D&D 5E The woes of the elf and his longsword

[chriton227]

So far I haven't seen anyone other than me and Paraxis actually make any statements regarding the point at which an inefficient character is to inefficient to be acceptable to the group.

I seriously doubt everyone is thinking, "there is no point; you can have a Strength of 3 and a greatsword in my game, and we're all good with it!"

EDIT: To clarify my intent, I'm proposing that pretty much everyone's point or line is going to be within a few "+"s of each other's.

For me, I'd like to see each PC be better than the rest at something, whether it is a unique ability, some aspect of combat, some out of combat skill, or even some RP based contacts or relationships. If there is something that they are the best in the party at, then there is something they can contribute that makes the party better. For example, the party I'm currently running through HotDQ has a Dwarf Cleric (best healer in the group and social leader), a Dwarf fighter (hardest to hit and toughest), a Gnome illusionist (only arcane caster in the group and best information gatherer), a human Druid (best crowd control and nature knowledge), and a Dragonborn fighter (best melee and ranged weapon damage).

I'm not worried how they compare to some arbitrary efficiency level, and in fact I prefer that they not be overly optimized because I remember the issues it caused in earlier editions. I remember the 3.5 characters with their armor class so high that if I used an opponent that had more than about a 20% chance to hit them, the opponent hit the rest of the party on 2s. The same with saving throws and skills, where if the best PC has a chance to fail, the rest of the party doesn't have a chance to succeed.

The other issue of efficiency is efficiency for what. There are many different modes of play, and the optimal choices for one mode may not be optimal for another. For example, the choice to use a shortsword may be better damage than a dagger for a rogue, but if the rogue is looking to be more of an intrusion specialist and is looking for weapons that are more concealable then the dagger would be the more optimal choice (a dagger on you is better than a shortsword you had to leave at the door). Plate armor may be the best armor protection, but it isn't the optimal choice if the campaign is focusing on long sea voyages and ship to ship boarding (unless you like being a boat anchor). Bows are better than throwing axes, unless you are anticipating long adventures with no chance to restock on arrows. Just because another PC's choices aren't optimal for the goal that you feel their PC should have doesn't mean that the choice isn't a good one for the goal that they have for their own PC. And I view those who would berate others on the choices they make for their own PCs the same way I view people in real life that insist on criticizing others in real life on their choice of car or house or cell phone, to me they come across as pompous d-bags. If a coworker picks a less reliable car than I would have, sure that means that they might have more breakdowns that result in me having to pick up their slack, but it's their car and their choice. I might ask them about why they picked it, but even that I would do carefully to try to understand them better rather than to try to make them justify their choice to me.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So far I haven't seen anyone other than me and Paraxis actually make any statements regarding the point at which an inefficient character is to inefficient to be acceptable to the group.
.

Probably because I've never encountered it yet where someone else created a PC I thought was horribly inept, so I couldn't give that answer. I've never seen a player roll in every stat but an 18 in INT and want to be a fighter like Paraxis said. I've never seen a player purposefully suck at everything and refuse to enter any combat. Never happened in 34 years and hundreds of players. So I'm guessing either Paraxis has the worst freaking luck than anyone in history, or that it's so rare it's not really using as a basis of argument.

So far what I have seen is him admitting to tearing into a player for choosing leather over studded leather. Or threaten to kick people out if they weren't optimized enough. And that's the appalling behavior, IMO. Not the guy who wanted to use a longsword instead of a rapier because he liked the look and theme of the longsword more.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Since the system does still have some problems in that regard, I do expect players not to totally gimp their characters. This isn't a solo game.

I think the optimization sacrifice that I find acceptable for aesthetic reasons is probably along the lines of no more than a +1 weapon (or the equivalent) and/or +1 armor per character. So if someone with a 12 Str and a 14 Dex insisted on leather armor and a longsword I'd be okay with it. If they had a 16 Dex or they were insisting on hide armor instead of half-plate, that would be unacceptable to me as a DM looking out for the rest of the group, and it would bug me a bit as a player. This isn't something that generally comes up, because people usually figure things out and try to strike a balance once you explain to them that they are significantly underpowered that way.

