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

[Shasarak]

When people speak of desiring complexity, they're usually talking about depth. Go is one of the simplest games in existence--I think it has at most four rules. But it's also one of the deepest strategy games humans have ever made. Much deeper than chess, for instance, which is far more complex rules-wise. By comparison, all TTRPGs ever made, even loosey-goosey ones like Fate, are fantastically more complex AND less deep.

When a Go piece can change sides because of the other players roleplaying then we can talk about how "deep" it is.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It's an interesting build, but I think for "optimizing" a mobility based build a monk would be better; it comes with: a means of dashing on a bonus action (though I'd still Multiclass with something else to keep it from eating ki), a means of passively boosting movement speed to make your dashes even faster, and a means of controlling the field by paralyzing key targets at level 5.

That said, at low levels it requires more situational awareness to keep the monk from running out of ki at a key moment than the Barbarian would.

The difference, which I can say after playing a similar Barbarian at level 4 for one session, is that the Barbarian can combine mobility with a reckless disregard for their own well being. A Rogue or Monk has to take care to avoid getting into trouble.

 

[Rhenny]

Anecdote. I run games for the kids* occasionally to introduce them to D&D. Long enough to get them excited to buy their own books and run their own games.

And you can't beat their enthusiasm. One thing I keep seeing is that they don't care about DPR (or RPing), they only care about the fun. They decide on what they want to be, and they make it happen; and it doesn't matter much if it's optimized, or (um) really that sensical. Just cool to them. But at the same time, the games are always surprising because they come up with new and inventive ways to deal with situations that I could never have imagined. Spells cast in a way I never would have dreamed of casting. Very rarely do combats end up as a "bag of HPs." So I think it goes to expectations.

That said, and I've related this before, it's amazing how much we know that we're not aware of. I remember one of the most memorable encounters they had was with a troll because *it never occurred to them that fire might be useful.*

Now, some of those kids will be DMs. Some will be players. Some might never play again.** Some will enjoy system mastery and optimization, and some will enjoy roleplaying. Some will enjoy both. There's no wrong way to play, so long as they are having fun.


*I really mean kids. Not being euphemistic.

**I hope not!

Nice observation. This reminds me of the time I showed my son (when he was about 8 or 9) DDO online. He loved just exploring and swimming and jumping off things much more than completing the quests and killing monsters. It frustrated the hell out of me. lol.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This was actually the second Barbarian I built. The first was a Dwarf Battlerager(from the Sword Coast book), who was more straightforward, though again offensively focused. One of the things I learned in 4E is flexibility=power. It was always my style in 4E to trade a little bit of peak specialization for tactical flexibility and resilience. It was true in 4E, and many people have said that mobility is powerful in 5E, particularly if your DM uses the grid which mine does. My second Barbarian was built for mobility and tactical flexibility, as much as is possible in 5E.

Of the two barbarians, which did you enjoy more?

Okay, so you were going for mobility, which can certainly be a big factor especially when using a grid. Not sure if it is the best idea to take a barbarian and try to work it as a mobile force rather than a class that is more designed on mobility like the monk. I know barbarians get fast movement at 5th, but monks get it at 2nd and it continues to scale for them. Maybe if you want to be mobile and have tactical choices, the monk might suit you. Open Hand monks have lots of options, and over time gain a good amount of utility.

 

[Rhenny]

This is fine, but if you sat down with me and said 'hey dude, want to play a game with a strong focus on story and character personality and choices that impact the world, and a minimal focus on combat' and I said 'hey that sounds like a cool game, what are we playing, Mouseguard? I've always wanted to play that.' 'Nah D&D 5e' I'd conclude you probably missold your game to me. If we're playing with a focus on story, character personality and choices rather than a 'a fun and an engaging combat minigame' we should probably play something else that doesn't spend the vast majority of the very thick rulebook on stuff to do in combat. Like Monsterhearts, or Apocalypse world, or the Quiet Year.

Those games have a ton more story and collective worldbuilding focus. However, that's missing the point.

D&D is fundamentally about going into dungeons and killing dragons (It's in the title!). The game spends a ton of ink on rules for combat. Playing the recommended XP schedule, you're having 16 or so combat encounters per level up in the mid game, 8 during the early and late game.. That's a lot of combat encounters! I'm going to have something like ~240 combat encounters over my characters complete arc. If the game is going to support 240 combat encounters, each ~6 rounds (so 1,440 rounds of combat), I should be doing something interesting in those 1,440 rounds of combat.

Bottom line: 5e D&D is a heavily combat focused game out of the box. The fact that if I play a ranged fighter I could be replaced by a fairly simple flow chart suggests that I'm not being engaged by all that ink and all that time.

I agree that a DM who runs his game should be up front about the type of game he will run, but I don't agree that 5e D&D is a heavily combat focused game out of the box. Only 10 pages of the players handbook are about combat. Sure, many of the spells are about combat, but many others are utility and non-combat spells, which is the same for feats and classes/races in general. Much more of the book focuses on non-combat actions and the entire idea of playing the role of an imaginary character.

Sure, original D&D was born from tactical war gaming, but very quickly Gygax and Arneson started to veer away from that direction. The game became a roleplaying game rather than a combat simulation, and that has crossed all editions. The direction that 5e took, has D&D veering even more away from combat, so I do see how combat centric players (including casualoblivion, the op) have a valid gripe against it. Comparing 4e players handbook with 5e will show how much less combat centric 5e is. In 4e, most of the powers (which take up a huge percentage of the book) are combat based. If combat is the name of the game, 4e is probably much better served to scratch that itch. 5e makes combat a part of the game, but not necessarily the focus.

In a way, I am a little disappointed that 5e does not provide the option to become more like 4e (although I don't necessarily want to play D&D that way). I understand why WotC did what they did when they created 5e, and I feel like they are appealing to a wider audience now, but they did pretty much shut out the most hard-core combat simulationists/tacticians. Moving forward, those who are in that camp will need to adapt or just play 4e (or other games that are more simulationist/tactical). I'm really interested to see how casualoblivion approaches his experience with 5e.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Of the two barbarians, which did you enjoy more?

Okay, so you were going for mobility, which can certainly be a big factor especially when using a grid. Not sure if it is the best idea to take a barbarian and try to work it as a mobile force rather than a class that is more designed on mobility like the monk. I know barbarians get fast movement at 5th, but monks get it at 2nd and it continues to scale for them. Maybe if you want to be mobile and have tactical choices, the monk might suit you. Open Hand monks have lots of options, and over time gain a good amount of utility.

I only played the mobile Barbarian, so preferring it is just a theory. I just looked at the battlerager over 10 levels and it seemed boring compared to the other characters I built. As for the monk, I wonder if the mobility is overkill, and it does cost ki points. With a mobile Barbarian, I can do mobility as my primary strategy, and yet I'm still a Barbarian and I can front line if it becomes necessary. I also like the synergy between being mobile and Polearm Master reaction attacks, and between Polearm Master, Reckless attack, and Great Weapon Master I don't think I'll be lacking hitting power, while still being able to be a part time tank when the situation calls for it.

In my experience, if you focus on one single thing the DM can take it away from you, and it can get boring over a long term campaign. I like having options.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I agreee that a DM who runs his game should be up front about the type of game he will run, but I don't agree that 5e D&D is a heavily combat focused game out of the box. Only 10 pages of the players handbook are about combat. Sure, many of the spells are about combat, but many others are utility and non-combat spells, which is the same for feats and classes/races in general. Much more of the book focuses on non-combat actions and the entire idea of playing the role of an imaginary character.

I tend to see 5E as a combat focused game when they describe the adventuring day as involving 6-8 combats.

In a way, I am a little disappointed that 5e does not provide the option to become more like 4e (although I don't necessarily want to play D&D that way). I understand why WotC did what they did when they created 5e, and I feel like they are appealing to a wider audience now, but they did pretty much shut out the most hard-core combat simulationists/tacticians. Moving forward, those who are in that camp will need to adapt or just play 4e (or other games that are more simulationist/tactical). I'm really interested to see how casualoblivion approaches his experience with 5e.

We start playing tonight, though we might just be building characters and determining who we are and why we're together. In any case, I'll let you know.

 

[Shroomy]

In a way, I am a little disappointed that 5e does not provide the option to become more like 4e (although I don't necessarily want to play D&D that way). I understand why WotC did what they did when they created 5e, and I feel like they are appealing to a wider audience now, but they did pretty much shut out the most hard-core combat simulationists/tacticians. Moving forward, those who are in that camp will need to adapt or just play 4e (or other games that are more simulationist/tactical). I'm really interested to see how casualoblivion approaches his experience with 5e.

You could utilize some or all of the optional rules in the DMG to make it more like 4e (though not exactly the same mind you), but that doesn't really help those playing in Organized Play campaigns.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I tend to see 5E as a combat focused game when they describe the adventuring day as involving 6-8 combats.

It's 6-8 encounters. 6-8 game events that threaten to drain party resources. It's not just combat; it could be traps, obstacles, friendly NPCs that need healing, etc. This is a pretty good essay arguing that.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I tend to see 5E as a combat focused game when they describe the adventuring day as involving 6-8 combats.

6-8 combats is an example of 6-8 encounters, but 6-8 encounters is not necessarily 6-8 combats.

Maybe you wouldn't see 5e as being so combat focused if you noticed that the adventuring day suggests 6-8 encounters, but doesn't use "combat" as a synonym for "encounter", and actually includes numerous non-combat encounters in the example random encounter charts found in the book providing suggestions and examples of what a DM might do?



We start playing tonight, though we might just be building characters and determining who we are and why we're together. In any case, I'll let you know.[/QUOTE]