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

[Ancalagon]

Kicking ass is relative. If all the other PCs are doing 3-5 dmg/round and you are doing 20, you are kicking ass. If everyone is doing 20 dmg/round, you are not kicking ass.

Ergo the argument that the serious power gamer is just doing his own thing doesn't quite ring true...

 

[Ancalagon]

[MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION]: I'm a bit frustrated by your refusal to answer the question *but* I'm going to try to help you out:

One area that can be reaaaaly important for certain characters is "can I hide?" And the way I read the rules right now, it's essentially "ask your DM". (Unless I misread the rules of course).

 

[Blue]

I did answer this, and you either didn't understand or accept the answer, so I gave up trying to explain it

No, you kept on that you didn't like the concept of asking the DM, but never gave an example.

Considering that some of us are having issues where we cant see where following the written rules requires asking, we don't understand your position.

Please /give an example of something you'd like to do but you feel you'd have to ask the DM/.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

No, you kept on that you didn't like the concept of asking the DM, but never gave an example.

Considering that some of us are having issues where we cant see where following the written rules requires asking, we don't understand your position.

Please /give an example of something you'd like to do but you feel you'd have to ask the DM/.

That is because you're asking the wrong question. The issue isn't "can I do this?", but instead "I can do this!". Specifically, the lack of "I can do this!" in 5E.

As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said above, some of that is due to the lack of system transparency in 5E. In 3E and 4E the resolution system and DCs for success were detailed and knowable by the player to a large extent, so you had a pretty decent idea what you could do and how it would turn out. The other side would be that 3E and 4E gave out many more powers, abilities, fears and spells that gave you permission in advance to do X.

 

[pemerton]

I don't see how there is a practical difference in these two things, despite the obvious philosophical difference.

<snip>

The only difference I can measure between the two is how likely it is that a DM deciding to rule differently than you expected from reading the rules yourself catches you by surprise.

At this point I'm not trying to interpret the OP, but just speak for myself.

I think the difference is a real one. It is about who is expected to have control over the fiction.

In 2nd ed AD&D, control over the fiction is expressly granted to the GM, and the capacity of the players to influence the fiction via their action declarations for their PCs is expressly mediated via the GM - who gets to decided whether it would be "good" or "bad" for the game to allow particular outcomes to occur within the fiction.

In 4e - to pick the version of D&D that I think is furthest from 2nd ed AD&D - the players are explicitly granted a high degree of control over the fiction. For instance, once the skill challenge is framed then if the players get N successes the fiction is changed in accordance with their desires (as expressed via the action declarations for their PCs). Or, to give a combat-related example, if a player declares that his/her PC uses Mighty Sprint to close the distance to the NPC bad guy, then uses a daily power to get some sort of buffed attack, and then spends an action point to follow up with another attack, the GM is not authorised by the rules of the game to interpose his/her "common sense" or his/her sense of what is "good for the game" to interfere with that sequence of action declarations.

(I think Gygaxian D&D is in many ways closer to 4e than 2nd ed AD&D, but uses a very different range of techniques - in particular, the very distinctive environment of the dungeon, and conventions around that including GM notes and the turn sequence - to achieve that outcome.)

5e is not as clear as 2nd ed AD&D about who is expected to have ultimate control over the fiction, but I think at various points (eg its advice on DC setting, and its lack of a non-combat scene-resolution mechanic comparable to the skill challenge) it leans closer to the 2nd ed than the 4e direction.

is this merely an impression you get from reading the books, or is it something you've experienced in practice? Because I've played a fair amount of 5e and have yet to encounter the phenomenon of DMs denying player agency.

It's based on reading the rules and noting the resources available to players based on PC build. (Especially players whose PCs do not use spells.)

To step back: I don't think it can be true that 4e is different from (say) 2nd ed AD&D and that 5e harks back to 2nd ed AD&D and that 5e is not noticeably different from 4e. I think the first two are true, and hence the third false. (In general. Maybe there are particular tables where things are done differently - most RPGs can be applied in pretty flexible ways.)

