Weak Characters.

[Thefurmonger]

So over the last few days I have been posting in This thread. It is about a mostly 1st level party whos DM put them up against an Owlbear (They lost).

The OP of the thread asked if most first level parties (mostly 1st, some 2nd) could take it.

Durring the disscusion I said that yes I felt that it should be no problem for most well made parties.

The issue came up with what a typical well made party actually is?

I suggested that given access to the rules MOST (Yes I know not all groups do these things) Groups use, Flaws, Retraining, all WOTC etc there should be no reason to make a "weak" character.

I have had MANY PMs telling me that "Weak" characters are better to Roleplay and that there is no reason to make a optimised character. Some went on to tell me that "Judging by how you build a Character, it is clear that you don't know the first thing about roleplaying"


So here are the questions

What level of optimisation is acceptable?
"You play a fighter and put your highest stat in strength?!?! Freakin powergamer"

Do you guys think that it is easier to Roleplay a gimped character?

When did it become a sin to make a character that is good at what he is made to do?


Just so you know the examples I gave was a WaterOrc/Fighter Tripper build, (The OP said fighter or I would have gone differently).

And a DMM Cleric (Yes you can do it easily at 1st).

[Caphi]

I like roleplaying characters who do a thing and are good at what they do. If not being good at anything is good roleplay, I don't want to be good.

[Sinfire Titan]

I like roleplaying characters who do a thing and are good at what they do. If not being good at anything is good roleplay, I don't want to be good.

Yeah.

I have had MANY PMs telling me that "Weak" characters are better to Roleplay and that there is no reason to make a optimised character. Some went on to tell me that "Judging by how you build a Character, it is clear that you don't know the first thing about roleplaying

This reeks of Stormwind Fallacy. I don't know about you, but I don't want my characters to be as effective as a conscious Shinji Hikari.

[Mongoose87]

I find it easier to roleplay a stronger character, since I won't die before I can hit my roleplaying stride.

That being said, one should strive to avoid outclassing one's party.

[Thefurmonger]

**From one of my other awsome PMs**

I can't beleive you told that guy's sorc to take spells like Color Spray! Don't you understand that REAL tactics can only come out when combat lasts more then one round?
It's people like you with your "Save or Die" Spells and Valorus Chargers of death that ruin the game for REAL roleplayers like me. I hope we never share a table at a convention

Me to.

[Starscream]

What level of optimisation is acceptable?
"You play a fighter and put your highest stat in strength?!?! Freakin powergamer"

Well, a bit of optimization is just common sense. You don't get any stupid wizards because being a wizard requires years of study, and stupid people can't be wizards. It makes sense both from a fluff and crunch perspective.

When I DM, I find that optimization isn't bad if everyone does it. If the whole party is more powerful than usual, I can just ramp up the Encounter Levels until I find something that is both fun and challenging for them.

Likewise, if no one is optimized, I can just run a typical level game and it will still work well.

The problem is if some players are optimized and others are not. I can't raise the difficulty too much without endangering the weaker characters, effectively punishing them for their lack of min/maxing, which is wrong. And if I make things too easy the stronger characters will mop the floor with every monster I throw at them. Things like the Tier system and a few sensible house rules can be a huge help in narrowing the gap.

Do you guys think that it is easier to Roleplay a gimped character?

Yes and no. A badly made character does not necessarily mean an interesting one, but it can mean there is an interesting backstory. This is particularly true in the case of odd multiclassing.

For instance, one of my favorite characters was a druid/renegade mastermaker. He hated all civilization and machinery, and was a brilliant craftsman with natural materials such as wood. Because of his skill, some Inevitables asked for his help repairing one of the gears of Mechanus, which was damaged in an attack by Slaad. Unlike most of the gears, this one was wooden, and they couldn't fix it themselves.

He grudgingly agreed because they promised that no harm would come to him. When fixing it, the Slaad attacked again and he was crushed between gears. True to their word, the Inevitables saved him; by incorporating mechanical parts into him, severing his connection to nature. He was horrified, and swore revenge, actually joining up with the Slaad. But the tragic irony is that he had to continue to advance as a Mastermaker, losing more and more of his humanity; only by becoming mostly machine could he survive the process of having the metal removed from him and replaced with wood (the warforged feat you get at level ten), giving him back his magical abilities.

This was a terribly unoptimized character. He lost three caster levels, stopped advancing his Wild Shape and Animal Companion, and all he got in return were the warforged immunities that are available at level one. And it's debatable whether or not losing his magic was even necessary by RAW. But man was his story cool.

By the same token, it can be hard to explain why a wizard has four different prestige classes in character. Not impossible, but hard. If you are not careful in coming up with a reason for doing this, it really seems like you assembled him out of a kit.

[Dogmantra]

Roleplaying a character with a weakness is easier. Roleplaying a sucky character is much much harder.

[Morty]

That PM sounds like it's sarcastic.

[Thefurmonger]

That PM sounds like it's sarcastic.

I wish, that was not the whole thing, I can assure you he was serious.

[Trouvere]

Do you guys think that it is easier to Roleplay a gimped character?

To a small extent, yes, sometimes, for some people. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but you can't deny that their shortcomings provide a RPing crutch or a convenient coathook.... Conversely, there's at least some degree of constraint if every fighter is a feral mineral warrior half-minotaur, or whatever, and every cleric is an anthropomorphic bat, and every bard takes the maxed inspire courage/Dragonfire Inspiration route.

"Happy PCs are all alike; every unhappy PC is unhappy in its own way", as Tolstoy didn't say.

[Vizzerdrix]

I have had MANY PMs telling me that "Weak" characters are better to Roleplay and that there is no reason to make a optimized character. Some went on to tell me that "Judging by how you build a Character, it is clear that you don't know the first thing about roleplaying"

PM me a list of names please? These people obviously haven't a clue and I'd like to add them to my ignore list. Thanks!

That, and I may send them some info about the Stormwind fallacy.

So here are the questions

1-What level of optimisation is acceptable?
"You play a fighter and put your highest stat in strength?!?! Freakin powergamer"

2-Do you guys think that it is easier to Roleplay a gimped character?

3-When did it become a sin to make a character that is good at what he is made to do?


4-Just so you know the examples I gave was a WaterOrc/Fighter Tripper build, (The OP said fighter or I would have gone differently).

And a DMM Cleric (Yes you can do it easily at 1st).

1-as much as you want. Making a functional character, or even a mechanically strong one has nothing to do with your ability to roleplay.

2-no, it is not. If that was the case, the allow me to propose that anyone who isn't playing a quadriplegic half blind goblin fighter with penalties to all stats is a piss poor roleplayer and a definite munchkin.

3-When people started getting jealous that another persons big bad dude was able to back up their hype, while they couldn't.

Nothing wrong with either build. Fluff wise, orcs like fighting so fighter is all good, and knocking people down is funny.

DMM Clerics are less stressful on players. They let the player have some fun without worrying about the group complaining that the band aid is doing something other than healing.

[Lysander]

I think a character shouldn't be optimized for combat but for gameplay. By that I mean they should be powerful enough to survive and contribute to the party, but not so powerful that the player can ever stop thinking on their toes. A too weak character means the game is a Kobayashi Maru, an over optimized character means you're not playing a game anymore.

Using STR as your highest stat for a fighter just makes sense. What makes less sense are some of the ridiculous class combos and layered races and templates. "I'm a fiendish half human, half dinosaur necropolitan who worships Lloth, studied martial arts only practiced in a country on the other side of the world for a year, made a blood pact with the fey to gain flight, was reborn as a dragon, my arms are animated mithril, and I'm a variant of wizard who can turn fruit into explosions at will. I had a raven familiar once but I traded it for a flying frying pan that can shoot lasers and boosts my will save."

[Admiral Squish]

There are extremes of both ends, I think. It's a matter of priorities. If I wanted to, I could, theoretically, justify most cheesed-out builds in RP. It might be a stretch for some, like pun-pun, but it could be done. But that assumes you're prioritizing your build first. You're layering a character on top of a preset structure. I personally prefer to prioritize the other way. I come up with a character first, then I tweak and fiddle the build to be as strong as possible without compromising the character's design.

[AtwasAwamps]

"I'm a fiendish half human, half dinosaur necropolitan who worships Lloth, studied martial arts only practiced in a country on the other side of the world for a year, made a blood pact with the fey to gain flight, was reborn as a dragon, my arms are animated mithril, and I'm a variant of wizard who can turn fruit into explosions at will. I had a raven familiar once but I traded it for a flying frying pan that can shoot lasers and boosts my will save."

Look, I'm pretty sure that's all RAW, so it's totally legit.

[BenTheJester]

I really like Tier 3, and while I build quite optimized characters, they are almost never 100% optimized.

It annoys me how one character(wizards, etc) can be better at EVERYTHING than a character specialized in one thing.

Using STR as your highest stat for a fighter just makes sense. What makes less sense are some of the ridiculous class combos and layered races and templates. "I'm a fiendish half human, half dinosaur necropolitan who worships Lloth, studied martial arts only practiced in a country on the other side of the world for a year, made a blood pact with the fey to gain flight, was reborn as a dragon, my arms are animated mithril, and I'm a variant of wizard who can turn fruit into explosions at will. I had a raven familiar once but I traded it for a flying frying pan that can shoot lasers and boosts my will save."

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

[Thefurmonger]

I had a raven familiar once but I traded it for a flying frying pan that can shoot lasers and boosts my will save."

Freakin awsome.

[Radiun]

What level of optimisation is acceptable?

You have to be able to help your teammates. You have to be a realiable <CLASS> Otherwise you're a liability and negatively impacting other people's roleplaying because (most) people who fight for their lives day-in and day-out will not want to haul dead weight around. That being said, you don't need to wipe out all encounters with a flick of the wrist. All things in moderation after all.

Do you guys think that it is easier to Roleplay a gimped character?

No. Why the he...ck would I be adventuring if I was incompetent? That being said, yes I can see how some characters would be pressed into adventuring, but it is a profession that is known for high risk and unreliable rewards. Worth it if you're the creme-de-la-creme, but for Thog the <All Abilities> 10 Fighter?

When did it become a sin to make a character that is good at what he is made to do?

It never was. You're buying the hype is all.

[Eldonauran]

I can see where this kind of stuff comes from. To me, its similar to the alignment axis. Some people lean heavily to one side or another. Others sit in the middle with only slight tendencies to shift either way.

1) Some players are only focused on the characters they create. To them, the character is not the sum of its abilities but the life they breathe into them. The mechanics are only a means to an end and are not very high on the list of priorites.

2) Some players are all about mechanics. They generally have a very simple idea of what their character will be and usually flesh out the character after all the abilities and mechanics have been dealt with. 'cookie-cutter' is a common term for these type of characters.

3) In the middle ground is everyone else. We have a developed idea of what our characters are and search through the books to find ways to make our ideas work, changing only minor details about the character in order to bring it to life.

I generally only powergame when everyone else is doing it. If they like that and have fun, I can do it too. However, I still roleplay the character as if he is a real person. He's just very good at what he does. I do tend to get more satisfaction out of very detailed characters when compared to very powerful characters. Mortality is a big part of D&D and feeling mortal is a powerful incentive to staying alive.

[Frosty]

I roleplay what I want to rp. If the concept I want to rp has some weaknesses, then so be it. If my concept is an uber power omniscient Dr. Doom type, then I'll optimize to match that. I pick a concept I want to rp first, then build to the power level.

[Coidzor]

Personally, I prefer it with wizards who mostly do battlefield control, but aren't so obsessive that they'll never blast.

Because it's nice to have some blasting every now and then. Dunno why, feels cathartic.

But, as was said, you really have to be in tune with the rest of the group and the DM about how much they know/can/do optimize.

Which is unfortunate because I don't think there's really well established ranks of optimization.



...And only someone who isn't very good at roleplaying would be dependent upon some kind of mechanical-level crippling weakness or inconsistency of the character's existence in order to role play them.

[KillianHawkeye]

I have had MANY PMs telling me that "Weak" characters are better to Roleplay and that there is no reason to make a optimised character. Some went on to tell me that "Judging by how you build a Character, it is clear that you don't know the first thing about roleplaying"

Unfortunately, this issue will take just as long to solve as any other idealogical conflict in the world, and some of those have been raging for millenia.

[Lysander]

You know, I think OP asked the wrong question. It's not whether you should be weak or strong. You should be strong in some things and weak in others, so that your party's talents don't overlap and you need to work together.

[RagnaroksChosen]

i think its hugely group dependent. Some groups are huge optimizers by nature and don't really relise there doing it others not so much.

Though fluff can justify almost anything there is a few things that i would stop though its my opinion rather then the rules. the nature of RP is mutable so the rules can do all kinds of crazy things with and RP can handle it, hence the stormwind fallacy.

HOWEVER, I do think that there is a certian amount of absurd fluff that can be attached to some mechanical characters that it breaks versimilitude.
which i belive is paramount to all else.

I have also noticed that atleast the groups i've been with tend to roleplay more with weaker characters then with stronger ones. Mabye its because they feal week mabye its they like that style not realy sure but its what i've noticed.

[Starbuck_II]

**From one of my other awsome PMs**



Me to.

Wait, But I told them to take Colorspray!
It isn't a Save or die, since it only makes them lose 1 turn (sneak attackable too). It wasn't like I said use Hold Person, Tasha's Hidious Laughter, etc that lasts multiple rounds.

It was basically a stay alive spell. Since any action Owlbear can act: it kills 1 of the party.

