If everyone min/maxes, then it's fine. Problems arise when you have just one or two guys who min/max (usually by simply searching or reading about broken combos), and the rest of the players built characters that are better rounded or maybe fit a concept more than focus on DPR. That kind of situation can easily lead people to feel like they aren't contributing too much when it comes to combat. At best, people just get bored at picking a "weak" class, but at worst you get people losing interest in a game that they aren't having any fun with. I've never met a min/maxer who focuses on RP, but there's plenty of non-min/maxers who love it.
D&D 5E Char Ops forums: Something I wish hadn't come over.
- Thread starter Corpsetaker
- Start date
If everyone min/maxes, then it's fine. Problems arise when you have just one or two guys who min/max (usually by simply searching or reading about broken combos), and the rest of the players built characters that are better rounded or maybe fit a concept more than focus on DPR. That kind of situation can easily lead people to feel like they aren't contributing too much when it comes to combat. At best, people just get bored at picking a "weak" class, but at worst you get people losing interest in a game that they aren't having any fun with. I've never met a min/maxer who focuses on RP, but there's plenty of non-min/maxers who love it.
The Grassy Gnoll
Explorer
Had a look. Just to say, yours is a thankless task so, thanks.
Appreciate you're a busy boy right now.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
"Concepts" aren't covered by the rules. They're covered by the role play. I built Captain America last night as an eldtrich knight who throws his shield as his main attack. It's optimized as best as the concept can be and I still end up with higher AC and DPR than half the group.
I built Indiana Jones a few weeks back as a rogue thief scholar. He uses a whip and a hand-crossbow. He's pretty darn optimized and still fits the concept of a lightly-armored scholar-rogue.
You can fit almost anything conceptually that is at least tangentially related to the primary class you optimize it from.
Kithas
First Post
Gonna start this with clarification;
I am and will always be a 'power gamer'. Ive played tcgs,video games and sports for most of my life, finding the edge cases and the exact possible limits to the rules is what I do in every situation I compete in. It's just what I do. Especially if I am part of a team. Being the 'weak link' of the team is the absolute last thing I want. That is why I optimize, firstly because the exploration of rules is fun but mainly because I want to bring my best to my team every week.
That said I don't "want the spotlight" nor do I want to steal anyone else's fun. In my current playgroup I serve as a rule-advisor for the players and the DM. I know the rules better than he does and I try my best to keep people balanced. To that extent weve made several adjustments to the written rules and we are trying to create a game where there are several "optimal" routes. Personally this is what I prefer. Having one best route is boring as hell. I have personally advised and helped to implement homebrew changes to rules that make characters that I am using weaker. What I love is experimenting and creating not being overpowered.
I help other players make more 'optimized' characters for their role play idea. I help them look for and create fun and interesting things mechanically. No one begrudges me for knowing the rules.
We have fun, we have 5-8 people in our group on a given night and we have everyone from the guys I have to remind that they can multiclass to me. We all participate in the role-playing and the roll-playing. Just because you don't 'enjoy' one as much as the other doesn't give you a free pass to just sit it out when the rest of the group is doing the thing you don't enjoy. I really enjoy the guys who roleplay miles better than I can. At the same time I expect them to do their best in combat too.
In my opinion it isnt a problem of role vs roll playing, it's the fact that you have to play the whole game in order for everyone to have fun. It is completely possible for every player type to have fun at one table, we do it every week.
A lot of this is thanks to our DM. It's his first time as a dm, he's been doing it for about a year and he is amazing. He puts real time into the story and the world and gives us waay too much freedom in the game world. But he doesn't neglect the rules either. He is very interested in min/maxing and the tactics of the metagame. He understands that there is a rules system and embraces it as a proper part of the game rather than shunning it and the 'munchkins' who enjoy that part of the game. Often he consults me on his npcs and balance, we work together to make the system we use at our table interesting and good for everyone.
to shorten my points;
-The min/maxer is not the enemy but a possible asset to your table.
-Everyone should be expected to play the whole game to the best of their ability.
-It is everyone's job to make sure everyone else is having fun, that is the goal, whether someone is playing an optimal character is immaterial.
I am and will always be a 'power gamer'. Ive played tcgs,video games and sports for most of my life, finding the edge cases and the exact possible limits to the rules is what I do in every situation I compete in. It's just what I do. Especially if I am part of a team. Being the 'weak link' of the team is the absolute last thing I want. That is why I optimize, firstly because the exploration of rules is fun but mainly because I want to bring my best to my team every week.
That said I don't "want the spotlight" nor do I want to steal anyone else's fun. In my current playgroup I serve as a rule-advisor for the players and the DM. I know the rules better than he does and I try my best to keep people balanced. To that extent weve made several adjustments to the written rules and we are trying to create a game where there are several "optimal" routes. Personally this is what I prefer. Having one best route is boring as hell. I have personally advised and helped to implement homebrew changes to rules that make characters that I am using weaker. What I love is experimenting and creating not being overpowered.
I help other players make more 'optimized' characters for their role play idea. I help them look for and create fun and interesting things mechanically. No one begrudges me for knowing the rules.
We have fun, we have 5-8 people in our group on a given night and we have everyone from the guys I have to remind that they can multiclass to me. We all participate in the role-playing and the roll-playing. Just because you don't 'enjoy' one as much as the other doesn't give you a free pass to just sit it out when the rest of the group is doing the thing you don't enjoy. I really enjoy the guys who roleplay miles better than I can. At the same time I expect them to do their best in combat too.
In my opinion it isnt a problem of role vs roll playing, it's the fact that you have to play the whole game in order for everyone to have fun. It is completely possible for every player type to have fun at one table, we do it every week.
A lot of this is thanks to our DM. It's his first time as a dm, he's been doing it for about a year and he is amazing. He puts real time into the story and the world and gives us waay too much freedom in the game world. But he doesn't neglect the rules either. He is very interested in min/maxing and the tactics of the metagame. He understands that there is a rules system and embraces it as a proper part of the game rather than shunning it and the 'munchkins' who enjoy that part of the game. Often he consults me on his npcs and balance, we work together to make the system we use at our table interesting and good for everyone.
to shorten my points;
-The min/maxer is not the enemy but a possible asset to your table.
-Everyone should be expected to play the whole game to the best of their ability.
-It is everyone's job to make sure everyone else is having fun, that is the goal, whether someone is playing an optimal character is immaterial.
I suspect what you're doing is looking for concepts that fit the rules you can optimize. Or to put it another way, you're looking to make the absolute best version of a given concept, as it relates to the combat mechanics of the game; if faced with two options for similar concept (is Captain America a paladin or fighter?) you'll probably choose the one that's most mechanically advantageous.
It's like Magic: The Gathering where the best players don't just start by grabbing some random cards and building a tourney deck from scratch. They look at what is currently being played, what's most effective, and has the best chance to win. They go play the tourney and that's great. But take that type of player and pit him against someone who literally just wants to build a theme deck, or a deck that's good but maybe not anywhere close to good enough compared to yours, and you'll have lopsided games almost every time.
It's the classic hardcore vs casual or professional vs amateur scenario. I'm in no way saying that min/maxing is bad. I understand that some people (I used to be one) are attracted to being able to make any given concept as efficient as possible. Their the ones who will dump the 8 stat into charisma because the fighter doesn't need to be pretty. Other players may choose to dump the 8 stat into wis, knowing full-well that's not a smart choice to make, but they are willing to do it because it makes a more compelling character for them. These two types of players do not work well together for any long period of time, and amazingly it's always the min/maxer who is clueless as to why it's a problem.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Ah yes, the ever not-so-subtle, "You're not really being creative you're just covering up dirty dirty min/maxing!"
Who wouldn't want to build the best version of their concept? Captain America has no magical powers, therefore fighter, better fit for the concept. Also, the only way shield throwing works is either with some kind of house-ruled "Shield of Returning" or with the Eldrich Knight's weapon bond bonus action weapon summoning.
Why would you make a less-than-perfect realization of your character? Inevitably, whether you are power-gaming or role-playing your heart out, that leads to dissatisfaction and a desire to re-do until you get it just right or make something else entirely.
As a person who plays MTG and does both I'll tell you that there are some concepts that are inferior to others...but that doesn't mean you don't want to make the absolute best version of the deck where the "best version" is where the deck does what you want in the most effective and efficient manner. I apply the same logic to D&D character building. How can I make the best Captain America? How can I make the best Indiana Jones? I don't care if my Indiana Jones is sub-par to Bob's Wizard2/Fighter5/Paladin7; because my character is the best darn Indiana Jones at the table.
You're fundamentally misunderstanding optimization and assuming its only use, and the only intention of such is to "win" over everyone else at the table.
Oh boy here we go again another white knight on his high horse about how the kind of mind-maxing that he doesn't like is bad because he doesn't like it. Bob who optimizes for his character to be the best darn *concept* that he can is NO DIFFERENT from Joe who optimizes his character to be the best darn fighter-with-no-personality. They're both optimizer. They're both trying to win. But what you fail to understand and where the distinction truly lies between bad power-gamers and good power-gamers is what they're trying to win at.
Bad power-gamers want to win against the table. They want to be better than everyone else. Good power-gamers want to challenge themselves, to "win" against a bar they set for creating something they enjoy. Be they role-players or number crunchers. That's what makes the difference.
Kabouter Games
Explorer
Now I feel bad because we're in the middle of a munchkin vs actor fight, which I never intended. (Maybe it was merely in abeyance before I caused it to reflare. I don't know. Nevertheless.)
We all have our preferences. There is room in the game - if not at our respective tables - for all kinds of different playstyles. If you don't like a particular playstyle, don't play it or don't have it at your table. You should also refrain from coming onto the interwebs and pissing in other people's sandboxes about it. Not cool. It's kind of like gay marriage. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. Don't attend gay marriages. But if you try to stop two people getting married because you think their marriage is squicky, you're a dick.
On second thought, it's exactly like gay marriage. So STAHP. Allayall.
Now I have an opinion I wish to express about the concept of min-maxing.
I prefer to start the game with a character who's pretty much fully formed, who has all the skills she needs to be the concept, and just gets better at those skills. Maybe she adds to those skills later on, picking up a thing or two from an unexpected career change or hobby. That makes sense to me, because that happens - you pick up another skill here and there over your career, maybe you change careers entirely. But I don't know anyone who starts out with their skill and profession acquisitions all mapped out like an optimizer maps out his character's life.
In other words, if I want Indiana Jones, if the character can start out with a PhD in archaeology, decent DEX, STR, CON, and INT, proficiencies in Whip, Pistol, Acrobatics, and Dungeoneering, I'm happy. If "the best" means I have to have a map that starts him as a Human Variant for the free feat, then Rogue to get X Y Z, then takes the stat bump at level 4, then splash Monk for three, then back to Rogue for five, then a splash of Fighter, then back to Monk until endgame, well, that's too crunchy for me.
We all have our preferences. There is room in the game - if not at our respective tables - for all kinds of different playstyles. If you don't like a particular playstyle, don't play it or don't have it at your table. You should also refrain from coming onto the interwebs and pissing in other people's sandboxes about it. Not cool. It's kind of like gay marriage. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. Don't attend gay marriages. But if you try to stop two people getting married because you think their marriage is squicky, you're a dick.
On second thought, it's exactly like gay marriage. So STAHP. Allayall.
Now I have an opinion I wish to express about the concept of min-maxing.
I prefer to start the game with a character who's pretty much fully formed, who has all the skills she needs to be the concept, and just gets better at those skills. Maybe she adds to those skills later on, picking up a thing or two from an unexpected career change or hobby. That makes sense to me, because that happens - you pick up another skill here and there over your career, maybe you change careers entirely. But I don't know anyone who starts out with their skill and profession acquisitions all mapped out like an optimizer maps out his character's life.
In other words, if I want Indiana Jones, if the character can start out with a PhD in archaeology, decent DEX, STR, CON, and INT, proficiencies in Whip, Pistol, Acrobatics, and Dungeoneering, I'm happy. If "the best" means I have to have a map that starts him as a Human Variant for the free feat, then Rogue to get X Y Z, then takes the stat bump at level 4, then splash Monk for three, then back to Rogue for five, then a splash of Fighter, then back to Monk until endgame, well, that's too crunchy for me.
That's how I feel also.
Similar Threads
