D&D 5E Boop

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, someone explain how Shocking Grasp and Eldritch Blast are not meaningfully different.

Preferably someone who thinks fighters and rogues are meaningfully different from eachother, and especially if there is anyone who thinks those two cantrips are basically the same, but doesn't think that a polearm fighter and a two-dagger fighter are basically the same.

Like I said, some spells and cantrips are similar. Some cantrips are just kinda boring and underwhelming, like Word of Radiance and Sword Burst, both of which should do literally just something at all other than damage.

But there are plenty of cantrips that are very meaningfully different. They simply create different moments in the fiction. This is why I keep coming back to the difference between what they look like on a character sheet vs what they actually allow the character to do, because it's the only thing that makes sense to me as an explanation, and no one provides an actual explanation. Sorry, but car analogies aren't actually all that explanatory. It just reiterates that you think they're the same. It doesn't explain why, at all.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

This is very true. The power of a full caster comes from the leveled spells. Cantrips are useful, but not particularly important last that, or do I find a lot of interesting character choices coming out of cantrip selection. That's me though.

Indeed, but Frogreaver also made the point that cantrips are a meaningful distinction in the play experience for them given presence of an opponent that is resistant to one of them.

I'm trying to resolve that with the other statements.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not lowkey. I never claimed there wasn't sufficient differentiation between many of those.

You did claim that cantrips aren't meaningfully different. It's possible that you didn't mean to, and it was only by implication born out of what you replied to and the context of the discussion, though, in which case fair enough.

 

[FrogReaver]

You did claim that cantrips aren't meaningfully different. It's possible that you didn't mean to, and it was only by implication born out of what you replied to and the context of the discussion, though, in which case fair enough.

I only claimed ranged damage cantrips weren't meaningfully different. I stand by that. Were any of those cantrips you listed supposed to be considered a ranged damage cantrip?

 

[FrogReaver]

Indeed, but Frogreaver also made the point that cantrips are a meaningful distinction in the play experience for them given presence of an opponent that is resistant to one of them.

I'm trying to resolve that with the other statements.

Not given the presence of an opponent that is resistant. Given the prevalence of a campaign to feature many enemies resistant or vulnerable to the cantrip in question.

 

[Garthanos]

All the spellcasters feel very much the same in 5e, the Warlock excepted. The differences between them, and between various spells of the same type is, well, underwhelming.

Common spell lists seem a kicker if not core to me for the caster types feeling the same (individual casters can still be unique by spell selections) There can be a lot of distinction from spell lists as each spell can have flavor carrying part of the class sense of uniqueness.

I have been finding some really cool elements of Chainmail recently things like counter spell and functionally at-will fireball/lightning and the Hero having aura of fear and increasing allies HD, However casters who are mildly adjusted versions of one another was not a good thing. The variant names were collapsed into level titles in AD&D

 

[Fenris-77]

Indeed, but Frogreaver also made the point that cantrips are a meaningful distinction in the play experience for them given presence of an opponent that is resistant to one of them.

I'm trying to resolve that with the other statements.

Oh yeah, on the mechanical side there an obvious difference. Resistances etc all inpact the selection process. I just find that those differences don't translate over to actual play for me. Its game mechanics chosen because of other game mechanics. Meh, it doesn't give me feels.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You know what, man, when I find that I have repeatedly tried to explain something, emphasizing that it's a difference of opinion and that's okay, and someone proceeds to launch into a post saying that a) they are living in the Twilight Zone or I am wrong (aka, I am crazy for having my opinion) and b) may opinion would mean that D&D has never had any meaningful mechanical distintinctions, PERIOD ... maybe I try to exit with a joke.

Just maybe. To the extent you feel the need to call me names for making a joke ... well, okay then. I guess jerk is better than crazy, right?

This is a directly misleading account of what I said. I'm going to try to give you the benefit of the doubt wrt intention, and clarify.
I didn't say that the twilight zone comment to you, for one thing, nor does it imply that you're crazy for having your opinion. As for mechanical distinctions, yep. If there are no damage cantrips with meaningful mechanical distinction, then (speaking only very, very, mildly in hyperbole) dnd doesn't have meaningful mechanical distinctions.

None of which explains why your "joke" needed to involve comparing me to a lying thief, in the context of him lying about his theft to try to get people to not judge him for it, in a discussion about whether things that do different things in gameplay are different enough.

Accusing me of "calling you names" for calling out your behavior is pretty wild, too, tbh. It's fine to be insulting, as long the insults don't directly involve using a noun, I guess?

Since you asked, this is how it would work:

One person would say: Hey, Under Pressure and Ice Ice Baby are different songs. I mean, objectively, they are different songs since they by different artists, and have different lyrics, right?

Another person would say: Okay, but they feel very similar, because the base line that was sampled is so very prominent.


See how you might apply that to the instant situation. Again, there is no wrong, but it's odd that you're again telling me what I believe, and I'm not sure how you understand how it comes off when you repeatedly tell people that they can't possibly believe what ... they ... just ... told ... you.

That's...rich. It's also not at all what happened, but okay. It's much more like you said that all metal songs sound the same, I said that's not true and asked what about them actually seems too similar while citing what makes them different, and then you reiterated your opinion that they are similar with a car analogy and then mocked me while implying that I'm similar to a lying thief of other people's work.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh yeah, on the mechanical side there an obvious difference. Resistances etc all inpact the selection process. I just find that those differences don't translate over to actual play for me. Its game mechanics chosen because of other game mechanics. Meh, it doesn't give me feels.

See, this I can understand. You've provided some explanation of what actually isn't generating a differentiated play experience. The difference is too mechanical (ie, about and involved in the mechanics of the game on a fairly meta level), and not fictional enough, for you to care about the difference in actual play. Is that roughly on target?