So, you’ve read all about how to how to make a character with a compelling story and how to play D&D tactically. You love your character, and you don’t want them to die. It’s only natural to start thinking about making your character as powerful as possible so they aren’t casually slain by a lucky kobold. Whether you’re a roleplaying maven who wants to give your character a beautiful arc or a combat fanatic who wants to slay everything that stands against you, it only makes sense for your thoughts to turn to powergaming.
In this installment of the New Player’s Guide, we take a look at a controversial topic that has driven many D&D groups apart: will optimizing your character improve your D&D game, or tear your group apart? The answer is more nuanced than you might think.
What is Powergaming?
Powergaming is a term that describes the act of optimizing your D&D character and acting in a way that maximizes reward while minimizing risk. “Powergamer” is roughly synonymous with terms like “min-maxer,” and “munchkin,” and all of these terms carry a degree of derision. That might be because this efficient way of playing largely ignores the “roleplaying” aspect of roleplaying games, and focuses almost exclusively on winning the “game” aspect.
Some powergamers think deeply about the systems of D&D to find broken combos and exploits in the rules, whereas others simply look at character optimization (“char-op”) boards to find powerful combos that other players have theorized about online.
Why Some Folks Optimize, and Why Others Don’t
Everyone who optimizes does it for different reasons, but one common through line is that being strong is fun. If you make a character and envision them as a mighty demon slayer, you want the game to support your story with the mechanics. You want your character to be cool, right? D&D rewards a clever understanding of its mechanics with greater power—essentially, the ability for your character to do cool things more consistently.
In a more extreme case, you might want to create an all-powerful character because the relationship between you and your Dungeon Master is antagonistic. If your DM tries to screw your character over at every opportunity, like you’re playing the Tomb of Horrors in every session, it makes sense to create a character that can’t be defeated.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with optimizing your character; it just means that you’ve put in work to allow your character to do the cool things that you want them to be able to do. On the other hand, there is a dark side to powergaming. If your DM just wants to play a collaborative game where the DM sets interesting challenges in front of the players, but isn’t going out of their way to annihilate your characters, optimizing your character into an all-powerful death machine could leave other players in the dust.
If everyone in your group is optimizing their characters to the best of their ability, this isn’t a problem; everyone’s playing Gandalf or Galadriel or Elrond, the campaign becomes a super-powered thrillfest where powerful wizards and warriors battle evil liches and their undead servants.
On the other hand, there are lots of players who don’t like to optimize. Some do so because they don’t have the time to dedicate to fussing over every minute detail of their character sheet because of their job, home life, or because of any number of real-world concerns. Life is hard, and the people who are working hard to make their real life work deserve to have fun just like the folks who are able to dedicate hours to learning how to optimizing their D&D character. If everyone in your game is “optimization neutral” in this way, you might have a party made up of Aragorn, Legolas, Boromir, and Gimli. All powerful warriors in their own rights, but with a few flaws that force them to rely on one another to survive.
There’s another type of players, too: the kind that actively choose not to optimize their character because they like their characters to have character flaws that are represented in their game stats. These players might optimize their characters in some ways, and lean hard into their weaknesses. Or, they might be happy to be defined by their flaws more than they are by their strengths. A group of players that would rather play Frodo, Sam, and Gollum desperately surviving in a world too powerful for them might play characters like this.
It’s easy to have fun in any group filled with players that all have the same philosophy towards character optimization—even if they don’t have the words to articulate what that philosophy is. However, things become messy when characters of wildly different levels of optimization are in a party together. Gandalf fights the Balrog alone at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum in The Fellowship of the Ring because, as he tells the Fellowship, “This foe is beyond any of you.” This is an awesome moment in the Lord of the Rings films and novels, because we’re an audience that gets to watch one character have the spotlight in a scene that is at once both tragic and epic.
But in a game, the wild power disparity between the hyper-competent Gandalf, the strong-but-flawed warriors like Aragorn and Boromir, and the kind-hearted but physically weak hobbits would be incredibly frustrating. Unless you know that your group is actively excited for that kind of power disparity, you need to figure out a solution.
Side Note: The Stormwind Fallacy
Worth noting is that these broad categories aren’t the be all and end all of powergaming. A classic RPG fallacy is the “Stormwind Fallacy,” which states that character optimization is antithetical to roleplaying. This statement is fallacious because it’s absolutely possible to have a flawed, three-dimensional character and still optimize their build so that they can reliably do cool things, too. Aragorn and Boromir are great examples from the Lord of the Rings characters mentioned above; they’re powerful combatants, but have intense roleplaying flaws. In the films, Aragorn is reluctant and fearful to lead, so he chooses not to claim his birthright and lead the mighty armies of Gondor. Boromir is a talented warrior with many advantages, but he is vulnerable to the corrupting influence of power and the will of the One Ring—a temptation that leads to his downfall.
Some of the best story-focused roleplayers are willing to put their powerful, optimized characters into compromised, suboptimal situations because it creates a dramatic and exciting story. You can see this in Critical Role, Tales from the Mists, and any number of other beloved D&D streams. It can take a lot of trust in the DM to present you with situations that let you kick ass and situations that prey upon your characters’ weaknesses. Nevertheless, playing this way is incredibly rewarding.
What Kind of Gamer are You?
There are too many positions on powergaming and character optimization to count; the spectrum of opinion between “it’s the only true way to play” and “it ruins D&D” contains infinities. Likewise, there’s a continuum of how intensely players will optimize their characters. Some players have an innate knack for finding powerful combos and gravitate to optimizing automatically. Some read char-op threads on D&D forums to learn the best strategies. Some are just happy to play. Some still actively give their characters debilitating flaws because it helps them create a more dramatic and nuanced character.
All of these playstyles are valid. Even so, just because they’re all fine ways to play D&D doesn’t mean that people with different playstyles won’t come into conflict. Some of these playstyles are so disparate that it’s almost inevitable that someone will get annoyed with someone else for playing the game “wrong.” But don’t despair. This doesn’t mean that your group is doomed if some people want to optimize and others don’t.
Communicate Early and Often
If you’re playing with veteran D&D players, they probably know whether or not they like to optimize their characters. In that case, just ask them straight away as part of your Session Zero. As usual, clear and open communication with your fellow players is the solution to 90% of all problems at the game table. Try to align everyone’s goals by finding out if some people don’t like the power imbalance that powergaming can create between player characters, or if they don’t mind.
If your players are new to D&D, they probably don’t know for sure if they’re going to min-max or not, so asking directly won’t be as useful as it would with a veteran player. You might be able to guess how they’ll approach the game based on their personalities or taste in other media. D&D players who play collectible card games or MMORPGs may be more inclined to optimize their characters in D&D because the types of games they play heavily encourage optimization, whereas players who were more into fantasy novels or films may be less inclined to min-max. This is just a rule of thumb; it’s not true for all people. The only way to know how new players will approach the game is to play with them for a few sessions.
Once you know roughly where on the powergaming continuum your players fall, you can host a Session Zero and lay out some expectations for your campaign. Remember, you can have a Session Zero at any time during your campaign, not just before the first session. This works even better if everyone can talk about their own expectations too; this will make your Session Zero less of a lecture from the DM and more of a conversation between friends.
Here are some questions to ask new players that haven’t thought about powergaming before:
- If one of the characters is stronger than all the others, would that make the game less fun for you?
- On the other hand, would you have less fun if your character is weaker than all the others?
- If one character hogs the spotlight and consistently spends more time doing cool things than you, would you be annoyed?
- Do you want this game to be the sort of game where we all work together to tell a story, or do you see it as a competition between the players and the DM?
These questions will help identify your players’ feelings towards intra-party balance (how powerful the characters are in relation to one another), without once mentioning the jargony words of “powergaming” or “optimization.” If the players tell you that these things don’t bother them, great! Just let them know that they can always tell you if something feels bad about your campaign, then go play some D&D!
If a player answers “I don’t know,” then take their answer at face value. Don’t assume they’re hiding something from you. Optimization is probably just a topic they haven’t thought about before, or one that doesn’t impact their enjoyment of the game. Don’t interrogate them, just move on. Trust that if someone’s optimization (or lack thereof) bothers them during the campaign, they’ll let you know.
If the players tell you that yes, some of these things would bother them, you can facilitate a conversation in which the players can agree to not do things that will upset the other players. You’re all here to have fun together, after all. If someone feels like their fun is being trampled on because they feel forced to consider what’s fun for other people, that’s not the kind of person you want in your weekly gaming group. You can ask questions like these to work out a compromise:
- It sounds like most people want the group to not be too overpowered. Would you feel okay not reading any character optimization guides or choosing overpowered combos?
- It sounds like most people want the group to be relatively powerful. Would you feel okay reading a bit about your character’s class before playing? (The Class 101 series is a great place to start to get an overview of your character.)
Balance between player characters can be one of the most important topics a D&D group can discuss. Or, it could be completely unimportant! Figuring out what works for your group must be your number one priority as a Dungeon Master. If you and your players can communicate clearly and effectively with one another, you’ll all come back to the game week after week, excited to play again.
Are you a powergamer, or does someone in your gaming group love to optimize their characters? Have you ever talked with your group to work out how to deal with power imbalances in the party? Let us know in the comments?
Create A Brand-New Adventurer Acquire New Powers and Adventures Browse All Your D&D Content
James Haeck is the lead writer for D&D Beyond, the co-author of Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus, and the Critical Role Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, a member of the Guild Adepts, and a freelance writer for Wizards of the Coast, the D&D Adventurers League, and other RPG companies. He lives in Seattle, Washington with his fiancée Hannah and their animal companions Mei and Marzipan. You can find him wasting time on Twitter at @jamesjhaeck.
As a DM, I tend to balance things out by giving weaker characters a powerful magic item, or creating situations where only their expertise in brewer's tools is useful.
When the party isn't killing monsters one buy who min maxed is...…….
DnD isn't competitive but munchkins are that is the point
With +3 shield and a cloak of protection, ioun stone of protection and ring of protection and warforged and 20 Dex and Unarmored Defense because he’s a Barbarian
I have the opposite problem. None of my characters are powerful enough for anything.
As far as me personally, I enjoy a mix - I want to do cool stuff, but I also don't want everything to always work or it gets boring for me. I like seeing the group fail and then have to dig themselves out of a more difficult situation than anticipated. I also like building characters that are really good at something, but hopefully something obscure or unusual, so that I have to find a way to use it. I prefer my big achievements to be the result of creative thinking in the moment rather than complicated tinkering at the level of the game's mechanics.
That said, in my regular group we have pretty mixed play styles but infrequently have disagreements that get out of hand or result in real dissatisfaction. There are several components as to why that is, depending on what we're doing:
This is entertaining and creative but if you pulled that nonsense at the table you’d never DM another game I was involved in. It doesn’t make any sense to kill the characters that actually passed the check. In fact, it’s pretty much the opposite of allowing a roll to tell a story.
Again, a very entertaining post, though...
Good article.
We've had a few difficult powergamers in our local game community over the years, which consists of 50+ people multiple times a week doing AL in local game stores (before recent events). And as has been pointed out, this is primarily a problem between players, and can cause complaints to go to the game store or to the organizers. A bad powergamer trivializes the content, removing challenge and dramatic tension, which ends up diminishing the other characters. If that bad powergamer is also a "good roleplayer" as opposed to a good player, then they're also commanding the lion's share of the DM's attention, making the other characters/players feel neglected in addition to impotent. Another issue that goes hand in hand with this is when the powergamer tries to direct other characters' turns when said powergamer feels the other players aren't optimizing their turn. A certain amount of advice or in-character coordination is fine, of course, but if it gets to the point where one player is effectively giving orders to another player, we've had to intervene.
In a home group or a long term group where everybody is friends, the players can work it out. In a setting where you have new people (both new to D&D and just new to the local community), it can discourage new players and drive people away from the table. When we've received these complaints and had to take the powergamer aside and have a talk about playing well with others, it has rarely went well. Best case scenario is that they stop coming to our events, in our experience.
Good powergamers, on the other hand, are first good players that contribute to fun for the whole table.
The ''Stormwind Fallacy' is itself a fallacy. It says 'not everyone who smokes gets cancer, therefore smoking has absolutely nothing to do with getting cancer'.
Which just isn't true. There's a correlation.
Thinking about mechanics can be part of the game, but the more you obsess over that, the less likely these players will be interested in the role-playing elements.
D&D is a game for all kinds of play-styles and that's fine, but it's not an MMO either, and trying to make it be more like one leads to what happened in 2008.
I tend to prefer "optimizing" characters to a theme. Such as, this character is focused on lightning spells, so they're competent with a lot of options when lightning spells are relevant, but will have very limited options in scenarios where lightning isn't useful. I'd decide during character creation what that character is passionate about, and use that to make choices going forward as to how to make the character as good at that thing as possible.
Where I tend to get annoyed with powergaming is where someone is using edge cases to try and make the "correct" build. Multiclassing into warlock for purely mechanical reasons, just to get the numbers higher, and then maybe bothering to justify it in-game after the fact is the prime example that seems to come up all the time. That sort of thing always makes me roll my eyes, and I wouldn't be interested in sticking with a group where one or more people take that approach.
I get enough of having to deal with everyone using the mathematically "correct" build in video games, I don't also need it in a tabletop RPG environment.
Power gaming is a form of creativity you find difficult to control.
True power gamers, not just people who want to be the strongest, don't feel a need to play the strongest most awesome character - they feel an insatiable desire to take what they have and do the best they can with it.
If I am to play a subpar subclass because the story dictates my actions, it's okay. If my 7th level Chultan Wood Elf Scout Rogue must now give in to her desires to follow in Ubtao's footsteps and become a Moon Druid for the next 3 levels then so be it. Because the creativity for power gaming can still be there.
If I am to roll 12 12 11 11 7 7 for a character, the spark of power gaming doesn't say I cannot use this... it demands I create some crazy combo to prove it CAN be good (Normal Human named Joe Average who went Shadow Sorc 3 Moon Druid 2 Life Cleric 1 thanks to putting the 12s into Wis and Cha).
When you find a player needs to be better than everyone else, they are not a power gamer... they are just that kind of person. Power gaming is an art form in itself, designed to follow the rules when making a masterpiece.
A Power gamer weaves numbers and abilities together to tell their story efficiently, while a Story gamer weaves words and syntax to tell their story elaborately. Both are the same in that they are exceptionally creative, only power gamers tend to make more people unhappy because most people are okay if 1 person is being carried in a group moreso than if 1 person outshines the group. If you have a power gamer you need to 'control', dont. Simply challenge them - tell them to play the most badass healer they can or challenge them to play a Beastmaster (hint, a well played beastmaster is extremely powerful until the enemy is immune to poison haha).
So when you have an actual power gamer, not just someone who wants to be the best, help challenge them to think outside the box in their power gaming to create the most absurdly overpowered dual wielding thrown weapon expert wizard there is!
To me attention to being reasonably effective at your chosen role in a party, is important. I have to be able to answer the in-character question: "Would my PC want to go into battle with these people at my side?" If the answer is "no" it's probably going to be a bad time for me. On the other hand, for me, someone who's all just playing the character sheet or has built some kind of hyper edge-case optimal build that's really only good at one thing can be problematic, too. What does that character do when the game doesn't involve whatever they optimized to dominate? How interesting is always succeeding at that task, anyway?
Inattention to some amount of optimization can be a problem, too. More than once I've seen characters that were either seriously suboptimal, frequently from trying to do too much or avoid any weaknesses and thus getting spread too thin. The player gets frustrated at their general ineffectiveness relative to everyone else.
This can be a problem with a highly optimized character in the hands of a player not up for it, too. Think of the new player trying to play a monk, sorcerer, Battlemaster fighter with complicated feats, or some kind of multiclass build. These aren't especially good "starter" characters or for players who just don't want to bother. I've played with a few players who are perfectly capable of handling characters like that but don't enjoy them and instead prefer simpler character types like the Champion fighter. Could they eke out a bit more performance from a different build? Sure, but then they'd have lots of resource management and other things they don't want to do. The Champion functions quite well and doesn't have much of that.
So, like a lot of things, there's really no substitute for knowing your table and, if you're the DM, setting expectations and helping players build characters that work. A table mix of tactician, a thespian, a munchkin/power gamer, and two casual gamers may not work out so well.
5th edition is probably the least 'powergamey' version yet, mostly because there are so few options. A tiny amount of feats and classes, no real 'level appropriate' magic items. Optimising can be done in any system, but baseline D&D assumes a fairly equal amount of combat, exploration and interaction, and its only really possible to optimise for the former.
Another issue is that in the 21st century, other things like videogames and even board-games scratch that itch far better than tabletop does. If optimising and 'winning' are your main reasons for playing, D&D doesn't offer anything as much as other mediums do. World of Warcraft has you covered for all that. Whereas people who want stories and character aren't covered as well by other media - even games like Dragon Age can only simulate you interacting with another person.
In summary, ask everyone at the table beforehand:
Is this going to be the game where you play your Strength-based Monk/Rogue multi-class, with expertise in Athletics and the grappler feat?
Or, in this a game for that crazy Vengeance Paladin/Assassin build you once read about, maybe with an unexpected Background for flavor?
You have a point, but I think you are implying to direct a conflict.
It’s more that there is only so much attention which a table has to go around, so emphasizing any one aspect of the game may leave a little less for the others. Furthermore, not all tables have the same “budget”. Political intrigue, wildness survival, and strategic planning all compete for a piece of player interest and DM prep-work.
It’s best to think of these in terms of different fields of investment, rather than opposed philosophies.
I believe the player should create the best character they can.
While role playing and storytelling are fun, so is surviving an adventure/encounter.
Tell the Paladin that's killing dozens of demons who are going to destroy the world that D&D isn't competitive.
D&D is competitive. It's you versus the monsters.
I think the point Ris is trying to make is that, from their perspective, some optimizers appear to be outcompeting the rest of the party, not the monsters.
I mean, the thing here is that if you don't have a group that's all on board the same philosophy, it's much harder for a DM to determine an appropriate challenge. Either it's challenging for the guy who powergames the hardest, and overwhelming to the guy who powergames the least, or its going to be trivially easy.
You don't need to get really in depth with powergaming to "survive encounters" unless your DM is the biggest powergamer at the table. The level of challenge can be made to suit the actual power level of the group. But if there is a big disparity in the group, that can become impossible.
That's a fair point too. From I've seen, though, it's more like a correlation. Yes, any kind of player can fit in well and make everyone around the table happier, and any kind of player can be a nightmare if they choose.
But one thing I've noticed since I started playing D&D in 1980 is that the kind of player who thinks only about the mechanics, the one who wants to 'win', tends to be the one who is a disruptive element and spoils things for others. It's the playstyle that clashes most severely with the default assumptions. This is also the person most likely to cheat, which is what happens when a powergamer becomes a 'munchkin'.
Is it possible to have a degree of system mastery AND be a great role-player? Of course. But I think it's a sliding scale, and those who only care about mechanics tend to be the ones who cause the problems at the table and spoil things for others.
I tend to optimize to some degree. But I also try to build around other players' characters concepts. In the game I'm currently playing, none of the other players were interested in playing the skill-monkey or the arcane caster, so I'm playing a bard. Since a lot of bard abilities are support, it's easier to help. Faerie Fire is a powerful spell, but it doesn't steal other characters' thunder; nor does bardic inspiration or song of rest.
That said, I still get some grief for being able to do everything. Well, yes, that was kind of the point. I chose to make a half-elf Lore Bard with a criminal background because we needed someone to pick locks, diplomancy nobles, and counterspell wizards. I deliberately forewent character builds I was considering so I would be doing something different than the archer ranger and Life cleric. (Farewell, Forge Cleric and ranged valor bard builds.)
That said, it's not serious conflict. I hope.