In Defense of the Champion [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Easy_Lee

2015-02-11, 04:27 PM

A lot of people 'round these parts complain that the Champion archetype is weak. The usual complaint is that it's boring and lacks options. I'm not so sure that either is true.

The intent of this post is to defend the poor champion, who takes so much criticism. All features are available in the free PDF, so I think it's fine to paraphrase them here.

The Champion
Level 3: Improved Crit - you now crit on a 19 or 20, so crit chance doubles from 5% to 10%.

This is actually a pretty nice feature. Crits let you add dice for the attack twice, but not static pluses, so a 5% increase in crit does not quite add 5% damage.

However, one overlooked effect of the feature is that any natural crit automatically is a hit. If you ever find yourself fighting an unkillable god with AC higher than anyone can hit, the level 3 champion will still land one in every ten attacks.

Additionally, one more overlooked feature for champions is that, if they take great weapon fighting style, which lets them reroll 1's and 2's, crits are more powerful and champions are even more likely to land them. Champions thus get extra benefit from this fighting style.

Furthermore, though it's not in the PDF, champions also get quite a bit more benefit from the great weapon master feat due to this feature. Because it grants an extra attack on a crit, champions will get the extra attack twice as often. Champions can also use the +10 damage feature more safely, since a crit hits regardless of target AC.

Damage for a single attack from a 16 strength player with a great sword (fighting style not calculated):
Non-champion: 10.35
Champion (3): 10.7
Usage of great weapon fighting and great weapon master will further skew these numbers in the champion's favor.

Conclusion: that's not bad, especially in a long fight or dungeon.

Level 7: Remarkable athlete - now add half proficiency to any dexterity, constitution, or strength checks which don't use it, and can jump strength mod further.

A check is one of the three types of d20 dice rolls, the others being attacks and saves. Thus, any d20 roll that is not a save or attack is a check. Well guess what, that includes all strength and dexterity skills, initiative, and any opposed check. Much like the bard jack of all trades, this applies in a wide variety of situations and shouldn't be overlooked.

Conclusion: champions react faster and are naturally skillful.

Level 10: extra fighting style - get another style.

Depending on how you build your character, this will likely be either defense or protection. Either way, you or your allies are getting bonus defense. This is probably a champion's weakest feature, but raising AC by 1 point is better than it sounds.

In plate, your AC is 18. A mob with a +10 attack bonus, such as a mammoth, has to roll 8 or higher to hit you. Raise that by one point, to 9 or higher, and it's chance of landing an attack goes from 65% to 60%, meaning a 7.6% decrease in the damage it's dealing. Usage of a shield or anything else that increases your AC, such as defensive duelist and dual wielder, will further skew these numbers in favor of Champions.

Conclusion: that's not bad, especially in a long fight or dungeon.

Level 15: Superior crit - now you crit on 18 and up, three times as often as everyone else.

Damage for a single attack from a max strength player with a great sword (fighting style not calculated):
Non-champion: 12.35
Champion (15): 13.05
Usage of great weapon fighting and great weapon master will further skew these numbers in the champion's favor.

Conclusion: that's not bad, especially in a long fight or dungeon.

Level 18: Survivor - you regain 5+con mod HP every round if your HP total is below half.

Not going to lie: this feature is downright awesome. Healing in 5e is hard to come by, particularly in long fights when everyone has used their spell slots already. Even feats like healer can only be used on the same person once per short rest. So the ability to just heal up to 10 HP per round, approximately 4.5% of your max HP (226 with max con and taking 10 at 1 and 6 at every other level), is really nice.

But wait, there's more. If you build a defensive champion, your odds of even taking damage are quite low. If you have a source of damage resistance via a buff, racial trait or magic item, this gets even better because you'll likely be healing yourself for close to the damage you would take from an attack (average damage / hit at CR 18+ ranges from 15 to 30 according to this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?387385-Monster-Stat-By-CR-(Now-with-better-damage-resistance-info!)&highlight=CR)).

Conclusion: that's not bad, especially in a long fight or dungeon.

Overall Conclusion
The Champion has the unique quality that, out of all classes, it is the only one that can continue fighting at near peak efficiency no matter how long the day goes on. You could have the meanest, most sadistic DM who thinks short rests are unrealistic, and your champion will be just fine. When everyone else is out of spell slots, out of ki, out of maneuvers, out of HP, etc, you're doing just fine.

In addition, a champion who takes a great weapon + great weapon mastery, shield + shield mastery + defensive duelist, or two weapon fighting + dual wielder + defensive duelist, gets more out of his feats and attacks than a normal character. This is because he crits more often and, due to his archetype features, gets more proportionate benefit from increases to AC (can take defense fighting style in addition to primary and heals off what damage he does take each round, meaning it takes much longer to actually kill the Champion than just about anyone else).

The often overlooked level 7 feature is actually quite nice, since checks come up more often than other kinds of rolls. It's not as universal as the similar bard feature, but it's quite nice. A champion who focuses DEX and takes the alert feat can end up with an initiative bonus of +13. That's pretty crazy.

And, of course, as a fighter the Champion gets access to full attack progression, action surge, and indomitable. Unlike other fighters, extra attacks benefit the Champion more. His odds of landing one crit in four attacks go from 18.5% to 47.8%) (1-(0.95)^4 vs. 1-(0.85)^4). That difference guarantees that the Champion is doing the most damage in the long run, unless rests are extremely plentiful.

I really don't think the archetype is that bad. With all of its features together, it has a strong base to work from. Simple? Sure, but that also means less bookkeeping, and therefore more time to focus on RP and creativity. I think champions are fine.

Edit: one thing I did not mention but which Seppo87 pointed out is that the improved crit range also makes advantage considerably stronger. For a regular fighter, there's a 9.75% chance to crit per attack with advantage. For a champion, the odds jump to 19% at 3 and 27.75% at 15. That's huge.

Also worth noting: combining the above with a half-orc would be brutally effective.

Seppo87

2015-02-11, 05:44 PM

You should at least mention that advantage makes the improved critical range MUCH stronger.

TrollCapAmerica

2015-02-11, 05:54 PM

You should at least mention that advantage makes the improved critical range MUCH stronger.

Advantage+Crit+"Power Attack"+Halforc+Great weapon stuff

It's about the only Champion I see working

Todasmile

2015-02-11, 07:45 PM

Crits aren't automatic hits - Natural 20s are automatic hits.

The Champion doesn't particularly gain any additional benefit from anything but Advantage. With Advantage on every hit, an 18-20 crit range translates approximately, but not exactly, to 20% more damage per dice roll when compared to a non-champion. Consider the following, optimized Fighter:

One attack: 2d6+15 damage = approximately 23 damage w/fighting style
On crit: 4d6+15 damage = approximately 31 damage w/fighting style

As Champion: 28% chance of +8 damage translates to ~+2.3 damage per hit.
As anything else: 10% chance of +8 damage translates to +.8 damage per hit.

Damage increase per hit: 1.5.

Consider the Battlemaster, who has, at this point, 6d12 superiority dice which recharge on short rest, making it about 18-24 per day. We'll say 18. Relentless adds more, but that's arbitrary and we won't count it.

18d12 =9*13 = 117 average damage. We're counting crits in this damage, and we've chosen to apply Advantage to favour the Champion, so 117*1.1 = 129. 129/1.5 = 86.

The Champion must make 86 attacks to match just the raw damage output of the Battlemaster, not counting the utility brought by the latter. This translates approximately to 15-20 full-round attacks. Furthermore, the Battlemaster gets to choose when to use his dice, and can burst rapidly to take out a tough enemy, or prioritize certain targets.

I don't know how many full-round attacks you're going to need to do in a day. I think that 20 of them translates roughly to 1600*.45=~700 applied damage at that point, which, as far as I can tell, is more HP than a single Fighter is ever going to need to take out in one day. It's almost enough to take out 3 of the generic CR 20 monster on its own, without teammates.

Let's also remember that this is, essentially, the most favorable situation possible for the Champion. If they're using a different fighting style, not 2h, the gap begins to turn more and more in the Battlemaster's favour. If they don't have Advantage on every hit, the gap turns more and more in the Battlemaster's favour. I could do the calculations with a Half-Orc, but I'm not convinced it would end up being all that much of a difference - maybe 2 or 3 full-round attacks.

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-11, 07:54 PM

Crits aren't automatic hits - Natural 20s are automatic hits.

No, I believe that the designers even stated that a critical hit is an auto hit. It is a hit no matter if it is a 18 or 19.

Galen

2015-02-11, 08:00 PM

SharkForce

2015-02-11, 08:13 PM

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-11, 08:28 PM

the rogue can get similar consistent DPR, generally speaking has very few abilities that run out of uses ever, and can do a heck of a lot more in the way of interesting stuff.

the only way in which the rogue could be argued to have less staying power is in the infinite healing that leaves the champion at half HP max. fortunately for the rogue, there are a number of ways that the rogue is substantially better at minimizing or even completely preventing damage from occurring, starting with access to massively superior stealth capabilities.

or, in other words... if you're looking for a class that doesn't run out of resources easily, you can be a champion and have almost no interesting options outside of combat, or be a rogue and have the most out of combat options of any non-full caster. generally speaking, the rogue enjoys most of the benefits, without the drawbacks.

The rogue (thief) might be the best designed class. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a high fantasy version of it, but for a low to mid fantasy class the rogue is absolutely fantastic.

I say drop the fighter all together and make subclasses to adjust the rogue into being more fighter ish. Increased HP, better weapons and armor... Hell call the class Adventurer and then build a rogue or fighter from that class.

Giant2005

2015-02-11, 08:50 PM

Vogonjeltz

2015-02-11, 09:30 PM

No, I believe that the designers even stated that a critical hit is an auto hit. It is a hit no matter if it is a 18 or 19.

This is correct, a critical hit is an automatic hit. It even has the word in the name.

Also, worth noting that the champion at 3rd level will deal more damage on average than a battlemaster using superiority dice after ~6 attacks per die applied. So if you make more than ~26 attacks before resting then you're automatically better off on average playing a Champion.

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-11, 10:00 PM

I did a quick smoosh of the fighter and rogue and it looks fun.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?398095-The-Adventurer-(Base-Class-Rogue-Fighter-Mash-Up)&p=18807633#post18807633

I would play this champion. The sneak attack champion would be strong but I don't think it is as strong as Extra Attack Champion though... Hmm need some maths.

Todasmile

2015-02-11, 10:14 PM

Also, worth noting that the champion at 3rd level will deal more damage on average than a battlemaster using superiority dice after ~6 attacks per die applied. So if you make more than ~26 attacks before resting then you're automatically better off on average playing a Champion.

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

Giant2005

2015-02-11, 10:21 PM

Naanomi

2015-02-11, 10:22 PM

Hill Dwarf fighter with 20 Con and Toughness feat will have between 189 and 360 HP; averaging 275.

That is 138 regenerating Hp buffer between you and death.

Easy_Lee

2015-02-11, 10:50 PM

One big error in this thread that significantly undersells the Champion is the false assumption that increasing your crit range to 19+ is only a 5% increase in crits.
It is significantly more than that.
If your target has an AC high enough that you only hit on a 16+, a normal character has a 20% chance of any successful attack being a crit. A level 3 Champion in the same battle has a 40% chance of his successful attacks being a crit. Even at level 20, against the lowest AC target in the game you still need to roll above 1 to hit which means increasing crit range from 20 to 18+ is a 10.53% increase in crit rate.

Just a difference of language I think. If you're counting crits as a proportion of total attacks that land, your crit chance depends largely on AC and your attack bonus. If measured that way, archery fighters will rather perplexingly have the lowest crit rate, since they get a static +2 to their attack rolls and hit that much more often.

As far as proportion of attack rolls that crit, though, champions will crit on 5 to 10% more of them. As discussed, a crit is not the same as double damage, but the increased crit chance does work extremely well with advantage and certain class and race features.

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.

"I use Sundering Strike!"
"I respond with Arcane Dismemberment!", and so on. The Champion offers none of that. Again, not bad mechanically, just unappealing for me.

This one is going to take a bit longer to address, and I'm going to have to talk a little bit about EverQuest. Again, I'm a number-crunchy kind of guy. I can appreciate versatility of options as much as the next guy. But one thing classic EverQuest did well, which I haven't seen in any other game to the same degree, is having very deep mechanics.

What do I mean by that? Well, take aggro management in EQ. It was controlled in two ways: damage done and special effects. Your aggro towards a mob was your damage done, but you could increase it by performing special effects, particularly anything that stunned the mob or lowered it's resistances. So warriors in EQ, once they learned the mechanics, figured out to dual wield weapons that dealt decent damage and had a chance to stun the target or lower its resistances. This was the only way to tank. And it was just one way in which EverQuest had very deep mechanics, particularly when it came to playing a warrior. In fact, learning these hidden mechanics and figuring out the best spread for statistics and gear were the only reason to play a warrior. Funnily enough, it ended up being a much more popular class than the supposedly superior paladins and rangers, both of whom got spells and several skills that warriors couldn't use. Too bad neither of those had the sheer defensive capabilities or number-crunchy math-driven gameplay of the warrior.

I use this example from EQ as a point to talk about the champion. On the surface, the champion doesn't seem like it does much. However, there is a lot of depth to the increase crit chance, as I've shown. With the right setup, such as playing a half orc with a greataxe and getting the cleric to cast guiding bolt, a champion can push their damage per round way through the roof. Champions get an extra fighting style, meaning that they can push their numbers just a bit higher than other fighters (sans multiclassing which makes the multiclasser give up something else in exchange).

And remarkable athlete offers a lot of opportunity for advantages in unique situations. Initiative is just one thing it helps. It also works with all gaming sets (assuming dex checks), bursting chains and other objects (strength check), or even checks you wouldn't normally think of, like winning a drinking contest (opposed con check). This ability also means that you can skip a lot of skills (like acrobatics) and diversify your character, knowing full well that you're going to be adding half proficiency on those skills anyway.

And though it doesn't seem like it, being able to long-jump 5 feet farther could actually be quite beneficial if you're trying to avoid some shoddy terrain or clear the gap over some lava. Is it as good as levitate? No, but it doesn't need to be cast or maintained either.

Champion also makes a fantastic dip for several classes. Rogues in particular could find huge benefit from taking 6 levels for improved crit, extra attack, action surge, a fighting style, and two feats. Considering how many ways rogues have to attack with advantage, pushing their crit chance to 19% per attack when that happens can be a great way to majorly boost their DPR, since you roll all of those die twice.

It's this kind of depth that I feel is a major draw for the class. They may not have the most options, but the options they do have are very good and can be gamed quite a bit. The champion turns up his nose at casters, because he knows that his seemingly few options have a much wider variety of uses than the caster will ever realize:

He'll be keeping his eye out for flaming weapons and similar, knowing that he can reroll all die associated with an attack on a crit.
He'll be watching for ways to get advantage that much harder, knowing it makes his crit chance shoot through the roof.
He'll eye every room looking for ways to use his strength or dexterity to manipulate it, knowing that he's got half proficiency no matter how outlandish the check may seem.
He'll strongly consider buying a horse, or an even larger mount, knowing that he can take mounted combatant and use a lance to totally decimate anyone smaller than his mount through advantage-criticals with his 1d12 one-handed lance.
He might consider taking some superiority die and maneuvers via feat, since he gets extra feats, just to get in on the BM schtick and reroll that crap on a critical hit too.

Like I said, there's a lot of fun to be had with the champion's mechanics. You just have to read a bit deeper into the archetype than most do in order to truly understand how effective it can be.

Logical DM

2015-02-11, 11:23 PM

When you think about it, Champions could very easily be considered the most powerful class in the game at high levels. They are essentially the Jack of All Trades class... Of Combat.
Take a Warforged 19 Champion/1 Barbarian for instance: he could endure the average damage from over 28 Hobgoblins each round before they can push through his natural regeneration or a ridiculous 571 if they had disadvantage for whatever reason. He is essentially immune to the effects of a horde of enemies - even the level 20 Druid which is renown for its invincibility would fall to those numbers pretty damn fast.
Against a single, powerful target like an Ancient Dragon, you need to roll an 11 or higher to hit at max level (With rare exception). That means that any other class would crit on 10% of their hits and the Champion would crit on a significant 30% of their hits. Overall that is more than an 11% increase in DPS or more if magic weapons are taken into account.
Basically the Champion is the perfect warrior - he can handle hordes of minor enemies better than any other class while also bringing more damage to the table against a single, powerful enemy when high damage is needed most.

But they aren't in any way a jack of all trades class, even for combat. ALL they can do is take and deal single target damage, they have absolutely no versatility and no abilities to add tactical depth. You want an actual combat jack of all trades, grab yourself a druid or something and watch them damage, heal, deal aoe, take damage, control. A lot of other martials bring a lot of different stuff - monk has mobility and control, paladin brings party protection and burst and they're doing this on top of being able to take and deal damage, while the champion is stuck bringing nothing new to the party.

Champion, depth, rest snipped
Perhaps we're using different definitions here. My definition of depth in this case is choices and how meaningful they are - attacking as a warlock isn't very deep because you're just spamming eldritch blast regardless of target, while attacking as an elemental monk has more depth because you have to make meaningful choices whenever you do anything - do I blow ki flurrying now? The target's dangerous, maybe I should try stunning but I'm already low on ki, would it be worth throwing a fireball? It's better damage, but it won't immediately kill anyone it hits and I could probably take down that ogre if I concentrated on him...

The champion has none of that. Increased critical chance just means your attacks are doing slightly more damage, and that's not going to alter your choices at all, particularly since it's random so you can't rely on it. 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.

Giant2005

2015-02-11, 11:30 PM

But they aren't in any way a jack of all trades class, even for combat. ALL they can do is take and deal single target damage, they have absolutely no versatility and no abilities to add tactical depth. You want an actual combat jack of all trades, grab yourself a druid or something and watch them damage, heal, deal aoe, take damage, control. A lot of other martials bring a lot of different stuff - monk has mobility and control, paladin brings party protection and burst and they're doing this on top of being able to take and deal damage, while the champion is stuck bringing nothing new to the party.

But the Champion is an expert against any encounter whether it is composed of lots of weaker enemies or few strong enemies. Other classes have their niches (Druids excel against few strong enemies, arcane casters excel against hordes of weaker enemies for example), but in a situation that isn't their niche they are extremely mediocre and in many cases virtually unable to function. the Champion excels in battles of all varieties and in most cases is better suited to those encounters than the classes that would ordinarily consider that encounter to fit right within their niche.

Logical DM

2015-02-11, 11:41 PM

But the Champion is an expert against any encounter whether it is composed of lots of weaker enemies or few strong enemies. Other classes have their niches (Druids excel against few strong enemies, arcane casters excel against hordes of weaker enemies for example), but in a situation that isn't their niche they are extremely mediocre and in many cases virtually unable to function. the Champion excels in battles of all varieties and in most cases is better suited to those encounters than the classes that would ordinarily consider that encounter to fit right within their niche.

But that's not true. They have no particular advantage against lots of weaker enemies, unlike those who can AOE, and all they can do to a few strong enemies is autoattack repeatedly. What if the enemy flees underground? What if disabling a foe or foes is necessary, for instance if they're full hp and about to kill a friend? What if they fly away? What if someone is about to die and needs to be healed? What if the battlefield needs to be altered? What if there are a large number of weaker foes?

Most classes don't have answers to all these things (that's why it's a team game), but the champion has answers to none of these situations. They are the least jack of all trades in combat of any subclass in the game, and obviously out of combat they don't have the utility the well built classes do.

