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

[thecasualoblivion]

It always has worked out that the higher your AC was, the more impact an extra +1 AC would have. If at your AC (whatever it is) vs a particular enemy you have 10% chance of being hit, adding 1 AC lowers it to 5% - meaning you effectively cut incoming damage by half! However, if at your AC you have 75% chance of being hit... having 80% or 70% is not really significant, the impact on your survivability.

Because of how the numbers in D&D work out, it's not vs "a particular enemy" anymore but rather "enemies in general", since as you point out the average monster has a pretty narrow range of +to hit numbers. You are very correct that it's now possible to make judgement calls about AC values in general.

I'm not sure however if I agree that there is a deadzone. Rather as above, it's "the lower the more worthless each AC point is". Maybe what you are alluding at is a "zone of effort"? It's usually somewhat trivial to increase your AC from 10 to 14-16 with a bit of dex, a bit of armor/shield, a defensive spell etc. So it's worth it to increase your AC for such little effort.

So if McAverage McMonsterface has +5 to hit, going from AC 11 to AC 16 lowers your chance of being hit from 75% to 50% - that 1/3 less damage coming in, that's definitely worth it. But is there a "deadzone"? It might be more difficult to go from 16 to 18 than from 14 to 16. But doing so will decrease your chances of being hit from 50% to 40% - a 20% reduction in effective damage taken. I think that's still worth it.





I'm still learning the rules but the loss of tank "stickiness" is a problem IMO.

I played a few games last year at 5th level, with a plate wearing Cleric with 20 AC who cast Shield of Faith on himself to buff that to 22. Surrounded by three enemies, he didn't last long. With the exception of a raging Barbarian with high HP taking half damage from weapons(or everything), it's almost impossible to survive focus fire in this game from what I've seen. It doesn't matter if you're sticky if you can't survive focus fire.

There are a few ways to get stickiness. One is the sentinel feat, fighters have a fighting style and Battlemaster maneuvers, Paladin has something as well I forget how it works, and ironically the most powerful one belongs to the Swashbuckler Rogue. None of them really stack up well compared to what a level 1 defender can do in 4E, and unlike 4E you have to trade feats, damage dealing ability, and specific class levels for the privilege.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm still learning the rules but the loss of tank "stickiness" is a problem IMO.

There's a few points that work in favor of "tanking" without being very sticky.

For one, the closer character equality (including in terms of AC) change monster calculus if your DM is prone to thinking with monster psychology. Even a lowly goblin has a chance to hit a fighter. And that mage might have shield. If you're only gonna live another round or two anyway, swinging for the tank is not a bad option. Like, I've got a level 8 sorcerer whose AC is 12. TWELVE. Things still miss me. Not OFTEN, mind, but often enough that I don't feel a lot of pressure to up my AC.

Another element is that with faster combats, OA's become a bigger disincentive. If it only takes one attack to kill a goblin, the only "stickiness" you need is an OA - the goblin that passes you dies. Even if you DON'T kill it, one hit from you significantly lowers its ability to do more than TRY to hit the mage once. And because of the first point above, most any mage can take a hit or two.

If the goal of stickiness is "lets stop the monster from getting to the squishies," being a big swingy works in favor of that - monsters fall fast, and even if you have a VERY GOOD AC, they can still hit you, and may still miss the mage.

 

[Ancalagon]

I played a few games last year at 5th level, with a plate wearing Cleric with 20 AC who cast Shield of Faith on himself to buff that to 22. Surrounded by three enemies, he didn't last long. With the exception of a raging Barbarian with high HP taking half damage from weapons(or everything), it's almost impossible to survive focus fire in this game from what I've seen. It doesn't matter if you're sticky if you can't survive focus fire.

The barbarian does seem to be the real tank these days doesn't he? In 3e despite his higher HP he often was a bit of a glass canon...

About your cleric: What were the enemies though? If you are 5th level and 3 fire giants are on you, well... you're doomed no matter your class. But if they were McAverage McMonsterface with their +5 to hit, they would need a 17 to hit, ie 20%. Unless your HP is very low, you are very unlucky or their damage is huge, this sounds like a situation you should be able to hold for a few rounds until the party can focus their fire on your opponents.

Oh and I'll note that by casting Shield of faith, you reduced their chance to hit from 30 to 20%, ie you shaved off 1/3 of the incoming damage.

 

[Hopsong]

I agree with the OP but instead of blaming randomness I would say that the 5E roles are out of balance. In 5E it is hard to be a Defender/"Tank" (no Combat Challenge OAs) and hard to be a Leader/"Healer" (Little healing except Clerics; Battle Masters pale in comparison to Warlords). Instead of Defenders, I enjoyed the 4E Leaders including doing it by multi-classing/hybrids. Clearly I'm not a power gamer, but I always felt I could perform a role without sacrificing too much.

5E tilts towards Strikers because: 1)Fighers are mostly Strikers, not Defenders; 2)Wizards are mostly Strikers, not Controllers; 3)The Leader role is divided between Cleric/Healers (Paladins somewhat) and Battle Master/Leaders (Bards somewhat); and 4)Every other class is (still) a Striker.

To some extent this is intentional in that combat goes faster (winning or losing) if everyone is concentrating on dealing damage. But like many who played 4E, I miss the combat roles that included effective Defenders (Tanks who controlled the battlefield) and well-rounded Leaders (both Healers and battlefield supporters).

A word about power gaming. I played with some 4E power gamers who were justifiably proud of their amazing damage-dealing combinations. But they only did one role well and I earned a lot of respect with a Ranger/Cleric nick-named "Doc" and a Shaman with a Spirit Bear that granted HP in key situations. It's hard to make an ineffective character in 4E if you stay within your role.

