Optimization vs Roleplaying
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Today let's discuss the False Dichotomy that you need to choose between optimization and roleplaying or story. All these things work together in harmony.
Love the Treantmonk image as much as I do? It's from Dino Kranjcevic who can be followed
on Instagram at / beard.positive
For my guides and handbooks find me at:
treantmonk.wor...
Thanks to:
@makemyanthem for the intro music.
My wizard had 15 HP but then I changed it to 12 HP. That is how good I am at RP.
If you were REALLY good at RP you would have changed HP to 9
@@TreantmonksTemple Your right. I have some work to do.
Mechanically optimizing your character before coming up with backstory and personality is actually an excellent way to roleplay! Those of us who are writers-and any of us who play D&D are writers, at least a little bit-are familiar with the “writing prompt”-a sentence or two that lays out the groundwork for a creative piece. When you create a character mechanically first, you’re basically putting down a writing prompt for yourself. “This character is a wizard with a dash of cleric; how did they become part of a clerical order, and why did they decide to leave?” “This character is of an unusual race for this class; how has that affected how other adventurers see them?” This character has these unusual skill or tool proficiencies; how did they come by them?” The story practically writes itself, and you know who your character is better than the long-winded dramatist who declares he’s a powerful necromancer but doesn’t actually engage in necromancy.
I make most of my characters mechanically first^
The irony of course is that the person on Twitter wanted to play a sickly Paladin, then used the game mechanics to do that. Considering the pole was "Mechanics v. Story" not "Optimization v. RP", he was doing *exactly* what he claiming he wasn't doing.
One can make a "flawed" character without necessarily making a "weak" character...
Stats are limited and classes generally have flaws too - no need to bend over backwards to have character flaws
Here's something that a lot of people don't seem to get: Choosing powerful races, classes, and abilities for your character is only half the process of optimization, the other half is politics. You're playing a game with other people, and your role at the table, in character and out, is affected by how those other people perceive you. Having the DM and the other players like your character is extremely important, and contributes a huge amount to playing optimally; and for the most part, DMs and other players want interesting characters that they can roleplay with. So I would argue that making your character have an interesting backstory and roleplaying them well *is* optimization.
Stormwind fallacy is a thing for a reason. One can be optimal AND a great roleplayer.
In real life, people are drawn to do the things that they're good at, and try to learn to get better at the things they do. So at certain degree of "optimization" is just realistic, because that's how people behave.
Thank you for bringing up the difference between theoretical optimization and practical optimization. Just because I can build a character that can maintain 100s of skeletons doesn't mean I would want to play such a character. It is fun to theorycraft and find the limits in the system. I also like to play the game and approach these two things very differently.
I have a Dex/Wis Trickery Cleric who is a human variant with the healer feat and a custom Medicine Man background ( Phb) My backstory is that as the village outcast and medicine man life was hard and villagers began to blame my character for the usual droughts, miscarriages, and even curdled milk. In the misery, the goddess of misfortune took notice and for lack of better language became smitten with him. With the black cloud of misfortune following the character he traveled village to village trying to lessen the misery he found there, but moved on before he could be blamed for the calamity that would happen. So my powers are necrotic for things like spiritual guardians. I can heal with a healers kit as an action, and heal on the same turn with healing word. I can have spiritual guardians up and dodge as my action and still have spiritual weapon up. I find him very powerful mechanically,
Very nice combination of creativity, interesting concept and an understanding of mechanics.
The one thing I would think the poll could ask which one you base your character on - you do need to unify the character's mechanics to fit their story, but you can start with either a story-based concept (e.g. "I want to play a fugitive of a war-torn country" or "I want to play someone based on this popular character") or a mechanics-driven one (e.g. "I want to make use of this interesting spell/feat/etc. combo" or "I want to hammer out as many attacks as I possibly can").
Which is weird since the people in my D&D group right now that are very strict optimizers are some of the best RPers in the group. I find that trying to force a roleplaying concept using suboptimal mechanization of a character is a lazy way of roleplaying. It takes an actual investment in the story of the character and communication with your DM for great roleplaying not forcing yourself to have strange mechanical disadvantages.
That’s not weird but is in fact pretty common. Many optimizers do what they do because they love the game and care about their character, and that’s why they invest the time to master the rules in order to fully realize their concepts.
When you are a passionate D&Der it makes perfect sense that you would become a better roleplayer and optimizer
On the other hand, flaws or quirks can inspire the RP.
If you use the standard array, you have an 8 somewhere. It might be boosted to 10 depending on the build, but still.
If it's in Cha, maybe he stutters. If it's in Str, maybe she's a book nerd wizard. Either way, you have something for yourself and others to latch onto about the character.
And if it's a low stat for a stereotypical prime one? Low dex rogue with high int is still an effective arcane trickster. Low strength fighter with finesse weapons is still effective. Low Cha Paladin uses his spell slots for smite instead.
A moon druid could be low in all the physical traits and it largely wouldn't matter because he uses wild shape.
'Flaws' don't have to equate to unplayable. It's okay to not have all the god tier bonuses lol.
I want to make a sneaky master thief, but I feel like playing a rogue would be optimizing. So I'll be playing a druid, but of course I'll never wild shape or cast spells, because that's not part of my concept. But mechanics don't matter, right?
Sarcasm if you couldn't tell.
So I think there are a couple things happening here, but the main conversation point stems from players needing a strong concept for a character. And I agree that mechanics and RP are not at all separate. What I find is that, for the issue with the low con character, is that there are some people that want the mechanics to do the RP for them rather then come up with a strong concept themselves. If you have a sickly character, you need to be asking yourself why are they sick, what exactly did it do them physically and mentally, why do they want to leave and adventure, what was their inciting incident or call to action? I find that just saying "oh they're sick so they have a low con" is a very lazy and shallow view.
That being said, you also cant completely divorce mechanics and roleplay. You cant really have a clumsy rogue with 20 dex. So you do need to find a way to make the concept work. To help explain this, I want to talk about a monk I played once called Leaf.
Full name Leaf that drifts from the Mountains, Leaf was initially a tabaxi monk who was trained from a young age, but read a lot of books and was very inquisitive, and wanted to leave to be an archeologist and discover tombs as that innate tabaxi itch for exploration developed.
What made this interesting is when I rolled for stats and got an 18, 17, and 16... and a 9, 8, and 6. It was amazing and I kind of loved it, but this is where the mechanics had to change the character to fit the concept. The DM was fine with shifting the racial +1 CHA to WIS so they started out with an insanely strong 20 Dex and 18 Wis, but the problem came from having the character still be smart and like to read with a knowledge of tombs. I only had the 16 left and I had to choose to go with optimization or concept by putting it in INT or CON.
Ultimately, I decided I would have more fun by having a strong character concept, and the stats helped to do that by painting a character. Leaf was the runt of the litter, sickly child with an 8 STR, 9 CON, and 6 CHA. They were born with a crippling disease that gives them coughing fits, damaged their throat, and scared their face. Not having the resources to save the child, the parents gave Leaf up to the Monestart at the top of the mountain to heal them. Their voice is gravely and it hurts to talk, so they primarily communicate with a notepad and by writing or drawing (painters tool proficiency). Being so sick at a young age left them to hone their mind and find inner peace with their life and the world. The monks helped trained Leaf to adapt their body and be flexible and nimble if not strong. They left when reading an old tome in the library which spoke of an ancient kingdom and a line of kings which would wear a magic necklace of health and longevity (CON 19 Necklace). Suddenly they had a driving goal and a need to find this magic item that could cure this innate sickness and disease that has been killing Leaf slowly since birth.
And God damn was this character fun. A lot of close moments, but thankfully monk comes with a lot of defensive tools to help Leaf stay alive. This is an instance of mechanics and roleplaying working together to fulfill a concept, but it was not the optimal choice. The thing about not making optimal choice is that it requires experience. You dont need to do this and I would never tell a new player to do this, since as you said Roleplaying and Optimization dont have to be separate, but there are ways to have non optimal choice make interesting characters, but it needs to be done deliberately and by someone with enough system mastery who can work around it.
I think there's a linguistic hop where one links "optimize" with a single "optimal." I think Treantmonk just wants a competent character build.
@@cmikewilson that's fair. I guess if I had shorten my mental word vomit down, it would be that you want to have a strong character concept in mind, but you still need a character that is good at the game and has strengths and can function in combat. With an on demand dodge/disengage, the highest AC, Evasion, Arrow catching, potential all save proficiency, and going Kensei for longbow proficiency to have a solid ability to function at range (and because being able to use that sweet gear they found in old tombs fit the concept), my character had options and could function even with an abnormally low stats. Not all classes have that option at all to begin with, but executing on classes that have a non optimal stat is an advanced tactic, and my numbers are not my roleplay. They fit the concept, but roleplaying is not rolling a d20, and to conflate the two as people do by saying bad stats are better roleplay is a beginner mistake and a trap. You can have good roleplay while being an optimized character. You can also do it while having a less then optimal character in certain areas. But good roleplay will never make up for having an ineffective and gimped character who has no way to contribute.
D&D is at its best when mechanics and story intersect. As a player I tend to design characters top down, plotting out the abilities and leveling schemes first, then work with the DM to flesh out the lore.
People that complain are projecting. They are NOT good role players and they don't understand the rules well enough to optimize. And instead of asking for help from players who would most likely enjoy helping them optimize their character, they criticize them out of jealousy.
Yup been there done that, in Champions, had a guy play with us who didn't optimize at all ( a MAJOR cock up in Champions) and was having no fun becasue the character went down every fight.
Hot take! Although I can definitely see it to be honest, a little Dunning Kruger mixed in there too where they _think_ they are great role players because they play the rogue that steals from their party during long rests 😉
I advocate for avoiding "your fun is wrong" mentality. You can have an enjoyable time with a mechanically oriented game, a dramatically driven game, both at the same time or neither.
Yes but it just seems like there are way more amateur thespians complaining that someone else’s character is too strong than there are optimizers complaining that someone else’s storytelling skills is too good.
Another issue is that some see optimizing as optimizing everything. As long as your build is specialized though, only your prime stat(s) really matter.
A build isn't bad for having a low strength if that only ever factors into carrying junk. A build isn't bad if it's only average in combat but great in RP/exploration.
As long as you do something well for the party, you're good to go. 👍
I had a Monk who was super fast back in Pathfinder. Average at best in combat. Didn't talk much. But at the end of the campaign, he grabbed the maguffin from the bad guy and was 300 feet away with it in a single turn.
Bam. Saved the world.
He could run well. He could scout ahead. Deliver things. Etc. Find your niche and you'll be valued, no matter how quirky your sheet crunch is. 👍
Yes! Completely agree. I think some aren't quite as good at roleplay and others aren't quite as good at optimization. Unfortunately, it seems many tend to disparage the one they aren't good at. But, like you said, I find mechanics often inspire my roleplay decisions and both go together brilliantly. They don't need to be seen as opposing one another.
I find this false dichotomy to be especially inapplicable to D&D 5e. You can take a concept and due to it being a more homogenized system compared to 3.5/ Pathfinder.
Meanwhile in 3.5 you could make weird builds that would be really, really difficult to explain roleplaying wise, and I can understand someone pointing at whatever you've done and saying it's poor roleplaying. I think the best example of this is actually your most recent build: the Paladin/ Warlock/ Wizard/ Bard. I could think of a story for a Paladin/ Warlock. A Paladin/Warlock/Wizard is a lot harder to convincingly tie all of that together. God forbid I add bard for yet another source he derives power from. Certainly the more I think about it, the more I can think of a fitting backstory explaining this wild mad grab for different sources of power, but if someone is overly consumed with the build and can't think of a reason WHY their character has taken such an odd path in life, the character may come off as exceptionally strange or flat. But something like that is really, really uncommon in 5e
You don't have to be good at everything to be a 'hero'. In most cases in stories, heroes are defined by their weaknesses, not their strengths. Like you don't need 18 strength to be a viable barbarian/fighter. Like for example, I generally choose my race based on story and flavor that I am going for, rather than which race has +2 to the main stat for my class.
Alright so I generally agree with what you're trying to say, but I disagree with some of the nuance of it.
1. At about 9:37 you say "and in no way are you going to find a case where you have to choose between being optimized, or roleplaying." I disagree with this. Lets say I'm playing a necromancer, and I pick Circle of Death at 6th level. The spell is not the optimal choice, but it fits the flavor of the character so I take it. Maybe I'm playing a paladin, and she leaves her paladin order for something that happens in the game. So I change classes even if it's not the optimal choice. In both these cases the optimal choice, and the roleplaying choice are directly opposed to each other. That isn't to say that you can't optimize within the bounds of what's happening in game, but the idea that the two NEVER oppose each other is simply false.
2. Over the whole video you have this idea that death is bad for RP, and the game. However when I think of memorable D&D moments many of them involve character death. It doesn't even have to be a dramatic death. Losing a friend to goblins, or something else mundane can be dramatic, and interesting because of how the other characters in the group respond to that event. This idea that a character who is more prone to death is somehow worse just isn't true. I have played old school D&D where character death was common, and some of my favorite characters were the ones I rolled horrible stats for.
3. You only touched on this a little in your video, but I think the misconception about optimization vs. RP comes from a small sect of players . You know the ones who don't roleplay at all, and tell you to let the NPCs die so they'll turn into zombies for extra EXP. I think those types of players are the ones who give many people the idea that the two things are opposed when really they aren't.
With all of that said I will say that I feel that players do have a certain amount of obligation to take some optimal choices. D&D is a group game so if you build a character that ends up getting their fellow party members killed because they are so useless then that's no good either. You have to consider everyone else's fun as well. Personally I make an effort to optimize my characters within the limits of what makes sense for the character and story.
If I am making a character that has a distinctive weakness I also usually try to give them some strengths as well. To use your example if I made a paladin that had a low con I might give her a high strength and charisma in exchange. So perhaps she won't be as durable, but at least her spells and aura will be more potent to make up for it.
