D&D 5E If an option is presented, it needs to be good enough to take.

Magil · Sep 23, 2012

slobster said:
That was my first thought, too.

But I think the OP makes an interesting point about those sorts of "trade-offs" turning into traps to ensnare the unwary. A high level of system mastery (relatively speaking) would be needed to avoid them, and lots of players don't yet or never will have that.

If a player looks at a wizard and sees fireballs and gouts of flame, he is going to be tempted. "Sweet," he thinks, "I'll be a total spell-flinging bad@$$ just like all those mages I know from fiction!" Then, come gameday, he sits there with a sad face because his fighter friend with a bow is doing essentially the same thing he is (damage at a distance), but much better.

If you are going to give the wizard the option to be a blaster, you need to balance it so that blasting is fun to do. Otherwise you might as well omit the option and save people the frustration of being naive enough to take it.

The problem I see with this is, it will probably lead to trying to balance wizard blasting with fighter smashing by limiting the number of times per day a wizard can blast--IE, the wizard's daily output is stronger per spell than the fighter's output per swing. Which is currently what we have in Next, and has its own set of problems (making an assumption about the typical adventuring day).

I agree that "trap" options are a bad thing for the system to have. But if they're going to balance two classes doing similar things, they need to be very careful about it, especially if one of those classes can do a whole bunch of other things.

slobster · Sep 23, 2012

Magil said:
I agree that "trap" options are a bad thing for the system to have. But if they're going to balance two classes doing similar things, they need to be very careful about it, especially if one of those classes can do a whole bunch of other things.

Agreed. I try to think of it as a challenge to balance the options so that they are both fun to play rather than balancing them to have some sort of parity in terms of game statistics. The former will certainly have some dependence on the latter, but identifying the latter as your primary goal runs into all the sorts of problems you are talking about.

It's an inherently subjective metric to be sure, but then this is game design for a pen and paper RPG. It's the nature of the beast.

Leatherhead · Sep 23, 2012

You have to ask if it is system mastery, or is it providing an option so that they aren't totally useless outside of their niche? Keep in mind, being "good enough to take" does not necessarily mean "being as good as everything else you can take"

Classes having a niche isn't bad, so long as that niche isn't beyond reproach and can be reasonably performed by other classes, and as long as that niche doesn't preclude the option of reasonably doing things outside of said niche.

Things that only temporarily use resources, like Fireball, are fine as being "out of niche". Things like feats are not. And things like tripping specialists are just cases of over-specialization running amok, and why specialization to that degree should be ground into hamburger.

Remathilis · Sep 24, 2012

Gorgoroth said:
Pathfinder was great in some ways, but terrible in others, and yes, I think it's mostly due to the unneccesary over-nerfage of options.

Definitely concur that all options should be viable.

In PF you needed high system mastery to even build a decent barbarian (since e.g. a fighter or an alchemist would kick your butt without even trying very hard).

There is an issue in balance that PF dialed to 11: moving parts.

In 3.5/PF (esp PF) I have my race, class(es), archetype, prestige class(es), feats, skills, class abilities (fixed), class abilities (chosen), magic items, spells, talents, etc.

That's a lot of moving parts of keep track of. You need decent system mastery to just keep everything in line.

Lest you think 4e made it any better, It just combined a bunch of those into one list and called them "powers". It also added Paragon Paths, Themes, Epic Destinies, etc...

Less is more. Race, Class, Spells, Items, and maybe Skills/Feats. Customization is good, but the more granular the system, the easier it is to break down.

Magil · Sep 24, 2012

Remathilis said:
Less is more. Race, Class, Spells, Items, and maybe Skills/Feats. Customization is good, but the more granular the system, the easier it is to break down.

I hear "less is more" a lot, but that's only true to an extent. If you significantly reduce the amount of interesting decisions I need to make when I level up, then I probably won't be interested in the game.

My personal hope is that they eventually get rid of "dead levels" in DnD Next and I am telling them this via feedback at every opportunity. I don't like any time I gain a level and the only thing I get is a numbers boost in certain areas (and bounded accuracy is going to reduce that somewhat too). Take the current 2nd level of fighter, where the only thing you get is +1 to a skill and some HP. 4/8 are mostly the same, except with ability score bumps.

As for the comment about being easier to break down, I say, oh well. I'd rather they make more interesting decisions for us to make and work to balance them than take away the decisions. I'm fine with making combat flow faster and thus keeping options for what you do on your turn simple--but please do not extend this to the character creation process. The current approach, I think, will work if things like Specialties and Fighting Styles are optional. But I hope that eventually I will be able to choose feats and maneuvers on an individual basis. If not, I will be very, very disappointed.

