D&D 5E Non choices: must have and wants why someone that hates something must take it

[TwoSix]

I would rather success come from from what we, the players, decide to do and how we go about it than from whatever build options we choose. If the system doesn't support good play being the largest determining factor in success then it can shove off.

I would be totally cool with a D&D where you merely select a background for your character, and none of the future progression of the character's abilities is fixed. Want to learn magic? Find a lost grimoire or scroll, sit down and study, and there you go. Want to be a badass warrior? Seek out the peerless knight of the Realm, impress him, and he'll teach you how to master the sword.

 

[Manbearcat]

I would be totally cool with a D&D where you merely select a background for your character, and none of the future progression of the character's abilities is fixed. Want to learn magic? Find a lost grimoire or scroll, sit down and study, and there you go. Want to be a badass warrior? Seek out the peerless knight of the Realm, impress him, and he'll teach you how to master the sword.

Yup. And its trivially easy to bring this about as there are already systems out there that have this precise approach to character progression. Its just considerably easier with a system that leverages dice pools and unified conflict resolution. You can take the exact scenarios above. You find the grimoire and you study it to attempt to unlock its mysteries. Boom, conflict resolution mechanics. You deploy your Spirit and Intellect attribute dicepool. Add your "All Mysteries Are Known To Me" skill dice, your "Lens of Magical Comprehension" asset dice and your "I Fought a Demonically Possessed Tome and the Demon Won" complication dice and commence with the conflict. The outcome is contingent upon the synthesis of the framework of the conflict resolution scheme + the level of the challenge + your dicepool rolls + the proficient use of your dicepool in the back-and-forth of the conflict. Post conflict, you've generated a new asset/skill dice (or raised an existing one) or possibly gained a new complication.

 

[Argyle King]

No. Not in the slightest. Because the game is built such that to LITERALLY not function properly... you have to purposely take a whole bunch of BAD choices by design. You have to be a fighter who takes an 8 Strength, uses a weapon you are not proficient in, wears no armor, and spends all resources on things other than fighting. You do that... then yes, maybe then you "literally cannot function properly" as a fighter. But you CHOSE to do all those things (presumably for a character concept that was meant to be a person who thinks they are a warrior but really isn't.) The game allows you to do this, but you didn't just blunder into it. You did all of this on purpose.

However... if you are trying to equate not taking an attack cantrip as "literally cannot function properly"... then you probably need to learn what "literally" means. Because to say you are incapable of functioning as a wizard because you chose to not take an attack cantrip is complete and utter hogwash. Might you do a point of damage or so less because you were using a crossbow in place of an attack cantrip,? Maybe. (But based upon what other people are saying, that might not even be true.) But one or two points of damage less is not "incapable". Less "min-maxed" for combat? Sure. But you make up for it in other situations outside of combat with the other cantrip you took.

You are still a functional and completely capable wizard even without that attack cantrip. And to suggest otherwise is to use ridiculous hyperbole to try and make your point.



That's not my point at all. My point is that you... Johnny3D3D... want a specific ability (attack cantrips) removed from the game because as you said:



Let us ignore for the moment whether or not attack cantrips are "obviously" better than every other cantrip. Because there are plenty of people who think that is hogwash.

Instead... the issue is that you don't like feeling stupid. And to take a cantrip that you think is demonstratively worse than another makes you feel stupid. As though you'd have to have "brain damage" to choose it. Your ego can't handle the idea that you are playing stupid. It's like you think you are letting the table down, and letting yourself down. Nevermind the fact that you're not actually playing stupid, you're rather just playing your character... you have built up this idea in your head that if there is a min-max choice available, then it doesn't matter what it is, that's the only option available to you. You will subsume your wants and desires for this character in order to "play correctly" (in your mind), because the D&D has been built this way, and you feel guilty or stupid otherwise.

And my point is this: Me... DEFCON 1... a person who will never be sitting at your table, nor probably ever play with you in any capacity... does not care if you don't like feeling stupid. That's not my problem. It is YOUR issue. You're the one who has this thing in your head that forces you to always choose the obvious good choice, rather than the character-centric one. But that's not my problem.

My problem is that because you have this thing in your head... your solution to get around it is to not just work on your own personal issue... but to ask that the entire rule be removed from the game so that you won't HAVE to work on this issue. You can just sidestep it completely. If the rule is gone, you no longer have to worry about it, and you're HAPPY!

But meanwhile... all the rest of us thousands of players have lost a really cool rule and game ability because YOU didn't want to work on your own issues. You wanted to just ignore them and hope that they went away. Well guess what? I have a problem with that. I'm not going to sit here and allow WotC to remove from the game something I happen to like (something that does not in fact "literally make you incapable of functioning properly" despite your claims)... so that you can feel better about yourself by avoiding your psychological issues.

If you can't handle not min-maxing, you learn to handle it. I'm not going to handle it for you.

Actually, I have no issue with attack cantrips. What I have an issue with is that D&D has a history of presenting some options as being supposedly valid options, and some of those actually look like they are to the casual observer; however, they are in actual play options which do not work.

I've also said I have no problem taking suboptimal choices for character concepts. Heck, I'm currently playing a 3.5 character who is a caster and multiclassed; that's quite obviously suboptimal due to how the various pieces of 3.5 interact. However, even with the choices I made for that character, I'm still good enough that it's not noticeable; even in areas where I'm behind the power curve compared to the rest of the group, I still manage well enough to be in the same general ballpark. I can give examples of why I say some choices "literally make you incapable of functioning properly;" examples which have nothing to do with any of the characters I've personally played in a very long time, but I see no point in expressing it because you appear to believe a certain way; a way which does not care about why I would say that. Though, I will offer that I came to that statement via choices made by newer players who were attracted to the game during my time with the various editions, and needing to guide them away from choices which were presented to them via the books and the game rules as choices which should work, but actually don't. I myself had one experience with that with my first 3.5 character; despite your beliefs, I did learn, and I did go on to make better and more successful characters. My point isn't that I am incapable of doing so; my point is that I find it less fun for the game to be built in such a way that it expects me to do that as a normal part of the game.

You appear to be assuming a lot of things about what I do when I play which are not true; not even close to being true. It appears that you made a suboptimal choice for your response without being aware of it because of the manner I may have presented myself or my point of view previously. You thought making that choice would allow you to adequately participate, but, in actual play, that's not how it's working out because what you believed about how it worked isn't actually anywhere close to how it actually does.

I don't ask for rules to be removed. I ask for the rules to work better. If that's a psychological issue, I will happily admit to being insane.

 

[Mistwell]

I disagree with the rest. You almost always have 10 minutes to cast a ritual, especially if you aren't knee deep in some overpopulated monster lair (there are lots of adventures where you are not). If you are delving into a well populated monster lair, most of the time you won't have time to cast normal spells or they have the concentration mechanic meaning if combat starts you are in trouble anyway. So quick cast utility spells are not as useful as you make out.

If you are fleeing and need to lock door behind the party with arcane lock (an example that happened in my playtest game not that long ago) then concentration isn't an issue, but casting in a single action is critical. And as I said with the diplomacy situation, unless you know you need the bonus before hand, if you find yourself in a situation suddenly where diplomacy is important, you don't get 10 minutes to cast the spell, you get an action. Same with many other utility spells. You may need to dispel that magic that is damaging your party right now, not after 10 minutes. Augury requires you to describe an action you're going to take in the next 30 mins, and the longer ritual casting time eats into that time frame. Comprehend languages may well need to be triggered quick to understand a potentially hostile communication so the situation can be diffused. Detect evil right away may be the difference between getting back-stabbed by a potential new ally, or preventing the party from attacking them right away. Knock may be the difference between the party escaping pursuit or not. And so on. A lot of these spells (but not all) are highly beneficial as a single action rather than as a ritual.

No where does it say every one can hear you chanting or that you have to chant at the top of your lungs to perform a ritual. The main factor for rituals is time and ingredients, not noise.

I didn't say "at the top of your lungs" and please don't strawman during these conversations. I said they will likely hear you chanting, given you're doing it for 10 minutes straight. "Unless a spell’s description says otherwise, a spell requires you to chant mystic words, which constitutes its verbal component". Creatures MOVE in most locales, and if you're chanting, they will likely hear that in any given 10 minute time frame. I am unaware of any DM that would make chanting inaudible to creatures in nearby locations. It's one of the purposes of that component, and has been since D&D's inception.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
No. Not if you're comitted to playing your PC's concept. IMHO, the abilities a PC gets would be dependent on what the PC would choose not the player playing the game.

So what are we really saying here? That a good player, who builds a PC to concept, should get a result which means his character is largely ineffectual when compared to a character optimized for pure mechanical effectiveness? To me, the system should reward concept building, not min/maxing. If flavourful, interesting concepts are sidekicks at best, then I think the designers have failed.

"Should?" Tough question.

The answer is yes if, for instance, one wanted to build a D&D barbarian who has taken a vow that he will only fight with spoons.*

Because PC design is, mechanically, all about the allocation of scarce resources, and weapon choices & the like are resources in D&D. And not all choices are equal.

There are plenty of fighter feats out there. At low levels, a power attack and monkey grip are mechanically similar.** As you level up, though, power attack is obviously mechanically superior. But only monkey grip lets you use an oversized weapon. For some, that tradeoff is worth it, for some it isn't.

Towards the end of 3.5Ed, I came up with the concept of the Mage-Brute. Simply put, that's a full-casting arcanist who wears heavy armor and uses a martial weapon. He doesn't do much combat casting of spells, but finds other ways to use his magical abilities. (I'm not talking Pun-pun or any Polymorph-based builds, I'm talking about playing this way from 1st level, usually in campaigns with limited sourcebooks.)

Mechanically, it is a TERRIBLE choice: you're always short on HP (less so if you multiclass), the class-defining abilities are gimped, your BAB suffers, your feat choices are essentially dictated to you. Spell choices for such PCs will be...interesting. You're never going to be the party's Merlin/Elminster/Gandalf/Angel Summoner...nor their Fafhrd/Conan/Roland/Aragorn. You are neither fish nor fowl.

But I tell you what- they're cool to play! The look on everyone's face when your 1st level PHB sorcerer in scale mail with a maul advances to one end of a skirmish line...and breathes lightning at the foes, killing most of them? Priceless.












* if you want all options to be equally badass, you need a system like HERO. In HERO, your spoon barbarian could have equal ability to smack people around with spoons as another PC with a claymore. Or a gun. Or a plasma rifle. Tht same spoon could also let him fly and teleport if you designed it that way, because "spoon" has no mechanical meaning in the game, its just a descriptor.



** though, it should be noted that monkey grip does not have a Str min, so can be taken by even weak-armed PCs. For them, MG is a superior- indeed one of the ONLY- alternatives to PA for getting a little melee damage boost like that.

 

[Argyle King]

"Should?" Tough question.

The answer is yes if, for instance, one wanted to build a D&D barbarian who has taken a vow that he will only fight with spoons.*

Because PC design is, mechanically, all about the allocation of scarce resources, and weapon choices & the like are resources in D&D. And not all choices are equal.

Towards the end of 3.5Ed, I came up with the concept of the Mage-Brute. Simply put, that's a full-casting arcanist who wears heavy armor and uses a martial weapon. He doesn't do much combat casting of spells, but finds other ways to use his magical abilities. (I'm not talking Pun-pun or any Polymorph-based builds, I'm talking about playing this way from 1st level, usually in campaigns with limited sourcebooks.)

Mechanically, it is a TERRIBLE choice: you're always short on HP (less so if you multiclass), the class-defining abilities are gimped, your BAB suffers, your feat choices are essentially dictated to you. Spell choices for such PCs will be...interesting. You're never going to be the party's Merlin/Elminster/Gandalf/Angel Summoner...nor their Fafhrd/Conan/Roland/Aragorn. You are neither fish nor fowl.

