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

[pemerton]

I meant story flavor was allowed to take precedence over balance, and/or that flavorful but unbalance-able (because extremely swingy) abilities were put into 5E. Neither of the examples you mentioned from 4E affect that edition's legendary balance.

I know there are some people who think that CaGI is clearly stronger than any other 7th level fighter power. (I don't have a strong view on that narrow issue in particular, though I think AoE attacks in general - of which CaGI is one standout - tend to be better than single-target attacks, especially for a fighter.)

But does Fireball unbalance 5e? The rather quirky way the spell damage ranges are set up - in many cases very different from D&D tradition (eg 3d10 for Inflict Wounds, 8d6 rather than 6d6 for Fireball, etc) - makes me think a fair bit of effort went into trying to balance things. (At least in numerical terms.)

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I know there are some people who think that CaGI is clearly stronger than any other 7th level fighter power. (I don't have a strong view on that narrow issue in particular, though I think AoE attacks in general - of which CaGI is one standout - tend to be better than single-target attacks, especially for a fighter.)

But does Fireball unbalance 5e? The rather quirky way the spell damage ranges are set up - in many cases very different from D&D tradition (eg 3d10 for Inflict Wounds, 8d6 rather than 6d6 for Fireball, etc) - makes me think a fair bit of effort went into trying to balance things. (At least in numerical terms.)

In terms of the optimization community for 5E, Fireball is considered very very good when you first get it, but not quite unbalanced. From there, it doesn't exactly scale well and past level 10 or so it's situational at best, good against mobs of weak enemies only and not competing with save or suck as your primary offense.

 

[jayoungr]

That is shifting the goalposts. You are talking about balance being a bad thing, not about story.

Excuse me? When did I ever say balance was a bad thing? The only point I was trying to make is that certain things were not put into 4E because they would have been bad for balance, and they were put into 5E because balance wasn't as high a priority. I never said that either way was better, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

As a matter of fact, I think that which way is "better" depends heavily on what you want from a game. One or the other can be better for a given person's taste, but neither is better in an absolute sense.

And once again, I'm outta here. I only came back to explain my original statement, not to argue it further.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Excuse me? When did I ever say balance was a bad thing? The only point I was trying to make is that certain things were not put into 4E because they would have been bad for balance, and they were put into 5E because balance wasn't as high a priority. I never said that either way was better, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

1. What things weren't put in?
2. Unbalanced things don't improve story. They aren't connected.
3. You are implying that balance was a bad thing because it prevented things being in 4E, though I'm not sure what things you find missing.

As a matter of fact, I think that which way is "better" depends heavily on what you want from a game. One or the other can be better for a given person's taste, but neither is better in an absolute sense.

And once again, I'm outta here. I only came back to explain my original statement, not to argue it further.

It might be unintentional, but your statements come across as a little passive aggressive, which is what I was responding to. If I was mistaken, I am sorry.

 

[Imaro]

D&D PCs are exceptional compared to the populace at large. They have abilities not possessed by average civilians that allow them to overcome and survive the adversity thrown against D&D PCs.

This definition isn't universal though. Most D&D PC's are exceptional to the populace at large... though a string of bad rolls could see a PC who is average to below average compared to the populace at large...

I guess I agree that D&D PC's have abilities not possessed by average civilians (though "average civilian" is a bit nebulous in the context of different editions)... but then so did Sam Gamgee... He isn't corruptible by the ring even though he is a ring bearer for a time and the average civilian isn't going to be able to resist the rings influence... this ability also allows him to complete his "quest". So yeah I'm not seeing how Sam doesn't qualify as someone who could be a D&D character?? Perhaps a BECMI Halfling?

 

[dave2008]

I'm not averse to further discussion, exposition, or debate. I'm not really looking for solutions so much, and I'm not likely to change my mind(playing at the table has been reinforcing my opinions).

1. The lack of PC customization is probably my biggest issue, because more than anything it defies a solution. There isn't enough customization in 5E IMO compared to other games I enjoy playing, and this is true of every class. Multiclassing doesn't help, because I'm not a fan of 3E-style multiclassing. I like D&D as a class based system and 3E-style multiclassing detracts from that, as well as it tending to result in the mechanics negatively impacting the fluff to say nothing of trap builds.

2. Bounded accuracy makes the game feel to random I'm not sure what you do about this without the game ceasing to be 5E or being more trouble than it's worth. It's a particularly bad match to 5E's fast combat. Shorter combat magnifies the randomness. It's even worse using the skill system. Some people might not be bothered by it, but I am.

3. I'm a combat first sort of player, and I find 5E lacking compared to other editions, including AD&D as I've previously explained. It's too fast, too bland, and too trivial.

1. I pretty much strictly DM, but I agree that currently there are fewer customization options than 4e/3e from WotC. However, there is already loads of content on the DMsGuild and even just the WotC content is pretty expansive for 1.5 yrs in. Maybe to much work for you, but it is available if you want.

2. I remember reading your post about this, but I have completely forgotten. It seemed pretty personal, if I remember correctly, by which I mean - in your view/ interpretation. I know you haven'y played much yet, but this has not been something that I have noticed in the 1.5 yrs of been using this addition. Pretty much the PCs do what they want. When PCs are so OP compared to monsters it really takes out the randomness unless I (DM) try to really ramp things up. Even then, generally speaking the outcome is determined by how the PCs handle the challenge, not random dice rolls. In fact, because of BA, I find there is a lot less randomness. With the low ACs and easy access to advantage the PC almost never miss!

3. My group is combat first as well, we don't really roleplay and do minimal investigation, exploration. Only enough to set the stage/story/adventure hook. We have had a blast playing 5e combat so far. That being said, I (DM) do extend the battles and make them tactically interesting with terrain and beefed up monsters. This is a skill I learned in 4e as I have similar issues with 5e combat that I had with 4e combat (PCs nearly untouchable and they absolutely destroy the monsters with little effort). The combat system is mostly the same as earlier editions, so I am guessing the real issue is again customization/ not enough options? My players have been fine with the amount of material so far. Hell they are still on their first characters (we have done some one shots with different characters though), so the need for more options hasn't really come up.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

1. I pretty much strictly DM, but I agree that currently there are fewer customization options than 4e/3e from WotC. However, there is already loads of content on the DMsGuild and even just the WotC content is pretty expansive for 1.5 yrs in. Maybe to much work for you, but it is available if you want.

There really isn't. I'd have to check what 3E or 3.5E looked like 1.5 years in, but for 4E you would have PHB 2, FRPG, EPG, Martial Power, Arcane Power, Divine Power, Primal Power, and 18 issues of Dragon. Beyond the amount of material, there is the amount of customization choices a single PC gets. Compared to 4E there is no comparison, and I'd argue that a 5E PC is well below a 3E PC in this regard as well. This is particularly true if you don't factor in 3E-style Multiclassing, which I wasn't a fan of in either 3E or 5E. As for 3rd party material, all the bad stuff released during the 3E era has made be wary to trust such material ever again.

2. I remember reading your post about this, but I have completely forgotten. It seemed pretty personal, if I remember correctly, by which I mean - in your view/ interpretation. I know you haven'y played much yet, but this has not been something that I have noticed in the 1.5 yrs of been using this addition. Pretty much the PCs do what they want. When PCs are so OP compared to monsters it really takes out the randomness unless I (DM) try to really ramp things up. Even then, generally speaking the outcome is determined by how the PCs handle the challenge, not random dice rolls. In fact, because of BA, I find there is a lot less randomness. With the low ACs and easy access to advantage the PC almost never miss!

Two issues here:

1. It might be true that this becomes less of a problem at higher levels I haven't experienced yet. I'm not enjoying how the randomness is over the first five levels(I have played previously at 5), and even if it gets better later the low levels being a problem is still a problem.
2. From what you describe and what others have said, the things that mitigate the randomness fall under one of my other complaints, the DM Empowerment one. Advantage is generally DM fiat, and as a player I am not wired towards "playing the DM", being more of a "play the system" player.

