D&D 3E/3.5 A 3E/4E powergamer DMs Storm King's Thunder

[Tony Vargas]

renamed my account to better fit the name I use elsewhere online.

OK.

Why did I post on the 4e forums?

It was a rhetorical question, no need to dig yourself deeper.

Doubly so when his love for 4e is mentioned in the same post. That's drawing a line in the sand.

No more than having any other edition as your favorite. Most D&Ders /don't/ have a strong past-edition preference (according to WotC's surveys, anyway), but those that do, regardless of the edition, are still in the target audience of 5e, and don't deserve to be shouted down...

(... to a point, anyway, I'll join you in questioning the right to complain once someone has actually reverted to a past edition or moved on to another system entirely and is no longer playing 5e at all...)

Except he's not asking for help.

Cries for help aren't always phrased as polite requests for such.

Randomness: I like it in 5e. Because it means you always need to roll.

You very clearly don't always need to call for a roll as a DM. You can narrate success/failure OR call for a check. One of the things I like about 5e, that.

Although, oddly, at low level combat is far less swingy in 5e. You wiff a LOT in 3e/4e at low levels unless you really optimize.

Can't imagine what makes you think that. You do hit (and fail saves) more often in 5e, using typical characters, at any level. But it's 60-70% vs ~50%, hitting 1 more time in 5 or 10 isn't a big difference when combats rarely gets to 5, let alone 10, rounds. More to the point, that's not swinginess. Swinginess is easy victory or TPK based on a few rolls, and it's inevitable when you tune for fast combat. Re-tuning - hps/damage, not to-hit/AC/saves - for longer combats would do more to address the issue.

If you want a little more stability, I'd recommend dropping the d20 for 3d6. The bell-curve makes success much more likely.

Not a bad idea in any d20 edition, really.

I mostly posted this as an update to my threads on playing in Curse of Strahd, which a number of people here found interesting.

Nod, I was one of them, and I appreciate it.

A bit of hard feelings yes, though not specifically about Essentials. I was in the crowd who initially embraced Essentials as an addition to 4E, though I later soured after it became clear that it was the new way going forward and that the old 4E design was more or less being abandoned.

There's some hopeful signs here and there. The Knight in the new UA article, for instance (if not the sadly predictable h4ter response to it) shows a willingness to improve support for styles first enabled by 4e, however slowly, and however far behind traditional styles that may be. It's easy (and more nearly justified) to nerdrage 'too little too late' like it's an edition war II, but it's no more constructive than it was the first time.

It was never something that bothered me in earlier editions, except maybe the 3E skill system, and it was something the stuck out as a sore spot from the first moment I started playing 5E at the table. ... Years of 2E, 3E, and 4E never caused that sort of reaction in me, and I've played 2E since 5E's release and I didn't have that reaction there.

That sounds like a red flag for some personal reflection, I'm sorry to have to say. At bottom, D&D has always used a d20 - linear probability, pass/fail result - even if, since 3.0, it's used it almost exclusively for resolution. The difference you're feeling may be more about feeling than difference.

The issues there are motivation and workload. Motivation comes down to that beyond 5E being popular and familiar with prospective players

From the DM side of the screen, that's a major motivation. D&D is the flagship of the hobby, not only are you more likely to get players when you hang out a current-ed D&D shingle, it's also the primary point of entry for any new players, so running D&D and running it /well/ is a very real way to help the hobby grow.

On the workload side, yes 5e is more work, up-front, than 4e (also less & less frustrating than 3e, IMHO), and requires you be more on the ball while running, too. That's the price of empowerment, but, for that price, you can take charge of it from behind the screen, and, while it's some work, it's not a lot /more/ work. You need to design or tweak encounters and rule on task resolution, anyway, doing so to support a given style (more engaging/less swingy, it seems, in your case) isn't a great deal more/less work than another.

None of that really adds the agency I'm craving back into the game.

From the player side, I can understand that. I don't often approach 5e from that side (not for that reason, but simply because there's nothing much in the way of new/appealing player options, for me - jaded 36 year veteran of the hobby that I am), though. I was hoping you'd see the potential I've found in running the game, though.

I'd urge you not to give up on it yet, try to step back and think about the things that are bothering you, and to look for solutions that you can implement on the DM side of the screen, without impacting the player experience (or impacting it positively, for that matter).

 

[devincutler]

Or I could just disregard the skill system almost entirely like I did running 2E and as I mostly did running 3E. It's not really a selling point for 5E.

You don't own the 5e books, so maybe you are unaware that the DMG has several options for skill usage, including almost precisely the 2nd edition NWP system.

 

[Jester David]

Can't imagine what makes you think that. You do hit (and fail saves) more often in 5e, using typical characters, at any level. But it's 60-70% vs ~50%, hitting 1 more time in 5 or 10 isn't a big difference when combats rarely gets to 5, let alone 10, rounds. More to the point, that's not swinginess. Swinginess is easy victory or TPK based on a few rolls, and it's inevitable when you tune for fast combat. Re-tuning - hps/damage, not to-hit/AC/saves - for longer combats would do more to address the issue.

Not really...

5e and 4e have the same PC attack bonuses at level 1 for warriors: 2 + ability + d20.
The last three editions have gone by the same rough array for point buy stats used for the math, with a 15 as the assumed stat. Pre-racial bonuses, for a 16 on your primary to-hit. So that's 2+ 3+d20.

However, the DMG of 4e puts the AC of monsters at 14+level, for a minimum of 15 vs that +5. Which makes sense, as most of 4e's math comes down to 10+ succeeds.
Meanwhile the 5e DM puts the same monsters at AC 13.
So you have a 55% change of hitting that level 1 kobold, orc, and goblin in 4e but a 65% chance in 5e. And one hit is more effective in 5e, as monsters aren't expected to take 5 hits to defeat.

(I'm sure you're about to point out 4e monsters have lower FRW defenses as well. But the PCs have a related attack bonus that is equally lower, lacking the weapon proficiency bonus. And while one defense is typically lower, another is generally higher, for an average of that 10+ again.)

3e is harder to compare since there's no straight table of AC expected by CR. However, monster AC numbers are close to their 4e counterparts (15s) but attack bonuses are lower, since warriors only get a +1 instead of a +2, and classes like rogues and monks (and rangers in 3.5e) get a +0.
In Pathfinder there is a chart that puts the expected AC of Challenge 1 creatures at 12. Which means warriors are as effective as in 5e, but other classes are not. However... in practice, few CR1 monsters in the book actually conform to that number. So while accuracy *should* be comparable, it actually play it is not.

You flat out hit more often in 5e than in 4e and 3e.

By the math anyway... Unlike 4e (and like 3e) individual monsters don't conform. So while the kobold and orc are right where you'd expect, the goblin is a little higher. Jerk gobos.


This goes right out the window with skills. In 5e, skills and attacks effectively use the same math.
In 3e/PF, skills gain a +3 bonus over attacks and bonuses from feats, races, spells, and magic items are given out like candy. (To say nothing of synergy bonuses in 3.5e. I had a level 10 gnome bard in Living Greyhawk that had something like 6 ranks in Perform, but a +25 bonus.) The initial bonus is higher in 4e and skill bonuses from feats and magic items were still one of the few bonuses to really be freely available. Plus power bonuses.
In both cases, an expert at a skill really stopped needing to roll. Especially if it's a challenge anyone in the party also wants to attempt.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You do hit (and fail saves) more often in 5e, using typical characters, at any level. But it's 60-70% vs ~50%, hitting 1 more time in 5 or 10 isn't a big difference when combats rarely gets to 5, let alone 10, rounds.

Not really...

You flat out hit more often in 5e than in 4e and 3e.
By the math anyway... Unlike 4e (and like 3e) individual monsters don't conform. So while the kobold and orc are right where you'd expect, the goblin is a little higher.

Oooookay...

Although, oddly, at low level combat is far less swingy in 5e. You wiff a LOT in 3e/4e at low levels unless you really optimize.

More to the point, that's not swinginess. Swinginess is easy victory or TPK based on a few rolls, and it's inevitable when you tune for fast combat. Re-tuning - hps/damage, not to-hit/AC/saves - for longer combats would do more to address the issue.

This goes right out the window with skills.

Oh, new topic? OK...

In 5e, skills and attacks effectively use the same math.

Well, 'cept for Expertise, of course.

In 3e/PF, skills gain a +3 bonus over attacks and bonuses from feats, races, spells, and magic items are given out like candy.

And max ranks for an in-class skill was double that of an out-of-class skill, assuming you put any ranks into it at all. So at high level, the gap between the 'expert' and non-expert could be 23+, indeed, overwhelming the d20.

The initial bonus is higher in 4e and skill bonuses from feats and magic items were still one of the few bonuses to really be freely available.

But, everyone advanced at 1/2 level, so that 5 + difference in stat &c didn't keep ballooning. You could have a really focused, powergamed, specialist overwhelm the d20 relative to the non-expert, but not as a matter of course like in 3e.

It can also happen in 5e. An expert can break +19 while a non-expert can languish at -1 through 20th level, overwhelming the d20. Just, as in 4e, not as a matter of course.

In both cases, an expert at a skill really stopped needing to roll. Especially if it's a challenge anyone in the party also wants to attempt.

No, prettymuch mainly in 3e. 4e & 5e addressed the problem differently - 4e by having everyone get significantly better as they leveled, 5e by having no one without expertise get all that much better (BA) - but both got away from the 3e 'problem' (if you considered it a problem).

 

[Herobizkit]

I meant to continue my thought earlier but ran out of time.

3/P/4e had this "this is how you do all the things" strict hierarchy of rules and rules interactions with a huge array of dials and switches for complex game customization. Some folks dig that. I did, for a while.

5e (to me) hearkens back to a 1e-ish style of "Here's some rules, use 'em to tell your story or not, but Character/World interaction is more important than 'the right rule'). WotC eschewed complexity and tightened up the game, compiling several 3/P/4 feats into optional "super-feats" and Bounded Accuracy keeps the 'bonus' numbers small and manageable.

And look at 5e's release schedule as compared to 3/P. I remember how fast splatbooks, then 3PP, then 3.5 and the 'Complete' books flooded the market and got all the players excited about all kinds of new feats, abilities and character options. And the poor DM's... they had to hold back the tide or bend over and let the supplements run wild. It got to the point for me that I had a literal questionnaire I'd present to new DMs so I'd know what kind of character options I'd be allowed to use.

Not so in 5e, though. WotC has held on to the core rules for the better part of two-three years, trickling in ideas and feeling out interest. We're just now starting to see UA's on a weekly basis, which can only mean (IMO) that a "DMG 2" is coming with all kinds of options that DM's, not players, can offer in their games. In my own case, any time I see any kind of 4e mechanics among the spells, classes et al, I mentally bristle because it adds more complexity to an otherwise functional game. The more complexity you add to a system, the more opportunities are created for the system to fail.

5e's simplicity is its greatest strength. It has a low bar for new players to come in, offers enough complexity that grognards can pick it up with little effort, and gives you carte blanche to "whatever works, don't be shy" attitude towards running a game. It's not GURPS; it's not Dungeon World. It's right in the middle. The Gold Standard™. Where it belongs.

Final note: playing through lower-level games is about the only sticking point I have with the system now. I still have yet to physically play a character higher than 3rd level.

 

[Uchawi]

I meant to continue my thought earlier but ran out of time.

3/P/4e had this "this is how you do all the things" strict hierarchy of rules and rules interactions with a huge array of dials and switches for complex game customization. Some folks dig that. I did, for a while.

5e (to me) hearkens back to a 1e-ish style of "Here's some rules, use 'em to tell your story or not, but Character/World interaction is more important than 'the right rule'). WotC eschewed complexity and tightened up the game, compiling several 3/P/4 feats into optional "super-feats" and Bounded Accuracy keeps the 'bonus' numbers small and manageable.

And look at 5e's release schedule as compared to 3/P. I remember how fast splatbooks, then 3PP, then 3.5 and the 'Complete' books flooded the market and got all the players excited about all kinds of new feats, abilities and character options. And the poor DM's... they had to hold back the tide or bend over and let the supplements run wild. It got to the point for me that I had a literal questionnaire I'd present to new DMs so I'd know what kind of character options I'd be allowed to use.

Not so in 5e, though. WotC has held on to the core rules for the better part of two-three years, trickling in ideas and feeling out interest. We're just now starting to see UA's on a weekly basis, which can only mean (IMO) that a "DMG 2" is coming with all kinds of options that DM's, not players, can offer in their games. In my own case, any time I see any kind of 4e mechanics among the spells, classes et al, I mentally bristle because it adds more complexity to an otherwise functional game. The more complexity you add to a system, the more opportunities are created for the system to fail.

5e's simplicity is its greatest strength. It has a low bar for new players to come in, offers enough complexity that grognards can pick it up with little effort, and gives you carte blanche to "whatever works, don't be shy" attitude towards running a game. It's not GURPS; it's not Dungeon World. It's right in the middle. The Gold Standard™. Where it belongs.

Final note: playing through lower-level games is about the only sticking point I have with the system now. I still have yet to physically play a character higher than 3rd level.

I always found it easier to dumb down a system like 4E then add complexity to 5E. But we all strive to find our sweet spots and preferences in regards to gaming. I agree 5E tends towards the 1E/2E days which I stopped playing long ago and have no urge to go back. So that is probably the biggest issue of D&D overall considering there is no way to please everyone. Unfortunately, 5E made its bed with ideas like maneuvers and martial classes being more limited while going overboard to make casters flexible.

The current D&D experience is primarily presented by Pathfinder and 5E with nothing in the middle. So I guess some players will feel left out.

But overall this thread is just turning into an edition war.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

That sounds like a red flag for some personal reflection, I'm sorry to have to say. At bottom, D&D has always used a d20 - linear probability, pass/fail result - even if, since 3.0, it's used it almost exclusively for resolution. The difference you're feeling may be more about feeling than difference.

Other versions of D&D don't emphasize the d20 like 5E does. 5E has bounded accuracy and fast combat, both of which put heavy emphasis on the randomness of the d20. When I played a 2E Fighter, my numererical advantages compared to other classes and the monsters were more significant than the d20. Also, in AD&D putting yourself at the mercy of the d20 usually involved deadly consequences, and as a result the d20 was something to be avoided. 5E lacks AD&D's deadly consequences, so you don't avoid randomness like you would in AD&D and you have to deal with it more often. When I played 3E, spells and optimization were more important than the d20. When I play 4E, combat and skill resolution being spread over a multitude of rolls mitigate the randomness of the d20, as does the emphasis on tactical play.

The d20 roll bothers me in 5E for reasons that just aren't as present in earlier editions.

From the player side, I can understand that. I don't often approach 5e from that side (not for that reason, but simply because there's nothing much in the way of new/appealing player options, for me - jaded 36 year veteran of the hobby that I am), though. I was hoping you'd see the potential I've found in running the game, though.

I'd urge you not to give up on it yet, try to step back and think about the things that are bothering you, and to look for solutions that you can implement on the DM side of the screen, without impacting the player experience (or impacting it positively, for that matter).

The problem is that my issues with 5E are the core mechanic/resolution and adding options not present. Both of these are big deals, and aren't the sort of things that can be fixed by minor tweaks to fit tastes.

 

[cmad1977]

But overall this thread is just turning into an edition war.

It's more of a guerill4 war. Or maybe t4rrorism? It's as if the last Japanese soldier has staggered out of the jungle years after the war was over... but he just kept on fighting.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flametitan]

Again, I have to ask: What are the DCs you're setting? The impact of randomness is going to be influenced greatly by that. Additionally, always ask yourself why you're throwing things with a DC at all. Why is it something that can't "Just be done?"

The more the players have to engage the d20, the more its randomness comes into play.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Again, I have to ask: What are the DCs you're setting? The impact of randomness is going to be influenced greatly by that. Additionally, always ask yourself why you're throwing things with a DC at all. Why is it something that can't "Just be done?"

The more the players have to engage the d20, the more its randomness comes into play.

I'm generally setting a DC of 10 for most things, sometimes 15 for more difficult things. That is when Storm King's Thunder isn't specifying a DC.

Why rolling a DC? Mostly because that's how the books present things and that's what the players seem to expect, to point of declaring skill rolls before even consulting me.