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

[ph0rk]

So if you want players to be able to use those scores, why not just call the game 49 point buy, and avoid the problem of having the Arcane Trickster with the equivalent of a +2 LA Race (unbalanced ability modifiers) compared to everyone else?

-Hyp.

The only issues are one: all cr calculations from the monster manual go out the door (probably not an issue for DMs on their toes), and two: too many ability points make more and more multiclass combos and prestige classes available without much penalty.

What do I mean by penalty? Look at what is required, under 32 point buy, to take the weapon master prestige class.

Ideally, that character (the weapon master to be) shouldn't be able to have the same strength score (for example) as say a barbarian or straight fighter type who isn't planning on going the PrC route. In other words, at an early stage in that character's training, he or she had to devote time to footwork and tumbling (dex) and reasoning and spatial skills (int), and spent less time bodybuilding. We're looking at something along the lines of str 16, dex 13 con 16, int 13, wis 10, cha 8.


With too many points, you could end up with the weapon master having the same strength score (18 easily with a point buy of 49) as the barbarian and ranger next door. (mind, the ranger can afford an 18 str, 18 dex, 14 con, 12 int, 14 wis, and 9 cha with 49 point buy. If those were average scores it would be an ECL +2 race!)

I don't want to debate the finer points of this ability selection method or that; I was just trying to point out that more ability points makes putting together wacky multiclasses easier - without penalty - something I think many people overlook in the min-max debate.

 

[Elf Witch]

All dese people complainin' about min-maxin' just be playa' haters!

Seriously, I don't see much of a problem. Min-maxing is just a derogatory term used to refer to a certain style of character creation. I prefer powerful characters because it allows the game to be more epic and more legendary. There are times when players take advantage in rule loopholes to create overpowering characters, but it has been my experience that this is usually the fault of the DM having a poor grasp on the rules allowing players to get away with too much, or having too many untested house rules, or just giving in to player demands!

My problem with some min/maxers is not that they want their character be powerful and be epic its that they want their character to always be able to hit while they never get hit unless an insane number is rolled. They also do everything better than everyone else and they are the ones most likely to slow the game down with the rules argument about why they should not have been hit.

My roommate likes to tweak her character and make her as effective as possiable. She picks the best feats and puts her stats where they are the most effective for her concept. She is a power gamer min/maxer but she never makes other feel that they can't keep up or that she is there to do it all.

I think the issue comes down to how they behave at the table.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The only issues are one: all cr calculations from the monster manual go out the door (probably not an issue for DMs on their toes), and two: too many ability points make more and more multiclass combos and prestige classes available without much penalty.

Yeah - I think I misunderstood your original point.

I thought you were suggesting "Point buy is bad because it means you have to sacrifice something to make your Arcane Trickster work".

Now I get the impression you're suggesting that, in a way, this is a point of balance for classes with high entry requirements, and that being too free with the available ability scores throws that balance off.

But I could still be misreading you

-Hyp.

 

[Elf Witch]

Well, if you use random ability generation, and someone rolls a 44 point character to someone else's 29 point character, that's not min/maxing. That's an inherent possibility of the random system. If you're concerned about imbalances in the party not due to skill/feat/class selection, but due to stat imbalance, then the dice are to blame, not the players.

As far as the high-Int wizard beating the skilled cleric, remember that Knowledge skills are trained only; with no ranks, you can only know very general information (DC10), no matter what your Int modifier.

If the wizard actually puts ranks into Knowledge: Religion, then he's entitled to know stuff. The difference between him and the cleric is not the magnitude of the knowledge - the cleric studies harder (more ranks), but the wizard is a natural academic (higher Int modifier), and learns more with less effort. The difference is in the presentation. As you described the two characters, the wizard knows the information on an intellectual level; the cleric believes and lives the information. This makes no mechanical difference, but it can be brought out in the way the characters reveal the information the knowledge checks grant them.

-Hyp.

It was not just the fact that he rolled so much better its the player when we did point buy he made a fighter and and had 8s in CHR and INT so that he could have a high strength and DEX and CON. Of course he never role played the low INT or CHR. He is always going to have the best character and the character is always going to try and be the main focus of any situation.

He actually would tell the player playing the cleric don't bother rolling I have a better chance. I watched the player playing the cleric get to the point that most game nights he would just sit there and doodle he hated playing the cleric but didn't want to leave the party without healing.

What I think it comes down to for me is that when you have a min/maxer who just takes away others chance to shine and is just a rude so and so you really start to dislike the person's playing style and it makes you start to dislike all min/maxers.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It was not just the fact that he rolled so much better its the player when we did point buy he made a fighter and and had 8s in CHR and INT so that he could have a high strength and DEX and CON. Of course he never role played the low INT or CHR.

Well, sure. That's like the wizard putting all his points in Int, leaving his Str at 8, and then carrying around 400 pounds of gear while conveniently forgetting that he can't lift it.

There's a difference between min/maxing, and --/maxing. You can attempt to minimise your disadvantages, but if you instead simply ignore your disadvantages, you are cheating.

What I think it comes down to for me is that when you have a min/maxer who just takes away others chance to shine and is just a rude so and so you really start to dislike the person's playing style and it makes you start to dislike all min/maxers.

But the guy you're describing wasn't a jerk because he was a mix/maxer. He was a jerk who happened to also be a min/maxer.

If you once met an obnoxious creep who wore a purple neckscarf, it doesn't automatically follow that everyone you meet in a purple neckscarf will be an obnoxious creep. There may actually be a statistical correlation - I don't know if anyone's ever done a study - but it's not a one-to-one correspondence.

As you noted, your roommate is a min/maxer who isn't a jerk. So it's not guaranteed that everyone who min/maxes is going to destroy a game. Your player above did that through his ignoring what was written on his sheet in the case of his fighter, and through being obnoxious in the case of his wizard. He didn't deliberately set out to create a character with a better Know:Rel modifier than the cleric, so it wasn't a min/maxing problem. It was how he behaved once he realised that caused the trouble.

-Hyp.

 

[ph0rk]

Now I get the impression you're suggesting that, in a way, this is a point of balance for classes with high entry requirements, and that being too free with the available ability scores throws that balance off.

But I could still be misreading you

-Hyp.

No no, stop right there, thats it exactly!

It was not just the fact that he rolled so much better its the player when we did point buy he made a fighter and and had 8s in CHR and INT so that he could have a high strength and DEX and CON. Of course he never role played the low INT or CHR. He is always going to have the best character and the character is always going to try and be the main focus of any situation.

An 8 pretty close to average, how exactly do you roleplay the subtle difference between an 8, a 9, and a 10?

It isn't as if selecting an 8 for intelligence comes without penalty, expecially for a fighter (who are pretty skill-point challenged as it is).

Unless you have wads of points for point-buy, tossing an 8 in a stat you don't plan on focusing on is practically a given.

He actually would tell the player playing the cleric don't bother rolling I have a better chance.

Not to bother rolling for what exactly? I'm having trouble seeing what he could have bested the cleric at, besides hitting things.

Stats aside, the player just sounds like an ass. He needed to be dealt with by the DM - it has nothing to do with pointbuy or minmaxing. He could have acted like a jerk with a 12 in every stat, too.

What I think it comes down to for me is that when you have a min/maxer who just takes away others chance to shine and is just a rude so and so you really start to dislike the person's playing style and it makes you start to dislike all min/maxers.

If point buy is done correctly (i.e. as explained in the DMG) it just isn't possible to have the best character for every situation, its even difficult to have a mediocre character for every situation. This player was either cheating, or didn't understand the rules, or some combination - it has nothing to do with the numbers on his character sheet, nor does it indicate that others with similar numbers will behave the same way.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

But the guy you're describing wasn't a jerk because he was a mix/maxer. He was a jerk who happened to also be a min/maxer.

Boy, this comment seems to resonate another ongoing thread about how some gamers view other gamers, don't it?

No, I'm not trying to derail the topic. I'm just pointing out that, no matter what your style, tastes, or methods, someone with similar views that also happens to be a "jerk" will have ensured that someone out there isn't going to like you for it.

Funny how life is like that, ain't it?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not to bother rolling for what exactly? I'm having trouble seeing what he could have bested the cleric at, besides hitting things.

You missed the fact that she's describing two different characters played by the same player.

One was a point buy fighter who didn't portray his low Int and Cha.

The other was a rolled wizard, whose stats were the equivalent of about a 44 point buy, or something. The cleric rolled poorly, getting the equivalent of point buy in the low 20s.

Even though the cleric maxed out Knowledge: Religion skill ranks, and was played as a religious scholar, the wizard surpassed the cleric in this area with a rank or two and a big Int bonus.

And the player was a jerk about it.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Boy, this comment seems to resonate another ongoing thread about how some gamers view other gamers, don't it?

Uh, you'd have to remind me - I'm not sure which thread you mean...

-Hyp.

 

[dreaded_beast]

I'm just pointing out that, no matter what your style, tastes, or methods, someone with similar views that also happens to be a "jerk" will have ensured that someone out there isn't going to like you for it.

In my opinion, based on what I have read here and elsewhere, this may be another big reason, if not the main reason, for the dislike of min-maxing.

Plus, I think it can almost apply to many of the dislikes gamers have regarding gaming styles, gaming systems, etc.

I like this quote so much, I'm gonna have it in my sig for awhile.