[lsfreak]

Poor optimization is generally poor roleplaying, in my mind. You can pull off a poorly optimized character in roleplaying, but it's much more difficult. If you character is unable to contribute to the party, why would the party keep them about? Screw that, throw them out. Likewise, if a character trains with swords, they're going to know enough during training that 'warblades' are the way to go (keeping in mind that the classes themselves aren't known to the characters, but they could and should know that certain styles of fighting and the like are better for what they want to do).

That's not to say you can't have weaknesses. You optimize within your character concept, and if that concept means your character thinks he's charismatic when he's not, or abhors ranged attacks for reasons of honor, so be it. You optimize the areas he is good at. But let's be perfectly honest - someone with low Str, low Con and the Noncombatant flaw won't make it. You can roll up a character like that - and I would wager many an 'optimization is bad roleplaying!' person even has - but it's breaking suspension of disbelief to do so. That kind of person simply wouldn't make it. Might even be killed in training. Playing one probably isn't good roleplaying.

I believe a well-optimized (but not min/maxed) character is easier to roleplay than an unoptimized character, and often becomes a more interesting and unique addition to the party. If for no other reason, they'll last longer than than the first encounter.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Poor optimization is generally poor roleplaying, in my mind. You can pull off a poorly optimized character in roleplaying, but it's much more difficult. If you character is unable to contribute to the party, why would the party keep them about? Screw that, throw them out. Likewise, if a character trains with swords, they're going to know enough during training that 'warblades' are the way to go (keeping in mind that the classes themselves aren't known to the characters, but they could and should know that certain styles of fighting and the like are better for what they want to do).

That's not to say you can't have weaknesses. You optimize within your character concept, and if that concept means your character thinks he's charismatic when he's not, or abhors ranged attacks for reasons of honor, so be it. You optimize the areas he is good at. But let's be perfectly honest - someone with low Str, low Con and the Noncombatant flaw won't make it. You can roll up a character like that - and I would wager many an 'optimization is bad roleplaying!' person even has - but it's breaking suspension of disbelief to do so. That kind of person simply wouldn't make it. Might even be killed in training. Playing one probably isn't good roleplaying.

I believe a well-optimized (but not min/maxed) character is easier to roleplay than an unoptimized character, and often becomes a more interesting and unique addition to the party. If for no other reason, they'll last longer than than the first encounter.

See i can kinda agree on this aspec about why would a group keep a character around if hes week...
which i can agree with in most sandbox or dungion crawl esc games.
but it is all dependent on the gm...

Good examples of week characters doing important things in campains:
hobbits in lord of the rings.
3cpo in starwars.
etc

[AtwasAwamps]

See i can kinda agree on this aspec about why would a group keep a character around if hes week...
which i can agree with in most sandbox or dungion crawl esc games.
but it is all dependent on the gm...

Good examples of week characters doing important things in campains:
hobbits in lord of the rings.
3cpo in starwars.
etc

Frodo was an optimized sneaker with a cohort that was a decent fighter. He also had the equivalent of a +5 Orcbane Shortsword in a world where everything counts as an orc.

C-3PO was an optimized party face/knowledge monkey.

Quirky? Sure. Weak? No.

[onthetown]

I would think the character itself would be easy or not to roleplay, and it shouldn't be based on weakness or strength. A weaker character just makes it harder to win battles, which has to do with rolling the dice and adding numbers... not roleplaying. You could have an incredibly weak-statted character that you enjoy roleplaying as opposed to your omfgdestroytheworld wizard who you find difficult to roleplay as, or vice versa, but at the end of the day that omfgdestroytheworld wizard is going to be doing more damage than the weak-statted guy no matter how much you like rping as him.

[KillianHawkeye]

Good examples of week characters doing important things in campains:
hobbits in lord of the rings.
3cpo in starwars.
etc

I object! C-3PO never actually DID anything (beyond translating alien languages and getting blasted or falling down). Certainly nothing terribly important. He's basically like a Bard who spent all his skill points on Speak Language, has horrible physical stats, and can't even cast spells. In other words, the worst Bard ever. (He was slightly helpful with the Ewoks, but still mostly as a translator.)

[RagnaroksChosen]

Frodo was an optimized sneaker with a cohort that was a decent fighter. He also had the equivalent of a +5 Orcbane Shortsword in a world where everything counts as an orc.

C-3PO was an optimized party face/knowledge monkey.

Quirky? Sure. Weak? No.

I disagree on both.

Yes frodo's hide was through the roof. so is all halflings at level 1-5.
sam didn't realy have any thing going for him mabye some bard abilitys but other wise no.
merry?
pippen?

and C-3PO isn't realy optimised he did what that a commoner couldn't do... speak language? highly optimised.