D&D 5E My tweak to make (Champion) Fighters decent

[S'mon]

I believe a battlemaster fighter actually out Nova's a Paladin if you count just the first round and no prebuffs or feats.

How's that? Paladin can use a damage-increase attack spell & then add Smite damage on top! I guess at 11th the Battlemaster has 3x2=6 attacks to the Paladin's 2, but at 5-10 it's base 2 each (4 w AS) and the Pally can load each attack with far more extra damage.

 

[LapBandit]

You say you want the fighter to be better than the paladin at making extra attacks. Well, your version isn't. Not consistently. At 4th level it is, then at 5th through 8th they're the same again. The advantage effectively turns on, then turns off again. The design tells me you don't care that much about the fighter being better than the paladin on this front, because most of the time, it isn't.

Yes there are times they are equal and that's okay. Given the nature of the game you can't stagger things any other way and keep it remotely balanced.

So you're saying the classes are balanced against each other? Sounds good to me.

I gave you the example of two first level smites (which a 2nd level paladin can do) and that is balanced? Never mind the insane benefits (many always on) of being a paladin.

Fighters, like everybody else, should continue getting new things at high levels. Moving everything they get to lower levels just makes the higher levels more boring.

Just so we're clear, the fighter getting an ability earlier then having it scale like many other classes ability is boring? If that's your opinion then you and I have such different views on what makes the game fun that there is no common ground.

You are aware that when you Action Surge, you get to make a full Attack action again complete with all your extra attacks, right? At 11th level, making six attacks is usually better than making two attacks with a 3d8 bonus to damage on each: assuming a mundane longsword and 18 Str, that's 6d8+24 [51] vs. 8d8+8 [44] potential damage. Larger weapons and enchantments only improve the fighter's advantage, as of course do battlemaster dice. And Action Surge is on a short rest refresh rather than a long rest refresh like those spell slots.

It's one round out of a likely ten IF you can get short rests.

Is it dramatically better? No. But it shouldn't be. Paladins are pretty good too, and they deserve to be. If fighters had a second Action Surge at this level, they would be leaving paladins in the dust. As things stand in the PHB, both classes successfully fulfill their respective fantasies without overshadowing each other. Thumbs up to WotC.

They should be dramatically better at the one thing they're good at, it's in their name.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Yes there are times they are equal and that's okay. Given the nature of the game you can't stagger things any other way and keep it remotely balanced.

Sure you can. Clerics are always ahead of paladins in spell access (except for 2nd level) and they're balanced.

I gave you the example of two first level smites (which a 2nd level paladin can do) and that is balanced?

You are honestly confusing me here. You're saying that a 2nd-level fighter can do something comparable to what a 2nd-level paladin can do. How is this not balanced?

Never mind the insane benefits (many always on) of being a paladin.

You know, fighters get class features too.

Just so we're clear, the fighter getting an ability earlier then having it scale like many other classes ability is boring? If that's your opinion then you and I have such different views on what makes the game fun that there is no common ground.

Name one class that stops getting new abilities after 5th level.

It's one round out of a likely ten IF you can get short rests.

And on those other rounds, the fighter is doing 3d8+12 [25.5] while the paladin is doing 4d8+8 [26].

They should be dramatically better at the one thing they're good at, it's in their name.

If you think a game largely about combat should have a single class that is clearly superior to the others at combat, then you and I have such different views on what makes the game fun that there is no common ground.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

How's that? Paladin can use a damage-increase attack spell & then add Smite damage on top! I guess at 11th the Battlemaster has 3x2=6 attacks to the Paladin's 2, but at 5-10 it's base 2 each (4 w AS) and the Pally can load each attack with far more extra damage.

Again, assume 18 Strength and a mundane longsword. Fighter Action Surges and adds a superiority die to each damage roll (two with Feinting Attack if he has an extra die), paladin uses damaging smite spell and then Divine Smites on every attack (using highest-level slots for Divine Smite). Ignore the added effects of combat maneuvers and smites for simplicity (although the fighter probably has the edge there since he can generate advantage pretty reliably).

5th-level fighter: 8d8+16 [52]
5th-level paladin: 8d8 + 1d6 + 8 [47.5]

7th-level fighter: 9d8+16 [55.5]
7th-level paladin: 8d8 + 2d6 + 8 [51]

9th-level paladin: 10d8 + 2d6 + 8 [60]

10th-level fighter: 4d8 + 5d10 + 16 [61.5]

11th-level fighter: 6d8 + 5d10 + 24 [78.5]
11th-level paladin: 15d8 + 8 [75.5]

That's... actually even closer than I expected before doing the math. It's almost like WotC thought about this.

