Okay I know this isn't the topic but I'm morbidly curious; cheat how?
There are lots of ways. It tends to start in character creation when you're rolling stats and they get coincidentally very lucky on their attribute rolls... which you didn't actually see them make.
This is true in a vacuum, but it kind of misses the forest for the trees. I can build an encounter around a highly optimized character; I can't build a game around a player who wants to be a god. The two aren't the same thing, but they are correlated; I'm not saying every optimizer is a selfish jerk, but I am saying that a disproportionate number of selfish jerks are optimizers.
My experience is that the selfish jerks don't really optimize, they just cheat.
And when you have someone who cheats, you either get them to stop (if possible) or boot them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I mean so far it seems pretty obvious to me that the problem is not optimisation or multiclassing (which is an optional rule anyway, even if I normally use it.). The problems are:
- Lack of communication of expected power level in session 0.
- ******* players (which you really can’t fix, there’s always going to be some people)
- And differing perceptions of what constitutes optimisation at all. I wouldn’t consider multiclassing or even taking good feats optimisation, personally, but I would consider a highly specialised build optimisation (e.g. that wizard/cleric build which shall remain nameless).
I’m about to start running a game at level 8, in a high-magic, high-power and very dangerous world. As a result, my players (who are all experienced and rules-savvy) have optimised. And because this was communicated, and because we all know each other, there is unlikely to be any problems, even though one of them has triple digit nova damage. It’s an individual issue rather than a systemic issue.
Notice that I said absolutely nothing about starting equipment. The fact that they weren't using basic equipment doesn't mean that they were minmaxed, it just means that they were a higher level party with level-appropriate gear. You're trying to force the term to mean "anyone who's better at something than I am." Seriously, if you made a character who was 1st level and had basic starting gear, would you call another character who was 5th level and had a few magic items "minmaxed?"
is level disparity always min/maxing? no. is it sometimes? maybe.
Explain exactly how you use minmaxing to achieve a level disparity in the party.
could the use of level disparity ever be called min/maxing? maybe, i said. my inner brennan lee mulligan wants to go on to suggest that advantageous seating at an adventures league table could be a thing. i'm not committed to fleshing out that scenario, though. could the use of min/maxing achieve a level disparity? that's a different question. no, probably not without deliberate miscommunication. or a lax dm. in which case: yes. there's probably a universe where drawing a lucky joker from a "sure, you can start with any one magical item" deck of many things could happen. but sanctioned min/maxing isn't sucking the air out of the room by itself.
Okay, I'm out. When a scenario requires someone drawing one specific card from the Deck of Many Things, it's an indication that the discussion has moved well beyond reasonable concerns and is just looking for arguments.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
could the use of level disparity ever be called min/maxing?
Min-maxing is about getting the largest possible benefit out of a fixed resource pool. Having a larger resource pool (higher level, better stats, etc) isn't min-maxing, though it has a good chance of being power gaming.
I mean so far it seems pretty obvious to me that the problem is not optimisation or multiclassing (which is an optional rule anyway, even if I normally use it.). The problems are:
- Lack of communication of expected power level in session 0.
- ******* players (which you really can’t fix, there’s always going to be some people)
- And differing perceptions of what constitutes optimisation at all. I wouldn’t consider multiclassing or even taking good feats optimisation, personally, but I would consider a highly specialised build optimisation (e.g. that wizard/cleric build which shall remain nameless).
I’m about to start running a game at level 8, in a high-magic, high-power and very dangerous world. As a result, my players (who are all experienced and rules-savvy) have optimised. And because this was communicated, and because we all know each other, there is unlikely to be any problems, even though one of them has triple digit nova damage. It’s an individual issue rather than a systemic issue.
Hihello Im one of the players in this group(Not the triple digit nova one, hes better at this than me lol. My steady is 54, my nova is 95). I completely agree that its an individual group thing if its an issue, but I especially have a point to make about the third bullet here about differing opinions of optimization. Ive been at tables where they angrily called it 'minmaxing'(They meant optimization) when I put my highest stat in DEX...... As a rogue. Or WIS as a cleric. Or INT as a wizard. The fact that the idea of what optimization is to each group is so different, combined with the needless stigma around having anyone coming even close to 'minmaxing' makes it annoyingly stressful to find new groups(Especially without a session 0), as sometimes simply putting your highest score in a primary stat for your class is completely unacceptable to groups.
Im gettin a bit ramble-y here, but the point is PLEASE HAVE SESSION 0S WITH YOUR PLAYERS and establish exactly what constitutes as reasonable and unreasonable optimization for everyone
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
NNCHRIS: SOUL THIEF, MASTER OF THE ARCANE, AND KING OF NEW YORKNN Gdl Creator of Ilheia and her Knights of the Fallen Stars ldG Lesser Student of Technomancy [undergrad student in computer science] Supporter of the 2014 rules, and a MASSIVE Homebrewer. Come to me all ye who seek salvation in wording thy brews! Open to homebrew trades at any time!! Or feel free to request HB, and Ill see if I can get it done for ya! Characters (Outdated)
could the use of level disparity ever be called min/maxing?
Min-maxing is about getting the largest possible benefit out of a fixed resource pool. Having a larger resource pool (higher level, better stats, etc) isn't min-maxing, though it has a good chance of being power gaming.
since this is directed at me, I'll add that different people could view "a fixed resource pool" differently. that's the only way I could begin to explain something like ChrisTheSoulcasterMage's issue with ability score allocation consternation. session zero, for sure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
since this is directed at me, I'll add that different people could view "a fixed resource pool" differently. that's the only way I could begin to explain something like ChrisTheSoulcasterMage's issue with ability score allocation consternation. session zero, for sure.
That is min-maxing. It's just so very basic that most people don't react to it.
since this is directed at me, I'll add that different people could view "a fixed resource pool" differently. that's the only way I could begin to explain something like ChrisTheSoulcasterMage's issue with ability score allocation consternation. session zero, for sure.
That is min-maxing. It's just so very basic that most people don't react to it.
Debatably, it's the origin of the term. You roll your stats randomly, and put the big numbers in the stats you plan to use and the small numbers in the stats you aren't going to use.
It is real simple to stop "optimizing". Min/max in and of itself is not a problem. I have no issues with a player who is using standard point buy with max'ing the primary abilities for the PC. But "optimizing" is a different issue. That is based on players scouring sites looking for the "perfect build", using every single obscure, or not so obscure, subclass and feat.
Here is how to stop it:
1. Tell the players that ONLY builds from the PHB and XGTE are acceptable. That includes feats, spells, the works. Here is the simple truth. There are way too many possible combo's/permutations within the first two books (even just the PHB) for a player to burn though in a lifetime of playing 5e. Now, wotc did the only thing they figured would sell books after the first few years of 5e's existence. And that was creating more and more powerful abilities/subclasses/feats/spells. And a large chunk of the player base HAS to have those uber options, and will buy any material to get those options. Ignore those players who scream when you as a DM say "No" to those options. I don't know how many times I have heard that I am "No fun" or "boring" because I ban tashas and everything after that. However, I have found, those players self-select out of my games very quickly.
2. Multi-classing is banned. See above. If I have a player tell me "But single classed PC's are boring", I immediately know what kind of player they are.
3. Be comfortable to ban/modify feats that you consider game-breaking. Some of the ones in the PHB, and XGTE are indeed unbalanced. Always remember, Feats are OPTIONAL. It says that right in the source material.
4. Go with std array, or point buy, ONLY, for stats. I don't even want to begin to deal with someone who shows up with two nat 18's and a 16 and says "but of course I rolled that."
Always remember, the DM creates the framework for the game, the guardrails for it. A good player always finds a way to get the maximum result through smart gameplay within any set of guardrails. THAT is a form of maximization that I applaud. A bad player is the one who complains that the guardrails are "too restrictive". And as I have said, those players will self-select out of your game, very quickly. And a game that limits the firepower of the PC's by banning all the OP options will have a much easier time matching encounters to the relative power of the PC's. A good player can work with any set of restrictions. The game's enjoyment is not about PC's one-shotting monsters supposedly well above their weight class. The game's enjoyment comes from a DM creating a world and scenarios that the players can immerse in, which in turn creates plot threads neither the DM nor the players could have envisioned.
since this is directed at me, I'll add that different people could view "a fixed resource pool" differently. that's the only way I could begin to explain something like ChrisTheSoulcasterMage's issue with ability score allocation consternation. session zero, for sure.
That is min-maxing. It's just so very basic that most people don't react to it.
i didn't say it wasn't? it seems like the post above mine makes more sense to quote for the response you give. if the two of us are meant to be arguing then please let's take it to direct messages.
This is true in a vacuum, but it kind of misses the forest for the trees. I can build an encounter around a highly optimized character; I can't build a game around a player who wants to be a god. The two aren't the same thing, but they are correlated; I'm not saying every optimizer is a selfish jerk, but I am saying that a disproportionate number of selfish jerks are optimizers.
My experience is that the selfish jerks don't really optimize, they just cheat.
Okay I know this isn't the topic but I'm morbidly curious; cheat how?
The classics are "forgetting" to record use of spell slots, points, and other consumable features or even damage, frequently "accidentally" rolling so the d20 falls off the table or is otherwise out of most peoples' LoS and insisting they got a high roll that should count, and insisting that spells or abilities have much more powerful effects than they actually do.
I like to believe that most tables have the rule of "if it wasn't on the table it doesn't count."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The fact that the idea of what optimization is to each group is so different, combined with the needless stigma around having anyone coming even close to 'minmaxing' makes it annoyingly stressful to find new groups(Especially without a session 0), as sometimes simply putting your highest score in a primary stat for your class is completely unacceptable to groups.
That's a thing? How can that be a thing?!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
This is true in a vacuum, but it kind of misses the forest for the trees. I can build an encounter around a highly optimized character; I can't build a game around a player who wants to be a god. The two aren't the same thing, but they are correlated; I'm not saying every optimizer is a selfish jerk, but I am saying that a disproportionate number of selfish jerks are optimizers.
My experience is that the selfish jerks don't really optimize, they just cheat.
Okay I know this isn't the topic but I'm morbidly curious; cheat how?
The classics are "forgetting" to record use of spell slots, points, and other consumable features or even damage, frequently "accidentally" rolling so the d20 falls off the table or is otherwise out of most peoples' LoS and insisting they got a high roll that should count, and insisting that spells or abilities have much more powerful effects than they actually do.
I like to believe that most tables have the rule of "if it wasn't on the table it doesn't count."
Tables that are firm with rules generally don't have pronounced cheating problems in the first place; they tend to crop up when a group isn't inclined to push the issue for whatever reason.
It is real simple to stop "optimizing". Min/max in and of itself is not a problem. I have no issues with a player who is using standard point buy with max'ing the primary abilities for the PC. But "optimizing" is a different issue. That is based on players scouring sites looking for the "perfect build", using every single obscure, or not so obscure, subclass and feat.
Here is how to stop it:
1. Tell the players that ONLY builds from the PHB and XGTE are acceptable. That includes feats, spells, the works. Here is the simple truth. There are way too many possible combo's/permutations within the first two books (even just the PHB) for a player to burn though in a lifetime of playing 5e. Now, wotc did the only thing they figured would sell books after the first few years of 5e's existence. And that was creating more and more powerful abilities/subclasses/feats/spells. And a large chunk of the player base HAS to have those uber options, and will buy any material to get those options. Ignore those players who scream when you as a DM say "No" to those options. I don't know how many times I have heard that I am "No fun" or "boring" because I ban tashas and everything after that. However, I have found, those players self-select out of my games very quickly.
2. Multi-classing is banned. See above. If I have a player tell me "But single classed PC's are boring", I immediately know what kind of player they are.
