Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6262977" data-attributes="member: 2067">Part of the assumption that goes into attack cantrips being blatantly better than other cantrips is that attacking is always going to be the secret to a party's success.If 5e is taking a key from pre-WotC editions, attacking will not always be the best way to complete an adventure. If they're assuming an even distribution of the three pillars (just for the sake of argument), attacking will be a sub-optimal choice 2/3 of the time, when avoiding the obstacle or interacting with an NPC will get the job done better or more efficiently.If WotC supports all three pillars well right out the gate, this issue should solve itself, essentially: the PC who is loaded down with attack cantrips will find themselves good in a fight, but kind of not great when fighting isn't a viable approach (traps, nonhostile NPC's, etc.). It'll be evident in Session 1 that fighting isn't going to get everything done. If WotC fails to support all three pillars well, and defaults to the 4e/3e assumption of &quot;Roll initiative, kill it, move on to the next encounter,&quot; then those cantrips will emerge as choice, just as they tended to in those games.If WotC allows individual tables to develop the pillars at their own rate, then the problem will mostly solve itself: tables that value mostly combat will have a lot of combat-focused characters and will not miss the non-combat cantrips that nobody ever takes, while tables that use a different track will have adventures that value non-combat abilities, and so non-combat cantrips will become more valuable.A lot of this hinges on WotC's ability to improve on previous e's when it comes to supporting non-combat solutions to character problems. They've been big on promises. I've got reason to be hopeful. I don't know what that might look like from here, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6262977, member: 2067"] Part of the assumption that goes into attack cantrips being blatantly better than other cantrips is that attacking is always going to be the secret to a party's success. If 5e is taking a key from pre-WotC editions, attacking will not always be the best way to complete an adventure. If they're assuming an even distribution of the three pillars (just for the sake of argument), attacking will be a sub-optimal choice 2/3 of the time, when avoiding the obstacle or interacting with an NPC will get the job done better or more efficiently. If WotC supports all three pillars well right out the gate, this issue should solve itself, essentially: the PC who is loaded down with attack cantrips will find themselves good in a fight, but kind of not great when fighting isn't a viable approach (traps, nonhostile NPC's, etc.). It'll be evident in Session 1 that fighting isn't going to get everything done. If WotC fails to support all three pillars well, and defaults to the 4e/3e assumption of "Roll initiative, kill it, move on to the next encounter," then those cantrips will emerge as choice, just as they tended to in those games. If WotC allows individual tables to develop the pillars at their own rate, then the problem will mostly solve itself: tables that value mostly combat will have a lot of combat-focused characters and will not miss the non-combat cantrips that nobody ever takes, while tables that use a different track will have adventures that value non-combat abilities, and so non-combat cantrips will become more valuable. A lot of this hinges on WotC's ability to improve on previous e's when it comes to supporting non-combat solutions to character problems. They've been big on promises. I've got reason to be hopeful. I don't know what that might look like from here, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification