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

[jasper]

117 FEATS INCLUDING THIRD PARTY
108 WOTC FEATS
88 AL LEGAL
108 -75 = 33 feats which did not make the cut but will be coming out in 2026.

 

[Bacon Bits]

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.

I wouldn't describe any of that as elements of power gaming. I would call that basic social awareness, paying attention to the other players, and simply having system mastery. To be fair, I've known a lot of TTRPG players that have been lacking in those areas. But I don't think there's anything inherently bad or toxic about power gaming.

Critically, I don't think power gaming implies any system mastery or skill. A tryhard power gamer and a successful power gamer are both power gamers. Power gaming describes a player's goals in making or playing a given character. Power gaming is about intentionally making your character powerful. It's about making your character more effective. Regardless of how successful you are, that's the behavior central to the terminology. That's the behvaior and goal it describes.

Because of that, I think power gaming is inseparable from power fantasies. Even if you're just keeping up with the Joneses, if you're power gaming then you're expressing a power fantasy as best you can. On the other hand, if you're expressing system mastery without maximizing character effectiveness, that's not power gaming. It doesn't matter if you know it or not. If you're not doing it, you're not doing it.

That isn't to say that all power gamers prioritize character power so highly that it's detrimental to role play, story, and cooperation with the other characters or players or that they're foregoing sportsmanship or anything else. It's not inherently toxic. But it's inseparably about that power fantasy, even if it's just a power fantasy relative to other hypothetical characters. That means power gaming is a style of play because it will only create certain types of characters. Further, the fact that some players power gaming and other players not being interested in power gaming can cause friction and strife at the table is partly how we know it's a style of play. That's the kind of conflict that only happens when there's a mis-matched style of play.

Meanwhile, I think terms like "munchkin" are simply purely pejorative terms for power gaming or optimization. That's why they're not really used anymore. They aren't really about how I feel about my game, and are more about how I feel about your game. It's meant to villainize. But the existence of a villainous term does not mean that power gaming is virtuous. It's neither virtuous nor villainous. It's neutral, and can only be judged in terms of how the rest of the table feels. It can only be judged by how well it matches the style of play of the rest of the table.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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?

Oh no, I loath method actors. Both as actors and as gamers. I just don't think that they can be accused of "not roleplaying".

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.

I think you're overstating how hard it is to avoid getting killed without power gaming.

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

Oh! You mean people that are against power gaming! I thought you were talking about people who engage in reverse-power gaming (like, making terribly weak characters that shouldn't be going on adventures).

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.

We have a very different idea of what "perfect for the job" means. I'm speaking of in-world people who are very good at what they do, with little consideration for the specific numbers of the mechanics.

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

Yes, and people with 16s in their prime stats are perfectly capable of doing it. And 16s are considered quite rare and exceptional people in their communities.

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.

Okay? I'm losing your train of thought.

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.

You're not required to be a power gamer to "take your game seriously" - but I can understand why you'd not like someone "writing (a) screed" against a playstyle that you enjoy.

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.

For some reason, I thought you were talking about something else (see above). Though I still question how you get to the idea that someone who doesn't like Power Gaming doesn't like Role Playing. That's just a weird argument to me.

And to oppose people taking premises seriously.

It's only one way to take the premise "seriously". I think I follow what you mean by that, and I think that it's fine to do, but it's not really about taking the game seriously. That's a different thing.

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

Yeah, I can see that.

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

Yeah, that kind of anti-any playstyle person sucks.

Blame the game designers.

For what?

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

Sure, but the game is about slaying dragons. (Some of the time, anyway).

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.

Yeah, I was more speaking about "non-powergamers" not "anti-powergamers" there.

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.

Right. I get you now.

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

Agreed. This happens a LOT on these boards - someone posts about enjoying a certain playstyle, and it really, REALLY "sounds" like they are rejecting other playstyles. For instance, it's what YOU sound like you're doing, and I suspect that you think that I'M doing it, when I am no kind of "anti powergamer". Not one bit. I only object to the idea that Power Gamers are Better at the Game (the assertion that I originally commented on).

