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

[Dannyalcatraz]

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"?

Sure.

Can't say I've seen it happen, though. IME, most of the time, players don't reveal what they're playing until things are underway. They just show up with their PCs and start gaming, with only the GM any wiser as to party makeup beyond gross generalizations before any dice rolls.

The one time I ever saw an issue with PC builds pre-game was in a 2Ed Player's Option game. There were 2 of us playing clerics. Mine was built on a Norse/Viking type platform: light armor, but proficient with good weapons; Inspire Berserker Rage instead of Turn Undead; an arsenal of clerical and wizard spells that were almost all buffs or debuffs...mostly under 3rd level.

I was accused of building "superman".

 

[Minigiant]

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?

Technically. If you don't get the magic implement of your choice later Coordinated Explostion could come out better as you lose out a +1 when you disenchant/sell and enchant/buy.

So it is not technically a nonchoice. It is that one is better or equal than the other 95% of the time.

That's the thing. Some Nonchoices are table and campaign dependent. Some are not.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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).

yes except you are compairing 2 feats that give +1 to hit... in this case I agree. The problem is that is not just your choice of A or B...

here is another example. My warlord went 22 levels without expertise... from 1-23 because every time the option came up, I had a feat I wanted more.

My swordmage in the encounters program ran into a person who sat at the table and said "all of you better have expertise" and berated me when I said no I did not. I informed him that for the entire month he could feel free to berate me anytime I missed by 1... but only then. We kept track it never happened...not once...

Well, maybe that's too simplistic. I care about having a character that matches my concept

me too

and I also care about having an effective character.

me too

The thing is, those shouldn't be mutually exclusive. If the game makes me choose between them, it frustrates me

I agree

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,

100% agree

so I feel "forced" to take the superior option, even though I don't "like" the fact that I had to make that choice.

this is where we disagree, I can take almost anything and work with it I can make an optimal character that doesn't fit any pattern in any edition.

(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.)

I almost agree with you but I would settle for one to play with 8/8/8 physical stats...

 

[KidSnide]

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.

Well, a Ray of Frost goes up to 2d8 damage at level 5 and even higher at level 10+, plus it lets you use your magic ability modifier, which is probably 2 to 4 points better than your Dex. As a 10th level wizard, I'd much rather have 3d8 with a +8 to hit than 1d8+2 with a +5 to hit. Plus, it's not like Ray of Frost will be the only ranged cantrip for wizards -- other cantrips will have other benefits.

But whether or not the difference is "substantial" or not is somewhat beside the point. All I'm saying is that it's reasonable to complain if your preferred style of playing a class is substantially less effective than other styles. I'm pretty sure there's another thread to debate the merits of this particular question.

-KS

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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?

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, if my concept is "fire mage"- an utter and total (high-Int, low-Wis) pyromaniac arcanist- the fact that Sleep, Magic Missile, Lightning Bolt, etc. are out there won't really impinge on the character's psyche. He probably knows that there are more creatures out there that are resistant or immune to fire than any other energy type, and that doesn't matter to him, either. He wants things to see things burn. That which he can't burn...well...he'll think of something else if & when. Besides, isn't helping you out what friends are for?

Sure, "competent class A with some minor quirk or odd background" is the way some people design PCs, and there is nothing wrong with that. I've been happily playing alongside some guys who play like that continuously since 1998. But it's less a solid character concept and more of a character sketch. (And I do realize that you were presenting it on the fly as but an example.)

I'll even give you a real-world example. If you want to be an entertainment lawyer in the USA, your odds of success are best if you live & practice in LA or NYC. Other cities matter, too, but those are the big entertainment hubs. Those would be the optimal choices.

Well, I'm an entertainment lawyer who lives and practices in Texas...and not Austin, either. Odds are good that you'll never see my clients on TV or buy their music. So it goes. I still rendered valuable service to them, nonetheless.

 

[MoonSong]

(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.)

Sure, just find me a DM who will allow something like that on his/her game and I will gladly go there, even better lets make it Str 3, Dex 3, Con 3, Int 6, Wis 8, Cha 18 and switch fighter for warrior or commoner (in 3.x).

The truth is, I don't personally care about how effective my character is at combat or even his/her suppossed class job, (however notice I care about my character being weak and strong where it matters according to the concept). But I understand the temptation to take must haves, and this has nothing to do with ego, or even me wanting ot be balanced with the others, but rather to be a team player and not to seek out special treatment from DMs (in this case "special treatment" means forcing the DM to adjust menaces to account for me not contributing on the way the system expects me too, curiously I feel there is a stronger pressure to pull your weight the more balanced the system is)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

(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.)

Well, I'm not at that extreme, but for me combat efficacy is secondary to using the RPG system to model the PC concept.

This is the "Arcane Paladin" I'm playing right now:

Marshal2/Duskblade2/Battle Sorcerer6 w/Stalwart Sorcerer ACF

Str: 12 (+1) Dex: 14 (+2) Con: 10 (+0)
Int: 16 (+3) Wis: 10 (+0) Cha: 17 (+3)

Basically, that PC has been on the front lines a fair amount, and will be moreso since the players with solo class warrior PCs are going to be unavailable for months. His personal combat efficacy has derived as much if not moreso from his gear- and most of his spells are buffs.

And because of his multiclassing, he's not the ace spellcaster either.

 

[Cadence]

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, if my concept is "fire mage"- an utter and total (high-Int, low-Wis) pyromaniac arcanist- the fact that Sleep, Magic Missile, Lightning Bolt, etc. are out there won't really impinge on the character's psyche. He probably knows that there are more creatures out there that are resistant or immune to fire than any other energy type, and that doesn't matter to him, either. He wants things to see things burn. That which he can't burn...well...he'll think of something else if & when. Besides, isn't helping you out what friends are for?

I completely get wanting to play the concept and taking what the character would want (do that regularly making characters).

So say the rules for making a fire specializing mage give you a modest bump over the regular caster, so that in the long run your bonus on fire spells shows up, but in five rounds of blasting away chances are that no one would have a solid chance of telling the two of you apart if the other mage memorized five fire spells too (unless you got to use your awesome fire resistance). So when you go face the big ice demons in the climactic battle, the standard caster is burning almost right there with you and actually doing a better job since their fly spell positioned them better and their wall of force channeled the flames spectacularly. The pyromaniac doesn't feel a bit let down?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that the pyro would prioritize fire spells above all others. He may indeed take Fly and WoForce to create fire tornadoes & chimneys if he's aware of the concepts. Just because he's a pyro doesn't make him tactically unaware.

But his first priority will be learn all the fire spells he can. To that end, if he's learning spells of other energy types, he's probably also learned Energy Substitution as one of his primary feats...possibly Fiery Burst as well. And unless the pyro is a spontaneous caster, his Lightning Bolt may well be a bolt of flames, his ice storm a rain of fire, and so forth. And he will continually choose typed energy damage spells over other attack spells as able.

Other tactical spell choice considerations- Fly, WoF, etc- will all be chosen as to how they improve his ability to make things burn. So, while making a WoForce to channel his attacks might be fun, he might learn WoS or WoI before that (assuming they can be heated) to do the same trick, and DEFINITELY WoFire before any of those.

Item, for instance, might be high in his list, since it would get him the ability to carry tiny campfires with him wherever he goes...along with fuel.

Grease? Web? Both flammable!

Sleep & Magic Missile? Ho-hum. Booooooooring. They don't do what he needs them to do.

 

[Cadence]

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that the pyro would prioritize fire spells above all others. He may indeed take Fly and WoForce to create fire tornadoes & chimneys if he's aware of the concepts. Just because he's a pyro doesn't make him tactically unaware.

But his first priority will be learn all the fire spells he can.

Thanks for the clarification. That makes perfect sense to me.