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.
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?
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.
I think the thing that gets in my craw mechanically is that as you point out, a non-standard wizard will always be behind from the start of a campaign to pretty much the end, which few campaigns reach anyway. They'll always be behind any party members that do play into a more typical race-class combo. But another thing, I also brought up the example of a dwarven wizard, and I did that for a specific reason - why is that concept such an outlier? Or a dwarven bard? Or an orcish bard? Why is a tiefling fighter an outlier at all? Or a tiefling wizard? Or a tiefling barbarian for that matter? Tieflings can be born into any culture or family, why wouldn't you get a barbarian tiefling that's really good at Barbarian stuff? A halfling cleric? Why can't halflings be just as devout and mystically powerful as any other race? What about a gnomish rogue? What makes them an outlier? When you actually stop and break it down, the 'outlier' combinations become more prevalent than the 'typical' ones, or very near to it.
Dude. Dwarves not being mages is literally a lore thing. In fact, dwarves used to be so anti magic that magic items not based on theur class or race could outright fail and cursed magic items would likely fail to work on them as well.
Halflings weren't as 'devout' fir many racial/cultural reasons including how theur relationship with the halfling pantheon.
Orcs and tieflings are relevztuvely need to being playable but reasons fir what thry can or cannot makes mostly sensible if you actually knew the lore and history. An orc bard is just breaking the race, the culture, the religion, and what sets them a part from.others. A bard is more than musical instruments. An orc is just not charming in the way a bard is supposed to be nor do would an orc approach magic like a bard would. Orcs and other humanoid 'monsters' tended to be witchdoctors, shamans, and the like.
A lot of this stuff is seeped into the foundation of dnd/from lore.
A lot if it was/is to actually different between the different races so when you played a dwarf the experience gameplay wise was different than playing an elf.
Hell, in basic dnd, dwarves, elves, and halflings didn't even classes. Lmao (I'm glad that got changed personally).
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.
I think the thing that gets in my craw mechanically is that as you point out, a non-standard wizard will always be behind from the start of a campaign to pretty much the end, which few campaigns reach anyway. They'll always be behind any party members that do play into a more typical race-class combo. But another thing, I also brought up the example of a dwarven wizard, and I did that for a specific reason - why is that concept such an outlier? Or a dwarven bard? Or an orcish bard? Why is a tiefling fighter an outlier at all? Or a tiefling wizard? Or a tiefling barbarian for that matter? Tieflings can be born into any culture or family, why wouldn't you get a barbarian tiefling that's really good at Barbarian stuff? A halfling cleric? Why can't halflings be just as devout and mystically powerful as any other race? What about a gnomish rogue? What makes them an outlier? When you actually stop and break it down, the 'outlier' combinations become more prevalent than the 'typical' ones, or very near to it.
The "outlier" characters as you call them can be just as powerful and effective than the more common race and class combinations. Do they reach their potential as soon? No, but I don't think they should. They are outliers after all. Yes, you will have fewer feats (if your group plays with them), but that is the price you have to pay.
You don't need to have an 18 in your primary stat at level 4 to be able to play, it's simply not necessary.
I think the thing that gets in my craw mechanically is that as you point out, a non-standard wizard will always be behind from the start of a campaign to pretty much the end, which few campaigns reach anyway.
This says it all.
People want to min/max, not for the character role, but because they don't want to feel like they're behind. It's not the role playing so much as it's the roll playing.
I think the thing that gets in my craw mechanically is that as you point out, a non-standard wizard will always be behind from the start of a campaign to pretty much the end, which few campaigns reach anyway.
This says it all.
People want to min/max, not for the character role, but because they don't want to feel like they're behind. It's not the role playing so much as it's the roll playing.
In my personal experience, when people at an rpg table are mechanically punished for playing out an idea they like, they retreat and withdraw into themselves, but when you allow them to live out the fantasy they wanted and feel like their character is competent while doing so, they relax, open up and the real roleplaying flows out of them naturally.
Have you ever played a campaign feeling the whole time like you're behind? Can you truly say it didn't bother you? I'm not trying to trap you with this question, it's just that you say it's "roll playing rather than role playing" as if those two were entirely disconnected, when I believe they're not. Anything that increases your enjoyment of a character is ultimately good for roleplaying.
I think the thing that gets in my craw mechanically is that as you point out, a non-standard wizard will always be behind from the start of a campaign to pretty much the end, which few campaigns reach anyway.
This says it all.
People want to min/max, not for the character role, but because they don't want to feel like they're behind. It's not the role playing so much as it's the roll playing.
You say that like the to aren't inherently connected. They are. Pretend all you want but the stats and roleplaying are inherently linked. Not just for combat, but for everything. Acknowledging that isn't min-maxing. I find the idea of class dipping like sorcadin or sorlocks pointless and tedious. I don't use charts or plan builds. My favorite class and subclass are archfey pact of the blade warlock, which based on what I've been able to learn in D&D circles is considered a weak subclass and pact boon. I like it because I think fairies and swords are cool. Again, there's a difference between min-maxing and being aware of the numbers and how they affect things.
As to the people commenting on my outlier spiel, I admit I don't know Forgotten Realms lore. All I know of it comes from the player's guide, a bit of the DM manual and a bit of Xanathar's guide. So maybe that's why I don't hold much regard for the lore. I've been under the impression for years that the intent, explicit or not from the core rules is that you're "meant" to create your own setting, and all the flavour stuff is there just as a baseline. And it's a baseline that's really never grabbed me if I'm honest.
You can create your own world, and/or play in the Realms are other pre existing world. Your choice. I've done both. The Realms has a lot of material that leads to depth and more history. Or you can ignore it and make the Realms your own. There is no wrong or right way. I've done both, and both are fantastic.
Minmaxing or no minmaxing - in BG3 both is viable I'd say. No matter what you will do, you will not get to see everything the game has to offer in just one playthrough, so minmax or don't, you will see different parts of the game.
I think this video illustrates well how different players with different priorities ideally can have differents kind of fun - even together.
[quote=Volourn]Dude. Dwarves not being mages is literally a lore thing. In fact, dwarves used to be so anti magic that magic items not based on theur class or race could outright fail and cursed magic items would likely fail to work on them as well.
True Dat
Last edited by Doomlord; 24/07/2310:24 PM.
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
As to the people commenting on my outlier spiel, I admit I don't know Forgotten Realms lore. All I know of it comes from the player's guide, a bit of the DM manual and a bit of Xanathar's guide. So maybe that's why I don't hold much regard for the lore. I've been under the impression for years that the intent, explicit or not from the core rules is that you're "meant" to create your own setting, and all the flavour stuff is there just as a baseline. And it's a baseline that's really never grabbed me if I'm honest.
Ah…I understand the problem. This is actually a problem with D&D. This may a get a little OT, but it’s such an interesting aspect of rule design that I’ll elaborate a bit.
You see, D&D is not a ruleset made to be adaptable to different settings. You can do so with some creativity, but the ruleset has not only no built-in support for it, but it is a ruleset designed for a very specific type of fantasy setting. As such, it does not recognize that a race package, in any adaptable ruleset, can’t be part of the core rules but must be part of a world supplement. The first thing to take away from this is that in BG3, you are not simply playing D&D. You are playing D&D in Faerun, which is a continent of the world of Toril, and in Faerun there are different races with somewhat distinctive traits. If you choose to play as a member of a certain race on Faerun, you are choosing a specific set of advantages and limitations. If you don’t want them, you must play as someone else. It’s not a necessary part of the rules, but it is a fact of the world. It just can’t be easily overridden without adversely impacting the integrity of the world. Now, in tabletop, if I was your GM and you wanted to play a half-orc wizard, there would be two things to consider: first, you would probably NOT feel behind because you’d likely be the only wizard in the group. As opposed to a video game, you would not compare yourself to 10000 players across the world who play human wizards. Instead, you would probably feel rather unique. Second, I am fairly certain I could make it interesting to play this character without having to compromise my worldbuilding.
