D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[hawkeyefan]

Playing D&D requires both the ability to engage with rules and the ability to roleplay in some way. The idea that someone cannot be good at both of these things is just silly, and clearly anecdotal. I know a whole bunch of folks who are good at both. I honestly think that's the point of RPGs... the synthesis of rules and roleplay.

The idea that players should not be concerned with the rules or engage with them in a skillful way is an odd expectation for a game like D&D. And while I personally find some rules combinations or exploits to be annoying or frustrating, I don't really blame the players for those instances... they seem more about the game design than anything else.

For instance, I am playing a wizard in my current 5e game, with nothing beyond the PHB. Another player is playing a multiclassed paladin/warlock and using some options from Tasha's and also Strixhaven. There are elements of that character that I think are imbalanced compared to PHB only options. I find some of them a bit annoying and too good.

But I don't blame that player. Nor do I think that my character is less effective, overall. I think some of the additional books that have come along just allow for some amount of power creep in the options they offer. I think it's a flaw in the design approach, and the need to continue to produce content for the players.

I don't blame players for wanting to use that content, though. They're also available to me when I play, and when I GM they're a minor obstacle at most.

 

[Stormonu]

I mean, it's harder than it used to be, right? We used to have to house-rule the game to keep PCs alive...we really don't have to do that anymore.

No, not really - players used to be more cautious in older editions. I find in 5E that a lot of players are overconfident that their abilities will get them out of any sort of jam they fall into. Too many times I've seen PCs leap into combats or other situations where they were waaay over their heads that a 1E/2E party would have been looking for a way around, mitigate or avoid altogether.

 

[Greg Benage]

No, not really - players used to be more cautious in older editions. I find in 5E that a lot of players are overconfident that their abilities will get them out of any sort of jam they fall into. Too many times I've seen PCs leap into combats or other situations where they were waaay over their heads that a 1E/2E party would have been looking for a way around, mitigate or avoid altogether.

C'mon, man. "Dead at 0 hp" and "save or die," considering no other differences, made classic D&D a completely different beast, no matter how cautious you were. Gary Flipping Gygax house-ruled his own rules for hit points and dying!

But, even setting that aside, what you're saying is that players were more cautious--if true, they were more cautious because it was so freaking easy to die!

 

[payn]

C'mon, man. "Dead at 0 hp" and "save or die," considering no other differences, made classic D&D a completely different beast, no matter how cautious you were. Gary Flipping Gygax house-ruled his own rules for hit points and dying!

But, even setting that aside, what you're saying is that players were more cautious--if true, they were more cautious because it was so freaking easy to die!

Yeap, old school felt more like the movie the cube or saw. I do think the modern game is a little too easy to navigate and thus doesn't have much of any edge. Not sure how to dial it in right.

 

[Greg Benage]

Yeap, old school felt more like the movie the cube or saw. I do think the modern game is a little too easy to navigate and thus doesn't have much of any edge. Not sure how to dial it in right.

My last campaign ended in a TPK during Round 2 with Auril, so apparently I don't know how to dial it right either.

j/k it was totally the players' fault.

 

[Maxperson]

They really can't though. One breath weapon will do for them, and succeeding at the saving throw (also very hard for them) won't matter.

With the number of commoners it would take(say a decent sized town to get enough fighting folk), one breath weapon won't do it. A lot of them will die, but so will the dragon. Gone are the days when a dragon could destroy a town or attack a city and win.

 

[iserith]

With the number of commoners it would take(say a decent sized town to get enough fighting folk), one breath weapon won't do it. A lot of them will die, but so will the dragon. Gone are the days when a dragon could destroy a town or attack a city and win.

Tell that to Greenest.

 

[Greg Benage]

With the number of commoners it would take(say a decent sized town to get enough fighting folk), one breath weapon won't do it. A lot of them will die, but so will the dragon. Gone are the days when a dragon could destroy a town or attack a city and win.

Why doesn't he just fly away until his breath weapon is recharged? Seems like a dragon should have figured that bit out.

 

[Greg Benage]

Tell that to Greenest.

Tell that to Two Towns (formerly Ten Towns).

 

[Maxperson]

Where ya at, Max? I'll make the trip just to show you how wrong this is, but I am tired of correcting "iTs hArD 2 kIlL pCs" online.

Sure. If you contrive to have everything hit PCs while they're down you can do it with an encounter or two, or if you place a creature waaaay above their CR. I hit my group with hard encounters on a regular basis, and other than when they make a bad decision, none of the PCs die. They will ultimately win, though.