3. Be comfortable to ban/modify feats that you consider game-breaking. Some of the ones in the PHB, and XGTE are indeed unbalanced. Always remember, Feats are OPTIONAL. It says that right in the source material.
4. Go with std array, or point buy, ONLY, for stats. I don't even want to begin to deal with someone who shows up with two nat 18's and a 16 and says "but of course I rolled that."
Always remember, the DM creates the framework for the game, the guardrails for it. A good player always finds a way to get the maximum result through smart gameplay within any set of guardrails. THAT is a form of maximization that I applaud. A bad player is the one who complains that the guardrails are "too restrictive". And as I have said, those players will self-select out of your game, very quickly. And a game that limits the firepower of the PC's by banning all the OP options will have a much easier time matching encounters to the relative power of the PC's. A good player can work with any set of restrictions. The game's enjoyment is not about PC's one-shotting monsters supposedly well above their weight class. The game's enjoyment comes from a DM creating a world and scenarios that the players can immerse in, which in turn creates plot threads neither the DM nor the players could have envisioned.
In my personal experience, the better the DM is the less the restrictions. I say that as a poor DM, I need to limit what the players can do so I can learn to DM better. I also see no problem with that so long as it is openly discussed at session 0. I am also a reluctant DM and do enjoy it, I just need my guardrails a lot closer together than most DM's I play with. That said I am getting better at adjusting things on the fly, so I am getting where I limit less things. I always explain this to my players as this is not their problem it is mine, but if they want me to DM, these are things I need and they have to accept. Without an explanation for why a DM is limiting published choices I can see where the lines between min/maxing, optimization, and power gaming can get blurred fast.
As to showing up with nat 18's and 16's that is simple, roll for stats at the table in the open, it is not impossible to roll that good same for horrible rolls.
Character death is also something I feel should be embraced more by both DM's and players alike right along with min/maxing and character optimization. Though there are many reasons to limit all of them for many reasons, just be prepared to have a civil and productive conversation about why those limits are there ideally at session 0 or before.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
It is real simple to stop "optimizing". Min/max in and of itself is not a problem. I have no issues with a player who is using standard point buy with max'ing the primary abilities for the PC. But "optimizing" is a different issue. That is based on players scouring sites looking for the "perfect build", using every single obscure, or not so obscure, subclass and feat.
Here is how to stop it:
1. Tell the players that ONLY builds from the PHB and XGTE are acceptable. That includes feats, spells, the works. Here is the simple truth. There are way too many possible combo's/permutations within the first two books (even just the PHB) for a player to burn though in a lifetime of playing 5e. Now, wotc did the only thing they figured would sell books after the first few years of 5e's existence. And that was creating more and more powerful abilities/subclasses/feats/spells. And a large chunk of the player base HAS to have those uber options, and will buy any material to get those options. Ignore those players who scream when you as a DM say "No" to those options. I don't know how many times I have heard that I am "No fun" or "boring" because I ban tashas and everything after that. However, I have found, those players self-select out of my games very quickly.
2. Multi-classing is banned. See above. If I have a player tell me "But single classed PC's are boring", I immediately know what kind of player they are.
3. Be comfortable to ban/modify feats that you consider game-breaking. Some of the ones in the PHB, and XGTE are indeed unbalanced. Always remember, Feats are OPTIONAL. It says that right in the source material.
4. Go with std array, or point buy, ONLY, for stats. I don't even want to begin to deal with someone who shows up with two nat 18's and a 16 and says "but of course I rolled that."
Always remember, the DM creates the framework for the game, the guardrails for it. A good player always finds a way to get the maximum result through smart gameplay within any set of guardrails. THAT is a form of maximization that I applaud. A bad player is the one who complains that the guardrails are "too restrictive". And as I have said, those players will self-select out of your game, very quickly. And a game that limits the firepower of the PC's by banning all the OP options will have a much easier time matching encounters to the relative power of the PC's. A good player can work with any set of restrictions. The game's enjoyment is not about PC's one-shotting monsters supposedly well above their weight class. The game's enjoyment comes from a DM creating a world and scenarios that the players can immerse in, which in turn creates plot threads neither the DM nor the players could have envisioned.
