What makes the Champion archetype underpowered?

[Windrammer]

I'm curious to hear this. Some say it has the best DPR and others say it's so bad it needs massive buffs.

I'd love to see some comprehensive analysis of its mechanical power, as I haven't been able to find any through search engines.

[Ralanr]

Lack of options.

That's the biggest complaint I've noticed.

[rhouck]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?398053-In-Defense-of-the-Champion

[Easy_Lee]

I made a long post a while back which I believe is still in my signature, in defense of the champion (Edit: thanks Rhouck). The archetype primarily enhances what fighters can already do. It's a fighter, only more so.

Unlike BMs and EKs, the champion bonuses are always online. The champion has enhanced initiative and adds at least half proficiency to all physical checks, including breaking things and drinking contests, via remarkable athlete. Past 18, the champion heals every round if he is below half health, ensuring that he's always ready for a fight.

If you like fighting styles, the champion gets two of them, which when combined with a fighter's bonus feats allows the champion to fill multiple roles competently. If you like consistent damage, the champion is competitive for the best around. If you like being a fighter, the champion is the fightingest one. If you like to choose from a limited set of versatile options rather than a long list of narrow options, the champion is for you.

[TrollCapAmerica]

The problems are

A] Most of its abilities are passive making for a simplistic class to play compared to BM and EK

B] Its abilities are neat but in practice they are underwhelming. Small amounts of regen at 18+ level only mitigates damage so much an extra fighting style rarely compliments your main style well and extra damage on 15% of hits isnt as help consistently as Superiority dice of spells

C] it doesnt do anything that stands out compared to other sub-classes. BM has extra options defensive tricks ways to give the Rogue more sneak attacks temporary HP etc while the EK has magic. The Champion hits things slightly better 15% of the time

[CantigThimble]

Well a half-orc with a greataxe makes a pretty solid champion but yeah, they're not particularly interesting to play.

[Easy_Lee]

Well a half-orc with a greataxe makes a pretty solid champion but yeah, they're not particularly interesting to play.

It's more a case of opinion than anything. Champion has the fewest built-in options out of anything, and must find ways to be creative with them. It's a bit like how everquest had mundanes with just a few flexible skills and abilities plus lots of weapon and armor proficiencies, while casters had dozens of spells to choose from but had very limited and slow-recovering mana. It suits some and does not suit others.

[WickerNipple]

The Champion is in no way underpowered. You might find it underinteresting.

[Chronos]

The greatest flaw of the champion is the same as its greatest advantage: It's very simple. Some people like simple, while others don't. If you like simple classes that always do the same thing in every situation, then play a champion. If you'd rather play something more complicated that adapts to different situations, play some other class or subclass.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm curious to hear this. Some say it has the best DPR and others say it's so bad it needs massive buffs.

I'd love to see some comprehensive analysis of its mechanical power, as I haven't been able to find any through search engines.

The tainted 3.5 notions that players come burdened with in their preconceptions of what constitutes power.

[Easy_Lee]

I would add that champion is a good choice if one has a hardass DM. Because the champion is simple and straightforward, you cannot argue with any of his abilities. He always gets half proficiency on physical checks, even when there is no skill, he does exactly how much damage his attacks say they do, and there is basically no room to misinterpret or weaken any of his abilities.

Edit: The only exception I know of is whether or not a critical hit is automatically a hit. But that will probably never come up due to bounded accuracy; 18+ is going to hit regardless.

[WickerNipple]

I would add that champion is a good choice if one has a hardass DM. Because the champion is simple and straightforward, you cannot argue with any of his abilities. He always gets half proficiency on physical checks, even when there is no skill, he does exactly how much damage his attacks say they do, and there is basically no room to misinterpret or weaken any of his abilities.

:smallbiggrin: A very good point.

[Grek]

Champion is bad because it adds small numbers to things instead of giving interesting powers:
Improved Crit helps you 1 time out of 20, or one time out of 10 at level 15. That's less than once a fight in most cases, and the average damage increase is typically less than even a single point.
Remarkable Athlete adds +2 to select skill checks. That translates to turning a success into a failure 1 time in 10, or 1 time in 7 when you hit level thirteen.
Fighting styles are also very small bonuses, +1s and +2s.
Survivor is actually a good ability and the sort of thing the Champion class should have. It isn't enough on its own, though.


Champion's one big advantage is that its bonuses aren't based on any sort of limited resource. Everything is at will or passive. This lead to people saying that the Champion has the best overall damage per round. I disagree with this stance, because in practice the number of combat rounds is going to be some finite number, often a small finite number.

Let's look at the math for a second. Assume you're a third level fighter with a Greatsword and 20 strength. Your attack bonus is +7, and on a hit you do 2d6+5 damage, mean 12. You're attacking people who are wearing plate mail (18 AC), so you miss 50%, hit normally 45% of the time and critically hit 5% of the time. Your average damage per attack is therefore 0.55 * 12 = 6.6 by default. With Champion you still miss 50% of the time, hit normally 40% of the time and critically hit 10% of the time. That means your average damage per attack is 0.60 * 12 = 7.2, an increase of 0.6 damage. With Battlemaster, you add +1d8 damage to every successful attack, and do some other benefit as well. But let's ignore those side benefits and focus just on the damage. The average of 1d8 is 4.5, and you have a 50% chance to miss, 45% chance to hit normally and a 5% chance to critically hit. So your average additional damage per Superiority Die is 4.5 * 0.55 = 2.475. You have 4 Superiority Dice at this level, so your average gain per short rest is 4 * 2.475 = 9.9. And that means that you need to make an average of 9.9 / 0.6 = 16.5 attacks before Champion starts to do more damage than Battlemaster, excluding the rider effects. Does it seem likely to you that you'll often be fighting 16 full rounds of combat (including 1 attack from Action Surge here) between short rests? If not, Battlemaster comes out ahead. And that's without considering the Precision Attack Maneuver (which lets you declare your extra damage after you know you've hit) or the non-damage effects of maneuvers.

[Easy_Lee]

Champion is bad because it adds small numbers to things instead of giving interesting powers:
Improved Crit helps you 1 time out of 20, or one time out of 10 at level 15. That's less than once a fight in most cases, and the average damage increase is typically less than even a single point.
Remarkable Athlete adds +2 to select skill checks. That translates to turning a success into a failure 1 time in 10, or 1 time in 7 when you hit level thirteen.
Fighting styles are also very small bonuses, +1s and +2s.
Survivor is actually a good ability and the sort of thing the Champion class should have. It isn't enough on its own, though.


Some small corrections: remarkable athlete adds +1 to +3 to non-proficient strength, dexterity, and constitution checks, which includes their related skills and some things which aren't skills, such as initiative. Fighting styles are generally small, though they can grant some versatility, particularly if we include the new mariner fighting style. And improved crit has a cumulative effect with advantage:

Chance to crit on an attack at 15: 15%.
Chance to crit on an attack at 15 with advantage: 1-(.85)(0.85) = 27.75%, usual is 9.75%

The overall effect is the same: you crit three times as often.

And survivor is one of few sources of free, continuous healing, so it is quite nice as you said.

[Ashrym]

The champion isn't underpowered; the abilities are more passive with less active. This does not make it bad either. It was a deliberate design choice to appeal to players who wanted a simpler fighter.

Players who don't want a simpler fighter are not required to play a champion fighter. Uninteresting to some is not the same as bad.

I like the champion and don't find it underpowered or bad.

[Grek]

The chance to crit is 15%, yes. But Level 15 Improved Critical is only helping you on 18s and 19s, since you would be getting criticals on 20s even if you didn't have it. So you're only benefiting one time in ten, even if you get criticals three times in twenty.

You'll also note there are, in fact, diminishing returns on increased criticals with advantage, rather than improving returns. With Level 15 Improved Critical, you're getting a critical you otherwise wouldn't have gotten on 18% of advantaged attacks. 2% of the time, you're rolling a critical on both dice, which doesn't actually help you more than rolling it on one die would.

But that's all minor quibbles. The take-away fact is that with Battlemaster, you're just doing more damage in the majority of cases.

[Easy_Lee]

But that's all minor quibbles. The take-away fact is that with Battlemaster, you're just doing more damage in the majority of cases.

With limited expertise die, a very weak level 7 ability, and other features that mostly amount to a +1 or +2 to your maneuvers. Battle master starts strong and changes very little as it levels, a widespread criticism of the archetype. It's much better to dip into battle master than go all the way with it, as a battle master / barbarian or battle master / rogue is going to be more useful in the majority of cases than a pure battle master.

Champion, on the other hand, gains useful passives with every feature. In the short term, and in a situation of many short rests, battle master may be better. In the long term, and a situation of uncertain rests, the champion is better.

Besides, the extra fighting style granted to champions is seriously underrated. People freak out over getting mage armor, scales, or plate instead of studded leather, a +1 difference in AC, and the new fighting style now grants +1 AC and better movement options.

[Hawkstar]

I feel the Champion is underwhelming.

If I were to change it, I'd have Remarkable Athlete (And have it apply even if you are proficient, functioning as a blend of Expertise and Jack of All Trades) and Improved Critical come online at the same level, and have Survivor come online MUCH earlier than 18.

[AvatarVecna]

The general problem people have with the Champion is rather simple: it's got no options...or rather, it gives you no options on top of what every character always generally has.

In a non-combat scenario, casters generally have utility spells that can be employed, skillful characters have at least one relevant skill, and combat-focused characters twiddle their thumbs unless the few skills they have are both relevant to what's going on and high enough that they're the best at that skill in the party. In a combat scenario, casters generally have spells for defending and attacking, skillful characters have ways of hitting the enemy where they hurt, and combat-focused characters can attack the enemy.

The champion's strength is also it's weakness: it's simple. For some people, having "I attack it with my weapon" is the only solution they need to a problem, and they're fine not having anything to do when that's not an appropriate solution. I can't speak for anyone else, but if my character's participation in a fight can be replaced with a flow chart like the one below, I'm going to despise that character for taking away my ability to do anything other than attack.

Q1: Is there a problem?
N: Nothing to do.
Y: Go to Q2.
Q2: Can the problem be solved by attacking it with my weapon?
N: Nothing to do.
Y: I move to the best spot to attack it with my weapon, and then I hit it with my weapon. Return to Q1.

If you don't want to be bothered with complicated tactics, if you're fine being more a rollplayer, if you came to this game to attack something with your weapon in the Theatre of Your Mind, then power to you. I'm off to play the kind of character I like to play: one with options, one whose tactics can't be replaced by a flow chart, one who's complex enough to require my attention and engaging enough to hold it.

[CantigThimble]

Well that not entirely fair, it should be:

Q1: Is there a problem?
N: Nothing to do.
Y: Go to Q2.
Q2: Can the problem be solved by attacking it with my weapon or by jumping several feet further than everyone else?
N: Nothing to do.
Y: I move to the best spot to attack it with my weapon, and then I hit it with my weapon. Return to Q1.

[AvatarVecna]

Well that not entirely fair, it should be:

Q1: Is there a problem?
N: Nothing to do.
Y: Go to Q2.
Q2: Can the problem be solved by attacking it with my weapon or by jumping several feet further than everyone else?
N: Nothing to do.
Y: I move to the best spot to attack it with my weapon, and then I hit it with my weapon. Return to Q1.

The barbarian won't be too far behind, even before raging; the thief rogue will be keeping up for the most part...of course, they also get their bonus on high jumps; monks will be ahead in almost every case, since jumping is so rarely the best tactic in a fight that spending ki will get you the necessary boost as often as necessary. Hell, any class that can cast Jump/Fly/Teleport has you beat without even trying. At it's absolute best, this ability gives you +5 ft to your running long jumps, and there's plenty of other ways to get bonuses to your jump distance. It's nothing special. And it still only expands your options to "two things I can do in combat" rather than "one thing I can do in combat". And unless your DM has a habit of putting 20 ft long gorges in your way on the path to the wherever you're going, it's not going to come up outside of combat. And again, it does nothing to help your high jump.

[Safety Sword]

So, what we're saying is that the problem with the Champion is that it's only good in combat?

Sounds like a role playing problem, not a game mechanics problem.

If you play D&D like an MMORPG then I guess this is what happens.

Edit: Just because your character isn't proficient or doesn't have a positive modifier to a skill doesn't mean you should never use it. How else is my barbarian outlander going to get my party into bar fights or fleeing from the royal guard through my poor conversational skills?

[Ashrym]

The skill system is generally a a bonus to the same actions available whether skillful or not. Skill proficiencies do not add options and instead increase success rates in the same list of options. It's a fallacy to conclude more skill bonuses equals more options.

On top of that, remarkable athlete gives bonuses to a lot of skill checks as specific to champions. Fighters also have bonus feats / ASI's to apply towards non-combat like skill proficiencies or higher ability score bonuses. Any character may have the option to learn proficiencies during downtime and there's an epic boon that grants proficiencies in all skills.

In the long run, bonus proficiencies are of very limited value. Ignoring that, the list of actions still hasn't changed so the assertion of more options for skillful characters is incorrect. It's like saying a rogue doesn't have the option to attack if the fighter can do more damage.

As a result, a champion has many out-of-combat options. They are not all inherent to the subclass but the character from which the subclass is built will have them, nonetheless.

Combat options aren't completely missing either. Permutations of basic attacks, shove, and grappling exist and there are more of them with a fighter's higher number of attacks. The optional disarm rule increases those permutations. The lingering wounds option favours champions because of the higher critical range and fighter number of attacks.

The design philosophy for ability checks as a standard and open backgrounds and noncombat feats enable noncombat options for every character, including champion fighter's.

[AvatarVecna]

So, what we're saying is that the problem with the Champion is that it's only good in combat?

Sounds like a role playing problem, not a game mechanics problem.

If you play D&D like an MMORPG then I guess this is what happens.

My problem with it (that some people don't consider a problem) is that it's not really any good at anything else. I don't personally like sitting and twiddling my thumbs because my super-powerful champion fighter doesn't have skills relevant to anything other than combat. I like having something to do, whether it's using high skills to accomplish ridiculous things, casting spells to rewrite the laws of the universe in small ways, or even just taking advantage of a random effect that makes me immune to the effects of alcohol for a few days. Every character in existence has the option of "I attack it with my weapon"; my problem with the Champion Fighter is that, all too often, it's their only decent option...even out of combat. Everything else? There's someone better, miles better, and there's not a damn thing the Champion Fighter can do about it.

[AvatarVecna]

The skill system is generally a a bonus to the same actions available whether skillful or not. Skill proficiencies do not add options and instead increase success rates in the same list of options. It's a fallacy to conclude more skill bonuses equals more options.

On top of that, remarkable athlete gives bonuses to a lot of skill checks as specific to champions. Fighters also have bonus feats / ASI's to apply towards non-combat like skill proficiencies or higher ability score bonuses. Any character may have the option to learn proficiencies during downtime and there's an epic boon that grants proficiencies in all skills.

In the long run, bonus proficiencies are of very limited value. Ignoring that, the list of actions still hasn't changed so the assertion of more options for skillful characters is incorrect. It's like saying a rogue doesn't have the option to attack if the fighter can do more damage.

As a result, a champion has many out-of-combat options. They are not all inherent to the subclass but the character from which the subclass is built will have them, nonetheless.

Combat options aren't completely missing either. Permutations of basic attacks, shove, and grappling exist and there are more of them with a fighter's higher number of attacks. The optional disarm rule increases those permutations. The lingering wounds option favours champions because of the higher critical range and fighter number of attacks.

The design philosophy for ability checks as a standard and open backgrounds and noncombat feats enable noncombat options for every character, including champion fighter's.

All of those options are things that every other character has as well, and they're better at them. Remarkable Athlete is only unique because it lets you add a high Str to your long jump twice; the other ability is an inferior version of an ability that every bard got 5 levels ago, and it's only helpful at all if you never bothered trying to be good at those things.

Just because I swing a stick at somebody with reasonable accuracy IRL doesn't mean I'm gonna be anywhere near as good at swinging said stick as a Fighter; hell, I'd be lucky to be as good as the Wizard. Options you're terrible at succeeding at aren't options, they're traps.

EDIT: I will admit that Fighters in general get more feats than other classes, but I would still prefer to play a Battle Master or an Eldritch Knight over a Champion.

[Ardantis]

High DPR, no funny tricks, 4 attacks is great to cast your buffs on.

[AvatarVecna]

It's not a bad archetype, don't get me wrong. It doesn't suck at fighting, it's just seems incredibly boring and limited, even taking all of those things into account. It would take a lot of work to get decent at Option B, and even without trying, I'll always be better at Option A than Option B, and there will always be others that are miles better at Option B than I'll ever be.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

So, what we're saying is that the problem with the Champion is that it's only good in combat?

Sounds like a role playing problem, not a game mechanics problem.

If you play D&D like an MMORPG then I guess this is what happens.

Edit: Just because your character isn't proficient or doesn't have a positive modifier to a skill doesn't mean you should never use it. How else is my barbarian outlander going to get my party into bar fights or fleeing from the royal guard through my poor conversational skills?Pff, it's easy to be bad at things. Don't be one of those special snowflakes who mistake incompetence as a hidden roleplaying class feature. It's nice to have flaws; it's lame to be a one-trick pony who's constantly failing at things that aren't his trick.

RE: Champion is a DPR machine
Champion only has better DPR with a crit-focused build and/or with a DM who is very stingy with short rests. Short rests were designed to be breaks when people, y'know, stopped to eat food and patch up their wounds. The BM tends to do more damage at most levels with a reasonable number of short rests, and that ignores the status effects entirely. If Champion were the straightforward DPR choice for fighters then it would at least have an advantage; as is, its uses are very niche.

[Ashrym]

All of those options are things that every other character has as well, and they're better at them. Remarkable Athlete is only unique because it lets you add a high Str to your long jump twice; the other ability is an inferior version of an ability that every bard got 5 levels ago, and it's only helpful at all if you never bothered trying to be good at those things.

Just because I swing a stick at somebody with reasonable accuracy IRL doesn't mean I'm gonna be anywhere near as good at swinging said stick as a Fighter; hell, I'd be lucky to be as good as the Wizard. Options you're terrible at succeeding at aren't options, they're traps.

EDIT: I will admit that Fighters in general get more feats than other classes, but I would still prefer to play a Battle Master or an Eldritch Knight over a Champion.

All characters having those options is why champions have options.

It's correct to say the champion subclass doesn't possess much for non-combat options because the there really is little in the subclass for that. It's incorrect to state the character doesn't have non-combat options after choosing the champion subclass because the character has those options from other sources. What they don't have is a more unique non-combat ability not found elsewhere but they do have noncombat options.

I can make a human fighter who goes champion who took variant human and the healer feat at 1st level, urchin background, DEX build, archery fighting style, and actively quests for a flying mount if I choose, then take a non-combat feat at 4th or 6th level. A feat such as ritual caster. The champion subclass has had very little impact in restricting access to non-combat options as I scout, heal, and cover some extra utility. I can have combat ability and noncombat options on the character regardless of the subclass while remarkable athlete is better than knowing your enemy, a 2nd fighting style gives me a backup melee option, and survivor is worth the weight.

There can be a lot of options by choosing to build for them. Alternatively, a player who wants simpler can build more simply or one who was more incombat decision points would choose another class or subclass. That's why the subclass is good -- it provides a specific style that was widely requested during the playtest but doesn't force that style on players.


A bit more than my 2cp ;-)

[Easy_Lee]

Would like to add that there are a lot of things one can do in a given situation without a single ability on one's character sheet, and that the champion is exceptionally good at doing at least half of them. Break something, bend a bar, climb something, go hide and wait (minimum half proficiency), listen closely, look around, throw somebody, the list goes on and on.

[CNagy]

Honestly, Survivor never really appealed to me. It's a 5-10 (but realistically 10) HP heal at the start of your turns when you are at half HP or lower, and sure--that's nice. But it is literally an in battle ability (as written, it does not occur outside of battle) and most of the healing in my experience (and thus the place where most casting resources would be saved) is out of combat. Survivor feels like one of those abilities that in the right circumstances can heal you just enough to let you weather another hit or two, which might be just enough to get the job done.

Because I prefer RAW/explicit RAI over house rules, though, I think less about how the Champion is "underpowered" or "boring" and more about how it is a pretty cool chassis to build a multiclass character concept on. The simplicity of Champion means that you are a hyper-competent combatant whose most visible characteristics are some other class. Level splits of 11/9 to 15/5 provide for interesting character build concepts with most classes, without significantly impacting your ability to do what a fighter is supposed to do and every build has 5 or 6 ASIs.

[goto124]

Lack of options.

Isn't that the point? It's for people playing DnD (or even tabletops in general) for the first time.

It's boring. It's supposed to be!

That said, I'm about to start my first 5e campaign (which would be also my first time playing a tabletop game, ever), and a lot of the words and numbers here don't make sense to me.

How much of them do I actually need to know to play?

*looks at Survivor* What sort of newbie will reach level 18 anyway? Heck, what are the chances of reaching level 15 or 10?

[Jamesps]

It's not a bad archetype, don't get me wrong. It doesn't suck at fighting, it's just seems incredibly boring and limited, even taking all of those things into account. It would take a lot of work to get decent at Option B, and even without trying, I'll always be better at Option A than Option B, and there will always be others that are miles better at Option B than I'll ever be.

The Champion fighter can do everything a normal person can do in real life just fine. There are plenty of real life people that aren't boring, so you can play a Champion that acts like one of them.

Arguably the champion can actually help you play an interesting character because they have all the same flaws that normal people have (except for being able to beat butt in combat).

Personally I'd argue you've got it exactly backwards as far as your role-playing comment. The Champion isn't for people that want to roll play. It's for people that have little to no interest in the tactical aspect (and by extension, probably combat) at all and just want to play a character that's kinda like what they're familiar with: Just a guy/gal that's kinda kickass.

[Grek]

What would fix Champions:

"Whenever you gain an Ability Score Improvement from this class, you take a feat and an increase to ability scores instead of one or the other. This does not affect Ability Score Improvements from other classes."

Suddenly you have all of these increased options out of nowhere.

[TheOOB]

The Champion is fine, just boring.

It's good, essential even, that there is an archetype that doesn't add any more choices to the character build. Casual gamers need easy character options, and the Champion fits that bill. You can't give the Champion any really huge bonuses or good abilities, because then people who do want a more complicated/interesting fighter would feel like they have to pick the "boring" Champion to be good.

Thus the Champion needs to be simple, effective, but not especially great. It's all three of those things.

[Brendanicus]

While I personally don't think that Champion is underpowered, it's obvious that it isn't horrible compared to BM and EK.

Also, I think it's pretty obvious that the Champion was designed with new players in mind. All of ts abilities are passive until level 18 for a reason.

If you are on this forum, chances are that you are experienced roleplayers, in which case this class isn't underpowered, it's just not made with you in mind.

[pwykersotz]

It's funny that I'm arguing for the Champion, because I'm one of those people who won't ever play one due to perceived boring-ness.

I played a Champion. I rocked combat. And I was also incredibly useful out of combat because I'm creative and I can play the game. But I'm a fiddler. I like to play with unintuitive combinations of game mechanics and spells are an open bar for me.

That said, they are awesomely powerful and several of my friends who do not feel the need to fiddle swear by them. Especially once that third attack comes online, I've had three people swear that champions are almost broken compared to other classes/subclasses because they outstrip their damage by so much. (Note, these friends are not statistics majors, they just play their own game).

But yeah, not underpowered, and it should not be perceived that way. You just lack discrete "moves" compared to other classes.

[Hawkstar]

For some people, being able to do everything The Guy At The Gym can do provides more than enough options that they don't need EK's spells or BM's maneuvers. Champion's abilities let them do things The Guy At the Gym can do even better, without cluttering up the character sheet the way EKs and BMs do.

And, they're the best class at being The Guy At the Gym because, even though any other class can do the exact same stuff...
1. The fighter can invest his stats where he wants them (Generally Strength->Constitution->Dexterity). Casters have to tie theirs up in Mental Stats, reducing their STR/CON/DEX potential. Even the EK ties up INT.
2. The fighter has some of the greatest individual survivability with his Good HD, Second Wind, Indomitable (Though that ability's mostly a joke. I feel it should be per Short Rest, like all other fighter abilities), and Heavy Armor Proficiency (And the STR to use it without penalty).
3. The Fighter gets the most feats and Ability Score increases to diversify and improve his capabilities.

The rogue is the only other class that is as good at being the Guy at the Gym, but it lacks the hit points and armor class of the fighter.

[DDogwood]

I agree with everyone who said it's not underpowered, just simple.

That makes it uninteresting to people who want to have lots of mechanical options, but it's not designed for those people. It's designed for players who don't want to have to learn a lot of rules, or for people who prefer an old-school play style where the stuff you can do is based more on the player's creativity than the PC's special abilities.

I've played with plenty of people who don't want to read a ton of rules to play D&D, and the Champion fighter is great for them. Also, some DMs still require players to be a little more creative than looking for special abilities on their character sheets.

[LordVonDerp]

I'm curious to hear this. Some say it has the best DPR and others say it's so bad it needs massive buffs.

I'd love to see some comprehensive analysis of its mechanical power, as I haven't been able to find any through search engines.

It has less damage than the battle master
(Assuming half orc great weapon champion w/advantage on every attack vs similar battle master). That's the best possible conditions for champion and he still can't keep up.

It has less versatility than the battle master.


About the only thing it has going for it is the ability to keep fighting long after everyone else has to stop, the usefulness of which is at best questionable because, again, everyone else has to stop. So if you wish to excel in a situation that everyone else will actively avoid then champion is a great choice.

[LordVonDerp]

What would fix 5e Feats:

"Whenever you gain an Ability Score Improvement from any class, you take a feat and an increase to ability scores instead of one or the other."

Suddenly you have all of these increased options out of nowhere.
Much better.

[Easy_Lee]

It has less damage than the battle master
(Assuming half orc great weapon champion w/advantage on every attack vs similar battle master). That's the best possible conditions for champion and he still can't keep up.

It has less versatility than the battle master.


About the only thing it has going for it is the ability to keep fighting long after everyone else has to stop, the usefulness of which is at best questionable because, again, everyone else has to stop. So if you wish to excel in a situation that everyone else will actively avoid then champion is a great choice.

Less damage in the short run, not in the long term. This is demonstrably true; I don't know why people keep saying that the battle master does better damage.

[Grek]

Because the short term in this case is like three combats.

[Easy_Lee]

Because the short term in this case is like three combats.

At what level, and how long are these combats? Like I said, I've seen people say this but no one ever gives concrete numbers or examples, let alone stories from actual game play. All of the actual stories I've heard and seen show champions being fine.

[Ardantis]

There are some graphs out there... Who has the graphs?

[Grek]

I laid out the math for level 3 back on page one. Let me do it again for level 15 on this page:

At level 15, Our hypothetical Strength 20 Greataxe wielding fighter makes three +10 2d6+5 attacks on a usual round and three more with an Action Surge. According to a brief survey of the Monster Manual, the most common AC for Challenge 15 monsters is 19. That translates to:

Default Damage:
35% miss, 60% hit, 05% crit.
0.65 * 12 = 7.8 per attack

Damage with Improved Critical:
35% miss, 50% hit, 15% crit.
0.75 * 12 = 9.0 per attack

Difference:
9.0 - 7.8 = 1.2 average extra damage from Improved Critical.

Superiority Dice used to Precision Attack:
5.5 average damage each

Attacks until Improved Critical > One Superiority Die:
5.5 / 1.2 = 4.5833

Rounds until Improved Critical > One Superiority Die:

6 / 4.5833 = 1.309

Rounds Until the First Six are Matched:
6 * 5.5 * 4.5833 / 3 = 50.4166

For about the first 50 combat rounds after a short rest, and for about the first four attacks of every combat after that, the Battlemaster is doing more damage than the Champion. That means that for the Champion to do more damage "in the long term", "the long term" needs to be something like 10 five-round combats between each short rest. 20 five-round combats, if you want the Battlemaster and Champion to have equal "face time" where the Battlemaster shines for the first half and the Champion shines for the second half. That's what "the long term" means at level 15 for the Champion. It's just not realistic. You're never going to do that in a real game. You're probably never going to do even 30 full rounds of combat in a single session. It will get late and people will want to go to bed before you finish.

Now, it might not feel that way, since the Champion's crits are spread all through the session, while the Battlemaster's are all front-loaded. I can definitely see how someone might not notice the Champion underperforming without looking at the math. But the actual truth is that if you go Battlemaster instead of Champion, you will do more damage and kill monsters faster than if you do the opposite of that.

If you want graphs, I can do graphs. But I didn't make any.

[Easy_Lee]

You missed something fairly important Grek, which is that the champion critting more often will lead to more bonus attacks from GWM. Further, if he's using a great axe, he'd have to be a half-orc to justify that. So he has a 10% greater chance to get crit damage and an additional attack, which in turn might crit.

0.1*(3d12+5+0.15(2d12))=2.645 additional damage per attack, if you want to state it that way.

Or, if you want to consider the bonus attack separately, we can say that the champion has a 1-(0.85)^3=38.6% chance of critting once in three attacks with no advantage. The normal fighter has a 14.2% chance of critting with three normal attacks, 24.4% less.

So the added damage is 0.3(2d12) + 0.24(1d12+5+0.15(2d12)) = 7.128 damage added per round, assuming I got all of that math right doing it in my head on my phone.

And that completely ignores the bonus fighting style and remarkable athlete. So I'm calling BS on the 50 rounds thing.

[MrStabby]

I laid out the math for level 3 back on page one. Let me do it again for level 15 on this page:

At level 15, Our hypothetical Strength 20 Greataxe wielding fighter makes three +10 2d6+5 attacks on a usual round and three more with an Action Surge. According to a brief survey of the Monster Manual, the most common AC for Challenge 15 monsters is 19. That translates to:

Default Damage:
35% miss, 60% hit, 05% crit.
0.65 * 12 = 7.8 per attack

Damage with Improved Critical:
35% miss, 50% hit, 15% crit.
0.75 * 12 = 9.0 per attack

Difference:
9.0 - 7.8 = 1.2 average extra damage from Improved Critical.

Superiority Dice used to Precision Attack:
5.5 average damage each

Attacks until Improved Critical > One Superiority Die:
5.5 / 1.2 = 4.5833

Rounds until Improved Critical > One Superiority Die:

6 / 4.5833 = 1.309

Rounds Until the First Six are Matched:
6 * 5.5 * 4.5833 / 3 = 50.4166

For about the first 50 combat rounds after a short rest, and for about the first four attacks of every combat after that, the Battlemaster is doing more damage than the Champion. That means that for the Champion to do more damage "in the long term", "the long term" needs to be something like 10 five-round combats between each short rest. 20 five-round combats, if you want the Battlemaster and Champion to have equal "face time" where the Battlemaster shines for the first half and the Champion shines for the second half. That's what "the long term" means at level 15 for the Champion. It's just not realistic. You're never going to do that in a real game. You're probably never going to do even 30 full rounds of combat in a single session. It will get late and people will want to go to bed before you finish.

Now, it might not feel that way, since the Champion's crits are spread all through the session, while the Battlemaster's are all front-loaded. I can definitely see how someone might not notice the Champion underperforming without looking at the math. But the actual truth is that if you go Battlemaster instead of Champion, you will do more damage and kill monsters faster than if you do the opposite of that.

If you want graphs, I can do graphs. But I didn't make any.


I think the Champion should be 0.8*12 not 0.75...

Also I think it is worth noting that this is assuming no advantage, no Orc racial crit ability or other things. Not that this is unreasonable but it should be noted the champion can edge out ahead of the maths here.

One other thing is this assumes 4 attacks per round. Between bonus actions and reaction I would expect the number to be on average close to 4.5 attacks per round.



Personally I dont like the champion for a single class character but for crazy multiclass type things he is pretty fun - just make sure you get enough fun abilities to use on your other classes.

[Malifice]

You missed something fairly important Grek, which is that the champion critting more often will lead to more bonus attacks from GWM. Further, if he's using a great axe, he'd have to be a half-orc to justify that. So he has a 10% greater chance to get crit damage and an additional attack, which in turn might crit.

0.1*(3d12+5+0.15(2d12))=2.645 additional damage per attack, if you want to state it that way.

Or, if you want to consider the bonus attack separately, we can say that the champion has a 1-(0.85)^3=38.6% chance of critting once in three attacks with no advantage. The normal fighter has a 14.2% chance of critting with three normal attacks, 24.4% less.

So the added damage is 0.3(2d12) + 0.24(1d12+5+0.15(2d12)) = 7.128 damage added per round, assuming I got all of that math right doing it in my head on my phone.

And that completely ignores the bonus fighting style and remarkable athlete. So I'm calling BS on the 50 rounds thing.

My thoughts exactly. Im looking at the numbers now.

And spot on re remarkable athlete and extra fighting style. The Champ is rocking an extra +1 AC and +2 initiative over the BM.

Edit: I've run the numbers and the GWM/ GWF BM Fighter is perfectly balanced against the Champion at 15th level.

Vs AC 20, the (half orc, Str 20, great axe, GWM/F) Battlemaster Fighter deals 22.93575 damage per attack with superiority dice expenditure (spamming precise strike to turn 5.5/20 misses into hits, and burning menacing strike when he does hit for an extra +6.3 to damage). He deals 7.515 average damage per attack without superiority dice expenditure.

The Champion deals 8.982 damage per attack.

Action surge strike (6 attacks + 5 dice +6/20 of bonus attack) = around 128 damage for the BM. The Champion deals around 61 points of damage on average with an action surge.

After that round, theyre chugging along at around 23 DPR for the BM, and around 31 DPR for the Champion. 8 rounds later the Champion catches up, and after 8 rounds is on pulls away for total damage outpout.

Ultimately I place them on par. The BM is capable of a better Nova strike, but the Champion gets better after 9 rounds of combat.

Intrestingly, the BM's DPR goes up (from a baseline of 14.994) when he triggers GWM feat for the -5/+10 damage. This is due to the interplay between precise strike turning rolls of 9.5 to 14 into hits, and menacing attack adding even more damage on ones that hit anyway. The Champions average expected damage with GWM feat 'on' actually goes down.

The above numbers dont also reflect the fact that the BM GWM fighter has a much easier source of advantage (menacing and tripping attacks). If you factor advantage into those numbers, they skew it more in favor towards the BM, probably taking the Champion anywhere up to 20 rounds to 'catch up'

[Easy_Lee]

So the Battlemasters is making up 7 DPR over many rounds with just six superiority die? I dunno, I'm just not buying it. I'd rather have the consistent bonus crits, the extra fighting style, and remarkable athlete that come with champion, unless I wanted to use a polearm.

[Malifice]

So the Battlemasters is making up 7 DPR over many rounds with just six superiority die? I dunno, I'm just not buying it. I'd rather have the consistent bonus crits, the extra fighting style, and remarkable athlete that come with champion, unless I wanted to use a polearm.

Those superiority dice add a lot of damage to the DPR of the GWM battlemaster. Precise strike allows 5.5 attacks that would normally be misses to hit, and for the ones that would hit anyway he gets to add menacining or tripping for an extra +6.3 damage from the d10.

The half orc/ greataxe BM 15's expected Nova strike/ Action surge/ 5 dice/ 6 attacks vs AC 20 deals around 128 damage on average. The same Fighter as a Champion only deals 61 points of damage on average.

After that though, the Champion averages around 8 DPR more than the BM, and finally catches up with sustained DPR at around about the 9 combat round mark (which is generally where the BM will be taking a short rest).

Every combat round after 9 rounds, the Champion pulls further away.

Theyre remarkably balanced. I tip my hat to the Wizards maths guy.

[Easy_Lee]

Those superiority dice add a lot of damage to the DPR of the GWM battlemaster. Precise strike allows 5.5 attacks that would normally be misses to hit, and for the ones that would hit anyway he gets to add menacining or tripping for an extra +6.3 damage from the d10.

The half orc/ greataxe BM 15's expected Nova strike/ Action surge/ 5 dice/ 6 attacks vs AC 20 deals around 128 damage on average. The same Fighter as a Champion only deals 61 points of damage on average.

After that though, the Champion averages around 8 DPR more than the BM, and finally catches up with sustained DPR at around about the 9 combat round mark (which is generally where the BM will be taking a short rest).

Every combat round after 9 rounds, the Champion pulls further away.

Theyre remarkably balanced. I tip my hat to the Wizards maths guy.

That seems reasonable, then. I will say that I think BM fits a bit better into the standard party. If it's me trying to be a team player, I'm taking BM, Sentinel, and polearm mastery, using commanding strike on the rogue whenever applicable, and tripping at every convenience. But if it's me just trying to beastmode the mobs and not give a crap, Champion 11 / Totem Barbarian is probably my choice.

[Malifice]

That seems reasonable, then. I will say that I think BM fits a bit better into the standard party. If it's me trying to be a team player, I'm taking BM, Sentinel, and polearm mastery, using commanding strike on the rogue whenever applicable, and tripping at every convenience. But if it's me just trying to beastmode the mobs and not give a crap, Champion 11 / Totem Barbarian is probably my choice.

Yeah, the numbers are pretty amazing. Wizards did a great job here.

The Champ spits out an average of 8 better DPR than the BM (without superiorrity dice). With dice in the picture, the BM is way above the Champ (for those 5 attacks anyways). After around 9 rounds, the Champ hops into front place and doesnt look back.

If you stick to the 2-3 enounters per short rest paradigm (and experience tells me that most encounters are over in 3-4 rounds) you probably get around 10 rounds between short rests (on average). The two archetypes really balance almost perfectly.

On single encounter/ 5 minute adventuring days (or if you have a permissive DM that lets you short rest at will) the BM is miles in front. For longer slogs without short rests to break it up, the Champion is the clear winner.

For standard pacing, theyre pretty much dead even (DPR wise spread among 10 rounds per short rest).

You could make a pretty good argument that different feats work better on the two archetypes. Its counter intuitive, but GWM works better on the BM than it does on the Champion (despite the higher crit range to trigger the extra attack, the BM lands the -5/+10 hits far more often). Shield master works better with a Champion (as they lack a source of advantage that the BM can gain with ease via manouvers). Advantage on a champion (especially a half orc one) coupled with the higher crit range, spikes the Champs DPR pver 10 rounds considerably more than the BM.

[CantigThimble]

So, the impression I'm getting is that a GWM half-Orc can compete with a battlemaster. The implication being that any other race/weapon is probably better off as a battlemaster, does that seem accurate?

[Easy_Lee]

So, the impression I'm getting is that a GWM half-Orc can compete with a battlemaster. The implication being that any other race/weapon is probably better off as a battlemaster, does that seem accurate?

For damage, likely. But remarkable athlete, extra fighting style, better jumps, and survivor are all beneficial to the champion without directly adding damage. Battle maste is all about effects which enhance damage in some way; its other features are lacking.

[Ashrym]

So, the impression I'm getting is that a GWM half-Orc can compete with a battlemaster. The implication being that any other race/weapon is probably better off as a battlemaster, does that seem accurate?

No. Variant human bonus feat is a strong option for any subclass, including champion. 2d6 from a big sword also works better with the great weapon fighting style.

The comparison is focused on damage instead of total package and can be misleading as well.

[Malifice]

No. Variant human bonus feat is a strong option for any subclass, including champion. 2d6 from a big sword also works better with the great weapon fighting style.

The comparison is focused on damage instead of total package and can be misleading as well.

Exactly. It was just damage. The Champions big draw is its expanded crit range, and the Half orc gets that bonus damage on a crit. I was looking at optimal characters. All other things being equal and (for pure DPR) the half orc battlemaster is also the optimal choice.

The DPR averages out between the two archetypes at around the 10 combat round/ 2.5 encounter mark (when you can expect a short rest anyways per standard encounter pacing).

The BM gains the enemy ID ability, some artisans tools and a few more tricks he can pull (parry, riposte, adding dice to AC when moving) that could be sitationally useful. His main advantage is stronger Nova strike as an option when needed (as opposed to the Champions longer range fuel tanks, and ease of use).

The champion gets the extra fighting style (likely +1 AC), better initiative score and is less short rest reliant than the standard Fighter (his action surges are less Nova, his sustained DPR is better than the BM's and at very high level he no longer needs to worry about short rests to expend HD or recharge second wind with his regen ability).

When you break them down on maths theyre remarkably close, If you want the option of a bigger nova (and have the skill to pull it off) and dont mind being slightly subpar for an enounter or two, BM is your choice. If you want to chug along at slightly higher efficiency in terms of initiative, AC and DPR, then Champion is for you. If your DM is a short rest Nazi and you still want to play a Fighter then stick with the Champion and laugh all the way to the bank. If your DM is permissive enough to allow short rests at will, then stick with the BM and dont look back.

[Gwendol]

Nicely laid out comparison! The champion is solid and hard not to succeed with which I'm sure is intentional.

[LordVonDerp]

Less damage in the short run, not in the long term. This is demonstrably true; I don't know why people keep saying that the battle master does better damage.

Demonstrably true?


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.

evidently not.

BM damage is more consistent, can be targeted at priority targets (ie spellcasters), and is (under realistic conditions) higher. Eventually the champion will outpace the battlemaster, but by that point the rest of your team will need to rest, making it a largely moot point.

[Troacctid]

It's the level 7 ability that really turns me off of the Champion. It just doesn't do anything. A bonus to Athletics would be great--it's a very useful skill, especially for a Fighter, and it would make the Champion better at shoving and grappling and whatnot--except that despite being called "Remarkable Athlete" it does nothing at all to improve your Athletics, unless you're not proficient for some unfathomable reason, in which case you get half your proficiency bonus now, so...yay?

The ability is so lame, it feels like a totally dead level. I am not a fan. The increased crit range is a little boring, and generally worse than the Battle Master ability to say "I think I'll make this next attack deal extra damage, because I said so," but it's something, and it can be fun. The extra combat style is great. But that level 7 ability is just the worst. That's what I'm supposed to look forward to? What a ripoff.

[Easy_Lee]

Just wanted to clarify something: critical hits from champions are automatic hits. Crawford confirmed that this is intentional in a tweet. Even if they weren't intended that way, an 18+ is going to hit in all but the most extreme case anyway.

[Grek]

I stand corrected. I hadn't considered Half-Orc's racial ability here. It really, really synergizes with Champion. Bravo, Easy_Lee, I am now convinced.

[Easy_Lee]

I stand corrected. I hadn't considered Half-Orc's racial ability here. It really, really synergizes with Champion. Bravo, Easy_Lee, I am now convinced.

Thanks. It's also possible to find synergy with the barbarian crit ability, if anyone is interested in a multiclass, although it's impossible to get everything. Champion 11/barbarian 9 would probably be the most reasonable split.

[Theodoxus]

Thanks. It's also possible to find synergy with the barbarian crit ability, if anyone is interested in a multiclass, although it's impossible to get everything. Champion 11/barbarian 9 would probably be the most reasonable split.

Was going to mention this - although depending on your love/like/indifference/dislike or hate of Remarkable Athlete, Fighter 6/Barbarian 14 might be the better route.

I was curious though, if Champion/Frenzy made a better MC than Champion/Totem. Especially if you're going for more Champion levels; fewer Rages in general would mean less temptation to push for >1 Frenzy per long rest. Since I'm of the view that Frenzy is the worse of the two paths (despite the threads dedicated to the opposite) - anything that RAW helps improve my view of the path (since I don't have much sway in generating homebrew ideas in games I play) is ideal.

This is specifically for a Half-Orc, GWM character. I realize that different races have different strengths for a build like this - but this is basically a crit fishing power build.

[Easy_Lee]

The barbarian 15 is a bit better than the extra feat, so if not going for extra attack 3 at fighter 11, I would go 5 barb / 4 champion / 16 barb. That gives you the extra crit chance which works very nicely with a total of three different crit boosts (one from half-orc, two from barb), rerolling 1's and 2's from fighter, and near full barb progression. Frenzy would work, though I'd be worried about killing myself, and would rather go totem to just attack recklessly all the time and not GAF.

Barb 20 is arguably better in the long run, but this build would be fully online by 8 and would only grow from there.

[MrStabby]

Champion actually offers a decent amount for other multiclasses as well. I am not saying these are the best builds out there but it is viable to mix some of these. Mainly Champion Rogue or Champion Paladin with Possible Barbarian.

The aim as always is to get critical hits but to select as often as possible for your extra damage from smites or from sneak attacks to fall where they do double damage. Barbarian for advantage without losing attacks. With 3 attacks and advantage you have almost a 50% chance of a critical and under most circumstances saving things like sneak attack dice for the final attack is pretty safe. If you add in a source of bonus action attack things get better still. Probably something like Champion 11, Rogue 5, Barbarian 2 would be the basis of the build.

So ignoring probability of missing (which with maxed str/dex and advantage shouldn't be an issue) this will expect to do about 46.5 damage per round without using any resources. If you use something like twf for an extra attack this goes up to 57.8 per round (not including any reactions). If you add half Orc as a race on top of this it goes up to 61.2 damage per round. Take it up to lvl 20 by adding more rogue and you are on 66.7 dpr. Now this isnt the greatest but when you consider that you get rage, unarmored defense, Danger sense, an extra fighting style, remarkable athlete, action surge, cunning action, uncanny dodge and a roguish archetype and it becomes a pretty versatile character (actually any of the rogue archetypes could be fun - epic jumping, supporting cantrips or assassinate so you can be good at both burst and sustained DPR.)

[ChubbyRain]

Hmmm...

Fighter 4 (Champion)/Ranger 12 (hunter)/Barbarian 4 (totem)

Crit: 19-20

2d6+5 (str) + reroll 1&2 + 2 (rage) + 10 (great weapon master)

Whirlwind with that, you take a -5 to attack but you reckless attack due to being a barbarian (advantage)

Action Surge: Whirlwind again or Attack + Extra Attack.

8 attack rolls with advantage
8 attack rolls with advantage OR 2 attack rolls with advantage (not sure if whirlwind is 1/turn)

Seems like with 19-20/crit range that one would crit at last once. Bring the hordes on.

Edit

To hit would be 2d20 (best) + 5 (str) + 6 (prof) - 5 (great weapon master) = 2d20 + 6 (this is without bless, bardic inspiration, wild mage ability, or any other things you will probably have helping your attack roll).

ACs aren't typically that high sooo not to bad.

[CantigThimble]

Well, rogues really get a lot more from riposte and precise strike? (The advantage one, whatever it's called) than improved critical. Paladin with 3-4 levels splashed for crits seems viable though.

[SharkForce]

Well, rogues really get a lot more from riposte and precise strike? (The advantage one, whatever it's called) than improved critical. Paladin with 3-4 levels splashed for crits seems viable though.

depends a lot on who else you have in the party. if you have a bard (level 1 spell that makes enemies provoke opportunity attacks) or a battlemaster (can give off-turn attacks to other players), you've already got your off-turn attack, and advantage on melee attacks isn't that hard to get with a bit of team coordination.

[GraakosGraakos]

Wouldn't a Half Orc Barbarian/Champion fighter do really well? You'd sort of be the ultimate tank, and with your Reckless Attack, GWF, GW Mastery, and the Improved Crit you'd be a critting damage machine.

[Vogonjeltz]

The general problem people have with the Champion is rather simple: it's got no options...or rather, it gives you no options on top of what every character always generally has.

In a non-combat scenario, casters generally have utility spells that can be employed, skillful characters have at least one relevant skill, and combat-focused characters twiddle their thumbs unless the few skills they have are both relevant to what's going on and high enough that they're the best at that skill in the party. In a combat scenario, casters generally have spells for defending and attacking, skillful characters have ways of hitting the enemy where they hurt, and combat-focused characters can attack the enemy.

The champion's strength is also it's weakness: it's simple. For some people, having "I attack it with my weapon" is the only solution they need to a problem, and they're fine not having anything to do when that's not an appropriate solution. I can't speak for anyone else, but if my character's participation in a fight can be replaced with a flow chart like the one below, I'm going to despise that character for taking away my ability to do anything other than attack.

The bonus to all strength, dexterity, and constitution checks is pretty great, that's an up to +3 bonus on, at the very least, the 19 tasks mentioned in the PHB. Of course, it also applies to everything that constitutes one of those checks, so basically if you're doing something physical, you're getting a bonus. That's quite powerful considering that most any activity is inherently physical.

If you don't take the virtually unlimited universe of things a character can do, then the Champion looks pretty sparse. 5th edition D&D Roleplaying encompasses far more than what is written in the book however. Skills only cover a tiny subset of possible actions.

[ChubbyRain]

The bonus to all strength, dexterity, and constitution checks is pretty great, that's an up to +3 bonus on, at the very least, the 19 tasks mentioned in the PHB. Of course, it also applies to everything that constitutes one of those checks, so basically if you're doing something physical, you're getting a bonus. That's quite powerful considering that most any activity is inherently physical.

If you don't take the virtually unlimited universe of things a character can do, then the Champion looks pretty sparse. 5th edition D&D Roleplaying encompasses far more than what is written in the book however. Skills only cover a tiny subset of possible actions.

Issue.

You have no clue what a DM will or will not allow you to do with an physical ability checks.

This is the swingiest part of the fighter as you may be able to do a lot, some, or almost nothing at all. You have no context as to what your DC 10 str check will give you. That +3 might as well be a +0 or a +2000.

I've seen way to many DMs side on "if it isn't magic then it is hard/not special".

This ability is crap because it doesn't actually let you know what you can do with it.

Also it only applies to checks in which you aren't proficient with... So yeah it isn't all that great.

Remarkable Athlete is a pathetic class feature.

There are three types of rolls.

Ability checks (initiative, skills, ability score)
Attack rolls
Saving throws

Remarkable athlete applies to Str Dex and Con checks.

Initiative will always gain the bonus, and that's good. Should take Alert with this to make it awesome. Then a fighter will typically be trained in Athletics or Acrobatics.

This leaves Con Checks (holding breath? Forced March? Or are these saving throws?), Sleight of Hand, Stealth, and Athletics or Acrobatics.

Any battle check that calls for acrobatics can typically be covered by athletics so that will go unuse for the simple Str fighter. Con saves are more common than con checks so that won't be all that great. And the simple str fighter has no need to be doing any acrobatic, slight of hand, or stealthing.

Compare this class feature to any other class feature of comparable level and tell me it is worth it. So level 5 - level 9. Name one other class feature that is less useful than this...

Maybe the druid has one? But they also gain spells sooo... Yeah no.

[MeeposFire]

I kind of like the idea of making the boost to ability checks equal to your proficiency bonus and possibly allowing you to apply double bonus athletics if you take it as one of your trained skills (and perhaps other skills too but that requires some more thought).


It keeps things very simple but also lets you use your skills to try all sorts of activities to keep you versatile sort of like how the rogue is.

I also want to bring back the 1e and 2e fighter's strength in general saving throws with the champion but that is for another thread.

[ChubbyRain]

I kind of like the idea of making the boost to ability checks equal to your proficiency bonus and possibly allowing you to apply double bonus athletics if you take it as one of your trained skills (and perhaps other skills too but that requires some more thought).


It keeps things very simple but also lets you use your skills to try all sorts of activities to keep you versatile sort of like how the rogue is.

I also want to bring back the 1e and 2e fighter's strength in general saving throws with the champion but that is for another thread.

Expertise in Athletics, Acrobatics, and Con Checks would have worked nicely.

It isn't like the rogue can't do 2 of those 3 things already.

Allowing Indomitable to be a Con Save on the reroll also helps a lot. There was a 3e feat that let you apply Con Mod to Will Saves (or just replace Wis Mod) so there is precedent.

[Hawkstar]

Expertise in Athletics, Acrobatics, and Con Checks would have worked nicely.

It isn't like the rogue can't do 2 of those 3 things already.

Allowing Indomitable to be a Con Save on the reroll also helps a lot. There was a 3e feat that let you apply Con Mod to Will Saves (or just replace Wis Mod) so there is precedent.I'd rather not have had outright Expertise, but just having that half-proficiency apply to all STR/CON/DEX checks and saves (but not attack rolls), regardless of proficiency (So, half-again proficiency on those you're already proficient with). Broader but weaker than Expertise.

[ChubbyRain]

I'd rather not have had outright Expertise, but just having that half-proficiency apply to all STR/CON/DEX checks and saves (but not attack rolls), regardless of proficiency (So, half-again proficiency on those you're already proficient with). Broader but weaker than Expertise.

When the system already has expertise there is no reason not to give it to other noncasters.

As it is now, a Str based fighter (5 + 6 prof = +11) is just as good as a Rogue who has completely dumped strength (6*2 = 12 - 1 str = 11) in athletics.

Adding half prof to the fighter (14 athletics) is lie a rogue having a 14 in strength... Gaining a 14 is pretty easy for a rogue.

The skill system is messed up yes, but it is all we have, so you might as well hand the fighter something that makes him awesome.

[Cazero]

Can a rogue take expertise in drinking contest? Thumb-wrestling? Abs-flexing?

And what about battle checks that don't really match a skill? How can you associate all of trip, shove, pin and disarm under athletics without turning it into a proficiency tax for martials?

But what baffles me the most is that people claim the battlemaster is superior. Everything the battlemaster can do, the champion does better with that bonus. He have to waste an attack when doing so, big deal ! More attacks is the fighter stick.

And don't get me started on that ridiculous assumption that battles last no more than 3 rounds. Or that you can always afford to rest whenever you choose so. Having a champion fighter at top efficiency when everyone else is out of everything is an asset, not a drawback.

[Troacctid]

And what about battle checks that don't really match a skill? How can you associate all of trip, shove, pin and disarm under athletics without turning it into a proficiency tax for martials?

By reading the rulebooks, which say that all of those things are Athletics checks (except Disarm, which is an attack roll)? Is this a trick question?

[ChubbyRain]

Can a rogue take expertise in drinking contest? Thumb-wrestling? Abs-flexing?

And what about battle checks that don't really match a skill? How can you associate all of trip, shove, pin and disarm under athletics without turning it into a proficiency tax for martials?


No one can, but that sounds more like a Con Save versus Poison. Athletics (Strength) for thumb wrestling. Athletics (Charisma) for flexing muscles.

All of the battle checks you describe goes under Athletics. To defend against them you use Athletics or Acrobatics. It really is that damn simple.

The reason people are OK with this tax is because athletics and acrobatics (pick one or the other typically) is one skill whereas other ability score skills at broken up into multiple skills.

I much preferred it when classes gave you their main skill and then you picked from a group of skills. Every class in order to be a typical member of that class has their own skill tax. Clerics have Religion, Wizards have Arcana, and Fighters have Athletics or Acrobatics.

[Sindeloke]

Expertise in Athletics, Acrobatics, and Con Checks would have worked nicely.

It isn't like the rogue can't do 2 of those 3 things already.

Allowing Indomitable to be a Con Save on the reroll also helps a lot. There was a 3e feat that let you apply Con Mod to Will Saves (or just replace Wis Mod) so there is precedent.

I've actually added most of those things to the base fighter. At level 3 they get expertise in either Athletics or Acrobatics (they have to be proficient, but they get Athletics proficiency free at level 1 anyway). Indomitable is a Con reroll. They also get free proficiency in an artisan tool related to their combat tools of choice (smithing, woodworking, fletching) at level 1. It's been working quite well so far.

[Cazero]

So my examples were all wrong because I lacked creativity, but actually it doesn't undermine the point.

Fact : there are ability checks for wich it is impossible to be proficient. Fact : the champion fighter still has half proficiency bonus on every physical ones. Fact : no other class/archetype does. Fact : the champion fighter is the best for those checks. Fact : you might be able to solve a life or death situation with one of those checks. Fact : the remarkable athlete class feature is a valuable asset for a group.

[meltodowno]

Fact : there are ability checks for wich it is impossible to be proficient. Fact : the champion fighter still has half proficiency bonus on every physical ones. Fact : no other class/archetype does. Fact : the champion fighter is the best for those checks. Fact : you might be able to solve a life or death situation with one of those checks. Fact : the remarkable athlete class feature is a valuable asset for a group.

Whilst I'm relatively pro-champion ... you argument here is full of holes, especially when you start claiming facts that are anything but.

- The champion doesn't tend to be the best for those checks .... the one with the highest modifier does. Con is often the Barbarian, and Dex often the rogue/ranger.

- Just because there is conceivably (though I can't see one myself) a reason why that may one day give you the tiny boost to pass a life or death check on an unrollable skill (though if your GM is hinging life or death on unrollable skills, I'd argue your game has bigger problems) .... that does not mark the remarkable athlete a valuable asset to the group. A valuable asset is placing less strain on the healing resources. A valuable asset is putting out reliable damage all day long. An extremely stretched chance of an extremely unlikely circumstance does not make for a valuable feature.

[Chronos]

And +3 (the max you can get from Remarkable Athlete) really isn't all that much. Sure, a champion can get +3 to, say, stealth checks (to pick an example physical check that he probably didn't get proficiency in). The rogue, meanwhile, probably has +12 from proficiency, plus possibly a higher ability score modifier, if we're talking a Str-based fighter. That means that, for any stealth check where the rogue has a 50-50 shot of success, it's probably completely impossible for the fighter. A bonus that takes you from "impossible" to "still impossible" is no bonus at all.

[ChubbyRain]

So my examples were all wrong because I lacked creativity, but actually it doesn't undermine the point.

Fact : there are ability checks for wich it is impossible to be proficient. Fact : the champion fighter still has half proficiency bonus on every physical ones. Fact : no other class/archetype does. Fact : the champion fighter is the best for those checks. Fact : you might be able to solve a life or death situation with one of those checks. Fact : the remarkable athlete class feature is a valuable asset for a group.

That isn't how facts work.

You are using opinion and stating it as fact. You can't just spout out whatever you want and make it a fact. The only fact is that you said it, what you are saying holds no real merit. I understand that Dwight Schrute is funny and all but you should try to copy that sort of discussion style.

The only checks in which you can't gain proficiency would be Con checks, which most of those tend to be Con Saves (thus you can get prof in that) and initiative. Everything else can be a skill check in which someone CAN be proficient with. Also, I would rather have Alert for initiative plus guidance.

Until you hit prof = +6 guidance is, on average, a higher bonus that remarkable athlete. That is like 4/5th of the game. A cleric has an at-will ability that for a majority of the game will be more useful (on average) than remarkable athlete when it comes to checks. Plus they can give it to others if they need it more, and it applies to any ability check and not just physical.

Remarkable athlete is pathetic. It gives you nothing of value all the while making it seem like you got something. It is the D&D equivalent of Bennigan's coupons and bubblegum, the ones who made this feature should be sent adrift.

Unless you can name a situation where remarkable athlete would come in play in a huge way, that skills or saves do not, then not only do you have no basis for an argument but you are only grasping for straws.

[Sindeloke]

Until you hit prof = +6 guidance is, on average, a higher bonus that remarkable athlete. That is like 4/5th of the game. A cleric has an at-will ability that for a majority of the game will be more useful (on average) than remarkable athlete when it comes to checks. Plus they can give it to others if they need it more, and it applies to any ability check and not just physical.

Don't forget a barbarian can, if a Strength check is desperately needed, burn a Rage for advantage, which averages out to about +5 on the check. Also from level 1.

[ChubbyRain]

Don't forget a barbarian can, if a Strength check is desperately needed, burn a Rage for advantage, which averages out to about +5 on the check. Also from level 1.

Well advantage is more like +3.2 or something like that. At least, the last time someone did the math.

However advantage feels awesome, so more points for advantage.

Also any level 1 human or level 4 character can have guidance with a feat. Feats may not be base option in all house games, but they are a base option in AL and that's good enough for me.

Inspiration will make you a "remarkable athlete" too.

The champion fighter (and just fighter) is bad because it is a lot of smoke and mirrors. The number of shirt rests you need to equal out the damage of a caster is more than what many take each adventuring day. The abilities are all good at first glance but really don't do much (I'm looking at second wind and indomitable). And the rogue, of all classses, makes a better classic warrior type than the fighter.

Everything the Fighter does is done better elsewhere without the baggage of being a fighter. Even simplicity is done fantastically well with the paladin or sorcerer. I have yet to run into a new player, regardless of age, that couldn't understand the paladin or sorcerer.

[pwykersotz]

Well advantage is more like +3.2 or something like that. At least, the last time someone did the math.

However advantage feels awesome, so more points for advantage.

...

Everything the Fighter does is done better elsewhere without the baggage of being a fighter. Even simplicity is done fantastically well with the paladin or sorcerer. I have yet to run into a new player, regardless of age, that couldn't understand the paladin or sorcerer.

+3.325 across the board, +5 with even odds. (http://rolesrules.blogspot.com/2012/05/d-next-disadvantage.html)

For the Champion, it's not about understanding, it's about fun in play. I don't have nearly as much fun playing a Champion because there's less to fiddle with. But one of my friends who I played the playtest with and then a couple games thereafter wants as few active abilities as possible. He's accustomed to and prefers games that don't require a character sheet. He loves the champion, and he's able to contribute fully because the option exists. He played a Wizard in our first game, and I pretty much had to advise him on what to do each round, mostly because figuring out his spells was breaking his immersion and fun too much.

Champion has its place, and despite not wanting to play one again, I'm glad it's there.

[ChubbyRain]

+3.325 across the board, +5 with even odds. (http://rolesrules.blogspot.com/2012/05/d-next-disadvantage.html)

For the Champion, it's not about understanding, it's about fun in play. I don't have nearly as much fun playing a Champion because there's less to fiddle with. But one of my friends who I played the playtest with and then a couple games thereafter wants as few active abilities as possible. He's accustomed to and prefers games that don't require a character sheet. He loves the champion, and he's able to contribute fully because the option exists. He played a Wizard in our first game, and I pretty much had to advise him on what to do each round, mostly because figuring out his spells was breaking his immersion and fun too much.

Champion has its place, and despite not wanting to play one again, I'm glad it's there.

I would absolutely love a passive fighter that had features that worked well enough and I knew what I was getting into before the game started. Sadly, the champion is all smoke and mirrors and requires the DM to hold their hand.

The 4e essentials Fighter and Rogue did this to a degree. The slayer is very simple to learn, simple to use, and is still effective in the game.

The issue for me is not how the class works, it is that the class itself is a trap. Sure you can use it, and you can have fun with it, but it just isn't on the level of other classes.

Champion compounds this issue.

[Sindeloke]

Even simplicity is done fantastically well with the paladin or sorcerer. I have yet to run into a new player, regardless of age, that couldn't understand the paladin or sorcerer.

Somewhat frustratingly, the warlock is now one of the most complex characters to understand and use.

This game needs a proper warmage class that just hurls damage cantrips and the odd AoE every round. IDK why "simple" always seems to have to mean "martial." The erroneous equivocation of the two causes all kinds of problems.

On-topic, the problem with the Champion isn't that it's simple. That's fine. There should be simple classes for players who just want to hit stuff. The problem is that the champion does one thing and only one thing well. They're good at damage. Not the best, since battlemasters and paladins can put out more burst and the fifteen-combat day with no short rests doesn't really exist, but certianly very good, more than enough to be a competent combatant.

But they don't do survival particularly well. Minimal re-rolls on a save you failed to begin with because you suck at that save and aren't any more likely to pass now, and minimal in-combat self-healing, aren't especially good. Paladins, barbarians, rogues and monks (hey look, all the other martials except ranger) blow them out of the water, and all they even have over other fighters is a potential +1 AC, easily compensated for with a EK's defensive spells or a battlemaster's control abilities. And once you leave combat? Forget about it.

So that player is doing solid damage, although probably feeling outshone by the burstiness of other martials or the AoE of casters in most fights. Then everyone needs to cross a river and they just kind of... are there. And then everyone needs to get into the Duke's party and they just kind of... are there. And then everyone needs to tame some gryphons to cross Death Peak and they just kind of... are there.

There are plenty of passives that you could give a champion to make them better at things that aren't "hitting stuff" without forcing the player to make a lot of choices or do anything complex. Perceptiveness, damage reduction, expertise on skills and tools a fighter is thematically good at like weapon/armor repair or handling mounts, bonuses on interactions with NPCs who recognize your combat skill - all stuff that's always-on, totally easy to manage, and even mostly on the DM to remember. Why doesn't the champion have any of that?

[Ashrym]

There are checks for which there is no skill listed for STR and DEX. CON is odd because usually those are saves instead.

Athlete isn't bad because the fighter only has so many skill proficiencies so that covers several more. This is usually more important in group checks or individual checks required of each member of the group. A bonus to iniative is always nice.

I would not call it a great ability or even good, but not bad either. It's nice that it rounds up instead of down like jack-of-all-trades.

Edit: The words I would use would be decent flavour, mediocre mechanics.

[ChubbyRain]

There are checks for which there is no skill listed for STR and DEX. CON is odd because usually those are saves instead.

Athlete isn't bad because the fighter only has so many skill proficiencies so that covers several more. This is usually more important in group checks or individual checks required of each member of the group. A bonus to iniative is always nice.

I would not call it a great ability or even good, but not bad either. It's nice that it rounds up instead of down like jack-of-all-trades.

Edit: The words I would use would be decent flavour, mediocre mechanics.

Most Str or Dex checks can be made into a skill though.

Even if it is an Athletics (Charisma) skill check.

https://eyeforaneyepiece.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/fullmetal-alchemist-18-large-09.jpg

[Ashrym]

Most Str or Dex checks can be made into a skill though.

Even if it is an Athletics (Charisma) skill check.

https://eyeforaneyepiece.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/fullmetal-alchemist-18-large-09.jpg

Can be isn't the default listed. A DM could state it but making it a skill check won't increase the number of proficiencies the character possesses.

Natural athlete is a bit of a system mastery ability. If a champion has a lower WIS and higher DEX, for example, then not taking proficency in acrobatics for proficency in insight instead gives up 1-3 points of bonus in a stronger check to gain 2-6 points of bonus in a weaker check for a net gain.

It's possible someone has a better bonus but he or she is subject to the d20, something could happen to that character, the group could be separated, the check could be required of all party members, or it could be part of a group check.

The example I used works because of bounded accuracy and a focus on DC 15 checks. It doesn't matter by how much the target DC is exceeded so averaging higher bonuses in general rounds out the skills / checks for the character.

In the end, it's always better initiatives.

I don't look at the ability and think to myself, "I gotta get me some of that!" I look at it and see some use in it with bonuses I didn't previously have and an opportunity to work some numbers and that's why I don't think the ability is all that bad.

Really, I play champions for the survivor ability because I can get a second fighting style by multiclassing.

[goto124]

I'm about to play under a DM who'll use fumble rules. I tried to convince him otherwise, but failed. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?414597-%285E%29-Under-the-Realm/page3&p=19262425#post19262425)

I went Champion Fighter because I've never played in a campaign before, and I don't think the DM will be happy if I suddenly changed to a paladin or sorcerer. Any advice for staying alive in the low levels please, since this game starts at level 1? Should I bump up my AC, or go ranged, or both?

My character sheet can be found here (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=203035). I'm not sure what I should be doing, and the discussion on these forums is a bit much for a complete newbie like me.

[SharkForce]

at low levels, i wouldn't worry too much.

nobody really has a crazy amount of stuff you can do at level one. obtain something pointy, slashy, or smashy (as your preference dictates), and go to town. most any style of fighter will be quite useful at level 1, just make sure that whatever you pick you're good at it. if survival is a major concern for you, sword-and-board (or at least, *something* plus shield) is generally a good option. if variant human, heavy armour mastery will do wonders to keep you alive at level 1, and will gradually fall off (but never becomes useless or anything, just not as valuable), or shield expert will help your offence (and/or the party's offence) while boosting your defence against some spells.

but seriously, at level 1, fighters are just fine. i'd say a fairly compelling case can be made for staying fighter up to about level 11-12, personally. you still won't have nearly the versatility of others, but your combat power is impressive. after that, i'd start considering your options.

[Cazero]

Most Str or Dex checks can be made into a skill though.

Even if it is an Athletics (Charisma) skill check.

https://eyeforaneyepiece.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/fullmetal-alchemist-18-large-09.jpg

But muscle-flexing is not for the example you chosen. The 20 STR, 20 CHA, athletics proficient Alex Louis Armstrong cannot possibly be beaten in a muscle-flexing contest by a 6 STR, 20 CHA, athletics expert halfling rogue. Yet, by your ruling, he would be [proficiency] points lower. That's an awful handicap for someone who would be expected to win at first sight.
But if it was an STR ability check, he would be at +5 while the halfling would be at -2. Isn't that a much better representation of muscle-flexing?

[Sindeloke]

But muscle-flexing is not for the example you chosen. The 20 STR, 20 CHA, athletics proficient Alex Louis Armstrong cannot possibly be beaten in a muscle-flexing contest by a 6 STR, 20 CHA, athletics expert halfling rogue. Yet, by your ruling, he would be [proficiency] points lower. That's an awful handicap for someone who would be expected to win at first sight.
But if it was an STR ability check, he would be at +5 while the halfling would be at -2. Isn't that a much better representation of muscle-flexing?

The solution to that is that fighters should have Athletics expertise. Your scenario is no more irrational than the halfling imposing a [proficiency] handicap on any attempt by the fighter to resist his push or trip either, yet that's the game we've been given.

[meltodowno]

I'm about to play under a DM who'll use fumble rules. I tried to convince him otherwise, but failed. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?414597-%285E%29-Under-the-Realm/page3&p=19262425#post19262425)

I went Champion Fighter because I've never played in a campaign before, and I don't think the DM will be happy if I suddenly changed to a paladin or sorcerer. Any advice for staying alive in the low levels please, since this game starts at level 1? Should I bump up my AC, or go ranged, or both?

My character sheet can be found here (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=203035). I'm not sure what I should be doing, and the discussion on these forums is a bit much for a complete newbie like me.

1- Its worth mentioning, you haven't been selected as a player yet, the dm is still taking applications and will select the players later.

2- Fumble rules aren't that terrible, and it's a lot harder to outright die in 5th ed.

3- It wouldn't make any difference if you were a fighter/champion/sorcerer/ranger .... as long as you are making attack rolls, you can fumble.

It does however, have nothing to do with this discussion line in this thread, so if you want more specifics I'd suggest starting a new thread asking for help.


======================================

Back on topic.

At higher level (say level 20) going against ridiculous AC enemies ... been able to auto hit enemies on a 18-20 might help, given 4 attacks.

I don't know, from my personal experience - it's hard to play a champion terribly ... a terrible battlemaster however is pretty easy to make. I've seen BM's who barely ever use their maneuvers, just in case.

Not arguing the BM's aren't better when they are doing their thing ... but some players are terrible at resource management :smallbiggrin:

[Malifice]

I've already shown that ok DPR stakes, the Champion fighter catches up to the BM after about 9-10 combat rounds, and then out damages it from them onwards.

As for saves, it seems a lot of people are forgetting the extra feats/ ASIs fighters get. Human champion fighters get 8 over the journey, and are very SAD.

Take for example a half Orc champ folk hero:
S 20
D 14
C 20
W 18
I 8
Ch 10

Perception +10 athletics +11 insight +11, intimidate +6, survival +10, smiths tools +10, vehicles (land) +8, acrobatics +5, sleight of hand, +5, stealth +5.

Saves: (resilient 3/ day)
Str +11
dex +8
Con +11
Wis +10

Dueling, protection. Full plate, sheild, sword, longbow, arrows.

AC: 21, HP 224, DR 3/magic, init +5, survivor, second wind 1d10+20, relentless endurance

4 attacks +11/ 1d8+7 (18-20) plus shove +11, action surge (x2), savage attacks

shield master
Heavy armor master
Resilient (wisdom)
+2 strength
+2 con (x2)
+2 Dex

That's a pretty tanky, defensive and still quite offensive character. It's got weaknesses (int and Cha saves and skills) - and what class doesn't - but its on par with a monk or paladin for defences, and it does its tanking job well.

[meltodowno]

You get either 4 sets of +2 stats, or 4 feats ...

I'm entirely unsure how you ended up with those 3 extra feats.

[Gwendol]

You get either 4 sets of +2 stats, or 4 feats ...

I'm entirely unsure how you ended up with those 3 extra feats.

The fighter gets 7 ASI's/Feats, according to page 71 of the PHB.

[Malifice]

You might want to check your PHB mate.

Fighters get seven feats/ ASIs: at 4th, 6th, 8th, 12th, 14th, 16th and 19th level. It's one of the things that makes them awesome (especially in an edition where feats are worth so much more).

Rogues get 6. Everyone else gets 5.

Humans get a bonus one.

A shield master fighter with resiliant wisdom is proficient in 3 saves - including 2 of the big 3 - Con and wisdom, while also getting anywhere from +2 to +5 to Dex saves in addition to his Dex score (plus tis proficient in the most common of the lesser saves in Strength). He also gets evasion and a bonus action to shove out of that lot. Add indomitable 3/day and an AC up the wazoo thanks to shield + defence + full plate, a crap load of HP and second wind and regeneration from champion and you've got a crazy defensive character.

If he's a human he still has 6 more feats or 6 x +2 to an ability score to allocate as he advances in level.

[meltodowno]

Fair enough, I'm away from my books at the moment, apparently my memory failed me :P

Edit: though feats are an optional rule - I don't believe they should be considered towards factoring in class balance.

[ChubbyRain]

Can be isn't the default listed. A DM could state it but making it a skill check won't increase the number of proficiencies the character possesses.


I'm not sure what you mean exactly but...

Athletics (Charisma) is not a new proficiency. The proficiency is in Athletics, you are just applying a different modifier to it. Exactly like how Intimidation (Strength) works.



But muscle-flexing is not for the example you chosen. The 20 STR, 20 CHA, athletics proficient Alex Louis Armstrong cannot possibly be beaten in a muscle-flexing contest by a 6 STR, 20 CHA, athletics expert halfling rogue. Yet, by your ruling, he would be [proficiency] points lower. That's an awful handicap for someone who would be expected to win at first sight.
But if it was an STR ability check, he would be at +5 while the halfling would be at -2. Isn't that a much better representation of muscle-flexing?

What are you talking about? I don't care about that specific character in a specific Non-D&D story line.

The picture wasn't for that specific character, but to show that Athletics (Charisma) is a thing.

You are the one that said there was no check for muscle flexing or thumb wrestling. Not only does Athletics (Str) cover thumb wrestling but Athletics (Charisma) covers flexing.

You have yet to provide information about a check that is Strength or Dex based (outside initiative) that can't be covered by skills (to my point specifically Athletics or Acrobatics but Slight of Hand and Stealth also work).

You simply can't. The one thing the PHB skills do well is at least tell us that mixing Skill Prof with different ability scores is possible.

Now if you have a jerk DM that won't let you use Intimidate (Str), that isn't my problem. Jerk DM is gonna jerk.

Perform (Str) and Athletics (Cha) both accomplish the same thing, abs flexing. Guess which one a fighter would use? Whichever one he or she is proficient in.

Flexing isn't all about how much muscle you have but how well you present them. Just flexing isn't enough to win over a crowd, you have to have appeal (hint the flowers and sparkling abs). A 8 (because you can't have 6) Str 20 Cha halfling could appeal to a crowd more and win a.muscle flexing competition over the 20 Str 8 Cha human.

For all we know, when the human flexes, they fart, causing the judges to not like their show as much as the halfling. Or perhaps the halfling knows how to position herself in such a way that her abs and muscles shine light, thus making them appear bigger or better. Do note that to be acrobatic (a key skill for many ohysical based halflings) means you have to have .uscle tone in some way, so it isn't like the halfling would be all skin and bones.

[Easy_Lee]

though feats are an optional rule - I don't believe they should be considered towards factoring in class balance.

Given that more groups play with feats than not, by all accounts I've heard, feats seem to be optional in name only.

[Theodoxus]

I'm about to play under a DM who'll use fumble rules. I tried to convince him otherwise, but failed. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?414597-%285E%29-Under-the-Realm/page3&p=19262425#post19262425)

I went Champion Fighter because I've never played in a campaign before, and I don't think the DM will be happy if I suddenly changed to a paladin or sorcerer. Any advice for staying alive in the low levels please, since this game starts at level 1? Should I bump up my AC, or go ranged, or both?

My character sheet can be found here (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=203035). I'm not sure what I should be doing, and the discussion on these forums is a bit much for a complete newbie like me.

Are you insistent on VHuman? With fumble rules, the Halfling ability to always reroll ones becomes much stronger. A halfling fighter with a longsword is almost as strong as a great sword human - plus the dex bonus allows you to focus on ranged if you'd prefer.

[meltodowno]

Given that more groups play with feats than not, by all accounts I've heard, feats seem to be optional in name only.

Well, optional in rule only - but never the less it IS only optional, and therefore isn't really admissible in class balance (especially in comparisons within the same class :smalltongue: )

That said, your statement only refers to your personal experience, and is not in fact evidence that 'more groups play with feats than not'. Matter of point, from the games I'm currently playing half are not allowing feats.

[Malifice]

Fair enough, I'm away from my books at the moment, apparently my memory failed me :P

Edit: though feats are an optional rule - I don't believe they should be considered towards factoring in class balance.

And even in the rare game that doesn't use feats (which are games that don't help fighters) you wind up with a fighter with the following stat line:

20
20
20
16
14
11

That said, feats favor fighters the most; ditto Magic items.

[SharkForce]

That's a pretty tanky, defensive and still quite offensive character. It's got weaknesses (int and Cha saves and skills) - and what class doesn't - but its on par with a monk or paladin for defences, and it does its tanking job well.

it is tough, maybe. i would not agree that it is doing the job of tanking particularly well.

suppose a powerful demon was to look at you, and then look at the wizard standing next to you with probably much lower AC, no shield, and maybe 3/4 as many hit points. i'll even for the sake of argument pretend like the wizard only has equal offensive abilities (maybe the wizard has already blown all of the most powerful spell slots available, not that the demon has any way of knowing that in the scenario described)

which one do you think the demon is going to want to attack first, and what (if anything) can the champion do to change the demon's mind?

[Malifice]

Well, optional in rule only - but never the less it IS only optional, and therefore isn't really admissible in class balance (especially in comparisons within the same class :smalltongue: )

That said, your statement only refers to your personal experience, and is not in fact evidence that 'more groups play with feats than not'. Matter of point, from the games I'm currently playing half are not allowing feats.

All adventurers league games do.

Magic items are also optional, but I hazard a guess that most campaigns use them too, and they also favor fighters.

[ChubbyRain]

Given that more groups play with feats than not, by all accounts I've heard, feats seem to be optional in name only.

(General response, not apecifically AT Easy-Lee)

With the right feats the 3e fighter becomes tier 4. Does that mean the 3e fighter, as a class, is well made? (Many people like their 3 and 4 D&D 3.5 class balance)

No.

Anytime you add in an option that anyone can take that isn't part of the core class you are adding in an outside element. An outside element is not part of the class and thus shouldn't count as a such.

So even if they weren't optional they still wouldn't be a good indication of a class.

If your main abilities are coming from sentinel then you are playing a feat and not the PC class.

Sure the fighter gets more ASI/Feats, but so what? Most people won't see a huge difference in the number of feats they have co.oared to others (10 being the average MAX level a group may get to).

Besides, other classes have abilities that make feats a waste of time. Would anyone give up a level of spell casting for a feat? What about other class features? Monks, Barbarians, Warlocks, and Wizards (to name a few) all have class features that I wouldn't give up for a feat.

The 5e fighter has the same pit falls as the 3e fighter, the core system just allows the 5e fighter to keep up better though.

That's remarkably sad.

The system was pushed down to tier 6 play instead of pushing the fighter (and others) to tier 3, 2, or 1.

[Malifice]

it is tough, maybe. i would not agree that it is doing the job of tanking particularly well.

suppose a powerful demon was to look at you, and then look at the wizard standing next to you with probably much lower AC, no shield, and maybe 3/4 as many hit points. i'll even for the sake of argument pretend like the wizard only has equal offensive abilities (maybe the wizard has already blown all of the most powerful spell slots available, not that the demon has any way of knowing that in the scenario described)

which one do you think the demon is going to want to attack first, and what (if anything) can the champion do to change the demon's mind?

Hang on. That's a bit of s catch 22.

Fighter is too tough, and hard to kill so monsters attack other targets. Fighter is ****.

Fighter is too weak and he dies easy. Fighter is ****.

Tough job being a fighter these days I guess.

And why would the demon ignore the fighter? That demon aware the fighter isn't packing a vorpal sword or something even more deadly?

A balor has AC 19. Huge so big to be tripped or grappled. That fighter with a +3 sword deals 60 odd damage per round (not including action surge, of which he has 2 per short rest). Fairly sure the Balor is going to be a little worried once he gets 120 points dropped on him in a single round. That's half the balors HP.

Perhaps the Balor will rely on his magic resistance and 4 good saves to protect himself from the Wizard while he deals with the half Orc wailing on him next to him.

[Wartex1]

(General response, not apecifically AT Easy-Lee)

With the right feats the 3e fighter becomes tier 4. Does that mean the 3e fighter, as a class, is well made? (Many people like their 3 and 4 D&D 3.5 class balance)

No.

Anytime you add in an option that anyone can take that isn't part of the core class you are adding in an outside element. An outside element is not part of the class and thus shouldn't count as a such.

So even if they weren't optional they still wouldn't be a good indication of a class.

If your main abilities are coming from sentinel then you are playing a feat and not the PC class.

Sure the fighter gets more ASI/Feats, but so what? Most people won't see a huge difference in the number of feats they have co.oared to others (10 being the average MAX level a group may get to).

Besides, other classes have abilities that make feats a waste of time. Would anyone give up a level of spell casting for a feat? What about other class features? Monks, Barbarians, Warlocks, and Wizards (to name a few) all have class features that I wouldn't give up for a feat.

The 5e fighter has the same pit falls as the 3e fighter, the core system just allows the 5e fighter to keep up better though.

That's remarkably sad.

The system was pushed down to tier 6 play instead of pushing the fighter (and others) to tier 3, 2, or 1.

You know why a Wizard or Warlock wouldn't trade a level of spellcasting for a feat?

It's because Wizards and Warlocks don't have the abilities that synergize with feats. Feats are built for martial characters. You can't compare the classes in a vacuum. Compare them with feats, magic items, and real situations.

You're using a large deal of marginalization of actual data to prove your point, but it's unfair to compare classes in a vacuum.

[ChubbyRain]

You know why a Wizard or Warlock wouldn't trade a level of spellcasting for a feat?

It's because Wizards and Warlocks don't have the abilities that synergize with feats. Feats are built for martial characters. You can't compare the classes in a vacuum. Compare them with feats, magic items, and real situations.

You're using a large deal of marginalization of actual data to prove your point, but it's unfair to compare classes in a vacuum.

You are using outdated stereotypes for your casters. Way to many people play gish type casters, even the Wizard, as front to mid line fighters. A warlock can use sentinel + polearm master just as well as a fighter can. The difference is that a Warlock would not want more feats if it meant taking away their other class features since their other class features are better than said feats. Better meaning more useful, effective, or versatile.

They also don't need the feats as they have spells that cover more area than a feat will.

Look at the abjuration + transmutation builds. Look at the Bladelock, they do great with weapons even without feats. These classes have class features that compliment themselves, instead of just throwing crap at the wall and hoping it sticks.

I'm comparing the Fighter and what they get with other classes. One of the things a fighter gets is "more feats/asi". I'm comparing this "more feats/asi" to casters getting "more spells" or "more class features" becuase "more feats/asi" is a class feature of said fighter just like "more spells" or "more class features" are class features other spellcasters or other classes.


edit:


Hang on. That's a bit of s catch 22.

Fighter is too tough, and hard to kill so monsters attack other targets. Fighter is ****.

Fighter is too weak and he dies easy. Fighter is ****.

Tough job being a fighter these days I guess.

And why would the demon ignore the fighter? That demon aware the fighter isn't packing a vorpal sword or something even more deadly?

A balor has AC 19. Huge so big to be tripped or grappled. That fighter with a +3 sword deals 60 odd damage per round (not including action surge, of which he has 2 per short rest). Fairly sure the Balor is going to be a little worried once he gets 120 points dropped on him in a single round. That's half the balors HP.

Perhaps the Balor will rely on his magic resistance and 4 good saves to protect himself from the Wizard while he deals with the half Orc wailing on him next to him.

In all honesty the Balor would look at the Fighter and the Wizard and think "which one poses the biggest potential threat?".

The Fighter can hit him, and take his health down in a few rounds. But who knows what the hell the wizard can do. The wizard is an unknown unknown. You can't take chances with that.

For all the balor knows is that the Wizard, in one action, could mind rape the balor into becoming the wizard's slave. The fighter can only take his HP down, the Wizard might be able to undo his reality.

And that is why the Balor targets the Wizard first.

[Wartex1]

You are using outdated stereotypes for your casters. Way to many people play gish type casters, even the Wizard, as front to mid line fighters. A warlock can use sentinel + polearm master just as well as a fighter can. The difference is that a Warlock would not want more feats if it meant taking away their other class features since their other class features are better than said feats. Better meaning more useful, effective, or versatile.

They also don't need the feats as they have spells that cover more area than a feat will.

Look at the abjuration + transmutation builds. Look at the Bladelock, they do great with weapons even without feats. These classes have class features that compliment themselves, instead of just throwing crap at the wall and hoping it sticks.

I'm comparing the Fighter and what they get with other classes. One of the things a fighter gets is "more feats/asi". I'm comparing this "more feats/asi" to casters getting "more spells" or "more class features" becuase "more feats/asi" is a class feature of said fighter just like "more spells" or "more class features" are class features other spellcasters or other classes.

I'm the one using outdated stereotypes?

Someone should look in the mirror. Fighters get the most out of feats for two reasons.

A) They get the most out of anyone
B) They get the most attacks out of anyone

A Bladelock with GWM can only get +20 from his action.
A Fighter with GWM can get +40 without surging at all, and he can get more feats and boost his ability scores still. A Warlock has to wait until 16th level to get 2 feats and 20 Charisma, while Strength or Dexterity might still be subpar. Unlike an attempted gish, a Fighter can focus on one ability score and gets more feats to compliment what they have.

[meltodowno]

In all honesty the Balor would look at the Fighter and the Wizard and think "which one poses the biggest potential threat?".

The Fighter can hit him, and take his health down in a few rounds. But who knows what the hell the wizard can do. The wizard is an unknown unknown. You can't take chances with that.

For all the balor knows is that the Wizard, in one action, could mind rape the balor into becoming the wizard's slave. The fighter can only take his HP down, the Wizard might be able to undo his reality.

And that is why the Balor targets the Wizard first.

To add to that ... from games I play, Player parties tend to prioritize taking down caster first. That is because they tend to be capable of doing a lot of damage in a short place of time, and that's ignoring the idea that they might use more potent spells to removes PC's from the fight.

I can't see why any intelligent creature would not eventually come to a similar conclusion

[Malifice]

In all honesty the Balor would look at the Fighter and the Wizard and think "which one poses the biggest potential threat?".

The Fighter can hit him, and take his health down in a few rounds. But who knows what the hell the wizard can do. The wizard is an unknown unknown. You can't take chances with that.

For all the balor knows is that the Wizard, in one action, could mind rape the balor into becoming the wizard's slave. The fighter can only take his HP down, the Wizard might be able to undo his reality.

And that is why the Balor targets the Wizard first.

The Balor has saves of Str +14, Con +12, Wis +9, Cha +12, Int +5, Dex +2. It also has magic resistance, 262 HP and is resistant to cold, lightning and non magic weapons, and immune to fire and poison. When it dies, it blows up doing 70 points of fire damage to everything withing 30 feet. Be careful killing it with your d6 HD.

Your 20th level wizard has a +2 Wand, Robes of the Archmagi, and a staff of your choice. Its no easy task getting through those defences; it wont fit in a force-cage for starters.

Of course, a Balor is only CR 19, so we can probably expect at least two of them to challenge a 20th level party.

You could probably go schroedingers wizard, and also be at full strength and blow your highest level spells to defeat it in a few rounds (and I expect you would just like I expect a 3rd level wizard to account for a CR 2 pretty easily.

Of course the Fighter action surging will smash about 120 damage a turn off it, killing it in about 3 rounds on his own. Seeing as it has about a 50-75 percent chance to resist most of your offensive spells, and there are two of them standing in front of you, be careful with your spell selection.


To add to that ... from games I play, Player parties tend to prioritize taking down caster first. That is because they tend to be capable of doing a lot of damage in a short place of time, and that's ignoring the idea that they might use more potent spells to removes PC's from the fight.

I can't see why any intelligent creature would not eventually come to a similar conclusion

Youve obviously never had to roll initiative within 30 feet of a high level hostile BM Fighter chock full of superiority dice and action surges packing a greatsword. Whatever target he goes for, dies.

[SharkForce]

To add to that ... from games I play, Player parties tend to prioritize taking down caster first. That is because they tend to be capable of doing a lot of damage in a short place of time, and that's ignoring the idea that they might use more potent spells to removes PC's from the fight.

I can't see why any intelligent creature would not eventually come to a similar conclusion

pretty much this. the warrior is going to become a problem in a few rounds, and is more difficult to remove from the equation.

the wizard can remove the balor from the fight immediately (even if it isn't extremely likely, and is easier to remove from the equation. if your toughness does not come with a compelling argument for things to preferentially attack you, it loses a lot of value for the same reason that fighter damage in 3.x lost a lot of value; it doesn't combine well with anyone else particularly.

fighters can be very tough, which is certainly better than not being tough. but it is only a personal resource. I'm not suggesting that fighters need to be less tough... I'm suggesting that fighters lack the class features to make that toughness into a source of strength for the entire party in the majority of fights. not a problem if you're fighting mindless enemies like skeletons or oozes, or if you're fighting a single enemy that can be contained with grapples or similar... but against a similarly strong, intelligent group of enemies, expect them to prioritize the very dangerous but vulnerable target before they go after the dangerous but extremely tough target.

in contrast, paladins can generate an AOE save aura, heal for large amounts of damage, and remove negative status effects (and potentially more). a totem barbarian can grant advantages to nearby allies in a fight as well with the right choices (first wolf ability, third bear ability). thus, their toughness potentially becomes a party resource; an intelligent enemy can see how removing a paladin or totem barbarian who is boosting the party will make the rest of the party easier to defeat. and that is why I consider the toughness of those other two classes to be a party resource.

[Wartex1]

Granted, comparing any class to the Paladin might be a bit unfair. Mainly because the Paladin is hilariously powerful in this edition, even compared to the full casters.

If only they had given the Ranger some better features, like a nature-themed aura or better uses for spell slots than the Ranger features.

[Malifice]

That all kind of ignores the insane single target damage a fighter can muster though.

A refreshed (recent short rest) fighter can reliably drop nearly anything of his CR inside of 2 roinds. Inside of 1 round if he's lucky.

Particualrly with creatures with legendary resistances, I'd be throwing them at the fighter or barbarian if I had a choice. Let your good saves, magic resistance, immunities and legendary saves carry you through while the caster blows spells on your defences.

There are a lot less save or suck spells now too.

I'd look at targeting the wizard to break his concentration more than anything else.

[Easy_Lee]

In the hypothetical scenario above, the Wizard is targeted before the champion for the same reason that everyone goes after casters first, when able, in PvP games: they're easier to kill. If we want to talk about who the bigger threat is, that depends on the creature and whether or not it has legendary resistance.

[Troacctid]

If there's a Fighter next to you and a Wizard 30 feet away, you've got a catch-22. If you move to the Wizard, the Fighter gets a free attack against you; if you make a ranged attack against the Wizard, you have disadvantage; if you attack the Fighter, you're less likely to hit. What do you do?

Of course, the question is somewhat moot if the Fighter has grappled or tripped you, as Fighters are wont to do. And if the Fighter is a Sentinel, you've got even more problems, of course.

What you need, as the monster, is enough weight of numbers to engage the PCs on both fronts, or else you'll be buried under the party's superior action economy no matter what you do.

[SharkForce]

That all kind of ignores the insane single target damage a fighter can muster though.

A refreshed (recent short rest) fighter can reliably drop nearly anything of his CR inside of 2 roinds. Inside of 1 round if he's lucky.

Particualrly with creatures with legendary resistances, I'd be throwing them at the fighter or barbarian if I had a choice. Let your good saves, magic resistance, immunities and legendary saves carry you through while the caster blows spells on your defences.

There are a lot less save or suck spells now too.

I'd look at targeting the wizard to break his concentration more than anything else.

lots of builds can deal impressive single-target damage.

(and on a side note, very few creatures have legendary resistance, and advantage on saves doesn't help much if you only have a 10% chance to make the save in the first place... and wizards can frequently target your weak save if they really want to).

[Vogonjeltz]

Issue.

You have no clue what a DM will or will not allow you to do with an physical ability checks.

Well, as a matter of fact, I do. There are about 19 examples given in the PHB alone. There is also a very handy guideline delineating the DC for Very Easy, Easy, Medium, Hard, Very Hard, and Nearly Impossible activities.


This is the swingiest part of the fighter as you may be able to do a lot, some, or almost nothing at all. You have no context as to what your DC 10 str check will give you. That +3 might as well be a +0 or a +2000.

It makes it more probable to complete a Very Hard task that the character has no proficiency in (whereas having proficiency would allow the character to actually complete a Nearly Impossible task).


I've seen way to many DMs side on "if it isn't magic then it is hard/not special".

What does this even mean?


This ability is crap because it doesn't actually let you know what you can do with it.

Also it only applies to checks in which you aren't proficient with... So yeah it isn't all that great.

Remarkable Athlete is a pathetic class feature.

You get 1/2 proficiency on every physical check that the character isn't proficient in. I don't know how that could be more plainly stated. This is a benefit because Fighters (like almost every other class) end up with ~4 proficiencies (2 from fighter, 2 from background, maybe more from race). And there are 4 physical proficiencies and a host of physical checks for which there are no proficiencies, which means that getting an edge of those checks is very powerful, and highly desirable.


There are three types of rolls.

Ability checks (initiative, skills, ability score)
Attack rolls
Saving throws

Remarkable athlete applies to Str Dex and Con checks.

Initiative will always gain the bonus, and that's good. Should take Alert with this to make it awesome. Then a fighter will typically be trained in Athletics or Acrobatics.

This leaves Con Checks (holding breath? Forced March? Or are these saving throws?), Sleight of Hand, Stealth, and Athletics or Acrobatics.

You're ok right up until you begin postulating on Con checks. The two things you mention are both listed under Constitution checks, so we know they aren't saving throws. The section on saving throws also mentions that it's specifically to resist "a spell, a trap, a poison, a disease, or a similar threat." We don't even have to consider those things, besides which it wouldn't matter because Fighters only lack Dexterity saving throws to start out of the three physical ones.

Secondly, you've skipped past all the other non-skill based ability checks listed that don't fall under athletics, acrobatics, stealth, and sleight of hand:
Forcing doors, Breaking bonds, pushing things over, holding things back, keeping ones grip (i.e. holding onto a rope while hanging from a great height), picking locks, disabling traps, tying secure knots, escaping bonds, crafting details, fine motor skills, endurance feats like staying awake for long durations, surviving without sustenance, etc...

The universe of physical checks is extremely extensive which makes the remarkable athelete bonus wide-ranging.


Any battle check that calls for acrobatics can typically be covered by athletics so that will go unuse for the simple Str fighter. Con saves are more common than con checks so that won't be all that great. And the simple str fighter has no need to be doing any acrobatic, slight of hand, or stealthing.

Well this is outright false. I can only infer by battle checks that you mean the contest combat options presented in the PHB/DMG. One of these is tumbling, which allows a character to use an acrobatics check to avoid drawing an opportunity attack. That's quite handy for maneuvering around a battlefield. Stealth is handy for avoiding large fights, or for gaining advantage from a suprise attack. Sleight of Hand is ...handy...for concealing weapons. These are activities that heroic fighters, which the Champion is representative of, routinely undertake. Examples abound in legends and myth, it's worth perusing them for ideas.


Compare this class feature to any other class feature of comparable level and tell me it is worth it. So level 5 - level 9. Name one other class feature that is less useful than this...

