Thief rogue in BG3 in general is a little OP with its 2 x bonus attack+hand crossbows. Also a Multiclass isn't gonna destroy anything , like 1 to 6 lvls of lvls of Fighter for action surge and archery fighting style, extra attack and an extra feat / ASI... or 3 to 5 lvls of hunter ranger, for horde breaker, hunter's mark, and extra attack, and archery fighting style. But really if you wanted to 8 lvls fighter+ 4 lvls rogue would give 4 Feats/ ASIs just as some ideas. The most attacks in the game though would be 11 lvls of hunter ranger with the Hunter's volley action wielding 2 hand crossbows / and 1 lvl war cleric. this would give you also divine favor which is better then hunters mark or hex since you don't need to move it and it effects all your attacks, even the ones from part of the volley, also gives horde breaker which works with the hunter's volley action. War cleric also allows you to attack as a bonus action with your weapon if part of an attack action, so would use a longbow or heavy crossbow if crossbow expert is available as a feat in full release before you get volley. Before you get to volley you could still be hitting 3 to 4 targets a round. rogues may have the best single target damage, but hunter rangers excel at damaging multiple targets.
Thief rogue in BG3 in general is a little OP with its 2 x bonus attack+hand crossbows. Also a Multiclass isn't gonna destroy anything , like 1 to 6 lvls of lvls of Fighter for action surge and archery fighting style, extra attack and an extra feat / ASI... or 3 to 5 lvls of hunter ranger, for horde breaker, hunter's mark, and extra attack, and archery fighting style. But really if you wanted to 8 lvls fighter+ 4 lvls rogue would give 4 Feats/ ASIs just as some ideas. The most attacks in the game though would be 11 lvls of hunter ranger with the Hunter's volley action / and 1 lvl war cleric. this would give you also divine favor which is better then hunters mark or hex since you don't need to move it and it effects all your attacks, even the ones from part of the volley, also gives horde breaker which works with the hunter's volley action. War cleric also allows you to attack as a bonus action with your weapon if part of an attack action, so before you get to volley you could still be hitting 3 to 4 targets a round. rogues may have the best single target damage, but hunter rangers excel at damaging multiple targets.
Thief rogue is very good, yeah, but I still like assassin better even though it is considered to get much weaker as he levels higher with less useful stuff like crafting disguises...which everyone can do. But that's not my only motivation. I believe the dark urge exclusive gear is designed specifically to give the rogue assassins more bite...A LOT more bite...and I've only seen one of those items. Assassins are designed for big damage on single targets and oh boy do I expect my Dark Urge Assassin to outshine every other rogue class.
Now there are ways to min-max with multiclassing but I hate multiclassing...even in D&D. I loathe the very idea of not reaching highest possible level with one class. Which...I mean probably more relevant in 5e because becoming level 20 of a class can net you some huge life-changing abilities...but I still hate it even when the cap is only 12. I will only do it very briefly via respec once for the achievement then reload previous save from before respec and pretend I never performed the damnable act of multiclassing.
I hate when players absolutely refuse to do any minmaxing. It ruins immersion when you aren't any good at what you are supposed to be good at and most players will naturally minmax to some extent, so a poorly designed character kind of sticks out. That's in a TTRPG.
In a CRPG, I only wonder why anyone would find it interesting to not minmax. I mean, I played a low INT Wizard in a playthrough, but even then I made sure to build something that would work (Shield Dwarf); that was actually a really effective character. You'll barely notice if your Fighter has a 12 INT instead of 8, but if you pulled those points out of STR or CON, you will feel that. I'd rather just toggle difficulty higher and build a good Fighter. It matters less if you are playing alone, but in BG3 you are leading a group of NPCs and are going to do amazing things; you should be first among your peers.
That said, when playing in a group, I don't like the kind of minmaxing that relies on rule quirks to do 10,000 hp damage per round. That's more like exploitation of the rules. Every player should feel like they are contributing the story in an equivalent (obviously not "equal") manner.
I hate when players absolutely refuse to do any minmaxing. It ruins immersion when you aren't any good at what you are supposed to be good at and most players will naturally minmax to some extent, so a poorly designed character kind of sticks out. That's in a TTRPG.
In a CRPG, I only wonder why anyone would find it interesting to not minmax. I mean, I played a low INT Wizard in a playthrough, but even then I made sure to build something that would work (Shield Dwarf); that was actually a really effective character. You'll barely notice if your Fighter has a 12 INT instead of 8, but if you pulled those points out of STR or CON, you will feel that. I'd rather just toggle difficulty higher and build a good Fighter. It matters less if you are playing alone, but in BG3 you are leading a group of NPCs and are going to do amazing things; you should be first among your peers.
That said, when playing in a group, I don't like the kind of minmaxing that relies on rule quirks to do 10,000 hp damage per round. That's more like exploitation of the rules. Every player should feel like they are contributing the story in an equivalent (obviously not "equal") manner.
It depends on what's being defined as min-maxing. You are correct that if a wizard can't do wizard things well or a fighter can't fight very well then what's the point? In my case, what I mean by NOT min-maxing is that while I will try to 'max' the key stat (or two) for my character. I won't tank my other 'non-essential' stats. So, I will rarely ever make a stat lower than 10 in any PC that I create (and never lower than 8). And if that means I have to settle for a 16 or 17 for my main stat, so be it. Typically I'll still have an 18 in my main stat, and have to settle for a 15 or so in my second-main stat. This is NOT min-maxing to me.
I haven't played DnD much, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I have lots to learn in BG3.
I just finished playing a jrpg called Yakuza: Like a Dragon. Excellent game. Like most JRPGs, there's not much role playing though. You're playing a pre-designed character that you can add a little flavor to. The games also focus on combat. Usually, there are few ways to avoid it and if you do, you're likely to not get much in the way of experience. So, growing your character to maximize your damage and defense potential is a big focus in the game. All this being said, while I usually opt to make a highly competent character, if I compare the damage I do at the end of the game to the stats of folks who maximize, I'm not even in the running. I may do 1/2 to 2/3 of the damage they are doing. My focus has always been on story. So I develop the character to be strongly competent in his/her role, but not to the point of letting the story bog down.
The other difference is that jrpgs have the grind mindset. So if you end up weak, they expect you to grind your way to more money, skills, HP, MP, etc. I don't enjoy the grind. I will do it the minimum that I have to in order to move the story forward without getting turned into a grease spot.
To me, as a newb to DnD, it appears that there's no grind mentality plus there are limited moments and ways that you can grow your character. Small decisions seem to have big consequences. If you choose poorly, you could end up with a character(s) that are non-viable in a world that is combat heavy. You have to live (or die) by your choices. So if there are few ways to solve encounters without resorting to violence, AND you can't correct your character development choices with a grind (due to level caps and no random battles), AND you have few moments that you are given an option to modify your character's stats, then in my mind, you'll see more focus/fixation by players on min/maxing.
All this being said, I expect I'll learn the rules for BG3 and develop my character similarly to how I do jrpgs. I want to build a nicely competent character, but I feel no need to maximize my battle prowess. I just want to be good enough that battles aren't too frustrating or impossible for me to survive and I want enough ability to get along with people that I can at least on some occasions, talk my way out of a fight. I guess I'm a "middle road" kind of person, so I build "middle road" kind of characters.
It's a PvE game where the difficulty is easy enough that basically any somewhat-competent build can breeze through combats with a little forethought and preparation. Min-maxing isn't going to take any fun out of it.
It's a single player game where the difficulty is easy enough that basically any somewhat-competent build can breeze through combats with a little forethought and preparation. Min-maxing isn't going to take any fun out of it.
This is D&D though and that may not hold through later in the game. The early levels are generally easy enough even at the tabletop but things tend to get real as you start facing higher level enemies. And early access didn't include any major boss fights like the avatars of the dead three. Combat can get a lot more real. But yes, it is a single player game so anyone can min-max all they like.
I feel like these terms need to be defined so that everyone is on the same page. As I understand them:
Minmaxing: Maxing your primary attributes/gear/abilities at the cost of minimizing things you deem non-essential to your character's primary purpose. A minmaxed character should have a 17 in their primary, a 16 in their secondary, and 8 or 9 in ~two "dump" stats (with Point Buy). They have obvious and devastating weaknesses.
Powergaming: Related to minmaxing, but more about Being Maximally Effective Overall than Being the Best at One Thing. Such a player will choose feats/spells/multiclassing to be the most effective character and focus on using optimal tactics while in combat. They *can and often will* minmax, but it's not a prerequisite. If only some players powergame, combats will be unbalanced and the DM will likely need to compensate somehow.
Munchkining: The more advanced form of powergamer, who makes heavy use of unintended combinations via exploits, loopholes, and vagueness in the rules. A munchkin is a powergamer, but a powergamer isn't necessarily a munchkin.
Optimizing, or "Playing an Effective & Well-Rounded Character": Basically what @Kanisatha describes above. Your primary stat is good (16 with Point Buy), your secondary stats are okay but not necessary amazing (~12-14), and you don't necessarily have multiple dump stats.
Playing a suboptimal, but still effective, character (usually for roleplay reasons): Similar to above, but you *slightly* decrease some of your primary/secondary stats. The focus is more on creating the believable character that you want to roleplay as. I'd argue that there's still a minimum Primary Ability Score that you can have and still be in this category: 14. Anything lower, unless you prepare by e.g., only taking buff/area control spells, and you are...
Gimping your Character: ([In Solo Play] Doing a Challenge Run, or [In Multiplayer] Being an Ineffective Teammate) Building a character that is so unoptimized that they don't pull anywhere near their weight and actively make it harder for the team to succeed. E.g., a Wizard with an Int of 10 or less; a Frontline Fighter with <10 Con; a Monk with <10 Wis. These characters will spend most of their time doing little damage, missing, dying, or dead.
Importantly, none of the above are *necessarily exclusive* with good roleplay. Powergamers can be good roleplayers while suboptimal-character players can be That Guy, and vice versa.
I feel like these terms need to be defined so that everyone is on the same page. As I understand them:
Minmaxing: Maxing your primary attributes/gear/abilities at the cost of minimizing things you deem non-essential to your character's primary purpose. A minmaxed character should have a 17 in their primary, a 16 in their secondary, and 8 or 9 in ~two "dump" stats (with Point Buy). They have obvious and devastating weaknesses.
Powergaming: Related to minmaxing, but more about Being Maximally Effective Overall than Being the Best at One Thing. Such a player will choose feats/spells/multiclassing to be the most effective character and focus on using optimal tactics while in combat. They *can and often will* minmax, but it's not a prerequisite. If only some players powergame, combats will be unbalanced and the DM will likely need to compensate somehow.
Munchkining: The more advanced form of powergamer, who makes heavy use of unintended combinations via exploits, loopholes, and vagueness in the rules. A munchkin is a powergamer, but a powergamer isn't necessarily a munchkin.
Optimizing, or "Playing an Effective & Well-Rounded Character": Basically what @Kanisatha describes above. Your primary stat is good (16 with Point Buy), your secondary stats are okay but not necessary amazing (~12-14), and you don't necessarily have multiple dump stats.
Playing a suboptimal, but still effective, character (usually for roleplay reasons): Similar to above, but you *slightly* decrease some of your primary/secondary stats. The focus is more on creating the believable character that you want to roleplay as. I'd argue that there's still a minimum Primary Ability Score that you can have and still be in this category: 14. Anything lower, unless you prepare by e.g., only taking buff/area control spells, and you are...
Gimping your Character: ([In Solo Play] Doing a Challenge Run, or [In Multiplayer] Being an Ineffective Teammate) Building a character that is so unoptimized that they don't pull anywhere near their weight and actively make it harder for the team to succeed. E.g., a Wizard with an Int of 10 or less; a Frontline Fighter with <10 Con; a Monk with <10 Wis. These characters will spend most of their time doing little damage, missing, dying, or dead.
Importantly, none of the above are *necessarily exclusive* with good roleplay. Powergamers can be good roleplayers while suboptimal-character players can be That Guy, and vice versa.
With those perfectly reasonable definitions, I guess I'm an optimizer rather than a minmaxer FWIW. And as a DM, I think the absolutely worst player to have in a game is a munchkin that is a good roleplayer. That combo is better at breaking a group apart than a munchkin who is a bad roleplayer because they dominate all aspects of the story. In a CRPG, roleplay "skill" doesn't matter, though. I think that naturally pushes you in the "orange" direction, at least moreso than TTRPG.
I feel like these terms need to be defined so that everyone is on the same page. As I understand them:
Minmaxing: Maxing your primary attributes/gear/abilities at the cost of minimizing things you deem non-essential to your character's primary purpose. A minmaxed character should have a 17 in their primary, a 16 in their secondary, and 8 or 9 in ~two "dump" stats (with Point Buy). They have obvious and devastating weaknesses.
Powergaming: Related to minmaxing, but more about Being Maximally Effective Overall than Being the Best at One Thing. Such a player will choose feats/spells/multiclassing to be the most effective character and focus on using optimal tactics while in combat. They *can and often will* minmax, but it's not a prerequisite. If only some players powergame, combats will be unbalanced and the DM will likely need to compensate somehow.
Munchkining: The more advanced form of powergamer, who makes heavy use of unintended combinations via exploits, loopholes, and vagueness in the rules. A munchkin is a powergamer, but a powergamer isn't necessarily a munchkin.
Optimizing, or "Playing an Effective & Well-Rounded Character": Basically what @Kanisatha describes above. Your primary stat is good (16 with Point Buy), your secondary stats are okay but not necessary amazing (~12-14), and you don't necessarily have multiple dump stats.
Playing a suboptimal, but still effective, character (usually for roleplay reasons): Similar to above, but you *slightly* decrease some of your primary/secondary stats. The focus is more on creating the believable character that you want to roleplay as. I'd argue that there's still a minimum Primary Ability Score that you can have and still be in this category: 14. Anything lower, unless you prepare by e.g., only taking buff/area control spells, and you are...
Gimping your Character: ([In Solo Play] Doing a Challenge Run, or [In Multiplayer] Being an Ineffective Teammate) Building a character that is so unoptimized that they don't pull anywhere near their weight and actively make it harder for the team to succeed. E.g., a Wizard with an Int of 10 or less; a Frontline Fighter with <10 Con; a Monk with <10 Wis. These characters will spend most of their time doing little damage, missing, dying, or dead.
Importantly, none of the above are *necessarily exclusive* with good roleplay. Powergamers can be good roleplayers while suboptimal-character players can be That Guy, and vice versa.
Hmm I would be a minmaxer for sure.
I once had a DM that did a house rule that characters had to use his unique very forgiving version of a point buy. The point buy allowed a max score of 20, no minimum score, using a 50 point buy. so the character i made had a intelligence of 2 for a dump stat. The specific thing focused in that build is how big of a bonus to damage could i add. Keep in mind this build had divine smite and eldritch smite. as well, buty was mostly focusing on the flat bonuses to damage. So hexblade made his weapon attacks Cha, also lifedrinker was Cha, and aura of hate from oathbreaker was Cha. with a 20 charisma score. He used a unique weapon called a heavy spear. ( Two handed version of the spear, not meant to be thrown)
The game had a lot of things like mind flayers and such and the big advantage of a 2 int was they couldn't mentally track me. His first magic item was a headband of intellect, so when i was hiding from them i could take it off , and when in combat i would put it back on... even if say an intellect devourer brought my int to 0, the headband kept it set at a 19 int so they couldn't take my body over , unless i took it off before a long rest. The game was planned to go to lvl 20, so the plan for that character was to go 8 lvls oathbreaker paladin /12 lvls hexblade with pact of the blade. I and the dm had it worked out that on the very last battle in the campiagn when we were to fight the campaign's end boss, I Would betray the party and side with the big bad. ( my character was struggling with mental illness from a traumatic loss, that by the end of the game would push him from chaotic neutral to chaotic evil as he finally gives in and embraces the hate and anger inside ( he gets turned to the dark side of the force basically.) during the campaign I was working on the party the whole time recruiting allies for the final fight. I got one person to turn to the darkside with me at the end. One fun feature is the character orginally was paladin of the crown, his family was raped and murdered, and there had been an attempted assassination attempt on him and his other royal guards , as the evil prince took hold of power, and wanted to clear away the kings loyalists. His father had been a good king, but his son the crown prince was jelious of my character when his father found me after scouring the remains of a village that was ransacked. i was just a child them, and the good king adopted me. The prince was jelious because he felt his father loved my character more and became bitter and turned evil and resented his father in secret. so when it became time the prince assumed control of the throne the attempted at my life and my family was also meant to make them an examples saying " this is what happens when you cross him. And he ruled instilling fear into his subjects. The loss of his wife and 5 year old daughter pushed him to such grief and rage that he broke his oath, it is at that time Zehir came down in the form of a talking serpent to promise me power and retribution if I only help him with his issue of attempting again to take over dragonkind and kill tiamat and bruhamut. It just so happened though lol ... that we had a dragonborn war cleric in the party that worshiped Bruhamut. The DM wanted to test how far I would take my character , so he gave me this sentient magic item that gave me enhancements , but the cost was i needed to fuel it with the souls of intelligent creatures. the creature didn't die when it had its soul removed, rather they remained in a vegetative comma stat. So to fuel it I would sneak out of the camp at night and kill a kobold or something with it, the more innocent the soul taken the more powerful its effects. My character did not see this as evil btw , his rage made him justify his actions for the greater good in how he saw things. to him what was the cost of a few innocent lives , to find vengeance, and free his nation of millions. they were sacrifices to the greater good. the morale there is be wary not to become the thing you hate in the search for justice.
I feel like these terms need to be defined so that everyone is on the same page. As I understand them:
Minmaxing: Maxing your primary attributes/gear/abilities at the cost of minimizing things you deem non-essential to your character's primary purpose. A minmaxed character should have a 17 in their primary, a 16 in their secondary, and 8 or 9 in ~two "dump" stats (with Point Buy). They have obvious and devastating weaknesses.
Powergaming: Related to minmaxing, but more about Being Maximally Effective Overall than Being the Best at One Thing. Such a player will choose feats/spells/multiclassing to be the most effective character and focus on using optimal tactics while in combat. They *can and often will* minmax, but it's not a prerequisite. If only some players powergame, combats will be unbalanced and the DM will likely need to compensate somehow.
Munchkining: The more advanced form of powergamer, who makes heavy use of unintended combinations via exploits, loopholes, and vagueness in the rules. A munchkin is a powergamer, but a powergamer isn't necessarily a munchkin.
Optimizing, or "Playing an Effective & Well-Rounded Character": Basically what @Kanisatha describes above. Your primary stat is good (16 with Point Buy), your secondary stats are okay but not necessary amazing (~12-14), and you don't necessarily have multiple dump stats.
Playing a suboptimal, but still effective, character (usually for roleplay reasons): Similar to above, but you *slightly* decrease some of your primary/secondary stats. The focus is more on creating the believable character that you want to roleplay as. I'd argue that there's still a minimum Primary Ability Score that you can have and still be in this category: 14. Anything lower, unless you prepare by e.g., only taking buff/area control spells, and you are...
Gimping your Character: ([In Solo Play] Doing a Challenge Run, or [In Multiplayer] Being an Ineffective Teammate) Building a character that is so unoptimized that they don't pull anywhere near their weight and actively make it harder for the team to succeed. E.g., a Wizard with an Int of 10 or less; a Frontline Fighter with <10 Con; a Monk with <10 Wis. These characters will spend most of their time doing little damage, missing, dying, or dead.
Importantly, none of the above are *necessarily exclusive* with good roleplay. Powergamers can be good roleplayers while suboptimal-character players can be That Guy, and vice versa.
What you described as "minmaxing" is sound closer to the "optimizing" description then the actual minmaxing. Minmaxing can also be, and usually, used in a wider sense, of gameplay that focused not only on maxing your attributes/gear/abilities, but also making all of your in game decisions, including whole character creation, based on the mechanical aspect of the game, with no actual attention given to the roleplay, lore and narrative, or it is build based on the mechanics. That doesn't necessarily imply that they have any "weaknesses", they could have equal number in every stat, if that make them objectively stronger overall. The weaknesses that can occur from minmaxing, its just the game rules trying to shut down that kind of behavior, but it not always works. And Powergaming implying the gameplay where player trying to get more powerful, no matter if that doesn't make sense from the story/roleplay perspective, or it is against sportsmanship towards the other players, and minmaxing as you said could be a part of powergaming, but powergaming is more abstract and wider therm. For example character who making all of his moral decisions on his powergain instead of his character morals
Imho the first three, from the top, should be strictly banned from any good dnd campaign, and, at least, not a main development focus in a video game that based on dnd, as it often happens, especially with the mmo's
What you described as "minmaxing" is sound closer to the "optimizing" description then the actual minmaxing. Minmaxing can also be, and usually, used in a wider sense, of gameplay that focused not only on maxing your attributes/gear/abilities, but also making all of your in game decisions, including whole character creation, based on the mechanical aspect of the game, with no actual attention given to the roleplay, lore and narrative, or it is build based on the mechanics. That doesn't necessarily imply that they have any "weaknesses", they could have equal number in every stat, if that make them objectively stronger overall. The weaknesses that can occur from minmaxing, its just the game rules trying to shut down that kind of behavior, but it not always works. And Powergaming implying the gameplay where player trying to get more powerful, no matter if that doesn't make sense from the story/roleplay perspective, or it is against sportsmanship towards the other players, and minmaxing as you said could be a part of powergaming, but powergaming is more abstract and wider therm. For example character who making all of his moral decisions on his powergain instead of his character morals
Imho the first three, from the top, should be strictly banned from any good dnd campaign, and, at least, not a main development focus in a video game that based on dnd, as it often happens, especially with the mmo's
What you describe as minmaxing sounds more like powergaming to me. Minmaxing, by the "min" part of that phrase, requires you to minimize (i.e., sacrifice) something. So a minmaxed character by defintion should have weaknesses. A character with an equal number in every stat would be closer to my latter categories: suboptimal/challenge character/joke run/gimping your character.
Imo the classic Minmaxed character is a Barbarian with 16 16 16 8 8 8. Strong, dumb, "me-hit-things ragh"! Powerful for certain tasks (hitting enemies and soaking damage) but very weak in any mental situation including Wis STs.
I would only flat out ban munchkining and I'd have a serious talk with anyone who wanted to gimp their character. Powergaming and minmaxing are fine; especially if all players are doing it. But I'll admit that this is at least partially because I enjoy the tactical aspect of D&D/PF games. If you minmax, I'll at some point design an encounter that targets your weakness...and if you get wrecked that's on you.