3. My group is combat first as well, we don't really roleplay and do minimal investigation, exploration. Only enough to set the stage/story/adventure hook. We have had a blast playing 5e combat so far. That being said, I (DM) do extend the battles and make them tactically interesting with terrain and beefed up monsters. This is a skill I learned in 4e as I have similar issues with 5e combat that I had with 4e combat (PCs nearly untouchable and they absolutely destroy the monsters with little effort). The combat system is mostly the same as earlier editions, so I am guessing the real issue is again customization/ not enough options? My players have been fine with the amount of material so far. Hell they are still on their first characters (we have done some one shots with different characters though), so the need for more options hasn't really come up.

Maybe in isolation this is true. I don't really compare combat in 5E to 3E/4E, since those two are much heavier and slower systems. But when I play or think about 5E, I can't help but compare it to my experience with 2E or for that matter 13th Age, and to me it loses those comparisons. The other piece is that there really isn't much I particularly like about 5E. I was able to put up with a lot of problems and work my butt off trying to mold 3E into something better than it was because there was a lot in 3E I really liked and that didn't exist elsewhere. There isn't the same level of positives in 5E for me, and what there is in 5E I like I can find in other systems I overall like a whole lot more.

 

[dave2008]

There really isn't. I'd have to check what 3E or 3.5E looked like 1.5 years in, but for 4E you would have PHB 2, FRPG, EPG, Martial Power, Arcane Power, Divine Power, Primal Power, and 18 issues of Dragon. Beyond the amount of material, there is the amount of customization choices a single PC gets. Compared to 4E there is no comparison, and I'd argue that a 5E PC is well below a 3E PC in this regard as well. This is particularly true if you don't factor in 3E-style Multiclassing, which I wasn't a fan of in either 3E or 5E. As for 3rd party material, all the bad stuff released during the 3E era has made be wary to trust such material ever again.

Yep, if you want 4e levels of options then 5e is not going to float the boat yet (of course when we ran 4e we only used the first PHB + errata, I can't keep up with all those options as a DM, so from that prospective a prefer fewer options). Obviously it is a personal opinion, but with background, race, class, & subclass there seem to be more than enough options for my group for over a year's worth of enjoyment. I have two multi-classed characters and 4 single-class characters and everyone seems to be enjoying themselves. I would be curious how you felt when if you had a group of players that play like you and played through a 15-20 lvl campaign and see what you thought then.

Two issues here:

1. It might be true that this becomes less of a problem at higher levels I haven't experienced yet. I'm not enjoying how the randomness is over the first five levels(I have played previously at 5), and even if it gets better later the low levels being a problem is still a problem.
2. From what you describe and what others have said, the things that mitigate the randomness fall under one of my other complaints, the DM Empowerment one. Advantage is generally DM fiat, and as a player I am not wired towards "playing the DM", being more of a "play the system" player.

I don't hand out advantage, the players grab it - total player empowerment by RAW. There are just a boat load of methods to get advantage by RAW. That being said, they don't even need advantage to kick ass. I think you would need to play in a group with like minded players to see it, but you drop a bless on the group and suddenly your level 1 players are kicking ass.

Maybe in isolation this is true.

What do mean - what in isolation?

I don't really compare combat in 5E to 3E/4E, since those two are much heavier and slower systems. But when I play or think about 5E, I can't help but compare it to my experience with 2E or for that matter 13th Age, and to me it loses those comparisons.

OK, kinda off odd to pick and choose which part of which edition you want to compare to, but whatever. How is the combat not like / inferior to 2e and 13th age in your opinion?

The other piece is that there really isn't much I particularly like about 5E. I was able to put up with a lot of problems and work my butt off trying to mold 3E into something better than it was because there was a lot in 3E I really liked and that didn't exist elsewhere. There isn't the same level of positives in 5E for me, and what there is in 5E I like I can find in other systems I overall like a whole lot more.

OK, so why are so heavily involved in a thread about 5e, even if you did start it? If you don't like something, and you don't want to play it, why are you discussing it? Your not looking to find ways to play 5e that you might enjoy, you are not looking for something you may have missed, you are just ranting? Is that correct? Just play what you like, what is the point of all this.

 

[dave2008]

. The other piece is that there really isn't much I particularly like about 5E. I was able to put up with a lot of problems and work my butt off trying to mold 3E into something better than it was because there was a lot in 3E I really liked and that didn't exist elsewhere. There isn't the same level of positives in 5E for me, and what there is in 5E I like I can find in other systems I overall like a whole lot more.

Obviously experiences vary, but we made the switch to 5e because the core is so easily modified that we found it easier to customize to how we want play then to continue with 4e. From my experience it is really uniquely modular and easily customize-able.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The superhero genre is a thing unto itself.

And not what we were talking about. Why bring it up?

D&D isn't inspired by RL or comic-book takes on heroism, but by the broader fantasy genre - which includes plenty of action and heroism.

This is sort of a false attack on the DMPC, since all characters are typically mary-sues.

Not so much, no, because players are limited in their excesses by both needing to follow the rules, and by the judgment of the DM. While the DM, ultimately, isn't even restrained by the rules (and in games like 5e is particularly encouraged not to be so).

The idea that bad gaming is always worse than no gaming is completely untrue since it's not a black-and-white experience.

Very true. The answer to 'why should I struggle to adapt D&D to the 'style' I want?' is often 'because it's the only game in town.' There are tons of other games in RPG history, some of them even still in print, but none are as easy to find a chance to play(or run) as D&D, particularly the current edition of D&D.

A DMPC can be just fine as long as they stick to the rules.

Which is a particular issue when the rules frequently punt to the DM for a ruling.

Not saying that a player frustrated with 5e's default feel couldn't get some of the experience they were looking for by DMing, and running a DMPC, just that it's very easy for that to go very badly wrong.

If you're concerned about "rulings" then just don't do a lot of things that require new rulings. It's not hard to do.

Every check in essence calls for a ruling. That's an intentional design feature that encourages players to be accepting of rulings - a cornerstone of 5e's DM Empowerment. You can't, and shouldn't, try to evade such responsibility as a DM, but you should rule for the good of the campaign (the story, the players' enjoyment, &c), and running a DMPC can introduce quite a temptation to do otherwise. Especially if you're running primarily to get a play experience that requires extensive use of modules & house-ruling...

Sorry this is really just a pet peeve for me because I often DMPC and I make a concerted effort to behave. DMing seems to be the only way I get to ensure the quality of the games I'm in and NO, DMing is not a substitute for playing, it DOESNT satisfy the desire to play and it's fun and rewarding in a completely DIFFERENT way.

DMing is not playing. It never will be. One is not a replacement for the other.

They are quite different, certainly, but they are still both RPing, and they are still both fun. DMing is more of a commitment, more work, and more of a responsibility to your fellow players, but it's that much more rewarding, IMHO, even if sometimes, paradoxically, seemingly thankless....

I more or less agree with you in terms of being robust, but it's not the only consideration. When I say base I mean the core of a game in a general sense where if you're customizing its what you build your game on top of and don't really change.

Ah, yeah. There's nothing off limits in 5e. You could change anything/everything. Just last Sunday, I was in a game (my third time as a player in 5e, and the most enjoyable, BTW), where the DM gave us pregens that had stats on a 1-7 scale (just add your stat to the roll), and no classes, backgrounds, feats or racial abilities (most were human but there was an android and a, I guess spirit, as well), just skills, attacks, and a short list of special abilities unique to each. Very cool, but barely recognizable.

Those are good rules, too bad 1,2 and 3, is more or less the kind of things I like to do. I prefer to be a sidekick so 4 is no issue, but most of the time I find combat the least interesting part of the game. Thanks for proposing this, I find this a more likely solution than everything else before.

A DMPC in a support/side-kick/exposition or similar secondary-character role could be more workable than most. If you like being the less-plot-central, side-kick (which can be hard to do in most RPGs, because of scrabbling for spotlight time, needing to make a 'balanced' contribution and so forth), that could be a good way to do it. You'd have to get your RP fix primarily by interacting with the PCs instead of the NPCs. Aside from that, it sounds like a good formula.

It kind of depends on what you enjoy playing. I enjoy playing the brooding antihero, and I found that this sort of character makes for a very unintrusive DMPC. You aren't a big part of decision making because you don't care, and you aren't really social with strangers but can still be someone your friends can count on.

Ooh, another possibility.