Giant2005

2015-02-11, 11:55 PM

But that's not true. They have no particular advantage against lots of weaker enemies, unlike those who can AOE, and all they can do to a few strong enemies is autoattack repeatedly.
As shown above using Hobgoblins as an example, it takes 29 or more (572 with disadvantage on attacks) just to be able to out-damage the Champion's regen. He could literally relax and take a picnic while those Hobgolins beat on him and never be in danger. Being completely immune to the attacks of your enemy is the biggest advantage one could have, far bigger than being able to throw out some AOEs. It is basically the difference between being undefeatable and hard to defeat.

What if the enemy flees underground?
Grats on the victory?

What if disabling a foe or foes is necessary, for instance if they're full hp and about to kill a friend?
Putting your enemy in a coma or coffin disables them more reliably than any spell ever could (Unless that spell put them in a coma or coffin too).

What if they fly away?
Grats on the victory.

What if someone is about to die and needs to be healed?
You tell that squishy to piss off and let the real Fighters do the Fighting (Preferably before he got himself in that degree of danger)

What if the battlefield needs to be altered?
You put your enemy in a coma or coffin. Or if there is some deus-ex involved that makes that impossible, you drag him to a location where he can be harmed.

What if there are a large number of weaker foes?
Either you fight them as normal or you pull out a novel and catch up on the exploits of your favourite fictional character until they tire themselves out flailing aimlessly and take a nap. then you kill them in their sleep.

Easy_Lee

2015-02-12, 12:07 AM

What's funny about a lot of the discussion in this thread is that one of the champion's foremost advantages is barely even mentioned. Even if other classes can do cool things in the short term, even if others have some versatile tricks, the champion can say one thing that nobody else can: no matter how many encounters I have to fight in a row, no matter how many fireballs hit me or save-or-sucks I work through, no matter how many times the DM actively tries to kill me, I'm still going to be fighting at full strength and half-health by the end of it. Champions are the Gaston of combat; nobody does it like the champion.

Symphony

2015-02-12, 12:16 AM

As shown above using Hobgoblins as an example, it takes 29 or more (572 with disadvantage on attacks) just to be able to out-damage the Champion's regen. He could literally relax and take a picnic while those Hobgolins beat on him and never be in danger. Being completely immune to the attacks of your enemy is the biggest advantage one could have, far bigger than being able to throw out some AOEs. It is basically the difference between being undefeatable and hard to defeat.

Then throw in Heavy Armor Master and take down an army?

Envyus

2015-02-12, 12:20 AM

If the varient Cleaving rule from the dmg is in the game as well. It's easy to cut down hordes.

Giant2005

2015-02-12, 12:22 AM

Then throw in Heavy Armor Master and take down an army?

Those numbers already included Heavy Armor Master. He could use Rage or something to get Resistance which would increase his survivability even more but that isn't a persistent buff.

Symphony

2015-02-12, 12:24 AM

Those numbers already included Heavy Armor Master. He could use Rage or something to get Resistance which would increase his survivability even more but that isn't a persistent buff.

Ah. Yeah, rage only lasts for up to a minute, and 10 rounds is not really longs enough for that kind of thing.

JAL_1138

2015-02-12, 12:50 AM

The Champion's biggest problem--not only, but biggest--is not necessarily within the class itself, but rather in caster balance at the highest levels, and everyone looks at lvl 20 here. A Champion has a hard time doing anything to an elemental-form moon druid, for instance, even if you follow the Wild Shape interpretation that goes "you must revert to your base form to take a new form (or replenish your HP in the same form) with Wild Shape." There's also issues with some lower-level spells being broken as heck. These are way fewer and farther between than in 3.5, but they're still there, and unlike in 2e a weapon attack can't disrupt the casting of any spell by landing a hit (just landing a hit at all, regardless of damage--in 2nd edition, in theory, a particularly lucky squirrel could crit on Mordenkainen himself and disrupt his spellcasting). Good crits and regen are nice, but a high-level caster can turn into an Ancient Gold Dragon once a day, and has ways to make that permanent.

That all said, I do like the class--hits like a freight train, straightforward, and high survivability.

Envyus

2015-02-12, 01:14 AM

, but a high-level caster can turn into an Ancient Gold Dragon once a day, and has ways to make that permanent.

No he can't.

Giant2005

2015-02-12, 01:19 AM

The Champion's biggest problem--not only, but biggest--is not necessarily within the class itself, but rather in caster balance at the highest levels, and everyone looks at lvl 20 here. A Champion has a hard time doing anything to an elemental-form moon druid, for instance, even if you follow the Wild Shape interpretation that goes "you must revert to your base form to take a new form (or replenish your HP in the same form) with Wild Shape." There's also issues with some lower-level spells being broken as heck. These are way fewer and farther between than in 3.5, but they're still there, and unlike in 2e a weapon attack can't disrupt the casting of any spell by landing a hit (just landing a hit at all, regardless of damage--in 2nd edition, in theory, a particularly lucky squirrel could crit on Mordenkainen himself and disrupt his spellcasting). Good crits and regen are nice, but a high-level caster can turn into an Ancient Gold Dragon once a day, and has ways to make that permanent.

That Druid couldn't exactly do much of anything to the Champion either though as long as he chose his feats wisely.
Here is another interesting todbit: A level 18+ Champion can take on 4 Rakshasa simultaneously without them being able to breach his regeneration reliably. That is a 60k xp battle for a solo Champion which is 6.32 times the threshold for a deadly encounter at level 18. Yet he can endure that for any given length of time without ever being in any danger.

JAL_1138

2015-02-12, 01:19 AM

No he can't.

Wizard with True Polymorph. AFB so I dunno if you can target Self--if not, Wish and/or Simulacrum shenanigans can manage it.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2015-02-12, 01:21 AM

Okay. Let's take a level 3 Human Variant Fighter with 16 strength and Mounted Combatant, fighting AC 16 medium sized enemies with a 1H lance and dueling style. That's probably the most straightforward way to have a character with consistent advantage at low levels, which I believe gets played more often and hence will serve as my baseline comparison.

Both a BM and a Champion have a +5 to hit and hence need a natural 11. With advantage both of them have a 75% chance to roll 11 or higher. Both normally do 1d12+5 damage. The BM has a 5% chance to crit, and the Champion has a 10% chance to crit.

Without expending any resources or making any reaction or bonus action attacks, the Champion's DPR is 9.86 compared to the BM's DPR of 9.25875. Over four rounds (by which time IME most normal combats are decided, if not over) the difference is 2.405 damage. Without advantage, the DPR difference over four rounds would be 1.3 damage, meaning the marginal incentive to gain advantage is 1.105 expected damage over four rounds.

Superiority dice are guaranteed to add at least 4.5 damage in the combat, plus a rider. So, expending one superiority die per four rounds will overcome this expected damage increase, even with advantage. And getting the crit increase has such a small effect in expectation that the fighter will be looking just as hard for advantage as he was before (that is, intently, just like a BM would). The regeneration ability may change the outlook of the fighter, if the party doesn't have other reliable healing options, at that very late level. But honestly by that time the fighter of any subclass is screwed anyway, so how about the champion actually being good when you get it?

Also, the half-proficiency starts off as +1. Plus. One. On (initiative and) skills the fighter didn't deem important enough to get proficiency in already. That is not going to change my consideration of whether to perform some dex- or str-related thing. It's not even adding interesting fluffy but situational abilities like Know Your Enemy.

So yeah, all the Fighter subclasses are bad, and Champion is the worst. IMO they should take out one of the bonus ASIs and just bump each subclass, or better yet make those bumps feats.

Giant2005

2015-02-12, 01:33 AM

Envyus

2015-02-12, 01:40 AM

Wizard with True Polymorph. AFB so I dunno if you can target Self--if not, Wish and/or Simulacrum shenanigans can manage it.

No he can't. And Wish or Simulacrum can't manage it ether. Simply because True Polymorph does not allow you to transform yourself or others into forms of a higher level then you.

Todasmile

2015-02-12, 01:56 AM

And at level 20 with those same stats, feats and enemy, the Champion's DPR is 49.05 compared to the BM's DPR of 44.395. Over four rounds (by which time IME most normal combats are decided, if not over) the difference is 18.62 damage. The Battlemaster has to expend 3 Superiority dice over that period of time to keep up with the damage.

Which is totally fine, because the BM has 6 dice and they recharge on a short rest. How many combats does the BM have to stretch those dice over? 2? No problem. 3? Problem, sure, but the damage difference ends up being 12 per short rest, which is almost nothing.

And, let's be honest here, what's worth more - the opportunity to Nova, with the security of getting to still use your dice later 1 time per fight even if you burn them all, and the added benefit of riders, and -12 damage per short rest, which becomes 0 if even one of those dice are burned using a Riposte; OR a pretty inconsistent damage boost which can and will overkill enemies, which cannot be "aimed", and which has no actual utility?

The Champion's best feature is his heal, which is only even online for the last three levels of the game. Comparing the Champ to the BM, the Champ is rear-loaded, optionless, and almost entirely passive, while the BM is front-loaded, has some options, gets to choose when to use each of his distinct abilities, and puts out similar, if not better, damage!

Logical DM

2015-02-12, 02:01 AM

No he can't. And Wish or Simulacrum can't manage it ether. Simply because True Polymorph does not allow you to transform yourself or others into forms of a higher level then you.

Yeah, the best you can achieve is merely permanently turning yourself into an ancient brass dragon.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2015-02-12, 02:07 AM

And at level 20 with those same stats, feats and enemy, the Champion's DPR is 49.05 compared to the BM's DPR of 44.395. Over four rounds (by which time IME most normal combats are decided, if not over) the difference is 18.62 damage. The Battlemaster has to expend 3 Superiority dice over that period of time to keep up with the damage.

You cherry-picked the time in the character's progression where the Battlemaster is at his most powerful and decided to compare them. As you can see above, it doesn't stay that way - the Battlemaster progressively loses his relative strength as they level.I didn't cherrypick. I used the lowest possible level for comparison, which IMO is the more important comparison to all this level 20 BS where games rarely reach and the fighter has already ceased to be relevant with any subclass.

Not only that but I gave the fighter MC and not the best overall DPR feat, which is Polearm Master, specifically to show that constant advantage was nice but not a giant thing for Champion. And I didn't assume that you could use Riposte to get more attacks, or other maneuvers to actually get advantage more often, or even add the potential extra sup dice damage from crits. I did the bare bones, no rider effect, base line damage comparison between the two at the most relevant level possible.

So yes, Champion scales better than the worst scaling subclass of the entire game, and maybe by the time the Champion can regenerate it wins out, if you can consistently get advantage. But it's still terrible, and especially so at the levels where more gaming occurs and the fighter has a better chance at contributing.

Giant2005

2015-02-12, 02:21 AM

Easy_Lee

2015-02-12, 02:25 AM

Which is totally fine, because the BM has 6 dice and they recharge on a short rest. How many combats does the BM have to stretch those dice over? 2? No problem. 3? Problem, sure, but the damage difference ends up being 12 per short rest, which is almost nothing.

And, let's be honest here, what's worth more - the opportunity to Nova, with the security of getting to still use your dice later 1 time per fight even if you burn them all, and the added benefit of riders, and -12 damage per short rest, which becomes 0 if even one of those dice are burned using a Riposte; OR a pretty inconsistent damage boost which can and will overkill enemies, which cannot be "aimed", and which has no actual utility?

The Champion's best feature is his heal, which is only even online for the last three levels of the game. Comparing the Champ to the BM, the Champ is rear-loaded, optionless, and almost entirely passive, while the BM is front-loaded, has some options, gets to choose when to use each of his distinct abilities, and puts out similar, if not better, damage!

You guys are using a non-half-orc dueling champion, one of the weaker variants, and are also discounting his bonus fighting style which yields additional options. A champion who spends most of his time mounted will likely abuse a trick to make his mount nearly untouchable: combine the defense fighting style from his bonus fighting style with mounted combatant. He can use his reaction to make attacks against the mount have disadvantage, and then force them to target himself instead without using his action if he wants to. He can do all that and still have archery, dueling, or whatever other style he wants.

But I digress. The dueling variant of fighter is one of the weaker ones. If you want the DPR difference to be more pronounced, try a half-orc, great weapon fighting, using the GWF feature with the knowledge that every crit's an auto-hit, getting a full bonus attack if he does crit that round, and using a great axe with savage attacker to roll 3d12 instead of 2d12 for every crit. It's pretty easy to see how quickly this can get out of hand, and it's just one variant of champion.

The half-orc race is a pretty big deal for champions, but the general trend is true regardless of race choice. I did say before that champions really start to shine on the longest, hardest days, when everyone else has used their special powers already. Before that happens, the champion is merely able to "compete", rather than "shine." When those tough sessions do come, as they do, everyone else will be very happy to have the champion around.

And no fighter is "optionless." BM's have extra maneuvers, all of which can be picked up by literally anyone with a feat. They'll be using those maneuvers six times max per short rest. And all that most of those maneuvers do is allow a free trip, or a free disarm, or another reaction attack. In other words, most are slightly improved versions of the same options that all fighters get.

The best maneuver of the bunch is precision attack, turning misses into hits. That's a big deal, but the champion already crits (and thus is guaranteed to land the hit) much more often. Even when attacking with disadvantage, the champion still crits 2.25% of the time, which is ten times more than anyone else with disadvantage (0.25%).

The fighter with the most breadth of options is the EK. But there are better Gish options out there if you ask me, and having a balanced party removes the need to cast your own spells. Most of the spells EKs get are crappy anyway; you're better off just doing your full attack than throwing a fireball most of the time. If you want a real Gish, play a valor bard or blade-pact warlock, and enjoy full casting plus better cantrips.

And I still think there's a beauty in the simple depth of the Champion archetype. Sure, you can come up with all kinds of situations where another character might be better. But it's very hard to come up with any combat situation where the champion won't do fine. Between multiple fighting styles, the fighter's own action surge and indomitable, and the fact that champions add half proficiency to initiative and the same or more to any other combat check one can think of, the champion is very hard to shut down. It's just a beautifully simple, consistently effective, constantly underestimated character.

JAL_1138

2015-02-12, 02:43 AM

Yeah, the best you can achieve is merely permanently turning yourself into an ancient brass dragon.

Anyhow, level limits vs CR-rules-lawyering aside, "can turn into some variety of extremely powerful dragon daily and can make it permanent if they want" is pretty darn potent. Or Polymorph (including conjure woodland beings (pixies)) + PWK being potentially an instakill combo.

That Druid couldn't exactly do much of anything to the Champion either though as long as he chose his feats wisely.
Here is another interesting tidbit: A level 18+ Champion can take on 4 Rakshasa simultaneously without them being able to breach his regeneration reliably. That is a 60k xp battle for a solo Champion which is 6.32 times the threshold for a deadly encounter at level 18. Yet he can endure that for any given length of time without ever being in any danger.

I don't think it's a bad class--quite the opposite. I've been resolutely sticking to "utility" classes since 2e but I wouldn't balk at playing it. I'd still rather play a utility-focused class, but I wouldn't refuse. I'll admit I came across as overly negative because I didn't see any need to repeat the good parts that have already been detailed by you and others. Again--not an issue with the Champion as much as with casters getting a bit too much in the way of utility and other goodies and some spells being broken. Plus, although it's extremely unlikely that a fighter won't get a magic weapon by mid-levels, there's a lot of enemies they can't damage at all even at level 20 without either an item or caster support.

TL;DR: The Champion is fine; it's not that they suck, it's that some spells need nerfed.

Ashrym

2015-02-12, 03:52 AM

But they aren't in any way a jack of all trades class, even for combat. ALL they can do is take and deal single target damage, they have absolutely no versatility and no abilities to add tactical depth. You want an actual combat jack of all trades, grab yourself a druid or something and watch them damage, heal, deal aoe, take damage, control. A lot of other martials bring a lot of different stuff - monk has mobility and control, paladin brings party protection and burst and they're doing this on top of being able to take and deal damage, while the champion is stuck bringing nothing new to the party.

Remarkable athelete, appropriate background, and spending feats on non-combat feats gives them a lot more than just damage. Replacing basic attacks with shove (push or knock down) or grappling provides tactical options at the expense of damage (unlike battlemasters who increase damage when using superiority dice) and there are feats that give tactical options. Multiple attacks allows for multiple attack substitutions like knock down and grapple so the target has 0 movement to stand up and remains prone until having broken the grapple.

There's a difference between less options and no options and in this case we aren't looking at no options. The character options aren't directly baked into the subclass but the options exist.

Balor777

2015-02-12, 06:12 AM

I agree with Easylee at most points.
Champion is simple but nice.
I dissagre that you get more than a 5% bonus chance to crit with each of his critical features.
D20 has 20 sizes.Each side has 5% chances to be the result of a roll.
You can have out
one(normal characters) 1/20
two(Champion3 or Barbar2 w rec att) 2/20
three (Champion15) 3/20
four (Champ3/Barbar2 multiclass) 4/20
or highly unlikely six(Champ18/Barbar2 multiclass) 6/20
sides of the d20 that let you score a crit.
You dont have to care how many of your hits are critical.The only time this thinking is valuable is Versus very high AC oppontns or while attacking with -5+10
and you really need a 18/19/20 to hit.At this very rare occasion you will deal a lot more damage from the guys without improved critical.
But the chances are you will need an opponent with AC higher than your attackbonus+10 by +8 or +10 attack bonus vs 28 AC or +5 attack bonus VS 23AC to make this happen.
In 99% of the encounters you should care about how many of the sides(and if you roll 2 times from advantage)
on the d20 let you crit.

The champion becomes a MONSTER if you dip 2 levels in barbarian for the recless attack double roll so double chances to crit, plus +~23% accurasy(recless attack) and you choose Half orc as race.
Start as a Fighter.
Get to level 6.(2nd attack + ASI)
Dip 2 levels in barbarrian(for Recless attack and some rage)
Bam you have the DPR guy.
If you choose the above combination you should/could play with TWF style +Feat.
AT level 8 you will have a good 60% to crit for extra 2d8 damage(average9)
That average 9x60% = 5,5 damage extra per round or average +1,8 damage per hit.
At fighter 11 you get 7,2 damage per round as bonus.
NOT bad if you realise the average GWF greatsword guy does including misses around 25 damage per round at 11 level.
So that 7,2 is around 25%damage extra, without taking into account the extra 23% chances to hit from recless attack.

Imo it fits the RP too to have a 2lvl dip in Barbar as the Champion tends more into the "angry-i have guts fighting" style.Far more that the "specialist" battle master.

Conclusion is that champ with just 2 lvl into the barbar deals way more damage with recless attack than the BM but suffers more damage too.
Unless you use rage.

ALSO dont forget the synergy of duelist style + protection style fighter can have without multiclass or the ability to have the awesome archery style until the enemy reaches you and then switch to your main style.

Psikerlord

2015-02-12, 07:38 AM

I think the Champion is perfectly fine. I find the battlemaster runs out of dice constantly, esp in dungeons where short rests are not necessarily easy.

If you want more choices to go with your champion - take feats that create options: ritual caster, arcane initiate, dragonmarks (UA article), martial adept, shield master, sentinel, etc. In addition, try to obtain magic items that are interesting and require resource management. With the optional DMG rule the champion - like anyone in melee - can mark, disarm, push around, overrun, as well as help, grapple, shove from PHB.

There's plenty of stuff to do. Champion's cool/good.

