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.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why Good Players Should Not Play Champions
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="TwoSix" data-source="post: 6992366" data-attributes="member: 205"><p>No, not at all. When I say better, I mean in the nature of about 10-20% better, on average. I'm sure you don't think the disparity between 10 DPR and 12 DPR is so great that people who want to play simple characters won't be competitive.</p><p></p><p>And yes, I do think players who embrace mechanical challenges should receive a small bonus if they leverage those effectively. That's been the wizard shtick since Basic, after all. The balance point is that if the more mechanical complex character is played poorly, their DPR and effectiveness will suffer accordingly, more so than the mechanically simple character. It should look something like:</p><p></p><p>Battlemaster (played well) - 12 DPR</p><p>Champion (baseline, as they have no real DPR decision points) - 10 DPR</p><p>Battlemaster (played poorly) - 8 DPR.</p><p></p><p>Note, also, by "played well" I mean tactical decisions at the table, not build decisions. The problem with 3e was how much of your character's effectiveness was tied to decisions you didn't make in play, but at the time of character build.</p><p></p><p>There's also the issue of psychology. Players who gravitate towards mechanical complexity are, most of the time, also going to be players who are more aware of mechanical effectiveness, and are more than likely to gravitate towards playing more "effective" classes. I would be bummed if all the strongest options for characters were characters with purely passive abilities that required little to no decision making, because my desires for both complexity and effectiveness would be hindered. </p><p></p><p>Likewise, player types who gravitate towards the simpler options are also the type who care the least about measuring effectiveness. How many people on this forum make statements like "I don't care about my DPR, I just want to play the character I envision?" If they don't care about DPR, than why would more complex characters being slightly stronger than simpler ones matter to those players even one iota? They're going to choose the option that fits their concept and is easier to play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TwoSix, post: 6992366, member: 205"] No, not at all. When I say better, I mean in the nature of about 10-20% better, on average. I'm sure you don't think the disparity between 10 DPR and 12 DPR is so great that people who want to play simple characters won't be competitive. And yes, I do think players who embrace mechanical challenges should receive a small bonus if they leverage those effectively. That's been the wizard shtick since Basic, after all. The balance point is that if the more mechanical complex character is played poorly, their DPR and effectiveness will suffer accordingly, more so than the mechanically simple character. It should look something like: Battlemaster (played well) - 12 DPR Champion (baseline, as they have no real DPR decision points) - 10 DPR Battlemaster (played poorly) - 8 DPR. Note, also, by "played well" I mean tactical decisions at the table, not build decisions. The problem with 3e was how much of your character's effectiveness was tied to decisions you didn't make in play, but at the time of character build. There's also the issue of psychology. Players who gravitate towards mechanical complexity are, most of the time, also going to be players who are more aware of mechanical effectiveness, and are more than likely to gravitate towards playing more "effective" classes. I would be bummed if all the strongest options for characters were characters with purely passive abilities that required little to no decision making, because my desires for both complexity and effectiveness would be hindered. Likewise, player types who gravitate towards the simpler options are also the type who care the least about measuring effectiveness. How many people on this forum make statements like "I don't care about my DPR, I just want to play the character I envision?" If they don't care about DPR, than why would more complex characters being slightly stronger than simpler ones matter to those players even one iota? They're going to choose the option that fits their concept and is easier to play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why Good Players Should Not Play Champions
Top