D&D 5E Math v Character

[Nagol]

Yeah, I try not to do something THAT bad in games. I mean if a character can lockpick really really well and that's the high point of the character then sure, he can pick most locks. But if he can't get hit, always succeeds in picking locks, never gets seen, does ungodly amounts of damage, etc etc. Then that's the time to start exploiting weaknesses. And even then, that's if hes just outshining everyone else. If everyone is that powerful, then it's not a big deal because you will just be doing more extreme stuff and everyone is on par again.

The last time I played, I decided I didn't want my character to die. I am... notorious for losing characters, especially to bad dice rolls.

We were playing CHAMPIONS set in a Traveler-esque universe. I built a doctor that due to an unfortunate accident, regenerated and was exceedingly hard to kill. This was a character I wanted to play for the long haul.

I, along with a goodly portion of the universe, was erased about six session / 2 adventures in when the GM decided to flip game systems in a dramatic way

 

[Blackbrrd]

Does your car handle things particularly well if you try to drive it into a tree?

No system "handles" players that actively try to buck it. The system is not an intelligent thing that can adjust - it is a static set of rules. Just as one can optimize for extreme high performance, one can also choose to aim for extremely low performance.



Let us not make up statistics. There are many influences - the players, the GM, the adventure and encounter designs. All play roles in the drama that can unfold.

And often, you can just talk to the DM if there is something in the system that makes your character concept not work. I have done lots of small house rulings for specific characters to make them more mechanically viable instead of hunting through 20 splat books to find the perfect race/class/feat/magic item combination.

My last adjustment was give a player that took a sub-optimal weapon that left him at -2 to hit relative to his optimimum and just gave him the brutal property on his damage dice when using that weapon as well. It's probably still sub optimal, but it's quite fun seeing him stack up the damage when he hits, relatively often one-shot killing monsters.

 

[Evenglare]

The last time I played, I decided I didn't want my character to die. I am... notorious for losing characters, especially to bad dice rolls.

We were playing CHAMPIONS set in a Traveler-esque universe. I built a doctor that due to an unfortunate accident, regenerated and was exceedingly hard to kill. This was a character I wanted to play for the long haul.

I, along with a goodly portion of the universe, was erased about six session / 2 adventures in when the GM decided to flip game systems in a dramatic way

It's funny you bring up champions, because usually when these character op threads come along everyone complains about ______ being overpowered, and wizards being able to do anything in 3.x, and all of that. It's NOTHING compared to crap you can do in HERO or GURPS or Mutants and Masterminds. I mean D&D has nothing on those systems, of course in those systems the GM is REQUIRED to limit powers that can be selected and rightly so. However, whenever I bring up limiting spells and magic items in D&D everyone has a fit! The most common argument is that you pay for a game so it should work right out of the box. I mean, that's fine that you think that, but the reality is that you are going to HAVE to limit somethings in the game that you don't feel comfortable with. It just comes with the territory simple as that.

 

[Umbran]

My last adjustment was give a player that took a sub-optimal weapon that left him at -2 to hit relative to his optimimum and just gave him the brutal property on his damage dice when using that weapon as well. It's probably still sub optimal, but it's quite fun seeing him stack up the damage when he hits, relatively often one-shot killing monsters.

*shrug*. With the Jedi above, I effectively took a -3 relative to my optimum (and the other PCs) on use of all Force powers. I asked for, and got, no adjustments to suit. For the 3x branch of d20, a -2 isn't a huge deal. Just accept that you're not going to be the consistent heavy-hitter against some types of opponents. Find some other place to shine.

 

[Nagol]

It's funny you bring up champions, because usually when these character op threads come along everyone complains about ______ being overpowered, and wizards being able to do anything in 3.x, and all of that. It's NOTHING compared to crap you can do in HERO or GURPS or Mutants and Masterminds. I mean D&D has nothing on those systems, of course in those systems the GM is REQUIRED to limit powers that can be selected and rightly so. However, whenever I bring up limiting spells and magic items in D&D everyone has a fit! The most common argument is that you pay for a game so it should work right out of the box. I mean, that's fine that you think that, but the reality is that you are going to HAVE to limit somethings in the game that you don't feel comfortable with. It just comes with the territory simple as that.

That's because the focus of the games are different.

In many ways, CHAMPIONs isn't a game -- it's a tool that lets you build a game. The DM sets the expected limits to character design, world construction, etc. What comes out of that is a game presented like D&D presents itself.

D&D has pretty much already built all the power limits, acceptable combinations, etc. So when a DM tries to fiddle with that he is taken to task for fiddling.

 

[Obryn]

I don't like having to fight the system. Ideally, cool characters should be effective characters, as much as possible.

 

[Xodis]

My gaming groups never played with the Math, we played what we wanted. Sure some of the guys liked playing the powerful classes but it didn't take away from anyone elses fun. D&D 3.0, IMO the Paladin class was bad, I still played the hell (hehe) out of that character because it was fun. Our duel wielding-Fighter was having a blast, the Monk was in heaven, our Arcane Archer giggled like a school girl, and the "not-Good" Wizard was blowing things away. Fun times.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't see why I should have to choose.

Why can't I have a mathematically/systemically solid character that also plays like the archetype I want?

This doesn't have to mean strict mathematical equality, but it does have to lead to me not getting out-shined in the area I want to be awesome in all the time.

 

[Umbran]

Why can't I have a mathematically/systemically solid character that also plays like the archetype I want?

Very broadly speaking, none. If you have a strong desire to play a given type of character, you can find a game that'll support that character.

But recognize that not all games/campaigns support all archetypes/tropes/genres equally well. So, in a particular game, your personal desire may not be easily attainable. If you knowingly bring a knife to a gunfight, don't be surprised if you have issues.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Very broadly speaking, none. If you have a strong desire to play a given type of character, you can find a game that'll support that character.

But recognize that not all games/campaigns support all archetypes/tropes/genres equally well. So, in a particular game, your personal desire may not be easily attainable. If you knowingly bring a knife to a gunfight, don't be surprised if you have issues.

My experience is that it's much more likely, in reality, that the game tells you that you have a gun, and your gun, while different to the other guns, shoots just as hard, then you bring it to the gunfight, and find it's a paintball gun in a rocket-launcher fight. Only CharOp-capable players will reliably spot this kind of thing.

That said, every edition of D&D has started kind of "limited" archetype-support-wise, and become progressively better and more open over time as more material emerges.