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

[JonnyP71]

Ummm...this is the OP's point. In some versions of the game, he can pull off stunts he's seen in countless movies and novels. And he just declares it. And it's one of several maneuvers he can choose when he levels up. There's optimization to be had. In the current version of the game, he has to ask if he can try such a maneuver (or not even bother asking in your game, apparently) and there is no choice to be made leveling up, so we arrive at the crux of his problem.

My groups do attempt daft stunts during combat, and if the DM deems it plausible will rule on the spot regarding the type of skill/DC needed. We've had a Wizard swinging on the rigging of a ship bashing pirates with a frying pan, an unarmed Paladin attempting to tear eyestalks from a Beholder with his bare hands, creatures being drop-kicked through open windows, a fighter sliding down the neck of a Hydra to try to focus on its body, a Gnome dangling from the feet of a Giant Bat, letting go and turning into a Bear to try to grapple a flying Erinyes.... there are no specific 'actions' needed to do any of these, the basic 5E skill framework provided is enough when combined with plenty of imagination and a situation presenting itself in a way in which it is feasible.

For example, regarding your 'crack the shell'. I would rule that in a basic face to face melee, no - but - if a Rogue (or similarly stealthy individual) is hidden, and is able to creep close undetected, I would say yes, if you score a hit you can cut the straps of a Breastplate with a dagger. I'd also give them advantage on the attack roll because - a) it makes sense and b) it's a great idea! However the attack itself would do no damage. The key is the player has invested themselves in the game situation, thought about an action, and played it through. As a DM I don't want to simply hear 'I do this', I want to hear how you do it, make it sound cool.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am baffled at what you consider a "viable" run away option. The AD&D rules worked out quite well when actually utilized.

I remember them being fairly pointless - again, when used as directed. And very little has been done to improve upon them over the (many) years. It's often as simple as players noticing that the monsters are faster than their slowest party members, and not being willing to play out the old "don't have to outrun the lion" joke... so they don't run as a group.

Of course, it's also a playstyle thing. If you know your DM will let you escape if you choose to run, it's obviously a viable option.

The best definition of "agency" I've ever read is "the feeling of empowerment that comes from being able to take actions in the [virtual] world whose effects relate to the player’s intention."... Agency therefore requires the player to have some set of reasonable expectations about the results of his choice. ...
But using the term "agency" to refer to the mechanical complexity of the fiat actions which a player can declare is to misunderstand what the word means.

Seems spot-on, if incomplete, to me. If you have a spell or other codified action that has clear resolution mechanics, you can be fairly confident how it will play out - it might still work or fail, but you know what you're getting into, based on the mechanics. There's your 'set of reasonable expectations' right there.

That can still be undermined, of course, but it's a foundation for player agency that the game, player & DM can build upon, or not.

Agency is not really a property of a ruleset when it comes to D&D; it's more a property of your DM's adventure design and approach to fudging/etc.

It's something the ruleset can promote to varying degrees. D&D has often leaned heavily on DM fiat to resolve things - certain things more than others - and, sure, that can undermine that mechanical foundation for player agency. That shifts acquiring agency on the part of the player from leveraging the rules to leveraging the DM...

 

[ExploderWizard]

I remember them being fairly pointless - again, when used as directed. And very little has been done to improve upon them over the (many) years. It's often as simple as players noticing that the monsters are faster than their slowest party members, and not being willing to play out the old "don't have to outrun the lion" joke... so they don't run as a group.

Of course, it's also a playstyle thing. If you know your DM will let you escape if you choose to run, it's obviously a viable option.

If the table does little with the evasion rules beyond simply comparing movement rates, yeah it can suck. Of course players have to be willing to take the actions needed to bump the odds in their favor (dumping food & treasure) to give themselves a chance.

 

[Ancalagon]

If the table does little with the evasion rules beyond simply comparing movement rates, yeah it can suck. Of course players have to be willing to take the actions needed to bump the odds in their favor (dumping food & treasure) to give themselves a chance.

It works even better with some kind of magic - a fog cloud, entangle, a few summoned monsters - something to cover your retreat.

 

[Prism]

For example, regarding your 'crack the shell'. I would rule that in a basic face to face melee, no - but - if a Rogue (or similarly stealthy individual) is hidden, and is able to creep close undetected, I would say yes, if you score a hit you can cut the straps of a Breastplate with a dagger. I'd also give them advantage on the attack roll because - a) it makes sense and b) it's a great idea! However the attack itself would do no damage. The key is the player has invested themselves in the game situation, thought about an action, and played it through. As a DM I don't want to simply hear 'I do this', I want to hear how you do it, make it sound cool.

This seems to be theCasualOblivion's point though. In 5e you'd need to ask the DM to do this and face your restrictions (stealthy, hidden, with a dagger and no damage dealt). In 4e the player just tells you they are doing it. The opponent doesn't need to be wearing armour, no stealth required and the attack also does decent damage. The only restriction is once per day but you have other powers for other occasions. In 3e they don't need to do it at all as they are already optimised to hardly ever miss anyway.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It works even better with some kind of magic - a fog cloud, entangle, a few summoned monsters - something to cover your retreat.

Yep, magic's always a potential solution, whatever the problem. If you can turn the whole party invisible or teleport them or get them flying - depending on the nature of the pursuit, that can do it, too.

If the table does little with the evasion rules beyond simply comparing movement rates, yeah it can suck. Of course players have to be willing to take the actions needed to bump the odds in their favor (dumping food & treasure)

It's been a few years since I last looked (I actually had it come up at a con game) but, though they managed to be pretty verbose, they really didn't add up to a lot more than that. I'm sure it seemed perfectly reasonable when approached strictly as a dungeon-crawling/treasure-hunting game where rations were a potential limit on how long you'd be able to stay in the dungeon collecting treasure, and treasure was the point (so dropping either in a P&EoP exercise was a valid tradeoff) - but even by the time the 1e DMG hit the shelves, the game was being used for more than that, and it never really caught up.

 

[Ancalagon]

"Crack the shell"... that's almost Exalted-ish....

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Crack the shell"... that's almost Exalted-ish....

You have to be some kind of angsty godling to non-trivially damage an enemy's armor?

 

[JonnyP71]

This seems to be theCasualOblivion's point though. In 5e you'd need to ask the DM to do this and face your restrictions (stealthy, hidden, with a dagger and no damage dealt). In 4e the player just tells you they are doing it. The opponent doesn't need to be wearing armour, no stealth required and the attack also does decent damage. The only restriction is once per day but you have other powers for other occasions.

The overall outcome is much the same though - one way is for it achieved by means of some arbitrarily limited 'daily' power which makes little narrative sense, the other is achieved through thought, awareness of surroundings and ingenuity.

Players can still achieve what they want to achieve, and for me the 2nd way is infinitely more satisfying.

 

[Prism]

The overall outcome is much the same though - one way is for it achieved by means of some arbitrarily limited 'daily' power which makes little narrative sense, the other is achieved through thought, awareness of surroundings and ingenuity.

Players can still achieve what they want to achieve, and for me the 2nd way is infinitely more satisfying.

I agree with you, but I also appreciate that many players prefer the direct control of the first option. There is one player in our group who certainly misses playing his 4e wizard controller in many ways, though he still likes the classic feel of 5e