I'm finding the better feats (Polearm Master, Sentinel, arguably the -5/+10 ones) are a lot more powerful than +1 to hit & damage or +1 to hit and save DC from a +2 stat bump.
D&D 3E/3.5 Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E
I'm finding the better feats (Polearm Master, Sentinel, arguably the -5/+10 ones) are a lot more powerful than +1 to hit & damage or +1 to hit and save DC from a +2 stat bump.
I have a feeling that +1 to Hit/Damage isn't as powerfull as the best feats, which also give you new abilities/options and usually go towards a concept (Polearm Master, Shield Master, etc).
Moreover, most (if no all) optimization guides I read tell to get feats first, then use ASI to actually increase ability scores.
I'm not sure about the "shouldn't" - but I agree with the description of 4e play, at least at the upper tiers (and my group plays without Expertise feats). When the 29th level PCs in my game defeated Orcus in his throne room, it was a level 37 encounter. They have since gone on to have multiple further encounters (and have not yet been able to take an extended rest). In the most recent one, which was 35th level to their 30th, they had to retreat because they were down to two surges across the party, with the fighter on 6 hp, and they didn't have the ability to close the distance with their flying adversary.
So while retreat is not common in 4e, it does happen! Upthread, [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] mentioned Rope Trick: in our game, the invoker/wizard PC cast a rapid Hallowed Temple so they could take refuge in the mausoleum of the Raven Queen. (A Hallowed Temple can't be entered by undead, and their adversary - Jenna Osterneth - is undead.)
thecasualoblivion
First Post
I just got done reading all the optimization guides for each class, and I'd say 80-90% of the time they recommended getting your main stat to 20 first. If you really want a feat, the guides recommend going variant human and getting the feat for free at level 1 while getting your stat to 20 by 8th level.
This was the list of guides I was using:
http://zenithgames.blogspot.com/2014/08/5e-guide-to-guides.html?m=1
As for the -5 for +10 feats, if you're getting them instead of +2 to a stat, they are effectively -6 to hit for +9 to damage, which isn't as good of a deal. Those feats are also better at higher levels when you have more attacks and a higher bonus to hit. At best, I'd start thinking about getting them after the first stat boost but before the second.
I'd probably be getting feats first if I was trying to play a tank, but as I said earlier in this thread I'm underwhelmed by tanking in 5E. While some of this is bias from comparing 5E tanks to 4E defenders, the vibe I get from the mechanics and what I've read on forums on the whole is that for 5E offense > defense.
thecasualoblivion
First Post
The most dramatic example I have from 4E was one instance where my players defeated a level 14 and a level 16 encounter consecutively at level 8, after I had grabbed the wrong RPGA adventure by mistake. After the second encounter we all asked why this was so hard and it was at that point we noticed we were playing a P1 adventure at high tier.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
That's an artifact of games where all the fights are easy and predictable, basically just a race to see who can hit for the most damage before enemies are dead. In a more heterogeneous and unpredictable game, extra defense (which includes more than just AC) is better than extra offense for winning fights (including recon in force) because defense scales better, but extra offense is better than extra defense for protecting civilians and breaking an enemy force permanently. It helps to be good at both.
If you can't do defense, fights of Quadruple Deadly or higher will be unpredictable rocket-tag, and you probably won't survive more than a few of them. No true powergamer would put themselves in such a weak position. ;-)
For example, an offense-heavy group of GWM Barbarians will NEVER be able at eighth level to defeat an battalion of hobgoblins occupying their home village. They'll have no trouble with a squad of hobgoblins, but then the reaction force arrives and all the PCs die unless they think really quickly. Being bad at defense limits your freedom in play.
Last edited:
thecasualoblivion
First Post
As you say, it depends on the situation. Organized play tends to be easy and predictable, as do a lot of home games. Looking at the 5E system, both the mechanics and how the system is presented in the books, I would say you would have to go out of your way and specifically pursue the level of danger you describe, possibly inspired by a certain style of 1E/2E play. I say a certain style because the 2E play I experienced back in the nineties resembled the danger level of easy and predictable 5E than the level of danger you describe.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
True. If I had the choice between playing organized Adventure League 5E, or staying home and reading a Jim Butcher or David Weber book, I'd pick the book. It's more exciting.
thecasualoblivion
First Post
It's a matter of taste. I like a challenge, but not too much. I play D&D to fight stuff, and fighting being so dangerous it's the wrong option kind of goes against what I want out of D&D. I'm also firmly in the combat as sport camp.
I mostly disagree with your opinions in this thread... but not this time.
I like challange. Challange is how my character shines in combat!
But "excess of challange" tends towards frustrating. Maybe that's why I was never into Tomb of Horrors or even Dark Sun for the matter... anywaya, as you said, it's a matter of taste
Last edited:
