Just to let you know there is a really long series of posts in the Druid forum about this. If you want to continue a discussion on Wild Shape I'd recommend moving it there. Also see most anything filcatposts from Sage Advice. To try to sum it up: YES you can Punch as an Elemental, but it's terrible.
Basically it goes like this: "natural attacks" from a Beast or Elemental form is not an "unarmed strike"
Lets just say I have a 12th level Character
10 levels of Circle of the Moon Druid
1 level of Monk
1 level of Barbarian
With the following stat block: Str: 13, Dex: 16, Con: 14, Int: 10 Wis: 18, Cha: 10.
12th lvl character has a +4 Proficiency Bonus
Remember to Multiclass in Barbarian you need a Str: 13, Druid: Wisdom: 13, Monk: Dex & Wis:13
If you're wearing no armor and not using a shield your AC Calculation can be 17=10+3(Dex)+4(Wis) from Monk
If you're wearing no armor and using a shield your AC Calculation can be 17=10+2(Shield)+3(Dex)+2(Con) from Barbarian
NOTE: p164 PHB says "If you already have Unarmored Defense feature, you can't gain it again from another class". This might mean you can't actually have both features, but they also have different wordings so I would argue they are different... but that's not the argument we're having, but I wanted to mention it for completeness.
Martial Arts (Str): To Hit +9=+4(Prof)+5(Str): 1d4+5 bludgeoning damage
Martial Arts (Dex): To Hit +3=+4(Prof)-1(Dex): 1d4-1 bludgeoning damage
Note: if the Druid Rages then any attacks while using Strength get +2 damage
Note: The Druid can only gain the extra Bonus Action attack from Martial Arts IF they use Martial Arts to attack with in the Attack Action. Slam and MultiAttack are NOT valid
Note: until the Druid has 5th level Barbarian or Monk she can only make a single attack with an Attack Action a turn
In fact, as someone that takes both the story and mechanics of this game quite seriously this seems to be a declaration that I don't exist, or that I'm some kind of rare specimen, or that I would be better yet without the mechanical side of my engagement. I find this offensive, offensive enough to warrant something of a hard line, controversial, dickish-but-hopefully-thought-provoking-response: If you subscribe to the idea that Char-Op is objectively bad in roleplaying games, you are without question, bad at roleplaying.
I mean that both in the objective sense, and in the sense that you are probably much worse at it then I am.
::In a Steve Irwin accent:: "Oy, as you can see, right here is where he jumped the 'gator. I'm gonna try an' get closer so I shove me thumb up his bum!"
You had some fairly good points, but when you said that not only was your style of play the right way, but that you were BETTER at table top RPGs than someone else, that's when you lost ALL credibility. I did finish reading it, but after that line, I didn't take anything you said seriously. Which is a shame, because like I said, you had some valid points early on and I'd probably like to have a role-player like you at my table, because my group (for the most part) is still fairly new to this, and they do most of their stuff through dice rolling rather than RPing; with the exception of the guy I've been playing with since high school: he's always a good RPer (although he usually sticks to one-of-two types of characters). But that line right there where you said you were better than others is an indicator of the type of person you are (I've seen it in sports team locker rooms, at table top groups, and in MMO guilds) and it always ends up being a cancer.
Now, admittedly, I could be wrong, and you could just have gotten exceptionally peeved at the topic, or have an object hatred for it, and lashed out. Maybe you were having a bad moment and this just irked you more than it normally would. But, you at least came off sounding like more of an elitist than those your post seemed to object to.
I have an abject hatred of people attempting to invaldate my style of play, and all the work I put into narrative because I happen to also enjoy the mechanical side of the game, yes. I also don't quite care much about whether or not I come off as elitist, being nice and coddling people about this topic has proven itself to not help, especially since the entire 'anti-mechanics' 'anti-powergaming' movement recently is very much elitist in and of itself (look at the snark of the rest of this thread) nor do I particularly care about 'credibility' in this instance, the things I say will either stand on their own or they won't. My mannerism has no bearing on whether or not it's ok to invalidate the playstyle of people whom enjoy char op, so aside from the possibility of an ad hominem attack directed at my attitude- it shouldn't really effect my 'credibility' anyway.
Also, the line preceding the bold might have been intended to contextualize how I would normally interpret the bold statement and identify where that statement comes from =) I suppose I really just want to put the opposition on the defensive because it seems like I can't go anywhere on the internet without the Stormwind Fallacy being thrown around with little regard- my sympathy for 'roleplayers' that seem to only be interested in purity testing out players with mechanical interests (re-read the title of this thread, for example)has been entirely spent- so if it feels satisfying to write scathing condemnations on the internet I just don't see much of a reason to use a lower level spell slot, you know?
Pretty sure the intent of min/maxing would require that I appeal that not using a weapon is in fact being unarmed regardless of what form you are in.
At the very least why can't my elemental punch?
Or what part of an earth elemental counts as a weapon?
Because the MM (pg 11-12) specifically states "The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike." It's even in the actual listing of the Earth Elemental entry: "Slam.Melee Weapon Attack: +8 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target..."
So, your Earth Elemental can punch all it wants. You can even do so with your monk's Martial Arts attack die, since the feature doesn't state anything about having to be your natural form. AND you can even use the Earth Elemental's strength for the purpose of the unarmed attack (remember Martial Arts says "You can use Dexterity instead of Strength..." it doesn't say you have to. Hell, if I was the DM, I'd even say that you get a range of 10 feet with your melee attack, since the slam has a range of 10 feet (why that slam has a range of 10 feet while the Water Elemental's slam attack only has a range of 5 feet I have no idea...).
So, you're free to unarmed strike for 25 (3d6+15) damage or 34 (4d6+20) damage if you Flurry with your multiple attacks per round at 15th level (assuming at least 5 levels in Monk to get the maximum martial arts dice, Extra Attack, AND Elemental Wild Shape). Alternatively you could do 2 slams for 28 (4d8+10) damage if you'd rather not use the ki point for the extra 6 damage
“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 ignore sage advice because it isn't from the books and therefore usually almost always not a consideration for the people I have played with that wouldn't care what " intended" was but rather what the book actually says.
That is something that should be in the players handbook not the monster manual for players. The monk point is irrelevant though as my only point is that its possible to min/max to the point of making the game seriously broken for everyone else playing and the DM.
I will inform the game designers they are wrong about the subject. They have been fairly precise that paladins can operate with or without worshiping a deity. Obviously your home game you can require them to worship a deity (and to speak only celestial!) but as a general rule, they don't have to.
I will inform the game designers they are wrong about the subject. They have been fairly precise that paladins can operate with or without worshiping a deity. Obviously your home game you can require them to worship a deity (and to speak only celestial!) but as a general rule, they don't have to.
...my only point is that its possible to min/max to the point of making the game seriously broken for everyone else playing and the DM.
It really isn't though. There is nothing a min/maxed character can do that the game literally can't handle being done.
Your example about having a boat-load of HP? It doesn't actually break the game because it doesn't actually mean what you think it means - it's not assured success, not even in the cases where it might be of particular use, and here's why:
If your character can squeeze out 452 effective hit points for this fight, but the enemies are only going to do about 100 damage to your specific character before they are defeated, then any resource spent to get you more than 101 effective hit points didn't actually give you anything except a bigger number to write down. If those resources could have been spent somewhere else, such as on something that would see you through another sort of challenge that you aren't already good enough at, then you have used your resources poorly.
I mean if you guys are fine with me playing a druid barbarian who wild shapes for the first part of battle then rages for 1/2 damage when I run out of wild shape hit pointers.
If you were a player in a ge I was DMing, as long that works within the rulesthen I would green light it.
First, that's sounds awesome. Just imagining how cool that would look is great.
Second, you could build an interesting story around that character based on the mechanic.
Third, now I have some new hooks for encounters based on what you can do. Maybe a chase scene where you have to burn throughout wild Shapes to catch someone and when you d transform into a raging barbarian to engage whatever you're tracking down.
Finally, I have new story hooks - if the Barbarian part comes first, now I have a Druid faction I can roll into the story and weave throughout the campaign. If the Druid class is first, I have a new NPC to bring into the fold around the the time you will level or maybe a traumatic character developing event that can lead to a sudden burst of rage. One of your party members is in mortal danger, a favorite NPC needs you, or one of the characters from your backstory makes an appearance.
What's the problem exactly? It seems to be a win-win - you get to have some epic moments and play something you think looks fun and I have some goodies to work with.
min/max have broken more games than i care to remember... and that is why i dont allow it in my games
That is true, and some people have a hard time stepping outside of their own perspective. There have been numerous people that have offered simple, reasonable examples of how min/maxing can be handled and why some don't consider it to be an issue, particularly in 5th edition. There has not been an example yet of how a character in 5e can mechanically break the game. Instead, most of the posts against min/maxing have been dismissive, sometimes condescending remarks.
I believe the root of the issue for you is players breaking a game, not mechanics. If a player is building a character solely to hog the spotlight and outshine the entire party, that's not the kind of player I want to play with. They will break the game, not the character they build.
I believe the root of the issue for you is players breaking a game, not mechanics. If a player is building a character solely to hog the spotlight and outshine the entire party, that's not the kind of player I want to play with. They will break the game, not the character they build.
I agree. I've seen disruptive players intentionally derail a game, I've seen games that are non-functional by default (because the rules of the game don't produce the results the game says they do), and I've seen campaigns fall apart because of the DM mishandling them (such as by ramping up combat difficulty to match whatever character in the party is best at combat, to the detriment of everyone involved because the DM has to keep ramping up to match the combat-optimized character, the combat-optimizing player has to keep ramping up their character to try and get the feeling they were looking for of being unmatched in combat, and all the other players have to keep making new characters because what challenges the player that doesn't even want a challenge (or he wouldn't have optimized for combat) pretty much guaranteed will kill their characters).
What I have never seen is a min/maxed character ruin the fun for anyone, except occasionally the player of the min/maxed character by way of the player realizing they'd rather be playing a more well-rounded and versatile character, when everyone else is running the game the same way they would if nobody min/maxed their character.
The problem is having a character with 500 effective hit points while everyone else is stuck with roughly 100. Especially if the PC was truly min/maxed to be even worse.
Namely every time I've ran into a player who does this type of thing, it results in people not playing the game because of the player. And is usually accompanied by trying to do every loophole they can find.
The problem is having a character with 500 effective hit points while everyone else is stuck with roughly 100.
That cannot be a problem unless every character is expected to take more than roughly 100 damage on a regular basis.
Unless you are saying that the problem is the 500 effective hit point character's player being bummed out that the DM doesn't make it mandatory that a character have 500 effective hit points in order to survive. I agree that can be a problem, but its also one the player can self-correct by adjusting their build to perform how they want it to perform given the DM's actual campaign, rather than assuming the DM is going to - or, worse of an assumption, is supposed to - make whatever this particular player's build is be the benchmark for "good enough to survive and succeed in this campaign."
Technically I was discussing the min/max nature of wild shape and the annoyance it could be. Completely irrelevant to a meaningful discussion on wild shape itself.
I imagine if someone actually did that it would be the rest of the party that might not like it. Or at least the Dm, who would be faced with someone on par with a dragon.
The problem is having a character with 500 effective hit points while everyone else is stuck with roughly 100. Especially if the PC was truly min/maxed to be even worse.
Namely every time I've ran into a player who does this type of thing, it results in people not playing the game because of the player. And is usually accompanied by trying to do every loophole they can find.
A couple things with this scenario:
The character is postponing an ASI/Feat for another level because they decided to multiclass and that's no small decision.
They can only go into an elemental form once per short rest - the DM should know this and keep this in mind when designing adventuring days and encounters.
If they decide to burn spell slots to heal, that's a serious use of resources that could hurt the party down the line, especially when you're talking 4th, 5th, and 6th level spells (which you've just postponed for another level because you chose to multiclass along with permanently giving up a second 7th level spell slot).
You keep saying 500 effective hit points (which I believe should be 450 based on what you noted above), but that's not 500 HP on their sheet. That's 126 HP for Earth Elemental when they are Wild Shaped into that and 100ish HP in normal form, assuming average rolls. The "effective HP" is assuming there isn't magical weapons or spells coming at them, which by level 11 is no longer safe to assume. Magic weapons at that point are a thing out in the world and monsters are starting to do different types of damage. With the Earth Elemental, they are also vulnerable to thunder damage, which is not uncommon.
They get two rages per day that reset on a long rest - DM should remember this.
They have to attack a hostile creature or take damage to maintain rage.
When they are out of Wild Shape and raging, they can't cast spells or concentrate - that's huge for a spellcasting class. All those cool high level spells, sorry you can't use them unless you spend a bonus action to cancel that rage.
If the DM is using the tiers of play guide in the DMG, then by level 11 the characters are, at the very least, known throughout the continent/country and are likely on their way to becoming world renowned. It's pretty likely that word would have got out that "Hey, that one thing can turn into an Earth Elemental and when I bash it with a weapon it doesn't hurt the same as it does other creatures. Better bring out the big guns and get some people that know how to do terrible things to rocks. Doesn't thunder magic hurt them?" That doesn't mean you punish the player by having everything do magical damage or thunder damage, but it's going to happen once and awhile and it should. Everyone should get a chance to shine and everyone should get a chance to take the back seat.
So in this scenario, the player has made some really big trade offs:
Add 126 HP to their pool once every short rest and gain resistance to slashing, bludgeoning, and piercing damage while they are in this form, but also take double damage from any source of thunder damage and have to use spell slots to heal as a bonus action.
Rage 2x per long rest, which gives resistance to slashing, bludgeoning, and piercing damage, but also completely negates their ability to concentrate or cast spells while they are doing this and will disappear if they don't attack something or take damage.
Give up a 7th level spell slot
Postpone an ASI/Feat and 6th level spells for another level
On paper 500 effective HP looks absolutely crazy - but when you actually break it down, it's really not that amazing. You have a highly specialized character that is a one trick pony able to shut down with relative ease. Once they burn that elemental wild shape or they get knocked out of it, they just lost one of their big investments.
That's not including all the scenarios you, as a DM, now have at your disposal. Create an encounter where they have to choose between raging or casting spells. Make one where a ritual they need to perform requires concentration - do they rage or do they try to help with the ritual? Give some monsters thunder damage or bust out some that have it innately via spellcasting or attacks. Write up a scenario where that tremendous health pool and resistance will allow them to hold off an onslaught of mooks while the rest of the party performs some super important act. Maybe the rest of them take on a boss while the super HP player has to tank all the damage from the minions solo until the party downs the boss, then all of them come together to wipe out those minions. That sounds like a pretty fun boss encounter to me. And, much like AaronOfBarbaria is advocating and with which I agree, no one is being punished because the player made those choices. Win-win.
I imagine if someone actually did that it would be the rest of the party that might not like it. Or at least the Dm, who would be faced with someone on par with a dragon.
I don't think the other players would even notice unless the player kept bragging up what they believed their character was capable of, since the enemies - having been set up to be a survivable challenge by all the characters, not just the super-hard-to-kill one - won't be doing enough damage for anyone to go "Woah, you're still conscious after that? How?!"
And I as a DM wouldn't have a problem at all - but I also wouldn't think of the character as "on par with a dragon" because all that min-maxing of durability has prevented damage-dealing and debilitating of foes from being as potent. A dragon isn't just a ton of hit points; it's a ton of hit points, a breath weapon, frightful presence, legendary resistance, and legendary actions.
I ignore sage advice because it isn't from the books and therefore usually almost always not a consideration for the people I have played with that wouldn't care what " intended" was but rather what the book actually says.
That is something that should be in the players handbook not the monster manual for players. The monk point is irrelevant though as my only point is that its possible to min/max to the point of making the game seriously broken for everyone else playing and the DM.
Please do as they are clearly wrong based on what they wrote in their own book.
A bold strategy Cotton. Lets see how it works out for him. Now as for the HP hypothetical. If no one takes more than 80 hp, then 420 of our friend's focused resource is useless. That would also make 20 points of everyone else's hp useless, but now there's a strong disparity. If you wanted to bump the damage up to 130 to make healing and damage prevention more useful then guess what, hp bloat friend is still getting no use out of 370 points of hit. Nothing in the game needs to change, and that's not even talking about all of the non-hp ways to fight. Players can get 30 AC all they want, but a failed save can be just as or more damaging.
min/max have broken more games than i care to remember... and that is why i dont allow it in my games
This is an interesting sentiment. What exactly is minmax anyway? Is it being good at something? Is it making a Wizard with their highest score Intelligence? Are you minmaxing when you choose a Greatsword because it has the best average damage? Or perhaps its when you choose a Greataxe because it has a higher damage dice than a Dagger. Is there some objective way to label something as minmaxing or is it whatever you don't like? Can you minmax in a non-combat related way? Can you minmax at roleplaying? What about when choosing stats? Can you only have scores of 10 in everything so that you don't have a minimum or maximum in any score? How do you even minmax to begin with? Where is the line drawn? Who determines what is minmaxing? What if someone intentionally picks sub-optimal choices and still outshines the other players? How do you stop someone from minmaxing? What is life? Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
To further add to Ghost's point- the game actually sort of guides you to the strong options. High Elves are flavored as being great wizards, and they're a very optimized choice for it, Wood Elves are flavored as archers and nature folks, and they're quite good as rangers and druids, Half-Orcs are flavored as brutal warriors, lo and behold, they are the premier race for strength damage builds. To some extent, anyone who doesn't play something off the beaten path is going to be more optimized than someone who doesn't, you could compensate by spreading the stats out so the racial bonus is trivial, but doing that not for a character reason but simply to avoid your high elven wizard who is "incredibly intelligent and well educated" having too high an intelligence score because that would also be power gaming. A brawny warrior is going to have a high strength anyway, and a clever rogue is going to have excellent dexterity- so why do those builds have to be stronger than a build that isn't just a regurgitation of the book's flavor?
You can get into intent, but all you're really doing is inviting your players to try and trick you with character justification for every choice they make, regardless of the actual reason- even while you take away their fun by demanding they be more helpless in the face of the challenges you put in front of them. It also doesn't work for someone like me, who basically treats both sides of each character decision as equally important, and even more so, someone like me whom doesn't view the two things as being in conflict.
min/max have broken more games than i care to remember... and that is why i dont allow it in my games
This is an interesting sentiment. What exactly is minmax anyway? Is it being good at something? Is it making a Wizard with their highest score Intelligence? Are you minmaxing when you choose a Greatsword because it has the best average damage? Or perhaps its when you choose a Greataxe because it has a higher damage dice than a Dagger. Is there some objective way to label something as minmaxing or is it whatever you don't like? Can you minmax in a non-combat related way? Can you minmax at roleplaying? What about when choosing stats? Can you only have scores of 10 in everything so that you don't have a minimum or maximum in any score? How do you even minmax to begin with? Where is the line drawn? Who determines what is minmaxing? What if someone intentionally picks sub-optimal choices and still outshines the other players? How do you stop someone from minmaxing? What is life? Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
I assume each participant in this thread is familiar with the concept of mimmaxing: is the process of building a character in such a way the it is the "best" at something. This something can be combat or non-combat skills. The issue arises when such a character is so "good" that the game's design fails to create a challenge for this character in its area of expertise.
I assume each participant in this thread is familiar with the concept of mimmaxing: is the process of building a character in such a way the it is the "best" at something. This best can be combat or non-combat skills. The issue arises when such a character is so "good" that the game's design fails to create a challenge for this character in its area of expertise.
If you're a cleric and no other class in your party can heal, did you minmax? If you're the only character that has expertise did you minmax? What about a character with 30 AC. Is there no other way to challenge that character?
I mention all those rhetorical questions because definitions aren't the same between different people. What's minmaxing to one person might not be to another. I have quite the strong suspicion that minmaxing is being used as a scapegoat for a number of other problems.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
NightsLastHero,
Just to let you know there is a really long series of posts in the Druid forum about this. If you want to continue a discussion on Wild Shape I'd recommend moving it there. Also see most anything filcat posts from Sage Advice. To try to sum it up: YES you can Punch as an Elemental, but it's terrible.
Basically it goes like this: "natural attacks" from a Beast or Elemental form is not an "unarmed strike"
Lets just say I have a 12th level Character
With the following stat block: Str: 13, Dex: 16, Con: 14, Int: 10 Wis: 18, Cha: 10.
If you're wearing no armor and not using a shield your AC Calculation can be 17=10+3(Dex)+4(Wis) from Monk
If you're wearing no armor and using a shield your AC Calculation can be 17=10+2(Shield)+3(Dex)+2(Con) from Barbarian
NOTE: p164 PHB says "If you already have Unarmored Defense feature, you can't gain it again from another class". This might mean you can't actually have both features, but they also have different wordings so I would argue they are different... but that's not the argument we're having, but I wanted to mention it for completeness.
This Character Wild Shapes into an Earth Elemental.
The Druid has 3 possible AC calculations:
The Druid also has 4 possible Attack Actions calculations
So, your Earth Elemental can punch all it wants. You can even do so with your monk's Martial Arts attack die, since the feature doesn't state anything about having to be your natural form. AND you can even use the Earth Elemental's strength for the purpose of the unarmed attack (remember Martial Arts says "You can use Dexterity instead of Strength..." it doesn't say you have to. Hell, if I was the DM, I'd even say that you get a range of 10 feet with your melee attack, since the slam has a range of 10 feet (why that slam has a range of 10 feet while the Water Elemental's slam attack only has a range of 5 feet I have no idea...).
So, you're free to unarmed strike for 25 (3d6+15) damage or 34 (4d6+20) damage if you Flurry with your multiple attacks per round at 15th level (assuming at least 5 levels in Monk to get the maximum martial arts dice, Extra Attack, AND Elemental Wild Shape). Alternatively you could do 2 slams for 28 (4d8+10) damage if you'd rather not use the ki point for the extra 6 damage
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 ignore sage advice because it isn't from the books and therefore usually almost always not a consideration for the people I have played with that wouldn't care what " intended" was but rather what the book actually says.
That is something that should be in the players handbook not the monster manual for players. The monk point is irrelevant though as my only point is that its possible to min/max to the point of making the game seriously broken for everyone else playing and the DM.
some people will argue anything -_-
min/max have broken more games than i care to remember... and that is why i dont allow it in my games
The problem is having a character with 500 effective hit points while everyone else is stuck with roughly 100. Especially if the PC was truly min/maxed to be even worse.
Namely every time I've ran into a player who does this type of thing, it results in people not playing the game because of the player. And is usually accompanied by trying to do every loophole they can find.
That cannot be a problem unless every character is expected to take more than roughly 100 damage on a regular basis.
Unless you are saying that the problem is the 500 effective hit point character's player being bummed out that the DM doesn't make it mandatory that a character have 500 effective hit points in order to survive. I agree that can be a problem, but its also one the player can self-correct by adjusting their build to perform how they want it to perform given the DM's actual campaign, rather than assuming the DM is going to - or, worse of an assumption, is supposed to - make whatever this particular player's build is be the benchmark for "good enough to survive and succeed in this campaign."
Technically I was discussing the min/max nature of wild shape and the annoyance it could be. Completely irrelevant to a meaningful discussion on wild shape itself.
I imagine if someone actually did that it would be the rest of the party that might not like it. Or at least the Dm, who would be faced with someone on par with a dragon.
So in this scenario, the player has made some really big trade offs:
On paper 500 effective HP looks absolutely crazy - but when you actually break it down, it's really not that amazing. You have a highly specialized character that is a one trick pony able to shut down with relative ease. Once they burn that elemental wild shape or they get knocked out of it, they just lost one of their big investments.
That's not including all the scenarios you, as a DM, now have at your disposal. Create an encounter where they have to choose between raging or casting spells. Make one where a ritual they need to perform requires concentration - do they rage or do they try to help with the ritual? Give some monsters thunder damage or bust out some that have it innately via spellcasting or attacks. Write up a scenario where that tremendous health pool and resistance will allow them to hold off an onslaught of mooks while the rest of the party performs some super important act. Maybe the rest of them take on a boss while the super HP player has to tank all the damage from the minions solo until the party downs the boss, then all of them come together to wipe out those minions. That sounds like a pretty fun boss encounter to me. And, much like AaronOfBarbaria is advocating and with which I agree, no one is being punished because the player made those choices. Win-win.
Now as for the HP hypothetical. If no one takes more than 80 hp, then 420 of our friend's focused resource is useless. That would also make 20 points of everyone else's hp useless, but now there's a strong disparity. If you wanted to bump the damage up to 130 to make healing and damage prevention more useful then guess what, hp bloat friend is still getting no use out of 370 points of hit. Nothing in the game needs to change, and that's not even talking about all of the non-hp ways to fight. Players can get 30 AC all they want, but a failed save can be just as or more damaging.
To further add to Ghost's point- the game actually sort of guides you to the strong options. High Elves are flavored as being great wizards, and they're a very optimized choice for it, Wood Elves are flavored as archers and nature folks, and they're quite good as rangers and druids, Half-Orcs are flavored as brutal warriors, lo and behold, they are the premier race for strength damage builds. To some extent, anyone who doesn't play something off the beaten path is going to be more optimized than someone who doesn't, you could compensate by spreading the stats out so the racial bonus is trivial, but doing that not for a character reason but simply to avoid your high elven wizard who is "incredibly intelligent and well educated" having too high an intelligence score because that would also be power gaming. A brawny warrior is going to have a high strength anyway, and a clever rogue is going to have excellent dexterity- so why do those builds have to be stronger than a build that isn't just a regurgitation of the book's flavor?
You can get into intent, but all you're really doing is inviting your players to try and trick you with character justification for every choice they make, regardless of the actual reason- even while you take away their fun by demanding they be more helpless in the face of the challenges you put in front of them. It also doesn't work for someone like me, who basically treats both sides of each character decision as equally important, and even more so, someone like me whom doesn't view the two things as being in conflict.
I mention all those rhetorical questions because definitions aren't the same between different people. What's minmaxing to one person might not be to another. I have quite the strong suspicion that minmaxing is being used as a scapegoat for a number of other problems.