Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GX.Sigma" data-source="post: 6262836" data-attributes="member: 6690511">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.</blockquote>

Verification