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

ExploderWizard · Sep 26, 2012

Lanefan said:
Where I'm the opposite: I don't usually want to have to make decisions at level-up - just tell me what the level automatically gives me and what dice I need to roll, and let's get on with the game.
Then tell them to reduce the number of playable-range levels. If the system goes from 1-30 (or even 1-20) and you get one or more new powers/feats/whatevers every level plus all the other stuff a level gives you then by the highest levels your character sheet will be about the same complexity as the instruction manual for a 747. Which is ridiculous.

A game-play level range of 1-12 or 1-15 is enough. Higher levels can exist, of course, but the intent is that the game doesn't get played there; those levels are more for opponents, mentors, major NPCs, etc.

Character generation should ideally be one of the simplest mechanical parts of the whole game-play process; and the fastest.

Why?

Because when I'm creating a character I'm not playing the game*; and I'd rather get on with the game.

* - defined as having one's character actually do something in the game world

Lanefan

Gotta spread some around. Summed up perfectly.

Bluenose · Sep 26, 2012

Hussar said:
I think they just REALLY need to steer away from magic that has pluses. Magic armor doesn't make you harder to hit, it lets you fly, or move quietly, or whatever. Heck, it grows berries and feeds you.

NO MORE PLUSES!

The SF RPG approach. You may need that sophisticated piece of equipment, not because it gives a bonus to your skills, but because it gives your skills broader application. I don't need a Vacc Suit to make me a better mechanic, I need a Vacc Suit to perform mechanical tasks in space. A better gun doesn't make me a better shot, but it's accurate at longer ranges, fires faster, hits harder.

Mishihari Lord · Sep 28, 2012

B.T. said:
I was having a discussion with a friend of mine the other day, and he said something to the effect of: "I think blasting spells should be less good than melee combat because that's not what wizards are supposed to be doing. Wizards should be mostly about utility spells."

And this annoyed me, and I realized that this was what I really hate about Paizo. (Don't worry, this will relate to 5e at some point.) The idea that game designers should write an option into the game and deliberately underpower it for whatever cruel reason is foolish and encourages system mastery.

I agree that there should not be deliberately poor build choices, but this is a lousy example of the problem. Which is a better option, a knock spell or a weak fireball? It depends entirely on what you're doing.

A design choice that wizards are more about utility than blasting is entirely legit. (Not that I necessarily think this is the choice that 5E should make) If the wizard then wants to choose a weak blast because that's how he wants to play, knowing that it's weaker than the fighter's damage capabilities, he should be able to have that option.

That's the problem with demanding that choices should be equally strong. It limits the options of a player who doesn't care about playing an optimized combat-monster, and would rather match his PC to a particular concept or something else that's fun for him.

I don't see a problem with rewarding system mastery either. The idea that being good at a game increases you odds of success is pretty commonsense. And it's not like D&D is all that complicated anyway.

Steely_Dan · Sep 28, 2012

ZombieRoboNinja said:
For example, an archer cleric is probably not as effective overall as a priest cleric or an archer fighter. But if I'm making an elven cleric of Corellon, it might appeal to me anyway. Should WOTC disallow this combo (perhaps by heightening the prereqs for the archer specialty), or strengthen it to parity with more typical combos? I'd say no to both: the archer cleric should be possible but should not be encouraged explicitly.

Zen Archery is a sweet feat.

They mention feats and other things in the playtest packet might change what ability score you use for attacks.

Patryn of Elvenshae · Sep 28, 2012

Mishihari Lord said:
That's the problem with demanding that choices should be equally strong. It limits the options of a player who doesn't care about playing an optimized combat-monster, and would rather match his PC to a particular concept or something else that's fun for him.

How does ensuring that, for example, blaster wizards are effective when compared to trick wizards "limit the options" of the player seeking to play a blaster wizard? Regardless of whether or not that player wants to make an optimized combat monster?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

GMforPowergamers · Sep 28, 2012

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
How does ensuring that, for example, blaster wizards are effective when compared to trick wizards "limit the options" of the player seeking to play a blaster wizard? Regardless of whether or not that player wants to make an optimized combat monster?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

What about people that want optimized options for all builds?

Patryn of Elvenshae · Sep 28, 2012

GMforPowergamers said:
What about people that want optimized options for all builds?

I don't undertand the question.

Mishihari Lord · Sep 28, 2012

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
How does ensuring that, for example, blaster wizards are effective when compared to trick wizards "limit the options" of the player seeking to play a blaster wizard? Regardless of whether or not that player wants to make an optimized combat monster?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

If, to use the OP's example, the intent of the system designers is that fighters do more pure damage than wizards, then providing a weak blast provides more options than providing no blasting spells at all. If you want a wizard to do as much damage with spells as a fighter, then you have an issue with the system philosophy, not with particular weak options.

My point is that the OP's example is unrelated to the issue he's discussing. If a character has a build option that's obviously inferior to the other options, then it probably shouldn't be there. This isn't the case with a utility vs damage design choice: the stronger option is very dependent on circumstance. If a character has an option that is weaker than another classes ability to do the same thing, that's not a problem, it's just role protection.

Patryn of Elvenshae · Sep 28, 2012

Mishihari Lord said:
If, to use the OP's example, the intent of the system designers is that fighters do more pure damage than wizards, then providing a weak blast provides more options than providing no blasting spells at all.

Certainly, but that's not what you seemed to be arguing. You seemed to be saying that making those blasting spells competetive with being a tricky mage would reduce options.

Mishihari Lord said:
It limits the options of a player who doesn't care about playing an optimized combat-monster, and would rather match his PC to a particular concept or something else that's fun for him.

Given that:

1) Tricky mages exist
2) Blasty mages exist

How is

3) Blasty mages are not meaningfully inferior to tricky mages

... a reduction in options?

Mishihari Lord · Sep 28, 2012

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
3) Blasty mages are not meaningfully inferior to tricky mages

That's a meaningless statement. Which is superior, the mage that sets an ogre on fire, the one who keeps the enemies away with a wall of ice, or the one who charms the orc into revealing a secret door? It depends what you need. Apples and oranges. Utility vs damage is not an area where you can complain that options are strictly inferior to each other.