Psikerlord

2015-02-12, 07:41 AM

You guys are using a non-half-orc dueling champion, one of the weaker variants, and are also discounting his bonus fighting style which yields additional options. A champion who spends most of his time mounted will likely abuse a trick to make his mount nearly untouchable: combine the defense fighting style from his bonus fighting style with mounted combatant. He can use his reaction to make attacks against the mount have disadvantage, and then force them to target himself instead without using his action if he wants to. He can do all that and still have archery, dueling, or whatever other style he wants.

But I digress. The dueling variant of fighter is one of the weaker ones. If you want the DPR difference to be more pronounced, try a half-orc, great weapon fighting, using the GWF feature with the knowledge that every crit's an auto-hit, getting a full bonus attack if he does crit that round, and using a great axe with savage attacker to roll 3d12 instead of 2d12 for every crit. It's pretty easy to see how quickly this can get out of hand, and it's just one variant of champion.

The half-orc race is a pretty big deal for champions, but the general trend is true regardless of race choice. I did say before that champions really start to shine on the longest, hardest days, when everyone else has used their special powers already. Before that happens, the champion is merely able to "compete", rather than "shine." When those tough sessions do come, as they do, everyone else will be very happy to have the champion around.

And no fighter is "optionless." BM's have extra maneuvers, all of which can be picked up by literally anyone with a feat. They'll be using those maneuvers six times max per short rest. And all that most of those maneuvers do is allow a free trip, or a free disarm, or another reaction attack. In other words, most are slightly improved versions of the same options that all fighters get.

The best maneuver of the bunch is precision attack, turning misses into hits. That's a big deal, but the champion already crits (and thus is guaranteed to land the hit) much more often. Even when attacking with disadvantage, the champion still crits 2.25% of the time, which is ten times more than anyone else with disadvantage (0.25%).

The fighter with the most breadth of options is the EK. But there are better Gish options out there if you ask me, and having a balanced party removes the need to cast your own spells. Most of the spells EKs get are crappy anyway; you're better off just doing your full attack than throwing a fireball most of the time. If you want a real Gish, play a valor bard or blade-pact warlock, and enjoy full casting plus better cantrips.

And I still think there's a beauty in the simple depth of the Champion archetype. Sure, you can come up with all kinds of situations where another character might be better. But it's very hard to come up with any combat situation where the champion won't do fine. Between multiple fighting styles, the fighter's own action surge and indomitable, and the fact that champions add half proficiency to initiative and the same or more to any other combat check one can think of, the champion is very hard to shut down. It's just a beautifully simple, consistently effective, constantly underestimated character.
Yep, this^

Garimeth

2015-02-12, 08:27 AM

For a Champion to be good at its passive increase it would need something along the lines of the following, imo:

- Ability to use weapons one size larger than normally allowed. (Monkey Grip.)
- Expertise on Athletics checks in addition to remarkable athlete.
- Con/Str version of Evasion.

I'm fine with a "I passively do things better" approach, but it doesn't do enough things better enough.

Two Problems:
1. I think a problem on these boards is looking at everything at level 20, in my experience VERY few games reach level 12, let alone 20.

2. The other thing is remember that multiclassing and even feats are optional, and I know DMs who do not allow MC, and one that only allows feats because I convinced him. I personally would like to see the Champion get certain feats as class features, that way its not based on the DM.

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-12, 09:13 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Garimeth

2015-02-12, 09:25 AM

I agree, but I think BM and EK are at least decent. BM just needs more and better manuevers, or ones that scale, and a method to regain SD in battle. That's an easy fix for me as a DM. Champion just sucks, imo - BUT I get that some people want a simple class that just hits stuff, so I think there is a place for it in the game.

Naanomi

2015-02-12, 09:26 AM

Although faster paced combat helps reduce how boring move and Attack is. 3.X combat pace meant move and Attack got to happen every few minutes real time at best; at least now things move quickly so you are moving, choosing targets, and killing them at a brisk pace.

Fwiffo86

2015-02-12, 09:36 AM

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-12, 09:42 AM

Giant2005

2015-02-12, 09:52 AM

And the Rogue does all that better than the fighter could ever dream of. If the fighter was built more like the rogue I dot think people would have such a problem with it.

The rogue is pretty damn easy to use, has interesting options, has a spell caster option, and can go all day if used right (just as long as the fighter once Second Wind falls off at level... 5 ish).

Rogues are even less interesting in combat - purely by virtue of having more attacks, the fighter has more options. A Rogue that uses his only attack to shove someone would have to be a nutjob whereas it is perfectly reasonable for a Fighter to do so as he will still deal respectable damage (Possibly even more by using the shove). IMO attacking only once is just really, really un-fun even if you do get a sneak attack off and roll a whole bunch of dice with that attack.

Garimeth

2015-02-12, 09:57 AM

I disagree. The majority of fighter players in my experience have all be going with the champion. And while it may not have alot of "activated abilities" the most important aspects of a fighter's core are superior in the champion. Staying power, and damage potential. While the EK has spell options, spells are subject to countering and dispelling and anti-magic, and the BM can use up his maneuver dice in just a couple of rounds.

For me, I like having abilities that can't be canceled, dispelled, or run out. And as far as "activated", my view differs slightly. I consider an attack that hits harder than almost any other attack (resource expenditure or not) that I can activate multiple times a round all day long makes me particularly happy with the class.

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

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

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

I want to like the Champion but it needs more meat, hence my suggestions above.

Rogues are even less interesting in combat - purely by virtue of having more attacks, the fighter has more options. A Rogue that uses his only attack to shove someone would have to be a nutjob whereas it is perfectly reasonable for a Fighter to do so as he will still deal respectable damage (Possibly even more by using the shove). IMO attacking only once is just really, really un-fun even if you do get a sneak attack off and roll a whole bunch of dice with that attack.

As a rogue player I gotta disagree. I have to worry about my positioning and taret selection to make sure I can get sneak attack (especially if I am ranged and using stealth), I have all kinds of interesting options for my bonus action (Do I try and Hide? Dash? Use an Object?). Not to mention the target I choose to attack, is much more likely to die from that one attack than the fighter's, and due to my stealth I probably have advantage on getting that attack to hit.

Sure more attacks is fun, but only if I get to make decisions with those attacks. Now granted this is a playstyle preference, but my point is that the Champion, even with a passive oriented playstyle, needs to be beefed up some.

Fwiffo86

2015-02-12, 10:03 AM

And the Rogue does all that better than the fighter could ever dream of. If the fighter was built more like the rogue I dot think people would have such a problem with it.

The rogue is pretty damn easy to use, has interesting options, has a spell caster option, and can go all day if used right (just as long as the fighter once Second Wind falls off at level... 5 ish).

The rogue is well designed, I agree. The champion fighter still does more damage. As it should, its a Fighter. Just average damages displayed:

1 attack + Sneak attack: (9.5 + 35) 44.5 (1d8)

4 attacks (12 x 4) 48 (2d6)

This is just average damage using average dice + modifier. No critical hit calculations, no feats, no fighting styles, and assuming every hit lands.

Garimeth

2015-02-12, 10:07 AM

The rogue is well designed, I agree. The champion fighter still does more damage. As it should, its a Fighter. Just average damages displayed:

1 attack + Sneak attack: (9.5 + 35) 44.5 (1d8)

4 attacks (12 x 4) 48 (2d6)

This is just average damage using average dice + modifier. No critical hit calculations, no feats, no fighting styles, and assuming every hit lands.

The problem is not every attack hits, the rogue is more likely to have advantage, and that damage difference is nominal.

At the very least the champion should get expertise on athletics skill, a con or str version of evasion, and something else (again my vote being something like monkey grip or one of the feats as a class feature).

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-12, 10:11 AM

Rogues are even less interesting in combat - purely by virtue of having more attacks, the fighter has more options. A Rogue that uses his only attack to shove someone would have to be a nutjob whereas it is perfectly reasonable for a Fighter to do so as he will still deal respectable damage (Possibly even more by using the shove). IMO attacking only once is just really, really un-fun even if you do get a sneak attack off and roll a whole bunch of dice with that attack.

OK so I see you never played a rogue yet. Go read the rogue's ability or play as a rogue for a while.

Rogue with expertise is more likely to win the shoving contest than a fighter. Then the rogue can use disengage as a bonus action, then the rogue can go hide. Party members attack or the creature gets up and (because the Rogue has expertise in stealth) can't find said rogue.

Sneak attack.

Move + BA Hide

Rinse and repeat. The creature will use half movement getting up, even if the rogue couldn't hide they have a big head start on running away.

Fwiffo86

2015-02-12, 10:12 AM

The problem is not every attack hits, the rogue is more likely to have advantage, and that damage difference is nominal.

At the very least the champion should get expertise on athletics skill, a con or str version of evasion, and something else (again my vote being something like monkey grip or one of the feats as a class feature).

You are correct, not ever hit lands.

The champion has an equal chance for advantage on 3 attacks per round simply by using one to shove.

I was simply doing a comparison of baseline damage, devoid of all other factors to point out that even at its base, the champion does more damage. When you factor other things in, the champion does significantly more damage than the rogue.

Giant2005

2015-02-12, 10:17 AM

The problem is not every attack hits, the rogue is more likely to have advantage, and that damage difference is nominal.
Against AC 20 the Rogue inflicts an average of 28.675 damage per turn. Against the same target the Fighter inflicts 37 (Using the setup from the above poster - Rapier and Greatsword respectively).

At the very least the champion should get expertise on athletics skill, a con or str version of evasion, and something else (again my vote being something like monkey grip or one of the feats as a class feature).
I really like the idea of the con/str version of Evasion, although personally I think the aready-existing Evasion ability should cover those two stats already - dodging a poison cloud should use the exact same process as dodging a fireball.

OK so I see you never played a rogue yet. Go read the rogue's ability or play as a rogue for a while.

Rogue with expertise is more likely to win the shoving contest than a fighter. Then the rogue can use disengage as a bonus action, then the rogue can go hide. Party members attack or the creature gets up and (because the Rogue has expertise in stealth) can't find said rogue.

Sneak attack.

Move + BA Hide

Rinse and repeat. The creature will use half movement getting up, even if the rogue couldn't hide they have a big head start on running away.

But the Fighter can do the exact same thing to the Rogue with the addition of 3 extra attacks worth of damage every time he shoves the rogue and the likelihood of striking first. Then again I don't think a Fighter would want to use a tactic like that - hit and run is a lot less fun that slash and stab.
Plus for some reason your Rogue is getting a lot more turns than he should be (Unless he is a Thief and it is the first round of combat). Shove + disengage = 1 action so that Fighter should be acting before the Rogue can hide.

Fwiffo86

2015-02-12, 10:22 AM

I am AFB, does the wording for improved critical call out weapon attacks? Or can it be applied to say, spells?

Giant2005

2015-02-12, 10:23 AM

I am AFB, does the wording for improved critical call out weapon attacks? Or can it be applied to say, spells?

It calls out weapon attacks.

Garimeth

2015-02-12, 10:27 AM

Against AC 20 the Rogue inflicts an average of 28.675 damage per turn. Against the same target the Fighter inflicts 37 (Using the setup from the above poster - Rapier and Greatsword respectively).

I really like the idea of the con/str version of Evasion, although personally I think the aready-existing Evasion ability should cover those two stats already - dodging a poison cloud should use the exact same process as dodging a fireball.

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

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

Easy_Lee

2015-02-12, 10:35 AM

OK so I see you never played a rogue yet. Go read the rogue's ability or play as a rogue for a while.

Rogue with expertise is more likely to win the shoving contest than a fighter. Then the rogue can use disengage as a bonus action, then the rogue can go hide. Party members attack or the creature gets up and (because the Rogue has expertise in stealth) can't find said rogue.

Rogues only get so many expertise skills, and will typically take stealth as one of them. Many rogues take sleight of hand, thieves' tools, acrobatics, nature (poisons), deception, and so on as expertise. Further, few Rogues gave high strength.

Point is that a strength-based rogue with expertise in athletics is pretty niche. Skills are the rogue's forte, so I don't see anything wrong with a dedicated rogue being among the best shovers.

That said, getting more opportunities to shove is better than getting one opportunity with expertise. Since fighters have proficiency in athletics, and since the champion is likely to have strength just as high as anyone else, we have up to a +6 difference between the two rolls. +6 is not as good as four attempts. Even if the rogue is even more dedicated and made it to reliable talent, I'd still rather have extra opportunities for shoves than one good check.

Besides, how often is the target of your shove considerably stronger than you anyway? It's something you use on flighty types, to grapple them then knock them over so they can't run and have disadvantage. Unlike the rogue, the fighter can eventually attempt both of those things twice in the same round.

I wouldn't disagree with a house rule to give fighters athletics expertise. That doesn't seem like a bad change. But I think that's really a criticism of the fighter class in general, and is not particular to champions.

Garimeth

2015-02-12, 10:49 AM

I wouldn't disagree with a house rule to give fighters athletics expertise. That doesn't seem like a bad change. But I think that's really a criticism of the fighter class in general, and is not particular to champions.

Maybe, but my issue is I want to make both subclasses better, yet distinct. The remarkable athlete is a Champion schtick, let's let him be the best at it.

SharkForce

2015-02-12, 10:55 AM

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

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

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...

Fwiffo86

2015-02-12, 11:02 AM

SharkForce

2015-02-12, 11:06 AM

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

2015-02-12, 11:09 AM

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

2015-02-12, 11:43 AM

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

2015-02-12, 11:44 AM

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

2015-02-12, 11:47 AM

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

2015-02-12, 11:54 AM

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

2015-02-12, 12:01 PM

Galen

2015-02-12, 12:03 PM

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

2015-02-12, 12:06 PM

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

2015-02-12, 12:20 PM

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

2015-02-12, 12:39 PM

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

2015-02-12, 12:50 PM

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

2015-02-12, 12:52 PM

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

2015-02-12, 12:53 PM

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

2015-02-12, 12:54 PM

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

2015-02-12, 12:59 PM

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

2015-02-12, 01:02 PM

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

2015-02-12, 01:31 PM

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

Nostalgia, whee!

archaeo

2015-02-12, 02:02 PM

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

2015-02-12, 02:15 PM

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

2015-02-12, 02:21 PM

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

2015-02-12, 02:25 PM

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

2015-02-12, 02:29 PM

JNAProductions

2015-02-12, 02:29 PM

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

Easy_Lee

2015-02-12, 02:30 PM

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

Your dice set came with a d14?

Fwiffo86

2015-02-12, 02:33 PM

All you need is the progression rule.

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

JNAProductions

2015-02-12, 02:35 PM

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

2015-02-12, 02:35 PM

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

2015-02-12, 02:35 PM

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.

JNAProductions

2015-02-12, 02:38 PM

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

archaeo

2015-02-12, 02:40 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-12, 02:46 PM

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

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

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

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

Fwiffo86

2015-02-12, 02:50 PM

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

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

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

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

Myzz

2015-02-12, 03:27 PM

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

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

Mellack

2015-02-12, 03:27 PM

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

Icewraith

2015-02-12, 03:33 PM

Myzz

2015-02-12, 03:47 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-12, 04:16 PM

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

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

Easy_Lee

2015-02-12, 04:25 PM

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

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

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

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

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

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-12, 04:28 PM

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

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

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

Yes I know, and it is still bull.

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

Easy_Lee

2015-02-12, 04:30 PM

Yes I know, and it is still bull.

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

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

Myzz

2015-02-12, 04:33 PM

Yes I know, and it is still bull.

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

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

MadBear

2015-02-12, 04:41 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-12, 04:42 PM

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

I didn't say you were insulting my opinion :smallconfused:

Not that it matters or not if you did.

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

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

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

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

Fwiffo86

2015-02-12, 04:49 PM

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

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

archaeo

2015-02-12, 05:14 PM

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

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

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

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

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

SharkForce

2015-02-12, 05:31 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fwiffo86

2015-02-12, 05:35 PM

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

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

Icewraith

2015-02-12, 05:44 PM

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

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

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

Easy_Lee

2015-02-12, 06:08 PM

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

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

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

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

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

archaeo

2015-02-12, 06:25 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited to add:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vogonjeltz

2015-02-12, 07:05 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronos

2015-02-12, 08:41 PM

Quoth archaeo:

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

But to me, these all seem like tickets. Your party has a Wizard? Ok, now the story we're telling is going to include all of these other things, because you have a Wizard. Great. Why is that more interesting or "better" than a party without a Wizard?
How could it not be more interesting or better? Either the party wants to travel to other planes, or they don't. If they don't, then the fact that the wizard can do it is irrelevant, because they won't... but if they do, then they're going to need a wizard. And the same applies for all of the other "tickets" the wizard has. Any given one of them might or might not be of interest to the group, but it's almost inconceivable that none of them would be, so you're going to need a wizard for something or another. Or, at least, something with the same capabilities as a wizard, which in this game is guaranteed to be a spellcaster.

archaeo

2015-02-12, 08:53 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

SharkForce

2015-02-12, 08:54 PM

Edited to add:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psikerlord

2015-02-12, 08:58 PM

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

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

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

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

archaeo

2015-02-12, 09:10 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Mellack

2015-02-12, 09:11 PM

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

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

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-12, 09:23 PM

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

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

/blue

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

jkat718

2015-02-12, 09:27 PM

/blue

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

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-12, 09:49 PM

:smallconfused: ??? 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

2015-02-12, 10:06 PM

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

2015-02-12, 10:34 PM

Chronos

2015-02-12, 11:55 PM

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

2015-02-13, 12:36 AM

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 (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Murderhobo)player type personified, and who doesn't know a few of those?

Logical DM

2015-02-13, 01:24 AM

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

2015-02-13, 09:24 AM

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-13, 09:43 AM

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

2015-02-13, 09:56 AM

Logical DM

2015-02-13, 09:58 AM

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

2015-02-13, 10:54 AM

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

2015-02-13, 10:58 AM

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-13, 11:16 AM

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

2015-02-13, 11:33 AM

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

2015-02-13, 11:39 AM

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

2015-02-13, 11:43 AM

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-13, 11:47 AM

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

2015-02-13, 12:07 PM

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

2015-02-13, 12:19 PM

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

2015-02-13, 12:20 PM

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

2015-02-13, 12:28 PM

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

2015-02-13, 12:38 PM

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

2015-02-13, 12:41 PM

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

2015-02-13, 12:48 PM

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

2015-02-13, 12:59 PM

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

2015-02-13, 01:34 PM

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

2015-02-13, 01:45 PM

snip

Oh boy. Okay, one thing at time.

snip

*polite applause*

Well spoken. +1 to both these.

Myzz

2015-02-13, 02:41 PM

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

2015-02-13, 09:07 PM

Chronos

2015-02-13, 10:15 PM

Quoth Fwiffo86:

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.
Two points, here. First of all, wizards don't need to prepare Tenser's Floating Disk, either. Second, even if they did need to prepare it, that's still a choice that they have. A wizard could, if he liked, prepare Tenser's and Telekinesis every day. Why don't they? Because they usually have even better options that they're choosing to prepare instead. A fighter can't wake up one morning and decide that it's time for a change, he'll prepare something else in place of Lifting Heavy Objects today. That's what he can do, and he's stuck with it.

SharkForce

2015-02-14, 02:43 AM

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).

the only way to meaningfully benefit from your theoretically infinite resources is if you can go on alone, without the party. that strategy is basically for rogues that are soloing.

in a fight with the party, the rogue doesn't have to do all of that, and most likely won't. any enemy next to a target can be sneak attacked. rogues can fairly easily hide (in some cases with no more cover than another ally can provide) as a bonus action. furthermore, the rogue has a variety of straightforward defensive abilities that can reduce incoming damage (in some cases, to zero).

on a side note, someone claimed that champions get half proficiency on dex saves a few posts back... saves are not the same thing as checks. they're different kinds of rolls.

Osrogue

2015-02-14, 11:33 AM

They get to reroll one save via indomitable.

They get to add half proficiency to all STR, DEX, and CON checks they are not yet proficient in via remarkable athlete.

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-14, 01:20 PM

They get to reroll one save via indomitable.

They get to add half proficiency to all STR, DEX, and CON checks they are not yet proficient in via remarkable athlete.

Indomitable looks nice but doesn't really help unless you have a good chance of passing the save to begin with. Indomitable is a horrible choice of names for the ability. Very meh ability.

One house rule I've seen that helps the fighter be awesome is making Indomitable work as a legendary save. By level... 18 or 19 or whatever they get 3 legendary saves just like legendary creatures (they refresh on short rest). This makes the ability fit the name Indomitable.

Easy_Lee

2015-02-14, 01:58 PM

Indomitable looks nice but doesn't really help unless you have a good chance of passing the save to begin with. Indomitable is a horrible choice of names for the ability. Very meh ability.

One house rule I've seen that helps the fighter be awesome is making Indomitable work as a legendary save. By level... 18 or 19 or whatever they get 3 legendary saves just like legendary creatures (they refresh on short rest). This makes the ability fit the name Indomitable.

A legendary save is certainly better, but let's examine some percentages. The indomitable chance is the chance of succeeding at the save after rolling twice, meaning 1-(chance of failing twice in a row):

If you need to roll 6 and up to make the save: 75% chance, with indomitable it's 93.75%
If you need to roll 11 and up to make the save: 50% chance, with indomitable it's 75%
If you need to roll 16 and up to make the save: 25%, with indomitable it's 43.75%

So that's really quite handy. Legendary makes it better, but this ability keeps more in line with the champion just having better numbers / math than everyone else.

If I were going to houserule it, I would probably edit indomitable such that you add your constitution mod to the second roll:

If you need to roll 6 and up to make the save: 75% chance, with max-con-indomitable it's 93.75% 98.75%
If you need to roll 11 and up to make the save: 50% chance, with max-con-indomitable it's 75% 87.5%
If you need to roll 16 and up to make the save: 25%, with max-con-indomitable it's 43.75% 62.5%

Edit: for the above, I assumed the Con save is +5 higher than the other save. Depending on the situation, this could be much different. My estimates would be conservative at high levels.

MeeposFire

2015-02-14, 02:12 PM

I would have liked it to work on a short rest which would allow you to sue it more often. That would make you feel more like the ADD fighters who had great saving throws and were hard to put down regardless of what type of attack was used.

Would it be too powerful? Maybe but it would be quite nice.

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-14, 03:30 PM

A legendary save is certainly better, but let's examine some percentages. The indomitable chance is the chance of succeeding at the save after rolling twice, meaning 1-(chance of failing twice in a row):

If you need to roll 6 and up to make the save: 75% chance, with indomitable it's 93.75%
If you need to roll 11 and up to make the save: 50% chance, with indomitable it's 75%
If you need to roll 16 and up to make the save: 25%, with indomitable it's 43.75%

So that's really quite handy. Legendary makes it better, but this ability keeps more in line with the champion just having better numbers / math than everyone else.

If I were going to houserule it, I would probably edit indomitable such that you add your constitution mod to the second roll:

If you need to roll 6 and up to make the save: 75% chance, with max-con-indomitable it's 93.75% 98.75%
If you need to roll 11 and up to make the save: 50% chance, with max-con-indomitable it's 75% 87.5%
If you need to roll 16 and up to make the save: 25%, with max-con-indomitable it's 43.75% 62.5%

Oh certainly Con to save would work fine, there was a very nice 3.5 feat that allowed Con to Will Saves.

I would say that the secondary save is a Constitution Save. Not just adding your con mod. You push through the effect with pure physical determination. If the other save is higher you don't have to do a Con Save.

I would have liked it to work on a short rest which would allow you to sue it more often. That would make you feel more like the ADD fighters who had great saving throws and were hard to put down regardless of what type of attack was used.

Would it be too powerful? Maybe but it would be quite nice.

As written Indomitable wouldn't be too powerful like that. Even my proposed change that replaces the Save with a Con Save it wouldn't be game breaking but it would make getting it fantastic and give them a real defensive ability.

Chronos

2015-02-14, 07:10 PM

For what it's worth, re-rolling the save if it fails is functionally equivalent to getting advantage on the save, aside from the fact that it can stack with actual advantage.

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-14, 09:40 PM

For what it's worth, re-rolling the save if it fails is functionally equivalent to getting advantage on the save, aside from the fact that it can stack with actual advantage.

Indomitable is 1/day though. Is that really that great that 1/day you can get advantage on a save. Hell, you can get inspiration more times per day and use it for that instead. Just do inspirational things.

Easy_Lee

2015-02-14, 10:18 PM

Indomitable is 1/day though. Is that really that great that 1/day you can get advantage on a save. Hell, you can get inspiration more times per day and use it for that instead. Just do inspirational things.

On the other hand, there aren't too many ways to reroll a failed save. I do agree with you that it ought to have allowed using the fighter's Con save on the second roll, though. That just makes more sense to me given the name.

Ashrym

2015-02-15, 03:17 AM

Indomitable is 1/day though. Is that really that great that 1/day you can get advantage on a save. Hell, you can get inspiration more times per day and use it for that instead. Just do inspirational things.

Indomitable starts at once per day and increases to 3 times per day. It's not at good as the monk ability to spend ki to reroll plus proficiency by any stretch of the imagination but it's not bad. Not what I would consider a good ability but has it's uses.

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-15, 09:50 AM

Indomitable starts at once per day and increases to 3 times per day. It's not at good as the monk ability to spend ki to reroll plus proficiency by any stretch of the imagination but it's not bad. Not what I would consider a good ability but has it's uses.

Monks become proficiency in all saves at level 14. When we ran a higher level one shot the monk never needed to reroll a saving throw. Part of that is luck but the other part is being built around the strong saves (Con/Dex/Wis) and having that juicy +6 to the save compliment each other very well.

Indomitable is bad because you will only have proficiency in two saves. One good and one meh. These two saves you will have a good chance of succeeding in normally, so if you fail indomitable works. But for the other 4/6 saving throws this becomes bad. Maybe not utterly useless but it is still bad.

2/3 of the time indomitable won't be a good enough help for you and the other 1/3 of the time you most likely won't need it... Makes it a bad class feature.

Best fix?

The reroll saving throw is a Con Save (unless the save you would make is higher). Now this does what indomitable is supposed to do. You reroll with a good chance or at the very least decent chance if passing a save. Plus it gives the fighter something special, tons of things give rerolls and the paladin adds cha... But from my knowledge nothing gets to replace a save with a new one.

Easy Lee did some math earlier on. If you need to see why indomitable is meh.

Vogonjeltz

2015-02-15, 03:19 PM

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.

The thing is, Casters are strictly limited by the spells they have in terms of what they can do. Martials on the other hand get to basically do anything they can imagine a character being able to do. Casters get buttons to push. Martials get to write macros.

In my experience there's often a story impetus that dissuades the party from doing short rests even when they've expended a substantial (>50%) of their short-rest resources.

For this set of cases, the Champion is simply a better performer. It's only when rests are plentiful that those classes reliant on short rests are capable of catching up and, maybe, pulling ahead.

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.

Do you mean not think about choosing things within the subclass or choosing things to do in combat? Because this is simply erroneous on both counts.

Most subclasses themselves have no choices, but the Champion at least lets you pick a 2nd Fighting Style, so it's actually one of the few that does offer the player a decision point within the subclass.

subclasses with no choices: (22)
Berserker
College of Valor
Life Domain, Light Domain, Tempest Domain, Trickery Domain, War Domain
Circle of the Moon
Way of the Open Hand, Way of Shadow
Oath of Devotion, Oath of the Ancients, Oath of Vengeance
Beast Master
Thief, Assassin
Wild Magic
All wizard schools except potentially Illusion and Transmutation.

If you meant choices in combat, the Champion gets a bonus on all str/dex/con checks, so their plausible choices are increased vis-a-vis everyone else.

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.

The Champion can go on all day with or without a group. Long Rests aren't a thing that can happen on demand they are clearly time limited. Short rests are more reasonable but they aren't always feasible (enemies are around, time sensitivity, etc...).

Ghost Nappa

2015-02-15, 03:21 PM

Indomitable is bad because you will only have proficiency in two saves. One good and one meh. These two saves you will have a good chance of succeeding in normally, so if you fail indomitable works. But for the other 4/6 saving throws this becomes bad. Maybe not utterly useless but it is still bad.

The Fighter has the most number of opportunities to pick up the Resilient Feat. DEX, INT, and WIS are likely picks depending on the character/player.

Additionally, how is having the choice to reroll ANY saving throw bad? STR and CON maybe the most devastating saves and the Fighter's already proficient in them, but Indomitable allows you to reroll any saving throw.

ANY SAVING THROW. You aren't too likely or often going to face an INT or CHA save but in the one or two cases you do, and you screw it up, you get a re-do. Over the course of your career, the majority of your roll is going to be coming from the die and not your proficiency. Even with maxed mods (+11: something impossible before Level 17) your roll is going to represent - on average - more of your saving throw's result than the proficiency. Improving the cumulative probability distribution of you succeeding is in general better served by re-rolling the die even in cases where your modifier is a depressing +1.

None of this even begins to assume you're smart and you realize that at the point where you're waving that +11 around you can get up to four chances to make a save. Didn't Easy_Lee say something akin to "more chances beats better modifier" somewhere earlier in the thread (the context was Rogue SA Vs. Fighter's multiple attacks for damage)?

Osrogue

2015-02-15, 03:46 PM

I find it hard to believe that advantage three times a day on saves is meh. What I find meh is that there's a feat that already does that, called lucky. what's interesting though, is that indomitable stacks with lucky, allowing you up to three chances to roll for a saving throw 1-3 times a day.

With the essential advantages granted by lucky and indomitable,

75% chance of success becomes 98.4%
50% chance of success becomes 87.4%
25% chance of success becomes 57.8%

With a single support feat, which is already a good feat on its own, it becomes arguably better than the suggested homebrew.

Granted, that's because lucky is essentially a more versatile, level 17 version of indomitable, available at level 1. While entirely overshadowing a level 9 class feature with a single feat is not something I like, I don't think there's another combination of feat and class feature that, by level 9, gives a PC a triple roll for anything, let alone saving throws.

Indomitable might be just okay. Indomitable + lucky makes indomitable much stronger than it needs to be, and can extend the uses lucky by substituting indomitable when applicable.

Easy_Lee

2015-02-15, 04:14 PM

Granted, that's because lucky is essentially a more versatile, level 17 version of indomitable, available at level 1. While entirely overshadowing a level 9 class feature with a single feat is not something I like, I don't think there's another combination of feat and class feature that, by level 9, gives a PC a triple roll for anything, let alone saving throws.

Now that's a good point. The question in my mind: does that make lucky too strong or indomitable too weak? I think it's both. Lucky probably ought only be usable 1/long rest, since it can literally mean the difference between life and death. And I do think indomitable ought to allow the second roll to be a CON save.

Indomitable is slightly off-topic I suppose, since it's a fighter thing rather than champion-specific, but it's certainly related.

Chronos

2015-02-15, 06:52 PM

Osrogue

2015-02-15, 08:36 PM

OK, so let's say you get hit by a spell with an Int save. Unless you're an Eldritch Knight, there's a pretty good chance that you dumped Int, and you have no proficiency in it, so your modifier is -1. Meanwhile, if we're at a high enough level for Indomitable to be a factor, that spell probably has a DC of 19. That means that you literally only make that save on a natural 20. It's literally giving you less benefit than a +1 to the save.

If you completely dump a stat, why would you assume you are going to have good saves in it? The reason intelligence is the most popular dump stat right now, is because it isn't used for much of anything at the moment. It saves against illusions atm.

Wisdom and con on the other hand, are both stats the fighter cares about. He gets con for free, and wisdom can be shored up by resilience or lucky (double advantage, anyone?)

Trying to bring this back to the champion, can anyone honestly say that with proper feat support, they will be easily taken down at high levels?

They have anywhere between 4 and 6 feats to burn, not counting any in the attack stat. That's about as many as most other classes get on the whole. With regenerating health and pretty much all of the feats they could ask for, it would be pretty hard to assail them physically and mentally. All it really takes is a positive wisdom score and resilience (Wis). Then there's stuff like shield master, mobile, inspiring leader, heavily armored, durable, and lucky (which I'm certain of more and more, is broken). take your pick. Shield master gives pseudo-evasion, mobile gives a way to avoid AoO, heavily armored gives DR, inspiring keader gives more healing, durable more hitpoints, and lucky is just great.

Most of these are solid abilities, that have an incredibly steep opportunity cost for other classes which have usually only 2-3 feats* they can buy outside of their fighting style feat.

And that's only those who don't want to pick up resilience wis/con.

Or are paladins.

*Rogues are SAD and 6 feats, so they have a bit more breathing room.

Oscredwin

2015-02-16, 04:28 AM

pwykersotz

2015-02-16, 07:38 AM

I think assuming a typical save DC at mid to high levels is a 19 is unreasonable. Can someone who has the MM put out some typical int save DCs? Maybe from a Mind Flayer?

Mind Flayers are only CR 7, but their save is 15. A save of 18-19 is very reasonable at high levels.

Edit:
Psychic Gray Ooze 10
Intellect Devourer 12
Hag/Sea Hag 13
Night Hag 15

Gwendol

2015-02-16, 09:23 AM

OK, so let's say you get hit by a spell with an Int save. Unless you're an Eldritch Knight, there's a pretty good chance that you dumped Int.

Unless you are a Wiz, EK, or AT, you will have dumped INT in this game. It is the dump stat of choice followed by Strength.

Fwiffo86

2015-02-16, 09:26 AM

Two points, here. First of all, wizards don't need to prepare Tenser's Floating Disk, either. Second, even if they did need to prepare it, that's still a choice that they have. A wizard could, if he liked, prepare Tenser's and Telekinesis every day. Why don't they? Because they usually have even better options that they're choosing to prepare instead. A fighter can't wake up one morning and decide that it's time for a change, he'll prepare something else in place of Lifting Heavy Objects today. That's what he can do, and he's stuck with it.

Irrelevance. The wizard can only prepare or ritually cast what he has. There is no special training or prep time or activation time for the things a warrior does. That's the point. Learn that the wizard is ONLY as good as the spells he uses/preps/rit casts in any given situation, not because he can potentially cast something. Potential is meaningless to application.

Chronos

2015-02-16, 09:33 AM

pwykersotz

2015-02-16, 10:04 AM

Fwiffo86

2015-02-16, 10:31 AM

So, the fact that the wizard can make suboptimal choices makes him weaker than the fighter who can't make choices at all? I don't think that's a very good argument. Yes, the wizard can be crippled by poor choices. The solution to that is to make good choices. Which he can do. And which the fighter can't.

To address this specific statement, not having a choice prevents someone from making a bad one correct? The warrior has fewer options, yes. But his options are always available, and always reliable. Spells are neither of these things. Claiming that it is possible to do X, is a faulty argument. We are not dealing with possibilities. We are dealing with reliable and consistent results.

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-16, 10:34 AM

Can't the wizard learn every spell on their list? Time and gold is all it takes but what else does a high level wizard have to do most of the time?

hawklost

2015-02-16, 10:42 AM

Can't the wizard learn every spell on their list? Time and gold is all it takes but what else does a high level wizard have to do most of the time?

Also requires the DM to allow them to get access to the books/scrolls of other wizards. It is purely up to the DM if a Wizard character can have all the spells.

In Fact, most people on the Board would agree that giving a Wizard character the ability to copy every single spell into a Spellbook is a Bad Idea.

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-16, 11:09 AM

Also requires the DM to allow them to get access to the books/scrolls of other wizards. It is purely up to the DM if a Wizard character can have all the spells.

In Fact, most people on the Board would agree that giving a Wizard character the ability to copy every single spell into a Spellbook is a Bad Idea.

From level 1 to 20 game I don't see how a DM could justify not allowing a player to do just that.

Isn't DM fiat hated on these boards?

I'm not saying it is a good idea but its hard to justify it not happening. If they could pick the spells in level up then that means that the spells do exist and if they exist... Yeah.

Fwiffo86

2015-02-16, 11:21 AM

From level 1 to 20 game I don't see how a DM could justify not allowing a player to do just that.

Isn't DM fiat hated on these boards?

I'm not saying it is a good idea but its hard to justify it not happening. If they could pick the spells in level up then that means that the spells do exist and if they exist... Yeah.

Total up the spells received from only leveling. Basically is 38 spells + what the wizard started with. Personally (and this is just opinion), that's more than enough spells for the wizard's needs.

I tend to not give any spells out to wizards to copy into their book above 5th level. That's simply because they are the rare of the rare.

Seppo87

2015-02-16, 11:57 AM

Fwiffo86

2015-02-16, 12:00 PM

In defense of the developers

They made their math. They know the exact extent of the Champion's damage and durability and they concluded it was just as good as the other Fighter Options while simpler and less customizable (which is the point of the champion)

I agree with this opinion entirely. The views of specific individuals is in no way indicative of the class being weak or strong. People's own preferences will color their opinions.

SharkForce

2015-02-16, 12:37 PM

Total up the spells received from only leveling. Basically is 38 spells + what the wizard started with. Personally (and this is just opinion), that's more than enough spells for the wizard's needs.

I tend to not give any spells out to wizards to copy into their book above 5th level. That's simply because they are the rare of the rare.

yes, clearly they were given that ability because it was intended for them to never ever ever ever under any circumstances whatsoever no matter what be able to use it.

why don't we also start removing all the useful animals from the world so that druids can't change into them? what's that, you want to buy poison to enhance your attacks? well, can't have anyone trying to play their character effectively, so there's no poison anywhere and this world doesn't have poisoner's kits to gain proficiency in.

this is just silly. unless you never plan to have them run into another wizard, it is damned near impossible to enforce, because the other wizard should be just as excited about learning their spells as they are about learning the other wizard's spells. if they ever fight an enemy wizard, then they likewise will be gaining another spellbook they can get spells from.

lots of things are rare. that doesn't justify never giving them to anyone under any circumstances. hell, high level characters are rare, do you enforce NPC status on characters once they reach a certain level to keep them out of the players' hands? magic items are rare, do those all vanish from your world? powerful monsters are rare. do those all vanish from your world too? i bet there are more potential sources of high level spells in the world than there are ancient wyrm red dragons.

now, if you want to say that they can't just walk into a small town and readily find a source of high level spells, sure, that makes sense. but odds are good that at some point along the way, they're going to run into a powerful wizard or even an organization of powerful wizards, and there should be potential to learn spells from them one way or another (whether that be by defeating a necromancer or by joining a mage's guild or in exchange for helping an archmage with a problem that he'd rather not deal with personally).

Fwiffo86

2015-02-16, 12:57 PM

yes, clearly they were given that ability because it was intended for them to never ever ever ever under any circumstances whatsoever no matter what be able to use it.

Did you miss the part where their class ability is addressed specifically in my post? Or did you skip that entirely?

why don't we also start removing all the useful animals from the world so that druids can't change into them? what's that, you want to buy poison to enhance your attacks? well, can't have anyone trying to play their character effectively, so there's no poison anywhere and this world doesn't have poisoner's kits to gain proficiency in.

