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

[hawkeyefan]

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.

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!

No, I never said that choices between class options were meaningless. All I said was a player's choice of a weapon that does less damage due to story related reasons was meaningful. Doesn't change anything about other choices.

My point is that the small dip in damage that you describe as making a character "ineffective" is not that severe. I don't see it as making the character less effective or about punishing the character. It's their choice and I understand why they did it.

And with 5E, he can still use the weapon against those ghosts. They would just ignore half the damage. Perhaps by that point in the game, there could be story reasons to alter the mechanics, but it depends on how that specific game scales.

Regarding the classes, they idea is that they're balanced in the sense that each can be effective in the game, yes. But each class serves a different purpose, and depending on what you want to do in the game, different classes will be better choices. This will certainly vary by player and by what they want to do in the game. So if I have an idea of playing a character who is a grizzled soldier who wields a claymore, certain classes are better choices.

Ultimately, I think I just have a different view that a minor dip in damage output at character creation isn't severe enough to need correction.

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?

I think most choices are meaningful, as they do shape the game as you say. I don't disagree with Puffin about in class choices. They are meaningful as well. I just think that purely RP based choices can be meaningful as well.

I suppose that I think more than the math will impact the story? The fighter with the father's sword has given me material to draw from for story and adventure creation, so he's impacted the story more than a fighter who just chooses all his options based on game mechanics.

As for why he may need to be "thrown a bone", I don't know if it will be necessary, but that would vary depending on the specific game and how they handle certain scaling elements like magic items and the like.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

The dwarf champion fighter in our current OotA campaign was stricken with madness resulting in him believing he was his ally, the human (dex-based) paladin. The condition is so strong that the dwarf has taken on, and answers to, the paladin's name. He goes out of his way to emulate him in every way, including shaving his beard! He even ditched his chainmail and greataxe for some studded leather and a shortsword, because that's what the paladin uses.

True story.

Just sayin'.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Two observations:

A) I'm not sure that stripped of context "Do less damage with restriction to one damage type vs do more damage with a choice of damage types" is a meaningful choice to anyone. Conversely 'help allies defenses allies or deal more damage myself' has a significant impact on characterization and is a significant decision. .

There's your issue. Context is important. The monk has other choices/effects that the fighter does not, and vice versa. If all you're doing is looking at damage choice A vs damage choice B and stripping out all the other context, then your analysis is flawed from the get go. As we say in the testing world, "garbage in, garbage out." Meaning, if you start with bad data, your result will always be bad.

 

[Imaro]

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!)

So what if my barbarian character has the "vow"... "Big Weapons!!"? Does he in turn get inspiration whenever he uses a big weapon? If not, why not? If so... then we are right back where we started from. This touches slightly on why I don't agree that games like MHRP, HeroQuest and OtE are all that great at mechanically representing

This also relates back to my discussion upthread with @Elfcrusher (and probably to my discussion with @happyhermit 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.

I disagree... you are looking at one way which the Monk class has to enhance "protagonistic play" and judging the game system in a single isolated comparison. It would be like claiming that 5e somehow diminishes protagonistic play for fighters because they don't get the mionk's movement abilities... If anything the game has to be looked at holistically before drawing the type of conclusion you have above.

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.)

I disagree here... what systems like the ones you have listed above do, at least IMO, is push the heavy lifting off on the GM and/or the group as a whole. Instead of telling us what the mechanical difference is between a greatsword and a shortsword they create a situation where there isn't any mechanically and then leave the fictional differences to be sorted out by the individual gaming group. Some may prefer this approach but ultimately I've come to realize that for me and my group it provides no mechanical "umph" or weight to choices... forces us to balance the game ourselves, in respect to broad vs. more specific descriptors (Master of bladed weapons vs. Warhammer Savant) and what they can or can't accomplish (Son of Krypton born in the Phantom Zone vs. Plastic Man). So no I don't agree that the systems themselves are particularly good at representing a wide variety of character types mechanically because the games like HeroQuest, Fate, etc essentially eliminate there being an actual choice with weight.

 

[Manbearcat]

So no I don't agree that the systems themselves are particularly good at representing a wide variety of character types mechanically because the games like HeroQuest, Fate, etc essentially eliminate there being an actual choice with weight.

Well they don't eliminate choice, they just change the types and nature of choices in play (with respect to weapons and what the game is about in general).

For instance. A game like Dogs in the Vineyard will generally have guns with higher damage dice than knives. However, those guns will also have a 1d4 attached to their deployment. So two things are happening here:

1) That d4 has a good chance of earning you Fallout (injury but xp later) and complicating your life.

