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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

The whole idea of "shifting goalposts" and even moreso "continuously shifting goalposts" implies a type of insincerity in discussion on @MoonSong's part that I think is not warranted.

No it doesn't. It means that the goal (the list he originally posted) has shifted (changed) that is all. Anything else is you putting your own slant on it. how about instead of trying to figure out what it "implies" we stick to what it means.

When MoonSong clarifies that what was meant was not (7th level) Plane Shift but (2nd level) Rope Trick (ie an ability that comes on line at 3rd rather than 13th level) that is not a shifting of goalposts. It's just making it clearer what was desired, and why 5e doesn't deliver.

No it's changing the goals because now we went from the ability to hide on other planes to a specific spell, which as I stated before is getting into the territory of a specific build (ie specific spells, magic items, class, race, and so on as opposed to a general concept).

The obvious solution is to let the sorcerer PC learn Rope Trick. Is that going to break the game? Seems unlikely.


EDITED to clarify: Rope Trick may well be broken (I imagine this is something on which opinions differ quite a bit) but I don't see why it would be any more (or less) broken being on the list of a sorcerer's known spells than being in a wizard's spell book.

He doesn't want to deal with hourserules or DM decisions so that's not a solution...

However my concern would be that while it may not break the game at what point are we moving into the territory of the wizard's versatility vs. the sorcerer's raw power and manipulation of spells? Find Familiar, Unseen servant, Rope Trick as wellas something about shadow ponies and the other spells mentioned. Now if there's no wizard in the game this probably isn't an issue... but if there is and too many of these concessions are made (with no cost)... it may start to feel like his toes are being stepped on by the sorcerer (since essentially if you allow him to pick any spell as opposed to those on the sorcerer list he has (at least one of) the advantages of a wizard (versatility) along with sorcerer metamagic. Not sure at what point it breaks the game but it can make the game less fun for the guy who chose to play the Wizard.

EDIT: Another concern and I can't speak to how game breaking it would be or not since in all honesty I haven't had anyone play a sorcerer in my games is how metamagic interacts with the particular spells from the wizard list he wants...

 

[dave2008]

For what it's worth, my experience is closer to @EzekielRaiden's - I don't find 4e hard to "hack". Though maybe what I'm doing doesn't count as "hacking" in the relevant sense.

The sorts of things I'm thinking of are various ways of regimenting and adapting the skill challenge rules (combining the best of DMG, DMG2, Essentials plus ideas from ENworld posters); working with players to tweak themes, epic destinies etc; managing changes in PC build that go beyond the retraining rules but reflect events in the narrative; adjudicating "actions the rules don't cover" (per p 42); building monsters/NPCs, environmental effects, etc; using various mechanical and narrative approaches to rationing extended rests; and probably other stuff that I'm forgetting at the moment.

I'm not suggesting that 5e is particularly rigid, but I'm not sure in what ways it's distinctively hackable.

That's more tinkering than hacking IMO Here are some of the hacks we used at some point in 4e:

Revised Armor to provide DR (attacks that target AC target Reflex)
Your bloodied HP is based on your size (not half total) and represents actual damage (armor protects bloodied damage [BHP] only not your HP)
You can use healing surges to recharge encounter and daily powers
2nd wind and healing surges don't increase bloodied hit points
Revised monster damage per the DMG 42 blog suggestions
Revised monster level to approx. 2/3 listed level

 

[Tony Vargas]

Revised Armor to provide DR (attacks that target AC target Reflex)

Interesting. I know you skipped 3e, but that'd've been easy to do then, too - use touch AC, apply DR. It seems it might be more problematic to adapt to 5e, both for want of any REF/touch-AC mechanic, and because hp/damage scaling is so dramatic (already an issue with Heavy Armor Mastery, for instance).

Your bloodied HP is based on your size (not half total) and represents actual damage (armor protects bloodied damage
2nd wind and healing surges don't increase bloodied hit points [BHP] only not your HP)

Dual-pool hps? Did you run into issues with the 'bloodied HPs' becoming the much more 'important' pool? (I guess you probably didn't, or you wouldn't have stuck with it...) It's an issue that tends to crop up with such systems - if at all possible, you bypass one of the pools, and keeping that from happening impinges on the realism/verisimilitude such systems are typically aimed at addressing.

You can use healing surges to recharge encounter and daily powers
Revised monster damage per the DMG 42 blog suggestions
Revised monster level to approx. 2/3 listed level

Those are more familiar variants, maybe not in the details, but in the idea of goosing monster damage and ELs to increase the sense of jeopardy, shortening the day, generally dialing things up, overall. 5e's many-easy-combats model would be distorted, but it already has plenty of dailies, so you don't need the first variant (and the 'distortion' might be just want you're going for, anyway).

So basically like I originally said your reasoning boils down to... don't talk about it negatively because it's 4e...

Just don't engage in edition warring. It's not that hard to avoid. If, for you, that has to be not talking 'negatively' about 4e, because you just can't see the line, fine - it's not like defunct editions are that relevant a topic, anyway.

It is still re-skinning. I don't like re-skinning

That does further limit your options from the player side.

but that still won't give me the familiar and everything else.

Not achievable via build even with feats and MCing on the table?

And well, so far a lot of 5e DMs greatly favor wizards and are very build-phobic, many won't even allow SCAG or UA material.

Favor wizards how?

And, however 'a lot' of DMs might behave, surely it's the DM you actually game with that matters, and you could find the right one?

You know what always let me play that kind of PC? playing any variant of 3e with any barely competent DM which is way easier to find.

Sure. OTOH, if you had a slightly different vision of the Sorcerer, it might not have. You're down to demanding system artifacts as if they were central to character concept.

I know you've done Sorcerer threads before, I might just hunt one up and bump it to try to get at what's really central to the concept, not just exactly-a-3e-Sorcerer-in-3e-or-bust.

Just wrapped up the third session of Curse, aka the third session of Death House and finished it. Tonight was more of a combat grind, just four combats in succession, though one was in such a small space half the party couldn't participate(including me). We managed to beat the end battle without any serious casualties, mainly thanks to the Bard using Vicious Mockery which never failed to connect. I participated in three battles, got two crits, cast Shield of Faith on myself, spammed basic attacks, and successfully completed my third session without ever being hit. Got level three and my Vengence Oath.

Congrats at not getting killed at low level. Not even hit, though, that's suspicious. ;P

I'm finding initiative interesting. Due to how fast combats go, rolling low on initiative can cost you turns as the final monster dies before your final turn, so other PCs get more turns. That being said, going late is a defensive advantage, as the monsters and PCs engage each other and you can pick your spot, moving to where you are the least vulnerable. My Paladin has 10 Dex and initiative +0.

Initiative has been turn-based/cyclical since 3.0, so while that's the case, it's nothing new.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Congrats at not getting killed at low level. Not even hit, though, that's suspicious. ;P

Initiative has been turn-based/cyclical since 3.0, so while that's the case, it's nothing new.

Not getting hit was a function of:

1. Caution/Paranoia--I didn't open doors, didn't touch anything, and always stood back, 3rd or 4th in the party order at best. Whenever something bad happened, it happened to other people first. When I moved into melee, I made a point to move adjacent to only one enemy
2. Vicious Mockery--the Bard used his spell slots for Cure Wounds, and used VM every single turn for 3 sessions
3. Luck--the DM rolled badly
4. Bad initiative--between there not being any ranged enemies ever, not starting any combat out front, and rolling worse than the monsters every single time, I was never, not even once, attacked in round 1.

In the Boss fight, a CR 5 enemy attacked twice per round and I took two full rounds of that. Thanks to Vicious Mockery and Shield of Faith, none of those four attacks hit.

 

[feartheminotaur]

And well, so far a lot of 5e DMs greatly favor wizards and are very build-phobic, many won't even allow SCAG or UA material.

I'm not sure what you mean - that 'a lot' of DMs running 5e tell you to play a wizard or only allow a wizard? Since I've never actually seen or heard of anything like that, I'm going to guess you mean you're told to play a wizard when you describe your character? If so, yeah, I'd walk too - any DM who tells a player what class to play isn't going to be a decent DM in any edition of any game.

Build-phobic - now that I can somewhat understand. From hulking hurlers to pun-pun to the sub-zero HP revenants to all of the 'discussions' over the rule interpretations necessary to make a build 'work', it can be a real hassle. I've heard and read from a lot of DMs who simply aren't interested in putting in the work necessary. Nothing wrong with system mastery style play, and I personally enjoy it, but it requires a buy in from everyone, and without that...I can see why a DM would want to move away from that sort of game.

As for content...In between contracts I play a lot of games on Roll20, and I've yet to have a DM dis-allow SCAG. I have yet to play a game where UA was allowed (as is), and I'm OK with that, since the UA stuff is, in my opinion, half-baked, untested, and generally terrible. It's less "rough draft" and more "brainstorming on paper". I'd say the "no one allows SCAG" to be an uncommon experience, and "no one allows UA" to be a common one; not surprising, they just aren't the same thing (official book vs. play testing material).

 

[Imaro]

Just don't engage in edition warring. It's not that hard to avoid. If, for you, that has to be not talking 'negatively' about 4e, because you just can't see the line, fine - it's not like defunct editions are that relevant a topic, anyway.

And the minute you get any actual real authority to define what that line is or isn't in these forums (because last time I checked you didn't own them and you weren't a moderator) I'll consider your advice. Until then how about you worry about yourself and I'll keep posting what I want.

 

[MoonSong]

As far as I can tell the "Tome" is about 99% fluff and can be completely ignored.

Except it can be stolen, taken away or destroyed. Specially in the middle of an adventuring day. That kills the feel that magic it a part of you. Fluff can change, but it doesn't mean it is not important. I could just not handle mages in 2e, they were too different from what I was looking for.

I dunno. [MENTION=6689464]MoonSong[/MENTION] is lamenting an inability to build a preferred character type in 5e. Those preferences are the goalposts!

Well you asked for the ability to hide in dimensions... you didn't specify a particular level or a particular spell.

I said " can hide between dimensions to rest or spy" I was obviously meaning rope trick, not a high level spell.

It's 2 spells though. One you'll probably only ever cast again if the familiar dies and the other has a duration of 1 hr. As others have suggested, re-skin the book. Here's a suggestion make it a focus for your more esoteric spells (rituals) and you're good.

That was the tip of the iceberg, how about grease? how about floating disk? How about summons? How about Silence? Will I have to hunt / pay for these too? like a wizard ? If you need to keep a spellbook you are essentially a wizard, if you are a wizard you are not really a sorcerer. Yes I'm a witch whose gift was inherited through generations, but somehow I can't cause any effect on the world unless I buy the cheap tricks kit that every stage magician uses and they do it better...

That does further limit your options from the player side. Not achievable via build even with feats and MCing on the table?

Well, refluffing takes mental gymnastics that are alien, confusing, distracting and immersion breaking for me. Maybe there is something wrong with me, but I can't separate flavor from mechanics without basically ignoring mechanics. I just can't, it feels wrong very wrong.

Favor wizards how?

As in prefer wizards over sorcerers, and refuse to have a sorcerer if they already have a wizard.

And, however 'a lot' of DMs might behave, surely it's the DM you actually game with that matters, and you could find the right one?

Sure. OTOH, if you had a slightly different vision of the Sorcerer, it might not have. You're down to demanding system artifacts as if they were central to character concept.

I know you've done Sorcerer threads before, I might just hunt one up and bump it to try to get at what's really central to the concept, not just exactly-a-3e-Sorcerer-in-3e-or-bust.