Did you also miss the bit where I don't just "hand out" spells above 5th level? It would appear to me that better than half of the spells a Wiz can cast are available and will be granted in my games. Since you aren't actually playing my game, and I'm not instructing you to use this method, why does this even bother you?

this is just silly. unless you never plan to have them run into another wizard, it is damned near impossible to enforce, because the other wizard should be just as excited about learning their spells as they are about learning the other wizard's spells. if they ever fight an enemy wizard, then they likewise will be gaining another spellbook they can get spells from.

Game world statistics so you understand better. People capable of learning and using Wizard magic (actual wizard class) in my game world breakdown by race population. Note, Mystara themed. No half breed races, nor are there tieflings, dragonborn, or other such races. (EDIT ADD) Wizards like to keep their power in my experience. Which makes "trading" spells an iffy and potentially dangerous proposition. Why would you give information about your capabilities to someone you just met, know nothing about, much less trust? (End Edit)

Humans - 1 in 100,000
Elves - 1 in 5,000
Dwarf - 1 in 500,000
Halfling - 1 in 10,000
Orc - 1 in 100,000

Of those that become wizards, the breakdown works this way by level:

01-05 - 100%
06-10 - 75%
11-15 - 30%
17-20 - 5%

As you can see, wizards of high level are rare. As I believe they should be. Thus, corresponding research and usage that disseminates their spells into the general world is likewise rare and virtually unheard of.

lots of things are rare. that doesn't justify never giving them to anyone under any circumstances. hell, high level characters are rare, do you enforce NPC status on characters once they reach a certain level to keep them out of the players' hands? magic items are rare, do those all vanish from your world? powerful monsters are rare. do those all vanish from your world too? i bet there are more potential sources of high level spells in the world than there are ancient wyrm red dragons.

NPC status - No

Magic items - No they do not vanish. They remain either with the deceased character where they died, or are given to appropriate caretakers.

Monsters - 99% of the enemies my players face are humanoids, not monsters. Monsters are the result of enemy spell summons, exceptionally rare legendary creatures, etc.

Dragons - You basically have an equal chance to find a 9th level spell scroll as you do an Ancient Dragon (Greyhawk type, no colors). The dragon will certainly have a name. A history. And be significantly more dangerous because of it.

now, if you want to say that they can't just walk into a small town and readily find a source of high level spells, sure, that makes sense. but odds are good that at some point along the way, they're going to run into a powerful wizard or even an organization of powerful wizards, and there should be potential to learn spells from them one way or another (whether that be by defeating a necromancer or by joining a mage's guild or in exchange for helping an archmage with a problem that he'd rather not deal with personally).

Do your wizards carry their full spell book with them when traveling? Do they risk losing all of their most powerful secret knowledge every time they step away from their sanctuary? My players don't. They have traveling books that contain what they expect to use most often, and NEVER include their full list. Nor would the enemy wizards they face. As such, no, killing an enemy wizard does not guarantee the wizard learn any new spell. It certainly has the possibility, but it is not the default assumption in my games.

If you play differently, by all means go for it. I am not commenting on HOW you should run your game. I am simply making statements about how my game is ran. You obviously don't like my methods. You aren't meant to.

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-16, 01:50 PM

Fwiffo86

2015-02-16, 01:57 PM

Do wizard guilds not exist or players never run across a wizard ever? And if they do... Do they have the same exact spells as the party wizard?

I'm not saying a wizard should be able to copy every spell down... But... The length of what people go to atop it is insane. Also it seems like people are OK to DM fiat "can't find spells haha" but if you DM fiat anything else then you are a monster of a DM.

To answer your question, as far as my game world goes, Wizards teach apprentices. One wizard, one apprentice. There are no guilds, colleges, or schools. Magic is generally untrusted by the common folk. In some cases, to the point where they will witch trial a spellcaster. Often not making a distinction between divine or arcane.

The majority of "classed" individuals fall into the fighter, barbarian or rogue categories actually.

Chronos

2015-02-16, 02:00 PM

Quoth Fwiffo86:

To address this specific statement, not having a choice prevents someone from making a bad one correct? The warrior has fewer options, yes. But his options are always available, and always reliable.
The warrior's options are the opposite of that. When the enemy are shooting arrows at you from the other side of a canyon, the fighter's sword option isn't available. When you're trying to convince the duke to offer his aid to the party, his sword and bow options are both unavailable. When you're fighting an enemy with very high AC, the fighter's options are all available, but none of them are reliable. The wizard, meanwhile, has options that will work well in all of these situations, and can prepare all of them at once if desired.

Fwiffo86

2015-02-16, 02:09 PM

The warrior's options are the opposite of that. When the enemy are shooting arrows at you from the other side of a canyon, the fighter's sword option isn't available. When you're trying to convince the duke to offer his aid to the party, his sword and bow options are both unavailable. When you're fighting an enemy with very high AC, the fighter's options are all available, but none of them are reliable. The wizard, meanwhile, has options that will work well in all of these situations, and can prepare all of them at once if desired.

And none of them have perfect reliability either. The fighter has more reliability with his options when they become relevant. The wizard is only relevant if he has the spell AND he has it prepared. More importantly, when convincing the duke, you send a rogue. When dealing with enemies behind cover, you switch weapons. The wizard is no more reliable (and in many cases less so) than any other class.

Again... you are discussing potential. The wizard does indeed have the potential to do all these things. That in no way means he automatically can be considered to do so.

Hard as this may be to accept, my job isn't to empower the wizard and enable him to take everyone elses spotlight. It could be argued the exact opposite is true. Potential is meaningless when you don't have the right tool for the job.

mephnick

2015-02-16, 02:13 PM

Champion can use a bow. Bounded Accuracy means everyone has a chance to convince the Duke, it also means you shouldn't be fighting things you can't hit.

Chronos

2015-02-16, 02:45 PM

Bounded accuracy is supposed to mean that you shouldn't be fighting things you can't hit, but what it actually does mean is that when you do, there's nothing you can do about it.

The wizard is only relevant if he has the spell AND he has it prepared.
OK, and the solution to that is to have the spell and have it prepared. This isn't difficult. All you're really saying is that wizards are subpar if you play them like an idiot, and the solution to that is to not play them like an idiot.

mephnick

2015-02-16, 02:51 PM

Bounded accuracy is supposed to mean that you shouldn't be fighting things you can't hit, but what it actually does mean is that when you do, there's nothing you can do about it.

:smallconfused:
But...if your fighter can't hit something that means it's high enough level to absolutely destroy you.

Your same level wizard isn't doing any better in that situation at all.

Fwiffo86

2015-02-16, 02:53 PM

Bounded accuracy is supposed to mean that you shouldn't be fighting things you can't hit, but what it actually does mean is that when you do, there's nothing you can do about it.

OK, and the solution to that is to have the spell and have it prepared. This isn't difficult. All you're really saying is that wizards are subpar if you play them like an idiot, and the solution to that is to not play them like an idiot.

That is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the wizard does not by definition have the solution to all problems. EVER. Even if he is played to the best of conceivable possibility, he will never, nor should he ever supplant the usefulness of other characters at all times. Players that do so are being selfish, and DMs that enable that behavior are running poor games.

If you expect your wizards to do this, you have been playing under poor DMs for too long. Every character should be useful. It's the DMs job to ensure this. If that means that I don't allow the wizard to learn Tenser's Disk to ensure that the heavy lifting dwarf fighter has more usefulness, then that is what I'm going to do. If that means that I restrict the wizard from finding a spell because I want him to spend his resources in development of powerful magic for the explicit purpose of doing X, then that is what I'm going to do.

hawklost

2015-02-16, 02:58 PM

Bounded accuracy is supposed to mean that you shouldn't be fighting things you can't hit, but what it actually does mean is that when you do, there's nothing you can do about it.

There is nothing in the game that you cannot hit and there is nothing in the game that will always succeed (or even fail) at a casters DC. Now, if you are saying that in a game where a player chooses not to have ranged and Melee weapons, it is not the DMs fault, nor the requirement of the DM to accommodate the stupidity of the players.

Now, there are rare things in the game that take half damage from your hit or even immune if you don't have a party work together, but that is acceptable in DnD because the idea is that the Party fights monsters, not a single class by himself in an open void.

OK, and the solution to that is to have the spell and have it prepared. This isn't difficult. All you're really saying is that wizards are subpar if you play them like an idiot, and the solution to that is to not play them like an idiot.

I didn't know that having the the wrong spell prepared was a mark of an idiot.

Scenarios:
1) Wizard is running through an Ice dungeon and prepares Fire spells, does not prepare things related to Fire Resist. Gets near the end and finds that the enemies there had multiple Fire Salamanders in a cave to be able to warm up whenever they wanted to. Wizard does not have any attacks prepared to fight them since they are immune to fire. wow, what a moronic Wizard for not preparing the correct damage spells
2) Wizard is going into a Castle and chases the BBEG down a flight of steps, suddenly the BBEG quaffs a jumps into a hidden underground river. If only the Wizard had known that the enemy was going to do this he could have prepared Water Breathing. How stupid he was for not having the perfect plan for this unexpected situation.
3) Fleeing from a large Giant, the party pulls around a corner and hides in a small cave. They tell the wizard to cast a Silent image like they have seen him do in the past. He tells them, but we were fighting a giant today, why would I have prepared a spell like that for this fight? Is he really an idiot for not seeing the party running into a tougher challenge and not having that specific spell prepared?

mephnick

2015-02-16, 03:01 PM

Vogonjeltz

2015-02-16, 04:12 PM

:smallconfused:
But...if your fighter can't hit something that means it's high enough level to absolutely destroy you.

Your same level wizard isn't doing any better in that situation at all.

For some perspective on this all, the highest AC monster in the MM has only 25 AC.

So at level 1 you can, theoretically hit that with only a +3 in your attack stat.

jkat718

2015-02-16, 04:15 PM

For some perspective on this all, the highest AC monster in the MM has only 25 AC.

So at level 1 you can, theoretically hit that with only a +3 in your attack stat.

Not to mention that a 20 always succeeds, so you can hit anything, anytime, albeit with very slim chance of doing so.

Myzz

2015-02-16, 04:15 PM

For some perspective on this all, the highest AC monster in the MM has only 25 AC.

So at level 1 you can, theoretically hit that with only a +3 in your attack stat.

4 in attack stat...

20 = auto hit whatever (so hits with -4 in attack stat)
19+2(prof bonus)+3=24=miss
19+2+4=25=hit

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-16, 04:17 PM

Not to mention that a 20 always succeeds, so you can hit anything, anytime, albeit with very slim chance of doing so.

Improved crit range also auto hits. It's not much but 18-20 crit range always hits on 18-20.

jkat718

2015-02-16, 04:20 PM

4 in attack stat...

20 = auto hit whatever (so hits with -4 in attack stat)
19+2(prof bonus)+3=24=miss
19+2+4=25=hit

20 roll + 3 ABIL + 2 PROF >= 25 AC

Vogonjeltz

2015-02-16, 04:20 PM

Not to mention that a 20 always succeeds, so you can hit anything, anytime, albeit with very slim chance of doing so.

4 in attack stat...

20 = auto hit whatever (so hits with -4 in attack stat)
19+2(prof bonus)+3=24=miss
19+2+4=25=hit

Improved crit range also auto hits. It's not much but 18-20 crit range always hits on 18-20.

Good points all, this is by design. It's not meant to be 3.5 where the players can be basically screwed.

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-16, 04:27 PM

Good points all, this is by design. It's not meant to be 3.5 where the players can be basically screwed.

Well, relying on a roll of 18+ will still screw you if you don't have the proper defense or support.

I've seen people go forever without critical hitting with a champion (like, months) so you know they would be screwed without proper backup or defensive options.

Which is one of the reasons I hate the champion/fighter... They have nothing else other than roll a d20 and see if you are accidentally good/safe.

SharkForce

2015-02-16, 05:10 PM

Did you miss the part where their class ability is addressed specifically in my post? Or did you skip that entirely?

Did you also miss the bit where I don't just "hand out" spells above 5th level? It would appear to me that better than half of the spells a Wiz can cast are available and will be granted in my games. Since you aren't actually playing my game, and I'm not instructing you to use this method, why does this even bother you?

Game world statistics so you understand better. People capable of learning and using Wizard magic (actual wizard class) in my game world breakdown by race population. Note, Mystara themed. No half breed races, nor are there tieflings, dragonborn, or other such races. (EDIT ADD) Wizards like to keep their power in my experience. Which makes "trading" spells an iffy and potentially dangerous proposition. Why would you give information about your capabilities to someone you just met, know nothing about, much less trust? (End Edit)

Humans - 1 in 100,000
Elves - 1 in 5,000
Dwarf - 1 in 500,000
Halfling - 1 in 10,000
Orc - 1 in 100,000

Of those that become wizards, the breakdown works this way by level:

01-05 - 100%
06-10 - 75%
11-15 - 30%
17-20 - 5%

As you can see, wizards of high level are rare. As I believe they should be. Thus, corresponding research and usage that disseminates their spells into the general world is likewise rare and virtually unheard of.

NPC status - No

Magic items - No they do not vanish. They remain either with the deceased character where they died, or are given to appropriate caretakers.

Monsters - 99% of the enemies my players face are humanoids, not monsters. Monsters are the result of enemy spell summons, exceptionally rare legendary creatures, etc.

Dragons - You basically have an equal chance to find a 9th level spell scroll as you do an Ancient Dragon (Greyhawk type, no colors). The dragon will certainly have a name. A history. And be significantly more dangerous because of it.

Do your wizards carry their full spell book with them when traveling? Do they risk losing all of their most powerful secret knowledge every time they step away from their sanctuary? My players don't. They have traveling books that contain what they expect to use most often, and NEVER include their full list. Nor would the enemy wizards they face. As such, no, killing an enemy wizard does not guarantee the wizard learn any new spell. It certainly has the possibility, but it is not the default assumption in my games.

If you play differently, by all means go for it. I am not commenting on HOW you should run your game. I am simply making statements about how my game is ran. You obviously don't like my methods. You aren't meant to.

ok, so let's assume there are, say, 100 million humans in your world... a pretty small number for an entire world, all things considered.

that means there are 1,000 human wizards. 350 of them can cast level 6+ spells, and of those 350, 50 can cast level 9 spells.

furthermore, those wizards, being super high level, are probably well-known on account of they have world-altering powers.

now imagine we do that for every race that has wizards. that's not exactly one on every corner, but again, these are basically going to be legends. there are people out there who know high level magic.

as to trusting them, well, out of curiosity... do you look at random people and think "hey, that guy probably wants to murder me and steal everything I own", or do you typically think that most of them might like some of your stuff, but probably are not willing to murder or steal on account of they're not murderers or thieves and don't want to be murderers or thieves, no matter how much they might like to have your car, whatever cash you may have, or your various other possessions.

there isn't really a terribly compelling reason for a wizard to assume that "I would like to learn a spell" translates to "I am here to steal everything you have and murder you if you don't let me do that".

wizards have a class ability that lets them scribe scrolls they find and write down spells they learn from other wizards. it is only reasonable to presume that the intention was for wizards to be able to find such things to scribe, otherwise they would not have the ability to do so; they would just learn spells when they level up, and that's that.

as to carrying spellbooks... well, yes. if you don't have your spellbooks on you (or at least readily accessible), you don't have the ability to operate at full strength. frankly, if anything, having your spellbook on your person means that nobody can target your spellbook without you being able to do something about it. certainly, it's a good idea to have a backup, but why on earth would you leave half of your class features behind when you go on a dangerous journey?

as to knowing the right spells at the right time, well, there are an assortment of classes that gain massive benefits from being able to prepare. clerics, druids, and wizards being the three that gain the most. of those classes, two are the most likely to be wise beyond what you're likely to encounter in an ordinary human, and the third is a super-genius. so... quite frankly, yes, if you have the wrong spells prepared, you are probably playing your class badly; you have class features (ie spells) that can let you gather information before you commit to anything, and failure to use those abilities does mean you are playing your class well below its capabilities.

it is particularly unlikely to be completely unprepared since a number of spells are quite versatile and fully capable of handling a wide variety of situations. you may not have water breathing prepared, but that doesn't mean you don't have some means of tracking your enemy through the underground river to its exit point, or some means of changing the party into something that can breathe underwater, or some means of summoning minions that can chase your enemy underwater for you, or some means of collapsing the river around the person.

and on a side note, persecution generally speaking makes people more likely to get into groups, not less. persecution of wizards in particular or spellcasters in general sounds like just about the stupidest thing you can do. it's somewhat like poking a hornet's nest with a stick, except that instead of a bunch of angry hornets coming out and stinging you, you might get a fireball, or a curse that you can't remove because like some sort of dumbass you decided to make yourself an enemy to all the people who are capable of helping you. not liking them? sure, that's reasonable. actually doing anything about it that would make wizards more rare? good luck with that.

furthermore, the simple fact of the matter is that casters in general are powerful enough that if there is a race or nation somewhere that accepts them, that race or nation will very quickly become the dominant one in the world (on account of being the only one that isn't too stupid to make use of their extremely impactful abilities), at which point the entire world is in control of a race or nation that doesn't mind spellcasters at all, and hey presto, no more problems with persecution.

Fwiffo86

2015-02-16, 05:46 PM

ok, so let's assume there are, say, 100 million humans in your world... a pretty small number for an entire world, all things considered.

that means there are 1,000 human wizards. 350 of them can cast level 6+ spells, and of those 350, 50 can cast level 9 spells.

furthermore, those wizards, being super high level, are probably well-known on account of they have world-altering powers.

You are partially right. 50 wizards who have survived long enough to have access to 9th level spell slots. 50 wizards out of 100 million people.

now imagine we do that for every race that has wizards. that's not exactly one on every corner, but again, these are basically going to be legends. there are people out there who know high level magic.

You are correct. They have access to high level magic. Still, high level magic does not equal 50 million people. In the case of elves, its a much high percentage of the population, but still works out to there not being enough high level wizards to balance the scale against the millions of non-wizard people.

there isn't really a terribly compelling reason for a wizard to assume that "I would like to learn a spell" translates to "I am here to steal everything you have and murder you if you don't let me do that".

So you are saying that if you spent time say, developing a fusion bomb in your basement, and your neighbor found out about it, the first thing that would happen is that they would ask you to teach them how to make one too? Does that seem remotely likely? I'll let you in on a secret. Individuals are smart. Populations are not. You are far more likely to find your fusion bomb attracting unwanted attention from all sorts of places.

wizards have a class ability that lets them scribe scrolls they find and write down spells they learn from other wizards. it is only reasonable to presume that the intention was for wizards to be able to find such things to scribe, otherwise they would not have the ability to do so; they would just learn spells when they level up, and that's that.

Again, I did not say I would disallow this. I said that I would not add 6th-9th level scrolls to treasure. As described above, the number of Wizards who would write these things for their own personal use and then get themselves killed prevents such numbers from being feasible.

...but why on earth would you leave half of your class features behind when you go on a dangerous journey?

Because the spell is not the class feature. The ability to cast is the class feature. The fighter's class ability is not his sword now is it? Is it fundamental to what he does? Yes. But it is not the class ability. To address the rest of this section, what happens when the wizard who has all of his spells with him loses his book? When he's done casting his spells, all he has is what he prepped that day from then on. What sort of Wizard risks losing all of his "Class features" at any time?

as to knowing the right spells at the right time, well, there are an assortment of classes that gain massive benefits from being able to prepare. clerics, druids, and wizards being the three that gain the most. of those classes, two are the most likely to be wise beyond what you're likely to encounter in an ordinary human, and the third is a super-genius. so... quite frankly, yes, if you have the wrong spells prepared, you are probably playing your class badly; you have class features (ie spells) that can let you gather information before you commit to anything, and failure to use those abilities does mean you are playing your class well below its capabilities.

