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

[thecasualoblivion]

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.

Are you saying that a melee 5E character is generally and consistently survivable under attack from multiple enemies with no investment in defense? My experience with 5E is limited, but I haven't found that to be true.

I don't want to be a tank. Being a tank in 5E sucks IMO, and this is being said by someone who prefers tanking. I'm running a max offense Paladin.

 

[Imaro]

Are you saying that a melee 5E character is generally and consistently survivable under attack from multiple enemies with no investment in defense? My experience with 5E is limited, but I haven't found that to be true.

No... that's too broad a statement to make. Exactly what "melee" character(s) are we speaking of... there's a big difference in the ability of a paladin to survive on the front lines vs. say a ranger or monk. Also I'm unsure what you mean by "no investment in defense". Does that mean you're not wearing the best armor you can? Not using defensive spells? Not using lay on hands to replenish your hit points? Not using defensive feats? What does "no investment in defense entail? I also think the ability to attack multiple times impacts this greatly as well as the paladin's ability to dish out massive damage via smite... but again you aren't going to see these things at level 1... you're an apprentice paladin.

I don't want to be a tank. Being a tank in 5E sucks IMO, and this is being said by someone who prefers tanking. I'm running a max offense Paladin.

Could you tell me exactly what is it that makes tanking "suck" in 5e? Maybe it "sucks" because you don't understand/want to build a good tank in 5e?

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Your response is orthogonal to my statement. I was discussing roleplaying a paladin, and how there's no 'right way' to do so. You're discussing your problems with 5e as a system, which is an entirely different ball of wax. On that topic, the 'not listening' is mutual, as you've refused to listen to anyone that tries to explain how this system can work for you. Instead, you continue to gripe that it doesn't do things exactly as previous editions you like did them. Please don't conflate my defense of your roleplaying choices with agreement with your narrow views on the system.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

No... that's too broad a statement to make. Exactly what "melee" character(s) are we speaking of... there's a big difference in the ability of a paladin to survive on the front lines vs. say a ranger or monk. Also I'm unsure what you mean by "no investment in defense". Does that mean you're not wearing the best armor you can? Not using defensive spells? Not using lay on hands to replenish your hit points? Not using defensive feats? What does "no investment in defense entail? I also think the ability to attack multiple times impacts this greatly as well as the paladin's ability to dish out massive damage via smite... but again you aren't going to see these things at level 1... you're an apprentice paladin.



Could you tell me exactly what is it that makes tanking "suck" in 5e? Maybe it "sucks" because you don't understand/want to build a good tank in 5e?

Minimal investment means merely wearing the best armor available and having decent stats at level 1. No shield, no +1 AC fighting style, no Barbarian multiclass, no feats, no spells, no further ability bumps(unless attacking with Dex). Healing is a party resource, not a personal one, especially when you are avoiding frontal assaults.

Tanking sucks in 5E because it requires specialization to be effective(in 2E and 4E it did not), and because the randomness of 5E requires a greater level of specialization to overcome to be consistently and reliably surviavable.

The low levels being apprentice or old school isn't an excuse. The game is played at those levels, and those levels matter.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Your response is orthogonal to my statement. I was discussing roleplaying a paladin, and how there's no 'right way' to do so. You're discussing your problems with 5e as a system, which is an entirely different ball of wax. On that topic, the 'not listening' is mutual, as you've refused to listen to anyone that tries to explain how this system can work for you. Instead, you continue to gripe that it doesn't do things exactly as previous editions you like did them. Please don't conflate my defense of your roleplaying choices with agreement with your narrow views on the system.

The two are connected. Mechanics support the roleplaying and vice versa. I find disconnecting the two to be kind of obtuse.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The two are connected. Mechanics support the roleplaying and vice versa. I find disconnecting the two to be kind of obtuse.

I haven't. I said my argument about how you roleplay your character is disconnected from your arguments about how the system fails you. They are. I never implied that mechanics don't affect roleplaying and vice versa, I said that your argument and mine are different. You can love the 5e mechanics and still play a paladin the way you've chosen to play your paladin. Your dislike of the system has no bearing on that choice being available.

 

[Imaro]

Minimal investment means merely wearing the best armor available and having decent stats at level 1. No shield, no +1 AC fighting style, no Barbarian multiclass, no feats, no spells, no further ability bumps(unless attacking with Dex). Healing is a party resource, not a personal one, especially when you are avoiding frontal assaults.

Even in 2e you had to get past the levels were no one had much in the way of survivability.... same with 5e, no one is all that hardy in the first 3 or 4 levels. And again since 5e readily calls out level 1 as an apprentice level... why would you expect all of this out the gate at level 1?

Basically you want to be a tank without devoting (not specializing in it but purposefully neglecting the resources the game gives you to accomplish it) any resources towards it... but you're willing to devote those same resources into offense. Well what that tells me is that you want to be a striker not a tank. So again is it that tanks "suck" or that you don't know how/won't build an effective one?

Tanking sucks in 5E because it requires specialization to be effective(in 2E and 4E it did not), and because the randomness of 5E requires a greater level of specialization to overcome to be consistently and reliably surviavable.

I call bull. In 4e you couldn't tank without a whole class worth of specialization... it was called being a defender and yeah you could go for a defender secondary role but that's exactly what it was secondary to those who had it as a primary role. THe only difference in 5e is that you (as opposed to the designer of a particular class) have to decide how many resources you're willing to devote to a particular role. As for 2e I don't know enough about it to comment.

The low levels being apprentice or old school isn't an excuse. The game is played at those levels, and those levels matter.

No one is claiming it's an excuse... but 5e promotes a particular playstyle at these levels and the game as well as the designers are pretty transparent about what it is and the fact of the matter is it does it pretty well at those levels. The fact that you expect it to be/do something else isn't a failure on their part that needs an "excuse"... and I think there may be more to this since apparently you were willing to play through these levels in 2e but not 5e. Why is that?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Even in 2e you had to get past the levels were no one had much in the way of survivability.... same with 5e, no one is all that hardy in the first 3 or 4 levels. And again since 5e readily calls out level 1 as an apprentice level... why would you expect all of this out the gate at level 1?

In 2E after you got past those levels Fighters were survivable without having to pay for it. Why would I expect this out of the gate? Because in almost every modern rpg not called D&D, computer/console or tabletop, it generally is true out of the gate. Apprentice level also doesn't necessarily mean being made of glass.

Basically you want to be a tank without devoting (not specializing in it but purposefully neglecting the resources the game gives you to accomplish it) any resources towards it... but you're willing to devote those same resources into offense. Well what that tells me is that you want to be a striker not a tank. So again is it that tanks "suck" or that you don't know how/won't build an effective one?

I want to be a tank without having to sacrifice being awesome. Being a tank in 5E isn't being awesome, it's taking one for the team. Taking one for the team is not awesome. In 2E, the Fighter was a tank while at the same time being the most awesome character in the game with weapon attacks. In 4E, choosing Defender or any other role didn't preclude being awesome. 5E does not reward teamwork while also perversely requiring it.

I call bull. In 4e you couldn't tank without a whole class worth of specialization... it was called being a defender and yeah you could go for a defender secondary role but that's exactly what it was secondary to those who had it as a primary role. THe only difference in 5e is that you (as opposed to the designer of a particular class) have to decide how many resources you're willing to devote to a particular role. As for 2e I don't know enough about it to comment.

In 4E, Defender was a single choice made at level 1, and you got everything you needed to do the role right there. You then had massive customizability beyond that from every choice you got going forward. It wasn't a trade-off, and it wasn't a sacrifice. Being a Defender didn't compete with other resources. In 5E resources are very limited, and resources for the Defender role compete with doing other things. In 5E, being a good defender means you become less good at everything else. This wasn't true in 4E, and as I said above it wasn't true of 2E either.

No one is claiming it's an excuse... but 5e promotes a particular playstyle at these levels and the game as well as the designers are pretty transparent about what it is and the fact of the matter is it does it pretty well at those levels. The fact that you expect it to be/do something else isn't a failure on their part that needs an "excuse"... and I think there may be more to this since apparently you were willing to play through these levels in 2e but not 5e. Why is that?

It's really not that transparent, especially if you have no familiarity with traditional AD&D play. The core books do not really describe old school non-survivable play. They kind of allude to starting at 3 for survivability, but don't really explain why. The game seems to imply that it expects you to start at level 1, without really explaining why the first few levels are less survivable than later. Organized play starts at level 1 while not exactly making it clear that the lack of survivability early on is intentional for organized play. As other people have described, 5E seems to swing wildly between the lack of survivability early on while being the least dangerous D&D past a certain point, and the transition happens quickly and somewhat suddenly. It is never exactly made clear that this is intentional, or if it is intentional why it is so.

As for being willing in 2E, it was a mix of a lack of better options at the time and 2E lending itself to house ruling more than 5E.

**note** You'll notice I leave 3E out of the above statements. This is for two reasons:

1. 3E play varied wildly from table to table, making generalizations difficult
2. In optimized 3E play, tanking/melee was almost completely irrelevant.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

Well, it was something you couldn't do in 4th. Getting your full Con Score at level 1 would usually sit a starting character around 20-25 HP. Right now, that's level 2 or 3 for high-HD classes and 4-5 for low-HD classes. I think a lot of people didn't like that they couldn't run meat grinders with 4E. It wasn't totally impossible, but it was substantially harder to kill a low-level character, and it didn't help that you also typically had higher AC from the start and monsters did less damage.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Well, it was something you couldn't do in 4th. Getting your full Con Score at level 1 would usually sit a starting character around 20-25 HP. Right now, that's level 2 or 3 for high-HD classes and 4-5 for low-HD classes. I think a lot of people didn't like that they couldn't run meat grinders with 4E. It wasn't totally impossible, but it was substantially harder to kill a low-level character, and it didn't help that you also typically had higher AC from the start and monsters did less damage.

I'm still confused as to its purpose in 5E, given:

1. By RAW, the meatgrinder levels go by quickly and very little game time is spent there.
2. Unlike AD&D where save or die, level drain, and other gotcha effects were a thing even at higher levels, those meatgrinder levels have a definite expiration date in 5E.
3. There is a bit of a disconnect due to the contrast between those first few levels and the rest of 5E. It's like there are two almost unrelated games.
4. What are the early meatgrinder levels supposed to mean to players who have no experience with traditional AD&D?