D&D 5E Would this fix Champion?

[DaedalusX51]

At Level 3 it would look like this:

Level 3 Battle Master:

4d8 bonus damage from Maneuvers

(4*8+4)/2 = Average of 18 damage per short rest.

Level 3 Champion:

5% additional chance to crit * 2d6 weapon damage (This is even worse for dual wielding and one handing)

0.05(2*6+2/2) = 0.35 damage per hit.

Explanation of Results:
It would take 51-52 attack rolls to equal the 18 damage of the Battle Master before a single short rest. Even with advantage for every attack roll we are still looking at 25-26 attacks per short rest.

 

[DaedalusX51]

So 5 rounds of combat per short rest?

Versus the Battle Master's 6 attacks? Yeah I think that is horribly imbalanced.

Edit: Btw 42 attacks would be more like 8-9 rounds of combat.
Two action surges for 8 attacks.
and then 6-7 more rounds of 4 attacks.

I addition, the Champion does not get to choose when to use their extra damage. So it is very likely that a portion of it is wasted overkilling an enemy.

 

[jaelis]

Versus the Battle Master's 6 attacks? Yeah I think that is horribly imbalanced.

So just to be clear, your concern is that at level 20, just looking at crits vs bonus damage, the champion does better if you average more than 5 rounds of combat between rests? Because that doesn't seem like very much.

 

[DaedalusX51]

So just to be clear, your concern is that at level 20, just looking at crits vs bonus damage, the champion does better if you average more than 5 rounds of combat between rests? Because that doesn't seem like very much.

Sorry about the edit. Posted in haste.

 

[Jester David]

At Level 3 it would look like this:

Level 3 Battle Master:

4d8 bonus damage from Maneuvers

(4*8+4)/2 = Average of 18 damage per short rest.

Level 3 Champion:

5% additional chance to crit * 2d6 weapon damage (This is even worse for dual wielding and one handing)

0.05(2*6+2/2) = 0.35 damage per hit.

Explanation of Results:
It would take 51-52 attack rolls to equal the 18 damage of the Battle Master before a single short rest. Even with advantage for every attack roll we are still looking at 25-26 attacks per short rest.

52 attacks. Two attacks each round mean at least 26 rounds of combat.
With advantage on a quarter, this is reduced to 19 rounds. 18 due to action surge. If there are two to four rounds of combat per encounter and this is 6 encounters.

This is a little low. You'll likely rest before that.

But it's close enough. Which is the catch. The variance in damage will be minor in play, with dice rolls having far more impact. It takes an entire campaign worth of d20 rolls to even get close to a decent bell curve.
Seeing both a battle master (two weapons) fighter at my table and a champion (archer), both are happy and contribute to the combat.

The champion is well designed and any tweak will just add complexity, going against the design goals of the class.

 

[DaedalusX51]

Stop shifting the goal posts and relying on red herrings. This isn't a decency issue, nor have I said I expect you to write a thesis, and I haven't been indecent to you. All I've done is point out how what you claimed is factually not true. That's how discussion works. If you say something clearly not true, expect people to point that out. That doesn't make them indecent or pretending to be right or any other disingenuous behavior you're trying to ascribe to their motivations. I didn't say you weren't clear or concise. Rather, your posts were very clear. Wrong, but clear. There was no ambiguity there. You clearly said these things don't exist when in fact they do and we can point right to them.

You don't get to make outright false claims and act like no one can call those out or they are mean. That's not how discussion works.

You actually haven't replied to any of my issues or ideas. You just state that I am wrong. So this is just you bullying me.

BTW I didn't intentionally move the goal posts. I wasn't clear when I said that there wasn't a 3E Fighter for 5E. I meant a 3E Fighter Subclass. Something that only the Fighter gets, or it can do better than the other classes. Yes I know they get two additional feats, but there are no exclusive mechanics for the always on Fighter style.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Would this be overpowered, or would it fix them?

You can't fix a sub-class that lacks anything meaningful other than DPR by raising (or lowering) it's DPR.

 

[Satyrn]

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.

This seems like an excellent starting point - a clear problem to fix.

I think it also illustrates why the Champion is not actually the problem because if it gets changed, it won't be like the 2e fighter.

So I think you've stumbled on to the solution - create another subclass for the 3e version. We could call it Man-at-Arms.

 

[DaedalusX51]

52 attacks. Two attacks each round mean at least 26 rounds of combat.
With advantage on a quarter, this is reduced to 19 rounds. 18 due to action surge. If there are two to four rounds of combat per encounter and this is 6 encounters.

This is a little low. You'll likely rest before that.

But it's close enough. Which is the catch. The variance in damage will be minor in play, with dice rolls having far more impact. It takes an entire campaign worth of d20 rolls to even get close to a decent bell curve.
Seeing both a battle master (two weapons) fighter at my table and a champion (archer), both are happy and contribute to the combat.

The champion is well designed and any tweak will just add complexity, going against the design goals of the class.

It is recommended for 6-8 encounters per day with at least 2 short rests. That is supposed to be the balancing point for resources in 5E. The Battle Master needs to basically never get a short rest to ever give the Champion a chance to catch up to it in damage alone.

 

[DaedalusX51]

This seems like an excellent starting point - a clear problem to fix.

I think it also illustrates why the Champion is not actually the problem because if it gets changed, it won't be like the 2e fighter.

So I think you've stumbled on to the solution - create another subclass for the 3e version. We could call it Man-at-Arms.

Thanks. That's a great idea. To be honest, the Champion felt closest to the niche I wanted so that's why I began there as a starting point. However, I wouldn't want to step on the toes of players that like everything the way it currently plays.