Maybe the druid has one? But they also gain spells sooo... Yeah no.

Comparable class features:
Know Your Enemy - a fun information gathering skill for Battlemasters, let's them size up their opponents. This is, like Remarkable Athlete, a classic story-telling device.
The comparable ability for Eldritch Knights seems to come at 3rd level (Weapon Bond), whereas they get their practical ability later at 7th (War Magic). This is a flip from the Champion who gets a more practical ability at 3rd (Improved Critical) and the more role-playing centric ability at 7th (Remarkable Athlete).

Barbarian Path abilities: Mindless Rage, Carry load increase, Good sight, or faster stealth...woo.
Druid's Land Stride probably comes into play even less than anything already mentioned.


There are checks for which there is no skill listed for STR and DEX. CON is odd because usually those are saves instead.

The things saves apply to are very specific. There's no specific Con skill, but there are many Con ability checks.

[goto124]

What is the difference between a save and a check?

[Wartex1]

Terminology, plus it discounts proficiency bonuses if not used for a skill.

[Malifice]

lots of builds can deal impressive single-target damage.

(and on a side note, very few creatures have legendary resistance, and advantage on saves doesn't help much if you only have a 10% chance to make the save in the first place... and wizards can frequently target your weak save if they really want to).

Your example was a Demon appropriate for a 20th level character - a Balor is just that Demon (perhaps a bit on the weak side at CR19).

The Balor is Huge, has saves of Str +14, Con +12, Wis +9, Cha +12, Int +5, Dex +2. It also has magic resistance (advantage to all saves), 262 HP and is resistant to cold, lightning and non magic weapons, and immune to fire and poison. When it dies, it blows up doing 70 points of fire damage to everything withing 30 feet. It can teleport 120', has truesight and 30' reach.

Thats an impressive set of defences and mobility. Even assuming magic items on your Wizard to grant +3 on your spell DC's and an Int of 20 youre pumping out DC 22 saves. It averages +9 to saves (with advantage) giving it better than 50/50 odds of saving against your spells even at that high DC.

That Balor is well within his rights to ignore the Wizard and target the melee characters. Every time he gets hit in melee he deals 10 fire damage, plus an additional 10 when someone starts next to him. He deals about 70 damage a turn with his melee attacks (a ton more on a critical), and deals another 70 if he gets banished to the Abyss hopefully taking out anything clustered around him with his death throes blast of fire (Balors are mean like that).

The Fighter deals around 100 damage to the Balor with an action surge, however he takes 80 fire damage in return for his efforts, so uses his bonus action to second wind recovering 25 HP. The Balor is now worried about the raging barbarian standing nearby and attacks it, scoring a crit and dealing 100 odd damage and another 10 to the fighter. The barbarian rages, attacks recklessly and swings back doing a few hits to face with GWM for 60 odd damage, and the Rogue shoots it with a sneak attack arrow for 80 points. Now its looking pretty sick. Not only is it seriously hurt, but it's also ripe for a PWK from the Wizard to avoid its SR all together (and they all take another 70 fire damage when it blows up). The martials have softened it up and done their job. It's cost the expenditure of an 8th level slot, and likely - if prepared - a protection from energy (fire) on the Fighter from a 3rd level slot from the Wizard, and an action surge from the Fighter). They take a quick rest (to expend a few HD to heal and recover action surge, and the Wizard gets his 8th level slot back) and head on deeper into the dungeon.

Like I said, not the most dangerous of challenge at it's CR for that level (a fully rested party of four can smash it in a single round; two or three at most depending on the parties mobility), but it highlights the pretty even contribution of all the characters involved.

I have yet to see Wizards dominate battles to anywhere near the extent they did in 3.x. With only 1 spell each of 6th-9th level, high level monsters being either legendary, having magic resistance, good saves or all three, and also the general lack of SoS spells (and the ones that do exist granting fresh saves every round) they have to be super selective in dropping those high level slots in encounters, and martials are dealing more than enough damage to pose a direct and obvious threat to monsters of those high levels in their own right.

The level of hate for Champion fighters is astounding. They're meat-shields that hit hard, can take a beating, and are easy to play. Point and shoot. Simple and effective. They retain a slightly watered down version of the damage spike nova of the BM fighter or Paladin without having to make a choice other than 'do I action surge or not' and have a greater sustained damage output after around 9 rounds of continuous combat than either of those two classes. Mathematically, they're a fine (if intentionally simplistic) class.

For a lot of people this is exactly what they want from a Fighter. Point and shoot, no bells and whistles, survivable, durable, flex muscle, hit stuff. If you don't want that from your Fighter, that's totally cool - just play a different class.

[goto124]

Agreement with last paragraph. Even if, say, a paladin or wizard is better, who's to stay how well I will actually play the class well? When I barely know how combat even works?

[Malifice]

Agreement with last paragraph. Even if, say, a paladin or wizard is better, who's to stay how well I will actually play the class well? When I barely know how combat even works?

Mathematically the Champion fighter is fine.

From a straight DPR comparison he keeps up with the BM Fighter if you assume 10 rounds between short rests (the default). More rounds favor the Champ, less favor the BM. The BM gets better Nova damage (at the risk of significantly reduced comparative DPR till he gains a short rest), but that's countered a little by the Champs higher initiative, extra fighting style for a passive point of AC and at end game levels by the champions regeneration ability (giving the Champion a passive ability that keeps him chugging along).

It's just the simplicity of the thing that puts people off. The class can quickly become a case of: Roll to hit, roll for damage, repeat; with the only meaningful choice being who to target and when to use action surge.

To some people that's not their cup of tea. I get that, and I'm fine with it. To other people, that's exactly what they want from a class (point and click, smash face) and I'm fine with that too.

Personally I'm wrapped the class exists. It gives those guys that want something simple but effective to grab and run with (and have a ball with) and opens the game to accommodate different play styles and levels of system mastery (or desired system mastery). No-one is making someone play the class if they don't want to; but it exists as an option for a simple, no frills, mathematically effective class for those that do.

[Troacctid]

Mathematically the Champion is fine for levels 3, 10, 15, and 18, but the level 7 ability is still garbage, and there's really no excuse for that.

[Easy_Lee]

Mathematically the Champion is fine for levels 3, 10, 15, and 18, but the level 7 ability is still garbage, and there's really no excuse for that.

Really? The level 7 is one of my favorites. It's the equivalent of half of jack of all trades and improves your jumping ability.

[Malifice]

Mathematically the Champion is fine for levels 3, 10, 15, and 18, but the level 7 ability is still garbage, and there's really no excuse for that.

+1-3 to initiative is a great passive bonus for an 'in your face' class like the Champion. It helps the Champ go first (along with the Bard) more often than not. Going first is still king.

Its also OK for Dex based Champions, allowing them to Athletics+Perception at full, while still getting 1/2 to Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Steath and so forth.

Also, lets assume the newb player (who are the most likely to play the class) stuffed up and didn't select Athletics as a class skill. Well he gets it anyways at 1/2 bonus.

Not the greatest of abilities though granted.

[Easy_Lee]

+1-3 to initiative is a great passive bonus for an 'in your face' class like the Champion. It helps the Champ go first (along with the Bard) more often than not. Going first is still king.

Its also OK for Dex based Champions, allowing them to Athletics+Perception at full, while still getting 1/2 to Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Steath and so forth.

Also, lets assume the newb player (who are the most likely to play the class) stuffed up and didn't select Athletics as a class skill. Well he gets it anyways at 1/2 bonus.

Also helps you with checks that don't normally have a skill attached. A DM could say that breaking a chain is not an athletics check, just a generic strength check. The champion adds half proficiency anyway. He's also half-proficient in all of the dexterity skills that a strength-focused champion wouldn't normally take, which considerably opens up his skill choices. It's actually a very useful tool for making champions not just big dumb fighters, but skillful party members who are able to do a wide variety of things competently.

Edit: And again, there's no arguing with it, just like the champion's other features. Given the nature of this forum, I would think that this would earn the feature major points.

[SharkForce]

a wizard can place an interposing hand in between itself and the balor, forcing it to either spend its action teleporting to move (no save, the hand is strong enough to stop it from passing through 100% of the time) or kill the hand (which will likely take 2 rounds). balor stopped with only a level 5 spell slot, and no saving throw allowed (even if it had legendary resistances, the balor still couldn't approach without forfeiting its action while the party uses whatever ranged options are available. by spreading out, only one person per round needs to deal with the balor's aura at all while the rest can simply freely attack at range

also, i'm not sure why you think the fighter and barbarian get to threaten the balor in melee. it is very intelligent and moderately wise, has a longish range attack (certainly longer than the melee range of the fighter and barbarian), and can fly. if their melee damage is a threat to it, it can just decide to not be in reach of their melee damage (well, unless the barbarian is a totem barbarian with the ability to fly).

[Kane0]

Why is the Champion great? Simplicity.
Why does the Champion suck? Simplicity.
Some like the simplicity, some don't.

For those familiar with Borderlands, the Champion is like Gaige. Nothing wrong with picking them, but they cop a lot of flak for being 'the girlfriend class'.

[Easy_Lee]

a wizard can place an interposing hand in between itself and the balor, forcing it to either spend its action teleporting to move (no save, the hand is strong enough to stop it from passing through 100% of the time) or kill the hand (which will likely take 2 rounds). balor stopped with only a level 5 spell slot, and no saving throw allowed (even if it had legendary resistances, the balor still couldn't approach without forfeiting its action while the party uses whatever ranged options are available. by spreading out, only one person per round needs to deal with the balor's aura at all while the rest can simply freely attack at range

also, i'm not sure why you think the fighter and barbarian get to threaten the balor in melee. it is very intelligent and moderately wise, has a longish range attack (certainly longer than the melee range of the fighter and barbarian), and can fly. if their melee damage is a threat to it, it can just decide to not be in reach of their melee damage (well, unless the barbarian is a totem barbarian with the ability to fly).

Barbarians can usually out-grapple the thing, meaning they only have to get in range once. Thrown weapons also exist. And there's no reason why a champion can't take a dexterity build.

But for a clever champion, nets are also a thing that exists. You have to use your action to break free from a net, or deal a certain amount of damage to it, and they reduce your speed to zero while caught. I wonder what happens when a winged flyer gets netted.

[Troacctid]

+1-3 to initiative is a great passive bonus for an 'in your face' class like the Champion. It helps the Champ go first (along with the Bard) more often than not. Going first is still king.

Its also OK for Dex based Champions, allowing them to Athletics+Perception at full, while still getting 1/2 to Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Steath and so forth.

Also, lets assume the newb player (who are the most likely to play the class) stuffed up and didn't select Athletics as a class skill. Well he gets it anyways at 1/2 bonus.

Not the greatest of abilities though granted.

It's not that it's useless. It's just that it sucks.

[Malifice]

a wizard can place an interposing hand in between itself and the balor, forcing it to either spend its action teleporting to move (no save, the hand is strong enough to stop it from passing through 100% of the time) or kill the hand (which will likely take 2 rounds).

Assuming the Wizard goes first and the Balor isnt already in combat with the front line fighters.

You're missing the point by the way. The default assumption is that a Wizard will wake up with 3-4 encounter ending spells to use in a 9 encounter/ 2 short rest/ 30 round adventuring day. He spends the other 5-6 encounters chugging along contributing with lower level spells, and OOC utility (and enabling plot stuff like Plane shifting and the like).

No-one argues that. The Wizard gets a couple of 'we win' buttons to smash a few encounters per day. For the rest of the time, the warriors do the lions share of the heavy lifting.


also, i'm not sure why you think the fighter and barbarian get to threaten the balor in melee. it is very intelligent and moderately wise, has a longish range attack (certainly longer than the melee range of the fighter and barbarian), and can fly. if their melee damage is a threat to it, it can just decide to not be in reach of their melee damage (well, unless the barbarian is a totem barbarian with the ability to fly).

Assuming its fighting outside and has space to fly, doesnt want to teach these foolish mortals a lesson by crushing them in melee with fire and steel (it is a Balor after all). Also; ranged weapons. The Champion/ Rogue and Barb just peg javelins or shoot at it. Only the Barb gets stuck with ****ty ranged attacks, and even then (as you point out) he gets Fly as a class feature.

Flying isnt really that optimal either for the Balor mate. It deals damage each round from it flame aura, and inflicts a further 10 with each melee attack that hits it. It's corse shtick is to drag stuff close.

Can you imagine the Balrog flying above Boromir and whipping him from range 'because it's optimal'? Nah I didnt think so.

[Easy_Lee]

Assuming the Wizard goes first and the Balor isnt already in combat with the front line fighters.

You're missing the point by the way. The default assumption is that a Wizard will wake up with 3-4 encounter ending spells to use in a 9 encounter/ 2 short rest/ 30 round adventuring day.

What kinds of encounter-ending spells?

[Malifice]

What kinds of encounter-ending spells?

Take a 1st level Wizard. He has up to 3 x sleep spells per day (a notorious encounter ender), also color spray etc. It pretty much continues along this train for the pattern of 20 levels. The default assumption is a Wizard will be able to drop a 'big flashy encounter changing spell' in 1 out of every 3 encounters, and he will generally be the one most likely to have the right spell for the right job (unlike say, a Warlock).

For the other 6 encounters that day the Wizard contributes less than the Fighters in terms of damage dealt/ taken (while still being useful via battlefield control and OOC utility).

Basically the grunts do the heavy lifting and foot slogging and the wizard gets to chime in from time to time with an artillery strike from the rear echelon. You cant win a war without infantry, but you should never assault the enemy without fire support.

Also don't forget, fighter also get 1/3 encounters to action surge and kill something dead, dead, dead (not as impressive as a meteor swarm which does similar damage to a burst, but hey by the time the Wizard is meteor swarming 1/9 encounters the Fighter is 2/3 encounter action surging).

[SharkForce]

Assuming the Wizard goes first and the Balor isnt already in combat with the front line fighters.

You're missing the point by the way. The default assumption is that a Wizard will wake up with 3-4 encounter ending spells to use in a 9 encounter/ 2 short rest/ 30 round adventuring day. He spends the other 5-6 encounters chugging along contributing with lower level spells, and OOC utility (and enabling plot stuff like Plane shifting and the like).

No-one argues that. The Wizard gets a couple of 'we win' buttons to smash a few encounters per day. For the rest of the time, the warriors do the lions share of the heavy lifting.



Assuming its fighting outside and has space to fly, doesnt want to teach these foolish mortals a lesson by crushing them in melee with fire and steel (it is a Balor after all). Also; ranged weapons. The Champion/ Rogue and Barb just peg javelins or shoot at it. Only the Barb gets stuck with ****ty ranged attacks, and even then (as you point out) he gets Fly as a class feature.

Flying isnt really that optimal either for the Balor mate. It deals damage each round from it flame aura, and inflicts a further 10 with each melee attack that hits it. It's corse shtick is to drag stuff close.

Can you imagine the Balrog flying above Boromir and whipping him from range 'because it's optimal'? Nah I didnt think so.

a level 5 spell is not *that* rare of a resource. and if the melees were dumb enough to charge into melee combat with a monster that deals large amounts of damage in an area to people in melee combat, that's on them, not on the wizard.

and if boromir can deal 1/2 his HP in 6 seconds, then yes... yes i think the balrog would fly above and whip him from range. except that boromir isn't using a polearm, so in his case the balrog can just smack him with both weapons anyways.

and while it may not be optimal for the balrog, it's much more optimal than it is for the melee champion, who is losing fighting style and has to expend limited ranged (which will probably be destroyed by the fire aura and are probably not magical and can only be used twice per round *if* the champion has the two-weapon fighting feat... more likely only once per round, because you only get to draw one weapon per turn).

barbarians usually cannot outgrapple the thing because it is huge, and cannot be grabbed by medium-sized barbarians regardless of their modifier. a net will presumably be burned in the balor's aura as well (DM's discretion, but unless the net is fireproof for some reason, it really should be)... not that it particularly matters because the net has a long range of 15 (which most people agree is less than 30 feet) and only works on creatures up to size large, which makes a total of 3 reasons why using a net on a balor probably isn't going to accomplish much.

and yes, the barbarian can fly. maybe. if they picked that ability. but then, this isn't about barbarians. it's about the champion. in particular, about whether their toughness can be leveraged to benefit the rest of the party. which it generally speaking can't, because nothing with a reasonable intelligence attribute should target you instead of any other party member that is more dangrous but easier to kill.

admittedly, an archer champion will perform better against this scenario. but then... the archer champion probably isn't using a shield. unless of course they don't mind not having a free hand with which to draw ammunition, and thus being able to use their weapon once per fight. and may not have the strength for heavy plate (or may prefer not to wear it because they probably want to be good at sneaking, which is one of the major advantages of being a dex-based champion that would compensate for being worse at athletics checks).

so, good odds that the archer champion isn't particularly more tough than many other people, and is also not dealing as much damage in a single round as a melee champion either.

(though, on a side note, i have my doubts about a champion's expected damage with sword and board and no bonus action attack being as high as is claimed. and if it's not a sword-and-board champion, the claims of extreme toughness are pretty grandiose for something that is likely to amount to an extra 10-20 HP over the course of a fight beyond any other fighter, which in turn is only about 10-20 HP and 1 AC beyond expected values for a rogue of equal level but without uncanny dodge)

[Malifice]

a level 5 spell is not *that* rare of a resource. and if the melees were dumb enough to charge into melee combat with a monster that deals large amounts of damage in an area to people in melee combat, that's on them, not on the wizard.

Of course they're going to charge into melee with it. Its a GWF Barbarian and a Sword and Board Champion Fighter engaging a target 1 CR lower than them. In my example I posted above I kind of expect them to deal with it inside of a round or two with very little issues (and that includes the Wizard)


and if boromir can deal 1/2 his HP in 6 seconds, then yes... yes i think the balrog would fly above and whip him from range. except that boromir isn't using a polearm, so in his case the balrog can just smack him with both weapons anyways.

How does the Balrog know 'how much damage' anyone can do, let alone Boromir? Its pretty accustomed to just destroying anything that overcomes its fear enough to come near it I imagine, and with not much effort.

Your above comments imply a high level of meta-game knowledge on the part of the Demon. I'm sure you'll try and justify it with 'oh but Demons have been around long enough to know how 'in game physics' works or something equally ridiculous.


and while it may not be optimal for the balrog, it's much more optimal than it is for the melee champion, who is losing fighting style and has to expend limited ranged (which will probably be destroyed by the fire aura and are probably not magical and can only be used twice per round *if* the champion has the two-weapon fighting feat... more likely only once per round, because you only get to draw one weapon per turn).

Its not just 'not optimal' for the Balor, its totally out of character for a Balor. It is almost certainly utterly arrogant, destructive, cruel and violent to its very core. To the 'nth degree. As in its very essence is comprised of the Abyss. Its a veritable engine of destruction that can squash a man with a flick of its wrist, melt steel with its skin, and incinerate anyone who even gets near it.

I hope to god you dont play your monsters with meta knowledge and it all boils down to 'optimal combat choices as dictated by RAW'. That would be kinda missing the whole point of the game for mine (but if that's how you roll, and what you enjoy, go for it).


barbarians usually cannot outgrapple the thing because it is huge, and cannot be grabbed by medium-sized barbarians regardless of their modifier. a net will presumably be burned in the balor's aura as well (DM's discretion, but unless the net is fireproof for some reason, it really should be)... not that it particularly matters because the net has a long range of 15 (which most people agree is less than 30 feet) and only works on creatures up to size large, which makes a total of 3 reasons why using a net on a balor probably isn't going to accomplish much.

What? Who is throwing nets on a Balor? What are you talking about?

Man this isn't about the Wizard. I've already said I expect a wizard to turn or end 1/3 of encounters per day with a flashy spell. I get that's what they do. There is no debate here.


(though, on a side note, i have my doubts about a champion's expected damage with sword and board and no bonus action attack being as high as is claimed. and if it's not a sword-and-board champion, the claims of extreme toughness are pretty grandiose for something that is likely to amount to an extra 10-20 HP over the course of a fight beyond any other fighter, which in turn is only about 10-20 HP and 1 AC beyond expected values for a rogue of equal level but without uncanny dodge)

Bonus action to shove (+11 to shove) grants advantage vs most Large and smaller targets. Followed up with an action surge (8 attacks + dueling style) a crit range of 18-20 (with advantage) on a (half orc) fighter is nothing to sneeze at.

All attacks will most likely hit most targets due to advantage, and you would anticipate @3 crits. Makes the total damage 14d8+(56) - or around 119 points of damage. A +2 sword brings it up to an even 125. Ah screw it -Here's the maths:

No advantage, Str 20, dueling style, Champion S+B Fighter with a +3 long sword vs AC 20:
Roll: (damage) average damage
1-5 (0 - miss) 0
6-17 (1d8+10) 14.5
18-20 (3d8+10) 23.5

/20= 12.925 Damage per attack (x4 attacks) = 51.7 damage per round (103.4 w action surge)

The above damage goes up considerably when he can bonus action to shove first and theus make the above attacks with advantage. It's also pretty swingy damage. Good rolling into the 18+ area can spike it considerably (also making shield master totally worth it, in addition to its defensive benefits for his reflex saves).

By comparison, a GWM/GWF 1/2 Orc Champion 20 vs AC 20 deals 17.71 damage per attack with a +3 2H sword for 141.68 DPR with action surge, or 70.84 without. Is much more swingy though with crits triggering massive damage spikes and an extra weapon attack as a bonus action.

[SharkForce]

didn't know champions had a clas feature that gives them a +3 sword. could've swore it was actually wizards who can do that.

(as to the rest of your comments, read up on the rest of the thread. i'm answering to things that people said).

and actually... a balor has an intelligence of 20. the maximum a human is capable of. they're pretty smart.

they also have a wisdom of 16. not human maximum, but still really good.

so what exactly makes you think it's metagame knowledge that they can get an idea of your strength? the sword you want to give your champion is just this side of a legendary weapon. he's probably accomplished some pretty impressive things that the demon's minions may have heard about, and some of those things probably include having killed a number of the balor's minions specifically. the balor having no idea what the fighter is capable of is really quite improbable.

[Malifice]

didn't know champions had a clas feature that gives them a +3 sword. could've swore it was actually wizards who can do that.

In a game featuring Wizards, Balors and 20th level champions, Its a pretty safe assumption that magical swords are included.

It may not be assumed in the 'core maths' of DnD anymore, but every DnD adventure and campaign world released to date in both electronic and tabletop form (and I dare say every virtually campaign played at present) includes them. It's safe to assume that in the overwhelming majority of cases, in a campaign featuring a 20th level fighter, magical arms and armor will feature.


and actually... a balor has an intelligence of 20. the maximum a human is capable of. they're pretty smart.

they also have a wisdom of 16. not human maximum, but still really good.

so what exactly makes you think it's metagame knowledge that they can get an idea of your strength? the sword you want to give your champion is just this side of a legendary weapon. he's probably accomplished some pretty impressive things that the demon's minions may have heard about, and some of those things probably include having killed a number of the balor's minions specifically. the balor having no idea what the fighter is capable of is really quite improbable.

Dude, I'd probably have the Balor waste an action gloating first, and explain the look of surprise in its face when the puny mortals that dare challenge it give it an ass whooping in the first round.

Of course it's entirely possible that the Balor knows about these legendary mortals and is actually afraid of them. Its all situational.

As a player though, I would be mighty pissed off if the DM played to such levels of optimisation constantly. It leads to the players doing the exact same thing, which is totally against my immersion in the world around me.

This is a different topic to the champion though. Play your encounters however it makes sense to you.

