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

[Phantarch]

Nor can I say if he's +2 better or worse than Holyfield.

But you CAN say that he is +1 ear over Holyfield...

 

[werecorpse]

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.



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.

I have never suggested anything of the sort. I agree, this is what I have been saying.

Now if you are talking about different weapons (which is what the discussion is about) all you might believe (note might & believe) is that one is a bit better. Not how many points better, just seems to do the job a bit better. If you believe that, and you have no reason not to use it, and you are fighting for your life, you would probably choose it.

 

[Maxperson]

I have never suggested anything of the sort. I agree, this is what I have been saying.

Now if you are talking about different weapons (which is what the discussion is about) all you might believe (note might & believe) is that one is a bit better. Not how many points better, just seems to do the job a bit better. If you believe that, and you have no reason not to use it, and you are fighting for your life, you would probably choose it.

Sure, if you allow that you can also believe that the short sword is also the better weapon. That's very different than Saelorn's statements that a PC can somehow identify a 1 point of difference in weapons.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Saelorn is in the camp of class being a in-game fiction known quantity. If you are a fighter, everyone knows what that means and you belong to a group or organization of fighters that provides training and support to that class. There's never a situation where someone would confuse a fighter with a rogue (or at least, that's how I understand the position, open to correction). So a rogue doing far more damage with a short sword than a fighter is understood to be because of the rogue's ability to sneak attack, and this is known to all or most within the game world (or, at a minimum, to the fighters and rogues). Further, in this construct, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the fighters get together and reason out the most optimum strategies and trade information to build such things.

Also, there's the point that if you have game mechanics such as class as known quantities in-game, that it's not very far to go to assume that weapon mechanics can also be readily observed in-game as well. So this whole thing really boils down to a different, if related, gameplay preference question. Saelorn prefers game mechanics to be observable within the game fiction.

I disagree with the underlying premise Saelorn is using (that game mechanics are observable things in-game), so it stands to reason that I disagree with his position here. But I my preferences are not his, and under his preferences, his position is not just rational, but inevitable.

 

[Phantarch]

I disagree with the underlying premise Saelorn is using (that game mechanics are observable things in-game), so it stands to reason that I disagree with his position here. But I my preferences are not his, and under his preferences, his position is not just rational, but inevitable.

This. Which is why I haven't entered into the debate on the underlying assumptions. But even if I were to accept the premise, I still find the elitist prejudice inexcusably rude in any game. Additionally, the position was stated as though it were the only possible interpretation of the rules and any other viewpoint was idiocy. Also inexcusably rude.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Really I could pick mostly or a little. OTOH I don't NEED to have an optimized character. I'd rather have a character that fits the concept I want to play, regardless. Of course if the character is completely gimped, and particularly if that isn't part of the concept, I'd say the game is failing me. Truth is, fun for me is a pretty flexible concept.

 

[the Jester]

I'd answer the poll with the "A little" option, except that I do sometimes make the ol' (relatively) low Str and Dex, high Int fighter type. Honestly, I really dislike it when a poll question and thread title don't align- character optimization has very little to do with being cognizant of the game's rules.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'd answer the poll with the "A little" option, except that I do sometimes make the ol' (relatively) low Str and Dex, high Int fighter type. Honestly, I really dislike it when a poll question and thread title don't align- character optimization has very little to do with being cognizant of the game's rules.

Right, I guess I kind of assumed he meant "how much do you keep the rules in mind?" vs "do you even know the rules?", but maybe I misinterpreted the poll... lol.

 

[Noctem]

Suddenly I'm unsure if I misinterpreted the poll or not myself.. lol

 

[occam]

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.

This is inarguably true, and it is reflected in all fantasy fiction. Like how those worthless hobbits were left behind in Bree to be mugged before they cried their way back to the Shire. And then that Gimli, offering his axe! Sheesh, what was that, a battleaxe? Get a shield, or use a greataxe, you moron! And those human "fighters", Boromir and Aragorn? What kind of so-called armor were those suicidal maniacs wearing (or not wearing)?

That's why the Council gave the One Ring to Legolas and Gandalf, the only decently optimized characters of the whole bunch. The rest of them were idiots.