D&D 5E Just One More Thing: The Power of "No" in Design (aka, My Fun, Your Fun, and BadWrongFun)

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Coroc]

Maybe. I mean, I can't speak to 2e, which as far as I know is in the same realm as that so-called Unearthed Arcana Book for AD&D; in the realm of fevered imagination and LSD-induced hysteria.

But in AD&D, it had the bizarre, and nearly singular property, of causing a stacking of abilities between and among magic items.

Got one? Meh.
Got two? Whatever.

Got all three? NOW YOU'RE COOKING WITH GAS! That's right, the horse is out, too late to close up the barn, 'cuz this fighter is about to end the campaign with extreme prejudice.

The technical rules are as follows:

Gauntlets of Ogre Power: Give you a +3/+6 (Str:18/00).

Girdle of Giant Strength (assume storm). Gives you a +6/+12 (Str:24) But it specifically states:
"The strength gained is not cumulative with normal or magical strength bonuses except with regard to use in combination with gauntlets of ogre power and magic war hammers."

OOH!

Side note- this should include the hammer +3, dwarven thrower as well, but whatever. That's boring, because THOR!

The Hammer of Thunderbolts:
"When swung or hurled it gains a +5, double damage dice, all girdle and gauntlets bonuses, and strikes dead any giant upon which it scores a hit." Plus the whole "stunning" thing. And you can throw it.

I mean, everyone knows about the Vorpal. The Holy Avenger. Artifacts (like the Sword of Kas). But this? This is fantabulously amazeballs.

Was one of the best weapons in BG2 (called Crom feyr there) , but you did have to bring the hammer of thunderbolts a scroll, the belt and the gauntlets to the artefact smithy, and he combined it to have all the properties. Maybe the infinity engine could not handle the stacking of the single items.
So i believe in 2e it was still applicable.

 

[Blue]

For me... I've seen your point as the result of a way of thinking that many people appear to have. Which is that there is still very much a "D&D is a thing to WIN" mode of thinking.

I have seen in countless threads during 5E and 4E and 3E the stark belief of some players that they cannot NOT use something that is in the game-- they cannot willing nerf themselves, even if the thing they are using is something they dislike or even outright hate. If it's in the game, then they HAVE to use it, because they are not playing to their highest intelligence and skill if they aren't. And to not do so is an anathema to game playing. D&D is a game-- a game that has a "win state" (which is not to die and lose your character)-- and thus making choices that don't advance yourself towards that win state goes against everything that is holy about game playing.

As a result, the only way that person can be happy is if the game itself does not use or offer things that they don't like, thus entirely negating the need to self-nerf. If it's not in the game, then they never have to make the conscious decision NOT to use it. Their problem is solved for them.

It's funny, I expect that there's lots of people who read along with what you wrote and said "that's not me and my table". But if I asked them when the last time they had a weapon wielder pick a simple weapon for their primary in 5e, they wouldn't have an answer.

It's like races and ability score bonuses - I bet 80% would be a very low number for the match up of a bonus from race to the prime ability of their class.

This isn't that everyone is trying to make the most-effective-character-ever(!!). Just that they will almost always gravitate toward efficient combinations. And if there's something more efficient, it will find itself used more and other, less efficient options to drop in usage.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's funny, I expect that there's lots of people who read along with what you wrote and said "that's not me and my table". But if I asked them when the last time they had a weapon wielder pick a simple weapon for their primary in 5e, they wouldn't have an answer.

It's like races and ability score bonuses - I bet 80% would be a very low number for the match up of a bonus from race to the prime ability of their class.

This isn't that everyone is trying to make the most-effective-character-ever(!!). Just that they will almost always gravitate toward efficient combinations. And if there's something more efficient, it will find itself used more and other, less efficient options to drop in usage.

I completely understand why it happens... and I'll be honest, I'm not immune to it either. I've had players decide they want to take 'Witch Bolt' for example and I start to to explain why perhaps that wouldn't be the greatest idea, before realizing I'm getting myself caught up in the "efficiency" game that plays out here on the boards. And I then try to bite my tongue.

And in the few instances when I get to play, I usually do not take options that are less "efficient" (as you say). The bigger difference though is that I have no problems with re-fluffing as necessary, and have no need for the books to actually have my needs written in them so that I can play by "RAW". So I don't go around demanding WotC pump out errata to "fix" it. I have no issue just re-fluffing or giving mechanical equivalency for things they probably could get, but just don't because 'rules'.

 

[billd91]

Hmm. I don't think that ever came up in any of the games we played.

At least 2/3 of the combo appear in the G-series. If a character comes into that with a girdle of giant strength, they have the potential to go the full Thor route (which is clearly the inspiration for the combo and probably the tease to the players in this particular module series).

 

[Garthanos]

.

The posts that I see complain about no new stuff posts are primarily in the warlord context. And the ones of those that I see are primarily objecting not to don't bloat it claims but to warlords will spoil my fun claims.

Hence I think @Tony Vargas, upthread, is right on this point: it's not an issue of floodgates but an issue of what to do about those who want a warlord in 5e. Frankly I think they'll never get one, but I think the reason for this isn't because WotC wants to avoid bloat but rather because WotC wants to avoid inciting those customers/players who think a warlord will spoil their fun

This thread should have been titled GateKeeping 0 - Lokis Hypocritical exclusion of the Warlord pretending you aren't trying to exclude Warlord as an official class with an incoherent rant about design aesthetics and how adding a feature will utterly ruin D&D without explicitly mentioning the Warlord

 

[pemerton]

It's funny, I expect that there's lots of people who read along with what you wrote and said "that's not me and my table". But if I asked them when the last time they had a weapon wielder pick a simple weapon for their primary in 5e, they wouldn't have an answer.

It's like races and ability score bonuses - I bet 80% would be a very low number for the match up of a bonus from race to the prime ability of their class.

This isn't that everyone is trying to make the most-effective-character-ever(!!). Just that they will almost always gravitate toward efficient combinations. And if there's something more efficient, it will find itself used more and other, less efficient options to drop in usage.

My view is that if one wants play in which mechanical effectiveness is not an important component of PC build, then one should play a system that (i) does not support builds that vary significantly in mechanical effectiveness and/or (ii) has failure outcomes in action resolution that aren't just "you lose".

I don't know any version of D&D for which (i) is true, and I don't see a lot of evidence that D&D is widely played in a way that makes (ii) true either.

 

[Blue]

My view is that if one wants play in which mechanical effectiveness is not an important component of PC build, then one should play a system that (i) does not support builds that vary significantly in mechanical effectiveness and/or (ii) has failure outcomes in action resolution that aren't just "you lose".

I don't know any version of D&D for which (i) is true, and I don't see a lot of evidence that D&D is widely played in a way that makes (ii) true either.

Sure. You're stance is in agreement with the point that DEFCON1 originally put out and I also found true. I wasn't saying that it should be otherwise or that poeple aren't playing right taking options with poor efficiency.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

.

This thread should have been titled GateKeeping 0 - Lokis Hypocritical exclusion of the Warlord pretending you aren't trying to exclude Warlord as an official class with an incoherent rant about design aesthetics and how adding a feature will utterly ruin D&D without explicitly mentioning the Warlord

How about being civil, namely disagreeing without being disagreeable. Or avoiding threads we know will grind our gears?

 

[pemerton]

Sure. You're stance is in agreement with the point that DEFCON1 originally put out and I also found true. I wasn't saying that it should be otherwise or that poeple aren't playing right taking options with poor efficiency.

I thought you were being critical of people who decline to build mechanically ineffective D&D characters. Whereas I tend to sympathise with them - D&D places a heavy priority on mechanical effectiveness. And modern versions also tend both to permit and to favour specialisation.