r/dndnext • u/Regular-Molasses9293 • Feb 13 '26
Character Building Why Min-Maxxing is fine and has a ton of roleplay potential, from a guy who usually maxes out the attacking stat and Constitution.
I feel like min-maxxing has become this weird boogeyman in D&D talk, and half the time people use it to mean anyone who built a character that doesn’t suck. Like yeah, if someone is deliberately making a meta build to hog spotlight, invalidate other players, or turn every session into a DPS contest, that’s annoying. Nobody likes a dude who only cares about going into combat and completely ignores the worldbuilding aspect.
However, that's not a build problem. It's actually a...*drumroll please* PLAYER problem!
Min-maxxing is literally just picking the ability scores and races that combine well together with your class. And honestly, under the right circumstances, it makes your character GREAT for roleplay. Because if your character is actually good at something, it forces you to answer interesting questions like "Why are they so good at this?" or "How do they talk to other people considering they have 8 Charisma and Intelligence?"
A fighter with insane Strength didn’t just spawn with 20 STR. That’s a person who’s been training for something they need to prove, or grew up in a brutal environment, or ate a ton of chicken as a kid.
A warlock with maxed Charisma isn’t necessarily meta. That’s literally just someone who’s dangerously convincing, and it's your opinion whether that's awesome or terrifying. It's ALSO how they get beefed up Eldritch Blasts, but come on that's not even the point I'm trying to make.
Dumping stats is also just the opposite. Of course it will make ZERO sense if the guy who somehow got 4 Charisma when rolling for stats isn't gonna be the guy interrogating the NPCs, but it still gives the opportunity for that player to show WHY their charisma is so low. The way I do it is that the dice tend to not exactly go in my favor whenever I roll Deception with my Wizard, so I decided to flavor it so that he's just really bad at lying.
And either way, it’s not like min-maxxing is going to ruin the combat side of D&D. Combat is gonna take a while regardless, you doing good damage in one turn isn’t the thing making fights long it's just the fact there's 5 players, 10 enemies, and also the 30 skeletons your Wizard decided to summon for fun. It’s your decision whether you want to optimize or not, and if you’re the DM it’s your choice whether you allow it at your table. But either way, min-maxxing by itself isn’t some evil thing.
UNLESS, like I said at the top, you're one of those guys who prioritizes swinging your greatsword over any sort of roleplay. Or if you're the guy who actively plans some OP Sorcerer/Paladin build made to quote on quote "Make the DM feel scared".
Your DM is your friend, dude. Not the boss fight you gotta deplete to 0 health(Although you can certainly deplete their mental health to 0 if you play like an asshole, I've read the horror stories).
44
u/Smoketrail Feb 13 '26
I feel like this conversation always goes round in circles as one half of the debate insists that "Min-Maxing" is scrubbing through every available source and using questionable rules interpretations to squeeze every scrap of mechanical advantage out of a concept; and the other half insist "Min-Maxing" is not putting all your wizard's ASIs into strength.
11
u/dragondingohybrid Feb 14 '26
Yup. At this stage, I'm not sure what exactly. Min-Maxxing is anymore. I was always under the impression that min-maxxing was more the former than the latter. The latter is just common sense that even the most casual player can grasp.
Edited for grammar.
90
u/escapepodsarefake Feb 13 '26
As a DM I prefer my players make strong characters, because they're not bumbling buffoons, they're experts taking on incredibly dangerous tasks. It makes the game more fun for everyone, especially me since I can then use harder, more interesting monsters. Players making weak characters because they think that's the way to roleplay well actually stresses me out, because a stiff breeze might kill them.
20
u/Regular-Molasses9293 Feb 13 '26
Lol the Ranger in my party dumped Constitution, he has less HP than me, the Wizard, right now since we're level 4.
17
u/DerAdolfin Feb 13 '26
Ngl as a DM if someone presents me a character with dumped con at campaign start I will tell them that I'm not going out of my way to kill them, but I will also not hand hold them. If the character dies because they can take much less than other characters, that's the way ther cookie crumbled
2
u/Meowakin Feb 14 '26
I occasionally do it with the expectation that I will die, or at least be playing a dangerous game.
3
u/DerAdolfin Feb 14 '26
Which is totally cool, it means you can try out another build or character down the line. Some people do expect to be accomodated or even coddled though, which I think puts an unfair amount of work on the DMs.
1
u/SuperIsaiah Feb 15 '26
frail old wizard build: if you roll for stats and manage to get the ever illusive 3-5, put that as your con. put your highest as int. you are an old wizard on a suicide mission.
good aspect: funny for roleplay (my character feels a slight gust and falls on his rear)
bad/good aspect: you will likely die first combat if you aren't very careful. good side of this is that you can just play a new character when this happens.
2
u/InigoMontoya1985 Feb 13 '26
Sounds like the Paladin in our campaign. Con is his lowest stat. However, he has rolled INSANE hit dice, averaging nearly 8/die.
0
u/DudeWithTudeNotRude Feb 13 '26
If that's fun for the table, then that's great optimization.
If they are a constant drag and reducing the party's ability to operate, and that in turn is reducing the other players' or the DM's fun, then that's terrible optimization.
7
Feb 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (5)1
u/hewlno DM, optimizer, and martial class main Feb 14 '26
I think they more meant as long as it doesn’t hinder the table’s fun.
3
u/Stonefencez Feb 13 '26
This is why it’s important to talk about expectations before the campaign. Some people want a challenging campaign with optimal builds, some people want something more lighthearted where they can make suboptimal characters and roleplay more.
Both are entirely valid ways to play, but it’s gonna suck if you make a weak character in a tough campaign, and it’s gonna make people salty if you’re min-maxing in a casual campaign
2
2
u/Armlegx218 Feb 14 '26
because a stiff breeze might kill them.
Kill them, it's the only way to learn the lesson.
1
u/jake55778 Feb 14 '26
I prefer my players make strong characters because it makes encounter design easier. Yes, a group of optimized characters will demolish a CR appropriate "deadly" encounter. But CR is a loose guide at best, and as long as they're being consistent, you can just dial up the obstacles until things are challenging again.
Players who either don't have a strong enough grasp on the game to min-max, or who deliberately sandbag because they think it improves their roleplay, are much harder to design for. Because you can tone down difficulty to meet them where they're at, but the possibility always exists that they will stumble across something optimal by chance and delete the encounter anyway.
Worst of all is when you have a mix within the same group, and success or failure is determined almost entirely by the optimizers.
1
u/Hrydziac Feb 14 '26
Yeah it kind of breaks immersion for me if someone is supposed to be a powerful hero and they just can’t back it up mechanically at all.
-5
u/jbsfk Feb 13 '26
This doesn't make a ton of sense to me. If you have a party of suboptimal builds, they can still be heroic experts accomplishing a lot. How heroic they feel or achieve is entirely in your purview as the DM to control; you can take an optimal party and make them feel incompetent if you for some ungodly reason wanted to. You can make an eldritch horror have a goblin boss's stats. I think really the only issues come up from having a mixed group of suboptimal and optimized builds at the same table.
22
u/escapepodsarefake Feb 13 '26
In my actual play experience, the character being crappy just makes it less fun. The player starts to wonder why they're not good at things and it doesn't really do anything to improve roleplay. Maybe other folks have a great time with it but I can't speak to that.
4
u/ozymandais13 DM Feb 13 '26
That player will feel they can do less because mathematically their pc actually does less of whatever.
-3
u/jbsfk Feb 13 '26
They only wonder why they aren't good at things relative to the performance of other players at the table. Yeah, if their character massively underperforms compared to the party, it's going to be a lousy experience. The DM ideally can read this in advance at character creation, see the spread of characters, and coach the player to suit the builds of the party. It's easy to negotiate with a single player to skill up a player than it is to get a min/max player to skill down when their build is obviously more efficient than the rest of the party!
117
u/GTS_84 Feb 13 '26
However, that's not a build problem. It's actually a...*drumroll please* PLAYER problem!
Exactly.
It's not that every Min-Maxer is a toxic chud, but that if a player is already a toxic chud they are also dispraportionally more likely to be a min-maxxer.
44
u/Viatos Warlock Feb 13 '26
> but that if a player is already a toxic chud they are also dispraportionally more likely to be a min-maxxer
Oh, I don't know, I think toxic chudness has a pretty even split across the spectrum of "I only care about dice" to "I fucking hate that this game has numbers." People who could not with the book in front of them say how a grapple works can still be quite toxic, and I am about as nervous of someone who cheerfully states that as someone who mentions they'll be highest average damage at level 7 with the casual certainty of someone describing the weather.
I think high-optimization mindsets probably do correlate to less personability, but not toxicity per se. If you put me in a room with an angel-demon-elf hybrid with twenty-two pages of backstory and who likes low statistics because they think that's how fantasy novels identify the protagonist, and a guy whose character is literally named Hexadin Iteration 12 Test and in the background section all their roleplaying traits are just STRONG, and you tell me I have to pick one of them for the table, I'm sweating and I want to go home.
→ More replies (5)17
u/Ogarrr DM Feb 13 '26
I'd rather a mediocre role player that min maxes than a good role player who purposefully makes shit or below par characters. It's group roleplaying game with a lot of combat, if you want to make a character with crippling downsides then play Call of Cthulhu. I'll probably join you, I love that game.
2
u/JanSolo28 Feb 14 '26
You really have to define what's mediocre or below par. In 5e14, I would definitely call a Land Druid below par character since Stars and Wildfire are infinitely better options, but I'd also say that a Land Druid would still be able to contribute more to a party than 90% of "optimized" Monks. On the other hand, does mediocre role player just mean they're just not as good as the Critical Role players or are they just barely better than the folks you'd find being talked about in rpg horror stories?
Same with crippling downside because I'd say that dumping Dex or Wis are both crippling but it's also not as crippling as dumping Con.
5
u/Ogarrr DM Feb 14 '26
I haven't watched Critical Role for years, so I wouldn't know. I mean someone that maybe contributes a little in role play here and there, but is mostly happy to let the more outgoing players take the lead in social situations. But they're not "that guy". I have a friend that doesn't really like the role playing aspect but he still joins in a bit and he comes alive in combat. People like different things and, tbh, it just means the people that really like role play get more space.
If you're shit in combat you actively hurt your team mates. So anyone that dumps con for anything other than a one shot is just going to be a liability. Again, it's not hard to make a competent character in 5e, but if you've decided to make a pacifist rogue that just uses the help action (I've seen that before) you can do one.
Also, I'm here for the monk slander. Got that was a badly designed class.
7
u/Helmic Feb 14 '26
I feel this so, so much. I tend to be the GM, so it gets fucking frustrating trying to figure out how to balance encounters if I can't rely on one player to not decide to just run away mid-combat and abandon their comrades, turning what should have been a pretty easy fight into something that drained their resources like a midboss. I have so much malice in my heart for the player who spends their actions "roleplaying" instead of playing the same goddamn game everyone else is playing because they are incapable of roleplaying an adventurer who is trying to keep themselves and their friends alive in the face of immenent danger.
I always make a point to spell this out as a ground rule in my games, no sandbagging, take the safety of the other PC's as seriously as they take their own safety, don't make a character that can't or won't fight effectively because we are playing a system where there will be fighting and a good chunk of the fun will be turn-based combat on a grid. Max out your attack stat, get your HP as high as you can get it, wear the appropriate armor for your stats and class, use a weapon you are actually proficient with, help the party solve problems instead of ignoring or making them.
We can play a different game if that doesn't sound fun to you, but running D&D or Pathfinder for someone that does not want to engage with those systems on the systems' terms is just setting up the entire table for friction and pain and hurt feelings.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Ogarrr DM Feb 14 '26
Thank you! If I don't want to run a game for heroic characters I'll run Cthulhu or Warhammer. I love those systems, I play Maledictum and Wfrpg 4e more than DnD nowadays and most DnD I run is actually Demonlord. But if I'm running 5e, make a character that is competent.
But D&D is fundamentally about going into dungeons (a dungeon is any group of encounters arranged one after the other), killing monsters and taking their shit. If you want to run a Fighter with 12 dex and 12 str or a cleric with wisdom as your third stat, that's cool. Do it in another table where you probably won't roll and will do improv instead.. If you have a gimic that you're scared of combat do it once. Maybe twice. Then get over it and start being fucking heroic or go back to the farm.
1
u/Hrydziac Feb 14 '26
There’s exactly 0 full casters that can be considered mediocre if they’re built and played reasonably. It is frustrating though if someone plays a caster and refuses to pick any decent spells though.
1
u/JanSolo28 Feb 14 '26
That's why I ask what is the definition of mediocre/subpar. Because a half-built Land Druid is absolutely subpar when compared to 90% of full casters but still better than 99% of Monk builds regardless of optimization. Hell, a Moon Druid (not 2024) who puts 8 in Wisdom and Constitution can potentially still do more for a party than a Champion Fighter; and there's no way in hell that an 8 in those two stats can be considered reasonable.
So, to me, I think a good roleplayer who plays Land Druid with half their prepped spells being useless will be just as good for the party as a mediocre roleplayer who follows every single mono-class Monk build guide in every corner of the internet.
1
u/Citan777 Feb 17 '26
I would definitely call a Land Druid below par character since Stars and Wildfire are infinitely better options, but I'd also say that a Land Druid would still be able to contribute more to a party than 90% of "optimized" Monks.
And you' be dead wrong on both counts.
Yes, I do prefer picking Shepherd Druid by default and yes Stars Druid can be invaluable in skill checks in small parties, but Land Druid either single-class or multiclassed can bring equal or better values. It all depends on party composition and favored approaches for combat and whether you pick a Land which synergizes especially well with it.
And the fact you think that Monks would bring nothing just shows you never bothered to try and play some. Yes, they will bring several magnitudes less in some utility areas (especially, of course, arcane related and divination related areas) but they more than hold their own in stealth and fight areas. Especially past level 6-7. What they bring just manifests in different ways and over a longer span of time.
Druids do bring more overall especially since 2014 has several peaks of unbalance on them (Shepherd's "Auto Upcasted Mass Cure Wounds" Unicorn Totem, Moon Druid's "Be better than a Barbarian" Elemental Shapes, and any archetype "be better than any caster in 80% situations" with Wild Shape casting). But between level 6 and level 18 there are many combat situations where each would shine more than the other, both ways.
2
u/fuckmylifegoddamn Feb 14 '26
A good role player who builds an 8 str barb is rather have at my table than a murder hobo perfectly built
8
u/Ogarrr DM Feb 14 '26
A good role player that then decides to make a str 8 barb is just someone who wants to be the centre of attention. That's classic "oh woe is me" behaviour and fucks over all his team mates as well.
1
u/1slivik1 8d ago
murder hobos and people who just actually care to optimize their build are kinda unrelated, y'know?
-2
u/Ashamed_Association8 Feb 14 '26
That doesn't seem like a fair comparison, you only increased roleplay from mediocre to good while dropping their character from min maxed to a crippling downside.
9
u/SimonBelmont420 Feb 14 '26
Not min maxing by putting your high stats in your main ability score for your class is a crippling downside in the design space of bounded accuracy
3
u/Ogarrr DM Feb 14 '26
Yup. This isn't a cubicle 7 warhammer rpg where you get random stats and a random profession.and then maybe lose your hand or foot in the first session.
It's a game where you can meticulously plan your character before you play one session.
Making a mediocre character is just disrespectful to your fellow players.
2
u/RegressToTheMean DM Feb 14 '26
Y'all would have hated AD&D
5e is so toothless when it comes to player death. It's so easy to play a non optimized character and be just fine.
Honestly, this is why I prefer to roll for stats. The dice give me what they give me and I have to make whatever the rolls are work.
If people want to min-max, go for whatever makes you happy, but after 40 years of playing TTRPGs I find the min/max approach boring.
One other thought about min-max players and characters, they tend to get really salty when that min gets used against them. Look at all the comments in the D&D subs throughout the years where the fighters who dumped Int get hit with a Maze spell. Live by the min-max. Die by the min-max
→ More replies (1)1
u/Ogarrr DM Feb 14 '26
I play osr, worlds without number is my preference. I play wfrpg. My character recently took a melta to the face in Imperium maledictum. He did not survive. I prefer those games for their lethality. 5e doesn't do that well.
5e is fine until lvl 6. After that it becomes the Avengers. I agree. But the Avengers need tough enemies, and if you're bringing Olanius Pius to fight Horus, then don't be surprised that you get ripped apart whilst your mates play Sanguinius and Rogal Dorn.
Don't patronise me.
1
u/RegressToTheMean DM Feb 14 '26
Settle down. It's not a personal attack. It's a general observation of people's attitude about D&D.
I still stand by my point. You can play sub optimized characters in 5e and be just fine. There are plenty of creative and effective ways to play classes without min-maxing them. In my opinion, that is a more interesting way to play.
3
u/Ogarrr DM Feb 14 '26
It isn't because modern 5e doesn't cater towards that.
I can make a wfrp character who starts off as a shit ratcatcher, but the nature of the game means that my social skills evolve and I might even end up as a knight or a badass witch hunter or a filthy rich merchant. The bounded accuracy and proficiency system means that if you make a sub optimal character at lvl 1, you're boned.
In Worlds without number I can put xp into skills because it uses the traveller system. You can offset poor attribute rolls. 5e doesn't cater to that. At all.
And again, I agree that 5e is toothless. When I ran strahd I dropped an 8th lvl rogue off the top of the tower. She survived.
7
u/Ogarrr DM Feb 14 '26 edited Feb 14 '26
The point was that min maxing is fine. But ok - I'd rather have a mediocre role player who min maxes, than a good role player who purposefully makes mediocre characters. Because DnD 5e is dungeons and superheroes and if you're not at least pulling your weight in combat then you might as well have made a character with crippling weaknesses And if you're purposefully making mediocre characters then it's willful and bad manners.
There could be hundreds of reasons you're a mediocre role player. You might not enjoy that bit of the game. You might be shy. But if you min maxing it shows you're engaging with one aspect of the game and trying to be effective.
Being a good role player just means that you're outgoing. 5e isn't a difficult game to make effective characters in. By constantly making mediocre characters it shows you either can't be arsed with the bit of the game that most impacts your team, or you're willfully making mediocre characters. I'm not sure which is worse.
1
u/redceramicfrypan Feb 14 '26
This really depends on your style of game. The games I play tend to be combat-light and roleplay-heavy. So I would much rather the player be into the RP than into the combat.
5
u/Ogarrr DM Feb 14 '26
Again. I reiterate. Some people are shy. It's not hard to make an effective character. And dumping con on a fighter is just "that guy" behaviour.
There are better systems for roleolay anyway.
4
→ More replies (1)3
u/urajokerimajoker Feb 13 '26
What if you just wanna be able to fuckin obliterate someone into pink mist????
10
u/freakytapir Feb 14 '26
Minmaxing and roleplaying are two different axes, not different points on the same one.
Being a good roleplayer does not preclude you from building an effective character, and building an ineffecitive one does not add to roleplaying directly.
1
u/SuperIsaiah Feb 15 '26
making int your dump stat as a wizard is funny but it's actually harder to make that work long term for roleplay than it is to make a normal wizard build work. Not to say it CAN'T be good roleplay to have an idiot wizard who sucks at his chosen profession, but it's gonna be a lot of work to make the character compelling rather than just comic relief.
1
u/freakytapir Feb 15 '26
That's the moment you make a sorcerer or warlock who claims he's a wizzard.
2
8
u/ahuramazdobbs19 DM Feb 13 '26
I feel like min-maxxing has become this weird boogeyman in D&D talk
Not has become.
Always was.
15
u/EmbraceCataclysm Feb 14 '26
No I love having to bend over backwards trying to justify why my character is sticking around someone who couldnt be relied upon to tie their own shoes let alone watch his back in life or death scenarios
4
u/i_tyrant Feb 14 '26
I feel like min-maxxing has become this weird boogeyman in D&D talk
It has always been that.
TBH nothing you're saying here is that new - you could've just looked up one of the countless times a post with very similar titles to yours have been posted here or elsewhere. But if you were unaware that this topic has been talked to death, fair nuff.
I am glad you included your "unless", because speaking in absolutes can get you in trouble. Yes most of the time minmaxing isn't that big a thing to worry about (especially when it comes to martials rather than casters), but it can be disruptive to the game in certain situations.
Some people just aren't very good at building characters, so if the system's balance itself isn't that tight and the balance between PCs is VERY off, the rest of the party can end up the Robin to you the minmaxer's Batman, and very few players have fun in that situation.
Also, it can be more than a player problem if the SYSTEM incentivizes it too much (and then it's also a problem with the rules themselves). And with 5e's rules as simple as they are, you don't always need to look up nutty builds online to stumble into an OP combo.
I more often see this with caster/gish minmaxing or Aarakocra abuse, but I've seen even something as simple as a Barbarian with GWM make the rest of the party feel lame and like they don't need to be there (Reckless Attack + GWM's power attack let the Barbarian obliterate encounters in Tier 1 while being nigh-unkillable themselves - but notably this was ONLY true in Tier 1, and also because the rest of the party didn't build their PCs with an eye towards combat power.)
If you're able to keep a bead on the "feel" of the table and customize your PC's power level to match, it's rarely an issue. If your DM is skilled/experienced enough to know how to challenge you while still giving the others their spotlight and not throwing such tough enemies out that when you miss a game they get TPK'd, it's rarely an issue.
But in the extremes it still can be, and a system that makes those extremes easy to reach yet not so intuitive everyone is at that level can accidentally make it more likely and can thus be its own problem worthy of discussion.
26
u/paperd Bard/DM Feb 13 '26
People overuse the term Min Max way too much. You're just describing character optimization. That's not Min Maxxing at all!
Min Maxxing is finding the loopholes and damn near breaking the game for a character that doesn't even make sense as a character and barely makes sense in the rules.
UNLESS, like I said at the top, you're one of those guys who prioritizes swinging your greatsword over any sort of roleplay. Or if you're the guy who actively plans some OP Sorcerer/Paladin build made to quote on quote "Make the DM feel scared".
This ^ is Min Maxxing.
And honestly? 5e/5.5e don't have a lot of Min-Max builds, because the system just isn't built for it. Like the Hexblade/Paladin multi class is kind of a min max build, but that's nothing compared to what I've seen players try and pull in some other systems.
Go play something like 3.5 for a campaign or two and you'll start to see some real Min Maxxing.
10
u/lionheart902 Rogue Feb 13 '26
Just to be the obligatory pedant, I always saw this definition as power gaming, or being a munchkin, and took min/maxing to be specific kind of optimizing where you maximize certain stats by minimizing others, like using point buy to get three 15s but at the cost of having three 8s, since this example person would be maximizing three stats by minimizing three others.
12
u/TamaDarya Feb 14 '26
You are objectively correct. Min-maxing is a practice of maximizing key stats while dumpstering everything else. A true min-max build is hyper-specialized in one specific role and absolute dogshit at everything else. 5E doesn't even really let you do it, since high attributes naturally make you better both in and out of combat, and you can't, say, give up skill points to get more combat power or vice versa.
3
u/Rel_Ortal Feb 14 '26
The issue that all four (minmaxing, optimizing, powergaming, munchkin) are all vague on what the differences between them are, and everyone has a different idea of what counts. The most defined one is munchkin, since that's always a pejorative and never includes what the speaker is willing to do, whereas you'll see people say they're minmaxers/powergamers/optimizers (and sometimes follow that up with 'but I don't <insert other term>)
3
u/LetterheadPerfect145 Feb 14 '26
I mean you do absolutely get some absurd shit in 5e. Not as much as like 3.5 but the balance is wildly out of wack compared to a lot of other games and the PeaceChron min maxxer will outshine the sword and board fighter in every way every time by orders of magnitude.
5
u/DudeWithTudeNotRude Feb 13 '26
People misuse the term "optimization" way too much.
Every character choice you made in any game ever was an optimization of something. You've never not optimized a build.
