How do you guys deal with optimized characters. I have two particular situations in mind:
1. optmized class/race/other combinations
Certain races just fit with certain classes, same with attribute combinations and feat choices. So what do you do if some PC's are optimized combinations and others are built for flavor. Do you encounter issues if you have a dwarf wizard in the same party as a dragonborn palladin?
2. rolling for attributes
I kind of like the idea of rolling for attributes, but I am worried about balance between characters.
I guess I'm not worried about actual game balance, as much as I am that all players are having fun, and I find that when one PC is put together perfeclty and rocks every combat and most encounters, other players have less fun.
Decide as a group what level of optimization you want to have prior to play and then do that. If you're rolling for attributes, I would presume you are all creating characters together anyway. That'd be a good time to discuss it, among other pre-game issues so that you're on the same page going forward.
I have always used the rolling for attributes features, roll 4d6, drop the lowest, I let them reroll one attribute that is a 10 or below, if they get higher then average stats, go them, if not, well its just the luck of the rolls. I got lucky and have a totally new to D&D and tabletop games group, so none of them even thought to try to optimize their characters they just went with what sounded fun to them without even looking at the racials beforehand really. I'd say talk it out, and I've always been willing to change racials around if it would prevent players from playing what they would like.
1 - I dont care about pcs mechanical issues. Even so, most of our players do optimized builds. They know they have to be heroes, if you want to play Gondors city guard its ok but you cant live as much as Aragorn. If you want to play Gimli`s rogue friend, its ok but you cant survive as hobbits too 
2 - We always roll, cos there are much better options and excitement.
DMs can handle all games, such cases never become problem.
1) So far, it looks like there aren't any major disparities. There are some combos which can optimize a bit better, but that will always be the case. Until the Char-Op people figure out how to break things, I don't think this is going to be a big deal until bloat begins.
2) This can be a huge problem. I was part of a game that dissolved before the game even really began because 1 player rolled really well and rubbed it in another's face. That player didn't take it very well, and everything fell apart. If you want to try some balance, you need to put some restrictions on the rolls. I played in a 4E game that used rolled scores, and the DM used the following method that worked fairly well.
Roll 4d6, keep Choice (not Highest)
Repeat 4 times for a total of 5 rolls
Roll 4d6, keep any combination that allows for a total modifier between +4 and +8 (before racial modifiers)
If there is no combination that works, restart
This allows for people to keep low rolls so they can have more high scores (if they roll them). The final roll is setup to keep people from deliberatly making a "poor" set (only +4 or +5) unusable. For 5E, you might want to adjust the range.
I am considering the following system for character generation:
The player has two options - either roll scores (4d6, drop lowest) or use point buy. If the first option is used, and the player do not wish to use the set of scores, he or she must use the standard array instead.
This allow for the chance of a more varied set (possibly very good), or a custom made, reliably predictable set, with the totally acceptable but somewhat rigid standard array as the backup.
For optimisation, I have the feeling that right now the choice is more between narrow specialization and broader abilities. With bounded accuracy in place, it seems to me that broader abilities may be as valuable, fun, and useful as narrow specialization, something that was not true in previous editions. For example, you can play backgrounds either for synergy, broader scope, or contrast, without suffering or overshadowing your companions much.
- Vargtass
When rolling we let anyone use anyone elses rolls, but losing d4 points they can take off how they like. Keeps rolling reasonably balanced, eliminates the all mages have 16 int, 8 str carbon copies issue.
Access to Feats, multiclass levels, and other choices frequently used in optimsation exercises by players are available by interface with campaign elements in my games, such as Guilds, Orders, Religions and other limited access societal constructs.
Some less so than others - but where it is clear it's rare knowledge or technique based stuff, or would require intensive training, the PCs have to track down and 'pay' (one way or the other) for access to the things they want to develop as abilities in many cases.
This puts another control level in the hands of the DM and gives at the very least a reason to ask of a player - "why does your character want that?", rather than the, "I know why you as a player want your character to have that, but it's a bit metagamey to get Savage Attacker after a bunch of xp gained through successful court intrigue don't you think?".
Games such as RuneQuest gate-off such things far more severely and are still great games. What I do is pretty mild by comparison, but it also grounds the character in the world in as much more satisfying way.
"Wow Terance, your blindside attack to the kidneys is devastating and, dare I say it, a little assassin'ish?"
"Yeah... well I only use it to kill bad guys..."
"Oh don't worry about that, I was just wondering where you learned your craft?"
"Ahhhh, well, I just kinda picked it up along the way I suppose."
"Really? Then you didn't study at the world famous Darkblade Academy for Stabmasters?"
"Nope - I'm a peasant hero turned dodgy and somehow independently developed all the Academy's secret techniques after shivving up Goblins, Ogres, Giants and Drow... don't ask me how mate, ok?"
A Rogue wouldn't just wake up with the Dungeoneer Feat one morning after accruing the xp - not in a good RP'ing campaign - they will have spent time (round the table and/or downtime) apprenticed with Lara Croft or having previously acheived full membership to the Guild of Tomb Delvers or somesuch.
