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

[Minigiant]

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.

What's the difference between A, B, and C?

Is C the 5e TWF/Tough fighter with Dual Wielder, B the GWF fighter with GWM/HAM, and A is the archery fighter with SS/CE?

 

[Raith5]

IMO, it’s mostly concerns about bounded accuracy. Bounded accuracy is awesome, because it allows a DM to keep using lower level creatures while still being able to present a challenge to the party. A character with +3 weapons, +3 armor and a +3 shield can undo that.

But so can 1st level spells like Bless. I liked bounded accuracy but I think a) that the game should have some loose expectations about magic items (like +1 weapons appearing after 5th level) and b) that bounded accuracy breaks down in higher level play (in my experience is way too easy for PCs after 13th level).

 

[James Gasik]

What's the difference between Am B , and C?

Is C the 5e TWF/Tough fighter with Dual Wielder, B the GWF fighter with GWM/HAM, and A is the archery fighter with SS/CE?

I see C as the Fighter with 16 Str/Con who wears heavy armor and uses a two-handed sword.

B would be the guy who does that, but also makes sure to play a Battlemaster or Rune Knight, and takes something like Polearm Mastery for the bonus action attack (swapping out the greatsword for a glaive).

A would also grab Sentinel, and maybe multiclass into Barbarian or Ranger once they stop getting useful subclass abilities (at around level 7ish), or maybe build a HexPaladin or something.

 

[Minigiant]

I see C as the Fighter with 16 Str/Con who wears heavy armor and uses a two-handed sword.

B would be the guy who does that, but also makes sure to play a Battlemaster or Rune Knight, and takes something like Polearm Mastery for the bonus action attack (swapping out the greatsword for a glaive).

A would also grab Sentinel, and maybe multiclass into Barbarian or Ranger once they stop getting useful subclass abilities (at around level 7ish), or maybe build a HexPaladin or something.

Does B take GWM as well?

Because GWM/PAM as the baseline is too strong.

 

[James Gasik]

Does B take GWM as well?

Because GWM/PAM as the baseline is too strong.

It's a good question, but I'm going to say no, or not until higher levels; I'd assume B thinks raising Strength to 20 is a priority, and likely won't have a way to reliably get advantage to counteract the attack penalty right off the bat (that's more something A would consider early on).

I'm not counting party optimization here at all (Bards and Bless spells to support GWM/SS characters or Wolf Totem Barbarians) because that's a whole different kettle of fish to fry.

 

[Olrox17]

But so can 1st level spells like Bless. I liked bounded accuracy but I think a) that the game should have some loose expectations about magic items (like +1 weapons appearing after 5th level) and b) that bounded accuracy breaks down in higher level play (in my experience is way too easy for PCs after 13th level).

You’re right about bless, but that’s a spell that is widely considered to be top tier, and a prime candidate for nerfing. Especially because of its extremely low level, it becomes a free cast at medium and high levels, while retaining its full power to mess with bounded accuracy.

 

[Pauln6]

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..

See I am the opposite. We have been playing our campaign for nearly 33 years and have converted our characters each edition. 4e was the first one where some of the PCs felt unplayable unless we rejigged our stats and that made me feel like they weren't the same characters any more. When 5e came along, I breathed a sigh of relief and reset stats to our 2e levels.

The problems with 5e builds have all been new characters built using min maxing. We've had no significant issues with underpowered characters per se, although my pc who started as a 2e scout rogue and converted to a dual classed shadow mage wizard has suffered a bit as I needed 17 intelligence to change class in 2e but her current warlock/shadow sorcerer build works off her 15 charisma. She's still functional but needs magic items to give her some oomph.

 

[James Gasik]

You’re right about bless, but that’s a spell that is widely considered to be top tier, and a prime candidate for nerfing. Especially because of its extremely low level, it becomes a free cast at medium and high levels, while retaining its full power to mess with bounded accuracy.

Man, that's not what I was told: D&D 5E - Not Much Ado About Bless

 

[Olrox17]

Man, that's not what I was told: D&D 5E - Not Much Ado About Bless

Wow, my sympathies. I guess one of the first posters in that thread had it right: "people don't like nerfs, unless its too overpowered like the original Healing Spirit".
Bless isn't literally game breaking, just very overpowered, especially compared to its pitifully low cost, and I suppose "very overpowered" doesn't register as an issue for a segment of the player base.

 

[Minigiant]

See I am the opposite. We have been playing our campaign for nearly 33 years and have converted our characters each edition. 4e was the first one where some of the PCs felt unplayable unless we rejigged our stats and that made me feel like they weren't the same characters any more. When 5e came along, I breathed a sigh of relief and reset stats to our 2e levels.

I find this weird as 4e is the edition with the most flexible ability scores per class of the gate in D&D history. And it supposed classic primary scores and new nontraditional ones.

But like everything 4e, it was so different that you had to set back and not be attached to 100% purity. And 4e didn't explain that to its detriment..

Your 2e shadow rogue could be easily made a Dex/Cha rogue/warlock in 4e. Dex/Cha Rogue was in the PHB. Charisma Warklock was in the PHB and the Dark Pact was in the FR book. You might have had to run an infernal warlock multiclass until dark pact was released later.

----
This gets into anther thing: Futureproofing.

Builds get stronger with time and releases. So 1DND should be built that the bog strandard PHB are the standard and very strong. So when the minmaxer and munchin builds come later, monsters and traps are built to face power already.