D&D (2024) What should be the Optimization and Magic Item Assumption of PCs be?

[tetrasodium]

The days when magic items were the DM's tools to balance the game.were days when player choices didn't matter or didn't exist because scores between 10-15 didn't do anything and 90% of the game options didn't exist.

That's the core issue: You can't have a D&D style game be:

1. Simple
2. Have player choice matter
3. Have no game balance assumptions for the DM

Simplicity comes at the cost of player choice or DM restriction.

Did you not play 3.x? Players had orders of magnitude more choice than 5e & it mattered more. Meanwhile magic items with bonus type conflicts & slot conflicts have the gm the same before even getting to all of the extra numerical dials like asf acp crit range crit multiplier & so on.
.

 

[TwoSix]

Did you not play 3.x? Players had orders of magnitude more choice than 5e & it mattered more. Meanwhile magic items with bonus type conflicts & slot conflicts have the gm the same before even getting to all of the extra numerical dials like asf acp crit range crit multiplier & so on.
.

I think the point there is that magic items in 3.X are much less under the DM's remit because of how visible the magic item mechanics. They can give them out, sure, but it's much more obvious that you're giving one player 50K more items than another. Not to mention that there are core rules allowing most magic items to be created that state the exact cost and time to do so.

3.X is exactly when magic items went from a DM tool to another pillar of player-facing customization.

 

[Minigiant]

I think the point there is that magic items in 3.X are much less under the DM's remit because of how visible the magic item mechanics. They can give them out, sure, but it's much more obvious that you're giving one player 50K more items than another. Not to mention that there are core rules allowing most magic items to be created that state the exact cost and time to do so.

3.X is exactly when magic items went from a DM tool to another pillar of player-facing customization.

Exactly. You really couldn't just give someone a better +x items as the value per balance wasnearly exponential.

Did you not play 3.x? Players had orders of magnitude more choice than 5e & it mattered more. Meanwhile magic items with bonus type conflicts & slot conflicts have the gm the same before even getting to all of the extra numerical dials like asf acp crit range crit multiplier & so on.
.

And DMs couldn't balance PCs via magic items in 3.Xe

 

[tetrasodium]

I think the point there is that magic items in 3.X are much less under the DM's remit because of how visible the magic item mechanics. They can give them out, sure, but it's much more obvious that you're giving one player 50K more items than another. Not to mention that there are core rules allowing most magic items to be created that state the exact cost and time to do so.

3.X is exactly when magic items went from a DM tool to another pillar of player-facing customization.

I disagree, CoDzilla/charge builds didn't need as many magic items as a waste of space build & because of all those numerical dials I mentioned it was possible to give out items for all three players to walk away feeling like they got the best most awesome thing for them without feeling like they lost out. Yes there was WBL charts & the system assumed a certain amount of gear by various levels I no longer remember precisely*. IME Alice didn't care if Bob had 50k more in items because per dmg282 "For items that do take up a space on a character’s body (such as a ring or a necklace),each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price.". The WBL table was more for basic gear & only really came up if someone felt they weren't getting a fair amount of treasure needed to avoid feeling like BMX bandit.

*+1 weapon by x +2 primary attrib by 5(?), +4 primary attrib by 10(?) etc, maybe some skill gear somewhere, DR bypassing gear that might make a +5 holy avenger type thing less optimal, etc. All of it could be subject to slot & bonus type conflicts both with itself & class/PrC abilities if needed.

Exactly. You really couldn't just give someone a better +x items as the value per balance wasnearly exponential.

And DMs couldn't balance PCs via magic items in 3.Xe

Another post on this while I was putting together a post .
That bold bit is where magic item churn & things like DR/SR came into play. The GM could give Alice's overly optimized PC sidegrades or just use more monsters that push her towards teamwork & support with those things. Likewise if they accidentally gave bob an item that was too good they could just ensure it conflicts with something they need when churn kicks in & it will solve itself when bob swaps it out or lags behind the expected curve.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

That's why it's moderate.

Low optimization is taking flavor picks that don't line up with your source of power, not prioritizing your primary or secondary scores, comboing classes that don't combined, or rolling low.

Should the game be balanced around a fighter/sorcerer with 14 STR and CHA with Tavern Brawler?

I'd say that there is a distinction between low optimisation and no optimisation.

Low optimisation would be what you'd expect of new players following the suggestions for creating a character from the class in the PHB. Moderate optimisation is going to involve greater levels of synergy in their character choices. High optimisation are the Coffeelocks, Hexadins and SS/CE BMs.

That is why I'm saying that the core books should be aimed at Low optimisation.

 

[James Gasik]

I'd say that there is a distinction between low optimisation and no optimisation.

Low optimisation would be what you'd expect of new players following the suggestions for creating a character from the class in the PHB. Moderate optimisation is going to involve greater levels of synergy in their character choices. High optimisation are the Coffeelocks, Hexadins and SS/CE BMs.

That is why I'm saying that the core books should be aimed at Low optimisation.

