I have a fighter 3 level, two wizards 4 level, and a 3 level bard. I use point buy 

I think most people are just also forgetting the main point of the article,

Balance between player characters can be one of the most important topics a D&D group can discuss.

If you're a power-gamer looking to play "Nightmare" difficulty and the rest of your group is highly under-optimized, you need to reconsider whether the group is right for you. The same goes for the other way around; if your group is regularly fighting beasts that are deadly difficulty, your 45 hp, 10 ac wizard with 12 int might not be conducive to having much fun.

I personally tend to optimize my characters to ensure that they can do well what they want to do. That typically puts me in a safer position during encounters than others, but honestly 5th edition is a lot harder to make 'indestructable' characters. I'd say it's the responsibility of the DM to be aware of each character's strengths and weaknesses, to have a good understanding of the rules, and to be skilled at setting up 'scenes' appropriate to each character that let's them shine. Anyone can run a D&D game, for sure, but good DMs are hard to come by. 

Personally, I've learned to take a step back. I've played D&D for about 24 years and now I'm with a group of players who all started in the last 1-2 years. Their characters are deeply flawed; mostly due to a casual approach to understanding the game system. So they play what seems "fun" to them, even though this means a "normal challenge" turns into a difficult one. Fortunately our DM is also a 25+ year veteran who can cater situations appropriately, allowing me to get my challenges too, while not immediately turning the other characters into paste. ;-)

This. Exactly this, though I think  you put it much more eloquently than I did 

I enjoy power gaming, and role playing. To all of you who say those are not connected you are wrong. Part of the reason I power game is because of my backstory, and I sometimes create a powerful character and then add an interesting backstory. If you enjoy power gaming then do what you want, just remember that even though you might have a +500 to lock picking with advantage,  the thief rogue in the party will enjoy the game so much more if he gets to try. Power gaming is only not fun when you break the game, like a sorcerer warlock with infinite spells. No one likes that guy because then no one else can do anything. Power gaming is just another part of D&D, so just have fun with it.

Quote from hotpocketlover >>

Quote from Wulfwithin >>

"Powergaming" is a term invented by players who aren't good at the game, and DM's who would rather shame players into playing something else because they can't rise to the challenge. Why would you want your character to be weak for flavor, or because others have self-esteem issues when your character does better in combat than them? Why don't we put all that pettiness aside and just be fantasy characters?

 

Powergaming focuses on maximization problems and mathematical arguments, so I'm going to compare learning D&D to learning math:

If a person new to mathematics wants to start with the basics, then they don't want their friends, tutors, or teachers to start throwing calculus and topological arguments at them because it's overwhelming. Say you, a new student, wanted to start learning math with your friends at a reasonable pace, and you all decided to begin with basic algebra. Then, suddenly, one of your friends who took to the subject faster extrapolated all of the basics and started basing their explanations in deep theories of polynomials and finite-dimensional vector spaces during your group study sessions. When you try to tell your friend that their complicated ideas are making the group's learning difficult and un-fun, you are then told you have "self-esteem issues".

Do you think you'd feel good about that? Would you be excited to delve deeper and discover the cool numbers and patterns hidden behind all of the axioms and theorems? Do you ever appreciate it when a teacher in class gives a terse, technically correct explanation, and then makes you feel less than because you don't currently understand and you don't have the time to spend hours upon hours studying esoteric books?

This is an article for new players. If you are new at any subject, should you be chastised or made to feel stupid or unworthy because you don't operate perfectly? Do people appreciate know-it-all Hermione Grangers who wield their knowledge over others because of their own internal self-esteem issues and superiority complexes?

Your argument is elitist and is intent on excluding new players from the game.

  Your analogy is false for a couple reasons. D&D isnt analogous to the entire field of mathematics,  it would be far mor apt to compare it to a single course with a single textbook and a couple notebooks of additional problems to try using the same basic principles shown in the textbook. The content is not especially wide ranging nor broad in scope on the player side of the equation, and the various pieces that make up a character are all plainly apparent. In your argument you are also having the 'disadvantaged new player' speak for the group without any indication that others feel the same, nor that there is a potential compromise such as having that 'advanced' player help them understand the game. Your scenario is entirely based on "your character is more capable and that makes me feel bad" instead of any active intent on the part of the other player.

You go on to explain how it is the "being made to feel small or unintelligent" that is the issue in a subsequent paragraph,  but is that not completely separate from whether or not you are learning 'math'? I dont disagree that anyone who disparages another because that other person has not realised x or y is being a jerk, but that is separate from the topic of powergaming. You are essentially making an argument that someone else shouldnt be able to play to their ability because they know more than you. That is like going to a track meet and asking to put weights on a runner that you know is a better athlete.  That is also problematic behavior. 

Someone who is new to chess shouldnt expect to be able to compete with a grandmaster. 

I dont deny that there is elitism at many tables, but there is also entitlement. One persons rights end where anothers begin.

I've always encouraged people to play with 'like minded players', those players that are all min maxed and use statements like "S/he is the tank", "s/he is the healer", or "Make sure your DPS is XX", sure you can have fun and it's fun winning every Football game (of any code or style) 100 to 0 every game. Every Game.

Unfortunately, 5e is very easy to make sure players pick the 'right' traits, feats, skills, backgrounds, spells, or whatever. The moment players begin dictating what characters other players must have, we're in another style of discussion/argument.

The classical problem with power gaming is the arms race that ensues. Once upon a time one country had atomic weapons and were on the verge of giving the pursuit of weapons up, unfortunately a rival country worked their own atomic weapons and there we go arms race.

In RPGs, when one class or PC gets a buff, the DM needs to counter that one character/buff, and when that character dies the party is TPK. When the DM has the options of TPK or cakewalk, there's something wrong fundamentally. We don't deal in absolutes here.

Powergamers are a product of the DM (40%), the gaming system (40%), and the player (20%). 

There's no 'You're doing it wrong!', the party and DM are a fit or they're not (it doesn't have to be 100% fit, enough of a compromise to make the gaming experience enjoyable for everyone). No need to reduce players to tears or turn others off the game because of it. Age and experience has little to do with it as I have seen new gamers play well and older more experienced players behave badly.

Everyone 'Wins' when a good time is had by all and the group wants to play again next time.

Quote from Barathol_Creed >>

Quote from hotpocketlover >>

Quote from Wulfwithin >>

"Powergaming" is a term invented by players who aren't good at the game, and DM's who would rather shame players into playing something else because they can't rise to the challenge. Why would you want your character to be weak for flavor, or because others have self-esteem issues when your character does better in combat than them? Why don't we put all that pettiness aside and just be fantasy characters?

 

Powergaming focuses on maximization problems and mathematical arguments, so I'm going to compare learning D&D to learning math:

If a person new to mathematics wants to start with the basics, then they don't want their friends, tutors, or teachers to start throwing calculus and topological arguments at them because it's overwhelming. Say you, a new student, wanted to start learning math with your friends at a reasonable pace, and you all decided to begin with basic algebra. Then, suddenly, one of your friends who took to the subject faster extrapolated all of the basics and started basing their explanations in deep theories of polynomials and finite-dimensional vector spaces during your group study sessions. When you try to tell your friend that their complicated ideas are making the group's learning difficult and un-fun, you are then told you have "self-esteem issues".

Do you think you'd feel good about that? Would you be excited to delve deeper and discover the cool numbers and patterns hidden behind all of the axioms and theorems? Do you ever appreciate it when a teacher in class gives a terse, technically correct explanation, and then makes you feel less than because you don't currently understand and you don't have the time to spend hours upon hours studying esoteric books?

This is an article for new players. If you are new at any subject, should you be chastised or made to feel stupid or unworthy because you don't operate perfectly? Do people appreciate know-it-all Hermione Grangers who wield their knowledge over others because of their own internal self-esteem issues and superiority complexes?

Your argument is elitist and is intent on excluding new players from the game.

  Your analogy is false for a couple reasons. D&D isnt analogous to the entire field of mathematics,  it would be far mor apt to compare it to a single course with a single textbook and a couple notebooks of additional problems to try using the same basic principles shown in the textbook. The content is not especially wide ranging nor broad in scope on the player side of the equation, and the various pieces that make up a character are all plainly apparent. In your argument you are also having the 'disadvantaged new player' speak for the group without any indication that others feel the same, nor that there is a potential compromise such as having that 'advanced' player help them understand the game. Your scenario is entirely based on "your character is more capable and that makes me feel bad" instead of any active intent on the part of the other player.

You go on to explain how it is the "being made to feel small or unintelligent" that is the issue in a subsequent paragraph,  but is that not completely separate from whether or not you are learning 'math'? I dont disagree that anyone who disparages another because that other person has not realised x or y is being a jerk, but that is separate from the topic of powergaming. You are essentially making an argument that someone else shouldnt be able to play to their ability because they know more than you. That is like going to a track meet and asking to put weights on a runner that you know is a better athlete.  That is also problematic behavior. 

Someone who is new to chess shouldnt expect to be able to compete with a grandmaster. 

I dont deny that there is elitism at many tables, but there is also entitlement. One persons rights end where anothers begin.

Thanks for your reply. I'd like to respond to a few statements of yours:

"D&D isn't analogous to the entire field of mathematics."
I disagree in that D&D is analogous to the entire field of physics and physics is based entirely in mathematics and physical observation. D&D is supposed to represent a magical world that is real. The realism is based in that fact that it reflects physical laws from our objective, real-life reality, thus D&D's realism is directly borrowed from the field of physics. Extrapolating further, physics is enabled by the field of mathematics, thus by the transitive property of equality, D&D's realism and logical soundness is directly borrowed from the soundness of mathematical arguments.

"You are essentially making an argument that someone else shouldn't be able to play to their ability because they know more than you. That is like going to a track meet and asking to put weights on a runner that you know is a better athlete."
Is playing D&D with your friends supposed to be a competition where someone wins? Is D&D a game you can win -- just how you can win in a track meet? Maybe we disagree because we view the purpose of D&D in different ways. I view it as a game where the objective is to have fun as a group -- for everyone to vibe together and build memories. You view it as a competition where there is a clear winner, second place, third place, and last place loser.

If you have the time, I'd like you to think about this large digression as an example of how powergaming can completely ruin the fun of the game. This example is taken from 1d4chan and it is called, I shit you not, the Shitcannon of Holding.

The main argument: 
Let's say you have a bag of holding with a 1,500-pound weight limit. In feudal lands, you can easily acquire 1,500 pounds of cattle shit to fill the bag completely. Falling objects in D&D do 1d6 damage per 200lbs per 10 feet they fall. A falling object will accelerate to ~15 meters per second after 40 feet of falling. Remember this for later. A human's normal movement rate in Dungeons & Dragons is 30 feet per round (6 seconds). If the human took the Running feat, he or she can sprint to 5x their normal movement speed, or 150 feet in one round normally. With a Haste spell in effect, the normal human's speed is doubled to 300 feet in one round. 300ft / 6seconds =~ 15.24 metres per second. Consider one PC holding open the bag of holding in outstretched arms, pointing the mouth at some evil wizard. Another PC has Haste cast upon them and then he or she runs full speed at the back of the bag. This will easily invert the bag, violently ejecting its contents at the imparted speed. The target the bag was aimed at will receive 1,500 pounds of flung shit at a nice 15 meters per second, for (7.5 rounded up) 8d6 damage, x4 for the extra speed. That's a total of 32d6 of filth applied directly to the forehead -- more than the evil wizard's 20d6 max fireball. The launched poo averages 62hp of damage with a maximum of 192hp. No, there are no metamagic feats for maximizing shit damage.

Argument to undermine the main argument:
The bag of holding negates mass for the items inside, and the runner is hitting the back of the bag. The laws of inertia are already being ignored before the bag is even opened, but the real problem is the bag itself. Per the bag of holding description, if the bag is overloaded or if sharp objects pierce it from inside or outside, it ruptures and is ruined. If the running PC is moving into the bag at 15m/s, he or she does 8d6 damage on impact (minimum 8). Cloth has a hardness of 0 and 2hp/inch of thickness, so the bag is going to tear like tissue as soon as the hasted poo-warrior hits it. Also, the description of the bag of holding states that if the bag is turned inside out, the contents spill out unharmed. This coincides with no imparted momentum. The rules don't state that the contents spill out at the same speed it was opened, just that they spill out. The items in the bag are motionless while being stored and are hence motionless when ejected.

Argument to undermine the argument that undermines the main argument:
There is a way to break the undermining argument if you think about the speed of the planet you are currently on and how it is moving around its local star at terrific speed. In order for the contents of the bag of holding to not be flung backwards at terrifying speeds, most likely causing them harm (i.e. because they have zero momentum compared to the local environment, as argued in the undermining argument), then the contents need to gain the current inertia of the planet relative to its central orbiting body in order to fall unharmed onto the local ground. General Relativity also states that there is no "motionless" part of the universe, so physics proves without a doubt that the contents that get spilled out have some type of inertia relative to the local environment. The extent to which this environment is defined, however, is mysterious, but if you could convince your GM to put a boundary, you could manipulate the boundary such that once the contents are spilled out, you take the contents with inertia that matches the local environment and transfer them somehow to a "slower" environment. This inertial difference would impart nonzero momentum to the contents (meaning nonzero velocity is imparted to the contents), thus the shitcannon would work, and would most likely be even more violent because we are now considering the speeds of planetary orbits.

In conclusion:
Is D&D a game where people need to be discussing the physical laws of the universe (i.e. nitpicking esoteric rules)? Or is it a game where people are supposed to live a narrative and have fun? Do you think that it would be disruptive for someone to bring up general relativity at a table to argue to the GM that he or she should be able to deal ridiculous damage by firing shit out of a bag of holding?

I think situations like this -- powergaming situations -- ruin the game. And unfortunately, I speak from my personal experience.

Quote from ConstantlyComic >>

Quote from Wulfwithin >>

"Powergaming" is a term invented by players who aren't good at the game, and DM's who would rather shame players into playing something else because they can't rise to the challenge. Why would you want your character to be weak for flavor, or because others have self-esteem issues when your character does better in combat than them? Why don't we put all that pettiness aside and just be fantasy characters?

See, that's funny to me because balancing encounters is one of my weaknesses as a DM because my first DM-ing experience was with powergamers. I won't go into details, but watching one PC obliterate everything I threw at the party, while anything that might have been a challenge for him would run the serious risk or wiping out the rest of the party with little to no effort, really skewed my ideas of what an encounter should look like. Nowadays, I personally have nothing against optimization, and I would never force a player to do something other than what they'd planned with their build (unless they're using homebrew or UA stuff without discussing it with me first), but focusing purely on it for character-building is definitely either something either the whole party should be doing or none of the party should be doing.

I know this may surprise you, but some people like to play, you know, characters instead of walking piles of stats. If everyone optimized their characters all the time the way that you're describing, then there would be entire races, classes, and subclasses that would never get touched, which is so obviously not how the game is supposed to be played that it's laughable. Players should be able to play a Four Elements monk because they want to punch stuff and throw fireballs just as much as they should be able to play an Open Hand monk because it's going to generally be better at doing monk things (deliberately making your character bad at things their class should be good at is another story and definitely something that would merit a talking-to at my table).

Nice of you to accuse people of being petty in such a petty comment.

 

 Thank you for that very elaborate love letter.
The whole point is people should be able to play a game however they want without other people getting butt hurt over it.
As mentioned, some DM's can rise to the challenge and find ways to deal with well-built characters, and others can't, but think being a keyboard warrior online will make up for that fact.
I'm sorry you had such a traumatic experience, and then had a beautiful character development into someone who doesn't mind optimization,
but is still secretly salty about it because optimized characters are "walking piles of stats" to him.
Make sure your white steed gets plenty of water.

Quote from hotpocketlover >>

Quote from Barathol_Creed >>

Quote from hotpocketlover >>

Quote from Wulfwithin >>

"Powergaming" is a term invented by players who aren't good at the game, and DM's who would rather shame players into playing something else because they can't rise to the challenge. Why would you want your character to be weak for flavor, or because others have self-esteem issues when your character does better in combat than them? Why don't we put all that pettiness aside and just be fantasy characters?

 

Powergaming focuses on maximization problems and mathematical arguments, so I'm going to compare learning D&D to learning math:

If a person new to mathematics wants to start with the basics, then they don't want their friends, tutors, or teachers to start throwing calculus and topological arguments at them because it's overwhelming. Say you, a new student, wanted to start learning math with your friends at a reasonable pace, and you all decided to begin with basic algebra. Then, suddenly, one of your friends who took to the subject faster extrapolated all of the basics and started basing their explanations in deep theories of polynomials and finite-dimensional vector spaces during your group study sessions. When you try to tell your friend that their complicated ideas are making the group's learning difficult and un-fun, you are then told you have "self-esteem issues".

Do you think you'd feel good about that? Would you be excited to delve deeper and discover the cool numbers and patterns hidden behind all of the axioms and theorems? Do you ever appreciate it when a teacher in class gives a terse, technically correct explanation, and then makes you feel less than because you don't currently understand and you don't have the time to spend hours upon hours studying esoteric books?

This is an article for new players. If you are new at any subject, should you be chastised or made to feel stupid or unworthy because you don't operate perfectly? Do people appreciate know-it-all Hermione Grangers who wield their knowledge over others because of their own internal self-esteem issues and superiority complexes?

Your argument is elitist and is intent on excluding new players from the game.

  Your analogy is false for a couple reasons. D&D isnt analogous to the entire field of mathematics,  it would be far mor apt to compare it to a single course with a single textbook and a couple notebooks of additional problems to try using the same basic principles shown in the textbook. The content is not especially wide ranging nor broad in scope on the player side of the equation, and the various pieces that make up a character are all plainly apparent. In your argument you are also having the 'disadvantaged new player' speak for the group without any indication that others feel the same, nor that there is a potential compromise such as having that 'advanced' player help them understand the game. Your scenario is entirely based on "your character is more capable and that makes me feel bad" instead of any active intent on the part of the other player.

You go on to explain how it is the "being made to feel small or unintelligent" that is the issue in a subsequent paragraph,  but is that not completely separate from whether or not you are learning 'math'? I dont disagree that anyone who disparages another because that other person has not realised x or y is being a jerk, but that is separate from the topic of powergaming. You are essentially making an argument that someone else shouldnt be able to play to their ability because they know more than you. That is like going to a track meet and asking to put weights on a runner that you know is a better athlete.  That is also problematic behavior. 

Someone who is new to chess shouldnt expect to be able to compete with a grandmaster. 

I dont deny that there is elitism at many tables, but there is also entitlement. One persons rights end where anothers begin.

Thanks for your reply. I'd like to respond to a few statements of yours:

"D&D isn't analogous to the entire field of mathematics."
I disagree in that D&D is analogous to the entire field of physics and physics is based entirely in mathematics and physical observation. D&D is supposed to represent a magical world that is real. The realism is based in that fact that it reflects physical laws from our objective, real-life reality, thus D&D's realism is directly borrowed from the field of physics. Extrapolating further, physics is enabled by the field of mathematics, thus by the transitive property of equality, D&D's realism and logical soundness is directly borrowed from the soundness of mathematical arguments.

"You are essentially making an argument that someone else shouldn't be able to play to their ability because they know more than you. That is like going to a track meet and asking to put weights on a runner that you know is a better athlete."
Is playing D&D with your friends supposed to be a competition where someone wins? Is D&D a game you can win -- just how you can win in a track meet? Maybe we disagree because we view the purpose of D&D in different ways. I view it as a game where the objective is to have fun as a group -- for everyone to vibe together and build memories. You view it as a competition where there is a clear winner, second place, third place, and last place loser.

If you have the time, I'd like you to think about this large digression as an example of how powergaming can completely ruin the fun of the game. This example is taken from 1d4chan and it is called, I shit you not, the Shitcannon of Holding.

---

The main argument: 
Let's say you have a bag of holding with a 1,500-pound weight limit. In feudal lands, you can easily acquire 1,500 pounds of cattle shit to fill the bag completely. Falling objects in D&D do 1d6 damage per 200lbs per 10 feet they fall. A falling object will accelerate to ~15 meters per second after 40 feet of falling. Remember this for later. A human's normal movement rate in Dungeons & Dragons is 30 feet per round (6 seconds). If the human took the Running feat, he or she can sprint to 5x their normal movement speed, or 150 feet in one round normally. With a Haste spell in effect, the normal human's speed is doubled to 300 feet in one round. 300ft / 6seconds =~ 15.24 metres per second. Consider one PC holding open the bag of holding in outstretched arms, pointing the mouth at some evil wizard. Another PC has Haste cast upon them and then he or she runs full speed at the back of the bag. This will easily invert the bag, violently ejecting its contents at the imparted speed. The target the bag was aimed at will receive 1,500 pounds of flung shit at a nice 15 meters per second, for (7.5 rounded up) 8d6 damage, x4 for the extra speed. That's a total of 32d6 of filth applied directly to the forehead -- more than the evil wizard's 20d6 max fireball. The launched poo averages 62hp of damage with a maximum of 192hp. No, there are no metamagic feats for maximizing shit damage.

Argument to undermine the main argument:
The bag of holding negates mass for the items inside, and the runner is hitting the back of the bag. The laws of inertia are already being ignored before the bag is even opened, but the real problem is the bag itself. Per the bag of holding description, if the bag is overloaded or if sharp objects pierce it from inside or outside, it ruptures and is ruined. If the running PC is moving into the bag at 15m/s, he or she does 8d6 damage on impact (minimum 8). Cloth has a hardness of 0 and 2hp/inch of thickness, so the bag is going to tear like tissue as soon as the hasted poo-warrior hits it. Also, the description of the bag of holding states that if the bag is turned inside out, the contents spill out unharmed. This coincides with no imparted momentum. The rules don't state that the contents spill out at the same speed it was opened, just that they spill out. The items in the bag are motionless while being stored and are hence motionless when ejected.

Argument to undermine the argument that undermines the main argument:
There is a way to break the undermining argument if you think about the speed of the planet you are currently on and how it is moving around its local star at terrific speed. In order for the contents of the bag of holding to not be flung backwards at terrifying speeds, most likely causing them harm (i.e. because they have zero momentum compared to the local environment, as argued in the undermining argument), then the contents need to gain the current inertia of the planet relative to its central orbiting body in order to fall unharmed onto the local ground. General Relativity also states that there is no "motionless" part of the universe, so physics proves without a doubt that the contents that get spilled out have some type of inertia relative to the local environment. The extent to which this environment is defined, however, is mysterious, but if you could convince your GM to put a boundary, you could manipulate the boundary such that once the contents are spilled out, you take the contents with inertia that matches the local environment and transfer them somehow to a "slower" environment. This inertial difference would impart nonzero momentum to the contents (meaning nonzero velocity is imparted to the contents), thus the shitcannon would work, and would most likely be even more violent because we are now considering the speeds of planetary orbits.

---

In conclusion:
Is D&D a game where people need to be discussing the physical laws of the universe (i.e. nitpicking esoteric rules)? Or is it a game where people are supposed to live a narrative and have fun? Do you think that it would be disruptive for someone to bring up general relativity at a table to argue to the GM that he or she should be able to deal ridiculous damage by firing shit out of a bag of holding?

I think situations like this -- powergaming situations -- ruin the game. And unfortunately, I speak from my personal experience.

Not once did I ever suggest that there was a loser in dnd, so kindly refrain from speaking for my position. My argument was that the one FEELING BAD is viewing it as a competition, and wants to handicap those they view as their competitors so that they can win. They see player x or y doing a large amount of damage, or some impossible stand gainst a horde of enemies and think "my character can't do that".

Dnd is also not anything like physics as an extension of the entire field of mathematics.  Your character is capable of what its combination of race, background and class features describe -- all of this information is available in the books. Anything else is entirely the purview of the dm -- not the 'powergamer' -- to allow or not. Dnd is not a complex system,  and if your dm is going to facilitate "the shitcannon" then they are either doing so because they think it is hilarious, they think it fits the style of the group, or they are too weakwilled to tell a player "no, i wont let you make a mockery of this campaign". And just for the record, you can surpass "the shitcannon" with legitimate comboes.. even with singular spells like meteor swarm. Dont forget that the shitcannon you describe has a 1500 pound capacity while the actual item has a limit of 500 pounds. So congrats on your 4th level fireball improvisation, maybe 5th... big whoopy whoop. Now your characters need to spend an hour shovelling shit to do it again...

The issue is that there are players (some who min max and others that dont) that cause drama intentionally and make others feel bad for their actions. Those that insist that people playing a certain way are just as bad as those who gloat about damage and snub the ppl who took a suboptimal feature.

I like to optimize up to a point, but I won't sacrfice character concept for it. If Sentinel and Polearm Master don't fit my concept, I won't do it. That said, I do find a powerful character more fun to play than a weak one. I get that failure is more interesting than success a lot of the time, but I get enough failure in real life lol. 

(Not sure why Sentinel/PAM is supposed to be so terribly broken. Sure, it can lock down an enemy, but only if they stupidly continue to advance on a Glaive wielder after they get taught that first lesson. If they back off and start sniping, Sentinel/PAM stops being a problem. )

Quote from Barathol_Creed >>

Quote from hotpocketlover >>

Quote from Barathol_Creed >>

Quote from hotpocketlover >>

Quote from Wulfwithin >>

"Powergaming" is a term invented by players who aren't good at the game, and DM's who would rather shame players into playing something else because they can't rise to the challenge. Why would you want your character to be weak for flavor, or because others have self-esteem issues when your character does better in combat than them? Why don't we put all that pettiness aside and just be fantasy characters?

 

Powergaming focuses on maximization problems and mathematical arguments, so I'm going to compare learning D&D to learning math:

If a person new to mathematics wants to start with the basics, then they don't want their friends, tutors, or teachers to start throwing calculus and topological arguments at them because it's overwhelming. Say you, a new student, wanted to start learning math with your friends at a reasonable pace, and you all decided to begin with basic algebra. Then, suddenly, one of your friends who took to the subject faster extrapolated all of the basics and started basing their explanations in deep theories of polynomials and finite-dimensional vector spaces during your group study sessions. When you try to tell your friend that their complicated ideas are making the group's learning difficult and un-fun, you are then told you have "self-esteem issues".

Do you think you'd feel good about that? Would you be excited to delve deeper and discover the cool numbers and patterns hidden behind all of the axioms and theorems? Do you ever appreciate it when a teacher in class gives a terse, technically correct explanation, and then makes you feel less than because you don't currently understand and you don't have the time to spend hours upon hours studying esoteric books?

This is an article for new players. If you are new at any subject, should you be chastised or made to feel stupid or unworthy because you don't operate perfectly? Do people appreciate know-it-all Hermione Grangers who wield their knowledge over others because of their own internal self-esteem issues and superiority complexes?

Your argument is elitist and is intent on excluding new players from the game.

  Your analogy is false for a couple reasons. D&D isnt analogous to the entire field of mathematics,  it would be far mor apt to compare it to a single course with a single textbook and a couple notebooks of additional problems to try using the same basic principles shown in the textbook. The content is not especially wide ranging nor broad in scope on the player side of the equation, and the various pieces that make up a character are all plainly apparent. In your argument you are also having the 'disadvantaged new player' speak for the group without any indication that others feel the same, nor that there is a potential compromise such as having that 'advanced' player help them understand the game. Your scenario is entirely based on "your character is more capable and that makes me feel bad" instead of any active intent on the part of the other player.

You go on to explain how it is the "being made to feel small or unintelligent" that is the issue in a subsequent paragraph,  but is that not completely separate from whether or not you are learning 'math'? I dont disagree that anyone who disparages another because that other person has not realised x or y is being a jerk, but that is separate from the topic of powergaming. You are essentially making an argument that someone else shouldnt be able to play to their ability because they know more than you. That is like going to a track meet and asking to put weights on a runner that you know is a better athlete.  That is also problematic behavior. 

Someone who is new to chess shouldnt expect to be able to compete with a grandmaster. 

I dont deny that there is elitism at many tables, but there is also entitlement. One persons rights end where anothers begin.

Thanks for your reply. I'd like to respond to a few statements of yours:

"D&D isn't analogous to the entire field of mathematics."
I disagree in that D&D is analogous to the entire field of physics and physics is based entirely in mathematics and physical observation. D&D is supposed to represent a magical world that is real. The realism is based in that fact that it reflects physical laws from our objective, real-life reality, thus D&D's realism is directly borrowed from the field of physics. Extrapolating further, physics is enabled by the field of mathematics, thus by the transitive property of equality, D&D's realism and logical soundness is directly borrowed from the soundness of mathematical arguments.

"You are essentially making an argument that someone else shouldn't be able to play to their ability because they know more than you. That is like going to a track meet and asking to put weights on a runner that you know is a better athlete."
Is playing D&D with your friends supposed to be a competition where someone wins? Is D&D a game you can win -- just how you can win in a track meet? Maybe we disagree because we view the purpose of D&D in different ways. I view it as a game where the objective is to have fun as a group -- for everyone to vibe together and build memories. You view it as a competition where there is a clear winner, second place, third place, and last place loser.

If you have the time, I'd like you to think about this large digression as an example of how powergaming can completely ruin the fun of the game. This example is taken from 1d4chan and it is called, I shit you not, the Shitcannon of Holding.

---

The main argument: 
Let's say you have a bag of holding with a 1,500-pound weight limit. In feudal lands, you can easily acquire 1,500 pounds of cattle shit to fill the bag completely. Falling objects in D&D do 1d6 damage per 200lbs per 10 feet they fall. A falling object will accelerate to ~15 meters per second after 40 feet of falling. Remember this for later. A human's normal movement rate in Dungeons & Dragons is 30 feet per round (6 seconds). If the human took the Running feat, he or she can sprint to 5x their normal movement speed, or 150 feet in one round normally. With a Haste spell in effect, the normal human's speed is doubled to 300 feet in one round. 300ft / 6seconds =~ 15.24 metres per second. Consider one PC holding open the bag of holding in outstretched arms, pointing the mouth at some evil wizard. Another PC has Haste cast upon them and then he or she runs full speed at the back of the bag. This will easily invert the bag, violently ejecting its contents at the imparted speed. The target the bag was aimed at will receive 1,500 pounds of flung shit at a nice 15 meters per second, for (7.5 rounded up) 8d6 damage, x4 for the extra speed. That's a total of 32d6 of filth applied directly to the forehead -- more than the evil wizard's 20d6 max fireball. The launched poo averages 62hp of damage with a maximum of 192hp. No, there are no metamagic feats for maximizing shit damage.

Argument to undermine the main argument:
The bag of holding negates mass for the items inside, and the runner is hitting the back of the bag. The laws of inertia are already being ignored before the bag is even opened, but the real problem is the bag itself. Per the bag of holding description, if the bag is overloaded or if sharp objects pierce it from inside or outside, it ruptures and is ruined. If the running PC is moving into the bag at 15m/s, he or she does 8d6 damage on impact (minimum 8). Cloth has a hardness of 0 and 2hp/inch of thickness, so the bag is going to tear like tissue as soon as the hasted poo-warrior hits it. Also, the description of the bag of holding states that if the bag is turned inside out, the contents spill out unharmed. This coincides with no imparted momentum. The rules don't state that the contents spill out at the same speed it was opened, just that they spill out. The items in the bag are motionless while being stored and are hence motionless when ejected.

Argument to undermine the argument that undermines the main argument:
There is a way to break the undermining argument if you think about the speed of the planet you are currently on and how it is moving around its local star at terrific speed. In order for the contents of the bag of holding to not be flung backwards at terrifying speeds, most likely causing them harm (i.e. because they have zero momentum compared to the local environment, as argued in the undermining argument), then the contents need to gain the current inertia of the planet relative to its central orbiting body in order to fall unharmed onto the local ground. General Relativity also states that there is no "motionless" part of the universe, so physics proves without a doubt that the contents that get spilled out have some type of inertia relative to the local environment. The extent to which this environment is defined, however, is mysterious, but if you could convince your GM to put a boundary, you could manipulate the boundary such that once the contents are spilled out, you take the contents with inertia that matches the local environment and transfer them somehow to a "slower" environment. This inertial difference would impart nonzero momentum to the contents (meaning nonzero velocity is imparted to the contents), thus the shitcannon would work, and would most likely be even more violent because we are now considering the speeds of planetary orbits.

---

In conclusion:
Is D&D a game where people need to be discussing the physical laws of the universe (i.e. nitpicking esoteric rules)? Or is it a game where people are supposed to live a narrative and have fun? Do you think that it would be disruptive for someone to bring up general relativity at a table to argue to the GM that he or she should be able to deal ridiculous damage by firing shit out of a bag of holding?

I think situations like this -- powergaming situations -- ruin the game. And unfortunately, I speak from my personal experience.

 

Not once did I ever suggest that there was a loser in dnd, so kindly refrain from speaking for my position. My argument was that the one FEELING BAD is viewing it as a competition, and wants to handicap those they view as their competitors so that they can win. They see player x or y doing a large amount of damage, or some impossible stand gainst a horde of enemies and think "my character can't do that".

Dnd is also not anything like physics as an extension of the entire field of mathematics.  Your character is capable of what its combination of race, background and class features describe -- all of this information is available in the books. Anything else is entirely the purview of the dm -- not the 'powergamer' -- to allow or not. Dnd is not a complex system,  and if your dm is going to facilitate "the shitcannon" then they are either doing so because they think it is hilarious, they think it fits the style of the group, or they are too weakwilled to tell a player "no, i wont let you make a mockery of this campaign". And just for the record, you can surpass "the shitcannon" with legitimate comboes.. even with singular spells like meteor swarm. Dont forget that the shitcannon you describe has a 1500 pound capacity while the actual item has a limit of 500 pounds. So congrats on your 4th level fireball improvisation, maybe 5th... big whoopy whoop. Now your characters need to spend an hour shovelling shit to do it again...

The issue is that there are players (some who min max and others that dont) that cause drama intentionally and make others feel bad for their actions. Those that insist that people playing a certain way are just as bad as those who gloat about damage and snub the ppl who took a suboptimal feature.

 
Thanks for your thoughtful reply again. I enjoy discussing this topic and in no way do I ever intend to disrespect you. I extrapolated the implications of your track meet analogy too far. I want to respond to a few of your statements again:

"one FEELING BAD is [one] viewing it as a competition"
What if one powergaming player at the table has a game-breaking combo that forces the DM to provide extremely challenging encounters to ensure combat is still meaningful and not a one-sided stomp? Other new players at the table (note -- the article is addressing new players) find themselves in deadly situations, and then their characters keep dying. Even when they give it their best effort (e.g. putting highest stats in Str and Con as a barbarian), some other powergamer's character still forces combat to be trivial or on nightmare mode, and the non-powergaming PC keeps dying (or made irrelevant because the optimized character one-shots everything if the DM doesn't step up the difficulty). Is it wrong for the player who's PC keeps dying to feel bad? Is it wrong for them to think that because they have invested so much time in making characters and they keep getting killed, the powergaming player is ruining the fun, implicitly forcing their hand to "play by the meta"?

"Those that insist that people playing a certain way are just as bad as those who gloat about damage and snub the ppl who took a suboptimal feature"
By powergaming and forcing the DM's hand to adjust encounters to your optimized character, are you not implicitly insisting that the rest of your comrades play in an certain -- optimized -- way?

"Dnd is also not anything like physics as an extension of the entire field of mathematics."
If D&D is nothing like physics, then why are there forums like rpg.stackexchange.com to talk about edge cases where physical ideas of momentum, force, velocity, energy, etc. are discussed? Why are these questions even relevant if D&D is nothing like physics?
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/108686/do-teleportation-spells-conserve-momentum

"all of this information is available in the books"
How many core, supplemental, and campaign guide rulebooks are there? 12 when Mythic Odysseys of Theros drops.  This totals to at least 2927 pages of core, supplemental, and campaign-guiding rules. This is not even including rules that may be present in adventure modules. And despite all of these sources, there are still sites like rpg.stackexchange.com to help answer edge cases because all necessary information is not available in the books. It's that simple. This leads me to the next point:

"Dnd is not a complex system"
How can something that has nearly 2900 pages of core rules, supplemental rules, and campaign guiding rules be considered non-complex? The definition of complexity is "the state or quality of being intricate or complicated". I think most people would agree that 2900 pages of content is intricate and complicated. The Affordable Care Act in the United States, when first introduced, was originally 2300 pages, and nearly no one read it before it was passed. How can we expect a new player to get a grasp on 2900 pages of content, especially when they aren't being paid to do so?

"just for the record, you can surpass "the shitcannon" with legitimate combos"
I agree with you, but I couldn't help myself from considering the orbital shitcannon. The following argument is ridiculous, but it is thoroughly based in physics.

Let's consider that we take the stance that momentum is conserved through teleports. Say you are on a planet far from your initial battle somewhere in the D&D multiverse. The planet is Earth-like and orbits a central star quite like our sun and follows nearly the same trajectory, giving the planet itself an average orbital speed of approximately 30,000 m/s. On this planet, you dump the poop out of the bag of holding, and after the poop has left the bag and is headed toward the ground to plop down unharmed, you teleport to a planet where your relevant battle is occurring, and say the teleported-to planet is similar to Neptune with an orbital velocity of about 5,500 m/s. This means that the poop, which has retained momentum, will gain roughly 24,500 m/s of velocity (the mass of the poop is negligible in the momentum calculation at these speeds). 500 lbs is roughly 225 kg. For a 225kg object starting at rest to reach a speed of 24,500 m/s in free fall in a uniform gravitational field without air resistance, it would need to fall y = (24,500m/s)^2/2(9.8m/s^2) = 61,250,000 meters which is roughly 200,950,000 feet. In 5e, 1d6 bludgeoning damage is gained for every 10 feet fallen up to a maximum of 20d6. The maximum has been present since AD&D and Gygax himself has stated it is supposed to "represent terminal velocity" (again, D&D is a reflection of physics). Obviously, our orbital-teleport shitcannon would max out at 20d6, but if the maximum were not imposed, the falling shit would translate to 20,095,000d6 of bludgeoning damage, averaging 20,095,000*3.5 = 70,332,500 points of damage per shitblast, which would only need to be prepped with gathering 500 pounds of refuse and at maximum 2 teleport spells (one to go to the distant planet, and one to come home after dumping the shit from the bag of holding). You are right though, Meteor Swarm outstrips the 20d6 poo damage, but it can't be accessed until level 17 (first 9th-level spell slot), whereas teleport is accessible at level 13 (first 7th-level spell slot). The orbital poo-cannon could easily be set up with two level 13 wizards working in tandem.

In conclusion:
I still believe powergaming ruins games for new players (the intended audience of the article). By encouraging a new player to powergame, I believe you are setting them up for a bad time. If everyone at the table is a veteran who knows the rules, then I think powergaming can make campaigns epic, especially if the DM enjoys the challenge the players pose. If the DM is new or the players are new, however, I feel that it presents an overwhelming amount of rule research and preparation time which will ultimately lead many people to not want to play D&D anymore, and I think that's a shame.

Quote from Gehennaheretic >>

I like to optimize up to a point, but I won't sacrfice character concept for it. If Sentinel and Polearm Master don't fit my concept, I won't do it. That said, I do find a powerful character more fun to play than a weak one. I get that failure is more interesting than success a lot of the time, but I get enough failure in real life lol. 

(Not sure why Sentinel/PAM is supposed to be so terribly broken. Sure, it can lock down an enemy, but only if they stupidly continue to advance on a Glaive wielder after they get taught that first lesson. If they back off and start sniping, Sentinel/PAM stops being a problem. )

 
I think people view it as broken because when a melee combatant enters your reach, you get an Opportunity Attack due to Polearm Master, and then when they leave your reach, even if they try to use a Disengage action, they are still hit with an Opportunity Attack due to Sentinel. The combination of both feats make it so that as soon as a melee combatant gets within range, they are going to get junked up, and it removes any kind of tactical maneuverability that the DM could otherwise use to spice things up. As a melee combatant, the only way to deal damage to a PC with Polearm master is to move within their range, and the only way to extricate yourself from a PC with Sentinel is to Blink, Misty Step, Teleport, etc. away, but most enemy creatures do not have these spells readily available in their standard stat blocks.

Quote from hotpocketlover >>

Quote from Barathol_Creed >>

Quote from hotpocketlover >>

Quote from Barathol_Creed >>

Quote from hotpocketlover >>

Quote from Wulfwithin >>

"Powergaming" is a term invented by players who aren't good at the game, and DM's who would rather shame players into playing something else because they can't rise to the challenge. Why would you want your character to be weak for flavor, or because others have self-esteem issues when your character does better in combat than them? Why don't we put all that pettiness aside and just be fantasy characters?

 

Powergaming focuses on maximization problems and mathematical arguments, so I'm going to compare learning D&D to learning math:

If a person new to mathematics wants to start with the basics, then they don't want their friends, tutors, or teachers to start throwing calculus and topological arguments at them because it's overwhelming. Say you, a new student, wanted to start learning math with your friends at a reasonable pace, and you all decided to begin with basic algebra. Then, suddenly, one of your friends who took to the subject faster extrapolated all of the basics and started basing their explanations in deep theories of polynomials and finite-dimensional vector spaces during your group study sessions. When you try to tell your friend that their complicated ideas are making the group's learning difficult and un-fun, you are then told you have "self-esteem issues".

Do you think you'd feel good about that? Would you be excited to delve deeper and discover the cool numbers and patterns hidden behind all of the axioms and theorems? Do you ever appreciate it when a teacher in class gives a terse, technically correct explanation, and then makes you feel less than because you don't currently understand and you don't have the time to spend hours upon hours studying esoteric books?

This is an article for new players. If you are new at any subject, should you be chastised or made to feel stupid or unworthy because you don't operate perfectly? Do people appreciate know-it-all Hermione Grangers who wield their knowledge over others because of their own internal self-esteem issues and superiority complexes?

Your argument is elitist and is intent on excluding new players from the game.

  Your analogy is false for a couple reasons. D&D isnt analogous to the entire field of mathematics,  it would be far mor apt to compare it to a single course with a single textbook and a couple notebooks of additional problems to try using the same basic principles shown in the textbook. The content is not especially wide ranging nor broad in scope on the player side of the equation, and the various pieces that make up a character are all plainly apparent. In your argument you are also having the 'disadvantaged new player' speak for the group without any indication that others feel the same, nor that there is a potential compromise such as having that 'advanced' player help them understand the game. Your scenario is entirely based on "your character is more capable and that makes me feel bad" instead of any active intent on the part of the other player.

You go on to explain how it is the "being made to feel small or unintelligent" that is the issue in a subsequent paragraph,  but is that not completely separate from whether or not you are learning 'math'? I dont disagree that anyone who disparages another because that other person has not realised x or y is being a jerk, but that is separate from the topic of powergaming. You are essentially making an argument that someone else shouldnt be able to play to their ability because they know more than you. That is like going to a track meet and asking to put weights on a runner that you know is a better athlete.  That is also problematic behavior. 

Someone who is new to chess shouldnt expect to be able to compete with a grandmaster. 

I dont deny that there is elitism at many tables, but there is also entitlement. One persons rights end where anothers begin.

Thanks for your reply. I'd like to respond to a few statements of yours:

"D&D isn't analogous to the entire field of mathematics."
I disagree in that D&D is analogous to the entire field of physics and physics is based entirely in mathematics and physical observation. D&D is supposed to represent a magical world that is real. The realism is based in that fact that it reflects physical laws from our objective, real-life reality, thus D&D's realism is directly borrowed from the field of physics. Extrapolating further, physics is enabled by the field of mathematics, thus by the transitive property of equality, D&D's realism and logical soundness is directly borrowed from the soundness of mathematical arguments.

"You are essentially making an argument that someone else shouldn't be able to play to their ability because they know more than you. That is like going to a track meet and asking to put weights on a runner that you know is a better athlete."
Is playing D&D with your friends supposed to be a competition where someone wins? Is D&D a game you can win -- just how you can win in a track meet? Maybe we disagree because we view the purpose of D&D in different ways. I view it as a game where the objective is to have fun as a group -- for everyone to vibe together and build memories. You view it as a competition where there is a clear winner, second place, third place, and last place loser.

If you have the time, I'd like you to think about this large digression as an example of how powergaming can completely ruin the fun of the game. This example is taken from 1d4chan and it is called, I shit you not, the Shitcannon of Holding.

---

The main argument: 
Let's say you have a bag of holding with a 1,500-pound weight limit. In feudal lands, you can easily acquire 1,500 pounds of cattle shit to fill the bag completely. Falling objects in D&D do 1d6 damage per 200lbs per 10 feet they fall. A falling object will accelerate to ~15 meters per second after 40 feet of falling. Remember this for later. A human's normal movement rate in Dungeons & Dragons is 30 feet per round (6 seconds). If the human took the Running feat, he or she can sprint to 5x their normal movement speed, or 150 feet in one round normally. With a Haste spell in effect, the normal human's speed is doubled to 300 feet in one round. 300ft / 6seconds =~ 15.24 metres per second. Consider one PC holding open the bag of holding in outstretched arms, pointing the mouth at some evil wizard. Another PC has Haste cast upon them and then he or she runs full speed at the back of the bag. This will easily invert the bag, violently ejecting its contents at the imparted speed. The target the bag was aimed at will receive 1,500 pounds of flung shit at a nice 15 meters per second, for (7.5 rounded up) 8d6 damage, x4 for the extra speed. That's a total of 32d6 of filth applied directly to the forehead -- more than the evil wizard's 20d6 max fireball. The launched poo averages 62hp of damage with a maximum of 192hp. No, there are no metamagic feats for maximizing shit damage.

Argument to undermine the main argument:
The bag of holding negates mass for the items inside, and the runner is hitting the back of the bag. The laws of inertia are already being ignored before the bag is even opened, but the real problem is the bag itself. Per the bag of holding description, if the bag is overloaded or if sharp objects pierce it from inside or outside, it ruptures and is ruined. If the running PC is moving into the bag at 15m/s, he or she does 8d6 damage on impact (minimum 8). Cloth has a hardness of 0 and 2hp/inch of thickness, so the bag is going to tear like tissue as soon as the hasted poo-warrior hits it. Also, the description of the bag of holding states that if the bag is turned inside out, the contents spill out unharmed. This coincides with no imparted momentum. The rules don't state that the contents spill out at the same speed it was opened, just that they spill out. The items in the bag are motionless while being stored and are hence motionless when ejected.

Argument to undermine the argument that undermines the main argument:
There is a way to break the undermining argument if you think about the speed of the planet you are currently on and how it is moving around its local star at terrific speed. In order for the contents of the bag of holding to not be flung backwards at terrifying speeds, most likely causing them harm (i.e. because they have zero momentum compared to the local environment, as argued in the undermining argument), then the contents need to gain the current inertia of the planet relative to its central orbiting body in order to fall unharmed onto the local ground. General Relativity also states that there is no "motionless" part of the universe, so physics proves without a doubt that the contents that get spilled out have some type of inertia relative to the local environment. The extent to which this environment is defined, however, is mysterious, but if you could convince your GM to put a boundary, you could manipulate the boundary such that once the contents are spilled out, you take the contents with inertia that matches the local environment and transfer them somehow to a "slower" environment. This inertial difference would impart nonzero momentum to the contents (meaning nonzero velocity is imparted to the contents), thus the shitcannon would work, and would most likely be even more violent because we are now considering the speeds of planetary orbits.

---

In conclusion:
Is D&D a game where people need to be discussing the physical laws of the universe (i.e. nitpicking esoteric rules)? Or is it a game where people are supposed to live a narrative and have fun? Do you think that it would be disruptive for someone to bring up general relativity at a table to argue to the GM that he or she should be able to deal ridiculous damage by firing shit out of a bag of holding?

I think situations like this -- powergaming situations -- ruin the game. And unfortunately, I speak from my personal experience.

 

Not once did I ever suggest that there was a loser in dnd, so kindly refrain from speaking for my position. My argument was that the one FEELING BAD is viewing it as a competition, and wants to handicap those they view as their competitors so that they can win. They see player x or y doing a large amount of damage, or some impossible stand gainst a horde of enemies and think "my character can't do that".

Dnd is also not anything like physics as an extension of the entire field of mathematics.  Your character is capable of what its combination of race, background and class features describe -- all of this information is available in the books. Anything else is entirely the purview of the dm -- not the 'powergamer' -- to allow or not. Dnd is not a complex system,  and if your dm is going to facilitate "the shitcannon" then they are either doing so because they think it is hilarious, they think it fits the style of the group, or they are too weakwilled to tell a player "no, i wont let you make a mockery of this campaign". And just for the record, you can surpass "the shitcannon" with legitimate comboes.. even with singular spells like meteor swarm. Dont forget that the shitcannon you describe has a 1500 pound capacity while the actual item has a limit of 500 pounds. So congrats on your 4th level fireball improvisation, maybe 5th... big whoopy whoop. Now your characters need to spend an hour shovelling shit to do it again...

The issue is that there are players (some who min max and others that dont) that cause drama intentionally and make others feel bad for their actions. Those that insist that people playing a certain way are just as bad as those who gloat about damage and snub the ppl who took a suboptimal feature.

 
Thanks for your thoughtful reply again. I enjoy discussing this topic and in no way do I ever intend to disrespect you. I extrapolated the implications of your track meet analogy too far. I want to respond to a few of your statements again:

"one FEELING BAD is [one] viewing it as a competition"
What if one powergaming player at the table has a game-breaking combo that forces the DM to provide extremely challenging encounters to ensure combat is still meaningful and not a one-sided stomp? Other new players at the table (note -- the article is addressing new players) find themselves in deadly situations, and then their characters keep dying. Even when they give it their best effort (e.g. putting highest stats in Str and Con as a barbarian), some other powergamer's character still forces combat to be trivial or on nightmare mode, and the non-powergaming PC keeps dying (or made irrelevant because the optimized character one-shots everything if the DM doesn't step up the difficulty). Is it wrong for the player who's PC keeps dying to feel bad? Is it wrong for them to think that because they have invested so much time in making characters and they keep getting killed, the powergaming player is ruining the fun, implicitly forcing their hand to "play by the meta"?

"Those that insist that people playing a certain way are just as bad as those who gloat about damage and snub the ppl who took a suboptimal feature"

By powergaming and forcing the DM's hand to adjust encounters to your optimized character, are you not implicitly insisting that the rest of your comrades play in an certain -- optimized -- way?

"Dnd is also not anything like physics as an extension of the entire field of mathematics."
If D&D is nothing like physics, then why are there forums like rpg.stackexchange.com to talk about edge cases where physical ideas of momentum, force, velocity, energy, etc. are discussed? Why are these questions even relevant if D&D is nothing like physics?
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/108686/do-teleportation-spells-conserve-momentum

"all of this information is available in the books"
How many core, supplemental, and campaign guide rulebooks are there? 12 when Mythic Odysseys of Theros drops.  This totals to at least 2927 pages of core, supplemental, and campaign-guiding rules. This is not even including rules that may be present in adventure modules. And despite all of these sources, there are still sites like rpg.stackexchange.com to help answer edge cases because all necessary information is not available in the books. It's that simple. This leads me to the next point:

"Dnd is not a complex system"
How can something that has nearly 2900 pages of core rules, supplemental rules, and campaign guiding rules be considered non-complex? The definition of complexity is "the state or quality of being intricate or complicated". I think most people would agree that 2900 pages of content is intricate and complicated. The Affordable Care Act in the United States, when first introduced, was originally 2300 pages, and nearly no one read it before it was passed. How can we expect a new player to get a grasp on 2900 pages of content, especially when they aren't being paid to do so?

"just for the record, you can surpass "the shitcannon" with legitimate combos"
I agree with you, but I couldn't help myself from considering the orbital shitcannon. The following argument is ridiculous, but it is thoroughly based in physics.

---

Let's consider that we take the stance that momentum is conserved through teleports. Say you are on a planet far from your initial battle somewhere in the D&D multiverse. The planet is Earth-like and orbits a central star quite like our sun and follows nearly the same trajectory, giving the planet itself an average orbital speed of approximately 30,000 m/s. On this planet, you dump the poop out of the bag of holding, and after the poop has left the bag and is headed toward the ground to plop down unharmed, you teleport to a planet where your relevant battle is occurring, and say the teleported-to planet is similar to Neptune with an orbital velocity of about 5,500 m/s. This means that the poop, which has retained momentum, will gain roughly 24,500 m/s of velocity (the mass of the poop is negligible in the momentum calculation at these speeds). 500 lbs is roughly 225 kg. For a 225kg object starting at rest to reach a speed of 24,500 m/s in free fall in a uniform gravitational field without air resistance, it would need to fall y = (24,500m/s)^2/2(9.8m/s^2) = 61,250,000 meters which is roughly 200,950,000 feet. In 5e, 1d6 bludgeoning damage is gained for every 10 feet fallen up to a maximum of 20d6. The maximum has been present since AD&D and Gygax himself has stated it is supposed to "represent terminal velocity" (again, D&D is a reflection of physics). Obviously, our orbital-teleport shitcannon would max out at 20d6, but if the maximum were not imposed, the falling shit would translate to 20,095,000d6 of bludgeoning damage, averaging 20,095,000*3.5 = 70,332,500 points of damage per shitblast, which would only need to be prepped with gathering 500 pounds of refuse and at maximum 2 teleport spells (one to go to the distant planet, and one to come home after dumping the shit from the bag of holding). You are right though, Meteor Swarm outstrips the 20d6 poo damage, but it can't be accessed until level 17 (first 9th-level spell slot), whereas teleport is accessible at level 13 (first 7th-level spell slot). The orbital poo-cannon could easily be set up with two level 13 wizards working in tandem.

---

In conclusion:
I still believe powergaming ruins games for new players (the intended audience of the article). By encouraging a new player to powergame, I believe you are setting them up for a bad time. If everyone at the table is a veteran who knows the rules, then I think powergaming can make campaigns epic, especially if the DM enjoys the challenge the players pose. If the DM is new or the players are new, however, I feel that it presents an overwhelming amount of rule research and preparation time which will ultimately lead many people to not want to play D&D anymore, and I think that's a shame.

 "What if one powergaming player [...] forces the DM to provide extremely challenging encounters?"

No build is without flaw, and the more specialized it is the more likely its potential requires a specific scenario. If you want to maximize dps you cannot also maximize defense, unless the dm gives your character +3armor, a +3 shield and a bunch of other protective items. Items are the purview of the dm. Even beyond not giving access to specific items, it isnt unlikely to foil the niche situation required-- maybe that enemy is NOT surprised, or there is an antimagic field, or someone casts dispel magic on the minmaxer, or any number of other options. You can target the Minmax's weakness while making average attacks against others. Maybe the boss monster sees that jojo mcstab just eviscerated his lieutenant and moves to intercept that olayer specifically instead of targeting the backline casters. Is that experience? Yes, but i would argue that if you have a new dm and are maximizing your damage then that is not an example of powergaming being toxic but rather a toxic player powergaming.  The intent is entirely what matters, and those with more knowledge of the game have a responsibility to not abuse that knowledge in the face of inexperience.  Again... that is separate from whether or not you powergame.

"By powergaming and forcing the DM's hand to adjust encounters to your optimized character, are you not implicitly insisting that the rest of your comrades play in an certain -- optimized -- way?"

Not at all. It is the choice of each player to creat their character how they want. If someone sees that player 2 is doing x and that makes player 1 feel bad, then it is not player 2's fault by default. If someone is *intentionally* harassing someone or insulting their character that is separate from the capabilities of player 2's character. The group can and should talk about their expectations for the game, and lay ground rules, but if that is not done then that is on the group not the individual. Communication solves many, if not all, problems.

"If D&D is nothing like physics..."

Dnd rulebooks dont say "consult physics if something isnt covered". That players and dms choose to do so is THEIR OWN CHOICE. The game rules cover exactly how they propose to cover various situations, if it isnt covered, you use your best interpretation.  That means that some dms will allow physics, others (more intelligent ones) wont, because if you try to game the system with physics you will always break the system.

"How many core, supplemental, and campaign guide rulebooks are there? 12..?"

There is one book that a player needs, the phb. Everything else is either suggested rules or setting specific rulings. The rules a player needs to know is what constitutes a check,  save or attack, how those are calculated, and the capabilities of their character as combined by their race, background, class and subclass.  Anything else is a distant second, and even those listed options can be subverted by the dm. The dm has the final word. Appealing the the pagecount is fallacious.

"Let's consider that we take the stance that momentum is conserved through teleports.."

First off, i dont, but for the sake of argument, you are leaving out limitations of the spell teleport. You have to see the object (which must be a *discrete* object,  not a non-qualified pile) and it must fit in a 10ft cube. That is approximately 250 pounds of shit. Then. Because you must see the object, and you get to choose a group of creatures OR an object, you have to have at least 2 ppl capable of teleport go to "Neptune" one to teleport the shit back and another to teleport the "away team" back. That is 4 teleports in total, for a total of 4 7th level spells. Also... if we are going to bring physics in, then you better hope you get a precise landong, because shit traveling that fast is gonna burn up in the atmosphere  pretty quick.  Oh, so is the away team... you also are just handing them no capped damage, which is an official thing... you are arguing for a false set of circumstances that any reasonable dm would never allow...

"In conclusion:"

I disagree that powergaming sets ppl up for a bad time. I think playing with someone obsessed with demonstrating their superiority in a toxic way is setting them up for a bad time... Oh, and that last line can easily be applied to those who favor roleplay above all else as well as powergamers. That is because: problematic players dont all share the same traits. Some power game, but that doesn't mean that everyone that  power games is problematic...

Quote from Barathol_Creed >>

Quote from hotpocketlover >>

Quote from Barathol_Creed >>

Quote from hotpocketlover >>

Quote from Barathol_Creed >>

Quote from hotpocketlover >>

Quote from Wulfwithin >>

"Powergaming" is a term invented by players who aren't good at the game, and DM's who would rather shame players into playing something else because they can't rise to the challenge. Why would you want your character to be weak for flavor, or because others have self-esteem issues when your character does better in combat than them? Why don't we put all that pettiness aside and just be fantasy characters?

 

Powergaming focuses on maximization problems and mathematical arguments, so I'm going to compare learning D&D to learning math:

If a person new to mathematics wants to start with the basics, then they don't want their friends, tutors, or teachers to start throwing calculus and topological arguments at them because it's overwhelming. Say you, a new student, wanted to start learning math with your friends at a reasonable pace, and you all decided to begin with basic algebra. Then, suddenly, one of your friends who took to the subject faster extrapolated all of the basics and started basing their explanations in deep theories of polynomials and finite-dimensional vector spaces during your group study sessions. When you try to tell your friend that their complicated ideas are making the group's learning difficult and un-fun, you are then told you have "self-esteem issues".

Do you think you'd feel good about that? Would you be excited to delve deeper and discover the cool numbers and patterns hidden behind all of the axioms and theorems? Do you ever appreciate it when a teacher in class gives a terse, technically correct explanation, and then makes you feel less than because you don't currently understand and you don't have the time to spend hours upon hours studying esoteric books?

This is an article for new players. If you are new at any subject, should you be chastised or made to feel stupid or unworthy because you don't operate perfectly? Do people appreciate know-it-all Hermione Grangers who wield their knowledge over others because of their own internal self-esteem issues and superiority complexes?

Your argument is elitist and is intent on excluding new players from the game.

  Your analogy is false for a couple reasons. D&D isnt analogous to the entire field of mathematics,  it would be far mor apt to compare it to a single course with a single textbook and a couple notebooks of additional problems to try using the same basic principles shown in the textbook. The content is not especially wide ranging nor broad in scope on the player side of the equation, and the various pieces that make up a character are all plainly apparent. In your argument you are also having the 'disadvantaged new player' speak for the group without any indication that others feel the same, nor that there is a potential compromise such as having that 'advanced' player help them understand the game. Your scenario is entirely based on "your character is more capable and that makes me feel bad" instead of any active intent on the part of the other player.

You go on to explain how it is the "being made to feel small or unintelligent" that is the issue in a subsequent paragraph,  but is that not completely separate from whether or not you are learning 'math'? I dont disagree that anyone who disparages another because that other person has not realised x or y is being a jerk, but that is separate from the topic of powergaming. You are essentially making an argument that someone else shouldnt be able to play to their ability because they know more than you. That is like going to a track meet and asking to put weights on a runner that you know is a better athlete.  That is also problematic behavior. 

Someone who is new to chess shouldnt expect to be able to compete with a grandmaster. 

I dont deny that there is elitism at many tables, but there is also entitlement. One persons rights end where anothers begin.

Thanks for your reply. I'd like to respond to a few statements of yours:

"D&D isn't analogous to the entire field of mathematics."
I disagree in that D&D is analogous to the entire field of physics and physics is based entirely in mathematics and physical observation. D&D is supposed to represent a magical world that is real. The realism is based in that fact that it reflects physical laws from our objective, real-life reality, thus D&D's realism is directly borrowed from the field of physics. Extrapolating further, physics is enabled by the field of mathematics, thus by the transitive property of equality, D&D's realism and logical soundness is directly borrowed from the soundness of mathematical arguments.

"You are essentially making an argument that someone else shouldn't be able to play to their ability because they know more than you. That is like going to a track meet and asking to put weights on a runner that you know is a better athlete."
Is playing D&D with your friends supposed to be a competition where someone wins? Is D&D a game you can win -- just how you can win in a track meet? Maybe we disagree because we view the purpose of D&D in different ways. I view it as a game where the objective is to have fun as a group -- for everyone to vibe together and build memories. You view it as a competition where there is a clear winner, second place, third place, and last place loser.

If you have the time, I'd like you to think about this large digression as an example of how powergaming can completely ruin the fun of the game. This example is taken from 1d4chan and it is called, I shit you not, the Shitcannon of Holding.

---

The main argument: 
Let's say you have a bag of holding with a 1,500-pound weight limit. In feudal lands, you can easily acquire 1,500 pounds of cattle shit to fill the bag completely. Falling objects in D&D do 1d6 damage per 200lbs per 10 feet they fall. A falling object will accelerate to ~15 meters per second after 40 feet of falling. Remember this for later. A human's normal movement rate in Dungeons & Dragons is 30 feet per round (6 seconds). If the human took the Running feat, he or she can sprint to 5x their normal movement speed, or 150 feet in one round normally. With a Haste spell in effect, the normal human's speed is doubled to 300 feet in one round. 300ft / 6seconds =~ 15.24 metres per second. Consider one PC holding open the bag of holding in outstretched arms, pointing the mouth at some evil wizard. Another PC has Haste cast upon them and then he or she runs full speed at the back of the bag. This will easily invert the bag, violently ejecting its contents at the imparted speed. The target the bag was aimed at will receive 1,500 pounds of flung shit at a nice 15 meters per second, for (7.5 rounded up) 8d6 damage, x4 for the extra speed. That's a total of 32d6 of filth applied directly to the forehead -- more than the evil wizard's 20d6 max fireball. The launched poo averages 62hp of damage with a maximum of 192hp. No, there are no metamagic feats for maximizing shit damage.

Argument to undermine the main argument:
The bag of holding negates mass for the items inside, and the runner is hitting the back of the bag. The laws of inertia are already being ignored before the bag is even opened, but the real problem is the bag itself. Per the bag of holding description, if the bag is overloaded or if sharp objects pierce it from inside or outside, it ruptures and is ruined. If the running PC is moving into the bag at 15m/s, he or she does 8d6 damage on impact (minimum 8). Cloth has a hardness of 0 and 2hp/inch of thickness, so the bag is going to tear like tissue as soon as the hasted poo-warrior hits it. Also, the description of the bag of holding states that if the bag is turned inside out, the contents spill out unharmed. This coincides with no imparted momentum. The rules don't state that the contents spill out at the same speed it was opened, just that they spill out. The items in the bag are motionless while being stored and are hence motionless when ejected.

Argument to undermine the argument that undermines the main argument:
There is a way to break the undermining argument if you think about the speed of the planet you are currently on and how it is moving around its local star at terrific speed. In order for the contents of the bag of holding to not be flung backwards at terrifying speeds, most likely causing them harm (i.e. because they have zero momentum compared to the local environment, as argued in the undermining argument), then the contents need to gain the current inertia of the planet relative to its central orbiting body in order to fall unharmed onto the local ground. General Relativity also states that there is no "motionless" part of the universe, so physics proves without a doubt that the contents that get spilled out have some type of inertia relative to the local environment. The extent to which this environment is defined, however, is mysterious, but if you could convince your GM to put a boundary, you could manipulate the boundary such that once the contents are spilled out, you take the contents with inertia that matches the local environment and transfer them somehow to a "slower" environment. This inertial difference would impart nonzero momentum to the contents (meaning nonzero velocity is imparted to the contents), thus the shitcannon would work, and would most likely be even more violent because we are now considering the speeds of planetary orbits.

---

In conclusion:
Is D&D a game where people need to be discussing the physical laws of the universe (i.e. nitpicking esoteric rules)? Or is it a game where people are supposed to live a narrative and have fun? Do you think that it would be disruptive for someone to bring up general relativity at a table to argue to the GM that he or she should be able to deal ridiculous damage by firing shit out of a bag of holding?

I think situations like this -- powergaming situations -- ruin the game. And unfortunately, I speak from my personal experience.

 

Not once did I ever suggest that there was a loser in dnd, so kindly refrain from speaking for my position. My argument was that the one FEELING BAD is viewing it as a competition, and wants to handicap those they view as their competitors so that they can win. They see player x or y doing a large amount of damage, or some impossible stand gainst a horde of enemies and think "my character can't do that".

Dnd is also not anything like physics as an extension of the entire field of mathematics.  Your character is capable of what its combination of race, background and class features describe -- all of this information is available in the books. Anything else is entirely the purview of the dm -- not the 'powergamer' -- to allow or not. Dnd is not a complex system,  and if your dm is going to facilitate "the shitcannon" then they are either doing so because they think it is hilarious, they think it fits the style of the group, or they are too weakwilled to tell a player "no, i wont let you make a mockery of this campaign". And just for the record, you can surpass "the shitcannon" with legitimate comboes.. even with singular spells like meteor swarm. Dont forget that the shitcannon you describe has a 1500 pound capacity while the actual item has a limit of 500 pounds. So congrats on your 4th level fireball improvisation, maybe 5th... big whoopy whoop. Now your characters need to spend an hour shovelling shit to do it again...

The issue is that there are players (some who min max and others that dont) that cause drama intentionally and make others feel bad for their actions. Those that insist that people playing a certain way are just as bad as those who gloat about damage and snub the ppl who took a suboptimal feature.

 
Thanks for your thoughtful reply again. I enjoy discussing this topic and in no way do I ever intend to disrespect you. I extrapolated the implications of your track meet analogy too far. I want to respond to a few of your statements again:

"one FEELING BAD is [one] viewing it as a competition"
What if one powergaming player at the table has a game-breaking combo that forces the DM to provide extremely challenging encounters to ensure combat is still meaningful and not a one-sided stomp? Other new players at the table (note -- the article is addressing new players) find themselves in deadly situations, and then their characters keep dying. Even when they give it their best effort (e.g. putting highest stats in Str and Con as a barbarian), some other powergamer's character still forces combat to be trivial or on nightmare mode, and the non-powergaming PC keeps dying (or made irrelevant because the optimized character one-shots everything if the DM doesn't step up the difficulty). Is it wrong for the player who's PC keeps dying to feel bad? Is it wrong for them to think that because they have invested so much time in making characters and they keep getting killed, the powergaming player is ruining the fun, implicitly forcing their hand to "play by the meta"?

"Those that insist that people playing a certain way are just as bad as those who gloat about damage and snub the ppl who took a suboptimal feature"

By powergaming and forcing the DM's hand to adjust encounters to your optimized character, are you not implicitly insisting that the rest of your comrades play in an certain -- optimized -- way?

"Dnd is also not anything like physics as an extension of the entire field of mathematics."
If D&D is nothing like physics, then why are there forums like rpg.stackexchange.com to talk about edge cases where physical ideas of momentum, force, velocity, energy, etc. are discussed? Why are these questions even relevant if D&D is nothing like physics?
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/108686/do-teleportation-spells-conserve-momentum

"all of this information is available in the books"
How many core, supplemental, and campaign guide rulebooks are there? 12 when Mythic Odysseys of Theros drops.  This totals to at least 2927 pages of core, supplemental, and campaign-guiding rules. This is not even including rules that may be present in adventure modules. And despite all of these sources, there are still sites like rpg.stackexchange.com to help answer edge cases because all necessary information is not available in the books. It's that simple. This leads me to the next point:

"Dnd is not a complex system"
How can something that has nearly 2900 pages of core rules, supplemental rules, and campaign guiding rules be considered non-complex? The definition of complexity is "the state or quality of being intricate or complicated". I think most people would agree that 2900 pages of content is intricate and complicated. The Affordable Care Act in the United States, when first introduced, was originally 2300 pages, and nearly no one read it before it was passed. How can we expect a new player to get a grasp on 2900 pages of content, especially when they aren't being paid to do so?

"just for the record, you can surpass "the shitcannon" with legitimate combos"
I agree with you, but I couldn't help myself from considering the orbital shitcannon. The following argument is ridiculous, but it is thoroughly based in physics.

---

Let's consider that we take the stance that momentum is conserved through teleports. Say you are on a planet far from your initial battle somewhere in the D&D multiverse. The planet is Earth-like and orbits a central star quite like our sun and follows nearly the same trajectory, giving the planet itself an average orbital speed of approximately 30,000 m/s. On this planet, you dump the poop out of the bag of holding, and after the poop has left the bag and is headed toward the ground to plop down unharmed, you teleport to a planet where your relevant battle is occurring, and say the teleported-to planet is similar to Neptune with an orbital velocity of about 5,500 m/s. This means that the poop, which has retained momentum, will gain roughly 24,500 m/s of velocity (the mass of the poop is negligible in the momentum calculation at these speeds). 500 lbs is roughly 225 kg. For a 225kg object starting at rest to reach a speed of 24,500 m/s in free fall in a uniform gravitational field without air resistance, it would need to fall y = (24,500m/s)^2/2(9.8m/s^2) = 61,250,000 meters which is roughly 200,950,000 feet. In 5e, 1d6 bludgeoning damage is gained for every 10 feet fallen up to a maximum of 20d6. The maximum has been present since AD&D and Gygax himself has stated it is supposed to "represent terminal velocity" (again, D&D is a reflection of physics). Obviously, our orbital-teleport shitcannon would max out at 20d6, but if the maximum were not imposed, the falling shit would translate to 20,095,000d6 of bludgeoning damage, averaging 20,095,000*3.5 = 70,332,500 points of damage per shitblast, which would only need to be prepped with gathering 500 pounds of refuse and at maximum 2 teleport spells (one to go to the distant planet, and one to come home after dumping the shit from the bag of holding). You are right though, Meteor Swarm outstrips the 20d6 poo damage, but it can't be accessed until level 17 (first 9th-level spell slot), whereas teleport is accessible at level 13 (first 7th-level spell slot). The orbital poo-cannon could easily be set up with two level 13 wizards working in tandem.

---

In conclusion:
I still believe powergaming ruins games for new players (the intended audience of the article). By encouraging a new player to powergame, I believe you are setting them up for a bad time. If everyone at the table is a veteran who knows the rules, then I think powergaming can make campaigns epic, especially if the DM enjoys the challenge the players pose. If the DM is new or the players are new, however, I feel that it presents an overwhelming amount of rule research and preparation time which will ultimately lead many people to not want to play D&D anymore, and I think that's a shame.

 "What if one powergaming player [...] forces the DM to provide extremely challenging encounters?"

No build is without flaw, and the more specialized it is the more likely its potential requires a specific scenario. If you want to maximize dps you cannot also maximize defense, unless the dm gives your character +3armor, a +3 shield and a bunch of other protective items. Items are the purview of the dm. Even beyond not giving access to specific items, it isnt unlikely to foil the niche situation required-- maybe that enemy is NOT surprised, or there is an antimagic field, or someone casts dispel magic on the minmaxer, or any number of other options. You can target the Minmax's weakness while making average attacks against others. Maybe the boss monster sees that jojo mcstab just eviscerated his lieutenant and moves to intercept that olayer specifically instead of targeting the backline casters. Is that experience? Yes, but i would argue that if you have a new dm and are maximizing your damage then that is not an example of powergaming being toxic but rather a toxic player powergaming.  The intent is entirely what matters, and those with more knowledge of the game have a responsibility to not abuse that knowledge in the face of inexperience.  Again... that is separate from whether or not you powergame.

"By powergaming and forcing the DM's hand to adjust encounters to your optimized character, are you not implicitly insisting that the rest of your comrades play in an certain -- optimized -- way?"

Not at all. It is the choice of each player to creat their character how they want. If someone sees that player 2 is doing x and that makes player 1 feel bad, then it is not player 2's fault by default. If someone is *intentionally* harassing someone or insulting their character that is separate from the capabilities of player 2's character. The group can and should talk about their expectations for the game, and lay ground rules, but if that is not done then that is on the group not the individual. Communication solves many, if not all, problems.

"If D&D is nothing like physics..."

Dnd rulebooks dont say "consult physics if something isnt covered". That players and dms choose to do so is THEIR OWN CHOICE. The game rules cover exactly how they propose to cover various situations, if it isnt covered, you use your best interpretation.  That means that some dms will allow physics, others (more intelligent ones) wont, because if you try to game the system with physics you will always break the system.

"How many core, supplemental, and campaign guide rulebooks are there? 12..?"

There is one book that a player needs, the phb. Everything else is either suggested rules or setting specific rulings. The rules a player needs to know is what constitutes a check,  save or attack, how those are calculated, and the capabilities of their character as combined by their race, background, class and subclass.  Anything else is a distant second, and even those listed options can be subverted by the dm. The dm has the final word. Appealing the the pagecount is fallacious.

"Let's consider that we take the stance that momentum is conserved through teleports.."

First off, i dont, but for the sake of argument, you are leaving out limitations of the spell teleport. You have to see the object (which must be a *discrete* object,  not a non-qualified pile) and it must fit in a 10ft cube. That is approximately 250 pounds of shit. Then. Because you must see the object, and you get to choose a group of creatures OR an object, you have to have at least 2 ppl capable of teleport go to "Neptune" one to teleport the shit back and another to teleport the "away team" back. That is 4 teleports in total, for a total of 4 7th level spells. Also... if we are going to bring physics in, then you better hope you get a precise landong, because shit traveling that fast is gonna burn up in the atmosphere  pretty quick.  Oh, so is the away team... you also are just handing them no capped damage, which is an official thing... you are arguing for a false set of circumstances that any reasonable dm would never allow...

"In conclusion:"

I disagree that powergaming sets ppl up for a bad time. I think playing with someone obsessed with demonstrating their superiority in a toxic way is setting them up for a bad time... Oh, and that last line can easily be applied to those who favor roleplay above all else as well as powergamers. That is because: problematic players dont all share the same traits. Some power game, but that doesn't mean that everyone that  power games is problematic...

I think we can agree that in order to challenge powergamers you need experience to know which items or spell combinations will challenge them. Because of this, I think powergaming is inappropriate for new tables, and this article is talking about playing with new players -- not veterans. There might be a weakness to your powergamed build, but because your comrades are naive, they will not immediately know how to counter it without additional research. I think it's a selfish move to powergame in front of a new DM or new players exactly for this reason.

Physics is implicit in the game. People walking along the ground, throwing objects into the air and having them fall -- this is all implying that gravity is present. Moreso, the fact that you don't fall through the matter making up the D&D universe is because the electromagnetic interactions between atoms are keeping things apart. You say that if a (less intelligent) DM allows physics, they will break the game. I counter in that if the DM decides that physics goes out the window, they are breaking the game. It would feel unsatisfying if at any point the gravitational force pulling your character to the ground were to magically disappear or be magnified greatly on a whim. Concepts of basic physics provide consistency in the game. Sure, you don't need quantum chromodynamics, but the game is built in Newtonian mechanics simply from the way it describes projectiles.

Say that you only need the PHB, then where do you get monster stat blocks from? Is it fair to expect a new DM to create stat blocks for all of the monsters their PCs will encounter? If the DM is new, more than likely their ad hoc stat blocks would break the game. But I agree with you -- bare bones, you'll only need the PHB, but I would say a more fair bare minimum would be the PHB, MM, and DMG. Even with those three books, the game is still complex and would require over 500 pages of reading to master.

In terms of leaving out the limitations of the spell teleport, I don't believe I left out any. You could use a spyglass (a legitimate item in the PHB) to view the planet from the surface of the ground your relevant battle is on. That would count as physically seeing it. Secondly, the bag of shit is in a PC's inventory. By your logic, every time someone teleports, they would be transferred to the new location completely naked (shout out to Tomb of Horrors) because each inventory item by your logic needs to be counted as a separate object. This is not the intention of the spell. This means that one teleport spell can transport the two wizards with their bag, and the other can bring them home. In terms of burning up the atmosphere, the wizards could cast feather fall to reduce their speed significantly while the shit is moving fast enough to ionize the air and create a nuclear explosion, but at minimum, they would definitely deal the max of 20d6 bludgeoning shit damage.

As for your final statement "Some power game, but that doesn't mean that everyone that  power games is problematic", I completely agree. But what I am arguing is that if someone is powergaming or nitpicking rules, then there is a high probability the fun of the game devolves into a debate, much like the one we are having now. I can see from your "more intelligent ones" quip that you are slightly annoyed at the arguments I keep presenting you. Is it fun to attend a D&D party and be constantly, slightly annoyed? :)

To prevent a new player's table from devolving into arguments of semantics and number crunching, I would absolutely say that you should discourage your PCs from powergaming because of the high correlation it has with turning the game into a debate. I think the author failed in his presentation to new players in implicitly condoning powergaming. On the other hand, if you have veteran players and a veteran DM, powergaming can make things awesome. Can you see where I am coming from? I don't think powergaming is bad in all cases, just in the case of new players' tables.

 Great article! Glad It's not just me and my friends who spend hours looking for loopholes!

Although as a DM I discourage exploiting the rules, I have a stack of OP characters I pull out when we want to fight the Tarrasque!

Great article! Love the Tales from the Mist shout out. I just finished Season 3 this morning.

Snipped the quote because it was getting too long. 

A power gamer is by definition a player... and i think we have both opined that a player that takes advantage of the dm's inexperience is being toxic by means other than how capable their character is -- that is intentionally abusing your knowledge, not power gaming,  and such a player would most likely be pressuring the new dm to rule a certain way in conjunction... not always but I think it likely. If a dm is "powergaming" then they are either antagonistic in style, abusing their position or otherwise rationally dealing with a strong party.

Your second paragraph revolves around a dm, which i do not include in the term powergamer, but for the sake of argument, sure, a DM needs sourcebooks for monsters. Sure, lets expand the minimum to the core 3 books... that is still not a lot of content, and the PLAYER only needs the phb and whatever sourcebook their subclass is from -- and all they need from that secondary book is the details of the subclass. 

Part of my "annoyance" is that despite repeated examples of how the "orbital shit cannon" doesnt work, you keep trying to rehabilitate the position. That isnt dnd, that is a participant in a discussion being illogical. To refute the OSC a final time (i won't address it again), you can shave one teleports from the situation. This is because a 20ft cube can fit in a bag of holding. You cannot shave the third,  because you would be unable to impart the momentum otherwise. The bag of holding itself would be accelerated,  but not the contents as that is on a different plane. So you would need to dump the bag out on neptune, allow it to accelerate,  then teleport the non-discrete mass of manure (which shouldn't count as an object, but I'll allow it as you could replace it with a cube of solid metal) and then yourselves. So 3 casts at the 7th level at best. If you were to skip this step, the manure (or item) would only leave the bag at its normal rate... resulting in your artificial speed causing you to impact it yourself, or if you use feather fall first, negating the benefit of the teleportation. Meaning that you would be exposed to intense reentry friction for at least a little while. I would also argue that a common spyglass, as used by ships captains, is not able to see another planet (let alone Neptune) in any condition, let alone all conditions, but sure, lets say it can (to keep track, i think this is the third time ive stated that i disagree with your premise?) So sure, lets say that the dm allows all those points to go exactly your way.... how is it the physics that is the toxic behaviour? Surely it is the player badgering the dm to get their way being problematic,  right? That isnt power gaming, that is being a problematic player. 

There is still a not insignificant chance of either cast going awry, leaving the teleportee  either in the wrong location on return (and thus without the ability to hit the target) or on departure (and thus not gaining the intended momentum). There is also a solid argument that your humanoid form would be instantly crushed in Neptune's gravity well. The entire idea is unfeasible. 

The reason i say that "more intelligent dms dont use physics" is that a) if you allow that granularity you enable  players to make a version of the OSC that WORKS,  b) because it creates the opportunity to degrade the session into pointless argument and math and c) most people DONT KNOW ENOUGH PHYSICS. Even undergrads of physics will likely forget some aspect, and others will simply see something online, insist that it is correctand be toxic. Physics is not dnd, nor is it powergaming. . I dont mean that a dm should disregard all normal though of reality, just to curtail its use to being USEFUL. The fact that you made this paragraph so flippant is borderline intellectually dishonest.

Using a good build is not unacceptable at a new table. If you are predisposed to blaming the other player because your character cant keep up, that is on you. If the powergamer uses that opportunity to snub the newbie, then that is on them, BUT THAT IS NOT PART OF POWERGAMING.

Also, edit: i missed you slipping nitpicking of rules in to your definition. I a) do not include badgering people about rules as part of powergaming and b) agree that nitpicking the rules, especially after the dm has made a call, is toxic behaviour. Not power gaming, but toxic. 

Barathol_Creed, thank you for putting up with my shenanigans. I just like to play devil's advocate, and I hope you don't take anything personally. It is just few crazy thought experiments. The orbital shitcannon is meant to be ridiculous and is just a troll.

I think our disagreement can come down to this:

Firstly, is powergaming limited to just making a good build? A good combo of skills, feats, and items? Or can it be extended to manipulating the rules to gain advantages? If it is just using a good build, then I have no issue with that. But if it is trolling through books to find rule exploits, then I think that is problematic, especially at a table of new players. Would you consider something like coffeelock a good build for a new player? It follows the rules of the basic PHB and is arguably the most powerful class given just that source.

Secondly, if you have someone building a character for the first time in the effort to participate in a campaign, would you direct them to use their own inner creativity and build something that feels original? Or would you instead direct them to learn what the best builds in the meta are for their class and follow them as a rough template? I am definitely in the camp of use creativity and make something original, especially for a first-time character, but if you believe the template option is better, I'd be curious to hear your reasoning.

Thirdly, do you agree that PC power imbalances generally make a campaign difficult to manage? I wholeheartedly think so. If you think that large power imbalances between the PCs are totally fine in most situations given the average player temperament, I'd like to hear why.

The whole point of this for me is to understand the right way to direct new players on how to participate in their first campaign. New players aren't going to know how they feel about power imbalances that can happen at level 5+ if they've never gone there before, so how do we set them up for success? My thoughts are to tell them to focus on group cohesion instead of optimization. To focus on making a PC that enhances the story rather than one that simply is "the best" for their chosen class.

*And you are totally right about the OSC requiring 3 teleports, but as for not being able to see planets, Venus is regularly visible by the naked eye, and the speed difference in orbits between Earth and Venus is about 5000m/s -- enough for a beastly orbital shitcannon. But we can let it rest :D

The basis of our disagreement is that my definition is, as precisely as possible: using the rules to create a build that is either optimized in some aspect or meets a certain power level for a given tier of play. It is limited to making a good build. Negative aspects such as shaming others, rules badgering or otherwise intentionally degrading the experience of others is separate from powergaming and falls under what I term "problematic behaviour" or "toxic behaviour" depending on specifics of the situation. Any form of optimizing that requires interpretation of the rules is the domain of the dm, and a player that does not abide by the dms call is out of line (with the obvious exception of an abusive dm, in which case i advocate for finding a new table).

Is a coffeelock a good build for a new player? No, it is too complicated for the average new player to handle, but i would counter that a) the coffeelock is vastly over estimated due to the fact that you cannot exceed your sorcerer level in Sorcery Points and b) most spellcasting classes are difficult for new players to grasp well in general, due to the need to understand the large number of spell effects that make up the majority of those classes capabilities.

A coffeelock can stay awake and produce spell slots, but if you follow the rules precisely it is generally more disruptive to an adventuring day. My indifference to coffeelock may also stem from my interpretation/ruling that you do not gain NEW slots, just recover them; i accept that this isnt the case at all tables, though. A coffeelock also needs significant time to store power, which can be highly disruptive depending on the situation.

Which character creation method do i support? I support new players making their own decisions. If someone wants to make a unique character that may or may not have flaws, then that is great - they will have to look at their options and figure out what they want, which is how many people learn best. Other people learn by looking at what people say works, and I am fine with that too. I don't interject,  but for the purposes of the question I would answer that i prefer the personalized, creative option as it encourages a better grasp of the system in my opinion. Perhaps not for the first character, but at least they wont pick up possible bad interpretations that can be present on "optimized build" pages where the author didnt do their work properly. 

Is pc ppwer imbalance a problem? Not necessarily.  So long as everyone is having fun, i dont care if player a can do 10x the damage per round of player b. Ive played enough to know that there are many avenues to greatness, and not being able to match a character at *what they were designed to do perfectly* is no reason to be upset. Even if you cannot swing 12 times,  you can cast a spell that thwarts your enemies,  or make that persuasive argument to ensure the party gets a bonus from the stingy quest giver, or any other number of ways to shine or create memorable moments. I dont begrudge the fighter their ability to dominate the battlefield,  the wizards ability to snap his fingers to solve problems or the bards ability to schmooze. No one likes to feel bad, but if no one is trying make you feel bad, then that is you being insecure -- not the other person being an *******. If they mock or chide or shame, then yah, they are being ********, but that is completely separate, as stated  before.

The only caveat is your use of the phrase "average player temperament". The issue  there is that while D&D has much larger appeal in recent years, MANY of its players are still socially awkward, perhaps emotionally stunted people who have a particular outlook. I dont mean any  of that in a disparaging way, by the way,  just that "nerdy" hobbies attract "nerds" and these people, for all the good traits they have, often also carry some emotional baggage of not fitting in or getting their way. Perhaps it is because I am a bit older  (over 30), but ive largely outgrown those insecurities (not all of them, im still a nerd). The people i play with would  never intentionally be so inconsiderate,  so perhaps that is also a portion of why -- though to be fair, curating who you play with can markedly increase your enjoyment, despite requiring time and experience (including bad experience). Different  tables operate differently.  Players play differently.  Everyone needs to find the one that works.

The only thing i can suggest is to COMMUNICATE with the group, make sure everyone is on the same page. If one person feels jealous of another character,  then the group (especially the dm) needs to work to alleviate that in a non-compremizing way. By which i mean, it shouldn't be giving free stuff to someone who complains, and it shouldn't be punishing an innocent player for a creative play or strong build.  The non powergamed character also deserves spotlight,  but it shouldn't be always on them either, nor should that spotlight come at the cost of someone else. 

No one can wave a wand to fix some elses feelings. Even if the powergamer says "my bad, let me re roll something real quick", AND IS SINCERELY FINE WITH THAT, the player that complained will probably feel humiliated and guilty. The only thing we can do is let others know what the score is. If somone is being an ass after you ask them to stop, i would argue that this is someone you dont have to play with. Either you have the stoicism to bear it, or dont. If you dont, i do suggest finding another table.

Quote from Barathol_Creed >>

The basis of our disagreement is that my definition is, as precisely as possible: using the rules to create a build that is either optimized in some aspect or meets a certain power level for a given tier of play. It is limited to making a good build. Negative aspects such as shaming others, rules badgering or otherwise intentionally degrading the experience of others is separate from powergaming and falls under what I term "problematic behaviour" or "toxic behaviour" depending on specifics of the situation. Any form of optimizing that requires interpretation of the rules is the domain of the dm, and a player that does not abide by the dms call is out of line (with the obvious exception of an abusive dm, in which case i advocate for finding a new table).

Is a coffeelock a good build for a new player? No, it is too complicated for the average new player to handle, but i would counter that a) the coffeelock is vastly over estimated due to the fact that you cannot exceed your sorcerer level in Sorcery Points and b) most spellcasting classes are difficult for new players to grasp well in general, due to the need to understand the large number of spell effects that make up the majority of those classes capabilities.

A coffeelock can stay awake and produce spell slots, but if you follow the rules precisely it is generally more disruptive to an adventuring day. My indifference to coffeelock may also stem from my interpretation/ruling that you do not gain NEW slots, just recover them; i accept that this isnt the case at all tables, though. A coffeelock also needs significant time to store power, which can be highly disruptive depending on the situation.

Which character creation method do i support? I support new players making their own decisions. If someone wants to make a unique character that may or may not have flaws, then that is great - they will have to look at their options and figure out what they want, which is how many people learn best. Other people learn by looking at what people say works, and I am fine with that too. I don't interject,  but for the purposes of the question I would answer that i prefer the personalized, creative option as it encourages a better grasp of the system in my opinion. Perhaps not for the first character, but at least they wont pick up possible bad interpretations that can be present on "optimized build" pages where the author didnt do their work properly. 

Is pc ppwer imbalance a problem? Not necessarily.  So long as everyone is having fun, i dont care if player a can do 10x the damage per round of player b. Ive played enough to know that there are many avenues to greatness, and not being able to match a character at *what they were designed to do perfectly* is no reason to be upset. Even if you cannot swing 12 times,  you can cast a spell that thwarts your enemies,  or make that persuasive argument to ensure the party gets a bonus from the stingy quest giver, or any other number of ways to shine or create memorable moments. I dont begrudge the fighter their ability to dominate the battlefield,  the wizards ability to snap his fingers to solve problems or the bards ability to schmooze. No one likes to feel bad, but if no one is trying make you feel bad, then that is you being insecure -- not the other person being an *******. If they mock or chide or shame, then yah, they are being ********, but that is completely separate, as stated  before.

The only caveat is your use of the phrase "average player temperament". The issue  there is that while D&D has much larger appeal in recent years, MANY of its players are still socially awkward, perhaps emotionally stunted people who have a particular outlook. I dont mean any  of that in a disparaging way, by the way,  just that "nerdy" hobbies attract "nerds" and these people, for all the good traits they have, often also carry some emotional baggage of not fitting in or getting their way. Perhaps it is because I am a bit older  (over 30), but ive largely outgrown those insecurities (not all of them, im still a nerd). The people i play with would  never intentionally be so inconsiderate,  so perhaps that is also a portion of why -- though to be fair, curating who you play with can markedly increase your enjoyment, despite requiring time and experience (including bad experience). Different  tables operate differently.  Players play differently.  Everyone needs to find the one that works.

The only thing i can suggest is to COMMUNICATE with the group, make sure everyone is on the same page. If one person feels jealous of another character,  then the group (especially the dm) needs to work to alleviate that in a non-compremizing way. By which i mean, it shouldn't be giving free stuff to someone who complains, and it shouldn't be punishing an innocent player for a creative play or strong build.  The non powergamed character also deserves spotlight,  but it shouldn't be always on them either, nor should that spotlight come at the cost of someone else. 

No one can wave a wand to fix some elses feelings. Even if the powergamer says "my bad, let me re roll something real quick", AND IS SINCERELY FINE WITH THAT, the player that complained will probably feel humiliated and guilty. The only thing we can do is let others know what the score is. If somone is being an ass after you ask them to stop, i would argue that this is someone you dont have to play with. Either you have the stoicism to bear it, or dont. If you dont, i do suggest finding another table.

Thanks for this reply. I think there is a bunch of great wisdom here. I'm satisfied with where we both stand in our beliefs, and I think you've expanded my viewpoint considerably. I think I had misinterpreted powergaming more with "rules badgering" as you put it, and not just confining to the context of creating a good build. I think that we actually agree on most topics, and for most of the discussion I was playing the role of devil's advocate just for the sake of the thought experiment. Thank you for the discussion! I think my future tables will benefit from all of the info I've gained here. I think a lot of this has shown me that it's vitally important when discussing these things with your players on a Session 0 that everyone is clear on what powergaming means (versus rules badgering, munchkin, etc.). This way arguments don't arise from misconstrued implications from choices of words. Thanks again for your time and effort.