D&D 5E Fixing the Champion

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...this is a discussion where there are only 3 kinds of ice cream flavors, 2 of them being gourmet designer creations and 1 being a harry potter joke jelly bean puke flavored one.

False.

We all know that BM is superior to the champion

That's an opinion, not a fact, so you can think it and even know that you think it, but you can't actually know it itself. So we don't all know, since it can't be known in the first place.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

We all know that BM is superior to the champion, because he has superiority dice, ergo extra damage, on demand,

Incorrect. Not "on demand" at all. You keep making that claim. This is more of the cart-before-the-horse logic I described earlier.

...and can do many extra things like extend attack range, induce status effects, improve his AC, etc.

Wait. "Etc"? How many other extra things can the BM do? How many maneuvers do you think you have? This is a similar white-room tactic used when discussing spellcaster superiority. Cuz "a spellcaster" always has exactly the right spell to do the job when you are sitting around discussing theoretical spellcasters. Just like its easy to state that a BM always has just the right maneuver for the task at hand when discussing theoretical BMs. In practical play? It doesn't work that way.

...while the champion simply can "maybe I hit things possibly harder sometimes maybe"

Which, in actual play, is a lot more often than you seem to believe here with statements like that. At least IMX.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For some reason, I had thought breaking down doors WAS an Athletics check. But I've never really understood how 5e differentiates what should be a straight ability check from what shouldn't.

That'd be a case-by-case DM ruling, just like whether you roll or not, and vs what DC.

And whether the DM fudges. ;P

Either way, I don't really think Remarkable Athlete lives up to its name. It's hardly remarkable (a +1 or +2 bonus for the vast majority of the game). The biggest impact it has...is on Initiative, which is combat-related.

A bonus that maps to half that of proficiency, to a set of rolls that includes more than Athletics, hardly seems like it should be called 'Remarkable' or 'Athlete.' In some ways the name could be the biggest thing wrong with it.

I liken it to the old open doors/bend bars check.

A chance to fail at a narratively trivial task that only serves to move the action along?

But the thing is, one of the complaints I've heard about the champion (or perhaps it was the fighter overall) is that it is lacking in the other pillars, thanks to remarkable athlete the champions skills in the exploration pillar is improved.

They suck less, yes, but he's still in the marginal "I'm helping outside my specialty" (thanks to bounded accuracy) category, rather than the "It's my time to shine, watch how the Expert does it" set. Now for the odd task where, for some reason, proficiency never applies, RA delivers. Whether that ever comes up depends on the DM's judgement. Per the rules, though, for the little they're worth, it seems like it'll mostly be initiative.

Of course, people on the forums can't seem to decide if, thanks to bounded accuracy, a +1/+2 bonus good to have or just not worth having.

Bounded Accuracy makes a stacking bonus of even +1 pure gold. Non-stacking bonuses, not so much. If RA stacked with proficiency, it'd be pretty nice, though the 'best' at a given task would still be the guy with Expertise & high stat, rather than RA+Proficiency & high stat.

Not every class is for every person. And that's fine.

Not every class is any good is not so fine.

Sometimes, I like to hit things. And I don't want to keep track of my superiority dice on an excel spreadsheet.

I wouldn't want to keep track of 2 CS dice in an excel spreadsheet, either. Setting a couple of actual dice in front of you works better, for instance.

The idea that the Champion is the 'simple fighter,' and the Battlemaster the 'complex fighter,' works only so long as you look at them next to eachother in isolation. The moment you look at any other class, or the EK, you realize that they're both pretty darn simple.

You have to remember, D&D is for everyone

Except, at this point, anyone who wants to play a more interesting, customizable, and/or flexible/versatile fighter or other martial archetype that isn't so heavily devoted to grinding out DPR, or....

- including young people just learning (who might want a simpler class)

Or who might want to play freak'n Harry Potter without diving into the most complex class in the game.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

Briefly, stating that the Battlemaster is pretty darn simple compared to any other class is wrong. I think what you meant is compared to any other spellcaster.

You're right. Still would have been nice to get a spellcasting version of the Champion. Or a fighting class with a list of 30-40 ability to choose from. There's no reason NOT to do that, is there? I mean, any theoretical complex fighter would still be less complex than a wizard or cleric, and no one is complaining that fights are too complex because of them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Briefly, stating that the Battlemaster is pretty darn simple compared to any other class is wrong. I think what you meant is compared to any other spellcaster.

All 5e classes either cast spells, or have abilities that reference them, so that proviso is hardly necessary. The point stands, the Battlemaster is only 'complex' when compared to the Champion.

It's pretty, pretty, pretty easy to make a simple combat Barbarian. Or combat Monk (open hand). Both of them, IME, is slightly more complex than the Champion, and slightly less complex than the Battlemaster.

I'd have to peg the Monk as more complex than the Battlemaster and the Berserker as comparable.

But, again, your preference are well-known. Not everyone shares them.

But D&D is what, again?

You have to remember, D&D is for everyone

That's right.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

Eldritch knight? Multiclass champion? Valor bard? Use a feat to get some spells?

I meant more of a character with like one good cantrip, and then it would get class abilities that make it stronger, and some smaller side benefits. Closer to a 3.5 style warlock.

Because you don't need to? Melee isn't spellcasting. Yes, some people want long, drawn-out, tactical combats. I hope that there is some sort of optional "Complete How To Hit Things Real Good in 30-40 Ways Guide" published. I wouldn't use it, but more power to them. Unless you're just talking about fluff, in which case I don't think they'll be satisfied.

It doesn't have to be spellcasting to be more interesting, does it? Feats aren't spellcasting, after all, but they're still bundled packages of rules exceptions. Make a fighting class that gets a list of 4-5 feat-like options every couple of levels, and it can pick 1 every level or two.
And you're still conflating long combats with more abilities. That simply isn't correct. Wizards have lots of spells, but no one is saying they make combats longer. Why would this hypothetical class be any different?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

But D&D is what, again?

You have to remember, D&D is for everyone

That's right.

Agreed. D&D is for everyone. But it would seem not everyone is for D&D...