Remathilis · Sep 24, 2012

Magil said:
I hear "less is more" a lot, but that's only true to an extent. If you significantly reduce the amount of interesting decisions I need to make when I level up, then I probably won't be interested in the game.

My personal hope is that they eventually get rid of "dead levels" in DnD Next and I am telling them this via feedback at every opportunity. I don't like any time I gain a level and the only thing I get is a numbers boost in certain areas (and bounded accuracy is going to reduce that somewhat too). Take the current 2nd level of fighter, where the only thing you get is +1 to a skill and some HP. 4/8 are mostly the same, except with ability score bumps.

As for the comment about being easier to break down, I say, oh well. I'd rather they make more interesting decisions for us to make and work to balance them than take away the decisions. I'm fine with making combat flow faster and thus keeping options for what you do on your turn simple--but please do not extend this to the character creation process. The current approach, I think, will work if things like Specialties and Fighting Styles are optional. But I hope that eventually I will be able to choose feats and maneuvers on an individual basis. If not, I will be very, very disappointed.

Here is my Pathfinder problem.

There comes a point where you experience overload of options however. My elven rogue may have combed over various dozens of various options and optional rules, creating weird synergies that break the game. Its customization as all get, but its really easy to make very broken characters by picking the right variant racial abilities, class features and archetypes, talents/powers/quirks, feats, and magical junk (not to mention spells or skills) to hyperspecialize and break what balance there is.

n00bdragon · Sep 24, 2012

The premise of the topic, that there should be no trap options, is a good one. However, I feel like most people don't realize that the imbalanced part of the game isn't that Bob can do 20 damage a round while Jim can only do 10. It's that Bob can turn invisible, fly into the air, turn the king into a newt, and then send the big bad to the elemental plane of unpleasantness with a waggle of his finger while Jim can... hit things with a sword. Oh, and Bob can waggle his fingers to be a better sword-hitter-person than Jim except he never does this because that's the worst option he has available to him.

You guys are quibbling over the balance-mobile's theoretical MPG when it doesn't even have wheels.

Kinak · Sep 24, 2012

Remathilis said:
Less is more. Race, Class, Spells, Items, and maybe Skills/Feats. Customization is good, but the more granular the system, the easier it is to break down.

In my opinion, 5e is already shooting past this. Race, Subrace, Class, Subclass, Attributes, Specialization, and Background all at first level, plus the usual Spells and Items.

Say what you will about option overload in 3rd and 4e (a valid complaint in both cases), at least a lot of that comes in later in the process. Pathfinder can get about as bad if you use all the archetypes and racial modifiers.

Balance aside, that's just too much to set in stone at first level. I really want a system with simple questions during character creation, then the more complex choices as players start to understand their characters and the world.

Cheers!
Kinak

Animal · Sep 24, 2012

Can't agree with the OP at all.
There should be suboptimal choices for those who actually don't mind to take them for roleplay reasons. I understand that there are different playstyles. Some players prefer all options equally viable and balanced. Some though prefer their characters to have weaknesses just as real people do.
For example, if I play a monk who took a vow of poverty, i expect it to actually be a weakness and hindrance my character deliberately imposed on himself for in-character reasons, not just a way to greatly boost his abilities instead.

slobster · Sep 24, 2012

Animal said:
Can't agree with the OP at all.
There should be suboptimal choices for those who actually don't mind to take them for roleplay reasons. I understand that there are different playstyles. Some players prefer all options equally viable and balanced. Some though prefer their characters to have weaknesses just as real people do.
For example, if I play a monk who took a vow of poverty, i expect it to actually be a weakness and hindrance my character deliberately imposed on himself for in-character reasons, not just a way to greatly boost his abilities instead.

There will always be suboptimal choices to be made. But they don't have to be "trap" options that are hidden in the character creation minigame, and potentially ruin a player's entire experience with a character.

Take a combat situation. The obviously optimal situation might be to shift 5 feet, take my attack action against the orc who has pinned the wizard against a wall, then use my CS die to cleave into an adjacent warg who has taken damage and is almost dead.

But I'm playing my fighter as a more-chivalrous-than-intelligent knight, so instead I challenge the orc chieftan loudly to a one-on-one duel and then charge through a wall of orcs to meet him in honorable combat. Or I'm playing a scoundrel and opportunistic jerk, and I slink to one side of the combat and begin looting the fallen.

Those are the kind of options that any game will offer, that actually allow you to roleplay (placing a 4 in Constitution isn't roleplaying, it's character creation), and that players make with their eyes wide open, aware of the likely consequences. And it's a kind of choice whose repercussions are fairly contained, meaning that you can change the choices you make during the course of play if you aren't enjoying the way things are working out.

Playing a weakened character should be a choice, not an unfortunate mistake.