D&D 5E Where does optimizing end and min-maxing begin? And is min-maxing a bad thing?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[nswanson27]

Sure. And another way to look at it is that -1 is the most amount you could have in the negative!

Look, this is a question of playstyles and preferences, and you're not going to win this by trying to frame the debate or logically reasoning toward your desired conclusion.

For example, there are tables that just don't care if you optimize, or if you roleplay your abilities. In which case, who cares?

On the other hand, there are tables that do care, in which case, if you are the person doing the arguing, you are already the reason that the table doesn't like that type of playstyle.

Different strokes, different folks, etc.

Well, there are those who underpin there playstyle preferences based on the "realism/RP" aspect. My point is that min-maxing and this aren't mutually exclusive.
But yeah, if everyone's mind is already made up. It's all "Well, that's just like your opinion, man...". But not a whole lot to talk about then either.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[JonnyP71]

I know it goes against the grain, but in my experience, the players who place more focus on optimising tend to care little about roleplaying - it's a different mindset.

Of course people can do both well, it's just that the optimisers I've gamed with don't particularly want to. Our most recent 'mechanical' optimiser got bored and disruptive when the rest of us tried to roleplay our characters. He just wanted to roll dice and kill things. We tried 2 versions of D&D - he moaned incessantly about his stats even though they were way above the party average! Ours was not the game for him.

The rest of the players in my groups have a decent grasp of game mechanics, and yes, there is a little optimisation going on - though it leans more heavily to towards picking the feats/backgrounds/arranging stats to suit a story and a concept, rather than do most damage. We had a fighter who would wear no armour, a barbarian who used a family heirloom axe in preference to magical alternatives, and my wizard who focused on necromancy and manipulation, ignoring destructive (typically fire based spells).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't know why anyone would view this thread as camp-based. Everyone seems pretty open minded here and "play it how you like" has been oft repeated.

As far as I can tell, people have only ventured "this is how I do it" to say... how they do it.

The OP even came back with a character that was less min-maxed (ability-wise) that could *still* be completely optimized, but that probably relaxed the DM. It looks in line with the other players.

Everything is fine here. We can still talk about the overall merits and flaws of min-maxing and optimization if we like. Maybe someone will learn something.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[CTurbo]

If I was playing at a table where a DM made that comment, @CTurbo , I'd ask him what the table is like. You note that this is a new table- if you are a new player at this table, or haven't played with the DM before, take a few minutes to learn what the general table expectations are like. A few minutes of conversation can save you weeks of unhappy gaming.

The DM and I had that talk and he is ok with either character as is. He did not mean anything by calling me a min-maxer because it is simply not a derogatory term to him. It *IS* a negative term to me, and while I wasn't exactly offended by him saying it, I was just surprised because that was the first time in years of D&D that I had been called that. I understand exactly where he was coming from when he saw the 16, 16, 16, 8, 8, 8 scores though. Our definitions just differ. I wanted to build a GOOD Cleric, and I wanted him to be the toughest damn Cleric there ever was lol. That's how the 16, 16, 16 came about.

 

[epithet]

I've noticed a couple of real limiting factors of min-maxing and over-optimization in actual play. First, you have people who are designing characters who are super prepared for one specific fight. It might be that the player had a problem with a fight like that on a previous character, or that the player imagines that fight scenario will be inevitable, but for whatever reason they are totally focussed on one thing and one thing only. If that scenario doesn't come up, they're now playing a gimped character. A second limiting factor is that when a player focusses that intently on the rules, they sometimes lose sight of the fantasy world their character inhabits. They start to view each encounter as a set of numbers, getting caught up initiative order, hit probabilities, status effects, their character's "rotation" of abilities, etc. Meanwhile, it is often the player with the un-optimised character, who hasn't obsessed about feat synergies etc., that comes up with the hilarious and/or brilliant strategy or tactic that resolves the encounter in a memorable way.

Building a character by thinking about who he is, how he got there, and where he wants to go usually, in my experience, leads to a more useful party member than thinking about how, by the time you're level X, you will pretty much always hit anyone without an armor class of Y or higher.

 

[Azurewraith]

As a filthy filthy powergaming minmax munchkin I shall throw in my copper.

Min maxing is where I get my fun, I love to piss of my Dm with rules loopholes(only if I know the guy I'm not an ass) there is nothing wrong with it as long as everyone is doing it. I mean your Dm will hate you having to custom make every monster but hey ho.

Powergaming becomes an issue your the only one at the table doing it, I have been there I had to neuter my character after 2sessions as the other players couldn't keep up. The trick to doing it is knowing where to stop or pick a dud concept to begin with and optimize that.

 

[Belltent]

I think you buried the lede a little bit here:

He asked you to play a specific class? Why?

 

[Tony Vargas]

That said, I don't disagree that mimmaxing and roleplaying are mutually exclusive. But it's a question of focus- some people put the game mechanics first, some people don't.* There is no wrong decision here, just a question of preference.


*And this isn't a binary or a .... *shudder* false dichotomy. The most hardcore "realism/RP" players are aware of the mechanics, and the most hard core optimizers are completely capable of roleplaying.

Far from being mutually exclusive or necessarily having to prefer one over the other, RP and OP can build upon eachother. That's what a build-to-concept is, you have an RP idea, you optimize /to model that idea/, you get both whatever enjoyment you derive from the optimization exercise away from the table, and the enjoyment of RPing the closest possible realization of the concept you had, at the table.

The implied antagonism between the two aspects of RPGs is false - that is, both the RP and the G are legitimate, and even necessary, parts of the experience.

And, seriously, purveyors of that false dichotomy have been snapping back and forth at eachother since the Role vs Roll debate on UseNet.