Opinions on Minmaxing

[Fatty Tosscoble]

I wanted to get the opinions of Playground Giants on player min-maxing. I have found after playing D&D in different groups that min-maxing ruins some of the role-playing aspects of D&D which is made worse in a more story focused editions like Next.

Many players who choose to min-max are really bad at roleplaying, and unsurprisingly want to get into fights with anyone who has arms. Now here is were I might sound unfair, but players who don't min-max usually are much more fun to play with, because they usually get more invested in the story, which makes battles, and all other aspects of the game more memorable.

I'm wondering what a broad sample of people think on the topic, because as a DM (this might sound cruel), but I would put a limit on how long you can take choosing abilities, and outright ban characters, who don't have a good enough backstory (because they don't care about the actual character of who their playing).

EDIT: Here this might help me get my idea across a bit better. (This is someone else summing up the idea)

1.It's less rewarding DMing for them. A player will focus on min-maxing to the pursuit of every other element that makes a character a character, everything that makes a roleplaying game fun and worth playing. Optimization and roleplay are not exclusive, not at all, but this is the sort of people who treat it like WoW on paper; not putting any creativity into the game other than how to squeeze out the biggest damage or highest AC is the definition of a "min-maxer". These people are not fun to DM for, because most of the work that goes into a campaign is ignored by this person: the setting, the lore, the npcs, the potential for interesting encounters. They don't play a character, with thoughts and a story, they play a set of numbers.

2.He is significantly more powerful than his peers in at least one area. This person will be the only person in the party putting quite so much effort into "winning". Of course, we all know that you don't "win" D&D by having the most powerful sword or the highest hit points, or even by killing the big baddie and saving the kingdom, but by roleplaying a memorable and interesting character. The rest of the party will get this, but our sterotypical min-maxer doesn't care, so he ends up not interacting with the party or world on any level that doesn't involve rolling a d20, and succeeding, because that d20 is his everything. Ends up unbalanced compared to the party (unless they share his mindset) because he dosen't do anything except his one thing.

3. It breaks immersion in the world by forcing a redesign for the sake of gameplay. If you have a player who has his character graphed out from level 1 to 20, magic items and spells, focused entirely around having the highest spell-resistance he can and not giving a single **** about anything else, you either have to make everything unrealistically good at overcoming spell resistance to give him a challenge, certainly making the monsters able to overcome everybody else's spell resistance, or unrealistically make everything play to his weakness.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have found after playing D&D in different groups that min-maxing ruins some of the role-playing aspects of D&D which is made worse in a more story focused editions like Next. I have found that how story focused the game is remains a function of table, not edition. I started playing D&D in 1975.

Many players who choose to min-max are really bad at roleplaying, and unsurprisingly want to get into fights with anyone who has arms.

Here is where the post looks like a troll, but maybe that's been your experience.

Now here is were I might sound unfair, but players who don't min-max usually are much more fun to play with, because they usually get more invested in the story, which makes battles, and all other aspects of the game more memorable. Ok, enjoy the feedback you'll get from that. Not interested in discussing your generalizations.


I'm wondering what a broad sample of people think on the topic, because as a DM (this might sound cruel), but I would put a limit on how long you can take choosing abilities, and outright ban characters, who don't have a good enough backstory (because they don't care about the actual character of who their playing).
If you're a DM, you set the rules at your table. Whatever you and your group like to do, do it. If some people leave the table because they don't like your approach, so what? Play with the folks who do, and HAVE FUN! (This is why we even play this game, last I checked).

[PeteNutButter]

Well your wrong about one thing: I'll fight things with or without arms.

But really as a DM you have to realize there are many ways to enjoy the game. Some players enjoy some aspects more than others and you can either accommodate those players or send them away. I try and have an engaging story with deadly combats. It seems to keep most people happy.

Another thing is not all min/maxers are against story. I try and do both. You may not notice that player that is always engaging in the story also spent a lot of time min maxing his character as well. It's part of the game, or they wouldn't even include options like multi classing or feats.

That being said they are variants if you really want to not allow them you can. At the risk of alienating one or more of your players.

I'll leave with this. Even the most munchkinny players will occasionally get invested in the story if it is riveting enough or peeks their particular interest. Pay attention to that and exploit it.

[Lines]

I wanted to get the opinions of Playground Giants on player min-maxing. I have found after playing D&D in different groups that min-maxing ruins some of the role-playing aspects of D&D which is made worse in a more story focused editions like Next.

Many players who choose to min-max are really bad at roleplaying, and unsurprisingly want to get into fights with anyone who has arms. Now here is were I might sound unfair, but players who don't min-max usually are much more fun to play with, because they usually get more invested in the story, which makes battles, and all other aspects of the game more memorable.

I'm wondering what a broad sample of people think on the topic, because as a DM (this might sound cruel), but I would put a limit on how long you can take choosing abilities, and outright ban characters, who don't have a good enough backstory (because they don't care about the actual character of who their playing).

It's not unfair, for the simple reason that it isn't true. There'll be people who minmax who don't get invested in the story just as there are people who don't minmax who won't get invested, you're falling headlong into the stormwind fallacy (http://dictummortuum.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/stormwind-fallacy.html) here. Regarding wanting to get into fights, some players enjoy the fighting pillar of roleplaying games more than the social or exploration ones - and it's not like they have no reason to, 80% of the spells, class features and indeed the PHB is dedicated to combat. If the game is 80+% combat rules, isn't wanting 80+% of things to be combat kind of expected?

Now, that's not to say that you should run the game that way, players should be free to do what they want and if most of your players don't want a combat heavy campaign then they shouldn't end up with one. But the rest of what you're saying - banning characters who don't have a good enough backstory, etc - doesn't really have anything to do with minmaxing. A well built character doesn't necessarily have a poor backstory just as a poorly built character doesn't necessarily have a good one, decide what your problems actually are and focus on that.

If you don't like that some players have characters overshadowing others, talk to them about that. If you have players who want a lot more combat than other players, talk to them about that. If you have players who aren't putting the effort you'd like into roleplaying, talk to them about that. Don't conflate the issues, address the problems directly.

[Giant2005]

In my experience min-maxing is perfectly okay as long as everyone is doing it, however that tends to not be true for the guy that introduced min-maxing to the table in the first place. That guy wants to have a distinct advantage and will not be happy if everyone else is on equal footing.
That leads to a pretty destructive arms race.
That guy in my group started off with simple min-maxing, then in the next game he started using some marginally more powerful homebrew found in places like here or Enworld, then in the next game he started using full-blown DnDwiki crazy homebrew, then in the game after that he started making his own homebrew that far surpassed anything DnDwiki had on offer.
That last category is the absolute worst. His first creation was a wizard that had d12 hit points, started the game with 4 feats and didn't use spell slots so he could cast fireball infinitely. In the game after that his level 1 character had 3 attacks, each of which inflicted 2d12+5 damage and he had an endless supply of bombs that each had the effects of the fireball spell.

[Final Hyena]

Many players who choose to min-max are really bad at roleplaying, and unsurprisingly want to get into fights with anyone who has arms. Now here is were I might sound unfair, but players who don't min-max usually are much more fun to play with, because they usually get more invested in the story, which makes battles, and all other aspects of the game more memorable.

My experience has shown there are two extremes, I've come across people who build a character to fit an RP they want, but it was terrible and resulted in a tpk fairly quickly (to be fair there were two of them). At the other extreme I've played with min-maxers who only care about how much damage they can push out and only seek to kill stuff. However this was back in PF when how you built your character was a big deal compared to 5E.

Both of these player types are frustrating in different ways, but you know it is possible to min-max and RP, I tend to min max (with some minor RP concessions) my builds mostly as a habit from PF because I don't want to die, and then build a fun character around that.

The biggest problem is people not finding the right game for them, some people like the combat grind others need RP. I'm an RP man who is hard wired to min-max so he doesn't die.

I guess in summary there are lots of different types of people, and as a GM/Player it's your responsibility to group up with like minded individuals.

[Fatty Tosscoble]

Another thing is not all min/maxers are against story. I try and do both. You may not notice that player that is always engaging in the story also spent a lot of time min maxing his character as well. It's part of the game, or they wouldn't even include options like multi classing or feats.

Of course some min-maxers still are invested in the story, and I am not too against them, but if everyone is not min-maxing I ether have to give encounters that are boarding for the min-maxer, because they are so strong, but a challenge for those players will get the other players killed.

[Lines]

In my experience min-maxing is perfectly okay as long as everyone is doing it, however that tends to not be true for the guy that introduced min-maxing to the table in the first place. That guy wants to have a distinct advantage and will not be happy if everyone else is on equal footing.
That leads to a pretty destructive arms race.
That guy in my group started off with simple min-maxing, then in the next game he started using some marginally more powerful homebrew found in places like here or Enworld, then in the next game he started using full-blown DnDwiki crazy homebrew, then in the game after that he started making his own homebrew that far surpassed anything DnDwiki had on offer.
That last category is the absolute worst. His first creation was a wizard that had d12 hit points, started the game with 4 feats and didn't use spell slots so he could cast fireball infinitely. In the game after that his level 1 character had 3 attacks, each of which inflicted 2d12+5 damage and he had an endless supply of bombs that each had the effects of the fireball spell.

That's not minmaxing, that's munchkinry. Minmaxing is trying to reduce power in things you don't want in exchange for more power in aspects you do want, which is a subset of powergaming which is trying to come up with the most mechanically advantageous character within the rules (so for instance a jack-of-all-trades character might be powergamed, but not minmaxed) while munchkinry is trying to gain as much power as possible for its own sake, including things like outright cheating and fudging dice rolls.

As an example of the difference, if they were playing a first person shooter a power gamer would be trying to figure out which weapon was best, practicing his aim and coming up with strategies while a munchkin would be abusing glitches to shoot rocket launchers straight through walls and kill everyone before the round has started.


Another thing is not all min/maxers are against story. I try and do both. You may not notice that player that is always engaging in the story also spent a lot of time min maxing his character as well. It's part of the game, or they wouldn't even include options like multi classing or feats.

Of course some min-maxers still are invested in the story, and I am not too against them, but if everyone is not min-maxing I ether have to give encounters that are boarding for the min-maxer, because they are so strong, but a challenge for those players will get the other players killed.

The main dilemma there is that you can't really say to someone who has spent ages picking out the perfect spell selection as a wizard 'hey, you're overshadowing the guy who rocked up with a champion fighter that just attacks every round, stop it'. Asking someone to deliberately act stupid doesn't really go over well, 5e's biggest advantage though is that the two characters mentioned above still tend to be functional within the same party. My best advice is just up the difficulty of the encounters, the minmaxer will be happy because they're visibly making a greater impact and if the champion fighter doesn't like being outshone he can put some damn effort into his character next time.

[Tanarii]

I'm assuming by min/max you mean combat optimized?

Also, what do you mean by RP? If you mean making decisions in character, even during combat, then how well players RP depends on two things: have they defined what their character is? Are they using that definition?

If you mean RP = "not fighting stuff" or even "social interaction", then it's unsurprising you think combat optimized characters leads to worse RP, especially if it's combined with a lack of definition on the character.

Personally I find back stories to be just about the worst possible way to define your character. Because they almost always say "what" without telling you much about "why". Much better is a list of motivations.

Armed with a list of motivations to get in chacter, it doesn't really matter if someone is combat optimized or not, unless their motivations boil down to "get into combat a lot" in a less combat-oriented campaign.

Personally I'm not in favor of heavy combat optimization. If I'm DMing and find someone has some crazy specific interaction of spells, classes and feats to jack up their combat numbers, I'm likely to tell them to knock that **** off. Because I don't want to play with people who's primary motivation is to look for ways to break the game mechanically, as opposed to try to play smarter. I acknowledge that's possibly a false distinction. ;)

[Grod_The_Giant]

I wanted to get the opinions of Playground Giants on player min-maxing. I have found after playing D&D in different groups that min-maxing ruins some of the role-playing aspects of D&D which is made worse in a more story focused editions like Next.
In lieu of retreading old ground (http://dictummortuum.blogspot.com/2011/12/stormwind-fallacy.html), I'll let the Dude speak for me:

https://camo.githubusercontent.com/c84dacb67e3d84047c2d18c10a1b86228d258a97/68747470733a2f2f33312e6d656469612e74756d626c722e63 6f6d2f35356431373063383938623234303738336463333332 313234626264313937642f74756d626c725f696e6c696e655f 6e34666f616672613043317365773830682e6a7067



Many players who choose to min-max are really bad at roleplaying,
Counterargument: The players who are most interested/capable of min-maxing are the ones who are overall most interested in the hobby and the game, and thus are likely to be highly engaged and all-around "good" players. Certainly everyone I've ever played with who could min-max was also a great guy to play with. Even setting aside that correlation, roleplaying and mechanical aptitude are entirely separate skills.


and unsurprisingly want to get into fights with anyone who has arms.
Entirely unrelated issue.


I'm wondering what a broad sample of people think on the topic, because as a DM (this might sound cruel), but I would put a limit on how long you can take choosing abilities,
Quick question: who do you think this will hurt more, the guy who knows the system like the back of his hand, has his build worked out ahead of time, and can name half a dozen effective options off the top of his head, or the guy who just wants to hang out with his buddies and gets frustrated to the point of tears by dense rulebooks? Think carefully.


and outright ban characters, who don't have a good enough backstory (because they don't care about the actual character of who their playing).
Or they're just not creative writers. Also fun question: which will lead to a more interesting backstory, the half-orc barbarian or the dragonborn warlock/paladin/rogue? After all, someone with a complex build probably has a quite specific image in mind for their character, to say nothing of the dozens of weird plot hooks inherent in such a history.

[Fatty Tosscoble]

Personally I'm not in favor of heavy combat optimization. If I'm DMing and find someone has some crazy specific interaction of spells, classes and feats to jack up their combat numbers, I'm likely to tell them to knock that **** off. Because I don't want to play with people who's primary motivation is to look for ways to break the game mechanically, as opposed to try to play smarter. I acknowledge that's possibly a false distinction. ;)[/QUOTE]

It also makes it so the DM is always having to stack more and more enemies into combats, or throw unrealistically tough monsters to challenge the players later on.

[gameogre]

I agree with the OP in a VERY limited degree. I'n my experiences min/maxers are more often poor role players than players who just create a character regardless of the degree of success that character would have.

In other words I have never meet a player who wanted to play a 18 Int fighter with a 9 strength and 11 dex that didn't role play his heart out. Well as much role playing as a new player to rpg's has anyway. I also have never meet this type of player who wasn't new to rpg's and who didn't quickly (over the next 3-6 sessions) die.

Min/Maxers in my limited experience, have one thing in common. They are not new. They have often made the character choices that lead to gimped combat characters and seen what it leads to. So now they don't gimp themselves in character creation.

It's really not rocket science. It's natural selection at work.

Once they figure out that the pointy end of the metal stick goes into the monsters better with a higher Strength than Int and that they tend to stay alive longer with a higher con and more hit points......that's the road they tend to travel down.

Now all this doesn't make them poor role players. No worse or better than any other type of player.

Instead what I find that has a much larger influence over that is the DM. If the adventures stress role playing then the players will get better at it. Now the DM does need to slowly work it into the game more and more and make it personal.

The party might not give a crud about Evil Mastermind Badguy #39 but the pirate king that took them capture and kicked the paladins avenger into the drink and burned the wizards spellbooks on the chest of the thief before selling them all into slavery will provide untold means of motivation for months to come!

Suddenly hack and slashers will spring into deep role playing to bring that mother down!


Added- I have also seen DM's pointing the finger at min/maxers because the combat oriented characters do well in encounters. Yet these same DM's who say combat doesn't really matter as much to them turn around and increase the odd back in the monsters favor.

If combat isn't a huge deal in your game what do you care if the pc's are very competent? See that's mostly a trick question. Combat IS important to DM's otherwise the DM's would just make easy combat encounters! Instead the DM's will use every trick of the encounter building tables (the DM's version of Min/maxing) to build challenging encounters.

Guess what guys? The players are doing the same thing on their end!

[cobaltstarfire]

Different people enjoy different aspects of the game, there's no reason someone can't both like to min-max and like to role play. And it's no sin to like only one or another aspect,even in that case I think a balance can be struck if the players are willing.


If you're having a problem with murderhoboism, and don't want to have it at your table, remind the group ahead of time that they don't have to kill everything to advance...and that if they choose that path there may be long term in game consequences as word gets out about these nasty folks who kill everything in sight and are super powerful. Monsters will start to show up prepared, and towns may hole up at the sight of them, or bare them from entering at all.

I'm pretty bad at both role play and min-maxing, and in person haven't ever gotten a chance to improve because the DM's always kind of glosses over me. (I just can't easily think of what to say...so I understand that when they move on or don't give me many opportunities to role play...)

[Tanarii]

It also makes it so the DM is always having to stack more and more enemies into combats, or throw unrealistically tough monsters to challenge the players later on.
Yes. But how much of a problem that is varies from group to group.

It's a huge problem if the battle is easy for some PCs but potentially deadly for others, and the players likely to get killed off care. And if the alternative is everyone is bored.

I've played and run groups where it was level one with much higher levels, and just surviving was the name of the game for the lower level characters. Players who enjoy that aren't going to be put off by disparity of PC power in the party, or risk of death to themselves.

It can reach ridiculous proportions. I ruined my second ever campaign in my early teens by turning it into a Monty Haul. Effective combat optimizing all the PCs via magic items. It got boring because it was clearly stupid how over the top anything challenging had to be, and that led to its own kind of boredom. Plus I was young enough not to know how to make things challenging without MOAR POWER hur hur hur

[gameogre]

Different people enjoy different aspects of the game, there's no reason someone can't both like to min-max and like to role play. And it's no sin to like only one or another aspect,even in that case I think a balance can be struck if the players are willing.


If you're having a problem with murderhoboism, and don't want to have it at your table, remind the group ahead of time that they don't have to kill everything to advance...and that if they choose that path there may be long term in game consequences as word gets out about these nasty folks who kill everything in sight and are super powerful. Monsters will start to show up prepared, and towns may hole up at the sight of them, or bare them from entering at all.

I'm pretty bad at both role play and min-maxing, and in person haven't ever gotten a chance to improve because the DM's always kind of glosses over me. (I just can't easily think of what to say...so I understand that when they move on or don't give me many opportunities to role play...)

Let the DM know how to feel! Hopefully in a friendly way. "hey man. I know my role playing needs work but I would love to do it more,I'm not fast on my feet yet but want to do more than I have been, what can I do to get more in character time?"

Most DM's would love this! Frankly more often than not if I have a player who doesn't seem to want to role play I might not give him more but give him less. Especially if another player seems to enjoy it more. We like to tailor the game to our players so everyone has fun! Let the DM know!

[Fatty Tosscoble]

Counterargument: The players who are most interested/capable of min-maxing are the ones who are overall most interested in the hobby and the game, and thus are likely to be highly engaged and all-around "good" players. Certainly everyone I've ever played with who could min-max was also a great guy to play with. Even setting aside that correlation, roleplaying and mechanical aptitude are entirely separate skills.

This really is not what most people experience with combat centred players. A have heard countless stories of these player not engaging in the story much at all, fighting other pc's, generally side tracking campaigns to show off their strengths, and in my own games are very rude, acting openly board while everyone else is engaging in the plot.

We can keep going back and froth saying "Well in my experience, but in my experience" yes I know people won't have always had the same groups or heard the same things as me.

[QUOTE=cobaltstarfire;20504610]Different people enjoy different aspects of the game, there's no reason someone can't both like to min-max and like to role play. And it's no sin to like only one or another aspect,even in that case I think a balance can be struck if the players are willing.

Well you could argue that 5e was made to be more of a roleplaying game, and 4e was made more for the combat enthusiasts, and in this situation I'm talking about 5e.

[Lines]

Counterargument: The players who are most interested/capable of min-maxing are the ones who are overall most interested in the hobby and the game, and thus are likely to be highly engaged and all-around "good" players. Certainly everyone I've ever played with who could min-max was also a great guy to play with. Even setting aside that correlation, roleplaying and mechanical aptitude are entirely separate skills.

This really is not what most people experience with combat centred players. A have heard countless stories of these player not engaging in the story much at all, fighting other pc's, generally side tracking campaigns to show off their strengths, and in my own games are very rude, acting openly board while everyone else is engaging in the plot.

We can keep going back and froth saying "Well in my experience, but in my experience" yes I know people won't have always had the same groups or heard the same things as me.

The thing is our position has a lot more backing than yours. You are arguing strong correlation with no real logic behind it and only anecdotal evidence, while we're saying that power gaming and roleplaying aren't really related and so even if a correlation exists, rules on one won't affect the other.


Different people enjoy different aspects of the game, there's no reason someone can't both like to min-max and like to role play. And it's no sin to like only one or another aspect,even in that case I think a balance can be struck if the players are willing.

Well you could argue that 5e was made to be more of a roleplaying game, and 4e was made more for the combat enthusiasts, and in this situation I'm talking about 5e.
4e was intended for roleplaying too, it just got a bit hampered because the tactical balance reduced verisimilitude. It should be noted that 5e also reduces verisimilitude compared to 3.5, just not to the same degree, and so also suffers in terms of roleplaying.

[ad_hoc]

I'm wondering what a broad sample of people think on the topic,

Well you have come to the wrong place for that.

[bid]

I'm wondering what a broad sample of people think on the topic, because as a DM (this might sound cruel), but I would put a limit on how long you can take choosing abilities, and outright ban characters, who don't have a good enough backstory (because they don't care about the actual character of who their playing).
Backstory, shmackstory, the ultimate test is game play. If they handle it right and the players are fun,
let it be. Are you sure you the issue isn't only wasting game time?

There are levels of min-maxing.
- picking a race that has 16 / 16 in you main stats
- picking mountain dwarf to start with medium armor
- selecting the right spells
All these are benign cases of minmaxing.

Rule lawyering and RAW interpretation are another level of min-maxing. Speak with them to find which min-max combo they will bring to the table and see if you have the same interpretation. Make sure their combo happens rarely enough that all the players have their time in the spotlight. I'm thinking of assassinate et al. here.

Munchkin is the last level. Don't let them creep up to you and rape the world's mechanics. They'll be prepared and won't waste any time doing their dirty deeds.


But the ultimate test is still fun. If a munchkin takes the backseat, fails often enough and win once in a while, let him be: you must be dreaming, don't try to wake up.

[MaxWilson]

OP, either you are just trying to start an argument or you are genuinely looking for insight. If the latter, I recommend you read http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

Min-maxing is most closely related to #4 (Challenge) and #8 (Abnegation).

Most players, including most min-maxers, are interested in more than one kind of fun. There's a name for a min-maxer who's interested only in #8 (Abnegation): munchkin. Munchkins min-max so that the game will be easy. Powergamers min-max so they can tackle things that are hard (#4, Challenge). A powergamer could also be into Fantasy, Narrative, and Fellowship.

I'm a natural powergamer (seeing good tactics and brokenly-strong abilities is very easy for me) and yet my spectrum for fun is pretty wide: #2 (Fantasy/Immersion), #4 (Challenge), #5 (Fellowship), #6 (Discovery), and sometimes #8 (Abnegation) although only in CRPGs, not at the tabletop.

I think you'll find most min-maxers on these forums to have similarly wide spectrums, but I make no promises about min-maxers that you'll meet in Adventurer's League games.


I'm wondering what a broad sample of people think on the topic, because as a DM (this might sound cruel), but I would put a limit on how long you can take choosing abilities, and outright ban characters, who don't have a good enough backstory (because they don't care about the actual character of who their playing).

This is a bad idea and pushes things in the wrong direction. Your backstory should never be more interesting than what happens at the table in the actual story.

[Fatty Tosscoble]

Now all this doesn't make them poor role players. No worse or better than any other type of player.

yeah I don'd deny this, though the lack of interest is more likely to happen in this sort of person. I should have said combat optimizers, not min-maxers since min-maxing does not equal good character.

I find (what I should be calling power gaming) results in cookie-cutting player characters, because many are optimized in the same way. since a barbarian to get the most out of him will have to be made generally only in one way.

Oh also I should have put in I like players rolling 3d6 for their stats so we get characters who are unique because of their strange attributes.

Because many power gamers will make a barbarian with low Int to buff of strength, and constitution. I like when you get characters with stats that could lead to a backstory, like a buff mage, or a intelligent barbarian that is prone to sickness.


Well you have come to the wrong place for that.

Well I just learned that the hard way.

[Gtdead]

I'll still optimize the mechanical part of my character even if the dm says that there will be absolutely no rolls in his homebrewed system. I enjoy the process. Character math are completely seperated from my roleplaying. The only reason that math exists in this game is to be optimized. Otherwise it would be pointless. After all rolls work directly against the player's decisions and ingenuity. If I have a concept of a character in mind, I'm going to make damn sure that the character has the best chance to succeed in whatever I "make" him do. Stats is one thing, interacting with the word and trying to get advantages (in the broad sense, not as the game mechanic) is the other.

DM and players shouldn't care about optimization as long as the optimizer isn't cheating. After all, the class says more about the intends of the player. Who would be more likely to play a bland character, an unoptimized assassin rogue or an optimized knowledge cleric? A barbarian or a bard?

And personally I doubt that anyone would be that excited to have a mentally handicapped wizard with 4 int in their group just because someone found the concept interesting. I'd prefer having a chaotic evil psycho in the group than a guy that tries to make a point by not optimizing the stats of his character.

This actually reminds me of a conversation between the dm and me over a 3.5 game that we never had the chance to play. I wanted to make a bone knight, a prestige class from eberron setting that the dm wasn't sure if he wanted to allow that in his game because he thought I was optimizing way too much. In fact I only wanted that prestige class for flavor cause it's badass. A lvl 20 cleric wouldn't be that much different overall. He was ok with giving the archmage feats for free to every caster (because he really likes magic) and allowing gestalts, but he had a problem with my build because I was "optimizing". He also likes the concept of sorceror way more than wizard. So he wanted to make the whole spell compedium available to sorcerors to cast spontaneously. And when I asked him if he would allow me to take a flaw for an extra feat, he told me that I'm overdoing it and we'll see ^^.

Edit: For my last character, I made a tempest cleric that has trouble concentrating in lightning spells because he doesn't understand the source of his power. He is chosen but not particularly devout, he actually doesn't know what deity favors him so he prays to the wrong one (this was the dm's addition). I told the dm that every time he casts more than 2 lightning/thunder type spells, he will be unable to cast a single spell for the next few hours (determined by the dm), and I hope that once he understands the source of his powers that this will stop, but it's not up to me.

The concept works directly against the main combat feature of my class. Still this character can't be more optimized. I wouldn't even try to play something like that if I didn't have enough knowledge of the game and the spell lists to make it work.

[Lines]

Oh also I should have put in I like players rolling 3d6 for their stats so we get characters who are unique because of their strange attributes.

Because many power gamers will make a barbarian with low Int to buff of strength, and constitution. I like when you get characters with stats that could lead to a backstory, like a buff mage, or a intelligent barbarian that is prone to sickness.

That's the fault of the class, not the player, and while the former is ok (not sure how buff mage is a backstory any more than medium strength or weak mage) the latter makes no sense. The backstory of a low constitution barbarian is either 'found something else to do with his life' or 'died', there is pretty much no incentive for anyone to make a deeply suboptimal character, including from a roleplaying perspective. A barbarian with strength 8 is a dumb idea from a mechanical perspective and also a dumb idea from a roleplaying perspective - it doesn't make any more sense in character than it does out of character.

[Flickerdart]

Character optimization is the only way to build an adventurer that maintains verisimilitude. Every wizard with 11 Int, every fighter who tries to be a skillmonkey, every rogue who wears heavy plate for aesthetics, is dead.

[Fatty Tosscoble]

A barbarian with strength 8 is a dumb idea from a mechanical perspective and also a dumb idea from a roleplaying perspective.

This is the problem you worry about the mechanics of the character, and think it's a dumb roleplaying move why? It's smart from a roleplaying perspective, because other NPC's and character now have something to talk to you about. The same old dexterous rouge who uses daggers, and mag wearing fricken Gandalf robes gets boring, and this is why role-playing with power gamers can get boring everything is generic and everyone plays only mechanically good characters not interesting characters.


Character optimization is the only way to build an adventurer that maintains verisimilitude. Every wizard with 11 Int, every fighter who tries to be a skillmonkey, every rogue who wears heavy plate for aesthetics, is dead.

You assume your dead because you don't play your character smart. Not every problem has to end with you hitting it with your sword, and not every Mage need 18 intelligence to leave his front door coward. At some point your going to have to ask yourself if you want to play DnD or WoW, because DnD is not a numbers game it's a roleplaying game.

[pwykersotz]

Fun fact: My first DM turned me into a min-maxing powergamer (with regards to D&D).

I started off as a homebrew Mage the Ascension class of the GM's design in 3.5. Completely broken, but that wasn't important. I just wanted to be an Ice Mage and have fun with it. The GM was great at roleplaying and had a brilliant and beautiful world. The problem was twofold. One, there were exactly three kinds of combat challenges. Stupidly easy weak creatures, blocks of stats, or so overpowered we couldn't think of fighting back (about every third game contained one or more gods). He would use these overwhelming encounters to try to herd us into positions he thought were better for the story. To his credit he could adapt when we broke his system, but more often than not he succeeded because, well, he's the GM.

Two, he was used to players not taking their backstory seriously. I took my RP extremely seriously. I leveled to 5th level as a Hengeyokai, but then I asked him for a favor. I didn't like the Asian theme. I asked if I could retcon as a Goliath. I loved the Goliaths, their culture and their values were just perfect for me. I didn't want to hurt the game though, so I asked if I could just bring him in and pretend I had been that way the whole time since I had already been roleplaying him that way. The GM agreed. But through forgetfulness (and a little laziness), he had a god who the party was working for polymorph me into a Goliath permanently. This utterly killed my desire to roleplay the character. I wasn't a real Goliath. The culture meant nothing because I hadn't been born to it. I was still new though, and too timid to speak up and ask to change things yet again. So I kept going.

With the desire to roleplay effectively deadened, I began to try to have what fun I could. I wanted to be effective. To help. NPC's and PC's alike, I wanted to make use of myself. And so I began to think about the powers I had as an Ascension Mage in the D&D world. I spent many games just soaking up the context the GM put the world and his magic in. I got a copy of the houserules that governed him. I practiced in game to make the most of my abilities, and in doing so I discovered that feat combos, spell combos, and many other character options would maximize my abilities. Eventually we got to level 40 and started a new campaign, but now I was in the groove. I would read up and maximize my potential. I'd still make attempts to roleplay here and there, use my min-maxing/powergaming/munchkinry to be within the world, but my true focus was the system, not the game.

Enter John Telemain. A Psion I made with the express purpose of fighting back against the GM's railroad. John's hallmark was to abuse every single rule the DM had ever used against us. I used permissive interpretations of 3.0/3.5 mechanics, used creative wording to stack features, and in the end, I made a character whose stats were literally whatever I wanted them to be with a manifester level of functionally infinite and unlimited PP to power it. He had every spell from every class (yay Erudite?) and every Psionic power, along with a suite of custom monster powers to make him completely immortal.

And in the end? I won. I beat the GM. He didn't have enough system mastery to fight back in the slightest. He brought in gods and demon lords, and a Prismatic Tarrasque that had all its stats increased by 300. He used epic custom spells that shut down psionics and time being rewritten...but John Telemain always won. Not because he's a PC and the GM designed a way to progress, but because he could circumvent every limitation the GM tried to apply. That's when I learned my lesson. That even though I won, I lost the game entirely. Because when the GM was beaten, there was nothing else. Just a lonely old guy who had tried to make a good game for me. He put his heart into something, and because I didn't like the way he had interpreted certain mechanics and railroaded things, I crushed the whole thing. I saw the defeated look in his eyes and in the slump of his shoulders when he realized he couldn't do anything more. I won. Yay.

That, to me, is what powergaming/min-maxing/munchkinry does. It kills games. It kills the fire in the GM's eyes. It trivializes the whole point of the game. Every time someone makes a thread like this and people cry "Stormwind!" I remember all of this and I cringe. I know what they're experiencing, they're experiencing a younger me who is being a complete jerk. They're experiencing someone who isn't respecting the game. But at the same time, the GM isn't respecting their game either. The GM is at fault for not recognizing and adapting to what his table wants to do. It's a vicious cycle that ends in someone growing angry at their friends and at a wonderful hobby.

That being said, my advice is to meet them halfway. If you feel a combination is bad for the game, trust your instincts. But don't stop them from playing their way, and try to learn what your game can take. GM'ing isn't about control, it's about enabling the party to be awesome. But they have to respect your fun as well, and if you want to have a story in with their stuff, they should do their best with that. Hopefully with a little bit of time you'll reach a happy middle ground, but it's critically important to never stop listening to them and never stop trying to give them the game they want, even as you try to get the game you want. Some tables might be incompatible in this way, but I like to think a lot of people just need to put the effort in to see the good in what they have to be able to appreciate a different way to play.

Oh, and don't demand backstories. They can be fun, but it's just homework if a player doesn't want to do it. Instead, at the table, ask the player how their character feels about things. What their character is thinking. Those in-game thoughts are much more valuable than where they came from.

[Grod_The_Giant]

A barbarian with strength 8 is a dumb idea from a mechanical perspective and also a dumb idea from a roleplaying perspective.

This is the problem you worry about the mechanics of the character, and think it's a dumb roleplaying move why? It's smart from a roleplaying perspective, because other NPC's and character now have something to talk to you about. The same old dexterous rouge who uses daggers, and mag wearing fricken Gandalf robes gets boring, and this is why role-playing with power gamers can get boring everything is generic and everyone plays only mechanically good characters not interesting characters.
"Incompetence" is not an interesting character trait.

[Gtdead]

This is the problem you worry about the mechanics of the character, and think it's a dumb roleplaying move why? It's smart from a roleplaying perspective, because other NPC's and character now have something to talk to you about. The same old dexterous rouge who uses daggers, and mag wearing fricken Gandalf robes gets boring, and this is why role-playing with power gamers can get boring everything is generic and everyone plays only mechanically good characters not interesting characters.

That's an easy question to answer. A barbarian with 8 str requires the special snowflake treatment. He is useless in pretty much everything except talking about it. Eventually the smart dm will just give him a quest that rewards gauntlets of ogre strength if he wants that campaign to lead to something other than sitting in a tavern and talk. Sure it can make a good story but that requires all the players to have fun doing that. It's not the standard dnd game.

And then there's the question of WHY would a guy that can't lift a feather, would train to become a barbarian. I'd like him to explain how he trained in using an axe that he can hardly lift.

[Lines]

A barbarian with strength 8 is a dumb idea from a mechanical perspective and also a dumb idea from a roleplaying perspective.

This is the problem you worry about the mechanics of the character, and think it's a dumb roleplaying move why? It's smart from a roleplaying perspective, because other NPC's and character now have something to talk to you about. The same old dexterous rouge who uses daggers, and mag wearing fricken Gandalf robes gets boring, and this is why role-playing with power gamers can get boring everything is generic and everyone plays only mechanically good characters not interesting characters.

Yes, but what they'll be saying is 'hey did you hear about that super weak barbarian that lost a fight with a couple of elderly kobolds and died?'.


Whether a character is mechanically good has nothing to do with whether they are interesting or not. In universe, people will tend to gravitate to what their abilities support - a very intelligent person has a natural advantage in becoming a wizard, while a particularly hearty and strong tribesman will naturally end up as a fighter or barbarian. An urchin on the streets who is naturally quick and nimble will likely end up a rogue, while somebody very wise might end up a cleric or druid - and is more likely to go a war cleric if they're strong, to add subclasses to this.

That a character naturally disposed to certain roles will likely end up in those roles does not mean they are boring. Dumbledore is very intelligent and so naturally is a great wizard, I don't think the story would become more interesting if Dumbledore was stupid or if he'd rolled a barbarian instead.

[Fatty Tosscoble]

"Incompetence" is not an interesting character trait.

What is incompetence in this case, the fact he is not the exact same as everyone else's barbarian, he could be a weak in strength, but is adept in creating poisons to add to his weapons. Or he could be a barbarian based on his lack of training in combat, so naturally he fights in an uninspired way.

What kind of off the way interesting characters are you playing a 18 strength barbarian who surprise likes to hit things with his great club.

Why do you assume the Barbarian will die to the breeze if he isn't a muscle bond moron. The weak barbarian may specialize in intimidation, and can get his way without having to even touch anyone.

Right now I'm playing a halfling barbarian (11 strength) who bluffs like crazy, and is generally smart enough to try and stack the odds against the enemies by trapping them alone to offset my general low strength.


That's an easy question to answer. A barbarian with 8 str requires the special snowflake treatment. He is useless in pretty much everything except talking about it. Eventually the smart dm will just give him a quest that rewards gauntlets of ogre strength if he wants that campaign to lead to something other than sitting in a tavern and talk. Sure it can make a good story but that requires all the players to have fun doing that. It's not the standard dnd game.

And then there's the question of WHY would a guy that can't lift a feather, would train to become a barbarian. I'd like him to explain how he trained in using an axe that he can hardly lift.

That DM would have given the barbarian a quest to become a fully cookie-cutter character, that sounds like a bad DM making the game about fighting the toughest enemies, and gaining the most buffs so we can go and fight more tough enemies.

I know thats not all you would be doing in a game and a good session for you would still require good role-playing, but I challenge you to role 3d6 for a character and unless you role like a 2 in something stick with it.

I promise it will be fun, just don't make encounters as if you were power gaming, and required really tough monsters to challenge you.

[Lines]

What is incompetence in this case, the fact he is not the exact same as everyone else's barbarian, he could be a weak in strength, but is adept in creating poisons to add to his weapons. Or he could be a barbarian based on his lack of training in combat, so naturally he fights in an uninspired way.

What kind of off the way interesting characters are you playing a 18 strength barbarian who surprise likes to hit things with his great club.

Sure, I'll bite. Literally making this up as I type - Estêvão da Sodré is the first son of an old noble house, one which traces its ancestry back to several silver dragons. Every member of the household is justly proud of being a part dragon and justifies the inevitable slight inbreeding with their several cadet dynasties as being necessary to keep the bloodline pure. Scaled, majestic and imbued with great magical power, each is a silver dragon sorcerer of renown and a member of house Sodré is instantly recognized by anyone of the kingdom - all except Estêvão, whose father initially broke with tradition and married a purely human woman from another house out of love as a young man. They had Estêvão and were happy for a time, but she died in her 40s and thinking of the family name which had been growing more important in his mind his father remarried, this time to an appropriate third cousin who would live as long as he did and bear him more proper children.

Not being a half dragon Estêvão is destined to only live a human lifetime and already despite only just reaching his thirtieth year looks nearly as old as his father is, a man in his late 50s who will live to twice the age a normal human will, as will every other member of his family. He has had several more children now, all of whom are clearly of the proper blood and will just be reaching middle age as he dies and though the family inheritance is agnatic primogeniture he is aware that even if his father dies before him he will never become the head of the family. Blue of eye, silver of hair and possessed of great strength of body if not the noble charisma usually associated with scions of his house, Estêvão channels his frustration and rage into mighty deeds that he performs having left home in search of a way to somehow achieve his birthright. The world is a wide and strange place, and somewhere in it there must be a way to strengthen the weak blood that he is so ashamed of, somehow there must be a way he can find the destiny that fate has robbed him of. He fights recklessly and without abandon, seeking to impress others and not caring about the possibility of death, for he is strong and he would rather due than return home and grow frail and old while he watches his younger siblings grow into their power.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Sure, I'll bite. Literally making this up as I type - Estêvão da Sodré is the first son of an old noble house, one which traces its ancestry back to several silver dragons. Every member of the household is justly proud of being a part dragon and justifies the inevitable slight inbreeding with their several cadet dynasties as being necessary to keep the bloodline pure. Scaled, majestic and imbued with great magical power, each is a silver dragon sorcerer of renown and a member of house Sodré is instantly recognized by anyone of the kingdom - all except Estêvão, whose father initially broke with tradition and married a purely human woman from another house out of love as a young man. They had Estêvão and were happy for a time, but she died in her 40s and thinking of the family name which had been growing more important in his mind his father remarried, this time to an appropriate third cousin who would live as long as he did and bear him more proper children.

Not being a half dragon Estêvão is destined to only live a human lifetime and already despite only just reaching his thirtieth year looks nearly as old as his father is, a man in his late 50s who will live to twice the age a normal human will, as will every other member of his family. He has had several more children now, all of whom are clearly of the proper blood and will just be reaching middle age as he dies and though the family inheritance is agnatic primogeniture he is aware that even if his father dies before him he will never become the head of the family. Blue of eye, silver of hair and possessed of great strength of body if not the noble charisma usually associated with scions of his house, Estêvão channels his frustration and rage into mighty deeds that he performs having left home in search of a way to somehow achieve his birthright. The world is a wide and strange place, and somewhere in it there must be a way to strengthen the weak blood that he is so ashamed of, somehow there must be a way he can find the destiny that fate has robbed him of. He fights recklessly and without abandon, seeking to impress others and not caring about the possibility of death, for he is strong and he would rather due than return home and grow frail and old while he watches his younger siblings grow into their power.
Meanwhile, the 8 Strength barbarian comes up with this: "Lol I'm the weakest barbarian, I can barely lift my axe lol. He thinks he's strong and fierce but he's totally wrong haahaha."

[Lines]

That DM would have given the barbarian a quest to become a fully cookie-cutter character, that sounds like a bad DM making the game about fighting the toughest enemies, and gaining the most buffs so we can go and fight more tough enemies.

I know thats not all you would be doing in a game and a good session for you would still require good role-playing, but I challenge you to role 3d6 for a character and unless you role like a 2 in something stick with it.

I promise it will be fun, just don't make encounters as if you were power gaming, and required really tough monsters to challenge you.

How would I possibly roll a 2?

And you do realise that fighting the toughest enemies is fun, right? A lot of players, myself included, find great enjoyment in playing well and taking down a lich that supposedly well outpowers us.

[Fatty Tosscoble]

Unless you think a character is a wikipedia article, that you just recite at people, the only actual character trait is he wants his birthright (becoming the head of the family due to his short lifespan), and he willing to fight recklessly in order to get it. So he still wants to hit things hard by the end of this story, rather than just growing old without achievement.

[PeteNutButter]

Wait, are you making your players roll 3d6 straight AFTER they pick their class? Because that's just sadistic...

If not, then any player worth anything will choose his class based on his stats. Meaning he'll be subpar compared to another game, but could still be very much a min/maxed character. Furthermore he is probably even more of a min/max character because he is going to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas to make him viable.

As for making characters interesting by making them bad at what they should be good at? Well turning a trope on its head is slightly interesting, at first, its just like playing opposite day as a kid. If that is the extent of depth that means RP to you then you might as well ban all your players for being uninventive with their backstories. Seriously rolling randomly on the personality charts for your background will make a more interesting character, than simply being inept.

Anyways putting your highest stat in str as a barbarian is so far from min/maxing its laughable. Quoting the phb:
"QUICK BUILD First put your highest ability score in Strength, followed by Constitution."

Like the game is telling you this because even if you as a player have zero interest in combat, the rest of the team would appreciate it if you weren't pathetic at it.

[Gtdead]

That DM would have given the barbarian a quest to become a fully cookie-cutter character, that sounds like a bad DM making the game about fighting the toughest enemies, and gaining the most buffs so we can go and fight more tough enemies.

I know thats not all you would be doing in a game and a good session for you would still require good role-playing, but I challenge you to role 3d6 for a character and unless you role like a 2 in something stick with it.

I promise it will be fun, just don't make encounters as if you were power gaming, and required really tough monsters to challenge you.

It's not about random monster encounters. It's about making a consistent world populated by things that make sense, like for example, strong and armed guards. You may want to make a weakling that acts tough through intimidate and find it interesting (to which I won't say no), but what happens when you roll a low number and someone sees through you? And you have to fight a bunch of guards. Then the dm will have to throw a bunch of 5 str guards to you just so you have a chance to win. Unless ofcourse he doesn't because even surrounded without any spell support, the dm gives you the chance to survive somehow.

Combat is the biggest part of the game. Sooner or later it will happen. Rolling a character that doesn't even follow the basic suggestions in the phb is not how this is supposed to work. And pumping strength into a barbarian isn't cookie cutter. It would be if you prefered a greatsword over a greataxe for the sole reason that it has a slightly higher average damage, or take a subclass because it's mechanically better than the others.

In your example, the class selection is pointless. You could just pick a background without any class and perform exactly the same. You hardly even need a player's handbook to do that. Would it be fun? Perhaps. Would it be viable? Possibly if everyone in the group liked the idea. Personally I wouldn't want to play that way.

[cobaltstarfire]

Well you could argue that 5e was made to be more of a roleplaying game, and 4e was made more for the combat enthusiasts, and in this situation I'm talking about 5e.

What exactly is your point and how does it relate to my quote? Cause we're in a 5e forum talking about 5e I would assume, and so I'm talking about 5e. It doesn't matter what a system lends itself too, you can roleplay using any of them, you can min-max them, and you can do both. There's no rule saying it's not allowed.


Let the DM know how to feel! Hopefully in a friendly way. "hey man. I know my role playing needs work but I would love to do it more,I'm not fast on my feet yet but want to do more than I have been, what can I do to get more in character time?"

Most DM's would love this! Frankly more often than not if I have a player who doesn't seem to want to role play I might not give him more but give him less. Especially if another player seems to enjoy it more. We like to tailor the game to our players so everyone has fun! Let the DM know!

Eh, it doesn't matter anymore, the group went their separate ways a while ago, and I haven't been interested in finding a RL game in a very long while now. I met them through AL (and then we formed our own group cause cause AL was full of really unpleasant players). I don't really want to have to go through AL again, not at the current gaming store available anyway.

If I ever do get back into live gaming again though I'll definitely try to make it known from the start (well I think I did in this case too, but I guess I should have reminded him or something...I dunno)

[Fatty Tosscoble]

[QUOTE=Lines;20504888]How would I possibly roll a 2?

Oh ****, that would make you a wizard.

[QUOTE=PeteNutButter;20504906]Wait, are you making your players roll 3d6 straight AFTER they pick their class? Because that's just sadistic...

It's up to them but even if they did I doubt they would end up with stats that would give them a really good fighter or wizard, if they specifically picked a class to compliment what they rolled they would proably end out with a decent character of that class.

[Lines]

Unless you think a character is a wikipedia article, that you just recite at people, the only actual character trait is he wants his birthright (becoming the head of the family due to his short lifespan), and he willing to fight recklessly in order to get it. So he still wants to hit things hard by the end of this story, rather than just growing old without achievement.

And? The rest of the backstory is something you keep in mind and it only comes up if it's relevant. You were the one talking about banning people who didn't have a good enough backstory so I provided one for an optimized barbarian, personally I don't think backstory is necessary at all in most campaigns - play your character, feel out their personality, then work backwards and invent your backstory once you have decided what fits.

Nonetheless, you wanted a strength 18 barbarian who hits things with a club and is interesting, and you got one. The backstory provides a solid foundation to build an interesting personality on and works fine, regardless of the character being minmaxed. What's the problem?

[Fatty Tosscoble]

1. Maybe I don't mean a character needs a backstory as much as a unique personality and traits

2. The only thing about you barbarian that was interesting was the fact he probably cries Linkin Park lyrics into his pillow at night, because he like a soap opera character has family problems.

3. The character is cookie-cutter with a different list of past problems, you need a character with a backstory that really effects them in game mechanically and roleplaying wise.

[PeteNutButter]

It's up to them but even if they did I doubt they would end up with stats that would give them a really good fighter or wizard, if they specifically picked a class to compliment what they rolled they would proably end out with a decent character of that class.

Then my point is valid. Making people roll for stats just ends up moving the bar. A character with a 14 or 16 then is very strong. It is all relative. There is just a greater chance of really low stats, which can just flat out ruin fun depending on how you have players RP them for instance:

I had a DM make us roll straight 3d6 once and ended up with a 6 int and a high str. I played a barbarian because that's what the stats demanded for, and the character was strong in combat but dumb. Anytime a puzzle or mental challenge arose in game, the DM basically said I couldn't really help much because of my 6 int. It pushed me completely out of a significant part of the game, for... RP. Fun? Not for anyone. I promptly got myself killed in a very annoying and meta way just so that I could participate in the game after rolling a new character.

[Lines]

1. Maybe I don't mean a character needs a backstory as much as a unique personality and traits

2. The only thing about you barbarian that was interesting was the fact he probably cries Linkin Park lyrics into his pillow at night, because he like a soap opera character has family problems.

3. The character is cookie-cutter with a different list of past problems, you need a character with a backstory that really effects them in game mechanically and roleplaying wise.

1. Ok, fine then. Keep in mind unique isn't that necessary - you don't have to be generic, but there's nothing wrong with playing your dwarf as surly and tradition bound, most dwarves are.

2. Yes, he has family problems. Most nobles do, really, but family problems are neither a positive or a negative roleplaying wise - having them doesn't make a character bad, nor does not having them. There are plenty of avenues to explore, I happened to pick this one.

3. It does affect him mechanically, it's why he's a barbarian. Keep in mind that's not necessary either - a character with a boring as mud backstory is fine, it's not like every hero our world has ever seen has some great tragedy or defining event. Plenty of people lived a normal childhood, had a happy family and then went out and did the right thing because it was the right thing to do.
3a. His backstory also obviously affects him roleplaying wise (affects, not effects by the way), since it partially informs his personality.

[Gtdead]

2. The only thing about you barbarian that was interesting was the fact he probably cries Linkin Park lyrics into his pillow at night, because he like a soap opera character has family problems.


It is a valid backstory though. Succeeding the leader is something that a lot of tribes tend to do. And going on a pilgrimage is also something they do. Sure it can be cliche, but that's just a short backstory. The character may want to become leader in order to steer the tribe into a different direction. Perhaps he is an art enthusiast but he is bound by the traditions that require the challenger to win a duel. Perhaps he wants to unite the tribes and focus on techonology. Whatever. Perhaps he misses an arm and he is on a quest to heal his wound. Some charlatan cons him and now he needs to fight possession because the magic arm he got was cursed.

The point of the backstory is to give a reason for the character to join the party. How he deals with problems becomes evident later. He can be stronger than an ogre and still dislike violence.

[PeteNutButter]

1. Maybe I don't mean a character needs a backstory as much as a unique personality and traits
2. The only thing about you barbarian that was interesting was the fact he probably cries Linkin Park lyrics into his pillow at night, because he like a soap opera character has family problems.
3. The character is cookie-cutter with a different list of past problems, you need a character with a backstory that really effects them in game mechanically and roleplaying wise.

So if players don't make their characters, and play the game exactly how you would do it then they are no good? I don't mean to be riding the hate train, but maybe you should reexamine how diverse the ways to enjoy the game can be, including character concepts that don't fit your definition of interesting.

A few character traits that are interesting, have mechanical effects that occasionally come up, add flavor, but don't gimp the character:

This could manifest in several different ways. Maybe the character will never let himself be on the left side of his companions. Maybe the character refuses to do certain things at certain times of the day. Maybe the character is unable to do combat until he performs a certain ritual. (maybe a use object interaction.)

Maybe the character will never engage in combat until the enemies strike first. Maybe the character is bound to never kill things. Maybe the character has a sworn allegiance to a third party who isn't always friendly towards the party.

Too many possible fears to list here. The idea is they will not engage in combat with their feared enemy or at least take disadvantage against them.

There are countless ideas... aside from permanently gimping your character for the luls.

[Grod_The_Giant]

1. Maybe I don't mean a character needs a backstory as much as a unique personality and traits
You should probably say that instead of "backstory," then. But hey, I'll bite. Our poor Sodre,

Knows all about magic and manners and such, due to his upbringing.
Has a deep-seated envy of mages that he tries to hide.
Is obsessed with all things draconic as he searches for some way to make good on his heritage.



2. The only thing about you barbarian that was interesting was the fact he probably cries Linkin Park lyrics into his pillow at night, because he like a soap opera character has family problems.
Making fun of your players won't do a single good thing for your game, you know. Also, see above.


3. The character is cookie-cutter with a different list of past problems, you need a character with a backstory that really effects them in game mechanically and roleplaying wise.
But... but... but only cheating optimizers care about the mechanics! Seriously, did you read that backstory? He's not just some noble scion, he's actively questing for a way to become more draconic. If you can't find a way to work that and a family full of half-dragon sorcerers into a plot hook or five, I'm going to have to ask you to hand in your GM's screen.

EDIT: Also

So if players don't make their characters, and play the game exactly how you would do it then they are no good?
+1 to this.

[AmbientRaven]

As a player:
Min-maxing is fun to theory craft. I never play a min-maxed character though. It is not fun. I always develop a background, character and feel for the character then pick appropriate abilities.
For example, i have a spoiled noble Sorcerer whom uses unseen Servant every morning to make his food for him. if he doesn't have time to ritual cast it, he spends a spell slot to do it.

As a GM:
I flat out don't allow min maxing. I make people submit their character backgrounds first. I then go over their sheet, and, if it looks like a min maxed build I ask for reasons why they made choices ect.


In the games I run, and the games I play in we play to RP, to tell the story and to have fun. Not to be murder hobos who have a 5% higher chance of killing something.

Also, 5e doesn't require min-maxing

[Lines]

As a player:
Min-maxing is fun to theory craft. I never play a min-maxed character though. It is not fun. I always develop a background, character and feel for the character then pick appropriate abilities.
For example, i have a spoiled noble Sorcerer whom uses unseen Servant every morning to make his food for him. if he doesn't have time to ritual cast it, he spends a spell slot to do it.

As a GM:
I flat out don't allow min maxing. I make people submit their character backgrounds first. I then go over their sheet, and, if it looks like a min maxed build I ask for reasons why they made choices ect.


In the games I run, and the games I play in we play to RP, to tell the story and to have fun. Not to be murder hobos who have a 5% higher chance of killing something.

Also, 5e doesn't require min-maxing

Doesn't mean it's not fun =D. If I make a sorcerer it'll be a variant human undying light warlock 2/favoured soul x with the war domain, 8 strength 14 dexterity 16 constitution 8 intelligence 10 wisdom 16 charisma, focusing on spells like spirit guardians and sacred flame (at first, will end up spamming eldritch blast later obviously). Master blaster light and fire caster edit: of disaster and faster pasta, optimised for maximum damage and control and I'll come up with an interesting backstory to match. The character will be no more and no less roleplayable than if he was less optimised.

[Pex]

As a player:
Min-maxing is fun to theory craft. I never play a min-maxed character though. It is not fun. I always develop a background, character and feel for the character then pick appropriate abilities.
For example, i have a spoiled noble Sorcerer whom uses unseen Servant every morning to make his food for him. if he doesn't have time to ritual cast it, he spends a spell slot to do it.

Excellent. Wonderful. What about this sorcerer makes it absolutely impossible or atrocious to be variant human with ST 8 DX 14 CO 14 IN 10 WI 12 CH 16 (gold) dragon blooded with Elemental Adept (Fire) feat and Firebolt (my main attack), Shocking Grasp (when I need to move and not receive an Opportunity attack because opponent can't react), Mending (my clothes will not tear!) and Prestidigitation (have to keep clean at all times!) as cantrips? First level spells are Unseen Servant and Shield (I will not be touched by the filthy varmints who attack me!)

[EugeneVoid]

I understand not creating cookie-cutter builds. Hell, right now, I'm playing a Monk/Barbarian in one of my games.

But having a Halfling Barbarian with 11 Strength? And cornering them? They'll just tear you a new one.

There's mechanics in D&D for a reason. If you want to free-form roleplay then go do so.

When I play D&D, I like to create a story. I want to create a character that I think is interesting. And to do so means that they have to be able to do what I want them to do. There's no way my unarmed Barbarian would be playable if I had 11 strength. Unless the DM was houseruling poisons or whatever. My barb wouldn't be combat-capable.

I guess if you want to roleplay a paraplegic or a buffoon, then, by all means, but I don't think that's common.

