can emulate more gritty realism (or even the utter futility of fighting Cthulhu-esque creatures) where players are forced to use skills and ingenuity more than melee, but if all of the stakeholders don't want that type of experience, whole scale sub-optimization should be avoided.
The game itself allows for sub-optimization. It is as [MENTION=6701422]Plaguescarred[/MENTION] mentioned, the players who may or may not allow for it depending on their expectations.
D&D can emulate more gritty realism (or even the utter futility of fighting Cthulhu-esque creatures) where players are forced to use skills and ingenuity more than melee, but if all of the stakeholders don't want that type of experience, whole scale sub-optimization should be avoided.
The game itself allows for sub-optimization. It is as [MENTION=6701422]Plaguescarred[/MENTION] mentioned, the players who may or may not allow for it depending on their expectations.
Prakriti
Hi, I'm a Mindflayer, but don't let that worry you
The one thing you're overlooking is spell preparation. At level 1 and 2, with 8 intelligence, Cleetus can prepare exactly 1 spell. At level 4, when an "optimized" wizard can prepare 8, he can only prepare 3. That's a significant hindrance to Cleetus's versatility.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Yeah, though taking more rituals can help with that. Swap out some of those 1st-level spells for 1st-level rituals, and he'll be fine. True, he won't be reacting very well to surprises, but blasting magic missile at everything that's threatening and using unseen servant to open doors and look for traps has been the MO of more than one low-level wizard I've seen in play.
No, I'd just ban you.
cmad1977
Hero
How dare a person create a perfectly viable character that doesn't conform to your desires.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MostlyHarmless42
Adventurer
And I'd refuse to play with you as well. Then again, every post you've had in this thread comes across as deliberately insulting and combatitive, to the point where I cannot decide if you are a troll or just a condescending narrow-minded elitest. Your way or nobody gets to play, eh? Thank the fictional D&D gods none of my players are like you. Still, as it's been said, you do you.
[MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] I for one find Cleetus the Wizert to be an interesting prospect. The question is which specialization to go with? I like the idea of Necromancy or Conjuration, though I could see Divination as well for the fun of it. Cleetus the Wizert: Mister of the Unbread, has a nice ring to it.
Last edited:
Mad_Jack
Legend
You're conflating people who are optimizing for combat with people who enjoy making effective characters in general. DPR or other combat-oriented optimization (high AC, max hit points, etc.) is only one subset of optimization.
You can "optimize" for almost specific goal - in 3.5, you had the Diplomancer who could use CHA for damn near any ability check, the Rocket Monk who moved hundreds of feet each turn, or a ranger who could reliably track invisible, intangible creatures...
I think you'll find the majority of true optimizers - as opposed to the subset of rpg gamers who are simply obsessed with numbers or "winning" - are much more interested in "optimization towards concept" when making a character they actually intend to play as opposed to white room theory-op where they're only interested in the intellectual exercise of number crunching and testing their cleverness. Optimization towards concept is the idea of making the most effective version of a specific character concept, or a version that best uses the mechanics of the game to accurately reflect the narrative character. To wit, the answer to "How do I make an optimized halfling wizard?" is not "Play an elf." On the other hand, the answer to how to play a dirt-stupid wizard who's still an effective caster may well be a high-charisma sorcerer and some narrative fluff.
You can even optimize towards building the best character to fit in with the rest of the party in terms of power level, skill set and/or narrative concept.
One thing that tends to get lost on online forums such as this is the distinction between "on paper" and "in-real-life" - if you frequented the old Char-Op boards on the WotC forums, a great many of the best Char-Oppers there would freely tell you that they would never bring one of their theory builds to a table unless they knew that the rest of the table was equally equipped.
I built a 3.5 swashbuckler 10/swordsage 10 with a spiked chain that adds three and sometimes even four ability modifiers to damage, can teleport three times per combat, has a 2d6 sneak attack despite not having any rogue levels (even more depending on how the DM interprets the Daring Outlaw feat) and is a full skill monkey... However, the original version of the character and the only one I'd play at a table is a rogue/fighter/swashbuckler (a total of 5 non-rogue levels just to get free weapon finesse, a couple of extra feats and +Int to damage) who doesn't even bother to take Improved Trip to become a machine-gun-tripper...
As I'm not particularly a bigtime number cruncher, yet still enjoy optimization as a fun mental challenge, I often optimize towards the goal of creating an interesting character that meshes well with the rest of the party both mechanically and from a narrative perspective. One that will do what it's supposed to do in an effective fashion but not be useless in other areas and never overshadow the rest of the party.
In answer to your theoretical questions, those are overly-broad situations in which a variety of characters would be "optimal" at different points in the road toward accomplishing the stated goal...
1. "Someone controlled magic"...
Whatever is the most effective way to overcome that particular situation. It's too broad a question to provide a simple answer but the answers could be a character with enough charisma to inspire the general populace to great heroism to overcome the effect of the magic, or it may be being clever enough (high knowledge or history skill?) to find or build a powerful artifact to counteract it. Most likely, it's going to be having a party that synergizes well enough to be able to overcome a variety of obstacles both social and martial.
2. "Explore new worlds"... Again, a situation which requires a well-synergized party with a wide variety of skills and abilities - a diviner wizard would be helpful, and so would a ranger or druid with great survival skills. Even a knowledge cleric may be prove to be invaluable.
3. "Kidnapped princess"... Again, a ranger to track them or diviner wizard to find them, some kind of spellcaster to provide protection from or to neutralize the dragon's breath weapon, etc. And quite frankly, the "optimal" solution for resolving that one is entirely up to how the DM has set up the scenario.
Optimization by it's very nature requires that it be directed toward a very specific end - the "optimal" character for each of those situations is going to be a generalist capable of doing lots of different things because those situations require a wide variety of things be done to accomplish them. However, optimizing towards having high damage, or high AC, or being able to run circles around an opponent... Those are very specific goals, and the combat pillar of the game is obviously the easiest to optimize towards simply because it's the one with the most mechanical crunch and thus the one in which optimization is both the most possible and the most visible.
Prakriti
Hi, I'm a Mindflayer, but don't let that worry you
If you feel that strongly about it, the feeling would probably be mutual. But most of the time, when two people discover that they're playing the game for different reasons, they simply agree to go their separate way. No need to "ban" anyone.
Similar Threads
