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.

"playing as a male, playing as a female? good or bad?"

Only you can answer this question young one.

I agree about difficulty settings needing to be considerate of standard builds. The 'normal' setting should be based on building single class characters using the default builds that Larian provides. BUT NOT BLADE WARD for crying out loud. Seriously Larian, stop screwing over new players by auto selecting that shit spell. Or make it a Bonus Action.

Its a roleplay game, not a numbers game. I mean, if people want to calculate the shit out of everything, to the point where all of the story ambience lost in the pure math, I don't care, but it shouldn't be priority in the development

@Wormerine, as I said in the Obsidian forum, I completely agree with JES on what he has to say. Unfortunately, DnD has, over the editions, evolved away from being a roleplaying game system to a combat game system, and it is now pretty much all about combat. And contemporary video games using DnD systems echo this evolutuon. 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.

If I were to ever play BG3, a big 'if,' I'd only play it once, and I'd use a mod to increase my party size to six (a non-min-max custom PC and five NPC companions) and also play it exclusively in story mode. I'd do all these things entirely for the purpose of desperately trying to maximize roleplaying while minimizing combat. And I fully expect that such a playthrough of BG3 will be very disappointing and unsatisfying, hence my intense dismay about the game.

It should be noted here that "roleplaying" for me is meaningful and deep roleplaying. So, for me, throwing my shoes at someone or talking to animals or shoving someone off a roof does not count.

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:

Did the pc gammer article really say you could play a archer wizard with no bow proficiency? Lol.

I dont need a hateful games media writer who hates gamers to tell me how I should damn well play my game.

I'm not a min maxer at least the first few times through a game, but I'm not gonna listen to a scummy game media writer to try to order me on how to play MY game. What a punk that scum is.

Who are you talking about?

I don't get it? BG3 uses 5E ruleset, character creator gives you good default ability scores, and level up steers you towards single-classing. Your average Tav naturally develops into a powerhouse in the gameworld.

Sure, you you can powergame around the edges, but what more power can you really eek out?

Personally, I'll fiddle with ability scores a bit. I'll pick to learn more useful spells first. I'll use a couple of weapons to use more weapon benefits per short rest. Big whoopdedoo.

For all that effort, I'll be slightly ahead of the curve compared to Joe Bloggs' Tav, who in turn is probably an hour ahead of me in game play - and already found the Vorpal sword+3.

Seems to me it's more a case of how quickly you want to have that steak, savour the flavour or wolf it down?

It's frustrating and not fun to just run into encounters you can't complete after a few tries. To me, min/max means pure optimization. That should not be needed to get through content. But wanting to have sensical builds is probably a good idea. A Great Axe using Barbarian with a STR of 10 is probably not a great idea and if you build a whole team with similar decisions that and you could very much struggle.

So it's nice to tell someone it's your game, play how you want. And then they quit after 15 hours because they are stuck and have awful builds, I am not sure that was the best advice.

So you shouldn't need to truly min max and worry about being absolutely perfect, but I'd recommend everyone understand mechanics enough so that they make decent decisions on stats and builds so they can make it though the game.

Okay, Volourn, I’m not sure what’s going on here as I’m just briefly checking in on my phone and the forums are crawling again, but insulting personal language isn’t generally okay, even when it’s directed at someone not here. I’d suggest taking it down a notch!

Simple example: gloomstalker + assassin can do 4-6x the damage that either could do as a single class.

Care to briefly run me through their power combo?

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.

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.

I've never really understood the people who disapprove of "min/maxing." It's a single player game, what does it matter to you? Also, are power fantasies not an acceptable form of roleplay? It's always especially funny to me when things get nerfed/buffed and those types get happy about it because it screws over the "min/maxers" since they're supposed to be the ones that don't care about stats, so why celebrate something you don't care about getting changed? It's a videogame, play it how you want.

5e is too broken system even with casual character building. Min-maxing will just make it boringly easy.

