D&D (2024) 75 Feats -- not nearly enough

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, count me in as someone who fundamentally disagrees with you here. They sometimes understand the math better. Is that what you mean? They are aware of the broken combos more? Maybe. But know the game better? No.

That bit about "broken combos" is pretty central to a lot of the "powergamer" CharOp hate being thrown around in recent posts, but it's critical to differentiate the difference between "being aware of" & "abusing to negative results". More often than not in my experience (especially in 5e☆) the player type most likely to be someone with a poor or very shallow understanding of the game who found a guide for a "broken combo" that got presented as a joke clickbait or thought experiment. Players with a deeper understanding know enough to proactively & reactively see where optimization goes too far and understand how to fit in with the party without being obvious or grumpy about it. The player who is just following a thought experiment guide lacks the system knowledge to progress beyond DOMINANCE through rote skriptkiddie style repetition of the specific thing they were walked though lacks the depth & breadth of knowledge needed to chart their own course in order to fit the group. The TTRPG equivalent of a skriptkiddie tends to be known as a munchkin.

Also - there are plenty of people who understand all of those things and chose not to power game. Are you sure that you're not doing that ENWorld faux-pas of acting like a PLAYSTYLE CHOICE is somehow superior to others?

I have to agree with @Horwath there seems to be quite a few posts in the last few pages that seem to be saying rather clearly that "powergamers" & those who engage in CharOp are engaging in some form of bad & inferior style of play. It seems that you only took issue with statements about powergamers tending to have a deeper understanding of the rules to games they play. Knowledge & understanding is incapable of being a playstyle... what one does with that knowledge & how they apply it at the table during play is playstyle

On a certain level. They don't necessarily wind up with anyone who's at all like Legolas. Just "the most powerful archer that D&D can make".


Yup. That's a problem.


I agree that Powergamers ought to have a PASS at the rules, if only to talk about what NOT to do. Though I would use Optimizers here - there are CharOp-minded people who aren't really Powergamers, and those are the people that I would prefer handle it.

☆ It shifts negatice powergaming skriptkiddie/munchkin types to the forfront by making charop beyond any reasonable baseline such a low bar to make it more than good enough for pretty much any build not actively engaged in self harm when its turn comes around because it takes zero knowledge opportunity cost or effort to launch a PC into problematic "broken" areas

 

[FitzTheRuke]

And if you want diverse I find anti-powergamers to be the actual problem cases ... because a very large proportion are fundamentally opposed to roleplaying.

Mmm. I've never seen an "anti-powergamer" who wasn't also a "method actor"-type player, so I'm not sure how you can think of them as opposed to roleplaying. Maybe they don't want to play a "hero"?

D&D is, when you get down to it about playing someone who goes into life threatening situations exploring dungeons and fighting dragons.

Sure, but there's a lot of reasons that a person might find themselves doing that - without being the perfect person for the job. Also, the game is already designed (whether you like how it's designed or not) for any PC, no matter how badly built, to be better-than-average at the act of Adventuring.

A powergamer is someone who wants to play a character who, when they go into life threatening situations, has as good a chance of survival as reasonably possible. This is accepting the premise and responding in a fundamentally appropriate way.

Those are the "good" power gamers, sure. Some just want to be more powerful than the other players, or more powerful than the DM's monsters, or other disruptive stuff. The "bad" ones - which is why they get such a bad rap. While it's perfectly possible (as I noted above) for Power Gamers to Belong, that's not where their bad rap comes from!

Powergamers are legion, and the details of how they do this varies a lot. It strongly correlates with an understanding of the details of the mechanics of the game, and there is a group of powergamers that to be blunt can't see the forest for the trees.

Those bad apples tend to ruin the bunch, sadly.

Meanwhile anti-powergamers, to hold this position, need to reject one of the premises:

• The game is about people in dangerous situations fighting for survival
• If you are fighting for survival an appropriate response for many people is to try hard not to die. And a good way to do that is by being strong and prepared - in other words power gaming.

Mmm. Again, I think that you're missing that most "anti-powergamers" (who barely exist, IME) are probably one of two things: 1) They don't want to play a game of oneupmanship where the DM just winds up throwing tougher monsters at them to make up for their powerful characters; or 2) They want to triumph through adversity or win while being an underdog. Or just play someone who ought not to be there, in the situation they're in.

Or they're a jerk. That happens too (though not as often, if only because I don't think that very many people build purposefully "weak" characters).

The first is rejecting the premise of the game, and the second is rejecting roleplaying.

Nah, it's just a different choice.

(What normally happens in these cases IME is a whole lot of railroading GM fiat to keep people alive and the premise isn't true,; characters are in as much danger as actors on a set).

Man, and here there's a LOT of posters who think that D&D is currently stuck on "easy mode" - you make it sound like it's hard to survive without Power Gaming! I really don't think it IS, and yet - I'm not an Anti-Powergamer any more than I'm a Powergamer. Nor do I entirely agree that the game is stuck on easy-mode.

Now none of this prevents local metagames and etiquette. Trying to play pun-pun in an actual game would be silly. And a big part of the point of game design is to try to make something that works for all players and doesn't lead to Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit situations.

