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

[thecasualoblivion]

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."

I haven't really attempted anything yet, and as I said in a previous post dominating isn't the word from what I'm after. What is happening is that I'm experiencing a bit of a culture shock, and that my tastes as a player and a DM lie more on the player agency side of the spectrum, as opposed to the DM empowerment side isn't exactly the best fit for 5E.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I want to play a Jedi with a lightsaber. 5e excludes me.

 

[Rhenny]

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?

To me, 5e is the biggest tent that D&D has. I've had groups of players that all have different styles work well within the system and enjoy themselves. There will always be some who are too far off to the extreme where the game may not work perfectly for them. Honestly, 3e/3.5e and 4e almost forced people to be powergamers. 5e is a shift back toward the center.

thecasualoblivion, your observations are valid and your preferences may not be met as well with 5e. That's ok. But, 5e is certainly an edition of D&D that has taken the most steps to cater to a wider array of playstyles.

 

[Jabborwacky]

I ended up turning into a power gamer in 3rd edition due to how the game was presented, I suppose that taught me how to recognize when and where optimization was needed. For instance, there isn't a stressing need for a healing-focused cleric to worry about having his wisdom score being optimal because buffing and healing won't contest a saving throw. Yet when I do need to optimize, there isn't the possibility of covering all the bases: just the more important ones. Dex, Con, and Wis are still the key saves for the most part, but str, int, and cha saves prevent players from becoming entirely impenetrable.

I guess the better way of saying it is power gaming is a joint effort between multiple party member's in 5th edition. Your experience using others as meat shields isn't wrong. That meat shield needs to optimize to cover your weaknesses (well, he doesn't "need" to do so, but it is nice when you run into a buddy online). This leads to some tactical decisions: You may have two different party tanks with different strong saves and a monster with some kind of special ability to consider. Viewing your companions as extensions of yourself is definitely a bit alien to my experience power gaming in 3rd edition, but it works out well if you develop characters together. Like having a pair of tielfing siblings with one of them being an eldritch knight and the other being an infernal pact warlock. One guy booming blades and the other pushes.

 

[Ancalagon]

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.

Having group harmony is important! But it's sometimes hard to have a group that is *completely* harmonious. There will always be differences in levels of system mastery, focus etc. Problem arises when those differences become too great.

It is helpful where the system itself reduces the importance of system mastery. I'm not a "real" power gamer, but I have to admit I'm a power gamer "lite". I don't take "dips" in classes to grab abilities, I don't built dart Gatling guns, I don't build one-trick hyper-focused characters... but I do spend some time thinking about how the character will operate in combat and how to enhance survivability. In certain systems (and 3e, I'm looking at you), having a player do that and one not do that *at all* can result in an enormous difference in character resilience, causing headaches for everyone. (see my old thread about the weakling bard).

It seems that 5e will lessen those differences, and that is a good thing.

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.

Sounds like a great session to me too

 

[thecasualoblivion]

To me, 5e is the biggest tent that D&D has. I've had groups of players that all have different styles work well within the system and enjoy themselves. There will always be some who are too far off to the extreme where the game may not work perfectly for them. Honestly, 3e/3.5e and 4e almost forced people to be powergamers. 5e is a shift back toward the center.

thecasualoblivion, your observations are valid and your preferences may not be met as well with 5e. That's ok. But, 5e is certainly an edition of D&D that has taken the most steps to cater to a wider array of playstyles.

I would argue that during its time as the current edition of D&D, 3E was a much bigger tent than 5E. I would go as far as to say it's not even close. Now, 3E had a mountain of issues, and it might not have been as inclusive at any single table as it was as a whole(5E probably has it beat for being inclusive at a single table), but that is another matter.

 

[Guest 6801328]

my tastes as a player and a DM lie more on the player agency side of the spectrum, as opposed to the DM empowerment side isn't exactly the best fit for 5E.

We must be wandering into that realm where different people define player agency differently. Could you elaborate on how you define it, and what the connection is to 5e?

 

[Ancalagon]

Viewing your companions as extensions of yourself is definitely a bit alien to my experience power gaming in 3rd edition, but it works out well if you develop characters together. Like having a pair of tielfing siblings with one of them being an eldritch knight and the other being an infernal pact warlock. One guy booming blades and the other pushes.

Oh having 2 characters designed together both "mechanistically" and roleplaying wise can be a lot of fun! In that "weak bard" game, my alchemist and the barbarian were cousins who had adventured together for a long time and joined the group as a pair. We had each other's back. Because my alchemist was (before the game started) in a party of 2 with a barbarian, he had to be able to do a lot of things (heal, buff, blast) *and* be tough enough to well, keep up with a barbarian in a scrap.

We also had bad charisma, being dwarves and all that, so my character was described as reeking of chlorine and the barbarian as having fierce BO

I should mention that the player behind the barbarian was my gf, so it gave a nice in-game reason why the two of use should have a closer relationship than the other PCs. (and yes we are still together )

 

[Sunseeker]

Hiya.

First, I'll tackle #2. How would you feel if the GM could point to some rules, or use some ultra-super-duper mechanical combo that forced your character to do something you didn't want him/her to do? Thing is, IME, powergamers (re: munchkins) get some kind of satisfaction in being able to point to something or some things in a rule book that "trumps" what the DM is describing as happening. The powergamer says "No! See? Look, I have this class, this other class, this Feat chain, this weapon, and I just used this Spell. So no, the djinn is totally visible to me, and I can also attack once for free, and I get to do it again as a Bonus action if I hit him! So...nyaaa!" In short, the PG is removing the DM's choice of how to adjudicate a game by trotting out rules and such. If a DM tried to pull that all the time on a player? *shudder*

I'm sorry, but what the diddily is the point of having rules if the DM is just going to say "Well those don't count right now!" I get 5E is a "rulings not rules" edition but that doesn't mean blatantly ignoring the rules when they should be applied just because you don't want to! I mean, I played with a DM like that. Me, followed by the entire table, quit after a few sessions. I get wanting to tell a story or do a special thing, but if I'm bound by the rules, then the DM is also bound by the rules. The DM may have the right to ignore the rules, but they don't get to ignore the rules on whimsy and expect the table to just suck eggs. That's horrible DMing.

If I'm DMing and my player says" "Hey wait, when your monster does his thing that means I get to do my thing!" I'm not going to just say "Oh no this special snowflake monster is immune to your thing." or "Oh no, sorry but I just decided you can't do that anymore."

It doesn't just defeat the purpose of powergaming, it defeats the entire purpose of playing. The rules exist for a reason and both sides rely on their proper application. If there are going to be exceptions to those rules it should be clear when and where that happens, not so people can take advantage of it, but so people can understand it. The players don't have the power to ignore the rules whenever they want to.

Now, with #1. Also IME, I've found that most PG's think they are 'good at the game' because they master the rules and memorize the specials...and then spend days trying to manipulate what those rules say in order to pull off some rule-mechanics monstrosity. Why? So that they can 'win' most of the time without thinking. Y'see...knowing rules and memorizing 'power-combos' doesn't make you good at the game. It makes you good at min/maxing. Take away min/maxing, and a PG is left with little to fall back on....take away min/maxing from someone who doesn't do it, and the person doesn't even notice the game play has changed.

Besides... A Hero isn't someone who wades into battle knowing he'll win. A Hero is someone who wades into battle knowing he'll loose.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I don't think your little turn of phrase there is accurate. Besides, not everyone wants to be a hero. An adventurer isn't necessarily a hero or a villain. Heroes will fight a fight they know they'll lose but hold out hope that they'll win or the bad guy will see the folly of his evil ways, sure. But Heroes don't only fight losing battles. They fight the battles the have to fight because they own hold the power to stopping the BBEG. Powergamers may not be heroes, seeking to minimize their chance of loss and only engage in combat on terms they can control and fights they feel they can reasonably win. In that regard, power-gamers are reasonably easy to sucker. Tempt them with an easy fight that suddenly becomes a battle for their lives because the enemy is not a moron. There's nothing wrong with wanting to control your chance of success, it's GOOD STRATEGY. I question if anyone just lets their character drift on the tides of the dice, not concerning themselves with anything at all. Characters who die from avoidable deaths or from enemies that should not have been a challenge to them in situations where they simply got a string of unlucky hits aren't exactly fun experiences either.

And here's something I've said long ago: Everyone powergames. Everyone. The only difference are the goals. "Typical" powergames aim for success in battle, combat superiority. Others aim to make the best representation of the character concept they have in their head. That is also powergaming. It's simply different goalposts. I suspect there are very few people who pay absolutely no mind to what they're rolling, what they're playing and don't care if they're good at it or not. Want great story? There's a way to optimize for that. Want great battles? There's a way to optimize for that. Want to have the most fun possible? Guess what: that's the goal of EVERYONE.

This is probably the best post I have read this forum.

It seems to be indicative of society in general that we have moved to a state where people try their best not to offend other people. The great Stephen Fry said it best in my opinion (google his quote on taking offense if you don't know it).


I am happy (and proud!) to play and DM at 3 regular tables where a powergamer would feel out of place. In fact, all of our DMs are strong enough people to be confident of telling them that 'This is probably not an ideal game for you, and you do not fit in with us' as soon as their playing style became apparent.

Here's where I beg the question and I've seen people say what I expect so I'll ask as best I can without it being a loaded question:

When those DMs go over and tell people "You're not a fit for our group." Is it because of something they did, in the game, that caused disruption, or was it simply the fact that they put their character together in the most effective manner possible? Or is that in itsself a problem?

I have, forever, been great at math. I build good characters. I can't not build good characters. I understand how all the numbers work and anything I will always be the absolute best version of whatever I have available to work with. Now, with that said, as the saying goes "It's what you do with it that really counts." Because I have seen and heard of DMs and other table members getting "offended" that someone power-built. But I have also seen, and make an effort on my own, to play in a respectful manner to the rest of the table. If people are "offended" that I can build mechanically optimized PCs, even if I'm working with sub-optimal parts, well then boo on them that's not my fault. If people are "offended" because I'm a raging jerkface at the table through my manner of play, well okay then. But don't tell me I need to build badly to make other people happy, that's just stupid. I mean try it, tell it to yourself and see how it sounds:

"Greetings table, for this game I expect everyone to build characters who aren't really that good and are just kinda average all around, because we don't want to risk triggering he-who-shall-not-be-named who gets offended over well-build characters."

But here's the thing: being a raging jerkface is a personality trait, not a result of mechanical optimization. There are people I know who absolutely FAIL at mechanical optimization and are still raging jerkfaces. Noone wants raging jerkfaces at their table, not even powergamers. Trust me you put two raging jerkface powergamers at the same table: they'll hate each other just as much as if they weren't powergames.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

We must be wandering into that realm where different people define player agency differently. Could you elaborate on how you define it, and what the connection is to 5e?

Player agency as in having codified powers, abilities or spells that allow me to affect the game world without having to ask the DM for permission or interpretation.