Zardnaar
Legend
Tradition. AD&D dart specialist one of the best fighters ever.
D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
Tradition. AD&D dart specialist one of the best fighters ever.
ezo
Hero
It IS both good and simple. I'm not sure why you don't see that. I'm not saying they couldn't have made something better, sure, but it's good for what it is meant to be.
Well, at 5th level that is something any figther can be if you want.
Anyway, I'm fine with it, especially with a little tweaking, but I'm also fine agreeing to disagree. Thanks for your views.
It's bad compared to 80% of the other options for primary weapon users.It IS both good and simple. I'm not sure why you don't see that. I'm not saying they couldn't have made something better, sure, but it's good for what it is meant to be.
That's my point. The Champion is one of the weakest Fighter subclasses and among the weakest class/subclass choices for any role in a party. It relies on the player not paying attention, the player having nothing to compare to, or the DM hiding it.
I'd never suggest someone playing a champion fighter. I'd rather make a simple fighter subclass or a whole new class for them myself.
ezo
Hero
I blame that more of the fighter class itself than the Champion necessarily. But, something has to be on the bottom of the list, however I think we each have our own for whatever reason to place there.
The problem isn't the Champion when you compare it to what was provided with it:
Battlemaster - too complex and fiddly
Eldritch Knight - too complex and magicy (not everyone wants to play a PC with magic, despite what many believe)
The Champion's role in the design was to be simple, straight-forward, easy to understand and easy to play. It nailed all those things compared to the BM and EK.
The real issue (as nearly always is the case in such comparisons) is the bloat of subclasses that followed. Most either are niche or overpowering by comparison.
I have, many times, and often choose it when I play a fighter because I don't like most of the others for various reasons. I've never seen a player of one complain, and more often everyone cheers when they just happen to roll that 19. Player satisfaction goes a long way to making something fun. Not everything has to be about power or numbers or whatever.
The Champion was power crept in the PHB.
The Battlemaster deals more damage. The Hunter Ranger deals more damage.
The question is why couldn't the Champion deal similar damage as a Battlemaster, EK, Hunter, or Totem Barbarian?
Why couldn't the Champion be simple and deal similar damage?
If Imp Crit didn't deal enough damage, why didn't WOTC increase the crit range or crit damage or change it completely before publication?
Or do something else and make Imp Crit a feat or a base fighter feature or a magic/masterwork weapon
But what if that player saw another fighter roll their superiority dice 4 times. or 12 times with 2 short rests.
Or the hunter rolling their 1d8 every turn. And concentrating on HM.
Or the paladin with their X number of smites
Rolling a 19 every 20 attacks doesn't feel as good.
It becomes the allegory of the cave. Allegory of the Champion.
ezo
Hero
Not really. It depends on what you mean by "power" here.
Obviously you are going the damage route...
j/kThe answer is "it should have been" but just because it doesn't measure up in someways to other subclasses (via other classes even), doesn't mean it isn't effective still.
I can't tell you why WotC didn't decide to revise things before publication. Perhaps they felt it was good enough and meant to be an introductory subclass without having to mess with dice or spells?
I agree they could certainly have done something "more" to make it measure up in terms of raw damage power to the BM and EK, but that apparently wasn't their goal with the subclass.
Who knows... maybe the player might think "Man, keeping those dice is annoying and I could never decide which maneuver thing would work best or fit my concept best--what a hassle! I'm glad I don't have to worry about it." I know for myself that is why I prefer the champion over the BM.
Again, just more stuff to keep track of that a lot of players don't want to be bothered with.
You're doubling your chance of getting a critial hit. I've seen several players (and groups with them) love it when that 19 comes into play. It creates some great moments and is fun for a lot of players.
I don't think that would work better.
Why should they?
If optimized in a white room it does deal similar damage, actually better damage than the Barbarian in your example and "similar" to the other three.
It feels great when it happens at the tables I have played on.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Until you run into your first critter that can only be hit by +1 or better weapons, that is.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
That's what this is for!:
Precision Attack
When you make a weapon attack roll against a creature, you can expend one superiority die to add it to the roll. You can use this maneuver before or after making the attack roll, but before any effects of the attack are applied.Didn't roll so hot? Precision Attack!
Similar Threads
