where does one cross the line?

[clockwork warrior]

i was having a debate with a friend of mine on power gaming

it started when i told him about a bard build i thought of, using some feats that would let him be able to wear full plate and buff himself so he could fight in combat. to this my friend replied that it was horribly "hax" (hacked out, broken)

so we got in a debate on when doing what good for your character goes to far and becomes power playing, and i wanted to see what the people here say about it.

on a side note, i want to know what you also think of this, for an epic game i made an archmage who could, three times a day; use a maximized, empowered disintegration ray (costing 2 feats, and the lose of a 5th and 9th level spell slot). so is that power playing, or just looking out for my character (or just stupid?)

[krossbow]

when one decides to either play a wizard or a druid. :smallamused:
________
W163 (http://www.mercedes-wiki.com/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_W163)

[Bosh]

Poor neglected clerics :(

[oriong]

Depends on how you define it. If you're just talking about making your character more powerful there's nothing wrong with that.

Power Gaming (in the negative sense) is really only when you create a situation through 'powering up' your character that makes the game less enjoyable for the other PCs.

For example, say you created a character who could instantly kill all the opponents the DM sent against the party. This prevents the other characters from feeling involved or useful, and what's more forces the DM to send in more powerful monsters just to make things a challenge. And while these powerful monsters may be a challenge for your hyper-character they also are fighting the 'normal' characters, so they'll be like little kids trying to chip away at the armor of the Mega-Dragon the DM sent after you while you fight that beast to the death. And of course if you lose the Mega-Dragon wipes out the rest of the party with pitiful ease.

The general rule of all games is 'anything goes, so long as everybody has fun'. If your power boosting is getting in the way of fun then it's a problem. Otherwise, go for it (assuming you aren't cheating.)


And the archmage isn't power-gaming at all, in an epic game that actually isn't all that impressive.

[Yuki Akuma]

How is wasting four feats to be proficient with and able to cast in heavy armour overpowered? Sounds pretty underpowered in my opinion.

Remember that these are feats.

[Frosty Flake]

It's crossing the line if you are thinking more about pwnage than yopu are about character... but if you make a cool character and everyone has fun playing, who cares if you just happen to be some freakishly powerful archmage?

[Truwar]

Just roll up a newspaper and smack him smartly on the nose whenever he mentions the word “Powergaming”. If this does not work, try a squirt bottle.

Powergaming should never be a concern. They key to a fun game of D&D is good roleplaying, if a character is designed to be the ultimate killing machine and has a rich background and well played motivations they are an asset to the group. If the person is a one-legged half-orc bard with a hygiene problem that has a flat background and is blandly played they are NOT an asset to the group.

Who CARES if you have a bard in a suit of full plate. Is it an interesting character? Does he(or she) have a compelling reason for wearing full plate? Those are the questions you need to be asking.

[oriong]

No, the point is fun.

You can have fun with a group of people who have a one sentence background and the personality of a grapefruit, so long as that's what everyone is in for.

And no matter how beautifully fleshed out and alive a character is he can still ruin the game for everyone else.

[clockwork warrior]

Just roll up a newspaper and smack him smartly on the nose whenever he mentions the word “Powergaming”. If this does not work, try a squirt bottle.

Powergaming should never be a concern. They key to a fun game of D&D is good roleplaying, if a character is designed to be the ultimate killing machine and has a rich background and well played motivations they are an asset to the group. If the person is a one-legged half-orc bard with a hygiene problem that has a flat background and is blandly played they are NOT an asset to the group.

Who CARES if you have a bard in a suit of full plate. Is it an interesting character? Does he(or she) have a compelling reason for wearing full plate? Those are the questions you need to be asking.
the idea for the bard was a dwarven fighter who would run into battle with his comrades, swing a hammer around while shouting war chants to inspire his allies. thats the idea that sparked it, then i just thought of the feats needed and told my friend, and you know the rest

[Fax Celestis]

No, the point is fun.

You can have fun with a group of people who have a one sentence background and the personality of a grapefruit, so long as that's what everyone is in for.

And no matter how beautifully fleshed out and alive a character is he can still ruin the game for everyone else.

Grapefruits are remarkably personable, especially if you research the awaken plants spell.

[Saph]

Oriong got it right - worry about it when it gets to the point where it's spoiling the game for the other PCs.

Basically, just use your common sense. In my experience most people KNOW when what they're doing is overpowered - the arguments are more to try and justify it after the fact.

- Saph

[NullAshton]

The point where you cross the line is when you use your powergaming build to remove the effectiveness of someone else. Not reduce it, remove it completely. If the rogue deals out insane damage with two-weapon fighting and sneak attacks, it wouldn't be 'broken' because the fighter still needs to help the rogue flank, and the fighter is still doing damage of his own and helping out. But if there are continuous encounters where once class is useless, for example a lich which is ontop of a greased wall with wind wall in front of him... that's an instance where one or two people with their powerful characters would shove other people out of the way, and become 'broken'. Of course, that's more of an instance of being a bad DM...

I don't think that a bard in heavy armor would be overpowered. In exchange for four feats(two if you take a level of fighter), you focus your bard on fighting. Specializing bards like that is nothing unusual, and most people commonly do that. You're not as good of a fighter as everyone else, but you can still be a support character, or a skill monkey, or an arcane caster.

[Nerd-o-rama]

So that's two Battle Caster feats and two Armor Proficiency feats (or -1 bard level into fighter, which might not be a bad plan) to become an inferior, spontaneous-casting Cleric (inferior combat buffs and heals (if you even take them), no attack spells, and spells capped at 6th level.) Oh, you get 6+Int skill points, and some non-spell-based buffs. Whoopee.

Playtest it. It's not anywhere near broken. Especially if you're playing a race with a CHA penalty.

On the flip side of the coin, it sounds like it'd be awesome to play. It's a regular Nordic skald (though that tradition never persisted to the age of Full Plate), with all the fun of being a crazy Dwarf. I'd say go for it, and ignore your friend's kneejerk reaction. If you want a way to actually play this concept effectively, check out the Warchanter from Complete Warrior.

EDIT: Actually, let me ameliorate my statements a bti. He does still have some of the normal Bard perks, like utility spellcasting and skills, so it's not like he's unplayable. He's still a mediocre to bad fighter, though.

[Hyfigh]

I like to refer to this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9165883) when power gaming comes into question.

I look at in that if you can come up with an in-game reason why your character is doing this (usually not that hard) then it's fine for a game. Why would a person limit him/herself if they had the option of being better at what they do?

[Piccamo]

Its not "too much" if you make your concept effective. If you and your friends are having fun, its not broken. Once you begin ditching character concept entirely and just trying to do everything for the entire party you have crossed the line. If you try to take away roles from other characters you have crossed the line.

[Truwar]

No, the point is fun.

Ok, touche' the point IS fun. I suppose by "Good" RP, I meant fun RP.

[Matthew]

It's the spirit of the thing that makes the difference. If you are doing it to exploit some loop hole in the game in order to satisfy your ego, you have probably taken a step over the line.

[Green Bean]

Power gaming is where you build a monster with three different templates that make you immune to all damage.

Power gaming is when you use an level 4 Artificer to get +infinity to all skill checks by using a masochism loop.

Power gaming is any build using the word Pun-pun.

Bards who can hold their own in combat? Not powergaming.

[Chris_Chandler]

Okay, the definition's a bit off here. What a number of people are discussing above is Muchkinry, not powergaming. Powergaming is making sure that your character is most excellent at what he does, be it tanking or blasting, whatever - that's not the point. Powergaming is all about efficiency. Your conumdrum is not a question of powergaming because it is not an efficient means of using those feats. Is there a power question involved? Sure, but it isn't powergaming.

Across the WOTC/3rd party/my friend's neat feat list publications pillaging, polyclass dipping, and feat tweaking is munchkinry, that is, an attempt to "win" the game. Please take note of it.

Most mechanically-minded players power-game. Many RP focused players power-game as well. Power gaming just makes sure that your are mechanically optimal with your character build. It can get silly, yes, but it isn't anything unacceptable. It moves from power-gaming into munchkinry when effeciency leads to abuse. It is at this point where things become unacceptable.

Your issue would be an issue if you were trying to figure out how to allow your bard to wear Full Plate without penalty for free. I think the issue here is not that you are power gaming but rather that your friend considers what you are trying to do to be a contrivance, based on a mechanical option. Personally, I don't think that you are, but I can also see his point. You say, "Dwarven skald, charging into battle...", but he hears, "annoying player who just wants a bard in full plate - I don't like it one bit."

This is actually an RP issue, not a mechanics issue, because you aren't powergaming. Not at all. I also second the notion that the key here is fun - RP and mechanics working together for fun. If they don't equal a good time, then reconsider it.

[clockwork warrior]

im glad to see that this got so many replies so quickly.

seeing this really makes me feel better, and also gives me a better understanding on the term power gaming

you would not believe how many times we get into arguments like this, mainly because i generally do what i can to make my characters good at what they do, my friend is almost opposite, he generally plays clerics, but refuses to wear armor (if he does than it is light armor) and only using healing spells (which is nice, cause hp = good) but then tends to "point out" to other players how "hax" they are (normally me, cause i think he likes to push my buttons)

[Saph]

I like the "with great power comes great responsibility" angle.

The more effective you are at powergaming, the more it becomes your responsibility to use your skill to make the game fun for everyone. Sometimes this means toning back on your character's power to let other people shine - sometimes it means maxing out your character's power to save the other PC's bacon. Use your powers for good, not for evil.

But either way, making a bard that can fight in melee is nowhere near over the line, so don't worry about it. :)

- Saph

[Thomas]

Ow, the terminology misuse hurts me.

"Power-playing" (sometimes called "powergaming," because the other meaning generally doesn't apply) is more strictly "power-posing," and is a MU* term. You emote something like "George snaps your neck and you die."

Powergaming is playing powerful characters and being concerned with their power. It's one of the coolest ways to play (from this GM's point of view), because powergamers tend to be smart by necessity, and in a well-run game they will tend to gravitate to the best sort of power - social (and religious, etc.) - and they will free you up from keeping the players busy. They will keep everyone busy.

Now, as for min-maxing...

As long as you're not bending the rules out of shape, what's the problem with it? So you're a bard and you're not more useless than a dishrag. Great! You'll have fun!


And maximized, empowered disintegration thrice per day, at epic levels? Your wizard sucks.

1. There is never any balance in epic games. Wizards (and clerics, and druids) will rule, everyone else can go home.
2. If you're not using Epic Spellcasting, you suck, objectively compared. (Doesn't mean you can't have fun, if no one else uses it either.)
3. Unless you're using Epic Spellcasting, you can't even get close to breaking D&D at epic levels. (The fact that it's already fundamentally broken by the RAW is another thing...)


the idea for the bard was a dwarven fighter who would run into battle with his comrades, swing a hammer around while shouting war chants to inspire his allies. thats the idea that sparked it, then i just thought of the feats needed and told my friend, and you know the rest

Sounds like a cool character, and not even optimized. (Optimized bards take the Sublime Chord PrC. All of them.)


Munchkinry is obviously not the issue, because you're not going "Screw this I want to kill some monsters and loot loot loot why did I only get 3,000,000 GP and 100,000 XP I kill the barmaid for that 2 XP I need to go up a level ahahahaha!"

[JaronK]

Powergaming is bad if one person is power gaming to the point that they are far stronger than anyone else, so that no one else can have fun.

Lack of power gaming is bad if one person is refusing to do it to the point that their character is far weaker than everyone else, making him useless and meaning they don't have fun.

Balancing party power levels is all that's important... the DM can work from there.

JaronK