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

[dreaded_beast]

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. :\

That's why in my opinion, there is a balance. The fighter may be better in fighting, but pays for it in lower saves and skills. In my opinion, that is fine by me, because you are good in one thing and bad in another.

And my DM did say "By trying to have your highest stats in STR and CON you are just showing me that all you care about is combat." That may not be the exact quote, but he did say that he would "punish" players who arranged stats like that.

I'm not disagreeing that making such a build would be detrimental in some ways (and it should be in my opinion), I am just stating my opinion that players should not have to worry about where to put their stats for fear of min-maxing, at least in the games I would like to play.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.




QUOTE]

There is nothing wrong with making your character combat orientated and picking skills and feats that enhance this. That is not min/maxing at least not how I define it. A true min/maxer would have a combat monster that cannot do anything outside of combat and cannot be hit and cannot miss, and will disrupte the game with whines when he does get hit.

I really dislike the term I am seeing a lot lately sub-optimal it is used to describe any character that is not 100% min/maxed and it is often used against players who wants some flavor to their character. What you put some ranks into cooking!!! why? As I said in an another post I have gotten hassled from the min/maxer of my one group for not playing a wizard instead of a sorcerer because it made my character sub optimal.

I am tired of reading things like the whole partry does not need good charisma because you really don't need more than one face to the group. Not every decision needs to be based on how optimal the group is at all things.

I don't min/max but I do try and build a character that does what I want her to do and do try to make her as competent as possible but I am not going to take a feat or prestige class or skills that don't fit my concept just to wrest more power out of it.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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.

In this regard, you are right. I mean, does anyone ever wonder how all these predators in the Monster Manual find food without Ranks in Survival and the Track Feat? Aside from the few they gave Scent to...

At any rate, I must admit that, as the GM of such a group, it's not particularly easy, because most of the challenges provided (MM, DMG, and most 3rd Party products) assume some measure of min/max occuring (and to design a product without that assumption raises issues of the material being underpowered and broken). As such, I am either shifting CR on a party-by-party basis or redesigning creatures to be more fitting to their role within the setting.

By the same token, we do end up with characters that are a reflection of their history. For instance, one character was originally conceived as a straight Fighter. However, after an extensive jungle trek, the player determined that a level of Ranger was in order after it was done and everyone leveled (this being the first Athas Ranger, not the Core Ranger, with Favored Terrain: Jungle). Now they have been in an urban environment for some deal of time, and with all of the social interaction that has occured, he's seriously considering a level of either Rogue or Expert (similar to the UA version of expert... Or, that is to say, the UA Expert is suspiciously similar to the version of Expert I've been using for nearly two years now...). He's leaning towards Expert, since some of the Rogue's features (Sneak Attack, Traps) don't quite fit what the PC has been dealing with during this time, while the extra Skill Points from Expert, Skill Focus (which my Experts get at 1st Level), and the ability to choose the Skills he wants, greater assists him in reflecting both the social skills that he's been developing in-game as well as permit his character to gain a few Skills associated to his role within the party (military based, recently promoted from Squad Sergeant over four soldiers to Lance Sergeant over 15, and thus Skills like Knowledge: Military, Profession: Soldier, and Craft: Siege Engine are becoming relevant in-game).

Is this character going to be uber-efficient in the min/max sense? No. But he is very effective within the gaming environment in which he is being played, being both a competant combatant (+4 BAB from Fighter, +3 BAB from Racial Hit Dice, +1 BAB from Ranger, +4 Attack from Strength, -1 Attack from Size), suitable survivalist (Favored Terrain and Skills from Ranger), and (with the next level up) will be a fully trained professional soldier with some competance relating to social interaction.

This, then, would be an example of "Practical Min/Maxing" as defined earlier; The character's competance cannot be measured by the numbers alone, but rather by applying those numbers to the game environment in which the character is a part of. The more inclusive that environment is, the less optimal "highest numbers" become because the impact on other facets of the character (i.e., the options declined by the player to obtain the highest numbers in the specialized features) become more relevant in game play.

