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

[thecasualoblivion]

I kind of understand what Moonsong is talking about in a general sense. In a general sense, he wants depth in character creation options that have only ever truly existed in 3E as far as D&D goes. What he wants is unusually specific, but I can see how somebody who wants the level of published options that existed in 3E would have trouble with 5E. While I imagine there is some flexibility to 5E, I imagine a lot of DMs would rather not deviate that far from the books, and in any case MoonSong wants system options more than something the DM just made up.

 

[eayres33]

I understand that, but I'm also confused, no system, 5E, 4E, or 3E can give every one, everything. Not every system can give everyone everything, and that is where the flexibility of 5E comes into play, as a DM almost anything can be granted, special builds can be made, you just have to seek out a good DM and work with them.

 

[pemerton]

MoonSong wants system options more than something the DM just made up.

This is the bit I don't get.

In my 4e game, a player wanted his PC to be a Primordial Adept, but serving Chan (the Queen of Good Air Elementals) rather than one of the options presented in Heroes of the Elemental Chaos. So I looked at those options and tweaked one of them to be an air/lightning/thunder option.

Another player's PC is a Sage of Ages but mostly invoker rather than wizard. So we just ignore the bits in the Sage of Ages description that say they apply only to arcane magic, and let them apply to his divine magic also.

These sorts of tweaks are almost never going to break the game, and are incredibly easy to do.

I mean, the SRD (p 69) says that jugs hold 1 gallon. Does that mean that [MENTION=6689464]MoonSong[/MENTION] would not let his character with pottery proficiency make a small 1-pint jug? Or have his PC go to the market place looking to buy such a smaller jug?

The designers have the job of presenting a playable game with a coherent and functional underlying mechanical strategy. But when it comes to spell lists, equipment lists etc they will make choices which are often better treated as illustrative or indicative rather than definitively exhaustive. Having a sorcerer learn Rope Trick becomes neither more nor less likely to cause problems in the game because the table decided to allow it rather than the designers.

Does anyone really think that stopping sorcerers knowing Rope Trick is as core to the 5e system as stopping wizards knowing Cure Wounds?

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro seems to think that it might do some sort of damage to 5e play to let sorcerers have access to the effects that you are talking about, but I'm still not seeing it. If players of enchanter wizards have to cope with sorcerers spending sorcery points to get 2 hour Charm Person spells, I'm sure wizard players can cope with a sorcerer casting a 2 hour Rope Trick!

I think you are mis-representing my position. Is he just asking for Rope Trick? Because what I've seen is the spell list he wants grow as we've continued discussing to encompass basically his choice of wizard spells to the point that he's not even taking sorcerer spells anymore but instead is basically crafting his own spell list from whatever spells he wants on the Wizard list. Is it unbalancing... gamewise probably not (though will admit I'd be hesitant to let any player in any class cherry pick spells from another class list) spotlight wise... well let me ask this... would it be different if he wanted a nature themed sorcerer and wanted druid spells... or a healer themed sorcerer and wanted to cherry pick cleric spells? If not why is wizard different when it comes to stepping on toes and/or an increase in power/versatility?

As a DM i'd try to accomodate him to a point but there's also a point where im not going to give you unfettered access to another classes spells (EDIT: And this is doubly so if someone at the table is playing the class whose spells you want free reign of)... not without some kind of trade off in return. So how about we talk about that... what is @MoonSong willing to give up sorcerer wise for greater utility.?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This is the bit I don't get.

In my 4e game, a player wanted his PC to be a Primordial Adept, but serving Chan (the Queen of Good Air Elementals) rather than one of the options presented in Heroes of the Elemental Chaos. So I looked at those options and tweaked one of them to be an air/lightning/thunder option.

Another player's PC is a Sage of Ages but mostly invoker rather than wizard. So we just ignore the bits in the Sage of Ages description that say they apply only to arcane magic, and let them apply to his divine magic also.

These sorts of tweaks are almost never going to break the game, and are incredibly easy to do.

I mean, the SRD (p 69) says that jugs hold 1 gallon. Does that mean that [MENTION=6689464]MoonSong[/MENTION] would not let his character with pottery proficiency make a small 1-pint jug? Or have his PC go to the market place looking to buy such a smaller jug?

The designers have the job of presenting a playable game with a coherent and functional underlying mechanical strategy. But when it comes to spell lists, equipment lists etc they will make choices which are often better treated as illustrative or indicative rather than definitively exhaustive. Having a sorcerer learn Rope Trick becomes neither more nor less likely to cause problems in the game because the table decided to allow it rather than the designers.

Does anyone really think that stopping sorcerers knowing Rope Trick is as core to the 5e system as stopping wizards knowing Cure Wounds?

For some people, simply having to ask is a bad thing. It could be a matter of taste(finding the act of asking the DM for special consideration distasteful), or experience(having been said no to repeatedly). For them it'd be better to just have it in the book.

Speaking as somebody who wants book after book filled with character choices, that sort of thing just doesn't exist in 5E as written.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

A quick hop in..

At least with the groups I work with, referencing a rule in a book or asking DM makes no difference. If the group want something a certain way, then we get it a certain way. (It should be noted that we're all potential DMs and players, equally). In other words, there's always a need to secure permission from all involved.

During play, whoever is DMing has full authority to arbitrate as they see fit, regardless of who cites what from which text or the cases brought before them. Obviously this requires a group where all subscribe to this particular social contract and every attempt is made by both players and DM to support play.

Let's be honest. 99% of the disagreement and drama, at least for us and I'd wager many a gaming group, is a failure in communication rather than reasoning, and rarely if at all a failing of the edition (any edition) itself. This is, again, on the assumption that a given group have agreed to support each other and play. Without that then heck - let the layering, heckling and angst commence!

...and then hasty bail.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

A quick hop in..

At least with the groups I work with, referencing a rule in a book or asking DM makes no difference. If the group want something a certain way, then we get it a certain way. (It should be noted that we're all potential DMs and players, equally). In other words, there's always a need to secure permission from all involved.

During play, whoever is DMing has full authority to arbitrate as they see fit, regardless of who cites what from which text or the cases brought before them. Obviously this requires a group where all subscribe to this particular social contract and every attempt is made by both players and DM to support play.

Let's be honest. 99% of the disagreement and drama, at least for us and I'd wager many a gaming group, is a failure in communication rather than reasoning, and rarely if at all a failing of the edition (any edition) itself. This is, again, on the assumption that a given group have agreed to support each other and play. Without that then heck - let the layering, heckling and angst commence!

...and then hasty bail.

A few thoughts:

1. What you say probably applies to people who have a great table already, but to somebody who isn't already at an ideal table, plays at multiple tables of varying degrees, or moves around a lot, what you describe isn't portable or reliable. The system itself is far more portable, and the system doing it right out of the book is far superior to somebody who isn't in as stable of a situation.

2. There are also matters of taste involved. Some people, including myself, find this sort of DM intervention not to our tastes. For me personally, I would either find something else in the system I'm more or less happy with, find some other table to play at that delivers what I want, or not game at all before I would be inclined to work with a DM to create what I wanted homebrew.

 

[Avalongod]

There are also matters of taste involved. Some people, including myself, find this sort of DM intervention not to our tastes. For me personally, I would either find something else in the system I'm more or less happy with, find some other table to play at that delivers what I want, or not game at all before I would be inclined to work with a DM to create what I wanted homebrew.

Yeah, this resonated with me. From my own observation, there's always the danger of a good-faith homebrew fix for one problem, causing other balancing problems. I'm all for homebrew but sometimes they have to be considered carefully.

 

[MoonSong]

I think you are mis-representing my position. Is he just asking for Rope Trick? Because what I've seen is the spell list he wants grow as we've continued discussing to encompass basically his choice of wizard spells to the point that he's not even taking sorcerer spells anymore but instead is basically crafting his own spell list from whatever spells he wants on the Wizard list. Is it unbalancing... gamewise probably not (though will admit I'd be hesitant to let any player in any class cherry pick spells from another class list) spotlight wise... well let me ask this... would it be different if he wanted a nature themed sorcerer and wanted druid spells... or a healer themed sorcerer and wanted to cherry pick cleric spells? If not why is wizard different when it comes to stepping on toes and/or an increase in power/versatility?

As a DM i'd try to accomodate him to a point but there's also a point where im not going to give you unfettered access to another classes spells... not without some kind of trade off in return. So how about we talk about that... what is [MENTION=6689464]MoonSong[/MENTION] willing to give up sorcerer wise for greater utility.?

I don't know. What would you want to be given up? Sorcerers only get 15 spells max. If my witch gets rope trick, enhance ability, protection from evil and good, floating disk and find familiar, she has no room for combat spells (or even for jump, spider climb, alarm, detect thoughts, phantom steed or unseen servant). I don't think a wizard would feel overshadowed if he can have basically all of them.

Also Wizards can cast most of these utility spells without spending any resource, that two-hour rope trick costs a slot and a sorcery point. More so if I have extend spell, I can only have one of quicken, subtle or twin. And most of the time it would be subtle.

I would gladly give up the bloodline benefits, or even let you strip away all damaging spells. But I don't value them that much so I'm not sure if it is a fair trade if I give up things I don't care about to get things I would love to have.

(And I guess you don't allow favored soul on your games. Because that is exactly what FS of life and nature do, get cleric or druid spells)

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Yeah, this resonated with me. From my own observation, there's always the danger of a good-faith homebrew fix for one problem, causing other balancing problems. I'm all for homebrew but sometimes they have to be considered carefully.

What you describe is a fairly major part of my reasoning.