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

ccs

41st lv DM
Well yeah, I'd just make him/her feel silly first.

But I'm not nice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just didn't mention all the steps.
For the record....

Step 1: single warning, explanation. Very likely ignored. I know these types.
Step 2: Someone mocks them. They get a warning as well.
Step 3: Original guy continues to press his point.
Step 4: I boot original guy. "Who's next?"
Step 5: Game continues.

Step 6: This chunk of the thread....
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
If I were sitting at a table, and a person nit picked another players weapon choice over 1-2 points of damage, I would mock the nitpicker mercilessly for the duration of the game. What kind of useless person accosts someone over using a scimitar instead of a long sword?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See, I'm baffled here. I was trying to make the point that "not perfect" characters are ok and used this sword choice as an example, and then contrasted it with an incredibly vulnerable character design (which *is* a problem IMO).

... and yet the sword choice is the thing that is unacceptable?
 

pemerton

Legend
Claimed that you are all about roleplaying, because roleplayers play competent characters (?)
the essence of what you are doing is stating that the in-game characters are required to utilize the items that would be optimal.

<snip>

What you are arguing is that the in game character would only ever choose the weapon that causes the most damage, because roleplaying means that the character is a) completely rational, b) functionally observes the results over a long data series, c) shares the same math-based preferences that you do that are unaffected by other preferences, whether they be cultural or otherwise.

This is easily disproved just by looking at the real world, wherein people often make what might be considered "objectively" sub-optimal decisions that they have a preference for. Because in actuality, people are complex. Because people are constrained by their culture, their preferences, their heuristics, and their feelings. If you want your character to be optimized, and then roleplay a personlity, more power to you. But don't try to tell other people that roleplaying​ requires optimization.
Role-playing is doing what a competent character would do, if you're trying to role-play a competent character.
I am over-stating the assumption that you're all playing competent professionals, which is far from as universal I seem to imply, but that's only to get to the larger point about role-playing based on observable realities rather than meta-gaming.)
Saelorn clearly isn't saying that "roleplaying" means playing a competent character.

The claim is a conditional one:

If one accepts (i) that the character is competent, and (ii) that the rules of the game correspond, more-or-less, to the "physics" of the gameworld (and vice versa), then (iii) the character should use the numerically best weapon available.

If the character is fighting with STR rather than DEX, and is a fighter (and hence proficient in both weapons), then a longsword is numerically better than a scimitar and hence (given (i) and (ii)) the character should choose the longsword. (The character won't have directly computed the long term data series, but I think Saelorn is assuming that such knowledge would be effectively encoded in the received wisdom of warriors.)

Personally I don't accept (ii). And I've certainly played with players who, in building their PCs, don't go along with (i) - they build PCs who have various predelictions that make them less-than-fully competent.

But if one does accept (ii), then even if (i) is rejected a version of Saelorn's point still follows, namely, that there are people in the gamworld who can point to the less-than-fully-competent character using the scimitar for STR attacks and ask, "Hey, why don't you use a longsword, which is just strictly more functional for you?" If the character's answer is "Because I don't feel like it," this plays into Saelorn's point about the character's prioritisation of feelings over effectivness. Other characters in the group might have no choice but to put up with it, but I'm not seeing why they should have to like it.

And I still go back to my basic question - what's the point of having differing damage dice, if it's considered bad play ("munchkinism", "min/maxing") to actually have regard to them in making decisions about how to play the game?

some very interesting ways you have re-defined terms

<snip>

That real meta-gaming is when a person ignores the rules of the games, and makes choices based on what his character would want, because ... the character would intuit the math behind the game world

<snip>

So the only way to not meta-game, is to meta-game (play by being cognizant of, and taking advantage of, the rules).
If you think that paying attention to the rules of the game is metagaming - because making choices based on something the character is not aware of - then you must be rejecting Saelorn's (ii). Because if you accept (ii), then the best way to work out what it is that the characters know is to work out what the rules of the game say.

(As far as a player making choices based on what his/her character would want, that in part requires imputing beliefs to the character about the nature of the world - because what people want is based, in part, on their beliefs. If we assume that the character's beliefs about day-to-day things in the world aren't too far off the mark, then this just takes us back to the question, what is the world like? And if you accept Saelorn's (ii), then the game rules answer that question.)

As I've said, I don't accept (ii). But I've always had the sense that puts me in a minority of D&D players. (See eg the great warlord/hp debates.)
 

pemerton

Legend
I was trying to make the point that "not perfect" characters are ok and used this sword choice as an example, and then contrasted it with an incredibly vulnerable character design (which *is* a problem IMO).

... and yet the sword choice is the thing that is unacceptable?
I'm a bit baffled by your bafflement. As I said upthread, and reiterated in the post just before this one, I don't share [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s view about the relationship between the mechanics and the "physics" of the gameworld, but for my own reasons I'm moved to a similar view to his.

The fighter who is built around STR rather than DEX, but who chooses to use a scimitar rather than a longsword, is deliberately choosing to be weaker in respect of an area of mechanical effectiveness that s/he is choosing as his/her focus (namely, fighting in melee using STR).

