I like how Brennan went for Frodo, a guy who's job for the whole series was to just roll wisdom saving throws while his minmaxed companions did all the actual work xd
Right? I was really hoping the rebuttal would be, "Lord of the Rings? Did you really want to start there? Let's talk about literally all the elves..." lol
Not only did they do the work, but Frodo also had a "split the party" moment with the actual combat monkeys, and instead wandered off on a social/RP campaign of his own, with the other mostly social character, and a DM npc, while the rest of the table of combat classes were actually fighting the encounters the GM mapped out.
Yes, but also the Halflings show their ability to take out goddamn orcs *with thrown stones* and pass a stealth check *beside an entire army.* Hell, Sam stands up to Shelob, that's one hell of a wisdom saving throw. The halflings don't look like powergamers, but they are absolutely minmaxed.
@@brawlyaura5799 Not really. Once you recognize you're at that point you just have exercise restraint. You're still helpful in a fight, but if things go sour you get to be all fuckin' smug and go "Suppose I'll get serious now" and save the day when it really counts.
@@brawlyaura5799 It really depends on the table. If you have a power gamer and a less experienced DM than yeah. If you have an experienced DM and players then you can powergame all day. The DM will be able to compensate for it. Its really only a problem if one of the players knows the game much better than the DM, or the DM can't provide challenging combat encounters. It isn't even that hard to optimize a build while maintaining roleplay. So the power gaming problem never made a ton of sense to me. Emily Axford loves to optimize, but she has great DMs who can handle it. Look at her builds, Bard/Paladin, Storm Sorcerer/Tempest Cleric, Druid/Barbarian. She's super creative and always looking for advantages, but it doesn't affect her roleplay. The people no one likes are the Tiberius(Critical Role) types. Guys who take up everyone's time trying to buy up all the glass in a city to build a death laser, trying to hog the spotlight, looking up monsters online during a session. Those people are obnoxious because they aren't invested in the game as a story or an immersive experience, instead they treat it as a math problem that they can impress everyone by solving. They want to be seen as the smartest boy and they think of themselves as the protagonist of the campaign. I would argue that some of the biggest fun of DnD is building a character that is meant to be good at something and then getting to be good at it during a session. Murph built Rizz to be good at being a detective, and when he gets great investigation roles and finds clues that isn't power gaming, its just gaming.
Ah yes, the Halflings of the shire. Simple, meek, everyman farmers. Who: • Could knock out *armored orcs* with *thrown* stones, accurately. • Could hide from the witch king *while holding a thing that explicitly attracts him.* Twice. • Could hide from an entire army passing right beside them with the help of an elven artifact. • Stand up to, dodge attacks from and actually stab Shelob, a Balrog-level being. • Resist the magical persuasion attempts from Smaug • Sneak out of the lonely mountain with the Arkenstone, and then *into* the enemy camp past elven sentries? Yes, simple, everyman farmers.
As a min-maxer, I believe that the proper argument against it is that it is not appropriate in all scenarios. If you're the only min-maxer in your group and your character begins to completely over shadows your party members, it's time to stop and take a look to make sure that everyone is having fun. It's a group game - what ever results in the most people in your group having the most fun is the right decision!
Yeah thats basically the key. Min-maxing is fine if everyone does it (or at least they all have an area in where they shine) but if it's not that case then its an issue.
@@Ghorda9 You could but also some min-maxing builds rely on very little action once built. I.e if you make an uber tank. The dm then has a choice of anything thats a threat to the uber tank is usually gonna wipe the other characters. however you also have other issues lets say player A makes a rogue, player B makes a wizard Due to spells and stuff the wizard is actually a better sneak than the rogue, despite the rogue being built for stealth. Sure the wizard can refuse to sneak but it's also not great for a lot of players to have the whole 'okay I did this, but this other player would have done what im built around even better' or 'okay i failed at the thing i am designed to be good at, should have just let the other player do it cause he is better and would have succeeded' Being a good player is knowing when to step back and let people shine, and not enough people know that and the fact you considered that is great! It's a really good thing to keep in mind. Just sometimes it's not enough, sometimes some players want to have 1 thing they are good at, better than anyone else. All the stepping back and doing nothing doesn't stop the min-maxer who knows how to make the rules dance to his tune, from having made a character that is better at that particular thing.
Luke was highly force-sensitive and a skilled pilot. He would regularly bullseye 2m womp rats in his T-16. The T-16 was often used by the Rebellion to train X-Wing pilots since it had a similar control scheme. Plus, Luke definitely grew into a very powerful character. It looks like he may have made some choices that paid off later, like force sensitivity and piloting, that would only pay off in the mid-levels. Lots of optimization builds start off a bit rocky until their combo gets going.
@davigibson3356 I was going to stick with "force-sensitive," since it's functionally the same thing, but this way I can ignore the controversial lore introduced in the prequels.
"Yeah, because being the only Paladin on the whole scenario because they can do fun magic is SUCH A ROLEPLAY CHOICE. No mechanics involved here, I'm sure."
yeah, but if he had been real min max that first fight with Vader on Cloud City would have had him taking Vader's head and banging his sister to celebrate.
Fighter Gunslinger here. Level 6. Has (homebrew DM created and normal) feats that can make my weapons have long to insane range, gun that has an extra +1, and with Sharpshooter -5 subtracted, has a +4 to all attacks. And with extra attack and action surge, and using the average on 2d10 can do above at least above 50 damage in one turn. That Nat 1 and low roll makes me the weakest fool here with a gun misfiring and having to spend time to repair it.
I feel like a good party takes multiple types of builds. The min/maxer(Aragorn), the built for story(Frodo), the guy who likes story but rolled 18s across the board(Sam), and the veteran player who just builds powerful characters incidentally and, even though he could wipe the board himself, pulls punches so everyone has fun(Gandalf).
@@afilthyweeb8684, I like Brennan’s headcanon that Gandalf is the DM’s high leveled friend from last campaign who can’t play every week anymore so has to dip out from the narrative periodically
Yeah I'm definitely the Gandalf in that metaphor lol I'm by FAR the most experienced player in my group and I have made a support necromancer wizard who helps everyone else shine... But if things get bad I whip out my massive, throbbing optimization to make sure everyone survives 😂
The thought that Sam was a person who wanted to RP and have a story build but rolled all 18s forcing him to literally carry the main character is so funny to me! XD Ps. s/o to my gandalfs
I’d argue Aragorn was less of a min/max-er and more of a Jack-of-all-trades. Rarely was he THE best at any one thing, but was fully capable of standing alongside his teammates and contributing in just about any situation. Play Your Role has a great video on this, where he talks about being able to support your team during nearly any situation is part of what makes the ranger (conceptually, at least) work.
There's two types of power gamers: 1) "I'm going to build this to be exactly what I want'" 2) "If my party is not 100% optimised I will either pressure/bully my team into doing better, showoff how much better I am, or leave." Be option 1 as much as you like, just don't be a 2. For the love of your fellow players and the hobby in general, don't be option 2.
The type 1 you describe is an actual power gamer in DnD. The type 2 you describe is an actual asshole gamer in DnD. This type can be pro or against: minmaxing, following plot, sharing treausres, doing sidequests, murderhobo, deep backstories, sex fluency and basically any aspect of the game that you can and can't think of. They will pressure/bully fellow gamers or DM to do what they like regardless. Fuck them.
Powergaming in 3.5 was honestly insane. 5th edition, the worst thing you could probably do is become a Sorlock, which ultimately isn't even THAT bad if you're a good dm.
5E goes infinite in a couple of ways other than Coffeelock, such as Minor Conjuration + Glyph of Warding. Most optimization happens at lvl 1, with Custom Origin or VHuman, playing a caster, min maxing stats, getting Shield + Silvery Barbs and a starting AC 18 or above. Individual DMs and post-script blog RAI may rule out straight readings, but it doesn't change the content written there and there were little to no erratas on them rules, so.
Brennan: "Let the little guys have a win." My 20th level Fairy Zealot Barbarian with insane abilities and equipment that basically grant her a recharging breath weapon, free spellcasting, long-ranged attacks, and legendary actions while being nearly unkillable: "Yeah!"
Hold up, Luke absolutely did not have 10s across the board on his stats okay. He's was established to be a talented pilot in the film, that's at least a 14-16 on DEX, the fact that he's had to endure the heat on a desert planet, at least 12 on CON, him being able to fix C-3PO in Ben's hut after the Tusken Raider attack, maybe a 12 on INT and if not either proficiency in Engineering or he simply got a high enough roll on the check.
"So isn't it great that their fellow player at the table has an expert tank who will protect them from the consequences of their own actions?" hit me down in my core as someone who was just playing a Circle of the Shepherd Druid. When the high concept underdog fails their saving throw next to the Mind Flayer everyone is mighty grateful for a min-maxxed healer.
I'm the sort of min-maxer that when playing a healer, I would actively track my allies' HP along with my own. This way I'm able to not need to ask where people are.
Frodo carried the ring, the object so important and cursed that the main thread of the story is trying to destroy it; others had difficulties just looking at the thing, but Frodo carried it all the way to Mordor. Frodo Baggins was optimised for carrying the ring.
@@justforplaylists Yup Custom Lineage with the Resilient - Wisdom feat. Also saved his hash against the Barrow Wight. And he dumped Str down to like 6 to pump his Con to make all those consecutive saves against the Morgul Blade's curse condition.
@@ShakeyBox I think we can consider "if LotR was in D&D" even if that doesn't make much sense. Though I guess DM of the Rings followed Aragorn's party for a reason. I assume the LotR RPG at least would be better.
With min-maxing it’s easy to focus on the maximum that they can do and not explore what they’ve given up to do it. As a dungeon master I like giving players a chance to shine (what they’ve maxed out for) and also giving them obstacles around thier weaknesses (what they’ve minimized). Just because someone has an 18 in strength doesn’t mean they have an 18 in wisdom or in charisma.
While i do power game, i love an underdog character. My luck is just so bad that i have to build around it. A good example for me is that in the last combat session i rolled 8 to 10 nat 1's and was the only one who rolled any.
One of my favorite characters was a 13 wisdom Kobold druid who barely spoke common and had wild magic surges every time he tried to cast a spell. Utterly useless in combat and in skill events for the most part, but tons of memorable moments in downtime.
I love making strong characters, but my luck is also awful. Rolling for stats usually helps you, but nope, I managed to roll 2 6s, and nothing above a 14. I have to optimize just to fight against my rolls.
@julianyoon4948 idk. I think him and my ancestors angered a god of luck and cursed both our blood lines. Also, update i just recently dm a one shot and didn't roll higher then a 5.
Tbf, nothing is scarier than a bunch of underdog builds that working together are extremely freakin op to match and over power power gamer builds. Also Luke was a high dex high con character. It's stated he was skilled at shooting small pests from high speed vehicles and often did so in one of the most notorious canyons of his home world. He also worked a farm so he had a lot of high physical stats and good intuition from heritage. Sooo he is more 14s-16s in physical stats 10 int and 14 wis/cha. He is royally beefed.
lmao, yeah idk, a bunch of underdog builds that work together vs a party of characters that aren't literally built like shit, 99% of the time, the latter party wins. the other 1% is literally just luck
and lets just say for arguments sake that Luke is completely 10's He is also with Han Solo, Chewie and Leia. Heck you can even argue the C3PO and R2-D2 are min maxed.
In what situation would you even have a party of "underdog builds" going against one minmaxxer as a premise that wasn't an instance of pvp? cuz that sounds like a toxic situation altogether. also if you 'build" around making an underdog character, you're optimizing. thus the term "build". You have to build a character to do the things frodo did if that's your goal. the only way to avoid this is to never make choices for your character based around a concept or even around the context of what would be useful for your campaign. all your choices would have to be arbituary or something because 'you think it's neat" and nothing else.
@@lighthadoqdawg you're just being needlessly pedantic about the literal meaning of words instead of the clear and obvious meaning being conveyed. just a heads up when someone said they literally peed themselves laughing, they more than likely did not actually pee themselves.
@@fairystail1 I was going to be annoyed at your comment, but then I realized you not only did you use pedantic incorrectly, as any corrections I made in my reply were relevant enough to change the perception of the issue OP pointed out about "builds" but in your little tirade about clear and obvious meaning you /literally/ tried to justify someone misusing the word literally to mean 'figuratively'. i'll keep it simple for you: if you 'build', you're using a 'build'. even if you intentionally build your character to be 'bad' or against the grain. teamwork is not an option exclusive to non optimized builds, nor does optimizing correlate with no desire to do so. so, while you figuratively pee on yourself while nitpicking and sharpshooting my point and no doubt will attempt to use more logical fallacies to argue. remember that you started this by using words you clearly don't fully understand for the sake of trying to look smart on the internet about things that don't really matter because you let a contrasting opinion effect you so.