But, I suppose that choosing what you want to roleplay is rudisplorking.

[pwykersotz]

So apparently my post was not as relevant as I thought. You don't hate min-maxing, you hate class and racial archetypes (which PC's are literally built around). You want people to play something based on pure random generation and hopefully buck the archetypes of whatever they play so that it's not just all the same thing (hence your charismatic Barbarian).

That's...silly.

Playing based on random generation is all good, but it's far from a superior way to play. In fact, it's strictly inferior considering the game is literally built around the opposite. Look at each and every bit of descriptive text at the beginning of the class entries in the PHB. Every one of them envisions a character who exemplifies their class. Not one that subverts it. Look at the class abilities that are gotten at level. They support the core concept. Look at feats that provide bonuses to your character based on the weapons they use, armor they wear, or spells they cast. They support a concept of your character, and building to that concept is min-maxing. Unless you take everything randomly. When you get that ASI, unless you roll to see how you use it, you're making a choice to min-max. Every choice about proficiency is min-maxing. Maybe for combat, maybe for RP, maybe for laughs, but you're doing it.

[Giant2005]

I don't really understand the proposed correlation between being min-maxed and being bland. How interesting the character is has everything to do with his personality, a personality that has nothing to do with the mechanics of his class.
The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive - they aren't even related.

[Talamare]

I min maxed my skills, I'm terrible at combat but can dominate the RP parts

I just broke this thread

[Saggo]

Worth remembering people min/max in life too. An athlete can spend a lifetime honing one skill set.

[Fatty Tosscoble]

To those who power game in 5e "take that crap back to 4e"

It takes me out of my own game, the one I'm building when players are making characters based on hours of consideration and mathematically built characters to counter a much as possible in the campaign setting.

Many people on the thread all assume that Power gamers are the best gamers (probably because many people here are power gamers) but they constantly fail to recognize that in good storytelling the hero is not always the biggest power in the room. When a players become more war-machine than character, personally as a DM, I don't want to put effort into the adventures I create, because they really usually care very little for the creative ways I make to complete quests, or fun side mission that may not pay enough money to them.

[Lines]

To those who power game in 5e "take that crap back to 4e"

It takes me out of my own game, the one I'm building when players are making characters based on hours of consideration and mathematically built characters to counter a much as possible in the campaign setting.

Many people on the thread all assume that Power gamers are the best gamers (probably because many people here are power gamers) but they constantly fail to recognize that in good storytelling the hero is not always the biggest power in the room. When a players become more war-machine than character, personally as a DM, I don't want to put effort into the adventures I create, because they really usually care very little for the creative ways I make to complete quests, or fun side mission that may not pay enough money to them.

I don't know what to tell you, man. Power gaming is achieving optimal results within the rules, I have no idea why you're taking that to mean pure numbers - the primary measure of power gaming for a wizard is how versatile they can make their character. You shouldn't be making creative ways to complete quests at all, you should be making a detailed world and then letting them use their abilities to achieve their desires. You can keep possible solutions in mind, but one of the prime joys of the tabletop is you don't have to 'program' multiple solutions in, you can just run things and adjudicate the players coming up with any number of possible solutions.

A power gamer can make a war machine, but not all war machines are power gaming - if you sacrifice too much for a few +numbers, you're a bad power gamer, you've gained the ability to be somewhat better at a common situation in exchange for being much worse at most others. Power gaming is getting the most out of your character, and that is not a bad thing. You just seem to dislike it when the focus of their character is direct combat power, so just have more problems that can't be solved by hitting them really hard and everything's fixed. Honestly not seeing the problem here, and definitely not seeing how insisting characters that are incompetent at their own focus are better is fixing it (seriously, a low strength barbarian is crap at everything and is no more conducive to roleplaying than a strong one - less so, because at least the strong one has some roleplaying justification for existing).

[Fatty Tosscoble]

[QUOTE=Grod_The_Giant;20505029]You should probably say that instead of "backstory," then. But hey, I'll bite. Our poor Sodre,

Knows all about magic and manners and such, due to his upbringing.
Has a deep-seated envy of mages that he tries to hide.
Is obsessed with all things draconic as he searches for some way to make good on his heritage.


But you see what I mean here, other than the fact he hates mages and wants to find draconic stuff, when he's doing anything that doesn't have to do with these to things he just a spell-caster. It's like why pirate RPG's don't work if the pirate is not raiding or fighting on the sea the game becomes boring, becasue you have to dedicate the game to the only interesting part of the characters.

I had a character who after accentually burning down a shop as a youth skipped town, and had to steal to survive, (he is not a rouge just saying), but now he has a constant urge to steal, gaining an addiction to thievery over the years. Sometimes I have to role to see if he prioritizes treasure over the main mission forcing other player to have to slap the crap out of him a lot to get him focused.

Making fun of your players won't do a single good thing for your game, you know. Also, see above.

I know, someones started talking to me in real life and when I got back to it I must have lost my place.


But... but... but only cheating optimizers care about the mechanics! Seriously, did you read that backstory? He's not just some noble scion, he's actively questing for a way to become more draconic. If you can't find a way to work that and a family full of half-dragon sorcerers into a plot hook or five, I'm going to have to ask you to hand in your GM's screen.

Yes and I would admit that it could make for some good quests and adventures, but you have to be doing these types of adventures or your character has nothing to play off of.

[Lines]

You should probably say that instead of "backstory," then. But hey, I'll bite. Our poor Sodre,

Knows all about magic and manners and such, due to his upbringing.
Has a deep-seated envy of mages that he tries to hide.
Is obsessed with all things draconic as he searches for some way to make good on his heritage.


But you see what I mean here, other than the fact he hates mages and wants to find draconic stuff, when he's doing anything that doesn't have to do with these to things he just a spell-caster. It's like why pirate RPG's don't work if the pirate is not raiding or fighting on the sea the game becomes boring, becasue you have to dedicate the game to the only interesting part of the characters.

I had a character who after accentually burning down a shop as a youth skipped town, and had to steal to survive, (he is not a rouge just saying), but now he has a constant urge to steal, gaining an addiction to thievery over the years. Sometimes I have to role to see if he prioritizes treasure over the main mission forcing other player to have to slap the crap out of him a lot to get him focused.

Making fun of your players won't do a single good thing for your game, you know. Also, see above.

I know, someones started talking to me in real life and when I got back to it I must have lost my place.


But... but... but only cheating optimizers care about the mechanics! Seriously, did you read that backstory? He's not just some noble scion, he's actively questing for a way to become more draconic. If you can't find a way to work that and a family full of half-dragon sorcerers into a plot hook or five, I'm going to have to ask you to hand in your GM's screen.

Yes and I would admit that it could make for some good quests and adventures, but you have to be doing these types of adventures or your character has nothing to play off of.

Not true. He might be focusing on that, but when there are no leads he'd want to help his friends and he'd want to acquire power, wealth, prestige and great deeds because because of that longing and would happily embark on random quests on the grounds that there's a chance they'd contain a hint at what he was looking for. Not everything has to be directly related to your primary goal.

[Telwar]

To those who power game in 5e "take that crap back to 4e"

It takes me out of my own game, the one I'm building when players are making characters based on hours of consideration

Point of order 1: People whined about "powergamers" in 1e, 2e, and 3e. Or have you not looked at the 3.5/Pathfinder forum?

Point of order 2: "Hours of consideration" and 5e character creation do not go together. 5e characters can be squeezed out in 10 minutes, 15 if you start about 10th level.

[PeteNutButter]

It's been mentioned that you don't need to min/max as much in 5e, but I'd argue that while that may be true 5e incenentivizes min/maxing more than previous editions (3.5 and the like).

5e's simplifications took away a lot of the meaningful choices and sacrfices you would make for the "min" part. Dumping a stat now is easier than ever, since stats don't do as much. Lets take a look at the stats:

Str is easily dumped now that ecumbrance is ridiculously high. A 10 str character can hold 150 lbs before he feels a difference. I'd bet half the players have never and could never even lift 150 lbs irl, let alone carry it for a day of travel. If you don't need it DUMP it.

Dex is now completely not needed for heavy armor wearers. At least it is still a common save and initiative, but really -5% to those is probably worth less than what you could get out of the stats you are maximizing. Dump it if you can increase your core stats instead.

Con fortunately is rarely dumped. YAY

Probably 80% of nonwizard characters in AL have an 8 int, because why not. There is damn near zero cost of dumping it. In 3.5 skills were a hefty price to pay; Enjoy your 1 skill a lvl half orc fighter. Now? Unless your DM makes you play that 8 int, it is literally the only play from an optimization stand point. DUMP this stat so fast you can even remember how to spell doomp.

Wis has at least always been save or suck spells, so there is a price to dumping it. Dump it at your own peril.

Cha has always been the easiest dump stat, 5e makes no improvements to this. Dump this is and just be an ******* to everyone, but like now you have an excuse.

The interesting thing about min/maxing is that "min" part essentially leaves the characters with weaknesses, which any DM worth his DM screen can easily exploit on occassion to keep the game interesting. If a player dumps a stat hit them with spells/abilities that target that save.
Really if you don't like having to adjust combat encounters to what your characters and players can and can't do, maybe you shouldn't DM. It's an essential part of the DM's job to challenge the players (not just in combat). Know what the PCs can do, and find ways to challenge them appropriately. If you are playing your game with a group of your math major buddies that could involve including puzzles that require high level calculus. If you are playing with your med school buddies, maybe expand that medicine check. If you are playing with children, don't expect them to be able to do complete the same challenges. If you are playing with a typical diverse group of D&Ders don't be afraid to challenge them intellectually, as we are all nerds. If you are playing with combat min/maxers make appropriate encounters. None of these are mutually exclusive either. You can even make challenges designed so that only one or two players could feasible solve them. (Be wary of this though, as it may get boring for the others.)

In my game, I challenge the players in a variety of ways. They are forced to make tough moral and ethical decisions based on age old dilemmas such as the greater good, freedom or safety, etc. Then when it comes to fighting, since they are nearly all min/maxers the combats are DEADLY. For the player(s) that don't, I just give them more magic items, to level the playing field and everyone is happy.

I typically kill a player every week, ever since the cleric got the ability to raise them. Before that I tried to stick to just knocking them unconscious. As a min/maxer myself, I've gotten pretty good at making these encounters. The best ones are when there is only one or two players left standing and they barely win. The players feel accomplished over the hard fought victory and if the dice fall unfavorably they'll pay with their pocket books for the spells to ressurect them. If you aren't that good at encounter designing, good thing your a DM and can freely cheat... just fudge the numbers if you have to.

Don't just stick to dice fest encounters either. Make interactive terrain and objects. A good encounter becomes easier if the players play smart and use the terrain to their advantage. Include alternate methods of success and failure (other than murderfest). Maybe they have to save someone or fail the quest. Maybe there is an out that if taken ends the combat early. I like to make monsters with intuitive weaknesses that plays can find and exploit. Sometimes the players play so smart that the big bad for the week ends up being fodder for their schemes. That's ok occassionally.

In a sense you could say my players min/maxing is part of their immersion. I don't play with kiddie gloves, and they and their characters don't have death wishes. They are invested in their character, and will do anything to extend their lives and minimize loses.

[HoarsHalberd]

Essentially if you are half as rude to your players as you've been to people here about back stories or having badwrongfun then don't DM. You can create your wonderful little characters who for no conceivable reason have chosen to go on adventures and play in someone else's game. Min-maxing is a perfectly logical form of fun and creative expression. Now total min maxing (15/15/15/8/8/8) is only possible in point buy systems and is boring and cookie-cutter ish. But if you're rolling then it makes perfect sense to place at least the first two stats in the most logical places and then build a fun character's traits around where you put the lowest.
I am playing an exiled minotaur barbarian. I rolled a 6, and instead of dumping int, I chose the less optimal cha because I didn't want to play the cookie-cutter dumb barbarian. Now if I'd stuck my lowest in strength and my highest in dex, I would have had to ask myself: "Why did Kyroth study so hard to be a barbarian when it doesn't suit his natural strengths at all?" Learning to be a fighter or ranger would have been what he would have chosen because he, like 99.9999% of fun characters don't want to die and so he would study a field in which his finesse would be appreciated. And someone without any aptitude and an int/wis of above 6 would not choose a field of study they are physically incapable of succeeding in and then take that field of study to its most dangerous and hazardous conclusion.

[Giant2005]

Now if I'd stuck my lowest in strength and my highest in dex, I would have had to ask myself: "Why did Kyroth study so hard to be a barbarian when it doesn't suit his natural strengths at all?"

Barbarians aren't all about muscle - dexterity is far more important to them than almost every other class. Half of their abilities are related to dexterity.
It would make more sense training to be an unarmored Barbarian that uses its natural agility to dodge blows, if you had high Dex, than it would be to be Fighter that traditionally wears restrictive armor.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But you see what I mean here, other than the fact he hates mages and wants to find draconic stuff, when he's doing anything that doesn't have to do with these to things he just a spell-caster. It's like why pirate RPG's don't work if the pirate is not raiding or fighting on the sea the game becomes boring, becasue you have to dedicate the game to the only interesting part of the characters.
I think you're missing a key word here, but... I guess you're right? When he's not in a position to react to society, or to magic, or to dragons (or to quests involving those) he's just another genteel barbarian with more than his fair share of bravado. Can't possibly have interesting relationships with anyone or emergent character traits besides those main points.


I had a character who after accentually burning down a shop as a youth skipped town, and had to steal to survive, (he is not a rouge just saying), but now he has a constant urge to steal, gaining an addiction to thievery over the years. Sometimes I have to role to see if he prioritizes treasure over the main mission forcing other player to have to slap the crap out of him a lot to get him focused.
Sounds pretty damn cliched to me. "Oh, he's a klepto thief with a bad thing in his past." You pretty much just regurgitated the Urchin background with no interesting additions. And yeah, you could argue that Lines' barbarian backstory is pretty much just a Noble background, but it has an unusual and fleshed-out family and a pretty different spin on the goal. (And hey, what's so interesting about your guy when he's not stealing stuff?)

[MaxWilson]

And pumping strength into a barbarian isn't cookie cutter. It would be if you prefered a greatsword over a greataxe for the sole reason that it has a slightly higher average damage, or take a subclass because it's mechanically better than the others.

I suspect it might be cookie cutter to never make a PC who isn't proficient somehow in Stealth.

If your last fifteen characters were all proficient in Stealth and Perception, you might be a power-gamer.

[Tanarii]

It's been mentioned that you don't need to min/max as much in 5e, but I'd argue that while that may be true 5e incenentivizes min/maxing more than previous editions (3.5 and the like).

5e's simplifications took away a lot of the meaningful choices and sacrfices you would make for the "min" part. Dumping a stat now is easier than ever, since stats don't do as much. Lets take a look at the stats:

Str is easily dumped now that ecumbrance is ridiculously high. A 10 str character can hold 150 lbs before he feels a difference. I'd bet half the players have never and could never even lift 150 lbs irl, let alone carry it for a day of travel. If you don't need it DUMP it.

Dex is now completely not needed for heavy armor wearers. At least it is still a common save and initiative, but really -5% to those is probably worth less than what you could get out of the stats you are maximizing. Dump it if you can increase your core stats instead.

Con fortunately is rarely dumped. YAY

Probably 80% of nonwizard characters in AL have an 8 int, because why not. There is damn near zero cost of dumping it. In 3.5 skills were a hefty price to pay; Enjoy your 1 skill a lvl half orc fighter. Now? Unless your DM makes you play that 8 int, it is literally the only play from an optimization stand point. DUMP this stat so fast you can even remember how to spell doomp.

Wis has at least always been save or suck spells, so there is a price to dumping it. Dump it at your own peril.

Cha has always been the easiest dump stat, 5e makes no improvements to this. Dump this is and just be an ******* to everyone, but like now you have an excuse.

The interesting thing about min/maxing is that "min" part essentially leaves the characters with weaknesses, which any DM worth his DM screen can easily exploit on occassion to keep the game interesting. If a player dumps a stat hit them with spells/abilities that target that save.Players that have an 8 stat in any ability score play the price, unless it's a combat only game. 8 Str reduces the total amount of loot the party can take out of the dungeon, which hurts the entire party. 8 Int or Cha means you're less useful to the party out of combat. I've seen analysis like yours before, and it never ceases to amaze me. I can only assume it's based on extremely combat-oriented games, and DMs exclusively using "person with highest bonus makes the check for the entire party" aka party Face & Sage characters.

[HoarsHalberd]

Players that have an 8 stat in any ability score play the price, unless it's a combat only game. 8 Str reduces the total amount of loot the party can take out of the dungeon, which hurts the entire party. 8 Int or Cha means you're less useful to the party out of combat. I've seen analysis like yours before, and it never ceases to amaze me. I can only assume it's based on extremely combat-oriented games, and DMs exclusively using "person with highest bonus makes the check for the entire party" aka party Face & Sage characters.

Well high combat is a problem, but a team of specialists who know how to complement each others strengths makes sense. Especially with regards to the face. If everyone tries to talk to someone who requires diplomacy the low cha bloke is likely to earn the group as a whole emnity if played seriously, or if the DM just wants to move things along, get escorted out of the room.

[Tanarii]

Well high combat is a problem, but a team of specialists who know how to complement each others strengths makes sense. Especially with regards to the face. If everyone tries to talk to someone who requires diplomacy the low cha bloke is likely to earn the group as a whole emnity if played seriously, or if the DM just wants to move things along, get escorted out of the room.
Of course it does, but not all the time. Your characters weakness can and will come in to play. And if everyone in the party except for the one specialist is (relatively) dumb and offensive, it's going to make your party weak in those areas. At the very least, group checks are a thing.

[mgshamster]

Of course it does, but not all the time. Your characters weakness can and will come in to play. And if everyone in the party except for the one specialist is (relatively) dumb and offensive, it's going to make your party weak in those areas. At the very least, group checks are a thing.

Even if one person is dumb and offensive, how often would that person speak up out of turn and say something offensive? Unless you have that person not present during those scenes, there's a chance that they'll ruin your chances of being diplomatic.

[PeteNutButter]

Players that have an 8 stat in any ability score play the price, unless it's a combat only game. 8 Str reduces the total amount of loot the party can take out of the dungeon, which hurts the entire party. 8 Int or Cha means you're less useful to the party out of combat. I've seen analysis like yours before, and it never ceases to amaze me. I can only assume it's based on extremely combat-oriented games, and DMs exclusively using "person with highest bonus makes the check for the entire party" aka party Face & Sage characters.

My last bit was talking about just that. I pointed out the motivations to min/max, then I explained how a DM should occasionally force a character to deal with his shortcomings, both in and out of combat.

[Grod_The_Giant]

On the other hand, the mechanical difference between an 8 and a 12 is just 10%, and even fluff-wise the 8 is only a bit below average. The character who dumped Cha isn't going to be significantly worse than the one who made it a secondary score.

[cobaltstarfire]

Fatty Tosscoble, can not break quotes when you post? Every single time you've quoted someone you've broken the quote tab, don't erase the [ /QUOTE] at the ends of quotes and it won't do that.

If you're unable to come up with interesting stories and quests for players for what appears to be any reason at all. I think the problem is with you, not with your players. There haven't been any bad or unusable backgrounds in this thread, you're just inflexible.

[EugeneVoid]

To those who power game in 5e "take that crap back to 4e

I'm not sure if anyone caught this, since 4e is not as popular on the playground, but in 4e, without sufficient optimization, combat is nigh-impossible from 16 onward, simply based on how Monster accuracy and AC scales.

If you are playing some version of D&D like Lord of the Rings - Hobbits or the ever popular Commoner campaigns of 3.5, then go ahead. Sure it's fun sometimes, but most people, I assume, would like to play characters that are competent in at least some way. And by that I mean mechanically, since, RPing a character that is good at archery is different than actually being a decent shot.

[Sigreid]

OP, you pretty much come across as a jerk in this thread that thinks of your players as your little puppets to tell "your" story. News flash, it's not your story. It's the group's story. D&D and other table tops only really work when everyone gets to have a hand in determining what the story is.

And so you know, min/maxing isn't just for combat. I've seen and played characters min/maxed for social interaction, stealth and scouting, thieving, knowledge and many other things.

[Gtdead]

I suspect it might be cookie cutter to never make a PC who isn't proficient somehow in Stealth.

If your last fifteen characters were all proficient in Stealth and Perception, you might be a power-gamer.

I agree that it is cookie cutter, but I disagree that it is power-gamimg. The average guy wants a way to gain information about the surroundings (perception, insight), a way to manipulate them (sneak, social skill), and some problem solving skill that is more likely to turn up (unlocking doors?). That's not even metagaming. Just put yourself in your character's shoes. What are be the skills most likely to help you navigate a medieval era city?

Add a class that isn't tied to some abstract rules, like fighter (background: had mandatory soldier training) and you have the most boring, factory made character you can have. And also the most likely to be able to do a bit of anything in the game.

Of course I understand that optimizing for stealth and perception will allow you to get a drop in pretty much every fight. But that's not the player's fault. That's like saying I like ice cream so much but I won't eat it because everyone else does. That's the fault of the game system.

[Mith]

Fun fact: My first DM turned me into a min-maxing powergamer (with regards to D&D).

-Story-

Thanks for sharing the story. What I've taken as a strategy for being a DM is that my friend who likes to play the numbers (I just do not have the interest to do that as a DM) will point things out to me that he thinks could be broken, and then we rule around it. It will hopefully keep any conflicts that may arise to 0 or a minimum. Plus 2 of my other players currently consist of 2 other DMs with more experience then myself, so the ruling side of 5E is easy to do since there are 3 people with experience with rules analysis to figure out a fair ruling quickly.

[Serket]

Many players who choose to min-max are really bad at roleplaying, and unsurprisingly want to get into fights with anyone who has arms.

Me, I like to get into fights with entities who never had arms. For one, it's easier because they almost certainly don't have class levels. For two, it's easier to claim they weren't really people. :smalltongue:

Joking aside, games can have a lot of different focuses, and pre-campaign communication is a good way to explain what focus you prefer and to attract players who feel the same way. If you are running a game where tactical combat is not a focus, it is good for everyone to know that before the game starts, so that you don't end up with a group of disappointed players confused because your playstyle and theirs don't fit together.

I don't think 5e D&D is a story-focussed game. It doesn't particularly have story-related mechanics, and if I wanted to run a story-focussed game I'd pick some other system. I suspect that part of your problem is that if a game system has giant segments on character powers and combat (as 5e does), and not so much about story, the game system itself is encouraging players to think in terms of powers and combat.


I'm wondering what a broad sample of people think on the topic, because as a DM (this might sound cruel), but I would put a limit on how long you can take choosing abilities, and outright ban characters, who don't have a good enough backstory (because they don't care about the actual character of who their playing).

With regards to time limits, building characters in 5e takes time. The higher level they are, the more options they have and the longer it takes. Personally, I hate deadlines. They make me really tense. I also like to build characters who have clearly defined areas in which they are competent. Or to put it another way, I do optimise. But that is not because I particularly wish to show off my optimisation, nor because I only wish to fight, it's because I don't want to let everyone down by bringing a useless character to the table when the inevitable fights happen. So I would say, be careful with this idea.

With regards to backstory - backstory is often a trap. It's tempting to write a backstory full of events and excitement and stuff. But that's a trap. For one, if your character did all that cool stuff, why aren't we playing a game set during that cool exciting time? For two, the more you nail that down, the less you can improvise later. The game is set now, because now is the exciting and unusual time in your character's life. All the stuff that happened before was not worth telling a story about, but events during this game are.
Ultimately, backstory is totally irrelevant unless it influences the game you're going to be playing. So if the players are fitting hooks and links to your specific campaign setting and NPCs or events they're going to encounter, then that could be useful. But if all they're doing is writing a story of what their character did in the gap before their life became exciting enough to play through, and it doesn't link to anything, then don't bother. You're just wasting their time and yours.


.He is significantly more powerful than his peers in at least one area.

Even accepting the starting position that you don't like optimisation and you'd probably be better off running a narrativist game instead of this one, and even ignoring the part where you insulted quite a few of your readers potentially including me, this specifically is a terrible metric. I am in a game. I am playing a rogue, who had a career as a burglar. She is quite explicitly more powerful than her peers in the areas of spotting hidden things, picking locks, casing joints, breaking and entering, knocking out guards, sneaking around, and other roguey stuff - because they didn't write down burglar as their concept and they didn't try to make their characters good at those things. Is that because I'm a dirty min-maxer, or is it because I wrote a concept down and then built the numbers so the character sheet fit the concept? Both actually, there's no contradiction there.


3. It breaks immersion in the world by forcing a redesign for the sake of gameplay. If you have a player who has his character graphed out from level 1 to 20, magic items and spells, focused entirely around having the highest spell-resistance he can and not giving a single **** about anything else, you either have to make everything unrealistically good at overcoming spell resistance to give him a challenge, certainly making the monsters able to overcome everybody else's spell resistance, or unrealistically make everything play to his weakness.

Is your campaign supposed to be a tactical challenge, or is it supposed to be a story?

If it's supposed to be a tactical challenge, then every single one of your players should be on board for that, and you shouldn't mind making it harder. You are, after all, trying to challenge us.

If it's supposed to be a story, why do you mind if a character is good at the thing their fiction says they are good at? The story of my rogue says she is pretty good at burglary. Her numbers reflect that. If you start making the locks on every door harder so that I can't beat the DCs, what you're doing is arbitrarily deciding that this burglar is not very good at her job. You're contradicting my authorship of the part of the fiction I'm supposed to author (my character). If what you want is a story, and I'm up for that and want the story to involve a kick-ass burglar who is legendarily good at B&E, why are you telling me yes, but then making her bad at it? If you don't want the story to involve an awesome burglar whose story involves being awesome at burglary, tell me that before I ever write a character. Don't recalibrate the universe to destroy my part of the fiction.

This recalibration thing - depending on your priorities, this is either you being lazy, or you being passive-aggressive about authorship rights. Either way, I really think you should stop complaining.

[MaxWilson]

I agree that it is cookie cutter, but I disagree that it is power-gamimg. The average guy wants a way to gain information about the surroundings (perception, insight), a way to manipulate them (sneak, social skill), and some problem solving skill that is more likely to turn up (unlocking doors?). That's not even metagaming. Just put yourself in your character's shoes. What are be the skills most likely to help you navigate a medieval era city?

Add a class that isn't tied to some abstract rules, like fighter (background: had mandatory soldier training) and you have the most boring, factory made character you can have. And also the most likely to be able to do a bit of anything in the game.

Of course I understand that optimizing for stealth and perception will allow you to get a drop in pretty much every fight. But that's not the player's fault. That's like saying I like ice cream so much but I won't eat it because everyone else does. That's the fault of the game system.

This sounds like it was written by a power-gamer in denial. One of the defining features of a power-gamer is that he will rationalize the RP to support the mechanically effective choices, instead of vice-versa.

Unless you're seriously arguing that 100% of the Guild Merchants, Entertainers, and Nobles out there in D&D-land are actually trained in stealth, it's not plausible to claim that you could have fifteen characters in a row with Stealth + Perception proficiency purely coincidentally. Clearly you are choosing to skip over the potential PCs without Stealth/Perception proficiency. You're powergaming.

If you have a problem with that, you may be experiencing cognitive dissonance. For example, you may have irrationally negative feelings toward powergaming, and consequently the knowledge that you are powergaming puts you in a state of denial which can be resolved only by changing your playstyle (hard) or changing your feelings about powergaming (easy). It's up to which one you do but you can't remain in denial forever.

Also, just because you enjoy some powergaming doesn't mean you have to go all-in. I'm a natural powergamer, but I still don't like playing characters with low Int, even though it is mechanically weaker to have Int 13 Wis 8 than to have Wis 13 Int 8, because I don't think I can effectively roleplay Int 13 whereas roleplaying Wis 8 is easy (just be impulsive and a bit oblivious, like Kimmy Gibbler: Int 11, Wis 6). Powergaming isn't a binary thing: you can powergame some aspects of your character without having to powergame every aspect.

[cobaltstarfire]

This sounds like it was written by a power-gamer in denial. One of the defining features of a power-gamer is that he will rationalize the RP to support the mechanically effective choices, instead of vice-versa.

