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

[JonnyP71]

To briefly indulge you, I wouldn't fit into that table, but it would be a problem with the DM, not the players. I could probably ignore a bunch of people dicking around while I kill things, as long as it gets done in the end. The issue would be that I infer from your comments that your DM has greatly deemphasized combat compared to the average table, and that would be a problem for me.

Going back to my original point which you continue to ignore...

1. The base system of the current edition of D&D should be big tent, embrace a wider audience, and not specifically try to suppress an audience that the previous two editions embraced.
2. If your table has a problem with power gaming, why can't you just deal with it on the table level? Why do you need help from the system to discourage play that doesn't fit at your table?

Just what exactly is the 'average table'? I guess we have different ideas of that - none of my groups play with Battlemats, none of them are combat heavy, none of them like the 4E 'big tactical battle' as being the main focus of play. The average though is problem somewhere between your own assumption and my own experience.

And on your points - 5E has managed to unite our disparate ne'er-do-wells around a system which works for us. And from feedback on various forums it has tempted back a great many 1E/2E players who had been disillusioned by the crunchiness of 3E and the overly-tactical nature of 4E, and it has done so for 4 main reasons:

- incorporating flavourful backgrounds into a fast and simple character creation process which does not punish sub-optimal choices in the same way the previous 2 systems did, thereby promoting the concept of roleplay over rollplay.
- making combat and skill resolution extremely fast and simple, which allows a group to spend more time on the story
- placing adjudication back in the hands of the DM... rulings instead of rules.. less looking stuff up, less memorisation of obscure lines tucked away in extra handbooks, leading to smoother play
- a reduction in the amount of options (splat!), giving less opportunity to players to break a game

These moves have all been intentional I believe, and have certainly been successful for the most part. Yes there have been a few dissenters (such as yourself). But surely the key aim of a new system is to introduce new players? Not just to appeal to existing fans? 5E has done that, and it has also won over a lot of 3.5E/PF players - and for those who enjoy 4E, they still have 4E.

And regarding our tables' attitudes to powergaming - we would not play 3E/4E because of the way the systems pushed the tactical approach on you, because of the spiralling imbalances which could occur in 3/3.5 if optimal paths were not adhered to, and because of the overall slower speed of resolution. It's somewhat difficult to tailor any such crunchy systems to our faster, more RP heavy style of play. 5E has proved to be a very welcoming system to young and old, experienced players and novices - it works for our tables - a system which added significant crunch so as to appeal to the powergaming mentality would not.

 

[Jester David]

This sort of attitude baffles and saddens me to no end.

My attitude towards power gaming you mean? Or the response?

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

Video games are largely a solo activity. And even when played in a group (such as an MMO) the effectiveness of one person over another is harder to see. You're focusing on your own UI and playing.

The best comparison would be something like a Diablo style game, with one character devastating all the enemies before another can even trigger more than a power or two. When it feels like you're a tag along character, or being power leveled when you're the same level.

1. Why exactly is it bad that someone is good at the game (i.e.: Powergameing and heavy optimizing)

See above. The group are meant to be partners, not sidekicks. A power disparity means 3/4 of the table is second fiddle to the optimizer. They're Robin, Nightwing, and Batgirl to the one character's Batman. A party should be more like Batman and the Justice League or Robin and the Teen Titans, where there's more equality.

Also, the fact you think of being good optimizing as being "good at the game" is telling, since combat is only part of the game. It skews the emphasis. And focusing on that can take away the focus on exploration and role-playing; if you're character is a combat god, you want to show off your divinity and will look for opportunities to pick fights. And knowing the system really well pushes you to roll instead of role in both exploration and RP encounters.
Or heaven forbid you have a player optimize the Diplomacy skill in 3e/Pathfinder.... *shudder*

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.

The issue is their fun is coming at the expense of my fun. As a DM I want to play too. I want my monsters to do their cool thing. I get enjoyment out of seeing the party challenged, by my scary Big Bad being a dramatic villain and a real threat. When the one optimizer comes along and crushes my monster or bad guy before it can even get into position, that means I didn't get to play. When the villain gets stunlocked and the mob of enemies grappled then beaten on, as the DM I'm bored while the players are shooting fish in a barrel.
It's fun to let the players devastate an encounter once in a while. When my players are having a blast I'm generally having a blast. But when it's focused on one player and it's every time it gets repetitive.

That also forces the DM to cheat. They want their monster to act, so it's hit points go up. Or it's a couple levels higher without an increase in xp. Or it somehow gets a surprise round. Or the DM optimizes themself (which is generally easier in Pathfinder, where the player's toolbox can be used by the DM). Or they target that one player's weakness, and it feels like the DM is singling them out and being unfair (which they technically are).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

My attitude towards power gaming you mean? Or the response?

both

Video games are largely a solo activity. And even when played in a group (such as an MMO) the effectiveness of one person over another is harder to see. You're focusing on your own UI and playing.

The best comparison would be something like a Diablo style game, with one character devastating all the enemies before another can even trigger more than a power or two. When it feels like you're a tag along character, or being power leveled when you're the same level.

In multiplayer first person shooters, it's quite obvious the effectiveness of one person over another. In a MMO in group play, in a challenging dungeon/instance, if one of your party can't hack it usually means everybody dies, and it's usually crystal clear who is responsible.

See above. The group are meant to be partners, not sidekicks. A power disparity means 3/4 of the table is second fiddle to the optimizer. They're Robin, Nightwing, and Batgirl to the one character's Batman. A party should be more like Batman and the Justice League or Robin and the Teen Titans, where there's more equality.

Not optimizing is a choice. Anybody at my table is free to ask for my help in optimizing their character, and I will help them to the best of my ability. If they choose otherwise, it's their choice.

Also, the fact you think of being good optimizing as being "good at the game" is telling, since combat is only part of the game. It skews the emphasis. And focusing on that can take away the focus on exploration and role-playing; if you're character is a combat god, you want to show off your divinity and will look for opportunities to pick fights. And knowing the system really well pushes you to roll instead of role in both exploration and RP encounters.
Or heaven forbid you have a player optimize the Diplomacy skill in 3e/Pathfinder.... *shudder*

Combat is my focus because in addition to being an optimizer I am an ass kicker, and combat is my true home. On top of that, the way D&D is set up from an overall optimization standpoint, spending limited character resources on combat tends to have a greater impact on the overall game and are more efficient in terms of bang for your buck compared to non-combat options. In 5E for example, I would never spend limited resources on non-combat proficiency. If I wanted to excel out of combat, I'd simply choose one of the classes that excel outside of combat by default, like Lore Bard, Rogue, or Knowledge Cleric and then optimize one of those for combat.

The issue is their fun is coming at the expense of my fun. As a DM I want to play too. I want my monsters to do their cool thing. I get enjoyment out of seeing the party challenged, by my scary Big Bad being a dramatic villain and a real threat. When the one optimizer comes along and crushes my monster or bad guy before it can even get into position, that means I didn't get to play. When the villain gets stunlocked and the mob of enemies grappled then beaten on, as the DM I'm bored while the players are shooting fish in a barrel.
It's fun to let the players devastate an encounter once in a while. When my players are having a blast I'm generally having a blast. But when it's focused on one player and it's every time it gets repetitive.

That also forces the DM to cheat. They want their monster to act, so it's hit points go up. Or it's a couple levels higher without an increase in xp. Or it somehow gets a surprise round. Or the DM optimizes themself (which is generally easier in Pathfinder, where the player's toolbox can be used by the DM). Or they target that one player's weakness, and it feels like the DM is singling them out and being unfair (which they technically are).

What you describe walks a fine line of having your fun at the expense of the players.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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

You haven't learned yet how to powergame 5E. When you properly exploit things like mobility, summons, Pass Without Trace, Expertise, Cunning Action, and feats, and unusual weapons, almost all the randomness falls away against suggested difficulties. (I advocate going way beyond suggested difficulties for this reason, but most people don't.) In any given combat, your goals are to either remove yourself from harm's way entirely (e.g. a party full of Mobile characters, or where everybody has a Cunning Action, or where lots of Repelling Blast is available) or at least impose disadvantage (shoving prone works great against non-Huge enemies).

When you power game 5E, it becomes less random than 2nd Edition by a long shot because there are almost no save-on-die effects (Disintegration is now just damage) and those that do exist are easily reversible (Revivify is a get-out-of-death-free card with no real consequences except the material cost--you no longer lose Con or have to make a resurrection survival roll or anything. You don't even lose your memorized spells now). Cyclic initiative also contributes to the predictability, so much so that I suggest ditching it.

When you power game 5E correctly, all the tension comes from information uncertainty like "what is this hooded creature I'm negotiating with? Should I answer the riddle or just kill it? What happens if I kill it?" and not really from rolling dice.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

You haven't learned yet how to powergame 5E. When you properly exploit things like mobility, summons, Pass Without Trace, Expertise, Cunning Action, and feats, and unusual weapons, almost all the randomness falls away against suggested difficulties. (I advocate going way beyond suggested difficulties for this reason, but most people don't.) In any given combat, your goals are to either remove yourself from harm's way entirely (e.g. a party full of Mobile characters, or where everybody has a Cunning Action, or where lots of Repelling Blast is available) or at least impose disadvantage (shoving prone works great against non-Huge enemies).

When you power game 5E, it becomes less random than 2nd Edition by a long shot because there are almost no save-on-die effects (Disintegration is now just damage) and those that do exist are easily reversible (Revivify is a get-out-of-death-free card with no real consequences except the material cost--you no longer lose Con or have to make a resurrection survival roll or anything. You don't even lose your memorized spells now). Cyclic initiative also contributes to the predictability, so much so that I suggest ditching it.

When you power game 5E correctly, all the tension comes from information uncertainty like "what is this hooded creature I'm negotiating with? Should I answer the riddle or just kill it? What happens if I kill it?" and not really from rolling dice.

Oh believe me, I got the memo on mobility already, if nothing else. I also have a great deal of expertise as a summoner in both 3E(Augmented Crocodiles FTW!) and 4E(Sentinel Druid with 4 companions)

 

[Sunseeker]

See above. The group are meant to be partners, not sidekicks. A power disparity means 3/4 of the table is second fiddle to the optimizer. They're Robin, Nightwing, and Batgirl to the one character's Batman. A party should be more like Batman and the Justice League or Robin and the Teen Titans, where there's more equality.

This is one of those dangerous "equality of outcome" vs. "equality of opportunity" statements. You've already told me you haven't read comics for at least a deacde, so I suspect there's quite a bit of rosy-glasses going on here. Super-groups are anything but equality of outcome. Batman is a completely non-special powered detective with kung-fu and a high Int score. Superman has 30's in all his physical stats. The Flash is the definitive glass cannon. These characters are not mechanically equals, not even close. The trick is, and a DM should be able to leverage this, is that each has their strengths and weaknesses. Need to sneak in somewhere? Talk to Batman. Need to commune with the gods? Talk to Wonder Woman. Need an alien SWAT team? Go ask Green Lantern. Can't get the party Face to shut up? Someone go smack Flash. Need to punch a god after talking didn't help? Ask Superman.

They're "equals" in so much that as a party, their strengths and weaknesses balance out. They're NOT equals in the sense that, during combat, they all have an equal share of the fight, in fact it is typically a running joke that Superman runs circles around the bad guy while waiting for Batman to get done beating up one mook.

But it's not upstaging, because they're a team. They work together so even though Superman is the powergamer who crushes everything in combat, that's fine by Batman, because he didn't powergame for combat. He powergamed for being a sneaky detective who will find the hidden trap with the Kryptonite dart before the Flash does something stupid and triggers it. In that regard, they are equals; but not because of equality of outcome. But because of teamwork.

If 4/5 members of a group don't optimize for combat, but still wants to engage in it on a regular basis, don't berate the one guy who did. Thank him. He'll thank you back in a few moments when the things the other 4/5 party members are good at come up and save his butt!

Also, the fact you think of being good optimizing as being "good at the game" is telling, since combat is only part of the game. It skews the emphasis. And focusing on that can take away the focus on exploration and role-playing; if you're character is a combat god, you want to show off your divinity and will look for opportunities to pick fights. And knowing the system really well pushes you to roll instead of role in both exploration and RP encounters.

Ah but look at what you said. His line was "bring good at optimizing" was "good at the game" you took that to mean combat. You can optimize for any aspect of the game and really unless you are optimizing for a well-rounded character who is mostly good at most things or just throwing everything within arms reach into the pot and hoping it makes a edible meal, you need to be "good at the game" to do that. IE: have a good understanding of which skills use which stats, know which feats will help you best achieve your goals, what class and race will be best, etc..

It really just depends on your goal.

But equality of outcome should NEVER be the DMs goal and I'd feel uncomfortable at a table, not because I power-game, but because that's an uncomfortable expectation to be under, to under-perform because Jimmy gets his jimmies in a jam when people shine in their niche.

That also forces the DM to cheat. They want their monster to act, so it's hit points go up. Or it's a couple levels higher without an increase in xp. Or it somehow gets a surprise round. Or the DM optimizes themself (which is generally easier in Pathfinder, where the player's toolbox can be used by the DM). Or they target that one player's weakness, and it feels like the DM is singling them out and being unfair (which they technically are).

I do all my "cheating" between sessions. If I make a beast that doesn't fair so well against my party (as I did last night), oh well, I eat it. I can take the week in between to work up new challenges that take into account my failures and my successes from last week.

Striking at where a player is weak is no fault of anyone. It's smart play. If you're not playing your bad guys smart, your encounters are going to be underwhelming. Sometimes my players face foes who don't strike at their weaknesses, sometimes my foes ONLY strike at their weaknesses, retreating from battle when they find themselves unable to exploit their intended targets. That's just good strategic play. Anything less and you're not going to get to show off your cool BBEG moves.

 

[JonnyP71]

Here's where I beg the question and I've seen people say what I expect so I'll ask as best I can without it being a loaded question:

When those DMs go over and tell people "You're not a fit for our group." Is it because of something they did, in the game, that caused disruption, or was it simply the fact that they put their character together in the most effective manner possible? Or is that in itsself a problem?

I have, forever, been great at math. I build good characters. I can't not build good characters. I understand how all the numbers work and anything I will always be the absolute best version of whatever I have available to work with. Now, with that said, as the saying goes "It's what you do with it that really counts." Because I have seen and heard of DMs and other table members getting "offended" that someone power-built. But I have also seen, and make an effort on my own, to play in a respectful manner to the rest of the table. If people are "offended" that I can build mechanically optimized PCs, even if I'm working with sub-optimal parts, well then boo on them that's not my fault. If people are "offended" because I'm a raging jerkface at the table through my manner of play, well okay then. But don't tell me I need to build badly to make other people happy, that's just stupid. I mean try it, tell it to yourself and see how it sounds:

"Greetings table, for this game I expect everyone to build characters who aren't really that good and are just kinda average all around, because we don't want to risk triggering he-who-shall-not-be-named who gets offended over well-build characters."

But here's the thing: being a raging jerkface is a personality trait, not a result of mechanical optimization. There are people I know who absolutely FAIL at mechanical optimization and are still raging jerkfaces. Noone wants raging jerkfaces at their table, not even powergamers. Trust me you put two raging jerkface powergamers at the same table: they'll hate each other just as much as if they weren't powergames.

I guess it's more to do with the general approach of a player who seeks to eke out every little bonus possible and who considers that to be 'good play'. That type of player is more likely to be frustrated with our style of play than vice versa - though we would probably get frustrated if said player always spent ages on their turn in combat to try to get maximum effect. We don't play on a grid - if the DM says the Burning Hands spell can hit 6 Kobolds no amount of moving a few feet in either direction will change that, just accept it and cast the damn spell!

But we wouldn't be 'offended' by the player in question, and given that most of our group are computer professionals with various degrees, we also have the mathematical aptitude to optimise - if we wanted to. There's no expectation at the table to create sub-optimal PCs, but there is the expectation that the player will prioritise personality and backstory over pure numbers.

The OP has talked about how he has been involved in optimising characters for other players. That *would* offend our players. If I wanted my Necromancer to do more damage I'd have picked Fireball with the Elemental Adept feat. But no, I don't care about that, he's a geek who likes to mess with people's minds - so Keen Mind and Fear work far better from a flavour perspective.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I assume you're talking about the dying rules. I agree that this is a problem for certain styles of play. House Rule: If you fail a death save, you die. It still takes 3 successes to stabilize. Also you have to roll a death save immediately when you hit 0 hp.

This is great! Thanks!

 

[BryonD]

Player agency as in having codified powers, abilities or spells that allow me to affect the game world without having to ask the DM for permission or interpretation.

You started by saying that you are playing a game due to "life circumstances" and therefore that game doesn't fit your preferences by result of the system itself.
Now you are expressing concern over an issue that very much comes down to DM.

You are also calling for a "big tent" game while advocating for the smallest tent in D&D's history as your primary preference.

There seems to be a common element of using inclusive buzz-words to describe a condition that boils down to you want the game catered to you.

If you don't like 5E, don't play 5E. "Life circumstances" is a highly vague condition. If you wife is going to leave you because you won't play in her game, then you have much bigger concerns than how much you enjoy the system of choice. So I'm going to presume that your "life circumstance" is some variation of "I want to game, they only group that will have me plays 5e".
Is the net value positive? If yes, play. If no, don't.

But if you play, don't try to cut against the grain of the system. You are just banging you head against a wall and then wondering why your head hurts.

I find 5E to be far and away the biggest tent of any edition ever. So much so that, IMO, 5E RAW rather sucks. But the bits and pieces throughout the game so ready call out for modification that it works really well.
3E would still be my favorite edition, hands down. I've been playing 3E for approaching a decade. For now the new aspects of 5E combines with the ability to customize that toolkit to my own preferences >> 3E that I've been playing for many years. So it isn't that it is catered to me that appeals, it is that the size of the tent brings so much more to the table and it is both "new" and "very good".

5E can't do 4E as well as 4E. If you want 4E, play 4E. 5E can be adapted. Adapt.
Quit whining and build something awesome. The pieces are right there in front of you, but they are not going to assemble themselves.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I played a few games last year at 5th level, with a plate wearing Cleric with 20 AC who cast Shield of Faith on himself to buff that to 22. Surrounded by three enemies, he didn't last long. With the exception of a raging Barbarian with high HP taking half damage from weapons(or everything), it's almost impossible to survive focus fire in this game from what I've seen. It doesn't matter if you're sticky if you can't survive focus fire.

Try an AC 21 (defense style, plate + shield) Paladin 6/Wild Sorc 3 with Blur up and access to Shield. He's almost unhittable in that configuration, so much so that I almost regret taking Lucky at first level for insurance against crits and save failures because he has never once used it against an attack roll, and has never gone down in combat (even though I don't usually Blur).

Other awesome tank moves include a Warcaster Life Cleric 1/Enchanter X with Booming Blade and decent strength (can either use Hypnotic Gaze/Instinctive Charm, or grapple enemies + Dodge, and Warcaster Booming Blade prevents enemies from just ignoring you). In tough fights you can break out the real wizard artillery like Wall of Force but it's generally unnecessary.

Mirror Image could be a decent defensive move too but I've frankly never needed it badly enough to actually cast it in combat. It's just there in case I ever run into an Iron Golem in close quarters or something.

Also, Blink, Darkness + Alert, Hypnotic Pattern, Absorb Elements, Sanctuary, Warding Bond.

Tanking in 5E is very strong.