D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[EzekielRaiden]

What the heck is "tier stuff" anyway?

At least in the context of D&D: An idea which came from analyzing 3e.

In 3e, there were some fairly clear, and meaningful, power levels that different classes could be categorized into. These were useful for explaining how and why clerics were inherently stronger than paladins, for example.

The 3e tiers were as follows:
Tier 1 - Full prepared casters and certain other things (e.g. "spell-to-power" Erudites), mostly Cleric, Druid, Archivist, and Wizard.
Tier 2 - Full spontaneous casters, heavily optimized lesser casters, mostly Sorcerer and Favored Soul.
Tier 3 - Partial casters and the best-designed non-casters. Bard is emblematic of this tier.
Tier 4 - Very limited casters and one-trick-pony non-casters. Paladin and Barbarian are here. Rogues probably go here too, but might rise if strongly optimized.
Tier 5 - Classes that aren't even actually good at their alleged one trick. Fighter and Monk are emblematic here.
Tier 6 - Sometimes given other numbers. This is for things which literally don't work. Like, they literally can't actually do what they're intended to do. AFAIK, the only class in this tier is Truenamer because it's so poorly implemented.

4e didn't really have tiers, as it was extremely well-balanced. It depended more on whether the player made enough reasonably wise choices for character building. So the idea went fallow for 4e's run. Powers and feats and items often got classified, but whole classes really didn't.

5e returned to the 3e model, and consequently brought back the tiers, though they are fuzzier and less dramatic. (5e is better balanced than 3e, but this is like saying that being 1000 dollars in debt with no income is a more balanced budget than being 1,000,000 dollars in debt with no income: true, but not particularly useful.) The 5e tiers, as I understand them, are as follows:

Full casters (Bard, Druid, Cleric, and especially Wizard, but not Sorcerer nor Warlock)
Better partial-casters, strong non-casters, and weaker full casters (Paladin, Barbarian, Warlock, Sorcerer)
Most other non-casters (Rogue, Fighter, Monk)
Known weak/problem classes (Ranger, Artificer)

Individual experiences and personal preference may flex some things up or down, but this is a generally useful structure. Artificer and Ranger stand out as particularly weak classes, and both Sorcerer and Warlock are unusually weak for full casters. Barbarian is arguably weaker than it sounds here, because it's largely being carried by how strong Totem Barbarian is, but it's still decent even without that. Monk is much better than it used to be but is still pretty weak, especially because several of its subclasses are also weak.

Again, I want to note that much of this is at least partially subjective. Not everyone agrees about the precise positions of things on this list. But this is a holistic and overall framework which helps grapple with the comparisons between classes in a given edition.

Hopefully this is a useful answer to your question.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Powergaming is only an issue if only 1 or 2 people in the group do it and the other players care. If I have a group of powergamers then I'll just raise the threat level to compensate. That's not my preference since I don't want to be an adversarial DM, but I've never met a group I couldn't challenge at least now and then.

I do ban or modify a couple of save-or-suck (and a couple of no save and suck like heat metal on enemies with metal armor) spells but that's personal preference. I also let people know that I'll probably say no if you try to take advantage of some edge case exploit. I'll work with PCs to on achieving goals and style, but I always let people know that there will be limits even if those are pretty broad.

Yeah this reflects my experience.

And frankly, with better-balanced systems, and that absolutely includes 5E, most powergamers can't even get very far ahead of the "normal" players. Also of powergamers/min-maxers just aren't that good at it. This is even true with internet guide-writers - a lot of the guides to "maximizing your character" and stuff are woefully outdated, and incorporate misunderstandings of the value of abilities, or wild overestimations of how good stuff is (Haste is frequently ludicrously overrated, it's actually only a "pretty okay" spell in 5E, but people often think it's gold/5 stars).

Personally I have a min-maxer in my group, and like, god bless him, in the pre-internet-guide days, he was an absolute terror for figuring out horrific synergies or setups in various RPGs, but he doesn't read guides, and the stuff he comes up with, is just like, totally harmless by comparison because 5E is so well-armoured against that (it helps that he's uninterested in primary magic-users, for sure).

He has noticed this, I note, because sometimes he does grumble that modern RPGs don't have as much fun stuff to mess with, and it's like buddy, that ain't an accident!

What the heck is "tier stuff" anyway?

Others have explained it, and I dunno if you're interested, but it this comes from an intersection of internet multiplayer gaming culture and D&D 3.5E being having extremely huge variances in how good classes were. Technically I believe one of the Tekken games was the first to have it's characters rated in a tier system in a way that got attention. Lists existed before that but didn't get much attention. That was in 2005, and I believe it was the very next year, 2006, that we saw the first D&D tier list, the tier list form already having matured significantly, and that was of 3.5E classes. It was quite controversial, some people were outraged that one might even attempt such a thing, but I'd largely agree with it myself.

Once that had happened, people increasingly started making "build guides" for 3.5E, just as they did for other MMORPGs, CRPGs, MOBAs etc., which resulted in rating individual choices and so on.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Full casters (Bard, Druid, Cleric, and especially Wizard, but not Sorcerer nor Warlock)
Better partial-casters, strong non-casters, and weaker full casters (Paladin, Barbarian, Warlock, Sorcerer)
Most other non-casters (Rogue, Fighter, Monk)
Known weak/problem classes (Ranger, Artificer)

Individual experiences and personal preference may flex some things up or down, but this is a generally useful structure. Artificer and Ranger stand out as particularly weak classes, and both Sorcerer and Warlock are unusually weak for full casters. Barbarian is arguably weaker than it sounds here, because it's largely being carried by how strong Totem Barbarian is, but it's still decent even without that. Monk is much better than it used to be but is still pretty weak, especially because several of its subclasses are also weak.

Yeah and just to demonstrate the subjectivity, the the Ranger's "star" is very much rising these days, and if you go on to say /r/dndnext, now, and talk Rangers, people will be saying stuff like "messy design but decent power level", where even after Tasha's, for quite a while people were saying "Rangers real bad".

Monk's star on the other hand has dipped it's now normally seen as just about the weakest class, and I'm just not sure I'd always agree with that. The biggest issue it really has is it's a skirmisher in a game with no particular need for skirmishers (if spellcasting could be interrupted and provoked an AoO like 3.XE it'd be an absolute menace).

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Monk's star on the other hand has dipped it's now normally seen as just about the weakest class, and I'm just not sure I'd always agree with that. The biggest issue it really has is it's a skirmisher in a game with no particular need for skirmishers (if spellcasting could be interrupted and provoked an AoO like 3.XE it'd be an absolute menace).

That's a feat now. Mage Slayer, to be specific.

and it's a pretty good feat. AoO on creatures within 5. ft casting a spell, advantage on saves against spells cast by creatures within 5 ft of you, and when you damage a creature that is concentrating on a spell, it has disadvantage on the concentration check.

Not the best for Monk, to be honest. Single hit damage output isn't the best, and Monks need all the ability scores they can get, which getting a feat would cut into. Good idea for Rogues though. can get in an extra sneak attack, and because a concentration check's DC is based on the amount of damage, you can theoretically make that concentration check higher, while also forcing disadvantage on them. Plus Rogues get those extra feats anyway, so you're not really losing too much.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's a feat now. Mage Slayer, to be specific.

and it's a pretty good feat. AoO on creatures within 5. ft casting a spell, advantage on saves against spells cast by creatures within 5 ft of you, and when you damage a creature that is concentrating on a spell, it has disadvantage on the concentration check.

Not the best for Monk, to be honest. Single hit damage output isn't the best, and Monks need all the ability scores they can get, which getting a feat would cut into. Good idea for Rogues though. can get in an extra sneak attack, and because a concentration check's DC is based on the amount of damage, you can theoretically make that concentration check higher, while also forcing disadvantage on them. Plus Rogues get those extra feats anyway, so you're not really losing too much.

Yeah I'm aware, but it's irrelevant, esp. as Feats are optional in 5E (not 1D&D, thankfully), and have an extremely high opportunity cost at levels below 12, as you correctly point out.

It still doesn't let you interrupt spells, either, which is key to being a real PITA skirmisher.

My point is solely that, because this isn't built in, and there's essentially no spell interruption short of stuff like our old buddy Stunning Strike (the "time is a flat circle" of Monk discussions), and as you say, Monks don't do terrifying damage (though solid, respectable, sure), not even situationally, there's very little value in being a skirmisher.

What I might propose for 1D&D as a partial fix to Monks whilst retaining the skirmisher role would be to create a condition which:

A) Prevented spellcasting or certain kinds of special ability usage from monsters (could keyword it). Perhaps ranged attacks too.

B) Was primarily applied by Monks.

C) Wasn't a stun, and thus, didn't take up the vast design space Stunning Strike does.

If you had that, a skirmisher running into the backline and making trouble could be an absolute nightmare, even if their damage was merely solid.

 

[tetrasodium]

this comes from an intersection of internet multiplayer gaming culture and D&D 3.5E being having extremely huge variances in how good classes were. Technically I believe one of the Tekken games was the first to have it's characters rated in a tier system in a way that got attention. Lists existed before that but didn't get much attention. That was in 2005, and I believe it was the very next year, 2006, that we saw the first D&D tier list, the tier list form already having matured significantly, and that was of 3.5E classes. It was quite controversial, some people were outraged that one might even attempt such a thing, but I'd largely agree with it myself.

Once that had happened, people increasingly started making "build guides" for 3.5E, just as they did for other MMORPGs, CRPGs, MOBAs etc., which resulted in rating individual choices and so on.

That timeframe is about the same time that things like toonami started running anime during prime time US tv. A good number of the shows* on it used those kinds of rankings where it likely had a much much more mundane [gradeschool] origin. Make a guide with well known A-F rankings & need to add some stuff from a new supplement that exceeds the old rankings by a great deal... just copying the S rank from anime saves the trouble of having to rerank everything or deal with some versions of the guide being in conflict with each other.

*Some of which are still on the air getting new episodes in some form of continue/reboot/reimagine/etc

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Yeah I'm aware, but it's irrelevant, esp. as Feats are optional in 5E (not 1D&D, thankfully), and have an extremely high opportunity cost at levels below 12, as you correctly point out.

Haven't played 5e in a while, but I'm pretty sure the zeitgeist is still generally "wait, feats and multiclassing are optional?" Might've changed, I dunno.

The opportunity cost isn't super bad for Rogues, at least though, they get extra feats and only really need DEX.

It still doesn't let you interrupt spells, either, which is key to being a real PITA skirmisher.

Pretty sure just straight up killing the caster would interrupt the spell pretty well.

My point is solely that, because this isn't built in, and there's essentially no spell interruption short of stuff like our old buddy Stunning Strike (the "time is a flat circle" of Monk discussions), and as you say, Monks don't do terrifying damage (though solid, respectable, sure), not even situationally, there's very little value in being a skirmisher.

I had the idea of giving the Monk basically "auto disengage" passed a certain level. Like, after moving X number of feet you count as if you have taken the Disengage action. Would synergize well with the Monk's extra movement speed and Step of the Wind. Combine that will all of the extra attacks and Monks can be the ones who run around sticking minor damage to multiple enemies on the field potentially killing off the weaker ones, while also having the ability to sprint to the back line and lay down the hurt on ranged baddies.

A) Prevented spellcasting or certain kinds of special ability usage from monsters (could keyword it). Perhaps ranged attacks too.

B) Was primarily applied by Monks.

C) Wasn't a stun, and thus, didn't take up the vast design space Stunning Strike does.

That I feel could be a subclass thing, I think. Call it "Way of the Spell Breaker" or something, and flavor it as the Monk going "You're cheating enlightenment by using magic."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That timeframe is about the same time that things like toonami started running anime during prime time US tv. A good number of the shows* on it used those kinds of rankings where it likely had a much much more mundane [gradeschool] origin. Make a guide with well known A-F rankings & need to add some stuff from a new supplement that exceeds the old rankings by a great deal... just copying the S rank from anime saves the trouble of having to rerank everything or deal with some versions of the guide being in conflict with each other.

*Some of which are still on the air getting new episodes in some form of continue/reboot/reimagine/etc

That's interesting but I don't think that's likely, because it'd been in common usage in videogames for some years at that point.

The first videogame usage seems to be in 1994/1995, but whilst I don't remember if it was Gran Turismo 1 (1997) or Gran Turismo 2 (1999), it was in fairly common usages, because it was used for grades of licences among other things. Indeed, I daresay if we looked carefully at Japanese-made PSX1 games a lot in that era, we'd find multiple usages. I know when I saw it in Gran Turismo, it was already something I was familiar with.

So I find the "anime" explanation to be weird because it's long after people were exposed to it.

Also note that early guides didn't use the A-F+S grading, generally - and D&D guides have proven somewhat resistant to it, more often using colour or number-based ratings.

