D&D 5E Do you feel 5e pressures you to build strong over fun?

[Corwin]

A conversation in another thread spurred me to want to start this one so as not to derail that one further.

First, I get that there are plenty of perfectly legit playstyles out there. I'm no OneTrueWay believer or BadWrongFun caller-outer. This isn't about "I can't believe you guys play that way! How dumb!" or anything like that. If anything, it may be about expectations and preconceived notions of what 5e expect of its players. And yes, I'm an unabashed power gamer and experienced optimizer. Going back decades. So there's that caveat.

But it feels like there are people out there who believe they are required by 5e to build purely for maximum possible strength/power just to survive. The example given in the other thread: If you were a fighter 4, and your wizard friend started encouraging your interest in magic, would you take a level of wizard before getting that "precious" extra attack from fighter 5? That's the key issue here. Do you feel like you *need* that extra attack before you would consider broadening your horizons resulting from story development?

To me, the obvious underlying impetus seems to be one of make it through each adventuring day. This is where I think I have a certain small degree of disconnect with some people. 5e seems generally pretty forgiving of the minor power level discrepancies between characters (and, yes, in the grand scheme of things I think power level discrepancies between PCs aren't all that extreme). It can handle a non-optimized PC just fine, IMX. A character that isn't optimization-focused still generally manages to get through the adventuring day to enjoy the next. Is that not true? And isn't that the point? To win the day? I just see non-optimized PCs manage it all the time.

That isn't to say weak characters are immune from death. But neither are solidly built ones. I'm saying 5e's assumed power levels of play has a margin of probability, of either kind of PC dying, smaller than some might think. At least that's my experience playing it so much these last few years.

Anyway, I've been imbibing a bit this evening, so forgive me if I'm rambling or incoherent. But I thought this might be an interesting thing to explore.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I've seen a 12 Strength, 14 Wisdom melee-focused life cleric excel at overcoming challenges and not leave the player feeling like they aren't an equal member of the team while playing next to a 20 Strength barbarian.

So no, I don't think the benchmark that 5th edition sets is one that creates incentive to "build strong", because it's easy as pie to hit the benchmark.

People will, though, find their own incentives to build one way or another, and some people will mistakenly think those incentives they've inserted are created by the game (and some folks will assume that everyone else, or at least 'all the normal folks', share the same incentives.

 

[mellored]

You have a DM. He can always add, or remove, monsters.
Thus, no matter what your character, you can have an appropriate challenge.

It does get a bit tricky if one guy is well above the others.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think optimization is more important in lower number of players games. In a party with 2-3 PC's optimization sure makes a difference in getting through the adventuring day.

I tend to play games with a lower number of PC's

 

[Jester David]

I think every edition has pushed optimization, especially 3e onward.

 

[Valmarius]

Do you feel 5e pressures you to build strong over fun?

I find quite the opposite. In my experience I haven't had to choose between the two.
In 5E, regardless of what kind of character I have in mind, I find that I can make a viable build for it.
So I can approach my character with a desire to make something fun and still fulfill my system-mastery urges.

With regards to your wizard/fighter example. I would consider my wizard friend's encouragement and think about whether my PC would buy into it.
But, the party already has one wizard. So in the pursuit of contributing my best to the party I would probably take Magic Initiate over multiclass.
I would totally put off a strength bump in favour of a little story-based arcane tutelage. (Greenflame Blade FTW)

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

5e seems generally pretty forgiving of the minor power level discrepancies between characters (and, yes, in the grand scheme of things I think power level discrepancies between PCs aren't all that extreme). It can handle a non-optimized PC just fine, IMX. A character that isn't optimization-focused still generally manages to get through the adventuring day to enjoy the next. Is that not true? And isn't that the point? To win the day? I just see non-optimized PCs manage it all the time.

Pretty much my experience. While 3e and its variants seem to me very unforgiving with those who exert their right to play bad characters, 5e makes it very hard, if not almost impossible, to go below a certain level of effectiveness - I'd say just enough to survive the challenges of your typical adventure day.

 

[Corwin]

Yeah. In the other thread I touched on my rogue/monk/warlock. He didn't get Extra Attack from monk 5 until I think 7th level (might have been 8th, actually, but certainly no sooner than 7th). Our paladin got his second swing at 5th. Yet I never felt inadequate or incapable of keeping up throughout the adventuring day. Not at all. In fact, I brought invaluable abilities to the group. At least as much as the others. Stuff neither the paladin not sorcerer could ever dream of being able to do. So why should I feel like I left anything on the table? I eventually got another attack. But before that I got all kinds of other cool things I could do.

 

[cmad1977]

No.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Greg K]

No, I don't feel a need to optimize toward max strength/combat to survive.

This doesn't mean that I do not engage in some optimization. Optimization is a tool that can be used for many different goals or concepts- not all having to do with maximum combat/strength/power. Unless I am creating a character with purely random rolls, I am engaging in some optimization as soon as i make conscious decisions to allocate resources to make my character in order to best meet certain goals. I can optimize to be the best underwater basket weaver. There is also multi-objective optimizing in which multiple goals require trading off maximum efficiency in one or more areas to meet goals in other areas. So allocating ability scores and other resources to best meet my vision of a farmboy figher with decent strength above average dexterity, con and intelligence who is the best horseman in his village is a form of optimization and trading off other areas that require less or no efficiency (such as Charisma, because he is a whiny), I am optimizing.