why do people minmax?

[juggalotis]

Off the hop I am not a min maxer myself but i also dont have anything against the people who are. im just curious as to the reason those of you who are do it. Call it psychoanalytical if you wish.

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

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

[senrath]

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

[RagnaroksChosen]

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

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


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

[valadil]

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

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

[Ravens_cry]

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

[Sinfire Titan]

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

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


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

[Shinizak]

I do it instinctively. I see rules and I want to follow them, I see numbers and I instinctively begin to change them.

[Optimystik]

Because not sucking > sucking.

[juggalotis]

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

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

[Douglas]

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

[randomhero00]

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

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

[Lycanthromancer]

(neither does Paizo, but they at least know how to challenge people)

Just because people on their boards are specially challenged...

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

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

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

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

[Nich_Critic]

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

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

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

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

[Yukitsu]

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

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

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

[Sinfire Titan]

i personally like the challenge of being hard pressed. instead of playing on easy mode. but to each their own.

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



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

[Curmudgeon]

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

[Superglucose]

{scrubbed}

[Sliver]

i personally like the challenge of being hard pressed. instead of playing on easy mode. but to each their own.

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

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

[Ravens_cry]

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

Some find more joy in the challenge of making a super effective character, and seen their enemies flee before them and then hearing the lamentations of their women. To them, that is what is good in role play.

[Penitent]

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

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

[JaronK]

I want characters to be able to do what I envision them doing.

JaronK

[RelentlessImp]

Because a character with 30+ INT wouldn't make stupid choices about things that will affect him for the rest of his life. Realistically, that is.

[Kyeudo]

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

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

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

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

[Tiki Snakes]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ravens_cry]

Because a character with 30+ INT wouldn't make stupid choices about things that will affect him for the rest of his life. Realistically, that is.

That would be more Wisdom.
Doc Brown can invent a Time Machine a DeLorean but he'll cheat out some Libyan terrorists for the plutonium to power the thing.
Also, what first level character is going to have 30 plus Intelligence?
Besides Pun Pun of course.

[Yukitsu]

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

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

[Ravens_cry]

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

Only because of the intervention of another character. In the first timeline, Doc Brown DIES. As in dead, kaput, shuffled off his mortal coil, kicked the bucket, gone to sing in the the choir eternal, went to see Ol' Scratch.
Murdered.
With the way time travel sort of works in BttF, the Doc Brown Marty saw die is still dead, just in another time line.

[Harperfan7]

For me, I like my characters to be the best at something. As in, the best there is at their level.

I don't necessarily want to be overpowered.

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

[Godskook]

I want characters to be able to do what I envision them doing.

JaronK

This, this, this, and this.

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

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

-OR-

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gnaritas]

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

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

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