It's true that it isn't a solo game... but my experience so far with 5E is that no matter how flavorful your character concept, it is impossible to gimp your PC so hard that it isn't able to handle level-appropriate challenges. In fact, it is precisely because it is not a solo game that you might consider doing non-optimal things like taking a longsword even though you're an elf. If you make smart strategic and tactical decisions you can easily wind up in a place where your level 5 PCs require level 10 threats to challenge them. Thus, if you optimize, you could potentially "force" the DM (for some values of "force") to pit your party against threats that only you are equipped to handle, or else you breeze through encounters that drain all the other PCs, and have to purposefully restrain yourself in order to not steal the spotlight.

TLDR; 5E non-optimized characters work just fine, even though I personally can't stand playing them.

 

[Hriston]

I know this thread has gotten onto the subject of player character optimization in terms of elven weapon proficiencies and weapon selection, but I'd like to get back approaching this from the direction that these proficiencies are a fixture of elven culture that all elves have access to. Elves are trained in these weapons because they live in a warrior-society defined by the perennial struggle against goblinoids and orcs. The foot-soldiers of the elven army would be the strongest elves so that they could wield the longsword effectively and wear heavy armor. So I've gone ahead and rolled up stats for twenty elf "guards" using 3d6. I put the highest stat in strength and applied the traditional +1 bonus to represent that these are the strongest members of the race. I put the second highest stat in dexterity and applied the +2 racial bonus. The result was that 50% had a strength bonus higher than their dexterity bonus. Another 45% had strength and dexterity bonuses that were equal, and only one out of twenty had a dexterity bonus higher than its strength bonus (a difference of only one point). So I think the concept that the elf is somehow not capable of being an effective strength fighter, or is racially compromised by its tendency towards higher dexterity stats is missing the diversity of abilities that elves are truly capable of.

 

[Dausuul]

So far I haven't seen anyone other than me and Paraxis actually make any statements regarding the point at which an inefficient character is too inefficient to be acceptable to the group.

Perhaps that's because you're the only ones who have such a "point."

I seriously doubt everyone is thinking, "there is no point; you can have a Strength of 3 and a greatsword in my game, and we're all good with it!"

Are you fun to play with? Do you make the game more enjoyable for everyone? Then knock yourself out. I won't count on your PC to bail me out of a tough fight, but I'd rather play alongside a Strength 3 greatsword fighter whose player was cheerful, entertaining, and a good sport, than a highly optimized warrior played by an obnoxious munchkin.

Now, if the player is going to get all snooty about being a ROLE-player rather than a ROLL-player and sneer at me for making a character who can fight--that player can get lost. And I've certainly known players like that. But the player of the dual-crossbow Sharpshooter fighter who sneers at me for taking the Actor feat* instead of Toughness or Resilient, that player also can get lost. I have very little patience for anyone who goes off on other people's build choices, for any reason. Mind your own freakin' business.

[size=-2]*As someone who often plays high-Charisma characters with illusion magic, I think the Actor feat is the greatest thing since sliced bread.[/size]

 

[Agamon]

Elves can treat longswords as either versatile or finesse but not both.

That way it prevents other types of cheesy exploits, but lets elves and only elves be better with their traditional weapon than anyone else.

This makes the most sense. If these two conditions aren't mutually exclusive, they will be in my games.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Does anyone think that elves are underpowered as a race, and consequently need a boost? I'd have thought that, apart from the variant humans, elves were at the top of the bennie-list of any D&D race.

An easier solution (for those who need a house rule) is just to remove elven racial weapon proficiency in the longsword. It exists as a legacy item, that can be explained if one wants to; but it's not mechanically central to any in-demand character concept. The elf does not become any less desirable a race as a result.

