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

[Lanliss]

Good grief. [MENTION=6703052]SA[/MENTION]crosanct STILL has me on ignore, but is insisting on arguing against my point? What's the point of putting someone on ignore and then keeping on arguing with them? FFS, you're already screwing up how the page loads for me [MENTION=26510]SAN[/MENTION]crosanct, can you at least have the decency of actually ignoring me?

Not sure they will see this if they have you Ignored.

 

[Hussar]

Dangerous territory, indeed. lol


If you provide no challenge, because they never have to get creative because the strength challenge just never even comes up, sure. As long as the adventure provides alternate methods, then their choices are being given consequences, without those consequences hampering enjoyment of the game by way of throwing The Gladiator at the cast of Leverage, and providing no avenue for them to Leverage their way through the challenge.
That sort of scenario is only interesting or fun, or IMO, worthwhile, if they present a challenge for the player characters to get creative with their abilities and skills to find a non obvious way to turn a roadblock into a scalable obstacle.


Sure. Or, the tools to move the boulder using leverage, or melt it, or use a hidden mechanism, or repurpose a mechanism the adventure just tried to kill them with, or any number of other options that are vastly more interesting, and do vastly more to encourage roleplaying and enhance player agency, than simply telling them they cannot find out what is in that area of the dungeon because they all have low strength.



Agreed.

I just want to clarify something here. Are you saying that the DM must include the option to allow the PC's to use their strengths in every situation? That, in your Gladiator and Leverage example, the DM must include a way to talk their way out of the situation?

Now, does that way need to be explicit? Does the DM need to call attention to that different option?

Or does the DM simply need to be open to the idea?

For me, it's the latter. I have no problems with the players getting creative. Love that. Saw all sorts of that going on in the last few sessions. Playing to the crowd, intimidating enemy gladiators to cause them to back down, so on and so forth.

Heh, it's funny. I'm playing in a Ravenloft campaign right now (we're alternating DM's in our group). I'm playing a hunter ranger. We've just tipped 8th level, and are about to finish the campaign. Now, I went with an archer ranger. Fine and dandy.

I STILL do not have a magic weapon. In a campaign where pretty much everything has immunities to non-magic weapons, I don't have a magic weapon. Which has meant I've either had to suck it up, start using a lot of holy water, or get a Magic Weapon buff from one of the casters. But, it has been a constant challenge. Fantastic.

But, are you folks saying that the DM should be providing magic weapons for my character? After all, I'm playing with a pretty significant disadvantage here. And it's coming up pretty much every session. So, according to folks in this thread, should the DM be obligated to either change the adventure or provide a magic weapon for my character?

 

[hawkeyefan]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] I think tha answer to that depends on whether the other player's have magic weapons or not. It's one thing to be at a disadvantage, it's another thing to be at a disadvantage when no one else is.

 

[Gradine]

It may be because I tend to DM for new players, but being extremely conscious of the abilities of the characters (and the players!) is absolutely vital to a successful adventure design. Of course, this includes options for teaching moments, situations designed to stretch their thinking and imagination to resolve challenging encounters. And I of course always leave room for them to surprise me, because new players are still players and players surprise DMs, that's sort of their shtick.

Also Saelorn clearly doesn't understand what "meta-gaming" or "role-playing" actually mean and so his OneTrueWayism doesn't even make much sense in its own context. It's probably an issue more of expression than understanding, to be honest; but as has been pointed out, I'm sure his way works for him and that's all he really needs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's strange when you consider the emphasis placed on supporting MORE play styles, both leading up to and all through the playtest.

Yeah, and I personally think that 5e does a good job of that, for the most part. Every class that isn't primarily a spell caster still needs a decent subclass or variant feature or whatever that presents the player with manuevers of some kind, or some other interesting "moving parts" mechanic that isn't magical. Or at least isn't spells.


Actually, I think what the game could use, in that vein, is a large suite of maneuvers, talents, whatever, that are balanced in comparison to spells, but not design to mimic spells. Ie, balanced like 4e martial powers. Perhaps a looser organization than spells, and a system of limitation more similar to Ki than to spell points.

However the exact design looks, it would be a system which can replace, in one swell foop, the spellcasting of a class or subclass. It would have stuff appropriate to the ranger, fighter, rogue, and even monk and paladin. Some would be good for any weapon user, some would be specific to a class. BM fighters would be able to choose them instead of it's existing system, and they would cover all the actions provided therein.

You might ask, "Paladins? What is the point of a spell-less Paladin?"

I'll tell ya! I'd rather my Paladin have some rituals, and some pretty simple magical effects like Divine Sense, Channel Divinity, and Lay on Hands, than actual spells and spell slots. I'd love to replace spellcasting with maneuvers or talents, some magical, some not. Just like some folks would want with the Ranger.

ALso, I'd enjoy the Arcane Trickster more if it used more passive and subtle magical effects, and maneuvers, and didn't have spell slots.


While i'm wasting everyone's time with brain crack, let's redesign the fighter!
What if the Fighter class had an actual basic concept that wasn't just "the best at DPR!" and Second WInd?

Could be fun, right?

So, we could have Schools/Improved Fighting Styles, Stances, Armor Specialization, and the ability, via Improved Fighting Styles, to specialize in exotic weapons, or normally subpar weapons/weapon combinations, and make them into something special.

Schools would be like a second subclass choice, much like Warlocks and Pact Boons, and there would be at least one that is dirt simple, for the Champion types. Stances would be granted by your School, and/or by it's own class feature, and would be a passive benefit with an associated active ability. Using the active ends the stance, and you can enter a stance as a bonus action.

IE, your attacks do X while using this stance, and under Y condition, you can do Z. Doing Z ends the stance.

The Champion School would have a stance that is just a really simple easy to remember bonus, with a really easy active ability, like "do extra 1d8 when you crit". Super, super, super simple.

Basically, the Fighter could be the mundane Martial Artist, including support for unarmed fighting, and a whole subclass dedicated to that concept. But the main focus would be on armed martial arts.

I think it would make a great class, and support every single fighter archetype without having a bland center. I just don't have the energy or time right now to build the thing.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] I think tha answer to that depends on whether the other player's have magic weapons or not. It's one thing to be at a disadvantage, it's another thing to be at a disadvantage when no one else is.

Really? Does it matter?

But, to answer your question, all the other characters have magic weapons and/or magic attacks.

And, I could probably switch to a melee weapon and have a magic weapon (I'm not sure if we have an extra laying around or not to be honest). I'd be far less effective, but, probably more effective than attacking with a purely non-magic bow.

 

[Hussar]

It may be because I tend to DM for new players, but being extremely conscious of the abilities of the characters (and the players!) is absolutely vital to a successful adventure design. Of course, this includes options for teaching moments, situations designed to stretch their thinking and imagination to resolve challenging encounters. And I of course always leave room for them to surprise me, because new players are still players and players surprise DMs, that's sort of their shtick.
/snip

Ah, now there's a point. I haven't gamed with new players (especially players who are new to gaming) in a long, long time. My current group are all very experienced gamers. Which is going to color my approach and perceptions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Really? Does it matter?

But, to answer your question, all the other characters have magic weapons and/or magic attacks.

And, I could probably switch to a melee weapon and have a magic weapon (I'm not sure if we have an extra laying around or not to be honest). I'd be far less effective, but, probably more effective than attacking with a purely non-magic bow.

Yeah, I think it can matter. Not that it must. But if one PC's effectiveness is diminished and the others are not...and the reason for that is simply the DM's whom...then I could see some folks having a problem with that.

I'd also weigh a lot of other factors into that...how long the PC has been without a magic weapon, if the player seemed to mind, the level to whichever i incorporated it into the story and so on....

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Without One-True-Wayism there wouldn't be arguments on the internet about RPGs at all. And then where would we be?

Discussions centered on how best to model a given concept, or help eachother with other game related things? ONe can dream?

I just want to clarify something here. Are you saying that the DM must include the option to allow the PC's to use their strengths in every situation? That, in your Gladiator and Leverage example, the DM must include a way to talk their way out of the situation?

Now, does that way need to be explicit? Does the DM need to call attention to that different option?

Or does the DM simply need to be open to the idea?

For me, it's the latter. I have no problems with the players getting creative. Love that. Saw all sorts of that going on in the last few sessions. Playing to the crowd, intimidating enemy gladiators to cause them to back down, so on and so forth.

Heh, it's funny. I'm playing in a Ravenloft campaign right now (we're alternating DM's in our group). I'm playing a hunter ranger. We've just tipped 8th level, and are about to finish the campaign. Now, I went with an archer ranger. Fine and dandy.

I STILL do not have a magic weapon. In a campaign where pretty much everything has immunities to non-magic weapons, I don't have a magic weapon. Which has meant I've either had to suck it up, start using a lot of holy water, or get a Magic Weapon buff from one of the casters. But, it has been a constant challenge. Fantastic.

But, are you folks saying that the DM should be providing magic weapons for my character? After all, I'm playing with a pretty significant disadvantage here. And it's coming up pretty much every session. So, according to folks in this thread, should the DM be obligated to either change the adventure or provide a magic weapon for my character?

First thing, I don't think that creatures that are immune to non magical weapons represent good game design, on any level. That is a personal opinion, obviously, based in my own design priorities and philosophies, but IME, they don't accomplish anything remotely interesting or fun, and end up feeling like what video game enthusiasts call "fake difficulty", or "arbitrary difficulty". ie, it doesn't present a challenge to anyone's skill, it just makes the game arbitrarily frustrating. Like a platformer where it's hard to see where you're going to land, or your character doesn't always jump the same distance, and there is no way to figure out how far you'll jump this time.

That said, I think if the DM is going to keep using adventures that present a lot of immune creatures, yeah, they should get you a better solution than you currently have. Even if it's just letting you learn to brew a concoction from ingredients you can forage as part of foraging food, that you can coat your arrows in and make them bypass that immunity, or something like that which bypasses the question of a magic item without continueing to make the game a pain in the butt. Then again, if you aren't even frustrated by it, then no, the DM has no real need to address it, necessarily.

It's my opinion that absolutes are nearly always stupid, and usually egregiously wrong.

I also would like to clarify that I'm not in the habit of pulling a one true way, so no, I'm not saying the DM "must" do anything, except respect the players, and not be a dick.

What I'm saying is that there are benefits to making sure that there are ways around obstacles, and players can just build their character naturally, rather than always boosting strength because the DM always make exploration challenges require athletics and endurance to pass.

I'm saying that there is nothing wrong with accounting for the PCs when making adventures. That doesn't mean the DM needs to "include the option to allow the PC's to use their strengths in every situation", but rather that every challenge, in this style of DMing, includes ways for the PCs to succeed, even if none of them are good at doing research, or climbing, or whatever. Bonus points if the direct route isn't "constantly" the route they suck at, but as long as there are other routes, it's fine.

But then, I don't make adventures before knowing what is going to be at the table, thematically, either.

So, let's examine that Gladiators example, right?

Shows like Leverage like to, occasionally, put the characters completely outside their comfort zones. That is great! I love doing that! But, my theory of DMing involves doing so on purpose, and with a plan, not by accident.

If you run Gladiator straight, without taking into account your deceptive, insightful, knowledgeable, etc, PCs, at best Elliot and Parker make it out alive. The end result is the same as if you intentionally build the adventure to kill them.

If you take Gladiator, and tailor it with NPCs to trick, social and exploration encounters between fights, a gambling on fights subplot, etc, you can build a really excellent Gladiator episode of Leverage. Most times, the need to tailor won't be anywhere near that extreme.
And it isn't always about strengths. Most PCs also have stuff they just...don't suck at. Or the ability to make up for eachother's weaknesses through teamwork.
But yeah, if you have a Sophie in your party, and you keep running wilderness exploration/fight bugbears and hunt polar bears adventures...something has gone wrong, IMO. I don't really understand why you would even come up iwth the concept for an adventure without knowing what the players are making, unless you are coming to them with a concept, and telling them to make PCs for it. But that's just my preference. I don't want to play in or run a game where the adventure feels like it was designed for an entirely different kind of story than the PCs.

 

[Satyrn]

I'm not really upset at Saelorn for that bit of OneTrueWay drivel, it's his thing, it's all he knows.

But I'm a little miffed at several of you for quoting it, because that means I see it, again.

Now you're just encouraging me to find more of his posts to quote just to provide a one word reply.

Amusing.