D&D 5E Characters are not their statistics and abilities

[JonnyP71]

Back to the OP, I prefer roleplay over rollplay, I don't obsess over minutiae in order to get the most out of my characters...

BUT

My characters ARE their statistics and abilities. I'm pretty bad at coming up with character concepts without something to help germinate the seed beyond 'I fancy playing a spellcaster', or 'I haven't played a rogue for ages'.... so I roll the dice, and I 'role' according to what I 'roll'. Then once the mind is buzzing with ideas, I add the abilities, equipment, spells etc to suit the idea in my head, and to flesh it out further. Having a low stat, some form of flaw, really helps me in the overall process.

And for choosing abilities/feats etc, while I do not obsessively optimise, I will try to look for options which fit the character's story while also giving something in terms of a power boost. My Wizard has Keen Mind and Observant - they fit the way I play him in terms of fluff, give some interesting features, and the +1 to Int is a nice added bonus. I pick spells mostly to fit the flavour, but always try to ensure there is *something* strong to fall back on. He could have been more powerful if I'd gone with Elemental Adept and Fireball, but he's a Necromancer, who prefers to drain rather than destroy, so that combination doesn't suit the flavour - instead it's Animate Dead, Blight, Fear, Ray of Enfeeblement and Dimension Door to get the hell out of there when things go wrong. But he does have both Magic Missile and Cloudkill, so he can deal some damage IF needed.

It's about finding the balance that makes YOU comfortable as a player. I see some posts on here (from powergamers) who talk about how their table react to weaker characters and that really saddens me. Play what YOU want to play, not what others expect you to play.

 

[jasper]

Agreed.



I'm not much of a rules-as-physics person - certainly not like [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]! - but on this issue I'm pretty sympathetic to Saelorn's perspective.

If the PC has the same bonus to hit with a longsword as a scimitar, why choose the weaker weapon?

..!)

BECAUSE it is ONE, Uno, 1, point of damage difference. And I glad that your PC know all the numbers, feats, classes a PC can take. Glad he drop 19 gp 99 cp for Merric's munckin manual.

 

[Yunru]

Especially since it's 1 point of damage on average. How's a character going to know, in character, between a maxed out damage roll on a d10 and a low critical roll on a d8? Especially given that other unseen stat, strength, effects it as well.

 

[pemerton]

I see some posts on here (from powergamers) who talk about how their table react to weaker characters and that really saddens me. Play what YOU want to play, not what others expect you to play.

I glad that your PC know all the numbers, feats, classes a PC can take. Glad he drop 19 gp 99 cp for Merric's munckin manual.

Hey, it's the all-new, all-inclusive non-judgmental ENworld!

Especially since it's 1 point of damage on average. How's a character going to know, in character, between a maxed out damage roll on a d10 and a low critical roll on a d8? Especially given that other unseen stat, strength, effects it as well.

If players aren't supposed to care about the difference in damage between weapons, why give them different damage dice?

 

[Yunru]

If players aren't supposed to care about the difference in damage between weapons, why give them different damage dice?

Players are, but the differences are minuscule enough that it's a real non-issue, excluding massive shifts ala greatsword vs whip.

Also: For immersion.

 

[BoldItalic]

Especially since it's 1 point of damage on average. How's a character going to know, in character, between a maxed out damage roll on a d10 and a low critical roll on a d8? Especially given that other unseen stat, strength, effects it as well.

Seems to me that a character could reasonably figure out that two scimitars are better than one longsword. He wouldn't know the rules about light weapons, bonus actions and off-hand attacks but it's common sense that, if you can hit your opponent twice as fast it must be better. And he would be right. The only obvious reason for using a longsword at all is if you are going to have a shield in the other hand. Then a longsword is marginally better than a scimitar. But only marginally.

Longsword + Dagger (d8+d4) = Scimitar + Scimitar (d6+d6)

 

[Sunseeker]

BECAUSE it is ONE, Uno, 1, point of damage difference. And I glad that your PC know all the numbers, feats, classes a PC can take. Glad he drop 19 gp 99 cp for Merric's munckin manual.

If he doesn't, he's obviously an idiot. Sure, to the PC knowing that STR gets added to melee damage is probably more like "I'm strong, therefore I hit things harder." and he's also probably familiar with other people in his line of work who are better trained, perhaps a captain or chaplain or archmage, and other people who are differently trained, who he may speak with or have spoken with to learn how their skills are different or superior to his own.

Claiming that your character doesn't know how the "game works" is silly because the game literally defines the world. So a character who doesn't know how the game works likewise doesn't know how the world works.

Players are, but the differences are minuscule enough that it's a real non-issue, excluding massive shifts ala greatsword vs whip.

Also: For immersion.

If the argument is "immersion" and "immersion" is defined as existing in a believable state in game, then there are believable differences between the Longsword and the Scimitar in game which could be learned by a PC in game.

Seems to me that a character could reasonably figure out that two scimitars are better than one longsword. He wouldn't know the rules about light weapons, bonus actions and off-hand attacks but it's common sense that, if you can hit your opponent twice as fast it must be better. And he would be right. The only obvious reason for using a longsword at all is if you are going to have a shield in the other hand. Then a longsword is marginally better than a scimitar. But only marginally.

Longsword + Dagger (d8+d4) = Scimitar + Scimitar (d6+d6)

Not to mention, someone could likely explain it to the PC in game. Maybe the blacksmith explains that scimitars are lighter and lack the ooph of a longsowrd, but make up for it by being better at slicing.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've always preferred people choosing weapons for thematic reasons rather than min/maxing reasons. I mean, there's a reason why there's such a diverse usage of various weapons in real life. Obviously real life wielders of weapons make their choices not based on min/maxing reasons. Why should a PC be any different?

Maybe we need to go back to OD&D and Moldvay's Basic and have the same damage die for all weapon types.

 

[Sunseeker]

Background: I've played with the guys in this group between 4-30 years. We all know how to play & optimize. We all know each other's general character design preferences.

We don't use our characters as puppets for critiquing decisions. If someone has a genuine problem with what you're doing, they will tell you to your face. Usually quite coarsely.

So, IOW, if someone were to tell my PC in character that he was making bad choices, it's the character, not the player, making the complaint. Trust me.

Okay well at this point I'm getting a little tired of attempting to make a response, only to get another tidbit thrown out about that game that changes the way I view things, to only then get another tidbit invalidating my views, views that wouldn't even be held if I had known the additional information you just provided. So I'm just going to be done with the guessing game.

 

[BoldItalic]

Interesting question arising: to what extent do PCs know everything that is in the PHB? Seems to me that they should reasonably be expected know everything relating to their own class and background and, in the case of spellcasters, everything about how spellcasting works. But do characters know the mechanics of saving throws? The mechanics of combat? Or indeed anything about the rolling of the dice that govern their lives? Seems to me that would be going too far. When a player rolls a d20 to resolve an action, the character might perceive the result as fate or chance, or the will of the gods or whatever suits his philosophy but not in terms of statistical probability as we understand it. Indeed, I think the mathematics of the game would not be known and, to the extent that characters are thought to be self-optimising it should be on the basis of qualitative rather than quantitative reasoning.