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

[xnosipjpqmhd]

I guess I lean toward Diaglo and El-remmen's statements. Play the hand you're dealt.

Besides, I dig low stats, 'cause they make for interesting characters. Kickass heroes are a dime-a-dozen. Flawed heroes are much more fun.

 

[EvilGM]

Maybe, maybe not. It really depends on what I feel like playing. Coward goblin rogue? no min-max. Mighty paladin? yes! min-max. Hard to say really.
I can have fun playing anything.

 

[genshou]

So, you wouldn't need to min max the character. That's not min maxing in my book, the poll doesn't care for the reasons why just if you normally do and if you would here. Thanks!!

Oh, it takes a few character levels to kick in. Until then, I'm with diaglo. It's fun to see what kind of person I can make with the ability scores I'm given, without worrying too much about perfectly optimizing everything to make an effective combat monkey. I guess that makes my PCs excel less at adventuring, but it's more fun to play a character than a set of statistics.

My vote would still be for Other, though.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Don't min max! In fact, maxmin. Go for the worse choices in character creation. Play an elf and put the lowest stat into Con. Then play a mage. Put the highest stat into int, and then Cha, Wis, Str. That way you don't have to have him commit suicide - he won't survive the first fight.

Then roll up a new character.

Seriously, what is with that sort of behaviour, the DM forcing layers to roll in a low method and forbid rerolls even in really bad cases. Aren't they supposed to be heroes? Those stats will mean a weak individual that isn't equipped at all for the rigors of adventuring.

If you survive the first fight, start to get a bit reckless. If you realize that he's putting on an extra pair of velvet gloves, start playing your low-level, low-ability elf wizared as if he were a high-level, high-ability dwarf barbarian.


Personally, I wouldn't bother playing.

 

[Herobizkit]

Every party needs a "bum".

You know, the guy that hangs out with the cooler, tougher, smarter guys because they're cooler, tougher, and smarter than he is. He's the "Shaggy" of the Scooby Gang... he's the Xander of Buffy's "Scooby Gang"... he's the 70's Batman of the 70's Justice League (less relevant, but still counts; Batman used his bat-gadget of the day and Robin quipped silly lines while the other superheroes used super-powers).

No matter how useless this character apeears to be, he always has a moment that shines through (either by dumb luck or being owed his comeuppance), making him indispensible to the team. Shaggy always seemed to end up trapping the monster at the end of the show by acting as bait; Xander saves Buffy's or someone else's life at least once a season.

So, if handed 3d6 in order and I roll pretty crappy, I try and finesse what I CAN do rather than force myslef to take the most obvious and best choice.

In the thread that inspired this one, I suggested to the OP to take his "crappy" scores and make a bumbling, snarky child Aristocrat. Most people suggested to make a Rogue (his Dex was 14) or a Mage (Int 13). Feh, I say. Even with a Cha of 8 and a Wis of 6, it just fit that the Aristocrat in question would be a poor leader, have little social graces, and be a thorn in everyone's side.

 

[Melan]

I don't usually min-max (although I am not a foe of effectivenes), and I wouldn't do it if I had low ability scores. I would try to compensate for my failings with player ingenuity and being more careful than the other party members. In one of my 3.0 campaigns, there was a very weak gnome character (he was a wizard but didn't really have any useful spells), but he managed not only to survive all adventures (by hanging back and letting others get killed), but to make himself indispensible by being an "resource guy" - if you needed a coil of rope, or a loan for whatever purpose, he would be glad to oblige... at a handy profit.

 

[hong]

Pun Pun is the name of a low level Kobold, who also happens to be the Supreme Being. Basically, it's the name given to a rules loophole that allows Pun Pun to gain infinite stats (infinite strength, infinite constitution, etc...) as well as every supernatural, spell-like, and extraordinary ability that exists. This also allows him to have infinite actions each round, and I do believe he also gains every class feature of every class.

While still having only somewhere between 4 and 12 HD, ironically enough.

Clearly Pun-Pun is far too awkward to use in D&D, and Mike Mearls should seriously consider redesigning him.

 

[hong]

Everyone min maxes, or else they go Hypersmurf's route.

And surely the plural of Hypersmurf is Hypersmurves.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

And surely the plural of Hypersmurf is Hypersmurves.

That's nice.

But why do you bring it up? I guess he meant "the route of Hypersmurf", not "the route Hypersmurvae take".

 

[hong]

That's nice.

But why do you bring it up? I guess he meant "the route of Hypersmurf", not "the route Hypersmurvae take".

Do you read the bible, Kaeyoss? There's a passage I got memorised.

"The route of Hypersmurf is beset on all sides by the inequities of the munchkins and the tyranny of bad DMs. Blessed is he who, in the name of faithfulness to the rules, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly a rules lawyer and the finder of lost loopholes. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to twist and manipulate the rules. And you will know I am the Smurf when I lay my argument on you."