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

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]

Your story about the arcane archer being outdone by the barbarian who isn't even trying tends to confirm my general doubts about PF as a system. (Can you even call it a "system" for character building at that point? I guess there's still a common process - choose a class at each level gained, choose feats from the list, etc - but the contents of those elements and their interrelationships seems almost arbitrary if it allows the sort of result that you describe.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

[MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]

Your story about the arcane archer being outdone by the barbarian who isn't even trying tends to confirm my general doubts about PF as a system. (Can you even call it a "system" for character building at that point? I guess there's still a common process - choose a class at each level gained, choose feats from the list, etc - but the contents of those elements and their interrelationships seems almost arbitrary if it allows the sort of result that you describe.)

The problem (in my opinion, of course...for others I expect it's a feature) is simply the amount of options that exist, spread across dozens of books. Each of the rulebooks they release has new classes or new subclasses, new feats, new spells, new options....there's just so much. And the core mechanics get more and more strained with each addition that is made.

They also have the annoying habit of putting a limitation on a class ability in some way...and then providing a feat that can be selected to remove the limit. So it's like the game breaks itself.

So some people may love having tons of options from which to choose to design their character...I can understand that. But it kind of becomes a question of what books one has access to...so now there's an imbalance of not all players are making characters using the same reaources. And it forces the DM to know much more, or at least be familiar with much more.

Just too much bloat and power creep for my taste. In the railroad thread we've been talking about rules mechanics that promote certain styles of play....I would say that the Pathfinder system actively promotes min/maxing. Again, for some that's likely what makes it fun, but for me as a DM, I found it exhausting after a while.

 

[Iain_Coleman]

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.

Absolutely. I play in a large, very mixed group, in which some players are skilled optimisers, some enjoy taking outlandish sub-optimal options for roleplaying purposes, and some just want to stick to a character class, roll dice and have fun. Everyone gets their turn in the spotlight, no one seems outclassed or unimportant. Yes, the character who is optimised to do some cool thing gets to do that cool thing from time to time, which is fun and satisfying for the player, but that never overshadows the other characters.

 

[Satyrn]

I largely agree with folks who are saying it isn't really an issue. I think most often, it really isn't...unless, as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] suggested, people make it an issue. I think the 5E mechanics make it far less of an issue than some prior editions.

I do have an example where this came up. This was during the time when my group had abandoned 4E and moved over to Pathfinder. This was the last time I DMed for a Pathfinder game.

I had a player who played every week. He built an Arcane Archer that he loved. The character had a good deal of versatility and utility, and was very effective with his bow in combat.

I had another player who played occasionally. Every time he played, it was with a new character. He had access to just about all the books, so the options available to him were plentiful. All of his characters were specialized in one way...he made a polearm fighter who focused on tripping his enemies, or a pure tank to have as high an AC as possible, and so on.

So the occasional player made a new character...a barbarian of some sort, and he could basically force enemies to attack him in melee through some BS feat. Character was min/maxed to the gills, multiclassed in some way that I can't recall, and was a beast in combat. A bit annoying, but we can deal.

The issue came up when, at a moment when the character was unable to rage, he found himself needing to draw his bow to try and reach his enemies.

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.

So now....what do you guys think? Should my regular player who uses the same character that he loves every session be outshines by the occasional player who just sits at home for hours and creates builds for different characters and then tries them once and discards them?

Well, the arcane archer's player is having his tun playing every week, and the other player is having his fun character building. So I see no problem there - if there was, I figure you'd have prevented the character builder from bringing in a new character every session he played, or dealt with that some way.

And since he's building new, optimized characters, he was bound to have some that are better than the arcane archer at what the archer does. That seems inevitable.

If I was the Archer's player, I'd not care, knowing that I'm getting my fun every week, and he's gonna be bringing in something new next time anyway so my archery schtick will be mine once more. So I'd be cool with it.

 

[76512390ag12]

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.

Numbers don't actually exist, you know that don't you?

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

 

[76512390ag12]

I think as a ref it's quite nice if ALL your players optimise, or none do. It's when you have a mix that it can be difficult to avoid TPK or failing to challenge them

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Numbers don't actually exist, you know that don't you?

Numbers exist in real life to exactly the same extent that they exist within the game world. The numbers in the game world are just smaller and easier to understand.

 

[pemerton]

since he's building new, optimized characters, he was bound to have some that are better than the arcane archer at what the archer does. That seems inevitable.

Well, I'm not sure why. Unless arcane archers are inherently unoptimised archers. Which in itself seems a design flaw.

Just too much bloat and power creep for my taste. In the railroad thread we've been talking about rules mechanics that promote certain styles of play....I would say that the Pathfinder system actively promotes min/maxing. Again, for some that's likely what makes it fun, but for me as a DM, I found it exhausting after a while.

I don't mind "min/max", in the sense of building PCs to be good at X, or Y, or . . .

But I'm not such a big fan of the power differentials described in this thread, which seem to be about not just lengthening the lists but (as you say) "power creep".

 

[Iain_Coleman]

Numbers don't actually exist, you know that don't you?

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

The philosophical debate over mathematical realism has been contended by the finest minds since the time of Plato. I never imagined that I would see it solved in my lifetime, let alone on an elf game message board. I am truly awestruck.

 

[hejtmane]

The philosophical debate over mathematical realism has been contended by the finest minds since the time of Plato. I never imagined that I would see it solved in my lifetime, let alone on an elf game message board. I am truly awestruck.

Kind of funny since math is the only true universal language