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

[hawkeyefan]

It probably boils down to expectations. There really is no right or wrong answer, but it's probably best to adapt to the table in question.

If you sit sit down with a bunch of power gamers, then you should probably make a character with that in mind. Who wants to constantly be questioned about their suboptimal choices, and told that they created their character wrong?

If you instead sit down with a bunch of folks who are more interested in the storytelling aspect of the game, you should probably play accordingly.

Who knows? Maybe you'all actually find that a change in playstyle makes for a fun experience! Craziness, I know, but possible.

 

[iserith]

Last night, my un-optimized character with the 8 Strength jumped on the back of a rust monster, crossed its antennae, and led it away from the heavily-armored paladin. We prevailed. Compared to that craziness, the rogue's optimized damage output was quickly forgotten. Note that my character was not, however, "purposefully inept."

 

[Corwin]

...We prevailed...

AFAIC, this is the only metric worth considering. If a player's inept actions result in an undesired TPK, I can see a few well-deserved sour glances shot his/her way. But until everyone dies, the group is prevailing. And having fun making it to the next adventuring day should be the only goal that matters.

 

[pirate gonzalez]

The reason why it's rude and inconsiderate to bring an incompetent character into the game is that you're forcing the other player characters to accept you, when they have no reason to. It's not that the players want to kill the dragon - the players don't exist, for the purpose of role-playing - it's that their characters want to live and shouldn't be made to accept someone who is incompetent.

So if the group of people are all mercenaries who put out a job posting, sure, you only want the best people money can afford.

If you're a group of friends, you acknowledge and accept each others flaws. That's what decent people do. I generally have everyone decide WHY they're already hanging out with each other beforehand. The fighter may be physically weak, but why do you all still work together?

Also, I feel that there's a wide range between truly incompetent and sub-optimal. A 14 str fighter isn't incompetent.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It's a game with no actual consequences. You don't even get a prize. Nobody loses anything if somebody doesn't "pull their weight", and flawed characters can add an extra dimension to those who enjoy such things.

There's enough people being judgmental in real life, all day long. Last thing I want is during my down time playing a game that's supposed to be fun feeling like I'm being judged by other players for not being up to their arbitrary standard of what's acceptable.

Screw that noise.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

If you're a group of friends, you acknowledge and accept each others flaws..

This. D&D is a social game first and foremost. Also, PCs aren't real. If someone feels like they should sacrifice their relationship with another real life human being for the sake of some imaginary PC, then IMO they have their priorities backwards.

 

[iserith]

If you sit sit down with a bunch of power gamers, then you should probably make a character with that in mind. Who wants to constantly be questioned about their suboptimal choices, and told that they created their character wrong?

I agree that a player should do his or her best to buy into the group's standards and practices, but I find that the questioning and statements about about creating the character "wrong" are really annoying personality traits right up there with the "table captains" who want to tell everyone what to do on their turns. The problem in this case as I see it is with the people who act that way, not with the person whose build choices don't meet the standards of others.

I've done my share of optimizing, but I prefer not to play the game on "easy mode" these days. So I go for the un-optimized concept characters that people will remember (but obviously not purposefully inept ones) where I really have to be on my toes to succeed.

 

[Blue]

To address the OP's point about optimizing needed to support the group:

One point about D&D (and many other RPGs), is that certain activities it's fine to have one or just a few characters proficient while combat everyone is expected to contribute meaningfully. I think it's because of the mechanical processes it's the longest in terms of wall clock time.

Addressing combat first: in my experience, a group has the most fun when the characters are all in the same ballpark in terms of effectiveness. A outlier, either significantly more powerful or significantly less powerful, tends not to be as much fun. Though "more powerful" tends to overshadow others, while "less powerful" seems more to reduce fun for yourself.

Caveat: a support or defensive character who's significantly more powerful then the group average doesn't seem annoy, while a character who kills foes and/or does the same niche as another character but is much more powerful then average garners more annoyance.

(BTW, to show my own biases: I enjoy making well wrought mechanical characters. I've also brought up to DMs when I thought I was outshining others and have volunteered to "detune" characters. I also love RPing and am happy with pure-RP sessions just as much as anything else, and have had characters do stupid things both tactically and plot-wise to follow their motivations.)

So, while I think everyone has some responsibility not to create sub-optimal characters, I don't think you have a responsibility to make as mechanically powerful character as you can. If that's where your group is calibrated at, go for it. But if not, then trying to match the effectiveness of the group will probably bring the most fun. (Note: if your fellow players are open to suggestions, giving them advice to bring up the average also meets this criteria. Just don't be pushy.)

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I consider the notion of making a character purposefully inept to be in fundamental opposition to the co-operative nature of the game
***SNIP***
What bothers me most about this sort of accusatory stance is that it assumes a lack of imagination and creativity on the part of the optimiser.
Discuss.

The problem here is that you may consider a Fighter with a 12 Strength "Inept", while I consider a Fighter with a 12 Strength "above average".

Answering your question(s) isn't so much a "answer" so much as a "my style". The old saying still stands: The devil is in the details. A character that is 'optimized' for melee damage has a lot of other short comings. A character that is 'optimized' for versatility in battle has short comings as well. But both are just as viable in to fill their role; fighting.

One could flip the tables on you and say the same thing, but their version of "inept" relates to versatility. They look at your character who is optimized for melee damage with large weapons and think "Why are you making such an incompetent fighter? When you have a two-handed sword you are great...but the moment you loose that weapon, you suck. You rely on heavy armor, which is great, until the moment when you are sleeping, or at sea, or climbing a rope, or walking through a desert, or a million other likely scenarios for an adventurer. When these situations happen, we will all need to keep *you* alive...you won't be doing your job as fighter, effectively".

Anyway, that's all I really wanted to point out. One persons "optimized" is another persons "inept".

^_^

Paul L. Ming