Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8846857" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Not really. I mean, I had a suspicion, but on the internet with this kind of discussion, it is impossible to be sure unless someone explicitly says, and occasionally even then it's not always clear. (The conditions for such unclear seriousness don't apply here and are much too sensitive to specify in a conversation like this. Suffice it to say I believe you, but there are contexts where someone saying "c'mon, I'm obviously joking!" would not be even remotely convincing.)As long as the effort is functional and within effective design parameters, I couldn't care less whether it is a crossbow or a cantrip or a thrown playing card.The problem is, D&D never lets it be functional in this way. A Magic-User(/Wizard) using a crossbow is nearly useless. This is intended to compensate for them being extremely powerful when they aren't using said crossbow, so that the class gets an overall average power output comparable to the "reliable" Fighting-Man(/Fighter) or Thief(/Rogue.) The problem, of course, is that the time spent in the crossbow state can be controlled, at least in part, by the Wizard player himself. If it is reduced as much as possible, he gets to be as powerful as possible; the ideal state of affairs being one where he completely eliminates the dull, ineffectual crossbow-Wizard state entirely, leaving only the phenomenal-cosmic-power spellcasting-Wizard. Now, consider the same calculus from the Fighter's perspective. She, naturally, wishes to succeed at her goals in the game. The succeeds most when she and her allies have the greatest power they can achieve while minimizing cost and risk. Hence, it is also in her own rational best interest to support the Wizard's efforts to never ever be forced into the crossbow-Wizard state if it can be avoided. Because her own power level is essentially constant, it makes no difference to her individually whether she rests now or rests in several hours. Hence, unless there is outside pressure to stop it, she will rationally support the Wizard's efforts to increase his own potency per unit time, even though this is a detriment to her own contributions. Even if she has negative feelings about making such decisions, the objective fact that greater success is within reach if the Wizard has (to borrow a video game term) "100% uptime" means it would require a very large negative sentiment in order to overcome the objective benefits. "Dominant Strategy" and all that.These facts then immediately lead to the DM/Wizard tug of war, and thence to their arms race. The DM is obliged to apply external motivations to force the Wizard player into sucky crossbow-Wizard time, and the Wizard is obliged to pull every trick and ploy they can to avoid the un-fun, uninteresting, unproductive crossbow-Wizard time. This then encourages the Wizard to view every situation from the position of how it can be exploited to minimize crossbow-Wizard time, and the DM to view every situation for how it can prevent the Wizard from walking all over it: an immediate arms race made only more critical by the sheer number of ridiculously powerful spells that obviate undesirable situations.All this...because D&D clings to this idea that crossbows should only be good if you're invested into them and Wizards should suck when they have no proper spells left to cast.This, this thing right here? This is players "optimizing the fun" out of a game. It is players making rational decisions even when those decisions aren't what they would generally be happy with, because they want to succeed. The correct fix is not to double down and try to make it even harder to optimize so people eventually give up. It is, instead, to make it so there is no difference between "choose to do the fun thing" and "choose to do a successful thing." When the distance between optimal strategy and doing things for fun shrinks to (effectively) zero, the game ceases to be subject to these problems, and instead actively rewards and encourages players who play it for the joy doing so. Those who have intrinsic motivation will not be punished for following those intrinsic motives, and thus won't feel resentful for (in their minds) "playing right." Those who only have extrinsic motivation will be rewarded not only with success, but with being prosocial and constructive, and thus won't feel demonized for (in their minds) "playing right."Are we talking 5e or other editions? Because it is objectively the case that an ordinary Wizard using a crossbow is worse than that same ordinary Wizard using a cantrip. Wizards don't get Extra Attack (barring subclass) and thus can only potentially hit a single time, while cantrips go up in number of damage dice rolled, and crossbows must be reloaded, further degrading the performance thereof. I am fairly sure these patterns applied in previous editions. Certainly, you must grant that the crossbow in a Wizard's hands is significantly inferior to almost any other class, regardless of edition, yes?</blockquote>

Verification