Min maxing would be considered to be when you go out of your way to try to make your character as strong as possible.
Normally if my players are just getting feats or better armor or anything like that, I wouldn't care. If my players start trying to get excessive of one thing like damage or AC, then I would get involved.
Hope this helped, but min maxing is a relative term, it depends on who your playing with before they start considering it min maxing.
It’s not as common in this edition, but it can happen. I think everyone has their own idea of what it means, so you might want to clarify with your DM exactly what they meant.
In past editions it was easier to find rules loopholes and make overpowered characters by exploiting them, which is my definition.
Min/max players are all about the numbers. How can I build maximum damage or AC, or how can I build a specific multi-class that fudges the rules enough to make me more powerful. These type of players start with the goal then work back to pick out the character and finally, as an after thought, worry about any story or RP. Playing for the power trip rather than for a fun game. No care for balance.
Min-maxing is short for "minimizing weakness, maximizing strength." Min-maxers look for ways to combine and/or exploit rules to get the most out of characters in terms of power.
The main problem is that min-maxing/power gaming/optimizing/munchkining (all names for the same thing) is that it throws game balance off. There are lots of instances where overtuned PCs find combat designed for the party too easy, while the rest of the party would find a fight designed dor the powerr gamer too difficult and risk TPK. This creates a lot of extra work and burden on the DM and leads to burn out.
This isn't a problem when everyone is power gaming, but mixed styles be an issue.
As a DM, I expect my players to min/max their char. I play a strict 27 point buy, but am always shocked if a player does not take their first ASI to get an 18 in their primary stat. That can be considered as min/max'ing and a perfectly reasonable way to play the game. Min-maxing, however, can be also considered a subset of "power-gaming", which is a noxious way to play the game, where the player harangues the DM for every possible edge, pushes every rule as far they can, testing the limits that other players and the DM will allow.
Pretty much every power-gamer is a min-maxer, but not every min-maxer is a power-gamer.
Thx My Dm said my new character cant be a min/max, and i didnt know what that really meant
The same DM that allows the other, somewhat optimized PCs to murder your PC (because they're murderhobos and your PC isn't) without repercussions is telling you your new character can't be min/maxed? I know you were trying to min/max the AC of your new character, but this whole thing just sounds more and more disfunctional. Still, best of luck to you - hope it works out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is a term with many subjective meanings, like other internet gaming terms such as WAAC or LAAC. It's common and typical to hear people arguing about games where they don't share a definition of this and don't really acknowledge that.
For example, your GM might think that it's min-maxing for your character to be good at a specific set of tasks, and the only way to satisfy them is to make a jack of all trades who's bad at everything. That's a popular definition. But it's hardly the only one. You have to ask your GM for clarity.
Wait thats min/maxing?!?, oof i thought it was something else
I believe the original concept of min/maxing was to, instead of giving something a spread of capability, you minimise one thing to maximise another. In the case of point-buy, you would put all your points into Strength and Dexterity and leave the other stats really low, with a view to "hitting hard and having good AC". The character is made with one focus and as such is useless at anything but "hitting and not being hit". That's what I consider "Min Maxing".
Minimising weakness and maximising strength is more what I consider Powergaming - growing your character based on making them the most powerful person ever instead of to make them grow in the way their character would. An example being making a character which uses crossbows, and then picking a completely unrelated feat because it's "better" than one relating to crossbows.
Min/maxing means, strictly speaking - getting the maximum possible benefit from the minimum possible cost.
Putting every last point into the maximally effective place, so that it does the most good, and there is no waste.
Taking the "most effective" spell choices for each spell level you get, so that every spell is going to be useful all the time, and there are no wasted spell preps.
Buying exactly the right and correct equipment for the minimum total cost in gold pieces, so you have all the equipment you need and not one ounce more, and are left with as many possible gp in your stash as you could possibly have while still being fully equipped.
Making sure that your highest stat is in the most useful stat for your character, and your 2nd highest is in your 2nd most useful stat, and so on, down the line, and that the dump stat is in your least important stat, so that every stat is valued based on its utility to the character, and you don't "waste" a stat like having a high strength on a Wizard character who, by class, will generally not need strength at all (and usually will use it as the 'dump').
Taking class, race/species/background so that all benefits derived from those three things stack, making your character even more effective. Not "wasting" the background picking something that doesn't synergize/stack with your class and race. If you take a race whose stat bonuses do not stack with your prime stats for your class, you use the Tasha optional rule to move those bonuses around so that they do stack.
Choosing your alignment based on what will make the character most effective (many min-maxers choose 'chaotic neutral' or 'true neutral' because they think these alignments will enable them to basically do whatever is most effective to do at the time, and not be bound by morality in terms of RP).
True min-maxers do not do anything for flavor or just RP -- for a min-maxer, these considerations are secondary. The primary goal is to get the maximum benefit for the minimum cost, in all things, in all ways, at all times, in everything they do with the character. Anyone who would do something for flavor or RP that is not also maximizing the character, is not a real min-maxer.
