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

[Altalazar]

I'm on the fence when it comes to this issue really. On the one hand, I don't find it fun to min-max all the numbers and sacrifice an interesting character for it. (I've done things like spend limited starting money on a house and wedding ring instead of magic gear, because it's what the character would spend her money on.) On the other hand, though, it's not much fun to be second-best at everything, and I do derive a certain amount of enjoyment out of being useful to the party.

Example: I want my Seer character to be the best in the party at finding stuff out, but if she sucks in combat, so be it - that's not her thing. However, if my combat-focused rogue was outshone in melee by the party wizard, I'd be annoyed...

That's how I feel about it - I like every one of my characters to shine in at least one area - to be "the best" at something - something that is character defining, to a certain degree. It just feeds back into the roleplaying of the character - the trait manifests itself in the mechanics of the rules when you max it out, making it seem more than just a roleplaing "boast" about your character that really never actually seems to pan out in play.

 

[randomling]

That's how I feel about it - I like every one of my characters to shine in at least one area - to be "the best" at something - something that is character defining, to a certain degree. It just feeds back into the roleplaying of the character - the trait manifests itself in the mechanics of the rules when you max it out, making it seem more than just a roleplaing "boast" about your character that really never actually seems to pan out in play.

Exactly!

I have a high level rogue at the moment. She's a tough, self-reliant old ex-army scout and archer. That backstory wouldn't mean very much if she wasn't any good at scouting or archery. My DM was also nice to me - allowed me to ditch Sleight of Hand as a class skill for Survival, which again really works for my character concept. (How self-sufficient and self-reliant in the wild could she be without Survival?)

 

[DragonLancer]

Ok, so I get it - you really only are concerned about combat min/maxing, due to the difficulties you've had with the party being out of whack. Would it have been easier to take if the whole party min/maxed, so they were equally challenged?

Thats one way of doing it, but I wouldn't feel happy about DMing that and I know that four out of the five players I have wouldn't want to play in that style of game.

I think the best way to avoid worries about combat min/maxing, at least to a great degree, is using a point-buy system for stats. I had problems with my first 3E game due to using dice for stats, and ended up with a barb character who had the equivlant of a 49 point buy from rolls, and a cleric who had the equivlant of a 21 point buy. Needless to say, the barb was so far beyond all the others in combat that either it was too easy for the barb, who cleaned up, or it was too hard for everyone else. Later campaigns, I just did straight point buy and I never had that problem again.

I have tried point cost before and the players didn't like it. We gave it a shot for a good while so it wasn't just a "lets try it, no this sucks" type of try.
My players prefer everyone to be different in this regard and are happy rolling for it, as am I.

When a player min-max's and creates a skill based character thats great, because that helps the flow the game, but a combat based one that is min-maxed tends to be the disruptive one.

Still, everyone's games are different, as are the way we play them.

 

[Altalazar]

Thats one way of doing it, but I wouldn't feel happy about DMing that and I know that four out of the five players I have wouldn't want to play in that style of game.



I have tried point cost before and the players didn't like it. We gave it a shot for a good while so it wasn't just a "lets try it, no this sucks" type of try.
My players prefer everyone to be different in this regard and are happy rolling for it, as am I.

When a player min-max's and creates a skill based character thats great, because that helps the flow the game, but a combat based one that is min-maxed tends to be the disruptive one.

Still, everyone's games are different, as are the way we play them.

I find that rather interesting - because you can end up, even without any attempt at min/maxing, exactly the kind of combat imbalance you and your players complained about, entirely due to the dictates of the dice. So they find that ok if it happens by chance, but don't like it when someone does it deliberately? Or would it be equally repellent even from the dice, but they'll take their chances because they like the randomness of it?

 

[DragonLancer]

I find that rather interesting - because you can end up, even without any attempt at min/maxing, exactly the kind of combat imbalance you and your players complained about, entirely due to the dictates of the dice. So they find that ok if it happens by chance, but don't like it when someone does it deliberately? Or would it be equally repellent even from the dice, but they'll take their chances because they like the randomness of it?

Yes, you can, but I don't think it is as bad. Its when it comes to feats and magic items that you start getting into trouble. Feats are a great addition to the game, but once you start adding feats from other books (whether WotC or 3rd party) thats when it starts to break down because they don't always gel together and some really are unbalanced when combined. So its not just the dice rolling for stats.

 

[Altalazar]

Yes, you can, but I don't think it is as bad. Its when it comes to feats and magic items that you start getting into trouble. Feats are a great addition to the game, but once you start adding feats from other books (whether WotC or 3rd party) thats when it starts to break down because they don't always gel together and some really are unbalanced when combined. So its not just the dice rolling for stats.

I suppose most of the time, it probably isn't. In my case, when it happened, it actually was before even a single supplement was published, so it was all pure PHB 3.0E core rules - and it was really really bad.

I suppose now if I start up a new game, I'll have to look at all of those supplements, though i tend to try to stick to the Wizards material, stuff like the core books and book of warriors. 3rd party stuff can be rather far out of whack, I would imagine. But then I suppose I would see that more as a case of imbalanced feats rather than min/maxing.

 

[Tessarael]

I view min/maxing as essential for stressing the rules to find out broken combinations, bad options, and so forth.

The Endurance feat is an example of a bad option - it is seldom useful, and much weaker than say Weapon Focus.

An example of a "broken" example would be taking one or two levels in a front-loaded class.

It's important for game designers to know these limitations of the mechanics, so that they can fix them.

It's important for roleplayers and your DM to know the limitations of the mechanics. Wizard 10/Rogue 10 is a fairly weak build. Wizard 7/Rogue 3/Arcane Trickster 10 is a strong build. If a player takes a PC with a weak build, they can seriously limit how much that character can contribute during sessions, because the character is ineffective (e.g. mediocre skills and mediocre spellcasting for the Wizard/Rogue).

Out of game, I like to min/max. It's fun to play with the rules. In game, I will accept PC options that are not min/max. Still there are times when you really wonder if a choice you made limited your PC. e.g. I swapped 2d6 of Sneak Attack for Skill Master with a Spymaster character ... end result is the guy is good with certain skills, but worse in combat. Was it a good choice? Hard to say, even after staring at it long and hard.

It also depends how a DM crafts encounters. If encounters are hard, then min/maxing can become important for surival, and there are DMs who actively encourage that. If encounters are moderate, the DM can actively encourage builds that are more roleplaying oriented (which my DM does a good job of).

I tend to think that 3E is far more messy than previous versions for min/maxing. Templates, choose a class at each level, make your own magic item - lots of options for breaking the mechanics with combinations that playtesters hadn't though of (e.g. Hulking Hurler with high Strength builds). In that respect, it would probably be better if the system had fewer combat-oriented options: several set combat builds (Warrior, Thief, Spellcaster) and then only minor variants on that (combinations of those 3 progressions, and a limited set of combat feats); variants for skills and game world (e.g. member of an organization) are generally less prone to severe min/maxing, because people tend to min/max combat ability.

Just my thoughts ...

 

[DragonLancer]

But then I suppose I would see that more as a case of imbalanced feats rather than min/maxing.

Maybe, but I consider feats when thinking of min-maxing. They play a big role in 3rd & 3.5 and when combined can be just as power-played.

 

[Tessarael]

[..] you can end up with ... exactly the kind of combat imbalance you and your players complained about entirely due to the dictates of the dice.

Yes, this is often overlooked.

We did a rather interesting poll of characters in the high level campaign I'm in. Generation for abilities was roll 3d6 six times, and assign - if you didn't like the set of rolls, you can generate another set of stats twice, but couldn't go back to an earlier set of rolls. Then +1 to three stats, or +2 to one stat. The campaign started out at 1st level. It's now around 22nd level. Point build values of stats now ranges from about 32 to 45, which is inflated primarily due to deaths of characters with weak stats in my opinion. Now compare a 32 point build to a 45 point build: my Con 10 (12 - 2 racial mod) Elf, could easily buy Con 14 (16 - 2 racial mod), with points to spare ... that's another 40 HP at level 20, and +2 to Fortitude saves. That can have huge impact on survival and simple combat staying power.

For precisely that sort of reason, I'd strongly recommend that DMs use point build for stats rather than random stat generation. Either that or be very careful to use some method to balance stats (e.g. you could generate random stats with 3d6, calculate the point cost, and then do some sort of point build from there).

Just my thoughts ...

 

[Altalazar]

Yes, this is often overlooked.

We did a rather interesting poll of characters in the high level campaign I'm in. Generation for abilities was roll 3d6 six times, and assign - if you didn't like the set of rolls, you can generate another set of stats twice, but couldn't go back to an earlier set of rolls. Then +1 to three stats, or +2 to one stat. The campaign started out at 1st level. It's now around 22nd level. Point build values of stats now ranges from about 32 to 45, which is inflated primarily due to deaths of characters with weak stats in my opinion. Now compare a 32 point build to a 45 point build: my Con 10 (12 - 2 racial mod) Elf, could easily buy Con 14 (16 - 2 racial mod), with points to spare ... that's another 40 HP at level 20, and +2 to Fortitude saves. That can have huge impact on survival and simple combat staying power.

For precisely that sort of reason, I'd strongly recommend that DMs use point build for stats rather than random stat generation. Either that or be very careful to use some method to balance stats (e.g. you could generate random stats with 3d6, calculate the point cost, and then do some sort of point build from there).

Just my thoughts ...

Yes, I know exactly what you mean. There was a whole different thread about point buy versus rolling (hell, probably more than one) and I argued vehemently in favor of point buy for party balance purposes. But there is a strong camp out there in favor of the "random" stats. I do have a certain nostalgia for them from earlier editions - but in the end, having seen a whole campaign basically tarnished by it, I will never do it again.