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

[Wystan]

Okay, 3d6 in Order:

Str: 8
Dex: 16
Con: 6
Int: 16
Wis: 9
Cha: 6

Socially Inept Rogue who never quite knows what to do when not working.

4d6 drop Lowest in order:

Str: 9
Dex: 11
Con: 12
Int: 11
Wis: 10
Cha: 13

Hmm, These dice seem to almost resent the 4th Die. Maybe a Bard, or a Paladin....Ehhhh Pretty Average Character. +2 Bonus Total. DMG I think allows a reroll in that situation so here we go:

Str: 11
Dex: 14
Con: 17
Int: 13
Wis: 13
Cha: 8

Human Cleric/Barbarian

 

[sniffles]

I had to think about the choices for a moment before choosing which option I would vote for. I don't think of myself as a min-maxer, but on reflection I felt I had to select "I usually min-max and would min-max" to be honest.

In the group to which I belong it is our standard procedure to keep re-rolling the dice as many times as we like until we get a set of results we're satisfied with, then assign those results to attributes in whatever order we choose.

When I design a character if I need a particular attribute for a class ability, such as spellcasting, I will usually put the highest score rolled into that attribute. If I have a racial penalty to a particular attribute I put a high score into it, and lower scores into attributes that receive racial bonuses.

If I had a character with sub-optimal ability scores - meaning less than 11, for my personal definition of the term 'sub-optimal' - I would probably select feats that would give me bonuses to some of those abilities.

Playing a character with low attributes can be fun, but for the most part it isn't as satisfying to me as playing a character with at least some high attributes.

Does that make me a min-maxer?