D&D 5E Buffing the Champion Fighter

[droid6689]

It helps, for instance, that there's no 'spontaneous casting' involved, you use Second Wind when you're hurt, Action Surge when you need that can of whoop-ass - you never have to worry about saving the one because you might need the other.
OTOH, making a critical choice like Style at 1st level is almost more of an issue - but, conveniently, the Champion gets a second style choice eventually.

That's one reason that I suggest giving all styles at lvl 10 (or 7 if you buff Remarkable Athlete enough to switch) and maybe call it Combat Mastery or Style Mastery.
A) It simplifies the class (no longer a forced choice)
B) It has minimal effect on power level
C) It opens up gameplay options
D) Makes the class more unique while following the original flavor


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's one reason that I suggest giving all styles at lvl 10 (or 7 if you buff Remarkable Athlete enough to switch) and maybe call it Combat Mastery or Style Mastery.
A) It simplifies the class (no longer a forced choice)
B) It has minimal effect on power level
C) It opens up gameplay options
D) Makes the class more unique while following the original flavor

Of course, then you have less differentiation among individual champions.

And (C) opening up options in play increases complexity in that context.

:shrug:


edit: then again, maybe you don't really need much individual differentiation among champions...

 

[droid6689]

Of course, then you have less differentiation among individual champions.

And (C) opening up options in play increases complexity in that context.

:shrug:


edit: then again, maybe you don't really need much individual differentiation among champions...

The differences in champions is feat based seemingly just like all Fighters. I proposed giving them am extra ASI to help differentiate since simple champion players could use it to just do another ability score increase or resilient

Opening options doesn't make it more complex imo if those options don't necessarily involve forced choice. With all styles you COULD use your bow or shield more often. Or you could simply keep wacking away with your greatsword. With one extra style is is "grab defense or decide what you will ever be able to do".

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Quickleaf]

I have frequently heard this - actually, frequently heard more extreme characterizations of it, that a choiceless build like an old-school fighter, slayer or Champion virtually guarantees brilliant improvisation, while a build with many choices - casters in any edition - is just button-mashing.

IMX, the more different things a character can do, the more basis it has for improvising, especially when you get into things that play with reality, like spells tend to.
There are simply more tools to work with.

It really depends on the DM and the players. I've seen this at both extremes:

My friend J. playing a fighter in AD&D and just running wild with improvised and creative ideas.
My friend S. playing a fighter in 4e (and generally all my friends playing 4e) and acting as if the powers entirely defined the extent of a PC's ability.

IMO there's a sweet spot. And that sweet spot is different for each class (and, in the case of the fighter, there are differences in where that sweet spot is for its mechanically-differentiated subclasses). I see the Champion succeeding at simplicity but not providing a feature that supports the spirit of the old school improvisation/creativity which I believe is a hallmark of playing a fighter in older editions (in spite of it not being supported by the old class design). It was something integral to the experience, at least for me, of playing a fighter.

It is quite simple in some ways (minimizing the choices faced by the player both at chargen and in play), and I don't think it's three recharge abilities much hurt that.

Personally, I would love to play a fighter that didn't have stuff to track during play. I don't really want to track Second Wind, Action Surge, uses of Indomitable, much the less Superiority Dice. I would love to play a simple fighter that robustly supports my spontaneous ideas during actual play without me needed to track anything besides hit points, the occasional condition, or expended magic items/gear. To me, when I say I want to play a fighter or a rogue, I'm making a play style choice toward simplicity.

The design challenge that I would like to see the Champion (and/or to a lesser extent the entire fighter class) take on is... how do we make simplicity interesting & versatile? how do we make simplicity support the player's creativity?

They did it with the rogue. No reason it can't be done with the fighter.

It helps, for instance, that there's no 'spontaneous casting' involved, you use Second Wind when you're hurt, Action Surge when you need that can of whoop-ass - you never have to worry about saving the one because you might need the other.

Again, personally as someone who appreciates old school aesthetics, I don't even want to go there. When I play a fighter, I don't want to make choices about "which of my limited resources will I use?" I WANT to make choices about "what strategy do I adapt to changing conditions" I WANT to make choices about "how much risk do I want to take on here?"

However, don't confuse aesthetics with class design. While I find Action Surge to be problematic because it's coming from a different paradigm (of limited use powers), I DO find Action Surge a step above the AD&D fighter in that it at least does SOMETHING to support player creativity.

Cunning Action still does some defined things with a bonus action. I suppose it lets you get more creative in the sense that you can do something that the DM rules would require two actions, if one of those two actions is available via Cunning Action....

I look at a Rogue (Thief)'s combination of Cunning Action & Fast Hands as the best class design element in 5e, or one of the best. This lets the PC...

• Dash
• Disengage
• Hide
• Make a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check
• Use thieves’ tools to disarm a trap or open a lock
• Take the Use an Object action

Even though it's technically a defined list, there's so much roguery that can be done with these. Working on a puzzle or trap in the midst of action. Tumbling underneath a dragon's legs. Diving for cover.

Best of all, there's no # uses to keep track of, no risk of "I've Cunning Actioned too much and now I can't Cunning Action anymore." No, you Cunning Action as much as you want. This is your thing. Go for it.

It's perfect design because it perfectly fits the rogue.

But, you do feel that the old-school fighter /did/ support such things? It's not like it had anything like cunning action?

To answer your question: No. I even said as much: ...but most of the cool stuff happened in spite of his fighter being kind of mediocre compared to the wizard.

I was responding to [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]'s assertion that the Champion fighter is suited to old school play & meant to appeal to those players. I was saying: "Well, yes and no...old school play actually encompasses more than being simply designed. I'm an example of an 'old school' player to whom Champion doesn't appeal." EDIT: "And who has reservations about the fighter class as a whole. I've played one and enjoyed it somewhat, but I'd need either re-design OR a very collaborative pro-player DM to really enjoy it."

I was pointing out a 3rd lens through which to evaluate the Champion. That lens is how it supports creativity/improvisation.

 

[Gimul]

Completely unnecessary. Max your con; burn the 2 additional feat slots for survivability (resilience/toughness/shield master/etc).

Everyone is gibbable below level 3; level 7 fighters should have little trouble shrugging off a fireball or two.

P.S. Protip: Geek the Mage

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[JeffB]

I prefer one minute rounds and the abstraction of the combat round. This is another reason fighters got screwed.

In my games bitd, a OD&D fighter's ttack often was something like this:

"Ok. We won initiative..I am close enough? Can I draw my sword...run into the room, jump on the table, kick one bandit in the face and slice the other one who is right next to the princess?"

DM."sure you are close enough ..roll your attack...17? You slice the one guy, and knock the other guy backwards .roll your damage for the sword attack"

Sometimes we would require a second roll, like dexterity, but usually If the attack roll was good, I would allow a success on what would now be called an secondary effect.

Nowadays with 6 second rounds and mass codification, that just wouldn't play out. Especially in PF or 4e, but 5e suffers too.. "Sorry, you can only run and jump on the table. Make an athletics check. You don't have the quick draw feat or enough actions. Next round you can draw and slice or draw and kick. Do you have extra super action surge thingy? Used it? Sorry.."

For me, that kills gameplay and IME sends the wrong messages to the players.

1) "not on my sheet..can't do it"
2) Rules> good ideas/creativity/narrative fun


*thinking out loud* Maybe the best way to improve fighters is to go back to one minute rounds, and have casters make concentration checks/spellcasting rolls.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It really depends on the DM and the players.

It really does, which is why I don't much care for the choices kill improv logic.

the Champion succeeding at simplicity but not providing a feature that supports the spirit of the old school improvisation/creativity which I believe is a hallmark of playing a fighter in older editions (in spite of it not being supported by the old class design).

It sounds like an intangible linked to the 1e fighter choiceless design only by coincidence.

:shrug;

*thinking out loud* Maybe the best way to improve fighters is to go back to one minute rounds, and have casters make concentration checks/spellcasting rolls.

There's something to be said for that. The ideas of spells taking a little time to cast and being less practical in melee, and having more to do in a round both could help, indirectly.

The rationale for a single attack in a full minute of fighting only holds together for a few things, though: weapon vs weapon duels or formation fighting, and fighting huge/dangerous monsters spending much of the round dodging. When you're not directly engaged or you're attacking an unarmed victim, it should go a lot faster - Like a 1e surprise segment..

 

[Quickleaf]

It really does, which is why I don't much care for the choices kill improv logic.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. And I was speaking from actual play experience.

Briefly, I joined a group of friends for the tale end of a 3.5e game as a player. They were quite the creative bunch. Very creative spell uses. My friend C. was doing crazy monk shenanigans that I absolutely loved and made the game that much more fun. I observed the first game, realized they needed a tank type and proposed a fighter; the DM S. said since fighters were underpowered in 3.5e he'd instead recommend the knight class. I said sure!

Most of those same players were then in a 4e game I ran. What I noticed – and fully aware that coincidence does not mean causality – was a lot of staring at powers lists/cards trying to figure out which one to use. There was diminished creativity and increased analysis paralysis at the table. We still had a lot of fun, but my takeaway was that a certain kind of excess of defined choices has a negative effect on creative improvisation.

That may not have been the case at your table, but it certainly was at mine. I wasn't navel-gazing either; the former DM S. noticed the same thing and came to a similar conclusion as me.

It sounds like an intangible linked to the 1e fighter choiceless design only by coincidence.

Possibly.

What's interesting to me is how to evoke that creative improvisational play style for fighter players who are more focused on "in the moment action" than resource tracking or choosing options from a list during play.

For example:

[SECTION]Fighter's Grip. At 2nd level, you can change the grip on your weapon once per round on your turn or at the end of another creature's turn. With a different grip, you might stow and draw a weapon, temporarily hold a two-handed weapon in one hand or switch the number of hands used to wield a versatile weapon, adopt a more secure grip on a weapon imposing disadvantage on attempts to disarm you, or change the type of damage you deal with your weapon to another type the weapon reasonably is capable of. Additionally, equipping a shield only requires a bonus action for you.[/SECTION]

This supports a fighter doing medieval European fighting techniques like half-swording & mordhau. It empowers a fighter to have multiple weapons which are easily swapped around, but also to kill skeletons with a sword in a pinch. It allows for interesting strategies for freeing up a hand during a fight. It reduces the action penalty for equipping a shield. Generally, it enhances the options available in the heat of the moment without requiring the player to keep track of limited-use powers/resources.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's a bit more nuanced than that. And I was speaking from actual play experience.

I'm sure you were, and I don't find that terribly convincing. The idea that creative play is killed by choices seems like nonsense to me. It's not particularly nuanced, and I, too, am speaking from actual play experience, I saw lots of 'creative' (if not abusive) improv in many editions of D&D, almost always in the form of doing something off-label with a spell or magic item.

Now, there's probably a line for most folks where you get enough choices that you don't much feel the /need/ to improv anymore, because anything you think of is already there. I don't think there's anything wrong with crossing that line, and certainly don't see why it should be drawn the same for everyone, based on character class...

Most of those same players were then in a 4e game I ran. What I noticed – and fully aware that coincidence does not mean causality – was a lot of staring at powers lists/cards trying to figure out which one to use. There was diminished creativity and increased analysis paralysis at the table. We still had a lot of fun, but my takeaway was that a certain kind of excess of defined choices has a negative effect on creative improvisation.

Yep, heard that story many times during the edition war. No one ever could explain why half a dozen powers produced decision paralysis in 4e, while dozens of spells only stimulated further creativity in every other edition.

So it can't be anything to do with the number of choices. Perhaps, to put it as charitably as possible, it's more to do with the unfamiliarity of the system in general, or, more specifically, of having more choices available to certain classes or character concepts.

What's interesting to me is how to evoke that creative improvisational play style for fighter players who are more focused on "in the moment action" than resource tracking or choosing options from a list during play.

'Stunting' sub-systems are ideal for that sort of thing. More 'narrative' systems like FATE can go there pretty easily. I've seen it done in 13A, which, as a d20 game, would be readily adaptable to 5e, but I can't say I cared for the results (the particular trick that GM implemented was to allow a player to describe a stunt, make a check to pull it off, and thus earn a numeric bonus, failure brought a penalty dreamed up by the DM. On balance, the bonus wasn't worth it).

Ironically, 4e had a sort of stunting system, the infamous 'page 42.'


But, I think the real key is to look back at what the system that gave you the desired experience did to support it: nothing.

You want to improv, declare an improvised action, and hold on.

You don't need to add anything, and, more importantly, you never had to take anything away in the first place.

 

[Quickleaf]

I'm sure you were, and I don't find that terribly convincing. The idea that creative play is killed by choices seems like nonsense to me. It's not particularly nuanced, and I, too, am speaking from actual play experience, I saw lots of 'creative' (if not abusive) improv in many editions of D&D, almost always in the form of doing something off-label with a spell or magic item.

That's interesting. It sounds like in our AD&D days we were actually seeing different things. I saw creative improvisation across the board, but especially for the fighter and rogue players. Not that mage players weren't being creative, but they weren't as consistently coming up with wild ideas that forced the DM to think on his feet. That was the play style I adopted when I began playing, as I always favored fighter-types.

Now, there's probably a line for most folks where you get enough choices that you don't much feel the /need/ to improv anymore, because anything you think of is already there. I don't think there's anything wrong with crossing that line, and certainly don't see why it should be drawn the same for everyone, based on character class...

Sounds like we agree that there should be different levels of complexity/choice in every class, and within each class?

Yep, heard that story many times during the edition war. No one ever could explain why half a dozen powers produced decision paralysis in 4e, while dozens of spells only stimulated further creativity in every other edition.

With the intention to steer the conversation back to the fighter and the champion...

Speaking for my group, there may have been two factors. The first may have ben a case of mismatched expectations. That is, players who veered toward fighter-types ended up suddenly being confronted with more choices & tracking than they were used to in 4e. The second may have been hyper-tactical focus. That is, my players felt an increased pressure of making a "wrong choice" due to the presentation and language.

So it can't be anything to do with the number of choices. Perhaps, to put it as charitably as possible, it's more to do with the unfamiliarity of the system in general, or, more specifically, of having more choices available to certain classes or character concepts.

Possibly, my group didn't have too many "system masters." Thing is, I was able to observe 6 different players through 3.5e, 4e, and 5e. Obviously, there are many variables (pregnancies, work stress, edition biases, etc), but I observed distinctly different behavior during our 4e games than during 3.5e or 5e. My theory was that something about the 4e system was shaping the play experience in a way that diminished creativity and improvisation. And we played 4e really vigorously through 10 levels over 2 years in one campaign, played a short-lived 2nd campaign, and then a dungeon crawl for 11th-14th level in a 3rd campaign. Heck, I even have that 4e DM cheat sheet still linked in my sig.

Number of choices is one factor, but there are others that I'd consider even more important. Meaningful differentiation of choices & type of choices as they relate to play style come to mind.

'Stunting' sub-systems are ideal for that sort of thing. More 'narrative' systems like FATE can go there pretty easily. I've seen it done in 13A, which, as a d20 game, would be readily adaptable to 5e, but I can't say I cared for the results (the particular trick that GM implemented was to allow a player to describe a stunt, make a check to pull it off, and thus earn a numeric bonus, failure brought a penalty dreamed up by the DM. On balance, the bonus wasn't worth it).

Ironically, 4e had a sort of stunting system, the infamous 'page 42.'

Yes, something like a stunting system unique to the fighter is exactly what I'm thinking. Merge 4e's page 42 with Basic's weapon mastery and some of the action options in the DMG, and I think something very playable could emerge.

But, I think the real key is to look back at what the system that gave you the desired experience did to support it: nothing.

You want to improv, declare an improvised action, and hold on.

You don't need to add anything, and, more importantly, you never had to take anything away in the first place.

My limited personal experience playing 5e (usually I DM) is that the thief rogue's Cunning Action & Fast Hands really supported my creative ideas for using the terrain against enemies. Whereas I didn't get the same feeling of creative empowerment with the 5e fighter.

So, again, I think there's a sweet spot between "4e style glut of options" and "nothing." And I think one way there is to focus on quality/character of choice.