Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thorgrit" data-source="post: 6961380" data-attributes="member: 61124">Hello all! I come seeking your wisdom for a mainly specific question, with some background, which I will probably over-explain. I apologize in advance for that, and my intent isn't to provoke discussion of the background, which a quick search turns up has been thoroughly hashed over.I'm getting ready to run a 5e game, and one of my players wanted to ask if he could bring in a house rule he saw. He linked me to this reddit thread: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/3gdhj7/champion_vs_battlemaster_why_5e_has_bad_math/" target="_blank">https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/3gdhj7/champion_vs_battlemaster_why_5e_has_bad_math/</a> which brings up a lot of points and his suggested "fix" for Champion fighter: an extra damage die per attack.Looking through the discussions on that thread, as well as google searching similar discussions, seemed to highlight a few things for me:1. Many people, enough to be pretty vocal, believe the Champion fighter to be sub-par in terms of damage output, compared to the Battlemaster fighter. Many others disagree.2. Even of those that do agree that Champion is weaker, there is no consensus that this is exactly a problem, citing design intent that Champion was designed to be simple, not competitive.For the sake of argument, I'll assume that Champion does indeed do less damage over the course of an adventuring day. My main hangup lies in this quote from Quadratic- on the above reddit thread:My question is, can anyone cite a source for this, where "just as effective" can be interpreted as close to similar damage output, vs. just "being easy to play and still somewhat effective"?For further background info on this particular instance, I'm running the game for 3 players. This one is the most optimization-focused (not saying that's a bad thing) and enjoys combat encounters the most, whereas the others seem to like focusing more on role-playing and exploration. They all vary a bit when it comes to storytelling, acting, and the other things the DMG mentions. I guess what I'm saying is, even if this first player ends up with a no-contest everybody-agrees "worst" class, I'd still be 90% sure he could optimize and end up doing more damage than either of the other two players. So my concern isn't about "balance" with the fighter "keeping up" with the rest of the party. If I were convinced that this proposed change would be "too broken", I may even go with it anyway, so the party as a whole might better keep up with "expected" damage numbers when another party member prefers to go talk to squirrels instead of fireballing a clump of kobolds.</blockquote>

Verification