D&D 5E Buffing the Champion Fighter

[Sacrosanct]

I was obviously being hyperbolic. Protector will save the party more damage. I suppose defense isn't the worst choice if you wish to use a sentinel + PAM build

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I think you missed my point. Most people choose aspects of their PC not based on DPR or optimization, but on what they feel works best for the vision they have in their head of what they want their PC to be like. This player is not a sentinel or PAM. Sword and board (and mace).

 

[droid6689]

I think you missed my point. Most people choose aspects of their PC not based on DPR or optimization, but on what they feel works best for the vision they have in their head of what they want their PC to be like. This player is not a sentinel or PAM. Sword and board (and mace).

I think you missed my point. If you are comparing build DPS why would you have one build go with a DPS style and the other a defensive style? I am well aware many people choose RP over optimization. I was commenting on someone's hypothetical comparison, not critiquing possible champion builds.

Regardless, I'm less concerned with Champiom dps being lower and more about their utility. Champion is mostly straight DPS increases with no choice or utility but they don't even win with dps. I think making them more flexible is the better option because it highlights the class flavor of them being highly talented weapon experts where the BM is the tactical one

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Quickleaf]

I think you missed my point. If you are comparing build DPS why would you have one build go with a DPS style and the other a defensive style? I am well aware many people choose RP over optimization. I was commenting on someone's hypothetical comparison, not critiquing possible champion builds.

Regardless, I'm less concerned with Champiom dps being lower and more about their utility. Champion is mostly straight DPS increases with no choice or utility but they don't even win with dps. I think making them more flexible is the better option because it highlights the class flavor of them being highly talented weapon experts where the BM is the tactical one

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

To distill my reason for doing so down to a simple point:

Mathematical comparison should encompass more than DPR, but I don't have the time or inclination to do more maths. This was done a year ago when dealing with an obstinate forum lurker. I'd much rather design fun stuff and play the damn game. Maths just aren't enjoyable for me, so I had to distill the impact of the Champion's 2nd fighting style into a limited formula only accounting for DPR. For example, choosing Protection WOULD have an effect on the Champion's overall combat effectiveness, but would be harder to compare and frankly more maths than I'm interested in. So beginning with A = A; Defense = Defense, and then just adding Duelist to Champion was much simpler.

As to your query about feats, I deliberately left out feats because both Champion and Battlemaster get equal #'s of feats, being fighters.

Also, simplicity of comparison was what I was aiming for here.

Yes, it's easy to criticize "well you didn't account for X, Y, Z." If that's an issue for you, do your own maths and share them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think you missed my point. If you are comparing build DPS why would you have one build go with a DPS style and the other a defensive style?

Obviously, so as not to obscure the Champion's second style feature. It's hard to capture in terms of DPR, as the temptation to take defensive style and thus 'stack' with another style is high.

Edit: yep, exactly that.

I had to distill the impact of the Champion's 2nd fighting style into a limited formula only accounting for DPR. So beginning with A = A; Defense = Defense, and then just adding Duelist to Champion was much simpler.

The problem there is that starting with Duelist is equally valid, and erases the difference, thus starting with Defense looks biased.

An alternative might be to consider a specific case where it would matter to DPR: A dex-based Archer, using a 1-handed finesse weapon as backup in melee. At low levels, they're both lethal Archers with their +2 to hit. Later, the champion picks up Duelist and is nastier in melee, too. They might not melee /much/, and that'd be a mushy part of the analysis, but it'd be a case where the second style does positively impact DPR.

As to your query about feats, I deliberately left out feats because both Champion and Battlemaster get equal #'s of feats, being fighters.

You could factor out a lot more, too.

But, if you were willing to consider feats, the rather silly dual-wielding-crossbow build, using feats so it never has to resort to a melee weapon, could be ideal for factoring in the second style, because it would benefit from both TWF & Archery styles. And, it's notorious high-DPR build, so there's no appearance of soft-balling.

Heck, we can probably find a lot of analysis of variations on that build...

