D&D 5E Is the Champion weak compared to Battle Master?

[Bayonet]

This is interesting, especially since I am a newb player with a character about to reach 3rd level. Both archetypes really fit my character ) Noble Tourney Fighter... Champion from years dominating in the lists, or Battle Master from his experience bullying squires around the practice yards...) so the Roleplaying side of each is all good for me, on the Roll-Playing side...


The way I see it, Champion is the choice for those who don't want to think too much about abilities beyond "I hit the orc again, harder" and "I do that physical thing others are attempting, only better". While that works well for a fighter build (and I may roll a new fighter that does just that for another game) I really think that Battle Master does better for the player who wants to support his group more. Rally, Maneuvering Attack, Distracting Strike, and Commanders Strike give one a lot of chances to help others in the group, which may work well for the player who feels his fighter is left out whenever any support problems come up.

Champion for the Star Player, Battle Master for the Team Player, is what I'm saying.


Now, that being said, can someone explain Commander's Strike to me more clearly?

When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks and use a Bonus action to direct one of your companions to strike.

Does this mean that at low-levels, with only one attack per round, I can either attack OR use this ability, or can I attack AND use this ability as a bonus action? I don't really like the idea of forgoing my own attack just to let the Rogue take another swipe...

 

[fuindordm]

Champion for the Star Player, Battle Master for the Team Player, is what I'm saying.

Now, that being said, can someone explain Commander's Strike to me more clearly?

When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks and use a Bonus action to direct one of your companions to strike.

Does this mean that at low-levels, with only one attack per round, I can either attack OR use this ability, or can I attack AND use this ability as a bonus action? I don't really like the idea of forgoing my own attack just to let the Rogue take another swipe...

That's how I read it too. It's a maneuver for the player who wants the TEAM to win, even if it means they don't get to shine personally.

For example, imagine that the rogue has advantage on a hulking brute--she already hit it once with sneak atttack, but it wasn't enough to take it down. On your turn, you can forgo your attack to grant her another sneak attack, hopefully killing the brute before it can smack down one of the PCs.

Or for a more typical example, you scan the battlefield and note that of the three gnolls still standing, your own opponent has not been wounded yet but the one next to the ranger is grievously hurt. If you can't kill your gnoll before the monsters attack next, it makes good tactical sense to give the ranger an extra attack to kill his opponent.

 

[brehobit]

Now, that being said, can someone explain Commander's Strike to me more clearly?

When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks and use a Bonus action to direct one of your companions to strike.

Does this mean that at low-levels, with only one attack per round, I can either attack OR use this ability, or can I attack AND use this ability as a bonus action? I don't really like the idea of forgoing my own attack just to let the Rogue take another swipe...

Yep, at lower levels Commander's Strike is pretty weak. Not only do you give up your attack action, you also lose your bonus action. And you have to "pay" for it. Which would be fine if there was a big payoff, but the rogue is probably doing only 3d6+3 (13.5) and you are probably doing 7.5-10.5 on average. Yes, they also get your d8, but you probably could have gotten that for you. If you have a bonus attack from something (two-handed fighter, pole-arm feat, etc.) then this is really not too useful at low levels. Though there are times it would be huge--mainly when you can't engage the baddy you want to and someone else (ideally the rogue) can.

But once we hit higher levels, the utility goes way up. Fighters scale their damage by more attacks, rogues by level. So giving up one attack (and a bonus action and possibly a later reaction as you lose a die that might have let you use one of your otherwise unused reactions...) is often going to be well worth it. An assassin with surprise getting two attacks rather than one can entirely change an encounter (I _think_ that works).

That said, if you are someone who enjoys rolling the dice, commander's strike can feel pretty lame. But a lot of people don't really care (they just want to do what's optimal for the party), or prefer to let others do the die rolling. 4e leaders could often do something like this (most commonly as I recall with a power called Commander's Strike) and people quickly saw that those guys were very (very) helpful.

 

[Bayonet]

Yeah, it makes sense, I'm just not sure if I want to take a maneuver that has me forego my own attack at 3rd level, maybe I'll pick it up at 7th. If my DM lets me use it as a bonus action, It's definitely a pick right now, though.
Right now I'm thinking Rally, Riposte and Maneuvering Attack. Riposte for personal fight utility, Rally and Maneuvering to help out the team.

I just really like the idea of an imperious noble fighter character ordering his team-mates around like a maladjusted bully.

On Maneuvering attack "There! No go be in the way of someone less important!"

On Rally "Brilliant Strategy, Tiefling! Let's all just bleed everywhere and hope that they slip! Clean yourself up and get back to work!"

 

[brehobit]

Yeah, it makes sense, I'm just not sure if I want to take a maneuver that has me forego my own attack at 3rd level, maybe I'll pick it up at 7th. If my DM lets me use it as a bonus action, It's definitely a pick right now, though.

You give up an attack and a bonus action.

Right now I'm thinking Rally, Riposte and Maneuvering Attack. Riposte for personal fight utility, Rally and Maneuvering to help out the team.

I just really like the idea of an imperious noble fighter character ordering his team-mates around like a maladjusted bully.

On Maneuvering attack "There! No go be in the way of someone less important!"

On Rally "Brilliant Strategy, Tiefling! Let's all just bleed everywhere and hope that they slip! Clean yourself up and get back to work!"

That's great. I may steal that character idea from you...

 

[Zardnaar]

One thing to consider is range as well. For example I had a polearm master champion encounter a flying Dragon. If he was a battlemaster giving up his attack to let the archer ranger have another shot makes for a great idea.

 

[Quartz]

Battlemaster = Roy; Champion = Belkar.

 

[CapnZapp]

A simple question. It seems to me that Battle Master just blows Champion out of the water in most situations.

Am I missing something?

Not really.

The Battle Master is more powerful, sure, but it also requires more work from the player.

A player wishing only to have fun with his or her friends once in a while, but not wishing to really study up on what options are best, or planning his or her character in between sessions will do just fine with the Champion.

Any player whose enjoyment of the game includes being competitive in combat is probably okay with the extra effort necessary to play a Battle Master well.

The Champion is probably the simplest class/subclass. And as such, it's great that 1) it exists in the game, and 2) it is perfectly okay and does not suck. Choosing Champion might not be the top combat monster, but it is far from a trap choice.

And as such it does a good job in offering newbies something quick and simple

You, however, are not forced to select it. And judging by your concern not to be blown out of the water, it is not a good choice - for you.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Yep. It’s all about simplicity. Some players prefer simplicity. If you prefer more bells and whistles, then that is what the Battle Master is for.

 

[Quartz]

Yeah, it makes sense, I'm just not sure if I want to take a maneuver that has me forego my own attack at 3rd level, maybe I'll pick it up at 7th.

Might be better to leave it to after you get your third attack at 11th level, depending on how your campaign goes.