Some people would consider that Moderate Optimization. So I guess we need definitions of Optimization.

F Tier: player has no idea what they are doing; is deliberately trying to make a bad character.
D Tier: player has some idea of what they are doing, or wants to make a unique character without being sure it's ever going to work out.
C Tier: player just goes with the build advice in the PHB.
B Tier: player has some experience, and knows what options are good for their character.
A Tier: player has had the "Eureka" moment, where they realize an ability from Subclass A would work really well with one from Subclass B.
S Tier: player has found a way to break the game, either by exploiting action economy, getting larger numbers, or otherwise acquiring more resources than other characters.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd say that there is a distinction between low optimisation and no optimisation.

Low optimisation would be what you'd expect of new players following the suggestions for creating a character from the class in the PHB. Moderate optimisation is going to involve greater levels of synergy in their character choices. High optimisation are the Coffeelocks, Hexadins and SS/CE BMs.

That is why I'm saying that the core books should be aimed at Low optimisation.

But Coffeelocks, Hexadins, SS/CES BM are beyond what the designers expected. They are usually exploits. And therefore you can't design towards.

That's why to me, Low Optimization is taking Flavor Picks. Putting your best or second best roll in CHA for a fighter. Taking a skill feat for a mage. Choosing to specialize with a weaker weapon or damage type.

Moderate Optimization is taking all Power Picks and not taking Flavor Picks until you've secured your Power. The stereotypes. STR/CON fighters and barbarians. Casters with spell feats, a 16+ in their casting stat, and good DEX and/or CON

High Optimization is Minmaxing and Munchining. This is when you take only the best options, sacrifice the weaknesses that are easiest to mitigate, and go for ideas that the designers either didn't plan for or didn't expect.

No Optimization would be joke characters and PCs that rolled so bad that yo can't succeed without DM help

 

[CreamCloud0]

But Coffeelocks, Hexadins, SS/CES BM are beyond what the designers expected. They are usually exploits. And therefore you can't design towards

I feel like even if designers don’t know that those specific exploit builds exist when they’re balancing they can assume that there are certain optimal combinations that are far more effective than anything what they designed to be in the game and balance for those potential hyper-effective builds, in theory, not to say that they should be balancing the game for coffeelocks and hexadins as the baseline.

 

[Minigiant]

I feel like even if designers don’t know that those specific exploit builds exist when they’re balancing they can assume that there are certain optimal combinations that are far more effective than anything what they designed to be in the game and balance for those potential hyper-effective builds, in theory, not to say that they should be balancing the game for coffeelocks and hexadins as the baseline.

I loved how 4e did it.

4e more of less say their game was balanced around the PC's sum of ability bonuses was supposed to be between +4 and +8. PCs with less that +4 sum at level 1 were suggested to be rerolled for being too weak. Same with PCs above +8 for being too weak..

So it doesn't matter if the designers didn't predict something,you can tell if your PC was above/below the curve..

 

[tetrasodium]

Someone mentioned above that there's a difference between no optimization & low optimization, no optimization probably doesn't even belong in a discussion of what level of optimization the system should have its math tuned to. A 16 charisma greatsword light armor fighter with 8str/10dex/12con/13wis/14int/15cha scribe who dreamed of being an adventurer might "sound fun" but the game can't be tuned for that sort of thought experiment because it's still dreaming about having the strength to lift the discussion piece greatsword on the wall long enough for them to finish a training session with their greatsword instructor.

Some people would consider that Moderate Optimization. So I guess we need definitions of Optimization.

F Tier: player has no idea what they are doing; is deliberately trying to make a bad character.
D Tier: player has some idea of what they are doing, or wants to make a unique character without being sure it's ever going to work out.
C Tier: player just goes with the build advice in the PHB.
B Tier: player has some experience, and knows what options are good for their character.
A Tier: player has had the "Eureka" moment, where they realize an ability from Subclass A would work really well with one from Subclass B.
S Tier: player has found a way to break the game, either by exploiting action economy, getting larger numbers, or otherwise acquiring more resources than other characters.

I'd say that B+ or even A- tier should be the baseline expectation & that actually works well for newbies who don't know better because giving out too much treasure is a common newbie gm mistake. It's easy for a GM to realize that Bob or even their entire group is extremely subpar & give out more cool treasure without the slightest of friction but taking power away is a much more difficult thing to expect a GM to do (especially newbie ones).

The reason I say B+ is because we are talking about a target mark aimed at early on before the community starts sussing out the power builds finding edge case combos -and- zero power creep from new options that will inevitably published after the initial PHB/MM/DMG. If a player is behind the curve of B+ plus expected magical gear the GM can easily bring them up with some cool toys & that kind of thing is perfect for a sidebar or subsection somewhere in the DMG in a section about awarding magic items as both 2e & 3.x DMG did. If it's aimed any lower the base PCs themselves are going to quickly eclipse any expected power budget devoted to magic items & squeeze out the GM's ability to award them without overpowering the math as additional content is released and combos are documented.