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

[Maxperson]

The characters are aware of the in-game reality which the rules reflect, and given that I won't make a character who is suicidally incompetent, there is no conflict between Optimization and Role-Playing. A character who chooses a sub-optimal weapon, merely because it is "cool", is a fool and a liability that shall not be suffered by the other individuals in the group.

Hey, you're right. In the real world long swords do more damage than short swords, so therefore short swords don't exist because only a fool would use one. Right? Or maybe there's more to deciding what to use than mere numbers dealing with damage.

Seriously, building an incompetent character is a jerk move to everyone else at the table. Don't do that. If you fail to kill the dragon because your sword only does a d6 instead of a d8, and then the dragon breathes fire and kills the whole party, then that TPK is entirely your fault and you should feel bad. There are millions of ways to build and play a character that isn't incompetent; it is not a meaningful limit on your freedom of expression.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. A d6 over a d8 isn't a big deal, and if the party is going to TPK over that trivial amount of damage, there are much bigger issues going on than short sword vs. long sword.

Go ahead and optimize your heart out, but the rest of don't have to play by your "one true way."

 

[ccs]

I'm not the one you need to convince that your character is competent. It's the other adventurers in the game who need to be able to trust that you aren't a liability. Nobody likes an escort quest, and if you're not willing to carry your own weight, then there's no reason you should get any of the reward.

You, in or out of character, are the only one who seems worried about it though....

 

[werecorpse]

Re the Saelorn & the foolish mace wielder issue. Sometimes perception is reality but what does a player actually perceive.

sure some crotchety old warrior may bang on about how longsword and shield is the way to go and some other dude scoffs and pats his trusty rapier but do the players actually accept this as gospel?

I once ran a Runequest game where a player started with 20% to hit with javelin. His first important throw was a critical and killed an enemy. From then on he used the javelin and while I am sure he missed a fair bit he did seem to have a fair bit of luck with it. Everyone knew he was an expert with the javelin (he never got above 60% to hit). Chance can be a funny thing.

So when the mace and hammer wielding fighters meet a bunch of orcs and at the end of the battle (due to the variable rolls) the mace wielder has killed 4 and the hammer wielder 3 does the guy with the hammer accept that actually fighting live enemies is different from trying to break blocks of wood and sell his hammer and buy a mace?

Then the longbow archer rolls a couple of low numbers and the shortbow user rolls a 20 does everyone accepts that longbows suck and shortbows are the most deadly weapon to be feared by all?

I ran another game where the player of one character rolled really well over a long period of time (we made him change dice- still 3 campaigns and about 5 years later my group refers to the prowess of Han the Paladin). It was accepted that when the chips were down this character would save the party- he did, often. Another character kept failing his save against confusion and charm & the like. Despite having a decent bonus he reacted with great caution around enchanters.

sure maybe over time and with experience characters will gravitate away from weapons that let them down but this is an organic thing - and not always the case IMO.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You, in or out of character, are the only one who seems worried about it though....

That's not quite fair. In character, I would also look askance at someone who chose a deliberately-ineffective weapon, or (even moreso) made poor tactical choices like charging out to meet the enemy when we have a perfectly secure defensive position with partial cover right here, just because they hate spending time waiting. I wouldn't necessarily kick them out of the party, but I'd definitely notice, and it would affect my trust in their judgment and/or willingness to bring them on important missions--or at least to spend effort keeping them alive on important missions. So, it's not just Saelorn who is concerned (in-character) about these issues. I would notice too, I just wouldn't react the same way s/he says s/he would.

 

[ccs]

"It's all your fault! You and your damned mace! If you had used a warhammer, we never would have died!!!"

"Yes, it's all my fault for not doing (potentially) 1-2 more pts of damage/round. Joe having one of those nights where he misses every roll by 1 had NOTHING to do with it.... Nor did that turn 2 flurry of crits the monster dealt out."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Then the longbow archer rolls a couple of low numbers and the shortbow user rolls a 20 does everyone accepts that longbows suck and shortbows are the most deadly weapon to be feared by all?

