Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 5960642" data-attributes="member: 70707">AD&amp;D doesn't have balanced encounter building rules.&nbsp; It is completely left to the DM (or whatever tables the DM decides to use).&nbsp; So magic items don't &quot;break&quot; anything, because there's nothing to break.If we don't have encounter-building (or at least adventure-building) rules in 5E that are at least as solid and robust as 4E's, then 5E will have utterly failed at its promise to unite all the editions.&nbsp; Without 1) assuming a magic item progression by level, 2) incorporating a party's magic items into encounter building, or 3) making magic items pure fluff, I don't see how 5E can possibly succeed at the goals that have been stated for it.Does assumed item progression lock in a particular playstyle?&nbsp; No, I don't think it does.&nbsp; Because &quot;availability of magic items&quot; is not a component of playstyle.&nbsp; That is part of the fluff of a campaign setting.&nbsp; &quot;Balanced encounters&quot; vs. &quot;whatever the DM thinks would logically show up&quot; vs. &quot;whatever shows up on the random tables&quot; is playstyle.&nbsp; And without robust encounter building rules, the &quot;balanced encounters&quot; playstyle is locked out, at least not without forcing the DM to play game designer and suss out game balance themselves.&nbsp; Which is difficult, and therefor what I pay game designers to do for me.On the other hand, assumed progressions are quite easy to adapt to different campaign fluff preferences.&nbsp; Just apply the assumed bonuses as inherent bonuses.&nbsp; As suggested in 4E.&nbsp; And there you have it: both low and high magic item availability campaign settings are supported equally well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dkyle, post: 5960642, member: 70707"] AD&D doesn't have balanced encounter building rules. It is completely left to the DM (or whatever tables the DM decides to use). So magic items don't "break" anything, because there's nothing to break. If we don't have encounter-building (or at least adventure-building) rules in 5E that are at least as solid and robust as 4E's, then 5E will have utterly failed at its promise to unite all the editions. Without 1) assuming a magic item progression by level, 2) incorporating a party's magic items into encounter building, or 3) making magic items pure fluff, I don't see how 5E can possibly succeed at the goals that have been stated for it. Does assumed item progression lock in a particular playstyle? No, I don't think it does. Because "availability of magic items" is not a component of playstyle. That is part of the fluff of a campaign setting. "Balanced encounters" vs. "whatever the DM thinks would logically show up" vs. "whatever shows up on the random tables" is playstyle. And without robust encounter building rules, the "balanced encounters" playstyle is locked out, at least not without forcing the DM to play game designer and suss out game balance themselves. Which is difficult, and therefor what I pay game designers to do for me. On the other hand, assumed progressions are quite easy to adapt to different campaign fluff preferences. Just apply the assumed bonuses as inherent bonuses. As suggested in 4E. And there you have it: both low and high magic item availability campaign settings are supported equally well. [/QUOTE]

Verification