If I were the DM and one player is clearly going above and beyond with their build, and everyone else isn't...
I'd give the other players the really powerful magic items. Give the fighter a special flame tongue homebrewed with a rarely resisted damage type instead of fire, now their damage hurts a lot even if they have GWM or not. Give the rogue a dancing sword rapier, now they can potentially sneak attack twice.
give the power gamer lesser items.
That's how I'd go about it.
And give the optimized Barbarian a shortsword of warning lol :)
I like the idea of a barbarian receiving adamantine medium armor. I think it would allow for more reckless attacks by taking away the fear of the increased critical chances. Feels better than a +1 to me, though I’m not actually sure about its efficacy.
"That doesn't mean you can't make a choice based on story that results in a strong build, or that you can't optimize a choice but still come up with a cool story around it. But one of those two was the driving motive, and the other came after the fact."
Which one is it when a character decides (in character) to optimize themself?
I assume they're a particularly robotic warforged, because that would be a really weird way for anyone else to talk about themselves
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This has been quite exciting: I've never really been on D&D forums until a few weeks ago. I am an old skool player who hasn't played much this century, and it's never really occurred to me to see what other people say online. I am having a lot of fun!
But here's the thing that confuses me: why are so many people trying to get the maximum power possible out of their build?
I am usually a DM. It is my job to give you a fun and challenging fight. If the party has only 3 people, I reduce my fights to match. If there are 7 people, I make the fights bigger. And if everyone has super-optimal builds and get every erg out of the rules, then obviously I need to make the fights harder. Otherwise they won't be fun.
...doesn't everyone?
If the players like easy fights and want to feel super cool murdering all before them, as a DM I can supply that. Doesn't matter what you built, I can supply that. But my default is to give roughly a fairly easy fight, a fairly hard one, and a bastard of a fight, very roughly in those numbers and in that order. (I mean, not really, but sorta). To do that, I need to know your party, and build enounters to match.
If the party all have advantage-granting-familiars and no out of combat skills and perfect dump stats and barely-legal spell interactions, then I just make the fights harder. Why would you want to just walk over everything? Surely you want a hard fight sometimes right?
I can see two reasonable reasons to min-max really hard:
1. Your DM is running a premade adventure and doesn't want to change anything. Fair enough: maybe it's a super hard module and you need to pull out all the stops to get through it, and maybe your DM doesn't like modifying the fights.
(on the other hand, isn't going online to get the best possible build kinda cheating anyway? doesn't really matter)
2. The whole party is min-maxing, and want the DM to throw them the most insane DR levels the world has ever seen.
(though surely it's still just going to be balanced to the power level, so how is that different in actual challenge from being less powerful and having a lower DR? but whatever, maybe people compare stories on the worst DR differential or something)
But outside that... what's the point? Why are so many people seemingly engaged in this? Isn't it just a zero-sum?
Which brings me to the problem: what do you do if one or two people in the party have gone nuts, and the rest are just playing their character?
Now I'm not talking about just knowing how healing word works or something. I hope people have made a bit of effort to know how to play and built a character that works. I'm talking about someone who has gone for the most broken possible build. Isn't that likely to make the rest of the players have less fun?
If one player is pretty much carrying the rest, how is that a good experience for the folk being carried? Easy fights would see the Buff Dude doing most of the cool stuff. Hard fights would see the lower-powered folk struggle.
DMs, what do you do? Do you have a word? Do you give items to the other players to bring them up? Do you target the higher-power player and try to mitigate their advantage?
Which brings me back around to: why even do it? Why not just pick something fun, make sure it can cover some general bases, and go from there?
Or are people (I hope!) working out what the "best" possible build is, then pulling back a bit and not actually choosing all those options? Just making sure they know where the top is, so they make sure they stay within some reasonable reach of it?
Or is the unspoken idea here to be better than the rest of your party? Because that seems a bit... pooh.
I think you're being overly simplistic as to people's motivations. In my experience most of the people I play with tend to min-max/optimise/powergame for niche protection. They'll pick a couple of things to be uniquely good at, that establishes their reason for being a member of the adventuring party, and crank them to 11. They'll then look for something to be shit at and crank that down to 0 which will allow another character to shine.
Then if you have someone that's not min-maxing it doesn't matter too much - if they avoid the areas other people have tuned for they'll still have a niche and a chance to shine. No DM intervention needed.
"That doesn't mean you can't make a choice based on story that results in a strong build, or that you can't optimize a choice but still come up with a cool story around it. But one of those two was the driving motive, and the other came after the fact."
Which one is it when a character decides (in character) to optimize themself?
I assume they're a particularly robotic warforged, because that would be a really weird way for anyone else to talk about themselves
He didn’t say what if the character decided to verbalize, “I want to optimize myself.” He said what if they decide they want to do it. Which, would very much be the norm for people like performance athletes, modern soldiers, and people who fight monsters.
Worth noting, for the "I'll give the noptimizers really awesome magical swag while the optimizer gets nothing, and then everything's fair!" approach.
First of all: the party may not necessarily agree with the DM on item distribution. A party with an exceptionally powerful Battlemaster and an "in it for the memes" barbarian that locates the +2 Frostbrand the DM intended to help the barbarian may well decide to give it to the fighter instead. Items are the party's purview once they party gets them, and a DM can't ever be sure the intended recipient is the actual recipient.
Second of all: this is still punishing your player for daring to have the sheer, unmitigated gall of playing a strong character. You're telling that player "you're never allowed to get/have/use cool loot because you're too strong, I'm going to give all your buddies cool stuff but you have to make do with nothing but mundane gear for the whole entire game because I don't like your character choices." It's not a great way to address the issue, especially when a lot of the times it's not an issue. A party with a strong combat character surrounded by a bunch of goofs will do better than the goofs in combat, yes. The goofs aren't there for combat, or they would've taken it into account when building their character. The goofs are there for goofery, and will have plenty of chances for that between, and often during, fights.
Don't punish players who're simply playing strong characters because that's what they like to do. The game mechanics/rules are the laws of physics of the game world. To an extent, creating a character that aligns well with the mechanics is the same as playing a character who takes their in-universe training seriously and is making a real attempt to become skilled at what they do. A Battlemaster taking Polearm Master could just as easily be someone Role Playing a motivated warrior who's pushing himself to learn useful new techniques he can put to work keeping his valued friends alive during the harrowing combat encounters they keep barely scraping through as it is someone being a powergaming munchkin.
If the rest of the table isn't complaining? It's not a problem. Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
Worth noting, for the "I'll give the noptimizers really awesome magical swag while the optimizer gets nothing, and then everything's fair!" approach.
First of all: the party may not necessarily agree with the DM on item distribution. A party with an exceptionally powerful Battlemaster and an "in it for the memes" barbarian that locates the +2 Frostbrand the DM intended to help the barbarian may well decide to give it to the fighter instead. Items are the party's purview once they party gets them, and a DM can't ever be sure the intended recipient is the actual recipient.
Second of all: this is still punishing your player for daring to have the sheer, unmitigated gall of playing a strong character. You're telling that player "you're never allowed to get/have/use cool loot because you're too strong, I'm going to give all your buddies cool stuff but you have to make do with nothing but mundane gear for the whole entire game because I don't like your character choices." It's not a great way to address the issue, especially when a lot of the times it's not an issue. A party with a strong combat character surrounded by a bunch of goofs will do better than the goofs in combat, yes. The goofs aren't there for combat, or they would've taken it into account when building their character. The goofs are there for goofery, and will have plenty of chances for that between, and often during, fights.
Don't punish players who're simply playing strong characters because that's what they like to do. The game mechanics/rules are the laws of physics of the game world. To an extent, creating a character that aligns well with the mechanics is the same as playing a character who takes their in-universe training seriously and is making a real attempt to become skilled at what they do. A Battlemaster taking Polearm Master could just as easily be someone Role Playing a motivated warrior who's pushing himself to learn useful new techniques he can put to work keeping his valued friends alive during the harrowing combat encounters they keep barely scraping through as it is someone being a powergaming munchkin.
If the rest of the table isn't complaining? It's not a problem. Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
I don't know where the OP's coming from. I don't know what his table's stance is on the matter of the power gamer. I largely agree with your points, practically all of them. But, again, if the issue is a non-issue, I wouldn't intervene in this way. I mean, I wouldn't give the optimizer "nothing." I'd give them weaker items that tie in more with their backstory and act as plot devices, as to give incentive to the character for why they'd want them. Large difference between that and "nothing or mundane"!
Maybe the goofs are there for combat. Maybe they don't know how to optimize. I've been the power gamer at the table (still am), and I've had the DM give me lesser items because he knew I knew what I was doing. I understood, and I had no complaints on the matter. My friends are people who would love to shine in combat, and I would love to go on a lecture about optimizing and building (I've tried), but they don't have the patience or the same level of interest as I do, and I understand that just fine. But that doesn't mean the desire isn't there. I was happy to see them get the swag, and I was happy to see they got to taste the glory because of their items while I had to rely on building decisions and tactics.
Now, let's say the goofballs decide to funnel all the powerful items I left for them to the power gamer. This isn't a bad thing! It shows me that they don't mind giving the combat spotlight to the optimizer. By all means, this is okay. If no one's complaining, there's no issue. If there were, this is how I'd go about it.
Worth noting, for the "I'll give the noptimizers really awesome magical swag while the optimizer gets nothing, and then everything's fair!" approach.
First of all: the party may not necessarily agree with the DM on item distribution. A party with an exceptionally powerful Battlemaster and an "in it for the memes" barbarian that locates the +2 Frostbrand the DM intended to help the barbarian may well decide to give it to the fighter instead. Items are the party's purview once they party gets them, and a DM can't ever be sure the intended recipient is the actual recipient.
Second of all: this is still punishing your player for daring to have the sheer, unmitigated gall of playing a strong character. You're telling that player "you're never allowed to get/have/use cool loot because you're too strong, I'm going to give all your buddies cool stuff but you have to make do with nothing but mundane gear for the whole entire game because I don't like your character choices." It's not a great way to address the issue, especially when a lot of the times it's not an issue. A party with a strong combat character surrounded by a bunch of goofs will do better than the goofs in combat, yes. The goofs aren't there for combat, or they would've taken it into account when building their character. The goofs are there for goofery, and will have plenty of chances for that between, and often during, fights.
Don't punish players who're simply playing strong characters because that's what they like to do. The game mechanics/rules are the laws of physics of the game world. To an extent, creating a character that aligns well with the mechanics is the same as playing a character who takes their in-universe training seriously and is making a real attempt to become skilled at what they do. A Battlemaster taking Polearm Master could just as easily be someone Role Playing a motivated warrior who's pushing himself to learn useful new techniques he can put to work keeping his valued friends alive during the harrowing combat encounters they keep barely scraping through as it is someone being a powergaming munchkin.
If the rest of the table isn't complaining? It's not a problem. Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
I don't know where the OP's coming from. I don't know what his table's stance is on the matter of the power gamer. I largely agree with your points, practically all of them. But, again, if the issue is a non-issue, I wouldn't intervene in this way. I mean, I wouldn't give the optimizer "nothing." I'd give them weaker items that tie in more with their backstory and act as plot devices, as to give incentive to the character for why they'd want them. Large difference between that and "nothing or mundane"!
Maybe the goofs are there for combat. Maybe they don't know how to optimize. I've been the power gamer at the table (still am), and I've had the DM give me lesser items because he knew I knew what I was doing. I understood, and I had no complaints on the matter. My friends are people who would love to shine in combat, and I would love to go on a lecture about optimizing and building (I've tried), but they don't have the patience or the same level of interest as I do, and I understand that just fine. But that doesn't mean the desire isn't there. I was happy to see them get the swag, and I was happy to see they got to taste the glory because of their items while I had to rely on building decisions and tactics.
Now, let's say the goofballs decide to funnel all the powerful items I left for them to the power gamer. This isn't a bad thing! It shows me that they don't mind giving the combat spotlight to the optimizer. By all means, this is okay. If no one's complaining, there's no issue. If there were, this is how I'd go about it.
I guess it comes down to the table and how the players feel about it. If the optimizer is getting the short end of the magic items distro, the player may or may not be cool with it. But if they're not, they're not unjustified in feeling a bit cheated IMO.
I’ve never even paid any mind to my PCs design choices in 5e. There just isn’t that many broken combos in this game that aren’t suitably challenged with the normal use of the rules and just playing the monsters more intelligently.
Or, for example, discussion here about using a familar on your shoulder to get always-on advantage (taking a help action) until the DM can kill it (with mixed veiw on whether the DM should).
That stuff can give you a really big advantage over the rest of your party.
Or really just anyone who gets all the optimal feats and abilities compared with people who pick the ones that actually match the sort of thing their character would do.
(Actually, thought of another example: someone who casts Levitate on every important melee enemy. Now you've got 100 turns to kill it. Once-save-and-dead at 2nd level. That sort of thing - not necessarily a build but a play style).
Sorry, but a coffee-lock only happens with a weak DM. You don't have to give uninterrupted short or long rests to get their pact spells back, all the time. You also don't have to allow somebody unlimited ability to change pact spell slots into sorcery points, either. As a DM, I would allow it once per day and no more. This can clearly break the game, if allowed by the DM. It's a middle ground between unlimited short rests and spell points vs Jeremy Crawford's suggesting that one interpretation of warlock pact slots in the multi-classing section is they can only be used for warlock spells. I think both would be extreme interpretations and hurt the game play.
I’ve never even paid any mind to my PCs design choices in 5e. There just isn’t that many broken combos in this game that aren’t suitably challenged with the normal use of the rules and just playing the monsters more intelligently.
Or, for example, discussion here about using a familar on your shoulder to get always-on advantage (taking a help action) until the DM can kill it (with mixed veiw on whether the DM should).
That stuff can give you a really big advantage over the rest of your party.
Or really just anyone who gets all the optimal feats and abilities compared with people who pick the ones that actually match the sort of thing their character would do.
(Actually, thought of another example: someone who casts Levitate on every important melee enemy. Now you've got 100 turns to kill it. Once-save-and-dead at 2nd level. That sort of thing - not necessarily a build but a play style).
Sorry, but a coffee-lock only happens with a weak DM. You don't have to give uninterrupted short or long rests to get their pact spells back, all the time. You also don't have to allow somebody unlimited ability to change pact spell slots into sorcery points, either. As a DM, I would allow it once per day and no more. This can clearly break the game, if allowed by the DM. It's a middle ground between unlimited short rests and spell points vs Jeremy Crawford's suggesting that one interpretation of warlock pact slots in the multi-classing section is they can only be used for warlock spells. I think both would be extreme interpretations and hurt the game play.
I usually just let my players have 2 uninterrupted short rests and no more than that. They choose when and we take a little break, sometimes even take the short rest IRL by refreshing snacks and drinks. The players all have to agree when to do it though. This stays within design considerations and promotes the players talking together to figure out the best time to do it.
The Character will be good in a narrow role, but helpless outside that role.
Just make sure there are situations where their maximized strengths aren’t useful, and their weaknesses are, so other p,Ayers get to shine.
There’s nothing that says short or long rests have to be uninterrupted.
As for character optimizing, if you were an adventurer that crawled thru dungeons fighting all kinds of horrible things…. Wouldn’t you be as good at what you do as you could be?
The Character will be good in a narrow role, but helpless outside that role.
Just make sure there are situations where their maximized strengths aren’t useful, and their weaknesses are, so other p,Ayers get to shine.
There’s nothing that says short or long rests have to be uninterrupted.
As for character optimizing, if you were an adventurer that crawled thru dungeons fighting all kinds of horrible things…. Wouldn’t you be as good at what you do as you could be?
Not so narrow. When you elevate certain stats that optimize for combat, you're also elevating skill checks that relate to to those stats, for example.
(a) How did you determine that you can't care about both equally? (b) Again, if a player created a character that is *both* optimized *and* compelling story-wise, who cares which the player cared about more when creating the character (if any)? This is just a virtue signaling purity test.
Just to query this. You're saying that prioritising/encouraging role-playing over mechanics in an RPG is virtue signalling? Ignoring the mind reading and "I have a story excuse for it!"
(a) How did you determine that you can't care about both equally? (b) Again, if a player created a character that is *both* optimized *and* compelling story-wise, who cares which the player cared about more when creating the character (if any)? This is just a virtue signaling purity test.
Just to query this. You're saying that prioritising/encouraging role-playing over mechanics in an RPG is virtue signalling? Ignoring the mind reading and "I have a story excuse for it!"
No. That's not what I said. If a player built a character that is both optimized and has a compelling story, caring about which aspect they were motivated by first is virtue signaling.
It was also a false dichotomy, because of course a person can care about both, equally even.
I think one reason you might see discussions and debates is because of the youtube creators who contrast and compare builds. Hard numbers like Hit Points, AC, and average damage are one of the better ways to do that. If you ask a dozen players (or even DMs for that matter) which type of character is better for Social interactions or non-combat goals you'll get different answers because such things are more subjective.
I think one reason you might see discussions and debates is because of the youtube creators who contrast and compare builds. Hard numbers like Hit Points, AC, and average damage are one of the better ways to do that. If you ask a dozen players (or even DMs for that matter) which type of character is better for Social interactions or non-combat goals you'll get different answers because such things are more subjective.
There are objective mechanics to social interactions as well. If you ask me that I would say a well-built Eloquence Bard.
I think one reason you might see discussions and debates is because of the youtube creators who contrast and compare builds. Hard numbers like Hit Points, AC, and average damage are one of the better ways to do that. If you ask a dozen players (or even DMs for that matter) which type of character is better for Social interactions or non-combat goals you'll get different answers because such things are more subjective.
There are objective mechanics to social interactions as well. If you ask me that I would say a well-built Eloquence Bard.
And someone else might say 'Use Charm spells'. Like I said, without hard numbers to compare the topic can get a bit muddier. I personally like the Inquisitive or Mastermind Rogue but a LOT of that is personal bias because I haven't run a Bard in 5e yet.
I think one reason you might see discussions and debates is because of the youtube creators who contrast and compare builds. Hard numbers like Hit Points, AC, and average damage are one of the better ways to do that. If you ask a dozen players (or even DMs for that matter) which type of character is better for Social interactions or non-combat goals you'll get different answers because such things are more subjective.
There are objective mechanics to social interactions as well. If you ask me that I would say a well-built Eloquence Bard.
And someone else might say 'Use Charm spells'. Like I said, without hard numbers to compare the topic can get a bit muddier. I personally like the Inquisitive or Mastermind Rogue but a LOT of that is personal bias because I haven't run a Bard in 5e yet.
Charm spells have a saving throw, lasts an hour and then the creature is hostile toward you. Automatically rolling 20+ on a persuasion check is forever :)
I think one reason you might see discussions and debates is because of the youtube creators who contrast and compare builds. Hard numbers like Hit Points, AC, and average damage are one of the better ways to do that. If you ask a dozen players (or even DMs for that matter) which type of character is better for Social interactions or non-combat goals you'll get different answers because such things are more subjective.
There are objective mechanics to social interactions as well. If you ask me that I would say a well-built Eloquence Bard.
And someone else might say 'Use Charm spells'. Like I said, without hard numbers to compare the topic can get a bit muddier. I personally like the Inquisitive or Mastermind Rogue but a LOT of that is personal bias because I haven't run a Bard in 5e yet.
Charm spells have a saving throw, lasts an hour and then the creature is hostile toward you. Automatically rolling 20+ on a persuasion check is forever :)
I have always loved the Reliable Talent on the Rogue for just this reason. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone spout a good line and then follow it up with a 5 or less on their die roll.
I think one reason you might see discussions and debates is because of the youtube creators who contrast and compare builds. Hard numbers like Hit Points, AC, and average damage are one of the better ways to do that. If you ask a dozen players (or even DMs for that matter) which type of character is better for Social interactions or non-combat goals you'll get different answers because such things are more subjective.
There are objective mechanics to social interactions as well. If you ask me that I would say a well-built Eloquence Bard.
And someone else might say 'Use Charm spells'. Like I said, without hard numbers to compare the topic can get a bit muddier. I personally like the Inquisitive or Mastermind Rogue but a LOT of that is personal bias because I haven't run a Bard in 5e yet.
Charm spells have a saving throw, lasts an hour and then the creature is hostile toward you. Automatically rolling 20+ on a persuasion check is forever :)
I have always loved the Reliable Talent on the Rogue for just this reason. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone spout a good line and then follow it up with a 5 or less on their die roll.
Reliable talent is amazing, but comes on late for Rogues. The Eloquence Bard gets it for persuasion and deception right at level 3. And Charisma is their main stat. If you put expertise in both, even if you do point buy, you're rolling 17+ at level 3, and 20+ at level 5.
If you want an overall skill monkey, consider the Soulknife Rogue. There is no better skill monkey in the game. :)
Psionic Power
3rd-level Soulknife feature
You harbor a wellspring of psionic energy within yourself. This energy is represented by your Psionic Energy dice, which are each a d6. You have a number of these dice equal to twice your proficiency bonus, and they fuel various psionic powers you have, which are detailed below.
Some of your powers expend the Psionic Energy die they use, as specified in a power’s description, and you can’t use a power if it requires you to use a die when your dice are all expended. You regain all your expended Psionic Energy dice when you finish a long rest. In addition, as a bonus action, you can regain one expended Psionic Energy die, but you can’t do so again until you finish a short or long rest.
When you reach certain levels in this class, the size of your Psionic Energy dice increases: at 5th level (d8), 11th level (d10), and 17th level (d12). The powers below use your Psionic Energy dice.
Psi-Bolstered Knack.When your nonpsionic training fails you, your psionic power can help: if you fail an ability check using a skill or tool with which you have proficiency, you can roll one Psionic Energy die and add the number rolled to the check, potentially turning failure into success. You expend the die only if the roll succeeds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And give the optimized Barbarian a shortsword of warning lol :)
I like the idea of a barbarian receiving adamantine medium armor. I think it would allow for more reckless attacks by taking away the fear of the increased critical chances. Feels better than a +1 to me, though I’m not actually sure about its efficacy.
I assume they're a particularly robotic warforged, because that would be a really weird way for anyone else to talk about themselves
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think you're being overly simplistic as to people's motivations. In my experience most of the people I play with tend to min-max/optimise/powergame for niche protection. They'll pick a couple of things to be uniquely good at, that establishes their reason for being a member of the adventuring party, and crank them to 11. They'll then look for something to be shit at and crank that down to 0 which will allow another character to shine.
Then if you have someone that's not min-maxing it doesn't matter too much - if they avoid the areas other people have tuned for they'll still have a niche and a chance to shine. No DM intervention needed.
He didn’t say what if the character decided to verbalize, “I want to optimize myself.” He said what if they decide they want to do it. Which, would very much be the norm for people like performance athletes, modern soldiers, and people who fight monsters.
Worth noting, for the "I'll give the noptimizers really awesome magical swag while the optimizer gets nothing, and then everything's fair!" approach.
First of all: the party may not necessarily agree with the DM on item distribution. A party with an exceptionally powerful Battlemaster and an "in it for the memes" barbarian that locates the +2 Frostbrand the DM intended to help the barbarian may well decide to give it to the fighter instead. Items are the party's purview once they party gets them, and a DM can't ever be sure the intended recipient is the actual recipient.
Second of all: this is still punishing your player for daring to have the sheer, unmitigated gall of playing a strong character. You're telling that player "you're never allowed to get/have/use cool loot because you're too strong, I'm going to give all your buddies cool stuff but you have to make do with nothing but mundane gear for the whole entire game because I don't like your character choices." It's not a great way to address the issue, especially when a lot of the times it's not an issue. A party with a strong combat character surrounded by a bunch of goofs will do better than the goofs in combat, yes. The goofs aren't there for combat, or they would've taken it into account when building their character. The goofs are there for goofery, and will have plenty of chances for that between, and often during, fights.
Don't punish players who're simply playing strong characters because that's what they like to do. The game mechanics/rules are the laws of physics of the game world. To an extent, creating a character that aligns well with the mechanics is the same as playing a character who takes their in-universe training seriously and is making a real attempt to become skilled at what they do. A Battlemaster taking Polearm Master could just as easily be someone Role Playing a motivated warrior who's pushing himself to learn useful new techniques he can put to work keeping his valued friends alive during the harrowing combat encounters they keep barely scraping through as it is someone being a powergaming munchkin.
If the rest of the table isn't complaining? It's not a problem. Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
Please do not contact or message me.
I don't know where the OP's coming from. I don't know what his table's stance is on the matter of the power gamer. I largely agree with your points, practically all of them. But, again, if the issue is a non-issue, I wouldn't intervene in this way. I mean, I wouldn't give the optimizer "nothing." I'd give them weaker items that tie in more with their backstory and act as plot devices, as to give incentive to the character for why they'd want them. Large difference between that and "nothing or mundane"!
Maybe the goofs are there for combat. Maybe they don't know how to optimize. I've been the power gamer at the table (still am), and I've had the DM give me lesser items because he knew I knew what I was doing. I understood, and I had no complaints on the matter. My friends are people who would love to shine in combat, and I would love to go on a lecture about optimizing and building (I've tried), but they don't have the patience or the same level of interest as I do, and I understand that just fine. But that doesn't mean the desire isn't there. I was happy to see them get the swag, and I was happy to see they got to taste the glory because of their items while I had to rely on building decisions and tactics.
Now, let's say the goofballs decide to funnel all the powerful items I left for them to the power gamer. This isn't a bad thing! It shows me that they don't mind giving the combat spotlight to the optimizer. By all means, this is okay. If no one's complaining, there's no issue. If there were, this is how I'd go about it.
I guess it comes down to the table and how the players feel about it. If the optimizer is getting the short end of the magic items distro, the player may or may not be cool with it. But if they're not, they're not unjustified in feeling a bit cheated IMO.
Sorry, but a coffee-lock only happens with a weak DM. You don't have to give uninterrupted short or long rests to get their pact spells back, all the time. You also don't have to allow somebody unlimited ability to change pact spell slots into sorcery points, either. As a DM, I would allow it once per day and no more. This can clearly break the game, if allowed by the DM. It's a middle ground between unlimited short rests and spell points vs Jeremy Crawford's suggesting that one interpretation of warlock pact slots in the multi-classing section is they can only be used for warlock spells. I think both would be extreme interpretations and hurt the game play.
I usually just let my players have 2 uninterrupted short rests and no more than that. They choose when and we take a little break, sometimes even take the short rest IRL by refreshing snacks and drinks. The players all have to agree when to do it though. This stays within design considerations and promotes the players talking together to figure out the best time to do it.
Min-Maxing players tend to sort themselves out.
The Character will be good in a narrow role, but helpless outside that role.
Just make sure there are situations where their maximized strengths aren’t useful, and their weaknesses are, so other p,Ayers get to shine.
There’s nothing that says short or long rests have to be uninterrupted.
As for character optimizing, if you were an adventurer that crawled thru dungeons fighting all kinds of horrible things…. Wouldn’t you be as good at what you do as you could be?
Not so narrow. When you elevate certain stats that optimize for combat, you're also elevating skill checks that relate to to those stats, for example.
Just to query this. You're saying that prioritising/encouraging role-playing over mechanics in an RPG is virtue signalling? Ignoring the mind reading and "I have a story excuse for it!"
No. That's not what I said. If a player built a character that is both optimized and has a compelling story, caring about which aspect they were motivated by first is virtue signaling.
It was also a false dichotomy, because of course a person can care about both, equally even.
I think one reason you might see discussions and debates is because of the youtube creators who contrast and compare builds. Hard numbers like Hit Points, AC, and average damage are one of the better ways to do that. If you ask a dozen players (or even DMs for that matter) which type of character is better for Social interactions or non-combat goals you'll get different answers because such things are more subjective.
There are objective mechanics to social interactions as well. If you ask me that I would say a well-built Eloquence Bard.
And someone else might say 'Use Charm spells'. Like I said, without hard numbers to compare the topic can get a bit muddier. I personally like the Inquisitive or Mastermind Rogue but a LOT of that is personal bias because I haven't run a Bard in 5e yet.
Charm spells have a saving throw, lasts an hour and then the creature is hostile toward you. Automatically rolling 20+ on a persuasion check is forever :)
I have always loved the Reliable Talent on the Rogue for just this reason. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone spout a good line and then follow it up with a 5 or less on their die roll.
Reliable talent is amazing, but comes on late for Rogues. The Eloquence Bard gets it for persuasion and deception right at level 3. And Charisma is their main stat. If you put expertise in both, even if you do point buy, you're rolling 17+ at level 3, and 20+ at level 5.
If you want an overall skill monkey, consider the Soulknife Rogue. There is no better skill monkey in the game. :)
Psionic Power
3rd-level Soulknife feature
You harbor a wellspring of psionic energy within yourself. This energy is represented by your Psionic Energy dice, which are each a d6. You have a number of these dice equal to twice your proficiency bonus, and they fuel various psionic powers you have, which are detailed below.
Some of your powers expend the Psionic Energy die they use, as specified in a power’s description, and you can’t use a power if it requires you to use a die when your dice are all expended. You regain all your expended Psionic Energy dice when you finish a long rest. In addition, as a bonus action, you can regain one expended Psionic Energy die, but you can’t do so again until you finish a short or long rest.
When you reach certain levels in this class, the size of your Psionic Energy dice increases: at 5th level (d8), 11th level (d10), and 17th level (d12). The powers below use your Psionic Energy dice.
Psi-Bolstered Knack. When your nonpsionic training fails you, your psionic power can help: if you fail an ability check using a skill or tool with which you have proficiency, you can roll one Psionic Energy die and add the number rolled to the check, potentially turning failure into success. You expend the die only if the roll succeeds.