Why do people dislike power gaming so much

[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.

1. 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.
   .
2. 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.
   .
3. 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.

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.

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.