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

[Arial Black]

Now, isn't this pretty much textbook min/maxing?

Yes! Yes I am!

And do you know what allows me to do this? To set my Wis at 8 to avoid wasting points but still get a passive Perception of 10+ every single time? Point-buy!

You're taking the perception skill, not because it makes any sort of role playing sense for the character (although I imagine that's pretty easy to justify) but rather to shore up the weaknesses of the character caused by maxing out certain other stats. IOW, you're maxing out your strengths while minimizing your weaknesses.

As mentioned in a few recent posts on this thread, the origin of the term 'min-max' was the 'minimax' of Game Theory. The basic premise of Game Theory is to systematically imagine every possible strategy to determine the strategy which is most likely to result in the most advantageous outcome.

This behavior isn't limited to Game Theory. We have always evolved our behaviour so that we get the most advantageous outcome from whatever our environment happens to be. Game Theory isn't new in doing that, but it does do it in a deliberately scientific way, trying to get rid of emotion and stick with the evidence.

'Creating a PC' is, in this context, an 'environment'. It is to your advantage to create the 'best' PC, at least in terms of the specific things you want this PC to be the best at.

In 5E, odd stats gain you nothing. In point-buy it is a complete waste of points to buy an odd stat (although you might buy an odd stat where you plan to make it an even number later).

You might even think that buying a 10 in a stat you never use is a waste of points, when an 8 won't do you much harm, and if it does you can do something to avoid that harm like taking the Perception skill.

Point-buy is ideal for Game Theory. It allows you to continually modify your stats until they evolve into the 'best' way to get the most advantageous outcome.

This is why point-buy encourages min-maxing, because it is the method that lets you min-max more efficiently.

I think that's what people are objecting to.

And there's the rub.

I agree that the results are 'objectionable'. This is one reason that I don't like point-buy!

However, if I'm told by the DM that I must use point-buy then I'm going to use it to make the best PC I can (in Game Theory terms), just like I would whatever system the DM makes me use!

If I'm told to use point-buy them my PCs will tend to 16/16/16/8/8/8.

If I'm told to use the Standard Array then my PCs will tend to 16/14/14/12/10/8.

If, as DM, the first one offends you, then stop using point-buy! Don't blame the players for doing what every creature on the planet does: evolve to better cope with its environment.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think we are agreeing. I'm saying character optimization and system mastery are different from min/maxing.

To me min/maxing is inherently about making the mechanics of the game work in your favor. With all else the same, a min/maxed character will lead to reduced challenge in play compared to a non min/maxed character.

System mastery and optimization are about getting the most out of your pc regardless of the mechanics.

If you have enough system mastery that challenges are trivial, it may be time to explore mechanically weaker characters to up your challenge (if that's what you seek), similar to a video game player who has system mastery upping the difficulty from normal to hard or legendary.

I guess we are disagreeing after all, then. I consider min-maxing to be synonymous with optimizing, where the former is adopted as a term of disparagement by those who find it as an illegitimate form of role-playing (for whatever reason).

System mastery is just a term for how well a player understands the game mechanics, which is a pre-requisite if you want to optimize successfully, but the degree to which it matters is going to vary wildly between games and editions. Pathfinder has no real limit on the degree to which system mastery increases your ability to optimize; as you spend more and more time learning the system and its options, you can continue to build characters that are more and more optimized. Basic D&D offers much lower benefit from system mastery, mostly because there are fewer moving parts and the player has fewer choices to make.

If a character is optimized so efficiently that challenges are trivial, then I would say that's an inherent problem with the game, but that's only because I've moved beyond the part of the cycle where I appreciate spending countless hours poring over freshly-printed arcane tomes. I would rather play a game that doesn't reward system mastery to that extent.

I would never think of making a weaker character than I could, though, because this is a group activity and the expectation is that every player will make an honest effort toward contributing to the common goal. If I'm going to play an archer, then I'm going to make the best darn archer that I possibly can, because I know that there may come a time when the whole campaign comes down to what I do, and I owe it to the group to give us the best possible shot at saving the world rather than dying horribly.

 

[OB1]

I guess we are disagreeing after all, then. I consider min-maxing to be synonymous with optimizing, where the former is adopted as a term of disparagement by those who find it as an illegitimate form of role-playing (for whatever reason).

*Snip*

I would never think of making a weaker character than I could, though, because this is a group activity and the expectation is that every player will make an honest effort toward contributing to the common goal. If I'm going to play an archer, then I'm going to make the best darn archer that I possibly can, because I know that there may come a time when the whole campaign comes down to what I do, and I owe it to the group to give us the best possible shot at saving the world rather than dying horribly.

I may not have state myself correctly, though I think we may still disagree. I think min/maxing is a sub-category of system mastery and character optimization, but that min/maxing isn't required for system mastery or optimization of a PC.

For me
System Mastery = Ability to use your characters abilities in game to accomplish your goals
Optimizing = How close your character's abilities are to your concept of the character
Min/Maxing = Minimizing randomness of your effectiveness in game

I do think we would agree that min/maxing reduces the randomness (and therefore difficulty) of the game during play in 5E. Depending on the type of game I'm playing and the preferences of the other players, I can go for more or less randomness, and therefore more or less min/maxing.

 

[schnee]

Yes! Yes I am!

And do you know what allows me to do this? To set my Wis at 8 to avoid wasting points but still get a passive Perception of 10+ every single time? Point-buy!

You underestimate how badly some of us roll, even with 4d6 drop lowest.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Campbell]

Honestly, characters with an extremely high Dexterity score and low Strength score or the reverse are artifacts of system design more than anything you would find out in the wild. Physical fitness is highly correlated, particularly given an environment that lacks modern muscle supplements and weight training techniques.

 

[Arial Black]

Honestly, characters with an extremely high Dexterity score and low Strength score or the reverse are artifacts of system design more than anything you would find out in the wild. Physical fitness is highly correlated, particularly given an environment that lacks modern muscle supplements and weight training techniques.

I completely agree, which is why I hate systems that let you simply choose to have minimum in one and maximum in another (point-buy!) so that every weapon-using character is either Str 16/Dex 8 OR Str 8/Dex 16. It would turn us into two sub-types of identical clones. It doesn't reflect a realistic population.

A bell curve does. Even if that bell curve is slightly deformed from the pure 3d6 into the 4d6k3 for elites, it's still a realistic distribution.

 

[nswanson27]

I completely agree, which is why I hate systems that let you simply choose to have minimum in one and maximum in another (point-buy!) so that every weapon-using character is either Str 16/Dex 8 OR Str 8/Dex 16. It would turn us into two sub-types of identical clones. It doesn't reflect a realistic population.

A bell curve does. Even if that bell curve is slightly deformed from the pure 3d6 into the 4d6k3 for elites, it's still a realistic distribution.

I think the bell curve of adventurers would look a lot different than the bell curve of the population in general. You would imagine some natural selection going on for those who tried to make a career of adventuring and weren't physically suited for it in some form. I mean, you don't find a lot of people trying to be doctors who aren't good with anatomy or mathematicians who aren't good at math.

 

[Corwin]

I think people sometimes get a little too myopically focused on the stat score, rather than the modifier that is actually being applied. Being a d20 system, the very least of us (ability score 3!) has a 20% disadvantage, and the best (ability score 20) a 25% advantage, respectively, over baseline (ability score 10). That's not really all that huge a swing of capability across a spectrum, if you really think about it. And when you use array/point buy, with a low score of 8, the swing is much less severe even (only 5% disadvantage to 25% advantage over baseline). Considering the wide variation of physical and mental capability in real life, I see those values as quite muted indeed.