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

[hawkeyefan]

I think you missed the part where most people are saying it isn't a problem "As long as all the players do it". They are all specifically saying that a single player outshining others is a bad thing, but that min/maxing itself is not the bad thing.

No, I didn't miss that. I said in the beginning that I largely agree. I figured I would just give an example for the sake of discussion.

With Pathfinder, I think there is a bit of a disparity in saying "as long as all the players do it" because of the amount of material there is. The Arcane Archer player was certainly no slouch when it came to making effective characters. But he worked with the Core Rulebook only. The Barbarian Player had just about every splatbook at his disposal through a HeroLab account. And Pathfinder has something like 847 splatbooks.

I don't see this as an issue because it sounds like it's essentially a corner case - the barbarian was unable to rage, so he went with ranged attacks. I take that to mean in most situations, he'd prefer to rage and get into melee.

Also, it would seem based on your post (I don't play PF) that the arcane archer is better at utility than the barbarian. Based on this information, I'd call this a wash.

Yeah, it was a corner case....but it definitely caused an issue.

And I don't know if I'd call it a wash, necessarily. I get your point....but I do find it annoying when there is one character who is the best at everything, even if he doesn't have to often use all the resources at his disposal.

But again, I mostly agree with the general sentiment....I don't really have a problem with min/maxing and I think it's especially less significant in 5E. But hey 15 pages in, I figured nothing wrong with providing an example to discuss.

 

[hejtmane]

I think that 5th edition is a bit more accommodating of groups with mixed expectations and play styles than some of the previous editions. Due to the flatter math and less decision points in character progression, there is a smaller gap between a min/maxed character and character that just takes the standard array and quick build options. Because of this mix/maxing is less disruptive to group dynamics and in general making it less of a problem. I have seen some talk about how taking certain feats or multiclassing can result in hyper damage, but it seems that those characters specialize in one thing and still need the rest of the group to get by.

Feats more so than multi classing there are a few cases where Multiclassing can boost damage but two feats are the biggest issue for most people, then when they are combined with the other two feats that are strong it makes them really big offenders

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think that 5th edition is a bit more accommodating of groups with mixed expectations and play styles than some of the previous editions.

And varying degrees of system mastery, yes. 3.5 over-rewarded system mastery to a huge degree, for instance, and the classic game before that, until you modded it will-nilly, was pretty narrow in the styles of play it encouraged.

Due to the flatter math and less decision points in character progression, there is a smaller gap between a min/maxed character and character that just takes the standard array and quick build options.

Relative to 3.5/PF (were there 'quick build options' in 3.5?), sure.

Because of this mix/maxing is less disruptive to group dynamics and in general making it less of a problem.

Another factor is the system-mastery required to even play a Tier 1 class effectively in 3.5, system mastery & optimization were heavily about build, but it was also required to optimize daily spell choice for those top-tier prepped casters. In 5e, it's less a factor, because they all cast spontaneously, and have at-will cantrips to fall back on.

I have seen some talk about how taking certain feats or multiclassing can result in hyper damage, but it seems that those characters specialize in one thing and still need the rest of the group to get by.

Nod. Optimizing DPR, obvious though it may be, is not really that disruptive - 5e combats are already tuned to go pretty fast, going a little faster is not a huge deal, maybe ending in the party's favor a little more consistently isn't at all bad, either.

 

[jrowland]

Didn't read full thread, but I felt I could chime in my 2cp without it.

Min/Max is reducing the game to numbers and pushing them to extremes. The OPs stat choice is min/maxing.
Optimization is playing with what you have to its highest potential. A deep roleplayer with a str 8, dex 10, cha 16 fighter might find ways to avoid direct combat, relying on skills like intimidate, flasks of oil, environment (pushing into fire, off cliff, total defense action in choke points etc).

Optimizing is a methodology of playing the game. Both Min/Maxers and "Roleplayers" can optimize.

Powergaming is both optimizing and min/max mashed together, sometimes in exploitive ways, and usually with a weak-to-no narrative justification (what do you mean my Death Cleric 4/Rogue-Assassin 4/Paladin of Devotion 4 doesn't make much sense?)

I often play the anti-min/max characters (weak Str/dex fighters for example) but then try to optimize the hell out of it...to me its a fun challenge to make a "numbers" weal character effective (my Int 14 11th level divination halfling wizard with luck feat is an example: Halfling luck, luck feat, and portent dice often do the heavy lifting my 'low' int can't do)

All that said, there is no negative connotation for any of these in any absolute sense. Its intent and usage is what matters and brings scorn. WWhich, of course, is subjective to the whims of the table.

YMMV

 

[Saeviomagy]

And that's when I found out that this barbarian had a better ranges to hit than the arcane archer. And that just annoyed me. This is like the thing that he's third best at...and he's better than the arcane archer. Bonkers.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here: 'better ranges to hit'? Do you mean he could shoot further? Or that his attack bonus was higher?

And if so, so what? Unless the arcane archer was so inaccurate that he misses every other shot, he still had a ton of advantages over the barbarian: elemental arrows, the ability to shoot and cast an aoe spell at the same time, the ability to shoot through walls, the ability to shoot 10 foes with a single shot and the ability to cause instant death with an arrow, plus his spellcasting. If you just want high attack bonus, play a straight fighter or add arcane archer to a ranger. Neither will have the flexibility of a wizard-based arcane archer.

It kind of seems like you focussed on one number and judged two entire characters based on just that, which is an attitude lots of DMs and players take which, more than anything else, sucks the fun out of the game. Players looking to be upset at someone they consider an optimizer can look at any isolated ability that a character has, and claim that the existence of a particular number makes the game 'unfun'. The reality is that focusing on the numbers without consideration of the path to them is what destroys fun. So what if the party barbarian does twice the damage of anyone else: you're all here to kill monsters. Why does it matter what specific proportion of that comes from whom?

It's slightly different for DMs in that a wide disparity in numbers makes their job harder... in so far as they need to actually understand the numbers that are in the party and take account for them. But I think it's far from an insurmountable task. It's just that most RPGs try to pretend that all characters are somewhat balanced, and therefore don't spend pagecount on addressing how to handle things when they are not, leaving some DMs raving that optimizers wreck their game, while others have hit upon solutions that work and don't know what the fuss is about.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not quite sure what you mean here: 'better ranges to hit'? Do you mean he could shoot further? Or that his attack bonus was higher?

And if so, so what? Unless the arcane archer was so inaccurate that he misses every other shot, he still had a ton of advantages over the barbarian: elemental arrows, the ability to shoot and cast an aoe spell at the same time, the ability to shoot through walls, the ability to shoot 10 foes with a single shot and the ability to cause instant death with an arrow, plus his spellcasting. If you just want high attack bonus, play a straight fighter or add arcane archer to a ranger. Neither will have the flexibility of a wizard-based arcane archer.

It kind of seems like you focussed on one number and judged two entire characters based on just that, which is an attitude lots of DMs and players take which, more than anything else, sucks the fun out of the game. Players looking to be upset at someone they consider an optimizer can look at any isolated ability that a character has, and claim that the existence of a particular number makes the game 'unfun'. The reality is that focusing on the numbers without consideration of the path to them is what destroys fun. So what if the party barbarian does twice the damage of anyone else: you're all here to kill monsters. Why does it matter what specific proportion of that comes from whom?

It's slightly different for DMs in that a wide disparity in numbers makes their job harder... in so far as they need to actually understand the numbers that are in the party and take account for them. But I think it's far from an insurmountable task. It's just that most RPGs try to pretend that all characters are somewhat balanced, and therefore don't spend pagecount on addressing how to handle things when they are not, leaving some DMs raving that optimizers wreck their game, while others have hit upon solutions that work and don't know what the fuss is about.

It was a typo. It should have read "better ranged to hit" meaning a better ranged to hit bonus. Sorry that was unclear.

As for judging the two characters on one number, I don't think that's what I did. I provided several other factors beyond their ranged to hit bonus that played a part in things.

Nor was I looking to get upset....far from it. We play D&D every other Friday, and I look forward to it a great deal. Although at the time, I will admit that Pathfinder's rampant bloat was starting to irk me. So that was certainly a factor...but not so much so that I was looking to get upset.

Nor was I raving about optimizers in my post. Go back and re-read it if you need to. I think that even if you disagree with the things I am saying, you'll notice on a re-read that it is far from raving.

As I said a few times already, I don't really mind min-maxing....I expect it to some extent. However, saying that it can never ever ever contribute to a problem at he table would be a silly statement. So for the sake of discussion, I offered what I think is a reasonable example of a time where min-maxing negatively impacted play. It was not the sole factor, for sure, but it was a big part of it.

 

[Olospreckler]

Min-maxing just makes DnD into a numbers game; you might as well just play skyrim.

 

[Caliban]

Min-maxing just makes DnD into a numbers game; you might as well just play skyrim.

D&D is a numbers game. All sorts of numbers - attack bonus, AC, hit points, spell slots, spell levels. It's also a game about doing cool stuff and cooperative storytelling. Some people focus on one aspect more than another, but it's all still there.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Min-maxing just makes DnD into a numbers game; you might as well just play skyrim.

Real life is a numbers game. Every conceivable reality is a numbers game.

It's just a question of what you want to do with those numbers.

 

[Flamestrike]

Optimizing is just a euphemism treadmill for minmaxing. Which, in turn, is derived from being power gaming and/ or munchkin.

Not a fan of optimizing. It's detrimental to the table. It's setting out to "win" D&D through the mechanics.

Everyone optimizes to some extent. When creating a fighter you max Strength (or Dex) and take feats and abilities to be better at fighting. That's optimizing.

The real question is how much optimization is appropriate at your table (on a scale from 'some' to 'pun-pun'). The real problems occur when you have Characters optimized to a lower level at the same table as those optimized to much higher level. The weaker PCs feel overshadowed by the stronger ones, and the stronger ones feel like the weaker ones are not contributing.

I set my games at a level of 3-4 (out of 5) for optimization. No Pun Puns or Omnificers at the table, but the general expectation is players will know the rules, and create effective characters that all contribute to the session on a mechanical as well as roleplaying level.