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

[Argyle King]

I don't like feeling as though I need to choose between what I want to do and what the game says I should do.

I can (and very often do) make choices which aren't optimal because I want a particular concept. However, there are times when one choice is so obviously better than everything else that I feel as though I'd need brain damage to choose one of the other options. This is especially bad when a game (like D&D very often does) assumes that certain aspects of my character have certain numeric values at certain levels. In those cases, choosing the choice that I would like to choose can (and actually has in the past) hurt my character's performance to such an extent that I could no longer effectively contribute anything to the efforts of the party. Since challenge ratings (XP budgets in the case of 4th) are measured based upon the number of player characters, making poor choices can actually hurt the characters of the other players. I don't expect every choice to be 100% perfect for every concept, nor do I expect every choice to be 100% balanced, but the choices should feel like choices. As much as possible, I want the game to allow me to choose whatever it is that I feel is cool; I want to feel like I'm being forced to make a choice based on the game's desires over my own as little as possible.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't give a rat's ass if you think you aren't "playing right" by not taking an option that you think is statistically better but not something you actually want. You don't want to take it... then don't take it. And DEAL WITH IT.

If you feel guilty in your own head for taking a sub-optimal choice... I DON'T CARE. Get over yourself.

If the others at your table give you crap about not taking this supposed "obvious choice"... I DON'T CARE. You tell them to mind their own damned business. Get over yourself.

Cause see... I'm not going to let you take those things away FROM ME just because you can't handle that responsibility. If your ego can't deal with it... that's ON YOU. You need to look within yourself and figure out why you need to curtail the fun of everyone else because you're unwilling to man up (or woman up) and just deal with your own stupid issues. I'M NOT GOING TO HANDLE THEM FOR YOU by losing something in the game I actually want.

 

[Argyle King]

I don't give a rat's ass if you think you aren't "playing right" by not taking an option that you think is statistically better but not something you actually want. You don't want to take it... then don't take it. And DEAL WITH IT.

If you feel guilty in your own head for taking a sub-optimal choice... I DON'T CARE. Get over yourself.

If the others at your table give you crap about not taking this supposed "obvious choice"... I DON'T CARE. You tell them to mind their own damned business. Get over yourself.

Cause see... I'm not going to let you take those things away FROM ME just because you can't handle that responsibility. If your ego can't deal with it... that's ON YOU. You need to look within yourself and figure out why you need to curtail the fun of everyone else because you're unwilling to man up (or woman up) and just deal with your own stupid issues. I'M NOT GOING TO HANDLE THEM FOR YOU by losing something in the game I actually want.

So, if picking the options I want to pick means my character literally cannot function properly -as per the parameters of the game- that's not seen as a problem? I suppose I'm sorry for thinking that playing a rpg meant I could play the character I wanted to play and actually be able to play the game...?


I see no reason why what you want cannot be properly balanced against the options that other people want.



edit: Alternatively, if I take the same point of view I'm being presented with here, then I feel that every option I want in the game should be exactly how I want it, and to hell with everyone else. Who cares if it's meant to be a game played as a group, right? When it comes to design choices and the player that WoTC needs to appease, I am the alpha and the omega; the beginning and the end. Really, they shouldn't even call it D&D; I demand the name be changed to "WoTC's RPG: The Specifically Designed For Johnny3D3D edition."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, I think DEFCON 1's position is, it's my PC and- unless I specifically agreed to playing something a certain way- it's nobody else's business what I play. The dice will sort everything else out.

Further, your willingness or unwillingness to compromise a PC concept in favor of optimization is entirely your own responsibility.

And I agree.

 

[Minigiant]

This not an issue of no choice.
This is an issue of low options.

For example with controls, there are things that could be added to the game that could give mages options other than controls. Spells that enhance weapons. Class features that enhance weapon attacks. Controls that have non damage effects (100gp to the mage who teaches me to use Flare at will)
The control issue is a lack of options issue.

The expertise issue was a poorly done math fix for 4e.

 

[Hussar]

Well that's true to some degree but there is still the group to consider. If I bring a turnip farmer with a spork to the group why are they bringing me along?

Is it also acceptable for another player to turn to you and say "sorry but your character is likely to get my character or even the whole group killed. I won't adventure with your character"?

 

[Ichneumon]

If you're worried about a potentially suboptimal choice, why not talk to the DM and ask them to ensure there's enough content in the adventures to justify your choice. So if your wizard picks Read Magic over Ray of Frost, you can ask the DM to throw in some encrypted spellbooks & magical writings. Most DMs will be happy to tweak their gameworld in order to help your PC shine, and if they say no, at least you know where you stand.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

They're really not, in D&D Next.

Ray of Frost does 1d8 damage plus slows by 10ft, range 50 ft.
A light crossbow does 1d8 damage, range 80 ft, or up to 320 at long range.

In no way is the mage "substantially" more effective if they take Ray of Frost. In fact, I'd argue the Ray of Frost is a poor choice, balance-wise, as most other cantrips will be more effective than the minor difference between the crossbow and the ray.

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.

In my opinion, minor illusion is hands down better than ray of frost. It's WAY more effective. You can do the same damage to the foe with your crossbow...but your ray cannot erect a friggen wall between you and the enemy, a wall they cannot see through! AND it's ghost sound!

 

[GX.Sigma]

What I don't understand is, if you don't like something, how can you feel forced to take it? It makes no sense to me.

This is a very important point that needs clarification. Let's start with an example. Consider the following two feats from 4e.

Coordinated Explosion: +1 to attack rolls with blast or burst if ally is in area.
Implement Expertise: +1 to attack rolls with chosen implement.

Yes, those are real feats, and they appeared in the same book (PHB2). It doesn't take a minmaxer to see that the second one is better than the first one. The first one is really flavorful, and it's awesome how it says something about your character; but the second one literally gives you exactly the same thing and more. So even if you want to take the first one, you know that the second one is better. It's level 1, and you only get to pick one. So do you take the one that says something fun about your character? Or do you take the one that you know will always be mechanically more useful?

"Do you want to have fun, or do you want to be better at the game?" Regardless of the specific thing (it could be feats or powers or cantrips; it could be combat or puzzle-solving or diplomacy), and regardless of how objectively true it is (as long as the player believes it's true), the point is, that is a terrible choice to ask the player to make.

Well, maybe that's too simplistic. I care about having a character that matches my concept, and I also care about having an effective character. The thing is, those shouldn't be mutually exclusive. If the game makes me choose between them, it frustrates me that the game isn't well balanced enough to let me have both. In my case, I care slightly more about having an effective character, so I feel "forced" to take the superior option, even though I don't "like" the fact that I had to make that choice.

(Parenthetical: Some people on the forums claim to not care about having an effective character. I'll believe that when they play a Fighter with 3 Str, 3 Dex, 3 Con, 15 Int, 16 Wis, 18 Cha. The fact is, we all care about both parts, but to different degrees.)

This isn't about non-choices. That's a totally different kind of bad game design. A non-choice is when you choose an archer ranger at level one, and then at level 5 the game's like "okay, do you want the archery power or the dual-wielding power?" That's a non-choice. That's not what we're talking about.

 

[Cadence]

If you're worried about a potentially suboptimal choice,...

It seems like there should be wide range between useful but sub-optimal, not very useful, and garbage in terms of meaning. Should each character also be judged as to what they bring to the story part of the game to?

Actually, I think DEFCON 1's position is, it's my PC and- unless I specifically agreed to playing something a certain way- it's nobody else's business what I play. The dice will sort everything else out.


Further, your willingness or unwillingness to compromise a PC concept in favor of optimization is entirely your own responsibility.

Can't "blatantly best options" make it impossible to implement a lot of otherwise reasonable PC concepts? Say your concept is "competent class A with some minor quirk or odd background" and player X is playing "class A or closely related class with optimum choices". If player X's character almost always outshines yours, then isn't a major part of your concept is effectively removed? Are you actually a competent thief/fighter/cleric/mage if the party would never want you to do the thievery/fighting/clericing/magicking?