How to Handle A Min-Maxer


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 201 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh god, I am so sick of these threads. Different people enjoy playing the game differently. Don't invalidate, fudge, or cheat to mitigate a player's build. Make sure the game offers a diversity of role playing options and encourage this minmaxed player to role play. Ask him to make sure everyone is having fun in combat and add extra combatants if he seems overpowered.

Don't specifically target him and his abilities unless the enemies would have reason to know to do this. Don't directly the universe towards ruining his fun. This sort of issue is so easy to work out with a little communication and not overreacting. The very fact that you entitled this thread "how to handle a min-maxer" is already a troubling sign. Your goal is, how can I make this fun and challenging. That's doable. Targeting the one guy is a huge mistake and poor GMing.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

A bit late to the party, so I haven't gone through and read everything after the OP, but...

In this situation, as in many situations in life, Step One is to check oneself. If you unknowingly have poorly-calibrated expectations of what "normal" is in a given area of life/gaming, then you'll inevitably misjudge the nature of that which differs from yourself.

For example, I quite commonly encounter people (especially those who have played multiple versions of D&D) who don't realize that in 3.X/PF, wealth/magic item progression and the accumulation of miscellaneous bonuses is a built-in feature of the system. They think that your starting stats and class bonuses (i.e., BAB and base save bonuses) are the only "givens", and that magic items and such are "extras" that you shouldn't count on. As a result of this misunderstanding, such folks will encounter players who are actually quite moderate in their playstyles, but see their assumptions of relevant magical gear as "powergaming" or "player entitlement". Both of those concepts are real things that exist, but the player/GM who misunderstands how Pathfinder is structured misidentifies other players as fitting those molds when they truly don't.

Now, a wise person will respond to such differences—especially if they encounter the same thing repeatedly—by first looking for ways to verify if their own preconceptions could be off the mark, and only seek out "how to handle" the dissenting views once they've verified the proper calibration of their own understanding of the situation. Unfortunately, too many folks neglect to take that step and instead (to go back to my above example) just continuously label one person after another as a powergamer/min-maxer. Some even go so far as to draw the conclusion that they must be witnessing an entire generation of entitled munchkins, rather than ever consider that they themselves might have a simple misunderstanding about one game.

The same goes for your other areas of concern, such as the respective roles of the GM and the rules. In each aspect of the game in which you consider this player to be deviating from the default assumptions of the game, have you put in the work to verify that you actually know what the default assumptions of the game truly are?

Only once you have done that can you truly assess which of you is acting in accordance with "the norm" and which of you is desiring something different (though it's also possible that you're both looking for deviations). Once it's clear which of whose desires are actually requests for houserules/variations, each such idea can be discussed among the group, with all of you working together to craft a mutually-enjoyable experience.

Honesty with each other, built upon honesty with oneself. Anything else is a train wreck waiting to happen. Best of luck! :)

Grand Lodge

coldvictim wrote:
I would err on the side of the Min part of the Min-Maxer. A min-maxed melee fighter, throw in flying or magical creatures and skill checks. min-maxed rogue, throw in their natural enemy higher level barbarians (they don't like not getting their sneak attack). Min-Max wizard, throw some reflex saves at him.

I agree with CV, throw them into situations that play on their weakness.

I was getting ready to run a home game, where a demon was trying to revive and was invading the party's nightmares. Every failed will save only made the later ones harder to pass... to a point where the party could possibly turn on each other near the end game.

Use the story setting for this purpose- it is a horror setting. Try to unnerve the guy, and/or use enemies that have attacks that leave him rolling his weakest save.

What's the guy's backstory? Whenever he rolls a crit, have him roll a will save- as if he's seeing a loved one, or even a teammate taking blow- then give him the option: forego the critical chance, to shake off the illusion; or go for the critical chance, and be left shaken after failing his will save.
[And to be fair, apply this to everyone, with out the stacked will save.]

Play the story setting to it's fullest without obviously throwing him under the bus.


I don't want to throw him under the bus, and I do want to let him shine in combat where he is the best at. Since, like others said, the others will shine in roleplaying. I guess a better way to word all this is how to, if he does prove to be league a head of everyone else (since the campaign has yet to star), make combat fair for everyone?

So far from what I gathered people have suggested...

-Nerf his damage. Which is bad cause he does have knowledge of like all monsters. And it defeats what he wants to do with his characters. I also don't think that that would build good DM-Player relations.

-Buff the others. I wouldn't mind that but giving them free or even planned loot to put them on a even playing ground he will likely feel left out by not receiving a buff.

-Let him stomp out combat. Yes, this would be fair but as I stated the others also enjoy combat.

What I will do. Is talk to him about how this campaign will be, some of the issues I'm worried about and discuss these with him and the other players to help build up a solution.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alia Blackburn wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:

I'm suspecting the original idea was a Tiefling Bladebound, Kensai, Spellblade Magus.

Yes actually, that's what he's doing. I got him to drop one of those, though at the top of my head I can't remember what it is.

Also, a lot of you are assuming the others don't even like combat. They do enjoy it, it's just not what they LOVE THE MOST ABOUT THE GAME.

The main thing I'm worried about is not the fact he is a power gamer (which is the term I should have used). It's that I fear I won't be able to cater to his and the other combat wants and needs at future levels. In order to make combat challenging for him a tougher monster would be needed, but this monster if the others tried to go against would die outright and might not even damage it. I don't want to make it so the other players don't even want to engage in combat knowing that there is only one player who can handle it.

I'm not talking a boss. I'm talking normal encounters.

I want to repeat. THE OTHER FOUR DO ENJOY COMBAT.

Well, now that we know what he'd like to play, we can come to more specific advice on what to do.

Obviously, to challenge a powergamer, you have to think carefully about the game system. If you really understand the character he's playing, you can come up with good challenges.

Magi are a powerful class, but with some weak spots.


  • Their biggest strength is the potential for going nova against a single enemy. Spending a lot of resources to do a LOT of damage. So if that super attack is aimed at a single bag of HP, he can take out a lot of HP. If there are three enemies with together just as much HP, he'll overkill the first and have to actually work for the second and third.

    While we're talking about single enemies: the are more reasons not to rely on them. If they get debuffed or taken out of action somehow, your enemy team is instantly lost. There's no second guy to keep on fighting until the duration of the debuff expires. Furthermore, one set of actions against the PCs' five sets of actions is very bad odds.

    Also, if this player is so awesome, count on him taking down an enemy every round. So you have to make sure you have enough enemies that the other players also have enemies to deal with at the same time, that the powergamer hasn't gotten to yet.

  • Magi get a lot of their power by expending daily resources. The crafty magus uses buff spells. They tend to last a whole fight, so they're an asset even against multiple enemies. We're talking Shield and Mirror Image for example.

    So you can make this harder for him by doing what the CRB actually assumes is normal practice: multiple encounters per day. So that there's time for buffs to run down.

  • Magi are good at melee full attacks. If enemies deploy with a bit more distance in between and don't come to him, he'll lose out a bit. Make sure a significant chunk of your monsters have a ranged combat plan.

  • Consider what is important: for every player to feel like he did something valuable in combat, or for the players to feel like everyone contributed equally?

    The latter is harder to achieve. But you can make everyone feel valuable by deploying multiple enemies, or having multiple things that need doing at the same time. While the powergamer is chopping down the main horde of enemies, the other players are making sure he doesn't get surrounded, taking out pesky archers, freeing prisoners, defusing bombs and whatnot.

    Make it so the whole party is needed in combat, by making the combat harder, not the bosses.


Ascalaphus, thank you! This is exactly the kind of advice I was looking for. Knowing this makes me feel much more confident that I can plan combat so that everyone can shine!


In my opinion you have several different problems, or at least potential problems.

1) Rules Lawyering: Explain to him before the game that you won't tolerate this. If he has a problem with a ruling, he is free to discuss it outside a game, but other than a possible (and singular for any issue) 'are you sure, I thought it was X?" He should consider anything you say final. Let him know that you will consider his out-of -game points and possibly adjust future sessions, but during a game your word is law. And if you consider his points, and still decide against them, he is going to have to accept that. Let him know that if that is something he can't deal with, then this isn't the game for him.

2) Play Style: This one is simple. Explain to to him up front that most of the group values character interaction and role play a whole lot more than he does. As a result, there will be a lot of that in the game. Explain that you understand he doesn't enjoy that as much, and that if his character doesn't want to participate a whole lot that is fine, but it isn't fine to ruin the others fun and disrupt their fun (i.e. no this is boring, I stab the diplomat my comrades were negotiating with.) Tell him you will try to make sure their is fun combat as well, but the game balance will have to reflect the desires of the majority. Let him know that if that is something he can't deal with, then this isn't the game for him.

3) Optimization/Power Level: There have been some good ideas on this already (and some terribly ones) but I think the best choice, if you can manage it, is to steer him away from a striker role in combat to a support role. Being really optimized at making everyone else better would be great for your group. If he doesn't like the social stuff a Bard probably won't be his cup of tea, but an evangelist cleric or sensei monk might work, there are plenty of other support builds as well. If he only likes optimized strikers and him dealing damage directly is his thing this won't work of course, but if he would go for it I expect it would solve this whole aspect of the problem easily. If you present this to him as a challenge he might go for it. Sure, he will probably wreck the CR expectations for your party, but it will with everyone contributing, not just 1 person stealing the spotlight.


Seriously, stop giving advice to change the character's fighting style/build. It's bad GMing and bad faith. There are ways to improve combat so everyone feels like a contributor, but "be more of a support character because the others want to feel better about their contributions" is so against the idea of PF and good game management it constitutes horrible advice.

Increase action economy, makes sure there is diverse terrain and action economy, and make sure there are plenty of opportunities to contribute out of combat. GMs should do their best to actualize character concepts, not limit them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mr. Pitt has the right idea. If you start undermining your players they will stop trusting you. The GM I had, after we figured out he was cheating we never trusted anything he did again, because well he cheated us once he could do it again. In the end it is a cooperative game, once you start cheating you ruin the spirit of it, especially if it is done out of spite, your role as a dm should be arbiter and judge. I am going to reiterate, if it seems too strong and like there is a problem talk to him about it, or if needed have the group talk together. Creating a mentality of us vrs them is never what you want to do but if you start doing stuff like fixing damage dealt, telling players that you are going to retroactively make them ineffective, ect it will hurt their faith in you running the game. So talk to him and rather then say this is how it is say I want to work with you to fix this, these are my concerns how can we come to an agreement that will make us both happy. A lot of dms seem to forget that the game is cooperative at it's heart not vrs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You don't need to gimp the pc or tell the player to tone it down. As already mentioned, the Magus is great at nova damage, but doesn't have as much staying power for a prolonged series of combats. Don't be afraid of this, rather use it as an opportunity to make a better game for all your players.

Keep the players uncertain over how many combat encounters they will have in a day, and more importantly, which of the encountered creatures is the most dangerous. In particular, use homemade monsters rather than those from the bestiary, modules, or third party books, and/or have the more powerful enemies appear to be less powerful.

The unknown is a huge element in horror and the supernatural. By keeping the nature of the encounters unclear, you can challenge the magus without unfairly penalizing the other players. Allowing good roleplaying to uncover clues about the critters can reward the other players as they help your power gamer learn how best to employ his glass cannon magus.

Dark Archive

Here is an idea. You try learning the game from him. He apperently understands more of it since archetypes stacking is really common. Maybe letting him have his character work as the rules say it will would be beneficial. If you have houserules tell him before character generation. You dont want to be the dm who removed the five foot step and promptly got 4 reach figthers with cestuses. Can he break your game by doing his job and having a well built character? If he can then it is broken in the first place.

Dark Archive

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Oh god, I am so sick of these threads. Different people enjoy playing the game differently. Don't invalidate, fudge, or cheat to mitigate a player's build. Make sure the game offers a diversity of role playing options and encourage this minmaxed player to role play. Ask him to make sure everyone is having fun in combat and add extra combatants if he seems overpowered.

Don't specifically target him and his abilities unless the enemies would have reason to know to do this. Don't directly the universe towards ruining his fun. This sort of issue is so easy to work out with a little communication and not overreacting. The very fact that you entitled this thread "how to handle a min-maxer" is already a troubling sign. Your goal is, how can I make this fun and challenging. That's doable. Targeting the one guy is a huge mistake and poor GMing.

