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

[Brother MacLaren]

I love fighters, and I love maneuvers, but I generally dislike limited-use martial abilities. Always-on is far, far more appealing conceptually, even if in an actual game it isn't as potent. I like the idea of the character thinking he can keep this up all day, instead of the character rationing out his awesome moves because he can only do them so many times before a rest.

So, for me, I guess the Champion would be a better option (and even he gets saddled with limited-use abilities that I would rather trade away for always-on abilities if possible). Certainly if I were to run 5E I would give players the options for alternatives that rely entirely on "At-Will" or "Fatigue Track" abilities. Maybe the DMG would have something like this, but I doubt it.

I am not opposed to using the fatigue track to limit the really powerful abilities. It feels less artificial. It's not "You are out of ability X and Y until you rest but can still use Z" but rather "That took a lot out of you and now you are fatigued."

 

[fuindordm]

Sounds like a simple fix for verisimilitude.

"After a battle master has run out of superiority dice, they can still use a maneuver if necessary. Doing so grants the superiority die as normal, but also increases the character's exhaustion level by one step."

That's a pretty heavy penalty, so I don't think it's unbalanced.

Another interesting take on it would be to allow the unlimited use of maneuvers, but once superiority dice are gone they:
1. don't get any bonus damage, and
2. can't be used with extra attack.
In this scenario a battle master out of dice could lunge or use commander's strike, but without bonus damage and only once per round.
Allowing this is, I think, a minor power up for the subclass--but it wouldn't be hard to find something to take away from it in exchange.

 

[Joe Liker]

Has anyone run a series of mock battles where the party composition was exactly the same on both sides, except that one had a champ and one a battlemaster? Ideally, the people running each side would trade fighter archetypes each battle.

That's the best way to gain insight into this question.

(I'd even be interested to see what happens when an Eldritch Knight is thrown into the mix.)

 

[Joe Liker]

Speaking of party composition, that may have a big impact on which fighter works better.

In fact, it seems to me, a party with one of each might be better than a party with two of either.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I did some math. Since the thread has kind of died I didn't bother bringing my results, but since it's started up, let me share.

My gut feeling was correct. All other things being equal, the Battle Master out damages the Champion and there is no way around it (other than gross mismanagement of superiority dice by the Battle Master).

I compared the Battle Master and Champion expected damage output at levels 6, 11, 15, and 20. My baseline assumption is the standard human variant, single class, since we are looking at it from the perspective of the simple option. I also went with a greatsword, although it doesn't appear to matter as long as both characters use the same weapon. I assume that a Battle Master is using maneuvers that add his superiority die to damage as well as whatever other effect is included.

At level 6 it would take the Champion 18 rounds of combat between short rests to catch up to the damage output of a Battle Master.

At level 11 that becomes 22 rounds.

At level 15 the Battle Master's ability to regain a superiority die if he is out at the beginning of combat means that the Champion cannot catch up in damage output unless you are dealing with extremely long individual combats (in the vicinity of 13 rounds per battle).

At level 20 the Champion reaches his maximum potential and can equal the Battle Master for damage output as long as there are 13 rounds of combat between short rests (not per battle as at level 15). This seems pretty reasonable, but it requires level 20 to get there.

If you break the principle of going simple and allow both characters to take the Great Weapon Master feat, things look a lot better for the Champion.

At both 6th level and 11th level a GWM Champion can equal Battle Master (GWM or not) in damage output with 8 rounds of combat between short rests.

At 15th level the GWM Champion only needs 4 rounds to catch up.

At 20th level the GWM Champion is caught up in 3 only three rounds.

So if you allow the Great Weapon Master feat the Champion is at least equal at low-level and straight up wins at higher level. Otherwise the Champion is far weaker in damage output, and only becomes potentially competitive at very high levels.

Now, this assume all things are equal. There are three things (and from what I can tell, pretty much only three things) that improve the damage output of the Champion relative the Battle Master.

1. Additional attacks
2. Improved chance to crit on attacks (such as from Advantage)
3. Improved damage on a crit (such as rolling additional damage dice on a crit only--probably through multiclassing)

Nothing else appears to make any significant difference.

So if your fighter is hasted or otherwise granted additional attacks through magic or otherwise, or if he is frequently getting advantage on attacks, Champion will catch up and at some point (I haven't even tried to figure out when that would be, as it is dependent on the nature of the actual effects) even exceed the damage output of the Battle Master. Given a campaign with a normal level of magic and other ways of gaining advantage, it is possible this may even out the damage output of the classes, although in general, my gut tells me that Battle Master still comes out ahead.

Now, I'm a strong critic of the theory that class balance should be based on DPR. There are a lot more things that go into what a class is and what they can do. I'm taking DPR into account because it is an objective measure of comparison. For that comparison to be meaningful we also have to look at the other features that separate the archetypes. For simplicity's sake, I'll mostly assume we are looking at the finished characters at level 20, which is most likely to favor the Champion.

So other than damage output, here is how the Champion and Battle Master compare.

Champion
-Bonus to non-proficient physical ability checks. Since most Champions will be proficient in Athletics, I'll assume it won't apply there. This means it applies to Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, and any other Str, Dex, and Con ability checks that aren't dependent on skills.
-Bonus to jumping distance.
-Bonus to initiative checks.
-Extra Fighting Style. This can allow a degree of flexibility, but for the simplest possible comparison I'll assume that the additional style is Defense for a +1 AC.
-Nice regeneration ability.

Battle Master
-Free artisan tool proficiency.
-Ability to evaluate opponent.
-A variety of special effects through maneuvers.

I'm going to make some personal comparisons here, though others might disagree.

-Bonuses to ability checks and jumping distance are roughly equivalent to the ability to evaluate an opponent, and artisan's tools can be learned with downtime and so have no real relevance. These abilities can be considered to cancel each other out as a matter of preference and playstyle.

-The remaining non-DPR features seem to me to favor Battle Master slightly, but others may disagree.

Conclusions
This leaves us with the balance considerations being that, assuming a campaign goes to high-level, the Champion gets a +1 AC, half proficiency bonus to initiative checks and a nice high-level regeneration ability, compared to Battle Master gaining a variety of special effects through his maneuvers and generally higher damage output (all things being equal).

My personal feeling is that that still puts Battle Master ahead. However if we assume that magic and advantage in a typical D&D campaign is sufficient to even out the damage output, and that we are taking our characters to high-level, then I think they are pretty well balanced.


In other thoughts, I find it interesting that most people seem to focus on the warlord aspects of the Battle Master, while what I really like about them is the maneuvers that have no effect on their allies but are all about granting them cool tricks like disarming, pushing, and otherwise messing with their opponents. I like to think of the subclass as ideal for gladiators and swashbucklers.

 

[dco]

No, it depends a lot on:
- Your party composition
- Your encounters and rests.
- Your luck with dice and possible advantages.
- Your fighting style.
- If you like to roll dice.
- The role you want in your group.

If you are using two weapons you would be losing two attacks per round if you use the commander's strike, and if in the party there isn't a guy that hits hard with one attack that maneuver is a waste of time. If in your party someone can give advantages you are going to see lots of criticals at higher levels.
A Champion have some bonus for some skills, this helps the group, life is not only combat, they also get another fighting style gaining more flexibility or AC, you don't have good people with ranged attacks? a champion with archery, or choose protection if you want to help friends, he could also tank better with +1AC. At lvl 17 there is no doubt he is the best tank of the game with action surges and free regeneration, you need less rests and less heals, those can go to other members. The best thing is your abilities are always accesible.

