Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8934520" data-attributes="member: 93670">Someone mentioned above that there's a difference between no optimization &amp; 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.&nbsp; A 16 charisma greatsword light armor fighter with 8str/10dex/12con/13wis/14int/15cha scribe who dreamed of being an adventurer might &quot;sound fun&quot; 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.&nbsp;I'd say that B+ or even A- tier should be the baseline expectation &amp; that actually works well for newbies who don't know better because giving out too much treasure is a common newbie gm mistake.&nbsp; It's easy for a GM to realize that Bob or even their entire group is extremely subpar &amp; 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).&nbsp; The reason I say B+ is because we are talking about a target mark aimed at early on before the community starts sussing out&nbsp; the power builds finding edge case combos -and- zero power creep from new options that will inevitably published after the initial PHB/MM/DMG.&nbsp; If a player is behind the curve of B+ plus expected magical gear the GM can easily bring them up with some cool toys &amp; 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 &amp; 3.x DMG did.&nbsp; If it's aimed any lower the base PCs themselves are going to quickly eclipse any expected power budget devoted to magic items &amp; squeeze out the GM's ability to award them without overpowering the math as additional content is released and combos are documented.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 8934520, member: 93670"] Someone mentioned above that there's a difference between [I]no[/I] optimization & [I]low[/I] optimization, [I]no[/I] 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. I'd say that B[B]+[/B] or even A[B]- [/B]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 ([I]especially[/I] newbie ones). The reason I say B[B]+[/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. [/QUOTE]

Verification