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

[thecasualoblivion]

One way that I think about it is that most people who power game and most people who don't power game aren't even really playing the same game - they have different play goals. Ultimately, they have fun doing different things.

In most areas, this isn't a major problem - folks who love powergaming often don't love it exclusively, and it's not like the folks who don't focus on it want to suck, so there's a lot of points of overlap on the Venn Diagram.

But much like you wouldn't go to a horror movie for yuks and you wouldn't read Haruki Murakami for dragons and wizards and you wouldn't listen to Die Antwoord to set the mood for a date (well, unless you're me and my wife, but we're weird ), there are games that serve different types of fun (different "genres," if you want). And at a certain point on the continuum, these things do conflict.

You can't easily have both "easy, clear choices in character creation" AND "granular character-building options." If you build your game for one, the other one becomes compromised in some way.

4e was very much in the power-game genre. It gave the options and the granularity and the encounter design that pushed most power-gamers' "this is lots of fun!" button.

5e is significantly less so. It will not push that button as hard. It won't deliver on your genre expectations here.

So like sometimes you laugh in a horror movie or sometimes Murakami might do something a little fantastical, 5e can contain some power-gaming. But that's not what it's "for," to a large degree (though individual DMs / groups can drift it more that way easily).

I think, if you find yourself completely unable to NOT play this Encounters game, I might suggest shifting your genre expectations.

Don't expect this game to scratch your power-gaming itch very hard. Don't show up to the horror movie expecting to laugh your butt off.

There are still itches it scratches REALLY WELL - socialization, role-playing, creative expression, even casual time-blowing. If you show up to get that out of the game, you won't be disappointed. Show up to the game expecting to hang out with some fellow D&D dorks, pretend to be a make-believe elf, and spending a few hours telling a fun story about said elf by rolling some dice. That's the good time you can find there.

If that isn't a good time for you (ie, if you NEED to be able to power this game in order to enjoy yourself), you're just signing up to not have fun. You could probably read a book or surf the internet or something and have a better time.

I'm not expecting much, honestly. I started this thread to discuss dealing with a system that isn't a really good fit for me and my thoughts on that. I'm not really going to change my approach, as that's just how I play. I'll make the best of it and we'll see what happens.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Nice post. Enjoying D&D in general, especially when you play in a group of strangers, really comes down to flexibility above all. Any player that is married too strictly to any one playstyle has the potential to create friction or, at the very least, not enjoy himself/herself.

Your post kind of made me think of my own preferences as a player. Sometimes I like it when my PC/party kicks butt. But overall, I like a variety of outcomes and opportunities. Once in a while, I even like it when my own PC or our party gets ravaged!

The sort of flexibility you describe seems absent from a lot of people in this thread.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My question at this point is what exactly the OP looking for in the thread?

He has told us that he is going to be playing in an Organized Play environment, and the 5E game doesn't particularly allow him to play D&D the way he prefers.

Okay. That is probably true.

So now what?

Is he looking for information on the best way to accomplish what he wants to do? If that's the case, then our best advice is to tell him that this particular board on EN World isn't the most optimal place to ask, because of exactly what is occurring-- people asking if he really thinks what he wants to do is the best idea?

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Who's to say? But at this point does the OP really think he's going to get the answer he's looking for? Or is he here constantly defending himself for a specific reason? I don't know. None of us know why he is bothering to do so. But at the end of the day, nothing said by us here is going to matter. What's only going to matter is what happens at his table. And if plays his way and everything is fine, then GREAT! Score 1 for TCO!

But if it doesn't? Then he'll have a long thread here giving out ideas on why it possibly didn't. And it's up to him to decide what to do with that information the next time he is at the table.

I wish you best of luck in your future endeavors.

-DEFCON 1

 

[Guest 6801328]

This thread grew so fast that if there was an answer to my earlier question I missed it: how exactly does 5e require players to ask the DM for permission to do things? Other than a few edge cases where the language isn't clear, my experience has been that my character has a bunch of abilities, and I get to use them when I want. Where does the "asking for permission" thing come in?

A concrete example would be great.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

My question at this point is what exactly the OP looking for in the thread?

He has told us that he is going to be playing in an Organized Play environment, and the 5E game doesn't particularly allow him to play D&D the way he prefers.

Okay. That is probably true.

So now what?

Is he looking for information on the best way to accomplish what he wants to do? If that's the case, then our best advice is to tell him that this particular board on EN World isn't the most optimal place to ask, because of exactly what is occurring-- people asking if he really thinks what he wants to do is the best idea?

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Who's to say? But at this point does the OP really think he's going to get the answer he's looking for? Or is he here constantly defending himself for a specific reason? I don't know. None of us know why he is bothering to do so. But at the end of the day, nothing said by us here is going to matter. What's only going to matter is what happens at his table. And if plays his way and everything is fine, then GREAT! Score 1 for TCO!

But if it doesn't? Then he'll have a long thread here giving out ideas on why it possibly didn't. And it's up to him to decide what to do with that information the next time he is at the table.

I wish you best of luck in your future endeavors.

-DEFCON 1

Wasn't really looking for answers. Just thought it was an interesting situation to talk about with other people, and it was.

 

[pemerton]

Double post deleted.

 

[pemerton]

Some people want to "play" the game, others want to "win" the game. 4e was better suited to "winning" D&D, as it treated the game more as a tactical board game than an RP game

There seem to be a lot of examples in this thread of people taking their own experiences and projecting them willy-nilly onto others.

This would be a case in point.

Those who focus to much on the "play to win" style have a lot of trouble enjoying the game itself, outside of the combat aspects. To them, anything else is irrelevant.

<snip>

You also have those RP types who can't or won't build a combat functional character, and the rest of the group has to carry them through combats. They are almost as bad as the "my characters are optimized death machines with no personalty" players.

<snip>

Powergaming isn't a bad thing in and of itself - I optimize my characters all the time, because I want them to do interesting things in combat or out of combat. And being useless in combat doesn't feel good to me. But just like anything else, if you take it to an extreme it's not good or healthy for the game.

Again, just because one has found the happy medium for onself, doesn't mean that, for others, the happy medium will be in the same place. I mean, I know it's tempting to think that one has found just the right balance of optimisation and not-needing-to-be-carried-in-combat that everyone should strive for - but maybe others also know what is enjoyable for them.

One way that I think about it is that most people who power game and most people who don't power game aren't even really playing the same game - they have different play goals. Ultimately, they have fun doing different things.

This is not my personal experience.

I've tended to find that players who build mechanically ineffective characters want their characters to be mechanically effective, but they don't have enough familiarity with the rules, or with a particular GM's play environment, to know exactly how to do that. It sounds to me like [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] has had some similar experiences.

Another sort of situation that can arise is where a player wants to build a character to a certain sort of trope or archetype - say, a melee damage-dealer or a mind-control mage or whatever - and the system doesn't make that particular archetype as viable as other archetypes that it supports. Some people think this is an issue in 3E/PF, where non-casters just aren't as mechanically viable as casters. (In my experience, Rolemaster can also have this issue. My RM group altered the mechanics - boosting non-casters and eliminating some broken spells - to help deal this.) [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] has suggested that, in 5e, ranged damage dealing is a clearly superior strategy to melee - for someone wanting to play a melee damage-dealer, this could give rise to the need to choose between preferred flavour and mechanical effectiveness. Personally, I don't think that forcing such choices is a sign of system virtues - I think it tends to be a sign of system flaws. (Contrast, say, Ars Magica, where it is a deliberate feature of the game that mages are more effective than non-mages, and the game has a whole "troupe" style of play built around that design feature.)

In my 4e game, there is one PC who has traded off combat effectiveness for non-combat effectiveness (language, lore skills, rituals, etc). That is not a sign of being a non-powergamer or a "good" roleplayer, though. That is just the player choosing to play a character whose expertise is one thing rather than another.

To finish this post: from one of the designers of the game, on building and playing an effective character:

[A]ssume that a game is scheduled tomorrow, and you are going to get ready for it well in advance so as to have as much actual playing time as possible . . .

First get in touch with all those who will be included in the adventure, or if all are not available, at least talk to the better players so that you will be able to set an objective for the adventure. . . .

Once the obiective has been established, consider how well the party playing will suit the needs which it has engendered. Will the characters have the means of accomplishing the goal? Is it well-balanced, so that it can cope with typical problems expected in the fullfillment of the objective? Will it be necessary to find mercenary non-player characters or hire men-at-arms in order to give the party the necessary muscle? Is any special equipment needed? When agreement regarding these and any
similar questions has been reached, each participant must ready his or her character, but preparations must be made with the welfare of the whole group in mind. . . .

Each character has a selection of equipment which he or she will carry on the adventure. Particulars should be given to the party if any equipment is possibly redundant, newly conceived, or of possible special use considering the established goal for the adventure. In like manner, spells must be selected in co-operation with other spell-users in general, so that attack, defense, and assistance modes will be balanced properly and compliment the strengths and weaknesses of the party as a whole. Characters must know each other's strengths and weaknesses, physical and mental, in order to meet the problem posed with the correct character or combination thereof. Does the group have sufficient equipment of the elementary sort to meet both expected and unexpected challenges (ropes, spikes, poles, torches, oil, etc.)? Are we burdening ourselves with too much because of simple duplication (too many torches, everybody has a 10' pole, and so on)?. Do we have as broad a spectrum of spells as possible so as to be able to have a good chance against the unexpected, considering the objective and what it requires in spells? Is there some magic item which one of the party members possesses that will be of special help, or general assurance of survival, in this adventure? All this should be done before play begins . . . .​

Obviously that's not the last word, but I think Gygax can be treated as at least setting out one legitimate mode of approaching the game. And this clearly includes optimising build (which, in AD&D, means mostly equipment, including magic items, and spell load out), and optimising party composition.

There is nothing there that suggests it is a superior way to play the game to build characters with low AC and hit points who nevertheless attack NPCs at the slightest provocation.

 

[pemerton]

I'm a bit worried you may end up harming the fun of other players at your table.

I think that's a genuine risk. I've certainly seen situations where a group is not really into what my table would consider "serious play", and has been a bit put out when someone comes in who knows how to pick and cast spells effectively. (The reason I mention spells is because these experiences are mostly back in AD&D days, when spell load out was the main domain for "power gaming".)

But equally, as per my post above this one, I've encountered players who want to build mechanically effective characters but don't really know how to, and are happy to see it modelled by someone else at the table.

I've also encountered GMs - perhaps a bit like [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] upthread? - who don't particularly like having players with mechanically effective characters because they don't want to relinquish control over the fiction, and so want the issue of "winning" or "losing" to be squarely in their hands rather than depending primarily upon the way the players build and play their characters.

I've also encountered both play groups and GMs who don't like players who build PCs with genuine goals and in-fiction convictions, because those sorts of characters - especially in the hands of a player who knows the system - can tend to (i) give the fiction a seriousness that might be at odds with the preferences of a more laid-back group, and (ii) can once again tend to wrest control of the fiction away from the GM.

I don't know if those sorts of GMs (and tables) are still common in organised play, but if they are that is another way that [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] might come a cropper.

There are always risks!

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is not my personal experience.

I've tended to find that players who build mechanically ineffective characters want their characters to be mechanically effective, but they don't have enough familiarity with the rules, or with a particular GM's play environment, to know exactly how to do that. It sounds to me like [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] has had some similar experiences.

You're doing some funky things with word definitions here. I haven't been using the term "power gaming" as meaning "building a mechanically effective character." It's closer in meaning to "someone who has fun optimizing their choices within the game."

