D&D 5E Do you feel 5e pressures you to build strong over fun?

[Corpsetaker]

I've been gaming for over 30 years and I always choose concept over optimization.

I just want to say that our group never goes into a game with the expectation of winning. We don't play D&D to win, we play D&D with the intention of playing our character's concept and just interacting with the world at large. We don't care if we win or lose, it's just a part of the game.

 

[Sunseeker]

5e does a far better job providing a "structured system for character development" than any other version of D&D of which I'm aware. There are other games which have far better character-development strategies.

I'm not sure where you're going with the rest of that, because backgrounds already consist of "non-crunch personal development options" - they provide some skills, and one kit/game/whatsit proficiency, and another thing which is entirely RP.

I mean that those elements should continue and be expanded on through play. Like, just because I pick a level 1 fighter doesn't mean I don't later become a level 5 fighter. Bakgrounds should work similarly. You start off as a criminal or a sage or whatever and you grow that as you level or multi-background into another one or something like that.

 

[Blue]

I feel that in any RPG, there is pressure to be able to help overcome challenges. In a combat-focused RPG like D&D*, that comes across at the mildest as not disappointing your teammates. So if all of the characters are at teh same level of prowess (and the DM calibrates to it), it's all good. That doesn't need to be optimized ... but it usually feels better to exceed to success then fail, so people build more optimized characters, which moves the bar up.

Now, in reality the worst case is when the party is all over in terms of power level. Because D&D expects everyone to contribute in combat (unlike in the other pillars), the DM will need to create challenges that are either a cakewalk for some and right for the others, or deadly for some and right for the others. Or a *much* worse sin - boring either because you can't contribute or because there is no risk.

So there is social pressure as part of a collaborative game that expects everyone to be able to contribute in on of the most frequent activities (based on how much wall-clock time is spent). That's not just D&D, it's really the whole slew of games.


(* If you don't think D&D is combat focused mechanically, look through the classes section of the PHB and tell me how many pages have nothing about combat on them. HPs, features for attacking, the vast majority of spells so most casting, etc.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I mean that those elements should continue and be expanded on through play. Like, just because I pick a level 1 fighter doesn't mean I don't later become a level 5 fighter. Bakgrounds should work similarly. You start off as a criminal or a sage or whatever and you grow that as you level or multi-background into another one or something like that.

So like a 4e Theme or PF Template?

I guess the obvious possibility might be feats that build on certain backgrounds?

 

[Sunseeker]

So like a 4e Theme or PF Template?

I guess the obvious possibility might be feats that build on certain backgrounds?

Yes more like the 4E Themes, but essentially in a separate column so that you're not forced to choose between "what I need to survive the night" and "what I need to expand the creativity of my character".

 

[schnee]

You're kidding, right?

5e is the first edition in a LONG time that actively avoids massive power creep.

3.x was horrifyingly bad, and broke my enjoyment of the game.

This game feels like a loop back around to OD&D and Basic, in a good way. It hasn't fixed everything, but you can't really do that without making the game feel fundamentally different.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No. People who feel the need to optimize in order to feel "strong" will feel that regardless of edition. It's a personal preference thing, and not an edition thing. Even in 3e, you didn't need to optimize at all (gasp!), and that's probably the one edition that had the biggest disparity between PCs who were optimized and those that weren't.

In that other thread, the OP asked if anyone would choose to multiclass before getting an extra attack, and doubted anyone would. I answered yes, because I pretty much did that. It was a 50/50 choice between going barb 4 (and getting the feat I wanted) or barb3/druid1. If I went barb4, I still would have went druid 1 at the next level, because starting that path was more important to me than the extra attack at level 5 (I didn't want to delay that because I usually only play PCs up to level 10, and being the bear totem barbarian who can change into a bear was core to the theme I wanted to play so I wanted it fairly early). I guess the OP's response was to block me, and since he was the OP, I can't even see the thread anymore.

But there's your answer.

 

[Rhenny]

I'm much more inclined to develop fun rather than optimize in 5e, but also it depends on the group I play with or DM with.

Bounded accuracy makes it so that less powerful characters can still make meaningful choices, and there is no need to chase power since many of the more powerful monsters have limited ACs and saves vs. spells.

In prior editions (especially 3&4), the rate of power increased much more with higher level monsters. The number treadmill made it all but necessary to maximize so that by the time a PC was higher level, it would not be obsolete and unable to hit or land spells against the "level" appropriate foes.

With 5e, gaining additional features regardless of "to hit" and "damage" makes playing a PC more fun. This is also dependent on whether or not the DM broadens the game so that exploration, interaction, crowd control, etc. become more valuable than just straight up fighting to kill.

But, as I said, it does depend on table. In groups that maximize, it is much harder to play the non-maximized PC (although that has always been the case in D&D).

 

[Kabouter Games]

I mean that those elements should continue and be expanded on through play. Like, just because I pick a level 1 fighter doesn't mean I don't later become a level 5 fighter. Backgrounds should work similarly. You start off as a criminal or a sage or whatever and you grow that as you level or multi-background into another one or something like that.

That directly contradicts the concept of "background," though, doesn't it? Your background is your background, what you did before you became an adventurer. You're describing something like a hobby the character pursues during downtime. That's an interesting concept, and it's sort of referenced in the downtime rules, but it's not "background."

Cheers,

Bob

www.r-p-davis.com

 

[Sunseeker]

That directly contradicts the concept of "background," though, doesn't it? Your background is your background, what you did before you became an adventurer. You're describing something like a hobby the character pursues during downtime. That's an interesting concept, and it's sort of referenced in the downtime rules, but it's not "background."

Cheers,

Bob

*shrug* I think you're getting overly caught up on the use of the word "background" (and the downtime rules are as terrible in 5E as they've been in every edition). Call it "profession", whatever you want. The name isn't important. The "background" just provides a base. You were a criminal, do you seek redemption? To force a criminal empire? To skirt the law for fun and for profit? There, just like 5E's classes, each background now gains a "subclass" that you can advance into based on the direction you'd like to take your character role-play wise.

I'm saying D&D lacks a solid framework to promote RP friendly choices, often forcing players to choose between creatively interesting choices and mechanically beneficial ones. Having a secondary system for RP advancement only would go a long way to alleviating that.