Why do people dislike power gaming so much

[sithlordnergal]

Personally, as a Power Gamer myself, I don't fully understand the dislike. I find it fun to fully optimize a build and make it as powerful as possible, be it with dips, item,s spells, ect.. And as a DM, I make encounters that force my players to have a level of competency with their abilities and tactics. If you come to my table you need to have a good grasp on your class' abilities, how to use them, and be decently powerful. Otherwise, you will die. Case in point, I recently ran an encounter for party of level 2 adventurers. The fight included 3 zombies, a skeleton, an orb that you had to make a DC 10 Con save against or take 1d4 necrotic damage each round, though if you fell unconscious you became immune to the effect, and an invisible Poltergeist. The party managed to scrape by on the skin of their teeth, and had a lot of trouble with the Poltergeist until the Paladin realized he could use Divine Sense to pinpoint its exact location.

As such, I encourage my players to make optimized builds, and gladly point them towards optimal options if they ask for some assistance. And as a player, I tend towards making optimized and powerful characters. As long as a Power Gamer isn't acting like a Munchkin, then what's the issue with it?

[Ghost Nappa]

One of the more common criticisms of power gaming comes from mixing power gaming with more casual play. This isn't unique to TTRPG's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiqRKlpsavA), but when you have someone who's trying to play one way, and someone trying to do the exact opposite, there is some inevitable friction.

It's also an issue for encounter planning: if you use basic enemies, the optimized character may sneeze through them, but the pie wizard might find every fight to be an impossible fight for life and death.

Optimization also leads to some complicated looking builds in some settings / systems (look at 3.5 optimization threads and see just how complicated **** gets).

[Kane0]

Very similar reasons games often get split into casual and competitive play i suspect.

[Klorox]

I think there is some confusion when it comes to defining "power gamer" and "munchkin" and "optimizer"

Under the way I look at these three different terms, I like optimizers (someone who tries to make the most out of their character, and consider myself one), but munchkins (murder hobo rules lawyers) and power gamers (those who seek to outshine the other players) aren't cool in my book.

JMO

[Jerrykhor]

I think it comes from the assumption that if you place more importance on RP, you are a good person. But it doesnt mean you should hate powergamers, i dont get the hate either.

Recently there have been more discussion on game balance and relative power level, like those on Monks and Subclasses. It seems that people would quickly assume you are a powergamer if you call a weak subclass as weak, and will always justify weak, very niche abilities as 'you just don't know how to use it'. It just stinks of the elite L2P mentality.

The Stormwind Fallacy mentality is still strong in many people.

[micahaphone]

two players:


"I'm looking forward to playing dnd with my friends. I think I'll make a ranger who shoots a bow while their pet wolf rushes forward, that sounds cool"
"I'm looking forward to playing dnd with my friends. I've got a plan for a twist on the half elf hexadin with elven accuracy, I'm excited to see how it performs"



Both of these players are playing DND correctly, and will have fun. But these players should not be at the same table. If one player is seriously overshadowing the rest of the party, I'm not going to tell my other friends "go read optimization guides online", I'll tell the one player to tone it down.

[Duff]

Power gaming can also exaggerate the balance differences between different builds. In 3.5, a power gamer playing a wizard because it's the most powerful class* will be emphasising the comparative weakness of their less skilled powergaming fighter.
So, emphasizing a weakness in the game and at the same time making characters who are trying to fill other roles in the party seem less relevant**

When the GM puts together an encounter which will challenge the party, it will be more powerful because the power gamer is there. That can mean the "Style over substance" players who've made the "cool"character or who've made their mechanical choices based on "What does my character want to learn" have their loved characters killed by a monster which is too powerful for them.

Avoiding the above issues can constrain a player's choices. If I was going to a 3.5 table with you, I may go "I want to play a sword and board fighter, but that character will probably be almost irrelevant by 10th level so I'll do something different"

Some powergamers become frustrated and impatient with players who's characters are not fulfilling their role to the same extent the powergamer is.


One of the easiest ways around that is for the powergamer to start with a "weak" chassis - That could be weak class like the proverbial 3.5 fighter, or for games without classes, a choice to develope a less powerful side skill as well as the power bit. So perhaps your Pendragon knight will be a great musician as well as an awesome fighter

* Setting aside arguments about if and at what level this happens. For this conversation just roll with the conventional wisdom OK?
** I know, balance doesn't matter to everyone. Accept that it matters to some people, and they are not "wrong" for caring about it

[Sorinth]

I think it's a bit of a holdover from previous editions.

In the past in order to balance the combat encounters to the power gamer, it became un-fun for the the non-power gamers. As one example, you might have them face a monsters with a huge AC to properly challenge the power gamer, but that meant the other players could never land a hit and so felt useless the whole combat.

One of the goals of 5e was to keep monsters relevant throughout the game. Adding a handful of orcs to an encounter even at higher levels was supposed to matter because the orcs could still contribute to that fight. For the same reasons (Mostly bounded accuracy) it also works for the PCs. You can have a mix of power and non-power gamers and in a balanced fight the non-power gamers will still contribute to that fight.

[Toadkiller]

A couple of observations.

First, all this gets amplified by the internet.

Also, there is a very wide range of play styles that crop up around these games. One group does improv with dice and another group crunches all the numbers with the rule books close at hand- and a million different other options. With all the covid stuff I haven’t been able to continue the game I have been running with some friends. During this time some of my players have run short format games online that I’ve been thrilled to get to join (I just don’t have time to do DM prep these days).

I have enjoyed all these games. I have also noticed real differences in focus in how each of them run their games versus how I do. Our guy who likes to make a strong character tends his game towards that. Our player who likes lots of chats with NPCs nudges his game they way. Both are fun for me and everyone else seems to be having fun too.

I think where “power gamers” get gruff is that an “optimized” character can tend to tread on the toes of other players’ fun if they are solving problems solo. If it’s a bad fit for the table. At one of the games above a friend who doesn’t normally play with most of the other folks at the table made a character focus on speedy movement and lots of damage dealing. They were bouncing around the map crushing baddies when most of the rest of the group was still on the last map. It was kind of jarring and in a longer format game might have gotten annoying. For a couple of sessions, we rolled with it, but he was a little unsatisfied that we couldn’t keep up and that wasn’t the kind of play that at least most of the rest had come prepared to do.

I don’t think there is a right or wrong, but there can be incompatible play expectations. It can be an issue when there aren’t a lot of tables to choose from which can be a challenge for many folks.

[opaopajr]

Because I have seen it not share the spirit of the social gathering and end up souring or shattering the experience, if not even the group itself. :smallsmile: Just wisdom from life on various 'playgrounds'.

Sometimes you have to remind people what is the intended atmosphere and that their competitive fun needs to consider the desired shared experience. :smallcool: It is social inexperience (or heaven forefend, maladjustment) to not be able to read a room and only think of your own fun. It is also incumbent upon hosts to state clearly the desired aire and enforce it by gentle adjustment.

Consideration of others, it's a good thing! :smallwink:

[qube]

My two cents

As such, I encourage my players to make optimized buildsTwo questions.

How do you do this
What happens if it doesn't work?

Consider ... the player wants to play a ranger with an animal compagnion. Especially when all the other players picked to your encouragements ... this player will end up grosely underpowered.

Now what? Punish the player because he wanted to play something that happen to be mechanically weaker; ignoring that you yourself made the situation worse by encouring others to play optimized builds?
"It's his own fault for getting killed in that overpowered encounter. who in their right mind would want a animal compagion"
... doesn't seem right, does it?

How about force the player to play something else ? "I don't care what you want ... you're going to play either PAM fighter, sorcadin, or diviner wizard!"
... doesn't seem like a positive D&D experience, does it?

Create situations where everyone can have fun, and everyone has a time to shine? (by it by setting up the capaign a sertain way, or create a homebrow item, or adapting the class, ...)
... seems a bit of work, but that seems like a propper solution, right?

And that's why I dislike powergaming. That last solution? it's irrelevant of your strength. When it comes down to it, power is an illusion; it doesn't matter one bit if your character sheet says +5 or +50. But by 'hunting' for the big bonusses, you're discarding huge parts of the game.

They might be mechanically subpar, but bastmaster ranger, elemental monk, ... might still be fun concepts to explore

But because they give a +2 instead of +5 ... you'll never know.

(that's not to say there wasn't a time when I also liked big bonusses ... I think I just outgrew that phase)

[sithlordnergal]

My two cents
Two questions.

How do you do this
What happens if it doesn't work?

Consider ... the player wants to play a ranger with an animal compagnion. Especially when all the other players picked to your encouragements ... this player will end up grosely underpowered.

Now what? Punish the player because he wanted to play something that happen to be mechanically weaker; ignoring that you yourself made the situation worse by encouring others to play optimized builds?
"It's his own fault for getting killed in that overpowered encounter. who in their right mind would want a animal compagion"
... doesn't seem right, does it?

How about force the player to play something else ? "I don't care what you want ... you're going to play either PAM fighter, sorcadin, or diviner wizard!"
... doesn't seem like a positive D&D experience, does it?

Create situations where everyone can have fun, and everyone has a time to shine? (by it by setting up the capaign a sertain way, or create a homebrow item, or adapting the class, ...)
... seems a bit of work, but that seems like a propper solution, right?

And that's why I dislike powergaming. That last solution? it's irrelevant of your strength. When it comes down to it, power is an illusion; it doesn't matter one bit if your character sheet says +5 or +50. But by 'hunting' for the big bonusses, you're discarding huge parts of the game.

They might be mechanically subpar, but bastmaster ranger, elemental monk, ... might still be fun concepts to explore

But because they give a +2 instead of +5 ... you'll never know.

(that's not to say there wasn't a time when I also liked big bonusses ... I think I just outgrew that phase)


Well, this wouldn't work with every group, but I'm known as the person that knows just about every subclass, spell, and rule in the book. So my players generally come to me for help when they're trying to build a character that fits an idea, even if I'm not DMing for the game they're playing. I generally will give them the link to a class that fits their ideas, an overview of some of the subclasses, and their strengths and weaknesses. Case in point, a player came to me with the idea of a sort of divine draconic sorcerer that focuses on Wind based magic. I pointed them towards the Storm, Draconic, and Divine Soul subclasses, and gave them a small breakdown of their relative strength. They eventually went with Divine Soul.

As for a person playing with a weaker subclass, I generally buff subclasses that I find weak. I've had a player use the Beastmaster before the Revised Beastmaster came out, and I worked with them to buff the class. I increased the Beast's HP, gave them naturally magical attacks at level 6, and gave them the ability to use their multiattack after a while. We never got past the level to go higher than that, but I was more than happy to change it up to make the subclass more on par with other subclasses. And while I've never had a player use 4 Elements Monk, I'd be happy to buff the subclass to bring it more in line with other subclasses.

And if that doesn't work and they still die...well, what can I say other than better luck next time. I pride myself in my ability to make tough but fair encounters, where you'll survive but only if you pay attention to what's going on, have a solid grasp of your abilities, and use said abilities wisely. Because I can, and will, use monster abilities to the best of their abilities.


EDIT: The buffs also go with classes too. I'll buff Ranger a bit, and I also give a small buff to Warlocks. For Rangers, they get to add their Wisdom Modifier to Favored Enemies from the begining on all attacks they make, and they can learn the location, number, and type of enemies they sense when they use Primeval Awareness. Warlocks gain an extra spell slot and invocation at level 5.

[Tempist]

As for a person playing with a weaker subclass, I generally buff subclasses that I find weak. I've had a player use the Beastmaster before the Revised Beastmaster came out, and I worked with them to buff the class. I increased the Beast's HP, gave them naturally magical attacks at level 6, and gave them the ability to use their multiattack after a while. We never got past the level to go higher than that, but I was more than happy to change it up to make the subclass more on par with other subclasses. And while I've never had a player use 4 Elements Monk, I'd be happy to buff the subclass to bring it more in line with other subclasses

Have you had parties, especially in longer campaigns, where the player characters were at drastically different power levels? Something like two players are going hex 2 / dss 18 and hex 2 / ancients pally 7 / dss 11, while the other two chose the four-elements monk and a mastermind rogue.

The sheer difference in power, survivability, and utility between those classes is massive. How do you buff the weaker characters other than just increasing their damage?

[sithlordnergal]

Have you had parties where the player characters were at drastically different power levels? Something like two players are going hex / dss and artificer 1 / chronurgist, while the other two chose the four-elements monk and a mastermind rogue.

The sheer difference in power, survivability, and utility between those classes is massive. How do you buff the weaker characters other than just increasing their damage?

Hmmm, I'll admit I haven't had a power gap quite that drastic. Partially because my players stick to the PHB and Xanathar's, and partially because if they ask me for ideas I'll nudge them to stronger options that accomplish the same basic idea. That said, buffing the 4 Elements Monk is pretty easy, I'd boost their Ki and lower the cost of their "spells". Though I'd probably also suggest a multiclass that can do the job of a 4 Elements Monk while being more effective. Maybe an Open Hand Monk multiclassed with some sort of full caster? If need be we can make that second class use Wisdom for their spell casting.

As for the Mastermind, I buff their Help action. A Mastermind's Help action gives a creature of their choice advantage on all attack rolls in a given round, provided they are within 30 feet of the Mastermind Rogue. They can also provide the Aid action with skill checks from that 30 feet away to grant advantage on a Skill Check. Outside of that the Rogue is a strong enough chassis that you don't really need to worry about buffing it too much. A Rogue is always going to be useful outside of combat thanks to their skill abilities, and they have two abilities that aid in their survivability.

And to hit up two other weak subclasses:

Assassin: I tossed out all of the Surprise Rules and replaced them with a Surprise Round. If a creature is Surprised, they remain so until the end of that round, thereby guaranteeing that an Assassin will always get their auto-crit if they ambush someone, no matter how low their Initative is.

Beserker: They no longer gain levels of exhaustion when using Frenzy, because that idea was stupid from the start.


EDIT: And if after all that the player with the weaker class ends up being ineffective and is clearly not having a good time, I'll let them fully rebuild their character, or bring a new character in at the same level as the previous one. And if they want some help I'll gladly help them out. I'll never say "You can't play this", but I will warn them that "Such-and-such class/subclass is on the weaker side, so be ready for that".

[Lacco]

I think the dislike has nothing to do with power gamers.

It has something to do with acting like *******s.

If someone can be the former, without acting like the latter, there should be no issue. It's a social thing - play nice with other people.

[Dark.Revenant]

I typically give out busted magic items or powerful boons when a party member is really struggling. Naturally I make sure they’re not going to suddenly jump up in relative power soon when leveling up...

While some items can be bound to a specific PC, other times you just need to enforce the social contract. The Sword of Ultimate Badassery might be usable but the Sorcadin, but it’s really meant for the Champion Fighter, and you should let the Sorcadin know that it’s meant for that particular player.

[Cheesegear]

I make encounters that force my players to have a level of competency with their abilities and tactics.

In which case, there's no problem. Keep doing that.
What's the alternative? To have your players have a level of competency with abilities they don't have?


If you come to my table you need to have a good grasp on your class' abilities, how to use them, and be decently powerful. Otherwise, you will die.

Define 'decently powerful'?
Because what it actually sounds like, here, is that you're a DM who treats combat as the most important part of the game, and if you can't do Combat, you're wasting your time.


Case in point, I recently ran an encounter for party of level 2 adventurers.

****'s sake.
That has nothing to do with optimisation. You can't optimise a Level 2 character. If you've got a 15+ if your class' main stat, congratulations, you're optimised.


and had a lot of trouble with the Poltergeist until the Paladin realized he could use Divine Sense to pinpoint its exact location.

That has nothing to do with power gaming.
It has to do with knowing how to play your class.

For the sake of argument, what would have happened if the Paladin was playing a regular Fighter, without Divine Sense?
Would the party just have died?
Would that have been a good session? "Suck it, nerds. You should've played better classes." :smallconfused:


As such, I encourage my players to make optimized builds

For what? Combat?
Let's say I make a Level 2 Bard. Max CHA, my second stat is INT. I choose as many Knowledge Skills as I can. I plan to go Lore, but I'm only Level 2, so no love there. I'm going to be good at everything, and I'm going to Know everything...Eventually. That's the plan, at least.

That doesn't sound combat-optimised, so I'll just go **** myself, I guess.

Why would you ever play Outlander? Don't you know the Sailor Background gives you free Athletics and Perception proficiency!? It's the best one!
Next minute, you're two levels of Exhaustion deep because the party has no food or water, because no-one has Survival because only Athletics, Acrobatics and Perception are combat-relevant, and how dare anyone play something that isn't 'optimised (for combat)'?


As long as a Power Gamer isn't acting like a Munchkin, then what's the issue with it?

There's nothing wrong with making a good character, in and of itself.
The problem lies in the player running it.

Dungeons and Dragons, isn't that hard. You don't need to Power Game your character. As long as you've built your character slightly competently (i.e; I'm a Fighter and my STR, DEX and CON are no higher than 10!), you'll be alright.

What's the benefit of power gaming?
Your numbers are higher than the rest of your party's numbers?
Your numbers are higher than the DM's numbers?
That's some Adventurer's League bull****.

Power Gaming doesn't work unless the whole party is doing it.

"Well, the Sorcadin seems pretty strong, I'll throw in a few extra monsters to up the CR, just so the encounters are a bit tougher..."
Next minute, everyone except the Sorcadin is dead. Great session!

That's why I always advocate for optimised parties, not optimised characters.

[SociopathFriend]

Personally my dislike stems from Power Gamers being likely to abuse DM tolerance.

I once was in a Pathfinder campaign (River Kingdoms I think it was called) and the DM would allow you to do some fairly odd stuff so long as you could justify it. Stuff like reincarnating into a Gnoll to gain a strength bonus for example but then taking a quest to regain your humanity but being able to keep the Gnoll strength buff.
But I (because this was me) only did it once. I didn't jump into an endless loop of reincarnate, quest to get humanity and keep buff, repeat. I seemingly could've given the system and the DM's tolerance but ultimately didn't do so.
Nobody in the group took advantage of these sorts of things. We largely played the game normally and didn't abuse the freedom we were given.

Then another player joined up, immediately brought out a new splatbook nobody had ever heard of, and within 2 sessions had a death mech that oneshot the final boss when he came across it. Nobody else got to so much as roll initiative.

Now obviously- 'the DM should've said no' is a true thing. However the DM had never needed to say no to that sort of thing because nobody else had abused the DM's system like that.
Given the system worked fine with everyone else- I can only blame the new element (someone abusing it) as the reason everyone felt the campaign came to a sore conclusion.

[Glorthindel]

Its a matter of expectations; its only a problem when players of two wildly divergent expectations interact, because it creates a disparity that both can feel justified in blaming the other for ("of course hes more powerful, his multiclass build makes no rp sense, he's just a munchkin" and "of course he's weaker, his race doesn't give a bonus to his prime stat, and he took a Feat for flavour, he's deliberately crippled himself").

Which is why it seems a much bigger phenomena than it really is on forums like here; this is a place where people of those wildly different expectations come in to contact, and can't really get away from each other when there is a clear difference of expectation (its why any thread after about page 3/4 has just devolved into 2-3 posters yelling at each other). At a home table its almost never going to be an issue since most of the players have been "educated" in the same style of play, so have the same expectations (sure, new members joining a group may have this problem, but after a short adjustment period will come to the same page or realise the group is incompatible and move on). The only place where it is a real issue is in pick up games or tournament play; anywhere where you will be coming to a table cold without knowing the other players styles, and there isn't much that can be done about that.

To answer the question though; why it looks like people dislike power gamers so much is that people are more likely to express their displeasure when their ability to play is suffering. If a power gamer and someone more focussed on rp and flavour abilities (do we have a term for this?) cross each other at the table, the latter is more likely to have a bad experience (be it being hugely overshadowed by the other player, or facing a difficulty level cranked up for the other player that they cant compete with), and express that displeasure. The power gamer is likely just as annoyed by the other player over his seeming lack of participation and ability to pull his weight, but since the power gamer is likely shining, he is probably not going to express his annoyance as vehemently.

[Amnestic]

I typically give out busted magic items or powerful boons when a party member is really struggling. Naturally I make sure they’re not going to suddenly jump up in relative power soon when leveling up...

While some items can be bound to a specific PC, other times you just need to enforce the social contract. The Sword of Ultimate Badassery might be usable but the Sorcadin, but it’s really meant for the Champion Fighter, and you should let the Sorcadin know that it’s meant for that particular player.

Adding class specific attunement requirements can work for this as a mechanical hint too. If you've only got one Champion Fighter in the group and the Sword of Ultimate Badassery has a Requires Attunement: Champion Fighter...it's pretty clear who it's meant for. Harder to work if there's a lot of multiclassing going on and it shouldn't be applied to *all* magic items by any stretch, but if you've come up with something intended for a specific character, I don't think it hurts to nudge the mechanics along with a "hey, this is meant for [x]".

[Cheesegear]

To answer the question though; why it looks like people dislike power gamers so much is that people are more likely to express their displeasure when their ability to play is suffering. If a power gamer and someone more focussed on rp and flavour abilities (do we have a term for this?) cross each other at the table

In Warhammer 40K, we call those people filthy casuals baby seals fluffbunnies.

But, there's also the problem of the Stormwind Fallacy.
That is, if you Power Game, you obviously can't roleplay - and vice versa.
The implication that combat and roleplaying are mutually exclusive (and, with the wrong DM, they are :smallmad:).

So, when a player of mine plays a Paladin, and all of a sudden announces "I'm taking a level of Hexblade! Boom! Everything's coming up Milhouse."
And I interrupt "...And what's your connection to Shadowfell? When has this ever come up before now?"

I'm not saying you can't take a level of Hexblade. I know what you're trying to do, and I know why you're doing it. I'm not stupid. You think I don't know what you're doing?

I'm not expecting a 1500 word essay on how the Paladin is best friends with the Raven Queen. I'm expecting anything other than dead silence for twenty seconds, followed by a tantrum and then calling me a '**** DM' and then threatening to quit for not letting you do whatever you want.

How. Is your Paladin. Connected. To the Shadowfell?
You can come up with anything you want. You could've come up with anything before now. I mean. Even at Level 1, I knew what the player was going to do, and I guarantee the player did to. So why was it such a shock?

[Waazraath]

A lot has been said already. In general, no problem if nobody optimizes, no problem if everybody optimizes. If only 1 person optimizes, there can be a problem. There doesn't has to be one though; if you know how to optimize, and you realize you are the only one in the party who cares for that stuff and the other players are not optimize, you can just optimize for a party support role, or for a niche that no other character covers. Everybody happy.
If on the other hand you see everbody is low damage and you optimize for superdamage so you outshine everybody, there is a problem - but it's not a problem with powergaming, but with that's players personality and / or not understanding the 'team game' part.

Another pit trap optimizers sometimes fall in is telling other people how to play the game. "No, you shouldn't hit this target with your sword, cause it has resistance X and vulnerabilty Y so you really should bla bla bla". Depending on the way this is communicated, thid might be helpful or really, really annoying. And it might take fun away from the role-players who try to think from the perspective over their characters and want them to discover strengths and weaknesses by themselves.

[sithlordnergal]

In which case, there's no problem. Keep doing that.
What's the alternative? To have your players have a level of competency with abilities they don't have?


No, the alternative is to not really know how to use your abilities. I've been in parties where my fellow players didn't know how to actually use their class abilities, and were less than competent. I did my best to pick up the slack for them, but after the second or third near TPK where only one player survived they began to learn how to use their abilities. They're a lot more effective now.




Define 'decently powerful'?
Because what it actually sounds like, here, is that you're a DM who treats combat as the most important part of the game, and if you can't do Combat, you're wasting your time.

****'s sake.
That has nothing to do with optimisation. You can't optimise a Level 2 character. If you've got a 15+ if your class' main stat, congratulations, you're optimised.


Decently powerful involves things like "Maybe don't make a Wizard with 14 Intelligence, 8 Constitution, and 16 Strength", or "How about we modify that Beast Master Ranger subclass to be a bit stronger to keep up with the other classes". And yeah, you can optimize a level 2, mostly by making obvious decisions.




For the sake of argument, what would have happened if the Paladin was playing a regular Fighter, without Divine Sense?
Would the party just have died?
Would that have been a good session? "Suck it, nerds. You should've played better classes." :smallconfused:

I suspect they'd have had a rougher time and would have needed to retreat to get the guards. Or they would have needed to use Perception checks to figure out the precise location. After all, that's what they were doing to figure out where the Poltergeist was before the Paladin realized they could use Divine Sense to find it.




For what? Combat?
Let's say I make a Level 2 Bard. Max CHA, my second stat is INT. I choose as many Knowledge Skills as I can. I plan to go Lore, but I'm only Level 2, so no love there. I'm going to be good at everything, and I'm going to Know everything...Eventually. That's the plan, at least.

That doesn't sound combat-optimised, so I'll just go **** myself, I guess.


Ehhh, it depends on what the player is looking to do. I will admit combat is the easiest thing to optimize, hence why those are the main examples, but I've given suggestions for optimizing everything from skills, to saving throws, to hit points. Heck, I even had a player want to optimize their movement speed, which gave me inspiration to try and optimize movement in Adventurer's League since its easier to get the magic items needed to really go all out. I also don't just suggest the same builds over and over. Instead I give a list of classes, feats, and spells that would allow the player to do what they want to the best of their ability, its up to them how they build it.




Why would you ever play Outlander? Don't you know the Sailor Background gives you free Athletics and Perception proficiency!? It's the best one!
Next minute, you're two levels of Exhaustion deep because the party has no food or water, because no-one has Survival because only Athletics, Acrobatics and Perception are combat-relevant, and how dare anyone play something that isn't 'optimised (for combat)'?


Better question: Why would you want to limit yourself to specific skill proficencies granted by Backgrounds when Customizing a background is not a variant rule, meaning it can be used even if a DM says "No rule variants". Go with the Outlander, but snag Perception and something else of your choice. Again, my examples were all combat focused because they are the easiest examples to use and require less explanation.




Dungeons and Dragons, isn't that hard. You don't need to Power Game your character. As long as you've built your character slightly competently (i.e; I'm a Fighter and my STR, DEX and CON are no higher than 10!), you'll be alright.
/QUOTE]

Incorrect, DnD is as hard as the DM makes it. And it can be challenging no matter what your level is. I played the Red War epic twice recently, and the first time my party nearly had a TPK despite being in Tier 4 with level 20 characters. The next day I played with a different DM but a similar party composition, but it was a cake walk because the DM used different, less effective tactics against the party.


[QUOTE=Cheesegear;24702912]
What's the benefit of power gaming?
Your numbers are higher than the rest of your party's numbers?
Your numbers are higher than the DM's numbers?
That's some Adventurer's League bull****.

Power Gaming doesn't work unless the whole party is doing it.

"Well, the Sorcadin seems pretty strong, I'll throw in a few extra monsters to up the CR, just so the encounters are a bit tougher..."
Next minute, everyone except the Sorcadin is dead. Great session!


On the player side, power gaming's benefit is generally being able to be a reliable asset to the party. Its also to see just what you can do within the restrictions and limitations of the game itself. If I optimize myself to have the highest movement speed possible, I'm not gonna outshine people in combat, nor will I outshine them in skill checks. But being able to say I can literally go from 0 to 154 mph in a single round is really nice, and pretty dang cool.

And on the DM side, power gaming lets me thrower bigger, cooler, and deadlier encounters at the party. I'd never be able to properly use a Star Spawn Seer and Star Spawn Hulk against an unoptimized group of players with unoptimized builds. If you use them right, you can do 12d12 psychic damage without a saving throw on a recharging ability. I wouldn't be able to use some really cool traps that involve magical rifts that not only do a ton of damage, but restrain characters, knock them prone, and more, and require multiple checks to close. Nor would I be able to do things like make an entire encounter where you have magical crystals that turn any single target Spell or Spell-Like Ability into an AoE, or have the players find themselves in a position where they're stuck without food and water and now have to use their skills to survive.

And yes, power gaming only works if the whole party does it. But that's why I suggest optimized builds that enter that realm of power gaming to players that ask me for assistance on character creation. The player doesn't lose anything RP wise, and I get to toss things with awesome abilities and effects at the party.

[Unoriginal]

I've been outright told that a character who doesn't have 16 in their main stat at lvl 1 was borderline useless, which meant that "X race is for Y and Z classes" and nothing else was worthwhile. People complained about the Githzerai "not being a Monk race".

I've also seen several people keep insisting that Wizards are always prepared for every single situation and always have the right spells ready, and several other people declare that if you play a martial you might as well not bother playing/that your martial is basically a NPC/sidekick.


Maybe it's not power gaming overall, but the "you must be at least this powerful to play and only I decide what's powerful" mentality some people have that I can't stand.


EDIT:

OP, the thing is, if you don't have a problem with it, you're likely to not see what others consider problems as problems. Different fun for different folks, and all that. I don't think this thread will help you understand anymore that it will convince people to like power gaming.

[Waazraath]

I've been outright told that a character who doesn't have 16 in their main stat at lvl 1 was borderline useless, which meant that "X race is for Y and Z classes" and nothing else was worthwhile. People complained about the Githzerai "not being a Monk race.

Not wanting to dreg up old discussions or move away from the OP too much, but I don't think the Gitzerai part has a place in this discussion. At least a part of the dislike about the way Gitzerai turned out didn't have to do with powergaming and it 'not being strong enough', but with the mismatch between both fluff and older editions (gitzerai being the monkyest monks in monkystan) and the mechanics (which were quite sub-par for monks compared with loads of other classes). That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't play a githzerai monk "because it's too weak" but was an (imo) legit criticism.

[Drascin]

A lot of it comes from the simple fact that there is a positive correlation between "power gamer" and "spotlight hog". Not necessarily a causation - you CAN power game without spotlight hogging - but it's definitely a strong enough correlation for people to give you a cautious side eye.

See, often the kind of person who feels they need to make their character the most powerful thing in the entire party, is going to want to show this fact off, and do so often, often showing up other characters. Not a lot of people make outrageously powerful sorcadins to just stay in their lane and let other characters do their things, you know? And after the third or so time that Angel Summoner comes in (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw), people get irritated. I should know, I was the powergamer!

[Cheesegear]

On the player side, power gaming's benefit is generally being able to be a reliable asset to the party.

If you - and only you - Power Game at the table;

Best case scenario is that your numbers are higher than the DM planned for, which forces the DM to readjust his encounters. Which gives you no net gain, because you're back to where you're started, where the DM 'balances' his encounters against you so no-one wins. This perpetuates the grind-cycle of 'scaled enemies' because you'll never actually be in the lead against the DM.

Worst case scenario is that you grossly power game, outshining two or three other characters combined, and the rest of the party wonders what they're even doing at the table, and start playing with their phones.


And on the DM side, power gaming lets me thrower bigger, cooler, and deadlier encounters at the party.

...So you do see combat (tactical or otherwise) as the main (if not only) point of optimisation for any character.

We're in agreement;
If all characters are optimised, combats can be made more difficult. This we can agree on.

After all, anything can be made cooler or more difficult; Take an NPC Veteran, give it Wings (e.g; Aaracokra). Combat is now more difficult. If the party doesn't have ranged attacks, they're ****ed.
Wizards opening every fight with Fireball? Cool beans. Take some NPC Veterans, give them Fire Resistance (e.g; Red Dragonborn). Combat is now more difficult. If the party doesn't have non-Fire AoEs, they're ****ed. Hell, if you actually do make them Red Dragonborn, turns out including the actual Breath Weapon doesn't even increase their CR, either, and they get the STR boost on their attacks rolls and damage.
Here is an emissary of a star-god, made out of Celestial star-stuff... It has the stats of an NPC Veteran, and is Resistant to non-silvered, non-magical attacks, and any elemental attacks. If the party doesn't have the right magical gear and spells, they're ****ed.
...But I'm still using a Veteran Template for all examples.

Doing d8 Damage, to a character with 12 Hit Points, is just as meaningful as doing 4d8 damage to a character with 48 Hit Points.
Level 1, isn't that much different to Level 4. Scaling encounters really just means you use a different page in the MM. But, if you're the DM, you can use any page you want, and just 'make it different'.

If your interpretation of 'more difficult fights' simply involves 'Well, it's got a higher CR and rolls more dice'...You might need to go back to the drawing board.
If your interpretation of 'more difficult fights', involves encouraging and/or outright forcing your players into certain builds, you might have a problem.

If your interpretation of DMing involves forcing your players into certain builds, in order for you to tell the story you want, because your story has to include certain monsters (and you can't just make up a template with the right CR, with any aesthetics you want) you might have a problem.

[Naerytar]

I don't want to speculate on why other people dislike power gaming, but I can explain why I do. It all boils down to one thing:

Power gaming applies a competitive mindset to a game, that wasn't designed to be played competitively.

I have played in Warhammer 40K tournaments and I have played in Magic: The Gathering tournaments. These are competetive games. They are designed from the ground up to be played against each other and you'll notice that immediately when you read the rules. D&D is fundamentally different.


1) There is no win condition

In W40K you win when your opponents army is defeated. In Magic you win when you opponents life drops to 0 or less. Both of these are clearly defined in the rules.
Where in the Player's Handbook or the Dungeon Master's Guide does it say under which condition you win at D&D? Obviously, nowhere. The question itself is so absurd that "winning D&D" is sort of a meme.
But if there is no win condition, how is competition even possible? How do you know who won?

The only thing that could possibly be considered to be winning at D&D is successfully completing the adventure the DM has planned. Which brings me to the next point.

2) DMs exist

The entire concept of a DM is unheard of in competitive games. Competition needs to be fair and rules have to be consistent. If that was the goal, why on earth would you put a human being in charge? We all have biases, we all have opinions, we have good days and bad days. Putting a human in charge is almost the antithesis of consistency.

But what if the DM judges purely by RAW? Well, RAW the DM has the ability to change the rules (another thing that would be ridiculous in competitive games btw). So the entire endeavour of competitive D&D is already predicated on the DM not using a tool he is being given by the rules. And even then... there are so many judgement calls involved in playing D&D. That's why we have DMs in the first place. It just doesn't work.

3) Who are you even competing against?

Another question that's blatantly obvious on W40K or Magic. But here?

If you compete against the DM, you lose. He can make fights as difficult as he wants. He can have the Tarrasque kill a LVL 1 party and declare victory. Any competition against the DM requires him holding back to an arbitrary degree.

If you compete against the other players... yeah ok, you can do that, but there are no rules for it. Does the PHB mention anything about a WoW-like damage meter? No. Do you get points for outshining other players in social encounters? No.
Of course you can track damage during a fight and then have a "winner", but that is something you've added to the game that the rules know nothing about.


So long story short: There are competitive games and there are cooperative games. D&D is clearly in the latter category. Power gaming is competitive by nature and therefore a bad idea when playing D&D.

Caveat: I think, there absolutely is such a thing as "optimizing your character without a competitive mindset" and there's nothing wrong with doing that.

[Contrast]

As such, I encourage my players to make optimized builds

My problem with this is that in my experience the majority of players either think they're playing at a higher optimisation level than they are (I recently played with someone who mutliclassed into 3 classes before level 5 and kept insisting their build was really good even as they complained about how ineffectual they were being) or don't make optimal build choices because they simply don't care/are optimising for a different concept (I played with a fighter with 14s in both strength and dex who took Linguist as their level 4 feat).

For one person 'encourage optimisation' might mean 'hmm I should probably not put a 16 in Int for my gnome barbarian and make sure they have a positive Con modifier instead' and for someone else it'll mean 'Ah sweet, coffeelock is on the table - or should I plan for some Wish/Simulacrum spam'.

[Unoriginal]

Not wanting to dreg up old discussions or move away from the OP too much, but I don't think the Gitzerai part has a place in this discussion. At least a part of the dislike about the way Gitzerai turned out didn't have to do with powergaming and it 'not being strong enough', but with the mismatch between both fluff and older editions (gitzerai being the monkyest monks in monkystan) and the mechanics (which were quite sub-par for monks compared with loads of other classes). That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't play a githzerai monk "because it's too weak" but was an (imo) legit criticism.

Except:

A) "mechanics were quite sub-par for monks compared with loads of other classes" is literally a power complain. People see a feature and go "actually this power would be better on something else than a Monk, therefore there must be a dissonance when the fluff tells me this race has a lot of Monks".

B) Githzerai being the "monkiest Monks" is still true in 5e, and the only reason people said/say there is a mismatch is because they're not a +WIS +DEX race with innate powers that synergises optimally with the Monk class. But it turns that the little "have enough mental discipline to turn the Limbo chaos into inhabitable territories" trick the Githzerai are known for requires INT, and it's anathema for some people to consider anything but an in-game, PC-level display of power as a demonstration of being the "monkiest Monk".

[GeoffWatson]

A lot of it comes from the simple fact that there is a positive correlation between "power gamer" and "spotlight hog". Not necessarily a causation - you CAN power game without spotlight hogging - but it's definitely a strong enough correlation for people to give you a cautious side eye.


I disagree. I've seen plenty of "real role-players" (who think having a weak character means they are morally and intellectually superior) try to spotlight hog by ignoring the adventure and insist on long RP conversations with every NPC.

