D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[ECMO3]

Fighting styles don't stack.

If you choose Dueling at level1,your second fighting style won't boost your longsword damage unless you take Superior Technique.

First off I was talking about 1 fighting style. There are multiple to choose from is why I said there are multiples, I was using an example. Second, if you choose dueling and wield a longsword in 1 hand you do +2 damage to every hit you make with it. You also do another +1 damage on top of that compared to a Barbarian because your strength is higher due to the extra ASI you got. +3 for 2 attacks a round is an extra 6 points of damage per round, not 1 point per round like you claimed.

As for stacking though, if you choose Archery and Thrown Weapon fighting and throw darts you do a +2 to attack and +2 to damage. Thrown Weapon Fighting and Two weapon fighting also apply allowing for thrown light melee weapons to do +2 and the bonus action attack to have the +2 and your ability bonus.

If there is a Longsword Champion fighter and a Longsword Battlemaster Fighter in the same party (I know 2 of the most popular class at the same table), the Champion's player will notice the Battlemaster's higher damage and versatility if they pay attention.

We were talking about Barbarians. Battlemaster is one of the non-caster subclasses that is more powerful than a champion.

By the same token most of the Barbarians at the table and all of the Monks will notice the Champion's superior performance in combat at most of those levels between 3 and 10.

Same with a Champion and a Ranger or Paladin.

Sure spells. You can add Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, many Bards and Artificers and some Warlocks to that.

And that's good design?

Yes it is a great design.

We'll have to agreee to disagree. The Champion Fighter to me is weaker than most warriors until it gets its 3rd attack at level 11.

At level 11 it outruns all Barbarians, not just most. But here is where some of the Monks start gaining ground on it and some of the casters start to move into a whole new level of effectiveness.

Battlerager sucks. I totally forgot about that trash.

Of course you did. You probably forgot about Giant, Storm Hearald, Wild Magic and Beast too ... which combined with these other two, would be most of the Barbarian subclasses ... ie better than most Barbarians.

Champion is worse than a Battlemaster or EK or other EK or RK or AA or PDK.

In combat it is better than PDK at levels 6-10, I would say they are about equal from 3-5.

You are right it is worse than the other subclasses you mention, but that is 3 out of 36 non-caster subclasses.

And you even admitted its worse than any halfcaster.

Sure, because of spells.

How is the Champion being only stronger than the poorest designed class/subclass combos proof that it isn't itself poorly designed and better regulated as its own class?

Because I did not say they were poorly designed. I said they were weak. Too different things. Many (not all) of those classes/subnclasses it is stronger then are well designed IMO.

 

[ECMO3]

maybe they're not ineffective because of sub/class choice alone but they can still be a big determiner of your effectiveness, and i'm saying your level of effectiveness should not be at all determined by your choice of sub/class, all that different classes and subclasses should provide is a choice of mechanics and themes, not effectiveness

Absolutlely it should. That is part of WHY you should choose a specific class/subclass.

The mechanics and the math behind them should drive effectiveness, and the subclass theme should drive those mechanics.

This idea that every player wants to be equal to others at the table is a fallacy, and I will point to the threads on this board talking about deaf and mute PCs as evidence of that. People choose that knowing it will make them less effective. There is no reason classes and subclasses should not play into that as well.

but some sub/classes will still be more effective than another with the same set of base stat rolls right? and some options will manage to be effective with lesser stat requirements, those are things that shouldn't happen in my opinion, everyone should be able to start with point buy or standard array and make as effective a character as the next person, even if i'm playing a fighter and they're a wizard, and not just because i optimised my fighter and they half-assed their distributions either

I think this would be a terrible game design.

and that's the thing, you shouldn't need to do those things to play a powerful and effective character, i shouldn't need to roll above average stats or to pick a bladesinger or a paladin or whatever else if i want to play a powerful martial character and not fall behind the curve,

And you should be able to pick a Champion and know you will be behind the power curve with average stats.

You can't take out luck, unless you take out dice, so I am not sure how you fix that. You can use point buy but luck is still going to drive effectiveness to a very large degree in game. As evidence, my Wizard, the most powerful class in the game, died in a session last week and she is not weak. So did the Eldritch Knight. The other 3 survived.

As for class/subclass you pick your power. This is what I can't get past in this discusson - there are I am guessing about 200 official subclasses available, and more if you start using non-official sources. Instead of trying to balance them let players pick the one they want to play that has the appropriate thematics and level of power suitable to their desires?

 

[Minigiant]

I can't quite agree completely on this. I see your point, however. Even if you start with GWF, Defense for a +1 AC is helpful and simple, and since AC is difficult to improve this is pretty good as I see it. Defense is also a good addition if you begin with Archery or Two-Weapon Fighting since you can't use a shield.

Obviously, if you are a sword/board build, combinations of Dueling, Defense, and Protection can all be good.

+1 AC is helpful but it isn't big on its own nor is it noticeable in play

I would have been better to let Champions choose an Fighting Style Mastery that increases their 1st level FS. Actually simpler.

Woohoo. +1 AC. You get to choose a fighting style you didn't even want the first time you got to choose.

 

[James Gasik]

I don't think Archery Fighting Style applies to thrown weapons, as they are melee weapons you can use to make a ranged attack with, not ranged weapons.

 

[ECMO3]

I don't think Archery Fighting Style applies to thrown weapons, as they are melee weapons you can use to make a ranged attack with, not ranged weapons.

Darts are a ranged weapon, not a melee weapon, so archery applies to them. They also have the thrown weapon property so thrown weapon fighting applies to them. Darts are the example I used in my thread for this specific reason. It also applies to nets (although the damage bonus would not stack, you would get the +2 on the attack roll and the ability to draw it as part of the attack).

 

[ECMO3]

+1 AC is helpful but it isn't big on its own nor is it noticeable in play

I would have been better to let Champions choose an Fighting Style Mastery that increases their 1st level FS. Actually simpler.

Woohoo. +1 AC. You get to choose a fighting style you didn't even want the first time you got to choose.

Because of bounded accuracy, defense is a better fighting style generally for someone using a a Two handed weapon than GWF is. I think superior technique is generally better than GWF as well, although table specifics and what specific weapon you are talking about will play into that.

If you are optimizing a Champion, you would not use a 2-handed weapon to start with, but if you did use a 2-handed weapon you would take defense first and then for your second fighting style would probably pick superior technique.

If you "don't want" to pick Defense on a character you are choosing to use a 2 handed melee weapon with, then you don't want to play the most effective Champion.

This goes back to my point- you purposely pick a weak fighter subclass, then you pick weak options in that subclass (2-handed weapon, GWF) and you wonder why your character is weaker than others at the table who picked better subclasses and more powerful options?

 

[Minigiant]

Because of bounded accuracy, defense is a better fighting style generally for someone using a Great Weapon than GWF is. I think superior technique is generally better than GWF as well, although table specifics will play into that.

If you are optimizing a Champion, you would not use a 2-handed weapon anyway, but if you did use a 2-handed weapon you would take defense first and then for your second fighting style would probably be superior technique.

Superior Technique makes the Champion no longer simple and it wasn't available until TCOE.

Champion was designed as a simple option for newbies and WOTC did work hard to design a good subclass because they figured new players would not notice it was bad.
However they shackled the most popular class and most of the game around a poorly made subclass.

The 2024 fighter is now not simple by default. And the 2024 Champion is more complex as well.

There will be no Simple Fighter. WOTC messed up.

 

[ezo]

Champion was designed as a simple option for newbies and WOTC did work hard to design a good subclass because they figured new players would not notice it was bad.

It is not "bad", it does what it is meant to do: provide a (relatively) simple class which fills a role well and allows a player to participate in the game without having a lot of experience or being required to make a lot of design decisions.

However they shackled the most popular class and most of the game around a poorly made subclass.

It isn't shackled because of the champion... neither the class (which is popular regardless) nor the game.

The 2024 fighter is now not simple by default. And the 2024 Champion is more complex as well.

There will be no Simple Fighter. WOTC messed up.

Time will tell.

 

[Minigiant]

It is not "bad", it does what it is meant to do: provide a (relatively) simple class which fills a role well and allows a player to participate in the game without having a lot of experience or being required to make a lot of design decisions.

They could have made something both good and simple.

If they wanted something simple that participated, a bag of HP with 3 attacks would work better.

 

[James Gasik]

Darts are a ranged weapon, not a melee weapon, so archery applies to them. They also have the thrown weapon property so thrown weapon fighting applies to them. Darts are the example I used in my thread for this specific reason. It also applies to nets (although the damage bonus would not stack, you would get the +2 on the attack roll and the ability to draw it as part of the attack).

Ok, that works. Of course, you're using darts....