Again, quit believing that because its on the spell list, that the Wizard will automatically have it available. Certainly if the wizard is a Diviner I would expect them to be able to gather info before hand. And certainly if they want to research those spells and obtain them at level up they would have them. But outside of these situations, you can not say he "WILL" have them. This is the problem here. Quit thinking that just because he can, he will. This is a fallacy.

and on a side note, persecution generally speaking makes people more likely to get into groups, not less. persecution of wizards in particular or spellcasters in general sounds like just about the stupidest thing you can do. it's somewhat like poking a hornet's nest with a stick, except that instead of a bunch of angry hornets coming out and stinging you, you might get a fireball, or a curse that you can't remove because like some sort of dumbass you decided to make yourself an enemy to all the people who are capable of helping you. not liking them? sure, that's reasonable. actually doing anything about it that would make wizards more rare? good luck with that.

See my fusion bomb analogy above for how I believe this would actually play out. If you go wandering into a crowd of people waving a flamethrower, what will happen? Do you think people will drop to their knees and praise the saints that you have arrived? No. More likely they will scream, call the authorities, and flee the area. The same applies for Magic and the common man.

furthermore, the simple fact of the matter is that casters in general are powerful enough that if there is a race or nation somewhere that accepts them, that race or nation will very quickly become the dominant one in the world (on account of being the only one that isn't too stupid to make use of their extremely impactful abilities), at which point the entire world is in control of a race or nation that doesn't mind spellcasters at all, and hey presto, no more problems with persecution.

Except that casters are outnumbered something like 1million to one. That goes for Divine as well as Arcane in my games. You are correct though, kingdoms and religions will attempt to sway them, and depending on the player, succeed. Rival kingdoms will have them assassinated at the earliest opportunity while trying to recruit their own. Not to mention the same is to be said for evil casters. And thus, war continues and we still have stories to play out.

What amazes me the most is that you don't seem to have any understanding of a game world outside the mechanics of an adventuring party. This is understandable as there is precious little information regarding what a high level character actually means to a world, or what high level magic of any aspect does to the world in general. Your views are most likely different. That does not make me any more incorrect than you.

Pex

2015-02-16, 05:58 PM

Also the expectation that a wizard will have a spell available for every random instance is absurd. If my random encounter has lightning based enemies, the wizard will not have "Protection from Lightning" prepared. No one prepares that.

He could, but he wouldn't.

3E/Pathfinder with all its magic says hi and welcomes you to the club of dealing with this ever since the Tier System was first created and even before then.

Fwiffo86

2015-02-16, 06:04 PM

3E/Pathfinder with all its magic says hi and welcomes you to the club of dealing with this ever since the Tier System was first created and even before then.

So glad I skipped PF. Noticed the problem 6 months in to 3.0. Game world theme vs. Rules, making rule lawyers scream since day one.

SharkForce

2015-02-16, 06:05 PM

the adventuring wizard isn't a neighbor. by the time you're looking for those spells, you're an equally-renowned theoretical physicist or something like that, and yes, I bet if you put two of the foremost physicists in the world into the same room together, they would probably want to spend time talking shop rather than trying to murder each other with death rays.

and the wizard not bringing their spell book is more like a fighter not bringing a magic bow that they found, because they're primarily a melee fighter and the magic bow is a precious and valuable resource that they don't want to risk. the main class feature of wizards are the spells, and their main advantage over other arcane casters is that they can have the right tool for the right job. if you aren't going to do that, then why the hell are you playing a wizard instead of a bard that gets to cherrypick from any spell list they want or a sorcerer that can do ridiculous things with metamagic and don't have to worry at all about losing a spellbook (though once again, I'm unclear as to where you're leaving your spellbook that is safer than carrying it with you)

as to the point about there being millions of non-casters for every caster... well, first of all, that is obviously blatantly false. if one in every 100,000 people is a wizard, and there are several other caster classes on top of that, then by your own statements, it very obviously is not millions to one.

secondly, most of the non-casters are not going to sign up for a suicidal charge into someone who might be able to cast a fireball. even a first level spellcaster might have burning hands or thunderwave or something like that. furthermore, a significant portion of those non-casters will be the elderly/infirm or children. much more practically speaking, the only ones who are going to get involved are going to be soldiers, and even they will likely die in droves if they are dumb enough to adopt a "murder at the first opportunity" policy towards spellcasters. and, considering that spellcasters are much more likely to be able to not only kill large numbers of people who decide to murder them, but may even escape (invisibility, flight, shapechange into a small animal, etc), that may repeat itself several times for each caster.

the simple fact of the matter is that real-world witch-hunts end up with a dead "witch" and a bunch of villagers that likely have more wounds as a result of being trampled by the mob than from the "witch" because real-world witches can't cast fireball. a D&D witch hunt could quite possibly end up with dozens of dead villagers, and an angry spellcaster escaping and vowing revenge on the idiots who tried to murder them, which the villagers quite possibly have no realistic defense against because they don't have any spellcasters.

edit: and what on earth would possess you to think that only diviners would use divination magic to figure out what challenges are ahead? a transmuter benefits every bit as much from knowing what spells to prepare, as would an evoker or an illusionist or a necromancer, or a druid, or a cleric. they all can change their spell list as required, and it is a major part of their class features. if they are not taking advantage of it, whether they're a diviner or not, they are not living up to their class features.

JNAProductions

2015-02-16, 06:13 PM

100,000 regular people. 1 Wizard.

1/4 people are infirm, too old to fight, or too young.

75,000 regular people capable of fighting. 1 Wizard.

1/100 people are willing to fight.

750 regular people. 1 Wizard.

In a straight fight, the Wizard loses through sheer numbers. But he can escape, easy, killing a couple hundred. But...

300 killed.

1/1 families angered over the deaths.

600 people are now willing to fight.

1050 total people willing to fight. 1 Wizard.

Repeat until the Wizard is dead. And remember-there will be people with class levels. In fact, think about any adventure you've had hunting down an evil Wizard. I'd say killing a few hundred people is usually evil, wouldn't you?

Edit: Also, no one is perfect. Unless you want to cast multiple divinations, every single day, one day you'll be caught with your pants around your ankles and get absolutely destroyed because all you have are cleaning spells and a horde of Orcs invaded your tower. Blued because some people take everything too seriously.

Fwiffo86

2015-02-16, 06:22 PM

edit: and what on earth would possess you to think that only diviners would use divination magic to figure out what challenges are ahead? a transmuter benefits every bit as much from knowing what spells to prepare, as would an evoker or an illusionist or a necromancer, or a druid, or a cleric. they all can change their spell list as required, and it is a major part of their class features. if they are not taking advantage of it, whether they're a diviner or not, they are not living up to their class features.

Are you actually reading my posts? I will repost for clarification. The point of the post is this, and I can't spell it out any clearer than this.

A spell on the wizard list does not equate to the wizard having learned it, or prepared it. Please stop treating it as such. Wizards only potentially have access to the entire wizard list. Potentially is far and away from actually having learned and prepped it for the situation.

Again, quit believing that because its on the spell list, that the Wizard will automatically have it available. Certainly if the wizard is a Diviner I would expect them to be able to gather info before hand. And certainly if other Wizards want to research those spells and obtain them at level up they would have them. But outside of these situations, you can not say he "WILL" have them. This is the problem here. Quit thinking that just because he can, he will. This is a fallacy.

I can see where you got confused about my wording. The bolded words were added for clarification. You seem to be reading alot of things into my posts. Which is fine. I am done attempting to address your caster supremacy belief. I thank you for the discussion of course, but I think we should readdress the actual nature of the thread.

SharkForce

2015-02-16, 06:38 PM

the wizard isn't evil. there are 750 people willing to commit murder on the basis of not liking him. if some of them die in their attempt to commit murder, well, that's not evil. that's self-defense. just like it would not be evil if 50 people tried to come into your house and murder you and you managed to kill 20 of them with a gun that you own.

meanwhile, I'd say that before long, there's going to be a pretty strong bias in the population towards not attempting mob justice against someone who can kill mobs.

and why would the wizard only have cleaning spells, ever? is there ever a point in which you were getting ready for a day (or rather, RPing a caster who was), adventuring or otherwise, and you thought to yourself "wait, I have absolutely no room in my spell selection for some general-purpose spells or combat spells". I mean, you couldn't fit a single fly or teleport or anything to let you escape and return when you're ready?

you might as well argue that the champion might be unable to bring a coil of rope with them because they had to wear armour. sure, they wear armour, and yes, it is heavy, but that doesn't mean that their decision to wear protective armour rules out the ability to carry weapons or useful tools.

every character benefits to some extent from advance knowledge (whether that means that your archer fighter is going to need to carry a lot of spare arrows and a case for the bow to keep it from getting wet, or to let your wizard know that you will be fighting in narrow caves where a lightning bolt is more valuable than a fireball). wizards just benefit from it more, and have the ability to gain the knowledge they need to act.

the fact that champions cannot adapt to situations nearly as much is a disadvantage, not an advantage. it reduces options, and that simply leads to a decrease in effectiveness against anything that is not suited for the one tool that they have.

TheDeadlyShoe

2015-02-16, 07:21 PM

champions don't need to adapt, they're pretty much always good to go. if they want to adapt they should use their wits or items or rp.

mephnick

2015-02-16, 07:38 PM

Either I don't understand how wizards work or Sharkforce doesn't.

Because I'm almost certain wizards have to prepare spells, so no, they won't have spells for every situation.

Galen

2015-02-16, 08:00 PM

100,000 regular people. 1 Wizard.
25,000 are children. This leave 75,000 adults.
15,000 are elderly. This leave 60,000.
10,000 are pregnant or nursing women. This leave 50,000.
30,000 aren't proficient with any kind of weapon. This leaves 20,000.
15,000 are afraid of wizards. This leaves 5,000.
4,000 are in the king's army, which is engaged elsewhere, fighting another war. This leaves 1,000.
800 are hardened criminals, incarcerated for the society's protection. This leaves 200.
170 are adventures, busy questing somewhere else. This leave 30.
28, in order to fight a wizard, will require a fee way higher than can be managed.
This leaves only 2 people - me and you. Or, rather, just you, because I'll be darned if I'll fight a wizard with you as my only backup. Good luck.

Osrogue

2015-02-16, 08:31 PM

Just because you cannot possibly fathom a world in which magic is hard to come by, doesn't mean it won't exist.

Don't assume the campaign happens in a world where there is a large number of wizards above the fifth level. The monster manual doesn't.

There are several easy ways to limit the amount of spells a wizard can learn. It gets harder as the wizard gets more powerful, but the best measures are preventative measures.

Magic can be regulated.
Magic can be lost.
Magic can be a new frontier.
Wizardry can be illegal.
Wizardry can only practiced amongst the nobility.
Book burning is active.
There is no writing system. Magic is passed down in the form of oral tradition.
The countries are cut off by giant, permanant, prismatic walls that cut through the entire world making communication between many wizards impossible.
The world is ruled by devils and/or demons.
Each wizard develops magic differently with his own, unique signature, which makes it nigh impossible to translate.

There. Easy. Done.

This is not a martial versus caster discussion. the champion is not a caster. Do not oppose the champion brcause it is not a caster. It does its job. It is a martial class capable of fighting on par with other classes, and keep fighting the entire day, while excelling in physical challenges.

If you want more options, play a caster. The champion is built to excel at what it does. If you disagree, why? It's not because it can't push a button and have a fireball shoot out.

SharkForce

2015-02-16, 10:30 PM

how about "don't present the fact that the champion has few tools to adapt as a strength".

you want to argue that it's very simple? sure. I can't argue that. it's extremely simple.

but you want to argue that a lack of options is a strength? no. it isn't. if you're really bad at making decisions, it's not the options that are weak, it's the person making the decisions. it's a classic PEBCAK error: Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard. good quality equipment being used by a bad operator doesn't make the equipment bad, it just means that it doesn't compensate for having a bad operator.

and as it happens, I have plenty of experience playing wizards. in editions where you didn't get to prepare 25 different spells from your total list and swap between them as needed, even (it's a lot harder when you have to decide how many of each spell you have prepared, let me tell you). I don't always plan perfectly for every situation, but after the first few levels, I *do* have options that are broad enough to cover a variety of situations, and keep them handy. the only wizard I've ever made that struggled with options was a 2nd edition conjurer, and that was mostly because the wizard simply didn't have spells available to cover a major role (specifically, conjurers didn't get any evocation spells, and in 2nd edition that was extremely crippling... not just because I didn't get to cast fireball either. web, stinking cloud, shield... honestly, most of the cloud spells, most of the wall spells... yeah... I don't recommend making a 2nd edition conjurer. about the only thing I liked about it was that it got abjuration, which my typical choice of transmuter lacked, and honestly, even the summon spells were generally pretty awful in 2nd edition... except, of course, for the ones that aren't conjuration. illusion has some good ones. necromancy has some decent ones. heck, even evocation has some decent "no-really-it's-not-a-summoned monster" options if you use all of the spells they ever printed, as does alteration).

and it's pretty simple. you get an idea of what you're up against... you do your best to scout with the resources available to you, you mostly pick general purpose spells, and you examine your options to figure out if there's something that will make a huge difference in a fight that's coming up. you don't keep gaze reflection constantly prepared (though if you're high enough level to make them, you do try to make your own scrolls), but you do have the option to drop a spell that will block LOS if a monster with a gaze attack shoes up. when necessary, you retreat from a fight that you underestimated, re-examine your options, and try a different plan. I've played with random encounters, slogging through dungeons, slogging through swamps (which in 2nd edition is worse than slogging through dungeons), battling everything from hordes of kobolds and orcs to tribes of giants to yuan-ti (with accompanying human cultists and tons of snakes), to drow, to legions of undead, to fighting a mixture of everything in gigantic battles. I've gone through puzzle dungeons and roleplaying scenarios. I've played in games where magic users are hunted, I've played in games where resources of any kind have been hard to come by (and man, does that ever make your life hard as a wizard in 2nd edition), and I've even played in campaigns where the main enemies were spellcasters (and as a result, at least common spells were very easy to come by. in my 2nd edition group, choosing a spellbook generally even counts as your "pick" from the magic items available because 2e spellbooks cost so much money (plus the cost of getting someone to teach it to you so that you can even put it in your spellbook in the first place), and I've even done it on a character that had a 50% gold donation (for the record... that is another thing I really don't recommend doing for a wizard in 2nd edition... you are probably *really* going to need that gold).

most of the time, you don't need 40 different spells prepared to cover a broad spectrum of situations. as a wizard in 5e, you don't need every single one of your spells to be the perfect spell for the job. you just need several of them to be good spells for many jobs, and do your research and planning to round out the rest of your spell slots.

so seriously... the only advantage to lack of options is simplicity. it's not really a strength of the class, it's just something that people will sometimes value more than strength for the class. please don't present it like it's some sort of beneficial thing to not have options. it isn't. options are stronger, so long as you don't completely screw them up.

champions have some good things going for them. fewer options to choose from is not one of those things, except inasmuch as some people will choose simplicity over power because they're willing to sacrifice effectiveness for it.

Chronos

2015-02-16, 10:32 PM

OK, how about this? We have a dex-based fighter, who's wielding a lance, with a pike and a war pick as backup weapons. He doesn't have a rapier, because in this DM's world, rapiers are really rare: Only one weapon in 10,000 is a rapier, and the DM doesn't feel any need to coddle him. He doesn't have a bow, because he didn't think he would need one. He fights some enemies on the other side of a canyon, and then he goes up against some skeletons. Wow, I've just proved that the fighter's options are totally unreliable!

Or, no I haven't, because all I've actually proven is that fighters are weak if you're idiotic about it. Which also goes for any other class.

And yes, a wizard that goes into an ice dungeon with nothing but fire spells prepared is an idiot. Going into an ice dungeon is a good reason to prepare two or three fire spells, but there's no reason to prepare more than that. All the rest of your prepared spells will be non-fire spells, and probably most of them won't even be things that do damage at all. Sure, maybe at the end of the day you'll end up having used your slots mostly for fire spells, but you still have the option to use them for something else.

For the enemy who escapes by diving into an underground river, the wizard at least has a chance to do something about it. Maybe it's by casting Water Breathing, if he does happen to have it prepared. Maybe it's by summoning some aquatic monster to chase down the enemy. Maybe it's by sealing off the exit to the river via a Wall of Stone. Maybe it's dispelling the enemy's Water Breathing. There's a pretty good chance that, if he's chosen his spells intelligently, he'll have something or another that can be brought to bear, there. Why, what does the fighter, with his supposedly always-reliable abilities, do in that situation?

3) Fleeing from a large Giant, the party pulls around a corner and hides in a small cave. They tell the wizard to cast a Silent image like they have seen him do in the past. He tells them, but we were fighting a giant today, why would I have prepared a spell like that for this fight? Is he really an idiot for not seeing the party running into a tougher challenge and not having that specific spell prepared?
Why would he have prepared Silent Image? Because it's a very useful spell, and can be put to good use in almost any situation. That's the kind of spells that wizards usually prepare, when they're not doing stupid things like choosing nothing but fire-damage spells. And if an intelligent wizard didn't prepare Silent Image, it's because he prepared some other general-purpose versatile spell instead, and he can just use that against the unexpected giant.

pwykersotz

2015-02-16, 10:42 PM

how about "don't present the fact that the champion has few tools to adapt as a strength".

I think the argument is more that "The Champion's numbers are higher, and in a game with an open skill system and versatile tools and background options, there is not ever a lack of ability for the Champion to contribute despite not having as many codified options and complexity as other classes."

For the enemy who escapes by diving into an underground river, the wizard at least has a chance to do something about it. Maybe it's by casting Water Breathing, if he does happen to have it prepared. Maybe it's by summoning some aquatic monster to chase down the enemy. Maybe it's by sealing off the exit to the river via a Wall of Stone. Maybe it's dispelling the enemy's Water Breathing. There's a pretty good chance that, if he's chosen his spells intelligently, he'll have something or another that can be brought to bear, there. Why, what does the fighter, with his supposedly always-reliable abilities, do in that situation?

Hold his breath with his mighty Constitution, swim faster than his opponent with his mighty Strength, and beat the tar out of them before surfacing? :smalltongue:

SharkForce

2015-02-16, 11:23 PM

I think the argument is more that "The Champion's numbers are higher, and in a game with an open skill system and versatile tools and background options, there is not ever a lack of ability for the Champion to contribute despite not having as many codified options and complexity as other classes."

generally speaking, the champion's numbers are marginally higher, not by a huge amount, the open skill system is not particularly more available to them than any other class (and arguably less so than it is to the other 2 fighter paths, since battlemasters get a tool proficiency and eldritch knights at least have the option of using spells to support their skill use), backgrounds are equally available to everyone and are a strength of the system, not of the champion.

if the champion got, like, +5 to hit, I'd totally say that was a powerful ability worth giving up many options within the context of 5th edition (as noted, in 2nd edition, it's a lot less potent at high levels, but still amazing at level 1). heck, to be perfectly honest, if their regeneration came online before having to spend 17 levels without any major advantages, I might say even that was worth giving up many options (as it stands, unless you're starting at level 18+ I really don't give a huge amount of weight to that ability... battlemaster maneuvers may scale like crap, but at least they don't have to wait until the campaign is over to even get access to them).

but mostly, they just get a teensy bit more damage, an extra fighting style, and a slightly better bonus on initiative plus some skill checks that they didn't care enough to be proficient in in the first place for the first 17 levels. not impressed.

Osrogue

2015-02-17, 04:00 AM

pwykersotz

2015-02-17, 07:10 AM

generally speaking, the champion's numbers are marginally higher, not by a huge amount, the open skill system is not particularly more available to them than any other class (and arguably less so than it is to the other 2 fighter paths, since battlemasters get a tool proficiency and eldritch knights at least have the option of using spells to support their skill use), backgrounds are equally available to everyone and are a strength of the system, not of the champion.

if the champion got, like, +5 to hit, I'd totally say that was a powerful ability worth giving up many options within the context of 5th edition (as noted, in 2nd edition, it's a lot less potent at high levels, but still amazing at level 1). heck, to be perfectly honest, if their regeneration came online before having to spend 17 levels without any major advantages, I might say even that was worth giving up many options (as it stands, unless you're starting at level 18+ I really don't give a huge amount of weight to that ability... battlemaster maneuvers may scale like crap, but at least they don't have to wait until the campaign is over to even get access to them).

but mostly, they just get a teensy bit more damage, an extra fighting style, and a slightly better bonus on initiative plus some skill checks that they didn't care enough to be proficient in in the first place for the first 17 levels. not impressed.

I think you're underplaying their strengths despite everything that's been gone over in this thread, but that's not really here nor there. The question is, is the champion a fully contributing member of the team. I've yet to see anything to indicate the answer is not a resounding 'Yes'.

You may not be impressed, and honestly as someone who likes to fiddle with features, I'm marginally in agreement because they don't have the elements I personally consider the most fun. But I don't fear for my Champion player's ability to contribute, and having played a Dex Champion in Lost Mines, I can tell you I always felt like the strongest team member due to my significantly higher accuracy, AC, and single-target damage, and that was stacked next to the Wizard and Cleric.

Fwiffo86

2015-02-17, 09:09 AM

Only one weapon in 10,000 is a rapier, and the DM doesn't feel any need to coddle him.

Are you suggesting that anything less than spoon feeding the Wizard all of the spells on his list is somehow doing the Wizard a disservice? Where did you generate this idea, and why do you think it's a remotely valid concept?

Chronos

2015-02-17, 09:14 AM

Fwiffo86

2015-02-17, 09:38 AM

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-17, 09:46 AM

Wait, significantly higher accuracy? How did you manage that? Aside from auto-hitting on crits, the champion gets exactly as much accuracy as everyone else. And if you're facing opponents with AC so high that auto-hitting on crits is relevant, then you'd really rather be targeting a saving throw instead of AC anyway.

Hmmm... If a monster has high AC I wonder what you could expect their saves to be.

As a tempest cleric I would rather force a Dex Save (make it use up its legendary save if it has any) then go after a wis save. Hit it with a Hold Monster spell... DC 19? Yeah... Creature is giving up crits every round no matter the attack roll.

We are assuming big bad boss right?

Before that, I tend to play clerics either with the help action (to give said fighter advantage), Cantrip, or low level spells. Not to mention melee, I do love polearm+sentinal in a cleric build.

They may have been nerfed but clerics can still go all zilla.

Chronos

2015-02-17, 12:00 PM

Hmmm... If a monster has high AC I wonder what you could expect their saves to be.
Depends on the monster. If it's just a low-level schmuck wearing full plate and a shield, then probably even their strong saves will be easier than their AC. If they have high AC because they're high level, then their proficient saves will probably also be pretty good, but most things still have nonproficient saves, too. So you just have to try to guess what any given foe's weak saves will be, and then use the spells which target that save. Which usually isn't too hard.

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-17, 01:17 PM

Depends on the monster. If it's just a low-level schmuck wearing full plate and a shield, then probably even their strong saves will be easier than their AC. If they have high AC because they're high level, then their proficient saves will probably also be pretty good, but most things still have nonproficient saves, too. So you just have to try to guess what any given foe's weak saves will be, and then use the spells which target that save. Which usually isn't too hard.

I was thinking averages among high CR.

The red dragon has an AC of 19 and a Dex Save of +0 and a WIS save of +1. Seems a bit exploitable.

TheDeadlyShoe

2015-02-17, 01:52 PM

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-17, 04:08 PM

Even on its crap saves you still have to throw like 6 spells at it just to drain its legendary resists. If you try to drain its saves with crap spells a canny DM woulld probably forego using its legendary save occasionally.

an open hand monk could keep kicking it prone though which is kind of hilarious.

3, last I saw monsters get 3 legendary saves. Which is one, maybe 2 rounds. There are some nasty spells a cleric or other caster can cast easily enough to blow through them. You could spam hold monster in your 5th level slot then use higher level slots for it. The dragon either saves or paralyzed. Chances of saving normally are slim...

Monks are quite adept at choosing a target and taking them out via stun. But using stunning fist is essentially using a spell and the monk replaces the cleric and not the fighter in this example.

SharkForce

2015-02-17, 04:21 PM

Whoever is saying that a wizard's ability to prepare spells means its adaptable, is just wrong. Sorry. Wizards need to prepare their spells, because they are the DnD versions of boy scouts. They need to prepare for everything. They cannot handle situations they have not prepared a spell for. The vast amount of spells a wizard is capable of learning allows them to prepare for many situations, but any encounter that falls outside of what they prepare for and they are worthless.

To make this clear, that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of adaptability.
Adaptability is not the same as versatility. Adaptability is the ability to change tactics to accomadate a situation.

Is a champion versatile? No.
Is he adaptable? Yes.

Melee damage? Done.
Ranged damage? Proficiency and archery give +8.
Tanking? Some of the highest hitpoints and best armor in the game. Only health regen as a class feature.
Sustained damage: improved critical
Burst damage? Action surge
Control? Grappling.
Saves? Indomitable helps, and lucky/resilience can curb it nicely.
7 ASIs, only 3-4 of which he'll want for str/dex and con, giving him half his feats to spend on whatever he wants.

The champion can do all of those, and can do them well, whether he is prepared or not. To be competent in almost all types of combat is what defines a champion. In that way, yes, a champion Is more adaptable than a wizard in combat. In combat is where a champion's skills chiefly lie, but as mentioned time and time again, they can do perfectly well outside of combat due to remarkable athlete and feat support. In fact, that also makes the champion adaptable outside of combat as well, since any physical checks it gets half proficiency on. It simply is not where the champion's specialty lies.

If you want a fighter type that can adapt to almost any combat situation, pick a champion.

If you want to be a boyscout and prepare for every rainy day, be a wizard.

None of this is counting ASIs. The fighter gets 7. It only needs 2. The other 5 can be spent on making the champion good at whatever he pleases.

Increase Con, (or you could just take tough and call it a day)
Infiltration
Dungeoneering
Mage killing
Stealth
Better tanking
Resilience
Tenser's floating disk, not just for casters.
becoming sherlock holmes,
Give temporary hitpoints,
Become a know-it-all,
Write hidden messages,
Become quadlangual,
Get some free AC or damage once a day

2 bonus ASIs are kind of part an important part of the fighter class.

ok. wizards get several cantrips (and the option to add to it with magic initiate, if so desired, though obviously that comes out of their available feats) and can target multiple defenses and deal multiple damage types with their most basic abilities, as well as providing some basic utility. then they have anywhere from ~4-29 different spells they can choose from that cost resources, depending on level. your fighter has, as i count it, 5 feats. can your fighter cover as much ground with those 5 feats as the wizard can cover with 3 feats and 29 spells? personally, i'm inclined to speculate that you can't. and tomorrow, most of those spells can change (the exception being the two chosen at level 20, and realistically they aren't a concern for most of your adventuring career anyways). but hey, some of those are covering combat options... perhaps even as many as half of them. but i still can probably have more solutions available for common problems than your champion can by spending those 5 feat/ASI options however they like (note: the wizard has 3 of those to spend also, so it isn't like they're massively behind on that front either). and of course, this is before discussing school abilities as well, some of which can cover an incredible variety of situations.

now, i don't know why you would define adaptable as not changing in the slightest, considering that adapting basically means making changes, but by your definition, i'm pretty sure the wizard is both more adaptable *and* more versatile. the wizard has more options, and those options can change on a daily basis for the most part.

champion is not completely useless in 5e like the fighter was in 3.x when compared to casters, but that's not the same thing as saying it's great. i'd hesitate to even call it good, let alone great, until it gets regeneration, by which time the campaign is pretty much over anyways.

Fwiffo86

2015-02-17, 04:48 PM

then they have anywhere from ~4-29 different spells they can choose from that cost resources, depending on level. your fighter has, as i count it, 5 feats. can your fighter cover as much ground with those 5 feats as the wizard can cover with 3 feats and 29 spells?

This more accurately needs to be listed as the spells they prepared. Which if I'm correct, [I'm AFB] is (1/2 level + Int Mod) or 4 - 15 spells. Discounting cantrips of course, which are no more or less effective than actually striking an opponent with a weapon at terrible range.

EDIT---

Of course I could be confusing myself by thinking about Arcane Recovery too. It's always a possibility. Which would make it (Wiz Level + Int Mod) or 4 - 25 spells.

SharkForce

2015-02-17, 04:58 PM

1 per level plus intelligence mod. plus 2 at level 18 (technically those two at-will spells don't count as prepared also, but you probably had at least one spell to use those slots up that you weren't planning on scaling anyways, so it's like knowing more spells), plus 2 at level 20 (which iirc *do* explicitly count as prepared in addition to letting you cast them 1/short rest, and with some spell-ish abilities granted in certain archetypes.

and, depending on archetype, your cantrips actually are pretty close to ranged damage (though not quite up to par with melee damage), though of course it will depend on the target's defenses (some creatures have high AC values and incredibly low dex saves, for example, which may actually lead to evocation wizards having better cantrip damage purely because the fighter has to hit such a high AC... and of course you have to account for damage vulnerabilities and resistances, which means certain enemies can swing the argument one way or the other)

Fwiffo86

2015-02-17, 05:00 PM

hawklost

2015-02-17, 05:03 PM

This more accurately needs to be listed as the spells they prepared. Which if I'm correct, [I'm AFB] is (1/2 level + Int Mod) or 4 - 15 spells. Discounting cantrips of course, which are no more or less effective than actually striking an opponent with a weapon at terrible range.

EDIT---

Of course I could be confusing myself by thinking about Arcane Recovery too. It's always a possibility. Which would make it (Wiz Level + Int Mod) or 4 - 25 spells.

Its Wiz level + Int mod (min 1)
So they could technically have 1 spell prepared a day, but that would be a very poor wizard (and only at lvl 1-5 Wizard (Note they have to have - mod for 2-5 to get 1 spell))

At max they do get 25 spells prepared, but they will have to choose from a minimum of 6+19x2 or 44 spells in their book. So assuming they when they created their book and put money into it to add spells they felt all of those spells were important for some reason, they still have about a 45% chance of not having the spell that is important. Also, if they use a higher level spell and then need that slot for another spell they are screwed (so is any other caster though).

So they have to do the following
1) Choose to put the spell into their book
2) Prepare the spell for the day
3) Have all the Material Components for the spell (Not as hard as it seems but sometimes players forget (Counting items above 1 gp))
4) Have Not cast all the slots equal to and higher than the spell at its needed level (Like Fly is only useful if you have the slot open at a level that all the people you wish to use it on can be covered in one casting).

Osrogue

2015-02-17, 06:37 PM

ok. wizards get several cantrips (and the option to add to it with magic initiate, if so desired, though obviously that comes out of their available feats) and can target multiple defenses and deal multiple damage types with their most basic abilities, as well as providing some basic utility. then they have anywhere from ~4-29 different spells they can choose from that cost resources, depending on level. your fighter has, as i count it, 5 feats. can your fighter cover as much ground with those 5 feats as the wizard can cover with 3 feats and 29 spells? personally, i'm inclined to speculate that you can't. and tomorrow, most of those spells can change (the exception being the two chosen at level 20, and realistically they aren't a concern for most of your adventuring career anyways). but hey, some of those are covering combat options... perhaps even as many as half of them. but i still can probably have more solutions available for common problems than your champion can by spending those 5 feat/ASI options however they like (note: the wizard has 3 of those to spend also, so it isn't like they're massively behind on that front either). and of course, this is before discussing school abilities as well, some of which can cover an incredible variety of situations.

now, i don't know why you would define adaptable as not changing in the slightest, considering that adapting basically means making changes, but by your definition, i'm pretty sure the wizard is both more adaptable *and* more versatile. the wizard has more options, and those options can change on a daily basis for the most part.

champion is not completely useless in 5e like the fighter was in 3.x when compared to casters, but that's not the same thing as saying it's great. i'd hesitate to even call it good, let alone great, until it gets regeneration, by which time the campaign is pretty much over anyways.

Yeah, that's nice. Wizards have lots of spells. They are very versatile.

Now. Definition of adaptable:
able to adjust to new conditions.

Literally the first thing you find when you type adaptable into google.

Can a wizard can prepare their spell list so that they can answer a variety of situations? Yes.
Can a wizard change his spells when he needs something he currently does not have prepared? No.

So if any situation occurs outside of which the wizard has not made the proper preparations for, can they adapt to it?

No. They cannot change their spells to fit any situation at hand. They must anticipate the situations they expect to encounter over the course of the day.

Champions are combat specialists. Outside of combat, they are not useless, but they are less effective than they are in combat.

In combat, they can take on any role they need at a moment's notice, making them adaptable in combat. (You seem to be missing the in combat part I add to the end of most of these sentences.)

Wizards, by the very way the class is designed, cannot be adaptable. A wizard either has a spell, or it doesn't. There is no middle ground.

Doug Lampert

2015-02-17, 06:59 PM

Champions are combat specialists. Outside of combat, they are not useless, but they are less effective than they are in combat.

In combat, they can take on any role they need at a moment's notice, making them adaptable in combat. (You seem to be missing the in combat part I add to the end of most of these sentences.)

Wizards, by the very way the class is designed, cannot be adaptable. A wizard either has a spell, or it doesn't. There is no middle ground.
A wizard has more spell choices than the TOTAL available combat actions of a Champion Fighter.

By far.

If the fighter is adaptable because he can choose whether to attack, or use a skill, or attack, or shove, or attack or trip, or attack, then compare with a Wizard with ONLY 29 different spells to choose from (25 prepared, plus the extras from his level 18, 19, and 20 special powers), plus his cantrips, plus his skills is far more adaptable.

Having multiple choices is being adaptable, a wizard even with only "limited" spells prepared is far more adaptable than a fighter.

And that's NOT including the fact that many spells can be used for multiple things, polymorph can be a utility spell, or an attack spell. Summons can be used for attack, defense, or utility (or several of these at once). Teleport can be used for transportation or escape.

Really, this is one of those arguments where the advocates for one side are doing a WONDERFUL job of convincing me the other side is correct. Bigger numbers can be enough for a class (that's really all the perfectly adequate 2nd ed. fighter had going for it), and the Champion has bigger numbers. But all the claims about "wizards aren't overpowered if you never ever under any circumstance let them find a spell or meet another wizard (hostile or friendly) and if every NPC in the world wants to kill them on sight" and "wizards aren't versatile at all because they can only choose from slightly weaker versions of everything a fighter can do plus a really long list of very powerful other stuff whereas the extremely versatile fighter can do anything he can do at any time".

{scrubbed}

SharkForce

2015-02-17, 07:12 PM

Yeah, that's nice. Wizards have lots of spells. They are very versatile.

Now. Definition of adaptable:
able to adjust to new conditions.

Literally the first thing you find when you type adaptable into google.

Can a wizard can prepare their spell list so that they can answer a variety of situations? Yes.
Can a wizard change his spells when he needs something he currently does not have prepared? No.

So if any situation occurs outside of which the wizard has not made the proper preparations for, can they adapt to it?

No. They cannot change their spells to fit any situation at hand. They must anticipate the situations they expect to encounter over the course of the day.

Champions are combat specialists. Outside of combat, they are not useless, but they are less effective than they are in combat.

In combat, they can take on any role they need at a moment's notice, making them adaptable in combat. (You seem to be missing the in combat part I add to the end of most of these sentences.)

Wizards, by the very way the class is designed, cannot be adaptable. A wizard either has a spell, or it doesn't. There is no middle ground.

the wizard has more options at any one time than the fighter does. it doesn't matter if the wizard can't do every single trick they know at a moment's notice. they have more tricks at any one time than the fighter does. they not only know more powers, they also have more prepared.

the champion has advantages. being more versatile than anything else is not one of them.

Chronos

2015-02-17, 08:06 PM

The wizard can change most of his options; it just takes him a day to do it. The fighter can't do that, at all. And even on a short-term basis, just as the fighter can choose whether to attack, shove, grapple, or use a skill, the wizard can choose between the spells she has prepared.

Just how many options do you think each class has, anyway? The way I see it, a fighter has five options usable in combat: He can attack, shove, grapple, hide, or flee. And out of combat, he has perhaps as many as five options: Two skills from the fighter class, two from his background, and perhaps one useful tool from his background.

The wizard, meanwhile, has some of those same options, and also has spells. Let's say that she picked two cantrips and one spell prepared for out-of-combat utility. That leaves her with with six options in combat: She can use her cantrip, or any of her other three prepared spells, or she can hide or flee. And out of combat, she has the same number of skills and tools as the fighter, plus her other two cantrips, her fourth prepared spell, and perhaps a ritual or two, for about nine options.

Both in combat and out of it, the wizard has more options than the fighter does. And that's just at first level. When you get to higher levels, the number of options available to the fighter doesn't increase appreciably, but the wizard starts getting specialization options at level 2, one or more new prepared spells each level, more rituals in her book, and two more cantrips.

Osrogue

2015-02-17, 08:29 PM

the wizard has more options at any one time than the fighter does. it doesn't matter if the wizard can't do every single trick they know at a moment's notice. they have more tricks at any one time than the fighter does. they not only know more powers, they also have more prepared.

the champion has advantages. being more versatile than anything else is not one of them.

let me put it to you this way.

I NEVER SAID CHAMPIONS ARE MORE VERSATILE THAN WIZARDS.

I NEVER SAID CHAMPIONS ARE MORE VERSATILE THAN WIZARDS.

I NEVER SAID CHAMPIONS ARE MORE VERSATILE THAN WIZARDS.

What champion has, is all of its options available to it at any given time. Those options allow it to perform most roles in combat at a moment's notice.

Now, since for some reason, people keep on missing this,
in combat. They are combat specialists. This means they are best in combat and are significantly worse out of combat.

Wizards are not very adaptable. Sorcerers are adaptable. Sorcerers are able to modify their toolset on the fly in order to fit the situation at hand. Sorcerers are more adaptable than champion fighters and less versatile than wizards.

Why? Sorcerers have a smaller toolbelt than wizards, but they are able to modify their spells to fit a situation. The ability to change according to the needs of a situation is adaptability. Wizards cannot change their spells after they have chosen them at the beginning of the day. Nor may they modify them with metamagic.

Wizards are not adaptable. Adaptability is reactive. Preparation is proactive. The ability to save yourself from a high fall, because you have a contingency for saving yourself from a fall is different from saving yourself from a fall when you didn't prepare featherfall in the morning. I swaer, if someone mentions that only an idiot wouldn't prepare featherfall in the morning, for some reason, I am going to jump off a cliff. It's an example. A wizard cannot tailor its spells to a sudden change in a situation. It either was open to the possiblity of needing featherfall for the day or it isn't and prepared its spell list accordingly.

If you need help figuring out the difference between versatility and adaptability, or at least the definitions I assume we have been using:

Versatility:
having or capable of many uses:
a versatile tool.

Adaptability: able to adjust to new conditions.

Now, once more.

Champions are NOT versatile. They are able to function in many roles in combat at any given time.

Wizards are NOT able to change their toolset for the day when they come across something they have not prepared a spell for. They are versatile, so they can prepare a spell for very many situations. Emphasis on the word prepare. If you have prepared for an eventuality, you are not adapting to the eventuality.

Please stop insinuating that I have said champions are more versatile than wizards, or that champions' area of expertise is anywhere outside of combat.

Now I want to stop sounding like a broken record, so I implore you to quit arguing with a view that nobody has had so far.

Psikerlord

2015-02-17, 09:01 PM

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

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

And, of course, remarkable athlete encourages the champion to really keep an eye out for strength, con, and Dex checks, or anything that can be construed as one. As the old saying goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.I agree there is some truth in the idea that the champion's simplicity encourages a player to add more roleplaying, or look for other actions to use, to keep it interesting. You can think more about how to describe your hits etc because you dont have as many activated abilities to worry about.

CrusaderJoe

2015-02-17, 10:05 PM

I agree there is some truth in the idea that the champion's simplicity encourages a player to add more roleplaying, or look for other actions to use, to keep it interesting. You can think more about how to describe your hits etc because you dont have as many activated abilities to worry about.

When you are bored out of your mind I guess you need to do something to make sure you are having fun.

But you can get bored with any PC depending on DM, other players, or whatever you personally are like.

Roleplaying shouldn't be something you are pushed or forced into because your class is lacking. That's just bad game design, especially for a game where its assumed you will be roleplaying to begin with.

SharkForce

2015-02-17, 11:13 PM

let me put it to you this way.

I NEVER SAID CHAMPIONS ARE MORE VERSATILE THAN WIZARDS.

I NEVER SAID CHAMPIONS ARE MORE VERSATILE THAN WIZARDS.

I NEVER SAID CHAMPIONS ARE MORE VERSATILE THAN WIZARDS.

What champion has, is all of its options available to it at any given time. Those options allow it to perform most roles in combat at a moment's notice.

Now, since for some reason, people keep on missing this,
in combat. They are combat specialists. This means they are best in combat and are significantly worse out of combat.

Wizards are not very adaptable. Sorcerers are adaptable. Sorcerers are able to modify their toolset on the fly in order to fit the situation at hand. Sorcerers are more adaptable than champion fighters and less versatile than wizards.

Why? Sorcerers have a smaller toolbelt than wizards, but they are able to modify their spells to fit a situation. The ability to change according to the needs of a situation is adaptability. Wizards cannot change their spells after they have chosen them at the beginning of the day. Nor may they modify them with metamagic.

Wizards are not adaptable. Adaptability is reactive. Preparation is proactive. The ability to save yourself from a high fall, because you have a contingency for saving yourself from a fall is different from saving yourself from a fall when you didn't prepare featherfall in the morning. I swaer, if someone mentions that only an idiot wouldn't prepare featherfall in the morning, for some reason, I am going to jump off a cliff. It's an example. A wizard cannot tailor its spells to a sudden change in a situation. It either was open to the possiblity of needing featherfall for the day or it isn't and prepared its spell list accordingly.

If you need help figuring out the difference between versatility and adaptability, or at least the definitions I assume we have been using:

Versatility:
having or capable of many uses:
a versatile tool.

Adaptability: able to adjust to new conditions.

Now, once more.

Champions are NOT versatile. They are able to function in many roles in combat at any given time.

Wizards are NOT able to change their toolset for the day when they come across something they have not prepared a spell for. They are versatile, so they can prepare a spell for very many situations. Emphasis on the word prepare. If you have prepared for an eventuality, you are not adapting to the eventuality.

Please stop insinuating that I have said champions are more versatile than wizards, or that champions' area of expertise is anywhere outside of combat.

Now I want to stop sounding like a broken record, so I implore you to quit arguing with a view that nobody has had so far.

your claim to the champion's in-combat "adaptability" is the list of options they have to choose from to react to different situations. wizards have a bigger list PREPARED than your champion is capable of even having. not in their spellbook (although ritual spells should also count towards general options, if not combat options). prepared. at one time. all available to choose from at any given time.

many of those individual options can even be adapted for use in different ways. a wall of stone can be a bridge to walk across, a barrier to take cover from enemy arrows, a barricade that lets you fight an encounter one half at a time, a delaying tactic that allows you to escape, a hiding place for the party, a way to prevent an enemy from escaping and alerting their friends to your presence, and so on. wizards have whatever bizarro-world version of adaptability you are claiming for the champion because of the number of spells they are capable of preparing at any one time, and would have that even if they didn't have their spellbook within a million miles of them. the same can be said for clerics and druids, who don't have any spellbooks, but the fact that they *can* change their spells on a daily basis does not mean that they are completely dependant on that ability at all times.

take away the wizard's spellbook, burn it, and burn every single other copy of every single spell in existence, and the wizard STILL has more options than the champion. heck, not only is the champion less "adaptable" than the wizard, it's less "adaptable" by your definition than both of the other fighter archetypes, which both also have more options available to them at any given time.

champions have some good things. their ability to crit more often can synergize extremely well with certain multiclass builds, for example; rogues, barbarians (especially half-orc barbarians), and paladins all love to get critical hits and can take exceptional advantage of them, and for that reason if a third level of fighter is being contemplated by members of those classes, i would generally point them towards champion because of that.

but you really need to recognize the advantages that champion actually has, and stop claiming that the champion has advantages which it doesn't have. if you want to point to a martial class that has a lot of your version of adaptability, you probably want to point to the rogue. or the monk. heck, even the ranger.

Osrogue

2015-02-18, 02:06 AM

your claim to the champion's in-combat "adaptability" is the list of options they have to choose from to react to different situations. wizards have a bigger list PREPARED than your champion is capable of even having. not in their spellbook (although ritual spells should also count towards general options, if not combat options). prepared. at one time. all available to choose from at any given time.

many of those individual options can even be adapted for use in different ways. a wall of stone can be a bridge to walk across, a barrier to take cover from enemy arrows, a barricade that lets you fight an encounter one half at a time, a delaying tactic that allows you to escape, a hiding place for the party, a way to prevent an enemy from escaping and alerting their friends to your presence, and so on. wizards have whatever bizarro-world version of adaptability you are claiming for the champion because of the number of spells they are capable of preparing at any one time, and would have that even if they didn't have their spellbook within a million miles of them. the same can be said for clerics and druids, who don't have any spellbooks, but the fact that they *can* change their spells on a daily basis does not mean that they are completely dependant on that ability at all times.

take away the wizard's spellbook, burn it, and burn every single other copy of every single spell in existence, and the wizard STILL has more options than the champion. heck, not only is the champion less "adaptable" than the wizard, it's less "adaptable" by your definition than both of the other fighter archetypes, which both also have more options available to them at any given time.

champions have some good things. their ability to crit more often can synergize extremely well with certain multiclass builds, for example; rogues, barbarians (especially half-orc barbarians), and paladins all love to get critical hits and can take exceptional advantage of them, and for that reason if a third level of fighter is being contemplated by members of those classes, i would generally point them towards champion because of that.

but you really need to recognize the advantages that champion actually has, and stop claiming that the champion has advantages which it doesn't have. if you want to point to a martial class that has a lot of your version of adaptability, you probably want to point to the rogue. or the monk. heck, even the ranger.

First, I don't like champions. I actually hate them. I dislike fighters in general. I think they're boring. I Didn't choose my username out of hat, you know. I perfer rogues, sorcerers, and paladins. I just don't think that they are as bad as people think. They are effective, if simple martial fighters capable of fulfilling just about any role one could expect of a fighter for an entire day. Since fighters get extra feats, the champion can go beyond this and become skilled in areas one wouldn't normally expect of them, and have those options available to them whenever the situation calls for it.

2 fighting styles
Action surge
All weapon proficiency
Heavy armor proficiency
4 attacks
Remarkable athlete
Regeneration
Bonus feats

By the definition I gave, adaptability is the ability to change according to a situation. Champions can specifically do this in combat. The champion can tank, nova, go melee or ranged with relative ease with just about any weapon they find. They get half proficiency with all physical skills. This gives them the tools they need to do what they need to in a scrap. Champions don't need to plan its class features. It has them , and when it needs them, it uses them. Its class features allow it to fill a wide variety of rolls in combat. The ability to shift between these rolls on the fly gives it the ability to adapt to what the combat needs, be it a tank or an archer.

Adaptability is not the number of options. It is the ability to change when change is needed. The defenitions I gave I pulled straight from the dictionary, so you can stop assigning possessives to it as if I'm in my own little reality. If I wanted to, I could point out the fact that I began my first rebuttal mentioning that the champion isn't versatile. It has a limited set of options always available to it, and yet you keep reminding me that a wizard has more options as if it is news to me. You seem to think I believe the champion can do many things. I mentioned time and time again he only really excels in combat.

Please note, once again that adaptability of the champion only extends as far as combat, and distinctly refers to his ability to assume a variety of roles with base competence even if those are not the roles the champion normally performs.

This isn't some weird martial wizard pissing contest. A wizard has many more options available to it. A wizard is more powerful than it. A wizard is probably more fun to play than it. A wizard is literally unable to change its spells over the course of a day. And no, cantrips alone are generally inferior to what any other well built class can do. i'd welcome you to try it out though, but I have a feeling that if you played a wizard with only cantrips, you would probably eat that comment. Then again, you could be exaggerating. It's really hard to tell sometimes.

Wizards are versatile. They are incredibly versatile. They are so versatile. I never argued they weren't. I never argued that champions were. I never argued that champions are better. Can a wizard change the spells it has selected in a day? No. So if a wizard does not have a spell that works for the situation, let's just call it a rakshasa, can the wizard change spells to accomodate the new threat? No, because it's a rakshasa and it can just say no, but that's not the point. The point is that the wizard, if it runs into a situation it doesn't have an answer for, cannot suddenly, in the middle of the day get new spells. This is the wizard's only real weakness outside of squishiness (that and the need for careful resource management.) wizards are flexible, wizards are versatile, wizards are powerful, but no wizard can change their spells out at the drop of a hat if what they have isn't working. Will that happen often? Not if the wizard is a good wizard. for some reason you think the inability to change out your spells over the course of the day is such a terrible thing. It isn't. It's still a thing.

It is part of the spellcasting class feature that a wizard cannot change out his spells in the middle of the day. Is this not how a wizard works? Please, educate me. Obviously I know nothing on how basic mechanics of magic work.

Tl;dr

Champions and wizards are both boring in my opinion.
Champions are all around combatants.
Wizards cannot change the spells they prepare over the course of the day. it's a class feature.
#of options does not equal ability to change.

Champion<<<Wizard has never been disputed.
Sharkforce, read the entire post before responding.

Sorry that I'm not the best with words. Reading what I'm actually saying helps though. I'll do my best to coear away the clutter.

All I've claimed, if you really looked at it, or at leadt as I've meant it, is that champions are good at all types of fighting and can shift between the roles easily, and vancian magic (or vancianesque?) is kind of inflexible when you think about how the spell you cast 50 times before isn't available to you because you were hungry and decided to spend a slot on conjure light snack instead.

You've claimed, Champions are worse than wizards. I completely agree, and I hate them both equally.

You keep claiming that wizards are, by the definition I gave, adaptable and versatile.

Wizards by one definition, are adaptable because they have a lot of options in which adaptability essentially means versatility.

By the definition I gave for reference, which means the ability to change or adjust, no, because wizards can't change or adjust their spells aside from casting them at different levels without a significant time investment.

Anyway, I'm done. If you have a reason to believe champions are not good at fighting, I will happily discuss that with you.
I'm done comparing wizard and champion class features in such a way that apparently is so obtuse you think I'm claiming the superiority and versatility of the champion class.

Gwendol

2015-02-18, 03:18 AM

A wizard has more spell choices than the TOTAL available combat actions of a Champion Fighter.

By far.

If the fighter is adaptable because he can choose whether to attack, or use a skill, or attack, or shove, or attack or trip, or attack, then compare with a Wizard with ONLY 29 different spells to choose from (25 prepared, plus the extras from his level 18, 19, and 20 special powers), plus his cantrips, plus his skills is far more adaptable.

Not more adaptable, because of the way spells are codified. The wizard is however a lot more versatile (given the "right" array of spells). The champion is adaptable in the scope of combat, and a limited set of circumstances outside of combat where the player has chosen to be proficient (based on ASI's/feats/backgrounds/etc). All things equal, the champion will have bigger numbers and/or more feats. Furthermore, because of this, the champion should be the target of choice for buffs as they will generally be making the most out of them.

Chronos

2015-02-18, 09:13 AM

But the wizard can adapt. She can change according to changes in her environment, just by changing which of her prepared spells she's casting.

Is it just the fact that the wizard can't prepare all of the spells in her book that makes her "unadaptable"? Then consider a houseruled wizard, whose spellbook only contains a number of spells equal to her level plus Int mod. This houseruled wizard would, in fact, have all of her options available to her at all times. Would this make her adaptable in the same way as the fighter? But such a wizard is absolutely worse than the standard by-the-rules wizard. Surely, a wizard with an extra restriction can't be more adaptable than the same wizard without that restriction?

Gwendol

2015-02-18, 09:22 AM

Fwiffo86

2015-02-18, 09:25 AM

When you are bored out of your mind I guess you need to do something to make sure you are having fun.

But you can get bored with any PC depending on DM, other players, or whatever you personally are like.

Roleplaying shouldn't be something you are pushed or forced into because your class is lacking. That's just bad game design, especially for a game where its assumed you will be roleplaying to begin with.

It's also bad form to judge a class as bad because someone individually doesn't like how it is built. Opinions are based on personal preference.

Wizard Adaptability....

I recall reading a rule that states the Wizard does NOT have to prepare all of their spells at one time. They can leave some prepare slots unused to be filled during a short rest later in the day. Is this correct? I'm AFB. This gives some level of adaptability, but it is not in combat adaptability. It still requires time the party may or may not have.

Osrogue

2015-02-18, 09:50 AM

It's also bad form to judge a class as bad because someone individually doesn't like how it is built. Opinions are based on personal preference.

Wizard Adaptability....

I recall reading a rule that states the Wizard does NOT have to prepare all of their spells at one time. They can leave some prepare slots unused to be filled during a short rest later in the day. Is this correct? I'm AFB. This gives some level of adaptability, but it is not in combat adaptability. It still requires time the party may or may not have.

It isn't a rule, per say, but there doesn't appear a restriction for it the section on preparing spells, just that wizards get their slots back after sleeping and each spell takes time to memorize. That's... Interesting. It would still only work if the wizard was able to spend some time in a nice secluded area for several minutes to an hour, but that is more than I thought it originally could do.

As for the caster versatility thing, sorry. I honestly wasn't expecting to derail the topic.

SharkForce

2015-02-18, 09:54 AM

Again, the number of spells available (prepared spells) to the wizard and the broad applicability of some of those spells speak to the versatility of the wizard. The class is however not very adaptable: outside of the daily choices of spells the class offers little. The champion fighter is highly adaptable in a narrow scope of work, but not that versatile: outside of combat vs enemies that are harmed with the weapons at hand the fighter will be challenged to contribute. Rogues and Bards (for example) tend to be both adaptable and versatile.

except that wizards can cover broad categories of abilities with some spells. I already pointed out above how you can "adapt" to different situations using just a single spell (wall of stone) in the wizard arsenal. the wizard (or other prepared caster). the wizard has more tools to use, and can use those tools in a variety of ways. for example, your rakshasa does not have any special defense agains spells that are not targeting it. so, for example, a spell that grants a wizard one or more minions can readily provide the means for a wizard to deal with a rakshasa. that same spell can most likely be used to summon several different types of minions, each of which has a different set of abilities they can choose from. hey look, the wizard can adapt to combat situations, kinda like the champion can, except better because the champion can't decide to put a whole bunch of kobolds to sleep with no save, or plant a wall in the middle of the field, or offer any form of crowd control that lasts longer than they spend actions and are standing next to an enemy, and so forth.

wizard has more options. those options can be used in a variety of ways, not just collectively, but in many cases individually also. if the champion has adaptability, so does the wizard. it doesn't matter that the wizard's spell list, once prepared, is basically set for the day. the wizard is, if anything, *more* capable of changing their strategies to deal with situations they didn't necessarily expect to come across, because more options does that for you.

Fwiffo86

2015-02-18, 10:12 AM

except that wizards can cover broad categories of abilities with some spells. I already pointed out above how you can "adapt" to different situations using just a single spell (wall of stone) in the wizard arsenal. the wizard (or other prepared caster). the wizard has more tools to use, and can use those tools in a variety of ways. for example, your rakshasa does not have any special defense agains spells that are not targeting it. so, for example, a spell that grants a wizard one or more minions can readily provide the means for a wizard to deal with a rakshasa. that same spell can most likely be used to summon several different types of minions, each of which has a different set of abilities they can choose from. hey look, the wizard can adapt to combat situations, kinda like the champion can, except better because the champion can't decide to put a whole bunch of kobolds to sleep with no save, or plant a wall in the middle of the field, or offer any form of crowd control that lasts longer than they spend actions and are standing next to an enemy, and so forth.

wizard has more options. those options can be used in a variety of ways, not just collectively, but in many cases individually also. if the champion has adaptability, so does the wizard. it doesn't matter that the wizard's spell list, once prepared, is basically set for the day. the wizard is, if anything, *more* capable of changing their strategies to deal with situations they didn't necessarily expect to come across, because more options does that for you.

More tools does not make you a better mechanic. Having more options does not immediately make you better than someone who has less. I would rather go to a doctor who specializes in the type of surgery I need instead of to a general surgeon, due to the specialist's increased reliability and knowledge.

You're argument that "because he has more" makes the Wizard better is nothing more than opinion at this point.

Gwendol

2015-02-18, 10:24 AM

except that wizards can cover broad categories of abilities with some spells. I already pointed out above how you can "adapt" to different situations using just a single spell (wall of stone) in the wizard arsenal. the wizard (or other prepared caster). the wizard has more tools to use, and can use those tools in a variety of ways. for example, your rakshasa does not have any special defense agains spells that are not targeting it. so, for example, a spell that grants a wizard one or more minions can readily provide the means for a wizard to deal with a rakshasa. that same spell can most likely be used to summon several different types of minions, each of which has a different set of abilities they can choose from. hey look, the wizard can adapt to combat situations, kinda like the champion can, except better because the champion can't decide to put a whole bunch of kobolds to sleep with no save, or plant a wall in the middle of the field, or offer any form of crowd control that lasts longer than they spend actions and are standing next to an enemy, and so forth.

wizard has more options. those options can be used in a variety of ways, not just collectively, but in many cases individually also. if the champion has adaptability, so does the wizard. it doesn't matter that the wizard's spell list, once prepared, is basically set for the day. the wizard is, if anything, *more* capable of changing their strategies to deal with situations they didn't necessarily expect to come across, because more options does that for you.

Again, those are examples of wizard versatility. Spells can be applied in a wide variety of situations (versatile), if spells don't work however, or the spellcasting is restricted (silence), the wizard is very restricted (i.e. not adaptable).