D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[Minigiant]

But you have two levels of fighter before you even get to Champion. By the time the newbie is playing a Champion she should no longer be a newbie.

If all you've done is played 2 levels of fighter and never engaged with Most of the mechanics and gameplay of even low level D&D, you are still a newbie.

And an optimized Champion is not "hilariously weak" in tier 1-2, where most of the game is played, it is above average as far as non-casters.

No, it is. The Champion adds but a single weapon damage die of damage over 20 attacks and at best +1 AC for the majority of the levels people play.

It is hilariously weak. Action Surge is doing the heavy lifting. And AS alone is not enough to remain equal to or surpass noncaster warriors.

That's why it is hard for even newbies who pay attention to see the weakness of the Champion IF there is another warrior of similar optimization to compare themselves to. Unless the DM uses a playstyle that accentuates the Champion.

Assuming equal and average ability scores; most Barbarians, all Monks and most Rogues are mechanically weaker in combat at most levels from 3-10. That covers at least half of the possible non-caster builds

Barbarian? Maybe the bad subclasses.
Monk? I forget. Is the monk a good or bad class again.
Rogue? The 5e Rogue was not designed to be a warrior.

Notice you didn't mention the Ranger, Paladin, or any other Fighter subclass. Even some warrior subclasses of other classes can outside the Champion effortlessly.

Which goes to the point that point that the Champion goes unnoticed as weak if they have nothing to compare themselves to or are favored by the DM.

Because WOTC only gave it one class feature slot to built the archetype with. Whereas every other class and every other subclass was given multiple levels. It shows that originally 5e was going to be shelved by WOTC.

 

[ECMO3]

Barbarian? Maybe the bad subclasses.

No if we are talking levels 3-10 most of the subclasses are worse at most of those levels (and to be clear there is no champion below level 3 where Barbarians are significantly better). The good Barbarian subclasses still compete through level 6 or 7, but then the gap widens quite a bit because of fighting style, better AC and the extra feat and it continues to widen through high levels.

This of course assumes you are optimizing, but if you are not optimizing, why are you complaining that you are weak?

Monk? I forget. Is the monk a good or bad class again.

At very high level it is a great martial class (assuming a good subclass) at levels 5-10 it is the worst class overall by quite a bit, even with a good subclass.

Rogue? The 5e Rogue was not designed to be a warrior.

But the point is the player playing the Rogue should be seeing the same thing the "newbie" player playing the Champion.

Notice you didn't mention the Ranger, Paladin, or any other Fighter subclass. Even some warrior subclasses of other classes can outside the Champion effortlessly.

The Ranger is more of a Gish than a Warrior. With 5E mechanics, I think the Rogue as a class is more of a warrior than the Ranger is in general, although different builds play different ways. A warrior Ranger is a viable play style and build, but if you are optimizing your Ranger using 5E mechanics and Tashas it is going to be more of a Gish than a straight Warrior and if you build a pure martial Ranger who is not casting spells in combat, an optimized Champion is generally going to outrun most of them in combat at the levels I noted.

Reegardless your statement was Champions are "hilariously weak" which would mean they are weaker than most others. The classes and subclasses stronger to them are not relevant to that discussion.

Champions are as a point of fact middle of the road in martial combat. Put in all the "warriors", meaning all the Fighters, all the Paladins, all the Barbarians, all the Rogues, all the Monks and if you want all the Rangers. Then assume optimization and rank them top to bottom at any level between 3 and 10. Champion is going to be above average on that list.

Which goes to the point that point that the Champion goes unnoticed as weak if they have nothing to compare themselves to or are favored by the DM.

This may be the case for you, but it is not universal, as others pointed out on this thread.

 

[James Gasik]

You can add ability scores and luck to that long list.

My opinion, supported by extensive play experience, is that it is best not to strive for balance at all. Play what you want to play, let others play what they want to play. I think that works best in modern 5E and making it so you don't need specific classes (no one has to play a Cleric or a Rogue) has really opened up a lot of different playstyles.

The "why am I here" example above could be easily answered - "you tell me why are you here and why did you make the build choices you did."

I also notice the vast majority of imbalance examples are focused on combat and not all character builds are intended to excel at combat. I am playing a Glasya Tiefling Rogue 1/Bard 2 right now and she is awful in combat. She has a 19 Charisma and the only real game she has is the Dissonant Whispers spell, which is a decent spell but hit or miss and really limited uses. With a 13 Dex, she is not effective with weapons at all, her AC is 12 and her Constitution is 10. In a party of 6 (Monk, Monk, Paladin, Wizard, Rogue, me) she is a distant 6th in combat, with the Rogue being closer to the top than she is. That will improve as we gain levels and more spells of course but I never see her being a combat powerhouse. She is awesome in the social pillar though, rocking expertise in Deception, proficiency in Persuasion having Friends, Minor Illusion and Disguise self.

This is the second character I played with this group that was mediocre in combat. In a previous campaign I played a 1-12 Half Elf Scout Rogue skill monkey player with the Archeologist background. That character was better in combat, but still at the bottom of the party. He was completely dominant at the exploration pillar and really good at the social pillar.

The point I was making though is more that there's no reason to make a "simple" class weaker than a more complex one, and that deliberately hamstringing a (sub)class compared to others doesn't really have much value. Even if you don't see any value in striving for balance, if you build two character options, why make one way worse than the other?

 

[ECMO3]

The point I was making though is more that there's no reason to make a "simple" class weaker than a more complex one, and that deliberately hamstringing a (sub)class compared to others doesn't really have much value. Even if you don't see any value in striving for balance, if you build two character options, why make one way worse than the other?

What I am saying is there is no reason classes need to be equal. People play what they want to play, if they care about being powerful don't play a weak class/subclass and the people who do play weak classes/subclasses don't mind them being comparatively weak or they wouldn't play them.

If you want to play the most powerful player possible everyone should just play a Wizard, or a Wizard with a 1-level cleric dip for heavy armor. That option is there for anyone who wants to be the superman of the party, but don't screw up the game for the rest of us that don't need to be Superman and want to play Batman instead.

I play more Rogues than anything else and they are on the weak side. I also play Fighters and Monks, both on the weak side. I love playing all those classes and "balancing" them with wierd mechanics that make no sense thematically in pursuit of "balance" would make the game worse for me, and I believe it would make the game worse for most players playing those classes. It would also make the game worse for the players that want to play Wizards and be more powerful than everyone else. Bottom line no one wins with that kind of "balance".

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

What I am saying is there is no reason classes need to be equal. People play what they want to play, if they care about being powerful don't play a weak class/subclass and the people who do play weak classes/subclasses don't mind them being comparatively weak or they wouldn't play them.

If you want to play the most powerful player possible everyone should just play a Wizard, or a Wizard with a 1-level cleric dip for heavy armor. That option is there for anyone who wants to be the superman of the party, but don't screw up the game for the rest of us that don't need to be Superman and want to play Batman instead.

I play more Rogues than anything else and they are on the weak side. I also play Fighters and Monks, both on the weak side. I love playing all those classes and "balancing" them with wierd mechanics that make no sense thematically in pursuit of "balance" would make the game worse for me, and I believe it would make the game worse for most players playing those classes. It would also make the game worse for the players that want to play Wizards and be more powerful than everyone else. Bottom line no one wins with that kind of "balance".

Not everyone chooses the character that they would like to play based on how powerful it is.
Character concept is a thing for some people.

 

[ECMO3]

Not everyone chooses the character that they would like to play based on how powerful it is.

Exactly. Most players don't care about that. If you are one of the rare ones that do optimized Wizard is available.

For clarity I am talking level 1-20. Wizards are not the best class at every level, but they are the best over this whole level range.

Character concept is a thing for some people.

Exactly! So pick based on character concept and stop worrying about if you are "balanced" with others and life will be great. That is what I do when I play, and I have a ton of fun .... with weak classes and with strong classes, and with strong classes and non-optimal choices.

We have players on this forum talking about playing blind characters or mute characters, those are going to be very weak, but I think they have fun with them! Do we need to somehow "balance" that?

The classes I don't have fun with are Barbarian, Druid and Artificer .... so I don't play those classes. I play every other class, Rangers and Rogues more than any other.

Being weaker than other players has never bothered me, nor any others at the tables I have played on. I know other people have had problems with this though and fir the people where power in comparison to other players matters, a powerful class should logically be what they pick.

 

[Zardnaar]

One could still have simple and powerful.

Champion. Double it's short rest abilities, 18-20 crit range by level 7 throw in a cleave ability and proficient in 4 or 5 saves by level 14.

 

[ECMO3]

One could still have simple and powerful.

War Cleric, most Paladins

Champion. Double it's short rest abilities, 18-20 crit range by level 7 throw in a cleave ability and proficient in 4 or 5 saves by level 14.

Champion is not simple, especially in tier 1 and I would rather keep it like it is. I am definitely against a cleave ability and that would hardly be simple.

 

[Zardnaar]

War Cleric, most Paladins



Champion is not simple, especially in tier 1 and I would rather keep it like it is. I am definitely against a cleave ability and that would hardly be simple.

Even OSR games a few get a cleave type ability (see 1E fighter).

Mostly they get bonus to hit and/or damage, best numbers to hit and rapidly scaling saves plus cleave ability.

Personally I would trade critical hits for a cleave type ability.

 

[ECMO3]

Even OSR games a few get a cleave type ability (see 1E fighter).

Do you have a page number for this? I played a lot of 1E and I don't remember any ability similar to 3E cleave .... and 1E martials were OP. The closest thing I remember is getting your level number of melee attacks against enemies with less than 1 Hit Die.

Personally I would trade critical hits for a cleave type ability.

Personally I am not for adding anything extra to the current fighter in terms of combat. Their combat power is already plenty and subclasses just add to that. I could see adding more to Monks, but flavor-wise fighters are right were they need to be IMO. I don't even like the weapon abilities ONE is adding.

I could see a little more variety, like an option to trade the additional attacks at level 11 and 20 for something else. Maybe a skill proficiency or expertise in a skill you already have for example.