D&D 2E Is 5e Basically Becoming Pathfinder 2e?

[Satyrn]

My wife once told me celebrating Valentines Day was optional that year . . .

she said, handing you divorce papers.

 

[Mistwell]

..and if that person decides to make D&D a hobby that they play regularly with a group of friends using the same character out will come the min/maxer. It's sort of like having a baby and not knowing what it will be when it grows up but 20 years later you have a plumber, engineer or some other trade.

When a person claims everyone is X, and then not everyone is X, they deserved to be called on it. Claiming some of those people eventually become X doesn't go any length to prove the claim was valid. It's still a false claim. Not everyone is a min/maxer who plays this game.

Now I disagree with the rest of your premise anyway, but I picked the low hanging fruit because your premise was false on multiple fronts. We both agree - some people who play this game are not min/maxers when they play. Particularly those who sit down in a game store, pick up a pregen character, and start playing. If they don't last many sessions - which is ALSO a common thing - that will be the beginning and the end of their playing, and they will never be a min/maxer even by your silly almost-meaningless definition.

So, how about we not make sweeping generalizations about all players being X anymore?

 

[Lanefan]

As a matter of fact, given no direction, players will create their characters using what they think are the normal rules, no matter whether they're labeled OPTIONAL or not.

Their mistake, then.

The "normal" rules include only that which is not optional. Anything optional is just that - optional - and if the players don't bother to ask the DM whether a given option is in that game or not before using it that's their problem, not the DM's.

Lan-"and given 5e's intentional-by-design ability to be kitbashed it's probably a good idea to ask whether all the non-optional rules are being used as written while you're at it"-efan

 

[dave2008]

..and if that person decides to make D&D a hobby that they play regularly with a group of friends using the same character out will come the min/maxer. It's sort of like having a baby and not knowing what it will be when it grows up but 20 years later you have a plumber, engineer or some other trade.

I've played with the same group for 28 years and none of them have become min/maxers. So when exactly does this happen. Year 30?

 

[prosfilaes]

Their mistake, then.

The "normal" rules include only that which is not optional. Anything optional is just that - optional - and if the players don't bother to ask the DM whether a given option is in that game or not before using it that's their problem, not the DM's.

Communication is a two way street. If the player wants to use something off the wall, then they should probably specifically ask, but stuff like feats is something that should come up right at the start.

And no, "normal" rules have nothing to do with what's labeled optional. In many cases, it's basically going to be Adventure League rules. Getting huffy with a player who has played a couple games of D&D in their life, all in AL, for not understanding "normal" to be what someone with 20 years under their belt might argue to be "normal" is unfair.

Lan-"and given 5e's intentional-by-design ability to be kitbashed it's probably a good idea to ask whether all the non-optional rules are being used as written while you're at it"-efan

It's probably a good idea for the DM to ask how the player pronounces the numbers, too. Given language's ability to be kitbashed, you shouldn't be surprised to find 2 pronounced /ˈtwɛnti/, and 3 pronounced /ˈtwʌnti/ and 4 pronounced /ˈtwʊnti/, etc., when asking what I rolled.

 

[Eric V]

It seems like the design for the edition is to specifically not be as overwhelming in terms of options as 3.x or Pathfinder is. I know there was a lot of UA content over the last year, but most of that has been compiled into one book...I forget how many books of options 3.x had at a similar point in its publishing life, but it was certainly a lot more than 5e has now.

 

[Kobold Boots]

When a person claims everyone is X, and then not everyone is X, they deserved to be called on it. Claiming some of those people eventually become X doesn't go any length to prove the claim was valid. It's still a false claim. Not everyone is a min/maxer who plays this game.

Now I disagree with the rest of your premise anyway, but I picked the low hanging fruit because your premise was false on multiple fronts. We both agree - some people who play this game are not min/maxers when they play. Particularly those who sit down in a game store, pick up a pregen character, and start playing. If they don't last many sessions - which is ALSO a common thing - that will be the beginning and the end of their playing, and they will never be a min/maxer even by your silly almost-meaningless definition.

So, how about we not make sweeping generalizations about all players being X anymore?

Hi Mistwell.

I think the term "sweeping generalizations" is really appropriate for qualitative conversations but not quantitative ones.

Try this test next time you play at a table with a bunch of new players who grab a pre-gen. Ask them if they'd prefer a +1 weapon or a +2 weapon. See which they'd prefer after understanding the benefit.

Anyone who says +1 is not a min/maxer.

Be well.
KB

edit - my point is there's such a thing as a min/maxer that isn't a jerk. It's called "everyone else".

 

[dave2008]

Hi Mistwell.

I think the term "sweeping generalizations" is really appropriate for qualitative conversations but not quantitative ones.

Try this test next time you play at a table with a bunch of new players who grab a pre-gen. Ask them if they'd prefer a +1 weapon or a +2 weapon. See which they'd prefer after understanding the benefit.

Anyone who says +1 is not a min/maxer.

Be well.
KB

edit - my point is there's such a thing as a min/maxer that isn't a jerk. It's called "everyone else".

I think, maybe, you don't know what a min/maxer is? The scenario you provided is not a min/max one. My guess is your definition of min/maxer is not the standard, and thus the source of the confusion with [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] (and probably others)

 

[Kobold Boots]

I think, maybe, you don't know what a min/maxer is? The scenario you provided is not a min/max one. My guess is your definition of min/maxer is not the standard, and thus the source of the confusion with [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] (and probably others)

You're correct that I have a different definition of min/maxer than is commonly used on the forums. It's why I edited my post.

I guess the reason why is because I never saw the reason to call a jerk something other than jerk. There's nothing wrong with min/maxing a character. There's everything wrong with doing it, creating a problem with a group of people, and then hiding behind the rules. I don't see that as a min/max problem. I see it as a social issue and jerk is a more appropriate term to use.

Thanks for the clarity.

 

[dave2008]

You're correct that I have a different definition of min/maxer than is commonly used on the forums. It's why I edited my post.

I guess the reason why is because I never saw the reason to call a jerk something other than jerk. There's nothing wrong with min/maxing a character. There's everything wrong with doing it, creating a problem with a group of people, and then hiding behind the rules. I don't see that as a min/max problem. I see it as a social issue and jerk is a more appropriate term to use.

Thanks for the clarity.

I agree with your viewpoint that min/maxing is not inherently an issue. But that shouldn't change the definition of what a min/maxer is. The definition stands without values attached to it.

And to be clear I have no idea what else you posted in this thread. I was just responding to what I quoted. I really shouldn't have inserted myself into an ongoing coversation - my bad. I just thought I could help.