I Hate 'Min-Maxing'
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 ноя 2024
- Min-Maxing is an accusation sent towards too many players. In fact, I believe it doesn't exist in D&D 5th Edition at all!
#dnd #ttrpg #dnd5e
Credits:
The Grungeon Master logo, and intro music were composed by the wonderful Janina Arndt!
Find her here: / janinaarndt
Video Idea: Worldbuilding Implications of Nonmagical Damage Immunity
There are many examples of creatures in dnd who are totally immune to mundane weapons and would want to or could be used to dominate the nonmagical masses.
Lycanthropes, for instance, can multiply easily and are immune to nonmagical damage. Most types are predisposed to antisocial behavior, but wererats are described in the monster manual as operating in clans within “urban civilization”. All it takes is one clan to become particularly expansionist and you’ve got the dnd equivalent to skavens, swarms of rat people who are totally immune to your guard stat block soldiers. This could all mean that your world has a region ruled by an upper class of wererats or your world was able to overcome them and there are more silvered weapons than expected in your settings military.
Another example is the Empyrean, a 25 foot tall statuesque child of the divine. Some empyreans are said to become rulers, but I’ve never seen this concept in any game or story. They can fly and attack from 600ft away with magical bolts, meaning anyone with the ability to hurt them must be able to do so while flying as well, or at least from considerable range. They do not age and have extremely high intelligence (21), wisdom (22), and charisma (27). What happens when a ruler like this has the collective and perfect knowledge of their entire life thousands year rule? I’m sure much of what you covered in the elf video could be adapted to this.
Finally, one example of a creature that could be used in such goals would be golems. Including the cost of creating the manual of creation (from Xanathar’s), the cheapest golem (still immune to nonmagical damage) would be the flesh golem at 70,000gp. This sounds like a lot until you realize that this is a years pay for about 100 guards/soldiers (2gp/day). Even the flesh golem, the weakest of the golems, had the ability to kill a guard (the average soldier in dnd per the monster manual) in a single slam attack, of which they have 2/round. Depending on how difficult the magical components for the creation of the manual are to acquire, any conquering magic user or ruler with access to a full caster of 10th level (minimum to create a golem) would want as many golems as possible in their ranks.
Thanks a bunch if you read this far! I’ve just had these thoughts in my head for a while and I wanted to put them out there for someone who might use them.
Also in icewind dale they basically say that anyone born on a specific day of the year is just permanently immune to the cold
I think 90% of the time when people say they hate min-max'ing or optimization is because a lot of the people who do it don't have any interest in roleplay. They just want to do a lot of damage and or exploit RAW. But the reality is that neither is mutally exclusive from the other.
I also find it hilarious that no one complains about people making sub-optimal characters that drag the whole party down in combat and hog the spotlight in roleplay because their super special OC is built primarily to hog attention. I've partied with both types players, and the latter always tends to be the most aggravating.
@@KarlMarkyMarxx If you didn't find such complains then you are looking for them in the wrong places. As a previous Reddit user i can assure you that the dominant opinion in several D&D related forums was that sub optimal characters are horrendous and if you play one then you are a bad player.
That's just meta-gaming, though.
@@KarlMarkyMarxx I think it's also important to note the difference between sub-optimal builds and non-viable builds.
What you described is non-viable, and I agree, partying with dead weight sucks, I have legit played characters that have felt the need to float just letting party members die, or even flat out murder in one case, because somebody built a character that was simply incapable of functioning in a combat situation and it was a recurring theme where somebody would almost die because they had to pull their butt out of the fire. If your build is incapable of fulfilling their function *at all* and the risk of another player's character dying is *higher* because you are there than it would be if there was just one fewer player at the table, then that build is non-viable. The best example of a non-viable build is a spellcaster who dumped their main casting stat (outside of specific challenge builds that have found ways to make it work, mostly by taking spells that don't require attack rolls or saving throws, but that's just really weird optimization and not what we're talking about here).
Sub-optimal builds, on the other hand, are merely less capable than they could be, and trust me there is a LOT of room between non-viable builds and perfectly optimized builds that run like well-oiled machines. Now, whether a sub-optimal build is non-viable *can* be dependent on the DM or the way the rest of the party built, because if you're the only one who didn't power game their build to be perfectly optimized for combat, anything that can challenge your party will steamroll you and thus you are non-viable. But most parties don't do that all the time. Personally, I only have an issue with somebody else's stat-distribution if they have less than a +2 in their main stat, I might strongly *recommend* they try to get at least +3, but I don't think you're an asshole unless you have a +1 or lower because you simply will not be *able* to contribute meaningfully to combat unless the DM coddles you with under-powered encounters. +2 is the bare minimum level of acceptability, but is inarguably sub-optimal. Sure, somebody else could do your job better than you, but your presence isn't likely to get people killed simply for being on the battlefield, you might have zero impact sometimes but you won't have *negative* impact unless you also play like a complete moron and do things like picking fights for no reason, attracting enemy attention when you can't afford to, split the party for no reason, etc.
I am an optimizer to my core, and I will not tolerate non-viable builds in my party, but I will happily find ways to carry the sub-optimal build since priority number 1 is for everybody to have fun. I find it's important to draw that distinction because the ridiculous anti-optimizers will see this attitude toward bashing sub-optimal builds to justify their ridiculous stance that somehow we are the problem, I have no problem with another player's fun having other priorities than my own, their style of play is as valid as ours so long as we can co-exist with them when we need to. I once was part of a new group that formed from an LFG post and I was the only optimizer present, most of the players were newbies, but one veteran player was incredibly biased against optimization, I mentioned I had an issue with non-viable builds but what she *heard* was that I had an issue with sub-optimal builds, which I have no issue with outside of very specific circumstances, largely because she decided to equate me with stereotypes she had encountered on the internet instead of judging me based on the actual content of what I say and do in front of her, and she chose to be snide and condescending about it the whole time. While her attitude was inarguably the problem, perpetuating these stereotypes of mIn/MaXeRs telling people what to do and bashing sub-optimal builds doesn't really help with cooling tensions and coexisting with other styles of play. Don't sink to their level, and try not to accidentally support their ridiculous assumptions about us, please.
because players like that aren't optimizing, fun is the most optimal form of play and if your group isn't having fun you're not playing optimally
So, I think what a lot of people who hate min-maxing are actually referring to is optimization because people often tend to forget the min aspect of the phrase. For example a min maxed barbarian might dump everything into strength, dexterity, and constitution. Alternatively, the barbarian might invest into something like charisma or intelligence for role play and skill purposes. These choices are min-maxed because you are minimizing something to maximize something else meanwhile the optimized choice would be to invest into wisdom for mental saves.