However, to bring the point home, if you played with me as a GM you would almost certainly not play in the kind of setting easily encapsulated by the D&D ruleset. You would not be able to play half-orcs, elves or dwarves because those do not exist in my settings. Instead, you’d be able to play…..say….a Z’ari mentalist. The Z’ari are a species of sea-dwelling intelligent octopi with psionic powers, whose main polity managed to acquire some surface holdings because they can float and have magic/tech/biology that lets them easily breathe air (heh…I made those up as an example for this post, but they sound cool. I think I’ll keep them). “Mentalist” would also not be a class but just the most fitting term for the set of freely-selectable skills you chose and perhaps an occupation you chose to have within Z’ari culture. Could you adapt the D&D ruleset to include all that? With some creativity, perhaps, but how do you account for the fact that D&D has no way to balance different modes of locomotion? For the fact that this character could plausibly, albeit expensively, buy seven levels of ambidexterity? For the fact if more races than Z’ari and humans existed in this world, they would be certain to have a distinctive morphology as well?
So yes, from the perspective of rule design, race packages are arbitrary. They can be whatever you want. But D&D is not just a ruleset. It is a ruleset and a world type supplement in one package. And from the perspective of worldbuilding for the purposes of roleplaying, races should actually be intrinsically different. Else, why have them in the rules the first place? If race is nothing but an aesthetic choice, then it is also irrelevant if you're a half-orc wizard or a human one.
I think the thing that gets in my craw mechanically is that as you point out, a non-standard wizard will always be behind from the start of a campaign to pretty much the end, which few campaigns reach anyway.
This says it all.
People want to min/max, not for the character role, but because they don't want to feel like they're behind. It's not the role playing so much as it's the roll playing.
In my personal experience, when people at an rpg table are mechanically punished for playing out an idea they like, they retreat and withdraw into themselves, but when you allow them to live out the fantasy they wanted and feel like their character is competent while doing so, they relax, open up and the real roleplaying flows out of them naturally.
Have you ever played a campaign feeling the whole time like you're behind? Can you truly say it didn't bother you? I'm not trying to trap you with this question, it's just that you say it's "roll playing rather than role playing" as if those two were entirely disconnected, when I believe they're not. Anything that increases your enjoyment of a character is ultimately good for roleplaying.
They are not disconnected but I have indeed played characters with 14s and 15s in the primary stats and not once did I feel left out because the game is a roleplaying game and I was playing my role. The +2 versus +3 is not going to significantly affect the game in anyway beyond people like to see big numbers(which is what the whole min/maxing thing is about imo); it's a 5% increase. It will not make or break your game despite how some people feel about it.
I disagree with the sentiment that anything that increases your enjoyment of a character is good for roleplaying, because by that logic I would enjoy playing a god character with 20 in all stats and therefore that's good for roleplay; which it is not.
Just to try and be clear you can enjoy something that is bad; meaning you can like min/maxing or this dumb ASI change and it can still be bad. For example I enjoyed ME: Andromeda but there is no way that game is a good game.
To address the question of is min/max good or bad? Generally it is bad for a game to have a hyper-focus on or to cater to min/max or META. There will always be people that will min/max or do the META but no game should specifically do things for the min/max or META.
I think the thing that gets in my craw mechanically is that as you point out, a non-standard wizard will always be behind from the start of a campaign to pretty much the end, which few campaigns reach anyway.
This says it all.
People want to min/max, not for the character role, but because they don't want to feel like they're behind. It's not the role playing so much as it's the roll playing.
You say that like the to aren't inherently connected. They are. Pretend all you want but the stats and roleplaying are inherently linked. Not just for combat, but for everything. Acknowledging that isn't min-maxing. I find the idea of class dipping like sorcadin or sorlocks pointless and tedious. I don't use charts or plan builds. My favorite class and subclass are archfey pact of the blade warlock, which based on what I've been able to learn in D&D circles is considered a weak subclass and pact boon. I like it because I think fairies and swords are cool. Again, there's a difference between min-maxing and being aware of the numbers and how they affect things.
As to the people commenting on my outlier spiel, I admit I don't know Forgotten Realms lore. All I know of it comes from the player's guide, a bit of the DM manual and a bit of Xanathar's guide. So maybe that's why I don't hold much regard for the lore. I've been under the impression for years that the intent, explicit or not from the core rules is that you're "meant" to create your own setting, and all the flavour stuff is there just as a baseline. And it's a baseline that's really never grabbed me if I'm honest.
I'm not against min/maxing. I'm not against role-playing. And I agree that both can be done at the same time.
That said, I do think they come from different places. I say that as someone who has a strong desire to do both. It's rare that I don't try to optimize my character. If I decide to play a wizard, one of the first things I think is that I need a high intelligence to be good at what I'm doing, and I adjust my stats accordingly. And I'll sketch out for myself a personality and identity based on all of that.
*
As opposed to saying I want to play this character who happens to be a wizard because, say, his family pushed him into his apprenticeship. They wanted the best for him, but he never enjoyed it because it was so hard for him. And he always felt like an underachiever because his parents wanted him to be smarter than he was. So he struggled and he struggled, and eventually he became a first level wizard.
But maybe he always had more of an interest in physical pursuits. He wanted to go out hunting with his friends, using bows, training with the militia.
So now I have a character with a 12 Int and maybe a 14 Str. As the character progresses, maybe he takes a feat learning how to use weapons instead of increasing his Int.
*
These are two very different approaches. Both can be fun. In one, my character excels at what he does. In the other, the game becomes more challenging, and I really have to think about how I'm going to overcome obstacles. I also get to enjoy seeing my character adapt and grow in the world, rather than just pursuing the road to excellence.
*
These two styles don't always get along at the table. The min/maxer can easily get frustrated because the other player isn't carrying their weight effectively. And the non-min/max player can get upset because "it's not all about the numbers, Chad! Stop telling me what feat to get."
I did not read the whole thread, so please forgive me if what I write here has been said before.
One important thing to understand when talking min-maxing is that if you are playing pen and paper d&d the importance of your stats depends hugely on the DM. A good DM (imo) will emphasize on roleplay, making it less important who deals out most damage in combat. I personally preferred playing a druid in our AD&D campaigns knowing very well that the druid was a weak class in relation to the kind of campaigns we did. Nevertheless I never felt bored because I was among friends and I was having a great time roleplaying my character.
In a computer games things are different. You might say that the DM has been substituted with the computer program, and so whether roleplaying can be fun depends hugely on the developers. I get from what has been said that roleplay will be possible in BG3 full release, and that it is not just about combat and reaction rolls, but we'll see. But for whether or not you should be min-max'ing: If you like me enjoy playing on a difficulty level where you have a fair chance of completing the game without optimizing every fight and encounter, and where you can select party members from a peronality/roleplay perspective and still stand a chance against your enemies, I'd say choose roleplay and story over min-max of stats and skills.
If however you like to test yourself on harder difficulty I think it is reasonable to go for min-max, since well it IS a computer game, and how you want to play it is up to you (assuming you play single player). So well I'd say it depends on what you want to get out of the game really.
I think the thing that gets in my craw mechanically is that as you point out, a non-standard wizard will always be behind from the start of a campaign to pretty much the end, which few campaigns reach anyway.
This says it all.
People want to min/max, not for the character role, but because they don't want to feel like they're behind. It's not the role playing so much as it's the roll playing.
You say that like the to aren't inherently connected. They are. Pretend all you want but the stats and roleplaying are inherently linked. Not just for combat, but for everything. Acknowledging that isn't min-maxing. I find the idea of class dipping like sorcadin or sorlocks pointless and tedious. I don't use charts or plan builds. My favorite class and subclass are archfey pact of the blade warlock, which based on what I've been able to learn in D&D circles is considered a weak subclass and pact boon. I like it because I think fairies and swords are cool. Again, there's a difference between min-maxing and being aware of the numbers and how they affect things.
As to the people commenting on my outlier spiel, I admit I don't know Forgotten Realms lore. All I know of it comes from the player's guide, a bit of the DM manual and a bit of Xanathar's guide. So maybe that's why I don't hold much regard for the lore. I've been under the impression for years that the intent, explicit or not from the core rules is that you're "meant" to create your own setting, and all the flavour stuff is there just as a baseline. And it's a baseline that's really never grabbed me if I'm honest.
I'm not against min/maxing. I'm not against role-playing. And I agree that both can be done at the same time.
That said, I do think they come from different places. I say that as someone who has a strong desire to do both. It's rare that I don't try to optimize my character. If I decide to play a wizard, one of the first things I think is that I need a high intelligence to be good at what I'm doing, and I adjust my stats accordingly. And I'll sketch out for myself a personality and identity based on all of that.
