I've never really cared for it. For one thing, the DM can always out min/max you.
Nothing wrong with it exactly, but I find that people who spend a lot of time and effort doing so tend to spend less time and effort on the other parts of the game. Maybe they just have a different idea of what the point of this whole hobby is than I do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people love it. And good for them. This is a game and hobby with many different aspects involved in it. And the great part of it is that none of them are mutually exclusive. You can put a minmaxer, narrative player, and a Lawful Stupid player at the same table, and have a load of fun as long as they're cooperative with each other. I won't be rude or hateful to someone who enjoys minmaxing their character into an optimized machine that does what it does on the level of an Olympic athlete anymore than I'll be rude to someone who is more about creating a good story than actually playing the game. If a minmaxer is outshining the other players, I'll just tweak the story to include more of what other characters are good at so that the minmaxer isn't ruling the table but still gets to keep their painstakingly crafted character.
We all have different tastes, and none of them are wrong. Respect goes a long way.
Min/maxing is how some people get enjoyment out of the game. Personally, I don't understand that as I find it makes the game really boring, but who am I to say someone is having fun wrong?
Don't make disruptive characters. That's pretty much it.
It's either the Chaotic Neutral Rogue that steals from the party because "that's what my character would do!", or the Wizard throwing dazing fireballs with a DC in the 30's at level 7.
It has nothing to do with min-maxing, unless your definition of a min-maxer is someone who has a disruptive playstyle.
I only play with the same group of friends, and we've been playing together for 28 years. No min maxers here, but we play it pretty stingy magic item creation and treasure, but all campaigns are home brewed.
In the end, it's just about having fun. I really don't care how other tables are run. We have fun, and that's the only rule I care about.
I've been a min-maxer who made the rest of the table look weak, and I've been the weak character who spends half the game time unconcious and dying (and cudos to the 2 paladins I'm adventuring with, 11 KOs and I'm still kicking).
I think it really depends on the game you're playing. If you're playing a dungeon crawl you should expect some min-maxing. If your GM doesn't pull punches and characters start dying you should expect their replacements to be more min-maxed. If you spend more time describing your actions than totalling numbers you probably don't need to min-max, so you can try all those fun-looking feats that you could never fit into a build.
I for one am excited to see how the pirate-party who all have 8 Charisma handle a certain encounter in chapter 2 of Plunder and Peril. I'm expecting that table-wide min-max effort to become a role-playing moment we remember for years to come (or a TPK, we'll see).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on what definition you're attributing to the term "Min-Maxing"
-If you mean optimizing your character to be good at what they're supposed to be doing, then frankly I expect you to do that.
-If you mean overspecializing in your chosen area to be better than an optimized character even if it means having several penalties and/or glaring weaknesses elsewhere, then I will be skeptical and try to offer pointers to where you can round out your build.
-If you mean munchkining and trying to use dubious interpretations of rules and/or blatant cheating to try to go beyond even the level of the overspecializers, then either expect some vetos or to be no longer invited to that game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I really enjoy the challenge of making a particular concept as effective as possible. That is part of the fun for me.
At the same time, it is important to understand that generally it is most fun for everyone if the group is at a relatively similar level of optimization, if you are an outlier from the rest of your group, finding ways to line up with the others is important.
It's entirely a feel thing for me. Using weapon modifications to give a brawler a polearm (which is now in the "close" group) just amuses me, but pulling out those aasimar/tiefling charts from the old player companions to try to finagle a 22 starting stat rankles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other than a horrible misuse of the game theory term min-max (which is the strategy of going for the maximum gain possible while taking the minimum risks: apposed to main chance which would be going for the win whatever the risk/cost) I rather dislike the sole focus whatever the cost, you know nearly all fighters should be unpleasant drooling idiots.
My thoughts on min-maxing?
Be VERY careful. You make yourself powerful in one aspect and weaker in the other(s). That will be taken advantage of.
Otherwise, have fun playing rocket tag.
I like to optimize my character to do the things I want them to do, but when it comes to combat related stuff I will hold back (usually it involves a lot of buffing to reach full potential) and let the rest of the party have their fair share and try not to overshadow. Until things get too dangerous and then I bust out the full potential and "save the day". This was most common with the Inquisitors and Warpriest I've built. A lot of buff potential that you don't have to use all the time, so it's great. I can dish out respectable damage in most fights and not use any buffs or limited use abilities, and then sometimes stack everything together to do crazy things.
Trying to get the same level of optimisation within the party (min/max isn't an on/off switch) is a good idea if only to avoid someone feeling useless.