D&D 5E Non choices: must have and wants why someone that hates something must take it

[Mistwell]

I'm working out of the 101413 document now, and it does not have anything in it about a sailor background.

Commoner -> Sailor. It's one of the sub-choices. I agree it's not ideal, and I hope the final version of the game has more backgrounds that include a better sailor.

 

[Mistwell]

Small Swords are shorter and deal much less damage than a rapier.

They don't deal "much less damage" than a rapier. Where do you get that from? Their intent is to pierce a vital organ with precision!

There simply is not small sword in D&D. The small sword in D&D is best represented by the rapier, because like the rapier (the type of sword it historically developed from, which is right there in that Wikipedia article) it is a flexible piercing weapon. Meanwhile, the short sword is an inflexible weapon which can be either piercing or slashing. So, in terms of which represents the small sword best, it's the rapier (the historical predecessor of the small sword).

In the very least, can you admit it's one fair interpretation of the swashbuckler you're talking about so we can move on?

Where does Flynn sneak up on people in his movies? Where does he do that and then stab them without giving them a chance to defend themselves? Show me some clips please.

There is a difference between being able to sneak around and back stabbing things.

He sneaks up behind people and puts his rapier to their backs or necks all the time. He doesn't actually stab them, but that's because of the character - and you can do that too with your rogue if you wish. But, to get to the point where you CAN sneak up on them like that, the rogue is the better choice. Flynn also gains advantage on his foes if they are faced by one of his allies at the same time - another trait of the rogue. He also jumps around and moves very fast - another trait of the rogue. Rogue is a pretty good fit here.

 

[Lokiare]

As I've said, you only need to pump dec for this build -- an average strength will do, despite your protestations.

The average strength will lead to bad rolls when it comes to the sailing checks, and the sword and board build doesn't require any scores, while the swashbuckler requires a pretty hefty Dex score at minimum to make up for the loss of plate and a shield. Using a dagger or short sword will shave off lots of damage in comparison to a sword and board long sword. Its starts at about 1 point of damage average, but then the fighter gets multiple attack and it starts to add up first 2 then 4.

Why is the sailor background non-existent? I see it on p. 4 of the backgrounds document. So, the only problem is that you don't like it? Your numbers are irrelevant to concept.

What's the date of the documents you are working from and are they public? My numbers show how mechanically choosing this particular concept gimps your character. Now if numbers don't matter in your game, you won't see this, but then again you won't need the mechanical rules if the numbers don't matter and you probably shouldn't buy 5E anyway.

I disagree (and remain unconvinced by your evidence), but that's irrelevant. The rapier can also accommodate the "small sword" or "duel sword" without difficulty. I would argue that's more natural, since in the game "short sword" already has a lot of work to do, covering everything from a gladius to a wakizashi.

Unfortunately its not about population of archetypes, its about categorizing different sword types by effectiveness. The small sword which evolved from the longer heavier rapier would deal much less damage than a true rapier and with the rapier dealing 1d8 damage its clear that it is not the smaller weapon. Now if they swap it back to 1d6 damage then we can call the small sword a rapier and call the true rapier a longsword.

Here is another link that characterizes the small sword as a short sword. http://www.medievalmartialarts.co.uk/broadsword-backsword-rapier-longsword Read the difference between a short sword and a rapier and the description of a short sword.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What happens when you want to play a light armored pole arm fighter? The solution would be to separate the armor bonuses from the weapon bonuses. So you would have a "weapon style" and an "armor style"

You could also this:

Well-Rounded
(AC 14, 1d8 melee damage, 1d6 ranged damage)
Well-rounded equipment involves not sacrificing offense or defense. You wear decent armor, or have decent agility, and wield wise weapons, suitable for both melee and ranged attacks.

Warrior Example: chain armor, light shield, longsword, shortbow
Expert Example: Leather Armor, Great Agility, twin daggers, shortbow
Mage Example: Mage armor ritual, shocking grasp cantrip (drop to 1d6 to reflect bonus to hit metal armor), magic missile cantrip (drop to 1d4 to reflect auto-hit capability)
Priest Example: Scale mail, light shield, warhammer, radiant lance orison
​

​

Defensive
(AC 16, 1d6 melee damage, 1d4 ranged damage)
Defensive equipment favors melee fighting, trading the power of rapid assault for the control and stoicism of a defensive stance.

Warrior Example: Plate mail, heavy shield, Spear, dagger
Expert Example: Great Agility, Light Shield, Chainmail, shortsword, dart
Mage Example: Mage armor ritual, shield ritual, rod, firebolt
Priest Example: Plate mail, heavy shield, mace, sling
​

Ranged
(AC 12, 1d6 melee, 1d10 ranged)
Ranged equipment focuses on attacks at a distance – bows or blasts. It makes the character fairly vulnerable in up-close attacks, though.

Warrior Example: Leather armor, shortsword, longbow
Expert Example: Great Agility, shortsword, longbow
Mage Example: Shield ritual, rod, ice skewer
Priest Example: Heavy Shield, mace, radiant blast
​

Paper Tiger
(AC 13, 1d12 melee damage, 1d4 ranged damage)
Equipment involved in paper tiger essentially exposes the character to great harm, in exchange for potentially tremendous melee damage.

Warrior Example: Chain armor, greatsword, daggers
Expert Example: Leather Armor, High Agility, Twin Short Swords, darts
Mage Example: High Agility, Shield ritual, Shadow fist, darts
Priest Example: Chain armor, maul, sling​

​

This doesn't take "mobility" into particular consideration, but it certainly could, with a fourth axis of "encumbrance" or somesuch.

 

[Lokiare]

They don't deal "much less damage" than a rapier. Where do you get that from? Their intent is to pierce a vital organ with precision!

Unfortunately all swords in D&D work that way, and in real life a good solid hit from any of them will kill someone. So using their real world intents won't work in D&D. Now if we look at short swords which are about the same length as a small sword and see that they deal less damage than a long sword and we see that a dagger, which is smaller still, deals less than a short sword, then we should be able to set the damage for a small sword at 1d6 like the short sword. Maybe its used more for piercing than slashing, but there is no 1d6 weapon that is only piercing. However there is one that is slashing and piercing and that is the short sword. So the small sword would fall under the broader category of short sword because the short sword has all of its traits (size, weight, and damage type)

There simply is not small sword in D&D. The small sword in D&D is best represented by the rapier, because like the rapier (the type of sword it historically developed from, which is right there in that Wikipedia article) it is a flexible piercing weapon. Meanwhile, the short sword is an inflexible weapon which can be either piercing or slashing. So, in terms of which represents the small sword best, it's the rapier (the historical predecessor of the small sword).

Some short swords were flexible, but usually had a wider sword blade. They were much less flexible than a small sword though. Still we are talking about how D&D categorizes damage and that is not based on how devastating the weapon is in real life. It is based on the size of the weapon. We can see this pattern in different swords, axes, spears, etc...etc... so a smaller sword would do less damage than a larger one, thus a small sword is the same as a short sword for damage.

In the very least, can you admit it's one fair interpretation of the swashbuckler you're talking about so we can move on?

Why would I admit that, you haven't really shown any facts that counter my argument. What I've shown you clearly distinguishes the swords Flynn uses from the larger and heavier rapier which is represented in D&D as having the same damage potential as the long sword.

He sneaks up behind people and puts his rapier to their backs or necks all the time. He doesn't actually stab them, but that's because of the character - and you can do that too with your rogue if you wish. But, to get to the point where you CAN sneak up on them like that, the rogue is the better choice. Flynn also gains advantage on his foes if they are faced by one of his allies at the same time - another trait of the rogue. He also jumps around and moves very fast - another trait of the rogue. Rogue is a pretty good fit here.

Any class can do that with a high dexterity. That's not back stabbing, that's just sneaking. Flynn getting advantage is simply flanking, something that should be in the game, if it isn't already. Jumping around is athletics or strength, tumbling is dexterity. He does both well which just means he has higher than average Str and Dex scores.

All of this can be done by a fighter. Flynn still doesn't open locks, disable traps, poison people, lie, cheat, and steel, etc...etc... A rogue is a bad fit.

 

[Lokiare]

Of course all of this swashbuckler talk is missing the point.

What if you want to build a Native American spear fighter?

What if you want to build a heavy armor brawler?

What if you want to build lightly armored pole arm warrior?

What if you want to build a very mobile long bow archer?

We can throw a number of archetypes out there and ask the same questions. What happens is that 5E requires people to sacrifice effectiveness for character concept. Something that I don't think it should do.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I agree that, at present, the weapon with better damage and reach will be a 2 handed weapon, forcing a choice. If there were a 1 handed weapon which did more damage than a longsword (say 1d10 rather than 1d8) and had Reach, how many characters would use a longsword?

Don't know. If they were like me, lots. I've equipped sword & board warriors with shortswords, longswords, morning stars, flails, hammers, scimitars, maces...maybe every one handed weapon that wasn't a dagger.

(But I know I am atypical.).

I note, however, that he has the advantage of a shield in his off hand (or could use it for spellcasting), and he selected the best one handed weapon choice available, not a short sword which would also meet your "straight double edged blade" criteria.

Yes, weapon and shield. The character is an "Arcane Paladin", so he's using an archetypal combination- that's a choice dictated by concept. (With his d8HD, and basically a 3/4 BAB.) Would you care to guess which über feats and spells he has?

SSwds are what I usually use for 2wf. The last time I did that kind of build- 2 3.5Ed PCs ago- the PC used a ShSwd and Whip. He was a tripper/disarmer.

Emphasis added. I even thought of commenting on that. And I can see that hulking Warrior playing darts at the tavern. But I doubt he takes those darts off to war rather than taking a longbow.

It's all about proficiency. I know of a Dutch bodyguard/mercenary. He does knives. Only.

When is the last time you heard of a sniper using a bow or crossbow rather than a high range rifle with scope and silencer?

Who ever heard of a sniper doing anything?

Right tool for the job & proficiency matter: most snipers are operating at ranges many times the range of a bow or crossbow.

Still, people kill people with arrows or bolts even today, despite the widespread availability of firearms:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-attack-kills-1-man-injures-another-1.2538825

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...less-was-killed-arrow-through-heart-v20761994

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-killed-father-in-wyoming-bow-and-arrow-attack/

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/r...-at-Somerset-County-home/stories/201110110268

On average, people kill people with the things they 1) are most comfortable with and/or 2) what they have on hand.

I don't think Power Attack is a "must have" feat, by the way. Both Monkey Grip and Power Attack add damage, but if that's not the character you are pursuing you mention a tripper/disarmer) other choices present themselves.

The point was that PG is a better feat than MG if for no other reason than it improves with level. You can "turn it off" if your foes are tough to hit, but MG is always on. PA is also useful with more weapons in a standard campaign. The sole mechanical advantage MG has is its lack of prereqs.

A sorcerer in no armor with a dagger could also only do that so many times before the ability was exhausted. The balance issue here seems more about choosing to Blast rather than use other spells. And when you describe him stepping up and wiping out the opposition, he sure sounds effective - wasn't he?

A sorcerer in no armor with a dagger would not be suffering non-proficient armor based skill and non-proficient combat penalties with his weapon, and probably wouldn't have a Toad familiar (for the HP).

See, I'm fine with that. But to me, that means it should acknowledge the concepts it does, and does not, choose to support. For example, state that "your wizard can choose to use feats to wear armor and carry heavier weapons, but this will likely result in a less effective character than one who focuses on the unarmoured, lightly armed wizard the game is generally designed around."

IMHO, the non-proficiency and ASF penalties make that pretty clear.

Many of us believe that's been an issue for Hero Games. They publish lots of genre books, pre-fab abilities books, enemies/monsters books, settings books, etc. etc. But the rules needed to play the game are all in their core rules. So, as has been pointed out, you don't need a splatbook to build Ragnar the Spoonfighter - you have all the tools needed to build Spoonfighting right out of the box. So you can't publish book after book of "must have" new character build options, like d20 can.

The real point of options books in HERO is different than for games like D&D.

With D&D supplements, you're expanding options.

With HERO supplements, you're mostly saving players & GMs time and preventing option paralysis. Additionally, some play a role in standardizing the way things work within a campaign, illustrating what a typical elf or halberd looks like.

HERO supplements can also be a huge boon for characters with things like variable power pools- essentially a reserve of points set aside that can be allocated into abilities or gear on the fly.

 

[TwoSix]

I just thought something like DitV conflict resolution models precisely what you were speaking of; An dynamic conflict-oriented character progression where stakes are clearly explicated at the outset "Do I master the Grimoire...or does it master me?..." The GM takes the opposing side and plays that (such as "The Grimoire's Reluctance to Give Up Its Secrets"). The player and GM both roll their respective, applicable dice pools and use their dice to Raise and See the Raise (etc), the narrative evolves with the back-and-forth, until one side has insufficient dice to continue the conflict (or they give-in) and we find out the outcome of the stakes of the conflict.

Hmm, interesting. I might have to track down DitV and take a look at the mechanics. I wonder if there's a way to map this sort of mechanic onto logistical challenges, which seem to be the heart of the "Step on Up" play in an OD&D environment.

Basically, I've been converting my OSR game from last year onto a 4e skeleton, where I use the math of 4e and 4e monsters, but I only gave them a few abilities based on their character backgrounds. (The playbooks from the exemplary OSR game Beyond the Wall gave all the characters a host of connections between party members, their home town, and assorted other hooks to hang the starting abilities from.) Now, they level up (gaining only hit points and the +1/2 level bonus) at the completion of major arcs, and all their other abilities come from interaction with NPCs and finding magic items.

I like the idea of taking these interactions wherein they gain abilities, and moving it from fiat to a more robust mechanical system. Great success in the learning conflict might grant a more potent version of an ability, while failure might mean the ability is now unavailable, or comes at a mechanical cost.

 

[Cybit]

Just going to say if you're looking for a swashbuckler type of character (be it the rogue way or the fighter way), I would not worry too terribly much about it.

Also, no first level fighter is getting plate. Hell, no 3rd level fighter is getting plate. Plate costs 5000 GP. At first level, and the 175 GP you receive at 1st level, you would be able to buy chainmail IIRC, which would put you at a 16. A shield would add 2 AC, so that would be 18.

While Loki's argument is (mostly) valid as it currently stands, understand that the public playtest documents were never intended to be looked at beyond broad strokes. The overarching flaw of detailed numerical analysis of the public documents is that the numbers were never intended to be finalized, just the general concepts.

My group is split between hardcore powergamers / optimizers / whatever you want to call them, moderately experienced players, and brand new players. The optimized characters aren't terribly much better than the sort of more flavorful characters, and are easily even or weaker once you bring in non-combat encounters. Which, since I'm running pregenerated adventures, isn't due to me tilting the game towards roleplaying or exploration to counter any imbalances in the game.

Just my two cents.

 

[Ichneumon]

<writes Zorro on blank character sheet, and waits>