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

[Rod Staffwand]

If you can't carry a few lame party members, you're not optimized.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Brahbarian 1: Brah, we can totally drink these orcs under the table.
Brahbarian 2: Brah, high five!
Brahbarian 3: Brahs, we are so going to score with the dyrads!

Ha wow, not sure how that autocorrect fail slipped through...

I'll edit accordingly, brah.

 

[Sunseeker]

I can't tell if you're more confused by D&D, or by baseball.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I have no clue how baseball works. I assume that must be why the Japanese love it.

 

[Corwin]

Ha wow, not sure how that autocorrect fail slipped through...

I'll edit accordingly, brah.

Waaaaayyyy funnier with the typo.

 

[OB1]

I mean, I'm not saying that the game math actually does make that assumption; I'm just saying that, if it does, then it's acting unreasonably by doing so.

The game math does make the assumption, and it does so with the reasonable assumption that people will choose to increase those stats, and want to feel more powerful by doing so. If the game math changed so that by raising the prime stat all you do is stay even with the math, then you haven't gained anything by choosing it. On the flip side, you are not penalized for not choosing to raise the prime stat and becoming good at something else.

5e has given players real choice back in character advancement. That is not unreasonable.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Willie the Duck]

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?

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Some kind of epic rant would be best.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?

While I'm not sure who would ever create or want to play a useless character...I'd expect that it's more a matter of being useful in a non-traditional or unexpected way....I think it's still just a matter of making sure the table is cool with it. If you do that, then usually there are no issues.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*