[TOUCHY SUBJECT] Why all the hate for min-maxing?

[borc killer]

This is how I min/max:
1st I come up with a character concept and then I look for ways of making it work in D&D. Then I min/max based on that until I get something that is as good as it can be but still holds true to the original concept.

I think the problem comes when someone does not even HAVE a concept... they just want to take advantage of X rule or X ability. Then it is just a table top war game and they would probably find WotC's miniature game to be really fun (which it is...).

Borc Killer

 

[ph0rk]

I would just like to point out to you that you are all doing it and having a blast. That is the point of the game to have fun. What some of us are talking about is how if only one player is min/maxing it can cause some problems in the game for the DM and the other players.

If someone optimizes their character, and is not disruptive, whats the problem?

In other words, if they aren't a jerk but just happen to do really well in combat, what are you suggesting? Not all characters are stars in all combats at all levels (rogues when they can't flank, mages in the 5th fight of the day, the mounted combat focused fighter in a narrow interior hallway, etc).

If I plan on making say, a greatsword weapon master-type character, why wouldn't I take as many feats and PrC's as possible? Why wouldn't I make sure strength is as high as possible? It isn't as if the power attack feat is that difficult or complicated to use, either - you can attain it right away.

It isn't the optimizing player's fault the other players didn't bother to read the feats section of the PHB.

*groan* What a headache - especially since the high-cha druid has the least forceful real life personality and the low-cha characters have the most forceful, so end up arguing down that player out of character anyway!

Though hindsight is 20/20, I would have worked on making the low int and cha a liability from the start. A deficient Int and Cha can make a character unable to speak and relate well, and IMHO should be kept in the back of the DM's mind just like a high Cha when the character is interacting.

In other words, even if the player doesn't -seem- to be roleplaying the low stats, you as the DM should still be taking them into account. Higher prices, people ignoring them in the street, perhaps the dullwit being taken by a rolex vendor in the street, etc

I do not believe that creating an effective character is wrong. Creating an unbalanced character, though, can be a problem. For instance, creating a character that can only be useful in combat or vice-versa can lead to problems.
Even a min-maxed character should have versatility.

better not ever make a PHB fighter then! They were sleeping when wizards were handing out versatility

A question with point-buy:

Why wouldn't someone be allowed to get an 18 in their favored stat and put low scores in other stats?

If I'm the fighter, I'm gonna fight, so I'm gonna put 18 in STR. Same thing for being a cleric. I'm gonna put an 18 in WIS, for spellcasting power.

Actually, if you look over the point-buy rules, in many cases, (with 32 point buy or less) it does not make sense to go for an 18 (unless the character is a demihuman and that is their racial stat). going from 16 to 18 costs 6 points, enough to raise an 8 to a 14. All the ablilities are important in different ways, and an 18 isn't really that much better than a 16, so the fighter with an 18 in str won't necessarily outshine the ranger type or barbarian with a 16 in str and a 14 in dex, etc (it actually costs half of your 32 points to get an 8 up to an 18 with a human)

I think the problem comes when someone does not even HAVE a concept...

I'd say as long as they have a concept/personality by the time they sit at the table, there isn't a problem. I don't really care what particular order works for them, as long as they attempt to make sense (not everyone can come up with a charcter bio worthy of hollywood)

 

[Bendris Noulg]

It isn't the optimizing player's fault the other players didn't bother to read the feats section of the PHB.

So players that don't min/max haven't read the rules? That's an interesting observation. Would you mind sharing the basis of this theory?

 

[Belen]

So players that don't min/max haven't read the rules? That's an interesting observation. Would you mind sharing the basis of this theory?

That may be phrasing things a bit harsh. Some players can read through the rules and never figure out what feats stack for an optimal combo, while others may choose feats based on the personality or history of the character.

I know that I have read the book, but I usually have to be "filled" in on what feats would strengthen a character.

 

[Tessarael]

Elven Druid with a 14 wisdom and 14 charisma.
Halfling Rogue with good dex and con and 10 charisma.
Elf wizard, 6 charisma, 18 intelligence.
Dwarf cleric, 6 charisma, 18 wisdom.

This summarizes the party you ended up with I think from your post. I don't see anything directly wrong with the low Charisma Wizard and Cleric. The Cleric has no ability to Turn Undead, which is a relatively substantial loss in ability, and low Charisma is fairly appropriate for a Dwarf.

