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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

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.

Wow, could our group (and others) be an anomaly... I've had people survive from 1st level to 10th/12th playing fighters... and judging by other accounts so have quite a few other groups... so when you say "survivable without having to pay for it" I think that at least some of us are experiencing that from level 1. Perhaps it's the play style necessary to survive that you don't enjoy...which is all fine and good but doesn't actually prove that characters aren't survivable out of the gate... just that you don't play in a style that the game rewards with surviving at that level. In fact I would wager there are many players finding the characters quite survivable without having to pay for it at level 1 and as they get higher, well from experience it gets harder to actually kill characters in 5e.

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.

Being a tank/defender in any edition has always been about taking one for the team... and as far as being awesome, well if that isn't "awesome" to you then why do you want to play a tank?

Well in 4e when I chose to be a Swordmage I was great at damage mitigation and sucked at dealing damage and there was no easy way to mitigate it without expenditure of resources... and even then I couldn't hit like a striker. The only Defender that could get close to striker numbers was the fighter and that was because by the end of 4e the class was a bit overpowered due to how much support had been heaped upon it... but that wasn't the case with all classes or all roles. In the end selecting a class in 4e was a constraint in that you wouldn't be as good at some of the other roles as other characters were.

Now as far as your "awesome" goes it seems from this and previous posts... you want a character that can't be hit or hurt but also that does massive damage in combat... and the problem is that 5e's mechanics are making it difficult for you to attain combat superiority in attaining both of these things without investment of resources. Well, can't say I'm all that broke up about it not catering to that specific definition of awesome (especially at level 1) but I guess if that's your only way to have fun well then low level 5e is probably not for you... perhaps join in on the game once they've reached 3rd or 4th level.

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.

Uhm... being less good at the other roles is exactly what selecting a class (and thus role) in 4e means... the main difference is that 4e baked it into the classes more heavily than 5e does.

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.

I guessed I picked it up from the descriptions for the tiers of play... not sure what else to tell you. If you have no experience with any edition (including 3.x) then you know low level characters are fragile in D&D and if you don't have any experience with D&D well then you don't have expectations. I don't think 5e wildly swings between anything... IME it's a steady rise as you go higher and higher in level... but then again I think the books sets you up to expect that.

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.

5e is no harder to houserule than 2e and 3e low level play was also very dangerous/swingy... just like every edition except 4e.

 

[Imaro]

Double Post...

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

Fair enough. Paladin seems a bit of an odd choice then, but we're also talking about levels 1 and 2, so every character is a bit fragile.

Based on the comments that have followed, my take on how you view things (and I could be wrong) is that you don't like to be hit in combat. You prefer to not take a hit rather than absorb a hit. And I do think that's one way that this edition has changed a bit from prior ones...HP recovery is way more robust in 5E than almost any other edition, with only 4E comparing. As such, the game expects you to lose HP.

So if your view that "getting your ass kicked is not awesome" means "I don't like to lose HP", then yeah, I think you may have to shift your thinking a bit and start taking some hits and not looking at it as a negative.

I don't expect most characters to make it through combat without taking some hits, except the ones that really focus on avoiding melee and maintaining cover at all costs. A paladin doesn't really fit that mindset too much, although you can play any character however you like. It just sounds like if you're not finding the character you've chosen to play to be fun, you may want to change up how you play him.

It almost sounds to me like a Rogue would have been a decent house for you. They're all about hanging on the perifrary of combat and then bouncing in with a sneak attack, and then out with their cunning action. And if they do get hit, they roll with it for half damage. That sound some like the role you want.

Having said that, I'm sure as you level up the Paladin, you'll be more happy. You say you want to play him more offensively minded...once you can smite, you'll see his damage output spike.

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.

Well, ultimately anyone can come up with a reason to play any class however they want. I don't mind that at all. But I don't know if he's happy, which is why I said what I did. There's not a lot of synergy between his class choice and his play style. That may improve over time as the Paladin gets more abilities and the fragility of low levels inherent in all classes fades.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

In 4e becoming a defender was a trade off - the resource was just your class choice. Taking the Tank (Defender) role sacrificed your capability in other areas that other classes (Striker role for example)specialised in.
In 5e, the roles aren't as defined. You can play a Fighter as a defender, or a Striker, or even a throw a bit of Controller or Leader in there. Its harder to specialise though.
In addition, 5e starts at a lower power/effectiveness level than 4e. The equivalent of a 1st level 4e character would probably be around 5e level 3-5 in terms of build development.

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.

If there is already a barbarian in the party, then the "defender" role may be covered already. Playing a Paladin like a Striker is a matter of personal preference. If they're having combats inside a house, there are a lot of choke points where the front line can be minimised.

It sounds like its more of an investigation adventure than a dungeon crawl. He may have decided to play a "bodyguard"-type character who doesn't engage much unless a fight starts. If the adventure is quite intrigue-focused, with little combat, then there is the impetus for character growth.

 

[happyhermit]

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.

Where are you seeing these posts? I might respond to them but I don't even see one.

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.

Mind BLOWN!

If powergamer-omptimizer style is "whatever works for the system." Then, applying that style to a system that is best played without optimization would mean playing without it!

Gives a whole new meaning to the terms, sort of like a "powergamer-optimiser for maximum whole table fun levels" version.

 

[happyhermit]

There are all kinds of paladins, like there are all kinds of gnomes.

All terrible, that need to be put to the sword.

Paladins are awesome, Gnomes are awesome, but you think that they are sooo awesome that they need to be taken out to make room for other things? I am not sure I would go THAT far. My gnomish paladin is pretty sweet though.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I agree somewhat with the assessment, though not the sentiment. It's like 2E, but I'm not necessarily enthusiastic about it being so. Also, the 2E I most enjoyed was heavily modified and played more like 3E/4E.

I ran 2e much more than I played it, and, yes, ran it heavily modified (proportional healing, for instance). But, I do find that 5e pushes those same buttons for me, because it invites the tinkering and on-the-fly rulings & improv I used in 2e, and that's both fun in itself, and nostalgic, as well. And, while 2e (late 2e) was possibly my least-favorite version of D&D, it was still enough like the 1e AD&D that I first got into (technically I started with the c1979 basic set, but it was AD&D that really sealed the deal for me). And, 5e is also evocative enough of the original AD&D to tickle my nostalgia.

I think it's more the other players. The atmosphere is there, but they seem to be into going over every room with a fine tooth comb.

I get that, you can sit out the boring minutia and 'back them up,' waiting for something more exciting to happen...

 

[Guest 6801328]

When somebody is absolutely determined to hate something it's pretty hard to talk him out of it.