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

[MG.0]

If, as has been suggested, the only thing that matters is sheer survivability, then only a complete and utter moron would be adventuring in the first place. Far safer to stay at home I would think than suicidally face an endless array of potentially lethal threats. Whether or not you are carrying a mace or a warhammer is way, way, way beside the point.

One problem I have with assuming that every fighter trained in martial weapons would always be able to distinguish minute differences between every possible weapon type is that assumption is making a TON of unreasonable assumptions about the game world. Namely that figters really are trained to supremacy on every possible weapon in the world and have complete empirical knowledge of the relative worth of each in battle. In any world I've ever run, that's lunacy. In most worlds, fighters would likely be trained in a handful of weapons and have a passing familiarity with some of the more common alternatives.

Beyond that, supposing that every person who might find themselves on an adventure in such a world is indeed a hardened mercenary with an ultra-precise and unfailing knowledge of the relative worths of every weapon is also lunacy.

...and beyond even that, supposing that every not-so-knowledgeable person on an adventure receives the benefit of a fighter type to "helpfully" point out the idiocy and suicidal nature of using a minutely less effective weapon, it is also lunacy to assume that all of those people would be willing to immediately switch weapons, no matter the reasons for their initial choice or the nature of their character.

 

[Shasarak]

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.

Longer reach is probably even more important - but not in DnD.

 

[Phantarch]

I feel like others are mocking me for wanting to RP in my RPG.

Oh, the irony...

 

[werecorpse]

PCs don't track averages when it comes to kills......

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

Many pcs in the games I play track who is the best at killing bad guys a la Legolas & Gimli. And I wasn't saying average kills I was saying given the average of dice one may notice over time that a longsword packs more punch.

I don't agree with Saelorn's position, partly because of the absolutism that it is clear to all what weapon is better. Neither do I accept the absolutism that it is "just not noticeable". My position is a character may react to the evidence before it. If it shows maces as being utterly rubbishy compared to war hammers (and it might) then go for it.

The gaming world is variable.

I haven't answered the quiz yet but my answer is that my pcs are somewhat cognisant of the rules but not to the level of Saelorn. They act according to their own experience and tales of those they trust, not the accumulated wisdom of someone who "knows the rules"

 

[OB1]

I'm smack in the middle of Mostly and A Little. I like to use the rules to get the most out of whatever crazy concept I've come up with. Like a Forest Gnome Wild Sorcerer that likes to Grapple or a Dragonborn Rouge Professor who is smart, charming and likes to use a whip. Once I've come up with the concept or ability combination that I'd like to use regularly, I use the rules to make me as effective as possible at doing it. So my gnome spends a lot of treasure on potions of hill giant strength and my Dragonborn will need to take a feat to get the most out of the whip. It's not about making the most effective possible character, it's about making my character the most effective they can be. Another example is that my Gnome only has a 14 Charisma, but chooses spells where the modifier doesn't matter (like enlarge, alter self, magic missle, etc) that makes him effective in combat.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't agree with Saelorn's position, partly because of the absolutism that it is clear to all what weapon is better. Neither do I accept the absolutism that it is "just not noticeable". My position is a character may react to the evidence before it. If it shows maces as being utterly rubbishy compared to war hammers (and it might) then go for it.

D&D is not the Middle Earth movie. How is the guy with the long sword or short sword suppose to gauge a 20 hit point hit that "misses" or just causes a scratch? Hit points are abstract and unless you're playing that hit points are 100% meat, it's impossible for a PC to gauge how much he's done to a creature until the final hit that puts it down.

 

[werecorpse]

D&D is not the Middle Earth movie. How is the guy with the long sword or short sword suppose to gauge a 20 hit point hit that "misses" or just causes a scratch? Hit points are abstract and unless you're playing that hit points are 100% meat, it's impossible for a PC to gauge how much he's done to a creature until the final hit that puts it down.

Kinda like in real life. With observable phenomena.

Specifically, in a combat wth a bunch of low level mooks like orcs at the battle of helms deep, at the end of a battle the one who killed the most wins.

It doesn't have to be statistically likely to be a result.

 

[Maxperson]

Kinda like in real life. With observable phenomena.

I just observed Mike Tyson swish air. Was that a hit or a miss? If it was a hit, how much damage did you just observe? Now he was just blocked? Was that a hit or a miss? If it was a hit, how much damage did you observe?

 

[werecorpse]

I would not make any assessment as to quality of fighter of this Mike Tyson character from observing one swing. However if I observed him engage in say 10 bouts against reputable fighters and each time he beat them I would say he was a very competent fighter.

Observable phenomena.

How about you? Would you say after 10 bouts it's a complete mystery as to his competence?

 

[Maxperson]

I would not make any assessment as to quality of fighter of this Mike Tyson character from observing one swing. However if I observed him engage in say 10 bouts against reputable fighters and each time he beat them I would say he was a very competent fighter.

Just like all professional boxes of the caliber he would face. That's a vague assessment and not anywhere close to being able to discern 5 hit points as opposed to 6.

How about you? Would you say after 10 bouts it's a complete mystery as to his competence?

Sure, I can vaguely say he's competent. I can't discern how many hit points of damage his jab does compared to his uppercut, though. Not a chance in hell of that happening. Nor can I say if he's +2 better or worse than Holyfield.