On the other hand, the bard who dumps defence for other areas of capability just seems to be judging that the payoff from a little bit of investment in defence won't be worth it, and so s/he may as well not invest at all. Without a greater degree of specificity as to the details, that doesn't seem outrageous to me. There's a certain logic in putting all your eggs into baskets where you might at least get some noticeable return.

To put it more bluntly, the bard build is not self-sabotaging from the mechanical point of view, whereas the fighter one is.

If the response is "mechanics isn't everything", or "but I envisage my guy as a desert-dwelling scimitar wielder rather than a knightly longsword wielder", then why not just let the scimitar do d8 as a STR weapon? Ie why make the purely flavour choice bring a mechanical detriment with it?

If the response is "I'm deliberately underpowering my fighter because I wan't to play the game on slightly harder mode", to me that's quite different. I don't think that would work very well at my table, and to me it seems a little bit video-gamey, but the logic of it is clear. (And in the terms in which [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] has framed the discussion, it's an example of deliberately choosing to play a less-than-fully competent character.)
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
See, I'm baffled here. I was trying to make the point that "not perfect" characters are ok and used this sword choice as an example, and then contrasted it with an incredibly vulnerable character design (which *is* a problem IMO).

... and yet the sword choice is the thing that is unacceptable?

Even as an optimizer I found it kind of funny. 1 or 2 points of damage on aveage is not going to make a build substantially stronger or weaker. The natural randomization of the dice is more likely to leave that kind of difference a complete wash. The funny part was, I actually thought the Bard felt more optimized, provided he kept to the back and played cleverly. Casters and ranged support builds are typically squishy if the front-liners can't control the battlefield, and Bards, even in 3.5 were no Cleric or Druid. I never sweat the guy who sacrifices little, on average, for a little flavor and creativity. Also, it feels like people are missing the fact that the Scimitar is a Finesse weapon and you can use Str OR Dex, not only Dex. So a Scimitar works just as well for a Str-build fighter as it does for a Dex build fighter. Again, even from an optimization standpoint 1-2 points of damage on average will not a build break.
 

Harzel

Adventurer
Saelorn clearly isn't saying that "roleplaying" means playing a competent character.

The claim is a conditional one:

If one accepts (i) that the character is competent, and (ii) that the rules of the game correspond, more-or-less, to the "physics" of the gameworld (and vice versa), then (iii) the character should use the numerically best weapon available.

I think your analysis is correct and well-stated, but I have a (perhaps minor) semantic quibble. Saelorn used the word 'competent' and you have adopted his usage. I think it would be far more accurate to call what he seems to mean 'rational' or even 'hyperrational'. I am certain that we all know people (perhaps even ourselves) who we see as and would describe as 'competent' who nevertheless make conscious suboptimal decisions even in the field of their supposed competence. Perhaps another way to look at it is that their decisions are optimal, but their optimization function includes factors outside the field being focused on.
 

ccs

41st lv DM
To put it more bluntly, the bard build is not self-sabotaging from the mechanical point of view, whereas the fighter one is.

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


If the response is "mechanics isn't everything", or "but I envisage my guy as a desert-dwelling scimitar wielder rather than a knightly longsword wielder", then why not just let the scimitar do d8 as a STR weapon? Ie why make the purely flavour choice bring a mechanical detriment with it?

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.


If the response is "I'm deliberately underpowering my fighter because I wan't to play the game on slightly harder mode", to me that's quite different. I don't think that would work very well at my table, and to me it seems a little bit video-gamey, but the logic of it is clear. (And in the terms in which @Saelorn has framed the discussion, it's an example of deliberately choosing to play a less-than-fully competent character.)

Really? Your table couldn't handle someone choosing to not do 1 more pt of damage every few times the dice are rolled?
Tell me, at your table what reason must I give you in order to choose a scimitar?
 

Satyrn

First Post
I'd suspect that the designers would tell you something along the lines of trying to make the light finesse weapon (scimitar) have some down side.
Off topic a bit. I was just struck by what seems like the weirdness of the rapier not being light while the scimitar is.

Is this just because of Drizzt? Or am I wrong in how I picture a rapier?


Hmm, off to google some pics . . .
 


pemerton

Legend
I think your analysis is correct and well-stated, but I have a (perhaps minor) semantic quibble. Saelorn used the word 'competent' and you have adopted his usage. I think it would be far more accurate to call what he seems to mean 'rational' or even 'hyperrational'. I am certain that we all know people (perhaps even ourselves) who we see as and would describe as 'competent' who nevertheless make conscious suboptimal decisions even in the field of their supposed competence. Perhaps another way to look at it is that their decisions are optimal, but their optimization function includes factors outside the field being focused on.
No disagreement with any of this - but as I think you agree in calling your quibble "semantic", the gist of [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s position doesn't really turn on whether we use "competent", "substantially rational", etc.

For my part, even though I disagree with Saelorn's "rules = physics" view, I find the posts very interesting because I think they help illustrate consequences that flow from taking that view.
 

Remove ads

Top