In Defense of the Champion

[Fwiffo86]

the gap closes considerably once the rogue gets a way to make a second attack (for example, by dual-wielding or from crossbow expert) and thus having a better chance of applying those tasty sneak attack dice. and it gets ugly if the rogue manages to get an opportunity attack in somewhere and adds sneak attack to that...

Round vs. Turn argument begin.

[SharkForce]

Round vs. Turn argument begin.

what argument? it's quite clear.

sneak attack is once per turn. a turn is clearly defined as one part of a round where a specific character takes their actions. the rogue could thus theoretically sneak attack as often as there are people in the fight (practically speaking, of course, anything more than 2 is extremely unlikely and even 2 is far from guaranteed unless we're talking about a high level thief at the start of a battle).

[Giant2005]

Round vs. Turn argument begin.

I don't think there have been any arguments on that one.
Although it is pretty difficult having advantage on a reaction which means in order to get the sneak damage the enemy has to maneuver himself in a way that triggers an OA while being adjacent to another enemy. It is actually pretty hard for the enemy to position himself in such a way even if he is trying to. Which is where the Battlemaster steps in with what I consider his most useful maneuver: Commander's Strike.

[jkat718]

I don't think there have been any arguments on that one.

You'd be surprised...

Although it is pretty difficult having advantage on a reaction which means in order to get the sneak damage the enemy has to maneuver himself in a way that triggers an OA while being adjacent to another enemy. It is actually pretty hard for the enemy to position himself in such a way even if he is trying to. Which is where the Battlemaster steps in with what I consider his most useful maneuver: Commander's Strike.

That's ignoring all of the ways to gain advantage on someone except for flanking. You can attack from cover, blind them, shove them prone...

[Galen]

what argument? it's quite clear.

sneak attack is once per turn. a turn is clearly defined as one part of a round where a specific character takes their actions. the rogue could thus theoretically sneak attack as often as there are people in the fight (practically speaking, of course, anything more than 2 is extremely unlikely and even 2 is far from guaranteed unless we're talking about a high level thief at the start of a battle).

Once on your turn. Ok, got that part. And how many times outside your turn?

[Giant2005]

You'd be surprised...


That's ignoring all of the ways to gain advantage on someone except for flanking. You can attack from cover, blind them, shove them prone...

But none of those ways work on their turn - they aren't going to be crawling out of your reach while prone, they will get up and no longer be prone.
Getting advantage on your turn isn't too taxing but having advantage against an enemy on his turn is very, very difficult.

[Easy_Lee]

Once on your turn. Ok, got that part. And how many times outside your turn?

Oh here we go. Hopefully I can nip this one in the bud before it derails the thread.

Rogue sneak attack says it functions up to once per turn. That technically means that a rogue can get sneak attack twice per round if he can get advantage / flanking on a reaction attack. This fits the RAW wording of sneak attack, since it says once per turn.

There's currently no way to get more than two sneak attacks in the same round. You only ever get one reaction per round, and that's the only way to act outside your turn. So this is not overpowered, particularly given the difficulty of execution. After all, the war caster feat combined with stat-to-cantrip damage can produce even more devastating opportunity attacks.

None of the above have anything to do with champions, though, so they're best left for other threads if you guys don't mind.

[DanyBallon]

I'm always amazed how debates on classes always end up in math crunching in order to prove that X is better than Y at DPR, etc.

In my humble opinion, if a player is having fun playing his character then that's all that matter! Some people just want to play a character that will hack through every challenge without having to think about so many options. Then to those the Champion offer exactly what they are looking for :)

[Galen]

Oh here we go. Hopefully I can nip this one in the bud before it derails the thread.

Rogue sneak attack says it functions up to once per turn. That technically means that a rogue can get sneak attack twice per round if he can get advantage / flanking on a reaction attack. This fits the RAW wording of sneak attack, since it says once per turn.
.

How? At which place does it say it functions outside your turn at all? From what I see, it functions once on your turn, and that's it. "Once on your turn, and once outside your turn" is a pure invention, that has nothing to do with actual rules.

Also, http://xkcd.com/1475/

[Easy_Lee]

How? At which place does it say it functions outside your turn at all? From what I see, it functions once on your turn, and that's it. "Once on your turn, and once outside your turn" is a pure invention, that has nothing to do with actual rules.

The wording is "Once per turn", as clearly shown in the free pdf. It doesn't say whose turn. Check and mate. Still has nothing to do with champions.

[Giant2005]

There's currently no way to get more than two sneak attacks in the same round.

This is just nitpicking and quite pointlessly too but a level 17+ Thief can actually get a total of 4 sneak attacks in a single round if the stars align just right. He can take a turn, react, take another turn and react once more all in a single round as long as it is the first round of combat.

[CrusaderJoe]

The wording is "Once per turn", as clearly shown in the free pdf. It doesn't say whose turn. Check and mate. Still has nothing to do with champions.

Designers also backed this at one point (can't remember when or where I saw the tweet). I originally was on the side of the 4e style sneak attack but that is not the case.

Might be able to find something on sage advice I guess.

[Garimeth]

the gap closes considerably once the rogue gets a way to make a second attack (for example, by dual-wielding or from crossbow expert) and thus having a better chance of applying those tasty sneak attack dice. and it gets ugly if the rogue manages to get an opportunity attack in somewhere and adds sneak attack to that...

Well the DW is an option right off the bat, I could care less about adding my dex mod, I just want that sneak attack. You bring up a good point about opportunity attacks though, bring in one of those and the rogue is just insane. Side bar: what do you think is the most reliable way to get one as a non-MC'ed rogue?

[Giant2005]

Well the DW is an option right off the bat, I could care less about adding my dex mod, I just want that sneak attack. You bring up a good point about opportunity attacks though, bring in one of those and the rogue is just insane. Side bar: what do you think is the most reliable way to get one as a non-MC'ed rogue?

The Mounted Combat Feat.

[Garimeth]

I'm always amazed how debates on classes always end up in math crunching in order to prove that X is better than Y at DPR, etc.

In my humble opinion, if a player is having fun playing his character then that's all that matter! Some people just want to play a character that will hack through every challenge without having to think about so many options. Then to those the Champion offer exactly what they are looking for :)

I still think it could be better designed. I.E. Expertise on athletics, Con or Str version of Evasion, and/or something else like a feat as a class feature (for games that don't allow feats.)

[MeeposFire]

Designers also backed this at one point (can't remember when or where I saw the tweet). I originally was on the side of the 4e style sneak attack but that is not the case.

Might be able to find something on sage advice I guess.

Actually it is on the side of 4e sneak attack though it is the late 4e style sneak attack. At the start of 4e sneak attack was 1/rd but later they changed it to 1/turn.

This of course made rogues a lot better and fun. Late 4e players should have no trouble understanding the 5e sneak attack as that is the type being used in 4e for years now.


As for the champion I actually like them but I want them to mimic 2e fighters a bit more I think. I like the evasion idea but I would want to add some saving throw proficiencies (either half or full) to replicate the fighter being the master of saving throws like he was in 2e. I also personally liked the idea of giving him a bonus action ability that would enable him to move around the battlefield freely to show off his battlefield mastery and give the champion a reason to use bonus actions. Somehow these bonus actions needed to be more limited than the rogues but I think that this would help him feel more dynamic in a way that is not against the idea of the class.

[Garimeth]

Actually it is on the side of 4e sneak attack though it is the late 4e style sneak attack. At the start of 4e sneak attack was 1/rd but later they changed it to 1/turn.

This of course made rogues a lot better and fun. Late 4e players should have no trouble understanding the 5e sneak attack as that is the type being used in 4e for years now.


As for the champion I actually like them but I want them to mimic 2e fighters a bit more I think. I like the evasion idea but I would want to add some saving throw proficiencies (either half or full) to replicate the fighter being the master of saving throws like he was in 2e. I also personally liked the idea of giving him a bonus action ability that would enable him to move around the battlefield freely to show off his battlefield mastery and give the champion a reason to use bonus actions. Somehow these bonus actions needed to be more limited than the rogues but I think that this would help him feel more dynamic in a way that is not against the idea of the class.

Can use his bonus action only to disengage, but not to dash, give him 10 ft of extra passive movement speed.

The Mounted Combat Feat.

LOL. Ok fair point, though I personally would not want to play my rogue that way.

[CrusaderJoe]

Actually it is on the side of 4e sneak attack though it is the late 4e style sneak attack. At the start of 4e sneak attack was 1/rd but later they changed it to 1/turn.

This of course made rogues a lot better and fun. Late 4e players should have no trouble understanding the 5e sneak attack as that is the type being used in 4e for years now.


As for the champion I actually like them but I want them to mimic 2e fighters a bit more I think. I like the evasion idea but I would want to add some saving throw proficiencies (either half or full) to replicate the fighter being the master of saving throws like he was in 2e. I also personally liked the idea of giving him a bonus action ability that would enable him to move around the battlefield freely to show off his battlefield mastery and give the champion a reason to use bonus actions. Somehow these bonus actions needed to be more limited than the rogues but I think that this would help him feel more dynamic in a way that is not against the idea of the class.

I didn't touch a lot of later 4e stuff, some essential stuff is great but they really messed some other stuff up (Fighter). I'm going to take a look at the essential rogue though, I've heard good things and how the 5e rogue was .ore or less based around it with high mobilty being key.

I'm still not sure why the Rogue and Fighter are two different classes.

[jkat718]

I'm still not sure why the Rogue and Fighter are two different classes.

Nostalgia, whee!

[archaeo]

While the Champion is not a bad subclass, I think what most here find off-putting is that most (all?) his abilities are passive. You just add so-and-so to your roll, heal this many hit points, etc. There's practically no choice involved. Except which extra style to take at level 10, but that's just once.

I believe I speak on behalf of more than just myself when I say players like cool abilities they can activate.

#NotAllPlayers.

For one thing, it's all but a built-in tutorial. Anyone can play a Champion Fighter, and play it well, since so much of the Champion's work at the table depends on probability, more or less. The odds get stacked pretty heavily in its favor, so that just by attacking and rolling the dice, the Champion will not feel useless in combat, ever. It's a pretty nice package to hand to a new player, who can't really screw anything up with the "build."

For another, it will appeal to players who don't really want to spend a bunch of their time building characters or working on tactical superiority. There are no spell lists to ponder over, or even a menu of maneuvers to decide between.

Both of these groups exist, both of them deserve something from 5e, and both are well-served by Champion. Not a big design misstep, in my opinion.

You're still just going to be saying 'I attack' over and over, there is no depth to that, no situations that having that ability will change how you act in.

Have you ever considered describing those attacks? You know, telling a story about the dice rolls? Ostensibly the whole reason we're here?

I'm also not really sure this holds much water; in the end, most other classes are doing the same handful of things every combat. Indeed, in some ways, a spare "I attack" option sort of allows for more creativity. There are endless ways to describe how you're hitting dudes with weapons, but only so many ways to describe how fireball goes off.

Also, and in addition, Champions are, like I said above, totally free to be full participants in the story of their game. No DM is going to just withhold the spotlight from the character because they're mostly just good at attacking. Champions might feel slight for some people in combat, but they'll receive equal inclusion in the plot if they want to.

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

Except that not every player finds the same things interesting. We're on a forum with a heavy bias toward character optimization, system mastery, and rules discussion. You are in the capital city of "depth."

It's entirely possible that Champion wasn't made with any of us in mind, and I don't see how that's really a problem.

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

These are, however, three very different topics. Indeed, the only thing they have in common is that we can't stop talking about them. The Wild Shape debate is fundamentally about a broken set of rules; it's likely that whatever the designers intended is a pretty decent class feature, but between a bevy of rules lawyers and a bunch of other confused people, Wild Shape is interpreted variously as "ridiculously overpowered" or "embarrassingly underpowered." RAW v. RAI isn't really a "hot button topic," it just ends up being a cudgel wielded by people who want to be right on the Internet.

The only reason we fight about Fighter, ever, is because the class design doesn't appeal to everyone. You can extend that to the larger "Mundane vs. Caster" debate, but even that is basically just an argument over who's correct re: game design.

I still think it could be better designed. I.E. Expertise on athletics, Con or Str version of Evasion, and/or something else like a feat as a class feature (for games that don't allow feats.)

I wish we could put the "featless game" thing to rest. Yes, it's an optional rule. But do you really think a table that would balk at the Champion's lack of complexity will be running the game without feats?

I'm still not sure why the Rogue and Fighter are two different classes.

I mean, first and foremost, because this is D&D. Because Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard is the iconic TRPG party.

But also because they fill totally different design niches that wouldn't comfortably live together. Rogue is specifically designed to appeal to a different sort of player than Champion Fighters.

[Garimeth]

I wish we could put the "featless game" thing to rest. Yes, it's an optional rule. But do you really think a table that would balk at the Champion's lack of complexity will be running the game without feats?

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

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

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

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

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

[MadBear]

One thing that I'd point out is that while it is technically true that a lvl 20 fighter will outlast everyone in terms of not having a limited pool of powers, in reality this isn't as useful as it seems.

Like many have already said, this game is first and foremost a team game, designed with 3-4 other players in mind. So while the champion can keep on trucking through a dungeon without the need for rests, the rest of the party can't. This is a reason that a BM looks better by comparison. If you have a bunch of useful abilities that recharge on a short rest, then you're incentivized (not a word I know) to rest with the rest of the party when everyone's resources run low. Meanwhile, the champion isn't losing anything by resting, but he's not gaining much either by comparison.

Now by level 20, the BM would have to put a lot of work in to deal enough damage to match the champion, which is fair, and sounds about right. The purpose of the BM is that in addition to their damage, their adding a rider effect (although as the other thread points out, the BM is proportionally worse as it levels). But the fact that it's damage closes in on the champion, and it gets a decent rider effect as well make it a more interesting subclass.

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

Overall, the 5e fighter is leagues better then the 3.x fighter ever hoped to be. the fact that skills remain useful longer, and their damage stays relevant means that fighters are no longer a 2-level feat dip that they used to be. With that said, lets not also pretend that their equal to what a full caster can do either. The point that a fighter gets to attack 4 times when the wizard is turning others into dragons is still a true way of pointing out that no, the fighter doesn't have as much depth as the wizard.

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

[Easy_Lee]

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

Don't Con and strength saves already work the same as Dex saves with evasion? I don't know of any partial con or strength effects.

Expertise in athletics is not a big change, and something I think a lot of DMs would consider. The OMG everywhere thing sounds a lot like the mobile feat (I think mobile is situationally a bit better for the multiattacking fighter, actually).

As far as raising the die type of weapons... I could abuse the diddly out of that with a half orc. How many die are we talking about? 2d6 - > 2d8? 1d12 - > 1d?? Would be pretty busted I suspect.

[MeeposFire]

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

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

[JNAProductions]

1d14. You get it with 1d10+1d5-1. Simple, easy, and perfect for newer players.

[Easy_Lee]

1d14. 1d10+1d5-1. Simple, easy, and perfect for newer players.

Your dice set came with a d14?

[Fwiffo86]

All you need is the progression rule.

d4 (2), d6 (3), d8 (4), d10 (5), d12 (6), 2d6 (7)

[JNAProductions]

Except the averages for all those except 2d6 are actually .5 higher than indicated. That makes 2d6 the smallest change.

To get up to 9 as an average, you're looking at 1d6+1d8 (3.5+4.5).

For Easy_Lee... *facepalm*

[Easy_Lee]

All you need is the progression rule.

d4 (2), d6 (3), d8 (4), d10 (5), d12 (6), 2d6 (7)

2d6 is inferior to 1d12 for half orcs, though. That's the difficulty of scaling it.

[Garimeth]

Don't Con and strength saves already work the same as Dex saves with evasion? I don't know of any partial con or strength effects.

Expertise in athletics is not a big change, and something I think a lot of DMs would consider. The OMG everywhere thing sounds a lot like the mobile feat (I think mobile is situationally a bit better for the multiattacking fighter, actually).

As far as raising the die type of weapons... I could abuse the diddly out of that with a half orc. How many die are we talking about? 2d6 - > 2d8? 1d12 - > 1d?? Would be pretty busted I suspect.

It is pretty similar to the mobile feat, but without spending a feat on it, and also being allowable in a game that doesn't allow feats. As far the saves thing, tbh I'm not sure, I'm AFB but I think strnegth and con saves are mostly like poison, getting sick, being knocked down, and paralysis.

The weapon thing may be a bit over the top, but I do think they need SOMETHING in addition to the other stuff. Maybe something out of combat like the BM's artisan proficiency....? IDK.

Maybe even just a flat +1 bonus to damage. I'm open to suggestions, lol.