D&D 5E The tyranny of small numbers

[EzekielRaiden]

I stand by what I said as it applies to the people I am referencing. If there are people that are doing exactly what I said, I think they are giving bad guidance in most instances.

Then I stand by what I said: It would be really cool if we could have a conversation where we weren't talking exclusively about the extremes, and instead actually tried to be respectful to one another.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Then I stand by what I said: It would be really cool if we could have a conversation where we weren't talking exclusively about the extremes, and instead actually tried to be respectful to one another.

I am not sure how you found disrespect in my OP. That explains your reaction.

It was not intended. I have a friends who are optimizers and have played and would play again with optimizers.

Optimizers are not inherently bad people. They are not inherently bad players. Some subset of them give advice I disagree with.

And while on that topic, I never said optimizers. I described a behavior—a certain piece of advice. If you think that it’s right—-you disagree with my assessment, feel free to do so and explain why. That is the purpose of being here.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I am not sure how you found disrespect in my OP. That explains your reaction.

It was not intended. I have a friends who are optimizers and have played and would play again with optimizers.

Optimizers are not inherently bad people. They are not inherently bad players.

When one only speaks of extremes, extremes are all that enter the conversation. When those extremes involve people, that means only extremists are discussed.

The vast majority of discussion regarding optimization takes one of two forms:
1. If you aren't hardcore optimizing, you're actively hurting your group, and that makes you a bad player.
2. If you are optimizing to any degree, you don't care about roleplay or fun, and that makes you a bad player.

And a significant reason this is the case is that almost everyone who talks about optimizing only refers to extremist players: those who actively anti-optimize because apparently being physically incapable of participating in anything the party does is True Roleplaying, or those who treat the game purely as though it were a calculus question trying to find the global maximum of a multivariable function without any color or charm or life. Even situations like this one, where there was no intent to do this, still lead to it because all we talk about are the extremes.

Yes, extremes are bad. This is a truism. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. What is actually productive is trying to understand why folks optimize, or try to avoid optimizing; trying to find ways that folks with disparate interests can play at the same table and get the experience they desire; trying to break down places where the rules themselves provide perverse incentives or foster behavior some find undesirable, and discussing tools to address them.

Instead, we get thread after thread after thread after thread of people viewing the world as hyperreductionist black-and-white, where either you're a filthy powergaming munchkin rollplayer (as opposed to a serious, mature, invested roleplayer) or you're a deadweight disruptive "but it's what my character would do!" non-player (as opposed to a serious, mature, invested player.)

 

[Warpiglet-7]

When one only speaks of extremes, extremes are all that enter the conversation. When those extremes involve people, that means only extremists are discussed.

The vast majority of discussion regarding optimization takes one of two forms:
1. If you aren't hardcore optimizing, you're actively hurting your group, and that makes you a bad player.
2. If you are optimizing to any degree, you don't care about roleplay or fun, and that makes you a bad player.

And a significant reason this is the case is that almost everyone who talks about optimizing only refers to extremist players: those who actively anti-optimize because apparently being physically incapable of participating in anything the party does is True Roleplaying, or those who treat the game purely as though it were a calculus question trying to find the global maximum of a multivariable function without any color or charm or life. Even situations like this one, where there was no intent to do this, still lead to it because all we talk about are the extremes.

Yes, extremes are bad. This is a truism. It doesn't add anything to the conversation. What is actually productive is trying to understand why folks optimize, or try to avoid optimizing; trying to find ways that folks with disparate interests can play at the same table and get the experience they desire; trying to break down places where the rules themselves provide perverse incentives or foster behavior some find undesirable, and discussing tools to address them.

Instead, we get thread after thread after thread after thread of people viewing the world as hyperreductionist black-and-white, where either you're a filthy powergaming munchkin rollplayer (as opposed to a serious, mature, invested roleplayer) or you're a deadweight disruptive "but it's what my character would do!" non-player (as opposed to a serious, mature, invested player.)

This is almost like a projective test at this point. I respect your preferences are as valid as mine.

I said none of the things you are saying here.

There are plenty of examples of people giving th advice I am talking about. I think they are wrong to discourage other play styles that don’t follow this narrow view.

The rest fellow traveller you are bringing with you. I did not say this is all optimizers. Mot did I say all optimization is bad. I did however suggest the range of +1 to +2 is overblown. I think that is a fact.

As to wider disrespect? I am responsible for myself alone. It’s not profitable to argue about reality on the internet so I won’t and say what you like!

 

[ECMO3]

I've thought about trying to do a feat only character and never taking any ASIs, though I haven't actually done so yet.

Most of my characters never take an ASI. They do take a lot of half feats though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

what players feel does not affect the mathematical fact.

And the fact is, if you reduce your ability bonus to your roll by 1(and it does not matter if that is going from 5 to 4 or from 2 to 1 or from 15 to 14), you(on average) go from expected 60% to 55% hit chance. Ignoring possible bonus to damage from ability bonus, that is 9% reduction in efficiency.

I'm not sure the mathematical fact is the issue here. People feel they are underperforming if they don't devote most of their resources to maximize stats. If the stats were presented as less vital to the process, that may change. And changing the attitude seems to be the thrust of the OP's point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As I previously stated, we could remove abilities from attacks, saves, AC, damage and DC,
instead of abilities, just add proficiency bonus.

keep ability bonuses to ABILITY checks.
the leaves them mostly to SKILL checks, initiative and some random checks here and there, counterspell or similar.

Are you replacing the numerical impact of ability scores on those rolls, or are people just less effective? This is interesting.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm not sure the mathematical fact is the issue here. People feel they are underperforming if they don't devote most of their resources to maximize stats. If the stats were presented as less vital to the process, that may change. And changing the attitude seems to be the thrust of the OP's point.

I'd say that it's not simply maximizing "stats" plural but maximizing their one stat. Sure they might & probably do have a secondary or tertiary stat that has value to them, but it's probably a stat like con or dex that everyone needs enough of. That pressure to maximize a stat exists because there's no meaningful opportunity cost to doing it & as a result no meaningful benefit to not doing it so a character can be more broadly adequate. 4d6keep3 & the elite array creates this pressure to maximize by making it the only meaningful option on a mechanical level.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, I mean if that’s the players’ attitudes, probably best to do point buy.

But if you don't roll, you can't get super-high stats at all!

 

[ECMO3]

The vast majority of discussion regarding optimization takes one of two forms:
1. If you aren't hardcore optimizing, you're actively hurting your group, and that makes you a bad player.
2. If you are optimizing to any degree, you don't care about roleplay or fun, and that makes you a bad player.

I don't agree with either of those principals.

#1 it depends entirely on the game, the social contract and really the size of the party. If the players got together and all agreed upfront to play characters with a specific role and you do not optimize towards that role you are to a degree breaking that social contract. Most games I play are not like that though. Most are "play what you got". In that case the opposite is almost true. If we are playing a 3-person party with 2 melee battlemasters and a Barbarian then everyone "optimizing" will actually hurt the group, and picking up a "terrible" featlike Magic Iniate for healing word or ritual caster is going to generate a lot more value for the group. If it is a 10 person party with specialists for every single thing they may come across, then not optimizing does "hurt the party". In either of those extremes though you are playing you, you are not playing "the party" so it is really not relevant if it hurts the group.

#2 Is not true either. I do find the optimizers, particularly those who take multiple high-impact melee feats (crusher, PAM, GWM) paint themselves into a corner in combat. I don't think that causes roleplay problems other than it limits how they fight. Warlocks can be in the same boat with EB.

What players play should be up to them. Sometimes when DMing with young (teen) players I have to tell players "you be you". If the cleric does not want to prepare healing spells that is his choice, if you think the party needs more healing them you can take a level or two in a class with healing spells.