9 Questions to Establish Character Strength (at your table)

[strangebloke]

Discussions are hard. Optimization levels vary, some people have feats, some don't. Some allow multiclassing, some don't. There are other considerations like how many encounters per day, and how many short rests per day, and how many magic items get put out, that really change the shape of how a campaign plays out. For this reason most discussions fixate on pure numbers. AC, +attack mods, hp, and DPR. But this is obviously limited. Nobody who cares about optimization actually thinks a bard with 15 AC is a weak character, right?

What I try to do, is think about what conditions a character might be strong, or weak in, and characterize them. Players can then think about how this translates to their own campaign, and how strong their character concept will be at the table they actually play at. For example, if a character is bad at using randomly generated magic weapons, a player can say, "oh, our DM gives out tailor-made items. Not an issue." Here are what I view to be the best questions to ask:


"does this character do well at single-target control/damage? Can they enhance the damage of others?"
"how resilient are they against attacks, explosions, (high damage dex saves) and save-or-sucks? Can they make others more resilient against these things?"
"does this character do well at crowd control"
"how well does this character perform in exploration/social challenges"
"how well does this character make use of random magical loot? What about tailored magical loot?"
"how does this character's performance change if they have many encounters without a long rest? What about if they get no short rests?"
"can this character do a ton in a short period of time if needed?" (aka 'nova potential.')
"how well does this character perform at different levels?"
"are there any situations or counterplay where this character will not be able to do what they want."

So consider a bearbarian. They succeed at #1 though they're not way ahead of other DPR specialists. They sort of succeed at #2, but in the sense that they're great about attacks and explosions and dismal about about save-or-sucks. A fear or charm effect can ruin an entire encounter for you very easily to a far greater extent than another character, and you have no innate defense against such things. Crowd control? Again, there's nothing really here besides a normal OA. Perhaps a stronger than normal OA with GWM if you have that, but nothing exceptional. Exploration/social challenges? Depends on totem choice a bit, but could be a LOT better. A long adventuring day? Dismal stuff to be honest, its very easy to run out of rage at low-mid levels. 6-8 encounters could easily become a slog. Nova potential? Not really no. Different levels? Well, stronger early on, but you're going to drop off past level 8 at the latest. Counterplay? Tons! Everyone remembers the first time an enemy cast command and made them lose rage.

So it looks like this is a pretty bad character, yeah? Well... not necessarily. #9 isn't relevant if your DM doesn't have monsters play around your abilities. For #8, you might be only playing to level 5 anyway. For #6, you might be rolling with only a few reasonably intense encounters rather than a true dungeon crawl, and perhaps #4 doesn't matter because your DM simply doesn't do those. Similarly, your DM might not use mobs of enemies that much, and thus #3 is less applicable.

There's party composition to consider as well. In the rare case you're in a party with 3 support characters, say, 2 bards and a druid, a barbarian might bring a lot of much needed single-target oomph.

In other words, although I know that bearbarians are terrible at my table, the same may not be true for yours, and a rubric like the above will help you see why. Furthermore, it might help you understand why someone's character seems horrendously overpowered at your table. Maybe they're a sorcadin and its a 5-minute adventuring day. Maybe your DM gave them a special "flametongue handcrossbow." Understanding incentives is important to making a (somewhat) balanced experience.

[Corran]

Nobody who cares about optimization actually thinks a bard with 15 AC is a weak character, right?
Well, optimization is about covering weaknessess too, and not just about exploiting those of your enemies. The 15 AC of the bard is certainly a weakness you leave for your enemies to exploit. So whenever the party is counting on the bard for X, if the bard gets focused enough, X might not apply, be that battlefield control, healing, whatever. To counteract that you can do a number of things, like raising the bard's AC (in a cost effective manner) and/or finding ways to make it more difficult/ less profitable for the enemies to target the bard (can be done in many many different ways that there is little point expanding in this post) and/or not relying on the bard too much for any one particular function (probably in a large enough party so that whatever overlap will be more forgiving).

So, while I wouldn't say that this bard is a weak character, there is room enough to consider it a liability when you stress things enough. Such characters can have great moments but also terrible ones, if you dont find ways to cover or play around your weaknesses.

[strangebloke]

Well, optimization is about covering weaknessess too, and not just about exploiting those of your enemies. The 15 AC of the bard is certainly a weakness you leave for your enemies to exploit. So whenever the party is counting on the bard for X, if the bard gets focused enough, X might not apply, be that battlefield control, healing, whatever. To counteract that you can do a number of things, like raising the bard's AC (in a cost effective manner) and/or finding ways to make it more difficult/ less profitable for the enemies to target the bard (can be done in many many different ways that there is little point expanding in this post) and/or not relying on the bard too much for any one particular function (probably in a large enough party so that whatever overlap will be more forgiving).

So, while I wouldn't say that this bard is a weak character, there is room enough to consider it a liability when you stress things enough. Such characters can have great moments but also terrible ones, if you dont find ways to cover or play around your weaknesses.

Even so, going by my above chart, the bard is still going to be passing almost all categories with flying colors, and in most campaigns such a character is going to get to do a lot to help the party. 15 AC is a liability, but not the most massive liability ever on a non-melee character.

[Corran]

Even so, going by my above chart, the bard is still going to be passing almost all categories with flying colors
Nitpick: Not against enemies who are smart enough to recognize you as a good target (assuming you are) and who'll be capable of acting on that.

I dont disagree with your second post, and having time to read the rest of the op I can see that the point I am trying to make is addressed (#9). Maybe we even agree on how these points influence each other, maybe we dont; not important.

I do disagree with the part I quoted in my previous post, not because said bard is going to be a weak character as a whole, but simply because the impression this quote left me with was that you brushed off an obvious weakness like it's not relevant to optimization. And it is. If I am not purposely an obvious target, then I have to make myself less of one or to make it harder for the enemies to act on it, but ideally both. If I were trying to play the 15 AC optimally, I'd check if we've got enough tools to help preventing getting ambushed and I'd also probably want to avoid open areas at the very least (assuming the party does not have a way of overcoming the potential extra disadvantage I am allowing in both scenarios). So Bon Jon Bovi the 8 INT, 6 WIS, 15 AC bard may be casting the equivalent of the alarm spell at the entrance of the dungeon just before entering it because they heard it's good luck to do so, but I am still having him cast it. And further down the road they'll pick magnificent mansion because of the confort it provides, but I am picking it for the much needed safety our long rests demand.

Edit: I think I am derailing this thread though. So I'll gladly read a reply but I'll not respond if I think I am getting out of topic.

[strangebloke]

Nitpick: Not against enemies who are smart enough to recognize you as a good target (assuming you are) and who'll be capable of acting on that.

I dont disagree with your second post, and having time to read the rest of the op I can see that the point I am trying to make is addressed (#9). Maybe we even agree on how these points influence each other, maybe we dont; not important.

I do disagree with the part I quoted in my previous post, not because said bard is going to be a weak character as a whole, but simply because the impression this quote left me with was that you brushed off an obvious weakness like it's not relevant to optimization. And it is. If I am not purposely an obvious target, then I have to make myself less of one or to make it harder for the enemies to act on it, but ideally both. If I were trying to play the 15 AC optimally, I'd check if we've got enough tools to help preventing getting ambushed and I'd also probably want to avoid open areas at the very least (assuming the party does not have a way of overcoming the potential extra disadvantage I am allowing in both scenarios). So Bon Jon Bovi the 8 INT, 6 WIS, 15 AC bard may be casting the equivalent of the alarm spell at the entrance of the dungeon just before entering it because they heard it's good luck to do so, but I am still having him cast it. And further down the road they'll pick magnificent mansion because of the confort it provides, but I am picking it for the much needed safety our long rests demand.

Edit: I think I am derailing this thread though. So I'll gladly read a reply but I'll not respond if I think I am getting out of topic.

Yeah, my point is more just how a character can have overall "small numbers" in things like HP, DPR, and AC, and still have a lot of power because of all the random support abilities and spells they get access too. 15 AC and a D8 hit die might be a liability, but its not an insurmountable one. Which, yes, is something I think everyone can agree on, but that was my point. Everyone knows that a lot of the classes fixated on DPR are really the less efficient classes (except arguably paladin) but people can never agree on terms of discussion so that debate gets glossed over.

I think its genuinely interesting to consider the tradeoffs between the full casters like this. You can notice how druids for example basically only have strong concentration spells, which makes them insane out of combat or in really long days, but less impressive in combat. Something like a moon druid in particular will basically struggle to use all their resources at high levels.

[da newt]

Fair points, well made, but the one thing your rubric does not include is the skill of the Player. IME this is the one primary factor in determining the PC strength - the one thing that over shadows all of the good points that you make. Any PC, no matter the build, is only as good as the Player who has to make all the tactical decisions / determine where when and how to use the different features of any given PC.

A clever / savvy Player can make a sub-optimal build / PC much more capable than a simple Player can make an OP build / PC.

[strangebloke]

Fair points, well made, but the one thing your rubric does not include is the skill of the Player. IME this is the one primary factor in determining the PC strength - the one thing that over shadows all of the good points that you make. Any PC, no matter the build, is only as good as the Player who has to make all the tactical decisions / determine where when and how to use the different features of any given PC.

A clever / savvy Player can make a sub-optimal build / PC much more capable than a simple Player can make an OP build / PC.

I mean sure, but in theory discussions the skill limit is essentially the ceiling. It's pretty easy to come up with really sophisticated solutions to same-game tests and gauntlets and such, because you have lots of time and people talking over the issue.