D&D (2024) Wrapping up first 2-20 2024 campaign this week, some of my thoughts

[Maxperson]

For everyone saying "that's too many magic items", consider the 2024 magic items by level guidelines. By 18th level, the party can be expected – according to those guidelines from 2024 DMG – to have accumulated (not created) the following between them all during the campaign...

• 19 Common items
• 29 Uncommon items
• 23 Rare items
• 19 Very Rare items
• 11 Legendary items

If split evenly between 4 PCs, Edit: 5 PCs (sorry, misread OP) it works out to something like this per PC...

• 3-4 Common items
• 5-6 Uncommon items
• 4-5 Rare items
• 4 Very Rare items
• 2 Legendary items

@ECMO3 's you said your PC had the following:

• unknown rarity (1): Foresight Shortsword
• Uncommon Items (1): Cloak of Protection
• Rare items (2): Rod of the Pactkeeper +2, Vicious Dagger
• Very Rare items (2): Efreeti Bottle, Shield +3
• Legendary Items (1): Rod of Lordly Might
• ?? Potions & Scrolls

So you'd need something like Edit: 11-13 potions & scrolls to be hitting those 2024 DMG guidelines for "the number of magic items a D&D party typically gains during a campaign."

Based on what I know, that seems like you were maybe about par for the course with 2024 guidelines?

The guidelines aren't really relevant here. The fact is, the monsters are balanced for zero magic items per RAW, so guidelines or no, every magic item unbalances the encounters and the more items you have, the more unbalanced they get.

That many magic items was a problem that the DM apparently didn't account for.

 

[Mort]

There are players out there that think that playing the game means absolutely winning against the big "bad" DM by any means. There's one in one of the tables I play, and it's kinda become a running gag at this point seeing him trying to outsmart the DM despite warnings and failing miserably

What does "by any means" entail? If it means creating as powerful characters as possible and looking for every advantage, well then ok, all long as the player isn't stepping on other players toes. If it means fudging dice, illegal character combinations, ability usage and/or misrepresentations to the DM? Not ok, and that player is getting the boot quick.

 

[Selas]

What does "by any means" entail? If it means creating as powerful characters as possible and looking for every advantage, well then ok, all long as the player isn't stepping on other players toes. If it means fudging dice, illegal character combinations, ability usage and/or misrepresentations to the DM? Not ok, and that player is getting the boot quick.

Oh, we're pretty sure the guy is fudging rolls a few times per session, but we can't prove it since we play online. At this point, it's become a meme at this table. And that's exactly what I mean by "by any means": making min-max PCs with as much advantages as possible by stepping on other player's toes. Also may include ability usage and/or misrepresentations to the DM.

 

[Clint_L]

Oh, we're pretty sure the guy is fudging rolls a few times per session, but we can't prove it since we play online. At this point, it's become a meme at this table. And that's exactly what I mean by "by any means": making min-max PCs with as much advantages as possible by stepping on other player's toes. Also may include ability usage and/or misrepresentations to the DM.

The latter would be a problem for me, too. Much more than min-maxing. But I can see how the combination would be extra unsavoury.

 

[Mort]

Oh, we're pretty sure the guy is fudging rolls a few times per session, but we can't prove it since we play online. At this point, it's become a meme at this table. And that's exactly what I mean by "by any means": making min-max PCs with as much advantages as possible by stepping on other player's toes. Also may include ability usage and/or misrepresentations to the DM.

Yeah, I'm fine with Min-Maxing, powegaming etc. as long as it's not stepping on other's toes. But dice fudging (hard to prove online if not using online dice roller) and other cheating behavior? That's not going to fly, especially as it almost always comes at the expense of the others at the table.

 

[Blue]

As an aside I actually broke a Staff of Power in a 5E campaign during a final boss fight last year. It was epic, maybe my greatest moment in 40+ years of D&D, even though the character died.

I did that back in a AD&D 2nd campaign. My character was so dead, but I took out a legendary adversary of the elves with me.

Entirely epic, hats off to you.

 

[tetrasodium]

There are players out there that think that playing the game means absolutely winning against the big "bad" DM by any means. There's one in one of the tables I play, and it's kinda become a running gag at this point seeing him trying to outsmart the DM despite warnings and failing miserably

Agreed. There's nothing wrong with minmaxing and CharOp, I quite approve of it even, the key is why the player does it and how they use it. Playing to win causes things to go sideways on so many levels when a player has it in their mind that they need to win by beating the gm. Even when the gm is playing the monsters to win to the best of their ability, they are not usually simultaneously playing to beat the players as the gm.

The key difference between CharOp and playing to win can be seen starkly contrasted by holding up the origins of ye old god wizard in the edition known for maybe going too far with CharOp at times to nearly any of today's broken/monster build guides that often even highlight things like "frustrate your gm" as a selling point in the edition that tried (and failed miserably) to eliminate the extremes of CharOp by making any build more than good enough. n Oe of those was designed to fly under the radar while acting as glue to elevate everyone else at the table when it matters in play... The other is just straight up shooting for world of cardboard man with less concern for his sidekicks where "winning" against the gm becomes possible

 

[Bae'zel]

That kinda does sound like control, though. Why is min-maxing trying to "beat" the DM?

I specifically said that my decision was from personal experience. So yeah, in a way, it is about controlling the campaign to help prevent those bad things from happening again. Min-maxing was a pivotal part of those negative experiences with power gamers who were constantly trying to "outwit" me and "beat" me.

You know, the kind of player that shares YouTube videos on "Top 10 ways to outsmart the DM".

Same with a ban on character concepts like "anti-social loner who won't work with the party" or "mischevious Rogue who will steals from other characters and likely betray them".

If someone doesn't like it (ie, if multiclassing dips for character optimization is crucial to your fun) don't join my campaign. I've explained why.

 

[TwoSix]

To me, personally, something bothers me about multiclassing, especially "dips". Maybe because I tie Class into character concept and story; the class IS their character and "dipping" takes me out of the emergent story unless it is woven into it somehow.

Yea, I'm a pretty strong proponent of the idea that class does NOT exist within the fiction; class is just a metagame construct used to give your character the abilities they require in a somewhat controlled fashion.

If your character is a eco-warrior druid type, but you want to use the mechanics of a paladin/fey warlock to express the abilities they have, maybe with some reskinning or even a change in spell list and casting stats, that's 100% OK with me. Heck, I encourage it, because that means you're really committed to the character concept.

 

[Selas]

Same with a ban on character concepts like "anti-social loner who won't work with the party" or "mischevious Rogue who will steals from other characters and likely betray them".

Oh God, that's exactly this player I mentioned (mischievous Rogue).