D&D 5E Would this fix Champion?

[Oofta]

I just want to respectfully point out that while you and others do not find issues with the perceived inadequacies of the Champion subclass, there are those of us that do and it is hampering our enjoyment of the subclass. I think instead of telling us that it is not a problem, it would help us all to be happier with the game if we could set aside our biases and help each other make the game fun for everyone.

For my home game, I have merged both the Champion and Battle Master into a single subclass. In addition I have implemented most of the combat feats as maneuvers in the Fighter class and have changed the Martial adept feat to allow you to gain two maneuvers.

My version of the Fighter class is below.
http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HJ5Cy7zLx

Hopefully we can find some fixes for the Champion in this thread for the people who want them.

I always hesitate when I jump on a bandwagon. But this is one of those things where I really don't see a problem. There is no way that every class or rule is going to satisfy every niche.

Personally I see more of an issue with Eldritch Knight (mediocre fighter, mediocre wizard) than I do with Champion. My way of dealing with it? I don't play the class.

People are free and even encouraged to change whatever rules they want to make the game more enjoyable.

However, I can't help you fix something if I don't understand what the issue is.

Want more flexibility like the Battle Master? Play a Battle Master. Is it an issue of DPR? Play a Barbarian or whatever the warrior type DPR king is (I don't really pay much attention). Want to play 4E? Play 4E.

If your group doesn't play Champions, why is it an issue? No one in my group has played a Knowledge Domain Cleric, I don't think it's my job as a DM to encourage their play. The game is not broken because of their lack of interest.

 

[jaelis]

I just want to respectfully point out that while you and others do not find issues with the perceived inadequacies of the Champion subclass, there are those of us that do and it is hampering our enjoyment of the subclass. I think instead of telling us that it is not a problem, it would help us all to be happier with the game if we could set aside our biases and help each other make the game fun for everyone.

For my home game, I have merged both the Champion and Battle Master into a single subclass. In addition I have implemented most of the combat feats as maneuvers in the Fighter class and have changed the Martial adept feat to allow you to gain two maneuvers.

My version of the Fighter class is below.
http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HJ5Cy7zLx

Hopefully we can find some fixes for the Champion in this thread for the people who want them.

Sure. But what do you expect to happen if you make a post based on the tacit assumption that everyone agrees it needs fixing? People are going to take issue with you about it.

If you personally don't like something, then it works much better to post something like "I personally don't like this class for these reasons. If these things don't bother you that's cool, but they do bother me. If you share (or at least understand) this concern, could you take a look at my proposed solution and let me know what you think?"

 

[DaedalusX51]

I always hesitate when I jump on a bandwagon. But this is one of those things where I really don't see a problem. There is no way that every class or rule is going to satisfy every niche.

Personally I see more of an issue with Eldritch Knight (mediocre fighter, mediocre wizard) than I do with Champion. My way of dealing with it? I don't play the class.

People are free and even encouraged to change whatever rules they want to make the game more enjoyable.

However, I can't help you fix something if I don't understand what the issue is.

Want more flexibility like the Battle Master? Play a Battle Master. Is it an issue of DPR? Play a Barbarian or whatever the warrior type DPR king is (I don't really pay much attention). Want to play 4E? Play 4E.

If your group doesn't play Champions, why is it an issue? No one in my group has played a Knowledge Domain Cleric, I don't think it's my job as a DM to encourage their play. The game is not broken because of their lack of interest.

Well the problem that I am personally having (not speaking for anyone else in this thread) is that the Champion and Battle Master are just representations of the 2E and 4E Fighters respectively. It seems they entirely left out the 3E Fighter gameplay style. Where you had always available combat options by having a bunch of combat feats to tailor your Fighter. I would love a Champion style fighter (no to little resource management) but with decisions to actually make in combat.

Wizards reinvented Vancian Spellcasting for 5E and created re-imaginings for every class. The Fighter unfortunately was an afterthought. They attempted to make sure that their 4E and earlier fans could find something they would find familiar, but at the expense of creating a new standard for Fighters in 5E. This is all reinforced by Mike Mearls himself from the Tome Show interview below:

https://merricb.com/2015/08/02/mike-mearls-speaks-tome-show-interview/.

Mike’s biggest regret is the fighter: the subclasses don’t have the identity that the subclasses of other classes have. What’s a battlemaster or a champion? They were so involved in the mechanics (for simple and complex fighters), that the names don’t mean anything.

This is all ignoring the fact that the Champion is mechanically sub par at the only thing it can actually do, damage. I don't think Wizards did that on purpose and I'm assuming the Champion was created during the playtest when critical hits were max damage plus extra damage die and were never looked at again when the rule was changed.

But after all of this, I for one don't want to to force anyone to change their game if they are happy with it the way that is. However, if you take a look at the forums there are numerous posters who find issues with their home game that they would like to find solutions for, and I think it would be healthier if instead of arguing over whether you agree on it, to help them resolve their issues. So at best if you don't agree on the premise and don't have a solution to fix it, why are you posting to say "Naw man. You're wrong." That doesn't accomplish anything.

