D&D 5E How cognizant are you of the rules of the game?

[The Crimson Binome]

See my earlier post. No rules set does this. Ever. Not one. Every single rules set, no matter how complex, no matter how complete, includes some level of abstraction. None of them model all the factors that reality includes. No combat system includes, or can include, every single factor involved in what makes a weapon the better choice for one circumstance or another.

Of course not. That's why we focus on a few areas that we actually care about, model those as best as possible, and try to make sure that it doesn't break down too far around the edges.

No edition of the game does a great job of modeling Roman legions, because that's not what the game is really about. If you wanted to model formation fighting, you might need to invent new mechanics to do so, and those new rules should tell us why the short sword is better than the longsword in those circumstances.

 

[S'mon]

Roman legions used the short sword (gladius) for a reason, one that had a huge impact in their success rate but isn't modeled successfully in any edition of D&D.

Pre-3e D&D does allow narrow-frontage weapons to get more combatants in a 10' corridor, though in OD&D and Classic it is pretty much up to GM discretion. But even they don't specifically model
the main reasons why shortswords could be superior to spears in Roman legionary tactics,
so yes I agree.

 

[S'mon]

You and I are thinking of very different "longswords." The weapons I'm considering--the arming sword, the bastard sword, etc.--were primarily slashing weapons.

No, the longsword (bastard sword) and arming sword (sword) were primarily thrusting weapons. So is the greatsword, and to a large extent the zweihander. Matt Easton's 'Scholagladiatoria' channel (in-depth historical sword scholarship + HEMA experience) is enlightening.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I understand your viewpoint. My group's viewpoint is somewhat similar, though we do not harangue people that choose suboptimal options because they are having fun like choosing to play a Wild Mage over a Dragon Sorcerer. Perhaps you're taking the point a little far making the difference between d6 and d8 competence versus incompetence.

I don't use this example because it demonstrates a large gap between optimal and sub-optimal choice; I use this example because it's very straightforward. The merits of either Wild Mage or Dragon Sorcerer could be argued, and it's going to vary a lot depending on assumptions and circumstances, and it may well be that a Dragon Sorcerer is significantly more powerful than a Wild Mage (or vice versa). They're different enough that you could make an argument for either side. It's not extremely obvious.

Mace vs warhammer isn't complicated. The mace is simple, and the warhammer does more damage. If you are equally proficient in both, then the warhammer is objectively superior by every possible metric. Maybe it's not better by much, but there is no argument to be made in favor of the mace. If a Fighter chooses to use a mace rather than a warhammer, then that says something significant about the Fighter's ability to make very simple decisions.

 

[S'mon]

It seems like most modern-day-set games try to mimic action movies, and use action movie logic. That's a difficult mindset for me to comprehend.

D&D's "big weapons do more damage, are better" thing seems like classic modern action movie logic, to me. Hence the current poster for 'Spectre' where the old James Bond actors have Walther PPKs and the current one is toting an enormous assault rifle - he looks like he's overcompensating to me.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You seriously think 5e D&D is a simulationist game modelling reality?

I thought my James Bond example would get through, but apparently not.

It's not modeling our reality, certainly, but it is modeling an objective reality. There are no terms for narrative causality within the realms of 5E. For what it is, it's thoroughly scientific, all the way day.

 

[S'mon]

It's not modeling our reality, certainly, but it is modeling an objective reality.

OK, err... so in both D&D and Twilight: 2000 (very simulationist WW3 game) there are no rules for broken bones and lingering injuries. No sucking chest wounds will be inflicted on characters in-game per the rules. So the people in the game world act as if sucking chest wounds don't exist? In my 1990 version of T:2000 a .45 ACP pistol round and a 9mm pistol round both do d6 damage, but in real life some shooters prefer pistols chambered for the .45 ACP (eg Colt .45) for its greater stopping power. So the player whose character uses a .45 for its greater stopping power is doing it wrong?

IRL a mace and a warhammer are extremely similar anti-plate-armour weapons, with very similar effectiveness. Warhammer needs fractionally more skill and has better penetration from a good strike; mace has better 'grip' on the target's plate armour and is more reliable. There are good reasons to take either. The mace is only a tiny fraction easier to use. 5e doesn't model this, and judging by the pg 147 picture 5e warhammers are closer to Thorgrim's maul in Conan the Barbarian.

Edit: I guess maybe you'd say T:2000 is trying & failing to model our reality, whereas 5e is
successfully modelling its own made-up reality?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

D&D's "big weapons do more damage, are better" thing seems like classic modern action movie logic, to me. Hence the current poster for 'Spectre' where the old James Bond actors have Walther PPKs and the current one is toting an enormous assault rifle - he looks like he's overcompensating to me.

It makes perfect sense, if you consider "damage" to primarily represent physical trauma. A bigger sword (or gun) inflicts more physical trauma than a smaller one. It's a good thing everyone is wearing body armor. Or is magic. Or both.

Things get weird quickly if you try to correlate HP with anything intangible, like luck or skill or plot armor. That's definitely a topic for another discussion, though.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

OK, err... so in both D&D and Twilight: 2000 (very simulationist WW3 game) there are no rules for broken bones and lingering injuries. No sucking chest wounds will be inflicted on characters in-game per the rules. So the people in the game world act as if sucking chest wounds don't exist?

I'm sure that most chest wounds suck, but in this case, I think it has to do with the individuals we're trying to model. Every single character who is likely to get in a fight, in D&D world, is wearing armor or is magic. Sometimes both. The Paladin doesn't suffer massive trauma, because she's wearing plate armor. The Wizard doesn't suffer massive trauma, because she's magic. The Barbarian doesn't suffer massive trauma, because she's supernaturally tough.

Maybe normal people suffer crippling injuries, but that's not the primary target of our ruleset. If some unarmored muggle gets shanked, then sure, suck away with that chest wound (on the off chance that the victim isn't outright dead). The DM should probably ad hoc whatever makes sense at the time.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

If you absolutely don't want to remodel the encounters based on your party, you could also simply increase the party size. If instead of 4 min-maxers you have 5 PCs that are not all fully optimized, it will still end up with about the same challenge without you needing to adjust the encounters.