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

[Hussar]

Fair question, but the answer is easy.

My concept was (as far as stats go) to have the best Dex/Cha, reasonable Con/Int, and low Str/Wis. But there aren't enough points!

Since I wanted 5/20/12/12/8/20, but there aren't enough points, then I have a choice: either reduce the scores that really matter to me (Dex/Cha) or reduce the scores that don't matter so much. Put like that, why on Golarion would I choose to lower my Dex/Cha?

I'm happy with my choice, but the point is that point-buy gives me that choice (to further lower some scores in order to further increase others) that simply isn't possible with rolling.

If I were simply choosing scores then there is no pressure to get six 18s because I only need 18/18/12/12/8/7 in order to realise my concept.



That's part of the challenge of gameplay (as opposed to the challenge of character creation): play to your strengths and minimise your weaknesses.

Now, some of this is an artifact of the 3e/Pathfinder system. There is a major difference between a 16 and an 18 in 3e, that is largely absent in 5e. Also, I have very little sympathy to be quite honest. If your "concept" requires two 18's in order to be playable, I'm not sure I'm all that interested in that concept. If you cannot honestly play your concept with 16/16/12/12/8/7, I'd put that on you and not the system.

 

[Arial Black]

If your "concept" requires two 18's in order to be playable, I'm not sure I'm all that interested in that concept.

First of all, it's my PC not yours. Whether it 'interests' you is of minor concern.

Second, point-buy does not force me to choose between playing (because two 18s) and not playing. Point-buy allows me to make that choice, to choose two 18s that I never rolled and have four dump stats to 'pay' for it. This is enabled by point-buy!

Remember, this thread is not 'which stat generation system is better', but which lends itself to the most heinous min-maxing! Point-buy encourages min-maxing precisely because it allows you min-max more thoroughly than other systems.

If you cannot honestly play your concept with 16/16/12/12/8/7, I'd put that on you and not the system.

I don't have to play 16/16/12/12/8/7, because point-buy allows me to get an objectlvely better and more min-maxed 18/18/8/7/7/7 and I'd rather play with two 18s than two 16s, and the greater number of dump stats doesn't change my mind. Point-buy allows this every single time with no chance of 'failure'. With rolling, you get what you get and after you assign the scores you cannot further reduce your low scores in order to increase your high scores; it doesn't allow you to min-max that way. Point-buy does.

 

[Satyrn]

Well, you got the gender wrong (I'm a 'he') but otherwise you're pretty close.

Not a 'mini-game', but a job to do and if a job is worth doing then it's worth doing well. Since the rest of the party expect me to pull my weight then I'd be letting them down if I failed to pull my weight as well as I can.

It'd be like taking a test where I know I could get 99% but deliberately get only 65%.

Does that help?

Not really, since that was essentially what I meant.

. . . because for me a game is worth trying for that 99% while a job just needs to be acceptable (also known as a 'C' or 65%)

 

[Hussar]

/snip

I don't have to play 16/16/12/12/8/7, because point-buy allows me to get an objectlvely better and more min-maxed 18/18/8/7/7/7 and I'd rather play with two 18s than two 16s, and the greater number of dump stats doesn't change my mind. Point-buy allows this every single time with no chance of 'failure'. With rolling, you get what you get and after you assign the scores you cannot further reduce your low scores in order to increase your high scores; it doesn't allow you to min-max that way. Point-buy does.

But, therein lies the rub which rolls right back around to my (rather objectionable apparently) characterization that in a balanced campaign, your 18/18/8/7/7/7 isn't objectively better. Your character will do well in about a third of the scenarios and then fail badly every other time.

IOW, in combat, this character is charm bait. In exploration, the character can't swim or climb, or even jump, meaning that the character is a major albatross around the neck of the party. Sure, the character can do the talky bits. Until such time as anyone lies to the character - welcome to that negative Insight penalty.

This is very much a poorly Min maxed character. This is a character that is so hyper specialized, that it's pretty much useless anywhere outside of its specialization. As I said earlier, I LOVE it when players go this route. I'm going to fully exercise my inner Rat Bastard DM® and beat this PC like a piñata. This is just a golden, gift wrapped chew toy for DM's.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why would I want the PCs in my game to be "chew toys"?

I still don't grok that mindset at all.

 

[schnee]

Why would I want the PCs in my game to be "chew toys"?

I still don't grok that mindset at all.

I grok it.

I think of it as 'hoist with your own petard'.

People min/max extremely to 'beat' the game. Someone with 18 STR / CON and 8 everything else hopes to make swinging a sword solve everything. That is not a real person, it is a caricature, a one-trick pony. It is trying to exploit mechanical knowledge.

The immense frustration for DMs having a player like that is because to make that 'one thing' challenging for that one player, it becomes unbearably deadly for everyone else. Balancing situations is hard enough without that.

If you're in a room full of other min/max combat twinks, and the game has been reduced to only tactical combat, sure, go for it! But this is a game with environmental challenges, illusions, human interactions, physical obstacles, tests of wit and understanding, agility and mobility, and at every single other one of these those characters are a liability.

That absolute combat monster will fold like a wet paper bag at the first opponent with a charm spell. Or sit there dumbfounded and useless at an illusion. Or anger the local constable with their uncouth manners when trying to negotiate.

Not a big deal when you have the luxury of the party 'expert' take over when stakes are low, but because most D&D situations combine several types of threats at the same time, and any attack vector other than combat will shut down that character's ability to do combat, they will fail at combat. Often.

So, "so good at combat that everything else prevents them from actually doing combat" is the D&D 'hoist by their own petard'. The glee comes from seeing a min/maxer who is trying to break the game for everyone else have their plans foiled.

 

[Arial Black]

Not really, since that was essentially what I meant.

. . . because for me a game is worth trying for that 99% while a job just needs to be acceptable (also known as a 'C' or 65%)

Semantics aside, for me character creation is as serious as the game play. There's no way I'd deliberately make a 'bad' PC, although what constitutes 'bad' is hugely variable.

 

[Arial Black]

But, therein lies the rub which rolls right back around to my (rather objectionable apparently) characterization that in a balanced campaign, your 18/18/8/7/7/7 isn't objectively better. Your character will do well in about a third of the scenarios and then fail badly every other time.

IOW, in combat, this character is charm bait. In exploration, the character can't swim or climb, or even jump, meaning that the character is a major albatross around the neck of the party. Sure, the character can do the talky bits. Until such time as anyone lies to the character - welcome to that negative Insight penalty.

This is very much a poorly Min maxed character. This is a character that is so hyper specialized, that it's pretty much useless anywhere outside of its specialization. As I said earlier, I LOVE it when players go this route. I'm going to fully exercise my inner Rat Bastard DM® and beat this PC like a piñata. This is just a golden, gift wrapped chew toy for DM's.

I'm totally okay with the DM running the scenario as is, without trying to be 'nice' and avoid my weaknesses. I've made my bed and Ill lie in it without complaint.

What appears to have upset some people is that you gave the impression (whether you meant to or not) that you would actually change your adventure and put in stuff that targetted those weaknesses; stuff that would not have been in the adventure at all, but you changed it just to screw with the player.

I'd be upset about that too!

 

[Arial Black]

I grok it.

I think of it as 'hoist with your own petard'.

People min/max extremely to 'beat' the game. Someone with 18 STR / CON and 8 everything else hopes to make swinging a sword solve everything. That is not a real person, it is a caricature, a one-trick pony. It is trying to exploit mechanical knowledge.

The immense frustration for DMs having a player like that is because to make that 'one thing' challenging for that one player, it becomes unbearably deadly for everyone else. Balancing situations is hard enough without that.

If you're in a room full of other min/max combat twinks, and the game has been reduced to only tactical combat, sure, go for it! But this is a game with environmental challenges, illusions, human interactions, physical obstacles, tests of wit and understanding, agility and mobility, and at every single other one of these those characters are a liability.

That absolute combat monster will fold like a wet paper bag at the first opponent with a charm spell. Or sit there dumbfounded and useless at an illusion. Or anger the local constable with their uncouth manners when trying to negotiate.

Not a big deal when you have the luxury of the party 'expert' take over when stakes are low, but because most D&D situations combine several types of threats at the same time, and any attack vector other than combat will shut down that character's ability to do combat, they will fail at combat. Often.

So, "so good at combat that everything else prevents them from actually doing combat" is the D&D 'hoist by their own petard'. The glee comes from seeing a min/maxer who is trying to break the game for everyone else have their plans foiled.

Ah, someone's finally getting my point!

Yes, it is totally unrealistic for a population to be mainly exactly 16s and exactly 8s when we know it should be a bell curve around 9-12.

Yes, these are just combat monsters built that way because the most common (and most deadly) challenge usually faced by PCs is combat, so optimising for combat is a more sound choice than being an all-rounder, and yes that creates weaknesses that can be exploited.

But I want you to note two things:-

1.) knowing all that, I would still rather make an optimised combat monster than an all-rounder, playing to my strengths and avoiding my weaknesses

2.) this choice, as (certainly) unrealistic and (possibly) foolish as it is, is only made possible with point-buy!

Point-buy enables three 16s and three 8s every. Single. Time. This is not possible when rolling.

Point-buy encourages min-maxing because it allows more extreme and reliable min-maxing than rolling!

That's the point! This thread is about 'min-maxing', and the point was raised that point-buy encourages min-maxing. Some disagreed. Some agreed. I've posted in support of my agreement.

This is not about which stat generation method is 'better', but about which method allows the most min-maxing.

It's point-buy.

As you point out, min-maxing like this can be detrimental to the game. It is one of the weakness of point-buy.

Both rolling and point-buy have both strengths and weaknesses. It's pointless to deny that. Which set of strengths/weaknesses you prefer is an individual opinion, but what those strengths and weaknesses actually are is fact, not opinion.

We are all entitled to our own opinions. We are not entitled to our own facts.

 

[Imaculata]

I've recently started playing a character in a 3rd edition campaign with a strength of 10, but with high dex, charisma and intelligence. And it's honestly refreshing to play a character who is not incredibly strong, but who is athletic, likable and smart.