Wait thats min/maxing?!?, oof i thought it was something else
I believe the original concept of min/maxing was to, instead of giving something a spread of capability, you minimise one thing to maximise another. In the case of point-buy, you would put all your points into Strength and Dexterity and leave the other stats really low, with a view to "hitting hard and having good AC". The character is made with one focus and as such is useless at anything but "hitting and not being hit". That's what I consider "Min Maxing".
Minimising weakness and maximising strength is more what I consider Powergaming - growing your character based on making them the most powerful person ever instead of to make them grow in the way their character would. An example being making a character which uses crossbows, and then picking a completely unrelated feat because it's "better" than one relating to crossbows.
This is a great illustration of why the topic is so confusing for newcomers. In the first paragraph, the player is Bad for trying to be good at one thing (melee combat). In the second paragraph, the player is Bad in a different way for not trying to be good at one thing (crossbows).
I think the gist of both labels is an objection to favoring the game side of D&D so heavily that it detracts from the story side of D&D, and they both tend to lean on the (false) assumption that an optimized character cannot be a compelling character. Of course, just because they can be compelling doesn't mean they will be, and there are indeed players who disregard every other aspect of D&D in the pursuit of mechanical excellence. I think everyone can agree that is not how we want to play D&D; where our differences lie is exactly what degree of optimization results in a negative impact on the narrative.
Might want to ask your DM what they mean by the term since derisive terms like "powergamer," "min/max," etc. mean different things to different people. Your DM is probably hoping that the players at their table play according to a certain style that they prefer, or may be trying to avoid playing with people who argue about the rules at the table. If someone is telling you how they want you to play, the oneness is on them to explain to you what they want you to do so they have a rewarding experience. Their explanation should help set boundaries and expectations.
Just generalizing, though, if a DM says "no min/maxing," it means that you should make sure your character is not super-ultimate-optimized in every way, because this probably rubs the DM the wrong way. Many players and DMs consider maximally optimized characters with no waste and everything exactly perfect to be unrealistic RP-wise because nobody is just that perfect. We all have flaws and many of us are less than optimally suited either physically or mentally for the jobs we do.
So for example, you could avoid being thought of as a min-maxer by making a character whose racial stat bonuses do not complement the class stat needs, and leave them there rather than trying to move them around per the new Tasha rule. Playing a half-orc Sorcerer and leaving the bonuses as is would prove to just about anyone you were not min-maxing, as one of many possible examples.
Gorilla as in Bugbear or Gorilla as in homebrewed race? Cos a Gorilla shouldn't be smart enough to speak a language. That's confusing as hell.
DK: If you want to murder your party, roll an elven gloom stalker, have a talk with the other elf (I'm assuming they'll at least consent to not impede you), then murder the gnome in his sleep at night with the lights off. You'll win. Then you can either murder the gorilla or flee to ambush the gorilla in the future. The only build that generally shows up with a gloom stalker counter is the warlock, and your party has no warlocks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What is considered to be min maxing?
All men can see the tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.
-Sun Tzu
The Art Of War
Min maxing would be considered to be when you go out of your way to try to make your character as strong as possible.
Normally if my players are just getting feats or better armor or anything like that, I wouldn't care. If my players start trying to get excessive of one thing like damage or AC, then I would get involved.
Hope this helped, but min maxing is a relative term, it depends on who your playing with before they start considering it min maxing.
Thx My Dm said my new character cant be a min/max, and i didnt know what that really meant
All men can see the tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.
-Sun Tzu
The Art Of War
Did I just respond to two of ur posts?
Yes
All men can see the tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.
-Sun Tzu
The Art Of War
It’s not as common in this edition, but it can happen. I think everyone has their own idea of what it means, so you might want to clarify with your DM exactly what they meant.
In past editions it was easier to find rules loopholes and make overpowered characters by exploiting them, which is my definition.
Min/max players are all about the numbers. How can I build maximum damage or AC, or how can I build a specific multi-class that fudges the rules enough to make me more powerful. These type of players start with the goal then work back to pick out the character and finally, as an after thought, worry about any story or RP. Playing for the power trip rather than for a fun game. No care for balance.
Min-maxing is short for "minimizing weakness, maximizing strength." Min-maxers look for ways to combine and/or exploit rules to get the most out of characters in terms of power.
The main problem is that min-maxing/power gaming/optimizing/munchkining (all names for the same thing) is that it throws game balance off. There are lots of instances where overtuned PCs find combat designed for the party too easy, while the rest of the party would find a fight designed dor the powerr gamer too difficult and risk TPK. This creates a lot of extra work and burden on the DM and leads to burn out.
This isn't a problem when everyone is power gaming, but mixed styles be an issue.
As a DM, I expect my players to min/max their char. I play a strict 27 point buy, but am always shocked if a player does not take their first ASI to get an 18 in their primary stat. That can be considered as min/max'ing and a perfectly reasonable way to play the game. Min-maxing, however, can be also considered a subset of "power-gaming", which is a noxious way to play the game, where the player harangues the DM for every possible edge, pushes every rule as far they can, testing the limits that other players and the DM will allow.
Pretty much every power-gamer is a min-maxer, but not every min-maxer is a power-gamer.
The same DM that allows the other, somewhat optimized PCs to murder your PC (because they're murderhobos and your PC isn't) without repercussions is telling you your new character can't be min/maxed? I know you were trying to min/max the AC of your new character, but this whole thing just sounds more and more disfunctional. Still, best of luck to you - hope it works out.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Wait thats min/maxing?!?, oof i thought it was something else
All men can see the tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.
-Sun Tzu
The Art Of War
It's different things to different people. You really need to ask your DM to clarify to see what it means to them.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
This is a term with many subjective meanings, like other internet gaming terms such as WAAC or LAAC. It's common and typical to hear people arguing about games where they don't share a definition of this and don't really acknowledge that.
For example, your GM might think that it's min-maxing for your character to be good at a specific set of tasks, and the only way to satisfy them is to make a jack of all trades who's bad at everything. That's a popular definition. But it's hardly the only one. You have to ask your GM for clarity.
I believe the original concept of min/maxing was to, instead of giving something a spread of capability, you minimise one thing to maximise another. In the case of point-buy, you would put all your points into Strength and Dexterity and leave the other stats really low, with a view to "hitting hard and having good AC". The character is made with one focus and as such is useless at anything but "hitting and not being hit". That's what I consider "Min Maxing".
Minimising weakness and maximising strength is more what I consider Powergaming - growing your character based on making them the most powerful person ever instead of to make them grow in the way their character would. An example being making a character which uses crossbows, and then picking a completely unrelated feat because it's "better" than one relating to crossbows.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Min/maxing means, strictly speaking - getting the maximum possible benefit from the minimum possible cost.
True min-maxers do not do anything for flavor or just RP -- for a min-maxer, these considerations are secondary. The primary goal is to get the maximum benefit for the minimum cost, in all things, in all ways, at all times, in everything they do with the character. Anyone who would do something for flavor or RP that is not also maximizing the character, is not a real min-maxer.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
This is a great illustration of why the topic is so confusing for newcomers. In the first paragraph, the player is Bad for trying to be good at one thing (melee combat). In the second paragraph, the player is Bad in a different way for not trying to be good at one thing (crossbows).
I think the gist of both labels is an objection to favoring the game side of D&D so heavily that it detracts from the story side of D&D, and they both tend to lean on the (false) assumption that an optimized character cannot be a compelling character. Of course, just because they can be compelling doesn't mean they will be, and there are indeed players who disregard every other aspect of D&D in the pursuit of mechanical excellence. I think everyone can agree that is not how we want to play D&D; where our differences lie is exactly what degree of optimization results in a negative impact on the narrative.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Might want to ask your DM what they mean by the term since derisive terms like "powergamer," "min/max," etc. mean different things to different people. Your DM is probably hoping that the players at their table play according to a certain style that they prefer, or may be trying to avoid playing with people who argue about the rules at the table. If someone is telling you how they want you to play, the oneness is on them to explain to you what they want you to do so they have a rewarding experience. Their explanation should help set boundaries and expectations.
I agree with hawke. Talk to the DM.
Just generalizing, though, if a DM says "no min/maxing," it means that you should make sure your character is not super-ultimate-optimized in every way, because this probably rubs the DM the wrong way. Many players and DMs consider maximally optimized characters with no waste and everything exactly perfect to be unrealistic RP-wise because nobody is just that perfect. We all have flaws and many of us are less than optimally suited either physically or mentally for the jobs we do.
So for example, you could avoid being thought of as a min-maxer by making a character whose racial stat bonuses do not complement the class stat needs, and leave them there rather than trying to move them around per the new Tasha rule. Playing a half-orc Sorcerer and leaving the bonuses as is would prove to just about anyone you were not min-maxing, as one of many possible examples.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Considering the 22 AC gorilla in the party (https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/103900-can-i-get-some-help-creating-a-really-tanky?comment=11), some clarification certainly seems in order.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Gorilla as in Bugbear or Gorilla as in homebrewed race? Cos a Gorilla shouldn't be smart enough to speak a language. That's confusing as hell.
DK: If you want to murder your party, roll an elven gloom stalker, have a talk with the other elf (I'm assuming they'll at least consent to not impede you), then murder the gnome in his sleep at night with the lights off. You'll win. Then you can either murder the gorilla or flee to ambush the gorilla in the future. The only build that generally shows up with a gloom stalker counter is the warlock, and your party has no warlocks.