 

[DaedalusX51]

Again, assume 18 Strength and a mundane longsword. Fighter Action Surges and adds a superiority die to each damage roll (two with Feinting Attack if he has an extra die), paladin uses damaging smite spell and then Divine Smites on every attack (using highest-level slots for Divine Smite). Ignore the added effects of combat maneuvers and smites for simplicity (although the fighter probably has the edge there since he can generate advantage pretty reliably).

5th-level fighter: 8d8+16 [52]
5th-level paladin: 8d8 + 1d6 + 8 [47.5]

7th-level fighter: 9d8+16 [55.5]
7th-level paladin: 8d8 + 2d6 + 8 [51]

9th-level paladin: 10d8 + 2d6 + 8 [60]

10th-level fighter: 4d8 + 5d10 + 16 [61.5]

11th-level fighter: 6d8 + 5d10 + 24 [78.5]
11th-level paladin: 15d8 + 8 [75.5]

That's... actually even closer than I expected before doing the math. It's almost like WotC thought about this.

The problem is that the Paladin can continue smiting with 8 more spell slots, while the fighter's action surge is only going to be used, at most, two more times.

And this is completely ignoring the Champion, which in no way keeps up.

There is a discrepancy of sustained power over the course of the day that people are seeing due to the narrative considerations of a 1 hour short rest.

 

[DaedalusX51]

Here is my take on fixing up the fighter a bit.

http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/r1SseDag-


In addition, the Ranger would gain access to Guarding and Skirmishing, while the Paladin would gain access to Guarding and Commanding.

 

[Corwin]

7 & 11. Champion.

You already said they were champions. That isn't a "kind of fighter". It's just their subclass. A few examples of the kinds of fighters you can play in 5e are: grizzled veteran wielding a longsword and shield, woodelf scout archer, rakish fop duelist with a rapier, knight in plate armor with a greatsword. That's just a few obvious, iconic ones. I'm sure there are a hundred ways or more to play a champion fighter.

My recommendation, as others have suggested, is maybe give them a feat as a unique class feature for the two bonus ASI slots fighters get. Customized to the kind of fighter they are playing. Which is why I asked.

 

[FrogReaver]

The problem is that the Paladin can continue smiting with 8 more spell slots, while the fighter's action surge is only going to be used, at most, two more times.

And this is completely ignoring the Champion, which in no way keeps up.

There is a discrepancy of sustained power over the course of the day that people are seeing due to the narrative considerations of a 1 hour short rest.

One Guy mentions that fighters need to have as strong of a NOVA as a Paladin and someone actually does the nova comparison between the fighter and Paladin and proves that a fighters NOVA is higher.

Then you come along and basically say, "I know Paladins are a problem if it's not cause the NOVA then it must be that they can sustain more damage in a fight". That's probably a valid point, but there's no need to be dismissive about the results. Also believe it or not, you are the first person I've ever read on here that's made the point that the Paladin can sustain high damage levels for longer in a fight is why he is better than a fighter. It's always he can NOVA higher way to high or something similar.

 

[S'mon]

You already said they were champions. That isn't a "kind of fighter". It's just their subclass. A few examples of the kinds of fighters you can play in 5e are: grizzled veteran wielding a longsword and shield, woodelf scout archer, rakish fop duelist with a rapier, knight in plate armor with a greatsword. That's just a few obvious, iconic ones. I'm sure there are a hundred ways or more to play a champion fighter.

My recommendation, as others have suggested, is maybe give them a feat as a unique class feature for the two bonus ASI slots fighters get. Customized to the kind of fighter they are playing. Which is why I asked.

The F11 is dead as of this morning, slain by Stuhac the evil spirit guardian of Three Sword Isle. He was a Tharbrian sword & board fighter, duelist style.

The F7 is a dragonborn archer from the Dragonlord Hills of ancient Oricha. He has archery style and a dragonborn warbow (STR weapon, d10), I made a +3 damage style he can take for his
second style, and he should get the second action surge at 8th per my OP. He knows he's squishy so should be ok alongside the 2 Barb-7s and the Sorc-7 in his party.

 

[FrogReaver]

How do you figure that? Isn't your DM having you make saves & ability checks? Do you not enjoy having a better chance to pass them? Do you not like having more HP?

WOW!

Blue says, "Fighters get a lot of extra ASI's. In a no-feat game there's a diminishing return on them."
ccs says, (paraphrased) "BUT those ASI's still provide a benefit and if there's a benefit that means there's no diminishing returns."

That's the very meaning of diminishing returns, that something still provides a benefit but not as much of a benefit as your earlier investments. Why does it seem that no matter how true or well reasoned a post that someone always is going to dispute it?