D&D 5E Math v Character

[Paraxis]

I mostly run games, but when I do make a PC I build the character with the best possible choices for whatever goal I want for him. I either build the character trying to exploit a loophole or have a concept from a piece of artwork I want to make. My characters don't ever try to make any sub optimal choices in feats or gear. Now my goal is not always the most damage, sometimes it is having spell DC's for charms so high no one can make them, or a skill so high he never fails at it.

Example, I am playing a 4e game and wanted to exploit perception. So I am running a wood elf warpriest with a perception skill of +20 at 7th level, giving him a passive perception of 30, well past the hardest DC recomended for our level. He finds every trap, ambush, or clue. He also uses his perception in place of his initiative bonus so he always goes first. I do my cleric duties ok, I am not optimized for that but I get the job done.

Most of the time it is about doing fun stuff and hitting, so I try to make sure my attack bonus is as high as I can, I don't want to not do anything on my round. So I like damage on a miss, or spells that have partial effects on saves.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I go with concept first, but if there is something about the mechanics that makes a concept completely untenable, I won't play that concept. A couple of bonus points, minor differences in AC or damage, and the like make little difference -- but for example despite it potentially being an interesting concept, I wouldn't play an undead fighter with a whip in 3E since whips do nonlethal damage and undead are immune to that type of damage.

I will make the best choices I can within the concept to reasonably maximize performance, though.

Occasionally, I will start from mechanics I find interesting, though. For example, back in 3E, the true strike spell struck me as useful so I once built and played a character based around the use of true strike with ranged and melee weaponry.

 

[Emirikol]

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.

Doesn't this imply that D&D isn't able to handle players who want to buck the system?

I'd argue instead it has little to do with the system, and 95% to do with the adventures.

jh

 

[beej]

I Math, but only to a point.

When I feel like further optimization will lead to me succeeding on a natural d20 roll of 3-4, I feel like I've gone overboard. Sure I like to have a success chance that's higher than my failure chance, but for some reason I also want my failure chance to be non-negligible. It makes my d20 rolls more exciting.

I don't think it's necessarily a contest, though. Math and character can coexist, IMO.

 

[77IM]

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.

Then you start playing, and it turns out your Dex-based sword fighter totally sucks compared to your friend's Str-based maul-wielding half-orc fighter in full plate. How would you feel? I'd be bummed, and disappointed that the game system let me down by allowing such a disparity.

That's why the math matters, even if you build from a concept instead of optimizing. Personally I always start by deciding which parts of my character concept are important -- and for the unimportant parts I make optimal choices. This let's me get the "best of both worlds" and produces characters that are balanced enough.

 

[Uchawi]

I don't see it as math versus character, but more of how does one complement the other. You can develop a game that caters to a wide set of tastes, but you should avoid taking either to an extreme or ignoring one over another.

 

[Paraxis]

Also most all of the math happens away from the game table, during character creation and level up. The optimization away from the table doesn't alter the roleplaying at the table. I tend to give my min/maxed math based characters unique personalities, interesting backgrounds, and some kind of flaw to roleplay.

 

[MoonSong]

I don't min/max, I max/min in the service of a character concept. My first ever 5e character is a halfling cleric with low wisdom, as low as point buy allows, since I only want to play a healbot I don't think I lost too much, the only spells I need are cure wounds and spare the dying, one is a cantrip and the other one is a freebie in the domain. I'm not even wearing armor of any kind in order to fit better a classic white mage (with kleptomania!). I'm dying to play it!

 

[GX.Sigma]

I don't care too much about optimization when actually creating characters or playing, except in the sense that I don't take obviously worse options (e.g., I won't play a fighter with padded armor and a dagger just because of a character concept).

I do think it's a worthwhile discussion to have, just from a perspective of making sure a wide variety of concepts are viable. If two options are so close that there's a multi-page thread with people arguing both sides, that probably means it's balanced enough for me.

 

[mips42]

Then you start playing, and it turns out your Dex-based sword fighter totally sucks compared to your friend's Str-based maul-wielding half-orc fighter in full plate. How would you feel? I'd be bummed, and disappointed that the game system let me down by allowing such a disparity.
That's why the math matters, even if you build from a concept instead of optimizing. Personally I always start by deciding which parts of my character concept are important -- and for the unimportant parts I make optimal choices. This let's me get the "best of both worlds" and produces characters that are balanced enough.

Quite honestly, I don't care if my fighter sucks compared to another. I'm playing MY character the way *I* want. If they want to min/max and that's how they have fun, good for them. I'm more interested in the story that I'm involved in than in "winning".
Having said that, I agree that there should not be one thing that is better ALL THE TIME and I definitely agree with the idea of 'balanced enough'.