Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Blackavar 01-21-06, 10:39 PM	Whether it's called munchkinism, powergaming, cherrypicking, cheezy, broken design or whatever the newest name for it is, I've seen several arguments for and against it appearing everywhere, so I've decided to start a thread devoted to the topic. This thread is not for describing your newest idea on how to make a powerful combo (that's for the character optimisation board). This thead is on the subject of when powergaming is and is not acceptable. It seems clear to me that two types of powergaming exist: game-world powergaming and game-rule powergaming. People arguing for powergaming always seem to be arguing for game-world powergaming, and people arguing against powergaming always seem to be arguing against game-rule powergaming. Game-rule powergaming consists of finding and exploiting mistakes made in the game rule design, following the letter but not the spirit of the law. Game-world powergaming consists of intelligent battle tactics, purchasing good equiptment, picking good feats, etc. Here are two examples (feel free to add your own), one of game-rule powergaming (GRP) and one of game-world powergaming (GWP): GRP 1: Polymorph self + Alter self + Change self = +30 disguise. Each spell provides a +10 (unnamed) bonus to disguise, so, technically, they stack (in fact, technically, 10 change selves would stack to +100, and change self is lv. 1). However, each disguise bonus comes from changing your appearance or shape, so, obviously, they shouldn't (in game-world logic) stack. GWP 1: A fighter with a keen scimitar and the improved critical feat. Sure, the 12-20 crit range is huge, but that makes sense because the fighter has specifically trained for this purpose. This fighter has simply found a way to excel at what s/he does. Besides, this only works in melee combat, so even an opponent with a 5 Int will quickly discover that the sword hurts and they should stay away from it. Personally, I think any sane DM should house rule that the first doesn't work but should not disallow the second (or at least tell the player ahead of time before he takes fighter). Comments, anyone?
TinManFan 01-21-06, 10:50 PM	Powergaming is acceptable when people are still having fun in the game. DM and players. As long as they're playing their character and interacting with NPC's and such, who cares if they're running aorund in regular clothes with a 54 AC? (Not that tough to do either...). Also, have to make sure that everyones fine w/ this. If there's a newer player who's not sure how to make a lasting character in a high powered game, that could be a problem. Sometimes DMs expect a player to make tough guys so they can make tough fights. (Yeah, I'm talkin to YOU Kevin!) However, if there's someone at the table who's not good at doing that, they're not gonna have fun. But hey, some people like playing someone who's useless in a fight. Best friend in the whole world makes clerics with an AC of somewhere around 80 at lvl 12 and can't do anything in combat w/o rolling a 20. Powergaming is not acceptable when it detracts from the game. In the example above, or when people spend all the time lookin in books for prc's and only pay attention when they're getting hit.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-21-06, 10:57 PM	Powergaming is okay when it's done in the context of the game. Say, for instance, a fighter wants to be the world's greatest archer. He learns feats and so forth and becomes a great archer. Acceptable. It's reasonable for someone to have aspirations of being the world's greatest archer, and train for that. It's unacceptable when, for exampel, someone wants to become the world's greatst wizard, and does so by shadow conjuring efreeti to get infinite wishes, or casts Polymorph self to an animal,a nd gets a druid to cast a maximized empowered Awaken spell (Average int from that = 23 int!) or other such nonesense. It makes sense that a fighter would want to train in archery to become a better archer. It does not make sense for a wizard to know that he's in a game, and uses rules loopholes.
Crimson_Concerto 01-21-06, 11:01 PM	This is the only problem I have with a powergamer in my group: He deals a LOT of ranged damage, and he's always bragging about it, BUT his HP is simply horrible, and his AC and saves aren't anythign exceptioonal, so here is the problem: 1) In a battle where he can stay far away from melee combatants, he's happy, and that's okay, but 2) Whenever other ranged enemies or spellcasters come he gets owned. The problem is that when he is owned, he hates the session because he hates not always being able to use what he twinked out. My point is that you have to consider whether or not you'll have fun sacrificing a lot of stuff for other stuff. A lot of the time, it's just not worth it for your own fun. It either makes things too easy or too hard. For the sake of his own fun, he really shouldn't have powergamed. I don't mind because I can just pump up the challenge accordingly, but he doesn't have that same luxury. Oh, and I agree with Count Arioch as well. GWP 1: A fighter with a keen scimitar and the improved critical feat. Sure, the 12-20 crit range is huge, but that makes sense because the fighter has specifically trained for this purpose. This fighter has simply found a way to excel at what s/he does. Besides, this only works in melee combat, so even an opponent with a 5 Int will quickly discover that the sword hurts and they should stay away from it.Keen and Improved Criticle don't stack...
WayneTheGame 01-21-06, 11:06 PM	In my opinion, powergaming is only a problem with the ridiculous infinite builds that use clearly broken rules and/or rule interpretations to break the game. There's nothing wrong with a powerful character in the game, but abusing the rules to get that power is complete BS.
Lord Ian Stark 01-21-06, 11:36 PM	Keen and Improved Criticle don't stack... These rules errors are what the majority of "powergamers" do from what I've seen. Sometimes they don't know there breaking the rules (or they do) and the DM doesn't know the rules to tell him they are.
20goingon1232 01-22-06, 03:21 AM	These rules errors are what the majority of "powergamers" do from what I've seen. Sometimes they don't know there breaking the rules (or they do) and the DM doesn't know the rules to tell him they are. Incorrect. They do not stack ONLY in 3.5. In 3.0, they stack. To assume that they must be "cheaters" immediately is a very telling reaction.
trapspringer 01-22-06, 03:25 AM	Powergaming is always ok. Cheating is never ok. Literal interpretaions of the rules are only unacceptable when they are illogical, otherwise have at it (for example, "up the walls" says you fall unless you end your movement on a horizontal surface, and last time I checked the ceiling is horizontal, too).
KDSN 01-22-06, 03:27 AM	I view powergaming as bad when players start breaking the spirit of the rules. The rules work really well when in perspective. Although when one players starts shooting for the highest AC ever that challenges a DM to find a monster that can injure him. Then the other players suffer because they are either fighting mosters that captain AC can roll by himself, or they are fighting and die agianst. That usually leads to someone not having fun.
Romanus_Mortus 01-22-06, 04:24 AM	I have to say powergaming is at its worst when a player is so dedicated to it that they spend actual game session time with their nose in a book, instead of participating. I tend to feel powergamers are only intrinsically "bad" if the group they are with doesn't tolerate them. If you wanna twink out your character, just make sure you're in a group that's cool with that. Having an optimized character doesn't necessarily equate with "cheating". Now "rules lawyering" totally ignores the golden rule of D&D = the DM is ALWAYS right. If you rolled a natural 20 and your DM says you miss, then you miss. PERIOD. You may need to find a more fair-minded DM, but the DM is always right. If a DM complains about players exploiting the verbage or editing errors in the rules, then that DM needs to find a new group, or learn to stick up for him/her self. Sure, the DM needs to be sensitive to the players, but it's a reciprocal thing. A player who thinks they can argue an unreasonable interpretation against the very "word of god" (anything a DM says) should expect to be reprimanded, or worse. I also would question the playstyle of any DM who creates a world in which a low level character can have high AC while naked, or anything else. Some groups may enjoy treating items and spells like side dishes in a buffet-line, but not so for me...
Vaelan 01-22-06, 05:56 AM	The rules work really well when in perspective. Although when one players starts shooting for the highest AC ever that challenges a DM to find a monster that can injure him. Then the other players suffer because they are either fighting mosters that captain AC can roll by himself, or they are fighting and die agianst. That usually leads to someone not having fun. This is a case of bad DMing. When a character develops a strength, you do not go out of your way to completely negate it. You let them have fun with it for a while, then you marginalize it. Instead of putting in a monster with +umpteen billion to hit in order to challenge the person with an AC of umpteen billion, put in a monster that isn't particularly concerned with AC or someone smart enough to not repeatedly attack the untouchable target. As for the original topic, this "powergaming" of which you speak is only bad when it is the player's primary purpose in playing the game and the rest of his group has a different perspective.
WayneTheGame 01-22-06, 09:02 AM	Now "rules lawyering" totally ignores the golden rule of D&D = the DM is ALWAYS right. If you rolled a natural 20 and your DM says you miss, then you miss. PERIOD. And THIS is the perfect example of a power-tripping DM. A DM is not above the rules, despite what some people might think. He has the ability to change them or make judgment calls (i.e. Rule 0) but just like the referee in a football game, the rules are still the rules. If a DM went around blatantly ignoring a written rule for no reason (i.e. no house rule beforehand that a nat 20 isn't automaitcally a hit) I'd get up and leave the group the second he tried to pull that BS. You may be the DM, but you have to play the game just like the rest of us. I see no problem with arguing against a DM who is WRONG. Back on topic, I agree completley with Vaelan. Powergaming is only "wrong" when the rest of the group finds that it's ruining their fun and enjoyment.
scott644 01-22-06, 11:11 AM	The only true golden rule of D&D is it's a cooperative game and that means everybody (or at least the majority) should be enjoying themselves. The only exception is the DM must be enjoying it enough on their own (or they simply won't care enough to do a good job). This means when a specific individual starts making the game an unpleasant experience for the majority of everybody else, through "optimized" characters, they have broken this rule and exceeded the bounds of the game. If they demonstrate an attitude of superiority about this, then they have exceeded the bounds of polite society as well. The former needs to be talked to about it and hopefully they'll correct their behavior. The latter simply needs to be shown the door.
Millennium 01-22-06, 11:27 AM	Generally speaking, I allow any amount of powergaming, under the following conditions: 1) I understand that powergaming is a valid part of D&D and similar games, but I need you to understand that it is not the only aspect of playing those games. If I have reason to believe that your powergaming is coming at the expense of everything else, we're going to need to talk. 2) In-game causality is in effect for powergamers. As you get more powerful, you'll be getting more famous. Be careful not to over-optimize, or intelligent creatures with reason to fear you will find it much easier to figure out tactics against you. 3) Don't try to hog the spotlight, relative to the other players. If I have reason to believe you're trying to hog the spotlight, I will DM around it. The point of the game is for everyone to have fun, and hogging the spotlight isn't fun for the other players. 4) I don't like "players vs. DM" games; they're not fun for me. I will make efforts to ensure that you do not need to powergame in order to get through my adventures. However, this does not mean I'm a pushover. I will do what I can to keep my games challenging but beatable. If I think you're playing at a higher level, I will adjust to suit. If you want to escalate this into a true "players vs. DM" situation I will oblige, but I will do my utmost to end it quickly, because I don't like playing that way.
Riznar 01-22-06, 11:54 AM	I allow my players as many character options as they like, because they have respect for me, the other players, and the game.
Crust 01-22-06, 12:15 PM	GWP 1: A fighter with a keen scimitar and the improved critical feat. Sure, the 12-20 crit range is huge, but that makes sense because the fighter has specifically trained for this purpose. This fighter has simply found a way to excel at what s/he does. Besides, this only works in melee combat, so even an opponent with a 5 Int will quickly discover that the sword hurts and they should stay away from it. This was a bad 3.5 rule in my opinion. An attempt to dumb down the rules without using logic. Keen is a property of the weapon. The blade itself is sharper and deadlier than a regular blade. Improved critical represents the character's skill with the weapon, and is totally independant of the blade's design and magical properties. One is a magical enhancement, the other is a mundane enhancement. They should stack. They do in my games.
Tektonik 01-22-06, 01:59 PM	The fighter example is easy to get around. a roll of a 12 is just a threat it doesn't even mean it hit the target. Throw some decently high ac opponents where besides on his first attack he needs to roll above a 18 to actually threat.
Dwalon 01-22-06, 04:05 PM	This was a bad 3.5 rule in my opinion. An attempt to dumb down the rules without using logic. ... . They should stack. They do in my games. In 3.5, nothing stacks. Armor bonuses don't stack. Deflection bonuses don't stack. Damage resistance from class and dwarven armor does not stack. Since nothing stacks in 3.5, then the rule is fair. If nothing stacked in 3.5, except for keen weaponry and a feat, then that combo would not be fair. When I DM 3.5 or play in a 3.5 game, I expect fairness.
Bane 01-22-06, 04:20 PM	If a high level wizard in my game wants to use Shapechange to turn into a Balor, that's fine with me. When the wizard is no longer a balor, they do not leave behind balor residue of any sort. The sword disappears, it doesn't stick around. If that same wizard wants to cast Astral Projection, he can. If his astral self uses all three wishes from his ring of three wishes, then the physical ring on his physical body just burned through those charges too. He doesn't get three free wishes. If someone uses Change Self to make a disguise, then he gets a +10 unnamed bonus on the check. If he then uses another change self, then the second spell is the one helping his disguise, and giving a +10 unnamed bonus. The other spell is a backup in case of Area Dispel Magic. Nothing more. I have edited Complete Warrior to put a cap on damage from thrown objects by mass. These things are clearly described before the game begins.
Grushvak 01-22-06, 04:26 PM	Thrown objects by mass, as in using telekinesis to throw 100 pounds of needles dealing one damage each? I knew a player who once tried this trick... and, technically, it would work. But the DM can and should say no in such situations. If you don't want something in your game, clearly state it won't work. If it angers your player, well you'd be better off not playing with him in the first place since he's obviously a "game-rule powergamer".
itliaf 01-22-06, 04:41 PM	Keen is a property of the weapon. The blade itself is sharper and deadlier than a regular blade. What was this thread about again? Since nothing stacks in 3.5, then the rule is fair. If nothing stacked in 3.5, except for keen weaponry and a feat, then that combo would not be fair. Dodge bonus Stacks, and your "nothing stacks" argument is logically flawed anyway since the rules for what and what does not stack are stated, and the rules aren't: "Nothing stacks" Hmmm, i'm going to bring up the age-old sour grapes issue of: some people have neither the time nor resources to create the power level of characters that others in the group will. Of course some players could care less what the other player's AC is. Some builds, like really damaging mage, or uber archer require very little thought or preparation on the player's part (Warmage, and the feat progession in the PHB, respectively). Also, a players who is really good with a bow but can't take alot of damage isn't powergaming, it's in the nature of an archer to be weak, that's why they stand far away (Order of the Bow Initate or spells like Arrow mind obviate the need to far away to avoid AoOs). If the archer could also take all kinds of damage and still be shooting, then he might be powergaming excessively. Powergaming grates on me when it is clearly made possible by noncore books(vow of poverty or Divine metamagic), or when, as mentioned, it requires the use of monsters that endanger the rest of the party to create a challenge for the one powergamed character.
Hochiu 01-22-06, 05:03 PM	Good Powergaming - An acceptable build, taking advantage of the player's knowledge of the rules to excel in a vocation of his or her choosing. Good powergaming has good roleplaying or fairly decent characterization. Poor Powergaming - Twinking out the rules just because you can for the specific purpose of being the most powerful. No characterization, no roleplay. Oftentimes using non-core/non acceptable material without prior agreement by the DM in an effort to find the most broken combination ever.
Rhomphaia 01-22-06, 05:30 PM	One is a magical enhancement, the other is a mundane enhancement. They should stack. They do in my games. Question, can I play a fighter specialized with a scythe in your game and have a Keen scythe?
vassalich 01-22-06, 06:17 PM	Question, can I play a fighter specialized with a scythe in your game and have a Keen scythe? You could in mine. Fighters need more power.
