Bear with me. This post might only be of interest to folks who are familiar with D&D Fifth Edition. If that’s you, read on. If not, tune in next time, or feel free to browse the archives for something else to read tonight. Thanks.
There are a couple of players in my D&D game who like to find loopholes in the rules. Cool, or clever, interactions where a buff from one spell can cause extra damage with another spell. If you’re not familiar with table-top role playing games (TTRPGs) that style of play is considered power gaming. You may also be familiar with the term min-maxing, which is similar but not exactly the same thing; min-maxing is building an extremely focused character, one who is exceptional at one specific thing, and minimizing any negative aspects. Both of those, however, have a bad reputation.
I have mixed feelings but I generally land on the side of, if someone enjoys that, and they’re in my game, I’m probably going to allow it, as long as it doesn’t tread on the fun of everyone else at the table.
Recently one of my players asked me, privately, about a one-sentence description of an ability they were considering for their next level up. The ability was the warlock invocation Eyes of the Runekeeper, which states that “You can read all writing.” The player, Zach, wanted to know how I would interpret that.
My honest first reaction was “ugh.” I didn’t like just the idea that I would have to consider all possible ramifications of the warlock being able to read anything written. My mind recoiled, imagining all the weird side cases and plot-destroying ways such an ability could be used. This gut reaction was unfair to the player, and honestly against my own normal feelings about play.
As we talked it out, I realized that I didn’t really care. I am not the sort to depend a plot on such a specific thing as a piece of writing being unreadable or not. I’m really not. If Zach wants his character to be able to do that, then me trying to prevent that happening is me being a killjoy. I told him if he wanted to do that, then it would turn out to be useful, because that’s what I want to do. I want my players to have cool moments like that.
Similarly the other power gamer player, Adam, approached me about the idea of rest-casting, which is using a spell to give a buff right before getting all your spell slots back after a long rest. It’s a power gamer move for sure. At first glance, though, by a strict interpretation of the rules, it’s not allowed if you read the rules as saying spellcasting breaks a long rest. When it came up, we found that rule, and it put it to bed.
5E’s rules are written in natual language and there is room for interpretation. I went looking for any official updates on that idea, and found even more vagueness. But, again, I’m inclined to allow it.
My one point of concern is that it’s hard enough to get players to use up their resources without wanting to long rest at the drop of a hat, which in turn, makes it harder to create challenging encounters for them. 5E is designed around the idea of a 5-8 encounter “adventuring day” and that’s bananas to most DMs I know.
My counter for that tendency for players to always want to be at full resources (hit points, spell slots, etc.) is to lean into story stakes and character beats. I pull away from the mechanical side of combat… but I also am a bit of a power gamer, and I like making builds and finding cool power combos in the rules. I have mixed feelings.
I told Adam I’d allow rest-casting, but I also laid out my concerns about the adventuring day and long rests. I hope I’m being fair and fun. That’s my ultimate goal.