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.
Simply put, unless you are a veteran, extremely experienced DM, powergamers are going to ruin your prep. Encounters will be one-sided and unmeaningful. The CR guides for monsters will go completely out the window, leaving you feeling lost in a world full of rules. 95% of DMs aren't mega experienced, and It makes me sad to see this article which condones powergaming.
DMs have lives. Most don't have time to put more than 10 hours per week into an adventure. If you have powergamers in your group that nitpick the rules to gain every possible advantage, that translates to the DM not only having to study the rules, story, and (hopefully) immersive world, but also to studying the PC's character sheets to find ways to challenge them. I think powergamers ruin games. DND is not about nitpicking math and edge case semantics. It is about living a story.
If you as a player only care about making your character as powerful as possible, then you are a selfish player and you don't recognize how much work it takes the DM to create the world you play in. Most DMs are not multi-year veterans who know the edge case rules of every spell, and by powergaming, you are showing them how selfish and unappreciative you are.
Words lose and change meaning, which is natural, BUT we really benefit from learning what they meant at their base, so we can distinguish the real issue: "METAGAMING". Metagaming is a broad spectrum, and many types of metagame tendencies overlap, but the convention was to use the type of Metagaming term that most applied to the Player's (OR DM's) Behavior. Yes, DM's can metagame too!
Some games and tables allow metagaming, some discourage it, and some accept it happens and just make sure it doesn't get out of hand.
First: Metagaming is a passive form of roleplay. Players typically do not assume identities "in character" and act as if the game is "not real". Metagamers do not care so much about suspending disbelief or engaging the game as an story-centric adventure in a dynamic world.
A min-maxer is a metagamer. In this case, it is one who leaves a lop-sided unbalanced character that can't fit into the common populace of a world naturally. The most extreme can barely function unless they are in the situations their characters are poised to dominate in. They often play it off as comical, if they actively roleplay at all.
A munchkin is a metagamer. It is not just about how they optimize character creation and progression, it is also because they compete with the other members of the party - trying to get the last hit, best kill, and best rolls in general. They often play hack and slash, passive roleplay, and have no empathy for the NPCs.
A power-gamer is a metagamer. In addition to the typical metagaming above, they exploit the line between player knowledge and character knowledge, often not even really being "in the game" - they sit poised above it all like a chess match to "win" DnD, and use the PCs like pawns to "win." They have no empathy for their own character, or allies, or anyone else, and will often say "rules are stupid" if the DM presents an obstacle to complicate or defeat the strategy to how they think they can "win." They are mostly easy to identify by their bad sportsmanship when they don't get their way. They may not so much as compete with the other players, as with the DM, and may even enlist the other players to challenge the DM. They also often try and direct the course of action for other players of other classes beyond what their own Character would know. The worst want to roll dice for players whose rolls fall below target.
TheBlackFang - That's an unacceptable way to play and tbh in that scenario as a DM I would instantly put that discussion down for good and as a player (if I was the Cleric) I would stop preparing healing spells until the party apologized for it.
I spend at least 10 hours a week, and my players have never played a full campaign before. I agree completely, unless the DM explicitly says that powergaming is allowed.
I personally fall under the category of minmaxing around flaws. I have a soulknife rogue that (at level 5) can roll 40s on ability checks, but i gave her a 6 in wisdom, I elected to have one horrible ability because it was a good rp point. I'm still better than everyone in my party when it comes to skills, but I have a flaw that means i need to rely on our cleric for their insight.
The one thing I do have a problem with is anti-minmaxing, purposefully making a horrible build because it would be fun, for example, the bardbarian. Everyone loves the bardbarian, mostly because a certain flowy hair dm made it popular when in reality it is antithetical to both classes, making the character worse. It is that type of purposeful bad character creation that can legitimately be toxic and harm group dynamics and group fun just because someone is playing a build they chose to make horrible. And the worst part is that those types of people tend to play story driven characters that most of the time have some nonsense grandiose backstory which is not supported by their in game actions and statistics. For example, I have just recently been in a game where someone, after getting explained what a barbarian is and what the limiting factors were, wanted to play a tiefling barbarian with a 9 str, 12 dex, 10 con and the most nonsense high mental scores. We all yelled at them, they cried and left, but we all had a better time after it because we didn't allow toxic character creation for the luls in our group.
While I acknowledge that purposely making a bad character is extremely problematic, I'm surprised that you don't see a similar issue in having one character that excels in every type of skill check except those relating to one skill. The way you make it sound, the party you're in could consist of just your character and the cleric and would have exactly the same skill check output as with your party's current layout. I've both been in and DM-ed parties with that dynamic, and I can reassure you that not only is it not fun for the members of the party who feel like they're not contributing anything, it sucks for the DM when the fighter is confronting the man who's attempting to frame his father for murder and Anime Reference the Bard, who has insane bonuses on every ability check, butts in with an intimidation roll that completely derails everything else that's going on.
I feel I naturally gravitate towards powergaming so I will ask the DM what feats, races, classes, variant rules etc. are NOT allowed in their game. I feel confident in creating some pretty strong builds so having those restrictions are just lines the DM doesn't want me to cross and I have no problem with that.
There is also the case of game length and DM experience in the factor.
If an experienced DM is running a tier 3 one shot then IMO powergaming shouldn't be so much of a worry, but for a campaign taking many months with a DM just starting then having more restrictions they place can help them to understand the game better. IMO people who are making a DND group for the first time and having newbie DM with them SHOULD NOT have player builds past tier 1, and should keep the group as small as possible.
There are SOOO many things to keep track of for each player that as a DM it may feel like it's cheating when that one player does something you didn't expect was a thing when on their player sheet it says they can.
Imagine all the rules conflicts you would have from high level players and newbie GMs as well as rules being misinterpreted on the part of the player or the GM feeling to nerf a player for sake of good conflict.
Consider the power dynamic of diseases and paladins. At level 1 a paladin can lay on hands and cure any disease which means if a DM wants a story with a plague the plot is resolved too quickly or they have to nerf the paladin's ability by making the disease "magical" or whatever, essentially it's power creep.
Also for any GM remember the campaign only goes as far as you want it to, not to level 20. If you feel that the game breaks down once players reach level 9 then it's perfectly alright to have a level 1-9 campaign and then the players can try and make the best builds leading to that ending.
As for the part of some players have lives outside of DND to worry about build optimization, that is where they can talk with the other players to help them with suggestions for their character that align with the limitations set by the DM. Bard player reaches level 3 and not sure what college would be best they ask the other players and then the group can think together which bard would be most useful like: well our character's don't really need bardic inspiration so why not go lore bard for earlier magical secrets and cutting words on the enemies. vs. you know a valor bard would be helpful in fights to get that extra bit of damage on enemies and they have extra attack themselves. The player who has other things to worry about can look at the suggestion and take it if they want or ignore it if say they already wanted to play a Glamour Bard in which case....not sure why they asked for suggestions if they already had a build, then again it could be asking, "I am thinking of going glamour bard for the bard college at level 3, what do you guys think?" and then players can go " oh mantle of inspiration would be great for combat to get us into positions for advantage on attack rolls without worrying about opportunity attacks and enthralling performance would be useful for roleplay segments and have potential to end a battle before it starts." and there you go.
one of my favorite things to do is play intentionally weak or flawed characters for the roleplay. My favorite is the Pacifist Cleric. Do no harm and all that.
Being a power gamer is fine, I chill with those folks and they are cool. Being a Rper is fine, I chill with those folks and they are cool. but I have encountered incredibly toxic versions of each. Pepole who are so focused on RP they quite the game if they start losing in combat and People who completely ignore rp to make a box of stats. Personally I allow and even encourage a bit of optimization just so my players won't get wrecked by a deadly encounter.
You bullied someone out of the table and had more fun because of it? Honestly, I couldn't imagine playing at your table and the toxic atmosphere that it must be.
Anti power gaming is honestly all I would think to do since you designed a character that, as someone else has said, complete every task with one other person in your group. It sounds like an unhealthy dynamic and you've forgotten to collaborate. Any time someone's response to something they can't do is to take that skill instead of look at their party and what their party can do it tells me all I need to know about them as a player.
I've rocked a halfling barbarian for a one shot to test the concept. Strength was abysmal for a Barbarian and Con wasn't great but the natural boost to Dexterity combined with the class benefits made an exceptionally tanky Barbarian who had to hold the aggro while the party did the damage. If the party could do the damage while I tanked the build worked, it required everyone to have their moments, I was technically APG but it worked because it is a collaborative game and everyone had fun. Creativity, a little insanity, and knowing that high stats isn't everything makes for a great experience.
With that said, I'd rather never roll a die again than play at a table that bullied someone into leaving it.
All my characters start out as story concepts. So I create their story first and from their story, their abilities emerge. I then pick a race, class and background that will allow me to make the best use of those abilities, and assign their ability scores accordingly.
Where I don't think my method of character building is unique, I think it is maybe somewhat rare.
It also means that I often end up with characters that look broken on paper, but which are excellent at doing what they do and provide lots of roleplay opportunities as well.
When I make characters, I choose race first, then come up with a cool story for what class they have any why.
I’m glad you went into how optimization isn’t in binary opposition to good role playing. I’m an optimizer. I seek to see that the stuff on my character sheet is the best it can be. Good race/class mix, maxed stats for the things my character needs to be good at, etc. As long as you aren’t an ass who try’s to take all the glory and horde the magic items there’s nothing wrong with mechanical optimization and you can still be a good role player.
A friend of mine was writing a book (I do not know if it was published) about bad GM'ing and had people from all over the world submit things they had issues with. A few of them were of the "GM looks over our PC sheets to find weakness's and then throws those types of things at us. So the PC with the lowest will save gets the dominate spell every time, their are lots of creatures that do fire damage until the groups gets items of fire resistance and then monsters suddenly switch to frost damage (and then to acid damage, etc).
I also see a fine line with looking at PC sheets to see if there are issues with encounters and looking for flaws and using specific creatures against specific PC's.
I also understand that often while planning for a game it takes me 1-5 hours of prep for every hour of game time (but different games can have different prep amounts), heck even using pre-made adventures required me some time to study the adventure and make sure I knew all working parts backwards and forwards.
A question "I am curious as to what ruining an encounter is like to you?"
MDC
One thing I see as a factor in power gaming I have experienced is the length of game time, if you play less than 4 hours (of actual RP time) the game tends to be more combat oriented and that can lead to less social RPing as well as people being more competitive for the GM's attention. The same can be said if you do not game as often and game for only short periods of time.
But if you game for longer then I have found often the players like to have others take the spotlight and you tend to have fewer issues.
having said that there are players out there that have trouble making characters (no matter the system) that have as much impact as other PC's as well as there are players who do not want to do as much RPing (talking in voices, dressing up, etc) as others. So hopefully everyone can find a group that fits them and/or lets people play how they most comfortable with and interact positively with the rest of the group.
MDC
Thanks, I've deleted the theoretical situation because it has clearly distracted from the rest of the post.
Thanks, I've deleted the theoretical situation because it clearly distracted from the rest of the post.
I understand the point you are making, but that story is very flattering towards you and your group.
Don’t get me wrong, the player in question clearly wasn’t a good fit your table’s play-style. Intentionally weak character builds are part of a rather niche kind of story-focused campaign, and it’s completely reasonable for you to object if you’re trying to play a more mechanically rigorous game.
However, it’s never correct to just hound someone away, regardless of how “toxic” their behavior might be. You ask them to change, and if they refuse (assuming the table is in agreement) you politely disinvite them from the next session.
That aside, this brings up the point that a lot of these things aren’t actually mechanical issues, but problems with player and table dynamics. A really mechanically “competitive” style of table requires the table to be all in for it, just as the “bardbarian” does. When players disagree, they need to negotiate it out with the rest of the table. Sometimes that means that not everyone can play together in the same campaign, and you have to handle it in a civil way. I know that is far easier said than done, but it’s something you can’t get away from.
Our DM once ran a high level one-shot where we as players were allowed to play 19th level characters. I took a Juggernaut Warforge Barbarian by the name of "GG-EC-1-11". I created him in a way that he had an AC of 25 and 233 HP. He was wielding a Flame Tongue Longsword and was just the mightiest build I ever played. We eventually ended up in several traps and mine was a combat trap, where undead we're ressurected, at first one, than two, than three, you get the idea. In the end I ended up fighting 20 plus skeletons at once. The funny thing was that I wasn't hit once in the whole encounter.
From a role playing perspective I gave "GG" the quirk that, despite him being a total killer machine, he had a mindset of C-3PO. He was almost childish, kindhearted and like a protective servant to the other party members, with the urge to protect them from any harm. We all had a lot fun with him and I still use his base concept in campaigns I am in.
The point of this story is, that it is absolutely possible to have fun, combat and roleplaying wise, with a maxed out character.
That’s exactly what I do and I hate it when people hate on powergaming because you can powergame and roleplay, you just need to make sure that you have both.