Limiting a power player's options only makes the player go for more broken options

[heavyfuel]

While I'm somewhat new to 5e, I see a lot of people playing the game without Feats, Multiclassing, UA, splat books, etc.

A common justification for this is that they want to keep the game simple. Or that these options are too good and make core options useless. And usually this also comes in the argument of "no munchkin players" that scour books for the best options available.

However, I think this couldn't be further from the truth.

Most options presented in other books are no stronger than options availsle for core players only. I'm yet to see an UA or splatbook addition that comes close to the brokeness of a Moon Druid, a Divination Wizard, or an anything Bard. If a player really wants to min-max while disregarding anything else, these are the options they are going to take. And these options are all core.

Telling the min-max Fighter player they can't play a spartan-like character with the Spear Mastery feat just makes the game less fun for everyone. The player might resent the DM for banning a non-broken (and, frankly, subpar) option or decide to play something else. Something like the aforementioned classes.

If you have a pool of 10 options that don't suck, and 5 of these are broken, that's half your pool made of broken options. But if you have a larger pool of 30 options that don't suck, with 6 broken ones, that's only 20% of your pool.

Additionally, a lot of the new options make previous options feel useless because they were already useless in the first place. Yeah, a Brute is about 10 times better than the Champion. But that's only because the Champion sucks hard. The Brute came in to fix the niche of a simple to build warrior whose abilities are always on.

Same goes for the Revised Ranger and the new Ranger Conclaves. Yeah, they're straigh up better than the core Ranger, but they merely allow players wishing to play a Ranger not to be horrible at their jobs.

This idea that "Core only" is somehow more balanced goes back a long time, and it has always been wrong. In every edition that I've played (AD&D, 3e, 3.5, 5e), the broken stuff is right there in Core, with very few broken options outside it.

Yeah, Hexblade dips are broken, but that's a single level of a single archetype of a single class. Out of how many options?

Thank you for tuning in to my rant/open letter to DMs that think "core only" makes the game less broken.

TL;DR: By diminishing player options, players are more likely to go for stronger broken available. "Core only" isn't a solution to this problem, it is its cause

[etrpgb]

Most options presented in other books are no stronger than options availsle for core players only. I'm yet to see an UA or splatbook addition that comes close to the brokeness of a Moon Druid, a Divination Wizard, or an anything Bard. If a player really wants to min-max while disregarding anything else, these are the options they are going to take. And these options are all core.

https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/20170213_Wizrd_Wrlck_UAv2_i48nf.pdf

Here Lore Master. If the ability of casting a Fireball that does Force damage and so that the target needs an Intelligence saving throw to defend against is equivalent to Spell Secrets to the Bards. Or if it is perfectly balanced to cast any spell once a day without having it prepared...
Then yes, you cannot see any problem at all.


Or, perhaps, just your very first sentence is true.

[NorthernPhoenix]

You're right, "core only" is a bad default. It's better to just say "everything, except what i don't like".

Still, that only solves half the problem. It takes out "only" the problem options without collateral, but it doesn't help retrain the player in question to stop acting this way in the first place. How you do that is a much tougher and one where i don't have a definitive solution.

[Demonslayer666]

What's fun for them will continue to be fun for them. All you can do is discourage it, and ban the things you think are broken.

[stoutstien]

There isn't anything inherently broken about moon druids, div wizards, or bards outside of the white room/ forum theory crafting setting. The term broken gets tossed around a lot but there is very little in 5e that truly fits the description.

The reason a lot of DMs limit options doesn't have anything to do with balance as much as just limiting the material that they need to have more than a passing knowledge of.

[heavyfuel]

https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/20170213_Wizrd_Wrlck_UAv2_i48nf.pdf

Here Lore Master. If the ability of casting a Fireball that does Force damage and so that the target needs an Intelligence saving throw to defend against is equivalent to Spell Secrets to the Bards. Or if it is perfectly balanced to cast any spell once a day without having it prepared...
Then yes, you cannot see any problem at all.


Or, perhaps, just your very first sentence is true.

Or... You're proving my point. This specific UA is the same that brought us the Hexblade. Still, it has 3 broken features (Hex Warrior, Spell Secrets, and Prodigious Memory) out of 40 new features - assuming I counted correctly. And that's a single UA out of how many that offer zero broken options.

Like I said, yeah, some things are broken. But that's regardless of Core only.

Also, forcing Int saves isn't really that bad compared to Portent, where you can grant 2 auto-fails or 2 auto-successes depending on your Portent dice

[stoutstien]

Also, forcing Int saves isn't really that bad compared to Portent, where you can grant 2 auto-fails or 2 auto-successes depending on your Portent dice

Do you know what the odds are of rolling 2D20 and both being a value higher/lower than the needed value at the same time?

[Keravath]

In general, I don't think anything in the official published materials (excluding UA) is broken. Moon druids certainly aren't. At level 2-4 they are certainly well ahead of other options but that vanishes pretty quickly. They have another bump at 10 and again at 20 (I think ... I haven't played tier 4 yet but being able to wild shape an unlimited number of times into elementals sounds pretty good :)).

Bard broken? Hardly. Divination wizard? No more broken than any other wizard. Having 2 or 3 d20s that you can sub in BEFORE some creature makes a roll is useful but not that effective against creatures with legendary saves and other abilities.

Hexblade dips can be a bit cheesy and usually enhance the class they are added to in some way but usually at the cost of delayed spell progression. A 2 hexblade/ lore bard X doesn't get 3rd level spells until level 7 and they will be one level of spells behind for their entire career. At certain points this makes a difference. Is it worth it for improved AC, short rest spell slots, additional spells and a couple of invocations ... I think so but I can see folks who would prefer the 5th level spells at level 9 instead of 11. However, a lot of the same utility can be found with a 1 level cleric dip ... especially knowledge cleric on a lore bard ... very synergistic :)

However, none of this breaks the game. Unlike earlier versions of D&D where certain classes or builds were clearly superior in every way, the power level in 5e is much more even. The main reason multiclasses can sometimes work out better is because many class features are front loaded into levels 1-3. In addition, the classes don't typically have as many features available in the level 11-20 range which can make multiclassing more attractive trading a few higher level features for more low level ones from a different class. However, this usually results in greater versatility, more ways to deal with situations, more options rather than a strictly stronger character.

Anyway, no matter what rule set is chosen for a game, some players will enjoy min/maxing it. The important point is that both the DM and players are having fun. Everyone should feel like their character is contributing meaningfully and most of the more "powerful" options involve some trade offs.


(e.g. consider some of the popular paladin builds ... 6 paladin/14 sorcerer ... 2 paladin/18 sorcerer ... 11 paladin/9 sorcerer ... same options with warlock instead of sorcerer ... or some combination of paladin/warlock/sorcerer ... vs a pure paladin. Depending on your group the 30' radius auras at level 18 might be all you need to justify going pure paladin or possibly taking just two levels of warlock. A 6 paladin/14 sorcerer has some higher levels spells and more spell slots for smiting but loses out on improved divine smite and is also short an ASI compared to a pure paladin. All the builds have some trade offs but in 5e all of these can be fun and worth playing, even a pure paladin.)

[prabe]

The reason a lot of DMs limit options doesn't have anything to do with balance as much as just limiting the material that they need to have more than a passing knowledge of.

I find this to be the case as much as any concern over "brokenness." The players really only need to know the rules they need to play their characters; the DM needs to know all the rules that might come up. The DM can refresh their memory on rules that seem particularly likely to come up in a given session, but they need, as stoutstein said, more than a passing knowledge of everything.

My own experience with the OP's point, though, is not wildly at odds with it. There are players who will work harder to find exploits if the DM takes known easy exploits away--there are players for whom finding crevices in the game rules, and driving a piton deep inside, is the form of engagement they most enjoy. As a GM, you can either engage in an arms race with those players, or you can take them aside and talk to them about how they're degrading other players' enjoyment of the game (if they are, and you as the GM are a player, here). I know what I would prefer as a first step.

[Man_Over_Game]

The reason a lot of DMs limit options doesn't have anything to do with balance as much as just limiting the material that they need to have more than a passing knowledge of.

I think it can be beneficial for a DM to adjust how things are done, for the same reason game devs do it: changing the reward system to encourage certain types of play.

If I introduce more combat, that's a balance change against Bards. If I encourage less combat, that's a balance change against Fighters. Those are broad, common examples of how we are already doing this.

More importantly, though, is that it's not a bad thing.

The way it could be taken as "bad" is if:

You don't understand the many consequences of your choices.
Your players investments are now worth less than what they had expected.
Your players want to play something different than what you're aiming towards.

[Man_Over_Game]

The reason a lot of DMs limit options doesn't have anything to do with balance as much as just limiting the material that they need to have more than a passing knowledge of.

I think it can be beneficial for a DM to adjust how things are done, for the same reason game devs do it: changing the reward system to encourage certain types of play.

If I introduce more combat, that's a balance change against Bards. If I encourage less combat, that's a balance change against Fighters. Those are broad, common examples of how we are already doing this.

More importantly, though, is that it's not a bad thing.

The way it could be taken as "bad" is if:

You don't understand the many consequences of your choices (which can be as simple as "less fights = better mages, more fights = less story")
Your players investments are now worth less than what they had expected.
Your players want to play something different than what you're aiming towards.


Personally, I'm of the opinion that everyone should share equal parts of the spotlight. So if X is a class's features improving combat, and Y is the class's features improving non-combat, then every class's sum of X + Y should be the same. My players don't care much about that mumbo jumbo, so I don't really do anything about it, and, well, problem solved.

[fbelanger]

UA may be broken, it is the role of playtest material.

[Amechra]

Honestly, I absolutely hate the fact that power players are considered a "problem". It's a perfectly valid play-style - if it's not working at your table, that's just a mismatch, and you don't need to stigmatize one of your players.

That being said, stuff outside of core tends to have a different optimization floor than stuff in core. It's actually kinda hard to play a Bard, Divination Wizard, or Moon Druid to their maximum potential (i.e., where they're "broken") without resorting to guides or spending way too much time analyzing the books. Meanwhile, stuff like Shepherd Druid and Zealot Warlock basically come pre-optimized for you. Hexblade's actually a weird case - the only reason that it's so reviled is because it's a stupidly good dip for Bards, Paladins, and Sorcerers.

[MaxWilson]

Honestly, I absolutely hate the fact that power players are considered a "problem". It's a perfectly valid play-style - if it's not working at your table, that's just a mismatch, and you don't need to stigmatize one of your players.

I feel like I should quote from the seminal article on the 4 types of roleplayers: http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html

What are the four aspects of adventure gaming? They are:

I. Power Gaming
II. Role-Playing
III. Wargaming
IV. Story Telling
Every game contains these aspects in at least a rudimentary degree, and the feeling of any given world is determined by the interaction of these four elements. But there are a large number of universes where development has overwhelmingly concentrated on a single one of the above facets. Much light on the question of ill-will within the hobby can be shed by first considering games with just a single major emphasis. So let us begin with...

I. POWER GAMING
This is how most FRP games start out, and is by far the most common form. It's where the 20th+ level wizards, 13th/13th/13th split fighter/mage/clerics most often come from. The Mace of Cuthbert, Stormbringer, the One Ring, and other mighty artifacts often appear on the equipment lists of player characters who hail from them, usually to the distress of GMs of other schools.

The purpose of the game is neither role-playing (as such) nor the development of skills. Instead, the main drive of the players is power. Levels, magic, special abilities, divine favor, and other sources of individual strength are what matters. The personality of the typical character is that of the player, decked out with labels such as "class" and "alignment."

A typical exchange in some games of this sort might sound like this:

"I'm gonna run my 20th level cleric with the +5 plage and shield, the Sceptre of the Demon Kings, the Ring of Arkyn, and the Spell Turning Ring."
"OK, what's his name?"
"Uh, name? Er, call him Jocko."
"Got it! What's he a cleric of?"
"Huh? Oh, I never thought of that. But he's lawful/good."
It's usually the amount of power available that determines the outcome of battles, and an inadequate supply of it can be disastrous. Given this and the way games of this sort operate, then an abundance of magic is only to be expected. Power gaming causes much competition among the players, "winning" being possible by the accumulation of magic and other means of power. In some cases this has led to inter-character treachery, murder, and theft over ownership of especially good magic, or even to prevent another character from overshadowing one's own.

II. ROLE-PLAYING
Within the pure role-playing campaign, the most important element is the player character and his or her life. The personalities of the characters are worked out in loving detail, and favorite characters tend to have great emotional investments made in them. Their owners do not hold the lives of these beings to be cheap. Characters tend to act within the personalities accorded to them and by the beliefs they're supposed to hold, and the players speak in persona. An example of this might be:

The party discussed the possibility that the young nobleman they were searching for was held prisoner in the castle ahead. Cunnerith and Hippoclates the Sot are the most vocal, but the clever young elf-maid Violet and quiet Aris the Mariner have their own points to make. Much more seldom, dour and vinegary Waldo the Silent makes a brief but incisive comment. And, inevitably, there is a constant stream of chatter from Naomi. Not that anyone ever pays any attention to that thimblewit.
The last was almost a fatal mistake. For as the party entered the great hall the next day, Naomi looked around confusedly and asked (one of the party, fortunately), "Where's the man we're supposed to rescue?"
Well, nobody ever said she had any brains!
"Shut up, Naomi!" came the chorus.
In a game of this sort, the world is just a stage on which the characters live out their lives, with the spotlight directed at them. They suffer, they triumph, they have their loves, hates, and sorrows; and in some way they are as alive as the players who created them.

As might be expected, the above tends to influence the structure of the game. Given the emotional attachment of the player to his characters, a high casualty rate is downright counter-productive. The players will withdraw the precious "lives" from the game to a place of safety. As a result, the GM tends to exercise a considerable amount of discretion with regard to the player characters, utilizing methods such as "soft-keying" (willingness to adjus the opposition's strength after the fighting has started so that the party won't be overmatched) and subtly trying to warn off the expedition if they're approaching something that they can't handle.

It should be noted that this is a particularly cooperative form of FRP gaming. Inter-player rivalry -- except as demanded by characterization -- tends to be relatively rare. The GM usually helps things along by providing the players chances to interact with the universe and each other.

III. WARGAMING
Here one might say that the emphasis is almost the reverse of the role-playing oriented game. The most important facets of this type of game are the tactical abilities of the players and GM, and the mechanics of play. There is a strong tendency towards a relatively low level of magic here, both in quantity and quality, since it is upsetting the GM to have a tactically brilliant setup destroyed when a character pulls out a gadget.

Wargaming FRP is a competition between the players (as a group) and the GM in which they match wits and skills. He sets up tactical problems which they have to solve for their experience and treasure. Knowhow is all-important, and detailed knowledge of rules a vast help. Since there is a fine edge of danger in the game, developing a character's personality may result in it doing things dysfunctional to survival. Hence the role-playing aspect of the "pure" wargaming approach is often minimal.

It should be obvious that in a game dominated by this way of thinkng, soft-keying is an extremely dubious practice. The ethic demands that the players survive by their wits, with bad play being rewarded by death. For the GM to arbitrarily reduce the opposition in order to save the party would be as much cheating as adding monsters to raise the death rate would.

Unlike role-playing based games, killing player characters is an integral and logical part of the game; in fact, many Gms of this school set themselves a desired kill ratio and try to meet it. While this fosters a competitive approach between the GM and players, it usually tends to reduce inter-character fighting. The world is foe enough...

IV. STORY TELLING
In the most general sense of the term, any successful FRP game requires some story telling ability. There are few players who will abide a GM who is so inept that they can't figure out what's going on most of the time, or whose tale limps so badly that suspension of disbelief is impossible.

However, the term as used here means something beyond this basic approach.

All of the game types mentioned above have background of some sort. The GM may be content with the basic gilded hole with attached false front town, or he might indulge in the splendid pageantry of empire, complete with ruling dynasty, elaborate history, and detailed geography. Regardless of the extent of the universe, however, in most games it's just stage setting. Unless the players characters walk into a scene, the non-player characters there remain frozen and inactive, just stringless puppets.

In a story telling world, the non-player characters are alive offstage. History is a continuing and developing process, with the actions of both player and non-player characters affecting the course of events. Moreover, the GM has usually a very good idea of how the general trend of events is going. Also, of how the actions of the adventurers can affect things.

Now, the pure form of the story telling game is rare, and every campaign emphasizing it is unique. The details of what's going on depend entirely on what story the GM is telling. A role-player encountering such a game for the first time will usually find it a trifle odd, for unlike the heavily role-playing game, the player characters are not on the center of the stage, not the element about which events revolve. The player characters can only act within the tale, and their freedom is somewhat limited...

The friends sang merrily, toasting their luck in fine Golidene wine in the public room of the Red Wolf Inn.

"By ----------------!" hiccuped Rhodri, "Tomorrow we head for the Alarghi Hills and enough gold to make us rich for the rest of our lives!"

The other fighter, a pretty lass named Susanna, and the half-drunk mage Gondor, both nodded happily, aglow with anticipation.

Gondor looked up at the sound of footsteps. "Sergeant Orse! Sit down and have a drink! We're leaving tomorrow. Gonna get rich!"

The sergeant grinned, poured himself a glass of wine, and let the sparkling vintage wash the dust from his parched throat. Then he smiled benevolently at the group, "Oh no, you're not."

"Huh?!" chorused the group, "Why not???"

"Because," said the sergeant, cheerfully sipping away at his glass, "the Hadurnei just broke out in rebellion, and you're all drafted into the militia for the duration."

The amount of freedom can vary enormously. In some games of this kind, there is a distinct impression that the GM has already determined the entire future of the universe, and that the player characters are just improvising the script. In more free-form versions of this game type, the flow of the story and the form of the script are decided by interactions between the GM's general outline of events and the actions of individuals within the campaign.

Much of the attraction of this kind of world comes from the fact that there is a story being told in which one's character is participating. The world has a purpose, a reason for being, independent of what the adventurers do. Living in such a world is not a little like being a character within a novel. It does require a constant effort on the part of its creator to make the universe -- whether it's a county or a continent -- rational and consistent. And as an FRP forum, it requires a cooperative group of players.

The statements above are, of course, generalizations. They are useful, however.

Ironically this means that most modern "powergamers" are actually engaged in something closer to wargaming, but with a focus on chargen instead of tactics.

[prabe]

Honestly, I absolutely hate the fact that power players are considered a "problem". It's a perfectly valid play-style - if it's not working at your table, that's just a mismatch, and you don't need to stigmatize one of your players.

Yes, it's a valid approach to play--as in, it's a valid way to engage with the game, to find cracks and crevices in the rules and exploit them--but it seems to me that having anything less than a full table of them, including the GM, is likely to make for some dissatisfaction, somewhere at the table. If the GM isn't a power-gamer, he's going to get frustrated by his inability to muster a fair challenge (or to muster something that's a reasonable challenge to the power-gamer/s but won't annihilate the rest of the party); if there's at least one player who's not a power-gamer, they'll get frustrated at being overshadowed even at the things they built their character to be good at.

That said, you are correct that the answer isn't to stigmatize the power-gamer. In, I guess, my order of preference (which needn't be anyone else's): Ask them to tone it down; ask them to help the other players (and maybe the GM); ask them to leave (because they don't fit with the rest of the group).

[prabe]

Ironically this means that most modern "powergamers" are actually engaged in something closer to wargaming, but with a focus on chargen instead of tactics.

I had that thought as I was reading, though (at least in 3.x and 5E) there's typically some amount of gear-acquisition inherent in getting to That Ideal Build. Both Wargaming and Power-gaming (as defined in that excerpt) to seem to have more of a focus on Winning the Game than the other two, which ... can be a bit of a turn-off, to those who aren't engaging that way.

[Warwick]

Yes, it's a valid approach to play--as in, it's a valid way to engage with the game, to find cracks and crevices in the rules and exploit them--but it seems to me that having anything less than a full table of them, including the GM, is likely to make for some dissatisfaction, somewhere at the table.

You can say that about almost any play style.

[Willie the Duck]

Core versus everything else is certainly not a great metric of 'brokenness' (there are high and low points in and out of core), and overall the term has a significantly different meaning compared to, say, optimization fu in 3e/PF.

One thing to mention is that sometimes something doesn't have to break the game over its knee to have people want to exclude it. Sometimes it merely has to be the obvious best answer to situation X (such that there is no longer any variation in what is played in a given category), be annoying, or be a headache.

[Man_Over_Game]

When it comes to power-gaming, I think the problem isn't the player - there's nothing wrong with a player trying to win a game where there's a way to win - but that the game allows players to sacrifice certain aspects of the game to succeed in others.

For example, a Fighter can choose to pick up a combat feat or a feat like Linguistics. Most take the combat feat, but that means worse storytelling. Having a power-gamer means worse storytelling. Having options where you can sacrifice storytelling for other aspects of play is a bad thing.

You don't care about power-gamers in MtG or StarCraft, because that's how you win. But in DnD, storytelling is its most distinct aspect, and anything that allows you to sell that for a tactical advantage is stupid.

Absolutely stupid.

So I don't blame the players, I blame the game. That doesn't mean that cutting down on the potential of power-gamers is a bad thing.

It's kinda hard to balance around a single power-gaming Paladin that kills everything in one hit, since it means scaling up the difficulty for everyone else. If someone finds a combo that does more damage than their level is supposed to, and you generate higher CR Monster Manual enemies to compensate, the game becomes rocket-tag where the level of interactivity for the players is decreased.

And that's fine if that's what the entire table expects for a game, but usually it's not. A Power-gamer will try to find a way to power-game in any system, no matter how effective it is. Even if they only get a +20% power boost from all of their work, they usually aren't disappointed. However, limiting DnD to where only 20% is storytelling would probably disappoint most of the players at my table.

If anything, hammering down on a power-gamer's min-max options would actually lead them to having more options to choose from (since there's a lot more "high tier" stuff they can do after the change).

I know this, because I'm a Power-gamer at heart, and I would love nothing more than a decent Four Elements Monk to be a thing. I'd have a frickin' field day if Polearm Master was something interesting instead of "Required Weapon Feat #3".

[Lupine]

If the GM isn't a power-gamer, he's going to get frustrated by his inability to muster a fair challenge (or to muster something that's a reasonable challenge to the power-gamer/s but won't annihilate the rest of the party)

...No? All the DM needs to do to make a good challenge that makes everyone feel like they were important is to make a challenge that requires two things to be done at once. One very very hard thing, and one smaller, though still difficult thing. The powergamer will graviate to the very very hard thing to show off how cool and powerful he is, and the non-power gamer will take the easier task, which is still hard. Both groups feel like they barely scraped by, and their success was important, even though they enjoyed wildly different challenges.

An example of this is a gate which needs to be opened, by pulling two levers. On one side is poison gas, or monsters hordes, or something irresistible to a powergamer, and the other lever is hidden behind an interaction, or a puzzle, or something similar, which is more tailored to the rest of the group.

Don't do this every time, as it becomes obvious, but you can substitute things, such as having the majority of the monsters go after the powergamer.

Ultimately, nearly every encounter should have multiple goals to accomplish (even in a group without a powergamer). Each goal should have a way that at least two of the party members can accomplish that goal. All you have to do with the powergamer is make his path towards the sucessful completion of a given goal be harder than the rest of the groups.

[JNAProductions]

Are you sure you posted this in the right forum? The 3.P forum is over there. :P

Because there's really not anything I can think of in 5E that's BROKEN, with two exceptions:

Coffeelocking, primarily when you get 5th level slots
Wish-Simulacrum chaining

Both are a simple houserule away from being fixed, and most players recognize that they're so far out of whack that they wouldn't be fun to play.

But, a Moon Druid and a 4 Elements Monk in the same party are unlikely to feel like one is being overshadowed by the other. The Moon Druid is pretty damn strong at levels 2-4, but those barely last a session normally.

Outside the two things mentioned above and barring active cheating by the players, I'd be quite happy to run any combination of classes and races for a party from published books.

Edit: Oh, I'll also add this: Powergaming is fine. Wanting to play a powerful character is fine. As long as you don't try to force yourself in the spotlight over other players, just making a PC that can kick butt is not just fine, it really should be EXPECTED. You're adventurers, come on! Kick some butt! Slay some dragons! Have some fun!

[prabe]

You can say that about almost any play style.

Well, yes. Mismatches of expectations and/or playing styles (related but not identical things) probably cause more inter-player stress at gaming tables than anything else, and are probably at their worst when between a player and a GM. I guess the difference is that one role-player at a table of power-gamers/wargamers (to use the taxonomy that MaxWilson posted) is probably going to get frustrated and leave, probably quietly, and not be a persistent problem for the rest of the table; whereas a single power-gamer at a table of role-players might end up overpowering the encounters and the adventures and leaving everyone else frustrated. Now, that lone role-player might frustrate the heck out of the wargamers by behaving suboptimally or trying to engage narrative or character elements that ... bore everyone else at the table, and that's not good, either; I'm just saying that the lone roleplayer is likely to feel as though they're losing, while the lone wargamer is likely to feel they're winning.

[MaxWilson]

I had that thought as I was reading, though (at least in 3.x and 5E) there's typically some amount of gear-acquisition inherent in getting to That Ideal Build. Both Wargaming and Power-gaming (as defined in that excerpt) to seem to have more of a focus on Winning the Game than the other two, which ... can be a bit of a turn-off, to those who aren't engaging that way.

Yeah, and there are potential conflicts between Wargamers and Powergamers too, as well as between Roleplayers and Storytellers. Wargamers will be tempted to sneer at scenarios built for powergamers as too easy and Monty-Haul, whereas Powergamers will complain about a wargaming DM's scenario as a "killer dungeon" that doesn't even give any good loot ("three balrogs and no treasure?!?"). Storytellers in a roleplayer's adventure will be looking for detail that just isn't there, and roleplayers in a storyteller's adventure may feel confused about why things happen.

It's a good thing to set expectations, and get everybody on the same page about what this adventure or campaign is about so they can decide whether or not to play in it or find a different one. "This is a challenging dungeon crawl with fabulous loot hidden behind deadly traps and monsters." "This is a light comedic adventure which puts the PCs front-and-center with a wide range of wacky personalities." "This is an epic story about the disintegration of the Kilrathi empire, and how a small band of heroes altered the course of that fall."

[Amechra]

For example, a Fighter can choose to pick up a combat feat or a feat like Linguistics. Most take the combat feat, but that means worse storytelling. Having a power-gamer means worse storytelling. Having options where you can sacrifice storytelling for other aspects of play is a bad thing.

Indeed.

Part of the problem with 5e is that the vaunted three pillars can be roughly split up like this, in terms of what ability scores you want to be good at:

Combat - Constitution, Dexterity, and Strength.
Exploration - Dexterity, Wisdom, and your choice of Intelligence or Strength.
Social - Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom.

The reason that Fred the Fighter might go for a combat feat instead of Linguist is because Fred the Fighter is probably really bad at anything social-related. He put all of his ability scores into being good at combat, because it's, like, in the name. The problem is that classes whose stats focus around the Social pillar tend to get class features that let them use those ability scores during the Combat pillar (spellcasting is the big one, but Bardic Inspiration and Flash of Insight are other big examples). Meanwhile, classes who are focused around Combat tend not to get features that let them use their good stats in Social encounters.

There are actually a bunch of reasons for this, but it boils down to Combat being the one part of the game where everyone is expected to participate. As a result, though, Fred the Fighter runs into weird territory where he's a little better than Betsy the Bard in combat, but where there's literally no point in him chipping in during a social encounter (because she's so much better at it than he is).

If you gave me a choice between being OK in combat and kinda bad at social stuff vs. being great in combat and bad at social stuff, I'm going to pick the second choice 9/10, because why waste my time when Betsy's OK at combat and great at social stuff?

Tl;Dr: The fact that 5e expects everyone to participate in fights actually screws over martial characters in a variety of weirdly nuanced ways.

[prabe]

...No? All the DM needs to do to make a good challenge that makes everyone feel like they were important is to make a challenge that requires two things to be done at once. One very very hard thing, and one smaller, though still difficult thing. The powergamer will graviate to the very very hard thing to show off how cool and powerful he is, and the non-power gamer will take the easier task, which is still hard. Both groups feel like they barely scraped by, and their success was important, even though they enjoyed wildly different challenges.

[snip]

Ultimately, nearly every encounter should have multiple goals to accomplish (even in a group without a powergamer). Each goal should have a way that at least two of the party members can accomplish that goal. All you have to do with the powergamer is make his path towards the sucessful completion of a given goal be harder than the rest of the groups.

Sure, it's possible as a GM to shape encounters around one power-gamer, or to ramp-up the challenge if you have a party of them, but if you're not a power-gamer yourself, it's likely to feel a little but like an arms-race treadmill, and not be as enjoyable as if your tastes were a better match for the player/s' (or if all the players had more-consistent preference.

[prabe]

Yeah, and there are potential conflicts between Wargamers and Powergamers too, as well as between Roleplayers and Storytellers. Wargamers will be tempted to sneer at scenarios built for powergamers as too easy and Monty-Haul, whereas Powergamers will complain about a wargaming DM's scenario as a "killer dungeon." Storytellers in a roleplayer's adventure will be looking for detail that just isn't there, and roleplayers in a storyteller's adventure may feel confused about why things happen.

It's a good thing to set expectations, and get everybody on the same page about what this adventure or campaign is about so they can decide whether or not to play in it or find a different one. "This is a challenging dungeon crawl with fabulous loot hidden behind deadly traps and monsters." "This is a light comedic adventure which puts the PCs front-and-center with a wide range of wacky personalities." "This is an epic story about the disintegration of the Kilrathi empire, and how a small band of heroes altered the course of that fall."

While those conflicts aren't as obvious as others, I can definitely see them as potential problems, and--not trying to put words in your mouth--I agree that getting expectations straight can be a path to establishing a preferred play-style (for a given campaign). I don't usually have such specific premises, but I try to be upfront with new players about what sort of DM I am, and what types of campaigns I run: might be serving a similar purpose.

[MaxWilson]

Are you sure you posted this in the right forum? The 3.P forum is over there. :P

Because there's really not anything I can think of in 5E that's BROKEN, with two exceptions:

Coffeelocking, primarily when you get 5th level slots
Wish-Simulacrum chaining

Wish-Simulacrum chaining is completely broken, I agree. But I can think of a lot of things more broken than Coffeelocking. All that really allows you to do is to spam no-concentration Sorcerer spells freely, given prior preparation. Probably the most broken thing you can do with it is to play a Divine Soul and then create huge hordes of undead archers, but because of logistical concerns that's still less broken than Planar Binding snowballing (one high-CR treasure hoard provides enough treasure for hundreds of new Planar Binding spells) or v1 Healing Spirit abuse or Shepherd Druid Conjure Animals (CR 1/4) spam or even something as simple as an entire party where everyone has either Devil's Sight or the Alert feat so they can neuter monster attacks via Darkness.

Having 99 5th level spell slots at level 11 doesn't really help all that much in a deadly fight.


Well, yes. Mismatches of expectations and/or playing styles (related but not identical things) probably cause more inter-player stress at gaming tables than anything else, and are probably at their worst when between a player and a GM. I guess the difference is that one role-player at a table of power-gamers/wargamers (to use the taxonomy that MaxWilson posted) is probably going to get frustrated and leave, probably quietly, and not be a persistent problem for the rest of the table; whereas a single power-gamer at a table of role-players might end up overpowering the encounters and the adventures and leaving everyone else frustrated. Now, that lone role-player might frustrate the heck out of the wargamers by behaving suboptimally or trying to engage narrative or character elements that ... bore everyone else at the table, and that's not good, either; I'm just saying that the lone roleplayer is likely to feel as though they're losing, while the lone wargamer is likely to feel they're winning.

Yeah, one role-player at a table full of wargamers is going to frustrate everybody when he winds up not following the plan, not pulling his weight, and getting somebody killed. The roleplayer might or might not feel like they're losing, but the wargamers definitely will feel like they're losing.

The lone wargamer at a table full of roleplayers or (even worse) powergamers isn't going to feel like they're winning, they're going to feel like they're being tortured. I've been in those shoes and it's awful until you learn not to care.

But the real problem is when you're a roleplayer at a wargaming DM's table, or a wargamer at a a powergaming DM's table, etc.


There are actually a bunch of reasons for this, but it boils down to Combat being the one part of the game where everyone is expected to participate. As a result, though, Fred the Fighter runs into weird territory where he's a little better than Betsy the Bard in combat, but where there's literally no point in him chipping in during a social encounter (because she's so much better at it than he is).

I think this would only ever happen if your DM was a powergaming DM who only cared about bonuses and skill DCs. A roleplaying DM would probably strive to make a social faux pas just as entertaining as a social coup, a wargaming DM would make asking the right questions to the right people more important than your Persuasion and Insight bonuses, and a storytelling DM... well, a railroadey storytelling DM would probably ensure that you get the information you need to know no matter what, and a sandboxy storytelling DM would probably lean towards one of the other styles when it comes to the mechanics of actually running the social encounter.

[Theodoxus]

When it comes to power-gaming, I think the problem isn't the player - there's nothing wrong with a player trying to win a game where there's a way to win - but that the game allows players to sacrifice certain aspects of the game to succeed in others.

For example, a Fighter can choose to pick up a combat feat or a feat like Linguistics. Most take the combat feat, but that means worse storytelling. Having a power-gamer means worse storytelling. Having options where you can sacrifice storytelling for other aspects of play is a bad thing.

You don't care about power-gamers in MtG or StarCraft, because that's how you win. But in DnD, storytelling is its most distinct aspect, and anything that allows you to sell that for a tactical advantage is stupid.

Absolutely stupid.

So I don't blame the players, I blame the game. That doesn't mean that cutting down on the potential of power-gamers is a bad thing.

It's kinda hard to balance around a single power-gaming Paladin that kills everything in one hit, since it means scaling up the difficulty for everyone else. If someone finds a combo that does more damage than their level is supposed to, and you generate higher CR Monster Manual enemies to compensate, the game becomes rocket-tag where the level of interactivity for the players is decreased.

And that's fine if that's what the entire table expects for a game, but usually it's not. A Power-gamer will try to find a way to power-game in any system, no matter how effective it is. Even if they only get a +20% power boost from all of their work, they usually aren't disappointed. However, limiting DnD to where only 20% is storytelling would probably disappoint most of the players at my table.

I mean, that's one way to play D&D, but it's not really the emphasis of the rules, nor is it really described in the PhB nor DMG as such. "Roleplaying" is kind of handwaved as "do it however you want." The examples in 5E are actually pretty horrid, and ends up getting propagated into the popular culture by things like E.T. and Stranger Things and most depressingly, Critical Role, where viewers end up with this perception that Roleplaying requires voice acting quality accents and props.

D&D has stuck to its Chainmail roots pretty hardcore. It's slightly more complex than Zombicide. Trying to turn it into a Storytelling game ala World of Darkness ends up stretching the rules and requiring a ton of homebrew. It'd be nice if people stopped trying to make D&D something it clearly isn't, and pick up one of the vast indie games that does what they want. We'd all be happier for it.

[heavyfuel]

Do you know what the odds are of rolling 2D20 and both being a value higher/lower than the needed value at the same time?

In a game with Bounded Accuracy, pretty much any value on the d20 is good. A 5 or lower pretty much means auto failure for an enemies good saves, an 8 or lower is auto fail for their non-good saves. 9+ is pretty much an auto-success for anything a character is reasonably good at.


Honestly, I absolutely hate the fact that power players are considered a "problem". It's a perfectly valid play-style - if it's not working at your table, that's just a mismatch, and you don't need to stigmatize one of your players.

That being said, stuff outside of core tends to have a different optimization floor than stuff in core. It's actually kinda hard to play a Bard, Divination Wizard, or Moon Druid to their maximum potential (i.e., where they're "broken") without resorting to guides or spending way too much time analyzing the books. Meanwhile, stuff like Shepherd Druid and Zealot Warlock basically come pre-optimized for you. Hexblade's actually a weird case - the only reason that it's so reviled is because it's a stupidly good dip for Bards, Paladins, and Sorcerers.

Couldn't agree more with your first paragraph.

I do disagree that it's hard to play casters in a strong way. Every two levels you gain access to like 40 new spells. Most of them have paragraph long descriptions. Reading a a couple pages worth of spells and picking the best 2 or 3 isn't particularly hard thing to do.


*snip-snapped the parts I don't wish to argue about*
[B]I. POWER GAMING
"I'm gonna run my 20th level cleric with the +5 plage and shield, the Sceptre of the Demon Kings, the Ring of Arkyn, and the Spell Turning Ring."
"OK, what's his name?"
"Uh, name? Er, call him Jocko."
"Got it! What's he a cleric of?"
"Huh? Oh, I never thought of that. But he's lawful/good."


This is just plain wrong. Stormwind fallacy and whatnot. Every time I've seen a player power gaming (myself included) they always grow very attached to the characters they've spent hours fine tuning. An attachment that definitely shows when RPing.


Are you sure you posted this in the right forum? The 3.P forum is over there. :P

Because there's really not anything I can think of in 5E that's BROKEN, with two exceptions:

Coffeelocking, primarily when you get 5th level slots
Wish-Simulacrum chaining

Both are a simple houserule away from being fixed, and most players recognize that they're so far out of whack that they wouldn't be fun to play.

But, a Moon Druid and a 4 Elements Monk in the same party are unlikely to feel like one is being overshadowed by the other. The Moon Druid is pretty damn strong at levels 2-4, but those barely last a session normally.

Outside the two things mentioned above and barring active cheating by the players, I'd be quite happy to run any combination of classes and races for a party from published books.

Edit: Oh, I'll also add this: Powergaming is fine. Wanting to play a powerful character is fine. As long as you don't try to force yourself in the spotlight over other players, just making a PC that can kick butt is not just fine, it really should be EXPECTED. You're adventurers, come on! Kick some butt! Slay some dragons! Have some fun!

That's kinda of my point, lol. 3.PF players have much less problem allowing stuff. Probably because anyone that's still playing the system to this day knows the definition of Tiers and will prefer having "broken" Martial Adepts and Duskblades over having yet another God Wizard in their party. I'm yet to meet a PF DM that allows Druids but doesn't allow non-core stuff found in the PFSRD.

I don't think stuff in 5e isn't broken, though. The floor is much much higher compared to 3.X, but when the Cleric does everything you do but better (not hard when you're playing a 4 elements Monk) you still feel inadequate. The Wizard still has phenomenal cosmic power while you're stuck punching people or wasting your ki away trying a failing to replicate said cosmic power.

[JNAProductions]

That's kinda of my point, lol. 3.PF players have much less problem allowing stuff. Probably because anyone that's still playing the system to this day knows the definition of Tiers and will prefer having "broken" Martial Adepts and Duskblades over having yet another God Wizard in their party. I'm yet to meet a PF DM that allows Druids but doesn't allow non-core stuff found in the PFSRD.

I don't think stuff in 5e isn't broken, though. The floor is much much higher compared to 3.X, but when the Cleric does everything you do but better (not hard when you're playing a 4 elements Monk) you still feel inadequate. The Wizard still has phenomenal cosmic power while you're stuck punching people or wasting your ki away trying a failing to replicate said cosmic power.

Really? Because a Monk (without any subclass at all) does, at level 5, 3d6+12 damage without spending any resources. The Cleric gets, at best, 2d6+4, assuming they favored Strength over Wisdom and are using a Domain that grants martial weapon proficiencies and are actually using a greatsword/maul. The Monk is faster than the Cleric, assuming the same race, and is at absolute worse just as fast (Wood Elf Cleric, Dwarf/Small race Monk). The Monk probably has a lower AC, true, but they have tools to disengage from melee a lot better than the Cleric.

Now, I'm not saying a Monk is BETTER than the Cleric-the Cleric can buff better, for sure, and can nova a bit harder with their spells. But saying that a Cleric is better than everything a Monk does is just plain false.

[Pex]

Two events are at work here.

There can and do exist game mechanics that can make the game unplayable. There might be disagreement on a few such instances that qualify, but that doesn't take away the existence. Simulacrum/Wish is one such thing. Coffeelock is another. The DM is in his right to say No to these. They just don't exist as possible to happen in the game.

The other event is DMs who can't stand PCs being powerful. Anything more than "I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage" is anathema to them. They tolerate baby steps of increased power until they can't stand it anymore and bring out the ban hammer for everything else. They are unable or refuse to adapt that particular obstacles parties face no longer become obstacles. They hate big numbers and dismiss players as munchkins, powergamers, minmaxers, and rollplayers. I've learned to no longer play with such DMs.

[MaxWilson]

This is just plain wrong. Stormwind fallacy and whatnot. Every time I've seen a player power gaming (myself included) they always grow very attached to the characters they've spent hours fine tuning. An attachment that definitely shows when RPing.

It might be an exaggeration, but it could also be that you're not purely powergaming. Sounds like there's some roleplaying mixed in there too. Remember that this article was written in 1980, and from what I remember of the 80's, it was more common back then to blur the lines between PC and player, which is a big part of what powergaming (as originally defined) is all about. For example, the Dread Gazebo story is told from a player perspective:

https://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/98/Jul/gazebo.html

The Tale of Eric and the Dread Gazebo
by Richard Aronson ([email protected])

...In the early seventies, Ed Whitchurch ran "his game," and one of the participants was Eric Sorenson. Eric plays something like a computer. When he games he methodically considers each possibility before choosing his preferred option. If given time, he will invariably pick the optimal solution. It has been known to take weeks. He is otherwise, in all respects, a superior gamer.

Eric was playing a Neutral Paladin in Ed's game. He was on some lord's lands when the following exchange occurred:

ED: You see a well groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you see a gazebo.
ERIC: A gazebo? What color is it?
ED: (Pause) It's white, Eric.
ERIC: How far away is it?
ED: About 50 yards.
ERIC: How big is it?
ED: (Pause) It's about 30 ft across, 15 ft high, with a pointed top.
ERIC: I use my sword to detect good on it.
ED: It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo.
ERIC: (Pause) I call out to it.
ED: It won't answer. It's a gazebo.
ERIC: (Pause) I sheathe my sword and draw my bow and arrows. Does it respond in any way?
ED: No, Eric, it's a gazebo!
ERIC: I shoot it with my bow (roll to hit). What happened?
ED: There is now a gazebo with an arrow sticking out of it.
ERIC: (Pause) Wasn't it wounded?
ED: OF COURSE NOT, ERIC! IT'S A GAZEBO!
ERIC: (Whimper) But that was a +3 arrow!
ED: It's a gazebo, Eric, a GAZEBO! If you really want to try to destroy it, you could try to chop it with an axe, I suppose, or you could try to burn it, but I don't know why anybody would even try. It's a @#$%!! gazebo!
ERIC: (Long pause. He has no axe or fire spells.) I run away.
ED: (Thoroughly frustrated) It's too late. You've awakened the gazebo. It catches you and eats you.
ERIC: (Reaching for his dice) Maybe I'll roll up a fire-using mage so I can avenge my Paladin. At this point, the increasingly amused fellow party members restored a modicum of order by explaining to Eric what a gazebo is. Thus ends the tale of Eric and the Dread Gazebo. It could have been worse; at least the gazebo wasn't on a grassy gnoll.

If this account can be believed, Eric didn't even have a name for his Paladin. It was just "my Paladin." Maybe you personally don't play that way now in 2020, but it was a thing back then (and that's okay!) and maybe to some extent even today. I have used and would again use this style to introduce new players to the idea of roleplaying, because "pretend you have magic powers now" is less of a stretch than "invent somebody else and pretend to be them with magic powers."

[jas61292]

For example, a Fighter can choose to pick up a combat feat or a feat like Linguistics. Most take the combat feat, but that means worse storytelling. Having a power-gamer means worse storytelling. Having options where you can sacrifice storytelling for other aspects of play is a bad thing.

I agree with the conclusion here, but I think it is weird, because I think that when it comes to "winning" at the game, the powerful option is far worse. Obviously, D&D is not a game you can win in a traditional sense, but it is still a game, and the goal is to enjoy yourself while playing. In the kind of situation you mention here, a lot of people would say the combat feat is the "correct" or "smart" or "better" option, or whatnot. But in my experience it is the exact opposite. Sure, it might be better if the goal of the game was to kill more things more quickly, but that is just a single element of the game and not its overall goal.

Rather, I find that the player that takes Linguist ends up far better off than the one that took the combat feat. And the reason for this is simple: expectations. The guy who took Linguist wants to know more languages and have the option to make a written cipher. If, over the course of, say, four sessions, he gets to utilize one of his new languages once, and makes a cipher once, he will be very happy and feel justified in his decision. Even if those both happen in the same session and he gets no use of it the other three, he got exactly what he wanted out of it, and is satisfied. On the other hand, the guy who took the combat feat took it because he wanted to be more powerful in combat, and for the majority of such feats, it is something they hope to take advantage of every round. But because of that, they have higher expectations for it. It just becomes the new normal. If they get to use it every single round of combat for an entire session, that's not cool or special. Its expected, and they are no more or less happy than before they had the feat. But if in one of those four sessions, there is limited combat and their ability never comes up, they will fell utterly underwhelmed and disappointed. Even though they are utilizing their choice far more than the Linguist, they end up complacent at best, and disappointed at worst, while the Linguist is the opposite, complacent at worst, ecstatic at best. And again, when there is no true "winning" the guy who is more satisfied made the better choice.

[Keravath]

Wish-Simulacrum chaining is completely broken, I agree. But I can think of a lot of things more broken than Coffeelocking. All that really allows you to do is to spam no-concentration Sorcerer spells freely, given prior preparation. Probably the most broken thing you can do with it is to play a Divine Soul and then create huge hordes of undead archers, but because of logistical concerns that's still less broken than Planar Binding snowballing (one high-CR treasure hoard provides enough treasure for hundreds of new Planar Binding spells) or v1 Healing Spirit abuse or Shepherd Druid Conjure Animals (CR 1/4) spam or even something as simple as an entire party where everyone has either Devil's Sight or the Alert feat so they can neuter monster attacks via Darkness.

Having 99 5th level spell slots at level 11 doesn't really help all that much in a deadly fight.




Sorry but I completely disagree with your last comment.

A coffee lock could cast a quickened fifth level spell every round and follow up with eldritch blast spam every round. Or twinned firebolt or another cantrip depending on the circumstances. The fifth level spell could be consecutive 10d6 fireballs if they like or some other spell cast or upcast to 5th level. They can do this every round of the combat. They have unlimited 5th level spell slots. Until level 18, most characters will only have 2 x 5th level slots/day. A coffee lock has as many as they want for every encounter all day every day. Perhaps you won't notice that much difference if you only have one combat/day considering an average fight runs 3-4 rounds then a regular caster would have 5th level slots for two of those 3 or 4 rounds which isn't much different from 1 for every round if there are only 3-4 rounds of combat/day. However, the coffee lock has the ability to spam a fifth level slots every combat round of every encounter for the entire day.

So, I would put coffee lock right up there with Wish/Simulacrum abuse as a bigger issue than any of the other items mentioned at least for an adventuring day that is longer than one 3-4 round combat.


P.S. How does planar binding snowball? When cast with a 5th level slot it lasts 24 hours. It takes an hour to cast. If something you bind to you summons another creature then that creature isn't bound to you so I can't see it snowballing that way and you can only cast it so many times before they start wearing off. In addition, every creature bound has to make a save or else they don't serve you and you have to figure out how to get rid of it - the spell also doesn't say what happens to the creature at the end of the duration, if it sticks around it is likely to be very unhappy with the caster.

I'm probably missing something obvious but I'm not sure how it can be easily abused.

[Chronos]

It's really, really easy to find splatbook options that are trivially more broken than core options. Like, what's more broken than a lore bard? Easy: A lore bard who can take Find Greater Steed as his magical secret, instead of Find Steed. What's more broken than a divination wizard? A divination wizard who has Synaptic Static in his spellbook.

Splatbooks are always power creep, because if there's even one thing in a splatbook that's better than the equivalents in previous books, then that's the one thing from the splatbook that a powergamer will take, no matter how many things there are in the splatbook that are comparable or worse to what came before.

At the same time, however, those players who don't try to powergame, or who do try but are bad at it, will be taking some of the bad options that weren't available before. And so those players who were already underpowered (compared to the powergamers) are now even more underpowered.

When you're making some players more powerful and some less, that's not balanced. That's, in fact, the opposite of balanced.

[prabe]

Yeah, one role-player at a table full of wargamers is going to frustrate everybody when he winds up not following the plan, not pulling his weight, and getting somebody killed. The roleplayer might or might not feel like they're losing, but the wargamers definitely will feel like they're losing.

The lone wargamer at a table full of roleplayers or (even worse) powergamers isn't going to feel like they're winning, they're going to feel like they're being tortured. I've been in those shoes and it's awful until you learn not to care.

But the real problem is when you're a roleplayer at a wargaming DM's table, or a wargamer at a a powergaming DM's table, etc.

I don't entirely disagree, especially about mismatching with the DM being worse than mismatching with other players, but I was thinking about effectiveness at solving the problems that emerge in the game. It's probably more of a problem if the people around the table are ... less unipolar, I guess, so they're all going for a mix of approaches/engagements/whatever. If you have one player with strong wargamer tendencies (maybe more modern powergamer, focused on chargen) then that player/character might be more capable in ways that skew the game. If you're not that player, it can be frustrating/boring to have one character solve almost all the problems, in sort of a "why am I here" way. Which isn't to say, of course, that it can't be frustrating to be that wargamer, as well. I wonder if that frustration--the wargamer/powergamer not getting what they want from the game--doesn't tend to make the behavior worse.

[prabe]

When it comes to power-gaming, I think the problem isn't the player - there's nothing wrong with a player trying to win a game where there's a way to win - but that the game allows players to sacrifice certain aspects of the game to succeed in others.

For example, a Fighter can choose to pick up a combat feat or a feat like Linguistics. Most take the combat feat, but that means worse storytelling. Having a power-gamer means worse storytelling. Having options where you can sacrifice storytelling for other aspects of play is a bad thing.

I don't really disagree with the rest of this post, so I'm pulling this out.

I don't think there's as much conflict between character competence and storytelling as you seem to imply, here, though I do agree that there is some tension. There may be things the player is doing with the Fighter to make good stories that aren't reflected in feat selection.

Also, making choices about your character is part of ... many TRPGs, if not most--which I'm sure you know. IMO, that's part of the point. Sure, picking a combat feat seems boring on the surface, but maybe getting better at fighting is that Fighter's story, or that might be that Fighter's primary role in the party--and survival at least enables further storytelling.

[MaxWilson]

I don't entirely disagree, especially about mismatching with the DM being worse than mismatching with other players, but I was thinking about effectiveness at solving the problems that emerge in the game. It's probably more of a problem if the people around the table are ... less unipolar, I guess, so they're all going for a mix of approaches/engagements/whatever. If you have one player with strong wargamer tendencies (maybe more modern powergamer, focused on chargen) then that player/character might be more capable in ways that skew the game. If you're not that player, it can be frustrating/boring to have one character solve almost all the problems, in sort of a "why am I here" way. Which isn't to say, of course, that it can't be frustrating to be that wargamer, as well. I wonder if that frustration--the wargamer/powergamer not getting what they want from the game--doesn't tend to make the behavior worse.

I think people respond in different ways. For me as a wargamer type, learning to "not care" is one factor in wanting to play support characters who heal others, buff them, supply intel, etc. but try not to draw spotlight--just because I don't care any more if we win or lose or live or die doesn't mean other people don't care, and I care that they care. So I can help out in-character but I can't afford to get emotionally invested as a player in outcomes or the game will feel like torture when we are clearly doing everything wrong.

You're probably right that many people react in the exact opposite way and try to do everything themself. I suspect those are more powergamer types than wargamer types because camaraderie/fellowship is a common human need often associated with war, but I'm sure it can still happen.

The point is, it's not just roleplayers who wind up unhappy when there's a mismatch.

[heavyfuel]

Two events are at work here.

There can and do exist game mechanics that can make the game unplayable. There might be disagreement on a few such instances that qualify, but that doesn't take away the existence. Simulacrum/Wish is one such thing. Coffeelock is another. The DM is in his right to say No to these. They just don't exist as possible to happen in the game.

The other event is DMs who can't stand PCs being powerful. Anything more than "I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage" is anathema to them. They tolerate baby steps of increased power until they can't stand it anymore and bring out the ban hammer for everything else. They are unable or refuse to adapt that particular obstacles parties face no longer become obstacles. They hate big numbers and dismiss players as munchkins, powergamers, minmaxers, and rollplayers. I've learned to no longer play with such DMs.

As it's been said before: No gaming is better than bad gaming. Completely agree that these types of games aren't for me either.


It might be an exaggeration, but it could also be that you're not purely powergaming. Sounds like there's some roleplaying mixed in there too.

Hey, turn's out people and their play styles can't neatly fit into boxes, right? I don't think anyone is 100% power gamer, or 100% RPer, etc. Just because one guy over 30 years ago didn't know what a gazebo was and had no name for their Paladin, it doesn't mean that any one power gaming feels the same way about their characters.


It's really, really easy to find splatbook options that are trivially more broken than core options. Like, what's more broken than a lore bard? Easy: A lore bard who can take Find Greater Steed as his magical secret, instead of Find Steed. What's more broken than a divination wizard? A divination wizard who has Synaptic Static in his spellbook.

Splatbooks are always power creep, because if there's even one thing in a splatbook that's better than the equivalents in previous books, then that's the one thing from the splatbook that a powergamer will take, no matter how many things there are in the splatbook that are comparable or worse to what came before.

At the same time, however, those players who don't try to powergame, or who do try but are bad at it, will be taking some of the bad options that weren't available before. And so those players who were already underpowered (compared to the powergamers) are now even more underpowered.

When you're making some players more powerful and some less, that's not balanced. That's, in fact, the opposite of balanced.

I won't try to deny the statement that splat books are alwayas power creep. It's pretty much an undeniable fact.

My argument, however, is that the increase in power for Bard with Find Steed over a Bard with Find Greater Steed isn't proportionally as big as the increase is for a Paladin. The Paladin is now closer in power to the Bard.

The Wizard doesn't gain THAT much by picking Synaptic Static, but a Ranger that can now pick a half-decent conclave does.

If players are still picking trap options, it's up to the DM and other players to point out that maybe those options aren't so good. As a matter of fact, I'd say that if you're the DM, you should buff trap options to the point they're no longer traps, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

[NorthernPhoenix]

As a DM i honestly find it hard to recognize or care about the difference between "wargamer" or "powergamer". To me, either you're playing to "win the board-game" or you're not. I usually know it when i see it. Someone who i knew for sure was not trying to engage in pvp with me, i'd let play any sort of character, Hexblade, Lore Master, you name it. Someone who is, would ideally play with a different DM who enjoyed that sort of thing, but at worst should play something not disruptive with me.

[JNAProductions]

The more I read, the more I'm convinced you don't know 5E very well.

Paladins are absolutely powerhouses, with just the PHB. They get marginally better with splats, but the bulk of their power comes from the core class, not any subclasses or even spells.

[Warwick]

I'm just saying that the lone roleplayer is likely to feel as though they're losing, while the lone wargamer is likely to feel they're winning.

As someone who likes the wargaming and exploration/problem-solving aspects of D&D and other TTRPGs, let me assure you that you do not feel like you are winning when you are trapped in a scene learning about the hopes and dreams of a random NPC shopkeeper who you will never see or speak to again. Some people are into that (I'm not), it's a legitimate way to want to play the game, and since you're unlikely to find a truly homogeneous group, you have to find a way to reconcile the players' various interests.

[prabe]

I think people respond in different ways. For me as a wargamer type, learning to "not care" is one factor in wanting to play support characters who heal others, buff them, supply intel, etc. but try not to draw spotlight--just because I don't care any more if we win or lose or live or die doesn't mean other people don't care, and I care that they care. So I can help out in-character but I can't afford to get emotionally invested as a player in outcomes or the game will feel like torture when we are clearly doing everything wrong.

You're probably right that many people react in the exact opposite way and try to do everything themself. I suspect those are more powergamer types than wargamer types because camaraderie/fellowship is a common human need often associated with war, but I'm sure it can still happen.

The point is, it's not just roleplayers who wind up unhappy when there's a mismatch.

Agreed. There was just a dawning realization on my part that if someone is disrupting a game by powergaming (in either sense) more than the rest of the table, then that person is potentially as dissatisfied with the game as the other players are with them. It's probably not universal, but it's worth considering. Seems to me it gets at the idea of in-game problems and out-of-game problems, and not trying to solve out-of-game problems in-game.

[prabe]

As someone who likes the wargaming and exploration/problem-solving aspects of D&D and other TTRPGs, let me assure you that you do not feel like you are winning when you are trapped in a scene learning about the hopes and dreams of a random NPC shopkeeper who you will never see or speak to again. Some people are into that (I'm not), it's a legitimate way to want to play the game, and since you're unlikely to find a truly homogeneous group, you have to find a way to reconcile the players' various interests.

Yeah. That was clearly looking at it from outside the head of that sort of player, at least mostly. I agree that it's on the GM to ... give the players chances to engage, in a similar way to allowing the characters to shine. I suspect those two things (engagement and spotlight) will probably correlate--the player who's built a character to interact with NPCs wants to interact with NPCs; the player who's built a character to optimize tactics wants tactical challenges; etc. As a GM, I try to vary things, with thoughts like this in mind.

It seems as though when there's a mismatch at the table, or one style of play being ignored, it leads to people feeling useless in one way or another, or otherwise frustrated, which can--but needn't--lead to disruptive behavior.

[heavyfuel]

The more I read, the more I'm convinced you don't know 5E very well.

Paladins are absolutely powerhouses, with just the PHB. They get marginally better with splats, but the bulk of their power comes from the core class, not any subclasses or even spells.

When you say they're "powerhouses", do you mean "they're really good in combat, dealing a ton of damage and having some utility in the form of immunities and spells" or do you mean "powerhouses" in the sense of "they're really good in combat and have major utility in the form of spells, being able to instantaneously cross continents with pinpoint precision, disrupt multiple enemies at once, and completely invalidate non-combat encounters"

Because the first is what I have in mind when I picture a Paladin and it isn't what I'd call a powerhouse of a character, the second is what I have in mind when I picture a Wizard using only core spells.

Though you're right that I don't the vastest experience with Paladins in 5e, so feel free to correct me.

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't really disagree with the rest of this post, so I'm pulling this out.

I don't think there's as much conflict between character competence and storytelling as you seem to imply, here, though I do agree that there is some tension. There may be things the player is doing with the Fighter to make good stories that aren't reflected in feat selection.

Also, making choices about your character is part of ... many TRPGs, if not most--which I'm sure you know. IMO, that's part of the point. Sure, picking a combat feat seems boring on the surface, but maybe getting better at fighting is that Fighter's story, or that might be that Fighter's primary role in the party--and survival at least enables further storytelling.



Maybe I misunderstood, but from what I understand of what you said:
Combat feats don't damage the storytelling, because a specialization in combat (and succeeding in combat) can contribute to a story.

However, I feel that anything in that direction either doesn't allow much decision-making to be backed by the combat specialist, and any that would (such as a combat situation where who you damage for how much matters) is a situation where you would generally be wanting to deal less damage. Most situations that demand more damage are generally ones where players don't really have many options to actually choose from, meaning their individual opinions don't carry much weight or contribute to the story.

I could agree with that if there was more to those feats than just damage, or if damage was more than just damage, but it's generally not. It doesn't matter if the enemy had 50 health and you dealt 10, or if the enemy had 3 circles of health and you removed 1. It's just a score, and when you reach your high score, the enemy team loses a player. Damage itself doesn't encourage interactivity between the players, nor give them many tools to interact with the rest of the world. Damage is used to win combat, and that means that the combat itself has to be the goal to "win".

You could tie in more things in combat to allow Damage to contribute to the story (so dealing more damage effectively translates into having your opinion carry more weight), but that generally leads into situations where you DON'T want to deal damage. Things like hostage situations, or where someone on the opposite side might be someone you want to save. The problem with these scenarios is that someone with less damage/combat focus can generally contribute towards whatever their goal is (a Bard can always find a use for a Sleep spell), but the player that focused on damage/combat can ONLY contribute towards a goal that encourages more combat.

Creating a hostage situation in combat sounds like a story scenario that favors the Fighter, but that's only if their intent can be backed through fighting.

I could be White Room theorycrafting all of this, but it's what feels normal to me. When I run boss fights at my tables, how easy the boss was doesn't really contribute to the players' story all that much, and it usually isn't something that the players chose. They played the best they could with "Kill" as the only opinion that was ever said. I sometimes get a few strays (as I like to add injured NPCs into fights to give multiple ways of contributing), but generally the only thing anyone cares about is "Deal as much damage as possible". Which doesn't really encourage much storytelling on either side of the table. I could just be bad, though.

[Chaos Jackal]

Lots of Stormwind fallacy flying around in this thread. But it's not really relevant to the topic.

On to the task at hand.

5e's floor is higher and its ceiling lower than previous editions. Classes aren't balanced, but there isn't a massive gap between them. If someone wanted to tier them in a similar vein to 3.5, they'd probably end up with three tiers, corresponding to 3.5's low tier 2, tier 3 and high tier 4.

Lower ceiling and far fewer options don't rule out broken builds, but they're bound to limit them. The system's simplicity adds to that, as the loopholes and undesirable interactions are likely going to be far less.

As such, whether it's core or not, you're not gonna find many things that are noticeably more powerful than the rest of the remaining options.

That being said, it's true that you can't stop a munchkin, or a power gamer, or any kind of optimizer really, by just limiting options. No matter how much you ban, the optimizing player is going to look for what is best for them. And in the process of restricting options, you might've just prevented non-optimizers from narrowing the gap or getting that flavor they wanted for their character. Ultimately, the optimizers will still play their own game, no matter what you do, and unless core options are extremely limited or weak, they will still end up looking a lot stronger than someone who didn't care at all about the mechanics of their character. There are always better options, and these are the options they'll be going after.

People impose limits on splatbook availability for numerous reasons. Just wanting to curb overall power via this method is viable. But curbing an optimizer? That's going to fail.

A proper optimizer wants the best available, and most of the time there is a best choice. It might be the best of 3 or the best of 10. It doesn't matter, and the good optimizer won't care, because they're gonna do the best with what they're given. If you remove all 1st-level spells except Chromatic Orb and Witch Bolt, they're not gonna complain too much about not getting Magic Missile. They'll just pick Chromatic Orb. That's the optimizer's concept, and it's always available. Meanwhile, the non-optimizers might find limitations worse, because they're a lot more likely to go after a concept that just doesn't work without a splatbook. If you ban all 1st-level spells except Chromatic Orb and Witch Bolt, then the guy who wanted to play a caster with an earth theme can't realize his concept at all.

So yeah. It's not as pronounced as it is in more easily exploitable systems with higher ceilings, but it is true that someone who wants to optimize a character is unlikely to be bothered more by limitations than someone going after a particular build or idea. Because the second person wants to be something specific, while the first wants to be something general. You can't always aim for a particular concept or trick, but you can always aim to be the best there is.

[prabe]

Maybe I misunderstood, but from what I understand of what you said:
Combat feats don't damage the storytelling, because a specialization in combat (and succeeding in combat) can contribute to a story.

However, I feel that anything in that direction either doesn't allow much decision-making to be backed by the combat specialist, and any that would (such as a combat situation where who you damage for how much matters) is a situation where you would generally be wanting to deal less damage. Most situations that demand more damage are generally ones where players don't really have many options to actually choose from, meaning their individual opinions don't carry much weight or contribute to the story.

You are right that I don't think combat feats inherently or necessarily damage the storytelling, though if they lead to the characters wanting everything to be a fight, there's a potentially a problem (mismatched expectations/playstyles). If the characters are choosing their fights, increasing their chances of success at those fights doesn't seem to me to conflict with storytelling.

This is anecdote (not data) but in one of the campaigns I'm running it's been the fighter who's been driving the story, even through at least one session (maybe two) with no combat at all, and she's not an incompetent combatant--she was able to more than hold her own when separated from the party and surrounded by thugs. The player is connecting to the world and the story and (for the moment) being the driver, there.

I know, and I'm persistently thankful that, I have excellent players with playstyles compatible with my GMing style, which may be part of why my thinking on this is somewhat different from yours.

[Man_Over_Game]

You are right that I don't think combat feats inherently or necessarily damage the storytelling, though if they lead to the characters wanting everything to be a fight, there's a potentially a problem (mismatched expectations/playstyles). If the characters are choosing their fights, increasing their chances of success at those fights doesn't seem to me to conflict with storytelling.

This is anecdote (not data) but in one of the campaigns I'm running it's been the fighter who's been driving the story, even through at least one session (maybe two) with no combat at all, and she's not an incompetent combatant--she was able to more than hold her own when separated from the party and surrounded by thugs. The player is connecting to the world and the story and (for the moment) being the driver, there.

I know, and I'm persistently thankful that, I have excellent players with playstyles compatible with my GMing style, which may be part of why my thinking on this is somewhat different from yours.

Good! I want to clarify that I don't think it's necessarily a problem from the players (playah's gonna play), but it's a problem on the system itself.

I can make a Gladiator Spear-specialist in FATE, but because the FATE system's priority around storytelling, he can contribute just as much to the story as the Changeling Spy despite having a very different narrative concept. But just because I chose a Fighter in DnD doesn't mean that I should have less tools to contribute to a conversation than a Wizard.

I ran into this situation as a Barbarian in 5e, where I was caught in a situation where doing "Barbarian" things just wasn't helpful for the team, but doing otherwise wasn't narratively sensible (I even got a weird looks from my party and the DM at the time for "not Barbarianing enough"). I ran into this situation so often in just 3 sessions that I scrapped my Barbarian for a Warlock/Rogue with Mask of Many Faces, and found it was worlds better. I was causing so much mayhem, doing so much to the story, actively contributing my powers towards new strategies rather than just being a triangle-shaped block waiting to solve a triangle-shaped problem.

Maybe a better player could have RP'd that Barbarian in a way that actually felt fun, but it definitely felt like the number of tools available made a difference.

[Skylivedk]

@heavyfuel while I like where you are going (give players more options), I think your argumentation is fundamentally flawed. Why? It doesn't take into consideration that two subpar options can be combined into something way beyond what seems to have been the intention. 3.5's Pun Pun being a good example. Quite a few of Pun Pun's pieces wouldn't be S-tier on their own, but combined they become infinite stats and godlike power.

When you add options, you are complexity and you increase the probability that an interaction between abilities break expectations.

[Pex]

It might be an exaggeration, but it could also be that you're not purely powergaming. Sounds like there's some roleplaying mixed in there too. Remember that this article was written in 1980, and from what I remember of the 80's, it was more common back then to blur the lines between PC and player, which is a big part of what powergaming (as originally defined) is all about. For example, the Dread Gazebo story is told from a player perspective:

https://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/98/Jul/gazebo.html

The Tale of Eric and the Dread Gazebo
by Richard Aronson ([email protected])

...In the early seventies, Ed Whitchurch ran "his game," and one of the participants was Eric Sorenson. Eric plays something like a computer. When he games he methodically considers each possibility before choosing his preferred option. If given time, he will invariably pick the optimal solution. It has been known to take weeks. He is otherwise, in all respects, a superior gamer.

Eric was playing a Neutral Paladin in Ed's game. He was on some lord's lands when the following exchange occurred:

ED: You see a well groomed garden. In the middle, on a small hill, you see a gazebo.
ERIC: A gazebo? What color is it?
ED: (Pause) It's white, Eric.
ERIC: How far away is it?
ED: About 50 yards.
ERIC: How big is it?
ED: (Pause) It's about 30 ft across, 15 ft high, with a pointed top.
ERIC: I use my sword to detect good on it.
ED: It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo.
ERIC: (Pause) I call out to it.
ED: It won't answer. It's a gazebo.
ERIC: (Pause) I sheathe my sword and draw my bow and arrows. Does it respond in any way?
ED: No, Eric, it's a gazebo!
ERIC: I shoot it with my bow (roll to hit). What happened?
ED: There is now a gazebo with an arrow sticking out of it.
ERIC: (Pause) Wasn't it wounded?
ED: OF COURSE NOT, ERIC! IT'S A GAZEBO!
ERIC: (Whimper) But that was a +3 arrow!
ED: It's a gazebo, Eric, a GAZEBO! If you really want to try to destroy it, you could try to chop it with an axe, I suppose, or you could try to burn it, but I don't know why anybody would even try. It's a @#$%!! gazebo!
ERIC: (Long pause. He has no axe or fire spells.) I run away.
ED: (Thoroughly frustrated) It's too late. You've awakened the gazebo. It catches you and eats you.
ERIC: (Reaching for his dice) Maybe I'll roll up a fire-using mage so I can avenge my Paladin. At this point, the increasingly amused fellow party members restored a modicum of order by explaining to Eric what a gazebo is. Thus ends the tale of Eric and the Dread Gazebo. It could have been worse; at least the gazebo wasn't on a grassy gnoll.

If this account can be believed, Eric didn't even have a name for his Paladin. It was just "my Paladin." Maybe you personally don't play that way now in 2020, but it was a thing back then (and that's okay!) and maybe to some extent even today. I have used and would again use this style to introduce new players to the idea of roleplaying, because "pretend you have magic powers now" is less of a stretch than "invent somebody else and pretend to be them with magic powers."

It's a funny story, but in another perspective the DM could have/should have realized the player doesn't know what a gazebo is and explain it to him. Not that the player is innocent regardless by attacking it, but some DMs hate it when players know stuff and refuse to tell them anything until they earned the privilege, if ever, like it's the secret formula to Coca Cola. I once played a game where the party was fighting a group of creatures, and the DM absolutely refused to tell us what we were fighting. He allowed a player to roll for it. The player happened to roll low, so we were condemned to ignorance forever. The only thing the DM would let us know is show a picture of it since our characters were capable of seeing what they looked like.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah. That was clearly looking at it from outside the head of that sort of player, at least mostly. I agree that it's on the GM to ... give the players chances to engage, in a similar way to allowing the characters to shine. I suspect those two things (engagement and spotlight) will probably correlate--the player who's built a character to interact with NPCs wants to interact with NPCs; the player who's built a character to optimize tactics wants tactical challenges; etc.

There's probably a correlation some of the time, just because some people do optimize a "build" for things that they're interested in, as a signal that they want more of that. But other people optimize for stuff that they hate, so they can put it down as quickly as possible when it happens (anti-undead abilities doesn't necessarily mean someone wants to see more energy-drain in the game). And other people like playing PCs more than building them, and will prefer not to optimize "builds" at all, and others enjoy build optimization as a completely separate mini-game from playing and will e.g. optimize a character for fighting with bullwhips, because that's cool and amusing to them, but are totally up for spending table time on an archaeological dig instead of a combat.

So, I would be cautious about reading too much into builds. It's better IMO to present the players with choices and see what they pick. If there's a spooky sign that says "here there be vampires, death, and treasure. Enter if you dare, mwahahahaha!" and the PCs go that way, that's a better signal than anything written on a character sheet. Ditto if they respond to an advertisement in the paper for a job as investigative reporters, or buy a merchant ship and a cargo of exotic spices.

[MrStabby]

There is always a danger that we set the wrong threshold.

"Broken" is a low, low bar for an option to fall below. Yes, it is true that if something does fall below this bar then it is bad for the game. it doesn't follow that if it is above this bar it is good. Saying it doesn't meet a criterion from which change would be needed and then equivocating to pretent that this means that change isn't beneficial is pretty bad faith (not claiming that this is happening here, but I have heard it in the past).

A DM looking to control what is in their game is simply looking out for their table. It may be attempting to producing a better game through making their setting coherent, it may be tryingto lower the power gap between the top and bottom options, it may even be trying to ensure a better experience for the players by stoping a novice DM be out of their depth. Most commonly I have seen it where certain options would prevent the type of game intended - recently an investigation game around a murder where pretty much all divination spells (and some others) were banned. A speak with dead:"So did you see who it was that stabbed you in the face six times and set you on fire?".

Sometimes a DM might make a mistake, certainly it can happen frequently, especially with new DMs. To ascribe any kind of motivation to a restriction beyond caring about the fun of ALL the players at the table is probably wrong.

There is a certain unfortunate type of player that I have seen that will interpret any restriction as some kind of attack on their fundemental rights. They want to play what they want to play, everyone else be damned. Game quality be damned. Fun at the table be damned. Only their own "build" and their character matter to them. These people,all too rarely can be persuaded to step up and DM instead. I know one person who did and was fantastic at it, but the others were either abysmal or just didn't.

I have had people complain about "tyrant DMs" before (and I would not agree with that, I have been very happy to play with them as DM again and again); almost invariably the person complaining is the problem - hopping from table to table and every time it is someone elses fault they were not having the fun they thought they would. This doesn't bother me anymore personally; I have good enough stable groups that such people tend to be forgotten when it comes to inviting people to new games.

If I am playing in a game I am more than happy for the DM to excercise control over it. I would guess I fall into one of the categories mentioned above - a bit of an optimiser who is happy with constraints. I also want to roleplay a concept I like - the more the powerful options get trimmed, the more likely it is that one of my other concepts I would never play will be able to shine. It brings more options into the pool of what I would actually like to play.


Or... You're proving my point. This specific UA is the same that brought us the Hexblade. Still, it has 3 broken features (Hex Warrior, Spell Secrets, and Prodigious Memory) out of 40 new features - assuming I counted correctly. And that's a single UA out of how many that offer zero broken options.

Like I said, yeah, some things are broken. But that's regardless of Core only.

Also, forcing Int saves isn't really that bad compared to Portent, where you can grant 2 auto-fails or 2 auto-successes depending on your Portent dice

In terms of blanace it isn't about the number of things that are broken, it is about whether that number is greater than zero. How many players turning up with characters that invalidate other player choices are needed to make the game less fun? It certainly isn't about the average power - if that were the metric you could make options more balanced by adding a bundle of ribbon abilities to them.





That said, I do get the frustation some people can have. If you have a cool concept for a wizard and there are some controls in place, then you can be faced with holding off playing that concept or not play that concept to its full potential. Personally, when I DM most stuff is on the table - but I also allow a lot of homebrew so if ever an option is deemed problemeatic it should never stop a concept as we can add back in what is then missing.

The only things I have ever cut that have been controversial have been beasts for wildshape and polymorph. In a world without dinosaurs they were out of place. Also people turning up with 3rd party books with extra beasts in were out, although if they had been to support a particular concept then they would have been right in. I had a lot more sympathy for the druid than the bard - they had missed session zero where this had been discussed and wildshapes were a more significant part of their character. Still, we fixed that in the end.

[MrStabby]

It's a funny story, but in another perspective the DM could have/should have realized the player doesn't know what a gazebo is and explain it to him. Not that the player is innocent regardless by attacking it, but some DMs hate it when players know stuff and refuse to tell them anything until they earned the privilege, if ever, like it's the secret formula to Coca Cola. I once played a game where the party was fighting a group of creatures, and the DM absolutely refused to tell us what we were fighting. He allowed a player to roll for it. The player happened to roll low, so we were condemned to ignorance forever. The only thing the DM would let us know is show a picture of it since our characters were capable of seeing what they looked like.

Yeah, we don't want any of this metagaming nonsense with people brining outside knowledge of what a Gazebo is to the table.

[MaxWilson]

It's a funny story, but in another perspective the DM could have/should have realized the player doesn't know what a gazebo is and explain it to him. Not that the player is innocent regardless by attacking it, but some DMs hate it when players know stuff and refuse to tell them anything until they earned the privilege, if ever, like it's the secret formula to Coca Cola. I once played a game where the party was fighting a group of creatures, and the DM absolutely refused to tell us what we were fighting. He allowed a player to roll for it. The player happened to roll low, so we were condemned to ignorance forever. The only thing the DM would let us know is show a picture of it since our characters were capable of seeing what they looked like.

Oh, I absolutely agree, and I think the next thing that happened after the other players explained to him what a gazebo is was probably the DM saying, "Your paladin's not dead, of course the Gazebo didn't eat him. What do you want to do next?" But that part isn't funny so it doesn't get included in the anecdote.

[pming]

Hiya!

The biggest "problem" I see when DM's use the optional rules like UA, Feats, Multiclassing, etc., is that they either don't know or haven't realized that the game system as a whole (and monsters, spells in particular) are designed with the baseline of NO OPTIONAL RULES IN USE.

Those Goblins are meant to be fighting PC's who don't have Feats, MC or an unusual race/class from some book. The DM shouldn't be surprised when Players gravitate towards min/maxing if given the opportunity....because if even ONE Player in the group does it, then *everyone* in the group needs to do it. Otherwise it's "An ogre! We'll, we'd be terrified right now...but we have Bearkiller the Goliath Barbarian. We'll get out the pom-pom's and cheer as Bearkiller takes care of it". ;)

[False God]

Humans are as humans do.

The more you try to prevent them from doing the thing they want to do, the harder they're going to try.

[MaxWilson]

Hiya!

The biggest "problem" I see when DM's use the optional rules like UA, Feats, Multiclassing, etc., is that they either don't know or haven't realized that the game system as a whole (and monsters, spells in particular) are designed with the baseline of NO OPTIONAL RULES IN USE.

Reference please? Everything I have ever seen from the system designers indicates the opposite: there is no assumption that feats are necessarily off. They anticipated feats and multiclassing in the design of the classes themselves, and while some awfully broken tactics are enabled via Multiclassing, others are right there in a single-classed character's spell list or even the bog-standard equipment list.

E.g. it doesn't matter if multiclassing is in use or not, either way Conjure Animals (CR 1/4) makes Dust Devil look like a chump, and Simulacrum-Wish is just plain broken.

So, without hard evidence, I can't believe that claim.

P.S. Also, Fighters are clearly designed with feats in mind. Fighters in featless games are terrible and unfun after about level 6, with nothing to do with their extra Fighter ASIs except pump secondary or tertiary stats. They just don't work as a class without feats.

[prabe]

I ran into this situation as a Barbarian in 5e, where I was caught in a situation where doing "Barbarian" things just wasn't helpful for the team, but doing otherwise wasn't narratively sensible (I even got a weird looks from my party and the DM at the time for "not Barbarianing enough"). I ran into this situation so often in just 3 sessions that I scrapped my Barbarian for a Warlock/Rogue with Mask of Many Faces, and found it was worlds better. I was causing so much mayhem, doing so much to the story, actively contributing my powers towards new strategies rather than just being a triangle-shaped block waiting to solve a triangle-shaped problem.

Maybe a better player could have RP'd that Barbarian in a way that actually felt fun, but it definitely felt like the number of tools available made a difference.

I'd say maybe that character would have fit better into a different campaign, too. I can see that being at least as likely as a player-side deficit.

I will admit that I agree that it can be difficult for fighters (and to a lesser extent barbarians) to have something to do outside of combat. Both that it can be difficult to build for it as a player, and that it can be difficult to ... fit it in as a DM, I guess--whatever verb you want for "DM Stuff." I wouldn't say it's automatically difficult, just that the potential is there--those classes don't have as much explicit mechanical support for those sorts of things, I won't disagree.

I do think I'll disagree about blaming the players, at least in the event they're the outliers at the table--the lone powergamer thing. If one person is damaging the fun of four or six people, there's at least an argument that one player is a problem, at least in that context, especially if they're unwilling to moderate their behavior. There have been a couple people in this thread who've apparently made an explicit choice to (mostly) give up on their preferred flavor of fun, so as not to ruin others': on the one hand, that seems pretty laudable to me; on the other hand, it doesn't seem all that unreasonable to ask of a participant in a social activity; on the gripping hand, it'd be nice if the groups they played with could arrange for those players to at least occasionally get their preferred fun out of the games.

[prabe]

So, I would be cautious about reading too much into builds. It's better IMO to present the players with choices and see what they pick. If there's a spooky sign that says "here there be vampires, death, and treasure. Enter if you dare, mwahahahaha!" and the PCs go that way, that's a better signal than anything written on a character sheet. Ditto if they respond to an advertisement in the paper for a job as investigative reporters, or buy a merchant ship and a cargo of exotic spices.

Agreed. It's why I try to have multiple threads for the party to pursue. They're welcome to pull on whatever thread they find most compelling at the moment. Sometimes the players even invent a thread to pull on, and that's fine, too. While I do think in terms of "story" I think of it more as something that emerges from play than as something that directs play, if that makes sense.

[MaxWilson]

on the one hand... on the other hand... on the gripping hand...

I see and approve of what you just did there. :)

[Lucas Yew]

I'd say the act of optimizing is just human nature (to be precise, a common natural instinct for all living organisms that managed to sire offspring onto Earth since the dawn of this planet).
While creature comforts like mundane laziness might hinder individuals with their personal optimization in RL (getting good grades, filing up a prestigious portfolio, etc.), if given the chance to do so in a more efficient way or enjoy a simulation of it (like RPGs, or any gaming in general), it's foolish to not assume that said person will try to achieve peak performance in the context of the situation.

[Waazraath]

*snip*

TL;DR: By diminishing player options, players are more likely to go for stronger broken available. "Core only" isn't a solution to this problem, it is its cause

Well... imo the premise here is not only "powergamers", as was mentioned in the OP, but imo "vindictive powergamers with a nasty streak with whom you really don't want to sit at the same table anyway". I mean... if the DM bans certain books explicitly to keep the game simple and the power level not too high, and a player reacts to this by looking through the available options to get the most high powered and complicated build possible, you have a terrible player - as in, somebody not really fit for a cooperative game. If a DM bans Xanathar's to prevent hexblade dipping and a player goes "haha now I'll have you I'll go wish/simulacrum on your behind", that's really not with the DM, or with the limiting the available options.

[Warlush]

While I'm somewhat new to 5e, I see a lot of people playing the game without Feats, Multiclassing, UA, splat books, etc.

A common justification for this is that they want to keep the game simple. Or that these options are too good and make core options useless. And usually this also comes in the argument of "no munchkin players" that scour books for the best options available.

However, I think this couldn't be further from the truth.

Most options presented in other books are no stronger than options availsle for core players only. I'm yet to see an UA or splatbook addition that comes close to the brokeness of a Moon Druid, a Divination Wizard, or an anything Bard. If a player really wants to min-max while disregarding anything else, these are the options they are going to take. And these options are all core.

Telling the min-max Fighter player they can't play a spartan-like character with the Spear Mastery feat just makes the game less fun for everyone. The player might resent the DM for banning a non-broken (and, frankly, subpar) option or decide to play something else. Something like the aforementioned classes.

If you have a pool of 10 options that don't suck, and 5 of these are broken, that's half your pool made of broken options. But if you have a larger pool of 30 options that don't suck, with 6 broken ones, that's only 20% of your pool.

Additionally, a lot of the new options make previous options feel useless because they were already useless in the first place. Yeah, a Brute is about 10 times better than the Champion. But that's only because the Champion sucks hard. The Brute came in to fix the niche of a simple to build warrior whose abilities are always on.

Same goes for the Revised Ranger and the new Ranger Conclaves. Yeah, they're straigh up better than the core Ranger, but they merely allow players wishing to play a Ranger not to be horrible at their jobs.

This idea that "Core only" is somehow more balanced goes back a long time, and it has always been wrong. In every edition that I've played (AD&D, 3e, 3.5, 5e), the broken stuff is right there in Core, with very few broken options outside it.

Yeah, Hexblade dips are broken, but that's a single level of a single archetype of a single class. Out of how many options?

Thank you for tuning in to my rant/open letter to DMs that think "core only" makes the game less broken.

TL;DR: By diminishing player options, players are more likely to go for stronger broken available. "Core only" isn't a solution to this problem, it is its cause

As a DM, I allow just about everything. If they players are min/maxing I just change the monsters around.

A crit happy rogue never ever ever has to get surprise if you don't say so.

A Hexblade/sorc/paladin whatever is gonna see a lot of helmed horrors, angelic beings immune to radiant damage, int/strength saves targeting them.

What else you got? Sorc/tempest cleric?
Kracken.

Try and eff with me beyond that?
I'm the DM. Io answers to me. Tharizdun answers to me. The Lady of Pain, Asmodeous, and even your precious Morradin or whatever. They all bend to my will. I can summon untold horrors from the Abyss or I can call every dragon in existence to your door.
It is LITERALLY impossible to break a game as a player without the DM allowing it.

[NorthernPhoenix]

As a DM, I allow just about everything. If they players are min/maxing I just change the monsters around.

A crit happy rogue never ever ever has to get surprise if you don't say so.

A Hexblade/sorc/paladin whatever is gonna see a lot of helmed horrors, angelic beings immune to radiant damage, int/strength saves targeting them.

What else you got? Sorc/tempest cleric?
Kracken.

Try and eff with me beyond that?
I'm the DM. Io answers to me. Tharizdun answers to me. The Lady of Pain, Asmodeous, and even your precious Morradin or whatever. They all bend to my will. I can summon untold horrors from the Abyss or I can call every dragon in existence to your door.
It is LITERALLY impossible to break a game as a player without the DM allowing it.

While that's true, it sort of misses the point. The conflict occurs when the DM doesn't want to play a pvp wargame and one of the players does. Yes, the player can't win if the DM really wants to win, but what if winning in grid based combat isn't what the DM finds fun? Usually, the DM just wants his dragon to be cool before it goes down, and the "problem" player really, really wants the dragon to NOT be cool before it dies. That's where the conflict is. If it was just about winning, 8 more dragons would bust in, which is good for grid-based-combat victory but would look dumb in a story.

[LudicSavant]

As a person who's been DMing for well over 20 years, at countless tables with an enormous variety of people from all over the world, I think I've seen far, far, far more harm done by paranoia about min-maxing than actual min-maxing.

The player who "literally only cares about power and nothing else" is, as far as I can tell, largely a myth. If it weren't, you'd have heard a lot more stories about people actually asking their DM if they could play Pun-Pun (note: Pun-Pun was basically famous as being "the strongest possible build" in 3.5e, with limitless stats and abilities).

The only people I've ever seen who were trying their hardest to make literally the most powerful character they could were new people who didn't actually have the expertise to break the game. People who can actually make Pun-Pun... don't play him. People who know about 5e tricks like simulacrum loops, glyph demiplanes, the infinite polymorph spell slot trick, and so forth generally don't actually play them.

I have noticed that those who complain about minmaxxers tend to have really low standards for what's "broken." Like, they'll go "zomg, you did more damage than I'm used to with Great Weapon Master! MUNCHKIN! You clearly only care about power and nothing else!" These people need to chill the @#$% out. Odds are that person you're yelling at for playing the strongest character you've ever seen isn't actually playing the strongest character she knows how to make.

Personally I've never seen these "vindictive" optimizers who will try to break your game in retaliation or something like that, but I also don't create a hostile atmosphere at my tables where anyone would want to seek revenge on others at said table. But you know what? I bet the most likely way I could encounter that problem would be to tell someone who isn't even trying to make the strongest character they can that they're a filthy minmaxxer who only cares about power, and have them think "man, you think that's munchkinry? THIS is munchkinry."

And sure enough, restricting to core isn't going to slow anyone down. All those game-breaking 5e tricks I mentioned earlier? They're all in core! Sure, Hexblades aren't core, and they're very strong, but they won't break a game right in half like a simulacrum loop or the like.

And DMs? Your ability to offer the players a fair challenge is limitless. What's that, your players are crushing Normal CR encounters? Cool, use higher CR ones, and use more of them per day, in more harrowing scenarios, with the smartest tactics you can muster (don't just inflate the stats, let them know they're actually conquering greater challenges, make them feel rewarded for their mastery of the game. If the small town guard is CR20 you're doing it wrong).

[Waazraath]

Personally I've never seen these "vindictive" optimizers who will try to break your game in retaliation or something like that, but I also don't create a hostile atmosphere at my tables where anyone would want to seek revenge on others at said table. But you know what? I bet the most likely way I could encounter that problem would be to tell someone who isn't even trying to make the strongest character they can that they're a filthy minmaxxer who only cares about power, and have them think "man, you think that's munchkinry? THIS is munchkinry."


You know, I never saw them either. That only makes the OP more pointless imo. Every normal person I know, optimizer or not, will respect a DM that puts certain limits on the game and complies to them. If a DM wants to cut back options for simplicities sake, or specificly asks for a not too high power level, then cool. The DM is the one who puts a lot of time and effort in preparing the game, facilitating not only his/her own fun but also for others. To wilfully undermine requests for simplicity or a moderate power level is anti-social. Most folks playing d&d that I know just want to have fun playing a cooperative game, which is another mindset.

And again, that only makes the OP more pointless, cause it is only correct for a specific kind of (prolly hardly existing) powergamer. For 99.somthing % of the players, this: "By diminishing player options, players are more likely to go for stronger broken available" is bollocks, cause it is disrupting and anti-social behaviour. Edit for further clarification: the folks who aren't optimizers won't think in this way anyhow. True optimizers will jump to the challange and build something cool within the given peremiters. Power gamers that really want the most powerful options possible will (maybe grumbling) conform to the request of their DM friend, or their local store's game-master, for just being civil and decent. The people who go "now I'll show you something broken, muhahaha" - wouldn't know who they would be personally, or another way to describe them as I did in my previous post.

And that's disregarding "extreme" (but rather silly) statements as that 'core rangers are horrible at their jobs' stuff in the OP.

[MrStabby]

As a person who's been DMing for well over 20 years, at countless tables with an enormous variety of people from all over the world, I think I've seen far, far, far more harm done by paranoia about min-maxing than actual min-maxing.

The player who "literally only cares about power and nothing else" is, as far as I can tell, largely a myth. If it weren't, you'd have heard a lot more stories about people actually asking their DM if they could play Pun-Pun (note: Pun-Pun was basically famous as being "the strongest possible build" in 3.5e, with limitless stats and abilities).

The only people I've ever seen who were trying their hardest to make literally the most powerful character they could were new people who didn't actually have the expertise to break the game. People who can actually make Pun-Pun... don't play him. People who know about 5e tricks like simulacrum loops, glyph demiplanes, the infinite polymorph spell slot trick, and so forth generally don't actually play them.

I have noticed that those who complain about minmaxxers tend to have really low standards for what's "broken." Like, they'll go "zomg, you did more damage than I'm used to with Great Weapon Master! MUNCHKIN! You clearly only care about power and nothing else!" These people need to chill the @#$% out. Odds are that person you're yelling at for playing the strongest character you've ever seen isn't actually playing the strongest character she knows how to make.

Personally I've never seen these "vindictive" optimizers who will try to break your game in retaliation or something like that, but I also don't create a hostile atmosphere at my tables where anyone would want to seek revenge on others at said table. But you know what? I bet the most likely way I could encounter that problem would be to tell someone who isn't even trying to make the strongest character they can that they're a filthy minmaxxer who only cares about power, and have them think "man, you think that's munchkinry? THIS is munchkinry."

And sure enough, restricting to core isn't going to slow anyone down. All those game-breaking 5e tricks I mentioned earlier? They're all in core! Sure, Hexblades aren't core, and they're very strong, but they won't break a game right in half like a simulacrum loop or the like.

And DMs? Your ability to offer the players a fair challenge is limitless. What's that, your players are crushing Normal CR encounters? Cool, use higher CR ones, and use more of them per day, in more harrowing scenarios, with the smartest tactics you can muster (don't just inflate the stats, let them know they're actually conquering greater challenges, make them feel rewarded for their mastery of the game. If the small town guard is CR20 you're doing it wrong).

The question is one of context. And you are right, it is almost never the context of strength relative to the DM, but it is strength relative to other players.

Someone wants to play a fighter: good character, enrolledin the guard or whatever. They play a fighter because they want this kind of soldier/guardsman type vibe and want to be good at hitting someone with a weapon. Someone else rolls a paladin, adds some hexblade, maybe some elvish accuracy and great weapon master. Something powerful but not what people are calling broken.

Now the first player picked something to be good at. They are second best at it but also less good at casting spells, healing, battlefield control and a whole bunch of other things. This is harder for the DM to fix post hoc with tougher encounters. The choices of the second player, although not intended as such, have diminished the fun of the first player. What matters isn't the power relative to the DM but the ability of one player to diminish the scope for others in the party to shine.

A lot of it comes down to reading the room. If you come in with a really powerful concept and spot that it is out of place at the table it might occur to you to change your plan. How you react to this circumstance will say a lot about your character as a player. It is like coming to the table playing a serial rapist - sure its your character and your choice, but if your character is diminishing the fun for others at the table then maybe someone should encourage you to play something else.

Everyone at the table should talk about their concerns, but the DM should be the one taking the lead. If they take the lead by preemptively fixing these problems before they arise then that is a good thing - but again the DM this time needs to read the room to see what is appropriate.

[stoutstien]

As a person who's been DMing for well over 20 years, at countless tables with an enormous variety of people from all over the world, I think I've seen far, far, far more harm done by paranoia about min-maxing than actual min-maxing.

The player who "literally only cares about power and nothing else" is, as far as I can tell, largely a myth. If it weren't, you'd have heard a lot more stories about people actually asking their DM if they could play Pun-Pun (note: Pun-Pun was basically famous as being "the strongest possible build" in 3.5e, with limitless stats and abilities).

The only people I've ever seen who were trying their hardest to make literally the most powerful character they could were new people who didn't actually have the expertise to break the game. People who can actually make Pun-Pun... don't play him. People who know about 5e tricks like simulacrum loops, glyph demiplanes, the infinite polymorph spell slot trick, and so forth generally don't actually play them.

I have noticed that those who complain about minmaxxers tend to have really low standards for what's "broken." Like, they'll go "zomg, you did more damage than I'm used to with Great Weapon Master! MUNCHKIN! You clearly only care about power and nothing else!" These people need to chill the @#$% out. Odds are that person you're yelling at for playing the strongest character you've ever seen isn't actually playing the strongest character she knows how to make.

Personally I've never seen these "vindictive" optimizers who will try to break your game in retaliation or something like that, but I also don't create a hostile atmosphere at my tables where anyone would want to seek revenge on others at said table. But you know what? I bet the most likely way I could encounter that problem would be to tell someone who isn't even trying to make the strongest character they can that they're a filthy minmaxxer who only cares about power, and have them think "man, you think that's munchkinry? THIS is munchkinry."

And sure enough, restricting to core isn't going to slow anyone down. All those game-breaking 5e tricks I mentioned earlier? They're all in core! Sure, Hexblades aren't core, and they're very strong, but they won't break a game right in half like a simulacrum loop or the like.

And DMs? Your ability to offer the players a fair challenge is limitless. What's that, your players are crushing Normal CR encounters? Cool, use higher CR ones, and use more of them per day, in more harrowing scenarios, with the smartest tactics you can muster (don't just inflate the stats, let them know they're actually conquering greater challenges, make them feel rewarded for their mastery of the game. If the small town guard is CR20 you're doing it wrong).

I have been DMing just about as long as you have and I think alot of new players/DMs fall into the trap of trying to judge and approach the game based on solely the sum of the players' options and power. It's fun to talk about all the little math problems but in the end a good encounter/session/ game isn't about any of that.
As you said most experienced players don't go out of their way to really make a particularly optimized PCs and most experienced DMs aren't phased by one if they show up in a game because in the end it makes up such a small part of the game.

Learning what challenge really means is the hardest part of being a DM. I don't think I've come close to answering it myself.

[Tanarii]

You know, I never saw them either.
They exist. Some of them post on this very board, advising others on how to break their DMs game or get back at them for perceived slights.

[NorthernPhoenix]

They exist. Some of them post on this very board, advising others on how to break their DMs game or get back at them for perceived slights.

Right, people rarely naturally act that way. But i find a much larger percentage of forum goers are like this compared to the pool of players who don't post online a lot. That's why i find providing push-back or alternative views to be helpful, not to change the mind of a zealot, but to let some third party who might stumble into a thread after googling "good ranger" know that there are other perspectives than those people you describe there.

[ZRN]

I think the goal of limiting a power gamer's options isn't (just/primarily) to make them weaker - it's to make sure they're playing from a set of options the DM is familiar with, so the DM has a good handle on what kind of "creative" builds and techniques that player might use.

Like, moon druids and divination wizards are powerful, but DMs have had half a decade to figure out when and how they're "broken" and plan around it. The DM might not want to wade through pages of online theorycrafting on each new release to see how its contents could be exploited by "creative" players.

It's not just about the relative power level of the character, either - the game will also be less fun for everyone if a single player is able to "break" challenges and encounters in lots of unexpected ways. (For example, the new chronurge subclass theoretically lets you have a party member insta-cast Leomund's Tiny Hut mid-battle; if you're dealing with a player who would try to use tactics like that, you damn well want to know about them before you, say, stick the party in an encounter where an invulnerable choke point would let them easily bypass a climactic encounter.)

[Tanarii]

Right, people rarely naturally act that way. But i find a much larger percentage of forum goers are like this compared to the pool of players who don't post online a lot.
I've played with a lot of hard core optimizers in official play over several editions now, and I agree they're rarely trying to be hostile in breaking the game.

They often cause rolling eyes when they pull some crazy combination off. They sometimes cause other player objections because of power discrepancies causing perceived 'spotlight hogging'. They occasionally even cause game play issues by trivializing a session here or there. But they're not usually doing the latter on purpose. In fact most seem to prefer to take their punching above their weight class and use it against more challenging enemies (and gaining greater rewards).

The only time optimization is a huge problem is when it causes a perception issue, or when the DM runs harder adventurers against a mixed optimization party of the same level specifically because of the highly optimized characters.

But in regards to the OP, it's clear nonsense. I ran a single class no feat PHB campaign in the same shops as AL games. Some people took their highly multi/feat optimized characters to AL, and brought their not-so-highly none-of-those optimized characters to my campaign. Others didn't in either. But those who optimized didn't try to come to my campaign looking for a way to break it.

[Chaos Jackal]

Eh, the OP does take some extreme positions, but this mostly has to do with generally flawed perceptions of what constitutes a broken build and what powergaming actually is. And it gets magnified by the fact that 5e's higher floor, lower ceiling and inherently limited options make for a game that doesn't break very easily.

Hexblade dips, for example, aren't broken; they're just very strong options for a number of builds. Wizards aren't broken, they're just considerably powerful if played properly. But you'll see all manners of houserules attempting to put a blanket check on "powergaming" by restricting such options.

The OP might be working off some edge cases, but it's true that, generally speaking, limiting options won't stop a player with a good grasp of the game's workings. Limiting options reduces overall power, but a ceiling always exists. And as I said in a previous post, if your goal is to reach the ceiling, or at least stay close to it (read: you don't break anything, you just make a powerful and effective character), then you'll reach it. On the other hand, if your goal is to reach a apecific midpoint between floor and ceiling (read: a theme, a niche or any other specific build), then the fewer options you're given, the fewer midpoints you have available.

On top of that, it's quite common for inexperienced or ineffective DMs to impose such limitations, and such DMs are often ill-equipped to face the consequences of their own "solutions".

This isn't meant to represent any averages, it's just a rather extreme example to illustrate a point.

I had a DM once who banned wizards and limited full casting to one player in the party, because he considered magic in general and wizards in particular to be broken. The player who ended up being the sole full caster simply made an effective build. No broken combos, no weird multiclassing, just good spell selection and strategic thinking. Combined with most of the other players lacking similar system mastery, he consistently overshadowed half the party, without actually doing anything "broken" or "munchkiny" or "selfish"; if anything, he was a boon to the rest of us, as he was doing his best to cover on his own for an otherwise fully mundane party. He'd give us flight, or invisibility, or battlefield control, and he saved other players on numerous situations. In short, his goal was to help the party survive, not to show them up.

The DM couldn't really tell him to tone it down, because there was nothing to tone down, and he couldn't just start banning every spell he hadn't accounted for or that the rest of the party couldn't somehow replicate. He couldn't tell the guy to stop being useful, and he knew that at least a couple of us would've rebelled if our only magical support was suddenly nerfed to the ground three months into the game.

Lacking the knowledge and experience to tune fights and introduce tasks for some of the disgruntled mundanes, he instead turned to buffing those mundanes, while intentionally leaving the caster out of the loop. And again his inexperience showed; he tried to make the mundanes as "powerful" as the single caster he had allowed, and ended up creating custom abilities, mixing powerful and unrefined UA with standard features and showering these other characters with magic items.

And that's where his game actually broke, because between lv7 characters with 24 AC facing armies of weak mooks that could only hit them on 19s and 20s (he was fond of throwing 15-creature fights at the party, yet another reason why the sole caster always looked cool without even trying) and others using custom smite-like abilities that gave 1d8 bonus damage per 5hp sacrificed to blow up bosses by rolling 20 dice in one action, there wasn't much left that had a point.

He resorted to rocket tag, mobs with extremely high damage values or extreme action economy, combined with arbitrary rulings mid-combat to reduce the caster's effectiveness (like the time when the caster used hypnotic pattern on a group of 20 buffed skeletons running at the party and, after realizing that the skeletons weren't actually immune to charm, decided that from then on summoned mobs would use their summoner's mental saves).

Ultimately, all he achieved with his enforced limitations was piss off a guy who wanted to play a paladin, create disparity between players, and break his own game.

So while the OP isn't entirely accurate, there is a point to be made concerning the purpose of limits. If all you want is less power/versatility in your game, and aren't worried about certain players overshadowing others, for example, all's good and the goal is reached. But as far as limiting players goes, reducing options affects optimizers less than others, and this failure to bridge the gap might even cause more trouble than it initially intended to fix.

[Tanarii]

Hexblade dips, for example, aren't broken;


Broken or no, Hexblades are one of the few things that is a serious power outlier in 5e. Same with SCAG cantrips and GWM/SS. And the reason they're so far out of line isn't necessarily taken alone, it's they're some of the few seriously optimizable widgets in 5e to get even moar power! There's a reason they turn up in so many optimization builds.

Now whether anyone cares that they're a serious power outlier for their given game is a different matter.

[Waazraath]

So while the OP isn't entirely accurate, there is a point to be made concerning the purpose of limits. If all you want is less power/versatility in your game, and aren't worried about certain players overshadowing others, for example, all's good and the goal is reached. But as far as limiting players goes, reducing options affects optimizers less than others, and this failure to bridge the gap might even cause more trouble than it initially intended to fix.

Still don't see it, and after almost 3 decades of D&D, haven't seen it. When building a character, most folks are preoccupied with wether they would like to play a dwarf or an elf, to be a wizard or a rogue, what their background (and background story) is, whether they want to emulate a hero from fiction in the best possible way, if they want to be a strong big person use a great big sword or a dexterous fighter wielding two blades who dances between foes without being hit. And the optmizers are (usually) happy to conform to build something within given parameters. In 5e, I DM'd and played games without feats and multiclassing: there isn't a problem, for anybody, the options on what you can play are still legion. Even for me, with a long playing history, there are some classes I never tried at all (Druid and Warlock), let alone classes and subclasses in this edition.

It's a non-issue afaic.

[Chaos Jackal]

Still don't see it, and after almost 3 decades of D&D, haven't seen it. When building a character, most folks are preoccupied with wether they would like to play a dwarf or an elf, to be a wizard or a rogue, what their background (and background story) is, whether they want to emulate a hero from fiction in the best possible way, if they want to be a strong big person use a great big sword or a dexterous fighter wielding two blades who dances between foes without being hit. And the optmizers are (usually) happy to conform to build something within given parameters. In 5e, I DM'd and played games without feats and multiclassing: there isn't a problem, for anybody, the options on what you can play are still legion. Even for me, with a long playing history, there are some classes I never tried at all (Druid and Warlock), let alone classes and subclasses in this edition.

It's a non-issue afaic.

Eh, I don't disagree for the most part. But I have seen disgruntlement with limitations a number of times, and whenever I've seen it it's typically from someone who can't emulate the hero from fiction you mentioned, or whatever concept, weird or not, they have in their heads. It's not something that happens on every second table, but it is something that happens. Never seen an optimizing player complain about limits in splats though. Well, aside from a half-hearted attempt on my side when I decided to make a 3.5 fighter and the DM wouldn't allow anything outside core. I debated it for about half a minute, but then I just made some basic tripping build. No hard feelings or anything.

So yeah, as I said, it's not like people will purposefully go for Wish+Simulacrum if you didn't allow them to pick Synaptic Static. But it's far from impossible to get dissatisfaction when limiting options, and said dissatisfaction is more likely to stem from someone who can't realize their concept in the way they want to than someone who simply aims to make an effective character.

[Waazraath]

Eh, I don't disagree for the most part. But I have seen disgruntlement with limitations a number of times, and whenever I've seen it it's typically from someone who can't emulate the hero from fiction you mentioned, or whatever concept, weird or not, they have in their heads. It's not something that happens on every second table, but it is something that happens. Never seen an optimizing player complain about limits in splats though. Well, aside from a half-hearted attempt on my side when I decided to make a 3.5 fighter and the DM wouldn't allow anything outside core. I debated it for about half a minute, but then I just made some basic tripping build. No hard feelings or anything.

So yeah, as I said, it's not like people will purposefully go for Wish+Simulacrum if you didn't allow them to pick Synaptic Static. But it's far from impossible to get dissatisfaction when limiting options, and said dissatisfaction is more likely to stem from someone who can't realize their concept in the way they want to than someone who simply aims to make an effective character.

Oh yeah, I can follow you here, don't think we disagree that much, or at all. And though my own gaming experience have been without dissatisfaction about limited build options, I of course acknowledge other folks experiences. But what you say here is still quite a stretch from "By diminishing player options, players are more likely to go for stronger broken available" as a generalized statement, which is what I do wholeheartedly disagree with.

[OldTrees1]

Premise: A satisficer AI is trying to optimize the mechanical representation of a character concept.

With all options allowed, the AI will come up with a solution for mechanically representing the character concept. Since they are a satisficer, the easier the character concept is to mechanically represent, the more potential solutions the AI could stop at.

Now we remove some of the options that the AI used in its solution.

The AI again tries to come up with a solution. They manage to find another solution for mechanically representing the character concept.

Prediction time: Which is the more powerful build? The first or the second? I don't know but I think one answer more likely.


When a player has a character concept they wish to import into an RPG, I think it is safe to say they generally act like a weaker version of this AI. The player looks for a way to mechanically represent their character concept. If they find a solution they use it. If they don't find a solution they use the best of the non solutions or choose a new character concept.

However overpowered magic tends to be able to represent any character concept but tends to represent it worse than other solutions. For hyperbolic example, a Halfling Rogue is better at representing Bilbo Baggins than a Simulacrum Wish chaining Wizard would be, but the latter could still do it badly. If a player wanted to play Bilbo Baggins but kept running into bans, they might be backed into a corner where each subsequent build is worse at representing the character and more powerful. This would continue until a build was accepted or the player gave up on playing Bilbo Baggins.

Now, Bilbo Baggins is a very easily mechanically represented character concept in 5E. Some character concepts are harder to mechanically represent. For example the size changing martial known as the Hulk is a bit harder to mechanically instantiate. The harder the character concept the steeper this slope becomes (and in my experience, the quicker players give up).


So I can see how limiting a player's options would generally cause the player to go for more powerful options than they would have otherwise. And I can see how this applies to all players, not just power players. It is also why I appreciate the 5E arcane Trickster so much, the alternative would have been Wizard levels for a stronger but worse representation of a Dungeon Guide.

[heavyfuel]

When a player has a character concept they wish to import into an RPG, I think it is safe to say they generally act like a weaker version of this AI. The player looks for a way to mechanically represent their character concept. If they find a solution they use it. If they don't find a solution they use the best of the non solutions or choose a new character concept.

However overpowered magic tends to be able to represent any character concept but tends to represent it worse than other solutions. For hyperbolic example, a Halfling Rogue is better at representing Bilbo Baggins than a Simulacrum Wish chaining Wizard would be, but the latter could still do it badly. If a player wanted to play Bilbo Baggins but kept running into bans, they might be backed into a corner where each subsequent build is worse at representing the character and more powerful. This would continue until a build was accepted or the player gave up on playing Bilbo Baggins.

Now, Bilbo Baggins is a very easily mechanically represented character concept in 5E. Some character concepts are harder to mechanically represent. For example the size changing martial known as the Hulk is a bit harder to mechanically instantiate. The harder the character concept the steeper this slope becomes (and in my experience, the quicker players give up).

So I can see how limiting a player's options would generally cause the player to go for more powerful options than they would have otherwise. And I can see how this applies to all players, not just power players. It is also why I appreciate the 5E arcane Trickster so much, the alternative would have been Wizard levels for a stronger but worse representation of a Dungeon Guide.

Indeed. Playing The Hulk in Core pretty much means playing a Spellcaster. There's literally no other way to do it. However, if a player has access to UA, they can play a Rune Knight Fighter and simply refluff.

A lot of replies in this thread seem to assume that power players will always go for the strongest option available, but, in my experience (both IRL and on the Forums), optimizers will usually go for a concept rather than sheer power.

[MrStabby]

Premise: A satisficer AI is trying to optimize the mechanical representation of a character concept.

With all options allowed, the AI will come up with a solution for mechanically representing the character concept. Since they are a satisficer, the easier the character concept is to mechanically represent, the more potential solutions the AI could stop at.

Now we remove some of the options that the AI used in its solution.

The AI again tries to come up with a solution. They manage to find another solution for mechanically representing the character concept.

Prediction time: Which is the more powerful build? The first or the second? I don't know but I think one answer more likely.


When a player has a character concept they wish to import into an RPG, I think it is safe to say they generally act like a weaker version of this AI. The player looks for a way to mechanically represent their character concept. If they find a solution they use it. If they don't find a solution they use the best of the non solutions or choose a new character concept.

However overpowered magic tends to be able to represent any character concept but tends to represent it worse than other solutions. For hyperbolic example, a Halfling Rogue is better at representing Bilbo Baggins than a Simulacrum Wish chaining Wizard would be, but the latter could still do it badly. If a player wanted to play Bilbo Baggins but kept running into bans, they might be backed into a corner where each subsequent build is worse at representing the character and more powerful. This would continue until a build was accepted or the player gave up on playing Bilbo Baggins.

Now, Bilbo Baggins is a very easily mechanically represented character concept in 5E. Some character concepts are harder to mechanically represent. For example the size changing martial known as the Hulk is a bit harder to mechanically instantiate. The harder the character concept the steeper this slope becomes (and in my experience, the quicker players give up).


So I can see how limiting a player's options would generally cause the player to go for more powerful options than they would have otherwise. And I can see how this applies to all players, not just power players. It is also why I appreciate the 5E arcane Trickster so much, the alternative would have been Wizard levels for a stronger but worse representation of a Dungeon Guide.

I think it depends on the manner in which options are removed. If you were to remove options at random, then yes, I could see some character concepts being displaced to higher power relaisatons of those same concepts and I can see that there is a scarifica of concept entailed by the reducton in offering. On the other hand, if it is the top power options that are removed then either the implementation is unchanged OR it was already using one of the top power options that has been removed.

The issue is when you remove the things that are not the problem. There it is hard to get agreement - one side says "it doesn't work to remove stuff", the other says "when removing options failed you were doing it wrong".

[LudicSavant]

I think it depends on the manner in which options are removed. If you were to remove options at random, then yes, I could see some character concepts being displaced to higher power relaisatons of those same concepts and I can see that there is a scarifica of concept entailed by the reducton in offering. On the other hand, if it is the top power options that are removed then either the implementation is unchanged OR it was already using one of the top power options that has been removed.

The issue is when you remove the things that are not the problem. There it is hard to get agreement - one side says "it doesn't work to remove stuff", the other says "when removing options failed you were doing it wrong".

As you say, the issue is what's removed, not just the act of removing.

The top power options aren't what's getting removed when people say things like "Core only" or "Core+1." Those things effectively are removing large groups of options of random power distribution, in which case OldTrees1's satisfiscer argument would apply.

[heavyfuel]

I think it depends on the manner in which options are removed. If you were to remove options at random, then yes, I could see some character concepts being displaced to higher power relaisatons of those same concepts and I can see that there is a scarifica of concept entailed by the reducton in offering. On the other hand, if it is the top power options that are removed then either the implementation is unchanged OR it was already using one of the top power options that has been removed.

The issue is when you remove the things that are not the problem. There it is hard to get agreement - one side says "it doesn't work to remove stuff", the other says "when removing options failed you were doing it wrong".

Not really. You don't have to "remove options at random" to make The Hulk unplayable by anyone other than a Sorc or Wizard. Banning UA (something pretty common) does that. Now you have a player playing a character he doesn't really want to play (a spellcaster) that's actually stronger than the character he did want to play (a fighter). Instead of a guy that's big in combat, you get a guy that's big in combat as long he can maintain concetration but who can also fly, become invisible, and teleport.


The top power options aren't what's getting removed when people say things like "Core only" or "Core+1."

Exactly! People acting like banning Ranger sub-classes somehow makes Druids less of top power option lol

[Waazraath]

Premise: A satisficer AI is trying to optimize the mechanical representation of a character concept.

With all options allowed, the AI will come up with a solution for mechanically representing the character concept. Since they are a satisficer, the easier the character concept is to mechanically represent, the more potential solutions the AI could stop at.

Now we remove some of the options that the AI used in its solution.

The AI again tries to come up with a solution. They manage to find another solution for mechanically representing the character concept.

Prediction time: Which is the more powerful build? The first or the second? I don't know but I think one answer more likely.


When a player has a character concept they wish to import into an RPG, I think it is safe to say they generally act like a weaker version of this AI. The player looks for a way to mechanically represent their character concept. If they find a solution they use it. If they don't find a solution they use the best of the non solutions or choose a new character concept.

However overpowered magic tends to be able to represent any character concept but tends to represent it worse than other solutions. For hyperbolic example, a Halfling Rogue is better at representing Bilbo Baggins than a Simulacrum Wish chaining Wizard would be, but the latter could still do it badly. If a player wanted to play Bilbo Baggins but kept running into bans, they might be backed into a corner where each subsequent build is worse at representing the character and more powerful. This would continue until a build was accepted or the player gave up on playing Bilbo Baggins.

Now, Bilbo Baggins is a very easily mechanically represented character concept in 5E. Some character concepts are harder to mechanically represent. For example the size changing martial known as the Hulk is a bit harder to mechanically instantiate. The harder the character concept the steeper this slope becomes (and in my experience, the quicker players give up).


So I can see how limiting a player's options would generally cause the player to go for more powerful options than they would have otherwise. And I can see how this applies to all players, not just power players. It is also why I appreciate the 5E arcane Trickster so much, the alternative would have been Wizard levels for a stronger but worse representation of a Dungeon Guide.

...

I try to follow the logic, I really do... but I really seem to miss a few steps between "making bilbo" which can be done by Thief rogue, and no limiting of options (multiclass, feats or sources outside core) are going to change anything about that. And no, you can't "make bilbo" with a simulacrum wish chaining wizard. That's utter nonsense. Bilbo isn't a caster, and whatever you can try to emulate with your wish chainging caster it isn't bilbo.

Same for the Hulk. No, you can't emulate the hulk in 5e. The system doesn't support it, pretty bloody obviously. And just as obvously Bruce Banner isn't a caster. And exactly how would banishing feats, multiclass or books outside core affect trying (and failing) to build the Hulk?

I mean, I get this is a theoretical exorcise. But even then examples should make sense and clarify something, don't they? And they really don't for me, but enlighten me if I'm missing something.

[heavyfuel]

...

I try to follow the logic, I really do... but I really seem to miss a few steps between "making bilbo" which can be done by Thief rogue, and no limiting of options (multiclass, feats or sources outside core) are going to change anything about that. And no, you can't "make bilbo" with a simulacrum wish chaining wizard. That's utter nonsense. Bilbo isn't a caster, and whatever you can try to emulate with your wish chainging caster it isn't bilbo.

Same for the Hulk. No, you can't emulate the hulk in 5e. The system doesn't support it, pretty bloody obviously. And just as obvously Bruce Banner isn't a caster. And exactly how would banishing feats, multiclass or books outside core affect trying (and failing) to build the Hulk?

I mean, I get this is a theoretical exorcise. But even then examples should make sense and clarify something, don't they? And they really don't for me, but enlighten me if I'm missing something.

I think you're misinterpreting OldTrees.

Imagine that, for whatever reason, every class except Wizard was banned. You can only play a Wizard, but you want to play Bilbo. Is it possible to play a Hafling good at hiding and stealing if Wizard is your only option? Sure. It's not ideal, but it is possible.

While the system doesn't allow for The Hulk himself, if a player wants to play a size changing martial, the system 100% allows for it. In core it involves some multiclass to get Enlarge/Reduce, extra investment so you don't lose Concentration too easily (start as Fighter for Con save proficiency, and get Warcaster for Advantage), a few extra levels in the spellcasting class so you can get bigger more than twice/long rest, and by level 7 ish you should get Hulk-like character that can increase in size 4 times per long rest. Only this character has to spend the first round casting Enlarge/Reduce, so he can't fight effectly because 25% of his actions are wasted. Or it can be done at lv 3 by allowing Rune Knight.

[MrStabby]

As you say, the issue is what's removed, not just the act of removing.

The top power options aren't what's getting removed when people say things like "Core only" or "Core+1." Those things effectively are removing large groups of options of random power distribution, in which case OldTrees1's satisfiscer argument would apply.

Yeah, it was a general comment about it matering what was removed.

I think that sometimes it is easier to draw broad strokes about what is in or out of a campaign than narrow ones. Maybe not easer, but less controversial anyway. No UA, no supliments is a broad enough rule thatno one should feel singled out by it. It also can help if thereare certain books or content where the worst offenders in terms of balance are. If I want to avoid the mystic and the lore wizard I am more likelytooffend those that want to play them than if I just ban UA.

This is one of the reasons why I wish there was a bit more content, and broader as well. To build a character we often need to select a number of options from different places. These options are within a class system so we get a lot of other features tagged along. Being forced to pick up these other features means that sometimes these characters step on the toes of others or are just seriously inneffective as so much of their abilities are in actions never intended to be useful.

As an example, if I want to play a steath focussed caster there are just a couple of things that I would want - hide as a bonus action coupled with spells that use an attack roll, and the arcane trickster's magical ambush feature. Getting the magical ambush feature willgetmecunningaction along the way, it can get me great stealth skills... but it also comes with five dice of sneak attack; if I don't make use of this class feature I have a pretty crappy character.


I don't think that the things removed by taking out splat are drawn from the same distribution as the PHB content. A lot of later releases are intended to patch up unpopular options therefore are very likely to be on the higher power end of the scale. Not always, but often. Not that this is a bad thing either; some things needed the boost. Even factoring in things like the Storm Herald, I would argue theat the Xanathar's barbarians are on average strongerthan the pHB ones or the rangers, or the sorcerers, or the rogues. Not always universally, or by a huge amount but a bit of creep.

At all the tables I have played at, new options have increased average power at the table. This has also concentrated power and made the biggest gap between the top and bottom of the power distribution at tables as well. This is just my experience though.

[prabe]

I think that sometimes it is easier to draw broad strokes about what is in or out of a campaign than narrow ones. Maybe not easer, but less controversial anyway. No UA, no supliments is a broad enough rule thatno one should feel singled out by it. It also can help if thereare certain books or content where the worst offenders in terms of balance are. If I want to avoid the mystic and the lore wizard I am more likelytooffend those that want to play them than if I just ban UA.

So, as someone who picks and chooses what to allow, but makes that list available to the players, I'm curious: Do you think that's likely to irk this sort of player? To use examples from what you've said, I allow a modified version of the Loremaster, but not the Mystic. I allow some races from expansions, but not all. In my case it's primarily about what fits in my world, with some amount of what I like (because I've found room in my world for what I like, and not for what I don't); I'm fortunate that I don't have players who ruthlessly optimize, so that hasn't really been a big part of my decisions.

[MrStabby]

So, as someone who picks and chooses what to allow, but makes that list available to the players, I'm curious: Do you think that's likely to irk this sort of player? To use examples from what you've said, I allow a modified version of the Loremaster, but not the Mystic. I allow some races from expansions, but not all. In my case it's primarily about what fits in my world, with some amount of what I like (because I've found room in my world for what I like, and not for what I don't); I'm fortunate that I don't have players who ruthlessly optimize, so that hasn't really been a big part of my decisions.

I think it depends on the players and their expressed preferences. If someone wants to play a wizard, for example, they may wait till they can play at a table that allows it with all the bells and whistles. They may not care.

Some people think that if you take away an option they want, then it is personal. It is a tyrant DM and that they are out to get them/ruin the game/don't understand what they are doing. It really depends what your players are like.

[ButzSanchez]

I'm personally not fond of any DM that cuts out anything at all from official, non-UA material. I get cutting playtest stuff, it gets pretty busted quick, but the official stuff is there to be used, let it be used. To me that reeks of a DM's personal bad experiences with someone at the table being a dip while playing a certain class or using a certain feat, and said DM getting too attached to the plans that player foils with their build. DMs each have their own ideas of what balance is, but for them to moan about a character build being too strong is silly to me. They've got the entirety of their imagination and the various monsters available to pick from, they've got ample ability to challenge players.

There's never a broken build, only a bad player who abuses a strong build at the loss of everyone else at the table having a good time.

[prabe]

I think it depends on the players and their expressed preferences. If someone wants to play a wizard, for example, they may wait till they can play at a table that allows it with all the bells and whistles. They may not care.

Some people think that if you take away an option they want, then it is personal. It is a tyrant DM and that they are out to get them/ruin the game/don't understand what they are doing. It really depends what your players are like.

That's fair. Thanks for answering.

I play in a campaign that's PHB-only, and it doesn't bother me for power reasons, so much as ... I didn't get into 5E until after Volo's and XGE had been published, so to me those options have always existed. I guess in my case that since I want them to see the list of what's available before they make their characters, I don't see how it could be interpreted as a personal thing. I'd like to think a player would talk to me about something like that before deciding I'm some sort of tyrant, but ... people.

[prabe]

I'm personally not fond of any DM that cuts out anything at all from official, non-UA material. I get cutting playtest stuff, it gets pretty busted quick, but the official stuff is there to be used, let it be used. To me that reeks of a DM's personal bad experiences with someone at the table being a dip while playing a certain class or using a certain feat, and said DM getting too attached to the plans that player foils with their build. DMs each have their own ideas of what balance is, but for them to moan about a character build being too strong is silly to me. They've got the entirety of their imagination and the various monsters available to pick from, they've got ample ability to challenge players.

There's never a broken build, only a bad player who abuses a strong build at the loss of everyone else at the table having a good time.

So, first of all, everything outside of core (PHB, DMG, MM) is technically optional, and a DM is, IMO, well within their rights to pick and choose based on tastes and setting and whatever else goes into their preferences. I only disallow one thing from the PHB, and that's for good in-setting reasons. What's available is made clear in stuff I make available to players before session zero, if possible.

Second, if you're counting setting books as "official" here, you're asking a lot. If my setting isn't particularly like Ravnica or Eberron or Wildemount, why would I allow something from those books, just because WotC published them? I am, if memory serves, re-skinning one (1) race and one (1) subclass from Eberron and one (1) subclass from Wildemount--and roughly nothing player-facing from Ravnica. Theros, when it comes out, is a different matter (Oath of Heroism and College of Eloquence are mandatory).

Third, I care far more about intra-party balance than I do about the PCs overpowering the game. I ask for--and genuinely want--some backstory from the players, so I can drop story-hooks that relate directly to the PCs. I don't start campaigns with more than a couple of sessions in mind--the original instigating events, basically; I let everything else emerge during play. I might tie things back to past campaign events, but I don't run with Big Plans. At least nothing more than the occasional vague idea.

[heavyfuel]

So, first of all, everything outside of core (PHB, DMG, MM) is technically optional

Actually, a lot of things in the PHB, DMG, and MM are explicitly optional. And if you want to get super technical, everything is optional because the DM can Rule 0 anything they want.

That's not really the point, though.

[prabe]

Actually, a lot of things in the PHB, DMG, and MM are explicitly optional. And if you want to get super technical, everything is optional because the DM can Rule 0 anything they want.

That's not really the point, though.

True, but everything else is explicitly more optional. ;)

My point is that if you're going to complain because someone is disallowing more-optional material, I don't think your position is super solid, and if someone is curating what goes into their setting that at least seems to imply there's some thought involved.

[heavyfuel]

True, but everything else is explicitly more optional. ;)

Personally, I don't think this is true. You don't get "more optional" than the book saying it's an optional rule. If we disregard Rule 0, something is either optional or not. No middle ground.

[MaxWilson]

I'm personally not fond of any DM that cuts out anything at all from official, non-UA material. I get cutting playtest stuff, it gets pretty busted quick, but the official stuff is there to be used, let it be used. To me that reeks of a DM's personal bad experiences with someone at the table being a dip while playing a certain class or using a certain feat, and said DM getting too attached to the plans that player foils with their build. DMs each have their own ideas of what balance is, but for them to moan about a character build being too strong is silly to me. They've got the entirety of their imagination and the various monsters available to pick from, they've got ample ability to challenge players.

There's never a broken build, only a bad player who abuses a strong build at the loss of everyone else at the table having a good time.

I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint, and "use whatever, I don't care" is my general attitude, but for me there are two caveats:

(1) Setting-specific stuff should only be used in that setting. No Ravnica stuff outside of Ravnica, no Chronurgist stuff outside of Exandria/Wildemount, no Changelings or Artificers outside of Eberron. Not so much for balance reasons (although the balance on Ravnica and Wildmount is pretty horrible, Eberron is fine), more just for gameworld sanity.

If you really wanted to play something from elsewhere in a place where they don't belong, I'm open to it (even despite possible balance issues) but let's work out a backstory that makes sense, and let's acknowledge that this PC is very special/weird/probably the only one of their kind in the new place.

(2) If I want to run a one-shot with a theme like "hostage rescue, only Fighters and Rogues allowed", I don't want to hear complaints in that context about wizards/bards/etc. being banned. That's just not who that game is designed for.

[prabe]

Personally, I don't think this is true. You don't get "more optional" than the book saying it's an optional rule. If we disregard Rule 0, something is either optional or not. No middle ground.

I think there's a difference between a book you need to run/play the game, with some optional rules in it, and a book you don't need to run/play the game. Feats and multi-classing are optional rules in the PHB, but the PHB is a core book (you need it to play the game, it contains non-optional rules). Volo's and XGE are entirely optional, in that there is nothing in them that you need to play/run the game; likewise setting books, barring a game taking place in one of those settings. I don't even own a copy of SCAG, and I have zero intention of buying one; my games run just fine without it.

[prabe]

I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint, and "use whatever, I don't care" is my general attitude, but for me there are two caveats:

(1) Setting-specific stuff should only be used in that setting. No Ravnica stuff outside of Ravnica, no Chronurgist stuff outside of Exandria/Wildemount, no Changelings or Artificers outside of Eberron. Not so much for balance reasons (although the balance on Ravnica and Wildmount is pretty horrible, Eberron is fine), more just for gameworld sanity.

If you really wanted to play something from elsewhere in a place where they don't belong, I'm open to it (even despite possible balance issues) but let's work out a backstory that makes sense, and let's acknowledge that this PC is very special/weird/probably the only one of their kind in the new place.

(2) If I want to run a one-shot with a theme like "hostage rescue, only Fighters and Rogues allowed", I don't want to hear complaints in that context about wizards/bards/etc. being banned. That's just not who that game is designed for.

I entirely agree with Point Two, and would happily play in such a game (though I wouldn't be likely to run it, mainly because I don't think in terms of one-offs as a GM).

I agree with Point One as regards bringing stuff in as a player. OTOH, if the DM has decided that something from a setting book fits (with however much reskinning), that's the DM positively saying whatever that is, it's allowed. I don't think you're arguing against that.

[LudicSavant]

I don't think that the things removed by taking out splat are drawn from the same distribution as the PHB content. A lot of later releases are intended to patch up unpopular options therefore are very likely to be on the higher power end of the scale. Not always, but often.

I would distinguish things that are better than some unpopular options from things that raise the power curve of the game as a whole.

Extra Credits provides an excellent example and explanation (https://youtu.be/M3b3hDvRjJA?t=115).

[Waazraath]

I think you're misinterpreting OldTrees.

Imagine that, for whatever reason, every class except Wizard was banned. You can only play a Wizard, but you want to play Bilbo. Is it possible to play a Hafling good at hiding and stealing if Wizard is your only option? Sure. It's not ideal, but it is possible.

While the system doesn't allow for The Hulk himself, if a player wants to play a size changing martial, the system 100% allows for it. In core it involves some multiclass to get Enlarge/Reduce, extra investment so you don't lose Concentration too easily (start as Fighter for Con save proficiency, and get Warcaster for Advantage), a few extra levels in the spellcasting class so you can get bigger more than twice/long rest, and by level 7 ish you should get Hulk-like character that can increase in size 4 times per long rest. Only this character has to spend the first round casting Enlarge/Reduce, so he can't fight effectly because 25% of his actions are wasted. Or it can be done at lv 3 by allowing Rune Knight.

Oh, I'm pretty sure I'm not following his argument. Neither yours. If only wizards are allowed, you can play the game and it can be fun, but trying to play bilbo is nonsensical imo. It's like trying to emulate the hulk by picking the green pawn in monopoly afaic. Just as the Hulk: yeah, you can want to play a character that gets stronger by transforming in 5e, and there are only a few niches that yuo can fill at that point: moon druid, caster for enlarge or polymorph or the like, maybe a barbarian with some re-fluffing. But 5e doesn't let you play the hulk, the system simply doesn't support it. It doesn't support the random, involuntary change, it doesn't support very high strength characters (with the ability cap of 20 / 30), it doesn't support jumping 100's of meters, it doesn't support a dozen other things. And in no way is Bruce Banner / The Hulk in any way like a wizard, enlarge is a very poor substitute for super strength (1d4 extra damage I think, and advantage on ability checks? That's worse than a raging barbarian)...

So I honestly don't understand the argument, neither the way from there to the point that in trying to play that concept that isn't playable you end up with more powerful characters with eached failed attempt and each rescource barred.

[ButzSanchez]

I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint, and "use whatever, I don't care" is my general attitude, but for me there are two caveats:

(1) Setting-specific stuff should only be used in that setting. No Ravnica stuff outside of Ravnica, no Chronurgist stuff outside of Exandria/Wildemount, no Changelings or Artificers outside of Eberron. Not so much for balance reasons (although the balance on Ravnica and Wildmount is pretty horrible, Eberron is fine), more just for gameworld sanity.

If you really wanted to play something from elsewhere in a place where they don't belong, I'm open to it (even despite possible balance issues) but let's work out a backstory that makes sense, and let's acknowledge that this PC is very special/weird/probably the only one of their kind in the new place.

(2) If I want to run a one-shot with a theme like "hostage rescue, only Fighters and Rogues allowed", I don't want to hear complaints in that context about wizards/bards/etc. being banned. That's just not who that game is designed for.

I should have elaborated more; naturally if there's a specific kind of campaign or setting in mind that kind of stuff I have respect for. It is important that the fabric of the world have it's rules. But when it doesn't and it's a homebrew campaign where the world can be just about any general fantasy realm, I don't like cutting possibilities out.

[MaxWilson]

I entirely agree with Point Two, and would happily play in such a game (though I wouldn't be likely to run it, mainly because I don't think in terms of one-offs as a GM).

I agree with Point One as regards bringing stuff in as a player. OTOH, if the DM has decided that something from a setting book fits (with however much reskinning), that's the DM positively saying whatever that is, it's allowed. I don't think you're arguing against that.

Correct, I'm not arguing against that.

[OldTrees1]

Indeed. Playing The Hulk in Core pretty much means playing a Spellcaster. There's literally no other way to do it. However, if a player has access to UA, they can play a Rune Knight Fighter and simply refluff.

A lot of replies in this thread seem to assume that power players will always go for the strongest option available, but, in my experience (both IRL and on the Forums), optimizers will usually go for a concept rather than sheer power.

To be fair, some of those replies are talking about people optimizing for power rather than trying to mechanically represent a character concept. I was merely mentioning a mechanism that affects the latter.

Good example about Rune Knight Fighter for the Hulk.


I think it depends on the manner in which options are removed. If you were to remove options at random, then yes, I could see some character concepts being displaced to higher power relaisatons of those same concepts and I can see that there is a scarifica of concept entailed by the reducton in offering. On the other hand, if it is the top power options that are removed then either the implementation is unchanged OR it was already using one of the top power options that has been removed.

The issue is when you remove the things that are not the problem. There it is hard to get agreement - one side says "it doesn't work to remove stuff", the other says "when removing options failed you were doing it wrong".

You appear to agree with me. You recognize that banning an option nobody is using does not cause this displacement. You also recognize that if a character concept only has overpowered representations left, banning those overpowered options eventually displaces the character concept to banned rather than stronger.

I make no claims on how we should react to mechanism.


...

I try to follow the logic, I really do... but I really seem to miss a few steps between "making bilbo" which can be done by Thief rogue, and no limiting of options (multiclass, feats or sources outside core) are going to change anything about that. And no, you can't "make bilbo" with a simulacrum wish chaining wizard. That's utter nonsense. Bilbo isn't a caster, and whatever you can try to emulate with your wish chainging caster it isn't bilbo.

Same for the Hulk. No, you can't emulate the hulk in 5e. The system doesn't support it, pretty bloody obviously. And just as obvously Bruce Banner isn't a caster. And exactly how would banishing feats, multiclass or books outside core affect trying (and failing) to build the Hulk?

I mean, I get this is a theoretical exorcise. But even then examples should make sense and clarify something, don't they? And they really don't for me, but enlighten me if I'm missing something.

heavyfuel's reply should help clarify.

Banning Thief (an option one of the better representations of Bilbo uses) would impact making Bilbo. The result would be a worse and stronger representation. Worse as in it would have mechanical baggage unrelated to Bilbo and Stronger in that it would have used stronger mechanical options to achieve the same goal as before.

Eventually the player would give up on playing that character concept. To quote you "But 5e doesn't let you play the hulk, the system simply doesn't support it." It sounds like you would give up quicker than my examples which is neither here nor there but is impacting following my description. So imagine someone wanting to play Bilbo but Rogue got banned, instead of switching to a different character concept they ask if a Criminal Lore Bard is allowed. A Thief Rogue is better at representing Bilbo than a Criminal Lore Bard, so the displacement made the representation worse. It also made the character mechanically stronger. Describing that mechanism is the extent of my argument. No comment about whether, what, or when to ban.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I mean personally I don't ban anything really, as long as the player can flavour it right. Artificers in Faerun? sure why not? Theres literally a section in ERFTLW about artificers outside of eberron. Most races tend to be at least... somewhat balanced. (I have no experience with ravnica or wildemount so I cannot comment on those). I feel like the only thing from eberron that really doesn't fit in most other settings would be dragonmarks, because of course they're sort of intrinsic to the setting of eberron and don't make sense even with some decent flavour. Although, actually, as I think about it, warforged don't make sense either, and changelings are optional... goshdarnit I agree. Some things don't make sense outside of the setting they are placed in, and DMs should be able to limit player options, to a reasonable degree.

[CapnWildefyr]

@heavyfuel - what's the problem you are trying to solve? I play in a game with experienced players, and they know how to nudge their character's power pretty darn well. When (and if) they want to. We manage just fine.

Have I banned certain classes and races and feats at times? Yep. Problems? No, but maybe we all just want to game. But I also don't ban things because they're too powerful, I ban them because I don't have that source book and don't understand the character concept, or because it's not the flavor of game I'm running. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight, and don't bring an actor into Ravenloft (did that once, not my fault, adventure didn't start that way, died in first combat there). IME players get upset when they think they are being targeted personally.

So, instead you solve the problem with... opportunities. It's hard, I know. However, you don't have to ban something if the reason to play it doesn't exist. Suppose someone always plays a heavy-armor PAM hacker with no other skills, or a moon druid who lives on wild shape. How does PAM work on a ship? How's that polearm work in tight spaces, like a squat hallway when you get attacked from behind? Does heavy armor work when you keep getting shipwrecked and have to shed to armor or drown? Will a druid really want to hire on as a sailor when his life is supposed to be a forest? How CAN a druid with no sailing skills hire onto a ship to get out of someplace? (Parrot mascot?) In-game it has to be a session 0 thing -- you can't bait-and-switch. But if you start forcing more role-playing and requiring other skills, as long as people do like the RP, then players will respond by reconsidering their dump stats and skills. They'll 'powergame' the new game.

Also, we all max out our characters, right? Some are better at it than others, but once you've played a while you want to be effective. I do. I hate not helping out. So just change the ground rules a bit. Someone used the example of linguistics vs a martial feat. Well, if you put the party in situations where they can't get where they want to be because of a language barrier, pretty soon that fire-chucking wizard's going for comprehend languages, or looking for a scroll. The other thing - also important - is that some of us max out our characters for different things. Some max out background and story, sacrificing combat/utility. Some max out class features. Some max out HTH combat damage, some bows, yada yada. Our toughest problem as DMs is when we have to handle all varieties at once.

Don't be mad because your group got efficient at playing your game the way you've designed it and run it. After all, that means they stuck around! Change it up. Make 'em powergame to different targets. Not easy. Personally, not sure I do well at it myself, but I try.

[heavyfuel]

@heavyfuel - what's the problem you are trying to solve? I play in a game with experienced players, and they know how to nudge their character's power pretty darn well. When (and if) they want to. We manage just fine.

(snip)

Don't be mad because your group got efficient at playing your game the way you've designed it and run it. After all, that means they stuck around! Change it up. Make 'em powergame to different targets. Not easy. Personally, not sure I do well at it myself, but I try.

I think you misundertand me. I'm not against optimizing, quite on the contrary. I've called myself a power gamer at least once in this thread and, to reiterate, I don't think there's anything wrong with the power gaming playstyle.

The problem I have is that some people have this mindset that by disallowing a particular source (splatbooks or UA) they'll somehow stop power gamers, when, in fact, the opposite is true.

My main point is that by banning, say, the Echo Knight, players wishing to play a character based around teleporting will pretty much have to play a full caster, undoubtedly stronger classes. If you wish to attain better balance, you should allow more sources, not ban them.

[Tanarii]

The problem I have is that some people have this mindset that by disallowing a particular source (splatbooks or UA) they'll somehow stop power gamers, when, in fact, the opposite is true.Its not true. There is no justification for your statement. It is completely false.

[ButzSanchez]

Its not true. There is no justification for your statement. It is completely false.

I'm not so sure. Personally speaking, if I'm told what sources I can't use but which ones I can, that just narrows down my options and takes away the hard part of choosing what direction I want to go. Outside of a DM just straight up ruling "no multiclassing, no feats" I can't imagine partial limitations holding back a player who wants to maximize a build. All you'd be doing is defining the limits of their maximization, which will usually end up being surprisingly strong anyway.

[Pex]

I think it depends on the players and their expressed preferences. If someone wants to play a wizard, for example, they may wait till they can play at a table that allows it with all the bells and whistles. They may not care.

Some people think that if you take away an option they want, then it is personal. It is a tyrant DM and that they are out to get them/ruin the game/don't understand what they are doing. It really depends what your players are like.

As someone who likes to talk about tyrant DMs a lot :smallbiggrin:, it subjectively depends. I don't object to not allowing things. Easiest to accept is no Unearthed Arcana or even specific things from it. They're playtest material a DM may not want to deal with or doesn't like for whatever reason. It's not "official" material. For official stuff it's about why the DM bans something rather than what's being banned. If it's something that doesn't fit the gameworld, fine. If it's something the DM thinks is too powerful, fine even if I disagree and it's not too many things. How much is too many is subjective. It's more I'll know when I see it than giving a specific amount. As an extreme example - No Great Weapon Master, fine. No feats at all, no. The DM may not be a tyrant, but I'm less likely to play. It depends on what else is banned. Banning too many things tells me this is a DM who needs absolute power and control over everything. I expect railroading, and at the very least hates PCs being "powerful" and doing more than attacking for 1d8 + 3 damage. He will refuse or be unable to adapt that obstacles the party faces at low level eventually are no longer obstacles at higher levels. If it's something because he thinks minmax powergaming munchkin rollplayers would take it and not care about roleplaying or having fun trying to win D&D then we have a problem because now he's hating on players.

Edit: Banning campaign specific sourcebooks like Eberron or Ravnica is fine even though it's a lot. For me it falls under doesn't fit the game world.

[Waazraath]

heavyfuel's reply should help clarify.

Banning Thief (an option one of the better representations of Bilbo uses) would impact making Bilbo. The result would be a worse and stronger representation. Worse as in it would have mechanical baggage unrelated to Bilbo and Stronger in that it would have used stronger mechanical options to achieve the same goal as before.

Eventually the player would give up on playing that character concept. To quote you "But 5e doesn't let you play the hulk, the system simply doesn't support it." It sounds like you would give up quicker than my examples which is neither here nor there but is impacting following my description. So imagine someone wanting to play Bilbo but Rogue got banned, instead of switching to a different character concept they ask if a Criminal Lore Bard is allowed. A Thief Rogue is better at representing Bilbo than a Criminal Lore Bard, so the displacement made the representation worse. It also made the character mechanically stronger. Describing that mechanism is the extent of my argument. No comment about whether, what, or when to ban.

But it really doesn't (help clarify).

You see, for me two things are missing in this thread.

1) a definition on who we are talking about exactly. In this thread, we seem to have gone from "players" in general (from the OP's tl;dr) to "powergamers" to "specific powergamers that are optimizing for a concept but not maximum power" - except that in a lot of posts, people are (still) talking from a 'powergamer try to maximizing power' perspective. So who is this thread about, really?

2) an illustration of how "having to use an alternative because something is banned" leads to stronger builds, instead of builds who are just as powerful or less powerful. I understand that you (and the OP) are aruing that this mechanism exists, but afaic I haven't seen any convincing example.

To eleborate on that, lets first take the two examples you provide here. Player wants to make Bilbo, rogue thief is banned, he ends up playing a criminal lore bard. Why? Why doesn't he play a criminal Champion Fighter, grabbing relevant skills, and extra skills and abilities with the fighter's extra ASI's through feats? Since Bilbo obviously isn't a caster, this is arguably a much better emulation. And if casting isn't a problem, why doesn't he pick a ranger? Also extra skill, sneaky, more wise then very charismtic (which bilbo obviously isn't) - arguably just as good or better as that bard that makes him as strong a caster as a wizard.
So, what the entire thread so far has failed to do in my opinion is providing credible evidence that a player would, in a case such as this, go for a more powerful option per se, let alone a 'more broken' option as the title suggests. And that is disregarding that if a DB bans options because he wants to keep the power level of the game low he will ban the more powerfull options, making the chance that the player ends up with a more powerful build is logically smaller and not bigger.

As for the Hulk, once more, yeah, I wouldn't try to emulate this character in 5e. But if a player really wanted to play something like this, I's point to the Barbarian, that has a specific subclass for getting mad, that gets stronger (does more damage and adv on strength checks) when he gets mad, can make extra long jumps (advantage), can take a lot of punishment when angry, etc. etc. It's still a pretty poor copy of Bruce Banner and The Hulk, but damn sure more logical than a wizard. This 'ending up with a stronger build' really is only heavyfuel's choice for wanting the class most powerful in his opinion, than anything that follows from logic or the concept (the Hulk).

So let me give two examples myself.
1) concept: melee rogue with some magical backup. In an all sources allowed, you'd prolly end up with a arcane trickster, with a SCAG-cantrip that (for minimal opportunity cost: a cantrip) gives 1d8/2d8/3d8 extra damage (depending on level), or situationally 1d8/3d8/5d8/7d8 (booming blade, replace 1d8 with int modifier for GFB). In a 'core only' campaign, you probably end up with exactly the same rogue, except it does less damage.
2) concept: (young) king arthur. In all sources allowed, one might consider a paladin with a few levels of hexblade - to represent the special bond between Exalibur and Arthur, and yeah, being a single stat Cha class is nice as well. In a game with only core, or without multiclass, you'd probably end up with a single class paladin, or maybe with a few levels of Ancients warlock (replacing the bond with the sword with one with the Lady of the Lake).

So so far, I really agree with Tanarii that so far there isn't any justification for the statement in the OP.

[OldTrees1]

But it really doesn't (help clarify).

You see, for me two things are missing in this thread.

1) a definition on who we are talking about exactly. In this thread, we seem to have gone from "players" in general (from the OP's tl;dr) to "powergamers" to "specific powergamers that are optimizing for a concept but not maximum power" - except that in a lot of posts, people are (still) talking from a 'powergamer try to maximizing power' perspective. So who is this thread about, really?

Since the OP was about players and most of the posts were about "power for the sake of power" players I thought it best to mention the more general motivation "playing a character concept". Now, not every player has that more general motivation, but I would hazard most players do.



2) an illustration of how "having to use an alternative because something is banned" leads to stronger builds, instead of builds who are just as powerful or less powerful. I understand that you (and the OP) are arguing that this mechanism exists, but afaic I haven't seen any convincing example.

To eleborate on that, lets first take the two examples you provide here. Player wants to make Bilbo, rogue thief is banned, he ends up playing a criminal lore bard. Why? Why doesn't he play a criminal Champion Fighter, grabbing relevant skills, and extra skills and abilities with the fighter's extra ASI's through feats? Since Bilbo obviously isn't a caster, this is arguably a much better emulation. And if casting isn't a problem, why doesn't he pick a ranger? Also extra skill, sneaky, more wise then very charismtic (which bilbo obviously isn't) - arguably just as good or better as that bard that makes him as strong a caster as a wizard.
So, what the entire thread so far has failed to do in my opinion is providing credible evidence that a player would, in a case such as this, go for a more powerful option per se, let alone a 'more broken' option as the title suggests. And that is disregarding that if a DB bans options because he wants to keep the power level of the game low he will ban the more powerfull options, making the chance that the player ends up with a more powerful build is logically smaller and not bigger.

For a mechanical representation to succeed at instantiating a character concept, it needs to be able to represent that character. If a Thief Rogue is the best representation for Bilbo, then a Criminal Fighter is just not skilled enough to handle the representation. On the other hand a Criminal Bard is still less skilled without spells but can use spells to cover that skill gap.
Thief Rogue: Can do what Bilbo can. In the same way Bilbo did. Has few extra ribbons to be ignored.
Criminal Fighter: Can't do what Bilbo can. Has more extra ribbons to be ignored.
Criminal Bard: Can do what Bilbo can. Sometimes in a different way. Has more extra ribbons to be ignored.

So the choice is either a failed worse weaker representation or a successful worse stronger representation. Since the player's objective is to play the character concept, they would avoid failed representations and give up if the successful representation gets too much worse at representing the character concept.



As for the Hulk, once more, yeah, I wouldn't try to emulate this character in 5e. But if a player really wanted to play something like this, I's point to the Barbarian, that has a specific subclass for getting mad, that gets stronger (does more damage and adv on strength checks) when he gets mad, can make extra long jumps (advantage), can take a lot of punishment when angry, etc. etc. It's still a pretty poor copy of Bruce Banner and The Hulk, but damn sure more logical than a wizard. This 'ending up with a stronger build' really is only heavyfuel's choice for wanting the class most powerful in his opinion, than anything that follows from logic or the concept (the Hulk).

As for the Hulk I would point the player to the 3rd edition Goliath Barbarian and then figure out how to import that to 5E. Because you are right that an Echo Knight, a Gorilla Moon Druid, or a Polymorph Wizard would be worse representations than a Barbarian with proper mechanical support (Goliath Barbarian ACF).

However in the lack of the ideal representation, you seem to default to a failed worse representation rather than to a successful worse representation. In my experience that is an anomaly. In your experience it is not. That might be the root of our communication barrier.


So let me give two examples myself.
1) concept: melee rogue with some magical backup. In an all sources allowed, you'd prolly end up with a arcane trickster, with a SCAG-cantrip that (for minimal opportunity cost: a cantrip) gives 1d8/2d8/3d8 extra damage (depending on level), or situationally 1d8/3d8/5d8/7d8 (booming blade, replace 1d8 with int modifier for GFB). In a 'core only' campaign, you probably end up with exactly the same rogue, except it does less damage.
2) concept: (young) king arthur. In all sources allowed, one might consider a paladin with a few levels of hexblade - to represent the special bond between Exalibur and Arthur, and yeah, being a single stat Cha class is nice as well. In a game with only core, or without multiclass, you'd probably end up with a single class paladin, or maybe with a few levels of Ancients warlock (replacing the bond with the sword with one with the Lady of the Lake).

So so far, I really agree with Tanarii that so far there isn't any justification for the statement in the OP.

1) It sounds like the ban did not hit the character concept. Or you did not fully explain the character concept. Arcane Trickster seems to be the ideal build for that character concept. If that lynchpin got banned, then you might see a displacement to Bard. Although I am not sure the example character concept is fleshed out enough to know if it wants a cantrip, some spellcasting, or just magical equipment.
2) Why would you consider a Paladin for young king arthur (much less a Hexblade)? Was Fighter unavailable? Why is excalibur a patron rather than just a magic sword? You have already shown the displacement effect in writing this example. Instead of the ideal representation of King Arthur, you have a stronger worse representation. What mechanism do you see that explains that displacement?

[Derpy]

I think this is mostly an interpersonal problem. If the DM says they want to limit the options available to limit some of the choices that they feel unbalance that game and the response by the player is to go, 'well, I'm going to break the **** out of the core book,' the problem isn't one of options, or lack of options; it's one of ignored or poor communication or not being the right fit for that group. If the DM goes, 'I don't think these options fit in my setting,' and the player picks something else and powergames it; It's hard to find fault with that player if the DM didn't communicate powergaming was something they wished to avoid, and it might not even be a problem depending on the table. Talking about this between DMs and players in session zero is the best way to get everyone on the same page as to what options fit the setting and what options fit the playstyle, maybe making compromises and getting the game where everyone will enjoy it.

[Tanarii]

If the DM limits options (for whatever reason), and the player then mixmaxes to break the game in response, that is definitely a problem player.

If a DM limits options to cut down on unintended OP rules intersections/interactions (or straight out OP features), this will not increase 'evil' power gaming, even unintentionally. Less OP unintentional interactions and OP features results in less problems. Not more. To claim otherwise requires a ludicrously convoluted justification to turn white into black, as this thread has demonstrated several times.

[MrStabby]

I think there is another corollary that hasn't really been touched on. That of the builds of other players.

Personally I feel that the power of my characters is relative.

I don't need my characters to bemore powerful than others, but I do expect them to be the best at their chosen specialism. If I want to play a vampire hunter I am happy with a ranger with undead as a favoured enemy in most games; but there is no way I would ever play that in a game where someone was going to bring a paladin.

Taking away some options would let similarly motivated players muve into the space not superseeded by the options removed. Looking at things like the most recent UA with wizards (again) changing damage types, anyone wanting to play an "elemental mastery" type character is pushed to wizard instead of sorcerer. Just to be better at one thing, and not a particularly powerful one, they are forced to take a stronger class over a weaker one if someone else is playing something that can do their thingbetter than they can. Removing some options actually increases the number of options that are on the efficient frontier and are not strictly dominated by others.