D&D 5E The Champion. Needs Fixing?

[Plaguescarred]

I think the Champion martial archetype is fine its a simple yet strong enought build choice IMO. The only thing i'd fix would be giving Improved Critical an additional benefit so it's not completly made obselete by Superior Critical.

 

[ccooke]

You probably could have called it the "girlfriend/boyfriend" class and saved yourself the trouble.

Maybe "A simpler class for people who prefer that", and then we could get this interesting discussion without disparaging anybody?
Liking simpler mechanics does not mean people are simpler, just that they have different preferences to you (and hey, me). Those preferences are entirely as valid as anyone else's and do not indicate lower intelligence, lower investment in the hobby, lower ability to roleplay or, in fact, anything other than a preference.

What's more, using "girlfriend" (or, for that matter, "boyfriend") to describe this sort of thing like this makes it look like people don't respect said girlfriend or boyfriend's preferences or intellect. Which is not exactly a good way to recommend oneself to others.

(... I realise I'm actually really annoyed with myself that I voted on the poll without the wording of this option actually registering. Bah. Should do better)

 

[gyor]

I'm the guy who saw the noble class variant as an opportunity to give my

character a harem, and yet Girlfriend Friend class offends even a pervert like me.

There are plenty of girl gamers who know there d&d.

Moving on, I weirdly see the Champion as an interesting challenge to create an build that is really is outside the box.

That's how I came up with my Captian America Shield Fighter build for the Champion. Plus I have some other ideas for outside of the box for the Champion, like a Champion Sage background, who takes feats like Skilled, Linguaist, Observant, ritual caster, for for a character that is focus and basic, but brutal in combat, but outside combat, is an intellictual, with savage combat prowess.

Of course there is a more straight forward crit fisher build in the Half Orc Champion, great weapon fighting style.

Still my Captain America build is my fave champion build, not the most powerful one, but cool flavour and interesting.

 

[Gargoyle]

He is intended to be the simplest class/subclass to play, with almost no moving parts. Yet he is intended to be effective enough to not make a player who rolls one to regret his choice. Now there are some goals here which are inherently self-contradictory.

I disagree that it is inherently self-contradictory; it could be true in this case, but isn't always. I believe simple can be just as effective, or more effective, especially over long periods of time. I think this because simple can be more reliable.

No offense intended. I was under the impression that the idea that plumbing was somehow related RPing ability was an idea that has been sufficiently trashed that no one would actually imagine I meant it literally.

Do you know a better shorthand for "the simple class for that guy who like to play but never really read the rules and hasn't figured out AoO even though he's been playing a polearm fighter for 3 edition"?

And here again, your point of view is that if someone prefers a simple class, it must be that they are simpletons. Sure, that polearm guy does exist, but you're generalizing a bit much, and putting yet another label on champion players; you're saying they are incompetent. I don't think you believe that's true in all cases but you seem to think that's true in the majority, and I disagree, but of course, my experiences may just differ.

Those players of mine that don't want to play a spellcasting ranger or a battlemaster fighter are the same ones that disliked 4e (until Essentials). They are some of the smartest people I know. They play D&D to relax and get away from their challenging, technical jobs. They are typically more introverted, and don't have the mental energy when socializing to also optimize a character with load of options. They don't play poorly, they just want something simple to have fun with and be helpful to the party.

Getting back to the point of your thread, which isn't a bad one, is the Champion a good enough option? I think "will they regret taking this class?" is a valid question, because like I said, they do very much want to be helpful to the group, but I believe there is more to it than DPR or how it competes with the other fighter subclasses, I believe some of the appeal has to do with reliability.

In my experience, the player that prefers a simple character may be fine with simply attacking every turn, as long as they are doing their part, even if they lag behind a bit in damage, because they are doing reliable damage. They take pride in being the rock that the party builds around, and seem to enjoy watching everyone else casting spells, setting up sneak attacks, etc. I'm comparing it in my mind to 2e and earlier fighters, as I haven't run much 5e yet. I suspect time at the table with the class will be the only thing that answers that, rather than theory crafting on paper. With bounded accuracy, characters hit a lot more, so I see the Champion as being fairly reliable, which is what such players tend to go for, and I think it's a fine option, but that's just my guess and I'm thinking it will take time to tell, as spells and other abilities offer a lot of flexibility and that can be powerful.

 

[Jack the Lad]

The Battle Master is strictly better than the Champion, and I'm afraid anyone who thinks otherwise is making a lazy, face-value judgement.

The increased critical abilities are extremely weak:

At level 3, your average damage on a hit goes from 11.8 to 12.2.
At level 15, your average damage on a hit goes from 13.3 to 14.6.

Compare that to maneuvers. The simplest and best maneuver to use if you just want to increase your damage output is Feinting Attack, which gives you advantage on the attack you use it with and adds your superiority die to the damage if it hits.

Against an AC13 opponent (like an orc), at level 3 (when you pick a subclass):

The Battle Master will deal, on average: 7.8 with a normal attack and 15.2 with feinting attack.
The Champion will deal, on average: 8.2 with every attack.

The Battle Master has 4 superiority dice. Each time he uses one to make a feinting attack, he deals 7 more damage than the Champion in that round. After making 4 feinting attacks, he's 28 damage ahead and back down to 7.8 per attack.

However, the Champion only deals 0.4 more per normal attack than the Battle Master, and it will take another 70 attacks for him to match the damage the Champion has done.

That's 24 more 3-round encounters, without even a short rest, even if he gets to attack every round every encounter, for the Champion to catch up.

How many of you run 25 encounters back to back without a short rest? Because if our two Fighters get even a single short rest, the Battle Master regains his superiority dice and leaps another 24 encounters ahead.

Note also the much higher value of front-loaded/burst/nova damage. A Battle Master's feinting attack can be expected to drop an orc in a single hit, for instance, whereas a Champion takes two - and a dead enemy can't hurt you.

Note also the fact that you have 2 other maneuvers available to you. If you use 2 for feinting attacks and put yourself merely 33 attacks/12 encounters ahead, you still have 2 superiority dice with which to disarm or frighten your enemies. These will themselves add 3.15 damage per attack to your efforts, putting you another 6 encounters ahead.

 

[HankHank]

"Girlfriend class"? Wtf? Way to conform to the worst, and most embarrassing, stereotypes of D&D players. Seriously, this was so dumb and offensive I had to register an account and call this out as the embarrassment it is.

And as to the Champion, it is fine as written, works well in actual gameplay, and is not designed for the "simple" folk.

 

[Shroomy]

No, it's fine as it is what it is, but the last poll option needs fixing.

 

[Andor]

I apologize for the use of the term girlfriend class.

I don't know how to edit the poll. If any moderator would like to change it to one of the offered alternatives, that would be fine with me.

If any one wants to chew me out, or discuss my reasons, or chat about sexism in gaming, feel free to PM me, rather than further derail the thread.

 

[GrumpyGamer]

Girlfriend class? /threadfail. Seriously.

The Battle Master is strictly better than the Champion, and I'm afraid anyone who thinks otherwise is making a lazy, face-value judgement.
Against an AC13 opponent (like an orc), at level 3 (when you pick a subclass):

The Battle Master will deal, on average: 7.8 with a normal attack and 15.2 with feinting attack.
The Champion will deal, on average: 8.2 with every attack.

Accepting your unexplained math at face value. Feinting attack is only better use of your bonus action at level 3 if we expect a lot of short rests over TWF style.

Against AC 11:

DPH = 1d6+3 or 6.5
Crit = 10%
Hit = (21-11+5)/20 - 10% = 65%
TWF: 2*(6.5*.65+9*.10) = 2(4.225 + .9) = 10.25 DPR
​

Attacking a black bear (stats in back of the PHB - AC 11 HP 19), the bear dies on the second round giving no advantage to either subclass and this is with the BM using up a valuable resource (1 of 4 dice).
Round 1: Champion 10.25 vs BM 7.8
Round 2: Champion 10.25 vs BM 15.2
Dead Bear: Champion - 20.5 vs BM 23

Nitpicking your post aside, the strength of the Champion in more complex game is being able to combine the Champion with feats. For example a human starting with Shield Master has an always available maneuver and can combine it with Protection or Dueling fighting style, picking up the other fighting style at 10th (I would sacrifice the damage and start with the Protection style, but that is the defender in me). Sure the BM can do something similar, but as you only get one bonus action it is not nearly as practical.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Glad I'm not the only one who read the poll and thought, "Wow. What a great way to disparage anyone who doesn't share your playstyle."

And I do mean everyone who doesn't share the OP's playstyle, and not just women. And then Andor doubles down on it later?

Wow indeed.


I would also caution about throwing around phrases like "objectively better", especially when including insults along with it like "you're just lazy". What is better? For a lot of things, it's both subjective and highly situational. You can't be throwing around terms in broad generalizations when both of those things apply, and apply often.

For example, you may say, "This class does X amount of damage more per round, so it's better." and the reply is, "I don't want to deal with all the micromanagement of abilities that comes along with it and it just doesn't appeal to me as much as Class Y, so no, it's not better."

Better for you =/= better for everyone.

Speaking for myself, I prefer the champion over the battlemaster because a) if I wanted to deal with bookkeeping of resources, I'd play a different class, and b) I've been playing fighters for more than 30 years and just because I didn't have a power on my character sheet didn't stop me from attempting "maneuvers". I mean, do people really think that no fighter PC ever tried to trip, disarm, or push, or overbear an opponent for the first 25 years of the game? If all you've ever done with a fighter is "swing my sword", then that's on your lack of creativity, not the game's. And it's not based on player experience. My 10 year old and his friends when they started playing did some of the most creative and neat things I've seen.

Speaking for my group, some of the players also enjoyed the champion fighter, and the extra criticals were very noticeable.

So I guess that means that I think the class is fine as is.

*Edit* Oh, and for the record, because I prefer the "simpler" class, I'm not an idiot. I do software testing analysis for a large corporation, and graduated with my BS BM degree with a 3.98 GPA. I also like French Vanilla ice cream as my favorite, but that doesn't mean I'm an ice cream simpleton because I don't like something exotic like Moose tracks or something.