In most campaigns, it is important to have one person who has decent Charisma to act as party spokesman. Just as it's important to have one Rogue. Beyond that, the party is wasting their cross-section of abilities by overlapping on Charisma. Of course, having multiple people skilled in an area is useful when the party splits, and someone goes off and does something on their own.

A major problem with D&D balance in my opinion, is that there are few direct mechanics to encourage decent Charisma. You compensated for that by giving different NPC reactions, which is a good call - just be careful not to overdo it. A similar way to handle it might be to add a price modifier for Charisma when buying items: say -10% price per -1 Charisma to a maximum of +/- 50%: e.g. Cha 2 nets +40% price, Cha 20 nets 50% of prices on things. Low Charisma will then definitely hurt vs. high Charisma in a more extended campaign, and the party really will rely on having at least one person with decent Charisma. If you enforce characters buying their own equipment with this sort of rule, fewer people will use Charisma as a dump stat.

The same can be true of INT, DEX, WIS, and STR of course. INT is a good dump stat for a non-skill user Fighter. DEX is an okay dump stat (say DEX 10) for a heavy armor user or someone who stays out of combat. STR is a good dump stat for a spellcaster who doesn't melee/missile fight. WIS is a good dump stat for most, but it will hurt that Will save. However, with these stats, there are direct mechanics for the penalties they impose, unlike CHA.

The other comment I would make on that party: the party is imbalanced. They don't have a primary warrior. The Druid, Cleric and Rogue will be ok secondary fighters, but spells like Silence and antimagic, and grappling are really going to hurt. Undead may well be a pain too, as the Cleric can't turn them. Maybe as a DM you should encourage party balance: e.g. after the Barbarian died, "The party really needs another frontline fighter. Maybe you should make your Dwarf a Fighter - they make very good tanks."

Regards the Rogue with 10 CHA ... I've got a Rogue like that. It sucks for interpersonal skills. My character has (in 3E) gone and become very Bluff, Diplomacy and Disguise oriented - that low CHA hurts ... of course, my character is also better in combat and with INT skills as a result of putting more in those sort of abilities.

Just my thoughts ...

 

[ph0rk]

So players that don't min/max haven't read the rules? That's an interesting observation. Would you mind sharing the basis of this theory?

It was more flamebait than observation

to optimise, one would have to read the entire feat section, the entire skills section, the entire combat section, and likely the entire magic section.

They would then have to UNDERSTAND these sections, and then go back to character creation.

How many people made spiked chain weapon masters (or just specialists) because they liked the flavor of a spiked chain vs they liked the reach + threatening squares 5' away? To me, selecting feats and skills based on their titles rather than their usage is very much sub-optimal, and displays a lack of rules understanding. (Any time a feat/skill/spell is selected without knowing exactly how it works mechanicaly, thats the player not reading the manual. RTFPHB?)

obviously no generalization will fit everyone (all generalizations are false!), but aside from the max-miner (which outside of a white wolf game I don't think I've ever encountered) most of the people that fit into the non-optimized category don't fully understand the rules. Some of them don't really care to.

 

[dreaded_beast]

Actually, if you look over the point-buy rules, in many cases, (with 32 point buy or less) it does not make sense to go for an 18 (unless the character is a demihuman and that is their racial stat). going from 16 to 18 costs 6 points, enough to raise an 8 to a 14. All the ablilities are important in different ways, and an 18 isn't really that much better than a 16, so the fighter with an 18 in str won't necessarily outshine the ranger type or barbarian with a 16 in str and a 14 in dex, etc (it actually costs half of your 32 points to get an 8 up to an 18 with a human)

Thanks for addressing my question ph0rk, and welcome to the boards, heh.

In my current game, when we created characters, I believe we used 32 point buy, the DM was helping a newbie to the game make a character. The newbie read the core books and new the rules from playing Neverwinter Nights and the Temple of Elemental Evil CRPG.

The newbie player was making a dwarf fighter. Anyways, I remember seeing the DM specifically tell the newbie player not to make his STR and CON really high using point buy, while having his other stats weaker. He said that by being a fighter and trying to get really high stats in STR and CON (16, 17, etc.), that it showed him you were just going to be focusing on combat.

I don't agree with that mentality, but didn't mention anything at the time. In my opinion, that is what it sometimes sounds like when I read some of the posts in this thread.

 

[Belen]

Thanks for addressing my question ph0rk, and welcome to the boards, heh.

