I am not trying to start anything but all the talk of traps is really bumming me out. If someone wants to play a certain thing or enjoys a certain archetype, why can't they without being told it is a "trap". The only "traps" I saw were in the DMG and everything else I saw were "options".
Come on people. It is a roleplaying game and there are no ineffective classes anymore. If a archetype doesn't measure up to another, that's okay. I don't see a single class that can't be a beneficial member of a party. Why does everything have to be maximized? I think the point is being missed here. I really do. I have only been on this site a week or so but the obsessive power gaming is about to drive me away. I can't make a thread about liking something without someone saying " well THIS is better". I'm not ranting either but seriously, this is kind of rediculous. And about the thread title, I don't see traps but roleplaying oppurtunuities. Screw min/ maxing. There. I said it.I totally see your point with this. In one of the groups I run for Hoard of the Dragon Queen, there are 4 players, a Half-Orc Berzerker Barbarian, a Dwarf Totem Warrior Barbarian, a College of Valor Bard, and a Pact of the Tome Warlock.
Now, in combat the Warlock is great in taking out hoards of lower level, weaker enemies with 10 HP or less, especially with his Arms of Hadar spell. He's great for killing low level Kobolds and Cultists, especially when he can cast it as a level 2 spell and make it 3d6 instead of 2d6. Yet he only has 14 HP and gets destroyed in a couple hits if the enemies don't die right away.
Both Barbarians are good for hard encounters, usually what would be considered boss encounters. I've seen the Half-Orc fell a Half-Dragon that was meant for him to lose, and I've later seen the Dwarf fell the same Half-Dragon and his master, which was meant for a party (Rage with it's 1/2 damage is a big proponent of this). Both the Half-Orc and the Dwarf have an insane amount of HP (38 & 41), this allows them to take so much punishment.
Now the Bard on the other hand, he is okay in combat, doesn't shine as well as the other three, but where he shines is social interactions. He's talked the party out of getting executed, convinced enemies that the bad guys were elsewhere so the party could surprise round them, and with his constant use of disguise, none of the enemies knows what he really looks like (because the ones that do see never get to live and tell). The Bard has 30 HP, can do a decent job of holding his own with a guy or two (though last night he had trouble with one bandit, really bad rolls on his end and really good rolls on my end), but like I said, he really shines with social interactions.
There is a Character Development sub-forum here. It's geared towards 4e however, and it isn't very active. The focus is on character backrounds, roleplaying, and such, lite on mechanics. Basically the atithesis of CharOp 
.
I say that jokingly because there's nothing wrong with min/maxing. We all do it to some extent. It's part of the game and some people truly excel at it. Most seem to look at it as getting the most outta the game; it isn't about breaking the rules (that seems to be a misconception). Is power gamer the right term for these guys-n-gals? I'm not sure. Anyway, like anything, optimization has its place.
I'd love to see more character/campaign development threads here, in this forum. They'll prolly be rare but not out of place-- it's General Discussion after all.
Thaenok wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
Aquaman: "Whad'dya mean it's basically a spear? Do you have any idea how much this thing costs? And heavy, let me tell ya . . ."
MechaPilot wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
randl wrote:
That's why MechaPilot suggested using spear stats for the trident, too. And by extension, any other long, pointy stick.
. . . and yeah, the only reason I posted this was to say "by extension" in reference to long, pointy sticks.
. . . because that's how you hit people with long, pointy sticks.
I wonder if the trident is a genuine trap or if it was simply an oversight? Haven't designers (in general) started getting away from system mastery (*traps* and such) after 3e?
MechaPilot wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
Artifact wrote:
A trident that is taken away from the character is less likely to be used against him because it requires martial proficiency. The weight difference and actual costs are pretty negligible. It's minor (very) but there. A trident would similarly infer combat training to onlookers for similar reasons if a person wanted to look like a less easy target for thieves, for example. Great swords get better value out of the great weapon fighting style because the reroll mechanic applies to both dice, the minimum is slightly higher, and the average is slightly higher. The greataxe is often the lesser choice.
Your cocept shouldn't be punished by the mechanics. We're saying for the weaker options to be improved to be on the same level as everything else. Not identical, unless they warrent identical stats, but definitely close.
3E had some oddities in the weapon table. I suspect that trident was originally going to have some combat maneuver bonus. The flail is a little behind too, isn't it, which would suggest the same thing.
