Question about character building

[Roughishguy86]

How many people actually have been building their characters based entirely off of that particular builds average dpr?

I only ask because it seems like alot of posters would have to be running the same paladdin with PAM and GWF since 5e came out. And how many of your barbarians can possible have a greatsword just for the extra DPR.

It seems to me that alot of people are putting all of there eggs in the highest DPR possible basket?

(edit i can't type)(or spell)

[Zman]

How many people actually have been building their characters based entirely off of that particular builds average dpr?

I only ask because it seems like alot of posters would have to be running the same paladdin with PAM and GWF since 5e came out. And how many of your barbarians can possible have a greatsword just for the extra DPR.

It seems to me that alot of people are putting all of there eggs in the highest DPR possible basket?

(edit i can't type)(or spell)

My favorite builds aren based off of DPR, love Melee Selfbuffing Fighter/Sorcerer. Duel Wielding Fighter/Barbarian. Barbarian/Sorcerer.

A lot of people focus on the more optimal builds, but I feel this is less common IRL. Through, GWM Fighters etc is painfully easy to hit high DPR. One of the reasons I have been working on my 5e Tweaks.

[Theodoxus]

DPR is a really boring stat to build a character around.

[Hrugner]

I tend not to. I do like to know what the averages and tops are in order to avoid making a character that doesn't really function in the game though.

Still PAM+GWM is pretty much amazing for both style and power. I doubt people are going to avoid that combo if it's at all available for their character's execution. A character concept that includes a warrior who uses a two handed weapon but is awful with it compared to his peers is sort of a silly concept. Particularly if he's never going to get better at it avoiding those two feats throughout his progression.

[smcmike]

It's true. No one thought about a barbarian with a greatsword until they checked the math on this forum.

Oh, wait, that's not true at all.

Though it does make me second guess my lower DPR sword and board barb . . . But not for very long.

[JohnStone]

It is my understanding that 5E was designed specifically to avoid this situation. 4E is, i believe, very centered on combat simulation. While 5E seems to be focused on concept. The background feature in particular hints toward this.

Other things to consider include:
* The rather small list of weapons, pretty much 1 of each archetype...want a Spiked chain, that's a whip.
* Bounded Accuracy; even a wizard can use a sword
* Arcane spell failure; doesn't exist...that wizard can wear plate (maybe)
* Skill proficiency; he can even attempt to pick locks.

the system is very "swingy" optimization can't compete with the dice
which is probably my favorite aspect

[JakOfAllTirades]

Good question.

I never build a character just for maximum DPR.

I don't minimize DPR, either.

[Knaight]

Probably not many people. The last character I played was a fighter that specialized in javelin throwing and had the Mobile feat.

[Roughishguy86]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I understand the want to have the highest possible damage for your character if you really just prefer the combat side of the game.

I however make most of my characters based off of a story in my head for how i want the character to act then fill in the rest with the appropriate weapon and combat feats. But my main focus on character building is usually making a character with his own set of values and ideas so that i can play them out with friends.

It just suprised me when i joined here and realized how many highest DPR possible threads there are.

[Sirithhyando]

My favorite characters are those i've started by thinking about a concept and BG.
Then i try to make the character i've imagined with the rules at hand without regard to (much) optimisation.

[mgshamster]

The inspiration for my character builds vary wildly. Sometimes I have a specific character personality I want to play and make a build around that. Sometimes there's a specific character history I want, and I'll make a build around that.

Sometimes there's a specific game mechanic I want to experience, and I'll make a build around that. For example, my first 5e character was a cleric, because I wanted to see how it played out. And I have a warlock right now because I wanted to learn the mechanics. I also have a beast master ranger with con as the dump stat, just to see how it plays out (I've been tracking how much damage he takes and comparing to what would happen if con wasn't a dump stat - so far there's no difference, just hit level 3 last session).

I have a thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?484470-The-Trinket-Game) for building characters around trinkets randomly rolled. That is a fun exercise - roll on the trinket table and come up with an interesting character that was shaped by the trinket. It's not past its expiry date if you want to post there. :)

[NewDM]

Is this the Stormwind fallacy?

I build my character to be both optimal mechanically and role playing wise. This endlessly frustrates me because I have to give up mechanical advantages to gain the role playing ones.

Also the reason everyone picks those things is there aren't that many choices to begin with. If you want a two handed weapon you are stuck with great axe, great sword, great club, or maul unless you want a pole arm.

