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

[I'm A Banana]

First, Jack of All Trades comes at second level. Remarkable Athlete comes at 7th.

Yeah. I mean, we can't really examine these things in isolation from other class abilities, but RA is clearly weaker. It just doesn't seem nearly as pointless as it did at first to me. So I'm giving that initial assessment of mine a second thought. I don't think it's quite as weak as it seems on paper. "+2 to Str, Dex, and Con checks" would have been almost empty in 4e or 3e, a non-nothing bit. It seems like that may not be the case in 5e in practice.

Second there are such a thing as skills.

A "Remarkable Athlete" can never be a superior athlete. Either they are trained in Athletics (in which case they get diddly squat for their athletics from Remarkable Athlete) or they are a second rate Athlete (in which case they are decent - but not as good as someone with a skill proficiency in athletics). Likewise Stealth.

That's the same thing a Jack of All Trades will face. My Minobard will never be as good at Investigation checks as our party's INT-monkeys. I will not be as good as a specialist.

However, being that good isn't necessary. Bounded Accuracy means that even nonspecialists have at least a moderate chance of success, and half-proficiency significantly improves that moderate chance. It also shores up weaknesses -- though this is probably more common to experience with Jack, one of the things I noticed was that I no longer make any active roll with a penalty.

While I'm never going to be the first choice for seeing through an illusion, I can certainly help, and if I find myself in a situation where for some reason I'm the only one able to make the check, or if I am for some reason forced to, I will not be dead weight.

Remarkable Athletes will never be the first choice for Stealth in a party with a Dex-monkey rogue with Stealth expertise. But it's not really necessary to be at or even NEAR that level of skill to be able to participate meaningfully. This isn't 3e or 4e where if you don't have the highest skill bonus in a party you might as well not participate. Every +1 does count.

Most out of combat rolls are in my experience skill rolls. And Remarkable Athlete only puts you in the band of "The person you call on when you do not have someone trained in the skill". Because Skills are a thing. It helps one of your saving throws (which is good) - but you're already proficient in the other two physical stats.

The interpretation is that this language helps saving throws, too? Huh, I was reading that it doesn't (a check as distinct from a save).

Maybe my bard just got a little more awesome.

Second, even if we were to accept your claim that it gives you a bonus on half your out of combat rolls then it would only do so under one specific circumstance. That all your trained skills were mental skills. And this is where being seventh level makes a large difference. Either as a fighter you spend your first six levels untrained in physical skills (which is weird) or you retrain - and take a penalty to all the physical skills you retrained.

Remarkable Athlete is significantly less than half of Jack of All Trades.

I dunno how many fighters are trained in every Str/Dex/Con skill (Though an Urchin Fighter could pull it off!), but the chapter on using ability scores specifically mentions that not every check falls under the camp of a skill, and includes examples for each ability score, such as forcing open doors, breaking free of bonds, squeezing through tunnels, hanging onto a wagon as it drags you, tipping over statues, stop rolling boulders, steer a chariot, control a cart, pick a lock, disable a trap, tie a knot, wriggle out of bonds, play an instrument, craft an intricate object, hold your breath, endure a forced march, go without sleep, survive without food or water, or drink a lot of alcohol quickly.

That doesn't exactly seem marginal to me.

While my experience in 4e was that most noncombat checks were skill checks, I don't know that this remains necessarily true in 5e. "General" skills like Endurance and Thievery were dropped, and I'm thinking this is intentional. Skills seem to be much more specific, and much more about getting more reliable successes.

I'm still not convinced that Remarkable Athlete is good enough, but I wouldn't write it off. You don't need a +4 to compete with someone who has a +6 in 5e, and people won't always be able to apply that full bonus.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah. I mean, we can't really examine these things in isolation from other class abilities, but RA is clearly weaker. It just doesn't seem nearly as pointless as it did at first to me. So I'm giving that initial assessment of mine a second thought. I don't think it's quite as weak as it seems on paper. "+2 to Str, Dex, and Con checks" would have been almost empty in 4e or 3e, a non-nothing bit. It seems like that may not be the case in 5e in practice.

