D&D 5E Characters are not their statistics and abilities

[iserith]

I think we've kinda come to a cruising altitude on where things stand. OP left after getting some blowback. Saelorn is putting up the good fight, but the consensus seems to hover somewhere between "there's so much variety in playstyle that we can't generalize" and "it's not my job to live up to your Optimization expectations." Thankfully the gulf between optimized and unoptimized is smaller in this edition than others, so it is likely to be less of an issue.

Since I doubt there will be much change in that avenue, what do people think about the character that deliberately makes a truly "useless" character? Good, bad, indifferent? Just make sure the rest of the group is on the same page?

There are no useless characters in my view - just useless players.

Give me any character and I will still win at D&D.

 

[TwoSix]

I prefer something theological and/or philosophical.

For example- could someone create a Katana class that was so terrible that it couldn't kick everyone's butt, all the time, forever?

There are no useless characters...there are simply characters that aren't Katanas.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What would be the optimum next post for this thread? I need some help deciding. I don't want to waste people's time by posting something that isn't fun; people might think I wasn't posting hard enough.

My next post will be my 1000th, you see, so it's important to get it right.

Optimal with respect to what?

We can help, but we need more details first.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So all this discussion about barbarians and their expected role or abilities made me think of the First Law Trilogy. There's a whole crew of barbarian characters that travel together, and each one has a very distinct personality. One of them is called Forley the Weakest. He's one of the more interesting characters in that group, and certainly fits the description of what we're talking about here.

Sounds like the 'barbarian is a culture not a class' discussion....

 

[Corwin]

Sounds like the 'barbarian is a culture not a class' discussion....

True. It's like wanting to play an all thieves themed campaign. Easy to do in 5e. And you wouldn't even need a single character with the rogue class to do it were you so inclined.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Corwin and Saelorn laughed at Poor Rudolph The Red Nose Barbarian. You can't play our monster slaying team with your poor little 16 in your prime stat.

It's for his own good. If you can't kill an orc before it gets a chance to swing back at you, then you're the one most likely to suffer from that. The rest of the team only suffers if we have to go out of our way to save you. Which we'll probably do, because we can't just let someone die, but it would be easier for everyone if we weren't put into that position.

Do you really think it's the good and noble thing to do, to allow puny Steve Rogers into the Army? Do you think that would have gone well for him?

 

[Tony Vargas]

True. It's like wanting to play an all thieves themed campaign.

Heh. I did that in 1e. The players /chose/ that option. Wow, did it not go as planned. Of course, the only way to get thief skills was to play an actual thief, one way or the other, and that had issues. The party ended up all but one multi-classed, and all but that one emphasizing their non-thief class. We converted it to standard campaign by level 5, which went much better.

3e changed all that. Anyone could put any rank in any skill, so the Thief (Rogue) no longer had a lock, and any race could multi-class, for that matter. 4e and 5e varied the details: 4e changed MCing again and added optional backgrounds that let you add 'training' in the fewer, much less granular skills involved rather than fiddle with ranks, 5e made MCing optional and backgrounds standard...

 

[BoldItalic]

If we were all optimal posters, optimised for reaching a consensus, I fancy this thread would have reached a conclusion a lot sooner. But, alas, we are are all human^* - we do not always act optimally and it is hypocritical to castigate others for not doing so either.

A feature of 5e is that every character, however fiercely optimised by its player, has a Flaw. Optimum play involves, inter alia playing to one's characters' flaws to gain Inspiration dice. In that way, players are rewarded when their characters act sub-optimally for some particular purpose. Not for being stupid, but for being human. This illustrates that best play by the player is not necessarily the same thing as choosing the most effective activity for the character to display. Sometimes, it is better play to have one's character display ineptitude. But not all the time, obviously.

The OP used the phrase "purposefully inept" and went on to say he didn't approve of such things. I think he meant to say "deliberately" or perhaps "gratuitously" inept but, actually, "purposefully" in the sense of "done for a good reason, to achieve a particular goal" is close to what I was describing above.

Whilst I would agree with the OP's sentiment that unco-operative behaviour by a player is a bad thing, I don't agree with the implication that sub-optimal behaviour in a character is automatically reprehensible. If it serves to further the narrative in some entertaining way, then it is indeed justified and does not represent anti-social play by the player; on the contrary he may thus be fulfilling his obligation to entertain his fellow players around the table.

To give a single example: a barbarian whose signature move is to grab a lighted firebrand and use it as an improvised weapon may score fewer hp of damage than if he used a greatclub, but if it scares the pants off clumps of animated plants that infest his homeland, who is to say that it is wrong? If you play such a character, I would applaud, not condemn you, and just quietly prepare a few frost spells as back-up for when fire proves ineffective. Good team players do not inveigh against each other's shortcomings, but adjust their own behaviour to counterbalance them.

In short, I would advocate that characters be fairly effective but not strenuously so, and the degree to which they are not, should be part of their charm.

---

^* With the possible exception of me - after an unfortunate accident I was reincarnated as a small furry keyboard in a far-distant galaxy, but I can reasonably claim to have been human once so I type with some authority, at least.

 

[Shasarak]

Or just have them roll in front of you.

Come on lucky dice, dont fail me now!