Yeah but the aiming was from the overpowered "force user" feat, and mechanic and pilot are class abilities, he was higher level, didn't start at lvl 1, he was like lvl 5 before he multiclassed into jedi. He himself had maybe higher than average charisma since people seemed to like him instantly, but otherwise a bunch of 10s.
I LOVE her! Her debate style is both sarcastic AND entertaining! A wonderful video! Btw, Frodo had the Luck Feat and Halflings are lucky anyway. Luke had the Force Initiate Feat.
Ouch, that last one got personal haha I love playing as the underdog, look at an RPG like Kenshi, you pretty much always start as the underdog, but you work your way up to superhuman power, it's that process of improving that makes that particular game fun.
I love how you both wonderfully displayed that each side is it's wonderful experience. It's down to what y'all want. Let your characters fight a little over how you're gonna approach a scenario, cmon!
I like how Brennan brought up Luke as a guy with "10s across the board" when he was a total Gary Stu character. Not to mention the whole.... shooting womp rats with his T-16 back home...
Min maxers are only a menace if the campaign is not about that, just build your characters around the mood the DM is trying to set for your group. These social media popular groups are enjoyable to see because they all have an improv background, they agree with the setup they are presented and go from there, nobody is trying to stand out and having it their way.
My friends are always making the unkillable demigod optimized characters, and from a DM perspective it’s just not fun to play against those all the time. From a player perspective, building cracked out min maxed character who’s goated with the sauce for every one shot just to keep up with them is exhausting.
Luke Skywalker, the completely overpowered space wizard prodigy in a universe where almost no one else has access to those powers. Totally tens across the board.
God these two are so great! I had to stop eating my dinner because I was laughing too hard and way afraid I'd spit my stir-fry on my laptop. Also, the best characters are "competent but flawed". It's the Wizard who does have a 16 in Intelligence but an 11 in Constitution and a 12 in Dexterity. It's the DEX-based Paladin, who can still do the job really well but can't wear heavy armor. It's the Rogue with 14's in almost every stat that focuses more on skills than combat prowess. Remember: D&D is a team sport. It's a good idea to give your character weaknesses and strengths both so you can excel in certain areas AND so your party members can fill in at the times when you are out of your depth.
I like both. Min/maxing helped me understand the mechanics... throwing that out the window to play more flawed and goofy characters feels more rewarding
I used to powergame, but I got bored and now I build with concepts in mind. They usually wind up pretty strong because I do what I can within that theme, but I don't think about the output when I select my classes and abilities. Haven't done it yet, but I'm looking at making a Ratfolk Necromancer in PF1E exclusively because taking three racial feats gives me a burrow speed so I can easily dig up graves to make undead servants. It's wildly unoptimized (Burrow is a level 2 Wizard spell I could cast), but I think it's funny, and my fellow players tend to enjoy this kind of nonsense because they're not super amazing at the game themselves. Of course, this kind of playstyle is a privilege I have because no GM I play under makes things super difficult most of the time. I'm not in any meat grinder campaigns, so powergaming isn't necessary, and I prefer it that way.
