Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Any D&D/D20

Shadowrun

World of Darkness

Palladium

Other (feel free to post about it)

[NullForceOmega]

Last time I played WoD it was as a 70 year old human who had entirely too many toys (due to insane min-maxing and an awesome backstory), in WtA (Werewolf the Apocalypse.)  I couldn't really fight anyone, but hells did I have fun running around harassing various super-human beings (protip: if your storyteller is really trying to keep things fun they will do such things as accepting that while a conventional round won't kill a vampire/werewolf, a .50 cal to the face has a substantial negative impact on the recipient).

[highmax28]

New player and I realized from an outside prospective how big of an asshole my character, Carver, seems. Being a true neutral, little impatient and easily annoyed by people who he thinks are not as smart as him (read as "everyone but his teachers"), and with the cleric being a snobby noble, there is a HUGE sense of hostility between the two of us. Our new player is a paladin, and when she ran into us and saw us breaking down the door to a criminal gang, I literally just said how it was while the others were trying to hide it. And quite easily, since we're dealing with criminals and how naive the paladin is, she joins us.

We head into the inn and get ready to settle down and find that damn trio of men again. After me failing to put a joke on them because one of them found a copy of Carver's robes and claimed he would make a great wizard wearing this (this peeved Carver for thinking that oaf could be a wizard) and they discover him. Wilneas then proceeds to sweet talk them into helping us, and after a bit of talking, they were about to help us get in, and then Wilneas has the bright idea of recruiting them to help us by saying their target, Wally, is the leader of the criminal gang we were about to infiltrate. They know he's lying and they get upset. I try to calm him down by sneaking Charm Person again, but I failed both, and then the bard mentions paying them for the info. Wilneas, upset he has failed, throws down 10 gold and they teach us the knock.

We rest up for the night and check out the library about our sword that we found that is a lot more dangerous than we think. We find no info whatsoever, and the cleric decides to ask the paladin to check, who promptly fails. I rip the sword out of her hands, do another check (and did better) where I found out the same things as I did before, and then I proceeded to say "It is infused with necromancy, has a 5 mile radius and involves stealing souls, just like it did two days ago! I told you this the last time you asked, and when you ask me fifteen minutes from now, 'what does it do?' I will tell you again, it STILL is infused with necromancy, it STILL has a five mile radius, and it STILL deals with stealing souls!" Carver is pretty much livid at this point, and then suddenly, something comes over the bard and, when we find someone who was familiar with the sword, the bard starts to high tail it away, pulling a gollum on us. I cast sleep on him (he has 7hp, no problem) and the cleric takes the sword from him.

And then begins the 15 minutes long debate. We argued for hours on what to do with the sword, be it that we bury it, we destroy it (carver suggested this), or we keep it on us until we figure out more (Wilneas the cleric suggested this) and Wilneas said that he will carry it because his god will protect him. Carver, at this remark, proceeds to say his god didn't save him during the goblin incident (he dropped to 0 in the first round of the first encounter), so why would I (an intellectual) trust a cleric who blindly trusts the faith of his god who has shown us that he can't save his disciple? And I proceeded to tell him that I don't trust him or anyone with the sword and I want it destroyed. He kept shouting random garbage about me being a heathen (my character worships Mystra (I think I spelled that wrong)) and then said that I might be possessed. At this, Carver (and me to an extent) got fed up with going nowhere and took the sword and Wilneas' mace and tried to break the sword, and I missed (-1 to strength doesn't help). He freaked out even more and then we decided to keep it along, but if it possesses the cleric, I destroy it.

We then proceeded to deal with the criminals finally. We get in using the secret knock and we split up (Wilneas, his goblin buddy, and Carver as team 1, the Bard and the paladin in team 2). Team 1 finds an empty room and hears the sounds of combat. Team 1 goes another way and ends up in a room with a dead guy chained to a wall, and ends up in a room right next to where Team 1 was next to (and could see into). Carver stays and watches as he sees them go in and the two guys inside (and the two dogs) stop their sparring (which was as brutal as open combat) and then the paladin decides she just wants to get into the fight for fun, and she offers to spar with them with the bard. The two, caught by surprise, agree and then the bard fucks up. He walks up to his sparring target, fails to disarm the guy and then goes for a thunderwave... And he hits the two dogs, the two fighters and the paladin (and her pet cat in her bag). He kills one of the dogs and that was when the gloves were off. I come into the room, hearing people assembling on our side, I weaken everyone and kill the other dog. Wilneas comes in and does nothing useful, and the goblin takes out one of the fighters. Then people start pouring into the room, and I set them on fire with burning hands while the goblin picks off the last of the two brawlers as the paladin heals the bard who dropped to 0. Wilneas manages to kill a guy with his mace, and the last guy starts to turn tail as two more show up. I burning hands and hurt the two again and move to take out the runner (again, the halls were connected) and the party proceeded to take out the last of the fighters, with Wilneas smacking the runner into the corridor I was waiting for him in and I froze him as his lifeless body flew by.

Our DM said it became eerily quiet after that and we ended off after looking around

[Calidovi]

So, as a backup, I plan to play a lawful evil Cavalier once my existing Alchemist retires/dies. He's affably evil, a genuinely nice guy, but wants to overthrow a baron and enact an ethnic cleansing in his home state to reduce crime rates. His goal is evil, but his actions and mannerisms are less so (for example, he wants to proscribe entire races to living in drowning chambers, but doesn't like to speak very loudly in fear that someone may take him as being arrogant)- he's just delusional about the validity of statistics and the value of abstract knowledge. How can I best characterize a character like this?

[NullForceOmega]

Don't run the char as evil, leave the alignment and concept as is, but treat the char as basically neutral unless confronted with the target of his bigotry.  That way he/she/it seems fairly normal and can function in either an evil or non-evil party without difficulty.

[Flying Dice]

So, honest question. Decrying minmaxing is pretty universal among non-munchkins, but is that a kneejerk reaction for people, or is it something you actually think about?

Because I've got a particular reason that I minmax: when I set up characters, I try to style the crunch into things that aren't necessarily optimal-usually, this comes out being a sorta weak tier-3 build, where it's pretty good at one thing or okay at a couple (or a solid tier-2 that's really good at one specific thing, if the rest of the group is going for power), but not really great. I tend to minmax things like that as much as is reasonable because I like the freedom of having the crunch side not fall into really old "this is what you do if you want to fill this role" archetypes but don't want to drag down the party by having a character who is pretty useless for everything. (There's also of course the God Wizard style of play where you heavily optimize a powerful class, but use it for the sole purpose of setting up situations that let the other players do cool stuff, rather than wiping encounters in the first or second round.)

In other words, I think that players have just as much a responsibility to avoid making a character that's universally weak (rather than situationally weak, like a character best at social combat stuck in a physical combat-heavy game) and a burden on the rest of the group as they do to avoid making one that overshadows everyone else. In both cases there's the obvious exception of a group intentionally creating that dynamic for the sake of roleplay, but that's generally not what you find in pickup groups.

[Neonivek]

Optimizing characters to a certain extent is fine.

It is when characters feel more like a set of numbers then an actual person that you just kind of look at them oddly.

"Why hello... Weak willed, puny, scrony, ugly wizard..."

Which is the problem with Midmaxing even when it doesn't break the game.

[Kadzar]

My personal view is that min-maxing/optimization should be used to support a concept, not just to be the very best you possibly can. I'll avoid taking certain races even if they're the most optimal for the build if it doesn't fit the original concept, though will optimize class and feats heavily, but I try to avoid taking the most overused cheese combos, unless I'm trying to support a weak build (like for our upcoming game, where I took the Polearm Mastery feat, but only because I'm trying to play a fey pact bladelock).

[scriver]

Not everyone likes non-maxing, but everyone likes being powerful.

[Sirus]

My view is that minmaxing should be avoided unless you're going to be playing some sort of high-power campaign that requires specific levels of capability. If you have a minmaxed god-wizard in a party where everyone else is merely decent (or even above-average), then the GM is either forced to make encounters that might challenge the main party but the god-wizard can solve with ease, or make encounters that can challenge the god-wizard but are virtually impossible for everyone else. The power disparity makes for un-fun gameplay all around.

[Neonivek]

My view is that minmaxing should be avoided unless you're going to be playing some sort of high-power campaign that requires specific levels of capability. If you have a minmaxed god-wizard in a party where everyone else is merely decent (or even above-average), then the GM is either forced to make encounters that might challenge the main party but the god-wizard can solve with ease, or make encounters that can challenge the god-wizard but are virtually impossible for everyone else. The power disparity makes for un-fun gameplay all around.

Or worse he specifically cripples you in some manner... You complain, even though it is the most elegant solution, and the game breaks down

"What? Why are the monsters magic resistant? The DM is against me!"

Which is another reason why it isn't allowed. Because it is a problem introduced where the solution is equally problematic... yet required.

Which honestly MidMaxing invites all the dang time... and because a MidMaxer is often made of weaknesses. So a DM now is walking around a minefield to not disadvantage you, because your character can't handle it... because thusly the player cannot handle it.

So your weakness to say Reflex saves or Fortitude saves (thusly 1/3rd of the game) becomes off limits.

*Sigh* I wish I could DM... but I gave it up. For the best.

[hops]

Don't run the char as evil, leave the alignment and concept as is, but treat the char as basically neutral unless confronted with the target of his bigotry.  That way he/she/it seems fairly normal and can function in either an evil or non-evil party without difficulty.

Not treating an evil character like a one-dimensional stereotype used as an excuse to grief and make your friends hate you? What heresy is this?

