D&D 5E Would this fix Champion?

[CapnZapp]

What if Champions level 3 ability increased their crit range to 19-20, and made their criticals hit for 3x the number of dice, instead of 2x? Since flat damage increases represent a significant portion of the damage spread in 5e, this would not necessarily be game breaking, but on average it would increase the viability of crit-Champions without needing specific magic items or multiclassing. Would this be overpowered, or would it fix them?

I think you need to first outline why you feel a need to do something in the first place.

I mean, I'm okay with Champions being offered to the casual gamer who doesn't want to mess with spells or maneuvers, and that players interested in the "full" Fighter experience will always pick Battlemaster.

So what are you fixing?

 

[smbakeresq]

The Champion problem is it's subclass features just don't compare to other class in variety or effectiveness. If they gave only the Champion the extra feats that the fighter class as a whole gets then you might have something. There just isn't anything special about it.

BM is along the line of battlefield control aspect, so Champion should be along the lines of solo exploits. Trying to adapt some stuff from 4e fighter powers and 3.5 Warblade. Lot of stuff there with cool names.
I posted a few that worked alright for the build I was using, for example I think at third level the Champ should get one of the 4e at will fighter powers. It just needs something a little different to give a little more effectiveness and flavor.

The Paladin challenge ability in SCAG would have been perfect for a Champion.

Will post when I get some more general stuff available.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Quartz]

IMHO Fighters as a whole need fixing around level 5, but the Champion doesn't need fixing in itself. It's the perfect class for the 'bodyguard henchman' or the drop-in player.

 

[Jer]

The Champion problem is it's subclass features just don't compare to other class in variety or effectiveness.

Whether the Champion doesn't compare in "effectiveness" or not I question. I haven't seen a problem with it.

The lack of variety isn't a problem - it's a design choice. The Champion is specifically designed to be the class you hand to a new player and say "you're a fighter. You hit things." It's not meant to be a class that a powergamer plays and tweaks with lots of choices to make. It's the character that someone who wants a simple character that "just works" without a lot of effort on their part plays. This means that in the hands of an expert player who knows all of the nuances of the game it's not going to be much more effective than it is in the hands of a complete novice who is just learning how to play (and may be why you suggest it doesn't compare in effectiveness), but it's also not going to be much less effective in the hands of that novice either. The variability that an individual player can bring to the Champion is a much narrower band than it is with other classes but that's what it's designed to do and isn't a "problem".

(OTOH your tweaks to the Champion sounds like the start of a new Fighter subclass that could be interesting. Not as a replacement for the Champion, but as a "next character" for that novice player who enjoyed the Champion and is looking for something that fills the same role but is a bit more tactically interesting to play).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Jer]

Agreed. While I slightly differ in your opinion (there are many experienced players that enjoy playing the Champion, and there are players that appreciate being able to concentrate their "options" on out-of-combat choices) the simplicity in the Champion is a feature, not a bug, of this class.

Right - there are good reasons for playing a Champion other than it being a "first character", but it is definitely designed to be the "simple fighter" option that many people complained was missing in 4th edition.

I understand that there are people that don't like the class, but as I pointed out supra, it's fine to not like something, but there are times when the issue isn't the class, it's with what the person wants. If someone says, "I want to play a Wizard, but I hate spells," then they are probably better off playing or tweaking another class than proposing a spell-less Wizard.

To be fair - I'd love to see a "simple" option for various other classes. When I get new players in who really want to play a spellcaster the sorcerer mostly works but it would be nice to have a spellcaster class that had just a few options for the players who aren't resource minded. Unlimited attack cantrips solve part of this, because they don't have to worry about casting all of their spells in the first battle and then sitting around wondering why spellcasters in D&D aren't as cool as they were hoping to be. But there are still a few options to absorb even with the sorcerer.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

You are being awfully selective like ignoring the post where I say that people who wanted a simple fighter should of got a whole class not just a subclass but that does not play into your narrative I suppose.

Awfully selective? I only had to go back a couple of days to find another post of yours insulting anyone who doesn't agree with your playstyle. And when I ask to stop being so insulting, your reaction is "you're overreacting" and "get over yourself". Gaslighting might work for you in your personal life, but it's not going to work against me. These are your words, you said them, and they're incredibly disingenuous, insulting, and hypocritical. Don't try to blame me for your behavior.


Also, I don't know what it is, but now we've had two people in the past week or so with accounts that have been dormant for years, suddenly decide to become active and post in the same threads about the same things (champion fighters are broken/boring and anyone who thinks differently is bad). Random coincidence?

 

[Charles Rampant]

Right - there are good reasons for playing a Champion other than it being a "first character", but it is definitely designed to be the "simple fighter" option that many people complained was missing in 4th edition.



To be fair - I'd love to see a "simple" option for various other classes. When I get new players in who really want to play a spellcaster the sorcerer mostly works but it would be nice to have a spellcaster class that had just a few options for the players who aren't resource minded. Unlimited attack cantrips solve part of this, because they don't have to worry about casting all of their spells in the first battle and then sitting around wondering why spellcasters in D&D aren't as cool as they were hoping to be. But there are still a few options to absorb even with the sorcerer.

I actually think that the Sorcerer is more complicated than the Wizard in play. You've got two separate spellcasting resources to track, not one: spell slots and sorcery points. The best option, I think, is to give them a lot of help to build a Warlock, which then plays beautifully simply in play, while still feeling like a caster.

 

[smbakeresq]

I understand it's a design choice but it's a poor one. What other class has an option as simple as the Champion? Is the idea to stick a new player with Champion only?

The Monk to me is just as simple as the Champion is but with much more variety and interesting things. The Rogue takes one session to explain to someone then they are good to go.

Champion is too simple, and I have yet to play with someone who wants something that simple. Most new players don't even want to be fighters, they want something more fantastic. I play with kids though mostly.

One of the things I admired about 4e is that fighters had good powers with great names that attracted players to the class. BM has this somewhat. If you played 4e though you remember stuff like Tide of Iron, Come and get it, Thicket of Blades, etc.

IME though players who want to be Melee types choose Barbarians or Paladins as they are very thematic compared to the Champion. The Champion doesn't even read as a interesting class in the PHB.

I do think it's an easy fix though, some better powers disguised as feats to be taken with those extra feat slots.

Champion now though is mostly a dip class for crit fishers, which is fine. Any changes to that would have to take place after 4th level to account for that.

As far as effectiveness a Champion is just behind the BM once they get those dice going. This is really true at the levels people mostly play, which is 3 through about 14. Level 20 comparisons are useless IMO, how much game time is spent there?

Off the top of the head if the Champion moved its second fighting style to early levels, it would make sense and be a more defining feature. Remarkable athlete thing changed to Heart of a Champion (or in addition too) and make it apply to all saving throws might be neat, make that the level 10 feature. Less than monks ability but still good. This would also free up feats that would be used for Resilient into more combat oriented feats.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app