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

[ExploderWizard]

Gladly.

In two (related) ways:
1) I don’t have to look on my character sheet to see if I have the “win-button”. With less fiddly-bits and fewer rigidly structured mechanical doodads, I have a world of options rather than a few dozen feats/powers/items to fall back on.
2) And because of bounded accuracy, that broader breadth of choices, in resolving any situation, becomes more viable. I am not forced to select from only those handful of things I chose to focus on during character creation/advancement.

Oh yes, this is so true. 5E is the first version of D&D since B/X ( NOT BECMI) to not include the mandatory hyper-specialization funnel. OD&D and B/X fighters illustrate this concept well. In these versions the fighter is a master of arms and a death dealing machine. In AD&D (1st and 2nd), 3E, and 4E the fighter has to dedicate him/her self to a very narrow, or a single type of weapon and dedicate character resources to keep up improvements in the chosen funnel in order to merely be competent.

A huge loss of versatility is traded on these specializations for what? Just being "good enough" not to suck. Of course this means that whenever the fighter is in a position in which the super specialization cannot be used ( missile combat or even melee combat without a particular TYPE of sword) then real suckage sets in to the point of why even bother trying.

The problem is that the rest of the system assumes hyper specialization to be the norm. Defenses and target numbers keep creeping up so that versatile characters have no hope of being effective. In effect the system is forcing specialized one trick ponies. That really sucks.

I really don't see how a huge pile of character options being available, but you must choose A, B, C, D, and E not to suck is empowering in any way. It is the system telling you exactly what choices must be made in order to not suck. That is the opposite of empowerment, it is restrictive and controlling.

5E with bounded accuracy and a distinct lack of narrow funnels allows versatile characters to be awesome again. The lack of weapon specialization alone is cause for celebration. Players are now empowered to make choices for their characters without being forced onto a specific path.

 

[Caliburn101]

It's interesting how the game has evolved over the years. The term 'powergamer' used to be a insult when the game started - for someone who didn't care about team play, or roleplay, or anything but 'winning' and then bragging about it.

The OP seems to be a powergamer by this and indeed their own standards, which also seems to be far more acceptable as a 'thing' judging by the reaction here.

Personally - having been roleplaying for 37 years; having played over 20 systems (including every D&D variant) and having live action roleplayed extensively, I can say with confidence that any system that makes powergamers feel like they can't create a character build akin to an 'Iwin' button is music to my ears.

If you want to steamroller every encounter because you play the metagame with the numbers and forge together the cheesiest of ability combo's, then play a Korean MMO. What are you sitting round a table playing a SOCIAL game when by your own admission you want to play an entirely selfish character 'because of the system'?

If you are frustrated by not being able to min-max metagame 5th Edition - play something else.

If you get annoyed by not being able to build a character who cannot lose no matter what decisions you make, and whose abilities mean you don't have to think tactically except during downtime when you are levelling, who doesn't need to make clever choices IN GAME and has to do something other than roll dice to win, then 5th Edition really, really isn't for you.

The game should not become significantly easier because of the choices you made before you first stepped foot into your first adventure - it should matter FAR more what decisions you make DURING the adventure.

If you don't like that - go back to the pen'n'paper MMO spreadsheet that was 4th Edition - problem solved.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

"Go play something else besides D&D"

The staff told you that? Are they actually providing anything other than D&D during the period that you need to be there?

If resolving combat is a bad thing, why is the person in your example playing D&D? If you want to minimize combat, D&D is just about the worst RPG you could possibly play.

They like the settings, the adventures, the DM and the group. They enjoy roleplaying and the in-character interactions within the party. Why would they not join a suitable D&D game when one is available?

Why is D&D the worst RPG you could play if that is what appeals to you? Surely it depends upon the style of the DM and the sort of game that they want to run? Its actually one of the better ones in a lot of regards because 5e has nice simple rules where combat can be resolved quickly without bogging the enjoyable parts of the game down as I believe they see it.

Even though at least one of them almost got through an entire adventure without making a single attack roll, they still take part of course. They just don't enjoy it as much.

 

[pemerton]

If resolving combat is a bad thing, why is the person in your example playing D&D? If you want to minimize combat, D&D is just about the worst RPG you could possibly play.

Apropos of this: I was reading p 61 of Gygax's DMG for another purpose, but came across this passage:

Combat is a common pursuit in the vast majority of adventures . . .​

The 5e SRD says (p ):

Injury and the risk of death are constant companions of those who explore fantasy gaming worlds. The thrust of a sword, a well-placed arrow, or a blast of flame from a fireball spell all have the potential to damage, or even kill, the hardiest of creatures.​

That also suggests that combat is expected to be fairly common, although traps can also lead to arrows (but maybe not well-placed ones?) and to blasts of flame.

In AD&D (1st and 2nd), 3E, and 4E the fighter has to dedicate him/her self to a very narrow, or a single type of weapon and dedicate character resources to keep up improvements in the chosen funnel in order to merely be competent.

<snip>

The problem is that the rest of the system assumes hyper specialization to be the norm. Defenses and target numbers keep creeping up so that versatile characters have no hope of being effective. In effect the system is forcing specialized one trick ponies.

<snip>

5E with bounded accuracy and a distinct lack of narrow funnels allows versatile characters to be awesome again. The lack of weapon specialization alone is cause for celebration. Players are now empowered to make choices for their characters without being forced onto a specific path.

A question: don't the fighting styles, and even moreso some of the feats (Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter) push towards specialisation in 5e? And for that mater, doesn't the need to choose whether to bump STR or DEX create something of a similar pressure?

I can see that bounded accuracy might alleviate the stat pressure to some degree; but that still leaves the fighting styles and feats.

And a comment: in 4e we have (at 30th level) a fighter who can switch between hammers, axes and polearms; and a sorcerer who can cast spells, throw a dagger and stab with a dagger, all with "level appropriate" to hit and damage. Building to a degree of versatility is not as hard as all that. (And even in B/X you'll see the versatility drop quite a bit once the PC has a magic weapon that s/he relies on.)

 

[pemerton]

The term 'powergamer' used to be a insult when the game started

I'm not sure that's true, at least as any sort of generalisation. Have you read James M Ward's stories about "Monty Haul and friends" in the early Dragon Magazines?

They're parodies, but what they are parodying is pretty hardcore power-based play, with the emphasis on skilled players using clever tactics and exploiting the fiction in order to beat the GM's encounters.

go back to the pen'n'paper MMO spreadsheet that was 4th Edition

Seriously?

 

[pemerton]

Why is D&D the worst RPG you could play if that is what appeals to you? Surely it depends upon the style of the DM and the sort of game that they want to run? Its actually one of the better ones in a lot of regards because 5e has nice simple rules where combat can be resolved quickly without bogging the enjoyable parts of the game down as I believe they see it.

I think what was meant is that there are other RPGs that don't place as much mechanical emphasis on combat as does D&D, and foreground other aspects of the game (eg social encounters, exploration of the gameworld) to a greater degree than does D&D (at least by default).

I don't know what [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] has in mind as other systems, but of contemporary ones may be The One Ring is an example; and of classic ones, maybe RuneQuest.

 

[ExploderWizard]

A question: don't the fighting styles, and even moreso some of the feats (Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter) push towards specialisation in 5e? And for that mater, doesn't the need to choose whether to bump STR or DEX create something of a similar pressure?

I can see that bounded accuracy might alleviate the stat pressure to some degree; but that still leaves the fighting styles and feats.

And a comment: in 4e we have (at 30th level) a fighter who can switch between hammers, axes and polearms; and a sorcerer who can cast spells, throw a dagger and stab with a dagger, all with "level appropriate" to hit and damage. Building to a degree of versatility is not as hard as all that. (And even in B/X you'll see the versatility drop quite a bit once the PC has a magic weapon that s/he relies on.)

Feats are an optional component, but even using them I don't feel like the specialization element completely eclipses versatile characters. Bounded accuracy helps with this. There aren't multitudes of options each stacking on more pluses.

An example from actual play: My wood elf battle master fighter took the two weapon fighting style and has the dual wielder feat. Having a high dex and using finesse weapons one might expect this character to be very melee focused. That isnt the case much of the time. That high dex also means excellent archery skills. So fighting at range when possible, which is the smart thing to do most of the time, doesn't mean a huge sacrifice in effectiveness. At range or in melee as a fighter this character can contribute well.

Could I have been even a bit better at archery by taking the archery combat style? Certainly. There is another wood elf fighter in the party with archery style-an eldritch knight. We both perform competently in battle. She is a bit better at ranged combat and I am a bit better in melee but the differences aren't so huge as to make either one of us look like a fish out of water when not engaging in our respective specialty.

 

[Umbran]

Are you sure you're old enough to have an 18 year old stepson? Is this one of those robbing-the-cradle situations?

Are you sure you've read the Rules of EN World recently? Because "Keep it civil" seems to have slipped by you unnoticed.

Please do't post in this thread again.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I think what was meant is that there are other RPGs that don't place as much mechanical emphasis on combat as does D&D, and foreground other aspects of the game (eg social encounters, exploration of the gameworld) to a greater degree than does D&D (at least by default).

I don't know what [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] has in mind as other systems, but of contemporary ones may be The One Ring is an example; and of classic ones, maybe RuneQuest.

It's more along the lines of something I have heard repeatedly when talking about RPGs with people who don't play D&D but do play other systems. They cite too much combat focus as the primary reason they don't play D&D. I heard it a lot back at rpg.net before they started banning everybody, and I've heard it a lot at conventions and the FLGS. Somebody even said it to me last week after AL.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Common misconceptions are still misconceptions.

D&D is no more, and no less, combat focused than any other big-name RPG on the market.