pming
Legend
Hiya!
Not sure if someone has mentioned this or not...but, at least from my experience, players that try to "optimize for damage output" tend to not enjoy, get bored, or get annoyed with 5e "campaign play". Those that play for a quick game, or single-adventure path...may be able to get more fun out of it. But if you see this first game as likely to develop into a full-fledged campaign...just pre-warn the optimizer that he won't be in the action all the time. That some times his character *will*, without a doubt, blow chunks for entire sessions and be about as useful as teets ona feesh.
5e is deliberately designed around three core principles:
(1) The Three Pillars of Play. (Combat, Exploration, Roleplay/Social Interaction). Classes, races, spells, equipment, etc all play more or less equal parts in a 'perfectly balanced 5e campaign').
(2) Bounded Accuracy. (this, in short, means lower bonuses/penalties and a LOT less capability to get those in the first place; the to hit differences between a 1st level Fighter and a 20th level one is probably around a +4 to a +8...compared to 3.x/PF where its like +7 to +27; N.B.: It is also worth noting that things like Feats and Multiclassing are OPTIONAL and not included in officially published AP's...meaning if the DM allows these, he/she has to 'up' the challenges/numbers of everything or risk min/maxers absolutely *dominating* play and, likely, destroying the fun for those less inclined at the table...which leads to number three...).
(3) DM Empowerment. (the DM's input, adjudication and decisions aren't just favoured in 5e...they are required. Go look at Stealth & Hiding for a good example of why...).
Take all three of those together over the course of a Campaign (not AP or 'one-off'), and you have a game that will please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. Those that like to focus on "optimization" will simply have to accept that they will not be the 'focus' of the game for about 1/3rd of any given campaign. If such a player is...uh..."less social adept", he/she may disrupt play for others at the table (yes, talking experience here...but not with 5e; my experience with most min/maxers/optimizers has been...er...lets just say "less than acceptable behavior from a supposed adult" and leave it at that).
So, is the Champion "viable" compared to the Battlemaster? IMHO, absolutely...for a campaign. But the closer one gets to a 'white room' game session, maybe not so much. And if you allow stuff from Sage Advice UA, or Feats, Multiclassing, or other non-core sources or options...then all bets are off.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Not sure if someone has mentioned this or not...but, at least from my experience, players that try to "optimize for damage output" tend to not enjoy, get bored, or get annoyed with 5e "campaign play". Those that play for a quick game, or single-adventure path...may be able to get more fun out of it. But if you see this first game as likely to develop into a full-fledged campaign...just pre-warn the optimizer that he won't be in the action all the time. That some times his character *will*, without a doubt, blow chunks for entire sessions and be about as useful as teets ona feesh.
5e is deliberately designed around three core principles:
(1) The Three Pillars of Play. (Combat, Exploration, Roleplay/Social Interaction). Classes, races, spells, equipment, etc all play more or less equal parts in a 'perfectly balanced 5e campaign').
(2) Bounded Accuracy. (this, in short, means lower bonuses/penalties and a LOT less capability to get those in the first place; the to hit differences between a 1st level Fighter and a 20th level one is probably around a +4 to a +8...compared to 3.x/PF where its like +7 to +27; N.B.: It is also worth noting that things like Feats and Multiclassing are OPTIONAL and not included in officially published AP's...meaning if the DM allows these, he/she has to 'up' the challenges/numbers of everything or risk min/maxers absolutely *dominating* play and, likely, destroying the fun for those less inclined at the table...which leads to number three...).
(3) DM Empowerment. (the DM's input, adjudication and decisions aren't just favoured in 5e...they are required. Go look at Stealth & Hiding for a good example of why...).
Take all three of those together over the course of a Campaign (not AP or 'one-off'), and you have a game that will please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. Those that like to focus on "optimization" will simply have to accept that they will not be the 'focus' of the game for about 1/3rd of any given campaign. If such a player is...uh..."less social adept", he/she may disrupt play for others at the table (yes, talking experience here...but not with 5e; my experience with most min/maxers/optimizers has been...er...lets just say "less than acceptable behavior from a supposed adult" and leave it at that).
So, is the Champion "viable" compared to the Battlemaster? IMHO, absolutely...for a campaign. But the closer one gets to a 'white room' game session, maybe not so much. And if you allow stuff from Sage Advice UA, or Feats, Multiclassing, or other non-core sources or options...then all bets are off.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
