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

[Imaro]

That is not how you stated it, you phrased it universally. You can compare more detailed combat with more options and more enemies one side and greater durability on the PC side as 'slower,' because it does take more rounds to finish and more table time to resolve, relative to less detailed combat vs fewer foes and less resilient PCs, without making one sound execrable and the other like the holy grail. You can express your preference for one or the other. You could even go into how the opposite was readily achievable under either system, if the DM chose to design encounters differently...

Wait what...So this is about pedantry... let's look at the entire quote you decided to break up and present out of context...

I find the fast pace of 5e combats more exciting than the drawn out slog that many (though not all) combats in 4e became as people counted out squares in different combinations, looked over pages of powers, counted effect squares, interrupted (often technically too late) with reactions and so on. 5e moves at a pretty good pace for me and my group, the combats are fun and we get much more done outside of combat in a comparable time frame than we did with 4e.

Bold for emphasis... right there because apparently in your rush to holler edition warrior in a thread you missed that qualifier right there... "I find"... not speaking for anyone but me... but just so that it's absolutely clear moving forward how about from now on you assume that I'm speaking for myself an my experiences unless I state otherwise? Because I'm honestly not going to put q qualifier up every time I post something.

I quoted what you said. If you didn't mean for it to be taken a certain way, by all means, retract or further clarify it. It's clear now that you were talking about a personal preference and a personal experience, and just couched that in familiar-from-edition-war terms.

Not talking about the quotes... talking about how under the quote in your posts you proceed to re-word what was stated in the quote. So no need for me to retract or clarify... just need you to stop restating what I posted using different words and implying or inferring something I didn't when I originally posted it. But I think you're smart enough to know exactly what I was referring to... and smart enough to know it doesn't cross any lines as far as conduct on the board so I'm pretty sure it's a tactic you won' stop using.

 

[Sunseeker]

It's your opinion/experience that those mechanics in 4e provided that for you and those you played with. I'm stating mine (and never claimed to be speaking for everyone else) and in mine they created long, drawn out, slogs...

You can represent my views if you like. I quite enjoy 4E, but the combats are a slog. Monster damage is low and their health and AC are high. 5E kept the high HP, but raised the damage and lowered the AC, which makes low-levels faster and more dangerous and speeds up combat.

Even Wizards realized the combats were a slog. Then they released supplemental monster books that upped monster damage and lowered monster HP. Most people agreed that it largely fixed the "slog" problem.

 

[dave2008]

You say that but I don't exactly see how I can do that without changing my expectations and preferences, which I'm not exactly inclined to do.

Its hard to offer help, if you wanted it, as I personally can't see how your preferences can't be met (just from looking at this thread). I'm just not understanding your issues with 5e as they don't seem to be an issue in my game or they don't bother me so I don't notice them. However, I accept that you know your preferences and how 5e doesn't meet them better than me and that it is a real issue for your gaming. I hope you can find a group to play a system you like better. Now, I've got to get off this thread as I have lost about a whole day of productivity that is going to cost me some sleepless nights!

 

[dave2008]

Wait what...So this is about pedantry... let's look at the entire quote you decided to break up and present out of context...

Tony wasn't the only one who looked at what you wrote and thought it was a bit like edition war material from battles past. Doesn't mean it was, just that it could look that way. It is easy to misinterpret post, we should all just try to assume positive intent.

 

[MoonSong]

The requirement for a human element only adds to the game.... I don't want to be governed by a specific list of standard responses, or indeed be a player interacting with faceless NPCs - you might as well just play a PC game. I also don't want to have to memorize reams of situational minutiae.

As a DM, 5E gives me the freedom to apply common sense, and to keep a game moving at a comfortable pace. A good DM needs to be a generally benign dictator (not a simple rules encyclopedia), and the focus of 5E is to bring that back to the table.

I deal with enough egocentrism in my daily life thank you. A dictator is still a dictator, I prefer when the DM is a first among equals, something very easy when the rules give a baseline and we all are equally bound by them. Personally I DM better when I know there is a rule -and that it is fair because my players know it ahead of time- that way I can dedicate my attention to come with interesting NPCs and cool situations.

I have different beefs with bounded accuracy in combat vs skills. In combat, the most elegant solution would be to go 4E's route and extend combat over more rounds, possibly adding leader role healing to further smooth out the bumps. You'd have to adjust other things to compensate like healing, monster damage, and such, but I think in the end that would be less hassle than the messing with the numbers. For skills, I'd be inclined to throw the entire system out and use the 3E or 4E skill system instead, probably leaning towards 4E since you could apply the mechanics to the list of skills, classes and backgrounds of 5E.

I was thinking on starting higher for skills (+4 for prof, +6 for expertise) then grow +1 on every tier as normal. That way there you can pass checks on a 5-8 and only get better. Or if going directly for the 3.5 skills, we could have a skill list per class and your background adds class skills, along with bonus skill points for high int.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have different beefs with bounded accuracy in combat vs skills. In combat, the most elegant solution would be to go 4E's route and extend combat over more rounds, possibly adding leader role healing

Healing already exists in the form of spells in some of the same classes the leader role was based on. Extending a combat over more rounds is just a matter of having fewer, more challenging, more detailed combats. There are some modules to help with that, and encounter design (speaking broadly, not so much the encounter guidelines) can be finessed - adding 'waves' for instance, instead of having all enemies present from the start - to facilitate that.

You'd have to adjust other things to compensate like healing, monster damage, and such, but I think in the end that would be less hassle than the messing with the numbers.

For skills, I'd be inclined to throw the entire system out and use the 3E or 4E skill system instead, probably leaning towards 4E since you could apply the mechanics to the list of skills, classes and backgrounds of 5E.

In a way, there's not a huge difference. In 5e only proficient characters advance in a skill but on the same scale (+4 over 20 levels), in 4e, everyone advances on the same scale (+15 over 30 levels). In both, proficient character start off better (+2 in 5e; +5 in 4e). Give that +4 advancement over 20 levels to everyone, and 5e is different only in the size of the numbers.

I've seen this 'solution' in play and I'm not terribly impressed with it. It kind of plays out in the following manner: proficient character rolls a skill check and fails, the DM then let's everybody else try the skill with no penalty for failures(either in the initial or subsequent checks)and somebody rolls high and it's success. It kind of feels empty, as it really doesn't seem to reward success or intelligent play at all, and success is just a result of five people rolling and one of them is bound to be high.

Nod. It is 'simpler' than a more structured approach while still bringing every one into the resolution. It could get old, but the DM can always narrate success without a roll in cases where it seems success would be inevitable.

My history of D&D involved a progression from high-powered(high stats, just short of Monty Haul), low-lethality, low level(1-10) 2E, to moderately gonzo 3E/3.5E, to vanilla "everything is core" optimized 4E. I imagine conclusions can be drawn from that.

No comment.

That sounds more difficult than finding a DM/table running something more to my tastes.

It /is/ finding a DM/table running something more to your tastes. That something is just 5e run differently. It's pretty easy to find 5e. It's only going to get harder to find 4e.

 

[MoonSong]

Its hard to offer help, if you wanted it, as I personally can't see how your preferences can't be met (just from looking at this thread). I'm just not understanding your issues with 5e as they don't seem to be an issue in my game or they don't bother me so I don't notice them. However, I accept that you know your preferences and how 5e doesn't meet them better than me and that it is a real issue for your gaming. I hope you can find a group to play a system you like better. Now, I've got to get off this thread as I have lost about a whole day of productivity that is going to cost me some sleepless nights!

Sorry for the devil's advocacy here, yes it is possible that maybe the game can met oblivion's preferences. But that is DM dependent, and beggars can be choosers, more so if you are stuck as a DM. You need a very good like-minded DM to get what you want with 5e, but you only need a mediocre/below average DM that runs the right system to get something even closer if not exactly what you want with other editions.

 

[Imaro]

Tony wasn't the only one who looked at what you wrote and thought it was a bit like edition war material from battles past. Doesn't mean it was, just that it could look that way. It is easy to misinterpret post, we should all just try to assume positive intent.

So you and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] are okay with this...

Because it wasn't boring, trivial, or over too fast like 5E tends to be.

Calling an edition's combat boring, trivial or over too fast (without a qualifier) isn't edition warring... but my post in response to this for some reason could be construed as edition warring?? The only difference I'm seeing is the edition. But hey, I'm open minded could one of you all explain to me,outside of the specific edition(s) being talked about... what's the difference? If you can't... then can you see where my thought that... it's only edition warring if you don't like 4e for some people... comes from

 

[Magil]

I'm sorry I'm a bit confused, what do you mean by number gap? Number of monsters, level of monsters, gap between 4e and 5e, gap in effectiveness? I am not understanding what I am supposedly missing?

To be honest, as mentioned in another post, I stopped using the guidelines in 4e and 5e. I found the guideline definition of moderate or deadly, didn't meet my definition or actual play experience. In both cases, I did start with them.

I'm referring to the number of monsters. On average, a 4E encounter will feature more monsters than a 5E encounter.

I found the guidelines for attack bonuses, average damage per attack, and defenses to be perfectly workable in 4E. They were simple and effective. There are guidelines that exist in 5E, but I find them harder to use. Maybe they'll become easier once I understand them better, but I don't go for a lot of fudging or "winging it". I want to make a monster out of numbers and stick to what I make, and only fudge when I absolutely need to.

Your experience fits what the numbers indicate. It's probably intentional. Even in 4e, remember, 'minion sweeping' was a Controller (Wizard/full-caster) contribution. Minions were just, ironically in spite of technically having 1 hp, more durable vs AEs than lower-level monsters are in 5e.

What do you mean by "behind the scenes?" If find that 5e works very well if you take much of the resolution behind the screen, while 4e worked well above-board - I assume that's not what you were referring to.

Oh, I would guess the system is working as intended in that regard. I just don't like how it seems to be very swingy in that regard. As for "behind the scenes", I mean actually building monsters and using the system outlined in the DMG for monster creation. I don't like to "wing it" much, I prefer to do things by the book, with guidelines for determining numbers and such. I'll do it when necessary, but if it's the core of my experience... well, that's not quite what I'm looking for!

I really like to homebrew and create my own monsters, and I really liked 4E's system for doing it. I'm trying to get used to 5E's, but I'm not too fond of the approach used so far. I got 4E's to work for me, and maybe I'll get 5E's to also work, and I just haven't managed it yet. I am hopeful that I'll get there, because I am not at all comfortable with making it up as I go.

 

[Magil]

Prettymuch what Legendary monsters are for. Have you tried a few of them? This is also where you can take more of the resolution behind the screen, create an air of mystery around the enemy, and adjust specifics on the fly to assure the climactic battle you're shooting for.

More true of larger combats in terms of number of foes. And, again, this is something you can fine-tune on the fly.

And, there are solid support-capable classes in 5e (Cleric, Bard, Druid, Paladin) and tough 'tank' classes (Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian). Play the monsters just a little 'badly' here and there - focus a bit more on the tank, leave the 'healer' alone - and the party can come back from some dramatic, threat-establishing damage.

It does so neatly adapt the sole-monster threat to the number of PC, though. It's slightly brilliant that way.

That's the flip side of Bounded Accuracy. Just statistically, a big enough horde becomes deadly to anyone. Early on there were threads about a hundred or so rubes with bows killing legendary dragons and such. One solution you can lift from 3e/4e is consolidating large numbers of foes into Swarms. 5e /does/ have swarms, even if it doesn't apply the mechancis to less teeny monsters. It wouldn't be hard to extrapolate.

I have seen legendary monsters, and acknowledge them as such in that post. Like I said, they do take the late-era 4E approach to solos of "giving monsters more actions per round, outside their turn". I don't think the implementation is quite enough to get me what I want, but it's workable, and a good starting point. Still, the problem with legendary actions is they aren't particularly dynamic, and the ones written in the book can be kind of hit-or-miss. Lair actions are more what I'm looking for, because I like how they are themed as the creature turning the environment against the PCs, and a legendary creature in its lair can be a credible threat, and I could work with that. I'm just not quite sure it's appropriate for the level range of PCs I currently have though, because legendary creatures with lair actions tend to be >= CR 10 (notable exception is the Unicorn, but I don't think that's quite what I'm going for either).