PoE mostly is single-player (to the point where you can choose not even to be able to trade with other players). Min-maxing is very much 99% of a game.

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.

Nobody's trying to make people play the game a certain way. Yes of course, everyone is free to play the game as they wish. This is simply a philosophical discussion about whether and why someone may choose to min-max, and whether DnD-style games *push* players into creating min-max powergaming characters rather than non-optimal roleplaying-oriented characters.

Dnd doesnt push anyone to do anything. It's a personal choice.

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.

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.

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:

Multi - 6D8(48) + 4D6 (24) + 4d6 (24) + 4d6 (24) +8 = 94
Assassin - 0
Gloom - 3D8 (24) + 2d6 (12) 8 = 44

Big difference there, but the math isn't going to be half misses/hits except for maybe one specific enemy AC and I'm not about to do all that math.

Now turn over turn damage, all hits:

Multi - 2d8 (16) + 2d6 (12) + 2d6 (12) + 8 = 48
Assassin - 1d8 (8) + 4d6 (24) +4 = 32
Gloom - 2d8 (16) + 2d6 (12) 8 = 36

Now one miss:

Multi - 1d8 (8) + 2d6 (12) + 1d6 (6) +4 = 30
Assassin - 0
Gloom - 1d8 (8) + 1d6 (6) 4 = 18


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.

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.

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.

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.

Nope, it doesnt.

Try playing a wizard with int as a dump stat

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 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,...

q
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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

The only people who want to start on fair footing with minmaxers are other minmaxers.

Edit: also, where did you find the info about 5e being fundamentally designed for starting with 16 in the attribute?

Being a hero doesn't require minmaxed stats.

And its related to ASI because the biggest reason ASI was changed was to allow minmaxers to play other race/class combinations than the previously optimal ones, meaning WotC now confirmed that their way if thinking that a character firs and formost needs to have minmaxed stats is the correct one and that playing what you want even if not optimized was wrong. Hence they made it easier to minmax even to the detriment of immersion and lore.

Not quite true. 2014 5E D&D's baseline playtest characters have a 15 in starting main attribute. Races with handy ASIs are for newer players to help steer them to optimal builds that match popular archetypes. Experienced players then try unusual combinations, like Half-orc bard, which are viable.

This all said, OneD&D has increased baselines across the board. It looks like all characters now baseline at 16/17, and start with an extra modest feat.

I don't have an official source that would tell you so. It's more of an understanding I've developed over the years of dm-ing 5e and interacting with the math. The whole CR system for rating monsters factors their AC and HitPoints into a defensive score which represents how difficult they are to kill, which factors into their overall challenge rating, which is then used for designing balanced combat encounters. Whenever I deviated from the curve by, for example, allowing players to start with 18+ abilities, they would easily steamroll any by-the-book encounter even after adding an enemy or two. As a similar example, I once had a player with a tiefling fighter with 15 Dex, whom I later allowed to respec as if they'd started with a 17 because it was an atrocious experience for them. A +1 difference is very easy to underestimate, but its impact is far-reaching in a d20 system, especially when it affects frequent rolls which are crucial to your success..

If it sounds like I'm only generalizing based on intuition and personal anectodes, please bear in mind that all BG3 companions as well as pre-made characters at dndbeyond follow the same pattern and I'm quite sure they do so for a reason.

That's interesting. I had no idea since I wasn't around for the release of 5e, but I can't seem to verify this. According to this page all playtest characters for 2014 5e started with a 16 or 17 in their primary ability, and so did those during the 2013 DnD Next playtests.

I wonder where I got that idea from?

I read so much back then, 5E was to D&D what BG3 is to CRPGs. Can't verify, so withdraw that position.

There is usually a ton of diplomacy and intrigue in these games, even if the main bad guy has to be fought. You ally with factions, convince street gangs to leave you alone, help someone out to gain a specific piece of information and so on. What I want is for that to matter, and for the game to regard diplomacy or intimidation as an equally valid approach where it appears plausible, in terms of xp. I do not demand it to be plausible all the time, just to apply some damn realism. You might get into countless brawls in a day depending on where you are, but people do not enter lethal fights lightly.

