The character dies in my head

[Harmon]

...but do things like this happen to other people?

Kinda. I have this very kind, calm cleric, should be good at the political thing, but I am not, he has an 18 Cha (I am somewhere around an 8). Saturday I screwed up the campaign, and almost did some things that would have really off set the character.

I like the character, but it seems to me that I am not suited to play him. I suppose I should have gone with my gut and made a War Priest instead of a Marriage Cleric.

 

[Numion]

As a player I like to make efficient characters. It doesn't detract from my roleplaying; a exaggerated flaw could just as well be a crutch for 'roleplaying opportunities'.

If another player decides to make an xp and resource smooching joker with no contribution to the party, my character would probably try to get rid of him / her. They didn't like useless cowards in war IRL.

There's a metagame agreement in D&D to allow a player to make a PC like he wants it, and the other players will allow his character into the group. The other side of this is to not abuse this agreement - for example not tryin' to make a complete waste of space character (blind commoner or somesuch) who'll be accepted into the group because the player is friends with the other player.

 

[Thanee]

I don't know if I am even making sense, but do things like this happen to other people?

Certainly. Some specifics are important for a character concept, and if those are not mechanically optimal choices...

Bye
Thanee

 

[ShadowDenizen]

The fact that we are even having this discussion seems to denote (IMHO) that there is someting flawed with the system..

The RAW seem to promote a sort of schizophrenia within themselves.

If modules are geared to be written for "optimized" characters,why even bother including sub-par feats? (And there ARE some feats that are strictly better than others.)

Because, as jdrakeh said, people have different views of their characters, and how to have fun within the context of the game world. Not everyone wants anm "Optimized","Combat-Efficient" character. (And when I say "Optimized", to clarify, I assume we're talking about being optimized for combat,since that's primarily what I'm referring to.

Not if he doesn't do something that will piss off the King. If Mr Sub-Optimal wants to open his mouth when he knows he has Dip 0 and -ve Cha, he gets all he gets.

Isn't that the ROLEPLAYING aspect?
If someone uses CHA as a dump stat, and has no ranksin Diplomacy, wouldn't it make sense that he might standout in front of the King? And,In-Character, maybe say someting stupid?
Does this mean he should be jailed or killed? Sure,have some consequences, but also realize that he might be ROLEPLAYING his character as he sees it!

It would be if it requires that everyone else has to play around him and his weakness. It would also, if people want to play the hero, to do uber things that most normal people cannot even consider (ie., epic fantasy stuff), and this guy is there.

Teamwork.
Seems to have been lost in 3.x,for some reason,IMHO.

The players should rally around, cover EACH OTHER'S blind spots. Isn't that what "Heroes" are supposed to do?

Or better yet, build a story around Mr.Sub-Op learning to use that cool crosbow,or this uber-
new-spell.

It does make him an idiot if he does not wish to conform to the table's expectations and instead whine his head off about things.

Why bother playing if you're forced to make a character you don't like/ wouldn't want?

I'm not even sure I understand what you mean by "table expectations"; should I have to make a Combat-Monster because everyone else is? Sound like you're not cutting the "different thinker" a hell of alot of slack here.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

IMO Nifft hit the nail on the head. Ownership.

I think changing a sub optimal character to be more optimised could be fine. But unless it happened through my actions, roleplaying or thinking, then I'd probably lose some of my interest in it. Advice from threads might work, if I was able to add my own spin to it?


On the other side of this, I think there's a gulf of difference between a sub optimal character and a useless or even negatively impacting character?

I'll happily play sub optimal concepts, but generally am careful to pick something that isn't: a) going to make me completely useless for an entire campaign. b) going to spoil other peoples fun by getting them irritated or killed.

For example a non combatant in a 90% combat game is IMO a bad idea. Same character in 90% politics was good fun!

 

[Phlebas]

.......
On the other side of this, I think there's a gulf of difference between a sub optimal character and a useless or even negatively impacting character?

I'll happily play sub optimal concepts, but generally am careful to pick something that isn't: a) going to make me completely useless for an entire campaign. b) going to spoil other peoples fun by getting them irritated or killed.

For example a non combatant in a 90% combat game is IMO a bad idea. Same character in 90% politics was good fun!

I definitely agree with this statement

I've seen the attitude a few times on these boards that sub-optimal = useless (And your fault), but the truth is that you should be able to play viable, interesting PC's without worrying too much about the odd sub-optimal feat / level - providing that you're still able to fulfill a useful party role.
(Of course, the definition of a useful party role depends a huge amount on the other PC's, plus game style, plus adventure.)

So the answer to the OP is - yes, I often have to make choices between interesting vs optimised characters, and 9 / 10 I go for interesting

 

[Shadeydm]

I know what you mean. I've spent hours putting together a couple of concepts a few different ways to try and get all the effectiveness from them I can without losing too much of the flavor i want. I once tried to make a brawler that wasn't a monk because I wanted a chaotic guy but it just didn't gel. Then I tried multi-classing a hexblade with nearly every other charisma-based class before settling on a hexblade-favored soul. (we're starting at 2nd level and I wanted some casting right off of the bat).

--Z

So how did the Hexblade-Favored Soul turn out? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Rvdvelden]

I had a curious experience recently. I am planning out a character with a particular concept and realized that it was sub-optimal. I asked for and received advice on how to optimize the character and then found that when I tried to make those changes the character lost something. It effectively died in my head, in the sense that I lost interest in playing it until I "reset" it to the original sub-optimal state.

I don't know if I am even making sense, but do things like this happen to other people?

I had it the other way around: in my head, I made a fairly optimal build (monk). The DM persuaded me to use a specific template for roleplaying reasons, as it would fit the theme of the campaign. After playing for a couple of sessions, I found out I didn't like the concept anymore, because the template was hampering my effectiveness.

I like to build an effective character first and create a feasible concept based on that. That has worked far better than the other way around for me. Starting from next wednesday, I'm trying to see if I can create a different concept based on the same character (class) I'm using in another campaign. Same build, same class (different race though, that may help), but very different background story and roleplay opportunities.

I've see enough characters being build around a concept and fail. IMHO, the problem is that a concept can become boring to a player, or (in hindsight) doesn't fit the campaign theme very well. If you have sacrificed effectiveness for concept, you'll end up with a dud if you're faced with the aforementioned situation. If you have sacrificed concept for effectiveness, at least you can keep contributing to a big part of the game.

In my view, contributing to combat is as satisfying and usefull as contributing to the roleplaying aspect of the game.

 

[pawsplay]

FWIW, this seems a bit harsh to me.
Why should a player be penalized for making a character they like, even if it's

If a player penalizes themselves, who should stop them? It's disruptive and disrespectul to assume you can go changing characters willy nilly any time they decide they're tired of the old one. I'm a big fan of flexibility, but there's a limit.