A session I was allowed to listen in on had a power player. He’s character as you would expect had the perfect combinations of skills and multi class ability that made him hard to deal with as a DM. So the DM started using “true damage” on him to which he protested. Numerous times he would argue the rules of the DM decisions. He just didn’t like losing and always gloated overcoming The DMs challenges.
taking those experiences I decided to play my first game. Currently at level 2 as a gunslinger I’m exploring stories and tactics between sessions. I’ve discovered many things I can add to assist my character in becoming stronger such as magic initiative feat with find familiar and advantage with help action on my or any players attack.
a few of my fellow players said I’m dancing pretty close to what the guy from the previous session was doing.
So I’m at a loss. Are you not suppose to find a way to improve your character? Isn’t it the DMs job to find ways to overcome your creative thinking? Is it an unwritten rule you need to find a way to not overpower yourself even if the rules the game is based on allow it? I don’t wanna be that guy...a “power player” but just avoiding viable opportunities to become better feels as if you’re compensating for a DMs lack of ability to conjure counter measures.
i want to be a better, more tactical player. But I don’t want to steal thunder or just be overpowered. Yet I want to be effective. It’s all just a big conundrum for me. Any advice is appreciated.
There is a massive difference between "power player" and "wang rod." The latter seems to describe the player you described, though the DM could have definitely reacted in a better way.
There isn't much wrong with being a power player, and taking things to make you more powerful doesn't necessarily make you a power player. Are you starting as a human variant for the feat, or are you sacrificing an ability score increase (ASI) for the feat? Is this DM you will be playing with allowing the gunslinger class and human variant (if that's what you're taking)? The thing about familiars is that they can be killed if the enemies notice it is helping your party or it gets caught in an area of effect spell or similar. So, the way you have worded it, no you are not really being a power player.
I love building characters that excel in particular areas of the game. I have a barbarian that is a meat shield extraordinaire, I have a ranger/rogue who is almost impossible to pin down, and I have a sorcerer who rarely ever misses on a spell or has one resisted. Even though they give my DMs trouble, the DMs rarely ever call them over powered and don't call me out for being a poor player.
The "balance" you're looking for comes from what your character isn't good at, and what you give to your fellow players. The player you first described is someone who isn't playing with the rest of the table, they're playing against the DM. The player never explores the character's weakness, instead trying to be the best all the time. They spent their time gloating instead of helping the rest of the table succeed. They're a poor player even if they know the books and numbers inside and out. Building your character to succeed because that's what fits the theme of your character is different than building your character to beat the DM.
If your focus is on the story, not the mechanics, and you're just as willing to fail as you are to succeed, then you're in a good place. If you use your excellent abilities to help the party rather than make yourself better than them, you're in a good place. It's all about sharing the spot light rather than taking it away from everyone else. Give yourself some time in the spot light, but make sure you share it with everyone else at the table.
Agreed completely. Every character should have strengths and weaknesses and good role players work together as a team. I'm playing a character who takes everything that my DM throws at him in the wilderness and succeeds without a problem but who hasn't succeeded at one social challenge in over a year. Why? He's optimized so that his strengths come into play in the wilderness and his weaknesses come into play anywhere that isn't the wilderness. When we're in cities he relies on other members of his party to take the lead or, the few times when he has gone off to do something by himself, he fell flat on his face, much to my DM's amusement and entertainment. I'm playing another character who shines in the city and in social situations but who would lose an arm wrestling contest with your average 10 year old goblin.
I wouldn't enjoy playing very much with the player who makes a "perfect" character that can't lose at anything. But I would enjoy playing with a player who uses his characters strengths creatively to overcome challenges that target the character's weaknesses. And if I was DM for that "power player" who you're describing I'd throw intelligent opponents at the group who would figure out that his character is the biggest threat and who would target his character exclusively before moving on to the normal characters regularly. I wouldn't do that all of the time, but I'd do it often enough that the rest of the players could enjoy themselves while the "power player" is making death saving throws. But I would also let his character succeed sometimes too. Just not more than one week out of 4, assuming that there are 4 players in the group. After all, the goal is for everyone to have fun, not just one person.
Thanks for the reply. Yes I’m a human who can choose between stats or a feat. So far I’ve been advised to take only feats that my character would take not necessarily what I as the player would be tactically benifical.
A barbarian with a belief that magic is the devil wouldn’t take up the feat magic initiative for example. Even though by the rules I could.
so at this point it’s what I’m rolling with for balance. But I have other back up characters I’m looking to try so the input is appreciated.
I feel the same way. If my fellow player monk was about to launch a sport bomb from her palms I’d have that familiar fly in and provide advantage threw help.
But I suppose they are assuming I’d utilize all my skills just for me. To which they have been conditioned to from the previous 2 year campaign where everyone acted like single players
I mean...I suppose at my core I want to be a badass. But I also would enjoy enabling other PCs to amplify their badass moments or give it better odds of succeeding
With all that being said, you've heeded their warnings, you've made your decision to be a team player, you're fine. Keep playing that way, and many happy games!
A session I was allowed to listen in on had a power player. He’s character as you would expect had the perfect combinations of skills and multi class ability that made him hard to deal with as a DM. So the DM started using “true damage” on him to which he protested. Numerous times he would argue the rules of the DM decisions. He just didn’t like losing and always gloated overcoming The DMs challenges.
taking those experiences I decided to play my first game. Currently at level 2 as a gunslinger I’m exploring stories and tactics between sessions. I’ve discovered many things I can add to assist my character in becoming stronger such as magic initiative feat with find familiar and advantage with help action on my or any players attack.
a few of my fellow players said I’m dancing pretty close to what the guy from the previous session was doing.
So I’m at a loss. Are you not suppose to find a way to improve your character? Isn’t it the DMs job to find ways to overcome your creative thinking? Is it an unwritten rule you need to find a way to not overpower yourself even if the rules the game is based on allow it? I don’t wanna be that guy...a “power player” but just avoiding viable opportunities to become better feels as if you’re compensating for a DMs lack of ability to conjure counter measures.
i want to be a better, more tactical player. But I don’t want to steal thunder or just be overpowered. Yet I want to be effective. It’s all just a big conundrum for me. Any advice is appreciated.
There is a massive difference between "power player" and "wang rod." The latter seems to describe the player you described, though the DM could have definitely reacted in a better way.
There isn't much wrong with being a power player, and taking things to make you more powerful doesn't necessarily make you a power player. Are you starting as a human variant for the feat, or are you sacrificing an ability score increase (ASI) for the feat? Is this DM you will be playing with allowing the gunslinger class and human variant (if that's what you're taking)? The thing about familiars is that they can be killed if the enemies notice it is helping your party or it gets caught in an area of effect spell or similar. So, the way you have worded it, no you are not really being a power player.
I love building characters that excel in particular areas of the game. I have a barbarian that is a meat shield extraordinaire, I have a ranger/rogue who is almost impossible to pin down, and I have a sorcerer who rarely ever misses on a spell or has one resisted. Even though they give my DMs trouble, the DMs rarely ever call them over powered and don't call me out for being a poor player.
The "balance" you're looking for comes from what your character isn't good at, and what you give to your fellow players. The player you first described is someone who isn't playing with the rest of the table, they're playing against the DM. The player never explores the character's weakness, instead trying to be the best all the time. They spent their time gloating instead of helping the rest of the table succeed. They're a poor player even if they know the books and numbers inside and out. Building your character to succeed because that's what fits the theme of your character is different than building your character to beat the DM.
If your focus is on the story, not the mechanics, and you're just as willing to fail as you are to succeed, then you're in a good place. If you use your excellent abilities to help the party rather than make yourself better than them, you're in a good place. It's all about sharing the spot light rather than taking it away from everyone else. Give yourself some time in the spot light, but make sure you share it with everyone else at the table.
Agreed completely. Every character should have strengths and weaknesses and good role players work together as a team. I'm playing a character who takes everything that my DM throws at him in the wilderness and succeeds without a problem but who hasn't succeeded at one social challenge in over a year. Why? He's optimized so that his strengths come into play in the wilderness and his weaknesses come into play anywhere that isn't the wilderness. When we're in cities he relies on other members of his party to take the lead or, the few times when he has gone off to do something by himself, he fell flat on his face, much to my DM's amusement and entertainment. I'm playing another character who shines in the city and in social situations but who would lose an arm wrestling contest with your average 10 year old goblin.
I wouldn't enjoy playing very much with the player who makes a "perfect" character that can't lose at anything. But I would enjoy playing with a player who uses his characters strengths creatively to overcome challenges that target the character's weaknesses. And if I was DM for that "power player" who you're describing I'd throw intelligent opponents at the group who would figure out that his character is the biggest threat and who would target his character exclusively before moving on to the normal characters regularly. I wouldn't do that all of the time, but I'd do it often enough that the rest of the players could enjoy themselves while the "power player" is making death saving throws. But I would also let his character succeed sometimes too. Just not more than one week out of 4, assuming that there are 4 players in the group. After all, the goal is for everyone to have fun, not just one person.
Professional computer geek
Thanks for the reply. Yes I’m a human who can choose between stats or a feat. So far I’ve been advised to take only feats that my character would take not necessarily what I as the player would be tactically benifical.
A barbarian with a belief that magic is the devil wouldn’t take up the feat magic initiative for example. Even though by the rules I could.
so at this point it’s what I’m rolling with for balance. But I have other back up characters I’m looking to try so the input is appreciated.
I feel the same way. If my fellow player monk was about to launch a sport bomb from her palms I’d have that familiar fly in and provide advantage threw help.
But I suppose they are assuming I’d utilize all my skills just for me. To which they have been conditioned to from the previous 2 year campaign where everyone acted like single players
I mean...I suppose at my core I want to be a badass. But I also would enjoy enabling other PCs to amplify their badass moments or give it better odds of succeeding
With all that being said, you've heeded their warnings, you've made your decision to be a team player, you're fine. Keep playing that way, and many happy games!