D&D 5E Champion vs. Warrior

[1of3]

[MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] mentioned in the Unboxing that the simple subclass for Fighter is called Champion. It was called Warrior in the playtest. Furthermore the Weaponmaster from the Playtest is now a Battlemaster.

That, to me, makes quite a difference. When I wanted a sellsword in the playtest, I would have chosen Warrior. But now a champion fights for a cause, so I would choose Battlemaster.

Opinions?

 

[CM]

I don't put much stock in names. It's the mechanics that matter. Though the english language is a sprawling mess, there's only so many synonyms to mine.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Well, they needed to use warrior elsewhere (for the class groupings) so it was expected that the subclass would get a new name.

I can see how that could be a conceptual problem if you are applying it to a mercenary or a bandit.

The thing that I would say is to remember that most subclass names aren't actually in-game constructs. A swashbuckler and gladiator are both Battlemasters, but I doubt they'd use that term. For some classes (wizard specialty schools) it can be in-character. But for a simple fighter? Heck, I'm not sure they'd even use the word "fighter" in character.

 

[Greg K]

That, to me, makes quite a difference. When I wanted a sellsword in the playtest, I would have chosen Warrior. But now a champion fights for a cause, so I would choose Battlemaster.

Same lousy naming that has plagued Mearls since at least Iron Heroes as well as WOTC (Battlemind Shardmind, etc.) and, to a lesser extent Paizo. Just my opinion, others opinions may vary.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I don't put much stock in names. It's the mechanics that matter. Though the english language is a sprawling mess, there's only so many synonyms to mine.

Yep.

If you want to play an archery-focused guy, that might be best covered by a variety of different classes, depending on what you want. When you introduce yourself IC, you don't say, "I'm Bob, a $class," you say, "I'm Bob, I'm an archer."

The mechanics are just a way to express the concept. Names can be changed, abilities can be refluffed.

 

[Dahak]

Well, they needed to use warrior elsewhere (for the class groupings) so it was expected that the subclass would get a new name.

Class groupings, like in 2E? Is there a source for this inclusion?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Class groupings, like in 2E? Is there a source for this inclusion?

Pretty much exactly like 2e. A few minor differences. Here is the info:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130930

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20131004

 

[evileeyore]

I don't put much stock in names.

DING! DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner folks!

 

[Tush Hog]

I want to see the return of
FIGHTING MAN



Seriously, though, make it a subclass - that would be awesome!

 

[MarkB]

That, to me, makes quite a difference. When I wanted a sellsword in the playtest, I would have chosen Warrior. But now a champion fights for a cause, so I would choose Battlemaster.

Opinions?

Well, 5e is supposed to be customisable. If this change makes the Champion unsuitable for your character, I'd suggest carefully crafting an alternative subclass that has precisely the same capabilities as the Champion, but is called the Warrior.