But I tell you what- they're cool to play! The look on everyone's face when your 1st level PHB sorcerer in scale mail with a maul advances to one end of a skirmish line...and breathes lightning at the foes, killing most of them? Priceless.












* if you want all options to be equally badass, you need a system like HERO. In HERO, your spoon barbarian could have equal ability to smack people around with spoons as another PC with a claymore. Or a gun. Or a plasma rifle. Tht same spoon could also let him fly and teleport if you designed it that way, because "spoon" has no mechanical meaning in the game, its just a descriptor.

What you mention there isn't what I was trying to get at with my previous posts on the topic. I personally find that concept pretty cool, and it's something I would likely attempt to play in spite of it not being the best option.

Something more akin to what I'm speaking of is when D&D presents a choice such as say one feat which grants something like "+1 feat bonus on attack rolls with lightning based attacks" versus a different feat which grants "+1 bonus on attack rolls." That bothers me. Though, even that does not adequately express what I am trying to say because, in my feat example there, the character taking the first option (while quite obviously suboptimal) can still contribute to the party, and seeing those descriptions would make the power difference obvious.

A better example would be (and this is taken from a game I was a player in) when someone builds a 4E melee character; choosing a race based on what they feel is cool; puts a lower than optimal (but -according to the game and how the game's own books explain the game- not unreasonable) number into an attack stat, and chooses to use an axe (because they think it's cool.) For a little while, that works fine; then the party gets to a point in the game where that guy is struggling to hit anything, but sitting at a table where he's watching other people roll single digits and easily hit. Thinking back on it; in that particular example, multiple poor choices were made, but they were made because they were presented as valid choices to that person. The game advanced to a point where his character could not contribute to the party; he especially couldn't contribute to the party when the DM started scaling encounters to the power level of the other characters.

Really though, even that doesn't clearly express what I'm trying to say because, even in the example above, I would say the player was -to some extent- responsible... even though I do feel the game should have more clearly expressed caution toward some things. A possibly better example would be the Truenamer class from 3.5. I think the concept is fantastic, and, for a little while, it does work. However, there comes a point when the math of the game outstrips the ability of the class to work. A long time ago; before Gleemax, and in an edition far far away, I remember that someone homebrewed a fix to the Truenamer and posted it somewhere on the old WoTC forum. I wish I would have written it down or saved it. I love the concept of the class, but, as is, it does not work properly. 3.5, despite being an edition of the game that I highly enjoy from the player side of things, has choices which are like that. There are classes, feat chains, and various other things which are presented as choices -and they very often appear to be good ideas; in some cases I can even pick up on what the theory behind them was, but they do not work in the context of the game and how the game is built.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have things which do work, but are at odds with the expectations of the game and the people playing the game. For example, I would dare argue that a 3.5 Dwarf makes a better 3.5 Wizard than a 3.5 Elf despite the fluff running extremely counter to that. I think those oddball concepts and playing against type should be allowed; I enjoy doing it myself (currently playing a Half-Ogre Wizard in a GURPS game,) but it is strange when the story the mechanics is telling is at odds with the story that the story and fluff of the game is telling.

 

[TwoSix]

Because PC design is, mechanically, all about the allocation of scarce resources, and weapon choices & the like are resources in D&D. And not all choices are equal.

Yep. You can't have "I want meaningful mechanical choices for character building" and "All character aesthetic choices are equally valid" and "Character aesthetics map to mechanical differentiation" as design parameters for the same game.

 

[Lokiare]

"Should?" Tough question.

The answer is yes if, for instance, one wanted to build a D&D barbarian who has taken a vow that he will only fight with spoons.*

Because PC design is, mechanically, all about the allocation of scarce resources, and weapon choices & the like are resources in D&D. And not all choices are equal.

There are plenty of fighter feats out there. At low levels, a power attack and monkey grip are mechanically similar.** As you level up, though, power attack is obviously mechanically superior. But only monkey grip lets you use an oversized weapon. For some, that tradeoff is worth it, for some it isn't.

Towards the end of 3.5Ed, I came up with the concept of the Mage-Brute. Simply put, that's a full-casting arcanist who wears heavy armor and uses a martial weapon. He doesn't do much combat casting of spells, but finds other ways to use his magical abilities. (I'm not talking Pun-pun or any Polymorph-based builds, I'm talking about playing this way from 1st level, usually in campaigns with limited sourcebooks.)

Mechanically, it is a TERRIBLE choice: you're always short on HP (less so if you multiclass), the class-defining abilities are gimped, your BAB suffers, your feat choices are essentially dictated to you. Spell choices for such PCs will be...interesting. You're never going to be the party's Merlin/Elminster/Gandalf/Angel Summoner...nor their Fafhrd/Conan/Roland/Aragorn. You are neither fish nor fowl.

But I tell you what- they're cool to play! The look on everyone's face when your 1st level PHB sorcerer in scale mail with a maul advances to one end of a skirmish line...and breathes lightning at the foes, killing most of them? Priceless.












* if you want all options to be equally badass, you need a system like HERO. In HERO, your spoon barbarian could have equal ability to smack people around with spoons as another PC with a claymore. Or a gun. Or a plasma rifle. Tht same spoon could also let him fly and teleport if you designed it that way, because "spoon" has no mechanical meaning in the game, its just a descriptor.



** though, it should be noted that monkey grip does not have a Str min, so can be taken by even weak-armed PCs. For them, MG is a superior- indeed one of the ONLY- alternatives to PA for getting a little melee damage boost like that.

yeah but wouldnt it be cool to play that character concept and not be gimped. its not an either or proposition...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Thinking back on it; in that particular example, multiple poor choices were made, but they were made because they were presented as valid choices to that person. The game advanced to a point where his character could not contribute to the party; he especially couldn't contribute to the party when the DM started scaling encounters to the power level of the other character

If he was a newbie, where was the guidance from experienced players? If he was experienced, this was entirely forseeable and his own fault.

Did y ever play AD&D with racial class limits? I did. While I didn't play singleclassed non-humans in truly suboptimal classes (say, limited to 10th level or lower), I DID play multiclassed PCs who hit level limits.

Didn't bother me at all.

 

[TwoSix]

Yup. And its trivially easy to bring this about as there are already systems out there that have this precise approach to character progression. Its just considerably easier with a system that leverages dice pools and unified conflict resolution. You can take the exact scenarios above. You find the grimoire and you study it to attempt to unlock its mysteries. Boom, conflict resolution mechanics. You deploy your Spirit and Intellect attribute dicepool. Add your "All Mysteries Are Known To Me" skill dice, your "Lens of Magical Comprehension" asset dice and your "I Fought a Demonically Possessed Tome and the Demon Won" complication dice and commence with the conflict. The outcome is contingent upon the synthesis of the framework of the conflict resolution scheme + the level of the challenge + your dicepool rolls + the proficient use of your dicepool in the back-and-forth of the conflict. Post conflict, you've generated a new asset/skill dice (or raised an existing one) or possibly gained a new complication.

That sounds Cortex-ish? Am I wildly offbase there? (I haven't read any of the Cortex games yet.)

I believe the concept can work fine, even in a stripped down OD&D type environment. If you want to reward at-table skill, where that skill is measured by being able to traverse further and further into dungeons, reward the exploration with something that grants new abilities. D&D, fortunately, has a long history of rewarding special abilities via Macguffins located in the depths of dungeons, i.e., magic items.

For abilities that don't neatly match up with magic items, reward them via specialized training (purchased via dungeon acquired gold), or quests to various spirits/hermits/temples/magical locations, whatever is in the nature of the desired ability. This rewards solid "roleplaying" (i.e. campaign backstory and NPC interaction).