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

[dave2008]

It kind of goes back to my main complaints with 5E, the lack of PC customization, bounded accuracy making the game too random, and the base combat engine being IMO a good deal worse than previous editions.

I feel like you may have explained these opinions earlier in the thread, but I don't remember exactly, so I will not ask for further exposition on them. I don't agree with them, but if I remember correctly you are fairly set on those opinions and just looking to vent and not debate.

 

[Morrus]

True, but taking a specific assertion, extrapolating it to an extreme and ludicrous interpretation, and then ascribing that viewpoint in an attempt to discredit the original asserter (or, better yet, tacking a question mark to the end of the assertion so that you can disingenuously claim innocence) is a common* tactic around here.

When you're asked to leave a thread, that doesn't mean "drag the discussion into another thread".

Now leave this thread, too, please.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I'm not particularly against the DMPC. I use one more often than not, and during 4E I almost always used one if the party had less than six players. 4E really lent itself to running one more than other editions, minimizing most of the usual problems though slowing combat down a bit.

I've found there are a few general rules:

1. The DMPC does not take part in party decision making
2. The DMPC does not speak to NPCs
(These two make it generally helpful to create a character with an antisocial personality)
3. The DMPC has few if any problem solving noncombat abilities, and if they do those abilities are put into the hands of one of the players
4. The DMPC shouldn't have a big impact on the story, compared to the PCs

I'd have to adjust 3 to include combat. The DMPC should be capable of not dragging the party down, but shouldn't be able to dominate or overshadow any of the actual party members in a fight. If the DMPC is consistently outkilling the next best party member or saving the other party members, you should probably have another think about why they are there.

 

[Imaro]

I'd have to adjust 3 to include combat. The DMPC should be capable of not dragging the party down, but shouldn't be able to dominate or overshadow any of the actual party members in a fight. If the DMPC is consistently outkilling the next best party member or saving the other party members, you should probably have another think about why they are there.

Yeah I was wondering about this myself. Doesn't the DM know the stats of the monsters... weakest defense, vulnerabilities, resistances/immune, amount of damage it can do and so on? I'm curious [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] ... when playing a DMPC how do you mitigate these advantages while still participating in combat?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Yeah I was wondering about this myself. Doesn't the DM know the stats of the monsters... weakest defense, vulnerabilities, resistances/immune, amount of damage it can do and so on? I'm curious [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] ... when playing a DMPC how do you mitigate these advantages while still participating in combat?

5. Do not metagame when using a DMPC

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I feel like you may have explained these opinions earlier in the thread, but I don't remember exactly, so I will not ask for further exposition on them. I don't agree with them, but if I remember correctly you are fairly set on those opinions and just looking to vent and not debate.

I'm not averse to further discussion, exposition, or debate. I'm not really looking for solutions so much, and I'm not likely to change my mind(playing at the table has been reinforcing my opinions).

1. The lack of PC customization is probably my biggest issue, because more than anything it defies a solution. There isn't enough customization in 5E IMO compared to other games I enjoy playing, and this is true of every class. Multiclassing doesn't help, because I'm not a fan of 3E-style multiclassing. I like D&D as a class based system and 3E-style multiclassing detracts from that, as well as it tending to result in the mechanics negatively impacting the fluff to say nothing of trap builds.

2. Bounded accuracy makes the game feel to random I'm not sure what you do about this without the game ceasing to be 5E or being more trouble than it's worth. It's a particularly bad match to 5E's fast combat. Shorter combat magnifies the randomness. It's even worse using the skill system. Some people might not be bothered by it, but I am.

3. I'm a combat first sort of player, and I find 5E lacking compared to other editions, including AD&D as I've previously explained. It's too fast, too bland, and too trivial.

 

[Imaro]

5. Do not metagame when using a DMPC

Uhm... ok that doesn't really answer the question since there's no way for you to "not know" these things as the DM. When you go to make your DMPC's attack... do you purposefully choose not to attack the lowest defense if you can? Do you give no thought to the types of abilities (and their limitations/vulnerabilities) the monster has when determining your attacks? In other words how do you not metagame when you enjoy being the best at combat?

 

[pemerton]

Being a hero has nothing whatsoever to do with what stupid pet tricks you call pull off mechanically. It is about stepping up and doing what most people wouldn't do.

c.f. Sam Gamgee. True Hero.

I'm happy to accept that heroism requires departing from the cowardly/apathetic norm - and also that doing so when one is "mundane" may be particularly heroic.

But I don't have a clear sense of how this translates to any particular set of RPG mechanics.

Sam Gamgee might be heroic (personally I think there are big issues around the Sam Gamgee character), but there is nothing especially heroic about pretending to be Sam Gamgee, nor about writing a story (even a first-person one) about Sam Gamgee.

A player who runs the risk of losing a PC (to death, injury, demonic possession, whatever) in order to follow through some sort of in-character commitment/conviction shows a degree of sincerity and of real-world commitment/conviction in playing the game - but s/he is not a hero for doing so. (At least I'm not seeing it.)

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Uhm... ok that doesn't really answer the question since there's no way for you to "not know" these things as the DM. When you go to make your DMPC's attack... do you purposefully choose not to attack the lowest defense if you can? Do you give no thought to the types of abilities (and their limitations/vulnerabilities) the monster has when determining your attacks? In other words how do you not metagame when you enjoy being the best at combat?

Not metagame means you don't use knowledge/info the character doesn't have.

 

[Imaro]

I'm happy to accept that heroism requires departing from the cowardly/apathetic norm - and also that doing so when one is "mundane" may be particularly heroic.

But I don't have a clear sense of how this translates to any particular set of RPG mechanics.

Sam Gamgee might be heroic (personally I think there are big issues around the Sam Gamgee character), but there is nothing especially heroic about pretending to be Sam Gamgee, nor about writing a story (even a first-person one) about Sam Gamgee.

A player who runs the risk of losing a PC (to death, injury, demonic possession, whatever) in order to follow through some sort of in-character commitment/conviction shows a degree of sincerity and of real-world commitment/conviction in playing the game - but s/he is not a hero for doing so. (At least I'm not seeing it.)

I just re-read the passages you quoted... were they speaking to a player being a "hero" or were they discussing the roleplaying of a hero as a character in the game (and the characteristics they believe define one)? To me at least it seemed to be the latter...