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

[Arial Black]

smbakeresq was ill advised to make such sweeping statements about point-buy always being this and only for that, but he does have a point (no pun intended): point-buy encourages min-maxing.

Point buy allows the player to control what exact character they are playing.

Provably false. My latest PC is an Aasimar barbarian whose stats (after racial adjustment, 27 point buy) are Str 14 Dex 14 Con 16 Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 14. Do you really thing that I want this character to have 8s in Int and Wis? Of course I don't! But point-buy forces me to choose whether I can live with those 8s or whether I could have 10s or 12s and have lower Str/Dex/Con/Cha. If point-buy 'allowed me to control what exact character I am playing', as you claim, then my main stats would be as-is while my Int/Wis would be 12.

IME, point buy does precisely the opposite of what you propose. Rolling stats lead to a lot of "well, I have to put the 15 in Dex, cuz I'm a rogue, and it's my highest roll. Need good con, and decent wisdom for perception, bc no one else is gonna get this traps...so the 13s will have to go there. Looks like my idea of being clever and charismatic will have to wait for another character. Maybe I could switch to primarily ranged, and have a low con? No that just hurts too much. Balls." Ie, metagamey thinking about stats.

Point buy leads to, "ok, he is a tinker-thief, and con artist. I can ignore Strength, but not dump it, because he basically lives on rooftops, con good enough to not die, Dex 14 or higher, Cha has to be decent, and wisdom can't be a penalty, but Expertise can make up the difference if I have to...Int 12 just because a tinkerer and amateur inventer should be smarter than average." Ie, making stat decisions based on the concept, including making less optimal decisions because the concept is more important.

You think that point-buy is less metagamey? How can it possibly be less, when how the rolling ends up is the end of it while point-buy allows you to carry on and reduce some stats in order to increase others?

It's a common fault in us all, that we hyperbolise. The way we like is fantastic and the way we don't is rubbish, while the truth is that each way has its own mixture of advantages and disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses.

Rolling has strengths: a more realistic population (not all wizards have Str 8, half the population don't have exactly 8 in some stats and exactly 16 in others, no-one has 7 or less or 18 or more), the results of rolling and the creativity to make sense of those rolled scores serves as inspiration while simply assigning stats only works with ideas you already had, etc. Rolling also has weaknesses: what to do about large disparities between 'good' and 'bad' rolled arrays in the same party (which is good for realism because people are not made equal but bad for game balance for the exact same reason), waiting until session 1 to roll your scores and then having to go away and think about your PC from scratch (to guard against cheating with pre-rolled 'three 18s, honest!'), your rolls not necessarily allowing you to play the concept you want to play.

Point-buy definitely has strengths: you can build a PC before the game starts because 'fairness' (if not 'verisimilitude') is built in, you can play whatever concept you want to play (but only if it adds up to 27 points! If your concept adds up to 26 or less or 28 or more then your concept is not valid!)--basically, you have the illusion of being able to play whatever you want to play.

But point-buy, just like rolling, has weaknesses: I've mentioned some already, so I'll concentrate on the weakness that smbakeresq was getting at: point-buy encourages min-maxing, to a greater extent than rolling.

Sure, when you roll six scores and are free to assign those scores to any stat then there is an element of min-maxing right there; why would I 'waste' that 14 on Str when my wizard would benefit more from a high Dex or Con? I'll put my lowest roll, 9, in Str. But point-buy allows you to lower that Str even more (to a minimum of 8) and use that point somewhere else. And it makes perfect sense to do so!

There is an evolutionary pressure to make the best use of your points to support your concept. Why waste any points on Str to make it 9? Just let it stay at 8. The best modifier that can be achieved is 16, so my Int will be exactly 16 (just like every other human wizard in the world!) because to assign my points any other way would be deliberately gimping my own PC.

When you are given a task to make a (say) wizard and you are given an array (whether that is a set array assigned by the DM or whether that array was achieved by rolling) then you can make your decisions about where to place each score, but you cannot further alter those scores by shaving off some points from those scores you value least (Str/Cha for wizards) and using those savings to further increase the stats you favour! Point-buy lets you do exactly this.

So you do. Your wizards steadily evolve into clones who all have Str/Cha 8 and Int 16. All your PCs evolve into creatures whose stats are mainly exactly 8 or exactly 16, because to do otherwise is to deliberately make a poor choice.

This is one of the weaknesses of point-buy. It is undeniable.

However, this does not mean that rolling is 'better' than point-buy. It is just one of the factors to be considered. You choose the whole package of strengths and weaknesses of the system.

This thread is about 'min-maxing', not about 'which is better: rolling or point-buy'. And, when it comes to min-maxing, point-buy is a factor. In the old days there was only rolling; there was no point-buy. With the advent of organised play, point-buy has seen an increase of use over time because one of the many strengths of point-buy is organised play; the 'level playing field'.

So it is fair to say that the perceived increase in min-maxing over time is....encouraged...by point-buy.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - there's a couple of issues with your analysis.

1. Point buy ONLY applies to PC's. There's no "every wizard has a 16 Int" because that's flat out false. NPC's DO NO use PC rules in 5e. Trying to extrapolate to the general population from the PHB is not applicable. The Monster Manual flat out contradicts this idea that PC and NPC's are created equal.

2. I'm not seeing where point buy or die rolling encourages min-maxing to any greater or lesser degree. In a die rolled character, you place your highest score in whatever stat best suits your character. Second highest in second place and so on until you drop your lowest die roll in your dump stat. That's identical to what you do with point buy.

The thing is, die rolling is by far more favorable to min-maxers. 4d6 drop the lowest will almost always result in a higher point buy value than what you would get from point buy. AND, additionally, if your die rolled character is significantly lower than the point buy value, most DM's will allow you to do it over, while, on the other hand, virtually no DM will force you to reroll a character that is significantly higher value than point buy.

So, there is virtually no down side to die rolling. At worst, you might be a point or two lower than point buy, and, most of the time, you will be significantly higher.

 

[FarBeyondC]

Provably false. My latest PC is an Aasimar barbarian whose stats (after racial adjustment, 27 point buy) are Str 14 Dex 14 Con 16 Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 14. Do you really thing that I want this character to have 8s in Int and Wis?

You wanted it more than the other options available.

Of course I don't! But point-buy forces me to choose whether I can live with those 8s or whether I could have 10s or 12s and have lower Str/Dex/Con/Cha.

Point-buy forces you to choose nothing. You, adhering to whatever standards it is that guides your character creation process, forces yourself to choose.

If point-buy 'allowed me to control what exact character I am playing', as you claim, then my main stats would be as-is while my Int/Wis would be 12.

I'm of the opinion that this-

Point buy allows the player to control what exact character they are playing.

-has an obvious, understood "Within of the bounds of what point buy allows for, of course" clause. Which is to say, within the bounds of what point buy allows for, you can control what character you are playing. If you're trying to play a character that requires stats not possible for point buy to create, you're SOL. If you try to enter a game where its known that point buy is the only stat generation option, and you try to play character whose stats are outside point buy's bounds...

Point-buy definitely has strengths: you can build a PC before the game starts because 'fairness' (if not 'verisimilitude') is built in, you can play whatever concept you want to play (but only if it adds up to 27 points! If your concept adds up to 26 or less or 28 or more then your concept is not valid!)--basically, you have the illusion of being able to play whatever you want to play.

No.

You have the ability to play whatever you want to play that falls within the bounds set by the character generation method used. Unless your DM is exceedingly generous- or just doesn't care- there is no way to be guaranteed to be able to play whatever you want without any form of limitation.

All your PCs evolve into creatures whose stats are mainly exactly 8 or exactly 16, because to do otherwise is to deliberately make a poor choice.

Based off what criteria?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

[MENTION=47207]Ariel[/MENTION] black: I don't buy any of it.

IME, most people don't do what you suggest with point buy. At all. Maybe in 3.5, but not in 4e or 5e.

We certainly don't dump multiple stats just to have a 16 and a 14 to start. Nor do we choose a race based on its stat boosts, for instance. Most characters start with nothing lower than 10, and multiple 14s, most of the time.

 

[hawkeyefan]

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - there's a couple of issues with your analysis.

1. Point buy ONLY applies to PC's. There's no "every wizard has a 16 Int" because that's flat out false. NPC's DO NO use PC rules in 5e. Trying to extrapolate to the general population from the PHB is not applicable. The Monster Manual flat out contradicts this idea that PC and NPC's are created equal.

