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

[Tony Vargas]

Best played without optimization is personal taste, not a system feature.

"Best played without optimization" would mean horribly vulnerable to game-wrecking abuse via optimization. ;P

Any sufficiently competent DM should be able to save 5e from such a fate.

Anything can be optimized, the questions are only how and to what degree. 5E is definitely open to optimization, just not to the same degree as 3E or 4E. I don't see where your "playing without it" statement has anything to do with anything.

The 'rewards for system mastery' vary as well as the opportunities for optimization (or just customization). 3e offered by far the greatest rewards for system mastery or optimization, often quite disproportionate, and you could just stumble onto them. Picking a Tier 1 class, for instance, over-rewarded you before you even started to optimize it. 4e also had lots of opportunities to optimize or customize, but the rewards were muted because it was so robustly balanced. 5e just plain has less material and fewer options, so less opportunities for customization & optimization. But there are still some significant rewards to be had here and there, high DPR through certain combos, the tremendous versatility of neo-Vancian casting...

When I was playing 2E, traditional AD&D was on its way out the door if not already gone for us. Vampire the Masquerade, Chrono Trigger, and Dragonball Z had more influence on our table than tradition did.

Storyteller had taken over for my group at the time, too, by '95 when my 10-year AD&D campaign wrapped with most of the PCs around 14th level. But, yeah, I acculturated to the RPG hobby in the 80s, thoroughly as I enjoyed the oWoD in the 90s.

The boring minutia part is exactly it, the idea is to sit out the boring while still technically participating.

I have one player, in particular, who I wish would pick up on that tactic. She gets so frustrated with the traditional dungeon-crawling that 5e so nicely evokes.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

e
5e fighters don't seem much less DPR-tastic than in 2e. What's missing?

The lack of a trade off. The 2E Fighter was a tank and DPR-tastic at the same time, by default, without having to choose between the two. The differentiation was limited to stats and gear,

Seemed pretty awesome in one campaign I ran. It was certainly less-supported, as a Campaign-setting rather than Core class, but didn't fall through the cracks as lamentably as, say, the Seeker.

I've spent roughly 50% of my time in 4E in the Defender role, and I've played just about every variant that at least somewhat works. Shielding Swordmage, while being functional on a basic level doesn't really rise much beyond that no matter how much you optimize it, and was the weakest overall Defender I've ever played. That being said, it does have some redeeming qualities as one of the most amazing Hybrid classes. For some strange reason, Swordmage powers suck when used by a Swordmage but are very strong on a Wizard, Warlock or Aritifcer.

The 'team' contributions could very well be the 'awesome.'

4E felt like it rewarded you for 'team' contributions. In 5E 'team' contributions feel like being stuck playing the Cleric in 2E.

There aren't formal roles in 5e, so that's the wrong place to look for balance. Balance exists mostly in the resource schedule, over a 6-8 encounter/2-3 short rest 'day,' and is a very dynamic 'spotlight' style thing largely under the auspices of the DM. It's not something you'll find just in examining the mechanics.

I have thought about it. its just that it's another instance of trying to read the DM's mind in the future based on zero evidence, so there's really nothing I can make of it.

For what it's worth, I find the 6-8 encounter/2-3 short rest 'adventuring day' far clunkier than 4E's roles. Also less flexible, as what there is of balance in 5E goes straight out the window when you start deviating from the assumed 'day'.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Is there something technology related wrong with this thread? It seems to have gotten buggy.

 

[Eric V]

When somebody is absolutely determined to hate something it's pretty hard to talk him out of it.

Is that what's happening here?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I have one player, in particular, who I wish would pick up on that tactic. She gets so frustrated with the traditional dungeon-crawling that 5e so nicely evokes.

That tactic dates back to my 2E days, I just rediscovered it. It was required for my sanity. It was a little different back then, as I was a little less mature and rarely pretended to participate in those activities like I did this past Wednesday. In the 90s, I tended to get up and wander around the store reading books on the shelf when the party did that stuff. Nowadays I pay half attention, describe myself moving room to room and who I'm backing up and that I'm ready to charge towards the screaming, while playing a turn based game on the tablet that sits on my lap.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The lack of a trade off. The 2E Fighter was a tank and DPR-tastic at the same time, by default, without having to choose between the two. The differentiation was limited to stats and gear,

The 2e fighter was a tank by virtue of d10 HD and plate, both of which the 5e fighter has access to, still.

I've spent roughly 50% of my time in 4E in the Defender role, and I've played just about every variant that at least somewhat works. Shielding Swordmage, while being functional on a basic level doesn't really rise much beyond that no matter how much you optimize it, and was the weakest overall Defender I've ever played. That being said, it does have some redeeming qualities as one of the most amazing Hybrid classes. For some strange reason, Swordmage powers suck when used by a Swordmage but are very strong on a Wizard, Warlock or Aritifcer.

Heh. OK, so less susceptible to rewards for system mastery, fine.

4E felt like it rewarded you for 'team' contributions. In 5E 'team' contributions feel like being stuck playing the Cleric in 2E.

I get that you optimize, it's in the thread title, and, yes, 4e did lend itself to party-wide optimization and to an optimized character contributing to the rest of the party's success more than overshadowing it. Some optimizers outright didn't like that, either, preferring to reap more personal rewards for their mad powergaming skills.

Yes, 5e is a bit less neatly team-oriented in that making contributions to the party's success is something you have to try to do, and not everyone may need your help, mechanically. It's up to the DM to make the teamwork pay off situationally.

I have thought about it. its just that it's another instance of trying to read the DM's mind in the future based on zero evidence, so there's really nothing I can make of it.

I've yet to develop that skill, myself, but it seems to be not uncommon.

For what it's worth, I find the 6-8 encounter/2-3 short rest 'adventuring day' far clunkier than 4E's roles.

Roles were a neat formalization of the de-facto iconic roles that had always been with the game. 5e, if anything, has pendulum-swung away from them so hard it's left the traditional de-facto roles behind, as well, or at least muddied them, and left some (sub)classes able to tackle any role and others relegated to a specific take on one. The result is more nuanced, and calls for a degree of experience with older editions and/or some 5e-specific 'system mastery' and flexibility on the part of the player.

So far I just find running 5e so much fun, and so much easier to get into than adapting to the mind-set of playing it that I've been DMing almost exclusively.

Also less flexible, as what there is of balance in 5E goes straight out the window when you start deviating from the assumed 'day'.

'What there is,' heh. Balance is a lot more DM-mediated. Rather than thinking of it strictly as a flaw that balance shifts the moment you deviate from Mike's promised "Crystal Clear Guidance,' I think of varying day length as a DM tool for imposing the resource balance that works best for my campaign.

Is there something technology related wrong with this thread? It seems to have gotten buggy.

I've been noticing things like threads failing to update with new pages for the last week or so.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Vengence Paladin gets Smite, Hunters Mark, a short rest Channel Divinity that gives advantage against one enemy, two attacks at 5, improved smite at 11, Polearm Master/Great Weapon Master. I think offense looks pretty fine.

I play a Defender more than anything else in 4E. I like being hit in that game. The difference is that in 5E, being hit rarely accomplishes anything. In 4E, being hit was the price you paid for incredibly strong control. I'm all for getting hit as long as it is in the pursuit of accomplishing something productive, otherwise why bother? Also, in 4E being hit tended towards "bend but don't break" as opposed to 5E's "break but don't die".

I would call 5E's healing less robust than 3E's Wand of Cure Light Wounds.

My stepson is playing my Rogue(I built it), so that one was out. Probably would have been my first choice otherwise.

I read the Vengence Paladin in the PHB and I see plenty of offense. In addition, many people in this thread recommended Paladin to be based on how I described how I play.

Yeah, I suggested Paladin because it is a solid balance between offense and defense (in my opinion). Obviously, you want to play it more offensive than defensive, which is fine....I just think it will take a level or two for you to start to be able to excel at that part. Level 2 will be big because of fighting style and smite, and then Vengeance Oath at level 3 will only add to that.

So I think you just need to be patient and let your plan play out. In the meantime, don't be so averse to taking a hit. That may get you in the mix more, which may be more fun. Or you can stay on the outer edge of combat and then strike when needed if you are enjoying that route.

As for healing....I disagree. Almost every class has access to some sort of healing, whether it's the cure spell or a self heal like second wind or the monk ability. Then you add in short rests and hit dice usage, and long rests being a full heal and yeah, HP are not as hard to recover. That might be the one big shift....you have to accept that you will be hit, and that being hit is not as big a deal because you can recover from hits more easily.

If you take a hit, it certainly is helpful to the party. Better the paladin take a hit than the cleric or the wizard. If the enemies your facing have X amount of attacks, taking one of those for the team as you call it is a big deal, especially since you will tend to be able to live through the hit easier than most other classes.

My stats are:

Str 16
Dex 10
Con 14
Int 8
Wis 10
Cha 16

I plan on putting stat boosts into Str exclusively, and I may or may not take Great Weapon Master as a feat. Aside from my stepson's Rogue which I'm building for him, it's not a particularly optimized table and that feat might be overkill.

I'm wielding a Greatsword and just took Great Weapon Fighting style. I'm a Human and took Resilience Constitution as my feat. I plan on going Vengence Paladin at level 3, and after much debate I don't foresee myself Multiclassing.

Yeah, based on that, I would say just be patient. By level 5 you will be pretty beastly. Level 1 in 5E is pretty fragile for everyone, so I imagine that was a big factor.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Where are you seeing these posts? I might respond to them but I don't even see one.

If you didn't notice them the first time around, I doubt pointing them out again will have new results. Let's just agree that I saw something different from you and move along.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Yeah, I suggested Paladin because it is a solid balance between offense and defense (in my opinion). Obviously, you want to play it more offensive than defensive, which is fine....I just think it will take a level or two for you to start to be able to excel at that part. Level 2 will be big because of fighting style and smite, and then Vengeance Oath at level 3 will only add to that.

So I think you just need to be patient and let your plan play out. In the meantime, don't be so averse to taking a hit. That may get you in the mix more, which may be more fun. Or you can stay on the outer edge of combat and then strike when needed if you are enjoying that route.

As for healing....I disagree. Almost every class has access to some sort of healing, whether it's the cure spell or a self heal like second wind or the monk ability. Then you add in short rests and hit dice usage, and long rests being a full heal and yeah, HP are not as hard to recover. That might be the one big shift....you have to accept that you will be hit, and that being hit is not as big a deal because you can recover from hits more easily.

If you take a hit, it certainly is helpful to the party. Better the paladin take a hit than the cleric or the wizard. If the enemies your facing have X amount of attacks, taking one of those for the team as you call it is a big deal, especially since you will tend to be able to live through the hit easier than most other classes.



Yeah, based on that, I would say just be patient. By level 5 you will be pretty beastly. Level 1 in 5E is pretty fragile for everyone, so I imagine that was a big factor.

It's kind of like playing an Avenger, Barbarian, or Slayer in 4E. My primary tactic is to attack the flanks and engage enemies 1 on 1, avoiding being in contact with more than one. I wear heavy armor and have a d10 for hp so I can afford to take some risks like attacking the mages/archers in back solo. If the battle line suddenly has a hole, I can plug the hole, but that is a break glass in case of emergency type of thing.

For healing, we disagree a bit. 3E's Wand of CLW was kind of exclusively an out of combat thing, but used trivial and effectively unlimited resources at the levels we typically played 3E(5+). If your game used them, you basically healed back to full outside of combat every time. 5E's healing is extensive compared to AD&D and 3E outside of the wand, but it's not as unlimited.

 

[BryonD]

So this may be constructive, being as you don't seem content with any form of response....

Everything you complain about with regard to 5E was complained about by a lot of people with regard to 4E.

How would you constructively and persuasively answer your own questions to someone how felt that 4E did not offer a big tent? Was too difficult to house rule? Had breakdowns between RP and mechanics?
I get that for your own personal taste 4E didn't have these problems. But you are asking people who don't have your problems with 5E to solve your problems. So how would you solve a 4E problem you don't have for someone who does have it?

You can show us a template for helping you.