Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Interesting talk with Mike Mearls (a few secrets slip too!)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6343214" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>I think you're worrying too much.</p><p></p><p><em>First</em>, just because Mearls says their overall damage is even, it doesn't mean it is exactly, so we'll have to see.</p><p></p><p><em>Second</em>, the choices made by the DM and the adventure designers have an impact on how much you can exploit your tactical fighter's flexibility. Thus being flexible and rules-savvy enough to exploit that, can result in a sometimes significant and sometimes insignificant advantage anyway.</p><p></p><p><em>Third</em>, the relation between a Battlemaster and a Champion is not that different from the relation between a Wizard who uses 10 different spells per battle vs a Wizard who casts <em>magic missile </em> or other damaging spells all the time. It's mostly about the playstyle: the simple wizard's and simple fighter's players feel rewarded by playing it simple (few choices to make: which foe to target this round, what weapon to use in this battle) while the complex wizard's and complex fighter's players feel rewarded by being able to try out lots of variations.</p><p></p><p>Generally speaking, being flexible is better because there are always situations when choice X doesn't work. Maybe the monster has DR or a <em>shield</em> spell blocking magic missiles. The flexible character has many more alternatives than the simple character, and that already is an advantage, without specifically doing a larger damage (although, it might mean effectively a larger damage on the large scale, if you count the higher possibility of "outage" affecting the simple character).</p><p></p><p>But without getting too much into the details of statistics or corner cases, WotC's idea is sound when they designed both the complex and the simple fighter to be on par on most situations. If anything, IMHO they could have spent some time to create a similar low-complexity version of the Wizard, Cleric and Rogue, instead of stopping at Fighter.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6343214, member: 1465"] I think you're worrying too much. [I]First[/I], just because Mearls says their overall damage is even, it doesn't mean it is exactly, so we'll have to see. [I]Second[/I], the choices made by the DM and the adventure designers have an impact on how much you can exploit your tactical fighter's flexibility. Thus being flexible and rules-savvy enough to exploit that, can result in a sometimes significant and sometimes insignificant advantage anyway. [I]Third[/I], the relation between a Battlemaster and a Champion is not that different from the relation between a Wizard who uses 10 different spells per battle vs a Wizard who casts [I]magic missile [/I] or other damaging spells all the time. It's mostly about the playstyle: the simple wizard's and simple fighter's players feel rewarded by playing it simple (few choices to make: which foe to target this round, what weapon to use in this battle) while the complex wizard's and complex fighter's players feel rewarded by being able to try out lots of variations. Generally speaking, being flexible is better because there are always situations when choice X doesn't work. Maybe the monster has DR or a [I]shield[/I] spell blocking magic missiles. The flexible character has many more alternatives than the simple character, and that already is an advantage, without specifically doing a larger damage (although, it might mean effectively a larger damage on the large scale, if you count the higher possibility of "outage" affecting the simple character). But without getting too much into the details of statistics or corner cases, WotC's idea is sound when they designed both the complex and the simple fighter to be on par on most situations. If anything, IMHO they could have spent some time to create a similar low-complexity version of the Wizard, Cleric and Rogue, instead of stopping at Fighter. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Interesting talk with Mike Mearls (a few secrets slip too!)
Top