Unless you're seriously arguing that 100% of the Guild Merchants, Entertainers, and Nobles out there in D&D-land are actually trained in stealth, it's not plausible to claim that you could have fifteen characters in a row with Stealth + Perception proficiency purely coincidentally. Clearly you are choosing to skip over the potential PCs without Stealth/Perception proficiency. You're powergaming.




Sooo...if someone just happens to like playing sneaky characters and builds all their characters to be sneaky then they're powergaming?

[Rakoa]

Worth remembering people min/max in life too. An athlete can spend a lifetime honing one skill set.

Just look at Stephen Hawking! That dude dumped every physical stat hard to get the int score and skill ranks he has.

[Serket]

You assume your dead because you don't play your character smart. Not every problem has to end with you hitting it with your sword, and not every Mage need 18 intelligence to leave his front door coward. At some point your going to have to ask yourself if you want to play DnD or WoW, because DnD is not a numbers game it's a roleplaying game.

For "not a numbers game" it has an awful lot of numbers in it. This isn't a freeform. The PHB explicitly advises you to pick good stats. A class based game with this many rules about combat is not what you seem to want to play/GM. On the tiny offchance that you aren't just trolling, I seriously advise you to check out some other, completely different games. Primetime Adventures is highly recommended.


I min maxed my skills, I'm terrible at combat but can dominate the RP parts
I just broke this thread

*applauds* :smallsmile:

[Grod_The_Giant]

This sounds like it was written by a power-gamer in denial. One of the defining features of a power-gamer is that he will rationalize the RP to support the mechanically effective choices, instead of vice-versa.
Mechanics and RP are a chicken-and-the-egg scenario. Sometimes we start with a specific concept and work towards it, and sometimes we start with a specific mechanic and work outwards. Either way you can wind up with a good character. You can also wind up with a bad character. It's really quite irrelevant.

[gameogre]

Role player in this thread freaking out over Min/Maxer!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YersIyzsOpc





Searched EVERYWHERE for that Hitler in the bunker ranting about Min/Maxers parody, but couldn't find it.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Unless you're seriously arguing that 100% of the Guild Merchants, Entertainers, and Nobles out there in D&D-land are actually trained in stealth, it's not plausible to claim that you could have fifteen characters in a row with Stealth + Perception proficiency purely coincidentally. Clearly you are choosing to skip over the potential PCs without Stealth/Perception proficiency. You're powergaming.


...You did read the actual line, didn't you?


I agree that it is cookie cutter, but I disagree that it is power-gamimg. The average guy wants a way to gain information about the surroundings (perception, insight), a way to manipulate them (sneak, social skill)

I don't know about anyone else here, but yeah, I'd be comfortable saying that insight and social skills might be common among Guild Merchants, Entertainers and Nobles out there in D&D land.

And we're not talking about every civilian, we're talking about every civilian who ended up becoming an adventurer. It's really not a stretch that a character who is trained for combat* is also quite good at spotting things. It is no more coincidental that one's characters have useful skill proficiencies than it is that they are all capable of not freezing in terror when the Orc raiders show up.

*Yes, literally every 5e PC is combat trained. It is utterly impossible to be a PC without being trained in a wide variety of weapons and combat styles (at minimum, a PC is trained in unarmed combat, knife fighting , firing a crossbow, throwing darts, and hitting people with a big stick. And that's just the Wizard. Am I powergaming because I skipped over all the wizards who skipped the knife throwing class, or all the Merchants who never touched a crossbow?).

[MaxWilson]

I don't know about anyone else here, but yeah, I'd be comfortable saying that insight and social skills might be common among Guild Merchants, Entertainers and Nobles out there in D&D land.

And what about Stealth, which is the skill actually mentioned?

I chose Stealth specifically because it is great for adventuring, not so great for civilian life.

If you're arguing that always taking Insight proficiency is not powergaming, fine, whatever (nolo contendere), but you're changing the subject.

[gameogre]

And what about Stealth, which is the skill actually mentioned?

I chose Stealth specifically because it is great for adventuring, not so great for civilian life.

If you're arguing that always taking Insight proficiency is not powergaming, fine, whatever (nolo contendere), but you're changing the subject.



Dude what do you care?

Seriously if you are DMing a game and all your pc's want to cheery pick their skills for whatever they are into (why stealth I'm not sure but ok,cool whatever) Why do you give a rats arse? I guess if you really want to make it fit require them to come up with a backstory about it and move on.

If THAT is the level of issues you have with your gaming group, sit back and enjoy the good times! Awesome! Great!

Why are you trying to turn it into world war three and ruin your game?

or is this just a online thing for you?

Like if you and your group were all gathered together for a game weekend of fun and every pc rolled up tot he table with stuff liek this you would just crack a smile and roll with it right?

It's only here in on a message board that this becomes a big deal because it's about other #$#$ and not really real right?

[Serket]

And what about Stealth, which is the skill actually mentioned?
I chose Stealth specifically because it is great for adventuring, not so great for civilian life.

I think this whole line of reasoning is quite disingenuous. Or perhaps rather, what's the word when it's like disingenuous but accidentally so?

There are an awful lot of fictional people in the fictional world, and most of them aren't playable. The ones that are playable are already a tiny subset. Of that tiny subset, the potential builds that actually make sense to pick mechanically are again, a tiny subset. We, as players, are always choosing builds from a tiny subset of a tiny subset of the overall fictional population. We choose to focus on the builds we think will be fun to play. Ultimately, why does it matter if a specific player chooses to restrict themselves further?

[MaxWilson]

Dude what do you care?...

If THAT is the level of issues you have with your gaming group, sit back and enjoy the good times! Awesome! Great!

Why are you trying to turn it into world war three and ruin your game?

or is this just a online thing for you?

Gameogre, what in the world are you talking about? World war three? Ruin your game?

[HoarsHalberd]

And what about Stealth, which is the skill actually mentioned?

I chose Stealth specifically because it is great for adventuring, not so great for civilian life.

If you're arguing that always taking Insight proficiency is not powergaming, fine, whatever (nolo contendere), but you're changing the subject.

It is not always a matter of power gaming. A person who chooses stealth/perception every time may like playing the scout role exclusively, and if they don't have access to both there's no reason the character they made would be chosen as party scout otherwise. Now if they are playing wizard, paladin and sorcerer and still choose stealth and perception exclusively then you do have a point

[MaxWilson]

It is not always a matter of power gaming. A person who chooses stealth/perception every time may like playing the scout role exclusively, and if they don't have access to both there's no reason the character they made would be chosen as party scout otherwise. Now if they are playing wizard, paladin and sorcerer and still choose stealth and perception exclusively then you do have a point

Yes, that's a good point. By "last fifteen characters" I was assuming a wide variety of characters; if your last fifteen characters were all the party scout then my characterization doesn't hold.

In my case, I have yet to make a 5E PC without Stealth proficiency. Wizard, Paladin, Barbarian... doesn't matter. They all have Stealth and Perception proficiency, and either Acrobatics or Athletics. Every single one that I can think of, with the possible exception of my Int 7 Wis 4 plate-armored Necromancer, whose skills I can't remember.

[Sigreid]

...with the possible exception of my Int 7 Wis 4 plate-armored Necromancer, whose skills I can't remember.

That's OK, it doesn't sound like the character could remember his skills either.

[Gtdead]

This sounds like it was written by a power-gamer in denial. One of the defining features of a power-gamer is that he will rationalize the RP to support the mechanically effective choices, instead of vice-versa.

Unless you're seriously arguing that 100% of the Guild Merchants, Entertainers, and Nobles out there in D&D-land are actually trained in stealth, it's not plausible to claim that you could have fifteen characters in a row with Stealth + Perception proficiency purely coincidentally. Clearly you are choosing to skip over the potential PCs without Stealth/Perception proficiency. You're powergaming.

If you have a problem with that, you may be experiencing cognitive dissonance. For example, you may have irrationally negative feelings toward powergaming, and consequently the knowledge that you are powergaming puts you in a state of denial which can be resolved only by changing your playstyle (hard) or changing your feelings about powergaming (easy). It's up to which one you do but you can't remain in denial forever.

Also, just because you enjoy some powergaming doesn't mean you have to go all-in. I'm a natural powergamer, but I still don't like playing characters with low Int, even though it is mechanically weaker to have Int 13 Wis 8 than to have Wis 13 Int 8, because I don't think I can effectively roleplay Int 13 whereas roleplaying Wis 8 is easy (just be impulsive and a bit oblivious, like Kimmy Gibbler: Int 11, Wis 6). Powergaming isn't a binary thing: you can powergame some aspects of your character without having to powergame every aspect.

You misunderstand, I'm not talking about about the average pc/npc that populates the game world. I'm talking about the average person that tries to build a pc adventurer and takes a look at the "skill" section of the book. Unless you have a very specific concept in mind, some skills just look better than others. (I made a correction on my post before posting, didn't occure to me that it reads the way you read it).

Btw I've never played a character with stealth (never got to play that beguiler ^^). All my characters were perceptive though.

[Fatty Tosscoble]

Sounds pretty damn cliched to me. "Oh, he's a klepto thief with a bad thing in his past." You pretty much just regurgitated the Urchin background with no interesting additions. And yeah, you could argue that Lines' barbarian backstory is pretty much just a Noble background, but it has an unusual and fleshed-out family and a pretty different spin on the goal. (And hey, what's so interesting about your guy when he's not stealing stuff?)[/QUOTE]

Thats not exactly where my character ends I just named a couple of traits, and I could go on further about his gypsy wagon he runs his medical practice out of (Not a very good doctor but it makes money) which his donkey named Loyd pulls around. He also thinks of him self as upper class, so he collects vintage wines wherever he goes (which he won't steal, to keep up appearances) just to name a few more things about my character.


I suspect it might be cookie cutter to never make a PC who isn't proficient somehow in Stealth.

If your last fifteen characters were all proficient in Stealth and Perception, you might be a power-gamer.

Yeah and if your going to always put together a mechanically good character for the class through point by character creation (rather than 3d6), you may as well name him the same thing every time as well.


Fatty Tosscoble, can not break quotes when you post? Every single time you've quoted someone you've broken the quote tab, don't erase the [ /QUOTE] at the ends of quotes and it won't do that.

If you're unable to come up with interesting stories and quests for players for what appears to be any reason at all. I think the problem is with you, not with your players. There haven't been any bad or unusable backgrounds in this thread, you're just inflexible.

Sorry I will try and Improve my quoting during threads.

Well many other people on this thread, people I know, people on other threads, as DMs of PCs get bored by the heavy emphasis on combat that so many players have towards the game (specifically 5e). I'm not trying to poke people in the eye with this, but everyone has been so aggressive about supporting power gaming, and hold power gamers up as almost GODS among D&D players.

[CantigThimble]

Thats not exactly where my character ends I just named a couple of traits, and I could go on further about his gypsy wagon he runs his medical practice out of (Not a very good doctor but it makes money) which his donkey named Loyd pulls around. He also thinks of him self as upper class, so he collects vintage wines wherever he goes (which he won't steal, to keep up appearances) just to name a few more things about my character.

I think you missed the point there. He was showing that he could make the exact same criticisms of your character that you were making about Lines's.

Also, I would like you to notice the hypocrisy of telling people that they don't know what 5e is and should go back to 4e while simultaneously rejecting every recommended character creation method in 5e in favor of your own system. Have you considered the possibility that you might be better off with a something that is built around what you seem to want from the game like 2e, or a non D&D system?

Edit: People aren't holding up power gamers as gods, they're saying it's perfectly normal to build effective characters in 5e. The system is built to encourage people to do that to some extent and an unwillingness to roleplay is unrelated to a desire to build effective characters. If someone isn't roleplaying when there are 500 pages of rules they won't roleplay when there are 10 either. That isn't the root cause of the issue.

[Fatty Tosscoble]

Point of order 1: People whined about "powergamers" in 1e, 2e, and 3e. Or have you not looked at the 3.5/Pathfinder forum?

Point of order 2: "Hours of consideration" and 5e character creation do not go together. 5e characters can be squeezed out in 10 minutes, 15 if you start about 10th level.

But you see the problem in 5e. You just said yourself it takes only around 10 minutes (15 at tenth level). So why this kind of sheds some light on my point, is the time it takes to make itself. Players who power game don't just take 10 minutes, they take a lot longer, and always take a long time whenever they are optimizing for combat, taking everyone else out of the game, because they keep making it about the stats and numbers.


OP, you pretty much come across as a jerk in this thread that thinks of your players as your little puppets to tell "your" story. News flash, it's not your story. It's the group's story. D&D and other table tops only really work when everyone gets to have a hand in determining what the story is.

And so you know, min/maxing isn't just for combat. I've seen and played characters min/maxed for social interaction, stealth and scouting, thieving, knowledge and many other things.

Yeah and what I'm trying to due is make it about the STORY not COMAT, don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is a jerk, it doesn't look good on you personally.

[Flickerdart]

Yeah and if your going to always put together a mechanically good character for the class through point by character creation (rather than 3d6), you may as well name him the same thing every time as well.
3d6 isn't even one of the methods for ability score generation in 5th edition D&D. Perhaps you are thinking of another game?

[Fatty Tosscoble]

I agree that it is cookie cutter, but I disagree that it is power-gamimg. The average guy wants a way to gain information about the surroundings (perception, insight), a way to manipulate them (sneak, social skill), and some problem solving skill that is more likely to turn up (unlocking doors?). That's not even metagaming. Just put yourself in your character's shoes. What are be the skills most likely to help you navigate a medieval era city?

Add a class that isn't tied to some abstract rules, like fighter (background: had mandatory soldier training) and you have the most boring, factory made character you can have. And also the most likely to be able to do a bit of anything in the game.

Of course I understand that optimizing for stealth and perception will allow you to get a drop in pretty much every fight. But that's not the player's fault. That's like saying I like ice cream so much but I won't eat it because everyone else does. That's the fault of the game system.

You could also be the type of thief that isn't stealth at all because he can bluff like mad and can just walk through the front door, because he has very good acting abilities, able to act like anyone he needs to any time he needs to.

A fighter may be good at fighting because of his high intelligence, which allows him to craft his own makeshift weapons that allow he it fight dirty. He would be the type of guy to bring a bear trap on a ten foot pole to a sword fight.

[MaxWilson]

3d6 isn't even one of the methods for ability score generation in 5th edition D&D. Perhaps you are thinking of another game?

Not that that should stop anyone from using it and having lots of fun with it. See for example this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?475244-3d6-in-Order/page7&p=6800220#post6800220

Powergamers especially can have lots of fun with 3d6 in order because it's a chance to show off your skills (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CherryTapping).

[Fatty Tosscoble]

looks like your freaking out about some people having different opinions than your own, and anyone who dares say anything against power gaming must be crushed for wanting to play D&D not WoW.


That's OK, it doesn't sound like the character could remember his skills either.

he has dead people to remember that for him.


I think you missed the point there. He was showing that he could make the exact same criticisms of your character that you were making about Lines's.

Also, I would like you to notice the hypocrisy of telling people that they don't know what 5e is and should go back to 4e while simultaneously rejecting every recommended character creation method in 5e in favor of your own system. Have you considered the possibility that you might be better off with a something that is built around what you seem to want from the game like 2e, or a non D&D system?

Edit: People aren't holding up power gamers as gods, they're saying it's perfectly normal to build effective characters in 5e. The system is built to encourage people to do that to some extent and an unwillingness to roleplay is unrelated to a desire to build effective characters. If someone isn't roleplaying when there are 500 pages of rules they won't roleplay when there are 10 either. That isn't the root cause of the issue.

Addressing your edit specifically here (sorry I have to respond to a lot of people).

Someone in this thread literally near the top of the replies list said that power gamers are the best all around gamers, he said not only are they the best in combat, but they are also the best in roleplaying. He said this because, he argued that they read the PHB (as if no one else does).


3d6 isn't even one of the methods for ability score generation in 5th edition D&D. Perhaps you are thinking of another game?

People over the years have become so scared of rolling a 3d6 character I am not surprised that they have dropped it for newer editions. Picking stats just makes everyone into a Mary Su. Always the embodiment of "a paladin" or "a rogue" because they pick all and only recommended stats.

[Grod_The_Giant]

looks like your freaking out about some people having different opinions than your own, and anyone who dares say anything against power gaming must be crushed for wanting to play D&D not WoW.
You're the one who keeps calling us out for having badwrongfun. We're merely trying to argue that paying attention to mechanics does not in any way correlate to roleplaying.

[CantigThimble]

Counterargument: The players who are most interested/capable of min-maxing are the ones who are overall most interested in the hobby and the game, and thus are likely to be highly engaged and all-around "good" players. Certainly everyone I've ever played with who could min-max was also a great guy to play with. Even setting aside that correlation, roleplaying and mechanical aptitude are entirely separate skills.

I think this is the bit you're referring to. Reread this real quick, is he saying that power gamers are automatically better than everyone else or is he saying that he has played with lots of power gamers who were also great roleplayers? It really isn't the opposition you've set up where it's power gaming vs roleplaying and only one can exist in a game. If that's been your experience than I'm sorry, you have missed out on some really really great games. The point is that power gaming and roleplaying can be reconciled and the game can be more fun for everyone instead of eliminating one of the two aspects and making the game less fun for people who enjoy the mechanical aspects.

[MaxWilson]

Addressing your edit specifically here (sorry I have to respond to a lot of people).

Someone in this thread literally near the top of the replies list said that power gamers are the best all around gamers, he said not only are they the best in combat, but they are also the best in roleplaying. He said this because, he argued that they read the PHB (as if no one else does).

Why did you start this thread if you weren't looking for opinions on powergaming and min-maxing?

[Gtdead]

You could also be the type of thief that isn't stealth at all because he can bluff like mad and can just walk through the front door, because he has very good acting abilities, able to act like anyone he needs to any time he needs to.

A fighter may be good at fighting because of his high intelligence, which allows him to craft his own makeshift weapons that allow he it fight dirty. He would be the type of guy to bring a bear trap on a ten foot pole to a sword fight.

I don't think that this adds any kind of depth to the character. And I certainly never roleplay my character sheet. My character will try to deceive, climb, dance, sing, kill, no matter whether he is good at it or not. And if he really needs to do something, he will ask for help from someone that is good at it. There is no "trick" to my characters. Just optimized combat stats. And as I said earlier, I would optimize my combat stats even if that was a 100% social game with absolutely no combat. It's part of the fun for me.

[bid]

looks like your freaking out about some people having different opinions than your own, and anyone who dares say anything against power gaming must be crushed for wanting to play D&D not WoW.
There are tons of fantasy series with interesting characters. By your own words, most of them would be forbidden in your campaigns. Because doing them right demands some knowledge of 5e mechanics.

This whole thread was started by someone who is freaking out about so-called minmaxers. I think those unable to deal with powergamers are really bad at DMing. Now here is were I might sound unfair, but good DMs play the characters weaknesses to bring interesting challenges to the players and let easy victories come from their strengths. This gets the players more invested in the story, which makes the game more memorable.

[mgshamster]

The last time I talked about this was around a year ago. The topic of the conversation was "Things you used to dislike but now enjoy." I made my comment on min/maxers or power-gamers. Here's what I said then:

A pure disdain for power gamers and optimizers. I used to hate optimizers because this is a ROLEplay game, not a ROLLplay game.

Then a myriad of things happened. I got away from my previous group who strongly believed this. I started playing with people who could optimize AND roleplay very well. And most importantly, I started reading and engaging in online gaming communities like the Paizo messageboards. I found out how wrong I was through things like the stormwind fallacy, but most importantly from actually talking to and playing with people who could do both.

Another strong force in my conversion was playing with people who were socially awkward and very resistant to Roleplaying, but still loved playing the game. Who am I to deny them their fun and enjoyment? Who am I to say that what they call fun is somehow wrong? Why should I be criticizing them for being unable to roleplay a character with a +15 diplomacy or bluff when I can't perform the physical deeds of my high level fighter? The point of a game of imagination is to play and experience characters who can do the things we can't.

I now fully embrace people doing either or both (roleplay, rollplay, whatever). What matters is enjoying life and enjoying the game, no matter how you approach it. The only wrong way to play is to take away someone else's enjoyment of the game. And the best way to play is to enjoy the game yourself and ensure everyone at your table is also enjoying the game.

[Auramis]

Throwing in my opinion to this debate, I've never been a fan of min-maxing. I've always rolled with what I thought was cool or what fit my character rather than worried about what made him/her the best thing since sliced bread at punching kobolds. Min-maxing party members even has had me go to a DM and talk about reworking aspects of my characters to keep up with the min-maxed ones... and, as a paladin player primarily, that was never really easy to do in 3.5. That's why I prefer this version of D&D. There will still be one or two friends that wanna min-max, but it's not so grossly egregious in this version that it could get to in 3.5.

Edit: I can't spell.

[Telwar]

But you see the problem in 5e. You just said yourself it takes only around 10 minutes (15 at tenth level). So why this kind of sheds some light on my point, is the time it takes to make itself. Players who power game don't just take 10 minutes, they take a lot longer

Given the incredible dearth of options to take in 5e, 20 minutes is how long the powergamer spends. In no conception of the world is that a long time. If they're spending longer than that, they're having to ask for rules clarifications. If they're not asking for rules clarifications, they probably aren't that good at powergaming. Or they're not powergaming, they're honestly having trouble understanding how the system works and yelling at them to move faster faster FASTER FASTER YOU POWERGAMING MINMAXING MUNCHKIN isn't going to help.

I spent longer debating which arcane caster to go with for our upcoming 5e Birthright game than I did assigning his stats and proficiencies. I'll spend more time on his background than I will character creation, because there is literally almost nothing to choose beyond stats and proficiencies (and that's not done yet, I kind of have an idea what I want for him but I'll need a specific bloodline derivation and strength for that...and if I don't get a Major/Great Anduiras bloodline, well, I'll shave off the "5th son of the Count of Taeghas" part and replace it with "5th son of a baronet in the County of Taeghas"; we're rolling bloodline stuff at first session). And yet you would almost certainly think my character is minmaxed, because he plays to his strengths.


and always take a long time whenever they are optimizing for combat, taking everyone else out of the game, because they keep making it about the stats and numbers.

...because character creation is part of the game? How can they take you out of the game if you're not in an actual play session, but instead building characters?

Go find an Amber group. Seriously. If your hate is for numbers, find a game that doesn't have any. Not that one can't powergame Amber or another diceless game, but that's an exercise for the reader.

[gameogre]

The Stormwind Fallacy copy/pasted from the old WOTC forums. I think it's original poster was Stormwind from those boards.







I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

[Lines]

People over the years have become so scared of rolling a 3d6 character I am not surprised that they have dropped it for newer editions. Picking stats just makes everyone into a Mary Su. Always the embodiment of "a paladin" or "a rogue" because they pick all and only recommended stats.

Actually, it's mostly because in earlier editions a character that rolled 3d6 was usually pretty functional, while a bad set of rolls in 3/4/5e often leaves you with a borderline unplayable character.

Regarding them being Mary Sues and the embodiment of a class, which is it? A Mary Sue is a character with no flaws, while minmaxing leaves flaws and every archetype has clearly defines weaknesses - the embodiment of a wizard will be squishy, the embodiment of a barbarian will not be very useful in a context with no physical solution. Seems to me those things are mutually exclusive.

[MadBear]

@ OP,

I'll echo what I've heard at least one other say so far. You've come off sounding like a jerk in this thread. You seem to believe that if you min-max, you're not RPing, and you are just 100% wrong on that point. At best you can show anecdotal evidence to support that the people you know who min-max are not interested in RPing. I hate to break it to you, but you can't draw universal conclusions from that. Based on your attitude in this thread though, I'd wager it's more likely you are imposing you bias's on others, and are therefore drawing conclusions that don't follow from what others are doing.

Just my 2 cents, take it for what it's worth (which is to say, very little).

[georgie_leech]

OP, could you give us an example of a character you find satisfactory? With the accompanying ability scores at Level 1?

[PoeticDwarf]

In 5e this really is barely a problem. In our 3.5 campaign I played my mystic ranger with 3 tier 1s as companions but it was low level, so I don't have much experience with it

[Lines]

You could also be the type of thief that isn't stealth at all because he can bluff like mad and can just walk through the front door, because he has very good acting abilities, able to act like anyone he needs to any time he needs to.

A fighter may be good at fighting because of his high intelligence, which allows him to craft his own makeshift weapons that allow he it fight dirty. He would be the type of guy to bring a bear trap on a ten foot pole to a sword fight.

You do realise he's going to lose that sword fight, right? Though 5e doesn't reflect it the right kind of polearm is often a useful counter to a sword, but the kind of fighter who brings a bear trap on a ten foot pole is going to lose to a fighter with 20 strength and a sword.

[JoeJ]

If you have a player who has his character graphed out from level 1 to 20, magic items and spells, focused entirely around having the highest spell-resistance he can and not giving a single **** about anything else, you either have to make everything unrealistically good at overcoming spell resistance to give him a challenge, certainly making the monsters able to overcome everybody else's spell resistance, or unrealistically make everything play to his weakness.

If a player does that, change nothing. Base the monsters on whatever would be most reasonable given the premises of the world, not on what the PCs can or can't do. Let the player have their CMOA when they easily destroy an enemy they've optimized for. And let them struggle to even survive, let alone contribute when they face something completely different.

Or, if you don't want to go full sandbox, and feel that you need to at least try to balance encounters, do it with a platonic party (http://angrydm.com/2014/10/the-angry-guide-to-kickass-combats-part-3-lets-make-some-fing-fights-already/), not with the actual PCs. That will help keep you honest, so that you're neither coddling the PCs nor being overly hostile to them.

[Giant2005]

You do realise he's going to lose that sword fight, right? Though 5e doesn't reflect it the right kind of polearm is often a useful counter to a sword, but the kind of fighter who brings a bear trap on a ten foot pole is going to lose to a fighter with 20 strength and a sword.

If the bear trap guy had enough pre-set ones, the standard sword fighter probably wouldn't stand a chance. You are effectively talking a 10' grapple, which would mean the sword guy couldn't do much of anything whereas the bear trap guy could still whip him to death. It takes an action to escape a hunting trap, so as long as the trap guy could readily keep trapping the swordsman, it would be an entirely one-sided fight.

[Lines]

Yeah and what I'm trying to due is make it about the STORY not COMAT, don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is a jerk, it doesn't look good on you personally.

How is combat not part of the story?

[Flashy]

How is combat not part of the story?

And even totally disregarding combat it's possible to minmax for non-combat roles. A Bard with persuasion expertise who's also rocking Enhance: Charisma basically can't fail a check. Add the Lucky feat and it starts to get monstrous. A really specialized charisma character is no more or less reasonable than a really specialized strength or dexterity character.

[Nightcanon]

OP, you pretty much come across as a jerk in this thread that thinks of your players as your little puppets to tell "your" story. News flash, it's not your story. It's the group's story. D&D and other table tops only really work when everyone gets to have a hand in determining what the story is.

And so you know, min/maxing isn't just for combat. I've seen and played characters min/maxed for social interaction, stealth and scouting, thieving, knowledge and many other things.

Thank goodness the guy who joined last month came along to tell us all how we've been getting it wrong, though...

My 2c: I mostly grew up with 2nd Ed AD&D, where min-maxing was pretty much defined as a BAD THING in the core rulebooks, iirc (before the various additional books gave you new ways to do just that). Yet fighters were still allowed (nay, required) good strength, rogues good dex, and wizards high int. Charisma was a funny one: bards and paladins required it for entry to the class, but with no social 'skills', personality was simply how you roleplayed your character, which had very little to do with your stats. The OP seems to make the error of believing that there are only 6 personalities (high Str, high Dex, and so on), and that playing classes against their optimum stats is the only way to be 'interesting'. Grud is correct: if you have a natural strength of 8 and are born into a society of berserking warriors, the chances are you use your natural talents (become shaman, skald, healer by using mental skills, or use your natural stealth and be ranger or rogue). You know that bit where the rest of the tribe smear themselves in bear blood and chant to psych themselves up? Sure, you play along, but you keep control and keep your wits about you, since that gives you the best chance of getting behind an enemy to land a killing blow...