It would have been a bit bigger than some abilities. Despite being +2 to some Str, Dex, and Con checks.

That's the same thing a Jack of All Trades will face. My Minobard will never be as good at Investigation checks as our party's INT-monkeys. I will not be as good as a specialist.

Bards from memory also get Expertise. What the bard's good at they can be really good at.

This isn't 3e or 4e where if you don't have the highest skill bonus in a party you might as well not participate. Every +1 does count.

*Grumbles about 4e being put into the 3e bucket there when it's intentionally set up with its own form of bounded accuracy*

While my experience in 4e was that most noncombat checks were skill checks, I don't know that this remains necessarily true in 5e.

Enough in 4e that in my retroclone I declared "Death to ability scores" and just use skills.

"General" skills like Endurance and Thievery were dropped,

Thievery's merely been split into Sleight of Hand and Thieves' Tools.

 

[dco]

Regeneration while bloodied I'll grant.

Remarkable Athlete? +2-+3 to skills you aren't trained in? It's handy. But I wouldn't call it potent.

The specialized guy will get +3 bonus from proficiency till he reaches 2 lvls more, a Champion without the skill +2 and the bonus can be applied to all rolls including those without a skill.
It's also very good that is rounded up, at lvl 13 you already get the maximum bonus of the ability (+3). Great bonus taking into account the maximum for proficiency is +6 when you reach level 17.
Ah, and you are better with running long jumps.

This ability helps the Champion invest in other skills where he is not going to have the same sinergy from bonuses from his stats if he typically focuses in STR and CON, and in all rolls involving those stats and Dexterity he has a nice bonus. In a game where a Fighter starts with proficiency in 4 skills and one tool it is very potent.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Are you assuming that, regardless of the number of rounds that pass, the Battle Master is always using all of its superiority dice? Because that's a theoretical position which is fairly hard to achieve in the field.

Common sense says that the Champion will start outperforming the Battle Master, on a per-round basis, as soon as the Battle Master runs out of dice - so there's some incentive to saving dice for later. Common sense also says that the Battle Master will under-perform, as a whole, if it ever goes into a short rest without having yet expended all of its dice - so there's also incentive for spending all of your dice as soon as you possibly can.

And since you never have any idea when you will get to rest or not, the practical efficiency of the Battle Master will trend toward being somewhat worse than the theoretical efficiency. The Champion, meanwhile, is always operating a peak efficiency, and will thus tend to outperform the Battle Master over all.

The assumption is that the Battle Master uses all of his superiority dice. Assuming he uses at least one die every round, this will happen fairly quickly. Even if he only uses one every 2 or 3 rounds, this will still mean he will use them all up before a Champion catches up in damage output (in other words, it doesn't affect the numbers).

On the point about Champions pulling ahead of Battle Masters once they run out of dice, common sense may be technically accurate, but it is functionally ineffective. The Battle Master's superiority dice are so superior to the Champions criticals, that it takes many, many rounds for a Champion to catch up to a Battle Master who used up all his superiority dice as quickly as he could. [Edit: I just realized that you were referring to his effectiveness in damage output at that point, in the boss fight for example, and on that I would agree with you. I would also agree that it in an important consideration in actual play, as you wouldn't necessarily want to waste dice on mooks and then be at your least effective when you need it most. I left my original commentary in so others could see the distinction.]

Correct on the next point. If the Battle Master does not expend all of his dice before a short rest comes up, that is to the advantage of the Champion. Usually it won't be enough of an advantage for the Champion to catch up, but it will definitely help him out.

While the variability of short rests is a factor, when you are talking about needing 20+ rounds to catch up, it is probably going to be rare to go that long without a short rest. That would be five combats of four rounds each. Still, in marathon limited rest adventures Champion can pull ahead.

I think the most important point you make is that the degree to which a Battle Master rations his superiority dice has an effect. If the Battle Master does not use all of his dice before a short rest, the Champion needs less time to catch up. So if a player of a Battle Master is conservative with his dice, always keeping one or two in reserve, that would cause the Champion to catch up fairly regularly (I think--haven't done the math on that).

