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

[GMforPowergamers]

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'...

how do we know if most agree with either of us, heck MOST might not care at all

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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'...

I do it all the time. RPGs are not about winning, they're about storytelling.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I do it all the time. RPGs are not about winning, they're about storytelling.

you know I don't understand some people, it's almost like the only answer is always X or Y.... I want to win more then I lose (because winning is fun) but I don't always have to go about the same way. SOmetiems the fun is running your character AND winning...

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

you know I don't understand some people, it's almost like the only answer is always X or Y.... I want to win more then I lose (because winning is fun) but I don't always have to go about the same way. SOmetiems the fun is running your character AND winning...

D&D has never ever been a game about winning. You win at Monopoly, you engage with D&D.

 

[Lokiare]

see the problem lies that I agree that the basic idea... (Game should meet basic expectation of working out of the box) but I disagree that the game doesn't work (both 4e with and without expertise and 5e with or without cantrips that damage.)

see there is a lot I agree with balance people with, but this one isn't it...

I've gone over the number and situations in another thread. Its very clear that there is a disparity between casters and non-casters.

my question is this (and I will ask it twice once for each example)

4e why is my wizard who hits more often then not and is a power player in the game not effective just because he doesn't have expertise? Infact just for a true example why isn't the Ranger (scout I believe) who out damages the rest of the party and has only 1 pt less to hit the then highest attack in the party and who is mostly a MVP at the game less effective then the fighter or sorcerer who both have expertise and both do less damage and who one has 1 pt higher to hit at 17th level when both of them have expertise??

This one has to do with the role of the character and no one ever said 4E worked out of the box. It is more difficult to break the game than 3.5E so its a step in the right direction. You can more easily make a character concept and expect it to be viable than in any other edition of D&D (5E included).

What happens with your example is that 4E isn't perfectly balanced so you can make a build that is more effective than another. The answer is another question, did you have to sacrifice your character concept for that +1 and how much did it matter? In 4E a single +1 has diminishing returns as you level up so that about level 5 or so a single +1 is not going to make your character unplayable. In 5E its the opposite. A single +1 makes a huge difference seeing as you only get +5 to +7 across 20 levels. So the problem is worse in 5E than it is in 4E.

5e why is my wizard less effective for having minor illusion then yours with ray of frost? isn't it intirely up to the game and the group to decide.

No, its up to the math. You can't argue with math. Now if you play a game that relies less on the rules and more on DM fiat, then there is no problem, but then again there never was. You can throw out the mechanics in any edition and expect this to happen. What we are talking about here though is no matter how good a role player you are, or how much story and immersion your DM brings, if you actually follow the mechanical rules, you will start to see a discrepancy between the more effective character and the less effective character. Everyone has a threshold of acceptance.

I'm sure if all Wizards had a cantrip that was 'You instantly defeat all your enemies in this encounter' and the only attack the Fighter had was 'deal 1 point of damage on a crit, otherwise nothing happens', most if not all of you would be crying foul. Some people, like me, can't tolerate when two characters built to concept can't contribute equally. It makes the game less fun, when the game turns into Super Hero Wizard and his trusty side kick the Fighter, or BMX bandit and angel summoner:

[video=youtube;zFuMpYTyRjw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw[/video]

now the only place I will agree with the cantrip people is it should scale slower (on the 6's so 1d8 1-5th 2d8 6th-11th 3d8 12th-17th and 4d8 at 18-20) that alone I think fixes the problem (witch I see as very small)

I don't know. The Cantrips damage isn't really that good as others have pointed out.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

D&D has never ever been a game about winning. You win at Monopoly, you engage with D&D.

I can win a fight with orcs, I can win a debate with the prince, I can loose a fight with the cult, I can win the senereo of the lost painting... there are lots of little win/lose in D&D and always has been, and part of role playing is to win and loose and react.

I've gone over the number and situations in another thread. Its very clear that there is a disparity between casters and non-casters.

Yes I agree but less so then 3e, and more so then 4e... but cantrips are not the problem...

This one has to do with the role of the character and no one ever said 4E worked out of the box. It is more difficult to break the game than 3.5E so its a step in the right direction. You can more easily make a character concept and expect it to be viable than in any other edition of D&D (5E included).

buut some how we get lost on X should maybe be down played a bit, and turn it into X should be free or not at all...

What happens with your example is that 4E isn't perfectly balanced so you can make a build that is more effective than another.

no but that was not the fault of the system... and it was fun for everyone...

The answer is another question, did you have to sacrifice your character concept for that +1 and how much did it matter?

nope

In 4E a single +1 has diminishing returns as you level up so that about level 5 or so a single +1 is not going to make your character unplayable. In 5E its the opposite. A single +1 makes a huge difference seeing as you only get +5 to +7 across 20 levels. So the problem is worse in 5E than it is in 4E.

I'm missing what this is about...

No, its up to the math. You can't argue with math.

You can argue the interpretation of the math though, and that is what I do with both at will damage cantrips and expertise feats...

Now if you play a game that relies less on the rules and more on DM fiat, then there is no problem, but then again there never was. You can throw out the mechanics in any edition and expect this to happen. What we are talking about here though is no matter how good a role player you are, or how much story and immersion your DM brings, if you actually follow the mechanical rules, you will start to see a discrepancy between the more effective character and the less effective character. Everyone has a threshold of acceptance.

I'm not sure who through out the mechanics, we didn't

I'm sure if all Wizards had a cantrip that was 'You instantly defeat all your enemies in this encounter' and the only attack the Fighter had was 'deal 1 point of damage on a crit, otherwise nothing happens', most if not all of you would be crying foul.

I would laugh and say "Wow, I guess they reall is caster supremecy" then never pay 1 cent toward that game... infact I wont even play pathfinder because of the imbalance there (although I keep trying and hopeing it's changed)

Some people, like me, can't tolerate when two characters built to concept can't contribute equally. It makes the game less fun, when the game turns into Super Hero Wizard and his trusty side kick the Fighter, or BMX bandit and angel summoner:

the problem is that we need to set things correctly, the wizard needs a bit toneing down and the fighter needs work, but it is better then 3e was... and it seems to me like screaming and yelling "It's broken" isn't how to fix the problem...

I don't know. The Cantrips damage isn't really that good as others have pointed out.

it will make those that want non damageing cantrips a bit happier...

 

[ImperatorK]

RPGs are not about winning, they're about storytelling.

They can be about both. Or neither.

 

[n00bdragon]

There's a logical way to solve this. Let's say Option X is something that people are claiming is so good that you can't not take it. Here are the possibilities:

A. Option X is so good that it helps to balance out an otherwise underpowered character.
B. Option X is so good that it makes a strong character even more overpowered.
C. Option X is so good that it makes an underpowered character broken.
D. The person is incorrect and Option X is not so powerful as to be mechanically essential to a character.

If A is true then taking away Option X because it conflicts with someone's character concept is ridiculous. You're selfishly saying "Because I personally don't want this option, no one should be allowed to take it."
Expertise: The problem most 4e people have with expertise isn't that you're allowed to take it but that you have to spend limited character resources to take it when you should just be given it for free. This is different from not wanting what expertise gives at all. They just don't feel they should pay for it.
Cantrips: If Cantrips fall into this case there is always the fact that they are an option. If Ray of Frost does not fit with your character and you don't want it on your sheet by all means, don't take it. Your character will be worse off, sure, but that sort of seems to the point with the argument against Cantrips. They want their wizards worse off in the sense of at-will attacks. Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting this.

If B is true then by all means. Option X is too strong and should go away.
Expertise: With Expertise this is patently not the case. Expertise is a math fix. It was designed to be situation #1. Sure, you can play the game without. You can still succeed and win above level encounters. However adding expertise in general improves the play experience for everyone.
Cantrips: With Cantrips this is has a hard time holding water. Without contriving situations which are terribly uncommon in actual games (like running out of ammo, something I have never seen happen outside of zombie survival RPGs in almost fifteen years of gaming) it's hard to imagine how cantrips like Ray of Frost could be considered overpowered. They are in most ways inferior to the weapons used by characters who can actually hit stuff. Not to mention there is the opportunity cost of a wizard taking damage spells in preference to Break-the-Game-Over-Your-Knee illusions, conjurations, enchantments and the like. You know, the good spells.

If C were true you can apply the same logic as with B but instead of just removing it outright Option X ought to be replaced with something else. What that is isn't pertinent to this discussion so this possibility doesn't require much extra thought.

If D were true then you could just laugh and ignore the person because they are wrong and no amount of ranting or "BUT IN MY GAME..." will make it true. Just let them be wrong in peace.

 

[KidSnide]

I know one thing I intend to forward along is the idea that damage cantrips should be separated from non-damage cantrips, and it should be a game option to include damage cantrips as a whole. Something like mages get X cantrips, and as a sidebar, optional damage cantrips, where if the players decide to use damage cantrips, mages can choose X non attack cantrips and Y attack cantrips.

That seem like an effective solution?

I would reverse the sidebar.

I think including damage cantrips (roughly as is -- but with much more variety) is the right default solution. That's supported by my sense that more people prefer them than dislike them. (I know that my gaming group thinks they add to the game.) But - as data is not the plural of anecdote - I think the greater support is the fact that WotC has consistently included them in versions of the game. I imagine they their survey data supports that decision.

That being said, I completely support a sidebar that would give wizards something back (presumably extra spell slots) if DMs select the optional rule in which wizards don't get damage cantrips. Mostly based on my sense of message board volume, I think there are enough people who want balanced wizards without damage cantrips, that WotC would be well served to provide a playtested way to get that structure.

-KS

 

[Minigiant]

Personally, I think the issue is one of clear options. If there is another option shown to be an equally viable pick, then the choice is there. In my game, all scrolls not brought in shops or given as rewards or ciphered. So most groups want someone who can read scrolls with them in the field. You can choose not to but it will cost you gold and availability. I give them this information early and the choice for either way is clear.

For example if cantrips were tied to subclass and the subclass determined a character's at will ability then there would be less of an issue. This would be having one mage subclass having a bonus control whereas another giving extra attacks and another giving more spell slot, then there would be less of an issue.

It is mostly an issue of clarity and then price.