D&D 3E/3.5 Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E

[DEFCON 1]

Somewhat off-topic, but what's wrong with a melee fighter with a 14 in their attack stat, exactly?

Nothing, unless you are a power gamer. If you are a power gamer, playing a STR-based melee character with a 14 STR is a great hardship. Which is what I was trying to give the OP in order to let him power game the rest of the character so that the PC ends up power-gamed but still within the bounds of the rest of the table. Thereby giving the OP hopefully the best of both sides of what he needs.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Why? It avoids potential intra-group arguments - better that a group of like-minded people have the style of game they want, rather than watering it down to accommodate one other player who would be better suited to another group.

We played a 4 hour session on Friday evening, it contained 3 fights, which lasted a total of 4 rounds (less than 10 minutes in total), the rest of the time was roleplaying, planning and exploring... the group did everything they could to avoid direct conflict where possible. Afterwards they all told me it was the best session of D&D they'd ever played. All 4 players were fully engaged in the plot, and due to playing characters with weaknesses, they were constantly on edge, aware of their frailties and the danger they were in.

Add an optimised character played by a powergamer whose aim was to dominate battle and the whole dynamic of the session would be changed - lost - broken.

We do not subscribe to the character 'roles' put forward by 4E, so if someone came to our table and started asking about tanking, defense, control etc, or started referring to a character as a 'build', they simply would not fit in.

Why? Because D&D should be inclusive and cater to most everybody. As for the rest, why do you need the system to do that for you? If it's a table issue as you say, why isn't just dealing with it at the table, as opposed to the system, enough?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It really shouldn't... but at the same time, we should be removing "power gamer" specifically out of the post and replace it with ANY playstyle that runs counter to the rest of the table.

- Power gaming at a table that isn't focused on that tends to disrupt a game because either the power gamer feels out of place, or the rest of the table are constantly irritated.

- Storytelling at a table that isn't focused on that tends to disrupt a game because the character will usually be woefully under-powered and the rest of the table will need to pick up the PC's slack. Sure, playing that Fighter with a 14 STR would make an interesting RP challenge... but the rest of the table will grow to hate the character.

- Silent players who only act when combat starts tend to disrupt a game with a table of roleplayers because either the DM wastes the table's time trying engage the player (unsuccessfully), or the DM adds in more combats just to give that player something to do (even if the rest of the table doesn't feel those combats are necessary.)

The point is... if you join a table, the nicest thing you can do for the game is for YOU to adapt and adjust to the table's dynamic, rather than deciding to play your own way because it's how you get your fun-- the table's fun be damned. Because at the end of the day... inevitably NO ONE ends up having fun.

So to the OP... I think your best solution to your problem is this-- in order to power game at an Encounters table that most likely WON'T be power gaming to any extent, and do so without actually causing issues or problems... give yourself a really difficult mechanical issue to start with, and then power-game the crap out of everything else to try and compensate for that liability.

Make that melee Fighter with a 14 STR. Then once you have that in place... do everything else in your power to game the system to make up for that liability. How can you kick ass with that 14 STR? Prove it to yourself that you CAN do it even with that liability. Because even if you do... your damage potential will still be a bit more on the level of the rest of the table who isn't.

I'm joining an Encounters table, which isn't that focused. It's going to be more or less the same table I've been observing the past few weeks, and the table isn't really focused on anything.

Why do people assume that a table playing 5E of people they've never met is focused on anything?

 

[JonnyP71]

Why? Because D&D should be inclusive and cater to most everybody. As for the rest, why do you need the system to do that for you? If it's a table issue as you say, why isn't just dealing with it at the table, as opposed to the system, enough?

How would you suggest a powergamer would fit into this table - these have all been characters played by my midweek group:

Hobbit Beastmaster Ranger - riding a trained warpig with an affinity for onions.
Human Paladin - failed to save a group of innocent villagers from death, as a penance he spent several months refusing to wear metal armour and fighting with only his fists. He has given up all Paladin healing skills for the ability to cast the light cantrip at will, as it fits his deity better
Human Necromancer - into the 'finer' details of dissection, keeps a meticulous notebook of creatures faced. Liable to stop and take notes during combat. Total pedant - has argued with a Demon Lord. Hates the Half Elf.
Half Elven Champion - fights with a rapier, wears no armour as he found a coat which makes his hair look more lustrous, refuses to use cowardly missile weapons because duelling looks flashier. Hates the Necromancer.
Half Orc Barbarian - will only fight with family heirloom greataxe called Mr Thumpy. Hits anything she doesn't understand. Including fellow party members.


None are what could be described as being 'optimal' - feats are chosen for flavour rather than mechanical bonuses. And as for battle tactics - haha, think Keystone Cops.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

How would you suggest a powergamer would fit into this table - these have all been characters played by my midweek group:

Hobbit Beastmaster Ranger - riding a trained warpig with an affinity for onions.
Human Paladin - failed to save a group of innocent villagers from death, as a penance he spent several months refusing to wear metal armour and fighting with only his fists. He has given up all Paladin healing skills for the ability to cast the light cantrip at will, as it fits his deity better
Human Necromancer - into the 'finer' details of dissection, keeps a meticulous notebook of creatures faced. Liable to stop and take notes during combat. Total pedant - has argued with a Demon Lord. Hates the Half Elf.
Half Elven Champion - fights with a rapier, wears no armour as he found a coat which makes his hair look more lustrous, refuses to use cowardly missile weapons because duelling looks flashier. Hates the Necromancer.
Half Orc Barbarian - will only fight with family heirloom greataxe called Mr Thumpy. Hits anything she doesn't understand. Including fellow party members.

That doesn't have anything to do with anything I said in the post you're quoting.

 

[JonnyP71]

It does - because the characters are all utterly sub-optimal (Half Elf champion with AC 14, no con bonus, and less than 40hp at 7th level who will run headlong at any enemy which dares confront him?). We also spend more time roleplaying than in combat. So if you were to add a player to the table whose main priority was to create a powerful character, they would probably get frustrated with the anarchy the group descends into when a combat does occur.

 

[Rhenny]

I'm perfectly fine with powergamers at the table as long as they aren't jerks about it.

Usually, powergaming only affects straight up combat. Most of the time, it's pretty easy to set up situations where others in the party get a chance to shine in the spotlight. For example, tricks/traps in addition to combat, social interactions, stealth situations, etc. Some players actually enjoy avoiding combat and interacting with NPCs or even monsters when they can stand to reason.

More than not, it is the powergamer who gets disgruntled when the table is filled with non-powergamers because their goals are often different. I can see how someone bent on optimizing tactics and clearing the board would be frustrated by others who don't push for that as much. Totally natural.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I have no objection to power gaming, and think that if people are respectful a single power gamer can be integrated into an RP table just fine.

What makes me roll my eyes is a complaint that "My attempts to power game with these rules aren't as dominating as I want."

 

[Manbearcat]

My suggestion for power-gaming 5e would be to look at Inspiration and Traits, Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals. It seems to me that this is the vector that the designers had in mind for that. It is similar to Cortex+ in trying to build dice pools off of your Distinctions and Values. In-so-doing, your character's ethos and archetype become manifest during play as you gain 5e's derivative of "plot points" to further your ends.

Why? Because D&D should be inclusive and cater to most everybody. As for the rest, why do you need the system to do that for you?

5e was constructed to bring the game back to an AD&D aesthetic ("rulings not rules" writing style, adventuring day/loose balance, magic items not part of PC build, fast-ish combats, heavy GM latitude/input in action resolution) and simultaneously appeal to the 3.x/PF (a la carte multi-classing, saving throw paradigm, magic everywhere powerful utility spells and vancian casting, metaplot/Adventure Path model). Then there is a smattering of indie tech in there (Inspiration and the intersection with Traits, Bonds, Flaws, Ideals).

If you do not dig that formulation, you are excluded. It is as simple as that. Is it irksome that the pretense of inclusion/big-tent was one of (if not the) primary tenets of a two year playtest and marketing ploy? Of course. But 5e appears to have brought back the AD&D player-base and united it with the 3.x/PF player base so I suspect those folks and the devs are happy with that marriage (which, my intuition is that was the angle all along). Meanwhile, there are lots of great games out there to play; 4e, Dungeon World, Burning Wheel, Strike!, Cortex+ that will give you high action adventure heroic fantasy with a different paradigm that you might enjoy.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It does - because the characters are all utterly sub-optimal (Half Elf champion with AC 14, no con bonus, and less than 40hp at 7th level who will run headlong at any enemy which dares confront him?). We also spend more time roleplaying than in combat. So if you were to add a player to the table whose main priority was to create a powerful character, they would probably get frustrated with the anarchy the group descends into when a combat does occur.

To briefly indulge you, I wouldn't fit into that table, but it would be a problem with the DM, not the players. I could probably ignore a bunch of people dicking around while I kill things, as long as it gets done in the end. The issue would be that I infer from your comments that your DM has greatly deemphasized combat compared to the average table, and that would be a problem for me.

Going back to my original point which you continue to ignore...

1. The base system of the current edition of D&D should be big tent, embrace a wider audience, and not specifically try to suppress an audience that the previous two editions embraced.
2. If your table has a problem with power gaming, why can't you just deal with it on the table level? Why do you need help from the system to discourage play that doesn't fit at your table?