D&D 5E Player's Handbook Alpha *Spoilers*

[variant]

I kind of thought that's why skeptics have been told to wait for the PHB? (Or, DMG.)

This isn't an overall design philosophy thing. This is specific complaints. If the feats are bad, isn't that a fair comment? If I'm watching it, after being dissatisfied with the playtest, and hoping it will be a game I want to play, isn't that fair feedback, too?

If everything that has been said about the feats in the alpha PHB is true, they don't seem to be much different than they were in the final playtest or even in the final PHB as seen with the Tavern Brawler, just tweaked for balance.

 

[Branduil]

I wonder how much the final Ranger has changed, because right now the archetype choices look like an incredible newbie trap.

"You can slay giants, mow down the hordes, or... you can have a pet."

 

[Evenglare]

I wonder how much the final Ranger has changed, because right now the archetype choices look like an incredible newbie trap.

"You can slay giants, mow down the hordes, or... you can have a pet."

I can see what you are trying to imply, but I'd rather have the pet honestly. You can make anything look terrible if you put it in that kind of context.

 

[Branduil]

I can see what you are trying to imply, but I'd rather have the pet honestly. You can make anything look terrible if you put it in that kind of context.

Well I can certainly understand the attraction to having an animal companion. It's just that they seem pretty weaksauce compared to the powers a Hunter can choose from. Maybe that's one of the things that's different in the final version.

Archery Rangers look pretty deadly though, especially with spells like Conjure Volley.

 

[Mistwell]

I wonder how much the final Ranger has changed, because right now the archetype choices look like an incredible newbie trap.

"You can slay giants, mow down the hordes, or... you can have a pet."

Char Opers are starting to drive me friggen nuts.

It's one thing to say, "I have a preference".

It's another to say, "My preference is so universal I can speak for all new players in saying if they don't both share my preference, AND obtain skill to play the way I play, they will suffer because it's a trap!"

Look, enough of the system mastery BS already when it comes to new players. Cool stuff to play with is not a trap. It's great that some like char op. Have fun with it. But it's not a trap if it's "sub-optimal by the numbers". Sometimes (usually) it's something a lot of people really like. D&D has numbers and rules to help play the game, but D&D the game itself isn't just numbers and rules. It's so much more than that, and optimization is a small small part of it for many people, including many new players.

 

[Branduil]

Char Opers are starting to drive me friggen nuts.

It's one thing to say, "I have a preference".

It's another to say, "My preference is so universal I can speak for all new players in saying if they don't both share my preference, AND obtain skill to play the way I play, they will suffer because it's a trap!"

Look, enough of the system mastery BS already when it comes to new players. Cool stuff to play with is not a trap. It's great that some like char op. Have fun with it. But it's not a trap if it's "sub-optimal by the numbers". Sometimes (usually) it's something a lot of people really like. D&D has numbers and rules to help play the game, but D&D the game itself isn't just numbers and rules. It's so much more than that, and optimization is a small small part of it for many people, including many new players.

It's a good thing nobody said that.

 

[Gradine]

It's a good thing nobody said that.

You're right, actually. The reality is actually worse.

When you call something a "trap", you are saying two things:
A: Designers maliciously (or foolishly, but then fools don't generally accidentally set "traps") create sub-optimal choices to punish idiot players for their poor system mastery
and
B: If you are a player who willingly chooses that option, you are an idiot with poor system mastery

You may not think that's what you're saying, you may not be intending to say anything like that at all. But your intent is irrelevant. I've played and introduced this game to many, many new players, and when people like you call the choices they thought were cool "newbie traps" that is precisely what they hear.

It's one thing to debate the relative optimization of character options. System mastery is a perfectly valid style of playing and enjoying the game. But it is not the only way of doing so, and this obsession with labeling sub-optimal choices "traps" is an attempt to elevate optimization as the only "proper" way to play the game and it denigrates and demeans those who choose those options for reasons other than optimization.

Of all the horrible things that unfortunately permeate this hobby that I've seen drive new players away, this obsession with "traps" is one of the worst. It smacks of paternalistic exclusivity, and it in particular drives away the kind of casual players this game needs to be able to recruit if it is going to be able to grow and thrive.

I want to stress that I'm not accusing you or anyone else of putting out of this exclusionary negativity on purpose. We play a game where we crawl through dungeons full of traps, so it was inevitable that that term would be used as metaphor in meta discussions about the game (see the Thievery thread, where discussions about tool proficiences have been including the phrase "material components" to differentiate tools and skills). My only goal is to reveal what it sounds like to new players when people talk about the choices they made for their character that they thought were cool. They don't generally care that they're taking sub-optimal choices. They do generally care, quite a bit in fact, when it seems like experienced players think they're stupid for falling into an obvious "trap."

It might be that they thought the choice was better than it actually was. It's far more likely the choice best fit their concept for their character. It can and probably should be argued that such players deserve to have their choices validated by making those choices just as strong mechanically as others. It's also been argued that the bounded accuracy if 5e makes the difference between sub-optimal choices and optimal choices small enough to render the whole concept of "traps" obsolete. I've always felt the whole concept was bogus from the start, but I've said my piece in that. In the mean time, the new player is either having fun with character choices they've made in spite of optimization, or they're re-training or re-rolling. In my experience players only quit altogether when they're made to feel their lack of system mystery (and lack of time, energy or care to devote to system mastery) is the main barrier to them having fun with the game. Which is wrong. And terrible. And I've seen and heard it happen too many damn times.

I personally believe that most experienced players in our community do generally want to be accepting of new players and respectful of individual playstyles and character choices. I just wish more folks would be willing to demonstrate that respect by avoiding hyperbolic, exclusionary BS tropes like "newbie traps".

 

[Chaltab]

No, because it's not BS.

Or at least, the concept isn't. There are sub-optimal options in games that may sound nice on paper but are in fact much less effective. I can't say if the Ranger's animal companion option is underpowered, (I haven't downloaded the Alpha and don't plan to) but for it to be a good option, it needs to be at least in the same ball park as the other two. If it's an inferior option that's bad news all around, because it means either the people who pick that archetype because they like the way it reads end up with a character less effective than the level curve would suggest, OR it means that people will generally avoid that option if they know it's weak and don't want to deal with it.

Nobody is saying that the developers are intentionally putting in malicious options (Well, Monte Cooke did for 3E, but he's not on this project). We're not assuming that the designers are jerks or idiots, we're acknowledging that they're human and can screw up.

 

[Branduil]

You're right, actually. The reality is actually worse.

When you call something a "trap", you are saying two things:
A: Designers maliciously (or foolishly, but then fools don't generally accidentally set "traps") create sub-optimal choices to punish idiot players for their poor system mastery
and
B: If you are a player who willingly chooses that option, you are an idiot with poor system mastery

You may not think that's what you're saying, you may not be intending to say anything like that at all. But your intent is irrelevant. I've played and introduced this game to many, many new players, and when people like you call the choices they thought were cool "newbie traps" that is precisely what they hear.

It's one thing to debate the relative optimization of character options. System mastery is a perfectly valid style of playing and enjoying the game. But it is not the only way of doing so, and this obsession with labeling sub-optimal choices "traps" is an attempt to elevate optimization as the only "proper" way to play the game and it denigrates and demeans those who choose those options for reasons other than optimization.

Of all the horrible things that unfortunately permeate this hobby that I've seen drive new players away, this obsession with "traps" is one of the worst. It smacks of paternalistic exclusivity, and it in particular drives away the kind of casual players this game needs to be able to recruit if it is going to be able to grow and thrive.

I want to stress that I'm not accusing you or anyone else of putting out of this exclusionary negativity on purpose. We play a game where we crawl through dungeons full of traps, so it was inevitable that that term would be used as metaphor in meta discussions about the game (see the Thievery thread, where discussions about tool proficiences have been including the phrase "material components" to differentiate tools and skills). My only goal is to reveal what it sounds like to new players when people talk about the choices they made for their character that they thought were cool. They don't generally care that they're taking sub-optimal choices. They do generally care, quite a bit in fact, when it seems like experienced players think they're stupid for falling into an obvious "trap."

It might be that they thought the choice was better than it actually was. It's far more likely the choice best fit their concept for their character. It can and probably should be argued that such players deserve to have their choices validated by making those choices just as strong mechanically as others. It's also been argued that the bounded accuracy if 5e makes the difference between sub-optimal choices and optimal choices small enough to render the whole concept of "traps" obsolete. I've always felt the whole concept was bogus from the start, but I've said my piece in that. In the mean time, the new player is either having fun with character choices they've made in spite of optimization, or they're re-training or re-rolling. In my experience players only quit altogether when they're made to feel their lack of system mystery (and lack of time, energy or care to devote to system mastery) is the main barrier to them having fun with the game. Which is wrong. And terrible. And I've seen and heard it happen too many damn times.

I personally believe that most experienced players in our community do generally want to be accepting of new players and respectful of individual playstyles and character choices. I just wish more folks would be willing to demonstrate that respect by avoiding hyperbolic, exclusionary BS tropes like "newbie traps".

People will stop calling certain choices traps when certain choices stop being, well, traps. We can all sing kumbaya and pretend that all character choices are equal, but it's just a fact that some character choices are more equal than others. It's not because game designers are malicious, it's because they're human and they make mistakes. No system is perfect.

Most players don't want to suck. A new player might pick an animal companion because they like the concept, only to find out their character can't hold their own like the giant-slaying Ranger in the party. That would be unfortunate, because it might discourage them from ever choosing an animal companion again, or even from playing D&D again. It would be preferable if animal companions were equal to all the cool stuff solo Rangers get. It's possible they are now, since they've changed a number of other things.

 

[Gradine]

No, because it's not BS.

Or at least, the concept isn't. There are sub-optimal options in games that may sound nice on paper but are in fact much less effective. I can't say if the Ranger's animal companion option is underpowered, (I haven't downloaded the Alpha and don't plan to) but for it to be a good option, it needs to be at least in the same ball park as the other two. If it's an inferior option that's bad news all around, because it means either the people who pick that archetype because they like the way it reads end up with a character less effective than the level curve would suggest, OR it means that people will generally avoid that option if they know it's weak and don't want to deal with it.

Nobody is saying that the developers are intentionally putting in malicious options (Well, Monte Cooke did for 3E, but he's not on this project). We're not assuming that the designers are jerks or idiots, we're acknowledging that they're human and can screw up.

I do not disagree with any of these points, nor with the respectful and reasonable way you've presented them. I'll say it again: it's perfectly reasonable to discuss the relative optimization of different options. I should have been clearer in stating it's also reasonable to question designer intent or mistakes in specific (and Monte's hate-on for Sorcerers certainly set a precedent for malicious design in D&D, I'll admit). "Sub-optimal", "underpowered", "inferior option"; these are all judgments of the system, or at worst the designers, who by putting their work on the marketplace open themselves to such criticism.

"Trap" is another thing entirely. It's a judgment on any player who'd "fall into it", and that's what I object to. Stapling "newbie" in front of the term makes the implication all the stronger about the judgment over players with poor system mastery. It's demeaning and exclusionary, whether intentionally or not. It's bad for the game. It's bad for the hobby. It's bad for the community.*

All I'm saying is what you've already demonstrated: that we can reasonably and respectfully debate sub-optimal choices, game balance and design issues without resorting to hyperbolic, exclusionary tropes like "traps."


*Vote "Sub-optimal" 2014