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?
You did minmax.
The term isn't confusing particularly - it's taking the lowest possible stats in one area of little direct relevance to the primary abilities a character class and using the points to buy the maximum stats in the ones that are.
That's what you did, and your GM was right on the money.
As to whether it is a negative thing, that is a loaded question with arguments on both sides.
I tend to value roleplay over rollplay and characterisation over gaming the system, and I have been playing and GMing a very long time so have seen plenty of instances of both extremes and everything in between.
It isn't a popular position to take with proponents of the opposing argument, and although a very well informed opinion, it is just an opinion - but I find in the significant majority, minmaxers and power gamers are cut of the same cloth (yes there are exceptions but they are rare...) and such behaviour in long running games tends to be counterproductive and creates tension, arguments, grandstanding and a bunch of other stuff that detracts from the group's fun.
Of course if everyone is a minmaxer at a table then there isn't a problem, but I cannot say I have seen that more than a couple of times in my 39 years rpg'ing.
So, is it negative - yes, in my opinion, and I would judge someone doing it as the kind of player who wouldn't work well in a campaign I ran. I have had them before of course, and had everything from them complaining that I was 'forcing' them into challenges that relied on their dump stats to getting angry about me using minmaxed villains who used their weaknesses against them, despite their being perfectly good reasons and opportunities for the villain to study them and to want to neutralise their one-track-minded uberness. I even had one player leave one of my campaigns because they couldn't easily get hold of the perfect set of magical items they had planned to further minmax their 'build'.
There is often, in my experience a strong element of self-entitlement at play with many minmaxers, and in the aforementioned case he expected me to give him whatever he wanted as and when he wanted it as this was the only way he could have 'fun', and it was my 'job' to make the game fun for him in this particular way.
Is minmaxing acceptable - clearly that depends on the people you are with, but it's often divisive in terms of what it produces and how it is played if the entire group isn't comfortable with it. If your GM isn't comfortable with it, then you really don't have a right to demand that you can do it. The GM sets the tone of a campaign - they are doing most of the work after all, and make the final calls on such things.
