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

[Cap'n Kobold]

If you don't mind a brief recap, why do you think Champion is poorly designed and why should it (of all things) be its own class?

Its quite a common suggestion: Poorly designed because it it touted as the class for beginners, yet has no abilities that promote engagement in any parts of the game other than combat. Furthermore, since it is shackled to the Fighter chassis, there are several rather complex decision points that a beginner of the level that require champion level of simplicity might find difficult. Lastly, IME, most D&D beginners want to play a class with at least some measure of magic.
Outside of the "beginner class" aspect, it is just plain weak. Almost all of its subclass abilities are angled towards combat, but a battlemaster that only uses their superiority dice as extra damage dice will still outdamage a champion.

Making the champion its own class would allow the creation of a class without complex decision points that can be aimed fully towards a beginner or someone who wants to engage with the game less.
Most importantly, however, removing the champion from the fighter class would allow the fighter to be a complex, tactical martial class, capable of the things that real-life combatants are capable off and beyond.
Currently the requirement to support a "beginner friendly" subclass is dragging the fighter down in terms of what level of complexity is possible.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Like someone said, you could easily make simple warrior with just flat damage bonuses.
But a fighter subclass is only allowed 5 levels to do this.

For flat damage bonus you need just one feature. How on Earth is five not enough?

WOTC tried with the Brute and it blew the Champion out the park so bad it was abandoned.

Which is literal proof that you can do balanced simple fighter as a subclass. Only mistake they made was to make the brute a separate thing instead of just update champion to have those rules. So basically the same mistake you constantly want to make except in smaller scale, reinventing new classes instead of fixing the existing ones.

 

[CreamCloud0]

A PC is never is ineffective because of class or subclass alone though. The only things that can really make a character design truely ineffective are poor rolls or multiple poor decisions without regard to mechanics and usually you can still be effective even with those.

maybe they're not ineffective because of sub/class choice alone but they can still be a big determiner of your effectiveness, and i'm saying your level of effectiveness should not be at all determined by your choice of sub/class, all that different classes and subclasses should provide is a choice of mechanics and themes, not effectiveness

You can pick any class and subclass in the game and be effective with average or better rolls.

but some sub/classes will still be more effective than another with the same set of base stat rolls right? and some options will manage to be effective with lesser stat requirements, those are things that shouldn't happen in my opinion, everyone should be able to start with point buy or standard array and make as effective a character as the next person, even if i'm playing a fighter and they're a wizard, and not just because i optimised my fighter and they half-assed their distributions either

Not all are of equal power though. If you want to be the most powerful player at the table you need to roll well, pick a powerful class, powerful subclass and powerful options in that class/subclass.

and that's the thing, you shouldn't need to do those things to play a powerful and effective character, i shouldn't need to roll above average stats or to pick a bladesinger or a paladin or whatever else if i want to play a powerful martial character and not fall behind the curve,

 

[Minigiant]

For flat damage bonus you need just one feature. How on Earth is five not enough?

Because the damage bonus would be so low, it would be unsexy

And you really don't have 5 levels. 2 of your levels are taken up by Remarkable Athlete and Survivor.

• 3rd: +2 damage
• 7th: RM
• 10th: +4 damage
• 15th: +6 damage
• 18th: Survivor

Grandma's Pantaloons level of sexy.

Which is literal proof that you can do balanced simple fighter as a subclass. Only mistake they made was to make the brute a separate thing instead of just update champion to have those rules. So basically the same mistake you constantly want to make except in smaller scale, reinventing new classes instead of fixing the existing ones.

Didn't say it was impossible. Just a worse option to feel "NO NEW CLASSES" traditionalism.

And like I said. That was an option but WOTC wont do it because they are milking the PHB and fear errata invoking sunk cost hatred killing the cash cow.

They wont reinvent the champion. So making a new class is the smart play. But noooooo.
They wont even put the Artificer in the new PHB for some reason.

 

[pemerton]

A class has 20 levels to build a concept. A subclass only 5.
Any decent designer could create a simple warrior with 20 levels to work with.
Few can do so with 5 when you are already stuck with the fighter chassis.

Like someone said, you could easily make simple warrior with just flat damage bonuses.
But a fighter subclass is only allowed 5 levels to do this.

• 3rd
• 7th
• 10th
• 15th
• 18th

Makes it harder. WOTC tried with the Brute and it blew the Champion out the park so bad it was abandoned.
A full class has 20 levels. Especially if you want it to be simple and only have 1 class feature per level.

My tentative suggestion remains: keep everything as is, but grant an extra use of Action Surge at 3rd level. That might be broken for multi-classing, but will that be broken for the straight fighter?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because the damage bonus would be so low, it would be unsexy

And you really don't have 5 levels. 2 of your levels are taken up by Remarkable Athlete and Survivor.

• 3rd: +2 damage
• 7th: RM
• 10th: +4 damage
• 15th: +6 damage
• 18th: Survivor

A lot of features have scaling by level built in to them, there is absolutely no need to divide it into several features. For example proficiency bonus to damage is very close to what you suggest here, but of course the feature could specify bespoke progression if that was not good enough.

Didn't say it was impossible. Just a worse option to feel "NO NEW CLASSES" traditionalism.

And like I said. That was an option but WOTC wont do it because they are milking the PHB and fear errata invoking sunk cost hatred killing the cash cow.

They wont reinvent the champion. So making a new class is the smart play. But noooooo.
They wont even put the Artificer in the new PHB for some reason.

This doesn't make even least bit of sense. They are literally releasing revised version of the game next year. Whether it addresses this specific issue I don't know, but avenue for it is right there. But what absolutely won't happen is them releasing the seven thousand redundant classes that you want.

 

[Minigiant]

This doesn't make even least bit of sense. They are literally releasing revised version of the game next year. Whether it addresses this specific issue I don't know, but avenue for it is right there. But what absolutely won't happen is them releasing the seven thousand redundant classes that you want.

Seven thousand classes?
I only want 1. Most D&D fans want 1 new class.
The game could use 2. It just only "needs" 1.

Fixing the subclasses is more important. However they lack the time to do it AND get it out for anniversary.

That's why more classes is the best solution. They don't have the time to get the PHB subclasses right for 2024.

If D&D 50th was 2025, they'd still be playtesting subclasses.

 

[ezo]

First off, thanks for the recap.

Improved Critical barely adds additional damage. It's just 1 additional crit every 20 attacks.

Agreed. The only way this becomes decent if for builds that crit-fish, which is definitely not something "simple" to build or comprehend for new players--especially younger players. A simple "weapon specialization" feature (+1 to attack or damage with chosen weapon) would be better IMO.

On the plus side, new players who roll that 19 and get a critical are really happy when it happens, and that makes them feel like it was a good choice.

Remarkable Athlete barely does anything. +2 for a few checks.

The problem with this is a Rogue with expertise is better at Athletics than a Fighter with Remarkable Athlete because the fighter typically already has this proficiency. Expertise in Athletics or allowing the feature to benefit even if already proficient would be better.

However, not many fighters take Acrobatics, Stealth, or Sleight of Hand, so gaining some benefit to Acrobatics and Stealth is good, but it is hardly stellar.

Constitution "checks" are not common IME, either.

Additional Fighting Style barely does anything because fighting styles only affect one type of weapon. If you take GWF, no other FS will affect your greatsword Except Superior Technique

I can't quite agree completely on this. I see your point, however. Even if you start with GWF, Defense for a +1 AC is helpful and simple, and since AC is difficult to improve this is pretty good as I see it. Defense is also a good addition if you begin with Archery or Two-Weapon Fighting since you can't use a shield.

Obviously, if you are a sword/board build, combinations of Dueling, Defense, and Protection can all be good.

