Why do people dislike power gaming so much

[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...

Spoiler

Show

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...

Spoiler

Show

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.