D&D 5E (2014) The woes of the elf and his longsword

[Paraxis]

Yep, and orcs take it a step further. Losing an eye is a great boon, thanks to Gruumsh, but it sure isn't practical.

If losing an eye only came with penalties, to say perception or ranged attacks I would never volunteer to take that option.
If losing an eye was a purely cosmetic thing with no game implications at all I might consider it.
If losing an eye gave me some benefit say an extra spell slot or something, rip that sucker out.

Now Gruumsh didn't have a choice in the matter, buy your character does.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Luckily, most gamers I know love the immersion of the game, AKA the "role playing", and don't view the game only through a mechanical lens, AKA the "roll playing". I'm sorry, but the claim that there is no roleplaying difference between a character with a rapier vs a long sword and therefore the player should always choose the best one tells me that the point completely misses you. I literally don't even know where to start, to show you how there is a huge difference between choosing a long sword vs a rapier from a role-playing standpoint. And then your post above, where the immersion of the setting, culture, and attitudes completely don't matter compared to the metagame mechanical impact.

 

[BigVanVader]

Now Gruumsh didn't have a choice in the matter, buy your character does.

Unless an enemy takes it, same as happened to Gruumsh.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

This isn't directed directly at the author, but I just have to shake my head when people consider the difference of one or two points to be weak. Do you honestly consider a 10% difference in ability to be so drastic that you would object to someone playing it. You'd complain that a friend wanted to play a character because he was 10% less effective? As a DM you'd be "concerned" that someone was hurting the party because they were 10% less effective in one aspect of their character. All of you would crap on their character ideals and tell them that their character sucks because of a 10% difference???

All I can say is that I'm glad I will probably never play with any of you. And on the off chance we do meet sometime and game together I hope you will have learned to be a little more tolerant of the other peoples choices in gaming.

Also not directed at you in particular, but I think most players would have a problem with inefficient characters at some point.

For you (general you), where is that point?

If someone were playing a fighter with both a Strength and Dexterity of, say 11, and fighting with a single dagger and an empty off-hand, because that's how they envision their character, is that okay with your group?

Personally I'm fine with say 1 point of damage and 1 point of AC. Or maybe 2 points of one and no points of the other. This isn't some strict checksheet I'm looking at, it's just my general impression of about how inefficient a player who understands the game would make his character for role-playing purposes. Take a character I'm planning to run as an extreme example of what I'd be okay with. I'm putting 14 in Dex (despite being Strength based, and needing a casting stat in addition) because I see him in medium armor, despite being proficient with heavy armor. So, best case scenario I'm putting myself 1 point of AC behind how I would be were I heavily armored, plus I'm losing stats elsewhere to pay for that 14 Dex that I need so I'm not 3 or 4 points behind in AC. He also don't use a shield, because I don't see him as using one. (As DM I house-ruled that the Dueling Fighting Style gives you a +1 AC if you aren't using a shield, 'cause I'm DM and I can do that--it's a general rule that also works well with a traditional rapier duelist.) So, all told I'm basically 2 points down on AC (and still have disadvantage on stealth) and I have to put 2-4 points into Dexterity that I could really make better use of elsewhere.

I'd have a hard time seeing a player make a character any more inefficient than that without intentionally trying to do so. A highly inefficient character might be fun for the whole party for a few sessions, until the humor wears off. I'm going to guess that everyone has a certain point of character inefficiency where it's just annoying for pretty much everyone. There are other players and a DM at the table who can help the player get the style they want without sacrificing too much for it.

So I'm saying most of you probably have a point where too much inefficiency is too much. So where is that point?

I think people are criticizing Paraxis's position, but I don't think his point of undesirable inefficiency is necessarily as far away from his critics as the responses are implying, and I think his actual position is being somewhat disregarded or caricatured so that it can be opposed on philosophical grounds rather than compared to other people's actual play experiences.

 

[Paraxis]

I think most players would have a problem with inefficient characters at some point.

For you (general you), where is that point?

I will give you a few example from game play experiences I have had, where my line in the sand is.

The little halfling rogue in a Pathfinder game who wanted to spend most combat hiding, not because he wanted to gain a tactical advantage but because his character was a scaredy cat. He only used a dagger, because he used to peel apples and didn't ever go for a flank.

Another rogue in a 4e game who only ever wanted to use basic attacks, the player thought encounter and daily powers were silly.

A dwarf who only ever used his grandfather's axe even when we started to run into monsters that needed magic weapons, he insisted that if it mattered the spellcasters should cast magic weapon on him during combat wasting a spell when we had plenty of magical weapons he could have used instead, this was 3e.

I went off on someone in a 5e game shortly after the PHB came out for not wearing studded leather instead of leather armor, because he didn't like the way studded leather looked.

We had a cleric who refused to heal anyone during combat or after unless they first prayed to his deity. The DM ruled doing so meant you didn't do anything on your turn besides pray, because the cleric wanted more than just lip service. So essentially no in combat heals at all, because giving up your action to pray was just dumb.

Been a long time now but I remember someone in a 1e game who rolled up great stats for a wizard, piss poor strength, solid dexterity, good constitution, and an 18 intelligence. He wanted to play a fighter, so he played a fighter. Deities help me, that was an argument with a good friend over why on earth he would do that.

Most of the time it is some minor quirk or thing that not only limits the character in question but they expect the other party members to take up the slack or help them out, or the DM to give them a break. I have even seen posts where DM's talk about rewarding "roleplayers" over "rollplayers" and it turns my stomach. Don't encourage the people bringing the party down, teach them that if they want to play inept characters than they get to play inept characters. The DM in that 1e game eventually gave the fighter a belt of giant strength for example, pissed me off.

So yeah, I dislike people who choose to be weak in a team activity, because they don't just make themselves weak they make the whole team weak.

 

[Agamon]

Unless an enemy takes it, same as happened to Gruumsh.

Which is given much more gravitas than removing it one's self. Blessed by Gruumsh is the orc that loses an eye in battle (doubly-so if from the arrow of an elf!)

 

[Sacrosanct]

I went off on someone in a 5e game shortly after the PHB came out for not wearing studded leather instead of leather armor, because he didn't like the way studded leather looked.
.

You went off on someone for that? Yeah, you're not exactly improving my opinion any

 

[Paraxis]

You went off on someone for that? Yeah, you're not exactly improving my opinion any

What gave you the impression I ever wanted to improve your opinion of me?

We are two guys on the internet, we can choose to be civil and respectful of each other like all people should be, but strangers opinions of me don't matter at all.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not an opinion of you. An opinion of your playstyle. And while I don't give two whits what you feel (like you said), I do care when it's a playstyle that is trying to make a game conform to those standards. So far, it seems to be a style that actively is hostile to anyone who doesn't adhere to your "optimization or get lost" attitude.

 

[Agamon]

So yeah, I dislike people who choose to be weak in a team activity, because they don't just make themselves weak they make the whole team weak.

This seems odd to me, but I suppose it just depends on whether you see the game as a group storytelling venture, or an our team vs their team sporting event. I'm not saying one is better than the other, I know the appeal of competitive gaming, but I get my fix of that from board and video games.

However, getting upset at someone else for they way they play the game is not cool. I guess someone shouldn't be in said group, depending on what the group's overall play style is. But getting mad at someone because you expect everyone to play the same way you do is a tad single-minded. And boasting of it here is also rather odd.