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

[Imaro]

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.

Yeah but I think this is a far cry from preferring not to game... rather than try to work out a solution if the DM is on board for it. Just seems like working with the DM on a solution in a socially based game wouldn't ever be totally off the table before it was even attempted... but I guess different strokes for different folks.

 

[Imaro]

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.

I tried to make this point before but I'll try to present my thoughts more clearly now...there are diminishing returns on knowing all spells... As an example what other spell provides the type of benefits (A totally safe haven where one can take a short rest and or hide) Rope Trick does at it's level? If there isn't one (which I don't think there is) what does it matter if I as a Wizard know 5 other spells that you don't? When it comes time to rest and/or we need safety I'm going to reach for Rope Trick... right? Only now instead of that being my time to shine...you can cast it and when necessary for an extra hour of duration which is always an advantage since it's there if necessary (say when hiding or scouting for a longer period of time) and not if it's not needed...

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.

Wait... how are Wizards not expending resources to cast this spell? They also have spell slots that are expended upon casting...same as a sorcerer. You're only spending sorcery points when you want to enhance the spells... something a wizard can't do.

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.

No I don't think giving up all damage spells would be acceptable (or a good thing since ultimately if you're covering utility you may need to damage something... even if it's not in combat). The bloodlines I would be willing to work with you on as a DM (reduced spell points might be another aspect to evening out the added spells)... But ultimately I would want a final list of the spells you want to be able to cast outside of those on the Sorcerer's list and judge it off that.

(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)

It's not that I don't allow them, it's that my group has agreed to stay away from most of the UA stuff for now since it's not yet in a final form, though we do use SCAG and DMG options in our games. Interesting enough and in support of my first thoughts about this type of swapping with no cost... the Favored Soul is ranked gold (top tier/must take) and specifically called out as overpowered in the 5e sorcerer optimization guide... make of that what you will.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

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.

Oh aye, totally - we've had about 15-17 years to grow our group's bonds, something that can't be whipped up in hurry. We've seen the worst side of the game and the best. Granted its not been 15 years of continual development but we have had the luxury of time to screw up, forgive and forget and move on.
On the flip side, the lessons we've learnt, especially with regards to interpersonal communication between members of small teams, has carried us through our respective careers.

If you are forced to choose a table among peers with whom you can't communicate with, it's an entirely different kettle of fish. Though, just to be clear, we're not prone to dancing around, holding hands and singing sweet love to one another. We bicker, there's misunderstanding and folks get frustrated. The key to success, for us at least, has been to keep at it -and to recongise the difference between a person's choice of behaviour and their intent. In other words, we have a tacit agreement that none of us mean the other any ill will and that we all want to enjoy a good game together.

When we extend this philosophy to newcomer, things work out well. But then again, said new comers are free to walk away if they so choose to. If you don't have that choice…. yeah. Rough ride dude.

Hope it works out for the best.

 

[Imaro]

Oh aye, totally - we've had about 15-17 years to grow our group's bonds, something that can't be whipped up in hurry. We've seen the worst side of the game and the best. Granted its not been 15 years of continual development but we have had the luxury of time to screw up, forgive and forget and move on.
On the flip side, the lessons we've learnt, especially with regards to interpersonal communication between members of small teams, has carried us through our respective careers.

If you are forced to choose a table among peers with whom you can't communicate with, it's an entirely different kettle of fish. Though, just to be clear, we're not prone to dancing around, holding hands and singing sweet love to one another. We bicker, there's misunderstanding and folks get frustrated. The key to success, for us at least, has been to keep at it -and to recongise the difference between a person's choice of behaviour and their intent. In other words, we have a tacit agreement that none of us mean the other any ill will and that we all want to enjoy a good game together.

When we extend this philosophy to newcomer, things work out well. But then again, said new comers are free to walk away if they so choose to. If you don't have that choice…. yeah. Rough ride dude.

Hope it works out for the best.

I'm wondering if this might be a factor with those who enjoy 5e. I also play in a relatively stable group with multiple people having DM'd/GM'd at some point in time that has been together for years and is made up of family and friends. It's very similar to what you describe above...

 

[Avalongod]

Yeah but I think this is a far cry from preferring not to game... rather than try to work out a solution if the DM is on board for it. Just seems like working with the DM on a solution in a socially based game wouldn't ever be totally off the table before it was even attempted... but I guess different strokes for different folks.

Oh sure, I'm not saying not to work with the DM, only that it can be tough to find the right balance. My observation is that, particularly for some classes, a lot of players find some dissatisfaction with the classes in 5e. I think a lot of it comes under the guise of "My class is mainly designed to do X, but I wish it could do more Y." DMs may find sympathy with this and try to find ways for the PC to be able to more of Y...only Y is a role belonging to another class. This leaves the player of PC Y feeling balance issues. All of it is good faith and everyone trying to have fun, but it can be tricky. I tend to think the classes as designed are "balanced" in the sense they all leave something to be desired, hehe. Trying to "fix" that in light of player dissatisfactions can cause as many problems as it fixes.

 

[dave2008]

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

Not yet from WotC, but the DMs Guild offers those options/choices.

 

[BryonD]

This thread was never about solutions, the things in 5E I don't like aren't particularly fixable, especially in organized play. My aim here was to discuss the dissonance between how I play D&D and the 5E game I've started to participate in.

People who can't seem to stand anybody criticizing 5E have taken it upon themselves to try to fix things for me, but that's never been what this has been about. I have noticed that this thread hasn't made me any more inclined to play 5E to anyone else's standards.

Fair enough.

Has it changed your perspective on people who were unhappy with 4E?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Fair enough.

Has it changed your perspective on people who were unhappy with 4E?

Given the general level of hostility that came out of people(as a group) who were unhappy with 4E, not really.

 

[Imaro]

[MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION]... just curious have you actually bought and read any of the 5e books? Or is your opinion based purely on AL play?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

[MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION]... just curious have you actually bought and read any of the 5e books? Or is your opinion based purely on AL play?

I possess most of the 5E books, though I've only bought Curse of Strahd(the rest I inherited a while back from somebody who quit D&D, though theoretically if he ever comes back I'll return them). The core 3, Strahd(which I haven't read since I'm playing it), some of the other adventures whose names escape me at this point. I've read the PHB nearly to the point of having it memorized(trying to achieve system mastery over the course of a two week span will do that), I've read the MM front to back 2 or 3 times, and I've read sections of the DMG sporadically(I don't really DM anymore these days).

Our game is a little more than AL. We have one DM and the same table of 6 every week, no exceptions unless somebody can't make it. Officially we're AL, but the DM is making some minor tweaks.