In my current game, when we created characters, I believe we used 32 point buy, the DM was helping a newbie to the game make a character. The newbie read the core books and new the rules from playing Neverwinter Nights and the Temple of Elemental Evil CRPG.

The newbie player was making a dwarf fighter. Anyways, I remember seeing the DM specifically tell the newbie player not to make his STR and CON really high using point buy, while having his other stats weaker. He said that by being a fighter and trying to get really high stats in STR and CON (16, 17, etc.), that it showed him you were just going to be focusing on combat.

I don't agree with that mentality, but didn't mention anything at the time. In my opinion, that is what it sometimes sounds like when I read some of the posts in this thread.

Well, that is not exactly the right way to put it. I would have mentioned how the saves and skills would suffer to go for stats that high. :\

 

[Bendris Noulg]

It was more flamebait than observation

I know, that's why I called you on it.

to optimise, one would have to read the entire feat section, the entire skills section, the entire combat section, and likely the entire magic section.

They would then have to UNDERSTAND these sections, and then go back to character creation.

This I would agree with, yes. However, with the ever expanding uses of Skills, new Feats, new Spells, new magic items and qualities, and new Prestige Classes, achieving this goal would be impossible outside of a "Core Books Only" game.

How many people made spiked chain weapon masters (or just specialists) because they liked the flavor of a spiked chain vs they liked the reach + threatening squares 5' away?

To date, I've yet to see a Player in my game make such a character, and as a GM, I've yet to include one as either an ally or villain.

To me, selecting feats and skills based on their titles rather than their usage is very much sub-optimal, and displays a lack of rules understanding. (Any time a feat/skill/spell is selected without knowing exactly how it works mechanicaly, thats the player not reading the manual. RTFPHB?)

This I would agree with, yes. However, I find it hard to believe that someone would look at a list of Feat names and say, "this sounds kewl, I'll take it," without having any idea what it does. Granted, the player may not know which Skill, weapon, or other Feats it stacks with uber efficiently, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

obviously no generalization will fit everyone (all generalizations are false!)...

Full agreement here.

...but aside from the max-miner (which outside of a white wolf game I don't think I've ever encountered) most of the people that fit into the non-optimized category don't fully understand the rules. Some of them don't really care to.

Ah, but I posit that another group exists: They know the rules but don't care to min/max. That is to say, they don't require their character's to be "fully optimized" to feel effective, but rather are comfortable with being competant, thus investing more of the Feat slots, Skill Points, and even Class Levels into other directions for the sake of flavor and diversity rather than worried about being the uber character of his vocation of choice. It's been suggested that this is also a form of min/max, but in another direction: using the rules to min/max the character's previous experiences becoming new abilities rather than aiming for high target numbers that were predetermined before game play even began.

This is the way our group has always handled it, and while the power of individual character may dip and rise on occasion, no one's ever ended up with a character so uneffective as to be a burden or so overeffective that they outshined the rest of the party.

 

[Belen]

I know, that's why I called you on it.

This I would agree with, yes. However, with the ever expanding uses of Skills, new Feats, new Spells, new magic items and qualities, and new Prestige Classes, achieving this goal would be impossible outside of a "Core Books Only" game.

To date, I've yet to see a Player in my game make such a character, and as a GM, I've yet to include one as either an ally or villain.

This I would agree with, yes. However, I find it hard to believe that someone would look at a list of Feat names and say, "this sounds kewl, I'll take it," without having any idea what it does. Granted, the player may not know which Skill, weapon, or other Feats it stacks with uber efficiently, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Full agreement here.

Ah, but I posit that another group exists: They know the rules but don't care to min/max. That is to say, they don't require their character's to be "fully optimized" to feel effective, but rather are comfortable with being competant, thus investing more of the Feat slots, Skill Points, and even Class Levels into other directions for the sake of flavor and diversity rather than worried about being the uber character of his vocation of choice. It's been suggested that this is also a form of min/max, but in another direction: using the rules to min/max the character's previous experiences becoming new abilities rather than aiming for high target numbers that were predetermined before game play even began.

This is the way our group has always handled it, and while the power of individual character may dip and rise on occasion, no one's ever ended up with a character so uneffective as to be a burden or so overeffective that they outshined the rest of the party.

I have yet to see a group as you describe under 3e rules. Not that I would mind it, but I think the rules set is in favor of "optimal builds" rather than building based on experience.

It would be a fun experiement though.