About min/maxing

Something I would love to see in 5e is a system where players are rewarded for moderate stats. Many roleplaying systems reward min/maxing, since it usually isn't worth being 'okay' at a certain skill. One way of handling this, of course, is for the DM to put his players in situations where they can't always rely on the one with the highest skill to step forth and make the attempt. 

I would love for this to be true for pure combat effectiveness as well. Instead of maxing for example strength, it should be viable for a fighter to invest in the other stats, both mental and physical, to aid his prowess in different ways. 

I haven't read the playtest package thoroughly enough to tell, perhaps someone could tell me how it's looking in this regard?
all the ability scores are used for different types of saving throws. a character who pumps their main stat while ignoring others is much more likely to fail saves.
Ah right, that I know. I really like that development, making all abilities useful. 
Eh, DEX is still the all powerful super stat and STR is pretty much bleh.
it already functions that way. min maxing, you ARE really good at what you do. but that s the point. that is ALL you can do.

allrounders are just that, they arent great at anything but they can try anything they like
Something I would love to see in 5e is a system where players are rewarded for moderate stats. Many roleplaying systems reward min/maxing, since it usually isn't worth being 'okay' at a certain skill. One way of handling this, of course, is for the DM to put his players in situations where they can't always rely on the one with the highest skill to step forth and make the attempt. 

I would love for this to be true for pure combat effectiveness as well. Instead of maxing for example strength, it should be viable for a fighter to invest in the other stats, both mental and physical, to aid his prowess in different ways. 

I haven't read the playtest package thoroughly enough to tell, perhaps someone could tell me how it's looking in this regard?



trebor_rjf is correct on that front, but on the PC-Combat side, Dexterity is remaining a superior stat than Strength and by a far margin. Dex improves AC, it improves both ranged and Melee attacks, it improves your saves against certain damage-dealing spells (ie. Fireball), it improves Initiative, and it improves quite a few skills.

Strength does.......well you have a less chance of being pushed around a lot and you can probably climb and swim well. You can also use thrown weapons with Strength instead of Dex. But that's about it.

To Increase Strength's prowess, something needs to be done that benefits having a good Strength score than what's already there. For one, perhaps more spells that hinder your movement or hold you in place.
Fighters have little reason to invest in mental stats, and wizards have little reason to invest in physical stats.  Even though everyone has to care about all stats a little bit, the difference between an 8 and a 14 is still only +3 to saves.

The metagame is not the game.

Not only that, but it's not even like a character with balanced stats is way better off when it comes to saves than a character with lopsided stats, since while they're better at some saves, they're worse at others. They are better off overall, because a character with the ability to target different saves can't just target a very weak one, but the difference is small.

There's a tendency among some players (it's even worse in some other places than it is here) to treat "10" as a reasonable score, and everything that can be expected while treating "8" as a CRITICAL GLOWING RED WEAKNESS. It's a -1. It's not even a perceptable difference. I can't count the number of times I've read or heard something like "If my players are going to put an 8 in Charisma, they'll regret it when they see how awesomely social my campaign is! I'll teach them!!" Teach them what? Any campaign where a character with an 8 in a score is going to struggle mightily is a campaign where a character with a 10 or a 12 in that score is going to struggle almost as mightily.

I sometimes wonder if it's the fact that -1 is a negative number that throws people off in terms of estimating its impact. I'd be willing to bet that if you just shifted DCs over by one across the board and made 8 +0 and 10 +1 and so on - a system that's mathematically identical to what we have - that a lot of concern about min/maxing and dump stats would evaporate.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
A game that encourages cooperative play will always reward players for min/maxing. A core assumption of D&D, and indeed most TTRPGs, is that you are part of a group of characters, who each bring their own set of strengths to the group. It is therefore always going to be benificial to be as good as possible at your primary strength, because your weaknesses will be covered by your other party members, and you hope that they too have maximized their strengths. You can employ tricks like making all stats relavent for saves to try to lessen the discrepency between min/maxed characters and balanced characters, but ultimately the fact that the game is based on team work will always reward the party that is balanced by having a min/maxed character for every situation over the party that is balanced by having everyone be ok at everything.
I haven't read the playtest package thoroughly enough to tell, perhaps someone could tell me how it's looking in this regard?


Not too good, really.  Not a disaster, at least not as of now, but don't expect to see any great revolutions on this front.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
Not only that, but it's not even like a character with balanced stats is way better off when it comes to saves than a character with lopsided stats, since while they're better at some saves, they're worse at others. They are better off overall, because a character with the ability to target different saves can't just target a very weak one, but the difference is small.



Well, there's also the fact that point buy penalizes you for going above a 13.

16 16 15 8 8 8 (race and class bonuses in different places) nets you +5 overall to saves
14 14 14 12 12 10 (race and class bonuses in different places) nets you +8 overall to saves

Not a huge difference, of course, but characters with balanced stats are slightly better at saves overall.
 It seems that some people are mistaken about what min/max means. It literally means to minimize your weaknesses and maximize your strengths. The correct stat distribution, assuming point buy, is rarely some all in on main stat; when looked at with a min/max prespective. That is because minimizing your weaknesses is the first step. Now this is just a basic view that will change based on class, race, level (especially with the ability caps that everyone will reach).

edit: accedental quote
Not only that, but it's not even like a character with balanced stats is way better off when it comes to saves than a character with lopsided stats, since while they're better at some saves, they're worse at others. They are better off overall, because a character with the ability to target different saves can't just target a very weak one, but the difference is small.



Well, there's also the fact that point buy penalizes you for going above a 13.

16 16 15 8 8 8 (race and class bonuses in different places) nets you +5 overall to saves
14 14 14 12 12 10 (race and class bonuses in different places) nets you +8 overall to saves

Not a huge difference, of course, but characters with balanced stats are slightly better at saves overall.

Also very true.
 It seems that some people are mistaken about what min/max means. It literally means to minimize your weaknesses and maximize your strengths. The correct stat distribution, assuming point buy, is rarely some all in on main stat; when looked at with a min/max prespective. That is because minimizing your weaknesses is the first step. Now this is just a basic view that will change based on class, race, level (especially with the ability caps that everyone will reach).

I know that the alternate definition you're using does get batted around sometimes, but it's a largely useless one since it's just synonymous with making a mechanically strong charater. People don't seem to have a problem with that.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
All that sort of assumes that all the saves from ability scores are equal.  They're not.  A look through the spells and bestiary shows that most saves are against dexterity, constitution and wisdom.  I saw a couple against charisma and none for strength or intelligence.  So, basically what we have here are fort, ref and will by another name, with the express reservation that design space is open for other scores.  Given the team's track record of exploring design space, boldly pushing forward into new territory and dutifully giving design time to neglected areas, I don't foresee any major change in this area.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.