Powergamers will break game balance with what you propose.
I think people forget the Min when they speak of Min/Maxers. The fact that you do one thing really well usually means you do another thing pretty bad.
Min/maxing isn't really about the min anymore. Or rather, it is but the min has become irrelevant. For example, I know that Redpelt made a magic missile build that does insane amounts of damage with magic missiles. It's bad at everything else but that doesn't make it balanced. The truth is, doing more than thirty damage ( a lot more) with a first level spell that doesn't require an attack roll negates the need for literally anything else. And that's a weak example, especially since it's level twenty. Plenty of character builds in all four tiers of play are absolutely broken and the nature of DnD means that the fact that they don't do anything other than their gimmick is redundant. Every published enemy can be one shotted by a variety of builds, every skill check can be passed, and every situation has a pallylock solution just waiting for it, usually with action surge as well. There is no min in minmax, and the only thing that allows DnD to function is the ignorance/basic decency of every player that doesn't default to a minmaxed character in every single scenario.
EDIT:Nothing against minmaxing, it just should only be done with DM consent and when it's fun. Minmaxing isn't inherently bad, it just gets a bad rep since frequently it's done when it really shouldn't be.
I disagree. Unless your party covers you in the places you minimized you will have a tough time with the game as a whole. If you have a party of combat novas you will struggle in other parts of the game. You will trivialize most combats, but then get stuck when it’s it’s time to climb a mountain. Now a bigger problem is spell versatility. If my major damage is from magic missile I can use utility spells to trivialize most other checks. This is really only a problem you see with full casters. Other classes that min/max can’t just use spells to cover their weaknesses. A party of min/maxers who cover each other’s weaknesses are just a good party to me. A party with a single min/maxer who just stays out of everyone’s way until the thing they are good at comes up is fine unless they are trying to force that thing to come up all the time. The Fey Wanderer/eloquence Bard who tries to be the face of every NPC conversation can get annoying, but there are ways to make sure that doesn’t happen.
a party of min/maxers or specialists isn't wrong, but does end up feeling a bit more like a boardgame. that's fine for who it's fine for. bob's issue seems to have been of someone trying to be the big fish in a small pond, trivializing one aspect of the game (combat, persuasion, perception, etc...) while in the company of others just having fun. not everyone wants to be carried up the cliffs of insanity just because someone else can carry literally everyone else in the party. same could be said for a lone roleplayer in the party of carefully choreographed optimizers.
If I were starting my own adventuring party with my old army buddy who's a medic, I'd probably not be recruiting more fighters or priests, I'd probably be looking to add capabilities that I haven't already gotten like magical support and stealth. That's not boardgame like, that's just common sense. It's the same RP logic I use for flat refusing to play in a game with a 'wild magic X' unless it's random effects have been customized. As a player I have had nothing but bad experiences with them, and am utterly tired of getting hit by things because they get their rocks off on 'let's see what happens!!!!!'. If they want to turn themselves blue, that's fine, I don't care. When you hit me with fireballs and grease me all the time, it's a problem. From an RP perspective, I would not go to the field with a guy who continually drops his grenades, so why would my character do the same?
Sorry but this sends up so many red flags; it sounds incredibly arrogant to assume that your character would be in charge of the adventuring party and would be recruiting members based on what you want or need in terms of skills and expertise.
This isn't your world or your game where you get to dictate what everyone else does and how everyone else has fun. You are just one person at the table, your fun is not more important or valuable than anyone else's. What you think is "common sense" from your narrow perspective is not any more valid that what anyone else thinks "makes sense". If you don't want to play with a wild magic sorcerer, fine, go find yourself a different table to play at, or better yet, go play a single-player game like BG3 where you can design the party to be exactly how you think it should be.
Adventuring parties come together for all kinds of reasons, rarely IME it is because they just decide to go adventuring. It may be circumstance - like all of you ending up in the same prison cell, or happening to be in the same town that gets attacked, or happening to be chosen by some god or hero to take up their legacy, or you may all have been travelling together when you get attacked by the BBEG. It may be convenience - you all happen to have a grudge against the same person, or you may all belong to the same faction, or you may all be trying to reach the same location. Or it might be fate - a prophecy links you all together, various political leaders choose each of you to represent some faction to participate in a world-saving mission, or you all receive a vision guiding you to the same path.
Ok. Then why would I join a party where I am putting my life at risk, and I feel that the basics are not covered with some expectation to success? I'd decide "this party is not the right fit for me, and I should keep searching for a better opportunity"?
Leaving the table is precisely what I would do if I was told someone was playing a wild magic sorc. No D&D is better than bad D&D and wild magic sorcs lead to bad D&D in my experience. It's better for everyone involved if I nope out at the beginning. No amount of story and hooks is going to make me somehow accept, what's been proven multiple times to be a bad experience. Don't sit on your pulpit and preach at me, and have the NERVE to talk about arrogance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Then why would I join a party where I am putting my life at risk, and I feel that the basics are not covered with some expectation to success? I'd decide "this party is not the right fit for me, and I should keep searching for a better opportunity"?
Because your other option is wandering around looking for your ideal companions while the world burns, or you are pouting in the corner of a prison cell because the people you abandoned ratted you out. Do you really think there are huge numbers of qualified adventurers just waiting for you to recruit? No, they either have their own party and will be like "oh you abandoned your last party, well we don't want someone that unreliable joining us, bye!" or "Oh you're only a level 1 warlock? What good are you going to be to us, level 5 adventurers?" or "Nah, we already got everyone we need, why would we want to split the loot among another person?".
Then why would I join a party where I am putting my life at risk, and I feel that the basics are not covered with some expectation to success? I'd decide "this party is not the right fit for me, and I should keep searching for a better opportunity"?
By that logic, one should never join an adventuring party though. I mean risking their life is part of most adventurers in dnd. In particular, one should never be a frontliner since it is inherently much riskier than being in the back. And if you do decide to go adventuring anyway, better make sure that everyone in the party is lawfull good since they are the only ones you can fully trust.
Even if you, as a player may know about all the implications of the party's lineup, your character might not be fully aware of them. This is particularly true at lvl one when they simply lag the experience to make such an assesment.
Of course, if this leads to a type of game you don't enjoy, there is no point in playing. I'm just saying that there is not neccessarily an ingame reason for your character to rule out joining a group just because you (the player) know that it is strategically bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok. Then why would I join a party where I am putting my life at risk, and I feel that the basics are not covered with some expectation to success? I'd decide "this party is not the right fit for me, and I should keep searching for a better opportunity"?
Leaving the table is precisely what I would do if I was told someone was playing a wild magic sorc. No D&D is better than bad D&D and wild magic sorcs lead to bad D&D in my experience. It's better for everyone involved if I nope out at the beginning. No amount of story and hooks is going to make me somehow accept, what's been proven multiple times to be a bad experience. Don't sit on your pulpit and preach at me, and have the NERVE to talk about arrogance.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Because your other option is wandering around looking for your ideal companions while the world burns, or you are pouting in the corner of a prison cell because the people you abandoned ratted you out. Do you really think there are huge numbers of qualified adventurers just waiting for you to recruit? No, they either have their own party and will be like "oh you abandoned your last party, well we don't want someone that unreliable joining us, bye!" or "Oh you're only a level 1 warlock? What good are you going to be to us, level 5 adventurers?" or "Nah, we already got everyone we need, why would we want to split the loot among another person?".
By that logic, one should never join an adventuring party though. I mean risking their life is part of most adventurers in dnd. In particular, one should never be a frontliner since it is inherently much riskier than being in the back. And if you do decide to go adventuring anyway, better make sure that everyone in the party is lawfull good since they are the only ones you can fully trust.
Even if you, as a player may know about all the implications of the party's lineup, your character might not be fully aware of them. This is particularly true at lvl one when they simply lag the experience to make such an assesment.
Of course, if this leads to a type of game you don't enjoy, there is no point in playing. I'm just saying that there is not neccessarily an ingame reason for your character to rule out joining a group just because you (the player) know that it is strategically bad.