Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 8933809" data-attributes="member: 2209">It seems a couple of different things are going on here.I am going to go with a definition of a good character as a character that is fun to play as, and is fun to play with. He is definitely not going with a definition of good as effective at combat or supporting the group or pulling their weight in a team of commandos.Sure, that can be part of a good character for some. For some that is part of the fun and can make it enriching to play the character.That seems orthogonal to me. It seems to me a good fun character could have optimized or unoptimized ability scores. I see nothing superior about unoptimized compared to optimized as its own quality.Eh, fine. I try to think a bit more about the experience for myself and the group, but fine.Sometimes companions are not as competent. Unless you are going for a team of commandos goal this can work out and be fun or not. Setting up a combat suboptimal character specifically for combat is going to predictably end poorly though. A rogue played as a mostly strong guy style can work (I've done it) but if you try and tank you should expect to have that quickly end poorly as you suck up hits and get taken out quickly.The exception being D&D custom crafted to the build such as soloing in a much lower level sandbox area where you can successfully do that role with the mechanics you have.OK, it sounds a bit like you seem annoyed that he is suboptimal at combat.This is a big issue.People are getting together to have fun, which can be from different aspects of the game. One true wayism is annoying.It seems then that he is not focusing on combat effectiveness/optimization.He seems to be going for acting a role in the world and not being an effective team combatant.The issue here to me is his viewing sacrificing effectiveness as a universal virtue instead of as a choice.It sounds below like it was not a TPK, just his character getting squished.So the party was on board with his plan.This is all his choice here. He chose to take this into combat here.So the party did not back him up at this point.That is an issue.I can see feeling angry after getting killed and feeling left out to dry and not backed up by the party when things turned south, but scorn can be an issue.Going from stereotypical racial hate to attack is an affirmative choice.I agree it was an encounter, but encounters do not have to go to combat. It could have easily been an insult trading back and forth.Sounds like he wants to play a combatant who can get in over his head against a more powerful enemy, use poor tactics, and not get squished. Seems like a possible mismatch of expectations.Not cool. That is an issue.So the biggest issue to me as described seems to be the one true wayism on unoptimized builds and tactics and insults on those who don't character build according to his preferences. Secondarily there is the unoptimized (rogue played as a fighter) hitting the mechanics (slow non-stealthy dwarf soloing an unengaged giant after the party ambush plan fails) and being upset by the result.</blockquote>

Verification