 

[Celtavian]

It's very hard to optimize in 5E without spellcasting. That is disappointing. In 3E/Pathfinder you could make powerful non-spellcasting characters, but not so much in 5E. A spellcaster or hybrid-spellcaster is going to have more power than a non-caster by quite a margin.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It's very hard to optimize in 5E without spellcasting. That is disappointing. In 3E/Pathfinder you could make powerful non-spellcasting characters, but not so much in 5E. A spellcaster or hybrid-spellcaster is going to have more power than a non-caster by quite a margin.

Casters still have an edge at higher levels in 5E, but not as bad as in previous editions. Claiming that Pathfinder or 3E is better in this regard is frankly ridiculous.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The dice won't let you just be the frickin' master of this game. You also have to be lucky - something no amount of skill will ever fix.

I disagree that skill can't "fix" luck.

Perhaps in the more powergamey versions the "skill" is in building your character and executing sequences such that luck plays no roll: if you set everything up right, you ARE going to WTFPWN your target.

In 5e that's less likely to work. There's probably going to be a greater chance for something to go wrong because of a bad roll on your part, or a good roll from your target.

So where the skill comes in is in being ready for that; in preparing and planning so that a string of bad luck doesn't sink you.

I can't help but think of Jim Collins' most recent book, "Great By Choice". He analyzes a number of very successful companies (which is what he does in all of his books), comparing each one to a competitor that at one point looked similar, but over the long term didn't perform as well. His main finding was that the wildly successful companies prepared for luck, both good and bad, and were better able to capitalize on the former and mitigate the latter. And for both scenarios the key components were resource reserves and disciplined adherence to a plan.

Seems to me there's a lesson for powergamers here. Make sure you conserve resources (spell slots, special abilities) in case things go badly (or have an unexpected opportunity). Have an escape plan. And don't panic and change your plan if the dice surprise you.

It's a different flavor of skill, perhaps, than in previous editions. But I'd argue it's actually a more subtle and harder skill than reading the forums and picking the right build.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I disagree that skill can't "fix" luck.

Perhaps in the more powergamey versions the "skill" is in building your character and executing sequences such that luck plays no roll: if you set everything up right, you ARE going to WTFPWN your target.

In 5e that's less likely to work. There's probably going to be a greater chance for something to go wrong because of a bad roll on your part, or a good roll from your target.

So where the skill comes in is in being ready for that; in preparing and planning so that a string of bad luck doesn't sink you.

I can't help but think of Jim Collins' most recent book, "Great By Choice". He analyzes a number of very successful companies (which is what he does in all of his books), comparing each one to a competitor that at one point looked similar, but over the long term didn't perform as well. His main finding was that the wildly successful companies prepared for luck, both good and bad, and were better able to capitalize on the former and mitigate the latter. And for both scenarios the key components were resource reserves and disciplined adherence to a plan.

Seems to me there's a lesson for powergamers here. Make sure you conserve resources (spell slots, special abilities) in case things go badly (or have an unexpected opportunity). Have an escape plan. And don't panic and change your plan if the dice surprise you.

It's a different flavor of skill, perhaps, than in previous editions. But I'd argue it's actually a more subtle and harder skill than reading the forums and picking the right build.

What you describe is real, but there's a psychological hiccup for gameplay: for a lot of powergamers, it's not usually enjoyable to just avoid catastrophe. It's a version of the Goalkeeper Problem (if a goalkeeper does his job well, nobody notices; if the goalkeeper fails, EVERYBODY HATES THEM).

As an example, it's not often as fun for some players to have to take the Dodge action in the moment to avoid character death (it feels like sacrificing) as it is to build a character with a nigh-unhittable AC.

What the something like the former scenario does is reward clever play in the moment with the reward of "you get to keep playing the same character." Someone seeking out the kind of fun that powergamers often seek out often find even being in that situation frustrating - it doesn't show mastery if you have to take an action to avoid death.

 

[Guest 6801328]

What you describe is real, but there's a psychological hiccup for gameplay: for a lot of powergamers, it's not usually enjoyable to just avoid catastrophe. It's a version of the Goalkeeper Problem (if a goalkeeper does his job well, nobody notices; if the goalkeeper fails, EVERYBODY HATES THEM).

As an example, it's not often as fun for some players to have to take the Dodge action in the moment to avoid character death (it feels like sacrificing) as it is to build a character with a nigh-unhittable AC.

What the something like the former scenario does is reward clever play in the moment with the reward of "you get to keep playing the same character." Someone seeking out the kind of fun that powergamers often seek out often find even being in that situation frustrating - it doesn't show mastery if you have to take an action to avoid death.

Yeah, I grok that. I'm not arguing that it scratches everybody's itch. I'm just saying that managing luck is in fact a skill.

 

[GX.Sigma]

4E tactical play for me had a lot to do with picking powers, feats and abilities...It really didn't matter if you miss or fail on a single action...a run of bad luck rarely was decisive.
...
In 3E, you set up the "I win" button(both in character building and in play), and then you pressed it. If it failed, you repeat the process.

In 5E the dice are king. Combat goes faster than 4E, so a random swing of bad luck has a bigger impact, and it lacks 3E's "I win" buttons that bypass or minimize the impact of dice.

OK, I see what you're saying. I personally like the 5e way better, since I don't consider either mechanical character customization or intra-encounter tactics to be all that fun. In my opinion, the important decisions are like "should we fight this monster or not," not "which of my powers should I use against this monster this round."