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

[iserith]

But that doesn't mean that the root cause of the social issue can't be the optimization/min-maxing angle.

One wonders if it's really an issue unless someone is looking for an issue though. Acting like a jerk is a thing but it's separate from whether a player "min/maxes." You can do both, certainly.

But unless you're pouring over my sheet looking for an argument, how are you to really know that I'm maxing out this stat or dumping another, and why would anyone give a dusty flumph in the first place so long as it's rules legal (including house rules)?

 

[hawkeyefan]

One wonders if it's really an issue unless someone is looking for an issue though. Acting like a jerk is a thing but it's separate from whether a player "min/maxes." You can do both, certainly.

But unless you're pouring over my sheet looking for an argument, how are you to really know that I'm maxing out this stat or dumping another, and why would anyone give a dusty flumph in the first place so long as it's rules legal (including house rules)?

Well, in the example I gave, it was one player who was constructing PC after PC on HeroLab, using the Pathfinder rules, and creating crazy class/feat combinations to create a super character. He was scouring the Paizo message boards for optimal builds and character creation input. The PCs were 12th level, and he was creating his PC from scratch as opposed to the others who had been around since low levels.

When I provided my example in the thread initially, I don't know if I included every relevant detail....but the example I gave is that his uber-optimized barbarian had to stop raging for a few rounds and had to pick up a bow...and he was a better archer than the arcane archer character.

Now, in general, I agree with you about optimizing....I generally don't think it is an issue. I think in this instance, it was a combination of several factors (the extreme system bloat of Pathfinder and the crazy imbalance it causes, the creation of many PCs in HeroLab, the access to material through HeroLab that no one else had access to, and the utter lack of any weakness in this PC being the big factors). We had the Core Rulebook and maybe two or three other splatbooks. This player bought HeroLab access, and then had access to all of the Pathfinder splatbooks....so he was using feats and class options that we didn't even know about. And when any of these options were questioned in any way, he wasn't even able to provide answers (HeroLab has a few printing options for character sheets, and one of them provides minimal info for feats and so on).

In this case, the one player in question was basically playing Superman to everyone else's Batman....so I think that was frustrating for other players, and for me as the DM. Now, sometimes an imbalance like that may not be an issue....but in this case it was. I as the DM found the character to be nothing but a collection of the most powerful feats and class options possible, with no thought at all about character or personality or anything of the sort. It annoyed me quite a bit, and I knew that the other players weren't really happy about it. But no one wants to tell someone how to play the game....we'd never really had this kind of issue before.

So I think sometimes, this kind of play can indeed be an issue because it doesn't mesh with the rest of the table. I would say the same if I had a player who wanted to act out every single social interaction scene to the nth degree while the other players were ready to move on. It's been said that this is about table expectations, and I agree that is correct....but since we never had this problem before, we hadn't really set any expectations in this regard.

I don't think this is even remotely an issue in 5E because the system is pretty tight and there are not a lot options beyond those in the core books.

And I agree that acting like a jerk and min-maxing are not tied....you can do either or you can do both. But in the larger discussion, I don't think it's a bad idea to share examples such as this.

 

[iserith]

And I agree that acting like a jerk and min-maxing are not tied....you can do either or you can do both. But in the larger discussion, I don't think it's a bad idea to share examples such as this.

I think it's a little misleading with regard to D&D 5e though for the reasons you've stated. I bet a lot of folks who are posting in this thread might be channeling experiences from other game systems.

 

[OB1]

If someone doesn't know why a particular build is considered optimal, then they may encounter difficulties in trying to apply that build at the table. Online guides have to make a lot of assumptions in order to have enough information to generate useful data, but those assumptions won't hold at every table, and someone who doesn't understand that process may well under-perform when they fail to realize that the underlying assumptions don't hold.

You can certainly try to optimize if you don't know what you're doing, and the internet certainly makes it easier to build the system mastery to help you figure out what you're doing, but the player who blindly uses a build from the internet is not that much different than the 3E player who chooses Toughness in order to optimize their own survivability. You need the system mastery in order to figure out what doesn't work (at your table).

Edit: I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, but it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong about what I thought someone was trying to say.

I think we are agreeing. I'm saying character optimization and system mastery are different from min/maxing.

To me min/maxing is inherently about making the mechanics of the game work in your favor. With all else the same, a min/maxed character will lead to reduced challenge in play compared to a non min/maxed character.

System mastery and optimization are about getting the most out of your pc regardless of the mechanics.

If you have enough system mastery that challenges are trivial, it may be time to explore mechanically weaker characters to up your challenge (if that's what you seek), similar to a video game player who has system mastery upping the difficulty from normal to hard or legendary.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it's a little misleading with regard to D&D 5e though for the reasons you've stated. I bet a lot of folks who are posting in this thread might be channeling experiences from other game systems.

Yeah, I think I was clear in my original post...I think Pathfinder was a really big part of the problem. We pretty much abandoned the system at that point and 5E luckily came out shortly after. We've not had any such problems since.

I agree that the system likely has a huge impact and that folks are likely including anecdotes (like mine) relating to other systems.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think it's a little misleading with regard to D&D 5e though for the reasons you've stated. I bet a lot of folks who are posting in this thread might be channeling experiences from other game systems.

Sure, 3.5/PF stands head & shoulders (and chest, waist, thigh & knee) above all other editions when it comes to intentionally over-rewarding system mastery. 4e was robustly balanced, 5e is restrained somewhat by BA and simply presents players with fewer choices to optimize. As you continue back along the line of the classic game, that's more and more the case: 2e had a lot of options towards the end, but it took 10 years to build them up, 1e had far fewer (random stats, random starting spells for MUs & Illusionists, whatever items & spells you found after that - about the only things to optimize were choice of race, class, and how you spent your starting gold on normal gear).

 

[Hussar]

Hah! As if I'd fail to give my Wis 8 PC the Perception skill to make his Passive Perception at least 11! Do you think you're talking to a noob?

Now, isn't this pretty much textbook min/maxing?

You're taking the perception skill, not because it makes any sort of role playing sense for the character (although I imagine that's pretty easy to justify) but rather to shore up the weaknesses of the character caused by maxing out certain other stats. IOW, you're maxing out your strengths while minimizing your weaknesses.

I think that's what people are objecting to.

 

[Libramarian]

Min-maxing does not properly mean "setting some stats to the minimum and others to the maximum". It comes from the game theory concept of the minimax strategy, which means minimizing the maximum loss. In D&D terms this would usually mean making your character strong in combat but without glaring weaknesses, avoiding negative mods, boosting weak saves, not choosing abilities that are only useful if the DM chooses certain monsters/environments, etc.

Turning your character into a one-trick pony actually represents the maximax strategy: maximizing the maximum gain. This is the best strategy if you know the DM won't try to expose your weaknesses and will even interpret your character build choices as "flags" for what you want to see in the game. If everyone gets what they ask for, the winner is the person who asks for the most. A well-rounded character is at risk of not "shining" very brightly in this type of game.

As for whether you are at fault for choosing a cheesy stat line, I wouldn't say so. It's the DM's fault for using point-buy. If the DM cares about the aesthetics of stat lines, they should use the (default) method of rolling stats or the standard array. This seems a much better solution than trying to direct your point-buy with snide comments.

 

[Zer0Fox]

For me, as a DM or Player, I like at least one negative stat on a character. Every character shouldn't be able to do everything the best. That being said, as long as the negatives are played, it's just a character. I have had great fun in both playing a very low Int character (a halfling barbarian raised in the wild) as well as a character with no charisma to speak of (A rogue/wizard with 0 people skills). So I guess all a matter of perspective, for me it's the flavor and role play that make all the difference.

But that's just my own two cents. At the end of the day, D&D is a game and the purpose of games is to have fun. If you're having fun, you're doing it right. Keep in mind though, the point is for everybody to have fun--it's a team effort, so be conscious of others.

 

[Corwin]

Now, isn't this pretty much textbook min/maxing?

You're taking the perception skill, not because it makes any sort of role playing sense for the character (although I imagine that's pretty easy to justify) but rather to shore up the weaknesses of the character caused by maxing out certain other stats. IOW, you're maxing out your strengths while minimizing your weaknesses.

I think that's what people are objecting to.

Objecting? I play a half-elf assassin/monk who is very dexterous, but has only an 8 strength. However, I took expertise in Athletics. Because, even though he may not be muscularly strong, he's a nimble climber, skilled swimmer and even has a decent ability to trip or throw an opponent (a la his aikido-like martial arts training).

Somebody can "object" all they want. But I tend to ignore judgemental one-true-wayers. My character is an elite assassin for an order within the high elven church, blessed with magical gifts from the Queen of Air & Darkness herself. He's a living, breathing weapon of the fey gods. I'll play him how *I* envision him. Not how *you* want me to.