D&D 5E Where does optimizing end and min-maxing begin? And is min-maxing a bad thing?

hawkeyefan · Mar 19, 2017

I don't claim that this is anything more than my opinion, but I think it's just a question of at what point certain decisions are made.

If you come up with an idea for a character first, and then try to make the best version of that possible, then that to me is optimizing. Your primary goal is to construct a character, and then your mechanical decisions are made to try and make that character as optimal as he can be.

If you always start with mechanics first, and all your decisions are made with game mechanics in mind, that's more a case of min-maxing.

I'm not offering any value judgment on either approach, but that would be the distinction I would make between the two approaches.

For the example given by [MENTION=6855234]CTurbo[/MENTION] in his OP...it's tough to say for sure without more info. I mean, the class was chosen ahead of time, but not much else. Stat allocation seems pretty textbook min-max...primary stats as high as possible, and others given little to no concern. No mention of any kind of backstory or personality trait or even what deity the cleric served.

It's kind of difficult to not see it as min-maxing. The only decision that seems to have been made without maximum mechanical advantage was that of class. And perhaps race...but both of these seem to have been selected already?

It may not be the case...it's hard to know for sure without knowing the reasons behind the feat choices and gear choices and so on. What I would do is see if any decisions were made for a reason other than maximizing stats and numbers.

Like if someone said to me "a dwarven thief just seems like a cool idea" I'd feel that was a good sign they weren't min-maxing. If the player then took the combo of dwarf and rogue and tried to make as effective a dwarven rogue as possible, that would be optimizing.

doctorbadwolf · Mar 19, 2017

Lot of self righteousness goes on in discussions like this, of the "you're playing wrong" variety.

Ignore 100% of it.

Your characters stats are an abstraction. Making an effective character is fine. It's not min maxing or any of the other nonsense people say. It's just making a character that will do what you want it to do.

I do recommend not having negative modifiers, for skill checks, but that is a personal preference.

But seriously, dude, don't listen to people judging you for playing how you want to play.

edit: also, why did your DM ask for a cleric, specifically?

I mean, I probably wouldn't be super excited about building a character that isn't even my idea.

CTurbo · Mar 19, 2017

The DM was fine with either character, and he wasn't really complaining about the way they are statted out. There are going to be two different half elves in the group so I'm sure there will be similar scores throughout.

I don't really like the Str build that much. I wanted the character to be much tougher than normal, but I feel like 16 in Con may be overdoing it a little as stated above. Of course the Cleric has some of the best concentrating spells too in Bless, Bane, SoF at least IMO.

The Dex build is obviously superior overall, but I've really been wanting to see how effective the Heavy Armor Master feat is at low levels.

CTurbo · Mar 19, 2017

But seriously, dude, don't listen to people judging you for playing how you want to play.

Well I did ask for opinions. I like having these discussions as long as things stay civil.

I tend to make all of my characters at least a little tougher than normal, and I almost always dump Int unless I play a Wizard. Those are pretty much character building traits of mine. Of course I was going for maximum toughness on this specific Cleric.

Sacrosanct · Mar 19, 2017

Min/maxing is not a problem if your table has similar desired playstyles. Min/Maxing is a huge problem if no one else at the table shares your playstyle.

Which is true of just about anything.

discosoc · Mar 19, 2017

Intentions are a big part of it. Players often choose the most effective "min maxed" option even though they consider other options more interesting. With 5e, this usually happens with feat or ability selections, but also with character "builds" that involve multiclassing for mechanical reasons even though it has little or nothing to do with the character concept. Sometimes it's as simple as saying "I'm using a rapier because it's better damage" even if you think fighting with a rapier is stupid or doesn't fit the concept you have in mind.

discosoc · Mar 19, 2017

CTurbo said:
The DM was fine with either character, and he wasn't really complaining about the way they are statted out. There are going to be two different half elves in the group so I'm sure there will be similar scores throughout.

I don't really like the Str build that much. I wanted the character to be much tougher than normal, but I feel like 16 in Con may be overdoing it a little as stated above. Of course the Cleric has some of the best concentrating spells too in Bless, Bane, SoF at least IMO.

The Dex build is obviously superior overall, but I've really been wanting to see how effective the Heavy Armor Master feat is at low levels.

The cleric in our group has it and it's pretty awesome. As a GM, I've come to view it as a free steady 3-6 hp healing per turn since he's always putting himself in harm's way. Might not sound like a lot, but it adds up quickly. It also seems to scale with levels pretty effectively, and is super nice against things like trolls that have lots of small attacks.

WhosAChaoticGoodBoy · Mar 19, 2017

I don't make a distinction between min/maxing and optimizing and at the same time my group doesn't consider those terms derogatory. We end up focusing equally on character development and getting the most mileage out of the rules since both parts are an important part of our D&D experience.

I'll also add that advantageous mechanics exist no matter what in games and if a DM would try to debuff certain elements, it just shifts advantage elsewhere. Generally, the more rules a game has the more "exploits" exist in the code (and boy does D&D have a lot of rules relative to a lot of games).

A concern I've read is stopping optimization to prevent other players from feeling upstaged, but this confuses me. For instance, if I'm a healer and my battle buddy is causing crazy DPS, why does that impinge on my role? Meanwhile if they were another healer, isn't that great since our party now has two awesome healers? (Unless of course some other niche would've been neglected as a consequence)

UngeheuerLich · Mar 19, 2017

First of all, both characters are ok.
Minmaxed a little, but that is not a totally bad thing.

Both clerics have playability issues though and you might consider following:

1st cleric is slow to act and neither charismatic nor intelligent. You might not have a lot of fun with hin despite being really tough as nails.
The second cleric is so weak he can't wear his stuff. Medium armor is still quite heavy. You are also in a bad position against creatures that try to grab you.

So as food dor thought: try spreading ability scores some more.
Your first character could be:
STR 16 DEX 8 CON 14 INT 10 WIS 16 CHA 10
heavy armor mastery. Looks a lot less min maxed and still really tough.
Your second cleric could be:
STR 12 DEX 16 CON 14 INT 8 WIS 14 CHA 10
Defensive duellist.
Fast to act but not a good thinker.

Shiroiken · Mar 19, 2017

CTurbo said:
The DM was fine with either character, and he wasn't really complaining about the way they are statted out. There are going to be two different half elves in the group so I'm sure there will be similar scores throughout.

Found the problem! If the DM has a problem with optimized ability scores, he shouldn't allow point buy (which is pretty much geared towards it). Most characters really only need 1 high score and 2 medium scores (Con being one of them), so the other three can be ignored/minimized. This is why I only use rolled ability scores or standard array. If has such an issue with it, he needs to change the base point buy system (such as forcing only 1 or 2 scores to remain at 8).

As for the concept, most of it's semantics. Everything is a level of optimization, from deliberately pathetic to Timmy the PowerGamer, so minmaxing, powergaming, and optimizing pretty much all mean the same thing. The acceptability levels are going to vary from person to person and group to group. In 5E the difference in an "optimal" character and the average character aren't going to be great enough to unbalance the game (even if the optimal character ends the average day with slightly more HP/resources remaining), but some DMs don't like that the "optimized" character seldom seems challenged (even if they are).