D&D 5E Would this fix Champion?

[Sacrosanct]

While true, the Battle Master gets Feats and all of its maneuvers and extra damage.

What wasn't what you argued though. What you said was this:

" It seems they entirely left out the 3E Fighter gameplay style. Where you had always available combat options by having a bunch of combat feats to tailor your Fighter. "

And 5e does have that. So you're incorrect, 5e did not leave out that gameplay style.

With Remarkable Athlete a Champion would only gain a +1 to +3 to an improvised action. I don't really consider that to be a big benefit, especially when the Thief Rogue basically gets to make an improvised action as a bonus action.

In bounded accuracy, any bonus is important. But the fact that it exists proves your claim to be objectively wrong. They can do more than just attack, and are better at any improvised action for a check that falls under STR, DEX, or CON

 

[cmad1977]

If you play the champion, or DM for the champion and think 'all they can do is attack', the issue is not with the class but with the player or DM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DaedalusX51]

What wasn't what you argued though. What you said was this:

" It seems they entirely left out the 3E Fighter gameplay style. Where you had always available combat options by having a bunch of combat feats to tailor your Fighter. "

And 5e does have that. So you're incorrect, 5e did not leave out that gameplay style.



In bounded accuracy, any bonus is important. But the fact that it exists proves your claim to be objectively wrong. They can do more than just attack, and are better at any improvised action for a check that falls under STR, DEX, or CON

Yeah I don't know what I expected to be honest. You would rather argue and pretend you are right instead of engaging in conversation about the merits of the current design.

How about the fact that all 3E Fighters would start with at least 2 feats giving them gameplay options right out of the gate, while you have to start as a variant Human or wait until level 4 in 5E to do so. In addition, there are no Fighter only feats in 5E.

I feel that the Fighter, and in particular the Champion, matches the gameplay style of previous edition Fighters, but falls behind every other Class in turn by turn decision making at the table. Whether that is by design or not, it really affects me as a player because I do not like the Superiority Dice resource system of the Battle Master. It feels too much like a 4E Player's Handbook Fighter to me.

See for me 4E Essentials was almost the perfect Fighter. Always on abilities and tactical choices every round. Currently, this does not exist in 5E and I only speak for myself, but this is what I want to see represented in the 5E Fighter.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yeah I don't know what I expected to be honest. You would rather argue and pretend you are right instead of engaging in conversation about the merits of the current design.

Do you know what I expect? People to have honest conversation. Not say one thing, and when pointed out how that thing is not correct, completely shift goal posts and make a dig at the other person. "Pretend I'm right"? There is no pretending. What you said was wrong. Objectively and provably so as I pointed out. Own up to it. You weren't talking about discussing merits of the current design, you said the current design does not do things that it does. 2e didn't have feat at all. So 5e, by including feats, objectively includes that 3e playstyle because a) it does have feats and b) those feats give additional options to the player to use---something you said doesn't exist.

There's a world of difference between "this doesn't work exactly like 3e like I want" and "this doesn't exist at all."

This is exactly what I was just talking about earlier. Just because you don't use something or if it doesn't meet your personal preferences, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So if you're going to make a false claim, be prepared to be pointed out how that's false. Don't blame other people for pointing that out and take ownership for your own claims.

 

[Garresh]

Does anyone have any DPR stats handy? I was under the assumption that even on a typical extended adventuring day the Champion did less damage than a battlemaster or eldritch knight. At least through level 10. Do they overtake the other specializations past level 10? I ask because if they do not, then by definition the Champion would still be inferior, rendered viable only by the strength of the core Fighter chassis, rather than its own subclass features.

I also wonder kf damage may be the wrong approach, and it may be better to give Champions advantage on Athletics checks to push, shove, grapple, and trip? Might give them utilitt while still being a simple as dirt class?

 

[DaedalusX51]

Do you know what I expect? People to have honest conversation. Not say one thing, and when pointed out how that thing is not correct, completely shift goal posts and make a dig at the other person. "Pretend I'm right"? There is no pretending. What you said was wrong. Objectively and provably so as I pointed out. Own up to it. You weren't talking about discussing merits of the current design, you said the current design does not do things that it does. 2e didn't have feat at all. So 5e, by including feats, objectively includes that 3e playstyle because a) it does have feats and b) those feats give additional options to the player to use---something you said doesn't exist.

There's a world of difference between "this doesn't work exactly like 3e like I want" and "this doesn't exist at all."

This is exactly what I was just talking about earlier. Just because you don't use something or if it doesn't meet your personal preferences, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So if you're going to make a false claim, be prepared to be pointed out how that's false. Don't blame other people for pointing that out and take ownership for your own claims.

I'm posting on the ENWorld D&D 5th Edition News, Rules, Homebrews, and House Rules forum in order to find a solution to my dissatisfaction with a lack of gameplay style for the Fighter, not writing a thesis or professionally debating.

I'm sorry that I didn't present all of my issues as clearly and concisely as you desired. How about a little common decency for your fellow human beings? There is a group of people that are not being served by the current Fighter subclasses and they desire to fix that for their home games. I have personally taken it upon myself to make the changes to the class, which I posted on the first page, but not everyone who has this issue will want to or be able to.

It is not better to think you are right than it is to be kind to your fellow gamers.

 

[Garresh]

Doublepost.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm posting on the ENWorld D&D 5th Edition News, Rules, Homebrews, and House Rules forum in order to find a solution to my dissatisfaction with a lack of gameplay style for the Fighter, not writing a thesis or professionally debating.

I'm sorry that I didn't present all of my issues as clearly and concisely as you desired. How about a little common decency for your fellow human beings? There is a group of people that are not being served by the current Fighter subclasses and they desire to fix that for their home games. I have personally taken it upon myself to make the changes to the class, which I posted on the first page, but not everyone who has this issue will want to or be able to.

It is not better to think you are right than it is to be kind to your fellow gamers.

Stop shifting the goal posts and relying on red herrings. This isn't a decency issue, nor have I said I expect you to write a thesis, and I haven't been indecent to you. All I've done is point out how what you claimed is factually not true. That's how discussion works. If you say something clearly not true, expect people to point that out. That doesn't make them indecent or pretending to be right or any other disingenuous behavior you're trying to ascribe to their motivations. I didn't say you weren't clear or concise. Rather, your posts were very clear. Wrong, but clear. There was no ambiguity there. You clearly said these things don't exist when in fact they do and we can point right to them.

You don't get to make outright false claims and act like no one can call those out or they are mean. That's not how discussion works.

 

[DaedalusX51]

Does anyone have any DPR stats handy? I was under the assumption that even on a typical extended adventuring day the Champion did less damage than a battlemaster or eldritch knight. At least through level 10. Do they overtake the other specializations past level 10? I ask because if they do not, then by definition the Champion would still be inferior, rendered viable only by the strength of the core Fighter chassis, rather than its own subclass features.

I also wonder kf damage may be the wrong approach, and it may be better to give Champions advantage on Athletics checks to push, shove, grapple, and trip? Might give them utilitt while still being a simple as dirt class?

I have pulled this from my previous discussions on this from Reddit.

Level 20 Battle Master:

6d12 bonus damage from Maneuvers

(6*12+6)/2 = Average of 29 damage per short rest (ignoring Relentless which would just increase it further)

Level 20 Champion:

10% additional chance to crit * 2d6 weapon damage (This is even worse for dual wielding and one handing)

0.1(2*6+2/2) = 0.7 damage per hit.

Explanation of Results:
It would take 41-42 attack rolls to equal the 29 damage of the Battle Master before a single short rest. Even with advantage for every attack roll we are still looking at 20-21 attacks per short rest.

 

[jaelis]

Explanation of Results:
It would take 41-42 attack rolls to equal the 29 damage of the Battle Master before a single short rest. Even with advantage for every attack roll we are still looking at 20-21 attacks per short rest.

So 5 rounds of combat per short rest?