D&D 5E Just a reality check.

[Evenglare]

Just because someone enjoys playing the game differently than you do doesn't mean they're playing it "wrong". I enjoy playing min-maxed and optimized characters myself because no one likes to suck.

But if you want to talk about the character rather than their stats, I can point you to several fictional characters that would be Munchkined all over the place that people still love: Superman, Wolverine, Deadpool, etc.

A minmax character does have flaws to overcome. That's where the "min" part comes in. My fighter may be the strongest, fastest, toughest guy on the planet, but he has no people skills and is oblivious and uneducated. They can also have personality flaws that aren't reflected by their stats (outside the new trait/flaw/bond/etc. system).

What it boils down to is that, when you jump on someone that way, you come off as telling someone that they're having fun wrong. It's considered rude and confrontational as much as if I went on and on to you about "sitting around a campfire singing jambalaya while talking about our feelings and tragic 15 page character backstory." It's a simplistic view of what we're doing.

Note 1: I know that's not the song title, but Autocorrect changed it and I'm keeping it.

Note 2: I write 15 page backstories for my minmaxed characters.

Can you please quote me where I said it was wrong? I simply said I find it boring, but please quote where I said it was wrong to have fun playing those characters? I would like to apologize but I can't seem to find where I said it.

 

[Dausuul]

Optimization serves roleplaying. Let's say my character concept is "sneaky guy who's scared of combat but brilliant at talking his way out of it." That's going to require some good role-playing from me. But it's also going to require some optimization; I'm going to need to put stat points into Charisma and find a way to get proficiency in Persuasion. Otherwise the mechanics of my character won't fit the concept. I will blow all my Persuasion checks and fail to talk my way out of anything.

And I'd like to hear how it's "roleplaying" to choose leather armor over studded leather if you have the money for the latter. Apparently you're roleplaying a guy with a death wish. Very, very few people who've been in combat would deliberately choose inferior gear.

(By "inferior," I don't mean, "Has poor stats in the rules." I mean, "Within the fictional reality of the game world, it's cheap armor worn by people who can't afford anything better.")

 

[Sir Hawk]

And I'd like to hear how it's "roleplaying" to choose leather armor over studded leather if you have the money for the latter.

Well.....

Apparently you're roleplaying a guy with a death wish.

There ya go! You just answered your own question.

Or I'm roleplaying a guy who is a cheapskate.

Or a guy who's saving money to buy something else.

Or a guy with metal-phobia.

Or a guy who just friggin' loves leather.

There's really a million options here.

 

[Abstruse]

Can you please quote me where I said it was wrong? I simply said I find it boring, but please quote where I said it was wrong to have fun playing those characters? I would like to apologize but I can't seem to find where I said it.

If you read the entire comment I wrote, I state that's the impression you give. When you ask rapid-fire loaded questions, you're not asking because you want to know the answer but because you're trying to prove a point. The implied point is "You're playing wrong and you should play the game like I do." If I posted a half dozen or more questions in this post asking you about why you'd want to play a weak character easily crushed, what fun is it to constantly lose, etc. then you would feel the same way. I obviously have already made up my mind and am not asking questions. I'm simply being a jerk.

If you're genuinely curious as to why people prefer to play optimized or min/maxed characters over suboptimal ones, you could try phrasing your questions in less of an accusatory manner and you'll probably get less hostile responses.

 

[Cybit]

For me, I just have to wonder whether they intend to create some tactical martial rules in a later book which tie to the weapons. (High Crit, etc etc)

Remind me to spend some time this weekend and dig out the weapon properties I created for each weapon.

 

[Hussar]

OMG, are people STILL making the Roll/Role playing argument? Really? Good grief, things really don't change that much do they? You can see this same ridiculous argument being made on Usenet from almost twenty years ago, and I'm pretty sure there are articles in The Strategic Review that try the same tired old tripe.

Look, unless your fighter is naked and using a spork, you are min/maxing. Guess what? You chose a weapon that did more damage than another weapon. You chose this armour over that armour. You put your highest stat in whatever it is you think will make your character succeed more at whatever it is you want your character to do. Why did you do that? Because you are min/maxing.

It is so incredibly disingenuous to try to pull this "oh, well, I'm a true role player, so, these things don't matter and if you were a true role player, it wouldn't matter to you either". It's such a complete crock. For the love of little fishes, try to come up with a cogent argument for why mechanical elements should not matter other than, "well, I'm a superior gamer".

 

[Morrus]

OMG, are people STILL making the Roll/Role playing argument? Really? Good grief, things really don't change that much do they? You can see this same ridiculous argument being made on Usenet from almost twenty years ago, and I'm pretty sure there are articles in The Strategic Review that try the same tired old tripe.
.

Just because you've been having a conversation for 20 years doesn't mean everybody else has. Some people on this thread might not even be 20 years old. If you're not interested in the conversation, feel free to skip it - but other people are more than welcome to have it here without being mocked for it. Let's let them have it, eh?

 

[nedjer]

So far it's a well presented, lots of familiar D&D flavour rule set that seems to adopt much of a lightened up 3e. It's not that there's lots to criticise, more not so much that grabs by the throat.

As an OSR publisher it's quite interesting in that respect.

 

[Hussar]

/ edit whoops. Posting from phone and didn't see the mod color. My bad.

 

[thalmin]

Sure although to me it is plain simple to see.

There is no reason to wear padded or leather armor when studded is 1 pt better AC, with no penalty, same with hide vs chain shirt, and ring mail vs chain mail. Yes there are weight and cost differences but those are trivial things with the amount of starting gold, found treasure, and encumbrance rules the way they are.

Weapons, you have things like maul being in every way better than a great axe, a spear (simple weapon) being exactly the same as a trident (martial weapon), things like that.

Balance, symmetry, simple math these things were not in the heads of the game designers.

Padded Armor is probably on the list more for NPCs. Underpaid town guards and common low-level thugs might have such cheap armor, and the listing is more for reference and completeness than being a realistic choice for a PC.

Leather is cheaper and lighter, though less effective, than studded. Yet I chose it for a rogue I recently created. At first level cost was a big factor. The rogue had a terrible strength score, so weight was crucial. For the cost and weight of Studded (45 gp, 13 lbs), I instead chose Leather plus a short bow and a quiver of arrows(36 gp, 13 lbs) leaving an extra 9 gp to purchase silk rope to replace hemp and a 5 pound savings. So I had a net weight saving of 5 pounds (keeping me at a light load) had a real missile weapon, at the cost of 1 point of AC.

A Maul is heavier than a greataxe, though that shouldn't be much of a factor for a strength based character. However, it is easier to cut down a tree or split wood with a greataxe.

A trident is found in the hands of some iconic monsters (lizardfolk for one) and we need stats when we recover the loot. In the hands of a fighter it is no worse than a spear.

I think we will see more weapon differences coming in the DMG, where we might see a return of different Critical Hit numbers and multipliers

 

[Evenglare]

Also the different armors are there for scenarios that might be lacking in funds. For example in dark sun weapons and armor can break, sometime you may have to craft armor and weapons perhaps you can't do it well or you need to do it quick. Perhaps you get captured and can only find crappy armor, perhaps it's in a goblin lair. Theres a million different reasons that you might find yourself wearing less than perfect armor. It's not really hard to imagine.

 

[Henry]

Note 1: I know that's not the song title, but Autocorrect changed it and I'm keeping it.

So you're saying you chose flavor over optimization?
I agree by the way - just because someone prefers more mathematical optimization in their rules systems does not make that the only thing they care about. Putting rules concerns under the purview of "flavor" doesn't somehow make the issue resolved.

Note 2: I write 15 page backstories for my minmaxed characters.

Neither does a long backstory make a good roleplaying aid. I kind of fall with the Happy Jack's RPG Podcast crowd - the backstory is what your character did BEFORE they started adventuring - why would they be an adventurer if half their story has been told before you get to the table with your fellow players? Plus, as a DM, I wouldn't read somebody's 15 page fan fiction about their character, because if I did that, it means I'm volunteering to read 60 to 75 pages of fan fiction and make it work in my campaign, which is to much.

Perhaps if you were starting the game with 13th Level Characters, that might be different, but I can't conceive of a novice 1st level adventurer with 15 pages worth of life experiences that i'd want to read about - especially if he has so much more to contribute in conjunction with the other players!

 

[Mistwell]

Sure everyone complaining about things knows it is to late to do anything about it realy. The only hope is maybe something you want will be a rules module in the DMG. But the internet is for complaining about things, and after 2 years of playtesting to be handed this thing called Basic and we are supposed to thank them for not doing a good job is BS. I will play it because it is D&D, easy to get a game going and have members of my group that will play it for brand loyalty, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Damage values for spells and monsters are too high, hit points for PC's too low.

Armor and weapons charts are crap.

Very little class symmetry, like the rogue should have something that recharges with a short rest.

Top three off the top of my head, but I reserve the right to complain about anything, and I don't care if it will change anything I just want to be heard.

Now do my complaints mean it is not an ok game no, I will run it and play it no game is perfect, but given the amount of time and money they had to make something amazing they served us up a reheated microwave dinner when they should have given us prime steak.

Except that it seems like most people disagree with your view on that. In which case, it might just be you don't like prime steak. Maybe you were a vegetarian and never realized it?

