It's not a choice between between story/RP and building for combat
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.
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)
It's not a choice between between story/RP and building for combat
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.
The mechanics are such that whatever you optimize for combat, there is a multitude of non-combat skills that you also enhanced. A warlock with 18 charisma (the main combat stat) is going to have better charisma-based checks automatically, and the player can capitalize on that by choosing proficiencies in things like deception and intimidation (thematic for a warlock), or be more well rounded by choosing other areas. Example, a "min-max" warlock will have 14 dexterity to maximize medium armor AC and gain other benefits. The player can also put proficiency into stealth, or slight of hand.
As for multi-classing, I do think the whole "have a story" thing is overblown. "What story justifies this!?" You don't need one. If you're a fighter and you take two levels of barbarian, in character you're still just a fighter - as one of many examples.
"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."
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.
It's not a choice between between story/RP and building for combat
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.
The mechanics are such that whatever you optimize for combat, there is a multitude of non-combat skills that you also enhanced. A warlock with 18 charisma (the main combat stat) is going to have better charisma-based checks automatically, and the player can capitalize on that by choosing proficiencies in things like deception and intimidation (thematic for a warlock), or be more well rounded by choosing other areas. Example, a "min-max" warlock will have 14 dexterity to maximize medium armor AC and gain other benefits. The player can also put proficiency into stealth, or slight of hand.
As for multi-classing, I do think the whole "have a story" thing is overblown. "What story justifies this!?" You don't need one. If you're a fighter and you take two levels of barbarian, in character you're still just a fighter - as one of many examples.
"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."
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.
The word 'combat' didn't appear once in the post you quoted and responded to, but go off I guess
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
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)
Bingo. Optimizing is fun for a certain kind of player. It's a puzzle to solve. If you ever ask yourself "why are people doing this" in a game (or: "why don't people like this game as much as I do") the answer is almost always that...their idea of fun isn't the same as yours. I highly recommend reading Eight Kinds of Fun. Optimizing scratches two itches: challenge (solving the optimization puzzle and/or doing something that'd normally be impossible) and expression (optimizing an unconventional idea to create a unique character that's still playable.) The fact that your two reasons to min/max basically boil down to "the DM upped the stakes and I don't want to lose" tells me you don't really get the fun angle. That's ok! But even if you don't get it, it's important to understand that it's fun for them.
No, for two reasons. First, optimizing is fun in and of itself, and second, if you adjust the difficulty, you're giving the optimizers exactly what they want. In D&D some creatures are objectively stronger than others. Verisimilitude matters in a role-playing game. If you make the fights harder, that means you're throwing deadlier monsters or larger numbers at the players. They can see this. By defeating stronger monsters, you give them the opportunity to put their optimization into practice and give them the validation they want ("look at what we were able to take down!")
Look at it this way. This kind of thing happens outside of games. Most long-running action series constantly tip the balance of power back and forth between the heroes and villains. A stronger villain shows up, the heroes find a way to get stronger, and the cycle repeats. When it's executed well you're not thinking "that was pointless", you're thinking "wow that bad guy was way stronger than anything they've ever seen and they still found a way to beat it" because you're seeing the escalation in power. You can tell the heroes are objectively stronger than they used to be and could easily beat the previous antagonists now.
Which brings me to the problem: what do you do if one or two people in the party have gone nuts, and the rest are just playing their character?...DMs, what do you do? Do you have a word? Do you give items to the other players to bring them up? Do you target the higher-power player and try to mitigate their advantage?
Optimizers are going to optimize. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Take that away from them and you take away a big part of why they engage with the game. "Having a word" should be your last solution if the player isn't engaging in antagonistic behavior (in which case, yeah, tell them to stop being a jerk.)
It's not the optimizer's fault the others aren't having as much fun because they're being outperformed by a factor of 2 or more. If pointing the finger at the optimizer is valid because they could "choose not to do that", you could just as well point the finger at the non-optimizers because they could just start optimizing. Both sides are just trying to play in the most personally enjoyable way. The fault lies with the game. Some rules and class features simply aren't well-designed or well-balanced. Optimizing should give optimizers an edge, but not one so big it starts to feel like the other players aren't contributing or aren't necessary
So yes, consider evening the playing field by giving the other players rewards that play to their character's strengths. Consider throwing a wrench in the optimized character's strategy every once in a while. But in the long run you might also want to consider nerfing the parts of the game that are creating this huge disparity. The former solutions address this group of characters, but if you don't get at the root cause, you're going to have to deal with this with every new set of characters or players.
