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

[Guest 6801328]

You can definitely powergame in 5e (see Celtavian, CapnZapp, & others) and totally ruin the design assumptions of 5e (which is that your not powergaming) and wreck deadly encounters without breaking a sweat. Really helps if the whole party is on board though. If that is what you are looking for, it can 100% be done. If you want to do that and be challenged, your DM will have to put in some extra work.

Yeah, I would say the most effective powergaming in 5e is found in group synergies, not in solo builds.

 

[JonnyP71]

Oh I agree with this, no doubt. Low level play for spell-casters is still rough, with maybe the exception of the warlock. The cantrips help, but yeah hard to keep up with melee types. Things get better actually at mid-level I think with decent slots for spells at levels 3, 4 and 5...I think having only 1 or 2 spells at the highest levels hurts though a lot. Those spells are great, don't get me wrong, can set up some nice novas. But there's so few they feel like you have to husband them a bit too much to be really powerful.

Having saved the party (at 2nd level) from a pack of 6 sharks with a simple Cantrip, I respectfully disagree.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You responded to my last answer on the subject, so you have read it. As I said, I explained the matter to my satisfaction, and have given up trying to explain it further.

Translation: Rage without reason. I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them Sam I am.

I guess that means I'm not getting an example.

Apparently not.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Translation: Rage without reason. I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them Sam I am.



Apparently not.

He wanted specific examples, but my issue was a general one, not a specific one. Specific examples would have been irrelevant.

Specifically:

1. Too much is left to DM discretion(value neutral translation--5E leaves more to DM discretion than earlier editions)
2. 5E has less player options than 3E or 4E

I don't see where specific examples are necessary for either of the above. Neither is in dispute.

End of story

 

[Onslaught]

Wow! This thread just keeps growing!

Since we're 20 pages long now, it's hard to find all those nice quotes... so I'll just add my 2 cents at [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] original post:

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.

Know that when you say you're a selfish player, you're not making things easier for you !

Anyway... may I ask more details about what and how you played?! How you're being "coward" and "letting other people take 5E's randomness to the face"?

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.

Defenders in 4E were more sticky, and also different from traditional D&D defenders - they were a lot more video game-y with Mark and stuff.

In 5e we're back to "classes being classes" and not "classes being an approach to roles".

Anyway, I have a very different experience with 5e than you: I play a Fighter, Sword & Shield with Heavy Armor Mastery feat. I feel a lot more resistant than the rest of the party in most combats, except for my Barbarian Bear Totem friend who's basically indestructible - he justs jump in the middle of the fray, get hit every time and hardly drops.

When combats are shorter, evey inch of improvement counts. In that sense, it's harder to gauge 5e abilities and builds than 4e - while in 4e you knew most of times when something was effective right after reading it, in 5e there are things you must see in play to know if it's that above the cut, it's just normal or if it sucks.

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.

Sometimes I like to play the support... but I know the feeling. I had a hard time liking Leader classes in 4e (even thought I liked to play a Sivis Bard once).

But since we don't have roles anymore, evey class can "shine". Even the Bard isn't a pure supporter anymore - you might as well play a Bard Gish, or even DPS focus with access to Ranger and Paladin spells way before expected level.

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

You're right, but mostly because:
A) We don't have as may options as we in 3.5 and 4E
B) We don't have as many trap options as we had (thanks to Bounded Accuracy and other design approachs)

But there are still "combos", even defensive ones - they are usually more splicit than they used to be (because A and B).

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

Well, I don't have a feeling that Spellcasters were any special in 4E.

I've seen spellcasters change the tide of battles in the first few levels with their lonly spells. A well placed Sleep makes wonders.

As in 4e, a lot depends on the frequency of combats. At low levels you have few 1st / 2nd level spels (or Daily). If you fight one or two fights a day, you can use more of those powers per fight. Same with frequency of short rests.

Anyway...

About "kicking ass" - when I play I want my characters to "shine". That means when I play a "Striker" he must kick ass. But when I play a skill monkey, party face more of a support character (we can't have it all), that means carrying the team throught interactions and skill challanges.

In that sense we may have something in common, and in the games I played in 5e I always had a chance to shine (most times with my Fighter, but also played a couple sessions as bard).

 

[Guest 6801328]

1. Too much is left to DM discretion(value neutral translation--5E leaves more to DM discretion than earlier editions)

Well, I and others disagree. But in the absence of any concrete examples of how your perception impacts play I guess we just have to leave it as a difference of opinion.

2. 5E has less player options than 3E or 4E

No argument there. I see it as a good thing, but it's entirely a matter of preference and I understand that for some people the choosing of mechanical options is a big part of the game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

By the way, there's some irony here. In a discussion about "skill" how does "copying a build I read from the forums" fit in?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Wow! This thread just keeps growing!

Since we're 20 pages long now, it's hard to find all those nice quotes... so I'll just add my 2 cents at [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] original post:




Know that when you say you're a selfish player, you're not making things easier for you !

Anyway... may I ask more details about what and how you played?! How you're being "coward" and "letting other people take 5E's randomness to the face"?


Defenders in 4E were more sticky, and also different from traditional D&D defenders - they were a lot more video game-y with Mark and stuff.

In 5e we're back to "classes being classes" and not "classes being an approach to roles".

Anyway, I have a very different experience with 5e than you: I play a Fighter, Sword & Shield with Heavy Armor Mastery feat. I feel a lot more resistant than the rest of the party in most combats, except for my Barbarian Bear Totem friend who's basically indestructible - he justs jump in the middle of the fray, get hit every time and hardly drops.

When combats are shorter, evey inch of improvement counts. In that sense, it's harder to gauge 5e abilities and builds than 4e - while in 4e you knew most of times when something was effective right after reading it, in 5e there are things you must see in play to know if it's that above the cut, it's just normal or if it sucks.


Sometimes I like to play the support... but I know the feeling. I had a hard time liking Leader classes in 4e (even thought I liked to play a Sivis Bard once).

But since we don't have roles anymore, evey class can "shine". Even the Bard isn't a pure supporter anymore - you might as well play a Bard Gish, or even DPS focus with access to Ranger and Paladin spells way before expected level.



You're right, but mostly because:
A) We don't have as may options as we in 3.5 and 4E
B) We don't have as many trap options as we had (thanks to Bounded Accuracy and other design approachs)

But there are still "combos", even defensive ones - they are usually more splicit than they used to be (because A and B).


Well, I don't have a feeling that Spellcasters were any special in 4E.

I've seen spellcasters change the tide of battles in the first few levels with their lonly spells. A well placed Sleep makes wonders.

As in 4e, a lot depends on the frequency of combats. At low levels you have few 1st / 2nd level spels (or Daily). If you fight one or two fights a day, you can use more of those powers per fight. Same with frequency of short rests.

Anyway...

About "kicking ass" - when I play I want my characters to "shine". That means when I play a "Striker" he must kick ass. But when I play a skill monkey, party face more of a support character (we can't have it all), that means carrying the team throught interactions and skill challanges.

In that sense we may have something in common, and in the games I played in 5e I always had a chance to shine (most times with my Fighter, but also played a couple sessions as bard).

1. I wasn't talking about being selfish/coward as a player, but selfish as a character. Mostly this means avoiding danger, either by being ranged only, disengaging from melee every turn(like a Rogue), or playing a Barbarian or Paladin who attacks the enemy flank of rear instead of head on. It also means not doing tanking/healing/support, only damage and control.

2. I played leader role characters a fair amount in 4E. I have no desire at all to do it in 5E. I've built some concept Bards and Clerics in 5E and they were built specifically for damage/control.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Well, I and others disagree. But in the absence of any concrete examples of how your perception impacts play I guess we just have to leave it as a difference of opinion.

No argument there. I see it as a good thing, but it's entirely a matter of preference and I understand that for some people the choosing of mechanical options is a big part of the game.

I don't see where a greater emphasis on DM discretion compared to earlier editions is up for debate. The designers have specifically said it is so, and it's spelled out in the game books. It's up for debate whether this is a good or bad thing, but I don't see how you could argue that it isn't so.

 

[Blue]

In 5E you're fragile, even in the best of circumstances.

Just a side note, for me this is a strong feature. My second to last 4e character was a Warforged Warden who could just soak up absolutely ridiculous damage plus because Warden stickiness was more mini-control instead of marking, I could really force foes to go after just me. DM told me just how much he had to boost the encounters to put anyone else at risk - and I still wasn't.

Which leads to my last character - I had a melee leader who I played very aggressive in personality and would also run into combat before our defender, would chase people and get separated out, etc. I wasn't intentionally trying to kill him, but I was intentionally taking a leader and putting him in dangerous situations every combat. I think in several years of regular play he dropped only a few times and never was in any real threat of death.

4e it was so hard to drop a character it became almost boring. I take a melee leader (shifter runepriest) and run them into the thick of combat and not have to worry about it? Thank goodness that 5e introduces some fear of death, some risk to spice up the sessions.

But that comes back to goals. I respect you want to not just win, but to kick ass, as you stated elsewhere. My goal is to feel that I overcame when the odds were against me and that I earned every scrap of rewards. Need real risk, and if that's overcome before even starting a session that's not meeting my personal goals.