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

[JonnyP71]

Seeing a Peryton before, or even currently, is not a requirement for guessing that a creature you see is a Peryton.

Nor is it a requirement for having heard a story about a Pertyon that was not seriously wounded by most of the weapons on hand, but did suffer a significant wound from the one magical weapon on hand.

And really, a Peryton is a poor example of a character not being able to guess correctly what foul beast it is that they face, considering there aren't a whole slew of things that look similar to man-sized birds with elk heads to get the description confused with.

It's not at all meta-gaming for a player to have their character believe they are facing a Peryton because an elk-headed giant bird is attacking them. It's not even meta-gaming for a player to decide their character heard some folk tale about a Peryton unless a detail that hasn't been mentioned is that there is no such thing as Peryton on this world and this encounter is the first sighting of a new or alien species.

But it is meta-gaming to be upset that the player has had their character guess, and happens to actually be correct.

OK if they pass an Arcana check to recall said piece of Lore.

Fail the check and their character does not know the creature is a Peryton, let alone any of its abilities. All the DMs I know enforce this (including myself), and none of our players have any issue with adhering to it.

A great way to stop everyone dumping Int.


And I've never played in a group which enforces the Cleave rule.

 

[dave2008]

the structure of buffs does in fact make it so every team effort is actually taking one for the team, and it isn't very cost effective because for the first 9 levels, everyone can do about the same damage. Wizards do in fact have solid damage capabilities, but it tends to appear at unsupported level ranges. Even the supported level ranges where exotic combinations produce high yields, the material available is sparse.
I wouldn't go so far as to say 5e characters aren't heroic, or that your decisions don't matter, however, the style of modern DMs, along with the railroad pattern of published adventures, 3 item limits of magical items, etc. does imply that your characters are closer to those of the bumbling fools of Atlantis (2013 British tv series), rather than the obscene epic heroes of Xena (1995 New Zealand tv series).

There is less monster: character inflation in 5e than 4e and 3e, however, the level cap system, the multiclass gutting, and the "I've got Fighter THAC0 for just four attacks per combat, if and only if im willing to sacrifice the damage bonus required to close the hit point inflation" implies in many ways, the monster inflation is competitive with 4e.

5e doesn't encourage team work, it actually makes it impossible, but then inflates monsters and # of monsters demanding "teams" that simply don't work together. I experienced this multiple times from different angles, but the most frequent was when one character wanted to help another character. They would have to drop their own defenses, get mangled, and the person they helped would generally get an incremental advantage. This leads me to believing 5e is a game of Star Trek where you surround yourself with Red Shirts and collect the experience points after they die. You can have some spare nameless blue shirts running around giving you buffs, but they are also just extras.

Sorry kids, I grew up on He Man. Remember that theme?

My 5e group has used teamwork effectively, I would go so far as to say that it is essential for them to get past some of the encounters I throw at them. To be clear, teamwork is not simply throwing buffs (though bless and shield of faith are very useful), but working as a team tactically and strategically to overcome the threats and obstacles before them. Some of these are mechanical in nature, but a lot of them are just good play.

He-Man, I think, is a bad template for D&D. Though he had companions, he out-shined them to such a degree that it was essentially a one man show. That is not what D&D is about IMHO. That being said I did have quite the he-man collection back in the day

 

[dave2008]

There is less monster: character inflation in 5e than 4e and 3e, however, the level cap system, the multiclass gutting, and the "I've got Fighter THAC0 for just four attacks per combat, if and only if im willing to sacrifice the damage bonus required to close the hit point inflation" implies in many ways, the monster inflation is competitive with 4e.

I am really confused by this statement. Why are you talking about THAC0? How does that relate to 5e? Not sure what your trying to say, but it seems to be that 5e monsters have inflated HP like 4e monsters? I'm not sure about that, but my 5e PCs destroy the MM monsters. The MM monsters, IMO, do not have enough HP to stand with PCs (if you follow the CR and Encounter guidelines).

 

[BryonD]

Sorry, just to be clear, I only used the term "change and progress" because I was quoting you.

Well, ok, but my context didn't presume that 4E truly had those merits, just that those terms were barbs used in the edition warz.
Your reply stated that 5E had them less, I disagree with that premise.

 

[BryonD]

Those things seem pretty minor compared to:

3E--Monsters as PCs, feats, Prestige Classes, Warlocks shooting Eldritch Blasts at will, Tome of Battle
4E--Fighters get powers too, the 4E Defender and Leader roles, Warlord(you mean I don't have to play a Cleric?), Healing Surges, the Encounter, Dragonborn and Tieflings as core PC races

You don't seem to really be making a point here.

Yes, I strongly agree that 3E and 4E are both highly distinct games far removed from prior editions.
And I'd agree with the subjective assessment that 5E is closer to prior editions than either.

But my point was very much that *magnitude of change* does not in any way imply "progress".

 

[Eric V]

Well, ok, but my context didn't presume that 4E truly had those merits, just that those terms were barbs used in the edition warz.
Your reply stated that 5E had them less, I disagree with that premise.

So vaguely camouflaged edition warring. Got it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

He-Man, I think, is a bad template for D&D. Though he had companions, he out-shined them to such a degree that it was essentially a one man show. That is not what D&D is about IMHO.

Not about a muscle-bound oaf doing the out-shining, anyway.

I am really confused by this statement. Why are you talking about THAC0? How does that relate to 5e?

I think what he was getting at was the must-have-seeming -5/+10 feats degrading your 'THAC0' (BAB, proficiency bonus) in return for keeping up with hp/damage inflation. I don't agree - extra attacks manage that just fine - but that's the only think I can think of that fits.

Not sure what your trying to say, but it seems to be that 5e monsters have inflated HP like 4e monsters?

Not like 4e monsters, no. 4e was tuned to longer combats to allow for some tactical depth, so monsters had more hps relative to the damage dished out, but it was also designed to display character advancement via rapidly scalling attack rolls & defenses. 5e is designed for faster combats, so hps are lower relative to damage potential across the board, but Bounded Accuracy reduces scaling attacks/saves/DCs greatly, and uses rapidly scaling hp/damage instead. So, yes, monster hps are 'inflated' - as is PC damage - but it's to provide a sense of advancement. Similar phenomenon, different reasons/results.

The MM monsters, IMO, do not have enough HP to stand with PCs (if you follow the CR and Encounter guidelines).

They're not supposed to, the combat is supposed to be over quickly, one way or the other - but hopefully not the other.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think what he was getting at was the must-have-seeming -5/+10 feats degrading your 'THAC0' (BAB, proficiency bonus) in return for keeping up with hp/damage inflation. I don't agree - extra attacks manage that just fine - but that's the only thing I can think of that fits.

If you are confused about why i said, compared with AD&D, the fighter THACO for 4 attacks per combat contributed to a monster inflation competitive with 4e, it is because 4e has the highest monster inflation (space between player characters and monster power) and after you run out of your once per day d12s you get to add to attack rolls, you basically have Wizard THAC0 again like everyone else and fighting epic monsters with high end armor classes produces a damage curve loss which contributes to a hit point inflation experience

I am confused, yes. I was clearly wrong about what I thought you were talking about with the THAC0 progression vs damage scaling thing.
Bolded bit: are you talking about CS dice? They're not n/day, but n/rest. Or something else?

So monster inflation is essentially the ratio of power of a player character to a monster, at various level ranges from 1-20, compared edition to edition.

In theory, a CR = level monster was equivalent in power to a PC in 3.x - that is, a same-level PC was the same threat to a party of 5 as same-CR monster, and, oddly, thus a standard combat would be for a party of 5 to turn on a 6th adventurer. It did illustrate that standard encounters were meant to be PC victories that cost resources, rather than equal contests. It more or less held in 4e, an PC-classed Monster was an Elite. A standard party of 4 could face two of them in a standard combat. So 2:1 intead of 5:1 was 'fair odds,' FWIW. I don't recall 5e giving any sort of PC->monster metric like that. Of course, CR was never that dependable (and still isn't in 5e).

Rather than focusing on mechanical values like CR

fine. :|

You ask simple questions like "does the adventuring party of 1989 need additional party members to handle the same encounter?" You ask "do they need to be higher level, or lower level? Does changing level help this story at all?".

OK, I think I see what you're getting at. Many monsters have gotten significantly tougher since the olden days, even relative to the snowballing goodies PCs have gotten? No?

See, if you miss 90% of the time, your monster essentially has x10 hit points.

Fair 'nuff, but that's not going to happen under Bounded Accuracy anymore than it did under the treadmill. That kind of thing is the domain of THAC0/BAB/attack-matrixes and uneven advancement. Regardless of level, decent 5e PCs hit with their better attacks around 65% of the time. Saves aren't as clear, because hammering a bad save can make a big difference, while attacks are always vs AC.