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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I answered for myself on the rare occasions that I get to play, and for my group as they generally behave - and that answer was "a little" because that was as close to what I would really say as possible among the poll options.

We take enough care to make sure that each character is "good enough" (i.e. a 14+ in the ability score your character relies on to succeed at challenges placed in front of them, and using things the character is proficient with outside of extenuating circumstances preventing that), but don't put any importance on a character being the best a character can be at something outside of a character concept that actually necessitates it (which aren't played often, since so few actually exist).

And we don't worry about making the best possible choice for any given action, just that we don't do anything completely unwise (like throwing a fireball at a red dragon).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Thank you for answering the early questions, but you didn't really get to the heart of my point. You claim that your character would be the one to question the competency of the "sub-optimal" character (because you assume that all characters understand the exact nature of the physics of the game world - I don't, but to each his own), so what would your character do if faced with a "sub-optimal" party member? Would you refuse to adventure with them? If not, would you (the player) accept the consequences of offending said character (them slitting your throat in the night, or them going on a rampage against your loved ones while you were off adventuring)?

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.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They don't have the numbers, but they have the observable in-game reality to which those numbers correspond. They can tell that a longsword will cut deeper into a wooden pole than a shortsword does, because it's heavier and better at cutting, which is what the damage die corresponds to. It should be obvious to everyone within the game world that you have a better chance of stopping a rampaging boar if you can hack at it with a longsword (or greatsword) than if you try to stab it with a shortsword -- unless you actually are trying to finesse it just right and hit a weak spot, in which case the lighter weapon will be a better tool for amplifying your technique. All of that should be obvious to any hunter or warrior who is familiar with weapons.

lets see if that's true...

lets take 5 guys, 2 with str 11, 2 with str 13, and 1 with str 16...they all have +2prof

we give each a block of wood with an AC 13, and 25hp, first they use a longsword then a short sword...

OK, so we have A and B with +2 vs AC 13 they hit on a 11 or better, and crit on a 20. so 40% of the time damage and 5% two dice of damage... the short sword does on average 3.5 damage... 3.5x.40= 1.4, and 7 on a crit, 7x.05=.35 so 1.75 damage per swing, should take 14-15 swings when we upgrade to the long swords average become 4.5 and 9, so dpr is 2.25 so 11-12 swings

we have C and D with +3 vs AC 13 they hit on a 10 and crit on a 20 20 45% and 5% short sword is now 4.5 and 8 on a crit, and with the new to hit we have 4.5*.45=2.025 and crit 8*.05=.4 for a dpr of 2.425 so about 10-11 swings the long sword will them be 5.5 and 10 crit so 5.5*.45=2.475 and .5 from a crit for 2.975dpr... 8-9 swings

we have E with +5 vs AC 13, so he almost always hits, and he starts with the short sword, 6.5*.6=3.9 and 10*.05is .5 again so 4.4dpr... 5-6 swings, and the long sword is 7.5*.6= 4.5 and crit is 12*.05=.6 for a staggering dpr of 5.1 4-5 swings...

so now at the end of this test, if they all chop wood for a couple hours (I am not picturing cap and iron man in avengers 2) we get an average of

A 14-15 swings of a short sword and 11-12 with the long
B 14-15 swings of a short sword and 11-12 with the long
C 10-11 swings of a short sword and 8-9 with the long
D 10-11 swings of a short sword and 8-9 with the long
E 5-6 swings of a short sword and 4-5 with the long

in general, the two weapons seem to be little difference, the strength and skill of the user seems to be more so. SInce in game there is not test that can tell str alone (that I know of) then it really like the real world is hard to say... luck matters too... heck if you roll those out and the short sword gets even a bit lucky (an early number of hits or a crit) and there is no way to see these results without weeks of testing in game

 

[The Lich]

Here's something to ponder:

Name: Xylarthen
Class: Magic-User
Strength: 6
Intelligence: 11
Wisdom: 13
Constitution: 12
Dexterity: 9
Charisma: 8
Gold Pieces: 70
Experience: Nil

This supposed player would have progressed faster as a Cleric, but because of a personal preference for magic opted for that class.

I'd be perfectly happy gaming at the same table with this supposed player.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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

If you can't see how ridiculous you sound in all this, there's nothing more I can say.

First of all, I would never use such language. As invested as I might be, it's just a game, and we're all trying to have fun here. TPK's happen, and there's a chance we could have died even if they were using the objectively correct weapon.

Second of all, nobody else at the table should have to say anything, because that player should already understand what they did wrong and feel guilty enough already. They gambled, and lost, and everyone paid the price. They know what they did. They know it's their fault.

Third of all, it's unlikely that this character and/or player would last long enough at our table in order to endanger the party in such a manner. If the player is that bad at melee combat as to actually make that decision, then the character will probably have died against some lesser threat, and been replaced by a Ranger or something.

 

[The Lich]

First of all, I would never use such language. As invested as I might be, it's just a game, and we're all trying to have fun here. TPK's happen, and there's a chance we could have died even if they were using the objectively correct weapon.

Second of all, nobody else at the table should have to say anything, because that player should already understand what they did wrong and feel guilty enough already. They gambled, and lost, and everyone paid the price. They know what they did. They know it's their fault.

Third of all, it's unlikely that this character and/or player would last long enough at our table in order to endanger the party in such a manner. If the player is that bad at melee combat as to actually make that decision, then the character will probably have died against some lesser threat, and been replaced by a Ranger or something.

Keep going, please. Since you're not even taking yourself seriously anymore, let's see how grotesque a parody of yourself you can produce.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

in general, the two weapons seem to be little difference, the strength and skill of the user seems to be more so. SInce in game there is not test that can tell str alone (that I know of) then it really like the real world is hard to say... luck matters too... heck if you roll those out and the short sword gets even a bit lucky (an early number of hits or a crit) and there is no way to see these results without weeks of testing in game

You're looking at the wrong variable. We're not looking to see who is better between different warriors, but rather which is the best weapon for any given warrior. When a warrior is deciding which weapon to wield, how does it make that decision? And your tests have proven that, for any given warrior, they will always be better off with a longsword than with a shortsword. Of this lot, there exists no warrior who is better off with a longsword than with a shortsword.

And a bit of a side note, but Strength is the one stat that actually can be measured fairly easily in-game. It directly corresponds to encumbrance capacity, and relative Strength can be measured with arm-wrestling (which is not resolved with a die roll in this edition - the stronger character simply wins).

 

[Shiroiken]

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.

Very well. Just so long as you understand that this superior attitude of your character is likely to offend the hell out of a large number of other players who don't think the way you (the player) do. I know a couple of guys from an old group of mine who you would game quite well with. We no longer play with them, however, as we found their constant "suggestions" irritating (they would try to build our characters for us, as well as decide our actions in combat... "for the good of the team").

 

[The Crimson Binome]

We no longer play with them, however, as we found their constant "suggestions" irritating (they would try to build our characters for us, as well as decide our actions in combat... "for the good of the team").

Yeah, that does sound like a play-style mis-match. I can't really abide for that sort of interference, personally, though. It is your character, and nobody else should tell you what to do.

In-character is a different matter, though. Most of the people I play with are significantly invested in their characters and the world, and they haven't survived this far on just luck and optimism. If they (the characters) could have succeeded just as well without putting thought into weapons and strategy, then I think the game would have lost a lot of its appeal (to the players).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In-game, my character would probably inquire as to why this other character has made such a decision. The tone of the question would depend on the nature of my character, but regardless of how condescending it may or may-not sound, a "bad" answer would likely make my character doubt the competence of this individual.

Saying that it is an enchanted mace, once wielded by the great priest Zyzzyva to depose the cruel tyrant Quijibo, is a "good" answer which is likely to garner some respect. Anything that has to do with tradition, sentimentality, or coolness, would be a "bad" answer. This is literally a matter of life-and-death. You need to demonstrate a modicum of common sense if I am to trust you with my life.

This is the part I don't get. If my PC is a tactical optimizer, he knows that having more meatshields arounds makes him safer. He will hire hobgoblin mercenaries for 30 gold per month and be glad to have them, despite their relative weakness, because they still contribute as meat shields and damage sources. If he meets an 8th level Cleric of Life who knows Revivify, but happens to be irrationally attached to a suboptimal weapon like a greatsword that he doesn't even know how to use properly (obviously nonproficient and a mediocre Strength)--am I going to sneer and kick him out of the party as a liability? NO!!! Of course not. He's still worth at least five hobgoblins just on the basis of his higher HP, Spiritual Weapon, Spirit Guardians, Bless, and Revivify. I'll even put up with his tiresome preaching, which affects me more than his relative fecklessness in melee combat.

Now, if in addition to using a suboptimal weapon, he also proves to be a tactical incompetent and a social buffoon, I might kick him out of the party then, or at least not go out of my way to save his life when he's in danger. But then we're way beyond optimization issues and into character or player personality issues.

TL;DR from a survival perspective, a larger party is better. Why would you turn down another meat shield?