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

[pemerton]

All because of a 2/8 chance to do 1 more pt of damage on any given roll

It is not a 1/4 chance to do 1 more point of damage on any given roll (which would be a .25 overall increase in expected damage).

The increase in expected damage is 1. This is because the odds of rolling any number from 1 to 6 is only 1/8 rather than 1/6, and there is a like chance of rolling a 7 or an 8. (One could say that compared to a d6, a d8 is less likely to roll low numbers and has a better chance of rolling high numbers.)

I'd suspect that the designers would tell you something along the lines of trying to make the light finesse weapon have some down side.

Yes, that's why the finesse weapon is d6. But it is not a reason to make a STR-wielder using a scimitar be confined to d6 damage. The game would not in any way be imbalanced if (for instance) a scimitar did d6 wielded with DEX, d8 wielded with STR.

Your table couldn't handle someone choosing to not do 1 more pt of damage every few times the dice are rolled?

I don't know why you keep mis-stating the maths of d8 vs d6. But anyway, what I said is that I don't think my table is well-suited for someone who deliberately builds a weak character (eg d6 vs d8 to damage) so as to make the game harder for him-/herself. That suggests an approach to the game, and the logic of meeting its challenges, that I feel doesn't fit with how my table plays the game. (As I said, it seems to me to be a little bit video-gamey - setting your own difficulty level and all that.)

Tell me, at your table what reason must I give you in order to choose a scimitar?

Whatever reasons you want. But as I've said, if you've got the "set your own degree of difficulty" reason in mind, I think you probably won't fit in. And if you've got the "I don't care about mechanics, I just care about flavour without regard for mechanics" approach in mind, I don't think you'll fit very well either.

In practice I don't envisage this being an issue, because (per your account details) you're in Ohio and I'm in Australia. So the fact that my table may not suit your very well is probably not going to come up.

 

[BoldItalic]

Thread rename: "Swords are not their statistics and abilities"

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If the in-game world operated as you posit (which would be completely different than any world any of us are familiar with), then there wouldn't be an weapon choices. Or at least, very few.

Do you remember much from d20 Modern? The same point could be made with D&D 3E, from which it was derived, but I know that the designers actually addressed this issue while talking about d20 Modern.

There are a lot of guns in d20 Modern, because the modern world has a lot of guns in it, and they wanted there to be a lot of choices. They solved the problem of there being a "best" gun, which would remove those choices (per the argument at hand), by giving the guns different benefits that can't be directly compared. While one gun might have higher damage, another gun might have better range, a third gun might have a better critical threat range, and yet another gun might have a better critical damage multiplier. Maybe you even have a fifth gun, which is worse in one or more of those categories, but is cheaper.

It's that easy. If you have a weapon that's better in every way, then it's hard to justify the existence of anything else. Who would buy something that's just worse? If you have some difference that can't be directly compared, then you have a good reason for both to exist in the world.

As it stands, there are lots of weapon choices in 5E, because most of them have one or more scenarios where they are best. Scimitars are the best for dual-wielding. Greatswords are the best for doing damage (with a controlled fighting style, as the fighter/champion). Greataxes are the best for doing spiky, unpredictable burst damage - for knocking out concentration, if nothing else - when wielded by a raging barbarian. Polearms are apparently great defensive tools, if your world has feats in it. Greatclubs are great if you need a heavy weapon, but you're on a budget. Etc.

There's no market for a weapon that's almost as good as a greataxe, but slightly heavier or more expensive, with zero redeeming qualities. Because the game world operates close enough to what I posited, that weapon choice doesn't exist.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It's that easy. If you have a weapon that's better in every way, then it's hard to justify the existence of anything else. Who would buy something that's just worse? If you have some difference that can't be directly compared, then you have a good reason for both to exist in the world.

As it stands, there are lots of weapon choices in 5E, because most of them have one or more scenarios where they are best. Scimitars are the best for dual-wielding. Greatswords are the best for doing damage (with a controlled fighting style, as the fighter/champion). Greataxes are the best for doing spiky, unpredictable burst damage - for knocking out concentration, if nothing else - when wielded by a raging barbarian. Polearms are apparently great defensive tools, if your world has feats in it. Greatclubs are great if you need a heavy weapon, but you're on a budget. Etc.

Tridents?
Some options for weapons and armour are in the tables, but are intended to be more for reference for monsters than to be common options for PCs to use.

There's no market for a weapon that's almost as good as a greataxe, but slightly heavier or more expensive, with zero redeeming qualities. Because the game world operates close enough to what I posited, that weapon choice doesn't exist.

I would guess its more to do with the 5e Greataxe being a very wide category, encompassing any variation of possible greataxe that doesn't fall into another category. The reason that there isn't a slightly heavier greataxe on the 5e weapons table is because it would still fall into the 'greataxe' category.

 

[Grandvizier]

Incompetent Character?

I consider the notion of making a character purposefully inept to be in fundamental opposition to the co-operative nature of the game and also to the inherent concepts of heroism within the fantasy trope. To me, it's rude and inconsiderate to bring a character into a game that is incompetent and doesn't pull their weight as a team player.

Some people seem to think that this comes from a basis of focusing on the combat aspects of D&D and that by doing so I am somehow a traitor to the roleplaying aspects. This supposes a disconnect between the two and that there is no room for both at a table. What bothers me most about this sort of accusatory stance is that it assumes a lack of imagination and creativity on the part of the optimiser. And yet, this is not only far from the truth, but I believe in opposition to it. Give me the exact same statistics and abilities and I can make two characters that play radically differently at the table due to creativity and imagination. Further, I think it takes a distinct lack of creativity and imagination to be beholden to statistics and abilities so much that they dictate the form and shape of the character.

And this, I believe, is because the character, whilst it may be informed by the statistics and abilities it has, is specifically not the sum total of those statistics and abilities. It is a character, not an algorithm.

Discuss.

I am struggling with the two dimensional attitudes a huge proportion of players have towards role playing. The game sets down min attributes a character can have which by definition sets the range of what constitutes "incompetent". Min/max focussed players show a level of maturity better suited to computer based kill everything on the screen then you win, than a dip into role playing. There is effectively no such thing as an incompetent character, just incompetent players. I have seen characters with only 2 stats in double figures progress as fast and as effectively as any max out character. The player was cunning enough to recognise his characters shortcomings, and took strategic measures to overcome them. He ran 2 henchmen, and rewarded them the best gold could buy. As a result, despite a mediocre Charisma, they were as loyal as. I never saw his party members complain about his contribution.

 

[Grandvizier]

Rufus

What's wrong with Rufus? In Burning Wheel I think Rufus would be a viable character.

Or to put it another way - what counts as bad play is very relative to the game being played. It tells us something about D&D (compared to, say, BW) that Rufus counts as an obvious example of deliberate sabotage.

That "something" is the platform on which the OP has then been constructed.

I don't agree with this.

As far as I can tell, from posting on these boards, I am more inclined to "indie-style"/narrativist RPGing than the typical ENworld poster. As far as I know, I am the only regular poster who is also GMing a fairly regular BW game.

But in these sorts of threads, I generally find myself more sympathetic to the "optimisers". Because, like "indie" RPGers, optimisers recognise that action resolution, and hence the mechanics of PC building, are pretty central to RPGing. (Without mechanics it's either negotiation between players and GM over the content of the shared fiction, or GM fiat. I guess player fiat is a third alternative, but many ENworlders seem to be against that.)

I know I'm not a very good wargamer (I have friends who are, and they utterly clean my clock in those sorts of games). But I appreciate the wargamer's or optimiser's eye for the difference that mechanics make.

I'll go back to the example of Rufus. That character would be viable in BW. That he is presented as an obvious example of deliberate sabotage tells us something about D&D, and it's focus as a game. For instance, in D&D overcoming challenges is taken to be quite important. In BW, the mechanics of the game make it much more important to confront challenges than to overcome them. That mechanical difference makes a big difference to the tone and content of the RPGing that results. It makes a difference to the ways in which players can shape the shared fiction.

Once you recognise that, in D&D, overcoming challenges is where it's at, you've already set a floor. Rufus is out. I'm happy to accept it as true that, in 5e, "merely competent" characters are good enough (or, to put it another way, that the marginal increase in success rates resulting from "optimisation" is not noticeable at the typical table running the typical 5e adventure); but look at the amount of design and development work that WotC had to put in to achieve this! Even with the learning of 40 years of D&D design, it still took them a two-year playtest.

If the OP sets the floor a bit higher, well, who are we other D&D players to judge?

I would play Rufus in a heartbeat in AD&D, and have no concerns about being incompetent. The characters growing on me and I find myself unconsciously already formulating background. A fighter that hates combat is classic, doesn't stop him being good at it, barring the melee skills are not his great points, but it does explain the club, would prefer subdue. It certainly doesn't stop him from being brave and certainly doesn't make him a pacifist either. More interested in winning than killing, but does it when he has to. He would be totally unsuitable for a powergamer table I agree, but I don't play those type of games anyway, and I understand why it would be considered rude, if that was the stated modus operandi of the table. I just suggest, powergamers also recognise that roleplayers(a general term to distinguish the differences, not a saying powergamer isn't role-playing, just a very different type of game)love characters like this.

 

[pemerton]

Given that I've been quoted in this act of necromancy:

I am struggling with the two dimensional attitudes a huge proportion of players have towards role playing.

<snip>

There is effectively no such thing as an incompetent character, just incompetent players.

I would play Rufus in a heartbeat in AD&D, and have no concerns about being incompetent.

<snip>

He would be totally unsuitable for a powergamer table I agree, but I don't play those type of games anyway

I am struggling with the two-dimensional attitudes some posters have towards other posters. And with their apparent lack of familiarity with the range of ways in which D&D (and similar RPGs) are played.

I would not play Rufus in a heartbeat in AD&D, as in that game I would be very hostage to the GM in having any significant capacity to impact the fiction.

I have seen characters with only 2 stats in double figures progress as fast and as effectively as any max out character. The player was cunning enough to recognise his characters shortcomings, and took strategic measures to overcome them. He ran 2 henchmen, and rewarded them the best gold could buy. As a result, despite a mediocre Charisma, they were as loyal as. I never saw his party members complain about his contribution.

I don't see how this is an instance of brilliant roleplaying to be contrasted with "powergaming". Or alternatively - if that counts as "clever but non-powergaming play" than the benchmark for cleverness is being set fairly low, and I don't really understand how the benchmark for powergaming is being set at all.

I mean, Rufus could wear plate armour rather than leather armour and be less ineffective in combat, but that would not strike me as particularly amazing play.

More generally - yes, if the system allows success without needing to rely on stats, than low stats won't be a big issue. But something else will be. I mean, what happens if the guy with the low CHA decides to eschew treasure too - so instead of rewarding the henchmen he gives all his treasure to charity, or - even more extreme - throws it into the sea? Would the other party members still not complain about his contribution?

 

[Willie the Duck]

I am struggling with the two dimensional attitudes a huge proportion of players have towards role playing. The game sets down min attributes a character can have which by definition sets the range of what constitutes "incompetent". Min/max focussed players show a level of maturity better suited to computer based kill everything on the screen then you win, than a dip into role playing. There is effectively no such thing as an incompetent character, just incompetent players. I have seen characters with only 2 stats in double figures progress as fast and as effectively as any max out character. The player was cunning enough to recognise his characters shortcomings, and took strategic measures to overcome them. He ran 2 henchmen, and rewarded them the best gold could buy. As a result, despite a mediocre Charisma, they were as loyal as. I never saw his party members complain about his contribution.

Implying that other people have two dimensional attitudes because they are focusing on issues you feel superior to is not a mature act. Suggesting that others should instead play something else because they do not play (or at least focus their web conversation on a style of play) the way you want them to is not a mature act. Inferring that they have a lower level of maturity, while displaying this markedly non-mature behavior is hypocrisy. Do not be under the misguided notion that people will not notice, nor judge you negatively for such behavior.