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

[iserith]

From my own experience (with 4 DMs, myself included) this is what happens.. most DCs are in the 10-15 Range, harder ones push towards 20, and we will always describe the level of challenge 1st. eg the wall is dry and there are plenty of cracks that can be used as handholds (DC 10), or the wall is fairly smooth, what handholds there are are quite well spaced (DC 15), or even it is smooth, slick, damp and covered in Lichen (DC 20).

We don't give the exact DC beforehand, just a description. And we often don't rule as a simple yes/no pass or fail, we tend to take into account near misses for example - depending on the type of check required though.

Right, I think that good description is the minimum required and, in many cases, all that is required to convey difficulty. Sharing the DCs is just another way of conveying the same information.

For me, it's a combination of doubt about the DC and a relative paucity of player resources.

From your posts that I have read on these boards, you are probably at the more generous end in awarding inspiration (which is the generic player resource for checks in 5e) and the most "indie"-like in establishing clear stakes and DCs for resolution. When I talk about "drifting" 5e in a 4e-ish (or DW-ish, etc) direction that is the sort of thing I have in mind (both in the abstract, and your posts in particular). I'm not meaning at all to be derisive in calling it "drifting" and hope I'm not taken in that way - it's just that based on the posts I read yours is one fairly distinctive way of playing 5e and I think maybe less common or "mainstream" then the more 2nd ed AD&D approach which I think I would see as the default (to the extent that there is a default).

I don't know [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] outside the context of these boards, but I think an approach to 5e that combined your style with that of [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION] might well allay many of the concerns expressed in the OP. (I don't think positing that combination is quite calling for a mixing of oil and water.)

I ask players to "claim" Inspiration rather than award it myself. So if a player plays to his or her character's personality trait, that player can say "I'm claiming Inspiration for X..." where X is how the personality trait relates to what's going on. The player may not claim Inspiration for the personality trait again until he or she has portrayed and claimed Inspiration for the character's ideal, bond, or flaw. This keeps things more varied and interesting. What you'll tend to see as a result is that players claim Inspiration in this scene and spend it in the next, repeat. So every other scene has players rolling with advantage at least one time. This also saves me from having to keep track of a list of 16 traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws. The assumption is also that the player is playing in good faith when claiming they are portraying his or her character's trait, ideal, bond, or flaw.

I get what you mean by "drifting," and I'll agree that my approach is not all that common, though it's catching on in some circles. I'm not sure the AD&D 2e approach as you define it is all that common either. I think lots of people let their experience with other games or other editions of this game color how they play D&D 5e. The most common approach I've been seeing, both in actual play and as reported on the forums is D&D 5e through the lens of D&D 3.Xe or D&D 4e, chiefly in how the players asks to make checks or the like.

 

[Eric V]

No, you kept on that you didn't like the concept of asking the DM, but never gave an example.

Considering that some of us are having issues where we cant see where following the written rules requires asking, we don't understand your position.

Please /give an example of something you'd like to do but you feel you'd have to ask the DM/.

"Can I hit that guy hard enough that his breastplate comes loose and he doesn't benefit from that for his AC for the rest of the fight?"

(Most DMs say no way)

In a game like 4e, you just declare "I am using my Daily Power Crack the Shell," and roleplay out the attack and consequences.

Rule 0 still applies, but this time it's, as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] points out, earlier in the process (when the PC levels up and takes the power) rather than at the moment of using the power in order to maintain control of the narrative.

 

[Kite474]

Removed because I was being unnecessarily snide.

 

[pemerton]

What about "the PCs walk into an ambush and beat a hasty retreat because they have no idea who they are facing?" Or the "PCs lure an aggressive monster to attack the front gate of the evil temple"? Or "the PCs set a vicious trap for the enemy and wipe the floor"? etc etc

Without more information and context it's hard to be very prescriptive in giving advice. But on the face of things, these all sound to me like non-combat resolution, which would most naturally be resolved as skill challenges (or maybe, in the case of escape, as a single group Athletics check, and in the case of luring the monster as a single Diplomacy or Nature or other appropriate skill check).

Here's a link to an actual play report of a skill challenge which had elements of "wiping the floor" (though not via ambush, but rather via overwhelming power) and also of escape - notice that, in the middle, there was a non-floor-wiping combat that was adjudicated using the ordinary combat mechanics.

Here's a link to a session report where, after a combat, the PCs pursued a fleeing enemy (in the comments, you'll see some discussion of the pros and cons of resolving the chase in the combat framework, as I did, or in the skill challenge framework); and here's one to another session report where the PCs retreated because they thought that they couldn't win.

And here's a link to a session report where the killing of a behemoth by driving it over a waterfall was resolved as a skill challenge.

Those links might give you some idea of how at least one 4e table has handled the sorts of situations you seem to have in mind. I guess the general lesson is that the mechanics used are decided by reference to pacing and "story" considerations, rather than by reference to the infiction description of what the PCs are trying to do. (So sometimes stabbing something is an attack check, but sometimes it's a skill check.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

I ask players to "claim" Inspiration rather than award it myself. So if a player plays to his or her character's personality trait, that player can say "I'm claiming Inspiration for X..." where X is how the personality trait relates to what's going on. The player may not claim Inspiration for the personality trait again until he or she has portrayed and claimed Inspiration for the character's ideal, bond, or flaw. This keeps things more varied and interesting. What you'll tend to see as a result is that players claim Inspiration in this scene and spend it in the next, repeat. So every other scene has players rolling with advantage at least one time. This also saves me from having to keep track of a list of 16 traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws. The assumption is also that the player is playing in good faith when claiming they are portraying his or her character's trait, ideal, bond, or flaw.

Sounds like The One Ring...

 

[pemerton]

The player may not claim Inspiration for the personality trait again until he or she has portrayed and claimed Inspiration for the character's ideal, bond, or flaw. This keeps things more varied and interesting.

In BW, there is a default of no more than one fate point per Belief, Trait, Instinct per session. The logic is the same: variety.

I'm not sure the AD&D 2e approach as you define it is all that common either. I think lots of people let their experience with other games or other editions of this game color how they play D&D 5e. The most common approach I've been seeing, both in actual play and as reported on the forums is D&D 5e through the lens of D&D 3.Xe or D&D 4e, chiefly in how the players asks to make checks or the like.

You could well be right. I'm as subject to confirmation bias as the next person, and 2nd ed AD&D is what gets my antennae twitching!

 

[Guest 6801328]

"Can I hit that guy hard enough that his breastplate comes loose and he doesn't benefit from that for his AC for the rest of the fight?"

(Most DMs say no way)

In a game like 4e, you just declare "I am using my Daily Power Crack the Shell," and roleplay out the attack and consequences.

Yeah, but that's just an example of an ability, not an observation about player agency and game design.

I don't know 4e well so I'm not sure what's in there and what isn't, but I'll hazard a guess that Paladins still had Detect Evil rather than Divine Sense. (Even if I don't have that right, this example should be illustrative.)

So in 4e if a Paladin said "I'll stare into the cave and see if I can sense the presence of any Fey" the DM might say "No way."

But in 5e the Paladin just declares "I'm using my Divine Sense" and roleplays it out.

And even if there isn't a single thing you can do in 5e that it's in 4e, there are still a universe of possible actions that aren't in either game. So the difference is a matter of degree and not a fundamental distinction.

 

[Eric V]

Yeah, but that's just an example of an ability, not an observation about player agency and game design.

Huh?

It's an example that gives way more agency to the player (She decides she's going to lower the AC of the enemy, rather than play "Mother May I?" with the DM), and it's a design decision made by the designers!

 

[Guest 6801328]

By the way, somebody compared 4e to Dungeon World but I really struggle with that comparison.

Dungeon World has even fewer specific abilities than 5e. Almost everything you do (or try to do) falls under a very general/broad skill, like "Defy Danger" or "Spout Lore", and every character can use any of them. The DM then has nearly unlimited authority to interpret the dice results.

 

[Sunseeker]

The OP said their goal was to "not just win, but kick ass". Are other people not allowed to have that goal? Must combat after combat they watch someone else's character be more effective and they aren't allowed to feel sidelined, only thank him for saving them?

If your goal is to kick ass and take names, build a character who kicks ass and takes names. Why is this a complicated proposition? I don't understand the desire to "win" at combat when you make a character that is clearly not optimized, or in some cases, not even oriented towards combat.

Sorry, that's bull. I like to optimize, and a lesson I had to learn over time as I matured as a gamer is to match the party. One group we all optimize and have great fun. But being a subgroup off the curve - either above or below - isn't fun in general.

I like to "kick ass" in social encounters where I do a lot of role playing, but since I don't want my role playing to fail due to a bad score in a necessary skill, I optimize for that. In these cases, I typically perform poorly in combat. But I'm OKAY with that. Because I don't care if I perform badly while Joe bulldozes the room.

If my goal is to "win at combat" I'll make a character that will do that. If your goal isn't to win at combat, why begrudge another for doing what you don't want to do?