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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6862894" data-attributes="member: 12731">I especially want to thank Pemerton (and possibly others?) for going that extra mile and providing the number crunching. It's essential for showing that the kind of damage some groups find outrageous unbelievable stratospheric... is completely regular for others.A good showcase of just how far minmaxing can take you.IF the DM plays along.I feel the core issue here is the divide between different viewpoints.Celtavian represents the quintessential power gaming group. The fun comes from optimization. Having a DM that combats this, either by discouraging the minmaxing itself, or by applying strong tactics for the enemy, makes it less fun.This kind of group wants monster stats that have tricks that at least makes it challenging to fight them, even if you use every trick in the book. Being able to use simple combos to trivialize the fight is a disappointment for them. The solution isn't to fight the charop, since that's a main source of fun and satisfaction. The d20 solution was to make everything super complex, which at least gave the DM tools to overcome some easy combos. At the price of ridiculous complexity and still not any balance, see Pun Pun.The solution in 5e, I think, is not to go to Ridiculous Speed visavi the monsters, but to "voluntarily" scale back on the party's starting power level. The idea is to allow minmaxing from a lower level, so the highs doesn't overwhelm the simpler monster design.Which is a cornerstone. Adding complexity to monsters is a dead end. When you spend an hour to create a high level wizard that is killed in 3 seconds, you know "never again".So if 5e has a problem; it's that the cost was set too low for certain character options. It's too "cheap" to build a character with darkvision mobility ranged attacks, put simply.</blockquote>

Verification