Suboptimal Builds - Do You Even Bother? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Ser Loras

2017-09-06, 07:29 PM

JBPuffin

2017-09-06, 07:36 PM

Exactly what it says up there in the title.

I have had nowhere near the experience or expertise at 5e to be comfortable with all the idiosyncracies of the system; what I DO know is that when crafting characters I will generally try to match Race to Class to Background, and fluff around the edges to make it all fit nicely and look pretty. No Half-Orc Wizards in my menagerie, thank you very much.

And that's not to say I'm a power player - it's the roleplay element of the game I love first and foremost, but yet I'd be wary of not at least bringing to bear a fully functional character for my team's sake, rather than risk weakening the party for the sake of getting in a fluffy idea.

What are your opinions on this? Is it generally considered the norm to match racial bonuses to class or do you find it doesn't actually matter very much, by all means, have a Gnome Fighter or a Dragonborn Wizard?

My view would be that it's probably kosher to make sure you bring your A game, mechanically, into a party, but if you get to play a smaller, character focused or even one on one game that's the time to try whacky new builds. Case in point: I once played a half-elf Wizard whose social anxiety made her not want to use magic. That worked wonderfully when I was playing her one-on-one, but I refused to take her into a group :P

Put it this way: my second campaign in this edition involved a Dwarf Bard, Tiefling Barbarian, and Dragonborn Monk (originally all as-written, this changed as the campaign progressed for teh lolz). You don't have to line up Race, Class, and Background if you don't want to so long as you play to your combination's strengths. Also, sometimes race features trump stat increases - Mountain Dwarf Wizards are arguably some of the best wizards because of their Mage Armor-free AC and warhammering off a boosted Strength, and this is without an Int increase. There's a way to play whatever you want without much concern, especially as it's a cooperative experience and not an optimization contest...

bulbaquil

2017-09-06, 07:45 PM

Part of the appeal of 5e for me is the ability to create a competent character within 15 minutes of being informed there's a game. Key word here being "competent" - not "the best", not "will be 'the best' at level 20", but competent. The character creation minigame is not fun for me, and the hardcore spreadsheet-crunching involved in high-power char-op smacks too much of work that I don't get paid for.

I will play what I want to play (within the guidelines proposed by the DM, of course). "What I want to play" is seldom Superman, and while it usually has race/class synergy, this isn't always the case. I have played Pathfinder characters under generous point-buys with not a single 18 in their starting attributes before racial bonuses.

bid

2017-09-06, 07:49 PM

If you feel strong enough about your RP concept, you can still make a half-orc wizard work.

You will need to bring your A game to make it work, but a fighter 1 / wizard X with 12 14 16 14 10 8 is good enough that you can concentrate on roleplaying relentlessly.

Whatever ingenuity you will bring to the table is worth more than the mechanical value of perfection. That's what happened at every table I've played.

Waterdeep Merch

2017-09-06, 07:54 PM

I do concept first, optimization second, story third.

I decide what I want to play, then what they'll play like, and then I try to justify every aspect of the concept and optimization via their history. By doing so, I get a good grasp on who they are and why they are that way, letting me roleplay something that I will enjoy playing.

Because I do the concept stage first, sometimes what I'm optimizing for has a serious limit or just won't be as strong as your average character. It's never 'most powerful character ever', but 'nimble halfling barbarian with an interest in the occult' or something like that. I really like the challenge of making something weird work.

Kane0

2017-09-06, 08:02 PM

My best PCs are character first, build second.

Targon the Hobgoblin pirate captain has a lot more going for him than Xanos the Half-Elf Sorlock. Neither are badly built, it's just that the former was made as a character in the world and the latter made around game mechanics.

I've also played deliberately mismatching combos (Goliath Ranger, Elf Barbarian, Halfling Wizard, etc) just because they aren't what you'd expect. More fun that way.

Ravinsild

2017-09-06, 08:02 PM

I pretty much just have a handful of things I like. I like Paladins, Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, Rogues, Sorcerers and (only) Hexblade Warlocks. I like blasting type casters, gishes and just straight up hack and slashers like fury warriors in WoW and stuff. I like Half-Orcs, Drow, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Gnolls, Dragonborn and so forth. So I tend to make characters from the handful of classes, races and concepts I like. Whether or not they are optimized? I do my best with what I want.

I guess I typically optimize sub-optimal builds/choices. Like the BEST possible Drow Sorcadin even though other races would do it better, etc..

I kind of want to try and make a new Warlock-spinoff like the Hexblade is but make it focus on summoning demons with 1 permanent pet demon like a beast master ranger has an animal companion and then summoning lots of little demons who don't last very long and buffing them. I don't know if that's really possible or a good idea though.

smcmike

2017-09-06, 08:16 PM

Sticking within a narrow range of "optimal" gets bland. There should be a floor to exlude truly useless characters, but it's more fun to allow for a broad range of utility.

Sigreid

2017-09-06, 08:17 PM

Since my group rolls for stats I have, on occasion, used race to cover a weakness of a bad roll rather than to bolster their ability in their class.

Xetheral

2017-09-06, 08:28 PM

I use a recursive process for character generation, whereby either a build idea sparks a concept/story idea or a concept/story idea sparks a build idea, and then repeat the process (ad nauseum) until I have something where the concept and build are very tightly woven. You could say I optimize for build/concept harmony. (The downside is that it takes me hours or days to build characters, particularly if I have a broad concept that's hard to represent mechanically.)

Sometimes the result is extremely "optimal" in the sense the OP is using, sometimes the result is very much "non-optimal". I do try to maintain a minimum level of damage-dealing competency (which I roughly benchmark as equivalent to Eldritch Blast without Agonizing Blast) but sometimes even that goes out the window for certain support characters.

ZorroGames

2017-09-06, 08:34 PM

Put it this way: my second campaign in this edition involved a Dwarf Bard, Tiefling Barbarian, and Dragonborn Monk (originally all as-written, this changed as the campaign progressed for teh lolz). You don't have to line up Race, Class, and Background if you don't want to so long as you play to your combination's strengths. Also, sometimes race features trump stat increases - Mountain Dwarf Wizards are arguably some of the best wizards because of their Mage Armor-free AC and warhammering off a boosted Strength, and this is without an Int increase. There's a way to play whatever you want without much concern, especially as it's a cooperative experience and not an optimization contest...

Roger that!

ZorroGames

2017-09-06, 08:42 PM

As per the PHB:

Almost always Mountain Dwarf or variant Human; Hill Dwarf or standard human always an option; Wood Elf or Gnome when I am "in the mood."

Fighter or Cleric unless I have a 'nefarious scheme' or "Hey, I have never played (currently a Rogue with a sage background waiting to be played.)"

Optimal to me means I can work the character to have fun and not degrade the party. Lost too many characters in the 1970s to worry about dying but trying not to take others with me.

BoringInfoGuy

2017-09-06, 09:00 PM

The way I look at it, there can only be a handful of truly "Optimal" builds. Once discovered, everything else is sub optimal by default. And even then, to be true my optimal, it has to mesh with the rest of the party. So most characters are always just a little sub optimal.

The only two questions that really matter are:

Is this a character I will enjoy playing?

Is this a character that will keep others from enjoying the game?

Dimers

2017-09-06, 09:22 PM

Do I even bother? In 5e? Hells yes. The optimization floor is so high in 5e that any race/class/role combination you want to put together can contribute significantly to the party. If you don't dump your main attack stat, you'll be fine.

Coming mostly from 3rd and 4th editions with a brief stop in 13th Age, I feel like every possible build in 5e is suboptimal. The shenanigan range is tiny. But the challenges you face in 5e are similarly sane, so ...

Naanomi

2017-09-06, 09:35 PM

Xetheral

2017-09-06, 09:41 PM

I enjoyed (in the abstract, not at the table usually) the 'optimization minigame' of 3.X; but it is barely possible in 5e... which is a good thing.

Now, I tend to optimize mechanically bad concepts rather than the 'best' stuff... I had a blast with my hill-dwarf sorcerer who took no spells with material componants; but I definetly made sure my Spell choices and progression was the 'best' for such limitations. Is that really optimizing anymore? Does the term have much meaninging at that point?

Sure it does. Optimizing within (self-selected) constraints is still optimizing. That's one of the few practical things the theorycrafting in 3.X was good for... you could pick a target level of competence in some aspect of the character (e.g. damage, AC, etc.), optimize to achieve that target level with minimum use of character build choices, and then spend all the rest of your build choices on anything else you wanted.

90sMusic

2017-09-06, 09:49 PM

I just play what I think will be fun to play.

Tiefling Warlock is pretty cliche, but I play them semi-often because it's easy to fluff a winged tiefling warlock into a succubus-esque character that specializes in mind reading, mind control, manipulation, and so on.

At the same time, i've also built characters that had expertise in animal handling and had at-will speak with animals at great cost to their effectiveness.

It just made the character more fun to be this shy person that only felt comfortable talking to animals, but having that ability came in handy a number of times throughout the campaign.

Honestly, I think almost any build will work if give it a chance because everyone is so obsessed with maximizing their numbers and skipping over the "useless" spells, they miss out on a lot of opportunities to find ways to make those spells do pretty cool or interesting things when you actually use them.

It's like the whole concept of everything looking like a nail if you are a hammer. If you only use these "optimal" builds and spells and whatnot, you'll always have very similar experiences and see the same solutions to problems. But if you play around with other things, and start thinking of ways to make it work and help you in the various situations you get yourself into, you'll do some pretty cool stuff.

Hrugner

2017-09-06, 09:59 PM

For 5e it just doesn't matter. I've played exclusively suboptimal builds in 5e and it works out as well as anything else.

Pex

2017-09-06, 11:13 PM

Gtdead

2017-09-07, 01:15 AM

Vorok

2017-09-07, 01:50 AM

Exactly what it says up there in the title.

I have had nowhere near the experience or expertise at 5e to be comfortable with all the idiosyncracies of the system; what I DO know is that when crafting characters I will generally try to match Race to Class to Background, and fluff around the edges to make it all fit nicely and look pretty. No Half-Orc Wizards in my menagerie, thank you very much.

And that's not to say I'm a power player - it's the roleplay element of the game I love first and foremost, but yet I'd be wary of not at least bringing to bear a fully functional character for my team's sake, rather than risk weakening the party for the sake of getting in a fluffy idea.

What are your opinions on this? Is it generally considered the norm to match racial bonuses to class or do you find it doesn't actually matter very much, by all means, have a Gnome Fighter or a Dragonborn Wizard?

My view would be that it's probably kosher to make sure you bring your A game, mechanically, into a party, but if you get to play a smaller, character focused or even one on one game that's the time to try whacky new builds. Case in point: I once played a half-elf Wizard whose social anxiety made her not want to use magic. That worked wonderfully when I was playing her one-on-one, but I refused to take her into a group :P

If you're dreading starting with less than 16 in the main stat, that makes you a power player in my book. As far as I know, starting with 14/15 in the main stat is usually enough to make a character 'fully functional'.

Right now I'm playing a Dex-based Tiefling Paladin of the Ancients, and I don't get the feeling I'm weakening the party in any way other than not being the most awesome player in the world, but that's fine.

I've got plenty of concepts I'd like to try out that are not 'fully functional' according to you, but I will have no qualms about bringing them to a party and I wholly believe they won't drag the party down. Half-orc wizard being one of them, then there's Half-orc Life cleric, Half-orc warlock of the Fey (though he's a bladelock with a possible dip into a fighter, so ymmv when trying to decide whether or not he's optimized), half-orc moon druid, half-orc Valor bard, half-orc shadow monk, halfling Light cleric, halfling Land druid, half-elf trickery cleric...

Nifft

2017-09-07, 02:14 AM

No Half-Orc Wizards

Gnome Fighter or a Dragonborn Wizard?

Half-Orc Wizard - with the SCAG melee cantrips, this guy might be viable. Wizards are pretty great, so even without that, it's probably viable. Haven't seen one yet.

Gnome Fighters are awesome. Eldritch Knights are good, of course, but even without that Int reward you have:
- Darkvision (night sniper)
- Minor Illusion (people are happy to pay a feat for that, yo)
- Advantage on Int, Wis, and Cha saves vs. Magic (that's quite strong)
I would happily play a Gnome Fighter.

Dragonborn Wizard - Haven't seen one. Wizards are pretty great, though: I bet it would work fine. Again, one of the SCAG melee cantrips might be good.

My view would be that it's probably kosher to make sure you bring your A game, mechanically, into a party, but if you get to play a smaller, character focused or even one on one game that's the time to try whacky new builds. Case in point: I once played a half-elf Wizard whose social anxiety made her not want to use magic. That worked wonderfully when I was playing her one-on-one, but I refused to take her into a group :P
I think this is a great attitude.

IMHO, the only character concepts which are inherently invalid are ones which require the character to be bad at his or her job.

However, I think there's a distinction to be made here -- what you describe as unacceptable is not your character's build, but rather the personality behind that build (which would require very sub-optimal behavior to RP correctly).

A perfectly built, mechanically sound Wizard -- but one who was afraid to use magic -- would not be your A-game. It would be an optimal build, but it would also be a bad character to bring into group play. The problem you're describing here with that character concept (which is a legit problem I think) has nothing to do with the character's build being suboptimal.

Rynjin

2017-09-07, 02:31 AM

I can't really bring myself to care in 5e. This edition kinda takes the fun out of optimizing since the options are pretty limited on what role to fill (you either damage, or cast. And if you cast, you also damage, since most non-damage offensive spells suck now).

It's kind of freeing, actually. I can barely tolerate playing 5e but it's what all my friends want to play so I toss together characters basically at random. Largely because the times I've tried to make interesting characters optimized in some odd direction I've found there either IS no build besides "Has a slightly higher chance of succeeding" (like wanting to be a tripper or something in Pathfinder) or it's underwhelming in practice (grappling is such a joke in 5e).

It's better to just pick a race and class that sounds fun and try not to get frustrated that almost every combat is identical.

Gnome Fighters are awesome. Eldritch Knights are good, of course, but even without that Int reward you have:
- Darkvision (night sniper)
- Minor Illusion (people are happy to pay a feat for that, yo)
- Advantage on Int, Wis, and Cha saves vs. Magic (that's quite strong)
I would happily play a Gnome Fighter.

You forgot a really, really big con.

-You have to be a Gnome.

qube

2017-09-07, 03:38 AM

Half-Orc Wizard - with the SCAG melee cantrips, this guy might be viable. Wizards are pretty great, so even without that, it's probably viable.Sure it's viable. Ability wise, while not all equally useful, relentless endurance can be a great thing (1/long rest: cheat death), considering you probably will have the lowest hp.

And as for ability scores ... a +1 on attack (& saves), and +1 damage sometimes +1 damage if overrated for making the difference between viable & unviable.
Heck, from the aspect of ability scores, there's no difference between {+2Int-race} + {flavor feat instead of ASI} vs {flavor race} + {int+2 as ASI}

Oh, and you can use the fact nobody will ever expect a half-orc wizard. Shave your head, pick up a quarterstaff, and you're a brutal monk as far as any unsuspecting NPC is concerned

or it's underwhelming in practice (grappling is such a joke in 5e).Comming from someone who's currently playing a tabaxi grappler, I've got no clue what you're talking about.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-q1edJnuH9HM/VUqg8vYvpoI/AAAAAAAACkM/KIh0n5ZQXbc/s1600/Tigger%2Band%2BEeyore.JPG

Chugger

2017-09-07, 04:00 AM

I occasionally play with people who have no idea what they're doing. They make characters (often) with lots of 12s and 13s and maybe a 14 or 15. We use the point system.

And if they have a 12 or 13 sta or less - which they often do - they tend to suffer death death. I.e. something nasty crits them and hits for way more than their hit point max and they die the real death.

They also miss noticeably more often, and if they've got a low AC (which they often do) - well they're often the guy at zero hp on the floor that someone needs to heal or help out as they're missing death saves.

It's AL so you can redo your character. Usually someone helps them out after the game's over (usually the player with poor stats knows they've done something wrong because bad things happened to them far more than to other players - and they ask for help) and explains to them why having high-medium stats across the board is far worse than having big key stats and living with low stats (even a -1 stat).

Sicarius Victis

2017-09-07, 04:55 AM

You forgot a really, really big con.

-You have to be a Gnome.

You know, I hate to be the Grammar Spelling Nazi, but you appear to have badly misspelled "pro" somewhere in there, and I hate to see a major mistake like that go unmentioned.

Pelle

2017-09-07, 05:47 AM

I find people playing suboptimal builds (including myself) much more fun than people playing chaotic stupid characters who are actively not contributing to the party.

Rogerdodger557

2017-09-07, 07:10 AM

Concept comes first. But once that's done, I'll try my damnest to optimize.

It doesn't have to become a "can do everything" type of optimization, but I like having a few effective tricks up my sleeve that work no matter what.

I made my dual wielding EK this way.

Half-Orc Wizard - with the SCAG melee cantrips, this guy might be viable. Wizards are pretty great, so even without that, it's probably viable. Haven't seen one yet.

Had one of these in the EK's party. He went 1 Barb/X Wizard. Specialized in Abjuration. He took either one of or both Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade. Tanked pretty well, but he wasn't the best.

Sorcardin>EK(Me)>Half-OrcWizard

Ravinsild

2017-09-07, 09:07 AM

I optimize but not in the same way others might. Going with the stereotype people here talk a lot about Great Weapon Master and Pole Arm Master, but I don't have such a gumption for wanting to use them. I won't say I'll never take one of those feats for a character, but they aren't must haves for me. I min/max for the character I want to play, but I don't need Forum approval of it.

This. Like the time I kept trying to make an Arcane Gish who could fight with a sword as well as blast with fire (only) spells. I decided to split it up into two different characters though. One is an all fire mage and one is a Hexblade with more general use magic.

Citan

2017-09-07, 09:30 AM

Exactly what it says up there in the title.

I have had nowhere near the experience or expertise at 5e to be comfortable with all the idiosyncracies of the system; what I DO know is that when crafting characters I will generally try to match Race to Class to Background, and fluff around the edges to make it all fit nicely and look pretty. No Half-Orc Wizards in my menagerie, thank you very much.

And that's not to say I'm a power player - it's the roleplay element of the game I love first and foremost, but yet I'd be wary of not at least bringing to bear a fully functional character for my team's sake, rather than risk weakening the party for the sake of getting in a fluffy idea.

What are your opinions on this? Is it generally considered the norm to match racial bonuses to class or do you find it doesn't actually matter very much, by all means, have a Gnome Fighter or a Dragonborn Wizard?

My view would be that it's probably kosher to make sure you bring your A game, mechanically, into a party, but if you get to play a smaller, character focused or even one on one game that's the time to try whacky new builds. Case in point: I once played a half-elf Wizard whose social anxiety made her not want to use magic. That worked wonderfully when I was playing her one-on-one, but I refused to take her into a group :P
Hi!

I feel there are two question intertwined in your post.

1) Do you feel compelled to follow traditions when picking a race/class association?

2) Do you feel compelled to optimize a character in a certain way?

First question: absolutely not, unless the DM required so because we would be in a very specific campaign. Otherwise, I feel it would just be an arbitrary and useless limitation. On the contrary, grabbing a "career" that is unusual for a race can birth some very interesting roleplay even (or rather even more) in "classic" settings, because you are quite an original one, so you can play on other people's prejugees or expectations. ;)

Second question: not really, or rather I try to follow the global mindset of the group: if nobody is set to optimize, then I won't, or I'll develop a very strong point but ensure I have some weaknesses elsewhere.
If I'm in a very small group or a group of powergamers, I'll unleash the big-ass cheese-eating mouse inside of me.

Concept comes first. But once that's done, I'll try my damnest to optimize.

Whenever I'm at liberty to do so, I think this one-liner is the best way to describe my mindset. GG on writing it! ;)

Byke

2017-09-07, 09:42 AM

You can have your cake and eat it to in 5e 

When I build a character, I always like having a concept defined. That said there is no reason why it can’t be optimized.

As others have already noted 5e is very forgiving when it comes to optimization. As long as you don’t tank you main stat. Also for some classes like Warlock, Bard and Sorcerer, making the right spell selections. There is no reason why you can’t have a great concept for a character, which is also effective.

Unless of course you want to play a weaker character but that is usually something you should discuss with the table/GM before playing. Some of the most fun I have had was in a goblin campaign were the characters were all cannon fodder in a hobgoblin army. They had to survive using limited resources and completely un-optimized stats. Part of it was the players imagination/teamwork and the other part was the DM understanding/allowing the creativity to work.

Zman

2017-09-07, 09:50 AM

5e is a different animal than 3.P. Optimization is less crucial and creates a much small divide in power levels and usability. You can definitely go with a suboptimal build and have a very competent character. With the ability cap of 20, you also have the same potential in a lot of respects, sure you might miss out on a feat etc, but every single character can pick up a 20 in their Primary stat and pick up the feat they want. You might be a couple levels behind, but you'll get there, and the occasional +1 you miss etc isn't as big of a deal as it feels like.

Hell, my current character is a Half Orc melee wizard with only a 14 Int. Fighter 1 and Abjuror+ running around with a Greatsword in combat, casting greenflame blade, and using magic weapon and casting Fireballs when fitting. He certainly feels competent. Granted I'm running some houserules that smooth balance out a bit for the worst offenders, but IMO it wouldn't be that bad without them.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-07, 09:57 AM

My fundamental gap in understanding here is in the purpose of optimization:

Is it

a) to be better than other characters at X (comparative optimization)
OR
b) to reduce the possibility of failure (campaign optimization)?
OR
c) trying to be as powerful as possible for its own sake (absolute optimization)?
OR
d) trying to match the power levels of the party (balancing optimization)?
OR
e) something else entirely?

In my opinion, focusing on a) is a jerk move. This is not a competitive game (between players, anyway).

Focusing on b) beyond the very basic levels of "don't intentionally suck" indicates a lack of trust in the DM and the campaign/party. No challenge exists without a DM putting it there. I can DM for a group of low-op characters and have just as much fun as with a group of high-op characters--the challenges change (both in power and scope) to match the optimization levels. They're just telling different stories.

c) I just don't even understand other than as a theoretical exercise.

d) makes sense, but in 5e it's pretty darn easy. The gap between optimization floors and ceilings just isn't that big (especially compared to 4e or 3.5e). I currently have one party has a druid, a (halfling) bard, and a wizard; another has a tiefling cleric, an aasimar (volo's) fiend warlock, and two rogues (one w. elf, one halfling). All of these work. There are very few trap options in 5e.

Joe the Rat

2017-09-07, 09:59 AM

Given that optimal race/class is typically the difference between a +2 and a +3 in your primary... It's a siren's song for me, but not an essential. But once I have an idea, I will try to make it work. If I'm doing up a Tiefling non-charisma-caster, I'll probably still give them a decent Charisma focus. The Heavy Armor Halfling will take advantage of their dex, at the very least by not having to put anything into it and still having a halfway decent initiative. But it also means higher risks, and more careful play. That Tiefling Monk is only going to have a 14 AC - better stick and move like the rogue does. The Half-Orc Wizard needs to be more selective about save spells (save the charms for idiots, the flames for tanks, and the ice for pixies). And if you are planning a buff focus on a caster, you can nearly do anything you like with your stats - but you still have the tools of your class to work with.

As an aside, the wotc pregens typically are rocking 15s in a primary. +2 is good enough.

Oh, and screw Hex. I've got better things to do with my concentration.

spinningdice

2017-09-07, 10:18 AM

Meh, I don't try and optimize that much, D&D 5e characters tend to be competent unless you actively try and make then useless. As long as the character is fun, and not boring.
I like Bards, my favourite D&D 5e character is probably my Tiefling Bard, and she really just hits things in combat and uses spells for more miscellaneous things (like Knock, invisibility etc).

Pelle

2017-09-07, 10:58 AM

Some of the most fun I have had was in a goblin campaign were the characters were all cannon fodder in a hobgoblin army. They had to survive using limited resources and completely un-optimized stats. Part of it was the players imagination/teamwork and the other part was the DM understanding/allowing the creativity to work.

Was it 5e or GoblinQuest?

Hrugner

2017-09-07, 11:49 AM

My fundamental gap in understanding here is in the purpose of optimization:

Is it

e) something else entirely?

Typically doing something the game doesn't really expect. For instance: making a difficult check simple, or making resources less limited, so that a typically uncommon ability can become part of your normal activity. This does often result in a higher output, or in trivializing some aspects of some games, but that's true of most straight casters so it's hard to hold anything against an optimized character.

Byke

2017-09-07, 11:56 AM

Was it 5e or GoblinQuest?

It was a 5e homebrew game...A reverse "Red Hand of Doom" where we were the fodder sent in to die against heroes and city walls :)

Waterdeep Merch

2017-09-07, 11:57 AM

My fundamental gap in understanding here is in the purpose of optimization:

Is it

a) to be better than other characters at X (comparative optimization)
OR
b) to reduce the possibility of failure (campaign optimization)?
OR
c) trying to be as powerful as possible for its own sake (absolute optimization)?
OR
d) trying to match the power levels of the party (balancing optimization)?
OR
e) something else entirely?
Myself and every non-munchkin I've ever played with generally take optimization to mean doing the best you can to match a specific character idea. You take whatever things that are absolutely necessary to meet your concept, then try to use the rules to make your character good at doing them. The remainder (things like tools and languages on a character that doesn't need them) are spent more on what you want as a player, though we generally frown on adding nonsensical things. If you speak elven as a dwarf, you'd better have a reason. And yes, thieves' tools are easily the best tool proficiency in the game- now you'd better have an explanation for why your LG paladin knows how to use them.

Rynjin

2017-09-07, 01:01 PM

Comming from someone who's currently playing a tabaxi grappler, I've got no clue what you're talking about.

Have you tried just grappling or is your go-to move always Grapple-Shove?

Because Grapple itself is a joke in 5e. There is zero tangible benefit to wasting an attack on grappling someone. You then have the privilege to "upgrade" to what Grapple USED to do for the cost of a Feat...and applying the same condition to yourself.

I stand by "grappling is a joke".

JBPuffin

2017-09-07, 01:31 PM

Concept comes first. But once that's done, I'll try my damnest to optimize.

It doesn't have to become a "can do everything" type of optimization, but I like having a few effective tricks up my sleeve that work no matter what.

If I'm honest, it's how I build characters 9 times out of 10. I always go double 16s with my racial boosts (Dwarf Bard was an exception, but later DM and I made a Cha dwarf subrace to let it happen), and I go Dex over Str more often than not (yet to play anything Str-focused for any good amount of time), but the rest is kind of build-dependent. I also like feats more than ASIs, so most level 4 ASIs go to cool feats rather than score-boosting. Been doing mid-op since the 4e Character Builder days and haven't stopped since.

I have to disagree with "not much difference between +2 and +3" - that 5% extra miss chance screwed me over immensely whenever I agreed to it :smallannoyed:. Hence why I stick to 16s (I don't go 17 at level 1 so I can have another +3). That or my love of powers of 2...not sure which ends up prioritized by my psyche.

Also, level 1 Magic Initiate for Shield at level 1 on a VHume I knew was going AT - not necessarily optimal, but amazingly useful at that time.

Rogerdodger557

2017-09-07, 01:42 PM

(Dwarf Bard was an exception, but later DM and I made a Cha dwarf subrace to let it happen)

Tell me about this CHA Dwarf. I am intrigued.

Oramac

2017-09-07, 03:17 PM

I do concept first, optimization second, story third.

This.

One of the most fun characters I've played was a High Elf Noble Bearbarian. By all accounts, High Elf and Noble backgrounds are terrible for a barbarian. But it was an incredibly fun character to play.

OTOH, my Tempest Sorcerer is highly optimized, and was also loads of fun to play.

TL;DR: Just make a character you think sounds interesting and play it. The fun is at the table, not in the mechanics.

GlenSmash!

2017-09-07, 03:35 PM

With caps on Attributes and no negative stat modifiers (barring a few options from Volo's) it's really not a big deal. You can max main stat on any Race/Class combo.

But honestly you don't even have to. There are a number of spells, that are really useful, but don't even need a high Stat to work. And looking for ways to get advantage on rolls, can easily offset a a negative to not having a maxed out stat.

I've been on a kick lately where I'm not moving any stat above 14 on my last few characters no matter how high of a level they get. Instead I'm looking for Advantage through things like Reckless Attack, or even just using Inspiration, or other ways to get more out of my rolls like the Lucky feat.

I've got a Half Elf Barbarian that only has 14 Strength but with Reckless attack and Elven Accuracy is getting Super Advantage on every Melee Attack.

Hmm, maybe I'm just finding different ways to optimize?

Citan

2017-09-07, 03:36 PM

Have you tried just grappling or is your go-to move always Grapple-Shove?

Because Grapple itself is a joke in 5e. There is zero tangible benefit to wasting an attack on grappling someone. You then have the privilege to "upgrade" to what Grapple USED to do for the cost of a Feat...and applying the same condition to yourself.

I stand by "grappling is a joke".
Well, I'd say that saying "zero tangible benefit" or "grappling is a joke" is quite missing the spot. ;)

Maybe you just didn't understand how to properly use it, because you didn't have a proper character or allies?

Let's watch again... Grapple...
- sets speed to 0.
- is ended ONLY if you stop it or if an effect puts the creature out of your reach.

With that said...

Grapple with Mage Slayer: good luck for that caster trying to move away to cast as before: there are several spells that could forcibly remove him from your grasp, including the classic Misty Step but also Gust of Wind or even just Gust and the like... EXCEPT that you still get an opportunity attack (even with Misty Step).
Fun fact: pair that with Sentinel, which works by RAW, and your enemy caster will find himself standing 30 feet away (Misty Step) but with no speed (Sentinel effect): since most creatures have a 30 feet move at least, he basically just wasted a slot trying to get away from you and still failing in the end.

Be a True Tank: if the enemy cannot escape forcibly, his only luck is trying to defeat you (or at least deal enough damage that you want to flee on your own). So that's at least one enemy you keep with you.
Fun fact: a Sorcerer dip for Twinned and Shocking Grasp would allow a grappler to deal consistent damage to two grappled targets... Well, it actually requires a ruling because Warcaster says "even if you hold weapons or shields", which is not the same thing as holding creatures. Considering the cantrip's wording though ("lightning springs from your hand") I think there would be no good reason no to allow it, ROC and all.
Otherwise, grabbing Vicious Mockery solves the problem (verbal only and helps you survive the attacks). ;) Or if DM is cool, instead of Twinning (hefty cost), just use Acid Splash.

Enjoy the environment: either cast from you (such as an Eldricht Knight using Create Bonfire) or from others (Spike Growth, Cloud of Daggers, Moonbeam, Wall of Fire etc), you can profit from any thing around you that deal damage at least once per turn (most spells) or even better based on move (Spike Growth) to deal extra damage.
Fun fact: a single dip in Rogue makes any Cleric great at dealing "auto-damage" by keeping grappled people inside Spirit Guardians area (while you also keep using Sacred Flame -DM ruling required- or Vicious Mockery, or Spiritual Weapon, or Healing Words). Obviously a Lore Bard would be even better suited for this without dip (except for armor). A Land Druid 6+ could also use it to run through spikes with two grappled creatures while not taking any damage himself.
Or you could also run into a Darkness/Silence with a caster to force him to focus on you instead of casting powerful spells against the party.
Or force a dangerous archer to switch to melee weapons because otherwise he has disadvantage anyways.

Bring them to the party: go and cherry pick one pesky guy that thought himself safe from any harm, grappling him back to your own fighting trench in which a fiery welcome party is waiting for him... One of the roles Monk can excel at, as well as Hasted Battlemasters, as long as a Rogue dip is involved for Expertise.

Hoard them towards friends's AOE: for some unknown reasons, enemy don't like to stay close together. Help them discover true friendship in death. ;)

Even friends can love a strong, helping hand: You are n°X, squishy friend is exposed to enemy's attacks and his turn is X+6? Grapple him into cover!

Seriously... I know it can only be a preconception since I know nothing of you, but you reaaaally give the impression of not having even actually tried to use it.:smallwink:

Hrugner

2017-09-07, 04:35 PM

Well, I'd say that saying "zero tangible benefit" or "grappling is a joke" is quite missing the spot. ;)

Maybe you just didn't understand how to properly use it, because you didn't have a proper character or allies?

Let's watch again... Grapple...
- sets speed to 0.
- is ended ONLY if you stop it or if an effect puts the creature out of your reach.

You missed
-the grappled character wins the grapple contest
-only works on targets up to one size larger than the grappler.

Any effect that moves either target can end the grapple. Giving the benefit of a party to the grappler but not the grappled misses one of the many problems with grappling, an ally can move you out of the grapple uncontested provided they can drag or shove you. The gust cantrip on your grappled ally works in a pinch too.

Also, each of the tactical purposes to which grappling can be put are balanced against the action that a player could take if they weren't grappling. When you have a player pulling one creature into a fireball's radius rather than dropping a second fireball, you have a net loss of utility. If you have someone dragging someone into a group rather than thunderwaving a group of enemies into the pile, you have a net loss of utility. Grapple does stand out as being a free crowd control option, but it stops being free when you spend limited resources on it such as feats and class abilities. So a big question is, did you build a character who can't do fireball damage to one target in order to occasionally get one target to take fireball damage?

I tend to really enjoy grapplers, but in 5e grappling just doesn't do enough to be worth the action and doesn't receive enough support to make it relevant in encounters with unusual creatures.

CaptainSarathai

2017-09-07, 05:07 PM

It's really hard to be "bad" in 5e without actively trying. I mean, yeah, if you show up playing a Fighter with no attack stats above a 10, that might be a problem. But each individual +1 matters much less. It's hardly a requirement to even get a stat to 20 these days.

From a DMing standpoint - I actually like unoptimized characters. There's a lot of talk about how the default difficulty of 5e is "cake walk." That's not entirely true, but the issue is that the kinds of people who take their game online, and talk about things online, collaborate online, etc - they're usually optimizers. Having one guy in the party who has a great character isn't much of an issue, but it's a percentage situation. Imagine a party of 5 characters, with everyone playing an "average" character, about 80% of that pure optimiziation that you see here on GiTP build-threads. Now imagine that another party of 5, but with everyone swinging that bleeding-edge 100% efficiency. Compared to the first party, they practically have a 6th person at the table. Then, start adding in things like party and campaign optimization,
"No Billy, you can't play a Fighter - Tom is already playing a Fighter, and Erica is playing a Paladin. Why not play a Rogue? We don't have anyone to deal with locks and traps yet."
OR
"Erica, the DM said this is a Ravenloft campaign, so maybe you should try to get some spells that add Radiant Damage and Turn Undead."
OR
"Tom, take Battlemaster on your Fighter, and get the Commanding Strike. No, you don't need to do more damage, Billy is playing a Rogue. Let him Flank for you, and then give him one of your attacks so he can Sneak Attack more."

When parties start doing that, they certainly aren't hitting at 80% any more. They're probably punching above 100% by that point. They're going to punch way above their weight class. Suddenly, if the DM isn't throwing 2x Deadly encounters at them, they're not going to break a sweat.

Where this becomes a problem, is that fact that most DMs aren't going to let the campaign become a Monty Hall. Instead, they're going to start upping the difficulty. This then creates an Oroboros effect. The only way that the party can survive in that campaign is if every character is optimized and the party is working as a well-oiled machine. When that DM starts the next game, the returning players come back with that expectation that they're going be facing super dangerous opponents and will need to optimize. Now you have a table where everyone is optimizing, all of the time. The DM can't dial it back because then it becomes boring and easy. The players can't dial it back because then they'll get murdered. The two groups need to come together and discuss campaign power levels, goals, and so forth. This is difficult though, because everyone likely has a different idea of what the ideal power levels actually look like.

jaappleton

2017-09-07, 05:21 PM

It really all depends.

Primarily on how stats are determined. If I can roll, I'll put together something a little odd, but interesting. I was a Warforged Bard for awhile. It only occurred to me after the fact to call myself Optimus Rhyme.

If its a game where I need to optimize to live more than 3 sessions, I'll put an emphasis on optimization.

If not, I'll put together something a little more unique than what's in the class optimization handbooks.

GlenSmash!

2017-09-07, 05:29 PM

It only occurred to me after the fact to call myself Optimus Rhyme.

Daaaang that's a good one.

Citan

2017-09-07, 05:53 PM

You missed
-the grappled character wins the grapple contest
-only works on targets up to one size larger than the grappler.

Any effect that moves either target can end the grapple. Giving the benefit of a party to the grappler but not the grappled misses one of the many problems with grappling, an ally can move you out of the grapple uncontested provided they can drag or shove you. The gust cantrip on your grappled ally works in a pinch too.

Also, each of the tactical purposes to which grappling can be put are balanced against the action that a player could take if they weren't grappling. When you have a player pulling one creature into a fireball's radius rather than dropping a second fireball, you have a net loss of utility. If you have someone dragging someone into a group rather than thunderwaving a group of enemies into the pile, you have a net loss of utility.
Maybe... Read again my post?
You'll see that I most often suggest a dip into Rogue for Expertise, because that plain trumps any other thing. Stack this on a STR-based character and you are very pretty sure you will succeed.

Moving on, where on earth did I speak about a caster using a grappling instead of unleashing a Fireball? I spoke about Sorcerer DIP for some funny shenanigans. But even so, you know that spell slots are not unlimited right?

As for Thunderwave, well, it is not always the right spell to use, considering it affects all creatures.

I'm sorry, but comparing a free manoeuver with powerful, resource-consuming feature to make a conclusion such as "meh, not good enough" is stupid.

Of course resource-consuming features will be (generally) more efficient as far as action-economy is concerned... Although you *conveniently* didn't quote the part in which I give perfect examples of grappling being actually very worth in the cost/time/power ratio, like saving a squishy ally (for example, the one ally that actually knows the Fireball) or trailing a creature into a persistent damage/restraining/choking area.
But between times in which those resources are depleted or times in which you just have the right spell/feature for the situation, grappling may be "light" enough to actually be the best choice.

Most martials have no spells at all, or very limited spells. Grappling / Shoving is a great way to exploit allies's already cast spells instead, as well as soft control. With the advantage of being always available (well, except for S&B ^^) and the potential to become more reliable than any spell with any decent build investment (Expertise is the only thing really required, Grappler is just icing on the cake).

Oh, by the way, small tip: the size limit annoys you? Get three levels in Sorcerer or Wizard to get Enlarge/Reduce, which conveniently also provides advantage on STR checks. Or multiclass into any caster granting Polymorph and make yourself a nice, cozy T-Rex.
Or be a Moon Druid with the usual dip.
It's really not that hard. ;)

mephnick

2017-09-07, 05:55 PM

My general process is to take a concept that isn't "optimal" like Dex Barbarian or Dual Wield Bladelock and then try to optimize it enough that it's a valuable asset to the party. The difference between "ok" and "amazing" in 5e is very small, so it's pretty easy to end up somewhere in the middle even with mismatched races/classes/concepts.

Afrodactyl

2017-09-07, 06:01 PM

I've grown to like suboptimal builds. I generally find I enjoy playing a character more when they're wacky and fit a concept better rather than being super optimal (and usually being disappointing because dice hate me when I power game).

By all means I won't write up a deliberately garbage character, but if my concept suits a suboptimal build, then I go suboptimal (for example my fighter that uses a javelin/shield/protection rather than longsword or rapier/shield/duelling, or my warlock that only uses fire spells).

GlenSmash!

2017-09-07, 06:07 PM

It's kind of freeing, actually. I can barely tolerate playing 5e but it's what all my friends want to play so I toss together characters basically at random. Largely because the times I've tried to make interesting characters optimized in some odd direction I've found there either IS no build besides "Has a slightly higher chance of succeeding" (like wanting to be a tripper or something in Pathfinder) or it's underwhelming in practice (grappling is such a joke in 5e).

I personally love that I can role up a Barbarian, Rogue, Bard, Or UA Scout Fighter and have them be good grapplers/shovers without ever having to spend a single feat. I don't have to build toward it, I just do it.

If I do want to spend a Feat on it Brawny is great for a character that doesn't already have expertise in Athletics.

But to each their own.

Dankus Memakus

2017-09-07, 06:39 PM

Mortis_Elrod

2017-09-07, 07:05 PM

Maybe... Read again my post?
sniped

Gonna go ahead and add to this with a couple things.

-Monk's (with or without a dip into rogue for expertise ) make very good grapplers, the standard grapple >shove prone > bonus action hit twice with fists is always an option for an level 5 monk and its good against a lot of enemies.

-You only need one hand to grapple. However you only have two hands, you can still grapple two people at once, (if you have more hands this best used on a fighter for more Attack actions.)

Moving on to answer the OP's questions. I generally try to make silly characters, but i end up optimizing as much as possible. Like right now I'm trying to decide on a character for a level 5 one shot. I have stats rolled, and a few ideas the prominent ones being things i haven't got a chance to try yet. Lizardfolk Kensei 5 with a focus on leaping on to enemies, dragging them down to the ground and eating their faces off, and a Archer based Warlock, (new invocations work with ranged weapons, don't know how to get around the prone issues though). Can't really decide what to do though, i think i'll probably go with the lizardfolk monk since I can expect some swimming to be useful (we are looking for a pirates treasure) , but its still pretty good and has ranged options. But the Archer Warlock would probably be best as a hexblade to add a bit more single target damage with the curse, so maybe i should do tabaxi for dex and cha boost and have a cha melee option. 3 invos being Improved pact weapon, smite, thirsting blade.

Started off pretty silly ideas but i can't NOT use every resource to make them strong as possible. Maybe i need to play a gnome champion fighter for a while, and just relax with the character creation minigame (its addicting).

scalyfreak

2017-09-07, 07:20 PM

Started off pretty silly ideas but i can't NOT use every resource to make them strong as possible. Maybe i need to play a gnome champion fighter for a while, and just relax with the character creation minigame (its addicting).

Do the gnome dexterity based for good measure, and dual-wield short swords. Everyone will think you're a rogue.

jaappleton

2017-09-07, 07:30 PM

There's totally limits to optimization. I've theory crafted several builds that're just too much, and there's one or two UA archetypes I won't touch because it's just... I draw the line where I step on other party members toes.

If there's a Paladin in my group that's built his character purely to tank, and I make something to make that character obsolete, I won't play it. I'll talk to the player about possibly tweaking their own build to get the most out of it (if they ask), but I won't step on their toes.

It's for that reason that I often... I won't want to say 'gimp myself', but I'll throw in a little curveball. All my characters are typically build to excel at something. I've got a Warforged Forge Cleric with 24 AC without even trying. But my Dex is terrible, and I RP it that way. "Would you quit moving around, I'm going to pull something trying to keep up with you!"

Mortis_Elrod

2017-09-07, 07:46 PM

Do the gnome dexterity based for good measure, and dual-wield short swords. Everyone will think you're a rogue.

Sadly i just played a gnome (soul knife, was named Master Yado. liked to jump around with his green shotos soul knives) as well as we have a gnome barbarian coming along. I always avoid race/class overlaps to make sure to have a diverse party.

Maybe ill try Drow Paladin 2/ Beast Master 3 (with a panther), wth two magic swords...and a magi bow...

Hrugner

2017-09-07, 09:38 PM

Maybe... Read again my post?

Done, same problems as the first time I read it.

I'm comparing the grapple to a fireball because you are using the fireball in your hypothetical to do damage. The resource is still expended whether or not it is coming from your character so treating "move creature into fireball" as an unlimited ability is silly. So, since you're using it from one character sheet, the question is whether you'd be better off with a second fireball caster, or your grappler.

Thunderwave is an example, I think I gave others. Gust is one. Gust is cheap enough for a character to grab to end every grapple that happens near them without a contest.

I cut your examples because some are much less cost effective than the grapple action on it's own. Some of them are trivially ignored. One doesn't require grapple. Once we're spending feats on grappling, it gets worse and worse due to the cost increase. Dropping a level into rogue for expertise, spending feats on grappling and so on go far beyond the "free maneuver". It gets expensive for the actual benefits it provides. You don't need to grapple an ally to drag them, you can just drag them. It's one of the methods I listed for trivially overcoming grapples.

Spending another character's action, concentration, and a second level spell on enlarge so that you can keep a creature from moving around doesn't seem cost effective. Particularly since it can be overcome by one character spending one action and some move to drag the grappled ally and end the grapple with no contest.

Saeviomage

2017-09-07, 09:47 PM

It's AL so you can redo your character. Usually someone helps them out after the game's over (usually the player with poor stats knows they've done something wrong because bad things happened to them far more than to other players - and they ask for help) and explains to them why having high-medium stats across the board is far worse than having big key stats and living with low stats (even a -1 stat).

I would argue that "bad things happening" is much more a case of in-play than stat generation, since the stat swing from a -1 to a +3 is still only going to affect 1 roll in 5, and my experience is that it takes a lot less than 5 rolls to kill a newbie.

My personal recommendation to anyone playing an RPG for the first time is to prioritize personal survival over everything else. That way you'll at least get some idea how the game plays before you are forced to create a new character.

Vorok

2017-09-07, 11:46 PM

Where this becomes a problem, is that fact that most DMs aren't going to let the campaign become a Monty Hall. Instead, they're going to start upping the difficulty. This then creates an Oroboros effect. The only way that the party can survive in that campaign is if every character is optimized and the party is working as a well-oiled machine. When that DM starts the next game, the returning players come back with that expectation that they're going be facing super dangerous opponents and will need to optimize. Now you have a table where everyone is optimizing, all of the time. The DM can't dial it back because then it becomes boring and easy. The players can't dial it back because then they'll get murdered. The two groups need to come together and discuss campaign power levels, goals, and so forth. This is difficult though, because everyone likely has a different idea of what the ideal power levels actually look like.

I mean, if there are returning players, then they will know what kind of power levels the talk is about. And it is something that could be talked about before starting the campaign or during character creation. Something like a reminder that starting with +2 in the main stat of the character is more than fine for the campaign. And it is something you can talk even during the campaign itself. "Hey guys, your characters are a bit too strong for what I envisioned, I have to keep upping the difficulty, and it's quite exhausting. Would you mind some changes/swapping out some characterss/etc."

JBPuffin

2017-09-08, 01:09 AM

Tell me about this CHA Dwarf. I am intrigued.

Alehaus Dwarf: Basically, rather than making their own homes after Hammerfast fell, these guys moved in with the humans (there was an empire run by a supercharged Erathis...I need to brag about my dad's DMing, and especially that campaign, more than I do) and took over taverns and that sort of thing. Normal hill dwarf racials with a Stonecunning for Insight (needs/desires, like a bartender would use; replaces the original) and a +1 to Charisma rather than Wisdom. We were going to do something more drastic, but we realized it wasn't strictly necessary. Besides, it was more about the Charisma boost than anything else.

Tsaquen Nevar has held a place in my heart as my first truly melee bard; the other two I played in 4e and were archer-bards (a fun build, but certainly less visceral). He's also the first dwarf I played truly in-character, derived his name from the dwarven conlang I still haven't finished (making languages is hard, y'all :smalltongue:), and got into trouble with the other characters without necessarily causing problems for the group. See, when the trio of Bard, Tiefling Barbarian, and Dragonborn Monk got stuck serving the rather evil Church of Erathis (loooooong story there), Tsaquen was the one who thought, "Eh, they aren't so bad," which meant the other PCs immediately didn't trust him as much. All he wanted to do was get the bar he rightfully owned back, and frankly didn't care who got it for him, but the Church already had them stuck, so...eventually that wasn't an issue anymore, but it was hilarious watching the other two work together in-character to keep Tsaq from learning about the secret elves living on the island the Barb's favorite pirate ship had gotten crashed onto...Yeah, this whole thing needs a different thread >.>.

Citan

2017-09-08, 06:52 AM

Done, same problems as the first time I read it.

1. I'm comparing the grapple to a fireball because you are using the fireball in your hypothetical to do damage. The resource is still expended whether or not it is coming from your character so treating "move creature into fireball" as an unlimited ability is silly. So, since you're using it from one character sheet, the question is whether you'd be better off with a second fireball caster, or your grappler.

2. Spending another character's action, concentration, and a second level spell on enlarge so that you can keep a creature from moving around doesn't seem cost effective. Particularly since it can be overcome by one character spending one action and some move to drag the grappled ally and end the grapple with no contest.
So you are being plain dishonest here. I won't answer again as a consequence but as a last try to be constructive...

1. I never said "better bring a grappler than a caster". I'm speaking about using native capabilities of any character that is STR-based or has Expertise in Athletics.
In other words, I'm trying to explain to you how to make the most of non-casters characters.

Let's take a level 6 optimized STR Fighter (20 STR) with a level 6 optimized Wizard (18 INT).
F knows that W is gonna unleash a Fireball on next turn because there are already 2 monsters he wants to weaken.

F has a third monster in range which he knows has great AC (18) but low DEX save (+1), 10 feet away from the expected Fireball area.

F could just blow both his attacks (or maybe a third if TWF) and be done with it: considering an optimized Fighter (20 STR) it would amount to 2*(1d10+5) = 2*10,5=22, with chance to hit 55%.
Because high AC, he does not try the -5+10 thing even if he has GWM because it would lower his chance to hit to 30%).

OR, F could make an attack (average 10,5), then make a grapple (since you can wield a two-handed sword with one hand when not attacking with it, per official ruling) with a +8 bonus...
Or even just blow Extra Attack on grapple to ensure it works because he doesn't know how high a bonus the creature has against grapple, then bring the monster in the expected area.
Wizard unleashes the Fireball with a DC to reach equal to 8+3+4= 15. Average of 8d8 = 4,5*8 = 36.
If the monster fails the save, the result of Fighter's turn is plain better than if he just had attacked.
If the monsters succeed on the save (35% chance), it still takes 18 damage which is a 4 points loss compared to Fighter attacking.
In other words, the Fighter evaluated the different options he had and decided to go with the one that has the best potential of minimum/average/maximum damage when taking probabilities into account, and "took a ride" on his ally's resource, because it meant 100% chance to deal at least 18 damage on average, and 65% chance to deal 36 damage on average.

How is that a bad use of action economy? I'd really like to understand.

Another example: take a War Cleric that usually maintains Spirit Guardians: he decides to use a one-handed weapon and no shield to grapple someone that has a high move. Now he's sure the creature cannot escape so will have to risk the save against damage of Spirit Guardians and he can still attack it with his weapon. Keeping the creature grappled immediately bumps his potential damage by up to 3d8 (or more if upcast) per round until the creature breaks free one way or another (and considering Spirit Guardians halves speed and is 15 feet wide, its allies will probably think twice before risking their hide to come and help it).
Oh, and, best thing? Once cast, you don't use a hand to use Spiritual Weapon either, so you are still as functional as usual.
And you can position yourself to use the grappled creature as a half-cover against his ranged pals.

2. Why another characters' level and concentration? I was (clearly enough) talking about someone that actually wants to optimize the concept of grappler. Like an Eldricht Knight for example (which can get it naturally at level 8) which gets as a result advantage on STR checks and +1d4 damage (great with more attacks), then advantage on his weapon attacks as a result of grappled condition if he took Grappler (which he took since he wants to optimize the concept, and can grab easily since has extra feats). Again, plain dishonesty.

Oh by the way, Grappled condition ends "only by an effect". So a creature cannot just come and "grapple away" the creature that you are currently grappling. It just does not work. Any sensible DM would require at the minimum a Grapple/Shove (Athletic) check against you if he's nice, or a plain STR check otherwise.
And if someone had to use Gust (which is a cantrip, which requires usually an action to cast) to get away from you, then congrats, you just made someone waste an action that could have been instead used to unleash a dangerous spell (caster) or several attacks (martial).

You just never managed to use grappling in a efficient way, so you are spitting on it. Too bad for you. Hopefully it won't prevent other people to use it with the minimum required tactical mind and enjoy it as a result.

Rogerdodger557

2017-09-08, 07:06 AM

Alehaus Dwarf: Basically, rather than making their own homes after Hammerfast fell, these guys moved in with the humans (there was an empire run by a supercharged Erathis...I need to brag about my dad's DMing, and especially that campaign, more than I do) and took over taverns and that sort of thing. Normal hill dwarf racials with a Stonecunning for Insight (needs/desires, like a bartender would use; replaces the original) and a +1 to Charisma rather than Wisdom. We were going to do something more drastic, but we realized it wasn't strictly necessary. Besides, it was more about the Charisma boost than anything else.

Tsaquen Nevar has held a place in my heart as my first truly melee bard; the other two I played in 4e and were archer-bards (a fun build, but certainly less visceral). He's also the first dwarf I played truly in-character, derived his name from the dwarven conlang I still haven't finished (making languages is hard, y'all :smalltongue:), and got into trouble with the other characters without necessarily causing problems for the group. See, when the trio of Bard, Tiefling Barbarian, and Dragonborn Monk got stuck serving the rather evil Church of Erathis (loooooong story there), Tsaquen was the one who thought, "Eh, they aren't so bad," which meant the other PCs immediately didn't trust him as much. All he wanted to do was get the bar he rightfully owned back, and frankly didn't care who got it for him, but the Church already had them stuck, so...eventually that wasn't an issue anymore, but it was hilarious watching the other two work together in-character to keep Tsaq from learning about the secret elves living on the island the Barb's favorite pirate ship had gotten crashed onto...Yeah, this whole thing needs a different thread >.>.

I love it.

Maxilian

2017-09-08, 08:25 AM

Concept comes first. But once that's done, I'll try my damnest to optimize.

This, i would go with a concept, and will try to optimize around it (even if the concept, in general its suboptimal)

The Aboleth

2017-09-08, 08:34 AM

Nifft

2017-09-08, 09:08 AM

Maxilian

2017-09-08, 09:09 AM

Honest question: If you roll well enough on your stats (say, nothing below a 10 or 11) is there really such a thing as "sub-optimal?" Yes, a build is more than what your stats are, but can good stats cover up at least the early "sub-optimalness" (not a real word) of a low-level build?

Yes, good stats can cover up the lack of optimization (depends on the stats though 12 or 13, maybe not, 14 depending the stats).

The detail, is that normally you would want your main stat, at least at 18, and if you want feats, that makes your ASIS even more lacking, i mean.... in general, you could have all stats (minus 1, over 10 -with standard array or even all over 10 with point buy system, and you would still have the suboptimal problem)

Note: Have in mind that many MCs have requirement of at least 13 in X stat, and there are some stats that are useful for everyone (to the point that, in many cases, you want at least a 14 there), being those stats CON (even more useful if you are a caster -but good for everyone, martials are in melee, so you going to get hit often), WIS (one of the most common checks and most spells -even more at highter lvl- affect WIS), DEX (extremely good for everyone, but some people just get AC and Initiative from it, so 14 its enough for the max AC given by your medium armor)

Maxilian

2017-09-08, 09:12 AM

It's certainly possible to screw yourself over deliberately even if you have a natural 18.

Just put the 18 in a dump stat, and put your 10 and your 11 in your main stats.

Let's say you rolled: 18, 16, 14, 12, 11, 10

You make a Barbarian:
Str: 10
Dex: 12
Con: 11
Int: 14
Wis: 16
Cha: 18

"Hey guys, I'm the wise tribal leader. Check out how good I am at being wise, and leading a tribe."

Great concept, but terrible choice in implementation.

And all can be worked around.

Take 2 lvls in Warlock (Hexblade), now you attack with CHA, you are somehow useful again.

If you were a Dragonborn, you could take the Feat the let you forgo one of your attacks to intimidate (giving you more options in combat and out of it.)

smcmike

2017-09-08, 09:23 AM

And all can be worked around.

Take 2 lvls in Warlock (Hexblade), now you attack with CHA, you are somehow useful again.

If you were a Dragonborn, you could take the Feat the let you forgo one of your attacks to intimidate (giving you more options in combat and out of it.)

You can't multiclass until you get your strength over 13. This character is going to be pretty weak for a long time.

Joe the Rat

2017-09-08, 09:29 AM

Not until you get that STR and CON up - you need 13s to leave the class.

The concept would probably be better met with a druid or feylock, or even a Ranger - any of them with the Outlander or Uthgardt Tribe background. (Now I'm thinking Beastmaster Ranger. Sit back, be wise, let your pet wolf get those pesky goblins off your lawn take care of business). But I think that's Nifft's point - you can build bad.

But you do have to be a bit deliberate about it.

Nifft

2017-09-08, 09:56 AM

And all can be worked around.

Take 2 lvls in Warlock (Hexblade), now you attack with CHA, you are somehow useful again.

Nope, sorry. I dug the hole well.

You aren't getting this character out of the hole without significant investment

As my estimable ninja colleagues have said above, you need more Str and Con before you're allowed to even think about multi-classing.

The concept would probably be better met with a druid or feylock, or even a Ranger - any of them with the Outlander or Uthgardt Tribe background. (Now I'm thinking Beastmaster Ranger. Sit back, be wise, let your pet wolf get those pesky goblins off your lawn take care of business).

Yep!

... or a Bard, or even a Nature Cleric (free Druid cantrip at level 1 -- hello shillelagh).

There are great ways to build a character who was the elderly leader of a barbarian tribe. NONE of those ways involve being a Barbarian with 10 Strength. I picked a cool concept, and then showed how to fail at implementing that concept.

Another (obvious) way would be to just be a Barbarian with 16 Str / 14 Dex / 12 Con / 18 Wis. Not optimal, but quite acceptable.

smcmike

2017-09-08, 10:17 AM

Nope, sorry. I dug the hole well.

You aren't getting this character out of the hole without significant investment

As my estimable ninja colleagues have said above, you need more Str and Con before you're allowed to even think about multi-classing.

You only need strength, actually. Start with mountain dwarf, and survive until level 4. Get Heavily Armored. At level 5, you become a Warlock, and have a fairly effective attack with good AC. At 6, you've got a very nice attack, and are fairly tough for a ranged specialist.

Regulas

2017-09-08, 10:55 AM

Maxilian

2017-09-08, 11:23 AM

Nope, sorry. I dug the hole well.

You aren't getting this character out of the hole without significant investment

As my estimable ninja colleagues have said above, you need more Str and Con before you're allowed to even think about multi-classing.

True... though i guess you can still do something about it.

Like get the feat Magic Initiate, get Magic Stone, now you have something to do in combat (though you won't be able to use Rage with this -as you can't cast cantrips while raging, but you could cast it before raging, and have 3 shoots with it), after that you could get the feat Menancing (feats for skills) and that would let you use one of your attacks to intimidate, so you could cast Magic Stone before raging and then every turn cast menancing and one magic stone attack, that way the magic stone will last for 3 whole rounds (though you don't really need to use rage all the time)

Note: Yeah, you can make bad builds, but... anything, with the right approach, can be worked with.

Maxilian

2017-09-08, 11:26 AM

smcmike

2017-09-08, 11:29 AM

The discrepancy here is between sub-optimal and sub-optimized.

A sub-optimal character is fine. A sub-optimized character is not.

A Half-orc wizard is sub-optimal because you will start at max 15 int. The thing is so long as they optimize within that, they will have a normal wizard dex/con and still be very solid in every other way then there spell DC.

A sub-optimized character is a "dumb" wizard, the high elf who just doesnt take int anyway. Or the player who wants all 12's for stats ignoring what he actually needs etc. etc.

Basically so long as you optimize your character then the nerfs for something like race not fitting are fairly minor (and half-orc recovery from death is pretty good on a low level wizard who's more likely to die then anyone else early), it's when you don't even try to optimize your character and just make "a concept alone" that there are problems.

It's a matter of degree, though. There isn't a clear divide between sub-optimal and sub-optimized. Using an unexpected race and starting with a lower main stat is one minor example, bit there are a ton of little decisions that you can make that can change a character's effectiveness, and the degree of effectiveness required may vary from table to table.

For me, the only requirement is that a character be able to do something useful, or, to put it another way, that the party is glad they have the character along, disregarding the effects of the character's presence in XP, loot shares, and so on.

This is a very easy threshold to meet. The old Mountain Dwarf Abjurer with 10 Intelligence is a good example - obviously sub-optimized, but also definely useful to the party. He's a moderately effective melee combatant, with all the utility of a wizard. Just don't expect him to cast offensive magic, or keep up with the dedicated damage dealers, and he should fit in fine.

A character with ALL bad stats has a pretty narrow road to effectiveness, though. A moon Druid can be pretty effective in the early levels regardless of stats. If you get three stats to thirteen, you can add in two levels of paladin, and become a mighty smiting bear. That's not bad.

Waterdeep Merch

2017-09-08, 11:46 AM

This is almost completely true, in the end, the "sub-optimized" is not always having 12 stats in everything, is when you don't work with your advantages and work around your disadvantage (a 12 stats in everything could be a nice skill monkey -depending the class- or just work around buff spells and things like those, part of being sub-optimized is not only how the character is made, but how they are played)
That's a big part of why I like rolling for stats. It forces players to really think about how to properly build around potential problems while maximizing their potential strengths.

I'm reminded of two instances:

1.) A point buy rogue about two years ago who was completely new to D&D at the time. One of our worst players was bringing him onboard, and decided to coach him through designing a rogue thief. It was fortunately vetted past me next, as the DM didn't trust the other player to understand even the basic principles of the game (not to malign him all too much in anonymity, but he's a total moron at basic character building on every level). The rogue he built had, I believe, STR: 11 DEX: 8 CON: 10 INT: 15 WIS: 15 CHA: 15. After racial mods (tiefling). He didn't have a concept in mind, he just didn't want to be stupid and didn't understand that he was overcorrecting a non-issue. I sat down with him, pointed out why a rogue with a negative dexterity was an absolutely horrific idea, that odd stats aren't useful, and how you don't need genius level mental statistics to roleplay a clever character. We traded for the feral tiefling stats (he liked the look of tieflings, so we optimized around it), kept the charisma high because he still wanted to be a charmer, and ultimately built a very useful rogue that went on for about a year and a half worth of adventuring before retirement.

2.) A rolled stats player near the beginning of this year got the weirdest attributes I think I've ever seen. His lowest roll was a 12, his highest a 14. He originally wanted to be a warlock, but being completely incapable of getting a good charisma score (he was adamant about playing a human), he abandoned it and went barbarian. He spent his opening feat on skilled, then made sure to build around the conceit that he was an incredibly well-rounded, world-traveling, gentleman barbarian. He knew a little about everything, dabbled in everything at one point or another, and could be useful in every facet of the game. He's been liking this barbarian better than most other characters he's played.

Maxilian

2017-09-08, 12:15 PM

That's a big part of why I like rolling for stats. It forces players to really think about how to properly build around potential problems while maximizing their potential strengths.

I HATE rolling for stats, both as DM and as PC, as a DM i feel that at low lvl, the stat difference between chars may make someone else feel more powerful than others (a non-issue after they get a couple of lvls though), and as a PC, because... i LOVE optimization, it let me make cool builds without having them useless (like a Dragonborn Barbarian / Bard) but.... depending your luck with the dice rolls, you may be able to make even a better non common character than with Point Buy.

1.) A point buy rogue about two years ago who was completely new to D&D at the time. One of our worst players was bringing him onboard, and decided to coach him through designing a rogue thief. It was fortunately vetted past me next, as the DM didn't trust the other player to understand even the basic principles of the game (not to malign him all too much in anonymity, but he's a total moron at basic character building on every level). The rogue he built had, I believe, STR: 11 DEX: 8 CON: 10 INT: 15 WIS: 15 CHA: 15. After racial mods (tiefling). He didn't have a concept in mind, he just didn't want to be stupid and didn't understand that he was overcorrecting a non-issue. I sat down with him, pointed out why a rogue with a negative dexterity was an absolutely horrific idea, that odd stats aren't useful, and how you don't need genius level mental statistics to roleplay a clever character. We traded for the feral tiefling stats (he liked the look of tieflings, so we optimized around it), kept the charisma high because he still wanted to be a charmer, and ultimately built a very useful rogue that went on for about a year and a half worth of adventuring before retirement.

The problem here, is the problem i find when most people are not enjoying their character, i mean... a character could have 1 class or have 4 class, what makes it a good character, is when you have in mind the concept of the character, who are they, what do they do, what they are good at, what they are bad at, etc...

2.) A rolled stats player near the beginning of this year got the weirdest attributes I think I've ever seen. His lowest roll was a 12, his highest a 14. He originally wanted to be a warlock, but being completely incapable of getting a good charisma score (he was adamant about playing a human), he abandoned it and went barbarian. He spent his opening feat on skilled, then made sure to build around the conceit that he was an incredibly well-rounded, world-traveling, gentleman barbarian. He knew a little about everything, dabbled in everything at one point or another, and could be useful in every facet of the game. He's been liking this barbarian better than most other characters he's played.

Rolling stats does open interesting character ideas, but what makes it good its not the rolling stats, is the will of the player to play such character, because... lets be serious, a PC can have fun with any character, it depends a lot on them, so its not weird to have a PC feel bad when they came in a campaign with a character concept in mind, and that the rolls do not let them play what they want (I mean... we see many PCs feel bad when they hear that X class / race is not avaible in my campaign because Y, and they happened to have a concept with that race / class)

Ravinsild

2017-09-08, 01:30 PM

I just saw the Illidan cinematic today (no spoilers for anyone) and uuuuh for sure I want to make a character exactly like Illidan. I just wanna play D&D Illidan and be a turbo badass like Illidan.

Suboptimal? Almost definitely. Can it be done? IDK maybe.

GlenSmash!

2017-09-08, 01:51 PM

Laserlight

2017-09-08, 03:57 PM

coyote_sly

2017-09-08, 05:30 PM

I'll play the character concept I'm interested in...and optimize the *+%# out of it within those constraints. I find various human/half elf everything to be boring, and like mismatched class/race pairings. But I'm going to do the best I can to make the concept mechanically as well as RP.

willdaBEAST

2017-09-08, 06:35 PM

A while ago, another player (35 years younger than me) complained that my character wasn't optimized. The point he hadn't considered was ”Optimized to do what?” I didn't set him up to squeeze out the last decimal of DPR; I built him to be survivable and flexible. And he survived and prevented at least one TPK. Good enough.

I've optimized other characters for other purposes. They may not have all the bonuses in the right place (e g gnome barbarian) but they have all been useful to the party.

I think this touches on the narrow view of optimized that most players seem to cling to and their focus on DPR. There's also much more at play than stats or racial choice. Imagine a fully optimized wizard who never used the most effective spell for the moment. Mechanically the wizard was impeccable, but the player approached every situation the same, by blasting it.

Another aspect is if your DM is an optimizer, encounters might be built with the expectation that everyone is building a specific way. That allows for a lot of creativity if you can find a way to exploit predictable trends.

A lot of my gaming background is from Dota and you'd see the same kind of thing: the meta would be gospel and you'd get flamed for picking a non-meta hero, but then in a huge tournament a pro player would use an overlooked hero or skill/item build in a way that completely disrupted the balance. There is no ideal optimization, there are builds that are best suited for the moment, but that's always changing. When too many players start relying on the same kind of builds, DMs will adjust and find a weakness.

Nifft

2017-09-08, 07:17 PM

I think this touches on the narrow view of optimized that most players seem to cling to and their focus on DPR. There's also much more at play than stats or racial choice.

Agree with this.

When I optimize a character, I'll try to fit in abilities & tricks that open new tactics in addition to supporting my pre-existing tactics. That's why I love Minor Illusion on a class or race. SO many possible uses.

Waterdeep Merch

2017-09-08, 08:11 PM

-snip-
I get players like you at my table, too. I offer them the chance to use standard array. I even let them roll the dice first and decide which set they prefer.

It's a taste thing. Some people love it, some people hate it. I try to let both play together.

I think this touches on the narrow view of optimized that most players seem to cling to and their focus on DPR. There's also much more at play than stats or racial choice. Imagine a fully optimized wizard who never used the most effective spell for the moment. Mechanically the wizard was impeccable, but the player approached every situation the same, by blasting it.

Another aspect is if your DM is an optimizer, encounters might be built with the expectation that everyone is building a specific way. That allows for a lot of creativity if you can find a way to exploit predictable trends.

A lot of my gaming background is from Dota and you'd see the same kind of thing: the meta would be gospel and you'd get flamed for picking a non-meta hero, but then in a huge tournament a pro player would use an overlooked hero or skill/item build in a way that completely disrupted the balance. There is no ideal optimization, there are builds that are best suited for the moment, but that's always changing. When too many players start relying on the same kind of builds, DMs will adjust and find a weakness.
I think part of the issue is the humble class guide and the proliferation of the internet as a communications platform. Even now, we talk about what abilities are good, bad, unbalanced, etc. We discuss viability, concrete numbers, and even corner cases. This is good stuff for a lot of reasons, but it also gets into our head that anything outside the norm is an inefficient or stupid way to play the game.

Sometimes it's important for everyone to just take a deep breath and move on. The worst thing bad optimization can do is make a player weaker in a fantasy board game. That is so much less annoying than bad roleplaying.

PeteNutButter

2017-09-08, 09:18 PM

Like many others, I start with a concept and then try to optimize it. I definitely err more on the side of optimization to the point that I cannot allow a character I design to make sub-optimal in game choices.

An example would be: I imagined my character would use a short sword. I absolutely cannot play a sword and board character with a short sword when a longsword would do the same only better. But I could design the character to be dex based and use TWF (avoiding the DW feat) so that I can use short swords, or to be a monk etc. If I'm dead set on a heavy armor (str build) sword and board, roman legionnaire style build, I'll just use a longsword on the sheet, but *fluff* it as a "gladius" even though that'd totally be a short sword.

Basically if there is something that is 100% mathematically inferior, with no drawback in switching to the better option, I can't bring myself to play it. Note: that does not exclude subpar choices that offer at least some small benefit that can't be gained another way. My str based halfling can reroll ones for instance.

Unless the game is heavy RP based, I'll still match my race to a key stat in my class, and make optimal choices, in line with my concept. Doing what I said above, such as deliberately gimping your character by using an inferior weapon etc, I find to be bad manners/bad teamwork.

Blacky the Blackball

2017-09-09, 05:24 AM

My group doesn't have much enthusiasm for optimisation at all.

Of course, we use Standard Array for ability scores and we don't use multiclassing - so to be honest there wouldn't be that much "build space" open to us if we did want to optimise. When it comes to race/class combos, though, we tend to pick what we have fun visualising rather than what give the best stats. I'd be lying if I said we didn't take stats into account at all, I mean we do put higher stats in the main ability scores for the class, it's just that a character with good theme or concept will trump a more "optimised" one every time when it comes to picking things.

To a large extent that attitude is encouraged by the DMs. They'll pitch encounters at the strength of the party, so optimising doesn't make the game any easier. It just means that you tend to fight tougher enemies to balance it out - so it's rather pointless except as an academic exercise.

Similarly, we have absolutely no problem with some characters not being able to "pull their weight" in combat because they're less optimal than others. The difference is never enough to ruin the game experience, and the people who chose to play characters with a stronger combat emphasis enjoy it when their characters get to shine by heroically defending the weaker ones. Meanwhile, the weaker ones will always have other out-of-combat areas where they shine.

ZorroGames

2017-09-09, 07:21 AM

I have yet to make a non-Dwarf/Human character in 5e that I seriously want to field. Almost always Mountain Dwarf but the underestimated Human flexibility is not to be overlooked. I also always use point buy because 3D6 in OD&D meant nothing but headaches. The Horror, the horror of mutlple stats from 6 to 8!!

It is not that I have not designed good characters (a delightful Wood Elf Monk on paper for one example) but actually playing them seems be a step I just (cannot?) have not made. The challenge of making Mountain Dwarf fit the class is fun. You know your stremgth will always be 10 and you can easily get a inexpensive (12+2) constitution of 14 which gives you freedom to build away at your character concept once you accept the risk of one or two dump stats at 8.

Honest Tiefling

2017-09-09, 12:57 PM

In theory, I probably would. I mean, tiefling wizard is technically not the most optimal, but...Tiefling.

In practice? Usually play with folks who do enjoy the optimization and I don't want to be *that* player. Yeah, I probably still could contribute quite well with a less optimal build, but I never had a concept that was tempting enough for the risk. With a caster you can usually just take some spells for RP purposes even if they aren't always the best.

Also, if I was in a party with less optimization, I might take a less optimal race and leave the rest be. I tend to play support builds, so being more optimized doesn't really tend to outshine other players. I guess that bonus to my most important ability score is just too tempting...

Rynjin

2017-09-09, 10:20 PM

Been busy evacuating my house over the last few days, but now I'm super bored so here I am.

Well, I'd say that saying "zero tangible benefit" or "grappling is a joke" is quite missing the spot. ;)

Maybe you just didn't understand how to properly use it, because you didn't have a proper character or allies?

Let's watch again... Grapple...
- sets speed to 0.
- is ended ONLY if you stop it or if an effect puts the creature out of your reach.

Correct, but there are plenty of things that can do this. Don't forget that Large sized creatures auto-succeed on their check to escape you. Best case scenario against many non-humanoids puts you at a draw (you're both wasting your actions grappling/ungrappling).

With that said...

Grapple with Mage Slayer: good luck for that caster trying to move away to cast as before: there are several spells that could forcibly remove him from your grasp, including the classic Misty Step but also Gust of Wind or even just Gust and the like... EXCEPT that you still get an opportunity attack (even with Misty Step).
Fun fact: pair that with Sentinel, which works by RAW, and your enemy caster will find himself standing 30 feet away (Misty Step) but with no speed (Sentinel effect): since most creatures have a 30 feet move at least, he basically just wasted a slot trying to get away from you and still failing in the end.

Unfortunately no. The Mage Slayer attack is, interestingly, NOT an Opportunity Attack, it's a separate Reaction used to make a melee attack, so it doesn't stack with Sentinel which specifies an OA for the speed setting. Even if it did though, I'm not sure why you think Misty Step would be "wasted". It puts you out of the grapple as a Bonus Action. Quite worth a 2nd level spell slot and lets them then retaliate against you with their normal Action.

Be a True Tank: if the enemy cannot escape forcibly, his only luck is trying to defeat you (or at least deal enough damage that you want to flee on your own). So that's at least one enemy you keep with you.

Except if the enemy is dangerous enough that you want to "keep it with you", it's probably ill-advised to put yourself at such a disadvantage as giving your enemy an extra free round to attack you over the damage you have dealt.

Fun fact: a Sorcerer dip for Twinned and Shocking Grasp would allow a grappler to deal consistent damage to two grappled targets... Well, it actually requires a ruling because Warcaster says "even if you hold weapons or shields", which is not the same thing as holding creatures. Considering the cantrip's wording though ("lightning springs from your hand") I think there would be no good reason no to allow it, ROC and all.
Otherwise, grabbing Vicious Mockery solves the problem (verbal only and helps you survive the attacks). ;) Or if DM is cool, instead of Twinning (hefty cost), just use Acid Splash.

It's a really cool image, but I think a bit too MAD and table dependent to be properly feasible. Even then, Grappling is not necessary for the dual taser grab thing to happen.

Enjoy the environment: either cast from you (such as an Eldricht Knight using Create Bonfire) or from others (Spike Growth, Cloud of Daggers, Moonbeam, Wall of Fire etc), you can profit from any thing around you that deal damage at least once per turn (most spells) or even better based on move (Spike Growth) to deal extra damage.
Fun fact: a single dip in Rogue makes any Cleric great at dealing "auto-damage" by keeping grappled people inside Spirit Guardians area (while you also keep using Sacred Flame -DM ruling required- or Vicious Mockery, or Spiritual Weapon, or Healing Words). Obviously a Lore Bard would be even better suited for this without dip (except for armor). A Land Druid 6+ could also use it to run through spikes with two grappled creatures while not taking any damage himself.
Or you could also run into a Darkness/Silence with a caster to force him to focus on you instead of casting powerful spells against the party.
Or force a dangerous archer to switch to melee weapons because otherwise he has disadvantage anyways.

Bring them to the party: go and cherry pick one pesky guy that thought himself safe from any harm, grappling him back to your own fighting trench in which a fiery welcome party is waiting for him... One of the roles Monk can excel at, as well as Hasted Battlemasters, as long as a Rogue dip is involved for Expertise.

Hoard them towards friends's AOE: for some unknown reasons, enemy don't like to stay close together. Help them discover true friendship in death. ;)

All of these have the same issue: Opportunity cost and putting you personally in the same danger as the enemy. In most cases it is better to do something actively useful instead of assuming your allies are going to misplace their attacks/AoEs/Status areas and working to rectify that mistake. Particularly if your idea involves moving an enemy at half speed over multiple rounds to a location full of your allies. That is an EXTREME corner case use.

The AoE one is even counterproductive in some cases. You both have the opportunity to get caught in it yourself...AND grant your opponent Cover against the effect.

Note: This is slightly shaped by my envisioning of grappled movement; Namely that you cannot forcibly relocate your opponent to any of the eight spaces around you, given that that kind of repositioning is not mentioned anywhere in the rules (and seems purposefully left out as there used to BE a Reposition Maneuver to that effect and it and Steal are the only ones not explicitly reproduced in the 5e PHB). You would then only be able to move your opponent in straight lines in the four cardinal directions.

Citan

2017-09-10, 09:58 AM

Correct, but there are plenty of things that can do this. Don't forget that Large sized creatures auto-succeed on their check to escape you. Best case scenario against many non-humanoids puts you at a draw (you're both wasting your actions grappling/ungrappling).

Could you please point me out towards the source on auto-escape? I double checked the PHB on the Grapple move as well as Grappler feat, and I don't see where this comes from. DMG?

Unfortunately no. The Mage Slayer attack is, interestingly, NOT an Opportunity Attack, it's a separate Reaction used to make a melee attack, so it doesn't stack with Sentinel which specifies an OA for the speed setting. Even if it did though, I'm not sure why you think Misty Step would be "wasted". It puts you out of the grapple as a Bonus Action. Quite worth a 2nd level spell slot and lets them then retaliate against you with their normal Action.

DANG. Thanks for clarifying this, it's a real shame. Doesn't void Grapple's usefulness (you still force the caster to take care of you one way or another) but does make Misty Step = instant escape (contrarily to Gust which pushes 5 feet away, so just using a whip or polearm covers that).

Except if the enemy is dangerous enough that you want to "keep it with you", it's probably ill-advised to put yourself at such a disadvantage as giving your enemy an extra free round to attack you over the damage you have dealt.

I don't quite understand your argument, because I was thinking about high AC/resilience characters (like a DEX-based Eldricht Knight with Mirror Image, or a raging Barbarian) that usually want to be hit in place of others in the first place. ;)
So you are not really putting yourself at disadvantage but instead enforcing your self-given role? Or maybe I just misunderstood you?

It's a really cool image, but I think a bit too MAD and table dependent to be properly feasible. Even then, Grappling is not necessary for the dual taser grab thing to happen.

Agreed this is not something good enough to create a character "just for it"... But considering how many people dips into martials to help casters's resilience (like a Sorcerer with Paladin/Fighter/Tempest Cleric dip for heavy armor), or Eldricht Knight multiclassing into casters to make the most of their Eldricht Strike, it seemed to me worth mentioning. ;)
Disagree though on the "Grappling not necessary": it is not required per se for the Twin Shocking Grasp, but helps very much in making the most of it, because it's hard to keep two enemies close by, especially once they know you (or anyone else) has ways to hit them both hard at the same time.

All of these have the same issue: Opportunity cost and putting you personally in the same danger as the enemy. In most cases it is better to do something actively useful instead of assuming your allies are going to misplace their attacks/AoEs/Status areas and working to rectify that mistake. Particularly if your idea involves moving an enemy at half speed over multiple rounds to a location full of your allies. That is an EXTREME corner case use.

The AoE one is even counterproductive in some cases. You both have the opportunity to get caught in it yourself...AND grant your opponent Cover against the effect.

I *strongly* disagree on this one. There is absolutely no reason to put yourself at risk, nor of providing cover, unless you and your mate really have no coordination...
And often using an ally's effect gives a plain better chance of average damage on that turn compared to using your own features. Check my detailed example in above post.

Plus all situations when just restraining an enemy is the best move in general (bring him into a trap, prevent him to reach an endangered ally and the like, or bring him into the reach of an ally's debuff because that ally cannot expose himself).

There really are many situations in which Grappling can be better than just "try to deal damage" (even more so when you consider it doesn't even take your full action unless you are out of luck, since it takes only the place of a weapon attack).

Beyond that, I'd expect someone to specialize in grappling tactics (aka using its as often as possible and taking feats/dips/spells around it) because...
a) He is in a party that does provides synergy with these (friendly spells such as Wall of Fire, Slow or Spirit Guardians, friendly archetypes such as Evoker Wizard or Careful Sorcerer, Warding Bond prebuff)
b) Or he is himself resilient enough to don't care, for example...
- AT Rogue, Bear Barbarian and to a lesser extent Ancients Paladin, EK, Monks really don't have much to fear from AOE which usually target DEX.
- Barbarians, Paladins and tanky Fighters have a high chance of avoiding a Stinking Cloud effect especially with a Bless around.
- Paladins -especially Devotion- won't care about a Hypnotic Pattern.
- Provided the turn order is adequate, a Monk has largely enough mobility to grapple someone, "drop" him into the area and fall back to his initial position so no danger either).

Note: This is slightly shaped by my envisioning of grappled movement; Namely that you cannot forcibly relocate your opponent to any of the eight spaces around you, given that that kind of repositioning is not mentioned anywhere in the rules (and seems purposefully left out as there used to BE a Reposition Maneuver to that effect and it and Steal are the only ones not explicitly reproduced in the 5e PHB). You would then only be able to move your opponent in straight lines in the four cardinal directions.
EDIT: Hmmm, I understand better now why you find grappling so lackluster, it would indeed create quite an hindrance for most characters if you stack this with the fact your speed is halved. ;)

I really don't see any reason to consider so though, considering you can "drag or carry" the creature with you and the creature's speed is 0 (so I'd say it cannot do anything outside of its turn to restrict your own movement). I would certainly, however, rule that "making a 180°" to switch the creature's orientation consumes some movement, probably 5 feet, to represent the energy you take to rotate on yourself with that weight, unless the creature is much smaller than you (following the exception made on speed not being halved if the grappled creature is 2 sizes smaller).

Rynjin

2017-09-10, 11:06 AM

Could you please point me out towards the source on auto-escape? I double checked the PHB on the Grapple move as well as Grappler feat, and I don't see where this comes from. DMG?

Very last line of the Grappler Feat: " Creatures that are one size larger than you don’t automatically succeed on checks to escape your grapple."

The implication is, then, that without the Feat they DO.

I don't quite understand your argument, because I was thinking about high AC/resilience characters (like a DEX-based Eldricht Knight with Mirror Image, or a raging Barbarian) that usually want to be hit in place of others in the first place. ;)
So you are not really putting yourself at disadvantage but instead enforcing your self-given role? Or maybe I just misunderstood you?

Just using Sentinel though you can force someone to hit you by setting their speed to 0. And get an EXTRA attack in the process instead of giving one up.

Beside that there's a better way to do it, even tanks don't generally want to take hits for no reason.

Disagree though on the "Grappling not necessary": it is not required per se for the Twin Shocking Grasp, but helps very much in making the most of it, because it's hard to keep two enemies close by, especially once they know you (or anyone else) has ways to hit them both hard at the same time.

I'd call this a feature, not a bug. Scattering enemies means their damage output is more spread around, making their group less dangerous.

I *strongly* disagree on this one. There is absolutely no reason to put yourself at risk, nor of providing cover, unless you and your mate really have no coordination...
And often using an ally's effect gives a plain better chance of average damage on that turn compared to using your own features. Check my detailed example in above post.

Plus all situations when just restraining an enemy is the best move in general (bring him into a trap, prevent him to reach an endangered ally and the like, or bring him into the reach of an ally's debuff because that ally cannot expose himself).

Also as a general note, much of this utility can be granted by Shove rather than Grapple. If you just want to slow somebody down, trip them. Shove them into AoEs and such.

It's all very situational stuff either way though.

EDIT: Hmmm, I understand better now why you find grappling so lackluster, it would indeed create quite an hindrance for most characters if you stack this with the fact your speed is halved. ;)

I really don't see any reason to consider so though, considering you can "drag or carry" the creature with you and the creature's speed is 0 (so I'd say it cannot do anything outside of its turn to restrict your own movement). I would certainly, however, rule that "making a 180°" to switch the creature's orientation consumes some movement, probably 5 feet, to represent the energy you take to rotate on yourself with that weight, unless the creature is much smaller than you (following the exception made on speed not being halved if the grappled creature is 2 sizes smaller).

"With you" is the part that makes me think that. So you can't move your opponent without moving yourself. Ergo, you can't just pick them up and plunk them down somewhere else.

If you were going to rue you could, it wouldn't make sense to do it any other way than using 5 ft.of movement per square you move them, so even that is pretty lackluster.

Naanomi

2017-09-10, 11:55 AM

Very last line of the Grappler Feat: " Creatures that are one size larger than you don’t automatically succeed on checks to escape your grapple."

The implication is, then, that without the Feat they DO.
The official errata: "Grappler (p. 167). Ignore the third benefit; it refers to a nonexistent rule."

Dr. Cliché

2017-09-11, 08:57 AM

I do concept first, optimization second, story third.

I'm similar to this, but I'll often give a bit more priority to story (especially when it comes to Background).

Other than that I agree with this. I'll generally start a character in one of two ways:
- A certain class (or combination of classes) that I want to play.
- A more general character idea that I want to try and represent as best I can with D&D mechanics.

Obviously with the former I'll already know what classes I'm playing, though I'll generally want to have a character concept in mind before I go any further. With the latter I'll have to decide on class(es), though that's usually not too hard.

With regard to race and stats, I'll try to mesh the two reasonably well, though I'm not above taking races that are a poorer fit for my class (or vice versa).

In terms of stats, I try to have 16s in my important stat(s), but I'll also tend towards sub-optimal loadouts when I believe they better fit my concept.

Regarding spells, obviously I'll start with ones that best fit the theme (if applicable). After that, I'll usually just try to pick some 'good' ones.

The thing is though, I think far more fun is derived from character and personality than from mechanical effectiveness.