D&D 5E Non choices: must have and wants why someone that hates something must take it

[GMforPowergamers]

This has come up time and time again, expertise feats, and at will damage cantrips are the two I've seen the most (4e and 5e respectively) but there are other things.

Person A says "I don't like X (where X could be anything) I want it out of the game now."
Person B says "I like X and want it in game, if you don't like it just don't use it."
then comes the confusing part
Person A says "If I can take X I have to because it is the best option"
Even if person B-F then claim (as I have) "I don't take X all the time, but when I want to, I want the option"
Person A will come back with "It's too much of a non choice."

[sblock=expertise] when I pointed out not only did my entire table never all take expertise feats, and even listed character builds that were fun and rocked and had no need (where hitting just fine) I was told my group that was handleing above level challenges must not be good at optimizing [/sblock]

[sblock=cantrips] in another thread the argument is being made that ray of frost is a must have, evenif you want to play a sage with no offensive spells [/sblock]

What I don't understand is, if you don't like something, how can you feel forced to take it? It makes no sense to me.

how can something that some people like, some people don't like be made to not ruin the game for either set. Making them optional isn't even good enough for some who don't like it...

 

[Lokiare]

This has come up time and time again, expertise feats, and at will damage cantrips are the two I've seen the most (4e and 5e respectively) but there are other things.

Person A says "I don't like X (where X could be anything) I want it out of the game now."
Person B says "I like X and want it in game, if you don't like it just don't use it."
then comes the confusing part
Person A says "If I can take X I have to because it is the best option"
Even if person B-F then claim (as I have) "I don't take X all the time, but when I want to, I want the option"
Person A will come back with "It's too much of a non choice."

[sblock=expertise] when I pointed out not only did my entire table never all take expertise feats, and even listed character builds that were fun and rocked and had no need (where hitting just fine) I was told my group that was handleing above level challenges must not be good at optimizing [/sblock]

[sblock=cantrips] in another thread the argument is being made that ray of frost is a must have, evenif you want to play a sage with no offensive spells [/sblock]

What I don't understand is, if you don't like something, how can you feel forced to take it? It makes no sense to me.

how can something that some people like, some people don't like be made to not ruin the game for either set. Making them optional isn't even good enough for some who don't like it...

The main reasoning is you have to take it to keep up with the rest of the party or to effectively do your job as your character. If you're job is to take down enemies quickly then your effectiveness to do that can get your party killed. So you are forced to spend a feat on something like expertise.

It comes with the idea that everyone at the table contributes equally but in different ways. If you are suddenly not contributing, it can turn into a heroes and side kicks game, which many people do not enjoy.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Expertise was a math feat fix. It should have been errata'd into the game.

Expertise is not necessary but it's pretty vital. Depending on your character, you might already have a good attack bonus through other means (a thief always getting combat advantage, or a weaponmaster with their weapon talent using a sword with a +3 proficiency bonus). On the other hand, if you're playing a halfling runepriest, you might want to use a dagger rather than a hammer (which the PC doing that ended up doing) and still took expertise. (Missing doesn't just mean losing out on damage, but also on hit abilities.)

The cantrips are part of a game playstyle evolution "war". In OD&D when a wizard wasn't using their spells they were using darts, daggers, etc. Given the few spells per day (often as low as 1) you had almost no choice in the matter. In 4e, by contrast, a wizard gets at-will magic. These spells are always (in the PH1 at least) things that deal damage and usually have a control effect (relevant as the wizard is usually a controller). Even the ones that don't deal damage directly are often doing things that force enemies to attack each other. While crossbows weren't available to 4 wizards without a feat, you could do it by spending a feat. That might be useful if you were facing someone with low AC (artillery or brute) but decent NADs (eg something higher level); however typically wizards didn't have great Dexterity anymore, reducing your attack bonus. (You could spend a feat to use another stat, but spending two feats on an already suboptimal combo is not the greatest idea.)

In D&DN, you could use a crossbow or Ray of Frost, or even both if you choose. Unfortunately (something I've seen mainly in 3e and Pathfinder) the choices include the choice to make bad choices. You could choose to not use a weapon and not have any cantrips that deal damage, which means once your Vancian pool is tapped, there will be opponents you cannot deal with (with your magic, that is).

DM authority has eroded to some extent. If a person shows up in a game with a bard/monk combo for a 3e or Pathfinder game, I suspect most DMs would not be happy about it, nor the other players, but beyond a brief talk nothing would be done about it. Same thing if a player shows up with a ridiculously overpowered or broken combo. In my own experience, these issues were only directly fixed if the DM got angry, more often in overpowered and broken combo cases.

D&D Next is also not that simple; a DM might give a wizard character sheet a once over and not notice they're basically useless. So now you've got DMs worried that reasonable encounters might steamroll the PCs because someone decided to build a cool but useless wizard PC (or that their monsters won't be able to hit rogues, and other such issues).

 

[Lokiare]

It all comes down to whether you believe its ok to sacrifice effectiveness for a character concept.

For most of use the answer is 'NO'...

 

[Greg K]

DM authority has eroded to some extent. If a person shows up in a game with a bard/monk combo for a 3e or Pathfinder game, I suspect most DMs would not be happy about it, nor the other players, but beyond a brief talk nothing would be done about it. Same thing if a player shows up with a ridiculously overpowered or broken combo.

That is not erosion of DM authority. It is the DM choosing not to enforce an aspect of his or her role as stated in the DMG.

 

[Greg K]

It all comes down to whether you believe its ok to sacrifice effectiveness for a character concept.

For most of use the answer is 'NO'...

Neither you nor I know what the answer of most is.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Neither you nor I know what the answer of most is.

It's one of those playstyle issues. For some groups, that's okay. For others, it's not okay. Rules make it easier to support one or another playstyle though.

 

[ImperatorK]

It all comes down to whether you believe its ok to sacrifice effectiveness for a character concept.

For most of use the answer is 'NO'...

For me the answer is yes. And I'm an optimizer at heart.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Running a lot of pick-up games online with friends as well as total strangers for a couple of years now, i can see a great deal of people aren't mix-maxer, they want to build fun characters following a concept and don't care that much about PC/Party effectiveness, DPR, DPS or whatever D you can P with.

A lot of people also care. Is it most? I wouldn't necessarily say so though and i don't know who is it for the rest of the fanbase.

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) the choices include the choice to make bad choices.

(. . .)

So now you've got DMs worried that reasonable encounters might steamroll the PCs because someone decided to build a cool but useless wizard PC (or that their monsters won't be able to hit rogues, and other such issues).

There's no denying that some playstyles lead to the above statements. The crux of the disagreement, IMO, stems from debate over whether or not a set of rules for D&D should cater to a broader or more narrow variety of playstyles.