Would you min max a character to compensate for lousy attributes?

[Crothian]

One of those"we had to roll 3d6 for attributes and this is what I got" threads leads me to this question. In thinking of what I would do with such a character I found my slef thinking how I could get the most out of my class levels and feats. I wonder if other people would do the same.

 

[KenM]

I would, you need to get all you can get with lousy stat rolls.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I would too. You're going to be a burden to the group that makes the game less fun for everyone if you can't at least raise yourself to some level of basic competence. If you need to min/max to make the game better for everyone, then so be it

 

[Crothian]

I would too. You're going to be a burden to the group that makes the game less fun for everyone if you can't at least raise yourself to some level of basic competence. If you need to min/max to make the game better for everyone, then so be it

Wouldn't it be better though to kill that character off and get a character that wasn't a burden?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Wouldn't it be better though to kill that character off and get a character that wasn't a burden?

If the GM won't allow rerolling the character, the GM probably won't take kindly to the intentional suicide either, considering it a way to 'get around' her ruling on the rolls. Also, see the thread on intentional suicides and derailing a game. If the GM will just allow the player to say "I commit suicide before the game starts", that's a different story, but then they basically are allowing rerolls

 

[Sound of Azure]

I don't often min max (I guess my answer is a combination of #1 and #3), but I do want a character I play to be effective, else either the character would not be in a group long (thrown out), or they would die along the way.

As for killing off the character, I probably wouldn't do that (I hate doing so to begin with). I knew what I was getting into when the DM said "3d6, keep what you roll", so I'll make the best of it. It's surpising how enterprising you can be with small resources.

That being said... it's a case of just how bad the rolls were. If they were extremely low (say, all well sub-10) I'd have second thoughts about gaming with that GM if appeals failed.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I don't tend to min-max to extremes. I've taken Run and Endurance and other 'useless' feats, for example, because it fit the concept. Within the concept I will try to make the character effective at what they do, though not to the point of oddball multiclassing, screwey feat combos, etc.

I probably would tend to play a character that is more focused than what I usually play, as the jack-of-all-trades types appeal to me more.

A lot depends on how truly bad the rolls were, and especially how the rolls compared to the other players.

 

[diaglo]

3d6 in order mang.

play the hand you are dealt.

 

[Rystil Arden]

3d6 in order mang.

play the hand you are dealt.

I expected you to say that in the other thread too, actually. Then again, you probably have us all on ignore

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I'd play it as it came, focusing in certain areas of interest as appropriate. I don't see this as min-maxing but more trying to make the character effective in their primary areas of interest. I'd compensate here and there for poor rolls in certain attributes, but perhaps leave others deliberately low to add a little colour to the character.

I suppose in essence what I do is think of a character concept that fits the stats well. I'm just not too sure this has anything to do with min-maxing.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise