D&D 5E Buffing the Champion Fighter

[Gradine]

I don't know. Personally, my issue with the expanded crit range is that it is a passive ability. It has potential and can be effective, sure. But what D&D is all about is fun. And fun abilities tend to be ones in which the player has agency to activate them.

Oh, I failed that save? Well, let me pull out indomitable. Oh, you avoided all four of my attacks? Let's see how well you can keep that up with 4 more as I action surge yo butt.

This I believe is the key difference between the Champion, and the Battlemaster/Eldritch Knight. They provide additional options, and in my experience, options are fun for players. Even Remarkable Athlete is a passive increase rather than creating opportunities for more options.

The Champion was deliberately designed to provide passive benefits and avoid offering a wider range of options for characters. That's the design intent of the archetype. It's not designed to appeal to people who would prefer more opportunities for more options. Which is why it doesn't appeal to... well, a lot of D&D players. You and me included. It doesn't make it a bad class. It just makes it not for us.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

The Champion was deliberately designed to provide passive benefits and avoid offering a wider range of options for characters. That's the design intent of the archetype. It's not designed to appeal to people who would prefer more opportunities for more options. Which is why it doesn't appeal to... well, a lot of D&D players. You and me included. It doesn't make it a bad class. It just makes it not for us.

This may be true. But if it is true, why do we not see the same argument pop up time and again between the Thief vs Assassin or Arcane Trickster? The Thief archetype for the Rogue was designed with the same philosophy in mind to be as simple as possible. But people do not shout to the rooftops that the Thief is poorly designed or nerfed compared to the more "complex" options. Not to the same extent that we see Champion versus Battlemaster or Eldritch Knight at least.

So what makes these examples different? Could it be that the core chassis of the fighter does not have enough options (rogue gives you cunning action to better use your bonus action and more skills)? Or is the Thief a good example of "simplified" mechanics while the Champion is a poor example?

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I would love to give them out of combat abilities but the thematics of the class are so narrow it is a stretch. I mean, we could come up with some intimidate related effect, but I dunno. Combat is their shtick, and it might be best to let them shine there.

As a specialised combatant, a Champion needs to always be aware of locals laws and customs, otherwise they will spend a lot of time behind bars. So, how about a class feature of Advantage on social ability checks when interacting with representatives of the law and government? Maybe also when interacting with weapon and armor merchants?

These give the Champion something to do in the Interaction pillar of the game while keeping with the "passive abilities" theme of the class.

I imagine that when the party gets to town, the Eldritch Knight hits the books, the Battle-Master finds a clear spot and does routines, and the Champion heads in to town to talk shop with the smith and/or the town guards.

 

[cbwjm]

I don't know. Personally, my issue with the expanded crit range is that it is a passive ability. It has potential and can be effective, sure. But what D&D is all about is fun. And fun abilities tend to be ones in which the player has agency to activate them.

Oh, I failed that save? Well, let me pull out indomitable. Oh, you avoided all four of my attacks? Let's see how well you can keep that up with 4 more as I action surge yo butt.

This I believe is the key difference between the Champion, and the Battlemaster/Eldritch Knight. They provide additional options, and in my experience, options are fun for players. Even Remarkable Athlete is a passive increase rather than creating opportunities for more options.

In that sense, an extra Action Surge at level 7 is an interesting idea proposed earlier in the thread. So is allowing Remarkable Athlete to stack with proficiency. In my games I give the Champion an additional +2 to damage on all attacks each time they get a higher crit range, so that their benefits are more tangible and felt in every combat (because even with an increased crit range, it is theoretically possible to never actually crit. I'd rather my players not have to rely on the whims of the dice gods to feel like their player's powers are contributing).

Then have them take a different fighter class because I think the whole point of the champion is that it is more or less passive abilities, nothing for the player to have to track, no having to decide if you want to spend a superiority die now or later, no having to ask if you should fire off a spell or save that spell slot for shield. The champion just gets in there and does his job, he fights, he crits more often, he's a bit more well rounded on physical ability checks. I think the champion is a good subclass for the fighter and it tends to be the subclass I choose for most of my fighter concepts when I'm not making a classic elf fighter/mage.

 

[TwoSix]

Honestly, you could staple Champion and Battle Master together and it still wouldn't be overpowered.

 

[TwoSix]

This may be true. But if it is true, why do we not see the same argument pop up time and again between the Thief vs Assassin or Arcane Trickster? The Thief archetype for the Rogue was designed with the same philosophy in mind to be as simple as possible. But people do not shout to the rooftops that the Thief is poorly designed or nerfed compared to the more "complex" options. Not to the same extent that we see Champion versus Battlemaster or Eldritch Knight at least.

So what makes these examples different? Could it be that the core chassis of the fighter does not have enough options (rogue gives you cunning action to better use your bonus action and more skills)? Or is the Thief a good example of "simplified" mechanics while the Champion is a poor example?

Nah, I think it's more because Rogue has 2 "simple" subclasses, and the second one (assassin) is actually pretty strong. There's nothing complex about "enemies who don't see you take double damage".

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Then have them take a different fighter class because I think the whole point of the champion is that it is more or less passive abilities, nothing for the player to have to track, no having to decide if you want to spend a superiority die now or later, no having to ask if you should fire off a spell or save that spell slot for shield. The champion just gets in there and does his job, he fights, he crits more often, he's a bit more well rounded on physical ability checks. I think the champion is a good subclass for the fighter and it tends to be the subclass I choose for most of my fighter concepts when I'm not making a classic elf fighter/mage.

I'm not necessarily saying that passive abilities are not good or don't have potential. Or, if I did in fact say those things, let me correct that here (not going to go through my previous posts or worry about semantics). I think that abilities that are active or require player agency to activate are perhaps "sexier," but when done right passive abilities offer just as much potential for fun. I just think that the defining characteristic of the Champion, the expanded critical hit range, can be so finicky for several reasons.

First, while it increases the chances of a critical happening, it may never really be noticed because it is still sooooo tied up in how the dice roll. If I go multiple combats without a critical, then for me personally, it feels like I got robbed. Or if I DO score a critical, but it was on a natural 20, then it's like "Oh, well that would have happened anyways."

Second, critical hits are generally just getting to reroll the weapon dice. Don't get me wrong, rolling dice is fun (obviously) but it's not as fun when you score that critical hit and then roll a 1 or 2 on the critical hit dice.

Now, all of a sudden the thing that defines your class pick has so many ways to fail you and let you down by either not landing a critical, landing a critical but it being a normal natural 20 (slightly less exciting I would say), and having a underwhelming damage roll on the critical. You've invested class levels for a chance of a chance to have something exciting happen.

Passive abilities can be fun and well executed. As I mentioned above, fewer people complain about the Thief vs Assassin/Arcane Trickster. But the Champion's passive abilities don't really feel like abilities at all. At least, that is my perception.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Nah, I think it's more because Rogue has 2 "simple" subclasses, and the second one (assassin) is actually pretty strong. There's nothing complex about "enemies who don't see you take double damage".

I would argue against this. Assassin is not a "simple" class. It requires a great deal more creativity to run effectively. You cannot just hit and run to get the most use out of this class. It provides a great deal more roleplay ability outside of combat through your ability to disguise and use subterfuge, be creative in how you approach targets, and really get the most out of your abilities. Meanwhile, Thief mostly just lets you do Rogue stuff a bit better with passive boosts. The complexity for the assassin is not in "enemies that don't see you take more damage," but rather, "How do I use my particular skills to remain unseen, strike, AND get away without anyone being the wiser."

 

[TwoSix]

I would argue against this. Assassin is not a "simple" class. It requires a great deal more creativity to run effectively. You cannot just hit and run to get the most use out of this class. It provides a great deal more roleplay ability outside of combat through your ability to disguise and use subterfuge, be creative in how you approach targets, and really get the most out of your abilities. Meanwhile, Thief mostly just lets you do Rogue stuff a bit better with passive boosts. The complexity for the assassin is not in "enemies that don't see you take more damage," but rather, "How do I use my particular skills to remain unseen, strike, AND get away without anyone being the wiser."

Sure, but you don't HAVE to do any of that with the Assassin. You can just take the better combat perk and keep doing exactly what you were doing before, except now you're getting double damage for being sneaky. The fact that the subclass has a high ceiling to get the most use out of it doesn't change the fact that its floor is really low.

 

[Tony Vargas]

why do we not see the same argument pop up time and again between the Thief vs Assassin or Arcane Trickster? The Thief archetype for the Rogue was designed with the same philosophy in mind to be as simple as possible. But people do not shout to the rooftops that the Thief is poorly designed or nerfed compared to the more "complex" options. Not to the same extent that we see Champion versus Battlemaster or Eldritch Knight at least.

The Thief class was historically pretty weak, so anything must look good, and it's really not /that/ simple, not in the brain-dead way the Champion can be, because it has so much skill monkey stuff going on, and because it doesn't back up it's simplistic DPR grinding with straightforward toughness. I know the Thief and Assassin don't get much in the way of limited-resource management, which is what 'simple class' was code for, but they do get a lot of skills and various little situational special abilities you have to be awake to make best use of.

But, really, there's probably just a lot of not caring going on. The Rogue is a narrow archetype and it misses the genre mark by less than the fighter does. The bar is lower. You're looking at Aladins, not Beowulfs.

Thief mostly just lets you do Rogue stuff a bit better with passive boosts.

But 'rogue stuff' isn't passive and simplistic.