You're playing it wrong

[Glade Riven]

Let me tell you a little story...

I started playing during the heyday of 3.5. When I looked throught the core rulebook, I decided to play an elf paladin. I was warned that it was going to be a bit tricky, especially for a first time player, because elf paladin isn't optimised. I also played him like a ranger - leather armor, dex based build, focused on shooting things.

Glendric Elfsblood became my best and longest running character. He made it to Level 14 before I had to stop playing him as I moved to a different city. He was never optimised, but held his own in a group of optimised characters. During the course of the campaign, he had two major modifications - one, the replacement of spells with Martial Maneuvers of the crusader from Book of 9 Swords; two, when Pathfinder came out he was rebuilt as a straight paladin instead of the weirdness I had with several prestige classes. Other players told me he was the best character I've ever played.

But listening to some folk on this forum? I was playing it wrong. I took minions and encounter design from 4e and applied it to pathfinder when I DMed. I was playing it wrong. I cheated a little bit here and there to control the pacing so battles didn't get bogged down. I was playing it wrong.

But you know what? It doesn't matter if some people on an internet forum believe that I was playing it wrong. I had fun. My players had fun. So to the people who mattered: My DM, my fellow players, my own players (usually the same people) - I was playing it right.

So what does that have to do with 5e? If I want paladins with encounter powers and clerics with vancian magic, it looks like I'm going to be able to do that from core from the start. If you want a vancian character and I want to play an encounter character, we can sit down at the same table and play the same game because it's all compatable. We each can play the way we want to play - and we'll both be playing it right.

That is why I'm getting stoked about 5e.

 

[Tovec]

Let me tell you a little story...

I started playing during the heyday of 3.5. When I looked throught the core rulebook, I decided to play an elf paladin. I was warned that it was going to be a bit tricky, especially for a first time player, because elf paladin isn't optimised. I also played him like a ranger - leather armor, dex based build, focused on shooting things.

Glendric Elfsblood became my best and longest running character. He made it to Level 14 before I had to stop playing him as I moved to a different city. He was never optimised, but held his own in a group of optimised characters. During the course of the campaign, he had two major modifications - one, the replacement of spells with Martial Maneuvers of the crusader from Book of 9 Swords; two, when Pathfinder came out he was rebuilt as a straight paladin instead of the weirdness I had with several prestige classes. Other players told me he was the best character I've ever played.

But listening to some folk on this forum? I was playing it wrong. I took minions and encounter design from 4e and applied it to pathfinder when I DMed. I was playing it wrong. I cheated a little bit here and there to control the pacing so battles didn't get bogged down. I was playing it wrong.

But you know what? It doesn't matter if some people on an internet forum believe that I was playing it wrong. I had fun. My players had fun. So to the people who mattered: My DM, my fellow players, my own players (usually the same people) - I was playing it right.

So what does that have to do with 5e? If I want paladins with encounter powers and clerics with vancian magic, it looks like I'm going to be able to do that from core from the start. If you want a vancian character and I want to play an encounter character, we can sit down at the same table and play the same game because it's all compatable. We each can play the way we want to play - and we'll both be playing it right.

That is why I'm getting stoked about 5e.

I am not opposed to the point you were trying to make but I hate to break it to you - You WERE playing an optimized paladin (^emphasis mine^). An un-opimized character doesn't have prestige classes and certainly doesn't have class features from book of 9 swords. God I hate that book. That is all.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I don't see anything so far indicating encounter powers. I must be overlooking something.

 

[Stormonu]

I have a player in my group who basically runs his character off the rails - and I love him for it.

In the first 3E campaign I played with him, he ran a half-orc druid - armed with a cestus and carrying a maniacal badger in his pudgy flabs of fat. He became the most beloved character in that group, inspiring my other players to try off-the-wall options and actions. He constantly flummoxed my resident powergamer and his wizard build by successfully performing actions that should have been "statistically impossible", simply by the virtue of trying them. He couldn't do the boatload of damage the fighter could dish out, but he'd save the group from defeat (or even from being involved in an entire combat) with his tricks (we're not even talking spells here, most of the time). Even when he would fail, it was in a spectacular fashion that left everyone at the table in tears of laughter.

It probably helped that I'm no killer DM and I don't see my role as challenging the character to their max every time they turn the corner. We play for fun, not neccessarily challenge, and I, for one, enjoy watching the character's story unfold - both their interperonal reactions as much as watching them overcome obstacles. I'm also not above tweaking rules to bolster something I see as weak (rare) or toning down/disallowing something I see as too dominating (far more common). As far as his character went, the only rule changes I remember making was to make the Wild Spell feat unvailable in my game.

I always try to encourage my players to "play what they want, damn the rules", but this player has been better than all the words I can spew about playing "unoptimized" choices, because he's done it and shown us all how much fun they can be - even sometimes, in failure.

So, play what you want and damn inbred optimization. That's the way D&D should be, I think - and how I enjoy it.