[mgshamster]

Thank goodness the guy who joined last month came along to tell us all how we've been getting it wrong, though...

My 2c: I mostly grew up with 2nd Ed AD&D, where min-maxing was pretty much defined as a BAD THING in the core rulebooks, iirc (before the various additional books gave you new ways to do just that). Yet fighters were still allowed (nay, required) good strength, rogues good dex, and wizards high int. Charisma was a funny one: bards and paladins required it for entry to the class, but with no social 'skills', personality was simply how you roleplayed your character, which had very little to do with your stats. The OP seems to make the error of believing that there are only 6 personalities (high Str, high Dex, and so on), and that playing classes against their optimum stats is the only way to be 'interesting'. Grud is correct: if you have a natural strength of 8 and are born into a society of berserking warriors, the chances are you use your natural talents (become shaman, skald, healer by using mental skills, or use your natural stealth and be ranger or rogue). You know that bit where the rest of the tribe smear themselves in bear blood and chant to psych themselves up? Sure, you play along, but you keep control and keep your wits about you, since that gives you the best chance of getting behind an enemy to land a killing blow...

The 2e DMG gives advice for dealing with particularly high and low stats, as well:

For players who roll higher stats than everyone else (all stats are 15+), you should talk to your player about the importance of party balance and that they need to reduce their stats to be more in line with everyone else. Party balance in important.

For players who roll lower stats than everyone else, or even just poor stats in general (all stats are 8-), you should talk to your player about how even a character with low stats can be fun to play, and they should stick it out and see how well it can turn out in game. And remind them of the importance of good roleplaying.

2e really didn't like high stats or "min/maxers."

[Douche]

In one of my campaigns, there's a guy who plays a half-orc warlock. Archfey, pact of the chain. One of his invocations is mask of many faces, which he convinced the DM to allow to always be on (after we told him that the first time he falls unconscious or goes to sleep, his precious secret will be revealed), and his character doesn't even know he's a half orc. He thinks he's a half-elf. He can't even use the mask of many faces, because he's so dedicated to roleplaying a half-orc that honestly believes he's a half elf.

On top of that, we're level 4 and rolled stats as 4d6, drop lowest. So by now everyone has a 20 on their primary stat (unless they took a feat). This warlock couldn't even get a +4.

Don't even get me started on his spell selection. Point being, he is the least optimized character I've ever met. On top of that, he has special snowflake syndrome and always wants to be the center of attention because he spent so much time making his character suck. No one in the party cares. We mock him quite a bit.

At the end of the day, someone who focuses entirely on their backstory is worse than someone with no backstory. Someone who won't roleplay isn't hurting anyone. Someone who has to be a special snowflake makes the game drag on for everyone.

[Millstone85]

In one of my campaigns, there's a guy who plays a half-orc warlock. Archfey, pact of the chain. One of his invocations is mask of many faces, which he convinced the DM to allow to always be on (after we told him that the first time he falls unconscious or goes to sleep, his precious secret will be revealed), and his character doesn't even know he's a half orc. He thinks he's a half-elf. He can't even use the mask of many faces, because he's so dedicated to roleplaying a half-orc that honestly believes he's a half elf.Is it bad that I find this to be a great idea? Not one to waste an invocation on, no, but why not just say that the Archfey is a trickster who put a glamour on the warlock?


On top of that, we're level 4 and rolled stats as 4d6, drop lowest. So by now everyone has a 20 on their primary stat (unless they took a feat). This warlock couldn't even get a +4.Not exactly the player's fault, is it? And perhaps he felt there was no point in trying to optimize the character then.

[Socratov]

I'd like to take a moment to take a few steps back on power-gaming and min-maxing and go to why we are playing Dnd.

Unless you are chained up in a basement somewhere with a DM forcing you to play (in which case I'm terribly sorry for you) we can all agree that we play to have fun.

How we achieve that fun will be different for all of us. Some of use like to play around with tactics and will focus on combat or things that complement this. They may want to simulate things and think stuff through. for them DnD is not ideal: WH40k would be better as the simulation will be fun trying to see if you can complete your objectives with the minimum amount of losses or in the least amount of time. Others will be interested mostly in cooperative storytelling. For them stuff like Free Form Roleplay or something like it will be more interesting (Fiasco, anyone?). Let's call this scale the Table Top Role Playing Spectrum (or TTRPS in short).

In between this lies DnD (and many of its table top cousins). Sure, DnD is a bit more on the simulationist side, but since 5e is slowly shifting more towards the roleplaying side while losing more and more rules. (compare the rules of 3.5 and 5e, you'll see what I mean). Now in your group you will find people all over the TTRPS. Yet they will all enter the game. This means they all want something slightly different and will have to compromise something. Yet all is well.

Now we will move on to the stories. Remember the stories where the hero does the thing (replace the thing with any mission objective)? of course you do, they are wildly prevalent. From defeating the dragon, rescuing the princess, getting ALL the wealth, defeating the BBEG, you name it. In these stories the hero will have a set of competencies. Or said another way, in these stories the hero is [b]competent[b]. S/he is good at what s/he does. This is represented by the characters: both in their classes as in their abilities.

Remember all those stories where the hero does not have the skills or competency to get the task done? No, because they died on their quest. They, like the common peasant, don't inspire greatness and virtue and thus aren't interesting for the bard to compose tales about. since the stories don't exist we can infer that a competent hero is what makes the story tick.

Ok, time to get back to the roleplaying part. As I have previously established that for the story to work you absolutely have to have competent heroes. Now look at your party: are they competent? is the 8 STR barbarian who can barely lift his hammer competent at what he does? Does he have any business becoming the hero in your tale? does he resemble a virtue for people to live by or look up to? Would an 8 int apprentice ever become a fully licensed wizard? Well, unless you have a Disney grade lvl-up montage ready to turn your zeroes into heroes with the attributes they need to function, then No, I don't think they have a right to (unless you fancy tales of the little [insert class] that could) be the cool guy. And to keep your story consistent, why are they supposed to end the BBEG if the common commoner could have taken care of the problem themselves?

Ok, does this then mean that the heroes should be the physical and mental pinnacles and basically become both Batman and superman in one body? No. That would stop the challenge. But someone can be competent in one way, while lacking in the other. A barbarian will start out stronger and hardier (str/con) then the rest. Will he be smarter than the rest? I highly doubt it. The wizard, meanwhile, will have a great and fantastic intellect, yet when asked to carry a 200 lbs bag make the barbarian who does so one handed laugh his behind off. That they both bumble and start drooling over the pretty lade that approaches the group makes the bard smile (who has a cha above 14 and thus is able to talk to his carnal conquest to be just fine). the cleric and druid meanwhile sigh that none of the three fools have spotted that the pretty lady has a hidden surprise hidden behind her belt (high wis corresponds with greater observational powers) but are too slow to warn the party. And this is what min-maxing is all about: making sure your character stands above the rabble in some aspect to obtain the right to be special and be asked to do special stuff. Stuff worthy of legends. It will simultaneously mean that the character will be behind in other aspects. And the more you want to max something, the more of a min you need to take on other stuff. These are opportunities a player will need to assess and pick. The fact that a character is competent or incompetent is a good roleplay hook. if a character is good at something, he might go in for a flourish, or an application of 'style'. If a character is bad at something then the player might have it come off as a crude attempt (unrelated to how successful the actual attempt is). And it's great grounds for character growth as well: if a character is bad at something, and wants to become competent, maybe another party member will teach him/her. Maybe the party member will try to evade those challenges, by passing them on to other party members or finding other ways.

For example: we have The A-team. Are they heroes? check! Do they each have their respective fields at which they are good and/or bad? Double check! Is it funny to see the physically strongest of them to be sedated just to get him on-board of a flying contraption? to me it never fails to amuse me. Is it funny to see how Face extracts Murdock form yet another asylum? Man, do I love those antics! Have Hannibal's famous words "I love it when a plan comes together!" found their way into our hearts encouraging us to make a plan and be successful? They did with me. Did all fo them have their failings? They sure did. Were they above all competent at what they did? Oh hell yes!

I know that the lack of blood and bullets that hit were a special case and the fact that they had a really annoying form of Deus Ex Workshop (though the montages were really freaking cool!), they were interesting because they were competent. Each week kids across the nation were inspired to be good at something, be it talking (face), planning/leadership (Hannibal) physical condition (BA Baracus), or maybe a bit insane (let's call it thinking out of the box like Murdoch). Were the soldiers that were supposed to arrest them any special? No. Were they interesting? No. why? Because mediocrity is not interesting. Mediocrity does not make a story. It's because we do special things that we get to have a story. Nobody wants to hear what ou bought at the supermarket. Not on Twitter, and certainly not during DnD.

[Retief]

Let's take the "low strength barbarian" concept and run with it a bit. The character wishes that he was a great warrior, but he doesn't have the strength to back it up. Instead, he pretends to be a great warrior while using deception and intimidation to bluff his way through problems. This definitely could work.

Now, how do we build this character? We could literally use a single classed barbarian with 8 strength. This produces a character that isn't particularly good at anything. A stereotypical bard will often be just as intimidating, and the whole point of the character is that he isn't great in melee.

Ok, so how do we make this character better? How about being a bard instead of a barbarian. We can use basically the same backstory (he tried to train as a barbarian, but found that he was better at talking to people than hitting people). Throw in a few lines to justify his magic, and we're all set. We can play him in the same way as well -- focus on bluffing/intimidating our way through encounters, and use combat as a last resort. The difference is that he is massively better at what he does. Expertise(intimidation) + enhance ability(charisma) will make him far more intimidating, and his spells will make him far more useful in combat. The spells are also more thematic -- the whole point of the character is that he focuses on words because he is bad at hitting things. Now, when a fight happens, he can channel magic though his words instead of being forced to fall back on hitting things. Refluff some spells and you are good to go.

Sure, both characters are playable. If you enjoy playing the first character more than the second one, go ahead. The point is to have fun. However, choosing the second character won't make you worse at roleplaying.

[Theodoxus]

More anecdotal evidence to the contrary, OP...

I have a new player, he's played RPGs, but this is the first D&D game he's in. He's typically played the disruptive type in other games. This game, he's playing a Barbarian/Ranger. He's new to the mechanics, but still plays his character to his strengths AND weaknesses. One scenario had the party charging up a wooded causeway to a house on a hill. The Barbarian raced straight up the causeway, getting blasted by magic missiles the whole way, while the rest of the party used cover (which made the barbarian the sole target for the low level sorcerers). He eventually dropped, and was rescued by the paladin who dropped a 1 point LoH to wake him up.

The player was playing up the low INT/WIS of his character, and learned from that point on, that discretion (and following the rogue) is the better (and certainly healthier) part of valor.

It was fun, as the character learned the value of tactics that the player (an Airforce police officer in RL) already had. I was actually quite impressed, as it was the first time the player had really made a public expression of his Min/Maxed character that emphasized the 'min' portion.

[Sigreid]

Yeah and what I'm trying to due is make it about the STORY not COMAT, don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is a jerk, it doesn't look good on you personally.

Do you seriously not see how hostile you came across in that first post? You basically came across saying people who either put a lot of thought into how their characters function, or who don't want to follow every side quest you toss out are bad players.

[Sigreid]

Let's take the "low strength barbarian" concept and run with it a bit. The character wishes that he was a great warrior, but he doesn't have the strength to back it up. Instead, he pretends to be a great warrior while using deception and intimidation to bluff his way through problems. This definitely could work.

Now, how do we build this character? We could literally use a single classed barbarian with 8 strength. This produces a character that isn't particularly good at anything. A stereotypical bard will often be just as intimidating, and the whole point of the character is that he isn't great in melee.

Ok, so how do we make this character better? How about being a bard instead of a barbarian. We can use basically the same backstory (he tried to train as a barbarian, but found that he was better at talking to people than hitting people). Throw in a few lines to justify his magic, and we're all set. We can play him in the same way as well -- focus on bluffing/intimidating our way through encounters, and use combat as a last resort. The difference is that he is massively better at what he does. Expertise(intimidation) + enhance ability(charisma) will make him far more intimidating, and his spells will make him far more useful in combat. The spells are also more thematic -- the whole point of the character is that he focuses on words because he is bad at hitting things. Now, when a fight happens, he can channel magic though his words instead of being forced to fall back on hitting things. Refluff some spells and you are good to go.

Sure, both characters are playable. If you enjoy playing the first character more than the second one, go ahead. The point is to have fun. However, choosing the second character won't make you worse at roleplaying.

He could also be a fighter. Realizing he wasn't as strong as the other members of his tribe he learned to use technique to make up the difference.

[Soular]

I only made it to the second page of this thread so far, but I wanted to share my barbarian.

See, I usually look online for a cool mini that seems to tell a story. Then I buy and paint the mini and create a backstory for him. In my youth I had a gnarly barbarian, though I can't find the mini online, he basically was a hugely muscled barbarian-looking dude with two fat swords.

I recently wanted more of a fun RP experience, so for a new game I picked up this guy:

Conran. (http://www.hfminis.co.uk/shop?product=conran~hfh032&category=fantasy-%26%0D%0Asteampunk~fantasy-humans)

I intend to play him as the first guy, only grown old with age. Yes, I will still min-max him to make him as effective as possible, but within certain limitations. While originally his physical stats far outweighed his mental stats, my older, wiser, more worldly character will be statted more equally. No 20 Strength for this guy, I will probably cap him at 18, or maybe 16. Dex will get shot in the ass as well.

Yes, he wont be the absolute combat powerhouse that a mono-build barbarian is, but he wont be a pushover either. And he will make up for it in other ways outside of combat. But he will still be able to do his job of tanking and dishing out pain.

There is nothing wrong with min-maxing; it's part of the game. And there is nothing wrong with not min-maxing. But just like the power-cheesing munchkin tends to ruin the experience for other players, so too does the arse that builds an 8 Strength fighter because he wants to play a concept.

[MaxWilson]

Let's take the "low strength barbarian" concept and run with it a bit. The character wishes that he was a great warrior, but he doesn't have the strength to back it up. Instead, he pretends to be a great warrior while using deception and intimidation to bluff his way through problems. This definitely could work.

Now, how do we build this character? We could literally use a single classed barbarian with 8 strength. This produces a character that isn't particularly good at anything. A stereotypical bard will often be just as intimidating, and the whole point of the character is that he isn't great in melee.

Ok, so how do we make this character better? How about being a bard instead of a barbarian. We can use basically the same backstory (he tried to train as a barbarian, but found that he was better at talking to people than hitting people). Throw in a few lines to justify his magic, and we're all set. We can play him in the same way as well -- focus on bluffing/intimidating our way through encounters, and use combat as a last resort. The difference is that he is massively better at what he does. Expertise(intimidation) + enhance ability(charisma) will make him far more intimidating, and his spells will make him far more useful in combat. The spells are also more thematic -- the whole point of the character is that he focuses on words because he is bad at hitting things. Now, when a fight happens, he can channel magic though his words instead of being forced to fall back on hitting things. Refluff some spells and you are good to go.

I just want to say, that bard sounds awesome. Way better than a regular bard.

[Lines]

I just want to say, that bard sounds awesome. Way better than a regular bard.

What is a regular bard exactly?

[Millstone85]

I just want to say, that bard sounds awesome. Way better than a regular bard.It reminds me of this guy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20513822&postcount=793).

[MadBear]

What is a regular bard exactly?

He's probably referring to the standard stereotype. Think Elan (but probably much smarter) and you got it .

[oxybe]

high, low or average stats have no value on the quality of the roleplay, nor does the idea that a character who's mechanically solid the antithesis to good characterization. the idea that a randomly rolled PC is somehow better then one that was built to order is laughable. how you determined your stats has no bearing on the character's personality or if they can function as part of the group.

minmaxing is just one tool a player has at their disposal. nothing more and nothing less. how much or little the player makes use of it will depend on the group's preference:

if the group wants to tell the story of larger then life characters, characters destined to be experts in their fields, going out and adventuring then minmaxing is likely to be required.

if the gm wants to run a game that's difficult, one where roleplay alone cannot succeed and at some point your character will have to get their hands dirty, either through combat or simply doing hard tasks, some minmaxing is likely to be required.

even if you simply want to make a character who's good at something, be it combat or medicine, some minmaxing is likely to be required. if your character comes from a line of swordsmen or scholars, raised into that lifestyle, then you likely have decent to high stats in the associated ability scores.

this isn't bad... it's part of the characterization and if that's the story you want to tell, the one where a scholar decided to go from learning about ancient cultures from books to learning from firsthand experience and applying what he's learned, then tell that story.

just do note that that scholar won't fit with every party. in a group that goes dungeon delving and exploring in far-off reaches, he'll likely fit right in. in a group that's more interested in opening an inn & farming, no he's not.

on the flipside the farmhand who picked up a sword in times of trouble but doesn't want to leave the homestead likely won't mesh with the delvers.

neither are bad characters. that Johnny Farmhand was made with pointbuy and Billy Bookworm was randomly rolled have no bearings on how well roleplayed they are. both characters could easily be played by the same person on different nights and be fantastic characters in their own right.

my personal experience leads me to want to make characters with pointbuy, simply because i don't have time for randomly generated PCs... I never know what I'm going to get and I only have one night a week to game with and would rather spend it with a character i know I'll have fun with and built with the express purpose of mixing well with the group then randomly roll up a something I don't expect anything from. running a bunch of randomly rolled PCs through a meatgrinder game was fine when I was a kid or knew I could spend entire weekends gaming and going through PCs until i hit that magical one... but i'm 30 now, I'm starting to see gray hairs in my beard, I work +40 hours a week and my spare time is limited. I want to sit down at a table with a character i'm already intimately familiar with how they work and know am going to enjoy playing.

telling me that i'm somehow a bad roleplayer for not liking leaving my character generation to randomness is about as mindboggling as someone telling you you're a bad roleplayer for taking a hands off approach and letting randomness make your jumble of stats for you. telling me i'm a bad roleplayer for liking the larger then life experts over the joe averages is simply insulting my tastes... i doubt you would enjoy people telling you that your preferences make you a bad roleplyer because you prefer magical elves over mystical dwarves (or whatever you like vs thing you dislike).

minmaxing is a tool. condemning someone for using a tool, regardless of how they use it, is simply being ignorant.

[Crusher]

It reminds me of this guy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20513822&postcount=793).

Heh. My first thought upon seeing that picture was "Its Barbarian Hamlet!"

[Grod_The_Giant]

Heh. My first thought upon seeing that picture was "Its Barbarian Hamlet!"
"To be, not to be, or to crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentations of the women?"

[Tanarii]

The Stormwind Fallacy copy/pasted from the old WOTC forums. I think it's original poster was Stormwind from those boards.
The OP's position is such a stereotype of the Stormwimd Fallacy that I eventually decided this must be a troll thread.

Edit: players that enjoy xtremely heavy combat optimization can cause problems for a group in various ways. They can also be particularly bad at non-combat/social-interaction free-form gaming (usual incorrectly referred to by many gamers as RP or Roleplaying). But neither is a sure thing, by any means.

[oxybe]

Edit: players that enjoy xtremely heavy combat optimization can cause problems for a group in various ways. They can also be particularly bad at non-combat/social-interaction free-form gaming (usual incorrectly referred to by many gamers as RP or Roleplaying). But neither is a sure thing, by any means.

the opposite is also true, making a non-combat character for a group that goes for heavy combat for whatever reason (be it theme, genre or simply preference) can be just as problematic as the opposite. this is why is strongly stress a session 0 to not just discuss themes, genres, house rules and setting, but also character creation, power level and the characters' place in the world.

mixed expectations on what kind of characters to bring is no player's fault if the GM wasn't clear on what to expect.

[Tanarii]

the opposite is also trueTo a degree, I agree. But the game mechanics themselves work with a certain assumption of optimization, or lack thereof. For example, 3e/3.5 is often held up as a paradigm of "broken", but it's with heavy optimization (combat or otherwise), especially based on a ton of extra splatbooks, that the game truly approaches the level of the mechanics themselves starting to break down. Same for 4e, by the time they were at their 3rd PHB and lots of 'Power' series splatbooks.

Of course, as the OP himself has proven, it's possible to intentionally "unoptimize", or intentionally optimize to be below the default level assumed for the game. He's optimizing in reverse and calling that "Roleplaying".

[Grod_The_Giant]

To a degree, I agree. But the game mechanics themselves work with a certain assumption of optimization, or lack thereof. For example, 3e/3.5 is often held up as a paradigm of "broken", but it's with heavy optimization (combat or otherwise), especially based on a ton of extra splatbooks, that the game truly approaches the level of the mechanics themselves starting to break down. Same for 4e, by the time they were at their 3rd PHB and lots of 'Power' series splatbooks.
It varies by system; something like 3.5 had options with very high and very low optimization floors, meaning it was quite possible to accidentally over/underperform. (Say, a monk and a druid in the same party). I don't know 4e that well, but it looks like it's a lot harder to really mess up a 5e character. (Given that you get 50% of your numbers automatically, even intentionally anti-optimizing doesn't as the OP "suggests" doesn't seem like it would leave you useless)

[KorvinStarmast]

The OP's position is such a stereotype of the Stormwimd Fallacy that I eventually decided this must be a troll thread.
The ensuing posts by the OP confirm your analysis.

[GreyBlack]

In my experience, there are roughly 5 stages of Playerhood.

In the beginning, you're an utter noob. You're trying out concepts that seem like they worked in the movies (e.g. "Imma make Aragorn!) to try and just let the badassitude shine through without really understanding the mechanical system. Your first character will die.

From here, you enter the second phase. Upset with your character dying because of some unfortunate thing, you actually start learning the system. Yes, you're a far way off from actually being able to participate, but you'll think of cool and interesting backstories still.

Then we enter the third phase. Here, you start asking yourself what the best combinations are. You start to realize, "Hey, if I combine these two abilities, I can deal utterly absurd things!" Maybe you realize that you don't have to deal damage to win fights, but something changes. You're not thinking of your character as a character, but rather as a set of abilities.

This sets you up for your fourth phase: munchkinhood. You're looking over every little detail, trying to create the strongest character ever. Optimized alignment, race, you never look at characters which are substandard or weaker than average (pulling from 3.5 terms, you'd never even CONSIDER a Fighter when you could play a Wizard!) This phase is... kinda insufferable and makes you really want to punch the player.

Eventually, though, the discovery of optimization eventually loses its luster. You start to realize that power isn't everything and you can still have fun even if you're not playing a character who can win fights by himself. You've finally reached Playerhood, and you can equally enjoy High OP as well as playing something unoptimized. The difference is that, now, your character is exactly who you want it to be, and you're no longer bound to established archetypes. Want to play a character who's a military veteran who can inspire his companions? You know how to do that! Sure, you might get outshined from time to time, but you're playing a character that's fun.

Why bring this up? Because I'm firmly of the belief that minmaxing is just a step on the progress of a player's maturation. Eventually, they'll grow out of it as long as you nurture your players right.

[Flickerdart]

This sets you up for your fourth phase: munchkinhood. You're looking over every little detail, trying to create the strongest character ever. Optimized alignment, race, you never look at characters which are substandard or weaker than average (pulling from 3.5 terms, you'd never even CONSIDER a Fighter when you could play a Wizard!) This phase is... kinda insufferable and makes you really want to punch the player.


That's not what a munchkin is. Munchkins are players who deliberately ignore or "forget" rules. Powergamers are rarely munchkins, because they don't need to cheat to be good.

Speaking of powergamers - what you call "optimization" is pretty much just powergaming. Optimization just means making sure you are good at something. That something can be "most badass wizard" or it can be "effective sword fighter." If your concept is "veteran swordsman" and you can't swing a sword to save your life because you have STR 8, you're being dishonest to the fiction. In order to do it right, you need optimization.

[mgshamster]

That's not what a munchkin is. Munchkins are players who deliberately ignore or "forget" rules. Powergamers are rarely munchkins, because they don't need to cheat to be good.

Speaking of powergamers - what you call "optimization" is pretty much just powergaming. Optimization just means making sure you are good at something. That something can be "most badass wizard" or it can be "effective sword fighter." If your concept is "veteran swordsman" and you can't swing a sword to save your life because you have STR 8, you're being dishonest to the fiction. In order to do it right, you need optimization.

There's a lot of land between Str 8 and "optimized." It sure as heck ain't one or the other.

[Tanarii]

That's not what a munchkin is. Munchkins are players who deliberately ignore or "forget" rules. Powergamers are rarely munchkins, because they don't need to cheat to be good.

Speaking of powergamers - what you call "optimization" is pretty much just powergaming. Optimization just means making sure you are good at something. That something can be "most badass wizard" or it can be "effective sword fighter." If your concept is "veteran swordsman" and you can't swing a sword to save your life because you have STR 8, you're being dishonest to the fiction. In order to do it right, you need optimization.

"In gaming, a munchkin is a player who plays what is intended to be a non-competitive game (usually a role-playing game) in an aggressively competitive manner. A munchkin seeks within the context of the game to amass the greatest power, score the most "kills", and grab the most loot, no matter how detrimental their actions are to role-playing, the storyline, fairness, teamwork, or the other players' enjoyment. The term is used almost exclusively as a pejorative and frequently is used in reference to powergamers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(role-playing_games)

Wikipedia doesn't prove you "wrong", because it's a made up term for a made up concept that everyone is going to have a different idea about. But for the above description to make it into wikipedia and survive in this form, given the high-technical capabilities and extremely opinionated and fractious nature of D&D ner.. uh, gamers, it's certainly indicative that munchkin = powergamer is a somewhat commonly held opinion.

/appealtowikipediafallacy + /appealtodefinitionfallacy on my part, but I couldn't help myself ;)

[Lines]

"In gaming, a munchkin is a player who plays what is intended to be a non-competitive game (usually a role-playing game) in an aggressively competitive manner. A munchkin seeks within the context of the game to amass the greatest power, score the most "kills", and grab the most loot, no matter how detrimental their actions are to role-playing, the storyline, fairness, teamwork, or the other players' enjoyment. The term is used almost exclusively as a pejorative and frequently is used in reference to powergamers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(role-playing_games)

Wikipedia doesn't prove you "wrong", because it's a made up term for a made up concept that everyone is going to have a different idea about. But for the above description to make it into wikipedia and survive in this form, given the high-technical capabilities and extremely opinionated and fractious nature of D&D ner.. uh, gamers, it's certainly indicative that munchkin = powergamer is a somewhat commonly held opinion.

/appealtowikipediafallacy + /appealtodefinitionfallacy on my part, but I couldn't help myself ;)

That's really not the commonly accepted difference. A powergamer is someone who tries to become as powerful as they can within the rules (say, taking warlock 2/sorcerer x for two eldritch blasts a round every round) while a munchkin is someone who tries to become as powerful as they can regardless of the rules (fudging dice, in the above combo trying to pretend he isn't a spell level behind and grabbing 5th level sorcerer spells at character level 9).

What you're referring to is called being a murderhobo.

Here's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?129470-Defining-Optimizer-Powergamer-Munchkin)a pretty good discussion of it, I notice that Flickerdart here happens to have been the first respondent =:tongue:


This sets you up for your fourth phase: munchkinhood. You're looking over every little detail, trying to create the strongest character ever. Optimized alignment, race, you never look at characters which are substandard or weaker than average (pulling from 3.5 terms, you'd never even CONSIDER a Fighter when you could play a Wizard!) This phase is... kinda insufferable and makes you really want to punch the player.

It's already been said, but to reiterate that's powergaming, not munchkinhood. Munchkins really are insufferable because they want to "win" and typically cheat in order to do so, while I have no problem with someone trying to get the most out of their character and really neither should you. How is them doing so a bad thing? In 5e a champion fighter can still contribute in a party with an optimised wizard, everybody still has fun.