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)

Sure, but this is often done by power gamers in a "metagame" arena - not within the world, but within the books, finding things that might not naturally be in the DM's setting but forcing them in because they exist in the game, and in particular in rare and poorly balanced splattbooks.

Look, it absolutely CAN be done in perfectly good faith, I've acknowledged that! But it is done in Bad Faith often enough that there's a lot of backlash against power gamers, sometimes deserved, and other times not.

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

I guess? This is just placing the emphasis on the Meta Game in different places. One is not superior to the other.

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.

Mmmm. I'm sure you're right that it sometimes is. Criticizing others for their choices is always bad - but I wouldn't say that it has a direct line to roleplaying like you say. For every power gamer that does it for the roleplaying, like you describe, there are plenty that don't roleplay it at all. My point is not that Power Gamers don't roleplay, but to assert that anyone who doesn't like Power Gaming (whether they qualify as ani-power gamer or not) ALSO doesn't like roleplaying is, IMO, a stretch.

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

Yeah, I mean, I'm not (I'm NEVER) saying that D&D doesn't have problem areas - it's just that our problem areas (whether mine are the same as yours or not) are "bad design" or just "design choices that I don't agree with" is hard to be sure about. It's a very similar problem to playstyles. Do I like my preferred playstyle because it is SUPERIOR or just because I like it? IDK.

(For the record, I'm probably most a Storyteller-type player, I am neither a Power Gamer NOR an anti-power-gamer. I like PCs "dialed" to what I would consider about 70%. Neither jacked-up nor weak (nor "Average") I just think that the game runs smoother that way, on both sides of the screen).

 

[jasper]

And that justifies withholding them from everyone else!

It does. Experience and good dms can make their own complex systems.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

108 -75 = 33 feats which did not make the cut but will be coming out in 2026.

Where has it been said what will be coming out in 2026?

 

[jasper]

75 feats is about 75 too many.

Amen.

 

[jasper]

Where has it been said what will be coming out in 2026?

gee their past performance. They will redo the missing 33 feats and add more like they did since 2014.

 

[Parmandur]

gee their past performance. They will redo the missing 33 feats and add more like they did since 2014.

Honestly seems more likely they will just keep selling the books with those Feats.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I wouldn't describe any of that as elements of power gaming. I would call that basic social awareness, paying attention to the other players, and simply having system mastery. To be fair, I've known a lot of TTRPG players that have been lacking in those areas. But I don't think there's anything inherently bad or toxic about power gaming.

Critically, I don't think power gaming implies any system mastery or skill. A tryhard power gamer and a successful power gamer are both power gamers. Power gaming describes a player's goals in making or playing a given character. Power gaming is about intentionally making your character powerful. It's about making your character more effective. Regardless of how successful you are, that's the behavior central to the terminology. That's the behvaior and goal it describes.

Because of that, I think power gaming is inseparable from power fantasies. Even if you're just keeping up with the Joneses, if you're power gaming then you're expressing a power fantasy as best you can. On the other hand, if you're expressing system mastery without maximizing character effectiveness, that's not power gaming. It doesn't matter if you know it or not. If you're not doing it, you're not doing it.

That isn't to say that all power gamers prioritize character power so highly that it's detrimental to role play, story, and cooperation with the other characters or players or that they're foregoing sportsmanship or anything else. It's not inherently toxic. But it's inseparably about that power fantasy, even if it's just a power fantasy relative to other hypothetical characters. That means power gaming is a style of play because it will only create certain types of characters. Further, the fact that some players power gaming and other players not being interested in power gaming can cause friction and strife at the table is partly how we know it's a style of play. That's the kind of conflict that only happens when there's a mis-matched style of play.

Meanwhile, I think terms like "munchkin" are simply purely pejorative terms for power gaming or optimization. That's why they're not really used anymore. They aren't really about how I feel about my game, and are more about how I feel about your game. It's meant to villainize. But the existence of a villainous term does not mean that power gaming is virtuous. It's neither virtuous nor villainous. It's neutral, and can only be judged in terms of how the rest of the table feels. It can only be judged by how well it matches the style of play of the rest of the table.

Very good post.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

gee their past performance. They will redo the missing 33 feats and add more like they did since 2014.

Oh, you mean you expect to see them by 2026. Yeah, probably.