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

BoldItalic · Mar 19, 2017

@OP

Where you crossed the line is when you made two characters, differing only in mechanical details, and asked the DM which was best. Each character was arguably optimal in its own terms - you made a good Str cleric and a good Dex cleric - but not satisfied with that, you wanted to squeeze more out of the game by choosing one in preference to the other. That marks you out as a min/maxer and that's what the DM noticed. It's not good or bad, it just is.

UngeheuerLich · Mar 19, 2017

One thing to note:
Before someone comes in and claims 8 and 10 in an ability score yields only a 5% difference...
Read the section on auto passing checks and DC for trivial tasks. Hint: score -5 vs DC of 5.

Mad_Jack · Mar 19, 2017

UngeheuerLich said:
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.

One thing I always feel compelled to point out is that a lot of people (particularly people who attach negative connotations to the terms we're discussing in this thread) assume that "min/maxing" means pumping their primary scores to the max and then dumping everything else...

However, particularly in previous editions, this was pretty much a guarantee that you'd just built a one-trick glass cannon and pretty much missed the entire point of the Min/Max exercise...

"Min/Maxing", as the term was used in the old WotC CharOp forum by the CharOp wizards, meant maximizing your strengths... While minimizing your weaknesses. Shoring up your weak spots, not dumping your stats.
The whole point is to create a character who is as effective at what they were designed to do as possible while not actively gimping yourself in other areas.
The classic example of the all-smashing idiot barbarian who can one-shot a troll at first level? He's all-powerful... Until he meets anything that calls for a non-physical saving throw.
The Hulk just got punked by a cloud of pixies.

To focus the concept on the two clerics in the original post, and as mentioned above, you need to ask yourself several questions when shuffling around ability scores and other stats. Unless the cleric is going to be a big part of the party's melee capability, you need to ask yourself, how much Strength is too much? If he's not going to be depended on to bring big damage every round and his armor feat helps him mitigate some big hits, does he really need to max his Strength score to get an occasional +1 damage, will those few extra hit points from his maxed-out Con score matter often enough that they're worth sacrificing something else for? Or could those few extra buy points be better used to shore up one of his other abilities? Does somebody else in the party have a decent Charisma score to deal with social encounters, or should you pop some extra points into Charisma and take Persuasion as a skill? What sorts of things require saves against his "tanked" abilities and how common are they?

It's all about assigning priorities and values to your limited set of character resources, and then making choices designed to balance the overall positives and negatives.

transtemporal · Mar 19, 2017

Jester David said:
And often to challenge an optimized character, the DM has to make the encounters harder or use deadlier monsters, which makes the rest of the table feel weak and ineffective against the powerful foes. And the DM is there to have fun too, and doesn't like to see all of their monsters steamrolled.

Way to set up a straw man! As a DM, I have no problem whatsoever challenging different groups, whether they are avowed anti-optimizers or rabid powergamers. It's not that hard!

JonnyP71 · Mar 19, 2017

CTurbo said:
I almost always dump Int unless I play a Wizard.

In all the games I play or DM that fact will ensure the PC has a few problems, as both I, and my DMs always ensure that skill checks relating to Intelligence skills are both prevalent and meaningful.

Plus we insist that if you pick stupid, you play stupid. Thankfully all the players are on board with that idea and use it as a rolelaying seed, cos well played flaws are FUN!

iserith · Mar 19, 2017

CTurbo said:
Which begs the question, what is the proper amount of optimization before it becomes a negative thing? Is it so bad to make your Barbarian as strong as possible? Is it wrong to make your Sorcerer as charismatic as possible? It seems logical that as a Cleric, I will want to pump Wis and either Str or Dex right? Wouldn't it be irresponsible to purposefully build a low Dex Cleric? haha. I know there are always exceptions based on role playing purposes. I am actually playing a 14 Str Halfling Barbarian right now in a game where we rolled for stats so I could have started with an 18.

So what do you guys think the term min maxing means? Is it always a negative thing, or is it acceptable at times?

While some slap on a layer of backstory and personality, characters are really just tools. An optimized tool in a D&D context is one that will tend to perform well in most challenges across the set of possible challenges in the given game. One that is less optimized will tend to do less well by comparison.

Any dissatisfaction from others will tend to be because the player of the optimized character outshines other players' characters who were not created as optimally. So I think the best play here in my view is to recognize that sometimes you should find a reason for your character to step back and let someone else take the spotlight. Kick ass, but be mindful that everyone else having fun is one of the goals of the game for which you are responsible as a player. As a player, I'm happy when my teammates optimize. It's good to have a solid team.

Some DMs who don't know how or are not inclined to manage the spotlight or difficulty level can get annoyed at the practice and give it a pejorative label. While I think that's unfortunate (because this really is shirking part of their role as I see it), it's probably a good idea to assess the DM's attitude on optimizing and modify your choices, provided the game is still fun for you under such a paradigm. As a DM, I like it when the players optimize. It forces me to get more creative with challenge design to maintain difficulty.

So, for my part, optimize all you want - just be aware of how that's going to impact the other players (including the DM) and act accordingly. In a social game, winning is getting invited back to play and that's something that exists beyond the rules of the game itself.

Jester David · Mar 19, 2017

transtemporal said:
Way to set up a straw man! As a DM, I have no problem whatsoever challenging different groups, whether they are avowed anti-optimizers or rabid powergamers. It's not that hard!

So... just because YOU don't ever have problems, it's not a problem for anyone else?

Well, the number of threads that have popped up asking for advice dealing with one powerful character would generally disagree with that statement.

This challenge statement isn't just some theoretical argument I'm using to win a message board fight.
I've played in a lot of different games, and seen how a power gamer can impact table dynamics. I've seen DMs try and ramp up the difficulty of encounters to challenge one formidable player and what can happen when the monsters end up targeting everyone else. And what happens to the levelling speed with PCs that potent.
I've also been a part of the Living Greyhawk and Pathfinder Society games, which have really struggled with the PC arms race, making tougher and tougher scenarios to challenge optimised groups, but then become almost unplayable by less experienced tables.

Jester David · Mar 19, 2017

Okay, I think I'll actually pull my head out of my butt enough to actually answer the original poster's question...

CTurbo said:
Which begs the question, what is the proper amount of optimization before it becomes a negative thing?

I think a character is too good when what it does as it's secondary niche is better than another character who is specialising at that thing.
If you make a character who is a tank, but can deal more damage than the rogue who was planned as a damage dealer, it's a problem. When you're a healer, but can also tank like the fighter, it's a negative. Because you're taking the spotlight away from the other characters.

It's also a negative when the DM has to customise encounters based on that character just to normalise the "challenge". This is not designing encounters with a archetype in mind (i.e. like including undead with a cleric, or considering a trap when a rogue is lacking) or designing an encounter specifically with the party in mind to be hard fight. Instead, this is when an encounter is designed (or redesigned) to be deadlier than the rules imply just to provide an appropriate challenge to that one player.

FitzTheRuke · Mar 19, 2017

Mad_Jack said:
One thing I always feel compelled to point out is that a lot of people (particularly people who attach negative connotations to the terms we're discussing in this thread) assume that "min/maxing" means pumping their primary scores to the max and then dumping everything else...

However, particularly in previous editions, this was pretty much a guarantee that you'd just built a one-trick glass cannon and pretty much missed the entire point of the Min/Max exercise...

"Min/Maxing", as the term was used in the old WotC CharOp forum by the CharOp wizards, meant maximizing your strengths... While minimizing your weaknesses. Shoring up your weak spots, not dumping your stats.
The whole point is to create a character who is as effective at what they were designed to do as possible while not actively gimping yourself in other areas.
The classic example of the all-smashing idiot barbarian who can one-shot a troll at first level? He's all-powerful... Until he meets anything that calls for a non-physical saving throw.
The Hulk just got punked by a cloud of pixies.

To focus the concept on the two clerics in the original post, and as mentioned above, you need to ask yourself several questions when shuffling around ability scores and other stats. Unless the cleric is going to be a big part of the party's melee capability, you need to ask yourself, how much Strength is too much? If he's not going to be depended on to bring big damage every round and his armor feat helps him mitigate some big hits, does he really need to max his Strength score to get an occasional +1 damage, will those few extra hit points from his maxed-out Con score matter often enough that they're worth sacrificing something else for? Or could those few extra buy points be better used to shore up one of his other abilities? Does somebody else in the party have a decent Charisma score to deal with social encounters, or should you pop some extra points into Charisma and take Persuasion as a skill? What sorts of things require saves against his "tanked" abilities and how common are they?

It's all about assigning priorities and values to your limited set of character resources, and then making choices designed to balance the overall positives and negatives.

That's interesting. What you describe there is what I would call optimization, while min-maxing (in my mind) is something the opposite.

I've always seen min-maxing as maximizing one aspect of a character at the total expense of another. Like the OP's Strength Cleric stats.

I dislike (what I would call) min-maxing, not because it's optimized, but because it is usually gimped.

I once had a player who so incredibly jacked-up his Stealth at the expense of all else, that he hilariously forgot to give himself perception (at all).

So... he couldn't be seen by any monster, but couldn't see a thing. I forget the mechanical details, but it led to the rediculous situation of him "scouting" an enemy camp where he crawled under some bushes until he was right in the middle of the camp. He couldn't tell where he was, so he popped up...

Right in the middle of the enemy camp and very close to a startled Beholder. And all alone.

He made better rounded characters after that.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

tglassy · Mar 19, 2017

So, I dmed yesterday for adventure league. Showed up to play, and whoever had signed up to DM wasn't there. We had three guys, two level 1s and a level 4. Of course, the level 4 outshines everyone.

But not really. He had much more hp, and did significantly more damage, but nobody playing seemed to really care.

I always hear people complaining about someone outshining the others, but I've never seen that happen. Could someone give me an example of that?

Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app