NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 8079385">I agree, and none of that contradicts what I'm saying.   I think we are saying different things.I will agree that it's great when people play characters, like you are describing, that don't put their stats in the most obviously optimal order. And players should absolutely have that freedom.  The fighter who invests in non-fighter things (like talking) isn't a better or worse character than a fighter who focuses exclusively on combat.  In fact, I think that's a "better" or at least more interesting character concept.But in terms of purely mechanical effectiveness, getting that +1 on the Charisma ability checks just isn't going to have as much impact on the game as getting the same +1 to Strength ability checks....plus every single melee combat attack and damage roll. So is the optimized fighter a better concept?  No.  But is it more effective statistically?  Almost definitely.  (I'm sure there are outlier campaigns and DMs where this isn't true.)But here's the really important thing: while I totally support everybody's right to play a suboptimal character if they want to (I, for one, never grouse at the table when somebody does it) that's totally different than telling somebody that if they want to play race X and class Y it must be such a suboptimal character. What I think is boring and unimaginative and unnecessary is that the assumption that Tiefling fighters (for example) must be the kind of fighter you are describing, because it says right there in the book that they always put their +2 in Cha.   Because what happens is that you say, "No, no, take the Tiefling!  You can play the charming fighter who may not be the best at fighting, but has a quick tongue!"  And nine times out of ten the player is going to say...."Hmm.  Naw, I guess I'll play a Half-orc after all."  Which I don't think is a desirable outcome.</blockquote>

Verification