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

[ExploderWizard]

You're missing the point. I want to know roughly what I can do and my chances without asking the DM. I want to have powers spells and abilities for stuff worked out in advance, known to the player. It's not about the DM refusing permission, it's about having to ask in the first place.

You can have all your abilities worked out in advance. What you can't have is the exact effect and the chances it will work known in every situation. This was true in 4th edition as well. You can have a power that does X on a hit. Until you figure out the defense value of your target you don't know what your overall odds of that power working actually are.

Its the same in 5E. You have a power and you know how often you can use it. What you don't know is how effective it might be in a given situation until you try.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You're missing the point. I want to know roughly what I can do and my chances without asking the DM. I want to have powers spells and abilities for stuff worked out in advance, known to the player. It's not about the DM refusing permission, it's about having to ask in the first place.

I'm not trying to be disingenuous. I genuinely would love to have an example of what you mean.

I have a character sheet that lists abilities and spells, attributes and proficiencies. I know what bonuses I get and how the spells work, etc. The only time in recent memory I recall asking a DM for anything like permission was when I asked how he interpreted the Shield Master feat (that is, whether I could shove first and then attack).

What are your examples?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

There's so much wrong here, I don't know where to start...

Those who focus to much on the "play to win" style have a lot of trouble enjoying the game itself, outside of the combat aspects. To them, anything else is irrelevant. (Thecasualoblivion is obviously one of those. The only thing that matters to them is optimized play - specifically optimized for combat, anything else if foolish and/or incomprehensible to them.) Basically they need a clearly defined goal to measure themselves against, and achieving that is how they win, and anything that doesn't contribute to achieving that is a waste of time. People who don't focus on achieving the goal are either foolish, or deliberately wasting their time. They also tend to be rather selfish, in the sense that they want their character to out-perform other characters in combat. 5e makes it harder to dominate a combat with a single character, so they don't enjoy it as much.

I never said I don't care about or participate in things outside of combat. I just said I don't like spending character creation resources on them. Outside of combat, I usually dominate the party face role, whether I have the stats for it or not. Outside of combat, that is my wheelhouse. A 5E character gets a number of skills and non combat perks by default, and I do make use of them in game.

Those who want to "play" the game generally consider combat a secondary concern. They want to socialize with NPC's, solve puzzles, explore new areas. They actually pay attention to the DM when a new area or city is described, instead of interrupting to ask for a perception check so they can see if there is anyone waiting to ambush them. They want to develop their characters and be part of a story, not just a series of XP and treasure generating encounters.

You make a lot of presumptions about this sort of player, and seem to be putting them on a pedestal, needing to be protected from the big, bad powergamer.

You also have those RP types who can't or won't build a combat functional character, and the rest of the group has to carry them through combats. They are almost as bad as the "my characters are optimized death machines with no personalty" players.

And your point is?

Most people can switch between the play styles as needed - their characters can contribute in combat (they may not be super-optimized but they hold their own), but they also contribute outside of combat. Their characters have personalities and stories, and can do things aside from kill better and faster. They aren't just combat monsters with no social skills, or the minimum social skills needed to meet the expected requirements of the module so they can get to the next combat.

Again, you make a lot of presumptions about things you know nothing about. Nothing about kicking ass in combat prevents me from doing any of that. I'm kind of offended that you brand me with all sorts of crap that isn't true just because I say I like kicking combat most about the game, and pursue it.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

In organized play, I cant tell you the amount of times I have played with schlubs and needed to dominate the encounter.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of proficient players as well.... that just lets me kick back and enjoy the table and probably a longer break between game slots.

Two things. First, saying "...I have played with schlubs and needed to dominate the encounter" doesn't do you any favours. It makes you come across as one of those guys that, after the game and after you leave, the group says "Do you believe that guy? What a self-centered, egotistical, A-hole!" Just because someone doesn't have the same focus or desire to play the game "your way" doesn't mean they are a bunch of 'schlubs'. Just because you have a min/maxed monstrosity and they don't...doesn't mean they are a bunch of 'schlubs'. And...more importantly...just because they aren't min/maxed monstrosities who will take more damage and take longer to win a combat encounter does NOT mean you suddenly "need to dominate the encounter". >:|

Second, how would you feel if you showed up to a game with your optimized damage-based barbarian...and someone in the group had the same thing, but put yours to shame? Would you still have "fun" playing in combats where he just kind of giggled and said "Oh, look! The cute little newbie barbarian is trying to kill something... awwwww....that's so sweet!", and then proceeded to stand there for two rounds while you got your ass kicked by a monster until the better barbarian says "Well, at least you're trying! That's nice...here, let me help...", and then one-shots the monster. Now pretend that happens every single session, regardless of what character you make. Your characters are never as powerful as the others. Ever. Would you still have fun in that game? I mean, you are powergaming and have a kick ass character...just not as kick ass as everyone else's.