2) Deploying that gun means that you're escalating the stakes either from words, fists, or knives to something that guarantees a lethal resolution to the conflict. So you're putting a line in the sand as to what you're willing to die for. What you're willing to kill for. That is extremely important in that game.

In a game like Dungeon World, damage comes from class rather than weapon. However, there are tactical implications to any weapon that you wield or are considering wielding. That comes in the way of tags. If you don't have the right tag for your weapon, then you're going to be at a disadvantage depending on your adversary's strengths and the present context of the melee. That halberd (Reach) isn't doing you much good when you're on your back hand-fighting with a dire wolf. That katar (Hand) isn't doing you much good when you're facing a pikemen's hedge.

In a Cortex+ scenario, weapon damage is inherent to your skill/power rating (subject to step-ups or step-downs). You're a Fighter? The Weapon component of your dice pool is going to be d10. You could be wielding a sidearm or a polearm. But are you Defending an ally? Are you in position to make yourself vulnerable by shutting down your Gear (say, your weapon has been disarmed) for a (perhaps needed) Plot Point? Can you change the situation (and do you have the PP) to bring one of your Distinctions or Values in play? Is the situation set up where you can bring one of your build elements to bear to Stunt or create an Asset for your allies because you're a Tactical Genius? How much has the situation escalated and what hangs on this moment (mechanically this is represented by the Doom Pool but the GM will change the situation to reflect ominous portents; either looming or immediate)?

So different approaches to system are going to bring different sorts of mental overhead for players. Part of this overhead will be tactical or strategic, it will just be on a different axis (or axes).

Sides note: D&D's approach (go with weapon and spec hard into it) has a tendency to contract the variance of weapons deployed on a per character basis. This limits the impact on play of the Fighter's unique access to Weapon Proficiencies (both in how the fiction emerges and in the value of Weapon Proficiencies: All).

 

[Imaro]

Well they don't eliminate choice, they just change the types and nature of choices in play (with respect to weapons and what the game is about in general).

Well to be fair you haven't actually addressed any of the games that were listed previously... and the ones you are talking about... I am unfamiliar with.

For instance. A game like Dogs in the Vineyard will generally have guns with higher damage dice than knives. However, those guns will also have a 1d4 attached to their deployment. So two things are happening here:

1) That d4 has a good chance of earning you Fallout (injury but xp later) and complicating your life.

2) Deploying that gun means that you're escalating the stakes either from words, fists, or knives to something that guarantees a lethal resolution to the conflict. So you're putting a line in the sand as to what you're willing to die for. What you're willing to kill for. That is extremely important in that game.

1. If the gun is the only way to initiate a lethal resolution... is it really a choice or is it just a characteristic of guns?

2. I would assume deploying a weapon period would mean there is a chance that an encounter ends with a lethal resolution to the conflict... but are you saying that knives in this game can't kill, but guns can? If so... why?

In a game like Dungeon World, damage comes from class rather than weapon. However, there are tactical implications to any weapon that you wield or are considering wielding. That comes in the way of tags. If you don't have the right tag for your weapon, then you're going to be at a disadvantage depending on your adversary's strengths and the present context of the melee. That halberd (Reach) isn't doing you much good when you're on your back hand-fighting with a dire wolf. That katar (Hand) isn't doing you much good when you're facing a pikemen's hedge.

This doesn't seem like free-form descriptor to me, which is what the discussion was about... in fact it seems pretty close to D&D, especially since there are older editions where damage was based around class... and newer editions have properties on weapons.

In a Cortex+ scenario, weapon damage is inherent to your skill/power rating (subject to step-ups or step-downs). You're a Fighter? The Weapon component of your dice pool is going to be d10. You could be wielding a sidearm or a polearm. But are you Defending an ally? Are you in position to make yourself vulnerable by shutting down your Gear (say, your weapon has been disarmed) for a (perhaps needed) Plot Point? Can you change the situation (and do you have the PP) to bring one of your Distinctions or Values in play? Is the situation set up where you can bring one of your build elements to bear to Stunt or create an Asset for your allies because you're a Tactical Genius? How much has the situation escalated and what hangs on this moment (mechanically this is represented by the Doom Pool but the GM will change the situation to reflect ominous portents; either looming or immediate)?

So the choice of weapon doesn't mechanically in and of itself change anything or do anything mechanically... right? Are there rules for the questions you are asking above or is it adjudication by the GM and/or player group? In other words how is it decided whether tactical genius can be brought to bear?

So different approaches to system are going to bring different sorts of mental overhead for players. Part of this overhead will be tactical or strategic, it will just be on a different axis (or axes).

Yes but these eliminate the choice of weapon as a factor that was my first point... and I'm assuming (but waiting for a confirmation or negation from you) push the overhead of determining effectiveness or applicability onto the GM and or players... is this correct? If so I don't see how this does anything but support what I stated earlier.

Sides note: D&D's approach (go with weapon and spec hard into it) has a tendency to contract the variance of weapons deployed on a per character basis. This limits the impact on play of the Fighter's unique access to Weapon Proficiencies (both in how the fiction emerges and in the value of Weapon Proficiencies: All).

I disagree (at least in 5e)... there are broad fighting styles, damage differences, feats, restrictions based on classes, properties, style considerations, magic treasures found, situational aspects and so on that, at least IME, don't make this true... unless of course the DM purposefully feeds into this hard specialization... caters to it with treasure placement, encounter makeup and so on.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Being poisoned, or turned to stone, or falling down a cliff or pit trap will all kill PCs as well.

And those all use mechanics pulled from the combat system, like saving throws and damage, added to the more desultory sub-systems (if any) for resolving whether you notice a trap or fall off a cliff without being pushed.

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.

True, but in combat it will generally be immediate life-or-death. Other things might be important and potentially life-or-death, like a delicate negotiation, but those things can often devolve into combat to get to the life-or-death point, anyway. Plus, combat is pretty complex and necessarily abstract, while a negotiation is all too easy to 'just RP it.'

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.

Certainly. And there were reasons for that decision, like the complexity and stakes of combat, the potential for other sorts of conflicts to devolve into violence, and the whole-party-involvement typical of combat in an RPG.

Sides note: D&D's approach (go with weapon and spec hard into it) has a tendency to contract the variance of weapons deployed on a per character basis. This limits the impact on play of the Fighter's unique access to Weapon Proficiencies (both in how the fiction emerges and in the value of Weapon Proficiencies: All).

Sorry to focus on the side-note, but that is a good point. Not only does D&D edge fighters towards specializing in a weapon or type of weapon, but gaining a magical weapon will bring it right to the top of your preferred list, it'll become your hammer in search of nails. The concept of a pragmatic generalist fighter who takes a 'right tool for the job' approach to weapons is pretty reasonable, and could be fun to play, but weapons either aren't differentiated enough, or are differentiated in ways that eliminates most from consideration as strictly, or just generally, inferior.

 

[Imaro]

Sorry to focus on the side-note, but that is a good point. Not only does D&D edge fighters towards specializing in a weapon or type of weapon, but gaining a magical weapon will bring it right to the top of your preferred list, it'll become your hammer in search of nails. The concept of a pragmatic generalist fighter who takes a 'right tool for the job' approach to weapons is pretty reasonable, and could be fun to play, but weapons either aren't differentiated enough, or are differentiated in ways that eliminates most from consideration as strictly, or just generally, inferior.

I disagree that it is the game that pushes towards this... in fact I would argue that the game actually gives us the tools and advice to push more towards a generalist fighter (with the possible exception of 4e and maybe 3e)... but it is willfully ignoring the game advice and subverting the tools that leads to the specialist fighter. This is why I have a problem with a player who specializes to the point that he is not just adequate but bad in a particular type of weapon, say ranged, but then complains about it as a weakness. That's a choice and nothing inherent in the game pushes you to that choice.

Things I see in D&D that push towards a generalist fighter are...

1. Monster design where some weapons are more effective against certain types of creatures. ie. skeleton & bludgeoning weapons
2. Flying monsters that necessitate either magic to counter their mobility or ranged weapons as opposed to melee.
3. Random or DM generated magic items/specialized weapons (Silevered, adamantine, etc.) where a player is not guaranteed he will get a particular weapon.
4. In older editions I believe there were weapons vs. armor type rules
5. a range of feats around various types of weapons

There are probably more but those are the ones off the top of my head that I can think of. Can you in turn cite what rules or advice you believe pushes the player of a fighter towards a narrow specialization?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I disagree that it is the game that pushes towards this... in fact I would argue that the game actually gives us the tools and advice to push more towards a generalist fighter (with the possible exception of 4e and maybe 3e)... but it is willfully ignoring the game advice and subverting the tools that leads to the specialist fighter. This is why I have a problem with a player who specializes to the point that he is not just adequate but bad in a particular type of weapon, say ranged, but then complains about it as a weakness. That's a choice and nothing inherent in the game pushes you to that choice.

Things I see in D&D that push towards a generalist fighter are...

1. Monster design where some weapons are more effective against certain types of creatures. ie. skeleton & bludgeoning weapons
2. Flying monsters that necessitate either magic to counter their mobility or ranged weapons as opposed to melee.
3. Random or DM generated magic items/specialized weapons (Silevered, adamantine, etc.) where a player is not guaranteed he will get a particular weapon.
4. In older editions I believe there were weapons vs. armor type rules
5. a range of feats around various types of weapons

There are probably more but those are the ones off the top of my head that I can think of. Can you in turn cite what rules or advice you believe pushes the player of a fighter towards a narrow specialization?

In 3/4e that's easy -- the weapon focus/specialization features that meant that you were significantly better with your narrow specialization than with other weapons. The rocket tag of 3e meant that not specializing was a poor choice (although you could do it), but that was an emergent play effect rather than something coded into the rules. IE, the rules encouraged it, but if everyone at a table agreed to not play rocket tag, it wasn't required. In 4e, the math actually assumed that you took the focus route, so the system itself punished choosing to generalize.

All that said, I don't think that 5e does nearly as much to push specialization. Yes, fighting style does do some of it (I'm looking at you archery style) and feats can push it further, but the effect is milder than in previous editions. And, outside of archery style, the effects of fighting style really just push into heavy or one handed weapons, and those are nice, broad categories that makes narrative sense for there to be a difference in skill. Feats are the big ones, but even those (outside of missile weapons) just reinforce the reasonable differences of one handed vs heavy weapons.

Of course, all of that breaks in 5e when it comes to missile weapons. They made missile weapons too good. That was unintentional, I think, and really a factor of giving missile weapons the most useful fight style bonus (+10% to hit, yes and thank you) and the most useful feats (no cover, no long range disad, -5/+10, or almost the same but I can shoot in melee without disad for crossbows?) on top of the tactical superiority of killing things from outside of their reach. Missile weapons need a bit of nerfing to not be an obvious best choice to focus on.

 

[Tony Vargas]

the weapon focus/specialization features that meant that you were significantly better with your narrow specialization than with other weapons.

And fighter weapon-specialization went back to 1e UA. It was huge, a bonus to hit and damage equal to having an 18 STR (before percentiles, mind), on top of your actual STR bonus, and you gained extra attacks faster (3/2) at 1st level (but it multiplied RoF, so you could loose 3 arrows a round for instance), and double-specialization upped the bonus to +3 to hit & damage. A few 1e weapons had cute tricks associated with them, and there were the little-used Weapon-vs-Armor adjustments, but Specialization eclipsed those considerations pretty thoroughly.
Specialization was a critical part of the optimal fighter in 2e and, to a lesser extent (because the bonus was lower, you waited longer to qualify for it, and it didn't add full-BAB attacks the way it did in 2e) in 3e. 4e & 5e finally dropped weapon specialization, but 4e had Weapon Talent and 5e Styles, which both applied to how you used a weapon - one-handed, two-handed, dual wielding, etc - instead of to a specific weapon. Still a specialty, but a broader one.

Then there's magic weapons. In any edition of D&D, if you have a magic weapon, you use that weapon if you possibly can. In 1e UA, when you chose your specialization at 1st level or not at all, you were prettymuch screwed if you ended up finding only other sorts of magical weapons. In classic D&D and 5e, where magic weapons are rare, DM-distributed, and make you 'just better,' getting one can be character-defining. In 3e & 4e, you could make/buy magic weapons and have an assortment if you really wanted to, though they'd be weaker than going all in on one awesome weapon, and in 4e if your DM was using inherent bonuses you'd generally do just as well with a normal weapon.

Then there were oddball exceptions. There was a 4e 'Weaponmaster' build in Dragon that actually was built around using a variety of weapons. The classic Rod of Lordly Might side-stepped the magic-weapon-crowd-out phenomenon by giving you a magic weapon that could transform into several different weapons, as did the technically 'common,' but much less cool Dynamic Weapon in 4e. In 3e you could willfully build a fighter to be good with a range of weapons and the feats/maneuvers they were best with, you just sacrificed some effectiveness to do it. &c. Magic weapons (or special materials) in classic D&D could be needed to damage an enemy, at all, or in 3e-5e to get past its resistance, or 4e counter resistance, regeneration or some other trait. That factor probably peaked in 3e, with weapon types, magic weapons, and materials all in abundance - but, if you were specialized in a weapon, it didn't stop you from having a magical silvered version, an adamantine version, a cold-iron version, and undead-bane version, etc.

All that said, I don't think that 5e does nearly as much to push specialization. Yes, fighting style does do some of it (I'm looking at you archery style) and feats can push it further, but the effect is milder than in previous editions.

As long as you don't get a magic weapon (or do, amazingly, get a selection of them). You'll still be specialized in a 'style,' but you can afford to use a mace instead of a longsword when bludgeoning damage is called for or the like. There's really not a lot more than damage type to choose from among weapons within a combat style, though, so there's also less incentive to generalize in 5e, while in 3e, for instance, weapons had more granularity.