Pretty sure just straight up killing the caster would interrupt the spell pretty well.

Uh-huh, except here's the problem:

The amount of HP casters have in 5E, compared to the DPR of even optimized Monks means that's incredibly unlikely beyond a string of high-rolling crits.

So that doesn't work.

But Stunning Strike does. Unfortunately it's insanely powerful so takes up huge design space.

I had the idea of giving the Monk basically "auto disengage" passed a certain level. Like, after moving X number of feet you count as if you have taken the Disengage action. Would synergize well with the Monk's extra movement speed and Step of the Wind. Combine that will all of the extra attacks and Monks can be the ones who run around sticking minor damage to multiple enemies on the field potentially killing off the weaker ones, while also having the ability to sprint to the back line and lay down the hurt on ranged baddies.

I mean, this isn't really the problem.

Monks are already pretty good at reaching their target. It's doing anything but Stunning Strike when they get there that's the issue.

You generally cannot "kill off" weaker enemies with the solid-but-unremarkable damage Monks do in 5E. Even where you can, Monks are vast inferior to the role than pretty much ANY full caster (because virtually all full casters in 5E have some at least decent ranged AOE spells).

You can see this pretty easily just by looking at the HP values of mobs of an appropriate CR for a Hard encounter for a Monk. You're not taking them down in one round unless things go spectacularly. Sometimes not even then.

That I feel could be a subclass thing, I think. Call it "Way of the Spell Breaker" or something, and flavor it as the Monk going "You're cheating enlightenment by using magic."

To me that's missing the point.

The entire class is designed as a skirmisher.

To make only one subclass actually good at skirmishing seems a little bit silly.

 

[Clint_L]

But if the group all want to be at the same power level, the idea of "no powergaming" from a DM is literally "I don't know how/want to do my job and balance for a more powerful party".

A DM telling an entire group to tone it down is a red flag of a poor DM, or maybe a lazy DM running a pre-made module they think doesn't need to be customized to their party.

Not loving the over-generalization here. I don't enjoy power gaming, and it's not because I'm a poor DM, not because I am running a pre-made module (90% of my adventures are home-brew). It's because I think power gaming is usually detrimental to running a game that is focused on character and story development, which is my whole thing. And I'm the one doing all the work.

And sure, you can be a power-gamer who is big into roleplay. But I haven't run into many. YVMV.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's interesting but I don't think that's likely, because it'd been in common usage in videogames for some years at that point.

The first videogame usage seems to be in 1994/1995, but whilst I don't remember if it was Gran Turismo 1 (1997) or Gran Turismo 2 (1999), it was in fairly common usages, because it was used for grades of licences among other things. Indeed, I daresay if we looked carefully at Japanese-made PSX1 games a lot in that era, we'd find multiple usages. I know when I saw it in Gran Turismo, it was already something I was familiar with.

So I find the "anime" explanation to be weird because it's long after people were exposed to it.

Also note that early guides didn't use the A-F+S grading, generally - and D&D guides have proven somewhat resistant to it, more often using colour or number-based ratings.

Uh-huh, except here's the problem:

The amount of HP casters have in 5E, compared to the DPR of even optimized Monks means that's incredibly unlikely beyond a string of high-rolling crits.

So that doesn't work.

But Stunning Strike does. Unfortunately it's insanely powerful so takes up huge design space.

I mean, this isn't really the problem.

Monks are already pretty good at reaching their target. It's doing anything but Stunning Strike when they get there that's the issue.

You generally cannot "kill off" weaker enemies with the solid-but-unremarkable damage Monks do in 5E. Even where you can, Monks are vast inferior to the role than pretty much ANY full caster (because virtually all full casters in 5E have some at least decent ranged AOE spells).

You can see this pretty easily just by looking at the HP values of mobs of an appropriate CR for a Hard encounter for a Monk. You're not taking them down in one round unless things go spectacularly. Sometimes not even then.

To me that's missing the point.

The entire class is designed as a skirmisher.

To make only one subclass actually good at skirmishing seems a little bit silly.

Toonami started in 99 but anime existed long before that(even on US tv like scifi channel & hbo).. Also you are talking about video games played on a console manufactured by 任天堂株式会社 & ソニーグループ株式会社? I never played either of those but pretty sure they were console games. My point was less anime as the source than the letter grades commonly used in japan that anime also made references to