Have we rebalanced the Champion Yet?

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Please stop ignoring the context things were said in.
I am not ignoring it I am pointing out the context is bigger - "You don't have a ton of options with Fighter anyway" - is not just applicable to one other subclass of fighter it is pointing out the context of what kind of character I want to choose to play when I am not DMing even for a half-orc great weapon fighter is not that narrow.
 
I am not ignoring it I am pointing out the context is bigger - "You don't have a ton of options with Fighter anyway" - is not just applicable to one other subclass of fighter it is pointing out the context of what kind of character I want to choose to play when I am not DMing even for a half-orc great weapon fighter is not that narrow.
Context was in relation to battlemaster.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Context was in relation to battlemaster.
Not entirely and it was part of a sequence beginning here.

fearsomepirate said:
Personally, I usually DM, so when I do play, I want a break from managing a bunch of stuff. Champion's by far my favorite Fighter to play.
Me: When I get to play I want to play something i can personally invest in (not much call for doing that with monsters) and monsters and npcs are relatively simple generally they lack individuality - so when I can I like elaborate character design choices and so I still want to feel those and subsequent in play choices are important ie the appeal is lost on me.

His response was in the context of this sub conversation and was about the type of characters we want to play and him saying why he liked the Champion... and me not quite saying it reminds me a bit of playing a monster low options, low choices and low individuality.

I happen to actually agree the Champion is not very distinct from the BM once they enter play because the battlemasters infrequency of maneuver use makes them only hint at Warlords and Fencing masters while not really being one....
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Of course there are. Just as in 2e, there were games played without kits.

The argument is often wielded, in such a way, as to imply that games with feats are invalid or examples of builds, including feats, are abnormal.

Clearly, parity exists, in terms of numbers, between either style of game.
Both, are equally valid, is all I am stating.
Any change to a class, or new option, has to assume a featless game.

Further, a subclass isn’t strong if it’s only strong with a specific feat. If a subclass is only really strong in a specific build, it’s not a strong subclass.
 

Todd Roybark

Adventurer
No, the game needs to be balanced for both games with Feats and Without.
To me, that is a non controversial statement, that everyone would likely agree with.

doc, you may not. Apparently, you seem to be implying D&D does not have to be balanced for the 50% of the tables that use feats.

What is your opinion on the Arcane Archer? The Arcane Archer is the quintessential example of a subclass designed for a specific build....the magic bowman.
This is true wether a game uses feats or not.

The Fighter class is true to the 5e philosophy, that you should not need a build, or a subclass to be decent at the ‘core competencies’ that fall under a classes baliwick.
 

Xeviat

Adventurer
I personally prefer to balance without feats, and then come back and try to make sure the feats are balanced against +2 to a primary ability score.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Looks like its time for everyone to just make their own rebalancing decision for their own game rather than try and convince everyone else to go along with it.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Looks like its time for everyone to just make their own rebalancing decision for their own game rather than try and convince everyone else to go along with it.
Mod Note:
Or, time to not bother so much about getting people to stop talking about a thing. "I told you so," doesn't make you look cool, or like you know more, you know.

Even if it is only trading ideas and getting insight for oneself about what might be called for, the discussion is cool. If you aren't into it, don't spend time trying to get others to stop. Just go find something you are interested, and engage in that.
 
It's got the same damage math as the brute (which I think may be too high).
The Brute is a prime example of what I was saying earlier - it's bonus damage is too high because it requires no effort from the player in order to achieve. Whiteroom DPS alone does not lead to balanced characters, intangibles such as ease of use and synergies with feats must also be taken into account.
 
The Brute is a prime example of what I was saying earlier - it's bonus damage is too high because it requires no effort from the player in order to achieve. Whiteroom DPS alone does not lead to balanced characters, intangibles such as ease of use and synergies with feats must also be taken into account.
Again: if you want, you can play the battlemaster with just as little effort, dumping your superiority dice on every hit. If anything, the "intangibles" argument works in favor of the brute: because you can put more effort into the battlemaster and get more mileage out of those dice, the whiteroom analysis undervalues the battlemaster, meaning on the other end of the balance beam the brute can have more raw damage.

Which is why I've been cagey in saying that the brute damage is overpowered. I've been saying that I think it might be, even taking these battlemaster intangibles into account, because no seriously guys that's a lot of damage. But it's hard to give a definitive yes-or-no answer to the question because the intangibles are, well, intangible.
 
Again: if you want, you can play the battlemaster with just as little effort, dumping your superiority dice on every hit.
Again: You are wrong.

Firstly "effort" come into your character's build. In order to "dump your superiority dice on every hit" you have to select at least one Manoeuvre that allows that. A Battlemaster with Commander's Strike, Disarming Attack and Evasive Footwork (to name the first three in the list that don't give a direct damage boost, there are many more) will have significantly lower average DPS than a Champion (although they might be contributing in other ways).

Secondly, it is the player's responsibility to remember to use consumable resource abilities. Whereas it is the DM's responsibility to inform a player if they have a critical hit.

Thirdly, in a long encounter day the BM who "dumps there superiority dice on every hit" will rapidly fall behind a Champion (how rapidly depends on choice of weapon). Most encounter days are not that long, but it's not "balance" if you design a character around an a priori assumption of short encounter days.
 

Advertisement

Top