The Other Guys, the B-team

[Chalkarts]

Would you play in an sub-optimized game? No stats above 14(to start).

A Wizard that struggles in school. A cleric who’s losing his faith. A clumsy rogue. So on and so forth.

If you put them up against Tiamat at level 1, they will certainly fail.(it's a joke, watch the series)

Think of them as the B-team. They’re the side characters, the other guys. They are the “Mystery Men” of D&D.

Just to be clear,

I'm not talking about making one crap character to play in a normal group, which would be rude. I'm talking about a group of struggling amateurs trying to get by. It would be a game of character development not big numbers.

I've made so many characters over the years I've forgotten most of them. I'm a forerver DM, I have a folder. Making badasses is easy. I can crap out top tier characters all day long. I've been doing it so long that it feels lazy and boring. I think it would be fun to play a game where I(Unless I have to DM again), and the group as a whole, didn't start as demigods in training, but just average joes thrust into adventure. Since 5e doesn't really allow for junk characters through any method other than stat gimping, then gimped stats is the way.

Would you play in such a game?

[False God]

Probably not.

I can role-play struggling with my faith, doing poorly in school, or not being the "main hero" while still having the points necessary to be good at my job.

I don't personally see the normal stat distribution as "demigods in training", but I also don't enjoy low-level gameplay because:
A: Using normal XP it blows by way too fast and there's no time to get invested in the "low level feel".
---If it doesn't, its because the DM hands out squat for XP and everything just turns into a slog. Like, I've killed 500 kobolds, can I level up please?
B: Too many DMs run brutal low-level games. They don't think you'll invest (and don't care if you do), so yeah like this is the 3rd adult green dragon "random" encounter we've run away from? I'd like 1 kobold please. Oh, it's the only kobold with 20 levels, right of course that's who we meet.
C: Characters are extremely limited and it gets repetitive if you stay there too long.

I wouldn't mind playing the side-characters. But I don't need bad rolls in order to role-play not being the A-team.

Roll-play=/=role-play.

[kazaryu]

Would you play in an sub-optimized game? No stats above 14(to start).

A Wizard that struggles in school. A cleric who’s losing his faith. A clumsy rogue. So on and so forth.

If you put them up against Tiamat at level 1, they will certainly fail.(it's a joke, watch the series)

Think of them as the B-team. They’re the side characters, the other guys. They are the “Mystery Men” of D&D.

Just to be clear,

I'm not talking about making one crap character to play in a normal group, which would be rude. I'm talking about a group of struggling amateurs trying to get by. It would be a game of character development not big numbers.

I've made so many characters over the years I've forgotten most of them. I'm a forerver DM, I have a folder. Making badasses is easy. I can crap out top tier characters all day long. I've been doing it so long that it feels lazy and boring. I think it would be fun to play a game where I(Unless I have to DM again), and the group as a whole, didn't start as demigods in training, but just average joes thrust into adventure. Since 5e doesn't really allow for junk characters through any method other than stat gimping, then gimped stats is the way.

Would you play in such a game?

first of all, i wouldn't call that 'suboptimized' although its technically sub-optimal, to me teh term 'sub-optimal' refers to 'a step below optimal' which would (imo) be things like enchanter wizards...trickster clerics. essentailly options that are viable, just not optimal. going TWF on a paldin, **** like that.

that being said, yes, i'd play in such a campaign depending on the group i was playing with, sounds like it could be a lot of fun.

[elyktsorb]

A Wizard that struggles in school. A cleric who’s losing his faith. A clumsy rogue. So on and so forth.


Nah, and for one very good reason.

Playing a game where everyone is slightly bad is just the same as playing a game where everyone is slightly good, just that you spend even more time leveling up your ability scores.

All the above reasons could be rped regardless of what ability score you have. Especially since the first two may have next to nothing to actually do with your ability scores.

Not to mention 'middling' scores aren't nearly as compelling as bad ones.

I would play in a game where my stat allocation doesn't matter but we are still the B-team

[Brookshw]

Yes, unequivocally. Suboptimal tends to be more interesting and fun.

[yellowrocket]

Sadly considering the stats I roll, I'm b team every game.🙈

[Pex]

Probably not. Not that you implied it, but there's nothing wrong with higher ability scores. There's no wrongness in a 16 in your prime nor an 18 when dice rolling. The ability to roleplay has no relation to what your ability scores are. I also have a knee jerk reaction, often justified, to any DM who advocates for low scores, no min-maxers, no optimization, etc. as a matter of pride for his campaign. That tells me he's a DM who wants all the power and control. He can't accept that player characters being powerful doing cool things is the point. A character doing more than 'I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage' is anathema to the DM. I don't apologize for liking the game mechanics part of the game.