One could also argue that If you have 1 player with a vastly different goal and idea of fun for the game (min-max vs RP/story), then a GM should sometimes decide if that difference is too vast or difficult to bridge. It's easy to say "...make this fun and challenging.", and yes that should be the goal, but trying to make a game that everyone enjoys should not need to delve into arguing with a player repetitively, or trying to tone down a player to allow other to enjoy the game.

You are absolutely correct: Diverse play styles should be encouraged and fostered by the DM, but that applies to the players also... If you have one player dropping steaming turds in a game session, and being an obvious case of oil and water not mixing, then to advocate the DM accommodate that player so that they can have "fun" is not in the best interests of anyone at the table, including the one person so distinctively different. Of course I am talking of extremes...most people are able to see when their grandstanding is killing the rest of the tables fun...most people...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Apple Fetish wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Oh god, I am so sick of these threads. Different people enjoy playing the game differently. Don't invalidate, fudge, or cheat to mitigate a player's build. Make sure the game offers a diversity of role playing options and encourage this minmaxed player to role play. Ask him to make sure everyone is having fun in combat and add extra combatants if he seems overpowered.

Don't specifically target him and his abilities unless the enemies would have reason to know to do this. Don't directly the universe towards ruining his fun. This sort of issue is so easy to work out with a little communication and not overreacting. The very fact that you entitled this thread "how to handle a min-maxer" is already a troubling sign. Your goal is, how can I make this fun and challenging. That's doable. Targeting the one guy is a huge mistake and poor GMing.

One could also argue that If you have 1 player with a vastly different goal and idea of fun for the game (min-max vs RP/story), then a GM should sometimes decide if that difference is too vast or difficult to bridge. It's easy to say "...make this fun and challenging.", and yes that should be the goal, but trying to make a game that everyone enjoys should not need to delve into arguing with a player repetitively, or trying to tone down a player to allow other to enjoy the game.

You are absolutely correct: Diverse play styles should be encouraged and fostered by the DM, but that applies to the players also... If you have one player dropping steaming turds in a game session, and being an obvious case of oil and water not mixing, then to advocate the DM accommodate that player so that they can have "fun" is not in the best interests of anyone at the table, including the one person so distinctively different. Of course I am talking of extremes...most people are able to see when their grandstanding is killing the rest of the tables fun...most people...

This is exactly what I disagree with. First, min-max v. RP is a false dichotomy. Second, a good GM can work with a group where a majority has different goals than a minority without invalidating the interest of eithers.

Sczarni

Just give bad guys abilities that only go into affect verses the min/maxer. Like having optimized Cavaliers who always challenge his character so they are easier to hit by everyone else yet more effective against his character. There can be ways to work around it this campaign but definitely have a talk before next campaign.


1) ignoring the details of how to deal with minmax/combat focus...
it seems clear that by preferences of group about 80% of the game will be RP focused...
which he just doesn't enjoy at all, so totally apart from the 20% of combat, this doesn't seem an appropriate game for him.
if combat/minmax is his sole interest in the game, an 80% RP game just shouldn't be satisfying to him.
so why is he still playing with this group? who knows why he might have some problem finding ideal game group,
but ultimately keeping him on is not helpful to him much less the rest of the people in the group, right?

2) he's flat out admitted to choosing to "actively break the game" in previous games. think about that.
details aside, he is not socially compatable with group norms, and in effect passively aggressively sabotages them.
you could have him leave the game now, but let's assume you don't. i would say this should be the last chance.
he can choose the limitations that will ensure he plays along with the group. if he can't abide by them,
or otherwise sabotages/bypasses them, such that it still sabotages the group consensus, that should be the end.
he can find his ideal gaming elsewhere at that point. i would be upfront with him about this,
and give him the choice to try to make it work one more time or admit that one more time will not fix it.
be pretty clear that you want a GOOD game outcome, not where limits are still be pushed and violated.
If he thinks that is necessarily far from the game he wants, maybe he can admit he wants a different game and move on.
And ultimately it doesn't hinge on what he will/won't admit at this point, but how the group consensus feels.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Second, a good GM can work with a group where a majority has different goals than a minority without invalidating the interest of eithers.

But pretty obviously that hasn't been able to happen here over many many games. So call them a "poor GM" or whatever you want, but it seems like this player should switch GM and play group.

Of course making such a simplistic judgement of GM is absurd, somebody can be the world champion best ever GM of Shadowrun/MyLittlePony hybrid, but suck at other game styles. They can be the best ever GM of diceless freeform RPG, but suck at numbers games. They can be the best ever dicecrunch wargaming GM, but suck at RP etc. Maybe somebody can be a great GM at several of those styles, while somebody else isn't. So what? It comes down to how people choose to have fun together, or decide they don't intersect enough in interests to have their most fun together. That's life, which funnily enough isn't subject to some jerk claiming it is subject to some made-up abstract rule, no matter how much that might assuage their fears and discomforts of life.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Increase action economy

What does this even mean?

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
, makes sure there is diverse terrain

Since Magi have some great mobility spells, this is likely to exacerbate rather than reduce the problem

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
and [diverse]action economy

Once again, I am totally lost as to what you are talking about

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
and make sure there are plenty of opportunities to contribute out of combat.

This doesn't seem at all relevant to making sure all the players enjoy the combats that occur. Indeed I expect that if 4 out of 5 players only contribute out of combat, they will lobby even more for less combat, actually reducing the fun of the player you are concerned about.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
GMs should do their best to actualize character concepts, not limit them.

Not really. GMs should be fair and upfront about how they are going to run a game, and what the game will contain, but they should certainly not feel a need to actualize anyone's concept. The player should make a character that will fit in with the group and the story, if they do that they should be able to 'actualize' it themselves. Obviously the GM and the players need to all be at least willing to buy into the game being run, but one valid choice is to not participate if a particular game isn't your style.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. In an ideal setting all needs can be met, but I don't think your advice will help this GM get there. Likely because you don't really see it as being a problem in the first place, and perhaps you are lucky in never encountering such an issue, but for some groups it does indeed exist, and can really reduce player happiness. Resolving it usually requires some flexibility from all sides, and naturally whoever is in the minority usually has to give in more.


Increased action economy means more creatures and obstacles. As for your concept of GMing, I think it incredibly wrong and we have completely different philosophies about how to run a game. I do my best to actualize a fun game for every single player; I think this is nearly always possible. Majority rule doesn't determine the way a game should be run, a good GM can find ways to compromise.

I don't know that this discussion goes much further because your presumptions about GMing are basically the antithesis of mine and, I believe wrong. I want to make a great game where every player gets to perform how they want without trying to control one person's inclination to fit my vision of the game or even the majority of players. Compromise works and fun and challenge is the goal.


The Yellow King wrote:

So reading this over.

You have talked with him, do not take the advice to cheat, it is very obvious when dms cheat with the dice. I nearly walked out of a game when a dm started cheating dice then lied to my face about it. Which was made better by other players noting they noticed it too.
If talking to him doesn't work then ask him for solutions or have a group talk about it if it is a problem, find a comprimise, resorting to fiat and rule 0 constantly will just make your player feel targeted and will ruin their enjoyment if you use it to nerf what they want to do so heavily it becomes impossible to do.
Also, specifically for the magus, if he has to move to attack he can not full attack, this lowers his damage progression a lot.
Don't play against the player should be the core thing, once you start an arms race with your players you will win and they will lose interest because it is not ment to be us vrs them.
More smaller enemies was a good suggestion since he will have trouble being able to attack them all at once and will give everyone something to do in combat. Or even do one or two big guys will little guys to encourage him to not go all out 100% of the time. Also use multiple combats in a day, it will force him to not want to use all his goodies in one combat.

Maybe someone has already said this...

I agree, specifically cheating may not be the best route. I tend to take another.

I min/max occasionally. That said, I can also play with a group which has one min/max or powergamer and no one else does.

It has happened before, probably will happen again.

When it happens, it's not something that is a terribly hard thing to account for.

If it's an encounter that is just your normal challenge, I don't have a problem. Normally the min/max player can't hit hard or fast enough to take everyone's glory. If they do, well, that's just one encounter.

Now if it's a bigger event or a larger encounter, that's when changes may happen. If there is more than one creature, I will min/max or powergame construct a character or monster specifically for that powergamer, and have that enemy focus ON that powergamer.

This also enables me to let the powergamer shine (I tend to make games which do NOT cater to characters specifically, meaning that even if one does min/max, at times, they have no opportunity to show off what their character is...and many of these min/max characters stink at anything outside of combat if they are constructed simply for combat) while they demonstrate their abilities.

The downside, is if the powergamer falls (has occurred) it means the rest of the party could be in for a bad day. On the otherhand, my players eventually learn that sometimes running is a good solution.

However, I do try to cater to the party strengths and weaknesses for each character, which also includes the min/max players.

Dark Archive

Pretty much just rehashing the great advice you've already had but... talk to him.

- Make sure he knows that whilst brief discussions of a rule that is confusing is fine, and in fact encouraged, you will not get into an argument over rules that are unclear, once you have made a decision that is it, the game moves on. More time spent gaming that discussing rules.

- If you decide you only want certain classes or only one archetype for each character, stick to your guns and make sure they all know beforehand. You don't have to try and talk people out of things if you're uncomfortable with a build tell them it's not going to work and they need to rethink.

- Be fair and even handed in combat, no making his monsters harder etc. That said, depending on point buy or rolled stats giving all the monsters max HP regardless of who they fight might not be out of order, PCs are pretty powerful even without minmaxing.

- Multiple weaker monsters > one tough boss, you get more actions between them all and save or suck/nova from the PCs has way less impact.

- Use intelligent tactics when appropriate, reach, prebuffing, ambushes, etc. Most especially if the enemies have heard about the PCs and have some idea what to expect, fights vs higher level casters should be brutal lessons in not using the same tactics every time as they will often be prepared with counters.

This all presupposes that he is acting in good faith, from the conversations you've described with him he sounds like someone who has actively tried to 'break' games before, that's not someone who tends to play well with others or under restrictions. If he starts to screw up your game for everyone then seriously consider telling him right then and there he has one chance to dial things back or he's out, it's not easy to confront someone like that, but the alternative is him running the game or destroying it.

Good luck whatever you decide, let us know how it goes!

Grand Lodge

Link it again?

Link it again.

it also has specific tips about the magus.


Mr. Pitt does have a point, though he comes across as extreme- the min/max player is just playing the game. He's clearly a bit better than everyone else at playing the game, but it's hard to blame him for that, at least not with the information we currently have. And I hate the idea that the two playstyles can't coexist, it simply isn't true.

My biggest worry though is that the GM is too inexperienced to balance it. But trying and failing, and having good communication, is much better than pushing someone out of a group based on his playstyle.

The document 9mm just linked is AMAZING, btw. Follow Ascalaphus' advice as well and you should be ok IMO.


Been there done that. Just work on everyone else's build until they're optimized. Personally, as a GM, I optimize NPCs all the time and have horrifyingly effective builds. Sometimes I use them, most times I don't. Really, though, the best option is to have everyone optimize, instead of penalizing the only one who does. Either that or establish the game as role-play or combat. In roleplay heavy games most optimized characters fail or find they have wasted a lot of effort. In combat games, not optimizing can cost you your head.


Create encounters that require more than just beating down with steel. You'll want some of those too, but since this is horror you shouldn't have a ton of them. You should have some, though.

When you create an encounter, think about how each player/character will probably react. Take that into account. If you have a group that wants more roleplay, but one person wants more combat you can mix them into the same scenario. Give everyone something to do. It will take more work on your part at first. You'll have to figure this out as you go.

Make sure that he is following the rules. Double check everyone's work, not just his. You are designing a campaign that is going to be focused on more than just BAB. Ask each player for a copy of their character so you can design better encounters. If you have Hero Lab or some other character creation software you will find this easier.

It's ok to use house rules, but generally, it's not necessary. Just enforce the rules that are already there and most of the time everything will work out just fine. You're not going to know every rule off the top of your head. Keep the PRD handy. If there is a tactic that any player is using that seems overpowered, look into it. Make sure it's being used correctly. I have found that most of the time it's not the player that is wrong, but the GM for not applying the rules correctly. It's an easy mistake to make because there are so many rules.

Continue to be proactive with the group. If something is disrupting the game then continue to bring it up and see what fixes need to be made. Solicit advice from the people who are going to be affected by it the most.


In a group 4 out 5 love role playing and a neutral to combat then having the min/max character who loves combat is a good thing. The min/max character will enjoy the combat and end the combat quicker allow those the love role playing to get more of what they want.

As well to deal with a person that min maxes you target the minimums. By targeting their minimums the rest of the party is unaffected as they are not min maxed. Don't do this all the time, let min/max character shine from time to time just don't let them all the time.

Now if you are talking optimized that's not min maxed. That's just best combination of abilities that give you a very strong balanced character. The people that don't optimize generally have more weakness and few strengths but they do have strength so play them up.

The rule bending and twisting interpretation, you need set it that your ruling are the rule. Write down you ruling so the play doesn't forget.


I'm also wondering how bad the rest of the party is. In general, thanks to Pathfinder tying everything to ability scores (which, in a point buy system, are carefully controlled), there's a limit to the power differences of two different characters. The only problem is if players decide to go into a particularly bad archetype (like Crossbowmen) or if they don't know how to use the options they have (Casters).

As stated earlier, Magus' damage is burst damage. Outside of those moments, they're actually pretty mediocre compared to other characters- they have 3/4 BAB and slower spell progression than a real spellcaster- and this guy is taking Kensai, so his spells are reduced even further, and that's a major source of damage for most Magus. Magus tend to also be somewhat MAD- at the very least they need STR or DEX + INT, and because they are forced into melee and squishy they really want CON too, otherwise they are playing a dangerous game. Otherwise, outside of the moments they spend pool points or their very limited spells, Magus tend to have a tough time breaking even with a Martial due to their 3/4 BAB progression and forced 1 handed fighting style- everything they have to counter those weakness spends limited pool points.

In other words, even a badly optimized Fighter (and most other full BAB characters) can easily keep up and even outdamage a Magus when he isn't spending resources on boosting damage- provided it didn't go into an awful archetype like crossbowman, of course. Or decide to go 10 STR then carry a 2handed sword and wonder why it isn't working (Roleplaying doesn't excuse completely bad decision making, if they do something like that it's their own fault) Other Martials are pretty much the same way. Casters you hardly have to worry about- they'll become forces of nature eventually, just recommend the occasional spell to them. That leaves Rogues, which are in a better state than before and as long as they can actually get sneak attacks in, their dps isn't very related to their level of optimization, a badly optimized rogue tends to have problems surviving, not dealing damage. Bards are support so they'll get their kicks in combat by working WITH the Magus, not against him.

So really, the only place I'd actually worry much is if there are other 3/4 caster hybrids (because they could run into trouble balancing themselves, I'm thinking Investigator here), Monks (which are also tricky and require a certain amount of system mastery in ANY party), Arcane Gishes (i am a 1/2 BAB progression character with d6 hd so i am ofc going to focus myself on charging into melee!), or particularly awful archetypes. Feel free to post the other characters, I'm sure people would be able to identify problem characters.

Otherwise, as long as you follow the instructions in this topic and have multiple combats a day, with multiple enemies, every player should feel like they are participating, with the Magus fluctuating between TONS OF DAMAGE and just kinda being there. Which is ok, as he's also the guy most interested in the combats.

I would be much more worried if he had picked a full spellcaster, or if he hadn't traded away much of his magical class features. He seems less of a power gamer as someone who has a solid idea of what he wants to play and built around it.

EDIT: sorry for the essay, lol. Just trying to explain the class and explain why the other classes shouldn't be too bad off by design took up a lot of room, and I'm at work so I didn't have the leisure of much editing time, lol.


If 4 out of 5 like roleplay and hate combat, then why in the heck do they care if he outshines them in combat? You can't get jealous of a guy excelling at something that you don't even care about.

It sounds to me like they do like combat, but hate the fact that he is better at it.

Here is an idea, you don't have to run encounters that include everyone. The campaign could have a singular goal, but PCs help achieve that goal different ways.

For instance, you want to kill the undead on the outskirts of town. Send the guy who likes combat out to kill them with a handful of so so NPCs.

Have the roleplayers in town vying for the mayor to send him more and more support. Maybe roleplay PCs try to hunt down the enemy's weakness while the combat PC fights. As the NPC die off, the roleplay PCs will be essential to whether the combat PC succeeds.


Ask him to min-max a suboptimal concept?


This seems to have generated excellent advice. Among the best:

Multiple head bad guys, not just one. Economy of action will prevent killing everything at once, thus spreading the action about.
Don't try to secretly nerf his damage. That's cheesy and beneath someone such as yourself (if that was something you'd be inclined to do, then you wouldn't be here asking for advice).

Since I haven't read everything, I'll just throw in some of my own suggestions and hopefully some of it will be unique/new:

..........
Individual Experience Bonus Awards, MAX of one category per character-
+10% for spectacular defeat of monster with CR 3+ above group
+10% for exceptional difficulty skill challenge (trap, diplomacy, etc.)
+10% for out of box thinking (maneuver villain vs greater evil, etc.)
+10% for Most Valuable TEAM Player (healer, buffer, assist other, etc.)
No rewards mandatory, just available, award by group vote.

Include monsters, villains, and situations where combat leads to failure (hostages, fanatics who suicide bomb if defeated, objective is to ally the current enemy rather than conquer them, etc.)

Missions where an NPC noble/overseer/house representative/whatever is in charge of the group and to succeed in the quest the players have to toe the line as the NPC decides when to engage in combat, when to use ONLY non-lethal force, when to withdraw, when to take prisoners and not kill anyone, and all for political / secret reasons that the players are not permitted to know, all the while needing to keep the NPC alive, well, and satisfied with their performance.
..........

If you want to play with all of these folks AND you want to expand your comfort zone in GM'ing, this is a good opportunity to get really creative, but if you keep viewing it as an issue only, then you're shooting yourself in the foot right before the march starts, so just grin a bit and expect some challenges (fantasy matches life, who knew?).

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You are the DM. Period. If something will disrupt the game, do not allow it. Period.

Before every new campaign, I provide a list to my players of exactly what races, classes, etc... will be allowed. I do not allow anybody to min-max a character. (aka, nobody may start with any stat below 8 AFTER racial modifiers, no Tieflings/Aasimars in this campaign, etc...)

If somebody wants an archetype, feat, magic item, etc... that you think will make the campaign un-fun for the others. Just say..."No". It doesn't matter if it's in a book somewhere. Just because Paizo published it, doesn't mean you have to use it in your campaign. For that matter, you could always decide to just run a "Core campaign" and only allow stuff from the main book....and maybe one or two supplements. As long as you let everyone know ahead of time, it ends the problem before it starts.

my 2 cents.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, fun fact- This guy won't get a Magus Arcana until level 6, can't buy one with a feat until then, and won't get another one until level 9.

He's also sacrificing spell recall, knowledge pool, 1 spell per level, and the ability to cast in armor, for perks of questionable worth.

It's not a bad build. It's a pretty good one. But I don't know if it's actually going to be as problematic as you think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could do core only, but that will just end up more wonky then anything. The most powerful classes and spells are in the core book.

If this person was really out to be the king mechanically, then he would be playing a wizard rather than a class without ninth level spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PK the Dragon wrote:

Also, fun fact- This guy won't get a Magus Arcana until level 6, can't buy one with a feat until then, and won't get another one until level 9.

He's also sacrificing spell recall, knowledge pool, 1 spell per level, and the ability to cast in armor, for perks of questionable worth.

It's not a bad build. It's a pretty good one. But I don't know if it's actually going to be as problematic as you think.

Definitely, losing spellstrike is probably the best thing that could be done to put his character on a leash to be honest. Critfishing magi with shocking grasp is a big part of what gives the class a reputation of being single target nukes.

Still if I recall correctly, the OP convinced their player to not take a bunch of archetypes on an assumption that having more than one archetype would be overpowered so that's probably why they missed it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Shroud wrote:
I do not allow anybody to min-max a character. (aka, nobody may start with any stat below 8 AFTER racial modifiers...

See, here's a great example of what I was talking about earlier regarding checking one's own ideas of what's "normal" versus what's "min-maxed".

Pathfinder's default assumption for all the random villagers that make up the bulk of the population have a stat array of 13/12/11/10/9/8, before racial modifiers. For all races other than humans and half-humans, this means that one-third of the general population of Golarion meets Shroud's definition of "min-maxed". If we move our focus from the teeming masses to the "heroic" NPCs (i.e., the ones who have PC class levels), then the pre-racial stat array becomes 15/14/13/12/10/8, which still leaves us with fully one-sixth of the heroes being allegedly "min-maxed".

Now, let me be clear about something: It is completely okay to run a game with Shroud's proposed stat limits. I'm not trying to say it's wrong to play that way. What I'm trying to say is that communication and group harmony are helped by identifying baselines and owning up to one's own preferences for doing things differently. If you want to run a nothing-below-eight game, that's fine. But framing it as "To do otherwise is min-maxing" is both factually incorrect and needlessly combative.

Instead, it's more conducive to good gaming (and healthy relationships with your group) to acknowledge what the system's assumed baseline is and then openly "own" your desire to do something different from that baseline. It's waaaay healthier to admit a preference and request to have that preference honored, than to try and pretend one's preference is the norm and label everyone else as a deviant who needs to get back in line because you won't put up with their nonsense (not saying that's necessarily Shroud's attitude, but it sure comes up a lot in discussions like these).

Like I said before: honesty with oneself, followed by honesty with the group. It's a good path. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the things here is Min/Max here is being misused by many people in this discussion.
Min/Max means get the Max benefit with the minimum investment, it's a way of thinking. Whatever rules you set, "nothing below 8 or above 16 after racials" you can still Min/Max. Like if I had a rule like that and wanted to Min/Max, I'd play a druid or summoner cause the Animal/Eidolon will have very comparable stats to everyone, so I really would be twice as strong as anyone else. Normally you'd need buffs and stuff and the Animal/Eidolon still fall behind other PC's, but if you nerf PC's then it's a lot of reward for very little investment.

And if you do Min/Maxing right you also optimize so you don't have glaring weaknesses, especially not more so than those who aren't. So "targeting their weakness" more really means "target everyone's weakness"

Also, limiting the floor a stat can be only lowers the point buy available to them. There's basically no difference between a 7 and a 12 charisma for someone that has a bard playing face. The real effect of a "nothing below 8 after racials" is probably a -1 to AC or Will saves or HP per level as those are the places that the extra points go. There's a reason a guide to a wizard says, "with a 15pt buy get an 18 int, with a 25pt buy get an 18 int." cause all the other stats are just nice to have after setting your main stat to the right place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
First the rules clearly place GM judgement at the very TOP in importance, yes, above even the rules themselves. If he argues against this then it ISN'T the rules he loves but rather CERTAIN RULES he favors over others. Perhaps make a "Rule 0" placard and if he tries to argue a rule past the point where you've already decided then place the placard on the table facing him and ask him not to break the rules any more.

Might i just stop here and say that acting like this is petty and condescending as f$@+. Like seriously, just talk to the guy, passive-aggressiveness like this is not something that you should be doing and i would (and HAVE) personally leave any game with a GM who acted like this.


Something that I don't think has been mentioned before: use the player as a resource. I am an unabashed Power Gamer, I love playing with the crunchy bits of a system to make highly effective characters. So what do I do with my groups where I tend to be somewhat about the curve with system mastery? I help them mechanically with their concept. They have a concept, and I work with them to find a build that both fits their concept and is mechanically solid. Given Pathfinders rule set, it is almost impossible to not be able to find a viable build, especially if you can let them understand that class fluff is just that, fluff, and can be reflavored (i.e. not all (class) Barbarians have to be (social group) Barbarians and vice versa). So kill two birds with one stone.

I have found doing this to be a general benefit to the group. The power gamer has fun building more characters, the non-power gamers don't feel completely overshadowed while still getting to play "their character", and it makes it easier on the GM. In my experience, it also gets the more roleplay focused players to enjoy combat a lot more, because lets face it, success is fun, failing is not. This also helps differentiate "power gaming" from "problem gaming", because you can quickly tell if they want to build a strong character for the sake of having a strong character, or for overpowering/outcompeting the other group members.


9mm wrote:

Link it again?

Link it again.

it also has specific tips about the magus.

What I love about the guide is in the "how to manage a Zen Archer Monk" section: it says that archery is powerful, then stops right there.


