Worth noting, when you optimize and play tactically that can actually enhance creativity and narration in combat, because you can do more things. I built a beast barbarian with shield master (SM is underrated on a barb IMO, but that's another topic). With high strength and rage giving advantage on strength checks, I shield bashed a few enemies off of a ship. I climbed up a tower and threw one of the archers over the rail. And here's a neat trick...
"Can" and "and" are the operative words. Yours is a versatile build while other builds, whether optimised or not, can be more limited in their potential application.
I think that the player that optimises is also likely to be the player that can also create in other circumstances. Give an optimiser a pregenerated monstrosity of a character and I'd imagine that creative gameplay to play tactically would still be found. The DM wouldn't need to up the challenge so much and a creative player would still play creativity.
I still say it's great for optimisers to optimise because this can be a major part of the fun of the game.
(It can also be valuable [in some circles] to safeguard or even bolster the in-game options of players that haven't been optimised which has also been a topic in this thread).
I think the main point is that the Stormwind Fallacy is indeed a thing and I do think there is a disturbing amount of people who truly believe it.
Nah. I actually think the belief that it's widespread is part of the problem. Calling "Stormwind Fallacy" -- or any short-hand label, really -- is too often just another way to dismiss what someone is actually saying.
I mean, I explicitly said this back on page three of this thread:
That doesn't mean you can't make a choice based on story that results in a strong build, or that you can't optimize a choice but still come up with a cool story around it.
And yet, that didn't seem to stop Yurei from trying to stick that Stormwind Fallacy label on me, did it?
TBF I am just saying in general its an issue as I have had a lot of discussions on here about it and fighting that perception IRL with one of my old school DMs.
He was a big believer that making any choice for the sake of mechanical benefit was "munckining' and did not want us to do it. I had to talk him into feats which was a big ol' deal simply because he felt like they themselves were min/max stuff.
I saw it a lot in the CR discussion groups too as they would fight viciously to defend Ashley for her choices as they were "based on roleplay" where as I think she simply did not understand how bad feats like Savage Attacker are or realize she could wear medium armor.....
It is very much pervasive in the hobby.
My other gripe (which I will agree might be entirely my own gripe) is that we should likely be more upset with people who refuse to learn how to play their damn characters. In my experience they have hidden behind the "I don't like to optimize" wall but in reality they just don't understand the game and will refuse to admit it. I have literally had people tell me its fine if after a year of playing a character the player still does not know how to roll an attack....to me that is just unacceptable as it is a much better example of not respecting the social contract than min/max players do.
Likely this is not the normal experience for everyone but it has happened to me enough I have a bitterness for it.
Worth noting, when you optimize and play tactically that can actually enhance creativity and narration in combat, because you can do more things. I built a beast barbarian with shield master (SM is underrated on a barb IMO, but that's another topic). With high strength and rage giving advantage on strength checks, I shield bashed a few enemies off of a ship. I climbed up a tower and threw one of the archers over the rail. And here's a neat trick...
"Can" and "and" are the operative words. Yours is a versatile build while other builds, whether optimised or not, can be more limited in their potential application.
I think that the player that optimises is also likely to be the player that can also create in other circumstances. Give an optimiser a pregenerated monstrosity of a character and I'd imagine that creative gameplay to play tactically would still be found. The DM wouldn't need to up the challenge so much and a creative player would still play creativity.
I still say it's great for optimisers to optimise because this can be a major part of the fun of the game.
(It can also be valuable [in some circles] to safeguard or even bolster the in-game options of players that haven't been optimised which has also been a topic in this thread).
This is a good point....optimizers will likely find the strength in any build and make it viable or at least find a way to contribute in a major way. I think that players that understand the game to a degree that they can actually challenge the DM is another good point....the DM might appreciate it to.
Worth noting, when you optimize and play tactically that can actually enhance creativity and narration in combat, because you can do more things. I built a beast barbarian with shield master (SM is underrated on a barb IMO, but that's another topic). With high strength and rage giving advantage on strength checks, I shield bashed a few enemies off of a ship. I climbed up a tower and threw one of the archers over the rail. And here's a neat trick...
"Can" and "and" are the operative words. Yours is a versatile build while other builds, whether optimised or not, can be more limited in their potential application.
I think that the player that optimises is also likely to be the player that can also create in other circumstances. Give an optimiser a pregenerated monstrosity of a character and I'd imagine that creative gameplay to play tactically would still be found. The DM wouldn't need to up the challenge so much and a creative player would still play creativity.
I still say it's great for optimisers to optimise because this can be a major part of the fun of the game.
(It can also be valuable [in some circles] to safeguard or even bolster the in-game options of players that haven't been optimised which has also been a topic in this thread).
By "can" I just meant with creativity. I mean, if you take the actor feat and don't use it or don't narrate it, it's the opposite side of the coin.
Mostly I'm referring to feats that let you *do* more things. But we can even look at something like the lucky feat, which is purely a game mechanic. You roll a 1 and miss an attack. Reroll with Lucky. "Grahm wildly swings his greatword, flailing wildly off the mark. Luckily the troll was startled by the attack, nearly slipping on the wet marble floor and placing himself right in the path of the blade."
Grahm has a strong belief he is favored by the gods, because these strange, lucky happenings occur to him on a regular basis.
Since AntonSirius is acting so innocent. On pages 2 & 3
Me: "It's not a choice between between story/RP and building for combat."
AntonSirius: "At certain points, you absolutely have to make a choice on something -- a feat, a subclass, whatever -- for either story/RP reasons or because it seems "optimal". That doesn't mean you can't make a choice based on story that results in a strong build, or that you can't optimize a choice but still come up with a cool story around it. But one of those two was the driving motive, and the other came after the fact." (emphasis in bold is mine)
Me: "False dichotomy. What if I want a character that is cool and interesting *and* powerful in combat? And more importantly, if someone built a character that covers both - why does it matter what the motivation is of the player? That's literally just a purity test."
AntonSirius: "And no, that's not a false dichotomy. You made a choice, and one factor weighed more heavily than the other in making that decision -- whether you want to admit it to yourself or not"
His false dichotomy aside, even if someone makes an optimized character that also has compelling story, AntonSirius is actually making a thing about the *motivation* of the player.
I think the main point is that the Stormwind Fallacy is indeed a thing and I do think there is a disturbing amount of people who truly believe it.
Nah. I actually think the belief that it's widespread is part of the problem. Calling "Stormwind Fallacy" -- or any short-hand label, really -- is too often just another way to dismiss what someone is actually saying.
I mean, I explicitly said this back on page three of this thread:
That doesn't mean you can't make a choice based on story that results in a strong build, or that you can't optimize a choice but still come up with a cool story around it.
And yet, that didn't seem to stop Yurei from trying to stick that Stormwind Fallacy label on me, did it?
TBF I am just saying in general its an issue as I have had a lot of discussions on here about it and fighting that perception IRL with one of my old school DMs.
He was a big believer that making any choice for the sake of mechanical benefit was "munckining' and did not want us to do it. I had to talk him into feats which was a big ol' deal simply because he felt like they themselves were min/max stuff.
I saw it a lot in the CR discussion groups too as they would fight viciously to defend Ashley for her choices as they were "based on roleplay" where as I think she simply did not understand how bad feats like Savage Attacker are or realize she could wear medium armor.....
It is very much pervasive in the hobby.
My other gripe (which I will agree might be entirely my own gripe) is that we should likely be more upset with people who refuse to learn how to play their damn characters. In my experience they have hidden behind the "I don't like to optimize" wall but in reality they just don't understand the game and will refuse to admit it. I have literally had people tell me its fine if after a year of playing a character the player still does not know how to roll an attack....to me that is just unacceptable as it is a much better example of not respecting the social contract than min/max players do.
Likely this is not the normal experience for everyone but it has happened to me enough I have a bitterness for it.
Well, I think you can put terms like "munchkining" in the same bucket, really.
As for CR forums... I'm gonna guess there was a lot more fueling those fights than just rules and strategy discussions.
If you've had first-hand experience with people genuinely believing that "optimizing" and "role playing" are mutually exclusive, I find that kind of sad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think the main point is that the Stormwind Fallacy is indeed a thing and I do think there is a disturbing amount of people who truly believe it.
Nah. I actually think the belief that it's widespread is part of the problem. Calling "Stormwind Fallacy" -- or any short-hand label, really -- is too often just another way to dismiss what someone is actually saying.
I mean, I explicitly said this back on page three of this thread:
That doesn't mean you can't make a choice based on story that results in a strong build, or that you can't optimize a choice but still come up with a cool story around it.
And yet, that didn't seem to stop Yurei from trying to stick that Stormwind Fallacy label on me, did it?
TBF I am just saying in general its an issue as I have had a lot of discussions on here about it and fighting that perception IRL with one of my old school DMs.
He was a big believer that making any choice for the sake of mechanical benefit was "munckining' and did not want us to do it. I had to talk him into feats which was a big ol' deal simply because he felt like they themselves were min/max stuff.
I saw it a lot in the CR discussion groups too as they would fight viciously to defend Ashley for her choices as they were "based on roleplay" where as I think she simply did not understand how bad feats like Savage Attacker are or realize she could wear medium armor.....
It is very much pervasive in the hobby.
My other gripe (which I will agree might be entirely my own gripe) is that we should likely be more upset with people who refuse to learn how to play their damn characters. In my experience they have hidden behind the "I don't like to optimize" wall but in reality they just don't understand the game and will refuse to admit it. I have literally had people tell me its fine if after a year of playing a character the player still does not know how to roll an attack....to me that is just unacceptable as it is a much better example of not respecting the social contract than min/max players do.
Likely this is not the normal experience for everyone but it has happened to me enough I have a bitterness for it.
Well, I think you can put terms like "munchkining" in the same bucket, really.
As for CR forums... I'm gonna guess there was a lot more fueling those fights than just rules and strategy discussions.
If you've had first-hand experience with people genuinely believing that "optimizing" and "role playing" are mutually exclusive, I find that kind of sad.
I've found optimus to have gone out of their way to be positive!
The Character will be good in a narrow role, but helpless outside that role.
Just make sure there are situations where their maximized strengths aren’t useful, and their weaknesses are, so other p,Ayers get to shine.
There’s nothing that says short or long rests have to be uninterrupted.
As for character optimizing, if you were an adventurer that crawled thru dungeons fighting all kinds of horrible things…. Wouldn’t you be as good at what you do as you could be?
Not so narrow. When you elevate certain stats that optimize for combat, you're also elevating skill checks that relate to to those stats, for example.
…so devise encounters that rely on other things. Everything can’t be maxed.
Keep in mind that an adventuring party is really a freelance special forces team. If everybody is optimized to fill their primary role, and one backup, that’s kind of how it should be. Under those circumstances, why wouldn’t you be as good as possible at your job?
ETA: Reading the rest of the thread since my last post, this turns out to be more of a player problem than a character problem. You can’t fix real world problems in game.
As a player, I tend not to like dumping stats if it's just to get a +1 ability buff for a two point cost. As a DM I love it, as long as the characters play into the roles. But simple min-maxing is different from optimisation for the sake of gaining (o)p synergies and choice power buffs. It's these choices that can bring potential imbalances, beyond simple variation, within the party.
The Character will be good in a narrow role, but helpless outside that role.
Just make sure there are situations where their maximized strengths aren’t useful, and their weaknesses are, so other p,Ayers get to shine.
There’s nothing that says short or long rests have to be uninterrupted.
As for character optimizing, if you were an adventurer that crawled thru dungeons fighting all kinds of horrible things…. Wouldn’t you be as good at what you do as you could be?
Not so narrow. When you elevate certain stats that optimize for combat, you're also elevating skill checks that relate to to those stats, for example.
…so devise encounters that rely on other things. Everything can’t be maxed.
Keep in mind that an adventuring party is really a freelance special forces team. If everybody is optimized to fill their primary role, and one backup, that’s kind of how it should be. Under those circumstances, why wouldn’t you be as good as possible at your job?
ETA: Reading the rest of the thread since my last post, this turns out to be more of a player problem than a character problem. You can’t fix real world problems in game.
I don't think we are disagreeing here, and I think I missed your point. Correct, you cannot optimize to be good at everything. Some people are under the impression that if you optimize for combat, that will be *all* you are good at and you can contribute nothing else.
The 5E mechanics are such that skills (nature, persuasion, stealth, etc.) are completely separate resource pools that are affected by (but not only by) ability scores. So, for example if you're a Wis-based character you can also be really good at wisdom-based skills. You can also be well rounded and pick skills that are tied to other ability scores, and get (for example) a +2 ability score bonus to a skill instead of +4. You can choose your skills based on which most benefit from your ability scores, or for story reasons, or to be well-rounded, or to fill a role that is lacking in your party, or for any reason. Either way most of them do not affect combat. There are a couple exceptions. A fighter will likely want athletics, and a rogue will want acrobatics and stealth for combat reasons.
There is NO combination of combat optimization choices that will make it so you "suck" outside of combat. You can give me literally any optimized build and just let me choose the skill proficiencies. I will be able to easily create effective out-of-combat roles for that character.
The Character will be good in a narrow role, but helpless outside that role.
Just make sure there are situations where their maximized strengths aren’t useful, and their weaknesses are, so other p,Ayers get to shine.
There’s nothing that says short or long rests have to be uninterrupted.
As for character optimizing, if you were an adventurer that crawled thru dungeons fighting all kinds of horrible things…. Wouldn’t you be as good at what you do as you could be?
Not so narrow. When you elevate certain stats that optimize for combat, you're also elevating skill checks that relate to to those stats, for example.
…so devise encounters that rely on other things. Everything can’t be maxed.
Keep in mind that an adventuring party is really a freelance special forces team. If everybody is optimized to fill their primary role, and one backup, that’s kind of how it should be. Under those circumstances, why wouldn’t you be as good as possible at your job?
ETA: Reading the rest of the thread since my last post, this turns out to be more of a player problem than a character problem. You can’t fix real world problems in game.
I don't think we are disagreeing here, and I think I missed your point. Correct, you cannot optimize to be good at everything. Some people are under the impression that if you optimize for combat, that will be *all* you are good at and you can contribute nothing else.
The 5E mechanics are such that skills (nature, persuasion, stealth, etc.) are completely separate resource pools that are affected by (but not only by) ability scores. So, for example if you're a Wis-based character you can also be really good at wisdom-based skills. You can also be well rounded and pick skills that are tied to other ability scores, and get (for example) a +2 ability score bonus to a skill instead of +4. You can choose your skills based on which most benefit from your ability scores, or for story reasons, or to be well-rounded, or to fill a role that is lacking in your party, or for any reason. Either way most of them do not affect combat. There are a couple exceptions. A fighter will likely want athletics, and a rogue will want acrobatics and stealth for combat reasons.
There is NO combination of combat optimization choices that will make it so you "suck" outside of combat. You can give me literally any optimized build and just let me choose the skill proficiencies. I will be able to easily create effective out-of-combat roles for that character.
True to a certain extent, but things like the Custom Lineage option, can give you darkvision and a level one feat, but zero skill proficiencies, if you go that route. So in that instance, the character may be better at combat, but have very few useful skills. Also, there are a lot of INT, DEX, CHA skills, but only one STR based skill and no CON based skills, so depending on your class choice, you will be better or worse in ability checks. A fighter or barbarian with custom lineage and only proficiency in STR/CON may very well end up with fewer skills that he/she is good at, than other characters. Given that scenario, a fighter or barbarian could easily end up less useful outside of combat.
So while I agree with you, for the most part. I can also see how a player could end up feeling hobbled in non-combat situations. Just the ability score basis for skill checks will help some classes over others. My paladin was always going to be decent in CHA skill checks. My barbarian less so. Betting nobody is surprised by that! :)
The Character will be good in a narrow role, but helpless outside that role.
Just make sure there are situations where their maximized strengths aren’t useful, and their weaknesses are, so other p,Ayers get to shine.
There’s nothing that says short or long rests have to be uninterrupted.
As for character optimizing, if you were an adventurer that crawled thru dungeons fighting all kinds of horrible things…. Wouldn’t you be as good at what you do as you could be?
Not so narrow. When you elevate certain stats that optimize for combat, you're also elevating skill checks that relate to to those stats, for example.
…so devise encounters that rely on other things. Everything can’t be maxed.
Keep in mind that an adventuring party is really a freelance special forces team. If everybody is optimized to fill their primary role, and one backup, that’s kind of how it should be. Under those circumstances, why wouldn’t you be as good as possible at your job?
ETA: Reading the rest of the thread since my last post, this turns out to be more of a player problem than a character problem. You can’t fix real world problems in game.
I don't think we are disagreeing here, and I think I missed your point. Correct, you cannot optimize to be good at everything. Some people are under the impression that if you optimize for combat, that will be *all* you are good at and you can contribute nothing else.
The 5E mechanics are such that skills (nature, persuasion, stealth, etc.) are completely separate resource pools that are affected by (but not only by) ability scores. So, for example if you're a Wis-based character you can also be really good at wisdom-based skills. You can also be well rounded and pick skills that are tied to other ability scores, and get (for example) a +2 ability score bonus to a skill instead of +4. You can choose your skills based on which most benefit from your ability scores, or for story reasons, or to be well-rounded, or to fill a role that is lacking in your party, or for any reason. Either way most of them do not affect combat. There are a couple exceptions. A fighter will likely want athletics, and a rogue will want acrobatics and stealth for combat reasons.
There is NO combination of combat optimization choices that will make it so you "suck" outside of combat. You can give me literally any optimized build and just let me choose the skill proficiencies. I will be able to easily create effective out-of-combat roles for that character.
True to a certain extent, but things like the Custom Lineage option, can give you darkvision and a level one feat, but zero skill proficiencies, if you go that route. So in that instance, the character may be better at combat, but have very few useful skills. Also, there are a lot of INT, DEX, CHA skills, but only one STR based skill and no CON based skills, so depending on your class choice, you will be better or worse in ability checks. A fighter or barbarian with custom lineage and only proficiency in STR/CON may very well end up with fewer skills that he/she is good at, than other characters. Given that scenario, a fighter or barbarian could easily end up less useful outside of combat.
So while I agree with you, for the most part. I can also see how a player could end up feeling hobbled in non-combat situations. Just the ability score basis for skill checks will help some classes over others. My paladin was always going to be decent in CHA skill checks. My barbarian less so. Betting nobody is surprised by that! :)
TBF you could pick a skill feat but I get your point.
I think reasonable people can agree the overwhelming lion share of complaint threads are directed at optimizers or so-called “min-maxers” The OP of THIS thread is an example, and it’s not just DND Beyond, but all online D&D forums.
I can’t even remember if I’ve ever seen a thread complaining about players making underpowered builds. When there’s a party imbalance the default is always “What should I do about those pesky min-maxers”
Truth. I think a player would have to work at it to build a true garbage character in 5e. Or play them very badly.
I think I would just dump CON and my main stat.
Fighter with 8 CON and 10 DEX and 12 STR would be a real shit character.
I would consider making a Fighter with 8 Con 'working at it.'
I think reasonable people can agree the overwhelming lion share of complaint threads are directed at optimizers or so-called “min-maxers” The OP of THIS thread is an example, and it’s not just DND Beyond, but all online D&D forums.
I can’t even remember if I’ve ever seen a thread complaining about players making underpowered builds. When there’s a party imbalance the default is always “What should I do about those pesky min-maxers”
Truth. I think a player would have to work at it to build a true garbage character in 5e. Or play them very badly.
I think I would just dump CON and my main stat.
Fighter with 8 CON and 10 DEX and 12 STR would be a real shit character.
I would consider making a Fighter with 8 Con 'working at it.'
Fair!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Can" and "and" are the operative words. Yours is a versatile build while other builds, whether optimised or not, can be more limited in their potential application.
I think that the player that optimises is also likely to be the player that can also create in other circumstances. Give an optimiser a pregenerated monstrosity of a character and I'd imagine that creative gameplay to play tactically would still be found. The DM wouldn't need to up the challenge so much and a creative player would still play creativity.
I still say it's great for optimisers to optimise because this can be a major part of the fun of the game.
(It can also be valuable [in some circles] to safeguard or even bolster the in-game options of players that haven't been optimised which has also been a topic in this thread).
TBF I am just saying in general its an issue as I have had a lot of discussions on here about it and fighting that perception IRL with one of my old school DMs.
He was a big believer that making any choice for the sake of mechanical benefit was "munckining' and did not want us to do it.
I had to talk him into feats which was a big ol' deal simply because he felt like they themselves were min/max stuff.
I saw it a lot in the CR discussion groups too as they would fight viciously to defend Ashley for her choices as they were "based on roleplay" where as I think she simply did not understand how bad feats like Savage Attacker are or realize she could wear medium armor.....
It is very much pervasive in the hobby.
My other gripe (which I will agree might be entirely my own gripe) is that we should likely be more upset with people who refuse to learn how to play their damn characters. In my experience they have hidden behind the "I don't like to optimize" wall but in reality they just don't understand the game and will refuse to admit it. I have literally had people tell me its fine if after a year of playing a character the player still does not know how to roll an attack....to me that is just unacceptable as it is a much better example of not respecting the social contract than min/max players do.
Likely this is not the normal experience for everyone but it has happened to me enough I have a bitterness for it.
This is a good point....optimizers will likely find the strength in any build and make it viable or at least find a way to contribute in a major way. I think that players that understand the game to a degree that they can actually challenge the DM is another good point....the DM might appreciate it to.
By "can" I just meant with creativity. I mean, if you take the actor feat and don't use it or don't narrate it, it's the opposite side of the coin.
Mostly I'm referring to feats that let you *do* more things. But we can even look at something like the lucky feat, which is purely a game mechanic. You roll a 1 and miss an attack. Reroll with Lucky. "Grahm wildly swings his greatword, flailing wildly off the mark. Luckily the troll was startled by the attack, nearly slipping on the wet marble floor and placing himself right in the path of the blade."
Grahm has a strong belief he is favored by the gods, because these strange, lucky happenings occur to him on a regular basis.
Since AntonSirius is acting so innocent. On pages 2 & 3
Me: "It's not a choice between between story/RP and building for combat."
AntonSirius: "At certain points, you absolutely have to make a choice on something -- a feat, a subclass, whatever -- for either story/RP reasons or because it seems "optimal". That doesn't mean you can't make a choice based on story that results in a strong build, or that you can't optimize a choice but still come up with a cool story around it. But one of those two was the driving motive, and the other came after the fact." (emphasis in bold is mine)
Me: "False dichotomy. What if I want a character that is cool and interesting *and* powerful in combat? And more importantly, if someone built a character that covers both - why does it matter what the motivation is of the player? That's literally just a purity test."
AntonSirius: "And no, that's not a false dichotomy. You made a choice, and one factor weighed more heavily than the other in making that decision -- whether you want to admit it to yourself or not"
His false dichotomy aside, even if someone makes an optimized character that also has compelling story, AntonSirius is actually making a thing about the *motivation* of the player.
Well, I think you can put terms like "munchkining" in the same bucket, really.
As for CR forums... I'm gonna guess there was a lot more fueling those fights than just rules and strategy discussions.
If you've had first-hand experience with people genuinely believing that "optimizing" and "role playing" are mutually exclusive, I find that kind of sad.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I've found optimus to have gone out of their way to be positive!
What did you do?
…so devise encounters that rely on other things. Everything can’t be maxed.
Keep in mind that an adventuring party is really a freelance special forces team. If everybody is optimized to fill their primary role, and one backup, that’s kind of how it should be. Under those circumstances, why wouldn’t you be as good as possible at your job?
ETA: Reading the rest of the thread since my last post, this turns out to be more of a player problem than a character problem. You can’t fix real world problems in game.
As a player, I tend not to like dumping stats if it's just to get a +1 ability buff for a two point cost.
As a DM I love it, as long as the characters play into the roles.
But simple min-maxing is different from optimisation for the sake of gaining (o)p synergies and choice power buffs.
It's these choices that can bring potential imbalances, beyond simple variation, within the party.
I don't think we are disagreeing here, and I think I missed your point. Correct, you cannot optimize to be good at everything. Some people are under the impression that if you optimize for combat, that will be *all* you are good at and you can contribute nothing else.
The 5E mechanics are such that skills (nature, persuasion, stealth, etc.) are completely separate resource pools that are affected by (but not only by) ability scores. So, for example if you're a Wis-based character you can also be really good at wisdom-based skills. You can also be well rounded and pick skills that are tied to other ability scores, and get (for example) a +2 ability score bonus to a skill instead of +4. You can choose your skills based on which most benefit from your ability scores, or for story reasons, or to be well-rounded, or to fill a role that is lacking in your party, or for any reason. Either way most of them do not affect combat. There are a couple exceptions. A fighter will likely want athletics, and a rogue will want acrobatics and stealth for combat reasons.
There is NO combination of combat optimization choices that will make it so you "suck" outside of combat. You can give me literally any optimized build and just let me choose the skill proficiencies. I will be able to easily create effective out-of-combat roles for that character.
True to a certain extent, but things like the Custom Lineage option, can give you darkvision and a level one feat, but zero skill proficiencies, if you go that route. So in that instance, the character may be better at combat, but have very few useful skills. Also, there are a lot of INT, DEX, CHA skills, but only one STR based skill and no CON based skills, so depending on your class choice, you will be better or worse in ability checks. A fighter or barbarian with custom lineage and only proficiency in STR/CON may very well end up with fewer skills that he/she is good at, than other characters. Given that scenario, a fighter or barbarian could easily end up less useful outside of combat.
So while I agree with you, for the most part. I can also see how a player could end up feeling hobbled in non-combat situations. Just the ability score basis for skill checks will help some classes over others. My paladin was always going to be decent in CHA skill checks. My barbarian less so. Betting nobody is surprised by that! :)
TBF you could pick a skill feat but I get your point.
I would consider making a Fighter with 8 Con 'working at it.'
Fair!