This is a foggy way of making a false statement.
That's not how min-maxing works.
Min-maxing stands for *Min* imizing your weaknesses while *Max* mizing your strengths.
When applied to combat, that would be compensating for the atribute that makes you the most vulnerable while increasing the attribute that makes you the most dangerous.
If a character has no real weaknesses, or weaknesses so small that they don't need investment to be played around, then there is no min, just maxing. Increased strength without consequence.
But if a character DOES have a tangible weakness, then min-maxing would be aiming to strike the perfect balance between investment to reduce that weakness vs investment to increase your strength.
Min-maxing always revolves around META, or Most Effective Tactic Available. Stats invested for 'role-playing purposes', or any purpose that isn't winning in the fastest and easiest way possible, are by definition anti-min-maxing, as they are not being used to minimize your weaknesses OR maximize your strengths.
META is also highly dependent on the world, as well as the enemies in it. If there is an enemy that can incapacitate you with one attack, investing enough stats to barely endure one attack would already be game-changing. But if there is no such strong enemy, then investing far more into strength would provide more value.
@@CommentPositionInformer Well said, ironically the video is an attempt to min-max the definition in order to maximize how acceptable the act is while minimizing the ability to define it. It makes no sense logically or abstractly to require the lowering of a stat as a prerequisite to min-maxing. It's a flawed definition because different games won't let you minimize things but will let you neglect things. Like starting with standard array stats can still be minmaxxed.
I'm pretty sure people only dislike it because it's a bit hardcore tryhard - for something that is just a super fun carefree hobby. There's a good chance you have someone in your group who low-key complains about you not taking specific optimal OP choices, like Bards not taking "heat metal" in a campaign where they know they'll face a lot of armored knights. Min-Maxing is about always taking the perfect top tier guide choices in EVERYTHING: Stats, skills, spells, traits, race etc., ignoring the roleplay aspect or the fun, just having winning and cheesing encounters in mind.
Honestly, optimization is something that makes sense in canon as well. Wouldn't it make sense that the people being the most successful in their field also have relatively optimal skills for their occupation? If a person is playing a wizard that is capable of killing dragons with ease, wouldn't they have the appropriate spells in their book? If a bard wants to be the diplomat off the group, wouldn't he need relatively high charisma for it to make sense? Most people don't understand that even in the real world, the people better suited to a job are better known, in higher/more important positions, and accomplish more on average. Not having max specs doesn't mean you can't do the job, it means that you won't be as good as someone who does. That's it, nothing more or less.
With 4e a lot of the focus of theoretical optimisation in was on the *party* rather than the character. Sure, you could make a character that did maybe twice the average damage but it was mostly just a Ranger with lots of extra attacks. The real difference came from building a party to work together. An entry-level build was the "Radiant Mafia" if you want something to look up.
I agree that 5e has raised the floor on characters' abilities, but playing in a recent one-shot in which every character has dumped their strength score proves the min part of min-maxing still exists. 5 characters, one with a strength of 10, and four with a strength of 8 doing a dungeon crawl, and we came to an obstacle in the dungeon that none of us could physically lift. Nor were we high enough level to have spells to resolve the problem. We simply had to abandon the dungeon and go on an improvizes hexcrawl, instead, so we failed the explicit objective of the one-shot. Still, we did get to play for 4 hours, so it wasn't a complete loss, I guess.
Sounds like a good game. If all the players min maxed and couldn't move it, that's part of the min maxing choice.
@@archersfriend5900 It was a one-shot through StartPlaying, and there was no session zero, so we all made our characters independently. The party ended up being really garbage. So much redundancy, and no idea of how to support one another in 75% of encounters. All we did was ride the Gloomstalker's coattails the entire time.
@@PatRiot-le7rd that's a problem when one class is super dominant. I think the gloomstalker is totally broken.
Why did the DM railroad the party into a situation where the only way to complete the dungeon was with a strength check? I feel like there should always be some alternatives, even if you have a strong character. After all even a beefy barbarian might fail the check... then what? Hanging an entire dungeon on one skill check is asking to get soft locked, regardless of the party dynamics. Even if it's a prewritten adventure the DM should probably improvise some other options. Granted, they might be a lot harder or may cost something, but there should be options...
@@MannonMartin I played 2 different one-shots with that DM, and it seemed he had certain material prepared and wasn't good about improvising things outside of that. It was on a newer VTT, and juggling the maps of the dungeon, the possible adventure paths, and other variables was a bit overwhelming for him to have the bandwidth to improvise and adapt on the fly.
In 3.5 I had crafted a giga tank that at level 1 I could have an AC of 22 and if he was with his phalanx brother with a full defense stance they could have AC 25 at level 1, now they were useless at other things that weren't blocking a hallway.
My hot take on min-maxing:
It is objectively good for the game because it requires the party to cover each others weaknesses and cooperate to succeed.
That’s assuming they do build a varied party… most groups I’ve run go all in on damage and die….
Definitely. I wouldn't say optimization is bad for the game. That's why they give you the chance to improve your attributes and gain new niche abilities in things like feats and subclasses. If everyone played a balanced character with one good stat and struggled through everything, it would not be fun for players: which is why we play
This is only true when characters and classes have actual weaknesses and unique strengths that others cannot replicate. When you compare an optimized wizard to an optimized fighter, the wizard can do almost everything that the fighter can and so much more. The fighter is not covering for the wizard's weaknesses, he is simply contributing less in any way.
@@Lilith_Harbinger I agree that the wizard can optimize to fill numerous roles, but I can think of many things the fighter can do that the wizard can’t (or won’t survive long if they try). Most of them revolve around …fighting.
@@cfalkner1012a minimaxed rogue can be a face of the party, be stealthy and acrobatic, while also having a better knowledge of arcana than a wizard (stat wise), while also doing very good damage (sneaky sneaky), while carrying other players character sheets in his pocket since he'll need them only as his pokemon in fights.
And this is *yet another* reason I'm still on 3.5E / Pathfinder 1E. You're quite correct about that.