 

[droid6689]

To distill my reason for doing so down to a simple point:

Mathematical comparison should encompass more than DPR, but I don't have the time or inclination to do more maths. This was done a year ago when dealing with an obstinate forum lurker. I'd much rather design fun stuff and play the damn game. Maths just aren't enjoyable for me, so I had to distill the impact of the Champion's 2nd fighting style into a limited formula only accounting for DPR. For example, choosing Protection WOULD have an effect on the Champion's overall combat effectiveness, but would be harder to compare and frankly more maths than I'm interested in. So beginning with A = A; Defense = Defense, and then just adding Duelist to Champion was much simpler.

As to your query about feats, I deliberately left out feats because both Champion and Battlemaster get equal #'s of feats, being fighters.

Also, simplicity of comparison was what I was aiming for here.

Yes, it's easy to criticize "well you didn't account for X, Y, Z." If that's an issue for you, do your own maths and share them.

I didn't have a query about feats

And there is no reason to compare DPS on a battlemaster with defense because it isn't a dps build. If you are comparing an offensive champ vs a defensive BM and they come out even then you know that BM simply is a higher DPS class.

If you want simplicity of comparison then do duelist vs duelist instead of going apples to oranges

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Yunru]

But, if you were willing to consider feats, the rather silly dual-wielding-crossbow build, using feats so it never has to resort to a melee weapon, could be ideal for factoring in the second style, because it would benefit from both TWF & Archery styles.

I'm not seeing how it benefits from TWF style at all?

 

[R3D_PH4NT0M_V10]

Hi, I personally added these changes the the Champion subclass

IMPROVED CRITICAL
Beginning when you choose this archetype at 3rd
level, your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a
roll of 18,19,20 (without modifiers).

NON-COMBAT ABILITY
At 3rd level, you gain proficienty in two extra skills
from the Fighter list

ADDITIONAL FIGHTING STYLE
At 7th level, you can choose a second option from the
Fighting Style class feature.

REMARKABLE ATHLETE
Starting at 10th level, you can add +3 to any Strength. Dexterity, or
Constitution check.
In addition, when you make a running long jump, the
distance you can cover increases by 5 feet.

SUPERIOR CRITICAL
At 15th level, critical hits deal full damage instead of rolling damage dice

SURVIVOR
At 18th level, you attain the pinnacle of resilience in
battle. At the start of each of your turns, you regain hit
points equal to 10 + your Constitution modifier. You don't
gain this benefit if you have 0 hit points.

 

[jgsugden]

Hi, I personally added these changes the the Champion subclass
....

That is a bit of overkill on the fix, and it makes it right for abuse on Crit-fishing builds like a multi-class with paladin. A 3 level dip to triple the crit range is too easy to abuse. Count me in the camp saying that champion requires no fixes, but if I were going t modify it, I'd do it by adding an additional (combat relevant) ability to remarkable athlete at level 7 - perhaps adding to your speed, giving you a push ability that you can use a few times per LR, or just giving you a flat +1/+1 to melee attacks made when you have advantage.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Count me in the camp saying that champion requires no fixes

Agreed.

If I'm a DM and I'm afraid the Champion Fighter PC at the table is going to be underwhelming, instead of tweaking a play-tested class I'd just provide her with an inherited +1 sword or have her find a +1 weapon in an encounter early in the campaign. Player excited, "problem" solved.

I get the fun in tinkering but IMO the Champion really should be kept simple as it is a great entry-level class for new players.

 

[droid6689]

That is a bit of overkill on the fix, and it makes it right for abuse on Crit-fishing builds like a multi-class with paladin. A 3 level dip to triple the crit range is too easy to abuse. Count me in the camp saying that champion requires no fixes, but if I were going t modify it, I'd do it by adding an additional (combat relevant) ability to remarkable athlete at level 7 - perhaps adding to your speed, giving you a push ability that you can use a few times per LR, or just giving you a flat +1/+1 to melee attacks made when you have advantage.

That is why I suggested an extra ASI, it lets you get a flat bonus or simply grab a feat to increase flexibility

I get the fun in tinkering but IMO the Champion really should be kept simple as it is a great entry-level class for new players.

The point is to find a way to retain the simplified flavor of the class while making it viable for new players and experienced players. The changes I suggested introduce no new mechanics that aren't already in the class and make it more unique and viable

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk