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

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Yeah, I'll almost always choose to raise the lower scores before maxing out my "main" stats. I can't imagine having a lot of fun with a character that has two maxed out stats and the rest very low.

Fact is, a desire to min max, and not caring out a rounded set of skill competences, encourage min maxing. Point buy, from my perspective, actively discourages it.
Which indicates to me that point buy is not actually something hat pauses you either way, compared to the standard rolling methods. The main difference is, rolling will sometimes make it impossible to look at your stats and *see* that you're a min maxer, whereas a min maxed using point buy will always min max and it will always be visible in the stats, while non min maxers won't.

And again, in my view, both are fine, as long no one is being disruptive to their table.

 

[TwoSix]

Maybe I just missed you.

It's my tendency, when I refer to someone, to try and "call" them so I don't accidentally mischaracterize their views. I didn't mean to summon you- sorry.
Beetlejuice.
Beetlejuice.
Beetlejuice.

I just met you (online)
and this is crazy
but here's my username (@TwoSix)
so call me, maybe?

 

[clearstream]

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

An important reference on these terms for me would be WotC's original Character Optimization sub-forum. They offered an "official" definition of optimising in D&D that many players seemed to embrace, which was "Want to eke every mechanical benefit out of your character as possible? Is Min/Max your middle name? Or just design a character based on a loophole you've discovered! Bounce your ideas off the learned members of the character optimization forum." In particular, min/max is a concept from game theory and wargaming with an unmistakable intent to obtain the greatest economic or mechanical utility - the biggest numbers; the biggest mechanical leverage on the game.

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?

That has to be assessed relative to your group. Some key problems you need to be aware of include - RP overshadowing where the heavily optimised character group is best at everything and monopolises center stage; party power imbalance where the DM has difficulty crafting challenges for the heavily optimised character that don't render everyone else irrelevant (or wipe them out); and degraded narrative where player justifications for their optimisation-friendly choices break suspension of disbelief.

All of those problems can be handled. For example, the optimised character might have internal motives that prevent them taking center stage; or the DM might allow NPCs to recognise the real threat and focus down the optimised character appropriately; or the player might do a great job of fusing their desired crunch with their campaign's fluff.

Heavily optimised characters are not an issue for the DM in my experience (I can always summon more and stronger foes!). They're an issue for the players around them. So were I going into a campaign as a player with an interest in optimising heavily, then that's something I would try to take into account.

 

[Valetudo]

I dont believe you should intentionally make a subpar pc. Maybe have some quirks, fears, and weaknesses, but you need to pull your weight as part of the party. Having said that I believe in building a character concept first and then making him or her to the best of your abilities. But at the same time Im not really cool with players jigg sawing stuff together just because they are trying to break the system.

 

[Satyrn]

Standard array's weaknesses include lack of verisimilitude ('real' people aren't all equally blessed), lack of being able to fine-tune the stats to better reflect your concept, lack of the chance for the unpredictability of dice-rolling to inspire creativity, cookie-cutter characters, a more limited number of combinations than the other two methods.

You're right about all of that.

Happily, none of those weaknesses affect me negatively, and don't seem to be a problem for anyone else at my table, while the disparity in numbers from one player to another and the sometimes super strong character from rolling, or the combat focused stats of point buy have been a problem for our enjoyment at times.

I'm glad for this solution (though I sometimes miss rolling up the stats)

 

[nswanson27]

Heavily optimised characters are not an issue for the DM in my experience (I can always summon more and stronger foes!). They're an issue for the players around them. So were I going into a campaign as a player with an interest in optimising heavily, then that's something I would try to take into account.

I'd like to add that often times (in my experience) the players that have problems with optimized characters also have problems with "normal" characters as well, but to a lesser degree. It's much easier in 5e to make a very under-powered character than an overpowered one.
For example, I once played with a warlock who had no attack spells nor hex on their spell list. Now, the player didn't make a big deal of the power imbalance during the game. But assuming hypothetically that they had - should that really be viewed as the optimizers being the source of the problem? It's fine for a player to want to ignore "da math" when building a character. What's not fine is the expectation for it to ignore them back.

 

[schnee]

I'd like to add that often times (in my experience) the players that have problems with optimized characters also have problems with "normal" characters as well, but to a lesser degree. It's much easier in 5e to make a very under-powered character than an overpowered one.
For example, I once played with a warlock who had no attack spells nor hex on their spell list. Now, the player didn't make a big deal of the power imbalance during the game. But assuming hypothetically that they had - should that really be viewed as the optimizers being the source of the problem? It's fine for a player to want to ignore "da math" when building a character. What's not fine is the expectation for it to ignore them back.

Since your example person a) doesn't feel bad, b) doesn't affect the party at all since the challenges that are too much for this character are perfectly fine for them, and c) doesn't involve an optimizer in any shape or form, how is this supposed to be relevant?

I mean, I get what you're saying, but a 'weak' character only matters balance-wise if their failure to do damage takes down the rest of the party, and if everyone else is capable and reasonably specc'd, then that will be rare. Generally, a non-attack character will be doing all sorts of other useful stuff that will earn them their keep - debuffing enemies, buffing allies, utility or movement spells, etcetera.

Those things will actually help the *other* characters, put the spotlight on them, and make them shine. That's the opposite of the optimizer that steals the show.

 

[nswanson27]

Since your example person a) doesn't feel bad, b) doesn't affect the party at all since the challenges that are too much for this character are perfectly fine for them, and c) doesn't involve an optimizer in any shape or form, how is this supposed to be relevant?

I mean, I get what you're saying, but a 'weak' character only matters balance-wise if their failure to do damage takes down the rest of the party, and if everyone else is capable and reasonably specc'd, then that will be rare. Generally, a non-attack character will be doing all sorts of other useful stuff that will earn them their keep - debuffing enemies, buffing allies, utility or movement spells, etcetera.

Those things will actually help the *other* characters, put the spotlight on them, and make them shine. That's the opposite of the optimizer that steals the show.

I should have been clearer - there were optimizers in the group - a couple, in fact. And I hear what you're saying about buffing/debuffing/CC/etc, but this person wasn't even doing that either. I think it was apparent to everyone (including the DM) that this person wasn't the most "strategic in their ways", and there was some follow-up where people offered to help re-tool the spell list and whatnot. Also, without the DM being very (overly) kind at the end, we would have almost certainly wiped.
So yes, for us there was really no issue (thankfully). My overall point though is that situation was one bad attitude away from being a counterpoint to the "it's all the optimizer's fault for ruining the fun".

 

[Warpiglet]

Its all taste. I think it is lame when people play characters with low ability score dumps so as to boost some other stat and then do not make believe the right way.

Do you really envision a slow, not bright ugly character EVERY time? The novelty wears off quickly for me. Do what you want but I will spend effort ignoring your character's reality. And that sucks...with that said, I have played not bright, or not quick characters before. I like my fat cleric (low dex) and fits his friar tuck-ness. But whatever.

I have just decided to walk the middle ground. I am bored with cookie cutter but also do not like ineffectual characters either. To each their own.

As to something being "right" or a "bad thing" just keep in mind we are doing make believe...I just know my preferences. I like the middle ground.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

You're right about all of that.

... Except the "cookie cutter character" part. That's a different issue entirely to stat-gen.

I (and a vast many players) could easily make, for example, two human fighters with the exact same stats and have them not be "cookie cutter" - in that they would be very little alike as people.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app