D&D 5E Interesting talk with Mike Mearls (a few secrets slip too!)

[Joe Liker]

In addition to what others have said...

There's more to the tactical fighter than damage. The whole point is that he can sacrifice some of his damage for utility in combat, enabling others to do more damage (via positioning, or warlord-esque granted attacks, or knocking his target prone, or... whatever else maneuvers can do). What does it matter if he's 3 DPR (or whatever) lower than the champion build if his maneuvers increase the party's DPR by 15?

(Parenthesis!)

Thank you. This is the answer I was looking for, and I think it is the correct attitude. The previous responses to my question were WAY off base.

 

[Joe Liker]

The quote says that your overall average damage is the same. Now ask yourself, would you rather Have your big bursts of damage come randomly, when you happen to crit, or exactly when you choose?

If you can't answer that question, you probably shouldn't be playing the tactical option anyway.

This is also a good point.

I feel like the people crying, "There shouldn't be any difference!" don't really understand where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to be better than anyone. It was more about effort and reward, and these responses I've highlighted give the fighter more than enough reason to go the tactical route if that's how the player likes to play.

 

[Nellisir]

This is also a good point.

I feel like the people crying, "There shouldn't be any difference!" don't really understand where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to be better than anyone. It was more about effort and reward, and these responses I've highlighted give the fighter more than enough reason to go the tactical route if that's how the player likes to play.

I don't think you understand where we (or I) am coming from. I'd rather see you spend that effort and get the reward at the table and in game. Min/maxing a character is not a cooperative effort, and more likely IMO to promote competition and/or feelings of incompetence among players who don't have the skill or time to mechanically optimize their character, than it is to foster goodwill and sociability. I'm not interested in a game that teaches my players to sit in a corner and search through 15 books for the perfect feat instead of sitting at the table and not sweating a +1 bonus.

 

[Joe Liker]

I don't think you understand where we (or I) am coming from. I'd rather see you spend that effort and get the reward at the table and in game. Min/maxing a character is not a cooperative effort, and more likely IMO to promote competition and/or feelings of incompetence among players who don't have the skill or time to mechanically optimize their character, than it is to foster goodwill and sociability. I'm not interested in a game that teaches my players to sit in a corner and search through 15 books for the perfect feat instead of sitting at the table and not sweating a +1 bonus.

Yeah, you assume I'm coming from a minmaxing standpoint. But as I said, it wasn't about being better than other players. I just wanted there to be a difference, a reason to pick one over the other. Not because it was "better," but because I don't like the idea of everything ending up at the same destination even though you take different routes. A different playstyle deserves a different outcome, and I'm glad some of the more thoughtful posters were able to point out some ways that could happen.

I understand why everyone has this kneejerk reaction to perceived optimizers, and I'm trying not to be offended that I was lumped into that pile, but it really wouldn't be a bad idea to try a little harder to give people the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Nellisir]

But as I said, it wasn't about being better than other players.

You also said:

You should actually be able to come out slightly ahead if (and only if) you are up to the challenge of playing the build to its full potential.

So you don't want better, but you do want to be "slightly ahead", and you don't want to be better than the other players, but you want to be rewarded for being "up to the challenge".

For what it's worth, I agree with what Boarstorm posted regarding there being more to the tactical fighter than damage. I am not of the opinion that this needs to be codified into powers and abilities, with a guaranteed advantage for selecting a certain suite of features. I certainly agree that different playstyles deserve different outcomes, but the outcomes being discussed here seem to be focused on damage potential or mechanical maneuvering, not the encounter or adventure.

I understand why everyone has this kneejerk reaction to perceived optimizers, and I'm trying not to be offended that I was lumped into that pile, but it really wouldn't be a bad idea to try a little harder to give people the benefit of the doubt.

You're assuming I haven't.

 

[Joe Liker]

You also said:
[/COLOR]
So you don't want better, but you do want to be "slightly ahead", and you don't want to be better than the other players, but you want to be rewarded for being "up to the challenge".

You are absolutely right -- some of my points were poorly phrased. By "slightly ahead," I meant strategically, not damage-wise. I absolutely do think a more strategic style of play should come out ahead in some capacity (not necessarily in stark numbers), and I'm relieved to be reminded of how that can happen.

 

[Nellisir]

You are absolutely right -- some of my points were poorly phrased.

Hey Morrus, can we keep him? I like him.

By "slightly ahead," I meant strategically, not damage-wise. I absolutely do think a more strategic style of play should come out ahead in some capacity (not necessarily in stark numbers), and I'm relieved to be reminded of how that can happen.

Total agreement.

I'll admit I'm particularly wary of "optimization" and "efficiency" arguments at the moment. I recently sat through a 3 hour character generation session (3.5 characters) with a DM obsessed with mechanically efficient and "optimal" characters. The players honestly didn't care, but the DM was so concerned about getting everything balanced and maximized he stressed out and quit the game before we ever played.

I ran a few sessions of Swords & Wizardry as a counterpoint, and then a different DM took over the 3.5 characters. I haven't played that yet (vacation and then coming home to multiple trees down in my backyard) but I've got a lovely little gestalt tiefling beguiler/swashbuckler.