If you don't want optimization to ruin the fun, you have to give players a game that's still fun even if you optimize. You can't fault them for playing within the rules you all agreed to and then taking them to their logical conclusion.
This, 100%. I love optimizing my characters because it's fun to challenge myself to make the most effective character I can within a given set of limitations, whether imposed by the DM for campaign reasons or self-imposed for character concept reasons. It's not about "winning" and it's not about "not losing," it's about working out the mechanics that will most accurately fit the concept I have in mind.
I usually enjoy optimizing for support and battlefield control with plenty of out-of-combat utility as well, partly because that's my preferred play style but also because it allows me to be the counterweight of the party, balancing out any lopsided party dynamics and filling gaps, raising the rest of the party up to my level and allowing us to competently take on more difficult and interesting challenges and have a blast doing so.
I'm the only optimizer in my party, so my DM's balance solution is essentially to power up the other party members with better magic items than mine so they can keep up because he knows I build in such a way that I don't need any extra help, while also putting more pressure on my character in combat because he knows I can take it and gladly will. It works out really well between the DM's balance measures and my support measures, so everyone gets a chance to shine and I can optimize to my heart's content and still be challenged.
I'm the only optimizer in my party, so my DM's balance solution is essentially to power up the other party members with better magic items than mine so they can keep up because he knows I build in such a way that I don't need any extra help, while also putting more pressure on my character in combat because he knows I can take it and gladly will. It works out really well between the DM's balance measures and my support measures, so everyone gets a chance to shine and I can optimize to m
Contrivances like this can work to the extent that the play benefits of artificial inputs outweigh the play deficits created by damaged immersion.
It's fine that an optimised character may typically restrict themselves towards the generous personality types that allow less able characters to take all the best loot.
It's more questionable when a company of orcs decides to repeatedly attack your optimised character instead of characters that they could take out more quickly and with better action economy.
Were d&d merely a role-playing game then particular formulations of characters wouldn't matter as each might equally contribute to the drama. It's just when considering performance issues within game strategies that optimisation could present imbalances.
Of course, optimised characters are just as valid as others. They may just have been the ones that got relevant careers advice or that had the equivalent of theatre mums that got them early onto effective and honed progression paths. Either that or they may have just made their own thoughtful or lucky choices.
One thing that these optimised characters might consider is that they might be able to mingle with other characters which, if they hadn't been optimised, would be above their league.
With player agreement, it could be possible to start a character off at a lower level than other characters. As a different contrivance, it may be possible to say that the character with an optimised path gains experience more slowly.
It's not a choice between between story/RP and building for combat
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.
The mechanics are such that whatever you optimize for combat, there is a multitude of non-combat skills that you also enhanced. A warlock with 18 charisma (the main combat stat) is going to have better charisma-based checks automatically, and the player can capitalize on that by choosing proficiencies in things like deception and intimidation (thematic for a warlock), or be more well rounded by choosing other areas. Example, a "min-max" warlock will have 14 dexterity to maximize medium armor AC and gain other benefits. The player can also put proficiency into stealth, or slight of hand.
As for multi-classing, I do think the whole "have a story" thing is overblown. "What story justifies this!?" You don't need one. If you're a fighter and you take two levels of barbarian, in character you're still just a fighter - as one of many examples.
"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."
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.
The word 'combat' didn't appear once in the post you quoted and responded to, but go off I guess
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
"The word 'combat' didn't appear once in the post you quoted and responded to, but go off I guess"
Who cares? That's just a red herring.
"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"
(a) How did you determine that you can't care about both equally? (b) Again, if a player created a character that is *both* optimized *and* compelling story-wise, who cares which the player cared about more when creating the character (if any)? This is just a virtue signaling purity test.
