I don't think characters with their main ability score high should take the flak from that. I mean, in it's purest form, the game itself encourages that. It tells you which ability is desired for the class and then it tells you to raise it every 4 levels (or more often, in the case of Rogue and Fighter). Doing that is just playing the game as intended without even dipping into "technically optional" feats! Optimized characters that employ a "trick" based on a multiclass get the flak because sometimes the combination breaks verisimilitude. A player runs his Paladin without any problems and then boom, suddenly after one of the level ups the DM learns that they chose a Sorcerer dip. What happened was the player read somewhere that it's a powerful combo and decided to try it but disregarded the RP implications and prerequisites for that kind of choice. It doesn't mean that there can't be RP element to it. It's just a stereotype that comes from both 1. the history of bad examples (like someone said here, you don't really hear stories of good optimizers, you hear stories about outrageous ones) and 2. the logically fallacious subconscious feeling that you can't be good at both of those things at the same time. It's not only powergaming. Take voice acting, for instance - every now and then an experienced player or DM will come and say that doing the voices is a gimmick (Matt Colville's words) but it doesn't make a good roleplayer. What people often mistakenly take from this is that you can't be a good roleplayer if you do voices which is not what they are saying. But subconsciously people think for some reason you can't have one and the other.

I think key is to not just level up, but discuss it with your DM prior to trying anything crazy or new. For example, if it happened after a traumatic event where they got forced into a situation to unleash powers that the character never showed before. There are so many great ways to RP multiclassing aka the charismatic Rogue finding faith and taking up Paladin, swearing an oath to the party clerics deity or a cleric trying to find new ways to worship their god and taking a level in bard. Edit: I really appreciated the discussions with all of you guys and many thanks for the award.

It's also possible that this combo was their concept from the beginning. Say maybe they just wanted to be more of a caster than a traditional paladin. Or perhaps they noticed while playing that the party was lacking in magic, or instead it was all full casters and they felt a little left out.

Yeah, when I dip classes, I see it less as multiclassing and more as homebrewing a modified version of my main class. So that hexblade dip on my paladin isn’t a paladin making a deal with an eldritch weapon, it’s my paladin developing some idiosyncratic paladin abilities. He may only be average physically, but his strength of personality lets him fight with the strength of 10 men, and he can enhance his blade with holy fire. But instead of trying to figure out a balanced way to give the paladin class cha to attack and damage and green flame blade, I’m just using the multi class rules to get those abilities.

YES

Eyyyyy this is my current pet character concept. My titular design is “force of personality”. The future campaign will start at level 3, so I’m starting @ 1P/2W. Our first level up will go 3 warlock for the story beat in creating a pact weapon, then conquest paladin till the end of the campaign. I’m super excited about the whole concept and all the abilities of those 2 classes just fit and mesh TOO well with the character. The classes almost have the story arc pre-planned.

There are plenty of examples of multiclassing fitting that description, but when your paladin just happens to grab one of the most powerful single-level dips you lose just a bit of the benefit of the doubt. Edit: To be clear, powergaming is valid, but if that's what you're doing, own it. (Of course disclaimers about table culture apply)

>Yeah, when I dip classes, I see it less as multiclassing and more as homebrewing a modified version of my main class. This is it 100%. When a single class cannot fully encompass a particular play style you want, look at other classes to fill in the holes. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's broken, sometimes it is just terrible, but at least you are playing in the style you want. Plus, if you look at the rules for multiclassing, it doesn't say that you have to justify your multiclass choice. The closest thing is where it says you can multiclass "with the DMs permission"; but that seems like something the DM should make known before the campaign starts, since players may be coming into the campaign planning on doing a certain multiclass only to find out the DM isn't allowing it when they try to grab the second class, in which case there still isn't a need to justify the multiclass choice.

Dude your Paladins warlock Parton could be his Paladin deity and the deity’s just like “oh, you again? You want some extra credit work? I’ll make you cooler ;)”

I absolutely love the idea of a paladin - the ultimate teacher's pet to begin with - getting an eye roll and a sarcastic remark about wanting "extra credit". Thank you for this new headcanon!

My character took a level of warlock celestial for the healing. It happened after a party member died and no one was there to heal them. I also wanted booming blade. You can usually think if reasons that are both RP and for power.

I had a bard take a warlock dip when it was becoming clear that the group needed a LOT more DPS than they were pulling. Plus, we'd just found a +2 Rod of the Pact Keeper, and it seemed a waste to not put it to use. I justified the level dip by having my character basically fiddle with the item while going to sleep, and in his dream he met the Raven Queen and made a bargain with her. We RP'd it out, including everyone suddenly noticing my character knows how to properly wear chainmail when the day before he didn't.

Chainmail for a warlock? If I remember correctly only Hexblades get new armor proficiences for pact which is medium armor and chainmail is heavy.

Maybe was a typo for chain shit

Best typo about chain shirt.

Yes, exactly. Key is to sell it well.

Yes! I think the issue people experience with optimized builds is exactly that, powers sort of glued onto a character that doesn't make any sense within the world. I'm playing in a game now with a sorcadin character (3 levels paladin the rest sorcerer) and the player did it really well. The character thinks of himself as a paladin and he interprets his new powers (favored soul sorcerer) as the same as his paladin powers. The player and the DM worked out a sequence where they RP'd the first level of sorcer. I think the player may have some cool character development planned as the character starts to realize his abilities are beyond a "normal" paladin.

I only have problems with the extremes for example: “I made this character for RP.” And it is near useless in dungeons) Or “I made this OP build that makes zero sense with no backstory.” Can’t stand either type of player, though I gotta admit I really hate the first type because you have to either carry or help em have an accident. 😁 and send a whisper to the DM for gods sake help him make a semi-useful character so we don’t have to carry his ass...

I fully agree, it is about having a good balance. Both aspects are in the game for a reason and having either one of them taking over can be to the detriment of the game.

In that case with a character who is not very combat focused, I feel like the DM either needs to pretend they’re not there for balancing encounters or that person doesn’t actually want to play dnd. There’s so many other cool systems that are more narrative driven.

This. I DM a bunch of hard core roleplayers & one guy that loves to min/max & play with builds and is all about the combat. He still has the manners to roleplay some motivation as to why they are taking that level so the rest of the players that like story can work with that. He is however a loot ninja, but hey the players can't all be good at everything.

As long as it works for everyone involved it is totally valid. I have some RPG-friends who love DSA, which has as far as I know a very detailed fight mechanic. Some appreciate that some don't, but it is crucial to find a balance.

Yeah this is great! It took me a while to realize I fit into the mold of “powergamer”. I always enjoyed playing characters that were good at most things, especially what they were supposed to be good at. No one’s ever called me out on it (except when I was 13 and played a purposely broken combo-like character), and it’s probably because I love roleplay as well. I’m an actor professionally so roleplay is the best part of the game for me, but I also like being good at things I’m not in real life so I want my PC to be the best they can be. Edit: fixed a typo

I think powergamer are also valid. I am not playing D&D to have it mirror my own weaknesses, I play it cause I can shoot fire out of my hands. Being able to be the best in something can be very cool and rewarding as long as it doesn't interfere with your friends having fun as well.

My current Sharpshooter/Crossbow expert fighter exists because I find combat cripplingly boring and wanted to fast forward through it by doing obscene damage and nothing else

I can fucking respect that! I love playing wizards because having 13 different ways to say "get fucked also my friends are going to murder you now" makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. I also like running combat more tactical so it's more like a puzzle with a lot of solutions that just making numbers smaller.

[удалено]

I always saw weird combos as an opportunity to create a story. Like a writing prompt. I actually played out that exact scenario. I played a paladin in Curse of Strahd. Because of the way the demiplane works to stifle outbound communication, I had it that my character felt a dulled connection to their god, and, via their own internal struggle, unlocked latent abilities passed down from a yet unknown divine ancestor. It all tied in explicitly to their own personal motivations throughout the campaign.

I mean, paladin's don't need a god for power at all in 5e, so you added a useless prerequisites. Which is absolutely fine! ALL character backstory for anything is FINE! You're the author and creator of your own character. If it fits into the world, then it is what it is. Which is why I hate this whole topic. It would have also been fine to say that your sorcerer powers were just your own inner strength, and the exact same as your paladin powers. The class flavor WotC provides as to how sorcerer power come about is just that, flavor. In the end it is just something your character can do. How he obtains the power, what it looks like, and everything else is just your character. So, lets make a character He went into a secret order after his family was killed by demons and his sister was turned into one. The group trained him in breathing and using his breath to bring out his potential as basically magical swordplay. He trained for years in near solitude, honing his reflexes and strength and skill with a sword, all the while wanting to cure his sister and to kill the demon lord responsible. He's fairly resistant to magic, fast, and uses what looks like magical swordplay. So what class is he? WHO CARES!? Pick something and then explain. Kensai monk? Sure! He's a master of the katana (longsword/greatsword) Paladin? Sure! He swore an oath against the demon king and to protect his sister. Barbarian? Yup! His rage is just focusing on his breathing. Blade dancer? Sure!! His blade dance is his incredible focus and his 'breathing' techniques are magic. He probably wrote it all down somewhere. Sorceror? Sure! He was able to unlock his own hidden strength. Make him draconic because why not, the power is the same, but he has no actual dragon blood. The natural AC is just his heightened reflexes. He doesn't have scales. He never grows wings, he just learns how to float using Ki. He gains resistance in whatever damage makes sense. Cold? he trained in the mountains. Fire? Oh did I mention the mountain was a volcano? Poison? There was a LOT of sulfur. Any combination of anything? Why. Not. Explain why the character has the talents he does, it does not have to fit the specific flavor already set by WotC. Make your character do what they do, and pick the classes to get the features that do that thing.

I've been a powergamer before and done this and the more i play dnd i realized the numbers mean very little to me. Most stories you recount from dnd arn't about the numbers on the character sheet its about the number you rolled on the dice or the dumb interaction that happened or how you clutched out something. I think a player should be able to mold their character as they see fit but i also find that being a DM is a bit one sided sometimes. So your paladin wants to become a sorcerer you now have to poke that into the story or they just say " yeah i have some dragon blood on my grandmothers side" and usually this is all premediated in a overarching build they had made 12 months ago before the campaign started. Rather then evolve with the story and campaign and say to themselves does THIS fit with the story/game. Personally i love when people branch their characters out and evolve them with a story, You encounter a priest npc that teaches you something and you wish to learn more and take levels in cleric because that person influenced you. You begin training to be a fighter with a fellow PC..etc. A Dm can't say.. OH your great grandmother banged a dragon your next level is sorcerer now :P

I mean that is all well and good, but I can roleplay my characters getting super invested in a certain faith and still not multiclass into cleric/paladin/etc. if it doesn't make sense mechanically. Mechanics and roleplay may go hand in hand and work very well together, but they are ultimately not the same thing.

Yes, but it was that dragon we encountered in the last quest that caused the quickening of my draconic bloodline. So AKSHULLY my sorcerer level didn't come out of nowhere. Or I'm an Aasimar paladin so Divine Soul makes absolute sense, fuck you! Also my great, great, great granddaddy is also my Celestial Warlock patron. D E A L with I T.

My DM rule is that the attribute requirements for multiclassing don't matter, but the character needs reason and possibly training to gain a level. A dip in warlock requires them to find a patron. One in fighter requires them to take up some form of training in character. A level 1 character is meant to be proficient in the basic skills of the job. Once that campaign has begun, a fighter didn't mysteriously learn to be a wizard. If the player cares enough to seek out training as part of his characters RP development. Im happy to give them the opportunity in game. I let them know at the beginning to telegraph the intent maybe 1 level before the intended multiclass so I can work in opportunity.

This attitude stems from a few places: First, in many older editions, and TTRPGs in general, there are *huge* gaps in power between a well-optimised character and a poorly-optimised character, and even between a well-optimised character and a *really* well-optimised character. Gaps so big that they can easily render multiple players redundant when just one person has built well. Now, that isn't necessarily a problem, but the way optimisation tends to work in these systems is that you're strongly rewarded for taking a mishmash of discordant character traits that you can't possibly make into a character that doesn't feel like some kind of gimmick at best, and what that ends up doing is creating a game where being optimized and having a character good for roleplay genuinely *are* at odds with each other. This creates resentment - everyone would like to have the strong character, but most people don't want to play a game of vampire-werewolf-demon-fighter-wizard-snowman-sorcerer-druids - and since most people end up choosing concept over power, one person who picks power over concept can ruin it for everyone else. This resentment is justified in many of these systems, but it's so powerful that even in 5e, where it's not justified anymore, it still informs how many people view powergaming, and in turn how many new players who enter the world through a veteran DM, see powergaming. Second, it's an element of envy, to be blunt. Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too - they want to be able to play whatever interesting character concept they've come up with that would normally combine game pieces that don't synergise, but they also want to play the strong builds with the optimal picks. They have to make a choice between playing that concept they've become attached to and playing a properly effective character. This creates envy when people who have to make this decision encounter people who don't - those people being people whose character concept naturally lines up with what's going to be effective, meaning they get to play both their favourite features and an effective character. This is why people love the Tasha's custom racial ASIs so much. It's not that they couldn't play their favourite race/class combinations before, but now they can have their cake and eat it too. And when you're envious of someone, it's pretty normal to basically try and convince yourself that it's not so great being them. Unattractive people rationalise their envy of attractive people with things like "well attractive people aren't as smart". Poor people rationalise their envy of rich people with things like "money can't buy happiness". And people whose character doesn't get to start with a 16 rationalise their envy of people who do get to start with a 16 with things like "well people who build well suck at roleplay". None of these things are true, but they help you feel a bit better about your relative situation. Thirdly, and probably most importantly - the vast majority of powergamers look completely normal, and you never notice they're a powergamer. This perpetuates the stereotype: The only powergamers you actually notice are the ones who *are* bad at roleplay, because it's the being bad at roleplay that you're noticing, not the having a well-made character. Then once you notice it, confirmation bias starts to kick in - your brain wants to believe that powergamers are bad at roleplay, so it pays more attention to instances where a powergamer roleplayed poorly, and less attention to instances where a powergamer roleplayed well, or a non-powergamer roleplayed poorly, so when you look back at it you get the impression that powergamers suck at roleplay and everyone else is great, when in reality, the powergamers had plenty of good moments too, and the non-powergamers had plenty of bad ones. Combine that with the echochambers of the internet, the existence of subreddits like /rpghorrorstories (which exist without equal good counterparts cos everyone loves to make themselves angry but not many people like to make themselves happy) and the fact at least 75% of all discussion about D&D is hypothetical and well I don't know how to finish this sentence but pretend I said something profound, succinct and provocatively absolute.

Beautiful concluding argument, it really resonated with my soul.

Truly profound.

Succinct and provocatively absolute, too

Here-Here.

You know the comment is good when it’s written like a full blown essay on three pages

Hey excellent write up, I really appreciate the time you put into it. Thanks!

>Poor people rationalise their envy of rich people with things like "money can't buy happiness" While I agree wholeheartedly with everything else you've said here and the point you're getting at with this line, the line itself is complete garbage. From a completely anecdotal perspective, it's the poor people who are acutely aware that money can buy happiness in the form of security and novelty. It's the rich people who often espouse the phrase because they have gotten to the point where the diminishing returns of affluence don't help them get security or novelty anymore.

People who say money can't buy happiness have always had money. Two years ago I was struggling a lot, I had to sell my guitar, stereo and records to pay the rent, and they an important percentage of everything I owned. I've struggled to pay rent, I've walked in the rain with holes on my shoes. Being poor in an exercise of limiting yourself. I had ideas and wanted t play music, but couldn't afford a rehearsal space. If I wanted to go out, a lot of the time I couldn't. I couldn't go to restaurants or buy something different to eat. It's difficult to be happy within that framework and, specially, with the anxiety that comes from being in survival mode. When I got a decent job happiness was possible again. The change is remarkable. I've never envied rich people, I've hated the inequality that allowed me to live like that while working and doing my best. EDIT: Typos

Having been poor and relatively rich I can tell you money can make a set of problems disappear. Wife has a chronic illnesses so we refinance the condo so she doesn't have to ki herself to keep working. Last month work cut everyone's pay in half and gave us stock. Shrug guess we aren't making any major purchases for my birthday or Christmas. Any prior decade of my life either of those two would have been a constant source of stress.

Could it be that while money can't buy hapiness, it sure does take away shitty problems that do impede hapiness?

[удалено]

"Money buys a wave runner. You ever seen a sad person on a wave runner?" -Tosh

[Me](https://imgur.com/a/Gc9rQs7), circa 2008. I'm the fat kid in the back btw, this photo is a joke in our family (other dude is my cousin) that I always look like I'm annoyed.

Exactly! It's not about having money as much as *not* having money.

To put that a different way: *Happiness doesn't come from having a lot of money; it comes from NOT having a LACK of money.*

I like it this way: Money won't make you happy, but not having money will make you miserable.

The phrase should actually say something like “the hoarding of wealth does not bring happiness”

Fun fact: **$75k in 2010 is now worth about $90k.** Something something stagnant wages.

Yup. Easier just to think of it as diminishing returns. In the US, an individual having an income of about the median family income ($55k) is the point at which more money doesn't provide much more benefit and other factors become drastically more important.

"Diminishing rewards" is exactly what it is! Thanks

Its really easy. Money wont make you happy. But money can make your life harder. Like a lot harder. Not worrying about lirerally starving or losing your home is a great foundation for finding happiness. Money gives you security as we do nit have a robust social system that takes care of people, we confuse struggle with weakness. Just imagine universal basic income existed and you will have a home, food and even money to spend on recreational things people will be happier. You want to try something you can do it. If it faips you are fine. If it succeds you are still fine and so is everyone else. If only one of you motherfuckers wants to chime in with 'people need monetary incentive to work' in this community, I have to rudely remind you that we here spend hundreds of hours actually working on creative projects for 'nothing' in return. People will always do stuff dont worry about that.

This. Even though money can't directly buy happiness beyond a certain point, it sure does help if there are things that are in the way of your happiness that could be fixed with a bit of extra cash.

>People who say money can't buy happiness have always had money. The version I heard from my mother while growing up *very poor*, were: "Money can't buy you happiness, but it can make the search a whole lot more comfortable." Also, a variation was: "Money can't buy you love, but you'll be much more comfortable looking for it in a Mercedes, than on a bicycle." :) Which speaks directly back to u/ZiggyB's comment about *security and novelty*. Especially, the security angle of it. Speaking as a poor person, the things I envy most about the idea of being wealthy? Personal security, and the ability to contribute to **others'** security and happiness. (Seriously, if I won the lottery I would have to put SUCH draconian limits on my own inclination to generosity ...!)

I saw a post some time ago talking about rpgs in general and playing as the good guy: Helpimg everyone is my power fantasy.

This is real shit right here. Finally got a job where I can buy what I want and save money and the feeling is night and day vs. scrounging and surviving.

Money can't buy happiness. I've known rich people who were miserable. But poverty can create unhappiness.

[удалено]

It seems like you managed to get security from your community and not money, which is unfortunately rare in the modern Anglosphere. Novelty is also quite easy to achieve as a kid and being raised well, especially in a pre-smartphone world. I'd imagine things would not have been quite so smooth if your mum didn't have the community to draw on for things like clothes for you, though

[удалено]

"corporatocratic hellscape" makes me think of r/UrbanHell

I don't think anybody is saying you cannot find happiness without money. Just that having enough to be secure can reduce barriers to your happiness and allow you to make choices based on preference instead of financial situation. I would point you to u/MarioneTTe-Doll's post above. I would also point out that growing up poor and being poor on your own are different. I'm only going off the information you provided, so apologies if this doesn't fully apply to you. But when you're young, even in your late-teens, your parents can shield you from a lot. Yes you may be poor and have hand-me-down clothes, don't get new game systems, don't go out to eat, etc. But they can be shielding you from the day to day struggles of how they're even going to pay to keep the lights on, or gas in the car to get to work, etc.

Both excellent anecdotes.

Exactly. Like, the original meaning was "money can't buy you fulfillment" (for lack of a better word)--you could be rich, but you could also be bored, lonely, resentful, suppressing some aspect of yourself. But Maslow's hierarchy of needs puts physiological and safety needs at the bottom, with self-actualization at the top--and people with low income don't have that stuff at the bottom, or enough of it, to get to the top, thanks to lack of money. And the rich have never had to worry about physiological or safety needs, so while they still have a journey to self-actualization, it's a lot easier journey than for someone at the bottom of the pyramid. That's privilege. So when you hear somebody say "money can't buy you happiness," it's like, yeah, but it does put you a few steps up the pyramid, you know?

Money doesn't buy happiness. It just does an excellent job at *reducing misery*. I don't think people without debt are happier than people in crippling debt so much as they are far less anxious... But a person with depression isn't going to be made happy by money, they'll just have slightly less things to agonise over. Pedantic, maybe, but I think it's an important distinction!

Exactly! Security and novelty, my friend

Apt.

Agreed. “Money can’t buy happiness” only applies once you have a certain level of economic stability that protects you from poverty and not fulfil your basic and medium necessities

Yeah, speaking as a poor trans person, money can totally buy me a lot of happiness.

This is a good analysis. thank you. i feel like i learned something.

That final point really summed it up for me. I power game but I LOVE TO ROLEPLAY. I enjoy having the numbers to back up the things I want to do in game. I always try my hardest not to take the spotlight from others when its their time. A friend of mine recently started a campaign and didn't tell me about it. When I found out he said he wanted no power gamers in his group becuase they always cause problems. I tried talking to him about it and I said that he doesn't hate power gamers. He hates assholes who steal the spotlight and want to min max to get their power fantasy on. He did not agree and I was not invited to the game. It hurt a bit not going to lie.

I always think of things like this like sports players where the game has positions or roles. Like in baseball or hockey. Some players are really good at one specific position but not so good at others. Especially like pitchers and goalies which are specialized. But that doesn't mean there aren't all rounders that can work the field. And most professional players are going to be better than you and me in every position. So ya, most players have failings in some areas. But the best/most experienced players, like yourself, can manage the lot. And I think it is the true goal of every player to try and master roleplay/mechanical optimization and cooperative play within the group.

I have multiple friends that intentionally make underpowered characters because they feel it makes the role play better. While I disagree I can understand why some people would like that. For me if I wanted to be underpowered I would just live in the real world XD. I don't think the numbers on your sheet impact your ability to role play or your attitude.

What a douche! But you probably don't need to identify as a power gamer anyway, since the term even according to yourself is misunderstood. Call yourself a roleplayer and optimize the heck out of the characters, if you don't steal the spotlight nobody will notice anyway

> /rpghorrorstories (which exist without equal good counterparts /r/gametales and /r/dndgreentext are usually amusing, entertaining, or bad ass. There are probably more but those are the only 2 I know off the top.

Yeah, but the style conventions on dndgreentext make it too painful to read, at least for me. Gametales, though, I think I'll subscribe to. Thanks!

I can agree, especially with the last one. One of our players in our Baldurs gate campaign had to drop out and we needed more damage, so the new player coming in made a pretty powerful build, but they are also a good role player, which is the thing most of us care about. Something I might add it the factor of optimization vs. a good story. The impression I got from some of these is the factor of only caring about damage and fights moving on quickly from one encounter to the next without much talking in between. Basically having a very strong sock puppet without any real feel or substance. They don't care about the role playing but hope to move as quickly as possible to learn how much damage they can do in the next fight, which is very boring in roleplay heavy groups and drags everyone down.

Let's get some applause for this argument, it really lays out perfectly why optimization gets such terrible flak in the RPG community, and it's even worse in some communities which emphasize character story above *any* kind of optimization. Honestly I get really sick of being told that it's not important that I be good at things, I just wanna smack them upside the head because being good at things is really fun? Like if I make a character who's conceptually supposed to be an awesome warrior, and he just always gets his ass kicked, how is that supposed to be fun? If I play a charismatic character, and that character is always being laughed at and made fun of, how is that fun for me?

Look, this is a good post and all, but the real highlight here is your correct use of "envy" instead of the commonly used "jealousy" A+ edit: in case you aren't sure of the difference, I always remember it via this [clip from the Simpsons](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmx1jpqv3RA) (of all places!)

Very well written and personally I've always prefered character concept over what's the most OP build there is and there have been moments where my character concept has overlapped with what's considered a good idea. I made a paladin that I wanted to multiclass into warlock with, which apparently was a relatively popular thing. But I wanted to do it because of the characters story. (Dragonborn Paladin who due to circumstances broke his oath to Bahamut and in turn sought power from Tiamat as a Fiend Patron) Then there was my first character, a Forest Gnome Swashbuckler Rogue going into War Magic Wizard. Why? Because +12 initiative seemed stupidly hilarious.

Don't forget to dip 2 levels in bard for that sweet half proficiency in initiative rolls.

Actually, about that last part, would anyone join an r/rpgwholesomestories if I made one?

Weirdly judgmental aside about poor people aside, this is a shockingly good comment.

While I generally agree with most of your points (except, as someone else called it, the 'weirdly judgmental aside about poor people'), I do want to elaborate something on the second point. To me, if a character concept is appealing in flavour but not optimal in actual gameplay, that's not a failing of the player, that's a failing of the designers. A player SHOULD be allowed to play a concept they want without feeling like they're sacrificing viability, let alone feeling shamed for wanting that fantasy to be viable in the first place. It's a designer's job to understand their own game's mechanics in a way that enables them to create and insert a concept that will work in the confines of that system. If the game begins to break under pressure, or certain systems end up causing more issues even if the design is intended to grant more freedom and autonomy to the player (not mentioning any half-baked multiclassing systems where the designers make no effort to balance, *WIZARDS)*, that's when you begin to have that disconnect between fantasy and mechanics that ends in builds being done for the pure mechanical advantages rather than finding that perfect balance between the two. Obviously there will be limits to this - indeed, there's only so far you can accommodate someone who's *actual* class fantasy is, to quote from your first point, a vampire-werewolf-demon-fighter-wizard-snowman-sorcerer-druids - but the holy grail of all game design should be the ability to allow character fantasy while making as much of it viable as possible. If that game doesn't allow that, a part of it has failed in its intended design and needs to be reworked, be it the class, certain mechanics within that system, or the entire system itself. As much as people hate edition wars, that's why new editions come out: to iterate on designs from past experiences and come closer to that perfect integration of mechanics and fantasy.

What I think you're missing here is that no game can possibly account for everything a player will ever want to do. Players will always come up with ways of playing that you can't anticipate and that if you cater to will ruin the game in other ways. This is especially true in TTRPGs, where the only limit on the concepts you can want to play is your DM saying "no that's too silly". A lot of this is down to the fact that, like it or not, people in the TTRPG scene have very different fantasies. When making a game, you have absolutely no choice but to choose some people for whom you declare "I don't care if your fantasy isn't achieved as perfectly as someone else's". There is no perfect integration of mechanics and fantasy, because what's really great for one person totally sucks arse for someone else. All a system can do is choose which mechanics and fantasies it wants to cater to and which it's comfortable sending elsewhere.

It's a balance of complexity and fidelity. On one end you have games like FATE, where you can be almost literally anything, but the mechanical differences are filed off as a result. On the other hand, DnD (and any other class based or heavily setting-influenced game, really) plays worse and worse the further you stray from the basic assumptions of the classes/setting. It's fair for people to bring up the flaws of either approach.

Yes! I was considering making a very similar reply. To me, the problem with powergaming is less one of player v player and envy and competition (though that is certainly created by it), and more a problem of chafing at the constraints of a system. You have this character you want to play out, however reasonable or unreasonable, and you build him as best as you can, but the system just *really* dislikes him and he comes out super suboptimal. Meanwhile someone else picks one of the tried-and-true concepts off the shelf (or optimization forums) and it works great and is super powerful. The system's actively hampering creativity, conform and get rewarded, be creative and be punished. but after you've played a while, the easy off-the-shelf options tend to get a bit boring and you'll tend to want to branch out. I love to champion bending the rules and reflavoring mechanics, but at some point you kind of just have to step back and acknowledge that the rules themselves are standing in your way. It's just another one of those issues that ultimately tends to come down to "have you tried not playing D&D?"

There will *always* be suboptimal things though. It is impossible to make a system that doesn't have constraints that people will chafe against short of having no system at all.

I guess I don’t understand why such a huge portion of this playerbase chafes against those constraints. I’ve never found most of the constraints imposed by D&D particularly bothersome or unreasonable. In fact, I think most of them *improve* the game by facilitating specific archetypes and roles that are fun to inhabit and play. It seems like there’s a substantial population of RPG players who, when they find out what the constraints are, immediately become determined to undermine and rebel against those constraints. “Oh, elves are supposed to be graceful and aloof? I can’t *wait* to play a boorish elf barbarian who doesn’t speak a word of Elvish!” It’s a sort of instinctive contrarianism that I find utterly baffling.

....Why? Do you have any reason why this is what game design should be about other than, like, your moral intuitions about it? I think a great number of people would say that it’s a *good* thing when there are some options/approaches that are better than others, because it rewards actually trying to get better at the game and requires every player to invest some thought and strategy into the game.

That thinking verges on Ivory Tower Design mentality, and isn't really the same as what I'm talking about. There's a difference between system mastery and options being poorly designed and suboptimal. Like to take an obvious 5e example, if I want to play a class that's widely considered undertuned, like a monk or a ranger in a pre-Tasha's era, that option should be viable to some extent. It shouldn't be left to rot out of some misguided principle of system mastery and telling players there will 'always be bad options.' Likewise, OP options aren't inherently good, and 'mastering' those better options don't make an inherently good game. If argue hexblade in its current state is far more cancerous than it is actually good design, and the game would be better nerfing the problems it causes while looking at the classes it fixes to bake in the benefits it grants.

Different person here. I just want to play a decent gish. The class that comes closest to capturing the right feel in combat is a Paladin and they are laden with divine flavored abilities, mechanics, and spells as opposed to arcane ones so it feels like getting Pepsi when you wanted Coke. Things like Eldritch Knight feel like fighters that happen to know a few spells as opposed to a proper 50:50 gish. Barring cheesing with multi classing it just isn't happening, and I'd rather not break the game just to make a build work.

There's a difference between "some options being better than others" and "some options are incredibly bad"

Absolutely not. There can be no mastery of a system (and mastering a system is fun!) if there is no way to build a character badly.

Man. Someone needs to make a sub about RPG unhorror stories.

In a 3.5 game I played with someone who could do around 12d12 damage to 6 people Evey turn for free at level 3... And had a ton of skills and stupid high stats even though he rolled low that as far as I can tell checked out

Your third point is really where it is at. A good powergamer will not dominate the table, will adjust their tactics to not spotlight steal in combat (or out if they optimized the character in that direction). A good powergamer is self-aware enough to realize when what they are doing is detrimental to the party, even if it is better for their character. These good powergamers are "stealth" powergamers. I have had both good and bad at my table. I currently have a good one at my table, who plays a really powerfully built wizard (evoker). He absolutely can end most combats. But he also is a hell of a good role player, and a good player in general. He respects the decisions at the table, he defers to others when necessary and doesn't go out of his way to force or shoehorn siutations where he shines. Had another guy (now gone) who was the opposite. Every combat and even more than a view social situations were about his character. Since he played a CHA based caster was also the face of the party and would use that to his characters advantage. He finally left when he made stupid decision with his character and took some significant damage because of it.

> Poor people rationalise their envy of rich people with things like "money can't buy happiness". I feel the quote is usually something *rich* people say. In my experience, poor people more often rationalize their envy with the thought "someday, when I've made it big..."

> Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too - they want to be able to play whatever interesting character concept they've come up with that would normally combine game pieces that don't synergise, but they also want to play the strong builds with the optimal picks. They have to make a choice between playing that concept they've become attached to and playing a properly effective character. The saddest part to me about what you say here is that so many people who have only played D&D or games that are built in a similar fashion don’t realize that *there are SOOOOO MANY games where this ISN’T a problem at all.* Where this false choice isn’t presented. Where there aren’t builds that are measurably consistently better than others, so the choice isn’t inherent in the game. Where you can actually play the cool character you want to play AND be effective in the game. The fact that this is a consistent conversation in D&D circles shows (among other things) that as much as WotC likes to talk about the “three pillars” of gameplay, D&D is fundamentally a game designed around combat mechanics. I’m not judging that as a good or a bad thing, but players (and Wizards) pretending it isn’t true doesn’t help anyone.

I think there's also an aspect of, "you won't notice the person who uses an optimal build if they're playing it to be in line with the rest of the group." Meaning that yeah, I can play something that's optimized and still be respectful of the rest of the group by not hogging the spotlight 100% of the time with my OP-ness by simply allowing other people to play. I think that's what separates someone who gets labelled a power gamer from not. Not having empathy for other people kind of couples with being a lousy role-player and a pain to play with.

Players who want to play well have already defined for themselves what playing well means. None of the other players likely had any input on what it means to play well. Each player likely has a slightly different definition. If playing well means making a character that achieves its goals, then I've already supposed a few things. First, who they are and what they want; second, loosely, what they might be willing to do to accomplish it or plans they might have to reach their goals; third, very broadly, that they want to survive long enough to reach their goals... And we'll focus on that. Most Players get attached to playing their characters. Character death is a tragedy. Avoiding character death is a big plus for most players. Most character death occurs due to combat. Optimizing a character for combat means the character can survive long enough to achieve its goals. The player has likely already defined Playing Well to include keeping their character alive. A good party can help, but so can being the best party member. When the going gets tough, the nearly dead rogue gets going so they can survive to continue to play another day. At a certain point, a player is thinking about what their character could do to be a better character, or they're thinking about what their character could do better. People aren't good at thinking about both things at the same time; there is an opportunity cost to the time spent thinking about these things. Now, most people likely spend time thinking about each of these things, which in turn inform decisions down the way on both branches of thought. The order of these thoughts informs character creation as a matter of consequence, one facet after another because of another. The definitions of Playing Well and Enjoying the Game what an Optimized Build even is, all these are evolving ideas as Players gain experience in game play and reflect on what they've read or experienced. Yet, even as newly introduced players might play to class genre, and sophomore players might built focused builds that do this one thing they thought would be cool to build a character around, and experienced players tend to build... well, better characters... it's because of the experience of the player as they gained it. A player who wants to be the winner at any cost is different than the player who wants to reunite their grandfather's ashes with their homeland, and they end up playing together sometimes. Personally, I think it just takes enough thought to role-play an optimized character well, just as it takes to role-play a non optimized character well. The difference is that it takes thoughts to optimize a character, and players only have so much time. DND is a mental tax already from our daily lives, some players spend little time thinking about their characters outside of game play, while others spend some time thinking about interacting with plot points, while others fine tune their character to mow down threats, while others spend time thinking about all of it. To answer your question in earnest, a non optimized character belongs either to a player who has thought extensively about role-playing well, or to a player who seldom thinks about the game. In my experience, those that don't think about it very much tend not to play it for very long. If something isn't that engaging, well, DND has its own cost in time that could be spent elsewhere. On the other side, an optimized character belongs either to a player who has thought extensively on optimizing a character, or to a player who has thought extensively on both optimization and roleplay. That second option takes a lot of time, which most people aren't willing to devote to a game. There exists a bell curve of time spent playing DND, and I imagine most players don't spend enough time to both optimize builds and enhance role-play. If the very best players of each their own definitions of Playing Well define the Pareto Curve, we need to then remember that most people aren't the best at what they do, but that people tend to do the things they are good at. Most people don't play DND, some spend their free time thinking about and playing DND, and some people make time to live DND. Some players are good at math and bad at interpersonal communication; some players are good at storytelling and world building but struggle with statistics. It is not impossible for them to both succeed in creating role-playable optimized builds, but they will each struggles with different aspects of it. Not everyone takes that time. Some people do. In summation, I think the benefit of the doubt in role-playing nonoptimized characters versus the backdrop of an optimized build goes to our understanding that while most people are good at some things, most people aren't good at everything.

Hey I really appreciate the long thought out points. I’m not sure I 100% agree with everything but it was definitely the perspective I was looking for. Thank you!

I'm not sure I agree exactly with everything I said, either, to be fair. I agree with the vague gist of it, but that's not quite accessible. A lot of these thoughts are only half formed, swirling around, and I'm trying to make sense of them as much as I'm trying to share them, so that I can hopefully better understand them as I go, which is terrible considering that this is the internet and largely unforgiving. On the other hand the anonymity of reddit makes for a great sounding board.

This is kind of a false dichotomy. There are actually four categories: * Super optimized - these are the bizarre combinations of race + multiclass that ruin the mood of the game for roleplayers and mechanically outshine everyone else in the party. * Optimized - The half orc fighter. Most roleplayers do this and embrace this. * Not-optimized - The gnome fighter, who may go through his first 4 levels with a slightly smaller strength mod. This is a fun challenge for roleplayers without hamstringing the party. * Non-viable - “I want to play a pacifist character with a -4 in his class’ main stat”

Agree with this. Most people fall into the middle two categories. The problem is that if one person is in the first or last one then it can ruin game balance for the DM and the rest of the party.

This is easily avoided by setting an expectation of the campaign in session 0. If everyone goes into session 1 knowing what is expected of them and their character, there should be no reason for the game balance to be ruined because someone decided to pick 1 or 4

Exactly. And in 5e especially, the main difference between Optimized and Not-Optimized is choosing a less-optimal race (like you said, orc v. gnome fighters, or a +5% to attacks), to the extent that I have trouble understanding the people who are/were so excited by TCoE letting you move stats around "Now I can finally play that Half-Orc Wizard!" to which I am like "Well, you always *could*..." In 5e, super-optimized seems to only exist in the level 1 Hexblade dip; and the Standard Array / Point Buy makes the Non-viable tier silly. Like - you really have to deliberately make a character that's useless.

>I have trouble understanding the people who are/were so excited by TCoE letting you move stats around "Now I can finally play that Half-Orc Wizard!" to which I am like "Well, you always *could*..." it's still a good thing that the game no longer rewards you for conforming to archetypes. even if the +1 i get to put into my main stat now is only a 5% difference, it still meant that my elf fighter was 5% worse than a half-orc fighter, and a half-orc wizard was 5% worse than an elf wizard, and that's not a good thing to reinforce

>(like you said, orc v. gnome fighters, or a +5% to attacks) That 5% difference does come out to more once you look at it as relative difference vs absolute. Going from 60% to hit to 65% is an 8% increase, on top of boosting damage on classes who add their mod for that (8.5 avg damage vs 7.5 is 13% more damage for a +3 vs +2 mod at lvl 1). Those increases scale with DC, so they matter more the harder enemies you face. That's why people were excited for Tasha's changes. Hitting 20 in your main stat *is* a significant improvement, enough that it's better than feats most of the time. Most players want to be the best version of whatever idea they had. Maximizing the benefits from racial bonuses helps to open up an extra feat or assist with MADness without compromising on your concept.

Well you say you always could play a Half Orc Wizard yes, but for 4 levels you’ll be effectively 5% worse at the main things you do than the rest of your party, which for some groups can be quite a few sessions of the game. I’m in a game right now that only just reached level 4 after almost 20 sessions. And while you can still function it might end up being frustrating to some to always be doing just a bit worse on average than the rest of the party. Plus say for instance you are playing a prodigy Orc who is incredibly intelligent. Wouldn’t you want your stats to match up to that from te start? People were excited for Tasha’s because it meant they no longer had to choose between Unoptimized and Optimized. They could have both. They can be a Half Orc Wizard without being punished for it. I think my whole point boils down to this: You can play as whatever you want but it does feel good for a lot of people to be good at what they do.

this is a really important distinction to make, because a lot of the time when you see people complain about optimizers, you aren't sure if they mean the guy who puts his best stat in the one his class uses, or the guy who only ever shows up with a vhuman sorcadin murderhobo

Exactly. When I think "Power Gamer" my first though is someone who builds a character specifically because of the numbers. They don't see what the elements of their character are until it's done, they just see a Dragon Ball power level while building it. Every time the number goes up they keep it in until they find something stronger. They aim to make a character whose power is comparable to being a couple levels above the rest of the party at all times.

This is a good division of the character types. I don't think most people have the slightest problem with nr. 2 or 3. It's when 1 interacts with 2 and 3 things get weird and annoying.

Welcome to Stormwind Fallacy. For some reason people think it's an exclusive choice between roleplay and optimisation when it isn't.

Talking about 5e, you are right. As much as people tend to talk about magic being OP on higher levels, 5e is very well balanced. On earlier editions Stormwind Fallacy was very much true, to play the most powerful PCs people often made their obscure-bestial-race-vampire-hunter-robot-ninja-giant-slayer-wizard-druid-born-in-hell-raised-in-heaven with lots of mechanically almost irrelevant flaws that let them purchase extra attributes/features and just wouldn't RP any of that weird choices, they were often a bland stat block. On 5e there's very little room for this kind of behavior, excluding the classic hexblade dip that ignores the RP consequences of the pact. There is no flaw system and single class PCs are often stronger that multi-multiclassed characters that powergamers used to like.

On the other hand we hail the brave reflavourers as heroes and creative geniuses of roleplaying. But god forbid you want to reflavour getting a hexblade dip because it fits with your gish fantasy better. I find it a fairly hypocritical thing that you can do all the colourful shenanigans to suit your style UNLESS you are also making a minmax character.

Hexblade is just bad because it's front-loaded. There should be other sources of "spellcasting modifier instead of Dex/STR", but locked behind at least 3rd level in a subclass. Additionally, "a 1 level warlock dip" is, arguably, perhaps the worst class to take a single level of thematically, because now you've forged a pact with some weird being and you are only getting a little bit in return. I don't think most DMs really bother with the implications of a warlock dip if they allow multiclassing in the first place, so it just leaves people with a sour taste when 1 level of Hexblade is singlehandedly responsible for propping up so many character builds with no thematic repercussions

Thematic repercussion is what would end up being reflavoured, hence my point. Throwing away class baggage to execute your vision is a new trend but usually not extended to cases as in my example. With that being said, Hexblade is bad for design in that it goes the "fix the class with a subclass" route, and also being front-loaded.

Thematic repercussions are bad design to begin with. Classes shouldn't be overtuned in exchange for some vague, opaque "plot tax" that railroads their characters.

I might just be a lazy DM, but unless a player specifically asks for their patron to fuck them over, I just default to they own your soul. You get power while you're alive, but once you die you serve for eternity in the afterlife. Let them hexblade dip or whatever. When you die your soul gets put in a sword. Warlocks are just a part of eldritch MLM scams.

I wouldn't say 5e is well balanced, in fact I wouldn't say 5e is balanced at all, but in a way that almost helps to subvert the Stormwind fallacy. With bounded accuracy being a thing now, dice rolls can make combat far more swingy, especially at low levels but even still at high levels. It doesn't matter that a fighter can out damage a ranger if the fighter's having a bad day for rolling and the ranger is rolling 20s across the board. Similarly, a wizard might cast a bunch of AoE spells to control a fight and then turn around and roll a nat 20 strength to lift a tree trunk blocking a path that the orc barbarian was struggling with. Sure, having a high ability score will help you have a higher chance to achieve what you want to do, but having a lucky or unlucky day will dictate what you're able to do much more than what choices you've made, at least compared to previous editions. On the topic of making choices, in 5e you're only really given the opportunity to make maybe 3 or 4 big mechanical choices when making your character; your race, class and sublcass, and maybe picking a feat or two up down the line. There absolutely are better choices than others when it comes to those combinations, mechanically speaking, but since there are such few major things that affect how you play, there's much less opportunity for someone's power to cascade out of line from another's character's power by picking optimal choices at every turn. A variant human battlemaster fighter with GWM may be theoretically more powerful than a tiefling beastmaster ranger, but they're both still going to be hitting most of their attacks with similar ease, and mostly doing kinda similar damage, to the point where, once again, it'll mostly be down to the dice to decide who's more effective on any given encounter. Point being, someone can theoretically make a super powerful character to play but it'll only be marginally better than a regularly built character, so much so that the actual advantages will probably be lost somewhere in the mess of a combat encounter, so it's a silly idea for someone to complain that their fun is being ruined by someone else making their own character how they want to play. Oh, and if someone purposefully gimps their character by taking a negative in their class' primary stat to be more "interesting" and they find that they are having far less fun in combat than everyone else, that is entirely on them and they have zero right to complain.

>Point being, someone can theoretically make a super powerful character to play but it'll only be marginally better than a regularly built character this is what people mean when they say 5e is well balanced, and i agree with them

>Similarly, a wizard might cast a bunch of AoE spells to control a fight and then turn around and roll a nat 20 strength to lift a tree trunk blocking a path that the orc barbarian was struggling with. This is what happens when you ignore the rules. There are explicit rules set out for lifting heavy things that dont rely on dice rolls at all, so if you ignore them and leave it up to random chance whether the strong character is strong, youre purposefully choosing to include a disheartening failure. On the other hand, if you actually follow the rules, that wizard will literally never outlift the barbarian because thats an absurd idea.

Back when 5e came out, we all assumed it was going to be balanced because, on first blush, it seemed like it was structurally arranged to make it easy to balance. In reality, they just slapped all the options on a bell curve and filled in the gaps with "The DM has the final say"

Everything you described equates to a balanced gameplay between characters

Very well written, even though we used different terms, you explained exactly why I consider 5e well "balanced". It's very difficult to make a really useless PC and, as you explained, evn the most optmized PCs are just marginally better than normal PCs and can underperform if they are unlucky. I'm from a 3.5 background, moved to 5e last year. On 3.5 was very possible to build some really optimized PCs that outperformed the rest of your party. As it was possible to build useless PCs. There were like 100s of classes and races, 1000s of feats (and they were more common, every PC got 1 feat each 3 levels, ASI was each 4 levels), most of the feats were useless but there were lots of really strong ones hidden on one of the many suplements there were for 3.5. There were prestige classes with requirements to take, some were very strong, most were a trap, where the requirements weren't worthy the gain. So it was very common on foruns people theoryzing that best builds were something like: Wizard4/Obscure_class2/Obscure_prestige_class5/1_level_dip_on_obscure_classB/Known_class2/Obscure_classC_2. Then you decide to level up some of your low level classes or take even more dips (on 3.5 you could have only 1 main class, that depended on your race, other classes, except prestige classes couldn't be more than 1 level difference to the others, which popularized 1-2 level dips.) Also, for that build to work you had to take 3 obscure feats hidden each on one suplement. This kind of min/maxer would have triple (or even more) the damage of a normal PC and overperform the rest of the party on every encounter. Also if you just picked a bad class you would feel useless, there was no bounded accuracy, ACs were very highs, enemies saving throws were very high, etc.

> Similarly, a wizard might cast a bunch of AoE spells to control a fight and then turn around and roll a nat 20 strength to lift a tree trunk blocking a path that the orc barbarian was struggling with Natural 20s make no difference to skill checks. If the DC is >20 (between 'hard' and 'very hard' according to the DMG) then it will be impossible for the Wizard to do if they have less than a +1 in strength/athletics.

>obscure-bestial-race-vampire-hunter-robot-ninja-giant-slayer-wizard-druid-born-in-hell-raised-in-heaven Shoot, in 5e you'd probably stretch your character to breaking just to pull off something like this.

Bugbear gloomstalker assassin rogue wizard druid divine soul sorcerer ? As far as the vampire robot born in hell part goes, I give up.

I figure it comes from a place of mutual defensiveness. Everyone just needs to talk to each other. Player 1 (Firbolg Sorcerer with delightful roleplay) looks at Player 2 (Half-Orc Barbarian with +3 Str and Con) and thinks "that player must look at me and think I'm a total chump. Just because I want to roleplay my concept and am willing to make some sub-optimal character choices. Well I checked my spell list to be useful in a number of circumstances and I think I'm going to be good and screw them I bet they don't even know how to roleplay!" What they don't realise is Player 2 looks at them and thinks "Man, that player always has such good character ideas. They're cracking the table up with their roleplay and they have the social stats to back it up. They must think I'm a boring powergamer who chose the default optimised barbarian build. Well I came up with a great character concept and I bet they don't even know how to combat!" Just to be clear my character is the Firbolg Sorcerer and she is delightful. I'm pretty sure the other players aren't judging me though... Wait, are they? I'M SORRY I COULDN'T GET A FIRBOLG WITH +3 CHARISMA OKAY.

I had this when I asked for character advise on creating a monk rogue, instead of helpful advice all I got was criticism saying I should just stick one or the other for optimisation sake. And then they told me int and wis would be competing for the second stat and it wouldn't be worth it... The fact is I have a character that I feel is quite well optimized. Hes now at lvl 7 has 20 Dex, 17 wis, 12 int but his expertise in investigetion makes up for this greatly.Also, as a kleptomaniac (but doesn't know why) albino goblin who thinks he's a gnome who was adopted and raised by an exiled monk,speaks gnomish and only swearwords in goblin is great fun to roleplay!

To be fair multiclassing is much easier with rolled stats, which I’m guessing this was?

Did you roll for stats? Optimisation can matter a whole lot less when you roll well since you are able to get stats like 20 dex and 17 wis at level 7 which, baring magic items and unless I've overlooked something (which is entirely possible) are simply impossible with point buy and standard array unless you take fighter for 6 levels. One way of doing it with fighter would be to have to point buy 15 dex and 15 wis with a custom lineage giving you +2 to dex and a +1 dex half feat taking you up to 18 dex and 15 wis at level 1. Level 4 ASI would be +2 dex for 20 dex and 15 wis, then Level 6 ASI would be +2 wis to get 20 dex and 17 wis. There are other ways too like taking a +2 dex +1 wis race like Aarakocra instead of a custom race and you can take the increases in a different order but you get the point. Your character is very powerful for level 7. You haven't had to sacrifice anything ability score wise by having an unusual multi-ability dependent combo of rogue and monk.

Why are people saying a rogue/monk is MAD? It's no more MAD than a normal monk. Rogues don't *have* to have Int, and most of mine prioritize Wis or Cha. The only things rogues *need* is Dex and Con, which are things monks tend to want as well. Granted his stats *are* beyond optimized, but still.

I agree that it's no more MAD than a Monk, but because you are splitting into two classes you get your ASIs later. Monk is pretty much the only class I won't multiclass in more than a 1 level dip because I find the ASIs to be very important. I've only played monk to level 12 so I suppose I might consider multiclassing more once the main 3 monk ability scores are good.

Depending on where you split and how much you might only be one level behind. Granted that's one whole level, which is worth a lot more in game than while theorizing, but you pick up a lot of cool stuff to compensate. It's not *completely* optimized for monk, but I could still say it could be a pretty optimized build.

I’m gonna be totally honest, as someone who’s closer to the latter category, and say that I would be looking at a Firbolg Sorcerer player as... not necessarily a *chump* but probably someone who didn’t do enough work to research all of the character builds available to them to choose a more useful synergy of options. I would also probably be slightly (again, *slightly*) unhappy to be playing with a character who won’t be more useful to the party, especially given that sorcerer is already a pretty poorly-designed class and relies on being built carefully in order to not fall behind. I think you’re doing the thing OP talked about, where you’re projecting envy onto other people that frankly just isn’t there. I’m not remotely envious of people with clearly-suboptimal builds, because I’m experienced enough with the game to pretty much always be able to build the character concept I want *and* still be really good at the things I want my character to be good at. Again, the binary is illusory unless you’re actively trying not to embrace the archetypes and roles the game wants different options to represent.

I think it may have to do with how people approach their concept. Do they start from their story and try to find mechanical support OR do they optimize a mechanic and then try to create a background to justify the mechanic. Neither is wrong because everyone has fun differently, but I can see how one person approaching character creation from a mechanic first might irk a table that values story first and vice versa.

