Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8531024" data-attributes="member: 16814">Right.  I thought I covered this.  It's trivial to note that bad play leads to bad outcomes.  That, given the same character sheet, good play leads to better outcomes than bad play does.  This is obvious.  I'm not arguing this.  Your statement, though, wasn't that good play is better than bad play (which is this argument) but that good play can trump the character sheet, and particularly in 5e.  This is what I'm pushing back against -- not the idea that good play is obviously better than bad play, but rather that good play is independent of character sheets and that good play will result in good outcomes even with a poorly built character.  That doesn't follow, and the observation of ceteris paribus good play being better than bad play doesn't at all support this claim.Simply put, good play in 5e requires attention to the character sheet, both in creation and in play.  This isn't an argument for optimization, or at least not for excessive optimization, but rather one that says that way 5e is structured in play the character sheet absolutely matters and is the basis for good play.  You can't just say "good play > character sheet" and have that be a meaningful statement because it's not -- these are not independent ideas.  You can't say that "house > foundation" either.  The foundation is part of the house, and the house falters and fails without one (or with a poor one).  Same with good play and character sheets in 5e.Some games, though, this observation is very true.  I'd argue that AD&D was much more here, in that even a poor character sheet didn't matter as much to the outcomes because so many of the various systems didn't even reference the character sheet so you could play towards those systems without having to worry about your sheet having a large impact.  5e, though, is very integrated between character sheets and systems in play.Which, to link to the OP, bringing in a character that isn't a reasonable build adds challenge to play -- you will be less successful in play.  This becomes a problem at the table because of how much a game like 5e is built on the idea of team play where everyone is expected to pitch in to overcome challenges that are largely based on the challenging the team.  Bringing in a character that doesn't contribute well, even if they have niche specialties, means you're actively harming the teams ability to succeed.  That can be perfectly fine, if the group at your table is okay with it, but it's an odd position to be in to assume that your choices should be universally acclaimed by all if they're made without this in mind, or even specifically to cut against this idea in play.  I absolutely don't require or expect hard optimization at the table, but is someone brought in an 8 STR 8 DEX fighter that was using a maul and wearing leather armor I'd absolutely be keenly interested in hearing how that player expects that character to fill the role they're staking in the game.     And any claims of "Don't worry, I'm a good player" would be immediately discounted by the choices already made.</blockquote>

Verification