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

[aramis erak]

As far as ease of use... the techniques for basic competence with a pre cut-n-thrust longsword are much easier than the basic techniques for rapier. There's some overlap, but really, having studied both (and studied longsword & katana before rapier), the much more finicky rapier is harder to learn and harder to master than the longsword (or the short sword, or the dagger)...

Mastering the cut-n-thrust longsword is in between; the addition of the thrusting tip, basket hilt, and the 1.5 edge pattern make for a third pattern of moves.

So it's quite reasonable that they get longsword instead of rapier, if one presumes the primarily non-thrusting medieval longsword...

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It's the second part "play your class" that I have issue with.

If you choose to wear leather armor instead of studded leather, use a longsword when your dex is higher than your strength, and other silly "roleplay" things than I say you are not playing your class and filling your role in the party. If I am running a character in the group and his life depends on your abilities and skills and you choose to make horrible optimization choices, my character starts to point out how we should replace you on the team because you obviously don't care about group safety.

So pick up the rapier and set down your grandfathers longsword, put on the studded leather I don't care if it clashes with your boots, and realize the fate of the village, kingdom, or world rests on your shoulders and now is not the time to be incompetent.

But yes some people can have fun playing horribly inept characters that are only good at underwater basket weaving and have fun for them, but trust me they are impeding the fun of the other players at the table.

I'm kind of on both sides of this issue. I don't like player aesthetic choices to drop character effectiveness (in part because they are being relied on by their allies), yet I want people to be able to play the character they imagine without suffering for it.

Really, I think the system itself should be designed to minimize the statistical effects of aesthetic choices. (With weapons and armors I broaden the options by allowing the same stats to apply to multiple types of weapons or armors. For instance, the Splint category of 5e includes banded, lamellar, plate and mail, and pretty much anything else that is more than a suit of chain mail but less than full plate.)

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.

(I should also say that I'm not much of an optimizer--and I don't like my players to go overboard on it either--but I am "optimization aware," enough to know if something is really weak.)

 

[Parmandur]

New thought for a house rule here to make the long sword more attractive to an Elf: make racial weapons count as Arcane focus or holy symbol, so highly useful to a High Elf Eldritch Knight.

 

[Ahrimon]

(I should also say that I'm not much of an optimizer--and I don't like my players to go overboard on it either--but I am "optimization aware," enough to know if something is really weak.)

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.

 

[Eric V]

All of you would crap on their character ideals and tell them that their character sucks because of a 10% difference???

Where is this coming from?

For my part, I was trying to look at how, within the reality of the game, elves would have adopted longsword as a racial weapon when racially they are more suited to another (fairly similar) one.

 

[Joe Liker]

Evolution is probably the wrong word, but why would elves create a tradition (which is usually born out of practicality) around a weapon they are less adapt in using than comparable weapons?
Mechanically this is simply a holdover from way back when longswords were "the best" swords and things like finesse did not exist. But now with weapons granting finesse on their own with no special training it makes no sense that a race which is on average more dexterous than strong wouldn't favor them over strength based weapons.

Very few elven traditions are born out of practicality. If you believe they are, you do not understand elves.

 

[Paraxis]

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?

No, but we are not talking just 10% here, a +2 to hit has cascading effects on DPR if it was just 10% less damage per round I wouldn't care at all. But the 10% chance to hit on each attack, and +2 damage on each attack drops DPR by a lot more than 10%.

All of you would crap on their character ideals and tell them that their character sucks because of a 10% difference???

As a DM I make helpful suggestions to optimize and if they don't I don't pull punches or give a helping hand to weaker "roleplayier" characters, dice fall characters die, maybe next time they will optimize and think about actions they take.

As a player, my character completely in character starts talking to their character about how they could improve themselves for the betterment of the team or group, if my character is going to fill his role as effectively as he can I expect my allies to atleast try and do the same. If it becomes an out of character thing that is a completely different conversation and I will start talking about DPR and good tactics.

 

[Ahrimon]

Where is this coming from?

Mostly from comments like this:

If you choose to wear leather armor instead of studded leather, use a longsword when your dex is higher than your strength, and other silly "roleplay" things than I say you are not playing your class and filling your role in the party. If I am running a character in the group and his life depends on your abilities and skills and you choose to make horrible optimization choices, my character starts to point out how we should replace you on the team because you obviously don't care about group safety.

So pick up the rapier and set down your grandfathers longsword, put on the studded leather I don't care if it clashes with your boots, and realize the fate of the village, kingdom, or world rests on your shoulders and now is not the time to be incompetent.

But yes some people can have fun playing horribly inept characters that are only good at underwater basket weaving and have fun for them, but trust me they are impeding the fun of the other players at the table.

But there's also a dash of overboard to help drive the point home.

For my part, I was trying to look at how, within the reality of the game, elves would have adopted longsword as a racial weapon when racially they are more suited to another (fairly similar) one.

I think this is where I see things differently. I look at from the reality of a fantasy reality and not from a game perspective. I don't see that elves have +2 dexterity I see that elves are on average more dextrous than other races. For a character that is reflected by a +2 to dexterity, but it has nothing to do with the narrative to me. Elves learn the longsword because it's culturally considered a nobles weapon, it's a weapon of war not dueling, it's more effective overall in the grand scheme of things, and it's what their god wields.

Once you look at things from a narrative world building view and not translating the game into the world so much more makes sense. The game is there to model interaction with the world not to model the world itself. That's my POV anyway.

 

[Ahrimon]

No, but we are not talking just 10% here, a +2 to hit has cascading effects on DPR if it was just 10% less damage per round I wouldn't care at all. But the 10% chance to hit on each attack, and +2 damage on each attack drops DPR by a lot more than 10%.

As a DM I make helpful suggestions to optimize and if they don't I don't pull punches or give a helping hand to weaker "roleplayier" characters, dice fall characters die, maybe next time they will optimize and think about actions they take.

As a player, my character completely in character starts talking to their character about how they could improve themselves for the betterment of the team or group, if my character is going to fill his role as effectively as he can I expect my allies to atleast try and do the same. If it becomes an out of character thing that is a completely different conversation and I will start talking about DPR and good tactics.

I'll never understand this need to be at 110% peak efficiency in every single aspect of my character or I have utterly failed. I got it when I was playing MMO's and raiding the end game because it made sense there. In tabletop gaming it's just not needed. I can be at 85 of optimized efficiency and still more than pull my weight and enjoy the game. The whole group could be at 85% and we'd never notice a difference. In fact I would say that the game is built around everyone being between 75-90% of their max. If it was built for everyone to be at 100% we'd never see threads about DMs having trouble trying to challenge their parties.

Once "DPR" has moved from a white room discussion to the table, I think the players have lost touch with what it means to play a role playing game IMO.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, but we are not talking just 10% here, a +2 to hit has cascading effects on DPR if it was just 10% less damage per round I wouldn't care at all. But the 10% chance to hit on each attack, and +2 damage on each attack drops DPR by a lot more than 10%.



As a DM I make helpful suggestions to optimize and if they don't I don't pull punches or give a helping hand to weaker "roleplayier" characters, dice fall characters die, maybe next time they will optimize and think about actions they take.

As a player, my character completely in character starts talking to their character about how they could improve themselves for the betterment of the team or group, if my character is going to fill his role as effectively as he can I expect my allies to atleast try and do the same. If it becomes an out of character thing that is a completely different conversation and I will start talking about DPR and good tactics.

I know these days it's super un PC to say things like 'badwrong fun" and it's a cardinal sin to even hint that someone is playing the game the wrong way and whatnot, but if you have a role-playing game where you treat role-playing with such contempt? I think you're missing the point.


"If someone wants to roleplay over optimization? I'll teach 'em and they won't ever do that again."

Thank GOD I have never had anyone like you at my gaming table over the past 30+ years. We would not get along at all. I don't view the game as some sort of optimization competition between the DM and players, and especially not between players themselves.