D&D (2024) What should be the Optimization and Magic Item Assumption of PCs be?

[Stalker0]

I actually think it should be a sliding scale. At low levels, I don't mind the CRs being tuned to low optimization, because that's where new players start, and at those levels things are so swingy that high optimization can still get challenged.

At mid levels, moderate optimization. I do think the current CRs are too easy in general and could use a look at.

At high levels, assume strong optimization. Not because all high level players are minmaxers, but because there are SO many crazy combos at high levels you should just assume the party will have some crazy track up their sleeves. Further, for high level parties death isn't really that big a deal, high levels parties have plenty of ways to escape bad fights or just raise dead as a last resort. So high level challenges should be REALLY challenging.

 

[Scribe]

Frankly, I’d just eliminate numerical bonuses to hit/ac from magic items entirely.
Bonus damage/hp (temporary or otherwise) are fine.

That said, I think its fine to include as part of a basic set of assumptions, tuned up or down as needed to make things harder/easier, or to account for poorly optimized characters (as a method of correction).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Frankly, I’d just eliminate numerical bonuses to hit/ac from magic items entirely.
Bonus damage/hp (temporary or otherwise) are fine.

I'd agree re: eliminating them. At this point they're desperately uninteresting and basically just weak meme fodder.

Then you could balance without them. However if they do insist on including them, I think it's a mistake to balance entirely without them.

 

[deganawida]

I also agree with James (OneDnD - What should be the Optimization and Magic Item Assumption of PCs be?).

IMO, magic items should break the rules, same as magic spells. My preference is for magic items to be the spells for non-magic using classes (as spells are the weapons for magic-using classes).

 

[Shiroiken]

I think 5E pretty much had it right, except it didn't do a good job discussing how to up the difficulty to newer DMs. Personally, I'd really like to see the generic +X abilities largely go away. Giving specific items a bonus is cool, because it's just part of the item, but a +1 sword is just boring. A magic sword that gives +1 against shapeshifters is much more interesting, while keeping BA intact.

 

[Minigiant]

Frankly, I’d just eliminate numerical bonuses to hit/ac from magic items entirely.
Bonus damage/hp (temporary or otherwise) are fine.

That's still a numerical magic item bonus assumption though, right?

If 4e told us anything about damage is damage can be a role shift

 

[Clint_L]

There has to be an assumption to calculate the difficulty and worth of monsters and traps.

Well, now I just feel dumb - I misunderstood the question. Moderate magic and optimization. Though I am kinda stingy on magic and my players don't care that much about optimization and they still do fine.

 

[James Gasik]

That could be a problem if you have two characters that can use those swords and armors.
I would rather give +1 sword to a fighter with 20 STR than to one with 14 STR.

Oh sure, that's always an issue, but it's not one that can't be solved. Intelligent magic swords that only like the alignment of the bad player, armor that can only fit a person of their species/gender. Work with their backstory, perhaps there's an heirloom item that only they can use that they have to quest for. Or just run a special solo adventure for the character.

The important part is to make sure everyone gets new toys, so nobody feels left out, but I figure someone who is savvy enough to optimize will see the potential of Nolzur's Marvelous Pigments, a Deck of Illusions, or a Decanter of Endless Water and not be too concerned someone else is getting a better "plus" than they are.

Now of course, if your players aren't on board with this sort of thing, you should have a talk with them. But it's worked for me in the past.

 

[James Gasik]

I voted heavy optimization/low magic for the same reason. I was thinking that new players could get the magic to make up for the players that optimize. The monsters are made for the optimizers though to make that game work and if you had a normal Pc and a magic something, then that would bump you to more optimized and on-par with the others.

Then the problem might be having optimizers gain the magic and become super. In my games, we tend to not play with feats except some of the lesser ones like mobility or extra languages. Nobody has taken the big ones like GWM or PAM to make combat a cakewalk so I have cooler items that are handed out like 2e times.

Remember, the DM controls the faucet here. If your group is really strong, veer towards interesting items. If you have one or more weak members, give them stuff that gives them "da numberz". If you have optimizers who insist on bigger and better numbers at the expense of other players, kindly tell them this is a team game, and it doesn't pay to be selfish.

The way you win battles in D&D is not by having one guy with the best numbers, but by having everyone able to contribute; the advantage of a group is action economy.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Other:
Narrow the power gap between the least optimized PC and the most optimized PC and make the magic item math so simple and transparent that it is trivially easy for the DM to adjust for whatever magic items he does or doesn't hand out. It's 4lrEady been done, you know.

And it’s easier to do in a system with a smaller mathematical variance, ie bounded accuracy.

Giving NPCs levels and ranks (standard, elite, minion, etc) makes encounter building a breeze.

Start from:

A balanced at-level encounter is standard enemies of the same level and number as the PCs.

And go from there.