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

[SkidAce]

Also, a character who sucks at fighting puts the other characters lives at risk, begging the question of why they don't replace him/her with somebody competent. Bringing along amateurs can get everyone killed.

I'm just pointing out that there are in-world arguments against sucking at combat.

The poster didn't say they sucked, they said they were an average swordsman.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Also, a character who sucks at fighting puts the other characters lives at risk, begging the question of why they don't replace him/her with somebody competent. Bringing along amateurs can get everyone killed.

Not to put too blunt a spin on it, but is that how you treat your friends in real life? In moments of adversity, if they buckle, dump 'em?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[hawkeyefan]

Also, a character who sucks at fighting puts the other characters lives at risk, begging the question of why they don't replace him/her with somebody competent. Bringing along amateurs can get everyone killed.

I'm just pointing out that there are in-world arguments against sucking at combat.

Yes there are, but there are just as many in-world reasons to have someone who's not a combat expert. There are so many examples in literature, film, and television that support this idea.

Now, stories are different than an RPG, but still, there are plenty of reasons that a gaming group may use characters who aren't perfect combatants, even if your group does. Some groups are more story oriented, and I think that 5E lends itself to that play style.

 

[Imaro]

Also, a character who sucks at fighting puts the other characters lives at risk, begging the question of why they don't replace him/her with somebody competent. Bringing along amateurs can get everyone killed.

I'm just pointing out that there are in-world arguments against sucking at combat.

A character whose not good at negotiating and circumventing unnecessary combat also puts the character's lives at risk... should anyone whose not good at this also be replaced

A character who can't detect and disarm traps also puts the character's lives at risk... guess anyone who sucks at this should be replaced as well...

A character who can't heal also puts the ... well I think you get the point. In adventuring there are quite a few things that can put character's lives at risk... the point of having a group or party is that different characters will be better and/or worse at different things but can work together to overcome them.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'm not sure what argument is going on here. I'm not sure if what I'm hearing here is a variant of the old "real roleplayer" trope, which I would argue is a really elitist way of looking at things, or if people are talking about D&D as a puzzle solving non-combat game, which outside of possibly OSR style play isn't something I'd say D&D has ever done particularly well compared to other system.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

My current favorite character I'm playing is my rogue/monk/warlock. He is nowhere near the damage dealer the paladin or even fighter is. Yet I consider myself a rather invaluable member of the team. My utility, scouting superiority, information gathering skills, etc. are very much in high demand.

If the only metric we used, to qualify as a contributor, was DPR, I'd probably be asked to leave. Luckily that's a stupid metric to base a character on. So I'm good. In fact, I'm more than good. I often find myself intentionally making sure other PCs get spotlight time. It wouldn't be hard to hog it with all the tools my character has in his toolbox.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

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!

That's a hard thing to accomplish with monsters who are nothing more than bags of hp.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

My current favorite character I'm playing is my rogue/monk/warlock. He is nowhere near the damage dealer the paladin or even fighter is. Yet I consider myself a rather invaluable member of the team. My utility, scouting superiority, information gathering skills, etc. are very much in high demand.

If the only metric we used, to qualify as a contributor, was DPR, I'd probably be asked to leave. Luckily that's a stupid metric to base a character on. So I'm good. In fact, I'm more than good. I often find myself intentionally making sure other PCs get spotlight time. It wouldn't be hard to hog it with all the tools my character has in his toolbox.

The question I would have is why you feel it neccessary to sacrifice offense for that? A Warlock can have good offense from just Agonizing Blast and Hex, and you could focus everything else on scouting and still hit fairly hard.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I'm not sure what argument is going on here. I'm not sure if what I'm hearing here is a variant of the old "real roleplayer" trope, which I would argue is a really elitist way of looking at things...

That's an odd observation, given that the impression I've gotten, from your various posts in this thread, is that you consider your preferred playstyle "real roleplaying". So much so that you bragged that other players, once they see your awesome character building skills, often want to convert to your playstyle and ask you for help making their characters as cool as yours. <shrug>