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

[The Crimson Binome]

Example 1 is clearly not a problem. Example 2 is problematic. But it's not a binary "perfect vs horrible" situation. I don't think every character has to be fully optimized. I think it's ok to take a character with a race that isn't great for his or her class. But there comes a point where the character design is so inferior it gets to be a problem.

Your example seems backward to me. The bard isn't making any obvious mistakes, the way that the fighter is. I mean, your health isn't exactly something you can control, and they're making the smart move by going into a support role that doesn't involve front-line combat. You can't exactly blame the character for not being born a dwarf, after all.

To contrast, the fighter is choosing the objectively inferior weapon for her fighting style, because... sentimental value? She basically sounds like the guy who uses a katana because he thinks it's cool, which is always a good way of identifying someone who has no idea what they're doing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To me, how you build your character is only my business when it becomes an unreasonable burden, or completely ineffective.

To be clear: I'm not talking about players kvetching about character builds. I'm talking about PCs offering advice to PCs.

IOW, PCs both personally frustrated and witnessing the distress of MY PC when his "kewl powerz" fizzle, advising him that he might want to diversify his suite of abilities and gear choices. And my unwise PC- gripped by his electrical obsession- essentially nodding his head in agreement...until he chooses yet another electric-energy themed ability.

 

[Corwin]

There are RPGs that don't give rise to balance issues in the same way that D&D does, because of (i) differences in mechanics, and/or (ii) differences in expected goals of play.

Here are three: HeroQuest revised, Marvel Heroic RP, and Burning Wheel.

The first two of these do not share D&D's granular, list-based approach to PC construction, nor its corresponding granular approach to action resolution. They have basically no tactical play (though MHRP does have dice pool optimisation, every character builds pools in the same way). Hence issues like whether greatswords are balanced against battle axes, whether ranged or melee is a superior strategy, etc, just don't come up.

BW is closer to D&D in build and resolution mechanics, but it has different goal of play - roughly speaking, confronting challenges rather than overcoming challenges) - and also far more of those challenges are generated on the back of player-introduced rather than GM-introduced content than typical approaches to D&D. Hence, again, these recurring issues of mechanical balance for D&D tend not to arise.

That's not to say that these games can't have players who dominate the table to a greater degree than others. But that tends to be a function of their ability to influence what fiction it is that is the focus of play, than the sorts of mechanical balance issues that @shoak1 is concerned with.

...so balance. Just not D&D balance. Which is a relief because I never said "D&D balance." Thanks for the assist.

 

[Sunseeker]

To be clear: I'm not talking about players kvetching about character builds. I'm talking about PCs offering advice to PCs.

IOW, PCs both personally frustrated and witnessing the distress of MY PC when his "kewl powerz" fizzle, advising him that he might want to diversify his suite of abilities and gear choices. And my unwise PC- gripped by his electrical obsession- essentially nodding his head in agreement...until he chooses yet another electric-energy themed ability.

Frankly I'm at a bit of a loss here. The fact that your PC is too stubborn to change, to addicted to change, or too obsessed to change can be a great character feature, so it's still in-character for him to make those poor deicions. I will however point out that PC's don't do anything. Players do. So it can appear to other players that your character complaining about stuff is really just a front for YOU to complain about stuff and their "in character" advice is really advice directed at you, which will only cause additional table frustration. At this point I start begging the question on if your characters intention isn't to actually cause strife at the table, but appearing to complain about their lack of skill/diversity/power while refusing to do anything about it.

The player character dichotomy exists only so long as the table strives to maintain it. Your RP actions and your character's actions blurr that line significantly in this case, making your position problematic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I will however point out that PC's don't do anything. Players do. So it can appear to other players that your character complaining about stuff is really just a front for YOU to complain about stuff and their "in character" advice is really advice directed at you, which will only cause additional table frustration.

Background: I've played with the guys in this group between 4-30 years. We all know how to play & optimize. We all know each other's general character design preferences.

We don't use our characters as puppets for critiquing decisions. If someone has a genuine problem with what you're doing, they will tell you to your face. Usually quite coarsely.

So, IOW, if someone were to tell my PC in character that he was making bad choices, it's the character, not the player, making the complaint. Trust me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Your example seems backward to me. The bard isn't making any obvious mistakes, the way that the fighter is. I mean, your health isn't exactly something you can control, and they're making the smart move by going into a support role that doesn't involve front-line combat. You can't exactly blame the character for not being born a dwarf, after all.

To contrast, the fighter is choosing the objectively inferior weapon for her fighting style, because... sentimental value? She basically sounds like the guy who uses a katana because he thinks it's cool, which is always a good way of identifying someone who has no idea what they're doing.

It sounds to me like you're looking at it from the character's point of view. Right? That these are the decisions of the character?

But I took [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION] to be describing things as the decisions of the player playing the game.

Looking at it that way, one does have control over one's health. And for a character, why would a scimitar be suboptimal compared to another weapon? A character would be unaware of their damage output as a numerical statistic.

So the choices are being made made by the player in the examples given, and it's through that lens that we'd be viewing their effectiveness.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It sounds to me like you're looking at it from the character's point of view. Right? That these are the decisions of the character?

Yeah, it's an RPG. You are your character, and you make decisions from their perspective. That's pretty much the definition of role-playing.

And for a character, why would a scimitar be suboptimal compared to another weapon? A character would be unaware of their damage output as a numerical statistic.

Characters can't see the numbers, but they can observe the in-game realities which those numbers reflect. It's objectively true that, for a given fighting style (that relies on strength rather than finesse), the longsword is more effective - it creates larger wounds, or more blunt trauma, or whatever it is which is the in-game reality corresponding to HP loss - and this truth would be borne out through millennia of empirical evidence.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The key is to make sure every character is useful...

"No, how did a rag tag group of adventurers know that my portal from the abyss could be sealed with a dozen blueberry muffins? Curse you and your master baker!"

 

[pemerton]

I think what makes this discussion difficult is that there are different *levels* of sub-optimal.

This is why I've tried to use the notion of a "floor" of effectiveness, enough to more-or-less reliably succeed at the challenges of the game. Anything below this and the game might start to have issues - but in 5e the consensus seems to be that it's hard (though not impossible - see the various iterations of Rufus upthread) to build such a PC.

Example 2: Player makes a bard. He maxes out charisma (great). No bonuses in constitution. Ok-ish dex but wears minimal armor. Takes no defensive spells and no defensive magical ittem. Because of this choice, the character has mediocre AC, low HP and no magical protections.

This is clearly a sub-optimal design. Because the character has *next to no* defensive capacities, the character is extremely fragile and requires constant protection from other PCs in combat. An easy fight, a stray arrow or a single goblin who flanks the party and reaches the back line are all major threats to this character.

<snip>

Example 2 is problematic.

It's interesting that you think this bard is a problem. I've run Rolemaster games with PCs like this. And in my 4e game the invoker/wizard has pretty bad defences, no defensive magic that I can think of other than the 4e defaults, and consequently is pretty vulnerable in combat.

But these combats bring other, non-combat strengths to the table. (And also some offensive strengths in combat eg the invoker/wizard has once-per-short-rest AoE domination, which is pretty potent.)

 

[pemerton]

Your example seems backward to me. The bard isn't making any obvious mistakes, the way that the fighter is. I mean, your health isn't exactly something you can control, and they're making the smart move by going into a support role that doesn't involve front-line combat. You can't exactly blame the character for not being born a dwarf, after all.

Agreed.

the fighter is choosing the objectively inferior weapon for her fighting style, because... sentimental value? She basically sounds like the guy who uses a katana because he thinks it's cool, which is always a good way of identifying someone who has no idea what they're doing.

It sounds to me like you're looking at it from the character's point of view. Right? That these are the decisions of the character?

<snip>

for a character, why would a scimitar be suboptimal compared to another weapon? A character would be unaware of their damage output as a numerical statistic.

Characters can't see the numbers, but they can observe the in-game realities which those numbers reflect. It's objectively true that, for a given fighting style (that relies on strength rather than finesse), the longsword is more effective - it creates larger wounds, or more blunt trauma, or whatever it is which is the in-game reality corresponding to HP loss - and this truth would be borne out through millennia of empirical evidence.

I'm not much of a rules-as-physics person - certainly not like [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]! - but on this issue I'm pretty sympathetic to Saelorn's perspective.

If the PC has the same bonus to hit with a longsword as a scimitar, why choose the weaker weapon?

There are games where the answer is: because I'm better trained with a scimitar! But 5e doesn't have that level of granularity for fighter training.

If the choice is made on the basis of sentimentality or "coolness", that's OK in a fashion - but in real life sentiment is actually a factor in decision-making, whereas in D&D we have to "pretend" that it is. (Because there are by default no mechanics that express it, or make it matter. Unless my character's flaw is "I use a scimitar", thereby earning inspiration - but that seems a bit overpowered!)