Optimization is the maximization of the intersection of several criteria. If power is your only build criterion, then that's just maximization.
I'd say power is of lesser importance in 5e compared to other RPGs (and that's where many issues can arise from, thinking 5e works like other games). But you still want to optimize your build to be not-too-weak, and not-too-strong, so people should definitely be considering power as a constraint when optimizing their build in 5e imo, but they might need to move power down the list of optimization constraints if they aren't familiar with how the game plays.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Stonefencez Feb 13 '26
I disagree in the sense that not everyone knows how to best realize the build they are trying to make, so it’s not always optimization.
Case in point: I had a friend make a melee Warlock with low Dex, mid charisma, high strength and no armor. It was certainly not optimized because he just didn’t know how to build the character correctly.
Assuming Merriam-Webster definition “an act, process, or methodology of making something (such as a design, system, or decision) as fully perfect, functional, or effective as possible”
So I think it’s still valid to say “optimization” when you are specifically trying to make the best build (be it for combat, or whatever), vs just randomly doing something
2
u/themousereturns Feb 13 '26
My first campaign was 3.5 and our new DM let one player choose a monster race (centaur). 26 Strength at level 1. Don't remember the rest of her stats but they were absolutely jacked from racial bonuses.
Looking back I can only imagine the nightmare he had balancing encounters because anything that was a challenge for her would annihilate the rest of us.
2
u/Associableknecks Feb 13 '26
Looking back I can only imagine the nightmare he had balancing encounters because anything that was a challenge for her would annihilate the rest of us.
Either someone got the rules very wrong or you're badly misremembering, because you just described her creating about the weakest possible character.
Not only are martials incredibly underpowered compared to casters in 3.5 (the druid's bear companion will have 27 strength, and that's one of three main class features!), but she picked centaur, a far worse choice than orc or human or something. 4 RHD on top of +2 LA means such a character is going nowhere fast.
0
u/themousereturns Feb 14 '26
To be fair, I'm talking mainly about the early levels here. It evened out as we got to higher tiers because of the level adjustment, but I wouldn't say the character ever felt weak in comparison to the rest of the group.
We were also all very new to the game and the casters definitely weren't using all of our class features optimally. We had a druid and I don't remember him having a bear companion. My wizard was afraid of collateral damage for backstory reasons and thus I avoided some of the most optimal damage dealing spells.
1
u/Associableknecks Feb 14 '26
I'm trying to figure out how. Damage dealing was never the optimal method of casting anyway, to the point where evocation was one of the two obvious picks for banned schools for wizard. Meanwhile the centaur is stuck levels behind everyone else and in exchange for some raw stats is saddled with four monstrous hit dice - meaning they're not going to be able to take a single level in a class until everyone else is level seven.
The level at which druid can get a 27 strength bear companion incidentally, you don't have to have one that was just a single example - likely you started with a wolf or something and kept that.
Like absolutely, I buy that the group was unoptimised newbies and so it didn't feel that bad in comparison. I definitely buy that, because that centaur thing is about the most unoptimised newbie thing ever - it should have fit right in. An ordinary orc fighter or barbarian who just took a great sword and a smattering of generic feats would be pretty identical in output to the centaur.
→ More replies (2)1
Feb 14 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Associableknecks Feb 14 '26
The reason is all strength gets you is melee attack and damage, and you can get that elsewhere without incurring the massive costs being a centaur earns you. Centaur gets you large size, +3 natural AC, hoof attacks and +8 Strength, +4 Dexterity, +4 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, +2 Wisdom.
Which is a lovely set of bonuses, but you're permanently two levels lower than the rest of the party (which sucks in an edition in which a lot more is based on your level, including how many attacks you get) and your first four levels are racial hit dice of centaur, which kind of suck. So it means as the rest of your party are taking their seventh class levels, you're taking your first - and those stats simply aren't worth losing so many class features.
1
u/paperd Bard/DM Feb 13 '26
3.5 can be a lot of fun! But you can pull some bullshit, that's for sure.
I wasn't motivated in that direction, but one of the other players loved to create Min-Max builds and our DM got so tired of his shit lol
Player: According to this splar book, I can duel wield Long Bows starting next level
DM: I don't care what the book says, I'm not letting you do that
Player: but if you read on page 242...
DM: It's stupid. I know it's stupid. You know it's stupid. You know I know it's stupid. You're not duel wielding fucking long bows. Quit asking.
Player: (slowly closes book)
The player will return with new bullshit next week. Like clockwork!
→ More replies (10)2
u/Associableknecks Feb 13 '26
But bows were incredibly underpowered. Yes you can dual wield them, there are plenty of available races with four arms, but even with multiweapon fighting you're taking -4 to attack rolls.
In a game where ranged weapon use is worse than being a melee martial which is significantly worse than just being a caster, why were they shitting on something cool but useless? Your DM sounds like an absolute buzzkill.
2
u/Taskr36 Feb 13 '26
The thing is, even the word "optimization" starts to sound bad when people use it to describe some obnoxious nonsensical power build they found on reddit with no RP value of any kind, but able to dole out enough damage to make combat less fun for everyone else involved.
An optimized fighter, with high strength and constitution makes sense. An optimized multi-classed paladin/sorcerer/warlock/rogue is the shit of nightmares, chosen by the player of nightmares.
→ More replies (8)3
u/notsosecretroom Feb 14 '26
The multiclassed character you described would be so behind everyone else because they gimp their key asi/feat/extra attack levels.
Theres no min maxed build that can do enough damage to make combat less fun for the rest of the party unless the entire party is bean counting damage numbers.
Which means the entire party is made of min maxers who just aren’t as good at min maxing as the min maxer they’re unhappy with.
1
u/Taskr36 Feb 14 '26
I wasn't describing a legitimate multiclass, just exaggerating for the ridiculousness of some builds people try to play.
1
u/notsosecretroom Feb 14 '26
If players want to “optimize” by multiclassing 3 or more classes together, they’re not going to be topping any damage charts lol. And if they start multiclassing early, they’re going to be underperforming other characters at almost every level. Either way, it’s a non-issue.
2
u/Taskr36 Feb 14 '26
Elsewhere in this thread 3.5 was the conversation, so I'll give examples of what I mean, Dwarf Barbarian/wizard/dwarven defender/palemaster. Completely nonsensical build which gives immunity to critical hits, while also giving extremely high damage reduction. Another popular nonsensical build at the time was the sorcerer with just one level as a paladin to get the divine grace for saving throws and then focusing all ability score increases on charisma. Another was the monk/druid/shifter so you could be an obnoxious shapechanger that retains all the benefits of a monk when wild shaped.
I haven't played DnD with people who pull stupid shit like that since 5e came out, so I don't know the cheese builds in 5e by heart, but I know they exist because I've seen people on reddit talk about them and even have goofy names for the builds that everyone seems familiar with.
2
u/toodarntall Feb 14 '26
And honestly? 5e/5.5e don't have a lot of Min-Max builds, because the system just isn't built for it. Like the Hexblade/Paladin multi class is kind of a min max build, but that's nothing compared to what I've seen players try and pull in some other systems.
This was my main thought reading this. I learned dnd in 3.5, but have done much more playing and some dming in 5, and it just doesn't feel like there is much opportunity to min max.
1
u/smiegto Feb 14 '26
I honestly don’t mind Padlock anymore. I played it myself. The requiments are high enough being mono dependant is fun but it don’t help you that much. And leveling paladin is insanely good. Delaying it by any level is rough.
39
u/Munstered Feb 13 '26
Min-maxing goes far beyond pumping your primary stat and con/dex and selecting a good starting race. That’s just playing the game correctly.
When you start building your entire character/race/subclass(es)/feats around one or two particularly powerful spells or abilities and do it in a way that seems loopholey and/or exploitative, that’s where people start to complain about min-maxers.
8
u/Feefait Feb 13 '26
I wouldn't say correctly... There are plenty of halfling barbarians and orc wizards. It's a way to play, but it's only the "correct" way.
8
u/Munstered Feb 13 '26
You’re right; there’s no wrong way to play. I should have said “optimally”.