I like the Dungeon Dudes take here at about 11 min [video:youtube][/video]
Optimized and powerfull characters are fun! When people complain about "powergaming" they are bad dms who don't know how to properly dm and react to their players. They want set pieces that have to follow their orders. Same thing applies to players. You can play off meta builds and that's totally fine, but don't try to controll the other players and make them feel bad you are gimping yourself
I like the Dungeon Dudes take here at about 11 min [video:youtube][/video]
Optimized and powerfull characters are fun! When people complain about "powergaming" they are bad dms who don't know how to properly dm and react to their players. They want set prices that have to follow their orders. Same thing applies to players. You can play off meta builds and that's totally fine, but don't try to controll the other players and make them feel bad you are gimping yourself
I agree. I think DMs who complain about powergaming are usually either poor DMs or unnecessarily dictatorial. However, Munchkins are, in a way, opposing a DM that is trying to tell a non-Munchkin story. We're trying to define the terms here, but the reality is the line between powergaming and Munchkinism is like porn; you know it when you see it but find it hard to describe in the abstract.
Alignment often goes like this, too. Players who are trying to interpret their alignment in an interesting manner are not doing anything wrong and DMs who try to enforce alignment change are usually punishing good roleplay, IMO. It doesn't hurt the game at all if the player interprets alignment some way and does things that appear to be antithetical as long as the player can explain the intent behind it. Hell, if the explanation isn't good, you could still let the player choose alignment and say they are suffering from a delusion or mental illness and it's still no problem usually. I remember in high school a guy who only like to play evil characters because good was boring. When he was DM, he'd force good characters to be boring, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I have played with and DM'd a munchkin - they sucked the life out of the game for the other players, and constantly butted heads about rules/interpretation. It was a miserable experience and NOT about roleplaying. Munchkins (and higher end powergamers) can seldom justify their class building in a way that is consistent with the campaign or world and their place in it. The obsession with dipping into N classes (usually with no clear world/story justification) is an example of that and why I dislike that stye of play. Being 'the best" is all that matters to some, regardless of how it impacts on others. Well, the munchkin died (a little too much arrogance and they bit off more than they could chew) but I find such players toxic - and have been fortunate enough to play with groups later who are more focused on the RP aspects. Simply blaming the other players or DM is pretty arrogant, but to be expected from people with a strong sense of entitlement.
I have played with and DM'd a munchkin - they sucked the life out of the game for the other players, and constantly butted heads about rules/interpretation. It was a miserable experience and NOT about roleplaying. Munchkins (and higher end powergamers) can seldom justify their class building in a way that is consistent with the campaign or world and their place in it. The obsession with dipping into N classes (usually with no clear world/story justification) is an example of that and why I dislike that stye of play. Being 'the best" is all that matters to some, regardless of how it impacts on others. Well, the munchkin died (a little too much arrogance and they bit off more than they could chew) but I find such players toxic - and have been fortunate enough to play with groups later who are more focused on the RP aspects. Simply blaming the other players or DM is pretty arrogant, but to be expected from people with a strong sense of entitlement.
So you have an issue with dips?
Dips are a great way of further dialing in the character fantasy and are fun mechanically.
Is a barb dip for a moon druid strong? Yes. Does it help you fulfill the ideal of playing a primal guardian of nature? Also yes.
Also many if not most lore characters are multiclassed so claiming it breaks rp is pretty silly.
If its your hombrew world that's you prerogative but you should let players know all this in session zero so you bother arnt play a game neither like.
Dips without any RP reason are bad, yes. And if it's just single class feature you're after, it may be better to talk to your DM about switching one your class features for it. Multiclassing is something that should always have a RP justification and it should be rare.
I guess I disagree strongly with a lot the guys said in the video...
The problem isn't min-maxing, but a failure of communication between the GM and each individual player amongst each other. Whether the game be more loose and based around less powerful characters, or "powergaming" to tackle much more intense challenges, that's for the players to decide, and it goes a hell of a lot smoother when they can agree to just what it is that they want.
At the end of the day it's the players who decide which way is the "right" way to play and enjoy the game, the opinions of literally anyone else don't matter.
"This woman has come in contact with Tokyo's manga. She is Unclean and would lead we righteous ones astray."
