In Defense of the Champion

[SharkForce]

I think the reasoning behind the Champion is that when the party comes up against an obstacle there are two (types of) things you can do to deal with it (combat is an obstacle in this sense):

1) Use a special ability (such as a spell) to get a defined effect against the obstacles. I'm pretty sure the design goal here was that no single ability would be able to overcome a serious obstacle on its own.

2) Describe an action and have the DM give a DC and modifiers (proficient and/or (dis)advantage), roll a d20 and see if you succeed.

The Champion is all about having good numbers on the physical challenges in type 2, without having to wrangle anything from type 1 (which some players don't want as part of their character).

all fighters are good at that. it has very very little to do with having a +3 (at level 17+) due to getting half proficiency, and a lot more to do with the fact that the typical fighter will have high physical attributes and proficiency in physical skills regardless of whether you're talking about a champion or not. they only have a bonus in performing physical acts that they didn't care enough to invest in in the first place, and initiative. now, initiative is nice, don't get me wrong, but it's hardly what defines adaptability.

[Fwiffo86]

the wizard can adapt with what it has. even with no spells left, the wizard can still adapt and be sub-par using cantrips, just like a champion that is fighting without a weapon can do.

Clarification: Without spells includes cantrips. A wizard without any spells is what I was describing. That means no cantrips.

it is insane to claim that class A being able to use abilities in multiple ways is "adaptability" but in another class it is "versatility" when they are doing the SAME THING. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RESTING FOR 8 HOURS AND CHOOSING NEW SPELLS. I am talking about taking the list that you have prepared that morning, and working with it. if that's not "adapting" then neither is it adapting when the champion uses the list of abilities available to it.

Not that its remotely important anymore, but again, you missed what I said. Noone is denying that Spells are versatile. Our contention is the WIZARD is not adaptable on a moment to moment basis short of using a "versatile" spell.

My example is simple. Take away a fighters weapon. What does he do? He finds another one, or makes a makeshift one and continues doing what he does. This includes but is not limited to chairs, shields, sticks, the gnome, a helmet, etc. This is adapting to the situation.

Take away a Wizard's spells (including cantrips) and what can he do? Precious little short of the Aid action or running away. This is lack of adaptability to the situation.

At no point did I mention rest periods, 8 hours, or anything relating to time. If you want to be upset with me, I'm ok with that. But at least be upset with me for something I actually said.

[CrusaderJoe]

Clarification: Without spells includes cantrips. A wizard without any spells is what I was describing. That means no cantrips.



Not that its remotely important anymore, but again, you missed what I said. Noone is denying that Spells are versatile. Our contention is the WIZARD is not adaptable on a moment to moment basis short of using a "versatile" spell.

My example is simple. Take away a fighters weapon. What does he do? He finds another one, or makes a makeshift one and continues doing what he does. This includes but is not limited to chairs, shields, sticks, the gnome, a helmet, etc. This is adapting to the situation.

Take away a Wizard's spells (including cantrips) and what can he do? Precious little short of the Aid action or running away. This is lack of adaptability to the situation.

A DM who takes away spells and cantrips is the same DM who takes away the fighter's weapons and hands.

The weapon is the spell and the hands are the cantrip.

In such a narrow niche area of the game you may be right but in 99.999% of the game, where the rest of us play, you are wrong.

You are setting up a really rare scenario and making it play out like it is the run of the mill game.

No thank you.

[SharkForce]

Clarification: Without spells includes cantrips. A wizard without any spells is what I was describing. That means no cantrips.



Not that its remotely important anymore, but again, you missed what I said. Noone is denying that Spells are versatile. Our contention is the WIZARD is not adaptable on a moment to moment basis short of using a "versatile" spell.

My example is simple. Take away a fighters weapon. What does he do? He finds another one, or makes a makeshift one and continues doing what he does. This includes but is not limited to chairs, shields, sticks, the gnome, a helmet, etc. This is adapting to the situation.

Take away a Wizard's spells (including cantrips) and what can he do? Precious little short of the Aid action or running away. This is lack of adaptability to the situation.

At no point did I mention rest periods, 8 hours, or anything relating to time. If you want to be upset with me, I'm ok with that. But at least be upset with me for something I actually said.

what kind of nonsense is this???

seriously? "oh man, if you take away ALL of the wizard's class features, it isn't adaptable at all".

no crap. guess what: if you take away ALL of ANY class's class features, they aren't adaptable at all. in fact, they all suck, and about the only thing you could say about any of them at that point is that some of them are useless but alive for slightly longer than others which are also useless and die sooner.

but sure, if you compare a wizard minus all of the wizard abilities to a champion with full class features, the wizard would indeed lack in adaptability. that is completely true. it is also completely irrelevant. if you compare me to a person with no arms and no legs, I'm a world class jumper in comparison. but if I walked around all day proclaiming how amazing I am at jumping because I am better at it than a person with no arms and no legs, people would probably start to look at me funny and wonder what's wrong with me. also, I'd probably get yelled at for having such poor taste as to yell that to the world, but the main point is, my superior ability to jump compared to someone who has a severe disability does not make me a good jumper. it just means that I'm superior at jumping to someone who probably can't jump at all.

[Fwiffo86]

what kind of nonsense is this???

seriously? "oh man, if you take away ALL of the wizard's class features, it isn't adaptable at all".

no crap. guess what: if you take away ALL of ANY class's class features, they aren't adaptable at all. in fact, they all suck, and about the only thing you could say about any of them at that point is that some of them are useless but alive for slightly longer than others which are also useless and die sooner.

but sure, if you compare a wizard minus all of the wizard abilities to a champion with full class features, the wizard would indeed lack in adaptability. that is completely true. it is also completely irrelevant. if you compare me to a person with no arms and no legs, I'm a world class jumper in comparison. but if I walked around all day proclaiming how amazing I am at jumping because I am better at it than a person with no arms and no legs, people would probably start to look at me funny and wonder what's wrong with me. also, I'd probably get yelled at for having such poor taste as to yell that to the world, but the main point is, my superior ability to jump compared to someone who has a severe disability does not make me a good jumper. it just means that I'm superior at jumping to someone who probably can't jump at all.

Notice the weapon is not related to the warriors class features overall, unlike the wizard. The wizards class abilities are tied into his ability to spellcast (which makes spellcasting the only real class ability he has). Lack of adaptibility.

[CrusaderJoe]

Notice the weapon is not related to the warriors class features overall, unlike the wizard. The wizards class abilities are tied into his ability to spellcast (which makes spellcasting the only real class ability he has). Lack of adaptibility.

Except that's wrong. You remind me of the stories a friend told me about of a dude named Lokaire.

Please explain to me how the class features that expand criticals on weapoms is not related to a class feature overall. Unless you think the champion will be fine doing 1 + str damage with unarmed strike (max 1d4+str) throughout the game.

[SharkForce]

Notice the weapon is not related to the warriors class features overall, unlike the wizard. The wizards class abilities are tied into his ability to spellcast (which makes spellcasting the only real class ability he has). Lack of adaptibility.

uh-huh.

okay, so just so we're clear... you're saying if we removed the bonus attacks and the improved critical from the champion, removed 2 bonus ASIs/feats and gave it a weapon unsuited to it's style(s) and attributes (say, a halberd for a dex-based archery champion), that would have no significant impact on the champion, is that right?

because it just so happens, the thing that actually makes a champion better at using a weapon than a wizard are those class abilities. strip them away, and I could rightly say that a wizard is just as good at attacking as the fighter. but that would be completely irrelevant if I did that, of course, because the champion does have all those things. it's such a completely preposterous position to hold that I must say: if that was your position the whole time, that the champion has amazing adaptability compared to a character with absolutely no class features whatsoever, then I will freely admit I have been missing your point, because that point seemed so ludicrously pointless and obviously bass ackwards that I hadn't even considered in a million years that it would be used to demonstrate the superior adaptability of a champion.

[Fwiffo86]

uh-huh.

okay, so just so we're clear... you're saying if we removed the bonus attacks and the improved critical from the champion, removed 2 bonus ASIs/feats and gave it a weapon unsuited to it's style(s) and attributes (say, a halberd for a dex-based archery champion), that would have no significant impact on the champion, is that right?

because it just so happens, the thing that actually makes a champion better at using a weapon than a wizard are those class abilities. strip them away, and I could rightly say that a wizard is just as good at attacking as the fighter. but that would be completely irrelevant if I did that, of course, because the champion does have all those things. it's such a completely preposterous position to hold that I must say: if that was your position the whole time, that the champion has amazing adaptability compared to a character with absolutely no class features whatsoever, then I will freely admit I have been missing your point, because that point seemed so ludicrously pointless and obviously bass ackwards that I hadn't even considered in a million years that it would be used to demonstrate the superior adaptability of a champion.

None of what you have suggested is a weapon. Unlike the wizard, who's additional class abilities are all tied "directly" to his spellcasting. It would certainly have an impact. But he would still be able to do what he normally does, hit things and cause damage. Unlike the wizard, who will be able to do virtually nothing. Granted, he can always fire a crossbow. For the record Shark, I am demonstrating that a Champions abilities are not tied to his weapon, which means when he is without it, he is still capable of doing what he does. This grants him a level of adaptability when deprived of his primary focus. The wizard is not so prepared. Magic is everything to the wizard. Absolutely everything. The cleric at least can wear armor and club things. The druid can wildshape and attack things, the bard can rogue it up. The wizard is the class with the absolute least amount of adaptability.

Please explain to me how the class features that expand criticals on weapoms is not related to a class feature overall. Unless you think the champion will be fine doing 1 + str damage with unarmed strike (max 1d4+str) throughout the game.

Let's do a comparison for CJ's benefit. Btw, we aren't discussing optional situations CJ. We are discussing adapting to being without either a weapon, or spells. This is a temporary situation to demonstrate how the Champion vs any Wizard adapts to being deprived of their normal operational parameters for a brief time. We will be starting with the Champion

Improved Crit = NOT Weapon dependent, can be used with fists if necessary. (that's right, fists count as weapons. Proficiency is not relevant)
+2 ASI's = NOT weapon dependent, most likely will go to feats or ability scores the fighter does not specialize in
Bonus Attacks = NOT Weapon dependent, can be used with fists if necessary.
Regeneration = NOT Weapon dependent, happens automatically when reduced to less than half health
Athlete = NOT Weapon dependent, has nothing to do with weapons at all, only ability checks

And now a Wizard, We will use the Abjurer, as its listed first

Arcane Recovery = Completely spell dependent, recovery option. You can't recover spent energy unless you spellcast.
Savant = Spell dependent, as it requires spells to be developed/transcribed into the book
Arcane Ward = Completely spell dependent, specifically, abjuration spells to be CAST to activate
Projected Ward = Completely spell dependent, Requires Arcane Ward to be active, which requires Abjuration spells to be cast.
Imp. Abjuration = Completely spell dependent, Add prof bonus to ability checks triggered by Spellcasting
Spell Resistance = Completely spell dependant, Resistance to damage caused by Spells, plus advantage on saves VS spells

Do I need to go on? I don't think so, as all of the traditions work fundamentally the same. A wizard without spells cannot adapt to being without his spells. Unlike the warrior who can easily get by without his weapon. This is as clearly as I can explain it to you.

[SharkForce]

....

ok, I'm done. if anyone thinks your argument that adaptability is purely determined by what you can do when buck naked, I don't think any amount of rational discussion is going to change their mind. if anyone thinks that it's a valid comparison to take a wizard's class features away (and for the record, spells including cantrips are one of their class features, not some piece of equipment you can steal from them) and *then* compare them to another class to get an accurate picture of how adaptable a class is, they're certainly not going to listen to any logic I can provide.

you just go ahead and keep on thinking that. I don't think you're doing those who feel that the champion is in good shape any favours with the positions you keep taking at this point, though.

[CrusaderJoe]

....

ok, I'm done. if anyone thinks your argument that adaptability is purely determined by what you can do when buck naked, I don't think any amount of rational discussion is going to change their mind. if anyone thinks that it's a valid comparison to take a wizard's class features away (and for the record, spells including cantrips are one of their class features, not some piece of equipment you can steal from them) and *then* compare them to another class to get an accurate picture of how adaptable a class is, they're certainly not going to listen to any logic I can provide.

you just go ahead and keep on thinking that. I don't think you're doing those who feel that the champion is in good shape any favours with the positions you keep taking at this point, though.

Maybe that's the point? It's the only logical solution I see.

[Gwendol]

@gwendol: this is 5th edition. the wall spell isn't gone. you prepare a bunch of spells, that is your list for the day, mix and match as desired. if you don't know how the class works, why are you discussing it?

Right you are, serves me right for debating while AFB! ::sheepish grin::

That doesn't quite detract from the main thrust of my point though: because the wizard has (almost) all active choices/abilities once the spells are chosen/cast they are set for the day. That infringes on adaptability (although the near-vancian spellcasting of 5e does offer more than previous editions did, as do the infinite cantrips). The champion fighter has abilities set by level, and most of them are always on. In the champion fighter field of expertise (martial combat) he will typically be highly adaptable.

Now, I want to acknowledge that thanks to the versatility of the spells, a given wizard may be as adaptable as the fighter (in martial combat) in a set of situations, but that is likely not the norm. Counterspell is a thing, as is Silence, Antimagic, and Dispel magic. All of these are ways for the enemy to drain spellcasters (especially wizards) of their spells or shut down spellcasting, to which the wizard can do little (at least at the levels they come online).

The champion fighter is expected to adapt to the situation at hand and act accordingly, since most of the class features are always on, and always available.

[Chronos]

Counterspell is a thing, as is Silence, Antimagic, and Dispel magic. All of these are ways for the enemy to drain spellcasters (especially wizards) of their spells or shut down spellcasting, to which the wizard can do little (at least at the levels they come online).

Yes, those are all things. Specifically, they're all things that casters can do. They're not, however, things that fighters can do. If your argument is that casters can be shut down, but only by other casters, then you're really not doing the non-casters any favors.

[Fwiffo86]

Yes, those are all things. Specifically, they're all things that casters can do. They're not, however, things that fighters can do. If your argument is that casters can be shut down, but only by other casters, then you're really not doing the non-casters any favors.

What about traps that activate those effects? Or magic items that allow those spells to be cast from non-casters? I suppose if we are comparing in a vacuum, then these things can't be considered.

[CrusaderJoe]

What about traps that activate those effects? Or magic items that allow those spells to be cast from non-casters? I suppose if we are comparing in a vacuum, then these things can't be considered.

These things were made with magic, which a non caster still can't do. Not sure how a caster did it but I sure as hell know a non caster didn't do it.

Trap with falling rocks or a spike pit? Sure. Trap with burning hands? No martial did that one without help of another caster.

[Gwendol]

Yes, those are all things. Specifically, they're all things that casters can do. They're not, however, things that fighters can do. If your argument is that casters can be shut down, but only by other casters, then you're really not doing the non-casters any favors.

I had no idea I was arguing a in fighter vs wizard debate? This thread is about the champion fighter, and the reason for bringing in the wizard, I imagine, is because that class is on the other end of the versatility spectrum.

The point of contention as far as I can tell in this thread has been the competence of the champion fighter class.

[Fwiffo86]

These things were made with magic, which a non caster still can't do. Not sure how a caster did it but I sure as hell know a non caster didn't do it.

Trap with falling rocks or a spike pit? Sure. Trap with burning hands? No martial did that one without help of another caster.

That is certainly true, but irrelevant upon activation of the trap isn't it? Or in the case of a magic item being used by a non-caster, also irrelevant. The only issue is a non-caster producing a spell effect.

[CrusaderJoe]

I had no idea I was arguing a in fighter vs wizard debate? This thread is about the champion fighter, and the reason for bringing in the wizard, I imagine, is because that class is on the other end of the versatility spectrum.

The point of contention as far as I can tell in this thread has been the competence of the champion fighter class.

Which as a striker or athletic user it works... But so does any other class and the champion has nothing that makes it shine. Even pure damage can be optained by other classes and their core class is more effective.

That is certainly true, but irrelevant upon activation of the trap isn't it? Or in the case of a magic item being used by a non-caster, also irrelevant. The only issue is a non-caster producing a spell effect.

So are fighters hauling around magic traps? What class feature supports that one?

Also, by core rules, there are no magic items. Is getting lucky and randomly finding a magic item a class feature now? One that no other class can do?

Without DM fiat or severely burdening themselves (hauling a trap on their back is no small feat) a non caster can't make a magical effect. It's a shame how restrained non magic classes really are but that's how people wanted 5e.

So are you saying that its in the favor of the champion that they can receive DM fiat or haul traps (which then probably won't work because traps... Maybe a magically warded box?) when every other class and subclass has the chance to do the same?

And are we comparing this magic item, trap hauling champion yo the spell less/cantripless wizard again? Cause yeah when you make a class a commoner its going to suck against someone who looks like a Christmas tree.


Edit: Don't get me wrong, hauling magic traps would be an awesome character design... But they need to be small. Perhaps a rogue with sigils designed into their equipment or something that have very specific commands (like readied actions). Recharge on a short rest.

[Talderas]

....

ok, I'm done. if anyone thinks your argument that adaptability is purely determined by what you can do when buck naked, I don't think any amount of rational discussion is going to change their mind. if anyone thinks that it's a valid comparison to take a wizard's class features away (and for the record, spells including cantrips are one of their class features, not some piece of equipment you can steal from them) and *then* compare them to another class to get an accurate picture of how adaptable a class is, they're certainly not going to listen to any logic I can provide.

you just go ahead and keep on thinking that. I don't think you're doing those who feel that the champion is in good shape any favours with the positions you keep taking at this point, though.

Well, buck naked is certainly a worthwhile comparison but you simply don't lose your spellcasting just because you're buck naked. You only lose out on spells that require material components, unless said component is something you can acquire from your own body. Both firebolt and eldritch blast only have verbal and somantic components. So the only way to take away a wizard's spells is to either make him butt naked in an anti-magic field or physical restrain and gag him so that he cannot use the somatic or verbal components and in applying the same situation in the latter case the fighter would be equally useless.

[SharkForce]

magic items that cast spells tend to require attunement by someone from a caster class. (magic items that grant spell effects on the wearer typically do not, but the value of putting on the robe of counterspelling oneself is questionable, though tbh the torc of personal antimagic field would be pretty handy sometimes...)

but this is beside the point. in extreme and unlikely situations (the enemy has devoted someone to counterspelling you and nothing more), the wizard will indeed suffer. but it's an extreme and unlikely situation to occur.

but hey, guess what, we've already established that in similar situations (an enemy creature that is immune to non-magic weapons that disarms the fighter, for example) the champion also doesn't do well. we can cook up all kinds of ridiculous scenarios (oh, you got hit by a horrible curse that drops all your physical attributes to 1... clearly this must mean that fighters suck, because a fighter with 1s in all attributes is so bad!) but they are not indicative of typical play. if you have to cook up some bizarre scenario to make your class look more adaptable than any other class, then your class is not more adaptable.

and this is still patently absurd at it's root. if your benchmark for "is a class adaptable" boils down to "is it more adaptable than a wizard with no spells and no class features, but having still made all decisions based on the perfectly reasonable assumption that they will still have spells", then you are setting your benchmark much too low to have any relevance whatsoever.

wizards can be more adaptable than champions. so can most other classes. if the only evidence you have for adaptability is to only consider bizarre scenarios that are specifically designed to make sure other classes cannot do anything at all, you really ought to rethink your position on the adaptability of champions.

they're very simple to play. they have higher sustainable DPR. at level 18, they get ridiculous amounts of regeneration. and they get an initiative bonus. these are the main advantages of a champion. not adaptability, which they do not have in greater quantity than basically any other class you care to name, and in which they don't even particularly compare favourably to the other two fighter paths.

