D&D 5E Math v Character

[Nagol]

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

No game engine can handle players that want to buck the system. There are always conceptions that won't work well in any engine -- what those conceptions are change with the engines so finding a good engine that matches the DM's/table's preference is key.

 

[Emirikol]

I think that's why I house rule every system that I play. D&D has been no exception for over 30 years. I find that the more difficult a system makes house ruling, the more more difficulty a system has with dealing with non-number-crunching player characters.

 

[thalmin]

It is easy to play a non-optimized character in any edition of D&D, the system can easily handle it. It is some gaming groups that can't handle a non-OP. Everyone will either be frustrated (probably the non-OP) or annoyed (probably the DM and other players) or both. Just like an extremely OP will be problems for a table of non-OPs. It is the group you must match with, not the system. The player needs to fit in the group, the play styles need to not clash.

 

[Emirikol]

I ran convention games for years. There seems to be a bizzare element of intolerant players who occasionally emerge who have trouble with players who don't min-max/robot their characters. During my Living Greyhawk and Pathfinder Society days, I've seen huff-puff (and even punches thrown) because "someone wasn't playing their character optimally." It makes me chuckle a little.

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

IMO there are different situations to consider...

1) If someone comes up with mathematical proof that e.g. a Paladin is stronger than a Ranger, I don't care. I play a Paladin if I want my PC to be a Paladin and a Ranger if I want her to be a Ranger. Furthermore, it's practically impossible to really compare things at a higher level, because of the complexity: what does it even mean "stronger" when comparing classes as a whole? Whatever criteria for the comparison, it's always narrowed down to one aspect of the game only. Unless there are enormous differences, math doesn't matter to me in this case.

2) If there are 2 alternative (narrow) choices one of which is undoubtedly better than the other, then it does matter to me, and I tend to judge negatively the game design in this case. For example, if there are 2 weapons which are completely identical except for 1 parameter, then picking the worse weapon makes me feel stupid, and I don't like that...

It doesn't matter if it's a minor parameter. Do you know when you go to a supermarket and you notice that there are 2 copy-products, usually one just has the label of the supermarket brand and costs a little less than the one with the label of the real brand (but then you look at the back label and clearly see the manufacturer is the same, the content is the same, and even the container is exactly the same except the label)? Then it's just plain stupid not to buy the cheaper one.

And the image doesn't always matter, because you can change the image of anything in the game. The book may say the katana is exactly the same as a b.sword but costs more, fine I'll take the b.sword and call it a katana.

 

[Sadras]

As player - theme first, math second. I can have fun with most characters as long as the DM is not dull or an ass.

 

[Blackbrrd]

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.

The math here agrees with your choice though. The breastplate has a max dex of +2, so by the time you can afford it, you probably have a dex of 18, which makes them equal. At 20 dex, studded leather is superior. The example is an example of good design, where math and character go hand in hand.

Personally, I think of a concept, check if it's viable (math) and if it is, I run with it. If the math is just slightly off, I probably run with it anyway. If the choice is below some threshold, I either talk with the DM about a house rule, or try to think of another concept.

Btw, I don't have a problem running a "weaker" class, like a Rogue instead of a Wizard in 3e.

 

[Capricia]

I don't think it's an either/or thing.

If someone has a character concept of being the tough as nails fighter who suplexes dragons and thinks that fireballs tickle, let them play that and make the rules support it.

A lot of it can be accomplished with just a bit of reskinning.

Player wants to fight with a shortsword and nothing else? Let her use the stats for a greatsword then.

Player thinks that fullplate looks dumb and wants his fighter to run into battle barechested? Give him "fullplate" that only covers the legs.

The reason I tend to complain about balance points is because a character concepts has an implied amount of competence to them.

If your character concept is that you're an awesome thief and a fantastic pickpocket but the rules give pickpocketing an 80% chance of failure almost all the time, that's the rules getting in the way of the concept. Even if you can put Pickpocket: +20 on your character sheet, if it can't accomplish what you want in the game itself, something needs to change.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

It's an RPG. Playing against expectations and conventions is a thing. This is how the dwarf wizard first came about.

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.

In my experience, that's total bunk. Char op can be fun, but I think most people don't do it. There are far better games for optimization that a role playing game - like magic the gathering. An RPG is not a natural classification for optimization. It can be done, but it's not a primary function of the game. Role playing is what differentiates an RPG from other types of games, it's what it does best, and char op isn't really related to it (not that it cannot be role played, just that optimization is neither here nor there when it comes to role playing - it's not related to that function). So as long as the character can be role played well, that's what the system handles best. Math isn't much of a concern for the system really - it's much more a concern for certain players rather than the system itself. Even a mediocre DM can handle a non-optimized party just fine. It's actually a bit harder to DM for a fully optimized party in my experience, than it is for a non-optimized one, as one of the three pillars (or more) gets thrown off.

 

[Pickles JG]

If someone has a character concept of being the tough as nails fighter who suplexes dragons and thinks that fireballs tickle, let them play that and make the rules support it.

.....

If your character concept is that you're an awesome thief and a fantastic pickpocket but the rules give pickpocketing an 80% chance of failure almost all the time, that's the rules getting in the way of the concept. Even if you can put Pickpocket: +20 on your character sheet, if it can't accomplish what you want in the game itself, something needs to change.

It might not be a suitable concept for a first level character though....

I agree with the point in general but your awesome thief will be stealing from the local merchantsat first level & pickpocketing Asmodeus at 20th.