So to summarize I do think there are cases where optimization and RP are opposed to each other, but generally speaking the two aren't. Thanks for the video, it was a good one as usual.
1: you and I define optimization differently. I'll be making a video to clear up the muddy water
2: character death can be interesting, even exciting. It can also be anti-climactic and story disruptive
3: if I made a low Con paladin it would be because I had a conceptual reason for the choice. Then I would build it as effective as possible within the concept of the character.
Character death can be very good but it needs to be timed properly. Being squishy for no reason dramatically raises the odds you will die to a poor roll or to what was supposed to be just a resource drain. Old school style is great if you enjoy it but it is just that, old school. I haven't run into many people still playing like that. Most of the time things are more focused on building a narrative..... or creating absolute chaos. One of those two
@@TreantmonksTemple I don't understand what optimization means for you, and you're calling out a Paladin with low Con who may have the same conceptual reasons. And i mean that's not an original example : "Elric of Melniboné" is a good example of unfitted warrior. Super Sayan min max is optimized, it's using the rules to get the best of the character concept he wants : a Super Sayan. Also, talking about fallacy, 2 : character death.... sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad... yeah :)
I generally agree with what you are saying here, but I think your logic leaves just a few things unsaid. The low con paladin, while I personally wouldn't want to play that, I could see a few opportunity for some atypical character moments to manifest. You could perhaps play up that the paladin used to be a warrior but took a crippling wound and found "god" while they were recovering. Now they continue serving the faith In thanks even though they are not fully healed. (oath of devotion or redemption) Maybe that low con comes from a poison released from a demon the paladin fought a little before the story begins and they swear vengeance upon all fiends. I see this kind of thing happen a ton, and while I personally find it a somewhat lazy and uninspired way to do backstory, it certainly can inspire people who just want a quick background that can make sense. I do not believe the logic of that comment was "Putting low Con on a paladin is good roleplay." Rather "Having a paladin with an atypical set of challenges, baggage and or goals is more likely to quickly become invested the stakes of the world and the character himself." It's basically D&D miracle grow
Furthermore, I don't think it's completely fair to say that optimization never gets in the way of roleplay. My bladesinger went several levels with only purely offensive spell because she was arrogant (and had a minor blade kink) and thought herself above the normal wizard sterotype in of standing behind the beef and casting all manor of party buffs. Me as a player would have killed for even just a fog cloud, or shield, or grease but she had already told the party in game that she didn't need those. It went about as well as you would expect, (poorly) but allowed for some important early character growth where she got sat down and basically told she was a terrible person and should help to the best of her ability. I gave her the flaw of "magical arrogance" rather than just picking a state and saying "I'm bad at that one" but it made her way more useless than even dumping INT would have been. I find this way of fluid r.p. superior because it leaves the door open for devolopment and character growth where a stat gimp is just an unmoving flaw in a hero. The bladesinger eventually snapped out of it after her intervention and used that experience to shape her into a tactical battlefield expert, and eventually became a vital asset to the group.
I fully agree with you about the "both". Like most things in dnd you need them both in moderation. If you put too much emphesis on your characters story and theme and you can easily annoy other players with taking too much limelight, too much optimization and you can easily slip into the power gaming shoes.
I support having a gimped stat or two in a character. a low stat can be a gift to solidify exactly who your character is. Rasitin- low con is a character in Dragonlance, who is commonly overshadowed by his handsome/fit brother and turns to magic and in the process of pursuing magic destroys his health in a trial. His hatred of his brother and self loathing informs his decisions. Or Grog from critical role has low intelligence and scalan has low wisdom. I support building a character that works, but I wouldn't want to play superman either. You can optimize, make a useful character but also take your lumps and build around flaws.
But Grog and Scanlan are/were both optimized for combat and for their roles within the teams (granted with 7 members it’s pretty easy to specialize).
There’s a big difference between having all six stats being high (because that’s generally not possible) and optimizations. They had to put the low stat _somewhere_ so they chose the least worst place to put it (in their eyes) then played off it.
Building around flaws in a way that leaves you with an effective character that works well with the other characters is exactly what I view as optimization.
Treantmonk's Temple exactly.
Chris, I just wanted to say thanks for all you do. I enjoy your videos a lot and you always provide fresh and unique perspectives on the topic at hand.
Optimize for *your* roleplaying and roleplay according to your optimization.
I think the confusion comes from the situations where particular mechanics aid roleplay expression however they are weaker than the best available strategies. For example take prestige classes. Many of those are simply oozing with flavor, not just in the write up but embedded in their mechanical aspects, however they are inherently weaker than say advancing in your basic class or X prestige class. This can easily be extended to things like feats or spell choice which do have major impacts on your utility.
Note I agree with your premise, I just think the topic is deep enough to merit further discussion
Build to fit the concept. If the concept is that you are weak and frail, let the stats reflect that.The problem becomes when your concept is that you are weak and frail, but your stats don't reflect that. That is where the idea that optimization is bad for RP comes from.
I've been saying it for years: Roll-play before the game, roleplay during it.
Good motto.
I'm sorry to hear that Stormwind is upset about the fallacy bearing his name. In scientific and mathematic naming, the convention is to name the principle for the first person to comprehend and explain the idea accurately. It's not to imply that that person is somehow responsible for what they discovered, but to acknowledge the accomplishment and contribution of that person in making this idea known and more easily understood by those who come after them. Newton didn't creat the constraints of the physical laws, but by observing them, understanding them, and then presenting his findings in a way other would understand, he provided a basis for further growth. To my mind, that is what Stormwind has accomplished. By defining the fallacy, he helps others to see it, and gives us a foundation from which to attempt to confront the issue. For my part, I think the community owes him a debt of thanks.
I don't know if "upset" is the right word, but he did mention to me that he wished he hadn't attached his name to it.
Wait, you're the one that coined the term God Wizard? If you are, we're still using that term here over in Pathfinder.
Yes, that one's mine.
It's not that you can't be both but the simple fact is that if you are optimizing for power you aren't optimizing for roleplaying.
Do by "optimizing for roleplaying" do you mean that concept should come first? If so, I agree.
What does “optimize for roleplaying” even mean?
People who say that optimization and roleplaying are opposed to each other dont understand either concept.
As you said, these concepts are intertwined.
I am very much an optimizer, because I am very much interested in the mechanics of the games I play.
Whenever I create a new character, I start with what sparks my imagination. Sometimes it is an interesting aspect or a whole concept of a character, sometimes it is a mechanic or mechanical synergy.
If I start with the concept, then I think about what that character is most likely good and bad at and translate that into game mechanics, optimizing what they should be good at. Not putting emphasis on what they should be bad at is enough to make it a deficiency, most of the time.
If I start with a mechanic(al synergy), then I think about how this specific mechanic translates into the roleplay aspect. For example, a Paladin with the Sentinel feat would make for an protective character. Now you can think about why they are protective: Did they grow up defending their younger siblings? Do they have kids of their own? Did he learn to protect others when he trained to be a Paladin?
As you said, making deliberately bad mechanical choices for your character is not roleplaying. There CAN be interesting characters with almost fatal flaws, but they have to be able to pull their own weight in other situations.