Thaenok wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
You will find a large spectrum of topics on this forum by the many players who play this game very differently. All the way from cosplay through to purely imaginative narration through to board gamers using boards, maps and minis. I know full well the result of trying to discuss a view of a game differing from the majority on a forum with my short visit with 4e. It does not end well.
This forum is mix of such players who apparently wish to get along and likely so due to 5e's return to role play friendly gaming and keeping the numbers and stragetic rules many of us have liked since the creation of D&D. There is little point to feigning ignorance to jab at someone else's playstyle. I personally still read number cruncher posts because with numbers comes strategy and that is still very much part of even purely narative game play because dice and rules exist.
Your rules and methodology only benefit your play style. A character built entirely based upon role play and not combat could thrive in some people's campaigns while perishing in others. The same can be said with a min/max'd combat build thrown into a role play meat grinder where talk and application of non-combat skill is the only way to survive.
Thaenok wrote:
There was a video game called Parasite Eve that had a memorable trap for me: there was a weapon upgrade called 'multifire' (or something, I forget). Sounds good, I could now target head, and legs, or multiple enemies. Trouble was, it dumbed down the damage so much that the *best* option was actually to stay single shot (get that damage every time).
Didn't find this out til I read a faq on the game. Kept wondering why the fights were getting tougher, not easier . It was frustrating because I felt the designers had to *know* about it (it wasn't just an oversight). I played it twice (there was a game+ as I recall) but the trap definitely detracted from an otherwise enjoyable game.
RCanine wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
RCanine wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
"Of course there is. A trap is something detrimental. If an option is below the baseline, then it's a trap to take it."
There is a sealed red box containing 1,000 dollars.
There is a sealed blue box containing 1,200 dollars.
You are told all of the boxes are balanced, and given the option of picking one. You choose the red one, because red is your favourite colour.
The red box is a trap choice. Even though you played to concept - choosing red - you still took a measurably inferior choice. The red box doesn't have to contain a Bill charging you 500 dollars to be a trap.
I think we need to define trap in the context of this particular conversation as "A choice that mechanically penalizes you, even if that penalty is small, for making an aesthetic or conceptual choice".
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
These are fair concerns. None of them apply to US, or anyone arguing on these forums however.
The people they apply to are the people who do NOT know the system to the same obsessive degree that we do. The new (or returning) ones who will make the assumption that of course all the options presented to them in the book with equal opportunity cost will be of equal value. And to them - the non-system masters - the metaphoricval "boxes" are indeed sealed.
Traps are traps for the unwary. Which is why all the people saying "That's not a trap for me because of (detailed analysis including charts, graphs and 8 1/2 colour glossies with the circles and the arrows and the paragraphs on the back)" are kind of missing the point.
I thought a trap was something that looks good but is actually bad. To me, a -1 longsword wouldn't be a trap because it is quite clearly bad in exactly the way it presents itself.
I've always figured the biggest trap I ever saw in an RPG was 3e's Skill Focus feat, because it makes me think I should apply it to the skill I reaaly want to be good at, but that +3 bonus quickly turns into a drop in the bucket. It's especially grievous if you've spent that feat on a lesser used skill..
Satyrn wrote:
Very few things can be a trap if the choice appeals to someone even for creative or other reasons. Since different people value roleplay, character concept, combat prowess, exploration or interaction differently, one person's trap is another person's flavoring.
Of course, if a person is only concerned with one aspect of the game (usually combat prowess), there will always be more or less optimal choices.
Overall, OP, I agree with you. I'm not a fan of viewing choices as traps when many choices add flavor no matter what the mechanical advantage or disadvantage.
I don't think it matters if a person selects a "trap" option if he or she also has strong options. It doesn't matter if I select the extremely situation enthrall spell at 4th level because I want something similar to the 3e fascinate ability for flavor if I already have sleep, dissonant whispers, and phantasmal force to rely on. Enthrall is very niche an I have yet to see anyone recommend it but it won't stop the character's other abilities. I might make a bard just to see if it's still playable and we have fun.
FrogReaver wrote:
RCanine wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
RCanine wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
The greataxe is more useful than the greatsword in >some< situations, so I wouldn't call it a trap.
As for the spear/trident issue, I think this is a problem with non-martial versatile weapons being too strong. The same issue comes up when comparing a quarterstaff with a mace.
To have it better balanced you'd need to put 1d4 for one-handed and 1d8 for two-handed, but that doesn't fit when going by realism (like: "why would a spear deal less damage than a javelin when used as melee weapon in one hand?" or "why does using both hands for a non-martial versatile weapon help more than using both hands for a martial versatile weapon?").
I personally rebalance this on a higher level. Like if there's a Mace+1 in a chest, then suddenly it makes sense to use the Mace+1 over the Quarterstaff+0. Or I make a trident somehow relevant for the story, so it makes sense to bring one along. Maybe a trident gives advantage on attacks underwater? As the DM can decide Advantage/Disadvantage himself based on situation so that would even be ok by the rules.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I think one of the things that defines a trap is that there's a lure. I can look at a Mace vs. Quarterstaff as an example and easily decide that there's really no reason I should ever take the Mace from a mechanical PoV. And that's a sad situation, but it isn't a trap. There's nothing about Maces that say, "Hey, you ought to take a Mace over Quarterstaffs" for any reason - and presumably a player taking a Mace for fluff reasons is accepting of it. Ditto for taking Intelligence on a non-EK Fighter - you know you're not making a good mechanical choice, but that's something you've decided to do knowing why you were doing it.
Traps should make you want to take them for bad reasons. EK's Intelligence is a trap because EKs aren't primary spellcasters and ultimately, at best, will never be as good as even a half-caster such as Paladins or weird MC build. That doesn't mean you can't take Intelligence by any means on an EK, but it means that in many cases, if you choose to sacrifice Str/Dex/Con for Int, that you want to realize that you're making a specific mechanical sacrifice in most cases. And some players won't realize that.
That EK has a couple of options that trigger on Int outside of being a 1/3rd spellcaster is the lure. That they need to actually be a Fighter first most of the time is why it is a trap.
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
RCanine wrote:
I likewise woudn't call a dagger a trap either. It's mechanical benefits are clear. If someone chooses to use a dagger they are definetely aware that their option isn't optimal.
I would come closer to calling putting stat points in other stats a trap compared to your primary stats. Why? because it's not readily apparent to many players how strong +1 hit and +1 damage actually is.
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
This is how I look at weapons:
There are two power types:
A) Simple weapons, most classes have access to these.
B) Martial weapons, only a few physical combat classes have access to these or a specific race/feat needs to be chosen.
To measure the usefulness of a weapon, I declare:
Weapon Max Damage / 2 = Usefulness
Then each positive weapon property adds +1 to usefulness and each negative weapon property adds -1 to usefulness.
Now we sort all weapons by damage type, as only a similar damage type can be compared.
Only looking at simple melee weapons this gives us:
Bludgeoning:
Club = 2 + 1 (Light) = 3
Greatclub = 4 - 1 (Two-Handed) = 3
Light hammer = 2 + 1 (Light) + 1 (Thrown) = 4
Mace = 3
Quarterstaff = 3 + 1 (Versatile) = 4
Piercing:
Dagger = 2 + 1 (Finesse) + 1 (Light) + 1 (Thrown) = 5
Javelin = 3 + 1 (Thrown) = 4
Spear = 3 + 1 (Thrown) + 1 (Versatile) = 5
Slashing:
Handaxe = 3 + 1 (Light) + 1 (Thrown) = 5
Sickle = 2 + 1 (Light) = 3
Generally, bludgeoning damage seems to be rated higher as there is no weapon with usefulness "5", unlike for the other two types.
For bludgeoning weapons, light hammer and quarterstaff are rated higher than the others. Whereas for clubs and greatclubs it's reasonable they are "3" as they are cheap and weight a lot and light hammer to be "4" because it's more expensive doesn't weight more, Mace and Quarterstaff seem a bit off. Mace is as useful as a club, but still the most expensive bludgeoning weapon. Quarterstaff is more useful than the clubs, yet doesn't cost more.
Conclusion: Mace too weak, Quarterstaff too strong.
For piercing weapons, the balance seem to be just fine. Javelin is a bit less useful than Dagger and Spear, but is also the cheapest piercing weapon. Spear weight a bit more but is still cheaper than dagger. Perfect.
For slashing weapons, balance seems completely off, though. A sickle is significantly less useful than a handaxe, granted it's also a bit cheaper, but it really has no other benefits over the handaxe that would warrant a different in usefulness of 2 points.
Conclusion: Either sickle too weak or handaxe too strong ,depending on how useful you see the slashing damage type.
You can continue this with all the other weapon types. You will see that most weapons are well balanced within their group but here and there, there seems to be a weapon that's completely off.
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
"I mean, you have to want to do it, right? Or else why are you? It's not like the half-orc barbarian player is saying, "I don't know what to do with these stat increase. I guess I'll put them in intelligence and charisma for no good reason." Right? The player has a reason for doing it. I'm guessing he'll get the benefit(s) he's looking for. Wouldn't you say?"
Actually, no. Traps are traps for people who don't see them, don't know in advance what they want to do, and operate on the not-unreasonable assumption that one choice is as good as another.. That's why they are traps, and not just "sub-optimal choices".
The fact that something is not a trap to you because you see the implications, and can avoid it (or choose it deliberatley to be contrary) doesn't mean it's not a trap to the average player who doesn't know better.
DemoMonkey wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Chris
Using the Eldritch knight as an example, the player may think the benefit to them of raising the characters intelligence is higher than it actually is, because "I'm kind of a wizard and wizards need to be smart, don't they?".
Only to be disappointed by how little it actually helps them. Something doesn't have to have NO benefit to be a pitfall to the unwary. It just has to be a mismatch between expectation and effect.
And that's an awfully easy thing to happen to a casual or new player, even if it's something that would never happen to you or I. Or really, almost anyone participating in this thread.
(As a thought experiment, try reading a few of the prior posts and mentally replace "trap" with "mismatch between expectation and effect". It's interesting.)
DemoMonkey, I get what you are saying, but you are using bad examples to show it since Intelligence is actually pretty helpful to an eldritch knight (anyone of any class, actually, but more-so an eldritch knight than most others) if said eldritch knight wants it to be - whether just in ability to sort out illusions, prowess with intelligence-based skills, or in spell attacks and save DCs for all those evocation spells an eldritch knight might decide they want to cast.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Chris
If you start from the assumption that a bad choice has to be VERY bad to fit the definition, you are right.
If on the other hand, the definition is only that it has to be a measurable mismatch between good faith expectation and effect, then you aren't.
I often think we would all be better served by defining (and reaching a working consensus on) the definitions of whatever terms we are discussing at the start of threads like this. That way people whose opinion is simply "That's a bad definition." know the rest of the discussion is not relevant to them.
DemoMonkey,
Agreed.
Do you think it best serves us to define the term "trap" as anything that is not the optimal choice? I do not.
Shouldn't "trap" really be defined as something you react with "darn, in retrospect I wish I hadn't taken that," sometime after taking it?
Do you see anything in 5e, thus far, that can be described thusly? I have not.
So, up to three pages now with discussing semantics about what the the word "trap" means? Who cares tbh? There are mechanically strong choices and mechanically weak choices. This is a big part of why people love playing D&D, and it has been this way since 1e. If all choices where equal the process of making a character would be far less rewarding.
Do you want a world where everyone runs around with a trident and the spear is something only fools use? Yes, the trident weighs more and costs more than a spear, but is otherwise identical. And that is perfect. The vast majority of people will use a spear instead of a trident (strange how that seem to reflect the actual usage of spears from history). When you come across someone using a trident it will be unusual and, most likely, more memorable. And he will fight just as efficiently as someone with a spear. To me that fits perfectly.
As for traps when choosing stats, that is why they go out of their way to tell you what stats are important for each class in the Quick Build instructions. They are not trying to trap you. They are trying to guide you in the right direction. There is a difference between falling into a pit trap and walking off the edge of a cliff. The pit trap is, well, a trap. Intentionally walking off a cliff is not a trap.
In addition raising other stats in 5th edition is actually a good idea. Not only is raising Int for an EK not a bad idea, it's not a bad idea for anyone. Heck, I raised my Champion Fighter's Int to 12, and guess who didn't fall for the 1st level Silent Image spell? Same Fighter also had a 16 in Str and a 14 in Dex. This meant he had a Dex save 3 points higher than both Paladins in the same game. Guess who didn't fall into pits and took half damage on spells? Yep. Now a lot of that was rolls, because my champ only had an extra 10 or 15 percent to make those saves, but it was definitely nice to make those rolls with a bonus instead of a -1.
And there is nothing wrong with the -1 either! One of the Paladin players enjoyed being completely oblivious to the illusion and frequently points out that her character isn't too bright. The second Paladin decided he didn't like having negatives and rebuilt the character (Adventurer's League under level 4 allows for rebuilding characters).
DemoMonkey wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Now I'm inspired to make a character that uses a trident and wears padded armor.
And the coolest thing about 5e is that he'll do just fine.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Artifact wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Artifact wrote: