D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[Panzeh]

Generally, i kinda presume in d&d that warlock, paladin, and cleric power source isn't important and that the mechanical stuff is fixed to them because they're not really gaining any extra power over anyone else for it. If we were playing something like GURPS, a warlock pact is a disadvantage or credit on powers that I will absolutely tap with consequences for failure, but in d&d, they're not balanced with that in mind, so I don't mess with it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As stated multiple times already, this is the Stormwind Fallacy, a disproven myth that has teeth because it "feels truthy". That part isn't up for discussion, that's already be long discredited.

Yeah what gets me about this is, people repeating it, it's like, really, you believe that? You've playing D&D for this long, and you believe that? Like honestly?

Because I feel it's this thing people say that's completely unreflective, that they seriously haven't thought about. I could have told you it was false after playing AD&D for about 2 years.

There's just really no correlation whatsoever. The ex-munchkin powergamer in my group is a pretty strong RPer and very keen to RP, often coming up with elaborate lines of RP, too, and often coming with much more in-depth backstories for his PCs than other players, ones which often tie in usefully to the world. He'll often have the most optimized melee combatant in the party, but he's also the most likely to have actually detailed friends/relatives etc. in the setting, and will be great at taking onboard setting facts and using them and so on.

And I've certainly seen the reverse, too.

In fact, if I think hard, I'd say if there's any correlation at all, it's between at least some attempted optimization and being more into RPing the character. Not always competent optimization, but people who care tend to try. Even that's not always true though. I have one player who selects whatever they think sounds cool/fun with no real regard for optimization in D&D (not all RPGs, bizarrely, he was really thinking hard over what to pick for his Medium Advance in Spire!), and also does a good job RP'ing.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone who has played 5 or 10 or 15 or more years has never seen a PC who was optimized and RP'd well, or vice-versa.

 

[Redwizard007]

It would seem Wikipedia--with actual citations, I might add--disagrees. Bolded for emphasis.

"Another form of powergaming involves a focus on acquiring power during game progression, often by acquiring powerful equipment or unusual abilities. This lends itself to gameplay which is materialistic (and often, in the context of the game world, arguably amoral) and can frustrate other players who are looking to interact with the game world, score points, and not merely acquire game resources.[2] Another term for a powergamer is a munchkin,[3] who may be differentiated from normal powergamers to describe players who seek to acquire power and loot at the expense and disregard of their teammates.[4]"

Based on the above, "munchkin" is to "powergamer" as "square" is to "rectangle." You may not automatically be a munchkin if you're a powergamer, but every munchkin is a powergamer. Which fits perfectly into my claim that powergaming brings the temptation to do things in a crappy, socially-destructive way, a temptation that can be extremely strong because, in most D&D games, you need to be able to win fights quickly and efficiently if you want to succeed at your objectives.

Wikipedia, while not usually way off the mark, is not what most would consider a source worth citing. It is, however, a good starting point and often has links that lead to more established sources.

As a powergamer, I can confirm that they missed the mark here. I min-max and optimize almost every character I make, within a given concept, but if someone accused me of being a munchkin we'd be calling in seconds and finding a quiet spot in the woods for a duel.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Speaking for my table. I have never allowed feats and multiclassing and my game runs perfectly smooth.

That proves nothing at all about the actual effect of feats and multiclassing. That's like saying 'I have never played D&D with Theater of the Mind and my game runs perfectly fine'. Good for you, but it's not making the point you're trying to make.

And no, powergaming is a real thing, not just an insult or an imaginary problem.

It's an insult for a far broader thing that isn't a problem in and of itself.

On the other hand, I find the tone you use to talk to people here quite insulting.

Apologies good sir. I'll instead just start accusing people who use options I disagree with of ruining the game, which as we all know is the polite way to comport ourselves.

 

[Umbran]

Apologies good sir. I'll instead just start accusing people who use options I disagree with of ruining the game, which as we all know is the polite way to comport ourselves.

Mod Note:
So, if this is going to go snarky, it might as well stop now.

If the discussion isn't going to be respectful, don't have the conversation.

 

[MwaO]

Your numbers in that post are a bit off. The AC of monsters is designed so that a PC always has a 65% chance to-hit if they are using the standard array and following the assumed progression*. Monster HP in the DMG is wildly off from what WotC actually publishes. Blog of Holding broke down the math some time ago. And that math has held throughout 5E.

The trouble is the designers broke things out and designed around the assumed adventuring day instead of a single encounter, like in 4E. So you either run heaps of combat in a day, let the PCs steamroll everything, or do weird stuff like simply deny them a rest until they’ve completed enough encounters or jack up every fight to at least deadly.

* Highest array stat in your primary attack stat and increasing your primary stat at 4th and 8th. Along with prof bonus this means you always have to roll an 8 or better on the d20 to-hit.

I did just that. It comes out in a way that can replicate the official stuff but it’s flexible like 4E monster design. Still a whole lot of eyeballing.

Yup, all this. I think in general, Jeremy Crawford(or someone who works for Crawford) sets out design guidelines, and then R&D kind of follows them? Part of the problem of fuzziness in game design is sometimes no one is clear what one hand is doing — as an example, 5e's typical campaign hands out 1 good permanent magic item per 4 levels, 1 good consumable per level. You likely end up with the equivalent of a +3 weapon if that's something important to you.You just don't have assurances of specifically a +3 weapon. Which ends up with a lot of mess — Adventurer's League has strong incentives to hand out double the magic items of a typical 5e campaign as an example.

I redid the spellcaster NPCs in 5e in 2016 to be more 4e style design — all spells and effects on a single page, hp more monster style, and put them on dmsguild. Worked out well, made over $100 from them so far.

 

[Umbran]

As a powergamer, I can confirm that they missed the mark here.

As a sometimes powergamer, if you include the next phrase, "...who may be differentiated from normal powergamers..." then the mark seems hit, to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Generally, i kinda presume in d&d that warlock, paladin, and cleric power source isn't important and that the mechanical stuff is fixed to them because they're not really gaining any extra power over anyone else for it. If we were playing something like GURPS, a warlock pact is a disadvantage or credit on powers that I will absolutely tap with consequences for failure, but in d&d, they're not balanced with that in mind, so I don't mess with it.

That is how it works in D&D. I just feel making the choice to hitch your star to another being for power should have some teeth to it, and am a little irked that the default rules basically encourage you to not care about that, because it makes no difference mechanically.

 

[Pedantic]

That is how it works in D&D. I just feel making the choice to hitch your star to another being for power should have some teeth to it, and am a little irked that the default rules basically encourage you to not care about that, because it makes no difference mechanically.

I generally agree that the narrative justification for warlock magic should be reflected mechanically, but I'm not sure that losing class abilities is a particularly good way to do that. I would have worked whatever the "favors" for your patron are into spell recovery explicitly, for example, much the same way clerics have to pray or wizards study.

Or, perhaps you could do something with marks, giving you a physical or mystical signature weirdness what calls you out as a warlock, playing off the idea of being "marked" by the bargain.

It just feels wasteful to provide an interesting narrative, and then tie it a class that could just as easily be representing a hundred other things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I generally agree that the narrative justification for warlock magic should be reflected mechanically, but I'm not sure that losing class abilities is a particularly good way to do that. I would have worked whatever the "favors" for your patron are into spell recovery explicitly, for example, much the same way clerics have to pray or wizards study.

Or, perhaps you could do something with marks, giving you a physical or mystical signature weirdness what calls you out as a warlock, playing off the idea of being "marked" by the bargain.

It just feels wasteful to provide an interesting narrative, and then tie it a class that could just as easily be representing a hundred other things.

I'm open to different ways to make that character choice matter. As it stands in the rules, however, it doesn't.