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

[vecna00]

I'm of the mindset that anything deemed "sub-optimal" can still be very fun to play.

Of course, this is coming from the guy who has a character concept of a samurai who refuses to use his katana in combat because he feels no one is worthy of being struck by it, and uses a bokken instead. Well, close to no one, the big bad evil guys tend to be worthy, but that's a different story!

 

[Gradine]

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.

I'll try to state this as clearly as I feel I possibly can, because it seems I'm not being clear: my objection is not with the argument you are making but with the manner in which you chose to make it.

I have not nor would I ever argue that every character option is equal. I don't entirely believe they should be, but I'd also never argue that balance isn't a worthy design goal. My only objections are with your use of the phrase "newbie traps." Well, "traps" in general, the "newbie" just places front and center the idea that your judgment is reserved just as much for them (if not more, they're the ones being singled out, after all) for choosing the option as it is for the designers who designed it in the first place. It is exclusionary, whether you intended it to be or not.

Most players want to have fun. For some that includes exhibiting mastery over the system (or "not sucking", which I would argue is a more judgmental and exclusionary way of phrasing it). But it is not the only way to have fun with the game. There are many other ways. Some of my funnest experiences with D&D were had playing my objectively least optimal PCs. By conflating "not sucking" with "having fun" (or "sub-optimal choices" with "sucking", for that matter) and by demeaning new players for falling into "traps", you paint the (very, very false) picture of D&D as a game is only fun if can exhibit system mastery over it. And when players who don't care about system mastery begin to believe it, THAT is when they quit for good. I've seen too many new players quit for exactly this reason.

I'm not even saying that's what you're intending to say, but it is absolutely the message you (and everyone who has helped make exclusionary, demeaning hyperbole like "traps" such a pervasive charop trope) are conveying. And if that isn't the message you're intending to convey, you should take more care in the manner in which you craft your arguments.

By all means debate optimization, balance and design decisions. Just do it in a manner that doesn't belittle or drive away new players.

If you're interested in the different ways different players have fun with D&D, here's one fairly well-presented (though by no means definitive) take on the subject:
http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Look, enough of the system mastery BS already when it comes to new players. Cool stuff to play with is not a trap.

While you may not believe it, I am sympathetic to your position. However, it's not "BS" to describe something as a trap, it's just terminology some people dislike. I've been on the other side of that countless times (most people who like 4E have!).

Over-dramatic/operatic positions like "IT'S SERIOUSLY HURTING THE HOBBY!" from Gradine are pretty hysterical, so I won't address those.

Anyway, it's fair to say the Hunter is vastly more mechanically powerful than the Beastmaster to the point where it should be flagged up. That lack of flagging is why people say trap.

If you have a mechanically strong option, and a mechanically weak one, and you say "A is strong, B is weak, you choose", then there cannot be a trap. Similarly if it's blindingly obvious (like "this is worth 400 build points, this 200"). There is merely a choice. If you have the same two options, but it's not clear to someone who isn't mechanically minded and/or veteran that one is far stronger than the other, then it's fair to call it a trap.

"Sub-optimal" is a euphemism on par which is also misleading. Something that is sub-optimal but openly so (taking an NPC class in 3E, fr'ex) isn't a trap, but is sub-optimal. Whereas something which is not openly sub-optimal can be a trap. Pretending they are the same is actual BS, actual shenanigans.

If a different term for "trap" needs to be found, let's hear what it should be.

 

[Neonchameleon]

These people complaining are probably the same ones that complained about the final playtests, basically the people who are not really interested in 5e to begin with.

The people talking about it are talking about it and therefore interested. Even if, like me, they aren't going to buy it new for whatever reason (in my case there are two names in the credits I don't want my money supporting).

 

[Plaguescarred]

A newbie trap is a stratagem for catching or tricking an unwary person that is new to something. I don't think any game elements in 5E is specifically designed for such. Now there can be options within a subset that are better than others at some facet of the game, that is almost unavoidable in such game.

But what i observe too often is that for some people D&D has performance expectation where you are not hitting some benchmark and underperforming if picking options some call ''less effective'' , ''sub-optimal'' or ''sucking''. I think its a playstyle among others. Other people pick options not evaluating them based on performance but fun, originality or other factor, wether that option is not as advantageous as another (giant slayer vs animal companion for exemple) they don't care as much (especially if there's no giant slayer in the party to wittness the difference) and like Gradine said, telling someone he took a option that is a newbie trap sounds malicious because while they thought they didn't picked an option for performance reasons necessarily, someone with a difference playstyle is judging them on this front. And this often leaves a sour taste for some and may even drive them away.

Its like saying to a person he fell in some trap by buying a sedan because for the same price he could have had a more fast coupe car instead when the buyer might not have looked to buy a car for its performance but some other specifications (comfort, space etc..) #DifferentStokeForDifferentFolk

 

[Plaguescarred]

A trap for me is more things like when two feats gives the same benefit but one also give something addiitional on top, surpasing the other feat at what it does.

But when two options don't do the same thing (such as giant slayer vs animal companion), then they might be picked for different reasons as they give different benefits.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Its like saying to a person he fell in some trap by buying a sedan because for the same price he could have had a more fast coupe car instead when the buyer might not have looked to buy a car for its performance but some other specifications (comfort, space etc..) #DifferentStokeForDifferentFolk

No. This is like being shown two sports cars, told they are "very fast", and that you can pick either, and it turns out one is 40mph faster, has better mileage, and better options included (but only an expert could tell this, for some reason). You may still pick the slow one for looks/style, but if they avoided telling you about the differences, they're essentially trapping/tricking you.

 

[Plaguescarred]

No. This is like being shown two sports cars, told they are "very fast", and that you can pick either, and it turns out one is 40mph faster, has better mileage, and better options included (but only an expert could tell this, for some reason). You may still pick the slow one for looks/style, but if they avoided telling you about the differences, they're essentially trapping/tricking you.

I disagree. This would be the two similar feat exemple with one getting more on top. Two different benefits (giant slayer vs animal companion for exemple) are not comparable to two sports cars IMO, they are two cars (rangers class builds) but with different emphasis (sedan vs coupe)

 

[Remathilis]

The problem is "trap" implied more than suboptimal, it implies its a sucker option and people taking it are suckers. Further, the opinion on "trap" varies depending on your means of measuring: Is it a trap to be have a high diplomacy score since you can't use it in combat? What about TWF: its optimal for a rogue but a trap for a fighter? I recall in a Pathfinder game, the dervish class archetype for bard was called a "trap" because you could only use your bardsongs (at double bonus) on yourself and its much better for a bard to be buffing his warrior allies. (Then again, my dervish was dishing out damage that put our fighter to shame, so...)

"Trap" should be reserved for the truly bad cases (3.0 ranger beyond 1st level, toughness in 3e, 4e strength paladins); because one option has 1.5 damage less per round than another doesn't make it a trap.

 

[FadedC]

Moving away from the trap vs. non-trap discussion, I'm not entirely convinced that the beast master ranger is inferior. A beast master ranger can use a bow and mow people down with archery spells just like a giant slayer ranger can. It's more a question of whether you want the utility granted by the pet (knocking people down, granting disadvantage to their attacks or granting advantage and extra damage to yours) vs. a more static bonus like +d6 damage on certain attacks.