 

[bloodtide]

I've ''always played the game wrong'' according to most people. I don't like builds at all(it's cheating) and I hate the whole 'my character is a special snowflake. Even worse I hate the buddy storyteller DM's that never kill characters. Even worse are the 'player DMs' who feel they are weaker then the players and must worship the rules.


But....don't hold your breath for 5E. It sounds great that they are ''making a system that everyone will like and be able to play together''.....and it's great to think about that idea. The problem is that it is a fantasy. Trying to make a game that will make all the wide view of things playable will be impossible. For example I like a world with random ability scores, so an arch wizard might have a INT of just 14, but other people like a world with 'supererez coolz uberz wizards with Int's of 20 at 1st level. You could never have both in a game.

 

[Blackwarder]

I have a player in my group who basically runs his character off the rails - and I love him for it.

In the first 3E campaign I played with him, he ran a half-orc druid - armed with a cestus and carrying a maniacal badger in his pudgy flabs of fat. He became the most beloved character in that group, inspiring my other players to try off-the-wall options and actions. He constantly flummoxed my resident powergamer and his wizard build by successfully performing actions that should have been "statistically impossible", simply by the virtue of trying them. He couldn't do the boatload of damage the fighter could dish out, but he'd save the group from defeat (or even from being involved in an entire combat) with his tricks (we're not even talking spells here, most of the time). Even when he would fail, it was in a spectacular fashion that left everyone at the table in tears of laughter.

It probably helped that I'm no killer DM and I don't see my role as challenging the character to their max every time they turn the corner. We play for fun, not neccessarily challenge, and I, for one, enjoy watching the character's story unfold - both their interperonal reactions as much as watching them overcome obstacles. I'm also not above tweaking rules to bolster something I see as weak (rare) or toning down/disallowing something I see as too dominating (far more common). As far as his character went, the only rule changes I remember making was to make the Wild Spell feat unvailable in my game.

I always try to encourage my players to "play what they want, damn the rules", but this player has been better than all the words I can spew about playing "unoptimized" choices, because he's done it and shown us all how much fun they can be - even sometimes, in failure.

So, play what you want and damn inbred optimization. That's the way D&D should be, I think - and how I enjoy it.

That's exactly how I play my Dwarven skald Steel Dimond, I built him in 10 minutes on my friend computer using his DDI account, he still bemoan the fact that I didn't agonized over the best powers for hours!

But have no fear, Steel, with the help of his instruments Ludmila (harp) and Nethaniel (a flute) will march onward on his dream to set up an opera house in the great city of Tyr while simultaneously bringing back the sorcerer king to power!

Warder

 

[Glade Riven]

I am not opposed to the point you were trying to make but I hate to break it to you - You WERE playing an optimized paladin (^emphasis mine^). An un-opimized character doesn't have prestige classes and certainly doesn't have class features from book of 9 swords. God I hate that book. That is all.

Not according to how everything statted out - and not everyone choses prestige classes based on optimised power. Honestly, it got a little janky...I probably should have kept him on Exorcist of the Silver Flame path and not added in Eternal Blade, but it was a Roleplaying decision. 3.5's paladin prestige classes selection just wasn't very good. The Pathfinder reboot was because it was closer to what I was wanting out of the class in the first place.

I don't see anything so far indicating encounter powers. I must be overlooking something.

Could've swore I've seen dev talk of it being a possible option, especially early on when they were talking magic. It's there as an example.

But....don't hold your breath for 5E.

I remain cautiously optimistic, and early reports are encouraging - especially this early in the process. Either way, I tire of edition warring and the general poor attitude of "my way or nothing" gaming I've seen only get worse once 4e was announced. That sort of negativity only reinforces negative stereotypes of what a "gamer" is, makes it hard to find a group, and bleeds the hobby of current and potential players.

 

[n00bdragon]

So... the right way to play the games is to ignore the rules the book lays out for you and just do whatever? Are you somehow insinuating that the flaws (and you admit they are flaws because you felt the need to correct them) of a game system make it better? Why even play 5e? It clearly doesn't matter WHAT rules they put in the book. If you don't like them you'll just ignore them and do something else.

I'm not saying house rules are bad but the mere ability to fix bugs in the system does not constitute a feature and to insinuate otherwise is pretty insulting to people who actually try to come up with better ways to doing things.

 

[ren1999]

I was playing it wrong when D&D1 came out. The blue box set that you could buy in suburban malls. Nobody else knew how to play the game so I was the DM. The players told me what I wanted and I followed their lead. They said they didn't want spell casting times, they wanted to cast just as fast as a fighter could swing. They said they didn't want to have a list of memorized spells, they wanted to be able to use all their known spells and justified it according to their own ideas of how the world should be. I agreed and believe it is a better game because they did what they wanted. They also kept killing (suiciding) off characters with low rolls, begging for a way to resurrect favorite characters and recover characters with negative hit points. That is when something like Rebuke Death was created and Raise Dead was cast without penalties. Sure we were playing it wrong. But it was always funner and I managed to convince every party after that to play that way. Fighters got 3 adjacent attacks at the highest levels. etc...

 

[Kzach]

The only right way to play D&D is how I tell you to play it.