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

[MichaelSomething]

Whatever assumptions they make about items and optimization need to also include guides on adjusting the game based on different amounts.

 

[Incenjucar]

Math magic is boring. As with most mundane items, magic items should focus on letting you do new things or enhancing things that don't impact the power curve. The most math I want to see is something like "doubles your maximum jump distance". Combat abilities should be limited to encounter powers or neutral at-will effects like changing damage type. We need more flaming swords that just convert to fire damage and function as a mobile campfire that staves off environmental cold, which can be jammed in a lock to melt it, and fewer flaming swords that do explosive flame crits for +10d6 damage.

There's room for strong signature equipment, but that should be more built-in and character driven. I'd like to see magic item attunement be a feature you need to buy into, with set expectations for the power that grants - maybe default benefits to your mundane gear if the DM doesn't provide.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Low optimisation: The baseline of the book should be beginner DMs and Players. As players gain experience and learn to optimise, DM's will gain experience and learn to increase encounters and raise difficulties to match. There should be advice for adjusting encounters certainly, but even a moderately experienced DM will know to adjust for their players, whereas a starting DM won't know how, or even whether they should stray outside the base encounter guidelines.

Moderate magic items: The baseline of play is going to involve the characters getting magic items, because getting magic items is cool, and fun. Some of those items will have numeric bonuses or otherways adjust the capabilities of the party, so the assumptions of the game should take it into account. Again, there should be advice for if the DM wants to run a no-magic item game, but the base level is almost definitely going to include items.

 

[Stalker0]

I also think we need to quantify what is "moderate optimization". Hell you could argue that putting your highest stat in your "class' main stats" is some moderate optimization, as oppossed to complete roleplayers that will play the high wisdom, low strength fighter kind of thing.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

If One D&D is being backwards compatible, +X weapons and +Y armors are not going away.

So to me, the assumption should be moderate on both optimization and magic items.

The assumption should be that the average PC starts with a 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Then with their background bumps the 15 to a 17 or the 15 and 14 to a 16 and 15. Then takes a feat that matches their class, origin, or fighting style at level 1 and 4. And by level 5 has a +1 weapon or armor that matches their style.

This means their natural "to hit" at level 5 is somewhere between a +6 and +7.

If they have a +8 or +9 by having a primary score of 20 at level 5, the DM should not award an appropriate +1 weapon.
If they have a +5 or less by having a primary score of 15 or less, the DM should reward a +2 weapon
If their AC is less than 18, the DM should award appropriate +1 armor. Otherwise, they only give out armor of resistance or nonnumerical magic armor.

 

[Minigiant]

I also think we need to quantify what is "moderate optimization". Hell you could argue that putting your highest stat in your "class' main stats" is some moderate optimization, as oppossed to complete roleplayers that will play the high wisdom, low strength fighter kind of thing.

I qualify moderate optimization as following the PHB instructions and putting your highest scores in the ones associated with your class and taking feats associated with your class and race.


Moderately Optimized is Bruenor Dwarf Fighter with STR, 16, DEX 10 CON 15 INT 8 WIS 13 CHA 12 with Tough Feat.

 

[tetrasodium]

"Heavy Optimization and Some Numerical Bonus Magic Items" for a few reasons. There is no benchmark or even vague gesticulation for "moderate" "heavy" "some" or "many". If you ask one group you might get (tippyverse)*(eberron+pre cleansing war athas) & punpun for many & heavy while another group might say +2 attrib gear by level X & +1 weapon or +1 armor by level Y with your primary stat as your highest ability score during chargen.

Heavy optimization with some magic items allows a GM to finesse the "phat lewtz" more or less as needed based on the needs of their players & their individual optimization levels even if a player i (un)optimized well beyond the curve of expectations in either direction.

I qualify moderate optimization as following the PHB instructions and putting your highest scores in the ones associated with your class and taking feats associated with your class and race.


Moderately Optimized is Bruenor Dwarf Fighter with STR, 16, DEX 10 CON 15 INT 8 WIS 13 CHA 12 with Tough Feat.

Since you posted while I was typing... I'd call that bare minimum low charop at best& even then I feel like it would be generous to even call it low optimization. An analog to your example might be making sure your tires are properly inflated as "moderate hypermiling"

 

[James Gasik]

I see we might have a problem describing what even is optimization, lol.

 

[Minigiant]

"Heavy Optimization and Some Numerical Bonus Magic Items" for a few reasons. There is no benchmark or even vague gesticulation for "moderate" "heavy" "some" or "many". If you ask one group you might get (tippyverse)*(eberron+pre cleansing war athas) & punpun for many & heavy while another group might say +2 attrib gear by level X & +1 weapon or +1 armor by level Y with your primary stat as your highest ability score during chargen.

Heavy optimization with some magic items allows a GM to finesse the "phat lewtz" more or less as needed based on the needs of their players & their individual optimization levels even if a player i (un)optimized well beyond the curve of expectations in either direction.


Since you posted while I was typing... I'd call that bare minimum low charop at best& even then I feel like it would be generous to even call it low optimization. An analog to your example might be making sure your tires are properly inflated as "moderate hypermiling"

That's why it's moderate.

Low optimization is taking flavor picks that don't line up with your source of power, not prioritizing your primary or secondary scores, comboing classes that don't combined, or rolling low.

Should the game be balanced around a fighter/sorcerer with 14 STR and CHA with Tavern Brawler?

 

[Olrox17]

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

Numerical bonuses to damage/hp, while not much more interesting than bonuses to hit/ac, at the very least don’t mess with bounded accuracy.
I am not too worried about roles in 5e, every class seems to have niches that go beyond damage or toughness.