Crust 01-22-06, 07:22 PM	In 3.5, nothing stacks. Armor bonuses don't stack. Deflection bonuses don't stack. Damage resistance from class and dwarven armor does not stack. Since nothing stacks in 3.5, then the rule is fair. If nothing stacked in 3.5, except for keen weaponry and a feat, then that combo would not be fair. When I DM 3.5 or play in a 3.5 game, I expect fairness. I hear what you're saying, however: The comparison you're making here is invalid. In 3.5, typically, the only time something stacks is when the source of the bonus is different. Natural, armor, dodge, shield, and deflection bonuses stack because they all have a different source of sorts, a different application. The magical application of keen is different and separate from the physical skill required to use improved critical. They should stack because each is a different application of a similar effect. And I'd definitely allow someone to use a keen scythe with improved critical. First, you'll need improved critical. Next, you'll need to find a keen scythe. If you manage that, dice away. You might want to step aside when the golems, oozes, elementals, and undead take the field, though. ;)
trapspringer 01-22-06, 10:25 PM	Anything can be rationalized when everything is so vague. We don't know exactly how a keen sword functions, nor do we understand "improved critical," accept that both increase the threat range on a melee weapon, and that the firtst only works on a slashing or piercing weapon. One could argue they should not stack because the weapon nehancement gives the wielder the knowledge needed to cut more deeply, or that knowing how to cut more deeply negates the usefulness of a sword which inherently cuts mroe deeply because you can only cut deep enough to really hurt something or not (kinda' like you can't be a little pregnant). Ambiguity. A DM's friend.
tsuyoshikentsu 01-22-06, 11:11 PM	A good theory, but so is communism. My question is, where do you draw the line? What was intentionally powerful, and what wasn't? When is a player "twinking," and when is he withing RP and OP? To go back to an ealier example of a Wizard Polymoprhing yo be Awakened: I can RP this easily. Fred the Wizard has heard of Ted the Druid's power. Ted is able to create hyper-intelligent animals for anyone who's willing to pay. (Or do a quest, etc.) Fred thinks for a moment, then realizes: he can become an animal, so maybe this Druid's spells can make him smarter as well! So he PS into an animal and joins the Awakening line. You can RP pretty much anything given enough inclination.
Kresalak 01-22-06, 11:16 PM	Question, can I play a fighter specialized with a scythe in your game and have a Keen scythe? A keen scythe used by someone with Improved Critical only has a threat range of 18-20 x4. It's not overwhelming.
Bane 01-23-06, 08:48 AM	18-20/x4 is equivalent to 20/x10. Or, 12-20/x2. But if you allow that, do you also allow them to take levels of Weapon Master from the old Sword and Fist? That would put the scythe to 16-20/x5, if I'm not mistaken. That's equivalent to 1-20/x2, or 20/x21. This is why Weapon Master wasn't updated, and why Improved Critical and Keen no longer stack.
WayneTheGame 01-23-06, 08:56 AM	On the subject of Keen/Improved Critical... you're right. There is no realistic reason why they wouldn't stack (lame, contrived GM fiats aside; anyone can make up an excuse to try and justify ANYTHING in the game, doesn't mean it's right); Keen makes the weapon edge sharper, Imp. Critical represents the wielder's skill. HOWEVER, I also understand why that was limited for game balance purposes, and agree with the change. Besides if you want that, become a Disciple of Dispater (Book of Vile Darkness).. they have a power that explicitly stacks with Improved Critical (not with keen, though) and at later levels triples your threat range.
Rhomphaia 01-23-06, 09:08 AM	Also, Improved Critical and Keen no longer stack because it just makes little sense to have them stack. At a certain point, like when the threat range becomes around 15-20, it just becomes extra paperwork. You still need to hit your target to threaten a critical.