It's hard to make a bad character in 5e. But it's also hard to make a mechanically strong one.
i don't fully understand this argument. each character has 1 main stat + god stat of dex. if you don't max = bad. if you do max = strong. it's that simple tbh.
5e is legit a great casual system to just sit down and go. i do not mean this in a bad way - it's a great introductory system for casuals or rp'ers who don't wanna be a stat nerd
The differences between a weak and strong character in 5e are pretty small.
The core resolution is 1d20+stuff. The random factor is the biggest factor. A fighter who has 14 strength will roll 1d20+2. An "optimized" fighter at 16 will roll 1d20+3. That is a tiny difference. The die roll is a bigger factor than your stats and other choices you made. Even at higher levels, the guy who went 14 str 14 int and took the 'actor' feat on their fighter for fun instead of a strength ASI isn't really that far behind. They'll still hit a good amount of the time, especially because the target numbers are constrained pretty tightly via Bounded Accuracy. A casual player probably won't even realize their character would have hit on that 12 if it had been built "better".
So if you don't max out your main stat you'll possibly have a "bad" character as far as 5e optimization goes, but that doesn't go very far. The actual difference is tiny.
Conversely, there's not really a lot of ways to make a character more effective. 3e had Feats as the main way to differentiate your character, but those are sparse in 5e. Like if you want to make a rogue that's better at sneak attacks, there's not really a mechanism there beyond "level up". In 3e, for example, there were more feats and also prestige classes. You could prestige into Assassin for death attacks, or Shadowdancer for hide-in-plain-sight, or whatever. 5e has multiclassing, but that's often a huge opportunity cost compared to prestige classes.
Many characters on leveling up in 5e don't receive many choices. Some levels have zero choices. Rogue, for example, has no choices to make at all for 2nd, 5th, and 7th level. 6th lets you pick where to put expertise, which is a pretty small choice.
5e is legit a great casual system to just sit down and go. i do not mean this in a bad way - it’s a great introductory system for casuals or rp’ers who don’t wanna be a stat nerd
Strong disagree that it's actually a great introductory system. It is overflowing with idiosyncratic stuff (such as a 14 being a +2 bonus). It is geared largely towards "resource management combat game", and the further you move from that concept the more it breaks down.
Fate or a PbtA game are probably much better introductions for people who want to play a casual roleplaying game together. Fate IMO is actually closer to how someone who hasn't played RPGs would intuit them working.
However, the simplicity of the system is a strength of it. If it had more choices and depth, some players would bounce off. I don't know if it's possible to make a system that has both depth and appeals to "Bobby doesn't read or remember rules" archetypes.
i don't fully understand this argument. each character has 1 main stat + god stat of dex. if you don't max = bad. if you do max = strong. it's that simple tbh.
5e is legit a great casual system to just sit down and go. i do not mean this in a bad way - it's a great introductory system for casuals or rp'ers who don't wanna be a stat nerd
The differences between a weak and strong character in 5e are pretty small.
The core resolution is 1d20+stuff. The random factor is the biggest factor. A fighter who has 14 strength will roll 1d20+2. An "optimized" fighter at 16 will roll 1d20+3. That is a tiny difference. The die roll is a bigger factor than your stats and other choices you made. Even at higher levels, the guy who went 14 str 14 int and took the 'actor' feat on their fighter for fun instead of a strength ASI isn't really that far behind. They'll still hit a good amount of the time, especially because the target numbers are constrained pretty tightly via Bounded Accuracy. A casual player probably won't even realize their character would have hit on that 12 if it had been built "better".
So if you don't max out your main stat you'll possibly have a "bad" character as far as 5e optimization goes, but that doesn't go very far. The actual difference is tiny.
Conversely, there's not really a lot of ways to make a character more effective. 3e had Feats as the main way to differentiate your character, but those are sparse in 5e. Like if you want to make a rogue that's better at sneak attacks, there's not really a mechanism there beyond "level up". In 3e, for example, there were more feats and also prestige classes. You could prestige into Assassin for death attacks, or Shadowdancer for hide-in-plain-sight, or whatever. 5e has multiclassing, but that's often a huge opportunity cost compared to prestige classes.
Many characters on leveling up in 5e don't receive many choices. Some levels have zero choices. Rogue, for example, has no choices to make at all for 2nd, 5th, and 7th level. 6th lets you pick where to put expertise, which is a pretty small choice.
Strong disagree that it's actually a great introductory system. It is overflowing with idiosyncratic stuff (such as a 14 being a +2 bonus). It is geared largely towards "resource management combat game", and the further you move from that concept the more it breaks down.
Fate or a PbtA game are probably much better introductions for people who want to play a casual roleplaying game together. Fate IMO is actually closer to how someone who hasn't played RPGs would intuit them working.
However, the simplicity of the system is a strength of it. If it had more choices and depth, some players would bounce off. I don't know if it's possible to make a system that has both depth and appeals to "Bobby doesn't read or remember rules" archetypes.