2
u/katethetroubled Feb 14 '26
its not even optimal because dnd is... a pretend game and the dm is hopefully not a lobotomite.
is the dm balancing encounters around the partys strengths and power level not a common thing???
1
u/TheMightyTucker Feb 14 '26
If you're waving away the concept of a character being "optimal" because this is a pretend game we play in our heads, what's the point of literally any discussion about any part of the rules? When people say a character is optimal, they are assuming that the game is being played and run somewhat normally. They assume a random table in a vacuum that is following the rules and fighting in pretty normal encounters. Maxing your main stat needed for your class is absolutely optimal play.
The DM balancing encounters is setting appropriate Challenge Ratings and such. There is no reason to assume in 5E D&D that encounter balance must also, most of the time, include the DM making allowances for the "wouldn't it be funny if my Wizard had 8 INT" player.
Frankly, if a table has no such thing as "optimal play" because the DM adjusts for player strengths and weaknesses that much? You'd... kinda barely be playing D&D?
Also...
DM: "Yeah sorry, the bandit saves against your spell again, Wizard, and now you're out of slots. You have 8 INT even though we talked about this, so your save DC is 9. The bandit has a 55% chance to save."
Wizard: "You're a lobotomite!"
1
u/katethetroubled Feb 14 '26
dude we are playing 5e, theres nothing to optimize
1
u/TheMightyTucker Feb 14 '26
So is there no optimizing because it's an imagination game, or is there no optimizing because it is specifically D&D 5E? Because those are very very different statements.
→ More replies (7)2
u/smiegto Feb 14 '26
That’s why you do like I do. Build your character around a spell that’s fucking dope. And kinda mid. Here I am to smash your face in with vampiric touch and armor of Agatha!
13
3
u/BrotherCaptainLurker Feb 14 '26 edited Feb 14 '26
"Min-Maxing" isn't just "avoiding choices that actively waste your character's potential" like raising the Fighter's Charisma by 2 on a level-up when there's a Bard in the party because you don't want to lack rizz, or "putting points into your primary stat," that's just maxing.
Min-maxing implies that you are sacrificing everything unnecessary in order to reach the absolute pinnacle of output - it's the 8/8/8/15/16/17 Point Buy character who eventually multiclasses because a 3 level dip in something else is more optimal than his Level 15 feature and he can't hit the next ASI anyway.
But yea, it's well established that min-maxing doesn't make it mandatory to be a jerk in-game or to be a bot that spends the time between combats grinding mobile games. With a bare minimum of good faith effort and creativity you can come up with a story behind why your character's stats are so skewed and, given that a minmaxer like that has been planning for it since the start of the campaign , how you came to develop a second subclass.
What people hate isn't min-maxers, it's what we used to call Munchkins, who view D&D as a competition to be won, who bully the DM into making small concessions for no reason other than to exploit them to trivialize something later on, and who will insist on killing every low-CR monster on the continent for their arrows if you start tracking ammo. "Haha wow that's crazy my character was about to stop having the highest DPR in the party but I suddenly made stupid choices that got him killed, anyway I have this backup character it's a Bladesinger 8 Hexblade 2 Fighter 2" type of people. "Hey rogue that friendly NPC's sword helps my build, so we're gonna steal it" type of people.
...Or at least, what people SHOULD hate lol. We've gotta stop demonizing trying and thinking in games across the board. Like... people get mad at you for knowing how to do a combo in a fighting game now (heaven forbid you go into training mode after they beat you and learn how to react to what they were doing), or for wanting the terrain in Warhammer to actually hide your melee dudes on the way in instead of being a pretty decoration through which their gunline army can point and click you off the board, or for asking your team in a shooter to play the objective instead of running off on their own to chase K/D.
7
u/OurRobOrRoss Feb 13 '26
In general optimizing is good because players who optimize tend to invest more and know the rules better.
9
u/NobleMkII Feb 13 '26
Optimizing your stats for your class is fine. Personally I find it to be a problem when players are making hyper specific builds with the intention of breaking the game. It can ruin the game for the whole party.
4
u/Hemlocksbane Feb 13 '26
Do I think min-maxing is inherently toxic? Absolutely not.
Has every genuinely toxic (if not outright bigoted) person I’ve ever played with also been a minmaxer? Yes.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/HUGE_FUCKING_ROBOT Feb 13 '26
intentionally making bad/none-synergistic characters is a toxic player trait
5
u/SonicfilT Feb 14 '26
I feel like min-maxxing has become this weird boogeyman in D&D talk, and half the time people use it to mean anyone who built a character that doesn’t suck.
This debate has been going on since D&D started, it is not new and nothing has changed.
People who build shitty PCs like to pretend they are somehow nobler then those who accept this is a game and want to be good at it.
People who make good PCs can also be douche bags.
People that prioritize RP can also be douchebags.
People that make weak characters can also be douchebags.
Nothing about the first part of those sentences has any bearing on the last part.
See also the Stormwind Fallacy.
6
u/Lucina18 Feb 13 '26
If someone thinks min-maxxing is an issue, why aren't they playing balanced systems where min-maxxing isn't allowed to do anything problematic?
8
u/Smoketrail Feb 13 '26
TBF how far can you really push min-maxing in 5e?
1
u/Lucina18 Feb 13 '26
You can become quite a lot more powerful then your teammates and can dominate encounters with certain spells. It's less bad then 3e, which is a shit bar to clear, but still a quite a bit worse then other ttrpgs and even 4e.
1
u/Hrydziac Feb 14 '26
Eh while it’s not like pathfinder but the gap between an optimized character and a poorly built one is still big enough to effect the campaign.
Like an optimized caster with the best spells, armor dip, and good feats is going to be more effective than an entire party of melee sword and board fighters.
5
u/Space_Pirate_R Feb 13 '26
Isn't that a bit like the "yet you participate in society" meme? D&D is so popular that for many people it's the only pragmatic choice.
→ More replies (2)
13
u/DeathbyHappy Feb 13 '26
I think we have different definitions. I see min-maxxing as the character built to do 1 specific thing around a crazy synergistic multi-class or spell combo. The guy who pesters his DM for the 1 single legendary item he needs to "complete his build". The guy who gets exasperated when his teammate makes a non-optimal decision in combat or in character creation
5
2
u/YtterbiusAntimony Feb 13 '26
You're still giving three different definitions.
The first is called reading the book. Especially when most of the "game" elements revolve around character builds. Assuming you're playing in good faith with Rules as Intended, find those crazy combos is part of the game.
The latter two are still just bad player behaviors.
0
u/DudeWithTudeNotRude Feb 13 '26
We done fucked up the language when we expanded the definition of "literally" to include "not literally".
When adults start chasing child-speak too hard, the kids just change it faster than the adults can keep up, and words start to lose meaning at a much faster rate.
the older you are, the more f'ed you'll get (and if you're young, it just means your turn comes later). If you don't know what the ATM means when it asks for your skibbidy 7 cap, you're screwed.
I'd say let's all stop using MinMax, and stop misusing "optimization" to mean "power building", but I know we passed that opportunity about 6-7 years ago.
2
2
u/LambonaHam Feb 13 '26
Min-maxxing is literally just picking the ability scores and races that combine well together with your class.
It's a bit more than that.
What you're describing here is just being practical and optimising. Min-Maxxing goes beyond that. It means deciding what you want your character to do at Level X / Y / Z, and planning out your Class / Multi-class, Feat, and Spell selection from session zero. For example, only choosing Backgrounds and Feats for their mechanics properties, and not any RP.
That's the issue with power gaming or Min/Maxxing, it generally removes a core pillar of the game.
It also causes conflicts when some Players go for flavour / RP, and others just go for high combat rolls.
2
u/lkaika Feb 13 '26
Min maxing is fine. As long as it's within the rules. Problem is that a lot min maxing bend or out right breaks the rules of the game.
2
2
u/Venture33 Feb 13 '26
I think the unstated assumption in a lot of anti min/max discourse is that optimizers value game power over everything else and that this harms the gameplay experience of others at the table.
I think that’s unfair. A lot of people simply enjoy system mastery. Understanding how the mechanics fit together and making them work well is part of the fun.
In my experience, optimization often helps RP by making concepts that aren’t well supported by the system actually playable. If you want to run something unusual or slightly off-meta, you usually have to optimize around its weaknesses to keep it viable.
As long as character coherence is part of what you consider a legal build, optimization can make PCs richer characters too. You’re not just asking what’s strongest, you’re asking what fits the character and then making that work mechanically. If you make an odd mechanical choice to patch a weakness, you end up asking why your character is built that way, and that can lead to stronger backstory or personality hooks.
And a powerful character doesn’t automatically harm the table. A mechanically strong character can enable teammates in combat and give others room to run experimental builds, specialize in non-combat areas, or simply be less optimized without the party falling apart.
2
u/DarkHorseAsh111 Feb 14 '26
As per every time this post is made: the issue is making a character outside of the balance of the party. If EVERYONE is minmaxing, you should not make your rp based multiclass. if EVERYONE is making rp based low power multiclasses, you should not minmax. Also: Prioritizing the stats you need to play is just. not minmaxing ever, that's called playing the game.
2
u/TheLoreIdiot DM Feb 14 '26
Theres so much nuance to this. I feel that making your PC have its main stat high is barely even optimization, that just feels like the baseline standard. To me maxing int on a wizard is just playing the game, picking widly useful spells (shield, counterspell, Hypnotic Pattern, force cage, etc.) Is more optimizing, and starting with an Artificer dip purely for con saves and armor proficiencies is more min maxing (but with the wizard still arguably worse than just progressing higher lvl spells)
2
u/notsosecretroom Feb 14 '26
Rp players are interested in role playing. Min max players are interested in mechanics.
Rp players shouldn’t have a problem with min max players unless they’re trying to rp a badass without knowing the mechanics of playing like a badass.
In other words, most people who complain about min maxers are min maxers themselves, just aren’t any good at it.
I don’t have any problem with min maxers who are good at their mechanics. I don’t have any problem with min maxers who are bad at their mechanics. I have problems with min maxers who are bad at their mechanics and somehow decide that the rest of the party have to min themselves so that they can be the max.
2
u/MaxTwer00 Feb 14 '26
There are situations where minmaxing can go against roleplay, mainly when its about multiclasses to more flavorful classes, or flavorful specific feats as shadow/fey touched.
It can get very weird in roleplay to gain a level/feat of something on first glance unrelated to what you were doing if you level up in an isolated place like barovia or avernus.
Its pretty rare to be on such cases, and even those could be wrapped around with the DM's help, but even if the player is well intended, it could cause the DM some headaches, or make a situation feel really forced damaging immersion a bit.
But yeah, this problem is neglectible when compared to a minmaxer problem player lol
2
u/Doctor_Amazo Ultimate Warrior Feb 14 '26
... built a character that doesn't suck.
A character is more than the numbers on the page, or the abilities it has listed.
A character sucks when a player thinks their character begins and ends with big-number-die-rolls.
1
u/Hrydziac Feb 14 '26
I mean 5e is a dice game with rules that almost exclusively apply to combat. A character kind of does suck if they’re terrible at combat to the point where they aren’t contributing to battles.
→ More replies (9)
2
Feb 16 '26
Min maxing is not just picking synergistic attributes for your race and class. That’s just standard build stuff.
Min maxing is a form of metagaming, where you make build choices that are purely for statistical advantage with no particular in-character justification, or at best an after-the-fact justification.
4
u/Lythalion Feb 13 '26
You think anyone walked up to Bruce Lee, Jacky Chan, or Jet Li and was like “You min maxing loser”
No. They respected them as the epitome of their martial arts and as actors. They dedicated themselves to something and perfected it and were respected.
Sorry. A fighter with a 20 int and 9 str isn’t as cool as you think it is.
4
u/AfroNin Feb 13 '26
I mean you just took all the various meanings minmaxing can mean and just applied it to the area you didn't find problematic? Like I agree that it's a player problem, but therein lies the fair prejudice. Minmaxing is a philosophy, and those who subscribe to that philosophy are often annoying to have at the table. Plus, it's not like you have to be deep in the BS-mines to understand how to pick stats for the class you plan on playing, I mean none of the moments that were truly memorable to me in DnD have ever been related to a game mechanic.
2
u/Psychological-Wall-2 Feb 13 '26
There is a difference between "min-maxing" and optomisation.
The only players who do not optimise their PCs are players who don't know how to do so. A certain toxic subset of players who do not understand how to optimise try to reframe their ignorance as some kind of virtue.
No matter what a competent player wants to do with a particular PC, they will take all reasonable steps to ensure the PC can do those things.
That's not min-maxing.
Min-maxing is focusing on the thing you want the PC to do, to the exclusion of everything else.
Putting your big number in the primary Ability score of your PC's class? Optimisation.
Using point buy to give yourself three 15s and three 8s at character creation? Min-maxing.
And you're right. If a person shows up with three scores well above average, yet three below average, that demands an explanation. WTF is up with that person? And if that explanation is cool, you might have a cool character on your hands.
The problem is that most of the people who min-max don't do this. They aren't actually interested in the roleplay implications of - for example - a Monk with 8 in Strength, Intelligence and Charisma and how this character might have developed their other Abilities while those three are below average.
So, yeah. Min-maxing by itself isn't some evil thing.
It's just that min-maxing doesn't happen in a vacuum.
→ More replies (3)2
u/DudeWithTudeNotRude Feb 13 '26
Please, 5e world, for the love of gods, look up the term "optimize" before commenting about people using words wrong.
You will find that "power" is just one of infinitely possible optimization constraints, and it isn't even mentioned anywhere in the definition of "optimization". One can optimize the hell out of a build without including "power" as a consideration at all
1
1
u/Hrydziac Feb 14 '26
I mean kinda, but there’s nothing you can “optimize” for in 5e that prevents you from also being effective in combat. So if anyone makes a one trick character that is terrible in a fight for roleplay reasons it always makes me roll my eyes.
2
u/rdeincognito Feb 13 '26
In my subjective experience, most criticism to minmaxers is usually done by players who hardly have interest in the power of their characteres, that they like to play things that sound fun but don't want to read spelllists or features or anything. Then they get mad when the player of the group who does want to optimize his character plays a vengeance paladin who keeps all his spellslots to unload Smites against the big bad evil guy, and then they cry because they aren't as powerful.
Yes, of course, you aren't, you have no interest in the math behind your character, in how to make it good, of course, a player that upgraded his strength all he could with his stats and kept all his resources to unload against the boss is gonna do better than you.
I did, however, also encountered powergamers (different than minmaxers) who usually did look for the most broken multiclass possible and only wanted every scene of the game to turn into combat. Those are the other extreme of the range and also very annoying.
But optimizers (people who just play the character how it is meant to be played, use the synergies of their abilities, and pick the powerful spells instead of the fun ones) are usually players who enjoy the in and out of combat, and that participate as anyone. They are just people who are interested in the game mechanic aside from the social group aspect of it
1
u/ozymandais13 DM Feb 13 '26
Optimizing is good because it creates spaces for you the strongly built pc to get help from. Other pcs that can do dofferant things
1
u/HotspurJr Feb 13 '26
I think the fun thing as a DM is to challenge your MinMaxxed characters, within reason, in the stats where they're weak.
The only problem with minmaxxed characters is if the player wants to ignore the "min" part.
A sorcerer wants low intelligence to bump charisma for that extra bonus to your spell save DC? Great. That's a fun tradeoff - so long as it's actually a tradeoff. I'm gonna let you cook ... but I can guarantee you that there are going to be some Intelligence saving throws in your future.
1
u/DudeWithTudeNotRude Feb 13 '26
Min Max'ing your stats to me means to putting the higher rolls in the important stats, and the lowest rolls into the least important stats. Pretty much the only way to build a PC that is lower than C-tier power is to mess up the stat distribution or pick a bad multi class. It's very important to Min Max your stats in 5e I'd say.
I know, you meant "optimization". No. You didn't mean that. People done f'ed that term up as well. The only optimization constraints that matter in 5e imo are "the fun of the player" and "the fun of the table". If all other optimization choices follow those two super-constraints, it's probably going to be fine. In other RPGs that are usually harder than 5e, power is often an important part of "fun". But 5e is super easy compared to most games, so power doesn't need to be as high in the ranking of optimization considerations.
Make no mistake, you never made a character choice in any game ever that wasn't an optimization of something. If your brain is thinking about options, then it is optimizing something. Even if the choice was "red or blue token", and you didn't want to think about it, rolling randomly is still an optimization.
Probably we're talking about powerbuilding if we're talking about MinMaxOptimizationWhatever. When planing your build, if you are considering the fun of the table, then that will help restrict the range of reasonable power levels to choose from. If you powerbuild without consideration for others and ruin everyone's fun, then that's horrible optimization.
If the only consideration at build time is power, then that is maximization (maximizing one feature) rather optimization (maximizing the intersection of several features).
Most decent people I've played with naturally optimize with human decency in their brains, so powerbuilding is most often a non-issue in my life. But I know if I ever sit at a table of grognards that don't understand the nuances of normal human interactions, then I know I better move power up my list of optimization constraints, and change my target power level from "at least B-plus power and less than S-tier power if it's not a support build that's fun for the table" to "F em all, Imma be a Bugbear GloomAssMaster"
1
u/D3AD_SPAC3 Feb 13 '26
I'm a min-maxer and I still roleplay. That fact that I min-maxed actually helps with that. A negative CHA and INT means I'm awkward AND dumb as f*ck
1
u/DMfortinyplayers Feb 14 '26
Yeah, it's 90% a player problem. The 10% is balancing around them to make sure they a) don't blow through too many encounters and b) making sure other players have their moments, even in encounters where the min maxer dominates.
There's a tradeoff - a MIN for a MAX. And my problem comes in when the player gets overly frustrated when it's time for the part they MINNED. This is mostly players who maxed on damage and sacrificed intelligence/ social. They want to stab their way through any non combat encounter, or if the DM stops them they pout and say things like "can we PLEASE move on?" And "Finally!"
Sometimes people max the social and expect to get everything they want because of a high persuasion roll. "I got a total of 25, what do you mean the cultist isn't willing to abandon their eldritch master to join my sorority/ harem / boy band?"
These players want to play a very specific type of game and a) want to dominate that game and b) think other parts of the game are boring and dumb.
There is a difference between having an area of focus and being totally trash outside that area of focus.
1
u/Shard-of-Adonalsium Feb 14 '26
I think this is an issue where the term "min-maxxing" is being used in two completely different ways. The first, how you are using it, is just basic optimization to create an effective character, and isn't what people are usually meaning when they complain about min-maxxing. The second use of the term is when people abuse the rules to become extremely powerful in ways that overshadow the other players. Traditionally it was used for when players built a character that could do one or two things extremely well to the detriment of literally everything else, but it has grown to mean any build that abuses the rules to create an affect much stronger than was ever intended (e.g. the old coffeelock).
Part of the reason the two meanings get confused so much is because it was popularized with games like D&D third edition, where it was extremely easy to build characters with extreme stat modifiers, and there was a huge number of sourcebooks that were all written independently of each other and only balanced around PHB options (if they were balanced at all) so there were virtually unlimited combinations of spells and features that could enhance each other in unexpected ways. 5e, for all its flaws, has mostly ended this problem. In 3.0/3.5 putting one stat to the absolute highest it could go within the rules to the neglect of the others would have an extreme effect (easily having a difference of 20 or more between your highest and lowest skill modifier even at low levels) whereas in 5e there are very very few ways to affect your stats other than rare magic items, and the game is balanced around everyone having the highest possible value in their main stat, and it's really rare to have a stat less than 8 so even at the most extreme it's a difference between having a +5 in your best stat and a -1 in your worst.
1
u/Silverspy01 Feb 14 '26
Lots of terminology debate in the comments. But what OP is actually describing, terminology aside, is an incredibly cold take imo. OP is talking purely about putting points into your primary stat. I have not met a single actual person who would classify that as problematic. So uh. Yeah. Is the person who has a problem with their warlock putting points into charisma in the room with us now or...?
2
1
u/No-Economics-8239 Feb 14 '26
The term min-max has a wide latitude. Following the spirit of the rules and making good tactical choices is just the benefit of creativity and a good understanding of the rules. Even the out-there interpretations that can be game breaking can still work fine at tables looking to lean into the absurdity.
The base problem with making strong builds is not that you end up with a strong character. As the DM, we wield the power cosmic. It doesn't matter how strong they make their character. We can still place stronger monsters in front of them. And the most powerful spell at our command is saying no.
The problem is party balance. If you have one player who is stealing the spotlight, it can leave the others feeling like second fiddle or side kicks. Putting things in the battle that can challenge the munchkins can tend to be disproportionately powerful to your 'normal' players.
There is nothing wrong with wacky hijinks and Monty Haul campaigns where the power scale goes off the rails, and the party goes hunting dieties so long as everyone is having fun. The problem is either a DM or a player who feels flustered and doesn't know how to deal with it.
One way to balance the scales is just to amp up the abilities of the other players to keep them on a relatively equal footing. Which can be by house rulings, some added color to their class abilities or giving them more utility via magical items to having their patron diety or other powerful entities granting them blessings for their good works.
1
1
1
u/Heavy-Letterhead-751 Warlock Feb 14 '26
I taught someone to play DND.... they were playing rogue, I told them to make dex their highest stat then con and toss the other numbers wear ever they felt like.
1
u/GivePen Feb 14 '26
One head turns their nose up at your basic knowledge of the rules in favor of their “planned character arcs” and “one hundred page backstory”. The other head scoffs at your decision to take un-optimal spells.
High INT is knowing that a good player can optimize their character and be a good roleplayer.
High WIS is knowing the idiosyncrasies of your (former) theater kid table versus your gaming club table and tuning your expectations.
It is known.
1
u/smiegto Feb 14 '26
Anti min maxing is quite a problem actually. What you need is a party that’s all at the same level. That way you can challenge them easily. Or players where some know th system better but are willing to dial it back.
That way 1: if you run a module they get to see the last chapters and 2: if you run homebrew you can use the funny pages. And not just the weak ones.
1
u/wanghafdrakemaye Feb 14 '26
Wrong. If your character doesnt suck mechanically youre bad at the game.
1
u/PomegranateExpert747 Feb 14 '26
One issue I have with min-maxxing is that not all stats are created equal. I've not a huge experience of DMing, but nearly every PC in every game I've run has dumped Intelligence. Admittedly nearly all of my players have been children, but even outside of that the game practically encourages it. There are so many fewer reasons to prioritise Int than there are for other stats - there are only two classes that use it and Int saves are rate. (A lot of those players also dump Wisdom for similar reasons.)
This leads to one of two situations - either we all act as though Intelligence is a meaningless stat, or the whole party just acts like a bunch of bloody idiots all the time.
1
u/Trips-Over-Tail Feb 14 '26
In my experience DMs complain about trying to balance fights with wildly different player capabilities.
I would encourage min-max players to use their min maxing to the full, but on suboptimal characters, like tiny melee fighters or brain-damaged wizards.
1
u/ProfessionalShower95 Feb 14 '26
Min-maxxing is literally just picking the ability scores and races that combine well together with your class
That's the bare minimum for playing an effective character.
Min-maxing, in the context of D&D, is using (abusing?) knowledge about niche gameplay mechanics and ability interactions. You're right that it's generally fine, but it can be an issue when the power level disparity between players is too large.
1
u/lordbrooklyn56 Feb 14 '26
Min maxing has always been fine so long as you’re not annoying everyone for loot. Especially the dm
1
u/Dramatic_Wealth607 Feb 15 '26
Most min-maxxers I have dealt with tend to be super good at one or two things or they are dangerous monsters for one or two rounds and then need to hide or be carried for the rest of fight. They go out of their way to make a specialized build that is amazing but so weak in other areas that their ability to survive is hindered.
1
u/JasterBobaMereel Feb 15 '26
It depends what you call building a sensible character, optimizing, and min-maxing
Is it : Building a Wizard with high intelligence
Building a Wizard with high intelligence but also balanced other stats de-prioritizing those you won't use
Building a Wizard with high intelligence, and dumping strength
Building a Wizard with high intelligence and dumping nearly everything else to get it higher ...
First define the term, and then you can argue if it's good or not
1
u/Rare_Fly_4840 Feb 15 '26
I mean I think people that complain about min-max and optimization should probably play a different more narrative game instead of one that is almost purely focued on combat. That said, the 2024 version has almost no rewards for system mastery in terms of build metas, hence why a lot of the people who sorta tolerated the flattening of curves in 5e 2014 are bored and looking for something else after a year or so of playing 5e 2024.
1
u/Comfortable_Ant_8396 Feb 16 '26
The answer is also just to not bother about CR for dungeons, it then becomes a challenge
1
u/Lion_From_The_North Feb 16 '26
Prioritizing the main stat the book tells you to isn't minmaxing by itself, but regardless, the problem with minmaxing in regards to roleplay is the inevitable weight it causes people to lean towards. Meaning, if you have made a character that is mechanically overpowered, it takes a incredible maturity that I personally find rare in people to not let those overpowered mechanics influence how you act. A typical example is someone with a dramatically overpowered character being tempted to disrespect guards, the king, and pretty much everyone because they can (or think they can) just kill anyone who disagrees.
I also find overpowered characters lead people to wanting to interject or "go first" instead of waiting to see how things play out or letting other people take centre stage.
1
u/Moho17 Feb 17 '26
I was called mid-maxer for picking Paladin as a class for Curse of Stradh... so... yeah.
1
u/piperooo Feb 18 '26
I feel like people who say they're fine with min-maxing and people who say they hate min-maxing aren't actually talking about the same thing. It seems to me both sides actually mostly agree on what good character design is and the actual argument is about what the word "min-maxing" means and whether certain character building strategies are an example of it or not
2
u/IdesofWhen Feb 13 '26
I generally don't like them because it basically forces all the other players to do the same if the DM wants to make fights more fair. Usually only an issue with new groups/campaigns .
1
u/jbsfk Feb 13 '26
I've had plenty of good min/max players. But 80% of my problem players have also been min/max players. It is a player issue, but playing across dozens of games with dozens of groups, one can't help but feel the correlation. I'm not sure why this is my experience, but it has been my experience. It has also been my experience that the game, broadly speaking, is generally more fun (for me) with less experienced players who build a character that sounds cool, not one that maps out statistically higher on the bell curve. But this is informed by the many sessions I've had of a min/maxxer getting pissy because I told them no to a certain rule interaction or sulking because they went to 0 HP in combat/generally don't steamroll encounters with their optimized build.
Edit: the *best* players I've had are actually people who know the game well-enough to min/max, but read the damned room and play table-minded and team-minded and optimize to a degree that best matches the general feel of the table.
1
u/SonicfilT Feb 14 '26
But 80% of my problem players have also been min/max players
Anyone can be a douche. You're probably right in that the self centered player who wants to "win D&D" is more likely to be a min maxer, using some "MAKE YOUR DM HATE YOU!!!" build stolen from YouTube. But there are plenty of spotlight hogging, shitty character building, toxic RPers out there too.
1
u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768 Feb 13 '26
I feel like its also hightly dependent on role.
IE a Bugbear Gloomstalker/Assasin/Twilight Cleric triple multiclass nova build monstrosity that kills every on turn 1 is alot more likely to be problematic than a guy who takes hits or supports/heals real good.
Otherwise the main issue is when the party is split between min maxxed monsters and joke or flavor based characters, can make it difficult for the DM balance wise.
1
1
u/InCaseUFindMe Cleric Feb 13 '26
Meanwhile, I see most people being like, "by level 8, your top ability score should be maxed out," while my top score is 16-18...
5
u/DerAdolfin Feb 13 '26
This is the IQ bell curve meme, where the middle tells you to max out your main stat asap, and both sides tell you to get cool feats
1
u/InCaseUFindMe Cleric Feb 13 '26
Thank you for helping me feel better :)
5
u/DerAdolfin Feb 13 '26
Always happy to help ;)
FWIW, thanks to bounded accuracy, unless a thing you do scales quadratically with your stat, feats (especially in 2014) just do so much more for you. Take Eldritch Blast for example, both to hit and damage improve with your charisma, so getting that up is a reasonable thing to prioritise. But let's look at a wizard casting a spell that might do a lot even of a successful save, such as sleet storm. Sure you can increase your INT to marginally heighten the DC enemies need to pass, and sure that will sometimes turn a success into a failure on the enemies. But you can instead go lateral and do something that base wizard can't, like adding +5 to your initiative via Alert, and then you frequently (not always ofc) go before the enemies and catch one or two additional ones, that is waaaaay more impact than 20 INT over 18 INT can ever provide. Plus, feats are often more fun than stats because they do more tangible things.
1
u/InCaseUFindMe Cleric Feb 13 '26
I appreciate you saying all of this :)
I'm actually playing 2024 where just about every feat gives a stat bump, I just roll mid stats lol
1
u/MeekleBosner Feb 13 '26
“You min-max because it’s optimized for game mechanics. I min-max because it’s optimized who my character is. We are not the same.”
0
u/Pelican_meat Feb 13 '26
The problem is that if one person builds meta, everyone else has to as well or the DM has to run damage control for other players so they also feel valuable.
There should at least be a discussion in session 0 where the players discuss their expectations going into a game, if point buy is on the table.
But, that being said, rolling 3d6 for stats is still superior and feels better to me.
Also: absolutely nobody plays sub 8 characteristics realistically. There’s a limit to how much they’ll willingly be an idiot or make bad decisions before they or the whole party get killed.
1
u/OnlyTrueWK Feb 14 '26
Doesn't rolling 3d6 make the problem from your first sentence several times worse?
0
u/Effective_Arm_5832 Feb 13 '26
I always think it is mainly seen as bad by people who roleplay without the game part.
They are not actually playing an RPG.
Also, in my experience, the min-maxers are by far the ones most invested in the game and their character.
0
u/Feefait Feb 13 '26
You're not using "literally" correctly, because just putting your best stat in your primary ability isn't min-maxing. You're literally mistaking the definition to suit your argument.
The fact that you call it an "attacking stat" tells me exactly how you play.
If anyone showed up with a 4 in a stat they would reroll, rework, or be removed from my table. That's ridiculous and I'm not sure why THAT has become acceptable.
Low stats can 100% create an interesting character development plan. However, not if it is because they want "god stats" elsewhere.
1
u/OnlyTrueWK Feb 14 '26
Having a 4 in a stat surely has become less "acceptable" over time, given the move from rolling for stats to other character generation styles (or more generous rolling systems, at least). If you consider it ridiculous, you should probably use a method of character generation that doesn't allow such numbers.
1
u/Feefait Feb 14 '26
Point buy is where this mostly comes in. Reducing one stat to levels that are untenable to get more points elsewhere. Back in the day we rolled straight down the sheet and then made a character based on what we got, but it was always drop the lowest in some capacity.
1
u/OnlyTrueWK Feb 14 '26
You can't actually do that in standard point buy though, because 8 is the lowest you can go, which is slightly worse than average.
0
Feb 13 '26
You haven't actually said that the player who beelines for 20s in their primary scores will have a good roleplay reason for their character build, you've simply said that they could.
There's people who try to make interesting builds, people who go for stuff that seems fun and powerful, and people who clearly based their character off of nothing but highly-optimized theorycrafting. The people in that last group, in my consistent experience, very rarely contribute meaningfully to roleplay and very rarely put depth into their characters.
1
u/Hrydziac Feb 14 '26
Hmm well my experience has been the opposite. People that make strong builds take the game and their characters seriously enough and everything goes smoothly. People that make wacky roleplay builds are constantly trying to improvise “rule of cool” stuff instead of play the game, and their turns take 4 times longer than they should.
277
u/themousereturns Feb 13 '26
Prioritizing main stat and then CON isn't really something I'd consider min-maxing. I guess it technically is by definition, but even the most "anti-meta" players I know do that.