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

[Sunseeker]

Clarification: the wounded rogue was not paralyzed. It was literally "switch from the wounded squishy target to the healthy armored target".

Well again, after a successful wisdom check the Ghast may have felt the health armored target was a bigger threat. Plus, tearing into wounded downed players is kinda jerkhole DMing.

 

[Imaro]

1. I think what he means is taking away agency by denying RAW. All the tools somebody like me needs to be a combat monster are in the PHB. The tools in 5E are far less than what they are in 3E or 4E, but there is more than enough to disrupt(to your standards, not mine) the table you seem to be implying. You are kind of implying that the DM has a responsibility to stop a player whose playing right out of the book.

Then I still disagree. The "tools" that I assume we are speaking of (feats, magic items, mult-class combos) are strictly optional and under the purview of the DM, so no I don't see it as removing agency if it's done before the game starts... how can I remove or take away something that you never had in the first place? Now I agree it's bad form and removing agency if I suddenly yank these things after agreeing they were in the game for players to choose... But then I would assume in my hypothetical group that the rules would have been decided on to push the playstyle that was desired.

2. How exactly does a player force a conflicting playstyle on a group? How does that player like that end up in the group in the first place? What about for non-homogenous or more casual groups?

1. Can you deny someone access to AL based on their play style?
2. A player can agree that they are down for a certain style and then build a character clearly made for another style.
3. I already gave my suggestions for how to handle a non-homogenous group... a level of compromise, mediated by the GM , if they wish to all play together in the same game.
4. IME, more casual groups don't tend to care too much about all of the game philosophy we discuss here... and rarely run into issues like this because it's just not that important to them. YMMV of course.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well again, after a successful wisdom check the Ghast may have felt the health armored target was a bigger threat. Plus, tearing into wounded downed players is kinda jerkhole DMing.

Strongly disagree. Attacking downed characters without reasonable justification is perhaps jerkholish, but that justification can be as simple as "hungry."

 

[Sunseeker]

Strongly disagree. Attacking downed characters without reasonable justification is perhaps jerkholish, but that justification can be as simple as "hungry."

Living creatures do not typically ignore threats to themselves, or their meals, just because they're hungry. Only stupid animals who don't tend to live much longer do this.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Strongly disagree. Attacking downed characters without reasonable justification is perhaps jerkholish, but that justification can be as simple as "hungry."

And as I tried to convey, it actually would have resulted in a better outcome for the players. I would have dismantled the ghast with Sentinel and Divine Smite, and then I could have healed the rogue. Instead I got paralyzed, which resulted in the non-healing rogue losing Sneak Attack bonus.

Technically it resulted in a TPK, but the DM saved us with a deus ex machina.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Then I still disagree. The "tools" that I assume we are speaking of (feats, magic items, mult-class combos) are strictly optional and under the purview of the DM, so no I don't see it as removing agency if it's done before the game starts... how can I remove or take away something that you never had in the first place? Now I agree it's bad form and removing agency if I suddenly yank these things after agreeing they were in the game for players to choose...

Leaving out the optional stuff just changes the goalposts. I'll just optimize what's left. Certain classes(Wizard, Druid, Warlock, and Monk for example) can be almost completely optimized without any of those optional things, and given those limits I would be looking at those classes more closely.

1. Can you deny someone access to AL based on their play style?
2. A player can agree that they are down for a certain style and then build a character clearly made for another style.
3. I already gave my suggestions for how to handle a non-homogenous group... a level of compromise, mediated by the GM , if they wish to all play together in the same game.
4. IME, more casual groups don't tend to care too much about all of the game philosophy we discuss here... and rarely run into issues like this because it's just not that important to them. YMMV of course.

1. I don't believe so outside of the other players ganging up on somebody, either in game or through out of game social pressure.
2. Are styles that hard coded? What about fully embracing a game's supposed style while also doing something else at the same time? I can build a combat death machine that is also a full and effective contributor in a social based campaign. System mastery can do that.
3. I think the bigger problem for non-homogenous groups is people who don't like 'X', whatever X is. Me liking to play some way doesn't necessarily mean I dislike other ways, and that goes for other people as well. As long as I get to kill stuff and the DM/game isn't arbitrary, I'm pretty easy to please. It's the people who can't stand what other people like who are the problem.
4. What about groups where half of the table is casual, or a table that is varying degrees of casual?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

1. I think what he means is taking away agency by denying RAW. All the tools somebody like me needs to be a combat monster are in the PHB. The tools in 5E are far less than what they are in 3E or 4E, but there is more than enough to disrupt(to your standards, not mine) the table you seem to be implying. You are kind of implying that the DM has a responsibility to stop a player whose playing right out of the book.

2. How exactly does a player force a conflicting playstyle on a group? How does that player like that end up in the group in the first place? What about for non-homogenous or more casual groups?

I'm fairly sure Imaro was talking about encounter design. Nothing about changing RAW or player agency during encounters. There is a habit in forums to misinterpret an argument in an extreme fashion sometimes.

The DM's responsibility is to ensure everyone at the table is having fun. There are situations where the play of one player is preventing or disrupting the fun of the others. Its up to the DM to adjust things to ensure that everyone gets their fun. Flat out changing RAW or saying "You can't do that." in response to a realistic action of one of other players however is not what was being talked about.

As I understand it, the situation Imaro was talking about is this:
Most of the group enjoy roleplaying and social encounters, one player very much prefers combat. She builds her character to be very good at combat, and because she enjoys it, will try to resolve as many encounters as possible through combat.

So: we have one player who is turning most of the nuanced social challenges into a sequence of to-hit and damage rolls. The other players do not find this fun, and would have preferred to resolve the encounter through non-combat means. However once Little-Miss-Combat-Monster has pulled steel and started killing, resolving the situation through non-combat means is unlikely. Therefore much of the game is no longer enjoyable to the remainder of the group. The only rules being broken is the implied social contract amongst a D&D group that everyone is here to have fun: no cheating or other rules being broken.

It is the DM's responsibility to change this situation so that everyone is having fun again. He can't (or shouldn't!) remove player agency by simply saying "You can't do that." when the disruptive player declares that they are drawing their weapon and attacking the merchant or guard captain or whatever. Neither should they just break rules by granting arbitrary bonuses to the captain's AC for example, in the hope that the rest of the party can bring the violent member under control before she lands a hit.

Instead. as Imaro seems to be saying, the DM needs to adjust encounters so there are less where starting a fight is a viable method of resolving them. There is almost always going to be some combat, where the butt-kicker can shine and get their . . . well, kicks. However this also allows the rest of the party the opportunity to enjoy themselves doing things that they like to as well.
Granted, the combat optimiser might prefer just a long series of combat encounters and find their fun a bit limited, but its probably the best compromise for everyone in the group.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You are kind of implying that the DM has a responsibility to stop a player whose playing right out of the book.

The 5e Empowered DM has a responsibility to do what's best for the game he's running. It might mean ruling in a way that undercuts an optimized build, or it might not. 5e design counts on that.

2. How exactly does a player force a conflicting playstyle on a group?

I don't think the concern is forcing others to actually play in a style they don't like, but merely presenting them with an alternate style at their table.
A NIMBY sorta thing - they have a group that plays the way they like, they don't mind other people in other groups playing differently, but not at their table.

How does that player like that end up in the group in the first place? What about for non-homogenous or more casual groups?

They're usually better able to cope with style differences at the table - either accepting the differences or not noticing them in the first place, respectively.

Flat out changing RAW or saying "You can't do that." in response to a realistic action of one of other players however is not what was being talked about.

Not just realistic but bold italic realistic.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Not just realistic but bold italic realistic.

The buttons are right next to each other. Also, I'd left the tab open and only finished off the post later.

I wanted to emphasise the point that player agency is limited to the actions that a player might want to take, not their success in those actions. A player who wants their character to fly up to the ceiling needs some method of flight: its not taking away player agency to say they can't do so without it. Neither are you taking away player agency by requiring a player who wants their character to kill something to make attack and damage rolls: You haven't been denied your player agency just because you rolled too low.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I wanted to emphasise the point that player agency is limited to the actions that a player might want to take, not their success in those actions. A player who wants their character to fly up to the ceiling needs some method of flight: its not taking away player agency to say they can't do so without it.

It might be an issue if flight was unavailable even though it fit the genre and character concept, I suppose.

Neither are you taking away player agency by requiring a player who wants their character to kill something to make attack and damage rolls: You haven't been denied your player agency just because you rolled too low.

Certainly. On the other hand, if the player can't have any confidence that a character ability will work as intended, he's missing out on some agency.
It can't all just be blindly stabbing in the dark.