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

[thecasualoblivion]

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.

Because I want to know how something is going to work in advance, so I can make an informed decision. If I am dealing with codified rules, I can do this. If it depends on DM discretion, I can't know in advance since the DM's mind is hidden from me, and I can't make an informed decison.

Now, rules can't cover everything, and a certain level of DM discretion is inevitable, but it's a sliding scale. You can have more or you can have less. I prefer less.

 

[Ancalagon]

wow this thread exploded! I wanted to reply last night, but well, it was easter and I had other things to do...

Anyway, at one point someone (Caliban?) said:

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.

I think it's an important point - it's a spectrum, and your position on the spectrum will influence your perception.

I've described myself as a "lite powergamer" - someone who refuses to make "monstrosities" but will try to design effective characters. To the hardcore powergamers these designs would seem lame or stuffy... but on the other hand, to some others they seem overpowered. An example:

I was building a fighter, and I took the best armor available to me (chainmail if memory serve) and a shield. I also put my highest stat in CON and took a dwarf to increase CON further. I was then accused of power gaming... for having a decent AC and good hitpoints.



Lastly, I agree with Caliban that people who can't or wont make a combat functional character *are* a pain. That bard...

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

"More DM discretion" is probably not debatable. As you say, it was one of the design goals for 5E.

However, whether it is "too much" as you described it certainly is a matter of opinion, and is therefore very debatable.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Except how has it actually impacted you in play? Is this a philosophical objection? Are you afraid what it might mean? Or did you actually try to do something in-game where the DM said, "No, you can't do that?"

Yes, the designers have said "Rulings over rules". But all previous editions were meant to be played that way as well (maybe not 4e; I'm not familiar with it enough to say.) The only difference is that the designer have now said it explicitly. It's almost like they said, "Well, duh, of course rulings trump rules. It's always been meant to be this way." They're basically saying, "Don't take guff from powergaming rules lawyers."

 

[Blue]

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!

The OP said their goal was to "not just win, but kick ass". Are other people not allowed to have that goal? Must combat after combat they watch someone else's character be more effective and they aren't allowed to feel sidelined, only thank him for saving them?

Sorry, that's bull. I like to optimize, and a lesson I had to learn over time as I matured as a gamer is to match the party. One group we all optimize and have great fun. But being a subgroup off the curve - either above or below - isn't fun in general.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Because I want to know how something is going to work in advance, so I can make an informed decision. If I am dealing with codified rules, I can do this. If it depends on DM discretion, I can't know in advance since the DM's mind is hidden from me, and I can't make an informed decison.

And you have yet to give a single example of where the rules are insufficiently codified. (Which is ironic, because there are some spots where that is the case...I could name a few myself. But I doubt 4e was free of these nebulous areas.)

 

[pemerton]

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

I hope this wasn't an instance of power gaming or of kicking ass!

 

[JonnyP71]

I hope this wasn't an instance of power gaming or of kicking ass!

Haha, nope.

I used Prestidigitation to create the taste/smell of blood around the gills of the 1st shark.

 

[dave2008]

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.

I think you will find that a lot of people are jumping to 1e & 2e when you talk about past editions. I never played 3e, but I DM'd 4e very much like how I played 1e and now 5e, so it doesn't seem that different to me.

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.

I don't know about 3e, but there was a comparison on these forums between initial launch of 4e and 5e and they are really similiar in the amount of options when you include everything and exclude repeats. By which I mean:

All race, subrace, class, sub-class, feats, multiclassing (restrictive in 4e - open 5e), and then eliminate powers and feats that are just upgrades of en existing power or feat. The total number of real choices/options was very similar. Maybe if I get time I dig that thread up.

 

[Blue]

Why? Because D&D should be inclusive and cater to most everybody.

I think you are confusing "D&D should be exclusive", which I agree with, and "a particular table should be exclusive", which patently isn't true. Maybe this table has characters named "King McKing" and "Sandwichmaker" which would annoy someone but they all have fun. This one is shades of grey with lots of RP and one combat every third session. This table loved high level play and that table likes coming of age stories for their PCs. Another table has a shifting roster based on who's around and runs episodic, while that table if you don't know about what happened 3, 4 and 6 sessions back you'll miss all the important clues in this adventure towards the identity of one of the antagonists.

Not every table is for everyone nor should it be.