[Cheesegear]

My problem with this is that in my experience the majority of players either think they're playing at a higher optimisation level than they are (I recently played with someone who mutliclassed into 3 classes before level 5 and kept insisting their build was really good even as they complained about how ineffectual they were being)

I often have trouble convincing my players that their build that doesn't come 'online' until Level 6 is trash, because they have to play Levels 1-5, first (or 2-5). 'Getting good' at Level 6, doesn't help if you die at Level 4.

I've had two players with Level 1 Paladins die in my sessions, because they dump STR, because at Level 2 they'll obviously pick up Hexblade...But they don't even make it to Level 2.
- So, uhh...Paladin, it'd be nice if you could actually hit something for once, and when you hit, deal damage.
"My STR is 10! I can't hit anything until Level 2!"
- But your role in the party is to explicitly deal melee damage. That's why you're here!
"I can't...Yet!"

[MinotaurWarrior]

I think it got extreme because 3e developers badly misunderstood WotC's design principles from mtg.

MTG has developed several concepts like lenticular design, player psychographics (Timmy/Johnny/Spike), etc. People like Monte Cook misunderstood this as "make exciting looking features intentionally bad, and lock good things behind complication and difficult decisions".

In 3E, if one player wanted to play Bruce Lee, another wanted to play frodo, a third wanted to play Conan, and a fourth wanted to play a build they found on the internet where they prebuff and turn into a bird, it was going to be a very lame game.

A lot of 3E power gamer builds actively made the game worse because the designers actively divided exciting or resonant content from what was mechanically good.

In 5e, maybe you personally are sick of hexblade dips, but at least hex Sorlocks have a sort of 90s antihero cool appeal. And many of the mechanically best concepts are also resonant because the 5E team understood aligning mechanics and flavor - for example, to my understanding if two players come to me, one saying "I want to be legolas" and another saying "I want to be optimized for ranged DPR" I can hand them the same sheet.

[Unoriginal]

I often have trouble convincing my players that their build that doesn't come 'online' until Level 6 is trash, because they have to play Levels 1-5, first (or 2-5). 'Getting good' at Level 6, doesn't help if you die at Level 4.

I've had two players with Level 1 Paladins die in my sessions, because they dump STR, because at Level 2 they'll obviously pick up Hexblade...But they don't even make it to Level 2.
- So, uhh...Paladin, it'd be nice if you could actually hit something for once, and when you hit, deal damage.
"My STR is 10! I can't hit anything until Level 2!"
- But your role in the party is to explicitly deal melee damage. That's why you're here!
"I can't...Yet!"

To be fair, I don't think that "if you pick X class your role is Y" is an enjoyable way to handle characters.

That being said, if they go for Paladin/Hexblade they obviously did want to be melee damage dealers.

On the third hand, how many fights do you usually have between the start of the game and the PCs becoming lvl 2? A Paladin should be able to tank the hits with their guts for a couple fights.

[MoiMagnus]

As such, I encourage my players to make optimized builds, and gladly point them towards optimal options if they ask for some assistance. And as a player, I tend towards making optimized and powerful characters. As long as a Power Gamer isn't acting like a Munchkin, then what's the issue with it?

The main reason is "they had a poor experience with a jerk that was also a powergamer, and blamed the powergaming instead of the person". [Same for Rules Lawyers, by the way. That's mostly jerks that made this category of players hated.] But there is still other factors. I will assume the powergamer is actually good at powergaming, because peoples who think they are good at something but are actually bad at it is another problem, and that in practice I only personally encountered powergamers that were reasonably good.

1) A large proportion of the player base is ill-fitted for the system used. The system emphases on parts of the gameplay that are not the part they enjoy, encourage strategies they find boring or frustrating, etc. This mean that the more their character is optimised to fit in the system, the less they will enjoy the game. There are two solutions to this problem (a) have an experience DM able to understand what the players are seeking and correctly find houserules to change the balance toward the player's fun or (b) play in a low optimisation group, where having a character that doesn't follow optimised strategies does not make you feel weak.

2) Playing with someone objectively better than you at a game is hard for the egos. RPGs bypass this issue by building an illusion of incomparability, as everyone has very different advantages and disadvantage depending on the circumstances. Powergaming is a display of skill, but not as a "I am better than you at this particular task inside the universe", but as a "I am better than you at playing this RPG in general".

3) A lot of peoples want to make "emotional decisions" rather than "rational decisions". It means choosing a feat, a class, a power because it has a cool name, or just because they felt like they liked it on a whim, or because there was written "fire" on it and they want to make a firelord. It's like choosing their brand of cereal because the font on the box looked nice. It's their morning cereals, that's for their own fun, they can be free to make choices on the most irrational way they want. But this fun is quickly broken into pieces when their friend say to them that this is crap and that they will be hungry way before lunch if they don't take some more nutritious cereals, and the doctor say they should really stop taking trash like that if they don't want to suffer from health issues latter in their life. As a powergamer, just by making rational choices in front of them, you're implicitly reminding them that they should stop making irrational choices if they don't want to suffer from the consequences of making objectively bad decisions.

[MrStabby]

Power gaming is absolutely a spectrum, and not all power gaming is bad. As others have said, context is important.

I have two gripes with powergaming in its broad form. One as a DM and one as a player. Both are around choice.

As a player I want to play a character I will find cool. Part of being cool is doing cool things. Cool in this case means something a bit unique and useful... and actually getting to do it.

If I have a battlemaster fighter whose cool thing is manoeuvres and I play alongside a wizard with hypnotic pattern, then my cool thing wont be useful in that fight, unless a lot of enemies pass their saves. This isnt the fault of a powergamer, just the way the classes work. Besides I can handle single targets really well and do decent damage. I have other cool stuff.

But if that same wizard takes fireball, so that when a fight calls for damage they are better than me there, and if they take banishment so they are better than me at removing single enemies from the fight and if they are also better at blocking access to allies as they have wall of force and so on then I wont have much fun.

It's not such a big deal, it just means I wont play that character in a game with an optimised wizard. And it isnt the fault of the power gamer. But it isnt just that class that is ruled out for me and not just that character. The size of the set of characters I can have fun with diminishes as the degree of optimisation at the table gets higher.

But the issue isnt the average level of powergaming at the table but the peak level. Just one player who has focussed on raising the average power of their character is enough to diminish the fun of certain choices for everyone else.

You can play the game like that. It is still fun. It isnt like it is ruining everything but it does feel like in practice there are so many options I will never use because they dont provide something that wont be outshone by an optimised character of another class.

It doesnt matter your power relative to monsters. A DM can adjust that easily. What shows up is your effectiveness in a given party. .and beyond the DM resorting to "you are not a cool character but rather a character than owns cool things" style of handing out magic items, there isnt much they can do.


And as a DM... powergaming is an issue as well. Similarly not something totally crippling, but still a serious problem.

Now as a DM I can balance a game pretty much whatever happens. Between making certain saves more prevalent, using certain skills more, changing enemies... I have a lot of levers to pull. The issue is that I dont always want to.

Do I want to roll out banishment every encounter? No. It sucks for players and sometimes I want different enemies using different spells. Do I never field small numbers of elite enemies? Do I ever have powerful enemies without misty step? Balancing a game isnt the issue for a DM, but powergaming can force a DM into options that are a long way from their first choice to keep it balanced.

Powergaming isnt the worst thing ever but it can restrict options and if someone wanted to play those options then it can get a bit annoying. I now have a few different tables with different cultures so it is less an issue for me than it once was.

[Waazraath]

Except:

A) "mechanics were quite sub-par for monks compared with loads of other classes" is literally a power complain. People see a feature and go "actually this power would be better on something else than a Monk, therefore there must be a dissonance when the fluff tells me this race has a lot of Monks".

B) Githzerai being the "monkiest Monks" is still true in 5e, and the only reason people said/say there is a mismatch is because they're not a +WIS +DEX race with innate powers that synergises optimally with the Monk class. But it turns that the little "have enough mental discipline to turn the Limbo chaos into inhabitable territories" trick the Githzerai are known for requires INT, and it's anathema for some people to consider anything but an in-game, PC-level display of power as a demonstration of being the "monkiest Monk".

... yeah, a mismatch between fluff and power is indeed also about power, but I don't understand why you would disregard the other part, which is 'fluff'. In the PHB there is nothing in the monk class about 'enough mental discipline to control limbo' - there is a lot of stuff about being wise and dexterous, and about being great in unarmed fighting, difficult to hit even without armor, and being fast. And if you want to emulate that picture, your much better off with wood elfs, vhumans, and probably another bunch of races. Monk is one of the (probably "the") most ability score dependent class. Having the quintessential monk race not having a dex increase is not "it's too weak" but "this is in no way in line with the fluff and the editor of this book was having a serious off-day". I mean, in 3.5 gitzerai had +4 AC when fighting unarmed, +6 dex and +2 wis... yeah level adjustments and all that, but still the 5e version is messed up.



I often have trouble convincing my players that their build that doesn't come 'online' until Level 6 is trash, because they have to play Levels 1-5, first (or 2-5). 'Getting good' at Level 6, doesn't help if you die at Level 4.

I've had two players with Level 1 Paladins die in my sessions, because they dump STR, because at Level 2 they'll obviously pick up Hexblade...But they don't even make it to Level 2.
- So, uhh...Paladin, it'd be nice if you could actually hit something for once, and when you hit, deal damage.
"My STR is 10! I can't hit anything until Level 2!"
- But your role in the party is to explicitly deal melee damage. That's why you're here!
"I can't...Yet!"

Except that a pally that dups str isn't allowed to multi-class in the first place... (13 minimum str required)

[Unoriginal]

2) Playing with someone objectively better than you at a game is hard for the egos. RPGs bypass this issue by building an illusion of incomparability, as everyone has very different advantages and disadvantage depending on the circumstances. Powergaming is a display of skill, but not as a "I am better than you at this particular task inside the universe", but as a "I am better than you at playing this RPG in general".

Many powergamers have the impression and the attitude that their powergaming skills (or in some case, powergaming at all) makes them objectively better at playing the RPG in general.

But being able to create powerful character is not "objectively being better at the RPG". At best you're just better at doing one specific thing (making powerful character) in one specific part of the game (character creation).

[NorthernPhoenix]

I hate it because people who do it can rarely, in my experience, control themselves. They can't just "power game" as a thought exercise, they feel the need to use the collection of "rules" they've created to dominate or subvert the narrative to placate an unreasonable fear of "losing" (i've seen this reffered to elsewhere as "extreme loss aversion", that extends even into a make belive game). If you show me a "power gamer" who will let themselves be arrested, bow to a king, or run from a foe instead of only reacting to overwhelming force, you'll have shown me a "power gamer" i don't mind.

[Bunny Commando]

Personally, as a Power Gamer myself, I don't fully understand the dislike. I find it fun to fully optimize a build and make it as powerful as possible, be it with dips, item,s spells, ect.. And as a DM, I make encounters that force my players to have a level of competency with their abilities and tactics. If you come to my table you need to have a good grasp on your class' abilities, how to use them, and be decently powerful. Otherwise, you will die. Case in point, I recently ran an encounter for party of level 2 adventurers. The fight included 3 zombies, a skeleton, an orb that you had to make a DC 10 Con save against or take 1d4 necrotic damage each round, though if you fell unconscious you became immune to the effect, and an invisible Poltergeist. The party managed to scrape by on the skin of their teeth, and had a lot of trouble with the Poltergeist until the Paladin realized he could use Divine Sense to pinpoint its exact location.

As such, I encourage my players to make optimized builds, and gladly point them towards optimal options if they ask for some assistance. And as a player, I tend towards making optimized and powerful characters. As long as a Power Gamer isn't acting like a Munchkin, then what's the issue with it?

First and foremost, "people" is a bit generic and the title of this thread a bit misleading: GitP, Reddit, Enworld and so on are choke full of informations on how to optimize your character; if I write on Google "D&D Fighter", the first suggestion is "Guide".
So no, I do not believe there's a general dislike on optimization. It doesn't mean that everyone is interested in fully optimize a character, though.

You say that at your table a player has to optimize her character to a certain degree or be interested in optimization to ask for assistance. Some players are not interested in either options and so most probably will not have fun at your table; the "dislike" you may perceive could actually be just different expectations from the game - entirely valid expectations that would be better met at another table with a different approach.

[Xervous]

On the third hand, how many fights do you usually have between the start of the game and the PCs becoming lvl 2? A Paladin should be able to tank the hits with their guts for a couple fights.

Null value. Extreme low levels are one of the rarely acknowledged broken parts of D&D


With so many terms being thrown around Powergamer as I’ve come to understand it covers matters of power, and power is forever relative. A mere glance at ARPGs reveals the desires, jump the hurdle and then maybe become concerned with just how high it is you’re jumping if there are no bigger hurdles around.

But is it relative to the monsters? Combat is a show piece for the heroes to have their fun wrecking the armies of the thinkerdrinker. Is it relative to the other players in a way that invalidates them when the game implies some baseline of balance? That’s badwrongfun in no way ironic. Relative to other players when said other players have opted out of that field? Working as intended! Relative to typical games played in the system such that everyone is punching above their level? That’s just number and flavoring shenanigans that can be leveraged to tell players (To their delight, shared delight is always ever the goal here) that this GM house rule makes them more powerful, or that their wise choices now have them taking on the content normally targeted at characters two levels higher than them.

Given a pen and paper role playing system I’m the optimizer, meet the desired baseline competencies then chase down all the random fun details. Points in place to be an attrition auramancer? Great, now I can devote more to giving this mage knight the knowledges I envisioned him with. Baseline combat and stealth competencies achieved on all party members? Now each member of the shadowrun Russian hit squad can focus on their area of expertise, like the ever so versatile and often flavorful knowledge: liquor and demolitions pairing.

System not a good fit for the style? Use a different one. Story doesn’t fit the general shape of what generally works on tabletop? That’s what free form is for.

So long as it doesn’t negatively impact the other players through uninvited sidelining or by causing thematic dissonance power gaming is just another kind of gaming. Of course we mainly hear about the horror stories here.

[MinotaurWarrior]

3) A lot of peoples want to make "emotional decisions" rather than "rational decisions". It means choosing a feat, a class, a power because it has a cool name, or just because they felt like they liked it on a whim, or because there was written "fire" on it and they want to make a firelord. It's like choosing their brand of cereal because the font on the box looked nice. It's their morning cereals, that's for their own fun, they can be free to make choices on the most irrational way they want. But this fun is quickly broken into pieces when their friend say to them that this is crap and that they will be hungry way before lunch if they don't take some more nutritious cereals, and the doctor say they should really stop taking trash like that if they don't want to suffer from health issues latter in their life. As a powergamer, just by making rational choices in front of them, you're implicitly reminding them that they should stop making irrational choices if they don't want to suffer from the consequences of making objectively bad decisions.

This is entirely a game design failure. Everyone wants both the emotional aspect and the "rational" aspect. If not, power gamers would be happy to play "class A" with features like "Damage buff: you deal 1d6 more damage under circumstance 2" and non power gamers would be happy with a class like "Legolas" with class features like "Whenever you make a ranged weapon attack, you shoot three arrows in rapid succession. This does not change the amount or type of damage you deal".

The game designers have complete freedom to place mechanics and fluff wherever they want, and while combinatorics make it so they cannot possibly foresee all possible combinations if they include many game elements, it is reasonably in their power to mostly place the mechanical goodness in the same places as the fluffy fun.

3E sometimes intentionally did not do this, but 5E does a reasonably good job of it.

[cutlery]

You can powergame and roleplay; they aren't mutually exclusive. However, both in the same player are somewhat rare - depending on the definitions for "powergaming".


One thing I've seen at the table both as a player and a DM is that a particular subset of powergamer essentially sits out encounters that their particular schtick isn't useful for. This is annoying for basically everyone else at the table. Look, I'm sorry you made a character that stacked different types of sneak attack damage in 3.0e and then walked into a spooky house full of vampires and/or constructs, but if you do don't sit down and play solitaire while party members are getting drained, ok?

[KorvinStarmast]

Why do people dislike power gaming so much I'll answer that with a reference to a different game.
Diablo II. In the early weeks of play on battle.net, a number of power gamers figured out a bug with weapons mastery and whirlwind that left a lot of other people in public play games in the role of spectators.

There's a funny diablol youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIYfqBHiVRs) that highights the sort of frustration that can cause, though it is set in "baal runs" for the expansion and slow internet connections.

[Unoriginal]

... yeah, a mismatch between fluff and power is indeed also about power,

There is no mismatch between the fluff and the power.




but I don't understand why you would disregard the other part, which is 'fluff'.

I am not. You're the one claiming that the fluff doesn't work unless the Githzerai get a DEX bonus



In the PHB there is nothing in the monk class about 'enough mental discipline to control limbo'

There is quite a bit about the control of ki through enlightenment.


there is a lot of stuff about being wise

Which Githzerai get a bonus for.



and dexterous,

Which nothing stop a Githzerai from being.


and about being great in unarmed fighting, difficult to hit even without armor, and being fast.

Which all Monks are.



And if you want to emulate that picture, your much better off with wood elfs, vhumans, and probably another bunch of races.

It is not "if you want to emulate that picture", it's "if you want to hit harder". WIS Monks exist.



Monk is one of the (probably "the") most ability score dependent class.

And one of said ability score is WIS.



Having the quintessential monk race not having a dex increase is not "it's too weak" but "this is in no way in line with the fluff and the editor of this book was having a serious off-day".

No, it is "powergamers are unable to recognize a Monk as being Monk unless they have 16+ DEX at level 1".

There is nothing in the fluff that indicates that a people with a long tradition of monastic orders and mysticism need to supremely dextrous too.

Was 5e wrong to present the Githzerai as not only monks, but also psions relying on their mental powers? Some people might argue yes based on subjective factors (like not liking the fact psionic powers are a part of D&D), but them being that way was always part of the Githzerai lore.

Beside, the "it doesn't fit the fluff" argument is pretty shallow. Nobody, and especially not powergamers, complains that the Dwarf makes a great Abjurer even though by the fluff Dwarves are not keen on wizardry (and them not being able to get 16 in INT at character creation).



I mean, in 3.5 gitzerai had +4 AC when fighting unarmed, +6 dex and +2 wis... yeah level adjustments and all that, but still the 5e version is messed up.


It's not because 3.X embraced the "select X is because they're the best at Y class in every way" powergaming expectation while 5e doesn't that it's the 5e version that is messed up.


Again, if a whole race is disregarded as "bad at X class" just because they can't get 16+ in a stat at lvl 1, the issue isn't with the race.

Which is why most "Guide to X class" fail, in my opinion.

[Sigreid]

I think the biggest problem is when the power gamer starts talking about how the other players should do x so their character doesn't suck. This isn't always a thing that happens. The group I'm in has a pretty wide range from noobie to casual to power gamer and it's not an issue because we're friends. But it only takes a couple contacts with a hyper competitive and very vocal power gamer to start lumping them all in together. Works that way with everything really. An aggressive and vocal minority can taint the water for a whole group of people.

[patchyman]

But being able to create powerful character is not "objectively being better at the RPG". At best you're just better at doing one specific thing (making powerful character) in one specific part of the game (character creation).

To both build on this point and introduce a point that I have not seen on this thread....

Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of everything is c***. I think only a minority of powergamers understand the nuance of the most common powergamer builds and grok that flexibilty is necessary when whiteroom theorycrafting meets actual gaming. The rest google “strongest character EVAR!!!” and copy paste the build.

This leads to different problems depending on the experience of the DM.

An inexperienced DM may get flustered and have difficulty dealing with the player. They may crank up the CR of the monsters (frustrating the non-powergamer players) or suffer through a bunch of anti-climactic battles (frustrating the DM).

An experienced DM can generally short-circuit many powerbuilds without increasing the CR too much. Of course, this sucks for the powergamer, since if making a very strong character is important to you, it is not fun that (i) your bladesinger got ambushed; (ii) your owl used for flyby got chomped while you were in the wilderness and couldn’t replace it; (iii) your hexblade got pushed off a cliff and spent the fight failing the Athletics rolls to get back into the fight; or (iv) your diviner wasted their Portent dice on the Legendary resistance of the BBEG (or on the monster that seemed to be the BBEG but wasn’t). Or (v) when you decided to leave the dungeon for a long rest after massacring 3/4 of the inhabitants, the remaining inhabitants simply left taking the McGuffin with them.

Either way, someone ends up frustrated.

[Unoriginal]

To both build on this point and introduce a point that I have not seen on this thread....

Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of everything is c***. I think only a minority of powergamers understand the nuance of the most common powergamer builds and grok that flexibilty is necessary when whiteroom theorycrafting meets actual gaming. The rest google “strongest character EVAR!!!” and copy paste the build.

This leads to different problems depending on the experience of the DM.

An inexperienced DM may get flustered and have difficulty dealing with the player. They may crank up the CR of the monsters (frustrating the non-powergamer players) or suffer through a bunch of anti-climactic battles (frustrating the DM).

An experienced DM can generally short-circuit many powerbuilds without increasing the CR too much. Of course, this sucks for the powergamer, since if making a very strong character is important to you, it is not fun that (i) your bladesinger got ambushed; (ii) your owl used for flyby got chomped while you were in the wilderness and couldn’t replace it; (iii) your hexblade got pushed off a cliff and spent the fight failing the Athletics rolls to get back into the fight; or (iv) your diviner wasted their Portent dice on the Legendary resistance of the BBEG (or on the monster that seemed to be the BBEG but wasn’t). Or (v) when you decided to leave the dungeon for a long rest after massacring 3/4 of the inhabitants, the remaining inhabitants simply left taking the McGuffin with them.

Either way, someone ends up frustrated.

Thanks, this is a really good point I was forgetting.

Many power gamers take white room theorycrafting as not only factual gospel, but also as what would always happen at a table.

[da newt]

IMO "powergamer" has become a stereotype with associated negative connotations that don't necessarily have anything to do with optimized PC builds and tactics. In my experience, some powergamers are selfish players who are no fun to team up with because of how they approach the game and interact with others at the table - on the other hand some powergamers are great to have at the table as they can save your @$$ when things get dicey and they play the team role well. Some folks are better at combat within the D&D rules, and try to do that as well as they can. I don't know why some folks want to criticize these folks for their skill or efforts to be powerful.

In many ways it's like the left fielder on a baseball team getting bent out of shape because the shortstop is much better at baseball than they are. I don't get it. For me - I care if you are a good team mate, I don't give a single foxx if you are a hard core optimizer or regularly waste your BA because you forgot you could whatever ... And I'll admit, sometimes the optomizer is a crappy team player.

For example, Ludicsavant is pretty obviously a skilled optomizer - does that mean he creates issues at the table with his powerful PCs? Maybe yes, maybe no. Bringing a Nukewizard to the table could be a problem, but it all depends on what the player does with it (and also how the others at the table decide to judge that player's actions).

[KorvinStarmast]

Very similar reasons games often get split into casual and competitive play i suspect. +1. See my point on battle.net above.
two players:

"I'm looking forward to playing dnd with my friends. I think I'll make a ranger who shoots a bow while their pet wolf rushes forward, that sounds cool"
"I'm looking forward to playing dnd with my friends. I've got a plan for a twist on the half elf hexadin with elven accuracy, I'm excited to see how it performs"


Both of these players are playing DND correctly, and will have fun. The trick as a DM is to keep them both 'in play' during a given session.

I think the dislike has nothing to do with power gamers. It has something to do with acting like *******s. The meme-like DBAD advice is good advice in a lot of leisure activities, not just D&D.
You can't optimise a Level 2 character. If you've got a 15+ if your class' main stat, congratulations, you're optimised.
{snip}
Power Gaming doesn't work unless the whole party is doing it.
{snip]
That's why I always advocate for optimised parties, not optimised characters. Good post, and I like your bottom line; and it may not need to be optimized as a party, but it does need to have all of the key roles filled. (And that's why, since 5e came out, I always pick last when we start out). I'll toss in two or three character ideas, but I will not 'go final' until all other players have made their choices. For our groups, it works.

Adding class specific attunement requirements can work for this as a mechanical hint too. I have done this with a couple of magic items, and it kind of helps that the DMG having sentient items gives me some tools to work with. Telepathic voice says to the bard "I am not interested in attuning with you, singer." :smallsmile:

Worst case scenario is that you grossly power game, outshining two or three other characters combined, and the rest of the party wonders what they're even doing at the table, and start playing with their phones. That's one way that a campaign dies.

After all, anything can be made cooler or more difficult; Take an NPC Veteran {snip} (nice example).


Power gaming applies a competitive mindset to a game, that wasn't designed to be played competitively.

1) There is no win condition

So long story short: There are competitive games and there are cooperative games. D&D is clearly in the latter category. Power gaming is competitive by nature and therefore a bad idea when playing D&D.
Nice post. /me Applause


I think it got extreme because 3e developers badly misunderstood WotC's design principles from MtG.
Yep. Even so, the game did find a decent sized fan base, the problem from the corporate side was barrier to entry.
(I just read a neat essay on lenticular design and Nintendo (http://www.firstpersonscholar.com/the-game-design-holy-grail/); thanks for inspiring me to do a bit of looking into that term).

[Waazraath]

There is no mismatch between the fluff and the power.

I am not. You're the one claiming that the fluff doesn't work unless the Githzerai get a DEX bonus

There is quite a bit about the control of ki through enlightenment.

Which Githzerai get a bonus for.

Which nothing stop a Githzerai from being. (A)

Which all Monks are. (B)

It is not "if you want to emulate that picture", it's "if you want to hit harder". WIS Monks exist.

And one of said ability score is WIS.

No, it is "powergamers are unable to recognize a Monk as being Monk unless they have 16+ DEX at level 1". (C)

There is nothing in the fluff that indicates that a people with a long tradition of monastic orders and mysticism need to supremely dextrous too.

Was 5e wrong to present the Githzerai as not only monks, but also psions relying on their mental powers? Some people might argue yes based on subjective factors (like not liking the fact psionic powers are a part of D&D), but them being that way was always part of the Githzerai lore.

Beside, the "it doesn't fit the fluff" argument is pretty shallow. Nobody, and especially not powergamers, complains that the Dwarf makes a great Abjurer even though by the fluff Dwarves are not keen on wizardry (and them not being able to get 16 in INT at character creation).(D)

It's not because 3.X embraced the "select X is because they're the best at Y class in every way" powergaming expectation while 5e doesn't that it's the 5e version that is messed up.

Again, if a whole race is disregarded as "bad at X class" just because they can't get 16+ in a stat at lvl 1, the issue isn't with the race. (E)

Which is why most "Guide to X class" fail, in my opinion.

A: yeah, great, so this race that should be dexterous by fluff is excactly just as dexterous as your average human, dwarf, orc or whatever.

B: again, yeah, only some are better than others and the quintessential race isn't the best, actually, over a dozen races are better in this respect.

C: nobody is making this point. Strawman.

D: simply untrue, because a lot of folks, inclusive optimizers, have expressed annoyance how the hobgoblin (when it came out) was a perfect wizard race instead of a warrior race, wich was a mismatch with the fluff.

E: this starts to look like arguing in bad faith. Nobody said it was bad, definitely not in this thread. The problem is the mismatch. Strawman no.2

And in general: I don't know what the thing is about githzerai that this is an issue. Elves are the super graceful race, everybody would have been annoyed if they would have gotten +2 str instead of +2 dex. Orcs are big hulking brutes that are strong and tough - if they would have gotten +2 int and +2 cha when released, it would have been a laughing stock. But finding it weird that githzerai, that race that lives in bloody monestaries, and who get when statted out in a monster book never have less than 14 dex, don't get a dex bonus - that is powergaming??? This is just silly.

[Composer99]

It seems to me that char-op does introduce a classic "prisoner's dilemma" into gameplay, both on the DM side and the player side, even when everyone is well-intentioned. For both the DM and players, more char-op means the amount of work (*) required to achieve the fun/satisfaction/challenge/whatever-it-is-you-want-from-the-game increases. You either have to do more work, or you have to put up with having less fun - whether you enjoy char-op or not.

(*) By which I mean time and effort improving your system mastery.

If you like putting in the extra work, well and good. If you don't like putting in the extra work, also well and good. But, either way, once you get into char-op, you have to put in the extra work.

There's only really a problem when people with different preferences or tolerance levels for the ratio of work-to-gameplay-satisfaction play together without making an effort to harmonise their expectations, or are unable or unwilling to recognise the legitimacy of one another's divergent preferences or tolerance levels with respect to that ratio, whether in play or when discussing the issue on boards such as this one.

You can easily see why, for instance, someone with a preference or tolerance for a higher work-to-gameplay-satisfaction ratio might find playing with other players or DMs with preferring or tolerating a lower ratio to be some combination of boring/frustrating/unsatisfying ("why is the DM coddling us?"/"why won't player X pull their weight?"), or why someone whose preferences or tolerances are lower would feel the same way about the reverse ("why is player Y ruining my game?"/"player Z is a munchkin!1!").

On a related note, I find this remark very bizarre in light of the above observations:


3) A lot of peoples want to make "emotional decisions" rather than "rational decisions". It means choosing a feat, a class, a power because it has a cool name, or just because they felt like they liked it on a whim, or because there was written "fire" on it and they want to make a firelord. It's like choosing their brand of cereal because the font on the box looked nice. It's their morning cereals, that's for their own fun, they can be free to make choices on the most irrational way they want. But this fun is quickly broken into pieces when their friend say to them that this is crap and that they will be hungry way before lunch if they don't take some more nutritious cereals, and the doctor say they should really stop taking trash like that if they don't want to suffer from health issues latter in their life. As a powergamer, just by making rational choices in front of them, you're implicitly reminding them that they should stop making irrational choices if they don't want to suffer from the consequences of making objectively bad decisions.

Codswallop.

For collaborative games such as D&D, there are no objectively good or bad decisions, just as no one is objectively better or worse at playing the game. There are only decisions that are good or bad relative to achieving what you value in the game and what amount of work you prefer or are prepared to tolerate putting in to achieve any given amount of gameplay satisfaction.

A powergamer is not "making rational choices" that rub other players' poor decision-making in their faces. Valuing something different out of D&D or having a different preference or tolerance for any given work-to-gameplay-satisfaction ratio in a game such as D&D is simply not analogous to the difference between a breakfast with sufficient nutrients and dietary fibre and a breakfast loaded with processed sugars &c.

[Man_Over_Game]

As long as a Power Gamer isn't acting like a Munchkin, then what's the issue with it?

From my viewpoint on it:
Combat is probably the worst part of DnD. Sure, there's a lot of rules for it, but DnD has never really done combat well from a gaming perspective (except for 4e, which was all it was good for).
Balance is based on the strongest compared to the weakest. Having one player stronger than the rest means the game is too easy for the power gamer, or it's harder for everyone else.
DnD is a game where specializing into combat or roleplaying is often mutually exclusive. A Fighter taking Polearm Master will have fewer tools to roleplay with than one that took Actor, and most of the game revolves around what happens out of combat.
Combat in general is difficult to encourage interactivity between players, unless it's for a generally-niche feature (such as grappling). Player-to-Player interactivity puts less work on the DM, and it encourages more drama and risk to make a better game.


Overall, having a powergamer means you probably need more combat, which is where the least happens to the group. Since combat only lasts like 5 minutes in world-time, most of the plot and player interaction happens without it, not to mention that the difficulty likely ramps up to compensate.


In a way, you could say that the more powergaming the team, the less game there is to play. Powergamers make the game less.

I think powergaming would be fine if:
There was a massive overhaul of the combat system to encourage more interactivity from the players (so that the more of a powergamer you are, the more of the game you're making for the rest of the table).
There was a change to the system so that you don't have the option to sell your roleplaying options to get better at combat or vice-versa (so that a powergamer wasn't limited to being powerful on the battlefield).

But as is, right now, most powergaming in DnD means focusing mostly on yourself, doing single-target things that most of your party can ignore, whether that's Divine Smiting 50 times, spamming high-powered Eldritch Blasts each turn, or just casting Shield to make you harder to kill. Even the stuff that allies can utilize is really one-dimensional (like the Mastermind's ranged Help Action) and doesn't do much more than "Hit Harder" or "Hurt less", which don't really change what your teammates were going to do all that much.

[Sorinth]

It seems to me that char-op does introduce a classic "prisoner's dilemma" into gameplay, both on the DM side and the player side, even when everyone is well-intentioned. For both the DM and players, more char-op means the amount of work (*) required to achieve the fun/satisfaction/challenge/whatever-it-is-you-want-from-the-game increases. You either have to do more work, or you have to put up with having less fun - whether you enjoy char-op or not.

Ignoring the DM for a minute how does an optimizer create more work/less fun for the other players who don't optimize?

If a player doesn't optimize for combat then chances are that they get their fun outside of combat and so would be unaffected by a player who optimizes for combat even if that player takes the spotlight during combat.

[Willie the Duck]

In all likelihood, when you see someone complaining about ______ (be it power-gaming, rules-lawyering, or focusing on narrative at the expense of mechanical benefit), the complaint is really that someone is going too far in that direction for their taste. So (IMO) a lot of complaining about powergaming is really about someone powergaming too-much (too far, stretching the rules too far, etc.). Or, as others have said, doing so in a way that makes things unfun for everyone else.

I haven't seen much of this as an issue in 5e, but in 3e, one real issue is that, if the group decided to powergame (or, even worse, one person decides to powergame, the DM alters the challenges to compensate, and now everyone who doesn't powergame is relatively worse off), then plenty of character concepts (which otherwise would be perfectly doable) suddenly come off the table). Taken to the (ridiculous) extreme, if the gloves come off and everyone optimizes as far as possible, then everyone has to play Pun Pun and then there is no variety. 5e doesn't have that level, but (for example), if everyone else is playing some cha-class super-hybrid, someone else who wants to play a single class ranger or barbarian or similar just isn't going to get to, and once again the number of options start shrinking.


And on the DM side, power gaming lets me thrower bigger, cooler, and deadlier encounters at the party. I'd never be able to properly use a Star Spawn Seer and Star Spawn Hulk against an unoptimized group of players with unoptimized builds.
I wanted to touch on this one. I've found that if both DM and players just up the optimization game, things don't become cooler, they just become bigger, and when the numbers on both sides rise, it raises the likelihood of when things go wrong they go really wrong. Suddenly really bad encounters change from one-character death scenarios into TPKs and, while you have to have the potential of a TPK baked into your expectations, if it happens too often it can be really hard to keep an ongoing campaign going. Beyond that, simply by the tuning of the game engine, the actual contribution towards overall success governed by players making smart decisions seems to be highest with moderately optimized PCs against commensurately balanced challenges.

[Man_Over_Game]

Ignoring the DM for a minute how does an optimizer create more work/less fun for the other players who don't optimize?

If a player doesn't optimize for combat then chances are that they get their fun outside of combat and so would be unaffected by a player who optimizes for combat even if that player takes the spotlight during combat.

Because players aren't 1-dimensional, even if their characters might be. If an optimizer only cared about combat, they'd probably have more fun just playing something like Divinity 2. Player interactivity matters between everyone at the table, otherwise they wouldn't be there.

Problem is, DnD isn't naturally inclined to encourage teamwork through optimization. Most feats you take only affect yourself. Most of the powerful abilities you can build around (Divine Smite, Shield) only ever affect yourself. So you're encouraged to be selfish as an optimizer, which means less Player-to-Player interactivity as a whole.

Put another way, the more you optimize, the less DnD there is.

But had the game not have things like Divine Smite or Shield, an Optimizer could still find the means of Optimizing until he felt satisfied. Obviously, we can't take those things away now, but had there been a standard of Optimizing = Teamwork, nobody would be complaining.

Had the Rogue have a massive crit bonus against Prone targets but no efficient ways of knocking the target Prone and had to rely on a Barbarian for his ability to manhandle enemies, any optimization made by the Rogue would be felt by the Barbarian who helped him rather than just the Rogue.



It's a flaw on the system, not on the players, but it still doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Not a big enough problem to be worth stopping for most tables, but you don't gotta be happy about it.

[Azuresun]

Because players aren't 1-dimensional, even if their characters might be. If an optimizer only cared about combat, they'd probably have more fun just playing something like Divinity 2. Player interactivity matters between everyone at the table, otherwise they wouldn't be there.

Problem is, DnD isn't naturally inclined to encourage teamwork through optimization. Most feats you take only affect yourself. Most of the powerful abilities you can build around (Divine Smite, Shield) only ever affect yourself. So you're encouraged to be selfish as an optimizer, which means less Player-to-Player interactivity as a whole.

Put another way, the more you optimize, the less DnD there is.

A common thread I notice for most optimisation threads is that they assume the characters never help each other and are just competing for the ability to deal the most DPR.

[Man_Over_Game]

A common thread I notice for most optimisation threads is that they assume the characters never help each other and are just competing for the ability to deal the most DPR.

Well, why not?


Help Action means spending an Action to grant Advantage, yet an Action is worth more than Advantage. You're encouraged to not use the Help Action for your allies when your Actions matter most.
Most buffs or area spells take up Concentration, while those that rely on your own successes (Shield, Fireball, Booming Blade) don't. Many of the spells that do strongly encourage teamwork often come with a major drawback (Warding Bond, Haste).
Some of the best optimization features in the game (Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Divine Smite, Fighting Styles) all generally don't interact much with your teammates.
The Attack Action generally doesn't interact with your teammates, same with most Cantrips, despite those being your "defaults" for the game.

Hell, the one Fighting Style in the game that utilizes your allies is considered one of the worst, and that's basically setting the trend for the rest of 5e.

I don't mean this sarcastically or condescendingly, but please explain to me why Optimizing encourages teamwork, and not the other way around (where a party uses teamwork to improve optimization*). Because I'm having a hard time seeing it.

*:Those seem like the same things, but consider how much a Sorcerer casting Haste on a Fighter would add for the team compared to a single casting of Fireball. In an example like that, the Sorcerer is using teamwork in spite of a more-optimized move, and so any true "optimizer" wouldn't bother Hasting the Fighter.



[Edit] I realize now that you could be saying "I see optimizers as often being selfish, hence I think they're bad", instead of "I see people assuming optimizers are selfish, when there's really no reason for it", and I interpreted the latter of the two. Please correct me if I did a dumb.

[Xervous]

.For collaborative games such as D&D, there are no objectively good or bad decisions, just as no one is objectively better or worse at playing the game. There are only decisions that are good or bad relative to achieving what you value in the game and what amount of work you prefer or are prepared to tolerate putting in to achieve any given amount of gameplay satisfaction.


Trivially: the participant, brain=off player making choices primarily with the intent of aggravating other players/the GM even when confronted with pleas to amend such behavior.

If someone consistently demonstrates the inability to function within the social and statistical contract of D&D what do you term it other than failure to engage? If the project is a bird house and you took this class, sitting through an explanation of what birdhouses are, then built a wheelbarrow that’s a failure to engage.

Powergaming that leads to uninformed sidelining is detestable. Discussion of choices to bring everyone onto the same wavelength should be a part of every table that might anticipate adverse effects from power disparity. The failure to engage can just as easily be the minmaxed powergamer as the flavor loving fluffbunny. We just don’t hear anything about the fluffbunnies as their impact is always ever filtered through the GM so all gripes end up pinned on GM or system.

[GlenSmash!]

A common thread I notice for most optimisation threads is that they assume the characters never help each other and are just competing for the ability to deal the most DPR.

Indeed.

Taking an example from earlier in the thread, is the Githzerai monk that started with 14 Dex but has had Bless cast on them by the Cleric, and is standing next to the Wolf Totem Barbarian when they attack really going to notice that the could have had +1 to hit and damage if they had picked another race? Squeaking out all the +1s you can for yourself just ins't a very fun or even effective way to play D&D.

If you really want to optimize in 5e optimize your party and your tactics. Or in other words figure out how to help each other.

[MaxWilson]

A common thread I notice for most optimisation threads is that they assume the characters never help each other and are just competing for the ability to deal the most DPR.

IMO this is a just a symptom. The root cause is "game isn't challenging"/"not enough risk of TPK." When victory isn't in doubt, combat just becomes a race to the finish line--they compete for DPR because what else is there?

Solution: take whatever encounter you were going to use, and increase the number of each monster type by 50-100%.

[MrStabby]

A common thread I notice for most optimisation threads is that they assume the characters never help each other and are just competing for the ability to deal the most DPR.

I think it's the focus of comparisons rather than optimisation. I mean what is better between Command and Dissonent Whispers depends on campaign and level and other abilities. What is better between 46 and 49 damage is less controversial (even if it is different damage types).

It reflects the tools available for comparing, rather than values.

[Sorinth]

Because players aren't 1-dimensional, even if their characters might be. If an optimizer only cared about combat, they'd probably have more fun just playing something like Divinity 2. Player interactivity matters between everyone at the table, otherwise they wouldn't be there.

Problem is, DnD isn't naturally inclined to encourage teamwork through optimization. Most feats you take only affect yourself. Most of the powerful abilities you can build around (Divine Smite, Shield) only ever affect yourself. So you're encouraged to be selfish as an optimizer, which means less Player-to-Player interactivity as a whole.

Put another way, the more you optimize, the less DnD there is.

But had the game not have things like Divine Smite or Shield, an Optimizer could still find the means of Optimizing until he felt satisfied. Obviously, we can't take those things away now, but had there been a standard of Optimizing = Teamwork, nobody would be complaining.



It's a flaw on the system, not on the players, but it still doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

I'm not sure I understand how that answers my question. As you said the players aren't one dimensional, so why assume the optimizer would have more fun playing a different game? Let's assume the optimizer actually does like the other aspects of the game besides combat and that's why they are playing D&D. How does building a very strong character make the game less fun for the other players?

In an earlier post you said an optimizer means that the DM is going to create more combat encounters which could make the game less fun for other players. But the same is true for every playstyle not just optimizers, so why single out the optimizers?

You are right that the most powerful abilities generally aren't the ones that encourage teamwork (Though there are certainly a few that fit the bill). And I'd say yeah abilities that interact with other team members can create cool/fun moments, but I don't see how the optimizer is taking away from your your fun.

[Willie the Duck]

If a player doesn't optimize for combat then chances are that they get their fun outside of combat and so would be unaffected by a player who optimizes for combat even if that player takes the spotlight during combat.

That's not an assumption with which I would agree. Non-optimizers can and do enjoy combat. Here's an example: At some point, I would like to play an "AD&D-esque" fighter -- One that focuses on both Strength and Dexterity, wields both longbow and 'bastard sword' (longsword in 5e terms) -- the latter either two-handed, or one-handed with shield, as circumstances suggest. Clearly in comparison to a all-dex bow (or even hand crossbow, with XBE) build on one side and an all-Str (either sword&board or 2-hander with GWM) build on the other, this is a sub-optimal character build. However, it is decidedly a combat-based build and I'm not shying away from combat with it -- I just would want to play it in a game experience where that level of optimization is the expected norm.

Pretty much all of these issues are issues of differing expectations. If everyone is on the same page, then there is no issue.

[GlenSmash!]

I think it's the focus of comparisons rather than optimisation. I mean what is better between Command and Dissonent Whispers depends on campaign and level and other abilities. What is better between 46 and 49 damage is less controversial (even if it is different damage types).

It reflects the tools available for comparing, rather than values.

This is a good point. Numbers are much easier to prove and therefore write guides about.

[Amnestic]

Indeed.

Taking an example from earlier in the thread, is the Githzerai monk that started with 14 Dex but has had Bless cast on them by the Cleric, and is standing next to the Wolf Totem Barbarian when they attack really going to notice that the could have had +1 to hit and damage if they had picked another race?


They will if they roll one less than the AC of their target even with advantage and bless. It might even make them feel worse for doing so than if they didn't have the teamwork buffs (because that's how people think - a close miss is often more frustrating than a far one).

[Sorinth]

That's not an assumption with which I would agree. Non-optimizers can and do enjoy combat. Here's an example: At some point, I would like to play an "AD&D-esque" fighter -- One that focuses on both Strength and Dexterity, wields both longbow and 'bastard sword' (longsword in 5e terms) -- the latter either two-handed, or one-handed with shield, as circumstances suggest. Clearly in comparison to a all-dex bow (or even hand crossbow, with XBE) build on one side and an all-Str (either sword&board or 2-hander with GWM) build on the other, this is a sub-optimal character build. However, it is decidedly a combat-based build and I'm not shying away from combat with it -- I just would want to play it in a game experience where that level of optimization is the expected norm.

Pretty much all of these issues are issues of differing expectations. If everyone is on the same page, then there is no issue.

Ok, but why would you not have fun with that character just because another player made a Hexadin? With bounded accuracy you are still going to be contributing in combat so why would you have less fun?

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm not sure I understand how that answers my question. As you said the players aren't one dimensional, so why assume the optimizer would have more fun playing a different game? Let's assume the optimizer actually does like the other aspects of the game besides combat and that's why they are playing D&D. How does building a very strong character make the game less fun for the other players?

In an earlier post you said an optimizer means that the DM is going to create more combat encounters which could make the game less fun for other players. But the same is true for every playstyle not just optimizers, so why single out the optimizers?

You are right that the most powerful abilities generally aren't the ones that encourage teamwork (Though there are certainly a few that fit the bill). And I'd say yeah abilities that interact with other team members can create cool/fun moments, but I don't see how the optimizer is taking away from your your fun.

That player is increasing the DM Time-per-player from 1/3 of the DM's time to 1/4. Adding another player is generally, inherently, reducing the amount of interactivity/game you're able to play with, and that's compensated in turn by that player adding more teamwork options.
.
Say that a normal player, on a focus of Self:Teamwork is about 50:50, but an Optimizer is leaning closer to 75:25 (because that's what the game gives him to optimize with). That optimizer is adding half as much teamwork to the game as someone with a more generalist focus.
.
The additional emphasis on combat leads to about 10% less overall teamwork, as teamwork in combat is much more limited than teamwork out of combat.


The combination of #1 and #2 is why larger groups are such a drag in 5e, since mostly everything you do is single-player stuff, so it ends up playing like waiting your turn for 7 other players to do their single-player action.


Adding all of this together, you could see a drop in fun by adding an optimizer.


That's normally mitigated through player interaction, but optimizers aren't really able to encourage teamwork that all that much in 5e. Had the extra player not been an optimizer, or hell, not be at the table at all, the team would be able to spend time more efficiently interacting with one another [which means less work for the DM for him to create more DM-to-Player content].


I mentioned it before, it's not a fault of the player (player's gonna play, can't fault anyone for trying to win), but it's a fault of the system. Still doesn't make it less of a problem, just one that's more justified in sucking it up.

[GlenSmash!]

They will if they roll one less than the AC of their target even with advantage and bless. It might even make them feel worse for doing so than if they didn't have the teamwork buffs (because that's how people think - a close miss is often more frustrating than a far one).

While a close miss could be more frustrating than a far one, the amount of times I have missed by just one over the course of 6 years playing 5e is just something that hasn't ever stuck in my mind. Either because the frequency of it happening is very low, or because my brain hasn't seen the value of keeping track of those miss by one scenarios vs. miss by more than one scenarios. By contrast rolling natural 1s is something that sticks out in my mind a lot more than missing by one.

I guess there might be some number obsessed players out there who are effected by those that, but I just don't think that number of players is very high.

[zinycor]

I often find that many of these problem player archetypes* are just people who enjoy the gaming side of RPGs on tables that are more about the RP. Just a compability issue.

Have a talk with your players, be open and mature and eventually you will find a solution.

*mainly talking about powergamers amd rules lawyers.

[Demonslayer666]

Personally, as a Power Gamer myself, I don't fully understand the dislike. I find it fun to fully optimize a build and make it as powerful as possible, be it with dips, item,s spells, ect.. And as a DM, I make encounters that force my players to have a level of competency with their abilities and tactics. If you come to my table you need to have a good grasp on your class' abilities, how to use them, and be decently powerful. Otherwise, you will die. Case in point, I recently ran an encounter for party of level 2 adventurers. The fight included 3 zombies, a skeleton, an orb that you had to make a DC 10 Con save against or take 1d4 necrotic damage each round, though if you fell unconscious you became immune to the effect, and an invisible Poltergeist. The party managed to scrape by on the skin of their teeth, and had a lot of trouble with the Poltergeist until the Paladin realized he could use Divine Sense to pinpoint its exact location.

As such, I encourage my players to make optimized builds, and gladly point them towards optimal options if they ask for some assistance. And as a player, I tend towards making optimized and powerful characters. As long as a Power Gamer isn't acting like a Munchkin, then what's the issue with it?

I dislike any player that disrupts the game and tries to make the game what they want, and not what everyone wants. It's not exclusive to power gaming.

The point is to have fun and that can be had in many different ways. It's not that I dislike power gamers per se, but the problem starts when they start complaining about how other players are playing their character. That doesn't fly at our table.

I adjust the challenge level to the party, it is not set in stone, so power gaming isn't necessary.

[Master O'Laughs]

Speaking as someone who likes to have characters competent in combat (cough, self-prescribed powergamer, cough).

I enjoy fighting things. I enjoy challenging fights where we almost die and I like to also have fights where we mop the floor with our enemies. Most of my characters in 5e have been single classed though because of the bad opinion of optimization so I just work within a class.

One thing I had encountered with a DM was when he had the opinion that if combat was ever too easy, it is boring for the players. I pushed back on that front because, ye part of me wants to beat up the evil monsters and feel powerful at times. If it was all the time, then I would agree but this DM seemed to have an aversion to ever having a combat be simple.... He also hated it when we as the players were able to create a tactical advantage to make a fight trivial and he basically threw a fit and play stopped that evening.

In another group, I played a shepard Druid and was trying to be mindful of what I summoned. We had an assassin rogue which did good damage, a barbarian who kept forgetting his abilities and feats as a barbarian, and a lore bard who took the spell sniper feat for firebolt and picked eldritch blast as one of their 2 magical secrets...

I tried to be mindful and vary summons or not summon sometimes, but at the end of the day, that is kind of shepard druids sthick. I just chose to rarely summon 8 wolves because of all the reasons past threads have mentioned about the issues with it.

I also enjoy getting engrossed in the world and responding to it, so if the guards were to attempt to arrest me I would probably go along unless I believed they were apart of an evil empire and was likely to lead to death.

Some people have a better knack for the dramatic and shine during dialogue, others like me, are good at crunching numbers.

Last story, in a current campaign, we were trying to ambush a large group of enemies. Since my character was a "monster hunter" and did not fight humans often, I did not question the tactic of gang up on the leader guy put forth by the tactician, even though I know 5e is a numbers game and we would have been better reducing the number of weak guys first.

All in all, it seems like the big contention is how one approaches "power-gaming" that draws most others ire.

[Sorinth]

The time the party spends at the table is limited, and each additional player at the table adds more cost to the DM's time. Additionally, a player that picks mostly optimized powers (like PAM, GWM) are picking things that generally aren't good at interacting with teammate in comparison to other options (like Actor or Ritual Caster).

That player is increasing the DM Time-per-player from 1/3 of the DM's time to 1/4. Adding another player is generally, inherently, reducing the amount of fun you're having, and that's compensated in turn by that player adding more teamwork.

And say that a normal player, on a focus of Self:Teamwork is about 50:50, but an Optimizer is leaning closer to 70:30 (because that's what the game gives him to optimize with).

And say that the additional emphasis on combat leads to about 10% less overall teamwork, as teamwork in combat is much more limited than teamwork out of combat.



You could see a drop in fun by adding an optimizer. That's normally mitigated through player interaction, but optimizers aren't really able to encourage teamwork that all that much in 5e. Had the extra player not been an optimizer, or hell, not be at the table at all, the team would be able to spend time more efficiently interacting with one another.

I mentioned it before, it's not a fault of the player (player's gonna play, can't fault anyone for trying to win), but it's a fault of the system. Still doesn't make it less of a problem, just one that's more justified in sucking it up.

Adding a player and thereby creating less "DM time" for others has nothing to do with optimization. The problem is there whether that player optimizes his PC or not. If you have a 4 player game, and one of the players is a Paladin, whether that player chooses to optimize and dip Hexblade or not isn't going to impact how much game time everyone has. And if anything I'd actually argue the opposite, the optimizer will make combats shorter which allows for more RP game time.

I mean even your examples of non optimized choices like Actor/Ritual Caster don't work. A player who takes the Actor feat doesn't increase player interactivity, it's just as likely the player disguises himself and uses the Actor feat to impersonate someone does the job solo rather then as part of a team.

I very much doubt your teamwork ratios of a normal player versus an optimizer, I think it's far more likely that those ratios are completely independent of whether a player optimizes or not and are entirely based on the personality of the player.

And that doesn't even bring up the fact that there are a ton of powerful teamwork friendly abilities. The Paladin is powerful in large part because of his aura that helps teammates, Order Domain cleric is considered one of the stronger domains and intereacts a ton with other players, Bards are considered very strong and their signature power is inspiring teammates, etc...

[Dark.Revenant]

Terms like optimizing and power gaming are thrown around in this thread inconsistently. I'll try to define those here:

Optimizing: Coming up with a concept you want to play, and then figuring out how to most effectively represent that concept within the available mechanics of the game. Alternatively, coming up with an effective combination of mechanics, and then coming up with a good character/story concept to fit the mechanics. Additionally, when your character acts (in combat or otherwise), you choose the option that would best execute your intent, whether it be ending combat, furthering the story, helping the party, etc.

Power gaming: Choosing the most effective mechanical options befitting your tastes in gameplay. Additionally, when your character acts (in combat or otherwise), you always choose the most efficient option.

It's more-or-less necessary for a power gamer to also be an optimizer, but not all optimizers are power gamers. In any case, optimizing or even power gaming is not necessarily disruptive, even if they're alone in a group of players who don't optimize or power game. For instance, if all you want is to hit hard and not die, and you come up with a barbarian named Krunk who carves through enemies like butter, it might be a perfect fit for a group of unoptimized clerics, wizards, and sorcerers who need a meatbag to hang around with.

[Willie the Duck]

Ok, but why would you not have fun with that character just because another player made a Hexadin? With bounded accuracy you are still going to be contributing in combat so why would you have less fun?

I would, but that wasn't the point to which I was responding. You stated, "If a player doesn't optimize for combat then chances are that they get their fun outside of combat" and I am stating that that isn't necessarily the case.

Because of bounded accuracy, I would still be contributing, and I probably would still have fun. Most likely. Discussions of power gaming in 5e are fairly muddied because the gap between a reasonable-max optimization and a reasonable floor* is fairly small.
*so, no simulacrum-wish-loop cheeze one one end, and no Int 8 wizards or the like on the other

However, if the DM placed/the party took on (depending on where the campaign is on the railroad-sandbox slider) greater and greater challenges, such that my reasonable-build character maybe can't even survive in the same party, then it would become disruptive, and I'd probably save that character for another gaming situation.

[Composer99]

Ignoring the DM for a minute how does an optimizer create more work/less fun for the other players who don't optimize?

If a player doesn't optimize for combat then chances are that they get their fun outside of combat and so would be unaffected by a player who optimizes for combat even if that player takes the spotlight during combat.

I can't agree that "a player [who] doesn't optimize for combat" is less likely to "get their fun outside of combat", although that may be the case for some players. Say rather that they are engaged by / interested in / having fun with combat and game mechanics that interact with combat in a different way than the optimiser.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that in most D&D games, most players prefer that their decisions and their characters' capabilities (such as they are or aren't) contribute meaningfully to their and their party's success, by which I mean that they can point to things they did during a game, in or out of combat, and be able to trace a metaphorical line from those things to victory.

For such players, playing a less optimised character at a table with one or more optimised characters means losing opportunities to contribute in that way, because either the optimiser is trivialising encounters, thus making them unable to contribute at all, or the DM is making encounters more difficult to maintain a desired level of challenge, in which case their contribution is reduced to struggling to get by (and sometimes failing to do so). There are, I should think, not many players who would find that state of affairs satisfactory.

Unless the optimiser dials back, they themselves must make the time and effort to play the char-op game if they want to get that sweet hit of "I did an awesome!" Any player who doesn't share the optimiser's gameplay values, as it were, with respect to command of the game mechanics while still valuing positively contributing to the game's outcome is necessarily going to have less fun in this situation. All the optimiser has done for such players is to escalate the game's workload and difficulty at the expense of fun.

(Man_Over_Game has addressed the table time issue, so I won't.)

[TrueAlphaGamer]

A common thread I notice for most optimisation threads is that they assume the characters never help each other and are just competing for the ability to deal the most DPR.

Of course, this is a result of having the least amount of assumptions regarding any one player's game. Ideally, one would like to have a team that is always synergistic and routinely makes up for each other's weakness/builds upon each other's strengths, but such things aren't necessarily a given without a great deal of out-of-game discussion between players. Sometimes, this discussion does occur, but often, a player has very little idea regarding what classes/concepts the other players may bring to the table (to say nothing of what spells/feats/stats they may have, or what the DM will challenge the players with).

Optimization discussion makes many assumptions, but the assumption of maximizing one's own character while ignoring other characters is generally the best strategy. If I build a big, F-U, guns blazing melee smite cheese build that relies on my character alone, and then the other players make characters that support that through spells/abilities/buffs/features, then that's great, but there is almost equal or greater chance that my character will have to fend for himself in terms of DPR as the other players bring EB-spammers, or fire-spell-only sorcs, or rangers that plink away with their bow from afar.

Players cannot create builds whose viability in play is dependent solely upon the whims of the other players. The only assurance a player has in their builds viability is what they alone can bring to the table.

[KorvinStarmast]

He also hated it when we as the players were able to create a tactical advantage to make a fight trivial and he basically threw a fit and play stopped that evening. Yikes, DM needed a chill pill. :smalleek:

I played a shepard Druid and was trying to be mindful of what I summoned{snip} ... chose to rarely summon 8 wolves because of all the reasons past threads have mentioned about the issues with it. I am boring with summons. Two Dire wolves or two Brown bears is my default schtick for three reasons beyond not annoying the DM in general:
1. Easy to manage
2. I love dogs (Dire wolves choice in particular)
3. You can ride them in a pinch.:smallsmile:

I will now and again summon two giant eagles because, well, I think eagles are cool and I spent a lot of years flying.

[MaxWilson]

I would, but that wasn't the point to which I was responding. You stated, "If a player doesn't optimize for combat then chances are that they get their fun outside of combat" and I am stating that that isn't necessarily the case.

Because of bounded accuracy, I would still be contributing, and I probably would still have fun. Most likely. Discussions of power gaming in 5e are fairly muddied because the gap between a reasonable-max optimization and a reasonable floor* is fairly small.
*so, no simulacrum-wish-loop cheeze one one end, and no Int 8 wizards or the like on the other


IME the gap is fairly large between a naively-constructed PC, like an Int 20 Gnomish Enchanter 8 that I played when first starting 5E, and a more mechanically savvy PC like an Int 18 Mobile Enchanter 7 / Forge Cleric 1 with Booming Blade. Going from AC 15ish at best to AC 21ish (with Shield, and optional Invisibility, Protection From Evil, or Blur) is huge for utilizing Enchanter abilities like Hypnotic Gaze and Instinctive Charm, and the damage boost from the Booming Blade + Mobile is nothing to sneeze at either. (If there are two adjacent enemies, you can even use Instinctive Charm on top of this: one gets hit with Booming Blade, and the other one gets charmed (with high probability but not 100% success) into attacking the first one again with his reaction, instead of opportunity attacking you).

The second one is IMO about twice as fun and effective in combat.

[Sorinth]

I would, but that wasn't the point to which I was responding. You stated, "If a player doesn't optimize for combat then chances are that they get their fun outside of combat" and I am stating that that isn't necessarily the case.

Because of bounded accuracy, I would still be contributing, and I probably would still have fun. Most likely. Discussions of power gaming in 5e are fairly muddied because the gap between a reasonable-max optimization and a reasonable floor* is fairly small.
*so, no simulacrum-wish-loop cheeze one one end, and no Int 8 wizards or the like on the other

However, if the DM placed/the party took on (depending on where the campaign is on the railroad-sandbox slider) greater and greater challenges, such that my reasonable-build character maybe can't even survive in the same party, then it would become disruptive, and I'd probably save that character for another gaming situation.


I can't agree that "a player [who] doesn't optimize for combat" is less likely to "get their fun outside of combat", although that may be the case for some players. Say rather that they are engaged by / interested in / having fun with combat and game mechanics that interact with combat in a different way than the optimiser.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that in most D&D games, most players prefer that their decisions and their characters' capabilities (such as they are or aren't) contribute meaningfully to their and their party's success, by which I mean that they can point to things they did during a game, in or out of combat, and be able to trace a metaphorical line from those things to victory.

For such players, playing a less optimised character at a table with one or more optimised characters means losing opportunities to contribute in that way, because either the optimiser is trivialising encounters, thus making them unable to contribute at all, or the DM is making encounters more difficult to maintain a desired level of challenge, in which case their contribution is reduced to struggling to get by (and sometimes failing to do so). There are, I should think, not many players who would find that state of affairs satisfactory.

Unless the optimiser dials back, they themselves must make the time and effort to play the char-op game if they want to get that sweet hit of "I did an awesome!" Any player who doesn't share the optimiser's gameplay values, as it were, with respect to command of the game mechanics while still valuing positively contributing to the game's outcome is necessarily going to have less fun in this situation. All the optimiser has done for such players is to escalate the game's workload and difficulty at the expense of fun.

(Man_Over_Game has addressed the table time issue, so I won't.)

I probably should have phrased that better. I meant it more in the vein that if they make a character whose focus is non-combat then that player is not likely to care that some other player is doing the heavy lifting during combat.

In 5e unless you are intentionally making a character bad combat wise you will pretty much always be able to contribute. I very much doubt in a "balanced for the party" encounter that a non-optimized PC will be so outclassed by the optimizer that they can't survive/contribute. That's one of the main benefits of bounded accuracy, everything can contribute.

The talk about how the optimizer makes encounters meaningless or so difficult that being non-optimized makes you useless is simply not the case. To a certain extent it was like that in previous editions but in 5e the difference between an optimized PC and a non optimized one just isn't that big.

We also need to differentiate between a PC who optimizes his build and a DM who is an optimizer and creates a deadly version of the game where all fights are hard and you need to good tactics and strong PCs to survive. The two are vastly different and having a PC who optimizes by no means forces the DM down that same path.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I probably should have phrased that better. I meant it more in the vein that if they make a character whose focus is non-combat then that player is not likely to care that some other player is doing the heavy lifting during combat.

In 5e unless you are intentionally making a character bad combat wise you will pretty much always be able to contribute. I very much doubt in a "balanced for the party" encounter that a non-optimized PC will be so outclassed by the optimizer that they can't survive/contribute. That's one of the main benefits of bounded accuracy, everything can contribute.

The talk about how the optimizer makes encounters meaningless or so difficult that being non-optimized makes you useless is simply not the case. To a certain extent it was like that in previous editions but in 5e the difference between an optimized PC and a non optimized one just isn't that big.

We also need to differentiate between a PC who optimizes his build and a DM who is an optimizer and creates a deadly version of the game where all fights are hard and you need to good tactics and strong PCs to survive. The two are vastly different and having a PC who optimizes by no means forces the DM down that same path.

They generally do though. I'm not out to play "against" my players, but i do want my Dragon fight to be cool like it would be in any other media, and no matter how optimized a player wants to make their character, i'm going to make my Dragon more and more powerful until it can't be "trivialized" and instead will provide the cinematic experience i'm after. If there was no optimization, i could use the stock book Dragon or even a weaker one.

Which comes back to the idea of "intentionally bad" being an ideal. I don't mind making a character as intended (it's ok to make a int 16 wizard!), what i "mind" is making a character that is clearly out of sync with the intended balance of the game. Yes, i can just change the Monster Manual stats, but why are you (the generic optimizer) making me do this?

[MaxWilson]

I probably should have phrased that better. I meant it more in the vein that if they make a character whose focus is non-combat then that player is not likely to care that some other player is doing the heavy lifting during combat.

In 5e unless you are intentionally making a character bad combat wise you will pretty much always be able to contribute. I very much doubt in a "balanced for the party" encounter that a non-optimized PC will be so outclassed by the optimizer that they can't survive/contribute.

... Maybe. But maybe Willie's Str/Dex fighter would feel pretty frustrated at a table where Mystic X the mid-level Necromancer has dozens of armored, animated gnoll skeletons spewing dozens of longbow arrows for hundreds of HP damage every round.

Maybe he'd be fine, but it's questionable enough that I feel you'd at least need to ask Willie if this is what he signed up for.

[Willie the Duck]

IME the gap is fairly large between a naively-constructed PC, like an Int 20 Gnomish Enchanter 8 that I played when first starting 5E, and a more mechanically savvy PC like an Int 18 Mobile Enchanter 7 / Forge Cleric 1 with Booming Blade. Going from AC 15ish at best to AC 21ish (with Shield, and optional Invisibility, Protection From Evil, or Blur) is huge for utilizing Enchanter abilities like Hypnotic Gaze and Instinctive Charm, and the damage boost from the Booming Blade + Mobile is nothing to sneeze at either. (If there are two adjacent enemies, you can even use Instinctive Charm on top of this: one gets hit with Booming Blade, and the other one gets charmed (with high probability but not 100% success) into attacking the first one again with his reaction, instead of opportunity attacking you).

The second one is IMO about twice as fun and effective in combat.

That's about the range I'd guess as well -- If you knock off deliberately-bad-to-prove-some-point stuff on the low end, and stuff-I-suspect-no-one-allows (near-infinite wish loops, etc.) at the top, I suspect the high end is 2x the low end. Using my Dex-and-Str longbow+bastard sword concept compared to Sorinth's hexadin, I'd guess that's also about 2:1.

For reference, and you've stated before that you didn't play much 3E, the ratio there was a lot more than 2:1 (10:1 or 20:1 would be more likely), and I think that informs a lot of the above discussion.


... Maybe. But maybe Willie's Str/Dex fighter would feel pretty frustrated at a table where Mystic X the mid-level Necromancer has dozens of armored, animated gnoll skeletons spewing dozens of longbow arrows for hundreds of HP damage every round.

Maybe he'd be fine, but it's questionable enough that I feel you'd at least need to ask Willie if this is what he signed up for.

Pretty much.

[MaxWilson]

That's about the range I'd guess as well -- If you knock off deliberately-bad-to-prove-some-point stuff on the low end, and stuff-I-suspect-no-one-allows (near-infinite wish loops, etc.) at the top, I suspect the high end is 2x the low end. Using my Dex-and-Str longbow+bastard sword concept compared to Sorinth's hexadin, I'd guess that's also about 2:1.

For reference, and you've stated before that you didn't play much 3E, the ratio there was a lot more than 2:1 (10:1 or 20:1 would be more likely), and I think that informs a lot of the above discussion.

Yeah, the effectiveness gap is definitely not 10:1. Then again, the gap between level 7 and level 20 is also (IMO) closer to 2:1 than 10:1. IMO, that counts as a large gap. Things that would otherwise be hard, become easy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I basically agree with what most people have said.

But here's another angle I've run into:

If powergaming is actually useful in increasing your power to a significant degree, it narrows the scope of the game. It reduces the actual viable options that players and DMs have by enforcing meta-compliant solutions to meta-compliant problems. Any time there's a clear "best answer", anyone who chooses differently is going to be disappointed. A similar thing happens in fighting games, where many times the game is decided at character select or it devolves into mirror matches. And for an RPG, that's a horrible waste of everything. A waste of time on the developers' part, because they spent their time making all these things that will never see play because they're not meta. A waste of time on the players part digging through the books (or copy-pasting a guide) which are full of "traps".

Not only that, but you reduce the scope of options the DMs can use the further you get away from the system power-curve assumptions. You can't actually throw bigger, "cooler" things at them early, because it just turns into an alpha-strike competition. The system becomes a fragile set of moves, counter-moves, counter-counter moves, etc. And anyone or anything that can't play along gets discarded.

But even beyond that, my big complaint (other than the interpersonal friction inherent in mixed expectations[0]) is that it shatters setting coherence. No coherent setting can sustain a bunch of well-above-the-curve people. Neither can any story. You have to figure out why the party is the first to figure this out...and if they're not, why don't they get squished really early on. Or why the setting still has problems at the lower levels at all.

The baseline level of optimization expected by the game is
* Your primary modifier is +2 or higher at level 1, +3 by level 10-ish, and +4 by level 20.
* Your secondary modifiers (including Constitution) are positive.
* You wield weapons and wear armor you are proficient in and which you can use without disadvantage under normal circumstances (the halfling cleric/barbarian with low str wielding a greatsword comes to mind here).
* If you're a primary spellcaster, you have some way of dealing damage with spell slots and at least one damaging cantrip (or weapon option)
* You generally wear the "best" mundane armor you can afford.
* If you're a primary spellcaster, you don't focus too hard on one damage type to the exclusion of others.

Those are things that any race/class combination can do with the Standard Array. Those are things that new players will do if they follow the "quick build" recommendations or actually take the time to read the class description, but otherwise pick based on aesthetics or wow-factor. The more you deviate from this, the worse the system performs and the more people get disappointed in how "easy" combat is. And the more work you have to do (both as a player and as a DM) to adapt the system.

[0] this came up in a work training, with the analogy of softball. Both "beer and pretzels" and "hardcore competitive" players exist and are fine. As long as they're not on the same team or in the same competition.

[Sorinth]

They generally do though. I'm not out to play "against" my players, but i do want my Dragon fight to be cool like it would be in any other media, and no matter how optimized a player wants to make their character, i'm going to make my Dragon more and more powerful until it can't be "trivialized" and instead will provide the cinematic experience i'm after. If there was no optimization, i could use the stock book Dragon or even a weaker one.

Which comes back to the idea of "intentionally bad" being an ideal. I don't mind making a character as intended (it's ok to make a int 16 wizard!), what i "mind" is making a character that is clearly out of sync with the intended balance of the game. Yes, i can just change the Monster Manual stats, but why are you (the generic optimizer) making me do this?

I have a hard time seeing a case (Beyond high level cheese stuff) where you had to increase the difficulty of the dragon by so much that it made the non optimized players not even able to contribute, do you really have cases where the optimized player basically solos the BBEG while the rest of party stand around doing nothing/failing at everything they try?

As an example, in your dragon fight if it's a party of 4 consisting of a Paladin, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. Assume they are all regular non-optimized PCs and your Dragon encounter is balanced so that it's a very hard fight. Are you really saying that if the Paladin had optimized by dipping Hexblade that the balance of that fight is now thrown off so much that it's an easy fight? I mean yeah the fight will be easier if the Paladin is a Hexadin, but it's not turning a hard fight into an easy one.


Also rather then buff the Dragon, couldn't you throw in a bunch of grunts to make the encounter more difficult while still keeping the stats generic? It's often more effective for the BBEG to have minions distracting the PCs/buffing the BBEG then it is to simply add more AC/Hit Points/Damage to the BBEG.

[Aquillion]

As others have said, the real issue isn't that any one playstyle is bad; the issue is that you want to make sure that everyone at your table is on the same page and wants the same things out of the game, or at least understands the different things people want and are willing to accommodate them.

That one player who crunches every number and mostly ignores the story when necessary to become as powerful as possible is going to be out of place in a party of people who take the story very seriously and who build their characters around that; but, conversely, a player who wants to talk to every monster and negotiate every problem through rolelplaying is going to seem out of place in a game focused on a number-crunchy dungeon grind.

It's all about making sure people at the table know what they want and can cooperate at having fun.

[da newt]

In the above Willie the 'I decided to play a not very good at fighting fighter', and the Necromancer with a hoard of minions, IF Willie feels bad 'cause his fighter isn't very good at fighting, why is there a tendency for folks to blame the Necromancer for being good at dishing out damage?

[Man_Over_Game]

In the above Willie the 'I decided to play a not very good at fighting fighter', and the Necromancer with a hoard of minions, IF Willie feels bad 'cause his fighter isn't very good at fighting, why is there a tendency for folks to blame the Necromancer for being good at dishing out damage?

Personally, I feel it's because what that Fighter spent instead of getting combat prowess are things that can generally be used to encourage interaction with the party. Like utility feats, the Healer feat, using Action Surge to assist someone, etc.

The Necromancer could have done that while accomplishing something similar (like going Abjuration or Conjuration instead of the combat-focused Necromancer), but instead chose to focus entirely on combat. Not just combat, but specifically a build that only ever refers to himself and his own abilities.



Optimizing generally implies selfishness, where being suboptimal is often due to the opposite. Selfish or Selfless, how do you prefer your players?

[Sorinth]

I basically agree with what most people have said.

But here's another angle I've run into:

If powergaming is actually useful in increasing your power to a significant degree, it narrows the scope of the game. It reduces the actual viable options that players and DMs have by enforcing meta-compliant solutions to meta-compliant problems. Any time there's a clear "best answer", anyone who chooses differently is going to be disappointed. A similar thing happens in fighting games, where many times the game is decided at character select or it devolves into mirror matches. And for an RPG, that's a horrible waste of everything. A waste of time on the developers' part, because they spent their time making all these things that will never see play because they're not meta. A waste of time on the players part digging through the books (or copy-pasting a guide) which are full of "traps".

The thing is that the "best answer" isn't so good that it renders everything else useless. A Paladin that dips Hexblade is the "best answer" but if you don't do that dip you aren't going to be disappointed with your Paladin because you will still be good.

[MaxWilson]

Personally, I feel it's because what that Fighter spent instead of getting combat prowess are things that can generally be used to encourage interaction with the party. Like utility feats, the Healer feat, using Action Surge to assist someone, etc.

The Necromancer could have done that while accomplishing something similar (like going Abjuration or Conjuration instead of the combat-focused Necromancer), but instead chose to focus entirely on combat. Not just combat, but specifically a build that only ever refers to himself and his own abilities.

Optimizing generally implies selfishness, where being suboptimal is often due to the opposite. Selfish or Selfless, how do you prefer your players?

Why do you think the explicitly MAD (Str/Dex) Fighter would have an easier time affording Healer (or utility feats like Linguist) than the SAD Necromancer?

[Sorinth]

Personally, I feel it's because what that Fighter spent instead of getting combat prowess are things that can generally be used to encourage interaction with the party. Like utility feats, the Healer feat, using Action Surge to assist someone, etc.

The Necromancer could have done that while accomplishing something similar (like going Abjuration or Conjuration instead of the combat-focused Necromancer), but instead chose to focus entirely on combat. Not just combat, but specifically a build that only ever refers to himself and his own abilities.



Optimizing generally implies selfishness, where being suboptimal is often due to the opposite. Selfish or Selfless, how do you prefer your players?

Well the Necromancer could easily order his minions to take the Help action and give every teammate advantage and it's in many cases that's probably the stronger move.


Optimization has nothing to do with selfishness. It's why we see Optimization guides for Grappler builds, or all the builds with Paladin that love the aura providing teammates with a huge boost, etc... And there are plenty of sub-optimal choices that are selfish, look at things like Savage Attacker, it's suboptimal and "selfish". The Assassin is considered sub-optimal, and promotes selfish play where the player solo scouts and fights to get that auto-crit.

[zinycor]

Optimizing generally implies selfishness, where being suboptimal is often due to the opposite. Selfish or Selfless, how do you prefer your players?

I need some source for this statement, for that isn't the case as far as I have seen.

In my opinion, optinazing implies that you are focusing on the game side of RPG, that means the game might need a support, utility, or a caster. Selfishnes isn't implied there.

[Frogreaver]

They generally do though. I'm not out to play "against" my players, but i do want my Dragon fight to be cool like it would be in any other media, and no matter how optimized a player wants to make their character, i'm going to make my Dragon more and more powerful until it can't be "trivialized" and instead will provide the cinematic experience i'm after. If there was no optimization, i could use the stock book Dragon or even a weaker one.

Which comes back to the idea of "intentionally bad" being an ideal. I don't mind making a character as intended (it's ok to make a int 16 wizard!), what i "mind" is making a character that is clearly out of sync with the intended balance of the game. Yes, i can just change the Monster Manual stats, but why are you (the generic optimizer) making me do this?

Yep. I think most people don't have a good grasp on the damage feats. A Variant Human SS+CBE+Precision Attack fighter does the equivalent damage of a Sword and Shield Fighter with a +2d6 damage sword. This happens at level 4 and stays in effect all the way through level 11+. This isn't to say damage is everything - it's not. But it should help highlight the disparity that exists between highly optimized characters and "normal" ones. Essentially the highly optimized ones let the party kill enemies like dragons significantly faster. In this instance it's about like having an extra fighter in the fight.

Let's not even get started about how strong some spells can be when used optimally. Things like Conjure Animal - Wolves. Or fireball hitting 6 enemies. Or hypnotic pattern leaving only a handful of enemies acting. Or Pass without trace helping ensure a surprise round. Etc.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I have a hard time seeing a case (Beyond high level cheese stuff) where you had to increase the difficulty of the dragon by so much that it made the non optimized players not even able to contribute, do you really have cases where the optimized player basically solos the BBEG while the rest of party stand around doing nothing/failing at everything they try?

As an example, in your dragon fight if it's a party of 4 consisting of a Paladin, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. Assume they are all regular non-optimized PCs and your Dragon encounter is balanced so that it's a very hard fight. Are you really saying that if the Paladin had optimized by dipping Hexblade that the balance of that fight is now thrown off so much that it's an easy fight? I mean yeah the fight will be easier if the Paladin is a Hexadin, but it's not turning a hard fight into an easy one.


Also rather then buff the Dragon, couldn't you throw in a bunch of grunts to make the encounter more difficult while still keeping the stats generic? It's often more effective for the BBEG to have minions distracting the PCs/buffing the BBEG then it is to simply add more AC/Hit Points/Damage to the BBEG.

It generally depends on the level the character are at, but i consider anything so strong that it effectively invalidates the use of the default statblock to be problematic. Not in the sense that it "ruins" the game, but in the sense that i have to sigh, and change things around until it works as it should, and am left wondering why the designers made the (default) game this way. My fun is thereby reduced.

As has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Power Gaming is a problem for exactly this reason. As PhoenixPhyre says, it "it narrows the scope of the game. It reduces the actual viable options". If the only solution is to contrive scenarios, i can't use classic and timeless fantasy set pieces. My fun is reduced. Because remember, i'm not trying to "beat" my players at grid based combat (adding additional foes is an easy way to do this), i just want my fantasy scenario to work, and for my players to not work against me (unintentionally or not) at the meta level when i try to make them. Often, Power Gaming is or results in an attempt to limit my options, not for "winning" (which is not my goal), but for the scenarios i can functionally set up.

[zinycor]

If you want your scenarios to be cooler, don-t just simply up the power of the dragon, but add nuancr to the encounter, maybe the encounter happens on difficult terrain, maybe the dragon objective isn't to defeat the players, but to take something away from them, or the dragon keeps its distance and attacks other places to tire the plauers.

Have the dragon have different goals, tactics and approaches, that challenge different abilities and require teamwork.

For example maybe the challenge isn't beating the dragon, but keeping the dragon from attacking and destroying the nearby village.

[MaxWilson]

As has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Power Gaming is a problem for exactly this reason. As PhoenixPhyre says, it "it narrows the scope of the game. It reduces the actual viable options". If the only solution is to contrive scenarios, i can't use classic and timeless fantasy set pieces. My fun is reduced. Because remember, i'm not trying to "beat" my players at grid based combat (adding additional foes is an easy way to do this), i just want my fantasy scenario to work, and for my players to not work against me (unintentionally or not) at the meta level when i try to make them. Often, Power Gaming is or results in an attempt to limit my options, not for "winning" (which is not my goal), but for the scenarios i can functionally set up.

Why are you making the DM manage difficulty anyway? Why isn't it the player's job to pursue easier or harder adventures until they find a sweet spot where they are at a comfortable level of difficulty, with a threat of losing that is large enough to feel exciting to them?

[NorthernPhoenix]

Why are you making the DM manage difficulty anyway? Why isn't it the player's job to pursue easier or harder adventures until they find a sweet spot where they are at a comfortable level of difficulty, with a threat of losing that is large enough to feel exciting to them?

I feel like that's a radically different DMing style than what i'm used to. I'm generally not going to run a scenario (or "adventure") that i won't have fun running. The DM is a player too, and their fun matters. I'm a big proponent of this somewhat controversial idea.

[Sorinth]

It generally depends on the level the character are at, but i consider anything so strong that it effectively invalidates the use of the default statblock to be problematic. Not in the sense that it "ruins" the game, but in the sense that i have to sigh, and change things around until it works as it should, and am left wondering why the designers made the (default) game this way. My fun is thereby reduced.

First I'd point out if you ran a "default" game with a bunch of un-optimized players you could easily end up in a situation where you have to change things around to prevent TPKing the party.

Second, like I said before why not just leave the stat blocks alone and add some minions?



As has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Power Gaming is a problem for exactly this reason. As PhoenixPhyre says, it "it narrows the scope of the game. It reduces the actual viable options". If the only solution is to contrive scenarios, i can't use classic and timeless fantasy set pieces. My fun is reduced. Because remember, i'm not trying to "beat" my players at grid based combat (adding additional foes is an easy way to do this), i just want my fantasy scenario to work, and for my players to not work against me (unintentionally or not) at the meta level when i try to make them. Often, Power Gaming is or results in an attempt to limit my options, not for "winning" (which is not my goal), but for the scenarios i can functionally set up.

It's been mentioned but that doesn't mean it's true. There's this running assumption that an optimized character invalidates all the other choices, but that's simply not true. A Hexadin is without question better then straight Paladin, but the difference in power isn't enough to narrow the scope of the game or remove viable options, or force you into contrived situations.

[Unoriginal]

I feel like that's a radically different DMing style than what i'm used to. I'm generally not going to run a scenario (or "adventure") that i won't have fun running. The DM is a player too, and their fun matters. I'm a big proponent of this somewhat controversial idea.

The DM's fun matter, of course, but I don't see what in MaxWilson's post make it seems like the DM isn't having fun.


Personally I'm not a killer DM, but I'm a "yes PCs may die" DM. If the PCs face something too strong for them due to the choices they made, well, they have to escape it. Otherwise they'll likely die.

[MaxWilson]

I feel like that's a radically different DMing style than what i'm used to. I'm generally not going to run a scenario (or "adventure") that i won't have fun running. The DM is a player too, and their fun matters. I'm a big proponent of this somewhat controversial idea.

DMs can still have fun with player-managed difficulty. Just don't write an adventure (or adventure area, in a sandbox) that you wouldn't have fun running.

[Man_Over_Game]

Why do you think the explicitly MAD (Str/Dex) Fighter would have an easier time affording Healer (or utility feats like Linguist) than the SAD Necromancer?

There's a lot to break down in that, but between:
More ASIs to the Fighter.
The assumption that both classes are equals without feats (which is easier to assume than get in to, as that's another topic)
One of the Fighter's main roles is to be attacked, which can be highly satisfactory at a Strength stat of 15.
More defensive powers for the Fighter, indicative that a high Con may not be necessary.
More options of increasing Strength/Constitution/Dexterity than Intelligence (through races or feats).


But to address more broadly the counterarguments on optimizing being a bad thing when it's not selfish:


[...]


[...]

You're friggin' right. That's the point.


Optimization is a good thing when it encourages your allies, or it can be selfish when it doesn't.

I'm saying that, broadly, 5e doesn't do a good job of making unselfish optimization very easy. Consider that 2 levels into a Warlock can basically give you all the utility, armor, and single-target damage you need as you max out on social skills, but it takes you 6 levels as a Paladin to get your first mentionable support feature that helps allies within touching distance which...also applies to you.

Being selfish in 5e is really, really easy. I'm just saying WotC screwed up by also making it worthwhile.

The combination of those two things are what makes up the negative "murderhobo" image of a powergaming AL player, and that's what folks are concerned about. It's not even about those specific players, it's just about how rewarding that mentality is across the board in 5e.

You don't really hear about people complaining about optmizers in FATE, because FATE's optimization basically revolves around using the 5e equivalent of the Help Action to grant an ally a free attack and a crit. It's no longer a focus of "I am overpowered", but "Teamwork is overpowered". And there's nothing wrong with that.

[zinycor]

There's a lot to break down in that, but between:
More ASIs to the Fighter.
The assumption that both classes are equals without feats (which is easier to assume than get in to, as that's another topic)
One of the Fighter's main roles is to be attacked, which can be highly satisfactory at a Strength stat of 15.
More defensive powers for the Fighter, indicative that a high Con may not be necessary.
More options of increasing Strength/Constitution/Dexterity than Intelligence (through races or feats).


But to address more broadly the counterarguments on optimizing being a bad thing when it's not selfish:





You're friggin' right. That's the point.


Optimization is a good thing when it encourages your allies, or it can be selfish when it doesn't.

I'm saying that, broadly, 5e doesn't do a good job of making unselfish optimization very easy. Consider that 2 levels into a Warlock can basically give you all the utility, armor, and single-target damage you need as you max out on social skills, but it takes you 6 levels as a Paladin to get your first mentionable support feature that helps allies within touching distance which...also applies to you.

Being selfish in 5e is really, really easy. I'm just saying WotC screwed up by also making it worthwhile.

The combination of those two things are what makes up the negative "murderhobo" image of a powergaming AL player, and that's what folks are concerned about. It's not even about those specific players, it's just about how rewarding that mentality is across the board in 5e.

You don't really hear about people complaining about optmizers in FATE, because FATE's optimization basically revolves around using the 5e equivalent of the Help Action to grant an ally a free attack and a crit. It's no longer a focus of "I am overpowered", but "Teamwork is overpowered". And there's nothing wrong with that.

This doesn't match my experience at all... the more effective parties have been without a doubt, those where people have clear roles snd cover for eachothers weaknesses... meanwhile I have seen some very egotistical players just SUCK and getting downed fairly frecuently.
In my opinion is very easy to be a team player in 5e, even barbarians and rogues have archetypes that are all about helping.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Of course, this is a result of having the least amount of assumptions regarding any one player's game. Ideally, one would like to have a team that is always synergistic and routinely makes up for each other's weakness/builds upon each other's strengths, but such things aren't necessarily a given without a great deal of out-of-game discussion between players. Sometimes, this discussion does occur, but often, a player has very little idea regarding what classes/concepts the other players may bring to the table (to say nothing of what spells/feats/stats they may have, or what the DM will challenge the players with).

Optimization discussion makes many assumptions, but the assumption of maximizing one's own character while ignoring other characters is generally the best strategy. If I build a big, F-U, guns blazing melee smite cheese build that relies on my character alone, and then the other players make characters that support that through spells/abilities/buffs/features, then that's great, but there is almost equal or greater chance that my character will have to fend for himself in terms of DPR as the other players bring EB-spammers, or fire-spell-only sorcs, or rangers that plink away with their bow from afar.

Players cannot create builds whose viability in play is dependent solely upon the whims of the other players. The only assurance a player has in their builds viability is what they alone can bring to the table.

That's only true if you don't talk to the other players. Every game I've played in, at minimum, had a "let's cover all the bases" level of party optimizing.

The most optimal builds are synergistic. An optimized four person party is much more powerful than a random assortment of S-tier solo-white-room-dpr optimized builds.

[Sorinth]

You're friggin' right. That's the point.


Optimization is a good thing when it encourages your allies, or it can be selfish when it doesn't.

I'm saying that, broadly, 5e doesn't do a good job of making unselfish optimization very easy. Consider that 2 levels into a Warlock can basically give you all the utility, armor, and single-target damage you need as you max out on social skills, but it takes you 6 levels as a Paladin to get your first mentionable support feature that helps allies within touching distance which...also applies to you.

Being selfish in 5e is really, really easy. I'm just saying WotC screwed up by also making it worthwhile.

I disagree that 5e doesn't do a good job of making unselfish optimization very easy. It's actually very easy, pick Bard you are now one of the more powerful classes in the game and have tons of unselfish features. I'm pretty sure most everyone's first optimization thought while reading the PHB was the PAM/Sentinel combo, which isn't selfish because it locks down enemies from reaching your allies.

But I have a feeling you and I have very different opinions on what is/isn't selfish.

[MaxWilson]

There's a lot to break down in that, but between:
More ASIs to the Fighter.
The assumption that both classes are equals without feats (which is easier to assume than get in to, as that's another topic)
One of the Fighter's main roles is to be attacked, which can be highly satisfactory at a Strength stat of 15.
More defensive powers for the Fighter, indicative that a high Con may not be necessary.
More options of increasing Strength/Constitution/Dexterity than Intelligence (through races or feats).


I disagree. The Necromancer, as described, could easily have 3 feats and zero ASIs by 8th level without losing any effectiveness. E.g. Healer, Skulker, Prodigy (Stealth) if for some reason they want to be a super-sneaky necromancer. The Fighter as described is all about investing in Str and Dex to replicate the AD&D playstyle. They'll have four ASIs/feats by 8th level, but if they do the same thing as the Necromancer and sink them in Healer, Skulker, and Prodigy (Stealth) it's going to really hurt their combat-effectiveness as a Fighter.


I'm saying that, broadly, 5e doesn't do a good job of making unselfish optimization very easy. Consider that 2 levels into a Warlock can basically give you all the utility, armor, and single-target damage you need as you max out on social skills, but it takes you 6 levels as a Paladin to get your first mentionable support feature that helps allies within touching distance which...also applies to you.

Being selfish in 5e is really, really easy. I'm just saying WotC screwed up by also making it worthwhile.

This doesn't match my experience at all. Not only are team tactics pretty cheap (often requiring little or no build investment), they are typically stronger than solo optimization. Compare the value of Inspiring Leader to the Tough feat, for example. If that Paladin takes Inspiring Leader at level 1, he's granting ~4 temp HP per short rest to everyone in the party, whereas Tough would grant only 2 HP to the Paladin personally, once per day. Even later on at level 6, it's still a choice between 12 HP per day (Tough) and 10 temp HP per short rest to everyone. Selfishness is suboptimal in this context.

You see similar things with actual tactics during a fight. The heavily-armored Paladin can often have more impact on the outcome of a fight if instead of trying to maximize their personal damage, they instead grapple + prone an enemy and hold them helpless for other PCs/summons to attack at advantage.

There are some things in 5E which are cheaper and easier to do for yourself (defensive boosts like Absorb Elements), but teamwork is not just courteous, it's stronger than selfish play.


The combination of those two things are what makes up the negative "murderhobo" image of a powergaming AL player, and that's what folks are concerned about. It's not even about those specific players, it's just about how rewarding that mentality is across the board in 5e.

You don't really hear about people complaining about optmizers in FATE, because FATE's optimization basically revolves around using the 5e equivalent of the Help Action to grant an ally a free attack and a crit. It's no longer a focus of "I am overpowered", but "Teamwork is overpowered". And there's nothing wrong with that.

Team powergaming in 5E stomps all over selfish powergaming in an actual fight.


That's only true if you don't talk to the other players. Every game I've played in, at minimum, had a "let's cover all the bases" level of party optimizing.

The most optimal builds are synergistic. An optimized four person party is much more powerful than a random assortment of S-tier solo-white-room-dpr optimized builds.

So true.

Trivial example: an Elven Accuracy Sharpshooter Fighter is good, right? But they need a source of advantage for Elven Accuracy to pay off. A white room optimizer might say, "You should play a Samurai so you can give yourself advantage." A team-oriented optimizer might say, "You should play alongside a druid so that their summoned wolves (or horses, or whatever) can knock monsters prone, and then you can shoot them at advantage while also taking advantage of their meat shields. Then you, the Fighter, can use your subclass for something else, maybe something which can benefit the druid such as Cavalier, or something which can increase your damage even further such as Battlemaster or Eldritch Knight." The whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts.

[Edea]

It might feel 'video gamey'.

Which I personally don't mind (actually I like it, I have a difficult time interfacing with free-form), but when you get someone who puts numbers first, there's a risk of that generating a competitive atmosphere. No-one wants to feel useless at the table, and we all want some spotlight time (some more than others...). If everyone's on the same page optimization-wise and the game design itself's not a smouldering pile (*eyes 3.5*), this shouldn't happen. But there's a perception that all it takes is one person who's being 'crunchy', and then everybody else's gotta be 'crunchy' or risk being dead weight. One person in particular I used to play with was so averse to the idea of being super-crunchy that she considered char-gen with such a premise an experience on-par with going to work.

It also opens up the old "DM vs. Player" wound, and pours salt all over it. I've had good DMs and bad ones; with the good ones, I felt totally OK playing something 'absurd' like a half-orc sorcerer, because I knew that they'd help all of the players with getting a great experience out of their campaign world. But with the bad ones...yeah, I'd be pulling out the CoDzillas and Batman Wizards.

[PhoenixPhyre]

First I'd point out if you ran a "default" game with a bunch of un-optimized players you could easily end up in a situation where you have to change things around to prevent TPKing the party.

Second, like I said before why not just leave the stat blocks alone and add some minions?


Not really. It's really really really forgiving (except at level 1). By design. I posted the design assumptions--you have to go far out of your way to undershoot the expected power levels.

Adding minions helps (it always does), but it means that you're constantly adjusting the combats. And making them way harder for anyone less optimized (otherwise the optimized person is blowing it away anyway and everyone else is just doing cleanup, which is no fun).



It's been mentioned but that doesn't mean it's true. There's this running assumption that an optimized character invalidates all the other choices, but that's simply not true. A Hexadin is without question better then straight Paladin, but the difference in power isn't enough to narrow the scope of the game or remove viable options, or force you into contrived situations.

Are you sure? I've definitely seen the difference myself, even at moderate power levels. Especially when you end up pulling a one-combat-to-rule-them-all day.

[Composer99]

I probably should have phrased that better. I meant it more in the vein that if they make a character whose focus is non-combat then that player is not likely to care that some other player is doing the heavy lifting during combat.

In 5e unless you are intentionally making a character bad combat wise you will pretty much always be able to contribute. I very much doubt in a "balanced for the party" encounter that a non-optimized PC will be so outclassed by the optimizer that they can't survive/contribute. That's one of the main benefits of bounded accuracy, everything can contribute.

The talk about how the optimizer makes encounters meaningless or so difficult that being non-optimized makes you useless is simply not the case. To a certain extent it was like that in previous editions but in 5e the difference between an optimized PC and a non optimized one just isn't that big.

We also need to differentiate between a PC who optimizes his build and a DM who is an optimizer and creates a deadly version of the game where all fights are hard and you need to good tactics and strong PCs to survive. The two are vastly different and having a PC who optimizes by no means forces the DM down that same path.

On the matter of character contributions
Well...

Granted that I'm speaking personally, but without even trying, in the game I'm playing right now on roll20, I've trivialised encounters with my wizard. (By "without even trying", I mean without attempting to build an "optimal" wizard.) I'll concede that's as much a matter of the DM's encounter design as it is my spell choices. All the same, I've turned the rest of the party into bystanders just by wiggling my fingers in two out of the last five encounters. (It would have been three out of five, but one them went weird/railroady, so it doesn't count.) The other players haven't complained (to my face), so I couldn't say that it bothers them, but it bothers me, and it would still bother me if the shoe was on the other foot.

And it's not as if my wizard isn't pulling his weight outside of combat, either.

So, sure, data point n = 1, but I'm definitely seeing how even a small difference in build effectiveness can have a disproportionate impact on gameplay, in a way that makes the game less fun for at least one of the players.

On DMs enforcing optimising
The end result of a DM enforcing optimising by the way they run their table is the same as if a player brings a higher-op character to a low-op table and forces the table to escalate: the table as a whole has to work harder (in terms of spending more time and effort improving their system mastery) than does a table that doesn't value mechanical system mastery as much, without necessarily getting a bigger payoff of gameplay enjoyment. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that, if that's the table culture.

The difference is that when it's the expectation set for the table culture by the DM, it's not the sort of thing that tends to result in people complaining on discussion boards, because most people are buying in when they agree to play at that DM's table. (If anything, it's DMs who ruthlessly enforce low-op/no-op play whose games tend to populate "bad game" threads, at least as far as I've seen.)



In the above Willie the 'I decided to play a not very good at fighting fighter', and the Necromancer with a hoard of minions, IF Willie feels bad 'cause his fighter isn't very good at fighting, why is there a tendency for folks to blame the Necromancer for being good at dishing out damage?

Codswallop.

The minionmancer necromancer and Willie the Duck's hypothetical fighter are both perfectly fine characters, albeit for different tables.

Willie the Duck's hypothetical fighter is, in fact, a perfectly capable fighter, relative to the game's design assumptions, which we are capable of discerning using the encounter guidelines in the DMG. It is the minionmancer who falls outside of those design assumptions.

If you don't care to play by those assumptions, that's fine for you and your table, but that's as far as it goes.

[NorthernPhoenix]

The language used to describe 'builds'. Grab this, get that, dump x, comes online.

While it's certainly low on my list, i do dislike this too. Or rather, i think it should never exit the internet forums where it belongs.

[Cheesegear]

Scenario 1
DM: The game is balanced towards CR. Not perfectly. But it is a decent enough guideline that works most of the time.

Power Gamer: Haha. Good joke. Thanks to [Cantrip] and I do way more damage than other classes at my level. Which means I do disproportionate amounts of damage, compared to the monsters' CR.

DM: ...Well then I increase the CR of the encounter because there's no challenge if you're just gonna steamroll everything? :smallconfused:

Power Gamer: Oh damn. Now I only deal regular amounts of damage, and the DM and I are back at an impasse. My Power Gaming was for nothing!

Regular Gamers: We only deal normal amounts of damage, which is suboptimal amounts of damage - or damage mitigation - because the DM was forced to ramp the difficulty! If the hostiles don't attack Power Gamer, we're just dead, I guess.

Scenario 2
Power Gamer: Haha. Look at this ability I have that deals ****tons of damage. I'm going to use it first round of combat, every combat. The other party members don't even need to be here.

DM: Yeah. I'm gonna need you to stop doing that. I make scenarios where the NPCs are Resistant - or outright immune - to that ability or damage type, which at least gives the other players a chance to contribute.

Power Gamer: That's not fair! I want to roll dice and deal ludicrous amounts of damage.

Regular Gamers: *Looks up from phone* Is something happening? We're just in the Group Chat talking about how Power Gamer sucks.

Scenario 3
DM: Okay, [sets up the encounter].

Power Gamer: Oh? ...I'm only optimised for [these kinds of encounters]. I'm basically useless, here.

DM: Well, the CR is designed for five players, if one player effectively just sits this one out, you're in for a bad time.

Regular Gamers: You can't just sit a combat out. At least go down to three crits in the first round and spend the combat on 0 rolling Death Saves (Death Saves are a terrible mechanic, by the way!)! Like, at least have an excuse for not even trying. Don't you have a Longbow?

Power Gamer: Pfft. 1d8 damage sucks. May as well not even use it. What's the point.

Scenario 4
Power Gamer: Everyone sucks except for me. Why can't everyone just make better characters?

Regular Gamers: Because we don't want to? We want to play these characters, which synergise better as part of a team, and give us a wide array of skills and abilities so that regardless of situation, at least one of us can handle it? Also, we don't like the idea of dump stats and min-maxing. Because negative modifiers are always bad.

Power Gamer: Those characters are dumb. Why even have Speech skills (CHA is dump stat) if you can just play Chaotic Neutral and just attack and antagonise people to get what we want (and we'll ignore the DM when he tells us to change our alignment to Chaotic Evil, and we'll get mad if there are consequences to our [S]Evil Totally Neutral actions). Instead of [whatever you want to do], here's [what I would do], and you should do that, instead.

Regular Gamers: ...No? :smallconfused:

Power Gamer: Then your character is bad, and you should feel bad.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Scenario 1
DM: The game is balanced towards CR. Not perfectly. But it is a decent enough guideline that works most of the time.

Power Gamer: Haha. Good joke. Thanks to [Cantrip] and I do way more damage than other classes at my level. Which means I do disproportionate amounts of damage, compared to the monsters' CR.

DM: ...Well then I increase the CR of the encounter because there's no challenge if you're just gonna steamroll everything? :smallconfused:

Power Gamer: Oh damn. Now I only deal regular amounts of damage, and the DM and I are back at an impasse. My Power Gaming was for nothing!

Regular Gamers: We only deal normal amounts of damage, which is suboptimal amounts of damage - or damage mitigation - because the DM was forced to ramp the difficulty! If the hostiles don't attack Power Gamer, we're just dead, I guess.

Scenario 2
Power Gamer: Haha. Look at this ability I have that deals ****tons of damage. I'm going to use it first round of combat, every combat. The other party members don't even need to be here.

DM: Yeah. I'm gonna need you to stop doing that. I make scenarios where the NPCs are Resistant - or outright immune - to that ability or damage type, which at least gives the other players a chance to contribute.

Power Gamer: That's not fair! I want to roll dice and deal ludicrous amounts of damage.

Regular Gamers: *Looks up from phone* Is something happening? We're just in the Group Chat talking about how Power Gamer sucks.

Scenario 3
DM: Okay, [sets up the encounter].

Power Gamer: Oh? ...I'm only optimised for [these kinds of encounters]. I'm basically useless, here.

DM: Well, the CR is designed for five players, if one player effectively just sits this one out, you're in for a bad time.

Regular Gamers: You can't just sit a combat out. At least go down to three crits in the first round and spend the combat on 0 rolling Death Saves (Death Saves are a terrible mechanic, by the way!)! Like, at least have an excuse for not even trying. Don't you have a Longbow?

Power Gamer: Pfft. 1d8 damage sucks. May as well not even use it. What's the point.

Scenario 4
Power Gamer: Everyone sucks except for me. Why can't everyone just make better characters?

Regular Gamers: Because we don't want to? We want to play these characters, which synergise better as part of a team, and give us a wide array of skills and abilities so that regardless of situation, at least one of us can handle it? Also, we don't like the idea of dump stats and min-maxing. Because negative modifiers are always bad.

Power Gamer: Those characters are dumb. Why even have Speech skills (CHA is dump stat) if you can just play Chaotic Neutral and just attack and antagonise people to get what we want (and we'll ignore the DM when he tells us to change our alignment to Chaotic Evil, and we'll get mad if there are consequences to our [S]Evil Totally Neutral actions). Instead of [whatever you want to do], here's [what I would do], and you should do that, instead.

Regular Gamers: ...No? :smallconfused:

Power Gamer: Then your character is bad, and you should feel bad.

I find scenario 1 and 2 are by far the most common, except you can replace "a lot of damage" with anything else that trivializes a scenario and everyone else in it.

[Sigreid]

Can always have some encounters where the optimizer gets to be awesome, some where he sucks because his specialization doesn't play well with the encounter and some where his optimization can't be brought fully to bare.

[Cheesegear]

Can always have some encounters where the optimizer gets to be awesome...

But that's the problem. You don't need to optimise, to be awesome.
You just have to play your character correctly, by using your brain at least a little bit.

Now, some classes (e.g; Monk) are Just Bad, and you have to optimise because the Class Package is so terrible that you're forced to eke out every advantage you can.

A Paladin, or Fighter? ...Look, if you've got STR 15+, the game assumes that you'll be alright.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Scenario 1
DM: The game is balanced towards CR. Not perfectly. But it is a decent enough guideline that works most of the time.

Power Gamer: Haha. Good joke. Thanks to [Cantrip] and I do way more damage than other classes at my level. Which means I do disproportionate amounts of damage, compared to the monsters' CR.

DM: ...Well then I increase the CR of the encounter because there's no challenge if you're just gonna steamroll everything? :smallconfused:

Power Gamer: Oh damn. Now I only deal regular amounts of damage, and the DM and I are back at an impasse. My Power Gaming was for nothing!

Regular Gamers: We only deal normal amounts of damage, which is suboptimal amounts of damage - or damage mitigation - because the DM was forced to ramp the difficulty! If the hostiles don't attack Power Gamer, we're just dead, I guess.

Player vs DM antagonism is not exclusive to situations of power gaming/optimization, and the fault does not lie with the optimizer when the DMs only strategy to create challenge is "increase CR".


Scenario 2
Power Gamer: Haha. Look at this ability I have that deals ****tons of damage. I'm going to use it first round of combat, every combat. The other party members don't even need to be here.

DM: Yeah. I'm gonna need you to stop doing that. I make scenarios where the NPCs are Resistant - or outright immune - to that ability or damage type, which at least gives the other players a chance to contribute.

Power Gamer: That's not fair! I want to roll dice and deal ludicrous amounts of damage.

Regular Gamers: *Looks up from phone* Is something happening? We're just in the Group Chat talking about how Power Gamer sucks.

Are there such builds that allow a player to deal a huge amount of damage every combat to the point where the encounter is trivialized? I am under the impression that most instances of that are gated by resource consumption, which then means that the DM is not pacing encounters in a way that discourages such behavior.

And why is it bad to want to roll dice and deal damage? Is this the "badwrongfun" people keep talking about?


Scenario 3
DM: Okay, [sets up the encounter].

Power Gamer: Oh? ...I'm only optimised for [these kinds of encounters]. I'm basically useless, here.

DM: Well, the CR is designed for five players, if one player effectively just sits this one out, you're in for a bad time.

Regular Gamers: You can't just sit a combat out. At least go down to three crits in the first round and spend the combat on 0 rolling Death Saves (Death Saves are a terrible mechanic, by the way!)! Like, at least have an excuse for not even trying. Don't you have a Longbow?

Power Gamer: Pfft. 1d8 damage sucks. May as well not even use it. What's the point.

Is optimization/power gaming only against [enemy type] even optimization? Is being trivialized in combat by enemies even exclusive to power gamers? A n00b 14 Str Barbarian can also face the same problem of being nullified by certain enemy types, so why is it a problem when it happens to a power gamer?

If the point is that they pout whenever they get countered by the DM? If so, then I guess? Though if my build got knowingly countered by the DM I think I'd also be pretty miffed (and PO'd).


Scenario 4
Power Gamer: Everyone sucks except for me. Why can't everyone just make better characters?

Regular Gamers: Because we don't want to? We want to play these characters, which synergise better as part of a team, and give us a wide array of skills and abilities so that regardless of situation, at least one of us can handle it? Also, we don't like the idea of dump stats and min-maxing. Because negative modifiers are always bad.

Power Gamer: Those characters are dumb. Why even have Speech skills (CHA is dump stat) if you can just play Chaotic Neutral and just attack and antagonise people to get what we want (and we'll ignore the DM when he tells us to change our alignment to Chaotic Evil, and we'll get mad if there are consequences to our [S]Evil Totally Neutral actions). Instead of [whatever you want to do], here's [what I would do], and you should do that, instead.

Regular Gamers: ...No? :smallconfused:

Power Gamer: Then your character is bad, and you should feel bad.

Your character is dumb. Why dump Cha/Int when half the skills use it? Why even have negative stats just set them all to 12! Characters should never have innately weak stats, because that's scary. What do you mean you want to use melee as a barbarian? Why aren't you roleplaying as X! I can't believe you picked Polearm Master instead of the superior Actor feat. Your character is bad and you should feel bad.

Everyone sucks except for me. Why can't they stop making optimized characters?

[zinycor]

But that's the problem. You don't need to optimise, to be awesome.
You just have to play your character correctly, by using your brain at least a little bit.

Now, some classes (e.g; Monk) are Just Bad, and you have to optimise because the Class Package is so terrible that you're forced to eke out every advantage you can.

A Paladin, or Fighter? ...Look, if you've got STR 15+, the game assumes that you'll be alright.

You also don't need to play dungeons and dragons. But while you are at it, why not enjoy the game in whatever way you do enjoy it as long as it doesn't get in the way of others?

And if that involves doing a bunch of math, reading guides and getting to be good at the game in the ways you want to. More power to you, just be mindful of the rest of the table.

[Sorinth]

Not really. It's really really really forgiving (except at level 1). By design. I posted the design assumptions--you have to go far out of your way to undershoot the expected power levels.

Adding minions helps (it always does), but it means that you're constantly adjusting the combats. And making them way harder for anyone less optimized (otherwise the optimized person is blowing it away anyway and everyone else is just doing cleanup, which is no fun).

I'm not sure I understand your point, if you use an appropriate CR you aren't going to get that epic battle regardless of whether you have optimizers or not. As you say the game is really forgiving and even something that is rated as Deadly rarely feels deadly so right off the bat you are trying to overshoot the encounter by the right amount so the adjusting combats to fit how powerful the players are is something you are going to do regardless. You have to adjust for strong players like the optimizer but you also have to adjust for weak players. And sometimes you even have to adjust for party composition if they lack a key role. This doesn't strike me as a problem that comes from optimizers, it's simply part of being the DM, you have to do that no matter what.

As for minions, in theory you could quite easily set it up so that your optimizer going toe to toe against the big bad, and some of the other party members are fighting a side battle keeping the minions at bay. So using your Dragon example, the Dragon should probably be smart enough to recognize who the biggest threat is, in this case your optimizer. So naturally the dragon will for the most part ignore the lesser threats and focus on taking down the big threat. The Dragon also has a bunch of Kobold servants, some party members are probably going to have to deal with them so that the big guns can focus on the dragon. Nobody is outmatched by a boosted dragon that renders the weaker PCs useless but the encounter is still going to be that big deadly fight.



Are you sure? I've definitely seen the difference myself, even at moderate power levels. Especially when you end up pulling a one-combat-to-rule-them-all day.

Without question Hexadin is stronger, it's absolutely noticeable. But for a big fight we are talking about shaving off a round of combat, maybe two.


And yes a 5min adventure day is going to favour the optimizer. Also just a guess here, but do you often run few enemies in your combats? Because that's another situation that also favours optimizers.

[Sorinth]

Scenario 1
DM: The game is balanced towards CR. Not perfectly. But it is a decent enough guideline that works most of the time.

Power Gamer: Haha. Good joke. Thanks to [Cantrip] and I do way more damage than other classes at my level. Which means I do disproportionate amounts of damage, compared to the monsters' CR.

DM: ...Well then I increase the CR of the encounter because there's no challenge if you're just gonna steamroll everything? :smallconfused:

Power Gamer: Oh damn. Now I only deal regular amounts of damage, and the DM and I are back at an impasse. My Power Gaming was for nothing!

Regular Gamers: We only deal normal amounts of damage, which is suboptimal amounts of damage - or damage mitigation - because the DM was forced to ramp the difficulty! If the hostiles don't attack Power Gamer, we're just dead, I guess.

Scenario 2
Power Gamer: Haha. Look at this ability I have that deals ****tons of damage. I'm going to use it first round of combat, every combat. The other party members don't even need to be here.

DM: Yeah. I'm gonna need you to stop doing that. I make scenarios where the NPCs are Resistant - or outright immune - to that ability or damage type, which at least gives the other players a chance to contribute.

Power Gamer: That's not fair! I want to roll dice and deal ludicrous amounts of damage.

Regular Gamers: *Looks up from phone* Is something happening? We're just in the Group Chat talking about how Power Gamer sucks.

Scenario 3
DM: Okay, [sets up the encounter].

Power Gamer: Oh? ...I'm only optimised for [these kinds of encounters]. I'm basically useless, here.

DM: Well, the CR is designed for five players, if one player effectively just sits this one out, you're in for a bad time.

Regular Gamers: You can't just sit a combat out. At least go down to three crits in the first round and spend the combat on 0 rolling Death Saves (Death Saves are a terrible mechanic, by the way!)! Like, at least have an excuse for not even trying. Don't you have a Longbow?

Power Gamer: Pfft. 1d8 damage sucks. May as well not even use it. What's the point.

Scenario 4
Power Gamer: Everyone sucks except for me. Why can't everyone just make better characters?

Regular Gamers: Because we don't want to? We want to play these characters, which synergise better as part of a team, and give us a wide array of skills and abilities so that regardless of situation, at least one of us can handle it? Also, we don't like the idea of dump stats and min-maxing. Because negative modifiers are always bad.

Power Gamer: Those characters are dumb. Why even have Speech skills (CHA is dump stat) if you can just play Chaotic Neutral and just attack and antagonise people to get what we want (and we'll ignore the DM when he tells us to change our alignment to Chaotic Evil, and we'll get mad if there are consequences to our [S]Evil Totally Neutral actions). Instead of [whatever you want to do], here's [what I would do], and you should do that, instead.

Regular Gamers: ...No? :smallconfused:

Power Gamer: Then your character is bad, and you should feel bad.

The problem here seems to be you have a player whose an a**hole it has nothing to do with making powerful builds.

[zinycor]

The problem here seems to be you have a player whose an a**hole it has nothing to do with making powerful builds.

I believe that's exactly the problem. People assume because someone doesn't instantly meet your expectations of how they play the game, they are instantly *******s.

[Sorinth]

On the matter of character contributions
Well...

Granted that I'm speaking personally, but without even trying, in the game I'm playing right now on roll20, I've trivialised encounters with my wizard. (By "without even trying", I mean without attempting to build an "optimal" wizard.) I'll concede that's as much a matter of the DM's encounter design as it is my spell choices. All the same, I've turned the rest of the party into bystanders just by wiggling my fingers in two out of the last five encounters. (It would have been three out of five, but one them went weird/railroady, so it doesn't count.) The other players haven't complained (to my face), so I couldn't say that it bothers them, but it bothers me, and it would still bother me if the shoe was on the other foot.

And it's not as if my wizard isn't pulling his weight outside of combat, either.

So, sure, data point n = 1, but I'm definitely seeing how even a small difference in build effectiveness can have a disproportionate impact on gameplay, in a way that makes the game less fun for at least one of the players.

Doesn't this just prove that the difference between an optimized build and a non-optimized build isn't that big to begin with? I mean you had a non-optimized build and did as good or better then many optimized builds would do in the same situation.


On DMs enforcing optimising
The end result of a DM enforcing optimising by the way they run their table is the same as if a player brings a higher-op character to a low-op table and forces the table to escalate: the table as a whole has to work harder (in terms of spending more time and effort improving their system mastery) than does a table that doesn't value mechanical system mastery as much, without necessarily getting a bigger payoff of gameplay enjoyment. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that, if that's the table culture.

The difference is that when it's the expectation set for the table culture by the DM, it's not the sort of thing that tends to result in people complaining on discussion boards, because most people are buying in when they agree to play at that DM's table. (If anything, it's DMs who ruthlessly enforce low-op/no-op play whose games tend to populate "bad game" threads, at least as far as I've seen.)

The difference between a player coming to a table with an optimized build and a DM who chooses to run a game where non-optimized characters will get killed is that the table isn't forced to adapt to the optimized player but they do have to adapt to the DM. The DM has a million ways to deal with optimized player besides just making encounters more difficult.

[Frogreaver]

Personally, as a Power Gamer myself, I don't fully understand the dislike. I find it fun to fully optimize a build and make it as powerful as possible, be it with dips, item,s spells, ect.. And as a DM, I make encounters that force my players to have a level of competency with their abilities and tactics. If you come to my table you need to have a good grasp on your class' abilities, how to use them, and be decently powerful. Otherwise, you will die. Case in point, I recently ran an encounter for party of level 2 adventurers. The fight included 3 zombies, a skeleton, an orb that you had to make a DC 10 Con save against or take 1d4 necrotic damage each round, though if you fell unconscious you became immune to the effect, and an invisible Poltergeist. The party managed to scrape by on the skin of their teeth, and had a lot of trouble with the Poltergeist until the Paladin realized he could use Divine Sense to pinpoint its exact location.

As such, I encourage my players to make optimized builds, and gladly point them towards optimal options if they ask for some assistance. And as a player, I tend towards making optimized and powerful characters. As long as a Power Gamer isn't acting like a Munchkin, then what's the issue with it?

I'm an optimizer. I'm very good at it. Let me talk about the many cons of optimizing. Keep in mind I'm all for competent characters.

1. Optimization imbalances the party. This isn't so bad if the other players decide to focus on other aspects of the game and be better at those. It's a problem though when others care about being good at combat and you your optimized build outshines them every time.

2. When the whole party optimizes encounters tend to start feeling either too easy, or the DM ups the difficulty and they start feeling like rocket tag. Both of these are major issues with optimization.

3. Optimized characters tend to become so good at one thing that they are never better off doing something else. This can manifest itself in many ways. Maybe you never grapple or shove prone or push back - you never dodge. All you ever do is attack because you do such high damage with your attacks that not attacking doesn't make any sense. Combat is more fun when you have a variety of choices that might make sense. This also can affect exploration or social pillars as well. Maybe you are so good at combat that trying to talk your way through issues doesn't really work. Maybe you are so bad at charisma skills that you never have your character talk to NPC's for fear he may have to make a charisma check. Etc. In short optimized characters tend to be so good at 1 thing that it never makes sense to not do that 1 thing. ***Note fullcasters are a bit of an exception here - as spells are flexible enough to shine in a variety of areas and optimization is mostly about choosing the best spells and properly discerning when to use them.

4. Combat optimized parties tend to blow through higher xp encounters and thus level much faster than non-optimized parties.

5. The optimization mindset becomes very rules lawyery - because a big portion of the fun for the optimizer is seeing how well his build performs and anything that gets in the way of that tends to provoke a very negative reaction from him. This makes it very hard to DM for someone like this. Intentionally put enemies in his path that resist his optimization or houserule away some of his power and you often have a mess on your hands. He's unhappy and unhappy players don't make for good games. Alternatively if you do nothing your other players maybe unhappy.

6. Optimization limits player character choice - both for the optimizer and those that share a table with him.

One of the things I optimized around the most were feats. We started running no feats games. That's been the best thing that's happened for me. So many builds opened up for me. I still get to optimize but the top end power level I can achieve tends to be much lower. Other characters are much more balanced.

[Sorinth]

I believe that's exactly the problem. People assume because someone doesn't instantly meet your expectations of how they play the game, they are instantly *******s.

For the record the example power gamer comes off as a**hole not because he's playing the game differently but because he's telling other players they "should feel bad" and claiming things are unfair if things don't go his way.

[Cheesegear]

Player vs DM antagonism is not exclusive to situations of power gaming/optimization, and the fault does not lie with the optimizer when the DMs only strategy to create challenge is "increase CR".

Not true.
When a PC is dominating hostiles in their appropriate CR bracket, the DM is forced to make encounters more difficult in order to make the game interesting. That is, monsters in 'the appropriate CR' no longer provide a challenge, to that player, even if they still provide challenges, to the other players. This means that if the DM includes a higher CR monster in order to compensate for the extra damage / abilities of the 'better' player. Sometimes, the hostiles win initiative, sometimes the hostiles do a lot of crits (I don't hide my dice rolls). Sometimes, if the 'better' player hasn't acted yet, or simply fails to act (5% chance of crit miss, every time, right?), the hostiles have a huge advantage over the party because the compensatory mechanism on the players' end (i.e; The Power Gamer) has failed, thereby punished the rest of the party - not necessarily the player who deals the most damage.

Second, if you don't 'just increase CR', go to Scenario 2 or 3.


Are there such builds that allow a player to deal a huge amount of damage every combat to the point where the encounter is trivialized?

Yes. Coffeelocks spring to mind.


And why is it bad to want to roll dice and deal damage?

As has been pointed out several times during the thread. The thread's premise itself, is flawed.

Most people, don't want to play characters that don't work.
Most people, when playing a class, would like to know how that class is played.
Most people, when faced with challenges, look for advice on how to overcome those challenges - especially if they 'can't read good' for themselves.

Making strong characters, and power gaming is not a problem, in and of itself. After all, the DM can alter and change encounters at a whim. There is no way that players can 'beat' the DM. It simply isn't possible.

The problem, is the intent behind the action:
Why do people power game in the first place?
Why does power gaming even matter?

This is the problem of the thread.
Because the problem isn't so much power gaming, as power gamers.

And if your response to that 'problem', is:
"I like making strong characters, and at my table it's not a problem. Hell, Get your Stormwind Fallacy out of my face; Here is my 1500 word fanfiction on my Paladin's backstory and how it's connected to the Shadowfell and the Raven Queen, multi-class to Hexblade, go! As a character with high CHA, let me tell you 'bout my Pesuasion and Deception Skills. I'll roleplay all day if you want. My party loves me. My party relies on me. Both OOC and IC, because I'm the best player at the table, and I'm helpful. I know how this **** works and I guide my friends, even if their characters aren't as good as mine."

Then you're not the problem. In fact, please be at my table. I wish all my players were like you.


Your character is dumb. Why dump Cha/Int when half the skills use it? Why even have negative stats just set them all to 12! Characters should never have innately weak stats, because that's scary. What do you mean you want to use melee as a barbarian? Why aren't you roleplaying as X! I can't believe you picked Polearm Master instead of the superior Actor feat. Your character is bad and you should feel bad.

It sure does go both ways.
Depends on your table.
Depends on your party.

"Why do people dislike power gaming?"
Easy. Because they probably don't see combat - or perhaps more accurately - 'high numbers', as intrinsic to their enjoyment of the game.
But as mentioned, that's not even the right question, because nobody wants to play a trash character that fails all the time.

What is the difference between simply a 'good character', and 'power-gamed character'? Where is that line? How do you determine that?
Because the phrase 'power gaming' comes with certain connotations, based on anecdotal evidence at peoples' own tables.

[Mutazoia]

IMO this is a just a symptom. The root cause is "game isn't challenging"/"not enough risk of TPK." When victory isn't in doubt, combat just becomes a race to the finish line--they compete for DPR because what else is there?

Solution: take whatever encounter you were going to use, and increase the number of each monster type by 50-100%.

And this works if everyone in the party optimizes.

However, if only one or two characters optimize, then all you are doing is making things more challenging for the optimizers, and for the rest of the party you might as well just say "Rocks fall, everyone but Bob and Fred dies."


Ok, but why would you not have fun with that character just because another player made a Hexadin? With bounded accuracy you are still going to be contributing in combat so why would you have less fun?

Because the Hexadin would be doing your job better than you are. You can take down, say, one guy in 3 rounds, while the Hexadin takes down 3 guys in 2 rounds. Even out of combat, the odds are that the Hexadin is going to have more out of combat skills/options that a pure fighter would have. (But that's more of game design flaw.)


We also need to differentiate between a PC who optimizes his build and a DM who is an optimizer and creates a deadly version of the game where all fights are hard and you need to good tactics and strong PCs to survive. The two are vastly different and having a PC who optimizes by no means forces the DM down that same path.

I would argue that your "deadly version of the game" should be more the norm, not the taboo you suggest. After all what real fun do you get out of something that you can win easily? If there is no real risk, there is no real reward.


I have a hard time seeing a case (Beyond high level cheese stuff) where you had to increase the difficulty of the dragon by so much that it made the non optimized players not even able to contribute, do you really have cases where the optimized player basically solos the BBEG while the rest of party stand around doing nothing/failing at everything they try?.


I have yet to see this in 5e, but it was a big problem in 3.X where the Wizard or Sorc would crank out enough damage in one blast to one-shot a dragon and leave the rest of the party twiddling their collective thumbs.


The thing is that the "best answer" isn't so good that it renders everything else useless. A Paladin that dips Hexblade is the "best answer" but if you don't do that dip you aren't going to be disappointed with your Paladin because you will still be good.

The problem here is that, to most power gamers, "good" isn't good enough. If you DON'T take that dip, you are not making the "smart" choice, and "don't know how to play your class properly", etc.


If you want your scenarios to be cooler, don-t just simply up the power of the dragon, but add nuancr to the encounter, maybe the encounter happens on difficult terrain, maybe the dragon objective isn't to defeat the players, but to take something away from them, or the dragon keeps its distance and attacks other places to tire the plauers.

Have the dragon have different goals, tactics and approaches, that challenge different abilities and require teamwork.

For example maybe the challenge isn't beating the dragon, but keeping the dragon from attacking and destroying the nearby village.

Except we are back to the Blaster Wizard problem. Casters don't have to worry about terrain to nuke the dragon from a distance. Besides, it is tactically disadvantageous to attack a dragon where it has the freedom to fly, which is why they are usually hunted in their lair.

Of course, to take something from the PC's the dragon still has to fight them, and defeat them to take the "thing". Being highly intelligent creatures, a dragon would realize that it would be easier to take a "thing" from dead adventurers than live ones...

Different tactics and approaches [snip] require teamwork is the actual issue. When one person power games the "team" becomes that player who does everything.




The DM's fun matter, of course, but I don't see what in MaxWilson's post make it seems like the DM isn't having fun.


Personally I'm not a killer DM, but I'm a "yes PCs may die" DM. If the PCs face something too strong for them due to the choices they made, well, they have to escape it. Otherwise they'll likely die.

If I plan an encounter with X number of Y monsters, and then Bob comes along and can easily kill X number of Y monsters by himself, I have to now adjust my encounter....more work for me. Not only that, but I have to find some way to adjust the encounter that will A) Challenge Bob and B) not be too steep of a challenge for the rest of the players. I can either set a challenge for Bob (and kill everyone else) or set a challenge for everyone else (and Bob will cut through it like a hot knife through butter.) With option one Bob has fun and the rest of the players do not. With option two, Bob has fun and the rest of the players do not. Either choice means more work/aggravation for me, which curtails my enjoyment of the experience. If only one person out of a group is having fun, why does the group bother to get together?



I believe that's exactly the problem. People assume because someone doesn't instantly meet your expectations of how they play the game, they are instantly *******s.

Power gamer: You not optimizing your characters as much as I do ruins my fun. You're an ********!
Non-power gamers: You optimizing your character so much ruins my fun. You're an ********!
DM: You optimizing your character so much more than the other players makes me do more work than I should have for something that is supposed to be fun. You're an ********!

By the law of majority rule, the Power Gamer is the ******** by 2 to 1 vote.

[Waazraath]

I'm an optimizer. I'm very good at it. Let me talk about the many cons of optimizing. Keep in mind I'm all for competent characters.

1. Optimization imbalances the party. This isn't so bad if the other players decide to focus on other aspects of the game and be better at those. It's a problem though when others care about being good at combat and you your optimized build outshines them every time.

2. When the whole party optimizes encounters tend to start feeling either too easy, or the DM ups the difficulty and they start feeling like rocket tag. Both of these are major issues with optimization.

3. Optimized characters tend to become so good at one thing that they are never better off doing something else. This can manifest itself in many ways. Maybe you never grapple or shove prone or push back - you never dodge. All you ever do is attack because you do such high damage with your attacks that not attacking doesn't make any sense. Combat is more fun when you have a variety of choices that might make sense. This also can affect exploration or social pillars as well. Maybe you are so good at combat that trying to talk your way through issues doesn't really work. Maybe you are so bad at charisma skills that you never have your character talk to NPC's for fear he may have to make a charisma check. Etc. In short optimized characters tend to be so good at 1 thing that it never makes sense to not do that 1 thing. ***Note fullcasters are a bit of an exception here - as spells are flexible enough to shine in a variety of areas and optimization is mostly about choosing the best spells and properly discerning when to use them.

4. Combat optimized parties tend to blow through higher xp encounters and thus level much faster than non-optimized parties.

5. The optimization mindset becomes very rules lawyery - because a big portion of the fun for the optimizer is seeing how well his build performs and anything that gets in the way of that tends to provoke a very negative reaction from him. This makes it very hard to DM for someone like this. Intentionally put enemies in his path that resist his optimization or houserule away some of his power and you often have a mess on your hands. He's unhappy and unhappy players don't make for good games. Alternatively if you do nothing your other players maybe unhappy.

6. Optimization limits player character choice - both for the optimizer and those that share a table with him.

One of the things I optimized around the most were feats. We started running no feats games. That's been the best thing that's happened for me. So many builds opened up for me. I still get to optimize but the top end power level I can achieve tends to be much lower. Other characters are much more balanced.

Though I agree with a lot of things you say here, there is another side to this: optimzing for party efficiency. I think it was KorvinStarmast who stated earlier in the thread that he waited with building a character til the rest of the party deceided. That's what I do as well, with the explicit goal to optimize for "making my character being the best contribution to the party". I usually have number of ideas in my head that I'd like to try out, both mechanically and in fluff, and I decide based on what I think the party needs most. That way I pretty strict limitations in which I can work, I know what niches I can cover without overshadowing anybody, and I can fill in what is missing (be it healing, area of effect, tanking, buffing, 'face' role, skills that are missing, etc.)


The language used to describe 'builds'. Grab this, get that, dump x, comes online.

Just curious: why?

[Azuresun]

Of course, this is a result of having the least amount of assumptions regarding any one player's game. Ideally, one would like to have a team that is always synergistic and routinely makes up for each other's weakness/builds upon each other's strengths, but such things aren't necessarily a given without a great deal of out-of-game discussion between players. Sometimes, this discussion does occur, but often, a player has very little idea regarding what classes/concepts the other players may bring to the table (to say nothing of what spells/feats/stats they may have, or what the DM will challenge the players with).

Optimization discussion makes many assumptions, but the assumption of maximizing one's own character while ignoring other characters is generally the best strategy. If I build a big, F-U, guns blazing melee smite cheese build that relies on my character alone, and then the other players make characters that support that through spells/abilities/buffs/features, then that's great, but there is almost equal or greater chance that my character will have to fend for himself in terms of DPR as the other players bring EB-spammers, or fire-spell-only sorcs, or rangers that plink away with their bow from afar.

Players cannot create builds whose viability in play is dependent solely upon the whims of the other players. The only assurance a player has in their builds viability is what they alone can bring to the table.

And that is why you have a session zero and talk to your fellow players. After all, it seems safe to assume that if you're committing to possibly a few hundred hours of social gathering with them over the lifetime of a campaign that you like these people, don't mind talking to them and want to have fun with them......rrrrrrright?

[Azuresun]

While it's certainly low on my list, i do dislike this too. Or rather, i think it should never exit the internet forums where it belongs.

The thing that makes me go "....seriously?" is the threads that set up a level 20 build. So this character will be awesome after a year or two, for a few sessions before the game ends, if the campaign doesn't conclude well before level 20 as the majority do?

[Waazraath]

The thing that makes me go "....seriously?" is the threads that set up a level 20 build. So this character will be awesome after a year or two, for a few sessions before the game ends, if the campaign doesn't conclude well before level 20 as the majority do?

But does this really happen? We recently had 6 or 7 optimization contests in the 5e forum, explicitly calling for builds descriptions on level 1, 5, 11 17 and 20. We have a thread on interesting builds from LudicSavant, and most of the builds there are viable at lower levels as well. My own build compendium (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?591621-Waazraath-5e-build-compendium ) explicitly mentions the importance of being able viable at all levels, not just at a certain high level.

And even if there would somebody posting a fun build that has a great and funny combo that doesn't work before level 20, but is great there: there's nothing wrong with somebody having fun coming up with that, and showing at an internet forum. Builds like that are made for the fun of building, not playing. It doesn't have to be played at a table, and somebody interested in making stuff like that is ususally smart enough not to bring it to a game that starts at lvl 1 anyway.

[Jerrykhor]

The thing that makes me go "....seriously?" is the threads that set up a level 20 build. So this character will be awesome after a year or two, for a few sessions before the game ends, if the campaign doesn't conclude well before level 20 as the majority do?

There's really nothing wrong with that. Level 20 builds doesn't mean that the build only comes online at level 20, it could be an achievement goal to look forward to, a vision of the final form of your character. Its rather unnecessary most of the time, but if you are going for a crazy triple multiclass, it might be good to plan out the class levels.

The good thing about people like these is that if your DM grants you a level up mid session (usually for milestone leveling), they can just update their character sheet on the fly and continue playing, rather than most people who will have analysis paralysis on which feat to pick, which spell to swap out etc.

[zinycor]

For the record the example power gamer comes off as a**hole not because he's playing the game differently but because he's telling other players they "should feel bad" and claiming things are unfair if things don't go his way.

Exactly, but one could easily make an example where the power gamer explains his situation further, changes his behaviour accordingly or simply leaves for a more fitting group. My point is that the example is biased.

[Waazraath]

Exactly, but one could easily make an example where the power gamer explains his situation further, changes his behaviour accordingly or simply leaves for a more fitting group. My point is that the example is biased.

It might be biased, but my own experience is that it happens that folks with a focus on powergaming 'explain' to others 'how they should play the game', and I never saw folks with a focus on roleplay trying to boss others around that they don't rp enough or are rp'ing 'in a wrong way' and they 'should' do this or that.

[zinycor]

It might be biased, but my own experience is that it happens that folks with a focus on powergaming 'explain' to others 'how they should play the game', and I never saw folks with a focus on roleplay trying to boss others around that they don't rp enough or are rp'ing 'in a wrong way' and they 'should' do this or that.

We have different experiences then. Plenty of times I have seen rp elitists

[Waazraath]

We have different experiences then. Plenty of times I have seen rp elitists

Ah, ok, good to know, ymmv then. Glad that cup passed me by without having to taste from it :)

[Cybren]

Not true.
When a PC is dominating hostiles in their appropriate CR bracket, the DM is forced to make encounters more difficult in order to make the game interesting.

[citation needed]

[Naerytar]

[citation needed]

You need a citation for why steamrolling combats is boring? :smallconfused:

It's why we have difficulty settings in video games...

[Mutazoia]

[citation needed]

Few people have fun rickrolling every single encounter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ). Or if they do, it doesn't last long and they quickly get bored. Bored players quit games. So, unless you are a Monty Haul style DM (https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Monty_Haul), you are going to have to keep increasing the CR of encounters to keep things challenging for your players. Power Gamers creat an arms race with the DM that can quickly kill a game.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Not true.
When a PC is dominating hostiles in their appropriate CR bracket, the DM is forced to make encounters more difficult in order to make the game interesting. That is, monsters in 'the appropriate CR' no longer provide a challenge, to that player, even if they still provide challenges, to the other players. This means that if the DM includes a higher CR monster in order to compensate for the extra damage / abilities of the 'better' player. Sometimes, the hostiles win initiative, sometimes the hostiles do a lot of crits (I don't hide my dice rolls). Sometimes, if the 'better' player hasn't acted yet, or simply fails to act (5% chance of crit miss, every time, right?), the hostiles have a huge advantage over the party because the compensatory mechanism on the players' end (i.e; The Power Gamer) has failed, thereby punished the rest of the party - not necessarily the player who deals the most damage.

Second, if you don't 'just increase CR', go to Scenario 2 or 3.

I'm just saying there are other ways of tweaking encounters to help bring parity to the relative strength of the players. You did touch upon this in your other scenarios but the adversarial nature of those situations still remains a problem. The DM can basically do anything within the game world, and if they still fail to create monsters and encounters that are tailored to their party, then that is what one might call a "failure of imagination". Adding environmental hazards, useful props, terrain, phases of battle, etc. all works to this effect.


Yes. Coffeelocks spring to mind.

Coffeelocks, Simulacrum/Wish, and other similar exploits are entirely under the DMs thumb, and by the time their effects are fully usable it is long past when the DM should have intervened.


And that is why you have a session zero and talk to your fellow players. After all, it seems safe to assume that if you're committing to possibly a few hundred hours of social gathering with them over the lifetime of a campaign that you like these people, don't mind talking to them and want to have fun with them......rrrrrrright?

I'm not saying that doesn't or shouldn't happen, but sometimes I just want to play X, or my friends want to play A,B, and C, because it's a game, and games are meant to be fun, and sometimes that fun is something that isn't in line with the 'optimal party' or whatever. And that is fine, because I can just make a build that is good on its own.

[Cybren]

You need a citation for why steamrolling combats is boring? :smallconfused:

It's why we have difficulty settings in video games...
You know this is a problem entirely of the players making, right?

[Mutazoia]

I'm just saying there are other ways of tweaking encounters to help bring parity to the relative strength of the players. You did touch upon this in your other scenarios but the adversarial nature of those situations still remains a problem. The DM can basically do anything within the game world, and if they still fail to create monsters and encounters that are tailored to their party, then that is what one might call a "failure of imagination". Adding environmental hazards, useful props, terrain, phases of battle, etc. all works to this effect..

The problem comes when the DM has to tweak the encounter for two disparate power levels in the same group.

A group of goblins will have one CR. A group of goblins with an orc captain will have a higher CR.

Your player party works the same way.

A party all at the same power level will have a different "CR" vs a party with one person at a much higher power level than the rest.

Now, you can try to have the orc only fight the power gamer, but that assumes that the rest of the party is only going to focus on the goblins and totally ignore the orc. This also means that you are basically planning two separate encounters at once for your party. One for the power gamer and one for the rest of the party. That's expecting the DM to do far more work on their end, just to let the special guy be special. It also breaks immersion when you have the goblins ignore the power gamer, or the Orc ignore the clearic healing everybody. It gets too obvious that the orc is just for Mr Special Power Gamer.

There are no special terrain modifiers, special props, or phases of battle that are going to overcome that power disparity. At leat not without breaking immersion and making it VERY obvious that some things are happing just to/for the power gamer.

Think of it like going to an amusement park with a group of 5th graders, and you are the only adult. Most of the rides have signs saying "you must be this tall to ride this ride." Your 5th graders are always too short so they can't ride those rides. They CAN ride the kiddy rides, which you find incredibly boring. Making you climb an extra set of stairs to get to those rides isn't going to make it any more fun or challenging for you. Using a special prop...say...making you carry a 40' tee-ball pole while you ride, isn't going to make it more fun or exciting for you. Using extra phases of the ride...making you spend an extra 10 minutes on the "It's a small world" ride...isn't going to make it more fun or exciting for you.

All of any of that is really going to do is make more work for the park staff just to accommodate you in some special way.

Your idea of adjusting encounters to accommodate a power gamer is like the above group playing dodgeball, where the kiddos only get those red rubber balls thrown at them, and you get the guy with the automatic baseball pitching matching firing 90 mph fastballs at you while you wear concrete shoes and an inflatable sumo suit. Can you guaranty that one of those kids isn't going to randomly run into the path of one of those fast balls? Nope.

Now, you COULD give the rest of the party awesome magic items to bring up their power level a bit, and Mr. Special Power Gamer gets no magic items at all...ever... because he's strong enough with out them. But the Mr. Special Power Gamer whines about not being treated fairly.


You know this is a problem entirely of the players making, right?

I's a problem of the power gamer player, or rather it's a DM problem created by the power gamer player.


Now the rest of this is just conjecture, but it's formed from over 4 decades of gaming experience:

Power gamers are usually using the game to compensate for something in their real life. There is some situation at home or school or work, where they don't have the control/power that the fell they should, and creating a fictitious avatar in the game, one that can do everything and never loses, is their way of dealing with that situation. They want the Billy Badass character that can steamroll any encounter and always comes out on top because, on some subconscious level, they are trying to take some semblance of power back in at least a small portion of their life and make themselves feel a little better inside. For all their claims of "playing their class properly" or "using the rules to the best advantage", all they are really doing is trying to exert control of at least one small part of the universe.

[zinycor]

There are other ways of adjusting an encounter that don't involve upping the CR. Tactics, adding social dimensions, traps, higher number of encounters per day, different goals for the encounters, etc.

[Mutazoia]

There are other ways of adjusting an encounter that don't involve upping the CR. Tactics, adding social dimensions, traps, higher number of encounters per day, different goals for the encounters, etc.

All of which still punish the lower power characters. A power gamer character will shrug off traps designed to trip up their lower power team mates, or a trap designed to challenge the power gamer will decimate the lower power team. Higher numbers of encounters per day just runs the lower power team out of resources faster than the power gamer. Tactics and different goals...well you can read my last post about that one.

The issue remains that the DM has to do far more work to tweak encounters, and you can't realistically tweak for two different power levels in the same encounter without making it very obvious that you are making special things for just for Power Gamer.

Saying "5 goblins and a storm gaint attack you. The storm giant heads straight over to Bob, leaving the goblins to fight the rest of you." get's really old for everyone.

[zinycor]

All of which still punish the lower power characters. A power gamer character will shrug off traps designed to trip up their lower power team mates, or a trap designed to challenge the power gamer will decimate the lower power team. Higher numbers of encounters per day just runs the lower power team out of resources faster than the power gamer. Tactics and different goals...well you can read my last post about that one.

The issue remains that the DM has to do far more work to tweak encounters, and you can't realistically tweak for two different power levels in the same encounter without making it very obvious that you are making special things for just for Power Gamer.

Saying "5 goblins and a storm gaint attack you. The storm giant heads straight over to Bob, leaving the goblins to fight the rest of you." get's really old for everyone.

In my experience most of the "broken" builds are only so cause they are madevon an empty 30x30 empty place, once you add nuance to the encounters, every character gets a chance to shine and involve each other in the game. Then every character is appeeciatted for what they bring to the table.

[Willie the Duck]

In the above Willie the 'I decided to play a not very good at fighting fighter', and the Necromancer with a hoard of minions, IF Willie feels bad 'cause his fighter isn't very good at fighting, why is there a tendency for folks to blame the Necromancer for being good at dishing out damage?

Let's go back to this. Condescension aside, it is a good question. In isolation, neither the minionmancy necromancer nor the AD&D-esque fighter are bad characters to have in a like minded group with the same concept of what they want out of the game (and hard rules or gentleperson's agreements or even just unspoken gaming culture keeping that going). The primary difference is when an A goes to a B group, what kind of friction happens. If I, wanting to play my STR/DEX fighter comes to a group with minionmancers, sorcadins, hexadins, and forge-cleric dippers and such, it is a self-solving problem -- I switch gears (and play something similar), decide not to play with said group, or accept the role of party also-ran. In theory, the same happens in the converse situation. The exception being that, if allowed to, the minionmancer coming into the party of non-optimizers isn't an also-ran, they are a runaway success. That plays out in a way that seems more like one person coming in and ruining everyone else's fun (much more than one person coming in and potentially not having 100% fun, as the non-optimizer coming into the optimizing group). Worse still, if I come in with my character to the OP group, there's not much to talk about. Either I decide to stick with it, or not. If the OP player comes into the non-op group, they can argue that no this character is perfectly normal, what's the problem, I have a backstory that justifies this (we have a thread now about how to justify hexblade dips on paladins). This is a place where friction can occur and everyone can walk away feeling hurt and put-upon. I'm not saying one person or another is at fault (the only fault is people not being clear about expectations), just that the scenario is more likely to show up in the situation of an optimizer bringing an optimized character into a group of non-optimizers.

In real life, this probably doesn't come up all that often (except maybe in pickup/AL games at ones FLGS), as people probably get a good bead on a group's optimization culture in session #1. It certainly hasn't come up for me in 5e (of course, I'm not dedicated to the non-op style, I just want to do it once in a while). It did in 3e though! Boy howdy! I remember wanting to just play 'a bard,' or 'a paladin,' or even 'a cleric,' but without all the tricks and loops and whatnot that let them be better fighters than fighters and all the 'CoDzilla' nonsense. If I were to try to play that bard, and mentioned it online in the 3e heyday, I would have a dozen people explaining how I 'should have' played a 'Savage Bard 5/Ur-Priest 2/Mystic Theurge 2/Mindbender 1/Sublime Chord 2/Mystic Theurge 3-10 for endgame of 3 attacks and double-9th level casting.' At that point, D&D stopped looking like D&D to me, and became some wacked-out mindgame that I really didn't want to put up with. There are some people who really liked that kind of play, and more power to them. However, I think it is good that the culture shifted such that this wasn't the assumed playstyle, and instead became only one of many again.


It might be biased, but my own experience is that it happens that folks with a focus on powergaming 'explain' to others 'how they should play the game', and I never saw folks with a focus on roleplay trying to boss others around that they don't rp enough or are rp'ing 'in a wrong way' and they 'should' do this or that.

I don't think it is a strictly one-sided scenario. There is definitely an obnoxious group on the other side of the equation. I think we all remember 'that guy' who says stuff like "I roleplay, not rollplay." Gamers are people, and a certain portion of people can be really annoying (especially on the internet, where you only see a few aspects of an individual and don't find out that person-who-said-annoying-thing-X is also a volunteer firefighter and runs the local kitten rescue or whatnot). Certainly something like preferred playstyle is not going to split decisively with all the annoying people in one group and not the other.

[NorthernPhoenix]

There are other ways of adjusting an encounter that don't involve upping the CR. Tactics, adding social dimensions, traps, higher number of encounters per day, different goals for the encounters, etc.

This and posts like it are misunderstanding by attempting to solve the (imo not relevant) "problem" of helping the DM "win at DnD", which you can do very easily in many ways. It doesn't solve the much more relevant problem of "power gaming" heavily restricting the type of game, and type of scenario you're supposed to set up, to make matters worse, it actually proposes it as the solution, which is deeply unhelpful.

[zinycor]

This and posts like it are misunderstanding by attempting to solve the (imo not relevant) "problem" of helping the DM "win at DnD", which you can do very easily in many ways. It doesn't solve the much more relevant problem of "power gaming" heavily restricting the type of game, and type of scenario you're supposed to set up, to make matters worse, it actually proposes it as the solution, which is deeply unhelpful.

What? I don't follow. At no point my posts makes it so a DM would be able to "win at DnD". And at no point it restrictes the kind of scenario...

I really don't get what you are saying here.

[Mutazoia]

In my experience most of the "broken" builds are only so cause they are made on an empty 30x30 empty place, once you add nuance to the encounters, every character gets a chance to shine and involve each other in the game. Then every character is appreciated for what they bring to the table.

And if Bob stays in his 30x30 space after finishing off his special encounter, that's all well and good. But what are the odds that Bob is going to feel like only dominating his 30x30 area and not want to move to another 30x30 area and dominate there?

All of your arguments seem to be "It's find to create more work for the DM just to let one person be special." The "nuance" examples that you have listed thus far are actually extremely useless for a group of disparate power levels, and just serve to put greater workloads on the DM while not actually solving the problem at hand. You can't have difficult terrain that is only difficult for Bob but somehow not difficult for everyone else. Tactics would involve taking out the weakest link in the group first and then ganging up on the strong one, so your suggestion of tactics goes right out the window. (Burn the trash mobs then focus fire on the boss.)

You can keep claiming "nuance" all you want, but that's now how this works. That's now how any of this works.

Power gaming only works if the entire party power games. Then the DM just cranks up the CR to compensate, and the whole point of power gaming gets nullified. Or the DM goes full Monty Haul and just hands you everything on a silver platter and you all get to have a wonderful session of ego circle jerking.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

All of which still punish the lower power characters. A power gamer character will shrug off traps designed to trip up their lower power team mates, or a trap designed to challenge the power gamer will decimate the lower power team. Higher numbers of encounters per day just runs the lower power team out of resources faster than the power gamer. Tactics and different goals...well you can read my last post about that one.

The issue remains that the DM has to do far more work to tweak encounters, and you can't realistically tweak for two different power levels in the same encounter without making it very obvious that you are making special things for just for Power Gamer.

Saying "5 goblins and a storm gaint attack you. The storm giant heads straight over to Bob, leaving the goblins to fight the rest of you." get's really old for everyone.

I think you're giving the power gamer too much credit. I can't see how character optimization can allow a character to nullify the cost of traps or similar setbacks. It's not like they get more health because they optimize or something like that. A 14 Dex bog standard barbarian at level 2 will have a better time with traps than some weird magic/martial multiclass at most levels. Power gaming succeeds at doing one thing (or a few things, sometimes) very well, but they don't do everything well. Even the most optimized character is still constrained by the game mechanics of HP, bounded accuracy, Advantage/Disadvantage, proficiency, spell slots, etc.

A sorcadin that blows all their spell slots going nova in the first half of the day will then rely on their party to help them get through the second half. If the DM allows the players to just long rest after that first half, then that leaves no room for the other players (who play it more safe or who don't have to use their biggest guns during the first half, due to their friend's nova) to shine.

Also, the DM doesn't have to 'tweak' an encounter. The DM just makes the encounter/adventure/dungeon in a manner appropriate to challenge the party. :smallsmile:


This and posts like it are misunderstanding by attempting to solve the (imo not relevant) "problem" of helping the DM "win at DnD", which you can do very easily in many ways. It doesn't solve the much more relevant problem of "power gaming" heavily restricting the type of game, and type of scenario you're supposed to set up, to make matters worse, it actually proposes it as the solution, which is deeply unhelpful.

How does it "restrict" the game or scenario? I legitimately don't understand. What restriction is created by having a DMs encounters be considered "easy"? The DM doesn't get to fulfill his fantasy of a world populated only by awakened shrubs?

[MaxWilson]

And this works if everyone in the party optimizes.

However, if only one or two characters optimize, then all you are doing is making things more challenging for the optimizers, and for the rest of the party you might as well just say "Rocks fall, everyone but Bob and Fred dies."


Why would that be true? If Bob and Fred the Reckless GWM PAM Zealot Barbarians deal twice as much damage as Sue the Knowledge Cleric and Tim the Enchanter, then in a tough encounter when things go wrong it's Bob and Fred who seem more likely to die. Tim will be busy hiding on the backline until he is needed and Sue actually has good AC and can Dodge while maintaining Spiritual Guardians, whereas Bob and Fred are Recklessly granting advantage to enemies and painting a giant target on themselves.

Side note: build optimization is a completely separate skill from tactics, but I wonder how often they go together anyway. You can't look up tactics on the Internet as easily as builds. How often will Tim the Enchanter outplay Bob and Fred the PAM GWM Zealots by making better decisions?

[clash]

I am very much an optimizer and I personally believe in character concept before class. Classes are meta, feats are meta, etc. What isnt meta is the in game fantasy for the character you want to play. If you see your character as a diviner able to forsee the future, or a pugilist able to fight dragons barehanded then it's up to you to optimize that concept to make it effective.

In my opinion optimization opens up for more character concepts as viable then not optimizing. If I want an agile strong fighter, but I take Actor as my first ASI, is it the other players fault that my character isnt effective at fulfilling my fantasy for him? A dex/str fighter works and can be effective but only with some optimization and if I am not good at optimization I can follow the guidelines provided in the PHB instead of playing this character concept I have or I can ask my optimizer friend in the party how to make my str/dex fighter effectively and most optimizers are happy to lend a hand.

That being said what I dont do and dont like is classes before concepts. People that want to play a fighter class so they look up guides on the most effective possible fighter and just play what optimization tells them, without making any real design decisions or even having an idea in mind of what kind of character they want.

To each their own, but I think realizing a fantasy with mechanic is important. Just building a class or a build cause it is supposed to be strong is imo what causes issues.

[zinycor]

And if Bob stays in his 30x30 space after finishing off his special encounter, that's all well and good. But what are the odds that Bob is going to feel like only dominating his 30x30 area and not want to move to another 30x30 area and dominate there?

Because the way Bob has built his character might not fit the challenges of the next area


All of your arguments seem to be "It's find to create more work for the DM just to let one person be special." The "nuance" examples that you have listed thus far are actually extremely useless for a group of disparate power levels, and just serve to put greater workloads on the DM while not actually solving the problem at hand. You can't have difficult terrain that is only difficult for Bob but somehow not difficult for everyone else. Tactics would involve taking out the weakest link in the group first and then ganging up on the strong one, so your suggestion of tactics goes right out the window. (Burn the trash mobs then focus fire on the boss.)

And not every challenge will be solved by burning the trash and focusing the boss, for example, the party might need to rescue someone without being detected, or have find out who the bad guy is in a big city or finfind a way to defeat a whole army that they know they can take head on, etc. That sort scenarios promote the party workung as a team, therefore the powergamer doesn't outshine the rest of the party.

And yeah, it might take some more work and creativity from the GM to create these scenarios, but that's what is needed to make great games.


You can keep claiming "nuance" all you want, but that's now how this works. That's now how any of this works.
It has worked pretty well for me.


Power gaming only works if the entire party power games. Then the DM just cranks up the CR to compensate, and the whole point of power gaming gets nullified. Or the DM goes full Monty Haul and just hands you everything on a silver platter and you all get to have a wonderful session of ego circle jerking.

I can agree that powergaming works better if the whole party powergames. In such cases there isn't a problem, is there?

Btw, am not against cranking up the CR of an encounter, I just mean to say that it is far from the only option.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I don't mind power gaming so long as they aren't lording it over other players. There's a world of difference between a power gamer that has made a highly tuned Life Cleric 1/Shepherd Druid X build to heal the party into next week and an abusive coffeelock that wants to solo everything while everyone else is relegated to the background.

D&D *is* a power fantasy at it's heart*. The entire point of the game is to beat up mythological monsters to grow stronger while nabbing enough treasure to buy a nation. Building a strong character is a natural progression of this. I only ask that my players remember that this is also a social cooperative game, and in whatever way that they become strong, it should be done in the spirit of that cooperation.

*Not to say this is the only way to play it, of course. But all of the mechanics of the game definitely point this way.

[kyoryu]

D&D *is* a power fantasy at it's heart*.

Well, this is part of why people find power gamers annoying.

Because when one player can totally destroy everything and the rest of the players are relegated to sidekicks, the power fantasy is gone.

[patchyman]

If I plan an encounter with X number of Y monsters, and then Bob comes along and can easily kill X number of Y monsters by himself, I have to now adjust my encounter....more work for me. Not only that, but I have to find some way to adjust the encounter that will A) Challenge Bob and B) not be too steep of a challenge for the rest of the players.

In support of this point...suppose you have a “light” optimizer. His character does not overshadow the whole team, but requires the DM to adjust the encounters to compensate.

The day that player cancels at the last minute (falls sick, work, etc.), that group is s******* if the DM cannot adjust difficulties on the fly.

[zinycor]

In support of this point...suppose you have a “light” optimizer. His character does not overshadow the whole team, but requires the DM to adjust the encounters to compensate.

The day that player cancels at the last minute (falls sick, work, etc.), that group is s******* if the DM cannot adjust difficulties on the fly.

In my experience, players can adjust as long as they have right atittude, cooperate and think outside the box.

[patchyman]

I'm just saying there are other ways of tweaking encounters to help bring parity to the relative strength of the players. You did touch upon this in your other scenarios but the adversarial nature of those situations still remains a problem. The DM can basically do anything within the game world, and if they still fail to create monsters and encounters that are tailored to their party, then that is what one might call a "failure of imagination". Adding environmental hazards, useful props, terrain, phases of battle, etc. all works to this effect.

Up to a point. Powergamers get frustrated (and rightfully so) if most encounters are tailored so they cannot shine.

A good DM can skillfully neuter the worst abuses while still letting the powergamer shine. Unfortunately, 50% (-1) of DMs are below average.

[MaxWilson]

In support of this point...suppose you have a “light” optimizer. His character does not overshadow the whole team, but requires the DM to adjust the encounters to compensate.

The day that player cancels at the last minute (falls sick, work, etc.), that group is s******* if the DM cannot adjust difficulties on the fly.

Isn't that true for any group down a PC though? If the group expects the DM to adjust difficulties on the fly, and the DM can't, and the PC is absent (vs. temporarily played as a group PC), then that adventure will be harder than normal.

I don't see why that's bad though. Isn't dealing with bad luck and unexpected situations the whole point of playing a dice game?

Maybe I just don't get it though, since I don't see the point of the DM adjusting difficulties (and yet still rolling dice) in the first place.

[Sorinth]

Not true.
When a PC is dominating hostiles in their appropriate CR bracket, the DM is forced to make encounters more difficult in order to make the game interesting. That is, monsters in 'the appropriate CR' no longer provide a challenge, to that player, even if they still provide challenges, to the other players. This means that if the DM includes a higher CR monster in order to compensate for the extra damage / abilities of the 'better' player.

Why can't the DM keep the same CR monsters but just add more of them?

The encounter difficulty has increased but weaker players are still facing CR appropriate monsters. Not too mention the more monsters the less swingier combat becomes, more rolls means you are more likely to be closer to the average/expected values.

[Willie the Duck]

Side note: build optimization is a completely separate skill from tactics, but I wonder how often they go together anyway. You can't look up tactics on the Internet as easily as builds. How often will Tim the Enchanter outplay Bob and Fred the PAM GWM Zealots by making better decisions?

There is an old adage in the OSR community that says that we/they play OSR games 'so that you can't find the solutions on your character sheet.' Personally, I suspect that there might be a strong component of self-congratulatory back-patting in that adage, so I am suspicious of the validity. On the other hand, perhaps if you can find the solution on the character sheet/you can solve your problems through mechanical optimization, you won't bother with putting in the efforts on the tactical front? I doubt much that the ability to think tactically is negatively correlated with a preference for build optimization, but the instance of use of those skills might be.
*and I suppose the development of said skills, although I tend to believe that those skills will get exercised in other aspects of your life.

[Nhorianscum]

The issue comes when players and the DM do not fully buy into the world and story they're creating.

It's just the requirement by all involved and silly arguments like "powergame vs LP vs munckinhobo" are just symptoms rather than problems in their own right.

I tend to optimize/powergame/etc but I'm also no mean actor and find it very easy to immerse myself in the world of the game as a player.

As a DM I work to challenge the party on all pillars and set an immersive game that will draw in my players where the power level gap in characters is just... not important. Similarly good and bad acting skill just isn't important, only a players willingness to immerse themselves in the game and just... play.

A level 20 paladin in a party of level 1 sorcerers is... not a problem for me as the DM or as a player. It's a story that players can dive into and can be quite fun.

If any player just... isn't willing to dive into the game when invited by the DM and all other players then we get the drama of X vs y vs z and yeah, no, leave the table. Go home and fix your head. Similarly if a table isn't actively inviting immersion from all involved, I'm out, that's just toxic and I do not want it in my life.

[Sorinth]

Because the Hexadin would be doing your job better than you are. You can take down, say, one guy in 3 rounds, while the Hexadin takes down 3 guys in 2 rounds. Even out of combat, the odds are that the Hexadin is going to have more out of combat skills/options that a pure fighter would have. (But that's more of game design flaw.)

In order for those numbers to be accurate the Hexadin has to be have 4.5 times the DPR of the non-hexadin. Sorry but that seems absurd, there's simply no way that the Hexadin is doing that much more damage unless you intentionally built your fighter to be weak.

And at the end of the day since it's a whether to optimize or not question, the comparison is actually between a Hexadin (Optimized) or the straight Paladin without feats (Unoptimized). Which makes that 4.5 number even more unrealistic, so if one PC was actually killing 3 guys in 2 rounds to your 1 in 3 rounds then you are far far below the unoptimized version of that player.



I would argue that your "deadly version of the game" should be more the norm, not the taboo you suggest. After all what real fun do you get out of something that you can win easily? If there is no real risk, there is no real reward.

I personally don't care, I'll enjoy the deadly game and I'll enjoy the non-deadly versions. I'd optimize in both games, but in the first I'd probably optimize for DPR, whereas in the 2nd I'd probably optimize some other aspect like being the best buffer/debuffer.



I have yet to see this in 5e, but it was a big problem in 3.X where the Wizard or Sorc would crank out enough damage in one blast to one-shot a dragon and leave the rest of the party twiddling their collective thumbs.

Agreed, which is why I think a lot of the power gamer hate is a hold over from previous editions/other games.




The problem here is that, to most power gamers, "good" isn't good enough. If you DON'T take that dip, you are not making the "smart" choice, and "don't know how to play your class properly", etc.

Disagree here. If that was the case every power gamer would play Coffeelock. Personally I've never seen one in actual play even when playing with power gamers because it's just stupid. Plenty of optimizers will start with a character premise and then optimize for that. So they'll decide for instance to play a grappler, then they'll make the best grappler possible even though being a grappler is not a very strong build.

A big part of the fun of power gaming actually comes from when you have chosen something that isn't powerful but find ways to make it powerful.

[Sorinth]

All of which still punish the lower power characters. A power gamer character will shrug off traps designed to trip up their lower power team mates, or a trap designed to challenge the power gamer will decimate the lower power team. Higher numbers of encounters per day just runs the lower power team out of resources faster than the power gamer. Tactics and different goals...well you can read my last post about that one.

The issue remains that the DM has to do far more work to tweak encounters, and you can't realistically tweak for two different power levels in the same encounter without making it very obvious that you are making special things for just for Power Gamer.

Saying "5 goblins and a storm gaint attack you. The storm giant heads straight over to Bob, leaving the goblins to fight the rest of you." get's really old for everyone.

It's going to depend on the power gamer's build, but let's say they are a XBE/SS build. You can very easily neutralize the power gamer, by having an encounter in a heavy fog where players can only see 15ft. Suddenly your power gamer can't steam roll the encounter by staying at range and never being attacked. Another time there's a shaman who can cast Windwall. The possibilities are endless.

Also it's worth pointing out that the gets old quick is only a problem if you are trying to neutralize the stronger player every single encounter. But you shouldn't be doing that, there's nothing wrong with having a bunch of encounters that the party will steam roll on the back of the power gamer.

And for the record any intelligent enemy will target the big threat first and try to take them out first, so after the first round of combat the storm giant should reasonably know that the power gamer is the biggest threat and go after them.

[patchyman]

Isn't that true for any group down a PC though? If the group expects the DM to adjust difficulties on the fly, and the DM can't, and the PC is absent (vs. temporarily played as a group PC), then that adventure will be harder than normal.


In every encounter, there is a certain amount of leeway. In “default“ D&D, there is actually quite a bit of leeway. Down one player, a Medium encounter can shift to a Hard, a Hard to a Deadly, and a Deadly to a really hard encounter (but still winnable).

The DM starts adjusting for a “light” optimizer? Most combats are going to be Hard or Deadly (if not Deadly+). Now, down that one player, you are much more likely to be looking at a TPK.

[MaxWilson]

In order for those numbers to be accurate the Hexadin has to be have 4.5 times the DPR of the non-hexadin. Sorry but that seems absurd, there's simply no way that the Hexadin is doing that much more damage unless you intentionally built your fighter to be weak.

Hmmm. I'm not so sure it's an absurd differential, at least in Tier 1. For example, at level 4, you could have one paladin with a mace attacking at +5 for d8+3 damage on a hit, trying to kill an Orog with AC 18. (He spent his ASI on more Constitution.) He does 3.23 DPR against the Orog, on average.

Then you've got another Paladin who's a variant human (Polearm Master) who picked up the Mounted Combatant feat at level 4, attacking at +5 with advantage against the Orog, for d10+3 damage on the first hit, d4+3 on the bonus hit, d10+3 on the reaction hit (which he can reliably get just by having his mount Disengage 10' away every round). He does 15.72 DPR against the Orog, on average, which is 4.8x as much damage as the first paladin.

Of course that differential shrinks as soon as they both get Extra Attack, and picking up a level of Hexblade would only delay that Extra Attack. And Orogs are outliers anyway, with unusually good AC, which magnifies the effect of advantage. Still, it's an example of a non-intentionally-weak Paladin being outdamaged by a factor of 4.8 by another Paladin of the same level.


It's going to depend on the power gamer's build, but let's say they are a XBE/SS build. You can very easily neutralize the power gamer, by having an encounter in a heavy fog where players can only see 15ft. Suddenly your power gamer can't steam roll the encounter by staying at range and never being attacked. Another time there's a shaman who can cast Windwall. The possibilities are endless.

Or even just regular old prone. If the enemies drop prone, the Sharpshooter has disadvantage unless he enters melee range, whereas any melee dudes in the party will now have advantage. If the enemy is more scared of the Sharpshooter than they are of the melee dudes, they should totally drop prone at the end of each of their turns.


In every encounter, there is a certain amount of leeway. In “default“ D&D, there is actually quite a bit of leeway. Down one player, a Medium encounter can shift to a Hard, a Hard to a Deadly, and a Deadly to a really hard encounter (but still winnable).

The DM starts adjusting for a “light” optimizer? Most combats are going to be Hard or Deadly (if not Deadly+). Now, down that one player, you are much more likely to be looking at a TPK.

But the players know they are down a PC. They can change their behavior accordingly to be more cautious. (And for the record, standard 5E is so easy by default that unless the DM is deliberately gaming the system by choosing monsters/encounters with a high threat-to-XP ratio, Hard and Deadly fights are weighted in favor of non-optimized players using unsophisticated tactics.)

It's one thing to lose a PC by surprise: you don't know a Banshee is going to pop out and that Bob the Optimized Barbarian is going to roll a natural 1 and drop to zero HP. This isn't like that. Bob is already gone before the fight starts, and the PCs can adjust their tactics accordingly, the same way they would in the fight AFTER the Banshee has already taken Bob down. If you didn't enjoy the threat of those kinds of unlucky situations, you wouldn't be playing a dice game in the first place, right?

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Hmmm. I'm not so sure it's an absurd differential, at least in Tier 1. For example, at level 4, you could have one paladin with a mace attacking at +5 for d8+3 damage on a hit, trying to kill an Orog with AC 18. (He spent his ASI on more Constitution.) He does 3.23 DPR against the Orog, on average.

Then you've got another Paladin who's a variant human (Polearm Master) who picked up the Mounted Combatant feat at level 4, attacking at +5 with advantage against the Orog, for d10+3 damage on the first hit, d4+3 on the bonus hit, d10+3 on the reaction hit (which he can reliably get just by having his mount Disengage 10' away every round). He does 15.72 DPR against the Orog, on average, which is 4.8x as much damage as the first paladin.

Of course that differential shrinks as soon as they both get Extra Attack, and picking up a level of Hexblade would only delay that Extra Attack. And Orogs are outliers anyway, with unusually good AC, which magnifies the effect of advantage. Still, it's an example of a non-intentionally-weak Paladin being outdamaged by a factor of 4.8 by another Paladin of the same level.


Where does our polearm master get a mount from at level 4?

[Sorinth]

Hmmm. I'm not so sure it's an absurd differential, at least in Tier 1. For example, at level 4, you could have one paladin with a mace attacking at +5 for d8+3 damage on a hit, trying to kill an Orog with AC 18. (He spent his ASI on more Constitution.) He does 3.23 DPR against the Orog, on average.

Then you've got another Paladin who's a variant human (Polearm Master) who picked up the Mounted Combatant feat at level 4, attacking at +5 with advantage against the Orog, for d10+3 damage on the first hit, d4+3 on the bonus hit, d10+3 on the reaction hit (which he can reliably get just by having his mount Disengage 10' away every round). He does 15.72 DPR against the Orog, on average, which is 4.8x as much damage as the first paladin.

Of course that differential shrinks as soon as they both get Extra Attack, and picking up a level of Hexblade would only delay that Extra Attack. And Orogs are outliers anyway, with unusually good AC, which magnifies the effect of advantage. Still, it's an example of a non-intentionally-weak Paladin being outdamaged by a factor of 4.8 by another Paladin of the same level.

I rarely use mounted combat so maybe I'm wrong here but I don't think the mount using Disengage prevents AoO against you. Which rule are you thinking about here?

There's also the fact that the Orog has javelins, and doesn't have to close up into the reaction attack which lowers your DPR. But more importantly the Orog also has a decent chance of forcing you to dismount by grappling/shove and is certainly a decent tactic on his part, and if you are dismounted you are dying fast.


I also don't really consider this a non-intentionally weak Paladin.
They decided to go S&B instead of using a two handed weapon, trading damage for AC
They decided to not take Dueling as his Fighting Style, again trading damage for defence
They decided to spend his ASI on Con, again trading damage for defence

So not only is this an edge case scenario with a particular monster and a particular environment (Room for the horse to actually be ridden and maneuvered) that lasts for exactly 1 level before being mitigated. You made every decision point a case where the PC gave up potential damage for defence, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that a defensive focused player doesn't do much damage.


And not that it matters but even in this example the optimizer isn't killing 3 Orog's in two rounds while it takes the non-optimized character 3 rounds to kill 1. In fact the 2 Orog's would murder the optimizer almost instantly. Even in a straight 1-1 fight the Orog kills the optimized Paladin in 3.33 rounds (Faster if you actually are Kiting and creating AoO), but takes 5.3 rounds to take out the unoptimized one.

Assuming there's actually a party (And they are occupied by other enemies for the first few rounds of combat) the unoptimized guy is probably better, he's more likely to lose without aid, but he's able to draw the fight out much longer which gives his allies time to finish whatever monster they are fighting and come to his aid. Whereas the optimizer will either win or lose quickly and if he loses the rest of the party is probably in big trouble since they may not have defeated their enemies when the Orog comes charging in.

[MaxWilson]

Where does our polearm master get a mount from at level 4?

Presumably from the same place everyone else gets one: he buys one from the local dealer for the prices listed in the PHB.

I mean, he could be riding the party Moon Druid or something instead, but he doesn't have to.


I rarely use mounted combat so maybe I'm wrong here but I don't think the mount using Disengage prevents AoO against you. Which rule are you thinking about here?

The rules for opportunity attacks normally only grant opportunity attacks when the target uses its own movement to move out of reach. Mounts have a special exception which says that when the mount provokes an opportunity attack, the attacker can choose to instead target the rider. However, if the mount disengages, the mount doesn't provoke an opportunity attack and this exception doesn't come into play.

See further discussion and sources here: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/139965/when-a-controlled-mount-takes-the-disengage-action-does-the-rider-still-provoke


There's also the fact that the Orog has javelins, and doesn't have to close up into the reaction attack which lowers your DPR. But more importantly the Orog also has a decent chance of forcing you to dismount by grappling/shove and is certainly a decent tactic on his part, and if you are dismounted you are dying fast.

Yes, yes, counterplay is possible. (Technically the RAW Orog can't grapple/shove with multiattack, but I suspect I'm not the only DM to implicitly modify all Multiattack stat blocks to say that you can attack X number of times "...or grapple with a free hand".) Similarly, the mace-wielding Paladin could choose to drop the mace and grapple/prone the Orog in order to help out the rest of the party.

There are lots of ways it could play out at the actual table if everyone is tactically savvy.

[Sorinth]

The rules for opportunity attacks normally only grant opportunity attacks when the target uses its own movement to move out of reach. Mounts have a special exception which says that when the mount provokes an opportunity attack, the attacker can choose to instead target the rider. However, if the mount disengages, the mount doesn't provoke an opportunity attack and this exception doesn't come into play.

See further discussion and sources here: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/139965/when-a-controlled-mount-takes-the-disengage-action-does-the-rider-still-provoke

This is a bit of a side discussion but it's a grey area. When you "move" with the mount is it "forced movement" which wouldn't provoke AoO? Or is it the fact that you are in control of the movement therefore it's not forced.

I could see a DM ruling both ways, the tweet referenced in your link suggests that RAI is no AoO but for RAW tweets aren't any more then opinions.

That said, if you don't provoke AoO then the Orog would almost certainly grapple. And personally as a DM if that's a regular horse it's not sticking around after the attack, it's going to move as far away from danger as it could so you would probably not be able to remount easily.


Anyways, my original point still stands, people tend to greatly exaggerate just how strong optimized PCs are versus the unoptomized ones. Except in extreme circumstances it's just not that big, I have a feeling if people are really seeing a huge difference that it likely comes down to tactical savvy and they would see a big difference even if that player didn't have an optimized build simply because they were making the good choices and utilizing their abilities fully.

[MaxWilson]

This is a bit of a side discussion but it's a grey area. When you "move" with the mount is it "forced movement" which wouldn't provoke AoO? Or is it the fact that you are in control of the movement therefore it's not forced.

"You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction."

You're not using your movement, action, or reaction when your mount moves you. The RAW is clear: you don't provoke an opportunity attack when your mount moves you.

Your *mount* could provoke an opportunity attack which could legally be aimed at either it or you, except that it's Disengaging so it doesn't provoke attacks except from Sentinels.

I don't think much of Crawford's tweets but in this case the fact that he agrees tells me the RAW and RAI are in alignment here: having your mount Disengage works exactly the way you'd expect it to.


Anyways, my original point still stands, people tend to greatly exaggerate just how strong optimized PCs are versus the unoptomized ones. Except in extreme circumstances it's just not that big, I have a feeling if people are really seeing a huge difference that it likely comes down to tactical savvy and they would see a big difference even if that player didn't have an optimized build simply because they were making the good choices and utilizing their abilities fully.

Yeah, probably. Player skill IME has a much, much bigger effect on play than anything written on the character sheet (especially for spellcasters). Knowing where to stand, when to nova, what spells to cast, what NOT to do to the other PCs, how to gather information, etc. trumps having rolling three natural 18s during character generation.

[Cheesegear]

Why can't the DM keep the same CR monsters but just add more of them?

Because it's still increasing the CR of the encounter.
More, weaker monsters, is actually a more difficult fight than fewer, scarier monsters. The DMG says as much. Action economy breaks really quickly, because the party stays the same.
Additionally, the more attacks you roll, the more likely you are to roll crits. Crits Kill. Especially if you get two in the same round.

The Goblin Boss tells his mooks to 'take down the healer':
But now instead of 3-4 Arrows, the Cleric is forced to deal with 6-8.
I don't need to tell you, but 4d6 damage isn't as scary as a Fireball's worth of damage to a single player.

The only way you can solve this is by having the 'extra' Goblins you put it...Umm...Could they just only attack the Hexadin, please?

It's the same for adding a terrain feature. You don't get to say that the terrain feature only affects one player.
The whole party is punished - gets increased encounter difficulty - because of one character.

You then have the additional problem of:
"If I don't get to use my character's abilities, I don't feel special." Players with bad and/or hyperfocused characters feel this all the time. But 'Power Gamers' feel it too - everyone does, DND is a power fantasy, you're supposed to feel cool. They made a good a character, and now they're not being allowed to use it, because of encounter specs.

[MaxWilson]

Because it's still increasing the CR of the encounter.

Encounters don't have CRs in 5E. CR is an individual monster statistic, like AC or Str.


The Goblin Boss tells his mooks to 'take down the healer':
But now instead of 3-4 Arrows, the Cleric is forced to deal with 6-8.
I don't need to tell you, but 4d6 damage isn't as scary as a Fireball's worth of damage to a single player.

The only way you can solve this is by having the 'extra' Goblins you put it...Umm...Could they just only attack the Hexadin, please?

The DM shouldn't be "solving" encounters for the players, or else the DM is just playing against themself.

The cleric can solve this problem by Dodging or dropping prone to impose disadvantage on the goblins, or moving behind partial or total cover. (Possibly also dropping a Sanctuary spell on themself.) Switching to defense will reduce the cleric's offensive output and put more pressure on the other PCs including the Hexadin to make up the difference, but this keeps the cleric alive and intact to Healing Word anyone who goes down against the Goblins. If the players weren't interested in teamwork they wouldn't have formed a party in the first place, they'd just be playing 1:1 with the DM in a solo adventure.

[Cheesegear]

Encounters don't have CRs in 5E. CR is an individual monster statistic, like AC or Str.

Jesus. Okay.
'Expected Encounter Difficulty' of the encounter.


The cleric can solve this problem by Dodging or dropping prone to impose disadvantage on the goblins, or moving behind partial or total cover.

So the Cleric is forced to problem solve, a problem that the DM created, because of the Hexadin. Is my point.
Other players get punished when a player Power Games.

All players need to max their characters, or it doesn't work.


Switching to defense will reduce the cleric's offensive output and put more pressure on the other PCs...

It sure does.


...If the players weren't interested in teamwork they wouldn't have formed a party in the first place...

You're not getting that the problem doesn't need to exist in the first place.
Now instead of 'Hard' encounters, the party is forced into a situation where the DM creates Deadly+ encounters every time...And the rest of the party just has to handle that, I guess.

[patchyman]

But the players know they are down a PC. They can change their behavior accordingly to be more cautious. (And for the record, standard 5E is so easy by default that unless the DM is deliberately gaming the system by choosing monsters/encounters with a high threat-to-XP ratio, Hard and Deadly fights are weighted in favor of non-optimized players using unsophisticated tactics.)


In my experience, PCs down a player may be slightly more cautious, but not to the extent that they are having a substantial effect on the difficulty of the encounters.

As a matter of fact, non-optimized players using unsophisticated tactics would be a fair description.

[137beth]

Scenario 3
DM: Okay, [sets up the encounter].

Power Gamer: Oh? ...I'm only optimised for [these kinds of encounters]. I'm basically useless, here.

Oh, so the issue is less that you have a power gamer in the group, but that your straw "power gamer" is actually really bad at optimizing. If they were a competent power gamer they would have build a character that was useful in a very wide variety of situations. The "problem" in your invented scenario only happened because the straw power gamer didn't power game enough to have a character competent in that scenario.

(Other people already responded to your other three straw scenarios better than I could, so I'll let defer to their responses.)

[Cheesegear]

Oh, so the issue is less that you have a power gamer in the group, but that your straw "power gamer" is actually really bad at optimizing...

Those scenarios aren't made of straw.
I've had them happen.
A lot of people have.
Those people exist in the world.

I'll say it again, the entire thread starts from a faulty premise:
Power Gaming isn't necessarily a problem.
Power Gaming, if anything, is a people-problem. Not a gaming-problem (except when it is, see 'Increasing encounter CR because of one player, that the other players just have to deal with').

If you want to try a build, where every choice you make is the best choice you make, directly taken from power-gaming threads, and your DM says "Yeah, no thanks. Don't do that at my table." and your response is to have a tantrum. That's the kind of person most people have a problem with. If that's not you, or anyone at your table, then you or your table aren't the power gamer or type of power-gaming that people have a problem with.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Presumably from the same place everyone else gets one: he buys one from the local dealer for the prices listed in the PHB.

I mean, he could be riding the party Moon Druid or something instead, but he doesn't have to.

What I mean to imply from asking that is that there are quite a few hoops to jump through to even achieve that scenario (one of them rather literal). Sorinth touched upon this as well in one of his posts. I suppose you did mention this when you made comment on using an Orog, but I'll enumerate for the sake of it.

1. Our Polearm master has received enough gold to purchase a mount for himself
2. Our Polearm master has found a place to purchase said mount in game
3. Our Polearm master still has their mount, and has managed to bring it to the scene of the fight
4. Our Polearm master only fights medium/smaller creatures who aren't on mounts.

I will say that having the stars align in such a way is rare in the campaigns that I play in, so that is perhaps why I am so incredulous at the scenario and why it seems kind of absurd to begin with.

[MaxWilson]

What I mean to imply from asking that is that there are quite a few hoops to jump through to even achieve that scenario (one of them rather literal). Sorinth touched upon this as well in one of his posts. I suppose you did mention this when you made comment on using an Orog, but I'll enumerate for the sake of it.

1. Our Polearm master has received enough gold to purchase a mount for himself
2. Our Polearm master has found a place to purchase said mount in game
3. Our Polearm master still has their mount, and has managed to bring it to the scene of the fight
4. Our Polearm master only fights medium/smaller creatures who aren't on mounts.

I will say that having the stars align in such a way is rare in the campaigns that I play in, so that is perhaps why I am so incredulous at the scenario and why it seems kind of absurd to begin with.

#4 isn't necessary. It would be like saying "our Polearm Master only fights Orogs and will stay at level 4 indefinitely." No, clearly he doesn't and isn't. That isn't what the example is showing.

#1-2 aren't a big deal IMO. Maybe at first level, but not by fourth level.

#3 is clearly necessary for this particular fight, and how big of a deal it is will depend on the table, nature of the adventure, and party composition. I agree that it can't be taken for granted. It depends. But again, this example isn't intended to show that you'll always have this x4.8 DPR advantage, just one particular edge-case which as I said goes away at level 5 or if you are facing a less-heavily-armored foe.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you want to try a build, where every choice you make is the best choice you make, directly taken from power-gaming threads, and your DM says "Yeah, no thanks. Don't do that at my table." and your response is to have a tantrum. That's the kind of person most people have a problem with. If that's not you, or anyone at your table, then you or your table aren't the power gamer or type of power-gaming that people have a problem with. That's a nice summary of the problem, and the non problem.

[MaxWilson]

If you want to try a build, where every choice you make is the best choice you make, directly taken from power-gaming threads, and your DM says "Yeah, no thanks. Don't do that at my table." and your response is to have a tantrum. That's the kind of person most people have a problem with. If that's not you, or anyone at your table, then you or your table aren't the power gamer or type of power-gaming that people have a problem with.

Just wanted to highlight this bit. If your response is to frown and say, "DM, I don't appreciate you trying to micromanage my PC. I won't be coming back," that is not a tantrum, and is perfectly okay adult behavior. No one is obligated to spend their free time not-having-fun.

[Sorinth]

"You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction."

You're not using your movement, action, or reaction when your mount moves you. The RAW is clear: you don't provoke an opportunity attack when your mount moves you.

Your *mount* could provoke an opportunity attack which could legally be aimed at either it or you, except that it's Disengaging so it doesn't provoke attacks except from Sentinels.

I don't think much of Crawford's tweets but in this case the fact that he agrees tells me the RAW and RAI are in alignment here: having your mount Disengage works exactly the way you'd expect it to.

I don't think it really matters, and I agree you RAI is no AoO. But RAW there is actually some leeway for the DM.

"It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge."

Technically it only says you direct it's movement, it doesn't actually say you direct which Action it takes.

More importantly though when it says you "direct it" it's easy to rule this as a Free Action and that the Action term in the rules you quoted covers all types Actions including Bonus Actions and Free Actions.

Anyways this is neither here nor there so I'm content to leave it alone.

[Warpiglet-7]

Because it gets in the way of immersion at times.

A quarter staff and shield? Two lances with dual wielded feat?

Are those cool to imagine? Yes you do more damage but the make believe fun gets ruined for some people. Yes, there are other absurdities in the game but sometimes powergaming sticks out like a sore thumb.

Does it bother me? Yes and no. I donÂ’t dump intelligence because I donÂ’t like characters to be dumb unless that is the character.

Otoh, do I play 10 str and 10 dex warriors? No. I am an adventurer and want to be effective just not at the expense of cool imagery.

ItÂ’s why I like rpgs AS WELL as war games. In the latter case itÂ’s about numbers. But I also would not want to exploit a rule that let my troops move faster that aircraft or something. It breaks the immersion...

[Sorinth]

Because it's still increasing the CR of the encounter.
More, weaker monsters, is actually a more difficult fight than fewer, scarier monsters. The DMG says as much. Action economy breaks really quickly, because the party stays the same.
Additionally, the more attacks you roll, the more likely you are to roll crits. Crits Kill. Especially if you get two in the same round.

The Goblin Boss tells his mooks to 'take down the healer':
But now instead of 3-4 Arrows, the Cleric is forced to deal with 6-8.
I don't need to tell you, but 4d6 damage isn't as scary as a Fireball's worth of damage to a single player.

The only way you can solve this is by having the 'extra' Goblins you put it...Umm...Could they just only attack the Hexadin, please?

It's the same for adding a terrain feature. You don't get to say that the terrain feature only affects one player.
The whole party is punished - gets increased encounter difficulty - because of one character.

You are changing the goal posts. Your first argument was they had to increase the monster CR and the end result is that the non-optimized players are now facing a CR monster that isn't appropriate for their power level.

That's not true, the DM can increase the CR of the encounter so the non-optimized players are still facing monsters of the appropriate CR. The encounter difficulty is now corrected to take into account the fact that one player is actually very strong.

Yes crits are more frequent but they are also less dangerous. When a Goblin crits he's dealing 2d6+2 which isn't a ton of damage, but if instead of more goblins you increased monster CR and now have Ogre(s), well an Ogre crit is going to be deadly even if you aren't level 1.

As for why the extra monsters would attack the optimized players, the answer is pretty simple, they are the biggest threat. They attack the Hexadin because if they don't the Hexadin is going to kill everyone.

As for punishing all players by having the encounter harder, I don't get it, wasn't the encounter too easy to begin with because the optimizer was going to single handedly win it? The entire goal was to make the encounter harder.



You then have the additional problem of:
"If I don't get to use my character's abilities, I don't feel special." Players with bad and/or hyperfocused characters feel this all the time. But 'Power Gamers' feel it too - everyone does, DND is a power fantasy, you're supposed to feel cool. They made a good a character, and now they're not being allowed to use it, because of encounter specs.

Things like a battlefield that disadvantages the power-gamer/party can be used but shouldn't be used for every fight. That's the beauty of adding minions, the players are still going get to use their abilities and feel powerful/cool and the fight can still be hard.

[Sorinth]

For encounter building, if you use the encounter guidelines from the DMG, it seems like a pretty simple solution to simply tweak the XP threshold of different players. So a level 5 power gamer has an XP threshold 1.5 times the normal values so 375|750|1125|1650, or maybe assume they are as good as PC 2 levels higher and use that set of XP thresholds. Is this somehow considered taboo?

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Because it gets in the way of immersion at times.

A quarter staff and shield? Two lances with dual wielded feat?

Are those cool to imagine? Yes you do more damage but the make believe fun gets ruined for some people. Yes, there are other absurdities in the game but sometimes powergaming sticks out like a sore thumb.

Do you also have a problem with spear and shield, one of the most ubiquitous and effective loadouts throughout a large part of civilized history?

At what point would magic break the immersion? Or the monk knocking people 15 ft. away using a punch? Or elves dancing so well or whatever that their Wizards basically become martial warriors? Sounds like a permutation of "guy at the gym".

Powergaming is largely confined by the rules as they are written. Power gamers don't tap into some secret tome of expansions that allow them to start of with double their normal hit points, or take two turns in a row every round. I don't see how something as mundane wielding a spear/quarterstaff in one hand can ruin the game for others unless those other players just really hate people having fun in ways they don't personally prefer.

[Jerrykhor]

Because it gets in the way of immersion at times.

A quarter staff and shield? Two lances with dual wielded feat?

Are those cool to imagine? Yes you do more damage but the make believe fun gets ruined for some people. Yes, there are other absurdities in the game but sometimes powergaming sticks out like a sore thumb.

Does it bother me? Yes and no. I donÂ’t dump intelligence because I donÂ’t like characters to be dumb unless that is the character.

Otoh, do I play 10 str and 10 dex warriors? No. I am an adventurer and want to be effective just not at the expense of cool imagery.

ItÂ’s why I like rpgs AS WELL as war games. In the latter case itÂ’s about numbers. But I also would not want to exploit a rule that let my troops move faster that aircraft or something. It breaks the immersion...
So what? Is it the players fault the game is like this? No. Blame the game, not the player.

[Aquillion]

Because it gets in the way of immersion at times.

A quarter staff and shield? Two lances with dual wielded feat?

Are those cool to imagine?...yes? Is this a trick question?

Growlancer V's protagonist dual-wields lances and looks totally awesome doing it.

More generally, just like the challenge of optimizing to a particular character theme can make for interesting mechanical builds, the challenge of making your character come across as cool and interesting while optimizing their mechanics can also lead to cool characters. Constraints can spark creativity, and optimization is a form of constraint.

If people play their character as a boring pile of stats that's on them. It's not the fault of optimization.

[zinycor]

Because it gets in the way of immersion at times.

A quarter staff and shield? Two lances with dual wielded feat?



How does quarterstaff and shield break immersion?

[Warpiglet-7]

...yes? Is this a trick question?

Growlancer V's protagonist dual-wields lances and looks totally awesome doing it.

More generally, just like the challenge of optimizing to a particular character theme can make for interesting mechanical builds, the challenge of making your character come across as cool and interesting while optimizing their mechanics can also lead to cool characters. Constraints can spark creativity, and optimization is a form of constraint.

If people play their character as a boring pile of stats that's on them. It's not the fault of optimization.

The question raised was about objections. I stand by the fact that cheese seems uncool to me. It’s an opinion and a fact.

I could also say that it is on the optimizer too. The damage of one lance is not cool enough in YOUR or whomever’s imagination is not on me.

I explained the point at which I do not like it. I also noted I am not running around without bonuses.

And to answer an earlier question, yes I can imagine magic and hand wave the fantasy. I would have a harder time having fun imagining a normal person with a manga sword. Seems absurd in a whole pile of absurd.

I optimize to a point. When I see it as cheese, I no longer think it’s cool. I pick people to play with who have similar sensibilities. I recommend others do the same.

There is not right or wrong except the inability to grasp that concept. This about what individuals like and object to. Vanilla vs. chocolate. No trick questions.

If someone likes a little verisimilitude, two lances and quarter staff and shield don’t work even where a fireball does.

[Pex]

The question raised was about objections. I stand by the fact that cheese seems uncool to me. It’s an opinion and a fact.

I could also say that it is on the optimizer too. The damage of one lance is not cool enough in YOUR or whomever’s imagination is not on me.

I explained the point at which I do not like it. I also noted I am not running around without bonuses.

And to answer an earlier question, yes I can imagine magic and hand wave the fantasy. I would have a harder time having fun imagining a normal person with a manga sword. Seems absurd in a whole pile of absurd.

I optimize to a point. When I see it as cheese, I no longer think it’s cool. I pick people to play with who have similar sensibilities. I recommend others do the same.

There is not right or wrong except the inability to grasp that concept. This about what individuals like and object to. Vanilla vs. chocolate. No trick questions.

If someone likes a little verisimilitude, two lances and quarter staff and shield don’t work even where a fireball does.

Sounds like Guy At The Gym syndrome to me.

Magic, do whatever, ok. Person with sword does something spectacularly more than stab, it's cheese.

[Warpiglet-7]

...yes? Is this a trick question?

Growlancer V's protagonist dual-wields lances and looks totally awesome doing it.

More generally, just like the challenge of optimizing to a particular character theme can make for interesting mechanical builds, the challenge of making your character come across as cool and interesting while optimizing their mechanics can also lead to cool characters. Constraints can spark creativity, and optimization is a form of constraint.

If people play their character as a boring pile of stats that's on them. It's not the fault of optimization.


Do you also have a problem with spear and shield, one of the most ubiquitous and effective loadouts throughout a large part of civilized history?

At what point would magic break the immersion? Or the monk knocking people 15 ft. away using a punch? Or elves dancing so well or whatever that their Wizards basically become martial warriors? Sounds like a permutation of "guy at the gym".

Powergaming is largely confined by the rules as they are written. Power gamers don't tap into some secret tome of expansions that allow them to start of with double their normal hit points, or take two turns in a row every round. I don't see how something as mundane wielding a spear/quarterstaff in one hand can ruin the game for others unless those other players just really hate people having fun in ways they don't personally prefer.

Ha! Good questions. Yes I dislike monks as a matter of fact. But again my buddy does not. We agree to have opinions.

I don’t object to any historical use of weapons such as spear and shield. It doesn’t make me skeptical of the ‘pretend’ scene.

There is a reason people did not use quarter staves And shields.

With clubs and maces, why would I want to do so? An extra die of damage? For ME the payoff of extra damage is not higher than imagining something that seems cool. To me. Ymmv. But surely it’s not a grand concept we are worried about.

What’s next? Great sword in one hand? Ok if you like that it’s just the opposite of the play experience I am looking for. Some groups are more relaxed about that kind of thing. Which is fine. Just not for me.

[Jerrykhor]

Ha! Good questions. Yes I dislike monks as a matter of fact. But again my buddy does not. We agree to have opinions.

I don’t object to any historical use of weapons such as spear and shield. It doesn’t make me skeptical of the ‘pretend’ scene.

There is a reason people did not use quarter staves And shields.

With clubs and maces, why would I want to do so? An extra die of damage? For ME the payoff of extra damage is not higher than imagining something that seems cool. To me. Ymmv. But surely it’s not a grand concept we are worried about.

What’s next? Great sword in one hand? Ok if you like that it’s just the opposite of the play experience I am looking for. Some groups are more relaxed about that kind of thing. Which is fine. Just not for me.
This is why martials can't have nice things.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Ha! Good questions. Yes I dislike monks as a matter of fact. But again my buddy does not. We agree to have opinions.

I don’t object to any historical use of weapons such as spear and shield. It doesn’t make me skeptical of the ‘pretend’ scene.

There is a reason people did not use quarter staves And shields.

So then it seems like your issue isn't with power gaming/optimization directly, and more with certain builds/concepts? If you don't have issue with spear/shield, staff/shield is mechanically identical save for the damage type. Both give the bonus action attack using PAM, and both have the same damage die and bonuses when wielded in one hand.

[Mutazoia]

How does quarterstaff and shield break immersion?

A quarterstaff is technically a two-handed weapon, so suddenly being able to use one while using a shield is nonsense.

[zinycor]

A quarterstaff is technically a two-handed weapon, so suddenly being able to use one while using a shield is nonsense.

Wouldn't it be the same as a spear?

[Bunny Commando]

About quarterstaff & shield being nonsense...

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6cs6qzC8Abg/maxresdefault.jpg


I don’t object to any historical use of weapons such as spear and shield. It doesn’t make me skeptical of the ‘pretend’ scene.

There is a reason people did not use quarter staves And shields.

And those reasons do not apply in D&D; the use of quarterstaves and shields do not fit in your imaginery (which is absolutely fine) but I would hardly call it "cheese" or "powergaming".

[Cheesegear]

You are changing the goal posts.

It's all the same thing, though.

One player, has increased XP thresholds - or at least modified ones. This changes the encounters.

1a. You straight up use different monsters with higher CR - brute force the CR.
1b. You alter monsters' statblocks to be more resilient against certain attacks and abilities that you know the party has / relies on - soft increase the CR.

2. You use more monsters of the same kind, than you initially planned. It increases the CR by breaking action economy.
3. You add environmental mechanics that make it difficult for the party to act.
4. (Optional) You create multi-stage encounters and reducing the ability to Short Rest between encounters.

In all cases, the above affects the entire party. The encounter is more difficult, which affects all players.

Unless you engineer for things to only affect one player. Which more often than not, will seem unnatural, and will be very difficult to hide what you're doing.


Yes crits are more frequent but they are also less dangerous. When a Goblin crits he's dealing 2d6+2 which isn't a ton of damage, but if instead of more goblins you increased monster CR and now have Ogre(s), well an Ogre crit is going to be deadly even if you aren't level 1.

When one Goblin crits.
There are still six, seven, eight more.
If a mob of creatures accidentally wins Initiative, or the party goofs hard, it's a TPK. I've done it before.

"This encounter is rated 'Easy', we'll just push past it for story reasons, 10 minutes, tops. Wouldn't surprise me if every hostile died in the first round."
Next minute. Half the party is dead - not just on 0. Because of luck and unluck. 'But the DMG said 'Easy'!'

More monsters, means more attacks. More attacks, means more damage. Perhaps more importantly, it has the potential to be spread out over multiple players making healing more difficult.
That is;
An Ogre (450 xp) does 13 (2d8 + 4 damage). To one target.
x4 Goblins (400 xp [50*4*2]) potentially does 20 (4d6 + 8) damage, divided up to 4 targets. But can just as easily deal that damage to a single target.

As I said, it's not likely that all four Goblins hit their targets. But sometimes, they do. But also, because of 'the optimiser' you have to add in a few more Goblins - probably no more than 2. But again, look at the action economy.

More monster damage output means that everyone needs to max their AC and or CON scores, or they're in trouble. Get railroaded into making your character a certain way.
Everyone Power Games, or no-one should.


They attack the Hexadin because if they don't the Hexadin is going to kill everyone.

Do the Goblins know that? How would they know that?


As for punishing all players by having the encounter harder, I don't get it, wasn't the encounter too easy to begin with because the optimizer was going to single handedly win it? The entire goal was to make the encounter harder.

The point, is that the encounter is harder for everyone, not just the optimiser, and not every class, not every character, scales the same.

[ff7hero]

But also, because of 'the optimiser' you have to add in a few more Goblins


I keep seeing (variations on) this argument brought up but I just don't get it. Why?

[Cheesegear]

I keep seeing (variations on) this argument brought up but I just don't get it. Why?

Because of the simple idea of Challenge drives gameplay, investment, stakes, and ultimately engagement in the game.
If encounters are 'too easy', why even have them in the first place? I mean, it's fun being a Level 7 and wading through Goblins. But at a certain point, it gets old - not for everyone, of course, D&D is a power fantasy.

In the DMG, each level has a threshold of XP difficulty. CR is a guideline, and the DMG more or less says that you can - and should - increase or decrease CR based on how the party operates.

In Adventurer's League, you've got APL - an incredibly broken system. But, in AL, there's an assumption that you might end up with players whose characters are different levels to each other. In order to combat that, you take characters and you average them out and boom; Job's a good 'un. You take two Level 1s, and two Level 4s, so the party is Level 2-3...Whoa...No they aren't. But let's not talk about AL right now...

So, you've got some characters that are all the same level. Which means, according to the DMG, they're all the same.
Except as more splatbooks come out; Subclasses, Feats, Spells, etc. There are a lot of things in the game - now - that weren't planned for when the original DMG and MM were written. This means that at this point, 'CR' - and thus, the guidelines in the DMG on how to create encounters, which almost all DMs use, even today - are, well, 'heavily flawed' is putting it nicely (inb4; the guidelines in XGtE are just as bad). Not only that, but, the higher levels you go, the less reliable CR-as-a-guideline becomes.

So in order to maintain challenge - which, in turn, maintains engagement - and in order to prevent one player from dominating every encounter (and thus, not making the other players feel miserable and bored), you have to increase the difficulty/CR of the encounter in order to compensate for the fact that an power gamer exists in the game. It's not as broken as AL's core system, but it's very similar in scope, just not in magnitude (A Level 4 is a Level 4...It's not like they have extra ASIs and a bonus proficiency point).

[Waazraath]

I think it's highly unfair to dismiss aversion against a character wielding 2 lances or a shield and a quarterstaff as 'the guy in the gym' or 'martials can't have nice things. I'ts just that the fluff sucks. It's a matter of taste, but in general, people want characters based on cool examples from literature, computer games, or movies. And there are 0 examples of the fearless hero wielding a staff and a shield. And the only picture I ever saw of somebody wielding 2 lances was from yu-gi-oh (some collectable card game).

I love martials getting nice things... hell, in 3.5 I wrote a handbook on how they could get nice things while staying martial (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=11381.0 ). The problem isn't martials shouldn't have nice things, the problem is those nice things shouldn't look silly. It's the 3.5 spiked chain all over again.

To approach this from the other side: if a lance wouldn't have done 1d12 or would have been a heavy weapon, or if a quarterstaff wouldn't have counted for PAM, I dare to assume precious few people would have wanted to play such characters, or argue that this is a cool fighting style that characters should be able to use. It is only used in 5e because it does a few extra points of damage, and at the same time killing versimilitude for the rest of the table cause the concepts are so silly.

[GeoffWatson]

One problem with "Maintaining Challenge" is that too many DMs will use it to cancel any good plans characters have. (Load up on Potions of Fire Resistance before going to the Burning Mountain of Flaming Fire? OK, there's twice as many monsters. etc)

[ff7hero]

Because of the simple idea of Challenge drives gameplay, investment, stakes, and ultimately engagement in the game.


While I agree that challenge is important for any game, it doesn't really 'drive' any of those. Different players engage with the game for different reasons. Challenge is one of them, but not the only one. Honestly, in my experience, it's not even very important to most players.



If encounters are 'too easy', why even have them in the first place?


To establish that the party has grown in power? Because sometimes the narrative involves an encounter with a wildly underpowered force? I could keep going but this was probably rhetorical.



I mean, it's fun being a Level 7 and wading through Goblins. But at a certain point, it gets old - not for everyone, of course, D&D is a power fantasy.


Yes, fighting goblins for 20 levels wouldn't be a fun game for me because I enjoy a challenging game. A fellow player who I've seen try to avoid quest hooks to sit around his bar? Yeah, he's here for the fantasy, not the challenge. I don't understand how this relates to power gaming though.



In the DMG, each level has a threshold of XP difficulty. CR is a guideline, and the DMG more or less says that you can - and should - increase or decrease CR based on how the party operates.


Yes, I'm familiar with these rules. They're little more than well informed guesses which, if anything, already skew toward a less challenging game.



So, you've got some characters that are all the same level. Which means, according to the DMG, they're all the same.


Now this homogeneity rule I'm not familiar with. Here I've been allowing my players to build characters that were different from each other.



Except as more splatbooks come out; Subclasses, Feats, Spells, etc. There are a lot of things in the game - now - that weren't planned for when the original DMG and MM were written. This means that at this point, 'CR' - and thus, the guidelines in the DMG on how to create encounters, which almost all DMs use, even today - are, well, 'heavily flawed' is putting it nicely (inb4; the guidelines in XGtE are just as bad). Not only that, but, the higher levels you go, the less reliable CR-as-a-guideline becomes.


The CR system is pretty bad even just within core. It's not good for anything beyond helping new DMs eyeball encounters that usually aren't accidental massacres (one way or the other). If you expect to create a challenging game by just slapping a bunch of "hard" encounters together and drawing some squares around them, you're going to fail regardless of the make up of your party.



So in order to maintain challenge - which, in turn, maintains engagement - and in order to prevent one player from dominating every encounter (and thus, not making the other players feel miserable and bored), you have to increase the difficulty/CR of the encounter in order to compensate for the fact that an power gamer exists in the game. It's not as broken as AL's core system, but it's very similar in scope, just not in magnitude (A Level 4 is a Level 4...It's not like they have extra ASIs and a bonus proficiency point).

I dunno, I just don't buy this premise. If you have players who are not engaging with your game because it's not challenging and if those players aren't power gamers and [if] there's a power gamer who is somehow single handedly making your challenging encounters non-challenging, then, yeah, maybe it's a problem. How often does that actually happen? Has someone brought up a specific case of this happening or has it merely been hypothetical.

If I were to have this problem as a DM (Bob tells me he isn't enjoying my game because Alice is so powerful that encounters are boring), adding some extra mooks (or super mooks, whatever) to my encounters would be way down on my list of potential solutions.

Number one, is the lack of challenge Alice's fault or my fault? Most of the time, 5e's default assumptions result in a low level of challenge. If I find that I'm not really offering enough challenge to anyone (Alice, Cady and David also aren't challenged, but are fine with this because they mostly want to make Monty Python jokes and cheer when someone rolls a 20), then I have a lot of options as a DM to increase the challenge, but this had nothing to do with the power of Alice's character.

If it's Alice who expresses she isn't feeling challenged, my job is even easier, because I make it her job. Ask her to help you pick/design/brainstorm monsters/encounters that would challenge her.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what I'd do. 5e just isn't a game where the power gap between same level characters is so wide that one of the above solutions shouldn't work.

Yes, providing challenge to your players is going to involve work. So will providing exploration, discovery or expression. DMing is a lot of work, but I don't think that the power gamer makes it any more so.

[zinycor]

I think it's highly unfair to dismiss aversion against a character wielding 2 lances or a shield and a quarterstaff as 'the guy in the gym' or 'martials can't have nice things. I'ts just that the fluff sucks. It's a matter of taste, but in general, people want characters based on cool examples from literature, computer games, or movies. And there are 0 examples of the fearless hero wielding a staff and a shield. And the only picture I ever saw of somebody wielding 2 lances was from yu-gi-oh (some collectable card game).

I love martials getting nice things... hell, in 3.5 I wrote a handbook on how they could get nice things while staying martial (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=11381.0 ). The problem isn't martials shouldn't have nice things, the problem is those nice things shouldn't look silly. It's the 3.5 spiked chain all over again.

To approach this from the other side: if a lance wouldn't have done 1d12 or would have been a heavy weapon, or if a quarterstaff wouldn't have counted for PAM, I dare to assume precious few people would have wanted to play such characters, or argue that this is a cool fighting style that characters should be able to use. It is only used in 5e because it does a few extra points of damage, and at the same time killing versimilitude for the rest of the table cause the concepts are so silly.

I take so much issue with this comment...

Why wouldn't martials look silly? Who are you to define what "silly" is? How can a wizard, casting fireball out of nothing, keep your verisimilitude, but a warrior choosing to fight with a quarterstaff and shield damage it?

At that point every darn thing that happens in game is in danger to break verisimilitude, and you would need to give a whole list to players of what things are acceptable at the table.

A second edition fighter (with a bunch of darts) looks very different from a 5th edition fighter (with a quarterstaff and shield). And that's fine, that's just using the mechanics of the game.

EDIT: BTW, I played a fighter with quarterstaff and shield in second edition, on the dark sun setting because of how rare metal is on the setting, so it's not like only on 5th edition someone would pick that combination.

[Mutazoia]

Wouldn't it be the same as a spear?

A spear has a sharp pointy metal bit at one end. A quarterstaff is basically just a stick at that point (no pun intended).

Besides, using a full length spear with a shield is next to impossible, which is why Roman legions had men with shields up front and the spearmen behind them. You could get away with a javalin.

[zinycor]

A spear has a sharp pointy metal bit at one end. A quarterstaff is basically just a stick at that point (no pun intended).

Doesn't make it any less of a weapon

[Boci]

To approach this from the other side: if a lance wouldn't have done 1d12 or would have been a heavy weapon, or if a quarterstaff wouldn't have counted for PAM, I dare to assume precious few people would have wanted to play such characters, or argue that this is a cool fighting style that characters should be able to use. It is only used in 5e because it does a few extra points of damage, and at the same time killing versimilitude for the rest of the table cause the concepts are so silly.

Whilst there is some potential overlap, this seems to be two seperate issues. I had a player with a sword and board fighter fluffed as a coffin lid and a spade, and in 3.5 there would be semi regular attempts to make dual wielding shields work. It was functional since shield bashes did damage in that edition, but it was never going to be better than a shield and sword.

So, would disapprove of those? What about optimization that doesn't look any goofier a non-iotimized version of the character? Either way it doesn't seem to be the heart of the issue.

[Waazraath]

I take so much issue with this comment...

Why wouldn't martials look silly? Who are you to define what "silly" is? How can a wizard, casting fireball out of nothing, keep your verisimilitude, but a warrior choosing to fight with a quarterstaff and shield damage it?

At that point every darn thing that happens in game is in danger to break verisimilitude, and you would need to give a whole list to players of what things are acceptable at the table.

A second edition fighter (with a bunch of darts) looks very different from a 5th edition fighter (with a quarterstaff and shield). And that's fine, that's just using the mechanics of the game.

EDIT: BTW, I played a fighter with quarterstaff and shield in second edition, on the dark sun setting because of how rare metal is on the setting, so it's not like only on 5th edition someone would pick that combination.

Well, you can take issue all that you want, but this is an internet forum where people give opinions on D&D, and this is my opinion. I wouldn't worry too much about it. If you think otherwise, fine, knock yourself out with duel wielding lances and whatnot. But call me mister cynical, personallly I'm a bit sceptical about players who want to use a weapon combo or style that doesn't exist in history, neither in popular culture, but just happens to allow you some extra damage. I'm not surprised that somebody else in this thread identified this as a disadvantage of powergaming (and the actual point that I was making was mostly that it was unfair to accuse that person of 'guy in the gym' fallacy, cause obvious it's not about the guy in the gym but silly asthetics). And yeah, as I said, it's also a matter of taste, but this complaint about e.g. shield and quarterstaff is as old as 5e, widely known and widely supported (google 'shield and quarterstaff dnd' if you like).


Whilst there is some potential overlap, this seems to be two seperate issues. I had a player with a sword and board fighter fluffed as a coffin lid and a spade, and in 3.5 there would be semi regular attempts to make dual wielding shields work. It was functional since shield bashes did damage in that edition, but it was never going to be better than a shield and sword.

So, would disapprove of those? What about optimization that doesn't look any goofier a non-iotimized version of the character? Either way it doesn't seem to be the heart of the issue.

You have a point - if you play the type of game where 'silly' (or more neutral: over the top) stuff is fine or even the norm, it's no issue. But in campaigns that have a bit more serious tone, they are out of place and bad for versimilitude, just as coffin lid and spade fighters would; and where this coffin lid / spade fighter would fall out of tone because of concept, double lance wielder falls out of tone because the concept because power gaming. So yeah, actually "two issues with overlap" seems to hit the nail on the head (whether or not with a spade).

[Mutazoia]

Doesn't make it any less of a weapon

Actually yes, it does.

If you only use one hand with a weapon designed for two-handed use, you are not going to get the full potential of that weapon, and it is less effective, ergo it is less of a weapon.

But that's a different topic for discussion.


One issue with power gamers is selfishness, really. You have a group of people who have decided to run a game at one power level, and one person who comes along and plays at a higher power level, totally ignoring the preferences of the rest of the table. That guy is a douchenozzle.

If you had a table full of power gamers and one person insisted on playing a character at a lower power level and started complaining about how ineffective his character was, you would instantly tell him that he's not playing at the level of the rest of the group and should rethink his character choice and pick something that meshes with the rest of the table. But for some reason, the power gamer gets a pass? Nope. Not buying it.

[Warpiglet-7]

I think it's highly unfair to dismiss aversion against a character wielding 2 lances or a shield and a quarterstaff as 'the guy in the gym' or 'martials can't have nice things. I'ts just that the fluff sucks. It's a matter of taste, but in general, people want characters based on cool examples from literature, computer games, or movies. And there are 0 examples of the fearless hero wielding a staff and a shield. And the only picture I ever saw of somebody wielding 2 lances was from yu-gi-oh (some collectable card game).

I love martials getting nice things... hell, in 3.5 I wrote a handbook on how they could get nice things while staying martial The problem isn't martials shouldn't have nice things, the problem is those nice things shouldn't look silly. It's the 3.5 spiked chain all over again.

To approach this from the other side: if a lance wouldn't have done 1d12 or would have been a heavy weapon, or if a quarterstaff wouldn't have counted for PAM, I dare to assume precious few people would have wanted to play such characters, or argue that this is a cool fighting style that characters should be able to use. It is only used in 5e because it does a few extra points of damage, and at the same time killing versimilitude for the rest of the table cause the concepts are so silly.

Someone gets it.

And yes, the reason I said quarterstaff and shield is because previously it was just used for pole arm master cheese.

And I don’t have a problem with the people who do it: I just think the act itself sucks. And I understand the temptation for moar power! I like to be a hero too. There are just some fluff constraints for my fun.

Glad for the assistance in explaining the issue to others.

[Warpiglet-7]

So then it seems like your issue isn't with power gaming/optimization directly, and more with certain builds/concepts? If you don't have issue with spear/shield, staff/shield is mechanically identical save for the damage type. Both give the bonus action attack using PAM, and both have the same damage die and bonuses when wielded in one hand.

I think you are right actually. Do what you want. But if it is really cheesy, yeah it is distracting to me personally. At that point I do not like optimizing.

Picking effective things? I suppose almost everyone wants to be effective.

At the expense of verisimilitude and cool imagery? Not for me. If it’s only number crunching I have a room full of war games I can play.

Just because there is a loophole or raw you can exploit does not mean it’s mandatory. If playing with other players who want to make cool play experience, I think each person should be mindful of the group’s experience.

If everyone is down with dual wielding lances etc., I guess have at it! Just not for me.

Which brings me to another point. I enjoy challenge and close fights at times so being less than perfect is ok. Weak sauce and a liability? I draw the line there too.

Of course now someone will say anything but the best is a liability! I disagree. In older versions of the game there was less customization or safeguards. And 5e has become less deadly most of the time in my experience. Not totally a bad thing. I like 5e a great deal. Just and observation that unless the DM is really tough, full optimization is rarely to never required for survival.

[Boci]

I think you are right actually. Do what you want. But if it is really cheesy, yeah it is distracting to me personally. At that point I do not like optimizing.

But this isn't purely an optimization/power gaming issue. As I mentioned before, I had a player who fluffed their weapons as a spade and coffin lid, and in 3.5 dual wielding shield were sometimes attempted. This has nothing to do with power gaming, yet sounds like it would be distracting to you.

[Warpiglet-7]

About quarterstaff & shield being nonsense...

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6cs6qzC8Abg/maxresdefault.jpg



And those reasons do not apply in D&D; the use of quarterstaves and shields do not fit in your imaginery (which is absolutely fine) but I would hardly call it "cheese" or "powergaming".

I suspect sparring in this context is quite different than combat between armored opponents.

Maces and clubs make sense. More to gaming though—-yeah it’s not true powergaming until we push for pole arm master and shield which is the only reason a powergamer would choose quarterstaff and shield.

The ‘pretend’ intent I believe is for someone to use the butt (alternate) end of a staff, glaive or spear. One handed I don’t think it makes sense. And honestly are there any historical examples of a staff and shield? I don’t believe that would be a viable choice.

I don’t think I need to say much about two lances.

Two weapon fighting was rare in practice. Not totally unheard of. I can go with that of course. Some people did it and some few are really ambidextrous too. PCs are exceptional.

I don’t think they are two lances exceptional.

It’s just taste. So to clarify and expand: I am not against powergaming until:

1. I have to imagine something that is not archetypal/I find cheesy

2. It interferes with the fun of others.

Beyond that it does not bother me. So I believe that answers the OPs opening question from my standpoint.

[Warpiglet-7]

Well, you can take issue all that you want, but this is an internet forum where people give opinions on D&D, and this is my opinion. I wouldn't worry too much about it. If you think otherwise, fine, knock yourself out with duel wielding lances and whatnot. But call me mister cynical, personallly I'm a bit sceptical about players who want to use a weapon combo or style that doesn't exist in history, neither in popular culture, but just happens to allow you some extra damage. I'm not surprised that somebody else in this thread identified this as a disadvantage of powergaming (and the actual point that I was making was mostly that it was unfair to accuse that person of 'guy in the gym' fallacy, cause obvious it's not about the guy in the gym but silly asthetics). And yeah, as I said, it's also a matter of taste, but this complaint about e.g. shield and quarterstaff is as old as 5e, widely known and widely supported (google 'shield and quarterstaff dnd' if you like).



You have a point - if you play the type of game where 'silly' (or more neutral: over the top) stuff is fine or even the norm, it's no issue. But in campaigns that have a bit more serious tone, they are out of place and bad for versimilitude, just as coffin lid and spade fighters would; and where this coffin lid / spade fighter would fall out of tone because of concept, double lance wielder falls out of tone because the concept because power gaming. So yeah, actually "two issues with overlap" seems to hit the nail on the head (whether or not with a spade).

Very good points. And yes, the tone and expectations of the group are paramount.

I like a more serious game as well. It’s just taste.

[Boci]

It’s just taste. So to clarify and expand: I am not against powergaming until:

1. I have to imagine something that is not archetypal/I find cheesy

Okay, and you listed a couple of examples of this, dual wielding lances, quarterstaff and shield, both of which are martial. Are there any caster archetypes powergaming builds that are not an archetype/cheesy?

To be clear its not a problem if the answer is none, its just worth noting that your standard allow casters to do much more than martials, because well magic. Its hardly a line of thought unique to you, but worth considering if this is a good attitude to hold about a game where the classes are meant to be somewhat equal.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

I suspect sparring in this context is quite different than combat between armored opponents.

Maces and clubs make sense. More to gaming though—-yeah it’s not true powergaming until we push for pole arm master and shield which is the only reason a powergamer would choose quarterstaff and shield.

The ‘pretend’ intent I believe is for someone to use the butt (alternate) end of a staff, glaive or spear. One handed I don’t think it makes sense. And honestly are there any historical examples of a staff and shield? I don’t believe that would be a viable choice.

~

Two weapon fighting was rare in practice. Not totally unheard of. I can go with that of course. Some people did it and some few are really ambidextrous too. PCs are exceptional.

So one handed fighting with a long stick and a shield doesn't make sense because you don't see how adventurers would have the upper arm strength to flick the butt end of their weapon after stabbing/whacking their opponent? Or something like that?

But two weapon fighting is okay for the bonus action attack even though realistically it would serve little advantage in combat?

I really don't get the logic. I get that it wouldn't have been the most popular form of weaponry (since you can make one end pointy for more effectiveness), but it isn't as though people could only hold sticks up to a certain length in one hand irl.

Also, as another aside, do you object to hand crossbows? Those didn't really exist historically until much more recently.

[patchyman]

Oh, so the issue is less that you have a power gamer in the group, but that your straw "power gamer" is actually really bad at optimizing. If they were a competent power gamer they would have build a character that was useful in a very wide variety of situations. The "problem" in your invented scenario only happened because the straw power gamer didn't power game enough to have a character competent in that scenario.


Many powergamers *are* bad at optimizing. A non-negligible amount simply take a build they found on the internet at assume that it works in all circumstances.

[Amechra]

"Power gaming" is basically the same thing as doing a glitch run in a video game. Which is fine... except for when you're the only one exploiting those glitches. Because then you're a jerk and you aren't playing fairly, even if the game is co-op.

[137beth]

Those scenarios aren't made of straw.
I've had them happen.
A lot of people have.
Those people exist in the world..

Okay then, I believe you. The fact remains that in the scenario you gave, the problem came up because the person you described as "power gamer" was, in fact, really bad at optimizing their character. If that so-called "power gamer" had made a more versatile character, they would not have felt useless in that situation. The issue wasn't that the player in question was power gaming, it was that they weren't power gaming but still expected their character to be powerful.

[patchyman]

Okay, and you listed a couple of examples of this, dual wielding lances, quarterstaff and shield, both of which are martial. Are there any caster archetypes powergaming builds that are not an archetype/cheesy?


I’m pretty sure that Warpiglet has his own list of caster archtypes ot tactics that he considers cheesy, probably starting with coffeelocks.

The real question is “Why would you assume otherwise?”

[Boci]

I’m pretty sure that Warpiglet has his own list of caster archtypes ot tactics that he considers cheesy, probably starting with coffeelocks.

The real question is “Why would you assume otherwise?”

Because the two concrete examples they gave involved weapons being used in ways were not historically common. This can be quite a big limitation if applied to martial, the need to fit with our history, which magic doesn't have, because there's no history of real life magic to contradict them. It can very easily become:

"Well the rules may say a martial character can dual wield lances, but no one ever did that in real life, it cheesy. What's that? Wizards doing x, Y and Z? Well, if the rules say they can do that..."

[LudicSavant]

My position from the previous time this particular topic came up:






Wait, I think we're misunderstanding each other. To me, treating an RPG as a strategy game is to think in terms of mechanics first--not "is this how my character would think" but "what's the best move for this piece to make". In optimization terms, that might mean ignoring the character's concept or background or history to pick up the "best" ability--having that (hypothetical) frost mage man of ice and snow who wants to chill everything take a big fire spell because the numbers are slightly bigger. Or importing a PrC from a different setting, ignoring all the "fluff" requirements because you only want the core mechanical goodies.

I've been playing D&D for almost 30 years, and I have never, ever seen a skilled optimizer at one of my tables ignore a character's concept, background, or history to pick up the "best" ability. In fact, despite frequently playing in games with people who straight up write theoretical optimization treatises and class guides and post builds and so forth, I have never seen them actually pick any of the genuinely best abilities in 3.5e, despite having full knowledge of what they are (basically, Pun Pun. Or a few of the other things on the CharOp Campaign Smashers thread from back in the WotC board days). In fact I have never even heard of someone attempting to choose the literal best options in 3.5e (Pun-Pun and co) in an actual game, despite being active in online roleplaying forums for decades.

This sounds like a boogeyman that doesn't actually exist (or, at least, is exceedingly rare). Instead, what I actually see happen is that optimizers impose limits on the options available to them (either for obvious balance concerns or for conceptual reasons) and then optimize to make that character concept be the best version of that character concept that they can be, intentional weaknesses for flavor reasons and all. And those players are absolutely playing a strategy game each and every time they decide that using one ability will have a greater chance of surviving an encounter than another... even if they sometimes overrule that strategic analysis on those occasions that it would conflict with their character's personality. But usually? The strategic decision and the in-character decision line up, because characters are in the very same situation the players are: Trying to survive and beat the monsters, or successfully solve the mystery, or whatever. And to beat the monsters or solve the mystery or infiltrate the castle and not have a TPK in any campaign where there's more than just the illusion of challenge, you have to solve decision trees... which is pretty much the definition of playing a strategy game. And if someone wants to get on a high horse and puff out their chest and say that they're above trying to figure out how to infiltrate the castle or solve the mystery, then... I just have to wonder why they think that's a virtue. Not wanting to engage with the gameplay doesn't make you a better roleplayer.

I want to print this out and frame it in a canvas. It's mainly inexperienced players who throw around accusations and try to go against the group/DM/players (on either side of the screen) while also not actually making gamebreaking characters even if the damage numbers seem impressive. Also, you can very much act like a munchkin through roleplaying, like describing your actions such that you're always trying to use skills off of your highest attribute, arguing with "realism" or "logic" why a certain action should've succeeded/failed, the good old "It's what my character would do" and so on.



That's incredible. I don't think I have ever seen a single group, or even a single player, who didn't do that sometimes. Its also incredible that you have had the opportunity to play with dozens upon dozens of groups over the years, you are a very lucky gamer.Take into account that LudicSavant talked about skilled optimizers. Depending how high one takes this requirement the number of possible candidates might be quite low.

Personally i share the experience of the savant here. People with near perfect system mastery know very well how imbalanced the system is and how to break it effortlessly and that it would be utterly pointless to do they. They tend to use their skill to get exactly the power level for their character they want.

They don't have to impress anyone with system mastery. The whole table knows their system mastery level anyway. They don't get any feeling of accomplishment from winning through optimization because that is trivial. They might get it from making something subpar that is universally shunned into a powerful option. Because that is a challenge. But building a strong, even OP character alone is no challenge for them.

[MaxWilson]

Okay then, I believe you. The fact remains that in the scenario you gave, the problem came up because the person you described as "power gamer" was, in fact, really bad at optimizing their character. If that so-called "power gamer" had made a more versatile character, they would not have felt useless in that situation. The issue wasn't that the player in question was power gaming, it was that they weren't power gaming but still expected their character to be powerful.

137ben, I think there's a miscommunication here.

Someone asked "why do people dislike power gaming," and another person (I think Cheesegear) gave four scenarios. That was a list of failure modes--ways that it can go wrong. (Just like TPK, getting enslaved, and accidentally destroying the world are failure modes for a D&D adventure.) It was not a claim that every powergamer will fail in one of those four ways.

In fact, it's probably fair to say that if you have a powergamer who doesn't fail in any of those four ways, there's probably not a problem. I can't think of any failure modes that aren't already covered in that list.

Historical note: the original definition of "powergaming", as opposed to "wargaming," emphasized that wargamers seek challenge, and powergamers seek mechanical rewards. Common usage has shifted since then but here (http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html) is the original article from 1980, which attempts to describe (non-pejoratively) what different players seek from role-playing games, in an attempt to minimize misunderstandings between them.


I. Powergaming

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 plate 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.

Contrast that with


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...


Many people who nowadays call themselves "powergamers" are actually wargamers under the original definition. Conversely, WotC assumes that most players will be powergamers in the sense that "It's usually the amount of power available that determines the outcome of battles, and an inadequate supply of it can be disastrous," but the idea of a PC without a name is nowadays considered bizarre. Even a player who was interested solely in acquiring magic items and special abilities would give his PC a name nowadays, just as he would no longer have a 13th/13th/13th level fighter/mage/cleric. But the core motivation of seeking stuff to write on your character sheet would be the same.

If your happiness after spending your Saturday morning playing an RPG is directly tied to whether you got to write new benefits on your character sheet, you fit the original profile of "powergamer." If it's tied to other things, such as whether the game was hard enough to be interesting, or whether you learned new things about the world, or whether you got to explore your emotional relationships with the other PCs, you might fit one of the other profiles (wargamer, storyteller, roleplayer).

-Max

[Waazraath]

Because the two concrete examples they gave involved weapons being used in ways were not historically common. This can be quite a big limitation if applied to martial, the need to fit with our history, which magic doesn't have, because there's no history of real life magic to contradict them. It can very easily become:

"Well the rules may say a martial character can dual wield lances, but no one ever did that in real life, it cheesy. What's that? Wizards doing x, Y and Z? Well, if the rules say they can do that..."

It's true that that's a danger - on the other hand, I see people just as well disallowing ravnica backgrounds and ebberon dragonmark races, because adding a whole bunch of spells known without any real opportunity cost is very cheesy, and it breaks stereotypical caster archetypes when the wizard starts healing or the cleric starts counterspelling.

[MaxWilson]

It's true that that's a danger - on the other hand, I see people just as well disallowing ravnica backgrounds and ebberon dragonmark races, because adding a whole bunch of spells known without any real opportunity cost is very cheesy, and it breaks stereotypical caster archetypes when the wizard starts healing or the cleric starts counterspelling.

Note: the opportunity cost for Eberron dragonmarks is quite high, since it costs your both your race and subrace choices, and you still have to acquire the spells normally. For instance, Mark of Shadow is interesting for Eldritch Knights because you gain access to Pass Without Trace (which happens to be an Abjuration spell too) and you get a +d4 bonus to Performance and Stealth... but unlike a Ravnica background, you can't just slap that onto any old Eldritch Knight. You have to be specifically a Dex +2 Cha +1 elf, and most of the other spells Mark of Shadow grants you access to are already on the wizard list (Greater Invisiblity, etc.), so better stealth is pretty much all you get from your subrace, which is reasonably balanced against Wood Elf (more movement, +1 Wis, hiding in light natural obscurement) or High Elf (+1 Int, extra cantrip).

In many cases, the dragonmarks which synergize best with a given class's spell list are accessibly only to races with poor stat bonuses for that class. E.g. only Halflings get healing spells from a dragonmark, and those halflings are +2 Dex +1 Wis, so they're best-suited to be clerics and druids, who already have healing spells. Warlocks and wizards might like to have healing spells, but now you don't get an Int bonus or a feat like Warcaster, and your movement speed is only 25' so it's harder to stay away from monsters.

There's definitely a mechanical opportunity cost, in addition to whatever roleplaying opportunity cost there is from being associated with that faction. We can argue about whether a particular class's benefits are larger than that opportunity cost, but the cost is definitely there and definitely painful to pay, unlike for Ravnica.

[Waazraath]

Note: the opportunity cost for Eberron dragonmarks is quite high, since it costs your both your race and subrace choices, and you still have to acquire the spells normally. For instance, Mark of Shadow is interesting for Eldritch Knights because you gain access to Pass Without Trace (which happens to be an Abjuration spell too) and you get a +d4 bonus to Performance and Stealth... but unlike a Ravnica background, you can't just slap that onto any old Eldritch Knight. You have to be specifically a Dex +2 Cha +1 elf, and most of the other spells Mark of Shadow grants you access to are already on the wizard list (Greater Invisiblity, etc.), so better stealth is pretty much all you get from your subrace, which is reasonably balanced against Wood Elf (more movement, +1 Wis, hiding in light natural obscurement) or High Elf (+1 Int, extra cantrip).

In many cases, the dragonmarks which synergize best with a given class's spell list are accessibly only to races with poor stat bonuses for that class. E.g. only Halflings get healing spells from a dragonmark, and those halflings are +2 Dex +1 Wis, so they're best-suited to be clerics and druids, who already have healing spells. Warlocks and wizards might like to have healing spells, but now you don't get an Int bonus or a feat like Warcaster, and your movement speed is only 25' so it's harder to stay away from monsters.

There's definitely a mechanical opportunity cost, in addition to whatever roleplaying opportunity cost there is from being associated with that faction. We can argue about whether a particular class's benefits are larger than that opportunity cost, but the cost is definitely there and definitely painful to pay, unlike for Ravnica.

True. On the other hand: the dragonmark races give asside from spells also other (often quite strong) features. Several are strong enough to take even for non-casters. The spell list is a bonus in that sense. And you're right about healing wizards and counterspelling clerics, but iirc you can easily get the teleporting cleric (wis stat increase) and mark of shadow for instance is a perfect fit for dex paladin's, who get perfect stat raises and a whole bunch of spells they never would have gotten otherwise and increase their power and versatility both in social and exploring (specificly: stealth) pillar of the game. Both classes also can prepare all spells on their list (no oppotunity cost for 'spells known').

[MaxWilson]

True. On the other hand: the dragonmark races give asside from spells also other (often quite strong) features. Several are strong enough to take even for non-casters. The spell list is a bonus in that sense. And you're right about healing wizards and counterspelling clerics, but iirc you can easily get the teleporting cleric (wis stat increase) and mark of shadow for instance is a perfect fit for dex paladin's, who get perfect stat raises and a whole bunch of spells they never would have gotten otherwise and increase their power and versatility both in social and exploring (specificly: stealth) pillar of the game. Both classes also can prepare all spells on their list (no oppotunity cost for 'spells known').

Yes, there are definitely class/subrace combinations which are attractive to one's powergaming instincts. I probably wouldn't pick the same ones you would because neither Dex elf paladins nor Teleportation Circle human clerics excite me, compared to non-Dragonmarked alternatives like Dex Gloomstalkers.

[LudicSavant]

Eberron races are more reasonable and have an actual opportunity cost, while GGtR backgrounds are basically pure power creep.

[Sorinth]

Unless you engineer for things to only affect one player. Which more often than not, will seem unnatural, and will be very difficult to hide what you're doing.

You don't have engineer anything because each individual monster isn't all that threatening, so even if non-optimized players end up facing an extra enemy, it's not going to last. The monsters aren't going to kill the non-optimized PCs quickly because they still do relatively small amounts of damage with each hit so the PC has multiple rounds to react. The optmized PC on the other hand will quickly kill off the enemies facing him since you didn't even give him extra enemies and then go help out whichever PC is most in need.


When one Goblin crits.
There are still six, seven, eight more.
If a mob of creatures accidentally wins Initiative, or the party goofs hard, it's a TPK. I've done it before.

And what level where the PCs that you TPKed with 7-9 goblins?

Besides why is your mob of creatures all rolling one initiative die? Why not break them into smaller groups with their own initiative?


More monsters, means more attacks. More attacks, means more damage. Perhaps more importantly, it has the potential to be spread out over multiple players making healing more difficult.
That is;
An Ogre (450 xp) does 13 (2d8 + 4 damage). To one target.
x4 Goblins (400 xp [50*4*2]) potentially does 20 (4d6 + 8) damage, divided up to 4 targets. But can just as easily deal that damage to a single target.

As I said, it's not likely that all four Goblins hit their targets. But sometimes, they do. But also, because of 'the optimiser' you have to add in a few more Goblins - probably no more than 2. But again, look at the action economy.

More monster damage output means that everyone needs to max their AC and or CON scores, or they're in trouble. Get railroaded into making your character a certain way.
Everyone Power Games, or no-one should.

First your math seems off, but regardless the fact that the goblins are spreading their damage over multiple targets actually makes the encounter easier not harder. You've heard about focus fire and how it's a powerful tactic right? Having multiple attackers gives you the DM much more control over how harsh a combat it will be, you can make it deadlier by focus firing on a single PC, or you can make it easier by spreading the goblins attacks against multiple PCs. With the Ogre you don't have that leeway because he has one big damaging attack.

This is also extremely important because of how HP work, the Ogre is at 100% DPR the whole combat, the Goblins on the other hand will be losing total DPR pretty much every round because some will be dying. And the goblins spreading their damage out across many PCs means they won't be reducing the party's DPR easily. With the Ogre he's very likely to reduce the party's DPR because all he needs is one hit (And he has a higher attack bonus to do that with).

Then there's effective HP, at a +5 attack bonus from the PCs, the Ogre has an effective HP of 79, the goblins have a total effective hit points of 51. Which makes the attrition game favour the Ogre even more.

And on top of that spell wise you've generally neutered many spells by going with a higher CR creature. For example, the non-optimized spellcaster who took Burning Hands instead of Sleep can still use his spell and be a strong contributer to the combat against the Goblins. Against the ogre the same spellcaster will feel weak because his big spell isn't actually very strong. At higher levels when you take higher CR creatures they gain better saves, magic resistance, damage immunities, etc... all that stuff hurts the non-optimized characters the most. Whereas by adjusting numbers instead of CR the non-optimized characters will still be able to use their abilities and contribute.





Do the Goblins know that? How would they know that?

Many creatures should and as pointed out it doesn't even matter.




The point, is that the encounter is harder for everyone, not just the optimiser, and not every class, not every character, scales the same.

Making the encounter was the point. The key is how to make the encounter harder without making the non-optimized characters feel useless. And that is achieved by keeping the monsters low CR but having many of them, you get the hard encounter that you wanted, but the non-optimized PCs will still contribute.

[Warpiglet-7]

ItÂ’s wild how much mind reading takes place after people voice an opinion.

So far, if you think some combos are cheesy you are “the gym guy,” or have a martial character bias. Haha wtf?

Of note, someone ASKED why some people donÂ’t like powergaming. People have their opinions about it. Not sure what that says about their personality outside of game. Note for my part I never said people were whiny babies for dump stats and unrealistic combos. But itÂ’s hard to not be judgmental for some folks, I realize.

As to a martial bias...absurd. I only like playing melee participating characters. I have a few blade pact warlocks and am looking to play a paladin next. I also have an Eldritch Knight.

As to my focus on what I see as unappealing power gaming, I enjoy reading about and learning about medieval European martial arts. There is a lot that is not known but I am pretty sure a dude running around with two lances is neither historical nor a strong fiction archetype.

How do I feel about cheese in spell casting? I generally donÂ’t enjoy 5 classes cobbled together with Eldritch blast but I have an easier time ignoring some of that since I have less to compare it to in reality.

For example, I also generally assume physics apply as we know it without magic explaining otherwise (e.g fly spell),

Man with 15 strength managing two lances with enough grace to be twice as effective? Is he aiming both at the same point and just...it doesnÂ’t matter. I am not into that look. Others have fun with it if you can. However I am not going to suddenly think that sort of powergaming is cool because someone thinks it is unfair to fighters or the sign of bad social behavior.

ThatÂ’s even sillier than two lances.

[Boci]

So far, if you think some combos are cheesy you are “the gym guy,” or have a martial character bias. Haha wtf?

Yes. This:


How do I feel about cheese in spell casting? I generally donÂ’t enjoy 5 classes cobbled together with Eldritch blast but I have an easier time ignoring some of that since I have less to compare it to in reality.

Is guy in the gym fallacy. Its not neccissarily bad, it just gives caster an advantage because as you say they have no reality to disprove what RAW grants them whilst martials don't.

[Warpiglet-7]

Yes. This:



Is guy in the gym fallacy. Its not neccissarily bad, it just gives caster an advantage because as you say they have no reality to disprove what RAW grants them whilst martials don't.

Cool, appreciated. Was not familiar with that.

Well to reiterate, I would say the opposite applies. Just because wizards can fly does not mean everyone can or should. Or that gravity and physics aren’t assumed most of the time.

[Boci]

Cool, appreciated. Was not familiar with that.

Well to reiterate, I would say the opposite applies. Just because wizards can fly does not mean everyone can or should. Or that gravity and physics aren’t assumed most of the time.

Sure, but most fighters can't fly, that's RAW. Its also RAW that fighters can wield 2 lances. Martials have to be allowed to do something by both RAW and real world historic precedent, whilst wizards only need RAW. Do you understand why people dislike that approach?

[Warpiglet-7]

Sure, but most fighters can't fly, that's RAW. Its also RAW that fighters can wield 2 lances. Martials have to be allowed to do something by both RAW and real world historic precedent, whilst wizards only need RAW. Do you understand why people dislike that approach?

I do. And I can respect that. It just doesn’t change my engagement with the alternative approach.

But I am not too worried about perfect parity in power. I know that bothers some folks.

In 1st edition AD&D I sometimes played thieves. And they were weak but I enjoyed the challenge and the role. I think I am probably numb to the power difference between a shield and quartstaff vs. just a quarterstaff. It just does not make me feel like I am missing out.

I have a blade pact warlock with a +1 shield. I don’t often use it though. I found a magic staff and have The polearm master feat. If I want the shield, I break out a mace after making it my pact weapon.

[MaxWilson]

Yes. This:

Is guy in the gym fallacy.

No it isn't. That's a statement from warpiglet about spellcasters. "Guy at the gym fallacy" is a fallacy about warriors: if a guy at my gym can't XYZ, it must be impossible.

E.g. "shooting four arrows in six seconds is absurd. Even the best guys in my SCA club can only manage one aimed arrow every five seconds" is Guy At The Gym fallacy. It's fallacious because it fails to prove anything about peak human performance, especially in a fantasy game.

Warpiglet's statements about dual lance wielding are also not Guy At The Gym fallacy.

[langal]

Sure, but most fighters can't fly, that's RAW. Its also RAW that fighters can wield 2 lances. Martials have to be allowed to do something by both RAW and real world historic precedent, whilst wizards only need RAW. Do you understand why people dislike that approach?

It's not a martial thing. It's an example of a player taking certain feats, etc. Just for some numerical advantage. If the same PAM, staff, shield fighter also goes ahead and dumps 8s into Int, Wis, and Charisma...then yeah, that player is probably a total min-maxer. That's totally fine with some people. Others may find it cheesy and don't make characters that are that one dimensional. There are degrees of power-gaming. Every situation is different and I wouldn't just call the staff-PAM fighter cheesy by default. And there is nothing wrong with optimization. It just gets lame when that becomes the only thing.

[137beth]

My position from the previous time this particular topic came up:

This matches my experience. It also seems to match the experience of some of the people complaining about how much they dislike "optimizers." See, for example my previous two posts on this thread where I responded to Cheesegear's complaint about a "power gamer": the "power gamer in Cheesegear's scenario actually had a very poorly optimized character, but seemed angry that their character wasn't as versatile as Pun-Pun.

[Pex]

ItÂ’s wild how much mind reading takes place after people voice an opinion.

So far, if you think some combos are cheesy you are “the gym guy,” or have a martial character bias. Haha wtf?

Of note, someone ASKED why some people donÂ’t like powergaming. People have their opinions about it. Not sure what that says about their personality outside of game. Note for my part I never said people were whiny babies for dump stats and unrealistic combos. But itÂ’s hard to not be judgmental for some folks, I realize.

As to a martial bias...absurd. I only like playing melee participating characters. I have a few blade pact warlocks and am looking to play a paladin next. I also have an Eldritch Knight.

As to my focus on what I see as unappealing power gaming, I enjoy reading about and learning about medieval European martial arts. There is a lot that is not known but I am pretty sure a dude running around with two lances is neither historical nor a strong fiction archetype.

How do I feel about cheese in spell casting? I generally donÂ’t enjoy 5 classes cobbled together with Eldritch blast but I have an easier time ignoring some of that since I have less to compare it to in reality.

For example, I also generally assume physics apply as we know it without magic explaining otherwise (e.g fly spell),

Man with 15 strength managing two lances with enough grace to be twice as effective? Is he aiming both at the same point and just...it doesnÂ’t matter. I am not into that look. Others have fun with it if you can. However I am not going to suddenly think that sort of powergaming is cool because someone thinks it is unfair to fighters or the sign of bad social behavior.

ThatÂ’s even sillier than two lances.

Not liking a warrior with two lances is not Guy At The Gym. Not liking a warrior with two lances but spellcasters can do whatever they want because it's magic is what makes it Guy At The Gym.

[Cheesegear]

I'm not sure what I'd do. 5e just isn't a game where the power gap between same level characters is so wide that one of the above solutions shouldn't work.

I was going through your post, thinking about some responses.
Then I came across that sentence.
I looked through your post for sarcasm or disingenuousness (is that even a word? Disingenuity? Nope. Spellcheck says that's not a word, either). Couldn't find any.

A power gap between classes, absolutely exists.
As more and more splatbooks come out - combined with multi-classing - the gap widens.
How do you - a DM - handle that power gap?

If you don't believe in the first place, that a power gap even exists (and therefore there's nothing to even fix), where does this conversation even go?

[ff7hero]

I was going through your post, thinking about some responses.
Then I came across that sentence.
I looked through your post for sarcasm or disingenuousness (is that even a word? Disingenuity? Nope. Spellcheck says that's not a word, either). Couldn't find any.

A power gap between classes, absolutely exists.
As more and more splatbooks come out - combined with multi-classing - the gap widens.
How do you - a DM - handle that power gap?

If you don't believe in the first place, that a power gap even exists (and therefore there's nothing to even fix), where does this conversation even go?

I dunno, there was definitely some sarcasm at least, but I assure you I was 100% genuine.

I never claimed there was no power gap between classes. I claimed that there was not a power gap wide enough to create the issue you described. Is Abjuror stronger than 5e Monk? Absolutely, but I don't think the gap in power is so wide that the 5e Monk will be unable to contribute while the Abjuror solos every encounter.

As to how I would handle it as a DM, I'd need more than broad strokes generalizations to address that. I find myself once again wondering if this is a real problem. Has anyone in this thread mentioned specific examples of this happening (in 5E)?

[Benny89]

As a power gamer myself I came across various of reactions to my playstyle. For start I will say that I always give 100% of myself when it comes to roleplaying and my characters, although min-maxed to maximum always have story behind them, quirks, character development etc.

First problem is that many people think Power Gamer = Murder Hobo. That is not true at all. I power gamed healers, supports, summoners, social characters etc. Not only combat monsters. I power build to have the best possible character in whatever field I want to be the best. Murder hobos are different kind of players and they are always toxic and bad for table.

Second problem is thinking that Power Gamer = no roleplaying. Which is also not true. Many roleplay much better than rest of the table because they have better connection with their character (because usually the spend weeks/days min-maxing every aspect of it, including story) which COMBINED with character power may overshadow rest of the table, which makes other players salty.

Third problem is concept that Power Gamer = rule lawyer. Also not true in most cases. The truth is that in 9/10 cases only Power Gamer really read Player Handbook, learnt rules, read additional books and don't need any help from DM because he took it seriously to learn the system he is gonna play. Not his fault that rest "casuals" don't bother to read most of the book and learn basic rules and then Power Gamer tries to help them and explain on-go how do you calculate proficiency, attack bonuses etc. but it's get frustrating because in any games- participants should take time to learn rules. It's not that hard really.

And then there is simple jealousy of other players when their characters which were designed without any second-though - simply suck compare to power gamer well-made character. Add to that that power gamer knows rules so he utilized all things (like OAs, movement, bonus actions, using darkness, advantage, imposing disadvantage, utilizing Sentinel/PAM) and makes great use of best spells in game and you have bunch of salty players at table.

How I deal with it? I offer players I play with to help them in creating their character from mechanical perspective. This way at least they get what the wanted to play but in optimized way and I help them choosing new spells, feats etc. so they feel powerful in what they wanted to do. Because in reality- they would also like to have strong characters - but they have no idea how to do it.

That's how I see it from my experience.

[Pex]

As a power gamer myself I came across various of reactions to my playstyle. For start I will say that I always give 100% of myself when it comes to roleplaying and my characters, although min-maxed to maximum always have story behind them, quirks, character development etc.

First problem is that many people think Power Gamer = Murder Hobo. That is not true at all. I power gamed healers, supports, summoners, social characters etc. Not only combat monsters. I power build to have the best possible character in whatever field I want to be the best. Murder hobos are different kind of players and they are always toxic and bad for table.

Second problem is thinking that Power Gamer = no roleplaying. Which is also not true. Many roleplay much better than rest of the table because they have better connection with their character (because usually the spend weeks/days min-maxing every aspect of it, including story) which COMBINED with character power may overshadow rest of the table, which makes other players salty.

Third problem is concept that Power Gamer = rule lawyer. Also not true in most cases. The truth is that in 9/10 cases only Power Gamer really read Player Handbook, learnt rules, read additional books and don't need any help from DM because he took it seriously to learn the system he is gonna play. Not his fault that rest "casuals" don't bother to read most of the book and learn basic rules and then Power Gamer tries to help them and explain on-go how do you calculate proficiency, attack bonuses etc. but it's get frustrating because in any games- participants should take time to learn rules. It's not that hard really.

And then there is simple jealousy of other players when their characters which were designed without any second-though - simply suck compare to power gamer well-made character. Add to that that power gamer knows rules so he utilized all things (like OAs, movement, bonus actions, using darkness, advantage, imposing disadvantage, utilizing Sentinel/PAM) and makes great use of best spells in game and you have bunch of salty players at table.

How I deal with it? I offer players I play with to help them in creating their character from mechanical perspective. This way at least they get what the wanted to play but in optimized way and I help them choosing new spells, feats etc. so they feel powerful in what they wanted to do. Because in reality- they would also like to have strong characters - but they have no idea how to do it.

That's how I see it from my experience.

Perhaps I don't encounter as many jealous players as you, but I'm the same. For the anti-power gamers, at the extreme you have the drama queens who only care about the roleplay fantasy. They don't want combat at all and want to talk about their character's emotional drama, attending balls, or interacting with important people. Forget the campaign plot. Other times it's because they don't know the consequences of their choices. I'm to blame when I put 14 or 16 in CO but they put 10 and keep dropping due to lack of hit points, even when we're both warrior characters? I'm to blame as a spellcaster starting with 16 in my casting stat then bump it to 18 at 4th level, but they started with 14 or 15 and kept it there so they miss more or bad guys make their saves more against them than me? I don't think so. It's their character, but if they do ask for my help I'll tell them every time put at least 14 in CO and 16 in their casting stat at 1st level, 4th level take a feat if you want it's fine, but get that 18 by 8th level or get the 18 at 4th and the feat at 8.

Truth is, though, the only time in person anyone has a problem with my power gaming is because they're a drama queen. There are players who only have a 10 CO, but they don't complain I don't drop as often as they do. Rather, the only complaints other than from drama queens I hear about Power Gaming is on the internet. :smallyuk:

[Warpiglet-7]

Perhaps I don't encounter as many jealous players as you, but I'm the same. For the anti-power gamers, at the extreme you have the drama queens who only care about the roleplay fantasy. They don't want combat at all and want to talk about their character's emotional drama, attending balls, or interacting with important people. Forget the campaign plot. Other times it's because they don't know the consequences of their choices. I'm to blame when I put 14 or 16 in CO but they put 10 and keep dropping due to lack of hit points, even when we're both warrior characters? I'm to blame as a spellcaster starting with 16 in my casting stat then bump it to 18 at 4th level, but they started with 14 or 15 and kept it there so they miss more or bad guys make their saves more against them than me? I don't think so. It's their character, but if they do ask for my help I'll tell them every time put at least 14 in CO and 16 in their casting stat at 1st level, 4th level take a feat if you want it's fine, but get that 18 by 8th level or get the 18 at 4th and the feat at 8.

Truth is, though, the only time in person anyone has a problem with my power gaming is because they're a drama queen. There are players who only have a 10 CO, but they don't complain I don't drop as often as they do. Rather, the only complaints other than from drama queens I hear about Power Gaming is on the internet. :smallyuk:

In fairness, I don’t like less than 14 con for any character if I can help it unless I have a feat to burn on tough.

I also look the other way when someone is cheesing.

Most of our games are 70% combat. I would never play a storyteller game.

However, the OP asked what we don’t like about powergaming. I don’t like it when it trumps all else. Or when it’s distracting. It’s all on a continuum. I also don’t run around without a bonus to my attack stat or anything.

It’s about extremes. Do I think it’s lame to play intelligently and to be charming when I dump int, wis and chr? I sorta do. Would I want to play with a weak ass character that is always knocked down, always afraid to contribute? Or always wants to wax poetic when making mundane purchases of rope and rations? Yeah, not for me.

I don’t like powergaming when it’s out of balance and at odds with the campaigns flavor.

Most people are somewhere in the middle and having preferences is part of people. I play with a guy that is mostly into “winning” But even he role plays. I can overlook some silly as a result.

[blackjack50]

Personally, as a Power Gamer myself, I don't fully understand the dislike. I find it fun to fully optimize a build and make it as powerful as possible, be it with dips, item,s spells, ect.. And as a DM, I make encounters that force my players to have a level of competency with their abilities and tactics. If you come to my table you need to have a good grasp on your class' abilities, how to use them, and be decently powerful. Otherwise, you will die. Case in point, I recently ran an encounter for party of level 2 adventurers. The fight included 3 zombies, a skeleton, an orb that you had to make a DC 10 Con save against or take 1d4 necrotic damage each round, though if you fell unconscious you became immune to the effect, and an invisible Poltergeist. The party managed to scrape by on the skin of their teeth, and had a lot of trouble with the Poltergeist until the Paladin realized he could use Divine Sense to pinpoint its exact location.

As such, I encourage my players to make optimized builds, and gladly point them towards optimal options if they ask for some assistance. And as a player, I tend towards making optimized and powerful characters. As long as a Power Gamer isn't acting like a Munchkin, then what's the issue with it?

It isn’t so much power gaming. It is likely the attitude that typically comes along with it. I’ve noticed a tendency to rules lawyer. Why? Because strict rules or specific interpretation of rules benefit those power builds far more. And the rules lawyers can be game destroying.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It isn’t so much power gaming. It is likely the attitude that typically comes along with it. I’ve noticed a tendency to rules lawyer. Why? Because strict rules or specific interpretation of rules benefit those power builds far more. And the rules lawyers can be game destroying.

And not just rules lawyering--many of the "power builds" depend on particular interpretations of rules and particular notions of campaign flow. Along with very odd notions of what's allowed in a setting (aiming for maximal, even if the piece doesn't really belong there). Things like assuming that you're mostly fighting big solo creatures in open spaces. That you'll rarely go more than a couple fights without a long rest. That you'll rarely, if ever, lose Rage. Plus a bunch of other things.

All of these provide sources of conflict when they're not accepted wholesale, and cause setting mismatch.

Now a skilled power gamer can accommodate a lot of things--this isn't a necessary conflict. But it's quite common, because most people who power game (or try to) aren't very good at it and are mostly following guides. And when the assumptions the guide-writer based his guide on aren't followed, that "sky blue" or "gold" character...isn't. And then the power gamer feels (often) like he's being picked on. After all, he did everything right, so it must be that the DM has it out for him and is hampering his build. Or he browbeats the DM and other players into letting him play his character, and then they have less fun because it cramps their style.

[ff7hero]

And not just rules lawyering--many of the "power builds" depend on particular interpretations of rules and particular notions of campaign flow. Along with very odd notions of what's allowed in a setting (aiming for maximal, even if the piece doesn't really belong there). Things like assuming that you're mostly fighting big solo creatures in open spaces. That you'll rarely go more than a couple fights without a long rest. That you'll rarely, if ever, lose Rage. Plus a bunch of other things.

All of these provide sources of conflict when they're not accepted wholesale, and cause setting mismatch.

Now a skilled power gamer can accommodate a lot of things--this isn't a necessary conflict. But it's quite common, because most people who power game (or try to) aren't very good at it and are mostly following guides. And when the assumptions the guide-writer based his guide on aren't followed, that "sky blue" or "gold" character...isn't. And then the power gamer feels (often) like he's being picked on. After all, he did everything right, so it must be that the DM has it out for him and is hampering his build. Or he browbeats the DM and other players into letting him play his character, and then they have less fun because it cramps their style.

I appreciate this post because it helped me understand what I think is the core of the problem. People dislike power gamers because they've played with bad power gamers.

A good power gamer realizes that the DM always has final say. A good power gamer is capable of optimizing their character within the context of the party or campaign. Honestly, I enjoy a game with a robust set of house rules and/or a unique premise as optimizing for white rooms in vanilla 5e is kind of boring at this point.

I don't dislike all expressive players (drama queens) even though I've played with many more bad expressive players than power gamers. I guess my advice to folks who have a blanket dislike of power gamers is to reflect on whether they're basing their opinions on experiences with bad power gamers.

[zinycor]

I appreciate this post because it helped me understand what I think is the core of the problem. People dislike power gamers because they've played with bad power gamers.

A good power gamer realizes that the DM always has final say. A good power gamer is capable of optimizing their character within the context of the party or campaign. Honestly, I enjoy a game with a robust set of house rules and/or a unique premise as optimizing for white rooms in vanilla 5e is kind of boring at this point.

I don't dislike all expressive players (drama queens) even though I've played with many more bad expressive players than power gamers. I guess my advice to folks who have a blanket dislike of power gamers is to reflect on whether they're basing their opinions on experiences with bad power gamers.

Very sound and good advice. I relate to it a whole lot.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I appreciate this post because it helped me understand what I think is the core of the problem. People dislike power gamers because they've played with bad power gamers.

A good power gamer realizes that the DM always has final say. A good power gamer is capable of optimizing their character within the context of the party or campaign. Honestly, I enjoy a game with a robust set of house rules and/or a unique premise as optimizing for white rooms in vanilla 5e is kind of boring at this point.

I don't dislike all expressive players (drama queens) even though I've played with many more bad expressive players than power gamers. I guess my advice to folks who have a blanket dislike of power gamers is to reflect on whether they're basing their opinions on experiences with bad power gamers.

Remember, half of everyone is below average (well, median). My issue is that the spectrum is (in my experience) skewed--the threshold for power gamers that can power game without being disruptive is a lot higher than for "drama queens". But I recognize that a lot of that is personal preference and history. My first whole set of gaming experiences was DMing for a school group where power gamers were few and far between (and good ones were even more rare) and where "drama queens" were really common. In other, outside groups I've had people try to power game. But I've only had one who could do it well[0]. And he was disruptive for other, unrelated reasons.

Heck, out of the dozens of people I've played with, only...two? have taken any of the "big combat feats"--one took sharpshooter because his entire character (not very optimized) was about sniping from a distance. Rarely used the -5/+10 feature, mostly took it to ignore cover. The other got talked into getting Great Weapon Master. Usually forgot to reroll his 1s and 2s unless prompted by his fellow players. Not exactly a power gamer. Lucky and Mobile have come up a bunch though--people hate rolling 1s and taking OAs.

[0] The only person I've ever met who could more thoroughly disrupt a DM's plan (in a good way) without ever causing damage than anyone else could even with a smite-heavy build. His build was quirky (a halfling divination wizard without any direct damage spells) but his grasp of tactics and how to play was second to none. Pity he was a bit crazy and a serious rules lawyer of the grognard style. And had an aversion to personal hygiene.

[KorvinStarmast]

Eberron races are more reasonable and have an actual opportunity cost, while GGtR backgrounds are basically pure power creep. Power Creep is why GGtR is not 'on' at my table. (Friend of mine has me in his group in DDB and I got a gander ... :smallfrown: And I really think that Eberron stuff needs to stay in an Eberron setting game. That's my opinion.

A power gap between classes, absolutely exists. Not big enough to matter if the DM doesn't choose identical challenges for every encounter.
As more and more splatbooks come out - combined with multi-classing - the gap widens.
How do you - a DM - handle that power gap? Power creep and exploits, yeah, the way to handle it is to restrict books kinda like AL if you find material that bugs you. For example, Ravnica and AcQInc are simply not allowed when I DM. (THough I am tempted to fold in Order Cleric by itself)

If you don't believe in the first place, that a power gap even exists (and therefore there's nothing to even fix), where does this conversation even go? The disagreement seems to be the magnitude of the gap.

In fairness, I don’t like less than 14 con for any character if I can help it unless I have a feat to burn on tough. I feel similarly, though I once took a huge risk and went with a 12 Con for a Dragon Origin sorcerer. :smallyuk: (He's dead, but that's due to our teamwork being poor and getting hit with a crit after having taken damage earlier in the fight ... ). A 14 would not have saved him.

[kyoryu]

And not just rules lawyering--many of the "power builds" depend on particular interpretations of rules and particular notions of campaign flow. Along with very odd notions of what's allowed in a setting (aiming for maximal, even if the piece doesn't really belong there). Things like assuming that you're mostly fighting big solo creatures in open spaces. That you'll rarely go more than a couple fights without a long rest. That you'll rarely, if ever, lose Rage. Plus a bunch of other things.

All of these provide sources of conflict when they're not accepted wholesale, and cause setting mismatch.

Now a skilled power gamer can accommodate a lot of things--this isn't a necessary conflict.

This kinda reminds me of, of all things, Settlers of Catan. I know so many people that insist Catan is a Bad Game because of the randomization.

Almost inevitably, these people completely pick only the "best" spaces, ignoring the actual odds involved.

I'm out of practice, but I always found a better strategy to be to get a wide variety of numbers, so that they're in a decent position no matter what happens.

Like, same thing. If you build your entire character around one synergistic trick, then you become brittle and your character will fail unless the circumstances allow your trick. Flexibility is a power in and of itself. Sadly, most systems don't really encourage that in their build mechanics any more.


I appreciate this post because it helped me understand what I think is the core of the problem. People dislike power gamers because they've played with bad power gamers.

A good power gamer realizes that the DM always has final say. A good power gamer is capable of optimizing their character within the context of the party or campaign. Honestly, I enjoy a game with a robust set of house rules and/or a unique premise as optimizing for white rooms in vanilla 5e is kind of boring at this point.

One of the best power gamers I played with would optimize the hell out of his characters - for things other than pure combat power. Such as the Kobold of Infinite Shiftiness (in 4e). He understood that at many tables his level of optimization would be distruptive, and so found a way to get his optimization fix without disrupting the table.

He was also a great player in just about every way. I miss playing with him.


Remember, half of everyone is below average (well, median). My issue is that the spectrum is (in my experience) skewed--the threshold for power gamers that can power game without being disruptive is a lot higher than for "drama queens". But I recognize that a lot of that is personal preference and history. My first whole set of gaming experiences was DMing for a school group where power gamers were few and far between (and good ones were even more rare) and where "drama queens" were really common. In other, outside groups I've had people try to power game. But I've only had one who could do it well[0]. And he was disruptive for other, unrelated reasons.

Ultimately, I think the issue is primarily "disruptive players". A player who is inconsiderate of the enjoyment of the group as a whole is going to be disruptive, no matter how they disrupt. It's the same fundamental issue either way. "This is what I find fun, and if you don't like it, you're wrong" is just plain toxic.

[noob]

If someone wants to power game and not be disliked they just have play an optimised buffer/crowd controller which avoids dealing direct damage.
Nobody notices an op support build (that makes so that none of the allies dies because either they are too buffed or the monsters are too restrained to participate correctly or both in fights that are normally tough) and no one is the wiser about the power-gaming behaviour of the player.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This kinda reminds me of, of all things, Settlers of Catan. I know so many people that insist Catan is a Bad Game because of the randomization.

Almost inevitably, these people completely pick only the "best" spaces, ignoring the actual odds involved.

I'm out of practice, but I always found a better strategy to be to get a wide variety of numbers, so that they're in a decent position no matter what happens.

Like, same thing. If you build your entire character around one synergistic trick, then you become brittle and your character will fail unless the circumstances allow your trick. Flexibility is a power in and of itself. Sadly, most systems don't really encourage that in their build mechanics any more.


Agreed. I've found that the best characters aren't the highly specialized ones. They're the ones that can participate all the time, regardless of the situation. Sure, their success chances might be marginally smaller, but they get to play way more. It's why I'm a fan of using proficiency and (especially) expertise to shore up weaknesses, rather than taking strengths to extreme levels (especially when it comes to Stealth, as you're still only as stealthy as the least stealthy person in the group, and there's no bonus for beating the enemy's PP by 10 instead of 1).



Ultimately, I think the issue is primarily "disruptive players". A player who is inconsiderate of the enjoyment of the group as a whole is going to be disruptive, no matter how they disrupt. It's the same fundamental issue either way. "This is what I find fun, and if you don't like it, you're wrong" is just plain toxic.

Agreed. Powergaming is just one way that people disrupt things. There are many others. And the means don't matter as much as the end result does. Is there disruption? That should get fixed one way or another. How...doesn't matter so much as long as everyone is an adult[1] about it.

[1] which is a funny turn of phrase, since my teenage (and younger) players were way better about handling interpersonal issues at the table than some of the nominal adults I've played with...

[Asisreo1]

Powergamers and optimizers are also, usually, extremely bad at the game and it shows.

Not all powergamers are bad but you can easily tell when they get married to their "very powerful" hexadin or war wizard then get curbstomped when they realize that the forum people lied about what they should and shouldn't worry about in the game because...Surprise! You're not in a game with them, you're in a game with us. You thought you had enough HP and AC but you then realize that you can't win the fight alone when you're against a monster and it kills pretty much everyone in one hit. Maybe you should have actually coordinated your attacks and thought about playing to the strength that there's more of you than waste your only action in the round on a hail-mary hypnotic pattern just to be the next smear stain on the dungeon floor. And now you've cosigned your fellow players to defeat as well.

I also find it extremely pathetic when the powergamer clearly didn't even come up with the "powerful" combo. They just went online and typed "broken builds" and thought it was a good idea to bring it to a game. The powergap between a casually built character and a powergamed character isn't as large as people believe. They get so used to how their weaknesses are too "situational" that they forget that D&D is a series of diverse situations. Eventually, you'll be surprised. Eventually, you'll be underwater. Eventually, you'll be diseased. Eventually, you'll be forced to roll an intelligence, strength, or charisma saving throw. Eventually your focus or weapon will break. Eventually, your rest will be interrupted. Eventually you'll fight someone that will be too difficult a fight. Eventually you'll be in a dungeon and eventually you'll be in the wilderness.

Sure, it won't happen alot. But the one time is does, you need to be extremely sure you won't end up making your next "powerful" build because you forgot a d6 hit dice doesn't cut it.