[Teckla]

Speaking as both a D&D DM and player, the "sub-optimal game play" makes the campaign more fun, more diverse, and offers more thoroughly enjoyable role-playing and problem solving opportunities. It doesn't make it less fun.

Not to mention that D&D rules aren't carved in stone. I've never encountered a DM or D&D group that wouldn't allow players the leeway to create a barbarian gnome or half-orc wizard with their desired stats, if that was important to them.

The changes WoTC made are bad, and make everything less fun and more generic. Their intentions were good, but what they've done really isn't helpful or good at all.

[object-a]

An experienced DM can of course let their players create whatever character they want, but a less experienced DM might be concerned about balance/fairness/implications of bending the rules. By creating an alternative, flexible rule for ability scores, a table can feel confident that the characters they build are still balanced.

> The changes WoTC made are bad, and make everything less fun and more generic. Their intentions were good, but what they've done really isn't helpful or good at all.

As you said above, the DM and table can agree to whatever constraints they want for the game, including using the old ability scores.

[nickthegreek]

Then just like before, don’t use them. You can still roll a sub-optimal character. No one is forcing anyone to make only superheroes.