D&D 5E Fighters: a humble proposal

As a slight tangent:

Champions. They tend not to be exciting because (1) their 10th level feature (extra Fighting Style) is only half of a normal 1st level feature (Fighting Style + Second Wind), (2) their 7th level feature (Remarkable Athlete) is irrelevant for any skill you already have proficiency in (Athletics), and (3) their 3rd level feature is merely a 5%ish damage boost, though slightly better if you have something (GWM) that triggers more than just damage on a crit.

None of the Champion's features are really exciting, whereas in contrast the Battlemaster gets exciting options at 3rd level (and meh stuff for 7th and 10th) and the Eldritch Knight gets a semi-decent thing at 3rd level (a first level spell slot and some spells) which scales all the way up to 4/3 spell slots by 10th level, plus War Magic at 7th level for False Fetters (a.k.a. "Booming Blade", a stupid name)/Greenflame Blade.

Proposed fix:

Make Remarkable Athlete exciting by allowing it to stack with proficiency. It's like half-Expertise in all physical-related skills that you already have proficiency in, or half-proficiency otherwise. That would make Champions about as good overall as Valor Bards at being the Strongest Man In The World: a 12th level Valor Bard with max Strength gets +13 to Athletics checks (with possible advantage from self-buffing Enhance Ability) to knock enemies prone, but a Champion gets +11 and 50% more attempts, plus can more easily afford Shield Master for another attempts.

My powergamer instincts say this would be sufficient to make me consider occasionally playing a Champion instead of an Eldritch Knight, when it fit the character concept, even though I'd be losing out on Absorb Elements and Shield and leaving one full PC's concentration on the table with no way to use it (barring multiclassing).

One potential thing to watch out for: Champion/Rogue multiclass would technically stack Remarkable Athlete with Expertise in a way similar to how Banneret's persuasion doubling stacks with Expertise. You might or might not view this as a problem but it's something to be aware of if you adopt this rule. I'd probably just allow it on the grounds that if a Rogue invests 7 levels in Champion just to go from +17 to +20 he deserves to have that extra +3, i.e. Expertise dominates Remarkable Athlete already.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The thing is the extra ASI for a rogue becomes nearly useless at 10th level. Dex is almost certainly already maxed out and anything else is a very small improvement. I've yet to play a 5th ed rogue, but I think not giving them access to a feat at 10th level hurts them wrt the other classes a bit too much. Now, being one of the only classes _with_ a feat might help them a bit too much, but honestly, I tend to find casters overpowering non casters at higher levels. So I think it helps more than it hurts.

There are some useful, less-directly-martial feats that would be nice for Rogues though.
 


DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Quite a number of feats are merely Fighter class features that they didn't want to assign to just Fighters, knowing full well that people would complain that the "combat" maneuvers should be able to be accomplished by any character with a weapon. So they made them "feats" so anyone could take them.

But that's why Fighters get more than other classes, because they're supposed to have them.

So I don't think making these combat skills and maneuvers open to the Fighter should be a problem at all.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
We have been playing 5e without feats entirely and have not had any problems. Everyone seems to like it just fine.

That is nice to hear :)

Without feats the fighter still makes a good class with them being able to crit with a 19-20 at 3rd level and getting 2 attacks at 5th level. It gives them a 'thing' that the other classes do not get, but they each get something.

Don't other classes get 2 attacks too, like the valor bard, barbarian etc?

AFAIK, the fighter is special because they are the only one that get 3 (and 4 at level 20) attacks, but the 2 attacks is somewhat common in the martial classes.
 


Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
That sounds like an excellent house rule. That's basically what it would take to get me to agree to play in a featless game--the potential for interesting fighters, even if I ultimately decided to play some other class.

The one potential implication I can think of is that it makes rangers relatively worse than fighters at archery (because of no access to Sharpshooter), but rangers have enough tricks already (via spells) that I think that is fine. There's nothing wrong thematically with making fighters genuinely the best with weapons.
I'm glad you like the idea.

I completely agree re: rangers. Rangers's theme is ultimately "nature warrior", not "best archer ever". There is no reason why a crack archer *has* to be in tune with nature (except maybe paying attention to the wind etc).
 

flametitan

Explorer
One potential thing to watch out for: Champion/Rogue multiclass would technically stack Remarkable Athlete with Expertise in a way similar to how Banneret's persuasion doubling stacks with Expertise. You might or might not view this as a problem but it's something to be aware of if you adopt this rule. I'd probably just allow it on the grounds that if a Rogue invests 7 levels in Champion just to go from +17 to +20 he deserves to have that extra +3, i.e. Expertise dominates Remarkable Athlete already.

I wouldn't say that's a concern, the PHB already rules it out:

PHB page 174 said:
If a circumstance suggests that your proficiency bonus applies more than once to the same roll, you still only add it once and multiply or divide it only once.

Emphasis mine. So if it's worded to be "When proficient in an ability check related to Strength or Dexerity, your proficiency bonus is considered one and a half times your regular proficiency bonus" it shouldn't stack.
 


Remove ads

Top