D&D 5E Just a reality check.

[NewJeffCT]

When 3e was previewed, it drew some bile from those who didn't like it, even after it came out. When 4e was previewed (repeat). When 5e was previewed (repeat).

I'm skipping over a bunch of pages of replies here but the same was true when 2e came out as well. I remember when it came out there were a bunch of angry letters to the editor in Dragon Magazine from grumpy gamers who thought it was just a big money grab and that 2e dumbed down the game too much, and that there was no need for it, etc, etc.

Same Stuff, Different Decade.

 

[Sir Hawk]

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.

Well, some people (like you, I guess) want a game with perfect mathematical balance, and prefer to "roll-play." Other people (like me) would rather "role-play." I don't care if studded armor is 1pt better, or if a maul is better than everything else. If I want to play a fighter with leather armor and a spear, I'm gonna play it, because that's the character I want to play. I'm not going to worry about min-maxing, metagaming, or squeezing out every last proficiency bonus or mathematical advantage during character creation. I have more important (and fun) things to worry about.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, some people (like you, I guess) want a game with perfect mathematical balance, and prefer to "roll-play." Other people (like me) would rather "role-play." I don't care if studded armor is 1pt better, or if a maul is better than everything else. If I want to play a fighter with leather armor and a spear, I'm gonna play it, because that's the character I want to play. I'm not going to worry about min-maxing, metagaming, or squeezing out every last proficiency bonus or mathematical advantage during character creation. I have more important (and fun) things to worry about.

But that's just my opinion.

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.

 

[Paraxis]

Well, some people (like you, I guess) want a game with perfect mathematical balance, and prefer to "roll-play." Other people (like me) would rather "role-play." I don't care if studded armor is 1pt better, or if a maul is better than everything else. If I want to play a fighter with leather armor and a spear, I'm gonna play it, because that's the character I want to play. I'm not going to worry about min-maxing, metagaming, or squeezing out every last proficiency bonus or mathematical advantage during character creation. I have more important (and fun) things to worry about.

But that's just my opinion.

I LOVE to ROLE-play thank you very much. I have been doing it for almost 30 years now. You can want good math, balanced options, character optimization, and min/max your character away from the table all you want, and still be an amazing "role" player. What happens away from the table doesn't have anything to do with what happens once you sit down at the table.

I have just as much fun min/maxing my character as I do giving a rousing speech or coming up with an amazing plan that barely works to achieve some goal. Sorry you are only having half the fun I am.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Well said. Thanks for responding to that more politely than I would have been able to.

The big issue with designing equipment lists is that PC adventurers tend to get very rich very fast. In the real world, cost was an overriding concern. Full plate was by far the best armor available, but only the nobility could afford it, so everyone else made do with what they could get. PCs may have to worry about money starting out, but within a few adventures they usually have enough cash for top-of-the-line gear, at which point the rest of the equipment table starts to look like a waste of space. On the other hand, a lot of the justifications for "balanced" gear strain credibility. It's pretty hard to justify a world in which ring mail can ever be a better choice than chain if cost isn't an issue.

IMO, the best solution to this is to a) provide plausible justifications where you can, and b) say "screw it" for the rest. It's okay to have sub-par equipment on the equipment list. Not everybody in the campaign world is a PC, and not every campaign showers the PCs with cash.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I LOVE to ROLE-play thank you very much. I have been doing it for almost 30 years now. You can want good math, balanced options, character optimization, and min/max your character away from the table all you want, and still be an amazing "role" player. What happens away from the table doesn't have anything to do with what happens once you sit down at the table.

I have just as much fun min/maxing my character as I do giving a rousing speech or coming up with an amazing plan that barely works to achieve some goal. Sorry you are only having half the fun I am.

well said - one of the best role players I've ever gamed with (gaming since the late 70s) was also a big powergamer and rules lawyer (lawyer IRL, too). But, if you wanted a PC to argue the party's case before a hostile elf noble or the bandit leader that just captured the party, he could give that great speech with flourish.

 

[Evenglare]

When you min max a character who, by the fundamental definition of minmaxing, has very few flaws and succeeds very often. How do you get a good 3 dimensional character? A min max character has no flaws to overcome, or very very few flaws. The best characters in literature have serious flaws they must deal with and overcome. Do people just like succeeding all the time? Whats the point? It's like playing a video game with god mode, sure it's fun for a while but when you realize your character is better than anything they come up against and better than anyone else do you really enjoy playing him for more than a few sessions? A year? How do you grow as a character? What's the incentive? Just to become more godlike? I mean, it's fine if you like that stuff but it sounds so boring.

 

[Xodis]

There are different versions of min/maxing. Some people turn "God mode" on like you say, but some just make their characters awesome at what they want them to be awesome at. Which ultimately leaves those giant holes you mentioned for the 3rd dimension of a character.

 

[Abstruse]

When you min max a character who, by the fundamental definition of minmaxing, has very few flaws and succeeds very often. How do you get a good 3 dimensional character? A min max character has no flaws to overcome, or very very few flaws. The best characters in literature have serious flaws they must deal with and overcome. Do people just like succeeding all the time? Whats the point? It's like playing a video game with god mode, sure it's fun for a while but when you realize your character is better than anything they come up against and better than anyone else do you really enjoy playing him for more than a few sessions? A year? How do you grow as a character? What's the incentive? Just to become more godlike? I mean, it's fine if you like that stuff but it sounds so boring.

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.

 

[Paraxis]

When you min max a character who, by the fundamental definition of minmaxing, has very few flaws and succeeds very often. How do you get a good 3 dimensional character? A min max character has no flaws to overcome, or very very few flaws. The best characters in literature have serious flaws they must deal with and overcome. Do people just like succeeding all the time? Whats the point? It's like playing a video game with god mode, sure it's fun for a while but when you realize your character is better than anything they come up against and better than anyone else do you really enjoy playing him for more than a few sessions? A year? How do you grow as a character? What's the incentive? Just to become more godlike? I mean, it's fine if you like that stuff but it sounds so boring.

The best character flaws to roleplay have nothing to do with numbers. Phobias, addictions, family responsibilities, duty to higher causes, rivals, being sinful (lust, gluttony, greed, envious, wrathful, proud, and I always forget one), detailed history of violence or criminal activity, etc....all kinds of wonderful deep roleplay inducing flaws that have nothing to do at all with the numbers on my character sheet.