Absolutely.

I've seen it happen.

Sure, I misspoke above. I meant that it doesn't happen in good faith. Not that no one ever scoffs needlessly at other people's playstyles. That obviously happens far too often.

People get sneered at by bad game designers writing in thee rulebooks excusing their bad game design by calling it "rollplaying not roleplaying" to excuse their failure to design a robust system.

Design Failure? Maybe they just have different priorties to what you're looking for?

And people do post in threads claiming that powergamers are a problem in and of themselves - as happened right here in this thread.

Did it? I must have missed that. But I believe you.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It seems that you only took issue with statements about powergamers tending to have a deeper understanding of the rules to games they play.

Yes, that's right.

Knowledge & understanding is incapable of being a playstyle... what one does with that knowledge & how they apply it at the table during play is playstyle.

I've never agreed with you more. (And I don't mean that to sound like a backhanded compliment - I mean it as a sincere compliment).

 

[Bacon Bits]

you cannot break the game without knowing the game.

No, I think it requires only one person to have success and convince others that their white room is reasonably fungible. After that it's merely power gaming by concensus.

"Ok Google, what are the best spells in 5e D&D?"
"Ok Google, how do I do the most damage in 5e D&D?"
"OK Google, what are the best forms to use for Polymorph?"
"OK Google, what is the best Hexblade multiclass build?"

They find a guide from treantmonk or rpgbot built with community knowledge, take note of everything in gold font or whatever the S-tier is, and call it a day. There isn't really any personal game mastery or design skill required to be a power gamer anymore. If you're playing any kind of game where power gaming is really effective, then you're invariably going to find a community of people online talking about "builds" or "metas" with coined terms like Sorcadin or Coffeelock.

You're not using your own knowledge or exercising any personal skill. You don't need to. You'll have better results in less time by leveraging the community. You're a net builder, not a power gamer. No knowledge required. Follow the pattern, and mash the one button it gives you.

 

[Neonchameleon]

you cannot break the game without knowing the game.

Not true at all. I can think of three low mastery ways unbalanced games get broken. All D&D 3.X examples.

1: You play a strongly thematic build that happens to be way above the curve. It doesn't take much to say "I'm a bear of a man and a bear druid who turns into a bear, has a bear companion, and summons bears". But in 3.5 if you do that you make the fighter pretty irrelevant.

2: You approach things sideways in a way that works. If in PF1e you use your Eidolon for combat as a Summoner you're a strong half-caster. If you use your Eidolon for scouting they can outscout any reasonable rogue. And that frees you up to exploit Summon Monster for combat giving you a ridiculous expendible high damage meatwall every combat.

3: most common is that you net deck it. You didn't make the build. Someone else had the mastery to make it and you're copying their homework.

Power gaming doesn't require system mastery.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think we have concluded that people with good System Mastery might make for good Power Gamers, but not necessarily the other way around.

Which is the only issue I had with @Horwath 's original assertion. That and the IMO undisputable fact that there are plenty of people with good System Mastery that aren't Power Gamers by the simple fact that they have other preferred playstyles.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think we have concluded that people with good System Mastery might make for good Power Gamers, but not necessarily the other way around.

Which is the only issue I had with @Horwath 's original assertion. That and the IMO undisputable fact that there are plenty of people with good System Mastery that aren't Power Gamers by the simple fact that they have other preferred playstyles.

To a degree I think that something entirely different has been established. Specifically the fact that 5e's simplifications & streamlined class design has elevated munchkinism to a point where it is now indistinguishable from & accepted as powergaming. Post 304 shows quite clearly how knowledge &understanding is no longer at all needed to achieve S tier results when the path to it is little more than a nonbranching line.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

To a degree I think that something entirely different has been established. Specifically the fact that 5e's simplifications & streamlined class design has elevated munchkinism to a point where it is now indistinguishable from & accepted as powergaming. Post 304 shows quite clearly how knowledge &understanding is no longer at all needed to achieve S tier results when the path to it is little more than a nonbranching line.

I think that here you have a theory that has merit, but I'm not sure that it's been established. For one, the difference between "munchkinism" and "power gaming" (while I think your definitions work well) has been argued since the terms both began, without, AFAIK, much consensus.

For another, while I think that much of what you seem to me to be advocating for in most threads would make D&D a better game, you have a tendency, as you do here, to write as if your problems with 5e are well-established facts that no-one disagrees with. And yet, I think you find that a lot of people here disagree with you.

I find that I don't disagree with your ideas, but I sometimes can't get past the strength of your assertions. For example, here - Has 5e "elevated Munchkinism"? I'm not sure that I agree. IME the "worst" edition for Munchkinism was 3.5 (also Power Gaming, if we use your separation of both). And IF Munchkinism is worse today, it's more because of the ubiquitousness of CharOp Guides (now more commonly in the form of "How To YouTube videos") and not (necessarily) something inherent in 5e.

But as usual, my thoughts on the subject are not fully formed.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Mmm. I've never seen an "anti-powergamer" who wasn't also a "method actor"-type player, so I'm not sure how you can think of them as opposed to roleplaying. Maybe they don't want to play a "hero"?

One thing about Method Actors - a significant number of them use it as an excuse for being jerks. If we're talking about a few bad apples ruining the bunch in the same context as method actors should I bring up Jared Leto on the set of Suicide Squad?

But they are opposed to roleplaying because they want to prevent others from roleplaying. Because they want to prevent others taking reasonable precautions against getting killed.

Sure, but there's a lot of reasons that a person might find themselves doing that - without being the perfect person for the job.

Which is entirely irrelevant. The fundamental starting position of anti-powergamers is yucking someone else's yum and saying that others are having badwrongfun.

And the perfect person for the job would have straight 18s as starting stats. No one who is sticking by the rules is trying to do that.

Also, the game is already designed (whether you like how it's designed or not) for any PC, no matter how badly built, to be better-than-average at the act of Adventuring.

"Better than average" against a dragon just tastes slightly salty. The premise of the game involves taking on threats that seem overwhelming.

Those are the "good" power gamers, sure. Some just want to be more powerful than the other players, or more powerful than the DM's monsters,

Either you are objecting to the level system of D&D (where monsters get outleveled) or you are objecting to bad game design and poor balance; if balance is good then characters of about the same level are about the same power level.

or other disruptive stuff. The "bad" ones - which is why they get such a bad rap. While it's perfectly possible (as I noted above) for Power Gamers to Belong, that's not where their bad rap comes from!

And as I've noted above their bad rap comes in part from bad game designers writing screeds about people who take their games seriously.

Those bad apples tend to ruin the bunch, sadly.

The bunch of course being the table they were at. And the ruined being the anti-powergamers who are compelled to accuse others of badwrongfun. And to oppose people taking premises seriously.

Mmm. Again, I think that you're missing that most "anti-powergamers" (who barely exist, IME)

They are common on message boards. They've got a lot less common since 2007 with the fall of White Wolf and the obsoleting of 3.x

The key thing about an anti-powergamer is that they feel the need to whine about others' choices.

are probably one of two things: 1) They don't want to play a game of oneupmanship where the DM just winds up throwing tougher monsters at them to make up for their powerful characters;

Blame the game designers.

or 2) They want to triumph through adversity or win while being an underdog.

Because in a remotely balanced game of humsn vs dragon the human would ever not be the underdog. Sorry, no.

Or just play someone who ought not to be there, in the situation they're in.

This is also nothing to do with being an anti-powergamer. If you want to play someone who ought not to be there then do that. You do you.

An anti-powergamer however isn't someone who plays what they want. They are someone who claims that if someone else is playing someone who ought to be there they are powergaming. They want to force everyone to play people who ought not to be there.

Or they're a jerk. That happens too (though not as often, if only because I don't think that very many people build purposefully "weak" characters).

Yeah. This is rare.

Nah, it's just a different choice.

Nope. If you are just making a different choice and can live and let live you aren't actually anti-anything.

Man, and here there's a LOT of posters who think that D&D is currently stuck on "easy mode" - you make it sound like it's hard to survive without Power Gaming!

No. I make it sound like the characters should in-setting be scared for their lives and to not be so is to reject the premise of the scenario. And that the characters should therefore respond appropriately with things like the best gear and spell selection they can reasonably obtain, knowing their lives are on the line. (And a key thing about D&D is that spell selection is critical - and for clerics, druids, paladins, wizards, and artificers this is a largely in character choice)

This is true regardless of whether death is even a possibility in the system.

And yes characters can be wrong about what the best actually is. For that matter so can players. But to criticise others for making the attempt is actively hostile to roleplaying.

Design Failure? Maybe they just have different priorties to what you're looking for?

The Cybertruck looking like PS1 graphics is different priorities. The Cybertruck rusting easily is a Problem.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think that here you have a theory that has merit, but I'm not sure that it's been established. For one, the difference between "munchkinism" and "power gaming" (while I think your definitions work well) has been argued since the terms both began, without, AFAIK, much consensus.

For another, while I think that much of what you seem to me to be advocating for in most threads would make D&D a better game, you have a tendency, as you do here, to write as if your problems with 5e are well-established facts that no-one disagrees with. And yet, I think you find that a lot of people here disagree with you.

I find that I don't disagree with your ideas, but I sometimes can't get past the strength of your assertions. For example, here - Has 5e "elevated Munchkinism"? I'm not sure that I agree. IME the "worst" edition for Munchkinism was 3.5 (also Power Gaming, if we use your separation of both). And IF Munchkinism is worse today, it's more because of the ubiquitousness of CharOp Guides (now more commonly in the form of "How To YouTube videos") and not (necessarily) something inherent in 5e.

But as usual, my thoughts on the subject are not fully formed.

While one could say that "I think X is a problem because of $specificMechanic $specificResult & how it causes $specificProblems" is an opinion. There is a difference between a disagreement based entirely on opinion that doesn't even attempt at any support beyond mere preference and a disagreement explained to be based reasons that extend beyond mere opinion. That difference is that one can be discussed on its (de)merits and the other is mere preference where any discussion immediately crashes into the problem of a right & werong way to play.