D&D 5E Fixing the Champion

[ChrisCarlson]

Anyway, if you don't agree with the original premise that the champion needs work, this discussion isn't for you. This discussion assumes that you feel that the champion is a trap option, suck alternative, subpar archetype.

You may need to accept that that is not how public forums work. I recently heard a clever (IMO) idiom involving modern life: "People today seek confirmation, not conversation." Your request above is a great example of that. After all, the vast majority of individuals in this thread have disagreed with your root premise. Don't you think that's something you need to consider moving forward?

Yes, the battlemaster's abilities are on demand precisely because you can choose to use them or not. As for etc, do you really need to ask? How about increasing attack range, increasing chance to hit, adding damage, inducing status effects, allowing allies to maneuver outside of their turn, tripping enemies, forcing a target to drop a held item, hitting multiple targets with the same attack, ETC. That doesn't even list all of them. Do I really need to go on?

Did you not read the point I made in direct rebuttal to your "etc" post? Have you played a BM? If so, which maneuvers did you actually select? Because its easy to white-room theorize that some amoebic BM always has the exact perfect maneuver he need for a given moment. Until you actually have to put pen to paper. It's like a game of Schrodinger's Maneuver. That's my point. Will your BM really have all those abilities you just listed? Are you sure? Because you finished you points with, "That doesn't even list all of them. Do I really need to go on?". Maneuvers aren't Pokemon. You can't collect 'em all.

And I feel I need to reiterate, there are going to be plenty of rounds, in play, where you will strongly desire to use a particular maneuver and will not be able to. Not just because you failed to chose it in the first place. But even for the ones you did take, because a die roll resulted in your not being able to. Or because you couldn't reach the target. Or because of any number of other reasons. It just happens. A lot more than you'd think. I know. I've played a BM.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

My friend plays a BM, so far every time he has wanted to use sweeping strike (I think that's the name) he has failed to connect with the initial strike. He has more luck with commander's strike and having the rogue get another shot in. The dice all too often seem to roll poorly for him.

I feel his pain. I had such a time when I was looking to use Disarming Attack. I'd miss. Or even when I did connect and finally get to use it, the opponent would make his save to resist.

Heck, more than once I've used Feinting Attack, expended the die, got the advantage, and then promptly miss with the subsequent attack.

If only my charop/tactical skills were more awesome, maybe these things wouldn't happen to me.

 

[Lehrbuch]

That's a poor analogy, because you're conflating complexity with difficulty. The champion might be more difficult to play because it has leverage narrative considerations instead of using abilities built into the rules, but that doesn't make it complex.

It's not an analogy; it's a fact (or at least an opinion)!

Anyway, perhaps you are right, but that seems to imply that you think a "complex" character is simply one with more abilities and higher numbers written down on the character sheet.

Surely, it is better to consider the "complex" character the one that requires more system mastery and player engagement to play effectively?

...After all, those narrative considerations are available to EVERY character.

Yes, but subclasses, like the Battlemaster, are easier to play because they have a mechanic like superiority dice you can simply resort to instead of requiring you to do something complex like feck about with considering how to gain advantage and so forth from the in-play circumstances.

It's not like choosing whether or not use a superiority dice (or whether or not to cast a spell, for that matter) is really a hopelessly complex task that requires a PhD and vast computational effort.

 

[SmokingSkull]

It does depend on actual play, because honestly your campaign experiences will vary. Playing today on my Champion I kicked a lot of ghost butt (I annihilated one with my pike) additionally I took a chunk out of the really big earth elemental that popped out of the ground and decided to almost crush our Shadowmancer (MC Rogue/Warlock/Monk). While it's true that the BM's maneuver's can do many things you have to pick and choose. You only can swap them out at levels you can choose new maneuvers at, not before so you do have to select carefully. All this assumptions that all BM's have the same maneuvers and fight the same types of fights over and over is irrelevant.

Imo they're not that amazing, especially in a campaign where there's lack of short rests (the one I'm playing actually). Although that is also my personal bias showing but I digress. Some people just want to play something they don't have to manage much and Champion is it. However I don't agree that it's necessarily a new player friendly class, after all you can make it as complex or as simple as you desire. I say that cause I play with feats on mine, and while that's not true for every campaign in mine at least I can choose them and do.

Hell if I wanted maneuvers that badly I'd pick up the Martial Adept feat, then I can have maneuvers and a better crit threat range (Idc that's it's only 2 with a d6 SD, so what?). But as always this is just my opinion, take it for what you will but don't distort it for what it's not.

 

[krakistophales]

You may need to accept that that is not how public forums work. I recently heard a clever (IMO) idiom involving modern life: "People today seek confirmation, not conversation." Your request above is a great example of that. After all, the vast majority of individuals in this thread have disagreed with your root premise. Don't you think that's something you need to consider moving forward?


Did you not read the point I made in direct rebuttal to your "etc" post? Have you played a BM? If so, which maneuvers did you actually select? Because its easy to white-room theorize that some amoebic BM always has the exact perfect maneuver he need for a given moment. Until you actually have to put pen to paper. It's like a game of Schrodinger's Maneuver. That's my point. Will your BM really have all those abilities you just listed? Are you sure? Because you finished you points with, "That doesn't even list all of them. Do I really need to go on?". Maneuvers aren't Pokemon. You can't collect 'em all.

And I feel I need to reiterate, there are going to be plenty of rounds, in play, where you will strongly desire to use a particular maneuver and will not be able to. Not just because you failed to chose it in the first place. But even for the ones you did take, because a die roll resulted in your not being able to. Or because you couldn't reach the target. Or because of any number of other reasons. It just happens. A lot more than you'd think. I know. I've played a BM.

Nope, that isn't how public forums work. I omit plenty of threads because the purpose of them doesn't agree with me, and simply getting on there to offer a contrary opinion would be a waste of everyone's time, rather than adding something productive to what the OP wanted in the first place.

And I played a battlemaster to level 12. I never had a problem with not being able to use my maneuvers whenever I wanted to. In fact, the only problem with my maneuvers was that I had so few of them per short rest.

 

[TwoSix]

If only my charop/tactical skills were more awesome, maybe these things wouldn't happen to me.

Have you tried casting bless?

 

[TwoSix]

It's not an analogy; it's a fact (or at least an opinion)!

Anyway, perhaps you are right, but that seems to imply that you think a "complex" character is simply one with more abilities and higher numbers written down on the character sheet.

Surely, it is better to consider the "complex" character the one that requires more system mastery and player engagement to play effectively?

I have no desire to get into any further semantic debates about the meaning of "complex"; suffice it to say that I consider the class with more possible options and more resources to manage to be the more complex one.

Yes, but subclasses, like the Battlemaster, are easier to play because they have a mechanic like superiority dice you can simply resort to instead of requiring you to do something complex like feck about with considering how to gain advantage and so forth from the in-play circumstances.

It's not like choosing whether or not use a superiority dice (or whether or not to cast a spell, for that matter) is really a hopelessly complex task that requires a PhD and vast computational effort.

I feel like this argument is getting derailed. Champion is fine. If you don't think it's good enough, buff up its crit range, problem solved. Battlemaster is also fine. Fighter (or other martial class) with complexity approaching casters is still an unmet need for a section of the player base (estimated size of that group depends on your POV).

 

[krakistophales]

That's what I said. Up the crit range to a max of 25%, or 16, fix remarkable athlete to full proficiency, and instead of the extra fighting style, which equates to everyone taking +1 AC anyway, allow a choice of a flat +1 AC or +1 to hit and damage, like an expert of arms or armor kinda thing. The regeneration can stay the same cuz it doesn't matter anyway.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have no desire to get into any further semantic debates about the meaning of "complex"; suffice it to say that I consider the class with more possible options and more resources to manage to be the more complex one.

Fair enough. One thing that went sideways in the call for the 'simple fighter' leading up to the playtest was that the obvious thing to call the opposite was 'complex,' when no one really wants a complex class for the sake of the complexity, they want an option-rich, interesting, viable class - factors which carry a cost in complexity. Willingness to pay that cost is not 'wanting complexity.'

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Er, that's...not what TwoSix is speaking of. He means a spellcasting class (or subclass) with the same kind of "no thought needed" features. And no, I don't mean that in the sense that a Champion player never thinks at all, only that you don't have to do any special planning/coordination/prediction/selection etc. to employ its resources. You don't prepare anything, you don't build for anything, you don't have long-term investment or any significant system mastery requirements for entry (unlike, say, the Blade Warlock). You just make the rolls you'd already make--ability checks and attack rolls. None of the things you've chosen as examples has anything like "fling magic as your core shtick without spending significant time at every level planning out your abilities."

Also, just to go through why none of those things works...
Eldritch Knight: Has spell slots and must choose spells known from a (restricted) list.
Multiclass Champion: Unrelated to the subject at hand, as the goal is a pure caster as simple as a Champion, not a Champion with spells.
Valor Bard: Spell slots, spells known, for starters. Magical Secrets is WAY too plan-y/think-y for this context.
Feat: Doesn't--and shouldn't--turn a character into a pure caster as simple as the Champion.

The closest example I can think of in any D&D game--since 5e doesn't have a "Champion-like spellcaster"--is the 4e Elementalist subclass of the Sorcerer. You pretty much just pick your elemental affinity at the start, and...that largely (though not absolutely) dictates the direction of your character from there on out. It's an imperfect example because 4e doesn't so much do the "you don't have any resources to plan or options to winnow, you just roll standard rolls well" thing--even the Slayer, the closest approximation of a truly-simple-as-simple-can-be class, still had to make resource decisions and interfaced with other intricacies of the system. But the complexity/intricacy difference between the Slayer and the Elementalist is...close to, but not completely, non-existent, and that's what really matters here.

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.

*sigh* I keep seeing this idea, that things which aren't "needed" shouldn't be created. I don't understand it. There is no class that is "needed." There is no mechanic that is "needed." Nothing whatsoever in the rules is "needed" in the sense that there is no specific rule or concept logically necessitated for the game. So it is spurious to use such a strict sense of "need" to try to explain away the lack/non-presence (depending on your perspective) of any particular thing. And any looser sense will put in some concept of "goal" or "intent," which would mean that there could be contexts where someone--e.g. TwoSix--"needs" to (in order to meet that goal).

Furthermore: wanting "long, drawn-out, tactical combats" is unrelated to wanting a class that doesn't interface with the Spells-And-Spell-Slots system in any meaningful way, but which nevertheless provides a rich and intricate pool of alternative options.

Or, to put it differently: Spells don't "need" to be the only intricate, rich resource-expenditure mechanic.

Edit:
Okay, somehow I missed that this post was super far back. And that most of what I'd said was already said in the thread (Tony Vargas in particular). So I apologize for that. I came to it all completely independently, though, so I'm just gonna leave it here.