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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Corwin]

And yes there are weak builds in 5E.

Nope. And Mearls just agreed with us on that point, too.

You can take the wrong feats,

"Wong" feat? You mean like ignoring the prerequisites and taking a feat you don't qualify for? In which case, I agree with you.

some classes are better than others or you can play a fighter with 12 strength using a greatsword.

I agree with both of these things.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nope. And Mearls just agreed with us on that point, too.


"Wong" feat? You mean like ignoring the prerequisites and taking a feat you don't qualify for? In which case, I agree with you.


I agree with both of these things.

Mearls is entitled to his opinion. And my players do not always go for the most powerful option. 2 of them are powergamers but right now one of them is running a light cleric and the other one has a Shadowdancer Monk.

They do generally match up the racess suited to the class though unless they roll well on the dice. The Monk is a Wood Elf for example.

Its boring doing the same thing all of the time. The cleric is not using bless that much either because she wants to blast stuff for once.

We do have a Ranger with Sharpshooter but the player was in a rush and asked us to make a PC for him and he wanted an archer and a skill monkey so it was Ranger or Rogue. He has been using SS most of the time and missing a bit because no one is buffing him.

The entire party is dex based there are some definite drawbacks but they wanted to try out the stealth thing.

Light Cleric
Shadow Monk
Hunter Ranger
Battle Master Fighter
Mastermind Rogue

They are also seeing how well a dex based party can do without the usual suspects (GWM, PAM, Shield Master etc). We have not seen to many fighters or Monks used or the Mastermind Rogue in action. Last game we played I was a Way of the Fists Monk and one of the players wanted to try a Monk.

We can min max our asses off if we rally wanted to, in 3.5 we knew the power builds just did not use them, wizards are rare with these players regardless of edition.

 

[Corwin]

Mearls is entitled to his opinion.

As are you. As long as you don't portray yours as somehow being objective truth, we're all good here.

 

[Zardnaar]

As are you. As long as you don't portray yours as somehow being objective truth, we're all good here.

I more or less agree with Mearls. The original question was about playing with a sub optimal race with a "weak" feat.

That not about gimping your character more about the level of optimisation required. Its not about sticking a 12 in your primary stat.

A few years ago a similar question was asked about the MM math and I think the designers said they assumed you had a 16 where it mattered as opposed to a 20 which people thought was required.

And yes I have seen 2 front line PCs with a 12 strength (life cleric) in medium armour and a 14 strength ( TWF 14 or 15 AC Dwarf) in medium armour no shield on the front lines and they got pasted in LMoP.

My expectations would be a 16 prime stat by level 4 at the latest beyond that its more or less up to you.

 

[Corwin]

I more or less agree with Mearls. The original question was about playing with a sub optimal race with a "weak" feat.

There are no "sub optimal" races. Nor are there "weak" feats. They all, as everything in this game, reside on a mercurial spectrum. Because their places on those spectra, at any given time, change based on what it is you are trying to accomplish. Or even what it is you are measuring.

That not about gimping your character more about the level of optimisation required. Its not about sticking a 12 in your primary stat.

You've already conceded that you many place that 12 in your primary stat because its the best you've got. So that's not objectively true, is it?

A few years ago a similar question was asked about the MM math and I think the designers said they assumed you had a 16 where it mattered as opposed to a 20 which people thought was required.

And yet, you don't even need a 16 to make it to the next adventuring day. And the next. Nor does a 16 (or even a 20) guarantee it.

And yes I have seen 2 front line PCs with a 12 strength (life cleric) in medium armour and a 14 strength ( TWF 14 or 15 AC Dwarf) in medium armour no shield on the front lines and they got pasted in LMoP.

Your anecdotes do not a rule make. Are you saying no one playing a character like one of these has ever survived a campaign?

My expectations would be a 16 prime stat by level 4 at the latest beyond that its more or less up to you.

That is mighty generous of you.

 

[Zardnaar]

There are no "sub optimal" races. Nor are there "weak" feats. They all, as everything in this game, reside on a mercurial spectrum. Because their places on those spectra, at any given time, change based on what it is you are trying to accomplish. Or even what it is you are measuring.


You've already conceded that you many place that 12 in your primary stat because its the best you've got. So that's not objectively true, is it?


And yet, you don't even need a 16 to make it to the next adventuring day. And the next. Nor does a 16 (or even a 20) guarantee it.


Your anecdotes do not a rule make. Are you saying no one playing a character like one of these has ever survived a campaign?


That is mighty generous of you.

Its D&D though you need to be able to carry your own in combat up to a point and we use prepublished advnetures more or less by the book (maybe with small plot/map tweaks).

I am not going to take it easy on a PC if they make a gimp character just like I am not going to try and kill them off deliberately. I do not care if you do stupid things that get your character killed its an issue though if you get other PCs pasted because of your stupidity or if you can't do your job properly.

Personally if I rolled dice and got stuck with a 12 I would build the best PC I could and I would not be on the front lines I would be the cleric or other spell caster.

Even complete newbs in 5E still seem to put their highest scores where it matters even one who had not played since early 2E when I played with another group. All of them pulled that off. My only conclusion is if you are deliberately making a gimp PC is you are deliberately being a pumpkin and that means you are deliberately undermining the party or are just very very bad at D&D (worse than a newb). And being a newb is fine my 1st PC was a BECMI Fighter with 16 strength.

 

[Corwin]

Its D&D though you need to be able to carry your own in combat up to a point and we use prepublished advnetures more or less by the book (maybe with small plot/map tweaks).

So where do you put your '8' (assuming array)? Are you gimping yourself in the social or exploration pillars? In D&D you are expect to be able to carry yourself up to a point in those as well. Or do you not concern yourself with that 2/3rds of the game?

 

[Zardnaar]

So where do you put your '8' (assuming array)? Are you gimping yourself in the social or exploration pillars? In D&D you are expect to be able to carry yourself up to a point in those as well. Or do you not concern yourself with that 2/3rds of the game?

Depends on the class but usually intelligence, charisma or strength. You can compensate via spells up to a point (enhance ability and guidance).