*
As opposed to saying I want to play this character who happens to be a wizard because, say, his family pushed him into his apprenticeship. They wanted the best for him, but he never enjoyed it because it was so hard for him. And he always felt like an underachiever because his parents wanted him to be smarter than he was. So he struggled and he struggled, and eventually he became a first level wizard.
But maybe he always had more of an interest in physical pursuits. He wanted to go out hunting with his friends, using bows, training with the militia.
So now I have a character with a 12 Int and maybe a 14 Str. As the character progresses, maybe he takes a feat learning how to use weapons instead of increasing his Int.
*
These are two very different approaches. Both can be fun. In one, my character excels at what he does. In the other, the game becomes more challenging, and I really have to think about how I'm going to overcome obstacles. I also get to enjoy seeing my character adapt and grow in the world, rather than just pursuing the road to excellence.
*
These two styles don't always get along at the table. The min/maxer can easily get frustrated because the other player isn't carrying their weight effectively. And the non-min/max player can get upset because "it's not all about the numbers, Chad! Stop telling me what feat to get."
You just very cleanly demonstrated my earlier point about equating "caring about the numbers" with min-maxing. Again, to me min-maxing is milking every aspect of the system to maximise relevant stats. Not saying "I want to be a wizard with high intelligence." Because there is a vast gulf between those two things. In the interest of having a fruitful discussion, how would you describe min-maxing? I don't want to be arguing against an imaginary version of your argument.
You just very cleanly demonstrated my earlier point about equating "caring about the numbers" with min-maxing. Again, to me min-maxing is milking every aspect of the system to maximise relevant stats. Not saying "I want to be a wizard with high intelligence." Because there is a vast gulf between those two things. In the interest of having a fruitful discussion, how would you describe min-maxing? I don't want to be arguing against an imaginary version of your argument.
For me minmaxer in regards to BG3 are those people who say that you can only play optimal race/class combinations and that everything without maxed primary stat suck, are unplayable, not competent or less hyperbolic, have to constantly struggle, because they miss out on 5% success chance.
Although I would also count people who for example use respec to go in and out of multiclassing depending on what is more optimal like fextralife suggested or use respec to dump a stat once they found a "set stat to 19" item.
You just very cleanly demonstrated my earlier point about equating "caring about the numbers" with min-maxing. Again, to me min-maxing is milking every aspect of the system to maximise relevant stats. Not saying "I want to be a wizard with high intelligence." Because there is a vast gulf between those two things. In the interest of having a fruitful discussion, how would you describe min-maxing? I don't want to be arguing against an imaginary version of your argument.
Min/maxing is somewhat like pornography, in that I know it when I see it.
If I had to offer a definition, I'd say it exists on a spectrum of optimization. It begins with: the character dictates an optimized main stat. That alone rules out a ton of potential character concepts.
The min/maxing becomes more pronounced as other key stats are played with. A dump stat is picked based on how useful that stat is mechanically. And other stats are raised for their mechanical value. As opposed to assigning the stats based on the character imagined.
Feats are weighed and balanced based on effectiveness as opposed to character personality.
*
And character personality is tricky. Some folks will inevitably say, "But my character's personality is that he wants to be great at spellcasting, so he picks stuff to be great at spellcasting, and he naturally happened to be gifted in that area."
Okay, sure. But if your whole character concept is "greatness" with a dump stat to stand in for a "flaw" then you might be min/maxing.
Which came first, the stats or the concept?
*
Have you ever been in a DnD game when the DM gave you some downtime? And then the players start saying things like, "I spend my time training!"
That's great, but it's also one of those things that's easier said than done. It's like a New Year's Resolution. Plenty of folks make them, but not very many keep them. In a game, it's easy to say your character is that dedicated, but it often comes across as unrealistic and thus flat and one dimensional.
*
So, again, I'd say that min/maxing is really just a spectrum of optimization. Some min/maxing is at the intense end of the spectrum and some is lighter.
*
All of that said, I don't think there's anything wrong with min/maxing. I really like doing well in combat. I have fun with the combats.
I also like the roleplaying. Sometimes I min/max, and sometimes I don't. Both ways are fine in my book.
And for what it's worth, I find min/maxing especially understandable in a video game setting when you're playing against an AI.
...use respec to go in and out of multiclassing depending on what is more optimal like fextralife suggested or use respec to dump a stat once they found a "set stat to 19" item.
Sorry for the double post, but I just saw this comment.
What Fextralife suggested left my jaw dropped. I could never do that. Respec'ing throughout the game like that is way beyond my capacity to min/max.
The only way I would ever use respec would be to do testing for things I was interested in. I don't think I'd ever actually do it on character I was actually playing.
For me minmaxer in regards to BG3 are those people who say that you can only play optimal race/class combinations and that everything without maxed primary stat suck, are unplayable, not competent or less hyperbolic, have to constantly struggle, because they miss out on 5% success chance.
Although I would also count people who for example use respec to go in and out of multiclassing depending on what is more optimal like fextralife suggested or use respec to dump a stat once they found a "set stat to 19" item.
That sums it up pretty well I think.
Of course anyone is free to do as they please in single-player, but in multiplayer it could become an issue just as it would be disruptive at the table unless everyone agreed to min/max.
I think the thing that gets in my craw mechanically is that as you point out, a non-standard wizard will always be behind from the start of a campaign to pretty much the end, which few campaigns reach anyway.
This says it all.
People want to min/max, not for the character role, but because they don't want to feel like they're behind. It's not the role playing so much as it's the roll playing.
I don't know that is the only reason. I can see that as a reason but defiantly not the only reason. For one I Have Asperger syndrome, its basically high functioning autism. I don't min/max because i want the limelight at all, that has never been a reason. I just like making effective, efficient specialized characters. To me character generation is one of my top three things in Dnd , more then the role playing aspect that a lot of you like. I am not really big on diplomacy, to me sometimes its a means to an end, but i never rely on it. I prefer combat, if you look back to the start of dnd it was meant as a game of strategic combat, not diplomacy. Diplomacy maybe how you start encounters, but it still a secondary thing compared to combat in DnD as a whole. Third my last favorite thing in dnd is really just watching the character i mapped out before it ever got put in a game reach its potential.
I generally start thinking of a character starting at lvl 20 and work backwards to lvl 1, and how it work back up to lvl 20( or whatever the lvl cap is for the game i am playing .) Asking what lvl the game will end at is always my first question to the DM. Because i can't even start a character til I know that. I start with class, then race, then i focus on ability scores. But the whole idea is to just focus on a single aspect. That may make them great in a specific situation, but I will say it again... there is a saying "too much specialization breeds in weakness." And trust me , if you multiclassing there will be some lvls your behind , normally in areas like ASIs, but sometimes you can catch up.
It takes me on average in a dice and paper table top game an average of a week to make 1 character, because so much thought goes into it, that and i write out every skill ,feature, spell or ability they get from lvl 1 to 20 on the sheet as notes. I even go through and do spell list from lvl 1 to 20. I plan it out 1 character lvl at a time, that includes spells i am adding and spells i am replacing. Then just notate when the spell , ability feature so on became active or inactive, thats what i meant by "mapping a character out." I have played Dnd since 1st edition when i was like 8 years old. For me I know what combinations are or are not effective. I might make adjustments to my mapped out character as I go along , but most of the time it stays as written. when i write a backstory, my backstory has a backstory. This allows me to go past my story to even deeper into character. writing the backstory for me is the easy part.
While i do min/max, i like it there are people that are more into diplomacy or mental puzzles. A character shouldn't be good at everything, but should excel at what there focus is. Also a party shouldn't all be good at the same things, everyone should have their own specializations, the thing that gives them value in the party, because the game is meant to be a team effort. Also because that means i don't have to do the parts i hate, I let them do it. But when it comes to combat, thats what all my characters are built for.
I’m gonna RP a Rogue half drow, while wood elf is sooo overpowered: they get longbow, perception and stealth proficiency on top of a movement speed bonus. And you can just “paint” a wood elf to appear as a drow, but it will still show you real race in character sheet and you won’t get dialogue reactions as a drow would.
For a min maxer, majority of classes should just pick wood elf, the strongest race in BG3.