 

[ph0rk]

A true min/maxer would have a combat monster that cannot do anything outside of combat and cannot be hit and cannot miss, and will disrupte the game with whines when he does get hit.

What exactly can a dwarf fighter with an 8 int do outside combat? That single skill point per round does -not- go far, and it is almost silly to suggest that this particular character be competent outside combat.

That isn't to say the player has an excuse not to participate outside combat, and it also isn't an excuse to whine when he misses; these are traits of a jerk, not an optimizer.


I think the argument "making a character that is good in combat and little else" as a negative of min-maxing is a fallacy: picking a plain fighter and sticking with the class does not sound at all like min-maxing to me, but you end up with what you just described, a combat oriented character (a fighter-type paragon? ) that can't sneak, pick locks, tumble, or hob-nob with royalty.

A plain barbarian ends up much the same way really, though they may end up with some wilderness skill and intimidate.


At what point does the min-maxed character become 'well rounded'? 2 skills at max rank? 3? If this sounds pedantic, it is to a certain degree, but it is the wishy-washy nature of definition I'm trying to point out.


about uber feat-stackage:
in most cases using core material, the uber stackage isn't that uber. If a DM allows builder books and the like, that is their perogative, and IMHO they shouldn't complain about the use of those feats they allowed.

sticking strictly core, or core+psi (another grumble for another time) even the uberest of uber feat chains pay a heavy price, and really aren't all that uber.

If you do not agree, please post the combos that have been game-breaking for you (core combos, no builder books) in this or another thread -- because I don't think it is possible to tweak a character using core rules to the point they outshine others in every instance.

If players are not using core rules, or the players are ignoring their stats, or cheating, ultimately the onus of responsibility in these cases lies with the DM.

I really dislike the term I am seeing a lot lately sub-optimal it is used to describe any character that is not 100% min/maxed and it is often used against players who wants some flavor to their character.

There is flavor, and then there is fluff. Players seem to forget it is a team excercise, and focusing overmuch on non-teamplay elements is a detraction from the enjoyment of others. An occasional phobia is one thing, a complete lack of combat abilities, arcane or mundane, is another.

If you aren't thinking about your role in the party, then you are probably thinking about me more than we.

 

[ph0rk]

The more inclusive that environment is, the less optimal "highest numbers" become because the impact on other facets of the character (i.e., the options declined by the player to obtain the highest numbers in the specialized features) become more relevant in game play.

That is an important point, IMHO: min/maxers are only as min or as max as the DM allows. This is not to say that they must cleverly construct each and every combat to make use of a pc's flaws; but if a pc looks like he was beaten by a red hot poker on more than one occasion as a child, make the NPC's react accordingly!

Prevent the pc entry to social clubs, have the guards randomly stop them for searches, etc, and of course I think the money thing is a good idea (+10% per -1 cha modifier - ouch!)

 

[Saeviomagy]

And my DM did say "By trying to have your highest stats in STR and CON you are just showing me that all you care about is combat." That may not be the exact quote, but he did say that he would "punish" players who arranged stats like that.

The problem is that even if you arrange your stats differently, if you continue to level up as a fighter, you'll never ever be any good at anything other than combat.

 

[dreaded_beast]

The problem is that even if you arrange your stats differently, if you continue to level up as a fighter, you'll never ever be any good at anything other than combat.

And what's wrong with that? You are a fighter after all

I don't think there is a "wrong" or "right" way to build a fighter or character in general. I just didn't approve of the DM hinting that the way the newbie player arranged his stats was "wrong".

That is a conscious choice on the player's part. The player should accept the pros and cons of building a character in such a way.

Like I said before, some groups like to play in such a way, others don't. It's all a matter of play style. There is no "wrong" or "right" way.

 

[ph0rk]

And what's wrong with that? You are a fighter after all

I think Saeviomagy was hinting that just a plain old fighter meets the "designed for combat and little else" criteria, whatever their ability points look like.

 

[Elf Witch]

What exactly can a dwarf fighter with an 8 int do outside combat? That single skill point per round does -not- go far, and it is almost silly to suggest that this particular character be competent outside combat.

That isn't to say the player has an excuse not to participate outside combat, and it also isn't an excuse to whine when he misses; these are traits of a jerk, not an optimizer.


I think the argument "making a character that is good in combat and little else" as a negative of min-maxing is a fallacy: picking a plain fighter and sticking with the class does not sound at all like min-maxing to me, but you end up with what you just described, a combat oriented character (a fighter-type paragon? ) that can't sneak, pick locks, tumble, or hob-nob with royalty.

A plain barbarian ends up much the same way really, though they may end up with some wilderness skill and intimidate.


At what point does the min-maxed character become 'well rounded'? 2 skills at max rank? 3? If this sounds pedantic, it is to a certain degree, but it is the wishy-washy nature of definition I'm trying to point out.


about uber feat-stackage:
in most cases using core material, the uber stackage isn't that uber. If a DM allows builder books and the like, that is their perogative, and IMHO they shouldn't complain about the use of those feats they allowed.

sticking strictly core, or core+psi (another grumble for another time) even the uberest of uber feat chains pay a heavy price, and really aren't all that uber.

If you do not agree, please post the combos that have been game-breaking for you (core combos, no builder books) in this or another thread -- because I don't think it is possible to tweak a character using core rules to the point they outshine others in every instance.

If players are not using core rules, or the players are ignoring their stats, or cheating, ultimately the onus of responsibility in these cases lies with the DM.




There is flavor, and then there is fluff. Players seem to forget it is a team excercise, and focusing overmuch on non-teamplay elements is a detraction from the enjoyment of others. An occasional phobia is one thing, a complete lack of combat abilities, arcane or mundane, is another.

If you aren't thinking about your role in the party, then you are probably thinking about me more than we.

First of all maybe we don't share the same defination of min/maxing to me a min/maxer only picks feats and skills and classes for how powerful it will make him the concept is how powerful the character can be so he in 3E took a level of ranger and a level of barbarian to get the benefits of thoses classes and if he took a prestige class it did not have anything to do with the game world or his character other than how powerful he would be. An example I saw of this was in one game where the person using a combo of classes and pRCs and I think a few magic items in a Forgotten Realm game had a will save at seventh level of +26 I don't remember exactly how he did it but I remember that my straight cleric wanted to cast a spell on him to stop him from killing an innnocent and I could not do it he had no trouble making the will save because he could not fail it. Everyone in that game built characters like that noone but me played a straight class and the word superfluous is the best word to describe any character I played. To challenge the party the game was lethal this seventh level party could handle CR threats that would challenge a 15 level party. These guys knew how to build a character that was nigh unstopable. I finally gave in and they built me a monk/assassin that was min/maxed with all the right feats and skills and the stats put in all the right places and I became this death dealing machine. I lost intrest in the game and not because there was no role playing but because there was no challenge in it for me things became to easy.

I have played a fighter who had a high int and I took a lot of cross class skills she did more than fight which she was also good at. I gave her a lot of knowledge skills in planes and religion and arcana the party did not have a wizard or a cleric and she provided quite well any thing we needed to know about these things. So a fighter does not have to be a one trick pony. And yes I put my highest stat an 18 in INT and my next which was a 14 in STR. Which to the min/maxers I know made no sense but the character rocked she was fun to play and she held her own in battle.

As for your last comment about fluff and team work and so on. Of course it is rather lame to make a character that does not contribute at all what I call a lame duck. To make a character that cannot add anything to the group is silly what is the point. But there is often disagreements on what is considered a lame duck. For example I played a sorcerer built on a 29 point buy for three years my son and his friends who are huge powergamers could never understand why she was fun for me to play and why my main group liked the character so much because she had only one real offensive spell and that was magic missle she was designed not as a combat mage but as arcane spy/ party support. Tp the powergamers she was a lame duck. But she did so much the party rogue needed to scout something no problem invisability. We needed to see what was over that ridge clairvoyance. All the fighters were taking captive and we lost our things no armor oh how about mage armor. I can't tell you how uesful she was even though she was not raining fireballs down on the enemy.

 

[DragonLancer]

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

Its because they have read the rules that they are min-maxer's.