Why do fighters subclasses remain so outrageously sabotaged?

[MaxWilson]

Hi Chaosmancer,

Since you don't seem to be enjoying your discussion with Unoriginal much, I thought I'd reach out to you directly despite my unwillingness to characterize your playstyle as badwrongfun. The question you've asked about "why shouldn't I change the world to fit the players" is closely related to questions of illusionism and agency. I bet if you just Google for "Courtney Campbell illusionism" you'll find a bunch of articles and discussions that will edify you more than the one you're currently bogged down in.

Fundamentally, the issue with illusionism is a long-term one: players won't ever notice the first time you swap the half-plate +2 for plate armor +1, but they will notice over time eventually that the world is tailored, and that can diminish agency:

Player Agency (n.): “the feeling of empowerment that comes from being able to take actions in the [virtual] world whose effects relate to the player’s intention” -Mateas, 2001

Ref: http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/...er-agency.html

The whole article is worth reading, but the key thing is that agency is a perceptual phenomenon, not an objective one: it's about how things feel and so it's ultimately subjective, and you have to make your own calls about it. Speaking for myself, I would not feel good if I knew that the DM had changed the half-plate +2 to plate armor +1 just because my character took HAM; it means that the world isn't fair, and it means that my choice to specialize in heavy armor was robbed of some of its natural consequences.

Here's another hypothetical for you that might illustrate the problem: what is wrong with handing out the half-plate +2, and relying on the player to scratch out "half-plate +2" on his character sheet and replace it with "plate armor +1" or even "plate armor +2" if it's important to his own fun? Would that damage the game? Why would it damage the game less if the DM does it secretly?

-Max

[Finney]

Not trying to be Hyperbolic.

Every reply so far has been "look at level 10". When talking about EK or BM we get specific things they can do, usually able to be set up by 4th level and with any race. With samurai we've had one hyper specific build that needs level ten or higher.

If no one it's advocating for the level 4 samurai isn't fair to assume something is wrong?

For example, no one as said anything about me being wrong to be disappointed in the XGtE Cavalier, so I can assume no one so far disagrees with what I said there.

No, it's not fair to assume something is wrong.

The samurai archetype is quite good from levels 1 to 9. It just becomes fantastic from levels 10 to 14, and borders on overpowered from levels 15 to 20.

[Finney]

Samurai were primarily mounted archers when they engaged in warfare. After that, they were polearm users. After that, when they had no other option, they drew their sword.

Exactly!

Kyuba no michi - "the way of the horse and bow".

A sharpshooter samurai seems like a perfect fit to me, but because of popular culture and their portrayal in movies I guess most people envision them wielding a katana in melee instead.

[MaxWilson]

Exactly!

Kyuba no michi - "the way of the horse and bow".

A sharpshooter samurai seems like a perfect fit to me, but because of popular culture and their portrayal in movies I guess most people envision them wielding a katana in melee instead.

Likewise, Sharpshooter is my go-to feat for a Samurai in my headcanon, but I'm probably influenced by Dominions 5.

[terodil]

Hi Chaosmancer, [...]

Hi Max,

I'm not Caosmancer but I'd still like to thank you for that post. It was very illuminating, and lead to some interesting reading.

As always I guess it's a matter of degree. For example, while I strongly subscribe to the idea that player decisions should have consequences (e.g., to name an extreme example, don't fudge the dragon encounter if the lvl 1 party insists, against several in-game warnings, to fight the ancient red dragon 'just because it's there'), I don't think that placing 'loot' falls quite into the same category. The players never had a choice in what mob X was going to keep in its shiny box of treasure +2. The DM setting up the treasure beforehand and the player taking the loot and simply changing it in his inventory to whatever he would like are not, in any way, comparable, imo.

I agree it's a fine line to create the necessary perception that the world is a world and not just a greenscreen for the characters. As http://dmdavid.com/tag/illusionism-i...-if-they-dont/ writes, it's a compromise, a trade-off. When you know that, for example, your characters simply won't be able to overcome some sort of challenge (say, you have nobody with high charisma and nobody ever bothered to look into conversational proficiencies), then, as a DM, you NEED to design your world in a way that they can still figure out where to go. Put in a diary that reveals clues. Allow them to stealthily follow somebody to their secret lair. Whatever -- the point is, you will always adjust your world in more or less subtle ways to fit your party. If your table hates combat resolution, you'll look for other ways to play, and not force them into combat anyway just because 'the world works this way'.

So when it comes to loot, I personally would consider first and foremost how long the campaign is and the disparity in power level between the current party and the challenges I want to set in front of them. If the power level disparity is too great, yes, they will find the full plate instead of the half plate. If however they all just found great upgrades to their stuff, the campaign will run for a long time and their power level is where it should be, yeah, they'll occasionally find coal in their stockings to counteract the previous fudging, so that the world feels more 'real'.

All IMO, as usual.

In any case, great post.

[Chaosmancer]

My reply in #168 wasn't "look at level 10." It was this:


In fact I think Finney is the only one in this thread who has mentioned level 10 at all.

My apologies, I thought you mentioned it along the line.

[The Jack]

Samurai were primarily mounted archers when they engaged in warfare. After that, they were polearm users. After that, when they had no other option, they drew their sword.

This is the problem with learning a little; your knowledge is selective.
For only the begining of their history the Samurai were primarily mounted archers. Like all people who last for the better half of a millenia, their tactics evolved.
They became more infantry focused
They became more polearm focused
They adapted to guns and used pikes.
They adapted to peace
They adapted to modern guns, not well enough.

Their armour got simpler, except for periods where fashion>function.
They did use shields, handheld ones, albiet rarely.
They acted 'dishonourably' all the time, much like knights.
Ritual suicide was more often an execution than a suicide.

But maybe I'm overly sensetive to /IThinkIknowAboutSomethingSoIWillBeMoreWrongThanIWo uldBeIfIJustKnewKnothingAndAcceptedIt.

I played a japanese game once. Gm was pretty sure naginatas were used to slash with big sweeping movements, never to stab, even in formation.

[JackPhoenix]

This is the problem with learning a little; your knowledge is selective.
For only the begining of their history the Samurai were primarily mounted archers. Like all people who last for the better half of a millenia, their tactics evolved.
They became more infantry focused
They became more polearm focused
They adapted to guns and used pikes.
They adapted to peace
They adapted to modern guns, not well enough.

Their armour got simpler, except for periods where fashion>function.
They did use shields, handheld ones, albiet rarely.
They acted 'dishonourably' all the time, much like knights.
Ritual suicide was more often an execution than a suicide.

But maybe I'm overly sensetive to /IThinkIknowAboutSomethingSoIWillBeMoreWrongThanIWo uldBeIfIJustKnewKnothingAndAcceptedIt.

I played a japanese game once. Gm was pretty sure naginatas were used to slash with big sweeping movements, never to stab, even in formation.

Or, you know, perhaps I haven't felt the need to explain centuries of history when what I wrote was enough to address what was in the post I was reacting to. Yes, samurai weren't just mounted archers, but it's how they started, and mentioning that to a person who thought it feels weird that samurai would use a bow is irrelevant to them being overglorifiyed clercs five centuries later.

[Willie the Duck]

This is the problem with learning a little; your knowledge is selective.
...
But maybe I'm overly sensetive to /IThinkIknowAboutSomethingSoIWillBeMoreWrongThanIWo uldBeIfIJustKnewKnothingAndAcceptedIt.

Wow. You just... really want all of us to think you're a phenomenal piece of work, don't you?

It might be smart to assume that 1) no one here is an idiot until they actually prove it, and 2) you are not brilliant, as compared to the rest of the thread's participants.

Neither are of course required, but I would suggest it. Very few people ever come off looking good with your current strategy.

[LudicSavant]

Exactly!

Kyuba no michi - "the way of the horse and bow".

A sharpshooter samurai seems like a perfect fit to me, but because of popular culture and their portrayal in movies I guess most people envision them wielding a katana in melee instead.

What's seemed funny to me when I first read the class is that the sidebar says they were going for a pop culture samurai rather than a historical one, but totally made them better at being horse archers than pretty much anything else.

[The Jack]

Or, you know, perhaps I haven't felt the need to explain centuries of history when what I wrote was enough to address what was in the post I was reacting to.

The way you wrote it suggested that samurai were horse archers and remained so. It doesn't matter that you, yourself, know that they evolved; you write for others, and you mislead others.

[Pex]

Popular culture has really screwed up peoples view of the action past.

I will not get started on a rant about it but I will just say this: Fictional depictions of "Cowboys" vs actual history of Cowboys... *hangs head in shame*

In the recent Magnificent Seven/Seven Samurai movie remake of a few years ago set in the Old West it is easily missed that "cowboy" is said only once and done so in its original meaning.

[Chaosmancer]

Then why roll for the magic item in the first place? Why allow randomness to decide, then change it when it's not convenient? Face it, you had a result, but you thought it wouldn't please the group. So you changed it.

So yes, you are indeed advocating for that.

It was a convenient example for getting an item that didn't matter. That had no significance beyond my desire to reward the players.

Maybe we have different opinions on "bending over backwards". To me, that means going far out of my way. That'd be driving an hour to a store to get someone's favorite brand of pop.

Changing this shield is the equivalent of grabbing someone a coke while you're grabbing something out of the fridge.

And yeah, sometimes I roll a result because I can't decide and when I see the result I say "okay, that's stupid" and change it. It's a mental process for me, working through bad options to find what I want. Nothing says my rolls are sacrosanct outside of skill checks and combat.

Your PCs never hear about the feats of other adventurers?

Pretty much. We've only got a few hours for the game, and they aren't there for me to tell them how awesome my GMPCs are. They'd rather spend time being awesome.

For one, the effects are seen. For two, the important difference is that in "he didn't for narrative convience" implies things don't exist outside of the narrow stage the players have their eyes on, while the other option show a vaster world turning.

I'm wondering if you missed the point where the players don't get told, its there in the quote "he didn't because some other people stopped him in a really cool story you guys will never hear about nor see the effects of"

See, if they didn't hear about the plot, and it gets resolved quietly then... People aren't aware of it. The players won't even ask about it, because they have no idea it ever happened.

Yes, you can use this technique to give the illusion of a larger world. But you can do this in hundreds of ways some of which are more subtle.

[QUOTE=Unoriginal;23555811][QUOTE=Chaosmancer;23555709] As a writer and a DM I believe that nothing I create is fully separated from me. There is a part of me capable of considering and understanding the mass enslavement of people, or murdering for pleasure of the hunt. If I could not comprehend or conceive of it, then I could not write or create it.

Considering, understanding, comprehending and conceiving things aren't DOING the things, and have nothing to do with it.

The DM has to understand what a serial killer is to put one in a game. It doesn't make the DM a serial killer.

So we agree.

Except that, the DM created the serial killer, read his lines, determines his motivations... So without the DM the killer doesn't exist and can't do anything.

And sometime you'll fight a werewolf without the proper equipment. And sometime you'll fight Rakshasa when the whole party is made of casters.

I feel like you are trying to make a point. I'm not sure what it is.

Sometimes bad things happen. But sometimes good things happen.

Hey, you killed a werewolf lord without magic items? You're a rogue right? One of the Lord's victims was an elf, and his boots are magical.

Did those boots exist before you won? Who cares?

How about looking in the setting and seeing all the other things in action, away from the meta-entities?

Sure, I have a campaign setting called Arista. I have been posting it on various points online. Been running games in it for years.

Mind telling me what's happening in the city of Blackbire?

Hey, I'll give you a low hanging fruit. I'm also playing in a Neverwinter campaign. Guy's pulling a lot of material from old sources. Think you can tell me what's going on in Helm's Hold?

Is a statue of Michael a statue of Andy Warhol because the player prefered it.

So you consider it a finished product before the players have knowledge of its existence?

I can't say that is wrong, it is an option, but we have to acknowledge that is a fundamental difference in what we are discussing

No, the plate already exist. If they want to specifically FIND magical plate, they have to specifically say "I want to find magical plate", and search for one. Otherwise they might or might not find plate armor, depending on what they do.

What is the difference between finding it specifically and finding it accidentally from the Players perspective?

I mean, that could just be a wishlist. Players ask for it and you put it in the world and lead them to it. .

[QUOTE=Unoriginal;23555811][QUOTE=Chaosmancer;23555709]
Can't have an interesting story with magical full plate like you can with half plate? This seems a weird assertion.

You can have an interesting story with magical full plate. You can't have an interesting story with "oh look, a 'random' magic item which FOR SOME REASON fits my build perfectly. How lucky am I!"

So what magic items are on tombs of warrior if not magic weapons and armor? Is your player the first and only powerful warrior who needed a magic polearm?

I mean you seem to be really upset at this idea and I don't get it. People don't tell warriors who pick swords "be careful you aren't guarenteed a magical blade" but grab a polearm and suddenly the statistical charts of dungeon loot over the ages pop out.

And the sword and board warrior is never the one shocked by finding a magical shield in the dungeon loot. That isn't immersion breaking for some reason, but find a Rod of the Pact Keeper and suddenly we have to see your notes. You might be creating things out of nothing.

I'm sorry for getting a little sarcastic here, but there is no purity in this. Nothing happens in a vacuum. You want to see clever players work with the Bag of Tricks because you know clever players can use it to great effect. It just HAPPENS to be useful despite seeming like it isn't.

But that's different than the skinny wizard getting the bag of holding which allows him to expand his encumberance limit.

And one of those was randomly chosen.


[QUOTE=Unoriginal;23555811][QUOTE=Chaosmancer;23555709]
Two is an example of a weapon group mismatch. Archers exist, so does every other weapon wielder. But if they aren't in the party, then why would we give the party magic weapons they won't use compared to ones they will. (Barring specific narratives)

Because they don't give the party magic weapons for the party to use. They create a situation where it is possible for the party to acquire magic weapons, which may or may not be useful.

When your party looting a wizard's study, not including the wizard's spellbook in the loot because there is no wizard in the group and giving different treasure is just "wait, what?".

If it is a wizard's study of course he has magical tomes. That'd would be like saying you find a temple with no altar.

But if I created that study months ago and put a dagger of poison in for the rogue who left, an I wrong to instead have the wizard have turned his alchemy to a crossbow that deals poison damage for the crossbow expert.

Or maybe I was wrong to say "this wizard studied alchemy, I could include a weapon for the rogue based on that"?

Why should it not be a dagger. A dagger makes sense. A spear would also make sense, but this one is a dagger, not a spear.

If they're equivalent in rarity, then they're equivalently likely to be found. Why would the magic spear be more likely to be found by a spear user if the whole point is that it's as likely to find a spear than it is to find a dagger?

Why can't the spear user find a spear?

We are going in circles with this. Every time I point out that changing it is perfectly reasonable, that it is not weird or unusual. You refute by asking why it can't be the first thing.

It can be. But if it doesn't matter to the gameworld which it is, why does it matter to you which it is. Why is it so hard to believe that a person trained to use a deadly weapon might find that weapon?

[Chaosmancer]

Hi Chaosmancer,

Since you don't seem to be enjoying your discussion with Unoriginal much, I thought I'd reach out to you directly despite my unwillingness to characterize your playstyle as badwrongfun. The question you've asked about "why shouldn't I change the world to fit the players" is closely related to questions of illusionism and agency. I bet if you just Google for "Courtney Campbell illusionism" you'll find a bunch of articles and discussions that will edify you more than the one you're currently bogged down in.

Fundamentally, the issue with illusionism is a long-term one: players won't ever notice the first time you swap the half-plate +2 for plate armor +1, but they will notice over time eventually that the world is tailored, and that can diminish agency:

Player Agency (n.): “the feeling of empowerment that comes from being able to take actions in the [virtual] world whose effects relate to the player’s intention” -Mateas, 2001

Ref: http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/...er-agency.html

The whole article is worth reading, but the key thing is that agency is a perceptual phenomenon, not an objective one: it's about how things feel and so it's ultimately subjective, and you have to make your own calls about it. Speaking for myself, I would not feel good if I knew that the DM had changed the half-plate +2 to plate armor +1 just because my character took HAM; it means that the world isn't fair, and it means that my choice to specialize in heavy armor was robbed of some of its natural consequences.

Here's another hypothetical for you that might illustrate the problem: what is wrong with handing out the half-plate +2, and relying on the player to scratch out "half-plate +2" on his character sheet and replace it with "plate armor +1" or even "plate armor +2" if it's important to his own fun? Would that damage the game? Why would it damage the game less if the DM does it secretly?

-Max

Okay, I agree with this long term.

But, if most of your choices do have consequences how long will it take you to realize what I've changed?

In the same game I ran recently I had a player who via their backstory created an opportunity for me to create magic guns (it wasva steampunk setting) that they later took possession of. Those guns abilities were undetermined at the start, but I tailored them to fit the playstyle of the player and offer interesting combat choices. I also had a player randomly steal a wyvern egg, have it accidentally exposed to massive amounts of magic radiation and eventually got a powerful companion and adopted son who played a major part in the story.

Players choices do matter, but I'd hate for a player in my game want to play a spear weilding Hunter like Mononoke and then decide to play a "mechanically superior build" that was more likely to really on "common items" they could find.

They aren't guaranteed to find a holy avenger in polearm form, but I often homebrew cool weapons for players to use and find. Because they have a certain thematic vision and there is no reason not to consider that.

As long as they known their decisions matter for the big moments, knowing I'll cover the gaps and make sure they get rewarded with cool things for overcoming the challenges and obstacles I create for them shouldn't make them feel like they've lost agency.

I will try to find time to read the full article though

[KorvinStarmast]

Very few people ever come off looking good with your current strategy.

I raise a toast to Willie, in whose veins flows the milk of human kindness.

[Chaosmancer]

@MaxWilson

Wow, that was way shorter than I imagined, and I think I'm reinforcing my position here.

See, under illusion he included activity. To summarize: Action is not agency because it isn't a choice related to the players intentions.

In the example I've been going forward with, looting the dungeon isn't agency, it is just an action. Placing something the DM wrote down into your inventory has no weight of decision behind it.

The players didn't get a list of dungeons with various loots and make an informed decision based off what they would get. If they did then the loot has signifigance for the story and I wouldn't change it. If the armor was the armor for Krael Elf-friend as a gift during the signing of a peace treaty so he could hunt alongside the Elvish king, then that armor is what it is and it isn't changing.

If instead the players killed a hydra at the bottom of a cult's lair and are digging around the vault for loot... Why not change it? I'm not invalidating their agency. They did what they wanted, and now look for a reward. In fact, getting a "useful" reward instead of a "realistic" reward might even reinforce their agency. They did something they wanted, figured out their way past dangerous forces, and came out the otherside stronger for it.

[JackPhoenix]

The way you wrote it suggested that samurai were horse archers and remained so. It doesn't matter that you, yourself, know that they evolved; you write for others, and you mislead others.

I'm not misleading anyone. I've never suggested samurai were horse archers for the entirety of their existence. I've stated that there's nothing stupid about samurai primarily using bows, because they were, at some point in history, primarily archers.

But hey, at least I wasn't presenting myself as a know-it-all douchebag insulting others over irrelevancies.

[Sigreid]

Popular culture has really screwed up peoples view of the action past.

I will not get started on a rant about it but I will just say this: Fictional depictions of "Cowboys" vs actual history of Cowboys... *hangs head in shame*

Popular culture screws a lot of things up. With the exception of some of the great swords, swords were pretty much like pistols are now. To a warrior in a war zone a pistol is a side arm. A backup weapon and a weapon you could carry when it is inappropriate to carry some manner of long arm but not the weapon of choice for real large scale battle. Same thing with the sword. It was pretty easy and acceptible to have one always with you, but if you were going to war, particularly against armored opponents there were a lot weapons that would do the main line battle job better. Particularly the lowly spear, ax and mace (which is really just a club with some hardware upgrades).

[thereaper]

I used to hate the EK, believing it to be a missed opportunity. I still feel that it was given the wrong schools, but between what it does get, and the occasional non-school limited spell, it looks like it's close enough. Plus, it can get minor illusion.

The poor Barbarian, meanwhile, has to make do with three (admittedly quite nice) rituals, plus whatever it gets through feats (easiest option I've found there is Magic Initiate for 1/day Bless when you aren't raging, plus Thaumaturgy to be more intimidating and open trapped doors from a safe distance, and Guidance for +1d4 to initiative and nearly any skill check you want).

[djreynolds]

A good gauge, can you play this archetype/subclass without feats.

I played a featless champion, it was a challenge. At 5th level our shadow monk was way more impressive. At 6th, I had a 20 strength and only 2 crits that landed.

But the eldritch knight and battlemaster are okay without feats. The have options.

A paladin can really be played featless

Cavalier seems up to the task, unsure of a samurai without feats

Would you play a champion without feats? It's a good way to grade the archetype.

[CantigThimble]

A good gauge, can you play this archetype/subclass without feats.

I played a featless champion, it was a challenge. At 5th level our shadow monk was way more impressive. At 6th, I had a 20 strength and only 2 crits that landed.

But the eldritch knight and battlemaster are okay without feats. The have options.

A paladin can really be played featless

Cavalier seems up to the task, unsure of a samurai without feats

Would you play a champion without feats? It's a good way to grade the archetype.

...If you DO play with feats then what makes that a good way to grade the archetype?

[thereaper]

I think what they're saying is that reliance on feats implies a lackluster archetype. I happen to disagree, because that can be claimed of a lot of things ("If you have to rely on spells, a class is bad"). A crutch is bad not because it is effective, but because it (and the effectiveness it brings) can be easily taken away. This is not likely to happen to feats midway through the game, unless it's breaking the campaign somehow.

[CantigThimble]

I think what they're saying is that reliance on feats implies a lackluster archetype. I happen to disagree, because that can be claimed of a lot of things ("If you have to rely on spells, a class is bad"). A crutch is bad not because it is effective, but because it (and the effectiveness it brings) can be easily taken away.

I guess, but that doesn't really make sense. Feats aren't like crutches because they can't be taken away. (Unless your DM is some kind of madman and bans them halfway through a campaign I guess)

And, I mean, the way you evaluate a lot of abilities changes depending on whether feats are allowed or not. If I would take Precision Strike in a game where feats were allowed and I could take GWM but I wouldn't take it in a game where feats weren't allowed does that mean that Precision Strike is a bad maneuver in general? Even in games where feats are allowed? It just doesn't makes sense to me.

[djreynolds]

...If you DO play with feats then what makes that a good way to grade the archetype?

Good question.

I am a defender of the fighter because I enjoy the idea of the class.

Feats often hide real deficiencies in the fighter chassis especially in levels from 6-10.

In these levels, the fighter doesn't have that 3rd attack yet. But the extra feat at 6th, can be used to grab GWM or resilient wisdom or sharpshooter.

We might say wow, my strength or dex is an 18. And at 6th I can max out that stat, or get a feat like resilient wisdom... But the paladin just got aura of protection for probably +3 to all saves.

But a battlemaster with precision and a 16 in strength can grab at 4th PAM, 6th sentinel, 8th GWM... And are now churning out damage. Or grab resilient wisdom and feel a little braver with say +4 or +5 to wisdom saves and indomitable just a level away.

Feats like PAM and sentinel really increases the champions ability to get more possible critical hits just because they have a solid reaction and bonus action now they can use a lot.

But without feats, maybe the champion has a 20str at 6th, maybe an 18 in con at 8th. That's it. He's a meat shield.

I love the fighter class, but without those feats at 4th, 6th, and 8th level, really only the eldritch knight, battlemaster, cavalier, and arcane archer have something non feat dependent.

Cavalier is a good strength based archetype, so is battlemaster, eldritch knight has spells and war magic.

So with feats, does a champion look better, does that champion have a great chance to roll 19s and 20s. Yes.

But a cavalier with sentinel is scary, swing at my friends with disadvantage, or hit them and I'll hurt you.

Battlemaster with precision and GWM Or SS, we know that story.

Eldritch knight with war caster and PAM and spell sniper.... booming blade is nasty.

[CantigThimble]

Feats often hide real deficiencies in the fighter chassis especially in levels from 6-10.

I just don't think of it as 'hiding'. I think of it as 'making up for'. Hiding implies that the weakness is still there, you just aren't aware of it. But feats get rid of the weakness by making the class stronger.

I think it makes sense to evaluate archetypes in games with feats by evaluating how you would play them with feats and in games without feats by evaluating them without feats but it doesn't make sense to evaluate them for games that do have feats by evaluating them as if they didn't have feats.


And regardless of that, I would still play a champion in a game without feats because feats are unrelated to why I like the archetype. I like them because they're simple in a way that causes me to think differently about how to play the game and I enjoy it.

[BoringInfoGuy]

I think they're more put off by the extensive amount of white room analysis that shows the champion is super far behind the races for most if not all of their goblin and dragon slaying careers (excluding ten hour adventure days which I've yet to read as anything remotely usual).*snip*

Unoriginal already gave a fine rebuttal to this.

I will add that the White room analysis I’ve seen is full of back and forth arguments of “you aren’t accounting for x,” “you’ve over stated the importance of y” “a game where a lack of z is important is a game you should avoid” and trails off into a tangent about gaming philosophies.

Currently, the balance of the arguments I’ve read on the Champion leads me to believe the Champion is viable mechanically, but the lack of activatable abilities is off putting to many players. And Remarkable Athelete does not feel overly remarkable.

Even when I'm in an old-school fighter mood, I won't play (unfixed) Champions. Cavaliers and Samurai, sure. Maybe even a Purple Dragon Knight. But Champions are just bad.

If you tweak Remarkable Athlete to stack with proficiency, then sure, I'd play a Champion. But the PHB Champion is practically worthless for the first 9 levels of play. I'd just as soon play a fighter with no subclass at all (which I call the Warrior), just to be honest about what's really going on.
*snip*

While I do strongly believe the Champion appeals to those who enjoyed playing THAC0 era Fighters, that is not the same as believing every veteran player will want to play a Champion. We didn’t all want to play the same thing back then, after all. But I have noticed that most - if not all - of the Champion’s fans I’ve come across remember when the best AC was -10.

Out of of curiosity, did you play Fighters back in the day, or did you prefer old school Cavaliers and Samarais back then too?

You must really dislike the improved critical range and Remarkable Athlete to say you would rather be without a subclass until level 10.

Nothing is better than doing critical damage on a 19 and 20? Ok. To me, the re roll granted by the Great Weapon Fighting would complement well with an increased crit range. Ten percent chance to crit, ten percent chance to try again. That said, I can understand not liking an ability that goes off when the dice choose, instead of the player.

Now, I will agree that Remarkable Athelete would be more remarkable if it also gave some bonus to Str/Dex/Con checks where you already get to apply your proficiency bonus. And Bard’s get a similar bonus that applies to every ability check at a much earlier level.

But there are a couple things that may be getting overlooked.

First, RA applies to Ability Checks. That includes skills, but it also includes all the checks you make where no skill applies. Every Constitution check would fall into this category. Those are not common, but some of the situations where they do come up are deadly. (Needing to hold your breath, for example)

But what is much more common is the various Strength checks that don’t fall under Athletics. The PHB lists the following examples:
•Force open a stuck, locked, or barred door.
•Break free of bonds.
•Push through a tunnel that is too small.
•Hang onto a wagon while being dragged behind it.
•Tip over a statue.
•Keep a boulder from rolling.

Basically, any time you want to use your Stregnth to do cool stuff, that doesn’t fit Athletics.

It seems that the largest variety of unskilled checks will typically be using strength. More so if you add in a player looking for opportunities use his stregnth for more than just his attack and damage bonuses.

Most Dexterity checks can be covered by a skill, except for the single most common unskilled Dexterity check, Initiative. Improving your odds of going before your opponents is a good thing.

But bards do get a better ability that applies to all checks without proficiency, and they get it at level two.

That leads to the second thing people tend to overlook about RA. Jack of all Trades is round down, while Remarkable Athlete is round up. Compare a Valor bard maxing strength to a Champion fighter doing the same, assuming starting with a 16 strength. Looking only at unskilled strength checks

Level 1. No bonus
Champion: +3
V Bard: +3

Level 2: Jack of all Trades +1
Champion: +3
V Bard: +4

Level 4: Both use standard ASI to Str
Champion: +4
V Bard: +5

Level 6: Fighter bonus ASI to Str. Str capped
Champion: +5
V Bard: +5

Level 7: Remarkable Athlete +2
Champion: +7
V Bard: +5

Level 8: Bard standard ASI to Str. Str capped.
Champion: +7
V Bard: +6

Level 9: Jack of all Trades +2
Champion: +7
V Bard: +7

Level 13: Remarkable Athlete +3
Champion: +8
V Bard: +7

Level 17: Jack of all Trades +3
Champion: +8
V Bard: +8

So the basic takeaway is that JoaT can let Valor Bards out shine Fighters at doing cool strength stuff. But - of the PHB subclasses - only the Champion has RA to do unskilled strength checks better or as well as the Valor Bard. And certainly better than the other fighter sub classes.

Remarkable Athlete could be better. But even as-is, it is a solid bonus. It gives a bonus to all the physical Ability Skill checks you did not gain proficiency. But more significantly it also provides a bonus on any physical Ability check that falls outside a skill. Things like bending bars or kicking down doors, Initiative, and chasing down an opponent.

Still, this is also white room stuff. It looks at strength because that is the traditional Fighter strong suit and Valor Bards because they are the bard subclass most likely to also maximize strength. I’m also focusing on Strength Ability checks where Athletics does not apply, which takes comparisons of RA/JoaT vs Skill proficiency vs expertise off the table. This was to compare both abilities where they will give the most benefit. All this was to try to get an apples to apples comparison of the numerical benefits of RA and JoaT.

Outside this section of whiteboard, there is much more to look at. How often do these checks show up at any particular table? What about builds that go Dex instead? How about how RA compares to other fighter level 7 abilities?

How about how the benefit of the ability goes down the more Str or Dex skills you take? Well, you still get the benefits where no skill can apply. But you could also look at Remarkable Athlete as granting more opportunity to nab the mental skills. With good Str and Dex scores, you can let RA make you competent at all the physical stuff, and become proficient in stuff like Intimidate, Survival, Insight, Perception, etc.

Honestly, I’m strongly considering playing a Champion for my next character.

[Skylivedk]

Unoriginal already gave a fine rebuttal to this.

I will add that the White room analysis I’ve seen is full of back and forth arguments of “you aren’t accounting for x,” “you’ve over stated the importance of y” “a game where a lack of z is important is a game you should avoid” and trails off into a tangent about gaming philosophies.

Currently, the balance of the arguments I’ve read on the Champion leads me to believe the Champion is viable mechanically, but the lack of activatable abilities is off putting to many players. And Remarkable Athelete does not feel overly remarkable.

Unoriginal did what?

You mean this?

White room theorycrafting "shows" nothing. It's why it's called "white room", people run numbers in a vacuum and then pretend it has any significance.

It's the equivalent of the "spherical cow" for RPGs.


There are no factual analysis out here showing that the Champion is "super far behind" or even far behind in the "races for most if not all of their goblin and dragon slaying careers", and there is no theoretical analysis conducted in a proper fashion that assert this either.

That's not a fine rebuttal, it's refusing to match the evidence presented and instead using cheap rhetorics (absurdity+analogy) to gain audience support. Numbers matter, of course they do. The battlemaster is better in most standard scenarios AND has more mechanical options in combat to get around the outliers.

So far the only cases I've seen for the champion (not as a dip for crit fishing) are those that take some extremely long days/high ACs. Every single honest attempt I've seen at doing the analysis has turned out ugly for the champion. The proponents of the champion have so far failed to deliver on the same body of work as the detractors.

About remarkable athlete, you're right. It's unremarkable. Could be made a lot better by either applying to those skills where you have proficiency or be made more fun by being an active ability you get back at short rest :) - and yes, I know champion doesn't have rechargeable abilities on purpose. Doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.

[qube]

That's not a fine rebuttal, it's refusing to match the evidence presented and instead using cheap rhetorics (absurdity+analogy) to gain audience support. Numbers matter, of course they do. The battlemaster is better in most standard scenarios AND has more mechanical options in combat to get around the outliers.

Numbers matter. But a +1 here or there doesn't. Because of the andard margin of error

• as attack
  - In theory, a +1 will give you 1 more hit
  - In practice, a gamer who happens to roll good vs one who happens to roll bad in a session >>> 1.
• as damage - the effect is even worse, as it no longer hit-or-miss senario, but a a cummulation of many die-rolls where it only matters if your sum surpasses a treshhold.

Numbers matter - but they only matter if

• you're able to finish the encounter sooner.
• you're able to do it on a basis that surpasses that surpasses the effect of luck

Oppositely, numbers don't matter when you kill the monster by reducing him to -8 instead of -5

So far the only cases I've seen for the champion (not as a dip for crit fishing) are those that take some extremely long days/high ACs. Every single honest attempt I've seen at doing the analysis has turned out ugly for the champion. The proponents of the champion have so far failed to deliver on the same body of work as the detractors.

Copy paste from an older thread - that scripted 10K fights of 2 lvl 5 fighters: The average amount of rounds 2 lvl 5 champtions fought vs 2 lvl 5 battemaster (riposte & crit. the second number being with a normal spending of SDs; the third (between brackets) being if they overspend ) (both dual wielding rapier builds)

• 4 apes (CR1/2): 2.27 vs 2.02 (1.98)
• 4 bears (CR1/2) : 2.09 vs 1.94 (1.89)
• 2 animate armors (CR1) : 3.10 vs 2.86 (2.74)
• 1 awakened tree (CR2): 1.43 vs 1.40 (1.39)
• 1 manticore (CR 3): 1.55 vs 1.72 (1.68)
• 1 ettin (CR 4): 2.12 vs 1.93 (1.91)
• 1 barbed devil (CR 5): 3.70 vs 3.37 (3.12)

And that's just the average. On a consistent basis (95% certainty) there the results can differ a round in both directions. To take the apes,

• the Champ takes them out in 1.03 to 3.50 rounds,
• the overspending BM takes them them out in 0.84 to 3.11 rounds.

Those intervals overlap WAY to much to conclude the chamption is far behind the BM. In practice, they will kill the monster equally fast.

What does that mean? Well, in practice, both teams will end that fight in 2 rounds. 3 if they're unlucky in their rolls.

... but I'm sure some people will still cry how BM does more damage. As though a monster at -8 is deadererer then one at -5

[Skylivedk]

SNIP
What does that mean? Well, in practice, both teams will end that fight in 2 rounds. 3 if they're unlucky in their rolls.

... but I'm sure some people will still cry how BM does more damage. As though a monster at -8 is deadererer then one at -5

Thank you. That's the most salient analysis I've seen in a while. [I MISSED THE PART WITH DW RAPIERS. THIS ANALYSIS IS HORRIBLE]

The others I have seen have been Kryx' and the one on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/com...XaSpyc-nZ79KB0
plus one more, I can't recall the name of.

While you've a good point in the difference not being very big, I think you also show another point quite well: the battlemaster is ahead in most of scenarios.

Can you post a link to the old post? It might be quite enlightening to the current discussion (and also answer questions about feats and other build choices). Also I'd like to see if the post mentions how often the battlemaster uses a round less than the champion.

All in all, Battlemaster is still ahead before considering the benefits of providing:

Reaction attacks to the rogue (commanding strike)
Advantage to allies (trip attack/menacing)
Other team combat utility (ie repositioning)

[Unoriginal]

That's not a fine rebuttal, it's refusing to match the evidence presented and instead using cheap rhetorics (absurdity+analogy) to gain audience support. Numbers matter, of course they do.

I find it quite funny you accuse me of using cheap rhetorics to gain audience support while you are doing it in the same breath.

Saying "numbers matter, of course they do" is both stating the impossible-to-refute generality, and trying to frame me as some kind of idiot who disagree with the obvious.

Yes, numbers matter. Numbers *in a vacuum* do not, and that is what I said.

White room theorycrafting has no context. That is why it is called "white room". And without context, you can claim anything, because there will always be some convenient factors justifying it, or some inconvenient factors not taken into account.

The battlemaster is better in most standard scenarios AND has more mechanical options in combat to get around the outliers..

Unproven claim without demonstration about vague situations.

Tell us what those "standard scenarios" are, in detail, and then we can try to denonstrate something about them.