D&D 5E Fixing the Champion

[Quartz]

I think we can all agree that the champion archetype for the fighter is underwhelming

Nope. While the fighter class as a whole is a bit weak - IMHO it needs a feat / ASI at level 10 - the Champion archetype is fine for its purpose: the drop-in player, the sidekick, the hired bodyguard, and the like.

 

[Miladoon]

Agree. A PC with the opportunity for a good HP total, a good rate of resting HP recovery, (both due to a d10 HD), proficiency in good weapons and good armour, and (at higher levels) the extra attack feature, pretty much has everything that makes her an effective fighter in 5e.

The archetype features really just add opportunities to be slightly more effective in some circumstances, or to be equally effective but in a slightly different way. Battlemaster and Champion do offer different opportunities to modulate effectiveness. However, in-play I think that the main difference between the two archetypes is really just that the Battlemaster requires a bit more player thought to take advantage of these opportunities.

The Battlemaster can be really effective in-play if the correct circumstances do arise, and the player recognises this and responds appropriately. Equally the Battlemaster sometimes offers very little over a "no-archetype" fighter. For example, if the player has frittered away all the superiority dice in a flurry of needless but fancy footwork in a previous encounter. Or if the player is "saving" superiority dice for the next encounter.

I give you xp with a caution. Thought is the wrong word. Accounting is how I see it. Knowing how much thought players put into play is like playing hockey with no goalie. A position very difficult to defend.

 

[Lehrbuch]

I give you xp with a caution. Thought is the wrong word. Accounting is how I see it. Knowing how much thought players put into play is like playing hockey with no goalie. A position very difficult to defend.

True.

I was trying to contrast the idea that the small effectiveness boosts granted by the Battlemaster require the player to actively do something, to make a decision to spend a resource. Which means that the player could also not achieve the effectiveness boost by making the wrong decision (either "wasting" or "saving" the resource at the wrong time). Making the right decision in a sustained way implies the player might be thinking sensibly (and vice versa).

Whereas, the effectiveness boosts granted by the Champion simply require "remembering to follow the new rules added by the class features". So don't require the player to make a decision. Although, that is admittedly unfair, as the Champion really becomes effective when attack rolls are made with the advantage. Arranging for that to happen in a continuous way does require thought, and probably tactical play that involves multiple PCs.

 

[Hussar]

Hrm, that's an interesting thought [MENTION=6811402]Lehrbuch[/MENTION] and something I hadn't considered.

Would it be fair to say that Champions become more effective when other PC's take advantage of mechanics to play to the Champion's strengths, while a Battlemaster makes the group more effective, but, less often takes advantage of other PC's making him more effective?

That's ugly wording and I hope my meaning came across. Champions are best when supported by other characters, while battlemasters are best supporting other characters.

Hrm, I hadn't thought of it that way. That actually makes sense to me. Even if my garbled point might be gibberish to everyone else. Which, thinking about it, would go a LONG way to explaining why I had such a problem with my champion. We're in a group where no one really synergizes. No buffing characters at all. Hrmmmm.... yeah, I think I can see that.

 

[Miladoon]

True.

I was trying to contrast the idea that the small effectiveness boosts granted by the Battlemaster require the player to actively do something, to make a decision to spend a resource. Which means that the player could also not achieve the effectiveness boost by making the wrong decision (either "wasting" or "saving" the resource at the wrong time). Making the right decision in a sustained way implies the player might be thinking sensibly (and vice versa).

Whereas, the effectiveness boosts granted by the Champion simply require "remembering to follow the new rules added by the class features". So don't require the player to make a decision. Although, that is admittedly unfair, as the Champion really becomes effective when attack rolls are made with the advantage. Arranging for that to happen in a continuous way does require thought, and probably tactical play that involves multiple PCs.

I like both points here.

Chiefly the first one, because I never thought of it like that. The thought going into my current Battlemaster is party survival overall, while 'saving' resources to lengthen the day. My worry is that the party will level to a point where they need less effects and more damage because they are lining up effects themselves. Like, trip on a held target.

 

[krakistophales]

While I understand that D and D is PvE and a collaborative game, I'm trying to improve the champion as a stand alone option.

Honestly, crits suck in 5e and an archetype that grants a measly 10% increase to already lackluster crits is just bad. I saw a great idea on here that someone said that the champion could simply add his proficiency bonus to damage, which would keep along with the theme of no resource management and a "constantly on" power, while making the champion a solid option and still simple enough for the new player to grab and go with.

Then, instead of the 2nd crit expansion, give them something like when they crit, they deal maximum damage and they would be the only archetype that doubles static damage on a crit. This would make the champion actually worth it I believe.

That, and I don't know why people would cry about remarkable athlete allowing a full proficiency bonus. So what that the fighter has a handful of physical skills on par with expertise? A "remarkable" athlete should.

 

[Lehrbuch]

Would it be fair to say that Champions become more effective when other PC's take advantage of mechanics to play to the Champion's strengths...

The champion is more effective when she attacks with advantage. So is every character making an attack roll, of course, but a champion attacking with the advantage has a just under 20% chance of a critical (increased from just 10% without the advantage). Whereas another sort of character has 5% chance of critical without advantage that increases to just under 10% with the advantage. A 20% chance of critical is pretty good. You can expect one critical in a short fight and several in a long fight (although, as it is random you might not get the rate you expect, of course).

So, yes. If the other PCs are helping the champion to gain the advantage, the champion will be more effective. Whether that makes the party as a whole more effective depends on what the other PCs could be doing instead, which depends on the specific context.

 

[Hussar]

No, I'm convinced. I hadn't considered that angle before. I wonder if it wouldn't be good advice to steal the champion towards two weapon fighting or pole arm mastery plus perhaps a Sentinal feat as well. The goal would be to jack up the number of attacks in order to trigger that crit. While individual attacks might be weaker, the volume would make up for it.

It is kind of a shame though that sword and board champions, particularly in a group that is not interested in generating advantage on a regular basis, will still likely lag pretty badly vs other fighter archetypes. One that has a Druid liberally using faerie fire would be fine but without a helping hand from another PC, the champion really can give very lacklustre results.

 

[Quartz]

It is kind of a shame though that sword and board champions, particularly in a group that is not interested in generating advantage on a regular basis, will still likely lag pretty badly vs other fighter archetypes.

Really? Take the Shield Master feat, bash the opponent prone with your bonus action, then let rip with up to 4 attacks (more with Action Surge), all with Advantage. Plus your mates get to attack with Advantage too.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Really? Take the Shield Master feat, bash the opponent prone with your bonus action, then let rip with up to 4 attacks (more with Action Surge), all with Advantage. Plus your mates get to attack with Advantage too.

You know, it's always annoyed me that Fighters get a fourth attack...at level 20. Because then everyone uses 4 attacks as the benchmark for how much damage a Fighter can do, even though 3 attacks is the most that the vast majority of Fighters will ever see, and a good portion won't even see that.