Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6263123" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Let us assume for the moment that they are the clearly superior choice.&nbsp; OK.So why SHOULD the attack cantrip be superior?&nbsp; The answer may not be to remove it from the game, but to modify it and/or other choices to make them comparable in effectiveness.&nbsp; You seem to suggest that it is, if not a good idea, at least a perfectly acceptable approach, that the player who wants to play a wizard who does not have an at will damage power should be sub-optimal.&nbsp; I disagree.&nbsp; I think that, if the attack cantrip is truly superior (which we are assuming for this discussion), then that is bad game design.Would you support adding Wish to the cantrips?&nbsp; Wow - that's really cool - my wizard can ALTER REALITY right out of the gate.&nbsp; Of course, if your concept is not a wizard who can alter reality at a whim, as often as he pleases, you are certainly free to take that 1d8 damage cantrip, or a silent image, instead.&nbsp; But don't take away what I want to play just because of your personal preferences.&nbsp; You either take the Wish cantrip, or you choose the character-centric one.Now, that's an extreme example, but if we accept that one choice is so clearly superior over the others that it can only be taken&nbsp; by sacrificing mechanical effectiveness for character concept, then my example is only a more extreme example of the same philosophy.To me, the answer is that the choice of character concept should not determine whether or not the character is mechanically effective.&nbsp; Characters should be mechanically effective regardless of concept.&nbsp; There should be valid, interesting choices to drive a wide variety of character concepts.&nbsp; There should not be trap choices that make characters who sure sounded interesting in theory but are useless and therefore uninteresting, even frustrating, in actual play.&nbsp; Keep the choices but make them balance.&nbsp; It will never be perfect - shifting the balance between combat and other pillars, between playstyles and between types of opponents will shift the balance.&nbsp; But keep the balance as much as can be done within those constraints.&nbsp; The more choices there are, the bigger the books get.&nbsp; The bigger the book, the more it will cost.&nbsp; I only want to pay for good content that will be a valid and viable choice for in-game use.&nbsp; I don't want a 20 page essay on the history of development of materials for d20's.&nbsp; And I don't want 20 pages of &quot;sounds cool but useless in play&quot; non-choices for character builds.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 6263123, member: 6681948"] Let us assume for the moment that they are the clearly superior choice. OK. So why SHOULD the attack cantrip be superior? The answer may not be to remove it from the game, but to modify it and/or other choices to make them comparable in effectiveness. You seem to suggest that it is, if not a good idea, at least a perfectly acceptable approach, that the player who wants to play a wizard who does not have an at will damage power should be sub-optimal. I disagree. I think that, if the attack cantrip is truly superior (which we are assuming for this discussion), then that is bad game design. Would you support adding Wish to the cantrips? Wow - that's really cool - my wizard can ALTER REALITY right out of the gate. Of course, if your concept is not a wizard who can alter reality at a whim, as often as he pleases, you are certainly free to take that 1d8 damage cantrip, or a silent image, instead. But don't take away what I want to play just because of your personal preferences. You either take the Wish cantrip, or you choose the character-centric one. Now, that's an extreme example, but if we accept that one choice is so clearly superior over the others that it can only be taken by sacrificing mechanical effectiveness for character concept, then my example is only a more extreme example of the same philosophy. To me, the answer is that the choice of character concept should not determine whether or not the character is mechanically effective. Characters should be mechanically effective regardless of concept. There should be valid, interesting choices to drive a wide variety of character concepts. There should not be trap choices that make characters who sure sounded interesting in theory but are useless and therefore uninteresting, even frustrating, in actual play. Keep the choices but make them balance. It will never be perfect - shifting the balance between combat and other pillars, between playstyles and between types of opponents will shift the balance. But keep the balance as much as can be done within those constraints. The more choices there are, the bigger the books get. The bigger the book, the more it will cost. I only want to pay for good content that will be a valid and viable choice for in-game use. I don't want a 20 page essay on the history of development of materials for d20's. And I don't want 20 pages of "sounds cool but useless in play" non-choices for character builds. [/QUOTE]

Verification