In Defense of the Champion

[jkat718]

/blue

??? why can't you be cool, like me

[CrusaderJoe]

??? why can't you be cool, like me

Way too troublesome on my phone, takes me to long and I hit other selections even when I zoom in.

[jkat718]

Way too troublesome on my phone, takes me to long and I hit other selections even when I zoom in.

Android, ftw! My phone lets my double-tap to zoom in on a specific element, so I can avoid this. But yeah, makes sense.
/tangent

In regards to the "go-to beginner class" proposal, I fully support it. I'm planning on expanding the Pathfinder afterschool program that I work at, and teaching some kids 5e. The champion archetype will be super useful to give kids who come in without a sheet and want to play.

[CrusaderJoe]

I think one of the reasons I laugh at the 5e Fighter is that I've played a 4e fighter. Pretty simple and yet effective.

Going from a 3e mindset to a 5e Fighter one would view the 5e fighter as a huge improvement. However coming from 4e... Its just bad.

They essentially (lol) took the essentials fighter (which made a lot if people mad) and lazily put it into a new system.

So perhaps if I never played 4e I wouldn't know what a simple yet effective fighter could be and wouldn't have issues with the current fighter.

[Chronos]

Why? I understand that this disparity exists; I still don't understand why it should matter one bit.

The whole point of this game is that we want to be able to influence the plot. Spellcasters have more ways to influence the plot. An all-fighter party might find a portal that leads to another plane, or an item that casts Plane Shift... but if they do, it's because the DM gave it to them. The fighters don't have the choice; the DM does. A spellcaster, meanwhile, can choose on their own to go to another plane, without relying on the DM choosing for them.

[Easy_Lee]

The whole point of this game is that we want to be able to influence the plot. Spellcasters have more ways to influence the plot. An all-fighter party might find a portal that leads to another plane, or an item that casts Plane Shift... but if they do, it's because the DM gave it to them. The fighters don't have the choice; the DM does. A spellcaster, meanwhile, can choose on their own to go to another plane, without relying on the DM choosing for them.

A lot of the spellcasters' plot control happens out of combat, though. Once in combat, there are a lot of ways one might deal with a threat. Spellcasters have plenty of methods, sure. But any one of those methods can mess up very badly. Unlike 3.5, casters have a very limited spell pool, relatively weak options, and quite a high chance that the things they're trying to do will mess up badly.

I'm actually running a game right now with a party full of casters. There's a cleric, a druid, and a warlock. The cleric I don't have to worry about, because he's a mountain dwarf and has close to a fighter or barbarian's tankiness. The other two, I really have to pull my punches sometimes. I've talked about how I nearly annihilated them just by sending a PC I built, one level higher than the three of them, to fight them 1v3.

If they were playing fighters, I wouldn't have to worry about them as much. People talk about how wisdom and charisma saving throws can end a fight, but usually those things are mind control and other effects that usually just turn you on your party for a time. They're in more danger than you. Worst case scenario, you might end up enthralled to a vampire or imprisoned or some such, leaving a lot of room open for good story.

No, in my experience, it's the strength and constitution saving throws that really get people. Falling prey to that poison is crippling for a long time, and can make it nearly impossible to keep going. Getting grappled by something you don't want to be near is absolutely horrible. And when you're a caster, and have those lower hit points, you're literally one misstep away from death a lot of the time.

Are there ways to play a caster without being squishy and easy to kill? Yes, there certainly are. Making sure you always keep spells like shield, misty step, invis, and teleport ready is one thing casters can do. Making sure your spells have a wide variety of save DCs, so you'll be able to target anything, is another good way. Playing a sorcerer and just hoarding your spell points for when you need to blow something the hell up right now is also a good strategy.

But these things take some degree of experience, a little metagaming, and aren't full-proof. Your DM can always throw that one encounter at you that you weren't expecting, or draw the day out just a little bit longer than your resources can handle. Or, you might make a mistake, opening the wrong chest and having a horrible trap sprung on you.

That's one of the chief advantages to fighters in general, and the champion in particular. No matter what happens, he can put up a good fight. The champion doesn't run out of resources, he doesn't succumb to those nasty con and strength checks that would cripple or pull him to his doom, and he doesn't care what kind of foe is trying to come after him. The one thing nearly every mob has in common is that it dies if you hit it hard enough. Sometimes you need a magic weapon, but that's about it. Our stereotypical, none-too-bright, one-solution-fits-all half-orc champion with his axe can rest easy. He really is going to be fine no matter what, as long as he sticks to his guns and whacks those fools harder than they can whack him.

I know I sound like a broken record, and I apologize for that. I'm not saying the champion is the most versatile archetype, or is always da bes, or any of that. I'm just saying that it's very consistent, effective at what it does, and is a surprisingly deep subclass. I've shown with the maths that you can have a lot of fun optimizing your champion, focusing on maximizing a small pool of widely applicable numbers rather than having the biggest list of options. That's really where the champion's appeal lies, for me.

And really, when isn't going on a murder-spree a viable strategy? It's like the murderhobo player type personified, and who doesn't know a few of those?

[Logical DM]

I think one of the reasons I laugh at the 5e Fighter is that I've played a 4e fighter. Pretty simple and yet effective.

Going from a 3e mindset to a 5e Fighter one would view the 5e fighter as a huge improvement. However coming from 4e... Its just bad.

They essentially (lol) took the essentials fighter (which made a lot if people mad) and lazily put it into a new system.

So perhaps if I never played 4e I wouldn't know what a simple yet effective fighter could be and wouldn't have issues with the current fighter.

Yep. 5e does a lot of things pretty well, but they took a massive step back in martial tactical options. And where's our warlord?

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.



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.

The disparity exists and is a problem because a lot of players don't like feeling less useful than other players, which a fighter demonstrably is in comparison to a wizard.

Elegant fix wise, where are the choices for those who want to play a character with a large amount options but who doesn't want to play a caster? 3.5 and 4e managed it, 5e's fallen pretty short in that department so far. Monks, rogues and paladins do their job pretty well, but we're still lacking a class that doesn't have to say 'I attack' over and over.

[Chronos]

When will martial characters ever have more options in combat than casters? Even if you're out of spell slots, or conserving them for later, you'll still have 2-4 cantrips known, even at first level, and more as you advance. Martials, meanwhile, can choose between... Attack and Shove?

[CrusaderJoe]

When will martial characters ever have more options in combat than casters? Even if you're out of spell slots, or conserving them for later, you'll still have 2-4 cantrips known, even at first level, and more as you advance. Martials, meanwhile, can choose between... Attack and Shove?

That's not the point. It isn't about more options, it is about having interesting options.

You see fights on TV, Movies, and Video Games and then you jump into D&D thinking "hey playing a fighter will let me fight" but that isn't the case. The system is way too ridgid for that.

Because the system is so ridgid it makes DM freeze up or have to house rule a lot of things that they shouldn't really need to. There was a kid at a games day that wanted to take an enemy and throw-slide them down a bar like you see in old westerns, family guy, and any thing that has a bar fighting scene. Took the DM way to long to figure out how to do it so the DM just said no, it was too powerful.

This isn't even asking for much I don't think. Just stop printing the same type of base combat rules since... Well AD&D. Keep them in there for the ones that like it but don't just say "hey want to do anything else? DM, wing it!". Its the problem with the skill system too. Leaving it up to each DM gives no consistency and no way to make the character you want with any confidence. Most people don't know their next DM, they meet up and play at game shops or wherever. Who knows if they think the DCs are too hard or too easy.

As a base rule each table might be uaing different rules... That's a horrible way to go about having a core rule.


Edit: I just counted how many pages are devoted to combat, 10... 1½ to 2 pages are actually about combat actions that can be taken by noncasters. Now look at all the combat actions casters get to choose from... How many pages is that? Well I don't feel like counting the spell lists right now but I'm going to say it blows 1½-2 out of the fricken water.

[Fwiffo86]

When will martial characters ever have more options in combat than casters? Even if you're out of spell slots, or conserving them for later, you'll still have 2-4 cantrips known, even at first level, and more as you advance. Martials, meanwhile, can choose between... Attack and Shove?

I just don't understand why this is even an issue. You want options? Play something else. There is plenty of other martial classes with options. If your hang up is that they don't have as many as a caster, then play a caster. Making statements of this type is fruitless.

[Logical DM]

That's not the point. It isn't about more options, it is about having interesting options.

You see fights on TV, Movies, and Video Games and then you jump into D&D thinking "hey playing a fighter will let me fight" but that isn't the case. The system is way too ridgid for that.

Because the system is so ridgid it makes DM freeze up or have to house rule a lot of things that they shouldn't really need to. There was a kid at a games day that wanted to take an enemy and throw-slide them down a bar like you see in old westerns, family guy, and any thing that has a bar fighting scene. Took the DM way to long to figure out how to do it so the DM just said no, it was too powerful.

This isn't even asking for much I don't think. Just stop printing the same type of base combat rules since... Well AD&D. Keep them in there for the ones that like it but don't just say "hey want to do anything else? DM, wing it!". Its the problem with the skill system too. Leaving it up to each DM gives no consistency and no way to make the character you want with any confidence. Most people don't know their next DM, they meet up and play at game shops or wherever. Who knows if they think the DCs are too hard or too easy.

As a base rule each table might be uaing different rules... That's a horrible way to go about having a core rule.


Edit: I just counted how many pages are devoted to combat, 10... 1½ to 2 pages are actually about combat actions that can be taken by noncasters. Now look at all the combat actions casters get to choose from... How many pages is that? Well I don't feel like counting the spell lists right now but I'm going to say it blows 1½-2 out of the fricken water.

It wouldn't be horrible if there were a bunch of well thought out guidelines and the rest of the edition worked that way, but unfortunately that's not how it is - a wizard always gets 8d6 dex save for half 20' radius fire damage with fireball, martials get table-by-table variable DM fiat abilities and casters get company balanced discrete abilities.

[mephnick]

That was still a problem with the million numbers of 3.5. You still had to hope a DM would bull**** some DC to let you slide an opponent across a bar. It has nothing to do with 5e or the champion.

[Easy_Lee]

When will martial characters ever have more options in combat than casters? Even if you're out of spell slots, or conserving them for later, you'll still have 2-4 cantrips known, even at first level, and more as you advance. Martials, meanwhile, can choose between... Attack and Shove?

Attacks are better options than basic cantrips. Even when you have stat to damage, only warlocks get to add the stat multiple times with Eldritch blast. That doesn't really compare with a fighter's weapon attacks, which are stronger even before he gets a magical weapon.

The caster has more options, yes. No one is really arguing that. But the champion hits harder, tanks harder, and his options last all day every day. A lot of people don't realize how big those three things are.

[CrusaderJoe]

I just don't understand why this is even an issue. You want options? Play something else. There is plenty of other martial classes with options. If your hang up is that they don't have as many as a caster, then play a caster. Making statements of this type is fruitless.

So in a fantasy world a noncasters should have less options than in real life? I thought this was fantasy and in fantasy characters can do things that normal people can't.

Just because it isn't magic and does awesome things doesn't mean that magic is any less special. People need to get over this issue.

That was still a problem with the million numbers of 3.5. You still had to hope a DM would bull**** some DC to let you slide an opponent across a bar. It has nothing to do with 5e or the champion.

It isn't about a million numbers. But coming to a game you should have a base assumption of what the rules are. In 3.5/4e your character within the world knew their limitations, however in 5e going from game to take your character doesn't even know what their limitations really are. The way 5e is set up is a slight against gamist and narrative views. It isn't that each table MIGHT be different it is that each table is most likely different.

I think skills shouldn't be a roll versus a DC. They should be abilities that you can do. If you need a roll then have it be a contest. This fixes a lot of the problems. Have training in Athletics? You gain specific abilities that you an pick up.

Athletics (Swim): Gain swim speed equal to your speed. Difficult rapids count as difficult terrain.

Arcana (Alchemy): You can craft alchemical items costing Xgp in Y time. The cost of the item you can create is based in your level.

They actually did this with jumping. They took a check and turned it into a movement speed. They need to expand on this idea.

[I'm back]

Attacks are better options than basic cantrips. Even when you have stat to damage, only warlocks get to add the stat multiple times with Eldritch blast. That doesn't really compare with a fighter's weapon attacks, which are stronger even before he gets a magical weapon.
The caster has more options, yes. No one is really arguing that. But the champion hits harder, tanks harder, and his options last all day every day. A lot of people don't realize how big those three things are.

Except plenty of things hit harder and tank harder than the champion, and while his passive, minor options may last all day the rest of the party can't - and he is very dependent on the rest of the party (remember, he has no utility of his own, other better classes are the ones that bring things apart from taking and dealing damage to the table), so as soon as they stop he does. And in the time before they stop, they've been a lot more use than he has.

[Easy_Lee]

Thing about skills is that, unlike most spells, skills are really only limited by what you try to use them for. Everyone gets skills, so this doesn't just apply to fighters, but skills can be more versatile than some think.

Champions are encouraged to get creative with their strength, dexterity, and con via remarkable athlete. If you want real world applications of that, it means that champions are pretty good at giving massages, can carry much heavier objects, and can last a long time in bed. One could keep coming up with uses for the physical stats, and therefore the champion advantage to checks with those stats. It's not a reality warping spell, but there is a lot you can do with it.

[MadBear]

Except plenty of things hit harder and tank harder than the champion, and while his passive, minor options may last all day the rest of the party can't - and he is very dependent on the rest of the party (remember, he has no utility of his own, other better classes are the ones that bring things apart from taking and dealing damage to the table), so as soon as they stop he does. And in the time before they stop, they've been a lot more use than he has.

So what you're saying is that in the very niche situation where the party is unable to long or short rest, and everyone wasn't aware and used up all their abilities, that the champion will shine....

I get why the champion is what it is. It's a good bland class for the casual player who doesn't want to think about their choices. That doesn't make it a bad subclass, but it definitely isn't good.

[CrusaderJoe]

Except plenty of things hit harder and tank harder than the champion, and while his passive, minor options may last all day the rest of the party can't - and he is very dependent on the rest of the party (remember, he has no utility of his own, other better classes are the ones that bring things apart from taking and dealing damage to the table), so as soon as they stop he does. And in the time before they stop, they've been a lot more use than he has.

I came back to post this cause I forgot to add it... You beat me too it.

People think the champion can go all day but they forget... He stops when the group stops. Unless the champion has the ability to continue without a group... Hahaha....

Which has always been an issue in 3e, stopped being a problem in 4e, and now it has resurfaced in 5e.

The rogue however can go on without the group, at least they have the chance to scout ahead. Heck, they can snipe and take out quite a few enemies along their way. Risky? Yes but no where near as risky as the champion going alone.


Edit

@Madbear

It means that if the rest of the party as on a specific schedule, say /long rest so is the champion. This isn't a niche problem. In a group that recovers their abilities on a long rest (wizard, cleric, bard, etc...) Then the champion takes the same rests as them and essentially becomes bound to the per long rest, without getting anything from the long rest except their allies back.

[archaeo]

I get why the champion is what it is. It's a good bland class for the casual player who doesn't want to think about their choices. That doesn't make it a bad subclass, but it definitely isn't good.

Isn't it, though?

I mean, it does what it's supposed to do. It delivers the simplest version of combat in an easy-to-use package. There's never any between-session homework. You just hit dudes, really hard, repeatedly. Of course you also have the entire rest of the system, which means that new players/those who don't care can choose to focus on participating in the plot and roleplaying and all the other good, non-mechanical stuff that tend to keep people coming back to the game.

It's just a bundle of very simple mechanics for those who want to play that way. It does that pretty well, I'd say. If you want to be a dude that hits things with swords and also has a bunch of complicated other stuff, the game has classes for that too.

The rogue however can go on without the group, at least they have the chance to scout ahead. Heck, they can snipe and take out quite a few enemies along their way. Risky? Yes but no where near as risky as the champion going alone.

