Alright /gents/, I know how a lot of you feel about Powergamers, but I have a question about Powergaming.
Now, one aspect of Powergamers is that they oftenbut don't alwayslike the spotlight.
How would you, as a DM, feel about a player who powergames/munchkins a character for AbsoluteDefence?
Say for example a Supers game:
>The Thing
>Professor X
>Quiksilver
>The Wall
The first three being fairly standard archetypes, but then there's The Wall.
The Wall has an actual 0 in all attacking stats, but is completely indestructable and can quickly move to defend allies.
Would you allow it?
Would you be happy about it, sad, or indifferent?
>TL; DR
>Powergamer makes a munchkiney team player
>Allowed: Yes/No
Any fun stories about Powergaming are alsoas always of coursewelcome.
There's a player in my group that tries to basically do this every chance he can. It's not too annoying, but I can't help but ask why the fuck he even bothers playing if all he wants to do is ignore damage and barely participate in anything else
>>43586648
He might feel like the Party needs a Tank, or maybe he likes laughing at the pathetic weaklings who try and break through his armour.
Could he be making it by accident?
Has he done anything interesting with it/had any interesting interactions with the rest of the group?Here's half of what gave the idea for this by the by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXp8Th41rBsSeems like a fun way to screw around on a Downtime part of the session
>>43586615
>Would you be happy about it, sad, or indifferent?
It would be an interesting challenge to design enemies for, and a test of my creative abilities.
>Powergamer makes a munchkiney team player
>Allowed: Yes/No
Yes. The only aspects of a powergamer that are actually *bad* are a tendency to steal the spotlight and a tendency to make other players irrelevant. If they aren't present, go nuts. If anything, this sort of creative munchkinnery ought to be encouraged.
>>43586720
To clarify:
It would be fun to block NPCs from buildings, not knock NPCs/PCs from buildings.
>>43586727
Would it not make combat encounters hard to plan for though?
The thing to do would probably be to work with him; Allow it.
Explicitly state that he (or one Person or Thing of his choosing) is Completely Invulnerable*, that the Complete Invulnerability defaults to himself, that it has such-and-such range that it can be projected at for such-and-such time, (so that he doesn't sit in his moms basement and make people invulnerable all day). Making Things Invulnerable is his superpower, after all.
*Secretly have a kryptonite. Maybe he doesn't know about it, but keep that nasty surprise in reserve because it's a super-trope.
>>43586769
Wouldn't it? As stated in the OP, only *he* is invulnerable, and he has *zero* offensive power. What's to stop enemies from straight-up ignoring him? Even if he runs right in front of their bullets, he can only be in one place at one time.
>>43586794
Fair point.
Would you allow him to defend multiple people per round though?
Or would that be somethig you would put your foot down for?
What would be better for a superhero narrative though?
Having kryptonite, or failing to protect someone/something dear?
Perhaps, he doesn't get there in time..Assuming he's only pjysically imvulnerable, not necessarily invulnerable to status afflictions, gas, poison, mind control, etc
>>43586853
Damn
>physically
And that was meant to come before the narrative question.
Sorry about that; having to use my phone for this.
>>43586615
First thought about someone wanting to have invulnerable armour is, "Okay, but it will make your guy Sooo Slooowww" and see if he - and the party - is still down with the idea. There's no disincentive to keep ppl who think they can get something for nothing from simply taking everything.
Optimizing for the defender role is completely par for the course in D&D 4e. In that system, it is comprised of three pillars: survivability (your ability to avoid and take hits for a long time), stickiness (your ability to keep enemies next to you), and punishment (your ability to discourage your enemies from attacking your allies, by way of threatening them with some sort of negative effect that triggers should they *not* attack you).
More RPGs could use such a concept.
>>43588993
Would you allow it if he was willing to take the speed penalty and the Barbarian was willing to carry him out of combat and towns?
>>43589039
It does seem more viable in a system that's slightly more rules-lite than standard DnD, which is one of the reasons I used a Supers system as the original example.
I don't see many defenders actually played though, is it reallu that rare for a PC to choose to be one?
>>43589072
D&D 4e was the first and only D&D edition to openly acknowledge class roles (striker for pure offense, defender for locking down enemies and discouraging them from attacking allies, leader for force multiplication by way of free actions/buffs/healing, controlling for AoE and debuffing), and then provide ways for each of them.
That is one of my favorite aspects of the system: a character can absolutely be optimized for defense that *actually matters* due to the character's ability to lock down enemies and threaten enemies with punishment for attacking the defender's allies, and a character can likewise be optimized to be a party-support fountain of free actions, buffs, and healing while still personally attacking.
It is hardly uncommon to have a party fulfill all four of D&D 4e's roles, but striker tends to be doubled up on, as a party can never really have too much damage.
>>43589107
Fair points.
I never really got to play 4e, seems like each class was more restricted but more solidly built.
Does 5e still allow for party roles?
>>43589039
>Optimizing for the defender role is completely par for the course in D&D 4e. In that system, it is comprised of three pillars: survivability (your ability to avoid and take hits for a long time), stickiness (your ability to keep enemies next to you), and punishment (your ability to discourage your enemies from attacking your allies, by way of threatening them with some sort of negative effect that triggers should they *not* attack you).
>More RPGs could use such a concept.
But 4e only accomplished this by making "Defender" one of the core necessities in party building, plus "stickiness" and "punishment" are rather endemic of it's "Battle-chess" combat system in the first place.
That said, Battlefield Control (the ability to determine where your opponents can move and the umbrella under which your "stickiness" pillar falls) is woefully under utilized in every other edition of D&D, particularly when it comes to Martials.
>>43589129
5e still allows for party roles, although being the defender requires jumping through a fair few hoops (e.g. being an Oath of the Crown paladin or having your GM allow the "marking" optional rule), although it does not quite have the sheer lockdown power it did in 4e.
5e also killed the warlord and its martial niche (it still exists in the form of certain Battle Master maneuvers, although they are significantly outclassed by other maneuvers, and the fighter is still a damage-dealing beatstick for the most part), which is quite a shame.
>>43589176
What I liked about the "battle chess" is that it encouraged teamwork like no other. Yes, other games have a degree of basic teamwork in the form of things like "I will buff you, and then we can both beat up this one enemy," but 4e actually had players deeply consider how their powers and positioning could chain and combo into one another.
>>43589199
The problem with 4e is that it OUTRIGHT FORCES such "teamwork," you needed one of EACH role to have an effective combat party, and the game barely existed outside of this.
I'm a war-gamer, positioning is an innate part of combat for me and can be applied in EVERY edition of D&D, the only reason it gets highlighted in 4e is because the combat system beats you over the head with it via ill-explained "Powers" somehow forcing enemies into ping-ponging around the grid the way you want them to.
Hell, the entire line of "Wall of X" spells are made for this purpose, hence my woe when the best Wizards can do is give Martials MMO style "Powers" for such a function.
>>43589265
This is untrue; the only really necessary role is leader. As long as a party has a leader, it can be built to compensate for a lack of other roles.
For instance, right now, I am in a somewhat lopsided party: a Sorcerer-King Pact warlock (ranged striker who can melee if need be), a ranged Virtue of Cunning bard (ranged leader), a Staff of Defense wizard (ranged controller), and a Desert Wind monk (melee striker).
One would think that a predominantly ranged party without a defender would be torn apart and defenseless. That simply has been the case, because our party is actually reasonably optimized for defense: the warlock's Shadow Walk class feature, Rod Expertise feat, and Armor of Dark Majesty all lend survivability; the bard's hide armor and light shield lend naturally towards defense, and the Virtue of Cunning can help slide allies away from enemies; the wizard is actually quite durable thanks to Staff of Defense with a Defensive Staff, and can avoid opportunity attacks using the Staff Expertise feat; and of course, the monk enjoys a very high AC with the Unarmored Agility feat and regularly keeps enemies where they are by knocking them prone with Dragon's Tail and Eternal Mountain.
In this case, the party has shored up their weakness through the proper investments. It has paid off well, seeing how the party has been blazing through encounters of a higher level than the party.
Similar party configurations can compensate for a lack of a striker (damage optimization is one of the easiest things to accommodate), and for a lack of a controller (every class has debuffs and AoE to some degree, all defenders apply their own form of battlefield control, and there are dedicated AoE strikers like the monk and the sorcerer).
I should correct myself: the leader role is not quite mandatory, but it is the hardest to compensate for the absence of. It helps to have an off-healer or two in the party, such as the paladin with their Lay of Hands.
