Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Min-maxing good? Bad?

Apparently recent PC Gamer article raised some eyebrows. The writer argues that one will have better time in BG3 if they won’t powergame:
https://www.pcgamer.com/hey-dandd-p...n-if-you-dont-min-max-in-baldurs-gate-3/

Also Josh Sawyer’s 2cents:


I don’t really have a horse in the race - I am in the middle. I definitely do think about building a proficient character, and what role I want them to fill, and in general try to play decently. At the same time I wouldn’t consider myself a “min-maxer” - I am looking for sensible, effective, “fun” choices, but not heavily weighting one good choice against another.

Thoughts?

It must be directed to the "one-and-done" crowd because - I agree with you that it depends on the game you are playing. I have a roleplaying run scheduled where we are not using any meta gaming, data or otherwise and no min-maxing.

Then we have a tactician run were we will definitely be min-maxing.

Minmaxing is generally a bad idea. I can understand doing it in video games as they tend to be combat heavy and have a fixed story. But in PnP games minmaxing is boring and with a one dimensional character you are robbing yourself of so many interesting stories that could happen.
Sadly, minmaxing is easy and also can easily be discussed in reddit forums. And with the current generation having short attention span and being massively entitled to always "deserving" to succeed and be the best even the PnP games now get changed to appeal to minmaxers. The ASI change for example is one of those things as the only ones benefiting from it are minmaxers who refuse to play something that does not have the "best stats" for their class and call missing out on 5% success chance being useless.

I think min-maxing is kinda bad for the first run (at least), especially if you care about the story/rp as well. Some decisions that are considered to be min-maxing can create a major disconnect between what you want to do story-wise and what you 'have' to do in order to gain the most gameplay benefit. For example you want to use the Absolute's items while playing as Wyll, who is disgusted by goblins. Letting one brand you kinda kills the whole vibe. There are many examples like this.

I paused the video pretty much immediately when he says it's a complicated topic. It's a very uncomplicated topic for BG3...it's largely single player...do what you want. You technically could play with others but really playing a videogame with randoms is always terrible regardless, you are extremely, insanely unlikely to be matched with someone who knows D&D or what they are doing and you could be matched with trolls trying to ruin your experience. Beyond that I don't think very many people will play this game with their actual D&D friends more than a session if even that. It's a 150+ hour game...you won't be playing the whole thing with your buddies because you don't need to wait for when they're all available at the same time or restrict yourself to a session per week or something. So just do whatever you want in the game.

Power gaming and min maxing are real issues at actual D&D tables...always listen to the DM when at a D&D table and don't try to hog all the spotlight there. But in BG3...this adventure is literally all about you. Go knock yourself out, be as powerful as you wish.

+1 before i even started the video ...

I keep saying it for last two years, everyone of us should have option to ruin our own game however the f* we want!

//Edit:
But as i listen to it, it seems to me like that man agrees with this aswell.

I disagree. I think it is indeed a complicated topic, at least for some, otherwise there won't be threads like 'who should I play?' and 'how should I play it?' and 'is paladin/cleric/ranger/warlock/wizard multi alright?'.
And it is not only about those threads, I bet a lot of people wonder what their playthrough should look like to be most enjoyable with the game approaching soon. A general advice from the veterans of DnD and games in general is very welcome. Sometimes you can't just hop into the train and enjoy yourself for it. Someone who can appreciate guidance from someone who's basically learned to avoid lots of pitfalls can end up having more fun than the one who just 'plays as one likes'. That said, you are totally in your right to ignore any advice too.

Exactly! Because overcomplicating your own playthrough is a pitfall in itself. I had a lot of plans for my initial run with a gith monk, but thank god Larian decided to introduce the Dark Urge. Now I am stoked about exploring this origin on the fly with as little pre-planning as possible (I'll still choose my class and how much I'll lean into multiclassing in advance).

I usually counsel against powergaming for combat effectiveness, but this is because irl I tend to play games that are a little heavier on the roleplay and exploration, rather than combat, and by putting more of your effort into combat effectiveness you run the risk of neglecting what will actually be the focus of the game. I've played games with people that have built characters against type (one notable character was a halfling Barbarian, that is still to this day, one of the best barbarians I've ever seen), or even given their characters actual disadvantages for roleplay reasons and these groups usually get along in combat fine unless it's a particularly deadly encounter. Teamwork and action economy are powerful things, even if your group isn't optimised for combat.

But, having said that, if i were to play a more hack and slash style of game, where combat was the majority of the focus instead of exploration or roleplay, or even a solo hack and slash game, I would probably say you should minmax that character to your heart's content.

So far I've only participated in one game where combat was the main focus, and it was a charity event game, where people were encouraged to donate money to get things like magic items and extra stat boosts, and the combat was pretty harsh, but I spent my money on a golden canary to save our arses
But even then, I still ended up making what was probably a character better suited for RP than combat (because it was an artificer), because I can't help myself, and the best part of making a character is making their little story.

I play games for fun. I strive to have as much fun as I can while doing do.

I'll always make something that's effective at the skillset that I choose and I'll play to the best of my ability. Until I notice that's too easy. I'll increase the difficulty until that too is too easy. Then I'll find other things to make it more fun. But I don't use cheese, or actively make some sort of stupidly OP broken build. Steamrolling through a game is just flat out boring to me.

Lastly, in a narrative driven game, I tend to engage in combat in a narrative driven manner. So my Rogue will instigate an ambush, but my Paladin would walk straight in one and formally declare war on the evildoers.

I do also think it is a bit more nuanced topic than some posters claim. Optimised vs unoptimised character result in a different battle effectiveness - that could have a major impact in players enjoyment if game’s difficulty and player character effectiveness diverge too much.

For example, I didn’t enjoy Pathfinder: Kingmaker as it seemed to demand far higher level of minmaxing than I was willing to provide for my first playthrough - and I played what I assumed would be fairly approachable difficulty level: core rules. Than there are RPGs where creating a semi competent character on normal or hard would result in steamrolling through content.

“Play however you want” is absolutely fine, but content is unlikely to support equally each play style. “Should you min-max Baldur’s Gate3” I think is a question that can only truly be answered once the game in released and finished. The reality, I think is, that some will, some won’t and they will enjoy the game to a varying degree.

BG3 was also inherently built to encourage power gaming...most D&D DMs would have seizure if they had to hand some of the insanely powerful items you find just in Act 1 alone. I don't even dare to dream of what kind of stuff we'll find later in the game as rewards from more epic quests and tougher boss fights.

As a DM/GM, I've never had a problem 'dealing with' min-maxers. Generally they are focused on combat capabilities, and as they don't also have Main Character syndrome, you just give them a meaty target to focus on and massage encounters to feel balanced. At least in the (many) groups I've played in, the min-maxers were rarely the trouble-children.

There are tons of DnD horror story channels and a subreddit if you are intetested in seeing the type of people that do ruin a campaign.

That said, there are some multi-class scenarios that call into question the RP. But as a DM, you just work with your players to sort it out or reflavor it (I'm looking at you Hexadin).

Again, using the rules to create a cool combo is a fun way for people to enjoy the game in a non-destructive way. It's just that there are times where other destructive behaviors get associated with minmaxing that things become an issue.

Main Character syndrome is often built on a framework of minmaxing and delusional self importance. But the delusional self importance is the issue.

On a great note, this is a CRPG, so in game at least, you are the Main Character and that self importance is implied.

Conclusion to my rambling: Enjoy being the MC and minmax if that makes you happy.

It's difficult to avoid min-maxing on a point buy system where you're terribly starved for attributes. I might want to create a barbarian who's really smart, but not at the cost of completely hamstringing my combat effectiveness.

And NO, Josh, the answer is NOT to create a system where intelligence barbarians and muscle wizards are in fact the norm.

To be blunt, I don't min/max in PnP and I won't min/max in BG 3. If the game becomes too difficult to progress without min/maxing, I'll most likely just quit or get a mod that addresses the issue. Lowering difficulty is only an option with a mod that removes certain features, such as the general bonus to proficiency we get in story mode.
However, I hope the game isn't balanced around min/maxing as that would probably cause issues.

I like playing unoptimized character and groups, they are far more interesting than optimized ones. If I fail a roll in BG 3, I very rarely reload but generally play along with outcome.

The main issue with min/maxers in BG3 is when you have one in a multiplayer session. But as long as one plays multiplayer with known people that shouldn't be an issue.

I was wondering if I want to write something here, but now I don't need to. I absolutely agree with everything here.
Especially the opinion about lowering difficulty.

When I play a crpg, I tend to push as many numbers as I can into intelligence and charisma because I like playing talky characters. Is that minmaxing? I find combat the least interesting part of most games and so I stat out based on that. But I'm still approaching from a mechanics first aspect, and then I come up with a character concept that makes sense with that. Furthermore Josh makes a good point in that video when he says that sometimes if you want to make a flavorful character, you're going to have to fight against the rules to a degree to make your character do stuff they aren't really built to do.

I feel like at least on these forums people don't seem to differentiate between minmaxing and just caring about the numbers. I don't want my character to be bad at the things they're supposed to be good at. My first playthrough is going to be a pact of the blade warlock. Before Larian's changes that would have been an unoptimised choice by default, so I would have had to really put thought and effort into making her work and be good. So yeah, minmaxing is a thing, but not everyone who doesn't close their eyes and ignore their stat spread is one.

Min-Maxing in TT is kinda pointless... I mean if you want to run an optimised group and just experience how good optimised builds are in combat - cool, have fun. It's still pointless as a DM can always crush you, no matter what build. No martter how optimised. I think its far more important to have a group that doesn't have 'broken' characters that either outshine others or compeltely hamper the party just to ensure the players have roughly the same amount of impact.

I do advise my players how to avoid pitfalls in builds but also warn them about too powerful builds. Example one of my players had already a strong crossbow expert as bloodhunter and after seening a NPC gloomstalker (melee based) he wanted to go to gloomstalker as well. I warned him how it would impact combats. While the melee based gloomstalker had to get close and avoid lightsources thus giving enemies a way to protect themselves for the crossbow expert it would be just about standing as far away in darkness and shooting until we all get bored as enemies would realsitcly not find him OR I would have to avoid giving him chances to fight in darkness or constantly spam enemies that would still be able to see him to keep him challenged. He agreed it didn't sound like fun and went a different way.


But in video games... well for me normal difficulty should be suited for unoptimised characters that are still build solidly (for example for level 12 you should have your main attribute at 16+). Once you go higher difficulty - which has nothing to do with narrative or story - you need to grind it out and know how to be perfectly build and played - because it is supposed to be difficult. Story mode on the other hand should be an auto-win with pretty much any build because people don't care about combat in those cases and don't want to waste time on it.

I don't enjoy minmaxing. I like to play weird builds that are suboptimal, performance-wise. It's probably why I never did well in MMORPGs at high level.

That being said, I don't care what other people do in their own games.

It does not matter, should not matter to anyone but you if you use min-maxing mechanisms in a single-player game. Insofar it is not complicated.

However, from the perspective of any one gamer who starts a new game where they can generate different kinds of characters it is definitely complicated.

For instance, here's my main problem with BG3:

I like "talker" types. However, combat diffculty in BG3 depends very much on initiative and initial positioning. Which means if I roleplay my character and mostly attempt to talk first and fight only if that fails, most fights will not only be significantly more difficult in general, but start with my squishy talker being surrounded by enemies. In the EA, I experienced this difficulty differential as absolutely dramatic in certain key fights which are important for the story, even on a second playthrough where many things got easier because I had learned to play the game better. At the same time, I really hate having to reload a game several times in order to get through a story-relevant encounter.

So what do I do?

There are various possibilities, but my standard solution to problems like this (which appear in most CRPGS, it's just way worse in Larian's games than in most others I've played) is arguably a form of powergaming: leveling up as much as possible elsewhere, using foreknowledge to avoid triggering encounters of the main story, before I tackle those encounters.

Also, in general I'll do *some* min-maxing. You won't ever see a character made by me with an ability score of 3, but you might see one with an 8. I will select secondary skills in order to have more choice in companions, if I can remotely rationalize it. And I absolutely will go out and acquire magical items before I can reasonably know of them in-world, where possible, unless they have story significance.