New player story vs optimization

[Anastopholies]

I'm going to be playing D&D for the first time in a couple of days and I have some worries.

I started a few characters but I built them with their story first then the class and stats. Many of the forums and guides have lists of what race to play and what stats/spells to pick for your class, which some of my characters do not follow.

As this is going to be a group of strangers I'm playing with, I want to know if many of you more experienced D&D players and DM's would be upset at an non-optimal but story centered character in your game? Would it ruin a game?

Examples might be: Takes a feat over a stat increase or vise-versa. Turns down OMGWTFBBQ gear as it doesn't "fit" character. Gets a spell because it makes sense to the background story even though the spell is considered crap.

[Anymage]

My bigger worry would be narratively incompatible characters. (E.G: Stickler paladin, criminal rogue, magic-hating barbarian and stuffy wizard all in the same party.) Followed closely by party members of such vastly different optimization levels that it's hard to properly challenge them all.

Depending on which edition of the game you're playing and the rest of the party, you don't have to be hyper-optimized in order to contribute. But knowing the table dynamic is key. And as a random person on the internet, there's nothing I can say for that other than to ask the DM.

[Keltest]

Knowing both the edition and the character concept would help. If its 3.5 for example, even a poorly optimized wizard has to seriously try to avoid being able to positively contribute at least some of the time, while a poorly optimized monk is going to be sitting on the sidelines acting as a cheer squad if they don't outright die early on.

But in general, this is a discussion that really should have been had with the GM, at least, during character creation. We cant speak for any group but our own. Personally, I don't have strict enforcement on optimization levels in game so long as people are actually playing it and having fun, but I don't like spotlight stealers.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

There is no right or wrong way to play D&D, but there is the style of a group. If the group turns out to be five hardcore optimizers playing high tier classes who don't like you "wasting their time with your backstory angst" than sure, there might be a bit of a disconnect between their wizards who just want to kill dragons and your orphan-rogue who has this idea of who she wants to be one day and tries to live up to those ideals each day. And even when that disconnect happens it's probably more annoying to you than to them, because the biggest effect is going to be that you don't get to contribute too much to the story, being behind in power. The same sort of disconnect could of course just as easily happen the other way around, there are plenty of groups where that one optimizer is seen as a bit of a boring rules-lawyer. Most groups are somewhere in between, and in even more of them there is some variance between the players. It's not weird to have one person being more into the talky parts and another who likes the hitting stuff parts better. If this group is also new to each other you're all getting to figure out what kind of game this is going to be.

In short: there is no point in worrying. Just take the characters you'd like to play, and if something going on in the first session convinces you you want to play a more optimized character (the key word there is want), do that. And if this turns out to be a worst case scenario, where you're told "optimize or GTFO", where the wizard player can't do anything but yell at you, the fighter player is only looking at her phone and the DM smells like nobody in his family has taken a bath since the end of the 100 year war, just don't go back. Or just walk out after 5 minutes. Find a different group, or not, whatever suits you.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm going to be playing D&D for the first time in a couple of days and I have some worries.

I started a few characters but I built them with their story first then the class and stats. Many of the forums and guides have lists of what race to play and what stats/spells to pick for your class, which some of my characters do not follow.

As this is going to be a group of strangers I'm playing with, I want to know if many of you more experienced D&D players and DM's would be upset at an non-optimal but story centered character in your game? Would it ruin a game?

Examples might be: Takes a feat over a stat increase or vise-versa. Turns down OMGWTFBBQ gear as it doesn't "fit" character. Gets a spell because it makes sense to the background story even though the spell is considered crap.

Communicate with the GM and group.

Share your ideas for characters (doesn't have to be in detail, secrets need not be spoiled).

Find out what ideas for characters they're looking at, make sure your character will be able to work with them, even if they don't all become fast friends.

Don't make the mistake of approaching "character fiction" vs "character optimization" as opposed goals. Use knowledge of the system to create a character who is both the character you want to play, and a character who can contribute, at the same time.

Understand the point of diminishing returns -- that last 10% of one is not worth giving up 50% of the other.

[ahyangyi]

I don't like the tone of some optimization handbooks. The very famous Treantmonk's handbook for pathfinder wizards is such an example I can think of. They sound like if you take a few "suboptimal" choices your character will become utterly useless. And that's a handbook for wizards, who is hardly useless even if you "played it wrong".

[goto124]

I started a few characters but I built them with their story first then the class and stats. Many of the forums and guides have lists of what race to play and what stats/spells to pick for your class, which some of my characters do not follow.

I see you start off with a story, then build the mechanics around it. Some systems are less forgiving with that than others, and can spell a lot of trouble for a newbie who hasn't even started playing DnD.

Which edition of DnD is this? Optimization in 3.5e is very different from that in 5e. You'll need help to get a mechanically decent character in 3.5e, while it's much harder to NOT get a mechanically decent character in 5e.

You can always ask for system-specific advice in the respective sub-forums. People here are more than happy to help you create a character that also follows your character concept.

Don't make the mistake of approaching "character fiction" vs "character optimization" as opposed goals.

What was it called again, Stormwind Fallacy?

Since you're with a group of strangers, it's better to play it safe. No need for an extravagant personality with a long list of flaws. Roleplaying isn't even about flaws in the first place.

You can always go with simple concepts such as 'warrior goes adventuring because money' or 'wizard goes adventuring to explore the world', and make them the friendly kind who defers to teammates. That should give you a roleplayingly decent character.

Even if you go with something more complex, keep in mind that party synergy is important. If a character concept clashes with the rest of the party, it's not going to work.

[Anastopholies]

I guess I'm just worried (maybe too much) about ruining others experience, and by extension mine as well.

Which edition of DnD is this? Optimization in 3.5e is very different from that in 5e. You'll need help to get a mechanically decent character in 3.5e, while it's much harder to NOT get a mechanically decent character in 5e..

It's 5e so that makes me feel better about it

i I don't like the tone of some optimization handbooks. The very famous Treantmonk's handbook for pathfinder wizards is such an example I can think of. They sound like if you take a few "suboptimal" choices your character will become utterly useless. And that's a handbook for wizards, who is hardly useless even if you "played it wrong".

Many of the guides I found around the internet made me feel "Do x or you're useless"

In short: there is no point in worrying. Just take the characters you'd like to play, and if something going on in the first session convinces you you want to play a more optimized character (the key word there is want), do that. And if this turns out to be a worst case scenario, where you're told "optimize or GTFO", where the wizard player can't do anything but yell at you, the fighter player is only looking at her phone and the DM smells like nobody in his family has taken a bath since the end of the 100 year war, just don't go back.

.... good point

Thanks for all the advice peoples!

[goto124]

It's 5e so that makes me feel better about it

Many of the guides I found around the internet made me feel "Do x or you're useless"

Optimization guides are meant for optimization, and thus focus on optimization. With 5e, you don't even have to be that optimized to be useful.

Why don't you pop over to the 5e subforum and look up guides such as this really neat collection of guides?

Since you seem to have a set of character concepts you have trouble translating into mechanics, you can start a thread in the 5e subforum, describe your character, and ask how you can make a character build out of that character. We Playgrounders are more than happy to help you make competent characters.

[RazorChain]

I'm going to be playing D&D for the first time in a couple of days and I have some worries.

I started a few characters but I built them with their story first then the class and stats. Many of the forums and guides have lists of what race to play and what stats/spells to pick for your class, which some of my characters do not follow.

As this is going to be a group of strangers I'm playing with, I want to know if many of you more experienced D&D players and DM's would be upset at an non-optimal but story centered character in your game? Would it ruin a game?

Examples might be: Takes a feat over a stat increase or vise-versa. Turns down OMGWTFBBQ gear as it doesn't "fit" character. Gets a spell because it makes sense to the background story even though the spell is considered crap.

Some people will judge your character purely on how effective killing machine he is. They'll utter things like "OMG you didn't dump your charisma or you took THAT feat!"

Seems to me you don't fit that group so just do it your way. In my group you'd fit in perfectly as I don't run games about optimization or optimal choices

[BWR]

Don't make the mistake of approaching "character fiction" vs "character optimization" as opposed goals. Use knowledge of the system to create a character who is both the character you want to play, and a character who can contribute, at the same time.

Likewise, don't fall to the Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy - the idea that making suboptimal or even detrimental mechanical choices for the sake of story or character is a bad thing and must be avoided. Just remember that moderation is the key. Just as it is important not to overshadow the other players and their characters, don't make a character that is nothing but dead weight.

Most importantly, the game is a group effort and working well with the group is a prerequisite for everyone having fun. Characters can be unpleasant, have problems working with each other or even be antagonistic; players should not.

[TheYell]

For me it is more fun to role-play a character concept with the others than sweat out a Power Build.

goto124 is right about how helpful people are in the edition specific forums.

Happy Hunting!

[goto124]

In addition, it's perfectly possible to roleplay a powerful build, where the character concept emerges from the build. Fluff is flexible!

[Anonymouswizard]

As has been said before, 5e is generally forgiving as long as you get to a +3 modifier in your primary stat, although it is possible to play some classes with an 8 in your theoretical primary.

Just as an example, I might be in an online 5e game at some point in the near future, and my character 'Richard the Learned' (name subject to being changed) is a half-elf Barbarian who dumped Wisdom rather than Int. While this wouldn't normally make sense from an optimisation viewpoint it makes perfect sense as the character is supposed to be idealistic, naïve, and lacking in common sense. Although if we get a another warrior that character might morph into a Bard, the Barbarian version is a bit suboptimal but a rather fun character concept (a warrior scholar and failed doctor).

In general I'd say most builds in 5e tend to be about mid op, or where most groups will eventually gravitate towards (at least in theory, 3.X was unbalanced enough to tend more towards low op), while the guides are a mixture of a practical optimisation guide and a theoretical optimisation guide, and while they'll show you the best choices this is to allow you to make your own decisions. Even then there's argument in the 5e community over exactly how bad some options are (Champion Fighters and Berserker Barbarians come to mind). But I think most 5e optimisation guides are made from the point of view that they're a rough guide and you should probably make a few suboptimal choices if they fit your flavour. Feel free to play a Barbarian with 14 Charisma or a wizard who never picks up Fireball, because while you won't be as powerful you'll still be able to pull your weight in balanced encounters (although those can be hard to make in and of themselves)