D&D 5E Game design allow sub optimal class build. Confirmed by M Mearls

[One_Shots]

Your way or nobody gets to play, eh?

I'm the DM, so yes.

Your way is selfish and comes at the cost of other people's enjoyment and makes the DM's life difficult. I find that repugnant. It's a social game, not a single-player game. What is ironic about your stance is that you're doing the exact same thing that you're criticising me for: my way or the highway. The only difference is that my way considers everyone's enjoyment at the table. Your's is solely focused on you.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No, I'd just ban you.

Hahaha, sure. You can ban whatever you want to ban, man, I just hope it's making your game better. If someone wants to play an INT 8 wizard for some reason (and I've got a few players that might appeal to...), I don't see any reason to stop 'em, myself. I'm a lazy DM like that.

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

Thanks! There's absolutely a playable character in that, jokey name aside - his spell load out is maybe only a few big spells away from what a Generic D&D Wizard usually chooses, anyway (fireball, lightning bolt, meteor swarm, charm person....maybe a small handfull of others). A player shying away from evocation/enchantment could accidentally build this wizard.

Divination would be interesting, because on the off chance that he felt pressure to do something involving an attack roll or a saving throw, he could offset the slightly higher chance of failure by already knowing if an attack would hit or a save would fail. A lot of divination spells are also ability-score-free (and rituals!). In fact, divination opens up a lot of space, since you can often ensure that your highest-level spell for the day lands, if you save it for that.

I left illusions out of my sweep since they can involve a saving throw, but they actually would be pretty effective since it takes an action for someone to figure out if it's real or not - and spending that action is a huge price to pay in a fight. So illusionist could work.

Conjuration and Transmutation are also viable options. Necromancy, eh...not a lot of mileage out of grim harvest, except what you pick up with magic missiles.

 

[Sunseeker]

I really don't like saying a game "allows for sub-optimal building". Does that mean "You can make things that aren't crazy DPS mongers."? Or does it mean "There are features that look good but really aren't just to trick you to teach you to build better."

Even as a person who enjoys optimizing my characters, I have no problem with a game allowing you to build a character that is not the best at one thing, everything, or anything at all. As long as the player understands what they're doing. Zero problems with that. What I don't like is a game providing bad options and calling them "flavor" or "sub optimal for the sake of people who don't optimize". People who don't optimize know a bad option when they see it but if Bad Option A is the only creative and flavorful option as opposed to MAXIMUM DPS Option B, they're going to take it. But they're going to know that they didn't really have a choice in the matter, they didn't have the option to choose to be creative, they were forced to take a "sub-optimal" option because the only other option was SUPER MAX DPS BRO!

Even as an optimizer, I don't like that. I want to see people able to express their characters well. I don't really care what sort of character they want to make, if it can dish out the DPS or if it can juggle chickens. I just want to see them be able to make it well, to express through the game their desired character. Maybe it's not the perfect character, okay that's understandable but at least the best they can make of it. I hate to see people be forced to choose between being creative and interesting and MAX DPS.

 

[Mad_Jack]

That's one of the things that's always irritated me about feats - that they had combat-related and non-combat-related things competing for the same limited character resources.
(Which is why over the past couple of editions I've been fairly generous about handing out some of the more-colorful, less-"powerful" feats for free as appropriate to the characters' actions in the current events of the campaign.)

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

I'm the DM, so yes.

Your way is selfish and comes at the cost of other people's enjoyment and makes the DM's life difficult. I find that repugnant. It's a social game, not a single-player game. What is ironic about your stance is that you're doing the exact same thing that you're criticising me for: my way or the highway. The only difference is that my way considers everyone's enjoyment at the table. Your's is solely focused on you.

This thought might have some merit if I wasn't in fact the DM. My life is no more dificult by allowing someone to play an int 8 wizard than it would any other character that isn't just a min maxed stat stick (and even then the challenge is getting munchkins to actually roleplay). I already have to balance encounters based off of the strengths and weaknesses of the party anyway. Your implication here merely tells me that you aren't actually reading the posts here, as I clearly said I was the DM in my first post (or was "my players" and "my game" too subtle?)

I actually think me ruling the way you are insisting is the "right" way and banning such characters would actually be hurting the fun of the players. You are taking away options for them to play. That is not fun. You might argue otherwise, but frankly, what matters is what your players think. Mine would walk away from the table if I started randomly banhammering things based on my tastes alone (this is not talking about setting stuff) and I wouldn't blame them. No one likes a tyrannical DM or an abusive player. Both extremes are bad.. You want proof that this isn't just me? You've had three people in this thread alone already say they'd refuse to play with you.

Anyway, that's enough feeding the forum trolls for one evening...I'm off to brainstorm a melee character who uses a great sword with a strength of 8!

 

[Prakriti]

Your way is selfish and comes at the cost of other people's enjoyment and makes the DM's life difficult. [...] Your's is solely focused on you.

You're assuming that everyone plays the game for the same reasons, which isn't true at all. Some people play D&D to create interesting stories and characters and don't give a flip about combat optimization. If you brought your attitude to a table like that, you would be the one ruining other people's enjoyment.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Does that mean "You can make things that aren't crazy DPS mongers."?

Yes. More specifically, it means that not only can you, but the game has been set up to work as intended if you do (because you can build a sub-optimal character in any system, while you can't always successfully navigate game-play with one - but you can in 5th edition).

Or does it mean "There are features that look good but really aren't just to trick you to teach you to build better."

No, not in the case of 5th edition. No options were devised with the intent to trick the player.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm the DM, so yes.

One DM to another, here's some advice. Do with it whatever you wish.

Maybe don't believe that being the DM means your say is inherently more important or correct than someone else's say at your table. Maybe be open minded, considerate of other's opinions, and willing to treat your table-mates as equals instead.

 

[ThePolarBear]

Banana, out of curiosity... Stat allocation for Cleetus as you imagined it, considering standard array as the Stat generation method? You know, unless rolled, he is going to have some good... somewhere.

You know, he could actually be a very strange Mountain dwarf Wizard, running around in medium armor, warhammer, booming "blading"... No Cleetus, that is not a blade... And sheep, i'm optimizing :|

 

[I'm A Banana]

Banana, out of curiosity... Stat allocation for Cleetus as you imagined it, considering standard array as the Stat generation method? You know, unless rolled, he is going to have some good... somewhere.

You know, he could actually be a very strange Mountain dwarf Wizard, running around in medium armor, warhammer, booming "blading"... No Cleetus, that is not a blade... And sheep, i'm optimizing :|

Depending on my goals...CON is almost never a wasted slot for a high stat. DEX wouldn't be bad (if he can't cast mage armor daily, he'll maybe need some other source of some AC), either.