Unearthed Arcana WOTC still can't get the backgrounds right in the new FR book.

[nevin]

That is called L2P.
and it's completely normal phenomenon.
your 2nd character will be better made than the 1st and 3rd will be better than the 2nd.

or maybe you can ask the DM to rework your character after a few sessions when you learn the game.

no it's not L2P when you want to play cool story and your other players want to Min MAX. That's called "WRONG TABLE" which is where the most players get lost permanantly. A good DM can and should adapt and fix that kind of junk without being asked. "That's called L2DM. just to match your snarky mess." But the people making content should be thinking and adapting and tuning thier new content to avoid this kind of BS. You can have story and "ALL" the classes can be playable at any kind of table. Making stuff the DM needs to adjust for. Especially POST "Lets get rid of all the Xmas tree stuff that made that so easy" .

 

[nevin]

There is something a lot more miserable than this - when your Barbarian who dumped Charisma and has no Charisma proficiency and built his character for pure combat insists on leading every non-combat social interaction.

nah the law of consequences will fix that either with Barbarian learning they suck and keep screwing the party or they piss off some important NPC and die. This is only a problem if the DM refuses to DM properly.

 

[nevin]

I can't believe we are about to revive the +1 debate again!

No one notices the difference over the course of a session whether your character has a +2 or +3. You notice because you "feel it." Playing "second fiddle" is absolutely a ridiculous argument. I have seen people acquire greater output in damage by just choosing the right spell, weapon, or positioning. This doesn't even take into account the way players spend bonuses at later levels. It is so silly, and has no justification even being a debate.

If you want your character to have the max bonus from level 1, just say it. Just tell the DM, hey I want max stats regardless of what I choose

Depends on the table and how much the min maxing occurs and how high the game goes. If you only play lower level games it's a bigger deal than you realize. I know tables that don't play past 6 level or so and +1 is huge. But the main point is "Trap and flavor" junk that add nothing beneficial to the mechanics are "JUNK", this is the kind of stuff that bloated and eventually sunsetted 3rd and PF1e. Most people I talk to on the Internet forget most DM's have little to no experience and don't adapt for bad dev decisions.

 

[ECMO3]

no it's not L2P when you want to play cool story and your other players want to Min MAX.

But I can still play a cool strory without having ASIs tied to backgrounds, moreover I can play a cool story and also at the same time Min Max if ASIs aren't tied to backgrounds.

This is hardly a compelling reason to have ASI increases tied to backgrounds.

 

[ECMO3]

Depends on the table and how much the min maxing occurs and how high the game goes. If you only play lower level games it's a bigger deal than you realize. I know tables that don't play past 6 level or so and +1 is huge.

Another huge variable is how well you rolled. If your max ability is a 13 after you roll forcing you to take an increase in something other than your main stat is quite debilitating, meanwhile the guy next to you that rolled a natural a18 and choses a background aligned to their class can start with a 20.

 

[CreamCloud0]

There is something a lot more miserable than this - when your Barbarian who dumped Charisma and has no Charisma proficiency and built his character for pure combat insists on leading every non-combat social interaction.

i don't know if it's worse or now when they're then allowed to succeed on those checks because 'the GM thought they RP'd the conversation well'

 

[nevin]

But I can still play a cool strory without having ASIs tied to backgrounds, moreover I can play a cool story and also at the same time Min Max if ASIs aren't tied to backgrounds.

This is hardly a compelling reason to have ASI increases tied to backgrounds.

nice avoidance of the fact , that it only works that way with a DM who adjust for the junk dev creation in the first place. New DM's who don't know shouldn't be expected to do this. Also most stat increases in special classes can be justified to fit 3 to 5 of the stats. A lot of these arbitrary decisions end up getting made because someone just decided that stat needed more love or someone wasn't paying attention, etc, etc. The fact that you can do it doesn't mean the devs should create the situation where new players will try it and thier new DM's will let them flounder. It's just bad design.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Another huge variable is how well you rolled. If your max ability is a 13 after you roll forcing you to take an increase in something other than your main stat is quite debilitating, meanwhile the guy next to you that rolled a natural a18 and choses a background aligned to their class can start with a 20.

this is why i prefer standard array or point buy, or at least pooling the resulting roll arrays so anyone can use any of them

 

[nevin]

and if you ignore attunement, or do DM special magic items it can be fixed. It's easy enough to fix with experience. But a lot of DM's are short on that .

 

[Scott Christian]

Depends on the table and how much the min maxing occurs and how high the game goes. If you only play lower level games it's a bigger deal than you realize. I know tables that don't play past 6 level or so and +1 is huge. But the main point is "Trap and flavor" junk that add nothing beneficial to the mechanics are "JUNK", this is the kind of stuff that bloated and eventually sunsetted 3rd and PF1e. Most people I talk to on the Internet forget most DM's have little to no experience and don't adapt for bad dev decisions.

No, even at lower levels it's not a big deal. It's called having a variety of encounters and role playing a story. If one person dominates all combat encounters, then it is quite obvious that the encounters are not balanced nor varietal. Everyone always insists the +1 makes a HUGE difference - it doesn't.

When a player min/maxes damage, they exclude other things. And that is part of the fun developing characters, trading off this for that, and seeing how much you can squeeze out of x, while limiting y's growth. There is nothing wrong with that. But to insist that it suddenly makes other characters feel worthless in a game with three pillars is ridiculous.

And this doesn't even account for level change abilities, ASI's growth, and feats choices. I mean, I once had a 12th level half-orc with 192 hit points, a great armor class, able to rage and reduce damage, and could pop back up after the grind of getting me down from zero. That is definitely a way to min/max (8th level fighter, 4th level barbarian, 4th level cleric). It all followed the story, and the choices were rather natural. But it made him ridiculous to drop. No one complained that I broke the system. Yet, give someone an extra 5 points of damage each round and certain people lose their minds.

The variables on how much things like a +1 effect the game are numerous. And in the end, it really is just players wanting a +1. It is the same debate that was carried out over races/species. The long whiny complaint of, "I would play a half-orc wizard, but his intelligence sucks!" Or, "My elf fighter is worthless next to the dwarf fighter in the party." It was a mere +1 difference, yet the complaints were endless. And worse yet, it ignored the benefits the half-orc or elf brought. That ability to pop up after being taken to zero, or that ability to long rest in 4 hours - ignored. Nope, it was only about the +1. That is why Tasha's was sooooooo beloved. Not because of its cool spells or even its sub-classes, but because it finally let players min/max just a little bit more - +1 more to be exact.