I made my character as powerful as possible?

>I made my character as powerful as possible?
So I can succeed in all I do!

No, so my character won't look like a fucking joke, especially compared to other party members. If I'm making a paladin, I'll make sure he's good at fighting.

>>
>>
>

But how good he is at fighting is purely abstract concept.
The GM in the end decides the difficulty level.

Combat ending faster means there's more time for roleplaying and interaction. You shouldn't be relying on combat to pad out session length anyway, and the idea that blazing through fights will end the session faster is silly unless you don't plan ahead far enough.

Even so, it won't end the campaign that much faster or let them play less, since once it ends a new once can just get started.

Combat is roleplaying.

>So that combat ends faster? So that all problems are solved faster? So that the session and the campaign ends faster?
Yes.
>So that you get to play less?
Logical fallacy.

...

The more straightforward your solution is, the less you play.
Unless you believe there should always be another quest waiting you after you beat the big one.

My group hasn't had any combat in the last 2 sessions, save for a couple of fist fights in a fight club to make some coin in our second most recent one. Session before that we only had one short encounter as well.

>Doesn't want to be the best at his job
Typical American work mentality

That's why he's being as powerful as possible by his level

So what does that mean in practical terms?

>the less you play
Yeah, because combat is everything in the game, right?

It applies to everything.
Where would the excitement and tension be in the adventure if you never ran into an obstacle you could not defeat easily, combat or non-combat.

opposite of greentext should be purpletext

>daily

It's the only thing that matters

the less time you spend killing small things
the more time you have for killing great things

yes to all, because campaigns aren't a finite resource I need to ration you sperg.

>Why?
Because failing the test of combat generally results in bad things happening to my character, up to and including death.

You don't get to roleplay if you can't survive the rollplay, unless your idea of good roleplaying is describing your character's corpse hitting the dirt over and over and over again. In my experience, it's far too easy for a GM to overestimate his player's combat prowess than it is for him to underestimate it, especially if he's relying on rules-of-thumb like CR, that assume a certain level of Monte Cook-style "system mastery," or if he's expecting vigorously skilled teamwork when in fact his players are little more than a collection of individuals in combat who happen to not be hostile to one another.

>I gave my character lots of flaws and weakness and very poor synergy between starts and playstyle.
Why?
>So I can spend more time roleplaying my interesting and flawed character, and to prevent the game from going too fast.
Combat ends quickly because poorly built characters suck at what they try to do and the party is wiped or spends all it's time running back to town to heal or raise dead, eventually runs out of money and everyone is destitute, no longer able to afford to adventure.

Consider that.

>So that combat ends faster?
Unless you want combat to take fucking three hours, I don't know what the fuck is wrong with making a good, competent fucking character.

Seriously, what the fuck? Don't you know that sometimes less is more?