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

[Sunseeker]

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.

So you still optimize, just the goals are different.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

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.

I wasn't saying it wasn't strong so much as not feeling that sacrificing offense(damage or control) to do so was worth it.

 

[JonnyP71]

So you still optimize, just the goals are different.

We optimise our fun with interesting characters who we invest a lot of time and energy into roleplaying.

We decide on a character idea first, then roll for stats, then assign them in such a manner as fits the personality/background of the PC. (Flamboyant Half Elven Champion with S 10/D 18/C 10/I 14/W 7/Ch 16 for example)

So I guess we are optimising in a roundabout way - just not in the combat mechanics manner usually implied by the term! Even if a 'traditional' optimiser chose to play the above character they would probably give them Studded Leather Amour and a Shield for AC18. Our player does not, because it does not fit the image he has of the character. An optimiser might have boosted Dex at level 4, or picked the Mobility feat - our player went for Magic Initiate because he wanted a couple of Bard cantrips to add flavour to his character.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Fair enough. I think agency encompasses more than just that, but even using your definition why do you feel that 5e has less of it than previous editions?

 

[Iry]

I suppose my issues with the current edition would be...

1) I miss encounter powers. Spamming cantrips and basic attacks is boring at low levels.
2) Constitution seems too important. Almost every player I know cringes to take less than a 14, and one who took a 9 goes down almost every fight.
3) Defenders are not sticky enough. It's not hard to get good defense, but it is hard to make your enemies care.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Table top games are social activities. Thus it is important when playing to ensure that the whole table has fun, not just you. If you come to my table out for all the fun you can grab for yourself and don't care about anyone else, it won't last even a whole session.

Being good at the game isn't a bad thing. What optimizers consider being "good" is laughable though. Skilled play comes from experience at dealing with situations not just rules. Many optimizers who strut about like a peacock with their mastery of stacks of rule books and abusive combos wouldn't make 2nd level in well run OD&D game.

It is mostly fellow players rather than DMs who get irritated with power gamers. Power gamers disrupt the fun of others by inciting arms races.

Why? Because D&D should be inclusive and cater to most everybody. As for the rest, why do you need the system to do that for you? If it's a table issue as you say, why isn't just dealing with it at the table, as opposed to the system, enough?

D&D IS broad enough to include everyone. Choose a rules set and play style that suits you and find a like minded group. If ever you find that you HAVE to play a rule set or with people you don't like then DON'T play. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

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?

Whatchoo talkin about Willis?

5E embraces a MUCH wider audience than 3 or 4E. Those editions were a power gamers dream but they didn't appeal as much to everyone else. 5E still includes the ability to power game but still retains appeal for those who don't want to deal with it.

As long as you have options to choose when building your character- sub classes, feats, backgrounds, muti-classing, there is an ability to optimize. It is unavoidable. What 5E has done is simply close the gap between optimized and non-optimized characters so that the optimized ones cannot outshine regular characters to the point of turning them into sidekicks.

Thus you can optimize within a regular group and other players can still have fun. This means that players can contribute to a group meaningfully without having to study and memorize material from a stack of books taller then they are, which in turn greatly widens the audience for the game.

Now, if you can only have fun optimizing when it ruins the fun of others then don't play 5E.

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.

Thats rules lawyering. Actual player agency is being free to make decisions for your character as you see fit. The consequences of those decisions being decided in play.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Fair enough. I think agency encompasses more than just that, but even using your definition why do you feel that 5e has less of it than previous editions?

Because it has less powers and abilities(though plenty of spells) that allow me to affect the game world without having to ask the DM for permission or interpretation, and the system as a whole emphasizes DM permission and interpretation more than 3E and 4E did.

 

[Jester David]

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.

In a non-PvP FPS and to a lesser extent an MMO, the difference is less apparent in play, since you don't see the others numbers and things happen quicker. It's after the fact, when looking at the stats. You're still playing. You might still feel like you're contributing.
Yes, a poor player can wipe a raid. But we're not talking about if just one person can't hack it. We're talking about the reverse, when one person is superiour. Very different situation when one guy is KSing the group.

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.

You mean anyone at the table is free to ask you to tell them how to play their character? Their choice is to surrender their choice.
Why even play at that point? They can go grab a coffee while you run all the characters.

Alternatively, you could ask their help in non-optimizing your character. Same thing right? Get their suggestions on powers that seem cool. Have the table vote on your powers when you level up. That's way more fair since it's democratic and everyone has a say.

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

There's a balance in the game. I want everyone to have fun. That's my job. As the DM I am the fun enabler.
However, I can't exclude myself from the equation. And I know that providing an adequate challenge is part of the fun. If I cannot provide a challenge, then I'm not having fun and I'm not providing everyone with the most fun they could be having, which is a twin failure.
If it's my DMing skill that's unable to provide a balanced encounter, then I need to work harder. If it's the game system unable to provide a consistent challenge, I need to work around the system or change games. If it's the module that isn't written with my group in mind, then I need to change it.
But if it's one character that cannot be adequately challenged without overly threatening the other players, then that's an issue with that player and that player alone.

5e minimizes power gaming, by reducing PC choices and increasing DM control. That seems like a big ol' win, since I can still play with the power gamer (aka a friend) but his ability to wreck my game is minimized, and the system is set-up to better enable me to work around him.

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.

I don't read comics, but I watch cartoons. They all have their strengths and areas they specialize, but in a fight they all contribute. You don't see one of the Avengers or Justice League sitting by the sideline during a fight.
Oracle is a fun character to read in the comics, but she's not fun to play in a game.

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!

That's blaming the victim.' "If you didn't want to be left behind, you should have optimized!" That's mandating optimization, which just leads to power creep and the optimizer/DM arms race where both sides have to keep ramping things up to provide a challenge.

Seriously, shift that sentence and argument around to apply to any other type of disruptive behaviour. Is that still a cool argument to make.
"If 4/5 members of a group don't fudge dice rolls for combat, but still want to engage in it on a regular basis, don't berate the one guy who did."
"If 4/5 members of a group don't metagame for combat, but still want to engage in it on a regular basis, don't berate the one guy who did."
"If 4/5 members of a group don't memorize the Monster Manual for combat, but still want to engage in it on a regular basis, don't berate the one guy who did."
"If 4/5 members of a group don't like off colour jokes during combat, but still want to engage in it on a regular basis, don't berate the one guy who does."

Power gaming is JUST as disruptive. Potentially more so. But it's not *technically* cheating and some people find it fun, so it gets a free pass. It gets excused, if not encouraged.
Nope. Don't buy that.

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..

Yes. I've seen that in play.
"I convince him to help me. I got a 31 on my Diplomacy check." Wheee. Will the nonstop rollercoaster of fun ever end?

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.

Then you need to play at a table with other people of your skill, or who want to learn to play at your skill level.

D&D is a cooperative team game with a social contract. When playing board games with your parents, kids, and casual friends you don't get cutthroat and break out the advanced tactics. That's a HUGE dick move. Same damn thing. It's basic social niceties in a game setting to match the skill level of the people you're playing with. Yes, if everyone else at the table is an optimizer then you need to ask help, read forums, and step up your game. But if you're the best play you hold back, otherwise you're the jerk who just crushed grandma at RISK, shrugged, and said "Sorry Grangran, you suck. Don't pick Australia and play an offensive game."

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.

Strategic play =/= fun play. It's the best strategy for the BBEG to send just its elite minions to crush every threat, attacking at night during camps, and generally obeying the Evil Overlord list.

Going after weaknesses sometimes is fun for a change of pace. Hitting Superman with Kryptonite in the occasional story is fun. But when ever story involves Kryptonite, and Superman no longer feels super since every villain is exploiting his weakness, things get less fun.
If you have to constantly hit an optimized character in their weak area to remotely challenge them, then it gets boring for them since they don't feel awesome (and will usually find a way to strengthen that weakness) and it feels cheap as a DM.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Whatchoo talkin about Willis?

5E embraces a MUCH wider audience than 3 or 4E. Those editions were a power gamers dream but they didn't appeal as much to everyone else. 5E still includes the ability to power game but still retains appeal for those who don't want to deal with it.

As long as you have options to choose when building your character- sub classes, feats, backgrounds, muti-classing, there is an ability to optimize. It is unavoidable. What 5E has done is simply close the gap between optimized and non-optimized characters so that the optimized ones cannot outshine regular characters to the point of turning them into sidekicks.

Thus you can optimize within a regular group and other players can still have fun. This means that players can contribute to a group meaningfully without having to study and memorize material from a stack of books taller then they are, which in turn greatly widens the audience for the game.

I strongly disagree. 3E was the biggest tent D&D ever had, and I'd argue that 1E/2E was a bigger tent than 5E as well.

Now, if you can only have fun optimizing when it ruins the fun of others then don't play 5E.

I don't see how my optimizing necessarily ruins anyone else's fun, and have to wonder if for people that have their fun ruined by me being effective if it isn't a problem with them, not me.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*