... ... ... that feeling you are having right now? Yeah. That 'worbly stomache' type feeling? That's the empathy you are now having for players who don't optimize their characters, yet are forced to play with someone who is/does.

Then if combat is not the key component in your party's level advancement, why would a combat powergamer not be welcomed in that party?

In the course of achieving the next milestone, there should be ample opportunity for each individual player to shine due to the DM basically earmarking events to characters.

See my second point above. If someone in the group has a non-optimized close combat fighter, and you come along with a fully optimized close combat fighter...he will never be able to shine, because you are stomping all over him. Everyone else in the group will look at his fighter and say "Dude...you suck. Sorry." What if he doesn't have a fighter, but a barbarian? Not the same character, but still focused on front line. And again, we have the same problem. Ok, what if he's not a barbarian either. What if he's a wizard? Same thing, unfortunately. "Oh, you just magic'ed him for what? That was 9 points of fire damage? Er....ok... Well, I just hit him too, for another 24 points"... next round... "So, you did max damage? Great! Oh...that was 12 points. Well, I hit him for...ouch...minimum damage. So I guess thats another... 14 points" ...rinse, repeat. You, with your "optimized" damage dealer just stomped all over everyone in the group when it comes to consistent damage dealing in combat. Nobody in the group...fighter, cleric, druid, thief, wizard, etc... can pump out consistently high damage every single encounter. Why? Because they aren't optimized. So now, everyone at the table is annoyed by seeing their characters 'suck' in combat compared to yours. If you hadn't optimized your character, and made a more well-rounded guy...well, everyone at the table other than you, would be having a great time.

And that...my friend...is why you can't easily (if at all) mix a powergamer into a group of non-powergamers. It just doesn't work. Powergamers are mutually exclusive to themselves; unless everyone is, nobody should be. The very rare exception is that person who prefers to powergame, but can have an equally fun time not powergaming. I actually have one player who is like that. He loves to make powerful characters...but he can also make 'well rounded' characters and have just as much fun. When everyone makes a decently powerful character, he does too, and our game changes to that style. It's the folks who "only powergame" that are disruptive to a group that doesn't. Sorry to say, I don't think there is any way to get around this. I can't think of one anyway...and yeah, I've been DM'ing since 80'.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

I want to make a remark about the randomness.

Personaly I feal it most when it comes to skills becouse the proficiency bonus is low compared to the ability score and random roll parts of a skill check on low levels.

For example take a cleric with the acolite background trained in religion with a inteligence of 10 onluy has a +2 bonus.
Meaning it is better to ask the wizard with int 18 in the groep for information on religous matters as his skill roll will be better untill you reach lvl 9.

I personaly always felt straining should at least match raw ability so starting with a +4 bonus when it comes to skills, so a paerson trained with no ability score modefyer is at least as capable as a untrained person with a good ability score.

 

[Caliban]

There's so much wrong here, I don't know where to start...

Then please don't. Have a good day sir.

 

[Mathilda]

Not at all.

Nope, not even close.


Those who focus to much on the "play to win" style have a lot of trouble enjoying the game itself, outside of the combat aspects. To them, anything else is irrelevant. (Thecasualoblivion is obviously one of those. The only thing that matters to them is optimized play - specifically optimized for combat, anything else if foolish and/or incomprehensible to them.) Basically they need a clearly defined goal to measure themselves against, and achieving that is how they win, and anything that doesn't contribute to achieving that is a waste of time. People who don't focus on achieving the goal are either foolish, or deliberately wasting their time. They also tend to be rather selfish, in the sense that they want their character to out-perform other characters in combat. 5e makes it harder to dominate a combat with a single character, so they don't enjoy it as much.

Those who want to "play" the game generally consider combat a secondary concern. They want to socialize with NPC's, solve puzzles, explore new areas. They actually pay attention to the DM when a new area or city is described, instead of interrupting to ask for a perception check so they can see if there is anyone waiting to ambush them. They want to develop their characters and be part of a story, not just a series of XP and treasure generating encounters.

You also have those RP types who can't or won't build a combat functional character, and the rest of the group has to carry them through combats. They are almost as bad as the "my characters are optimized death machines with no personalty" players.

Most people can switch between the play styles as needed - their characters can contribute in combat (they may not be super-optimized but they hold their own), but they also contribute outside of combat. Their characters have personalities and stories, and can do things aside from kill better and faster. They aren't just combat monsters with no social skills, or the minimum social skills needed to meet the expected requirements of the module so they can get to the next combat. Unfortunately, most "Organized Play" situations involve pre-written scenarios with a set number of combat encounters and non-combat encounters that have to be completed within a 4 hour or less time frame. And the social encounters have no impact or relevance after the game session is over, but the combat has lasting rewards in the form of XP and treasure. By it's very nature, Organized Play favors combat optimized characters. That is not necessarily the case with home games - the DM has vastly more agency and control of the flow of the game. They tend to be more free form, and straight combat may be much less important than your characters out of combat decisions and actions.

The "Play to Win!" players tend to do much better in Organized Play situations (because the goals are clearly laid out and heavily feature combat), and 4e was also designed to cater to that playstyle. 5e has Organized Play with the Adventurer's League, but really shines in the home games. The rules are simpler and more streamlined so it's harder to come up with "game breaking" builds that make other players irrelevant.

Powergaming isn't a bad thing in and of itself - I optimize my characters all the time, because I want them to do interesting things in combat or out of combat. And being useless in combat doesn't feel good to me. But just like anything else, if you take it to an extreme it's not good or healthy for the game.

Not intended to be disparaging but I view the above quote as rather skewed and biased.

In response to your "Play to Win" example and substitute a heavy roleplayer who only wants to talk about themselves as equally irritating to a normal party. The point is that there are more archtypes that are disruptive to the game than just powergamers. I suggest that you recognize that fact. Also TCO has stated on numerous posts that he is willing to give advice to those that ask to better their own characters... this behavior is contradictory to the picture you paint of him... that of a player that wants to out perform everyone else at the table.

In response to your "Play to Play" example is a very white, ivory tower viewpoint. I concede that this notion is what all players should strive to be but in my experience, most players are driven by basic human necessities which are completing the mission prescribed and being rewarded for that mission. Players love their shinies and they love to level up irregardless if they were carried, or doing the carrying. Hence, my viewpoint is that everyone is playing to win and no one likes losing.

I do agree that Home Games are better than Organized Play but that statement is true for all editions of DnD

Also there are "game breaking" builds in every edition (although I personally do not subscribe to that point of view) but only the player themselves can make themselves irrelevant at a table. Normally from experience, if a player feels that way is because they do not put in the pre-requisite amount of time to educate themselves in being better or they feel elitist and expect it should be given to them no matter the circumstance and do not put in the effort to be better.

 

[Mathilda]

Hiya!



Two things. First, saying "...I have played with schlubs and needed to dominate the encounter" doesn't do you any favours. It makes you come across as one of those guys that, after the game and after you leave, the group says "Do you believe that guy? What a self-centered, egotistical, A-hole!" Just because someone doesn't have the same focus or desire to play the game "your way" doesn't mean they are a bunch of 'schlubs'. Just because you have a min/maxed monstrosity and they don't...doesn't mean they are a bunch of 'schlubs'. And...more importantly...just because they aren't min/maxed monstrosities who will take more damage and take longer to win a combat encounter does NOT mean you suddenly "need to dominate the encounter". >:|

Second, how would you feel if you showed up to a game with your optimized damage-based barbarian...and someone in the group had the same thing, but put yours to shame? Would you still have "fun" playing in combats where he just kind of giggled and said "Oh, look! The cute little newbie barbarian is trying to kill something... awwwww....that's so sweet!", and then proceeded to stand there for two rounds while you got your ass kicked by a monster until the better barbarian says "Well, at least you're trying! That's nice...here, let me help...", and then one-shots the monster. Now pretend that happens every single session, regardless of what character you make. Your characters are never as powerful as the others. Ever. Would you still have fun in that game? I mean, you are powergaming and have a kick ass character...just not as kick ass as everyone else's.