 

[Mistwell]

Or, in the ideal world we should be living in, both preferences are prioritized, and I can build any character I want without being worried that my performance during play is going to suck.

Or, to reiterate a point that has been made ad nauseam, but with the understanding that you're a new poster: Being willing to play a suboptimal character and make suboptimal choices does NOT make you a better roleplayer. It simply means there's a portion of the game you're willing to ignore that many of us actually enjoy engaging. And we find having the "character envisioning" and the "mechanical effectiveness" portions of the game to be more enjoyable when they are NOT in conflict.

They are not in conflict. There are no traps in that list - they are all obvious. It doesn't take a rules optimizing scholar to figure out that Studded Leather gives 1 point better AC than Leather Armor, and so if optimization is your preference you will choose the Studded Leather. Similarly, if someone doesn't care about that, and they want Leather Armor for their character for role playing reasons, they can choose that. Or, if someone wants a world that's a bit more realistic, where some things just ARE better than other things (like a long bow just IS better than a sling, which is why the Long Bow won the historical weapon evolution fight handily), they get that. Both types people get what they want.

The only people who do not get what they want are the "I want everything to be equal", to whom I say, "Why?". As long as you know Studded Leather is mechanically better than Leather Armor, and you do know that, why do you care if they include both? Including both satisfies the "I want to role play leather armor and I don't care about the mechanics" people, and the "I want a realistic world where some things just are better than other things" people, without harming those who like to optimize.

Or is this some sort of OCD type thing, where if every peg is not the same height it makes you uncomfortable?

 

[Evenglare]

Except that it seems like most people disagree with your view on that. In which case, it might just be you don't like prime steak. Maybe you were a vegetarian and never realized it?

This is one of the best posts I've seen lol

 

[Paraxis]

Except that it seems like most people disagree with your view on that. In which case, it might just be you don't like prime steak. Maybe you were a vegetarian and never realized it?

You use the word "most" I doubt you have any way of proving that, and most of whom? Most people in a 5e forum thread..well yeah I would imagine most of the people posting here like the game more than I do. Most D&D players I doubt it.

 

[Mistwell]

You use the word "most" I doubt you have any way of proving that, and most of whom? Most people in a 5e forum thread..well yeah I would imagine most of the people posting here like the game more than I do. Most D&D players I doubt it.

Of course I have a way of proving that but I don't think you're interested in hearing it. You're interested in validation of your beliefs - you know, cause you're human. I can't fault you for that - I am interested in the same thing. But, I know when a discussion isn't going down a path that will lead to anything useful. Let's agree to disagree - I think people are in general pretty happy with 5e, and you think they are not, and we'll leave it at that.

 

[Sonny]

You use the word "most" I doubt you have any way of proving that, and most of whom? Most people in a 5e forum thread..well yeah I would imagine most of the people posting here like the game more than I do. Most D&D players I doubt it.

It would be easier to see your point of view if you actually provided links to these places where people are hating on the system. Given that these reactions prompted you to start a thread here about it, I don't think it's asking too much. It should be interesting to see what other forums are saying since I don't frequent too many RPG sites. Thanks!

 

[Paraxis]

It would be easier to see your point of view if you actually provided links to these places where people are hating on the system. Given that these reactions prompted you to start a thread here about it, I don't think it's asking too much. It should be interesting to see what other forums are saying since I don't frequent too many RPG sites. Thanks!

I didn't start any thread about people hating the system.

I don't hate the system, I dislike some parts of the system.

I didn't start saying my opinion had the "most" people supporting or validating it.

If there is any burden of proof it is on Mistwell for saying that "most" people like the system, I just said I doubted that "fact".

 

[TwoSix]

Or is this some sort of OCD type thing, where if every peg is not the same height it makes you uncomfortable?

I don't actually care about the armor table, to be perfectly honest. Light vs medium vs heavy, to me, is more than enough to make strategically relevant decisions. Whether or not your leather armor has metal pieces is a purely aesthetic consideration, for my interests, and can be safely devolved to the level of "character visualization".

I do grok the concern/desire of [MENTION=13009]Paraxis[/MENTION] to have different entries in a table have different mechanistic concerns outside of cost. It would make the decision of which armor to wear more of a decision point, which is something that those of us who are more mechanically minded enjoy.

But again, totally fine with having multiple armors on the table, some inferior, some superior, to assuage historical and "simulationist" concerns.

My primary concern in posting was seeing the regrettable rise of the "Ho ho, I just pick whatever, who cares about numbers, I'm a roleplayer!" meme, which is, at best, eyerolling, and at worst, actively derpy. So I tried (very politely, I thought) to inform a new poster that that particular idea doesn't get received particularly well in this neck of the woods. That was my issue, and I think it's been addressed (and even modded, so I'm good here.)

In conclusion, padded armor for everyone, and play on!