Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lancelot" data-source="post: 6802104" data-attributes="member: 30022">Add me to the list of people saying: &quot;Champion is fine, and we don't all agree that it's the nerfed version of the fighter.&quot;The fighter is the #1 top class choice in my two gaming groups, and the Champion is the #1 top archetype selected by my players.The changes you recommend would be instantly rejected at my table as over-powered and unnecessary. Crit range on 15-20 means that over half of your attacks are critical hits assuming you have advantage, which is pretty easy to gain (.7 squared = .49 chance of not getting a critical hit). Allowing the fighter to take attack bonuses or AC bonuses that stack on their original fighting style choice, rather than forcing them to take a different fighting style, starts pushing the limits of bounded accuracy....but, heck, it's your game and your table. If you're the DM and you think these changes are justified at your table, go for it. I would never want to see this as formal errata though. The Champion is fine as it is, and particularly fine for a new player. It's one of the best classes for introducing someone to the game. No extraneous resources to track, no dice pools, just focus on the roleplaying. If it's mechanically boring for the experienced player, then good news! There are dozens of other classes / sub-classes that you can play. I'm actually disappointed there are no wizard-equivalents for the Champion. For example, the wizard class that has only three spells it can ever cast, no slots to track, escalating damage based on level. A spellcasting class for the puzzled cousin who has never heard of D&amp;D before, but wants to dip his toe in. Or for the kids that we're trying to get interested in the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lancelot, post: 6802104, member: 30022"] Add me to the list of people saying: "Champion is fine, and we [B]don't[/B] all agree that it's the nerfed version of the fighter." The fighter is the #1 top class choice in my two gaming groups, and the Champion is the #1 top archetype selected by my players. The changes you recommend would be instantly rejected at my table as over-powered and unnecessary. Crit range on 15-20 means that over half of your attacks are critical hits assuming you have advantage, which is pretty easy to gain (.7 squared = .49 chance of [I]not[/I] getting a critical hit). Allowing the fighter to take attack bonuses or AC bonuses that stack on their original fighting style choice, rather than forcing them to take a different fighting style, starts pushing the limits of bounded accuracy. ...but, heck, it's your game and your table. If you're the DM and you think these changes are justified at your table, go for it. I would never want to see this as formal errata though. The Champion is fine as it is, and [I]particularly fine[/I] for a new player. It's one of the best classes for introducing someone to the game. No extraneous resources to track, no dice pools, just focus on the roleplaying. If it's mechanically boring for the experienced player, then good news! There are dozens of other classes / sub-classes that you can play. I'm actually disappointed there are no wizard-equivalents for the Champion. For example, the wizard class that has only three spells it can ever cast, no slots to track, escalating damage based on level. A spellcasting class for the puzzled cousin who has never heard of D&D before, but wants to dip his toe in. Or for the kids that we're trying to get interested in the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification