I need some forum therapy (AKA why do I feel entitled to powergame?)

[Raimun]

What even is powergaming? Going outside of the expected level of power? Isn't that kind of the shtick of most main characters in works of fiction that feature lots of fighting? Wouldn't you ever want to play the best damn swordsman of the land, heavily armored cyborg policeman or the master of psychokinesis and telepathy? Why settle for mediocore heroic abilities (an oxymoron) all around when you could achieve the peak in something specific and awesome? In the end, all tricks and techniques have a counter or even several, even if it is: "Don't play "the game" your opponent has mastered." Everyone has a weak point or several and no one can do everything.

In this case, all Persisted Globe of Invulnerability would accomplish is wasting the Standard Action of one bad guy per fight. That's assuming they don't start with spells of level 4 or above, use supernatural abilities, bash w/Power Attack or use any of the other attacks that aren't spells of level 3 or below.

It's all a big game of "Rock-Paper-Scissors", expect there's more hand gestures than three. Sometimes situations arise where one side can't win because they pick Scissors every time they go against Rock. And sometimes Rock counters nothing it goes against. I expect this to happen, because as I see this, it's kind of like in many works of fiction. Of course, the random chance plays always some part and when you meet your equal (or close enough) it plays a bigger part.

... Of course, if you design a character with the sole purpose of never losing the giant game of "Rock-Paper-Scissors", you're just a freakin' munchkin.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I feel compelled to mention this, as no one else seems to have (sorry, I only skimmed)



Really, all the DM had to do to defeat your Persisted lesser globe of invulnerability was require you to move more than ten feet away from where you cast it. I would have thanked you for wasting your turn attempts, a fourth level spell slot, and, if this was a habit, a feat choice. Your DM isn't being mean. He saved your character's resources from you.

That would work if it weren't an emenation centered on the caster.

Burst, Emanation, or Spread
Most spells that affect an area function as a burst, an emanation, or a spread. In each case, you select the spell’s point of origin and measure its effect from that point.

A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst’s area defines how far from the point of origin the spell’s effect extends.

An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.

Since an emanation radiates from the point of origin each round and the point of origin is the caster, there's a window of vulnearability if he moves out of the sphere during his turn but at the beginning of his next turn, he'll be right in the center of the AoE again.

[Deophaun]

That would work if it weren't an emenation centered on the caster.

That would be true if the table trumped the text. But, as text trumps table, the sphere is immobile. If it moved to be on top of the caster each round, that would make it mobile, which would make the text wrong.

Also, if it was true that "in each case, you select the spell's point of origin," then you must concede that the spell's table is wrong anyway, because it doesn't let you choose where the point of origin is.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That would be true if the table trumped the text. But, as text trumps table, the sphere is immobile. If it moved to be on top of the caster each round, that would make it mobile, which would make the text wrong.

Also, if it was true that "in each case, you select the spell's point of origin," then you must concede that the spell's table is wrong anyway, because it doesn't let you choose where the point of origin is.

Specific trumps general, the table in the spell description is more specific than the general rules regarding emanations. The sphere being immobile does not conflict with the general emanation rules because the sphere is not moving. Its point of origin is moving and it is emanating from a different location each time the caster moves. Because of this he is vulnerable during the period between leaving the sphere and it emanating from him just before the beginning of his next turn.

[Deophaun]

Its point of origin is moving and it is emanating from a different location each time the caster moves.

You aren't over level 20 and you need an epic level knife to split a hair that fine.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You aren't over level 20 and you need an epic level knife to split a hair that fine.

Bah, such rules semantics and hair-splitting are par for the course in the 3.5 subforum, nevermind places like BG or the minmax boards. Besides, you don't have to be epic to buy an epic knife, it'll just put a real hurt on your WBL.

[Lorsa]

I really don't get the perception that somehow this conversation was full of arrogance, or could be cause for outrage, or anything like that. This is pretty much crystal clear textbook communication - potential conflict was foreseen, raised, confirmed as a real worry, reasons explained, and an understanding was reached on both sides, even if it was a bit of an uncomfortable one.

Just because two people don't perfectly agree and feel perfectly great about it afterwards doesn't mean that the best way to discuss what happened is to make it about 'so which of them was wrong?'.

You are right. But as someone started attacking the DM for being arrogant, I just wanted to point out that juding by that, both sides can be seen as arrogant.

Even if they communication was crystal clear, I believe it could be done in a way that would involve less hurt feelings.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I feel compelled to mention this, as no one else seems to have (sorry, I only skimmed)



Really, all the DM had to do to defeat your Persisted lesser globe of invulnerability was require you to move more than ten feet away from where you cast it. I would have thanked you for wasting your turn attempts, a fourth level spell slot, and, if this was a habit, a feat choice. Your DM isn't being mean. He saved your character's resources from you.

Haaaah. This is fantastic. Actually makes me feel a heck of a lot better about the situation, because I shouldn't actually be able to do it, even if the DM allowed it. Funny, huh? As far as the emanation description vs. specific spell, I'm not really sure which I'd fall on, but it seems like both sides have some good evidence.


On the whole phrasing of the conflict, I think both of us could have done a little better, but I don't feel either of us were particularly rude.


Thanks to my fellow powergamers who are coming in to defend the philosophy. :p I haven't quite been turned against it, myself, but it has given me more tools and ideas with which I can "powergame responsibly".


About the whole level 10 thing, that's one of the reasons I though it might be an ok thing to do. It's basically an insurance against stuff like fireballs. But hey, there it is.

8 attacks seem perfectly normal for any dual-wield linear BAB progression D&D class at lvl 16+. So nothing extraordinary there. Having some special ability that doubles them once per day is just one of those magical powers that exist in D&D. Would it also double Haste attacks, so you could get 18+potential Cleave? That's an annoying amount of dice to roll.

I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure it would. I love me some fast, lots-of-attacks characters, though.

Yes. D&D is made to be a very "generic fantasy" RPG, with its target player base being basically "everyone". Thus, you can't really use your own expectations of the game, you need to discuss it with the group (especially the DM). Some games, as you said, are much better at describing the expected power level. D&D does not really, and even if one could extrapolate based on the rules, most people will still go with their own expectations of "generic fantasy".

So it's less of a problem with that everyone tries to bend it to their goals, and more a problem that D&D tries to bend itself to fit everyone's goals.

That seems about right. I'm glad both of my groups are at least open to trying other games. Bit of a shame that we always come back to DnD, though.

I also try to let the characters do cool things (within reason and somewhat rules dependent), and generally give them very high agency. However, I won't be upset if they don't change the laws of nature. Most players will want to make a difference, one way or another, but I should not fault them for wanting a lower power game.

Sure, if a player doesn't want to have big plans, that's fine. Player agency is a big deal after all, even if they use that agency to... well... ignore that. But my DM style is typically pretty dependent on player plans/backstories/other such things, so it can slow the game down when no one has anything. Perhaps I'm engaging in hyperbole, though.

People use many terms wrong.

Granted, I am a physicist, so my idea of "optimization" is that it's always done towards a specific purpose. There is nothing intrinsically that says this purpose has to be to increase power, which is what I feel powergaming is. I know a few powergamers who are horrible optimizers, and sometimes after years of playing come up with ideas like "omg! look at this awesome combo I just found!", and I'm like "uh, yeah, I saw that the first time I read the rule book, I just decided it wasn't fitting for this campaign". So I like to make a distinction between "powergaming" and "optimization".

Munchkins are a whole other matter. I'm not sure what they are exactly, but again I'm sure it's different to strict powergaming.

Shame there isn't really an official dictionary for RPGs. Shame there's kind of a lack of academic study in general. Outside of forum topics like this, of course.

My anecdotal experience have made me form the theory that a pregame conversation, or "session 0" as you call it, really increases the chance of long term success of a campaign, and happiness of the group. To my knowledge, this claim has not yet been falsified. Could be that this is the source of your problem.

Our group is... far from organized. Sadly. We're lucky when we have a stable group of players, let alone a plan before playing.




Also, sorry for lateness of response. Also, sorry for lack of thoroughness of response. Homework and such, you know?


Edit: I had a conversation with my group. Seems everyone's okay with my power level. Apparently, they're happy that I'm really strong, since about 4 members of the party are relatively "useless in combat". Their words, not mine. They're hardly useless. Most of them.

[Deophaun]

Haaaah. This is fantastic. Actually makes me feel a heck of a lot better about the situation, because I shouldn't actually be able to do it, even if the DM allowed it.

But, to assuage your powergaming needs, I give you Otiluke's suppressing field (Complete Mage). It's basically what you want if you're worried about the occasional Evocation spell. Nice duration, too.

[Quertus]

I fully understand the desire to optimize characters - that's part of the fun of playing. Some of my builds I never actually play (at least not in "normal" games). One of my friends probably has more fun building characters than playing characters. So I would never endorse you not pursuing your character creation goals.

IIRC, you said you tried creating characters on par with your own for other characters, and this didn't go over well? Let's flip that - how would you feel if the other players (or DM) built you a character on par with the rest of the party?

A better plan would be to build the party buff - which I believe you said you did.

You may want to try having different character creation goals. One plan (which may or may not work for you, but was a lot of fun for me) was to try to build something terrible - the worst character you can build, the best you can do with X Y or Z restrictions, (Tier 5 classes, 5 racial levels, no more than 1 level in any given class), etc. Then see what you can build, and what you can do with this build.

This touches on another point - you have this build, which can do something "broken" (persist Globe of Invulnerability), then do something lesser with it instead (persist some other spell). The most broken thing is not the most broken build, it is the good build in the hands of a good tactician. One of my favorite characters is statistically overpowering, but he is tactically inept - most players never realize that I have brought a powerhouse to the game, and as such do not get upset, because he is - tactically - a bumbling idiot. One of my other characters is statistically terrible, but, because I played him as a tactical genius, I had to "retire" him. So there are more things to potentially adjust than just how optimized of a build you create.

as a conscientious power gamer, so I say "As a heads up, I'm going to be taking globe of invulnerability and I'll persist it".

DM: *Sigh* "Don't get into an arms race with the DM."

Queue me losing my suspension of disbelief in a game. If the DM changes the world because of your character, the world is less believable. I personally don't like telling the DM what I am doing, so that I can experience the world "honestly". Of all the things someone can do, persisting Globe of Invulnerability seems pretty trivial. It helps almost exclusively in combat, and only against spellcasters - not even against most of the supernatural effects monsters can create. Unless this is "mage war" campaign, it isn't even terribly powerful - situational at best, and prevents your healer from using 1st-3rd level healing spells on you.

[Lorsa]

Queue me losing my suspension of disbelief in a game. If the DM changes the world because of your character, the world is less believable. I personally don't like telling the DM what I am doing, so that I can experience the world "honestly". Of all the things someone can do, persisting Globe of Invulnerability seems pretty trivial. It helps almost exclusively in combat, and only against spellcasters - not even against most of the supernatural effects monsters can create. Unless this is "mage war" campaign, it isn't even terribly powerful - situational at best, and prevents your healer from using 1st-3rd level healing spells on you.

What about the reverse then? When a player changes the world because of their character? That is, when the DM has an idea about the world and the power capabilities of individuals, and a certain build falls outside of it?

[Milodiah]

I came here to post my sentiments rant on this type of thing from both the GM and player point of view...because I'm dealing with it a lot in one of my groups.

We've got two players who are avowedly in it for fun, we've got one of the type who's not involved unless his character is involved (kinda a pet peeve of mine, but whatever), and then...then there's the fourth guy, we'll call him I.D.

I.D. is no doubt the biggest, most unapologetic powergamer I've ever encountered. For example, he takes pride in the fact that in either 4e or 3.5e D&D (I don't remember which) he built a party of 4 that could not only kill Empowered Orcus after going through the semi-hypothetical ultra-dungeon he was placed in by the writers, but could have a fair chance of solo-ing him in case one or more members did die in the dungeon. I've never played anything other than 2e AD&D with him, but I have a feeling it'd be terrifying, since he has a habit of designing characters that are the epitome of powergaming, including a few that get arbitrarily large damage dice numbers from abuse of various dice-rolling modification feats.

The worst part is he seems to have recently forgotten that these types of characters are, by gentleman's agreement, not to actually be played.


We play Rifts a lot.


He usually GMs, but we've begun to notice the insane power creep he's starting to throw in. The last two "boss monsters" he's thrown us up against were actual deities, each with over 1800MDC, which far more health than almost any published creature has, and ridiculous abilities like twenty-nine attacks per round (in a game where the average is four) and the ability to quarter any damage automatically just because. Given that the most powerful weapons we're packing do something along the lines of 3d6x10MD, it's just a dull, drawn-out slugfest of the worst type, since as he's begun to put so much work into his precious enemies his design of the environment and setting has atrophied. There's no using the terrain, because there really isn't any terrain. There's no finding a creative solution to avoid the fight, because he wants it to happen, mostly just so he can playtest his latest creation. They've even begun to slip in terms of logical placement - first we fought a godling on a backwater planet who was its guardian. Ok, that's fine.

Then we fight one of the hundred-handed ones of Greek mythology, who happened to be working as the foreman in a ****ing low-grade shipyard. Sure, this is Rifts, but seriously.



Even worse, I made the mistake of GMing for this group, and allowing one of these characters in as a PC. 1,450MDC, when the closest in the party is 400 and 400 is somewhat unusual for a player character. Fifty-eight feet tall gargoyle lord with magic/genetic augmentation, an extra pair of arms just to exploit Rifts' odd rules for it, etc. etc. He also offhandedly suggested as "minor optimization" to a player considering playing a Mystic Knight, "Why not make it a Mystic/Mystic Knight Demigod", and didn't see the issue with the sentence he had said.

I cannot design a "balanced" encounter for this party, because I know that anything that could endanger this thing would easily be a TPK for anybody else. And this is the real issue here, when you have one character like this and the rest are average, all it takes is an enemy designed to threaten him reallocating their fire for one round to kill anybody else there. All it takes is me dropping one mind-control ability, and he shreds the other PCs in thirty seconds. All it takes is one wrong move from him, and I have to call in a Coalition strike force the book explicitly states is a "rocks fall everyone dies" device for the average party because it's what would happen to this beast.

This is what it means to have an arms race with the GM. It's not just that it makes him do more work to "counter" you, it's also that you're pushing the line towards a TPK because the GM has to use such apocalyptic force to make it even so much as "fair" against you that the collateral damage will usually end the campaign, because nobody is alive to continue it.