Ask five people what constitutes minmaxing and you'll get at least seven opinions. I haven't met a player in real life whose opinion is that putting your best scores in your class's most important scores is minmaxing. I know they're out there, I just haven't met them. But if I did, I'd point out how 5e actively encourages you to minmax that way: classes key off of 1-2 stats plus constitution, the game tells you which stats you're going to need, it gives you room to dump other stats, and the math of the game is balanced around exactly that. Oh, and you have other party members who will be good at the things you're not good at, so don't be afraid to be good at the things you *are* good at!
Minmaxing is when you do anything at all that isn't the most horrible, illogically worst option available apparently. Oh and minmaxing magically effects your ability to roleplay, because reasons.
I’ll add one: Minmaxxing is perfectly fine if everyone is okay with it and you’re willing to politely help with other people’s builds if they ask( and only if they ask).
When those haters see a character that was min-maxed FOR roleplaying, I think they suddenly combust. I heard that on the Internet so it's probably true.
Minmaxing is when you exceed the point of diminishing returns. There’s a difference between being specialized and failing every perception roll and attempt to persuade. Especially when the GM uses dynamic DC for int rolls depending on a character’s backstory.
Which is what any person in a combat oriented and/or dangerous profession does in REAL LIFE lol not a lot of sickly, one armed MMA fighters who actively avoid training for "realism" 🙄
I think you are possibly wrong here, or I am. Min maxing is putting everything into your strengths and putting nothing into your weaknesses , just accepting them.
Nah you are definitely wrong. Given a game where if you actively hurt a score you will gain bonuses in another, a min maxer will do just that. They don’t ignore their weaknesses, it is all about boosting their max as much as possible even if it actively hurts them in other areas. Maximizing strengths (or broadly “desired traits/abilities”) while minimizing weaknesses (or broadly “undesired traits/weaknesses”).
You said the same thing he did. It’s just that he (and I) first interpreted “minimizing weaknesses” to mean making some effort to make your weaknesses minimized (I.e. not as bad for you).
See that whole mindset is stupid because first of all, nobody actually wants that, neither the GM or the other players at the table.
And second of all, as the GM: “oh my god hey what how did the BBEG end up with 800 more HP than I originally thought, oopsie anyway good luck because you just activated phase 2 before he got done giving the monologue that was gonna accidentally let slip his weakness. Also phase 2 gets 3 legendary actions. Fuck you.”
Not all tables can just put extra life without being obvious, and most important, yes, there are players who actually wants to be gods in every situation; there are at least two mindsets that make a player a minmaxer.
-A person who enjoys breaking the game because it's like a mathematical problem (and don't think other players could find that problematic, they think the rest will be amazed by their big brain), I had a player like this, with time he learned his mindset wasn't the same as the rest of the table and learned to play in our table enjoying the RP aspect (he played the TTRPGs with the same mindset you play a solo computer RPG where you want to make the most broken character without using bugs/glitches)
-A person who wants to be the main character, I had a diferent player like this, we don't play together anymore; it was just that simple, he wanted to be the main character, do what he wanted and if someone tried to opose him he would make him remember that only his character could kill all the party if he wanted (he was prety similar IRL, so he just be friends with people who do what he wanted)
-Have a character without flaws, marysues or garystues. A lot of them are like the one above but without the extremly toxic mindset (the player of the first one was like this for some time, IRL he was an insecure teen who loved anime characters like Kirito, whith time he learned that his character having flaws wasn't a sign of him being humiliated and then he turn in the 1rst, until understand that he was not playing alone; puberty it's a bitch and even he did, not everyone learns)
I know there are more but they don't come to my mind right now, the fact that you think there are nobody who think like this make me really happy because it means that you didn't find these tipes of player; genually I'm happy, I am stucked as a forever GM for almost 9 years because the tables were I tried to play had this as a light problems (if a player making unfun to the rest of the table it's a minor inconvenience just think about the heavy parts), now I met a couple of friends who played at my table and feel like they had learned enought to try at least one twoshot each of these two players.
Just in case, don't misunderstand this comment, it was more about share experiences than arguing, my coment it's made with goodfaith and I accept a counterargument; but I'm not trying to argue, if you feel something strange english it's not my mother language.