BTW, I just want to point out that I'm not trying to pick on you, but that this is a prevalent response when someone is trying to work to a solution to a problem they are having with the game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It seems we're on our twice-yearly anti-champion thread burst. And it's always the same:

1. Not everyone thinks the champion is broken, and many thinks it works exactly how they want it to work
2. Some people find the champion lacking

Both statements are accurate, both are true, and both are OK.

But here's where it gets into an area that makes no sense to me. This assumption that if a subclass exists, it must be exactly what you want and built how you want to play it. That's complete nonsense. D&D put together dozens of subclasses to fit the needs of the largest group of players' desires. That means there will be subclasses that don't appeal to you. Instead of trying to "fix" a class that isn't broken that you probably don't want to play anyway, stick with those classes you do. There are a lot of things I don't like about the bard class, but you don't see me creating thread about how "good roleplayers don't play bards" or "bards are broken and boring" or anything else like that. I just don't play them. I understand that they are there because some people do like to play bards. So let them have their class, it impacts me ZERO.

 

[DaedalusX51]

Sure. But what do you expect to happen if you make a post based on the tacit assumption that everyone agrees it needs fixing? People are going to take issue with you about it.

If you personally don't like something, then it works much better to post something like "I personally don't like this class for these reasons. If these things don't bother you that's cool, but they do bother me. If you share (or at least understand) this concern, could you take a look at my proposed solution and let me know what you think?"

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but what does telling someone who is looking for a fix that they are wrong really accomplishing? Is it to make you feel better about the fact that they didn't word the question in the right way for you? They already know that they want to change something, either hop on board and help them do it or keep walking.

BTW I'm just a commentor here like you. I didn't start this thread, but I am trying to contribute to it constructively.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well the problem that I am personally having (not speaking for anyone else in this thread) is that the Champion and Battle Master are just representations of the 2E and 4E Fighters respectively. It seems they entirely left out the 3E Fighter gameplay style. Where you had always available combat options by having a bunch of combat feats to tailor your Fighter. I would love a Champion style fighter (no to little resource management) but with decisions to actually make in combat.

There are feats in 5e. And fighters get the most. There's your answer

This is all ignoring the fact that the Champion is mechanically sub par at the only thing it can actually do, damage. .

Objectively untrue. For one, a lot of it depends on how many combat rounds you have in between short rests and the BM having the appropriate maneuvers he or she can use to add the damage in the first place. Secondly, damage isn't the only thing it can do. I feel like I keep saying this til I'm blue in the face, but there are other options besides "I attack". Improvised options exist both in combat and out of combat, and the champion gets an extra bonus to all of those checks that fall under remarkable athlete that no one else has. That means, objectively, the champion is better at them than others. I understand this is a playstyle issue and some tables don't play with the players declaring improvised actions or out of the box actions, so they assume that it's not done. But you (general you, not you specifically) need to understand there are lots of table that do. Mine for instance. Maybe it's because I'm an AD&D guy where all improvised actions were simple ability checks, but we have situations like that happen all of the time in our games, and the champion gets an extra bonus to those via remarkable athlete that other classes don't. So just because you don't use them, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That's a position I see implied way too often in every single one of these threads about how classes are boring. And it needs to stop.

 

[jaelis]

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but what does telling someone who is looking for a fix that they are wrong really accomplishing?

Is it that you don't see how the OP is telling a bunch of people they themselves are wrong, right off the bat? What do you suppose that accomplishes?

 

[DaedalusX51]

There are feats in 5e. And fighters get the most. There's your answer

While true, the Battle Master gets Feats and all of its maneuvers and extra damage.

Objectively untrue. For one, a lot of it depends on how many combat rounds you have in between short rests and the BM having the appropriate maneuvers he or she can use to add the damage in the first place. Secondly, damage isn't the only thing it can do. I feel like I keep saying this til I'm blue in the face, but there are other options besides "I attack". Improvised options exist both in combat and out of combat, and the champion gets an extra bonus to all of those checks that fall under remarkable athlete that no one else has. That means, objectively, the champion is better at them than others. I understand this is a playstyle issue and some tables don't play with the players declaring improvised actions or out of the box actions, so they assume that it's not done. But you (general you, not you specifically) need to understand there are lots of table that do. Mine for instance. Maybe it's because I'm an AD&D guy where all improvised actions were simple ability checks, but we have situations like that happen all of the time in our games, and the champion gets an extra bonus to those via remarkable athlete that other classes don't. So just because you don't use them, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That's a position I see implied way too often in every single one of these threads about how classes are boring. And it needs to stop.

With Remarkable Athlete a Champion would only gain a +1 to +3 to an improvised action. I don't really consider that to be a big benefit, especially when the Thief Rogue basically gets to make an improvised action as a bonus action.

 

[cmad1977]

Ooh good! Another episode of 'let's fix an imaginary problem!'


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DaedalusX51]

Ooh good! Another episode of 'let's fix an imaginary problem!'


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please don't be condescending. There are people here where this actually effects their game.