Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6971223" data-attributes="member: 996">Nod.&nbsp; It's hard to sum up in a way that doesn't risk unreasonable expectations, perhaps...&nbsp; There's something there, and you (as DM) can work with it, and potentially get a lot of out of it, but you can't just phone it in... :shrug: See, that makes it sound like it's made of glass.&nbsp; Like it's all clear crystalline perfection until you change one little thing and it shatters into razor-sharp shards, leaving you campaign tattered and bleeding profusely.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />It's subtler than that, it's always a balancing act, weather you stick to guidelines or strike out on your own.&nbsp; And, one point: it's not particularly more work or 'risk' or whatever to do the latter.I can see that, sure.&nbsp; Seems to me that Cletavian &amp; his crew have plenty of experience, though.Optimizing in one sense means getting the most out of the rules.&nbsp; Implicit in that is sticking to them.&nbsp; In 3e, players and DMs could both optimize - monsters were built with rules very similar to PCs and the DM could optimize them, even mirroring PC abuses, for instance, in a sort of brinksmanship (yes, you can pull that cheesy combo, but then your enemies might start, too...).5e players need to stick to the rules more or less (those the DM has chosen to use, opt into, ban or modify - and as he interprets them) and can still go through the optimization process.&nbsp; But, the DM doesn't face many rules at all in designing a monster or encounter - some guidelines at worst - he can be positively arbitrary about challenging the party, indeed, he can't really be anything else, so the onus is very much on him to get that challenge right.&nbsp; The game doesn't do it for him, it's not paint by numbers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6971223, member: 996"] Nod. It's hard to sum up in a way that doesn't risk unreasonable expectations, perhaps... There's something there, and you (as DM) can work with it, and potentially get a lot of out of it, but you can't just phone it in... :shrug: See, that makes it sound like it's made of glass. Like it's all clear crystalline perfection until you change one little thing and it shatters into razor-sharp shards, leaving you campaign tattered and bleeding profusely. ;) It's subtler than that, it's always a balancing act, weather you stick to guidelines or strike out on your own. And, one point: it's not particularly more work or 'risk' or whatever to do the latter. I can see that, sure. Seems to me that Cletavian & his crew have plenty of experience, though. Optimizing in one sense means getting the most out of the rules. Implicit in that is sticking to them. In 3e, players and DMs could both optimize - monsters were built with rules very similar to PCs and the DM could optimize them, even mirroring PC abuses, for instance, in a sort of brinksmanship (yes, you can pull that cheesy combo, but then your enemies might start, too...). 5e players need to stick to the rules more or less (those the DM has chosen to use, opt into, ban or modify - and as he interprets them) and can still go through the optimization process. But, the DM doesn't face many rules at all in designing a monster or encounter - some guidelines at worst - he can be positively arbitrary about challenging the party, indeed, he can't really be anything else, so the onus is very much on him to get that challenge right. The game doesn't do it for him, it's not paint by numbers. [/QUOTE]

Verification