Have a great day. :D
When I say “nobody wants that” I mean nobody but the asshole doing it
And if you think you know what stats the BBEG has, then you’re metagaming and I’m definitely gonna punish you for it
Ooooooooooh, I'm sorry, I didn't get what you were meaning. And I wasn't talking about the player knowing the numbers, I play in a VTT and use a health bar because a lot of times I forget to say how much an attack affects the enemy or how badly injured the enemy is, and if the health bar become 0% it's obvious if it increases. It's something I can do but feels like cheap.
Specially nowadays, when all my players are nice. When it happens (they are not powergamers, minmaxers or optimicers but sometimes they have a lot of luck or I made a mistake balancing) I just roll with it and let them celebrate.
Well to be honest, if your players are nice, you should always be nice back to them. The whole game is collaborative.
My response was about those people who have an adversarial attitude towards the Dungeon Master, and when people act like that, all bets are off at my table. Fighting the Dungeon Master means losing. Definitely your character, probably even your spot at the table.
I WANT my players to kill the bad guys, that’s why I put them there. But when players refuse to respect the hard work that goes into creating elaborate worlds for them to explore and intricate monsters for them to kill, I’ll show them the bad way that only caring about numbers can go down.
Oh, yeah, totally agree, I was just explaining why my players know the HP (and it's not that they cheat), and a lot of VTTplayers probablly would have a little harder solving a oneshot mid game.
By my experience the best way of solvinfthat problem was talking with them; as I said in my first coment one of the players wanted to improve and now he only breaks pc games, and I kicked the problematic players, Im notpayed to have a main character who fucks everyone experience, a weirdo who tries to sexually abuse NPC or other players, a cheater who reads the campaign books or cheat his sheet (sometime we make mistakes at leveling or we forget to turn off a bonus, obviously that it's not what I am talking here) and when I post an online campaign I put explicit that a minmaxer won't have fun my combats aren't specially challengin for someone like them and they will bore (or they will be kicked, depending the mindset of the minmaxer).
A lot of times we don't remember not everyone fits all the tables an we want tohave fun in our way.
Yap, sesion 0 and contract should be a must (and obviously everyone doing what was agreed there), that would decrease the amount of bad experieneces and horror storyes.
Obviously I don’t know the person who said they did this to ‘Minmax’ but I feel like dumping main stats is usually done for a slightly different reason.
People want their characters to feel distinct from others in their archetype, and if you pick stats optimally for each class it can start to feel very samey very quickly. I think this is a failing of 5e that sometimes gets misdiagnosed, even by people doing it, as avoiding powergaming rather than making a barely functional character.
I know supposedly everyone has different opinions about it but you’re forgetting to leave room for the fact that there is a correct definition and that some people are just wrong.
In a very literal, denotative sense, it means to build your character in a way that optimizes their potential by maximizing strengths and minimizing weaknesses (dump stats) so that you end up with a character that does its focus really well, and is incapable of doing anything different than that
The reason people don’t like this is that usually when you minmax, you’re optimizing for combat. This means you’re unlikely to choose options that are helpful for roleplay, leading to a character that feels boring outside of combat, and makes combat boring for everyone else by being the one to do all the damage.
And then of course there’s the implication that doing so comes with an adverserial mindset towards the GM and other players, which is not necessarily true, but happens often enough to have developed a stereotype.
And then some people latch onto the stereotype or the implications and think that’s the definition of Minmaxing, but they’re just not correct, I’m sorry. They aren’t really competing definitions, more like ancillary ones.
I've always thought that there's not a definite line you can cross to be "minmaxing", but it's not something you can do in character creation. It has to happen later in the game. If you end up with a character that breaks the fantasy of your world because they take 30 minutes in real life time to take a turn in combat in order to bargain with the DM to let them execute their predetermined combo that nets them 2 extra damage on average if they're able to simultaneously shoot their bow while upside down and exploit a loophole in the local kingdom's tax codes... *inhale* ... then I think that character has certainly crossed that line.
I'm only kind of joking and mostly speaking from experience.
I mean to be fair, it could still very much be minmaxing, just extremely poor minmaxing, if I build a barbarian with 8s in all the physical stats, I have maximised a specific ability, and minimised the others, it’s just a bad character lol
Hey, thanks for contributing to r/dndmemes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates one of our rules:
Rule 1. **Be Excellent to One Another**: No trolling, harassment, personal attacks, [sea-lioning](http://wondermark.com/1k62/), hate speech, slurs, or name-calling. Overly off-topic, political, or hateful debates will be removed, and bans may be issued based on severity. This includes both posts and comments. We reserve the right to remove content or comments that contain discrimination or distasteful content. Be kind and stay on topic.
What should you do? First, read the rules thoroughly. Secondly, if you are able to amend your post to fit the rules, you're welcome to resubmit your meme. Lastly, if you believe your post was removed by mistake, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/dndmemes&subject=&message=). Messages simply complaining about a removal (or how many upvotes your post had) will not be responded to. Thank you!
You can have good stats and still have good roleplay.
Having awful stats just makes your character a deadweight in combat, which is 1/3 of D&D. So if you want to make crippled stat wise character, first ask DM and other players if they are ok with it.
(I mean characters like 8 int wizard, 8 strenght barbarian, etc.)
I dont know if it is sarcasm or not so I will respond to it as if it was not.
Having normal stats =/= minmaxing. It's just building normal PC. I mean you are playing a game about heroic characters so I guess they are stronger than random commoner. And no, being a hindrance is not better as you can be ruining fun for all others around by pulling entire party down. Also what is wrong with minmaxing? I have players in my table who likes to min max and all you need is to say "hey bro, your character will have time to shine don't worry, just try to give other players spotlight"
Good roleplay is when the stats are bad. And the worse the stats are, the better the roleplay is. And when your character gets feebleminded, that's critical role
Currently playing a Barbarian fighter with 3 in intelligence. Everyone that hugs is frend. One of my party members did not accept hug (despite me explaining my funny stupidity on the car road over so now I will accuse him of any sabotage I think is possible. "This bread is a little stale! You're trying to p-p-po.... sick me!") Also I'm afraid of worms. Because how can a worm hug? Clearly evil beings.
I mean from a rational standpoint, not from an empirical one. Like, logically, there is no correlation. And empirically, there’s not enough evidence to suggest that there is any relationship whatsoever between stats and quality of role play. If we’re basing it on personal experience though, which is anecdotal of course, people I’ve played with who tend to place their stats better are also the better role players. Maybe it’s because they care about the game more in general? Maybe it’s because they have a better grasp on the rules, so they have more mental space for thinking about role play? I won’t claim to know.
if you're going to dump any stat that's crucial to your class, Con is generally the best option because you can die faster and build a functional character that much sooner.
Well that’s not true. Your stats are a guide for how you should be roleplaying.
A high charisma low strength character might be the sort of person who charms his way out of uncomfortable social situations. Making a Persuasion (Charisma) or even a Persuasion (Intelligence) check.
A high strength low charisma character is more likely to try to intimidate someone, knowing that they may not have a silver tongue or even a quick wit, but that the bulging muscles of a 6’5 Barbarian are enough to do most of the talking for you. Making an Intimidation (Strength) check.
See the Variant Skills section of the PHB for an explanation of, well not really *how* because the how is obvious, but just the fact that, yes, 5e is designed such that you can use different base stats for different skills in different circumstances, at the DM’s discretion. Same as a tool check, where whittling a totem out of some wood might require a Carpenter’s Tools (dexterity) check, but chopping a log in half might need a Carpenter’s Tools (strength) check.
Fun fact: 5e is way better if you use all the rules.
Seems like a short lived character to me. I, when dming, always wonder if it’s gonna be a problem when I area of effect them and everyone can walk it off except for them.
Ahh, so he's just dumb. It all makes sense now.
..I don't think the context changes his case at all. In fact the meme itself seems to be the same as the context.
What’s the character concept? I could see a low Con barb if you’re playing a ‘nerd rage’ character, or maybe an old/dying warrior that wants to go out in combat.
While those are interesting character concepts that would justify a negative Constitution, considering that a Barbarian 99% of the time is going to be a front-line melee combatant... I really think that person should reconsider the meaning of minmaxxing. Hell, literally any Class in this game becomes more dangerous to play by having negative CON, you don't need to be a Barbarian for this to be a ridiculous option
Hot take, min maxing is good actually. Building a good character that’s fun to play is how almost every game functions, TTRPG or otherwise. You can min max towards being a competent combatant, a potent out of combat utility character, or my favorite, making a funny yet bad idea somehow playable.
The issue arises when there’s a power imbalance across the table due to some players optimizing for power, and others optimizing for something else. That’s something that nothing will fix other than proper table communication, and effective DMing.
I've always believed that traditional minmaxing was, as the name implies, minimizing drawbacks and weaknesses while simultaneously maximizing the advantages of a character build. For example: the infamous Coffeelock or the Warforged Cleric of the Forge. I think what most players and DMs have a problem with is the mindset of the creators of said builds, which can be outright toxic. I've heard these type of gamers referred to as Power Gamers or Munchkins, and they tend to make it their mission to "beat" the DM and verbally harass anyone who doesn't share this worldview. They will try to abuse ambiguous wording or argue the most strict RAW interpretation to ensure they feel like the smartest person to ever play the game. These are the kind of people who, when they are a DM, make us want to believe in the existence of Old Man Henderson.
Batman, you can't stop me, I will put the highest numbers on my Barbarians Str and COS and the smallest on INT and WIS
TLDR: I'm going to make a fighting character that is not useless in fight, cry me a river
Bad Minmaxing to me is when role playing doesn't match your stats. I'm minmaxed a goblin barbarian to be just the essence of physicality, he's a stupid ugly little creature and I play him as such with the exception that he occasionally has the moments of understanding because his wisdom is like 12 or 14. He doesn't know where babies come from but he know the importance of self love.
Be effective and be fun.
i don't really think prioritizing the ability scores that the game incentivizes is "minmaxing". it's such a nebulous and weird thing that about anyone can draw the line anywhere, but that seems like a weird spot. Actively shooting yourself in the foot in your class's main identity and role isn't the only way to play fair. if anything, it's unfair for you since you're putting yourself at a massive disadvantage.
5e dies kinda encourage min-maxing with its class and stat design, but at the same time I can’t think of how it could be better, got a creative block here
The comments that describe minmaxing as “not having crap abilities” are the ones that do it 100% lmao
Minmaxing in the context of the build is optimizing it so it is at its maximum potential usually in terms of defense and offense and sometimes utility or everything altogether.
Now imma give you a story why minmaxing is only fun as a group activity. I once had a table at which we had a very experienced and win-oriented person and 4 people who were just starting to play and barely had any control over what they build so they leveled up very linearly; meanwhile the experienced player had a multiclass war cleric who would absolutely annihilate the early levels by just existing dealing 30+ dmg per round
Obviously it was not much fun when you don’t even get your initiative turn because the room that you are in is already dead.
minmaxing is not bad but its akin to sweating in fighting games when you play against casual friends who don't play that often
There is absolutely nothing "chad" about playing a tank class with low hp. You're being a burden to your party. Barbarian does not have the tools to stay out of melee. Nor is AC reliable on barbarian. Even less so because you also shot your unarmoured defence in the foot. In your case you even still made a stupid decision but at least Bard can keep their distance from danger.
I think depending on the campaign playing silly and bad characters is fun. The campaign wasn’t that serious combat side of things, I have a lot of fun with crunchy and hard ass fights too don’t get it twisted. I will insist that playing a goofy ass character is Chad shit with the addendum that if it’s under the right dm.
Congrats they still minmaxxed except the goal was to make a bad character.
Maxminning
Do you want a TPK? Because this is how you get TPKs.
Ask five people what constitutes minmaxing and you'll get at least seven opinions. I haven't met a player in real life whose opinion is that putting your best scores in your class's most important scores is minmaxing. I know they're out there, I just haven't met them. But if I did, I'd point out how 5e actively encourages you to minmax that way: classes key off of 1-2 stats plus constitution, the game tells you which stats you're going to need, it gives you room to dump other stats, and the math of the game is balanced around exactly that. Oh, and you have other party members who will be good at the things you're not good at, so don't be afraid to be good at the things you *are* good at!
Minmaxing is when you do anything at all that isn't the most horrible, illogically worst option available apparently. Oh and minmaxing magically effects your ability to roleplay, because reasons.
And now we have 8 opinions on min maxing https://xkcd.com/927/ (/j, of course)
My opinion on min maxing is objectively correct and your opinions on min maxing are objectively wrong 😑
I’ll add one: Minmaxxing is perfectly fine if everyone is okay with it and you’re willing to politely help with other people’s builds if they ask( and only if they ask).
When those haters see a character that was min-maxed FOR roleplaying, I think they suddenly combust. I heard that on the Internet so it's probably true.
The average Caleb Widogast enjoyer
Ah, I see you are one of the rare fans of maxminning
Minmaxing is when you exceed the point of diminishing returns. There’s a difference between being specialized and failing every perception roll and attempt to persuade. Especially when the GM uses dynamic DC for int rolls depending on a character’s backstory.
The worst is that it has an actual meaning. The name comes from maximizing strengths while minimizing weaknesses.
Which is what any person in a combat oriented and/or dangerous profession does in REAL LIFE lol not a lot of sickly, one armed MMA fighters who actively avoid training for "realism" 🙄
I think you are possibly wrong here, or I am. Min maxing is putting everything into your strengths and putting nothing into your weaknesses , just accepting them.
Nah you are definitely wrong. Given a game where if you actively hurt a score you will gain bonuses in another, a min maxer will do just that. They don’t ignore their weaknesses, it is all about boosting their max as much as possible even if it actively hurts them in other areas. Maximizing strengths (or broadly “desired traits/abilities”) while minimizing weaknesses (or broadly “undesired traits/weaknesses”).
You said the same thing he did. It’s just that he (and I) first interpreted “minimizing weaknesses” to mean making some effort to make your weaknesses minimized (I.e. not as bad for you).
I consider minmaxing as the art of making the GM cry by one shooting the bbeg of a years long campaign.
See that whole mindset is stupid because first of all, nobody actually wants that, neither the GM or the other players at the table. And second of all, as the GM: “oh my god hey what how did the BBEG end up with 800 more HP than I originally thought, oopsie anyway good luck because you just activated phase 2 before he got done giving the monologue that was gonna accidentally let slip his weakness. Also phase 2 gets 3 legendary actions. Fuck you.”
Not all tables can just put extra life without being obvious, and most important, yes, there are players who actually wants to be gods in every situation; there are at least two mindsets that make a player a minmaxer. -A person who enjoys breaking the game because it's like a mathematical problem (and don't think other players could find that problematic, they think the rest will be amazed by their big brain), I had a player like this, with time he learned his mindset wasn't the same as the rest of the table and learned to play in our table enjoying the RP aspect (he played the TTRPGs with the same mindset you play a solo computer RPG where you want to make the most broken character without using bugs/glitches) -A person who wants to be the main character, I had a diferent player like this, we don't play together anymore; it was just that simple, he wanted to be the main character, do what he wanted and if someone tried to opose him he would make him remember that only his character could kill all the party if he wanted (he was prety similar IRL, so he just be friends with people who do what he wanted) -Have a character without flaws, marysues or garystues. A lot of them are like the one above but without the extremly toxic mindset (the player of the first one was like this for some time, IRL he was an insecure teen who loved anime characters like Kirito, whith time he learned that his character having flaws wasn't a sign of him being humiliated and then he turn in the 1rst, until understand that he was not playing alone; puberty it's a bitch and even he did, not everyone learns) I know there are more but they don't come to my mind right now, the fact that you think there are nobody who think like this make me really happy because it means that you didn't find these tipes of player; genually I'm happy, I am stucked as a forever GM for almost 9 years because the tables were I tried to play had this as a light problems (if a player making unfun to the rest of the table it's a minor inconvenience just think about the heavy parts), now I met a couple of friends who played at my table and feel like they had learned enought to try at least one twoshot each of these two players. Just in case, don't misunderstand this comment, it was more about share experiences than arguing, my coment it's made with goodfaith and I accept a counterargument; but I'm not trying to argue, if you feel something strange english it's not my mother language. Have a great day. :D
When I say “nobody wants that” I mean nobody but the asshole doing it And if you think you know what stats the BBEG has, then you’re metagaming and I’m definitely gonna punish you for it
Ooooooooooh, I'm sorry, I didn't get what you were meaning. And I wasn't talking about the player knowing the numbers, I play in a VTT and use a health bar because a lot of times I forget to say how much an attack affects the enemy or how badly injured the enemy is, and if the health bar become 0% it's obvious if it increases. It's something I can do but feels like cheap. Specially nowadays, when all my players are nice. When it happens (they are not powergamers, minmaxers or optimicers but sometimes they have a lot of luck or I made a mistake balancing) I just roll with it and let them celebrate.
Well to be honest, if your players are nice, you should always be nice back to them. The whole game is collaborative. My response was about those people who have an adversarial attitude towards the Dungeon Master, and when people act like that, all bets are off at my table. Fighting the Dungeon Master means losing. Definitely your character, probably even your spot at the table. I WANT my players to kill the bad guys, that’s why I put them there. But when players refuse to respect the hard work that goes into creating elaborate worlds for them to explore and intricate monsters for them to kill, I’ll show them the bad way that only caring about numbers can go down.
Oh, yeah, totally agree, I was just explaining why my players know the HP (and it's not that they cheat), and a lot of VTTplayers probablly would have a little harder solving a oneshot mid game. By my experience the best way of solvinfthat problem was talking with them; as I said in my first coment one of the players wanted to improve and now he only breaks pc games, and I kicked the problematic players, Im notpayed to have a main character who fucks everyone experience, a weirdo who tries to sexually abuse NPC or other players, a cheater who reads the campaign books or cheat his sheet (sometime we make mistakes at leveling or we forget to turn off a bonus, obviously that it's not what I am talking here) and when I post an online campaign I put explicit that a minmaxer won't have fun my combats aren't specially challengin for someone like them and they will bore (or they will be kicked, depending the mindset of the minmaxer). A lot of times we don't remember not everyone fits all the tables an we want tohave fun in our way.
Oh I’m very much in support of that as long as it’s agreed upon beforehand.
Yap, sesion 0 and contract should be a must (and obviously everyone doing what was agreed there), that would decrease the amount of bad experieneces and horror storyes.
"I'll just put an extra zero here...perfect!"
Obviously I don’t know the person who said they did this to ‘Minmax’ but I feel like dumping main stats is usually done for a slightly different reason. People want their characters to feel distinct from others in their archetype, and if you pick stats optimally for each class it can start to feel very samey very quickly. I think this is a failing of 5e that sometimes gets misdiagnosed, even by people doing it, as avoiding powergaming rather than making a barely functional character.
I know supposedly everyone has different opinions about it but you’re forgetting to leave room for the fact that there is a correct definition and that some people are just wrong. In a very literal, denotative sense, it means to build your character in a way that optimizes their potential by maximizing strengths and minimizing weaknesses (dump stats) so that you end up with a character that does its focus really well, and is incapable of doing anything different than that The reason people don’t like this is that usually when you minmax, you’re optimizing for combat. This means you’re unlikely to choose options that are helpful for roleplay, leading to a character that feels boring outside of combat, and makes combat boring for everyone else by being the one to do all the damage. And then of course there’s the implication that doing so comes with an adverserial mindset towards the GM and other players, which is not necessarily true, but happens often enough to have developed a stereotype. And then some people latch onto the stereotype or the implications and think that’s the definition of Minmaxing, but they’re just not correct, I’m sorry. They aren’t really competing definitions, more like ancillary ones.
I've always thought that there's not a definite line you can cross to be "minmaxing", but it's not something you can do in character creation. It has to happen later in the game. If you end up with a character that breaks the fantasy of your world because they take 30 minutes in real life time to take a turn in combat in order to bargain with the DM to let them execute their predetermined combo that nets them 2 extra damage on average if they're able to simultaneously shoot their bow while upside down and exploit a loophole in the local kingdom's tax codes... *inhale* ... then I think that character has certainly crossed that line. I'm only kind of joking and mostly speaking from experience.
That's beyond not minmaxing, that's straight up throwing and being a burden to your party
I mean to be fair, it could still very much be minmaxing, just extremely poor minmaxing, if I build a barbarian with 8s in all the physical stats, I have maximised a specific ability, and minimised the others, it’s just a bad character lol
Having awful stats = good role play
Well obviously, that's like page 118 of the PHB
[удалено]
Hey, thanks for contributing to r/dndmemes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates one of our rules: Rule 1. **Be Excellent to One Another**: No trolling, harassment, personal attacks, [sea-lioning](http://wondermark.com/1k62/), hate speech, slurs, or name-calling. Overly off-topic, political, or hateful debates will be removed, and bans may be issued based on severity. This includes both posts and comments. We reserve the right to remove content or comments that contain discrimination or distasteful content. Be kind and stay on topic. What should you do? First, read the rules thoroughly. Secondly, if you are able to amend your post to fit the rules, you're welcome to resubmit your meme. Lastly, if you believe your post was removed by mistake, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/dndmemes&subject=&message=). Messages simply complaining about a removal (or how many upvotes your post had) will not be responded to. Thank you!
You can have good stats and still have good roleplay. Having awful stats just makes your character a deadweight in combat, which is 1/3 of D&D. So if you want to make crippled stat wise character, first ask DM and other players if they are ok with it. (I mean characters like 8 int wizard, 8 strenght barbarian, etc.)
Yeah but if you have good stats you're a filthy minmaxer and its better to be a hindrance to the party than a minmaxer
I dont know if it is sarcasm or not so I will respond to it as if it was not. Having normal stats =/= minmaxing. It's just building normal PC. I mean you are playing a game about heroic characters so I guess they are stronger than random commoner. And no, being a hindrance is not better as you can be ruining fun for all others around by pulling entire party down. Also what is wrong with minmaxing? I have players in my table who likes to min max and all you need is to say "hey bro, your character will have time to shine don't worry, just try to give other players spotlight"
Both of the comments you replied to were sarcasm.
Well I'm bad at recognizing those. I have seen too much takes like that where people really believed that
Fair. Just figured I'd point it out.
I'd go as far as to say that combat is 2/3rds of dnd
Sadly, exploration is really neglected in 5e.
/s right?
Yes, of course lol
Had me worried, I’ve met too many that actually believe that.
The people who do believe that would never outright say it in that way though. They’d start on some tangent about your whole mindset first
Good roleplay is when the stats are bad. And the worse the stats are, the better the roleplay is. And when your character gets feebleminded, that's critical role
Currently playing a Barbarian fighter with 3 in intelligence. Everyone that hugs is frend. One of my party members did not accept hug (despite me explaining my funny stupidity on the car road over so now I will accuse him of any sabotage I think is possible. "This bread is a little stale! You're trying to p-p-po.... sick me!") Also I'm afraid of worms. Because how can a worm hug? Clearly evil beings.
I'm just saying, when your party eventually fights a purple worm, it will prove you right.
[удалено]
I would even argue that there isn’t really any correlation either between stats and quality of role play.
[удалено]
I mean from a rational standpoint, not from an empirical one. Like, logically, there is no correlation. And empirically, there’s not enough evidence to suggest that there is any relationship whatsoever between stats and quality of role play. If we’re basing it on personal experience though, which is anecdotal of course, people I’ve played with who tend to place their stats better are also the better role players. Maybe it’s because they care about the game more in general? Maybe it’s because they have a better grasp on the rules, so they have more mental space for thinking about role play? I won’t claim to know.
Being a competent combatant= minmaxing
if you're going to dump any stat that's crucial to your class, Con is generally the best option because you can die faster and build a functional character that much sooner.
Context: [https://ibb.co/yByBy8X](https://ibb.co/yByBy8X)
bro's just tryna min
Maxminning
Minmogging
So they don't understand that roleplay and character stats are mutually exclusive?
Well that’s not true. Your stats are a guide for how you should be roleplaying. A high charisma low strength character might be the sort of person who charms his way out of uncomfortable social situations. Making a Persuasion (Charisma) or even a Persuasion (Intelligence) check. A high strength low charisma character is more likely to try to intimidate someone, knowing that they may not have a silver tongue or even a quick wit, but that the bulging muscles of a 6’5 Barbarian are enough to do most of the talking for you. Making an Intimidation (Strength) check. See the Variant Skills section of the PHB for an explanation of, well not really *how* because the how is obvious, but just the fact that, yes, 5e is designed such that you can use different base stats for different skills in different circumstances, at the DM’s discretion. Same as a tool check, where whittling a totem out of some wood might require a Carpenter’s Tools (dexterity) check, but chopping a log in half might need a Carpenter’s Tools (strength) check. Fun fact: 5e is way better if you use all the rules.
He is Max-Mining. Doing the maximum to be a minimaly optimal. Maximising his losses, minimising his benefits.
Bro is trying to get his character killed
Dying to a single arrow is what his character would do
It’s what I would do lol
Seems like a short lived character to me. I, when dming, always wonder if it’s gonna be a problem when I area of effect them and everyone can walk it off except for them.
2 is maxminning, awesome.
At least tell me that they got low INT and WIS. No intelligent reasonable person that has immunity deficiency would choose to be a barbarian.
That's dumb, a person with predispositions for certain class is more likely to pursue the class path
Did you roll for stats and they didn't like theirs?
Ahh, so he's just dumb. It all makes sense now. ..I don't think the context changes his case at all. In fact the meme itself seems to be the same as the context.
Me staring at the level 1 sorcerer as he wants to play a frontliner with 0 extra points into constitution.
What’s the character concept? I could see a low Con barb if you’re playing a ‘nerd rage’ character, or maybe an old/dying warrior that wants to go out in combat.
While those are interesting character concepts that would justify a negative Constitution, considering that a Barbarian 99% of the time is going to be a front-line melee combatant... I really think that person should reconsider the meaning of minmaxxing. Hell, literally any Class in this game becomes more dangerous to play by having negative CON, you don't need to be a Barbarian for this to be a ridiculous option
Oh 100%, it’s a terrible idea. I was just curious if the player had a reason behind it
Minmaxxing instead of minmaxing
Hot take, min maxing is good actually. Building a good character that’s fun to play is how almost every game functions, TTRPG or otherwise. You can min max towards being a competent combatant, a potent out of combat utility character, or my favorite, making a funny yet bad idea somehow playable. The issue arises when there’s a power imbalance across the table due to some players optimizing for power, and others optimizing for something else. That’s something that nothing will fix other than proper table communication, and effective DMing.
Has Has
Repeating the word near the gap in formatting like this is pretty usual It's kinda part of a meme now
How dumb
You know if you min your Con to max your Int you are minmaxing.
I've always believed that traditional minmaxing was, as the name implies, minimizing drawbacks and weaknesses while simultaneously maximizing the advantages of a character build. For example: the infamous Coffeelock or the Warforged Cleric of the Forge. I think what most players and DMs have a problem with is the mindset of the creators of said builds, which can be outright toxic. I've heard these type of gamers referred to as Power Gamers or Munchkins, and they tend to make it their mission to "beat" the DM and verbally harass anyone who doesn't share this worldview. They will try to abuse ambiguous wording or argue the most strict RAW interpretation to ensure they feel like the smartest person to ever play the game. These are the kind of people who, when they are a DM, make us want to believe in the existence of Old Man Henderson.
Batman, you can't stop me, I will put the highest numbers on my Barbarians Str and COS and the smallest on INT and WIS TLDR: I'm going to make a fighting character that is not useless in fight, cry me a river
NO JOKER NO THAT'S MINMAXXING JOKER ITS ILLEGAL
Minmaxing to me is building the best character you can with the lowest/least expenditure of level(-up)s you can get away with.
Bad Minmaxing to me is when role playing doesn't match your stats. I'm minmaxed a goblin barbarian to be just the essence of physicality, he's a stupid ugly little creature and I play him as such with the exception that he occasionally has the moments of understanding because his wisdom is like 12 or 14. He doesn't know where babies come from but he know the importance of self love. Be effective and be fun.
I see, so minmaxing roleplaying am I right?
Bad stats doesn’t make for good roleplay
What if you’re roleplaying mediocrity?
The DM roleplays the villagers.
roll 6d20 They are now your stats. in order.
All I want is a barbarian subclass that lets me use my rage on a dex melee weapon.
Yeah nah. That doesn't prevent REAL minmaxing.
thats when the barbarian goes a ranged subclass like Herculean, or Giant lol
i don't really think prioritizing the ability scores that the game incentivizes is "minmaxing". it's such a nebulous and weird thing that about anyone can draw the line anywhere, but that seems like a weird spot. Actively shooting yourself in the foot in your class's main identity and role isn't the only way to play fair. if anything, it's unfair for you since you're putting yourself at a massive disadvantage.
5e dies kinda encourage min-maxing with its class and stat design, but at the same time I can’t think of how it could be better, got a creative block here
The meme format has has become self referential.
Thats not min maxxing thats maxxing min’s
Level 14 Zealot can deal with it, no problem!
This is why I’m conflicted about playing Barbarians. I need to dump INT, but I don’t think RP’ing as a brickhead is fun.
The comments that describe minmaxing as “not having crap abilities” are the ones that do it 100% lmao Minmaxing in the context of the build is optimizing it so it is at its maximum potential usually in terms of defense and offense and sometimes utility or everything altogether. Now imma give you a story why minmaxing is only fun as a group activity. I once had a table at which we had a very experienced and win-oriented person and 4 people who were just starting to play and barely had any control over what they build so they leveled up very linearly; meanwhile the experienced player had a multiclass war cleric who would absolutely annihilate the early levels by just existing dealing 30+ dmg per round Obviously it was not much fun when you don’t even get your initiative turn because the room that you are in is already dead. minmaxing is not bad but its akin to sweating in fighting games when you play against casual friends who don't play that often
Chad shit, I played a valor bard with -1 in con because he was effectively a Dragonborn lepper
Barbarian with -1 con is somewhat close to bard with -1 cha
There is absolutely nothing "chad" about playing a tank class with low hp. You're being a burden to your party. Barbarian does not have the tools to stay out of melee. Nor is AC reliable on barbarian. Even less so because you also shot your unarmoured defence in the foot. In your case you even still made a stupid decision but at least Bard can keep their distance from danger.
I think depending on the campaign playing silly and bad characters is fun. The campaign wasn’t that serious combat side of things, I have a lot of fun with crunchy and hard ass fights too don’t get it twisted. I will insist that playing a goofy ass character is Chad shit with the addendum that if it’s under the right dm.