Well said. Totally agree.

Very poorly said. As I have already iterated:

What you described is a wargame like Warhammer AoS/40K or Heroquest, not a role playing game.

What I described is literally what every tabletop RPG is...D&D, Pathfinder, etc...whatever your favorite is. If there are dice involved your main task is creating a character with the best chance to land its attacks and spells, and the best chance to negate damage coming your way. If it's a game of chance you are ALWAYS playing the odds...no matter how much or how little you think you are min-maxing, no matter how much you think should be optimized, the game forces you to play the odds and to optimize to some extent...the entire game is literally ALL about your odds. Every action is about your odds of success vs odds of failure.

You are literally not allowed to play until you created a character...and that entire process is optimization...what's your role in the party, what abilities do you take, how do you attack, what are your odds of success and how much damage do you do, etc. etc. etc.

And here we have the problem. This is the attitude currently catered to which leads to the decline of rpgs. Reducing role playing games to war games where "the main task" is to create optimized combat character for combat encounters. Immersing you into the world? Experience a story with interesting characters? Playing a role in a fantasy world? All of this is playing wrong, unless your role is +5 attack 2d6 damage DD/off-tank.

Attitudes like this are literally destroying the very core of rpgs and should be opposed instead of catered to by butchering the immersion of settings to make minmaxer happy like with the ASI change.

That's the thing...it's REALLY not just about combat encounters...literally EVERYTHING you do in DND lives and dies by the odds of the dice. If you need to talk your way out of a situation, best hide behind the face of the party...whoever has the charisma and deception/persuasion rolls. Want to steal an item? Better let whoever has the best slight of hand and stealth proficiencies. etc.

There is literally no game to be had at all without considering optimization first.

And D&D is a very brutal game...you can be fighting gods, running into instant death traps. Pull a card from a deck and the soul of your character is taken away and locked in a prison in a different dimension without your party having even a clue as to what happened. You REALLY are forced to optimize to a large extent.

I do not think you are wrong in your summary of how 5E works mechanically. I also do not think that this is a strength in 5E. To me it feels more like a massive flaw, insofar as the purpose of 5E is to be a foundation for "role playing" instead of math attacking, number crunching, rules lawyering, and aggressive resource optimization.

Now, those things can all be fun but they are not, in my view, remotely related to anything that constitues "role playing" unless your character happens to be an accountant or an economist. In which case, I recommend a gnome and I recommend shouting at your raging barbarian friend to take out the smaller gobbos first, based on the principle of the lowest hanging fruit, so 80% of the tasks to be achieved can be gotten out of the way early, which will no doubt impress shareholders into a more bullish investment profile. I'm sure your barbarian friend would also greatly appreciate this advice.

The salient point, however, is that role playing is different from ARPG toon optimization in that your character isn't just a "toon". It's an actual character, like one you'd find in a movie or a book. And the task at the table is to try to be that character. What does he see, what does he feel, what does he think, what does he do, how does he do it, and when does he do it? When you instead resort to using your knowledge of D&D rules to optimize everything to hell and back, you're really not acting in character. The choices you're making on behalf of your character are not being made because they make sense to your character but because they make sense at a meta level that is way beyond your character.

This isn't to say that min-maxing is wrong, particularly not if it isn't bothering anyone else, but could we please not pretend that min-maxing constitutes role playing?