To clarify, people who aren't playing the game primarily for the rush of power gaming can still want mechanically effective characters, it's just that these mechanically effective characters are often in the service of some other play goal (something like, "Well, I don't want to die, because then I'll never get resolution on if Frankie the Half-Elf finds her long-lost father!" for instance points to character effectiveness as a prerequisite for someone focused on the narrative element). Optimal mechanical effectiveness isn't a goal in and of itself. Additionally, like with any genre definitions, these play goals are only mutually exclusive at their extremes - someone could want to tell the story of a character's search for her long-lost father and still make fairly optimized choices about what that character looks like and does in combat in the same way as someone likes a bit of blues in their rock-n-roll.

Preferences are often revealed in the few instances where the two become mutually exclusive - say, someone who must choose between taking a feat that reflects her character's journey (it's a feat that lets you cast locate person, say) but is perhaps less effective than a different feat (I dunno, crossbow expert). If you're in a situation where you CAN'T have both, which one you take says a LOT about what kind of goal you have for your play experience.

Most of the time, D&D 5e contains a mix that suits a LOT of people, it seems. But if part of the fun for you is building and then unleashing that ultimate kick-ass mechanical behemoth, 5e contains LESS of that than 4e and 3e did. In some cases, it might be enough less that it's not a great time for you (especially if you've got other options).

Another sort of situation that can arise is where a player wants to build a character to a certain sort of trope or archetype - say, a melee damage-dealer or a mind-control mage or whatever - and the system doesn't make that particular archetype as viable as other archetypes that it supports. Some people think this is an issue in 3E/PF, where non-casters just aren't as mechanically viable as casters. (In my experience, Rolemaster can also have this issue. My RM group altered the mechanics - boosting non-casters and eliminating some broken spells - to help deal this.) [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] has suggested that, in 5e, ranged damage dealing is a clearly superior strategy to melee - for someone wanting to play a melee damage-dealer, this could give rise to the need to choose between preferred flavour and mechanical effectiveness. Personally, I don't think that forcing such choices is a sign of system virtues - I think it tends to be a sign of system flaws. (Contrast, say, Ars Magica, where it is a deliberate feature of the game that mages are more effective than non-mages, and the game has a whole "troupe" style of play built around that design feature.)

Again, this reveals a difference in play goals.
[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] 's pursuing the play goal that powergaming can provide within 5e (if my understanding is correct). That's not the same as making an "effective" character. There is a HUGE range of "effective" that isn't "perfectly optimal," though someone chasing the powergaming dragon probably wouldn't have fun with most of that range. Someone with a different play goal cares about that optimization less - they only want to be as effective as they need to be to see if their character finds her long-lost father, which is the real reason they want to play. Those people can play melee bruisers with an AC of 14 and a STR of 15 and cruise along quite well if they want, because being optimized isn't a goal and they're effective enough to contribute and survive. The player just doesn't have fun in milking the options for all they're worth. There's nothing that MAKES them do that.

In my 4e game, there is one PC who has traded off combat effectiveness for non-combat effectiveness (language, lore skills, rituals, etc). That is not a sign of being a non-powergamer or a "good" roleplayer, though. That is just the player choosing to play a character whose expertise is one thing rather than another.

To finish this post: from one of the designers of the game, on building and playing an effective character:

[A]ssume that a game is scheduled tomorrow, and you are going to get ready for it well in advance so as to have as much actual playing time as possible . . .

First get in touch with all those who will be included in the adventure, or if all are not available, at least talk to the better players so that you will be able to set an objective for the adventure. . . .

Once the obiective has been established, consider how well the party playing will suit the needs which it has engendered. Will the characters have the means of accomplishing the goal? Is it well-balanced, so that it can cope with typical problems expected in the fullfillment of the objective? Will it be necessary to find mercenary non-player characters or hire men-at-arms in order to give the party the necessary muscle? Is any special equipment needed? When agreement regarding these and any
similar questions has been reached, each participant must ready his or her character, but preparations must be made with the welfare of the whole group in mind. . . .

Each character has a selection of equipment which he or she will carry on the adventure. Particulars should be given to the party if any equipment is possibly redundant, newly conceived, or of possible special use considering the established goal for the adventure. In like manner, spells must be selected in co-operation with other spell-users in general, so that attack, defense, and assistance modes will be balanced properly and compliment the strengths and weaknesses of the party as a whole. Characters must know each other's strengths and weaknesses, physical and mental, in order to meet the problem posed with the correct character or combination thereof. Does the group have sufficient equipment of the elementary sort to meet both expected and unexpected challenges (ropes, spikes, poles, torches, oil, etc.)? Are we burdening ourselves with too much because of simple duplication (too many torches, everybody has a 10' pole, and so on)?. Do we have as broad a spectrum of spells as possible so as to be able to have a good chance against the unexpected, considering the objective and what it requires in spells? Is there some magic item which one of the party members possesses that will be of special help, or general assurance of survival, in this adventure? All this should be done before play begins . . . .​

Obviously that's not the last word, but I think Gygax can be treated as at least setting out one legitimate mode of approaching the game. And this clearly includes optimising build (which, in AD&D, means mostly equipment, including magic items, and spell load out), and optimising party composition.

There is nothing there that suggests it is a superior way to play the game to build characters with low AC and hit points who nevertheless attack NPCs at the slightest provocation.

It's nothing like a heirarchy, but it IS a difference in play goals. 1e, with its Dungeon Crawl focus, had a design that rewarded optimization, so it's not surprising that Gygax would value it highly. The 2e DMG which was the first time I encountered this concept of "winning" the game with mechanics, meanwhile, was suspicious of "too powerful characters" who would be "missing out on a lot of fun" if all they focused on was optimizing (in the process, completely missing the point that optimizing IS ITSELF part of the fun for some players!).

 

[hawkeyefan]

In response to the original points made in the OP by [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION], I don't know if all of the conclusions you've drawn about 5E would be typical. It sounds like you have fairly minimal experience with the edition, most of which consists of watching others play, is that correct?

Your point about randomness is one that I probably can't really argue. To me, with bounded accuracy in place, and the numbers not becoming crazily inflated, you are probably right that te D20 roll has more of an impact. But, since bounded accuracy is applied across the board, isn't it just a question of scale?

And since you stated you prefer 4E (and every other edition) I find it odd since that was the edition that most heavily relied upon point but attribute, and then diversified base attacks by attribute according to the strength of a given class. If you're argument about randomness means that someone who built their character well has no better chance than someone who didn't do as good a job, I find it strange that you'd be a fan of an edition that had fighters rely on strength for their attacks and wizards on intelligence, and clerics in wisdom, etc. That practice basically led o everyone havin the same to hit bonus with their primary attacks a cordig to their level.

As for defenders, not sure I get that point since barbarians in 5E don't seem to suffer the "take one for the team" flaw you describe. Not do fighters in my experience. And Paladin's definitely have strong defensive abilities and also the ability to dole out some crazy damage.

Support roles "taking one for the team" as well? Don't know about that. Bards are more diverse than they've ever been, blending elements of traditional fighters, wizards, clerics, and rogues. I think clerics are perhaps the most uncvuanged class, and one of the least dynamic of 5E, but I don't think they simply "take one for the team".

Magic has been a bit toned down across the board. The concentration mechanic seems to have been designed to force decisions and speed up play by making it easier to track effects and so on. I think there are still plenty of ways to excel with magic using characters, but I don't think they dominate as in previous editions.

Finally, the optimization guides are less useful? Perhaps. The game does not present nearly as many options as 3E, which I think is where character build guides really took hold. I haven't noticed, but that's because I don't tend to rely on those types of guides to build my characters.

But, ultimately, any game can be played poorly, played competently, or played exceptionally. That doesn't change by game. It's true if checkers or Mario Brothers or Monopoly or D&D 5E. It seems like maybe you just haven't played enough to be exceptional yet. And that's fine.

Since you are going to wind up playing, my suggestion would be to try and play a little different. You said because of the game, you only make selfish glass cannons. So then intentionally make a selfless support character, or a tactical tank. Because your criticisms of the game are based on you playing selfish glass cannons, so if you do it again, what would change? Probably nothing. So if you want to actually have a chance at enjoying the game, try another character type, play a little different than you might otherwise, and see what happens.