I created a stat system that is far better then the other methods.
You start with 72 points you can spread however you want NOT EXCEEDING 20, then you add your Racial Stats on top of that STILL NOT EXCEEDING 20.
Min-maxing was a rule to take 2 from one score to raise 1 score from dragon magazine. You average about an 11 on 3d6, but speed up character creation, you could just min max to get that +2 in strength since your fighter probably did not need intelligence in becmi to ad&d 2e. There were less interconnections between the scores; ie in the bx rules you dex did not modify move silent or breath saves, just ranged attacks and some weapons.
The ad&d dmg suggested it because characters often wanted 2 scores at least 15 to be satisfied with the character. This was a proto point buy system, and it got a bad reputation because people thought you had to role play your stats (ie, low intelligence means you have to play a dumb character). They thought they were cheating the system somehow if they ended up with a +3 without some kind of drawback.
I was really hoping this was gonna be “Does Min-Maxing reflect what real adventurers would do in a Fantasy World”
This was always a controversial issue even in 1e days. There were ways to min max even then, especially when DM's allowed a lot of freedom in character generation. I never saw anything wrong with it, in that it's really only an attempt, especially pre-skills and pre-feats, to specialize in something at the expense of everything else. That's fine with me, and what's more, that's real. That's what people do all the time irl. 5e, however, is more like "max-maxing" all the time.
D4 Network is a counterpoint. Colby absolutely min-maxes with point buy, multiclassing, and most definitely feats. But I love it, so yeah. (Side note 5e is my first edition so I do not know the level of min maxing from 3.5 or 4).
I think a way more important question is, does it matter if it exists? For the most part I don't think it does, although there are a few exception. Things like Weapon Juggling with Lances (as is possible in the One D&D play-test) for example might be a bridge too far for most tables because it just _feels_ wrong. Otherwise, when you maximize for one thing, you quite often suck at something else, especially if you use point buy/stat array to build your characters, so DMs just need to make sure there is enough variety so that one character isn't best at every encounter.
5E has way more "gimmick" builds, where it's a novel, non-standard way of doing things in interesting ways. My Lockadin has some cool advantages with the Lock Slots, but her PRIMARY thing is that she's an Undead Lock/Conquest Pally with the gimmick of frightening her opponents and locking them in place.
As well, my Bugbear Rogue is fun because of his freaky reach and extra surprise round sneak attack damage.
None of them are broken to the point of ruining the fun, all of them have a broader competency outside of their gimmick, but the gimmick makes them MEMORABLE.
A problematic min-maxer is also the same type of person who meta games going into the monster manual and looking up weaknesses and ACs to monsters they are currently fighting and using that information without prompt. These people usually don't have a character idea and just chose the class first because it seemed strong to them. Then they go online to find best overpowered build they can and when it doesn't pan out for them they get upset.
A regular Min-Maxer we usually don't have an issue with because everyone and I do mean everyone wants to see their character concept or idea come to fruition. And to do that we have to choose the best build to optimize our characters. Your probably not going to find a rogue with a vengeance story take up dancing just to avoid optimization. No we have an idea for a character and follow through, simple as that.
So in short min-maxing and optimization are not bad but the attitude and purpose behind it can be.
I think you raise a lot of good points that I agree with. I never played older versions but I did notice that what people call minmaxing is wildly all over the place and applied liberally without much thought. The few cases where I would say "minmaxing" maybe not appropriate is places like the Lucky feat Halfling divination wizard or the polearm master/sentinel combo. They can ruin the fun of other people at the table (including the DM) if its not something that's talked about beforehand. Obviously in cases like that, communication is key. I still think its a valid form of play within and outside of the rules, but it can leave other players without the spotlight in combat or with a DM who struggles to challenge them without killing the other PCs.
So the people I play with we roll our stats, but myself and 1 other player give ourselves a self imposed rule that if our lowest stat isn’t under 10 we will make it under 10 to really feel that we are bad at something. My warlock has an 8 in strength and my Ranger/Druid multiclass has a 7 in charisma lol
Personally i think a score of 8 doesn't feel bad enough. You're just a bit less than average, you don't feel like your character is horrible at something.
But that might have more to do with d20 being too random for my taste for skill checks, as the odds of a smart wizard who is proficient in history failing a history check are too high compared to the odds of a dumb paladin with no proficiency in said skill.
This is such a mute point though. Like a warlock with a low strength score is redundant. What are you using strength for? Like if I hear someone says 'yeah I wanted to take an L so I gave my cleric an intelligence of 8.' I just think 'yeah big fking deal, you don't use intelligence on a cleric, worst case scenario is that you have a -1 on your intelligence based skill checks which never carry mechanical weight or specialised for you to deal with. Intelligence saves never come up, and when they do it's usually explicitly by illithids and the campaign should be foreshadowing that they are the enemy.
In 5e, you can’t min-max when all the players are max and the enemies are min.
Why are people playing older versions of the game? Because those older versions have TEETH. Yes, players could get super-high ACs and a dozen attacks, but enemies could permanently drain levels, hp damage and drain, tons of damage, few saving throws, and more limited healing. I remember playing a pathfinder game where the first thing we all did was buy wands of healing in town because we were likely to die in the dungeon if we didn’t have access to healing and the GM wouldn’t hold back his punches.
Look at the damage progression of enemies in the 5e PHB-how messed up CR is, how few high-CR enemies there are, and how little damage they do vs how much the average player can soak up in hit points. Fewer deadly spells, few to no poisons, few surprise/ambush mechanics, the mechanical advantages of ranged/magic players over melee, etc.
And can you mitigate that? Nope. Make the hit points of everything lower, and you make melee an even worse option. Make the spells weaker, and you’re nerfing a single class or singling out a single player. Use the same tactics as the players and your combats will slow to a crawl as every token on the board will immediately take cover and fire pot shots at each other, doing little damage and dissolving into a stalemate. Or use Silvery Barbs on your players and suddenly the game becomes an unplayable mess of badly written rules.
5e doesn’t have good game balance, and that’s a bad thing. It seems good at low levels, but unless DnD 6e abandons play above 7th level, we’re always going to have campaigns that slow to a crawl, become an ungovernable mess for DMs, and outstay their welcome after only 7 out of 20 possible levels.
