Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 6859105" data-attributes="member: 20564">If you read my other posts, I don't agree with the original posted.&nbsp; But that doesn't make optimization BADWRONGFUN.&nbsp; I've had great fun in a group where everyone ran optimized characters AND were good roleplayers.&nbsp; DM just ratcheted up the challenge.&nbsp; Every good DM adjusts encounter difficulty to provide excitement and the right level of challenge.&nbsp; (Mind you, &quot;right level&quot; can be &quot;easy&quot; or &quot;deadly, run away!&quot; depending on what they are going for at that time.)I'd say there's a problem when a subset of characters is much better/worse at combat then other characters.&nbsp; And I call out combat - we're all okay with the party face being better than the average at diplomacy, the stealthy folks being better at sneaking, and the ranger being better at exploration.&nbsp; But everyone is expected to contribute in combat and it takes a lot of wall clock time.But that issue is true regardless if some optimize and some don't, or if some play regular characters and some play sub-optimal ones.One of the things I like about 5e is that it's hard to make a sub-optimal character until you purposefully de-tune.&nbsp; &quot;A 14 is fine for my prime ability, and I want linguist instead of upping it.&quot;&nbsp; Just picking a class and staying with it and being even somewhat logical about ASI choices, and you are on-par.&nbsp; This brings everyone closer to the same standard by raising the floor, but that help remove cases about someone having a lousy designed character.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 6859105, member: 20564"] If you read my other posts, I don't agree with the original posted. But that doesn't make optimization BADWRONGFUN. I've had great fun in a group where everyone ran optimized characters AND were good roleplayers. DM just ratcheted up the challenge. Every good DM adjusts encounter difficulty to provide excitement and the right level of challenge. (Mind you, "right level" can be "easy" or "deadly, run away!" depending on what they are going for at that time.) I'd say there's a problem when a subset of characters is much better/worse at combat then other characters. And I call out combat - we're all okay with the party face being better than the average at diplomacy, the stealthy folks being better at sneaking, and the ranger being better at exploration. But everyone is expected to contribute in combat and it takes a lot of wall clock time. But that issue is true regardless if some optimize and some don't, or if some play regular characters and some play sub-optimal ones. One of the things I like about 5e is that it's hard to make a sub-optimal character until you purposefully de-tune. "A 14 is fine for my prime ability, and I want linguist instead of upping it." Just picking a class and staying with it and being even somewhat logical about ASI choices, and you are on-par. This brings everyone closer to the same standard by raising the floor, but that help remove cases about someone having a lousy designed character. [/QUOTE]

Verification