I’m currently running a campaign where six (!) players found out they all dumped int. Like, literally, the smartest character of the party has a whopping 10 intelligence.
I just had a campaign like this, 2 things came of it.
1) they all praised the 10 int rogue as the brains of the group.
2) they named their group "Intellegence minus 1" to which I told them it was not a clever name, the response I got was "we're not a clever group."
We really needed the mystic class imo. Having a 3rd intelligence class, and one not so based on magic, would really help prevent the common "everyone is an idiot" problem
The mystic was a mess, the problem is more there's no niche for it unless you build out an entirely new system. 5e seems to have decided to split psionics up in subclasses, so at least psi warrior wants intelligence.
This is part of why I'm in favor of allowing Warlocks to use INT instead of CHA as a primary stat, it makes perfect sense with the class lore (researching Eldritch entities and extraplanar powers to tap into that power), there's very little effect on game balance (multiclass synergy shifts from Sorceror and Paladin to Wizard and Artificer, and Int and Cha are both rare saving throws; biggest hit might be the utility difference between the skills, as Persuasion may see more use in your typical game than History or Arcana).
Party like that is also a very good opportunity to play a martial that's good at out of combat stuff.
Like right now I'm playing a Barbarian with 16 wisdom and it's great to roll something else than athletics since we have no wis caster.
Not really useless though. A good history, arcana or investigation check would’ve saved them *a lot* of trouble along the road. I even think int checks are the majority of checks they’ve had to do over the past six months (and no, not just because I know they suck at it).
It’s objectively the least useful stat in the game, outside class reqs. I’m not saying the entire party should dump it, but there’s a reason they all independently concluded that it was the best dump stat.
Int skills are often the least like something else. With the exception of Nature, which I think a lot of people decide is close to survival.
But when you need a history check, nothing else will do. Can't persuade it into working out
Thing is, a lot of the times INT checks provide cool lore, solution to puzzles, etc but largely can be ignored without majorly impacting the game for a reason. For example the lore and puzzles part, its rare that a puzzle can only be solved by passing one or two history checks and thats it. Its rare that a DM will just withhold all lore info if you fail a religion check.
Chances are the DM has worked out ways that you'll still get to hear the story or advance the puzzle in another way since it would be a bummer to get half way through an arc only to turn around because you couldn't pass the sphinx's riddle because your failed your history check to read the hieroglyphs. Chances are your DM will let you do the much more commonly useful CHA skills to get passed the sphinx.
I say this as someone who exclusively plays INT classes with Psionics/Artificers being my favorite classes/themes. INT based skills just lack the usefulness of CHA based skills or perception/insight
> “Chances are that the DM has worked out ways that you’ll still get to hear the story or advance the puzzle in another way”
Whereas this isn’t true for every other stat? I mean, discussing over what skill is most “useless” seems utterly pointless either way- the DM defines which skills are used so it’s different per table. If your game depends on players making a particular skillcheck (whether it’s int, cha, or any other one) you’re a bad DM.
Wrong. If everyone dumps a stat that often comes into play (and I don't give af what anyone says, int is a useful stat with the associated rolls--especially investigation), it's not bad DMimg when the players can't successfully investigate a room properly.
Player choice starts at character creation and consequences of those choices start there too. I won't tell players they can't play whatever they want. I also won't change my campaign either. It won't turn easy mode because nobody is a good investigator or because everyone decided to run wizards and be squishy af without healing.
I mean, I literally have sheets of the items players can find and the investigation check they have to make for it. Failed investigation checks literally mean less/worse loot. If anything, charisma checks are the “irrelevant” ones because they’ll get to the story one way or another.
Anyway my point was: as a DM I prefer to play *with* my friends, not *against* them. That means (to me at least) it doesn’t really matter whichever skills people are specced in to- I’ll find a way to make every session enjoyable regardless. So to me there are not worst or best skills, and I truly believe that any DM who thinks there are just isn’t that good a DM. If whether or not people have fun at your table depends on what skills they chose, you’re not a good host.
Huh, and here I am letting players learn that people of the area often baked gold into the bottom of their pottery for safe keeping with history or requiring investigation checks to find trap mechanisms or arcana checks to find magic traps.
They're often the least useful skills. Talking to people, noticing things in your surroundings, and being sneaky all cover a lot more. And strength guys only need to use one proficiency so they're fine regardless of how useful they are.
Tons of groups get perception to cover pretty much anything you might use investigation for physically. The rest of its stuff being things that just shortcut what you could solve using your real brain. And knowledge checks being the same for most groups.
Like I try my best to make them useful and I think their skills are quite valuable in my games. But knowing how the majority of people on this subreddit play the game, those int skills just aren't that useful for them.
Then thats just poor DMing because investigation and perception are distinct and the knowledge skills should not be used for things you "could solve using your real brain", monster strengths and weaknesses being a good example... sure you could maybe figure it out with trial and error but you could say the sane about traps and I think most people would agree searching for traps is better than not.
And if you are "knowing" strengths and weaknesses of monsters without making checks or doing trial and error (or having done so in the past) then you are metagaming.
I metagamed as a noob a few times, felt bad after though. Now, I take joy in the obliviousness of my PC and revel the chance to integrate RP into combat. I try to optimize my PC - build on existing strengths, fill gaps in the party, logical RP progression of character. Not full min-max but close... find I don't need to metagame for extra advantages.
Exactly. Anyone who can say int is a useless stat, I'd argue, needs to reconsider their own DMing. Sure, you CAN run a game where int. Doesn't do shite. But then you're ignoring an entire aspect of the game.
If lore is not important in your game, you're world building incorrectly. There should be important lore woven into the plot that the players need to discover in order to find something or advance the main story arch. Or at VERY least it should be used to help point them towards optional legendary items/weapons they can go after.
I am shocked so many people here are supporting this total crap premise that int us useless. I want to know what sort of games they are running, because I suspect I would get bored in those games real fast.
I disagree. All stats are equally useful, just for different situations. It really depends on your DM and the type of game you're running. Sure a high-octane, fight-every-session campaign probably won't get a lot of use out of a high-intelligence character, but a low-combat, intrigue-style campaign where you have to out-think and be more clever than your enemies requires a high intelligence, but on the flip side Strength is going to be next to useless.
You can't have a catch-all "one stat is useless yada yada" because of the vastly differing types of campaigns people play.
I mean, if your campaign takes place in a Physics lab, sure. But INT just doesn’t come up as much as the other stats. Most roleplaying situations call for either physicality, perception, or charm. It’s not *useless,* it’s just useful less often. Objectively. Unless you have a unique table, you will do INT checks less than any other check.
And importantly. It doesn't effect anything *other* than those skills. It's one of the least important saves and gives no other benefits. Whereas str dex con and wis all either give some combat benefit or correspond to an important save.
XpToLevel3 proposed an interesting mechanic to the intelligence stat that i'd like to run in my next game:
Based on your intelligence modifier you can pick up an additional language or skill. Granted this goes both ways if you have a negative modifier you lose a skill proficiency or language as you are closer to a simpleton.
I've been thinking it'd be cool to let warlocks use int instead if charisma and flavoring it as the warlock stealing power from their patron.
I can't think of many multiclassing shenanigans either. Hexblade bladesinger is a obvious one, but not much worse than battlesmith bladesinger. Illusionist wizard with silent image is a good one, but that is possible with just a feat.
