D&D 3E/3.5 Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E

[thecasualoblivion]

What you describe is real, but there's a psychological hiccup for gameplay: for a lot of powergamers, it's not usually enjoyable to just avoid catastrophe. It's a version of the Goalkeeper Problem (if a goalkeeper does his job well, nobody notices; if the goalkeeper fails, EVERYBODY HATES THEM).

As an example, it's not often as fun for some players to have to take the Dodge action in the moment to avoid character death (it feels like sacrificing) as it is to build a character with a nigh-unhittable AC.

What the something like the former scenario does is reward clever play in the moment with the reward of "you get to keep playing the same character." Someone seeking out the kind of fun that powergamers often seek out often find even being in that situation frustrating - it doesn't show mastery if you have to take an action to avoid death.

Yeah, I grok that. I'm not arguing that it scratches everybody's itch. I'm just saying that managing luck is in fact a skill.

As a powergamer, my goal isn't just to win, it's to kick ass. A lot of smart and/or winning play doesn't involve kicking ass, but as I said my goal in play is to kick ass and I build my characters to win by kicking ass, not by being smart.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As a powergamer, my goal isn't just to win, it's to kick ass. A lot of smart and/or winning play doesn't involve kicking ass, but as I said my goal in play is to kick ass and I build my characters to win by kicking ass, not by being smart.

Yeah, I can see how you'd be better off sticking with 3e or 4e in that case.

It's nice that there are games for everybody's tastes, no?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Yeah, I can see how you'd be better off sticking with 3e or 4e in that case.

It's nice that there are games for everybody's tastes, no?

I am playing 4E still. This thread is about how I'm dealing with joining an Encounters game.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Best don't. It may take the fun for everyone else.

To your concern about randomness, I generally think it is not as random as you think. Most monsters are reliably hit with 75% chance or more. At lwast when you invest some resources or use the right classes.

An archer fighter at level 1 has a bonus of +7 to hit against monsters that have an AC of 12-14 in most cases. So you hit with 6 or higher on average. Use bless and you are up to hitting with 3 or 4 on average and when you sneak up and are hidden, you hit with nearly 100% chance.

A barbarian hits with +5 and advantage nearly all the time. That is 8+ with two chances and that is about 85% chance to hit right there. (from level 2 on)

A rogue is well served using two weapons at level 1. 85%chance to deal 2d6 damage (+3).

Wizards at level 1 with burning hands doing 3d6 damage average 10.5 damage. With a DC of 13 with monsters that have 14 or less dex that is less than 50% chance for half damage.

Monsters usually hit with +4 to hit at low levels. With the way, DC for monsters is calculated, their to hit bonus doesn't go up too fast, which means DCs for PCs are often below 12. With an AC of 14 which every PC can manage, you are only hit on 10 or better. Usually a PC that wants to tank has 17 or better. That is 13 or higher to be hit. Only 40% chance. A defender that is serious about it is at 19 defense and has some way of mitigating damage or heal a bit.
And that is at level 1 or 2. At level 3 with subclass abilities kicking in, you have a reliable hp pool and more means to deflect the occasional hit or grant the enemy disadvantage, so hitting a defender can proof hard.
So the only thing I agree is the estimation of 14-16 AC and you are at coin flip. Go higher and you usually tank quite reliablly.

Compared to 3rd edition, your offense is more reliable, while your defense is less reliable, because attack bonus starts higher.

Maybe unreliability is perceived more by powergamers, because their goto feat is great weapon mastery. Not only do you lose out +1 to hit, but also should use your -5 to hit in most cases. And that inmediately lowers your hit chance from 75% to a coin flip which feels very unreliable and in many cases a bad idea, because low level creatures often only have 7 hp or so. A number where +10 damage is not all that useful, but you may gain your extra attack very reliably. Against creatures with hp in the 15-20 range your risk may be rewarded.

So as a powergamer you need some feeling for when to take risk and when not. And even as a non power gamer, ther are situations where your simple choices may reward you. You are sometimes better at dealing with the lesser threats.

Your bless optimized great weapon user with polearm mastery excells against solo mobs with high hp.

Your standard wizard with area damage spells and your fighter with higher strength can deal better with the random goblin attack. But maybe that is someting powergamers don't like. If they are outclassed by a noob in some situations. But I would say the need to learn to deal with it.

 

[Jester David]

Not a fan of power gaming. It's a disruptive behaviour that affects the fun of other people at the table, making them feel less effective, forcing the DM into an arm race and impacting their enjoyment, and having a negative impact on the balance of the game.

If any other behaviour was half as disruptive as power gaming we'd be tripping over ourselves to condem it.
But because it's how someone people have fun and people don't want be be accused to telling people they're having WrongBadFun power gaming gets a pass.

Heck, there's even a euphemism treadmill at work, with the description evolving from "munchkin" to "power gamer" to "optimizer" as ardents try and shake the negative stereotypes.

5e isn't attractive to power games? Big freakin' selling point. For me and other DMs.
And as DMs likely have disproportunate influence in picking the system, I attribute this to the success of 5e.

Yes, is agree that the Stormwind Fallacy is a fallacy and that you can be a power gamer and an excellent roleplayer. But it's foolish to believe that thinking that your character is tougher than the game expects and is a complete badass won't affect you decision making and how you both roleplay and decide to act. It changes the tone of the roleplaying. More confidence, less fear, and increased bravado. Which just makes the DM feel less in control.

 

[I'm A Banana]

As a powergamer, my goal isn't just to win, it's to kick ass. A lot of smart and/or winning play doesn't involve kicking ass, but as I said my goal in play is to kick ass and I build my characters to win by kicking ass, not by being smart.

Yeah, I think I follow you. And I think while 5e has a few elements of that, it does cater to it MUCH less than 3e and 4e did, tossing out pixel-perfect granularity and character building minigames in favor of interesting in-the-moment decisions and fast-paced, dynamic combat that folks new to the game (or folks without much free time to play) respond to more.

For someone who mostly plays D&D to dominate via character building, 5e is going to not deliver on that experience as strongly as 3e or 4e do (4e's probably THE BEST at that).

For me, that's OK - that was never a kind of fun I really sought out in D&D (and, frankly, found it a bit annoying when 4e made it feel like I had to, sometimes). For you, that's a blow. Until/unless someone releases some OGL / 5e-compatible alternate-universe PHB with granular character building and the like, you'd likely be better-suited to inhabiting 4e-land.

Which I guess brings us to: why are you joining a Curse of Strahd game if you're not going to have much fun in it?

 

[Kite474]

Not a fan of power gaming. It's a disruptive behaviour that affects the fun of other people at the table, making them feel less effective, forcing the DM into an arm race and impacting their enjoyment, and having a negative impact on the balance of the game.

If any other behaviour was half as disruptive as power gaming we'd be tripping over ourselves to condem it.
But because it's how someone people have fun and people don't want be be accused to telling people they're having WrongBadFun power gaming gets a pass.

Heck, there's even a euphemism treadmill at work, with the description evolving from "munchkin" to "power gamer" to "optimizer" as ardents try and shake the negative stereotypes.

5e isn't attractive to power games? Big freakin' selling point. For me and other DMs.
And as DMs likely have disproportunate influence in picking the system, I attribute this to the success of 5e.

Yes, is agree that the Stormwind Fallacy is a fallacy and that you can be a power gamer and an excellent roleplayer. But it's foolish to believe that thinking that your character is tougher than the game expects and is a complete badass won't affect you decision making and how you both roleplay and decide to act. It changes the tone of the roleplaying. More confidence, less fear, and increased bravado. Which just makes the DM feel less in control.

Maybe its because I came from videogames but these two sentiments have always confused the hell out of me.

1. Why exactly is it bad that someone is good at the game (i.e.: Powergameing and heavy optimizing)
2. Why is it so many GM's have trouble giving up control? I mean yeesh you guys are acting like they are pulling your teeth out by trying to have fun.

 

[Flamestrike]

OP claims to be a 'selfish powergamer'. Argues that 5E doesnt really support this kind of thing.

Thank you for giving me another reason to love 5E.

 

[Mathilda]

This isn't my preferred edition by a long shot. I'd much rather play 4E, 1E/2E, or 3.5E(more or less in that order) than 5E, but due to life circumstances that have nothing to do with D&D, I find myself now starting Curse of Strahd.

I played a few sessions of 5E about a year ago, and I've been in the same room where more than a few sessions were played and I kind of watched.

Here are some thoughts:

1. My main dislike of the game comes from that I find it by far the most random of any edition of D&D, and being that random I never feel in control of my own destiny. It feels like the dice matter more than my decisions in play, or my decisions in character building. In 3E or 4E, good play could be and was often more important the dice. 1E/2E could be randomly dangerous, but that element of danger is mostly missing from 5E. 1E/2E was random but lethal, and there was a level of calculated risk involved in everything you did and your decisions thus mattered. 5E is random, but things don't seem to matter much. If you fail you fall on your face, not lose/die. This wasn't at all how I played in any previous edition.

2. Given this randomness, and my powergaming tendencies, I find myself playing selfish glass cannons. I say selfish because teamwork in 5E feels like taking one for the team, and that isn't my style. Selfishness also involves being a coward and letting other people take 5E's randomness to the face, which makes me feel better as it isn't happening to me. I say glass cannon because even high defense 5E characters seem fragile. High defense in 5E only seems to make you less fragile(while still being fragile), and from a powergaming standpoint it seems like a bad investment, better to just kill enemies faster.

3. I was a Defender roughly half the time throughout the 4E era. I never felt fragile nor felt like I was taking one for the team during any of that, while in 5E I feel both are true. So I'm not playing tanks anymore.

4. Playing support seems to feel like taking one for the team as well. Some people seem to enjoy that, but it's not my style.

5. The optimization guides on forums for 5E don't really seem as helpful for 5E as they were for 3E/4E.

6. Spellcasters seem a bit weak on the whole until cantrips start to scale

Sir...

I am going to have to disagree with your observations.... 5E is not as random as you may have witnessed. In fact, a well built character should hit its target practically 100% of the time due to the enormous amount of tools available to characters. Advantage, Precision from the Battle Master Class, the spell Bless are just a few of the ways a character can almost guaranteeing hitting each round.

As for your other points.... game mechanic mastery is your friend, item knowledge is a trusted ally, that will enable you to make that kick ass character.

Disclaimer: I play normally in adventure league (Organized Play).

Having said that... knowledge of what magic items are available is a tremendous boon when building a character.... I also plan out my characters from level 1 to 20 normally

As far as kick ass characters... in AL it is very likely to see a character do 100 points of damage in a round, spell casters are not weak not by a long shot. I have character with a base 25 AC that does 3d8 auto damage every round and scales up and its not my favorite character.

If you are looking for a 4E defender in 5E then you are going to get your feelings hurt because there isn't an equivalent feature like "mark" in 5E but it is still very possible to have a decent AC character that controls and deals damage.... a well built monk with some nice items can fill that role due to the stunning feature it has.

Again game mechanic expertise is your friend.... what you need to do is have an open mind, be specific in what you want to do in play and find options that fills those requirements.

 

[Ancalagon]

Heck, there's even a euphemism treadmill at work, with the description evolving from "munchkin" to "power gamer" to "optimizer" as ardents try and shake the negative stereotypes.

5e isn't attractive to power games? Big freakin' selling point.

I disagree that munchkin = powergaming. Not all powergamers are munchkin, although most munchkins are powergamers. But yeah, optimizing = powergaming.

Powergaming can be disruptive, munchkinism *will* be disruptive.

That being said, less liable to be power-gamed is a good idea IMO. I much prefer "in-game powergaming" - ie when the players are smart about how to tackle a fight/problem/situation instead of just rushing in and relying on their great martial/spellcasting skills to win the day.