D&D 5E Buffing the Champion Fighter

[Zardnaar]

What are some things they used to get back in 2E?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kits the main one was weapon specialization and good saves. +1 to hit, +2 damage an extra atack ever second rounbd (starting from level 1) and by level 20 they had the equivalent of +15 to +18 on all saves (vs DC 20).

 

[bid]

I've said it before.

Just give champion an extra action surge at level 7.

That's enough to balance it against BM.

 

[Zardnaar]

That could make sense. Not that I have a clue what the feat does.

Reroll 1's (2's if you are a halfling)
extra dice of damage when you crit
+1 dex or strength

 

[Lanliss]

Have not read the rest of the thread, but I am considering giving either Fighter himself, or just Champion fighters, expertise in a chosen weapon. That would make them truly the "Best Fighter", I think. Anyone wanna do the math on what that would do to their hit-chance over time? I am not good at those types of maths.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I have a player in a campaign that wanted to play a ''simple'' fighter and was interested in the champion. As a big fan of the material of Cubicle 7, I pointed her toward the Weapon Master from their conversion of the One Ring to 5e, which works similarly to the champion, but give the player a choice of passive abilities like the warlock invocations and gain a specialisation in the fighting style she took at lvl 1 instead of gaining a second one.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not to pick on the OP because this isn't directed at him, but at these types of threads in general.

What does the champion need buffing on? Absolutely nothing. We seem to have this attitude that every class presented needs to appeal to us personally, and if it doesn't, then it's broken, or weak, or whatever. That attitude is not only flawed, but is harmful to the game itself. There is a very real reason why the champion is like it is, and changing it because *I* feel it doesn't do enough ends up alienating those people who do like it like it is because I'm taking away their options.

So play the classes you want, and stop feeling like you need to change every other class to fit your desires because chances are, it appeals to other people just fine the way it is. The game certainly isn't catered to my desires, so why I would feel it necessarily say anything that doesn't fit my desires is somehow broken is beyond me.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It strikes me that the issue is at low levels, before the greater number of attacks the fighter can make starts to synergise with the improved crit range.
How does the maths work out if you just give the Champion their 18-20 crit range at 3rd level?

The additional Action Surge idea was also a good one.

A GWM Fighter deals more damage than GWM Battle Master. At high lvls, you can crit 3x more. Let's make a calcule:

- 20 on die = GWM Champion deals 4d6+5 + one attack as bonus action (2d6+5). GWM Battle Master deals 4d6+5 +2d12 (maneuvers) + one attack as bonus action and 1d12 as maneuvers.
- 19 on die = GWM Champion deals 4d6+5 + one attack as bonus action (2d6+5). GWM Battle Master deals 2d6+5 +1d12 (maneuvers).
- 18 on die = GWM Champion deals 4d6+5 + one attack as bonus action (2d6+5). GWM Battle Master deals 2d6+5 +1d12 (maneuvers).
- 17 on die = GWM Champion deals 2d6+5. GWM Battle Master deals 2d6+5 +1d12 (maneuvers).
- 16 on die = GWM Champion deals 2d6+5. GWM Battle Master deals 2d6+5 +1d12 (maneuvers).
- 14 and rest will be the same (2d6+5) for both.

In the end, GWM Champion deals 323 damage and GWM Battle Master deals 317. Battle Master need a short rest to go on damage, but Champion don't. I'm ignoring that Champion have a chance to crit on bonus attack dealing more damage. So yes, Champion deal more damage than BM.

You're also ignoring the fact that a Battlemaster using GWM can get the additional damage (which does not increase on a crit) more reliably by turning misses into hits with their maneuver dice rather than just increasing damage by dice roll.

 

[Lanliss]

Not to pick on the OP because this isn't directed at him, but at these types of threads in general.

What does the champion need buffing on? Absolutely nothing. We seem to have this attitude that every class presented needs to appeal to us personally, and if it doesn't, then it's broken, or weak, or whatever. That attitude is not only flawed, but is harmful to the game itself. There is a very real reason why the champion is like it is, and changing it because *I* feel it doesn't do enough ends up alienating those people who do like it like it is because I'm taking away their options.

So play the classes you want, and stop feeling like you need to change every other class to fit your desires because chances are, it appeals to other people just fine the way it is. The game certainly isn't catered to my desires, so why I would feel it necessarily say anything that doesn't fit my desires is somehow broken is beyond me.

How does someone homebrewing their ideal version of the champion affect anyone else adversely? Its not like anyone on here is talking about somehow forcing WoTC to change the printed version*, just what they feel like trying in their own games. If the OP sees players consistently not picking champion, or wants to play a champion with a little buffing and wants to have actual ideas to bring to the DM, how does it hurt anything?

*No offense to the few who do want to do that, it isn't going to happen anyway.

 

[Xeviat]

Not to pick on the OP because this isn't directed at him, but at these types of threads in general.

No offense taken.

What does the champion need buffing on? Absolutely nothing. We seem to have this attitude that every class presented needs to appeal to us personally, and if it doesn't, then it's broken, or weak, or whatever.

No one in my group has taken the Champion. Whether that's because they want a class that has more options (doubtful, because I've seen them play simple barbarians) or because it doesn't appeal to them next to the BM and the EK. Most likely the second.

At at level 3, it is weaker than the BM by every conceivable metric. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise (it's nifty to see the Champion's synergy with half-orc and great weapon master, but I'd like to see other options be good). Heck, my whole comparison was giving the Champion the best assumptions possible; a sword and board Champion would be a lot worse off.

That attitude is not only flawed, but is harmful to the game itself. There is a very real reason why the champion is like it is, and changing it because *I* feel it doesn't do enough ends up alienating those people who do like it like it is because I'm taking away their options.

That's incredibly hyperbolic. I cannot see how adding something unique to them at 3rd level, something simple and to the theme of the archetype, possibly even something non-combat, so that they have some edge over Battle masters in something, could possibly ruin someone's enjoyment of it. Unless they're one of those types that likes to purposefully play weak characters.
[/quote]So play the classes you want, and stop feeling like you need to change every other class to fit your desires because chances are, it appeals to other people just fine the way it is. The game certainly isn't catered to my desires, so why I would feel it necessarily say anything that doesn't fit my desires is somehow broken is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

Um ... I'm not a WotC designer who is going to go door to door, tear out the Champion pages of people's books, and replace it with Xev's Champion. The most I might do is put up my version of a simple Fighter (that's awfully similar to the Champion coincidentally) here or on the DMsG.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The Champion's single greatest weakness is that its 3rd level ability (improved crit) is, like a lottery ticket, designed to appeal to those who can't do math, and its 7th level ability (Remarkable Athlete) is designed to appeal to those who for some reason neglected Athletics proficiency during character generation.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea of the Champion, but two awful abilities in the first 7 levels don't compare to the awesome abilities the Eldritch Knight and the Battlemaster get over the same timeframe. If you could hatch a full-blown 20th level Champion without playing through the prior levels, the high-level abilities would have more relative weight, but of course you usually can't get a 20th level PC without playing through levels below that, so the Champion as written is disadvantaged.

In my opinion, fixing Remarkable Athlete to stack with proficiency (like a half-Expertise) would be enough to make the Champion appealing. My house rules go a little bit further than just that minimum though. I also improved Improved/Superior Critical.

Champions: Improved Critical lets you auto-crit on natural 17-20, Superior Critical lets you auto-crit on 13-20, and Remarkable Athlete stacks with proficiency. So a Str 18 Champion 9 would have +4+4+2=+10 to Strength (Athletics) checks, not just +8.

Result: Champions are hands-down the best class at sustained, pure physical combat. Battlemasters are better than Champions in a bursty situation like a duel, but if you're slaughtering your way through an army of undead zombie werewolf slaads, you want a bodyguard made up of Champions.