D&D 5E Fixing the Champion

[Tony Vargas]

Perhaps, but is that what you want to do in play?

Just one example of what might go through someone's head when looking at a class and seeing very little non-combat to it, except for something called "Remarkable Athlete." You might think you're going to win the odd track meet or arm wrestling contest, at least.

Also, the difference between Proficiency and Remarkable Athlete is +1 from levels 7-8, +2 from levels 9 to 16, and +3 from levels 17-20. So while Proficiency is better, it's not huge.

Very little is all that huge under Bounded Accuracy. Expertise is about as huge as it gets. Remarkable Athlete might even be called 'trivial.' Why not let it add to Proficiency instead of being erased by it, then?

It would be like a Fighter giving up Action Surge in exchange for Expertise - not generally a trade worth making.

Generally. In a campaign that emphasized combat significantly less than usual, double DPR for one round once between short rests might not seem like a lot to give up for doubled proficiency in 4 skills by level 6.

Though, really, would a Champion with Expertise in two 'physical' skills instead of Remarkable Athlete be in the least bit game-breaking or overpowered?

Heck, give the Champion every toy the Rogue(thief) gets except SA and, while other Rogues & Fighters might be put out, I doubt CoDzooky or any other full casters, or even many Barbarians, Rangers, or Paladins would be losing any sleep over it.

 

[Lehrbuch]

Though, really, would a Champion with Expertise in two 'physical' skills instead of Remarkable Athlete be in the least bit game-breaking or overpowered?

No. It would just be different. And worse (YMMV).

 

[Tony Vargas]

No. It would just be different. And worse (YMMV).

Why would it be worse for the Champion to be better (potentially 'best,' at a given level, if no one else had expertise in it) at a couple of concept-appropriate skills?

 

[Lehrbuch]

Why would it be worse for the Champion to be better (potentially 'best,' at a given level, if no one else had expertise in it) at a couple of concept-appropriate skills?

Because she would be less good at the other two Physical Skills, and she wouldn't get to a bonus to every other non-skill based STR, DEX, or CON check (note that Initiative is a DEX check) and would also have less opportunity for non-Physical Skill Proficiencies.

 

[krakistophales]

In my play experience? Basically any time he wants it, because players tend to work as a team and there are all kinds of ways a team of characters can get the fighter, and potentially more of the party too, advantage.

Last champion I saw in play was alongside a barbarian that decided to take the wolf option at 3rd level (so as many times as the barbarian could rage the entire party could get advantage on attacks if they wanted it), and a cleric (guiding bolt, though that doesn't apply to more than one attack), and another caster with faerie fire, plus a familiar that could do a help action if somebody really needed advantage right then.

Misquoting the rules is no way to convince me of your position. Reckless attack isn't limited to just the barbarian's first attack, the wolf totem feature you mention benefits not just the barbarian, and barbarians aren't inherently half-orcs so adding the extra die to criticals that only half-orcs get isn't fair comparison.

Sorry, but reckless attack IS limited to the barbarian's first attack. While the wolf totem down the road benefits everyone, it benefits the barbarian on his second attack the most. While I understand that all barbarians aren't half-orcs, I quoted that example to provide the absolute maximum scenario to prove the point that what I propose to change about the champion isn't outrageous.

Lastly, I don't remember needing to convince you of my position.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Sorry, but reckless attack IS limited to the barbarian's first attack.

There is a huge distinction between limited to their first attack, and limited to being activated on their first attack. Please re-read the feature description in the PHB.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

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.

They probably should have had the 4th Attack come online at 17th Level to reinforce the tier structure and then have the 20th level Capstone be tied to the subclass choice. It would make tier comparisons a lot easier across classes in any case.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

They probably should have had the 4th Attack come online at 17th Level to reinforce the tier structure and then have the 20th level Capstone be tied to the subclass choice. It would make tier comparisons a lot easier across classes in any case.

Yeah, but then they would have to think of a new feature for every fighter subclass. Clearly, that's by far too much work.

 

[Uller]

Lastly, I don't remember needing to convince you of my position.

And yet you seem determined to convince people of your position.

You proposed a change because the Champion isn't working for you. People told you why your changes might be problematic. You can either reject or accept that advice and move on. You seem to be taking their criticisms a bit personally. You shouldn't. A few months ago I proposed a change to the stoneskin spell and got a similar response. I don't believe I reacted by taking it personally and becoming argumentative. People made criticisms, I argued my position and eventually decided against the change.

That you have gotten through 8 levels of play with only one attack having advantage is a huge read flag for me. Something is off. I'm not saying your game/group/style is badwrongfun...to each his own. But advantage seems to me to be a core mechanic to the game and the tactician/optimizer in me sees that as the focal point of the champion class. Find ways to get more attack rolls and you will get more chances to crit. Action Surge+Two Weapon Fighting+Advantage = 14 chances at a crit at 11th level. 1-.9^14 is 77% for at least one crit and probably better than even odds at 2 or more. If that doesn't sound like fun to you then, yeah...you either shouldn't play a champion (again...what's wrong with just using 4d8 superiority dice to do extra damage when you want instead of relying on crits?) or go with a straight damage bonus. I'd say +1 at 3rd and +2 at 17th and maybe make crits knock down or push foes. +Prof bonus seems too high to me. 10 hits and you do the same extra damage as BM does with his superiority dice with no need for resource management. That seems a bit over the top to me. YMMV.

As a DM, if a player came to me and said they are finding the champion class to be not living up to expectations the first thing I'd do before modifying the class is tell them and the party to try to give the champion advantage more often. If the player said he wasn't interested in that, I'd hand him 4d8 and tell him all about superiority dice. No advantage necessary.

The greatest thing I've learned so far in this thread is Remarkable Athlete is pretty ho-hum. As a DM I'd just let it stack with skill training but probably not expertise or similar.

 

[Mouseferatu]

There is a huge distinction between limited to their first attack, and limited to being activated on their first attack. Please re-read the feature description in the PHB.

Yep. It very specifically says you gain advantage to Strength-based melee weapon attack rolls (plural) "during this turn." As in, all the ones you make on your turn.