On the other hand maneuvers give the battlemaster more flexibility in combat, if you like roles as commander or duelist this is a good archetype, you can also go more nova and when you use your dice those are usually more game changing and decisive, the combo with the rogue is a good example, instead of a bit more AC you can have a good parry, etc. But you only have at best 6 superiority dice and you need to rest to recover them, that's 6 maneuvers and one more per encounter when you don't have dices. This is a serious limitation, it's typical to see people reserving their dice waiting to the "right moment" and then you or others lose more life and have to waste other resources of the group.
Outside of combat your contribution is less compared to the Champion.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

At level 6 it would take the Champion 18 rounds of combat between short rests to catch up to the damage output of a Battle Master.

At level 11 that becomes 22 rounds.

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.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The champion does have remarkable athlete and regeneration which are quite potent abilities.

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.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

I don't know that I disagree, but I've got this anecdotal counterpoint: Jack of All Trades.

Remarkable Athlete is about half of Jack of All Trades.

Bounded Accuracy makes applying your Proficiency Bonus kind of a big deal -- it actually increases your total possible result, which means you're not depending as much on raw chance to succeed at a check. +1-+3 is significant in 5e. Especially when it applies to 90% of any checks you're going to make while exploring the environment. And ESPECIALLY when it applies to ability scores that you're already going to have as very high.

This is one of the Champion's non-combat enhancements, making them great explorers, they are actually more likely to succeed than other characters at any Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution check, even if they haven't bothered to train the skill. It also improves their social skills by association -- you can afford to have a higher Wis, Cha, or Int if all of your other ability checks are going to give you a bonus on them anyway.

I just hit 2nd level as a Bard in my first 5e game, and when I started finding out what Jack of All Trades does functionally -- basically, at this point +1 to every active die roll I make that isn't an attack...in a Bounded Accuracy system where the DC's aren't on a treadmill....Remarkable Athlete started looking not half bad. It's not quite THAT good, but dismissing it as a narrow, small bonus (as I originally did) doesn't take into account the in-play context very well. +2-+3 to half of your active, non-attack die rolls ain't nothin'. ("Active" in this context indicating "not saving throws")

I'm not sure that it's enough at 7th level, but seeing what Jack of All Trades does and the reaction it got at my table, I would certainly consider Remarkable Athlete a nice boon for any physically-oriented character I wanted to play. Not a reason to take the subclass perhaps, but definitely worthwhile.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't know that I disagree, but I've got this anecdotal counterpoint: Jack of All Trades.

Remarkable Athlete is about half of Jack of All Trades.

Bounded Accuracy makes applying your Proficiency Bonus kind of a big deal -- it actually increases your total possible result, which means you're not depending as much on raw chance to succeed at a check. +1-+3 is significant in 5e. Especially when it applies to 90% of any checks you're going to make while exploring the environment. And ESPECIALLY when it applies to ability scores that you're already going to have as very high.

This is one of the Champion's non-combat enhancements, making them great explorers, they are actually more likely to succeed than other characters at any Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution check, even if they haven't bothered to train the skill. It also improves their social skills by association -- you can afford to have a higher Wis, Cha, or Int if all of your other ability checks are going to give you a bonus on them anyway.

I just hit 2nd level as a Bard in my first 5e game, and when I started finding out what Jack of All Trades does functionally -- basically, at this point +1 to every active die roll I make that isn't an attack...in a Bounded Accuracy system where the DC's aren't on a treadmill....Remarkable Athlete started looking not half bad. It's not quite THAT good, but dismissing it as a narrow, small bonus (as I originally did) doesn't take into account the in-play context very well. +2-+3 to half of your active, non-attack die rolls ain't nothin'. ("Active" in this context indicating "not saving throws")

I'm not sure that it's enough at 7th level, but seeing what Jack of All Trades does and the reaction it got at my table, I would certainly consider Remarkable Athlete a nice boon for any physically-oriented character I wanted to play. Not a reason to take the subclass perhaps, but definitely worthwhile.

If that was what Remarkable Athlete did you'd have a point. It isn't.

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

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.