D&D 5E A simple questions for Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Min-Maxers.

[Boscogn]

One of my characters actually has a celestial winged unicorn as his paladin mount. (Not my doing - the DM gave it to my character because another character in the party has an ongoing feud with all unicorns and he knew it would annoy him...)

I hope it has rainbow barding

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

 

[Caliban]

I hope it has rainbow barding

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

I did name it Celestia...

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Characters don't (necessarily) know the rules or the math, even in approximation. They don't need to. They know the in-game reality of which the rules and math are but a pale reflection. You don't need to be able to quantify injury in order know that a bigger sword creates a bigger wound.

It has nothing to do with being the very best, like no-one ever was. It has to do with not dying. When you go down into a hole full of monsters, you would have to be phenomenally stupid to trust your life to an obviously inferior weapon. It's not rocket science. It's the absolute most basic common sense. And sure, some people really are that dumb.

All I'm saying is that, Player Characters aren't that dumb. They can be some lesser form of dumb, perhaps, but there's a threshold for which the other PCs can tolerate such obvious incompetence - which is necessary because they are at least somewhat competent - and choosing the obviously inferior weapon is crossing that line.

Interesting. It is indeed entirely logical that the wounds created by a slashing weapon are bigger than those made by a thrusting weapon.

If you were going down a hole full of monsters however, would you pick the long slashing weapon, or a weapon that is shorter and used to thrust? In the tight confines of the hole, which would be the inferior weapon?

Would your character make the same choice, since they live in a world that is defined by the rules, and thus doesn't have issues such as space to swing beyond 5ft occupied squares?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It's not that people in a fantasy world never make irrational decisions. It's just that our incredibly-competent monster-slaying power-fantasy idealized hero characters tend to be above such things.

How about our only-reasonably-competent, monster-phobic, enjoyably-roleplayed, conceptualised hero characters?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

As for the original question re optimizing being essential for fun, I can only give a reverse perspective: as a mostly non-optimizer my fun is reduced when someone else intentionally optimizes in order to be better/more powerful/more one-man-band-ish than me and-or the others in the party.

Caliban, unless there is baggage coming in from interactions with Lanefan elsewhere, you are putting words into their mouth and accusing them of some rather unpleasant things based on little to no evidence.

Stating that a particular behaviour reduces their fun, on a forum thread discussing that behaviour is no indication of actually trying to prevent people from performing that behaviour in an actual game.

Its not saying things are "all about their fun".
Its not "forcing people to play sub-par characters".
Its not "thinking that other players should cater to their ideas of how the game should be played".
Its not "whining about being outshined."
Its not "telling them that they are playing the game wrong."
Its not "wanting to dictate how others play and enjoy the game, based on their own selfish desires".
Its not "thinking that other players should play the way they do so they enjoy the game more".
And it is not "being controlling towards other players".

Its simply talking about their preference on the issue in a thread discussing preferences of the issue.
Unless you know that Lanefan actually tries to enforce those preferences on the other players in an actual game then all of those accusations are without merit.
And to be frank, come across more as personal attacks rather than reasoned discussion.

 

[Captain Panda]

All things being balanced and equal just isn't fun. Further, you really can't optimize anything under those circumstances. I'm not saying I wanna do any cheesy builds or anything, but sometimes it's nice being able to play a well-built, competent character, and sometimes it's fun playing a zany concept.

 

[dave2008]

..., but sometimes it's nice being able to play a well-built, competent character, and sometimes it's fun playing a zany concept.

But, in the, admittedly flawed, hypothetical system in the OP you could play a well-built, competent character or a zany concept. That doesn't change, what changes is that both characters would be mostly no different in effectiveness.

So back to the real question of the thread. Would you want to play in a system were optimizing had little to no difference on the effectiveness of the character?

EDIT: revised text in bold italics - to more accurately reflect the intent.

 

[Caliban]

Caliban, unless there is baggage coming in from interactions with Lanefan elsewhere, you are putting words into their mouth and accusing them of some rather unpleasant things based on little to no evidence.

Yay for unsolicited input after the fact. Your opinion has been noted and filed under "busybody trying to stir things up". Have a good day sir.