Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 6630797" data-attributes="member: 2629">I disagree.  Some people ask questions about how to change things without realizing the full ramifications of doing so.  Providing more information about the impacts of the change is not a waste for those people... and it isn't all about those people anyways.  We speak on forums as a community. Later, people with similar questions often find threads on topics that concern them.  That is why discussion on a discussion forum is encouraged and it is not beneficial to dismiss the opinions of others as a waste of typing when their views do not match one persons.  Even if one poster does not find use for some suggestion, others in the discussion group may.Given how often you post, you're clearly quite devoted to the game.  However, my suggestion was to try for a year... and we're not there.  Even if you have played in the testing groups and played for more than a year, this is an area where more time might be warranted (see below).  Regardless, if you decide advice is not for you, the polite things to do are to either move on without comment or to further the conversation - by seeing if there is any merit in the suggestion that you might benefit from with a bit of tweaking.  That is a good point, but it is kind of self negating.  That module violates the recommendations in the DMG significantly in many ways.  There are multiple encounters in it that are intended to be fought, but are far beyond deadly.  The number of items found either exceed the recommended distribution, or indicate that the number of items rolled up was extremely aberrantly high.  There are a number of threads out there on how to bring the module back into recommended design guidelines that suggest removing items, modifying encounters (bye, bye bugbear), etc...  If I recall correctly, you've commented on a few of them.  It seems clear to many that the module was designed while the rules and guidelines were still taking shape.  Accordingly, anything in it is not a good example ... of anything.Regardless, your assumption on the rate of magic item acquisition is off by a bit.  You prorate the rate of acquisition linearly.  It is not designed to be a linear rate of acquisition.  If you follow the tables and probability models, the PCs are actually likely to find items at a faster rate after level 5 and then it slows again as they enter the teen levels (but they are more significant). By the end of LMoP, the party should have found 4 to 6 items that are not consumed.  Basically, if you follow the DMG guidelines and get fairly typical rolls, you'll end up with about one 'permanent' item per PC by the time they hit 5th, then you'll get up to about 3 to 4 by the time they go to 11th.  From there the rate drops down and you find one more non-consumable item per PC every few levels.  On average, you end up with 6 per PC at 20th.  However, anything between 4 and 9 per PC is not that big of a deal when the attunement rules are used as you're not seeing PCs overpowered at higher levels with too many game changing items.It should be noted that the primary levels where attunement is likely to matter are the highest levels.  They put the rules into place, it seems, to help address issues from prior editions where the higher levels lose focus and control - resulting in people losing interest.  Even those of us that have played a lot of 5th edition at this point have spent far more time playing at lower levels (generally), so we could still use some more experience at higher levels before we judge the rules meant primarily to impact those levels...</blockquote>

Verification