What is the noticeable difference between 5e and 4e? I think there are a few, but one of the main ones, it seems to me, is in the role the GM plays in framing and adjudicating action declarations.

None of this is a criticism of 5e. After all, a lot of people like 2nd ed AD&D better than 4e! It's an observation, and in the context of this thread is meant to show a degree of sympathy for the OP's post. (Even though I don't think we are coming from exactly the same place: for me the main issue is finality, which is (3) in my post upthread; and the OP has endorsed that post, in which I conjectured that the OP's main issues were (1) and (2).)

 

[Guest 6801328]

That is because you're asking the wrong question. The issue isn't "can I do this?", but instead "I can do this!". Specifically, the lack of "I can do this!" in 5E.

As @pemerton said above, some of that is due to the lack of system transparency in 5E. In 3E and 4E the resolution system and DCs for success were detailed and knowable by the player to a large extent, so you had a pretty decent idea what you could do and how it would turn out. The other side would be that 3E and 4E gave out many more powers, abilities, fears and spells that gave you permission in advance to do X.

Ok, so maybe there are more things you can do in other editions (i.e. more special abilities and spells you can use) but that list is still very, very finite. Of the endless list of things you can do (shoot laser beams out of your eyes, cut guns in half with your mind, detonate a small thermonuclear device, smoke a mean brisket) only a tiny handful are specified as being allowable.

5e also has a list of "things you can do." There's a list of skills, there's a list of actions (Attack, Dodge, Help, Disengage, Dash, etc.), and then depending on your race, class, and options (such as spell selection) there are a bunch more "things you can do." You don't have to ask the DM's permission to do any of them.

Let's say you want to swing from a chandelier and chop somebody's head off. You don't have to ask the DM's permission to do this. You might have to ask the DM what skill & DC to use to do the swinging, and maybe because the chandelier is rather high, and the target is rather far off, he sets the DC higher than you would like, but I would hope the DM wouldn't just say "No, you can't do that." He (or she!) would say, "Ok, let's see either an Athletics or Acrobatics roll with DC 20."

As for the chopping off of the head, make an Attack roll. If you do enough damage to kill the target you should be free to narrate that as a clean head shot.

Now, your DM may choose to "not allow" either of those things. But if so, that's your DM, not the edition.

 

[pemerton]

One area that can be reaaaaly important for certain characters is "can I hide?" And the way I read the rules right now, it's essentially "ask your DM". (Unless I misread the rules of course).

Again, answering on my own account - but I think with at least a degree of sympathy for the OP.

One issue is the ambiguity of the hiding rules - which in many ways are less clear even than the AD&D ones (which are very punitive on thief players, but at least tolerably clear). Two points of contrast can be drawn with 4e: first, 4e's Stealth skill rules are plain clearer; second, a 4e rogue can take various abilities that override the general Stealth rules and just allow the player to stipulate "My character is invisible to those who are looking for him/her!" These abilities tend to be rationed, but can be pulled out at key moments. (A bit like the way, in more traditional D&D, spells are pulled out at key moments when the players want to impose their will on the shared fiction.)

But another issue is that, even if you are hidden, it's not clear what this achieves in terms of impact on the fiction (especially out of combat). There is nothing analogous to the skill challenge mechanic whereby, if you successfully hide in the course of pursuing your goal, then the GM is obliged to credit you with some degree of success towards that goal within the fiction.

That's what I am calling the issue of finality.

 

[iserith]

In 4e - to pick the version of D&D that I think is furthest from 2nd ed AD&D - the players are explicitly granted a high degree of control over the fiction. For instance, once the skill challenge is framed then if the players get N successes the fiction is changed in accordance with their desires (as expressed via the action declarations for their PCs). Or, to give a combat-related example, if a player declares that his/her PC uses Mighty Sprint to close the distance to the NPC bad guy, then uses a daily power to get some sort of buffed attack, and then spends an action point to follow up with another attack, the GM is not authorised by the rules of the game to interpose his/her "common sense" or his/her sense of what is "good for the game" to interfere with that sequence of action declarations.

While in practice I found this to be true, this is not actually true by the rules. See D&D 4e Rules Compendium page 9 where it says the DM can override the results of a check for the good of the story. Further, in the section on skill challenges, it talks about how skill checks should never be a substitute for what the DM thinks is good roleplaying. Further, there is a blurb in one of the books that talks about how the DM can say a power simply doesn't work in a given fictional situation. (I can't recall which book this is, but it's a thing. I've had this discussion before with regard to D&D 4e. Perhaps someone else recalls it.)

This all goes to my point that all editions of D&D give the DM power to make rulings as needed. It's just in some editions, there are more rules to draw upon to make such rulings. (This doesn't mean a DM can invalidate an action declaration, however.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

At this point I'm not trying to interpret the OP, but just speak for myself.

I think the difference is a real one. It is about who is expected to have control over the fiction.

In 2nd ed AD&D, control over the fiction is expressly granted to the GM, and the capacity of the players to influence the fiction via their action declarations for their PCs is expressly mediated via the GM - who gets to decided whether it would be "good" or "bad" for the game to allow particular outcomes to occur within the fiction.

In 4e - to pick the version of D&D that I think is furthest from 2nd ed AD&D - the players are explicitly granted a high degree of control over the fiction. For instance, once the skill challenge is framed then if the players get N successes the fiction is changed in accordance with their desires (as expressed via the action declarations for their PCs). Or, to give a combat-related example, if a player declares that his/her PC uses Mighty Sprint to close the distance to the NPC bad guy, then uses a daily power to get some sort of buffed attack, and then spends an action point to follow up with another attack, the GM is not authorised by the rules of the game to interpose his/her "common sense" or his/her sense of what is "good for the game" to interfere with that sequence of action declarations.

(I think Gygaxian D&D is in many ways closer to 4e than 2nd ed AD&D, but uses a very different range of techniques - in particular, the very distinctive environment of the dungeon, and conventions around that including GM notes and the turn sequence - to achieve that outcome.)

5e is not as clear as 2nd ed AD&D about who is expected to have ultimate control over the fiction, but I think at various points (eg its advice on DC setting, and its lack of a non-combat scene-resolution mechanic comparable to the skill challenge) it leans closer to the 2nd ed than the 4e direction.

It's based on reading the rules and noting the resources available to players based on PC build. (Especially players whose PCs do not use spells.)

To step back: I don't think it can be true that 4e is different from (say) 2nd ed AD&D and that 5e harks back to 2nd ed AD&D and that 5e is not noticeably different from 4e. I think the first two are true, and hence the third false. (In general. Maybe there are particular tables where things are done differently - most RPGs can be applied in pretty flexible ways.)

What is the noticeable difference between 5e and 4e? I think there are a few, but one of the main ones, it seems to me, is in the role the GM plays in framing and adjudicating action declarations.

None of this is a criticism of 5e. After all, a lot of people like 2nd ed AD&D better than 4e! It's an observation, and in the context of this thread is meant to show a degree of sympathy for the OP's post. (Even though I don't think we are coming from exactly the same place: for me the main issue is finality, which is (3) in my post upthread; and the OP has endorsed that post, in which I conjectured that the OP's main issues were (1) and (2).)

Ok, if I'm reading this correctly, what you are saying is essentially that if a player finds an "exploit"...a weird edge case in the rules, or an unanticipated synergy between abilities, or simply the use of an ability in a setting in which it wouldn't logically work...the 4e resolution is to let the player use the exploit, and the 5e resolution is to have the DM say, "Sorry, that's just not going to work in this case."

Is that a fair summary?

Example: I recently sat at a table with a guy who was planning to build his rogue with polearm master so that he'd get Opportunity Attacks when anybody came within range. I pointed out that he only gets his sneak attack damage when using a Finesse weapon, and he replied that his plan was hold a quarterstaff in his offhand (because it's Versatile) and then take the opportunity attack with the rapier in his mainhand. (He was also planning on taking the dual wielding feat to allow non-light weapons, and the plan further involved getting Booming Blade and using Disengage as a bonus action, etc. It was very convoluted.).

Now, the rules for polearm master don't explicitly say that you have to take the opportunity attack with the polearm itself. So it seems that by his strict literalist reading of the rules, his plan would work.

A DM might reasonably respond, "At my table if you get an opportunity attack because of Polearm Master you have to use the polearm itself."

Is that the kind of "loss of player agency" we're talking about here? (I wouldn't call it that, but I'm honestly trying to understand the complaint.)

 

[Imaro]

At this point I'm not trying to interpret the OP, but just speak for myself.

I think the difference is a real one. It is about who is expected to have control over the fiction.

In 2nd ed AD&D, control over the fiction is expressly granted to the GM, and the capacity of the players to influence the fiction via their action declarations for their PCs is expressly mediated via the GM - who gets to decided whether it would be "good" or "bad" for the game to allow particular outcomes to occur within the fiction.

In 4e - to pick the version of D&D that I think is furthest from 2nd ed AD&D - the players are explicitly granted a high degree of control over the fiction. For instance, once the skill challenge is framed then if the players get N successes the fiction is changed in accordance with their desires (as expressed via the action declarations for their PCs). Or, to give a combat-related example, if a player declares that his/her PC uses Mighty Sprint to close the distance to the NPC bad guy, then uses a daily power to get some sort of buffed attack, and then spends an action point to follow up with another attack, the GM is not authorised by the rules of the game to interpose his/her "common sense" or his/her sense of what is "good for the game" to interfere with that sequence of action declarations.

(I think Gygaxian D&D is in many ways closer to 4e than 2nd ed AD&D, but uses a very different range of techniques - in particular, the very distinctive environment of the dungeon, and conventions around that including GM notes and the turn sequence - to achieve that outcome.)

5e is not as clear as 2nd ed AD&D about who is expected to have ultimate control over the fiction, but I think at various points (eg its advice on DC setting, and its lack of a non-combat scene-resolution mechanic comparable to the skill challenge) it leans closer to the 2nd ed than the 4e direction.

It's based on reading the rules and noting the resources available to players based on PC build. (Especially players whose PCs do not use spells.)

To step back: I don't think it can be true that 4e is different from (say) 2nd ed AD&D and that 5e harks back to 2nd ed AD&D and that 5e is not noticeably different from 4e. I think the first two are true, and hence the third false. (In general. Maybe there are particular tables where things are done differently - most RPGs can be applied in pretty flexible ways.)

What is the noticeable difference between 5e and 4e? I think there are a few, but one of the main ones, it seems to me, is in the role the GM plays in framing and adjudicating action declarations.

None of this is a criticism of 5e. After all, a lot of people like 2nd ed AD&D better than 4e! It's an observation, and in the context of this thread is meant to show a degree of sympathy for the OP's post. (Even though I don't think we are coming from exactly the same place: for me the main issue is finality, which is (3) in my post upthread; and the OP has endorsed that post, in which I conjectured that the OP's main issues were (1) and (2).)

What I think most people are asking for (and what has so far not been delivered) are concrete examples. Taking your example above, does a character have those specific powers? No. Can he accomplish the same thing with certainty within the confines of 5e (and barring exceptions, such as a monsters ability or environmental effect, which 4e also has)? Yes. He has his movement rate... an ally can use the help action to grant advantage... he can make an attack... and use extra attack to attack again. What is the practical difference (outside of the mechanical differences of the abilities/powers used in each edition) to accomplish this?

I also don't see how skill challenges vs. individual task oriented skill checks have anything to do with whether a DM can or can't rule a particular action is possible... he can decide that in either case and in either edition.

Finally... 4e has it's own murkiness and need for DM rulings... An example that stands out is... can an object be burned by a fire spell that lists creature as a target. By RAW, it should even be able to be used on an object...but you'll get a ton of replies to how silly this is if followed to the letter and that the Fire keyword allows it to burn things... but then the question becomes how much, how long, how hot, etc... which all must be ruled by DM fiat.