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)
Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know, because you accidentally forgot to answer to questions. Here they are again:
You: "The word 'combat' didn't appear once in the post you quoted and responded to, but go off I guess"
Who cares? That's just a red herring.
"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"
(a) How did you determine that you can't care about both equally? (b) Again, if a player created a character that is *both* optimized *and* compelling story-wise, who cares which the player cared about more when creating the character (if any)? This is just a virtue signaling purity test.
For clarity, "who cares" is a colloquialism for "why does it matter."
Were d&d merely a role-playing game then particular formulations of characters wouldn't matter as each might equally contribute to the drama. It's just when considering performance issues within game strategies that optimisation could present imbalances.
Ultimately it comes down to play styles, yeah. "Optimizers" and "role players" can co-exist quite happily in a campaign that accommodates what they all like about D&D.
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)
Were d&d merely a role-playing game then particular formulations of characters wouldn't matter as each might equally contribute to the drama. It's just when considering performance issues within game strategies that optimisation could present imbalances.
Ultimately it comes down to play styles, yeah. "Optimizers" and "role players" can co-exist quite happily in a campaign that accommodates what they all like about D&D.
The problem is you are arbitrarily dividing people into categories, as if you are either one or the other.
Were d&d merely a role-playing game then particular formulations of characters wouldn't matter as each might equally contribute to the drama. It's just when considering performance issues within game strategies that optimisation could present imbalances.
Ultimately it comes down to play styles, yeah. "Optimizers" and "role players" can co-exist quite happily in a campaign that accommodates what they all like about D&D.
The problem is you are arbitrarily dividing people into categories, as if you are either one or the other.
There’s some handy guidance on page 6 of the DMG going over different aspects of the game. It can be used as a talking point to see where the interests of the players actually are. It can be used by the DM to try and structure stories around those interests. It can also be used by the DM to figure out the types of games they actually enjoy running, the DM is a player too.
“KNOW YOUR PLAYERS The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players at the game table. Whereas their role is to create characters (the protagonists of the campaign), breathe life into them , and help steer the campaign through their characters' actions, your role is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed in the world you've created, and to let their characters do awesome things. Knowing what your players enjoy most about the D&D game helps you create and run adventures that they will enjoy and remember. Once you know which of the following activities each player in your group enjoys the most, you can tailor adventures that satisfy your players' preferences as much as possible, thus keeping them engaged.
ACTING Players who enjoy acting like getting into character and speaking in their characters' voices. Roleplayers at heart, they enjoy social interactions with NPCs, monsters, and their fellow party members. Engage players who like acting by ... • giving them opportunities to develop their characters' personalities and backgrounds. • allowing them to interact regularly with NPCs. • adding roleplaying elements to combat encounters. • incorporating elements from their characters' backgrounds into your adventures.
EXPLORING Players who desire exploration want to experience the wonders that a fantasy world has to offer. They want to know what's around the next corner or hill. They also like to find hidden clues and treasure. Engage players who like exploration by… • dropping clues that hint at things yet to come. • letting them find things when they take the time to explore. • providing rich descriptions of exciting environments, and using interesting maps and props. • giving monsters secrets to uncover or cultural details to learn.
INSTIGATING Player's who like to instigate action are eager to make things happen, even if that means taking perilqus risks. They would rather rush headlong into danger and face the consequences than face boredom. Engage players who like to instigate by… • allowing them to affect their surroundings. • including things in your adventures to tempt them. • letting their actions put the characters in a tight spot. • including encounters with NPCs who are as feisty and unpredictable as they are.
FIGHTING Players who enjoy fantasy combat like kicking the tar out of villains and monsters. They look for any excuse to start a fight, favoring bold action over careful deliberation. Engage players who like fighting by ... • springing unexpected combat encounters on them. • vividly describing the havoc their characters wreak with their attacks and spells. • including combat encounters with large numbers of weak monsters. • interrupting social interaction and exploration with combat.
OPTIMIZING Players who enjoy optimizing their characters' capabilities like to fine-tune their characters for peak combat performance by gaining levels, new features, and magic items. They welcome any opportunity to demonstrate their characters' superiority. Engage players who like optimization by ... • ensuring steady access to new abilities and spells. • using desired magic items as adventure hooks. • including encounters that let their characters shine. • providing quantifiable rewards, like experience points, for noncombat encounters.
PROBLEM SOLVING Players who want to solve problems like to scrutinize NPC motivations, untangle a villain's machinations, solve puzzles, and come up with plans. Engage players who like to solve problems by ... • including encounters that emphasize problem solving. rewarding planning and tactics with in-game benefits. • occasionally allowing a smart plan to grant an easy win for the players. • creating NPCs with complex motives.
STORYTELLING Players who love storytelling want to contribute to a narrative. They like it when their characters are heavily invested in an unfolding story, and they enjoy encounters that are tied to and expand an overarching plot. Engage players who like storytelling by… • using their characters' backgrounds to help shape the stories of the campaign. • making sure an encounter advances the story in some way. • making their characters' actions help steer future events. • giving NPCs ideals, bonds, and flaws that the adverturers can exploit.
It's not a choice between between story/RP and building for combat
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.
There is an assumption here that feats like linguist are taken because they fit the story of the character, while a feat like polearm master is a purely mechanical choice and any attempt to mold it into roleplay is a secondary consideration.
If I make a polearm fighter, wouldn't I want him to be a master at the thing he's supposed to be good at? Weapon expertise is kind of the whole concept of the class. Why couldn't that be the character's story and PAM is the feat, amongst all in the list, that fits that story best?
When I make a barbarian, I want to be a guy that is just brutal on the battlefield. Big hits and wild swings are a key part of who I want to play. So why wouldn't GWM be a legit, story-based pick if it helps the character realize my vision?
Everybody fights in D&D. But some classes and archetypes are built around fighting. That's their profession, their calling. In those cases combat feats are absolutely roleplaying feats, and to suggest otherwise is to imply that roleplaying a scholar or performer or whatever is intrinsically better than roleplaying a warrior - or worse yet, roleplaying a warrior with some kind of incongruous feat like linguist is just objectively better roleplaying.
It's not a choice between between story/RP and building for combat
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.
There is an assumption here that feats like linguist are taken because they fit the story of the character, while a feat like polearm master is a purely mechanical choice and any attempt to mold it into roleplay is a secondary consideration.
If I make a polearm fighter, wouldn't I want him to be a master at the thing he's supposed to be good at? Weapon expertise is kind of the whole concept of the class. Why couldn't that be the character's story and PAM is the feat, amongst all in the list, that fits that story best?
When I make a barbarian, I want to be a guy that is just brutal on the battlefield. Big hits and wild swings are a key part of who I want to play. So why wouldn't GWM be a legit, story-based pic if it helps the character realize my vision?
Everybody fights in D&D. But some classes and archetypes are built around fighting. That's their profession, their calling. In those cases combat feats are absolutely roleplaying feats, and to suggest otherwise is to imply that roleplaying a scholar or performer or whatever is intrinsically better than playing a warrior.
Yeah and in fact going the other direction and purposefully picking choices that are suboptimal by choice is "Max- Min" behavior and can be just as disruptive as optimizing.
In fact I have found it more disruptive overall as sucking at the primary thing your class is suppose to be good at means the other party members have to pick up your slack where as an optimizer can at least carry their own weight.
Were d&d merely a role-playing game then particular formulations of characters wouldn't matter as each might equally contribute to the drama. It's just when considering performance issues within game strategies that optimisation could present imbalances.
Ultimately it comes down to play styles, yeah. "Optimizers" and "role players" can co-exist quite happily in a campaign that accommodates what they all like about D&D.
The problem is you are arbitrarily dividing people into categories, as if you are either one or the other.
Dividing? No. Characterising? Yes. They aren't mutually exclusive and neither is good or bad in and of itself.
The idea of the OP making RP or exploration mishandling as dire as combat is valid. The idea of a DM vetoing a class/feat because it doesn't fit with anything the character has yet shown or had access to is also valid. The table will also show displeasure if they become railroaded against the gaming social contract (I've heard a couple of stories where a DM was trying to tell their story rather than let players freely explore their own)
The group is there as a group and whatever the table wants is what you seek to provide/gain. The problem is when people start making illogical choices that conflict with the table in the pursuit of that other thing.
