D&D 5E Champion vs. Warrior


log in or register to remove this ad

The name of the subclass is very very low on my list of importance. They could call maneuver fighter the tricksy nicethings bashbrother and I'd still play it.
 

What's in a name? My first major character that I played was a Rogue, then a Footpad, Cutpurse, Robber, Burglar, Filcher, Sharper, Magsman, Thief, and finally a Master Thief. Then there was the Prestidigitator, Evoker, Conjurer, Theurgist, Thaumaturgist, Magician, Enchanter, Warlock, Sorcerer, Necromancer, and finally a Wizard. I never used most of those names, usually just calling the first a thief and the second a mage (I hated the term "Magic-User").
 



What's in a name? My first major character that I played was a Rogue, then a Footpad, Cutpurse, Robber, Burglar, Filcher, Sharper, Magsman, Thief, and finally a Master Thief. Then there was the Prestidigitator, Evoker, Conjurer, Theurgist, Thaumaturgist, Magician, Enchanter, Warlock, Sorcerer, Necromancer, and finally a Wizard. I never used most of those names, usually just calling the first a thief and the second a mage (I hated the term "Magic-User").

I must spread some xp around etc etc.... Can someone cover me on this one??
 


Personally, I'd have liked to have seen the class called "Paladin" named Champion instead, and reserve the term Paladin for those that take the oath of devotion.
I think here we've got to think of "champion" as "the tough guy representing you in trial-by-combat" or even just "the toughest guy on the battlefield". It's a spectacular waste of time to think overlong about names of D&D concepts.
 


I liked warrior better mainly because I thought champion should have been the new name for Paladin. I'd then make the Paladin the LG champion.

But I agree wholeheartedly with those saying a rose by any other name is still a rose. So names are not that important.
 

Remove ads

Top