[Rolan7]

Heh, speaking of evil...

We play by voice, but I decided to type a summary during a lull as the others looked up mechanics.

JakeTheEar: Jake was stonefaced as he tossed the chemicals. Striding out of the cloud, he turned and fired a single bullet into the "receptionist" struggling with his beclawed compatriot. The dame, missing an arm and several internal organs, didn't have the common sense to give up. One of her desperate shots passed straight through Kayla's unnatural body, smoldering on the ceiling. Blood streaked along the wall, the matter resolved.

Then on the next turn, three more hunters burst in from obscured doorways behind us.  Ahead, a fire I set is blocking that exit.  Behind... these fucks shoot me with incendiary bullets.  As a Mekhet, the scorching flames effect me *double*...  I've lost half my health, and to vicious FLAME.  It'll take nearly a week to regenerate what I just suffered... in 3 seconds.

I whip my cloak and disappear from sight.  I fail to delete myself from their minds, but they still can't quite see me.  I scutter away, clutching the large smoking holes in my torso.  The beast... screams in my ear, telling me to run... but it's stupid.  Useful, but stupid.  I ignore it for both our sakes.

Meanwhile Kayla, lost in a vicious anger frenzy, tears one of the hunters apart.  Nightmarish claws rending flesh and bone, he falls to pieces. 

Hunger flashes in her eyes...  She's hungry.  My beast is telling me to run, hide, or at least shoot.  Instead, I appear behind the other hunter who BURNED me and GRAB him.  Vitae burns in my muscles as I pin his arms through force of will.  "You shouldn't have done that" I hiss, and paralyze him with my fangs.  I need the blood...  but what I really need is someone to draw my fire, and that means offering this vessel to Kayla.  She ravenously accepts...  Or her beast does, whichever.  They're both useful allies to me.

More hunters arrive from the north.  I slouch behind cover as Kayla leaps into the fray, claws wide.  I'm so close to true death.  But I'm... in... control.

[NullForceOmega]

So, honest question. Decrying minmaxing is pretty universal among non-munchkins, but is that a kneejerk reaction for people, or is it something you actually think about?

As a long-time DM, my response is this:

Minmaxing is not building a character.  Characters are people who exist in a world, so there is no reason that they would be optimized, because people aren't optimal.

Minmaxing is what I would consider bad roleplaying, as it presents to me someone not able or unwilling to deal with weaknesses in their characters.  the core problem is that an optimized character does exactly one thing, it does that thing extremely well, but it does nothing else due to over-specialization.

If all you care about is numbers at your table that is fine, but at my table (and the vast majority of tables I've played at) the focus is 'role' not 'roll', the dice are there to resolve the undefinables, not to be manipulated by huge bonuses so you can do whatever you want.  If someone sat down at my table and presented a gnomish or elven bard with max charisma and every cha based skill maxed, and then attempted to roll every charisma encounter instead of actually being charismatic, I'd tell them to go home.

I fully understand wanting to have your character be good at their job, but they aren't just a job, they are their own being, and to me minmaxed chars are just cutouts with no depth.

[i2amroy]

Chipping in as a DM myself, I find a touch of optimization is fine (and in fact that's what some types players actually enjoy the most in the game, optimizing their characters over time with things like new magical items/etc.), but going more than that should be avoided. Of course my group is also running pure-base 5e for the moment, so there are a lot less opportunities for game-breaking huge numbers on a single thing that min-maxing provides than you would find in something like 3.5 or Pathfinder (plus the higher emphasis on DM fiat in 5e means that a lot of those loopholes that get abused get closed or fall in the "it works... this one time" category right off the bat). Combined with the fact that the 5e system itself is set up in such a way with things like bounded accuracy that in most cases your options for improving your characters are instead making them more versatile by letting them apply their small bonus to a wider variety of things rather than simply stacking bonus after bonus on the same particular skill, and I haven't had a serious problem with min-maxing yet.

Also while yeah, real people aren't necessarily specialized, it's still important to realize that if your rouge is clumsy enough that even with their bonuses the dexterous fighter is just as good or better at picking locks and doing rouge-y things than they are your rouge might as well have picked another class and helped actually contribute somewhere else. Min-maxing can very easily generate problems with characters becoming rolls instead of roles, but a total lack of it invites the opposite problem, where characters become so interchangeable that some of them start to lose a bit of their meaning in non-roleplaying parts of the game. A tiny touch of well-managed min-maxing helps characters settle into their different roles and ensures that the lack of a character can actually be a meaningful challenge/device that is felt and can contribute to the intensity of the story (such as your rouge being blinded while the bomb is ticking down, or the wizard being forced to scale that wall to light the bonfire since the fighter is holding off the zombies) without seriously impairing the game later.

[Yoink]

I just always prefer to roll for stats. As soon as point buy comes in it's a huge turn-off for me.