For example, in a Shadowrun game, I had a paraplegic character, which would be a death sentence as a runner, but this character was a rigger so he could operate his drones from the safety of his rigger cocoon.
I think a big problem is that there are too many of what this video refers to as "power gamers" who use the argument that "I'm not power gaming, I'm just using an optimized build, and if it's wildly disproportionate in power to the other four players, well that's just because I'm better at role playing."
Tell em! I always preach about optimization and roleplay not being mutually exclusive to friends who try to say otherwise. Having a -1 Con isn't going to make you be better at delivering amateur thespian monologues at a tavern. Its just going to make you go down in one hit vs a few hits.
I work from a different angle though. I usually see what a party needs first mechanically than go to story town.
For example I'm in a dungeon crawl where our party had a Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. So I was like "Okay. Clerics have decent AC, but we need a BSF." So was lookin at Barb, Fighter, Paladin.
Ultimately, went with Paladin. BSF that can provide some buffs and heals alongside the Cleric.
Aside from needing a BSF though, the lore of the game has a lot of emphasis on religion, making this a good story for a Paladin. With the main Goddess recently murdered, I decided to make a holy warrior hell-bent on revenge and taking dark paths/methods (Probably going to take an Oath of Vengeance). The Cleric and my Paladin were devoted to the same Goddess so its a good pairing both mechanically and roleplay wise.
I play the same way. I look at what the party needs, then I plot out a character whose mechanics fill those needs, then I fill in the flavor/quirks/backstory.
Same. I look at the party first, think of a couple possible options... But what I end up finally choosing is a coin flip.
Sometimes its rp based (Like the above example. Choosing Paladin out of fighter and barb cuz its a very religious campaign).
Sometimes i do it the other way around. Fill in the blanks after finalizing a mechanical choice.
As a side note though, 5th Edition has so many flavors for subclasses that you can usually play what you want while having a narrative flavor you wanted to fill in at the same time.
Say I wanna play a religious full-level spellcaster, I don't HAVE to play a Cleric. I can play a Divine Soul Sorcerer, a Celestial Warlock, maybe even a Theurgy Wizard if UA is allowed.
Plenty of built-in gish classes if you don't wanna deal with multiclassing: The heavy armor clerics, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Tricksters, Straight Paladins/Rangers, Hexblade Warlocks, lotta stuff.
5E is more streamlined but there are a lot of options within it to fill out whatever RP concept you have in mind.
My interest in RPGs comes from the possibility of creating interesting skill sets and making them work within the game. The characters these builds are attached to then just kind of write themselves for me. But sometimes, I do have an idea for a character first and then try to make a build that suits them.
However, when it comes to creating builds, I never go for the most powerful. I'm a superhero guy first (sci-fi guy second and medieval fantasy a distant third, to be hornets), and for that matter I find it infinitely more interesting to play _Jubilee_ than to play Superman; to make a set of exotic abilities work rather than come preequiped with a solution to everything. That makes for both more engaging gameplay and storytelling experiences.
You can’t build Superman in 5e even if you wanted to.
@@M0ebius But you could build him in Champions, if you wanted.
DnD doesn't lend itself that well to thematic sets of powers (magic) in general.
Ahhh I get it, power gamers are not very good optimizers because they forget one of the most important rules.
Using your team members as a part of your optimization inadvertently makes your character stronger and become a stronger link within the chain.
I would agree with that.
Having bad stats is not roleplaying. A rogue with 8 dex is not flavor.
Decide what alignments you want to be and playing accordingly is roleplaying. Flavor is going against type for example a dex base Paladin instead of str base is flavor.
While what you are saying is true, a lot don’t use alignment because it restricts them. They don’t use various other rules because it restricts them, therefore the particular rule is “unfun.” They view anything but the numbers on the sheet as floss.
The only problem I have with optimization is when everyone is a paladin warlock with PAM and the very same stat array. Ever. Or when Charisma is pumped only for mechanical reasons, playing a rather insignificant character.
Knowing how to build is certainly a thing, but it is refreshing to see every now and then a quirky half-elf wizard with a noble background and a "suboptimal" 14 in Cha and Con, or an Abjurer half-orc with a thing for close range, rather than starting vHuman 16 16 16 8 8 8.
While I do agree that crippling flaws are no fun for the whole party, even the greatest heroes have little flaws and there is no need to be the best at everything. Your party is there for you.
Your "Paladin Warlock with PAM" is not an example for optimization, it is an example for min-maxing.
That's what most people dont get. Optimization is about finding a character concept, deciding what your character should be doing and then finding ways to make them do those things as best as they can.
Contrary to that, min-maxing builds dont ask WHAT they should be good at, as this is dictated by the respective min-max build.
Concept should come first. Then optimization can help you ensure that the mechanics support the concept.
@@TreantmonksTemple Ah! Treantmonk replied me!
Actually a truly optimized party is more like a Paladin Warlock with PAM, an Eldritch Knight Warlock with PAM, an Arcane Trickster Warlock with BB/GFB, a Divine Soul Warlock, and a Bard X Warlock. Which is pretty close to what my home game look like. And in practice, the party RP dynamics is no different than back when we were vanilla Paladin/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric.
Quirky characters are fun too, but invariably they are fun because of the RP skills of the player piloting it, not because they are sub-optimal. If you like the people you play with, in my experience being more powerful only adds to the experience, not detracts from it.
If in doubt, optimize the character for roleplaying.
That's how I look at it anyway.
I actually have a few characters I've been working on, they're based on real people and I'm trying to replicate them as much as I can. Using 32 point buy.
The first of these is a Tibbit Artificer who gets -2HP per level. Because the person has chronic pain and gets sick easily, her whole schtick is to shy away from combat and sick constructs on anything that threatens her business. Yeah, she owns a shop and doesn't like having to go on any super dangerous adventures, go figure.
My goal for my Vow of Poverty Monk is to get the Vow of Peace and Nonviolence Feats so I'm attempting to avoid causing lethal damage to anything in a fight, though the second he sees Undead he loses it thanks to his Barbarian level. Charger build, once I get Drunken Master 2, tactics'll change to a nonlethal charge every round, rather than whenever I can make one.
My goal for my "burglar" is to somehow convince the other players that the character isn't always a huge detriment to the team. Most of the time he's large, at higher levels he's gargantuan.
Part of optimizing is picking what your character will be good at and sacrificing other things to focus on those strengths. In the example of a paladin with a low Constitution score, what strengths did the paladin have to counter balance that weakness? No character can be good at everything, a god wizard needs other party members to buff and protect and other party members need that god wizard so they can fight more effectively. To me optimizations is deciding what to focus on instead of trying to be good at everything. And that always fits into my character’s back story.
I think it's not optimization that's the issue. It's power gaming, as you say. Players that focus solely on the mechanics with little to no focus on RP cause all kinds of issues, ranging from backseat gaming others at the table, to pushing a difficulty curve in combat that others can barely keep up with or insisting on more combat and less story/rp/downtime.
Lots of RPers also optimize, but they don't constantly bring it up all the time and try to force it on everyone. So optimizing gets confused for power gaming.
I agree that optimisation and role play are not opposed and one can do both at the same time, but I can also see virtue in playing or choosing to play a sub-optimal character as well, cause in life you play the hand your dealt. That there is no right way, only way, or perfect way to play as none of those ways truely exist. For me personally I strive to make a character interesting. Heck I have made a trickster cleric that worshipped a god that is in fact playong a trick on the character. The character thinks he is a wizard, takes cleric spells that only appear on the wizard list as well. Trying to see if I can deal with challenges with a limited selection just to try it out. I have also maxmized a character as well and have picked the best choices to have my character perform at the hihhest level. That being said I would choose Batman over Superman, just cause Batman is more interesting and most people would choose Batman. Just look at comic book sales for proof.
You can’t build Superman even if you tried in 5E.
There is also a line between unoptimized character and gimped character and optimization can get into the way of roleplaying. An example.
My favorite character is Nix. She is an Urchin Wizard who. Her backstory is, that she was a street kid who applied to a wizard academy but was just laughed at despite her obvious talent. Angered, on her way out she "borrowed" a couple of notes and a wizards spellbook. And ever since has been on the run/adventuring.
Now, I could just play her as a normal wizard, however I added another layer by instead of choosing my wizard spells I randomly roll for them which reflects how she learns spells from another wizards spellbook. She isn't a properly trained wizard which is why she never learned how to properly study spells. I also make a point out of using Spell Components opposed to a Focus, many of which she fishes out of a dumpster or acquires in other weird ways (collecting backwash in a tavern for the alcohol needed for a False Life spell for example). If the DM let's me I even sometimes ask to modify spells a little bit to show that she misunderstood a part of a spell, or that she couldn't decipher something or a note was missing (She learned Chaos Bolt instead of Chromatic Orb, reasoning being that she didn't know she needed a crystal to focus the effect). Furthermore her familiar is usually a rat going by the name of Gobbet, which hardly is an optimal choice for a familiar. She's a little gremlin trash witch and pretty much every choice, much of which aren't optimized in a mechanical sense reinforce that theme (you could say she's thematically optimized).
I think an important thing to note is that one should always thrive towards optimizing the concept you have for a character, even if the concept itself is not really strong one should always try to get the most out of it.
I think this negative impression (at least where it is warranted and not an expression of an inferiority complex) mostly comes when people go against their own character concept because it favors them mechanically. Prime example: You are a Devotion Paladin, who multiclassed into Divine Soul Sorcerer. So far so good, You are a Holy Sorcadin on a Mission, but wait. Wouldn't it be mechanically awesome to fit a level of Hexblade in there to become SAD? I am not saying you cannot make it work RP-wise but this is so counter your original concept that you really have to have a good Explanation for why your Holier-than-Thou Paladin made a Pact with the Shadowfell.
I'm going to address this point this Friday. In short, I don't consider class to be a concept driver, I'll explain why in detail in the video.
Tus is a great perspective! I didn’t think of it that way before
Absolutely agree. Heroes have flaws, but not in the thing they're heroic at. Hercules was extraordinarily strong, but not so bright; Achilles was nigh invulnerable, but ruled by his passions; Robin Hood was an archer without peer, but couldn't compare to the sheer strength of Little John. Even Superman, who is rightly regarded as OP, is restrained by his own morality, and is often shown up in areas of Wisdom and Intelligence. Being bad at what your character is supposed to be good at isn't roleplaying, and being good at things doesn't make a character flat.
Optimization and power gaming are to often conflated. Sometimes the thing you're optimizing is a jank concept, meaning your just trying to make a character as effective as the other pcs and not a detriment to the team.
Most of the time optimizing is try to realize a gameplay concept into an effective party member. Characters mechanics aren't secondary to their role-playing identity but integral. Who you are shapes what you can do and vice versa.
It’s not too often, it’s in most every case. However that is because for the powergamer optimization is all their is.
The two aren't indivisible. You can do both. As you learn system mastery you are better able to achieve the character concept you wish to play. RPG's are a collective storytelling exercise, as TM points out, you need to be able to fulfil the role you wish to play or the game suffers mechanically. Also as a GM I know all characters have weaknesses and I present a BREADTH of challenges for them to overcome, that is a mechanical way to challenge over-specialisation of pcs and encourage role-playing by placing them out of their 'I solve this with dice rolls' instincts or letting different characters shine.
You're right and wrong. Optimization and role playing aren't mutually exclusive, but they are not independent either. Mechanics can inspire good roleplaying, and good roleplaying requires mechanics to actually implement your choices in game.
True, a non functional character, a character that cannot deal with their role, is going to have a hard time rolplaying.
@@killcat1971 unless they enjoy RPing a corpse, and not the edgy, animate kind.
I already have to disagree with you, , in regards to the Constitution modifier not having much to do with story.
I recently discussed with a player who is looking to DM a game for our group in the future, about playing a Warlock who needed a very particular stat arrangememt for the concept I had in mind. For this character, I requested that both my Strength and Constitution modifiers both had -2 modifiers. The purpose was to play a character who grew up with a debilitating disease, which stunted her growth and weakened her physical development on all fronts. To compensate, her Mental stats would all start out at 16 or higher, in order to reflect her numerous years of study, her determination, and her force of personality to get what she wants. I combined this idea with the Undying patron option, to make the most out of automatically regaining hit points from succeeding a Death saving throw, and later on utilizing the Pact of the Chain's Invocation: Gift of the Ever-Living Ones, to maximize all dice this character rolls for healing.
The point of this character is to try to manipulate the battlefield while staying as hard to hit as possible (by mostly using Invisibility or darkness to avoid detection) and if she does go down, she can get back up incredibly easily. Having a low Constitution modifier is not only integral to forcing me to play this character strategically, but also serves as the primary motivation behind making the pact.
So yes, the Ability Score was very much rooted in her story, and only after forming the concept did I start thinking about optimizing it.
Of course, the whole point was never to ensure very high scores in the other abilities - oh, no, that would be optimising!
Márk Havasi I never said I wasn't optimizing. The point of the build is to have a character basically always on the brink of death, but very hard to actually kill.
So in general I agree, but at the same time, I do think it depends somewhat on how far you take it and how you define the terms. For example, there are players who will criticize any choices from a non-optimal build, and variety in the adventuring world matters. If all paladins had a low Wisdom so they could increase their Charisma one more point, then that would hurt the RP. However, if you *tank* your Charisma in the name of roleplaying, then you're just not an effective Paladin (generally speaking), and you're hurting RP in another way (as you've pointed out).
I'll typically come up with a character concept, and then optimize the build within that concept to do what I want it to do, which is, I think, what you are speaking to. That doesn't mean I'll have the optimal build of a given type, just that I'll make sure that build is effective. I guess, for me, it comes down to a difference between optimizing and being optimal.
There are also players who will criticize your RP choices. Some people are just assholes, and it doesn’t come from just a specific sect.
I had a round and round with a friend that included bad story decisions in his idea of good RP.
Such things as the drunken diplomat that consistently stumbled through negotiations while insulting the subject of said negotiations.
Or the rogue that is afraid of the dark and constantly whistles to calm himself, no matter the situation.
It became apparent to me that he wasn't interested in successful characters. He enjoyed the shenanigans that ensued because of deliberate failures. He could not understand wanting to play a diplomat that excelled at getting factions to middle ground and dancing to his tune. Of course when you're 1st level that's not going to happen, but then again, if you suck at that diplomacy you will probably find a new line of work before 5th level ;)
I'm gonna take a different position here. When comparing 2 positions here, we're not actually comparing every single decision. We're actually only looking at decisions where the 2 positions differ.
Example:
Making a Paladin- both the Roleplayer and the optimizer want to build a strong single target striker, and decide on the Vengeance oath. They both agree on race and equipment. They both agree on all starting decisions. In fact, they agree on every single decision, right up until the character levels up. The roleplayer wants to take his 2nd level in Paladin. The optimizer wants to grab a single level of Hexblade to make the character SAD. The roleplayer argues that there's no story or concept reason for this choice, that while it makes the character stronger, there's no way to justify it in character.
THIS is where the 2 positions actually differ. THIS is where you choose roleplay OR optimize.
The examples you offer of intentionally playing weak characters is a straw man argument, because it fails both sides and simply represents a bad player.
Last session I was in (as a player), we had a spotlight hog that was becoming very difficult. I put the point to him like this, and I'd say the same to any player who disrupts (including the intentional gimp):
" I don't care how you justify it in character, and how you choose to roleplay it. Be part of the team, or you're an enemy. Choose to be an ally, or enemy, there's no third option. If you choose enemy, we will kill your character at the start of every single session, and you can present your reroll for DM approval at the start of the next session. You will no longer be allowed to steal our time."
Christian Swensen Your counter-example is just as much of a strawman. There is no reason to assume that the Hexblade player has no lore to backup his choices. For that matter, there is no reason to assume that the single-classed player necessarily gave any more thought to his character just because he is single-classed.
@@M0ebius THIS
I was about to write pretty much the same thing
@@M0ebius if your example were the case, then you'd have to provide that information, which would be a different example than the one I gave.
This isn't logic.
You're proposing a different conclusion by changing the problem, not by addressing the problem as presented.
The point is, and stands, that the only place this conflict occurs is when the decisions are at odds with each other. In that case, we have to assume some parity: equal knowledge of the rules, same options available to both sides, same setting to play in, etc. Changing these things doesn't serve any purpose, except to avoid addressing the actual conflict.
-you don't have to address where both sides agree.
-you don't have to address issues irrelevant to the topic.
-you ONLY have to address the situation where the ONLY point of disagreement is roleplay vs optimize.
IF the situation you offer is true, and that there is a strong story or concept reason to MC the Paladin into Hexblade, then it would be BOTH optimal and roleplay. Hence no conflict, and hence irrelevant to the discussion.
Christian Swensen I don’t want to reiterate the video. Suffice to say that Optimization and Roleplaying are not two ends of a continual spectrum, but are in fact on two different axis altogether. Your example only tells us that, ceteris paribus, one player has a theoretically more powerful character, and nothing else. In agreeing that a character can be both optimized and RP, you already invalidated the argument given by “the Roleplayer”.
Not at all. You're either missing or ignoring my point.
Where optimization and roleplay agree, there's no issue.
The ONLY time there's an issue is when everything else is equal, and a decision has to be made between a solid story/concept that gives up a single decision to roleplay better, or compromises the roleplay to make the character stronger.
I'm not even saying which is right- I think both sides have valid points.
I can even agree that the goal should be to figure out how to get both. But that's not always possible.
So we're left with the reality that 2 equal players will approach an equal situation, come to 2 equally valid decisions, and be at odds with the other's decision.
I'm not proposing a "right," but rather recognizing that it's not a simple answer. Sometimes all rational discussion and mutual respect doesn't resolve a disagreement. It just remains a disagreement.
I always build my characters mechanically first. The mechanics are what I'm gonna be playing with, I wanna make sure I enjoy those.
Once I have that, I step back and think "What kind of character is this? What would they be like? Why are they like this? Where did they learn these skills?"
People who are against optimization are the ones who dont wanna take 5 minutes to think about their characters. And that's fine, play your character how you want to - but dont shit on me because I want to make a character that wont die in the first session.
Here, here! The idea that it's all about story, and that mechanics don't matter (or worse, that focusing on mechanics is baaaad,) is just ridiculous, and just as wrong and bigoted as suggesting that it's ALL about optimization.
At what point would you consider optimization to cross over into powergaming? Could one not take your argument to the extreme and simply suggest that powergaming is just well-done optimization?
I'd say it becomes powergaming when you actively try to overshadow the other players.
@@esbendit
I see that as a difficult metric to gauge, though. If you're at a table of people who, like Chris pointed out, have character concepts that intentionally cripple them even a bog-standard, competently built PC is going to overshadow them. By the same token if you have a bog-standard group and bring along an optimal wizard or moon druid, you're going to be outperforming them even if that is not the intent.
Granted, I know I have some powergamer tendencies I need to work on. That's why I ask. It's hard to know just how much to scale it back without over-correcting.
If you define powergaming as just being a dick to other players by trying to overshadow them at every turn, then there is no cross over - either you are a dick or you are not.
At no point. Let me use an analogy:. Optimization is like understanding how to build a good car. Power gaming is driving like an asshole. Yes, in order to drive like an asshole you need a car, but no car requires you to drive like that.
Sickly guy who's gonna die fast can work for an interesting character. But he doesn't become a paladin. That's not a career path that someone with a weak constitution chooses. They either go into magic to compensate for their physical weakness or they go a rogue, sneaking around and eliminating high value targets with a crossbow (because their constitution isn't good enough to hold a regular bow drawn), or they become a master manipulator ala Littlefinger from GoT and try to avoid fights entirely.
Or they become a warlock because they made a pact to keep themselves alive despite their frail constitution, and they grab a bunch of spells and invocations that keep them alive despite their defining weakness.
Of course you could be playing a paladin who's ancient and has been around so long that their body is starting to fail on them, or one who was injured and never fully recovered. In which case you might be playing them as looking for one last fight, a worthy foe to die against.
I get the feeling we're on the same page but we're reading in different directions.
When tryin to craft a character you need to make aome sacrificing, but you should be able to optimize that build as best you can.
I too am playing a -1 con paladin 3 levels into pally 1 into rogue. Trying to create a low magic doctor. I could have thrown all my stuff into str con and cha, but i wanted a decent int on the character being a doctor and I don't think a medicine man would walk around with a longsword and heavy shield so i aimed for rapier and buckler with a focus on longbow support.
I purposefully had to reduce my capabilities to fit my idea only having so many stat points to go around. However i dipped into rogue to keep the flavour and help optimize a bit. Being rogue ans vengence pally means i can use hunters mark and backstab to do a bonus 2d6 dmg a turn from that longbow and if i pull the rapier and smite i can get 2d8 damage ontop of that. Also the vengeance channel divinity grants me advantage since I have a stingy dm when it comes to that.
You do need to go down alternate character alleyways, but that doesn't mean you need to run around with a crippled character.
SilvoKnight Your stats can’t be that bad if you have the 13+ Strength/Charisma to enter and exit Paladin, the 13+ Dexterity to enter Rogue and use a longbow, along with a decent Intelligence score.
@@M0ebius Str: 13(1) , Dex: 16(3), Con: 8(-1), Int: 12(1) , Wis: 12(1), Cha: 14(2)
Vuman with the healer feature, so i lost some stats potential there. When I finally punch the 4th level of Paladin I might put it into Dex or into Con, still deciding. I could have sacrificed either Wis or Int to get that Con bit up, but something felt wrong about playing a 10 int doctor or only having a medicine skill because of proficiency and expertise. (even if Healer's kit will probably be the key guy performing that role)
Hasn't been performing too badly as of yet, but I've been acting a rogue and hanging back shooting arrows from within walking distance of the fighter not getting into a decent brawl yet. Since this DM doesn't give advantage for flanking at melee it made ranged a more viable option.
I think the problem is that people are conflating optimizing with power gaming and not making a charater concept work well, while at the same time assuming that roleplaying around a stat is the only way to roleplay well. I think people forget that a charater is more than the sheet, the sheets only there to show what youre good and bad at, and if you cant optimize what your charaters good at then they wont feel all that good at it at the table.
I like optimization, and I dont think that it hinders roleplaying. Not every wizard needs to have a fireball, there is more than one way to be optimal for a character!
My understanding of the comment mentioned several times in the video, is that it was poorly worded. My (benefit of the doubt) reading, is that they meant "I had a Paladin where from an Optimisation point of view, I wanted him to have more Constitution, but then at level 4, I didn't take Constitution because the story we were roleplaying pushed me in a different direction"
Looking at it again, that could be the case. Twitter is a horrible vehicle for conversations, but saying the name of the feat would have really helped clarify his/her argument a lot better.
I agree.
I agree with the general point of the video, but there's no way you'll find that an infallible hero is going to make a story more interesting. It's empowering, sure, but the most memorable characters are always those who struggles with inner conflicts. It's no accident that all the classical stories are dominated by tragedy. Humans, unfortunately, will always react way more viscerally to loss.
This is why players play gimped characters. They love the joy of overcoming struggle so much that it bleeds into the characters they build.
If you swap the word "optimise" with "mechanic," then the poll makes sense. 5e is better because rules are much more laxed, but 3.5 can punish you extremely heavily if your character concept doesn't translate well to play, even if you're the best optimiser. In 5e, being a man with one arm isn't that big of deal, since gwm is only 10ish damage dpr difference. All hail 5e's low min-max potential design philosophy.
For me it ends up being a question of system not character build. It is much easier to make whatever you want in something like 5e and have it be effective then it is in something like Pathfinder.
Some of this might be my group. We play both and there are many more players who in Pathfinder are making builds that take advantage of the glut of material in Pathfinder which lets characters do truly ridiculous things. In comparison, thanks to bounded accuracy, 5e made that a lot harder to do.
I personally let the stats determine the role. If I make a paladin with high charisma, I turn them into a captain america or voldemort. If my cleric has good constitution, I make them a fitness freak. If my monk is super wise, they have studied nature to explore how owls or snakes can teach mere mortals.
¿Porqué no los dos?
You can tell that you’re mostly just a player. Interesting characters have flaws. There’s literally a space for it on the character sheet. All characters are mortal, and character death is often great for narrative.
Also, your interpretation of Sam in LotR is just incorrect. Sam does not resist the ring; in fact he actively avoids taking it because he can’t. What makes the moment narratively compelling is a weakness let’s one of his strengths shine: loyalty. He can’t carry the ring, but he can carry Frodo.
I think your understanding breaks down at “bad stats means instant character death.” Having some low stats is really just an opportunity to overcome new challenges, and when you do, it’s much more narratively interesting. I guarantee when I run my games the party remembers the necromancer wizard that died dramatically for pursuing his dark designs and not just doing optimized play more than the party fighter who tuned himself to an insane degree and only could role play as “I am very badass.” It’s no guarantee, of course, but the association exists between optimization and bad role play exists because there is definitely a correlation between the two in a significant enough number of cases.
Sam takes the ring in both the books and the movies. He has no problem returning it to Frodo. As for optimization, it does not mean not having flaws, it simply means that flaws are deliberate. There is a big difference between making a paladin with a low Con because it fits with a concept and story that makes things more interesting, or making a paladin with a low Con because you didn't know better, or because you think making poor mechanical decisions is somehow related to good roleplaying. An optimizer takes a concept of a Paladin that should have a low Con and determines the best way to make that concept work. A non optimizer makes a paladin, then decides to give it a low Con because they don't want to optimize.
I agree with what you said here 3000%.
Duke Ellington Reginald Mervyn-Hillshire XIV of the Hillshire Farms
College of Swords(6) Hexblade(1) Swashbuckler(13) leveled in that order
A noble so regal and posh it's imposable to understand him when he is talking. generations of inbreeding/selective breeding (possibly birth defects) make him a half-elf.
Feats Elven Accuracy +1cha, +2cha, Savage Attacker, Charger, Lucky. to me, this is optimized for fun. Edit for feats. felt like sharing. IDK.
Reminds me a bit of my Jack of all Trades build. Very nice.
Some good comments along these lines already, but I'll add my two cents.
I usually am alongside your videos but I think you are overshooting here. It isn't a single axis of Roleplay vs. Optimization, but you are stating that the two never conflict and that's wrong. It's more of a Venn diagram and there is a conflicting overlap.
There are a host of character options and storytelling that a pure optimizer eliminates. A pure optimizer would never play the sickly paladin you noted. A pure optimizer would almost never play a race without a bump to the primary stat. A pure optimizer would never play subclasses like four elements monk, beastmaster, or berzerker barbarian.
That's Don Quixote, Jester from Critical Role, Aang from Avatar, and Heracles. If you wanted to play one of those character concepts, would you play it like the concept suggests? Or would you change the character to make it more powerful? Would Don Quixote be a healthy, young man? Would Jester be a Variant Human? Would Aang actually have been a sorcerer and not a monk? Maybe you could play Heracles as a Zealot, but I don't think he did a lot of Radiant damage in any stories I've read.
All of those changes alter the character concept. If you have a perfect character concept, there are times when changing it for the sake of optimization make that concept weaker. Not all the time. Just some of the time. That's the Venn Diagram overlap. That's where the conflict lies.
Returning to the paladin, you dismiss the concept because you don't like the character. Okay, but it doesn't seem like you dislike it because you consider the storytelling bad. You don't have a problem with the novel Don Quixote, right? Mostly, it seems like you dislike it because the paladin is likely to die.
And that's the crux of this. You can be great at both! Near the best! But not the absolute best at both at the same time. Do you prefer to tell a perfect character story or do you prefer to have the highest possible chance of survival? All in one category and you may end up playing a gnome fighter who only uses heavy melee weapons (maybe the paladin falls into this basket as well, Don Quixote is a comedy after all). Too much in the other basket and you may end up playing a Bladesinger/College of Swords bard who never actually uses their blade or a Yuan-Ti just for the magic saves with no connection to their vast lore. "-nor infringe upon-" is part of the Stormwind Fallacy text. Maybe that's the Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy.
A litmus test for which category you fall more into:
1) Have you played a lot of races without a primary stat bump?
2) If your Lawful Good paladin found an evil sentient weapon that does 4d8 force damage, would you take it or destroy it?
3) When you create a character, do you think of concept first or mechanics first?
For the record, I am 2/3 optimizer by my own test there.
You and I have a different definition of optimization I guess. I consider optimization to be a way to take a concept and make it as effective as possible. You seem to define it as making a character for effectiveness and then considering concept. To me, that's more min/maxing than optimization. We used to see those kind on the optimization boards... someone would ask for help making a dual-dagger weilding gnome for example, and there were some who would help optimize the concept, others who would tell them that TWF sucks, but if you do it don't use daggers, and don't be a gnome. I don't consider the latter to be optimization.
@@TreantmonksTemple Fair enough. I've always thought of mix/max-ing as the bleeding edge of optimizing. That does make it the most likely to fall into the overlap. I think it's fair to say many min-maxers would describe themselves as optimizers too, which gives this a bit of No True Scotsman to it. Ah well, agree to disagree and keep making fun videos!
I once played at a table with a very sub-optimal character. This was purposefully done for "roleplay" reasons. No one had fun playing with that character. He was a liability in combat and the roleplay was not any better than anyone else at the table. I suspect even the player using the character didn't have much fun being knocked unconscious and being useless from the first round of combat.
- Innkeeper Vase Odin
Sometimes you can build to be very good at something, to become heroic by exploiting a mechanic or rule interpretation. The grappler build is an example. If your dm doesn't give you medium sized opponents fairly often you will be weaker for the investment you made. So you can optimize and nerf your self with the same petard.
Work with the DM. That’s generally always a good idea.
Respectfully disagree because optimizing a character concept can get in the way of allowing a character to embody the impact of events in the game. I was trying to play a Bladesinger in a campaign and the party found magic items that only a wizard could atune, and it completely changed the path my character took. Instead of dual wielding in melee, the concept for which the character's abilities scores, background, race, and equipment were chosen, the character was running around with a staff and blasting magic missiles. Spell selection, buying other equipment, level up decisions/ASI choices, and considerations about multiclassing all changed once the game events subverted my original concept of the character.
Lucky is very lucky. And a great RPing character!
Also, a fun one to have in the group - for every player and the DM.
One of my dms and a player in the party can't be convinced that choosing to only heal optimally is not meta gaming.... I tried to show the dm this video and he said he couldn't watch past half of it due to being disgusted.... IDK I'm considering stopping playing with them at this point. Me having to explain why my optimizing isn't meta among other things makes feel like they're a bad group for me.
I generally assume the DM adjusts challenges to the party’s skill. An icy sidewalk in winter is a deadly encounter for some and can make for great story telling. The DM is telling the story.
The players are the characters. Their obligation is to be willing to participate in the story the DM unfolds. It’s more important that the DM and players match the characters to the story in session zero.
I wanna build a low Con druid who relies on wild shape and polymorph for all his health in combat. 👍
I got a build idea you have a C with a max LV of 40 and you can use four classes to make this build and classes maxed a 20 like normal
Ha! Jokes on you because my first character was playing a fighter and saw that no skills use CON, and neither do my attacks, so that should CLEARLY be my dump stat! Obviously a useless ability score, so the obviously optimal choice was to dump CON.
I managed to play that character from lvl 2-14 😂
Mixing RP Concepts with Optimization is kind of mandatory IMO because otherwise you're just going to be a worthless character in the game outside of RP. One thing that a lot of people seem to think is that optimization is the same as min/max builds aka munchkin, which couldn't be further from the truth. Optimization is just making sure a build works well enough to be an effective adventurer, being a munchkin means building the character so he can solo a dragon at level 3 in one turn.
Edit: The Optimization/RP scale should actually be an XY Graph with one axis being RP and the other being Optimization. If you go full "optimization" with no RP at all then that is munchkin territory, when in reality you would want to progress along both somewhat equally.
It's ok to optimize, but if you're combining certain things you'd better explain why you chose that build. You can easily go your stock paladin without much backstory since it's quite self evident. But if you go paladin/warlock, you should explain in detail how it went to be, as paladin and warlocks usually have the opposite mentality and style and generally don't match well together while being mechanically synergistic. Or when you get Magic initiate feat despite dumping your intelligence, how you were even able to learn wizard spells being so dumb?
I must be prescient, because I addressed this comment a few weeks ago: ruclips.net/video/1okK0Gbzx7U/видео.html
The only reason any character has for a low Constitution in any game is if you roll in fixed order and are unlucky.
1:36 Easy, you are playing as Leper Paladin
The vast majority of all of the posts on the internet are about mechanically optimizing your characters. There seems to be this huge gap between the number of people who claim they are all about the role playing vs the amount of time people spend discussing that. Just sayin’.
It’s because mechanics are universal, and RP is particular to your table.
Watch Chris play Lucky.
I could never get my head around how people came to the conclusion that having a gimped character who is annoying = good role playing... no it just means they are playing an annoying gimp and as often as not they are role playing them poorly.
Typically they fall in the loony spectrum of Real Men, Real Role-players, Loonies & Munchkins and just try to justify their poor choices as role playing.
Problem, you're quick to bring un the Stormwind Fallacy, but (in 8:36 ) blatanty ignore the collary "Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game."
There are TWO, seperate*, axis - roleplay and power.
(*which is ironic as you trying to make the point of mechanics and narration to be unseperatable, yet try to invoke the Stormwind Fallacy non the less)
A bad trait, even an important one - makes your character WEAK. ... it places the character West on the two dimentional spectrum. This - by the very nature of the Stormwind Fallacy's collary - does NOT dictate how much North or South it's placed.
Roleplay is how good you play your role. Period.
And that Period is EXACTLY the reason why the Stormwind Fallacy is a Fallacy. Because RP is nothing more, it's independant of power.
Raistlin Majere, with his impaired health, was a liability for most of the Dragonlance animated movie - yet this very fact ALONE increased the amount of naration, as it was that very weakness that cultivated the story between him and his brother Camaron, the fighter, on whom he was quite dependant.
If you want to roleplaying god. no.
The problem is I wanna do cool stuff, but I wanna do tactical stuff. Plz don't tell me "Well tactical stuff is cool." Not all the time.
Munchkins trying to "Win D&D"
That takes all the fun out of the game for EVERYONE ELSE.
Any munchkin thing you come up with... the DM can have dozens of the same build.
Build your munchkins.
I will duplicate them and make you fight them. But I know how to use them better than you do.
I'm not sure what a "munchkin build" is. I know "munchkin" as a style of play. Agressively competitive, often a cheater, always a power gamer. Not much to do with this video unless you have a different definition.
Treantmonk's Temple If that’s the definition, then I guess that would make this guy a muchkin DM.
*drinks some soy milk*
First again.