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

[Sacrosanct]

Saw this today, and it totally reminded me of this thread

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Maybe I'm misjudging your previous posts, but it seems DPR is *the thing* you find fun. Elaborate on how the most DPR focused character you've managed to come up with would be boring for 10 levels. I'm genuinely curious what has lead you to believe that.

DPR is the thing for 5E, not necessarily for me. Combat going by as fast as it does puts a premium on DPR. My fun lies in doing whatever works. In 3E, for example, inflated monster hp made control important and dealing damage kind of a trap. In 4E, the pinnacle of optimization was to maximize both damage and control, with a touch of mobility and ways to remove enemy control from yourself. Optimization is about playing the system, and adapting to what works in that system.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

If I was the DM of that AL I'd rather you didn't play if you were not willing to adapt, or if there is any risk of you expressing your disdain for the system while playing. If you do you risk spoiling the game for the others present.

Sorry, but from the general tone of your posts here, I think it's for the best that you park yourself in the corner of the store and grumble into a coffee for a couple of hours.

I've played at the table with these players and this DM(if only once). You've never met these people before. I don't see where you have any idea how things will work out.

Also, adapt to what? I've observed/played at this table for a couple weeks now. It bore little to no resemblance to the 5E you play as you've described it in this thread. There's a lot of fighting stuff in 5E, and there was a lot of fighting stuff in what I've seen of this table playing AL. What exactly am I going to be disrupting?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I wouldn't say there are characters I'm more interested in so much as there are characters I'm less interested in. I made a Moon Druid and I have a strong feeling I wouldn't enjoy playing it. I built a crossbow Fighter, but while I'm fairly certain it's the most damaging character I've built it seems like it would be really boring to play for 10 levels. I'm a little hesitant about my control Wizard as on paper the character starts out a little slow over the first few levels.

Well, from what you've described as your preferred style...to be able to deal damage without sacrificing defense...I'd say try a paladin. You said you're not a fan of defender types, but the class can be played a couple of ways. If you use the majority of spells to fuel smites, and if you take a more offensively minded fighting style, you should be in good shape.

But I also find some of the other comments or concerns you expressed a little odd...a barbarian is a glass cannon? Why do you see it that way?

I'll admit to only having minimal experience with 4E, but I'm familiar with each other edition, so I don't know if it's a 4E blind spot for me...but do you want a character who can hit often and deal a lot of damage who is also hard to hit? I mean this in the instance of the barbarian. Is that your expectation?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

DPR is the thing for 5E, not necessarily for me. Combat going by as fast as it does puts a premium on DPR.

Not sure how you've come to that analysis. But my ~2 years experience playing 5e has led me to believe differently.

My fun lies in doing whatever works. <snip> Optimization is about playing the system, and adapting to what works in that system.

Hrm. So why are you not adapting to 5e then, rather than trying to shoehorn your previous system optimization assumptions and strategies into this one?

 

[Imaro]

But I also find some of the other comments or concerns you expressed a little odd...a barbarian is a glass cannon? Why do you see it that way?

I was just about to call this out. I've run two campaigns since 5e's release and both had barbarians and in neither would I have ever classified the class as a "glass canon". IMO, it's one of, if not "the", most resilient class you can play in the game. A well built barbarian will tire a DM out trying to take him down and out permanently... especially if there's some kind of healer in the group to back him up.

 

[JonnyP71]

I've played at the table with these players and this DM(if only once). You've never met these people before. I don't see where you have any idea how things will work out.

Also, adapt to what? I've observed/played at this table for a couple weeks now. It bore little to no resemblance to the 5E you play as you've described it in this thread. There's a lot of fighting stuff in 5E, and there was a lot of fighting stuff in what I've seen of this table playing AL. What exactly am I going to be disrupting?

Purely my own opinion, drawn from the fact that you started this thread, moaned about the system, and repeatedly banged on about how you are a hardened optimiser, how 5E doesn't suit you, and you think you won't like it. I wouldn't want you at my table with that attitude.

If you don't manage to leave that attitude at home then you DO risk spoiling it for everyone else.

That's what I mean by adapting (accepting the system as it is, you'll be there to play 5E so play and don't moan!).

 

[Imaro]

Honestly the fact that you called the barbarian out as a glass canon is making me wonder just how good your optimization skills are in 5e, and if that might be a part of the problem?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Well, from what you've described as your preferred style...to be able to deal damage without sacrificing defense...I'd say try a paladin. You said you're not a fan of defender types, but the class can be played a couple of ways. If you use the majority of spells to fuel smites, and if you take a more offensively minded fighting style, you should be in good shape.

But I also find some of the other comments or concerns you expressed a little odd...a barbarian is a glass cannon? Why do you see it that way?

I'll admit to only having minimal experience with 4E, but I'm familiar with each other edition, so I don't know if it's a 4E blind spot for me...but do you want a character who can hit often and deal a lot of damage who is also hard to hit? I mean this in the instance of the barbarian. Is that your expectation?

I wasn't talking about the class in general, just my approach to it. The Barbarian I built had 16 Con, 14 Dex at level 1 and I had no intention ever of improving his defenses, going for max offense instead. Wearing medium armor(after I can afford it) and no shield, not being bear totem, and granting the enemy advantage to attack me at every opportunity, I'm really not that sturdy, not so I can soak 3+ enemies turn after turn.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 3e you needed to flank, not just "be there" for a lot of this to happen (+2 to hit, sneak attack). And because that is a much more precise position, the grid sorts of become needed.

The DM just handles it. A player will say that his character moves to flank or ask if he can get into flanking. The DM says yay or nay. Just like whether he can reach a given enemy, what range a given enemy is at, &c. The game may or may not give the DM useful tools to help him make those determinations, but, ultimately you can do that kind of thing without any tools at all...

DPR is the thing for 5E, not necessarily for me. Combat going by as fast as it does puts a premium on DPR. My fun lies in doing whatever works. In 3E, for example, inflated monster hp made control important and dealing damage kind of a trap.

And SoDs, of course. In 5e, fast combats can make slipping in any sort of contribution a challenge when you're in with other optimized characters, but at least SoDs don't make damage moot - most formerly SoD spells now have a hp threshold, so pounding an enemy down to that threshold is useful. But, outside of combats where you outnumber the enemy and focus fire, DPR becomes less significant, AEs and control matter more in larger combats, and, of course, 5e is back to spell slots being useable for either combat or non-combat applications, just with greater flexibility than in 3e.

I'll admit to only having minimal experience with 4E, but I'm familiar with each other edition, so I don't know if it's a 4E blind spot for me...but do you want a character who can hit often and deal a lot of damage who is also hard to hit? I mean this in the instance of the barbarian. Is that your expectation?

The expectation that 4e tended to promote in that context was that each combat was significant, presented tactical as well as resource challenges, that every character contributed, and that the party would do better with better teamwork over and above (but almost certainly including) the old 'focus fire.' (Similarly, out of combat, the expectation was everyone participated). 5e aims for some of that with Bounded Accuracy, particularly the out of combat participation - everyone might as well make every check, since anyone could roll well, and bonuses will rarely eclipse the die roll entirely. The emphasis on fast combat, though, often makes it harder to deliver on those expectations - there isn't time for tactics to develop nor need for everyone to pitch in, rather the hope is that each PC gets his share of spotlight moments in and out of combat.