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

[Lanliss]

How exactly to role-play a stat like INT has always been tricky. Most tend to ignore the number and play the character as he wishes. Thus the "dump" stat unless there's a mechanical reason to increase it. Same with Charisma.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

I have actually not built a low charisma character yet. All of them have some root in being good with people, and their Intelligence is usually middling (the exception being my Wiz/Bard with 16 int)

 

[Nathal]

I have actually not built a low charisma character yet. All of them have some root in being good with people, and their Intelligence is usually middling (the exception being my Wiz/Bard with 16 int)

I always had fun trying to figure out an entertaining way to roleplay my stats. On the other hand, I know for sure I don't have what I'd consider an 18 intelligence, so I'm perfectly fine "rolling for intelligence" and letting the character and his superior stat do the heavy lifting. Playing a dumb character can be fun too, but I agree an 8 is not so far below the mean that it would be a dramatic change. Lots of grey area.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Jester David]

No of course not, the point being I don't have problems so therefore not ALL DMs have the problem...

That's not saying much. The exact same thing could be said about *any* disruptive behaviours at the table. Inapropriate jokes. Metagaming. Fudging die rolls.
Just because it's not universally a problem doesn't make it okay.

 

[transtemporal]

Just because it's not universally a problem doesn't make it okay.

It doesn't make it the source of all evil either.

 

[Jester David]

It doesn't make it the source of all evil either.

I never said it was. Just that it was a problematic disruptive behaviour that impacts fun at the table. It's one player selfishly putting their enjoyment ahead of others in an effort to "win" at a cooperative game.

There's worse behaviours. But that doesn't make optimizing good, just less problematic.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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?

In the game I am currently playing, there is a single-class rogue and a multi-class paladin/champion. At their current levels, the rogue can usually manage to land a sneak attack every round, for about 35 damage. To contrast, the paladin can action surge and smite to deal three or four times that much damage; and it can do so on-command, every single day.

If we're fighting a monster, for example, then the cleric might open up with a Flamestrike, and then the rogue could maneuver for a sneak attack. But then the paladin goes, and it deals so much damage that not only is the monster vanquished, but it would have been vanquished anyway, even if the cleric and rogue hadn't done anything. Two players are left with the sad realization that their contributions toward this shared goal were entirely meaningless, because one player is the only one who mattered in determining the outcome. That is an example of one player outshining others.

A similar example, from Pathfinder, sees a witch and a sorcerer fighting a group of several ice monsters while they each have a Fireball spell available. The monsters each have about ~80 HP, and the witch goes first with a Fireball that deals ~50 damage to each of them, followed by the sorcerer with a class/race/feat optimized Fireball for ~90 HP. The witch ends up feeling like a chump, because even though this was an ideal situation to use that spell, their entire contribution and all of the resources they expended amounted to nothing.

That's just from personal experience, though. YMMV.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

In the game I am currently playing, there is a single-class rogue and a multi-class paladin/champion. At their current levels, the rogue can usually manage to land a sneak attack every round, for about 35 damage. To contrast, the paladin can action surge and smite to deal three or four times that much damage; and it can do so on-command, every single day.

If we're fighting a monster, for example, then the cleric might open up with a Flamestrike, and then the rogue could maneuver for a sneak attack. But then the paladin goes, and it deals so much damage that not only is the monster vanquished, but it would have been vanquished anyway, even if the cleric and rogue hadn't done anything. Two players are left with the sad realization that their contributions toward this shared goal were entirely meaningless, because one player is the only one who mattered in determining the outcome. That is an example of one player outshining others.

A similar example, from Pathfinder, sees a witch and a sorcerer fighting a group of several ice monsters while they each have a Fireball spell available. The monsters each have about ~80 HP, and the witch goes first with a Fireball that deals ~50 damage to each of them, followed by the sorcerer with a class/race/feat optimized Fireball for ~90 HP. The witch ends up feeling like a chump, because even though this was an ideal situation to use that spell, their entire contribution and all of the resources they expended amounted to nothing.

That's just from personal experience, though. YMMV.

I remember a time in 3.5 where someone could summon a "pet" that made the Fighter look like a joke. The caster could then go on to do other things while also controlling a creature that was better than a few other party members.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[cbwjm]

How exactly to role-play a stat like INT has always been tricky. Most tend to ignore the number and play the character as he wishes. Thus the "dump" stat unless there's a mechanical reason to increase it. Same with Charisma.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

I typically just roleplay a low intelligence by being straight forward. For instance if playing an 8 int half-orc barbarian I'll be like "Maybe Krunk not think this through but, Krunk have axe, what if I hit it with axe?" Even then, that's just playing that 8 intelligence for fun. Someone with an 8 intelligence might be a little slow, but I don't think they would be so dim as to require the player to run them like the hulk, running around going "hulk smash!" all the time.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I typically just roleplay a low intelligence by being straight forward. For instance if playing an 8 int half-orc barbarian I'll be like "Maybe Krunk not think this through but, Krunk have axe, what if I hit it with axe?" Even then, that's just playing that 8 intelligence for fun. Someone with an 8 intelligence might be a little slow, but I don't think they would be so dim as to require the player to run them like the hulk, running around going "hulk smash!" all the time.

An 8 intelligence is slightly below average. Though average is no great thinker, slightly below is not all that bad. I think I've known a few players with an 8 intelligence. I have *definitely* known players with an 8 (or lower!) Wisdom!

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[jgsugden]

The game works with optimized, min-maxed, gimp, and everything in between - but the trick is that the game works best when PCw within a party have similar levels of efficiency. You want to avoid one PC being significantly more powerful than other PCs. As long as you stick to that target, things will be fun for all.