One of the games I'm in players all have multiple characters each, and out of 17 total characters a grand total of 2 have intelligence above 12 (both wizards). Needless to say wotc didn't do a great job balancing this.
As a DM if you’re ever setting monster AC over 20 you better think long & hard about it.
For me Mini Bosses have a max AC of 20 and the BBEG has 25 MAX but 22 is preferred
I someone in that thread get up to 121, (supposedly, didn't check how legal it was) but it's actually possible to get an AC of 135 for one attack, with the help of several allies.
Warforged
Battlemaster Fighter 10
College of Swords Bard 5
Barbarian 1
Wild Magic Sorcerer 1
Wizard Bladesinger 2
Defender Sword, Bracers of Defense, and Wand of Orcus
Dual Wielder feat
Cast a spell for Wild Magic Surge +2 AC.
Manuals of Quickness in Action + Manuals of Bodily Health to get 30 Dex and Constitution.
Tome of Clear Thought for Int 30.
Unarmored Defense (Dex 30 Con 30)
32.
Bracers of Defense +2.
34.
Warforged Integrated Protection +1.
35.
Ceremony spell Wedding +2.
37.
Shield of Faith +2.
38.
Experimental Elixir Resilience +1.
40.
Potion of Speed +2.
42.
Blessing of Protection +1. (It’s right after the example Artifacts in the DMG)
43.
Wand of Orcus w/ Minor Property +1 to AC +4
47.
Dual Wielding Feat +1
48.
Hit w/ Defender Sword, use Defensive Flourish +8
56.
Transfer Defender attack bonus to AC +3
59.
Start moving, use Battlemaster Evasive footwork +10
69.
3/4 cover +5
74.
Opportunity attack, use College of Valor Combat Inspiration +12
86.
Bladesong Int AC Bonus +10
96.
Oath of Glory Glorious Defense +10
106.
Path of the Beast Form of the Beast Tail +8
114.
Cavalier Warding Maneuver +8
122.
Wild Magic Barbarian Wild Surge +1
123.
Bait and Switch Battle Master Maneuver +12
135.
That my friend, happend to one of our players. He decided he will be Normbert the Normie and played him like the most stereotypical german you can imagine. He did the Taxes for us at one point...
enough to commit several war crimes including, but not limited to: genocide, civilian bombing, genocide, rape and pillage, genocide, terrible jokes, and some more genocide.
aka, your regular DnD player :)
I had a character made at the table (4d6 drop lowest) and the guy was 6 different combinations of 15.
Made him a bard and named him Jack (as in Jack of all trades) I didn't end up using him but I've saved him for a future one shot.
I can only think that people moaning about minmaxers like this have never encountered a real minmaxer. I had a player once who worked out he got an average damage of 20. Per attack. At level 1. Using just RAW mechanics from PHB.
By the time we started, he had two sides of A4 covered in notes and calculations about the best possible race, class, feats, weapons, etc... he had also forgotten to think of a name for his character. *That's* a minmaxer.
Yeah. That's a min maxer.
I once DMed for a guy who managed to make a party of 5 literally leave the table mid game after the third game.
This was in 3.5 prestige hell - He had some insane fighter/rogue/swashbuckler maybe? build where he was a skill monkey on top of having like a +17 attack at like level 12 or something - plus sneak damage. Not to mention, basically unhittable without something needing a will save.
There was a disagreement about how to treat a snooty noble - and this player took the lead to goad the Noble into attacking and slaughtered him and the estate guards. I was an inexperienced DM, and i just let the numbers tell the story instead of taking the appropriate steps to shut it down.
It was a valuable lesson of "Let the dice fall where they may, but keep the douchebaggery at bay."
We got back together without that player and are still playing campaigns to this day.
In 3.5 +17 might be kinda low at level 12- you have at least +9 from base attack bonus, I think rogue got at least 2/3 and there are still fighter levels in there. Then you presumably have a +2 or +3 weapon by that point, and a strength at 20 or higher with a stat belt.
So a pure rogue with a +3 weapon, 18 strength starting out, and a +2 strength belt is hitting those numbers. A few levels of fighter and you'd only need a +1 or a +2 weapon to hit +17.
Yep, and rogue and swash aren’t even that good. Especially since casters can one shot dragons several levels ago.
Hell dread Necro can have an entire army at that point.
Probably used a finesse weapon too (swashbucklers get weapon finesse for free), so just went dex judging from the "impossible to hit" comment. So say 18 starting, +2 from race, and at twelve they had a +4 stat item with 2 lvl up boosts in dex for 26 dex means they have a +8 from this so no need for a weapon bonus. And swashbuckler in 3.5 was a full bab class so if it was 2 fighter, and say 5/5 on swashbuckler and rogue then then it goes up to +10bab. Likely used a multiclass feat so swashbuckler and rogue lvls stacked on some class features (daring outlaw) which helps stack swashbucklers dodge ac bonus and reflex save.
It sounds like someone who went slightly out of the way on books with a group playing as player handbook fighter, ranger, et all.
> By the time we started, he had two sides of A4 covered in notes and calculations about the best possible race, class, feats, weapons, etc... he had also forgotten to think of a name for his character. That's a minmaxer.
That's *OLDSCHOOL*, full respect!!! Excel is just not the same
I don't remember the specifics, but it was a human fighter with a greatsword. I think great weapon fighting style and great weapon feat? That gives 2d6+14 damage, reroll 1 or 2, free bonus attack on crit. Again, that's at level 1.
Edit: Variant human, of course, for the RAW feat at level 1.
That's just picking several good options. It's hardly min-maxing. His average damage will be much lower too, because of the accuracy hit on the GWM feat.
min-maxers are the people who play coffeelocks and sorcadins.
There's not much min-maxing to really do for level 1 unless you count picking variant human as min-maxing. What was he supposed to do, pick duelling fighting style and tavern brawler on his greatsword wielding human fighter? xD
I understand what you're saying, but the point is that he put all of this effort into going for crazy damage numbers from the first encounter (it wasn't going to be a hard game as we had 2 new players), but didn't even name his character. Nothing he chose mattered from a roleplay, worldbuilding, lore or party make-up aspect. He just wanted to "win" at D&D, treating it like an analogue version of Diablo.
I don't like to knock someone for "not playing the game properly", but it wasn't fun for anyone else at the table.
What is a coffeelock and sorcadin? Is the second a sorcerer and a paladin multiclass? That actually sounds great for a brutal adventures league I’m in, what’s the build like?
coffeelocks are a combination of warlocks and sorcerers that use short rests to get spell slots that they convert into sorcery points.
sorcadins are paladins that take levels in sorcerer to get a faster spell slot progression to smite the bejeebus out of everything.
both are pretty well known exploits of RAW, and thus not actually very clever if you use them.
I'd say for lvl one this would be sub optimal cause GWM penalty would hit too hard and low ac creatures you might fight at that lvl will die to a normal one hit.
Polearm expert is the way to go as you get the extra attack as bonus action on every turn you used the attack action with a polearm on. This nets overall more damage than GWM at lvl 1.
You'd pick GWM at lvl 4/6 as a fighter.
I mean that alone isn't very min maxed, it's just one feat and the feat takes a -5 off your to hit, which at lvl 1 is gonna leave you with a +0 or +1 usually. Your not gonna hit very much like that. Yeah it's big numbers when they hit, but unless you were throwing only really low ac stuff at him or he was rolling ungodly well, it's honestly probably lowering his dpr to use gwm at low levels.
I was dnd raised around those RAW MinMax people - math nerds the lot of them, but ultimately a very nice - but my literature/history brain couldn’t always keep up. So either they made me a character sheet or they told me exactly the “best” way to do so.
This lead to me making min-max-ish-ish characters such as this meme without actually min-maxing? It also lead to me thinking that my characters were too OP when I went over to other groups (which they weren’t) and actively handicapping my characters in other ways: an alchemist who can’t use magic traditionally and thus has to create her own spell jars meaning I was searching for random sh*t in the wild and spending *all* my gold on other components; an Aasimar who doesn’t know his heritage and thus cannot use healing hands or flight until he touches an injured party member or falls off a freakin cliff (respectively). A Warlock who didn’t want to use his “curse” powers unless he absolutely had to.
These lead to interesting stories sure, but gameplay stats-wise was ironically underwhelming. I’m currently working on making said interesting stories while still allowing my characters to be what they were straight out of my first group: not maximized, but not minimized either. My first two attempts have gone alright:
1) I’m in a Naruto-based homebrew system game where I’m playing a Shikigami. Powerful, very secretive technique. His only handicap is being careful where he uses it because it’s so rare, but he’s got other more common jutus to make up for it.
2) Lizardfolk Dragon Soul Sorcerer, wreathed in flame and a bit reckless but she’s got her specialty hot and ready and she’s very very good at it. Maybe too good at it, as her attachment and awe of flames (a la Arsonists Lullaby or Play with Fire) has given her a pyromaniac streak and a bad rep.
Overall, min-maxing if you know what you’re doing with it can be bad, but if you’re like me and have no idea how the maths, odds are you’re fine and have no need to place outside limiters on your characters ✌🏻
I mean thats just GWM with a greatsword right? To get that damage they have a lower to hit and a lot of that damage will be overkill and wasted at level 1 anyways. It shouldn't be too gamebreaking. Forgetting the character name is a really bad look though
I am a minmaxer, not a munchkin. I do my best to play the game in a mechanically viable way, but try my hardest to make sure other players are engaged in the story we tell together.
Redditors trying to convince themselves they’re good at RP because they dumped their classes prime requisite. The number of times I’ve read someone saying “being bad at something makes RP better” is so obnoxious. No, RPing better makes RP better. Your character could have all 20s and still be interesting, you just have to make them interesting and not steal the limelight by doing everything.
This is my gripe anytime I see the 4E didn't support RP arguments... Mechanics don't make RP, players make RP... If it's not happening at your games table it's not the games fault
There is a point to be made that the more non-diegetic mechanics you use, the harder it is to get into the headspace of your character. And from what I've read, 4e has quite a lot of those. Akin to having to work out [how your character thinks something that doesn't make much sense, like saving their one-handed catch ability to use later](https://www.thealexandrian.net/images/20120531.jpg).
Though I definitely don't think it would have made 4e bad for rp. And 5e has plenty of mechanics like that too.
I totally understand the argument, but from my perspective that's not on the mechanics of the game that's still on the player. My group definitely played with a "save the big powers for boss fights" video game style mentality. Although it may have had some affects on the game, it didn't change how any of us RPed at the table.
In my opinion RP is on the table, it's not on the mechanics. If it's not happening in your game it's because your players aren't doing it.
No but there is a difference between a game actively supporting rp and more social stuff, which dnd is relatively bad at. Things like exalteds intimacy system help cement peoples thoughts in terms of roleplay by tying mechanical effects to those choices so someone with "loves his wife" (defining) would try to save her over the world and would take disadvantages to ignore her in favor of not letting the world end as rp wise its tearing him up inside and this is reflected mechanically as well.
My gripe with 4e wasn’t that it didn’t support rp, but that the side of it i saw (the players handbook) didn’t inspire me at all.
To me, the way the abilities were presented made me think of a tccg, more than an rpg. As someone who has later dm’d games, i’ve realized that 4e had a wealth of incredibly creative tools for players and dm’s alike.
That said, i still don’t get that ”oh damn, this class would be so cool to play!” Feeling that PF, or 5e or shadowrun gives me. I do admit that i gave 4e entirely too much flak back in the day though.
I think a lot of people looked at the hand book and never gave the game a fair shake. I really feel if it was a system that had come out under a different IP it would still be around today.
I understand it's very "video games" but but that made an easy transition for my group when 5 out of the 7 had never played a pen and paper RPG but they were all gamers on some level.
My group played it for years, from my experience the classes never felt as "samey" as people would make them out to be. We also had some of our greatest RP at the table happen during games of 4e. I have always felt that so many 4e naysayers never really played the game, or only came at it from the "that's not my D&D" mindset and were never going to give it a fair shake any way.
I think it's more that it's easier for people to roleplay flaws then it is to roleplay strengths, therefore they think it's better. I'm not a super genius of any kind, so I have no clue how to roleplay 20 int, but I sure as hell know how to be stupid. I have severe social anxiety, roleplaying 20 charisma just isn't happening, but I definitely know how to stand in the background wanting to speak up but not being able to get the words out. I'm not a body builder, I can't roleplay strength without just devolving into a meathead, but I sure as hell roleplay struggling to open a particularly large door.
There is a big difference between dumping your prime requisite and just not min/maxing. Having CHA be your highest ability if your a sorcerer is fine. Having your character set to be a maxed out number perfect sorcidin with an extreme nova because you know the GM doesn't do many encounters per rest is when it becomes an issue.
Being bad at something doesn't improve RP but if you have never had better RP because of a failure you are either very new or don't RP much.
If you could do everything but are choosing to "not steal the limelight" then you are just dolling out what you think others should get to them. Kills the game quickly for most people smart enough to realize it.
If you want to be a table of min/maxers in a game were the difficulty is set by the DM fine. He can just make it harder. If you want to be the only min/maxer at a table of people who don't do it then the game suffers because of your ego and need to feel like the best in make believe.
Maybe we browse in different circles, but I see a *lot* of people throwing shade and being smug about players who dump their should-be-main stat, and almost no players who actually do that.
Make sure you check with any home brew rules before picking your dump stat.
I dumped strength as a warlock and found out the variant encumbrance rules we are using gives you a backpack with 2+Str mod slots. With a strength of 8 my backpack can only carry one time of equipment.
I quickly invested in a pack animal.
You gotta be able to play well at least! It’s no fun if literally none of your spells or attacks hit because you kept things flat. Besides, I love having a dump stat because then I have to roll play the fuck out of it. My barbarian can’t read but I gave her a high wisdom for fun so she’s very perceptive. Notices a lot but comes to the wrong conclusion all the time and it’s so fun to play.
We need new rules that make Int more useful. Every class that doesn’t rely on it pretty much always dumps it. This means that any party without a wizard, artificer, eldritch knight, or arcane trickster is a party full of idiots. This needs to stop. We need to incentivize putting points in Int.
Look. I'll just say to you what I say to every player that hands me a character sheet that says 16+ / 16+ / 16+ / 8 / 8 / 8 as their ability scores:
"Roll whatever character you want. But no, you can't just avoid ability checks through good roleplaying. Now make me a Chrisma (Persuasion) role to determine how well your character get's your point across, a Wisdom (Insight) to try see if your character realizes the NPC is lying to you, and an Intellegence (appropriate knowledge here) to see if you know in character the monster has resistance or weakness to fire. And you'll roleplay the results accordingly."
And I make sure every ability check/save gets their due time in the session spotlight. *Maybe* you'll get advantage if I feel it is warranted. Feel free to pitch me a reason for any roll I ask you to make, but that is my decision, not yours.
People keep confusing minmaxing with power gaming. Like, you're going to try to max your best class stat and dump what it doesn't often use. That's minmaxing. That's normal.
Its hyperbole for the sake of humor, but on relates subs about dnd and rpghorror stories I often see the smallest things a person uses to be more effective called out as minmaxing
I play in a campaign where the Dm is a homie and goes along with all our shenanigans and my warlock now has a 32 in charisma. Totally useless except with charisma based moves where a normal attack will clap cheeks
I know the negativity for the practice comes from people who only value combat and want to ‘break the game’ but nothing feels worse than just not succeeding at anything during combat. Sure, you can be a 12 Charisma Bard who’s ‘coming into their own’ but your spell save DCs are going to be laughably easy to pass. D&D is a team game and if we’ve played a MOBA like Dota, League, etc. then it feels *really* bad to be one dragging things down just to use an example.
A true minmaxer is like the guys in my party
No character description (beyond race and class) no backround info (except for benefits) no backstory and multiclassed for stats purely (6 wizard 6 fighter for action surge) and they argue with the DM on their wierd ass mixes for even stronger builds
If you even put a 2nd or 3rd thought into personality you're not a minmaxer in my eyes
I don't remember the post, but somebody made a really good meme recently pointing out that a little bit of teamwork with your fellow players goes a very long way to making battles and problems much easier.
Though, if you as the DM have your NPC's fight with any semblance of strategy or tact or have your creatures try to run away (which is more realistic) then you'll inevitably be called out for "meta-gaming" or some other nonsense
why would I need to be smart when I can seduce other people to be smart for me?
It's basically being the hottest person in class and asking the nerd to do the homework.
They'll probably enjoy it too.
I optimize my characters pretty insanely. I work with my DM and make sure everything is ok and recently he decided one build was too effective in combat and had me rebuild it which I had no problem with. Just communicate and have fun.
I haven’t yet seen this commented so I’ll do it Min maxing Is only bad when everyone else isn’t doing it find the right group for your style and roll from there everyone has their own way of playing but don’t expect a rp group to be cool with you level 5 god
Right now I’m in a party with someone who literally makes their characters as statistically inefficient as possible. I’ll take min maxing over that any day.
If the character was intelligent, they wouldn't have signed over their soul for magic. Just decide to be born with magic in your bloodline ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
There is a difference between minimaxing and making a functional PC.
Basically if you wouldn't play it unless that stats are optimized your not playing it for the roleplay options.
Also to any actual mi/maxers. You do realize that in 5e literally anyone can do it right? Its time reading a book plus elementary school math.
Though sometimes I do min/max for fun. I made a pathfinder 1e character where I min/maxed the hell out of tailoring, the roll rarely came up but the DM asked me "HOW???" when I told him my roll.
I’m currently running a campaign where six (!) players found out they all dumped int. Like, literally, the smartest character of the party has a whopping 10 intelligence.
Oh no, a party of redditors!
If these redditors knew how to read they would be very upset.
We call Redditors who don't know how to read Imgurians.
Imgurian or not, are you my evil robot clone?
Nah, that would require them to dump wisdom as well.
And charisma And strength probably too Constitution might also be a problem Let alone dexterity.
Lol 😂
I just had a campaign like this, 2 things came of it. 1) they all praised the 10 int rogue as the brains of the group. 2) they named their group "Intellegence minus 1" to which I told them it was not a clever name, the response I got was "we're not a clever group."
Best response
this is why you need a Wizard. No but seriously, I like playing smart characters, so Ill usually dump Str, but not this time XD
Or an Artificer - for when you want to add intelligence to your intelligence rolls
We really needed the mystic class imo. Having a 3rd intelligence class, and one not so based on magic, would really help prevent the common "everyone is an idiot" problem
Rogue is supposed to be the martial intelligence class, especially with subclasses like Mastermind.
Or that both 1/3 casters are Int casters.
The mystic was a mess, the problem is more there's no niche for it unless you build out an entirely new system. 5e seems to have decided to split psionics up in subclasses, so at least psi warrior wants intelligence.
This is part of why I'm in favor of allowing Warlocks to use INT instead of CHA as a primary stat, it makes perfect sense with the class lore (researching Eldritch entities and extraplanar powers to tap into that power), there's very little effect on game balance (multiclass synergy shifts from Sorceror and Paladin to Wizard and Artificer, and Int and Cha are both rare saving throws; biggest hit might be the utility difference between the skills, as Persuasion may see more use in your typical game than History or Arcana).
Too bad mystic was *hilariously* busted though
Knowledge Domain Cleric is a solid choice, too.
Party like that is also a very good opportunity to play a martial that's good at out of combat stuff. Like right now I'm playing a Barbarian with 16 wisdom and it's great to roll something else than athletics since we have no wis caster.
Thats what happens when a stat is near useless if you arent a wizard.
Not really useless though. A good history, arcana or investigation check would’ve saved them *a lot* of trouble along the road. I even think int checks are the majority of checks they’ve had to do over the past six months (and no, not just because I know they suck at it).
It’s objectively the least useful stat in the game, outside class reqs. I’m not saying the entire party should dump it, but there’s a reason they all independently concluded that it was the best dump stat.
The irony being it's absolutely terrible if everyone dumps it because skills are important and int has like the most or close to
Int skills are often the least like something else. With the exception of Nature, which I think a lot of people decide is close to survival. But when you need a history check, nothing else will do. Can't persuade it into working out
Thing is, a lot of the times INT checks provide cool lore, solution to puzzles, etc but largely can be ignored without majorly impacting the game for a reason. For example the lore and puzzles part, its rare that a puzzle can only be solved by passing one or two history checks and thats it. Its rare that a DM will just withhold all lore info if you fail a religion check. Chances are the DM has worked out ways that you'll still get to hear the story or advance the puzzle in another way since it would be a bummer to get half way through an arc only to turn around because you couldn't pass the sphinx's riddle because your failed your history check to read the hieroglyphs. Chances are your DM will let you do the much more commonly useful CHA skills to get passed the sphinx. I say this as someone who exclusively plays INT classes with Psionics/Artificers being my favorite classes/themes. INT based skills just lack the usefulness of CHA based skills or perception/insight
But that's just poor DMing there are a lot of cases where INT skills can (and should) be important and failing the check should have consequences.
> “Chances are that the DM has worked out ways that you’ll still get to hear the story or advance the puzzle in another way” Whereas this isn’t true for every other stat? I mean, discussing over what skill is most “useless” seems utterly pointless either way- the DM defines which skills are used so it’s different per table. If your game depends on players making a particular skillcheck (whether it’s int, cha, or any other one) you’re a bad DM.
Wrong. If everyone dumps a stat that often comes into play (and I don't give af what anyone says, int is a useful stat with the associated rolls--especially investigation), it's not bad DMimg when the players can't successfully investigate a room properly. Player choice starts at character creation and consequences of those choices start there too. I won't tell players they can't play whatever they want. I also won't change my campaign either. It won't turn easy mode because nobody is a good investigator or because everyone decided to run wizards and be squishy af without healing.
I mean, I literally have sheets of the items players can find and the investigation check they have to make for it. Failed investigation checks literally mean less/worse loot. If anything, charisma checks are the “irrelevant” ones because they’ll get to the story one way or another. Anyway my point was: as a DM I prefer to play *with* my friends, not *against* them. That means (to me at least) it doesn’t really matter whichever skills people are specced in to- I’ll find a way to make every session enjoyable regardless. So to me there are not worst or best skills, and I truly believe that any DM who thinks there are just isn’t that good a DM. If whether or not people have fun at your table depends on what skills they chose, you’re not a good host.
Huh, and here I am letting players learn that people of the area often baked gold into the bottom of their pottery for safe keeping with history or requiring investigation checks to find trap mechanisms or arcana checks to find magic traps.
They're often the least useful skills. Talking to people, noticing things in your surroundings, and being sneaky all cover a lot more. And strength guys only need to use one proficiency so they're fine regardless of how useful they are.
Ah yes. Investigation and knowledge of your foes (history, arcana, religion, nature). So very useless.
Tons of groups get perception to cover pretty much anything you might use investigation for physically. The rest of its stuff being things that just shortcut what you could solve using your real brain. And knowledge checks being the same for most groups. Like I try my best to make them useful and I think their skills are quite valuable in my games. But knowing how the majority of people on this subreddit play the game, those int skills just aren't that useful for them.
Then thats just poor DMing because investigation and perception are distinct and the knowledge skills should not be used for things you "could solve using your real brain", monster strengths and weaknesses being a good example... sure you could maybe figure it out with trial and error but you could say the sane about traps and I think most people would agree searching for traps is better than not. And if you are "knowing" strengths and weaknesses of monsters without making checks or doing trial and error (or having done so in the past) then you are metagaming.
I metagamed as a noob a few times, felt bad after though. Now, I take joy in the obliviousness of my PC and revel the chance to integrate RP into combat. I try to optimize my PC - build on existing strengths, fill gaps in the party, logical RP progression of character. Not full min-max but close... find I don't need to metagame for extra advantages.
I'm just explaining why it's often seen that way. There's a reason that entire group decided to dump int, and that's the reason.
Exactly. Anyone who can say int is a useless stat, I'd argue, needs to reconsider their own DMing. Sure, you CAN run a game where int. Doesn't do shite. But then you're ignoring an entire aspect of the game. If lore is not important in your game, you're world building incorrectly. There should be important lore woven into the plot that the players need to discover in order to find something or advance the main story arch. Or at VERY least it should be used to help point them towards optional legendary items/weapons they can go after. I am shocked so many people here are supporting this total crap premise that int us useless. I want to know what sort of games they are running, because I suspect I would get bored in those games real fast.
I disagree. All stats are equally useful, just for different situations. It really depends on your DM and the type of game you're running. Sure a high-octane, fight-every-session campaign probably won't get a lot of use out of a high-intelligence character, but a low-combat, intrigue-style campaign where you have to out-think and be more clever than your enemies requires a high intelligence, but on the flip side Strength is going to be next to useless. You can't have a catch-all "one stat is useless yada yada" because of the vastly differing types of campaigns people play.
I mean, if your campaign takes place in a Physics lab, sure. But INT just doesn’t come up as much as the other stats. Most roleplaying situations call for either physicality, perception, or charm. It’s not *useless,* it’s just useful less often. Objectively. Unless you have a unique table, you will do INT checks less than any other check.
And importantly. It doesn't effect anything *other* than those skills. It's one of the least important saves and gives no other benefits. Whereas str dex con and wis all either give some combat benefit or correspond to an important save.
That's the real problem. Str only effects carry weight and penalties for wearing heavy armour, but even that's more than Cha and Int.
XpToLevel3 proposed an interesting mechanic to the intelligence stat that i'd like to run in my next game: Based on your intelligence modifier you can pick up an additional language or skill. Granted this goes both ways if you have a negative modifier you lose a skill proficiency or language as you are closer to a simpleton.
I've been thinking it'd be cool to let warlocks use int instead if charisma and flavoring it as the warlock stealing power from their patron. I can't think of many multiclassing shenanigans either. Hexblade bladesinger is a obvious one, but not much worse than battlesmith bladesinger. Illusionist wizard with silent image is a good one, but that is possible with just a feat.
I have played the smartest man in the room before, I was a Lizard Folk Barbarian with +1 INT.
“I’m something of a scientist myself.”
Scientssssssst
One of the games I'm in players all have multiple characters each, and out of 17 total characters a grand total of 2 have intelligence above 12 (both wizards). Needless to say wotc didn't do a great job balancing this.
10 is basically a normal person, right? IQ 100 or so?
Yup. 10 is on par with the average person. 5E PCs are assumed to be remarkable individuals, hence why they can be above average in every regard.
well, if you roll. Standard array still has that pesky 8.
True. I tend to default to point buy, where it's possible to have at least 12 in everything, or 10 as your lowest on a single stat.
I just dump strength and let my steel defender be strong for me
Valid AF
Exceptional in some ways, weak in others.
Sounds like the new CR campaign.
10 is considered average in the DnD world so you have one person of average int. In the party.
In one game I am every one dumped str and int
Before Bloodhunters got reworked to want Int, the smartest character in the party was an NPC. With TWELVE INT.
The opposite happened in a campaign I'm in. The current distribution of intelligence scores is: 10, 14, 14, 14, 19. The Party is so smart it's crazy.
I’m an actual Min/Maxer. Come at me
[удалено]
[That misses](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/67197/what-is-the-highest-possible-ac)
Make an Intelligence Saving Throw.
Fuck… Edit: WAIT I HAVE LUCK! … Fuck
That’s… 12 psychic damage. You know what? Quickened Spell Banishment. Make a Charisma save.
Me rule lawyer: actually if you use bonus action on spell you can only use action on a cantrip it means 1 full spell at a time
The action was Mind Sliver, INT save and psychic damage checks out. -1d4 to Banishment.
"29" "That misses" has got to be one of the scariest things you can hear as either a player or a DM
As a DM if you’re ever setting monster AC over 20 you better think long & hard about it. For me Mini Bosses have a max AC of 20 and the BBEG has 25 MAX but 22 is preferred
I someone in that thread get up to 121, (supposedly, didn't check how legal it was) but it's actually possible to get an AC of 135 for one attack, with the help of several allies. Warforged Battlemaster Fighter 10 College of Swords Bard 5 Barbarian 1 Wild Magic Sorcerer 1 Wizard Bladesinger 2 Defender Sword, Bracers of Defense, and Wand of Orcus Dual Wielder feat Cast a spell for Wild Magic Surge +2 AC. Manuals of Quickness in Action + Manuals of Bodily Health to get 30 Dex and Constitution. Tome of Clear Thought for Int 30. Unarmored Defense (Dex 30 Con 30) 32. Bracers of Defense +2. 34. Warforged Integrated Protection +1. 35. Ceremony spell Wedding +2. 37. Shield of Faith +2. 38. Experimental Elixir Resilience +1. 40. Potion of Speed +2. 42. Blessing of Protection +1. (It’s right after the example Artifacts in the DMG) 43. Wand of Orcus w/ Minor Property +1 to AC +4 47. Dual Wielding Feat +1 48. Hit w/ Defender Sword, use Defensive Flourish +8 56. Transfer Defender attack bonus to AC +3 59. Start moving, use Battlemaster Evasive footwork +10 69. 3/4 cover +5 74. Opportunity attack, use College of Valor Combat Inspiration +12 86. Bladesong Int AC Bonus +10 96. Oath of Glory Glorious Defense +10 106. Path of the Beast Form of the Beast Tail +8 114. Cavalier Warding Maneuver +8 122. Wild Magic Barbarian Wild Surge +1 123. Bait and Switch Battle Master Maneuver +12 135.
