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

[The Crimson Binome]

I picked the first option because I don't believe that I need to pick subpar options in order to roleplay my character or vice versa and refluffing exists for a reason. If I want to say I use a mighty waraxe but want the mechanical effects of a greatsword, I'm totally within my rights to refluff it as long as I don't change anything mechanical. I think some of the people posting in this thread are forgetting these facts. There's nothing wrong with knowing how to build mechanically the best character for what you want to achieve, nothing about doing that stops you from also roleplaying however you want or whatever else.

Some games are big on allowing the player to re-fluff anything so that it looks like anything else, as long as you don't change the mechanics. As always, the GM is final arbiter on what is allowed or not.

The way 5E is presented, though, re-fluffing isn't suggested or encouraged. In the sort of representational system as which 5E presents itself, form and function are irrevocably linked. A warhammer does more damage than a mace because, in spite of being harder to use, it's more effective at injuring an opponent to the point of incapacity. These are inherent properties which distinguish the two from each other. You can't have an axe with the stats of a greatsword, because the fact that it's an axe means it has axe stats rather than greatsword stats.

 

[ExploderWizard]

One oddball who picks an inferior weapon is telling everyone else in the party that they don't care if they all live or die. That's algebraically worse than every other player just telling the one player to not make a stupid character.

Hmm... much you have to learn about fun. Hint I will give, yes? Life? death? Unimportant they are compared to a good time. Too serious you take the game, yes.


........I cannot train this one. [cough] cough]...too much stick up the posterior..to begin the training.

 

[Noctem]

Isn't that a bit...cheating? Greatsword and great axe have mechanical difference in damage dice (with the sword being a bit better.). By your logic I will just refluff ny dagger so it hits like a greatsword.

If the axe option wasn't there you would have firmer ground to stand on, but if I were your DM I would call shenanigans.

You missed the part where I specifically said that you can refluff as long as you don't make any mechanical changes

 

[KahlessNestor]

But you are making a mechanical change. You say you are wilding a greataxe (1d12), but you're giving it greatsword damage (2d6), which is mechanically better damage.

 

[S'mon]

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.

No. Guns and swords are not the same. A bigger gun does do more damage, because the bullet has more energy. A bigger sword has superior reach; in D&D terms it should have a to-hit bonus. A two-handed sword may do more damage than a 1-handed sword because of the two hands wielding it, but a 1-handed longsword does no more damage than a 1-handed gladius; the wound cavity is no larger. A sword can easily overpenetrate - doing more than optimal penetration, which adds no more effectiveness. Whereas a high velocity bullet shocks the tissue it strikes, so more energy is better, this is not the case for melee weapons (or arrows).

 

[TwoSix]

You can't rebut [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s claim that optimising is important by pointing out that sometimes the optimal solution isn't the weapon with the highest damage die. I think Saelorn obviously is aware of, and agrees with, that. For instance, Saelorn is going to agree that in ranged combat a d6 ranged weapon is superior to a d10 melee weapon.

Likewise, Saelorn will agree that for a low-DEX, high-STR character a heavy thrown weapon may be superior to a missile weapon even if the former has a lower damage die.

On the issue of fighting in confined spaces, that doesn't rebut the optimisation thesis either. It's just setting up new parameters that constrain the optimal solution! One complexity is that D&D's rules for fighting in confined spaces are not very well developed. (I don't think 3E or 4e have any such rules at all, do they?)

Not to mention that "versatility" isn't a roleplaying concept, it's simply optimizing for situations where leveraging a chosen weapon type (and spending character build resources on such) has distinct disadvantages. For example, random acquisition of powerful magical weapons, or encounters designed to nullify particular weapon types (like flying monsters versus melee, or skeletons versus swords.) Rather unsurprisingly, these situations often arose in old-school games.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A two-handed sword may do more damage than a 1-handed sword because of the two hands wielding it, but a 1-handed longsword does no more damage than a 1-handed gladius; the wound cavity is no larger.

Out of curiosity, what are you testing this against? Our common targets, as far as the game world is concerned, include 1) armored/magic humanoids who will not be penetrated by the blade; and 2) large/fantastic creatures who won't be overpenetrated by either type of sword.

Once you start talking about a wound cavity, you've gone beyond the basic assumptions of gameplay, so it's no wonder that the model stops making sense. An unarmored humanoid, or a strike at an unarmored part of an otherwise-protected humanoid, isn't something that our ruleset is intended to model.

I mean, I get what you're saying, but I still think the bigger weapon would cause more damage when you limit it to the assumptions it is intended to represent. It would probably be more realistic if the number of hands in use was a greater factor than the size of the blade (is it is in 3.x), but that gets down to the limitations on complexity within a playable system.

 

[S'mon]

Once you start talking about a wound cavity, you've gone beyond the basic assumptions of gameplay

Cite?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Cite?

Again, this is getting significantly off-topic, but if we're intended to describe these injuries as impalement upon a sword that overpenetrates the victim then that seems somewhat incongruous with the ability to recover from such a wound with just one night of rest.

 

[Sunseeker]

Mostly. I try to make the mathematically best mechanical representation of the character concept I have in mind. Character concepts often have strengths and weaknesses that area at odds with the class I envision them to be. Not talking about an 8 Str Barbarian here, but like a 14 Str fighter who has a 16 in Int because he's more of the commander than the grunt.