D&D 5E Was Champion Fighter designed to be on par with Battlemaster?

[thorgrit]

Hello all! I come seeking your wisdom for a mainly specific question, with some background, which I will probably over-explain. I apologize in advance for that, and my intent isn't to provoke discussion of the background, which a quick search turns up has been thoroughly hashed over.

I'm getting ready to run a 5e game, and one of my players wanted to ask if he could bring in a house rule he saw. He linked me to this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/3gdhj7/champion_vs_battlemaster_why_5e_has_bad_math/ which brings up a lot of points and his suggested "fix" for Champion fighter: an extra damage die per attack.

Looking through the discussions on that thread, as well as google searching similar discussions, seemed to highlight a few things for me:
1. Many people, enough to be pretty vocal, believe the Champion fighter to be sub-par in terms of damage output, compared to the Battlemaster fighter. Many others disagree.
2. Even of those that do agree that Champion is weaker, there is no consensus that this is exactly a problem, citing design intent that Champion was designed to be simple, not competitive.

For the sake of argument, I'll assume that Champion does indeed do less damage over the course of an adventuring day. My main hangup lies in this quote from Quadratic- on the above reddit thread:

The designers have often made the claim that, while the Champion is much simpler and with fewer options than the Battlemaster, they get such powerful passive abilities that at the end of the day, they’re just as effective at the table.

My question is, can anyone cite a source for this, where "just as effective" can be interpreted as close to similar damage output, vs. just "being easy to play and still somewhat effective"?

For further background info on this particular instance, I'm running the game for 3 players. This one is the most optimization-focused (not saying that's a bad thing) and enjoys combat encounters the most, whereas the others seem to like focusing more on role-playing and exploration. They all vary a bit when it comes to storytelling, acting, and the other things the DMG mentions. I guess what I'm saying is, even if this first player ends up with a no-contest everybody-agrees "worst" class, I'd still be 90% sure he could optimize and end up doing more damage than either of the other two players. So my concern isn't about "balance" with the fighter "keeping up" with the rest of the party. If I were convinced that this proposed change would be "too broken", I may even go with it anyway, so the party as a whole might better keep up with "expected" damage numbers when another party member prefers to go talk to squirrels instead of fireballing a clump of kobolds.

 

[guachi]

Biggest minus for the Champion is that his extra crit range is completely random. The player has no choice when it activates.

He'd (probably) do just as much damage if you let him crit once per short rest for each attack he has. So he'd get two at 5th, 3 at 11th, etc. Just let him choose when it happens. No attack roll necessary! At least this way he could feel heroic when it happened but it would still be mechanically simple.

Yes, this would be easily abuseable if you MC'ed with classes that did mega-damage on a crit.

The biggest benefit is that the Champion is simpler so combat goes faster. Faster combat equals more XP per hour of gaming.

 

[guachi]

Biggest minus for the Champion is that his extra crit range is completely random. The player has no choice when it activates.

He'd (probably) do just as much damage if you let him crit once per short rest for each attack he has. So he'd get two at 5th, 3 at 11th, etc. Just let him choose when it happens. No attack roll necessary! At least this way he could feel heroic when it happened but it would still be mechanically simple.

Yes, this would be easily abuseable if you MC'ed with classes that did mega-damage on a crit.

The biggest benefit is that the Champion is simpler so combat goes faster. Faster combat equals more XP per hour of gaming.


EDIT: I can't actually answer the question you have in bold.

 

[Flamestrike]

Hello all! I come seeking your wisdom for a mainly specific question, with some background, which I will probably over-explain. I apologize in advance for that, and my intent isn't to provoke discussion of the background, which a quick search turns up has been thoroughly hashed over.

I'm getting ready to run a 5e game, and one of my players wanted to ask if he could bring in a house rule he saw. He linked me to this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/3gdhj7/champion_vs_battlemaster_why_5e_has_bad_math/ which brings up a lot of points and his suggested "fix" for Champion fighter: an extra damage die per attack.

Looking through the discussions on that thread, as well as google searching similar discussions, seemed to highlight a few things for me:
1. Many people, enough to be pretty vocal, believe the Champion fighter to be sub-par in terms of damage output, compared to the Battlemaster fighter. Many others disagree.
2. Even of those that do agree that Champion is weaker, there is no consensus that this is exactly a problem, citing design intent that Champion was designed to be simple, not competitive.

For the sake of argument, I'll assume that Champion does indeed do less damage over the course of an adventuring day. My main hangup lies in this quote from Quadratic- on the above reddit thread:

My question is, can anyone cite a source for this, where "just as effective" can be interpreted as close to similar damage output, vs. just "being easy to play and still somewhat effective"?

For further background info on this particular instance, I'm running the game for 3 players. This one is the most optimization-focused (not saying that's a bad thing) and enjoys combat encounters the most, whereas the others seem to like focusing more on role-playing and exploration. They all vary a bit when it comes to storytelling, acting, and the other things the DMG mentions. I guess what I'm saying is, even if this first player ends up with a no-contest everybody-agrees "worst" class, I'd still be 90% sure he could optimize and end up doing more damage than either of the other two players. So my concern isn't about "balance" with the fighter "keeping up" with the rest of the party. If I were convinced that this proposed change would be "too broken", I may even go with it anyway, so the party as a whole might better keep up with "expected" damage numbers when another party member prefers to go talk to squirrels instead of fireballing a clump of kobolds.

The assumptions from that Reddit are based on 6 encounters of only 3 rounds each. 21 combat rounds per long rest. Thats a little on the low side.

I reckon around 35 rounds between long rests would be more accurate (7 encounters/ 5 rounds per encounter). That makes a huge difference to the maths (particularly when we're talking about 4-9 attacks per round for a 20th level fighter, and even 'just' 3-7 attacks for an 11th+ level fighter).

There is the added bonus that the 19+/18+ crit range of the champion pairs nicely with advantage. While Battlemasters have a 10 percent chance of landing a crit with each attack (at advantage), the Champion has a 28 percent chance per swing.

They also get more mileage out of things like a flametounge, brutal critical (from half Orc), poison and so forth.

 

[mellored]

Battlemaster is more front loaded. You get a bunch of extra damage at 3, but that's about it. The bigger and extra dice don't add too much.

Champion on the other hand is more backloaded. With more attacks, including more action surges, giving you more chances to get bonus damage. Also their regeneration is great, but that's high level as well.

My house rule is to give champions +1 HP per level. And battlemaster starts with 2 dice, and gets an extra as they level.


But to answer the question, yes it was intended for champion to be more or less on par with battlemaster. Same as any other subclass. They just overestimated crit's value a bit. Still perfectly playable though. And it's possible that some future crit bonus will make them better.

 

[Valetudo]

Champion is fine. The BM is a little frontloaded but thechamp gets better as he gains more attacks. Honestly the xtra damage doesnt do much at lower levels if thedm uses lots o mooks. The champion also multiclasses super good with the barby. I have players use the champ and they definatly hold their own, they dont need a buff.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

My question is, can anyone cite a source for this, where "just as effective" can be interpreted as close to similar damage output, vs. just "being easy to play and still somewhat effective"?

I'm not sure why you'd interpret "just as effective" as "comparable damage output". Damage output is only one part of what goes into being "effective at the table". Remarkable Athlete is useful both in and out of combat, and the ability to take +1 AC in addition to your chosen fighting style is a significant boost to survivability.

 

[Xeviat]

I believe the battle master is a little OP in my own comparisons. Strictly compared to the Eldritch Knight, they're too powerful until the EK picks up 2nd level spells. So, the champion has no hope. Now, the champion seems fine at 10th level and beyond. +1 AC and regeneration is hard to quantify.

With crits being only plus weapon die, and with level three being only +1 crit range, I think champions are a little weak. Bringing the battlemasters superiority dice down a bit to start would be for the best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thorgrit]

Thanks for replies and insights everyone!

Biggest minus for the Champion is that his extra crit range is completely random. The player has no choice when it activates.


The biggest benefit is that the Champion is simpler so combat goes faster. Faster combat equals more XP per hour of gaming.

Yeah, average damage is fine and all, but a critical against an enemy that has 5 hp left is somewhat wasted. The ease-of-use potential is also what I see as the main draw of the Champion.

The assumptions from that Reddit are based on 6 encounters of only 3 rounds each. 21 combat rounds per long rest. Thats a little on the low side.


I reckon around 35 rounds between long rests would be more accurate (7 encounters/ 5 rounds per encounter). That makes a huge difference to the maths (particularly when we're talking about 4-9 attacks per round for a 20th level fighter, and even 'just' 3-7 attacks for an 11th+ level fighter).

That also is one of the things that made me cast shade on the math, not accounting for wide variety in variables such as number of rounds in a combat, combats per short rest, combats per long rest, and only one monster's AC as example. I'm not good enough at math/simulation/theory to know how much of an impact it would have.

But to answer the question, yes it was intended for champion to be more or less on par with battlemaster. Same as any other subclass. They just overestimated crit's value a bit. Still perfectly playable though. And it's possible that some future crit bonus will make them better.

Wouldn't happen to have a linkable source for this, would you? Even removing the "damage output in combat" assumption of my original question, and stretching value across other tiers of play, I assume they meant all options to be fun and playable by someone. But seeing this stated in print would make me feel better.

I'm not sure why you'd interpret "just as effective" as "comparable damage output". Damage output is only one part of what goes into being "effective at the table". Remarkable Athlete is useful both in and out of combat, and the ability to take +1 AC in addition to your chosen fighting style is a significant boost to survivability.

I mainly did so because the post I quoted it from spent a long time talking about damage output, and the suggested fix was to add more damage output, and the main concern of the player in my game who brought this to my attention. What I think I might have failed to say is that I could easily accept lower theoretical damage output if it meant other features make up for it as well, not just because it's easy to play.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I believe it's mainly about choice. The battlemaster lets you control the time when its special thing comes into play, you don't get that with the champion.

From my experience, playing style matters a lot here: performance-focused players don't usually enjoy playing with abilities that trigger randomly, and the ones who I know hate it when the best choice is clearly the random one. Players who focus on the thrill of the dice, though, will rarely blame their bad performance on flawed game design, they have their bad luck to blame.

So, I believe they made the right decision in having the luck-based character option a little behind the choice-based one, even if you actually improve in the higher levels. I have seen both archetypes played for great enjoyment by people with the right mindset.