D&D 5E Why Good Players Should Not Play Champions

[Gradine]

I would disagree with it working more well for what it's there for than the 4e fighter, if only because the 4e fighter was very sticky and very punishing to those who ignored it, and that's basically what it was there for. That said, if people were expecting the 4e fighter to be the same as the 3e fighter they were going to be surprised (either pleasantly or not, depending on preference). I'm just glad to see the 4e-style fighter come back in 5e with the knight subclass (although you really need the Martial Adept feat to solidify the 4e feel), since the champion fighter with ASIs (or the resilience feat multiple times) is basically the 2e fighter and the champion with feats is basically the 3e fighter.

I misspoke; the 4e Fighter was very good at what it set out to do; it's just that what it set out to do was very different from the "I-hit-it-until-it's-not-a-problem-anymore" paradigm that the Champion excels at.

 

[TwoSix]

Why? to make yourself feel better for choosing the more complex option, like a reward or something? Personal preference of playstyle shouldn't mean "I'm mechanically better than you too." It just means "I like different things than you." In fact, the goal was to have both simpler and complex PCs at the same table with minimal difference in overall mechanical effectiveness. That was one of the worst problems with 3e, the system mastery disparity. If you choose the more complex option, that should be because that's what you prefer. It shouldn't be because you want to be better than the other players like it's some sort of competition.

No, not at all. When I say better, I mean in the nature of about 10-20% better, on average. I'm sure you don't think the disparity between 10 DPR and 12 DPR is so great that people who want to play simple characters won't be competitive.

And yes, I do think players who embrace mechanical challenges should receive a small bonus if they leverage those effectively. That's been the wizard shtick since Basic, after all. The balance point is that if the more mechanical complex character is played poorly, their DPR and effectiveness will suffer accordingly, more so than the mechanically simple character. It should look something like:

Battlemaster (played well) - 12 DPR
Champion (baseline, as they have no real DPR decision points) - 10 DPR
Battlemaster (played poorly) - 8 DPR.

Note, also, by "played well" I mean tactical decisions at the table, not build decisions. The problem with 3e was how much of your character's effectiveness was tied to decisions you didn't make in play, but at the time of character build.

There's also the issue of psychology. Players who gravitate towards mechanical complexity are, most of the time, also going to be players who are more aware of mechanical effectiveness, and are more than likely to gravitate towards playing more "effective" classes. I would be bummed if all the strongest options for characters were characters with purely passive abilities that required little to no decision making, because my desires for both complexity and effectiveness would be hindered.

Likewise, player types who gravitate towards the simpler options are also the type who care the least about measuring effectiveness. How many people on this forum make statements like "I don't care about my DPR, I just want to play the character I envision?" If they don't care about DPR, than why would more complex characters being slightly stronger than simpler ones matter to those players even one iota? They're going to choose the option that fits their concept and is easier to play.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

Ummm .... huh?

The Wizard shtick, if there was one (I prefer "Magic User shtick" thank you!) in BECMI, but moreso in 1e, was that you traded power at low levels for power at high levels.

In other words, you suffered through the low levels (I have three hit points, I cast magic missile, now what), then got the big bump at 5th level (FIREBALL!), then continued to gain in power. Including the expanded spell lists that went up to ... what ... 27th or so? Whereas the Fighting Man got his keep and hirelings at name level and then ... eh ...

The whole wizard play style is "I have extremely low amount of resources, but they're very strong, and can end encounters when used properly." That promotes an extremely high variance in effectiveness between wizards played well and wizards played poorly. It's the difference between fireballing the orcs and fireballing the efreet.

 

[Krachek]

Champion need to stay simple.

Some boosts can be:

At level 3 learn an additional fighting style.
At level 6 deal an extra D10 damage on critical with weapon.
At level 10 use twice your level when using second wind.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[bid]

Why not retry with Half Orc Fighter 11.

(And this is assuming no feats - GWM will grant more attacks to the person with more crits even before cosnidering the -5/+10.)

I can run the numbers - what assumptions were you using for when you should try to use precision (since sometimes it can be a wasted die) and how often were you considering you get riposte?

My main contention is that champion is useless before remarkable athlete, level 11 is beyond that but I think it is a good point where they should match.

GWM helps BM more than champion (because precision and the flat +10), so "unfair" to champion.

Precision: yes, you might have hit even if you believe otherwise. Assume you're missing by 2-3 and your guess is off by 1 (1 2 2 1 fails on 1-3 1-2 1 0 or 9/6 points of 1d10, should be close to 85% hit)

And the team game: a full day of 7 encounters of 5 rounds should have everyone spent. There's no team left for the champion. Nothing.

 

[TwoSix]

But I wouldn't say that this is the signature in BECMI/1e play. It's the level thing.

Because for the majority of your adventuring career, you don't have enough spells that are known (and that you can cast) to make resource management that big of a deal. Other than, "Do I cast my fireball now, or later?"

But the power differential, OTOH, is a very big deal. Which more than swamps the "played well/played poorly" distinction.

We're probably talking past each other. If you feel that the level power gradient is more significant to the difference between wizards and fighters than "hoarding spells" versus "persistent damage", than I don't necessarily agree, but I haven't played nearly enough 1e/BECMI to make any sort of reasoned disagreement. It's pretty much a throwaway line from my initial point, anyway.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

My main contention is that champion is useless before remarkable athlete,:

I know it's probably a just me thing, but I really wish people would stop making statements like this. A champion is not useless. I don't think hyperbole like that helps a discussion.