D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[FlyingChihuahua]

I was onboard with the idea that people are a lot faster to cry "That DM" than they are "That Player" but this is a pretty alien train of thought to me, and I'm usually told whenever I talk about my groups that I've had very bad luck with players.

It's not that alien.

You're more likely to side with the people who are more like you than not, especially if you have a (perceived) power imbalance between the groups.

 

[Mort]

So powergaming typically involves making combat oriented decisions that are narrow in focus.

I find this particularly prevalent on martials - either PAM/Sentinel/GWM or Sharpshooter/CBE.

The key to countering these is to not to say "no powergaming", but rather to run a game that does not reward that behavior.

Make sure your magic weapons are all thrown weapons or 1-handed melee weapons.

That takes care of the martials. The casters are more difficult, but a powergamer is typically going to want to get combat spells, so use encounters where those spells are useless and do not afford the oppotunity to long rest and change them out.

I've actually found the best way to "deal" with powergamers is to let them shine at what the want to shine in - as long as they don't interfere with the fun of anyone else in the group.

BUT to also include plenty of challenges where their focus doesn't necessarily help and might even hinder. Specifically, if you design broad levels of challenges, powergamers will be challenged plenty.

 

[Dausuul]

And no patron would be stupid enough to not include a “don’t betray me or my interests” clause.

You could just as easily say no warlock would be stupid enough to accept such a vague, broadly worded clause from a being of absolute evil. A pact requires both parties to agree on the terms.

The patron is betting that it will ultimately benefit from the pact. Most of the time, the patron wins these bets. But will it win its bet on you?

There's lots of options, but it is lazy and frustrating to start with "you made a dark bargain for power" and not then actually have any terms.

I absolutely agree with this. I feel like the warlock class should at least include some flavor suggestions for what the terms of your pact are.

 

[overgeeked]

This always struck me a design failure, where the proposed flavor isn't supported by the mechanics. Either could be changed to resolve the problem, and should be done in a way that doesn't offer the DM authority to strip your abilities.

Well, the main logical consequence of betraying your god or patron is them no longer giving you your power. I don't see there's really much else that works in that space. Don't want your powers stripped from you as the servant of X god or patron...don't betray your god or patron. It seems fairly simple.

There's lots of options, but it is lazy and frustrating to start with "you made a dark bargain for power" and not then actually have any terms.

WotC designed 5E to be player friendly in the sense that there are basically zero consequences for anything they ever want to do. Even the paladin's oath has no real drawbacks if violated...except maybe becoming an oathbreaker, which is just another big badass option rather than anything remotely akin to a consequence.

That's implying that a DM wouldn't warn you about these sort of things. Either from the patron going "Oi", the patron taking the powers away for a few minutes before giving them back, or something similar.

It's basically like Paladins and Clerics. Granted, some of the patrons wouldn't be as nice as the things that give Clerics and Paladins their power, but to some people what their Fiend Patron doesn't allow them to do is more palatable then what the Cleric's god would do.

side note: it's kinda weird how eager people are to call out DM's for being jerks, to the point where people often assume that a DM is just waiting for the chance to take away a player's abilities.

Players who've never refereed often think that all referees are evil and out to get them. A simple conversation or a few moments of logical thought or actually running a game would dispel this false notion. The referee controls the entire world. If they were out to get the PCs they can literally say "rocks fall, everyone dies" or throw the cliched infinite dragons at them.

 

[Pedantic]

WotC designed 5E to be player friendly in the sense that there are basically zero consequences for anything they ever want to do. Even the paladin's oath has no real drawbacks if violated...except maybe becoming an oathbreaker, which is just another big badass option rather than anything remotely akin to a consequence.

To be fair, this isn't actually an issue that can be laid at 5e's feet specifically. The 3e warlock used what we'd now consider sorcerer flavor, specifically "there's some fiendish blood/taint somewhere in your ancestry." 4e remixed the class with the Hexblade and Binder to lean in to the pact theme. It always struck me as a weird oversight that 4e doesn't have an explicit flavor solution for what the bargain is, given how it handled Paladin investiture.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This always struck me a design failure, where the proposed flavor isn't supported by the mechanics.

"Using the power of evil for good" and the "Servant rebel" are two of the biggest plotlines for a warlock style character. Not allowing it would fail the promise of the premise.

 

[overgeeked]

You could just as easily say no warlock would be stupid enough to accept such a vague, broadly worded clause from a being of absolute evil. A pact requires both parties to agree on the terms.

And yet...here we are. Most players are more than happy to assume that no matter what they do their patron not only won't but literally cannot withdraw their powers. If you don't like the idea of your power going away, don't play a class where that's explicitly written into the fiction for that class.

The patron is betting that it will ultimately benefit from the pact. Most of the time, the patron wins these bets. But will it win its bet on you?

Yes, because the house always wins. The supernatural entity with thousands of years of experience and so much magical power they can grant however many mortal beings a tiny sliver of that power will always win against some pea-brained mortal who was desperate or dumb enough to sell their soul for power. The patron-god can snap their fingers and reclaim the powers they grant. Like old-school paladins and clerics.

 

[overgeeked]

To be fair, this isn't actually an issue that can be laid at 5e's feet specifically. The 3e warlock used what we'd now consider sorcerer flavor, specifically "there's some fiendish blood/taint somewhere in your ancestry." 4e remixed the class with the Hexblade and Binder to lean in to the pact theme. It always struck me as a weird oversight that 4e doesn't have an explicit flavor solution for what the bargain is, given how it handled Paladin investiture.

I skipped 3E so wouldn't know. In 4E we never had a warlock so it never came up. It comes up regularly in 5E.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

The 5e Warlock description seems to describe more gaining knowledge than power from the patron. Not hard to make it so they only teach you how to do the magic, rather than being a magical battery the Warlock needs to work.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I detest power gaming. 5E is already easy mode.

Your 5e is easy mode. Not mine.

To the topic: Power gamers are no problem if you enforce the multiclass rules correctly and use the right rest option from the DMG which fits your style of game.