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

[Maxperson]

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.

No they aren't. They're visible and understandable to the player who can see the numbers clearly. That 1 point difference in average damage between a short sword and a longsword is so trivial that it wouldn't even be noticed by a that fighter against the goblins. It's less noticeable against monsters with more hit points.

The difference is so minor that I would question any player who would harshly judge someone who picked a short sword over a longsword for story reasons. You have claimed that you aren't all about the numbers, but every single post of yours shows that the numbers are all you care about. Story reasons have great meaning, yet you demean them and those that use them, and you point to weak justifications to do so.

 

[KahlessNestor]

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.

You're assuming that describes all adventurers. But it could be that Max the Butcher uses a cleaver (hand axe) when he gets caught up in the adventure because that's what he knows how to use. "Fighter" is just the class that best represents to the player how Max the Butcher would work. He's not going to know that a longsword is "better". Or, rather, he might, but he doesn't have the foggiest idea how to use one, despite his "class proficiency". "Adventurer" isn't always a profession. (Bilbo and Frodo, Regis the Halfling)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No they aren't. They're visible and understandable to the player who can see the numbers clearly. That 1 point difference in average damage between a short sword and a longsword is so trivial that it wouldn't even be noticed by a that fighter against the goblins. It's less noticeable against monsters with more hit points.

Your character knows vastly more about the world, and how it works, than the player does. The rules in the book are merely a pale reflection of the reality which that character lives every day.

Edit: To me, it seems like you're not taking your RP seriously. And that's fine, I guess - you can enjoy this as just a game where you win or die and it doesn't matter. It's just frustrating to me, because I do take the RP seriously, and I feel like others are mocking me for wanting to RP in my RPG. Sure, it's a game, but it's not just a game.

I don't think there's anything else to say that could possibly convince anyone at this point. I'm giving up on this topic, and moving to less hostile territory.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Not every wound is recoverable RAW - sometimes they're immediately fatal.

 

[pemerton]

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

I don't have a strong view on whether or not the PC can notice it - I don't share [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s very strong views on the degree of correlation between mechanical events and processes and in-fiction events and processes.

But I think it's meaningful from the point of view of gameplay. 4e had a feat that added +1 to damage. 3E had a feat that added +2 to damage, but thought it was special enough that only fighters could take it.

I really think that, if the game doesn't wan't you to care about the difference between weapon damage dice, it shouldn't have that difference. (As OD&D didn't, except the d4 for MUs' daggers, which is a class penalty that players are expected to care about.)

 

[werecorpse]

Hey Saelorn I didn't mean to be hostile and I accept that if it was plainly clear to a character that a certain weapon was superior to another my character would use it. That makes sense. But my point is that a characters perception sometimes colours reality.

What matters is the evidence, not the truth. I don't think it demonstrates good roleplaying to assume your character knows with certainty the range of damage a weapon can inflict. To me good roleplaying is when a character acts according to what is known to them.

If the most deadly warrior in my characters town is a 9th level rogue who uses two short swords. My character doesn't know what class he is and just thinks mastery of short swords is deadly. If he then uses a short sword and finds he kills more enemies than the longsword wielding guy why would he switch?

Sure the long sword guy might be better at chopping wood, but so is the guy wielding a wood axe but I want to survive in combat.

It is likely (given averages) that over time I will suspect my weapon is inferior and maybe give the longsword a go - that's fine. But if on trying a longsword in a couple of combats my character rolls a bunch of misses or really low damage the evidence will suggest to my character that longswords suck.

Why is it then bad roleplaying to stick to the shortsword?

 

[Maxperson]

Your character knows vastly more about the world, and how it works, than the player does. The rules in the book are merely a pale reflection of the reality which that character lives every day.

Edit: To me, it seems like you're not taking your RP seriously. And that's fine, I guess - you can enjoy this as just a game where you win or die and it doesn't matter. It's just frustrating to me, because I do take the RP seriously, and I feel like others are mocking me for wanting to RP in my RPG. Sure, it's a game, but it's not just a game.

It appears from your posts that you are weakly justifying your personal desires to only be the best at everything and calling that justification RP. The trivial amount of damage is not noticeable by a PC. You even had to pick one of the very few monsters that can "prove" your point. You couldn't pick kobold because they are too easily killed and you couldn't pick hobgoblins or orcs because they have too many hit points. You were stuck with goblins, and even then they'd have to kill dozens with one weapon and turn around and almost immediately do so again with the other weapon. Then they'd need to test that a few more times to be sure that it wasn't a fluke test. That sort of testing just doesn't happen.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't have a strong view on whether or not the PC can notice it - I don't share [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s very strong views on the degree of correlation between mechanical events and processes and in-fiction events and processes.

But I think it's meaningful from the point of view of gameplay. 4e had a feat that added +1 to damage. 3E had a feat that added +2 to damage, but thought it was special enough that only fighters could take it.

I really think that, if the game doesn't wan't you to care about the difference between weapon damage dice, it shouldn't have that difference. (As OD&D didn't, except the d4 for MUs' daggers, which is a class penalty that players are expected to care about.)

I'm not saying you should care for yourself about the damage dice you pick for your weapons. I'm saying you shouldn't be caring about what others pick for their characters. The difference between d6 and d8 is trivial in combat.

3e specialization is also a very different beast. It really isn't +2. Between critical modifiers, critical threat ranges, critical threat range improvements, and all the other ways for fighters to stack bonus damage, that +2 was often +4 and the total damage from bonuses on a crit was huge. 4e I really can't speak to, but I doubt I'd have used a feat for a +1.

 

[Maxperson]

It is likely (given averages) that over time I will suspect my weapon is inferior and maybe give the longsword a go - that's fine. But if on trying a longsword in a couple of combats my character rolls a bunch of misses or really low damage the evidence will suggest to my character that longswords suck.

PCs don't track averages when it comes to kills, though. When it comes down to it, there really isn't a way to even do so. It's not like you face off against one frost giant with 138 hit points and the other fighter with a long sword faces off against the other frost giant with 138 hit points and you compare how many swings it took to kill each of them while the rest of the party watches. Even if you do, what happens if your DM rolls monster hit points individually and you are each facing off against frost giants with different hit point totals?

The trivial difference between d6 and d8 is just not noticeable to the PCs in the face of the reality of game combat.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Your character knows vastly more about the world, and how it works, than the player does. The rules in the book are merely a pale reflection of the reality which that character lives every day.

Edit: To me, it seems like you're not taking your RP seriously. And that's fine, I guess - you can enjoy this as just a game where you win or die and it doesn't matter. It's just frustrating to me, because I do take the RP seriously, and I feel like others are mocking me for wanting to RP in my RPG. Sure, it's a game, but it's not just a game.

I don't think there's anything else to say that could possibly convince anyone at this point. I'm giving up on this topic, and moving to less hostile territory.

I take RP VERY seriously, but I still know its just a game.

If you line up 5 adventurers, and 1 has daggers and leather armor, the next has a chain shirt and a short sword and long bow, the next has 2 rapiers, the next a long sword and shield with plate armor, and the final is your own PC with the best weapon choice he can't judge who will do the most damage... some of these others have sneak attack, and some don't. SOme criton a 19+ others don't...