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

[Caliban]

Meh, if your players are dump statting numerous stats, and getting away with it, some of that the DM has to wear. I mean, right now, I've got three players who all dump statted Str. They all made Dex monkeys. First scenario out of the gate, they had their weapons taken away and had to use spears. They pretty quickly realized that dump statting isn't a good idea. And, I have every intention of making them pay for that decision throughout the campaign. Dungeons will feature climbs and flooding. Imagine how much more deadly simple pit traps get when PC's have a -1 to climb and can only jump 9 feet with a run.

In a group where players dump statted 3 stats? Oh man, I'd have a bloody field day.

And here I thought the point of the game was to have fun and play a character you like. Apparently the point is punish your players for the entire campaign if they don't conform to your personal philosophy. Sounds fun.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using EN World mobile app

 

[Hussar]

And here I thought the point of the game was to have fun and play a character you like. Apparently the point is punish your players for the entire campaign if they don't conform to your personal philosophy. Sounds fun.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using EN World mobile app

We are quite possibly talking past each other here. Forcing the PC's out of their comfort zones is, to me, exactly what a DM is for. So, you dump statted Str in favor of Dex? Cool, no problem. But, that means when, say, the Exploration pillar kicks in, and you have to climb, jump, and swim your way through that dungeon, you're going to struggle.

I make absolutely no excuse for that. You (generic you, not you Caliban) chose to dump stat in order to get that higher bonus. That means that there are going to be times when you shine more and times when you will suck harder. But, I'm certainly not going to shy away from adding elements to the game just because it makes you (again, generic you) look bad.

It's no different than that character that dump stats Cha. I try my hardest to balance the campaigns I run between all three pillars - combat, exploration and talkie bits. Which means, that 1/3 of the time, that character is going to suck. One third of the time, however, that character will shine more.

But, that's the choice of the player. If a player chose to make his character 16,16,16, 8,8,8, I look at that character as having a giant bullseye painted on it. Sure, it's shining really well in one area, but, it's going to suck rocks in another. And, I have no problems pushing the consequences of that choice. Your character has an 8 Wis? At some point, the dice gods will smile and that random encounter during the night will come up on your watch. And now it's ambush time because your Passive Perception of 9 means that drunken orcs can sneak up on you. Never minding that eventually there will be some baddie with a charm spell and it's going to make you its bitch for the encounter.

AFAIC, this is a self resolving issue. You want to hyper focus your character? Go right ahead. But, don't expect me to pull punches and enable your decisions. Instead of making sure you race to that 20 score as fast as possible, why not make a slightly more rounded character and then you won't be coming up short when things don't always go your way?

 

[Caliban]

We are quite possibly talking past each other here. Forcing the PC's out of their comfort zones is, to me, exactly what a DM is for. So, you dump statted Str in favor of Dex? Cool, no problem. But, that means when, say, the Exploration pillar kicks in, and you have to climb, jump, and swim your way through that dungeon, you're going to struggle.

No, you said go out of your way to target players if they make a character you disagree with. Then entire game world warps into one where only their weaknesses are targeted. That's not the choice of the player, that's your choice as DM.

You are a bad DM, I get it. No need to make excuses, as there are none. I certainly wouldn't play in your game, I'd find more productive uses of my limited spare time. The game is supposed to be enjoyable for both the players and the DM, not just a way for the DM to play out their god fantasies and dole out arbitrary punishment on a whim.

 

[Hussar]

No, you said go out of your way to target players if they make a character you disagree with. Then entire game world warps into one where only their weaknesses are targeted. That's not the choice of the player, that's your choice as DM.

You are a bad DM, I get it. No need to make excuses, as there are none. I certainly wouldn't play in your game, I'd find more productive uses of my limited spare time. The game is supposed to be enjoyable for both the players and the DM, not just a way for the DM to play out their god fantasies and dole out arbitrary punishment on a whim.

Wow. Just wow. That's just wrong on so many levels.

I have absolutely no idea what you read, but, if that's what you took away from what I said, well, I'm rather at a loss.



You have a good day now random Internet person.

 

[Caliban]

Wow. Just wow. That's just wrong on so many levels.

I have absolutely no idea what you read, but, if that's what you took away from what I said, well, I'm rather at a loss.

You have no idea? You're the one who said:

And, I have every intention of making them pay for that decision throughout the campaign. Dungeons will feature climbs and flooding. Imagine how much more deadly simple pit traps get when PC's have a -1 to climb and can only jump 9 feet with a run.

And then you said you'd "have a bloody field day" if someone had the temerity to have three stats below average.

Sounds like an adversarial DM on a power trip to me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Wow. Just wow. That's just wrong on so many levels.

I have absolutely no idea what you read, but, if that's what you took away from what I said, well, I'm rather at a loss.



You have a good day now random Internet person.

Eh, "I'm going to go out of my way to punish players that do a thing I don't like" is a pretty reasonable read of your last couple posts, man. Caliban is being a bit melodramatic about it, but they aren't pulling things out of thin air, here.

 

[Caliban]

Caliban is being a bit melodramatic about it, but they aren't pulling things out of thin air, here.

The best drama is melodrama.

 

[Hussar]

You have no idea? You're the one who said:



And then you said you'd "have a bloody field day" if someone had the temerity to have three stats below average.

Sounds like an adversarial DM on a power trip to me.

[MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] - all I can say is, you're reading WAYYY too much into this. I've explained my point in more detail a couple of posts ago. You seem to have jumped into the tail end of another conversation and are apparently missing come context. Mostly about the idea that point buy automatically leads to min maxing characters while die rolling is for "true" role-players.

But, yup, I would have a field day if you came to my table with 3 sixteens and 3 eights. Totally. You wouldn't? Really? A character like that has GIGANTIC flaws. THREE dump stats? That's just painting a giant target on your character. That character is going to fail about 2/3rds of the scenarios you put in front of the player. Fantastic. Failure is just as much fun as success.

But, in the context of min maxing, coming to the table with giant, gaping flaws and then expecting the DM to never actually challenge your character and only design scenarios that play to your strengths sounds like a massive dose of player entitlement to me. Are you honestly advocating that a DM should only play to a character's strengths? That when a character hits the table with obvious flaws, we should completely avoid doing anything to challenge or bring those flaws into play?

I don't think that's what you're advocating, but, since you've taken such a bizarre twist on what I said, I'm having a bit of a time trying to figure out what your position actually is.

In the notion of clarity, let me be absolutely clear about my position:

1. I DO NOT specifically design campaigns or scenarios with specific PC's in mind. I design scenarios and camapaigns that try to challenge a notional group (that only exists in my head at the time I'm writing adventures) in all three pillars as equally as I can. IOW, a Hussar Adventure will likely feature equal (ish) time and rewards devoted to exploration, combat and talky bits. ((Although, to my eternal shame, they do tend to feature a bit more hack than talk :/ ))

2. Because of this, any character that gets brought to the table, is expected to be able to operate in all three pillars to some degree. It is totally reasonable to expect that your character, in any given scenario will have to fight, talk and explore in fairly equal degrees.

3. I DO NOT police my players. They are perfectly free to bring whatever they like to the table (within the bounds of the campaign of course). I actually go out of my way to enable options when I can. I have no problems with 3pp and what have you. I mean, in my current campaign, we're using Primeval Thule (a 3pp setting), and 3 of the 6 characters don't appear in the PHB - 2 UA rangers and, a Witch Hunter - so, yeah, I'm pretty easy going.

What this results in though, is a campaign which is not tailored to specific PC's. Which means if you hyper specialize, it's quite likely going to bite you on the ass. Sure, you'll be absolutely fantastic in your specialization. Great. Welcome to it. But, when we move to another pillar, it's quite likely that that same specialization will hurt. Dump stat Str? Ok, fine, but, when it comes time to explore, it's going to be a much bigger challenge. Same with any dump stat.

To me, building a balanced campaign that features all three pillars is the mark of a good DM. But, doing so means that specialists are going to have a harder time. Just the nature of the beast.

 

[Caliban]

[MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] - all I can say is, you're reading WAYYY too much into this. I've explained my point in more detail a couple of posts ago. .....

But, yup, I would have a field day if you came to my table with 3 sixteens and 3 eights. Totally. You wouldn't? Really? A character like that has GIGANTIC flaws. THREE dump stats? That's just painting a giant target on your character. That character is going to fail about 2/3rds of the scenarios you put in front of the player. Fantastic. Failure is just as much fun as success.

Yeah, I don't really believe you. You've already admitted to specifically targeting a group of players who dumped their STR with a scenario that punished them for that right out of the gate. And said you had every intention of doing so for the rest of the campaign.

And you keep talking about "giant bulls eyes" - because apparently a slightly below average stat is immediately obvious to the game world at large.

And an 8 in a stat is hardly a "giant gaping flaw". It's slightly below average. That's all. A -1 to a check or save that can be countered with proficiency in the appropriate skill or save, or with the help of another player (also known as teamwork).

You're trying walk it back now, but I think you were telling the truth the first time.

 

[SmokingSkull]

To answer the question of the thread it really depends on what you (the individual player) want out of the game. Personally (anecdotal incoming!) I don't feel it's a bad thing, if anything it's just a way to play. Some players will be more RP orientated and find the numbers, stats and mechanics secondary to their enjoyment, others are quite the opposite and it's all about the crunch. As for me I'd like to think I embrace a balance of both, I like fluffy fluff but I also enjoy good crunchy crunch, and having more of both is never a bad thing imo. At the end of the day you (the individual) need to find your balance playwise, whatever that is, and enjoy yourself.