
baalbamoth |
8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Controlling Powergamers in Pathfinder
Since we all know and agree there are HUGE balance issues, and min/maxed optimized characters with insanely unbalanced abilities are very easy to create, and after level 12 many power combos can effectively one shot most AP encounters, on another post I proposed getting rid of (most) feats, AOO’s and multi attacks to help balance the game and speed up combat. This was met with much flame. Essentially breaking down to
a) Its impossible
b) It won’t work because there are too many other core abilities (scorching ray spell etc.) that would be affected.
c) It wont really work because there are too many other ways to unbalance the game.
d) It would not really be pathfinder, and essentially you’re creating an entirely new system pathfinder players wont want to play.
I decided they were absolutely right. So rather than just hating on PF forever and never running or playing again, I figured I’d ask more helpful questions to solve the problem of powergaming.
Take in mind, anyone could just say “well you look over their character and if it’s too powerful just say no” but that does not account all the time the player put into building his character or the fact that just about every instance of opted min/maxing is not only accepted but encouraged by the rules.
So ultimately,
If you were going to run a game and wanted to give players a set of directions and/or restrictions that would stop any character created from “greatly” unbalancing the game, at any time during his/her progression… what would those directions/restrictions be? Or, (If your not up to that challenge)… what is one direction/restriction you feel should be on that list?

Tels |

The easiest method for me, is usually banning certain feats/spells/items etc that are key to a build. For instance, I don't allow the Snap Shot line of feats, Eldritch Heritage, Antagonize, Clustered Shot, Litany of Righteousness, to name a few things.
Nixing these things, and making it clear they aren't allowed, can often times nip many things in the bud before they get ridiculous.

Bart Vervaet |
12 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I do to discourage min/maxing is letting PC's suffer the consequences of dumping ability scores. things like enforcing carrying capacity for low str, creating situations where many different skill checks are required, and hitting them with a variety of saving throws.
Also PCs with low mental scores will suffer in social situations. Low cha PCs will be shunned, low int/wis will be taken advantage of (higher rates in shops/taverns, being bluffed regularly into believing things that will get them into trouble)
most of it is just adjusting encounters to the party.
On the other hand you should also give them the opportunity to shine. Give them some encounters where their maxed out ability can make a difference

Kat Tenser |

As much as I would like to see a perfectly balanced game, but I just don't see it as possible.
No matter what classes, feats, and spells you restrict, there are always gonna be some combos that are just plain better.
I would just give it up, and try to find some peace with the status quo. IF you absolutely can't...
Eliminate Wizards, Sorcerers, Oracles, Witches, Clerics, Druids.
I suppose that would go a long way to fixing game balance issues.

baalbamoth |
Tels- name a few more, in fact, if you can... name all the feats you ban
Bart- appreciated but the problems I have are mainly within combat, non-combat I do follow that advice.
Kat- I dont want perfectly ballenced, like you said its impossible unless you want to create a table top version of something like world of warcrap where everything does about the same damage and has about the same hp and ac etc.
in any good RPG your tank will always be out damaged by your nuke. but I'm not asking for "perfect" (thats a cop out IMO) I'm asking for "not greatly unbalanced" which should be achieveable if the game isnt completely and at its core broken. If your telling me the only way to control powergaming in PF is to ban all those classes... I would suspect the previous statement is true.

baalbamoth |
heh borbacz, I totally think the rules take a back seat to theatrics... it is a "role" playing game afterall...
Ciretose- not that easy, power creep can disguise your PG until they reach later levels, have become central to the plot etc. also, your assuming 1) I live in an area where finding somebody who wants to play and can make it to a weekly game every week is an easy thing to do... and 2) half the players are not already powergamers... no... I need to give my pet PGs a framwork they cant abuse.

carn |
Whats the point of stopping powergamers?
If they are bored, one can always as a GM use all the rule options when designing encounters.
My personal favourite is a halfling master summoner with absurd stealth and wand of invisibility. Sneaks close, casts 10 summon monster behind the next total cover and goes in with all of them.
Or just a young, advanced incorparal undead. Same CR, nearly everything +4.

Tels |

Whats the point of stopping powergamers?
If they are bored, one can always as a GM use all the rule options when designing encounters.
My personal favourite is a halfling master summoner with absurd stealth and wand of invisibility. Sneaks close, casts 10 summon monster behind the next total cover and goes in with all of them.Or just a young, advanced incorparal undead. Same CR, nearly everything +4.
The problem with power gamers is if only a few of the party is power gaming, while the rest or not. If you power game the monsters, they destroy the non-power gamers.
@baalbamoth- those are the first ones that come to mind. I had a total list on my other laptop, but it broke and I haven't had the chance to recover the memory.

baalbamoth |
carn- yeah if I wanted to kill them all off with no chance of survival theres lots of ways I can do that. The point is not all the players are PGs anything you throw at them they might survive but the vanillas wont. I need to stop the powergamers at level 1 with a clearly defined set of restrictions, and directives controling their builds... so far I've only got one posting telling me its even possible, and so far it still leaves too many holes.
tels-lol ya beat me to it! lol and damnit.. order the stormtroopers to fix that laptop, ITS VITAL TO THE EMPIRE!

Ashiel |
16 people marked this as a favorite. |

If you were going to run a game and wanted to give players a set of directions and/or restrictions that would stop any character created from “greatly” unbalancing the game, at any time during his/her progression… what would those directions/restrictions be? Or, (If your not up to that challenge)… what is one direction/restriction you feel should be on that list?
Hm, well I think one of the best ways to minimize powergaming (not necessarily min/maxing because I see nothing wrong with that, and with the standard 15 point buy you are never going to break the game due to your ability scores, and I have doubts about doing it with 25 PB either as I've seen the game run on that too) is to communicate with your players.
Consider discussing with them why they power game. They may not even consider what they do as power gaming in the same way you do. I mean, I've been in games that have standard optimization levels far, far above my usual comfort zone; but to those players they were just playing the game they enjoy. Meanwhile, I've seen the opposite end of the spectrum with groups who think bards are weak, monks are OP, and fighters are gods. Sometimes it's just a matter of perspective.
Many players powergame because D&D is a game of fantasy heroes, and most of us like our fantasy heroes to be fantastically heroic. Some don't like the idea of playing Commissioner Gordon when they can play Batman. Others power game out of an altruistic urge to help their friends and allies. I myself have tried to make sure my characters are assuredly useful for the benefit of others (and I'm hesitant to run a character that will be a drain on my party, be they my friends or new players). Others still power game because D&D is naturally a very hard game and things will eat you, and being really good at what you do can ensure you play the character longer and thus extend your fun and enjoyment.
I'd strongly advise against changing a lot of stuff about the system, honestly. Try to get more comfortable with the system, and get more ideas on how encounters can run. A lot of people forget the abilities that their NPCs have and don't take them for their full potential (such as forgetting that Balors are great ranged combatants with their spells).
Generally, I feel like just laying down some ground rules, and banning a few things that are seriously bad (like Antagonize) is probably all you'll need. I'd even recommend avoiding banning stuff unless it's really undoubtedly horrid. If in doubt, consider getting advice from people here on the boards. Sort through anything that looks like a knee-jerk reaction and look for well thought out explanations. You might find that that feat, spell, or class feature isn't as bad as you thought. Or you might see that something is universally despised (like Antagonize, which is hated by almost everyone on the boards).
But remember that often power-gamers power-game because that's how they have fun with the game, and it's possible that you can comfortably and easily challenge them without revving up your game and instead just being aware of what you're already allowed to do (I swear to you that kobolds are terrifying!).
But communication, I think is key. I've had to have talks with some players over the years. I even had to explain the difference between optimization and theoretical optimization. Often times, if you can let your PCs know what you're looking for, and let them let you know what they are looking for, you can find a happy medium for you and your whole group.

![]() |

The GM needs to know the characters that the PCs have brought to the table. Keep a copy of them and capitalize on their weaknesses. You do not have to be mean, but as GM you should be aiming to make situations challenging.
No one character is going to shine in every situation and you should create encounters that are not always solved by combat or a simple die roll. Do not let your players back out of encounters with a die roll and no attempt at actually putting in some roleplaying.
Just because someone is a power-gamer does not mean they're not at the table to roleplay. Some people like the challenge of optimizing, but they should not be penalized for it. As GM you have countless resources at your disposal to take on the guy who has worked the rules to produce a powerful character.
Still, I would not necessarily subscribe to Ciretose's solution until you have exhausted other opportunities to resolve the situation!
EDIT: Kind of ninja'd by the 1,000,000 posts that appeared while I was trying to get time to type this up! :)

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

The question is if the player is playing for "me" fun or "us" fun. I've had optimizers in my group that did so in the context of concepts and were able to fit in well because they played their min as well as their max. They weren't trying to "win" vs the rest of the group, or dominate the table. They tried to make it fun for everyone and it was fine.
And every once in a while someone has a friend they want to bring in who wants to roll up a venerable drow noble lich with a heart of gold and we let the door hit them where the good lord split them.
If you run a good table, you'll have to narrow down the players anyway at some point. Do don't let selfish jerks stay more than a session.

Tels |

The problem with forcing roleplaying situations, is not everyone is 'in' to roleplaying situations.
I play with a fairly consistent group of people. I'd say half of them play for combat, and only build characters that are good at combat. When it comes time to roleplay, they intentionally avoid it as much as possible. If they are forced into it, they do the bare minimum they can, and get out when possible.
The other half like to roleplay with their combat. I've got one player who loves, loves, building spy networks. Every character he's got builds a network of contacts for him to use.
My point is, you can't force one style of gaming onto every players, because every person has their own likes and dislikes. Forcing a guy who simply enjoys combat, into roleplaying situations because his character is bad at it, is a bad idea.
You need to find a way to balance out as many likes and dislikes for the players as you can. Like I mentioned above, I nip a lot of things in the bud before they can grow to be a problem.
I personally break the game on a theoretical level, so I know how to stop it from having on a practical level. I've seen characters who tried to assemble an AM BARBARIAN character in game, and told them they couldn't do that. I've seen others who tried to build a Paladin that does roughly 100 points of damage at 8th level, and only gets more powerful from there. I stopped that as before it could happen.
I agree that a certain level of optimization should be strived for, but attempting to power-game usually ruins the fun for a lot of the people that don't power game.
Also, to add to that list of things I hand-down do not allow - Summoner. I do not allow the Summoner class in my game, or their spell list. Nor do I allow Gunslingers or firearms. I like my sword and sorcery fantasy to be sword and sorcery, not sword, sorcery and firearms.

Tels |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

You cannot force roleplaying situations into a roleplaying game? Since when?
That's not what I meant. A character that is all mim-maxed for combat, and dumped for social or roleplay situations, won't do well in them. A lot of players that avoid roleplaying situations, dislike them because they view them as being 'not fun'. To force them to continue on in such situations, makes the game not fun for them, and less likely to come back.
Out of those half combat characters I mentioned, I've only got 2 that I really need to worry about min-maxing or power gaming. The rest genuinely just like combat, but don't like power gaming as they know it ruins the fun.

Ashiel |

And every once in a while someone has a friend they want to bring in who wants to roll up a venerable drow noble lich with a heart of gold and we let the door hit them where the good lord split them.
Jesus that would be a weak-ass character. An elf or halfling would be way stronger. >.>

![]() |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

I just play with nice people who are friends and are considerate of each other.
That works 100% of the time.
Is that a smug response? I don't know. It is an honest response. Find a decent group and they'll stick with each other for a long time because everyone appreciates a decent group to be in.
When I helped to run an RPG club we occasionally had to take someone to one side and say: "You don't seem to be fitting in with that group, do you want to try this table instead." Obviously, that solution is dependant upon the environment.

Ashiel |

Ashiel wrote:Jesus that would be a weak-ass character. An elf or halfling would be way stronger. >.>How about a venerable halfling lich with a heart of stuffing? That would be my type of character!
No "stuffing" jokes please.
Mummies are stuffed with sacred holy incense and flowers. Does that count? Hah, that would be funny. A halfling mummy wizard or sorcerer. Talk about bizarre. Might make for a funny gish.
Hm, let's see. Venerable is +3, halfling is +2, lich is +2. That would be +7 Charisma or or +3.5 modifier. Not the end of the world, but looking way better due to losing few levels, and you get way better modifiers. The venerable bit kind of crushes your Dexterity though (-4 net total, so -2 AC and Reflex). The +1 to all saves and +4 to stealth is pretty cool though. Gnomes might be amusing liches too. I'm really not sure the +1 CR for being a noble drow is worth the bump to Dexterity and other mental stats. Halfling definitely seems better, and won't delay your getting to better spells as much.
But yeah, why be a noble drow when you could just be the normal drow? They're better due to lack of CR adjustment. Heck, noble drow make terrible NPCs due to their LA too. Just shoveling XP at players for something barely better than the norm. :P

![]() |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

I don't understand this mindset. If a player enjoys powergaming why do GMs put so much effort into nerfing them? Why not try and find a balance where both GM and player can enjoy the game?
It seems to me that when faced with a powergamer a lot of GMs revert to a combative role, either banning character options or tipping the power scale in such a direction that the players suffer.
I have a powergamer in my group (and a few others that lean in that direction), but they are all excellent roleplayers and I do my best to accomodate them without banning stuff (I do audit their sheets to make sure no one -me included- is misreading the rules) or throwing wickedly powerful enemies at them just to "beat" them.
It does happen that I roll my eyes at some of the stuff they come up with, but honestly, if given the option of allowing stuff like that and accommodating everyone vs. setting up a zero-sum game where I'm constantly battling their powergaming tendencies, well I'll choose the former. It's a lot more fun for everyone involved.

Aratrok |

Mummies are stuffed with sacred holy incense and flowers. Does that count? Hah, that would be funny. A halfling mummy wizard or sorcerer. Talk about bizarre. Might make for a funny gish.
Hm, let's see. Venerable is +3, halfling is +2, lich is +2. That would be +7 Charisma or or +3.5 modifier. Not the end of the world, but looking way better due to losing few levels, and you get way better modifiers. The venerable bit kind of crushes your Dexterity though (-4 net total, so -2 AC and Reflex). The +1 to all saves and +4 to stealth is pretty cool though. Gnomes might be amusing liches too. I'm really not sure the +1 CR for being a noble drow is worth the bump to Dexterity and other mental stats. Halfling definitely seems better, and won't delay your getting to better spells as much.
But yeah, why be a noble drow when you could just be the normal drow? They're better due to lack of CR adjustment. Heck, noble drow make terrible NPCs due to their LA too. Just shoveling XP at players for something barely better than the norm. :P
Wait, undead accrue physical penalties for age categories? I thought they only received mental bonuses, since they're immortal and their bodies don't deteriorate under normal circumstances. I guess they'd have the penalty if they were already venerable before becoming undead, but what if they were still young when they were converted?
Seems a bit unlikely in the case of becoming a lich, but it could happen for a type of undead that requires another person's intervention.

![]() |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

There is a stigma attached to PGing, no doubt, and the problem can rest of both sides of the table. Some people have pretty narrow views of what constitutes PGing and this colours their judgement.
As long as everyone is having fun at the table, who cares? Right?!
EDIT: Sorry, have to cut short my rant... I mean response! :)

Lost Soul |
Others have already covered what to do with the player that shows up with a game-breaking monstrostity like that 3.x Hulking Hurler that did 49748 damage (plus 4 fire), going "Nyuk nyuk nyuk" all the while. Kick'em to the curb!
For good old fashioned power imbalance, here's a simple truth: system balance is a problem for the designers, not the DM. One of your player wants to play a straight fighter? Give him more loot to compensate, or an extra feat here and there. Sure, it's not "by the book" but who cares? The goal is to have a campaign that works, not to achieve magical perfect balance.

thenovalord |

i think you have to live with the monstrosity of the rules or play something else
gets very hard to cherry pick out bits you dont like
OR
only play with the basic rulebook or something
I find this game become deadly dull to both GM and other players when one character is tweaked till the rules scream and 6 arrows later his 12 level PC has one rounded some unfortunate CR 13 creature

baalbamoth |
its kinda funny, some of the people who have contributed to some of the messageboards most disgusting powergamer builds are now giving good advice on how to control powergamers. (heh)
ashiel made a very good point... communication, I have been thinking of this as a static problem with the system... and dont get me wrong, I do think lack of balance in this game is a HUGE problem, and does prevent me from saying its a great system rather than just average... but I (believe it or not) am a trained therapist.. I havent really been asking the other question..
"why do powergamers powergame?" because its really fun to be the biggest bad ass in the party is one answer... another is because its greatly rewarding both emotionally and gamewise (it allows you get finish APs faster, get more xp, more items, etc.)
so... how do we get powergamers to want less power? how do we make it less rewarding? well you could try negitive re-enforcemnt... tell the players at character creation every week you will give a "much too effective" award to anyone who demonstrates that their character is 20% or more effective than a standard character of their level and class, the award will ammount to 50 DKP... MINUS!!!! oh ah I mean maybe 25% less xp for the session. If it continues, within 4-8 sessions the powergamer will be more in balance (2-3 levels below the vanillas)... but this got me thinking another way too...
are there any stats for the average damage output pr rnd, ac, bab,CMD, no of attacks, avg area spell damage, etc. etc. by class per level?
If not there needs to be a table like that so I really know who my powergamers are and how badly they are twisting the rules...
as a side note... maybe you could require 1 out of ever 3 feats be deovted to something that has absolutely nothing to do with combat or with their main class features... etc. would that work? go ahead and opt yourself, but if you loose 1/3 of your feats how extreme are you really going to get?

![]() |

As much as I would like to see a perfectly balanced game, but I just don't see it as possible.
No matter what classes, feats, and spells you restrict, there are always gonna be some combos that are just plain better.
I would just give it up, and try to find some peace with the status quo. IF you absolutely can't...
Eliminate Wizards, Sorcerers, Oracles, Witches, Clerics, Druids.
I suppose that would go a long way to fixing game balance issues.
Don't forget to ban any melee class that can 1-round a balrog. Barbarian, Paladin, Inquisitor, Magus, Fighter.
Looks like we are all playing rogues and bards. The only classes that are not OP....unless the campaign is heavy on social skills.

Volkard Abendroth |

Seems a bit unlikely in the case of becoming a lich, but it could happen for a type of undead that requires another person's intervention.
The ability to negate aging penalties is available much earlier via ioun stone. Any wizard seeking immortality through lichdom is likely to be aware of this option.

![]() |

Controlling Powergamers in Pathfinder
Since we all know and agree there are HUGE balance issues, and min/maxed optimized characters with insanely unbalanced abilities are very easy to create, and after level 12 many power combos can effectively one shot most AP encounters, on another post I proposed getting rid of (most) feats, AOO’s and multi attacks to help balance the game and speed up combat. This was met with much flame. Essentially breaking down to
a) Its impossible
b) It won’t work because there are too many other core abilities (scorching ray spell etc.) that would be affected.
c) It wont really work because there are too many other ways to unbalance the game.
d) It would not really be pathfinder, and essentially you’re creating an entirely new system pathfinder players wont want to play.I decided they were absolutely right. So rather than just hating on PF forever and never running or playing again, I figured I’d ask more helpful questions to solve the problem of powergaming.
Take in mind, anyone could just say “well you look over their character and if it’s too powerful just say no” but that does not account all the time the player put into building his character or the fact that just about every instance of opted min/maxing is not only accepted but encouraged by the rules.
So ultimately,
If you were going to run a game and wanted to give players a set of directions and/or restrictions that would stop any character created from “greatly” unbalancing the game, at any time during his/her progression… what would those directions/restrictions be? Or, (If your not up to that challenge)… what is one direction/restriction you feel should be on that list?
Rule #1: Only one Archetype in your build. You can also only multiclass into at most two base classes (not counting prestige classes).
Rule #2: No Leadership, no Style feats, and no races from the ARG with more than 13 race points.
Rule #3: Look over the Paizo forums. If what you're trying to do is hotly debated as something that might or might not be rules-legal, DON'T DO IT.
Rule #4: For the sake of streamlining combat, no necromancer-based characters, and only one combat pet (AKA only one companion that fights with you) in any given fight. You may also want a limit to the number of summoned creatures at once.
Rule #5: No stat lower than 8 (AFTER applying racial bonuses). This is one of the best ways to curb min-maxing. With a 20-point buy, it'll even out very well.
Finally, Rule #6: If the DM thinks you're going nuts, he/she has the right to help you redesign your character (keeping the same concept, but curbing the crazy abilities a bit.)

Crysknife |

I make it clear that I expect everyone to try not to disrupt the game.
If a character is stronger overall than the rest of the party as a whole, he is disruptive.
Of course this does not concern me in the least if the other players decided to suck.
This is important, in assessing what the power level of the PCs should be, I talk to every player and tell them how strong I expect their PCs to be: something like, ok, this one campaign will be a joke so make a fun character, this one is deadly so come prepared and so on.
If I said that I expect everyone to hold his own, and the 2-hander barbarian is stronger than all the rest of spring attacking rogue/monks I don't care, it's their problem.
I offer help to my players in building their PCs, but if they really want to suck it's fine, I won't ask the only optimizer to suck too. On the other end, if the other players came up with something in line with the power level of the campaign and one is seriously dominating the encounters, I talk to the player who is dominating and ask him to tone it down a bit. I may also ask him to focus on another role: I'm the first that would happily oblige if my master came to me telling me that my striker is too strong and that I'd better tone it down or play a buffer. Actually, I often did.
I think that most issues with powergamers arise when a GM is either not rule-savvy enough understand what's going on or is too meek to do what needs to be done: talk to his players.

baalbamoth |
Roac- ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE we have a super PG in our group, he kills most of the enemies in a couple of rounds, the other players rarely get their time to shine in combat and makes us all feel our characters are wimpy worms and not the bad asses we invisoned ourselves to be.
when the DM actually wants the combats to actually be challenging and climatic... he throws things at us that nearly TPK us, a couple of sessions ago a monster got lucky and took out the PG with a bad assed crit, we had to run and all would have died if the DM didnt reduce dammage and start taking less attacks. That made us feel like the game really isnt a challenge because if we do get into trouble the DM will just save everyone to preserve the game.
no... powergaming... real powergaming... is a very serious problem in some games and "working with" the powergamer is like telling a battered wife to learn to deal with her wife beating husband better. generally the best answer is get rid of em, but if thats not possible... you better lay down the law.

carn |
No stat lower than 8 (AFTER applying racial bonuses). This is one of the best ways to curb min-maxing. With a 20-point buy, it'll even out very well.
Why worry about power gaming and use a 20 pt buy?
15 pt buy is standard.
@Artanthos
15-pt build for melee killing balor (that was what you probably meant) in 1 round?

Evil Lincoln |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

Dealing with "powergaming" is a process unchanged by choice of game system.
If there's behavior that bothers you as a Player or GM, direct communication is the only way to solve it. Trying to "fix" behavior through rules and punitive measures is a sure way to wreck your campaign and look like an jerk while doing it.
Agreeing that you will either embrace the adversarial play style, or the storytime play style, is better. My group understands that a proactive GM will escalate if the players increase their power, so there's a limit to how awesome you want to be. Some groups like to push the envelope and keep both players and GM trying as hard as can be. We like to "keep pace" with each other just enough to provide a challenge.
These are all valid play styles and there are a few more besides. The thing to do is make sure everyone's playing the same style, and real-life interpersonal communication skills are the only way to make that happen. The better you are at establishing this understanding with the players, the better a GM you will be.

carn |
Roac- ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE we have a super PG in our group, he kills most of the enemies in a couple of rounds, the other players rarely get their time to shine in combat and makes us all feel our characters are wimpy worms and not the bad asses we invisoned ourselves to be.
What is his will save?

Umbranus |

Step one: Observe Power gamer.
Step two: Stop inviting them to play with you.
Step Three: Profit!
There are some problems involved with this approach and they all have to do with one fact: Powergaming is subjective
All of my PF chars have a suboptimal build. Mainly because I love to multiclass.
Despite that some in my usual gaming group think I'm a powergamer.
The one who sometimes openly calls me a PG is more of a powergamer than I am.
One of our players likes to build chars with lots of weak points and plays them in a way that brings out his weak points as much as possible. Even is the group has to suffer for it.
Compared to him everyone is a powergamer.
Should he play all for himself in the future because everyone else is a pg?
Should I or the guy who calls me pg from time to time demand that the other (whom we think is a pg) isn't invited to our games anymore?

Fleshgrinder |

If a person begins becoming so powerful that no fight is a challenge, people in power are going to notice this. Kings, counts, gods, demons... someone is going to get nervous about this very powerful up and comer.
This someone is going to probably hire people to deal with the issue. Expensive people. People who do their homework. People who bring poisons tailored to exploit this character's weaknesses. They're going to be prepared.
Any powerful character can be taught the meaning of humility by a DM willing to sit down for 20 minutes and make a custom encounter.

![]() |

cartmanbeck wrote:No stat lower than 8 (AFTER applying racial bonuses). This is one of the best ways to curb min-maxing. With a 20-point buy, it'll even out very well.Why worry about power gaming and use a 20 pt buy?
15 pt buy is standard.
@Artanthos
15-pt build for melee killing balor (that was what you probably meant) in 1 round?
Eh, 20-point is standard for our group. I feel like 15-point buy makes you have to min-max even more (as in drop more stats below 10) just to get a decent main spellcasting stat. BUT, I am a power gamer myself, so that's probably got something to do with my attitude there.

Icyshadow |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

You cannot force roleplaying situations into a roleplaying game? Since when?
Since people have made dungeoncrawl games where it's nothing but moving from one room to the other, killing stuff. No NPCs to chat with, just monsters to kill and loot to take. It's not really a style I'm okay with myself, I like both RP and fiddling with stats. Also, all the people mistaking powergamers to munchkins just make me sad. Then again, I haven't been in a good mood in a nice while for various reasons.

Richard Leonhart |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

just everytime they have to make a decision on how to build their character, remind them that optimizing is bad and takes away fun.
Optimizing is like a reflex that has to be repressed constantly, it's not their fault, it's an illness, an addiction.
If they still do it, either hit them with a stick or don't play with them.

Icyshadow |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

Just everytime they have to make a decision on how to build their character, remind them that optimizing is bad and takes away fun.
Optimizing is like a reflex that has to be repressed constantly, it's not their fault, it's an illness, an addiction.
If they still do it, either hit them with a stick or don't play with them.
If that is true, one of my two gaming groups is doing "badwrong" and should be beaten with sticks apparently.
Your message borders on disturbing if we replace "optimizer" with "atheist" or "religious person". Hope you see what I mean.

Fleshgrinder |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

just everytime they have to make a decision on how to build their character, remind them that optimizing is bad and takes away fun.
Optimizing is like a reflex that has to be repressed constantly, it's not their fault, it's an illness, an addiction.
If they still do it, either hit them with a stick or don't play with them.
This is a ridiculous assertion. Optimizing is not inherently bad.
Bending rules to the point of breaking is bad, but picking a coherent combination of feats and abilities that all synergize with each other is kind of the point.
There's a reason why feat trees exist.
Even in real life, people tend to specialize their skillsets.
Finding how feats and skills all interlock together like a finely tuned machine is half of the fun for some players.

![]() |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Roac- ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE we have a super PG in our group, he kills most of the enemies in a couple of rounds, the other players rarely get their time to shine in combat and makes us all feel our characters are wimpy worms and not the bad asses we invisoned ourselves to be.
when the DM actually wants the combats to actually be challenging and climatic... he throws things at us that nearly TPK us, a couple of sessions ago a monster got lucky and took out the PG with a bad assed crit, we had to run and all would have died if the DM didnt reduce dammage and start taking less attacks. That made us feel like the game really isnt a challenge because if we do get into trouble the DM will just save everyone to preserve the game.
no... powergaming... real powergaming... is a very serious problem in some games and "working with" the powergamer is like telling a battered wife to learn to deal with her wife beating husband better. generally the best answer is get rid of em, but if thats not possible... you better lay down the law.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. I prefer communication over competition at my table.
But you seriously have to reconsider your perspective. Comparing communication while playing with a battered wife having to deal with it is stunning. One is a game the other is a serious issue. I realize that you were most likely using hyperbole to inflate your point but it was ill considered and childish.
I'm happy to discuss this, but as adults. We obviously disagree on play styles and that's fine, and for the most part I understand your annoyance with powergaming, but there are better ways of handling it other than banning or competing with your players.