I have to extremely strongly disagree with the notion that creativity and power-building are mutually opposed concepts. I happen to think that NOT power-building is being uncreative.
Sure, the guys who actually go and come up with the stuff to begin with are
very creative, and highly intelligent. Two factors I want to see stay in the D&D audience. Thing in, much like people who NetDeck in MTG circles, follwing CharOp instructions is
not hard, it is
not creative. It's no more creative than following the instructions on an Ikea desk.
Anyone can slap together random stats or lazily apply stats with little thought put into it, but it takes a LOT of creative energy to find the 'perfect' set of stats for (what you envision to be) the 'perfect' character.
I've CharOp'ed before, mostly because I was in games with more than two power-players already(that in my experience seems to be the most any game can handle). Sure, some CharOping is highly creative because it's trying to figure out how to even be effective in a general sense with a unique idea. But this is more a result of the fact that in D&D, the game is designed to make certain choices more favorable than others, like how you get a +2 proficiency with some weapons, and a +3 with others, even though there are no other bonuses for using that +2 weapon.
This, IMO, is a major design flaw, and is one of the leading causes of CharOping. If wanting to feel cool is always going to make you statistically less effective, then people are going to favor being effective over cool. Either the two need to come together(such as weapon tiers instead of individual weapon stats, getting rid of variable proficiency numbers, math tax feats, etc..) or being "cool" needs to be just as effective as being "effective"(which would
effectively eliminate the need for the latter.)
In my view, if you don't want character optimisation in one dimension, the game should be designed so as not to reward it.
I don't think that's a design D&D can ever achieve, as long as things need to get hit and be avoided...
There are multiple ways to do this. One well-known option is to put mechanical burdens on all stats, for example, so that dumpign one stat will weaken the PC.
True, but I think it's a fairly unrealistic burden and would inevitably just punish players for something they can't achieve no matter what. You're gonna get a bad roll eventually. I would agree that all classes should derive some tangible benefit from every stat. But each class should emphasize only three of them as core. IE:
Melee get their primary bonuses from Str, Dex, Con.
Casters get their primary bonuses from Int, Wis, Cha(in descending order defined by the class in question).
Hybrids(Paladin's, Bards, Druids, ect..) would have a mix, such as Str, Dex, Int; Dex, Wis, Cha, etc...
I think it's realistic that players can pull out three good stats with most stat-generation methods. While benefits would be gained from having stats outside your primary triad, you wouldn't be punished for lacking those numbers, as the game knows probability is against you in having good stats in 5+/6 stats.
Problematically, we'd have to develop some
serious benefits for melee classes picking up mental stats. A Wizard with a 16 str and a 14 dex and a 14 con, is going to get 100% of the benefits that melee also get from those scores, in addition to their extra SPD, higher spell limits, and so on from their mental stats. A Fighter with a 16 int, 14 wis, and 14 con is going to(as the game stands now) get some minor bonuses to skills, but that's about it. So melee classes either need to get double bonuses from their physical stats or they need some kind of new feature to get from mental scores.
[begin thinking out loud]
Given the power of Bo9S classes, the love for combat maneuvers among players, perhaps mental stats would determine the number and effectivness of combat maneuvers. Still, I think requiring 4 or more good stats is pushing at the edges of probability.
A less-frequently discussed approach, but in my view just as important, involves encounter design and adjudication. If a GM runs encounters in such a way that players who aren't optimised for a particular activity nevertheless have a good reason to get their PCs involved in that sort of activity, the effect of optimisation will be reduced.
A simple example of this involves the idea of the "face" PC. If the GM doesn't want the party face blitzing through all the social encounters, then the GM needs to design encounters that give the players of the other PCs a reason to get their PCs involved in social activity - for examle, NPCs try to talk to them, and will leave their PCs looking stupid (or otherwise suffering some detriment to their fictional position) if those non-face PCs don't start talking.
I agree, and I do this in my own games. My encounters becomes more and more tailored as the campaign goes on to what the PC's can do within the realm of what I need them to do. I even adjust things in the middle of encounters(I have very fudgy math).
Conversely, the approach to optimisation and "having a go" which says "let's ignore pushing the mechanics hard, and play as if the mechanics weren't what they are" doesn't do much for me at all. What's the point of having action resolution mechanics, and PC build mechanics, if the players aren't expected to use them?
(And to be clear: I'm not talking here about unexpected and overpowered synergies that are the inevitable result of long lists of complex game elements. The solution to these is gentlemen's agreements, house rules and/or errata. I'm talking about whether or not players are allowed to take the central mechanics of the game out for a thorough spin.)
After reading some discussion on other threads about giving out free math feats(within reason), I've been considering doing so in my upcoming game as a way to allow players to be "good" while focusing their character design on what they
want to do instead of what they
have to do.
