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

[The_Gneech]

DM: "Pottery falls. Everyone dies..."

I had a 2nd Edition character who was a "warlock" (bad-luck-themed wizard), whose Magic Missiles were often flavored as random things falling on the target's head out of a clear blue sky...

Awesome. Far and away best thing in this thread.

-TG

 

[Krachek]

Suboptimal choice, is not fool or stubborn choice.
The thread turn to discuss about extreme situation. Once again!
The game is written for wise gamer, able to understand the rule as intended.


The game allow suboptimal choice, but rolling a bunch of 7 wont make a fun character.
I know that some dream of rolling very low stat, but these kind of character won't stay fun for long.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Perhaps he'd be happier if he added his proficiency bonus to attack roll?

FWIW With 5E monster math, surprisingly even a +3 to attack roll can still hit many monsters' AC given enought luck. 5E monsters AC are generally relatively low and your proficiency bonus gets bigger as you level up.

Wow. Sarcastic are we? I thought it goes without saying that he also adds his proficiency bonus. And if you read further, you would have seen that I talked about the damage part that is not so great. 1d8+1 may result in rolls as low as 2 and never reaches 10 damage. Even though 30% less damage is ok in 5e, it may result in frustration if bad rolls happen on the most unlucky time.
Hey you hit the kobold with 3 hp. I hit... 2 damage. With d8+3 that can't happen.
So please read the entire post before jumping to conclusions.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

For a while I've wanted to build a blue dragonborn tempest cleric. It's thematic and the lightning breath weapon gives a semi-reliable way to use the push on lightning damage feature. It's good to know that such a character won't fall too behind by not getting a wisdom increase at first level. In fact, I could focus using melee weapons for damage and use spell lots on buffs and healing. And spirit guardians, because that spell is just too cool.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[OB1]

To Zardnaars defense: I had a paladin with 12 Strength who was not so happy with his +1 attack and damage. If you take 16 as a baseline, you are at -2 to hit and even more important -2 to damage.
With a one handed weapon the difference between d8+3 and d8+1 is abou 25% and that is not even counting lower hit chance. So yes it is always just 1 less chance to hit but it adds up. And although it sometimes seems common lore around here that to hit is more important... in this case the damage is also important.
I would also say at least a 14 in your attack stat is a good idea if you intend to attack.

I would say that the game math assumes a +2 in your attack stat, based on the quick build guide rules. Like playing at a higher difficulty level in a video game, going lower than that will lead to more challenging encounters that will require either better luck or better skill from the players.

 

[Corwin]

I DM for kids sometimes...

Long story short- there is no problem that cannot be solved with communication. Well, communication and pizza. Okay, communication, pizza, and beer.

Not sure what country you are in, but solving problems at some of your games could lead to legal entanglements...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Plaguescarred]

Wow. Sarcastic are we? I thought it goes without saying that he also adds his proficiency bonus. And if you read further, you would have seen that I talked about the damage part that is not so great. 1d8+1 may result in rolls as low as 2 and never reaches 10 damage. Even though 30% less damage is ok in 5e, it may result in frustration if bad rolls happen on the most unlucky time.
Hey you hit the kobold with 3 hp. I hit... 2 damage. With d8+3 that can't happen.
So please read the entire post before jumping to conclusions.

Yeah i was just a tongue-in-cheek note

Also to tell you frankly +2 damage difference is also not that big of a difference if you ask me, not something that would make me unhappy and not have fun at least.

 

[nswanson27]

Personally I think this whole issue conflates some extreme cases on both ends with the middle cases. I've seen cases where optimizers try to micro-manage other characters' decisions and playstyles, and criticize them when they don't do what they want. Not fun for anyone, including the optimizers.
I've also seem players that have that simply don't care for effectiveness at all, not just in their build but also in their choices in play. Like, "I'm going to walk up to the murderous mob and blow my trumpet at them as my action because I think that's funny, and because that's what my character does." Then they go down and the rest of the party has to risk dying to try to save them, and the end result is a tense moment where the party is almost wiped unnecessarily. They aren't really contributing to combat at all, and are just a liability to the party by any sort of objective measure. Not fun for anyone, including the non-optimizers, as they realize dying because they weren't taking the adventure seriously "isn't so funny anymore".
I think 5e has done a good job making the middle ground very wide, but there are always going to be those edge cases.
Most of the time I've seen both extremes resulting from players coming from different table with diffferent DM's who had a mutual understanding of "it's going to be this sort of table" before-hand. People just have to communicate expectations better sometimes.