Levelled system rules say - 'get xp to here, auto-get THIS'. It's a convenient rules-construct for level advancement, not an unnavoidable mandate for characters to develop breathtaking abilities out of thin air. It's much better roleplayed out wherever possible, and as the campaign can introduce opportunities to diversify as well as ultra-specialise it can influence players to widen their powergamer tunnel vision and think about their character's development in terms other than 'My Little One-Trick-Mega-Pony'.
I'll leave you with a question.
Be honest, how many times have you allowed a chain of encounters in a long adventure to run back to back and had a player level a Wizard level several times before they party got a breather? The rules do, and have said in the past that new spells-known accrual is based on 'research' undertaken by the Wizard. When you ran the game like I state above, did the Wizard do any research at all, or did you waive it through?
I know that type of game - where you pop a level MMO-stylie and buttons 'ungrey' instantly is one way of playing.
But boy is it unsatisfying if you are interested in telling a story grounded in a living, breathing gameworld...
GEBELL wrote:
One idea I've had is to have a set array for stats AND roll the stats. If you get above the value you set, you keep it. Otherwise you keep the set array value.
The one area that cannot be legislated is the situation where a talented player with an average character is capable of completley overshadowing other players even if they have OP characters.
GEBELL wrote:
Personally I dislike players who try to turn a role-playing game into a mathematical construct game. Having said that it does happen that certain more experience players get more out of the their builds than others - and this can cause a certain feeling of 'I'm lame, you're so cool'. As DM the critical thing is how to balance THAT. Yes it's cooperative, but everyone wants to shine sometime right? So I focus instead on the characters backstory. Let the players choose their rolling method for stats, and what books they want their feats from, as DM I don't care. But before we start I want backstory. Not a book, but a few paragraphs that I as DM can work with. And that's what I focus on. Skills and checks of course are important, but at the endo f the day - my player gets to explore their backstory and see how it evolves in the world around them. Most don't care about their stats anymore because it's no longer the focus.
So my advice - as Dracones wrote - let each PC shine through story not maths.
I'll tell you what I did with my group. Some of my players wanted to roll, and one of my players was vehementally opposed to rolling. Since we are all new to 5e and three are new to DND in general, I did the following:
1. I changed the PB system to 31 points (rather than 27) and I permit a 16 natural to be purchased for 12pts. This allows you to buy (with 31pts) a 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9 array which is the expected array for 4d6 drop lowest. I made this change because I feel that a non-random system should allow you to start with a natural 16 if you want it badly enough. I don't allow a player to buy anything more than a 16 though.
2. I gave all my players an irrevokable choice. They may either risk 4d6 drop the lowest or they may take the point buy.
3. I then told all my players that picked the random roll, that they could either take the random roll or the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) which is worse than my PB. I made it worse than the PB so there was an element of risk in rolling, but I allowed this rule so put in a "floor" to prevent characters from starting too far below the others.
So far so good IMX.
-Polaris
GEBELL wrote:
shivafang wrote:
I've thought about adjusting the point-buy, but to allow a (very expensive) 17, a (reasonably-priced) 16, and allow for one dump stat with minimal payoff. This would preserve the notion that the max value is odd (for those who feel that has value), and I don't think it would be all that much stronger than rolling. (When rolling, you can get a 17 or higher... i think around 30% of the time? So, not rare by any means. And usually if it happens, your other scores are gonna be a lot better than straight-8s)
Maybe somethin' like this:
At most, one score can be dropped below 8.
3 - bonus three points
4 - bonus two points
6 - bonus one point
8 - 0
9 - 1
10 - 2
11 - 3
12 - 4
13 - 5
14 - 7
15 - 9
16 - 12
17 - 21
So, if you take a 17, you're pretty hosed on your other scores. Sample arrays with 17s would include:
17 10 10 10 8 8
17 12 10 8 8 8
17 12 12 8 8 4
17 13 9 8 8 8
17 13 10 8 8 6
17 14 8 8 8 6
17 15 8 8 8 3
I try not to let absurd, egalitarian nonsense affect our game. As long as everyone understands the rules and are using the correct rules...who cares? I don't want to play a game where the rules are tailored to the lowest common denominator.
If they're being a jerk that's a completely different scenario.
We have a guy who likes to play Wizards. He has the best mastery of the rules of anyone (except maybe me. We're pretty equal in that regard). His characters generally excel at most of what we do. On the other hand, there is my wife.There is a lot she just doesn't get. She can take the most high damage class/race combo and still be pretty weak in most cases. She knows this and she doesn't make the effort to overcome it. She relies on me and the others to help her understand the rules while at the table, she levels up and chooses her new options at the last minute etc.. I rarely see here read ANY D&D book unless she has to look something specific up. In my experience most of the time this is how it is. It isn't a matter of "talent" it is a matter of interest and effort. In other words...it's their choice. They're gonna have to deal with it.
It may be a cooperative game but it is still a game. If you don't make the effort to learn and get better, you are gonna suck.
Polaris wrote: