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

*Deleted by user*

Campbell said:

Honestly, characters with an extremely high Dexterity score and low Strength score or the reverse are artifacts of system design more than anything you would find out in the wild. Physical fitness is highly correlated, particularly given an environment that lacks modern muscle supplements and weight training techniques.

Click to expand...

While I agree it's unrealistic, the vast majority if not all RPG systems are unrealistic. I expect all RPG systems to have flaws and when I agree to play one there's a spoken or unspoken agreement to tolerate the flaws of that particular system that aren't houseruled away.

There are many downsides to putting extra constraints on PC stats. It's difficult to get agreement on what makes sense when it comes to linking stats and edge cases often look ridiculous. What stats are linked, how complex is that linkage, how much does it change the system from baseline. From a game point of view it "arbitrarily" reduces the potential gamespace of stat distribution and risks reducing the variety of viable stats combos in the game.

From my perspective everything in RPGs is artificial, artifice, made up. Many players will choose stat lines that the system people say they are playing suggests is effective or in some way optimal. Of course it's unrealistic, everything in RPGs is, real life is far far too complex to capture accurately in a RPG, the most complex of which are still vastly less complex than human beings.

Unspoken constraints and goalpost shifting really annoy me in most walks of life. If I agree to play a RPG I want to be told everything relevant before I make a character, not have entirely new criteria be sprung on me mid game when the game is well under way. Now, while people are entitled to their preferences, that includes me.

Arial Black said:

I completely agree, which is why I hate systems that let you simply choose to have minimum in one and maximum in another (point-buy!) so that every weapon-using character is either Str 16/Dex 8 OR Str 8/Dex 16. It would turn us into two sub-types of identical clones. It doesn't reflect a realistic population.

A bell curve does. Even if that bell curve is slightly deformed from the pure 3d6 into the 4d6k3 for elites, it's still a realistic distribution.

Click to expand...

And yet, funnily enough, in my current game, which allowed point buy or array, player choice, where we have 2 rangers, 1 paladin, 2 fighters and a monk, the 16/8 only happened once. Everyone else made more balanced characters.

In fact, out of the 18 PC's we've had over the past three campaigns, it's only happened 3 times. In groups that are VERY predominately fighters and rangers. Our first group was Ranger, Paladin, 2xFighter and 2xSorcerer. And, shock and surprise, only 2 PC's went the 16/8 route.

Maybe the issue isn't with point buy?

I considering making the most of a character's strengths roleplaying. After all, is that not what people do in real life? The military sends people to training courses for things for which they have some natural inclination. Someone who can barely hit enough targets to qualify isn't going to be going to sniper school. People with a gift for numbers become accountants and business people. People with artistic inclinations become graphic designers. People who have a knack for journalism become full-time retail workers.

It's the same in D&D. Someone with a 9 Dexterity isn't going to become a thief. Oh, he might try, but he'll end up losing a hand (or dead) before he learns any real skills. Someone without a certain strength of will is not going to be able to treat with outsiders for power as a warlock, and so on.

And that's really where I start to draw the line leading into min-maxing territory. If you're taking classes with no real expectation of roleplaying that class (i.e. my friend, who took a level of cleric because he read it would help maximize his utility as an illusionist wizard), then you're min-maxing. If you're playing to the strengths of the character itself, them, you're "optimizing."

I guess you can figure out that I don't look fondly on multiclassing as a general rule, and it's true. To me, multiclassing is a way to show a change in direction of a character's adventuring career. A class is not just a collection of mechanics, but also an expectation of theme. You should have seen the incredulous look on my friend's face when I reminded the DM that his posh, rich character would have to wake up with the sun in order to pray. "Why would I need to do that?" Dm: "Because you're a cleric." Good times. Good times.