D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

What I distill from these responses is: "Only concerned with mechanics/exploits" and "Don't care about other players' fun." Although I wouldn't be best pleased at players behaving this way, I'm not sure I'd necessarily associate these things with optimizing/powergaming. They are just problematic behaviors on their own. Certainly I can imagine, for example, a player not great at builds or tactics who doesn't care about others fun. Or, conversely, I could imagine a person not concerned with mechanics at all being problematic at some tables (perhaps because they slow things down a lot).
I‘d agree with this. How powerful a pc is is rarely a problem on its own; it’s often a symptom of a deeper issue but not always.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Clint_L

Hero
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.
I would definitely not arrange the tears like that, and I mention it just to underscore how subjective this all is. For instance, I would definitely put fighters and paladins at S tier, and for me the only S tier caster is the bard...and maybe Twilight clerics. Probably Twilight clerics. Other clerics I would put at A tier, along with Wizards, Druids, and Barbarians. I agree that sorcerers are underwhelming (C tier), but I consider warlocks quite good, if a bit one dimensional (A/B tier). Rogues are a B, Rangers a C. Artificers...I'm still getting a handle because I don't have much experience with them at high levels; at low levels I would call them B tier. Monks are D tier, C for Way of Mercy and maybe Way of Shadow.

But I don't consider power gaming to be derived just from the class or even the sub-class. It's when you start getting into very specific multi-class, feat, and species combinations, or when you start looking for basically broken spell/ability combinations that I start rolling my eyes. Like, as soon as I see the pole arm mastery/sentinel combination coming out, I'm on my guard. It's when the player is theory crafting the absolutely optimal approach to each situation without regard to story, or telling other players what they should do. So maybe I am defining power gaming much more narrowly than some.
 

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 ;)
Oh sorry, it's definitely FROM JAPAN if that's what you're saying. Absolutely no doubt.

I can't actually think of any older Nintendo games which use it but Sony ones yeah absolutely.
 

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.
was talking specifically about Rogues there, but I understand the confusion.

But this part also goes into the next point
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.
But if you give them something in addition to Stunning Strike, which you just said is really good, then you just end up with something too good.

However, if you replace Stunning Strike, you just make them worse, because this new ability would, presumably, work primarily, if not exclusively on spellcasters.

Spellcasters are plenty dangerous, but A: They aren't going to be in every adventuring day, let alone every encounter, and B: That sort of thing wouldn't fit with the fiction of the base Monk. Monks are about being the class that sees a Dragon and says "Catch these hands.", not stopping spellcasters. That and having a base class whose primary identity is basically being a satellite, as in, orbiting around something else and pretty much doing only that, is dumb.

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.
You're missing the point, I feel.

It's not "streak passed a group of enemies dealing low damage to each of them" it's "The big hitter just ended their turn and they thing they attacked is almost dead. I'm gonna break off from what I'm doing real quick, give that guy a slap or two, and run back to what I was doing so the big hitter do all of their big hits to something else." You know, like an actual skirmisher.
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.
Really? I didn't know a skirmisher was something that was primarily supposed to deal with spellcasters. I thought it was something that ran up to the main force, pestering and weakening them, so that their main force could come in and have a much easier time of doing things.

The Monk is pretty good at doing that, honestly. Could use a bit of extra help, but they do fine as is.

Too bad Monks are the latest "This class doesn't mesh with The Meta (which is using and abusing the Warlocks great early level stuff) well so it needs to be banished and all players need to be told how if you're playing one then you might as well be playing against then party." class. Puts them with such luminaries like Ranger and Sorcerer.

That was to bring this derail back to the main discussion of the thread.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Maybe don't decide to betray your patron/god? And if suffering consequences for your own actions is somehow unfair, there are plenty of ways to make other classes suffer for making choices.
There can be other consequences beyond "you lose your class features". They can send other Warlocks/Clerics after you. They can revoke special in-game privileges that don't take away your class features. They can curse you and try to turn you into a Deathlock.

If a Wizard, Fighter, Bard, or Druid betrays their mentor/guild, they lose their in-game allies and make potential enemies. They don't lose their class features, because that would be unfun and is a disincentive for people that would play the class because the DM could force them to betray their guild/mentor and remove their class features. If you want to be fair to the classes and maximize fun, then you shouldn't remove class features from Clerics/Warlocks that betray their patron/deity.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
There can be other consequences beyond "you lose your class features". They can send other Warlocks/Clerics after you. They can revoke special in-game privileges that don't take away your class features. They can curse you and try to turn you into a Deathlock.

If a Wizard, Fighter, Bard, or Druid betrays their mentor/guild, they lose their in-game allies and make potential enemies. They don't lose their class features, because that would be unfun and is a disincentive for people that would play the class because the DM could force them to betray their guild/mentor and remove their class features. If you want to be fair to the classes and maximize fun, then you shouldn't remove class features from Clerics/Warlocks that betray their patron/deity.
No, they don't lose their class features because it would make no sense in the fiction for them to do so. And assuming the DM is gunning for you sounds like an exhausting way to play.
 

There can be other consequences beyond "you lose your class features". They can send other Warlocks/Clerics after you. They can revoke special in-game privileges that don't take away your class features.
The player and the party kills them and doesn't care.

If a Wizard, Fighter, Bard, or Druid betrays their mentor/guild, they lose their in-game allies and make potential enemies. They don't lose their class features, because that would be unfun and is a disincentive for people that would play the class because the DM could force them to betray their guild/mentor and remove their class features. If you want to be fair to the classes and maximize fun, then you shouldn't remove class features from Clerics/Warlocks that betray their patron/deity.
Actually, I'm pretty sure a Druid can lose their abilities.

And honestly? You're the one who explicitly signed up for the classes that straight up tell you "You get this power from something that is not you" and what happens with two people? They disagree.

They can curse you and try to turn you into a Deathlock.
...

seriously?

You're okay with being turned into a monster that the DM controls by default, but not with you potentially having to do something that you disagree with to get your power back?
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
No, they don't lose their class features because it would make no sense in the fiction for them to do so. And assuming the DM is gunning for you sounds like an exhausting way to play.
You could easily tweak the fiction of those classes to make it so they have a reason to lose their powers when betraying their mentors/factions. You could say "Wizard Spellbooks are magically linked with the faction/mentor that taught them magic, and if the Wizard betrays them, the Spellbook revokes their access to the magic". Or "Druids have to join a Druid Circle in order to choose their subclass, and if they betray the Druid Circle, they lose their subclass features".

And the fiction for Warlocks and Clerics in 5e doesn't support your "they lose their magic when they betray their patron". They purposefully designed the classes and their fiction in 5e so that wouldn't happen. So you clearly don't care about tweaking the fiction.

I'm not going to lie, but if a DM changed the fiction of a class in 5e to be more punishing to players and giving you more/larger consequences for your class choice than the other players, that's already a huge red flag that they're "gunning for you".
 

I'm not going to lie, but if a DM changed the fiction of a class in 5e to be more punishing to players and giving you more/larger consequences for your class choice than the other players, that's already a huge red flag that they're "gunning for you".
Or they want the players to suffer from the consequences of their actions that the players won't just blow off or ignore.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
The player and the party kills them and doesn't care.
Really? That easy? You can't even imagine a situation where it would be a game-changer to have an entire church/cult and their members hunting you down? Even if you're powerful enough to beat them, that would be a huge consequence to betraying the person that gave you magic.
Actually, I'm pretty sure a Druid can lose their abilities.
Not in 5e they can't.
And honestly? You're the one who explicitly signed up for the classes that straight up tell you "You get this power from something that is not you" and what happens with two people? They disagree.
Not in 5e. The classes are purposefully designed that the magic Clerics and Warlocks get isn't revocable.
seriously?

You're okay with being turned into a monster that the DM controls by default, but not with you potentially having to do something that you disagree with to get your power back?
They "try" to turn you into a monster. That doesn't mean they succeed. The DM could build in a side-quest to cure the curse/find a magic item that stops it. It could be a fun side quest. "You lose your class features and are useless to the party" isn't as ripe for drama and in-game tension.

What's more interesting, being a fugitive former-member of a prominent church/cult that's being hunted down by their former allies that also has to figure out how to end a curse or be turned into a monster in a certain time-frame, while also dealing with the main plot of the campaign, or just being a dude without magic because the DM/Patron has absolute authority to take away your magic at any moment.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top