2. I'm not seeing where point buy or die rolling encourages min-maxing to any greater or lesser degree. In a die rolled character, you place your highest score in whatever stat best suits your character. Second highest in second place and so on until you drop your lowest die roll in your dump stat. That's identical to what you do with point buy.

The thing is, die rolling is by far more favorable to min-maxers. 4d6 drop the lowest will almost always result in a higher point buy value than what you would get from point buy. AND, additionally, if your die rolled character is significantly lower than the point buy value, most DM's will allow you to do it over, while, on the other hand, virtually no DM will force you to reroll a character that is significantly higher value than point buy.

So, there is virtually no down side to die rolling. At worst, you might be a point or two lower than point buy, and, most of the time, you will be significantly higher.

Well, not exactly. On average, yes....but the risk of rolling six low stats is there. Or, more likely, 2 or 3 low stats. I've seen that happen often enough...and usually the player complains or begs to DM to allow some rerolls. Which is why I agree with the assessment earlier that stat rolling is heavy on the "cheating". I don't think most people think of it that way, but I would say that in my games the amount of PCs that were played exactly as rolled using the 4D6 drop the lowest method were less than the ones who received some kind of additional perk (if your stats add up to less then X you can reroll all, reroll 1s, you can reroll your lowest stat but must also refill your highest, etc.). Depending on the DM in our group, there was usually some kind of additional rule in place.

But if enforced rigidly, you can actually wind up with an awful character (statwise). Or one that has 2 or 3 terrible stats, not just a couple of 8s to go along with otherwise strong stats.It's just that no one enforces it that rigidly.

This is largely why we went to point buy. To level the playing field and to remove all the BS hijinks that went into rolling stats. But I do think that point buy does lend itself to min-maxing for a couple of reasons. Oh and this is not to say that rolling stats is min-max free...that's not the case at all....it really cannot be stopped!

Reason 1: you are using resource allocation at the time of stat creation. You have far more ability to choose exactly what you want.

Reason 2: you can specifically lower one stat to boost another. That's practically the definition of min-maxing in action. That goes beyond placing your high stat in STR and your lowest in CHA. It is literally lowering CHA in order to boost STR. Now, the ceiling of 20 and floor of 8 are in place to minimize this, but it is still more present in the point buy system more so than stat rolling.

Like I said, my group uses point buy and we prefer it, and although I am not an anti-min-maxer, I do at times find it annoying.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I stopped rolling for stats in any of my groups when it happened too often that a player would roll a slightly bad character, and be told to keep it, and another player would roll a really, really crap character, have the group feel sorry for them, be allowed to re-roll, and wind up with a nice smokin' character.

Now the player with the meh character with the meh character wants to re-roll. Where does it end?

It ends in point-buy, that's where.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Caliban]

@Ariel black: I don't buy any of it.

IME, most people don't do what you suggest with point buy. At all. Maybe in 3.5, but not in 4e or 5e.

We certainly don't dump multiple stats just to have a 16 and a 14 to start. Nor do we choose a race based on its stat boosts, for instance. Most characters start with nothing lower than 10, and multiple 14s, most of the time.

I think it really depends on who you play with. I play a lot of Adventure League, where it's all pre-written modules that are intended to be completed with within a certain amount of time (usually 2 or 4 hours). And you very often are playing with different people every session, and even when you play with the same people they may be bringing a different character. Roleplay is hard to fit in when you are on a time limit, and don't know the other characters that well. Completing the module on time is a priority.

This leads to people trying to make combat optimized, self sufficient characters - because you know you'll always have 2-3 combats and you may not be able to rely on the other characters at the table to support you. For a lot of us who play Adventure League, this leads to a lot of characters with 2 or 3 stats at 8, and the "important" ones at 14, 15, or 16 after racial bonuses.

It's just the nature of the beast - a lot of us dont have a regular home game, or if we do we are the main DM. Adventure League gives us play opportunities, but it rewards optimimal characters who can complete the mission in a timely manner over sup-optimal, quirky characters who may be more interesting RP-wise. So you learn to make optimal characters who have an interesting background. Then it becomes "normal" for you and it affects any home games you are in.

Most people I play with are active in Adventure League, so a certain level of optimization is just considered normal now. Home game or Adventure League game.

 

[Hussar]

I think it really depends on who you play with. I play a lot of Adventure League, where it's all pre-written modules that are intended to be completed with within a certain amount of time (usually 2 or 4 hours). And you very often are playing with different people every session, and even when you play with the same people they may be bringing a different character. Roleplay is hard to fit in when you are on a time limit, and don't know the other characters that well. Completing the module on time is a priority.

This leads to people trying to make combat optimized, self sufficient characters - because you know you'll always have 2-3 combats and you may not be able to rely on the other characters at the table to support you. For a lot of us who play Adventure League, this leads to a lot of characters with 2 or 3 stats at 8, and the "important" ones at 14, 15, or 16 after racial bonuses.

It's just the nature of the beast - a lot of us dont have a regular home game, or if we do we are the main DM. Adventure League gives us play opportunities, but it rewards optimimal characters who can complete the mission in a timely manner over sup-optimal, quirky characters who may be more interesting RP-wise. So you learn to make optimal characters who have an interesting background. Then it becomes "normal" for you and it affects any home games you are in.

Most people I play with are active in Adventure League, so a certain level of optimization is just considered normal now. Home game or Adventure League game.

But, see, here's the thing. Putting your best stats in whatever your class suggests isn't min/maxxing, is it? If I'm playing a fighter and I put my highest stat in Str, 2nd in Con and go heavy armor, am I really min/maxxing? I mean, from a strictly role play POV, I can certainly justify that. It makes sense that a dude in heavy armor has a high Str and high Con.

And, it makes sense that he's wearing the heaviest armor that he can - he is a fighter after all. Hrm, and he's using a longsword with his shield, not a dagger. Why? Because it makes sense.

Funnily enough, my last long term fighter started out with a warhammer (he had a bricklayer background, so, I figured he'd be more comfortable with a hammer than a sword) but, due to inheriting a magic longsword from a dead PC, he wound up using a longsword 99% of the time. Am I min/maxing for using a magic longsword instead of my non-magic warhammer?

Like I said pages ago, min maxing has NOTHING to do with what the numbers are on your sheet. It's 100% a misalignment of expectations at the table. You're only min maxing when someone else bitches about it.

 

[Arial Black]

@Ariel black: I don't buy any of it.

IME, most people don't do what you suggest with point buy. At all. Maybe in 3.5, but not in 4e or 5e.

We certainly don't dump multiple stats just to have a 16 and a 14 to start. Nor do we choose a race based on its stat boosts, for instance. Most characters start with nothing lower than 10, and multiple 14s, most of the time.

Well, if we're okay with anecdotal evidence...

One of the reasons I didn't like 4E was point-buy and min-maxing going hand-in-hand.

I joined a 4E club so that I could judge 4E for myself rather than just listening to other people. What I found was that I could tell what class a PC was (or give a very short list of possibilities) just by looking at the race of that PC. In all the time I played only myself and one other played a human PC. All the rest-and I do mean all-chose their race based on the racial stat bonuses which matched their class. If the race didn't give bonuses in both desired stats for the class then the combo was not considered. Once you saw what race the PC was you could look up the racial stat bonuses, cross reference with those classes that needed those two stats, and without exception every single PC was one of those classes for that race...apart from me and that one other guy. That other guy BTW was thought 'weird' because his best stat was only 14. We all thought there was something wrong with him.

Of course, point-buy was mandatory. It is what enabled this travesty.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Well, if we're okay with anecdotal evidence...

One of the reasons I didn't like 4E was point-buy and min-maxing going hand-in-hand.

I joined a 4E club so that I could judge 4E for myself rather than just listening to other people. What I found was that I could tell what class a PC was (or give a very short list of possibilities) just by looking at the race of that PC. In all the time I played only myself and one other played a human PC. All the rest-and I do mean all-chose their race based on the racial stat bonuses which matched their class. If the race didn't give bonuses in both desired stats for the class then the combo was not considered. Once you saw what race the PC was you could look up the racial stat bonuses, cross reference with those classes that needed those two stats, and without exception every singe PC was one of those classes for that race...apart from me and that one other guy. That other guy BTW was thought 'weird' because his best stat was only 14. We all thought there was something wrong with him.

Of course, point-buy was mandatory. It is what enabled this travesty.

That's anecdotal, all right.

Never saw anything remotely like that, myself. Not that people didn't ever pick races that suited their class, but not even close to always.

I believe it could happen, though!

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app