The big joke of min-maxing in 5e? Nobody cares about losing out on their capstones with multiclassing *because everybody knows they’ll never see those capstones anyway.*
To me I feel like Min-maxing isn't "I'm a really good warrior and nothing else" it's more "I made a MoAT(Master of All Trades) and he really doesn't need the party", and Min-maxed character can do almost anything in the game with good success, they can wreck combat encounters and charm a town into ignoring their role in a crime, they essentially can't be beaten because they've been carved to be unbeatable in almost every aspect that isn't "Have a Dragon kill them".
@@whydidiwatchthis5174 Armor Dip(artificer) Wizard has more "EHP" then a focus built Tank Fighter. Yes, Wizard can outclass the Fighter at Tanking, just because of the shield spell. And has Higher DPS.
Want to break all encounters using saving throws, 2 level dip into Divination Wizard, the Portent skill is not tied the spellcasting in any way, so you can force an opponent to fail any ability or spell you need them to fail.
If you want to talk Bards, then you have 2 things, first is a dip into Hexblade for the Charisma weapon proficiency, or Paladin for heavy armor. And second is Cook and Book, where you use Heat Metal on a (metal) armored target and they normally have to strip their gear to no die.
Well made Caster can erase the need to even get in close, they don't need to melee to beat the martial classes at combat.(And they are part of the "Charisma caster cluster" that allows access to a LOT of mix and match power build potential)
i mean, yeah, you are right, but then oh my goodness, have you seen someone with armor and both a physical shield, and the shield spell? or a charater with 2 levels of fighter, on a paladin? i remember back in the day, the players couldnt simply attack the monster to death, otherwise they would die first, but now its the reverse, why? just, why?
edit: do the players need their held at session 10? or 25? or 52? and what i am talking about is their power level, in 3.5 and earlier, the pcs were WEAKER than the monsters unless the dm intentionaly threw weak monsters, that probably came by the dozen, in 5e its the MOSNTERS THAT ARE WEAKER THAN THE PCS, unless the dm threw down a couple dozen monsters at the pcs, and that infuriates me, why cant a single dragon work, why does it need to be the dragon, plus half a dozen giants? why?
also hello power creep, its nice to have you back!
Modern players need their hands held
Modern DMs hold their players hands
I had a group of level 7's go up against a solo boss. To balance it he had:
-Immunity to several conditions
-240 hp vs lvl 7 players, IIRC 6 people
-4 shadow arms that dealt 2d6+5, 10 foot range and benefitted from true strike when cast
-level 2 spells at the start, losing hp unlocked spells up to level 5 (cone of cold)
-armor of agathys as a reaction to being attacked which scaled with previous spell scaling
-randomized lair actions that admittedly all missed
-summoned 1 otyugh and the boss became invulnerable for that turn
-AC of 20-22 i forget exactly
I gave them weapons that were too powerful for their level(+1 or 2 and 1d6 xtra dmg per hit) but all those features and the boss fight felt very easy, one player died but that was them trading hits with no caution at all.
@@djn6962 It's not "modern players", it's the system. If you didn't have dozens of low level spells that completely ruin encounters, you wouldn't need a hoard of monsters to challenge your players. If you didn't have Polymorph, Animate Dead, Fireball, Hypnotic Pattern, Summon spells, Banishment, Greater Invisibility, the game would be a lot more balanced. And it doesn't get better with high level spells, only worse.
@@Lilith_Harbinger designers make those design choices specifically to hold the hands of modern players, as modern players do not like adversity in combat, puzzles, or any other form of challenging content…
Dex paladins are cool though) But I honestly have no idea if I was dealing more or less average damage, I never considered calculating. I just wanted to play a sneaky paladin, and I loved doing it, that's what mattered.
minimum effort max results aka multi class dips, is this a problem no. can a optimised PC over shadow other players? yes solution buff your other players increase your DCs make combat interesting and dynamic hand out more inspiration for RP. don't shut down your players okay once or twice just to challenge them but don't ruin the thing they were excited about. basically to any DM who thinks these are issues just get good thats my hot take
Well this certainly says something about the system. I don't know if you are joking or not, but if the answer to "there is a problem" is "it's up to the GM to wreck his head to fix it" then the system is an issue.
Yes multi class dips are broken, especially warlock but not just. There is no good way to mitigate this other than limiting multi classing or playing favorites with players.
Rewarding RP is not really a solution. The player with the most broken build could very well be the best role player. Now this is a RP game, and RP is always encouraged, it just doesn't solve the inherent imbalance of classes.
I disagree with this defiition of min-maxing. In my view a min-maxed character is a character that improves its strengths and minimises its weakneses. Not a character that does one thing very well, at the cost of weaknesses elsewhere. Basically the difference is specalists vs generalists.
While the video is interesting it dodges the issue people actually refer to me when they talk about min-maxing and that is optimising a character as much as possible through feats and multiclassing combined with aversion to roleplay. The latter can be expressed through flimsy backstory, lack of connection to the story or refusal to engage with part of the game that doesn't highlight the optimized elements of the PC (usually anything but combat). Also constantly talking how powerful their character is and how every PC that isn't optimized sucks.
in Pathfinder 2e. the Mechanically Optimal Background Options for a given race/class combo are usually on a list of extremely easy backgrounds to narratively tie to their race and class.
Your definitions are spot on. On the question of whether or not it's good for the game, I suspect you'd hear very different answers from dungeon masters than you would from players. It's a game, and it's an artform. Us DM's want our world to be lived in not played in and min/max style characters bring the game to bear on the world... occasionally a bit too much lol. So, it's a DM's responsibility to provide a world to live in and a game to play at the same time and I think most players want that in equal parts. Thanks for the video!
It's ironic... I played a dog in D&D, and while I had 2 scores of18, I also had 2 scores of 8! One of those scores was wisdom. Smart, and charismatic, yes! Wise or strong, no!
Bad Optimization: making the best character sheet possible and blindsiding your table with how "good at the game you are" and ignoring RP and Exploration moments, and dominating combat
Good Optimization: taking a character fantasy, making the best character sheet possible from it, talking to your DM about it, flexing on your table in a way they'll appreciate, roleplaying the given fantasy in a fun and interesting way, not just letting but ensuring everyone gets a word in during table discussions and scenes concerning them, exploring by being creative with what you have rather than trying to outcompete everyone else... and dominating combat
Min-maxing can also be: finding the optimal path through progression.
