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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9794916" data-attributes="member: 93670">Your arguing a completely irrelevant point using hair splitting focus on where the only real mention is found to paper over the fact that 5e stripped a set of gm tools from the gm toolbox by remove the mechanical hooks they delendedyonIt doesn't matter that it's described in player facing language that fails to provide GM's with the structural mechanical hooks in the DMG.  What matters is that matters that the mechanical hooks required to structurally support a selection of gm tools that once occupied meaningful pace in the GM toolbox no longer exist .  That overly split hair didn't even hold up in the pre 3.x days when people actually tried banning players from reading the DMG.No matter if you look at the 3.x way of high but restricted∆ player CharOp options with expected magic item churn the gm was supported through a risk that blends lethality with excessive consumable needs that cut into the expected churn progression or the pre-3.x  low CharOp high danger, they are both gone.  Instead 5e has extreme CharOp with minimal hurdles, characters that have the benefits of full on Christmas tree from the base pc granting no real need for magic items, almost no lethality, and no structural support for them to collaboratively get players to put their finger on the scale  for the gm∆ prerequisites that took actual investment with opportunity cost.  5e's "OpTiOnAl" footnote attached to things most consider required for the d&d experience is just shifting blame for the resulting problems not a restriction to CharOp.</blockquote>

Verification