I need help NOT taking the video game approach

[jaappleton]

Every time I make a character, each and every single time, I take the video game approach.

I pick an aspect, and I lean incredibly heavily into it.

If this were Fallout, I'd max out pistols, take everything for increased critical hit chance, and eventually one-shot everything. The video game is hard-coded to where, if I stack everything together, I break it. And one-shot most things.

D&D isn't coded. Its fluid. The DM adjusts on the fly. Ok, he's doing _____, so lets add in three more enemies to adjust. He's built a character completely centered around the Frightened condition, lets make sure this boss is immune to Fear.

And I'm not saying my DM is undercutting what I build. But things are supposed to be a challenge for the party. The occasional steamroll is fun for everyone, but its not meant to be a constant steamroll. Its a balance.

At the same time, I want my character to be good at what they do. But when everything is, for lack of a better term, "adjusted for inflation", it almost feels like my character can be more detrimental than helpful.

What can I do?

[Ashe]

Play with a DM that doesn't outright disable your abilities often when your character is built around them (immune to fear etc) for one.

But the real answer is to accept that ttrpgs played 'live' don't work the same way, and that the reverse becomes true: versatility is key and stacking similar effects leads to stagnation. This is why casters are so inherently strong, especially the usual cleric/druid/wizard (and paladin but they're hybrid of course), because you can just decide to do something else if your current strategy is facing resistance. Long spell lists full of a million options are always going to beat out the guy who has three useful spells and the rest are garbage because they thought being a draconic sorc meant they could coast with scorching ray and fireball, and so forth.

[quindraco]

Every time I make a character, each and every single time, I take the video game approach.

I pick an aspect, and I lean incredibly heavily into it.

If this were Fallout, I'd max out pistols, take everything for increased critical hit chance, and eventually one-shot everything. The video game is hard-coded to where, if I stack everything together, I break it. And one-shot most things.

D&D isn't coded. Its fluid. The DM adjusts on the fly. Ok, he's doing _____, so lets add in three more enemies to adjust. He's built a character completely centered around the Frightened condition, lets make sure this boss is immune to Fear.

And I'm not saying my DM is undercutting what I build. But things are supposed to be a challenge for the party. The occasional steamroll is fun for everyone, but its not meant to be a constant steamroll. Its a balance.

At the same time, I want my character to be good at what they do. But when everything is, for lack of a better term, "adjusted for inflation", it almost feels like my character can be more detrimental than helpful.

What can I do?

Make a character where you're optimizing around something that isn't murder (or at least, not personal murder) and see how it goes. I'd suggest a bard, and optimizing for buffing and diplomancy.

[Xervous]

Instead of tuning for 100% in one category, aim for 80% in a whole slew of things. Pick flavorful concepts for your character and make the optimization challenge a question of how well you can model the character’s desired fiction.

Looking at the good Fallouts (1,2,NV) yes you could brute force large numbers and win the combat mini game, but in order to engage with a broad variety of quest branches you needed a diverse skill set. Try getting some social options, some exploration options, and so forth on top of your combat options. Sure you can have guns: 80 and a crit perk or two, you will be relevant there. But other people will still be able to contribute. In return you’re getting more opportunities and ways to interact with the rest of the world if/when you desire to.

[Catullus64]

A few approaches I can think of. The first is to build your characters for breadth rather than depth. Consider versatility as the thing that you're maximizing for. Select feats, multiclass dips, and spells that add a new flavor to the character rather than doubling down on an existing one.

The other approach is to stick with depth, but with depth of theme rather than mechanical synergy. Play a Bard in the process of composing a masterwork; pick spells not as game pieces, but as themed stanzas in a canto. Sorcerer, with its narrow spell selection, can be decent for this sort of thing. The beautiful thing about this kind of character? It's 5e, you'll still probably be perfectly effective.

The more general advice is to pick options that you've never tried before because you thought they were suboptimal, and you might discover them to be more useful and fun than you guessed. I became an evangelist for Keen Mind this way.

[Imbalance]

Funny, my video game approach is very different, especially in Bethesda titles where I like having at least three ways of being lethal without osessing over how few hits it takes.

[Zhorn]

What can I do?
You could also respond in a non video game approach.
In a video game you get what the game throws at you and you accept it. You are adjusting to the game, because as you say the game is hard-coded.
Just as D&D in general is not hard-coded, the DM is not hard-coded either and can be negotiated with. They are able to adjust in a way a video game usually cannot.
Ask them to rotate the things they are buffing and the methods of compensating for party strength.
Cycle through the range of things that can be targeted or things to be countered so that everyone's builds get the highs and lows.
Example: A DC15 save will be very different for the Wizard and Barbarian, and which way it goes will come down to it being INT or STR. Don't need to inflate the numbers to make them matter. Some DM's just need a nudge now and then to remember to vary up how they respond to the party and not just throw the treadmill at them all the time.

[Kvess]

In my first Fallout 1 playthrough, I put most of my points into charisma, intelligence, and I used handguns. The few fights that I didn’t successfully talk my way out of were brutal, nasty, drawn out struggles. There was a miniboss that I went through multiple game overs until I got lucky with a series of aimed shots.

My roommate, who maximized his character for combat, didn’t even notice the miniboss was there. He definitely had a better murder machine but I had a very memorable experience.

If you (and your DM) are getting bored of your character using the same combo, I would recommend finding a build that gives you a broader array of tools to solve problems instead of one neat tactic that always works.

[MaxWilson]

Every time I make a character, each and every single time, I take the video game approach.

I pick an aspect, and I lean incredibly heavily into it.

If this were Fallout, I'd max out pistols, take everything for increased critical hit chance, and eventually one-shot everything. The video game is hard-coded to where, if I stack everything together, I break it. And one-shot most things.

D&D isn't coded. Its fluid. The DM adjusts on the fly. Ok, he's doing _____, so lets add in three more enemies to adjust. He's built a character completely centered around the Frightened condition, lets make sure this boss is immune to Fear.

And I'm not saying my DM is undercutting what I build. But things are supposed to be a challenge for the party. The occasional steamroll is fun for everyone, but its not meant to be a constant steamroll. Its a balance.

At the same time, I want my character to be good at what they do. But when everything is, for lack of a better term, "adjusted for inflation", it almost feels like my character can be more detrimental than helpful.

What can I do?

Realize that what you describe isn't the "video game approach" per se, because it's foolish in video games unless you already know that pistols can get you through the whole game. That approach is the high information approach, where you already know the game, already know that pistols part off and that nothing is immune to pistols (you don't have to fight any werewolves or swarms of bugs), know that ammunition is not in short supply, etc.

In a game where you don't know that, you have to diversify. (E.g. in Diablo 2 if you go all-in on Fire Wall and then discover a bunch of Fire Immunes in max difficulty, you can't Fire Wall them! Better have a backup plan like ice.)

Same thing in TTRPGs. Find a DM who presents you with diverse and unpredictable (but fair) challenges. Build a PC who can cope with a wide array of challenges. Play until your PC dies or retires, then make a new PC and resume playing. You will find that a one-trick combat pony turns out not to be optimal for this DM's games.

[OldTrees1]

At the same time, I want my character to be good at what they do. But when everything is, for lack of a better term, "adjusted for inflation", it almost feels like my character can be more detrimental than helpful.

What can I do?

It is hard to tell which world you are in:
World A: If the PC gets a powerup, the world adjusts that powerup for inflation, thus negating the PC gaining the powerup.
World B: If the PC gets a powerup, the world gets a powerup to adjust for inflation, thus the PC changed with things they are relatively good at.

I think a mixture that is mostly World B with World A used selectively.

If you live in World B, then try to remain at a comparable power to your fellow PCs. That will allow them to also express their own characterization. If this means aiming for 80% instead of 100%, or if it means having a weakness, that can be done.

If you live in World A, then also try to remain at a comparable power to your fellow PCs. However you don't need to worry about what type of power you have.

[Gtdead]

I kind of disagree with the notion that DnD isn't coded, even if the DM can adapt the encounters when needed. It's just that it's easy to focus on the wrong thing, especially if you have a videogamey approach since most games are fairly easy to understand. You need to achieve system mastery in order to make the right decisions when optimizing, and DnD is notoriously difficult compared to Fallout not because it's fluid, but because it just has so many parameters that you have to juggle.

Why is offense so strong in a game like Fallout 3,NV and 4? Because you can stack it high enough that it diminishes the value of all other aspects. Does it matter how many punches you can take if you can oneshot anything that moves, especially when you have VATS and Stealth? It's a simplistic system that it's fairly easy to crack. The challenge is surviving long enough to reach that point, and it's not the hardest thing in the world for sure.

Another game may be more complex. Dark Souls for example. You can't stack offense forever and ignore your defense because the scaling is awful past a certain point and you just can't stack it high enough to render bosses irrelevant. You need to find a balance, otherwise you are wasting your points raising inefficient stats. In fact, one of the more popular ways to play it is to augment the weapon for a flat damage boost and eliminate attribute scaling all together. Once you reach the sweet spot for offense, it's far better to invest in defense. Of course you can play the fights over and over again and memorize all sequences to the point that you can beat everything naked and without using any skill points, but that's another discussion all together. However with sufficient system mastery, you can take both approaches and be successful.

In world of warcraft, if you want to gear your character for raiding, you need to know what secondary stat will offer the highest return on investment. If your build scales with haste and you focus on getting critical chance gear instead, then you will be suboptimal, and it doesn't matter if you have the skill, your output won't be sufficient. However if you want to do PvP instead, Crit chance may be more important even if it doesn't scale that well, because you want to kill the enemy in a single rotation and crit chance offers more opportunities to succeed.

In Pathfinder: Kingmaker, if you want to play on unfair mode, you know that you can't build a frontliner without access to Mirror Image even if you have unhittable AC. No matter how much AC you stack, no matter how much damage and save or suck DC you have, you will eventually get hit and you will die because enemies have a 200% damage increase in this difficulty setting. Mirror image decreases the chance to be hit by a natural 20 and it makes such a dramatic difference that it's fairly hard to grasp if you haven't tried it yourself. This is something that you can only learn by playing the game enough and achieving mastery. No theorycrafter ever said "oh damn, I need to augment my unhittable AC even further because the chance to get hit by a nat 20 is significant".

In Divinity: Original Sin 2, while gamers are used to the notion of "maximize dps and everything else will fall into place", magic blasters suck. No matter how much you try, they will never be better than physical damage casters. The math just doesn't work for them. They will never be strong enough to trivialize fights with overwhelming numbers. You can try some hazard play or something unorthodox, but you just can't "max pistol skill, get the best pistols you can find and go to town" in this case. If you want to optimize you will either ignore magic blasters alltogether or try a completely different approach than simply overpowering the opposition.


I can take this line of thinking to extremes but the point I'm trying to make is simple, DnD, like these games, is based on maths and you achieve system mastery through both understanding this, and having enough experience to avoid pitfalls. If you could stack your AC and Saves to an impossible number, you would become immortal. If your spell DC was high enough to never fail, the are spells that would make it so you would always win and never have to really fight. High damage output may trivialize a boss fight. You need to consider the soft and hard caps and find a balance between the various aspects that is both efficient and practical. And of course.. ask your DM!

[jaappleton]

My goodness I'm a moron. This is intentionally not in blue text.

By making a character so over the top, amazing at one singular aspect, I'm neglecting everything else, so that in instances where I can't utilize the characters primary function... they're completely subpar.

I gotta say, my fellow playgrounders, you're all better than therapy.

By instead focusing on being pretty good at a couple things as opposed to amazing at one aspect, I can ensure I have multiple avenues to pursue in search of a solution to a given problem.

Of course.

[Xervous]

My goodness I'm a moron. This is intentionally not in blue text.

By making a character so over the top, amazing at one singular aspect, I'm neglecting everything else, so that in instances where I can't utilize the characters primary function... they're completely subpar.

I gotta say, my fellow playgrounders, you're all better than therapy.

By instead focusing on being pretty good at a couple things as opposed to amazing at one aspect, I can ensure I have multiple avenues to pursue in search of a solution to a given problem.

Of course.

And if you still manage to outshine other characters... there needs to be a discussion about what game everyone thinks they’re playing.

[Rukelnikov]

The idea that min/maxing a character improves the odds of beating a combat challenge is fallacious.

In a ttrpg, most DMs will usually present challenges to the players, be those combat, puzzles, hard choices, you name it. So no matter how powerful your character is, if a combat would be trivial, you will usually not be presented with it (sometimes yeah, but not the norm), unless you go out of your way to initiate it.

If the DM wants to have challenging combats, where lets say the party has a 50% chance of defeating the encounter, he will make those whether its for a heavily optmiized party, or a group of Dragonborns 4 elements.

So my recomendation is, don't optimize characters for combat, but for interaction with the world. Because, ultimately, that's what your character is, your means of interacting with the world you are playing in.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I try to build people, not characters.

Hear me out.

The best characters in fiction are inherently flawed people. I'm talking your Prince Zukos, your Garrus Vakarians, your Queen of Englands.

What I try and do (note: I do not succeed every time. No one does) is build the core of their personality first, who they are. This is going to get a little specific, so I'm going to spoiler most of it for people who don't care.

Let's take one of my favorite characters that I made for 5E, Ketaal. He's a hobgoblin in Eberron, specifically one of the Heirs of Dhakaan (a fallen empire). I loved the concept, so I worked from there.

I wanted him to be a relatively normal member of his society, but tempered and embittered by his past. I chose a pair of character flaws for him; his arrogance and unconscious racism. From these flaws and an idea of where I wanted to go, I built him from there.

He was going to be an artificer before Artificer was a thing, so I actually built him as a Fighter 1/War Wizard X. I actually thought long and hard about adding more fighter into the mix; partially out of wanting to make him a more physical character, and partly out of fears of overshadowing the other players. I ended up with just the one dip level because the upper level casting (specifically counterspell, glyph of warding, lightning bolt and magic weapon) that I needed in order to make him feel like him. So I guess what I'm saying is pick a set of attributes that you feel are essential, and go no farther.

TL;DR Focus more on character than on abilities? I know, incredibly helpful advice, but that's the easiest thing that I can recommend without more specific information.

Numbers are easy. Boost the DC with this, add a new way of inflicting that, done. It's making characters people that I find a lot harder, but ultimately more rewarding. A lot of video game characters PCs are intentionally blank personality-wise to let you slide your own assumptions in.

But if, say, Doom Guy had a specific phobia to cats and had to fight a cat demon, he wouldn't take his normal route of walk in and shoot them up with a super shotgun. He'd have to approach the problem sideways, and while it wouldn't be the most efficient route, it'd be true to the character.

Actually, I suppose that that's another way; make them have Presentation. Just because you can scare the pants off of anyone not fear-immune, doesn't mean that you have to. Imply what you can through things like Intimidation Expertise and taking specific flavour options like disguise self instead of the most optimal thing ever. Get your core concept stripped down to bare bones, then elaborate on the character behind the concept, I guess?

Honestly, I'm not sure if this hinders or helps, it's just a difficult topic to get across (especially given how subjective it is).

[MrStabby]

I think there are a couple of different perspectives with a couple of different answers.

The first is to really embrace the journey not the destination. Treat it as an RPG not a board game. It isn't about steam rolling your encounter but using combat as a canvass on which to express your character, their values and abilities, their strengths and weaknesses. If expression is the aim there there is pleasure to be found even in a struggle. Be a paladin fulfilling their oath and behave as such. Be a smart wizard looking for the perfect set of tactics or a reckless barbarian putting personal honour before personal safety. Winning is then about other players Getting your character through their actions.

The second is just to have more tools. As long as you achieve your goals it doesn't matter if it takes three rounds or four. Playing something like a paladin can be good for a "managing the DM perspective". Try and talk your way out of fights and use diplomacy. That way when a fight does kick off, you are coming into it on the back of a failure. The DM had enemies immune to your primary tool of diplomacy and may feel it too harsh to make them also resistant to radiant damage or slashing damage or whatever your back up thing is.

Or play a wizard. They have the tools to solve most problems and the greatest selection of spells that just DO stuff and don't need attack rolls or saves (wall of force for example)

[Evaar]

Think about the things that counter the One Trick you're trying to pull off, then ask yourself what your character can do in those situations.

Like if you've made a polearm wielding melee monster, what happens when the enemy is too far away to hit with a stick? What does your character do in that situation? If the answer is "nothing, just dash" then you should consider rebuilding some stuff so you have a better solution

If said polearm monster is in a social situation that can't be resolved with a stick, what does your character do then? If the answer is "wait silently until the party face handles it" then probably you can do better if you think about it.

Basically, don't get overly fixated on one scenario (in this case that scenario being "there are enemies to hit within melee range") and consider the things that might counter what you were planning to do. Trying to mitigate those weaknesses can help you broaden the character out a bit, making it more versatile.

Look at how Ludic does builds in the Eclectic thread. Sure some of them have one thing they do extremely well, but all of them have LOTS of things they do quite well. The Wood Elf Commando is a scout and ritual caster. The Celestial Generalist is a face, scout, healer, archer, tank. I'll say that's the approach I tried to take with my Ring Leader build too - it's a face, scout, blaster, support. It's probably not the best at any one of those things, but it's good enough to fill any of those roles quite well at any time.

[gijoemike]

This isn't even about the DM throwing you a curveball to mess with you. The problem is in character/in game issue.

On going bad guys will slowly collect intel on you and your group by observing how their comrades and forward positions were taken out. Oh look, everyone died by poison.... again. Or look at the dozens of arrows and our now dead comrades acting like pin cushions. Perhaps why is everyone covered in ice and it is 10 degrees cooler in this area? This can even apply to we need to take out this Orc camp and orcs in the back will see explosions at the front of the camp and can prepare accordingly.

Don't act surprised when the bad guys show up immune or highly resistant to poison, arrows, and ice after you have used it 4 or 5 times in a row. It is the one trick pony failure. If you cannot do your one trick, you cannot contribute or do so very poorly.

Also, in D&D there exists a thing or perhaps a subtype that is your opposite. The creatures from the plane of fire all have fire resistance. Some creatures are immune to arrows, others cannot be mind controlled. At some point all characters need a backup plan.

Back in 3.X days swarm creatures were HORRIBLE for fighters, barbarians because the melee weapon couldn't do anything to swarms. They had near complete immunity. So fighters/barbs had to carry specific items or weapons with specific enchantments on them to even participate in a battle of that nature. And there were dozens of swarm types.

[Unoriginal]

Ok, he's doing _____, so lets add in three more enemies to adjust. He's built a character completely centered around the Frightened condition, lets make sure this boss is immune to Fear.

That's called "being a terrible DM". To everyone who's a DM: please don't do that.

A DM should let the PC be good at what they're good at. Not get anxious that the PC may *gasp* help their team win a situation they may win.



And I'm not saying my DM is undercutting what I build.

They're absolutely undercutting what you build.



Don't act surprised when the bad guys show up immune or highly resistant to poison, arrows, and ice after you have used it 4 or 5 times in a row. It is the one trick pony failure. If you cannot do your one trick, you cannot contribute or do so very poorly.

That's an entirely different question. In-universe it makes sense for the bad guys to know the PCs' tricks if fighting the PCs is repeated occurrence or if they get info on the PCs via spying/scouting/etc.

It's not the same than the DM making all their bosses immune to Stunned because the Monk has hit lvl 5.

[nickl_2000]

Having seen you on here for a long time, I'm going to take a different approach than some others. Let's see if I can turn your mind in a different direction that will satisfy the optimizer in you, but not be singularly focused.

Try to build yourself a Swiss Army Knife character. Someone who has tools for literally every situation. You have skills, you have magic, you can melee, you can tank, you can heal, you can do battlefield control.

It's possible, but in doing so you won't be focused on doing the most melee damage. Instead you will be able to do decently and help out the party everywhere. I personally find that this is best achieved with multiclassing.

For example, a Swarmkeeper Ranger 5/Light Cleric X

You can heal, you have good AC, you can buff, you can battlefield control, you can blast, you can help protect allies with Warding Flare, you can control with the Swarm. You won't be the best at any of these, but you are certainly ready for pretty much any situation that you run into.

[Talakeal]

My goodness I'm a moron. This is intentionally not in blue text.

By making a character so over the top, amazing at one singular aspect, I'm neglecting everything else, so that in instances where I can't utilize the characters primary function... they're completely subpar.

I gotta say, my fellow playgrounders, you're all better than therapy.

By instead focusing on being pretty good at a couple things as opposed to amazing at one aspect, I can ensure I have multiple avenues to pursue in search of a solution to a given problem.

Of course.

I must say, if one of my players made that post I would be dancing in the streets with joy.

[jaappleton]

I must say, if one of my players made that post I would be dancing in the streets with joy.

Truly its been a realization about how white room theory crafting is... Legitimately not optimal at all.

Its certainly fun to theory craft and see all the crazy stuff we can come up with.

But the game sessions aren't white room, its not in a vacuum. And when you can't play in a vacuum, it falls apart.

[Unoriginal]

Truly its been a realization about how white room theory crafting is... Legitimately not optimal at all.

Its certainly fun to theory craft and see all the crazy stuff we can come up with.

But the game sessions aren't white room, its not in a vacuum. And when you can't play in a vacuum, it falls apart.

Hope it doesn't come out as rude, but I have to ask: did you actually try white room theorycrafting stuff at the table?

[Rukelnikov]

Truly its been a realization about how white room theory crafting is... Legitimately not optimal at all.

Its certainly fun to theory craft and see all the crazy stuff we can come up with.

But the game sessions aren't white room, its not in a vacuum. And when you can't play in a vacuum, it falls apart.

Glad you realized that, there should be a coming of age celebration or smthg :P

[Kane0]

Every time I make a character, each and every single time, I take the video game approach.

I pick an aspect, and I lean incredibly heavily into it.

If this were Fallout, I'd max out pistols, take everything for increased critical hit chance, and eventually one-shot everything. The video game is hard-coded to where, if I stack everything together, I break it. And one-shot most things.

D&D isn't coded. Its fluid. The DM adjusts on the fly. Ok, he's doing _____, so lets add in three more enemies to adjust. He's built a character completely centered around the Frightened condition, lets make sure this boss is immune to Fear.

And I'm not saying my DM is undercutting what I build. But things are supposed to be a challenge for the party. The occasional steamroll is fun for everyone, but its not meant to be a constant steamroll. Its a balance.

At the same time, I want my character to be good at what they do. But when everything is, for lack of a better term, "adjusted for inflation", it almost feels like my character can be more detrimental than helpful.

What can I do?

Pick one major and two minors. Three things your character is good at, one of which they are known best for. That way you are forces to spread out your build decisions and not be a one trick pony while still satisfying that optimization itch (how can i max out three things?) plus making your DMs job easier

[stoutstien]

Truly its been a realization about how white room theory crafting is... Legitimately not optimal at all.

Its certainly fun to theory craft and see all the crazy stuff we can come up with.

But the game sessions aren't white room, its not in a vacuum. And when you can't play in a vacuum, it falls apart.

If you are looking for something that's pretty turnkey to feel out how different a general PC handles in a game, a celestial chain or tome are amazingly versatile. Won't wow you on paper but once they get going they can be a blast.

[ad_hoc]

Truly its been a realization about how white room theory crafting is... Legitimately not optimal at all.

Its certainly fun to theory craft and see all the crazy stuff we can come up with.

But the game sessions aren't white room, its not in a vacuum. And when you can't play in a vacuum, it falls apart.

Yeah, and what ends up happening is that the player(s) blame the DM when the DM doesn't cater the challenges to the specialties of their characters. And of course, if the character/party does fail it has to be the DM's fault because they were super optimized so how could they have possibly failed otherwise.

The most common one is the character with low defense being attacked. I find it common for people on message boards to assume their characters won't be attacked if they design them with low defense and to say that DMs are bad if they do.

The opposite happens too with the character who has impenetrable defenses.

It's better to be well rounded and able to adjust to unique situations and challenges.

[jaappleton]

Hope it doesn't come out as rude, but I have to ask: did you actually try white room theorycrafting stuff at the table?

I will neither confirm nor deny I may have done something of the sort. >_>

[MrStabby]

Yeah, and what ends up happening is that the player(s) blame the DM when the DM doesn't cater the challenges to the specialties of their characters. And of course, if the character/party does fail it has to be the DM's fault because they were super optimized so how could they have possibly failed otherwise.

The most common one is the character with low defense being attacked. I find it common for people on message boards to assume their characters won't be attacked if they design them with low defense and to say that DMs are bad if they do.

The opposite happens too with the character who has impenetrable defenses.

It's better to be well rounded and able to adjust to unique situations and challenges.

Or even worse the super optimised character has to deal with a social situation or some research or solve a puzzle... and its so unfair and the DMs fault when some unoptimrised johnny-come-lately who barely understands the rules manages to do something the optimised character couldn't.

[Angelalex242]

Well, Fear guy is probably a Conquest Paladin with maxed Charisma.

...Conquest Paladin can adapt when Fear doesn't work, cause he's still a Paladin. Go old school paladin when being scary doesn't work and smite things.

[jaappleton]

Well, Fear guy is probably a Conquest Paladin with maxed Charisma.

...Conquest Paladin can adapt when Fear doesn't work, cause he's still a Paladin. Go old school paladin when being scary doesn't work and smite things.

That last sense makes no sense. It implies smiting isn’t scary. :P

[OldTrees1]

That last sense makes no sense. It implies smiting isn’t scary. :P

I have found after-combat therapy rarely heals divine smites. I suspect it would still be effective against things that were incapable of fear.

:P

[Witty Username]

That last sense makes no sense. It implies smiting isn’t scary. :P

You can't be afraid of what has already killed you.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

That's called "being a terrible DM". To everyone who's a DM: please don't do that.

A DM should let the PC be good at what they're good at. Not get anxious that the PC may *gasp* help their team win a situation they may win.



They're absolutely undercutting what you build.



That's an entirely different question. In-universe it makes sense for the bad guys to know the PCs' tricks if fighting the PCs is repeated occurrence or if they get info on the PCs via spying/scouting/etc.

It's not the same than the DM making all their bosses immune to Stunned because the Monk has hit lvl 5.

This is kind of a complex question. A smart player, or particularly a group of smart players can create situations and tactics where they can march through large sections of published material with ease, sometimes without challenge. In one example with my group they eventually worked to get the entire party flying. It was great for a short time, but obviously there were many encounters that were not a challenge. After the novelty wore off I had the big bad send one of his minions to cancel a couple of the flying magic items. They did eventually function again once the big bad was dealt with. On a more basic level, the Shepherd Druid built around summoning and maintaining concentration is probably worth 1 1/2 to 2 unoptimized characters in many situations. If the DM doesn't occasionally act to try to limit the impact of such a character, he will be outshining the other players often.
To the OP I'd say 2 things. As was discussed in another recent thread 5e is largely built around doing 1 thing well, so some of what you are encountering is going to happen. Secondly, as others have said, creative DMing can help, but it isn't easy. 5e has made me a better DM, cause I'm always trying to throw something unique and different at my players, to make elements of all tiers necessary for success. Hopefully this rewards well rounded players, but it doesn't always work.

[Toadkiller]

Once in awhile the bad guy should have kryptonite. Not every time. But sometimes.

[MrStabby]

That's called "being a terrible DM". To everyone who's a DM: please don't do that.

A DM should let the PC be good at what they're good at. Not get anxious that the PC may *gasp* help their team win a situation they may win.


I don't think it is this simple.

A DM has the job of helping everyone have fun.

A good DM should help their players shine.

If one player has tools or abilities that stop that player from shining then circumventing that ability occasionally or mitigating it in fights in such a way that other players get to shine is a good thing.

For example, if I build some kind of character focussed on bringing massive damage very quickly and taking enemies out of the fight then my team mate focussed more on damage over time abilities will contribute less the more effective I am. My success is actively hampering them from doing their cool thing. Coming across enemies with the shield spell, absorb elements, temp HP, mirror image etc. can all buy ime for the other players to get to use their cool stuff too.

Sometimes players don't get to do cool things because of other players, not because of the DM. Everyone should get to do some cool things.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

The best why to fix this problem IMO is having the other party members optimized to do other things.

If the boss is immune to pistols that is ok. You still have a max sniper, a max shield and a max melee guys to deal with him.

Also, when I make an optimized character I always leave a contingency to be used when everything is on fire and my main abilities don't work.

[jaappleton]

Once in awhile the bad guy should have kryptonite. Not every time. But sometimes.

Exactly.

This I wholeheartedly agree with.

It’s also why I, as a player, am so largely against subclasses which focus on conditions or a specific damage type.

There’s been a few subclasses over the years which are Poison oriented. If you want to do that, why handicap them out of the gate by having hundreds of monsters immune / resistant to both the damage type and the condition?

It’s better regarding certain classes as opposed to others. Conquest Paladins are still Paladins, and honestly Paladins only get a couple subclass features so it isn’t exactly as big a detriment to them as some other classes.

UA Spores Druid and UA Mercy Monk we’re particularly guilty of this.

Going back to the Kryptonite; It’s harder based on how reliant on your superpower you are, right? If I’m a Scimitar wielding Fighter, utilizing Dexterity, and we encounter a room full of flying enemies, I can pull out the longbow. I won’t have Archery Style because I took Duelist, but I can still contribute.

If I’m a Fire Dragon Sorc who is battling a Pit Fiend and all my spells are damage dealing Fire ones…. Well, you went too far down that particular rabbit hole, right?

[da newt]

The easy fix - next time you start the character creation process set your goal to be to MAX out two unrelated aspects of your PC instead of one. This way you create a new challenge for yourself (whee a new puzzle to mess with), create a PC with diversity, and nerf your one trick by focusing on two instead of just one.

[Man_Over_Game]

My goodness I'm a moron. This is intentionally not in blue text.

By making a character so over the top, amazing at one singular aspect, I'm neglecting everything else, so that in instances where I can't utilize the characters primary function... they're completely subpar.

I gotta say, my fellow playgrounders, you're all better than therapy.

By instead focusing on being pretty good at a couple things as opposed to amazing at one aspect, I can ensure I have multiple avenues to pursue in search of a solution to a given problem.

Of course.

There are other solutions than just becoming more well-rounded, Sometimes, you don't have to sacrifice the desire to do well. For instance:


Make a character where you're optimizing around something that isn't murder (or at least, not personal murder) and see how it goes. I'd suggest a bard, and optimizing for buffing and diplomancy.

As a side note, I believe that Clerics are really OP. They get full casting. Half of them get heavy armor and weapons. They have a 1d8 hit die. They have a ton of useful Bonus Action spells.

So why aren't they OP? Well, I think they are. So why doesn't anyone complain about how OP Clerics are? Because it's not a problem. 80% of the Cleric spell list is about making your allies better. Guiding Bolt is known for how ridiculously valuable it is as a level 1 spell, yet no damage optimizers take it (because it's value comes from teamwork).

So another thing to consider: It doesn't matter how OP you are when the only thing you're good at is making your allies better than you. That can be a Battlemaster. That can be an Ancestral Guardian. That can be a Diviner. Nobody complains when those characters do well.

[MaxWilson]

As a side note, I believe that Clerics are really OP. They get full casting. Half of them get heavy armor and weapons. They have a 1d8 hit die. They have a ton of useful Bonus Action spells.

So why aren't they OP? I think they are. So why doesn't anyone complain about how OP Clerics are?

Because they're front-loaded, so they get overshadowed by the even more OP Wizard X/Cleric 1 characters.

Intentionally not in blue text.

[Toadkiller]

As for the DM’s role. When I had a party where 1/2 the players were heading down the “ultimate power!!” rabbit hole and the others weren’t I arranged an entire evening with no combat. None. The only contested rolls were social.

It freaked them out. It made them somewhat uncomfortable. There was a tremendous amount of laughing and it still comes up as a great evening. It also opened it up for all the players that we could have fun doing something other than tallying HP. Of course, we may have slide a long ways the other direction lately. But we are having fun.

The game going in a direction you weren’t expecting can be awesome if you go with it. It is after all just a game and the only victory condition is did you have a good time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As for the DM’s role. When I had a party where 1/2 the players were heading down the “ultimate power!!” rabbit hole and the others weren’t I arranged an entire evening with no combat. None. The only contested rolls were social.

It freaked them out. It made them somewhat uncomfortable. There was a tremendous amount of laughing and it still comes up as a great evening. It also opened it up for all the players that we could have fun doing something other than tallying HP. Of course, we may have slide a long ways the other direction lately. But we are having fun.


I've actually had a lot of great sessions with no contested rolls. And a bunch where there were only minor rolls. So I basically agree.

[Trustypeaches]

The idea that min/maxing a character improves the odds of beating a combat challenge is fallacious.

In a ttrpg, most DMs will usually present challenges to the players, be those combat, puzzles, hard choices, you name it. So no matter how powerful your character is, if a combat would be trivial, you will usually not be presented with it (sometimes yeah, but not the norm), unless you go out of your way to initiate it..
5e is built around series of short/easy encounters to tax player resources. That's how the published dungeons are designed.

While an individual combat might be "trivial", a series of trivial combats can still wear a party down, and they can still be interesting if there are failure/success conditions besides "reduce all enemies to 0 hp while staying above 0 hp"

[sethdmichaels]

really embrace the journey not the destination. Treat it as an RPG not a board game.


well put. one way to do this is to think about story and flavor first and then pick your mechanical features to support it. this could be an elaborate backstory but it doesn't need to; it could be as simple as color scheme or physical description, or a couple of personality traits that have tactical implications. also when you're thinking about what your character's go-to moves are going to be it's useful to remember that there are going to be other members of your party - will they be buffing you, or vice versa? will you be trying to protect them, will you have a friendly rivalry, will you be able to set them up for them to do *their* go-to moves? nothing wrong with picking mechanics first and then figuring out your character from there, but it could be a useful exercise to go in the other direction.

seconding the idea, stated a few times here, of "optimizing for versatility."

[sethdmichaels]

It doesn't matter how OP you are when the only thing you're good at is making your allies better than you.

agree with this! just finished up a short-arc campaign where i played a vengeance paladin for the first time and sure, he could do a lot of "nova" damage and that was fun when it panned out, but the most "damage" he was actually responsible for was the number of misses he turned into hits by having Bless going on the party (in addition to the combination of his aura, healing capacities, and the Inspiring Leader feat kept others from going down). it's a team sport.

[Man_Over_Game]

agree with this! just finished up a short-arc campaign where i played a vengeance paladin for the first time and sure, he could do a lot of "nova" damage and that was fun when it panned out, but the most "damage" he was actually responsible for was the number of misses he turned into hits by having Bless going on the party (in addition to the combination of his aura, healing capacities, and the Inspiring Leader feat kept others from going down). it's a team sport.

My only complaint is how difficult it is to leverage that kind of playstyle in 5e, it's not very well incentivized to work together.

For instance, the most powerful Fighter builds are the ones that are selfish, not the ones that work with friends. Even the team-based Battlemaster maneuvers are some of the worse picks you can make, simply because Enemy_Damage_Made = Friendly_Damage_Reduced, and most of your damaging effects come with conditions on top of that.

Even the Ancestral Guardian, the most team-oriented Barbarian build in the game (probably the only one, TBH), is so wonky that it basically requires you to play the opposite of what a Barbarian normally would do and run away from the enemy.

Conquest Paladin's Fear-enhancing aura only works if the target is afraid of you, your allies' effects don't count.

Teamwork in 5e is a lot harder than it should be. Which is probably why people eat it up every chance they get.

[jaappleton]

Teamwork in 5e is a lot harder than it should be. Which is probably why people eat it up every chance they get.

So...

Lets do this.

What's the most teamwork oriented build there is?

What're the spells? Faerie Fire, Bless for first level.

What spells can cause my allies to not be hit, or to deny enemy actions? Wall of Force can often take a few enemies out of the battle for a bit, but its 5th level, so what else is there?

Anything great at skill checks is always good.

Healing is always a plus, even just enough to bring someone back from zero.

....This sounds like a Bard, Druid or Cleric.

Probably Bard.

[Man_Over_Game]

So...

Lets do this.

What's the most teamwork oriented build there is?

What're the spells? Faerie Fire, Bless for first level.

What spells can cause my allies to not be hit, or to deny enemy actions? Wall of Force can often take a few enemies out of the battle for a bit, but its 5th level, so what else is there?

Anything great at skill checks is always good.

Healing is always a plus, even just enough to bring someone back from zero.

....This sounds like a Bard, Druid or Cleric.

Probably Bard.

Could go with a Knowledge Bard, can literally learn the skills your party can't on a whim, works as an off-tank so you can support as more than just a healbot in the back line, can read minds and cast Suggestion without a spell slot with the same save as a Short Rest feature at 6.

I think that if you can lean into that role, your party will just come to rely on you as the guy that keeps everything from falling apart. And as far as optimized skill monkeys go, Knowledge Cleric is hard to beat. And it's not like you need amazing Domain spells when you have options like Healing Word, Spiritual Weapon, and Aura of Vitality as "fallbacks" for your first 3 spell levels.

[Unoriginal]

So...

Lets do this.

What's the most teamwork oriented build there is?

Probably Ancestral Barbarian 3/Psi Warrior Fighter X multiclass.

Bards are buffers, sure, but the Ancestral Warrior is all about fighting as a team.

In particular, protecting and positioning/repositioning the teammates at the right time and place so that they get to do their thing while staying out of harm's way.

Also being an insanely tough tank is great for a team player.

[MaxWilson]

Teamwork in 5e is a lot harder than it should be. Which is probably why people eat it up every chance they get.

If you switch to WEGO initiative instead of PHB IGOUGO initiative, teamwork gets a lot more straightforward. Players still have to get used to teamwork, but cooperative tactics start working the way you'd expect them to, e.g. "You knock him prone and then I'll whack him with my greatsword for big damage" no longer runs into awkward and purely gamist issues like "What if the greatsword guy rolls higher initiative than the knock-prone guy?"

[jaappleton]

If you switch to WEGO initiative instead of PHB IGOUGO initiative, teamwork gets a lot more straightforward. Players still have to get used to teamwork, but cooperative tactics start working the way you'd expect them to, e.g. "You knock him prone and then I'll whack him with my greatsword for big damage" no longer runs into awkward and purely gamist issues like "What if the greatsword guy rolls higher initiative than the knock-prone guy?"

During combat, I sometimes (With their blessing, we've sat down and discussed it) mention relevant abilities each character has. We only get to play every so often, and sometimes people have forgotten some of their abilities. I only do it if they seem stumped as to what to do, or if it will lead to an overwhelming tactical advantage.

And quite often, maybe 85% of the time I mention an ability they might have, or a tactical choice they could make, they go for it.

[MaxWilson]

During combat, I sometimes (With their blessing, we've sat down and discussed it) mention relevant abilities each character has. We only get to play every so often, and sometimes people have forgotten some of their abilities. I only do it if they seem stumped as to what to do, or if it will lead to an overwhelming tactical advantage.

And quite often, maybe 85% of the time I mention an ability they might have, or a tactical choice they could make, they go for it.

It's tough knowing where to draw the line. Sometimes it's very, very difficult not to say, "You know that three of your teammates are novaing with everything they've got to kill the enemy wizard, don't you, while you've spent the last two turns Recklessly inflicting 40 HP of damage on another monster entirely?" The player could be making a legitimate roleplaying choice to play an unsophisticated barbarian who has no real concept of target prioritization, or be making a genuine tactical mistake, but I generally try to err on the side of not solving problems for the players because my past experience has been that even if it works, it detracts from fun.

E.g. when players had a Rakshasa asleep for an hour due to the drow sleep poison on their weapons, but had no way to damage it through its immunities, I once had an NPC suggest drowning the Rakshasa in the nearby river, and I still regret not keeping my mouth shut and just letting the Rakshasa become a recurring nemesis, because I felt like it deflated the players to have an NPC just hand them a solution. It felt too much like the DM playing the game for them, or at least that's it seems to me in retrospect. They didn't seem to enjoy winning, that time.

[jaappleton]

It's tough knowing where to draw the line. Sometimes it's very, very difficult not to say, "You know that three of your teammates are novaing with everything they've got to kill the enemy wizard, don't you, while you've spent the last two turns Recklessly inflicting 40 HP of damage on another monster entirely?" The player could be making a legitimate roleplaying choice to play an unsophisticated barbarian who has no real concept of target prioritization, or be making a genuine tactical mistake, but I generally try to err on the side of not solving problems for the players because my past experience has been that even if it works, it detracts from fun.

E.g. when players had a Rakshasa asleep for an hour due to the drow sleep poison on their weapons, but had no way to damage it through its immunities, I once had an NPC suggest drowning the Rakshasa in the nearby river, and I still regret not keeping my mouth shut and just letting the Rakshasa become a recurring nemesis, because I felt like it deflated the players to have an NPC just hand them a solution. It felt too much like the DM playing the game for them, or at least that's it seems to me in retrospect. They didn't seem to enjoy winning, that time.

Its definitely a fine line to walk. We did openly discuss it, at my request. I wanted to know if they'd prefer if I stopped, or instead they could ask my opinion if they wanted, etc.

They all said to continue as I had been doing.

[Gtdead]

If you switch to WEGO initiative instead of PHB IGOUGO initiative, teamwork gets a lot more straightforward. Players still have to get used to teamwork, but cooperative tactics start working the way you'd expect them to, e.g. "You knock him prone and then I'll whack him with my greatsword for big damage" no longer runs into awkward and purely gamist issues like "What if the greatsword guy rolls higher initiative than the knock-prone guy?"

I think the WEGO gets old fast when playing on a grid. Sure, teamwork is better because you are guaranteed to perform the combos but it also makes it a drill after a while. Everyone knows what is going to happen and just goes through the motions. It works far better in theater of the mind though. Makes the transitions almost seemless, especially if the DM is good at narrating. The downside is that slowpokes are insufferable in this mode ^^.

[jaappleton]

I think the WEGO gets old fast when playing on a grid. Sure, teamwork is better because you are guaranteed to perform the combos but it also makes it a drill after a while. Everyone knows what is going to happen and just goes through the motions. It works far better in theater of the mind though. Makes the transitions almost seemless, especially if the DM is good at narrating. The downside is that slowpokes are insufferable in this mode ^^.

We play TotM, not grid.

I'll bring it up, see what the table thinks about it.

[MrStabby]

So...

Lets do this.

What's the most teamwork oriented build there is?

What're the spells? Faerie Fire, Bless for first level.

What spells can cause my allies to not be hit, or to deny enemy actions? Wall of Force can often take a few enemies out of the battle for a bit, but its 5th level, so what else is there?

Anything great at skill checks is always good.

Healing is always a plus, even just enough to bring someone back from zero.

....This sounds like a Bard, Druid or Cleric.

Probably Bard.

Order cleric. Always order cleric.

Any other spells you want you have a good chance of being able to pick up from elsewhere so I would focus on the abilities. Boosting your allies with buffs whilst giving them extra attacks is so good. Dropping a bit of a heal on someone and having them dice an enemy is so satisfying.

Order cleric with the Golgari Ravnica background could be good. Entangle and plant growth to leave enemies as sitting ducks for your archers?

[Nidgit]

Treantmonk's Control Wizard is another great example of a team-oriented caster that's extremely effective. And Sorcerers, particularly Divine Soul Sorcerers, are masters of buffing due to Twinned Spell.

As far as martial classes go, Monk is really the only one that might be considered especially team-oriented. They don't do enough damage to really solo anyone but excel at locking down troublesome enemies and burning through legendary resistances, both of which allow the bigger guns to be more effective.

That said, basically any class can be played as support if that's how you want to roll.

[Witty Username]

You could try something goofy with Battlemaster fighter, Mastermind rogue
bonus action help actions along with commander's strike to give advantage or extra attacks as needed.
If you have a dedicated rogue in the party they will appreciate the extra sneak attacks, or the paladin will get more chances to smite with gusto.
Take the Healer feat to get a bit of combat medic in there.
Add some charm and wit, and call yourself Captain Hawkeye Pierce.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

My only complaint is how difficult it is to leverage that kind of playstyle in 5e, it's not very well incentivized to work together.

For instance, the most powerful Fighter builds are the ones that are selfish, not the ones that work with friends. Even the team-based Battlemaster maneuvers are some of the worse picks you can make, simply because Enemy_Damage_Made = Friendly_Damage_Reduced, and most of your damaging effects come with conditions on top of that.

Even the Ancestral Guardian, the most team-oriented Barbarian build in the game (probably the only one, TBH), is so wonky that it basically requires you to play the opposite of what a Barbarian normally would do and run away from the enemy.

Conquest Paladin's Fear-enhancing aura only works if the target is afraid of you, your allies' effects don't count.

Teamwork in 5e is a lot harder than it should be. Which is probably why people eat it up every chance they get.

I just flat out disagree with this. The post you were responding to had a number of easy and (I would consider) OP ways to boost a bunch of you team. Bless, Inspiring Leader, and Paladin Auras are excellent and well utilized by our group. Inspiring leader is worth 180 hp by 6th level assuming an 18 Chr and 2 short rests. If some players prioritize a couple of extra points of damage per round over abilities like these, then that's on them, but don't say the game doesn't incentivize it.

[ff7hero]

"You know that three of your teammates are novaing with everything they've got to kill the enemy wizard, don't you, while you've spent the last two turns Recklessly inflicting 40 HP of damage on another monster entirely?"

>.> This sounds vaguely familiar.

[Ogre Mage]

A Peace Domain cleric is the ultimate teamwork build, so much that some people think it is broken.

In terms of builds which are very good in a few areas rather than broken overpowered in a single area of focus, I would look for subclasses which emphasize this. For instance, the Circle of the Stars Druid is one of my favorite subclasses. The starry form provides three areas of concentration -- single target blasting (archer), healing (chalice) and maintaining concentration spells (dragon). This gives you versatility for a variety of challenges.

[jaappleton]

A Peace Domain cleric is the ultimate teamwork build, so much that some people think it is broken.

In terms of builds which are very good in a few areas rather than broken overpowered in a single area of focus, I would look for subclasses which emphasize this. For instance, the Circle of the Stars Druid is one of my favorite subclasses. The starry form provides three areas of concentration -- single target blasting (archer), healing (chalice) and maintaining concentration spells (dragon). This gives you versatility for a variety of challenges.

I've long championed the Circle of Stars Druid as being the most versatile mage in the game. With incredibly difficult to break Concentration, or an amazing bonus action attack, or incredible bonus healing. The ability to swap between these at will at 10th level, just as you're getting into the thick of precious high level spell slots, is spectacular. "Sunbeam would be excellent here, I don't want to lose Concentration on it. Bam, Dragon. Now I'm an orbital death laser."

Anytime you can be an orbital death later, you have to do it, right?

To me, its the ultimate swiss army caster. You can heal, you've got control, you've got support, you've got some decent damage spells for Tier 1 and 2. Literally it can do a bit of everything.

......And that SOUNDS exactly what I've been looking for.

I just don't know if I'd be better off doing that, or instead basically being a Warlord and doing everything possible to enable free bonus attacks to my allies.

[da newt]

"I just don't know if I'd be better off doing that, or instead basically being a Warlord and doing everything possible to enable free bonus attacks to my allies."

Perhaps the above is the root of your issue - your desire/need to be BETTER. If you can let that go and enjoy focusing on something else (having fun, RP-ing, supporting others, providing yucks) maybe you can reduce your performance anxiety / stress and relax into enjoying the game instead of trying to win.

I struggle with this myself, my desire to play smart can result in frustration when other players use ineffective tactics, or I make a crap decision, etc. which can take away from my overall enjoyment of the game.

Do you think this might be more of a mind set thing than a game strategy thing?

[Unoriginal]

......And that SOUNDS exactly what I've been looking for.

Then go for it.



I just don't know if I'd be better off doing that, or instead basically being a Warlord and doing everything possible to enable free bonus attacks to my allies.

There's more to teamwork than enable bonus attacks. From your previous posts, I think you would hate playing the " I just give extra attacks" guy.

If you want something else than your swiss army druid concept, I strongly suggest a PC who can move their teammates around or a tank who actively take action to protect their teammates as they do their thing.

[stoutstien]

Glamour bard/order domain is an interesting combo to act like a tank/warlord/face/healer/5th man.

[jaappleton]

Kobold UA Stars Druid

As a bonus action, grant allies within 10ft of me Advantage a number of time per proficiency bonus. No save. Excellent use of a bonus action.

Sorcerer cantrip keying off Wisdom. Booming Blade. Solid, if uninspired, melee option. Decent use of my action if I am low on resources or otherwise don't have a good idea.

Darkvision. Always a plus.

Advantage VS Frightened, a very nasty condition.

Plus everything that comes with the Swiss Army Knife of being a Stars Druid.

And for good measure, taking the Rakdos Ravnica background. Nets me Fear and Haste on my list, two spells any caster would be happy to have.

[Unoriginal]

Kobold UA Stars Druid

As a bonus action, grant allies within 10ft of me Advantage a number of time per proficiency bonus. No save. Excellent use of a bonus action.

Sorcerer cantrip keying off Wisdom. Booming Blade. Solid, if uninspired, melee option. Decent use of my action if I am low on resources or otherwise don't have a good idea.

Darkvision. Always a plus.

Advantage VS Frightened, a very nasty condition.

Plus everything that comes with the Swiss Army Knife of being a Stars Druid.

And for good measure, taking the Rakdos Ravnica background. Nets me Fear and Haste on my list, two spells any caster would be happy to have.

So just to be sure we're on the same page: for you, this is not taking the video game approach?

[jaappleton]

So just to be sure we're on the same page: for you, this is not taking the video game approach?

Instead of emphasizing one singular aspect and putting every single egg into that basket

I’m now the Swiss Army Knife,

Becoming a solid B across the board, instead of having an A+ in one category but a D+ in everything else

I can help allies by providing Advantage, healing, buffing. I can do battlefield control.

Having a SCAG cantrip means I have a backup option; it’s not like I’m the new Bladesinger with Polearm Master, doing Booming Blade, then a weapon attack, then another weapon attack as a bonus action.

[OldTrees1]

Instead of emphasizing one singular aspect and putting every single egg into that basket

I’m now the Swiss Army Knife,

Becoming a solid B across the board, instead of having an A+ in one category but a D+ in everything else

I can help allies by providing Advantage, healing, buffing. I can do battlefield control.

Having a SCAG cantrip means I have a backup option; it’s not like I’m the new Bladesinger with Polearm Master, doing Booming Blade, then a weapon attack, then another weapon attack as a bonus action.

In this case, the next time you want to specialize, consider specializing in a broad area. Dun the Dungeon Tour Guide specialized in safely guiding a party through a dungeon. That included the obvious trap skills, but also detecting ambushes, emergency healing, recon, buffing vision, and creating escape routes. So while I was emphasizing one singular aspect, I had multiple baskets.

[jaappleton]

In this case, the next time you want to specialize, consider specializing in a broad area. Dun the Dungeon Tour Guide specialized in safely guiding a party through a dungeon. That included the obvious trap skills, but also detecting ambushes, emergency healing, recon, buffing vision, and creating escape routes. So while I was emphasizing one singular aspect, I had multiple baskets.

Not positive I understand.

If you’re referring to an approach my character is going to take, like a motivation to do the things they do, I have that down.

Orion (because Archer form, of course) the Kobold is an author. A historían of sorts. Specifically, chronicling the history of things that are happening now. “Inspired by a true story”, the story of the adventuring party. People like to read about heroes. So he’s there to help make sure they succeed. After all, history is written by the winner. That’s all history is…

The best tales.

The ones that last.

Might as well be his.

Orion the Kobold. Adventurer, author, scale tipper…. And occasionally, unwelcome tagalong.

(Bonus points if you know where I’ve shamelessly stolen this from)

All his magic, it’s the book being written in real time.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Not positive I understand.

If you’re referring to an approach my character is going to take, like a motivation to do the things they do, I have that down.

Orion (because Archer form, of course) the Kobold is an author. A historían of sorts. Specifically, chronicling the history of things that are happening now. “Inspired by a true story”, the story of the adventuring party. People like to read about heroes. So he’s there to help make sure they succeed. After all, history is written by the winner. That’s all history is…

The best tales.

The ones that last.

Might as well be his.

Orion the Kobold. Adventurer, author, scale tipper…. And occasionally, unwelcome tagalong.

(Bonus points if you know where I’ve shamelessly stolen this from)

All his magic, it’s the book being written in real time.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/325/887/1c3.jpg
Is... is he a Deekin reference?

[OldTrees1]

Not positive I understand.

A way to merge the "specialist" tendencies with the "swiss army knife" result is for your future character (beyond this character) to specialize in a profession / style / etc that pulls from a diverse suite of abilities in order to be competent at their profession.

Despite focusing on a single aspect when designing Dun the Dungeon Tour Guide, that single aspect required a diverse skill set. That diverse skill set meant my eggs were not all in one basket despite all contributing to the one specialization.

In my case I found specializations as broad as "get a party of tourists safely through dungeons" was broad enough to get the best of both "specialist" and "swiss army knife". I thought this observation might help you with characters in the future. (You already have a good answer for your next character, so I was trying to help answer the future)

PS: I did not get the bonus points.

[jaappleton]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/325/887/1c3.jpg
Is... is he a Deekin reference?

The part about writing the book in real time, about telling their story, along with the lines about history being the best tales and they might as well be his

All taken from the Dragon Age character Varric Tethras.

[Kuulvheysoon]

The part about writing the book in real time, about telling their story, along with the lines about history being the best tales and they might as well be his

All taken from the Dragon Age character Varric Tethras.

That'd explain it. I never really got into Dragon Age. Still, the chronicler who's a sorta-tagalong adventurer is a solid trope, and the kobold bit apparently biased me.

[Unoriginal]

Instead of emphasizing one singular aspect and putting every single egg into that basket

I’m now the Swiss Army Knife,

Becoming a solid B across the board, instead of having an A+ in one category but a D+ in everything else

I can help allies by providing Advantage, healing, buffing. I can do battlefield control.

Having a SCAG cantrip means I have a backup option; it’s not like I’m the new Bladesinger with Polearm Master, doing Booming Blade, then a weapon attack, then another weapon attack as a bonus action.

I apologize, my question was not clear, and I apologize if it was worded rudely.

I meant to say: does this build meet the goals that you wanted this thread to help you with?

[jaappleton]

I apologize, my question was not clear, and I apologize if it was worded rudely.

I meant to say: does this build meet the goals that you wanted this thread to help you with?

No harm done, Unoriginal. We’ve both crossed paths here enough that I think there’s a mutual respect between the two of us, my friend.

I believe the build does fulfill what I set out for from the get go.

It’s versatile. It’s got lots of aspects about teamwork. Between granting Advantage and getting my hands on the Fear spell to impose Disadvantage, it can prevent damage to my allies and help my allies hit.

Healing. Always a plus to be able to do that.

Battlefield control with its spell list. That’s one thing the Druid certainly has going for it.

Starry Form provides further versatility, and Weal or Woe is a solid use of a reaction. I mean Stars lv6 feature may not be spectacular, but not everything can be an A+, right?

And the Druid gets my absolute most favorite spell in the game, Sunbeam.

I think I set out to look for a build where I could contribute in a variety of situations. And I know that is so open ended it, it could mean so many different things. Tanking was certainly another route, absolutely. Paladins certain provide tons of support, with their save bonus and various other abilities, and it is basically what’s next on the docket should something unfortunate occur to this little Kobold fella.

However, with Paladins being so easily capable of such a damage nova, it’s something I wanted to avoid. Temptation to go back to the exactly what I’m trying to get away from and all, y’know?

[MaxWilson]

>.> This sounds vaguely familiar.

It was really hard not to say anything. :) I was surprised you didn't say anything either, in-character or out-of-character. "Urr, help us kill the wizard!" might possibly have won the combat on round 2, saved Hawk's life, and earned you an extra 15,000 gp, some magic items including boots, and a bunch of XP.

[ff7hero]

It was really hard not to say anything. :) I was surprised you didn't say anything either, in-character or out-of-character. "Urr, help us kill the wizard!" might possibly have won the combat on round 2, saved Hawk's life, and earned you an extra 15,000 gp, some magic items including boots, and a bunch of XP.

I did say this (with later correction about crits):



Reckless rage. Attacks at advantage second round on the oni


Sorry for the backseat playing, but if you attack Korel you'll get advantage without Reckless and every hit will be a crit, but do whatever you'd like :).

Maybe I could have said more or been more direct, but I don't like telling people what to do.

[MaxWilson]

I did say this (with later correction about crits):


That's true. I perceived that as a comment about rules though, not a plea for assistance.


Maybe I could have said more or been more direct, but I don't like telling people what to do.

Fair enough. My perception of Urr is that his player is really into roleplaying Urr's childlike simplicity, so that he wouldn't mind a plea for help but is unlikely to proactively have Urr do something tactical, but (back on the thread topic) it is sometimes really hard to tell what other people want us to do.