[SharkForce]

it is a CR 19 demon. not a random encounter.

it should know the party, and they should know it. it's not exactly the sort of thing that just randomly wanders around the countryside without making an impact until the PCs stumble across it.

and if i take a creature that is at the peak of human intelligence and is a general of hell and then play it like it's a braindead idiot, i am cheating the group out of a proper encounter. frankly, it should be surrounded by a dozen lesser minions too, really.

and yes, magical swords are pretty reasonable at those levels. +3 swords for everyone? not so likely. which is why my preferred solution didn't call for that +3 save DC you were suggesting (which requires 2 legendary items... yeah, not exactly high probability on that, and there's definitely a reason they don't give save DC increases out very often, because if the balor lacked truesight he'd have been a prime target for phantasmal force which would have had a decent chance of succeeding even with advantage (about a 58% chance to work if i'm not mistaken, followed by int checks that cost an action - if it even thinks to try -with no advantage at 35%), and could easily have screwed over the balor entirely, even with no DC boosts. make that a DC 22 int save (64% chance to make followed by int checks at 20%) and you've just wrecked a CR 19 creature with a level 2 spell).

i do have to say, i find the proposed champion and barbarian-based method of resolving the fight to be pretty danged awful... it calls for the wizard's only level 9 spell slot, the fighter takes a net 125 damage, and the barbarian is taking close to 200 (before resistances are figured in, so quite possibly "only" 100 damage). for something that is being characterized as an easy fight (your explanation that they're "only" fighting a creature with a CR 1 lower than their level), that just ate an uncomfortably large portion of your daily hit dice, and the party as described has no cleric (not that if i was the cleric i'd be at all interested in healing you through that much damage when you decided it was a good idea to take a huge amount of damage). in contrast, the bigby's hand solution takes a fair bit longer... but probably features the balor exploding and dealing no damage (nobody needs to be within 30 feet at the time of his death... also, just noticed the balor only deals damage to creatures in the area at the start of its turn, so it can't even teleport to someone and smack them with its aura), and never getting a single melee attack off the entire fight. also, it might take more than one bigby's hand (the balor will chew through the hand's HP fairly quickly, and the described party is frankly awful at ranged combat).

so, ummm... yeah. the wizard's ability to screw over the balor is very high, and the wizard's ability to survive is decidedly lower than the champion's. i don't see the balor deciding to ignore the wizard and focus the champion any time soon. even if we assume the wizard doesn't have the 100% chance to succeed that bigby's hand offers, all it takes is for the wizard to get lucky once and the balor is dealt with entirely (in one possible scenario, the balor even ends up as the wizard's servant for the next half a year, though the odds on that are not good even with a DC boost; the balor has a pretty danged high charisma save).

champions are tough when built for it. but their toughness isn't particularly a party resource very often by the time you hit high levels.

[Vogonjeltz]

What is the difference between a save and a check?

According to page 174 of the PHB "An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."

And a saving throw is defined on page 179 of the PHB: "A saving throw - also called a save - represents an attempt to resist a spell, a trap, a poison, a disease, or a similar threat. You don't normally decide to make a saving throw; your are forced to make one because your character or monster is at risk of harm."

So if it's not your character reacting to a spell, trap, poison, or disease it's probably not a saving throw.

In terms of Constitution checks, the PHB indicates it's an attempt to push beyond ones normal limits.


Also helps you with checks that don't normally have a skill attached. A DM could say that breaking a chain is not an athletics check, just a generic strength check.

This is most probable given that Athletics covers jumping, climbing, swimming activities and breaking bonds is specifically called out as being another type of Strength check that a DM might call for.

[ChubbyRain]

Why is the Champion great? Simplicity.
Why does the Champion suck? Simplicity.
Some like the simplicity, some don't.

For those familiar with Borderlands, the Champion is like Gaige. Nothing wrong with picking them, but they cop a lot of flak for being 'the girlfriend class'.

The issue is simplicity doesn't have to mean you suck. They aren't competing issues.

You can have a simple fighter that doesn't suck. 13th age has some neat class abilities and homebrew that shows this.


One of the base issues with the champion is that the PC plays by the same rules as commoners at levels 1 - 20. Casters start by using the same rules as commoners but then get more and more exceptions as the game goes on. The champion, and fighter in general, doesn't really get exceptions. They still use the base rules and aren't very imaginative, improbable, or impossible.

[Chronos]

D&D 5th edition also has a simple fighter that doesn't suck.

[Malifice]

The issue is simplicity doesn't have to mean you suck. They aren't competing issues.

You can have a simple fighter that doesn't suck. 13th age has some neat class abilities and homebrew that shows this.


One of the base issues with the champion is that the PC plays by the same rules as commoners at levels 1 - 20. Casters start by using the same rules as commoners but then get more and more exceptions as the game goes on. The champion, and fighter in general, doesn't really get exceptions. They still use the base rules and aren't very imaginative, improbable, or impossible.

You dont think going toe to toe with a Balrog, a Dragon, or a freaking Pit Fiend with a pointy stick and winning is an improbable exception?

[LordVonDerp]

You dont think going toe to toe with a Balrog, a Dragon, or a freaking Pit Fiend with a pointy stick and winning is an improbable exception?
If they were that big an exception civilization wouldn't have caught on.

[Malifice]

If they were that big an exception civilization wouldn't have caught on.

I'm just imagining instead of fleeing from the Balrog, Boromir or Aragorn step up, draws a sword, and is all like:

Don't worry fellas; I got this.

And then proceeds to kick its ass. I mean - that's literally superhuman.

As we discussed earlier, a single high level Champion fighter can go toe to toe with one and win in a few rounds. It took Gandalf an entire week to fight out a draw with one, and he's literally a freaking Demi-God/ Maia.

[SharkForce]

really? cause i seem to recall your champion vs balor example going differently. starting with the champion dealing about 100 damage... and taking 80 damage back just from the flame aura. then healing 25 damage from second wind. then taking 10 damage from the balor starting its turn. and then the balor dealt 100 damage to the barbarian sitting next to him.

out of curiosity, how much HP does a level 20 champion have in your imagination?

because in my imagination, they'll have around 10 (first hit dice) + 6 * 19 (next 19 hit dice) + 20 * 5 (con mod, assuming they max it) = 224.

now, i'll assume the balor would "only" deal, say, 75 damage to the champion instead of what it dealt to the barbarian. so you've taken a total of about 130 damage, and can deal 100 more on your next turn. and take another 80. you will also heal 10 HP from your level 18 champion ability. and you will be at 24 HP and the balor will be at 15. and then it will get its turn and it will kill you until you are very very dead.

or, alternately, after your first attack, it just flies up into the air 15 feet and gets to enjoy its full melee attack while you get to rely on what are probably nonmagical javelins. good luck with that.

so yeah, i'm not seeing this "champion solos a balor" thing you're suggesting would happen. unless the balor in question is incredibly stupid (as in, stupid enough to stand in melee instead of just letting you lob your limited supply of javelins which are probably not magical at it, and dumb enough to watch you heal back to half health at some point during the fight). which they aren't, if their 20 intelligence and 16 wisdom is any indication.

in fact, if anyone is going to take down the balor so, i'd put my money on the barbarian soloing it. not the champion. extra HP plus the potential to have damage resistance against the demon and potential flight. he has the tools to take the beating, and does more damage in fewer hits.

or, you know, like i already said... the wizard can take the balrog down solo (or, more likely, force it to run away) while taking no damage. it'll take a while, but the wizard can totally pull it off (though again, if no previous resources are expended i really expect the wizard to try and make the balrog his slave for half a year using wish to duplicate planar binding, and possibly mix in a couple forcecage attempts to let him defeat the balrog at his leisure)

[Malifice]

really? cause i seem to recall your champion vs balor example going differently. starting with the champion dealing about 100 damage... and taking 80 damage back just from the flame aura. then healing 25 damage from second wind. then taking 10 damage from the balor starting its turn. and then the balor dealt 100 damage to the barbarian sitting next to him.

Lol. The full plate wearing, S+B, defence style Champion takes nowhere near 100 points of damage from the Balors attacks in a single round.

With no magic items he sits at AC 21. The Balor gets what..? +14 to hit? With 2 attacks? The Balor misses the Champion on a 1-6, hits him on a 7-19, and crits him on a 20.

AFB, but feel free to calculate (13/20th of the Balors average damage) + (1/20th of the Balors critical damage).

It wont add up to 100 points of damage. It'll be lucky to hit 40 DPR vs that AC.

[Cazero]

Well, if you're going to make the balor stupid when facing the wizard...
The wizard cast an encounter changing spells that get around the balor awesome saves by not targeting it. The balor teleports away. An arbitrary amount of time passes. The wizard dismiss the spell. The balor teleports back in. Rinse and repeat until the limited supply of spells from the wizard is empty, or until the wizard mans up and get stomped in a 'fair' fight.

And that thing about a flying balor slaughtering the fighter. It is far from the truth. You know bows are a thing? The fighter doesn't have to suck with javelins (assuming that javelins suck); in fact, a champion fighter can afford to have both archery and a melee focused fighting style, and to have both his STR and DEX maxed. Just a matter of build and loot, like your assumptions about what spells the wizard have access to are.

And even then. Confronted with a flying balor, the fighter who is not good enough with bows readies an action to catch the whip. Then pulls. A grapple with 30ft reach against someone who can't dodge without letting go a little further, thank you balor, the advantage on every ranged attacks I can make with one hand (like, say, thrown weapons) will come in handy. Unless the balor wants to let go of his (probably) magical weapon with long reach and let me use it to stomp his ass from outside of his fire aura? That works too.

[Malifice]

Well, if you're going to make the balor stupid when facing the wizard...
The wizard cast an encounter changing spells that get around the balor awesome saves by not targeting it. The balor teleports away. An arbitrary amount of time passes. The wizard dismiss the spell. The balor teleports back in. Rinse and repeat until the limited supply of spells from the wizard is empty, or until the wizard mans up and get stomped in a 'fair' fight.

And that thing about a flying balor slaughtering the fighter. It is far from the truth. You know bows are a thing? The fighter doesn't have to suck with javelins (assuming that javelins suck); in fact, a champion fighter can afford to have both archery and a melee focused fighting style, and to have both his STR and DEX maxed. Just a matter of build and loot, like your assumptions about what spells the wizard have access to are.

And even then. Confronted with a flying balor, the fighter who is not good enough with bows readies an action to catch the whip. Then pulls. A grapple with 30ft reach against someone who can't dodge without letting go a little further, thank you balor, the advantage on every ranged attacks I can make with one hand (like, say, thrown weapons) will come in handy. Unless the balor wants to let go of his (probably) magical weapon with long reach and let me use it to stomp his ass from outside of his fire aura? That works too.

You dont even need that.

Pretty sure that once we take fire damage from the aura and hitting the Balor with a melee weapon off the table, the Champion Fighter deals with the Balor pretty convincingly (assuming either a magic bow or arrows to get through the Balors resistance to non-magic weapons).

[Theodoxus]

The issue is simplicity doesn't have to mean you suck. They aren't competing issues.

You can have a simple fighter that doesn't suck. 13th age has some neat class abilities and homebrew that shows this.


One of the base issues with the champion is that the PC plays by the same rules as commoners at levels 1 - 20. Casters start by using the same rules as commoners but then get more and more exceptions as the game goes on. The champion, and fighter in general, doesn't really get exceptions. They still use the base rules and aren't very imaginative, improbable, or impossible.

Knowing nothing about 13th Age, do their fighters get magical abilities? Can they tell the laws of physics to shut up and stand in the corner? If so, then why play a caster? If not, then how are they any different than any other class that "doesn't really get exceptions."?

ETA: The only way to get classes equal in affect is to remove classes altogether. A generic chassis or three that you can slap on options as you desire. That way, each player can customize their character exactly how they want to behave. Of course, you're no longer playing D&D at that point, but it is the way to go for those folks who want to turn D&D into something it's not.


If they were that big an exception civilization wouldn't have caught on.

I would hazard to guess, that if magic were as actually as prevalent as it is in fantasy genre in general and D&D specifically, civilizations would never have developed martial tactics at all.

Why study to be a swordsman (if swords were even ever thought up) when you could use the same amount of study and time to summon a demon or hurl a blob of fire?

How many discussions have raged on about the ridiculousness of medieval style castles in the age of teleportation and mass arcane DPR, let alone invisibility and Meld Stone, et al.

The fact is, we have no clue how civilization would have developed at all; we shoe-horn magic onto a romanticized notion of medieval life, throw extremely long live non-human allies into the mix and then balance that with monstrous humanoids, dragons, outer plane and elemental minions and expect it to essentially look like HBOs vision for Game of Thrones.

We should be a whole lot smarter than that - but I've yet to encounter it in literature, much less gaming. The closest is anything that has a very limited magic system (GoT, for example) - yet even there, those with dragons win 100% of the time, because dragons.

Magic beats all, because magic. Fighters shouldn't even exist. Little Frankie dreams of beating up his childhood bully, and spends his time honing his body to be a deadly weapon. Meanwhile, Dax, the bully, studies magic from his father. Frankie gets the jump on Dax, pummeling him with a few good kicks and punches, probably augmented with a rock in his fist, until Dax gets tired of it and teleports poor Frankie to the sun.

Frankie knew the reality of magic, but decided to use his fists instead? Frankie didn't evolve and wins this years Darwin Award.

[Gwendol]

One of the base issues with the champion is that the PC plays by the same rules as commoners at levels 1 - 20. Casters start by using the same rules as commoners but then get more and more exceptions as the game goes on. The champion, and fighter in general, doesn't really get exceptions. They still use the base rules and aren't very imaginative, improbable, or impossible.

What same rules? Probably the same rules that also govern the wizard (how far can they move in one round, carrying capacity vs strength, and similar).

Bonus action heal? No.
Action surge? No.
Extra attacks? No.
Remarkable athlete? No.
Reroll saving throws? No.
Regeneration of HP? No.
Improved critical? No.

All of those are exceptions. Furthermore they most certainly brake what is both probable and possible. Imaginative, it's too subjective to comment on.

[Hawkstar]

Actually, in fantasy settings, Feudalism makes a lot of damn sense for a social structure, since it has "Asskicking Equals Authority" built into its heirarchy.

[Fwiffo86]

Magic beats all, because magic. Fighters shouldn't even exist. Little Frankie dreams of beating up his childhood bully, and spends his time honing his body to be a deadly weapon. Meanwhile, Dax, the bully, studies magic from his father. Frankie gets the jump on Dax, pummeling him with a few good kicks and punches, probably augmented with a rock in his fist, until Dax gets tired of it and teleports poor Frankie to the sun.

Frankie knew the reality of magic, but decided to use his fists instead? Frankie didn't evolve and wins this years Darwin Award.

I like to view it as 1 in 100,000 are born with the capability to use magic (wiz) and the same number of devoted are granted magic by their gods. Thus, armies make more sense because you can't put together an army of spellcasters when your kingdom only has 200,000 residents. But you can certainly arm 50,000 men with weapons and send them somewhere.

[Elderand]

One of the base issues with the champion is that the PC plays by the same rules as commoners at levels 1 - 20. Casters start by using the same rules as commoners but then get more and more exceptions as the game goes on. The champion, and fighter in general, doesn't really get exceptions. They still use the base rules and aren't very imaginative, improbable, or impossible.

That's not one of the issue of the champion.
For one, it's not true, the champion get plenty of things a commoner couldn't do.

Second, the fact that it is simple and bland is very much by design. It's a feature not a bug.

Third, the issue is with you, the champion not having enough bells and whistles for your taste is just that, your taste, it's not a problem with the champion.

Believe it or not but what you like is not the be all end all of what can or should be.

[Malifice]

I would hazard to guess, that if magic were as actually as prevalent as it is in fantasy genre in general and D&D specifically, civilizations would never have developed martial tactics at all.

Why study to be a swordsman (if swords were even ever thought up) when you could use the same amount of study and time to summon a demon or hurl a blob of fire?

Because the ability to lob a ball of fire (by those that possess it) is a limited thing. Even powerful mid level wizards cant do it more than a few times per day. After that, they're vulnerable geezers in dresses. A warrior can swing an axe or fire a bow all day long.

Its like how kingdoms didnt suddenly ditch infantry when cannons entered the battlefield.

Wizards arent all powerful. They just require different tactics to deal with.

[Easy_Lee]

Because the ability to lob a ball of fire (by those that possess it) is a limited thing. Even powerful mid level wizards cant do it more than a few times per day. After that, they're vulnerable geezers in dresses. A warrior can swing an axe or fire a bow all day long.

This used to be the case but, now that cantrips have become so powerful, it is not anymore.

[Malifice]

This used to be the case but, now that cantrips have become so powerful, it is not anymore.

And it was just the other day that we were complaining that everything was vulnerable to a handful of peasants with bows.

[Easy_Lee]

And it was just the other day that we were complaining that everything was vulnerable to a handful of peasants with bows.

That's true. In 5e, overall power levels are lower, so everyone is vulnerable to large numbers. In 3.5e, not even monks were threatened by peasants.

[SharkForce]

Lol. The full plate wearing, S+B, defence style Champion takes nowhere near 100 points of damage from the Balors attacks in a single round.

With no magic items he sits at AC 21. The Balor gets what..? +14 to hit? With 2 attacks? The Balor misses the Champion on a 1-6, hits him on a 7-19, and crits him on a 20.

AFB, but feel free to calculate (13/20th of the Balors average damage) + (1/20th of the Balors critical damage).

It wont add up to 100 points of damage. It'll be lucky to hit 40 DPR vs that AC.

the barbarian has probably almost the same AC (it's not like con and dex are completely unimportant, and 24 con with 16 dex isn't that improbable at all, and gives an easy 20 AC). the only difference is advantage. are you trying to suggest that the balor increased it's DPR up to 250% of what it would have been against the champion because of advantage? because i have my doubts about that.


Well, if you're going to make the balor stupid when facing the wizard...
The wizard cast an encounter changing spells that get around the balor awesome saves by not targeting it. The balor teleports away. An arbitrary amount of time passes. The wizard dismiss the spell. The balor teleports back in. Rinse and repeat until the limited supply of spells from the wizard is empty, or until the wizard mans up and get stomped in a 'fair' fight.

And that thing about a flying balor slaughtering the fighter. It is far from the truth. You know bows are a thing? The fighter doesn't have to suck with javelins (assuming that javelins suck); in fact, a champion fighter can afford to have both archery and a melee focused fighting style, and to have both his STR and DEX maxed. Just a matter of build and loot, like your assumptions about what spells the wizard have access to are.

And even then. Confronted with a flying balor, the fighter who is not good enough with bows readies an action to catch the whip. Then pulls. A grapple with 30ft reach against someone who can't dodge without letting go a little further, thank you balor, the advantage on every ranged attacks I can make with one hand (like, say, thrown weapons) will come in handy. Unless the balor wants to let go of his (probably) magical weapon with long reach and let me use it to stomp his ass from outside of his fire aura? That works too.

you know, people complain about schrodinger's wizard that has all spells known. i think it's about time to complain about schrodinger's fighter. the wizard can change spell lists in a day. the fighter has their attributes set in stone. the champion cannot simultaneously have every feat, and every attribute maxed. a specific build was posted above. it does not have 20 dex. it does not have ranged combat feats. it does not use a bow to devastating effect. the thing with schrodinger's wizard is that with decent scouting and some prep time and planning, the wizard actually can change its spell list. it can legitimately happen in the right situation (that being a long rest). there is no scenario in which a champion can reasonably be expected to change around all attributes to fit a different scenario. not in a day. not in a year. not in a hundred years.

and then we have this assumption that you can just grab the whip and use it to grapple the balor. really? so i guess you won't mind when every enemy you face does the same to you and just catches your weapons and make it useless every fight, because that mechanic does not exist. you are being attacked with a weapon. not handed a rope.

but anyways, let's suppose the demon teleports away, waits, and comes back (not sure why, he can kill the hand fairly quickly). what makes you think the wizard is going to stand there drooling like an idiot the whole time? the balor leaves the area, and the wizard just teleports away. the balor may not be dead, but a draw is better than getting killed, so in comparison, the wizard was still more of a threat, because he could threaten a draw. alternately, the wizard can attempt to change the scenario in some way to his advantage (such as by using some of those other spells i mentioned earlier that can end the fight if the balor fails a saving throw, whether its likely to happen or not). but this is still beside the point of the whole discussion in the first place, which is that the balor has no reason to attack the comparatively lower offense champion with higher defense when there is a perfectly good low-defense high-offense character around to kill. thus, the champion's tankiness is not a group resource.


You dont even need that.

Pretty sure that once we take fire damage from the aura and hitting the Balor with a melee weapon off the table, the Champion Fighter deals with the Balor pretty convincingly (assuming either a magic bow or arrows to get through the Balors resistance to non-magic weapons).

uh-huh. the strength-based champion with a shield (which he has spent feats on improving) and heavy armour (which he has also spent feats on improving, and which doesn't benefit from dexterity) has a magic (dex-based, two-handed) bow as a secondary weapon and the attributes to make good use of it? pull the other one. incidentally, since your champion isn't using a polearm, he will be taking aura damage (just not from hitting). and the second he removes his shield (an action) to draw the bow, the balor can just step up, free interaction kick the sword however far away super strength allows (or just use it, i suppose, but i can't see why he would bother), and you're stuck in a melee fight with a ranged weapon. without the attributes and combat style to back it up. because ten posts ago, the champion was not a dex-based archer champion, so there is no plausible reason for that to be the case now.

and all of which is still beside the point that was being made. a wizard has higher offense. this is deliberate. it is to compensate for the lower built-in defense and the limited resources the wizard faces. this makes it a highly desirable target, and the champion's moderate offence and high defence makes it an undesirable target, which still leaves the champion's tankiness as not a group resource. because no intelligent monster is going to focus down the champion when a wizard (or sorcerer, or whatever other class there is with high offense and low defense that you would want a tank to protect) is around, given the option between the two of them.

[-Jynx-]

It should stand to reason too that if magic was as prolific in a real worl setting that those muggles would (like a fighter or barbarian for example) be much harder/better/faster/stronger *que daft punk* than normal people these days.

Feats of inhuman strength speed and agility are just as impressive as hurling a fireball a few times a day.

[Gwendol]

and then we have this assumption that you can just grab the whip and use it to grapple the balor. really? so i guess you won't mind when every enemy you face does the same to you and just catches your weapons and make it useless every fight, because that mechanic does not exist.

The rest of the argument I have no interest in, but this I need to comment on. Not all weapons are whips. The action involved in catching a whip is very different from any other weapon, except maybe a net. The mechanic most certainly exist, it's called an improvised action, and more specifically a contest. Improvised actions are presented on page 192, and contests on page 195 (together with the instruction to use the mechanics of shoves and grapples and apply them to other contests).

[Malifice]

the barbarian has probably almost the same AC (it's not like con and dex are completely unimportant, and 24 con with 16 dex isn't that improbable at all, and gives an easy 20 AC). the only difference is advantage. are you trying to suggest that the balor increased it's DPR up to 250% of what it would have been against the champion because of advantage? because i have my doubts about that.

Lol. In my example I stated the Barb copped a crit. I wasnt comparing strict DPR.


you know, people complain about schrodinger's wizard that has all spells known. i think it's about time to complain about schrodinger's fighter. the wizard can change spell lists in a day. the fighter has their attributes set in stone. the champion cannot simultaneously have every feat, and every attribute maxed. a specific build was posted above. it does not have 20 dex. it does not have ranged combat feats. it does not use a bow to devastating effect.

Yes it does. It's no bow specialist mind you, but it can shoot at +8 (assuming no magic bow or arrows, and a dex of only 14) 16 times in 12 seconds or 800 percent faster than the 20th level Wizard or a common militiaman.


the thing with schrodinger's wizard is that with decent scouting and some prep time and planning, the wizard actually can change its spell list.

Sigh. The assumption is, the Wizard is always prepared with the right spell for the job to deliver an encounter turning spell 3-4 times per day, and still meaningfully contribte for the remaining 5-6 encounters of the day.

No-one is disputing this. It's a core assumption of the game.


uh-huh. the strength-based champion with a shield (which he has spent feats on improving) and heavy armour (which he has also spent feats on improving, and which doesn't benefit from dexterity) has a magic (dex-based, two-handed) bow as a secondary weapon and the attributes to make good use of it? pull the other one.

Yep. Only a fool doesnt bring his best ranged attack with him adventuring.

Your wizard is smart enough (apparently) to 'scout the area and prepare accordingly, changing his spells accordingly' but the fighter just stumbles in to a dungeon with rubbish ranged weapons? Lol.

If thats what your experience has shown you at your table, no wonder you dont rate fighters. Your fighter players dont seem too bright.

For what its worth, I saw this phenomenon precisely once. A bastard sword fighter in early 3.5 (pre splat book). We hit around 6th level, and got bumped by a flying creature. Watching the fool look at his character sheet and realise he didnt bring a ranged weapon was priceless. Even not being 'tricked out' for ranged combat he had a strength of 18. Nothing stopping him buying a composite longbow and shooting twice a round. My greatsword Cleric/ Fighter had one (and I had ranged spells to boot).


and all of which is still beside the point that was being made. a wizard has higher offense. this is deliberate. it is to compensate for the lower built-in defense and the limited resources the wizard faces. this makes it a highly desirable target, and the champion's moderate offence and high defence makes it an undesirable target, which still leaves the champion's tankiness as not a group resource. because no intelligent monster is going to focus down the champion when a wizard (or sorcerer, or whatever other class there is with high offense and low defense that you would want a tank to protect) is around, given the option between the two of them.

Again; lol.

How can monsters discern between a 'tanky' fighter and a 'non tanky' one? The DM knows, the monsters sure as hell dont.

And your argument seems to be that a fighter that is hard to put down (due to solid defences, high HP, and good saves) and deals consistent, reliable and high levels of damage (and frequent brutal nova strikes) doesnt contribte to the success of the party.

Which is of course, utter and total rubbish.

AD&D fighters and BECMI fighters had less options to control the battle than 5th edition fighters. They had high hit points, did constant and reliable damage, and had high AC's. They seemed to do just fine.

[Ardantis]

Lol. In my example I stated the Barb copped a crit. I wasnt comparing strict DPR.



Yes it does. It's no bow specialist mind you, but it can shoot at +8 (assuming no magic bow or arrows, and a dex of only 14) 16 times in 12 seconds or 800 percent faster than the 20th level Wizard or a common militiaman.



Sigh. The assumption is, the Wizard is always prepared with the right spell for the job to deliver an encounter turning spell 3-4 times per day, and still meaningfully contribte for the remaining 5-6 encounters of the day.

No-one is disputing this. It's a core assumption of the game.



Yep. Only a fool doesnt bring his best ranged attack with him adventuring.

Your wizard is smart enough (apparently) to 'scout the area and prepare accordingly, changing his spells accordingly' but the fighter just stumbles in to a dungeon with rubbish ranged weapons? Lol.

If thats what your experience has shown you at your table, no wonder you dont rate fighters. Your fighter players dont seem too bright.

For what its worth, I saw this phenomenon precisely once. A bastard sword fighter in early 3.5 (pre splat book). We hit around 6th level, and got bumped by a flying creature. Watching the fool look at his character sheet and realise he didnt bring a ranged weapon was priceless. Even not being 'tricked out' for ranged combat he had a strength of 18. Nothing stopping him buying a composite longbow and shooting twice a round. My greatsword Cleric/ Fighter had one (and I had ranged spells to boot).



Again; lol.

How can monsters discern between a 'tanky' fighter and a 'non tanky' one? The DM knows, the monsters sure as hell dont.

And your argument seems to be that a fighter that is hard to put down (due to solid defences, high HP, and good saves) and deals consistent, reliable and high levels of damage (and frequent brutal nova strikes) doesnt contribte to the success of the party.

Which is of course, utter and total rubbish.

AD&D fighters and BECMI fighters had less options to control the battle than 5th edition fighters. They had high hit points, did constant and reliable damage, and had high AC's. They seemed to do just fine.

Your finest post. I agree wholeheartedly.

[SharkForce]

i didn't say no ranged weapons. i said bow doesn't make sense for a strength-based warrior. and no, for a level 20 character, using a bow with +8 to hit and +3 to damage, total, is not very effective. it might actually be worse than a cantrip, and that's saying a lot, because cantrips are pretty bad for DPR (with the exception of eldritch blast supported by invocations and a hex spell). having a ranged weapon is a great idea. but when your character is based around strength, you bring a strength-based weapon.

and no, the point is not that the champion doesn't contribute. the point is that the champion's tankiness is a personal resource, not a party resource, because the champion is not a priority target. the champion's DPR is very much a party resource (which was not the case in, say, 3rd edition, when the wizard could just kill targets regardless of HP and completely invalidate any HP damage you did). it combines effectively with the rest of the party to end a combat encounter. but their tankiness generally will not be, because it won't come into play most of the time against intelligent opponents. it isn't really something you can leverage to the party's advantage.

as for telling who's a tanky warrior? it's pretty easy actually. they tend to have shields (this being more telling than armour even), medium or heavy armour (and in all likelihood demonstrate by the way they move with those pieces of equipment that they're more familiar with them than the average person), and, well, let's face it, 20 con is the kind of thing that is going to be physically visible. you may not be able to tell at a glance who has 20 int or wis, but con? that's gonna be noticeable.

you might get the occasional enemy fooled into attacking the monk who is dodging as a bonus action, or the wizard who actually maxed dex, has a robe of the archmagi, and is spamming shield (until the enemies figure out they can't seem to hit). but generally speaking, tankiness tends to be noticeable.

edit: oh, and the whip a balor is using deals large amounts of damage and is traveling in excess of the speed of sound (at the part where you have a chance to catch it, that is). no, you aren't catching it, unless you can also catch a much slower, less damaging object. like the champion's sword, for example. so if you can make an improvised check to catch the balor's whip, you should expect the same from enemies when you try to swing your sword at them.

[Cazero]

Well, you said thrown weapons sucked. I introduced the bow as an alternative ranged weapon that might suck less.
You introduced a balor who decided to fight in a non-optimal way because it screwed his opponents more. I am stating that the fighter can do the same and deliberately use a non-optimal bow to deny the balor of the advantages of flight, fire aura and reach.
And now you are backtracking and saying that the fighter we are discussing is STR based and should use a STR based thrown weapon. It's not changing a darn thing.

If the only thing you can say against thrown weapons is 'lack of fighting style and feat support', well, I have news for you. Neither are necessary for a fighter to be awesome in a fight. He just won't be at the absolute top DPR he can achieve. Just like a fire-themed sorceror not using fire spells on creatures immune to fire.


Yes, catching a whip flaying you at the speed of sound is difficult. But we are talking about someone who can shoot a bow accurately 4 times in 6 seconds, and the main damage factor of a whip is precisely the speed. A high level fighter is perfectly suited to catch it, and can then have a grip as strong as the balor. This is not the case for a bladed weapon like a sword, because having a strong grip on the blade of a sword means cutting your own fingers.

[Easy_Lee]

Personally, I'd just nail the balor with a net or, if he's further away, a grapple hook so I can then engage a strength contest. There are so many options that it's just silly to say that the champion poses no threat.

I'll repeat what I've said before. The people who claim fighters are too weak, who embrace the guy at the gym fallacy, are the same people who complain that fighters are weak and wizards are OP in other threads. I think some people want fighters to be bad. But the mechanics don't support that theory in 5e.

[Gwendol]

Besides, that's the DM's call, not yours. The rule of cool, and all that.

[Ardantis]

Sharkforce, improvised actions are the heart if imaginative gameplay! I do not fear monster grabbing swords because the game is a cooperative attempt to do cool things and have fun. Grabbing a Balor's whip is epic and cool when done in the right spirit.

As I have read on these boards, and I paraphrase, 'the goal is not realism but versimilitude,' meaning to me that making the incredible seem real in the context of the game is the goal.

And what would you do if the balor grabbed your sword?

Hint- invitation to dance

[SharkForce]

k, remember how i already said a few posts back that nets are limited to large creatures? that didn't change. still limited to large creatures. preferably ones that are not on fire as well.

and it is no cooler for you to catch the whip than it is for anyone else to catch your sword. you only think it is cooler because you are doing it to them. if someone with a gauntlet on caught your sword and made it useless for the whole fight with a single reaction, you probably wouldn't think it was cool in the slightest.

(especially if your sword was covered in a fire that makes the heat metal spell look like a joke).

we are talking about a whip that is moving with the force of a greatsword wielded by a mammoth. this thing can slice an armoured person in two with ease. and a single touch conveys such powerful heat that even the touch of it (as in, physically contacting it, not even having it swung at you) will kill a normal person most of the time.

you can improvise actions all you want, but not getting your hand completely severed clean off from trying to catch it is an impossible action. good luck making that DC 30 check (honestly, i'm not even sure what check it would be. dex to have even a tiny chance to put your hand in the right place? con to represent being tough enough that your fingers don't just go flying off into space? int or wis to realize that this is a horrifically bad idea and has virtually no chance of ending well for you so you can go back to not getting hit by the whip like a rational person should be trying to do?)

[Easy_Lee]

we are talking about a whip that is moving with the force of a greatsword wielded by a mammoth. this thing can slice an armoured person in two with ease. and a single touch conveys such powerful heat that even the touch of it (as in, physically contacting it, not even having it swung at you) will kill a normal person most of the time.

I can read what you're typing, but I don't see this anywhere in the books.

[Chronos]

Just because you say "improvised action" doesn't mean it's that easy, or even possible, to take the action you're attempting. If it were, then you could just say "Improvised action: I'm reaching down the Balor's throat and pulling its lungs out. Roll a contest".

[Easy_Lee]

Just because you say "improvised action" doesn't mean it's that easy, or even possible, to take the action you're attempting. If it were, then you could just say "Improvised action: I'm reaching down the Balor's throat and pulling its lungs out. Roll a contest".

To be adjudicated by the DM, sure. It may be a high DC, but that doesn't mean you can't roll for it.

There's an unspoken rule of D&D, an agreement between the DM and players: the DM will not try to put the players in an unwinnable situation. If a DM sends a balor at the players, and decides that the players have no means of threatening the balor or, worse, decides that only the wizards among them are a threat to it, then the DM just missed the point.

By a mile.

[LordVonDerp]

I like to view it as 1 in 100,000 are born with the capability to use magic (wiz) and the same number of devoted are granted magic by their gods. Thus, armies make more sense because you can't put together an army of spellcasters when your kingdom only has 200,000 residents. But you can certainly arm 50,000 men with weapons and send them somewhere.
That's a tiny kingdom. A tiny kingdom with a ridiculously high rate of military service, but a tiny kingdom (relatively to, say, medieval england).
Such a kingdom might manage an army of 10,000 for a campaign, if the cause was something of comparable significance to the crusades.
Anything over 14,000 and famine would be inevitable.

[SharkForce]

I can read what you're typing, but I don't see this anywhere in the books.

greatsword: deals 2d6 damage.
balor's whip: deals 2d6 damage.

mammoth's strength modifier: +8
balor's strength modifier: +8.

thus, the balor's whip is as destructive as a greatsword being wielded by a mammoth.

the whip also deals 3d6 fire damage to anything it touches. commoners boast a whopping 4 HP on average, with a max value of 8.

therefore, the heat of the whip is sufficient to kill an ordinary person with a mere touch.

but this is all still beside the point i was making, which was never about whether or not champions are the best at killing a balor, but rather about whether they make good tanks. which they don't. because they're an incredibly poor choice for a first target in a fight.

[Easy_Lee]

but this is all still beside the point i was making, which was never about whether or not champions are the best at killing a balor, but rather about whether they make good tanks. which they don't. because they're an incredibly poor choice for a first target in a fight.

So your idea of a good tank is the target that the balor (DM) will want to go after first?

[SharkForce]

So your idea of a good tank is the target that the balor (DM) will want to go after first?

no. my definition of a tank requires that (or at least, close to the top of their list) as *one* of their attributes. ability to survive that attention is also important, as i have noted over and over. if you've been following this discussion, you should already be aware of that.

[Easy_Lee]

no. my definition of a tank requires that (or at least, close to the top of their list) as *one* of their attributes. ability to survive that attention is also important, as i have noted over and over. if you've been following this discussion, you should already be aware of that.

So then abjurer Wizards would presumably make the best tanks at your table, since you believe Wizards are a threat to everything but do not believe that champions are a threat to anything.

[Fwiffo86]

That's a tiny kingdom. A tiny kingdom with a ridiculously high rate of military service, but a tiny kingdom (relatively to, say, medieval england).
Such a kingdom might manage an army of 10,000 for a campaign, if the cause was something of comparable significance to the crusades.
Anything over 14,000 and famine would be inevitable.

I admit that I don't know the census data for england in the dark ages, but I can't imagine it being terribly high, with most of the population crowded together in villages, towns, and then cities. I could be wrong, as I said, I don't have accurate data.

This is neither here nor there for the point I was trying to make. Just because characters have ready access to magic, doesn't mean the rest of the world does. 4 characters our of a population of thousands.

[Doug Lampert]

I like to view it as 1 in 100,000 are born with the capability to use magic (wiz) and the same number of devoted are granted magic by their gods. Thus, armies make more sense because you can't put together an army of spellcasters when your kingdom only has 200,000 residents. But you can certainly arm 50,000 men with weapons and send them somewhere.
That's a tiny kingdom. A tiny kingdom with a ridiculously high rate of military service, but a tiny kingdom (relatively to, say, medieval england).
Such a kingdom might manage an army of 10,000 for a campaign, if the cause was something of comparable significance to the crusades.
Anything over 14,000 and famine would be inevitable.
Adding to this point, Hundred Year's war England was about 5,000,000 people (or more), and that doesn't count Wales or oversees possessions. The English Armies for the 100 years war were virtually all 7,000 people, they had more armed men than that (garrisons, sometimes even multiple armies in the field at once), but a field army even if commanded by the king himself was 7,000 or fewer guys. So they could have up to a 100 casters out of 7,000 guys, the casters aren't irrelevant at that rate.

And on the other side if only 1 in 100,000 has any talent for arcane magic, then how does this work? If I'm a wizard and I want to train an apprentice then I need to personally test an average of 100,000 guys for magical talent prior to starting (and no such test exists at present other than trying to train them, so presumably this means I train an average of 100,000 guys enough that they'd be able to cast a spell if they have the talent PRIOR to having anyone really start an apprenticeship). So basically this is a world with 0.0 arcane mages since none are ever trained.... Yet somehow EVERY adventurer who wants to can take a wizard level or spend a feat to get some arcane magic. Yeah right.

Similar comment for divine casters, so there's MAYBE one in a city the size of London? Maybe? And there are entire religious orders with none. This is a fantasy world with magic?

There's no rules or fluff support at all for the frequencies given, and the numbers don't work even if we assume the frequencies given.

[Doug Lampert]

I admit that I don't know the census data for england in the dark ages, but I can't imagine it being terribly high, with most of the population crowded together in villages, towns, and then cities. I could be wrong, as I said, I don't have accurate data.

This is neither here nor there for the point I was trying to make. Just because characters have ready access to magic, doesn't mean the rest of the world does. 4 characters our of a population of thousands.

It was 2,000,000 or so at the time of the doomsday book, and much higher by the time anyone was even thinking about making plate armor. Try googling "Population of England, 1400" or any other string you like. A rate of 4 out of thousands is FAR more than needed for magic to be militarily significant.

[SharkForce]

So then abjurer Wizards would presumably make the best tanks at your table, since you believe Wizards are a threat to everything but do not believe that champions are a threat to anything.


no.

i didn't say champions are not a threat. i said that they are less threatening than the wizard, and harder to kill. it takes more effort to defeat them, and the reward for defeating them is smaller.

which means that any intelligent enemy will not choose them as a first target unless absolutely forced to, which is not something that can be planned around (for example, our balor, above, can teleport and fly has a 30 foot reach attach that drags targets closer to him, and is too big to grapple. he is also intelligent, wise, and in general has plenty of tools that in combination mean he can pretty easily pick and choose his targets).

abjurers *can* make good tanks, if built for it (i would recommend multiclassing 2 levels of fighter for medium or heavy armour, con saves, shield proficiency, fighting style, and action surge, for example, to provide a sufficiently large initial "burst" to make monsters want to focus on him and some AC). generally speaking, doing so will make them worse wizards, however. and frankly, they still won't be a great tank so much as just a decent tank.

the best single-classed tanks are actually paladins (auras, healing, negative status effect removal, AOE buff spells, high nova damage, and some CC combine to make them an appealing target, while those same things plus shield and armour proficiency make them very tough) and totem barbarians (bear first and third abilities, damage resistance, huge hit die, heavy con focus, and very good damage) in my opinion.

all of which (except for the specific information about abjurers) is, once again, stuff i've said several times. in this very thread.

[JNAProductions]

How are the barbarians good tanks? They're tough, sure, but they're in the same boar as Fighters of not being able to force the enemy to fight them.

[Friv]

Adding to this point, Hundred Year's war England was about 5,000,000 people (or more), and that doesn't count Wales or oversees possessions. The English Armies for the 100 years war were virtually all 7,000 people, they had more armed men than that (garrisons, sometimes even multiple armies in the field at once), but a field army even if commanded by the king himself was 7,000 or fewer guys. So they could have up to a 100 casters out of 7,000 guys, the casters aren't irrelevant at that rate.

Technically, if only 1 per 100,000 people had wizardly talent, you'd have around 50-100 total wizards in England, not all of whom would be fit for military service. It would be safe to assume that a given army of 7,000 people might have 10 or 20 wizards in it, mostly low-level, enough to make a difference, but not to obsolete warfare.


And on the other side if only 1 in 100,000 has any talent for arcane magic, then how does this work? If I'm a wizard and I want to train an apprentice then I need to personally test an average of 100,000 guys for magical talent prior to starting (and no such test exists at present other than trying to train them, so presumably this means I train an average of 100,000 guys enough that they'd be able to cast a spell if they have the talent PRIOR to having anyone really start an apprenticeship). So basically this is a world with 0.0 arcane mages since none are ever trained.... Yet somehow EVERY adventurer who wants to can take a wizard level or spend a feat to get some arcane magic. Yeah right.

Or, and I'm just tossing this out there, testing for arcane magical capability could be super-easy. Like, untrained wizards resonate in the fabric of the world, or accidentally tend to cast cantrips occasionally. There's no reason to assume that wizards can't sense wizardly potential. That's usually how it works in fiction - the elder mentor is passing through the village, and notices that a particular child is weird. He speaks to the child's parents, and bam, the child is off to learn to be a wizard.

Or heck, maybe 1 in 10,000 people has wizardly talent, but tests only usually spot about a tenth of them because most go under the radar.

[Easy_Lee]

Sorry SharkForce. I know that you're typing quite a bit, but the general theme I keep seeing in your posts is that you believe champions are less of a threat than Wizards. DPR charts disagree. That aside, if you already believe that the champion is less of a threat, then I don't think anything any of us say is going to convince you otherwise.

What I will say is that, if you believe the archetype or class is weak, perhaps you have a bias against it. Believing a thing is weak too often makes a person assume that the thing will fail in its endeavors. You have confirmed this with your posts, presenting situations where you absolutely believe the champion will lose and the Wizard may not, in spite of others contesting those conclusions.

I think that champions are fine. Those things I would change about them are few compared to many other classes and archetypes, which is my marker for good design. And there are many situations where champions can excel, and even more where they can contribute competently. They are a valid choice in comparison to their peers, my personal marker for balance.

As others said, champions are not commoners. They are more akin to a rampaging giant than a farmer with a pitchfork. But, again, if you already believe them weak, I suspect that I am not going to be able to convince you otherwise.

[Vogonjeltz]

until Dax gets tired of it and teleports poor Frankie to the sun.

And what spell exactly teleports Frankie? Not teleport, that would require a willing target, and simply doesn't work against an unwilling one (e.g. Frankie).

Presumably Dax, having not fully comprehended the limitations on magic, has a surprised look on his face as Frankie bludgeons him to death.

[Fwiffo86]

Technically, if only 1 per 100,000 people had wizardly talent, you'd have around 50-100 total wizards in England, not all of whom would be fit for military service. It would be safe to assume that a given army of 7,000 people might have 10 or 20 wizards in it, mostly low-level, enough to make a difference, but not to obsolete warfare.



Or, and I'm just tossing this out there, testing for arcane magical capability could be super-easy. Like, untrained wizards resonate in the fabric of the world, or accidentally tend to cast cantrips occasionally. There's no reason to assume that wizards can't sense wizardly potential. That's usually how it works in fiction - the elder mentor is passing through the village, and notices that a particular child is weird. He speaks to the child's parents, and bam, the child is off to learn to be a wizard.

Or heck, maybe 1 in 10,000 people has wizardly talent, but tests only usually spot about a tenth of them because most go under the radar.

This here is what I was trying to convey. Thanks Friv.

In the case of clerics, yes, you would have the vast majority of believers without magic. Only the rare and "truly faithful" are granted power.

[SharkForce]

Sorry SharkForce. I know that you're typing quite a bit, but the general theme I keep seeing in your posts is that you believe champions are less of a threat than Wizards. DPR charts disagree. That aside, if you already believe that the champion is less of a threat, then I don't think anything any of us say is going to convince you otherwise.

What I will say is that, if you believe the archetype or class is weak, perhaps you have a bias against it. Believing a thing is weak too often makes a person assume that the thing will fail in its endeavors. You have confirmed this with your posts, presenting situations where you absolutely believe the champion will lose and the Wizard may not, in spite of others contesting those conclusions.

I think that champions are fine. Those things I would change about them are few compared to many other classes and archetypes, which is my marker for good design. And there are many situations where champions can excel, and even more where they can contribute competently. They are a valid choice in comparison to their peers, my personal marker for balance.

As others said, champions are not commoners. They are more akin to a rampaging giant than a farmer with a pitchfork. But, again, if you already believe them weak, I suspect that I am not going to be able to convince you otherwise.

wizards are offensively stronger than fighters. doesn't matter which archetype of either.

that is by design. it is compensated for by a lack of inherent toughness, and limited resources.

they don't necessarily do more (single target) damage. but they are, nevertheless, offensively the greater threat. a wizard has the tools to take one or more enemies out of the fight, straight-up. a fighter doesn't. not 100% of the enemies, and not 100% of the time, but unless an enemy knows for a fact that your wizard is basically out of spells, they're going to have to operate under the assumption that your wizard might just have the perfect spell to pretty much crush this encounter without difficulty (in the balor example above, that spell was bigby's hand; in other situations, it might be web, or dominate monster, or hold person, or wish, or hypnotic pattern, or mass suggestion, or sunbeam, or fear, or wall of stone, or forcecage, or even sleep).

this doesn't mean the fighter is useless. it just means that offensively, the wizard is the more powerful of the two. they kind of have to be, if there is to be any sort of balance. there's a reason they're described as artillery, glass cannons, paper tigers, etc, and it's because they are more threatening, and also more vulnerable if you can get to them. always have been. in all likelihood, always will be in every future edition of D&D as well.

now, you might argue that the balance is just right, or not. i'm not here to discuss that at this time. in this thread, i haven't made any arguments that fighters are the weaker class. you can project all you want, but all i have repeatedly stated is that they (edit: ie wizards) are the bigger threat (which everyone else seems to have no trouble wrapping their heads around), but also more vulnerable, which makes them a desirable target because you can remove the largest amount of the party's ability to harm you with the least amount of effort by targeting them, generally speaking.

in contrast, fighters bring DPR. very good DPR, yes, but ultimately, DPR isn't going to kill the balor (or neuter its combat effectiveness so thoroughly that it may as well be dead) right now, it's going to do that in 2-3 rounds (or more). and even then, the balor can escape if absolutely necessary, because the fighter has nothing to keep it from teleporting. meanwhile, the wizard just needs to get lucky once, and the balor is toast. maybe banished. maybe spending the next 6 months as the wizard's slave. maybe unable to push forward to reach the enemies it wants to kill without giving up all of its attacks to teleport past a large annoying hand. maybe something else. but basically, neutralized.

(also, @ JNAProductions i misspoke on the barbarian earlier... i was thinking wolf totem at level 3, not bear. though bear is also good for the toughness side of things. and actually, barbarians do get abilities that boost their allies. the third bear totem ability gives disadvantage to enemies attacking adjacent allies or something to that effect; as strong as the paladin auras? probably not. but on the other hand, you'll probably face a lot more attacks than you will saving throws. and of course, the level 3 wolf totem ability gives all adjacent allies advantage on attacks. for a melee-heavy team, the totem barbarian can offer quite a bit of support)

[Theodoxus]

And what spell exactly teleports Frankie? Not teleport, that would require a willing target, and simply doesn't work against an unwilling one (e.g. Frankie).