Another minor aspect in favor of the Champion is that his initiative bonus means he'll occasionally be getting in extra attacks compared to the Battle Master (due to combat being over before the Battle Master comes up in initiative in the final round).

A Battle Master who uses up his superiority dice as fast as he can is going to pull ahead in damage output under most adventuring situations. A Battle Master who holds onto those dice for just the right moment, and usually ends up with one or two left by the time a short rest comes along, is going to be more balanced in damage output with Champion, and probably more effective overall, since he'll be pulling off the right maneuvers when he needs them.

Now, were I playing a Battle Master, I'd likely be in the category of conserving my dice for the right moments, and therefore I wouldn't have much (or any at higher levels) higher damage output than a Champion. So for me they would be pretty close to balanced. It definitely does depend on how you play your Battle Master.

Thanks for the thoughts. I think they are perhaps more balanced than I thought given the actual dynamics of playing a Battle Master, and the unlikelihood that most people are picking them just so they can burst their damage output and leave Champions in the dust.

Personally I like all three of the fighter subclasses. If I was playing a multiclass fighter concept (other than Eldritch Knight) I'd almost always pick Champion because I wouldn't want to mess with maneuvers. If I were playing a single class fighter concept, I'd almost always play Battle Master because I would want to use maneuvers.

Practical Conclusion: A Battle Master who uses his superiority dice as quickly as possible without rationing will almost always have higher overall damage output than a Champion. Few players will actually play Battle Masters in that manner, as it negates much of their other effectiveness. Therefore in most actual scenarios the Champion is more effective than the raw damage output numbers would indicate.

It helps one of your saving throws (which is good) - but you're already proficient in the other two physical stats.

It doesn't apply to saves.

 

[dco]

Yes, Battlemaster can output more damage specially at lower levels when they have less attacks and has more flexibility in combat. But he has a limited amount of special actions.

On the other hand the Champion is a better tank at higher levels, at level 10 possible +1AC if he had another fighting style, at lvl 17 free regenerate. He is also better with more skills and abilities at lvl 7 and has better probabilities of criticals (good with 3-5 attacks and advantages) since lvl 3.

I can't see how the Champions is weak, but it needs higher levels to shine more.

 

[teclis2000]

I'm considering to dip into the fighter (champion) with my paladin (planned paladin 16/fighter 4).

I've got the Shield Master feat, so I can hope to knock the enemy prone and use the advantage for crits and the improved divine smite for extra damage dice to double.

Since one can spend spell slots for extra dice after hitting with a crit, these should get doubled these as well!

Hence, in my opinion the champion is a better option for a paladin than the battle master since the improved crits really get boosted.

 

[sobchak]

I'm in a three player party w/a champion. I wouldn't play one personally. But for a player who is not rules or system focused, I think the champion succeeds on a design level. Fighter is a strong class overall, so champion does not hurt us much.

As others have pointed out, it is the randomness of the expanded crit range. Sure, you will statistically get more crits, and more damage in theory. But you may applying that crit damage against a kobold and wasting it.

Combat is all about resource allocation for me, and the champion cannot do that.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I like options and hence prefer the Battle Master. It's not always about the overall damage, but other factors like when the damage is done, allowing movement for a critical action, etc. If you want to chop meat, then the Champion is not a bad option, I suppose. But if you want to operate within the principles of war, the Battle Master seems more advantageous.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The more options a class gives you, the more likely you'll be able to make decisions that lead to you putting in a better than baseline performance. In that sense, sure, the Battlemaster is a little better than the Champion. In the same sense (specifically), casters are so much better than both the Champion and Battlemaster that said difference between those 2 fighter archetypes is moot. If you want to play a simple character, make few decisions, and make an adequate base-line contribution while other characters make decisions that affect the outcome of each encounter and the ultimate success of the campaign, play the Champion. If you want to make interesting, meaningful, decisions, play a caster (preferably a 'full' caster) of whatever sort appeals to you.

 

[neobolts]

Whether you want to play a Champion or a Battlemaster can be based on your preferred amount of complexity, desire for an old school feel, and/or the number of adult beverages you consume during the game.