PDA

View Full Version : why do people minmax?



juggalotis
2010-03-12, 01:57 PM
Off the hop I am not a min maxer myself but i also dont have anything against the people who are. im just curious as to the reason those of you who are do it. Call it psychoanalytical if you wish.

For instance, My group has 2 such players. I have asked both and ones answer was that he didnt want his character to die. simple enough for me. the other player states that he just doesnt want his character to not stand on par with other players if they end up min maxing. slight paranoia but still ok.

So what i ask is what is the reason you guys do it.
i guess ill toss this out there as well, the reason i "dont" is because i like to view the characters as normal people who are simply trained instead of people who are powerful to the point they would be the only people who could be adventurers.

senrath
2010-03-12, 02:02 PM
I don't excessively, but the amount I do is so I can pick up the slack that the rest of my group leaves, as they spend essentially no time on their characters and just throw things together at random (for the most part).

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-12, 02:02 PM
because i used to be the guy the built his characters for story more then any thing, even though i was playing with a bunch of munchkins who where good at RP.

decided that i had enough learned the ways of TO, CO and Munchkins and havn't looked back since...


O and i read the stormwind fallacy so now i make medium strength characters.

valadil
2010-03-12, 02:02 PM
I min-max because it's an interesting puzzle. I like trying to figure out if it's possible to get 10 levels of incantatrix and 6 levels of mage of the arcane order into 20 levels on a sorcerer.

I wouldn't play such a thing of course. Min-maxing is never about roleplaying for me. It's more like solitaire - something I can do at work when I'm bored.

Ravens_cry
2010-03-12, 02:09 PM
@OP:
Because people like their characters to be effective. And a good basic strategy to do so is to minimizing the detriment, while maximizing the benefit. Hence the term, MinMax.
An adventure about a normal person being thrust into Big Things may be cool to read, The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings were both excellent examples of such, but it's less cool to play in a combat heavy game. Most of us are less then competent at the art of relieving creatures of their vital functions. And in world where the majority of beings to wish to do so to us, playing Joe Normal is an exercise in frustration.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-12, 02:10 PM
Because WotC has no idea how to balance encounters or modules (neither does Paizo, but they at least know how to challenge people), so I build my characters to survive these encounters so I can see the end of the campaign with a single character.

I also don't like being a liability to the party as a whole. If I feel that I'm not pulling my own weight at the very least, I feel responsible if something really bad happens that I could have prevented if I were more effective (even if it means something as minor as taking a different feat or putting two more ranks in Spot than I did).


Sometimes though, I sift through the books while bored and find things that work well together.

Shinizak
2010-03-12, 02:12 PM
I do it instinctively. I see rules and I want to follow them, I see numbers and I instinctively begin to change them.

Optimystik
2010-03-12, 02:16 PM
Because not sucking > sucking.

juggalotis
2010-03-12, 02:17 PM
@OP:
Because people like their characters to be effective. And a good basic strategy to do so is to minimizing the detriment, while maximizing the benefit. Hence the term, MinMax.
An adventure about a normal person being thrust into Big Things may be cool to read, The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings were both excellent examples of such, but it's less cool to play in a combat heavy game. Most of us are less then competent at the art of relieving creatures of their vital functions. And in world where the majority of beings to wish to do so to us, playing Joe Normal is an exercise in frustration.

I know what mixmaxing is dont worry. im just wondering what the reasons are people do it, if you like to be the guy who has monsters running thats fine, just simple curiosity my friend. i personally like the challenge of being hard pressed. instead of playing on easy mode. but to each their own.

Douglas
2010-03-12, 02:19 PM
Two reasons:
1) I want to play characters who are effective at what they do. When building a character for actual play, I try to build so that my character will be able to accomplish what he needs to and will rarely be useless, but will not overshadow the other party members too much.
2) Seeing just how far I can take it is an interesting sort of logic puzzle sometimes. Going to the more extreme ends of optimization is a fun mental exercise in discovering just how brokenly powerful you can be - within certain constraints, otherwise Pun-pun would be the answer every time. The fuller applications of this reason are usually reserved for especially cutthroat high power arena games, where demonstrating experimentally the extent of your optimization skill is the whole point of the game. Very occasionally, an actual campaign or adventure comes along where such extremes are welcome, and that's how Team Solars in my sig came to be.

randomhero00
2010-03-12, 02:21 PM
For many reasons, but mostly for fun. Its an interesting puzzle to solve. But unlike puzzles that you just throw away when you're done (like crosswords) you get to see it play out and roleplay it out once you've completed it. Its kind of like a nice ongoing puzzle that has a reward at the end (beyond solving it.)

Besides that, I also simply enjoy high powered campaigns and roleplaying high powered characters. Especially because I like hiding some of that power (for roleplay reasons), and that's not possible if I don't optimize since it'd be really low powered if I made a non optimized character and hid power on top of it. In other words I enjoy having several aces up my sleeve.

Lycanthromancer
2010-03-12, 02:24 PM
(neither does Paizo, but they at least know how to challenge people)Just because people on their boards are specially challenged...

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

Anyway, I like to find unusual character ideas using things that normally don't work well together, and make them work, and well.

It's like unto a game in itself; I like seeing how far I can push things, and what happens when I do. I don't generally optimize for power (not in actual games, anyway), but I like making rules jump through hoops (for actual games) without actually breaking them. For instance, psychic warrior is a nice, well-rounded tier 3 class, but they have horrible issues with stamina; I'll make a build that can keep up with the standard martial classes all day long, without needing to take time off to rest, or to use combat rounds to buff. I had a psion/constructor that was likewise optimized for stamina, and I never once ran out of power points after about level 5 (and that was including the mass battles we often engaged in with armies of ten-thousand+ enemy troops).

I like to engage in theoretical ops and break the game all to hell and back just to see if I can, but I optimize for interesting and useful (but not broken) things for actual games.

Nich_Critic
2010-03-12, 02:24 PM
Because I like to have fun. Mainly, two things are detrimental to me having fun: Frequent death, and helplessness. I reduce the odds of these things happening by building a character who can take some punishment, and has at least one option in a most situations. This is why I enjoy playing spellcasters. They frequently get more ways of dealing with/getting out of a situation then melee types.

I usually try to reach a minimum level of survivability and versatility before tacking on fluff. For example, in a previous campaign I had a sorcerer/shadowcraft mage. Since the shadowcraft mage levels alone were enough power for me, I also took wild mage levels, even though I could have taken just about anything else and been more powerful. Likewise, after maxing my concentration and spellcraft, I also put cc ranks in perform, since it suited the character.

I generally try to fix it so that I am at least on par with the rest of the party. I don't really like being a win button, so I don't try to go over that.

When selecting feats, I have a really hard time selecting an obviously weak feat unless it's a prerequisite for a better one. That's more optimizing then min maxing, however.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-12, 02:26 PM
i personally like the challenge of being hard pressed. instead of playing on easy mode. but to each their own.

A properly built encounter will account for the level of optimization the players use. Using the enemies as-written means it will be very difficult to do so, even at lower optimization levels (many encounters have no balance, or are over-CRed, because WotC didn't understand their own system).



A simple example: Take the standard Orc Warrior. Give him the Elite Array and a level of Warblade instead of Warrior. He's now a competent CR1 who can challenge parties for several levels, instead of being cannon fodder. The PCs would actually be a bit intimidated by 4 of these, rather than opting to just drop a Color Spray on them (seeing as Diamond Mind makes this harder to actually do).

Yukitsu
2010-03-12, 02:26 PM
My DM and I did a bit of an experiment. They gave me a new book (psionics) and an hour for me to learn it, then another half hour to generate a character based on a concept that had made for me to follow, including the necessity of getting certain abilities right, who would become a recurring villain for the party. I managed it in the allotted time and found out that, instinctively, I had taken most of the abilities that made me outshine most of the party. We then went through 9 iterations each taking a half hour nerfing the character down the the norm.

Seeing what abilities are good, what exactly makes them good, and what other abilities they would merge well with comes naturally to some people, but not to others. In my case, I minmax out of instinct and habit, and have to make a concious effort to reduce down my abilities to the party norm. In other words, I minmax not for any good reason, but simply because I have to.

One person commented that I'm a bit like a spark from Girl genius when I make characters. I get a bit caught up in it.

Curmudgeon
2010-03-12, 02:28 PM
I seem to be the odd guy out here. With point buy (which is the only fair system of character creation) I optimize by getting best value for my points, which means starting numbers don't exceed 14 before racial adjustments. No significant maximums or minimums. Of course I like to play characters who always have something worthwhile to contribute, which is hard to do.

Superglucose
2010-03-12, 02:31 PM
{scrubbed}

Sliver
2010-03-12, 02:32 PM
i personally like the challenge of being hard pressed. instead of playing on easy mode. but to each their own.

You can still be challenged, even if you make a character that is good at what it does. Heck, the best at it's field. It's just a different challenge.

If I make a character that can do what it is ment to do, and even a bit more, and be more then simply competent at that, I know that the DM will be able to throw more at me and not holding the punches. If I intentionally make a weaker character in it's field, then the challenge will be there, but not on the same scale. I like my challenges epic, thank you. As long as I can keep a solid character which is good at it's field, I will find it no harder to RP then a character that has a glaring flaw like becoming extremely weak if it is in near some really common rock.

Ravens_cry
2010-03-12, 02:33 PM
I know what mixmaxing is dont worry. im just wondering what the reasons are people do it, if you like to be the guy who has monsters running thats fine, just simple curiosity my friend. i personally like the challenge of being hard pressed. instead of playing on easy mode. but to each their own.
Some find more joy in the challenge of making a super effective character, and seen their enemies flee before them and then hearing the lamentations of their women. To them, that is what is good in role play.

Penitent
2010-03-12, 02:35 PM
Because I like to play real characters. And real characters would not risk their lives unless they were good at it, at least not and survive really long. If I want to play a guy who goes around collecting monsters for his trophy castle, he's going to be good at it, because the only other option is that he died 7 levels ago, or he is the lucky beneficiary of a colossal string of flukes.

I min max my life, you min max yours. Why wouldn't D&D characters min max their own.

JaronK
2010-03-12, 02:48 PM
I want characters to be able to do what I envision them doing.

JaronK

RelentlessImp
2010-03-12, 02:52 PM
Because a character with 30+ INT wouldn't make stupid choices about things that will affect him for the rest of his life. Realistically, that is.

Kyeudo
2010-03-12, 03:09 PM
I started out a "for flavor" player. That lasted all of two game sessions, as I watched my first character get eaten alive by kobolds and my second character fail to contribute anything worthwhile to the party.

This turned me into a munchkin. My characters stopped having much personality or backstory, but oh did they own as soon as inititive rolled. I played Batman wizards, Uttercold Assault necromancers, made full-BAB near-full sneak-attacking pouncing monstrosities, unkillable "I have Evasion and Mettle" characters, and everything in between.

Now that I spend most of my time behind the DM screen, I've learned that you can't ignore either side. The "fluff only" characters get pasted too fast to be fun and the "crunch only" characters get repeditive fast. You need both for things to work well.

That said, I don't play weak characters. If I'm gonna be a sneaky rogue, you WILL need a nat 20 to beat my Hide check. If I'm a melee character, I will have no more than 2-4 Fighter levels, be heavy on the ToB, and probably have some ridiculous trick like a 40ft reach and Improved Trip. If I'm a caster, there will not be any blasting spells on my spell list except maybe Disintigrate.

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-12, 03:18 PM
I have slight powergamey, minmaxy instincts, but then my first real DM in dnd, well. He kind of just prefers the kind of stories where the main characters are not really likely to succeed, and preferably eventually don't. Gritty to some degree, perhaps, but mostly it's all good as long as your character never acheives anything too impressive, or expects to make money.

I rolled a level 2 Rogue/Barbarian. Good fun, though at the start he was a little behind Wealth by Level because I didn't really know how much I was supposed to get, starting at level 2.

By level 6, I had a significant percentage less wealth.

So, I kind of have instincts at this point, that maybe it's a good idea to be generally self sufficient, or at the very least very good at what you do.

I still tend to go for interesting and amusing ideas first, though. Just that I make sure they're good, too.

Ravens_cry
2010-03-12, 03:23 PM
Because a character with 30+ INT wouldn't make stupid choices about things that will affect him for the rest of his life. Realistically, that is.
That would be more Wisdom.
Doc Brown can invent a Time Machine a DeLorean but he'll cheat out some Libyan terrorists for the plutonium to power the thing.
Also, what first level character is going to have 30 plus Intelligence?
Besides Pun Pun of course.

Yukitsu
2010-03-12, 03:24 PM
That would be more Wisdom.
Doc Brown can invent a Time Machine a DeLorean but he'll cheat out some Libyan terrorists for the plutonium to power the thing.

To be fair, it worked out pretty well for him in the end.

Ravens_cry
2010-03-12, 03:28 PM
To be fair, it worked out pretty well for him in the end.
Only because of the intervention of another character. In the first timeline, Doc Brown DIES. As in dead, kaput, shuffled off his mortal coil, kicked the bucket, gone to sing in the the choir eternal, went to see Ol' Scratch.
Murdered.
With the way time travel sort of works in BttF, the Doc Brown Marty saw die is still dead, just in another time line.

Harperfan7
2010-03-12, 03:43 PM
For me, I like my characters to be the best at something. As in, the best there is at their level.

I don't necessarily want to be overpowered.

I don't want to play a character who will defeat everything that comes at him, but I don't mind playing one that can.

Godskook
2010-03-12, 03:51 PM
I want characters to be able to do what I envision them doing.

JaronK

This, this, this, and this.

Well, there's also the fact that this is fantasy. Would you rather pretend to be:

A: A weakling who is ineffective against most things he faces and has to scrape, strive, and struggle to make anything of himself.

-OR-

B: A powerful warrior whose actions are critical to the overall well-being of his sphere of influence. He relies on his friends, not because he's weak, but because despite his power, teamwork will always take him farther.

Me, I choose B. To get B, I must powergame.


With the way time travel sort of works in BttF, the Doc Brown Marty saw die is still dead, just in another time line.

No, that's not how time travel works in BttF. It actually works in the explicitly opposite way. In fact, that's the *PLOT* of the first one, that Marty would stop existing if the timeline became stable without his birth taking place.


That would be more Wisdom.
Doc Brown can invent a Time Machine a DeLorean but he'll cheat out some Libyan terrorists for the plutonium to power the thing.

That's less a clear-cut choice and more a gamble, though.

Gnaritas
2010-03-12, 03:57 PM
I min-max because it's an interesting puzzle. I like trying to figure out if it's possible to get 10 levels of incantatrix and 6 levels of mage of the arcane order into 20 levels on a sorcerer.

I wouldn't play such a thing of course. Min-maxing is never about roleplaying for me. It's more like solitaire - something I can do at work when I'm bored.

This...........

Volkov
2010-03-12, 04:04 PM
Anyone can minmax. It takes a real pro to MaxMax. :smallbiggrin:

Any way, it's so that mr.john smith the kobold won't end up killing you in an embarrassing fashion.

Godskook
2010-03-12, 04:09 PM
Anyone can minmax. It takes a real pro to MaxMax. :smallbiggrin:

What the hell does MaxMax mean???

Douglas
2010-03-12, 04:14 PM
What the hell does MaxMax mean???
By analogy with MinMax, it would mean someone who maximizes both his strengths and his weaknesses. Like the mages in the last panel of this comic (http://www.thenoobcomic.com/index.php?pos=373).

Ravens_cry
2010-03-12, 04:18 PM
No, that's not how time travel works in BttF. It actually works in the explicitly opposite way. In fact, that's the *PLOT* of the first one, that Marty would stop existing if the timeline became stable without his birth taking place.

When Marty goes home, His dad is a successful writer and Biff is shining his dads car. Which clearly means it must be a different timeline then the one Marty left. Time travel is confusing and BttF time travel even more so. The fact is ,even if alternate time liens dissipate when 'fixed', he still died. He had no way of knowing Marty would give his past self a letter.



That's less a clear-cut choice and more a gamble, though.
And one that got him killed.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-12, 04:21 PM
By analogy with MinMax, it would mean someone who maximizes both his strengths and his weaknesses. Like the mages in the last panel of this comic (http://www.thenoobcomic.com/index.php?pos=373).

Wait, who would choose to MinMax if they could Max Max?

Godskook
2010-03-12, 04:24 PM
When Marty goes home, His dad is a successful writer and Biff is shining his dads car. Which clearly means it must be a different timeline then the one Marty left. Time travel is confusing and BttF time travel even more so. The fact is ,even if alternate time liens dissipate when 'fixed', he still died. He had no way of knowing Marty would give his past self a letter.

You're changing tenses on me. Originally, you said:

"the Doc Brown Marty saw die is still dead, just in another time line."

But now you're saying:

"The fact is ,even if alternate time liens dissipate when 'fixed', he still died."

And in time travel discussions, the bolded parts are quite different.


And one that got him killed.

Playing devil's advocate, there's no proof that he wasn't always wearing the bullet-proof vest.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-12, 04:25 PM
Wait, who would choose to MinMax if they could Max Max?

Those of us who don't like being made of glass?

NeoVid
2010-03-12, 04:43 PM
I have more fun if my characters are more effective.

Also, I like figuring things out.

Totally Guy
2010-03-12, 05:09 PM
Sometimes I like to poke the GM to see if he has what it takes to kill off a character. So I'll build a good character and a terrible one, then I'll bring the terrible one to the table but I'll tell everyone about how powerful he is. (Four attacks per round!:smalltongue:)

Then if he gets killed off I'm pleased to see that all is right with the world, then I get to bring the good character to the game but this time I pretend he's not so hot.

If the terrible character survives and causes problems... well that's just hilarious. We'll see how far I can go without facing proper consequences.

I'm a bad player.:smallwink:

Seriously, I've only done this once because I'd not seen a protagonist death in over two years.

Yahzi
2010-03-12, 05:09 PM
Because I like to play real characters. And real characters would not risk their lives unless they were good at it, at least not and survive really long. If I want to play a guy who goes around collecting monsters for his trophy castle, he's going to be good at it, because the only other option is that he died 7 levels ago, or he is the lucky beneficiary of a colossal string of flukes.

I min max my life, you min max yours. Why wouldn't D&D characters min max their own.
Exactly.

Real characters want to win. They don't want to look cool, or have fun, or be challenged. They want to win. Just like real people.

Akal Saris
2010-03-12, 05:18 PM
I do it mostly for the fun of putting something together where every part of the character synergizes well from 1st to 20th. It's especially rewarding if the character takes a generally ignored concept or race/class and makes it work well. I have little respect for a standard wiz 5/incantatrix 10/archmage 5 or whatever, but I really like weird builds like Duskblade 5/Abjurant Champion 5/Arcane Archer 10, or the supermount build.

Thankfully, 4E is finally getting enough extra books that min/maxing in it is getting to be a little more complex than the problem of "I have 5 open feats this tier and 6 worthwhile feats to choose from" that it had early on. But 3.5 is still my preferred edition, especially with the way that multi-classing works in that edition.

KellKheraptis
2010-03-12, 05:27 PM
All of my Theoretical Black Ops aside, it's a combination of perfectionism (15+ years as a martial artist honing technique, so it's instinctive) and constructionism (between being a somewhat retired artist since taking up neoclassical shred 10 years ago and a long time DM fond of intricate mapping). I'm good at math, and D&D is a math game. That and it's fun playing an arcane Inigo Montoya, especially when the DM thinks he's got you and suddenly you pull off the kid gloves and go Deux Ex Machina on his encounter. And the best of us can do this indirectly, making the entire party shine instead of just the one owning face and doing the real work. An even remotely optimized Warblade is a beast in melee...imagine him now with Bite of the Werebear, Greater Magical Weapon, Keen Edge, False Life, Draconic Polymorph (something nasty), and Giant Size. One time stop later, any of these that wasn't up, is now. Rod of chaining means a good number of those is now affecting the whole party. Congrats Mr. Evil, have fun with the hypercharged party of Learneans :)

Volkov
2010-03-12, 05:35 PM
All of my Theoretical Black Ops aside, it's a combination of perfectionism (15+ years as a martial artist honing technique, so it's instinctive) and constructionism (between being a somewhat retired artist since taking up neoclassical shred 10 years ago and a long time DM fond of intricate mapping). I'm good at math, and D&D is a math game. That and it's fun playing an arcane Inigo Montoya, especially when the DM thinks he's got you and suddenly you pull off the kid gloves and go Deux Ex Machina on his encounter. And the best of us can do this indirectly, making the entire party shine instead of just the one owning face and doing the real work. An even remotely optimized Warblade is a beast in melee...imagine him now with Bite of the Werebear, Greater Magical Weapon, Keen Edge, False Life, Draconic Polymorph (something nasty), and Giant Size. One time stop later, any of these that wasn't up, is now. Rod of chaining means a good number of those is now affecting the whole party. Congrats Mr. Evil, have fun with the hypercharged party of Learneans :)

Unless Mr.Evil has his own squad of superpowered adventurers/elites who can match yours blow for blow, spell for spell, power for power, item for item.

