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

[dave2008]

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

Actually there is dispute on item 1 and of course item 2 is partly because it is only 1.5 yrs old. Also, have you looked into multiclassing? Most powergamers I know of use multiclassing to full effect. Multiclassing provide a huge amount of options.

 

[dave2008]

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.

Have you played 1e or 2e?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So when you say this:

That's not the whole story, it seems. Most people don't just fire on one type exclusively, and any game pursues multiple aesthetic goals, so no big shock. We don't look for just one thing from our games usually.

But it does mean that a big part of the fun for you IS in power-gaming. In MDA terms, this is probably "challenge," in a high-score sense (though I might prefer Nicole Lazzarro's description of fiero there, to put a pin on the emotion of it).

Indeed, why you're cool with 5e while the OP might struggle might be because fantasy offers more of a break from pure uncut challenge for you than it does for the OP.

If all you wanted was Fantasy, or even if you weren't looking for Challenge at all, none of the power-gaming elements would matter. So when someone else plays the game who is not really prioritizing Challenge, they only care about the relative effectiveness of ranged combat as much as they HAVE to. And if you're running a bog-standard 5e game, you don't really have to. Melee fighting works fine. Hulk Smash for the win!

But that's what I have disputed. I don't even get to play very often, I mostly DM, and so "challenge" and other of my player preferences are almost entirely irrelevant (because I'm not playing, so I don't get to choose whether the party tackles the challenging heist or the easy tax collection job). When I say "melee is bad in 5E", that's not an observation about playstyle, it's about ruleset. If I didn't care about Fantasy I could go ahead and shape a world where all the monsters live in closets and 30' caverns entered only through one-way teleportation gates, and then melee wouldn't be bad any more (but Fantasy and any semblance of plausibility would be completely wrecked).

The DM's player preferences don't really matter and aren't why I say "melee is bad." That's my designer instinct, not my player preference.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Actually there is dispute on item 1 and of course item 2 is partly because it is only 1.5 yrs old. Also, have you looked into multiclassing? Most powergamers I know of use multiclassing to full effect. Multiclassing provide a huge amount of options.

The dispute on #1 baffles me, at the very least in comparison to 3E and 4E. It's specifically spelled out in the rules that it is so, and the designers have affirmed as much. To me it just sounds like people being obtuse.

As for #2, both 3E and 4E had more overall options at launch, and you got to pick more of them as you played.

As for multiclassing, a bit more than half of my test characters are or will multiclass. 5E classes tend to be front loaded, and some classes plateau at a certain point and don't get new things comparable with the front loaded abilities of a second class.

 

[Blue]

I agree with the OP but instead of blaming randomness I would say that the 5E roles are out of balance. In 5E it is hard to be a Defender/"Tank" (no Combat Challenge OAs) and hard to be a Leader/"Healer" (Little healing except Clerics; Battle Masters pale in comparison to Warlords). Instead of Defenders, I enjoyed the 4E Leaders including doing it by multi-classing/hybrids. Clearly I'm not a power gamer, but I always felt I could perform a role without sacrificing too much.

5E tilts towards Strikers because: 1)Fighers are mostly Strikers, not Defenders; 2)Wizards are mostly Strikers, not Controllers; 3)The Leader role is divided between Cleric/Healers (Paladins somewhat) and Battle Master/Leaders (Bards somewhat); and 4)Every other class is (still) a Striker.

I'd like to frame this a little differently. 4e had a set of mechanically supported roles and for niche protection divided the classes into them. That doesn't mean that every RPG needs to have strong roles, that the class line is the place to divide them, or that 4e roles are the only way to divide up the pie.

For instance, saying a Battle Master is an inferior leader to a warlord is true yet meaningless - Warlord is a 4e construct aimed at meeting specific goals to be a leader. 5e classes don't fall as nicely into 4e roles because they weren't designed to, and both builds within a class and specifics of what you are doing in a particular situation can change it. My paladin with polearm master can block foes from engaging my allies like a defender, spends spell slots of divine smites and get 3 attacks a round like a striker, and provide aura buffs to multiple teammates like a leader. But he's not any of those.

 

[JonnyP71]

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

Point #2 is true - as others have said, this is a good thing - it brings characters naturally closer together and avoids the pitfalls of the "builds" of 3e/4e.

Point #1 however is absolute nonsense. It can only be an issue if there is an adversarial attitude between party and DM at the table. And such an attitude is simply poisonous, which quite simply should have been grown out of during puberty by all parties concerned. Giving a DM more of a free interpretation actually does the opposite of what you are suggesting, by opening up the world, giving more options to the creative players who do not feel bound by what is written on their sheet. THAT is player empowerment.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Coming late into the game here but I agree with a lot of the OP. Also agree with a lot of posts that 5e does a lot to prevent overpowered optimized characters relative to other editions where it could be come a problem.

I do agree with the OP too that spellcasters were nerfed maybe a bit too much. I do agree that spellcasters had to be reined in a bit, no doubt, from previous editions. But I do think they overdid it a bit, particularly relative to the weak number of spell slots at higher spell levels.

Play around a bit more with True Polymorph, Planar Binding, Planar Ally, Shapechange, Meteor Swarm, Prismatic Wall*, Foresight, Simulacrum, Wish, etc. You'll find that spellcasters still rock at high levels. It's possible to make a high-level spellcaster who does not rock, which is apparently why all of WotC's published Archmages (MM and Curse of Strahd) know the completely useless Time Stop spell instead of Meteor Swarm. But that's not the fault of the spell list, it's the fault of whoever selected the spells.

A high-level spellcaster in 5E is exceptionally good at converting time and gold into power.

* Here's an amusing combo: Animate Dead + Spell Mastery (Unseen Servant) to get a bunch of zombies and unseen servants. Cast Prismatic Wall and have the Unseen Servants Help the zombies grapple enemies and/or shove them through the Prismatic Wall.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Point #2 is true - as others have said, this is a good thing - it brings characters naturally closer together and avoids the pitfalls of the "builds" of 3e/4e.

Point #1 however is absolute nonsense. It can only be an issue if there is an adversarial attitude between party and DM at the table. And such an attitude is simply poisonous, which quite simply should have been grown out of during puberty by all parties concerned. Giving a DM more of a free interpretation actually does the opposite of what you are suggesting, by opening up the world, giving more options to the creative players who do not feel bound by what is written on their sheet. THAT is player empowerment.

The dispute over #1 isn't over whether or not it's a good thing, but rather that it is true. Whether it's good for the game or not is a matter of opinion. That being said I think your mistaken in that it's necessarily adversarial. From my standpoint, I want to be able to make tactical and strategic judgements that don't factor in the DM. It has nothing to do with conflict, but instead independence.

 

[Blue]

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.

If you read my other posts, I don't agree with the original posted. But that doesn't make optimization BADWRONGFUN. I've had great fun in a group where everyone ran optimized characters AND were good roleplayers. DM just ratcheted up the challenge. Every good DM adjusts encounter difficulty to provide excitement and the right level of challenge. (Mind you, "right level" can be "easy" or "deadly, run away!" depending on what they are going for at that time.)

I'd say there's a problem when a subset of characters is much better/worse at combat then other characters. And I call out combat - we're all okay with the party face being better than the average at diplomacy, the stealthy folks being better at sneaking, and the ranger being better at exploration. But everyone is expected to contribute in combat and it takes a lot of wall clock time.

But that issue is true regardless if some optimize and some don't, or if some play regular characters and some play sub-optimal ones.

One of the things I like about 5e is that it's hard to make a sub-optimal character until you purposefully de-tune. "A 14 is fine for my prime ability, and I want linguist instead of upping it." Just picking a class and staying with it and being even somewhat logical about ASI choices, and you are on-par. This brings everyone closer to the same standard by raising the floor, but that help remove cases about someone having a lousy designed character.

 

[JonnyP71]

Why do you worry about having to factor in the DM?

A good DM will not stop you from attempting what you want to do, provided what you are attempting is within the bounds of reason. A good DM should not force you to roll for trivial/non-pressured situations. A good DM is there to challenge you and to ensure YOU have an enjoyable game - not to hinder you.

A system that lets a good DM do that to the best of their ability is a system which in turn and as a direct result, empowers the players.

5E explicitly does this, by putting the adjudication back in the hands of the DM moreso than in a mountain of rules.