In Defense of the Champion

[JNAProductions]

GWF improvement? So any weapon gets rerolls on 1-2, and GWF gets upgraded to 3.

[archaeo]

You cherry-picked the smallest part of what I have suggested several times in this thread, and by doing so missed what my thrust is.

No, I picked the part I wanted to respond to, and ignored what I didn't. But if you'd prefer:

I don't think that the Champion's problem is a lack of options, its that its "be passively good at stuff" schtick isn't good enough at enough things. After discussion in this thread I think this is what I would change about the Champion:

Remarkable Athlete: in addition to the effects already there, Champ gets expertise in Athletics.
Shake It Off: Exactly like evasion, but applies to STR and/or CON saves.
OMG He's Everywhere! - Base speed increases 10 ft, can use bonus action to disengage.
Lethal Combatant: Either treat this like Monkey Grip or maybe just raise the die type of their weapons, alternatively just let them pick a feat as a class feature.

Ignoring the fact that Remarkable Athlete is a feature that every Fighter gets, all of this sounds like something that you could accomplish with a smart Fighter/Rogue or Fighter/Monk multiclass. Or, you know, just play Rogue or Monk, and be happy, instead of playing a class that you dislike.

Edited to add: Oops! I'm an idiot, and didn't check my book before I said that. Sorry!

Instead, I'll just agree with Easy Lee earlier in the thread, who notes that the Fighter doesn't really need expertise to make huge athletics rolls.

The whole thing about the "featless game" is because it IS a thing, and letting the Champion get one as a class feature would make them super unique as a class in those games - without being gamebreaking or pigeonholing them into a weapon style. For example I don't know if my monkey grip idea is even remotely balanced, it just sounds cool to me - I'm not a math guy and I'm not running the numbers.

Right, it IS a thing -- that basically every table that is interested in having complexity in their classes will be playing with. If you're sitting in a "featless game," it strikes me as likely that a few of the players will be interested in playing with simple mechanics. People who are playing without any of the optional rules, or playing with Basic, seem to be interested in simplicity for simplicity's sake, in my opinion, and Champion seems well-poised to appeal to that mindset.

As you can see none of my suggestions (minus the feat one, maybe) give them more "complexity" it just lets them be better at what they are already supposed to be the best at.

I don't think your houserules sound bad. They just sound unnecessary, in my opinion. Test them out at your table though, see how they work! Ain't nobody going to be angry if you bring your cool ideas to your own game, and if it results in a better 5e for your table, more power to you.

Finally, I completely disagree with the notion that describing how you attack adds any depth to the champion. It doesn't. That's completely negated by the fact that anyone can do that with any of their abilities. We're not talking about the roleplay of our characters at this point. It's fallacious for the same reason that "the fighter can have a lot of depth if you pick the right background" point is also fallacious. The fighter adds a net 0 to that reason of a character having more options. A rogue with a varied background gets the same benefit, and gets features which also add depth to their character.

I don't think it adds "depth." It adds "interest" and prevents boredom, though. It means you occasionally can get advantage or inspiration by describing something well. It means that you're not "just saying 'I attack,'" which is in every single one of these threads and is as easy to avoid as just not saying that every time.

I also don't think the Fighter is by any means a "net 0." It's frustrating to constantly see the whole "held in isolation, the Fighter doesn't match up as a class" schtick. D&D isn't a game about pure classes slamming into one another's hit points; it's a game of completely built characters in a completely built team, and if the Fighter picks the right skills, backgrounds, and feats, with a focus on harmonizing with the rest of the party, the Fighter will be a great addition to the team.

The point that a fighter gets to attack 4 times when the wizard is turning others into dragons is still a true way of pointing out that no, the fighter doesn't have as much depth as the wizard.

To me, that's just saying "The Fighter doesn't get to hand in plot coupons a few times per day to keep the game moving." Sure, a Wizard can turn the whole party into dragons (given a few days advance notice), or burninate a whole army, or whatever, but then we're just getting into the realm of "here, Wizard, use the spells you have to advance the plot."

I don't know, I feel like this is an argument about game design that I don't have the time to give full attention to. Sorry MadBear. I disagree! But, uh, you win by default, unless someone else wants to pick up that thread.

(btw, a BM who had a better SP dice regen, and received better maneuvers as he leveled would have made a much more interesting fighter. Here's hoping that one day we'll see that character.).

I feel like I say this every time it comes up, but the BM's superiority dice allotment generally means that they "keep up" with practically every other class in terms of "number of times a limited resource is useable per day."

[CrusaderJoe]

Personally I think if you want to boost damage you should keep it simple and do something like making them proficient in weapon damage. That way you just add your prof bonus to weapon damage rolls. That would add damage but would not be as complicated as changing dice and would not explode as much with criticals.

You could also go half prof to reduce the speed of increase if you think prof bonus is too large.

There was a fighter in the playtest (I played in the playtest but never signed anything) that did this I think. Another one had martial damage bonus something like the rage bonus damage.

There is some great stuff in the play tests that blows the current fighter out of the water if they were really expanded upon.

[Fwiffo86]

... it's a game of completely built characters in a completely built team, and if the Fighter picks the right skills, backgrounds, and feats, with a focus on harmonizing with the rest of the party, the Fighter will be a great addition to the team.

This is how I feel. So many people here want to look at a class as a single entity alone in the dark, and base their judgments on that class alone. I also find it frustrating that many people can't seem to grasp the concept (or perhaps they just don't want to) that any single class is only 25% of the base equation.

You see alot of This class vs. That class, but I have yet to see a thread where abilities are compared to what they would work best with from another class. Since the idea of the game being that its all based on a 4 man party, you would think we could spend some time doing that instead.

Example) While the champion fighter seems to lack interesting activated abilities, our party has found that he makes the perfect buff target. Slap the champion fighter with Enlarge and Bless, and suddenly he's dropping the hammer on everything out there. And because he isn't the one doing the concentrating, there is no chance of loss of buff. So while the Fighter is buffed, the casters are lighting up the other targets with cantrips and non-conc spells to assist. Because that's how the game is designed.

[Myzz]

wouldn't monkey grip allow you to dual wield great swords?

or maybe dual wield long swords using their versatile value...

[Mellack]

I played a champion during the playtest and I found it extremely boring. It was on a roughly equal power level to the others in the group, but I still did not enjoy playing him because I had so few decisions to make. There was no way for me to nova or step up against a boss. There was no big decisions on how to fight different tactically or resource management. I understand that for some being able to consistently keep fighting is the draw, but I was happy when we made new characters for a new campaign as I found him so dull to play.

[Icewraith]

I played a champion during the playtest and I found it extremely boring. It was on a roughly equal power level to the others in the group, but I still did not enjoy playing him because I had so few decisions to make. There was no way for me to nova or step up against a boss. There was no big decisions on how to fight different tactically or resource management. I understand that for some being able to consistently keep fighting is the draw, but I was happy when we made new characters for a new campaign as I found him so dull to play.

No way to nova with action surge? Or is that just not enough nova for your tastes?

[Myzz]

I think the Champion can be the most boring and bland archetype...

BUT it can also open the door for the most RP...

Every other archetype spells out your abilities for you... The Champion does not. If you want to add depth, then do so. You have to be more inventive, since everything is not explicitly laid out for you, but your half proficiency in any physical skill attempt opens the door for you to try nearly anything... And yes, early in your career, your terribly at pulling off mad physical shenanigans... but you do get better.

Controller? Move via pushing, pulling and tripping any opponent on the battlefield. Pick up large objects and hurl them. Use your mad jump skills to change where you place your threat on the battlefield.

Striker? As shown, the mechanic of the Champion at least keeps it competitive when NOT flat out better.

Tank? at later levels you have the only archetype with a built in HP regen...

The Champion is really only limited by your imagination. Can other classes do this stuff to? Of course, and maybe a Bard is better at it... But a Bard doesnt get as many attacks, which means less dmg in that turn after the skill attempt, and/or he doesnt get as many attempts. AND the Bard has significantly less HP and likely armor.

Does the Champion suck? nope. Is it for everyone? Nope, not even remotely. Is its options limited? Only by your imagination... hard fast written rules are limited, but the whole point of 5e is DM Fiat AND champion is the Champion of DM fiat in sub classes.

Champion fills the role of being simple and straightforward for those that need or want that kind of thing. BUT it also fills the role of being challenging as for what you can came up with to try.

The Only thing I would add to Champion is the Bonus Action to.... Dash & Disengage. Dash to set up Charges and such... Disengage for reasons previously pointed out. Is it required, nope. Even allowing them to trade an attack action for either would probably work.

[CrusaderJoe]

Roleplaying is completely separate from mechanics, saying that the champion allows for better roleplaying is absolutely silly.

I can roleplay a wizard as a battle master if I want.

[Easy_Lee]

Roleplaying is completely separate from mechanics, saying that the champion allows for better roleplaying is absolutely silly.

I can roleplay a wizard as a battle master if I want.

He means that it encourages and allows for a high amount of role playing, which is demonstrably true. RP is as much a part of the game as anything else.

Bonus crit chance encourages the champion to use shove or find other ways to get advantage. The extra fighting style encourages the champion to explore multiple combat roles and styles.

And, of course, remarkable athlete encourages the champion to really keep an eye out for strength, con, and Dex checks, or anything that can be construed as one. As the old saying goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[CrusaderJoe]

He means that it encourages and allows for a high amount of role playing, which is demonstrably true. RP is as much a part of the game as anything else.

Bonus crit chance encourages the champion to use shove or find other ways to get advantage. The extra fighting style encourages the champion to explore multiple combat roles and styles.

And, of course, remarkable athlete encourages the champion to really keep an eye out for strength, con, and Dex checks, or anything that can be construed as one. As the old saying goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Yes I know, and it is still bull.

Lack of mechanics doesn't encourage anything except for lack of mechanics.

[Easy_Lee]

Yes I know, and it is still bull.

Lack of mechanics doesn't encourage anything except for lack of mechanics.

In your opinion. I'm not insulting your opinion, but it depends heavily on your point of view.

[Myzz]

Yes I know, and it is still bull.

Lack of mechanics doesn't encourage anything except for lack of mechanics.

It's not a lack of mechanics... it's a lack of triggered mechanics, as there are passive mechanics in the champion that keep it on par with other classes damage.

[MadBear]

In your opinion. I'm not insulting your opinion, but it depends heavily on your point of view.

Not to insult your statement, but what you said can be applied to almost anything.

Person 1: The sky is Red
Person 2: no, the sky is blue.
Person 1: That depends on your point of view
.................................................. ................

Person 1: 1+1 = cheese
Person 2: no, 1 + 1= 2
Person 1: That depends on your point of view

(now before you say that 1 + 1=2 is a fact, let me remind you that this is only true if you want to have a correct answer. If you prefer wrong answers, then 1 + 1 = cheese is a great answer.)

As to the point of the champion encouraging a better role playing character, I'll just say that's completely ad hock reasoning. It's looking at a situation after the fact, and trying to justify it. There's no indication that this is intended or even true. Now, if someone would like to provide supporting evidence that isn't self defeating, then lets hear it. Otherwise it's just rounding the wagons around a preconceived opinion and shutting down all lanes of conversation.

[CrusaderJoe]

In your opinion. I'm not insulting your opinion, but it depends heavily on your point of view.

I didn't say you were insulting my opinion

Not that it matters or not if you did.

This thread has made me realize something. The Fighter is the laziest made class in the game. Instead of giving them a mechanic they went the "lits of attacks" route. Indomitable is useless unless you are using it with a save you already had a good chance of passing (prof save). Action Surge is just "hey let's have them do the same thing again!", lazy.

EK and BM at least adds a bit of thought to them but even then, one has lackluster abilities that feels like a caster and the other piggybacks off another class.

They could have at least made the EK more like the Swordmage from 4e.

Its a striker and can kill things, that's all well and nice but so can everyone else. The fighter is just the laziest made class to go about it.

[Fwiffo86]

Its a striker and can kill things, that's all well and nice but so can everyone else. The fighter is just the laziest made class to go about it.

Is your proof of this statement based on your belief that having options and quantified resource management is inherently better?

[archaeo]

As to the point of the champion encouraging a better role playing character, I'll just say that's completely ad hock reasoning. It's looking at a situation after the fact, and trying to justify it. There's no indication that this is intended or even true. Now, if someone would like to provide supporting evidence that isn't self defeating, then lets hear it. Otherwise it's just rounding the wagons around a preconceived opinion and shutting down all lanes of conversation.

Frankly, I tend to agree, insofar as the design of Champion in particular and Fighter in general wasn't done the way it was in order to "encourage roleplay."

There's an argument to be made that, for some players, all of the options and complexity of other classes get in the way of roleplaying; that, in a very real sense, it encourages roleplaying because there's not much else one can do to differentiate their character. But I don't think it's a terribly strong argument.

No, Champion is designed the way it is to offer a truly simple option to players that want or need it. The Eldritch Knight exists to be a "Fighter First" gish in a way that no other base class really does. The Battle Master is designed to emulate 4e's Fighters in the 5e paradigm, with all the changes that entails. That's all there really is to it. Edited to add: Fighter also works the way it does to provide a solid multiclassing dip, one imagines, such that the system responds well to campaigns in which it makes sense to "start" as a Fighter and move on to other specialties.

There's no disagreeing with the notion that lots of players aren't satisfied with these. I find it hard to get behind the notion that it's a huge blemish on the edition -- there are so many other classes to play that can scratch the desired itch properly -- but it's still something that people are clearly motivated to discuss. Source: I have read this message board.

[SharkForce]

I also don't think the Fighter is by any means a "net 0." It's frustrating to constantly see the whole "held in isolation, the Fighter doesn't match up as a class" schtick. D&D isn't a game about pure classes slamming into one another's hit points; it's a game of completely built characters in a completely built team, and if the Fighter picks the right skills, backgrounds, and feats, with a focus on harmonizing with the rest of the party, the Fighter will be a great addition to the team.

To me, that's just saying "The Fighter doesn't get to hand in plot coupons a few times per day to keep the game moving." Sure, a Wizard can turn the whole party into dragons (given a few days advance notice), or burninate a whole army, or whatever, but then we're just getting into the realm of "here, Wizard, use the spells you have to advance the plot."

I don't know, I feel like this is an argument about game design that I don't have the time to give full attention to. Sorry MadBear. I disagree! But, uh, you win by default, unless someone else wants to pick up that thread.

I feel like I say this every time it comes up, but the BM's superiority dice allotment generally means that they "keep up" with practically every other class in terms of "number of times a limited resource is useable per day."

- the question is not "can the fighter contribute", the question is "can the fighter contribute as much as everyone else". if you could replace the fighter with a different class and add more than the fighter would add, the fighter is not holding up. yes, it's a team game... that just means the fighter is letting everyone down rather than just himself.

- ok, so why doesn't the fighter get any "use your class features to advance the plot" abilities? or rather, none that couldn't equally be given to anyone else... the wizard, the cleric, the bard, the druid, etc all get to be woven into the plot as a member of their class. the fighter could be any schmuck most likely, because they have no class features to advance the plot, you could just replace them with anyone else.

- the BM may keep up with resource use in terms of frequency... but the impact of their resource is pretty disappointing comparatively speaking. most of the effects they cause are going to last 1 round at most, possibly less, and inconvenience the target more than anything. if a level 20 wizard using resources capped out at burning all their resources to disarm half a dozen enemies (with a bit of bonus damage), then the BM would be doing just great. also, i would have about as much interest in 5th edition as i would in 4th edition (that is to say, not very much), but that's neither here nor there.

[Fwiffo86]

- ok, so why doesn't the fighter get any "use your class features to advance the plot" abilities?

I was under the impression that player decisions move the plot. Not class abilities.

[Icewraith]

If you want to roll lots of d20s and not get tripped up by any "gotcha" mechanics or worry about running out of steam, the Champion is great. If you want to manage resources and more tactical gameplay, play a Battlemaster or a caster. The champion is exceedingly good at most of the things that make D&D, D&D.

It's really good at rolling automatic successes and adding bonus damage to attack rolls, which always feels good. It's baseline better at almost any random physical task the player can think up that the DM isn't expecting. It partially compensates for dumping dex with a scaling passive initiative bonus. It lets you pay far more attention to what's going on in the game than the guy who's frantically looking through the PHB to make sure one of his spells actually does what he remembers it does. There's optional, rewarding complexity in shoving and grappling.

If you're new, or suffer from choice paralysis, or don't like the bookkeeping that goes into playing other classes, or just like rolling critical hits, the Champion is a great choice. The simplicity is a feature, not a bug.

[Easy_Lee]

It's really hard to determine the potential for plot power without specific scenarios in mind. If we had a free adventure off of which to base class balance, or a standard set of encounters and puzzles off of which to judge an archetype, perhaps it would be easier to say who has the most plot power.

Arguably, the wizard has the most plot power, since wizards can do the widest variety of things. Two hundred spells is a big list. At the same time, the wizard is more susceptible to sudden death than other classes, especially fighters and barbs who arguably have the fewest options.

But the fighter is very good at what it does, which is smack things and not die. Champions are the most extreme version of that, the quintessential fighter if you will, and remarkable athlete and improved crit are more versatile than they seem.

It's an archetype that forces the player to get a little creative, since it doesn't have as many "there's a spell that does that automatically" kind of options. For some, this is a bad thing. But I think it encourages creativity, RP, and makes the champion more rewarding.

Those are just my opinions; I don't mind if others disagree. I've shown how effective champions can be at hitting things and surviving through the hardest days, and I don't think many would question that.

[archaeo]

Arguably, the wizard has the most plot power, since wizards can do the widest variety of things. Two hundred spells is a big list.

See, the thing that just doesn't make sense to me is why that's interesting or really all that desirable. Like, yes, the Wizard can zip you across the plane, or can transform everybody into dragons, or all the other tricks they have that we might call "plot power."

But to me, these all seem like tickets. Your party has a Wizard? Ok, now the story we're telling is going to include all of these other things, because you have a Wizard. Great. Why is that more interesting or "better" than a party without a Wizard?

There is no single plot that all campaigns have to follow. If you don't have any spellcasters in your party, you're still going to end up telling a cool story, it just won't be a story that necessitates teleportation or shapechanging, or if it does, it'll be something the DM provides in order to move the story along. D&D stories generally assume you can cash in these plot tickets, because 5e assumes that you're going to be playing a balanced party, and one of those party members can cash in the necessary tickets.

It just doesn't strike me as something all that necessary for the Fighter to have. I think there are several valid critiques of the way WotC designed Fighter, but their lack of dull plot coupons doesn't seem like one of them, to me.

----------------

Edited to add:

- the question is not "can the fighter contribute", the question is "can the fighter contribute as much as everyone else". if you could replace the fighter with a different class and add more than the fighter would add, the fighter is not holding up. yes, it's a team game... that just means the fighter is letting everyone down rather than just himself.

D&D isn't designed around the idea that you should be playing whatever "contributes best to the party" or something. It's designed around the idea that you play the class you want to play, full stop.

This doesn't seem like an interesting problem to me.

- ok, so why doesn't the fighter get any "use your class features to advance the plot" abilities? or rather, none that couldn't equally be given to anyone else... the wizard, the cleric, the bard, the druid, etc all get to be woven into the plot as a member of their class. the fighter could be any schmuck most likely, because they have no class features to advance the plot, you could just replace them with anyone else.

Why should the Fighter have to have plot tickets? Why should I have to play a character who is responsible for cashing in plot tickets?

- the BM may keep up with resource use in terms of frequency... but the impact of their resource is pretty disappointing comparatively speaking. most of the effects they cause are going to last 1 round at most, possibly less, and inconvenience the target more than anything. if a level 20 wizard using resources capped out at burning all their resources to disarm half a dozen enemies (with a bit of bonus damage), then the BM would be doing just great. also, i would have about as much interest in 5th edition as i would in 4th edition (that is to say, not very much), but that's neither here nor there.

A level 20 Wizard gets a few big buttons to push every day, and then a variety of smaller buttons that aren't going to be overshadowing anyone. A level 20 BM gets just as many buttons, practically, but they all are equally useful.

I am fine with BM having a steady level of competence while the Wizard gets to outshine them a few times a day. That's not a big deal and doesn't break the game, in my opinion.

[Vogonjeltz]

Well, no, because that still ignores all of the utility the Battlemaster grants, and because 26 attacks is way too many attacks. What is that, 2d6+3 damage per attack, for 11 damage? You have to deal 286 damage before the Champion is better than the Battlemaster? That's insane. That's practically half a day's worth of monsters, if you were fighting them on your own. With a party, you're never going to need to deal that much damage - you'll simply never reach the "break-even" point.

I was measuring the value of the damage from superiority dice and how many attacks would be required (on average, of course) for the Champion to equal or surpass that extra damage. For the purposes of this question, utility is irrelevant.

No, it's based on a +4 str mod (+0 str mod testing revealed a similar number of attacks required to eclipse) wielding a Greatsword with the Great Weapon Master feat (criticals enable a bonus attack, so the Champion nets more benefit from this feature), it's 6 attacks per superiority die successfully used to increase damage. These dice can be used in ways that add no additional damage, so it won't always be that way.

The increased crit chance of the Champion at 3rd level increases their average damage per attack by 1/2 a point, I didn't test the average increase at 15% crit chance and I didn't test for advantage/disadvantage. The break even point for a single die is 6 attacks.

To put this another way, if the Battlemaster does not use their dice for damage prior to a short rest then the Champion automatically averages more damage. If they do use dice for damage, then the Champion does more damage when the number of attacks made (X) is greater than 6 per die, and less damage on average when the number of attacks is less than 6 per die used in this fashion.

So, as a simple rule if you find that your combats end before your character makes 6 attacks, you want the increased burst of the Battlemaster. If not, then you probably want to look into the Champion.

Battlemaster takes better advantage of low damage weapons with few dice, Champion takes better advantage of high damage weapons with multiple dice (benefits from crits more).

The champion, battle master, and EK are all underwhelming. The game makes them all useful due to the maths and such, but they just don't stack up when it comes to class features and being interesting.

The reason for this is actually the same reason that the 3.5 fighter sucked. The creators of 3.5 made the system and put to much credit into the BAB system. If you had more attacks and you could do more damage then obviously people will love doing that. The Fighter in 5e has this same issue but it is a bit different. They all are based around swinging a sword or dealing damage. It is like the 4e ranger with twin strike, sure that class was top tier damage dealing but, meh, who wants to just"I move and attack".

The developers took the fighter and said that more damage is fun. They applied this to every class so now the fighter doesn't even have that as its own thing anymore.

Some people want a kill it all and forget everything else, but I've seen to many games days where people were disgusted by the fighter, yes all versions of it (though just parts of the EK and the stupid limitations on it). Its better than the 3e version since you can keep up with the game on killing things but it can be just as boring unless you out magic in it.

Hell it's one of the big three hot button topics. Wildshape, RAW v RAI, and Fighter.

My gamplay experience with the Battlemaster in no way resembles the perceptions you seem to have. Combats as the Fighter have been fun and dynamic allowing for a substantial amount of decision-making.

For example, last fight was vs a large foe, so my Fighter tumbled (bonus action) behind it, then used the attack action to climb up his back (substituted for one attack and granted advantage on further attacks against the enemy) and attacked with a handaxe using a superiority die for Menacing Attack to give it disadvantage on any attacks vs friendlies.

Ahh that's better than the 4 point difference listed above.

I would think of it not as being evasive, but being tough, hence it being STR or CON - you're not dodging, you're just a beast and shake it off. I also think expertise to athletics is mandatory, otherwise the Champ isn't even the best athlete, the bard or rogue is. A passive bonus to movement speed wouldn't hurt either, not a big one. I like the concept, but its a poor execution imo.

Odd, I'd have thought Acrobatics would be more popular than Athletics (espcially when dexterity is the preferred primary stat for a Rogue). The Rogue might be harder to knock down (as Acrobatics can be used to resist shoves) but they probably won't be very good at shoving themselves.

[Chronos]

Quoth archaeo:

See, the thing that just doesn't make sense to me is why that's interesting or really all that desirable. Like, yes, the Wizard can zip you across the plane, or can transform everybody into dragons, or all the other tricks they have that we might call "plot power."

But to me, these all seem like tickets. Your party has a Wizard? Ok, now the story we're telling is going to include all of these other things, because you have a Wizard. Great. Why is that more interesting or "better" than a party without a Wizard?

How could it not be more interesting or better? Either the party wants to travel to other planes, or they don't. If they don't, then the fact that the wizard can do it is irrelevant, because they won't... but if they do, then they're going to need a wizard. And the same applies for all of the other "tickets" the wizard has. Any given one of them might or might not be of interest to the group, but it's almost inconceivable that none of them would be, so you're going to need a wizard for something or another. Or, at least, something with the same capabilities as a wizard, which in this game is guaranteed to be a spellcaster.

[archaeo]

How could it not be more interesting or better? Either the party wants to travel to other planes, or they don't. If they don't, then the fact that the wizard can do it is irrelevant, because they won't... but if they do, then they're going to need a wizard.

Or an easily homebrewed magical item, if not an already existing one. Or an NPC. Or some kind of existing portal or rift. Or through the malicious actions of the antagonists. Or, whatever, you get my point.

Also, why are they traveling to other planes? If it's a sandbox, sure, you might need a Wizard. But in the vast majority of D&D games, I'll wager, you're going to another plane because that's where the plot is. And if the DM wants you to see the plot, the DM can make it so you can see the plot, no matter who's in your party.

Now, granted, plot tickets aren't the only things casters get that martials don't always get (Monk, Ranger, and Rogue all have pretty good plot tickets options, though). But if you take those out of the spell list, what you're left with are a) single-target damage that rarely keep up with the Champion over the course of an adventuring day, b) AoE damage that casters are supposed to specialize in, and c) effects, or effects plus damage, that the Champion cedes to the Battle Master.

You can wrap all of that in a big "in my opinion," but I think the point stands. Champions don't have as many buttons to press as the Wizard, but a large proportion of the Wizard's spells are going to be tied up in a variety of plot coupons, and in a campaign without those tickets, other plot resolution paradigms will come to the fore, effortlessly and seamlessly.

Edited to add: It's also worth noting that Champions only get locked out of plot coupon usage in games without feats or magic items, both of which can provide tons of utility to the Champion. I personally think that, if you're playing without any optional rules, you're probably not going to mind the Champion's simplicity, but YMMV.

[SharkForce]

Edited to add:



D&D isn't designed around the idea that you should be playing whatever "contributes best to the party" or something. It's designed around the idea that you play the class you want to play, full stop.

This doesn't seem like an interesting problem to me.



Why should the Fighter have to have plot tickets? Why should I have to play a character who is responsible for cashing in plot tickets?



A level 20 Wizard gets a few big buttons to push every day, and then a variety of smaller buttons that aren't going to be overshadowing anyone. A level 20 BM gets just as many buttons, practically, but they all are equally useful.

I am fine with BM having a steady level of competence while the Wizard gets to outshine them a few times a day. That's not a big deal and doesn't break the game, in my opinion.

- if different party members contribute unequally because of their class, then it is built to incentivize it. not intentionally perhaps, but it is.

- the fighter should have "plot tickets" so that they can use those to be woven into the plot. it makes it necessary that they do something rather than making it necessary that someone do something.

- wizards get big buttons, and even some of their small buttons do in fact overshadow others. a fireball on a large group will do more damage in a fight than a fighter could hope to do, for example. a suggestion spell can allow you to "socialize" your way past an opponent that was not open to negotiation in any form no matter how well you rolled. a feather fall spell can get everyone safely down from a high place faster than an athletics check.

[Psikerlord]

Conversely everybody in my entire group thinks Champion sucks, entirely independent of me voicing any opinion on it, even the guy who wanted to play a Champion for the exact reasons laid out in the Pro-Champion posts in this thread decided that it sucks and he's going to roll a BM.

Rogue and Barbarian both do what Champion does better, in addition to more stuff. The only awesome thing the champion gets, it gets at level 18. WOW. How many games even make it there?

Also, the Oath of Ancients paladin gets a regeneration ability (granted much more limited) and has way more other stuff.

Doesnt fighter get more feats than Rogue and Barb though, so perhaps that evens out some of the plainness of fighter vs Barb for example. I personally dont think Rogue and Fighter are comparable, they do very different things.

[archaeo]

- if different party members contribute unequally because of their class, then it is built to incentivize it. not intentionally perhaps, but it is.

I haven't seen good evidence of Fighter in general or Champion in particular "falling short" in this fashion. I tend to think that the player's skill, the table's willingness to work as a team, and the DM's skill in shining the spotlight on every character will have a lot more to do with "unequal contributions" than class selection. D&D games aren't played in a white room, after all, and if Fighter's design is really so bad that you can see it through all that noise, I'll be interested to hear it.

- the fighter should have "plot tickets" so that they can use those to be woven into the plot. it makes it necessary that they do something rather than making it necessary that someone do something.

Why? I understand that this disparity exists; I still don't understand why it should matter one bit. No one makes anyone play a Fighter. If you want plot coupons because you think there's no other way to get woven into the plot (which is absurd), then play one of the other classes that let you do this thing. If you want to be a glorified magical bus driver who also hits dudes with swords, Lore Bard is printed just a few dozen pages before Fighter in the PHB.

Almost every house rule I've seen that tries to "fix" BM or Champion is essentially just trying to make the class into a sword-y version of another class. I think the more elegant fix is to just have players play what they want to play, instead of making every class in the game into the thing they want to play.

[Mellack]

No way to nova with action surge? Or is that just not enough nova for your tastes?

Considering we were playing the low level pregens, getting a single extra attack was not enough of a nova, no. Not considering that the wizard was killing whole groups of stirges with a well timed thunderwave and the thief could get two attacks every round by holding two shortswords. Additionally, that pregen was poorly built, IMO.

[CrusaderJoe]

Considering we were playing the low level pregens, getting a single extra attack was not enough of a nova, no. Not considering that the wizard was killing whole groups of stirges with a well timed thunderwave and the thief could get two attacks every round by holding two shortswords. Additionally, that pregen was poorly built, IMO.

But you totally get to roll the d20 one additional time! That is worth so much on its own you shouldn't even think about anything else and just feel privelaged that you get the chance to roll a d20 and maybe roll another die so you can do some math! What more could you ever want out of tour D&D experience?

/blue


Action surge isn't all that great at low levels when you have one attack, if you have a spell or something to work with then it gets nice. Weapon attack + action surge Tasha's Hideous Laughter is a fun way of doing things. Or action surge sleep, yeah sleep at low levels is a fantastic use of action surge.