D&D 5E Have we rebalanced the Champion Yet?

[Paul Farquhar]

There's nothing to be lost by making the Champion better...

It's a strange argument. I mean if you think the Champion is not weak it's one thing. But if you think it's a bit weak and it doesn't matter, then it also doesn't matter, if it's fixed so it's not a bit weak.

Yes it does.

Two subclasses, lets call them B and C. Subclass B does good damage with a bit of thought. Subclass C does the same damage, but requires no thought. Which is most powerful?

Ease of use is a superpower in and of itself (just see Apple), and that needs to be taken into account when balancing classes just as much as DPS.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Don, you did write the following, correct?

I mean if you think the Champion is not weak it's one thing.

To paraphrase fearsomepirate, from another thread: as soon as you write ‘Fighter’ under “Class”, you have succeeded in making a “not weak” character.

I’m sorry my agreement, to what,( you have, now, clearly demonstrated), was a throw away line, is causing you consternation.

 

[TwoSix]

If people select the Champion, its not because they are looking for something "competitive", its because they wants the rules and actions of the Champion fighter. Besides, no one except us dingbats here on these boards have wasted our time white-rooming the damage comparisons between all these options to try and figure out if things are "balanced" or not. So when a player comes to the table and sees the Champion and the Battlemaster... their choice isn't going to be about "which one can do the most damage"... it's going to be what and how the two subclasses do what they do, and which one suits the player more.

Sure, but by that standard, they're also not going to care that you've buffed it, and if it makes you happy to buff it, why not?

That being said, I personally have no problem with the Champion being numerically inferior to BM; I feel more complex options should have a small numerical edge to reward skilled play.

 

[Garthanos]

Sure, but by that standard, they're also not going to care that you've buffed it, and if it makes you happy to buff it, why not?

That being said, I personally have no problem with the Champion being numerically inferior to BM; I feel more complex options should have a small numerical edge to reward skilled play.

I can see that as long as the positive benefit is smallish (insert subjective) and as long as the negative from the poor use is smallish (also subjective)

 

[TwoSix]

I can see that as long as the positive benefit is smallish (insert subjective) and as long as the negative from the poor use is smallish (also subjective)

Absolutely. BM should have a lower floor (about 10%) and a higher ceiling (also about 10%).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Absolutely. BM should have a lower floor (about 10%) and a higher ceiling (also about 10%).

Versatility will reward skilled play by virtue of having more options. The simpler option should instead be numerically ahead, because it has less versatility.

 

[TwoSix]

Versatility will reward skilled play by virtue of having more options. The simpler option should instead be numerically ahead, because it has less versatility.

I think we're saying the same thing differently. Those versatile options are meaningful if they allow for more damage (or mitigate damage), whether that be direct damage or indirectly by adding conditions or debuffs. Skilled play will use those options in a way that pushes the overall output ahead of the baseline simple subclass. Unskilled play won't leverage those options optimally, and in that case the baseline simple subclass should be ahead.

 

[Garthanos]

Versatility will reward skilled play by virtue of having more options. The simpler option should instead be numerically ahead, because it has less versatility.

Versatility benefits are why I think the overall fighter should have the most combat flexibility it can make them in more subtle ways the best in combat.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think we're saying the same thing differently. Those versatile options are meaningful if they allow for more damage (or mitigate damage), whether that be direct damage or indirectly by adding conditions or debuffs. Skilled play will use those options in a way that pushes the overall output ahead of the baseline simple subclass. Unskilled play won't leverage those options optimally, and in that case the baseline simple subclass should be ahead.

Well, somewhat, except I am also saying that the ceiling for the versatile option shouldn’t be noticeably above the simple option in basic, numerical, measures, like damage. They’re already ahead in the breadth of what they can do.

IOW, an optimized Champion and an Optimised Battlemaster, both played skillfully, the Champion should do more damage.

 

[Garthanos]

Well, somewhat, except I am also saying that the ceiling for the versatile option shouldn’t be noticeably above the simple option in basic, numerical, measures, like damage. They’re already ahead in the breadth of what they can do.

IOW, an optimized Champion and an Optimised Battlemaster, both played skillfully, the Champion should do more damage.

I disagree you are favoring simplicity which among other things is unrealistic. LOL look look I can play like a simulationist.