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

[doctorbadwolf]

Like Remarkable Athlete?

Sure, if we move that down and replace it at 7th with something else. (eg, at level 7 you could expand it to wisdom checks, and to non-proficient saves.)

Or, something else that will stack with RA.
e.g.,
*once per turn you can add 1d8 to a damage roll, ability check, or saving throw/or,
*a feature that grants an extra use of either Second Wind or Action Surge, once per long rest. Cannot use the feature twice in the same turn./or,
*you gain 1 legendary action, with which you can make a single weapon attack, move half your speed, or make an ability check to try to end an effect, escape a grapple, etc.

fiddle with as needed to make it intuitive and easy to remember, but there are many ways to go, here.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Move Remarkable Athlete to 3rd level and grant a bonus proficiency in DEX saves at 7th level.

 

[FrogReaver]

doc..are you stating the subclass does not work, without the benefit of feats or M/C-ing?

Also, given that nearly 50% of characters use feats on DDB, and that percentage grew from the 2018 figure, can we put a moratorium on this argument, being peddled, ad nauseum?
View attachment 119943

Believe it or not there are featless and multiclass free games. It's worth considering those.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, we can keep it as a low management and easy to play fighter sub class. You can even leave it alone.

But if we are going to fix it, don't fix it in ways that don't deal with the problem.

There are ways you can boost it that keep it a low management and easy to play fighter subclass that doesn't end up boosting it more when it needs it less. So do that instead.

Why doesn't +2 damage fix it?

 

[Todd Roybark]

Believe it or not there are featless and multiclass free games. It's worth considering those.

Of course there are. Just as in 2e, there were games played without kits.

The argument is often wielded, in such a way, as to imply that games with feats are invalid or examples of builds, including feats, are abnormal.

Clearly, parity exists, in terms of numbers, between either style of game.
Both, are equally valid, is all I am stating.

 

[Don Durito]

Well what about miss damage that scales up with level as I think I may have suggested earlier in this thread

So basically. At 1st level when you miss you get a D4 damage on your next attack, at 5th level that goes up to a d6 etc. You only actually roll when you do hit, so it shouldn't bother people like 4E miss damage, and it could be easily explained as the Champion using their skill to turn even a failed attack to their advantage.

And it's mostly optimisation proof* - because you're always still going to be better of actually hit.

*It does make the weaponmaster/sharpshooter tradeoff more appealing - but y'know those are already broken anyway so who really cares?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And feats can synergize, but they cannot be part of the balance consideration of a class or subclass.

They can't not be part of the balance consideration. A key feature of the fighter class is they get extra feats. Ergo any game that doesn't allow feats is going to disproportionately hurt fighters.

A simple "fix" for Champion in a no-feats game would be to allow them to select feats. Champion with feats > Battlemaster without feats.

 

[NotAYakk]

Why doesn't +2 damage fix it?

Because that gets stronger with higher levels with more attacks, and the champion is relatively weaker at lower levels with fewer attacks.

We want the champion to not feel weak at 3-4 amd 5-10 compared to the BM. But at 17+ the xhampions's gap with the BM is smaller, while +2 per hit is larger at 17+.

Asding +2 per hit is like fixing 3-4 by giving the champion an extra attack at 18.

I think we should care more about 3-10 than 13-18, but we should also have a solution that doesn't ignore 13-20 balance.

 

[Don Durito]

In that case just give a damage bonus on the first hit per round.

 

[Garthanos]

Because that gets stronger with higher levels with more attacks, and the champion is relatively weaker at lower levels with fewer attacks.

We want the champion to not feel weak at 3-4 amd 5-10 compared to the BM. But at 17+ the xhampions's gap with the BM is smaller, while +2 per hit is larger at 17+.

Asding +2 per hit is like fixing 3-4 by giving the champion an extra attack at 18.

I think we should care more about 3-10 than 13-18, but we should also have a solution that doesn't ignore 13-20 balance.

I have been proposing options that allow a fighter to make risky maneuvering which triggers opportunity attacks but allows the character themselves to take an extra attack and a similar method for trading out hit points in an exertion to allow an extra attack. These both favor the crit fisher but by adding choices make the class harder to play I suppose. And would still be in play at high levels so... I guess not.