Hazrond wrote:
Aranna wrote:
First the rules clearly place GM judgement at the very TOP in importance, yes, above even the rules themselves. If he argues against this then it ISN'T the rules he loves but rather CERTAIN RULES he favors over others. Perhaps make a "Rule 0" placard and if he tries to argue a rule past the point where you've already decided then place the placard on the table facing him and ask him not to break the rules any more.
Might i just stop here and say that acting like this is petty and condescending as f%+~. Like seriously, just talk to the guy, passive-aggressiveness like this is not something that you should be doing and i would (and HAVE) personally leave any game with a GM who acted like this.

Well if that's all it takes to get the guy who shows up just to argue endlessly to leave then everyone should definitely use this if just to get back to enjoying the game.


Or....OR

You can take my advice, your player gets to play the character he wants to build, you don't have to wildly adjust your encounters to not smash the other players or put the combat monger in frustrating positions where his character's strengths are blatantly made useless in situations where he should present as strong


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No no no, the goal isn't to find a way to get along with people with differing playstyles and ideas of fun. What do you think this is, some kind of cooperative roleplaying game? Everyone knows Real Pathfinder is about systematically crushing all dissenting opinions until everyone at the table accepts the One True Way to have GoodRightFun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something I learned early on as a DM (and as a PC far less often...*sniffle*) is that just because a combat encounter isn't "difficult" does not mean that the players are not having fun, or are not immersed, or are not feeling the tension in the story.

I recognize that my friends are all power-gamers. That's how they enjoy the game. So, when I prep for them I know they'll find creative and dominant ways to handle the combats. But, they like that domination, which in turn means I like that domination because they're enjoying the game I'm writing. (There is one friend at the table who is more concerned with roleplaying over combat optimization, but it works because the other four can clobber through fights so he can get back to socializing with NPCs.)

I say let your player stack his archetypes and let him min-mix the hell outta dat character (as long as it adheres to the RAW). He's only one PC in a group. Especially with multiple enemies, difficult terrains, and extenuating circumstances and dangers, even min-maxers need the group dynamic to succeed. "Dealing with him" might be the wrong mindset to approach it with as that is an antagonistic point of view. "How to approach him" or "How to communicate with him" will prove a better path.

P.S. However, if he's "fighting" you over rules consistently that's not good, but a lot of times that derives from the fact that someone feels they're not getting a fair shake.

I haven't been keeping up with the previous replies since I last posted. Apologies to everyone if I'm adding nothing new or pertinent to this conversation :3


My Self wrote:
9mm wrote:

Link it again?

Link it again.

it also has specific tips about the magus.

What I love about the guide is in the "how to manage a Zen Archer Monk" section: it says that archery is powerful, then stops right there.

I know, right? I was actually hoping for some insight on the class in general, both in how to manage it and how it works, because I've never played one before. But alas, it'll never be finished now.

So, TC, a few things to be careful of:

- It's very likely that your player will pick the trait "Magical Lineage" to make metamagic easy to apply to Shocking Grasp. It'll feel exploitative, but it's one of the bread and butter ways to play the Magus. Expect Shocking Grasp to scale until level 10, at least, due to free Intensified Spell. This is kinda a silly exploit, but it's very much a bread and butter trick of the Magus- they practically need it to function. He may further boost it with Empowered Spell, but that at least will have a cost attached to it.

-If he's a Tiefling, he might very well go for a DEX build by using Slashing Grace. If he does, don't fight it, in fact breathe a heavy sigh of relief because it requires two feats before he becomes useful, so level 3 at the soonest. That also delays all the other feats he might be interested in, and his build wants all the feats he can get. So this REALLY isn't a big deal if he goes that route.

-Bladebound means he'll be a bit more versatile with items. This will likely be canceled out by his need to buy Bracers of Armor if he wants an armor bonus as a Kensai.

- Expect his build to come together at level 9. He's extremely likely to pick critical focus, at which point you can expect him to crit around 25% of the time. His Black Blade and standard Arcane Pool buff will also max out at +5 (with 1 point to spare for enchanting the weapon with extra damage). This will also be around the time where he'll finally be able to cast spells consistently. This is where the Spellstrike/spell combat mix goes from just being a novel way to inflict damage to being outright deadly, but...

-Despite that, the guy will have accuracy issues. 3/4 BAB class that is missing out on any form of accuracy increase (Fighter has Weapon Training, Ranger has Favored Enemy, etc) outside of his enhancement bonuses (which cap at level 9) and his only other reliable method of raising accuracy uses his limited Arcane Pool, and requires a Magus Arcana, which he'll have a max of two until level 12. Also, his spell combat will reduce his accuracy further, and he WILL want to make use of that.

I just want to make sure you're aware of the particular tricks this guy could pull. I'd give the Magus class a look over, just to make sure you're perfectly clear on how Spell Combat and Spellstrike work and how they interact. Outside of the occasional metamagic hijink and the level 9 power spike, I doubt this guy's character will be too hard to manage. And you have plenty of time to prepare for the worst part.

Scarab Sages

Aranna wrote:

First the rules clearly place GM judgement at the very TOP in importance, yes, above even the rules themselves. If he argues against this then it ISN'T the rules he loves but rather CERTAIN RULES he favors over others. Perhaps make a "Rule 0" placard and if he tries to argue a rule past the point where you've already decided then place the placard on the table facing him and ask him not to break the rules any more.

As for house rules there are two things I like to keep in mind with them:
-Less is More: Every change is going to have a host of both expected and unexpected consequences so by changing the fewest number of things you limit the number of changes that could break your game.
-House Rules are a Numbers Game: The FIRST player to figure out how to use your house rule to break the system IS going to be the numbers guy... NOT you, NOT the role players... the numbers guy. Lets face it the creator of a house rule typically is blind to any bad things that may come from it. He thinks it's totally awesome and will be shocked three sessions later when the optimizers have figured out how to smash his game with his own house rules; yes even if the GM is a numbers guy too.

Oh and to be fair to people who are building characters please let the players know the house rules before playing.

--==+==--

As for dealing with the power gamer... it already sounds like he has compromised on a couple items already. So just talk to him. Be willing to toss him a bone; by placing one challenging fight per session to get him going, but pace the game toward the 4 others who want role play. Let him know you intend to do this and you might have an ally at the table rather than an enemy.

Just want to address your first point.

The rules place the whole table as "the very TOP of importance". The GM is the final arbiter of any rule, this is true. The GM has final say. Everyone at the table does have A say though. The rules specifically say that the rules are for the whole table to create and should be discussed as such. And fun for the whole table is the goal. Not a power trip for the GM. Not for the GM to be the lord high commander of the fun. He is a facilitator. A narrator. An actor. A designer. A rule-judge. But not the most important. The GM is highest among equals, as it were.

Re-read the CRB if you disagree with me. It's in black and white.


Pkdragon: The build the character wanted loses spellstrike. So much for the "bread and butter" "Magical Lineage". That two weapon path wouldn't have been able to use Slashing Grace. The Dm talked him out of 2 weapon fighting path for some reason because... not sure.

Critical focus wouldn't be a huge get if there is there was no spellstrike. IMO, the 'normal' pimped out magus would must likely be a stronger character than a Bladebound, Kensai, Spellblade Magus. For some reason the DM talked him into a stronger character by dropping spellblade... more archetypes doesn't mean stronger...


Lorewalker wrote:
Aranna wrote:

First the rules clearly place GM judgement at the very TOP in importance, yes, above even the rules themselves. If he argues against this then it ISN'T the rules he loves but rather CERTAIN RULES he favors over others. Perhaps make a "Rule 0" placard and if he tries to argue a rule past the point where you've already decided then place the placard on the table facing him and ask him not to break the rules any more.

As for house rules there are two things I like to keep in mind with them:
-Less is More: Every change is going to have a host of both expected and unexpected consequences so by changing the fewest number of things you limit the number of changes that could break your game.
-House Rules are a Numbers Game: The FIRST player to figure out how to use your house rule to break the system IS going to be the numbers guy... NOT you, NOT the role players... the numbers guy. Lets face it the creator of a house rule typically is blind to any bad things that may come from it. He thinks it's totally awesome and will be shocked three sessions later when the optimizers have figured out how to smash his game with his own house rules; yes even if the GM is a numbers guy too.

Oh and to be fair to people who are building characters please let the players know the house rules before playing.

--==+==--

As for dealing with the power gamer... it already sounds like he has compromised on a couple items already. So just talk to him. Be willing to toss him a bone; by placing one challenging fight per session to get him going, but pace the game toward the 4 others who want role play. Let him know you intend to do this and you might have an ally at the table rather than an enemy.

Just want to address your first point.

The rules place the whole table as "the very TOP of importance". The GM is the final arbiter of any rule, this is true. The GM has final say. Everyone at the table does have A say though. The rules specifically say that the rules are for the whole...

Read the whole post. Getting the players what they really want is an important part of good GMing. ALL of his players love combat (read his posts) just ONE of them is really good at it. To many people here are focusing on the fact that the 4 are big role players. There have been suggestions to help the 4 players build stronger characters... and this would definitely fix things, BUT ONLY IF they want that help. Since the OP to my knowledge hasn't tried this yet we can't know if it is something the group would go for.

Oh and one of the biggest unspoken things players REALLY WANT is, is a strong GM who can keep the game moving and will present a consistent framework for the PCs to build from. NOTHING irritates players faster than a wishy washy GM who will let the game stall out while one player argues endlessly.

BE the GM, MAKE the call, KEEP the pace moving, HAVE happy players.


A few ideas:-

Talk to the player so that he knows what you are doing.

In some fights add a tough opponent who will seek out his PC, giving him a challenge whilst allowing the others to contribute.

If he wants an in game justification, well you are going for a horror theme so say that his character is cursed.

In boss fights make sure the boss has a bodyguard who will tackle the most serious threat to his boss.


Always have multiple enemies in a boss fight. Single enemy boss fights won't last long against a party that knows what they're doing and a party of PCs can easily win in a couple of rounds by virtue of having more actions than the boss. This is especially true with classes like the Magus, who are capable of quickly dispatching single targets if they don't have other slabs of meat protecting them. The single enemy boss fight is a cool trope but it doesn't work very well in Pathfinder without major houseruling.


Jack of Dust wrote:
Always have multiple enemies in a boss fight. Single enemy boss fights won't last long against a party that knows what they're doing and a party of PCs can easily win in a couple of rounds by virtue of having more actions than the boss. This is especially true with classes like the Magus, who are capable of quickly dispatching single targets if they don't have other slabs of meat protecting them. The single enemy boss fight is a cool trope but it doesn't work very well in Pathfinder without major houseruling.

Of course. My point was that you don't want the stronger PC always heading straight to the boss then novaing whilst the others PCs deal with the mooks. So make sure there is a strong enough bodyguard to delay him and force him to use resources so that the other PCs get to contribute to defeating the boss.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDragon


Chess Pwn wrote:

One of the things here is Min/Max here is being misused by many people in this discussion.

Min/Max means get the Max benefit with the minimum investment, it's a way of thinking. Whatever rules you set, "nothing below 8 or above 16 after racials" you can still Min/Max. Like if I had a rule like that and wanted to Min/Max, I'd play a druid or summoner cause the Animal/Eidolon will have very comparable stats to everyone, so I really would be twice as strong as anyone else. Normally you'd need buffs and stuff and the Animal/Eidolon still fall behind other PC's, but if you nerf PC's then it's a lot of reward for very little investment.

And if you do Min/Maxing right you also optimize so you don't have glaring weaknesses, especially not more so than those who aren't. So "targeting their weakness" more really means "target everyone's weakness"

Also, limiting the floor a stat can be only lowers the point buy available to them. There's basically no difference between a 7 and a 12 charisma for someone that has a bard playing face. The real effect of a "nothing below 8 after racials" is probably a -1 to AC or Will saves or HP per level as those are the places that the extra points go. There's a reason a guide to a wizard says, "with a 15pt buy get an 18 int, with a 25pt buy get an 18 int." cause all the other stats are just nice to have after setting your main stat to the right place.

I see min maxing as maxing out one thing and living with the minimum in others. Like maxing out offense and not worrying about defense. It works most of the time and when it doesn't no remembers. When it comes to party imbalance as GM I see more with tactics.

51 to 100 of 201 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / How to Handle A Min-Maxer All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.