No, because that's an insufficient sample size to generate any meaningful data. Independent testing will confirm that the longbow is actually more powerful.

Seriously, take both weapons and fire into an archery target. Once you've removed the distractions of the battlefield, it should be plain for everyone to see that the longbow arrow has greater penetration.

 

[iserith]

That's not quite fair. In character, I would also look askance at someone who chose a deliberately-ineffective weapon, or (even moreso) made poor tactical choices like charging out to meet the enemy when we have a perfectly secure defensive position with partial cover right here, just because they hate spending time waiting. I wouldn't necessarily kick them out of the party, but I'd definitely notice, and it would affect my trust in their judgment. So, it's not just Saelorn who is concerned (in-character) about these issues. I would notice too, I just wouldn't react the same way s/he says s/he would.

The group should choose the characters' personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws carefully so as to maximize the acquisition of Inspiration. For example, your fellow player should have chosen "If there’s a plan, I’ll forget it. If I don’t forget it, I’ll ignore it..." for a flaw (Criminal). Then you should have chosen "Nothing can shake my optimistic attitude..." an Acolyte ideal. After the other character ignores the plan and rushes out of the defensive position to charge down the enemy, you get to say, "I think this might just work in our favor!" and *ding* *ding* you both get Inspiration.

In fact, if you don't plan out your personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws and use them to rack up Inspiration in this fashion, I dare say you're actively contributing to the party's failure and it's all your fault if the party is wiped out.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Hey, you're right. In the real world long swords do more damage than short swords, so therefore short swords don't exist because only a fool would use one. Right? Or maybe there's more to deciding what to use than mere numbers dealing with damage.

I'm not actually even convinced this is true, since thrusting wounds are often more lethal and more difficult to heal than slashing wounds, but assuming it is...

What Max is saying here is absolutely right. All these weapons existed for a reason, and were used for a reason. Going up against somebody in plate armor? You're better off with a mace than a longsword, on average. (Just for instance.) But note even then it's on average, not guaranteed.

There's an almost infinite number of factors to take into consideration when choosing a weapon (up to and including the fact that most people are more skilled with some than others). The fact that the game rules aren't granular enough to account for all of them (and pretty much cannot be without slowing the game down to a crawl) doesn't mean those factors cease to exist in the world the game is modeling.

It's why even simulationist games require a certain degree of abstraction. Physics is complicated, y'all.

All of which means that while you as a player may be able to say "Buford the Fighter is using an inferior weapon," you're basing that on the game rules, not the sum total of the decision points the characters have to face. Which makes it, by definition, an OOC argument, at least in part.

 

[ccs]

Obviously, I would perform an ad-hoc mental evaluation, to determine the likelihood of this character committing such an atrocious act. I already know that this person is probably either insane or stupid, so if it's the former, then I might have to do the heroic thing and slay the monster before it can harm the innocent. If I mis-judge this person, and don't expect such dire consequences for this refusal, then I have to live with that. Loved ones can always be resurrected, after all, as much of an inconvenience as that might be.

If the character is just clueless, then I might consider an apprenticeship to cure that, hoping they'd become more competent over time. It's not an ideal situation, and I wouldn't be able to trust them with anything important, but sometimes an idiot with a mace is better than nothing. I wouldn't be happy about it, though.

Of course you're ignoring the possibility that the guy with the mace is badass enough to not need a bigger weapon.

 

[werecorpse]

My mace and shortbow wielding fighter looks confused at your use of the phrases "meaningful data" & "independent testing" and scoffs at the suggestion that removing distractions of battle is a good test of real combat. Those fancy hammers and longbows might be good on the practice range but when your life is on the line there is no substitute for the mace shortbow combination his dad taught him. He reminds you how when we fought those orcs he killed more than you and how when that goblin archer was shooting at us you kept missing it with your fancy longbows and he shot it through the eye first time. greater penetrate that!

He offers to buy you a mace and a shortbow so you wont be so terrible in combat anymore.

Maybe he dies in the next combat fighting a dragon - but he blames you for not using your mace.