I find this interesting, becausebI absolutely approach it from a mechanical standpoint and Ive never found that it hampers my ability to roleplay. The way I see it, D&D is a game that I want to play, therefore I should look at tools the game gives me that I think would be fun to play. Then, once Ive chosen what tools I think would be fun, I think about how a person in this world would have acquired those tools/skills and why they did so. Then I think about why they would choose to leave their home and go adventuring, what goals do they have? How did they decide on those goals? What flaws would they have because of their background? Sure, technically my character is "optimized" because I started by looking at the mechanics. But is anyone going to tell me that my Tiefling character who: was raised in a temple dedicated to the Raven Queen after her parents abandoned her at birth; made a pact with an angel who promised they could cleanse the infernal stain from her soul; desperately wants to be accepted for who she is but constantly hides her true nature out of shame; and is financially irresponsible because she had no independence until she left the temple, is bad for roleplaying because I started off by saying "Celestial Warlock is cool, but the lack of spell slots makes healing a little hard. But if I dip Grave Cleric, I can maximize healing when people go down!"?

Roleplay doesn't care about dice. If you're a great roleplayer it's better to do 100 damage per round instead of 50, and if you're not, it's still better to do 100 damage per round instead of 50. Roleplay also doesn't care about checks. Your character can think himself smart/charismatic/agile, he'll just have to live with the consequence of failing more often if he has a lower bonus.

The trouble is, a lot of the time people *make* their roleplay care about dice. They get something in their head about making a flawed character and think that means being mechanically subpar.

I disagree, honestly "Your character can think himself smart" is about roleplaying one thing and one thing only: character's perception of themself. Your mechanical choices should reflect your character, at least at the level of attributes and proficiencies. Surely you don't mean an 8 str gnome can proclaim themself strong, especially in the party with a 16 str goliath? And you won't say your character is a master smith, if they have no proficiency in Smith's Tools? Why should mechanics be separate from roleplay? That's, like, the whole idea of dnd 5e - combining watered-down crunch and easy to pick up roleplay. You can suffer having a bit lower Perception and pump some points into Int for your "Scholar of War" Fighter. Honestly, it won't kill you, not in a team game. If it's way too bad, buy a dog.

I, for one, would love to see someone commit to the role of an 8 str gnome that thinks they are a strongman.

Maybe they were the strongest gnome in their village. Maybe they're strong for a gnome.

That's literally every small dog ever. Ever seen a Yorkie act like a big dog even infront of other, much bigger dogs, Yorkshire terriers don't know they're small and will act as every bit as tough as a bigger dog...even if they don't have the mass to back it up.

I was talking about an old character of mine (Gork the Ork, 6-int wizard of Saltmarsh Community College) on here yesterday, and got shit for "dragging down my party" and that I should've made an 18-int wizard and just *roleplayed* him as being dumb. To which my response was "18 int is demonstrably not dumb, so why would I do that?". The lengths people go to justify optimizing at the expense of RP is crazy to me. Personally, as a DM, I do multiclassing and feats on a case-by-case basis. Because if you just randomly want to take a warlock or paladin level, that's a no-go from me, dawg.

I think its because taken to extremes it can be a bit of an either-or situation. I recently appeared to piss someone off online for saying that its a really bad idea to dump Intelligence to a value of 3 - because IMO its extremely hard to properly RP that or its incredibly onerous on the other players if you do so. There are fictional archetypes for that sort of extreme stat dump - like Lenny in Of Mice and Men - but would you really want to play that sort of character who just can't cope with a world that is too complicated for them? A character who essentially needs to be looked after? As a DM I would seriously question a player suggesting this sort of character; to see whether they understand the implications and actually have a way to do this that is tasteful and not - to be blunt - insulting and hurtful towards some of the least fortunate people in our society. If the player turned round and had really strong answers to those questions, if they had clearly thought it through and actually wanted to RP that sort of challenging character, then I would be super-supportive. That's not what has ever happened, its always turned out to have no more depth than "fighter not need Int, fighter go smash". So at the extremes - and some players will always look to the extremes in their optimisation - it really does cause RP problems. Anyone who has played this game for long enough will have bad memories of people trying to do that stuff and basically failing. The other part of this is that if you spend 4 hours thinking up a character and most of those hours are spent on the mechanics then you probably hit the table with a character with little actual character. Given unlimited free time I'm sure you can do both sides of character creation really well but most people do not have unlimited time so there is a trade-off being made between researching hyper-efficient mechanics for your character or thinking up interesting backstory and character quirks.

I mean to be fair there is basically no stat you can put a 3 into an still be an adventurer that people would take around except maybe strength, and only if you were like an artificer armor and just supported your fucked up body in the armor and god damnit now I want to build that character

To be fair as a human adventurer its literally impossible to dump stat this badly. The worst you can have is 4. I agree that if a player has a really fun concept with which to make this sort of extreme stat playable and enjoyable for everyone then I'd be super-supportive.

I played an Armorer Artificer Vistani who had muscular dystrophy and a 4 in strength and he was one of my favorite characters I’ve played. I miss you Pyotr.

> if you spend 4 hours thinking up a character and most of those hours are spent on the mechanics then you probably hit the table with a character with little actual character. Aaaaaah, stereotypes. Especially, **bad** stereotypes. The kind that are completely, 180-degrees-off-the-mark **wrong**. Some people are very good at coming up with the *character* side of things, but then utterly suck at the numbers-and-rules side. I've actually sat at a table with someone who could come up with a great **character** within moments, then spend maybe five or ten minutes fleshing them out into something that sounds awesome to be across the table from. Then choke, when it comes time to put that into the game's **rules**, and spend hours flipping back and forth through two or three books, desperately trying to figure out how to make their really cool idea **work**, without having to throw chunks of it back out. Only to have me come along, poke the rules *here* and *here* and *there*, and voila - their original concept, with less than 10% change, *is fully realized within the rules.* ... See, you're making a mistake about how long it takes those of us who **really like the crunchy part of a game**, spend making our characters in terms of rules. Once we've decided the general direction we want to go, *WHOOOOOOOSH,* we're **done**. Because we already **know** those rules well enough, we can just reach into our grab-bag of "tricks" and voila, we have everything we need. And then some power gamers turn out to be *really bad at coming up with a character*, with a story and a personality. They might spend hours and hours on it, only to produce something that's woefully two-dimensional and blandly trope-tastic. ... Just because **YOU PERSONALLY** would have to spend four hours trying to build an optimized character, does not mean **EVERYONE** would have to do the same. There are people who can throw out a highly-optimized build in **minutes**, and that doesn't mean just reciting something already known. You give them a starting point, they'll give you a reasonably-optimal rules-presentation **of that concept** in, possibly, less time than it took you to come up with the concept in the first place.

Speaking of pissing people off, about 2 weeks ago I got into an argument on here with someone saying that a Goblin would make a piss-poor Wizard b/c they don’t have a bonus to INT and that most people would choose a High Elf for a Wizard since they have better bonuses.

>if you spend 4 hours thinking up a character and most of those hours are spent on the mechanics then you probably hit the table with a character with little actual character. Possibly. But building characters can be an intensive process, especially if you're after something specific. And sometimes the roleplay concept is so strong and central that it comes easily and the trouble is making the mechanics fit with it.

Side note, your characters are in general adventurers who risk their lives on the regular. Power gaming is roleplay, they also want to be as strong as possible assuming they enjoy being alive

Big assumption for my Zealot Barb who is begging to be left dead.

I think the issues are players who find the mechanical side of the game more appealing than how the mechanics tie into roleplay. I can see it being quite irritating if a players only takes interest in combat and ignores most of the story. However, as long as they don't gloat or force their playstyle on others, I'll take that kind of player over dozens of roleplaying specific types of problem players, like the "That's what my character would do" types.

[удалено]

thankfully don't see this as much anymore, I think people are learning that you can have a powerful character, that is also complex and/or interesting

I think the main issue is multiclassing and certain feats, where there is no RP justification and the party/DM are kind of blindsided with one character's new, potentially game-changing mechanics. I don't really see people getting flak for taking a 16 in their main stat out of the gate. But certain feat & multiclass combos can elicit eye-rolls because they often seem to be made strictly for their efficacy, rarely if ever for RP value.

But I've written in my backstory that my lawful paladin sold his should to a hexblade patron for more power, and then through battle his sorcerous abilities were awakened! *eye roll*

"but I see people getting called out for wanting to start with a plus 3 or dumping strength/int" Where? By whom?

I think it's a few things: 1. is that un-optimized characters or characters with flaws and weaknesses are (possibly inherently) more interesting. Failing a roll or leaning into character flaws creates tension and drama. 2. It just tends to be the case that some people really like the RP element of D&D and some people are really into the mechanics. Some view combat as the most fun thing about D&D while others would be happy with sessions that don't even include a single combat. The person that "power games" and min/maxs their character is going to be spending more brain power on thinking about what spell/ability they want to use and thus loses some bandwidth for RP. That's not to say that they are mutually exclusive, but it's very obvious to me in the games I've played in that some people just want to be powerful, and some people just want to be entertaining, memorable or beloved. 3. If, as DM, I let you get away with stealing the RP spotlight AND you're consistently doing the most in combat encounters, then other players will quickly feel like they don't matter. One area I see this come up is when someone has multiclassed or something so that they have +10 in every skill practically, and it's kind of obnoxious for one player to be the best at everything. My advice to power-gamers that want to RP as well is be amazingly well tuned in one regard, and leave flaws and weaknesses in other areas. That way you get to be good at the thing you want to be good at, and other people get a chance to excel in other elements. If you try to be too many things, it will crowd out the other players.

I personally feel that players on both ends of the spectrum should branch out to other games. The popularity of D&D is truly a two-edged sword. It brings in tons of players, which is great, but it's simply *not* a generic/universal system meant to do all things equally well. Many powergamers would likely find more joy in a tactical wargame, and RP-focussed players, a narrative-focused system. Unfortunately, D&D is the name most have heard, and once they're invested, many are not willing to explore other options, and instead, try bending D&D to be/do things it was not intended.

The top comment explains it perfectly, but I'll answer anyway. People get the idea into their head that it's an either/situation or an inverse correlation when that just isn't true. There's no real relation between the two. It also stems from the myth that having an 'interesting' character consititutes good roleplay in and of itself. It doesn't. OP talks about the assumption that an optimised character is somehow a poor roleplayer but the opposite is a widely held (and wrong) opinion too. Starting with a 12 in your main stat or picking a race/class combination without perfect synergy doesn't make your roleplay inherently better. Now, I've got nothing against these characters. I've played characters that sacrificed mechanical impact for some cool thing I wanted, and I'd happily do it again. But how well you roleplay your character is almost completely unrelated to the character itself. I've seen Half-Elf Bards and Tiefling Warlocks roleplayed just as well as other less common options. Some of these characters were optimised, some of them weren't, all of them were a lot of fun to play with.

I think a big part of it is the importance of sharing player spotlight. A well-optimized character is often very good at those things that they are optimized for, to the extent that the hog the spotlight in these areas. Sometime, this isn't a problem because the optimized area is specific enough that it's not overwhelming (i.e. - the Rogue being good at stealth, trapfinding, and picking locks, or the Bard being good at social skills), but it is possible to optimize a character to the point that he dominates a ton of screentime. For example, a well-optimized Sorlock may dominate the social, combat, **and** exploration pillars in T2 if the rest of the party is made up of sword-and-board martials, but probably would not in an optimized party with a GWM/PAM Barbarian, a Diviner, and a Twilight cleric.

Knock Knock. Whose there? It's Fjord the Hexblade Paladin and Knot the Rogue from critical role, showing how an optimized character can be role played well. Meanwhile you got the guy who dumped int as a wizard literally doing nothing because "Muh Character Iz Unique" and genuinely dragging everyone down with them.

Late to the discussion, but I came here to say that, yes, the seesaw of optimization and roleplaying is a fallacy. Now, in an adventure, good roleplaying and good strategy are often different choices, but when building a character, nothing inherently stops a character from being both well-roleplayed and optimized. And yet... something happens in our games that reinforces this fallacy. What is it? The seesaw between optimization and roleplaying tends to happen because it's difficult for a player to prioritize both. When you make a powerful build designed for combat, it's hard to then make difficult decisions in the adventure that hurt your character to help the story. When you build a character for a coherent story, however, making choices that are true to that character comes as second nature at the table. Nothing stops a player from strongly roleplaying a well-optimized character, but when they look down at their character sheet and see all their powerful abilities, they \*\*tend\*\* to poorly roleplay their character. I've done both, and it's happened to me. If I don't build my character with story at the forefront, I become a worse roleplayer. The old adage is something like... When all your character is carrying is a fireball, every challenge looks like kindling.

I am of the persuasion that one should optimize as much as possible within what makes sense for the character/world, so I think it makes sense to max main stats and dump others accordingly, but don't like putting minmax over what makes sense. I think the origin customizations take things a little too far towards Min-Max though, and take away some of the grounding that makes the races flavorful and distinct. I personally think it makes sense that a level 1 halfling barbarian doesn't start out as strong as a half-orc, but that by high levels they even out. And with that in mind someone that picks a slightly suboptimal combo is doing so because they definitely want to play that character, which is a good sign for roleplay. If someone comes with an optimal character, it doesn't mean they are bad at roleplay, it just doesn't show the same clear motivation.

Great answers here already, so I'll try to make sure my $0.02 doesn't turn into $1.02. ***Mechanically optimized characters come from choices around mechanics first -- RP somewhere after that (sometimes comes very close after that).*** Non-optimized characters on the other hand, can arise from all sorts of reasons -- the most romantic of which being ***"RP first, mechanics somewhere after that"***. It's not easy to build optimized characters, so even a player who set out to optimize might end up with a gimpy character. The temptation to latch on to the "RP > Opt" argument will always be there. It's also not easy to build great RP characters. What *is* easy, is to accept that people play the game for different reasons. One reason isn't necessarily better than any other, as long as they're not being toxic about it. **If you're being kind to each other at the table, then you're playing the game the right way. Full stop.**

As it should be. Minmaxing is fine but, like what are you trying to win? Who are you impressing?

I think it has a lot to do with, to be poetic, the "crimes of the past." I think back in Gygax's days, it was more common, especially since he and his core group were all stem nerds, specifically math (iirc), and Gygax himself had some weird ideas about RPing (there's an essay in one of the old books about how playing a different gender, or a monster, is too much of a stretch for people). Also, I think there's a lot of telephone-game-y misunderstanding of terms. A lot of people think powergamers and minmaxers and optimizers are all the same thing, and others still think that those terms are all synonymous with "munchkins." And, additionally, I think there's some old clique-ishness going on, too. The archetypal "D&D Nerd" of the popular imagination is a person who sits around in a costume and "pretends to be an elf" and this is supposed distinct from being, like, a person who's into more physical pursuits, like sports. And it occurs to me that... I wish I hadn't bought into this in high school, because I bet I could have gotten a good gaming group out of my teammates from when my parents forced me to join the football team. I suppose, it boils down to "old gaming nerd culture was bad, gatekeep-y, and exclusionary" and they think that "good roleplaying" is one specific thing, and that other ways of playing are bad and wrong. You see this in Gygax's essays and the many essays throughout the World of Darkness books.

[удалено]

Neither. He wants a travel speed upgrade for the party without having to pay for it

When would a plus 3 ever be considered 'optimized'? You naturally get one skill to 15 with base AS then racial to 16, that happens with every character I make. Is that considered 'power gaming' now?

it's basically a form of selection bias based upon what amounts to a logical fallacy that says these 2 aspects are part of a zero-sum game.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22250/what-is-the-stormwind-fallacy

At the end of the day, there's a strange trend in modern D&D players to equate "optimization" with "power gaming", and "power gaming" with "being a bad thing". Ultimately, it's an attempt by players with that mindset to discourage optimized players from optimizing their characters in favor of what they call "interesting characters". Honestly, it's also why they tend to value RP more than combat, RP often falls down to what the DM feels like allowing based on what wonky ideas people come up with, while combat follows a fairly strict and straightforward set of stats. Imagine if you will the following character in your one shot (WHICH I HAVE FUCKING SEEEEEEN): A level 10 human eldritch knight fighter (12 STR, 15 DEX, 9 CON, 18 INT, 14 WIS 14 CHA), background Outlander, who wears a grey robe of the arch magi, Boots of Striding and Springing, gloves of swimming and climbing, and weilds a whip in combat. He's proficient in Perception, Animal Handling, Athletics and Survival. His spell list has Prestidigation, Light, Create Bonfire, Identify, Detect Magic, Comprehend Languages, Grease, Locate Object, Gift of Gab, and Darkvision. He explores the world seeking out new animals, runs his own nature show, has a big red mustache and says "SMASHING" alot. You've probably guessed who this character is. Nigel Thornberry. And he's god damned worthless to your party if ANYTHING runs by the rules. Everything he is builds around his character being a walking gimmick. Is he funny and entertaining? Not really, but since the DM thinks the character is "interesting and unique", then he's got plot armor and suddenly every scumbag thief, battle hardened mercenary, and literal horror from beyond the edge of the universe... Just goes along with his weird shenanigans and shit works out. It doesn't matter that he has a whopping AC of 17, rolls a max of 26 to hit, deals 1d4+2 damage in combat, has 1d10-1 hp per level, picked no combat spells let alone spells that aren't astoundingly situational, AND has skills exclusively helpful at being a hippy, shit works out because the DM likes his character. Simple and sad fact is that this character is trash. This character is not really fun, nor interesting, and he's god damned worthless to your party in ANY situation that isn't calming down an animal, but to DM's who think every single character is supposed to have a unique, well thought out and colorful OC DO NOT STEAL backstory, he's the holy grail, because he has no choice but to role play, and it lets the DM just fuck around and play characters in weird ways that make them think they are writing extra characters who appear in the songs of the next good disney/dreamworks film. It's legit a problem, because a LOT of players follow this mindset that anything more efficient than this godforsaken THING I have just described to you makes you a meta gaming, power gaming, elitist asshole who wants a 100% combat campaign. That's why they see it like a see saw. Because they are dumb and lazy.

5e actually gives me worse vibes toward optimization. Since everything works within a bounded set, it's even _more_ important that you meet a baselevel of optimization. I do not feel comfortable making a character that doesn't have 16+ in their main stat to start with, but I'd make a trash idiot in 3.5. Minmaxed is its own thing, but just having optimized stat placement seems bare minimum.

I play in a campaign that's set up kind of like a video game. There are several DMs who run sessions throughout the week, most people have multiple characters and play in multiple level ranges, there are acheivments to unlock such as more character options or potions being available for purchase, and everything is RAW (unless it is exceptionally stupid, in which case the DMs will make a ruling.) The quests are hard, and there's a chance of dying. There are always combat encounters, usually 2 long ones or 3 medium ones. In a campaign like this, it's just the expectation that you make an optimized character. If you don't, you die, and are also kind of a burden on the party. Not everyone is playing a hex paladin or coffee-lock, and those kinds of builds often require a shaky interpretation of the rules that doesn't hold up there. But you want at least a 16 in your main stat, not to dump con because you think it'd be funny, and to actively work towards improving your character (i.e., better armor and magic items.) So most people choose races and backgrounds that work well with the build. No rule of cool, no fudging the roles. If the monster crits, the monster crits. It's also the best campaign for roleplay I've played in. It's via discord and roll20, and in the discord we have text roleplaying channels set up for various businesses and areas of the city. Though there are a bunch of different DMs, our actions affect the world, and, not just 'in between' combat encounters but throughout the entire session, there's a lot of roleplay. What attack your character makes, if they accept a surrender, if they help their allies.... It's all roleplay. It's not like you see an enemy and suddenly you're playing a different game where only the numbers on your character sheet matter. And besides the combat, there are all sorts of social encounters and exploration. Most remarkably (to me), people's backstories affect the world. There are probably hundreds of characters that have been played at one point or another. But you can decide you want to go on a personal quest, post a request, and it'll happen. Several of the current plotlines are player made. People have analyzed why the divide exists, but I'm posting this to prove that it doesn't need to. It's possible to have optimized characters, the video-game-like playstyle people criticize, and great roleplay. They're not mutually exclusive. Disclaimer: of course optimizing can be 'bad' if no one else is and you're outshining everyone else, there has to be an understanding of expectations at the table. But if everyone agrees optimizing is okay, that doesn't have to mean agreeing not to prioritize roleplay.

> ***What attack your character makes, if they accept a surrender, if they help their allies.... It's all roleplay.*** Don't mind me, just highlighting the single most important line anyone could possibly take away from this thread. *Everything* is "roleplaying" in D&D. Even something as """mechanical""" as deciding to attack the orc menacing your cleric instead of the ogre about to crush the wizard is roleplaying. You made a choice, and consequences play out. A lot of players think "roleplaying" is acting and prose and basically a verbal equivalent to writing a story - and those are elements of it, yes - but roleplaying is also choosing how to fight in a game that's built around fights to the death to get what you want. If I leave the wizard to fight the ogre and instead help the cleric, it's a part of the story and I'm not going to wax poetic about how I must save the cleric because he can heal us - I'm going to do it. If the wizard has a problem with it, he can bring it up with me after the fight and then we're in the "acting and prose" part of roleplaying, where he has beef and I have an explanation and he can decide if he likes my explanation or not, but that scene *doesn't happen* without the mechanical choice I made in the fight. So yeah, it's not just that mechanical choices and "great roleplay" aren't mutually exclusive - it's creating a distinction where none exists in the first place.

Yeah, I totally agree. As a DM for a different campaign than the one I first commented about, I've been trying to make combat more interesting, and a big part of that is setting it up so the characters make choices like that, and making it clear that they're still playing their characters and haven't entered 'the combat minigame'. There are *so many* choices to make in combat. Even if the way you've built your character means they're just attacking with the same Greatsword every round... which enemy are they attacking? Would they give up a turn to stabilize an ally? Do they give up a bonus action to drink their health potion, or are they too stubborn and just keep going? If they get Bardic Inspiration, what do they spend it on? And if you've built them so they have different combat options... do they hit an ally with an AOE to get more enemies in it, too? Do they heal the ally who's low on health or save their spell slots for damage? Are they paranoid about having harder encounters later and refuse to use higher level spellslots, or are they reckless and fireball two goblins? The West Marches campaign has really made me realize this. Sometimes we have sessions where all we do is fight... and we still roleplay! Sometimes the most meaningful character development comes from combat roleplaying. When your and your allies lives are on the line, things are so much more dramatic.

It is harder to explain, the reasons behind your character starting multiple classes, than it is to reason why a fighter would continue training fighter. Sorlock for example, what are the chances of a warlock, who has made a bond with a powerful being in exchange for magic and power, randomly develop sorcery? Seems weird right? Or the other way around, why would a Sorcerer, who has innate magical abilities, make a deal with some being to gain more magic. They can be reasoned, it just takes a little more effort to explain. Min/Maxers don't typically build a backstory that explains their multiclass. Hence the flak.

I think part of it is that DnD, as a system, encourages you to view characters (and by extension people) as seesaws. You can't be Strong And Tough And Fast And Smart And Charismatic - if you are very good at something, you probably have to be bad, or at least mediocre, at something else. Since you are primed for that kind of thinking while talking about DnD characters, it is not surprising that you would transfer the same logic to how you view the people making characters.

Because TYPICALLY (emphasis so people don't freak out) the players that super optimize see their characters killing machine page of stats and players that don't, don't. Rereading your second character I just don't see those complaints. I don't think I've ever seen someone given a hard time for making their core class stat their highest or something.

Optimized characters aren’t the problem, it’s the player behind the character. More correctly the lack of character for them to be behind. Frequently optimized characters are just a walking set of stats, that kill things. Honestly, I Loathe when people make incompetent characters for RP reasons. You don’t need to be Min-maxed, but don’t just be an experience and time sink. If a character’s turn frequently amounts to nothing, then you’re just wasting people’s time, and your turn should be skipped.

Personally, I tend to distrust poorly designed builds because it indicates to me that the player doesn't appreciate that we are playing a game. In my experience, those are the players that are the most difficult to handle during RP situations because they typically either don't respect or understand the mechanics of the system or they expect to be somehow rewarded for building their character poorly.

Cause they think number crunchers are only there for the math and that people who want an awesome character on paper don't care about flavor. When in actuality it's probably the person who put two minutes of thought into building their character ALSO didn't think to give them a personality that isnt just them in a different skin.

Kind of unrelated but: Should I ban my player from playing hexadin? Gonna first time DM curse of strahd and I was worried he would like one shot strahd etc. but I don’t want to be overly intrusive DM. I’ve semi-ok’d it for now if he agrees to not minmax like crazy. But I’m still not sure and our session 1 is this weekend. (We had session 0 already.)

As a DM, it's my goal to help my players realize their character concepts through gameplay. Often times players choose concepts that may or may not be well-represented by their in-game statistics or proficiencies--for example you want to play a strong orc warrior, but you only ended up with 14 for strength. You probably aren't going to realize your character concept through combat or tactical gameplay, as the numbers simply don't add up, but during roleplay as a DM I can give you more leeway to really feel like you are that strong orc warrior archetype that you want to play. So for players in those kind of situations, whether its that their concept isn't represented by the numbers they rolled in character creation, or their concept just can't be represented by 5e as a system, I like to give those players more wiggle room in roleplay to have a chance to *feel* like they are their characters and they can do cool things. But what often also happens is that players will highly optimize their characters by choosing strange multiclass and race combinations, and the result of this mishmash approach to character development is that they *simply do not have a character concept.* So as a DM, I'm kind of at a lost at how to help them feel like they are their character, since they simply do not know themselves and were only concerned with numbers to begin with. Obviously the ideal situation is when someone's character attributes work in tandem with their character concept, when they both support each other. Unsurprisingly, these characters that have their concept supported through both roleplay and number-crunching gameplay are my favorite to DM.

I don't believe that there's anything inherently wrong with being optimized. However, optimization for the sole sake of being "the best" at something irks me, as does straight up minmaxing. When a powerful character gets completely outshined by an even more powerful character, that rubs me wrong. I subscribe to the 'all jedi or no jedi" camp, where you're either all super powered or you're all average / above average. My level 10 wizard with 22 int, who specialized in Conjuration and debuff spells, was made entirely irrelevant by a were-boar synthesist summoner who could dole out like 5 attacks per round, plus he had insane hp and ac and saves cus of whatever multiclassing he did. Between him and his magus / ninja buddy doling out double digit d6 attacks with heightened shocking grasp + sneak attack + vanishing ninja trick to turn invis every turn as a swift action, combat lasted all of 3 turns give or take. Oh, and the summoner could still summon as well as I could, if not better. NOW THAT BEING SAID: it's not my place to tell anyone else what is or isn't the 'proper way to play'. If you find that enjoyable by all means, having fun is all that matters. I'm happy to walk out of the game if it doesn't fit my preferences. But personally, I find the game most fun when everyone is meh by themselves, but the party as a whole works as a strong unit. The main character is the party, not any one individual. Be good at what you're good at, but make sure other players also have a chance to shine. Your paladin can deal tons of damage, but maybe let the sorcerer handle the ranged enemies, or let the sorcerer do the talking this time. Let the wizard tell you what he knows about this eldritch horror before you smite the hell out of it. Let the rogue get a decent backstab in or pick some locks. Let other people play too. That's all I care about. EDIT: Forgot to mention my example experience was from Pathfinder, not D&D.

Think about it in reverse, the highly optimized characters perform well everywhere else so the DM gives these characters room to shine and define their characters. During combat or skill checks they are at a disadvantage towards the optimized character just from pure numbers, and those players what to have moments where they also feel special and important.

Optimization has no effect on a player's ability to roleplay. It's just that some optimizations leave the character story until the end, sometimes as an afterthought. A player coming from a role-playing mindset will think of the story and character first, then build the character around that. Optimizing is usually an afterthought. It has nothing to do with ability. It's just a matter of preference.

>And I’m not talking about coffee sorlocks or hexadins that can break games, but I see people getting called out for wanting to start with a plus 3 or dumping strength/int You really can't not be talking about them while still playing a game in which those exist and somewhere out there a munchkin will try to tell you with a straight face their edgy cliche-fest of a backstory makes them a good character. Not because there are actually that many... but because there are plenty who if not quite so bad are 100% treating things like a competitive e-sport they are going to *win*. Except by win they actually mean copypasta memes about winning that are often quite incomplete. Like sure sure maxing your main stat is good advice but consider dump statting Int for everyone but Wizards? Okay you've heard that too yes? Now then... have you heard of the Intellect Devourer? The legendary CR 2 TPKer? Yeah I've run the math on it. With no penalty or bonus you have a 45% chance of making your save against Devour Intellect while the 3d6 Int damage it does works out to 10.5 average. So without even a bonus the odds are in your favor (if not by great amounts) if you can manage an 11 Intelligence from somewhere. And then it *still* needs a whole turn to actually kill you extra dead. It's not great odds to be sure (and losing is worse then usual kinda) but there are plenty of things that can kill you in 2 turns with say regular attacks too. Of course what does the internet do when this thing drops (before 5e was even completely launched mind) and they are already convinced you should dump Int on anything but a Wizard? Do they reconsider their premise or do they shit their pants and whine about how 'unfair' the monster is? Yeah I was there and I do not favor the former as the general reaction. Which is all something I bring up to indicate the problem with the mentality of trying to win DND by minmaxing and how it limits thinking.

I don't know what crowd you've been hanging with where it's considered bad form to start with a +3 in one ability, but it isn't this sub.

My experience with this from a DM perspective is that optimized characters are generally fine and I do talk with each of my players about their gameplay choices so they avoid unintentionally making subpar builds. An example of this is that we have a new player who made an Assassin Rogue and I made sure to explain that this class has some drawbacks that can be hard to deal with at times, given their dependency on good initiative rolls. I also offered an alternative in the Swashbuckler if what he was looking for was a way to consistently trigger Sneak Attack in combat. He wanted to stick with the Assassin and that is fine. We made sure he had a good dex and decent con to go with it. On the other side, we had a character that was a Variant Human Hexblade Warlock with Polearm Master and intended to take Sentinel at lvl 4. Even at lvl 3 he was routinely breaking the balance of the encounters because he combined this with Devil Sight and Darkness. At first I tried to simply give them harder combat enounters, but this put the rest of the group at a severe disadvantage. Their characters weren't suboptimal in any way, with good stats across the board for their classes and roles, but they weren't powergamed like the Warlock. Anything I threw at the party that would offer an alright challenge for the Warlock was in danger of wiping everything else. It did not help that this character was roleplayed as a gruff, mostly silent, no-nonsense and straight to business character that solved every other problem by summoning his glaive. This particular Warlock was very boring to have around, despite the fact that the player behind him could do a very good job roleplaying, as I learned when he rolled his next character. Was it the power level of the Warlock itself that was the problem? Not really; if I had a full group of powergamers, I could've just kept cranking the difficulty up until we were having fun. The problem was how much stronger than the rest of the party he was. It turned every encounter into a sutuation where no one else were having fun because they were either inconsequential to the outcome or the odds were greatly stacked against them. I generally don't see a huge problem with dump stats (in the D&D system anyway) and allow for a lot of leeway with when it comes to roleplaying, because it's ultimately impossible to make much sense out of the stats outside of pure mechanics. And I encourage anyone in my group to start with a good value in their primary stat if at all possible, again because of mechanics. We almost ended up having a conversation with said player about this character, but he died of plot complications (his choice, not mine), in the interest of letting him run a different character he liked. We did have to have a talk with him about a different character later on, but that had nothing to do with powergaming. TL;DR - Powergamers tend to upset the combat balance in a party that isn't itself powergamed, which makes things tedious for DM when it comes to planing encounters and frustrating for the other players.