Han Solo was a sharpshooter rogue. Luke Skywalker started at level 1 but then his build came into focus late into the game and he became a powerful paladin by the endgame of RotJ
I think everybody should try to optimize enough to be at least competent. You don't want to be a liability, and if your background/concept says you're good at a thing, the mechanics of your character should match. There are some levels of theoretical optimization that should stay in the realm of theory (like the notorious Pun-pun of D&D 3.5 with the ability to raise its abilities to arbitrary scores levels permanently at level 5), but they can be fun to think about and may inspire more reasonable combos. There is a risk of having a particularly optimized character who overshadows the party too much. The DM is then put in a difficult situation where any foe that can challenge the power gamer is far too powerful for the rest of the party. My personal process for making a character is to find some mechanic or combo in the rules that I find interesting/powerful, then start to build a character around that. As the character forms, I ask myself who this collection of numbers and mechanics is. This helps develop a personality, background, and theme. I take the lore-aspect and use it to help guide the more flexible parts of the character, basically anything that is tangential to the main combos. Those choices could open up new avenues that then feed back into the lore, bouncing back and forth. I also consult class guides to filter through the forest of choices more easily. Knowing the setting and nature of the campaign can also be very useful in sculpting a character. It can take me several days to fiddle with a character and their spells/equipment. I also like to take wacky concepts from other players and help make them reasonably competent. A really cool concept gets a lot less fun if you are too weak to do fun stuff. A goblin gunslinger with a flying mount by level 2 is awesome, as long as said mount isn't made of tissue paper after a couple of levels. I like to work in systems with a lot of options, but still some constraints to shape the process. ____ Even on the notoriously deadly Call of Cthulhu RPG, character creation generally allows players to get some very high starting skills. Even if you can't fire a gun to save your life, you might be a research savant. That is a fine underdog. You have a clear niche that explains why you are still kept around.
I find on myself that I like to min-max but not for combat. i.e if im gonna play a sneaky boi then he will be the sneakiest boi ever. If I play a nerd then you bet he's gonna know all the things. Can easily power game while keeping balanced with the party
If not for my party member mid maxing I wouldn't be touching all the things I shouldn't be touching.😂 My monk character is currently cursed and is vulnerable to necrotic damage but I feel safe in my party. 😊
It works every way. Everyone’s power gaming? Cool, crazy monsters. Everyone’s an underdog cool, neat characters. You have a split? Cool, it’s realistic
My campaign has what I call the "Jewel Rule," after a player's former character. Its pretty simple... take a barbarian with max strength, a two handed weapon, all the feats they rack up, and add in appropriate magic items per level. If you equal this damage output, you're an optimal character, exceed it you're power gaming. And for those who fall short of that level, the DM adds items and custom feats and things that will bring their combat usefulness up to that of the optimized barbarian. It's a little harder to measure skill builds like that, but the idea holds. Because a lot of players like to be Superman, but you gotta make sure that Jimmy and Lois have something to do that is equally as important.
While I love to min max and powergame... I can pull it back. Along those lines, during a DnD game I played one of my friends joked about how I would probably play a bard so I could try to sleep with everybody, and another one of my friends mentioned how I wouldn't be the sort that would build a character like that.
Sam put that very well. Adventurers aren't normal people, they're all specialists. They're focused, often on one or two powers only. It's more realistic. Like how well do you think Eddie Van Halen could break dance? Probably not so well because he focused on shredding faces with guitar. And that makes simple sense both in life and at the table.
The problem with min/maxers isn't the min/maxing. It's usually accompanied by a plethora of other undesirable personality traits. They tend to be rules lawyers b/c they have studied (or more likely stole from the internet) their build. They are meta gamers, using their knowledge of monsters to use the perfect strat that their character would never know. They also think they can "win" D&D instead of understanding it's literally about the journey. They aren't fun, and the purpose of D&D is fun.
both right in a way. They both emphasize the story... Doesnt matter if you optimize or not, as long as you focus on making a character you like, that fits in the story.
I love being the dude at the table who has a powerful enough character to make sure his casual friends can do whatever shenanigans they want LOL we're not all douchey spotlight hogs, some of us just love power and the things it lets us do (for ourselves, and our friends).
I'm lately realizing that munchkins finding the optimum builds actually needs to impact worldbuilding. We need to see someone create legions of "sorlocks" or pally-whatsits and give an in-universe explanation for how the generals and such created these armies.
So what I consider making an underdog isn't "10s across the board." You can make an underdog Rogue for example who has maxed out Dexterity for example. Creating an underdog has more to do with backstory, but also something that I find is very important on a character level: weaknesses. One of the reasons why people tend to like underdogs is that those underdogs struggle, and we root for these underdogs and remember them because they succeed despite struggling. There are reasons why people call Superman boring, one of those reasons is because he can accomplish anything and everything, and the only thing that can stop him is a glowing green rock. Power-gamers not only try to make their characters good at mostly everything, but they try to make sure their characters have no weaknesses. Which isn't as good of a character as someone who needs to ask another player for help with something that they are not good at.
WoTC did make Luke Skywalker's character sheet in Star Wars D20 Saga & Revised editions... They weren't all 10s across the board. Also ... Counter to the opposed argument.... If everyone is optimized, that's the new bland normal. Thus making the average Janes & Joes abnormal/exotic. Futurama did a fun Amazonian depiction of this idea as an absurdity.
Hey a hot button issue for you to explore maybe: Counterspell - how do you approach it? Does every caster know what spell is going to be cast "against" them, or do you not tell them? Maybe a quick arcana check? How to approach this?
I mean, regarding the lotr example. How many people's favorite character is Legolas? An elven archer who never misses a shot. Or Aragorn? A kingly figure with a maxed charisma and incredible fighting skill.
While there is fun, in both MinnMax characters and underdogs, they are downsides to both as well. For the MinnMax character, there’s a danger of being too focused on battle, or that one thing that you can do that you’re not useful in any other situation. In other words, unless your campaign is all battle simulation, you might struggle to be a contributor in situations like diplomacy, investigation, exploration, etc. On the other hand, for an underdog character, the tens, across-the-board character, it can indeed be frustrating to find that when the chips are down, you aren’t able to help. Fortunately, both of these situations are solvable, and I’d argue. They’re both actually the same. That is to say, if you start out with either of these characters, at first level, you can do things to compensate for those areas where you have trouble. For instance, if you have a MinnMax character that you intend to MinnMax, the entire time, you can make the character interesting by using role-play to allow your character to add flavor to situations where they aren’t particularly effective. For the underdog character, as the campaign progresses, they can make choices that will more directly align themselves with the general tone and needs that the environment presents. They also have a greater opportunity for pathos, Since they are more likely to find themselves making difficult choices that will come to haunt them further down the line in the campaign. But to stay true to the spirit question, I would say that a MinnMax character is most appropriate for one shots and campaigns that start at a high-level. on the other hand, I typically prefer for a longer campaign to start with a character that has an obvious flaw. But let’s be very clear, if you were a MinnMax character, you also have an obvious flaw. A good GM will be keeping track of all the strengths and weaknesses in the party, and endeavor to present situations were each of the characters is able to take advantage of their strengths. At the same time, they will be bringing forth situations and opponents Who will target the weaknesses of those characters who are MinnMax in someway. Vettel said, it is fun to try to figure out a character that has the most of some thing. For instance, I have a character who can, at level 12, summon so many animals That the entire table would groan with disappointment
If Starstruck has anything to say, it's that you can narratively be an underdog, but mechanically be a min-maxxer. You can absolutely be a fuckin' rejected prototype that nobody but some art major wanted to even entertain the idea of your existence, but Oceans 11 your own DM 10 sessions later.
It really depends on the game for me. But in most situations I would say optimized characters are less interesting storywise. I like weird characters so I usually will extend that into their stat block. Like playing a one armed swordsmen who wields a large two handed sword in his offhand. You can't have that kind of character with an optimized build.
Issue with this is DnD doesn't have a way to increase the characters potential stat wise bar ASI which wouldn't let you increase your stats to match your party members GURPS however, GURPS does this amazingly. 150pt character put your points into advantages and powers but leave yourself weak stat wise as you grow to a 900pt monstrosity
I do draw a difference between min-maxing and power gaming. Min-maxing would be to try and squeeze every single drop of benefit out of everything, programing your build from lvl 1 all the way to lvl 20+. Power gaming is adapting to what shows up (magic items, boons, backstory related benefits and so on) and making the best out of it. To me, not only it is fun as hell to just realize some strength on your character but it is great on roleplay reasons, because combat mimics the other aspects of the game and it gives my DM more freedom with the items he gives us. Heck he can even roll a random item table. As someone who has DMd for way too much time, I give my DM all the chances to diminish the work he has to put into preparing a good campaign
I love how they're both right. An underdog raises the stakes, and you can get into how they're backstory makes them ill-suited for what they're doing, and the optimized characters can carry their weight no matter what.
Flaws don't have to be displayed in your stats to be present. You can always play your character with flaws without shooting yourself in the foot with bad feat or level selections.
There’s already so much you can’t plan for in D&D - dice, other players, free will. Why not prepare what you can to do the best for the things you can control.
