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

[Ristamar]

There is pretty much just one fight script though, particularly for ranged characters. (I think on a scale of 'most choices' it's Spellcasters >> Melee Combatants > Ranged Combatants). If you asked me when I get to play I'm probably a 'powergamer' and the thing I don't like about 5e from a 'powergaming' perspective is a lack of intresting choices in combat (Edit: Unless I play a spellcaster, which is a restriction I could do without)).

I think combat needs to be exciting and engaging, and for me that comes from:

A) Interesting tactical challenges
B) Clever monster design
C) Interesting decisions to make to respond to A or B
D) Meaningful stakes
E) Vivid descriptions

I think this is a non controversial list. D & E are very campaign/GM dependent so I'm not going to discuss them. Let's say you're playing a battlemaster fighter, level 14, archery style, with the crossbow expertise feat. From watching that build for 14 levels I am confident that I could write a very simple decision tree/script that would make a 'correct' move in combat every time (it's going to need some help on positioning maybe). It's going to be something like:

'move to maximum range at which you have unpenaltised attacks on the target. If enemy AC is X or higher, full attack without using the -5 to hit penalty. If enemy AC is lower than X use the full attack with the -5 to hit +10 to damage. In case B, use precision on any attack that misses by less than X'

If I can simply formulate what my character should be doing in combat, I'm not making interesting decisions. I'm not making any decisions at all, I'm just following the script.

While you make some good points, if your encounters are always so predictable that they can be reduced to a simple flow chart, your DM may not be doing a good job with encounter design.

To quote the Angry GM, "If everything aligns perfectly for [the party], they simply execute their script and win. And that’s boring as hell." An interesting encounter should "wreck the general First-Order Strategy so the party HAS TO think of a new strategy."

Also, have some XP for the awesome username!

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

While you make some good points, if your encounters are always so predictable that they can be reduced to a simple flow chart, your DM may not be doing a good job with encounter design.

To quote the Angry GM, "If everything aligns perfectly for [the party], they simply execute their script and win. And that’s boring as hell." An interesting encounter should "wreck the general First-Order Strategy so the party HAS TO think of a new strategy."

Yes, but the problem is that an Battlemaster Archer doesn't actually have a 2nd order strategy. He's sunk tons of resources into being great with a hand crossbow (or whatever) and the upshot is that he's a hugely reduced combat effectiveness if he changes weapons. There is one play: Stand as far as possible away from the bad guys and shoot.

Say the GM added some fog to the battlefield that means archers shoot at disadvantage. It's quite possible that instead of drawing his rapier and getting into melee the hypothetical archer here should continue to fire from range *anyway* as the effective penalty of disadvantage is smaller than the +2 from archery style and +2 from, say, a magical crossbow, plus he's still protected from attack. Whereas if he goes into melee he loses the benefits of his fighting style and feat and gets dunked.

That's the thing - he doesn't have interesting choices to make in combat. Actual example from play at the table: The sorcerer can choose between either standing back and blasting, using twinned haste to buff the paladin and the barbarian then hiding, or using twinned spell to polymorph himself and someone else into a T-Rex and stomping into melee combat, or turning into a sea creature and swimming underwater.

The Battlemaster archer at the same table doesn't have anything comparable to the 'press this button to become a melee monster (literally!)' effect, let alone the 'we need to get this treasure that is buried underwater, okay I turn into a sea creature' effect!

 

[Ristamar]

Yes, but the problem is that an Battlemaster Archer doesn't actually have a 2nd order strategy. He's sunk tons of resources into being great with a hand crossbow (or whatever) and the upshot is that he's a hugely reduced combat effectiveness if he changes weapons.

Say the GM added some fog to the battlefield that means archers shoot at disadvantage. It's quite possible that instead of drawing his rapier and getting into melee the hypothetical archer here should continue to fire from range *anyway* as the effective penalty of disadvantage is smaller than the +2 from archery style and +2 from, say, a magical crossbow.

That's the thing - he doesn't have intresting choices to make in combat. Actual example from play at the table: The sorcerer can choose between either standing back and blasting, using twinned haste to buff the paladin and the barbarian then hiding, or using twinned spell to polymorph himself and someone else into a T-Rex and stomping into melee combat, or turning into a sea creature and swimming underwater.

The Battlemaster archer at the same table doesn't have anything comparable to the 'press this button to become a melee monster (literally!)' effect, let alone the 'we need to get this treasure that is buried underwater, okay I turn into a sea ceature' effect!

That's more of a build issue than a system issue. If you don't enjoy a highly specialized, yet supremely narrow play style, why make your character into the exact thing that bores you?

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

That's more of a build issue than a system issue. If you don't enjoy a highly specialized, yet supremely narrow play style, why make your character into the exact thing that bores you?

I'm the guy playing the sorcerer in that play example, for what it's worth.

My observation earlier was that a number of classes don't have interesting choices to make in combat, particularly non spell-casters and particularly not ranged characters.

Telling me 'don't play anything other than optimized bards or wizards' is a bit unhelpful. Maybe after playing a druid, bard and sorcerer to fairly high levels I want to play something else? Maybe my character concept doesn't really support being a full caster? Maybe the rest of the party isn't as good as a optimised wizard and I want to let them have some spotlight time.

All that said, I'm actually pretty sure even spell casters don't have interesting choices in combat. I played a moon druid through level 11 and was bored out of my skull. The problem there is using wild shape cuts off your spell casting access, and most of the wild shape forms are 'huge bag of HP' - no interesting choices to be found. Cast barkskin, ration spells and fire ranged attacks/arrows as hostiles approach, turn into bear when bad guys approach, soak huge attacks out of your temporary HP ration from wild shape, use sentinel to keep them sticky to you.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yes, but the problem is that an Battlemaster Archer doesn't actually have a 2nd order strategy. He's sunk tons of resources into being great with a hand crossbow (or whatever) and the upshot is that he's a hugely reduced combat effectiveness if he changes weapons. There is one play: Stand as far as possible away from the bad guys and shoot.

Eh? Since you mention hand crossbows, I assume he's a Crossbow Expert. That automatically gives him flexibility when the fog interferes with long-distance archery. He can either move to 5' range and keep firing his crossbow... or he can whip out his Net and throw that instead from 5' range, restraining opponents and giving everybody advantage to hit them. Hopefully he's also got some maneuvers like Menacing Strike in his arsenal (which make him more effective at grappling/pushing/etc., since fear imposes disadvantage on ability checks).

It's hard to conjecture in a vacuum, without knowing the hypothetical PC's stats, but I'd be surprised if it were genuinely impossible to come up with a second-order strategy for him. Ranged characters tend to be pretty good in melee as well.

 

[Ristamar]

I'm the guy playing the sorcerer in that play example, for what it's worth.

My observation earlier was that a number of classes don't have interesting choices to make in combat, particularly non spell-casters and particularly not ranged characters.

Telling me 'don't play anything other than optimized bards or wizards' is a bit unhelpful. Maybe after playing a druid, bard and sorcerer to fairly high levels I want to play something else? Maybe my character concept doesn't really support being a full caster? Maybe the rest of the party isn't as good as a optimised wizard and I want to let them have some spotlight time.

All that said, I'm actually pretty sure even spell casters don't have interesting choices in combat. I played a moon druid through level 11 and was bored out of my skull. The problem there is using wild shape cuts off your spell casting access, and most of the wild shape forms are 'huge bag of HP' - no interesting choices to be found. Cast barkskin, ration spells and fire ranged attacks/arrows as hostiles approach, turn into bear when bad guys approach, soak huge attacks out of your temporary HP ration from wild shape, use sentinel to keep them sticky to you.

In that case, I go back to my original statement. If your DM can't provide interesting encounters, try to find a more creative DM that will challenge the party.

If that option doesn't pan out, you'd be best served abandoning 5e and playing something more to your liking.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

Eh? Since you mention hand crossbows, I assume he's a Crossbow Expert. That automatically gives him flexibility when the fog interferes with long-distance archery. He can either move to 5' range and keep firing his crossbow...

He does, and that is what he does. But... that's his first order strategy (stand as far as possible away (in this case 5 ft) and shoot).

Generally the problem with switching to other weapons is that while he's got a rapier and, I think, Duelist fighting style, his golfbag weapons are not as good as his primary weapons so he needs to be eating a fairly huge disadvantage from something for 'and I shoot it with my crossbow' not to be the go to attack.

In that case, I go back to my original statement. If your DM can't provide interesting encounters, try to find a more creative DM that will challenge the party.

We've played together over a ton of different game systems. I think a huge part of it is 5E. Obviously everyone can disagree about what constitutes good encounter design for someone's home game, so let's bust out a published adventure - mines of Phandelver has good reviews, and thus should be providing interesting encounters. This group has played through. It was amazingly boring combat wise to play, because none of the combats required me as a druid to mix up my 'go to' combat script. We played pretty intelligently and dodged the two potential fights that could get ridiculous I suspect.

I'm not saying the combats weren't challenging btw. It was often close as to whether someone would die. It was just very straightforward to decide what to do.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think it's hard to deny, even from us who really enjoy 5e, that "tactical variety" isn't anywhere near as rich as it was in 4e, or in man other games. And that's a bummer for people who really like playing the tactical game.

But is it possible to have a game be tactically rich *and* have combat be resolved as quickly as it is in 5e? Because I don't want to spend my whole gaming sessions resolving combats. I don't play D&D to scratch a tactical miniatures itch, I play it to to scratch a storytelling itch, and too much time spent on combat gets in the way of that.

One of my favorite games is The One Ring, and it has a tiny fraction of the character and combat options that even 5e has. And it's a great game. Combat plays a smaller role than in most RPGs, and when it happens it's resolved pretty quickly and easily, and completely in TotM (there's no need for a grid and miniatures at all). The point being that 5e is actually kinda in the middle, at least from my experience.

And I don't mean to put down the really rich tactical game; that's another valid kind of gaming and I understand that some people really like. I'm just sayin' that there IS a trade-off. Making that part of the tent "more inclusive" does in fact come at a cost.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

But is it possible to have a game be tactically rich *and* have combat be resolved as quickly as it is in 5e? Because I don't want to spend my whole gaming sessions resolving combats. I don't play D&D to scratch a tactical miniatures itch, I play it to to scratch a storytelling itch, and too much time spent on combat gets in the way of that.

The converse question is if you want a game with a low focus on combat, wouldn't be better off playing something that didn't have a huge ton of rules focused on combat? If I glance at my 5E character sheets, they are overwhelmingly dominated by combat related 'stuff' as is the PHB.

Also an observation: I'm running a 4E game and I'm playing in a 5E game that share most of the same player base (4 of 6). We have roughly the same amount of combat (measured in real time elapsed) and RP a session in sessions of roughly the same length between the two games. Player speed is roughly comparable. We're playing Enworld's excellent Zeitgeist in the 4E game and I think the DM has done a massive conversion of council of thieves for the 5E game (though he's cut out a bunch of the combats I think).

I know from discussions in the other threads re: 5E that we play with fewer encounters an adventuring day of much higher difficulty than the 5E 'recommendation' - probably because it's a conversion from a 3.5 module with different pacing expectations.

Bottom line: I don't actually think 5E combat is significantly faster to resolve an encounter. It is a bit faster (and easier to manage!) in that you probably have to corral the players more to 'pre plan' their turns in 4E, and actively manage players with interrupt powers, whereas players can snooze/surf their smartphone in 5E and say 'I attack' on their turn much more readily in 5E.

That said, both games are a metric buttload faster than playing high level 3.5 with these groups of players though, oh my god that was beyond painful and I (we!) wanted to stab out my eyes.

 

[Ancalagon]

and I (we!) wanted to stab out my eyes.

Ok, if the other gamers want to stab out your eyes, you *really* need to find a new group!

Welcome aboard and cool name

A bit more seriously, I haven't played 4e much, but I'm happy to hear that it runs faster than 3.5