In my personal experience, the better the DM is the less the restrictions. I say that as a poor DM, I need to limit what the players can do so I can learn to DM better. I also see no problem with that so long as it is openly discussed at session 0. I am also a reluctant DM and do enjoy it, I just need my guardrails a lot closer together than most DM's I play with. That said I am getting better at adjusting things on the fly, so I am getting where I limit less things. I always explain this to my players as this is not their problem it is mine, but if they want me to DM, these are things I need and they have to accept. Without an explanation for why a DM is limiting published choices I can see where the lines between min/maxing, optimization, and power gaming can get blurred fast.
As to showing up with nat 18's and 16's that is simple, roll for stats at the table in the open, it is not impossible to roll that good same for horrible rolls.
Character death is also something I feel should be embraced more by both DM's and players alike right along with min/maxing and character optimization. Though there are many reasons to limit all of them for many reasons, just be prepared to have a civil and productive conversation about why those limits are there ideally at session 0 or before.
In my experience, a better DM makes the limitations so one player does not dominate the game. I am playing at a table right now where that is the case of one player having an uber-PC and the DM is having fits trying to balance encounters. Good players recognize that, and are happy to work within the limitations.
As for rolling stats on a table, when a player is told "sure, you can roll right now, once, in front of me, and will play with whatever is the outcome, or you can use point buy", invariably they choose the point buy, unless the player knows he has weighted dice. I have DM'ed and played, a long time, over multiple versions of D&D. It is always the same situation.
And PC death is automatically part of the game, no matter how many say otherwise. What is the point of playing if PC's have no risk?
Limiting options is one way to prevent min maxing - it also places burdens on your players, basically telling them “I am too scared of a hypothetical problem to let you play the character you want to play.” It is a good tool for mediocre DMs who cannot balance encounters and okay-ish DMs who lack the social skills to solve some of the player-problems which come from optimization.
But a blanket ban is not the best way to go about that, unless you are also really bad at evaluating species and subclasses. A more experienced DM can graduate away from the novice, draconian mechanism of blanket limitations, and adopt a “you have to get my approval before choosing these options, so I can review for power” stance.
And, of course, if one is going to impose drastic limitations, that DM should talk with their players in advance - the players may very well say “Thanks, but we do not need you to protect us from ourselves—we are fine with either imbalance, or we are all capable enough players to balance at a high tier.” Then the DM has a choice to make - admit to their players that the limitations were really more for the DM’s benefit, not theirs, or step up their game and try to get better at encounter balance to reflect how their players want to play.
The problem is if you min-max and the other players in the game do not. That can make for a massive problem for the DM.
I've seen this in two different GM's games.
A new player to the game, rolling damage, does something like 8 damage and feels (rightfully) quite pleased. Then the minmax character comes along and does 12 points on their first attack and 10 points on their second attack and sets the foe on fire (or something similar). I saw the faces of the new player fall as all the fun of the game left them. It was heartbreaking.
Both new players had been very upfront that they wanted a casual game, not a wargame.
One of the games was also advertised as a casual game, where the GM said they would play pretty loose with rules focusing more on story than combat. Which didn't stop the minmax player turning up with a beast barbarian clockwork sorcerer multiclass…
In short, its not the minmaxing that is an issue, it is the mismatch of expectations at the table.
What makes it a bigger issue is that (in my experience anyway) minmaxers can't not be minmaxers. It's how they play games. I guess the only real solution is not to mix player types. which is a hassle when the players are people you like and actually want to socialise with.
Managing expectations and cheering everyone seems to be key. That player felt bad about doing less damage - but why? In that encounter, that dice roll, that's how it turned out - did the other players cheer? And what are the strengths of the other character? Can encounters be designed to give that other character more oomph? Can that character maybe get a magic item or some equipment that helps them feel that they contribute?
