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

[pemerton]

I tend to think that if a game has rules, they're worth taking seriously. And that if you want people to make choices based on "colour"/"flavour" rather than mechanical effectiveness, then you should design your game so that the different flavours/colours are equally mechanically effective.

But doing the latter would requiring departing much further from traditional D&D-isms than even 4e did (the closest 4e gets to this is via mechanics like paladins using CHA for melee attacks, and many primal classes having ad hoc class features that boost the AC from their light armour without needing a high INT or DEX).

 

[wedgeski]

Excellent poll options. I chose "Mostly."

Creating a mechanically effective character is a neat challenge, but I feel these days the rule-books guide you away from the most egregious errors. I don't personally have the patience to dig out more than the most obvious synergies.

 

[Minigiant]

Personally I'm a "Min-Max the silly builds" guy.

I take an unoptimized offbrand build or concept then powergame it to hell. The nonoptimized choice in the idea allows me to grind for power without feeling like I'm fighting the fun.

Shillelagh rangers, half orc axe-wizards, nekkid barbarians, and Str-based brawny rogues.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For me, at least, I feel like I very evenly split the difference between the two camps. I definitely winnow options, leverage numbers, calculate, seek guidance from the wise (or, at least, hopefully wise) sages who have crunched the numbers before me, and otherwise exert cognitive effort toward making my character as effective as possible....within my concept. Sometimes, that concept will require that narrative trump effectiveness, sometimes the reverse. In the end, based on the descriptions of the options, I voted #2 ("Mostly"); had those descriptions not been provided, I would've voted #1 based on the wording of the poll itself.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm not saying it was wrong, because you were just a kid, but what you are describing is not role-playing. You were making decisions based on your own, out-of-character opinion of what is cool. Role-playing is defined as making decisions from the character's perspective.

The in-character perspective would be to look at what the character knows, and determine what the character would do based on that information. The character can observe that a long sword causes more grievous wounds than a short sword does, increasing the chance of felling an opponent, without a meaningful depreciation of applicability. The character can see that muscle mass improves the ability to wield a long sword, in ways that nimbleness does not, and thus chooses to exercise in the appropriate fashion such as to gain Strength +2 upon hitting level 4.

The characters are aware of the in-game reality which the rules reflect, and given that I won't make a character who is suicidally incompetent, there is no conflict between Optimization and Role-Playing. A character who chooses a sub-optimal weapon, merely because it is "cool", is a fool and a liability that shall not be suffered by the other individuals in the group.

Seriously, building an incompetent character is a jerk move to everyone else at the table. Don't do that. If you fail to kill the dragon because your sword only does a d6 instead of a d8, and then the dragon breathes fire and kills the whole party, then that TPK is entirely your fault and you should feel bad. There are millions of ways to build and play a character that isn't incompetent; it is not a meaningful limit on your freedom of expression.

I suppose we have diametrically opposed views concerning what constitutes a jerk move. Telling another player how to run their character ranks pretty high.

I'm not the one you need to convince that your character is competent. It's the other adventurers in the game who need to be able to trust that you aren't a liability. Nobody likes an escort quest, and if you're not willing to carry your own weight, then there's no reason you should get any of the reward.

Although, as far as 5E is concerned, a mace is a perfectly fine choice for a Cleric of the Life domain. For contrast, a Fighter would be fantastically stupid to wield a mace rather than a warhammer, and such an individual would be laughed out of the guild if anyone ever witnessed such foolishness.

You mean the ' D&D IS SERIOUS BUSINESS' guild? Yeah I wouldn't join that in the first place.

Weapons are tools and a skilled fighter knows that they all have their place. From an in-character perspective would you use a weapon that you have never practiced with because some know it all tells you that it is better than the one you have proven yourself in battle with?

The question is inherently flawed. Optimization and Role-Playing aren't better or worse or mutually exclusive or anything. Optimization and Role-Playing are two words for the same activity - investment - which are at the opposite end of the sliding scale from not caring at all because it's just a game.

The first poll option - "Completely. It's a game, and I want the best character within the rules." - demonstrates a completely alien mindset. It doesn't fit anywhere along that spectrum.

If the DM isn't specifically tailoring the encounters to match the party, or even if the DM is tailoring the encounters and the luck happens to swing significantly, then the entire party can die. It can totally happen. We've all seen it. Less commonly, or more commonly if the DM is cheating, you get an encounter that is extremely close and actually does come down to a single die roll.

The thing is, if you know that you might find yourself in that sort of situation, why would you ever accept any more risk than you absolutely need to? Why accept an 11% chance of death, if one simple choice could get that down to a 10% chance? The only possible answer is that the character is insane and somehow wants to die. And there's no reason why any sane individual would allow such a liability into the party. End of story.

A higher damage die weapon is not always the smartest choice. Fred the fighter always uses a longsword because d8. Bob the fighter uses several different weapons because battle is fluid.

Fred and Bob fight. Fred has his long sword and Bob has a dagger. They fight in a phone booth- Fred dies.

For a lot of people, the escapism in an RPG comes in the form of a power fantasy - we want to be powerful, so we play characters who are powerful. It's more true of D&D, in general, than it is of something like Call of Cthulhu.

Not everyone plays to power trip. Some people actually just enjoy playing a certain concept. Don't forget that having fun is the end goal here. If you have to play a character that you find less fun than another in order to be "successful" then I hate to break it to you but you have already lost.

First of all, I would never use such language. As invested as I might be, it's just a game, and we're all trying to have fun here. TPK's happen, and there's a chance we could have died even if they were using the objectively correct weapon.

Second of all, nobody else at the table should have to say anything, because that player should already understand what they did wrong and feel guilty enough already. They gambled, and lost, and everyone paid the price. They know what they did. They know it's their fault.

Third of all, it's unlikely that this character and/or player would last long enough at our table in order to endanger the party in such a manner. If the player is that bad at melee combat as to actually make that decision, then the character will probably have died against some lesser threat, and been replaced by a Ranger or something.

My STR 12 DEX 20 wood elf fighter used a scimitar instead of a long sword. Are you seriously saying that a d8+1 would be objectively superior to a d6+5? You should check your math.

No, because that's an insufficient sample size to generate any meaningful data. Independent testing will confirm that the longbow is actually more powerful.

Seriously, take both weapons and fire into an archery target. Once you've removed the distractions of the battlefield, it should be plain for everyone to see that the longbow arrow has greater penetration.

If we remove the distractions of the battlefield the comparison becomes pointless. The whole idea revolves around stupid decisions that get people killed. That only happens in battle (generally).

So when your party is crawling through the narrow kobold warrens with a ceiling height of less than 5 feet, please respect the guy with the short bow doing a d6 damage compared to the 0 damage being done by the guy dragging a useless 6 foot stick behind him.

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.

If wounding in D&D had anything at all to do with the laws of physics , then the spear would be near the top of the effective weapons list.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Maxperson]

No matter how awesome he is - level 20, straight twenties across the board, max roll for every hit die - he would always be better if he was using a more effective weapon. That he doesn't do everything in his power to minimize our chance of death (barring unreasonable resource expenditure) means that he's not taking this seriously, and can't be trusted.

It's not the actual in-game effect of using the objectively inferior weapon, as much as it is the thought process which would cause someone to make that decision. There are plenty of reasons to use a mace instead of a warhammer - proficiency, magical enhancement, availability - and this person just needs to give one good reason to justify making this decision.

Wanting to look cool is not a good enough reason to justify the increased risk of death. Neither is superstition, or heritage, or anything like that. Those are all meaningless in the face of an uncaring world.

From my character's view, if we're going underground where there are often very narrow areas, I'm going to probably leave you behind. My life is at stake here and I don't want to risk it on someone who is going to be useless in a fight because there's no room to swing a large weapon.

Short sword or bust!!!

 

[Maxperson]

Wanting to look cool is not a good enough reason to justify the increased risk of death. Neither is superstition, or heritage, or anything like that. Those are all meaningless in the face of an uncaring world.

This is false. Those are very good reasons to use a weapon that is "inferior" (put in quotes because d6 vs d8 is trivial).

 

[KahlessNestor]

I picked #2 "Mostly". I think I'm more somewhere between 2 and 3, but I often find myself trolling the guides to find out best options and so forth. But I'm not often min-maxing because, while I don't usually start with a concept, I will randomize class and race and background. I mean, why can't a dwarf be a wizard? 5e makes it a lot easier to be a less synergistic combination on such choices.

Regarding the argument about inferior weapon choices, I present Syrio Forel. Unarmored, with only a wooden training sword, killed 5 fully armored knights.

The reality is, the only question your character should be asking another character in-game is: Do you know how to use that thing? Most fighters actually aren't fully trained in every weapon on some list in a game book (meta). So if a character shows up with a mace, your character should just assume that's what he was trained in and is best at, not "you're a fighter, so that means you're trained with longswords". How does your character know that?

 

[CawoodPublishing]

I think the story still leads everything. Whatever serves the story comes before the rules. Continuing combat that should be over is a big one for me. If the fight loses momentum, I end it as quickly as possible...regardless of the stats and rules. However, having the basic rules is a very useful structure.