Granting you the optimal choice, the one that Minimises any cost and maximises any rewards.
Min-Maxing is a mathematical aproach to leveling up, gearing up, forming alliances and so on.
More than that, its the constant and delicate attempts at grabbing the biggest reward for the smallest possible cost. The reward you got might not be the biggest one, but its the one which if you made a list of your options and shorted them using a point system(with the most points being on the top) in which you:
1) add points for what desirable reward any individual option gives you, and
2) retract points for any undesirable action, consequences or danger of that option.
Then that Min-Maxed choice will be the top one. And a min-maxer is one that does this both consistently and consciously.
Is this a good or a bad definition?
It all come down to whether you or your group view characters as a cluster of numbers to be maximally optimized for a thing, or as actual entities who progress organically as the story unfolds. Mechanics or narrative?Mathematical problem solving or creative problem solving? Both of these angles scratch two distinct itches and the spectrum that spans between them. I think it only becomes a problem when players don’t communicate their expectations with one another. Rather, they just assume that the way they play is the way everyone else plays. Unlike the old days, the RPG hobby is way too saturated these days(with people from all backgrounds and games of all flavors) to make safe assumptions about general gameplay
There's no reason you can't do both
@@collinw9792 Of course! As I said, there’s a spectrum between the two extremes. However, a typical player will usually prioritize one over the other. Bending the other in favor of their preferred angle. For instance, one may attempt to make their story revolve around the mechanics they wish to unlock for their “build”. Or perhaps, as they level, they only pick mechanics and feats that make sense with what has happened in the story so far.
I don't agree with your first claim but the second one is exactly the issue. Min maxing, powergaming, being a munchkin or whatever you want to call it, is only an issue when some people do it and others don't want to. It's only a problem when some characters are immensely more capable than others.
If everyone in the party is roughly equal in terms of combat power and contribution, it doesn't matter if they are all min maxed or none is.
Regarding your first claim, i think a lot of people do want to play characters (personalities, stories, etc) with certain builds (classes, feats, items) that they think are appropriate. A player that has planned a build for a character might be fixated on going a certain path, even if the GM presents other opportunities. However this does not mean that they see their character merely as numbers and optimization problems.
Personally it is easier for me to start writing a character from the mechanical perspective, then building a story that justifies their choices, tastes and abilities. That doesn't sound like a character that progresses organically, but i certainly don't see myself as a power gamer.
I feel like the players who start the game off with a 20 in their primary stat(s), and dumping the rest, will only ever improve on the things they really suck at, as opposed to being excited about the things that will boost their primary stats to 20 later in the game. This holds true esp if the player forgoes picking up a feat that would improve their main stat due to them already at the cap. if they plan around that to really try and maximize all of their stats, then unless everyone is doing that then they are being very inconsiderate of the rest of the party. I think min max only really works if the table as a whole is playing around that and the GM is expecting it and can setup the adventure to compensate.
Alternatively if the players breeze through all of the adventures due to their min/max spec, because the GM is unable to balance the adventure for it, then yay they players beat DnD? They really only hurt their won fun. I really think the point of the game is to have fun and if the game is just way too easy because the players break the game, then are they having fun? is the GM having fun?
5e does do a lot to balance the game, by forcing the specialist but ultimately it's on the group to figure out what is fun.
A lot of multiplayer games, especially mmos are not the same as even casual spaces are invaded by min maxing and I can't play games like warcraft and wizard101 the same :(
I think the idea is the focus.
To me, min maxing is a matter of ability to optimize and willingness to use that ability. But can become a problem if the guy forgets the RP part of the game and just focuses on”winning D&D”, creating, being a dick about their relative power, try to force the game to adapt to them, or if the balance is so out of wack that they GM has to separate the min maxed from the party to challenge one without murdering the other.
While I disagree with some of this technically, I really don't care about those points that much. In my opinion a system that has a good community behind it is best, I've seen people come up who've shown this point, even in technical disagreement. Looking at what you've presented, I've found philosophical soundness, peacemaking, and respect. I would rather have that than be "right" without those qualities. The AuldDragons, the Banamans, the Kikoskias, the Moosefishes, and the Grungeon Masters have that quality, to name a few, and I am humbled to learn from them.
Planar Sheperd Druids ❤
Hard disagree, it seems like a twisting of definitions and ignoring common colloquialisms.
Min-Maxing means minimizing weakness(es)and maximizing strength(s). This doesn't mean you won't take a -1 to your saving throws in exchange for +20 to your attack and damage rolls.
Generally speaking a person who chooses every time, the greatest increase in power possible, is probably a min-maxer. You could argue someone accidentally built a perfect build but let's not play dumb.
I think the reason this is such a touchy subject for DnD is for 2 primary reasons.
1. Most people don't want to min-max and when you do, it heavily imbalances combats and ruins the experience of other players.
(Note: Arguing that DnD is internally balanced from class to class and choice to choice is an unwinnable battle)
2. Min-Maxing can also ruin the fun of the person doing it. How many "fun" feats did you pass up on so you could add +10 make-believe numbers to your damage roll?
I would not recommend min-maxing without agreeing on it beforehand because it's a commonly seen problem in help forums.
I remembered an example I wanted to post for point #2. There are ways the game can be played that are more power-gamey and video-gamey that I'm sure most people may not even be aware of. Take the rogue as an example, you can make 1 attack with sneak per round....... Unless you know that isn't true and you actually get to add sneak attack to attacks on other turns. This means you could gain haste and have an ally provoke enemy movement and the same character in the same fight went from 3d6+dex to 18d6+ (Dex * 3). Same character, but dealing literally triple the damage of the guy next to him with the same build.
A DM cannot predict and balance encounters for both scenarios, you can't have an encounter work when players deal 100% damage or when they deal 300% damage.
Don't forget intentions here, if you min-max your character you probably also power game your gameplay, I have had groups with mixes of these plays styles and it would not have fixed it for someone to inform us that he wasn't a min-maxxer, just an optimizer. That rose smells just as sweet after all.
Sorry if I sound bitter, I just sound that way because I'm bitter! Play the game you want to play but please be honest and understand the limitations of DnD. I think the game is balanced around making every character feel good and feel like that character, that is why a barbarian gets a D12 HitDice and will trash most other martials 1v1, or why the rogue gets insanely good skill checks. The game is designed to balance fun and satisfaction, not fairness or statistical balance.
As someone who has run countless online games, I can tell you min-maxing does exist, and from what I am told by players, it is very much due to 5e.
Entire parties minimize all other features, simply to maximize damage. I end up running so many glass cannon parties that have no survivability, no utility, no nothing… just damage. More than not, they die… they get frustrated that damage wasn’t the solution and say that “well in 5e damage is king! Nothing else matters!”
It has made me never want to play 5e.
Sounds like you don't session 0
That's not a min max problem. You can min max to be good at control, healing, grappling, so many things besides damage.
@@fergusofdalibor4264 I actually do. I tell everyone to make a well rounded party to that can support each other. Many of them say they will, and then they just don’t. They all want to be dealing the most damage…
Edit: I should clarify, that if and when they do make a well balanced party. The people playing roles such as tanks, healers, support, CC, etc. see others dealing more damage, they immediately want to change to dps because they feel like they “aren’t contributing” even if it is literally their support and healing that is keeping people alive… 5e has made people value damage above all else at all costs.
@@collinw9792 but it IS them min/maxing in a way that IS a problem. How is it not?
@@djn6962 I didn't say that players don't ever min max in a way that causes a problem. I'm saying it's not a problem with min maxing, it's a problem with those players. Same with looking up monster stats to "win" DND. That's a problem, and it's a problem min maxers may use, but it's not a problem with min maxing, bc they aren't related
I think min maxing is fine when it fits character narrative reason and is discreet. The 'mystic' issue was they could be too good at too much. If one character can do everything better than another you have a problem. I have 2 rangers in my campaign party. One of my player's characters is maxed for archery damage (Gloomstalk), a real problem in balancing combat. However, his whole character is a selfish loot obsessed minor coward who hides in a different postcode to any combat they're destroying. But out of the mechanics of combat they often back themselves in things they cannot do, since beyond shooting it is not much, causing conflict and fun RP. The other player ranger (Swarmkeep) has way more CC and out of combat utility, so even though i have one 'min maxed' ranger. They never render obsolete or step on the toes of the other one.
Or so i try to maintain anyway....
Does he use the CBE/SS combo? A ranger should be able to do a LOT out of combat, especially if they have a high Dex and reasonable wisdom
Specialize in one or two things, and suffer in others... or Generalize in EVERYTHING and master nothing. All types exist, and if you are in it for the RP purposes you can optimize your character's specialty, or you can dabble in everything, and still play your character to full RP Satisfaction. Honestly, I feel min-maxing is really just used as an excuse for people to discriminate. But that's just me, I could still be missing some important information.
Min maxing is when you stay dump everything into one or two stats, and nothing in the others.
Like glass cannons.
"Min-maxing" simply refers to "minimizing negatives" and "maximising positives". That's what min-maxing is! And no, it didnt originate from DND, it originated as a formal studied concept, from maths! Where it is referred to as "optimization", unsurprisingly.
But it has always existed as a concept of some sort, since the beginning of humanity itself.
I disagree that minmaxing doesn't exist in 5e. However, because general optimising in 5e is significantly easier than minmaxing, its more prevalent.
But it is still possible to minmax.
As an example, I made a build (not a character, it didn't have a character, and I didnt play it) that had expertise in about 15 skills (unfortunately I didn't save it, so can't check), and profficiency in the other 3. I got to 17 with UA. Nothing else was particularly good, stats all around 13, no high level spells or extra attack, but expertise in almost all skills. That is min maxing.
You can apply that laser focus on character creation in 5e, and you can be better at your one specific aspect of the game than a generally optimised character, but the generally optimised characters are easier to create and tend to be more powerful on average, so you see them far more often.
@@whydidiwatchthis5174 have you heard of absurd? That build was based around classes that aren't useless, too. But that didn't make it a strong character.
If you are playing the game more like it was placed, then it's more of a tactical war game. And then min-maxing makes more sense. If you were a magic-user, you would be happy with min maxing fighting men to create a shield wall for you, so you could do your job. The narrative was the survival of the dangers of the dungeon and finishing the quest. The more modern version, the narrative comes first, and in some cases can be more "rail roaded", to fit the narrative that the DM crafted. You don't need to "min-max" in a game where DMs fudge dice rolls, and give player characters plot armor. This isn't to say that one style of play is better than the other, they are different experiences which different people will have a preference for. But the margin of danger is lower in modern D&D usually, so one doesn't need to do it, and isn't punishing themselves or their party members.
One caveat here:
Minmaxing for specialization is one thing. Filling an incredibly niche role really well can be a perfectly legitimate option.
Let's say you are designing an omnivorous animal. You want it to be able to access tricky food so +2 to intelligence. You don't really care about taking down big game or winning fights since your plan is to have them hide in trees when danger approaches, so -2 to natural weapons.
Fair enough. You now have something that's pretty dependent on living in trees but excels at those food l sources that require basic tool use to access.
Ok, that's an example of specialization.
What happens if we then go further? +4 to intelligence, +3 to dexterity, -2 to strength, -5 to natural weapons.
Will this build be more specialized?
No. This build is gonna use that dexterity and intelligence to break the game by making a throwing spear, fire, clothing, etc, completely negating all of its weaknesses and turning it into the ultimate generalist. Big game? Winning a fight with large predators? Food is underground? Living in harsh conditions, or any and all conditions?
Right, there are certain cases where taking extreme values of some particular stat can be utterly gamebreaking and completely negate the drawbacks of a different stat being low.
Did you get the idea from the group chat the other week?
You just barely sort of gloss over it, but multiclassing is a huge source of min-maxing in 5e. Pretty much every strong multiclass build in 5e is an exercise in min-maxing, especially any of the ones that involve spellcasting classes since they always involve losing out on higher level spells.
But also, words and terms shift in meaning over time and that's okay.
Coffeelock isn't nearly as bad as Pun-pun, but compared to other powerful class options, monster stat-blocks, and modules, Coffeelock might still be more game breaking than Pun-pun.
So I would claim that the upper bounds of the min-maxing have been lowered, but the average character still is problematically worse than those characters that are min-maxed.
Min-maxing is defined as: minimizing your *weaknesses*, and maximizing your strengths. Which at least to my eyes, means 5e is min-maxed by design. We dont have punpun anymore because the game and spells have be dumbed down. People play older editions of the game because *they are better designed*. Do remember 5e was a slap-dash hail mary because they were told the D&D department was going to be gutted by management.
I use minmaxing to make ridiculous characters survive.
:).
You're right, min-maxing doesn't exist. Optimization does, but there's no way to take stat reductions below 8 and no way to reduce your effectiveness in one area in order to improve in another area.
So many people in this comment section missing the point. Happy to see someone was listening
Sure there is. You can roll for stats (which many tables still do), or other tables customize stat buy. The two most popular D&D programs in the world are Critical Role and Dimension 20, the current campaign of CR has a Sorlock with 5 STR, 19 CON and 18 CHA, and the Ravening War has two multi-class bard characters with crazy stat arrays, especially Brennan's Bard/Rogue that has 5 STR and 6 CON. So it's easy to reduce your effectiveness in one area to boost another if you really want too.
I'd say it is technically possible to min-max... sort of. You can minimize one thing to maximize another. It just isn't to the degree that it once was. In 5e even if you are bad at something you can still often succeed at it. And the game is very forgiving in other ways as well. It's just not the same. And I would argue attempting to min-max in 5e still winds up creating viable characters so while you attempted to min-max the problematic part of it doesn't exist... hence the reason for the term is kinda mute. I just use the term "optimize" instead.
Min-maxing doesn't exist of you use his strawman definition(no offense). Min-Maxing doesn't mean you minimize good stats to maximize other preferred stats. It means at every fork in the road and every choice you can make you choose the greatest gains in power within a framework. Example: attuning to a weapon that triples your damage instead of a helmet that gives you dark vision and +1AC. You didn't minimize your AC, you never had that AC bonus from the helmet to begin with you could only choose 1 item no matter what you tried to do, so you chose the one with the highest gain in power.
@@1776huckleberry That just sounds like optimizing to me. I think min-maxing is a form of optimizing, but is actually more narrowly defined and originally specifically applied to minimizing all but your preferred stats in order to maximize those few.
I think you are wrong, I mean have you seen the RUclips channels that still talk about builds for 5th edition? Sure, Treantmonk (I think) just make a video about how the revised edition will smooth out more than 5E currently does, that alone should give you a hint that min-maxising is still alive in that game. And there is also always the conversation about power creep, like Tasha's Cauldron made obvious. But what do I care, I do not even play that silly game anymore.
Lol this comment is better if you read it like an angry redditor holding back tears
@@fergusofdalibor4264 Weird flex, but okay...
@Drudenfusz not a flex, just funny
The premise of this video is a basic semantic concept. Some people don't know what min/maxing means. That's it. Powergaming, exploits, min/maxing, twinking, broken builds--whatever the EXACT word or phrase you use to describe some behavior, the common usage implies some kind of "problem". Mostly it's a problem for DMs. That's really all it is. I appreciate you spent way more time than you should have writing this script, but damn this is basically correcting someone using "your" when they should have used "you're". P.s. When the only real remedy a DM can use is "jesus wept, TCoE is banned" then I don't blame players as much as who the shit thought Wildfire Druids were not going to be used and abused? Google exists mofos. I opened up my latest game and just said "make WHATEVER you want, no limits." What'd I get? Wildfire Druid, Aarokocran Monk, Dragonborn Barbarian. Nobody even bothered to play a rogue, because the monk took sleight of hand. Surprisingly the only somewhat entertaining character was the wizard, who made an abjurist. He just wanted to stay safely tucked away while the psychopaths burned, pummeled and slashed their way through entire villages. I'm not mad at my players. Basically the fantasy wagner group just mercin their way across fantasy eastern europe. I haven't quite figured out who their Putin is yet. Probably each other. I digress.
I'm a "min-maxer"... mostly a combat lover and I like "breaking" balance... I spend dozens of hours on building my characters to be as strong at combat as possible, to the point where I could destroy the entire rest of the party on my own if we ever ended up in a party vs me PvP scenario. Never happened before but would be pretty funny if the campaign just dies because they thought they'd win against me ahahah. I'm the main character.
Min/Maxing definitely exists in 5e, I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise...whether it's a problem is the only question that really matters. I think you are needlessly muddying the waters by bringing Roleplaying into it as it has nothing to do with Min/Maxing.
For the most part I'd say Min/Maxing doesn't negatively effect the table unless one player is abusing the Rule as Written (RAW) because so many rules are ambiguous/poorly written in 5e to give them an unrealistic advantage and overshadow the rest at the table. That being sad, if _everyone_ is doing that, then it's all good.
The main gist of the video suggests that there are too few options to 'minimise' potency as a sacrifice for more specific power for it to realistically be useful to keep min-maxing as a term, over, say, optimising.
Thus, the term is a broad catch-all with very little useful meaning, and a lot of negative contradictory connotations. Thus it doesn't 'exist' as a coherent or useful concept.
Just a TLDW.
@@Grungeon_Master I watched the video, I just don't agree with it. I also don't think there's much value into a semantics argument over the terms "min/max" vs. "optimized" when they are used interchangeably by 90% of the audience.
Due to class design, its clear certain combos can be made with Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks and Paladins that make Min/maxing favorable, so much so that One D&D had to change Warlocks specifically to address it.
Was it worse in 3.5? Sure, no argument there, but it still exists in 5e.
@@Grungeon_Master Either way its not the min-maxer, nor the optimizer that people should worry about its the power gamer. The one who puts optimal play at the focus, and everything else in the dust. That's actually what I think people are referring too, and its easy to stigmatize whenever some dude plays a strength based class and maxes their strength out.
I think that's what people mean when they speak so negatively about someone who "min-maxes", or "optimizes", because the shoe fits. Power gaming is reserved for those who care more about optimal play than anything else. It is priority number one. It has all the classic problems too.
Detracts from roleplaying, undermines balance and challenge, can be disruptive in the wrong group. The stigma surrounding min-maxing or optimization often arises when it crosses the line into power gaming, where the emphasis on optimal play becomes overwhelming and disregards other important aspects of the game.
@andrewshandle "I watched the video, I just want to make an argument and never change the way i think."
The point of the video was to show how terminology and mechanics have changed greatly, but people still use umbrella terms that hardly apply. I don't think he literally means there's no min maxing anymore at all, but rather the effects of doing so are drastically different than when we first started using the term.
@@fergusofdalibor4264 lol, so the fact that I don't agree with something the video said means I just want to argue and never will change my mind? That's beyond silly. Just because a person makes a video on a topic doesn't automatically make them correct on a topic.
The fact that the creator liked your comment is pretty funny too. So rather than actually discuss a topic he just likes people who agree with him, that's some awesome engagement there.
In my 4 years dming I can think of 1 character that actually min maxed. My sister made a rogue for a long campaign we ran with very high wisdom and intelligence and only 13 dexterity. She also was a kalashtar with the inquisitive rogue subclass and the observant feat. Her passive perception was very high and her active checks were almost always higher. She was however nearly dead weight once combat started and not particularly good at anything else. She eventually multiclassed into wizard when the party lost its sorcerer filling that niche but wasn't great at it.
Min-Maxing isn't just specialization though, Min-Maxing is when when you taking things primarily because they give the most power with least downside, meaning your not actually sacrificing for specialization, whether or not said development in a character makes sense with the narrative established. Your second point of specializing to a point of weakness and then complaining when your specialty need not apply is more a factor, that is relevant, but is more a related issue to the min-maxer, that such things as min-maxing and crippling over specialization are at the end attempts to become the "protagonist" in your group RPG. The concept of a build isn't itself min-maxing that is just recognizing synergy, its more when a build crosses the line to strict formula for success that notably outpaces the alternatives without cost its an issue.
Over all I'm going to have to disagree with this video because specialization =/= min-maxing, thus I find this more a strawman than valid discussion. Also just because one game may have done something that may limit min-maxing doesn't mean the genre problem is gone.
Good.
I have to disagree with you. Just because the official book recommends you to min-max does not mean that doing so is no longer min-maxing. I think people don't have a problem with min-maxed characters so much as they have a problem with the fact that non-min-maxed characters really start to seem unviable. I believe that both extremes of specialization should incur significant risk. If you are a Wizard with 18 INT at level 1, your lack of Strength, Dexterity, Charisma, or Wisdom should be able to get you killed. Meanwhile, if you make a Wizard with 15 INT plus a bunch of 13s in other stats, that should also put your PC's life at risk due to a low hit chance/saving throw. The safer bet should be somewhere in the middle.
My personal belief is that this can be accomplished by giving random chance less weight in success relative to ability, giving more advantages than just ability checks and saving throws to non-core ability scores, reducing the ability for classes to rely on a single ability score for everything they could need (cantrips as a backup weapon, the relative ease of replacing STR for attacks, etc.), and continuing the good work 5e started with Feats. Feats in 5e were interesting because they were broader than in 3.5e. Sure, a feat could make you more specialized, but it also often opened up other opportunities as well. What WotC is doing with - for example - Weapon Mastery in 5.5e directly contradicts this enlightened impulse. I should point out that one of the reasons feats were so popular was directly because bounded accuracy very quickly let you max out your primary ability score, and increasing non-class ability scores was just flat-out non-viable.
By giving players more ways to benefit from different types of builds, you can increase the number of potential role playing playing opportunities. Not every Fighter should be forced to dump CHA and/or INT or be left behind by players who do. Maybe you want to play as an intelligent and strategic officer or a vagabond who gets away with frequent use of force because he's so charming. You might say that there are intelligent Fighters in the form of Eldritch Knights, but that class is basically a trap with how it's designed to require more ability score points than the others just to be on par with them. The sting of having to do so - or in other examples, multiclass into classes that do not overlap in terms of ability scores - could be lessened by adding more benefits to non-core ability scores as I mentioned above.
Overall, I think they kind of messed up by making DEX and CHA so over the top important compared to other Primary Stats like WIS, INT and STR in 5e. They've touched on this in 5.5e by giving Barbarians the ability to use STR for a bunch of different skill checks, but they still need to give fighters a bit more love and maybe give more options for other classes to use INT or WIS for more social skills. Allowing Warlocks to be INT or WIS based also helps a bit too.
The main problem with 5e is that CHA makes you best at everything social, but it also makes for great Sorcerer, Bard and Warlock builds meaning they're good at basically 90% of the game for most tables (i.e. combat + social), while Barbarians, Rangers and Druids are begging to do a Hex Crawl so they can at least use some of their skills.
@andrewshandle Well, I can't agree that just allowing any class to use any skill or attack or spell with whatever their primary ability is is a good idea. At that point, there are really effectively only 1 or 2 ability scores in the game, just going by different names.
I do agree that because CHA classes can use their CHA to be effective in combat - just as effective as a Fighter - but they are also much more useful outside of combat, it's by definition broken. I don't agree with the way Rangers and Druids are geared toward exploration in 5e; instead of actually interacting with a game system, their abilities just allow them to succeed without any actual play involved.
My hottest hot take about 5e is that ability scores are basically vestigial and the game would be better if they were the optional rule instead of feats. They don't add much of anything to the game any more. Most of what they do is limit multiclassing and make it possible to build a character wrong.
Ability scores are at their best when they all do separate things with minimal overlap (that often imposes its own costs) and it hurts to dump any of them. Dumping Str and Int in particular is just so painless in 5e.
Dude I really dislike 5e. I am from the old school scene where I am in love with stuff like DCC, Knave, Old School Essentials... and really, min maxing isnt the issue. The issue is that 5e characters are too powerfull. Its almost impossible to DM a normal wholesome adventure, too much expectation from player side. Please people. Try out the OSR. The old school style gameplay. You will enjoy it so much more
minmaxing roleplaying/life sim/management games specifically is just dumb. good luck staying interested in your favorite hobby in a few years. people’s lack of creativity in games that were designed as a way to get away with writing a story you couldnt write in real life-a fun, funny, dangerous, interesting, risky, memorable, and unique story-is just backwards. save the minmaxxing for real life and enjoy gaming that much more. do something interesting. forget about the numbers for one bluddy second and smell the pixelated flowers
Min-maxing doesn't exist! There's only grin-graxing!
I never defined min-maxing this way and I consider myself a min-maxer. My definition was always maximizing a good performance of a role while minimizing the chances of a poor performance. For a fighter this is maximizing damage output while minimizing failure to hit or being hit in turn. I did not see this alternative definition until now. It's interesting if nothing else.
Your eyelashes are very pretty
get some fresh air, man. PS. nothing is more un-immersive than a bunch of stats and dice rolls.