I'm curious to know people's general thoughts on this.
My current party is pretty divided. We have 1 player who is absolutely 100% about character and story and couldn't care less about abilities and skills. I've got 1 player who is the exact opposite and makes characters that are entirely based around being able to do either the most damage, or be the most useful in the most situations, leaving character development and RP as almost an afterthought.
Then we have a couple players who are in the middle, who like to make strong developed characters and RP, but also make sure those characters are generally a well built and effective class. These two players tend to pick more powerful race/class combos to get the best stats, but also put a lot of effort into backgrounds and RP.
I personally favor character story and concept more than mechanics, but I also like having a lot of out-of-combat type skills that allow for antics between battle. So I generally don't worry too much about if my race/class combo is strong or not.
What do you think?
And do you have any awesome stories about characters who are really strong on one the ends of the spectrum (100% min-maxer or 100% character driven)?
I'm all for letting players play the way they want, but if you have a total min-maxer in a game, the other players sometimes need the DM's intervention with regards power levels.
I personally prefer to work out what I want to play from a fun RP perspective and take appropriate skills/feats based on that, BUT faced with choices, I will generally favour the more optimal one.
I like to max out some parts of my character, but I will always leave them with one or more vulnerabilities. That provides me with good tactical play, in that I know I will have some advantages in some situations, and be in dire-straits in others.
However, once encounters are over, I totally love the RP aspect of my character. I want to flesh them out, give them a purpose, give them life.
I like to figure out a character concept and then optimize my build but still fit within that concept. Whether or not you consider that min-maxing is up to personal taste, but I personally prefer the term optimization as I wouldn't take something that violates the concept even if it is mechanically better.
It all depends on what kind of DM I have/game I'm playing. If it's someone that I know isn't going to kill me if I try to have a conversation with the guard, I'm far more interested in helping to tell a good story story. If it's anything like some of the other campaigns I've been in that were undead-only and it turns out to just be a murder hobo game, I'll min-max the hell out of a Paladin.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I say Happy Middle. Creating a powerful character isn't interesting if they are utterly bland. Writing an epic backstory and fantastic RP feels bland if you don't roll good stats or try and participate in the actual game side of tabletop gaming.
I put happy medium, which I find 5th edition pretty well set-up for. Unlike other editions of the game, 5th edition's benchmark for being "good enough" at something is low enough that you kinda have to try if you want to miss it, and doesn't provide all that much reward for being even better than good enough at one thing vs. being good enough at more things - meaning a truly "min-maxed" character for the system actually ends up being the well-rounded type of character that occurs when building to concept and campaign (assuming you haven't moved the benchmark by running encounter difficulty differently than the DMG lays out suggestions for).
My whole group picks a feat or two for the cool mechanical tricks, but mostly just puts their character building resources where make sense given the campaign, and much fun is had by all.
I roll more towards character dev than mechanics. But I definitely do care about the mechanics aspect of the argument. So Moderate Character is my vote. But I can tend to swing into Happy Medium from time to time. So maybe Happy Moderate Medium Character hah.
I am a hardcore min-maxer BUT I use that skill to make my character do everything I want using the minimum resources, so I can then choose all kinds of dumb and useless but fun things for story driven reasons. Thus I voted moderate min-maxer.
Basically the same as GavinRuneblade. I min-max, and I'm quite good at it, but only do so to the point where I get to do cool stuff related to my character concept.
For example, my current character in a Curse of Strahd campaign is a Lawful Neutral Variant Human Rogue with the Investigator background out of SCAG (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide). I used point-buy for his ability scores and managed to get the ability scores to be 10 STR, 16 DEX, 12 CON, 13 INT, 14 WIS, and 8 CHA (charming he is not). At 1st level he took Observant as his bonus feat for being a Variant Human, with the ability increase going to INT, with his Expertise in Athletics and Insight (the better to chase down criminals and interrogate suspects); furthermore, between his two languages for being Human (Common and choice of one other), his ethnic language of Illuskan, and bonus languages from the Investigator background he started play knowing 5 languages (Common, Illuskan, Dwarven, Elven, and Halfling), on top of his knowledge of Thieve's Cant, and could read lips for all of his known languages. Oh, and his Passive Perception and Investigation are 19, and he has the following skills: Acrobatics, Athletics, History, Insight, Investigation, Medicine, Perception, and Stealth. 2nd level all he gets is Cunning Action and HP, nothing too exciting. At 3rd level though, he took the Mastermind Roguish Archetype out of SCAG and got the following: proficiency with disguise kit and forgery kit, two more languages (Gnomish and Draconic), the ability to unerringly mimic the speech patterns and accent of anyone he interacts with for at least 1 minute provided he speaks the language (a good bet with 7 languages), the ability to use the Help action as a bonus action, the ability to help allies in attacking a creature without having to be next to that creature (though still within 30 feet and that creature has to be able to see or hear me), and Sneak Attack increased to 2d6. 4th level his Ability Score Increase goes entirely to DEX, increasing his attack and damage bonus with his sword cane (using rapier stats) by 1, as well as increasing his AC by 1. At 5th level his proficiency bonus goes up to +3 so his Athletics becomes +6 and his Inisght becomes +8, he gets Uncanny Dodge, and his Sneak Attack increases to 3d6. At 6th he finally takes Expertise in Investigation and Perception bumping up his modifier on checks for both to +8, and his passive on both to 23. Finally, at 7th level his Sneak Attack has increased to 4d6 and he's gotten Evasion. Debating whether to take the boost to 20 DEX or the Sentinel feat so I can better fight in tandem with the other frontline characters in the group, none of whom have the feat (and of them only the Paladin would really benefit from taking it and she's more likely to take the boost to STR at 8th so she can have 20 in the stat because she's new to D&D and doesn't really get all the synergies she can take advantage of).
Looks like a little of both is here. I always like to build from an idea.. Sometimes that idea is.. "I wanna be the best at Perception ever." Sometimes it's... "How can I get the most out of throwing Fireball early and often?" Which can be maximizing a character's traits and minimizing the risk. I can't say I can properly min max with 5e. There's a lot of cool spells / multiclass builds out there to be really survivable for the long haul. But I find these guys limited on ranged damage or even damage types. I've seen some really specialized Warlock and Paladin builds made so that the player could survive most anything and really dump out a specific type of damage; I have a few of those players in my Wednesday games. Still I think true min maxing isn't real fun in 5e. Mostly Specialization over Generalization is where I have the most conflict when creating a character.
i like to start from a story or an archetipe of a character and min/max from there:
like if i chose a hermit charisma usually is not their strong suit, and he would have skills and spells that help survive whwen someone is alone. but i try to get the best of those scores and abilities
I like to max out some parts of my character, but I will always leave them with one or more vulnerabilities. That provides me with good tactical play, in that I know I will have some advantages in some situations, and be in dire-straits in others.
However, once encounters are over, I totally love the RP aspect of my character. I want to flesh them out, give them a purpose, give them life.
THis. Also, for me, it's never been a point of tension. I "optimize" the character to fulfill the character concept, not just toward general efficacy. If the character is a good swordsman, I make them mechanically good at using their sword, if they are supposed to be a talker, they get Cha and the appropriate skills trained, etc. but, I use system mastery to make it all come together in a mechanical package that feels like the character concept, and is generally good at doing something in each pillar.
I enjoy making powerful character and finding great combos of multiclass abilities, but during that process My brain runs wild and lets me flesh out personalities. I love roleplaying different ideas in my head as well as destroying the enemies as efficiently as possible.
I think one of the problems with min-maxers, which causes the poor reputation of this type of player, is that often their entire character can hinge on some overpowered combo, which may well be due to misinterpreting the rules - when the rules are clarified for them and it turns out their character cannot do what they thought it would, they'll declare that the entire character is ruined and they should be allowed to use the (incorrect) combo, or that they need to re-roll a new character instead. I've seen this happen.
Both approaches have an appeal. I like making a cool character and lore seems to just grow rampantly around them. But I also want them to be good at what they do...in an objective, toe-to-toe, dice-on-the-table sense. If I spend too much time on feats and stats though, it starts to get tedious. So I guess I cycle back and forth between the two.
I think one of the problems with min-maxers, which causes the poor reputation of this type of player, is that often their entire character can hinge on some overpowered combo, which may well be due to misinterpreting the rules - when the rules are clarified for them and it turns out their character cannot do what they thought it would, they'll declare that the entire character is ruined and they should be allowed to use the (incorrect) combo, or that they need to re-roll a new character instead. I've seen this happen.
Sure, that happens. What I've also seen, though, is a situation where a DM or other players claim the above has happened, while what actually happened is that the player built a character by the book, expecting their abilities to work as written, and then the DM either doesn't understand the rules as written, or ignores them because they don't make sense to him or he thinks they make, say, ranged combatants, too powerful. So then the player's primary competency in one of the three pillars of the game just....doesn't work, or they've spent 2 feats on making a warlock that hunts other magic users, and the DM rules both the Warcaster and Mage Slayer feats too powerful and nerfs them somehow, etc.
Or, just the DM has Low System Mastery, and thinks a "combo" is overpowered munchkin cheese, when it's really, really really, not.
I've seen all of those happen, just as often as what you describe, if not moreso.
I lean more towards characterization than skill. Whenever I try to min-max, I always find myself leaning towards really trope-y characters, no matter how hard I try to put a twist on it. The Drow assassin that's ridiculously good at sneaking around and killing people, the Half-Orc fighter that hits things really hard, The High Elf wizard seeking knowledge. All of them can have different names, ideals, flaws, etc., but they still end up boiling down to the same sort of character.
Making a character first, then putting them down on a character sheet is so much more fun, in my opinion.
I'm curious to know people's general thoughts on this.
My current party is pretty divided. We have 1 player who is absolutely 100% about character and story and couldn't care less about abilities and skills. I've got 1 player who is the exact opposite and makes characters that are entirely based around being able to do either the most damage, or be the most useful in the most situations, leaving character development and RP as almost an afterthought.
Then we have a couple players who are in the middle, who like to make strong developed characters and RP, but also make sure those characters are generally a well built and effective class. These two players tend to pick more powerful race/class combos to get the best stats, but also put a lot of effort into backgrounds and RP.
I personally favor character story and concept more than mechanics, but I also like having a lot of out-of-combat type skills that allow for antics between battle. So I generally don't worry too much about if my race/class combo is strong or not.
What do you think?
And do you have any awesome stories about characters who are really strong on one the ends of the spectrum (100% min-maxer or 100% character driven)?
(edit for typos)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersI'm all for letting players play the way they want, but if you have a total min-maxer in a game, the other players sometimes need the DM's intervention with regards power levels.
I personally prefer to work out what I want to play from a fun RP perspective and take appropriate skills/feats based on that, BUT faced with choices, I will generally favour the more optimal one.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I like to max out some parts of my character, but I will always leave them with one or more vulnerabilities. That provides me with good tactical play, in that I know I will have some advantages in some situations, and be in dire-straits in others.
However, once encounters are over, I totally love the RP aspect of my character. I want to flesh them out, give them a purpose, give them life.
I am the Inquisitor Imperitus. I am judge, jury, and executioner. Draw your last breath now, as I send you to the Nine Hells.
I like to figure out a character concept and then optimize my build but still fit within that concept. Whether or not you consider that min-maxing is up to personal taste, but I personally prefer the term optimization as I wouldn't take something that violates the concept even if it is mechanically better.
It all depends on what kind of DM I have/game I'm playing. If it's someone that I know isn't going to kill me if I try to have a conversation with the guard, I'm far more interested in helping to tell a good story story. If it's anything like some of the other campaigns I've been in that were undead-only and it turns out to just be a murder hobo game, I'll min-max the hell out of a Paladin.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I say Happy Middle. Creating a powerful character isn't interesting if they are utterly bland. Writing an epic backstory and fantastic RP feels bland if you don't roll good stats or try and participate in the actual game side of tabletop gaming.
I put happy medium, which I find 5th edition pretty well set-up for. Unlike other editions of the game, 5th edition's benchmark for being "good enough" at something is low enough that you kinda have to try if you want to miss it, and doesn't provide all that much reward for being even better than good enough at one thing vs. being good enough at more things - meaning a truly "min-maxed" character for the system actually ends up being the well-rounded type of character that occurs when building to concept and campaign (assuming you haven't moved the benchmark by running encounter difficulty differently than the DMG lays out suggestions for).
My whole group picks a feat or two for the cool mechanical tricks, but mostly just puts their character building resources where make sense given the campaign, and much fun is had by all.
I roll more towards character dev than mechanics. But I definitely do care about the mechanics aspect of the argument. So Moderate Character is my vote. But I can tend to swing into Happy Medium from time to time. So maybe Happy Moderate Medium Character hah.
I am a hardcore min-maxer BUT I use that skill to make my character do everything I want using the minimum resources, so I can then choose all kinds of dumb and useless but fun things for story driven reasons. Thus I voted moderate min-maxer.
Basically the same as GavinRuneblade. I min-max, and I'm quite good at it, but only do so to the point where I get to do cool stuff related to my character concept.
For example, my current character in a Curse of Strahd campaign is a Lawful Neutral Variant Human Rogue with the Investigator background out of SCAG (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide). I used point-buy for his ability scores and managed to get the ability scores to be 10 STR, 16 DEX, 12 CON, 13 INT, 14 WIS, and 8 CHA (charming he is not). At 1st level he took Observant as his bonus feat for being a Variant Human, with the ability increase going to INT, with his Expertise in Athletics and Insight (the better to chase down criminals and interrogate suspects); furthermore, between his two languages for being Human (Common and choice of one other), his ethnic language of Illuskan, and bonus languages from the Investigator background he started play knowing 5 languages (Common, Illuskan, Dwarven, Elven, and Halfling), on top of his knowledge of Thieve's Cant, and could read lips for all of his known languages. Oh, and his Passive Perception and Investigation are 19, and he has the following skills: Acrobatics, Athletics, History, Insight, Investigation, Medicine, Perception, and Stealth. 2nd level all he gets is Cunning Action and HP, nothing too exciting. At 3rd level though, he took the Mastermind Roguish Archetype out of SCAG and got the following: proficiency with disguise kit and forgery kit, two more languages (Gnomish and Draconic), the ability to unerringly mimic the speech patterns and accent of anyone he interacts with for at least 1 minute provided he speaks the language (a good bet with 7 languages), the ability to use the Help action as a bonus action, the ability to help allies in attacking a creature without having to be next to that creature (though still within 30 feet and that creature has to be able to see or hear me), and Sneak Attack increased to 2d6. 4th level his Ability Score Increase goes entirely to DEX, increasing his attack and damage bonus with his sword cane (using rapier stats) by 1, as well as increasing his AC by 1. At 5th level his proficiency bonus goes up to +3 so his Athletics becomes +6 and his Inisght becomes +8, he gets Uncanny Dodge, and his Sneak Attack increases to 3d6. At 6th he finally takes Expertise in Investigation and Perception bumping up his modifier on checks for both to +8, and his passive on both to 23. Finally, at 7th level his Sneak Attack has increased to 4d6 and he's gotten Evasion. Debating whether to take the boost to 20 DEX or the Sentinel feat so I can better fight in tandem with the other frontline characters in the group, none of whom have the feat (and of them only the Paladin would really benefit from taking it and she's more likely to take the boost to STR at 8th so she can have 20 in the stat because she's new to D&D and doesn't really get all the synergies she can take advantage of).
Looks like a little of both is here. I always like to build from an idea.. Sometimes that idea is.. "I wanna be the best at Perception ever." Sometimes it's... "How can I get the most out of throwing Fireball early and often?" Which can be maximizing a character's traits and minimizing the risk. I can't say I can properly min max with 5e. There's a lot of cool spells / multiclass builds out there to be really survivable for the long haul. But I find these guys limited on ranged damage or even damage types. I've seen some really specialized Warlock and Paladin builds made so that the player could survive most anything and really dump out a specific type of damage; I have a few of those players in my Wednesday games. Still I think true min maxing isn't real fun in 5e.
Mostly Specialization over Generalization is where I have the most conflict when creating a character.
i like to start from a story or an archetipe of a character and min/max from there:
like if i chose a hermit charisma usually is not their strong suit, and he would have skills and spells that help survive whwen someone is alone. but i try to get the best of those scores and abilities
- - -
What do you do?
- - -
We do bones, motherf***ker!
I enjoy making powerful character and finding great combos of multiclass abilities, but during that process My brain runs wild and lets me flesh out personalities. I love roleplaying different ideas in my head as well as destroying the enemies as efficiently as possible.
i enjoy to come up with a concept for my characters and make them well arounded
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersI think one of the problems with min-maxers, which causes the poor reputation of this type of player, is that often their entire character can hinge on some overpowered combo, which may well be due to misinterpreting the rules - when the rules are clarified for them and it turns out their character cannot do what they thought it would, they'll declare that the entire character is ruined and they should be allowed to use the (incorrect) combo, or that they need to re-roll a new character instead. I've seen this happen.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Both approaches have an appeal. I like making a cool character and lore seems to just grow rampantly around them. But I also want them to be good at what they do...in an objective, toe-to-toe, dice-on-the-table sense. If I spend too much time on feats and stats though, it starts to get tedious. So I guess I cycle back and forth between the two.
Chandelierianism: Not just for interns anymore.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
I lean more towards characterization than skill. Whenever I try to min-max, I always find myself leaning towards really trope-y characters, no matter how hard I try to put a twist on it. The Drow assassin that's ridiculously good at sneaking around and killing people, the Half-Orc fighter that hits things really hard, The High Elf wizard seeking knowledge. All of them can have different names, ideals, flaws, etc., but they still end up boiling down to the same sort of character.
Making a character first, then putting them down on a character sheet is so much more fun, in my opinion.
Definitely a medium. I hate playing incompetent characters (mechanics) but at the same time, I want to play a CHARACTER, not a bundle of numbers.