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

[hawkeyefan]

Completed a second session last night. I'm surprised how automatically I've switched into my old 2E playstyle. I would describe that style as "letting other people go first". Here's an example:

I let the Rogue, Bard, and Barbarian go first. They open doors, chests, go into rooms first, take the lead in searching, ect. When the bad stuff happens, it happens to them first. I then go help deal with the bad stuff when it happens. It's just taking the pose of "backing people up", hanging back ready to help out. This was exactly how I played 2E when we did exploration heavy games, and though it's been a long time since I've played 2E(I've run a few campaigns more recently), it still surprised me how quickly I slipped back into that mindset.

Mostly we've been exploring rooms in some haunted house. I'd say 80% of those rooms were empty. Not my favorite aspect of D&D by a long shot. Being level 1(just got level 2) there really isn't much to do for my paladin beyond "I swing a sword". I will say that playing carefully both in and out of combat has meant I have yet to take any damage.

Sounds like the game is progressing a bit slow. Hopefully it picks up for you a bit.

I will say it's a bit odd to hear you letting others take all the risks and then you swoop in only when needed. Nothing wrong with that approach in and of itself...but it seems a bit contrary to the typical role a paladin plays in a party. It's first level, so a lot of the paladin's cool abilities aren't there yet, but still, I'd kind of expect a paladin to be more of a front line member of the party.

Perhaps slipping into the older method you used to play the game is an obstacle to your enjoyment of the game?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Sounds like the game is progressing a bit slow. Hopefully it picks up for you a bit.

I will say it's a bit odd to hear you letting others take all the risks and then you swoop in only when needed. Nothing wrong with that approach in and of itself...but it seems a bit contrary to the typical role a paladin plays in a party. It's first level, so a lot of the paladin's cool abilities aren't there yet, but still, I'd kind of expect a paladin to be more of a front line member of the party.

Perhaps slipping into the older method you used to play the game is an obstacle to your enjoyment of the game?

I'm not at all fond of how the front line role works in 5E, compared to 2E and 4E.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm not at all fond of how the front line role works in 5E, compared to 2E and 4E.

I tend to agree. It does not really support "jumping in head first". So far any time I've done that; I've gotten whomped. So I do the same, I tend to hang back and wait until combat (or whatever) has started and then assess the situation to determine when and where I will jump in. But I am rarely the first one into a fight anymore, not like I was in 4E as a Paladin. Man I would always be the first to charge into battle.

But I think that was the point, I think 5E wants the lower levels to have a more "Gygaxian meat grinder dungeon crawl" feel to them. I do believe there was a lot of talk explaining that levels 1 and 2 are really "training" levels and that experienced players should typically start at level 3.

 

[happyhermit]

A paladin in CoS, taking a backseat? I would think it would be have to be played very against type to avoid acting first, from a roleplay perspective in that particular adventure. Then again I suppose there are all kinds of paladins.

Sounds like the other players are having more fun than you are, I hope you don't bring them down, that's the worst thing that can happen at a table.

Very interested to hear your play has shifted already, albeit in a way you aren't necessarily fond of. If you aren't determined to keep the same powergamer-optimiser style you might find even more ways that you can shift your play to fit the edition, and you might even have fun! I had some fun with 4e even though it often seemed completely counter to what I prefer, I just took it for what it was most of the time as a player (not what I wanted it to be). As a GM there is more leeway, but still, fighting the way the system was designed is not always the most rewarding course of action.

 

[Ancalagon]

Hmm - it's too soon to tell, but there is a possibility that your class doesn't match your playing style... and well, that's a problem in any edition :/

Although seriously at level 1 *no one* should be jumping into stuff! So few HP....

 

[Ovinomancer]

Multiple posts on how he's playing a Paladin wrong?! Seriously? The only right way to play a Paladin is however the player has fun.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

A paladin in CoS, taking a backseat? I would think it would be have to be played very against type to avoid acting first, from a roleplay perspective in that particular adventure. Then again I suppose there are all kinds of paladins.

Sounds like the other players are having more fun than you are, I hope you don't bring them down, that's the worst thing that can happen at a table.

Very interested to hear your play has shifted already, albeit in a way you aren't necessarily fond of. If you aren't determined to keep the same powergamer-optimiser style you might find even more ways that you can shift your play to fit the edition, and you might even have fun! I had some fun with 4e even though it often seemed completely counter to what I prefer, I just took it for what it was most of the time as a player (not what I wanted it to be). As a GM there is more leeway, but still, fighting the way the system was designed is not always the most rewarding course of action.

Powergamer-optimizer style is whatever works for the system. In 4E, being aggressive was optimal. In 5E, it is not. It has nothing to do with fighting the system, but instead going with the flow. That being said, playing aggressively is far more my style. It's just that 5E punishes you for it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Hmm - it's too soon to tell, but there is a possibility that your class doesn't match your playing style... and well, that's a problem in any edition :/

Although seriously at level 1 *no one* should be jumping into stuff! So few HP....

In 4E, the striker role involved moving around the edges and avoiding being attacked by multiple enemies. The same is true of 5E, especially played on a battlemap. Even a mobility challenged class like the Paladin can manage that if played with good tactics, tactics I've perfected through years of 4E and they still apply to 5E. You just always move towards the edge of combat, never the center.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Multiple posts on how he's playing a Paladin wrong?! Seriously? The only right way to play a Paladin is however the player has fun.

A lot of people in this thread seem to take a narrow view on how 5E should be played/enjoyed. That's kind of the whole point of the thread though, looking at playing 5E at the table through they eyes of somebody who is outside that view.

I tend to agree. It does not really support "jumping in head first". So far any time I've done that; I've gotten whomped. So I do the same, I tend to hang back and wait until combat (or whatever) has started and then assess the situation to determine when and where I will jump in. But I am rarely the first one into a fight anymore, not like I was in 4E as a Paladin. Man I would always be the first to charge into battle.

But I think that was the point, I think 5E wants the lower levels to have a more "Gygaxian meat grinder dungeon crawl" feel to them. I do believe there was a lot of talk explaining that levels 1 and 2 are really "training" levels and that experienced players should typically start at level 3.

Being an effective front liner in 2E and 4E from a system standpoint was something you got for free. In 2E, you picked Fighter, you got d10s for HP and good armor, and once you got past the first few levels where nobody was survivable you were a tank. My 2E Fighter had -2 AC at level 4 and nothing could touch me. You have to divert resources to survivability to manage that in 5E(and still achieve lesser results), and you have to sacrifice offense or doing cool stuff to do it. 5E punishes melee.

The Gygaxian meat grinder thing I'm finding to be true, but I'm not really seeing the point of it in the bigger picture. It kind of seems in conflict with other parts of the game.

 

[Imaro]

Powergamer-optimizer style is whatever works for the system. In 4E, being aggressive was optimal. In 5E, it is not. It has nothing to do with fighting the system, but instead going with the flow. That being said, playing aggressively is far more my style. It's just that 5E punishes you for it.

In 4E, the striker role involved moving around the edges and avoiding being attacked by multiple enemies. The same is true of 5E, especially played on a battlemap. Even a mobility challenged class like the Paladin can manage that if played with good tactics, tactics I've perfected through years of 4E and they still apply to 5E. You just always move towards the edge of combat, never the center.

What level are you talking about? Because I've seen paladins played all the way to 10th/12th level and they were not forced to move about the edge of combat (of course I don't think a paladin not being hit is him really doing his job if he wants to be a tank either). I think maybe you're expecting a little too much power at the first level of 5e (understandable if you enjoy 4e's early game more than any of the other editions but it's not 4e and that's kind of the point) but 5e is pretty straightforward about levels 1-5 being apprentice level.