Shouldn't Shillelagh work only for club and quarterstaff?
YEah the build is slightly off because the spell requires a club or quarterstaff. However since they get a d8 damage die, I'm not sure that would make much difference. Although to be fair I'd say a min/max player would try using Shillelagh on any weapon with wood, so it kinda works with the discussion.
Thanks for providing a concrete example, Sloporion.
I personally think that you've just shown exactly what I was talking about before; this multi-classed character built to focus on damage output has managed to beat a single-classed character at damage output (at least in certain situations - a single-classed wizard would probably do better if the campaign involved numerous encounters with large numbers of enemies), but has given up some very significant things in order to do so. For some examples:
A single-classed paladin would have another aura, another oath feature, third level spells (like revivify), another ability score improvement, and improved divine smite.
A single-classed warlock has far more powerful spell options available, and more versatility as to what they can do than single-target damage boosting, and another ability score improvement, plus a few more invocations.
A single-classed fighter has another attack, another two ability score increases, sub-class features, and indomitable.
So unless there is a heavy leaning in the campaign towards challenges being solvable by larger sums of single-target damage, I don't think the fighter/warlock/paladin would show significantly better overall ability to handle the challenges of a campaign than a fighter, warlock, or paladin.
Ah, good call: so then, Fighter 3, Warlock 5, Paladin 3 and take Pact of the Blade + Thirsting Blade would be the build and then swap Str and Cha around in your stat allocation
Or you could keep the same build, whatever pact you want, and another invocation like Fiendish Vigor or some sort of situationally useful one like Beast Speech or Eldritch Sight.
“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.
Sorry, I didn't have time to fully flesh out the distinction, which I believe can be minute in some circumstances. Basically I'd define them this way: <snipped to save space>
Thanks for taking the time to provide your thoughts.
I now understand how you separate the two terms, but I encourage you to consider that you are basically using "min/maxer" to mean "is an optimizer, and is also a jerk player" and "optimizer" to mean "is an optimizer, but isn't a jerk player" because the only thing functionally separating your two definitions seems to be the intent of ruining the fun of someone else and willingness to cheat to get what you want, which are both jerk behaviors no matter how or why a person is doing them. I think it'd be more clear to everyone else if you treated optimizer and min/maxer as synonyms, and instead of calling out the things you currently call out as min/maxing with the term "min/maxing" call them out with "being a jerk" or "being an intentionally disruptive player."
Also, because of how multi-classing works in 5th edition, it's not actually minimizing weaknesses or maximizing strengths to pick up multiple classes - it is always a loss of overall strength for a gain in low-end versatility, and the strange combos of class features that actually work well together only manage to get the character back to or above the overall powerlevel of a single-classed character in a very specific narrow area. So you might also consider dropping that portion of your min/maxer definition even if you don't alter your use of the word as laid out above.
I was basically using your examples. In certain cases it might take the Wizard getting levels in three other classes, a couple of feats, and some clever use of rules, but the result being a wizard who is a better fighter than the fighter. Is this actually possible using 5th edition rules? IDK, I don't have fun min/maxing and don't really care enough to attempt to make a build doing so.
Basically if your idea of a min/max player is someone who sits down and takes the best Rogue options while playing a rogue, then we have a different idea of min/max.
A fighter is actually easy to become better than a rogue at picking locks, because you just need a dex based fighter who takes a single level into rogue. Depending on ability scores, the fighter may end up better than the rogue with a single level of rogue.
Basically my idea of a min/max player is somone who takes classes/feats etc in a way that does outshine other players in areas where their class is suppose to be good at and/or someone who takes such things in some manner that you might as well skip rolling dice because the character never dies and always deals huge numbers of damage compared to everyone else.
So you are basically saying that you don't actually know that 5th edition has problematic min/maxing potential, so all of what you said earlier about min/maxing should be read as if you had specified which version(s) of the game your statements actually do apply to?
Because we don't have a different idea of what a min/maxer is - it's someone that takes the best possible mechanical option to accomplish [goal] at every opportunity. In 5th edition, from my experience, there aren't actually all that many opportunities, nor that much of a gap between the best possible option and the worst, even when you incorporate optional elements like feats (better at one specific sort of thing, but less versatile than ability score increases because, for example, the Alert feat doesn't make it easier for you to notice traps, find food, or handle animals, but a boost to your Wisdom score means a lesser degree of ability not to be surprised and does do all those other things too), or multi-classing (because you always have to compare what 1st level of a 2nd class gets you against what a higher level in your first class would get you - like how you would not have 6th level spells in a campaign that ends at 11th level if you weren't a single-class spell-caster, so whatever you get from however many levels of however many classes has to at least be as powerful as 6th-level spells or you can't claim accurately that you've gotten more powerful)
I mean, there's plenty of examples of this. But, we'll use your 11th level campaign to make a Vengeance Paladin 6 + Fiend/Fey Warlock 3, Fighter 2.
Assume Standard Array and put the stats as follows: 13 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 8 Int, 10 Wis, and 15 Cha
Start as a variant human. Put the first point into Charisma and the 2nd point into whatever you want (prob Str so that you'll have a +2 to attack and damage until you can use Cha) and take either the Polearm Master or Dual Wielder feat.
For this purpose we'll start with Fighter to level 2 so we can start with chainmail and two longswords and get Two-Weapon Fighting (if we took Duel Wielder) or a lance + glaive/halberd/pike and Great Weapon Fighting (if we took Polearm Master), Second Wind, and Action Surge.
Next is Warlock to 3 to get rechargeable 2nd level spells, Pact of the Tome, and Devil's Sight and Book of Ancient Secrets invocations (take Shillelagh as one of your Book of Ancient Secrets cantrips so you can use your higher Cha score for melee attacks). Take Darkness and whatever else you want as your spells (Darkness + Devil's Sight means you always get advantage and the enemy always has disadvantage).
Finally is Paladin to 6. Starting at 2nd level, because all of your Warlock spells come back during a short rest you can start blowing through both of your 2nd level Warlock spells for Divine Smites (unless it's a tougher encounter, then I'd suggest one for Darkness and one for smiting). Take the Defense fighting style at level 2 to get a +1 to your AC (you should have a 17-19 AC now) and get 3 attacks per round (5 if you use Action Surge - which you should be using along with your Warlock spell slot smites).
The core idea of the class is to have as many bites as the apple as possible to get a critical hit (make sure you have at least one of your highest level spell slots saved up for this). Since you'll get 5 attacks with Action Surge, that means that you have 5 chances to deal double damage with your weapon die/dice and your smiting dice. The use of Darkness and/or Vow of Emnity means you actually get 10 tries to get a crit in a single round. So, say you crit one out of the 10 rolls you get to make, that means that you get 2x the weapon damage (or the d4 if it happens to be the Polearm Master bonus attack) + 6d8 (or 8d8 if it's a fiend/undead - the 5d8 maximum only covers the initial amount not the total after critical) + your Charisma modifier + any tertiary effects (such as Branding/Searing/Thunderous Smite, which is ALSO doubled, or magical weapon bonuses/extra damage).
So, for two weapon fighting, you are looking at 39 (2d8+6d8+3). For great weapon fighting, you are looking at 41 (2d10+6d8+3) OR 43 [2d12 (for lance)+6d8+3[ OR 35 [2d4 (for haft)+6d8+3]. Also, if you DID take Great Weapon Fighting and Polearm Master. The reroll effect on the damage dice works for the smite dice as well, meaning a higher than average damage output on the rolls.This build gets even better if you can take it to level 12 (level 3 Fighter and take the Champion archetype for 19-20 critical chance).
Now, that's 39 damage IN ADDITION TO, the regular damage dealt by the other 4 attacks and doesn't include the extra damage from the Paladin's smite spells. So, against an Adult White Dragon you're looking at an 18 AC (which is the highest AC in the 11-13 CR). Assuming no bonuses from magical items, feats, or ASI stat boosts (meaning STILL a 16 Charisma and no magical bonuses do attack or damage): you have a +7 to hit at level 11. We'll assume you saved your Vow of Enmity for this fight (it IS a dragon), that means you get advantage on every attack for 10 rounds. Mathematically, the advantage is the equivalent of a +5 to attack rolls and doubles your chance to critically hit (so for math-sake we'll just count it as a critical hit on 19-20). This means you statistically need a 6 or higher to hit the dragon with an attack. If you ONLY use your smite when you crit you are still doing 49.625 damage per round with Lance, 46.225 dpr with any d10 spear weapon, or 43.875 dpr with two d8 weapons when you use Action Surge. Without action surge, you're looking at 28.675 per round with lance, 26.975 dpr for d10 spears, and 26.325 dpr for two d8 weapons (again this IS NOT including any smite spells and ONLY smiting when getting a critical hit).
Since you can only use that once per rest, that would compare to Chain Lightning (the highest damage potential 6th level spell) would be a good equivalent for caster damage. Assuming a 16 stat (as we did above) the spell DC would be 13. Meaning the dragon would take half damage on a roll of 8+. For the purpose of this we'll use an Evocation Wizard (to allow for the highest damage). And, since we're going for maximum damage output, I'm not going to say that the dragon will use its Legendary Resistance on a failure). You're looking at 32.4 dpr for the first round, for the next two rounds after that you can cast Fireball at 5th level twice for 28.35 dpr, for 3 rounds after that you can fireball at 4th level for 25.825 dpr, for 3 rounds after that you can fireball at 3rd level for 23.3
So, even if using the worst option: after the first round the Palalockter is already up by ~11 dpr, for the next 2 rounds the wizard makes up ~3 dpr, bringing the difference to ~8 dpr. Then the Palalockter just starts pulling away at an exponentially higher rate. If we go with a lance, it's even more ridiculous.
Obviously, this isn't perfect math as spells like Chain Lightning and Fireball have AoE potential that increases their damage x-fold (where x is the number of creatures above 1). But the sheer bursty-ness of the Paladin/Fighter combo added into the greater number of smites available (and the ability to focus on Cha) of the Paladin/Warlock combo, when matched with specific feats and selected abilities does MORE than make up for the higher level abilities you get for going pure class. A pure paladin build, even with the correct fighting style, feat, and weapons isn't going to make up for the lack of regenerating spell slots (you'll either be low on your own spell slots or other party resources were spent to get you this far) AND you won't have the benefits of the fighter (including a second fighting style and action surge).
I like this Paladin/Fighter/Warlock build... I have to remember that for the next game I play. ;)
Jokes aside...
I don't see how this is inherently better than an 11th level "Optimized" OoV Paladin. Level 11 Paladins do have access to Improved Divine Smite, adding an extra 1d8 to all their attacks even their smites. If you have the ability to use a bonus action to attack - whether with Polearm Master or having two weapons - you are doing an extra 3d8 with a round of attacks. Additionally, a level 11 Paladin will have an additional ASI allowing them to up their Strength to 18 giving them a higher to hit (by 1) than your build or giving me Sentinel which combos really well with Relentless Avenger. These Paladins also have access to higher higher level spell slots. They have four 1st level, three 2nd, and three 3rd compared to your four 1st and four 2nd. Even though two of your 2nd level slots refresh, I still have two more than you. Not to mention I get all the other OoV Paladin goodies like Aura of Courage (I mean you still have to make your wisdom throw against that white dragon), Relentless Avenger, and Haste.
So I sort of fail to see how this completely outclasses a pure Paladin unless you consider my build also "min/maxed" or you are getting a lot of short rests instead of long, but that's something that is game and DM dependent.
Thanks for providing a concrete example, Sloporion.
I personally think that you've just shown exactly what I was talking about before; this multi-classed character built to focus on damage output has managed to beat a single-classed character at damage output (at least in certain situations - a single-classed wizard would probably do better if the campaign involved numerous encounters with large numbers of enemies), but has given up some very significant things in order to do so. For some examples:
A single-classed paladin would have another aura, another oath feature, third level spells (like revivify), another ability score improvement, and improved divine smite.
A single-classed warlock has far more powerful spell options available, and more versatility as to what they can do than single-target damage boosting, and another ability score improvement, plus a few more invocations.
A single-classed fighter has another attack, another two ability score increases, sub-class features, and indomitable.
So unless there is a heavy leaning in the campaign towards challenges being solvable by larger sums of single-target damage, I don't think the fighter/warlock/paladin would show significantly better overall ability to handle the challenges of a campaign than a fighter, warlock, or paladin.
Except when you look at every adventure published by WotC. There's always one big bad evil guy to fight at the end of a section (or one BBEG and one lieutenant).
As far as when compared to other pure classes:
Fighter: Extra Attack that's a maximum average (assuming a lance and a hit) of 9.5 (though that's not calculating hit chance, which is reduced without Vow of Enmity or Darkness + Devil's Sight). Remarkable Athlete is MEH at best (seeing as you already have taken Athletics and running long jumps aren't really used enough in most campaigns to require a whole ability. And the Additional Fighting Style from 10, you already get at an earlier level.
Paladin: Assuming you go 6 levels to get Aura of Protection, you aren't really missing much from it. Fear Aura can be situationally useful (especially if the situation is a dragon), but you and your allies are already getting a +3 (15% bonus) to saving throws. So, essentially it's doubling that bonus for frightened effects? Again, meh... The Improved Divine Smite is a static increase of 3.5 dpr (assuming hits), so after a while it will add up to be more than the bonus from Action Surge (depending on the rarity of short rests). Relentless Avenger can, again, be situationally useful, but how often is moving 15 feet as a part of a reaction going to be a game breaking deal?
Warlock is probably the only one that I agree it might be just as good to go purely that class (though your damage output is still going to be far inferior). The fiendish resilience and invocations alone might make it worth it (especially if you know ahead of time that you're going to be facing a white dragon).
But, again, you are looking at situational usefulness as a whole. The entire purpose of min-maxing is to do one thing exceptionally well. None of the pure builds can step up to this, and are only marginally better (if at all) at their situational usefulness. Yes, the fighter will be able to jump an extra 3 feet, and will get a +2 to Dex and Con checks. Sure the Paladin will give better Fear saving throws. And the Warlock can give itself similar situational bonuses. But the thing is: these bonuses are 1) situational and 2) meh compared to the sheer damage increase that this gives.
And this is just for a damage dealing class. I could give you a class that's based on stealth and/or perception, one that's based purely on dialogue options, or one that's based on whatever kind of campaign your DM wants to run. I'm just giving you a purely situational example of how a class can COMPLETELY outshine its "pure" counterparts.
“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 was basically using your examples. In certain cases it might take the Wizard getting levels in three other classes, a couple of feats, and some clever use of rules, but the result being a wizard who is a better fighter than the fighter. Is this actually possible using 5th edition rules? IDK, I don't have fun min/maxing and don't really care enough to attempt to make a build doing so.
Basically if your idea of a min/max player is someone who sits down and takes the best Rogue options while playing a rogue, then we have a different idea of min/max.
A fighter is actually easy to become better than a rogue at picking locks, because you just need a dex based fighter who takes a single level into rogue. Depending on ability scores, the fighter may end up better than the rogue with a single level of rogue.
Basically my idea of a min/max player is somone who takes classes/feats etc in a way that does outshine other players in areas where their class is suppose to be good at and/or someone who takes such things in some manner that you might as well skip rolling dice because the character never dies and always deals huge numbers of damage compared to everyone else.
So you are basically saying that you don't actually know that 5th edition has problematic min/maxing potential, so all of what you said earlier about min/maxing should be read as if you had specified which version(s) of the game your statements actually do apply to?
Because we don't have a different idea of what a min/maxer is - it's someone that takes the best possible mechanical option to accomplish [goal] at every opportunity. In 5th edition, from my experience, there aren't actually all that many opportunities, nor that much of a gap between the best possible option and the worst, even when you incorporate optional elements like feats (better at one specific sort of thing, but less versatile than ability score increases because, for example, the Alert feat doesn't make it easier for you to notice traps, find food, or handle animals, but a boost to your Wisdom score means a lesser degree of ability not to be surprised and does do all those other things too), or multi-classing (because you always have to compare what 1st level of a 2nd class gets you against what a higher level in your first class would get you - like how you would not have 6th level spells in a campaign that ends at 11th level if you weren't a single-class spell-caster, so whatever you get from however many levels of however many classes has to at least be as powerful as 6th-level spells or you can't claim accurately that you've gotten more powerful)
I mean, there's plenty of examples of this. But, we'll use your 11th level campaign to make a Vengeance Paladin 6 + Fiend/Fey Warlock 3, Fighter 2.
Assume Standard Array and put the stats as follows: 13 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 8 Int, 10 Wis, and 15 Cha
Start as a variant human. Put the first point into Charisma and the 2nd point into whatever you want (prob Str so that you'll have a +2 to attack and damage until you can use Cha) and take either the Polearm Master or Dual Wielder feat.
For this purpose we'll start with Fighter to level 2 so we can start with chainmail and two longswords and get Two-Weapon Fighting (if we took Duel Wielder) or a lance + glaive/halberd/pike and Great Weapon Fighting (if we took Polearm Master), Second Wind, and Action Surge.
Next is Warlock to 3 to get rechargeable 2nd level spells, Pact of the Tome, and Devil's Sight and Book of Ancient Secrets invocations (take Shillelagh as one of your Book of Ancient Secrets cantrips so you can use your higher Cha score for melee attacks). Take Darkness and whatever else you want as your spells (Darkness + Devil's Sight means you always get advantage and the enemy always has disadvantage).
Finally is Paladin to 6. Starting at 2nd level, because all of your Warlock spells come back during a short rest you can start blowing through both of your 2nd level Warlock spells for Divine Smites (unless it's a tougher encounter, then I'd suggest one for Darkness and one for smiting). Take the Defense fighting style at level 2 to get a +1 to your AC (you should have a 17-19 AC now) and get 3 attacks per round (5 if you use Action Surge - which you should be using along with your Warlock spell slot smites).
The core idea of the class is to have as many bites as the apple as possible to get a critical hit (make sure you have at least one of your highest level spell slots saved up for this). Since you'll get 5 attacks with Action Surge, that means that you have 5 chances to deal double damage with your weapon die/dice and your smiting dice. The use of Darkness and/or Vow of Emnity means you actually get 10 tries to get a crit in a single round. So, say you crit one out of the 10 rolls you get to make, that means that you get 2x the weapon damage (or the d4 if it happens to be the Polearm Master bonus attack) + 6d8 (or 8d8 if it's a fiend/undead - the 5d8 maximum only covers the initial amount not the total after critical) + your Charisma modifier + any tertiary effects (such as Branding/Searing/Thunderous Smite, which is ALSO doubled, or magical weapon bonuses/extra damage).
So, for two weapon fighting, you are looking at 39 (2d8+6d8+3). For great weapon fighting, you are looking at 41 (2d10+6d8+3) OR 43 [2d12 (for lance)+6d8+3[ OR 35 [2d4 (for haft)+6d8+3]. Also, if you DID take Great Weapon Fighting and Polearm Master. The reroll effect on the damage dice works for the smite dice as well, meaning a higher than average damage output on the rolls.This build gets even better if you can take it to level 12 (level 3 Fighter and take the Champion archetype for 19-20 critical chance).
Now, that's 39 damage IN ADDITION TO, the regular damage dealt by the other 4 attacks and doesn't include the extra damage from the Paladin's smite spells. So, against an Adult White Dragon you're looking at an 18 AC (which is the highest AC in the 11-13 CR). Assuming no bonuses from magical items, feats, or ASI stat boosts (meaning STILL a 16 Charisma and no magical bonuses do attack or damage): you have a +7 to hit at level 11. We'll assume you saved your Vow of Enmity for this fight (it IS a dragon), that means you get advantage on every attack for 10 rounds. Mathematically, the advantage is the equivalent of a +5 to attack rolls and doubles your chance to critically hit (so for math-sake we'll just count it as a critical hit on 19-20). This means you statistically need a 6 or higher to hit the dragon with an attack. If you ONLY use your smite when you crit you are still doing 49.625 damage per round with Lance, 46.225 dpr with any d10 spear weapon, or 43.875 dpr with two d8 weapons when you use Action Surge. Without action surge, you're looking at 28.675 per round with lance, 26.975 dpr for d10 spears, and 26.325 dpr for two d8 weapons (again this IS NOT including any smite spells and ONLY smiting when getting a critical hit).
Since you can only use that once per rest, that would compare to Chain Lightning (the highest damage potential 6th level spell) would be a good equivalent for caster damage. Assuming a 16 stat (as we did above) the spell DC would be 13. Meaning the dragon would take half damage on a roll of 8+. For the purpose of this we'll use an Evocation Wizard (to allow for the highest damage). And, since we're going for maximum damage output, I'm not going to say that the dragon will use its Legendary Resistance on a failure). You're looking at 32.4 dpr for the first round, for the next two rounds after that you can cast Fireball at 5th level twice for 28.35 dpr, for 3 rounds after that you can fireball at 4th level for 25.825 dpr, for 3 rounds after that you can fireball at 3rd level for 23.3
So, even if using the worst option: after the first round the Palalockter is already up by ~11 dpr, for the next 2 rounds the wizard makes up ~3 dpr, bringing the difference to ~8 dpr. Then the Palalockter just starts pulling away at an exponentially higher rate. If we go with a lance, it's even more ridiculous.
Obviously, this isn't perfect math as spells like Chain Lightning and Fireball have AoE potential that increases their damage x-fold (where x is the number of creatures above 1). But the sheer bursty-ness of the Paladin/Fighter combo added into the greater number of smites available (and the ability to focus on Cha) of the Paladin/Warlock combo, when matched with specific feats and selected abilities does MORE than make up for the higher level abilities you get for going pure class. A pure paladin build, even with the correct fighting style, feat, and weapons isn't going to make up for the lack of regenerating spell slots (you'll either be low on your own spell slots or other party resources were spent to get you this far) AND you won't have the benefits of the fighter (including a second fighting style and action surge).
I like this Paladin/Fighter/Warlock build... I have to remember that for the next game I play. ;)
Jokes aside...
I don't see how this is inherently better than an 11th level "Optimized" OoV Paladin. Level 11 Paladins do have access to Improved Divine Smite, adding an extra 1d8 to all their attacks even their smites. If you have the ability to use a bonus action to attack - whether with Polearm Master or having two weapons - you are doing an extra 3d8 with a round of attacks. Additionally, a level 11 Paladin will have an additional ASI allowing them to up their Strength to 18 giving them a higher to hit (by 1) than your build or giving me Sentinel which combos really well with Relentless Avenger. These Paladins also have access to higher higher level spell slots. They have four 1st level, three 2nd, and three 3rd compared to your four 1st and four 2nd. Even though two of your 2nd level slots refresh, I still have two more than you. Not to mention I get all the other OoV Paladin goodies like Aura of Courage (I mean you still have to make your wisdom throw against that white dragon), Relentless Avenger, and Haste.
So I sort of fail to see how this completely outclasses a pure Paladin unless you consider my build also "min/maxed" or you are getting a lot of short rests instead of long, but that's something that is game and DM dependent.
Well, I would consider that min-maxing, but to speak to your point, I think you generally get 2-3 short rests per long rest. If your DM mileage varies, you obviously wouldn't do this build in particular (you'd probably go Sorcerer instead of Warlock, so you can use your sorcery points to regen your spell slots).
That being said, I was just using his 11th level cap as semantics. I could build a different build that is Paladin 15/Warlock 3/Fighter 2 that gets every Paladin ability except Avenging Angel. That being said, I think level 11 is where the build actually falls apart compared to a Pure Paladin (and then again at level 20, because that capstone is pretty good). But if you can get to 15-16 that's when it gets back to being more overpowered.
There are plenty of peaks and valleys with most builds. Think about the damage spike when casters finally get Fireball, Lightning Bolt, and Cone of Cold. After that the spells become more about utility and if you want to do more damage, you just use fireball in a higher level spell slot.
He just happened to pick a level where the peak for a pure build met up with the valley of a min-max build.
“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 like this Paladin/Fighter/Warlock build... I have to remember that for the next game I play. ;)
Jokes aside...
I don't see how this is inherently better than an 11th level "Optimized" OoV Paladin. Level 11 Paladins do have access to Improved Divine Smite, adding an extra 1d8 to all their attacks even their smites. If you have the ability to use a bonus action to attack - whether with Polearm Master or having two weapons - you are doing an extra 3d8 with a round of attacks. Additionally, a level 11 Paladin will have an additional ASI allowing them to up their Strength to 18 giving them a higher to hit (by 1) than your build or giving me Sentinel which combos really well with Relentless Avenger. These Paladins also have access to higher higher level spell slots. They have four 1st level, three 2nd, and three 3rd compared to your four 1st and four 2nd. Even though two of your 2nd level slots refresh, I still have two more than you. Not to mention I get all the other OoV Paladin goodies like Aura of Courage (I mean you still have to make your wisdom throw against that white dragon), Relentless Avenger, and Haste.
So I sort of fail to see how this completely outclasses a pure Paladin unless you consider my build also "min/maxed" or you are getting a lot of short rests instead of long, but that's something that is game and DM dependent.
Well, I would consider that min-maxing, but to speak to your point, I think you generally get 2-3 short rests per long rest. If your DM mileage varies, you obviously wouldn't do this build in particular (you'd probably go Sorcerer instead of Warlock, so you can use your sorcery points to regen your spell slots).
That being said, I was just using his 11th level cap as semantics. I could build a different build that is Paladin 15/Warlock 3/Fighter 2 that gets every Paladin ability except Avenging Angel. That being said, I think level 11 is where the build actually falls apart compared to a Pure Paladin (and then again at level 20, because that capstone is pretty good). But if you can get to 15-16 that's when it gets back to being more overpowered.
There are plenty of peaks and valleys with most builds. Think about the damage spike when casters finally get Fireball, Lightning Bolt, and Cone of Cold. After that the spells become more about utility and if you want to do more damage, you just use fireball in a higher level spell slot.
He just happened to pick a level where the peak for a pure build met up with the valley of a min-max build.
Exaclty. Spikes in power. There are going to be times where this "min-maxed" character does valley and these other classes can shine in terms of damage (or whatever that player is doing). That's perfectly natural during a campaign.
Also... What is min/maxing and how does it differ from optimization? Many people consider it coupled with multiclassing which isn't inherently the case as I just put forth another very powerful, single classed damage dealer that you also called min/maxed. But we've also heard people say that optimizing while in a single class is also fine. So should I be punished because I decided to be a thief character, chose Rogue, and took expertise in Stealth at level 1? Is that min/maxing by someone's definition? What if I wanted to be a sneakier Bladesinger and took Rogue at level 6 and started competing with the actual Rogue in stealth. Now I could surpass that character because I have pass without trace or another super helpful spell. Is that min/maxing? It doesn't really seem like we can put a solid definition on it other than someone who can't seem to justify the build in their role play. Which falls on the player, not the build.
So is this a problem? In my opinion, no unless it is taking away from other, but a "min/max" character in no way automatically ruins the fun for everyone else. If you are having a problem with a player like this, then you should talk to them rather than being antagonistic and try to "teach them a lesson". If a player wants to be the best damage dealer, healer, talker, sneakiest character, most skillful, etc and are having fun. Let them.
Except when you look at every adventure published by WotC. There's always one big bad evil guy to fight at the end of a section (or one BBEG and one lieutenant).
It's not just that one encounter written as a combat, though, is it? I will admit to having not run every published adventure, but those I have run included more encounters with numerous opponents than they did encounters with a single opponent or pair, so it was area-effect spells that were putting out the largest total damage.
Plus, so very many people either don't even run published adventures, or modify them when they do, which makes the reasoning "this character would be more potent than another character according to published adventures" not actually relevant to whether the character is genuinely more powerful - by which I mean is overall more useful regardless of the campaign specifics. Because it's not actually a problem if the character is only more powerful given a certain way of running a campaign, that's things working as intended because a character that actually fits the campaign should be the superior choice of character to play in that campaign.
And lastly: I'm not the only one looking at situational usefulness as a whole. You are dismissing everything I mention as being situational, but sheer damage is also situational as not all obstacles and challenges can be overcome by throwing damage at them.
I now understand how you separate the two terms, but I encourage you to consider that you are basically using "min/maxer" to mean "is an optimizer, and is also a jerk player" and "optimizer" to mean "is an optimizer, but isn't a jerk player" because the only thing functionally separating your two definitions seems to be the intent of ruining the fun of someone else and willingness to cheat to get what you want, which are both jerk behaviors no matter how or why a person is doing them. I think it'd be more clear to everyone else if you treated optimizer and min/maxer as synonyms, and instead of calling out the things you currently call out as min/maxing with the term "min/maxing" call them out with "being a jerk" or "being an intentionally disruptive player."
I had the same take away from reading those two definitions as you did and think what you've said is the heart of the matter and what leads me to take umbrage with the "kill min/maxers at the table" line of thinking and the eye rolling at someone describing a build as "mechanically cool". The complaints about "min/maxing" are, at their root, complaints about people being jerks and because they're jerks, a whole pile of other things get tacked on to the "min/maxer" title - they are bad roleplayers, they don't care about the story, etc.
Perhaps some of this is DM style as well. I'm not a fan of a DM vs Player style, I prefer it to be a cooperative game. Additionally, my style is to have an outline of a story that is flexible enough to allow new plot points and to also include the players backstories into it as much as possible. This is why a player can come to the table and say "I want to play a class that dual wields swords and does a whole ton of damage." and bring that Paladin/Warlock/Fighter or Rogue with Magic Initiate build and I would green light it. The caveat is that it has to be worked into the story so that it makes sense within the context of the world. If the player has something fleshed out already, great I'll start weaving those elements into the campaign as we progress so that it makes sense how they came to have these new powers within the world. If they don't have the story part, I would work with them to build one. To me this is no different from what I would do when I'm weaving the players backgrounds and backstories into the campaign. They get to do the thing they think is fun, do big damage or sneak attack all over the place, and they now have some personal ownership and investment in the story.
Except when you look at every adventure published by WotC. There's always one big bad evil guy to fight at the end of a section (or one BBEG and one lieutenant).
And lastly: I'm not the only one looking at situational usefulness as a whole. You are dismissing everything I mention as being situational, but sheer damage is also situational as not all obstacles and challenges can be overcome by throwing damage at them.
I believe this is another part of the issue here. If we're going off the "three pillars" design philosophy, combat is just one of them. A character optimized for combat is not going to excel in the other two areas, as you pointed out with your example of the Alert feat vs taking 2 points in WIS. When you treat all your players the same and you're running a campaign that incorporates all of the pillars relatively evenly rather than singling out the "min/maxer", one of two things is going to happen - as you've said, the player is going to be disappointed that they only really get to make meaningful contributions in the one area of play while the other players are competent in all three so they'll keep that in mind when they are rolling up their next character. The other thing that may happen is they won't care, they'll just enjoy getting their moment to do some big damage in a combat and are happy focuing on being really good at it while their party members get to shine in other areas.
Finally, Sloporian thanks for taking the time to put together that build and give an example of a character highly optimized to do something. It's an interesting build and it can pull of some big damage, I'm not seeing where this breaks a campaign though.
Perhaps some of this is DM style as well. I'm not a fan of a DM vs Player style, I prefer it to be a cooperative game.
I think that is a good point. I too prefer a cooperative game, because I find the DM-as-antagonist arrangement entirely senseless - if the goal is for the DM to defeat the PCs, the goal is immediately achieved because the game is designed with intentional imbalance between what become the two sides of that conflict; the DM can do literally anything, including make up infinitely more potent opposition, and is allowed and expected to withhold significant information from the players, while the players are expected to adhere to a specific set of options and be fully clear which options they have selected. The pretense of setting up a supposedly fair challenge while also aiming to defeat the players is off-putting to me.
That could very well be the explanation for why I end up thinking that a DM trying to give a 'beat down' to a player because they min/maxed is causing or compounding, rather than solving, problems - because I'm not thinking the player is trying to get one over on me and 'win' by min/maxing, I'm thinking they are just trying to have fun like everybody else and they happen to enjoy their character being unquestionably bad-ass in a particular way even if it means being under-equipped in some other way or ways.
I think you underestimate the power of a min/max player to exceed in all three areas.
Show me a min/maxed build that you think will exceed in all three pillars of the game?
If you don't, I can only go off the information that I have which is limited to only around a few thousand characters over multiple editions, and tells me that every character building resource spent on the thing being "maxed" is a character building resource not being spent to achieve well-rounded-ness, and well-rounded-ness is the only way to actually do well in the widest area of circumstances.
The funny thing is, multiclassing usually isn't really the way to do crazy damage. A GWM Barbarian using reckless attack is going to be one of the highest damage per round characters there is (other than magic AoE). The stated MC character doesn't get a second attack until level 10. You have to include the power DIPs as well as bumps a character build creates.
Having a MC character combo "Come online" too late is a common flaw when multiclassing. CoS and SKT both are designed to be finished by level 10.
The MC listed compared to a straight fighter has given up 2 feats, 1 attack per round, and whatever battle master maneuvers they might learn.
If you use standard array, go all dex, human for free feat at level 11 you have 20 dex, crossbow expert, sharpshooter, so you will be doing 1d6+15 damage x4 per turn. OR 74 damage, Against an AC 18, you would need a 12 to hit (or 45% chance) so 33.3 DPR or when surging, you get 1d6+15x7=129.5 or 58 DPR against ac 18. And theres the nice little bonus that you can actually shoot the said dragon, as you know, it probably is going to be flying. (these numbers are going to go even higher if the fighter uses precision shot when appropriate to bump the hit rate)
So for all of the entire level 1-10 without even getting a second attack and kinda sucking up, you are still doing 5 less damage per round than a fighter who got all his bonuses. If you look at the power curve before level 11, the archer is even further ahead of the MC guy. And neither of them is going to touch the wizard who gets a fireball off on a big group of targets.
im pretty sure a 2 fighter 3 barbarian gets a second attack since the second attack is based on the character level and not the class level? or did i read the multi class section wrong?
im pretty sure a 2 fighter 3 barbarian gets a second attack since the second attack is based on the character level and not the class level? or did i read the multi class section wrong?
You'd have to hit level 5 in either Barbarian or Fighter to get extra attack as it is tied to the class level.
im pretty sure a 2 fighter 3 barbarian gets a second attack since the second attack is based on the character level and not the class level? or did i read the multi class section wrong?
No, extra attack is a class feature, not a character feature.
I DM for a group of 4. 2 full on min/maxers and 2 heavy role players, and I've literally never had a problem. My view as a DM is to let everybody have the most fun they can. Reading this thread makes me doubt that that's what everyone's intentions are :(
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
im pretty sure a 2 fighter 3 barbarian gets a second attack since the second attack is based on the character level and not the class level? or did i read the multi class section wrong?
No, extra attack is a class feature, not a character feature.
In addition, much like Unarmored Defense, you can only use one Extra Attack feature, they do not stack. So a Barbarian 5/Fighter 5 gets one extra attack where as a Fighter 11 gets two. A Fighter 11/Barbarian 5 would have to choose between having one extra attack from the Barbarian feature or two from the Fighter feature, the wouldn't get three. Jeremy Crawford discussed this in the last Dragon Talk podcast, where he reviewed a number of questions related to multiclassing. Once again, this illustrates the trade off a multiclass character makes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think that build is the definition of a person trying to Min/Max their character.
Thanks for providing a concrete example, Sloporion.
I personally think that you've just shown exactly what I was talking about before; this multi-classed character built to focus on damage output has managed to beat a single-classed character at damage output (at least in certain situations - a single-classed wizard would probably do better if the campaign involved numerous encounters with large numbers of enemies), but has given up some very significant things in order to do so. For some examples:
A single-classed paladin would have another aura, another oath feature, third level spells (like revivify), another ability score improvement, and improved divine smite.
A single-classed warlock has far more powerful spell options available, and more versatility as to what they can do than single-target damage boosting, and another ability score improvement, plus a few more invocations.
A single-classed fighter has another attack, another two ability score increases, sub-class features, and indomitable.
So unless there is a heavy leaning in the campaign towards challenges being solvable by larger sums of single-target damage, I don't think the fighter/warlock/paladin would show significantly better overall ability to handle the challenges of a campaign than a fighter, warlock, or paladin.
Ah, good call: so then, Fighter 3, Warlock 5, Paladin 3 and take Pact of the Blade + Thirsting Blade would be the build and then swap Str and Cha around in your stat allocation
Or you could keep the same build, whatever pact you want, and another invocation like Fiendish Vigor or some sort of situationally useful one like Beast Speech or Eldritch Sight.
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.
Thanks for taking the time to provide your thoughts.
I now understand how you separate the two terms, but I encourage you to consider that you are basically using "min/maxer" to mean "is an optimizer, and is also a jerk player" and "optimizer" to mean "is an optimizer, but isn't a jerk player" because the only thing functionally separating your two definitions seems to be the intent of ruining the fun of someone else and willingness to cheat to get what you want, which are both jerk behaviors no matter how or why a person is doing them. I think it'd be more clear to everyone else if you treated optimizer and min/maxer as synonyms, and instead of calling out the things you currently call out as min/maxing with the term "min/maxing" call them out with "being a jerk" or "being an intentionally disruptive player."
Also, because of how multi-classing works in 5th edition, it's not actually minimizing weaknesses or maximizing strengths to pick up multiple classes - it is always a loss of overall strength for a gain in low-end versatility, and the strange combos of class features that actually work well together only manage to get the character back to or above the overall powerlevel of a single-classed character in a very specific narrow area. So you might also consider dropping that portion of your min/maxer definition even if you don't alter your use of the word as laid out above.
Jokes aside...
I don't see how this is inherently better than an 11th level "Optimized" OoV Paladin. Level 11 Paladins do have access to Improved Divine Smite, adding an extra 1d8 to all their attacks even their smites. If you have the ability to use a bonus action to attack - whether with Polearm Master or having two weapons - you are doing an extra 3d8 with a round of attacks. Additionally, a level 11 Paladin will have an additional ASI allowing them to up their Strength to 18 giving them a higher to hit (by 1) than your build or giving me Sentinel which combos really well with Relentless Avenger. These Paladins also have access to higher higher level spell slots. They have four 1st level, three 2nd, and three 3rd compared to your four 1st and four 2nd. Even though two of your 2nd level slots refresh, I still have two more than you. Not to mention I get all the other OoV Paladin goodies like Aura of Courage (I mean you still have to make your wisdom throw against that white dragon), Relentless Avenger, and Haste.
So I sort of fail to see how this completely outclasses a pure Paladin unless you consider my build also "min/maxed" or you are getting a lot of short rests instead of long, but that's something that is game and DM dependent.
As far as when compared to other pure classes:
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.
That being said, I was just using his 11th level cap as semantics. I could build a different build that is Paladin 15/Warlock 3/Fighter 2 that gets every Paladin ability except Avenging Angel. That being said, I think level 11 is where the build actually falls apart compared to a Pure Paladin (and then again at level 20, because that capstone is pretty good). But if you can get to 15-16 that's when it gets back to being more overpowered.
He just happened to pick a level where the peak for a pure build met up with the valley of a min-max build.
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.
Also... What is min/maxing and how does it differ from optimization? Many people consider it coupled with multiclassing which isn't inherently the case as I just put forth another very powerful, single classed damage dealer that you also called min/maxed. But we've also heard people say that optimizing while in a single class is also fine. So should I be punished because I decided to be a thief character, chose Rogue, and took expertise in Stealth at level 1? Is that min/maxing by someone's definition? What if I wanted to be a sneakier Bladesinger and took Rogue at level 6 and started competing with the actual Rogue in stealth. Now I could surpass that character because I have pass without trace or another super helpful spell. Is that min/maxing? It doesn't really seem like we can put a solid definition on it other than someone who can't seem to justify the build in their role play. Which falls on the player, not the build.
So is this a problem? In my opinion, no unless it is taking away from other, but a "min/max" character in no way automatically ruins the fun for everyone else. If you are having a problem with a player like this, then you should talk to them rather than being antagonistic and try to "teach them a lesson". If a player wants to be the best damage dealer, healer, talker, sneakiest character, most skillful, etc and are having fun. Let them.
It's not just that one encounter written as a combat, though, is it? I will admit to having not run every published adventure, but those I have run included more encounters with numerous opponents than they did encounters with a single opponent or pair, so it was area-effect spells that were putting out the largest total damage.
Plus, so very many people either don't even run published adventures, or modify them when they do, which makes the reasoning "this character would be more potent than another character according to published adventures" not actually relevant to whether the character is genuinely more powerful - by which I mean is overall more useful regardless of the campaign specifics. Because it's not actually a problem if the character is only more powerful given a certain way of running a campaign, that's things working as intended because a character that actually fits the campaign should be the superior choice of character to play in that campaign.
And lastly: I'm not the only one looking at situational usefulness as a whole. You are dismissing everything I mention as being situational, but sheer damage is also situational as not all obstacles and challenges can be overcome by throwing damage at them.
I think you underestimate the power of a min/max player to exceed in all three areas.
Show me a min/maxed build that you think will exceed in all three pillars of the game?
If you don't, I can only go off the information that I have which is limited to only around a few thousand characters over multiple editions, and tells me that every character building resource spent on the thing being "maxed" is a character building resource not being spent to achieve well-rounded-ness, and well-rounded-ness is the only way to actually do well in the widest area of circumstances.
The funny thing is, multiclassing usually isn't really the way to do crazy damage. A GWM Barbarian using reckless attack is going to be one of the highest damage per round characters there is (other than magic AoE). The stated MC character doesn't get a second attack until level 10. You have to include the power DIPs as well as bumps a character build creates.
Having a MC character combo "Come online" too late is a common flaw when multiclassing. CoS and SKT both are designed to be finished by level 10.
The MC listed compared to a straight fighter has given up 2 feats, 1 attack per round, and whatever battle master maneuvers they might learn.
If you use standard array, go all dex, human for free feat at level 11 you have 20 dex, crossbow expert, sharpshooter, so you will be doing 1d6+15 damage x4 per turn. OR 74 damage, Against an AC 18, you would need a 12 to hit (or 45% chance) so 33.3 DPR or when surging, you get 1d6+15x7=129.5 or 58 DPR against ac 18. And theres the nice little bonus that you can actually shoot the said dragon, as you know, it probably is going to be flying. (these numbers are going to go even higher if the fighter uses precision shot when appropriate to bump the hit rate)
So for all of the entire level 1-10 without even getting a second attack and kinda sucking up, you are still doing 5 less damage per round than a fighter who got all his bonuses. If you look at the power curve before level 11, the archer is even further ahead of the MC guy. And neither of them is going to touch the wizard who gets a fireball off on a big group of targets.
im pretty sure a 2 fighter 3 barbarian gets a second attack since the second attack is based on the character level and not the class level? or did i read the multi class section wrong?
I DM for a group of 4. 2 full on min/maxers and 2 heavy role players, and I've literally never had a problem. My view as a DM is to let everybody have the most fun they can. Reading this thread makes me doubt that that's what everyone's intentions are :(
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?