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

[Ilbranteloth]

Yeah, I can get that....as I said, there can be reasons for the imbalance. And it can also be mitigated in other ways...other non-weapon magic items can be granted, and so on. And I agree with adversity.

I don't know if awarding magic items has to be pat, though. Certainly no more pat than having to rely on a monster's resistance to non-magical weapons in order to create adversity.

I would think in most campaigns, if they go on with any length, then eventually all the PCs get magic items. Now, 5E has a slightly altered expectation in this regard....it's less certain in this edition, I think. But likely still expected. PCs should get cool stuff through their adventures....I think that's pretty much a default expectation of the game. Now, there can be fun in subverting expectations or like I said, other cool stuff can be provided instead of a weapon...but awarding treasure is like gaining levels, it's pretty much baked into the game.

Ahh, that's another place where we differ...more below.

Sure, I agree that awarding treasure can be an organic part of the story, and that's what I would try to do. As for what treasure is found....do you determine it randomly or what? I tend to select treasure rather than generate it randomly. Now, I don't simply pick things according to what will always be the most useful to the PCs....I tend to allow the fiction to help shape things, as you suggest, and other such factors. But I am not going to say that there is not some aspect of rewarding the players with stuff they will really like involved. For instance, a +1 trident....no one uses a trident. Why bother with it? It's just going to get sold or bartered....and unless you want to design some encounters around the idea of "what to do with this trident"...then that's just going to slow the game down. So in that case, I'd probably either give them a weapon one of the players may use, or just give them some other item, or a GP equivalent.

When it comes balance as it relates to team play....I don't think that having one player who is facing one challenge doesn't matter if the players aren't more competitive minded. As with any team oriented task, a weakness in one area can affect the whole team.

And as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] describes it, the team addresses the issue. So it's working for that table, in which case I wouldn't necessarily change anything. I'm just putting forth options if it was an issue.

So in my campaigns, level advancement is very slow. Our focus is on the characters and their development, and their stories. Due to some external factors, this last group has ended/is on hiatus. But they just reached 8th level after more than 2 years of meeting weekly. And that's fast for my campaigns, mostly because we were still getting used to 5e and its differences. To the best of my recollection, I don't think we've ever had a character reach 10th level, and in some cases those characters were played actively (once/week) for up to 7 years of game time. I'll have to see if I can dig up one of those old characters to make sure.

Magic items are a mix of things. For the most part they are designed around where they are found. Many are those held by opponents. Who use them against the party. So that's a mix of random and what is best suited for that NPC. Higher level NPCs are more likely to have magic items suited more specifically to them. Lower level will lean towards more random.

Those found in treasures will relate to the source of the treasure. Like a sword in the tomb of a warrior. Others are random. My treasure generation is geared more towards fewer coins and more items (tapestries, ceramics, furniture, decorative items, weapons and armor, and the sort of things that people who have disposable money spend their money on. In general, monstrous humanoids (goblinkin, orcs, etc.) don't have coins. There might be some located in a lair, thrown away, but they don't have a money based economy. They are mediocre armorers and weaponsmiths, so they value weapons and armor, along with items that show their strength and prowess in combat. If there are magic items they can identify and use, they will. Others might be discarded.

Incidental treasures, like those of adventurers felled by monsters that have no use for magic weapons, are determined randomly. As I said, magic items are fairly common, because they are (to a large degree) a substitute for rapid level advancement. Spellbooks and scrolls are the things that most of the wizards treasure, for example. Defensive items and wands are next, since they give them extra spell use without consuming spell slots. Potions too are common.

So why give them a trident? Because they are fighting Kuo-toa or Sahuagin and one of the larger ones has a trident. Or perhaps they found it in the temple of an ancient sea god. If it was randomly determined, I'd probably consider something else or roll again. But on the other hand, if it was an orc that had it, I'd probably keep it. It might be odd, but an orc with a magic weapon would have an edge over other orcs, despite the unlikely choice of weapon.

Because of encumbrance issues, there is typically a lot of treasure that gets left behind. Magic items are usually things they'll take, if only to try to sell them. But even that's not a guaranteed thing. Depending on where they are, finding a buyer for a magic trident may not be that easy.

Another factor I should mention, weapons with a bonus to hit (+1, +2) are masterwork weapons in my campaign. Well, more than that. They tend to be of special materials and techniques known to either specific smiths, or often regional (like Damascus/Wootz steel). Some weapons can't carry such a bonus, like a quarterstaff, club, or sling. If somebody could explain how a sling could be made to grant a bonus to attacks and damage with it, I'd certainly allow it. Because of this, they are expensive, and still quite rare, but can be found. Of course, in a region where they are made, they are relatively common. But because this gives a military advantage, they aren't allowed to be exported. There are smugglers of course, but overall they prefer this because it drives the price higher. Agents from those lands do what they can to recover lost weapons of this sort. Again, not every weapon made in these locations carry these properties.

Elvish weapons are a special case. They are masterwork weapons, but the mithril alloy and the processes they use is a secret to the elves, and it also has the ability to overcome resistance and immunity to non-magical weapons. Of course, these weapons are also rare, and not given out to everybody, not even elves. Elves do not sell them, they make them for individuals, or for the defenses of their home.

So actual magic weapons have something more than just a bonus. And because the creation of magic items in my campaign is both time consuming and potentially permanently drains Strength and/or Constitution, not to mention the chance of failure, they tend to be made for somebody specifically. So most permanent items have a history in my campaign, although it's not always known to the PCs. They are recognizable to those who know about them, and often make the PCs a target for thieves and shady merchants if they flaunt their weapon enough.

 

[Shasarak]

I take a different perspective. This is a problem of my own devising, largely. There are a number of things I could have done to solve this problem on my own. In no particular order:

• Take a level in a caster class and cast my own Magic Weapon spells, at least a few times per day, and still have cantrips to rely on when the bow doesn't work.
• Take the Magic Initiate feat and again, cast my own Magic Weapons spells.
• Burn one of my ASI's to bump my 12 Str (see, I didn't dump stat) to a 14, pick up one of the other magic weapons in the party and stab things when my bow doesn't work. Heck, burn the two ASI's on Str, have a 16 Str equal to my 16 Dex and be a fairly decent melee combatant.

You could always try the classic roleplaying trope of passive aggressively complaining that you dont have a magical weapon until you get one. =;0)

My personal favourite is to research in game who has the magical item that I want and then come up with a reason for the rest of the party to help me kill that person to take it.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

One thing I'll add to my previous discussion; I see my role as the DM in creating the most enjoyable play experience for everyone at the table. That doesn't mean "everyone always wins" so much as it means "I provide challenges appropriate to the party." It means I don't provide challenges for the party that they don't have the ability to overcome. This is not to say they always overcome said challenges; just that they have a chance at doing it. It means if, say, my players (and their characters) struggle with social challenges, I use them sparingly (I don't avoid them entirely), and I consciously hide alternative solutions to the problem when I do. Of course, my players might just surprise me by rising to the challenge as presented; or maybe they'll discover that alternative I've hidden (a piece of blackmail here, a mutual contact there); or maybe they'll find some other way to overcome the challenge I hadn't even considered. Like I said, players are by nature full of surprises.

But challenge is only one aesthetic out of eight; and so I also have a responsibility to "read the room" so to speak, and design my adventures and campaigns around the aesthetics of my players. I have several players who emphasize the Fellowship aesthetic; they show up every game because they enjoy the social aspect and teamwork involved. So I purposefully design my adventures to avoid intraparty friction and I explicitly disallow "PvP" actions at my table. My players are also generally more into Expression than Fantasy, so I allow them some creative control over the content of the setting from time to time (like when they head-canon-changed House Orien to be gnomes in my Eberron game for reasons I still don't fully comprehend). Or look at genre; I love writing horror scenarios, to the extent that my players began to notice signs that they were in the obligatory "horror adventure" of the campaign. I eventually discovered that my players cared little for these scenarios, so I chucked them.

I also wonder how the "never consider the characters" style works PC backstory into their campaigns. Do they at all? I have to think there at least has to be a middle ground there... the characters themselves are just as much elements of the game world as anything else, so their backstory elements should be incorporated into the campaign at some point, don't they? They're not just birthed into the world fully formed from Talos's forehead.

So providing an enjoyable play experience is different from tailoring the encounters to the party, or even moreso, providing challenges appropriate to the party. Yes, the DM does have to run the type of game the players are interested in playing. If they don't like horror, then don't run horror.

No evil characters, and no PvP activities are generally allowed in my campaigns as a rule. There are some (usually temporary) exceptions from time-to-time, but they are DM instigated and monitored.

The character's backstory plays into the campaign in a large way. I do listen to the players and work much of what they come up with into the campaign. I find that very effective to grounding them in the world. But I also encourage and require a certain amount of their backstory to tie them into the world. I want the players to be fully invested in the normal, boring everyday life of the characters. To have a basic understanding of what would motivate them to consider risking their lives on a potentially daily basis.

Each player is required to have at least 3 characters, two of which are human, and two of which are native to the main village where the campaign is centered. I provide background for the village, so they have a good understanding of the local politics, movers and shakers, daily life, and potential challenges faced by their village. Their home.

The area around town is relatively well known to them, and the farther from town they roam, or if they choose to start exploring underground, the farther they go, the more likely they'll run into something that might be too much of a challenge for them. They need to be prepared to retreat. Because I'm not going to pull punches, and if they insist on going in certain directions (with known lore, etc.) then they will have to deal with the consequences. If they don't like something, like social challenges, then they are better off staying in the wilderness. The world is the way the world is. That's the framework I provide, and they are free to build their story from there.

That's very different than saying I won't provide encounters that are too difficult for them. There are certainly warning signs, and opportunities to avoid them, but they are there. There are known dragon lairs, for example. It's up to them not to head into the mountains to find them.

It's a collaborative game, so obviously the things they do have impact on what I do and vice versa. But the part of the story I get to write is what's going on with the NPCs, and the events of the world, the organizations etc. So a given NPC or organization, or even group of monsters, have their own agendas and goals. And those almost always have nothing to do with the PCs, at least initially. The orcs expanding their territory north, and preparing to attack the band of hill giants that occupy a small cave system has no relationship to the players. When the hill giants are driven out, and some of them find themselves in conflict with the village, the PCs might be involved in the defense of the village, and they might not. If they decide to investigate why the giants have come this far east, then they may find out about the orcs. The orcs number around 1,200 and are expanding in several directions. Obviously it's too many for the PCs to engage directly, but they may still decide to find out as much as they can before bringing information back to the village. Perhaps they'll be able to forge an alliance with the remaining hill giants. I don't have any idea, since I don't know what they'll do.

A band of up to 20 PCs (6 players, each with at least 3 PCs that can be involved during a given week) is still no match against about 20 hill giants or 1,200 orcs. They can let the village know, but the village is around 600 people and is still probably not enough to deal with the problem directly anyway. So these PCs have to find a way to address the issue on their own, without the usual run in and fight. Otherwise they'll be rolling up new characters.

In the meantime, undead have risen from the catacombs beneath the town. Nobody knows why yet. Necrotic damage in my campaign can only be healed by 4th-level or higher magic, so it's a very dangerous situation. Right now it's just zombies, skeletons and ghouls, so they don't have to worry about necrotic damage. However, going into the catacombs to find the problem is a very frightening prospect, because there could be wights, wraiths, can cause necrotic damage. If the PCs choose not to engage with this, or the giants, there will be others that will, but they may or may not fail, and circumstances may turn from bad to worse if they don't.

These are all tailored to the events that are going on in my Forgotten Realms right now. Things that occur, and places they can visit, are much larger than what is often published. For example, I used the MERP maps for the Mines of Moria for the ancient Netherese/dwarven mines of Dekanter. This was a dwarven mine and city, housing tens of thousands of dwarves. It's not a few dozen rooms per level. It's an underground city. Another group of players is currently exploring that right now. They spent over 3 game months exploring another set of catacombs, using maps of the real catacombs under Paris. They are enormous, going on for miles. The potential number of undead is mind-boggling, imagine being the group having to explore that in a world like this. Every 10 feet is another 4 tiers per side of the 5' wide passageway of deceased. Are they dangerous? Possibly. Well, probably. At least some of them.

They are challenging times, and people will probably die. Maybe some of the PCs. There are so many options that I can't possibly imagine what the PCs will actually do. So I don't try. I just set the stage and let them take it from there. But I can say that beating these challenges will require a lot of creativity on their part.

 

[Hussar]

You could always try the classic roleplaying trope of passive aggressively complaining that you dont have a magical weapon until you get one. =;0)

My personal favourite is to research in game who has the magical item that I want and then come up with a reason for the rest of the party to help me kill that person to take it.

I believe that is the path I have chosen. Yes.

It's actually really funny. We played a 2 year Dragonlance campaign where my fighter did not find a single magic item that wasn't better suited to someone else in the group. Then we started (well sort of concurrently) this Ravenloft campaign and I STILL haven't found a magic weapon.

Hrmmmm, maybe they're trying to tell me something.

Naw, it's all good. Just really, really funny.

 

[Arial Black]

So I foolishly try to live my real life and when I come back there's been 100 posts about whether DMs should change the adventure to target either the PC's weaknesses or their strengths....

The first time I ever used point-buy in D&D was in order to have a legal PC for the Pathfinder organised play. I absolutely hated point-buy in both theory and execution but I wanted to play and point-buy was the only way.

So I came up with Malachi Silverclaw, a paladin who dumped both Int and Wis.

My next PC for organised play was born out of my frustrations with point-buy. I wanted to play a halfling bard/dervish dancer, and I realised that I could start with both Dex and Cha at 20. In order to do so I had to have the other four stats share the one remaining build point! The highest score you could buy was 18 and the lowest was 7. She started with 7/7/7/8/18/18. After assigning to stats and applying racial modifiers she started with Str 5 Dex 20 Con 8 Int 7 Wis 7 Cha 20. I then had to think of a way to play the little airhead, but that was easy!

The point is that I could have no expectation of DMs deliberately targetting either my weaknesses or my strengths because the DMs are all using the same pre-written adventures. The challenge here is all about risk/reward: does having a couple of great stats make up for having four bad ones?

Well....it depends! It depends on how you play. Specifically, you play in a way that maximises your strengths and minimises your weaknesses. This is the challenge!

As much as I resented having to dump FOUR stats in order to get the two I wanted, this is definitely only possible through point-buy!

Being made to use point-buy and then not having enough points to realise my concept, the choice that point-buy forces on me is to either be weaker in the stats I really need OR weaker in the stats I don't care about and which I could play in such a way as to minimise their potential disadvantages. Given that challenge I go for (in 5E terms) 16/16/16/8/8/8 over 13/13/13/12/12/12 every time.

And that challenge, the challenge to use those few points in the best way possible, motivates me to get the highest stats (or stat modifiers) as I possibly can.

And this is encouraged by point-buy! Demonstrating this is trivial: point-buy make me get my stats as high as possible, but when I'm allowed to freely choose my own scores (no rolling or point-buy or anything else) then I do not choose to give myself six 18s. With this freedom I have no pressure, no challenge to choose to have the best possible stats (six 18s), while point-buy challenges me to make the best use of my points.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - bwhuh? Why? Why, if given the choice to simply fiat your scores, you would choose lower scores, but, as soon as point buy is in the cards, you are "forced" to dump stat to realize your concept?

Given bounded accuracy in 5e, an 18 or a 20 isn't even all that necessary. A 16 or a 14 in your main stat is perfectly fine and doesn't really hurt your character at all. I find it rather baffling that point buy "makes" you get your stats as high as possible, but, if you had the complete freedom to choose your own stats, you'd create a character that had a lower point buy value than point buy.

And, if those Pathfinder Society scenarios were so combat focused that dump statting 4 stats never came up, those are some very poorly written scenarios.

 

[Satyrn]

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - bwhuh? Why? Why, if given the choice to simply fiat your scores, you would choose lower scores, but, as soon as point buy is in the cards, you are "forced" to dump stat to realize your concept?

I got the impression she's saying Point Buy feels like a sort of mini-game that she feels encouraged to beat.

But, of course, I'm probably wrong and she can tell you what she really means.

 

[Hussar]

I got the impression she's saying Point Buy feels like a sort of mini-game that she feels encouraged to beat.

But, of course, I'm probably wrong and she can tell you what she really means.

I gotta admit, that was kinda my takeaway as well. Because there is a limitation, she (is that the proper gender noun?) feels that she has to push that limit. Remove the limit and she chooses whatever "feels" right.

My only issue would be this. Look at the last five character you (whoever you are) have made that weren't point buy. How many of them are of less value than the 25 point buy in the PHB? I'm fairly willing to wager that very, very few would be and the overwhelming majority would be over.

 

[Arial Black]

I got the impression she's saying Point Buy feels like a sort of mini-game that she feels encouraged to beat.

But, of course, I'm probably wrong and she can tell you what she really means.

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?

 

[Arial Black]

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - bwhuh? Why? Why, if given the choice to simply fiat your scores, you would choose lower scores, but, as soon as point buy is in the cards, you are "forced" to dump stat to realize your concept?

Given bounded accuracy in 5e, an 18 or a 20 isn't even all that necessary. A 16 or a 14 in your main stat is perfectly fine and doesn't really hurt your character at all. I find it rather baffling that point buy "makes" you get your stats as high as possible, but, if you had the complete freedom to choose your own stats, you'd create a character that had a lower point buy value than point buy.

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.

And, if those Pathfinder Society scenarios were so combat focused that dump statting 4 stats never came up, those are some very poorly written scenarios.

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