Zen Master
2010-03-12, 05:37 PM
Why people min/max?

If you ask me, for the same reason they level. To improve, to get new abilities or improve existing ones.

Soranar
2010-03-12, 05:45 PM
I often see people complain of Minmax , but what they fail to see is what they're playing in the first place.

Take the comic Goblins, Life through their eyes.

The character complaining of Minmax (because he is the living embodiement of this trope) is a dwarven cleric.

One of the most powerful characters in the game...

Sure,it's core, and it fits roleplay wise,but it's still incredibly powerful compared to nearly everything else (except a druid).

People who minMax usually don't MAX MAX (optimized wizard, druid, cleric, or any other tier 1 or 2 character)

They minmax a tier 3 or 4 character because they're the most fun to minmax with.

Nevermind playing a really terrible class like truenamer, monk or samurai

KellKheraptis
2010-03-12, 05:48 PM
Unless Mr.Evil has his own squad of superpowered adventurers/elites who can match yours blow for blow, spell for spell, power for power, item for item.

The above is merely an example. And the preparation is for just what you state, with adjustment downward applied should excessive force not be deemed necessary (divination assisted if need be). After all, why use a battering ram when a hammer will do, and do so far more discreetly :)

Volkov
2010-03-12, 05:50 PM
The above is merely an example. And the preparation is for just what you state, with adjustment downward applied should excessive force not be deemed necessary (divination assisted if need be). After all, why use a battering ram when a hammer will do, and do so far more discreetly :)

Alright, now we got scry vs scry.

Soranar
2010-03-12, 05:51 PM
Anyone can minmax. It takes a real pro to MaxMax. :smallbiggrin:

Any way, it's so that mr.john smith the kobold won't end up killing you in an embarrassing fashion.

actually , anyone can MAX MAX (I play a wizard!) , it takes a real pro to minmax

Volkov
2010-03-12, 05:53 PM
actually , anyone can MAX MAX (I play a wizard!) , it takes a real pro to minmax

Have you maxed out your sanity score?

Soranar
2010-03-12, 05:54 PM
Have you maxed out your sanity score?

pff, sanity is overrated

Volkov
2010-03-12, 05:55 PM
pff, sanity is overrated

Would you like to surrender yourself to the chaos gods or the great old ones?

KellKheraptis
2010-03-12, 05:55 PM
Alright, now we got arcane chess.

Fixed that for you :P Aka GODS playing chess with everything else. As I mentioned in a thread about mage-killing on BG, reality bows to a mage, as does time, as does matter. Melee classes fall into the third category, and occasionally need a reminder :)

I'm not trying to be pedantic, just illustrating the point that while I may make an over-the-top archmage from utter hell, it doesn't mean I'll play with all guns blazing...that's more what I'd do with a Totemist or Warblade or Frenzied Berserker. Gotta keep the mortals happy, after all.

Lycanthromancer
2010-03-12, 06:00 PM
I'm not trying to be pedantic, just illustrating the point that while I may make an over-the-top archmage from utter hell, it doesn't mean I'll play with all guns blazing...that's more what I'd do with a Totemist or Warblade or Frenzied Berserker. Gotta keep the mortals happy, after all."It's a game of mind over matter, where I mind you, now you don't matter."

Saph
2010-03-12, 07:00 PM
I think you get different types, and they're fairly distinctive.

1) Players who minmax for power and nothing else. For these guys, games tend to be about ego or establishing dominance. They're easy to spot - look for the guy boasting about how powerful his character is. Usually pretty young. Annoying but mostly harmless.

2) Players who minmax for competence, aiming to create a character around the top of the campaign's acceptable power level but not higher. The difference between these guys and type 1s is that they know when to stop, generally because they have better social skills and have grasped the concept of scaling.

3) Players who minmax for the sake of a particular character concept - their idea involves being powerful in a specific way, so that's what they go for. The difference between these and type 2s is that character-focused types are just as happy to play a weak build if that fits their concept better.

4) Theoretical optimisers who treat the whole thing as an intellectual exercise. These are the guys who come up with the universe-destroying combinations, but they're generally smart enough not to actually play them. Probably the rarest.

Lycanthromancer
2010-03-12, 07:27 PM
I think you get different types, and they're fairly distinctive.

1) Players who minmax for power and nothing else. For these guys, games tend to be about ego or establishing dominance. They're easy to spot - look for the guy boasting about how powerful his character is. Usually pretty young. Annoying but mostly harmless.

2) Players who minmax for competence, aiming to create a character around the top of the campaign's acceptable power level but not higher. The difference between these guys and type 1s is that they know when to stop, generally because they have better social skills and have grasped the concept of scaling.

3) Players who minmax for the sake of a particular character concept - their idea involves being powerful in a specific way, so that's what they go for. The difference between these and type 2s is that character-focused types are just as happy to play a weak build if that fits their concept better.

4) Theoretical optimisers who treat the whole thing as an intellectual exercise. These are the guys who come up with the universe-destroying combinations, but they're generally smart enough not to actually play them. Probably the rarest.I'd have to say I'm 2, 3, and 4. I can come up with world-destroying combos, I optimize for a particular concept, and I make that concept as strong as I can while still fitting within a particular campaign (assuming I know the optimization level of the group, anyway). If I don't know what the group is like, I'll optimize for something that won't matter how strong the group is (like stamina), then change my playstyle to suit the group (generally by playing a tier 2 or tier 3 class and playing down if need be).

Because I really don't usually feel like getting infinite wishes and instigating a Tippyverse by level 1.

Penitent
2010-03-12, 07:34 PM
Yeah, Saph, in addition to being generally an incredible oversimplification of things, that list has a gaping flaw or three. What do you think 4s are when they play? You think Nineinchnail, when he isn't developing ways to Shadowcraft imitate a Miracle that refills the spell slot in one hour, just never uses shadowcraft mage?

I can tell you from personal experience that is not the case.

Theoretical optimizers optimize in play as well. In practice, there is no actual difference between 2-4, because all of those are just variants of scaling your actual optimization to the situation. And really, kind weird to be throwing around things like "usually young" when you've interacted with more D&D players in two days on this site then you would in 2 years of in person. Fact is, probably 90% of all D&D players you've dealt with, you don't even know their age.

And what, just tar everyone who ever says anything about how powerful their character is as a one?

Sir_Elderberry
2010-03-12, 07:37 PM
I think I've seen this breakdown put up before:

A MinMaxer/Optimizer does things in such a way to maximize mechanical power while minimizing disadvantages, working within a particular concept. ("I want to be an X, now how do I optimize this?")

A Powergamer is like a MinMaxer, but works to optimize total power, rather than working within particular constraingts. ("I want to be powerful, so I'll be an X with Y feats and Z spells.")

A Munchkin is like a a powergamer, but is also a jerk.

Soonerdj
2010-03-12, 07:55 PM
I think in general there are 3 types of characters, CO and to a lesser extent Min/max is about being able to make the most effective versions of each.

Crunch
These builds are all about the numbers. It doesn't matter if they are some hideous half-squid half-rhinoceros thing, as long as they can do the most damage or be the toughest or bend every living creature. There is a time and place for these builds though. These places are either high-power games where in order to keep up with the CR you need these kinds of stats or theoretical places like forums or bragging to your buddies about what you came up with. Included in this is RP-lite things like the NEDC where unoptimized characters are chewed and spit out.

Most of the ire this category gets is because of misuse. They're are plenty of munchkins out there who enjoy the feeling of power and winning D&D but just don't know when to stop. Unfortunately, the ease of access that makes online gaming such an open forum also leads to people getting knowledge and info on builds that are probably beyond their skill to either finesse into a campaign or keep from invalidating fellow players.

Fluff
In a direct counterpart to Crunch is Fluff. These are characters build solely along RP lines for RP reasons. These are the Druids with Weapon Focus (Scimitar) or the Fighters who take Skill Focus (Perform) because they work part time as a gladiator. Whatever the reason people tend to romanticize these builds, I have the hypothesis that it reminds them of when they were a naive player. Unschooled in the rules and mysteries of D&D these were the purest characters you ever built because you didn't know what did what or what you missed out on. However, unless you played with a group all discovering this at the same time you probably felt useless most of the time (unless you picked a full caster and had assistance making them).

Also for all the RP you do want your character to be as you imagined him and going for pure fluff reasons often leaves you with a thematically compelling character who can't really do what you intended for him.

Firm
And finally the final category: Firm. This is a blend of both Crunch and Fluff, it might also be called Practical Optimization and is what (I think) people should strive for in there games. You can't win DnD but this is a fantasy game and you certainly shouldn't always be on the losing end. These are characters that are adjusted for party strength and have a solid basis for RP behind them. This is the natural progression for those that make a fluffy character then learn more and more about the rules. Rather than break the system (The One) they learn to use the rules to their advantage to craft the character they want to play.

For example, playing a Cleric and taking Bone Knight. The chances of you actually be a soldier in Eberron are slim but if you want to control undead, be very intimidating in you bonecraft armor, and be a tank cleric then it might just be for you. Now it might not be the fluffiest reason to take a class but it isn't a DMM Cleric who can persist powerful buffs on himself from low level.

Anyways that is just my 2cp.

pingcode20
2010-03-12, 08:06 PM
Hah, you kidder. Firm is nothing like a blend between fluff and crunch.

A good character is more like a puff pastry - deliciously fluffy yet simultaneously just crunchy enough to give it structure.

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-12, 08:16 PM
Hah, you kidder. Firm is nothing like a blend between fluff and crunch.

A good character is more like a puff pastry - deliciously fluffy yet simultaneously just crunchy enough to give it structure.

Oh god. Somehow, expressing the idea of the ideal character in terms of baked goods makes so much sense to me.

Also makes me really, really hungry. Damnit.

deuxhero
2010-03-12, 08:23 PM
Because being useless (say... playing a monk, or RAI melee) isn't fun?

taltamir
2010-03-12, 08:24 PM
let me quote myself:


It's like what I said, " Most select the ones that have little effect on the character." I have not yet met a player that would intentionally nerf themselves for any various reason.
I tried that a couple of times... turned out to be a disaster...
I tried a mute wizard (whose muteness requires a casting of heal to cure. He learned wizardry and adventures to acquire the funds to pay for one).
I asked for nothing in return, but the DM insisted to give me a +2 bonus to move silently.
One of his level 1 feats was silent spell, I used that on all my spells.

The biggest problem was actually that most other players didn't take sign language, and that the DM and other players were split on when I was ALLOWED to speak (in or out of character)...
PC1: Sure I can see him
PC2: Nuh uh, its way too dark
DM: besides you are looking the other way
PC3: What are you guys talking about, this is way unfair!
ME: what if I clap my hands to make noise to draw his attention
etc

the group literally broke up over fighting over this issue. And it was not even CLOSE to being fun to play. I learned my lesson and have avoided falling into the stormwind fallacy since. I build powerful characters and PLAY them weaker then they could be most of the time (to avoid overshadowing the other guys).
And this is why I minmax. I now make a powerful character, I start off playing him as weak with character flaws and personality, not using powerful spells, not using the ideal tactics, etc... if I see that it is needed, I turn it up a notch.
I can also undergo character development and overcome a flaw due to roleplaying without the DM saying "well, you can't do that! you took it as a flaw and got a free feat for it! it stays!"

With a properly min maxed character, "taking a level in badass" means changing the way you play, your daily spell selection, and removing self imposed restriction.
With a badly build character it means begging the DM to let you rebuild him.

Defiant
2010-03-12, 08:32 PM
Off the hop I am not a min maxer myself but i also dont have anything against the people who are. im just curious as to the reason those of you who are do it. Call it psychoanalytical if you wish.

For instance, My group has 2 such players. I have asked both and ones answer was that he didnt want his character to die. simple enough for me. the other player states that he just doesnt want his character to not stand on par with other players if they end up min maxing. slight paranoia but still ok.

So what i ask is what is the reason you guys do it.
i guess ill toss this out there as well, the reason i "dont" is because i like to view the characters as normal people who are simply trained instead of people who are powerful to the point they would be the only people who could be adventurers.

Let's analyze the most basic form of min-maxing, min-maxing one's stat (probably where the term comes from).

I could drop my charisma from 10 to 8, charisma giving me no tangible benefit and being overall useless for me, and increase my constitution from 12 to 14, giving me a solid +1hp/level and +1 fortitude save. To do the opposite would completely counter my common sense.

Likewise with everything else. I *could* do this, or I could do that and be much stronger. What reason do I have for choosing the weaker character options over the stronger? (other than RP, which is sometimes a reason)

Merk
2010-03-12, 08:43 PM
Because it's fun to take a concept and then make a character that can actually portray that concept, and that requires at least a minimal optimization effort.

Also, it's nice to have a character that has a number of things to do. A poorly-built fighter might get outperformed in combat, and then is literally useless outside of combat. A rogue might not be like a warblade in combat, but he can do plenty of other things with skills. A high-level wizard almost always has something to do in every situation, and can craft items or bind monsters even if there's not an encounter to do things at. Good optimization gives you meaningful options and lets you interact with the game world more often, which means you're playing the game instead of watching your friends play the game. But you don't always want to play a wizard. (I'd argue that choosing a class in and of itself is part of optimization.)

Zanatos777
2010-03-12, 09:38 PM
Because not sucking > sucking.

I identify with this.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-03-12, 10:04 PM
Because I'm in the habit of optimizing, it brings me pleasure, and it doesn't notably detract from any other aspect of my character. Mostly the habit.

sonofzeal
2010-03-12, 10:07 PM
Because I enjoy the intellectual challenge.

mikej
2010-03-12, 10:10 PM
Why do I min/max?

Simple, you can't have fun and role-play a dead character.

excluding undead.

FMArthur
2010-03-12, 10:21 PM
I like the character building exercise itself, like many others here. It is its own game to me; I can build characters for months with no real games going or planned.

In particular, I think optimizing an underpowered concept to be on par with a group's unoptimized but otherwise powerful characters to be the most fun part of D&D. That and seeing it really work. Sometimes focused concepts fail for being too focused, or using the rules in weird ways to produce a result doesn't get past a DM regardless of its place on the scale of brokenness, so seeing a difficult-to-make character build work in play is very satisfying.

Emmerask
2010-03-12, 10:27 PM
Wouldnīt minmaxing be, take wizard class go batman call it a day?
If so, no I donīt minmax :smallsmile:
If it includes taking underpowered classes like monk, fighter etc and optimize them to a point where they are an asset to the group during fights and outside then yes I do and mainly because it is a fun past time to do so ^^

taltamir
2010-03-12, 10:31 PM
Why do I min/max?

Simple, you can't have fun and role-play a dead character.excluding undead.

:P
have a cookie.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-12, 10:31 PM
Lets think for a minute about the insane things adventurers do for a moment.

If your fighting dragons, armies of undead and possibly challenging the dark gods themselves. You don't want to be normal you want to be all that you can be.

And in real life isn't there some key to success about minimizing your weaknesses and maximizing your strengths?

I like to Min-Max so I have some power left over for more fun RP related stuff.

I have a lizardfolk fighter with ranks in cooking or my Psion[Telepath] with ranks in perform singing. I want to have these fun RP extras but I don't want to end up underpowered to do it.

Now my buddy Joel is a master of min/maxing fighters. He makes them do scary scary things

Akal Saris
2010-03-12, 11:39 PM
Saph, where do you self-identify on your chart of 1-4 types?

Also, I think it's interesting how deeply connected min-maxing and D&D are. I haven't seen anybody post about another system in this thread yet.

Yukitsu
2010-03-12, 11:40 PM
Wouldnīt minmaxing be, take wizard class go batman call it a day?
If so, no I donīt minmax :smallsmile:
If it includes taking underpowered classes like monk, fighter etc and optimize them to a point where they are an asset to the group during fights and outside then yes I do and mainly because it is a fun past time to do so ^^

Neither. Minmaxing at its pinnacle is taking a set of limitations and doing as best as you can with them. Including limitations of character and principle. Being weak or being strong is not a character or a principle though.

Lycanthromancer
2010-03-12, 11:40 PM
Saph, where do you self-identify on your chart of 1-4 types?What, is this like the Kinsey Scale now?

Amiel
2010-03-12, 11:55 PM
Can't the argument be put forth that nearly all players are min-maxers to some extent?
In that, when choosing which ability scores go where, we subconsciously or consciously arrange them so that we maximise our strengths and minimise our weaknesses. Then the backstory gets crafted around that. Of course, some players craft stories beforehand and have their ability scores try to fit into that.

Gametime
2010-03-13, 12:25 AM
What, is this like the Kinsey Scale now?

Does that mean that if I optimize and roleplay, I can tell people I roll both ways?

Lycanthromancer
2010-03-13, 12:37 AM
Does that mean that if I optimize and roleplay, I can tell people I roll both ways?And if you play melee, you can say you're a swinger.

Amiel
2010-03-13, 12:41 AM
Does that mean that if I optimize and roleplay, I can tell people I roll both ways?

If that's how you roll.

Private-Prinny
2010-03-13, 12:53 AM
In general, I minmax because I like the numbers and it's fun to see what sort of synergy I can squeeze into 20 levels.

In practice, I minmax out of reflex because my first DM was evil and wanted us all dead, to the point of visible disappointment whenever we got a natural 20.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-13, 01:16 AM
My reason?

Dumb people don't generally get into the rocket science field.
Incredibly small and weak people don't generally dominate MMA tournaments.

Minmaxing, or Putting synergistic features with optimal stats? That exists in nature, too. Sometimes, you have the high point buy in real life, that gets into MMA and is also incredibly smart, but when you're not as gifted, strength and speed make you more apt in the field. It makes sense.

Penitent
2010-03-13, 01:27 AM
In my experience, many dyed-in-the wool min-maxers are actually interested in "beating" everyone at the table -- including the GM, although it is worse when that player is the GM. Others are too impatient to get on with the "epic" part of the game to bother playing a character who is actually at starting level. And a few are overcompensating for feelings of inadequacy or helplessness in their real lives.

What a load of complete and utter garbage.

Insulting and obviously wrong garbage too.

John Campbell
2010-03-13, 01:37 AM
As long as you have limited character-building resources, you're going to have min-maxing. It's the natural result of requiring improvements in one area to be paid for by reductions in another area. It's not intrinsically a problem, and not avoidable in any case.

Where it becomes a problem is when concept is pressed into the service of optimization rather than the other way around.

Flickerdart
2010-03-13, 01:40 AM
As long as you have limited character-building resources, you're going to have min-maxing. It's the natural result of requiring improvements in one area to be paid for by reductions in another area. It's not intrinsically a problem, and not avoidable in any case.

Where it becomes a problem is when concept is pressed into the service of optimization rather than the other way around.
In 3.5, there is a number of ways you can get something for nothing (PAO into War Troll, Flaws that literally don't do anything, etc). As well, a character can be good in most or all areas of expertise (a well built Gish can fight, cast spells and have a bit of skill use as well). It's definitely possible to max-max. :smallbiggrin:


Oh god. Somehow, expressing the idea of the ideal character in terms of baked goods makes so much sense to me.

Also makes me really, really hungry. Damnit.
So you support the pastrylogical singularity? Follower of Chaos, I smite thee!

taltamir
2010-03-13, 02:49 AM
And if you play melee, you can say you're a swinger.

and a hacker :P

Raging Gene Ray
2010-03-13, 02:52 AM
What a load of complete and utter garbage.

Insulting and obviously wrong garbage too.

Maybe in your experience, but I've known one or two players who seemed to fit that description.

But that's not to say everybody interested in optimization does. Most simply are of the "not sucking > sucking" school of thought.

taltamir
2010-03-13, 02:56 AM
In my experience, many dyed-in-the wool min-maxers are actually interested in "beating" everyone at the table -- including the GM, although it is worse when that player is the GM. Others are too impatient to get on with the "epic" part of the game to bother playing a character who is actually at starting level. And a few are overcompensating for feelings of inadequacy or helplessness in their real lives.

What a load of complete and utter garbage.

Insulting and obviously wrong garbage too.

Maybe in your experience, but I've known one or two players who seemed to fit that description.

so? you know ONE or maybe TWO people and who are just interesting in "beating" everyone, are too impatient to get to "epic" part of the game, and are overcompensating for "feelings of inadequacy or helplessness in their real lives" and you decide to label every single person who calls himself a min-maxer as being that way? that is incredibly insulting and also a load of bull. Imagine if a person has said the same about any race or ethnicity etc based on knowing only 1 or 2 who belong to it? seems utterly wrong doesn't it?

also, way to go ignore all the explanations people have given as to why they min-max... no, don't ask us, just assume about us the worst.

mikej
2010-03-13, 03:58 AM
In my experience, many dyed-in-the wool min-maxers are actually interested in "beating" everyone at the table -- including the GM, although it is worse when that player is the GM. Others are too impatient to get on with the "epic" part of the game to bother playing a character who is actually at starting level. And a few are overcompensating for feelings of inadequacy or helplessness in their real lives.

I find this a little bit insulting.

Very bad way to put it. I think the word this above comment is trying to match is Munchkin. Since those type ( which as itself is poorly used deratory term with fairly none-fixed definition ) of players would probally think that way. Well, except the " inadequacy " part, that's going far out there.

You're saying that all Min/Max sort of player are a bunch of PvP centric people that impatient to get to the good parts and are unsecure with themselves? That's a pretty bold claim is you ask me. Especially since you didn't really back that claim up.

Not every ( I'm sure the greator majority ) Optimizer/Mix/Maxing player don't thinks on that same level of " I can beat your character nah nahh nahhh!" D&D however is not based on individual competition between one another but cooperation. Most either want a good character to have fun with or enjoy the challenge. Not everyone looks at the Tier list, see's the T1 class, and just runs those, because the Druid is stronger than a Fighter. No, some would enjoy the challenge of Mix/Maxing a Fighter or Soulknife etc, etc.


Then you're doing it wrong.


Please, enlighten me on how It should go about things?

Last time I dead, it was from another player's cohort that rolled a 1 to attack the enemy Lycantrope and then ( we play with 3xnat 20 = death ) manage to hit me with roll 3x nat 20's in a row. Soo I dead, It felt bad, also I knew that player didn't do that on purpose. For the whole fight I had to watch not doing anything. That's has little to do with Mix/Maxing but dying in the game still sucks. So it's not a bad thing for people to prevent that with whatever means but still within limits.

Raging Gene Ray
2010-03-13, 04:17 AM
so? you know ONE or maybe TWO people and who are just interesting in "beating" everyone, are too impatient to get to "epic" part of the game, and are overcompensating for "feelings of inadequacy or helplessness in their real lives" and you decide to label every single person who calls himself a min-maxer as being that way?

No I don't. You're right, that is an extremely insulting assumption to make. That's why I don't make it. Read the second sentence in my post. I'M a min-maxer...but I imagine that some people who aren't were unlucky enough to only meet min-maxers who fit jackattack's description, and that poisons their opinions towards optimizers and tabletop games in general.

Saph
2010-03-13, 04:38 AM
Saph, where do you self-identify on your chart of 1-4 types?

The second, though I'll admit to having gone into type 1 territory in the past. Live and learn.

taltamir
2010-03-13, 04:45 AM
I think you get different types, and they're fairly distinctive.

1) Players who minmax for power and nothing else. For these guys, games tend to be about ego or establishing dominance. They're easy to spot - look for the guy boasting about how powerful his character is. Usually pretty young. Annoying but mostly harmless.

2) Players who minmax for competence, aiming to create a character around the top of the campaign's acceptable power level but not higher. The difference between these guys and type 1s is that they know when to stop, generally because they have better social skills and have grasped the concept of scaling.

3) Players who minmax for the sake of a particular character concept - their idea involves being powerful in a specific way, so that's what they go for. The difference between these and type 2s is that character-focused types are just as happy to play a weak build if that fits their concept better.

4) Theoretical optimisers who treat the whole thing as an intellectual exercise. These are the guys who come up with the universe-destroying combinations, but they're generally smart enough not to actually play them. Probably the rarest.

NONE of those fit me...
1. couldn't care less for establishing dominance.
2. I am not trying to be the "top dog" around the table either, even if its being the best while "still in line".
3. No, I often min max the heck out of characters I intentionally want to be weak, actually, the weaker the character is going to be, the more I am going to need to min max it (see later info)
4. Theory I do online only, I will not bring it into a live game, and I don't really care much for theoretical builds that are not perfectly legit AND would be approved by a DM.

I min max for two reasons both of them not mentioned:
1. because I hate it when my hours of RP, drawings, charts, hyperlinks, photoshoping, and writing of pages of backstory go down the drain due to one (un)lucky roll. I literally write a 20 pages report with hundreds (again literally) of hyperlinks and over 40 hours of work per character before showing up for the session. Something I couldn't be bothered to do for some time after having my first few characters die miserably.

2. I hate it when my character is useless and sits on the side the whole time because he is a lot less powerful then everyone else, and its embarrassing when I am making everyone else useless. So I min-max not for ultimate power, but for power that is NOT visible to the other players and which I can opt out of using. That is, I min-max to make a character whose power levels are flexible and I bring to the game as much power as is required to maintain parity with my friends. This is more effort then just making him as strong as he can possible be.

Let me tell you the story of Daemass. Daemass was my first DnD character. He was a generalist human wizard with the feats skill focus (spellcraft) and run. He had 10 con and strength 14, he had maxed out woodcarving skill. His spell selection at level 1 was only ray of frost and magic missile. (I really didn't know what I was doing back then). I had detailed his backstory, his hobbies, his apperance, his clothes, etc... He had a darkwood spear he crafted named rauch. He carved little glyphs (which had no powers at all) unto it... I drew his personal arcane mark, I drew him, I even spend 30 minutes drawing rauch (in detail, with all the little non magical glyphes)...
Daemass died because a standard goblin from the PHB rolled well.

Saph
2010-03-13, 04:54 AM
NONE of those fit me... I min max for two reasons both of them not mentioned:

Sounds fairly similar to the "wanting to be competent" type, to be honest.

taltamir
2010-03-13, 04:55 AM
Sounds fairly similar to the "wanting to be competent" type, to be honest.

well, the way you said it seemed more like I want my character to be especially powerful while not "abusive" or "overpowered"... to be specific: "aiming to create a character around the top of the campaign's acceptable power level but not higher"

I am ok with using sub par tactics that fit a certain RP idea and making him NOT at the top of the power levels while min maxing him not to die and to actually have SOME value in combat regardless of the power of my allies (not being useless is not the same as being at the top end).

mikej
2010-03-13, 05:04 AM
Sweet, I fit both #2 & #4 fairly well on Saph's list.

#2 doesn't seem to be bad thing to be labeled if you ask me.

Saph
2010-03-13, 05:21 AM
I am ok with using sub par tactics that fit a certain RP idea and making him NOT at the top of the power levels while min maxing him not to die and to actually have SOME value in combat regardless of the power of my allies (not being useless is not the same as being at the top end).

It still sounds a lot like #2.

Okay, look, here's a quick-and-dirty approach:

Reasons for Minmaxing

Type #1: "I want to be as powerful as possible."

Type #2: "I want to be as powerful as is reasonable."

Type #3: "I want to be exactly as powerful as my character concept, no more, no less."

Type #4: "I don't care about ever actually playing it, I just want to see if I can make it work."

taltamir
2010-03-13, 05:27 AM
It still sounds a lot like #2.

Okay, look, here's a quick-and-dirty approach:

Reasons for Minmaxing

Type #1: "I want to be as powerful as possible."

Type #2: "I want to be as powerful as is reasonable."

Type #3: "I want to be exactly as powerful as my character concept, no more, no less."

Type #4: "I don't care about ever actually playing it, I just want to see if I can make it work."

mmm... my reasons were too "personal" and insufficiently generalized, so let me generalize them as saph has done.
I agree with the 4 categories saph proposed, I think there are a few more though.

Type #1: "I want to be as powerful as possible."

Type #2: "I want to be as powerful as is reasonable."

Type #3: "I want to be exactly as powerful as my character concept, no more, no less."

Type #4: "I don't care about ever actually playing it, I just want to see if I can make it work."

Type #5: "I want to be have high survivability, I want to be exactly as powerful as my character concept which is weaker than "as powerful as is reasonable" but have unnaturally high survivability."
EX: the monk that has min maxed survivability capabilities well beyond what his character concept calls for, while remaining ineffective in combat.

Type #6: "I want to have non obvious reserve powers which will allow me to adjust my power on the fly to match my less experienced friends for a balanced game without altering my character sheet"
EX: The wizard who never prepares his allowed by DM but highly overshadowing spells, unless the rest of the party seems to be that powerful.

Type #7: "I want to playtest this theoretical build as an experiment to see how it behaves in real gameplay; but only with a group that is aware of its unusual status and also wants to playtest rather then be a balanced party"
EX: that guy here on the forums who tried to play a truenamer.

Reinboom
2010-03-13, 06:13 AM
Type #5: "I want to be have high survivability, I want to be exactly as powerful as my character concept which is weaker than "as powerful as is reasonable" but have unnaturally high survivability."
EX: the monk that has min maxed survivability capabilities well beyond what his character concept calls for, while remaining ineffective in combat.

So your character concept is for unnatural survivability, no more no less.
Sounds like #3 to me.


Type #6: "I want to have non obvious reserve powers which will allow me to adjust my power on the fly to match my less experienced friends for a balanced game without altering my character sheet"
EX: The wizard who never prepares his allowed by DM but highly overshadowing spells, unless the rest of the party seems to be that powerful.
#2



Type #7: "I want to playtest this theoretical build as an experiment to see how it behaves in real gameplay; but only with a group that is aware of its unusual status and also wants to playtest rather then be a balanced party"
EX: that guy here on the forums who tried to play a truenamer.

Testing designs can be an important piece to theoretical optimization. This is ultimately just a subcategory of #4.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-13, 07:22 AM
Hm, I think I'm both a 3 and a 4 on the Saph Scale.

Gaiyamato
2010-03-13, 07:24 AM
I'm definately a #3. lol.

Soonerdj
2010-03-13, 07:44 AM
I'm definately a #3. lol.

That only makes me more curious as to what your character might be...

Anyways I try to be a 2 but sometimes I get carried away and make a 1 or wrapped up in an exotic concept and become a hard 3.

Hmm foodswise...

Ice Cream is what I would say my characters are.

Kaiyanwang
2010-03-13, 08:31 AM
Generally speaking, for #3 in Saph's scale.

This is because I like 3.5 - I imagine something, and I like to tool with the system to fit that concept.


Some times ago, I asked help in these boards to optimize a sword a was building following the rules RAW. It was an artifact for my campaign. People, being in right, asked me to just create it, because I am the DM: a reasonable point of view, but I just wanted to tool with the system and see how far I could go.

BTW, it worked. IT WORKED. thanks to everybody :smallwink:

Nevertheless, sometimes I like to put bonduaries just to see what can I do (example, I could do better this with class A and a bit of class B, but let's see what can I do with class C).

Luckily, I can do a lot of this: 'cuz I'm da DM.

And BTW, this is part of the fun of the game. Not ALL the game, but part. Until #1 is out of control, and people does not take too seriously #4, it's all OK, IMHO.

Penitent
2010-03-13, 09:35 AM
{scrubbed}

Godskook
2010-03-13, 09:57 AM
and a hacker :P

Alternatively, you could go clubbing.

taltamir
2010-03-13, 10:15 AM
Alternatively, you could go clubbing.

not the baby seals! T>T

Lycanthromancer
2010-03-13, 10:16 AM
not the baby seals! T>TThis is what the sealing whacks in the equipment section of the PHB is for.

alisbin
2010-03-13, 10:32 AM
i'd call myself a #3 on Saph's scale.

as far as minmaxing, i'd say that as long as everyone in your group is roughly on the same page, its a non-issue. if however everyone is NOT? then you pretty much have to go with whatever the DM feels is right, which should (assuming a team player DM of course) end up being the average minmaxing that the group is comfortable with. i'm not talking what a single player is capable of coming up with, theres nothing wrong with players helping each other with builds. so if you have a group of super optimized swordsages and batman wizards and everyones ok with that? cool, if everyone is great at their specialized task but weak at others? also great.

imperialspectre
2010-03-13, 10:32 AM
I'm definitely a #2 and a #4 on Saph's scale. There was a time when I would have been #1, but I didn't know anything about how to optimize back then.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-13, 10:55 AM
I dunno, I tend to cycle through 1-3 from time to time.
In a PvP arena, I am #1 all the way. The aim of the game to beat the opponent - why not be as good as you can be? (although unfortunately my group no longer wants to play PvP with me... :smallfrown:)

In most games I take #3 (character concept) and take it up to #1. If I am head and shoulders above the rest of the group I'll tone it down to #2 though.
On the flip side, if I find I can't be powerful while playing #3, I generally don't play it, as I want to be able to contribute.

I guess I'm a bit of a powergamer, but like other people have said, it's not fun to suck.

Roland St. Jude
2010-03-13, 01:18 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: This is this thread's one and only warning to keep it civil and respectful of others, regardless of their playstyle preferences.