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

[Tony Vargas]

All things being balanced and equal just isn't fun. Further, you really can't optimize anything under those circumstances.

On the one hand, it's not anything to worry about, since perfect balance, let alone precise equality is impossible, on the other, that's the hypothetical (or close to that ideal, perhaps) the OP is asking about.

But, even the specter of idealized balance can't stop optimization, it just doesn't reward it, at least, not in the same way. You can still optimize a build in a balanced system, you're just optimizing it to a concept or purpose, rather than flogging the last fractional point of DPR (or whatever you're trying to push higher than the next guy) out of it. The point becomes differentiation and optimal modeling, rather than out-performance.

That doesn't change, what changes is that both characters would be mostly mechanically equivalent.

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?

"Mechanically equivalent" and "no difference on the effectiveness" could be interpreted very differently. The former could be read as "no meaningful difference," which is the antithesis of balance, IMHO, while the latter could be read as 'balanced,' assuming there are still meaningful decisions to be made...

 

[dave2008]

"Mechanically equivalent" and "no difference on the effectiveness" could be interpreted very differently. The former could be read as "no meaningful difference," which is the antithesis of balance, IMHO, while the latter could be read as 'balanced,' assuming there are still meaningful decisions to be made...

You are correct I intend something closer to "no difference on the effectiveness."

 

[dave2008]

"Mechanically equivalent" and "no difference on the effectiveness" could be interpreted very differently. The former could be read as "no meaningful difference," which is the antithesis of balance, IMHO, while the latter could be read as 'balanced,' assuming there are still meaningful decisions to be made...

I've corrected the post - thank you!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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?

It depends on the nature of the hole in question, but given that I'm not very strong or skilled with weapons, I would probably choose something simple like a knife or club. Even if I had a rapier available, I feel like I would just tire myself out since I don't know what I'm doing.

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?

It depends on the nature of the hole in question, but if there's no region in there with less than five feet of clearance, they'd choose the bigger sword that they know they have enough room to use. If it was actually a tight passage, such that it really should matter whether you have enough room to swing, then I would expect the DM to impose some sort of disadvantage on longsword attacks but not short sword attacks (and the character would choose the smaller weapon).

If there are factors within the game world which should affect the outcome of any situation, then I expect those factors to be reflected in the rules. If something should matter, but it doesn't, then that's going to create a logical disconnect that damages immersion. One of the major benefits of playing a game with a living DM is that they can apply those impromptu rulings where appropriate.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This, here, is why tends to be conflict between a small subset of optimizers and non-optimizers; because it becomes "one true wayism;" the impulse to label optimization as "basic common sense" and those who don't adopt your favored style of play (by proxy) as "that dumb."

I'm not talking about players having common sense or being dumb. I'm talking about characters having common sense or being dumb.

Given the premise that characters can observe the in-game realities which correspond to the game mechanics, it is perfectly reasonable for one character to critique another character for making a bad decision based on that information. If the player doesn't buy into that premise (for whatever reason), then their in-game choice only reflects on a table-level disconnect, rather than the competence of the character.

 

[jasper]

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.

Clerics must be SUPER dumb. They can only use simple weapons. To get a d8 (long sword damage) they have to drop their +2 shield and use either a great club, quarterstaff or light crossbow all while using the weapon two handed.
Druids are SUPER DUMB too. They have give up a +2 shield to use 2 scimitars. Or use a great club/ quarter staff two handed
Monks must be super duper DUMB. Only simple weapons or short sword. Maybe if they live to 11th they could match a basic fighter with a long sword.
Sorcerer are SILLY DUMB they don't know how to hold a shield. But they do know how to use a quarterstaff and light crossbow.
Warlocks are DUMBER than clerics. They don't know about shields either.
Wizards are DUMB too. No armor or shield.
I guess the melee types are smart enough to use those classes as meat shields.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

I hadn't considered the OP from this perspective, and I think it changes my answer. I don't want system mastery to be a factor in character effectiveness. I want paladins and rangers and great-weapon fighters and dual-wielders to be equally effective at what they do.

I don't want to encourage zaniness, though. I don't want a mop to be as effective as a katana.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Clerics must be SUPER dumb. They can only use simple weapons. To get a d8 (long sword damage) they have to drop their +2 shield and use either a great club, quarterstaff or light crossbow all while using the weapon two handed.

Dude, you're taking my whole argument out of context, and missing the bigger point. If someone doesn't know how to use a particular weapon, then that's a real in-game reason to prefer a less powerful weapon. Using a weapon that you know how to use, instead of a weapon you don't know how to use, is a good idea.

It's just not a reason that applies to fighters, paladins, or rangers. They can't use non-proficiency as an excuse.

 

[Boscogn]

This thread has been severely derailed lol.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk