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

[Caliban]

I think for me it's just not a big deal and requires no special effort on the part of the DM to correct for it because the flatter math means dumping Int isn't all that big a gain elsewhere. So, fine, leave the Int to the wizards and, to some extent, rogues. Also, every campaign gets an intellect devourer encounter going forward. Case closed.

In my games, Intelligence will tend to come up in social interaction challenges quite a bit and failing the check generally carries a disadvantage going forward. For recalling lore outside of social interaction challenge, such as in a combat with a weird monster, a successful check will result in getting the info you want and a failed check will result in getting some kind of relevant info, just not what you wanted. Plus Intelligence (Investigation) is useful for secret doors and traps of which I tend to have quite a few. I do none of this to "correct" for Intelligence being a pretty obvious dump stat in D&D 5e, but because it seems like this is where Intelligence checks live in this game.

I also don't make a special effort to make Int more important. I generally use Knowledge and Investigate rolls as an opportunity to give the players more lore about the world or the plot they are involved in, rather than making them a requirement to proceed with the adventure.

I was just saying that you could try making more Int skill checks a requirement to continue as an incentive to get more players to put their extra points into Int. I didn't say it necessarily a good idea to do it.

 

[smbakeresq]

What argument have you posted? About rampant cheating using die rolls for ability scores? I have never seen any proof of that or even heard that it exists.

 

[Caliban]

What argument have you posted? About rampant cheating using die rolls for ability scores? I have never seen any proof of that or even heard that it exists.

Oh, you lovable, semi-literate curmudgeon. Perhaps if you read my original post a little more closely, you'd realize I didn't actually present that as an argument.

 

[iserith]

I also don't make a special effort to make Int more important. I generally use Knowledge and Investigate rolls as an opportunity to give the players more lore about the world or the plot they are involved in, rather than making them a requirement to proceed with the adventure.

I was just saying that you could try making more Int skill checks a requirement to continue as an incentive to get more players to put their extra points into Int. I didn't say it necessarily a good idea to do it.

Yep, that could go awry quickly.

 

[smbakeresq]

Clearly, the distribution of abilities in the game world does not match the distribution of abilities in the real world, so it's hard to say how smart someone with Intelligence 20 actually is. It's easier to play the character if you interpret it as someone who is 25% more likely to solve a puzzle than the average person, than if you play it as the smartest person who ever lived, even though the game mechanics insist that those are the same thing.

The game has said at various points that 10 is average. IIRC correctly somewhere many editions ago it actual said 10 INT was 100 IQ score, but I might be wrong. Its clearly not the case now, for example the STR rules state that a 10 STR person could carry 150 lbs and not be encumbered, while a very strong person like on Worlds Strongest Man could carry 270 lbs forever, neither of which is clearly not true. But since we are in bounded accuracy all of those have been compressed.

Remember the old days were 17 STR was +1 to hit and +1 to damage but if you hit 18 you rolled percentile dice and if you got lucky (00) you got +3 to hit and +6 to dmg? Now that was swingy.

I have no problem with the current system since the checks are built around it. It plays fine and you don't have to problems from before when you had +40 to hit with 4-5 things added in, etc. Its much simpler and smoother now and the mechanics don't get in the way of the game.

As stated before, I prefer rolling for ability scores so you can have the PC more fleshed out, with the proviso of course its tough to play a PC who rolls a 5 for something.

 

[smbakeresq]

More than literate, as I have proven. That's why I said you presented nothing, except a trolly comment. But that's how it is today, people speaking for little reason with bold allegations using naked assertations making less sense. The college age kids I teach and young attorneys and engineers do the same and wonder why they struggle sometimes getting their point across.

 

[Caliban]

More than literate, as I have proven. That's why I said you presented nothing, except a trolly comment. But that's how it is today, people speaking for little reason with bold allegations using naked assertations making less sense. The college age kids I teach and young attorneys and engineers do the same and wonder why they struggle sometimes getting their point across.

All you've shown is that you didn't really read my post or understand it, given that you keep harping about the one statement that I myself pointed out was absurd in the very next sentence.

To wit:

See? I too can make completely biased and unsubstantiated claims about stuff I don't like.

It was an absurd counter-argument to highlight how biased and absurd your initial premise (point buy encourages min-maxing) is to me.

It has been amusing though.

 

[smbakeresq]

Yep, that could go awry quickly.

It could, but as DM you have to give players chances to show their good skills and regret their weaknesses. A good way to make a group freeze is when they encounter a monster and the monster knowledge check goes out and only the skilled player makes it, just say "You know the monster has x vulnerability, are you going to use your action to communicate that to everyone else." Most wont roleplay it right (I just shout out target them with X") they will panic a little about giving up an action (rarely done.) The wizard can use that low level spell (forgot name) that give you limited mental communication in a short range for various social and dangerous encounters with great kudos and inspirations going to the wizard for doing so. The wizard can then feed info to the party face to get past that social encounter.

 

[iserith]

It could, but as DM you have to give players chances to show their good skills and regret their weaknesses. A good way to make a group freeze is when they encounter a monster and the monster knowledge check goes out and only the skilled player makes it, just say "You know the monster has x vulnerability, are you going to use your action to communicate that to everyone else." Most wont roleplay it right (I just shout out target them with X") they will panic a little about giving up an action (rarely done.) The wizard can use that low level spell (forgot name) that give you limited mental communication in a short range for various social and dangerous encounters with great kudos and inspirations going to the wizard for doing so. The wizard can then feed info to the party face to get past that social encounter.

In the context of what [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] and I were talking about, where it could go awry has to do with gating plot-necessary information behind an ability check, then everyone failing said ability check. So much for the plot. Not a problem when your game isn't set on a storyline, but many are.

As for "monster knowledge checks," I only call for an ability check when a player describes an action with an uncertain outcome that would call for an Intelligence check. And I don't have simple communication cost an action. In my view, that's a tax that discourages character interaction and I want more of that back and forth (within reason), not less.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*