Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 7190571" data-attributes="member: 6802951">To be frank, while there have been a few people making very bold claims about how you must do X, or that players will invariably pick options Y and Z, I'm pretty sure that these are the minority.I think that even most of the posters here, if you mention that you're going to pick a sub-optimal combination, the general response will be "Good for you. It may not be the best numbers-wise, but max numbers aren't required in 5e. If you have fun with it, that is all the reason you need."Outside of a minority throwing hyperbole/internet trash-talk around, even hardcore optimisers recognise that their optimised numbers aren't required - they just like having them. Likewise in that conversation if I'm remembering it correctly, it was only one or two posters who were being that aggressively offensive - Most were acknowledging that you were losing a point of damage, but that it wasn't concept-breaking.The exception seemed to be basing their tirade on their interpretation of how setting reality and rules mechanics interacted, - which was not shared by most I believe.There are certainly more discussions about character optimisation than the earlier days of D&D, but I don't know whether there is actually a greater push towards it by the playerbase. D&D editions and supplements have tended towards greater options for choice as they go on, which leads to greater scope for optimisation. The internet has led to greater scope and participants for the discussions that would take place around tables or in games shops about earlier editions.</blockquote>

Verification