I see nothing wrong with min /maxing, and what do you do if you have played DnD since 1st Edition and pretty much know so many different combinations that work well together that to avoid it your intentionally sabotaging your character to avoid it? To me most of the capstone abilities are crap, so why play 20 lvls of a character to reach crap? There is exceptions like druids, fighters, and Barbarians. but lets be honest classes like paladins have a crap capstone , same with every class the only thing you get is 1 use x when you run out of it. If they wanted give you more when you run out make it unlimited usage, then its maybe worth waiting 20 lvls to get it. And games that you know are not going to get to lvl 20 ( say like BG3), why wouldn't you, your never getting to the capstone anyways. Min/maxing also makes stronger , more creative DMs. Think of it as a puzzle to be solved without acting like a child that changes the rules because they are loosing or lack the creativity to get past it. Don't see it as a negative, see it as an opportunity. There is a saying that says: " Too much specialization breeds in weakness." So don't go on how min /maxing makes a character too strong. When i make a character I first pick class, then race, then ability scores, and when i map out what i am going to do I focus on a theme, a single element to focus on to specialize on. It isn't always damage. and when it is, its specific area of damage, like a single cantrip or crit damage so on. I once made a yuan-ti character that was a fey wanderer ranger/ Shepard Druid as healing , support. some of the support was expendable reinforcements from summoned creatures and using unicorn aura when healing . He went yuan-ti because they get racial spell suggestion. Druids and rangers lack the spell magic circle to use with the planar binding trick, but they do get planar binding and the spells summon fey/ summon elemental, and suggestion lasts 8 hours. You can order the summons to fail the saving throw of suggestion before you remove concentration. you can even through the suggestion to order them to fail all saving throws and they can't move, speak or take actions til i say it can. This holds them in place long enough to cast planar binding.
My favorite parts of the game are making characters and watching them develop into what I mapped out for them. I rather have a difficult combat encounter to solve that isn't as straight forward as hack and slash then some mental or diplomatic puzzle to solve.
For my part ,I've always rolled to be proficient in my class, with that said, I will remove points from my main stat so I'm not negative in a stat. BALANCE, its just how I roll.
DRAGON FIRE-AND DOOM Dragons? Splendid things, lad-so long as ye look upon them only in tapestries, or in the masks worn at revels, or from about three realms off... Astragarl Hornwood, Mage of Elembar - Year of the Tusk
My #1 critique of BG3 from Day 1 has been that it is combat and not roleplaying that is central to the game. And in such a game, it is very natural that players will gravitate towards min-maxing, which I fully expect 90% of people playing BG3 to do, because it is the DnD thing to do.
This was indeed my major concern regarding BG3, after playing both DOS and DOS:2. Both games were combat focused and unfortunately the world and story didn't click on me the way I hoped (it wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either). Now, I can't tell anything about BG3 in this regard, because I avoided to play EA, to not spoil the full experience, but there is an interesting interview with Swen on Polish site, gry-online.pl, where he said there is relatively low amount of combat, and you can deal with most situations using persuasion. Now, I obviously can't judge if it's true or not, but that gives me hope, there will be a lot of space for roleplayers, like you and me.
Here's English translation of this part of the interview:
Quote
GOL: There is one thing about peaceful solutions in the approach to quests that I had in mind. I felt that in those days Baldur's Gate was more focused on combat, comparing it to Planescape: Torment or Fallout. Do you maintain this approach to clashes in BG3, or do you give people complete freedom in how they can resolve potential conflicts?
Swen: You have absolute freedom. There are very few fights. You can even ally with Gorthas. And it's literally to ally, he keeps his word. So you don't have to fight with him. There are many persuasion options in this game. But there are some fights that need to be fought.
Thanks for the quote. I'm happy to hear it, but ultimately I will judge by what is actually in the game. "Few" is a relative term. How few is few? Also, I am very concerned that avoiding fights will punish players with less XP and less/no loot, not to mention unfavorable/unsatisfying quest/story outcomes. But the good thing now is that we don't need to get into an argument about it, because we all can just wait one more month or so to have definitive answers to all these questions.
Listening to JES I did kinda' have an epiphany. Maybe my disappointment and anger are not really about BG3 and what Larian has/has not done with it. Maybe it is about what WotC has done to DnD in the past 15 or so years. There used to be a time, some 20+ years ago, when I absolutely LOVED all things DnD, not just TT DnD but all their video games and their source books and their novels, and I bought and avidly read through everything. But then inexplicably WotC chose to drive a dagger through the heart of that DnD, and what passes for DnD now is something I cannot stand. So maybe I would've disliked BG3 no matter who would've made it, simply because it is a contemporary DnD game blessed by WotC. And therefore, maybe, if Larian had made their new game anything but DnD, I too could've been here as a fan and not a critic.
I disagree that avoiding combat will be punishing for players in ways you described. But even if indeed it's like that it will be no different than in BG/BG2.
I fully agree with you about what WoTC did since 3.5 (especially with FR). Everything after 3.5 is pure chaos.
It's clearly something that adds to assassinate ability where Assassins critical hit foes who haven't acted in the first round.
Bearing in mind assassin gets +d6 sneak attack every second level, Gloomstalker must get something more.
****
[Edit] Looked it up myself.
Dread ambusher: level 3 ability, +Wis to initiative, extra attack with +d8 damage.
So level 6 Assassin has +4 initiative, +7 attack, weapon damage +4 dex, and +3d6 sneak attack Level 3/3 Assassin-Gloomstalker has +5 initiative, +6 attack, 2x weapon damage +3 Dex, +d8 dread ambusher, and +2d6 sneak attack.
Considering the multiclass gains on average an extra doubled die on round 1, but falls behind rounds 2+, I think it's pretty balanced. Actually, it's kind of weak once you realise they're missing out on Expertise and Uncanny dodge.
I didn't define a level split, so that is on me, but people consider the build to be 'online' at Gloom5/Assassin3 :
Assassin makes everything a crit and for ease of math we'll assume all hits and do full damage to make things easy. We'll also assume we took the +2 Dex for the ASI, so +4 damage per attack. And we'll add hunter's mark for the rangers. Let's go with longbow so no worries about loading time and this will balance our damage die when we do the assassin numbers (as they can use a light crossbow).
Gloomstalker/Assassin gets 3 attacks that round plus a d8 to one of them. Math = 8d8 (64) +4d6 (24) +6d6 (36) +12 = 136 Assassin gets 1 attack and a better sneak attack = 2d8(16) + 8d6 (48) +4 = 68 Gloomstalker gets no sneak attack and no guaranteed crit = 4d8 (32) + 3d6 (18) + 12 = 62
So not too shabby at this point the Assassin is only half the damage. Now lets look at missing our first shot:
So the 4-6 times is probably hyperbole, but it is 2-3 times the damage easily.
I'm sure someone out there has a more robust breakdown or has better optimization than my napkin math, but you can see that the damage difference is not insubstantial.
That's always my main concern as well. I see combat as a means to add some tension to a story, not an end in itself. Reasonable people of all kind should *always* avoid a lethal fight where that's possible without compromising their goals too much, because that's how everyone but a madman actually behaves. There are three situations where you fight (not counting a brawl): if it's unavoidable, if your goal appears to be worth risking your life, or if you're so powerful compared to the enemy that the outcome appears to not be in question. Real prolonged fights, most of the time, actually are the result of people underestimating the strength of the enemy. I guess we have a rather prominent RL example at the moment.
With that in mind, I prefer games where combat is a highlight and not the rule. There are quite a few persuasion situations in the EA version of BG3, and that includes main story events, so I think you actually *can* play BG3 that way. However, the question is whether you'll get enough xp that way that you can resolve combat situations where they are unavoidable or where it would be appropriate for our characters to start a fight. And because I don't know that, I'll do some min-maxing.
BG3 is a game where we are trying to stop the followers of the gods of death and murder from sacrificing hundreds or thousands of people to empower their deities. This isn't going to be a diplomatic adventure. No one was going to convince Hitler to "be chill about the whole concentration camps thing, my dude".
It sounds like you would be interested in a political intrigue setting where the occasional assassin has to be stopped to protect your delegation, but most things are accomplished through espionage and conversation.
That sounds like a fun game for sure, but it is far more niche than a AAA game can be afford to be while still making money.
I appreciate you planning to min-max to account for that difference though. It's good to see that people can appreciate the game for what it is rather than expecting it to be something it's not.
I won't comment much further on the Gloomstalker multi-class as it peripheral to thread, but I'll run that math again at level 8 too. We should assume no prebuffs and strict action economy, so if Hunter's mark is cast, poison is not applied. I can't remember the expect AC by level, but let's say it's something like AC13.
Round 1:
Glmstlk5/Assn3, Dex19, 3x rapier attack+7 @ d8+4 damage, +d8 ambush, +2d6 sneak attack, +d6 Hunter's mark. That's 75% accuracy to do 69 average damage (6d8+12+2d8+4d6+2d6), for an average DPR of 52 (rounded).
Assn8, Dex20, 1x rapier attack+8 @ d8+5 damage, +4d6 sneak attack, +d4 poison. That's 80% accuracy to do 47 (2d8+5+8d6+2d4), for an average DPR of 38(rounded).
That's a nice multi-class combo for DPR for sure. It's not that impressive overall though tbh. It looks like one of those power spikes.
Assassin dice are thereafter going to accrue faster for the single class, assassin 4 gives ASI whereas assassin 9 gives 5d6 sneak attack and Infiltration expertise. Not to mention already got Evasion, Uncanny dodge and 2nd Expertise.
But I tell you what. Both builds will perform nicely in BG3. And having a DPR killer-combo up your sleeve might come in handy for some unavoidable fight. I recall a video showing level 8 party fighting Kethric Thorm.
I won't comment much further on the Gloomstalker multi-class as it peripheral to thread, but I'll run that math again at level 8 too. We should assume no prebuffs and strict action economy, so if Hunter's mark is cast, poison is not applied. I can't remember the expect AC by level, but let's say it's something like AC13.
Round 1:
Glmstlk5/Assn3, Dex19, 3x rapier attack+7 @ d8+4 damage, +d8 ambush, +2d6 sneak attack, +d6 Hunter's mark. That's 75% accuracy to do 69 average damage (6d8+12+2d8+4d6+2d6), for an average DPR of 52 (rounded).
Assn8, Dex20, 1x rapier attack+8 @ d8+5 damage, +4d6 sneak attack, +d4 poison. That's 80% accuracy to do 47 (2d8+5+8d6+2d4), for an average DPR of 38(rounded).
That's a nice multi-class combo for DPR for sure. It's not that impressive overall though tbh. It looks like one of those power spikes.
Assassin dice are thereafter going to accrue faster for the single class, assassin 4 gives ASI whereas assassin 9 gives 5d6 sneak attack and Infiltration expertise. Not to mention already got Evasion, Uncanny dodge and 2nd Expertise.
But I tell you what. Both builds will perform nicely in BG3. And having a DPR killer-combo up your sleeve might come in handy for some unavoidable fight. I recall a video showing level 8 party fighting Kethric Thorm.
Good call on the Dex 20, I brainfarted on that one
Yeah mostly it is considered a boss killer with solid turn over turn especially from ranged. I think most people stop at 5 or tops at 7 ranger if they want the wisdom saves. So from there on out it's acruing the sneak attack die at the same rate.
Dnd doesnt push anyone to do anything. It's a personal choice.
Of course it does. Every system encourages and punishes certain behaviours. That’s why devs test their designs - to see if players engage with it in an intended way.
This...or try playing a barbarian with 8 strength. D&D is a game that harshly punishes ineptitude, and greatly rewards competence. And not just strictly in character builds but also in power usage, party management...like try sending the wizard or the cleric up front to tank and see how that goes.
This...or try playing a barbarian with 8 strength. D&D is a game that harshly punishes ineptitude, and greatly rewards competence. And not just strictly in character builds but also in power usage, party management...like try sending the wizard or the cleric up front to tank and see how that goes.
Lol, no. Because of the D20 D&D is very forgiving. If you want to play a game that really punishes inepitude try Shadowrun.
Also as usual people use extreme cases to defend minmaxing. Is a Str 14 barbarian inept? No, but minmaxer want you to think so.
This...or try playing a barbarian with 8 strength. D&D is a game that harshly punishes ineptitude, and greatly rewards competence. And not just strictly in character builds but also in power usage, party management...like try sending the wizard or the cleric up front to tank and see how that goes.
Also as usual people use extreme cases to defend minmaxing. Is a Str 14 barbarian inept? No, but minmaxer want you to think so.
This is so true. Especially on lower levels. Anyone rushing to main attribute 20 on level 12 is kidding themselves. Sure, pure casters are very dependent on their spellcasting attribute, but even then I think ending up at 18 should be plenty, most likely with an overall solid build you can make it work with 16 as well in cases like cleric, bard, druid,...
This...or try playing a barbarian with 8 strength. D&D is a game that harshly punishes ineptitude, and greatly rewards competence. And not just strictly in character builds but also in power usage, party management...like try sending the wizard or the cleric up front to tank and see how that goes.
A STR 8 barbarian is completely feasible in 5E, you need high DEX and CON and a finesse weapon. Is it optimal? No, of course not but it's viable. Clerics, depending on their domain choice, can be very effective at the frontline and yes, they can even tank. Again it's of course not the optimal choice but it's entirely doable. Can it be done with every cleric? No, but some are capable of doing it.
I do agree that casters generally require high(er) values in their casting stat, but that still doesn't mean one has min/max.
This...or try playing a barbarian with 8 strength. D&D is a game that harshly punishes ineptitude, and greatly rewards competence.
I think it all comes down to D&D origins as a wargame. Character build has little impact on roleplaying - what gets impacted is: your AC, your chances to hit, your ability to act first, your Damage output etc. There is no reward for building a suboptimal character - there is no drawback to being very strong and very intelligent. D&D got better - there is far more impact in terms of social skills depending on build, than it was the case in Advanced D&D but it is still an afterthought.
Construction of of DND and DND-like games is also important - there are combat/exploration/conversation - and those are things every character will have to engage with to a decent extend. Creating inefficient character doesn’t lead to new opportunities - it just makes him or her inefficient in the core gameplay loop.
Some do pointed out, though, that creating a well functioning character and min-maxing isn’t one and the same. The game does provide rewards, though, for being optimised, and doesn’t have much to offer for those who choose flavour. The player of course has a freedom to imagine it is not so, and do whatever they find most rewarding, but playerbase by and large will do what the game encourages them to do.
Also as usual people use extreme cases to defend minmaxing. Is a Str 14 barbarian inept? No, but minmaxer want you to think so.
True, a 14 Str Barbarian is not inept per se, but have you tried playing one throughout the entire length of a campaign while there is a 16 Str Fighter in the same group? It's not fun. Starting on fair footing compared to other players is not min-maxing. It'd be far less of a problem if your low Str could be compensated for by other stats, but with the way DnD5e is designed there is always one ability your class relies on significantly more than others.
5e is fundamentally designed around the assumption that you start with at least a 16 in your primary ability. All origin companions available in the EA reflect this. It has nothing to do with min-maxing.
Also as usual people use extreme cases to defend minmaxing. Is a Str 14 barbarian inept? No, but minmaxer want you to think so.
True, a 14 Str Barbarian is not inept per se, but have you tried playing one throughout the entire length of a campaign while there is a 16 Str Fighter in the same group? It's not fun. Starting on fair footing compared to other players is not min-maxing. It'd be far less of a problem if your low Str could be compensated for by other stats, but with the way DnD5e is designed there is always one ability your class relies on significantly more than others.
5e is fundamentally designed around the assumption that you start with at least a 16 in your primary ability. All origin companions available in the EA reflect this. It has nothing to do with min-maxing.
While not a barbarian I currently play a very suboptimal character in a Starfinder campaign. Why? Because the story is great (and the less than powerful combat abilities are part of the story). Good RPGs can handle that pretty well. See the old Fallouts for example. Sadly there are people who think only combat matters and WotC and now Larian have been indulging them by for example the ASI change, signaling that yes, having a combat optimized character is the most important thing in D&D. Hence D&D is turned back into a wargame.
And D&D is very "forgiving" of unoptimized stats because its the D20 that primarily decides success or failure. A single +1 hardly matters compared to it.
Also as usual people use extreme cases to defend minmaxing. Is a Str 14 barbarian inept? No, but minmaxer want you to think so.
True, a 14 Str Barbarian is not inept per se, but have you tried playing one throughout the entire length of a campaign while there is a 16 Str Fighter in the same group? It's not fun. Starting on fair footing compared to other players is not min-maxing. It'd be far less of a problem if your low Str could be compensated for by other stats, but with the way DnD5e is designed there is always one ability your class relies on significantly more than others.
5e is fundamentally designed around the assumption that you start with at least a 16 in your primary ability. All origin companions available in the EA reflect this. It has nothing to do with min-maxing.
While not a barbarian I currently play a very suboptimal character in a Starfinder campaign. Why? Because the story is great (and the less than powerful combat abilities are part of the story). Good RPGs can handle that pretty well. See the old Fallouts for example. Sadly there are people who think only combat matters and WotC and now Larian have been indulging them by for example the ASI change, signaling that yes, having a combat optimized character is the most important thing in D&D. Hence D&D is turned back into a wargame.
I dont see what the asi change has to do with running a suboptimal characters, you can still do that with the asi change. But yeah most people in games about being a hero want to be a hero.
A bunch of you guys are entirely missing the point. But I'll focus on this:
Originally Posted by Ixal
Also as usual people use extreme cases to defend minmaxing. Is a Str 14 barbarian inept? No, but minmaxer want you to think so.
The entirety of D&D is systemic...the game is literally built on the notion of maximizing odds of success and eliminating odds of failure. There is no reward built into the tabletop rules to punish a maxed out character and no rewards for a sub optimal character. Now this can become an issue at a table with real people where you can hog all the spotlight and reducing the enjoyment others get from the game and so on if your character shines too much so you shouldn't do it there. But in BG3 there is little reason not to do so...and the game heavily incentivizes min maxing by handing you items vastly more powerful than anything the tabletop would dare hand you even from act 1. BG3 even offers vastly more power still if you want to walk an evil path. BG3 is literally built to enable vastly higher min-maxing than the tabletop and it's not subtle about it...it offers you respec AND insanely powerful items right from the start. The game is literally saying: here, take this and see just how far you can push your power curve.