It's not a choice between between story/RP and building for combat
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.
There is an assumption here that feats like linguist are taken because they fit the story of the character, while a feat like polearm master is a purely mechanical choice and any attempt to mold it into roleplay is a secondary consideration.
If there is, I'm not the one making that assumption.
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)
Were d&d merely a role-playing game then particular formulations of characters wouldn't matter as each might equally contribute to the drama. It's just when considering performance issues within game strategies that optimisation could present imbalances.
Ultimately it comes down to play styles, yeah. "Optimizers" and "role players" can co-exist quite happily in a campaign that accommodates what they all like about D&D.
The problem is you are arbitrarily dividing people into categories, as if you are either one or the other.
Dividing? No. Characterising? Yes. They aren't mutually exclusive and neither is good or bad in and of itself.
The idea of the OP making RP or exploration mishandling as dire as combat is valid. The idea of a DM vetoing a class/feat because it doesn't fit with anything the character has yet shown or had access to is also valid. The table will also show displeasure if they become railroaded against the gaming social contract (I've heard a couple of stories where a DM was trying to tell their story rather than let players freely explore their own)
The group is there as a group and whatever the table wants is what you seek to provide/gain. The problem is when people start making illogical choices that conflict with the table in the pursuit of that other thing.
Or you just let people do what they want?
Like what the heck does the DM care? It's not their character and unless the choice affects game balance they really should not be deciding what's "right" for the players character
"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."
Which one is it when a character decides (in character) to optimize themself?
"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."
Which one is it when a character decides (in character) to optimize themself?
You're quoting my post, but that excerpt is has quotations around it because I was quoting AntonSirius.
If I were the DM and one player is clearly going above and beyond with their build, and everyone else isn't...
I'd give the other players the really powerful magic items. Give the fighter a special flame tongue homebrewed with a rarely resisted damage type instead of fire, now their damage hurts a lot even if they have GWM or not. Give the rogue a dancing sword rapier, now they can potentially sneak attack twice.
give the power gamer lesser items.
That's how I'd go about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
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)
The mechanics are such that whatever you optimize for combat, there is a multitude of non-combat skills that you also enhanced. A warlock with 18 charisma (the main combat stat) is going to have better charisma-based checks automatically, and the player can capitalize on that by choosing proficiencies in things like deception and intimidation (thematic for a warlock), or be more well rounded by choosing other areas. Example, a "min-max" warlock will have 14 dexterity to maximize medium armor AC and gain other benefits. The player can also put proficiency into stealth, or slight of hand.
As for multi-classing, I do think the whole "have a story" thing is overblown. "What story justifies this!?" You don't need one. If you're a fighter and you take two levels of barbarian, in character you're still just a fighter - as one of many examples.
"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."
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.
The word 'combat' didn't appear once in the post you quoted and responded to, but go off I guess
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
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)
This, 100%. I love optimizing my characters because it's fun to challenge myself to make the most effective character I can within a given set of limitations, whether imposed by the DM for campaign reasons or self-imposed for character concept reasons. It's not about "winning" and it's not about "not losing," it's about working out the mechanics that will most accurately fit the concept I have in mind.
I usually enjoy optimizing for support and battlefield control with plenty of out-of-combat utility as well, partly because that's my preferred play style but also because it allows me to be the counterweight of the party, balancing out any lopsided party dynamics and filling gaps, raising the rest of the party up to my level and allowing us to competently take on more difficult and interesting challenges and have a blast doing so.
I'm the only optimizer in my party, so my DM's balance solution is essentially to power up the other party members with better magic items than mine so they can keep up because he knows I build in such a way that I don't need any extra help, while also putting more pressure on my character in combat because he knows I can take it and gladly will. It works out really well between the DM's balance measures and my support measures, so everyone gets a chance to shine and I can optimize to my heart's content and still be challenged.
Contrivances like this can work to the extent that the play benefits of artificial inputs outweigh the play deficits created by damaged immersion.
It's fine that an optimised character may typically restrict themselves towards the generous personality types that allow less able characters to take all the best loot.
It's more questionable when a company of orcs decides to repeatedly attack your optimised character instead of characters that they could take out more quickly and with better action economy.
Were d&d merely a role-playing game then particular formulations of characters wouldn't matter as each might equally contribute to the drama. It's just when considering performance issues within game strategies that optimisation could present imbalances.
Of course, optimised characters are just as valid as others. They may just have been the ones that got relevant careers advice or that had the equivalent of theatre mums that got them early onto effective and honed progression paths. Either that or they may have just made their own thoughtful or lucky choices.
One thing that these optimised characters might consider is that they might be able to mingle with other characters which, if they hadn't been optimised, would be above their league.
With player agreement, it could be possible to start a character off at a lower level than other characters. As a different contrivance, it may be possible to say that the character with an optimised path gains experience more slowly.
"The word 'combat' didn't appear once in the post you quoted and responded to, but go off I guess"
Who cares? That's just a red herring.
"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"
(a) How did you determine that you can't care about both equally? (b) Again, if a player created a character that is *both* optimized *and* compelling story-wise, who cares which the player cared about more when creating the character (if any)? This is just a virtue signaling purity test.
Aaaaaaaaand there it is
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)
Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know, because you accidentally forgot to answer to questions. Here they are again:
You: "The word 'combat' didn't appear once in the post you quoted and responded to, but go off I guess"
Who cares? That's just a red herring.
"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"
(a) How did you determine that you can't care about both equally? (b) Again, if a player created a character that is *both* optimized *and* compelling story-wise, who cares which the player cared about more when creating the character (if any)? This is just a virtue signaling purity test.
For clarity, "who cares" is a colloquialism for "why does it matter."
Ultimately it comes down to play styles, yeah. "Optimizers" and "role players" can co-exist quite happily in a campaign that accommodates what they all like about D&D.
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)
The problem is you are arbitrarily dividing people into categories, as if you are either one or the other.
I consider myself both.
There’s some handy guidance on page 6 of the DMG going over different aspects of the game. It can be used as a talking point to see where the interests of the players actually are. It can be used by the DM to try and structure stories around those interests. It can also be used by the DM to figure out the types of games they actually enjoy running, the DM is a player too.
“KNOW YOUR PLAYERS
The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players at the game table. Whereas their role is to create characters (the protagonists of the campaign), breathe life into them , and help steer the campaign through their characters' actions, your role is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed in the world you've created, and to let their characters do awesome things.
Knowing what your players enjoy most about the D&D game helps you create and run adventures that they will enjoy and remember. Once you know which of the following activities each player in your group enjoys the most, you can tailor adventures that satisfy your players' preferences as much as possible, thus keeping them engaged.
ACTING
Players who enjoy acting like getting into character and speaking in their characters' voices. Roleplayers at heart, they enjoy social interactions with NPCs, monsters, and their fellow party members.
Engage players who like acting by ...
• giving them opportunities to develop their characters' personalities and backgrounds.
• allowing them to interact regularly with NPCs.
• adding roleplaying elements to combat encounters.
• incorporating elements from their characters' backgrounds into your adventures.
EXPLORING
Players who desire exploration want to experience the wonders that a fantasy world has to offer. They want to know what's around the next corner or hill. They also like to find hidden clues and treasure.
Engage players who like exploration by…
• dropping clues that hint at things yet to come.
• letting them find things when they take the time to explore.
• providing rich descriptions of exciting environments, and using interesting maps and props.
• giving monsters secrets to uncover or cultural details to learn.
INSTIGATING
Player's who like to instigate action are eager to make things happen, even if that means taking perilqus risks. They would rather rush headlong into danger and face the consequences than face boredom.
Engage players who like to instigate by…
• allowing them to affect their surroundings.
• including things in your adventures to tempt them.
• letting their actions put the characters in a tight spot.
• including encounters with NPCs who are as feisty and unpredictable as they are.
FIGHTING
Players who enjoy fantasy combat like kicking the tar out of villains and monsters. They look for any excuse to start a fight, favoring bold action over careful deliberation.
Engage players who like fighting by ...
• springing unexpected combat encounters on them.
• vividly describing the havoc their characters wreak with their attacks and spells.
• including combat encounters with large numbers of weak monsters.
• interrupting social interaction and exploration with combat.
OPTIMIZING
Players who enjoy optimizing their characters' capabilities like to fine-tune their characters for peak combat performance by gaining levels, new features, and magic items. They welcome any opportunity to demonstrate their characters' superiority.
Engage players who like optimization by ...
• ensuring steady access to new abilities and spells.
• using desired magic items as adventure hooks.
• including encounters that let their characters shine.
• providing quantifiable rewards, like experience points, for noncombat encounters.
PROBLEM SOLVING
Players who want to solve problems like to scrutinize NPC motivations, untangle a villain's machinations, solve puzzles, and come up with plans.
Engage players who like to solve problems by ...
• including encounters that emphasize problem solving. rewarding planning and tactics with in-game benefits.
• occasionally allowing a smart plan to grant an easy win for the players.
• creating NPCs with complex motives.
STORYTELLING
Players who love storytelling want to contribute to a narrative. They like it when their characters are heavily invested in an unfolding story, and they enjoy encounters that are tied to and expand an overarching plot.
Engage players who like storytelling by…
• using their characters' backgrounds to help shape the stories of the campaign.
• making sure an encounter advances the story in some way.
• making their characters' actions help steer future events.
• giving NPCs ideals, bonds, and flaws that the adverturers can exploit.
There is an assumption here that feats like linguist are taken because they fit the story of the character, while a feat like polearm master is a purely mechanical choice and any attempt to mold it into roleplay is a secondary consideration.
If I make a polearm fighter, wouldn't I want him to be a master at the thing he's supposed to be good at? Weapon expertise is kind of the whole concept of the class. Why couldn't that be the character's story and PAM is the feat, amongst all in the list, that fits that story best?
When I make a barbarian, I want to be a guy that is just brutal on the battlefield. Big hits and wild swings are a key part of who I want to play. So why wouldn't GWM be a legit, story-based pick if it helps the character realize my vision?
Everybody fights in D&D. But some classes and archetypes are built around fighting. That's their profession, their calling. In those cases combat feats are absolutely roleplaying feats, and to suggest otherwise is to imply that roleplaying a scholar or performer or whatever is intrinsically better than roleplaying a warrior - or worse yet, roleplaying a warrior with some kind of incongruous feat like linguist is just objectively better roleplaying.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Yeah and in fact going the other direction and purposefully picking choices that are suboptimal by choice is "Max- Min" behavior and can be just as disruptive as optimizing.
In fact I have found it more disruptive overall as sucking at the primary thing your class is suppose to be good at means the other party members have to pick up your slack where as an optimizer can at least carry their own weight.
Dividing? No. Characterising? Yes. They aren't mutually exclusive and neither is good or bad in and of itself.
The idea of the OP making RP or exploration mishandling as dire as combat is valid. The idea of a DM vetoing a class/feat because it doesn't fit with anything the character has yet shown or had access to is also valid. The table will also show displeasure if they become railroaded against the gaming social contract (I've heard a couple of stories where a DM was trying to tell their story rather than let players freely explore their own)
The group is there as a group and whatever the table wants is what you seek to provide/gain. The problem is when people start making illogical choices that conflict with the table in the pursuit of that other thing.
If there is, I'm not the one making that assumption.
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)
Or you just let people do what they want?
Like what the heck does the DM care? It's not their character and unless the choice affects game balance they really should not be deciding what's "right" for the players character
Which one is it when a character decides (in character) to optimize themself?
You're quoting my post, but that excerpt is has quotations around it because I was quoting AntonSirius.
Hopefully that wasn't too confusing.
If I were the DM and one player is clearly going above and beyond with their build, and everyone else isn't...
I'd give the other players the really powerful magic items. Give the fighter a special flame tongue homebrewed with a rarely resisted damage type instead of fire, now their damage hurts a lot even if they have GWM or not. Give the rogue a dancing sword rapier, now they can potentially sneak attack twice.
give the power gamer lesser items.
That's how I'd go about it.