For feats if you want a hard hitter (mechanically or role playing wise) you can choose Great Weapon Master, and Savage Attacker.

What's the first thing you think of when you think Fighter? A heavily armored warrior with a two handed sword or axe that hits things hard.

What's the first thing you think of when you think Barbarian? An animal skin wearing warrior with a two handed sword or axe that hits things hard.

I blame Conan the barbarian, lord of the rings, and King Arthur for both stereotypes.

[smcmike]

Interestingly, Conan's sword wasn't actually a greatsword, and he often used it in one hand - it's a versatile long sword, I guess. One of the things that I like about 5e is the good support for unarmored barbarians, which is just a fun trope, even if it really doesn't make much sense.

[mgshamster]

I have a range of images that flash through my head when I think of a fighter, but a heavily armored warrior with a two-handed weapon is not one of them. When I envision "heavily armored," the image always has a shield and a sword. I also envision an unarmored and quick warrior with a one-handed sword, a la Inigo Montoya. Those are the first two images I see when I think of a fighter. After that, more images come up - braveheart's unarmored two-handed weapon warrior wielding a claymore, the warrior with a maul swinging it around the battle field, the shield and spear fighter with light armor, the Roman phalanx fighter with his short sword and shield, dwarven hammers and shield, the Elven curved blade with a shield...

You know, almost every time I think of a fighter, the shield comes with it - except when they're lithe. And now that I'm thinking of it some more, archery comes to mind, with the mounted short bow archers of Mongolia or the English longbow men, or the ancient slingers a la David and Goliath.

But with all of that - I never envision the heavily armored warrior with a two handed weapon. It's probably because it's not something I've seen in the movies and books I've watched and read - it's only something I occasionally see in D&D from other players trying to get the best mechanical options. Heck, is there even a heavily armored two-handed weapon user in any of 5e's artwork? I can't even recall it.

Edit: Looking through the PHB - the dwarf with a maul on page 18, the dwarf with a hammer of some sort on page 56 might count, but that looks like a warhammer (versatile), the soldier on page 140 might count, but that looks like a long sword/katana (versatile) combined with a short sword, and that's it.

[tieren]

How many people actually have been building their characters based entirely off of that particular builds average dpr?

I only ask because it seems like alot of posters would have to be running the same paladdin with PAM and GWF since 5e came out. And how many of your barbarians can possible have a greatsword just for the extra DPR.

It seems to me that alot of people are putting all of there eggs in the highest DPR possible basket?

(edit i can't type)(or spell)

I think the issues seems more pronounced because of the sample bias.

The people asking questions on the forum are usually people looking to optimize whatever concept they already had, or they wouldn't be asking a question. The people who don't care about optimization don't post as much so by only looking at posts you don't get a fair sense of the population.

[smcmike]

I have a range of images that flash through my head when I think of a fighter, but a heavily armored warrior with a two-handed weapon is not one of them. When I envision "heavily armored," the image always has a shield and a sword. I also envision an unarmored and quick warrior with a one-handed sword, a la Inigo Montoya. Those are the first two images I see when I think of a fighter. After that, more images come up - braveheart's unarmored two-handed weapon warrior wielding a claymore, the warrior with a maul swinging it around the battle field, the shield and spear fighter with light armor, the Roman phalanx fighter with his short sword and shield, dwarven hammers and shield, the Elven curved blade with a shield...

You know, almost every time I think of a fighter, the shield comes with it - except when they're lithe. And now that I'm thinking of it some more, archery comes to mind, with the mounted short bow archers of Mongolia or the English longbow men, or the ancient slingers a la David and Goliath.

But with all of that - I never envision the heavily armored warrior with a two handed weapon. It's probably because it's not something I've seen in the movies and books I've watched and read - it's only something I occasionally see in D&D from other players trying to get the best mechanical options. Heck, is there even a heavily armored two-handed weapon user in any of 5e's artwork? I can't even recall it.

I generally agree. One example, though - the Mountain from Game of Thrones is depicted wearing plate with a very large sword, and fits with a general villainous trope of the unkillable brute with a huge and terrifying weapon.

Of course, when I picture someone in plate mail on foot with a shield and sword, my first mental images come from Monty Python, which makes them seem weak and bumbling.

[Oramac]

I would be lying if I said I don't consider optimization in my builds, but I also don't focus on it.

I create a concept, then look at the rules to make it a character, then optimize within the confines of both the character concept and the rules.

A great example I come back to over and over is my Tempest Sorcerer. I wanted a Half-Elven sailor who had a ton of tattoos showing his exploits at sea. This led to the idea of having an arcane focus magically tattooed into the characters right hand. From there I decided on making a Storm Sorcerer, since it fit the sailor background really well. From there I started looking at the Sorcerer rules, and it occurred to me that Tempest Cleric also fit the theme, so I looked at that too.

After looking them over and deciding my character really should have more armor than just a robe, I decided to take a level of Tempest Cleric. This led into reading the Channel Divinity feature, which made me take another level of Tempest, and now I'm finishing out with 17 more levels of Storm Sorcerer

And Cade Stormchaser was born.

[kaoskonfety]

For any D&D character the question "how do I do damage round by round" is something I make sure to cover off. But its an after thought, in part because its so hard to make someone who CAN'T do damage in a tolerable way without deliberate sabotage.

I've only rarely attempted to get this value too much higher than my build for everything else I want to do accidentally gets it, generally for character whose "thing" is being a danger (assassins, mildly crazed evokers, Pai Mae rip off monks) or in games that start at higher levels and may/will feature PVP.

[mgshamster]

I generally agree. One example, though - the Mountain from Game of Thrones is depicted wearing plate with a very large sword, and fits with a general villainous trope of the unkillable brute with a huge and terrifying weapon.

Of course, when I picture someone in plate mail on foot with a shield and sword, my first mental images come from Monty Python, which makes them seem weak and bumbling.

I asked a friend about it - he had the imagery of a knight with shield and sword, swinging and bashing. When I pressed him on thinking of a culture warrior who fit that image, he thought that one of the Knights of the Round Table did - maybe Gawain used a two-handed axe. But that was it.

[X3r4ph]

Is this the Stormwind fallacy?
Good times :)

[Nu]

I typically pick a character concept (sword and board defender paladin) or class/race combo or whatever (elven Arcana cleric that uses Green Flame Blade with a short sword), and optimize within that concept. I'm certainly not going to shoot myself in the foot by picking inferior options and/or intentionally lowering my "DPR", but I'm also going to execute the concept I had in mind, even if it's not strictly optimal.

[mgshamster]

I have a player who started the game with a rapier and now uses a dagger. He says the dagger is just so much cooler, because it came with a cool description and has a cool history in the game world itself, while the rapier is just a sword he picked at level 1 for the higher damage.

That dagger has now made the killing blow on three different battles that were near TPK, with that single strike being the deciding factor on whether they live or die. So not only does it have a cool history in game, but now it has a personal history with the group itself.

He still has the rapier, he just chooses not to use it anymore.

So he entered the game with optimization in mind, and as he progressed through the story he's abandoned that idea for the coolness factor.

[Roughishguy86]

I wasn't going for a stormwind fallacy arguement by any means.

Personally i see no problem with optimizing to your hearts content because that in no way infringes on my role in the game. I just never realized how many people sit down and look at the numbers first is all.

I always knew that there were better damage options but thats never really what my characters are about. Im running a barbarian right now that uses the greatclub(worst option DPR wise) However it fits my characters super primitive background so thats what i took at creation. As he levels im sure i will be switching to something a bit more damaging as he learns the ways of the world and such.

I have a hard time picturing an iconic fighter as any one person because fighter is the most versatile character in my opinion. You have your three musketeer style characters as well as your boromir's of the world but you also have your two hander wielding bigger then everyone else bad*** in every movie( however i usually atrribute them more towards a barbarian) And most knightly people i consider pally's.

I tend to err on the side of my characters early levels being kind of like the game tutorial where your character learns his role in combat in the party.

[Pex]

I just care for what's fun for me to play. If doing lots of damage is important to me for a character then that's what I focus on, but I only need subjective feel of doing enough. I don't need statistical analysis to eke out every extra point of damage I can. Currently I'm playing a Devotion Paladin who wields a maul. Rerolling 1s and 2s has been great. It's a lot of fun rerolling a 2 and getting a 6. Add in Smites when appropriate, I deal significant damage and contribute well in the party to defeating the bad guys. I do not have Great Weapon Master feat, and I don't plan on taking it any time soon. The character doesn't need it, and he'll cheer along when the Ranger does use her Sharpshooter feat.

[MBControl]

I think their are a lot of creative builders out there, but we don't hear about them as often. Creative builders think about a character generally on their own, based on a fun idea they had, which generally doesn't require a lot of help from the community to figure out.

On the other hand, for those DPR builder's it seems to be more common to gather the blueprint in Optimization threads, from others that have used these standard builds. These builds require stats, not as much imagination, and somebody has probably already done the math for you.

[MBControl]

I just don't see the point of min/max builds in a game you can't win.

Also I'm weird, and like to build the anti-stereo types whenever possible. I like contradiction in my characters, and using weaknesses to my advantage (if I can).

[RumoCrytuf]

How many people actually have been building their characters based entirely off of that particular builds average dpr?

I only ask because it seems like alot of posters would have to be running the same paladdin with PAM and GWF since 5e came out. And how many of your barbarians can possible have a greatsword just for the extra DPR.

It seems to me that alot of people are putting all of there eggs in the highest DPR possible basket?

(edit i can't type)(or spell)

As a Player, I like to have super strong RP based characters. I put a lot of thought into my traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws. I love RPing with tavernmasters or shady back alley characters. Currently I am running a Sorcerer that has 20 INT (High elf bonus+ skill point at lvl 4, combined with a natural 18 roll), while their CHA, the most important stat for a sorcerer, is only 15. Unfortunately, I'm the only player in my playgroup who likes to do this. Everyone else legitimately optimizes as much as possible...

As a DM, I want to keep my players out of the stereotypical MURDERKILLSTABBYNESSFIREBALLSBOOOOOM!! mentality, so when they want to make conversing checks, I make them RP out their dialogue. Depending on how well/poorly they do, I may or may not give them ADV/DISADV. I also have them roleplay during their travels. If worse comes to worst, I keep them out of combat, where their stats have little if anything to do with the game.

[NewDM]

I wasn't going for a stormwind fallacy arguement by any means.

Personally i see no problem with optimizing to your hearts content because that in no way infringes on my role in the game. I just never realized how many people sit down and look at the numbers first is all.

I always knew that there were better damage options but thats never really what my characters are about. Im running a barbarian right now that uses the greatclub(worst option DPR wise) However it fits my characters super primitive background so thats what i took at creation. As he levels im sure i will be switching to something a bit more damaging as he learns the ways of the world and such.

I have a hard time picturing an iconic fighter as any one person because fighter is the most versatile character in my opinion. You have your three musketeer style characters as well as your boromir's of the world but you also have your two hander wielding bigger then everyone else bad*** in every movie( however i usually atrribute them more towards a barbarian) And most knightly people i consider pally's.

I tend to err on the side of my characters early levels being kind of like the game tutorial where your character learns his role in combat in the party.

Yes. I've played since 2e and I think its just ingrained in me not to make a bad character. Back in 2e if you had a sub-optimal character you were almost assuredly going to die (and your character too :smallamused:). You improved your odds (which were still pretty low) of not dying by optimizing the mess out of your character (Weapon specialization is cross-class, oh well costs twice as much, so what, gotta have it).

I've carried that into more modern editions where a badly made character is survivable but less fun. When the barbarian is running around killing everything before you can even get your first hit in, you know something is wrong, and the other players notice too.


As a Player, I like to have super strong RP based characters. I put a lot of thought into my traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws. I love RPing with tavernmasters or shady back alley characters. Currently I am running a Sorcerer that has 20 INT (High elf bonus+ skill point at lvl 4, combined with a natural 18 roll), while their CHA, the most important stat for a sorcerer, is only 15. Unfortunately, I'm the only player in my playgroup who likes to do this. Everyone else legitimately optimizes as much as possible...

As a DM, I want to keep my players out of the stereotypical MURDERKILLSTABBYNESSFIREBALLSBOOOOOM!! mentality, so when they want to make conversing checks, I make them RP out their dialogue. Depending on how well/poorly they do, I may or may not give them ADV/DISADV. I also have them roleplay during their travels. If worse comes to worst, I keep them out of combat, where their stats have little if anything to do with the game.

Yeah, in my games if you want to make a roll, you better role play out what you do, otherwise your character just stands there playing with imaginary dice. If you want advantage or get disadvantage there's usually an outside reason like 'slippery walls', or 'you hint that you know who the kings mistress is'.