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

[Manbearcat]

Both the DM and the players need some latitude for the game to work. This edition swings the pendulum back toward the DM a bit. Obviously, whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion.

Why is player latitude to be valued so highly, but GM latitude is so frightening?

Missed this bit earlier. And this seems like a great opportunity for COMMUNICATION FAIL BECAUSE ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY! But first...

GM latitude isn't frightening. Just so you understand my perspective (if it hasn't been clear), I exclusively GM. Simply put, at this point in my GMing tenure, I'm entirely of the position that offloading unwanted overhead onto system (if it cannot be removed entirely...which it often can) and players is extremely desirable. It (a) keeps me fresh and focused on the key areas where my mental acuity and skill need to be at their best and has consistently shown the lovely knock-on effects of (b) assisting in transparency (therefore trust and/or removal of player insecurity), (c) facilitating maximal player agency, (d) which in turn facilitates player buy-in and engagement in setting, situation, and the emergent story.

These things pretty much universally coincide with my latitude being constrained and the machinery of play procedures being transparent.

That being said, I can still run a wicked game of CoC where I have basically complete latitude and the players have, effectively, minimal to 0 agency over the big-ticket outcomes. I'll do that as a one-shot now and again, no problem (and enjoy myself). Or I can run a wicked, creepy, logistics-intensive dungeon crawl using RC or Torchbearer (which requires a little bit more overhead).

One other thing before "crappy analogy that people will inevitably complain about its relevance and application even though I'm utterly right and they're wrong...because me." Lets make sure we're on the same page.

The first GM has less latitude and less overhead than the second GM by default:

1) System explicitly advocates:

Play By the Rules (where rules are straight-forward, transparent, and with no real unforeseeable second order interactions where rules intersect)

2) System advocates:

Abide by, change, or ignore the rules at your discretion (where the rules are written in an open-ended fashion which require interpretation, by design, and with enough complexity in rules intersections that some wobbly second order interactions are to be expected).

Yes? Hope so.

Ok...what we've all been waiting for...

ITS CRAPPY ANALOGY TIME!

Do you watch American Football? Again, hope so.

So over the last few years, there have been maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany rules changes to (allegedly) protect players (but certainly not to protect the NFL shield from further liability). I'm going to focus on one.

Hit on a defenseless receiver:

A receiver who is clearly tracking the football and is in a defenseless posturewill receive defenseless player protections. It will be a foul to hit this player forcibly in the head or neck area, or use the crown or hairline parts of the helmet. Violations result in a 15-yard penalty that will be enforced after the change of possession.

Note what I have bolded and underlined. This is extraordinary subjective rules language which requires split-second interpretation of multiple (squishy) vectors in an event unfolding and people moving at extraordinary speeds. It should come as no surprise that a very uncomfortable percentage of these calls are dubious or flat-out wrong. And a 15 yard penalty and retention of the ball on a play that should yield 4th and 19 (and a post-punt change of possession), or possibly a turnover (and immediate change of possession and field position), is utterly game changing for American Football. Utterly. Not just tangibly. But the intangible effect to momentum and the extreme hit to morale for the team afflicted by the insidious nature of this rule.

This rule has DRAMATICALLY impacted (a) referee overhead, (b) referee latitude, (c) player agency on the field (not just in their physical play but in their mental makeup; eg demoralized and/or insecure), (d) players pocketbooks (fines and suspensions w/out pay). All of this has affected (e) play outcomes (affecting gambling, games, and seasons) which in turn affects (f) personnel (including coaches) agency off the field (retention/loss of jobs and upward mobility, especially impacting the limited earning potential window for players).

---

That is a long post with lots of stuff. I'll stop now and let you, or anyone else, comment on my crappy analogy that will in no way move the needle of conversation positively.

 

[Shasarak]

The Warlord was not a striker.

He was if there was a Barbarian in the party.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

3.5 opened up more tactical options than power attacks, but, yes a large part of the complexity of the fighter was in planning the build. In 3.5, it was better to start a new player who wanted a 'simple' character with a Barbarian, for instance. Complexity was more tightly correlated with Role than with Source. All classes got about the same number of powers, so faced comparable numbers of choices, even if they were very different choices that worked differently with their class features. But, the Striker role was inherently simpler, Leader & Controller more complex. And, Controller role-support was mostly in their powers (while classes of other roles tended to have their role-support in the form of class features), making controller powers more complex/powerful. The quintessential arcane spellcaster, the Wizard, was controller, the poster boy for martial has always been the Fighter, and was 'merely' a Defender in 4e. Compare fighter powers to wizard powers, and, yes, the latter will be more complex.

Fair enough. What were the magical equivalents of the Fighter? 4e seems to have had a lot more base classes than 5e, with the whole "Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader" distinctions much more separate than 5e.
What would a 5e Battlemaster count as? Striker? Defender? Controller? Dependent upon build and maneuver choice? A mix of several?

So does the Champion. Like the Champion, the Battlemaster isn't just capable of holding it's own, it's a high-DPR character, the equivalent of a Striker in 4e. The Warlord was not a striker. You're talking about 4 maneuvers vs 334. So, no, it's a varied selection, but it's not a lot of the Warlord's schtick. If the wizard only ever got 4 spells: Sleep, Burning Hands, Shield, and Unseen Servant, it'd be a fair cross section of things the wizard could traditionally, do - offensive, control, utility and defensive spells - but it wouldn't be "a lot," just a sampling.

How many maneuvers would you regard acceptable for a 5e implementation of Warlord? What capabilities are missing?

Are there other 5e classes that suffered a reduction in maneuvers/spells/abilities compared to their closest equivalents in 4e? Or has there been enough change or blurring of Roles that "closest equivalent" isn't really valid.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Fair enough. What were the magical equivalents of the Fighter?

Depends on how 'magical' - the arcane equivalent was, tenuously, the Swordmage, which was was a little odd. In the PH1, the other Defender was the Paladin.

But, I'm actually starting to come around a little. While the level of complexity across all classes wasn't that wildly varied in 4e - nothing like the gulf between a traditional fighter and wizard, for instance, there was less versatility, a somewhat narrower range of effects, in the martial source even when comparing to the same role in other sources. It wasn't a noticeable, one, but if you compare number of comparatively complex powers or range of what powers could do, rather than just most complex power or build vs most complex power or build, on balance, martial was coming up short then, too. Just not by much.

What would a 5e Battlemaster count as? Striker?

Striker. Same as the Champion, Berserker, Assassin, & Thief.

How many maneuvers would you regard acceptable for a 5e implementation of Warlord?

BM Maneuvers are a very limited design space, adding more of them wouldn't solve much. It'd be like asking how many more cantrips would a wizard need to make up for getting no spells.
More powerful, level-gated maneuvers designed to work with a class that wasn't DPR-focused could work, though, in a theoretical way.

Are there other 5e classes that suffered a reduction in maneuvers/spells/abilities compared to their closest equivalents in 4e?

Yes. Really, all classes have a reduced number of choices compared to 4e powers, because there were just so many of them - hundreds per class for the supported ones and the classes 5e went with were all fairly well-developed. But, in 5e, still got an increase in the number of class features and the breadth and scope of limited-use abilities and the flexibility and number of times they could use them. The non-magic-using Fighter, Barbarian, and Rogue sub-classes suffered the greatest decrease. The Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, & Wizard enjoyed the greatest increases.

Or has there been enough change or blurring of Roles that "closest equivalent" isn't really valid.

All the 5e classes were present in 4e, so there's a direct correlation, there. Roles are still there, too, of course, as they always have been, just without a formal definition and with less of an eye to balance and interoperability, and more to tradition and concept.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Depends on how 'magical' - the arcane equivalent was, tenuously, the Swordmage, which was was a little odd. In the PH1, the other Defender was the Paladin.

But, I'm actually starting to come around a little. While the level of complexity across all classes wasn't that wildly varied in 4e - nothing like the gulf between a traditional fighter and wizard, for instance, there was less versatility, a somewhat narrower range of effects, in the martial source even when comparing to the same role in other sources. It wasn't a noticeable, one, but if you compare number of comparatively complex powers or range of what powers could do, rather than just most complex power or build vs most complex power or build, on balance, martial was coming up short then, too. Just not by much.

Martial powers in 4E were less versatile and of limited effect compared to non-martial powers, but this was balanced by an increase in brute force. Little in 4E could really compare to martial classes in 4E when it came to brute force.

It bears pointing out that the consensus most powerful class in each role for 4E were Fighter, Ranger, Warlord, and Wizard. Three of those are martial.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Martial powers in 4E were less versatile and of limited effect compared to non-martial powers, but this was balanced by an increase in brute force. Little in 4E could really compare to martial classes in 4E when it came to brute force.

I suppose that's fair to say, though, apart from the issue of versatility, I think those were all by pretty narrow margins.

It bears pointing out that the consensus most powerful class in each role for 4E were Fighter, Ranger, Warlord, and Wizard. Three of those are martial.

Though only the Ranger's role was about brute force.

Also, it wasn't a very strong consensus nor by a great margin, IIRC. There were some downright badly-supported and thus inadequate (sub-)classes of some roles (Vampire, Binder, Seeker, etc), but most classes of a given role did it quite well, even if more of the premier optimized builds for that role were of a different class.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

BM Maneuvers are a very limited design space, adding more of them wouldn't solve much. It'd be like asking how many more cantrips would a wizard to make up for getting no spells. More powerful level-gated maneuvers designed to work with a class that wasn't DPR-focused could work, though, in a theoretical way. I'd say less than an order of magnitude more than the BM has.

Fair enough. I wasn't sure whether it was a case of "needs a couple more maneuvers to represent things they should be able to do but aren't covered already, and to be able to use some every round" to "full spell list at least as large and complex as the other casters' with limited slots/day".

All the 5e classes were present in 4e, so there's a direct correlation, there. Roles are still there, too, of course, as they always have been, just without a formal definition and with less of an eye to balance and interoperability, and more to tradition and concept.

OK. It does seems that you could build a 5e class to do a role other than its equivalent assigned role in 4e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

OK. It does seems that you could build a 5e class to do a role other than its equivalent role in 4e.

Of course. (You could even do that in 4e, to an extent - build a Fighter to be an adequate Striker, or a Cleric a Controller, for instance - classes had 'secondary roles,' and role support wasn't outright niche protected.) In 5e, sure, though some classes more than others (because some classes are simply more versatile). In 4e the Druid had different sub-classes of different roles and different emphasis depending upon build. In 5e any given Druid could go all-in with either of those roles (and possibly more), simply based on spell selection that morning. There are also classes that you can't quite get to handle their formal 4e Role in 5e, either because the class lacks versatility or the role lacks support in the standard game (specifically, if you want anyone to be a capable Defender, you prettymuch have to turn on options that let everyone be a defender - of course, turning on options selectively is in option - they're options, afterall, and the DM has the final say).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Last night was the first session. Mostly uneventful.