D&D 5E (2014) Why you shouldn't allow optional rules.

[Mephista]

The point is that apparently people can become a "min-maxer" by accident as it is rather easy to create very powerful characters just by following guidelines, rolling well and taking a thematically relevant feat.

By definition, you can't be one by accident. Its a mindset where you actively -look- for ways to maximize your potential and minimize your weaknesses. Its a lot like criminal law - in order for you to be guilty of something, you need both the criminal act, and the criminal mind set. Killing someone is not a crime if you don't intend on killing someone.

In this case, the lack of intention is what makes it not be a min-max. As I've said its a mind set and style of play. I personally just think you're mistaking a min-maxer for someone that happens to have a strong character. The two are not synonymous.

 

[Sacrosanct]

By definition, you can't be one by accident. Its a mindset where you actively -look- for ways to maximize your potential and minimize your weaknesses. Its a lot like criminal law - in order for you to be guilty of something, you need both the criminal act, and the criminal mind set. Killing someone is not a crime if you don't intend on killing someone.

In this case, the lack of intention is what makes it not be a min-max. As I've said its a mind set and style of play. I personally just think you're mistaking a min-maxer for someone that happens to have a strong character. The two are not synonymous.

I get what you're saying, and I agree that a person can't really be a min maxer unless they're trying to be one, but your analogy is a horrible one lol. Yes, killing someone can be a crime even if you don't intend it. Ignorance of the law isn't protection from the law.

I think a better analogy is cheating. Someone who accidentally stumbles upon an exploit in a game isn't a cheater. Someone who actively looks for exploits/cheats is one.

 

[Mephista]

Add Sharpershooter (-5/+10) and then come back. Or see the "Why should I allow Feats" thread.

See, here's the thing. Sharpshooter, on its own, isn't bad. You'll find that a lot of times, the sharpshooter builds rely heavily on the assumption that Bless, Archery style, and +X magic weapons are around. Some way of offsetting that -5 to hit. Its a combination of several vectors, all channeled towards one thing, and one thing only.

And the answer to this problem is absurdly simple. Hit the guy maintaining Bless - its a concentration spell. That's a weakness of the spellcasters in this game. Don't give out +X bows. Let it be so that that -5 is meaningful.

 

[Ahrimon]

By definition, you can't be one by accident. Its a mindset where you actively -look- for ways to maximize your potential and minimize your weaknesses. Its a lot like criminal law - in order for you to be guilty of something, you need both the criminal act, and the criminal mind set. Killing someone is not a crime if you don't intend on killing someone.

In this case, the lack of intention is what makes it not be a min-max. As I've said its a mind set and style of play. I personally just think you're mistaking a min-maxer for someone that happens to have a strong character. The two are not synonymous.

There are so few thematically appropriate options and feats that certain combinations stand out. Unfortunately some of those combinations result in characters that are more powerful than others. Hence what Derren said: "The point is that apparently people can become a "min-maxer" by accident...". The emphasis there is on the apparently, not some absolute definition statement.

The point that Derren is making is that it's very possible to create a character that is min-maxed without actually being a min-max player. For example, Fred Min-Man creates a character with options A, B, and C and proceeds to go to town and cause problems for his DM. The next campaign comes around and Joe Average-Player decides to create a character and picks options A, B, and C because he thinks they match his character concept. The DM takes one look at Joe's character and labels Joe a min-maxer and bans the character. Joe never intended to be a min-maxer, but has been labeled such just by picking the options that the PHB guided him to.

 

[Mephista]

Eh.... I just finished taking a Criminology class, and the finals are still on the mind. That's why I used it on the analogy. Might not be the best example, but it was the first that came to mind.

In either case, yes, the Mens Rea, the criminal mind, is actually a very large portion of criminal law. http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/mens-rea

And it doesn't have anything to do with ignorance - it has to do with "did you intend to steal, or was it an unintentional accident?" Not "did you believe that downloading music en mass was legal?"

Its a bit of an extreme case, but the point is - the mind set and motive of the person is important.

 

[Umbran]

Its a bit of an extreme case, but the point is - the mind set and motive of the person is important.

Sometimes. Just try to tell the police officer, "I didn't intend to be driving more than 10 miles over the posted limit. I didn't know the limit, I didn't see the sign!"

Maybe, just maybe, the cop will be kind. But, if your ticket gets to court... good luck with that. Your ignorance of the posted limit probably won't protect you.

 

[Mephista]

There are so few thematically appropriate options and feats that certain combinations stand out. Unfortunately some of those combinations result in characters that are more powerful than others. Hence what Derren said: "The point is that apparently people can become a "min-maxer" by accident...". The emphasis there is on the apparently, not some absolute definition statement.

The point that Derren is making is that it's very possible to create a character that is min-maxed without actually being a min-max player. For example, Fred Min-Man creates a character with options A, B, and C and proceeds to go to town and cause problems for his DM. The next campaign comes around and Joe Average-Player decides to create a character and picks options A, B, and C because he thinks they match his character concept. The DM takes one look at Joe's character and labels Joe a min-maxer and bans the character. Joe never intended to be a min-maxer, but has been labeled such just by picking the options that the PHB guided him to.

I know what Derren is trying to say. And I just disagree with him. Its the PLAYER that's the problem in this case, not the DM, not the character.

The DM might flag Joe as a potential min-maxer that could cause issues, but I find that any amount of time spent hanging around with a player quickly shows their attitude. And, again, its the attitude that's the thing that matters.

 

[Mephista]

Sometimes. Just try to tell the police officer, "I didn't intend to be driving more than 10 miles over the posted limit. I didn't know the limit, I didn't see the sign!"

Maybe, just maybe, the cop will be kind. But, if your ticket gets to court... good luck with that. Your ignorance of the posted limit probably won't protect you.

But this and that are separate issues. We were discussing serious issues, such as murder, or maybe theft. Mens Rea absolutely applies then.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Anecdotes from the internet will only tell you so much. Actual play in a campaign will show you so much more.

yea, I just work off I have run about a dozen 1 offs and 3 times we did run into caster supremacy issues. The funniest one is when I went out of my way to make a complex fighter and a simple wizard, the wizard still out complexed the fighter... and out powered, then when I posted here my review and look at the issue I was blasted that my wizard was designed weak, should have had better spells and should have been played smarter...

I just wish there was a build closer to the Bo9S fighters or the 4e warlord

 

[Sailor Moon]

yea, I just work off I have run about a dozen 1 offs and 3 times we did run into caster supremacy issues. The funniest one is when I went out of my way to make a complex fighter and a simple wizard, the wizard still out complexed the fighter... and out powered, then when I posted here my review and look at the issue I was blasted that my wizard was designed weak, should have had better spells and should have been played smarter...

I just wish there was a build closer to the Bo9S fighters or the 4e warlord

What do you mean by complexed?

Edit: Nevermind, I get what you are saying. To be blunt, you are looking in the wrong edition. Fighters were designed to do what they do best and that is fight. If you are looking for classes that have hundreds of bells and whistles then I will save you the trouble and tell you you won't find them here. If you want lots of choices then play a spellcaster or engage more with your character in game.