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

[thecasualoblivion]

Okay, then! So since you're looking for solutions rather than just wanting an ain't-it-awful discussion, here's where I see the rundown:
- Not playing seems to not be an option for you.
- Changing the game is not an option; you're in organized play and constrained by AL rules. Within those constraints, there's no hack to 5e that's going to give you the experience you wish you could be having.
- Changing the other players is not an option; they're going to play in the way that's fun for them, even if some of them do take your lead in making slightly more optimized choices.

That leaves you with two options:
1) Accept not having as good a time as you would under a different ruleset; or
2) Change yourself so you can find a way to have fun in the game as it's designed.

And that's it! That's the crossroads where you stand. You can go and shout at the tide that 5e doesn't validate your chosen style all day and night, and maybe that will make you feel a little better. But it won't change that those are the choices before you.

So, given that - what are you willing to do?

I've never had to change how I play, and am not inclined to start. I also think the the game is designed against me or in conflict with me. It's more of a letdown situation. D&D is still a fighting game, especially organized play, 5E is just a somewhat less interesting fighting game.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

There is also the third option:
3) Find a group that isn't Organized Play

It doesn't sound like AL is fulfilling his needs, so moving elsewhere (perhaps online to Roll20) seems like a better option.
Or establishing his own group and DMing for them. He's met people in AL, so he can start by inviting them or turning to the Gamers Seeking Gamers forum here.

For home games I'll play something else. My situation, as I described it in the OP, is that I was attending AL whether I was playing or not, and after a couple weeks concluded that there wasn't consistently enough other things to do at the FLGS to justify not joining the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not really. I've built test characters of just about every class and that pretty much described all of them, though some tended to focus more on control than damage for offense like the Wizard. I'm not really impressed with the mechanics for tank-style characters or healer/support in 5E, and I don't play characters who focus on non-combat activities at the expense of combat in any role playing system.

Okay. My concern would be if you don't change your approach to the system, then nothing is likely to change.

Is it possible that some of these classes might interest you more in actual play rather than just theory crafting? Of the characters you've designed, how many have you actually played?

I personally have found the monk to be a lot of fun, with a good variety of options in combat, high mobility, and solid damage output. It was a class I was not expecting to like but after playing it, I found it to be one of the most fun.

What about a paladin? High damage and strong defense, and a good deal of utility, too. They may be prone to going nova, but even after that, they are still viable.

 

[Jester David]

For home games I'll play something else. My situation, as I described it in the OP, is that I was attending AL whether I was playing or not, and after a couple weeks concluded that there wasn't consistently enough other things to do at the FLGS to justify not joining the game.

...
I'm not sure what the problem is then.
You tried 5e, you didn't like it, you have games you do like, go play those. As dilemmas go that's a non-event. Continually posting about your dislike is unhealthy behavior, dwelling on the negative.

Okay, it sucks that the current flavour of D&D is not compatible with you out of the box. Sorry. Thankfully, there is a balanced and fun flavour of D&D you do like still available and on the market.

 

[ProgBard]

I've never had to change how I play, and am not inclined to start. I also think the the game is designed against me or in conflict with me. It's more of a letdown situation. D&D is still a fighting game, especially organized play, 5E is just a somewhat less interesting fighting game.

Ah, okay. Which suggests to me that mostly this IS intended to be an ain't-it-awful discussion. Which is perfectly fine! Feeling let down by something you want to like is frustrating, and venting about it might help - if that leads you to option 1 in a way that doesn't bring down the fun of your fellow players.

My only objection is that it feels a little... disingenuous, maybe? to say that you want to discuss "solutions," because I don't think there are any on the table for you. You don't want to not play; you don't want to change your approach; you don't want to try a different type of character. In some ways it seems like you want to keep doing what you're doing but get different results. It seems pretty clear that that's not going to work on any level. I think you should feel free to vent about that all you like, but maybe being clear about your goals might prevent another fifty or hundred pages in this thread from going around and around to no good end.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Okay. My concern would be if you don't change your approach to the system, then nothing is likely to change.

Is it possible that some of these classes might interest you more in actual play rather than just theory crafting? Of the characters you've designed, how many have you actually played?

I personally have found the monk to be a lot of fun, with a good variety of options in combat, high mobility, and solid damage output. It was a class I was not expecting to like but after playing it, I found it to be one of the most fun.

What about a paladin? High damage and strong defense, and a good deal of utility, too. They may be prone to going nova, but even after that, they are still viable.

I wouldn't say there are characters I'm more interested in so much as there are characters I'm less interested in. I made a Moon Druid and I have a strong feeling I wouldn't enjoy playing it. I built a crossbow Fighter, but while I'm fairly certain it's the most damaging character I've built it seems like it would be really boring to play for 10 levels. I'm a little hesitant about my control Wizard as on paper the character starts out a little slow over the first few levels.

 

[Imaro]

I wouldn't say there are characters I'm more interested in so much as there are characters I'm less interested in. I made a Moon Druid and I have a strong feeling I wouldn't enjoy playing it. I built a crossbow Fighter, but while I'm fairly certain it's the most damaging character I've built it seems like it would be really boring to play for 10 levels. I'm a little hesitant about my control Wizard as on paper the character starts out a little slow over the first few levels.

Okay quick question... have you played any of the characters you are claiming not to like... or is this all guessing on your end? Actually I'm curious, have you played 5e and if so up to what level?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Okay quick question... have you played any of the characters you are claiming not to like... or is this all guessing on your end? Actually I'm curious, have you played 5e and if so up to what level?

It's mostly guessing.

I played the final session last Wednesday with the group I'm joining, playing a glass cannon Barbarian. As that campaign is now over, I've made some changes to that Barbarian. I helped my ex-wife's son build a Rogue for that game, and I sat in and taught him how to play for a few sessions without playing a character myself. I participated in the playtest, extensively for the first half and then irregularly after I lost faith halfway through. I played 4-5 organized events about a year ago, most of them playing a Storm Cleric, though I also played something else but I don't remember what that was.

I am also often at the FLGS on game nights for other reasons, and have sat in and observed many sessions without playing. I've also been lurking on forums reading threads on 5E play out of curious it's.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I built a crossbow Fighter, but while I'm fairly certain it's the most damaging character I've built it seems like it would be really boring to play for 10 levels.

Maybe I'm misjudging your previous posts, but it seems DPR is *the thing* you find fun. Elaborate on how the most DPR focused character you've managed to come up with would be boring for 10 levels. I'm genuinely curious what has lead you to believe that.

 

[JonnyP71]

I've never had to change how I play, and am not inclined to start. I also think the the game is designed against me or in conflict with me. It's more of a letdown situation. D&D is still a fighting game, especially organized play, 5E is just a somewhat less interesting fighting game.

If I was the DM of that AL I'd rather you didn't play if you were not willing to adapt, or if there is any risk of you expressing your disdain for the system while playing. If you do you risk spoiling the game for the others present.

Sorry, but from the general tone of your posts here, I think it's for the best that you park yourself in the corner of the store and grumble into a coffee for a couple of hours.