[CrusaderJoe]

Well, buck naked is certainly a worthwhile comparison but you simply don't lose your spellcasting just because you're buck naked. You only lose out on spells that require material components, unless said component is something you can acquire from your own body. Both firebolt and eldritch blast only have verbal and somantic components. So the only way to take away a wizard's spells is to either make him butt naked in an anti-magic field or physical restrain and gag him so that he cannot use the somatic or verbal components and in applying the same situation in the latter case the fighter would be equally useless.

I think the point was to put the wizard in an anti-magic zone, while silenced, and probably struck blind too... While the champion isn't in the magic zone and still has their class features and no negative effects placed on them. Actually the champion may even get a trap or magic item to use while not anti-magic zoned.

[Gwendol]

I never said that. I have said that once the wizard has selected his spells for the day they are set. I.e. not adaptable. The smart player will learn and prepare spells to cover a variety of situations expected through an adventuring day, but there are situations that can arise for which the wizard has not prepared and in that case the class has difficulties in adapting. Arcane recovery allows for spell slot recovery, but not changing prepared spells.

A champion fighter has no choices to make (or at least very few) at the start of each adventuring day. It is also one of the least versatile classes. However, in martial combat, the class has the tools to adapt to a variety of situations without expending resources, or at most a move action. That's it.

[Easy_Lee]

A champion fighter has no choices to make (or at least very few) at the start of each adventuring day. It is also one of the least versatile classes. However, in martial combat, the class has the tools to adapt to a variety of situations without expending resources, or at most a move action. That's it.

In addition to that, it's honestly quite difficult to beat champions in sustained DPR, and their tankiness is among the best. It's a consistent and direct archetype.

[Fwiffo86]

So are fighters hauling around magic traps? What class feature supports that one?

I see we already have a misunderstanding. While the concept of hauling around magical traps is interesting, I was specifically referring to traps as they apply in the standard format. In dungeons. Neither here nor there really.

Also, by core rules, there are no magic items. Is getting lucky and randomly finding a magic item a class feature now? One that no other class can do?

I agree with this, but then I ask the question, why do we spend so much time doing maths that involve magic items if the default is none? Core rules is that feats are optional as well. Why does everyone calculate them as the standard fair?

So are you saying that its in the favor of the champion that they can receive DM fiat or haul traps (which then probably won't work because traps... Maybe a magically warded box?) when every other class and subclass has the chance to do the same?

I am saying nothing of the sort. I am interested in how you came to this conclusion though.

And are we comparing this magic item, trap hauling champion yo the spell less/cantripless wizard again? Cause yeah when you make a class a commoner its going to suck against someone who looks like a Christmas tree.

We are not comparing anything to anything. I was curious what your opinion was regarding spell effects from non-casters in relation to the champion, and consequently the wizard. Which in turn would have lead into devices designed to mimic spells (think flamethrower for Burning hands) which are not magical in nature. I'll let the matter drop as you are not interested.

[SharkForce]

I never said that. I have said that once the wizard has selected his spells for the day they are set. I.e. not adaptable. The smart player will learn and prepare spells to cover a variety of situations expected through an adventuring day, but there are situations that can arise for which the wizard has not prepared and in that case the class has difficulties in adapting. Arcane recovery allows for spell slot recovery, but not changing prepared spells.

A champion fighter has no choices to make (or at least very few) at the start of each adventuring day. It is also one of the least versatile classes. However, in martial combat, the class has the tools to adapt to a variety of situations without expending resources, or at most a move action. That's it.

you keep telling me that adaptable has nothing to do with being able to choose abilities for the day, and purely relates to using the abilities you have to react to different situations you encounter. have you suddenly changed your mind?

because unless your definition has changed again, once the wizard has used the built-in versatility, the wizard can then be adaptable with the spells they have for the day. I've already made that point several times. and there is very little reason not to choose spells to be able to be adaptable. you don't need very many attack spells, which frees up other spell slots for utility spells like fly, enhance ability, a variety of barrier-type spells, etc.

every class has largely the same tools or better to adapt to a variety of situations (some have different tools which are not always easy to directly compare). that's nothing special about the champion.

[Fwiffo86]

you keep telling me that adaptable has nothing to do with being able to choose abilities for the day, and purely relates to using the abilities you have to react to different situations you encounter.

I think the essence is being adaptable with your tools in situations they were not actually designed for. A multi-tool is a versatile object. But it doesn't always cover every situation. Attempting to use it in a way that doesn't coincide with its actual use is attempting to adapt it to the situation.

Your example of using Wall of stone does not attempt to use the spell in a way it wasn't meant to. It isn't adapting. It's just being versatile, or put simply, used in a variety of ways within its capabilities. All of the ways you suggested for using Wall of Stone fall into this category. It is being used for what it was designed for. Attempting to use Wall of Stone to open a door (ignore the knock spell for a second) would be being adaptable with the spell. Using it to block the door is being versatile because that is what it is supposed to do.

The choice to prepare wall of stone is not related to being adaptable or versatile. It is a prediction of outcomes and an attempt to prepare for them.

[hawklost]

you keep telling me that adaptable has nothing to do with being able to choose abilities for the day, and purely relates to using the abilities you have to react to different situations you encounter. have you suddenly changed your mind?

because unless your definition has changed again, once the wizard has used the built-in versatility, the wizard can then be adaptable with the spells they have for the day. I've already made that point several times. and there is very little reason not to choose spells to be able to be adaptable. you don't need very many attack spells, which frees up other spell slots for utility spells like fly, enhance ability, a variety of barrier-type spells, etc.

every class has largely the same tools or better to adapt to a variety of situations (some have different tools which are not always easy to directly compare). that's nothing special about the champion.

Here then, let us do a thought experiment.

If possible, I would like you to pick out the spells that a Wizard would have when he plans on spending the day in an Volcanic Dungeon that contains magical traps and few magical beasts. No known humanoids live in the Dungeon but it has only been observed from the outside and up to 20% of its interior.

Now, I want you to build the best Champion you can for the same dungeon.

go ahead and use any logical level you wish to do but C and W must have same level. They can each carry a magical weapon, armor and 2 other miscellaneous magical items but those items must be 'equal' for the C and W in the sense of usefulness.

Then, once you finish that, I will lay out how the dungeon works and we can discuss why wizards are versatile but not adaptable.

[Talderas]

I think the point was to put the wizard in an anti-magic zone, while silenced, and probably struck blind too... While the champion isn't in the magic zone and still has their class features and no negative effects placed on them. Actually the champion may even get a trap or magic item to use while not anti-magic zoned.

Which isn't even close to a comparable situation. Anti-magic fields are a tactic specifically employed to shut down a caster. A partially comparable solution, albeit unrealistic, is to take away the fighter's ability to use the attack action entirely.

[CrusaderJoe]

I see we already have a misunderstanding. While the concept of hauling around magical traps is interesting, I was specifically referring to traps as they apply in the standard format. In dungeons. Neither here nor there really.



I agree with this, but then I ask the question, why do we spend so much time doing maths that involve magic items if the default is none? Core rules is that feats are optional as well. Why does everyone calculate them as the standard fair?



I am saying nothing of the sort. I am interested in how you came to this conclusion though.



We are not comparing anything to anything. I was curious what your opinion was regarding spell effects from non-casters in relation to the champion, and consequently the wizard. Which in turn would have lead into devices designed to mimic spells (think flamethrower for Burning hands) which are not magical in nature. I'll let the matter drop as you are not interested.

Not particularly, I'm more interested in why D&D assumes that commoners (well at least the ones that have free time within cities and such) would not work out a separate technology to magic (since they can't use magic all that well) and we don't have flame throwers and other non-magical technology within a d&d setting.

I would love to see 5e set to a setting like from Shadowrun, tech versus magic.


Also, I find it funny everyone keeps comparing Champion to the Wizard. Not champion to a wizard subclass.

[SharkForce]

I think the essence is being adaptable with your tools in situations they were not actually designed for. A multi-tool is a versatile object. But it doesn't always cover every situation. Attempting to use it in a way that doesn't coincide with its actual use is attempting to adapt it to the situation.

Your example of using Wall of stone does not attempt to use the spell in a way it wasn't meant to. It isn't adapting. It's just being versatile, or put simply, used in a variety of ways within its capabilities. All of the ways you suggested for using Wall of Stone fall into this category. It is being used for what it was designed for. Attempting to use Wall of Stone to open a door (ignore the knock spell for a second) would be being adaptable with the spell. Using it to block the door is being versatile because that is what it is supposed to do.

The choice to prepare wall of stone is not related to being adaptable or versatile. It is a prediction of outcomes and an attempt to prepare for them.

seriously? so now you're telling me that because the wall of stone is not designed specially to be single-purpose, it is impossible to adapt to different scenarios with it? if I prepare wall of stone *only* because I want to divide a specific set of enemies into two groups, and then later realize that I need to use it to help escape from one encounter, create a bridge for an army to cross a chasm to help with another encounter, and cut off a scout's retreat path (and prevent the sound of the alarm from traveling as far) in yet another encounter is that more adaptable than a wizard who prepared the spell at the start of the day knowing full well that it could do all of those things if needed?

[edit] actually, just to demonstrate how completely silly that line of reasoning goes: suppose we have two champions. each has a crowbar, a pickaxe, and a long sword. the first one uses his pickaxe for prying open doors, the long sword for breaking through thin stone walls, and the crowbar for combat. the second uses the crowbar for prying open doors, the pickaxe for breaking through thin stone walls, and the long sword for combat. which one is doing a better job of adapting? [/edit]

@ hawklost: how does that prove anything? I've already shown what the wizard can do with just one specific spell, and mentioned a variety of other spells that can be used in different ways. based on your beliefs that apparently antimagic fields are all over the place to the point where it's a determining factor in a class's ability to adapt, I quite frankly don't believe for even a second that *you* are the person most qualified to design an unbiased dungeon for this challenge, because I'm pretty sure if we were to do a quick poll on these boards, we'd find two things:

1) most people don't care enough to answer.
2) most people don't routinely encounter antimagic traps such that it becomes a critical determining factor in whether a class is adaptable or not.

[Fwiffo86]

seriously? so now you're telling me that because the wall of stone is not designed specially to be single-purpose, it is impossible to adapt to different scenarios with it? if I prepare wall of stone *only* because I want to divide a specific set of enemies into two groups, and then later realize that I need to use it to help escape from one encounter, create a bridge for an army to cross a chasm to help with another encounter, and cut off a scout's retreat path (and prevent the sound of the alarm from traveling as far) in yet another encounter is that more adaptable than a wizard who prepared the spell at the start of the day knowing full well that it could do all of those things if needed?

That is not what I said at all. I said that each of those uses is using Wall of Stone as it was intended. Not adapting it to uses it was never meant to do. In each of your scenarios above you are using it to Block (scout path, alarm sound), separate (enemy groups), or bridge (for escape). All of these things are what it is normally used for. The spell has many uses within these confines because it is a versatile spell.

Using a Wall of Stone to open a door or say, disarm the BBEG are uses the Wall of Stone isn't actually designed for. That is being adaptable. Using something in a way it was not meant to be used as/for.

Think of an adapter. It is designed so you can plug something into something that doesn't have the corresponding socket. You are attempting to plug something into another thing that it isn't designed to be plugged into using the plug you have.