Why, exactly? Champion could take Urchin or Criminal as a background to gain stealth proficiency, and they'll have good dex. The Champion doesn't get the kinds of specific bonuses Rogues get to attack creatures that are surprised, but one imagines they could pick off an enemy or two with some moderately clever play.

Champion is obviously not the best scouting subclass, but it's totally workable.

It means that if the rest of the party as on a specific schedule, say /long rest so is the champion. This isn't a niche problem. In a group that recovers their abilities on a long rest (wizard, cleric, bard, etc...) Then the champion takes the same rests as them and essentially becomes bound to the per long rest, without getting anything from the long rest except their allies back.

Do 100% of your adventuring days feature 2 short rests and a long rest? I have to think that, at a few points in most adventurers' lives, they're not going to have time to rest. It's a genre staple.

In any case, short rests fuel Second Wind and Action Surge, while long rests fuel Indomitable, so it's not like Fighters don't want naps too. Their longevity is a little situational.

[mephnick]

Yeah, it's not like 3.5 where fighters get zero skills and zero chance to do anything untrained because DC's are all in the high 30's. Fighters in 5e can take any skill they want through backgrounds, and have a decent chance of doing something they aren't proficient in due to bounded accuracy. You can easily make a champion with knowledge, stealth options or investigation type things. It's no longer true that fighters can't contribute out of combat.

[Easy_Lee]

So what you're saying is that in the very niche situation where the party is unable to long or short rest, and everyone wasn't aware and used up all their abilities, that the champion will shine....

I get why the champion is what it is. It's a good bland class for the casual player who doesn't want to think about their choices. That doesn't make it a bad subclass, but it definitely isn't good.

Regarding the bland thing, I guess you didn't read much of this thread. Those features champions get have depth; they do more than they seem at first glance.

And regarding the "niche" situation where everyone is out of spells, you've never once been in that scenario? What makes you think the DM will let the party take a rest the moment they need one? I'm sure it depends on the game.

If your DM will let you take short rests willy nilly, then the warlock and monk become the best classes. There really isn't too much to say about that. But if you do have those days which just go on way too long, or are tasked with killing as many of the enemy as you can before you tire, then champions are quite handy.

And, again, that's only one facet of the character. The kinds of crit chains a champion can get can be devastating, especially as a half orc. For me personally, it feels a lot better to pull of two great axe crits in a row than to throw a fireball or cast hold person. And the difficulty of killing a champion is nothing to scoff at.

[CrusaderJoe]

Isn't it, though?

I mean, it does what it's supposed to do. It delivers the simplest version of combat in an easy-to-use package. There's never any between-session homework. You just hit dudes, really hard, repeatedly. Of course you also have the entire rest of the system, which means that new players/those who don't care can choose to focus on participating in the plot and roleplaying and all the other good, non-mechanical stuff that tend to keep people coming back to the game.

It's just a bundle of very simple mechanics for those who want to play that way. It does that pretty well, I'd say. If you want to be a dude that hits things with swords and also has a bunch of complicated other stuff, the game has classes for that too.



Why, exactly? Champion could take Urchin or Criminal as a background to gain stealth proficiency, and they'll have good dex. The Champion doesn't get the kinds of specific bonuses Rogues get to attack creatures that are surprised, but one imagines they could pick off an enemy or two with some moderately clever play.

Champion is obviously not the best scouting subclass, but it's totally workable.



Do 100% of your adventuring days feature 2 short rests and a long rest? I have to think that, at a few points in most adventurers' lives, they're not going to have time to rest. It's a genre staple.

In any case, short rests fuel Second Wind and Action Surge, while long rests fuel Indomitable, so it's not like Fighters don't want naps too. Their longevity is a little situational.

The reason the Rogue can do it while the Fighter can not is because of Expertise. At all levels the rogue will have such an advantage on stealth that he can do things the fighter wouldn't dare.

Even the Dex based fighter will fall behind. Build a fighter like a rogue and do you really have a fighter?

Do note I still think they should be the same class.

[Chronos]

Quoth Easy_Lee:

If you want real world applications of that, it means that champions are pretty good at giving massages, can carry much heavier objects, and can last a long time in bed.

This isn't true. No fighter, even with five Tomes of Strength, can ever lift as much as a wizard with Telekinesis. Or if you're just referring to hauling stuff around, no fighter, again even with five tomes, can ever carry as much as a wizard with Tenser's Floating Disk.

[Easy_Lee]

The reason the Rogue can do it while the Fighter can not is because of Expertise. At all levels the rogue will have such an advantage on stealth that he can do things the fighter wouldn't dare.

Even the Dex based fighter will fall behind. Build a fighter like a rogue and do you really have a fighter?

Do note I still think they should be the same class.

While it's true that expertise is nice, and that rogues can sneak better than champions can, champions can fight better than rogues can. A rogue's ideal damage is getting sneak attack every round, and sometimes twice through an OA. Champions can best that damage, and are also much harder to kill.

So it's a trade off. Both excel at one thing relative to the other.

But you know, a rogue could splash champion for greatly increased combat prowess. And a champion could dip rogue for Stealth expertise. Players can build their character to do those things they wish to do well.

[Fwiffo86]

This isn't true. No fighter, even with five Tomes of Strength, can ever lift as much as a wizard with Telekinesis. Or if you're just referring to hauling stuff around, no fighter, again even with five tomes, can ever carry as much as a wizard with Tenser's Floating Disk.

I'm responding here because this argument is silly. You are correct, telekinesis can lift more. Tenser's can carry more. Now, next question. Does the fighter need to prepare either of these? No. Why? Because his abilities don't require preparation. He just does them.

The argument that a caster can do anything anyone else can do is a fallacy. While it is true that the "possibility" exists, that in no way means it "will be".

In my experience, more often than not, the casters just don't have the right stuff memorized for the moment things like this crop up. Nor does the party have any inclination to wait for them to change up their spells. This is even more common with the shrunken spell lists.

You're position is flimsy at best. It does exist certainly, but its a flimsy argument.

[CrusaderJoe]

While it's true that expertise is nice, and that rogues can sneak better than champions can, champions can fight better than rogues can. A rogue's ideal damage is getting sneak attack every round, and sometimes twice through an OA. Champions can best that damage, and are also much harder to kill.

So it's a trade off. Both excel at one thing relative to the other.

But you know, a rogue could splash champion for greatly increased combat prowess. And a champion could dip rogue for Stealth expertise. Players can build their character to do those things they wish to do well.

Champions take more hits and will go down faster than a rogue. Even with second wind and high AC. So while the champion has the potential to do more damage, them last in in the middle of a horde is questionable. The rogue stays away from danger, has uncanny dodge and other defensive abilities, and is generally in a safer position than the fighter. The rogue can even disengage, move, dash to run away from creatures if things get hairy.

So on paper sure the champion will fight better, but in actual game play... Not as much.

The champion also needs more support in battle than the rogue. Someone healing them more often is the basic issue. Casters and enemies will target the fighter more often cause the rigue is hidden and they cant target her. Played directly the way they were meant to OR played smartly the rogue comes out on top.

Unless are we in a featureless demiplane/coliseum with light all around? Cause you know, I've been through so many games where all battles happen like that.

[Easy_Lee]

Champions take more hits and will go down faster than a rogue. Even with second wind and high AC. So while the champion has the potential to do more damage, them last in in the middle of a horde is questionable. The rogue stays away from danger, has uncanny dodge and other defensive abilities, and is generally in a safer position than the fighter. The rogue can even disengage, move, dash to run away from creatures if things get hairy.

So on paper sure the champion will fight better, but in actual game play... Not as much.

The champion also needs more support in battle than the rogue. Someone healing them more often is the basic issue. Casters and enemies will target the fighter more often cause the rigue is hidden and they cant target her. Played directly the way they were meant to OR played smartly the rogue comes out on top.

Oh boy. Okay, one thing at time.

First bolded statement: champions have access to better armor than rogues, get one more feat over the course of their leveling career, have more hit points, and can use shields. In addition to that, champions do more damage. Putting all of this together, a champion is harder to hit than a rogue, and can tank those hits better.

Rogues must play evasively, else they will die. This is as true now as it always has been. And there's not always a wall to climb, or an object to hide behind, or a way to get away from the fight.

Further, fighters get indomitable. One of the worst things that can happen in a fight is failing the wrong save. Rogues are more susceptible to that, particularly con and strength saves. The champion has a way to reroll the worst ones.

And even further, taking a foe out of the fight by killing it faster is the best form of damage mitigation known to grognards. Champions are good at that, better than rogues, and can keep doing it all day every day regardless of enemy type or the current situation.

Second bolded statement: on paper, a rogue can hide every round. On paper, a wizard always has the perfect spell ready, and a moon druid has access to every beast form in the book. Things don't always work out that way. I put a lot more trust in high AC, high HP, and increased crit chance than I do in the theoretical situation where a rogue is always able to outrun and hide from enemies.

Again, a rogue can't always hide. Some DMs won't even allow hiding at all in combat.

Third bolded statement: kidding? The easiest way to get SA is to have an ally adjacent to the target. Most sources of advantage, such as an enemy being prone, aren't something that the rogue can do in the same round as an attack. Rogues benefit the most from having a fighter in the party, preferably one with the defensive fighting style and sentinel who can thus punish enemies for trying to target the rogue.

Saying that the rogue is better because it will get targeted less often is not really a mark in the rogue's favor. Sure, it works out for a selfish player who is only concerned with their own well-being. But someone has to get targeted every round. If it's not the rogue, and there is no fighter or barbarian because everyone assumes that they suck, then it's going to be one of the casters.

And that's not good. Your casters can die in one or two good rounds, since they don't have the hit points or AC of a dedicated tank. It would be better for the party as a whole if the rogue takes a hit rather than a caster, which in turn invalidates the rogues getting hit less argument.

And if they do get targeted, fighters are less likely to need healing than a targeted rogue. Their AC and HP are both higher. They are proficient in two of the most debilitating kinds of saving throws: strength and con saves. Whereas a rogue could conceivably be engulfed, or ensnared, or poisoned, or turned to stone, or any of those other things iconic monsters typically do, fighters are much more difficult to handle. Even Dex saves, the rogue's forte, have an easy fix in the form of the shield master feat, for champions who really want to cover their bases.

So no, I disagree that rogues are automatically better than fighters. I do love me a good rogue, don't get me wrong. Thieves in particular can do some great things with fast hands, like spreading caltrops or ball bearings as a bonus action. But they don't invalidate the fighter, especially not a champion, because you still want a front-line fighter around.

[pwykersotz]

snip

Oh boy. Okay, one thing at time.

snip

*polite applause*

Well spoken. +1 to both these.

[Myzz]

Only thing I would like to add is in regards to the "all day, everyday" part of the champion...

the point of pointing this out is not that the Champion is not going to take a short rest, but that before the combat that the party is in finishes and everyone has blown their resources and the fight still rages, the Champion is still standing there doing his thing... everyone else (except the rogue) are then operating at a diminished capacity.

Its not about the Champion saying, "hey guys get up off your rumps and lets go... we dont need a rest..." Its about when combat gets protracted and everyone is out of their cool gizmos... The Champion is still at peak efficiency. That comes up way more often in games I play or DM, party is out of spells and resources but battle is still raging. Any intelligent adventurer is going to take the short rest when it comes up, because that just makes the whole party better...

Thats the real benefit... he doesnt run out in the middle of battle. No one cares if their out after the battle!

[Giant2005]

It is ironic that the same people are in one hand saying that the Champion's ability to keep fighting at full strength forever is irrelevant because it is a team game and everyone else needs to rest; while on the other hand they are saying the Rogue is better because in battle he doesn't get hit because he can spend two-thirds of his turns running and hiding and staying out of trouble (Which would absolutely piss off anyone in a team game - the Rogue getting a full share of the XP while contributing almost nothing at all to the fight: not taking hits or dealing out even marginally acceptable DPR).