"Great Warrior" Teammate who doesn't want to optimize?

[Gurifu]

So here's the situation. New D&D game starting soon. Characters being made. 3 plus DM.

My friend wants to be our great warrior-type. The other players like the idea. The DM likes it. Everybody's on the same page.

I'm a great ninja-type. My other teammate is a great loremaster-type. This should be great. Three distinct mutually supportive roles in which each player will have an area where they get to be the star of the show.

Only problem is, this particular friend gets frustrated when anyone suggests ways to optimize... but I've played with him before, and I know he'll get frustrated if his character isn't able to do awesome things, especially when other characters can.

I can sympathize with not wanting to optimize. Optimization beyond the basic "put your high stats where the PHB suggests" level is limiting, metagame-y, and a sort of semi-mathematical puzzle that some people love but others find inherently stressful. Letting someone else make your character for you and tell you how to play it can take away most of the agency that makes building and playing a character rewarding.

This is complicated by the fact that my character is going to have an above-level impact on combat because I'm moderately optimized and I'm good at using the tools at my disposal. So at this point, if my friend doesn't develop a clear concept of what he wants to do and how to mechanically shine at that, I'm going to outshine him during the scenes where I want him to be the star of the show and my character to be at most the 'best supporting actor'.

Any suggestions? I'm kind of at a loss.

[smcmike]

It really depends on the level of deoptimization you are talking about here. If your friend makes a barbarian or a fighter, puts his stats in the right places, and chooses the normal equipment for those classes, he will do just fine, and you should chill out. If his opposition to optimization means randomly assigning stats or actively trying to make a character that doesn't work well, that's another story.

[Easy_Lee]

Your friend could build a Half-orc champion or battlemaster fighter and take the feat Great Weapon Master. You really don't need to optimize a fighter beyond that one feat, and he'll have plenty more to choose.

If he wants something unusual, a Dragonborn Purple Dragon Knight with Inspiring Leader can heal allies, grant temporary HP to allies, and play party face with an exceptionally high Persuasion check. This build can still function as an effective fighter with any fighting style choice.

[FreddyNoNose]

Some players are there to play character rather than min-max a character. He might not be a fit for your game.

[Unoriginal]

So here's the situation. New D&D game starting soon. Characters being made. 3 plus DM.

My friend wants to be our great warrior-type. The other players like the idea. The DM likes it. Everybody's on the same page.

I'm a great ninja-type. My other teammate is a great loremaster-type. This should be great. Three distinct mutually supportive roles in which each player will have an area where they get to be the star of the show.

Only problem is, this particular friend gets frustrated when anyone suggests ways to optimize... but I've played with him before, and I know he'll get frustrated if his character isn't able to do awesome things, especially when other characters can.

I can sympathize with not wanting to optimize. Optimization beyond the basic "put your high stats where the PHB suggests" level is limiting, metagame-y, and a sort of semi-mathematical puzzle that some people love but others find inherently stressful. Letting someone else make your character for you and tell you how to play it can take away most of the agency that makes building and playing a character rewarding.

This is complicated by the fact that my character is going to have an above-level impact on combat because I'm moderately optimized and I'm good at using the tools at my disposal. So at this point, if my friend doesn't develop a clear concept of what he wants to do and how to mechanically shine at that, I'm going to outshine him during the scenes where I want him to be the star of the show and my character to be at most the 'best supporting actor'.

Any suggestions? I'm kind of at a loss.

Have you considered the fact that in 5e non-optimized characters can do just fine in their roles and that they're not necessarily outshined by others? Optimization is fairly limited in 5e, for good reasons.


Also, no offense meant, but you're assuming that *your* character is going to do great while his won't, which is kind of mean you're expecting him to fail at using the tools at his disposal.

Now, if you want help to help your friend, I'd be happy to be useful, but you need to give us more info:

-At which level do you start?
-What can you tell us about the stats of the other characters?
-What do your friend like/want to play?

[Citan]

So here's the situation. New D&D game starting soon. Characters being made. 3 plus DM.

My friend wants to be our great warrior-type. The other players like the idea. The DM likes it. Everybody's on the same page.

I'm a great ninja-type. My other teammate is a great loremaster-type. This should be great. Three distinct mutually supportive roles in which each player will have an area where they get to be the star of the show.

Only problem is, this particular friend gets frustrated when anyone suggests ways to optimize... but I've played with him before, and I know he'll get frustrated if his character isn't able to do awesome things, especially when other characters can.

I can sympathize with not wanting to optimize. Optimization beyond the basic "put your high stats where the PHB suggests" level is limiting, metagame-y, and a sort of semi-mathematical puzzle that some people love but others find inherently stressful. Letting someone else make your character for you and tell you how to play it can take away most of the agency that makes building and playing a character rewarding.

This is complicated by the fact that my character is going to have an above-level impact on combat because I'm moderately optimized and I'm good at using the tools at my disposal. So at this point, if my friend doesn't develop a clear concept of what he wants to do and how to mechanically shine at that, I'm going to outshine him during the scenes where I want him to be the star of the show and my character to be at most the 'best supporting actor'.

Any suggestions? I'm kind of at a loss.
I don't think it's that much of a problem.
Advise him to pick a Totem Barbarian with STR primary, CON secondary, DEX tertiary (14 at least), use Javelin and shield, pick Bear totem at level 3. Everything beyond that is just gravvy, but just that will be enough to make him shine as long as he is not *too* reckless.

Second choice would be plain old Thief Rogue with Sharpshooter feat, riling up from range.

Third choice would be good ol' Champion Fighter, stacking brainless feats (Mobile, Sentinel, Resilient, Mage Slayer).

Those three are easy to play, with very little bookkeeping (basically you just have to keep in mind what permanent features you have, and a small Rage counter for Barb only), and have many chances to shine...
- Barbarian would save party several times by interposing himself.
- Champion would stand ground and keep enemies prone or concentration-broke around him.
- Rogue would save the day by disarming that dangerous trap, convincing people to let you through without harm or headshoot that big evil guy...

[Mikal]

Only problem is, this particular friend gets frustrated when anyone suggests ways to optimize... but I've played with him before, and I know he'll get frustrated if his character isn't able to do awesome things, especially when other characters can.


Well.. that's kind of mutually exclusive. If you want to play a game and be great at it... you need to know how to play said game. In D&D, if you want to do awesome things and actually have them be because of what you created instead of DM fiat... you need to optimize.

As such, I think someone needs to sit him down and let him know that fact. While 5e doesn't require as much optimization, if he actually wants to have that feeling of awesomeness, and have it actually mean something rather than just being handed to him by the DM... he'll need to optimize, and listen to his friends.


Some players are there to play character rather than min-max a character. He might not be a fit for your game.

It sounds like this player wants to play a character that can do awesome in-game feats. That requires optimization.



Also, no offense meant, but you're assuming that *your* character is going to do great while his won't, which is kind of mean you're expecting him to fail at using the tools at his disposal.

Seems like a fair assumption, if the other player doesn't optimize well and won't take advice. If he did either of those, then why would the OP have posted?

[tieren]

Instead of telling him how to make an optimized warrior have you tried asking him what he wants to play? I mean does he picture his warrior as a knight in shining armor, a bare chested barbarian, or Erol Flynn? All of those are legitimate choices, then guide him to a couple of key points to bring his vision to fruition.

[FreddyNoNose]

Instead of telling him how to make an optimized warrior have you tried asking him what he wants to play? I mean does he picture his warrior as a knight in shining armor, a bare chested barbarian, or Erol Flynn? All of those are legitimate choices, then guide him to a couple of key points to bring his vision to fruition.

Simply put. What is your character trying to do?

[rbstr]

What a load of nonsense. Plenty of fantastic crap is doable by "non-optimal" characters.

Plus what level of optimization are we actually talking about? OP is certainly optimally vague about the choices this other player is making.
Like if this guy is a great weapon Barbarian: He might want to use the sub-optimal Great Sword instead of a Great Axe. Plenty of people find that simply scandalous to miss out on that bit of brutal critical damage. But its also not an actual big deal.

Lot different than a Fighter with a 12 in strength and dexterity and 18 wisdom or something.

[Naanomi]

Unless the character is intentionally making poor decisions; this matters less in 5e than in many other gaming systems

[FreddyNoNose]

Unless the character is intentionally making poor decisions; this matters less in 5e than in many other gaming systems

what if he wants to make poor decisions on his build?

[smcmike]

what if he wants to make poor decisions on his build?

Then he isn't trying to make a "Great Warrior."

[FreddyNoNose]

Then he isn't trying to make a "Great Warrior."

His version or yours?

[smcmike]

His version or yours?

Anyone's version

I'm not saying he has to make a great warrior if he would prefer to make a mediocre warrior. Mediocre warriors can be tons of fun! There can be something special about a character that just sort of plugs away, despite not being spectacular at anything in particular.

If you do want your character spectacular are something, though, it's probably a good idea to try to use the rules to make that happen.

The good news is that this is very easy to do in 5e. As many people have pointed out, it takes active effort to make a bad character in this edition. If you dump your class's core stats, you are optimizing for badness.

[Arkhios]

There's more than "one true" way to do awesome things.

[FreddyNoNose]

Anyone's version


Apparently not his according to you.

[smcmike]

Apparently not his according to you.

You are just making stuff up to fight with me, I think. We don't know anything about this guy's actual build. My personal suspicion is that the OP is overstating the issue, since a broad range of warrior builds work just fine.

Are you arguing that every possible build is an equally valid representation of every possible character concept? If not, I'm not sure we actually disagree about anything.

[Unoriginal]

If you're trying to reach a goal, but are intentionally making poor decisions, then you won't reach your goal (or at least have way more troubles and cost you way more than there should have). This is still true if your goal is to make a "great warrior".

For exemple, a pure Wizard with 8 in STR, wearing plate armor, using a greatsword and refusing to cast any spells and insisting to fight in melee could be a fun character concept for you, and nothing is stopping you from doing so, but then your character won't be a great warrior, and if it's your goal then you're failing at it.

[GlenSmash!]

"put your high stats where the PHB suggests"

If he does this. He'll be fine. Really. This is 5e.

[mephnick]

If he does this. He'll be fine. Really. This is 5e.

Pretty much, especially amplified by the fact that the other players are playing different classes. The problem with optimize vs don't optimize comes in when you have two people playing similar roles that are constantly compared. This guy who built his Fighter badly is now playing beside a guy that optimized his Paladin and is getting outclassed every fight. In this party with a Wizard and Rogue, he could be a Battlemaster with 16 STR and bad choices of maneuvers and still be the GREAT WARRIOR of the group. The rogue and wizard may be doing awesome things, but they won't be doing the things he's doing.

[Kane0]

Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin of any race. Place the highest stat available in strength and the next in constitution. Make sure athletics is one of the proficient skills. Throw in a feat or two later on. Go and have fun.

[Honest Tiefling]

In my opinion, if he's selling the character as a great warrior but hasn't built a great warrior in a game he should know has some optimization, he's got some problems. He knows that people do enjoy optimization, so he's handicapping himself and expecting good results. So how are you going to fix that, cheat for him?

So why not cheat? If your DM is aware of the issue, why not give the guy a magical weapon with oodles of plot importance? It could even level up with him! He could unlock DM selected abilities at particular levels to overcome certain failings, such as low HP if that's how he's playing due to a fated bloodline or somesuch. You could ask the DM to give you and the Great Scholar more ribbon-like abilities, especially the scholar as I doubt anyone will care if he can I don't know, identify most well-known creatures without a roll.

[PeteNutButter]

If he does this. He'll be fine. Really. This is 5e.

People have this opinion a lot about 5e and it always makes me think that they must either not have any good optimizers in their group, no really poor optimizers in their group.

Personally, I've yet to make a character that didn't outshine my party to the point of having to self-censor and tone it back at the risk of ruining the fun for others. Low levels are comparable, but by mid level the optimizers take off.

To the OP: I'd suggest trying to find a way to convince your friend to take a few key optimized things. If you can manage to make your friend think it was his idea all the better. I have a guy that plays at my local store and I finally managed to convince him to just take SS on his archer. One thing about his character, and now he is overpowered...

[GlenSmash!]

People have this opinion a lot about 5e and it always makes me think that they must either not have any good optimizers in their group, no really poor optimizers in their group.

Personally, I've yet to make a character that didn't outshine my party to the point of having to self-censor and tone it back at the risk of ruining the fun for others. Low levels are comparable, but by mid level the optimizers take off.

To the OP: I'd suggest trying to find a way to convince your friend to take a few key optimized things. If you can manage to make your friend think it was his idea all the better. I have a guy that plays at my local store and I finally managed to convince him to just take SS on his archer. One thing about his character, and now he is overpowered...

It's true I've never played with really poor optimizers, but I have played with really great optimizers too. I gave the specific advice I gave for one reason.


this particular friend gets frustrated when anyone suggests ways to optimize.

I prefer not to frustrate my friends. if this player was my friend I would absolutely let them build whatever 'Great-Warrior" they wanted at character creation without me telling them what they should or shouldn't choose for they're character. Starting the game with them frustrated over character creation is a no-win for anyone.

To me trying to optimize this character at level one is like trying to cross a bridge that you haven't got to yet. I mean, you don't even know what Magic Weapons are in this campaign yet. I'd hate to take GWM at level 1, and then find an amazing Magic Longsword that can't be used with it, and would also be useless to a Ninja-type or Lore-Master type. Or max Strength, and have a Belt of Giant strength pop up.

If this player does start to feel like he's being overshadowed by the other players, *then* its time to offer suggestions. Although if the player is still too sensitive about being given suggestions it would probably be better to wait until the frustration at feeling weak is greater than or equal to the frustration that would be derived from being given advice on optimization.

Those suggestions could easily be based on however the character was previously built. Like, if the player has gone sword and board, but is now feeling weak steer them toward the Shield Master feat. Two-Hander but feeling weak, the GWM feat. Taking too much damage? HAM feat or defensive duelist feat. Or perhaps tactics that don't require a feat, like Grappling + Prone. Unless they've done something like dump all physical stats on a fighter, you're going to be left with something to work with, some direction to go.

Still I would keep advice to very specific Feats or Tactics, not try to overhaul the character since it seems like this player is sensitive to being told they are playing "wrong". -this may just be my interpretation here, I'm looking at it through my own lens of DM and Playing experience.

Although, honestly if this was my friend and he found both advice and feeling weak to be very frustrating. I would probably just tone down my optimization. YMMV

[rbstr]

so he's handicapping himself and expecting good results.

Is he even, though? We don't know anything about this hypothetical non-optimal build and there's no context for what OP considers optimized.

[Gurifu]

I had a sit-down with my friend and the DM and we got everything sorted out. Thanks for your comments, they helped.

[Chugger]

I've seen fighter players kind of freak out because everyone around them is doing amazing stuff, and they're struggling to do single-digit damage while being beaten up.

In one case the BM guy didn't understand his BM, it was way to complex for him, and he forgot to add the 1d8 when he was supposed to. He didn't role a precision die when he'd only missed by 2 (after we knew the thing's AC). He was just overwhelmed by it, and he quit.

He really should have been a barbarian.

For some of us these rules are really easy. For others, like me, most rules are easy but a few blindside me - cuz I'm new (to 5e) and not reading carefully enough or w/e. And for others complex rules like this are a permanent tsunami of confusion.

If he's an incompetent fighter, he won't stop you from achieving. But if he gets pouty because he only does single-digit damage while everyone else is rock-starring around him, it will be no fun.

What really sucks is when people confuse being incredibly stupid for roleplaying, like ticking off a powerful being and getting the whole party in trouble - or casually messing with an obvious trap and causing everyone to get hurt by an area effect. And so on. And then smiling and saying "well I'm role playing." Yeah right. Role play this...

[Malifice]

So here's the situation. New D&D game starting soon. Characters being made. 3 plus DM.

My friend wants to be our great warrior-type. The other players like the idea. The DM likes it. Everybody's on the same page.

I'm a great ninja-type. My other teammate is a great loremaster-type. This should be great. Three distinct mutually supportive roles in which each player will have an area where they get to be the star of the show.

Only problem is, this particular friend gets frustrated when anyone suggests ways to optimize... but I've played with him before, and I know he'll get frustrated if his character isn't able to do awesome things, especially when other characters can.

I can sympathize with not wanting to optimize. Optimization beyond the basic "put your high stats where the PHB suggests" level is limiting, metagame-y, and a sort of semi-mathematical puzzle that some people love but others find inherently stressful. Letting someone else make your character for you and tell you how to play it can take away most of the agency that makes building and playing a character rewarding.

This is complicated by the fact that my character is going to have an above-level impact on combat because I'm moderately optimized and I'm good at using the tools at my disposal. So at this point, if my friend doesn't develop a clear concept of what he wants to do and how to mechanically shine at that, I'm going to outshine him during the scenes where I want him to be the star of the show and my character to be at most the 'best supporting actor'.

Any suggestions? I'm kind of at a loss.

He's a Fighter or Barbarian. Human or Half Orc.

Choose heavy weapon. Pump Strength, Con. Dump Dex, Cha, Int. Take GWM for your feat. Kill things.

You really cant go wrong with a basic hard hiting warrior.

[Pex]

How unoptimized will his character be? We don't have a build to discuss. Are we walking a barbarian with ST 12 DX 10 CO 8 IN 16 WI 16 CH 14 (making up numbers for illustration) with Actor feat or ST 16 DX 8 CO 14 IN 13 WI 10 CH 14 Champion using Protection Style with Magic Initiate Feat for Vicious Mockery, Message, and Cure Light Wounds.

The math of the game works against the former while the latter will be fine and fits well with Folk Hero background for a wholesome farm boy.

[Malifice]

How unoptimized will his character be? We don't have a build to discuss. Are we walking a barbarian with ST 12 DX 10 CO 8 IN 16 WI 16 CH 14 (making up numbers for illustration) with Actor feat or ST 16 DX 8 CO 14 IN 13 WI 10 CH 14 Champion using Protection Style with Magic Initiate Feat for Vicious Mockery, Message, and Cure Light Wounds.

The math of the game works against the former while the latter will be fine and fits well with Folk Hero background for a wholesome farm boy.


Youve gotta really try hard to screw up a 5E 'hit things hard' fighter/ barbarian.

Like; it's not even a question of optimisation. You have to actively try to mess it up.

[Willie the Duck]

How unoptimized will his character be? We don't have a build to discuss. Are we walking a barbarian with ST 12 DX 10 CO 8 IN 16 WI 16 CH 14 (making up numbers for illustration) with Actor feat or ST 16 DX 8 CO 14 IN 13 WI 10 CH 14 Champion using Protection Style with Magic Initiate Feat for Vicious Mockery, Message, and Cure Light Wounds.

The math of the game works against the former while the latter will be fine and fits well with Folk Hero background for a wholesome farm boy.

Why don't we assume realistic, with a touch of what we could consider ourselves doing with a "I don't want to min-max" attitude, and walking into a new edition we haven't scoped out every angle on.

How about- Got their start in 2e and wants to play an elven fighter-wizard (and not the paladin-sorcerer that you tell him has better synergy) who fights with Bow and longsword + short-sword two-weapon fighting (despite your protests about twf in general, and the existence of Dex-only twf builds if you really want to go archery+twf)-- and will pick feats based on what looks interesting or supports that (so Dual Wielder and maybe Sharp Shooter, but unlikely Sentinel or the rest of the 'optimal' list).

[Honest Tiefling]

Is he even, though? We don't know anything about this hypothetical non-optimal build and there's no context for what OP considers optimized.

True. I did assume that the situation was based off of the player's previous experience in other games with the fellow, and I could be completely wrong. I do think the advice to wait and see what shows up at the table is valid, but maybe think of a few things if this isn't the first time it has happened to show to the DM just in case.

[Pex]

Why don't we assume realistic, with a touch of what we could consider ourselves doing with a "I don't want to min-max" attitude, and walking into a new edition we haven't scoped out every angle on.

How about- Got their start in 2e and wants to play an elven fighter-wizard (and not the paladin-sorcerer that you tell him has better synergy) who fights with Bow and longsword + short-sword two-weapon fighting (despite your protests about twf in general, and the existence of Dex-only twf builds if you really want to go archery+twf)-- and will pick feats based on what looks interesting or supports that (so Dual Wielder and maybe Sharp Shooter, but unlikely Sentinel or the rest of the 'optimal' list).

And the problem is?

I'm an optimizer myself, but I don't need everyone to make their character to my taste. About the only thing I'll absolutely detest another player doing is putting an 8-11 in CO. The character dropping so easily is a burden to the party due to loss of actions and extra healing resources cost. I'll blame Point Buy if the character has "only" a 15 in his prime due to non-stereotype race/class combination, but it needs to get to 16. The math of the game matters even with/because Bounded Accuracy. Other than that, it's poor tactics more than build that would get me riled up.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, I'd agree that, so long as your buddy isn't actively trying to sabotage himself, he'll contribute just fine. Maybe not 100% optimal 10,000 DPR, but he won't feel left behind.

[Willie the Duck]

And the problem is?

There isn't. That's kind of the point. People who behave realistically aren't likely to be able to screw up a character so bad that they are problematic.

[Malifice]

Why don't we assume realistic, with a touch of what we could consider ourselves doing with a "I don't want to min-max" attitude, and walking into a new edition we haven't scoped out every angle on.

How about- Got their start in 2e and wants to play an elven fighter-wizard (and not the paladin-sorcerer that you tell him has better synergy) who fights with Bow and longsword + short-sword two-weapon fighting (despite your protests about twf in general, and the existence of Dex-only twf builds if you really want to go archery+twf)-- and will pick feats based on what looks interesting or supports that (so Dual Wielder and maybe Sharp Shooter, but unlikely Sentinel or the rest of the 'optimal' list).

Elven Eldritch knight. Two weapon fighting style. Sharpshooter feat. Possibly branching into blade singer later on.

It's perfectly viable.

[Vogonjeltz]

I don't think it's that much of a problem.
Advise him to pick a Totem Barbarian with STR primary, CON secondary, DEX tertiary (14 at least), use Javelin and shield, pick Bear totem at level 3. Everything beyond that is just gravvy, but just that will be enough to make him shine as long as he is not *too* reckless.

Second choice would be plain old Thief Rogue with Sharpshooter feat, riling up from range.

Third choice would be good ol' Champion Fighter, stacking brainless feats (Mobile, Sentinel, Resilient, Mage Slayer).

Those three are easy to play, with very little bookkeeping (basically you just have to keep in mind what permanent features you have, and a small Rage counter for Barb only), and have many chances to shine...
- Barbarian would save party several times by interposing himself.
- Champion would stand ground and keep enemies prone or concentration-broke around him.
- Rogue would save the day by disarming that dangerous trap, convincing people to let you through without harm or headshoot that big evil guy...

Thief not only overlaps with the "Great Assassin" concept, since both will be rogues, it doesn't even count as a Warrior archetype lacking Extra Attack.

Options are limited to (alphabetically): Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger.

Realistically we're just looking at Fighter.