Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 6262604" data-attributes="member: 54710">I'm not sure I think there are choices that characters &quot;have&quot; to take, but I think it's a reasonable design criticism to complain that one choice is tactically superior to all the others.&nbsp; Sure, not everyone cares about balance, but plenty of people do.&nbsp; (I won't speculate about whether that's &quot;most&quot; or not, but I think it's fair to say that lots of people care about balance.)&nbsp; If you care about balance, saying that an option is &quot;suboptimal&quot; is - by definition - a reasonable complaint.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It's not so much that you &quot;have&quot; to take them, but that a wizard with attack cantrips is substantially more effective than a wizard without attack cantrips.&nbsp; Those players want wizards without at-will magical attacks that are just as effective as wizards with those attacks.&nbsp; You can argue about whether at-will attacks are important or not, but I think it's a reasonable complaint to say &quot;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.&quot;&nbsp; Personally, I think &quot;no at-will cantrips&quot; should be more of a campaign-level option than a character-level option.&nbsp; The aesthetic complaint is more of a &quot;this is not how wizards work&quot; than &quot;can I pick a wizard that doesn't work this way.&quot;&nbsp; I'd put that kind of optional class tweak in the DMG (or a Dragon article).-KS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 6262604, member: 54710"] 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification