D&D 5E My tweak to make (Champion) Fighters decent

[Satyrn]

You may be right re fighting style, depends on the PC I think. +2 DEX usually better than Defence style +1 AC.

Aye, but as you hinted at in your OP, the champion's Dex might already be maxed and so this would be the only way to get that +1 AC if that's what's really wanted.

I said it seems pointless, but I may be wrong, and there's simply no reason not to leave it in there as available - and I just thought of something. Instead of giving out one additional fighting style, give them all. I mean, why not? It feels fightery, championy, and most of them don't actually stack anyway, so you're adding versatility.

And really, as I type this, I think you should consider just giving them all the styles when they get the second.


. . . And you may even find that giving yet another additional action surge at some point makes sense, too

 

[Corwin]

Anyway I get the impression few or no people here would dream of running a no-Feats game and that relatively few use the Champion Fighter subclass at all. So I guess this wasn't a great place to post.

Although we do use feats, we've had several champions at our table.

Again, I think in a no feats game, opening up thematically appropriate feat access, as a special class feature/exception for the fighter's two bonus ASI slots, is an interesting compromise. Added bonus, it keeps things within the already designed window of what the rules expect, while giving the fighter something cool only they can have.

After all, many of the feats could just as easily be seen as a class feature anyway. If you think of them as something like barbarians getting to pick from a list of totems, you see they are very similar in concept. Give the fighter a short list, of the feats you would allow, from which to pick one at 6th and 14th level.

 

[Flamestrike]

My Wilderlands PCs may spend several days or a week or a couple weeks at a time adventuring. Maybe they get into 1-2 fights in that time. They do lots of other stuff, like trekking across rugged hills, navigating the endless ocean to mysterious isles, flying winged steeds over high mountains, et al. And of course lots of meeting people and talking with them, discovering ancient relics of lost aeons, delving hidden mysteries of the forgotten past, etc.

Exactly. The gritty realism rest variant is absolutely perfect for your game. PCs must spend an entire week going nothing but chilling out in town in order to have a long rest. Short rests are overnight affairs (or even 5 minute affairs).

5E DnD is balanced around 6-8 encounters per long rest, and no more than 2-3 encounters per short rest.

As in - classes are balanced around this assumption, as is encounter difficulty and challenge ratings.

I hazard a guess that [Fighters, Warlocks and Monks] in your campaign are under-powered next to [full casters, Barbarians and Paladins], and appropriately budgeted [medium-hard] or even [hard-deadly] encounters are getting steamrolled.

Instead of mucking about with classes, muck about with rests.

Presuming your PCs spend a month away from home, doing fantastic crap etc, rarely get more than a dozen or so encounters in that time away from home, and rarely get more than 3 in any one single day, implementing [long rest] as = [week long rests] and [short rests] = [overnight] is perfect for you.

Heck; if your campaign only averages less than 6 encounters per month of game time, and never more than 3 in a single day, just have long rests happen in the background, but the benefits only kick in at the start of each game month. Short rest benefits kick in overnight. Players are healing, studying spell books, resting etc every night, but it takes a month for any substantial benefit (a long rest) to kick in.

Bang presto. Paladins and Barbarians have to ration smites and rages over a whole month (of 6-8 encounters). Wizards cant solve every problem with a click of their fingers. Fighters only have to ration their crap over a single day (of 0-3 encounters). It takes a month to heal from injuries, and your hit points + hit dice are expected to last you 4 whole weeks.

If your campaign runs at the pace you claim, then that should be around 1 long rest every 6-8 encounters, and a short rest every 1-3 encounters.

Classes will balance at the spot they were designed to balance, and you can stop ramping up encounter difficulty (which only encourages nova strikes and nova tactics, devalues player choice and abilities, stops fights being boring games of rocket tag, makes the chances of a campaign smashing TPK more likely, and nerfs certain classes like Fighters, Monks and Warlocks unfairly).

 

[Flamestrike]

Wrong. Here's the tweet again. It's talking explicitly about Improved Divine Smite.

I know what I read. You either don't, or you never read it in the first place.

Ive read the tweet, and youre wrong. Youre 100 percent wrong.

Wanna keep playing this game?

 

[S'mon]

Exactly. The gritty realism rest variant is absolutely perfect for your game. PCs must spend an entire week going nothing but chilling out in town in order to have a long rest. Short rests are overnight affairs (or even 5 minute affairs).

5E DnD is balanced around 6-8 encounters per long rest, and no more than 2-3 encounters per short rest.

As in - classes are balanced around this assumption, as is encounter difficulty and challenge ratings.

I hazard a guess that [Fighters, Warlocks and Monks] in your campaign are under-powered next to [full casters, Barbarians and Paladins], and appropriately budgeted [medium-hard] or even [hard-deadly] encounters are getting steamrolled.

Instead of mucking about with classes, muck about with rests.

Presuming your PCs spend a month away from home, doing fantastic crap etc, rarely get more than a dozen or so encounters in that time away from home, and rarely get more than 3 in any one single day, implementing [long rest] as = [week long rests] and [short rests] = [overnight] is perfect for you.

Heck; if your campaign only averages less than 6 encounters per month of game time, and never more than 3 in a single day, just have long rests happen in the background, but the benefits only kick in at the start of each game month. Short rest benefits kick in overnight. Players are healing, studying spell books, resting etc every night, but it takes a month for any substantial benefit (a long rest) to kick in.

Bang presto. Paladins and Barbarians have to ration smites and rages over a whole month (of 6-8 encounters). Wizards cant solve every problem with a click of their fingers. Fighters only have to ration their crap over a single day (of 0-3 encounters). It takes a month to heal from injuries, and your hit points + hit dice are expected to last you 4 whole weeks.

If your campaign runs at the pace you claim, then that should be around 1 long rest every 6-8 encounters, and a short rest every 1-3 encounters.

Classes will balance at the spot they were designed to balance, and you can stop ramping up encounter difficulty (which only encourages nova strikes and nova tactics, devalues player choice and abilities, stops fights being boring games of rocket tag, makes the chances of a campaign smashing TPK more likely, and nerfs certain classes like Fighters, Monks and Warlocks unfairly).

I do basically agree with you, but the campaign has been going for several years balanced around the rules as-is, eg assumption that barbarians can Rage pretty well every fight. So I'd rather bring the (now) one short rest PC up than the rest down. But I think for my next 5e campaign (either Skull & Shackles Pirates AP, Primeval Thule, and/or a megadungeon sandbox like Dwimmermount) I will indeed try out use of the slow rest variant.

Edit: I don't really do monster budgets as such, and I certainly have no trouble challenging the PCs. Challenging PCs was an issue for me only once ever - running high level Pathfinder & the Curse of the Crimson Throne
AP, with a Summoner PC (ugh). Never been an issue in any other version of D&D.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Ive read the tweet, and youre wrong. Youre 100 percent wrong.

Wanna keep playing this game?

Apparently you do, since you're not going to admit you're wrong and you lack reading comprehension.

 

[Flamestrike]

I do basically agree with you, but the campaign has been going for several years balanced around the rules as-is, eg assumption that barbarians can Rage pretty well every fight.

That alone would create balance problems with both encounters, and other classes (they are balanced to rage every other fight).

It also removes a lot of the fun of class features. Instead of a meaningful choice to use (rage) or (use high level spell) or (action surge) or (divine smite) it just becomes a 'mash this button on round, 1 and keep mashing'.

Class features are much more memorable and interesting (for all the players) when a player has to choose when to use them, and they come with a risk/reward. They also stand out at the table more.

Casting a high level spell, action surging, entering rage, smiting your foe etc becomes a really big deal, and not something that routinely happens on round 1 of each battle.

So I'd rather bring the (now) one short rest PC up than the rest down. But I think for my next 5e campaign (either Skull & Shackles Pirates AP, Primeval Thule, and/or a megadungeon sandbox like Dwimmermount) I will indeed try out use of the slow rest variant.

For the megadungeon, thats going to be rough. Week long long rests would be brutal in such a campaign.

Then again maybe it should be the fighters turn to shine.

 

[Flamestrike]

Apparently you do, since you're not going to admit you're wrong and you lack reading comprehension.

Im not wrong, and I dont lack reading comprehension.

No need for personal abuse just because youre angry at yourself for misinterpreting a clarification either.

 

[S'mon]

For the megadungeon, thats going to be rough. Week long long rests would be brutal in such a campaign.

Then again maybe it should be the fighters turn to shine.

Well I would like Fighters to be decent. But in practice I would expect a very old school cadence where the PCs hit the dungeon, do a few encounters, then exit and rest up for a week before the next attempt. Actually this might actually be even worse for Fighters if I don't keep Short Rest at 1 hour (with Long Rest > 1 week).
If you can rest a day in town, you can probably rest a week in town. The 1 day/1 week approach seems best for wilderness hexploration.

 

[Flamestrike]

I do basically agree with you, but the campaign has been going for several years balanced around the rules as-is, eg assumption that barbarians can Rage pretty well every fight. So I'd rather bring the (now) one short rest PC up than the rest down. But I think for my next 5e campaign (either Skull & Shackles Pirates AP, Primeval Thule, and/or a megadungeon sandbox like Dwimmermount) I will indeed try out use of the slow rest variant.

Edit: I don't really do monster budgets as such, and I certainly have no trouble challenging the PCs. Challenging PCs was an issue for me only once ever - running high level Pathfinder & the Curse of the Crimson Throne
AP, with a Summoner PC (ugh). Never been an issue in any other version of D&D.

If youre intrested I just posted a thread with a houserule document you can have look at also. Its designed (in part) to adress nova tactics, class balance and resting (among other stuff).

Doesnt go directly to the heart of your problem, but is designed to for more along the line of a 4 encounter adventuring day, with repeated days being increasing taxing.