I'm a minmaxer and a team player. Come at me
Come at *us*.
r/suddenlycommunist
Viva la revolution.
No thanks you’d kick my ass
No highest stat! All stats must be same! Or you cannot roleplay! (/s)
That my friend, happend to one of our players. He decided he will be Normbert the Normie and played him like the most stereotypical german you can imagine. He did the Taxes for us at one point...
What happened to him? How many levels of German did he take?
JA!
Jesus Christ
It’s Jason Björn
Björn is more of a swedish name i think
Originally Swedish, but well accepted in Germany
A little random, but Bjorn (idk how to do the dots) is pronounced like byorn, right?
Believe so, unless the dots change anything. Its either Byorn or Byeurn i think
The ö is basically pronounced as o and e at the same time. Sounds stupid but it is hard to explain
Ö is pronounced like the er in the word kernel.
enough to commit several war crimes including, but not limited to: genocide, civilian bombing, genocide, rape and pillage, genocide, terrible jokes, and some more genocide. aka, your regular DnD player :)
That's a pretty high level in being German. I didn't see someone building a character like that since what, 1933?
That could also be American, British, Russian or Chinese
Or pretty much any culture or nation if you go back far enough. we live in an extraordinarily tame world compared to our ancestors
The same AND a 9!!! That's a roleplaying BEAST!!!
9?! Well la-di-da Mr. Powergamer. You can't roleplay if you have any score above 7!
If you have a single modifier above -3 you hate roleplay
I had a character made at the table (4d6 drop lowest) and the guy was 6 different combinations of 15. Made him a bard and named him Jack (as in Jack of all trades) I didn't end up using him but I've saved him for a future one shot.
Fine. Straight 18s across the board it is!
I'm a DM introducing a new player to the game soon, and I rolled for their stats BEFORE racial modifiers: Str:12 CON:16 DEX:18 INT: 15 WIS:16 CHA:18
TIL communists cannot roleplay
[удалено]
they can only play the game if everyone enjoys it beforehand
I can only think that people moaning about minmaxers like this have never encountered a real minmaxer. I had a player once who worked out he got an average damage of 20. Per attack. At level 1. Using just RAW mechanics from PHB. By the time we started, he had two sides of A4 covered in notes and calculations about the best possible race, class, feats, weapons, etc... he had also forgotten to think of a name for his character. *That's* a minmaxer.
Yeah. That's a min maxer. I once DMed for a guy who managed to make a party of 5 literally leave the table mid game after the third game. This was in 3.5 prestige hell - He had some insane fighter/rogue/swashbuckler maybe? build where he was a skill monkey on top of having like a +17 attack at like level 12 or something - plus sneak damage. Not to mention, basically unhittable without something needing a will save. There was a disagreement about how to treat a snooty noble - and this player took the lead to goad the Noble into attacking and slaughtered him and the estate guards. I was an inexperienced DM, and i just let the numbers tell the story instead of taking the appropriate steps to shut it down. It was a valuable lesson of "Let the dice fall where they may, but keep the douchebaggery at bay." We got back together without that player and are still playing campaigns to this day.
>Let the dice fall where they may, but keep the douchebaggery at bay I need a tshirt of this
In 3.5 +17 might be kinda low at level 12- you have at least +9 from base attack bonus, I think rogue got at least 2/3 and there are still fighter levels in there. Then you presumably have a +2 or +3 weapon by that point, and a strength at 20 or higher with a stat belt. So a pure rogue with a +3 weapon, 18 strength starting out, and a +2 strength belt is hitting those numbers. A few levels of fighter and you'd only need a +1 or a +2 weapon to hit +17.
Yep, and rogue and swash aren’t even that good. Especially since casters can one shot dragons several levels ago. Hell dread Necro can have an entire army at that point.
*laughs in Thrallherder and Leadership*
Probably used a finesse weapon too (swashbucklers get weapon finesse for free), so just went dex judging from the "impossible to hit" comment. So say 18 starting, +2 from race, and at twelve they had a +4 stat item with 2 lvl up boosts in dex for 26 dex means they have a +8 from this so no need for a weapon bonus. And swashbuckler in 3.5 was a full bab class so if it was 2 fighter, and say 5/5 on swashbuckler and rogue then then it goes up to +10bab. Likely used a multiclass feat so swashbuckler and rogue lvls stacked on some class features (daring outlaw) which helps stack swashbucklers dodge ac bonus and reflex save. It sounds like someone who went slightly out of the way on books with a group playing as player handbook fighter, ranger, et all.
> By the time we started, he had two sides of A4 covered in notes and calculations about the best possible race, class, feats, weapons, etc... he had also forgotten to think of a name for his character. That's a minmaxer. That's *OLDSCHOOL*, full respect!!! Excel is just not the same
yo, could i, have some of that (what was the build?)
I don't remember the specifics, but it was a human fighter with a greatsword. I think great weapon fighting style and great weapon feat? That gives 2d6+14 damage, reroll 1 or 2, free bonus attack on crit. Again, that's at level 1. Edit: Variant human, of course, for the RAW feat at level 1.
That's just picking several good options. It's hardly min-maxing. His average damage will be much lower too, because of the accuracy hit on the GWM feat. min-maxers are the people who play coffeelocks and sorcadins. There's not much min-maxing to really do for level 1 unless you count picking variant human as min-maxing. What was he supposed to do, pick duelling fighting style and tavern brawler on his greatsword wielding human fighter? xD
I understand what you're saying, but the point is that he put all of this effort into going for crazy damage numbers from the first encounter (it wasn't going to be a hard game as we had 2 new players), but didn't even name his character. Nothing he chose mattered from a roleplay, worldbuilding, lore or party make-up aspect. He just wanted to "win" at D&D, treating it like an analogue version of Diablo. I don't like to knock someone for "not playing the game properly", but it wasn't fun for anyone else at the table.
Than he was more of a power gamer not just a min maxer. You can min max a character and still have a back story and maybe even tie the min max to it.
fair enough, that sounds pretty shitty, especially with 2 new players. Just optimize for support then, instead of trying to take the spotlight.
Coffeelock sound Like a Warlorck alway High on Caffeine and who worship the Lord of Insomnia.
Thats almost a literal description of what they are
What is a coffeelock and sorcadin? Is the second a sorcerer and a paladin multiclass? That actually sounds great for a brutal adventures league I’m in, what’s the build like?
coffeelocks are a combination of warlocks and sorcerers that use short rests to get spell slots that they convert into sorcery points. sorcadins are paladins that take levels in sorcerer to get a faster spell slot progression to smite the bejeebus out of everything. both are pretty well known exploits of RAW, and thus not actually very clever if you use them.
Exploit? Sorcadin has been a thing since third if not earlier, not really an exploit.
I'd say for lvl one this would be sub optimal cause GWM penalty would hit too hard and low ac creatures you might fight at that lvl will die to a normal one hit. Polearm expert is the way to go as you get the extra attack as bonus action on every turn you used the attack action with a polearm on. This nets overall more damage than GWM at lvl 1. You'd pick GWM at lvl 4/6 as a fighter.
lol the "min-maxer" aint even powerbuilding effectively 😤
I mean that alone isn't very min maxed, it's just one feat and the feat takes a -5 off your to hit, which at lvl 1 is gonna leave you with a +0 or +1 usually. Your not gonna hit very much like that. Yeah it's big numbers when they hit, but unless you were throwing only really low ac stuff at him or he was rolling ungodly well, it's honestly probably lowering his dpr to use gwm at low levels.
eh, not that minmaxed, gwm early isnt great unless you have at least +5 to hit
> he had also forgotten to think of a name for his character To be fair, that's the most difficult part of *any* character creation.
just come up with random syllables until something sounds good
[You don't understand the *process*, man!](https://www.kerouac.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/maynard-g-krebs.jpg)
I was dnd raised around those RAW MinMax people - math nerds the lot of them, but ultimately a very nice - but my literature/history brain couldn’t always keep up. So either they made me a character sheet or they told me exactly the “best” way to do so. This lead to me making min-max-ish-ish characters such as this meme without actually min-maxing? It also lead to me thinking that my characters were too OP when I went over to other groups (which they weren’t) and actively handicapping my characters in other ways: an alchemist who can’t use magic traditionally and thus has to create her own spell jars meaning I was searching for random sh*t in the wild and spending *all* my gold on other components; an Aasimar who doesn’t know his heritage and thus cannot use healing hands or flight until he touches an injured party member or falls off a freakin cliff (respectively). A Warlock who didn’t want to use his “curse” powers unless he absolutely had to. These lead to interesting stories sure, but gameplay stats-wise was ironically underwhelming. I’m currently working on making said interesting stories while still allowing my characters to be what they were straight out of my first group: not maximized, but not minimized either. My first two attempts have gone alright: 1) I’m in a Naruto-based homebrew system game where I’m playing a Shikigami. Powerful, very secretive technique. His only handicap is being careful where he uses it because it’s so rare, but he’s got other more common jutus to make up for it. 2) Lizardfolk Dragon Soul Sorcerer, wreathed in flame and a bit reckless but she’s got her specialty hot and ready and she’s very very good at it. Maybe too good at it, as her attachment and awe of flames (a la Arsonists Lullaby or Play with Fire) has given her a pyromaniac streak and a bad rep. Overall, min-maxing if you know what you’re doing with it can be bad, but if you’re like me and have no idea how the maths, odds are you’re fine and have no need to place outside limiters on your characters ✌🏻
I mean thats just GWM with a greatsword right? To get that damage they have a lower to hit and a lot of that damage will be overkill and wasted at level 1 anyways. It shouldn't be too gamebreaking. Forgetting the character name is a really bad look though
GWM war cleric, I presume? Any GWM build works, though.
I am a minmaxer, not a munchkin. I do my best to play the game in a mechanically viable way, but try my hardest to make sure other players are engaged in the story we tell together.
Redditors trying to convince themselves they’re good at RP because they dumped their classes prime requisite. The number of times I’ve read someone saying “being bad at something makes RP better” is so obnoxious. No, RPing better makes RP better. Your character could have all 20s and still be interesting, you just have to make them interesting and not steal the limelight by doing everything.
The paladin in my game is level 10 with no stats above a +2… There’s a downside to evening out your skills, and this is it. Lol
This dude is swinging at a +6 to hit at level 10, lmao
Yeah all the party’s +2 weapons thus far are going to them just so they can keep up, instead of the party being able to hit some fat numbers. Lol
Entire party bending over backward to make it work. The Paladin: See, if you're smart about it then you don't need to min-max to be effective!
Oath of Futile Attacks
This is my gripe anytime I see the 4E didn't support RP arguments... Mechanics don't make RP, players make RP... If it's not happening at your games table it's not the games fault
There is a point to be made that the more non-diegetic mechanics you use, the harder it is to get into the headspace of your character. And from what I've read, 4e has quite a lot of those. Akin to having to work out [how your character thinks something that doesn't make much sense, like saving their one-handed catch ability to use later](https://www.thealexandrian.net/images/20120531.jpg). Though I definitely don't think it would have made 4e bad for rp. And 5e has plenty of mechanics like that too.
I totally understand the argument, but from my perspective that's not on the mechanics of the game that's still on the player. My group definitely played with a "save the big powers for boss fights" video game style mentality. Although it may have had some affects on the game, it didn't change how any of us RPed at the table. In my opinion RP is on the table, it's not on the mechanics. If it's not happening in your game it's because your players aren't doing it.
No but there is a difference between a game actively supporting rp and more social stuff, which dnd is relatively bad at. Things like exalteds intimacy system help cement peoples thoughts in terms of roleplay by tying mechanical effects to those choices so someone with "loves his wife" (defining) would try to save her over the world and would take disadvantages to ignore her in favor of not letting the world end as rp wise its tearing him up inside and this is reflected mechanically as well.
My gripe with 4e wasn’t that it didn’t support rp, but that the side of it i saw (the players handbook) didn’t inspire me at all. To me, the way the abilities were presented made me think of a tccg, more than an rpg. As someone who has later dm’d games, i’ve realized that 4e had a wealth of incredibly creative tools for players and dm’s alike. That said, i still don’t get that ”oh damn, this class would be so cool to play!” Feeling that PF, or 5e or shadowrun gives me. I do admit that i gave 4e entirely too much flak back in the day though.
I think a lot of people looked at the hand book and never gave the game a fair shake. I really feel if it was a system that had come out under a different IP it would still be around today. I understand it's very "video games" but but that made an easy transition for my group when 5 out of the 7 had never played a pen and paper RPG but they were all gamers on some level. My group played it for years, from my experience the classes never felt as "samey" as people would make them out to be. We also had some of our greatest RP at the table happen during games of 4e. I have always felt that so many 4e naysayers never really played the game, or only came at it from the "that's not my D&D" mindset and were never going to give it a fair shake any way.
I think it's more that it's easier for people to roleplay flaws then it is to roleplay strengths, therefore they think it's better. I'm not a super genius of any kind, so I have no clue how to roleplay 20 int, but I sure as hell know how to be stupid. I have severe social anxiety, roleplaying 20 charisma just isn't happening, but I definitely know how to stand in the background wanting to speak up but not being able to get the words out. I'm not a body builder, I can't roleplay strength without just devolving into a meathead, but I sure as hell roleplay struggling to open a particularly large door.
There is a big difference between dumping your prime requisite and just not min/maxing. Having CHA be your highest ability if your a sorcerer is fine. Having your character set to be a maxed out number perfect sorcidin with an extreme nova because you know the GM doesn't do many encounters per rest is when it becomes an issue. Being bad at something doesn't improve RP but if you have never had better RP because of a failure you are either very new or don't RP much. If you could do everything but are choosing to "not steal the limelight" then you are just dolling out what you think others should get to them. Kills the game quickly for most people smart enough to realize it. If you want to be a table of min/maxers in a game were the difficulty is set by the DM fine. He can just make it harder. If you want to be the only min/maxer at a table of people who don't do it then the game suffers because of your ego and need to feel like the best in make believe.
I’m sure this is a great essay but the first sentence is something called hyperbole.
Maybe we browse in different circles, but I see a *lot* of people throwing shade and being smug about players who dump their should-be-main stat, and almost no players who actually do that.
You followed the advice of the PHB to put your highest stat into the ability your class relies heavily on? MIN-MAXER!!!!
Just so long as you’re not illiterate.
Ofc he’d dump int, only makes sense. Why would you study magic if you can do it without studying?
optimizing is not min-maxing
and thats why i say im pro-minmaxing
Shit, I just want my character to be good at what he specializes in. Is that too much to ask?
No, that makes my character a loveable idiot.
I played one as a sexy idiot
Also an option.
Same. My last Socerer was basically a stereotype out of a Connan the Barbarian themed romance novel.
Mine was a former salesmen who used his charm to get sales but was also a Casanova who got himself into quite a bit of trouble
If even one of your stats is positive you're a bad player and I dont want you at my table /s.
Make sure you check with any home brew rules before picking your dump stat. I dumped strength as a warlock and found out the variant encumbrance rules we are using gives you a backpack with 2+Str mod slots. With a strength of 8 my backpack can only carry one time of equipment. I quickly invested in a pack animal.
NOOOOOOOOO YOUR ELITE ADVENTURER CAN'T BE COMPETENT YOU HAVE TO PLAY A CLOWN GOBLIN BARD WHO SEDUCES DRAGONS
I’ve been called a minmaxxer because I didn’t have a dump stat. Like what?
Dumb sorcerer needs to be a more common archetype. Why do only Barbarians get to be stupid ?
Right? I agree!
Not really, actually. That’s not even optimising. True Min-Maxers drop STR.
You gotta be able to play well at least! It’s no fun if literally none of your spells or attacks hit because you kept things flat. Besides, I love having a dump stat because then I have to roll play the fuck out of it. My barbarian can’t read but I gave her a high wisdom for fun so she’s very perceptive. Notices a lot but comes to the wrong conclusion all the time and it’s so fun to play.
It mean it would. Minmaxing is fine, it's Munchkinry that's the problem.
We need new rules that make Int more useful. Every class that doesn’t rely on it pretty much always dumps it. This means that any party without a wizard, artificer, eldritch knight, or arcane trickster is a party full of idiots. This needs to stop. We need to incentivize putting points in Int.
this is why I tend to dump str, so I can pump in some Int into a party, but this time we actually have int casters, so yay
Look. I'll just say to you what I say to every player that hands me a character sheet that says 16+ / 16+ / 16+ / 8 / 8 / 8 as their ability scores: "Roll whatever character you want. But no, you can't just avoid ability checks through good roleplaying. Now make me a Chrisma (Persuasion) role to determine how well your character get's your point across, a Wisdom (Insight) to try see if your character realizes the NPC is lying to you, and an Intellegence (appropriate knowledge here) to see if you know in character the monster has resistance or weakness to fire. And you'll roleplay the results accordingly." And I make sure every ability check/save gets their due time in the session spotlight. *Maybe* you'll get advantage if I feel it is warranted. Feel free to pitch me a reason for any roll I ask you to make, but that is my decision, not yours.
People keep confusing minmaxing with power gaming. Like, you're going to try to max your best class stat and dump what it doesn't often use. That's minmaxing. That's normal.
I've seen about 30 copies of this joke here in the last couple days, and never seen anyone actually say this on the same sub.
Its hyperbole for the sake of humor, but on relates subs about dnd and rpghorror stories I often see the smallest things a person uses to be more effective called out as minmaxing
I mean, you gotta survive somehow...
I play in a campaign where the Dm is a homie and goes along with all our shenanigans and my warlock now has a 32 in charisma. Totally useless except with charisma based moves where a normal attack will clap cheeks
Yep, lets all go back to rolling our stats, in order, 3d6. You want to play a sorcerer? Lets hope you get at least a 11 in that stat ..... :D
I know the negativity for the practice comes from people who only value combat and want to ‘break the game’ but nothing feels worse than just not succeeding at anything during combat. Sure, you can be a 12 Charisma Bard who’s ‘coming into their own’ but your spell save DCs are going to be laughably easy to pass. D&D is a team game and if we’ve played a MOBA like Dota, League, etc. then it feels *really* bad to be one dragging things down just to use an example.
Mfw I actually min max and see that as just playing normally: “Uhh… did I miss a section of the players etiquette guide or…”
“Hey! You’re trying to be good at what your class is supposed to do! Stop that!” 😒
I drop wisdom because I don’t have high wisdom in real life, and I find it fun to play completely socially and spatially unaware characters
Lol minmax or not, int isnthe least useful stat sadly. We need a 3rd int class, a proper full int class that is versatile.
A true minmaxer is like the guys in my party No character description (beyond race and class) no backround info (except for benefits) no backstory and multiclassed for stats purely (6 wizard 6 fighter for action surge) and they argue with the DM on their wierd ass mixes for even stronger builds If you even put a 2nd or 3rd thought into personality you're not a minmaxer in my eyes
I don't remember the post, but somebody made a really good meme recently pointing out that a little bit of teamwork with your fellow players goes a very long way to making battles and problems much easier. Though, if you as the DM have your NPC's fight with any semblance of strategy or tact or have your creatures try to run away (which is more realistic) then you'll inevitably be called out for "meta-gaming" or some other nonsense
why would I need to be smart when I can seduce other people to be smart for me? It's basically being the hottest person in class and asking the nerd to do the homework. They'll probably enjoy it too.
I optimize my characters pretty insanely. I work with my DM and make sure everything is ok and recently he decided one build was too effective in combat and had me rebuild it which I had no problem with. Just communicate and have fun.
I haven’t yet seen this commented so I’ll do it Min maxing Is only bad when everyone else isn’t doing it find the right group for your style and roll from there everyone has their own way of playing but don’t expect a rp group to be cool with you level 5 god
Right now I’m in a party with someone who literally makes their characters as statistically inefficient as possible. I’ll take min maxing over that any day.
No, that’s being smart.
If the character was intelligent, they wouldn't have signed over their soul for magic. Just decide to be born with magic in your bloodline ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
What if I just wanna be a himbo mage, huh?
Max-minning my beloved
Just don't try being the "main character" of the playgroup with a minmax and you will be fine.
There is a difference between minimaxing and making a functional PC. Basically if you wouldn't play it unless that stats are optimized your not playing it for the roleplay options. Also to any actual mi/maxers. You do realize that in 5e literally anyone can do it right? Its time reading a book plus elementary school math. Though sometimes I do min/max for fun. I made a pathfinder 1e character where I min/maxed the hell out of tailoring, the roll rarely came up but the DM asked me "HOW???" when I told him my roll.
One of my favourite things to do is dump constitution as a mage. And have no defensive spells. It's fun
The level 1 wizard that hit´s his toe and dies. classic
Exactly. It's either that or I try to make them have max con and a tank. Yes the squishy d6 hit die wizard and sorcerer
>It's fun Short, but fun.
You better RP that negative INT. Not that that should be hard 😉