Nothing of that requires minmaxing.
Your character might be good at something and bad with other things, but that doesn't mean that he will always use his abilities optimally. He might be overconfident and pick fights he can't win, or too scared to play out his stength.
That is the true strength of RPGs. Creating a character, immersing yourself into a fantastic world and experience the story of this character with all the ups and downs, successes and failues. Even Larian still markets the game with choices and consequences instead of the tactical combat

Not everyone plays like this, but this is the true strength of rpgs and all of them should at least aspire to offer this.
What you described does not. It takes all the unique things rpgs can offer an throws it into the garbage. The only thing remaining is tactical combat/conflicts. Gone are the wants and fears of a character, its now only a block of numbers and the only correct way of playing is to match the highest bonus to the current problem. If Larian would have followed that philosophy to the end BG3 would be a tactical combat game like the Blackguards titles.
And yet both Larian and WotC more and more reduce their rpgs to tactical combat games, including by showing that optimized combat characters are more important than immersive and consistent characters, for example by removing racial ASI, no matter how nonsensical that is, or allowing complete respecs

I find it bizarre that someone would say that min-maxing is required to play DND. What kind of awful DM would allow a TPK a group of people having fun and roleplaying simply because they weren't min-maxing? Sure, dice are part of the game, but the point of the game is to have fun, and good DMs will constantly fudge rolls, or change stats to let their party have a more enjoyable experience. That level 1 wizard that technically gets focused by two goblins and is insta-gibbed? oops, that 20 roll is now a 12 and they barely survive.

It's a bit sad to hear of DND in such dry mechanical terms. It's supposed to be an RPG, not just a table top strategy game like 40k.

Combat has always been a central pillar of rpgs, but it's not necessarily all they've been about throughout the years. To paraphrase the very video that kicked off this entire thread, war gaming is literally the root from which ttrpgs as we know them today sprouted, even if they're about something else today and focus much more on roleplaying and narrative. No "core" is being destroyed here. The purpose may differ, but the underlying mechanical principles are still there. To create a character is to decide what you want to be good at and then finding out how to be good at it. This is technically optimizing. It may not always be a priority, but setting your starting Charisma to 16 because you envision your character as a diplomatic smooth-talker who's good at defusing conflict is a kind of optimizing (as opposed to just making a talkative character with average charisma). Interesting characters have memorable strengths and weaknesses and in a game I would expect the mechanics to reflect them.

In fact, I'll go as far as to say that min-maxing your ability scores is fantastic for roleplaying and creating memorable characters, because it gives them both prominent strengths and weaknesses. Take Minsc, for example - the pinnacle of physical perfection with a hamster-sized brain.

Not “wrong” - ther “wrong” way of playing is whatever you find unfun. But that’s not something the game is set up to encourage and take into account.

BG3 is a fine example to examine - I didn’t multiple playthroughs, with different classes and builds and the major difference between the runs was the combat. My capabilities and options outside combat were mostly the same in each playthrough. This is partially because D&D systems are very combat heavy, and partially because for some reason Larian took steps (at least in EA) to unify tools available to everyone - with Speaking with Dead/Animal, vision cones and stealth rarely relying on stealth checks etc. “social” skills just aren’t much of a concern. What would be a benefit if coming up with unusual attribute spread? I see those more as a test of player’s system knowledge, rather than a meaningful choice. Whatever attribute spread I pick, same roleplaying choices will be available to me.

I don’t think those combat heavy RPGs are necessarily bad - I like them a lot - but character building does mostly encourage thinking about your character’s combat efficiency.

There are games that are more roleplay focused. Classic Tim Cain RPGs had a wider array of character roles, with combat being one of potential expressions, not necessarily a main gameplay pillar. Lowering intelligence would change conversation options. Recently Disco Elysium tried some interesting thing with specialisation - with high ability scores coming with downsides as well as benefits. Those games reward and encourage roleplaying.

Literally no player would do that in high stakes circumstances unless the player has no idea what he's doing and what he's messing with. D&D gets very brutal and very real. There high level enemies that pose very real TPK threats and at a tabletop game there's no reloading the last save either. There are enemies designed very intentionally to basically never be messed with and even the most min-maxed of level 20 parties can fall to them if they get a couple unlucky rolls. You spellcaster better not fail that saving throw against the Feeble Mind Spell. Your better be sure you want to mess with disarming the instant death traps rather than walk around them, etc.

Some people act like minmaxing is a dirty word or oh you better not optimize too much or else. But the game is absolutely mercyless. Even with mastery and guidance and everything else stacked in your favor all it really takes is one nat1 roll at the worst time and you are done...permanently, irredeemably done.

Fortunately, we can decide ourselves how we’re likely to have most fun playing BG3. I think it’s reasonable to assume that EA difficulty will more or less equate to normal in the full release, and minmaxing certainly isn’t a requirement for that. It can make fights easier if that’s what people want, and it’s of course perfectly fine if they do. And having a really poorly-built character can make things much harder and more frustrating, but as folk have said, there’s a long distance between trying to make sure your character doesn’t suck and minmaxing.

There aren’t any right or wrong answers as to how the game should be played, beyond us playing in the way that we each will find most rewarding. But over the course of EA my experience has been that the game’s very flexibility can make it hard for us to work out the best way to interact with its systems to extract maximum enjoyment for ourselves. And it doesn’t hand-hold us through the process, so I suspect it would be possible for someone to play in a way that succeeded, but that they didn’t hugely enjoy, when they could have had more fun with a different approach. I certainly found it took many tens of hours playing the game before I figured out what worked best for me. And I’m now very grateful to BG3 as some of those lessons also apply to other cRPGs that I now realise I have been playing “wrong” all these years, by which of course I mean in a way that doesn’t maximise my enjoyment of them.

Personally, I know I have more fun if I pick a roleplay concept and stick with it, even if it makes some elements of the game harder. Finding ways as a player to overcome those weaknesses is one of the challenges I find interesting and rewarding about cRPGs. I still try to make a reasonably effective character, but wouldn’t sacrifice roleplay for it. Others might prefer the challenge of finding the “perfect” build. Or want a different challenge each time they play.

Because of this, I think it’s totally valid for the PC Gamer article to suggest that people reflect on whether they might have more fun taking a different approach, from the experience of someone who had previously enjoyed minmaxing but found that wasn’t the best way for them personally to enjoy the game. Everyone’s different, of course, and people are of course perfectly at liberty to ignore the suggestion but it seems a fair enough one to chuck out there for people to ponder.

Maxing your primary stat isn't even min maxing, it's just the standard way to play the game.

The not so obvious thing about finding the "perfect build" is that it very rarely can be figured out in advance. And this procedure is a completely minmaxer's thing. Any scientific breakthrough is driven by experiment and chance. Only by playing a sub-optimal build and seeing for yourself what works and what not, one can find the "perfect build". And minmaxers tend to overthink stuff like stats, feats, classes in advance and that makes their build strong, but rarely perfect. Because perfect is more of a personal, subjective thing, imo. And you can't fine tune your build to your own liking without starting somewhere and improving on the idea afterwards.

Those can be larger issues at a D&D table...but BG3 allows you to respec at any time and throws wildly powerful items your way that are basically designed to make you want to respec your class and build around them.

True. I don't like playing with minmaxers at the table. The last memory I have is about the guy who played a Warlock. He named it John and used Eldritch blast each turn and used a raven familiar to scout. That was all his gameplay. It was very effective but it felt like I was playing with a bot.

I am glad that BG3 has the respec system, btw.

First, let me say that I understand the desire to make a mechanically strong character. In fact, I almost always do. Of course, that said, I completely understand where Ixal is coming from. And I can see how min/maxing negatively impacts the enjoyment someone else gets from solely roleplaying.

*

But regarding the quote above, I'd argue that min/maxed characters aren't exactly "memorable." The reason being is that they all pretty much look alike. These are typically carbon copy builds, or very close to. They're using the same dump stats; they're hiking up the same stats; they're using the same weapons and feats and charting out all the same progressions.

Now you’re selling me on the idea That does sound interesting in its own way. Not something I’d prefer to picking a roleplay concept and making it work, but I’ll follow what conclusions others draw about the “best” builds with interest.

It is one way to play the game, it's the standard way to play the game for some people. Others have different preferences.
Maxing the primary stat isn't necessary, you can play just fine without a maxed primary stat. A 14 - 15 in your primary stats will not render a character unplayable. Granted, it will be harder to play but still possible.

Wrong.
For example in a game I am currently playing another player plays a mildly successful writer of detective and action novels who thinks he can emulate the deeds of his characters and thus is a tad bit aggressive when pirates board the ship despite playing the "support class" with rather poor combat stats. Just because you can't fathom how to role play doesn't mean others also can't. Which is why people get rather annoyed if everything gets designed for the lowest common denominator, meaning seeing RPGs as nothing more than a wargame you minmax.

I have to ask, what are people talking about when they say "min-maxing"? Because I get the impression we're talking about different things.

What "illegitimate" (recognizing that in an SP game nothing really is) mix-maxing means for me is to make characters that are implausible in terms of lore, because the things sacrificed are never relevant in terms of gameplay. For instance, I would consider it bad roleplaying to make a main character with any attribute of 3, because such a character would be unlikely to survive as an adventurer in any context not circumscribed by the inflexible mechanics of a video game. I'm not saying such a character is strictly impossible, but as a GM I'd require quite a bit of an explanation for such a choice, and I would impose significant costs. If a video game does not do that because it's not smart enough, then dumping a stat to 3 means making a character who is not real. In essence, just a template.

Another example of this kind of min-maxing is, say, setting CHA to 3 in your BG2 character because you know you can find an item that raises CHA to 18 a little later in the game. Or setting INT to 3 in BG3 because you know you'll find that item that raises it to 17. However, starting with an 8 for the same reason might be borderline implausible in most cases, but in that case, as the GM, I'd only ask if you really want to play a character who is actually dumb but has some "AI assistant" telling them what they need to know when things get tricky. And that item would be high on the priority list if a plot required something to be stolen from the party.

So in many cases, min-maxing is a matter of perspective. My concern, meanwhile, is this: is the game balanced in a way that places undue importance on combat effectiveness? Do I need to sacrifice a plausible level of non-combat utility to be able to fluidly play the game to its end without frustration? Do I need to resolve every situation with a fight in order to gain enough xp to be able to play the game to its end without frustration? Do I need to choose my party for combat effectiveness exclusively to be able to fluidly play the game on standard difficulty? In most games of this kind, I have to do most of that on higher difficulties and that's fine, but at standard difficulty I expect some freedom to choose my party and my skills with more balanced priorities in mind. And at the moment, I am not quite confident that BG3 is balanced in a balanced way. DOS2 is most definitely not balanced that way. It does not matter for character creation because non-combat skills use their own skill point pool and you can use different attributes for persuasion, but if you resolve a significant number of encounters without a fight (and thus getting no xp at all as a rule), you will definitely regret that later. I'm afraid BG3 might be too much like DOS2 in that.

I'd argue most people start with an idea for a build and then build a character around it.

Also when stat rolling is in lots of people roll till they 16+ in every stat.

You're right, naturally there's nothing memorable about the 1000th character following the same very specific min-maxed build. I made the mistake of using the terms min-maxing (always picking the best options out of all with some specific goal in mind, e.g. 'highest damage per turn') and optimizing (creating a concept and making it work the best you can) interchangeably. Or at least I think that's what the right definitions are. Are they? Does anyone even know?

Anyway, I was thinking more of the latter. For example, let's say your concept is a charming enchanter wizard who's a master of mind-manipulation, reading people and navigating high-society intrigue. As you begin to 'optimize' your build, you figure out you need your Charisma and Wisdom to be reasonably high in addition to Intelligence, which leaves little room for the physical abilities. This prompts you to leave Strength and Constitution in the dumpster, creating a character who's the smoothest talker that ever walked Faerun and folds like a paper crane under hydraulic press as soon as words fail them. Clearly not the "best" built character ever, but definitely memorable I'd say.

This is an extremely good way of phrasing it. You don't have to be a "min/maxer" to want your character idea to be as functional as possible.

Thank you for pointing this out. It really feels like what a lotof the anti-minmaxers are saying is that they consider "being conscious of character stats and building a character with the desire to make them good at the thing they're meant to be good at." Sure, a 14-15 in a primary stat won't make a character unpalayble, but it will be a challenge. One that not every player is going to want to del with for every character. Sometimes that's not the story they want for their character. To bring up the racial ASI issue since I feel like that's an important aspect of this discussion, what if the story you want to tell about an orc wizard isn't about how difficult learning magic was for them? What if you'd rather their difficulty be in being a perfectly fine wizard but clashing with their family over being talented in intelectual pursuits rather than physical ones? Or hell, moving away from the popular orc wizard example, what about a dwarf wizard? Why should they be restricted to stories about their difficulties in magic? Or a dwarven bard who wants to record and share the songs and tales of glory of her people? What's so terrible and min-maxy about wanting them to be as good at the stuff their class does as an elven wizard is at the stuff their class would do?

'Orc Wizard' would soon become a meme of these forums I feel.

Well, first, you can play those things without a plus two in your Int stat. You can still play a dwarf who's good at magic with a 15 Int.

And second, the reason it doesn't work for some folks is because it sullies the setting for an orc to have the same Int as a high elf wizard. Suddenly there's born a ground breaking genius orc, not because it's relevant to the plot or setting, no, but because Johnny just had to be the most unique'est.

If Johnny really wanted to play an orc who was estranged from his community because of his intellectual pursuits, he can still do that without a plus two to his Int. Rather than accepting that and really getting into the role though, Johnny needs to be equivalent to whatever race is greatest at magic because Johnny is Johnny and we all know how Johnny is.

That's why there are quite a few folks who don't necessarily enjoy gaming with Johnny.

"Reducing dnd war games" as some sort of negative is hilarious considering how dnd came about originally.

Also, let's not blame 2e for lack of non combat skill in Bg series. 2e had nonnweapon proficiencea and secondary skills. Bio chose not to use them. That's a bio oversight not a 2e failure. Stop that slander.

Also, you do not need min max to be effective in or out of combat. My favorite character of all time had 0 18s, and this was back when having a 12 ir 13 was not all that useful. Lol

Having 8 sliightly below average. If your character has 8 int you arent brain dead or strength 8 means you aren't some weakling who can't even carry an apple.

Choosing, within the limits of the plausible and with secondary priorities in mind should they exist, ability scores that fit a character's primary competence, is just playing the game with a measure of competence. Not min-maxing.

The racial ASIs are a different matter though. These games work from the principle that being an outlier is more expensive than being average. And the racial ASIs tell us something about the world, namely that the baseline average of a race is different, so a high INT half-orc is more of an outlier than a high-INT human and thus more expensive. The problematic part, from my point of view, is that there seems to be - I don't know this part of the rules, actually - a limit to the level above the average you can buy, regardless of how many points you spend. So that it is actually impossible to make a high-INT half-orc rather than expensive. That I consider undesirable, but "more expensive" is OK. It just reflects that you're more of an outlier. So I'd just remove that attribute limit for everyone. If you want to set everything to 8 and buy INT 18, fine.

Beyond that, unless you want to overhaul the system and remove any extra cost for being an outlier for *everyone*, you can't keep a race's average different from any other's without it also being more expensive to be a non-typically competent member of that race. So what do you want? Do you want to compromise the integrity of your races in terms of worldbuilding in order to make it easier to be a non-typically competent member of a race, or do you want to keep your races intact in terms of worldbuilding but also keep it more expensive to be a good half-orc wizard than a good human wizard. You can't have both. I will almost always prioritize worldbuilding. Unless you really want all races to have the same average ability scores - and why the heck would you ever want that? - you shouldn't remove racial ASIs in character creation.