since when is a taking a non combat cantrip vs a combat cantrip "suboptimal". why is it less "effective" to follow a character concept instead of maxing out combat abilities. roleplaying is supposed to be about more than just killing things, even in odnd it was about getting treasure, not how easily you could kill monsters. just because a certain build/concept may be less effective in straight up combat, doesn't mean it is a substandard character. the whole point of different character builds would be to allow different playstyles. sure there can be characters that are better at killing than other characters, but that doesn't mean they aren't as good. the character who is great in combat probably isn't great in other aspects of the game. when I make a character I am not "forced" to optimize that character for combat. if I design a lawyer I am not going to make a character really good at combat just with the philosophical flavor of a lawyer, but i'm going to make a character that has all the same abilities as an actual lawyer would have. yes he may not be as effective in combat, but i can guarantee he will be an awesome lawyer. that just means he won't be picking fights or charging headlong into fights, he would play it safe by retreating or using other means to avoid outright confrontation. now I realize a lawyer may not be the best example for next, but its just an example. there is no need to claim something is unbalanced because it gives an advantage in combat. not every character wants/needs an advantage in combat. that shouldn't be how we judge the design of a game
D&D 5E Non choices: must have and wants why someone that hates something must take it
- Thread starter GMforPowergamers
- Start date
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Part of the assumption that goes into attack cantrips being blatantly better than other cantrips is that attacking is always going to be the secret to a party's success.
If 5e is taking a key from pre-WotC editions, attacking will not always be the best way to complete an adventure. If they're assuming an even distribution of the three pillars (just for the sake of argument), attacking will be a sub-optimal choice 2/3 of the time, when avoiding the obstacle or interacting with an NPC will get the job done better or more efficiently.
If WotC supports all three pillars well right out the gate, this issue should solve itself, essentially: the PC who is loaded down with attack cantrips will find themselves good in a fight, but kind of not great when fighting isn't a viable approach (traps, nonhostile NPC's, etc.). It'll be evident in Session 1 that fighting isn't going to get everything done.
If WotC fails to support all three pillars well, and defaults to the 4e/3e assumption of "Roll initiative, kill it, move on to the next encounter," then those cantrips will emerge as choice, just as they tended to in those games.
If WotC allows individual tables to develop the pillars at their own rate, then the problem will mostly solve itself: tables that value mostly combat will have a lot of combat-focused characters and will not miss the non-combat cantrips that nobody ever takes, while tables that use a different track will have adventures that value non-combat abilities, and so non-combat cantrips will become more valuable.
A lot of this hinges on WotC's ability to improve on previous e's when it comes to supporting non-combat solutions to character problems. They've been big on promises. I've got reason to be hopeful. I don't know what that might look like from here, though.
If 5e is taking a key from pre-WotC editions, attacking will not always be the best way to complete an adventure. If they're assuming an even distribution of the three pillars (just for the sake of argument), attacking will be a sub-optimal choice 2/3 of the time, when avoiding the obstacle or interacting with an NPC will get the job done better or more efficiently.
If WotC supports all three pillars well right out the gate, this issue should solve itself, essentially: the PC who is loaded down with attack cantrips will find themselves good in a fight, but kind of not great when fighting isn't a viable approach (traps, nonhostile NPC's, etc.). It'll be evident in Session 1 that fighting isn't going to get everything done.
If WotC fails to support all three pillars well, and defaults to the 4e/3e assumption of "Roll initiative, kill it, move on to the next encounter," then those cantrips will emerge as choice, just as they tended to in those games.
If WotC allows individual tables to develop the pillars at their own rate, then the problem will mostly solve itself: tables that value mostly combat will have a lot of combat-focused characters and will not miss the non-combat cantrips that nobody ever takes, while tables that use a different track will have adventures that value non-combat abilities, and so non-combat cantrips will become more valuable.
A lot of this hinges on WotC's ability to improve on previous e's when it comes to supporting non-combat solutions to character problems. They've been big on promises. I've got reason to be hopeful. I don't know what that might look like from here, though.
Re: Having to optimizing for combat.
Warning, anecdotal:
In one of [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] campaigns we've been playing "Skull and Shackles" on three - Bard, Barbarian and Sorcerer (just recruited a Ranger as a fourth PC). We're currently at 9th level (Pathfinder), and if I've understood our DM right we've played the monsters "as written", i.e. they have been neither reinforced nor reduced.
Anyway, our barbarian has been complaining about:
(A) the combat encounters beeing too easy.
(B) his character lacking competence in non-combat encounters.
When he entered the campaign and rolled up the Barbarian, he said (C) that he was going to concentrate on damage over everything else.
Said player just cannot see the connection between (A) , (B) and (C), even when it is pointed out to him...
Warning, anecdotal:
In one of [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] campaigns we've been playing "Skull and Shackles" on three - Bard, Barbarian and Sorcerer (just recruited a Ranger as a fourth PC). We're currently at 9th level (Pathfinder), and if I've understood our DM right we've played the monsters "as written", i.e. they have been neither reinforced nor reduced.
Anyway, our barbarian has been complaining about:
(A) the combat encounters beeing too easy.
(B) his character lacking competence in non-combat encounters.
When he entered the campaign and rolled up the Barbarian, he said (C) that he was going to concentrate on damage over everything else.
Said player just cannot see the connection between (A) , (B) and (C), even when it is pointed out to him...
I so hope they do, and don't chicken out on it.
How familiar are you with modules like Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, or even the G and D series? Those modules are very much about winning.
Just to prove a counterpoint, [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] has been running our Saturday group through some really, really early Dungeon scenarios, who were all about social intrigue and quirky situations, and not at all about winning at combat... real fun!
The problem is we are not just talking about combat. We are talking about being innefective everywhere or in several pillars.
So the Pyromancer example in the posts above yours has to take energy substitution feats and various other feats in order to realize their character concept, thus robbing them of choices that might allow them to pick up a background feat that allows an edge in social encounters with nobles.
Rather than there just being a school of pyromancy magic (in 5E terms), the player has to give up feats in order to what they want to do making them less effective in other areas.
I personally don't think a character should have to gimp themselves in order to play a concept.
I thought they were hatched in the deep hot pit of....oh wait, that's where they retire...
The problem is, with the way rituals work in the last public play test packet, casters and Wizards in particular won't have to prepare spells to use them as rituals. This means they don't even have to bother preparing spells that aren't combat applicable. So they still have full access to their combat list and their non-combat list. So non-combat cantrips won't matter very much in comparison. I mean who needs Read Magic when you can take 10 minutes and Comprehend Languages right?
Wow, I'm sorry but my experience (and that of my friends) is not that 4E/3E have an assumption of "Roll initiative, kill it, move on to the next encounter". In fact 4E has robust out of combat rules on how to award xp. 3E has some rules on the subject. In both you can create adventures that don't have anything to do with combat at all and not have a single combat and still give enough xp to the players to level up.
Now if you were to say the adventure modules they released were mostly combat oriented, I'd agree with you.
Personally I like to have a way to solve each encounter from each pillar if possible. Sometimes its only possible to have two ways, but that's fine too.
Yeah, if they do several things properly, then the problem will be a non-problem. Personally I don't have the faith that others appear to have in their abilities.
ExploderWizard
Hero
I would say it depends on the rpg. Some rpgs are designed primarily with storytelling in mind. D&D, as it was originally created isn't one of them.
There is winning and losing within D&D. What makes the rpg form so unique is that winning and losing are not game ending conditions. You can achieve a victory and the game continues. Likewise, you can suffer a defeat, and the game still continues. Even a TPK doesn't have to mean the end of the game. The game world lives in the minds of the participants. New characters can be generated to keep exploring it, so the game can continue so long as the players wish.
Thus winning and losing are not destinations, merely stops along a potentially endless journey.
It would then be acceptable for me to laugh in the face of such an idiot for treating a game as such serious business. If the rest of the group felt that way I would back away very slowly making sure to never take my eyes off of them until I was safely away. Life is too short for that kind of tripe.
I would personally like to see the end of encounter hoop jumping die altogether. More adventures that feature interesting locations, scenarios, and objectives without compartmentalizing them into pre-packaged encounters. Situations and specific setups will arise naturally from play. There isn't a need to create scripted set dressed scenes.
I've seen this from the other side.
I once had two players, one played a halfling rogue and the other played a half-orc barbarian in 3.5E. At first everything was fine, but encounter after encounter the half-orc would charge up and slaughter everything before the rogue could even get in position to attack. After about a year of this the halfling player got fed up and threw a fit about it. That campaign ended there because the effectiveness of the halfling rogue in comparison to the half-orc barbarian didn't allow them to participate. It turned into a hero and side kick show. Which many experienced players find unplayable.
Now imagine your character is supposed to be the tank/defender of the party. Now you take the worst possible options in order to fit a character concept. Your character is a fine swashbuckler that can sail a ship around the world with one hand tied behind their back, but the first time you get into combat you can't deal enough damage to kill a kobold, you can't distract enemies into attacking you, and even if you could you wouldn't survive their attacks.
Now as a team game, D&D has certain expectations. I would certainly point out that your character probably is not a good fit for this group as we expect to see combat at least 1/3 of the time. It doesn't really matter though because even if it was 1/10th of the time, that one time you hit combat means TPK because your character is ineffective.
Now wouldn't it be 100 times better if you could make your awesome swashbuckling character while not sacrificing your role in combat? I personally think it would.
The problem is without a defined beginning and end you can't award xp properly. You also can't break things down into quests and measure how much money and treasure you've given out to keep it from being too much or too little.
