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

[Ancalagon]

And I would also argue that his decision to take a weapon that does less damage is exactly what makes the choice meaningful. If both sides of an equation are balanced, then the choice is merely one of aesthetics, no? In this case, the player is choosing what he feels is a powerful story element at the cost of mechanical optimization. I don't see how such a decision could be described as anything but meaningful.

Well said.

Now what the GM can do at one point is "throw the player a bone" - maybe the sword gets blessed by a powerful being and gains a magical bonus at some point. It still won't be the equivalent of a +3 greatsword, but at least it doesn't make the choice worse.

With the monk's unarmed damage increasing with time, this mechanism is already built in.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

^ If you think the decision to do this is meaningful, you should not (edited to add this critical word) ameliorate the mechanical disadvantages of the choice. That would be removing player agency, which is a terrible idea. The fact you instictively go for this tells you that the decision was bad in the first place.

But those are different types of decisions.

If both sides of an equation are balanced, then the choice is merely one of aesthetics, no?

I disagree with the implication here that choosing to play a 'wizard' or a 'fighter' (Two sides of the class equation) is purely one of asthetics, but choosing to use your fathers shortsword instead of a rapier is a deep meaningful decision.

These are all mechanical choices as well as having a RP impact. I'm personally in favour of decoupling the mechanics and the RP to a greater or lesser extent. It's actually insightful that you then say that the fighter's choice - choosing between a 'defender' archetype and a 'duelist' archetype isn't meaningful, despite the fact that it's going to shape the way the character plays.

Now, the fighter has his choice of pretty much any weapon in the game...so how about we just let this short sword do 1d12 damage rather than 1d6? Would this be something you would agree to?

Nah, shortsword is one handed weapon, letting it do 1d12 would probably not be ideal. But if you came to me with that and said that, I'd say 'sure, let's let the shortsword do 1d6+1 damage because it's your ancestral weapon, and it can count as magical past level 6 as it's so infused with your desire for revenge that you can damage magical creates with it' Bam!

Seems cool to me, and means that the first time the party fights a ghost, you can use your fathers ancestral sword, instead of reaching into the golf bag and grabbing out some magical axe you found somewhere in what has to be one of the most immersion breaking things required of fighters ever.

I'm curious... can he be disarmed? Can someone request he leave his fists at the door when entering somewhere? In other words when I increase his fists to the equivalent of a weapon... will they also have all the drawbacks of an actual weapon... or have I given him a boost which is unfair to those who have to use actual weapons to gain that damage but also suffer the drawbacks of it being an actual weapon?

If you play in the sort of game where routinely taking players equipment of them is part of the game (I rarely/never do this because it's usually not fun in practice, and is indeed warned against in atleast one published adventure), then yeah, the magical knuckledusters works fine to. Make it a magical hat of kickboxing. Who cares, just as long as he isn't gimped

 

[hawkeyefan]

[MENTION=11831]The_Furious_Puffin[/MENTION] my comment about the "choices being differnt" was more about the choice between fighting style being an in class decision and the choice to take a less damaging weapon as not being dependent on class. The monk has choices to make within the class build just like the fighter does. Not as many choices, of course, but that was the distinction I was making. Any character can pick a weapon that does less damage than another available to them.

Regarding your point about classes, I don't think those are really aesthetics because I don't think the classes are really balanced. Each offers something different, so the choice between playing a fighter or a wizard is much more significant than the choice between a morningstar or a war pick.

I would say that I would be open to the idea of the short sword in my example taking on magical qualities. I actually like the idea, and this could certainly be the reward you can give the player for making the decision to lessen his damage slightly early on. I'd only allow that over time, though, and more in order to scale with the other aspects of the game that come into play over time that would essentially increase the impact of his decision exponentially. The game scales in other ways beyond a slight decrease in weapon die damage....weapon resistance and other factors like that.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

[MENTION=11831]The_Furious_Puffin[/MENTION] my comment about the "choices being differnt" was more about the choice between fighting style being an in class decision and the choice to take a less damaging weapon as not being dependent on class. The monk has choices to make within the class build just like the fighter does. Not as many choices, of course, but that was the distinction I was making. Any character can pick a weapon that does less damage than another available to them.

So mechanical choices linked to non class features (weapon selection) is meaningful but mechanical choices linked to class features (Fighting style.. which is weapon selection for fighters) isn't meaningful? I don't see the difference, these are all mechanical choices that drive presentation of your character.

I honestly do not understand your point sorry.

The stuff about classes not being balanced is a bit of a red herring, I mean, I agree the martial classes are not as good as the magic using classes, not in the least because martial classes don't have meaningful choices in combat because spells have become the mechanic by which you interact with the world. However, they are supposed to be balanced against each other, so let's take that as given for the moment.

I would say that I would be open to the idea of the short sword in my example taking on magical qualities. I actually like the idea, and this could certainly be the reward you can give the player for making the decision to lessen his damage slightly early on. I'd only allow that over time, though, and more in order to scale with the other aspects of the game that come into play over time that would essentially increase the impact of his decision exponentially. The game scales in other ways beyond a slight decrease in weapon die damage....weapon resistance and other factors like that.

Sure, but a rapier does an average of 4.5 damage out of the box and is an eligible weapon for the fighter at 1st level, so there is absolutely no harm is making your fathers shortsword do an average of 4.5 at first level. Why not eh?

You need to make it have magical properties, because otherwise when you fight the angry ghosts of your fathers killers you cannot use your fathers weapon against them! It would be very disappointing in the climatic fight if you then had to consult your golf bag and find a magical axe or something, would detract from the symbolism.

But all of this is me with my DMing hat on removing your player agency, because your decision to be mechanically ineffective was supposedly meaningful!

It's not clear that mechanics should be linked to RP. The Dungeon world solution where a monk does X damage regardless of if he's using improved weapons and drunken boxing, or katanas in the fighting style taught to him by the mysterious ninja lords of Ninjatsu provience is a lot more elegant than the DM having to come behind and say 'hrm, your love of throwing people through tables isn't mechanically supported, so I need to make your WWE moves magical.

 

[pemerton]

I suppose some groups might require mechanical incentive to create character concepts, traits, or flaws. If so then maybe it's something to consider.

Why punish the monk for making a purely RP choice? The fighter gets to choose between two options that both do cool things.

To me, this seems to go to a pretty deep point (at least, deep from the point of view of RPG play and design).

What is the point of playing an RPG?

For some players, it is to find out what happens to their character. For these players, being mechanically less effective is not a "punishment", because they don't place any particular priority on affecting the content of the shared fiction.

For some players, the point is to impact the shared fiction via their character. For these players, mechanical effectiveness is closely linked to protagonism. That doesn't mean that we have to make open hands do the same damage as swords; instead, we might give the unarmed monk the Vow I will never use weapons, and then every combat that the character engages without using weapons earns a point of inspiration which the player can spend as s/he thinks appropriate. (In other words, there can be more than one way to skin the mechanical cat!)

This also relates back to my discussion upthread with [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] (and probably to my discussion with [MENTION=6834463]happyhermit[/MENTION] too). Different mechanical systems can be better or worse suited to these various approaches to play (and I've only mentioned two: they don't cover the field). This monk example, for instance, illustrates one relatively modest respect in which 5e is not as well suited to protagonistic play as another system in which choosing to play a monk with such a vow does not reduce the player's capacity to impact the shared fiction.

There is no way a game is going to mechanically support every concept every player can ever come up with on an completely equal mechanical basis.

I think that Maelstrom Storytelling, Over the Edge and HeroQuest revised all do a pretty good job in this respect.

I think Marvel Heroic RP comes fairly close, too.

In all these instances, the key is universal conflict-resolution mechanics based around freely chosen descriptors. (MHRP isn't as free-descriptor based as the others, which is why I say it only comes close; but if what you're trying to do is play a Marvel superhero, its constrained descriptors still do a pretty good job.)

... maybe combat is the part that needs mechanics the most?

Why?

Characters live or die based on those combat mechanics? Any conflict can devolve into a violent conflict?

Being poisoned, or turned to stone, or falling down a cliff or pit trap will all kill PCs as well; but they are generally resolved via a single check/saving throw (4e is an exception for the first two, 5e for the first).

Combat could easily be resolved as an opposed check. That's how most conflicts, including violent ones, are resolved in HeroWars/Quest, and it's one common way to resolve combat in Burning Wheel.

 

[pemerton]

Double post deleted.

 

[pemerton]

Because we all know that a game of pretend is apt to break down when combat is involved:

<snip>

Dice and mechanics are the impartial judge when the DM's judgement alone should not be trusted.

I don't see why combat is terribly special in this regard. A player describes how his/her PC climbs the slippery wall, looking carefully for foot- and finger-holds. The GM replies "Ah, but the finger hold has moss that you couldn't see because you are reaching above your head onto an occluded ledge - you plummet to your death!" The player then responds "I grap a tree branch as I rush buy it, stopping my fall" - and the GM retorts "The branch breaks!"

And of course the same thing can happen in social interactions as well - "I befriend the merchant by bringing him a flagon of wine" "Ah, the merchant is allergic to wine and only drinks beer and cider - so is unmoved by your gift!"

In other words, disputes over the content and implications of the fiction, and of how action declaration relates to that, can come up anywhere, not just in relation to combat.

And dice aren't the only solution, either. In D&D, for instance, no roll is required to draw one's sword (so no one ever drops a sword when drawing it). No roll is required to make sure a spell is properly cast (no one ever sneezes or trips over when casting a spell, or forgets what words to speak, or mucks up the hand gestures). In all these cases, a player declaring the action is enough to make it so in the fiction. (Not all RPGs are the same. Rolemaster has quickdraw rules, that involve rolling dice. Many fantasy RPGs require a roll to successfully cast a spell, often with consequences for miscasting.)

There's no in-principle reason why a fighter character couldn't have a number of "kill ponits" equal to his/her level, and when engaging a creature in melee simply declare as his/her action "I strike it dead." - expending a number of points equal to the target's CR (which, at least ostensibly, corresponds in some loose fashion to the target's combat resilience). (These slots would be almost like anti-hit points - instead of reflecting the fighter's defensive luck and intangible resilience, they would represent his/her offensive luck and intangible prowess.)

The design decision to handle combat as D&D does is just that - a decision - and not the only option that was on the table.

 

[pemerton]

Here's a better example of a RP based decision. A fighter has a short sword that belonged to his father, who was killed by a group of villains. The fighter hunts down the villains and uses the short sword to gain his revenge.

Now, the fighter has his choice of pretty much any weapon in the game...so how about we just let this short sword do 1d12 damage rather than 1d6? Would this be something you would agree to?

I don't see any player who chooses something like that as a case of them being "punished". The term implies a min/max mindset that I don't adhere to.

And I would also argue that his decision to take a weapon that does less damage is exactly what makes the choice meaningful. If both sides of an equation are balanced, then the choice is merely one of aesthetics, no?

My answer to your rhetorical question is no.

The choice to wield my father's weapon with which I will avenge him versus my father's weapon, which I stole from him and which, one day when I am strong enough, I will use to kill him is not a purely aesthetic choice. (At least, not in any narrow or downplaying sense of "aesthetics"). That choice looks like it will shape my PC's goals, and hence my approach as a player, pretty significantly; and assuming that my GM pays attention to signals from players, it should affect the whole tone and content of the campaign.

I think this is why [MENTION=11831]The_Furious_Puffin[/MENTION] is making the comparison to choice of class, or choice of class feature: these are also choices that will shape my play of my PC pretty significantly, and should also - assuming my GM is paying attention - shape the tone and content of the game.

And speaking for myself again, I don't see how it makes the game better that this player - who has chosen a shortsword rather than a longsword - is less able to impact the fiction? How does it improve the game that his/her PC is (marginally) more likely to be killed by goblins (because less able to damage them in combat) before even making it to the dramatic confrontation with his/her father's killers?

That's not to say that the short sword has to be given damage equal to the longsword - though maybe it could. Allowing a new "Vow" slot for earning inspiration - as I mentioned a few posts upthread for the monk - might be another option. (I haven't done the maths more than very approximately in my head - the inspiration option probably becomes underpowered once Extra Attack kicks in, but up to that point it looks roughly OK.)

Also, to [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION] - if we think the GM should "throw the player a bone" at some point, why should the mechanics not just handle this in the first place?

 

[Imaro]

If you play in the sort of game where routinely taking players equipment of them is part of the game (I rarely/never do this because it's usually not fun in practice, and is indeed warned against in atleast one published adventure), then yeah, the magical knuckledusters works fine to. Make it a magical hat of kickboxing. Who cares, just as long as he isn't gimped

I think you're missing my point. unarmed attacks in and of themselves have certain advantages that weapons don't... how do you account for that? It's not about how often these advantages come into play (since this will vary depending on the particular DM, playstyle, scenario, etc (it's great that you never take the PC's equipment, don't require them to leave it behind when meeting the Baron, etc... but it's also a pretty common fantasy trope)... but rather the fact that the advantage(s) exist and in a general since need a balancing factor when I've taken it upon myself to increase unarmed damage but haven't compensated the players who are weapon wielders and now find them self at a disadvantage?

The magic weapon suggestion is a separate (since they are totally under the purview of the DM) issue and one that is easily solvable so IMO is a non-issue.

EDIT: Here's another question for you... with both an increase in damage and magical enhancements (plus the fact that one can never be disarmed, can take their "weapon" into places weapons aren't allowed, etc.) Why would a monk ever choose to use anything but unarmed combat? Now we've eliminated meaningful choice (trade off of damage for greater versatility) and made one choice the obvious one.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*