I can't find the right one for 5e, all DM-centric solutions have failed for me, because I can't find a good DM for 5e, it is not for lack of trying. I care about many 5e DMs because those DMs have not been open to players or outright tell me they don't care about my playstyle or even actively oppose my ideas.

It is not that I think the 3e sorcerer is perfect -far from it-. But that is the most inclusive version to date so far, with every new edition it has become more and more specific and more and more limited. There is practically no subtle magic left in the class, and basically nothing that helps to build things, only to destroy them. My few 3e sorcerer gishes are impossible under 4e, and not that good in 5e. My magical thieves -basically a rogue substitute using magic to carry the weight- gone, my magical artisans -and not just artisans that also do magic, and by do magic I mean "fireball stuff-, my witches that come from a long line of witches who inherit a gift for magic, my enchantresses descended from nymphs... all gone. The 5e sorcerer is just that limiting (for me at least).

 

[Tony Vargas]

As in prefer wizards over sorcerers, and refuse to have a sorcerer if they already have a wizard.

Wait, DMs will turn you deny your choice of class because a different class is already at their table?

It is not that I think the 3e sorcerer is perfect -far from it-. But that is the most inclusive version to date so far.

I'll grant that the original Sorcerer was innovative at the time, and it did make for some interesting build-to-concepts, more for it's shortcomings - because it /couldn't/ just prep new spells each morning, spell choice was more defining - than for it's strengths. It's still a choose-spells-known class, so that still applies.

There is practically no subtle magic left in the class, and basically nothing that helps to build things, only to destroy them.

So the spell list is a big part of the problem? The sorcerer is ironically-unique in having no unique spells, but I thought it otherwise had a lot of the same spells as the wizard? Just not the 'Name' spells, Tenser's this and Ottiluke's the other thing and so forth?

My few 3e sorcerer gishes are not that good in 5e. My magical thieves -basically a rogue substitute using magic to carry the weight- gone, my magical artisans, my witches that come from a long line of witches who inherit a gift for magic, my enchantresses descended from nymphs... all gone. The 5e sorcerer is just that limiting (for me at least).

It seems like it would be almost trivially easy (again, I'm sorry, easy for the DM) to allow an Arcane Trickster using Sorcerer-style mechanics instead of Wizard-style ones. Artificer, sure, not a thing yet. Witches, not just because of the name, seems like Warlock could do well - or, the more neo-pagan take, Druid. And I'd think MCing and Magic Initiate (both OK in AL, AFAIK) could fill in some of the holes...

 

[Sadras]

How about silence?

How about it? I'm looking at the 3.5e PHB1. I just dont see it in the Sorcerer/Wizard's spell lists. Do you ever intend to plant your goalposts at some point or are you just gonna keep running with them?

I can't find the right one for 5e, all DM-centric solutions have failed for me, because I can't find a good DM for 5e, it is not for lack of trying. I care about many 5e DMs because those DMs have not been open to players or outright tell me they don't care about my playstyle or even actively oppose my ideas.

It is not that I think the 3e sorcerer is perfect -far from it-. But that is the most inclusive version to date so far, with every new edition it has become more and more specific and more and more limited. There is practically no subtle magic left in the class, and basically nothing that helps to build things, only to destroy them. My few 3e sorcerer gishes are impossible under 4e, and not that good in 5e. My magical thieves -basically a rogue substitute using magic to carry the weight- gone, my magical artisans -and not just artisans that also do magic, and by do magic I mean "fireball stuff-, my witches that come from a long line of witches who inherit a gift for magic, my enchantresses descended from nymphs... all gone. The 5e sorcerer is just that limiting (for me at least).

You know what, you're absolutely right Moonsong, the 3e Sorcerer is honestly a better match for you with its wide range of options. 5e DMs have failed you, re-skinning is too much of a stretch for you, homebrew doesn't satisfy you, the 4e Sorcerers are impossible and the 5e ones are just not that good. You win. Are we done or do you want to continue complaining in the 5e forum about the 5e DMs you know?