Ok lets get one thing out of the way, I know there is no official concrete definition of these terms, and this is all open to interpretation
So I was asked to be a Cleric by the DM of a new group I am about to play with, I agreed since I've wanted to play a Tempest Cleric anyway. So we're under standard phb rules, nothing fancy, but he did say he was ok with variant human. I wanted to play a variant human because I have not yet done so in 5e. So right off the bat I knew that I would make a Str Cleric, and a Dex Cleric and then decide between the two. Either way my Cleric was going to be tough.
So I presented to him the two Clerics with everything else equal save for some obvious skill changes like athletics/acrobatics
Str Cleric - 16 str, 8 Dex, 16 Con, 8 Int, 16 Wis, and 8 Char with the Heavy Armor Master feat. 18 AC with armor + shield and 1d8 weapon.
Dex Cleric - 8 Str, 16 Dex, 14 Con, 8 Int, 16 Wis, and 10 Char with the Defensive Duelist feat. 17 AC with armor + shield and 1d8 weapon.
Well he called me a min maxer. I don't think he meant it in a derogatory way, but that's how I feel about the term min-maxer. To me, I'm just optimizing a good tough Cleric.
I've looked through google for the definition of "minmax" and course the results vary greatly, and the Str Cleric does fit the minmax definition in a lot of instances. The Dex Cleric WOULD be more well rounded for sure.
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?
So I was asked to be a Cleric by the DM of a new group I am about to play with, I agreed since I've wanted to play a Tempest Cleric anyway. So we're under standard phb rules, nothing fancy, but he did say he was ok with variant human. I wanted to play a variant human because I have not yet done so in 5e. So right off the bat I knew that I would make a Str Cleric, and a Dex Cleric and then decide between the two. Either way my Cleric was going to be tough.
So I presented to him the two Clerics with everything else equal save for some obvious skill changes like athletics/acrobatics
Str Cleric - 16 str, 8 Dex, 16 Con, 8 Int, 16 Wis, and 8 Char with the Heavy Armor Master feat. 18 AC with armor + shield and 1d8 weapon.
Dex Cleric - 8 Str, 16 Dex, 14 Con, 8 Int, 16 Wis, and 10 Char with the Defensive Duelist feat. 17 AC with armor + shield and 1d8 weapon.
Well he called me a min maxer. I don't think he meant it in a derogatory way, but that's how I feel about the term min-maxer. To me, I'm just optimizing a good tough Cleric.
I've looked through google for the definition of "minmax" and course the results vary greatly, and the Str Cleric does fit the minmax definition in a lot of instances. The Dex Cleric WOULD be more well rounded for sure.
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?