I have seen that sometimes people feel very insecure about their contributions and sometimes that's just how they are and sometimes that's because of the table or DM.
I run a gloomstalker ranger that does amazing damage in the first round of combat. Everyone at my table seems to like this. But hey, you want to nerf my character, simply don't let the combat end - have a combatant hidden or running away until the next monsters are found so we don't drop out of initiative, and I don't get that damage again. Use up the sorcerer's spells before they get into combat. What kind of saves are the characters good at? Ask my character for a charisma saving throw and we are going DOWN hard, lol.
That said, I don't find it super fun to play with someone who is a glory hound with main character syndrome. I like the play to be collaborative where the success of the party as a whole is what we value rather than keeping score about who exactly did what. Yes, I like it when my character gets the kill, it feels great. I mostly just want to feel like I'm contributing to everyone having a good time and that I'm not holding people back or nerfing their fun. I love it when we celebrate each other's successes.
Limiting options is one way to prevent min maxing - it also places burdens on your players, basically telling them “I am too scared of a hypothetical problem to let you play the character you want to play.” It is a good tool for mediocre DMs who cannot balance encounters and okay-ish DMs who lack the social skills to solve some of the player-problems which come from optimization.
I think that's a bit insulting and intimidating language to use for those GMs that are just starting. You shouldn't make them feel inadequate just because they are not well versed with all the rules. Players forcing a new GM to accept things they are not familiar with is bad play, not "mediocre DM".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are lots of ways. It tends to start in character creation when you're rolling stats and they get coincidentally very lucky on their attribute rolls... which you didn't actually see them make.
And when you have someone who cheats, you either get them to stop (if possible) or boot them.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I mean so far it seems pretty obvious to me that the problem is not optimisation or multiclassing (which is an optional rule anyway, even if I normally use it.). The problems are:
- Lack of communication of expected power level in session 0.
- ******* players (which you really can’t fix, there’s always going to be some people)
- And differing perceptions of what constitutes optimisation at all. I wouldn’t consider multiclassing or even taking good feats optimisation, personally, but I would consider a highly specialised build optimisation (e.g. that wizard/cleric build which shall remain nameless).
I’m about to start running a game at level 8, in a high-magic, high-power and very dangerous world. As a result, my players (who are all experienced and rules-savvy) have optimised. And because this was communicated, and because we all know each other, there is unlikely to be any problems, even though one of them has triple digit nova damage. It’s an individual issue rather than a systemic issue.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
could the use of level disparity ever be called min/maxing? maybe, i said. my inner brennan lee mulligan wants to go on to suggest that advantageous seating at an adventures league table could be a thing. i'm not committed to fleshing out that scenario, though. could the use of min/maxing achieve a level disparity? that's a different question. no, probably not without deliberate miscommunication. or a lax dm. in which case: yes. there's probably a universe where drawing a lucky joker from a "sure, you can start with any one magical item" deck of many things could happen. but sanctioned min/maxing isn't sucking the air out of the room by itself.
no level disparity in my 5e games. games for which i'm often the dm. so take that with a grain of salt.
also, i didn't mean to pull the "freedom from level disparity" sword from the stone. someone else can lead camelot against the saxons.
anyway, i agree: all dice roll on the table. floor dice go to dice jail unremarked for border infractions and attempted caltrops impersonation.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Okay, I'm out. When a scenario requires someone drawing one specific card from the Deck of Many Things, it's an indication that the discussion has moved well beyond reasonable concerns and is just looking for arguments.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Min-maxing is about getting the largest possible benefit out of a fixed resource pool. Having a larger resource pool (higher level, better stats, etc) isn't min-maxing, though it has a good chance of being power gaming.
Hihello Im one of the players in this group(Not the triple digit nova one, hes better at this than me lol. My steady is 54, my nova is 95). I completely agree that its an individual group thing if its an issue, but I especially have a point to make about the third bullet here about differing opinions of optimization. Ive been at tables where they angrily called it 'minmaxing'(They meant optimization) when I put my highest stat in DEX...... As a rogue. Or WIS as a cleric. Or INT as a wizard. The fact that the idea of what optimization is to each group is so different, combined with the needless stigma around having anyone coming even close to 'minmaxing' makes it annoyingly stressful to find new groups(Especially without a session 0), as sometimes simply putting your highest score in a primary stat for your class is completely unacceptable to groups.
Im gettin a bit ramble-y here, but the point is PLEASE HAVE SESSION 0S WITH YOUR PLAYERS and establish exactly what constitutes as reasonable and unreasonable optimization for everyone
NNCHRIS: SOUL THIEF, MASTER OF THE ARCANE, AND KING OF NEW YORKNN
Gdl Creator of Ilheia and her Knights of the Fallen Stars ldG
Lesser Student of Technomancy [undergrad student in computer science]
Supporter of the 2014 rules, and a MASSIVE Homebrewer. Come to me all ye who seek salvation in wording thy brews!
Open to homebrew trades at any time!! Or feel free to request HB, and Ill see if I can get it done for ya!
Characters (Outdated)
since this is directed at me, I'll add that different people could view "a fixed resource pool" differently. that's the only way I could begin to explain something like ChrisTheSoulcasterMage's issue with ability score allocation consternation. session zero, for sure.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
That is min-maxing. It's just so very basic that most people don't react to it.
Debatably, it's the origin of the term. You roll your stats randomly, and put the big numbers in the stats you plan to use and the small numbers in the stats you aren't going to use.
It is real simple to stop "optimizing". Min/max in and of itself is not a problem. I have no issues with a player who is using standard point buy with max'ing the primary abilities for the PC. But "optimizing" is a different issue. That is based on players scouring sites looking for the "perfect build", using every single obscure, or not so obscure, subclass and feat.
Here is how to stop it:
1. Tell the players that ONLY builds from the PHB and XGTE are acceptable. That includes feats, spells, the works. Here is the simple truth. There are way too many possible combo's/permutations within the first two books (even just the PHB) for a player to burn though in a lifetime of playing 5e. Now, wotc did the only thing they figured would sell books after the first few years of 5e's existence. And that was creating more and more powerful abilities/subclasses/feats/spells. And a large chunk of the player base HAS to have those uber options, and will buy any material to get those options. Ignore those players who scream when you as a DM say "No" to those options. I don't know how many times I have heard that I am "No fun" or "boring" because I ban tashas and everything after that. However, I have found, those players self-select out of my games very quickly.
2. Multi-classing is banned. See above. If I have a player tell me "But single classed PC's are boring", I immediately know what kind of player they are.
3. Be comfortable to ban/modify feats that you consider game-breaking. Some of the ones in the PHB, and XGTE are indeed unbalanced. Always remember, Feats are OPTIONAL. It says that right in the source material.
4. Go with std array, or point buy, ONLY, for stats. I don't even want to begin to deal with someone who shows up with two nat 18's and a 16 and says "but of course I rolled that."
Always remember, the DM creates the framework for the game, the guardrails for it. A good player always finds a way to get the maximum result through smart gameplay within any set of guardrails. THAT is a form of maximization that I applaud. A bad player is the one who complains that the guardrails are "too restrictive". And as I have said, those players will self-select out of your game, very quickly. And a game that limits the firepower of the PC's by banning all the OP options will have a much easier time matching encounters to the relative power of the PC's. A good player can work with any set of restrictions. The game's enjoyment is not about PC's one-shotting monsters supposedly well above their weight class. The game's enjoyment comes from a DM creating a world and scenarios that the players can immerse in, which in turn creates plot threads neither the DM nor the players could have envisioned.
i didn't say it wasn't? it seems like the post above mine makes more sense to quote for the response you give. if the two of us are meant to be arguing then please let's take it to direct messages.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
I like to believe that most tables have the rule of "if it wasn't on the table it doesn't count."
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
That's a thing? How can that be a thing?!
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Tables that are firm with rules generally don't have pronounced cheating problems in the first place; they tend to crop up when a group isn't inclined to push the issue for whatever reason.
In my personal experience, the better the DM is the less the restrictions. I say that as a poor DM, I need to limit what the players can do so I can learn to DM better. I also see no problem with that so long as it is openly discussed at session 0. I am also a reluctant DM and do enjoy it, I just need my guardrails a lot closer together than most DM's I play with. That said I am getting better at adjusting things on the fly, so I am getting where I limit less things. I always explain this to my players as this is not their problem it is mine, but if they want me to DM, these are things I need and they have to accept. Without an explanation for why a DM is limiting published choices I can see where the lines between min/maxing, optimization, and power gaming can get blurred fast.
As to showing up with nat 18's and 16's that is simple, roll for stats at the table in the open, it is not impossible to roll that good same for horrible rolls.
Character death is also something I feel should be embraced more by both DM's and players alike right along with min/maxing and character optimization. Though there are many reasons to limit all of them for many reasons, just be prepared to have a civil and productive conversation about why those limits are there ideally at session 0 or before.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
In my experience, a better DM makes the limitations so one player does not dominate the game. I am playing at a table right now where that is the case of one player having an uber-PC and the DM is having fits trying to balance encounters. Good players recognize that, and are happy to work within the limitations.
As for rolling stats on a table, when a player is told "sure, you can roll right now, once, in front of me, and will play with whatever is the outcome, or you can use point buy", invariably they choose the point buy, unless the player knows he has weighted dice. I have DM'ed and played, a long time, over multiple versions of D&D. It is always the same situation.
And PC death is automatically part of the game, no matter how many say otherwise. What is the point of playing if PC's have no risk?
Limiting options is one way to prevent min maxing - it also places burdens on your players, basically telling them “I am too scared of a hypothetical problem to let you play the character you want to play.” It is a good tool for mediocre DMs who cannot balance encounters and okay-ish DMs who lack the social skills to solve some of the player-problems which come from optimization.
But a blanket ban is not the best way to go about that, unless you are also really bad at evaluating species and subclasses. A more experienced DM can graduate away from the novice, draconian mechanism of blanket limitations, and adopt a “you have to get my approval before choosing these options, so I can review for power” stance.
And, of course, if one is going to impose drastic limitations, that DM should talk with their players in advance - the players may very well say “Thanks, but we do not need you to protect us from ourselves—we are fine with either imbalance, or we are all capable enough players to balance at a high tier.” Then the DM has a choice to make - admit to their players that the limitations were really more for the DM’s benefit, not theirs, or step up their game and try to get better at encounter balance to reflect how their players want to play.
Managing expectations and cheering everyone seems to be key. That player felt bad about doing less damage - but why? In that encounter, that dice roll, that's how it turned out - did the other players cheer? And what are the strengths of the other character? Can encounters be designed to give that other character more oomph? Can that character maybe get a magic item or some equipment that helps them feel that they contribute?
I have seen that sometimes people feel very insecure about their contributions and sometimes that's just how they are and sometimes that's because of the table or DM.
I run a gloomstalker ranger that does amazing damage in the first round of combat. Everyone at my table seems to like this. But hey, you want to nerf my character, simply don't let the combat end - have a combatant hidden or running away until the next monsters are found so we don't drop out of initiative, and I don't get that damage again. Use up the sorcerer's spells before they get into combat. What kind of saves are the characters good at? Ask my character for a charisma saving throw and we are going DOWN hard, lol.
That said, I don't find it super fun to play with someone who is a glory hound with main character syndrome. I like the play to be collaborative where the success of the party as a whole is what we value rather than keeping score about who exactly did what. Yes, I like it when my character gets the kill, it feels great. I mostly just want to feel like I'm contributing to everyone having a good time and that I'm not holding people back or nerfing their fun. I love it when we celebrate each other's successes.
I think that's a bit insulting and intimidating language to use for those GMs that are just starting. You shouldn't make them feel inadequate just because they are not well versed with all the rules. Players forcing a new GM to accept things they are not familiar with is bad play, not "mediocre DM".
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale