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

[KidSnide]

I'm not sure I think there are choices that characters "have" to take, but I think it's a reasonable design criticism to complain that one choice is tactically superior to all the others. Sure, not everyone cares about balance, but plenty of people do. (I won't speculate about whether that's "most" or not, but I think it's fair to say that lots of people care about balance.) If you care about balance, saying that an option is "suboptimal" is - by definition - a reasonable complaint. The whole point of balance is to have a bunch of options that play differently, but are of roughly equal power.

The complaint about attack cantrips is just a balance complaint. It's not so much that you "have" to take them, but that a wizard with attack cantrips is substantially more effective than a wizard without attack cantrips. Those players want wizards without at-will magical attacks that are just as effective as wizards with those attacks. You can argue about whether at-will attacks are important or not, but I think it's a reasonable complaint to say "I have a strong aesthetic preference for wizards without at-will attacks, and I think that aesthetic format is sub-optimal in the current rules."

Personally, I think "no at-will cantrips" should be more of a campaign-level option than a character-level option. The aesthetic complaint is more of a "this is not how wizards work" than "can I pick a wizard that doesn't work this way." I'd put that kind of optional class tweak in the DMG (or a Dragon article).

-KS

 

[Lokiare]

That is not erosion of DM authority. It is the DM choosing not to enforce an aspect of his or her role as stated in the DMG.

I view it as the basic expectation of the game to work out of the box without having to be fundamentally changed by the DM. Unfortunately very few games work that way...

 

[Cybit]

I'm not sure I think there are choices that characters "have" to take, but I think it's a reasonable design criticism to complain that one choice is tactically superior to all the others. Sure, not everyone cares about balance, but plenty of people do. (I won't speculate about whether that's "most" or not, but I think it's fair to say that lots of people care about balance.) If you care about balance, saying that an option is "suboptimal" is - by definition - a reasonable complaint. The whole point of balance is to have a bunch of options that play differently, but are of roughly equal power.

The complaint about attack cantrips is just a balance complaint. It's not so much that you "have" to take them, but that a wizard with attack cantrips is substantially more effective than a wizard without attack cantrips. Those players want wizards without at-will magical attacks that are just as effective as wizards with those attacks. You can argue about whether at-will attacks are important or not, but I think it's a reasonable complaint to say "I have a strong aesthetic preference for wizards without at-will attacks, and I think that aesthetic format is sub-optimal in the current rules."

Personally, I think "no at-will cantrips" should be more of a campaign-level option than a character-level option. The aesthetic complaint is more of a "this is not how wizards work" than "can I pick a wizard that doesn't work this way." I'd put that kind of optional class tweak in the DMG (or a Dragon article).

-KS

I know one thing I intend to forward along is the idea that damage cantrips should be separated from non-damage cantrips, and it should be a game option to include damage cantrips as a whole. Something like mages get X cantrips, and as a sidebar, optional damage cantrips, where if the players decide to use damage cantrips, mages can choose X non attack cantrips and Y attack cantrips.

That seem like an effective solution?

 

[SkidAce]

It all comes down to whether you believe its ok to sacrifice effectiveness for a character concept.

For most of use the answer is 'NO'...

I don't agree with the "most" but I have nothing but anecdotal evidence. We think the answer is yes.

 

[Lokiare]

I don't agree with the "most" but I have nothing but anecdotal evidence. We think the answer is yes.

The question you should ask yourself then, is why can't you have both? Why can't you be effective at the same time as having your ideal character concept.

Its not like these two things are on opposite spectrum's or you have to sacrifice one for the other. Ideally you should be able to have both at the same time.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I know one thing I intend to forward along is the idea that damage cantrips should be separated from non-damage cantrips

I like that kind of silo and goalpost scenario, but there's still a playstyle issue. Some people an edition where Cure Light Wounds or Comprehend Languages compete with damage-dealing spells, and others don't. There's no game out there that easily supports both.

 

[Lokiare]

I like that kind of silo and goalpost scenario, but there's still a playstyle issue. Some people an edition where Cure Light Wounds or Comprehend Languages compete with damage-dealing spells, and others don't. There's no game out there that easily supports both.

Build options could easily do it. I suggested early on that the Cleric should have a vancian build and an AEDU build, but apparently the developers don't feel like it would make for a great game...

 

[doghead]

It all comes down to whether you believe its ok to sacrifice effectiveness for a character concept.

For most of use the answer is 'NO'...

Neither you nor I know what the answer of most is.

Nor does the existence of a majority view one way or another make the alternative approach to the game an incorrect one.

thotd

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I view it as the basic expectation of the game to work out of the box without having to be fundamentally changed by the DM. Unfortunately very few games work that way...

see the problem lies that I agree that the basic idea... (Game should meet basic expectation of working out of the box) but I disagree that the game doesn't work (both 4e with and without expertise and 5e with or without cantrips that damage.)

see there is a lot I agree with balance people with, but this one isn't it...

The question you should ask yourself then, is why can't you have both? Why can't you be effective at the same time as having your ideal character concept.

Its not like these two things are on opposite spectrum's or you have to sacrifice one for the other. Ideally you should be able to have both at the same time.

my question is this (and I will ask it twice once for each example)

4e why is my wizard who hits more often then not and is a power player in the game not effective just because he doesn't have expertise? Infact just for a true example why isn't the Ranger (scout I believe) who out damages the rest of the party and has only 1 pt less to hit the then highest attack in the party and who is mostly a MVP at the game less effective then the fighter or sorcerer who both have expertise and both do less damage and who one has 1 pt higher to hit at 17th level when both of them have expertise??

5e why is my wizard less effective for having minor illusion then yours with ray of frost? isn't it intirely up to the game and the group to decide.


now the only place I will agree with the cantrip people is it should scale slower (on the 6's so 1d8 1-5th 2d8 6th-11th 3d8 12th-17th and 4d8 at 18-20) that alone I think fixes the problem (witch I see as very small)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Build options could easily do it. I suggested early on that the Cleric should have a vancian build and an AEDU build, but apparently the developers don't feel like it would make for a great game...

I don't know if we will ever see a build of each, but would you mind different classes?

Wizard is Vancian
sorcerer is part Vancian but mostly AEDU (like a 4e wizard)
Warlock is almost all at will with a few encounter

Cleric is Vancian
favored soul is AEDU
Archivist is part cancian but mostly AEDU (Like 4e wizard)

that is what I want to see...