D&D 5E Was Champion Fighter designed to be on par with Battlemaster?

[thorgrit]

Is there any reason to think that champion was intended to be weaker?

Whether I do or do not is not the point of my post, nor is really arguing whether one build was weaker than another. I'm mainly looking for a quotable source of designer intent.

Additional calculations, suggested fixes, etc are all additional info that I am reading, yes, but the wording of a source that all classes were intended to be roughly equal is what I am after, who said it, when and where, if possible.

 

[hejtmane]

From personal experience we had a Champion and a Battle master at one time at my table from 1-6th level before we lost the player due to real life the Battle Master is hands down the better Class from actual game play and I would say the EK is also better because they are more survivable with Shield and Absorb Elements spell alone. I would say I disagree about the 2nd level spells and EK.

That is what i seen from game play the extra crit never really mattered

 

[mellored]

Whether I do or do not is not the point of my post, nor is really arguing whether one build was weaker than another. I'm mainly looking for a quotable source of designer intent.

The evidence I have that they were intended to be comparable is that they are comparable, mostly (battlemaster is more front loaded).

I see no evidence of that one was intended to be weaker. Nor can I imagine any reason to do so.


About the closest quote I know of (and as best as I can remember it), was that they said that "all classes should be playable from 1-20".

 

[mellored]

Also, they changed the crit rules a few times. In the playtest it was maxed damage + extra die roll. Which is significantly more powerful.

 

[Tony Vargas]

98, +1 AC, + regeneration > 144

So the BM gets /nothing/ else but CS dice and Precision Strike in this comparison?

One of the few virtues of DPR comparisons is that they focus on one, quantitative, measure.

126, 144 if you have advantage all the time.
70, 144 extra if you never had advantage.

Sorry if I give you whiplash, but this is a quibble in the opposite direction, but:
wouldn't the BM's number change with Adv/Dis? I mean, the baseline you're measuring 'extra' against goes up with Adv, as the chance of hitting rises... and wouldn't there a point at which at which the BM wouldn't miss often enought to use all his CS dice for Precision Strike?
By the same token, there'd be more/more important opportunities to use it if you consistently lack Adv...

The evidence I have that they were intended to be comparable is that they are comparable

Lol!

Seriously, though, they're equivalent player choices - sub-classes of the same class. If that doesn't imply they're meant comparable, I don't know what would.

If balance were an important design consideration, you'd expect them to come out equal in that comparison. In 5e, I'd only expect them to be close enough that the DM can finagle spotlight balance between the two in a party that had both.

I see no evidence of that one was intended to be weaker. Nor can I imagine any reason to do so.

IDK, 'Rewarding system mastery...?'

 

[kilpatds]

From play, a Barbarian 3/Fighter N build from 1-20.

The player changed between Battlemaster and Champion a few times. As the DM, the Battlemaster was objectively far stronger... and that was true at all levels in the range.

I personally found that the game changed at higher levels toward FEWER (bigger) fights anyway, and this change is NOT in the champion's favor.

 

[Valetudo]

Your experience is affected by your dms playstyle, which is ok. But how many rest in the day, how the encounters are built, and how the player builds his fighter can affect the outcome. The point Im trying to make is that they are close enough that the champ doesnt need a buff.

 

[mellored]

So the BM gets /nothing/ else but CS dice and Precision Strike in this comparison?

I'm consider proficiency in artisan tools and know your enemy equivalent to remarkable athlete.

You might get an extra die now and then from relentless. But only if you run out of dice. And such situations favor the champion anyways, as they don't run out of crit range.
Of course, short days favor battlemaster.

One of the few virtues of DPR comparisons is that they focus on one, quantitative, measure.

Yes, but it's that exact thing that makes it incomplete.

Sorry if I give you whiplash, but this is a quibble in the opposite direction, but:
wouldn't the BM's number change with Adv/Dis? I mean, the baseline you're measuring 'extra' against goes up with Adv, as the chance of hitting rises...

The chance of rolling a 20, or doing normal damage goes up equally for both. Which can be factored out.

The difference being (Champ crit rate - BM crit rate) * crit damage. You can re-math it if you want. I may have made a mistake somewhere.

and wouldn't there a point at which at which the BM wouldn't miss often enough to use all his CS dice for Precision Strike? .

Hmm..
You'd need 15 misses out of 100 attacks = 15% chance to miss.
sqrt (.15) = 0.38729833462074168851792653997824

So a base 61% hit rate AND advantage on every attack, means you spend every die on precision (statistically). Close enough for me.

Now with archery style's +2 and advantage they might have a single die to spare each day.
Or at lower levels, where you have less attacks.


That's really my biggest complaint about champions. They only compete with 2-handers. They can't keep up with sword & board or archery, the crits just arn't big enough without a big weapon.

IDK, 'Rewarding system mastery...?'

Fair point. But there's no need to hurt a simple option to do so. It's already inherent in any system of choices.

Also, I am doing system mastery for the battlemaster. They could use all their dice on rally and evasive footwork instead, and not even take precision attack.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hmm..
You'd need 15 misses out of 100 attacks = 15% chance to miss.
sqrt (.15) = 0.38729833462074168851792653997824

So a base 61% hit rate AND advantage on every attack, means you spend every die on precision (statistically). Close enough for me.

I guess 100 attacks/day isn't beyond the pale at high level - Fair 'nuff.

Also, I am doing system mastery for the battlemaster. They could use all their dice on rally and evasive footwork instead, and not even take precision attack.

They do get at least 3 maneuvers... there's some flexibility there, even if it's trivial compared to casting, it's substantial compared to the Champion.

Fair point. But there's no need to hurt a simple option to do so. It's already inherent in any system of choices.

I'll agree there's no need...

 

[kilpatds]

Your experience is affected by your dms playstyle, which is ok. But how many rest in the day, how the encounters are built, and how the player builds his fighter can affect the outcome. The point Im trying to make is that they are close enough that the champ doesnt need a buff.

I WAS the DM. And as the DM, the Champ needed a buff (which he didn't get, because we were playing pretty RAW).

As a different note, my experience is that it's harder to justify endless (weak) encounters at high levels, and they're less fun. If the monsters are too weak to get the wizard to drop spells, then the encounter isn't worth running. If the wizard has to drop spells, then at some point we run out of spells and you just TPK. (And in practice, the party just goes to the mansion. And if you try and set up an ambush after the mansion, then you get one huge fight/encounter, and then they go back into the mansion. )

Thematically, at high levels you're fighting the BBEGs. The encounters are more likely to be carefully crafted set pieces, with themes that are important. And as such, they take longer to prepare. You're going to do fewer of them a plot-cycle... and it's going to get harder to deny rests. Heck, I was having issues keeping the number of encounters per long rest greater than ONE, I can't imagine getting up to 3 encounters per short rest while keeping the game fun.

This effect (of what's worth an encounter, and why does this encounter exist, and what am I trying to do here) pushed things toward being heavily biased in favor of the long-rest classes. Even short-rest characters like Warlocks and Monks were heavily hurt in the comparison. The fighter survived as a valuable member of the party due to his ability to inflict large amounts of single-target hit-point damage Right Here Right Now, and that's something that the Battle Master is way better than the Champion at doing.