Why do people dislike power gaming so much

[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/questi...-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/questi...-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...