D&D 3.0/3.5 <> earlier eds. re : min-maxing

[beaver1024]

The question is, what is wrong with min/maxing? As long as all the choices are game rules valid and the game mechanic themselves are balanced, there is no reason to stop it. Min/maxing can be a tool to roleplaying.

Having said that badly balanced rules have a negative impact on fun. Anyone remember the 120 character point clerics anyone vs 40 for wizards and 10!? for fighters. Or before the Dwarven Champion? Elven Archer? Elven Bladesinger?

 

[iblis]

OD&D didn't focus on stats or min/maxing

3d6 six times in order. str, int, wis, con, dex, chr

d6 for hps. 0 hp = dead

d6 for damage for all weapons

Seriously?!

This is threatening to be a kind of continuation of derailing I suppose, but...

I haven't seen OD&D, let alone played it. Are there Races? Levels?

Just curious.

...said the cat...

 

[Doug McCrae]

There was powergaming the first time I ever played D&D. It was basic D&D, 1st level party. I chose a magic-user, Forry was a fighter. Hugh, who had played the game before, went an elf cause they got the benefits of both a fighter and a magic-user.

Somehow we still managed to have fun despite Hugh Derby's rampant min-maxing.

 

[Psion]

3e is the LEAST munchible of editions between 1e, 2e, and 3e. 1e and 2e had options that offered much greater disparity in power for the cost to the player than in 3e. In 3e, though it's not always perfect, and least it has several more method though which it tries to make you pay for its capabilities. In 1e and 2e, you had avenues for power without cost. For example, fighter clone classes had more powers, and were not regulated by cost, but by how powerful you already were by ability scores. Psionics, while luck of the draw, was free in 1e. Multiclassing and (especially) dual classing was much more generous. The 2e player books and PO books had little consistency and tons of loopholes; it was just a matter of picking the most efficient.

Of course, I don't think Gygax was ignorant of this. His discussion on things like monster characters put a lot of onus on the DM to take charge of the campaign (something I think the edition bashers would do well to take note of.) But again, if you want to nitpick on which system, in absence of DM regulation, was more minmaxy, I think if your answer is 3e, you are in denial or forgot what old games were REALLY like.

 

[Berandor]

I think earlier editions allowed min/maxing to the same or even greater extent, especially with AD&D kits - a lot of them were simply broken. Still, I'd say more people now care about min/maxing because even min/maxing has been put on a technical level where everybody has equal footing.
I feel earlier min/maxing was about abilities AND character background, but now it's only about abilities, highlighting this arms race.

But it existed before, and perhaps with even worse disparities.

 

[francisca]

The question is, what is wrong with min/maxing? As long as all the choices are game rules valid and the game mechanic themselves are balanced, there is no reason to stop it. Min/maxing can be a tool to roleplaying.

Nothing. It's a perfectly valid style of playing. The only time it casues trouble is when the whole group, DM included, do not have the same expectations.

(this is where I think out loud)

My whole premise in all of these threads has been that I feel D&D 3.x enables min/maxing moreso that previous editions.

I never said, nor do I feel, that 3.X:
- forces you to min/max
- encourages you to min/max
- tempts you to min/max

However, my previus experience has been with Basic/Expert D&D, and pretty plain vanilla 1E AD&D. I have limited experience with 1E + UA and no playing experience with 2E.

After reading some of the posts here and discussing the issue with some buddies in my game last night who played 2E, with and without the player option series, I think I have to revise my thesis to:

3.X may enable power gaming at a higher level than 1E core and B/X/C, but it pales in comparison to 2E with the player options.

I attribute this mainly to the fact that more options (read: rules) give more opportunity to min/max. Of course, this is one of those, "Well, DUH!!!!" moments, as it's self-evident.

Toss in the fact that some of those options in 2E weren't well thought out, at last I can easilly see why terms like "broken" sprang into use during that period. Without 2E+PO experience, I never understood the desire for balance that 3E supposedly brings (jury is still out on that one for me.) However, for those of you suffering from Post-2E Munchkin syndrome, I can see why you guys flock to 3E and hold it up as the neatest thing since sliced bread.

At this point, I'm pointing at my sig again, and walking away from this discussion for a long, long time. (For real this time )

Thanks for letting me think out loud, thanks to everybody who responded to my post (except those of you who are now on my ignore list), this has been a very interesting discussion. Now I need to go find a 2E group to see if this stuff was as bad as I now think it was.........

 

[Haloq Jakar]

of course 1st and 2nd ed had min/max issues

What I love about 3/3.5 is that fighter types are not all clones. In 1st/2nd ed all Smart Fighters/paladin/rangers had longsword longbow and mace as their starting weapons. Of course some people would vary these choices but I would bet that 95% of experienced players had these three.

And with Saves not being ability based what fighter needed Int. Wis or Char?
None of mine did.

With Con modifiers stopping at +2 for non fighters who would waste a 17 or 18 there if you weren't a fighter type?

The same for high str scores only fighters could gain max so why would a non fighter burn a 18 in str?

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Only when min/maxing is taken to an extreme that one character out shines the others can it be a problem.
If you allow a character to play a half-dragon weretiger orc Barbarian/Frenzied Bezerker/PRC X/PRC Y/PRC Z then he might just out do everyone else.

Feats and other options make it so that not all characters are carbon copies of each other. Multiclassing allows me to develop my character however I want. If I started out the game as a godless fighter then I could at some point become 'awakened' to the virtues of right and wrong and become a paladin. I could start the game as an uncultured barbarian but then start taking levels in bard.

But if such options as my first example are allowed there could be problems.

 

[Remathilis]

I agree with Firelance, older editions depended more on character creation to min-max, while 3e allows a more even spread of character development.

For Example: the Uber-Archer

In First Edition, you'd have to roll great scores and become an elven ranger. Double Specialize (UA) in Longbow. You might even look into the ranger-archer class in Dragon. An 18 dex was a necessity.

In Second Edition: same deal, elven archer. Use Skills and Powers to boost your aim sub-ability. Then buy bow bonus as a racial trait AND as a ranger ability (skip followers, no one needs those...). Then, buy weapon Specialization (at an ungodly character point cost) and you Combat and Tactics specializtion to max out your attacks/round.

In Third Edition: Go human Fighter. Use your three starting feats to buy point-blank, precise shot, and far shot. Continue as a fighter gaining focus and specialization in longbow, then rapid shot and manyshot. Get into the Order of the Bow Initiate and max that out, finishing off the archery feats (imp precise shot, sharp shooting, ranged pin, etc)

In Basic (RULES CYCLOPEDIA) Go with fighter or Elf. Become a Grandmaster in the Longbow. (lots of bonus attacks and junk)

 

[Thanee]

In Third Edition: Go human Fighter. Get into the Order of the Bow Initiate and max that out.

The fun part is, that there are plenty other options.

Ranger/Deepwood Sniper, Peerless Archer, Cleric, etc.

Bye
Thanee