 

[Dausuul]

Does anyone think that elves are underpowered as a race, and consequently need a boost? I'd have thought that, apart from the variant humans, elves were at the top of the bennie-list of any D&D race.

For my money, the three most powerful 5E races (in no particular order) are mountain dwarves, half-elves, and variant humans.

Mountain dwarf: +2 Str/+2 Con makes any Strength-based warrior into a powerhouse. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

Half-elf: +2 Cha, +1 to two other stats, and two bonus skills makes them the go-to race for any Charisma specialist. (The skills are an important part of that; Charisma fuels a lot of very valuable skills, so having two free skill picks goes a long way.)

Variant human: +1 to two stats of your choice and a free feat, at 1st level yet. 'Nuff said.

The other races are decently effective, but those are the top tier. Elves don't stand out from the pack power-wise. Perhaps a slight leg up, since they get +2 to the Uberstat, but nothing major.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It's true that it isn't a solo game... but my experience so far with 5E is that no matter how flavorful your character concept, it is impossible to gimp your PC so hard that it isn't able to handle level-appropriate challenges. In fact, it is precisely because it is not a solo game that you might consider doing non-optimal things like taking a longsword even though you're an elf. If you make smart strategic and tactical decisions you can easily wind up in a place where your level 5 PCs require level 10 threats to challenge them. Thus, if you optimize, you could potentially "force" the DM (for some values of "force") to pit your party against threats that only you are equipped to handle, or else you breeze through encounters that drain all the other PCs, and have to purposefully restrain yourself in order to not steal the spotlight.

TLDR; 5E non-optimized characters work just fine, even though I personally can't stand playing them.

This is extremely useful play experience to hear about. Thanks! I've noticed that our party of 6 characters that rolled well on stats has been breezing through LMoP (after the dangerous 1st level), and I knew that having that 6th character was part of it, but wasn't sure how much of it was based on good stats and fairly well designed characters.

The reason for concern that I have is not about objecting to player's choices because I want to control their character, but about a group all playing together as a team. I personally don't care if they are all reasonably optimized or completely inefficient, as long as everyone is at a more or less similar level of optimization. I also don't care if a particular character is designed to be an Actor rather than a combatant. What I care about is if a player for no particular reason is saying, "So Option A gives me an AC of 11, and Option B which can be fluffed to be identical to Option A and possesses no real drawbacks gives me an AC of 12? I still think I'm going to go with Option A." I seriously doubt there is any sort of good reason for a such a choice (unless it was a particular item they liked--not just a generic type of armor, for instance). And if I talked with a player and they insisted on that without a good reason, I'd assume they were trying to be an obstinate jerk. (I'm not saying anyone here would do that--I don't think many people would.)

 

[Ahrimon]

I also don't care if a particular character is designed to be an Actor rather than a combatant. What I care about is if a player for no particular reason is saying, "So Option A gives me an AC of 11, and Option B which can be fluffed to be identical to Option A and possesses no real drawbacks gives me an AC of 12? I still think I'm going to go with Option A." I seriously doubt there is any sort of good reason for a such a choice (unless it was a particular item they liked--not just a generic type of armor, for instance). And if I talked with a player and they insisted on that without a good reason, I'd assume they were trying to be an obstinate jerk. (I'm not saying anyone here would do that--I don't think many people would.)

Not everyone is ok with re-fluffing though. So for some option B might be completely foreign to their concept. There are so many play styles and options that there really is no solution other than is everyone contributing in some way? If so, then it's all good. If one character is less effective in combat but more effective in other areas then it should be ok because it will all balance out in the end.

About the only situation where it could be a problem would be in a less-dimensional game. If you are playing a hack and slash beer and pretzel game then someone who comes in with a high role playing character will not be a good fit. But again, that's a group decision and a play style issue. It would be just as much of an issue if someone brought Greg the barbarian who can cleave mountains in half to an intrigue and mystery game.