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

[schnee]

Ah, someone's finally getting my point!

---
1.) knowing all that, I would still rather make an optimised combat monster than an all-rounder, playing to my strengths and avoiding my weaknesses

Well, the rub is, the difference between 'all-arounder' and 'min/maxer' is relative. It depends on the table. Are you breaking the bell curve, or are you among equals?

It's like the old George Carlin bit. When I'm driving, it's all idiots and maniacs. Idiots are driving slower than me, maniacs are driving faster.

2.) this choice, as (certainly) unrealistic and (possibly) foolish as it is, is only made possible with point-buy!

To an extent, yes - but rolled stats won't stop the dedicated twink completely.

Once you throw in race / multi-classing / skill choice / feat choice / ability score improvements / spell choice, it's one of the biggest factors, but it's by no means the only one. For 5E anyway.

In 3.x point buy was barely a blip, with the crazy multi-class 1-or-2-level dips, stacking bonuses, item crafting, and +5 (thing) of (ability score). A definite improvement.

Both rolling and point-buy have both strengths and weaknesses. It's pointless to deny that. Which set of strengths/weaknesses you prefer is an individual opinion, but what those strengths and weaknesses actually are is fact, not opinion.

We are all entitled to our own opinions. We are not entitled to our own facts.

You've... kind of taken off from the point I was trying to make and gone somewhere else completely, I think.

 

[Aenghus]

The thesis that min maxing is based on is that a player should be avoiding tasks that his PC is bad at in the first place, so tanking a skill or ability further doesn't really matter. Many RPGs reward specialisation a lot, and all things being equal, mining stuff you don't want to max stuff you do want makes a lot of sense.

Unless all things are not equal. A DM can force PCs into tasks they are bad at to exploit their weaknesses, and cut down on opportunities to play to their strengths. Few players have an appreciation for such tactics though. I've seldom seen players forced into a play style they dislike be converted. Punishing players for their game preferences is I believe counterproductive and a bad idea all round.

If a DM wants well rounded PCs and doesn't want min maxed specialists, tell the players and put hard limits on specialisation at character generation. Players unwilling to accept these limits can leave, others can accept or try and compromise.

 

[Hussar]

Personally, I prefer just the standard array. Solves all of these problems nicely.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Personally, I prefer just the standard array. Solves all of these problems nicely.

Yes, it occurs to me that (in my mind at least, because I haven't made the effort to reply lately) I have been defending point-buy against the accusation of being "worse" for min-maxing, when...

It *is* worse, if you use it that way.

AND

I don't really play with point-buy.

What everyone I play with does (multiple groups) is we use the standard array, and we "tweak" it here and there, using the point-buy method, to make the stats line-up with the individule character's needs.

And the min-maxers amonst us ditch most of their odd stats.

But pretty much no one ever winds up with more than one 8 or 16. It's the mid-stats that vary.



Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Satyrn]

Ah, someone's finally getting my point!

I got your point right from the start.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, it occurs to me that (in my mind at least, because I haven't made the effort to reply lately) I have been defending point-buy against the accusation of being "worse" for min-maxing, when...

It *is* worse, if you use it that way.

AND

I don't really play with point-buy.

What everyone I play with does (multiple groups) is we use the standard array, and we "tweak" it here and there, using the point-buy method, to make the stats line-up with the individule character's needs.

And the min-maxers amonst us ditch most of their odd stats.

But pretty much no one ever winds up with more than one 8 or 16. It's the mid-stats that vary.

The result seems pretty similar to my group, using point buy. Part of it may be that we make sure that most skills are useful, and it's useful to have basic competence in a wide set of checks. And I remind people that having maxed out scores isn't actually that beneficial, and certainly isn't necessary.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that part of the issue can also come from the fact that many of the stats that are typically maxed are not ones that are actually used by a player during the game. How strong or fast you are in real life doesn't come into the situation at all.

But a player can dump Intelligence to an 8, and other than the -2 on some checks, it doesn't really matter that much. The player's own intelligence or skill at playing can more than make up for that.

Which may or may not be an issue for some tables. Some people will "play" an Int 8 character that way, and others will play them just as they would any other character. So you could have a situation where the slow guy in the group is actually figuring things out on the reg and leading the party. Some folks won't even notice that, others will hate it. It's really about the expectations of the folks at the table.

 

[Geeknamese]

Three 16s and three 8s is pretty blatant min-maxing. I try to be very accommodating to my players because at the end of the day, I want them to enjoy the game. So, 3pp products and homebrews they find on Reddit, Pinterest or DMs Guild are all fine as long as I get a chance to review them. Alternative rules or systems found on those same sites are also fair game once reviewed as well.

But...I have to say, dumping three stats to make a Lebron James freak of nature character to optimize Combat just puts a bad taste in my mouth. For me, gaming is all about the shared narrative experience where we all are shaping the events and world together through storytelling and improvisation. It's just the guy who brings the three dump stat character is usually (but not always) the guy on his iPhone distracted when it's not Combat.

Or the guy who's bored during Social encounters and cracks jokes and makes irrelevant side comments during actually engaging improvisational in-character Social interactions.

Or he's the guy who, during Exploration, has no useful skills and gets bored because the rogue and wizard is getting most of the spotlight finding traps or creatively using their skills/abilities to overcome challenges so he starts to do stupid things like intentionally and recklessly charging into rooms or whatnot. The three dump stat players typically (but not always ;p) are there to pwn! in fights as power gamers and check out in other situations.

Or lastly, I get the three dump stat player who espouse of their role playing ability and then start rationalizing to me that they're Int 8 char is actually a genius but grew up in a bubble and wasn't properly schooled, who's Wis 8 is quick-witted and extremely intuitive but has ADHD and Cha 8 is extremely good-looking with incredible presence but due to low self-esteem doesn't realize it and is anti-social. Child, please...

I'd rather have the players that are more interested in the narrative and being able to contribute to the evolution of the story meaningfully. In my game right now, we play in a homebrew world where the Mageocracy rule and the gods and their wars and divine chars are blamed for destroying the old world. The Mageocracy push propaganda to make sure no one thinks otherwise. Divine chars have to hide their abilities (a la Dark Sun) creatively using whatever skills they have or need to in order to escape detection as divine chars are hunted. This does give divine characters a disadvantage in the game. Guess what, half the players went for divine chars to secretly preach the gospel like Christians and they use their Performance skill to disguise abilities or another character plays a cook with cooking utensils tool proficiency who's like the king of organic, gluten-free, homeopathic healing through his miraculous food. He actually fights with an improvised weapon (rolling pin) and large flat pan as a shield. No cares at all about optimizing and just enjoying how his character can continue spreading the gospel and vanquishing evil one biscuit at a time.

I think I'd be doing a disservice to my players if I allowed three-dump-stat l33t player to come to the table not interested in all pillars of the game.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

Since I wanted 5/20/12/12/8/20, but there aren't enough points, then I have a choice: either reduce the scores that really matter to me (Dex/Cha) or reduce the scores that don't matter so much. Put like that, why on Golarion would I choose to lower my Dex/Cha?

Because high stats are expensive in point buy, and, you are going to get ASIs as you level. Giving up one point of a very high stat gets you 3 of a lower stat, but when that ASI comes around, you can take a +1 in the high stat. You can get closer to the stats you want by buying the low and mid-level stats where you want them, and building up the highest ones with ASIs.

 

[Campbell]

[MENTION=6785999]Geeknamese[/MENTION]

I do not disagree with the idea that we should all play the games that we like with the people we like. All games require unity of player interests if they are going to really provide an experience we are looking for. I do think we should take a critical look at games that encourage players to act against the stated interests of the game. I also do not believe it is helpful to shame player behavior. I think we can do better than that. I think we can honestly and openly talk about the things that interest us, reach accord if possible, and if not go our separate ways.