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

[Marandahir]

A little.

I try to choose spells, equipment, feats, etc based off what fits the vision of the character I have in mind. But if an option really is condemned by the CharOps community (which I glance in on now and then), I'll see if I can decide on an alternative option that is still flavourfully appropriate.

The great thing about 5e is that there are very few truly trap-options, and when I run as DM, I try to make houserule fixes to those few and far between traps.

 

[Maxperson]

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?)

I don't have to. That was more of a humor post than anything else. What is true, though, is that the damage difference between a d6 and a d8 is so trivial that it probably couldn't be noticed by a PC.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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?

That reminds me of 2nd edition gladiators. I always thought it was so cool that they were proficient in all weapons and would never be at a disadvantage no matter what they were forced to fight with. That's way cooler (IMO) than a PC who fights only with one weapon (my Greatsword!) in every fight of his whole career.

I kind of regret the fact that 5E doesn't have you choose specific weapon proficiencies any more.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What is true, though, is that the damage difference between a d6 and a d8 is so trivial that it probably couldn't be noticed by a PC.

That really, really, really depends on your class and the other circumstances you have going on.

A rogue might not notice the difference, because most of its damage comes from Sneak Attack. You could justify a dagger in place of a rapier, just on the off chance that you might want to throw it. And honestly, the target is probably dead either way.

A level 1 fighter deals about [W]+4 damage with an attack. Goblins are a type of enemy that a level 1 fighter is likely to encounter. Goblins have 7HP. Against a goblin, the fighter is significantly more likely to inflict a lethal wound with a warhammer than with a mace - it's a difference between 50% lethality and 62.5% lethality with every swing. Over the course of a day, and a couple of dozen goblins, the effect should be noticeable.

And that's based purely on results. That's saying nothing for the fact that the fighter can see the impact caused by the weapon, and see that the warhammer is capable of inflicting greater impact than the mace can. Even against a target with 7HP, dealing 12 points of damage should be much more devastating than dealing 8 points of damage, if these numbers mean anything at all within the world.

 

[Maxperson]

That really, really, really depends on your class and the other circumstances you have going on.

A rogue might not notice the difference, because most of its damage comes from Sneak Attack. You could justify a dagger in place of a rapier, just on the off chance that you might want to throw it. And honestly, the target is probably dead either way.

A level 1 fighter deals about [W]+4 damage with an attack. Goblins are a type of enemy that a level 1 fighter is likely to encounter. Goblins have 7HP. Against a goblin, the fighter is significantly more likely to inflict a lethal wound with a warhammer than with a mace - it's a difference between 50% lethality and 62.5% lethality with every swing. Over the course of a day, and a couple of dozen goblins, the effect should be noticeable.

And that's based purely on results. That's saying nothing for the fact that the fighter can see the impact caused by the weapon, and see that the warhammer is capable of inflicting greater impact than the mace can. Even against a target with 7HP, dealing 12 points of damage should be much more devastating than dealing 8 points of damage, if these numbers mean anything at all within the world.

You act as if that fighter is going to fight a couple dozen goblins with a short sword, then again almost immediately with a long sword. Then do it again 3 or 4 more times and compare all the numbers. That's the only way he's going to even have a chance to notice a single damage point difference. And that's with goblins. As the party faces things with more and more hit points, it's going to be even less noticeable.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You act as if that fighter is going to fight a couple dozen goblins with a short sword, then again almost immediately with a long sword.

You act as if there's only one fighter in the world, who never talks with anyone.

But really, the results-based evidence is just the confirmation step. A real fighter, proficient in dozens of weapons, should be able to tell that the heavier weapon has greater stopping power. It's not rocket science.

 

[KahlessNestor]

The heavier weapon is also slower, which in reality counts quite a bit. It requires greater effort. Heavy blades were unlikely to kill a fully armored opponent. They wereused to bash open armor (a mace or warhammer was better ) and then you knock them down. Then you or your squire or footman coming behind slipped in a dagger.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The heavier weapon is also slower, which in reality counts quite a bit. It requires greater effort.

Not within the game world. Not appreciably, on any scale that matters. You're letting real-life baggage color your perception of the fantasy world. Maybe that's why one is harder to use, requiring a greater proficiency to use effectively, but it's a true fact of that reality that you can compensate for slowness (by having proficiency) where you cannot compensate for heft.

 

[Maxperson]

You act as if there's only one fighter in the world, who never talks with anyone.

But really, the results-based evidence is just the confirmation step. A real fighter, proficient in dozens of weapons, should be able to tell that the heavier weapon has greater stopping power. It's not rocket science.

So what your saying is...

The 2 pound hand axe doing a d6 has half the stopping power of the 4 pound d6 trident. And that 18 pound d10 pike has 3 times the stopping power of the 6 pound d10 glaive, which of course has less stopping power than the 10 pound d8 club.

It's not rocket science.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So what your saying is...

The 2 pound hand axe doing a d6 has half the stopping power of the 4 pound d6 trident. And that 18 pound d10 pike has 3 times the stopping power of the 6 pound d10 glaive, which of course has less stopping power than the 10 pound d8 club.

I was specifically talking about longswords and short swords in that example. I probably could have used different language to convey that point.

Whatever the properties of the various weapons are, which inherently cause them to deal the amounts of damage that they do, those qualities are visible to and understandable by someone who makes a living in using those weapons to cause damage.