D&D 5E Would this fix Champion?

[DaedalusX51]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The champion is not incompetent at fighting. Not even close. This is blatant hyperbole that isn't remotely accurate, and your response so far is to accuse me of being an indecent bully for pointing this out. I don't know who you are, or why you have a dormant account that you just now decided to use in a troll-bait thread, but you do not get to say ridiculous things like this and act like everyone else should just accept them as truth or they are the bad person. Especially when your statements aren't true. You're the one making inaccurate hyperbolic claims here, not me, so stop blaming me and take ownership for your own words.

I apologize. I was definitely exaggerating. While not incompetent they do lag behind the Battle Master.

 

[DaedalusX51]

Wow. To me, the BM feels nothing like the 4e PH1 Fighter, but does feel a bit like the Essentials Knight (just without the defender role support) or, perhaps, Slayer, thanks to the DPR. No dailies, no at-wills, very little choice in what it can do with it's 'encounters.'

I can see that, but my issue was that, for the Battle Master, you can't use the abilities of the maneuvers without spending the Superiority Dice resource. This was the case with the Player's Handbook 4E Fighter as well (except for at wills). If Superiority dice were like the 4E Essentials Power Strike and you could use the maneuvers whenever you want, I would be super happy with the class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If Superiority dice were like the 4E Essentials Power Strike and you could use the maneuvers whenever you want, I would be super happy with the class.

CS dice are a bit like Power Strike was. They're extra damage (check). You can choose to use them after you hit (check). And, Power Strike /did/ start getting riders as you leveled based on you 'weapon specializtion,' IIRC, so that's like actually doing a maneuver, just only one, rather than the best one of the three you're spamming as a BM (sorta check). And the fighter class is a tough DPR-specialist, and the eSlayer was a tough Striker (half-check).
True, there's nothing like an at-will or stance for the 5e fighter, even BM, in that sense, is behind the Essentials version, and Protection Style/Sentinel Feat doesn't really measure up even to the somewhat-lacking Aura of the eKnight, and the DPR is from extra attack rather than a damage bonus like the Slayer's. But it still seems much closer to those than to the PH1 fighter.

 

[guachi]

Ooh good! Another episode of 'let's fix an imaginary problem!'


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not the Champion that really needs fixing, it's the Champion's band of condescending supporters.

 

[Satyrn]

It's not the Champion that really needs fixing, it's the Champion's band of condescending supporters.

 

[DaedalusX51]

For the person looking for a way to improve their enjoyment of a thing they don't enjoy all that much? It doesn't accomplish much. But then, neither does overstating "as is, I'd rather play a battle master than a champion," as "champions need to be fixed."

For the appearance of the communal opinion, though, a lot is accomplished. If no one popped into this thread that claims the champion needs a fix and stated "No, it doesn't" it would appear as if the community of this forum as a whole agrees that the situation isn't that some people don't like the champion, but that the champion is actually broken.

...and when you consider that WotC are doing their best to listen to community opinion and shape the game to match it, it seems really important to make sure that the actual opinion of the community at large is available for anyone that happens to come looking.

Of course, as was already mentioned, if you want a discussion about house-rules that will ramp up your enjoyment of a part of the game and don't want to have any part of that discussion be people stating "You are wrong," all you have to do is state your opinion clearly as an opinion instead of using phrasing that suggests you believe you are stating a fact.

I honestly do not think that WotC even cares about forum communication for input anymore. They even got rid of their own. I think they realize that it a hobby forum has a self selection bias and any communication made on it will not be representative of the actual desires of your playerbase.

However, I do know that they listen to playtest feedback from the surveys they offer. While that in itself doesn't get rid of the self selection bias, it gives a wider net to gauge appeal.

I just don't think it's right to tell people that they are wrong for having an opinion. During 4E the WoTC forums were constantly at war because people desire different playstyles and opinions were quashed by brigading on both sides. It wasn't until the D&D Next Playtest that people have truly had their input heard.

If there is a group of people that think the Champion needs a buff let them think it. Unless the majority of players also feel the same it won't matter to everyone else, and if there is a majority why are you (people with this mindset, not necessarily you) trying to silence them?

Plus this is the Homebrew/Home Rules forum as well. I don't think we should stifle other players imaginations. We would be just ruining D&D for everyone else and creating a hostile environment.

 

[guachi]

52 attacks. Two attacks each round mean at least 26 rounds of combat.
With advantage on a quarter, this is reduced to 19 rounds. 18 due to action surge. If there are two to four rounds of combat per encounter and this is 6 encounters.

This is a little low. You'll likely rest before that.

But it's close enough. Which is the catch. The variance in damage will be minor in play, with dice rolls having far more impact. It takes an entire campaign worth of d20 rolls to even get close to a decent bell curve.
Seeing both a battle master (two weapons) fighter at my table and a champion (archer), both are happy and contribute to the combat.

The champion is well designed and any tweak will just add complexity, going against the design goals of the class.

The issue that is hard to resolve vis-a-vis damage comparisons between a Battlemaster and a Champion is how much damage done is overkill damage that doesn't actually do anything. My guess is that the randomness of a Champion's critical hits means a Champion is more likely to have wasted damage than a Battlemaster who can more precisely choose when to apply his Superiority Dice.

Unfortunately, I haven't run any simulations and I haven't seen anyone else run them, either.

It'd be nice if I could have both a BM and a Champion in a game I'm running and have them build otherwise identical characters but it hasn't happened yet.

 

[DaedalusX51]

CS dice are a bit like Power Strike was. They're extra damage (check). You can choose to use them after you hit (check). And, Power Strike /did/ start getting riders as you leveled based on you 'weapon specializtion,' IIRC, so that's like actually doing a maneuver, just only one, rather than the best one of the three you're spamming as a BM (sorta check). And the fighter class is a tough DPR-specialist, and the eSlayer was a tough Striker (half-check).
True, there's nothing like an at-will or stance for the 5e fighter, even BM, in that sense, is behind the Essentials version, and Protection Style/Sentinel Feat doesn't really measure up even to the somewhat-lacking Aura of the eKnight, and the DPR is from extra attack rather than a damage bonus like the Slayer's. But it still seems much closer to those than to the PH1 fighter.

You are definitely correct, but I guess I just dislike it for the same reasons I disliked the 4E PH1 Fighter.

Don't give me spells as a Fighter. (please read as special abilities that can only be used by using a resource that you are unable to use otherwise) (side note: Action Surge and Second Wind I do not have an issue with. It makes sense that they are pushing you past your normal limits and that you can only do that so much. Helping an ally move when you make an attack just doesn't make any sense to me as resource usage)

If there were at will versions of the Superiority Dice maneuvers, and they gained a greater effect when you used the resource, I would be fine with that as well.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I just don't think it's right to tell people that they are wrong for having an opinion.

I agree - it is wrong of you to tell everyone that thinks the champion is fine they are wrong for having that opinion by phrasing your own opinion as if it were objective fact. You are being hypocritical by saying both that the champion needs fixing, and that everyone saying otherwise is saying you are wrong "for having an opinion."

If there is a group of people that think the Champion needs a buff let them think it.

I haven't made even an attempt to stop such a thought, nor have I made any implication that such a thought is wrong when phrased in an appropriately subjective manner rather than as objective truth.

Champion needs a buff for your group to be interested in it. Champion is perfectly fine as-is for my group. And that's fine - what's not fine is you saying that champions need a fix, period, end of thought, as you have done.

...why are you (people with this mindset, not necessarily you) trying to silence them?

The only person that I have seen make an attempt to "silence" anyone is those calling it "bullying" for those of us that think the champion is fine as-is, and thus disagree that what you have stated as fact, that the champion needs a fix, is actually a fact.

I don't think we should stifle other players imaginations.

I agree. Which is why I've been asking you, in not explicit fashion I'll admit, to stop doing that very thing.

We would be just ruining D&D for everyone else and creating a hostile environment.

Yes, it did create a hostile environment for you to claim your opinion that champions need a fix as objective fact. Which is why you've been asked not to overstate opinions as facts in the future.

 

[jaelis]

I just don't think it's right to tell people that they are wrong for having an opinion.

I don't either. But if you insist on presenting your opinions as if they were facts, then people have a right to dispute those facts.