D&D 5E Breaking down the Fighter archetypes.

[psychophipps]

I can agree with anyone that says champions are boring, because for people who want all the bells and whistles and complication BUILT IN to their class' mechanics, the champion doesn't have that.

I can agree with anyone that says champions are simple, because they just goddam are. All of their features are passive, easy to understand, and require zero thought or cognition to be used effectively.

What I can't agree with is the fact that people think champion is a trap option, or in ANY way inferior to battlemaster and eldritch knight. Yes, the battlemaster can do interesting things. 6 times per short rest at max level. Yes, EK can do amazing things, a handful of times per long rest. Yes, the champion requires feats and a focused set up in order to truly shine, but that in no way marginalizes the champion's effectiveness or deadliness.

While BM can nova better, champion hits like a truck all day long. Limitless resource in the extra crit range. Out of combat goodies with remarkable athlete. Troll regeneration at higher levels. Sure, it's not flashy, it's not complicated, but it most certainly isn't anything other than a ing awesome archetype for those that are aware enough to make it great.

When I mentioned that I've been considering a Champion Fighter as my next character with my group, all I got was weird looks and "Are you sure you don't want a battle master instead?"

Yup!

 

[Miladoon]

Battlemaster - "I need to rest"

Eldritch Knight - "I wish I had a spell book"

Champion - "You maggots get on your feet, tea time was over an hour ago and we need to do things like...adventure!"

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

I can agree with anyone that says champions are boring, because for people who want all the bells and whistles and complication BUILT IN to their class' mechanics, the champion doesn't have that.

I can agree with anyone that says champions are simple, because they just goddam are. All of their features are passive, easy to understand, and require zero thought or cognition to be used effectively.

What I can't agree with is the fact that people think champion is a trap option, or in ANY way inferior to battlemaster and eldritch knight. Yes, the battlemaster can do interesting things. 6 times per short rest at max level. Yes, EK can do amazing things, a handful of times per long rest. Yes, the champion requires feats and a focused set up in order to truly shine, but that in no way marginalizes the champion's effectiveness or deadliness.

While BM can nova better, champion hits like a truck all day long. Limitless resource in the extra crit range. Out of combat goodies with remarkable athlete. Troll regeneration at higher levels. Sure, it's not flashy, it's not complicated, but it most certainly isn't anything other than a ing awesome archetype for those that are aware enough to make it great.

Well spoke sir! Well spoken

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It makes no sense that the Battlemaster has maneuvers yet for some reason those can not be used by the champion or EK. Where technically, the EK should be a separate class. The only reason the champion exists is for game reasons so someone can use a simple class. So overall the fighter archetypes are an anomaly when compared against each other. You have much more cohesion when looking at a wizard/subclasses, monk/subclasses, etc.

Many of the Battle Master's maneuvers are just improved versions of things that anyone (fighter or not) can do with the Shove action, one of the variant actions in the DMG or, depending on your DM, an improvised action. That's actually one of the things I like, and that I've liked since the playtest. Anyone has a reasonable chance to knock someone down, push them away, or disarm them, by making an ability contest. But the subclass that focuses on that sort of thing can smack you first and then just throw on the effect as a rider--because it's what they do and they are extra good at it. Just like rogues with skill Expertise and the eventual minimum result they get.

2. They need to have meaningful trade-offs. "Use it now, or use it later" is not a particularly meaningful trade-off. A true opportunity cost, e.g. "get a small but potentially-pivotal benefit right now, or an undefined but potentially-large benefit later" is one kind of meaningful trade-off. Another kind of trade-off is electing to take on a greater risk in the hope of a greater reward, or going for a safer but less-rewarding path.

I actually do see the Battle Master's maneuvers as fulfilling some of this, depending on maneuvers. I'm a big fan of pushing creatures away, for instance. Pushing someone off a cliff or into a pit, etc, are great options--but if you blow all your dice ahead of time for a bit of extra damage or advantage for an ally, you're making a trade-off against the opportunity of sending someone flying into a ravine later.

I think it does have a lot to do with how your design your Battle Master though. I tend to go for things like forced movement and disarm, because I love that aspect of the subclass.

 

[Ironeyes]

I have a v.human champion fighter 6/rogue 2 that dual wields that is an absolute BLAST to play. Optimal? Probably not, but wicked fun.

 

[Huntsman57]

My impression of the Champion is that their damage output is a bit weak, particularly prior their their crit range expanding to 18-20. Even when they do achieve a critical hit those crits are gimped compared to 3E where, as I recall, all damage was doubled, not just rolled damage.

I suppose it's a bit hard to calculate because there are questions such as how often the Battemaster can short rest in a particular DMs game for instance. However I think it's fair to say that unless a campaign was starting at 15th level so I had multiple attacks at that expanded crit range, I likely wouldn't bother with the Champion.

 

[Sacrosanct]

My impression of the Champion is that their damage output is a bit weak, particularly prior their their crit range expanding to 18-20. Even when they do achieve a critical hit those crits are gimped compared to 3E where, as I recall, all damage was doubled, not just rolled damage.
.

Everything in 5e would be gimped if you were comparing it to 3e. In the context of 5e's rules, criticals are not gimped at all.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It's also worth noting that advantage helps a Champion's criticals. So looking for/creating ways to gain advantage is a fun thing for Champions to do that can be enjoyed from more than one play style.

 

[Bacon Bits]

My impression of the Champion is that their damage output is a bit weak, particularly prior their their crit range expanding to 18-20. Even when they do achieve a critical hit those crits are gimped compared to 3E where, as I recall, all damage was doubled, not just rolled damage.

I suppose it's a bit hard to calculate because there are questions such as how often the Battemaster can short rest in a particular DMs game for instance. However I think it's fair to say that unless a campaign was starting at 15th level so I had multiple attacks at that expanded crit range, I likely wouldn't bother with the Champion.

There's a few things holding back 3e crits that 5e crits don't have to deal with. You have to confirm crits in 3e, significantly reducing the overall crit chance. About half is roughly accurate. A scimitar will only crit about 7% of the time in 3e. Also, iterative attacks degrade in 3e, making crits progressively worse. Furthermore, essentially every effect which adds attacks further degrades your attacks. Third, multiple attacks require zero movement. This makes multiple attacks *significantly* worse.

As far as Champion not keeping up with damage, I'm pretty sure that Champion is considered the damage king for single class thanks to Great Weapon Master, 18-20 crit range, and you still have decent burst damage thanks to Action Surge. With 3-4 attacks every round at full base attack, you're more or less guaranteed to crit every other round.