... ... ... that feeling you are having right now? Yeah. That 'worbly stomache' type feeling? That's the empathy you are now having for players who don't optimize their characters, yet are forced to play with someone who is/does.




See my second point above. If someone in the group has a non-optimized close combat fighter, and you come along with a fully optimized close combat fighter...he will never be able to shine, because you are stomping all over him. Everyone else in the group will look at his fighter and say "Dude...you suck. Sorry." What if he doesn't have a fighter, but a barbarian? Not the same character, but still focused on front line. And again, we have the same problem. Ok, what if he's not a barbarian either. What if he's a wizard? Same thing, unfortunately. "Oh, you just magic'ed him for what? That was 9 points of fire damage? Er....ok... Well, I just hit him too, for another 24 points"... next round... "So, you did max damage? Great! Oh...that was 12 points. Well, I hit him for...ouch...minimum damage. So I guess thats another... 14 points" ...rinse, repeat. You, with your "optimized" damage dealer just stomped all over everyone in the group when it comes to consistent damage dealing in combat. Nobody in the group...fighter, cleric, druid, thief, wizard, etc... can pump out consistently high damage every single encounter. Why? Because they aren't optimized. So now, everyone at the table is annoyed by seeing their characters 'suck' in combat compared to yours. If you hadn't optimized your character, and made a more well-rounded guy...well, everyone at the table other than you, would be having a great time.

And that...my friend...is why you can't easily (if at all) mix a powergamer into a group of non-powergamers. It just doesn't work. Powergamers are mutually exclusive to themselves; unless everyone is, nobody should be. The very rare exception is that person who prefers to powergame, but can have an equally fun time not powergaming. I actually have one player who is like that. He loves to make powerful characters...but he can also make 'well rounded' characters and have just as much fun. When everyone makes a decently powerful character, he does too, and our game changes to that style. It's the folks who "only powergame" that are disruptive to a group that doesn't. Sorry to say, I don't think there is any way to get around this. I can't think of one anyway...and yeah, I've been DM'ing since 80'.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

First off... you make me laugh...

Usually, I am thanked profusely when I "clicked" on the switch because when I do the situation is normally characters are down under 0 in hitpoints, others are on the ropes and a majority of the monsters still in play.

When I play in Organized Play without friends, I am content to have everyone else shine at the table and if they are powerful enough to carry me through an adventure.. no problem here.

I can honestly say I don't care if someone can do something better than I... in fact, I applaud and relieved by the notion that I will have help if something goes wrong.

In regards to your second set of fallacies.... it should be no problem for an optimized character of anything to be inserted into any party. it is the issue of the DM to give each player their chance to shine DURING PLAY... NOT JUST DURING COMBAT. So what if the rest of the party are not combat focused, it gives that combat focused more light to shine. There is no rule that every encounter has to be combat...

If the DM is giving each individual player to do their thing... I see no issue.... everyone is having fun

Your comments are so full of assumptions that are plain and simply wrong.

You claim that you have been since the 80's, I don't know if that is true but if you are playing with the same 10 - 12 people since that time, that is NOT a big experience base to draw accurate conclusions from.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mathilda]

Speaking of just plain wrong comments, I will counterpoint this comment (I only swoop in as the savior when everyone else is getting their butts kicked because I'm awesome like that) and casualoblivion's comment (I kick all the butt in combats, and I'm also the face of the party for social encounters because it's just in my wheelhouse even though I lack the stats and skills to do so, unlike the shlubs) with the repeated comments of other people telling you, no, thank you, please take Awesome McSnowflake and save a different party, please.

It's not that we don't want you to have fun. We just are having a different kind of fun. 'Kay?

I am not sure you can counterpoint something that is factual....

I personally have in 4E Organized Play and I think once or twice in 5E came in and turned a potential loss into a win...

You don't have to believe me and I rightly don't care but I do not believe you can counterpoint a comment that is based in fact as opposed to opinion.

For the record.... I am all for you to have all the fun you can handle..... as far as I know, no one equates losing to fun which is why I do what I do