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

[Derren]

Most of the weapons were real world, but few were used at the same time in the real world. When the Romans developed metalworking to be able to make short swords, they ruled the world. Who would use a short sword in King Arthur's time? Or in Renaissance Italy? Who uses bows today? Not anyone who can access a gun! If some weapons are clearly superior, then the others should logically be doomed to obscurity. Especially in a game where the time required to train with a more sophisticated weapon isn't really factored in.

Maybe you should look a bit better at what type of weapons the romans used (or medieval/renaissance armies). They had a lot of different weapons, partly also because many weapons were only effective against certain types of armors or enemies (although the Romans instead of using different weapons preferred to have auxiliary troops equipped with them) , something which D&D sadly never modeled very well and likely never will considering the current direction of oversimplification. Also, there were other considerations taken into account when choosing weapons, although some of them do not apply to D&D characters (training, etc.).

Fun Fact: Benjamin Franklin lobbied for the American army to be equipped with longbows instead of guns.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Fun fact #2: the Spanish Conquistadores switched back to large but lightweight leather shields when fighting the Native American tribes of North America because their metal shields were too heavy to be effective against arrows launched from surrounding attackers.

 

[Lokiare]

see this is the problem... the concept doesn't have to be gimped if it isn't the single most optimal... there can be a range.


if every PC had a power score from 1-100, and optimal was 100, but average was 90, and you could be +-10 and still be good enough, then you really have a non gimped 80-100... saying 97 is gimped is crazy.

In 4e a 14th level character is half way through his career at max (how ever most people don't get to 30) and a +1 to hit is just not that big a deal over that time...

In 5e/Next the difference between having ray of frost at level 10 2d8 or cross bow 1d8+dex mod when both are very likely similar to hit but one has more then 5x the range...especially since you will have plenty of spells after level 5 that you wont need to default to them that often...

Unfortunately in 5E there are many things that fall into the <50 point range. I agree that cantrips are not one of them. They might be at really early levels with some builds, but most characters will do fine.

However right now if you want to make a swashbuckling Fighter, you are out of luck.

In order to take light armor you have to waste a feat to get a bonus to AC and you still don't match up to a Fighter in medium or heavy armor. You have to grab skill mastery as a feat later to be able to be a sailor and using a light weapon will seriously reduce your damage. Without a shield you cannot tank/defend the party. So are extremely gimped in 5E if you try to swashbuckle. Some might argue for a rogue build, but swashbucklers weren't about stealth, trap finding, lying, cheating, and backstabbing. It just doesn't match the concept.

There are many others. If you pick a Fighter you are automatically gimped out of combat and have to use all your feats and ability increases just to have a hope of keeping up with other classes.

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

 

[Lokiare]

There ARE systems in which I could play armored arcanists and not seem gimped*, but D&D isn't one of them. It is one of the things that distinguishes it from other FRPGs. Complaining about that is like complaining that the RPG Talisanta doesn't have elves. Wouldn't it be nice to play elves in Talisanta?

IOW, there are plenty of FRPGs that allow you to play armored mages; find one and be happy!








* and even then, you're probably allocating some kind of character building resource away from being a pure spellcaster in order to wield better weapons and wear standard armors.

More like complaining that my car has a flat tire.

having balanced options would not break D&D. It would enhance the flavor and feel because you would get to have a character that is closer to your ideals which would enhance role play without costing mechanical effectiveness.

 

[Manbearcat]

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

I was primarily thinking of Dogs in the Vineyard where conflict has direct Fallout (such as the attainment of a new trait, tool, relationship, the attainment of a new one, or gaining of a new complication - if things go wrong). With MHRP (Cortex +), progression is by proxy of the Milestone XP system; get aggregate XP for attainment of these story goals and cash them in (conceptually somewhat similar to Dungeon World). However, there is temporary, intra-conflict progression with the plot point economy (I think that is what you're thinking of).

Other games, can get the equivalent of XP when using specific dice in conflicts or failing tasks. You can also carry victories with dice rolling over from one conflict to the next (its equivalent of progression) or by gaining temporary assets from transition scene efforts and spent resources (akin to when a spellcaster scribes a scroll in D&D or someone purchases a useful, perishable tool or enchantment).

I just thought something like DitV conflict resolution models precisely what you were speaking of; An dynamic conflict-oriented character progression where stakes are clearly explicated at the outset "Do I master the Grimoire...or does it master me?..." The GM takes the opposing side and plays that (such as "The Grimoire's Reluctance to Give Up Its Secrets"). The player and GM both roll their respective, applicable dice pools and use their dice to Raise and See the Raise (etc), the narrative evolves with the back-and-forth, until one side has insufficient dice to continue the conflict (or they give-in) and we find out the outcome of the stakes of the conflict.

 

[hbarsquared]

I really doubt this issue has anything to do with "balance" or "fairness" or "effectiveness."

Granted, I have not read the entirety of this thread. I should finish it soon, and I've read severl like it over the past few months.

The true issue is "fun." In this post, I'm going to define "fun" as "how many times can I do awesome stuff."

And here's the thing: an at-will attack power allows you to "do something cool" that's iconic of your class several times a combat, possibly tens of times a session. Read magic, or minor illusion, not so much. Once or twice per session, if you're lucky.

Groups that don't have strong combat theme, I'm guessing, are more willing to accept "suboptimal" choices.

It's not about balance, I think, it's about having more chances to do "wizardly" stuff.

I can't claim to know the solution. I have a feeling it might have something ro do with a "utility caster" that can cast (certain) rituals at-will, or an increased number of at-wills known, or something that allows the sage to simply be a wizard more than a couple times in a combat.

Thanks.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

More like complaining that my car has a flat tire.

Nah, D&D is pretty broad, but that doesn't mean that it has to support all concepts equally well.

having balanced options would not break D&D.

Depending on how its handled. 4Ed's design (over)commitment to structural balance was a big turnoff to a lot of players.

I didn't look at 5Ed all that much during the playtest- I'll see it & evaluate it when its released- but I can think of things that would bring casters back in line with non-casters...somewhat.

It would enhance the flavor and feel because you would get to have a character that is closer to your ideals which would enhance role play without costing mechanical effectiveness.

Again, D&D doesn't have to be the FRPG that supports all concepts equally well. Or even at all.

Right now, I can play Ragnar the Spoonslayer in any version of D&D out there...but that doesn't mean that the game needs rules need to make the Spoonslaying fighting school as good as using a claymore.

 

[Mistwell]

Right now, I can play Ragnar the Spoonslayer in any version of D&D out there...but that doesn't mean that the game needs rules need to make the Spoonslaying fighting school as good as using a claymore.

For what it is worth, there are some excellent variants on D&D that do this well.

For example, Old School Hack has you choose a light, reach, ranged, heavy, or very heavy weapon (and each has it's advantages and disadvantages), and then the player is free to describe what that weapon is (provided it makes some rationale sense). So Ragnar would probably make his weapon Light, and describe them as spoons. Meanwhile, the other guy would choose Very Heavy and describe it as a claymore.

 

[Cybit]

There's no swashbuckler option in the public playtest; so I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. I do think that most options should fall into the 80-100 range, and so far, from best I can tell, they do so.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For what it is worth, there are some excellent variants on D&D that do this well.

For example, Old School Hack has you choose a light, reach, ranged, heavy, or very heavy weapon (and each has it's advantages and disadvantages), and then the player is free to describe what that weapon is (provided it makes some rationale sense). So Ragnar would probably make his weapon Light, and describe them as spoons. Meanwhile, the other guy would choose Very Heavy and describe it as a claymore.

Actually, as hinted before, I'd just use HERO. As I have in the past, I could run a D&D-style campaign using HERO and let people run PCs modeled from their favorite editions. Ragnar's Spoonslaying ways would fit right in, seamlessly.