In easier terms, there isn't enough design space to be good AND simple.
A class has 20 levels to build a concept. A subclass only 5.
Any decent designer could create a simple warrior with 20 levels to work with.
Few can do so with 5 when you are already stuck with the fighter chassis.

Well, I think this is enough though. Fighters have more sublcass levels than any other class since most have 4 and Bards only 3. And there is really nothing wrong with the fighter chassis as it does what is needed with two additional ASIs. Now, if feats aren't used (very rare IME) then it looses something, but otherwise it is simple and solid.

Like someone said, you could easily make simple warrior with just flat damage bonuses.
But a fighter subclass is only allowed 5 levels to do this.

• 3rd
• 7th
• 10th
• 15th
• 18th

Makes it harder. WOTC tried with the Brute and it blew the Champion out the park so bad it was abandoned.
A full class has 20 levels. Especially if you want it to be simple and only have 1 class feature per level.

Since damage is key (as mentioned) a simple +1 damage per subclass level would result in an additional +5 by the end.

Obviously, I don't have the same issues with it you do. I definitely agree there is room for improvement, but I believe it is possible to have Champion simple, effective, and remain under the Fighter class.

Again, thanks for the summary.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I can't quite agree completely on this. I see your point, however. Even if you start with GWF, Defense for a +1 AC is helpful and simple, and since AC is difficult to improve this is pretty good as I see it. Defense is also a good addition if you begin with Archery or Two-Weapon Fighting since you can't use a shield.

Obviously, if you are a sword/board build, combinations of Dueling, Defense, and Protection can all be good.

even if most benefits are mutually exclusive between certain weapons i do think it would be beneficial to bump the mumber of fighting styles a fighter gets, it would help them not need to corner themselves into a specific weapon niche because they've only got the bonuses on one weapon type or to take some of the less prioritisable fighting styles that are still beneficial but not directly offensive or too situational (defense, blind fighting, mariner, unarmed fighter, tunnel fighting, ect...)

 

[ezo]

Its quite a common suggestion: Poorly designed because it it touted as the class for beginners, yet has no abilities that promote engagement in any parts of the game other than combat. Furthermore, since it is shackled to the Fighter chassis, there are several rather complex decision points that a beginner of the level that require champion level of simplicity might find difficult. Lastly, IME, most D&D beginners want to play a class with at least some measure of magic.

But that is the point of its simplicity. It allows a beginner to focus on one thing the class is meant to do: be good at combat. Engagement in other parts of the game should be encouraged but developed later as the player gains experience.

The only decision points that might be complicated are the ASIs if feats are used. Choosing a good feat to help your build is essential, but for a new player other experienced players could offer suggestions.

Outside of the "beginner class" aspect, it is just plain weak. Almost all of its subclass abilities are angled towards combat, but a battlemaster that only uses their superiority dice as extra damage dice will still outdamage a champion.

Yep. The design could be better and more effective.

Making the champion its own class would allow the creation of a class without complex decision points that can be aimed fully towards a beginner or someone who wants to engage with the game less.
Most importantly, however, removing the champion from the fighter class would allow the fighter to be a complex, tactical martial class, capable of the things that real-life combatants are capable off and beyond.
Currently the requirement to support a "beginner friendly" subclass is dragging the fighter down in terms of what level of complexity is possible.

TBH the fighter/champion doesn't really have a lot of complex decision points, especially compared to most other classes.

even if most benefits are mutually exclusive between certain weapons i do think it would be beneficial to bump the mumber of fighting styles a fighter gets, it would help them not need to corner themselves into a specific weapon niche because they've only got the bonuses on one weapon type or to take some of the less prioritisable fighting styles that are still beneficial but not directly offensive or too situational (defense, blind fighting, mariner, unarmed fighter, tunnel fighting, ect...)

I agree with this. Allowing fighters to gain more fighting styles would be nice, so a fighter to fill different roles at different times depending on the need.