[Zuras]

Definitely a “nope, never” for me. Why play a game with a 5e rule set where you have even less control over the story? If you want to play that sort of game, other rule sets do a much better job, especially ones with metagame currency and clear guidance for failing forward during play.

[Chalkarts]

I also have a knee jerk reaction, often justified, to any DM who advocates for low scores, no min-maxers, no optimization, etc. as a matter of pride for his campaign.

For me it's not about pride or control, it's about making a change.
I've seen every top tier build possible over the years. I've played a lot of them in tournaments.
Top tier characters just bore the hell out of me any more, lol.

I want to play in, or run a group of wannabes that uses their brains and either avoids combat or makes inventive decision to defeat a beast as opposed to the oh so exciting, Grog Smash...every damn time.

[False God]

For me it's not about pride or control, it's about making a change.
I've seen every top tier build possible over the years. I've played a lot of them in tournaments.
Top tier characters just bore the hell out of me any more, lol.

I want to play in, or run a group of wannabes that uses their brains and either avoids combat or makes inventive decision to defeat a beast as opposed to the oh so exciting, Grog Smash...every damn time.

But, if you have low scores, your brains don't matter, because you fail.

D&D is a very cut and dry game of "high numbers win, low numbers fail". If you want to play a game where creative gameplay and interesting application of weaker abilities still results in successful gameplay, D&D is not the game for that.

You're not going to get what you what doing what you suggest in D&D. You're going to either fiat away the rolls with player-skill and knowledge, which makes the low scores you wanted meaningless, or you're going to fail a lot and get frustrated that you, as a player, saw that coming but your character just can't pass the checks.

I'd suggest looking to a supers or a detective-styled system, and I'd stay away from the d20.

[MeimuHakurei]

Reminder that the premade characters from the basic set each have a stat at 16.

[1Pirate]

I would try making it a one-shot first. You'll be able to get a feel for how it plays without a full campaign commitment.

Actually, I think that's a really neat idea. I'm stealing it for the next one-shot I run.

[Lord Vukodlak]

For me it's not about pride or control, it's about making a change.
I've seen every top tier build possible over the years. I've played a lot of them in tournaments.
Top tier characters just bore the hell out of me any more, lol.

I want to play in, or run a group of wannabes that uses their brains and either avoids combat or makes inventive decision to defeat a beast as opposed to the oh so exciting, Grog Smash...every damn time.

None of which has little to do with characters being suboptimal vs optimized. It has to do with the party balance vs one another vs the challenges they face.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Chalkarts
Would you play in an sub-optimized game? No stats above 14(to start).

…I’m talking about a group of struggling amateurs trying to get by. It would be a game of character development not big numbers.

Absolutely. I’d have a lot of fun with that.

[Bjarkmundur]

Although I am quite married to a lot of my houserules, I am just as in love with any game where the party has been together her for a while before the game begins. I don't see why changing character creation is a part of it, since all you need to make this work is a good story. Powerlevel is relative. You just put the same characters in a location they'd be after two levels and you get the same "in over your heads" kind of feel.

I'd expect this to be a "combat as a last resort" type of game.
I'd expect this not to be a political game.
I'd expect the theme to be more "OMG they found a way" more than it is "you're unlikely to survive".

I don't enjoy games where I have to be worried about my character failing. I don't get that feeling when reading fantasy, why should I get it when playing it. The magic of DnD for me is "how the hell are we going to make this work" and not "if we go with plan _____ we're all going to die". Thats why the story is going to be the big thing. We're doing minor quests, but the fantasy can be just as strong. Finding out the boy who was crying in the street has just been abandoned by his dad, and then finding out his dad is a wererat, and then going through the drama of having them be joined again through lycanthropy is a great story, even tho it doesn't involve slaying dragons.

So yeah, I'd play the game, but for completely different reasons that you advertised. I'd play because the drama of low fantasy quests is usually more intense, since it doesn't rely on big magic. I'd join because the characters are already bonded before the game begins.

Besides, having low attack rolls against high AC is unfun.
And I'd put a hard boundary on level 1 HP. If we're starting at level 1 with official HP mechanics, I'm out. If we start at a higher level, or start at level 1 with a higher starting HP rule, then I'm in.

[Chalkarts]

And I'd put a hard boundary on level 1 HP. If we're starting at level 1 with official HP mechanics, I'm out. If we start at a higher level, or start at level 1 with a higher starting HP rule, then I'm in.

I always start my groups with Max HP. It's no fun to start with 1hp and run into a rat.

[Waterdeep Merch]

14's? Pah, I'd play with much lower. I can get behind a game where the challenge is the thing. It's not for everyone, though. Ask your players if they're down, and don't shame them if they aren't up for it. Not everyone is up for masochistic difficulty levels.

If it's meant to be hard, a recommendation- let your party keep multiple characters each, so that they can swap out on the fly if someone dies. Get the players to agree to try and save a slain character's loot for the player in question. Unless the game's sprawling with lots to do at any level, keep them all at the same experience points regardless of which characters were actually used.

If the idea, however, is to have lower power levels in general and scale the difficulty accordingly? Eh. Still could be fun, depends on the story. Doesn't always have to be a hero game.

[Bjarkmundur]

I always start my groups with Max HP. It's no fun to start with 1hp and run into a rat.

I start with [max hit die result + con mod] x2
I think Kane0 starts with [max hit die result + con score]

Either way, we both end up in the 20s, which I think is an absolute necessity do counteract the swingyness of early levels.

[loki_ragnarock]

Would you play in an sub-optimized game? No stats above 14(to start).


Would I play in a game with a slightly lower standard array?

Sure.

Would I play a game where the expectation is "clumsy rogue, dyslexic wizard?"

Less interesting. Playing against type is so over done that you might as well play to type.

EDIT:
Would I play in a game where we were the B team?

Yes. One of my favorite games of all time was run by a DM who brought us to the Emperor of an Eastern Horror-Fantasy setting as prisoners to be given a dangerous quest. One of the players was a belligerent ronin with zero respect for authority who presumed that we were important and skilled beyond measure if the Emperor had in his service no one else up to the task.
The Emperor responded cooly, "You believe this is the only threat to the world ongoing? My best men are working on (major, world shattering problem). My second best men are working on (major, country destabilizing problem). My third best men are working on (major problem). You are the dregs, sentenced to death, to be sent on a dangerous mission that - should you survive - will grant you freedom. Because where I send you, you will either succeed or succumb to that death sentence. I would not waste good men upon such a task, let alone my best."

I felt pretty put in my place, and I'm not even the one that provoked the response.

[Pex]

For me it's not about pride or control, it's about making a change.
I've seen every top tier build possible over the years. I've played a lot of them in tournaments.
Top tier characters just bore the hell out of me any more, lol.

I want to play in, or run a group of wannabes that uses their brains and either avoids combat or makes inventive decision to defeat a beast as opposed to the oh so exciting, Grog Smash...every damn time.

Proving my point. So you do think having high scores means players only want to play Grog Smash and are incapable of using their brains, avoid combat, or make inventive decisions. As for combat, yes, players want that. Paladins want to smite. Barbarians want to rage. Wizards want to cast Fireball. All the roleplaying can happen as well. They are not mutually exclusive.

[Gtdead]

I wouldn't play a deliberately suboptimal character but I would play a randomized one. I don't mind having to make the best of a bad situation, but creating something bad, even for a concept, doesn't interest me in the least.

[elyktsorb]

I want to play in, or run a group of wannabes that uses their brains and either avoids combat or makes inventive decision to defeat a beast as opposed to the oh so exciting, Grog Smash...every damn time.

Having middling stats isn't going to make people change the way they want to play, I've known plenty of people with bad stats doing things regardless of the odds. If you want people who don't brute force their way through stuff, you're going to have to find those people, there's also a level of 'dominant strategy' to think about. I myself have gone about encounters with the 'smart' approach in mind, but a lot of times the easiest solution is to just brute force stuff, so the easier that option becomes, the more prevalent it will be in your life.

And even if you make it the hard option, there's no guarantee the players won't take it.

[Angelalex242]

Decisive no thanks from me.

I love optimization, really.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'd make a couple of arguments regarding the criteria that nothing be above a 14.

First, until recently with either point buy or standard array the best you could start with was a 16/17 so it's only one category lower. With an experienced group it's commonly accepted that 5e is set on easy, so this might bring players more in line with published content, particularly with some of the newer (even more) OP subclasses.

Second, assuming point buy, max 14s would provide a very well rounded character who would be decent at a lot of things, though not quite as good at their main one. It might even get away from the one genius (wizard) hanging with a bunch of dullards (int 8s).

I do think you'd end up with even more Vhumans though, as the trade off to get feats down the road would be steep and there's not really a benefit to picking a race with a +2 adjustment.

[Lavaeolus]

With just a 14 cap but no other limitations, you do get a cast of people who are all just largely well-rounded. The average race stat boost is one +2 and one +1, so for example you might end up with this array: 14, 14, 14, 14, 12, 8.

(Without as much specialisation, non-variant humans end up with the somewhat impressive-looking: 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 11. In general, +2s are more valuable when the cap is 16 since Point Buy costs escalate.)

I'd be willing to give it a go, but my initial concern is whether there might not be as much character-differentiation between PCs. When everyone's moderately dextrous, no one is, or something. But maybe I'm not properly taking skill and save proficiencies into account, along with the usual different race and class features whathaveyou.

[TyGuy]

While I like the idea of a "failing upwards" campaign, I think there's better systems for that than D&D 5e

[dafrca]

I would have to go with no in a 5e game. But if you wanted to try out a few other systems like others have said that are designed better for such an idea I would join you on the journey. :smallbiggrin:

[OvisCaedo]

I think lower ability scores are the least interesting way of trying to have less optimized characters using more interesting options. Because they don't really get more interesting options, lower scores means you'd just be... generally worse at succeeding at everything. Just about anything you can tactically do to try to mitigate having a bit worse scores is probably just what would still be smart/proper tactics with higher scores too. That said, it's not like a 14 is unplayably crippling, I just don't think it represents anything interesting.

There's a lot of games where the sub-optimal options represent meaningfully different gameplay abilities or approaches which sadly don't match the top-tier things in sheer performance, but there's fun to be had from that uniqueness. You could maybe get some of that from encouraging people to pick less popular subclasses, but I'm not sure how much mileage you'd really get from that in 5e in terms of "this feels like you're playing something a bit weaker but different" instead of just "this feels like you're playing something a bit weaker"

[AdAstra]

Don't particularly care about just having lower than normal scores. It's essentially just low-power play in general. Can be very fun, but not inherently all that special. You're still largely optimizing around the same metrics and using the same abilities.

That said

I've had a lot of fun with taking a blatantly suboptimal concept, and then optimizing it within that constraint. For example, I played a Sorcerer with 8 Charisma, and still managed to be an extremely effective member of the party, arguably one of the most effective (being able to use Stone Sorcery helped with that, but the concept was still totally workable with other subclasses). You can definitely have a ton of fun with a character with a seemingly crippling constraint.

[Bobthewizard]

I've played lots of characters that start with a 14 in their main stat. Pre-Tasha's, if I had an interesting concept but the racial stat spread didn't match I wouldn't worry about it. It was fine.

However, feats are fun. And starting with a lower primary stat limits your ability to take feats as you level up. So if I played in this game, I'd prefer if you either got both a feat and an ASI at level up, or the limit was permanently reduced to compensate, so no one could ever get above a 14 in any stat. That way you wouldn't feel obligated to increase your primary stat and could focus on feats.

Limiting to 14 probably hurts DEX based characters the most, since for them, it is both their attack stat and determines their AC. STR based characters could still have normal starting AC, while DEX based ones would be behind.

I will say, you don't need to do this. You can simulate the same feel just with level and CR. If the A-team would have been level 3, then the B-team is level 1. Throw 4 ogres at them and it doesn't matter if they have 20's in their stats to start.

[tKUUNK]

EDIT:
Would I play in a game where we were the B team?

Yes. One of my favorite games of all time was run by a DM who brought us to the Emperor of an Eastern Horror-Fantasy setting as prisoners to be given a dangerous quest. One of the players was a belligerent ronin with zero respect for authority who presumed that we were important and skilled beyond measure if the Emperor had in his service no one else up to the task.
The Emperor responded cooly, "You believe this is the only threat to the world ongoing? My best men are working on (major, world shattering problem). My second best men are working on (major, country destabilizing problem). My third best men are working on (major problem). You are the dregs, sentenced to death, to be sent on a dangerous mission that - should you survive - will grant you freedom. Because where I send you, you will either succeed or succumb to that death sentence. I would not waste good men upon such a task, let alone my best."

I felt pretty put in my place, and I'm not even the one that provoked the response.

Thanks for bringing this up....I like the idea of being the B Team, plot-wise. There are many ways you could do this...like, you are the sole survivors of a shipwrecked assault force (the famous heroes who were also aboard all perished trying to fight the Sea Creature), and now you have a short time to infiltrate the enemy castle and be prepared to help cause chaos when the rest of your army arrives.

(I think a lot of DMs subconsciously adjust campaign difficulty to suit the party's abilities.)

There are other ways to be the B Team- crap gear, being placed under a curse, or just always biting off more than you can chew (because your party face signs you up for high-paying mercenary jobs without considering the danger).

[Chronic]

Would you play in an sub-optimized game? No stats above 14(to start).

A Wizard that struggles in school. A cleric who’s losing his faith. A clumsy rogue. So on and so forth.

If you put them up against Tiamat at level 1, they will certainly fail.(it's a joke, watch the series)

Think of them as the B-team. They’re the side characters, the other guys. They are the “Mystery Men” of D&D.

Just to be clear,

I'm not talking about making one crap character to play in a normal group, which would be rude. I'm talking about a group of struggling amateurs trying to get by. It would be a game of character development not big numbers.

I've made so many characters over the years I've forgotten most of them. I'm a forerver DM, I have a folder. Making badasses is easy. I can crap out top tier characters all day long. I've been doing it so long that it feels lazy and boring. I think it would be fun to play a game where I(Unless I have to DM again), and the group as a whole, didn't start as demigods in training, but just average joes thrust into adventure. Since 5e doesn't really allow for junk characters through any method other than stat gimping, then gimped stats is the way.

Would you play in such a game?

I would argue that most of my games play a bit like that. A group of semi competent idiots, succeeding in the end usually, but causing a heap of troubles. Sure, when they are serious they get things done, but you can be sure that one would be rude toward an angry monarch, or try to get some gold of some important relics from a temple or any imaginable variation of stupidity. I like gm it, it's fun.

[Angelalex242]

I've played lots of characters that start with a 14 in their main stat. Pre-Tasha's, if I had an interesting concept but the racial stat spread didn't match I wouldn't worry about it. It was fine.

However, feats are fun. And starting with a lower primary stat limits your ability to take feats as you level up. So if I played in this game, I'd prefer if you either got both a feat and an ASI at level up, or the limit was permanently reduced to compensate, so no one could ever get above a 14 in any stat. That way you wouldn't feel obligated to increase your primary stat and could focus on feats.

Limiting to 14 probably hurts DEX based characters the most, since for them, it is both their attack stat and determines their AC. STR based characters could still have normal starting AC, while DEX based ones would be behind.

I will say, you don't need to do this. You can simulate the same feel just with level and CR. If the A-team would have been level 3, then the B-team is level 1. Throw 4 ogres at them and it doesn't matter if they have 20's in their stats to start.

Sort of...

Remember the minimum strength for plate armor is /15/...

[Waterdeep Merch]

Sort of...

Remember the minimum strength for plate armor is /15/...

Not meeting requirements causes -10 feet of movement per turn. Dwarves can ignore this restriction entirely.

I've intentionally taken the penalty in the past. It usually only causes problems for melee-only characters that get caught in a ranged fight or land the first turn at too long of a distance to close. That's not nothing, but there's plenty of builds that won't have a problem with the trade off.

Thougy in the event of a game like this, it might be better to handwave the requirement, or reduce the penalty to -5 feet instead.

Thinking about how I'd run a game like this, I think I'd give my players a spread of 6, 8, 10, 10, 10, 12 before racials, and they'd start in one of the sidekick classes. Each level they'd gain an ASI, for 20-23 total ASI's by level 20. After they clear whatever story hurdle, I'd let them class change into the normal stuff, first via multiclass, and later overwriting their old sidekick as they ramp up into more traditional D&D powerhouses. Really make it a zero to hero game.

[tKUUNK]

Not meeting requirements causes -10 feet of movement per turn. Dwarves can ignore this restriction entirely.

I've intentionally taken the penalty in the past. It usually only causes problems for melee-only characters that get caught in a ranged fight or land the first turn at too long of a distance to close. That's not nothing, but there's plenty of builds that won't have a problem with the trade off.

Thougy in the event of a game like this, it might be better to handwave the requirement, or reduce the penalty to -5 feet instead.

Thinking about how I'd run a game like this, I think I'd give my players a spread of 6, 8, 10, 10, 10, 12 before racials, and they'd start in one of the sidekick classes. Each level they'd gain an ASI, for 20-23 total ASI's by level 20. After they clear whatever story hurdle, I'd let them class change into the normal stuff, first via multiclass, and later overwriting their old sidekick as they ramp up into more traditional D&D powerhouses. Really make it a zero to hero game.

Very cool idea there.

[Chalkarts]

Proving my point. So you do think having high scores means players only want to play Grog Smash and are incapable of using their brains, avoid combat, or make inventive decisions. As for combat, yes, players want that. Paladins want to smite. Barbarians want to rage. Wizards want to cast Fireball. All the roleplaying can happen as well. They are not mutually exclusive.

Thank you. This is very valuable information.

[Chalkarts]

There are other ways to be the B Team- crap gear, being placed under a curse, or just always biting off more than you can chew (because your party face signs you up for high-paying mercenary jobs without considering the danger).

I was thinking a Level 0 kind of thing to start. Everyone is just a person in a town, the players would decide who they are as a normal plain nobody in a small village. For whatever reason their normal village gets leveled. They scrounge what they can from the rubble, basic weapons, maybe a charred spellbook, someone might make their warlock pact out of anger, then set off to find out wth happened.

[Tanarii]

Starting primary stat 14 isn't particularly un-optimized, and definitely not a Wizard that struggles in school or clumsy rogue level.

If you want to play that, I'd say use standard array and start your primary stat at 10, other stats can be whatever, with all ASIs eventually bringing it to 20 if you have a campaign that lasts long enough. You'd have to choose a class/race combination that gives you at least one effective way of attacking with an non-primary stat though.

[Chalkarts]

Starting primary stat 14 isn't particularly un-optimized, and definitely not a Wizard that struggles in school or clumsy rogue level.


I didn't want to start this thread by saying stats should be 10-12ish.
The flaming from the power gamers would have shaken the earth.

[Kane0]

I would absolutely play a warlock that thought it was an INT class, and bargained for wit and cunning by sacrificing his good looks and winning smile.

Edit: or alternatively a ranger that is an absolute master survivalist in theory, but is very mediocre in all physical traits. He relies on his animal friends to do all the heavy lifting but at least he is knowledgable and has a great spell DC!

[Chalkarts]

Edit: or alternatively a ranger that is an absolute master survivalist in theory, but is very mediocre in all physical traits. He relies on his animal friends to do all the heavy lifting but at least he is knowledgable and has a great spell DC!

This makes me chuckle. I could imagine a slightly emaciated young man with a well fed wolf companion. He tries to hunt, he tries to fight, but his wolf is the real warrior. The wolf also knows it so it does a lot of exasperated whimpering and serious side eye every time the ranger does something stupid or picks a fight out of his league.
Whenever the Ranger uses speak with animals to talk to the wolf he's instantly reminded, "Just because you hate Orcs, you dont have to attack EVERY SINGLE ONE!!"

[Tanarii]

I didn't want to start this thread by saying stats should be 10-12ish.
The flaming from the power gamers would have shaken the earth.
The bigger problem is some classes really suffer. Most casters can secondary stat Dex or Str and gish it up while they build up their casting stat, especially if you allow the SCAG cantrips. Whereas most martials need either High Elf for the Cantrip, or Magic Initiate for a cantrip.

Unless you allow a player to designate their Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian as Str "Primary" 10 and Dex "secondary" 16 or so, and use Dex until Str catches up. Ranger can eke by with Str "secondary" 16 and Dex "primary" 10 and Medium Armor the same way. Rogue could be a Mountain Dwarf Str "secondary" and wear medium armor. There's ways to do it, but it'd be far more limited options than casters.

[EdenIndustries]

One of my favourite characters in 5e was a Wizard that I didn't intend to have low scores, that's just the way I rolled!

The thing is, because I knew I couldn't handle combat very well, it did make me change my strategy.

Instead of fighting the lunatic cultist we met in the opening scene, I used Charm Person (a spell I rarely use otherwise).

When I separated from the group and encountered a possessed goat on the farm we were at, I didn't think my level 1 Wizard could defeat him solo. So I ran around and used mold earth to trap him until we could cure him. And then the goat came with us for a bit and headbutted some orcs :smallsmile:

So yes based on that unintentional experience I most definitely would play a B-team character!

[Lavaeolus]

Edit: or alternatively a ranger that is an absolute master survivalist in theory, but is very mediocre in all physical traits. He relies on his animal friends to do all the heavy lifting but at least he is knowledgable and has a great spell DC!

Druidic Warrior, one of the Tasha's Fighting Styles, lets Ranger pick up two druid cantrips at level 2. Shillelagh isn't without its limitations, but if you want to commit to just letting those physical stats slide, it could be nice. If you pick Fey Wanderer and dump some of those would-be Dexterity points into Charisma, you could have the makings of a great face.

Which, granted, is starting to look like a character that's less sacrificed their main stat and more just flipped it to WIS.

(Other options for grabbing shillelagh include Wood Elf Magic and Magic Initiate, the latter of which could be grabbed by VHumans at level 1.)

[Kane0]

Hah nah thats way too optimized, if he took druidic warrior and not archery it would probably be for primal savagery or thorn whip or something. Beasaster does get share spells later on so that might not be a complete waste...

[SLOTHRPG95]

Limiting to 14 probably hurts DEX based characters the most, since for them, it is both their attack stat and determines their AC. STR based characters could still have normal starting AC, while DEX based ones would be behind.

(Emphasis added)


Sort of...

Remember the minimum strength for plate armor is /15/...

Since when is plate armor normal starting equipment? :smallconfused: Heavy-armor users generally start with mail, which has a STR requirement of 13.


Not meeting requirements causes -10 feet of movement per turn. Dwarves can ignore this restriction entirely.

I've intentionally taken the penalty in the past. It usually only causes problems for melee-only characters that get caught in a ranged fight or land the first turn at too long of a distance to close. That's not nothing, but there's plenty of builds that won't have a problem with the trade off.


Also this.

To OP: sounds like a neat idea! Not sure that low stats are the best way to simulate this though, as others have said above. Personally I have no problem playing a character with less-heroic stats, but I don't find that necessary nor sufficient to get the B-team feel.

[Bobthewizard]

Not meeting requirements causes -10 feet of movement per turn. Dwarves can ignore this restriction entirely.

Also a wood elf that takes this penalty still has the same speed as the dwarf.

[Tanarii]

Dex 14 isn't "behind" for AC, it's the baseline. Dex 16 is "ahead" for AC.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

It's been mentioned a couple of times in this thread, but the 'Max 14 rule' at the outset would definitely open up some pretty MAD builds. Something like a Bladesinger/ Paladin could be competitive, or possibly even better than some of the single classes with this ruling. It might be worth a go for a campaign just to shake things up, though I'm not sure that was the intent of the OP.

[Chalkarts]

It's been mentioned a couple of times in this thread, but the 'Max 14 rule' at the outset would definitely open up some pretty MAD builds. Something like a Bladesinger/ Paladin could be competitive, or possibly even better than some of the single classes with this ruling. It might be worth a go for a campaign just to shake things up, though I'm not sure that was the intent of the OP.

It could be interesting if players choose multis. If the characters are just b-team losers who haven't worked to be whatever their class is, they may try multiple things. FIghters are assumed to have trained and practiced so know they want to fight. Wizards spend time as apprentices knowing they'll be a wizard. A dude who climbed out of the rubble and has never trained for anything but selling fruit from a cart may try anything. If they have a spellbook among the group then the fighter might decide he's not so great at the hitting so borrows the spellbook and dips into wizard

[Kane0]

Normal stats, but the B team start off with 1 or 2 levels of sidekick classes before they can take real PC levels?

[Chalkarts]

Normal stats, but the B team start off with 1 or 2 levels of sidekick classes before they can take real PC levels?

I need to look up the sidekick rules. its been mentioned often.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Dex 14 isn't "behind" for AC, it's the baseline. Dex 16 is "ahead" for AC.

If you've only got access to light armor or less (and no alternate AC calculations), then 14 Dex is painful. Especially true for melee Rogues or switch-hitting Bladepact Warlocks (non-Hexblade), but even the pure backline casters/archers will get attacked and then starting with an AC of at most 13 hurts. Contrast this with medium armor users who can max out their starting AC with Dex 14, or heavy armor users who can all start with AC 18 (chainmail + shield) with no movement penalty with Str 13. Even a Monk with Dex 14/Wis 14 is doing better than their Rogue counterpart with the same stats (assuming that you don't start with studded since it's not base starting equipent).


It's been mentioned a couple of times in this thread, but the 'Max 14 rule' at the outset would definitely open up some pretty MAD builds. Something like a Bladesinger/ Paladin could be competitive, or possibly even better than some of the single classes with this ruling. It might be worth a go for a campaign just to shake things up, though I'm not sure that was the intent of the OP.

Paladin 6/Monk 14 becomes more tempting when you're essentially forced to spread out all your points from point buy anyways. If it's just a question of using a substandard fixed array however (e.g. 12 11 10 9 8 7) then MAD multiclassing becomes worse, or straight-up impossible.


Normal stats, but the B team start off with 1 or 2 levels of sidekick classes before they can take real PC levels?

You could even take it one step further and have only sidekick classes available, period. Warrior isn't that far off a Champion Fighter for most of T1/T2, and Spellcasters never getting potentially game-breaking high-level spells helps ensure the B-team feel endures even into T4 play.

[Tanarii]

If you've only got access to light armor or less (and no alternate AC calculations), then 14 Dex is painful. Especially true for melee Rogues or switch-hitting Bladepact Warlocks (non-Hexblade), but even the pure backline casters/archers will get attacked and then starting with an AC of at most 13 hurts. Contrast this with medium armor users who can max out their starting AC with Dex 14, or heavy armor users who can all start with AC 18 (chainmail + shield) with no movement penalty with Str 13. Even a Monk with Dex 14/Wis 14 is doing better than their Rogue counterpart with the same stats (assuming that you don't start with studded since it's not base starting equipent).
Yes it's not a great AC, I'm not disputing that. But a 15 primary with no racial bonus is the baseline, and that's the same mod as a 14.

[da newt]

It would 100% depend on the other players and DM - with the right folks, this could be every bit as much fun and challenging as a 27 point buy game + every PC gets a free feat and 1 uncommon magic item of their choice at character generation. In my mind it changes very little except where the baseline is.

Personally, I like the idea of playing a PC who is plausible IRL - a generalist, kinda athletic, kinda clever, kinda tough, no extra gifts from the gods etc ... I really like playing one of my PCs who sort of ended up a little fighter, a little rogue, a little cleric - he doesn't do anything very well, but he's a scrapper - all grit and determination.

If the DM does a good job of tweaking encounters to challenge but not overwhelm - who cares what baseline is? It sort of becomes irrelevant (as long as it's consistent across the party).

[Chalkarts]

If the DM does a good job of tweaking encounters to challenge but not overwhelm - who cares what baseline is? It sort of becomes irrelevant (as long as it's consistent across the party).

I was thinking there first, lvl 0, encounter would be something like a single animal or weak kobold, something a fully capable character would slap aside easily but these guys will struggle with. do maybe 2 or 3 encounters like that then level them to level 1 in their class and proceed with the real meat of the story from there.

[f5anor]

Would you play in an sub-optimized game? No stats above 14(to start).

Think of them as the B-team. They’re the side characters, the other guys. They are the “Mystery Men” of D&and.

Would you play in such a game?

I feel very much the same way, and also been there, done that.

In fact by far the most enjoyable and memorable character I have ever played (when I managed to escape the „forever DM“ curse), was such a character.

I was so tired of the super optimized characters everyone was making, that I decided to make the most contradictory, unoptimized character I could imagine.

This was not in D&D though, but Shadowrun 2nd edition. It was a troll shaman, as trolls tend to be severely hampered in all things magical, and shamans being a weaker version of western type magic users.

The character was so weak, that I initially was barely able to cast any spells, and needed to resort to melee combat and my skills to get anything done. This created much comic relief and great memorable moments, e.g. after barely surviving casting a failed spell, attacking the enemy with my bare hands instead :smile:.

Ultimately though, this character became one of the most powerful, since once he managed to overcome his inherent weaknesses, he ended up an extremely well rounded generalist, able to play any role, and being very good in all of them, while still not exceptional in any of them.

The character was so popular with the players, that I made him the central NPC in my campaign after I retired him.

[sambojin]

Yes. And I would play as a Moon Druid. And I would laugh, as my to-hit is now considered godly, and many of my best spells don't need stats :)

[Xervous]

Clamping ability scores to a narrower range just means one character’s roll is going to feel much more like the other until characters develop their ASIs and proficiency bonus grows.

Short of explicit features you’re all just chucking the same D20 at things, with no/minimal difference in modifiers that should otherwise be demonstrating Joe Barbarian being better suited to lifting the gate than Tom Wizard.

If instead you’re looking at arrays whose values are all just shifted down AND your players have a good grasp of how strong X Y and Z typically are in the world, then you can get some proper B team vibes as you’ve shifted the percentiles across the board rather than just pulling everything together.

[Mr. Wonderful]

Would you play in an sub-optimized game? No stats above 14(to start).

A Wizard that struggles in school. A cleric who’s losing his faith. A clumsy rogue. So on and so forth.

If you put them up against Tiamat at level 1, they will certainly fail.(it's a joke, watch the series)

Think of them as the B-team. They’re the side characters, the other guys. They are the “Mystery Men” of D&D.


Oh yes, this is SO MUCH FUN to play, especially when they are supporting characters for your "mains" - that is the guys your primary character send to investigate things they are interested in, but not really worthy of main plotline attention.

In one 3.5 campaign we had both "B" level characters and "C" level characters. The DM would trot them out when he had scenarios that were level-appropriate, or he just grew weary of developing very high level scenarios for Epic level characters - which should be super familiar to anyone who had to do this.

It was great as a character because you were still advancing the plot, and it often filled in the over-arching plot lines quite nicely. How exactly did the Great Heroes know to trust that plot recommendation? Because their most trusted subordinates had tested and recommended it!

Also - if you have a campaign where you are playing a Super-duper Hero it's very satisfying to also play a dork who helps that superhero.

My experience and advice, worth price paid.

[Slipjig]

I always start my groups with Max HP. It's no fun to start with 1hp and run into a rat.

I'd say that's the absolute minimum. I prefer to let everybody have max HP at every level. Bigger hit dice are one of the perks of playing martials, it's a crummy design if one or two bad rolls permanently leaves you with 1/3 of the HP of somebody else with an identical build but better luck.