Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mordhau" data-source="post: 8414086" data-attributes="member: 7032137">There's a few different things going on there I think.One is that optimising is really it's own seperate game about finding something to exploit and then building strategically to get the most out of it.&nbsp; The fun here is is actually in the discovery and the strategic organisation and for most people isn't much fun to play beyond a few sessions.Second is that the above form of optimising is often not in reality the most effective - ie the optimised character is not really all that optimised.&nbsp; The spiked chain build in 3e is useless against giants, the supertough 5e barbarian tanks with all the resistance and all the HP runs away from the Dragon and can't contribute because they have no Wisdom save.But there are also times when optimising is effective and also actually reduces the opportunity for fun engagement.&nbsp; What's more fun Great Weapon Master when combat to combat you have to judge whether it's worth taking the gamble for the extra damage, or Great Weapon Master when you've found an almost permanent way to get advantage so just tend to take the -5 every time?And some of these things are actually built into 5e.&nbsp; The much maligned Leonmunds tiny hut spell, for example, is a strategic resource that it makes a lot of sense to use if you have access to the game, but it bypasses the difficulty resting (which presumably is supposed to part of the fun of playing the game or else why is resource management part of the game at all?)&nbsp; The Ranger classes features are somewhat similar.&nbsp; In the process of being the best character you can be at wilderness survival you actually render most of the wilderness survival aspects of the game moot so that they're only glimpsed momentarily in passing.&nbsp; (It was possibile to do this to yourself in 4e, I should know I did when playing Dark Sun, but 5e actually does it for you out of the box).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mordhau, post: 8414086, member: 7032137"] There's a few different things going on there I think. One is that optimising is really it's own seperate game about finding something to exploit and then building strategically to get the most out of it. The fun here is is actually in the discovery and the strategic organisation and for most people isn't much fun to play beyond a few sessions. Second is that the above form of optimising is often not in reality the most effective - ie the optimised character is not really all that optimised. The spiked chain build in 3e is useless against giants, the supertough 5e barbarian tanks with all the resistance and all the HP runs away from the Dragon and can't contribute because they have no Wisdom save. But there are also times when optimising is effective and also actually reduces the opportunity for fun engagement. What's more fun Great Weapon Master when combat to combat you have to judge whether it's worth taking the gamble for the extra damage, or Great Weapon Master when you've found an almost permanent way to get advantage so just tend to take the -5 every time? And some of these things are actually built into 5e. The much maligned Leonmunds tiny hut spell, for example, is a strategic resource that it makes a lot of sense to use if you have access to the game, but it bypasses the difficulty resting (which presumably is supposed to part of the fun of playing the game or else why is resource management part of the game at all?) The Ranger classes features are somewhat similar. In the process of being the best character you can be at wilderness survival you actually render most of the wilderness survival aspects of the game moot so that they're only glimpsed momentarily in passing. (It was possibile to do this to yourself in 4e, I should know I did when playing Dark Sun, but 5e actually does it for you out of the box). [/QUOTE]

Verification