[georgie_leech]

It varies by system; something like 3.5 had options with very high and very low optimization floors, meaning it was quite possible to accidentally over/underperform. (Say, a monk and a druid in the same party). I don't know 4e that well, but it looks like it's a lot harder to really mess up a 5e character. (Given that you get 50% of your numbers automatically, even intentionally anti-optimizing doesn't as the OP "suggests" doesn't seem like it would leave you useless)

Amusingly, 4e had the distinction of managing to keep the power curve relatively stable. By which I mean some of the strongest classes were from the PHB and the later books introduced some real clunkers. 4e had the problem of making the bonuses treadmill explicit and requiring most of the build resources towards meeting that standard. It's tricky to nail down a range of resources where you can spend some on fluff stuff without it being mechanically superior to forego that in favor of piling on feat bonuses. 4e fell on the latter side, while one of the more common complaints (I think you have a thread tangentially related that actually) about 5e is it does the opposite, without much distinction between those who build towards something and someone who doesn't.

[Millstone85]

In the beginning, you're an utter noob. You're trying out concepts that seem like they worked in the movies (e.g. "Imma make Aragorn!) to try and just let the badassitude shine through without really understanding the mechanical system. Your first character will die.When I was first introduced to a roleplaying game, about five years ago, I was told that I should imagine any character I wanted and only then care about learning the rules. Well, I had watched a lot of FMA and heard a bit about Avatar. So I asked if I could play a character who turns pieces of metal into differently shaped pieces of the same metal. And I was told that yes, I could.

Then we sat at a table with a mountain of books and something called a character sheet. And after a while it turned out that no, nope, nuh-uh, I couldn't play any kind of metalbender. Not at level 1, not at level 30, never. The closest I could get to my concept was a playable race made of metal and a single option that turned the elemental power of metal into a defense bonus.

My warforged didn't die but that was never the problem. Here I was in the "What can you actually do with these books? Why do we have these books?" mentality. And since we were playing fourth edition, trying to find my answers meant jumping straight to the fourth phase you described.


This sets you up for your fourth phase: munchkinhood. You're looking over every little detail, trying to create the strongest character ever.Or, in my case at least, trying to create a character who can actually do something. Eventually, I made a human warlock/ranger(beastmaster)/spellscarred. Terrible crunch but at last the fluff was decent. Yes, I had to munchkin for fluff.


The difference is that, now, your character is exactly who you want it to be, and you're no longer bound to established archetypes.Later, I suppose, you become a DM and tell that lie to your players, starting the cycle anew. :smallwink:

[oxybe]

To a degree, I agree. But the game mechanics themselves work with a certain assumption of optimization, or lack thereof. For example, 3e/3.5 is often held up as a paradigm of "broken", but it's with heavy optimization (combat or otherwise), especially based on a ton of extra splatbooks, that the game truly approaches the level of the mechanics themselves starting to break down. Same for 4e, by the time they were at their 3rd PHB and lots of 'Power' series splatbooks.

Of course, as the OP himself has proven, it's possible to intentionally "unoptimize", or intentionally optimize to be below the default level assumed for the game. He's optimizing in reverse and calling that "Roleplaying".

eh... i accidentally'd a campaign at higher level with a druid using only one outside resource, which was basically a mass overland flight for the party. core 3.5 druid with augment summoning & natural spell ended with the Royal Canadian Bear Force: a bear with his pet bear and 3 flying bear friends all larger then they should be zipping around the skies, with one bear shooting freakin laser beams.

3.5 was plenty borked without much help of sourcebooks. sure they added a few dumb tools, but little added came close to stuff like the summon monster & polymorph lines. if anything those sourcebooks added much needed versatility and options to classes like fighter, rogue and barbarian.

@ Grod_The_Giant
4th ed had tighter math then 3rd, especially towards the end of the game's cycle where you got some pretty slick stuff like the MM3 on a business card. it was possible to muck up a 4th ed character, but usually it was because you tried doing something with a class it simply wasn't meant to do, like playing a fighter while dumping strength whereas all your fighter's abilities generally keyed off your strength score. as long as you put your stats in the obvious places and kept your gear in order you were generally all right. YMMV when it comes to feat tax.

not to say there weren't funky builds that could work with weird stat arrays, like the princess/lazy warlord, who's main gimmick was never dirtying their hands and simply granted actions to other characters and rarely attacking themselves, so while the chassis of the class was that of a str/dex based character (depending if you were a melee or ranged build) they could actually work off int/cha and be a social/brainy character while still contributing in combat, as their "attack" was "hey, Throg... hit that guy".

Now as for which math is tighter, 4th's or 5th's? 5th's is tighter in that there are just less moving parts, though I'll admit I'm not a fan of bounded accuracy. 4th's, if you kept the bonuses up as you leveled, were actually bound in a sense: you would generally need ~10-11 to hit a given on-level monster (some were easier or harder depending on the method you used, mind you), though the biggest problem came when you were able to stack bonuses and penalties... it could get pretty nuts.

I did like that at higher level, your 4th ed character felt much stronger then they did at lower levels, if only as those lower level monsters/minions had significantly harder times not just damaging you but also hitting you, whereas in 5th they made the conscious decision to (try) to keep lower monsters relevant by keeping offenses and defenses generally low and within the scope of the d20. i do find that "throw a large number of low level monsters as opposed to a single big one" can potentially cause issues with 5th ed though as unless you have easy access to AoE effects or at least multi-targeting attacks large numbers can quickly overwhelm a PC through chip damage due to the PCs' AC being within mook reach, but even in 4th ed throwing enough lower level enemies could cause problems due to potential action economy abuse (something which has always plagued every edition of D&D).

this is entirely a matter of preference mind you.


In the beginning, you're an utter noob. You're trying out concepts that seem like they worked in the movies (e.g. "Imma make Aragorn!) to try and just let the badassitude shine through without really understanding the mechanical system. Your first character will die.
you want to see the real hearthbreaker of roleplaying? go read 2nd ed's description of the fighter class: it gives Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad as examples and fails spectacularly to emulate them, especially the likes of hercules, beowulf, siegfried, cu'culain & perseus mechanically outside of "well i can hit things good..." as these folks were supernatural in nature... perseus and hercules themselves were both the sons of zeus (and related in a second way: perseus was technically both half brother and grandfather to hercules. thanks, zeus!). this irritated me as i grew up reading a lot of greek myth and i fell in love with those stories as a kid, but the fighter class did not live up to the standards it set itself.

This is how I started my gaming career: with unfulfilled dreams of hercules and perseus while reading an annoyingly written rulebook written in my second language (english as a second language, born french).


From here, you enter the second phase. Upset with your character dying because of some unfortunate thing, you actually start learning the system. Yes, you're a far way off from actually being able to participate, but you'll think of cool and interesting backstories still.

This is true and quite possibly the most frustrating part, it's the "i know enough to know i know nothing" period of learning anything new.


Then we enter the third phase. Here, you start asking yourself what the best combinations are. You start to realize, "Hey, if I combine these two abilities, I can deal utterly absurd things!" Maybe you realize that you don't have to deal damage to win fights, but something changes. You're not thinking of your character as a character, but rather as a set of abilities.

yes and no. it's more akin to beginning to understand what kind of characters the game supports or at least pushes you towards. you do start thinking in terms of ability sets, yes, but also the types of people that would be drawn to these ability sets. what kind of person would be drawn to abilities of a paladin? how would these abilities (and the restrictions around them) influence the character's view of the world? how would this influence how the character interacts with people? what kind of experience can this character bring me? understanding the mechanics and how they interact with the game world is the third phase.


This sets you up for your fourth phase: munchkinhood. You're looking over every little detail, trying to create the strongest character ever. Optimized alignment, race, you never look at characters which are substandard or weaker than average (pulling from 3.5 terms, you'd never even CONSIDER a Fighter when you could play a Wizard!) This phase is... kinda insufferable and makes you really want to punch the player.

the fourth phase is deeper understanding of the system: you work on theoretical optimization to better understand how the game breaks, what numbers you should be shooting for at various levels to keep your character mechanically relevant and engaging when interacting with the game elements, as well as how you can make various systems interact to get your desired results. you understand that a class is nothing more then a subset of systems you can use to create your character and you're generally unbound by the fluff. oftentimes yes, you don't consider a fighter, or at least more then 1-2 levels, since more then that and you stray away from the character you envision: class abilities generally give more focus in characterization then another bonus feat or two that you could probably take in another class anyways.


Eventually, though, the discovery of optimization eventually loses its luster. You start to realize that power isn't everything and you can still have fun even if you're not playing a character who can win fights by himself. You've finally reached Playerhood, and you can equally enjoy High OP as well as playing something unoptimized. The difference is that, now, your character is exactly who you want it to be, and you're no longer bound to established archetypes. Want to play a character who's a military veteran who can inspire his companions? You know how to do that! Sure, you might get outshined from time to time, but you're playing a character that's fun.

the 5th phase is the Oxybe phase (:smalltongue:), where your mastery of the system allows you to create characters in-line with the not just the setting or themes the GM wishes to explore, but also the relative power level of the group, able to interact and engage on both a mechanical and character level without worry about being overshadowed or overshadowing your friends. your character comes alive not just in your characterization but how you interact with game elements, showcasing your character's various traits.

you've achieved the Tao of the Oxybe: full understanding that mechanics and characterization are the Ying and Yang of PCs, both separate yet at the same time influencing each other to create a balanced and interesting whole.

[Grod_The_Giant]

you've achieved the Tao of the Oxybe: full understanding that mechanics and characterization are the Ying and Yang of PCs, both separate yet at the same time influencing each other to create a balanced and interesting whole.
I like this; can this be a thing?

[Mara]

I've found the opposite to be true. Poorly optimized characters tend to have scant backstories and poorly roleplay.

Honestly I've never ran into this "roleplayer not rollplayer" where that was ever the case. They were just bad at both and ignored criticism and had to be kicked from tables.

I have ran into pure mechanics players. Still prefer those to the toxic players.

[Dimcair]

Did anyone bring up that some of the character creation rules facilitate min maxing to certain degrees?

I ran into this with creating the MAD human (variant) paladin:

Since the class tells you that you benefit from three attributes the most: Str or Dex, Con, Cha
Point Buy 27 can give you

str 15
dex 10
con 13
int 8
wis 10
cha 15

Would anyone argue this is min/maxed? I can't imagine. The character follows the recommendations of the rule-book in putting higher stats into attributes that are important to the class and it very close to the standard array. (See Bruenor). Now the character gets additional +1 +1 to 2 stats. Naturally you'd chose Cha and Str as recommended. That still leaves you with your third important attribute (Con) at an ODD number, not giving you the modifier benefit. Now you can either leave it at that, OR you can dump your Wisdom to 8, getting the extra point for con, getting you even numbers in all your stats, getting you all the modifiers. The odd number system together with point-buy encourages to have even numbers in scores. No?

[Lines]

Did anyone bring up that some of the character creation rules facilitate min maxing to certain degrees?

I ran into this with creating the MAD human (variant) paladin:

Since the class tells you that you benefit from three attributes the most: Str or Dex, Con, Cha
Point Buy 27 can give you

str 15
dex 10
con 13
int 8
wis 10
cha 15

Would anyone argue this is min/maxed? I can't imagine. The character follows the recommendations of the rule-book in putting higher stats into attributes that are important to the class and it very close to the standard array. (See Bruenor). Now the character gets additional +1 +1 to 2 stats. Naturally you'd chose Cha and Str as recommended. That still leaves you with your third important attribute (Con) at an ODD number, not giving you the modifier benefit. Now you can either leave it at that, OR you can dump your Wisdom to 8, getting the extra point for con, getting you even numbers in all your stats, getting you all the modifiers. The odd number system together with point-buy encourages to have even numbers in scores. No?

You're absolutely correct, it does. This is why a lot of people like rolling, though that has the huge downside of making some characters just better than others despite supposedly equal creation. The suggested array (15/14/13/12/10/8) is something of a solution to this, though I honestly think it needs to be a little higher - the main problem is every class has constitution as a secondary stat, every class has a primary stat and some classes have a tertiary stat. It's a lot easier to make a fighter with two high scores than it is for a monk.

[Tanarii]

Would anyone argue this is min/maxed? I can't imagine.
Of course it is. What you're doing is the very definition of min/max.

That doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

Edit: you could have easily designed a less extremely min-max character for paladin strengths with a 14 Cha, 12 Con, and higher other abilities. Of course, the reason to do that would be to maximize another area instead ... Ability/Skill checks for off-Core attributes for the class ... while still retaining a certain strength in your core capabilities.

That's why optimize is a better term than min-max. It's less confusing.

[Dimcair]

Of course it is. What you're doing is the very definition of min/max.





15/15/13/10/10/8 (example)
vs.
15/14/13/12/10/8 (standard array)

Really? A stat array that differs in a single 2 points from the standard array is 'min-maxed' ?
I am calling major BS on that. Especially since the 2 points are in the 10-12 range and not the 15-17 range.


/edit: obviously this goes from the assumption that you don't call the standard array min-maxed, which it may be by some definitions that are out there. But since it is an example by WotC we assume here that min-maxing is the more extreme form of ability stat gaps.

[Tanarii]

Really? A stat array that differs in a single 2 points from the standard array is 'min-maxed' ?
I am calling major BS on that. Especially since the 2 points are in the 10-12 range and not the 15-17 range.


/edit: obviously this goes from the assumption that you don't call the standard array min-maxed, which it may be by some definitions that are out there.
haha I quoted your post to do exactly that before reading your edit.

Yes, using the standard array is also min-maxing. So is using roll 6 and place in the order you choose.

Why do you think the OP was arguing from the point of view of roll 3d6 in order? It's one of the few non-min-maxing ways to generate stats. Technically so is 4d6DL in order. But as soon as you can choose the order, you are min-maxing.

Like I said. Not a bad thing automatically.

[Dimcair]

By that logic, anything that is not TRULY random is min maxing, and therefore min maxing is a given and inbuilt in this system, therefore making this thread's meaning and argument mostly (if not entirely?) void.

[Tanarii]

By that logic, anything that is not TRULY random is min maxing, and therefore min maxing is a given and inbuilt in this system, therefore making this thread's meaning and argument mostly (if not entirely?) void.
Wow. I can't think of a better summary. :smallbiggrin:

[Lines]

By that logic, anything that is not TRULY random is min maxing, and therefore min maxing is a given and inbuilt in this system, therefore making this thread's meaning and argument mostly (if not entirely?) void.

Sums it up pretty perfectly, yeah. The other half to this thread is that optimization is bad roleplaying, also thoroughly debunked.

[oxybe]

I like this; can this be a thing?

If the single legacy to TTRPGs as a whole I can leave is the idea that mechanics and characterization can play off each other to create a more complete character, I'm all for it.

[djreynolds]

This conversation is like telling your half-orc battlemaster with 20 strength and GSW and GWM to drop his greatsword and pick up a cooking kettle. Hey wizard don't take fireball, take flower blooming instead.

The old way of rolling was to pick your class first, and then roll and leave in place. So back in the day, I would pick a dwarf, as this was my race and character and class all in one, and then roll. 9/14/10/12/9/12. So these were my stats and the only way to improve them was by magic items, potions, etc. But I would still optimize and grab a shortbow because my dex was higher. Every choice you make is optimizing, it just may not be the best choice available.

So we all optimize, the standard array just keeps up the "all men are created equal" status quo. From there you do as you please.

The only big perk about rolling is you can maybe make that "hero" or oddball. Hey I'm a archer paladin. Rolling really just lets you make something unique. I'm a drow ranger and my dex is so high that disadvantage in sunlgiht doesn't totally gimp me in most battles. And now you have Drizzt.

The big catch all is the ability cap, in time as long as my attack stat or casting stat is maxed, I can be competitive and useful to the party.

[JoeJ]

By that logic, anything that is not TRULY random is min maxing, and therefore min maxing is a given and inbuilt in this system, therefore making this thread's meaning and argument mostly (if not entirely?) void.

That's right. Not only should you roll your ability scores, but you should randomly roll your class and race too. Oh, and starting equipment. And if you happen to get a spellcasting class, roll for what spells you know. That's the only way to truly roleplay.

[djreynolds]

Here is a good example or idea you might like.

In 3.5, I was trying to play Skywalker. I'm playing the big hero in the adventure.

In 5E, Its like what I hope Rogue One will be. The gritty mercenary, the guy without the force. The guy who has to use his whit and surroundings and buddies to save the day. I'm just trying to survive the adventure.

Both are fun.

[Dimcair]

That's right. Not only should you roll your ability scores, but you should randomly roll your class and race too. Oh, and starting equipment. And if you happen to get a spellcasting class, roll for what spells you know. That's the only way to truly roleplay.

In all seriousness, some war-hammer fantasy systems support this I believe. Not that I like them:smallyuk:


Wow. I can't think of a better summary. :smallbiggrin:

I am now considering to rephrase this and finally create that signature. Sigh, this is all so dumb. Stormwind all over again. I was surprised that it took 3 posts before Lines brought it up :smallbiggrin:

[mgshamster]

I remember back in Pathfinder, I'd be accused of making a worthless character if I didn't have a stat start at 18 at level 1. I've always preferred to have a character with more well-rounded stats than one or two high stats and the rest somewhat lower.

For me, the idea that you must always have high stats in a relevant ability score or you're a worthless character is what "rollplay" as a pejorative means. The converse of that, I guess, is to just play the character you want without worrying if it will be the best. It's all bunk, anyways, so long as you're having fun and not inhibiting other's fun as well.

[Lines]

I remember back in Pathfinder, I'd be accused of making a worthless character if I didn't have a stat start at 18 at level 1. I've always preferred to have a character with more well-rounded stats than one or two high stats and the rest somewhat lower.

For me, the idea that you must always have high stats in a relevant ability score or you're a worthless character is what "rollplay" as a pejorative means. The converse of that, I guess, is to just play the character you want without worrying if it will be the best. It's all bunk, anyways, so long as you're having fun and not inhibiting other's fun as well.

Keep in mind pathfinder supported a much more even stat spread than 5e does, in 5e you either need two stats or three and the rest can go hang. Everyone needs constitution, everyone has a primary stat and some classes have a tertiary stat they use to cast (for martials) or hit things (for casters), you try to keep wisdom and dexterity decent if you can and strength, intelligence and charisma can all go hang if they're not your primary or tertiary stats.

[mgshamster]

Keep in mind pathfinder supported a much more even stat spread than 5e does, in 5e you either need two stats or three and the rest can go hang. Everyone needs constitution, everyone has a primary stat and some classes have a tertiary stat they use to cast (for martials) or hit things (for casters), you try to keep wisdom and dexterity decent if you can and strength, intelligence and charisma can all go hang if they're not your primary or tertiary stats.

I've been on the losing side of your pathfinder argument many times. I've seen many instances of myself or someone else being accused of making a worthless character if we use a 15 or 20 point buy to have an even spread vs starting with at least one 18 and one dumped stat.

Personally, I can't stand dump stats; I don't enjoy roleplaying it. I prefer to have a more even spread with at least a 10 in any given stat. I prefer to have nearly straight 13-14s than three 18s and three 8s.

One of the things I like about 5e is that I can play my even spread and you can play your dumped stats, and both of us will remain effective contributing characters throughout the campaign.

[Nu]

The OP seems to have shifted gears into hating on players who focus on combat. Lemme quote the Angry DM here.


From this article: http://theangrygm.com/return-of-the-son-of-the-dd-boss-fight-now-in-5e/

Let’s be honest: D&D is a combat focused game. You can’t argue that. And you’d be stupid to try. You can stay away from combat if you want, but you can’t pretend it isn’t designed around a pretty damned cool combat engine. And the basic structure of the game is a string of mostly action-oriented encounters (including combats) that ultimately resolve a problem or achieve a goal.

Does that make you angry? Good, you've also become an angry DM. Look, if you take the rules in the PHB and give them a look-over, I think you're going to find the majority of them (if not the VAST majority) are aimed at resolving combat situations.

Based on that, can you really blame the players who enjoy the tactical simulation of combat above all else for flocking to the game? Maybe some of them will also enjoy the roleplaying aspect, some of them will not. But either way, the game is made for them too (I'd argue especially for them, but opinions, and I don't want to go on a full-blown rant). And yes, this is still true in 5th edition DnD.

Ultimately, different people enjoy different aspects of the game for a variety of reasons. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's stupid to get mad at people for focusing on the tactical combat aspect of the game when so much of the system itself is devoted to resolving combat situations tactically.

[Pex]

Did anyone bring up that some of the character creation rules facilitate min maxing to certain degrees?

I ran into this with creating the MAD human (variant) paladin:

Since the class tells you that you benefit from three attributes the most: Str or Dex, Con, Cha
Point Buy 27 can give you

str 15
dex 10
con 13
int 8
wis 10
cha 15

Would anyone argue this is min/maxed? I can't imagine. The character follows the recommendations of the rule-book in putting higher stats into attributes that are important to the class and it very close to the standard array. (See Bruenor). Now the character gets additional +1 +1 to 2 stats. Naturally you'd chose Cha and Str as recommended. That still leaves you with your third important attribute (Con) at an ODD number, not giving you the modifier benefit. Now you can either leave it at that, OR you can dump your Wisdom to 8, getting the extra point for con, getting you even numbers in all your stats, getting you all the modifiers. The odd number system together with point-buy encourages to have even numbers in scores. No?

Put the +1s in CO and CH and take a feat that gives +1 ST such as heavy armor master.

[oxybe]

I would say +1 in Str & Cha, grab the Resilient(Con) feat for +1 Con & Con save prof.

[Sigreid]

That's right. Not only should you roll your ability scores, but you should randomly roll your class and race too. Oh, and starting equipment. And if you happen to get a spellcasting class, roll for what spells you know. That's the only way to truly roleplay.

I know you are being sarcastic, but in AD&D wizards were supposed to get their initial spells by rolling randomly and then rolling to see if they were capable of casting that spell. Limits on spells understood per level were a thing.

[gameogre]

I feel min/max oppressed! I need to think of a term for people against min/maxing that doesn't cover role playing.

Calling the other side Role players or something in that nature is falling into he trap of letting them define min/making as the other side of the pole from role playing and that's already been proven false.


How about randomizers? Or Minimum Drifters? You know cause they like to make 9 strength 17 cha fighters with a feat in languages...just kinda drifting all over the place.

Yeah that's it!

Min Drifters are horrible role players! They can't understand the basic concept of playing a character who lives in a dangerous world where it's the survival of the fittest and the only way to protect the weak is to be strong enough to stand against the badguys!

Boo Hss! Down with Drifters!

*looks around* ahh well.

[MadBear]

I feel min/max oppressed! I need to think of a term for people against min/maxing that doesn't cover role playing.

Calling the other side Role players or something in that nature is falling into he trap of letting them define min/making as the other side of the pole from role playing and that's already been proven false.


How about randomizers? Or Minimum Drifters? You know cause they like to make 9 strength 17 cha fighters with a feat in languages...just kinda drifting all over the place.

Yeah that's it!

Min Drifters are horrible role players! They can't understand the basic concept of playing a character who lives in a dangerous world where it's the survival of the fittest and the only way to protect the weak is to be strong enough to stand against the badguys!

Boo Hss! Down with Drifters!

*looks around* ahh well.

Those dirty drifters are ruining D&D :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin:

love it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Those dirty drifters are ruining D&D are getting all of the hot babes :smallcool: FTFY. My old friend who loved to play Paladins decided to stretch himself one time.
He made a deal with the DM: all stats average. He had 3 11s and 3 10s. He named him Joe Average.

We had a blast.

[gameogre]

FTFY. My old friend who loved to play Paladins decided to stretch himself one time.
He made a deal with the DM: all stats average. He had 3 11s and 3 10s. He named him Joe Average.

We had a blast.

I can one up you!

We had Joe Schmuckatelli in AD&D who's highest stat was like a 11 who founded a entire dynasty!

The Schmuckatelli clan was HUGE for a long while. I think we had like over forty characters played or npc from the Schmuckatelli clan at different points.

The Schmuckatelli's even made it into Star Frontiers and Top Secret and even as far as Alternaty before fading away into the mist of time.

I can't believe I remembered the Schmuckatelli's!

And yes they got played with horrible stats, that was the entire point of them. However it can be said that they died like free donuts at a coffee shop disappear, with a QUICKNESS!

I once remember losing three of them within fifteen feet of each other in a empty hallway!

[Pex]

I would say +1 in Str & Cha, grab the Resilient(Con) feat for +1 Con & Con save prof.

I like this as well.
:smallbiggrin:

[Theodoxus]

I've been on the losing side of your pathfinder argument many times. I've seen many instances of myself or someone else being accused of making a worthless character if we use a 15 or 20 point buy to have an even spread vs starting with at least one 18 and one dumped stat.

Personally, I can't stand dump stats; I don't enjoy roleplaying it. I prefer to have a more even spread with at least a 10 in any given stat. I prefer to have nearly straight 13-14s than three 18s and three 8s.

One of the things I like about 5e is that I can play my even spread and you can play your dumped stats, and both of us will remain effective contributing characters throughout the campaign.

Isn't this just a variation on the Stormwind Fallacy? I get that some people think that INT and IQ are related, so an 8 INT is the equivalent of an 80 IQ, but it doesn't have to be.

I mean, if you want to play a hulking brute barbarian who can barely mumble his own name and an adverb together - have a nut, but all 8's in your mental stats doesn't mean you're a toadstool. There are mechanical factors in play that don't require acting like a window-licker. Play to you, as a player's, strengths. Talk normally, react normally and use the mechanical disadvantage imposed by an 8 for what it is - you're less inclined to see something, to make a save... that's all it really is.

It's like the personification of my least favorite aspect of the White Wolf system. The stats all have a description of what you can do. Having a 5 in a stat is nearly godlike, in the description. In reality, it's a boost (don't have the exact %) to your potential success in said action. But man, reading the descriptions, you'd think you're superman. Then, you get in a fight, find out that it just ain't so...

So, again, I think roleplaying your stats as deficiencies must be a corollary to the Stormwind Fallacy. It's almost like double-dipping in the badness... why do that?

[gameogre]

I have played a dirt stupid barbarian with a 13 Int.

He just knew a crapload of survival stuff that he had painfully picked up.

Sure if I had a 5-9 int character i would be tempted to play him stupid but then I kinda like to play the stupid guy. I mostly DM and unless I play a stupid flawed character the players tend to want to make me leader when I just want to be one of the guys.(I also have a tendency to have read every adventure known to man and although I don't mind playing them Do not want to lead the party doing so).

Playing a very flawed character removes that desire from them.

"what do you think Hurkon? I think we stop now and eat lunch then take a nap!"

"Hurkon! I was asking about the goblins leaving the cave! do we follow them or head into the cave while they are gone?"

Hurkon says" Do they look like they have a lot of food?"

[mgshamster]

Isn't this just a variation on the Stormwind Fallacy? I get that some people think that INT and IQ are related, so an 8 INT is the equivalent of an 80 IQ, but it doesn't have to be.

I mean, if you want to play a hulking brute barbarian who can barely mumble his own name and an adverb together - have a nut, but all 8's in your mental stats doesn't mean you're a toadstool. There are mechanical factors in play that don't require acting like a window-licker. Play to you, as a player's, strengths. Talk normally, react normally and use the mechanical disadvantage imposed by an 8 for what it is - you're less inclined to see something, to make a save... that's all it really is.

It's like the personification of my least favorite aspect of the White Wolf system. The stats all have a description of what you can do. Having a 5 in a stat is nearly godlike, in the description. In reality, it's a boost (don't have the exact %) to your potential success in said action. But man, reading the descriptions, you'd think you're superman. Then, you get in a fight, find out that it just ain't so...

So, again, I think roleplaying your stats as deficiencies must be a corollary to the Stormwind Fallacy. It's almost like double-dipping in the badness... why do that?

To me, that isn't roleplaying. If I do that, I'm no longer entering a role in a world for which I explore; I'm instead playing a game with numbers that mean nothing except the percentages that they alter within the game.

I don't want to just play a game, I want to explore the world and the role from the eyes of the character.

If that's how you enjoy it, then by all means enjoy it that way. It's not how I enjoy it. I'm sure we'd even both have fun playing our different ways even at the same table; I'm ok with other people approaching the game differently than me. But it's not how I approach the game, and it's not how I have fun.

I just can't envision a character with 6-8 mental stats engaging in complex battle tactics, solving difficult puzzles, solving complex crimes, putting together vague clues into coherent hypotheses, and more, and only suffering the minor mechanical penalties as the explanation for the low mental stats. It breaks versilimitude for me. But it only breaks it for me - if that doesn't bother you with your character, then I'm ok with you playing your character your way (so long as it's ok if I play my character my way).

[Lines]

To me, that isn't roleplaying. If I do that, I'm no longer entering a role in a world for which I explore; I'm instead playing a game with numbers that mean nothing except the percentages that they alter within the game.

I don't want to just play a game, I want to explore the world and the role from the eyes of the character.

If that's how you enjoy it, then by all means enjoy it that way. It's not how I enjoy it. I'm sure we'd even both have fun playing our different ways even at the same table; I'm ok with other people approaching the game differently than me. But it's not how I approach the game, and it's not how I have fun.

I just can't envision a character with 6-8 mental stats engaging in complex battle tactics, solving difficult puzzles, solving complex crimes, putting together vague clues into coherent hypotheses, and more, and only suffering the minor mechanical penalties as the explanation for the low mental stats. It breaks versilimitude for me. But it only breaks it for me - if that doesn't bother you with your character, then I'm ok with you playing your character your way (so long as it's ok if I play my character my way).

You're thinking too strictly about intelligence. 7 is the intelligence of an orc that can learn full languages and use a saddle, but also of an ape that we know from real life is intellectually nowhere near capable of those things. An 8 int character could be smarter than a 12 int character but the 12 int character is better at actually applying their knowledge, or hell since knowledge checks are all a lot of characters use int for it could just mean they sit down and study.

[goto124]

I'm not terribly clear on what minmaxing even is to begin with.

Is it overspecialization? What is overspecialization? All the PCs are in a party, different people specialize in different roles and work together to use their specializations together. The warrior lacks in the social aspect, that's what the bard is for. And so on.

[Dimcair]

Put the +1s in CO and CH and take a feat that gives +1 ST such as heavy armor master.

FEAT-TAX! I don't want it. I want to choose another feat, one that I like, one that is more important, whatever.

Besides: By narrowing your choice to a +1 feat you are lifting it above others, falling directly into min maxing territory.


I would say +1 in Str & Cha, grab the Resilient(Con) feat for +1 Con & Con save prof.

FEAT-TAX! Worse feat-tax actually. Saving throws are not really the huge issue with a paladin. Most status effects you might want to have a high con save for you are either immune or you can lay on hands. Besides you get your saves upgraded anyways.


Isn't this just a variation on the Stormwind Fallacy? I get that some people think that INT and IQ are related, so an 8 INT is the equivalent of an 80 IQ, but it doesn't have to be. So, again, I think roleplaying your stats as deficiencies must be a corollary to the Stormwind Fallacy. It's almost like double-dipping in the badness... why do that?

Frigging exactly.


I'm not terribly clear on what minmaxing even is to begin with.

Is it overspecialization? What is overspecialization? All the PCs are in a party, different people specialize in different roles and work together to use their specializations together. The warrior lacks in the social aspect, that's what the bard is for. And so on.

One definition is:

Min-Maxing. The practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizing desired ones - wikipedia

So as soon as you think about smart choices to make you are min-maxing, and therefore you suck at role-playing. This should be blue

[mgshamster]

So as soon as you think about smart choices to make you are min-maxing, and therefore you suck at role-playing.

This part is what the Stormwind fallacy is, just to be clear.

One is perfectly capable of engaging in min/maxing and also being a good role player.

However, it's also true that one may be poor at min/maxing and being a good role player. Some may by excellent at min/maxing, but are very poor role players. And some may be poor at both.

The Stormwind fallacy assumes a false correlation - that being good at min/maxing means you are bad at roleplaying.

With this in mind, let's revisit the whole idea of "ignore the roleplay of poor stats and just take the mechanical penalty." This is bad roleplaying. It is not the Stormwind fallacy to point out that it is bad roleplaying; it has nothing to do with whether one min/maxes or not. Deliberately ignoring the roleplay of poor stats and roleplaying them as if they were actually higher with the justification that you are already suffering the mechanical penalty and that should be good enough - that is poor roleplaying.

And to be clear on another point: it doesn't matter if it's poor roleplaying or not. What matters is that you have fun with the game. If roleplaying isn't your thing, then don't sweat it, enjoy the parts of the game that you have fun with. If min/maxing ain't your thing, don't sweat it, enjoy the parts of the game you have fun with. If you like both, then do both. If you don't like either but just enjoy sitting at the table with friends rolling a die every now and then, then just do that. The point of the game is to have fun.

[OldTrees1]

One definition is:

Min-Maxing. The practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizing desired ones
- wikipedia

So as soon as you think about smart choices to make you are min-maxing, and therefore you suck at role-playing. This should be blue

Interesting to note the subtle difference between Optimization and MinMaxing. While the Stormwind Fallacy still holds to both, something related can happen under MinMaxing.

Let's say I have 2 optimized characters. Character A is some kind of Rogue. Character B is an extreme example of MinMaxing a Rogue where they maxed Stealth at the cost of being no better than a commoner at anything else. The "Stealth or background character" extreme example can still have a rich RP, but the hooks the DM has available for engaging the player are severely limited (To either stealth, stuff a commoner can participate in, or PC death).

I mention this because it cropped up in a sentence here or there throughout this thread.

[KorvinStarmast]

We had Joe Schmuckatelli in AD&D who's highest stat was like a 11 who founded a entire dynasty!

The Schmuckatelli clan was HUGE for a long while. I think we had like over forty characters played or npc from the Schmuckatelli clan at different points.

The Schmuckatelli's even made it into Star Frontiers and Top Secret and even as far as Alternaty before fading away into the mist of time.

I can't believe I remembered the Schmuckatelli's!

How could you forget them? That is the kind of thing that makes for memorable adventures. By the way, the first time I ever heard of the Schmuckatelli clan was in the Navy, in the 70's. Are you an old salt as well?

It's been nearly 40 years but I remember when our party illusionist and I were scouting a dungeon and he conjured up an illusory white dragon that I believed. It darned near killed me, and I didn't realize that I'd been pranked. I didn't find out how that happened until our party leader (a paladin) got all mad at me for having dropped a flaming sword when I turned into a lizard and ran off (druid). The DM ruled that the sword didn't transform with me. (No surprise, the illusionist picked it up and was the one who gave it to the paladin, who was holding it as he scolded me for being careless with magical items. Our Illusionist was a bit of a prankster).

[gameogre]

Min/Maxer#1-I just want to role play someone who is focused on being as good as they can get. Like orcs killed his entire family and he only lived because he hid in a overturned horse trough. he feels guilt over it still even though he was just a small boy at the time and has dedicated his life being the best swordsman he can even at the cost of everything else, next time he will not stand by and watch those he cares about be slaughtered!

Drifter#1- That is not possible! Role playing does not work like that!

Driftlover DM- God I hate Min/Maxers! Now I will have to use five orcs to slaughter him instead of one! Min/maxers drive me crazy!

Drifter #2- My parents were killed by traveling clowns so I dedicated every waking moment to getting revenge by learning the Drow sign language and honing my fishing skills to a razors edge! I am also skilled with weapons like the bottle and pillow and although I have one hit point I throw myself into danger at the slightest hint of any sort of religion!

Min/Maxer #2 -I am a boss fighter with max possible Str and Con and my hit points and AC are through the roof! I will bother with a backstory after like level 8.

Min/Maxer #1- I hate you!

[Theodoxus]

This part is what the Stormwind fallacy is, just to be clear.

One is perfectly capable of engaging in min/maxing and also being a good role player.

However, it's also true that one may be poor at min/maxing and being a good role player. Some may by excellent at min/maxing, but are very poor role players. And some may be poor at both.

The Stormwind fallacy assumes a false correlation - that being good at min/maxing means you are bad at roleplaying.

With this in mind, let's revisit the whole idea of "ignore the roleplay of poor stats and just take the mechanical penalty." This is bad roleplaying. It is not the Stormwind fallacy to point out that it is bad roleplaying; it has nothing to do with whether one min/maxes or not. Deliberately ignoring the roleplay of poor stats and roleplaying them as if they were actually higher with the justification that you are already suffering the mechanical penalty and that should be good enough - that is poor roleplaying.

And to be clear on another point: it doesn't matter if it's poor roleplaying or not. What matters is that you have fun with the game. If roleplaying isn't your thing, then don't sweat it, enjoy the parts of the game that you have fun with. If min/maxing ain't your thing, don't sweat it, enjoy the parts of the game you have fun with. If you like both, then do both. If you don't like either but just enjoy sitting at the table with friends rolling a die every now and then, then just do that. The point of the game is to have fun.

I get what you're saying, but I don't happen to agree (surprising, I know, given the discussion above). Let me make my case hypothetically, and then I'll be happy to agree to disagree and we can rock our fun at our tables.

If I'm playing a rogue, I'll look at what skills I need to bring to the table. If we have another lore type character or two (especially a wizard promoting Int skills), I'll throw an 8 into Int, because I really really hate when one player is asked to roll a skill and 5 people around the table toss the same skill, everyone shouting out what they got. "Jimbo, you don't even have proficiency in Investigation, why are you rolling?" "I just overheard the DM ask Marko to roll to see if he noticed something weird in the book he's reading." "But, you're not reading the book..." "I know, but maybe I'm glancing over his shoulder and spotted something."
(For the record, that's not roleplaying in my book. And similar happens every time there's a non-perception check roll called for.)
So, I've min/maxed my rogue to minimize an attribute I'll never use outside of saves (which I'm proficient in anyway) and I'll not be tempted to roll any Int checks because I have a -1 to my roll. But maybe this particular rogue isn't a moron, maybe he's just mentally lazy, doesn't give a rip about book learning and applying his big ole Torm given brain to academics. But he has streetsmarts; he can puzzle out a trap to disarm it; he knows local boltholes to hide from the authorities; he's memorized (through necessity) the names of all the local gang leaders... Just because the mechanics of the game provide different skill and tool proficiency checks for these things - some might be under Int, others under Dex or Wis - doesn't mean that the numbers have to reflect the herpderp mentality a lot of people apply to the numbers.

I know you disparage looking at the game from a gamist perspective (ironically, that), but looking at the numbers, an 8 Dex is only 30% more likely to fail hitting the same target as a 20 Dex. 30% isn't really a lot, when looked at critically. If you were so dexterous that you'd hit a target center mass every time, and your fellow shooter only hit it 70% of the time, would you expect him to be a bumbling idiot, stubbing his toes through every doorframe, tripping over curbs, unable to balance a tray of food (at least as well as my rogue above could balance a checkbook, eh?)

That's my point - there aren't hard-coded: 'if you have an 8 Int, you must remain quiet when the "smart guys" (whatever that means) start talking strategy'. If you have an 9 Dex, 'you must permanently reduce your HP by 1 every level to reflect the self-imposed damage by tripping on furniture and eating floor when someone has waxed it.' If you have an 8 Wis, 'you the player, must cover your eyes and never see the minimap. If you're playing TotM, you must hum whenever the DM starts describing the area the characters are in.' If you have an 8 Chr, 'you must wear a fully hooded cloak anytime you're in public (both player and character - so you don't break verisimilitude) or suffer 1 point of acid damage every time you meet a person of the opposite sex as they reflexively vomit in your direction.'

I realize I fell into the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum, but I think it makes my point. You can play, you can even roleplay, D&D, while treating your stats as numbers with the implicit mechanical function they bring, and not infer undo disparaging attributes that further degrade your character.


Now, having said all that, I have played, and immensely enjoyed playing, an all 15s Physical, all 8 Mental Half-orc Barbarian with the GWM/PAM combination, who wasn't a mental giant, didn't pay attention to anything the party did (even had the flaw "If there's a plan, I ignore it" much to the tables delight and parties rue) and told terrible jokes (as an 8 Chr is wont to do). It was so over the top cliche, and surprisingly no one had played anything remotely similar at our table before - but it was a one-off character used for a massive tactical battle. I shan't be doing that again. But would recommend the freedom of not being responsible for your antics to anyone :smallwink:

[gameogre]

How could you forget them? That is the kind of thing that makes for memorable adventures. By the way, the first time I ever heard of the Schmuckatelli clan was in the Navy, in the 70's. Are you an old salt as well?

It's been nearly 40 years but I remember when our party illusionist and I were scouting a dungeon and he conjured up an illusory white dragon that I believed. It darned near killed me, and I didn't realize that I'd been pranked. I didn't find out how that happened until our party leader (a paladin) got all mad at me for having dropped a flaming sword when I turned into a lizard and ran off (druid). The DM ruled that the sword didn't transform with me. (No surprise, the illusionist picked it up and was the one who gave it to the paladin, who was holding it as he scolded me for being careless with magical items. Our Illusionist was a bit of a prankster).

I am old but not THAT old. I was in the Navy but in the late 80's and early 90's on SSBN's.

i was very surprised to realize that Joe Shmuckatelli was a actual known thing outside of our gaming group so I guess it's more of a thing that great minds think alike!

[KorvinStarmast]

I am old but not THAT old. I was in the Navy but in the late 80's and early 90's on SSBN's. I was very surprised to realize that Joe Shmuckatelli was a actual known thing outside of our gaming group so I guess it's more of a thing that great minds think alike!
I think it's a Navy thing. It might have infiltrated in via osmosis.

The Shmuckatelli name was introduced to me by an instructor (1970's) who was trying to illustrate the hazards of not following procedures when operating a 1200-pound steam plant.

It went something like "if Seaman Schmuckatelli turns this valve the wrong way, you lose head in that set of risers, which means that superheating steam will leak out ... and if not corrected soon, the ship goes silent and dark because the turbines stop turning ... "

Numerous other Schmuckatelli references were sprinkled through my memory, but that's the first one I remember.

[JoeJ]

Let's say I have 2 optimized characters. Character A is some kind of Rogue. Character B is an extreme example of MinMaxing a Rogue where they maxed Stealth at the cost of being no better than a commoner at anything else. The "Stealth or background character" extreme example can still have a rich RP, but the hooks the DM has available for engaging the player are severely limited (To either stealth, stuff a commoner can participate in, or PC death).

Regardless of roleplaying, rogue B's player is metagaming by trying to blackmail the DM. They're basically saying, "You have to cater to me, or my character will die."

Of course, the DM can always reply, "So? Keeping your character alive is your job, not mine."

[Boci]

Regardless of roleplaying, rogue B's player is metagaming by trying to blackmail the DM. They're basically saying, "You have to cater to me, or my character will die."

Of course, the DM can always reply, "So? Keeping your character alive is your job, not mine."

Its not quite that simple though. The DM approved a character who is useless without stealth, and they are a human being, not a robot. If their game wasn't going to be a good environment for such a character, they should have spoken up then.

[OldTrees1]

Regardless of roleplaying, rogue B's player is metagaming by trying to blackmail the DM. They're basically saying, "You have to cater to me, or my character will die."

Of course, the DM can always reply, "So? Keeping your character alive is your job, not mine."

A campaign is a joint activity. The DM makes some amount of effort to accommodate what the players want to play into what the DM want to run. As MinMaxing (a distinct subcategory of optimization) increases accommodating the character tends to be harder for the DM/more limiting on campaign design.

So yes, you and Boci are right that in the extreme case I made (rogue B), it is fine for the DM to not accommodate the character(either by not allowing the character, or allowing but with the warning that the campaign will not cater to the character). This criticism of MinMaxing I mentioned seems to have a shred of truth to it.

[mgshamster]

Its not quite that simple though. The DM approved a character who is useless without stealth, and they are a human being, not a robot. If their game wasn't going to be a good environment for such a character, they should have spoken up then.

"It's not my fault I made such a highly specialized character; you shouldn't have approved it."

[Boci]

"It's not my fault I made such a highly specialized character; you shouldn't have approved it."

Yes. I mean you're right in that its a bit presumptuous to come up with a character only good at one thing and just assume it will be fine, the player should check with the DM first, but the DM is the bigger jerk for approving a character they know won't be functional and not warning the player.


A campaign is a joint activity. The DM makes some amount of effort to accommodate what the players want to play into what the DM want to run. As MinMaxing (a distinct subcategory of optimization) increases accommodating the character tends to be harder for the DM/more limiting on campaign design.

So yes, you and Boci are right that in the extreme case I made (rogue B), it is fine for the DM to not accommodate the character(either by not allowing the character, or allowing but with the warning that the campaign will not cater to the character). This criticism of MinMaxing I mentioned seems to have a shred of truth to it.

I appreciate that it was more an example for for the topic and so not to be looked at too closely, but how do you imagine a game which doesn't cater to stealth unfolding? As tactics go, stealth is fairly versatile, and most scenarios will support such an option. Do all the enemies have blindsight?

[JoeJ]

Its not quite that simple though. The DM approved a character who is useless without stealth, and they are a human being, not a robot. If their game wasn't going to be a good environment for such a character, they should have spoken up then.

If it's an inexperienced player, I agree. In fact, the DM should probably help them make a more balanced character. If it's an experienced player just trying to grab as much cheese as they can, I'd just warn them that the world won't change to accommodate them, and let them play.

[Gtdead]

Being good only at one skill and crap at everything else is a pretty hard thing to do though.

Even a barbarian minmaxed for combat that is the epitome of a "dumb" character can do some stuff. Athletics has various applications. He can take stealth with variant human and high dex, get a toolkit from a background. There is the variant rule for str check intimidation.

It's hard to imagine a rogue being a social one trick pony when even a minmaxed barbarian can have some versatility.

[OldTrees1]

I appreciate that it was more an example for for the topic and so not to be looked at too closely, but how do you imagine a game which doesn't cater to stealth unfolding? As tactics go, stealth is fairly versatile, and most scenarios will support such an option. Do all the enemies have blindsight?

Stealth is fairly versatile(I tried to pick a more reasonable choice). The problem I saw was that the character being "Stealth or background character" meant that the DM had less to work with with respect to that character. Every situation with a stealth option would result in the stealth option. Every situation without a stealth option (say the other characters get into combat, or decide to engage a social aspect) would result in a background character. So while stealth is a fairly versatile mono ability, MinMaxing resulted in the character(extremely minmaxed Rogue B) having less options for developing story or contributing to situations (optimized Rogue A could sneak or fight or talk).

Do you see what I am describing?


Being good only at one skill and crap at everything else is a pretty hard thing to do though.

Even a barbarian minmaxed for combat that is the epitome of a "dumb" character can do some stuff. Athletics has various applications. He can take stealth with variant human and high dex, get a toolkit from a background. There is the variant rule for str check intimidation.

It's hard to imagine a rogue being a social one trick pony when even a minmaxed barbarian can have some versatility.

I was speaking in the system independent abstract which does make it easier to come up with clearer examples to discuss the abstract concept of MinMaxing despite them being harder to implement in a specific system.

5E as a system makes it hard to MinMax to the point of being notable worse at enough to have this problem. The only really place it might occur is in point buy of ability scores (15/15/15/08/08/08). even there that is merely a +3 difference.

[Boci]

Stealth is fairly versatile(I tried to pick a more reasonable choice). The problem I saw was that the character being "Stealth or background character" meant that the DM had less to work with with respect to that character. Every situation with a stealth option would result in the stealth option. Every situation without a stealth option (say the other characters get into combat, or decide to engage a social aspect) would result in a background character. So while stealth is a fairly versatile mono ability, MinMaxing resulted in the character(extremely minmaxed Rogue B) having less options for developing story or contributing to situations (optimized Rogue A could sneak or fight or talk).

Do you see what I am describing?

I get what you're describing yes, but its so contrived. Its not possible to build a stealth or background character in D&D 5, and indeed most games simply won't allow you. I guess pointbuy games would, be even world of darkness has you cap out of 5 ranks with a dice pool of 10, and then you still have some points left over to put elsewhere.

[OldTrees1]

I get what you're describing yes, but its so contrived. Its not possible to build a stealth or background character in D&D 5, and indeed most games simply won't allow you. I guess pointbuy games would, be even world of darkness has you cap out of 5 ranks with a dice pool of 10, and then you still have some points left over to put elsewhere.

Good. So then consider scaling back the example from the extreme example. Obviously this would also scale back the judgement of the example from the "let it die/ban it" to something less, and less, and less...

So can MinMaxing be detrimental to the campaign? Yes, it is proportional to the extremity of the MinMaxing. Is it possible to have it be a non negligible detrimental effect in 5E? No, I don't see how you could MinMax to a non negligible degree in 5E.

Essentially I was only mentioning it because the point cropped up various times in this thread and seemed to be the only shred of truth in the OP's position. What better way to show a position's error than by showing the extent of the only truth in the position? :smallbiggrin:

[Ewhit]

Played since 77. Group mini maxed since early 80's

It doesn't ruin game as the dm can always modify encounters

I don't prefer rolling as some might get great rolls and others awful and feelings of being lesser might make the want the character to die so they can re roll

I love the standard with a modifier rule increasing each by 1.
8,10,12,13,14,15 becomes 9,11,13,14,15,16 a little more heroic but still a -1 9 stat.
Only difference between standard and mod is lessen the negative stat to 9 and increase a stat to more heroism lvl said without going overboard. I really like this way best.
This gives most Demi human an 18 in 1 stat or possibly 2 17'

For human they get the variant +1/+1 feat bonus making 16/17 stat
Most humans will then buff a stat at lvl 4. 17/18 or 16/19
Most Demi will either stat 20 or 18/18 or get a feat
At lvl 4

[Boci]

Good. So then consider scaling back the example from the extreme example. Obviously this would also scale back the judgement of the example from the "let it die/ban it" to something less, and less, and less...

So can MinMaxing be detrimental to the campaign? Yes, it is proportional to the extremity of the MinMaxing. Is it possible to have it be a non negligible detrimental effect in 5E? No, I don't see how you could MinMax to a non negligible degree in 5E.

Yes, but its less "Can minmaxing be detrimental to a campaign" and more "can (insert character design philosophy) be detrimental to the game when it doesn't gel with the world the DM designed and/or the other players approach" .

[OldTrees1]

Yes, but its less "Can minmaxing be detrimental to a campaign" and more "can (insert character design philosophy) be detrimental to the game when it doesn't gel with the world the DM designed and/or the other players approach" .

Isn't the cases where the first is true a strict subset of the second because the minmaxing was the character design philosophy that when pushed too far was too far? Generalizing a point can be reasonable but does not detract from the specifics.

Essentially I was only mentioning it because the point cropped up various times in this thread and seemed to be the only shred of truth in the OP's position. What better way to show a position's error than by showing the extent of the only truth in the position?

[Sigreid]

Its not quite that simple though. The DM approved a character who is useless without stealth, and they are a human being, not a robot. If their game wasn't going to be a good environment for such a character, they should have spoken up then.

Do a lot of DMs "approve" characters? I don't think I've ever been in a gaming group where the group didn't just make what they want and go for it. Sure, some characters are more short lived than others, but /shrug.

[OldTrees1]

Do a lot of DMs "approve" characters? I don't think I've ever been in a gaming group where the group didn't just make what they want and go for it. Sure, some characters are more short lived than others, but /shrug.

I pay attention while the players decide to do character generation during the first session. If I ever saw a problem I would remark on it. I have not seen such a problem as of yet. So yes, I do "approve" characters.

[Dimcair]

it is bad roleplaying; Deliberately ignoring the roleplay of poor stats and roleplaying them as if they were actually higher with the justification that you are already suffering the mechanical penalty and that should be good enough - that is poor roleplaying.



I am taking your meaning here, that a lower score in int would be visible to outside people by way of behavior and/or reasoning (aka roleplay).
It has been pointed out to exhaustion that a orc and an ape have the same int modifier/stat but are vastly different in intellectual capabilities. You are therefore wrong.

I think I am going to call this the Orc-Ape fallacy. Or (O)r(c)ape-Fallacy. Because it is raping logic.



If you were so dexterous that you'd hit a target center mass every time, and your fellow shooter only hit it 70% of the time, would you expect him to be a bumbling idiot, stubbing his toes through every doorframe, tripping over curbs, unable to balance a tray of food (at least as well as my rogue above could balance a checkbook, eh?)

That's my point - there aren't hard-coded: 'if you have an 8 Int, you must remain quiet when the "smart guys" (whatever that means) start talking strategy'. If you have an 9 Dex, 'you must permanently reduce your HP by 1 every level to reflect the self-imposed damage by tripping on furniture and eating floor when someone has waxed it.' If you have an 8 Wis, 'you the player, must cover your eyes and never see the minimap. If you're playing TotM, you must hum whenever the DM starts describing the area the characters are in.' If you have an 8 Chr, 'you must wear a fully hooded cloak anytime you're in public (both player and character - so you don't break verisimilitude) or suffer 1 point of acid damage every time you meet a person of the opposite sex as they reflexively vomit in your direction.'


Exactly

[mgshamster]

I am taking your meaning here, that a lower score in int would be visible to outside people by way of behavior and/or reasoning (aka roleplay).
It has been pointed out to exhaustion that a orc and an ape have the same int modifier/stat but are vastly different in intellectual capabilities. You are therefore wrong.

I think I am going to call this the Orc-Ape fallacy. Or (O)r(c)ape-Fallacy. Because it is raping logic.

Or maybe it means that the designers believe apes to be quite clever, despite an inability to speak.

And the idea that failing to roleplay stats is somehow "raping logic" is beyond confounding. It's patently ridiculous.

I get that you guys want to meta-game the game to all heck, and it's ok if you do that, just don't pretend your roleplaying when you're not.

[Dimcair]

Or maybe it means that the designers believe apes to be quite clever, despite an inability to speak.

And the idea that failing to roleplay stats is somehow "raping logic" is beyond confounding. It's patently ridiculous.

I get that you guys want to meta-game the game to all heck, and it's ok if you do that, just don't pretend your roleplaying when you're not.

You tell me how it is logical that 2 different characters with the same int score are vastly different in their capacities?

One can read, write, speak, (not only its own but also different languages), understand complex concepts, cast spells, built houses, and more. The other one doesn't.

You are telling me that Apes are on the same level as humans. That is raping logic pretty hard I would say.

You can also spare the passive-aggressive meta-gaming comments. Either disprove the evidence or accept that your argument has no logical basis. And as always, at YOUR table you can tell the Orc warrior that he has to fling faeces now or you don't, your call mate.

Also notice the part in bold is contradicting yourself. You admit that an int stat can be interpreted differently (more rape).

Further, if you take that logic to the extreme and apply it to high stats (20 int), you better have a PHD or otherwise you won't be able to follow through in role-playing your character accordingly.

[JoeJ]

You tell me how it is logical that 2 different characters with the same int score are vastly different in their capacities?

The same way that a human and a bear with the same Str score are vastly different in their lifting capability.

[Dimcair]

The same way that a human and a bear with the same Str score are vastly different in their lifting capability.

At least there you can say it may have to do with four legs? And a vastly different anatomy?

Otherwise this is the same thing in green right? The ability scores do not actually dictate you much about the exact capabilities of a given character. They are therefore open to interpretation and therefore you don't have to role-play your 8 int character as dumb.

[Rakoa]

So as soon as you think about smart choices to make you are min-maxing, and therefore you suck at role-playing. This should be blue

You've completely failed to explain wh- oh god damn it.

[Sigreid]

I pay attention while the players decide to do character generation during the first session. If I ever saw a problem I would remark on it. I have not seen such a problem as of yet. So yes, I do "approve" characters.

Interesting. My groups have never gone farther than the DM laying out a starting campaign theme and maybe the players chatting in general terms about what they were interested in making. We generally make sure we have the bases covered, but nothing I would call approving a character.

[Sigreid]

At least there you can say it may have to do with four legs? And a vastly different anatomy?

Otherwise this is the same thing in green right? The ability scores do not actually dictate you much about the exact capabilities of a given character. They are therefore open to interpretation and therefore you don't have to role-play your 8 int character as dumb.

Yep. I have known several people over the years who were brilliant in their own way, but took the scenic route to the right conclusion. They weren't stupid by any means, they just had areas where their thought process didn't take some of the short cuts I would have expected.

[JoeJ]

At least there you can say it may have to do with four legs? And a vastly different anatomy?

RAW it has to do only with size. A bear (size large) has twice the lifting ability of a human (medium) with the same Strength score. Player's Handbook, p. 176.


Otherwise this is the same thing in green right? The ability scores do not actually dictate you much about the exact capabilities of a given character. They are therefore open to interpretation and therefore you don't have to role-play your 8 int character as dumb.

8 Int is only slightly less than average. Comparing human and animal intelligence in the real world is hugely problematic; there's no good reason to think they're directly comparable in the game, except in the sense of having the same die modifier for certain specified ability checks.

[georgie_leech]

Interesting. My groups have never gone farther than the DM laying out a starting campaign theme and maybe the players chatting in general terms about what they were interested in making. We generally make sure we have the bases covered, but nothing I would call approving a character.

Neither have the DM's I've played with. I make a point of letting them know what I'm doing and any mechanical plans I have, as well as a quick outline of their character to make sure they fit. I'd rather the drama of playing mercenary in a set of heroes or vice versa be in game rather than between players. It varies from group to group.

As a DM, I prefer to know what my players are playing mechanically and character wise so I know what sort of hooks are appropriate to insert.

[Sigreid]

Neither have the DM's I've played with. I make a point of letting them know what I'm doing and any mechanical plans I have, as well as a quick outline of their character to make sure they fit. I'd rather the drama of playing mercenary in a set of heroes or vice versa be in game rather than between players. It varies from group to group.

As a DM, I prefer to know what my players are playing mechanically and character wise so I know what sort of hooks are appropriate to insert.

Agreed. Of course I likely benefit from my groups being long standing friends who have agreed from the outset that we're there to have fun together and not murder each other. At least not unless we're playing Paranoia. :D

[georgie_leech]

Agreed. Of course I likely benefit from my groups being long standing friends who have agreed from the outset that we're there to have fun together and not murder each other. At least not unless we're playing Paranoia. :D

Hey, nothing wrong with a system where those aren't mutually exclusive :smallbiggrin:

[GraakosGraakos]

I min max every character, but only after concept has been achieved. So my question is always "How can I make the most badass non magical bounty hunter? The dirtiest street fighter? The Tolkeinest Elf warrior?" And then I min/max within that. To me, playing the BEST version of what I want is the most fun.

And I don't have a lot of fun with people who don't even care enough about their character to put effort into them.

[Dimcair]

RAW it has to do only with size. A bear (size large) has twice the lifting ability of a human (medium) with the same Strength score. Player's Handbook, p. 176.


I am taking this as that your example was flawed?



8 Int is only slightly less than average. Comparing human and animal intelligence in the real world is hugely problematic; there's no good reason to think they're directly comparable in the game, except in the sense of having the same die modifier for certain specified ability checks.

There is no difference between humans and animals in the real world. Save for our mental capacities/evolution. Which apes are a good example for because they are (potentially) so closely related?

I don't see what point you are trying to make. That we shouldn't bring real life into mechanic discussions? And how does that proof/contribute to the point that you need to play your 8-int character as significantly dumber than a 14 int character?

[acire]

[...] DnD is not a numbers game it's a roleplaying game.

Actually, it's both. What do you think is the point of the stats are? You talk about roleplay and creating a backstory, then you imply that you rely on crappy stats to have anything for your NPCs to talk about with PCs.

My second ever PC was a half-orc sorcerer with a pretty good build and two pages of backstory, including family tensions and multiple ex-lovers. I didn't need to give her a 6 Charisma to make her interesting. I didn't bother explaining her stats in her backstory because to me backstory is about relationships and interests and personality traits, not explaining my ability scores. I would argue that having "stereotypical" ability scores allowed me to better flesh out who my character was rather than focusing the backstory on explaining why her build sucks.

[JoeJ]

I am taking this as that your example was flawed?

Um... no it wasn't?


There is no difference between humans and animals in the real world. Save for our mental capacities/evolution. Which apes are a good example for because they are (potentially) so closely related?

I don't see what point you are trying to make. That we shouldn't bring real life into mechanic discussions? And how does that proof/contribute to the point that you need to play your 8-int character as significantly dumber than a 14 int character?

What IQ range would you give an average coyote?

[Dimcair]

Um... no it wasn't?



Yes, it was. You compared two characters (supposedly equal) with equal str scores. How much can they lift? Supposedly this is proof that even though the score is the same the outcome can be different.

But then you quote the PHB for saying that the size modifier is what makes it different. So the str score had nothing to do with it and there are actual rules guiding the issue.




What IQ range would you give an average coyote?

None, because he can't take an IQ test. Therefore the measure of IQ is not applicable cross-species, yada yada.

But I am not discussing real life IQ scores in the contrast of a tabletop. ]

Of course I have the easy time here, because I am on the side that says: open to interpretation, can be dumb, doesn't have to be. There are different forms of intelligence. Where support can be found to validate the assumptions.
While the opposition is on the side that there is a rough table for how you need to role-play your character according to certain scores. Where there is no existing proof. And if you don't you are bad at role-play.

[mgshamster]

There is no difference between humans and animals in the real world. Save for our mental capacities/evolution. Which apes are a good example for because they are (potentially) so closely related?

Point of note - humans are animals. Humans are also apes.


And how does that proof/contribute to the point that you need to play your 8-int character as significantly dumber than a 14 int character?

Would you play an Int 2 character as significantly dumber than an Int 8 character?

[JoeJ]

Yes, it was. You compared two characters (supposedly equal) with equal str scores. How much can they lift? Supposedly this is proof that even though the score is the same the outcome can be different.

But then you quote the PHB for saying that the size modifier is what makes it different. So the str score had nothing to do with it and there are actual rules guiding the issue.

Thank you for making my point for me. Strength is the only ability that is connected in the rules to any objective measure, and it turns out that it doesn't mean the same thing for every character. By extension, all the other ability scores, for which we don't have any objective measure, could vary as well.


None, because he can't take an IQ test. Therefore the measure of IQ is not applicable cross-species, yada yada.

But I am not discussing real life IQ scores in the contrast of a tabletop. ]

Of course I have the easy time here, because I am on the side that says: open to interpretation, can be dumb, doesn't have to be. There are different forms of intelligence. Where support can be found to validate the assumptions.
While the opposition is on the side that there is a rough table for how you need to role-play your character according to certain scores. Where there is no existing proof. And if you don't you are bad at role-play.

Okay, then we agree. The ability score does not dictate the character's actual abilities beyond the die modifier they have to perform certain game-defined tasks. I misunderstood you to be arguing the opposite.

[JoeJ]

Would you play an Int 2 character as significantly dumber than an Int 8 character?

How do you get 2 with 4d6d1?

In any case, I would play an Int 6 ape as dumber than an Int 3 human with regards to specifically human tasks, like writing or carpentry, but smarter than an Int 20 human with regards to living in the ape's natural habitat.

[mgshamster]

How do you get 2 with 4d6d1?

In any case, I would play an Int 6 ape as dumber than an Int 3 human with regards to specifically human tasks, like writing or carpentry, but smarter than an Int 20 human with regards to living in the ape's natural habitat.

Why are you assuming that you're rolling for it? Curses, disease, etc.. can drop int.

If a 6 point spread between 8 and 14 has no discernible difference, then a 6 point spread between 2 and 8 should also have no discernible difference.

Also note that I've never said one should play an Int 8 character as dumb, I said that its poor roleplaying to ignore a character's low mental stats and just play it as your own intellect (or a high intellect) and then use the mechanics as justification for doing so.

Remember - that is what was being discussed: ignore low mental scores and just play it as yourself as a player, the penalty to saves and skills represents the low score well enough to not have to roleplay it as well.

From there, dimcair has assumed that I've been arguing that an Int 8 character should be roleplayed as dumb or you're doing it wrong, going so far as to accuse me of "raping logic."

[Dimcair]

Thank you for making my point for me. Strength is the only ability that is connected in the rules to any objective measure, and it turns out that it doesn't mean the same thing for every character. By extension, all the other ability scores, for which we don't have any objective measure, could vary as well.

Wait, what?:smallconfused: -



Okay, then we agree. The ability score does not dictate the character's actual abilities beyond the die modifier they have to perform certain game-defined tasks. I misunderstood you to be arguing the opposite.

- oh right, now it all makes sense :smallbiggrin:
How did you misunderstand me that much :smalltongue:

[Pex]

Pathfinder but same difference.

In one campaign I'm playing a Paladin with 8 Int. He was originally Human but due to campaign plot point he got evolved into an Aasimar at 8th level. Rather than redo the character for the 8 bonus human skill points he should no longer have, for the next 8 levels I just get one less skill point. As a net result, for the next 8 levels I would get 0 skill points. 2 for class, -1 for IN, -1 for evolution payment. Even when he was human I played him metaphorically as dumber than a rock because he only got 2 skill points per level. He has high Charisma and Diplomacy so is very polite and courteous, but I purposely say dumb things sometimes. He's a simpleton. It's a bit comic relief. However, when in combat he's tactically smart. He's a Paladin. He's been trained to fight evil. He knows what it means to be a Paladin. The dumbness goes away when in Paladin mode - combat or diplomacy. Roleplaying fun will not ruin everyone else's fun by having incompetency ruin Plans. When it comes to being a Paladin, he's very competent. At 12th level I increased IN to 9 to reflect he's starting to learn. I'm going to roleplay that by occasionally getting it when someone makes a joke at his expense for being an idiot and take offense. At 16th level I'll increase IN to 10. By Pathfinder rules he'll get 16 skill points to spend. He's no longer an idiot.

In another campaign I'm playing a Human Oracle with 8 Int. This character gets 4 skill points per level. This character is not an idiot. 4 skill points per level is enough to know he does learn. To reflect the 8 Int I take a back seat when the party needs to come up with a strategy to do something. He's competent enough to follow The Plan and can offer advice to improve it; I just don't make the initial proposal. Otherwise, he's very good at being an Oracle because that's what he is.

[OldTrees1]

Interesting. My groups have never gone farther than the DM laying out a starting campaign theme and maybe the players chatting in general terms about what they were interested in making. We generally make sure we have the bases covered, but nothing I would call approving a character.

Eh. I get bored when the players are busy with character generation. Paying attention helps alleviate that boredom (It also allows me to be more familiar with what hooks make sense for my friends' characters). What does your DM do to pass the time?

[JoeJ]

How did you misunderstand me that much :smalltongue:

Probably lack of coffee.

[goto124]

So erm... what if someone "minmaxes" (as far as I can tell, it means specializing extremely hard) to fill a particular role in the party, and the other roles (such as social skills) are filled in by other party members?

We seem to have ignored the existence of other PCs so far.

[Lines]

So erm... what if someone "minmaxes" (as far as I can tell, it means specializing extremely hard) to fill a particular role in the party, and the other roles (such as social skills) are filled in by other party members?

We seem to have ignored the existence of other PCs so far.

5e is very minmaxing in nature already. Martial characters basically pick a role or two while casters get to choose from several, but in general you pick a thing to be good at and be good at it. In some editions you could have say 4 generalist characters that are decent at every role or 4 specialist characters each covering a different outlook, but in 4e and 5e the latter option is pretty much your only choice unless you really like bards.

[Lines]

How do you get 2 with 4d6d1?

In any case, I would play an Int 6 ape as dumber than an Int 3 human with regards to specifically human tasks, like writing or carpentry, but smarter than an Int 20 human with regards to living in the ape's natural habitat.

Are you sure? Average int humans seem to do a lot better than apes in the apes own habitat.

[OldTrees1]

So erm... what if someone "minmaxes" (as far as I can tell, it means specializing extremely hard) to fill a particular role in the party, and the other roles (such as social skills) are filled in by other party members?

We seem to have ignored the existence of other PCs so far.

Some tasks need only 1 member to succeed (say diplomacy or searching), other tasks need everyone to succeed (say stealth or combat). You are completely right that the first category would be judged at the party level rather than the individual character level.

Although I don't think one can Min one of those areas hard enough in 5E to be relevant to DM campaign design decisions.

[Solusek]

I min max every character, but only after concept has been achieved. So my question is always "How can I make the most badass non magical bounty hunter? The dirtiest street fighter? The Tolkeinest Elf warrior?" And then I min/max within that. To me, playing the BEST version of what I want is the most fun.

And I don't have a lot of fun with people who don't even care enough about their character to put effort into them.

This is exactly how I go about it too. My ideas for what character to make aren't based on min/maxing or trying to be overpowered - but once I have an idea for what I want to play, I will pour tons of research into that trying to make that character idea work as well as possible within the confines of the rules. Including min/maxing them where needed.

I look at it a lot like building a deck for a trading card game. Maybe I feel like playing a goblin deck (regardless of whether goblin decks are currently even any good in the metagame). So I build the best goblin deck I can. Just like I build the best character I can within the parameters initially set.

[KorvinStarmast]

If a 6 point spread between 8 and 14 has no discernible difference, then a 6 point spread between 2 and 8 should also have no discernible difference. Uh, not quite.
3d6 is not a straight line probability, it is a distribution under a classic bell curve. 8-14 represents the fat part of "normal" while 2-8 (or 14-20) represent outliers an unusual.

Oh, and what Pex said about his Pathfinder characters. Twice.

[mgshamster]

Uh, not quite.
3d6 is not a straight line probability, it is a distribution under a classic bell curve. 8-14 represents the fat part of "normal" while 2-8 (or 14-20) represent outliers an unusual.

Oh, and what Pex said about his Pathfinder characters. Twice.

Let's explore this. The further you get away from the norm, the more extreme the difference.

Let's say 8-14 has no discernible difference, other than the -1 to +2 modifier. The further we get away from 8 going left, the more of a profound effect it has. The difference between 7 and 8 is less than the difference between 6 and 7, which is less than the difference between 5 and 6, and so on.

This means that our int 6 gorilla can't be compared to our int 7 Orc in the same way that our int 7 Orc can be compared to an Int 8 human.

On a side note, Gorillas are more intelligent than people here are giving them credit for. They engage in battle tactics and warfare in the nature world against other tribes, they have complex social structures, they have rules and customs within ther own groups (customs which can change when you change the group dynamic), they have division of loot/treasure when acquired in accordance with those same rules and customs (which again, can change when you change the group dynamic). They even use tools. Those all require a higher level of intelligence than people here seem to assign them.

[AnAardvark]

Isn't this just a variation on the Stormwind Fallacy? I get that some people think that INT and IQ are related, so an 8 INT is the equivalent of an 80 IQ, but it doesn't have to be.

Exactly. To a large extent, the mental stats (including CHA) reflect how good you are at certain types of things. A low INT could mean that you are stupid, or it could mean that you are poorly educated, and tend not to think things through.

[Mith]

Those all require a higher level of intelligence than people here seem to assign them.

People forget that humans are also Great Apes, I think. The problem is probably more of a cross species communication difficulty then the Apes actual capacity for us to actually assess them for comparable intelligence.

[Segev]

People forget that humans are also Great Apes, I think. The problem is probably more of a cross species communication difficulty then the Apes actual capacity for us to actually assess them for comparable intelligence.

I must disagree, I'm afraid. There is more than enough space in the world where non-human great apes could have built civilization without human interference. They haven't. They are smart animals, and can use tools, even fashion really simple ones by modifying natural objects. I do not believe (though I could be mistaken) they have ever joined part to part to make something new. They do not build shelters.

I have heard of them learning sign language; I have not heard of them learning to read (which would be a HUGE break-through). If they can be taught to read and write, that could start moving them towards something resembling human intelligence.

They ultimately do not demonstrate, in captivity or the wild, a human capacity for learning, understanding, or development. They're not as smart as humans.

(And yes, using human civilization markers as intelligence measures is valid; we are the dominant species on the planet precisely because of our ability to organize through civilization and use that to boot-strap understanding and technology, which has led to explosions in population and great stability and health and quality of life.)

[Theodoxus]

Again, the problem revolves around the fact that not only are the numbers attributed to a score not codified and thus open to wild speculation, but the attributes themselves are only ephemerally described. Strength is the most codified with a 'you can lift/pull/push this much weight' listing. Dex - no one even knows what Dex is supposed to be. Some combination of hand/eye coordination, muscle memory, mental acuity and flexibility. And don't even get me started on Wisdom, much less Charisma (looks? force of personality? mental drive? huh?)

Because it's ALL open to interpretation, it means none of it really matters - at least not as far as playing your character. I'd bet, given the same write up, we'd all play the character vastly differently. Say, a straight 14's human wizard. Some would see that 14 Int on a wizard and play him like a bumbling hedgemage, barely able to remember how to cast Magic Missiles. Others would play him like any other wizard, just with fewer spells and a slightly lower to Hit and Save DC.

Part of me hopes 6E codifies what exactly a the attribute numbers means (on top of getting rid of the fat numbers and just keep the modifiers). But it'd be a departure - and maybe not even a good one.

What I don't want is a list of attribute equivalents... oh, a 20 Charisma is what a
Quezacotl has? Awesome, so lets base my sorcerer on a mythical creature I've never interacted with to determine what a 20 Charisma is...

[mgshamster]

And don't even get me started on Wisdom, much less Charisma (looks? force of personality? mental drive? huh?)

Or in the case of the paladin, charisma is the strength of their conviction.

[Sigreid]

Eh. I get bored when the players are busy with character generation. Paying attention helps alleviate that boredom (It also allows me to be more familiar with what hooks make sense for my friends' characters). What does your DM do to pass the time?

Any member of the group can DM. Usually the setup and character idea sharing occurs via email and everyone shows up with their character on session 1. Occasionally at the end of a session, or before we start the current planned one someone will say "I have an idea I want to know if you guys are interested in playing", and then people will roll up there characters between sessions, assuming people are down for the idea.

[OldTrees1]

Any member of the group can DM. Usually the setup and character idea sharing occurs via email and everyone shows up with their character on session 1. Occasionally at the end of a session, or before we start the current planned one someone will say "I have an idea I want to know if you guys are interested in playing", and then people will roll up there characters between sessions, assuming people are down for the idea.

The green is the extent of the character "approval" your group runs (excluding evaluation after the fact which likely has never needed to occur for your group) and the purple is probably the reason why.

That sounds typical of the friends playing with friends groups. My group only has more than yours because character generation happens the first session(rather than in emails), which leaves me with 30 minutes of boredom otherwise.

[Sigreid]

The green is the extent of the character "approval" your group runs (excluding evaluation after the fact which likely has never needed to occur for your group) and the purple is probably the reason why.

That sounds typical of the friends playing with friends groups. My group only has more than yours because character generation happens the first session(rather than in emails), which leaves me with 30 minutes of boredom otherwise.

The green doesn't have anything to do with approval. It's really just a FYI, giving you a bit of information to work with if you need it. Can't recall anyone ever even suggesting a change to a character. And yes, it works because we all are friends already familiar with each other. And, tbh the people in the group have their favorite rolls in the party so it's rarely that much of a surprise who wants to do what.

[Lines]

I must disagree, I'm afraid. There is more than enough space in the world where non-human great apes could have built civilization without human interference. They haven't. They are smart animals, and can use tools, even fashion really simple ones by modifying natural objects. I do not believe (though I could be mistaken) they have ever joined part to part to make something new. They do not build shelters.

I have heard of them learning sign language; I have not heard of them learning to read (which would be a HUGE break-through). If they can be taught to read and write, that could start moving them towards something resembling human intelligence.

They ultimately do not demonstrate, in captivity or the wild, a human capacity for learning, understanding, or development. They're not as smart as humans.
Language wise, the main markers are the inability to comprehend syntax and the lack of use of the hard learned knowledge as an actual language. When taught something like sign language, an ape uses it to communicate their needs, you can teach five gorillas the same sign language and they'll never use it to converse.


(And yes, using human civilization markers as intelligence measures is valid; we are the dominant species on the planet precisely because of our ability to organize through civilization and use that to boot-strap understanding and technology, which has led to explosions in population and great stability and health and quality of life.)
This one I don't agree with, agriculture was a downgrade in health and quality of life for almost all of human history, it just allowed greater population. The tool use mentioned before is a much better intelligence marker.

[OldTrees1]

The green doesn't have anything to do with approval. It's really just a FYI, giving you a bit of information to work with if you need it. Can't recall anyone ever even suggesting a change to a character. And yes, it works because we all are friends already familiar with each other. And, tbh the people in the group have their favorite rolls in the party so it's rarely that much of a surprise who wants to do what.

I think you are setting to strict a definition on "approval". You are friends, are familiar with each other, and trust each other. As such you should expect to see near or exactly 0 changes during an "approval" step. As such, since amount of awareness during approval decreases rapidly with increased justified trust, I believe that is your "approval" stage even if you do not think to call it such.

[goto124]

What if the GM had approved a character that turned out to be overpowered, and did not spot the overpoweredness beforehand? Looking at character sheets and playing them out in an actual game can be rather different.


5e is very minmaxing in nature already. Martial characters basically pick a role or two while casters get to choose from several, but in general you pick a thing to be good at and be good at it. In some editions you could have say 4 generalist characters that are decent at every role or 4 specialist characters each covering a different outlook, but in 4e and 5e the latter option is pretty much your only choice unless you really like bards.

"Why are all of you refluffed bards?" :P


Some tasks need only 1 member to succeed (say diplomacy or searching), other tasks need everyone to succeed (say stealth or combat). You are completely right that the first category would be judged at the party level rather than the individual character level.

Although I don't think one can Min one of those areas hard enough in 5E to be relevant to DM campaign design decisions.

Interesting to split tasks into those two categories, though combat is complex enough to be split into different roles ("tank", "controller", "healer", "damager", etc). A party with only one stealthy member would use their stealth in very different ways, such as only sending that one guy to scout the area instead of trying to get the entire party stealthing.

Still don't see why 'minmaxing' is inherently wrong though.

[OldTrees1]

Interesting to split tasks into those two categories, though combat is complex enough to be split into different roles ("tank", "controller", "healer", "damager", etc). A party with only one stealthy member would use their stealth in very different ways, such as only sending that one guy to scout the area instead of trying to get the entire party stealthing.

Still don't see why 'minmaxing' is inherently wrong though.

O.O I am glad you don't see MinMaxing as inherently wrong. I am worried you would even mention such an absurd statement. Perhaps I should restate my claim so that you can see the stark difference.

After a point, increased MinMaxing results in more restriction on campaign design. This is not inherently wrong. Even in excess it is not inherently wrong. However excess (like the word "too" it implies too much) implies it has gone beyond what the DM wants to deal with.

Do I consider it possible to MinMax to excess in 5E? No. In 3.5 the question is DM dependent but in 5E the answer is a clear No.

Only 1 person being able to sneak means that you only get Non-stealth OR scout. If everyone could sneak(less MinMaxed) then you gain the option to sneak the party past. If no one can sneak, then you only get non-stealth. All of this is within the reasonable range but it does highlight the start of decreased options/campaign design restrictions.

[Mith]

I must disagree, I'm afraid. There is more than enough space in the world where non-human great apes could have built civilization without human interference. They haven't. They are smart animals, and can use tools, even fashion really simple ones by modifying natural objects. I do not believe (though I could be mistaken) they have ever joined part to part to make something new. They do not build shelters.

I have heard of them learning sign language; I have not heard of them learning to read (which would be a HUGE break-through). If they can be taught to read and write, that could start moving them towards something resembling human intelligence.

They ultimately do not demonstrate, in captivity or the wild, a human capacity for learning, understanding, or development. They're not as smart as humans.

(And yes, using human civilization markers as intelligence measures is valid; we are the dominant species on the planet precisely because of our ability to organize through civilization and use that to boot-strap understanding and technology, which has led to explosions in population and great stability and health and quality of life.)


Language wise, the main markers are the inability to comprehend syntax and the lack of use of the hard learned knowledge as an actual language. When taught something like sign language, an ape uses it to communicate their needs, you can teach five gorillas the same sign language and they'll never use it to converse.

Good points from both of you. I had was that they had the ability for communication with sign language with people, but not to the same degree that humans do, since that requires the ability to understand a theory of other minds.

[JoeJ]

I have heard of them learning sign language; I have not heard of them learning to read (which would be a HUGE break-through). If they can be taught to read and write, that could start moving them towards something resembling human intelligence.

The Yerkes National Primate Research Center taught bonobos and chimps to not only read but write (type on a keyboard actually; they didn't try to get them to hold a pencil). They used an artificial language they called Yerkish, which uses lexigrams instead of phonetic letters. It's not nearly as complex as a natural language, but it's still pretty impressive.

[Dimcair]

Also note that I've never said one should play an Int 8 character as dumb, I said that its poor roleplaying to ignore a character's low mental stats and just play it as your own intellect (or a high intellect) and then use the mechanics as justification for doing so.

Remember - that is what was being discussed: ignore low mental scores and just play it as yourself as a player, the penalty to saves and skills represents the low score well enough to not have to roleplay it as well.

From there, dimcair has assumed that I've been arguing that an Int 8 character should be roleplayed as dumb or you're doing it wrong, going so far as to accuse me of "raping logic."

Remember ~ what is being discussed is the logical implication of yours that ability stats have to be played accurately. Your basic meaning is that that means you need to roleplay a 8 int character as a character with a poor IQ and a 16 int character needs to reflect a high IQ. Lets be absolutely clear about this, you never corrected my interpretation of your meaning to this point, making your 'reminding' of the topic and rephrasing the basis for the argument kind of weird. You are very clear that a stat weakness needs to be played as a weakness, going from intelligence it is dumb or smart really, not much between.

Apes and Orcs have vastly different mental capacities, and yet you would roleplay them the same since you base accurate roleplay on stats. Raping logic simply comes out of the name: OrcApe~fallacy ~ Same int, vastly different. To assume int has to do with non~mechanical behaviour is therefore questionable.

Furthermore, as people HAD to point out, apes are quite intelligent but far away from the evolution level of humans. I did not deem it worth the effort to explain to people the basic facts other people did in detail. If you can't identify a major difference between apes and humans then my breath is wasted.

[OldTrees1]

Apes and Orcs have vastly different mental capacities, and yet you would roleplay them the same since you base accurate roleplay on stats. Raping logic simply comes out of the name: OrcApe~fallacy ~ Same int, vastly different. To assume int has to do with non~mechanical behaviour is therefore questionable.

1) Never mistake bad content as good rules. Aka WotC not only can make mistakes but frequently do make mistakes.

If you see a problem with Apes and Orcs having similar Int scores based upon your mental models of both (I do), then you obviously consider WotC's assignation of their Int scores to be one of their many mistakes.

2) If intelligence is a spectrum and Int scores are discrete, does this imply each Int score needs to cover a band of multiple distinct intelligences? Yes it does.

Test the math, map any set of finite discrete points to a continuum.

So if your only objection to RPing each int score as one of the intelligences in its band, is that WotC mistakenly assigned Apes and Orcs similar scores, then I suggest correcting the typo and moving on.

[Lines]

1) Never mistake bad content as good rules. Aka WotC not only can make mistakes but frequently do make mistakes.

If you see a problem with Apes and Orcs having similar Int scores based upon your mental models of both (I do), then you obviously consider WotC's assignation of their Int scores to be one of their many mistakes.

2) If intelligence is a spectrum and Int scores are discrete, does this imply each Int score needs to cover a band of multiple distinct intelligences? Yes it does.

Test the math, map any set of finite discrete points to a continuum.

So if your only objection to RPing each int score as one of the intelligences in its band, is that WotC mistakenly assigned Apes and Orcs similar scores, then I suggest correcting the typo and moving on.

I agree with you regarding WotC screwing up monster scores by not caring about consistency, but it should be noted mental scores really can be stretched a few points either way - an int 16 wizard might be roughly as intelligent as an int 12 person in real terms, but to keep up with his peers he studies long into the night, develops effective mental strategies, study habits and mnemonics to do what comes naturally to a more 'intelligent' person. As a result while he's technically just above average, his int is 16 as far as the game is concerned and that's what's on his sheet.

[Theodoxus]

And how do you play a 20 Int character? Or a 20 Wis character? Dumbing down is pretty easy, if that's your want, but smartening up? Are you relying on the DM to provide you clues and hints when your super-genius character is being played by an average intelligence human?

You get into a sticky wicket when you start reflecting arbitrary attribute scores to specific numbers.

"Sorry Ted, you're just not quite smart enough to play a wizard properly. But you're a nice person, why not try a bard, or cleric instead? It'll be great."