D&D 5E Math v Character

[mips42]

So there's been some chatter in some of the other threads about 'this class is better than that one because of this math' or 'this weapon is better because of this math' and I just wondered how prevalent this is in players. Is the math what matters to you? Do you make attribute, skill and other choices based on what is 'best' or do you choose what is thematically appropriate for your character?
I tend toward the latter. If my character is, say, a dexterity-based sword fighter, I am NOT going to put him/her in chain or a breastplate, even if it might be a 'better' choice. It's not thematically appropriate. Studded leather at most. Just the opposite would be true of your prototypical soldier or 'knight'. That guy I'd put in a breastplate or maybe even full, but not because it's best, but because it's appropriate for that character.
By all means, weigh in but please be respectful.

 

[Nagol]

Players should build characters the system rewards. Not because its 'better', but because in a well-designed system, those are the characters that match the game expectations and genre conventions.

Building a character to a conception regardless of what the game engine suggests can be cool and all but ultimately you may be doing a disservice to yourself, the GM, and the other players. Bucking the system is an indicator your character conception doesn't fit the current system well. Needing to buck the system consistently is an indicator you are using the wrong system.

 

[JC99]

It really depends on your group. When I played 3.5, which everyone will tell you is ruled by clerics and wizards, my groups were never really interested in playing casters. At most we'd tend to have an arcane/melee hybrid, or a fighter with a few cleric levels. We had a lot of non-standard group configurations that ended up being a lot of fun. One of the best campaigns we ran, the party was a cleric/fighter, a swashbuckler, and two rangers. No one felt useless, all our characters got to do cool stuff.

 

[Grazzt]

So there's been some chatter in some of the other threads about 'this class is better than that one because of this math' or 'this weapon is better because of this math' and I just wondered how prevalent this is in players. Is the math what matters to you? Do you make attribute, skill and other choices based on what is 'best' or do you choose what is thematically appropriate for your character?
I tend toward the latter. If my character is, say, a dexterity-based sword fighter, I am NOT going to put him/her in chain or a breastplate, even if it might be a 'better' choice. It's not thematically appropriate. Studded leather at most. Just the opposite would be true of your prototypical soldier or 'knight'. That guy I'd put in a breastplate or maybe even full, but not because it's best, but because it's appropriate for that character.
By all means, weigh in but please be respectful.

Our games have never been about the math. Just not our play style. We've had some players come and go that were "about the math", but our core group (been together forever basically) isn't. No one really picks armor or weapons or whatever because "this one is better than that one". One player played a dwarf who refused to wear armor (some weird clan tradition he said) and he wielded a quarterstaff because he said he liked the way it sounded when it cracked against an orc's skull. Not the best character mathematically I guess, but fun to watch in game. (Course a lot of that...most of it I would gather...came from the player and injecting his personality into the character...which he could do just as easily with a mathematically elite dude too.)

 

[mips42]

Players should build characters the system rewards. Not because its 'better', but because in a well-designed system, those are the characters that match the game expectations and genre conventions.

Building a character to a conception regardless of what the game engine suggests can be cool and all but ultimately you may be doing a disservice to yourself, the GM, and the other players. Bucking the system is an indicator your character conception doesn't fit the current system well. Needing to buck the system consistently is an indicator you are using the wrong system.

I hope I am wrong but it sounds like you're saying that, if my character concept says my character would wear leather armor but the rules say that studded leather or chain is 'better', I should change my character's concept or change systems.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Is the math what matters to you? Do you make attribute, skill and other choices based on what is 'best' or do you choose what is thematically appropriate for your character?

I prefer to choose what is best for the character.

However, if the math doesn't support that, I notice. And usually during CharGen, but almost certainly during play. So, if my goal is to make a fairly effective character in an area, and the character ends up being ineffective, I now have a problem. This character, due to the math, isn't what I wanted to play. It ends up pulling me out of character and ruining my immersion, spoiling a huge amount of fun that I'd otherwise have.

So, preferably, I'll get to make my decision based solely on what works for the character. I just want the math to back it up once I make that decision. If not, I have a problem.

 

[Nagol]

I hope I am wrong but it sounds like you're saying that, if my character concept says my character would wear leather armor but the rules say that studded leather or chain is 'better', I should change my character's concept or change systems.

If the limit of your fight is 1-2 pts of AC then no, go ahead and pick what you want.

If what you want to play is poorly supported by the system then yeah, change the character conception. If a lot of character conceptions don't fit the system, find a different system.

 

[the Jester]

Disclaimer: I am almost exclusively the DM.

When I make a pc, I make the character I want almost regardless of the math. I mean, I won't make *really bad* choices, e.g. a 3e wizard with a 10 Intelligence, but I have often had high-Int fighters (going back to 1e), despite the fact that Int is your traditional fighter dump stat. For me, it's usually actually dice first- my preferred rolling style is in order- and then concept second, and then finally math third.

 

[mips42]

If the limit of your fight is 1-2 pts of AC then no, go ahead and pick what you want.

If what you want to play is poorly supported by the system then yeah, change the character conception. If a lot of character conceptions don't fit the system, find a different system.

Okay, this makes more sense. I was worried there for a minute.

 

[Evenglare]

as long as my character can do (at least to some extent) what he was made to do, the character is good for me. I wouldn't want to be a complete master of my class at level 1. To me, it's boring and you have little room for growth. I tie in story to mechanics when possible, so when I grow in numbers my character also grows. It's been a real shock to see how many people divorce mechanics from story and while I guess you can do whatever you want, to me it's insane. But to get a quick answer, no, I don't really care about the math. (and I'm a physicist). I know when it should be the focus of things I do, and I know when it should be a supplement to other things I do.