Presumably Dax, having not fully comprehended the limitations on magic, has a surprised look on his face as Frankie bludgeons him to death.

Oh, probably a spell Dax developed on his own 'Teleport meathead to Sun' or somesuch.

I find it amusing that the consensus is only 1:100,000 is a spellcaster? Really? When there isn't even a casting stat minimum anymore - any Joe Schmoe with his head half caved in can learn to cast magic missile. That's artificial bias not present in the rules or even implied.

Which is exactly my point. Everyone is apparently stuck in the 'classical' Tolkien idea of what medieval fantasy must be like.

I'm stating that if the First Race were elves, and they were taught/inherently knew magic, and then some millennia later, humans appear (evolved, created, magical mishap, whatever) - there's a damn good chance that the elves would simply wipe them out with superior magical prowess. Even if that didn't happen, if humans also had a penchance for magic, their shaman caveman would rule - natural selection would favor the magically inclined and anyone with a prowess for non-magical innovation would be made obsolete.

It's Tippyverse as expressed from the beginning of time.

But it's cool - y'all want to act like Magic is akin to gunpowder or steam engines. Coming late to the scene, after everyone has already toiled on the world without it, developing agrarian cultures like the real world did.

Personally, I'm a bit tired of Magic as Technology - but I get that's just me.

[MeeposFire]

How are the barbarians good tanks? They're tough, sure, but they're in the same boar as Fighters of not being able to force the enemy to fight them.

Well a high level totem barb could choose bear as its last choice which has an ability that gives an incentive to attack the barb over other targets. In addition you could have a fat like sentinel and barbs do tend to have large damage numbers especially on a single hit which can further make enemies want to eliminate them quickly.

[Malifice]

Looks like in sharkys games, all smart monsters avoid going for the fighter and instead seem to try to do everything in thier power to target anyone in robes.

All the more reason to play a flghter IMO.

He also seems to think this is not battlefield control, when the mere presence of the fighter is dictating to creatures how they act.

Also: 'hey - this guy in my face has got a shield - I should ignore him' said no monster in my campaigns, ever.

[SharkForce]

Looks like in sharkys games, all smart monsters avoid going for the fighter and instead seem to try to do everything in thier power to target anyone in robes.

All the more reason to play a flghter IMO.

He also seems to think this is not battlefield control, when the mere presence of the fighter is dictating to creatures how they act.

Also: 'hey - this guy in my face has got a shield - I should ignore him' said no monster in my campaigns, ever.

well then the monsters in your campaigns are too stupid to pick on the weak and vulnerable. which is impressively bad, because wolves have figured that out, and they only have animal intelligence.

[Malifice]

well then the monsters in your campaigns are too stupid to pick on the weak and vulnerable. which is impressively bad, because wolves have figured that out, and they only have animal intelligence.

Lol. My monsters play to their own intelligence; not the DMs meta knowledge of the PCs capabilities.

I expect the same from my PCs.

It's not a question of always doing what's tactically optimal, subject to a godlike overview of the abilities of the combatants in question. It's a question of doing what the creature would do in the given situation. If that means it wastes an action monologuing, draws a ton of attacks of opportunity from a combat reflexes figjter to try and pick up a PC and disdainfully throw him aside, relishing the challenge to test itself against a worthy melee opponent or whatever.

It's a roleplaying game bro.

You reckon a Balrrog would just ignore Boromir to get to Gandalf? Or would it try and swat him aside with disdain. Once Borimir unloaded with a 100 points of damage action surge, in my mind it would be enraged (and maybe the PCs would see a hint of fear and shock in its eyes).

No offence intended mate, we just have very different play styles (and DM styles).

On your topic of 'wizards are the most dangerous' it's more correct to say wizards could be the most dangerous. Assuming they're rested and prepped for the battle. The fighter (particularly the champion fighter) is dangerous all day long. Lol at the Balrog that meta games and wastes it's turn beating down on a wizard with no spells and sucks an action surged long sword to the face and then a raging great axe to the nuts.

[SharkForce]

seriously, if you were playing opponents to their intelligence, then things would be attacking the wizard whenever possible. wolves figured it out. they're not exactly the paragon of genius-level intelligence. are you seriously suggesting that things which *are* the paragon of genius-level intelligence are going to screw that one up?

(also, unless the wizard is completely and utterly tapped out, odds are good they can still do some pretty effective things... for example, web takes a full turn to burn away, and so you can web a balor for a turn, giving your party a round to attack it with impunity).

and yes, a balrog is going to ignore boromir to get to gandalf. because that 100 damage you're so excited about coming from the champion (while passively dealing nearly as much back) is still not as devastating as a 100% chance of not being able to fight back at all.

taking that damage certainly isn't going to make the balor happy. and it certainly can't ignore the damage forever. but right now, it has far more to worry about the fact that the wizard might keep it from being able to fight at all, and that is by far the bigger threat. combined with the fact that the wizard is less tough.

but hey, if we're gonna put the wizard at 0 resources, what makes you think the champion has 2 action surges and full HP at the start of the fight? what has he been doing while the wizard burned through an entire day's worth of spells that he isn't stuck relying on his champion regeneration to keep him even at half health? because seriously, that's a ridiculous amount of spells. a level 1 wizard can run out easy. a level 5 wizard can run out easy. a level 20 wizard might run out of high level spells easy, but they're gonna have an assortment of perfectly functional low level spells left over (including a pair of level 3 spells they can use once per short rest, and unlimited use of a level 1 and level 2 spell) unless they're doing something horribly wrong.

[Malifice]

seriously, if you were playing opponents to their intelligence, then things would be attacking the wizard whenever possible. wolves figured it out. they're not exactly the paragon of genius-level intelligence. are you seriously suggesting that things which *are* the paragon of genius-level intelligence are going to screw that one up?

(also, unless the wizard is completely and utterly tapped out, odds are good they can still do some pretty effective things... for example, web takes a full turn to burn away, and so you can web a balor for a turn, giving your party a round to attack it with impunity).

and yes, a balrog is going to ignore boromir to get to gandalf. because that 100 damage you're so excited about coming from the champion (while passively dealing nearly as much back) is still not as devastating as a 100% chance of not being able to fight back at all.

taking that damage certainly isn't going to make the balor happy. and it certainly can't ignore the damage forever. but right now, it has far more to worry about the fact that the wizard might keep it from being able to fight at all, and that is by far the bigger threat. combined with the fact that the wizard is less tough.

This is actually getting even funnier now. I completely disagree with you. But its highly amusing to see your thought pattern here.


but hey, if we're gonna put the wizard at 0 resources, what makes you think the champion has 2 action surges and full HP at the start of the fight?

I'm not saying the wizard is at zero resources. I'm just saying that the wizard gets a limited number of big encounter turning effects per long rest, then gets to contribute meaningfully, before he's a wuss in a dress.

Assuming 9 fights per day (standard encounter pacing), and casting just the 1 spell per encounter (and none out of combat) your 20th level wizard winds up with (assuming he uses his 'big guns') using all his 9th, 8th, 7th, 6th, and 5th level spells by the end of the day. Among that lot, he gets to turn 3-4 challenging encounters into much easier ones, and gets to meaningfully contribute at other times

Also (from a gamist perspective) I can assure you the high level champion is at least at half HP and is far more likely to have his resources ready to rock and roll than the Wizard.

God I would love to play a fighter in your campaigns. All your monsters leave me alone to attack the guy in the pointy hat and the skirt. I'm shocked any of your casters survive past 3rd level seeing as they almost always get targeted by nearly all your monsters in the most 'optimal' way possible, because your monsters are so smart they understand meta game stuff.

I get you have some kind of weird love on for wizards. Play them by all means. Just dont sit there and say Fighters are **** compared to them, because that's not the case. Either mathematically or in actual play.


a level 20 wizard might run out of high level spells easy, but they're gonna have an assortment of perfectly functional low level spells left over (including a pair of level 3 spells they can use once per short rest, and unlimited use of a level 1 and level 2 spell) unless they're doing something horribly wrong.

Lol. What 3rd level spell do you intend to cast on the Balor that is going to bother it in the slightest compared to the sort of damage a 20th level fighter can spit out?

Be schroedingers Wizard. Pick any spell you want.

[-Jynx-]

seriously, if you were playing opponents to their intelligence, then things would be attacking the wizard whenever possible. wolves figured it out. they're not exactly the paragon of genius-level intelligence. are you seriously suggesting that things which *are* the paragon of genius-level intelligence are going to screw that one up?


I don't think you know what you think you know. Wolves value strength above all else. Strength for all canines wolves or not is displayed in physical prowess. That means the 20 Con 20 Str fighter is the paragon of "alpha wolf" in their eyes and is the biggest threat. Dogs and wolves do not have the capacity to understand magic at all just that "that two-legged animal over there has flashy lights and makes fire" they have no presence of mind that the wizard is strong or stronger than the fighter but they can see and understand that the fighter is.

You talk about how you play monsters to their intelligence level but clearly you have no idea what the intelligence level of monsters are. You do realize that most canines have the mental capacity of a 2 year old child (Based on their ability to learn new words and gestures) and the math and problem solving skills of a 4-5 year old. They couldn't even spell wizard let alone know it's any more of a threat than that hulking guy with the greatsword hacking away at my wolf-friends. You should spend some time really considering what the intelligence of creatures actually are, otherwise you're simply doing it wrong. That's your bad, and you should feel bad.

This is just one example of a clearly flawed way of thinking on ignoring fighters in favor of wizards all the time because: magic.

[Hawkstar]

Personally, I'd just nail the balor with a net or, if he's further away, a grapple hook so I can then engage a strength contest. There are so many options that it's just silly to say that the champion poses no threat.

I'll repeat what I've said before. The people who claim fighters are too weak, who embrace the guy at the gym fallacy, are the same people who complain that fighters are weak and wizards are OP in other threads. I think some people want fighters to be bad. But the mechanics don't support that theory in 5e.Eh... I find those who claim the fighters are too weak don't embrace the Guy At the Gym fallacy, but do spout it a bunch. The guy at the gym can be really, really awesome.

[Elderand]

I don't think you know what you think you know. Wolves value strength above all else. Strength for all canines wolves or not is displayed in physical prowess. That means the 20 Con 20 Str fighter is the paragon of "alpha wolf" in their eyes and is the biggest threat.

You are so wrong it's not even funny. It's a well documented fact that wolves do in fact target the weakest prey they can when hunting and will often back off and leave if the prey put too much of a fight, they don't "value" strength at all, they are trying to get food and survive.

Also, there's no such thing as an "alpha" wolf based on strength, wolf opperate on family principles, the parents are in charge, only wolves that are unrelated and forced to live together in zoo have an alpha.

[-Jynx-]

You are so wrong it's not even funny. It's a well documented fact that wolves do in fact target the weakest prey they can when hunting and will often back off and leave if the prey put too much of a fight, they don't "value" strength at all, they are trying to get food and survive.

Also, there's no such thing as an "alpha" wolf based on strength, wolf opperate on family principles, the parents are in charge, only wolves that are unrelated and forced to live together in zoo have an alpha.

Wolves do target the weakest prey when hunting for food. Are you assuming that a pack of wolves are valuing any group of LEVEL 20 PCS (or any level 3+ PCS) as "weak prey"? This would be an attack of aggression most likely based on territory or threatening of the pack than anything else. If you disagree and your wolves only attack solely for food then that's on you.

The pack mentality of canine groups has an alpha. Not just in zoos, its displayed both in natural and domesticated environments. Packs aren't traditionally as large as it's believed to be via movies/media which is why usually the healthiest strongest parent is predominately the alpha. In an instance of aggressive attacks not bent on food hunting you'll see the strongest member targeted. But it's not just wolves that display this kind of pack mentality toward strength. You'll see it in lions as well for example where the two strongest males fight for dominance over territory both of land of the pride.

[Easy_Lee]

I guess this is a discussion of whether champions are good tanks now. I'd say they're more damage-oriented, able to keep themselves alive and just okay at keeping others alive, like all fighters. An open hand monk, totem barbarian, paladin, or cleric would make a better defender.

But if the champion takes sentinel and stays within 5' of the target he wants to hold down, he's very good at it. I would prefer a battlemaster for that role, because of trip and precision attack, but champions do just fine at it. And the rest of the party's HP is not the champion's primary concern anyway; killing is.

[Fwiffo86]

I find it amusing that the consensus is only 1:100,000 is a spellcaster? Really? When there isn't even a casting stat minimum anymore - any Joe Schmoe with his head half caved in can learn to cast magic missile. That's artificial bias not present in the rules or even implied.



Last I checked, two posters agreeing on a concept is "not" a consensus. That being said, the argument can be made that a world where any joe shmoe who wants to has access to magic and all he has to do is pick up a book is very "Forgotten Realms" thinking.

I cannot argue that at present, the default setting is FR. I however, can't stand and despise that entire game world and thus don't use it. When I make statements about "What I do/How I handle it/etc., you can take that to mean "In my game" instead. Forgotten realms has no place at my table.

As far as the "lack of spellcasting attribute requirements" argument. Did I, or Friv say anything about being smart enough to cast magic? I do not believe either of us said that. We addressed a "talent", or spark if you will. Something undefinable by game terms or mechanics.

I have never ascribed to Forgotten Realms levels of magic. For the same reason, I don't like Eberron either. Magic is rare, powerful, and awesome in my games. If every smuck who wanted to could cast it, the ramifications on the world would be nearly incomprehensible, which is what brought this up in the first place. (Why have an army when - Magic?)

Do not for a second believe that I am claiming consensus in anything. I know I am in the minority. I'm fine with that. If you prefer super-powered magic madness, by all means, do so. We don't have to play each other's games.

[SharkForce]

i already listed a level 2 spell that will screw over the balor. why do you need me to list a level 3 spell that can do the same?

but fine, there are plenty of level 3 or lower spells that can turn a fight easily (odd that you ignored level 4 spells, since based on your claim they should have those too; banishment says hello). in this case, dex needs to be targeted, so the choice is web (advantage or not, there's quite a good chance the balor will fail that save). if wis was a good option, it could have been fear or hypnotic pattern (only useful against multiple targets) or tasha's uncontrollable hideous laughter or suggestion. if con was an option it could have been blindness/deafness or stinking cloud. if the enemy didn't have truesight, it could have been phantasmal force. some of these are limited to a single target, of course, and that reduces their value somewhat for general use, but thanks to all your spells having the exact same save DC, there is absolutely no reason that a level 2 AOE crowd control spell can't be used to effectively cripple your enemies at level 20. the game doesn't care that it's a level 2 spell. the game cares that you have a 19 DC for your spell saves.

though i get this feeling you're fixated on damage. offense is defined by more than just damage. damage is a useful part of offense, and some amount of it is almost necessary in 5e. but it is not the be-all, end-all metric for offensive power.

and you're right, wolves won't know a spellcaster. but they will recognize that the giant hulking brute is tougher than the skinny guy in a cloth robe, and they'll pick out the weakest target first. something which an animal with apparently the intelligence of a 2 year old can figure out. why do you imagine it will be so impossible for a 20 intelligence demon with thousands of years of experience of clawing its way higher through the ranks until it is basically a general of hell accustomed to commanding troops in battle and, if anything, taking greater pleasure in picking on the weak than normal.

i expect the balor to do its gloating and taunting as free actions when it skewers someone on its electric sword or drags them off a cliff with it's flaming whip. not instead of doing those things. just like a PC would do. when was the last time you saw someone playing a berserker barbarian in the middle of a fight decide that it was actually worthwhile to give up their entire action to intimidate someone with their level 10 ability? players, even the ones that don't have a strong grasp of optimization, tend to be fully aware of the fact that wasting an action to do nothing is a bad idea. why shouldn't their enemies?

not every enemy will act optimally all the time. but most of them will act reasonably optimally most of the time. and in general, that means not smashing their face against the guy with superior defenses and inferior offense if they can help it. sometimes they can't avoid it (the party is in a 5 foot wide hallway with a barbarian in the front and a cleric right behind, and they have no reasonable way of getting past them to hit the robed guy in the back). sometimes only some of them can avoid it (the champion grapples an ogre and holds it in place while the goblin minions go after the more vulnerable members of the party - unfortunately requiring that he drop his weapon unless he's in the habit of using a single one-handed weapon with no shield in the other hand for just such an occasion). sometimes the wizard goes first and thus doesn't get swarmed because the enemy can't act. and sometimes the party actually has someone who can tank effectively by boosting the entire team and managing to be more annoying. sometimes it is because the spellcaster is more tanky than they may appear at first glance (at least, for a while - mage armour, shield spell, mirror image, invisibility/greater invisibility, blink, etc). sometimes it is because there is another more-or-less equally threatening spellcaster who is tough that draws some attention (a druid that can turn into large animals, a life cleric that keeps the whole party alive and acting, etc). sometimes it is because the party has summoned minions in advance and has a wall of meatshields rather than just one (though admittedly, the one PC meatshield is a heck of a lot tougher than the typical summoned meatshield).

and of course, sometimes it is because the enemy is unintelligent, or doesn't understand the potential power of a spellcaster, or knows that the spellcaster has used most of their daily resources and is relying on cantrips only. heck, after a round of going after a spellcaster that just used a spell on shield and is otherwise only casting cantrips, the champion may even appear to be the bigger threat. especially at lower levels when a caster really legitimately doesn't have a large arsenal of low level spells that are powerful enough to change a tough combat into a cakewalk.

[-Jynx-]

and you're right, wolves won't know a spellcaster. but they will recognize that the giant hulking brute is tougher than the skinny guy in a cloth robe, and they'll pick out the weakest target first. something which an animal with apparently the intelligence of a 2 year old can figure out. why do you imagine it will be so impossible for a 20 intelligence demon with thousands of years of experience of clawing its way higher through the ranks until it is basically a general of hell accustomed to commanding troops in battle and, if anything, taking greater pleasure in picking on the weak than normal.


Clearly you didn't read what I posted. In your example the wolves would have a higher tendency to go toward the fighter rather than the spellcaster since he is the most physically imposing creature. A stature that denotes the "alpha" of the group that the wolves would try and take down first (unless they are hunting for food of course, but that's already a fallacy since a group of adventures by no means come off as "easy prey" compared to the deer or otherwise mostly harmless animals in the forest).

The fact of the matter is you're assuming far more sophisticated (and one-sided) intellect of creatures that just simply isn't there. Even in regards to the Balor the fighter is equally as deadly as the wizard just in a different way so to assume it's ignoring one deadly character in favor of another is illogical. Might as well deal with the deadly creature in front of you than letting it wail on you while you target the other deadly creature behind it.

[JNAProductions]

Quick question, Sharkforce-Web disables the Balor. Let's assume it fails its save, which is pretty likely.

Then what? It's restrained. That doesn't kill it, that just holds it until it teleports out. It's not an encounter ender-it's a delaying tactic.

[SharkForce]

but the fighter isn't equally as deadly. for starters, the worst thing the fighter can do is kill the balrog, and he can't even do that until a couple turns have passed and the balrog's hit points have been lowered somewhat.

the caster can screw the balrog over right now, if he gets lucky (or even without luck if he has the right spell). the first turn, the warrior will spend getting the balrog closer to being banished (since they don't actually die, death is not a valid concern, it's just banishment... which will still really annoy the balrog). the first turn the wizard gets might be a web (can't get into melee, stuck eating ranged attacks with advantage for a round), a bigby's hand (can't get into melee, stuck teleporting as his action and eating ranged attacks, though at least this time with no advantage and possibly even cover), banishment (low chance of success, but if it works he's just gone), wish ==> planar binding (low chance of success, but if it works he's enslaved by a mortal for 6 months), mass suggestion (performing someone else's task for up to a year), and so on.

so not only can the wizard do something that prevents him from being able to fight immediately, rather than in 2-3 turns, but some of the things the wizard might decide to do are frankly a fate worse than being banished by a loss of all hit points.

and again, this is by design. the fighter has superior built-in defence. the wizard has inferior built-in defence and more limited resources, but is compensated by those resources being able to do bigger things (mostly offensively in the wizard's case... for, say, a cleric, they're more able to do bigger defensive actions while their resources hold out, though they can also pack a decent offensive punch potentially, especially against the right kind of enemy).

and that is why fighters (not really limited to champions) make bad tanks. they're good DPR, and certainly tougher than most DPR, but they're not good tanks except in very specific scenarios (and in those scenarios, they're not particularly better than the classes that do make good tanks generally speaking).

this is not to say that fighters have no use. it is to say that they are not good tanks.

(also, if you think a deer isn't dangerous to a wolf, i'm going to have to disagree. getting kicked or rammed by a deer can seriously injure a wolf, and in nature, seriously injured is often the same thing as dead, it just takes longer. something like an elk or a caribou or a moose, even more so. also, i'm not sure how you're concluding that the wolves wouldn't view the humans as being relatively easy prey, or at least the physically weaker ones. are they holding a sign written in wolf that says "we are level 20 characters" or something perhaps? because a typical human against a wolf isn't exactly favourable to the human, and visually at least a wizard doesn't look immediately more threatening than a regular human in a robe).

edit: @ JNAProductions

one turn lost in a fight where the balor is likely to only get between one and two turns in this fight, with a small chance at three, is huge. and since it's a level 2 spell, there's no reason it couldn't just happen again next time he comes in.

[Easy_Lee]

Champions can kill a thing for sure given a few rounds. Wizards can consume a resource to have a good chance of crippling a thing for an encounter on turn 1. Wizards don't want to get hit, champions can soak a few. I don't see what's imbalanced about that.

[SharkForce]

Champions can kill a thing for sure given a few rounds. Wizards can consume a resource to have a good chance of crippling a thing for an encounter on turn 1. Wizards don't want to get hit, champions can soak a few. I don't see what's imbalanced about that.

i'm not the one trying to have the discussion about whether wizards vs fighters is balanced or not. i've been there, done that, not interested in continuing it. i have my opinion, you have yours, and neither of us are likely to persuade the other (and in any event, the experience at the levels where i think the problem is worst is generally speaking not there to make a conclusive argument one way or the other)

my point, from the very first time i brought it up, is that champions make bad tanks, because they have very little control (hard or soft) over who the enemy will attack. thus, their toughness is a personal resource, not a party resource.

[Easy_Lee]

my point, from the very first time i brought it up, is that champions make bad tanks, because they have very little control (hard or soft) over who the enemy will attack. thus, their toughness is a personal resource, not a party resource.

Semantics, but I would use the word "defender" here. There are better defenders, such as Paladins. There are also worse defenders, such as warlocks or rogues. So I'd say champions are just okay at defending, or decent if built for it with a grapple or sentinel build. But they are excellent at staying alive themselves, and are also excellent at making sure the bad guys don't.

[-Jynx-]

(also, if you think a deer isn't dangerous to a wolf, i'm going to have to disagree. getting kicked or rammed by a deer can seriously injure a wolf, and in nature, seriously injured is often the same thing as dead, it just takes longer. something like an elk or a caribou or a moose, even more so. also, i'm not sure how you're concluding that the wolves wouldn't view the humans as being relatively easy prey, or at least the physically weaker ones. are they holding a sign written in wolf that says "we are level 20 characters" or something perhaps? because a typical human against a wolf isn't exactly favourable to the human, and visually at least a wizard doesn't look immediately more threatening than a regular human in a robe).


It's not one wizard traveling alone by his/herself they are in a group of other adventurers. So even if one looks frail the wolves see an imposing group of humans not just one that looks a bit thinner than the rest which is what changes the scope of the situation. A few deer do not look as troubling as an adventuring group of humans (Or dragonborn, or half-orcs or goliaths or minotaurs... you get the idea. Maybe halflings I'd give ya that those little munchkins probably look appetizing to wolves).

Sure almost all creatures can pose a threat if the wolves are unlucky, but if you think a deer is more of a hassle than a fighter or a wizard you're daft. I didn't realize in your world that Bambi was a more imposing force than a fighter.

[Fwiffo86]

the caster can screw the balrog over right now, if he gets lucky (or even without luck if he has the right spell). the first turn, the warrior will spend getting the balrog closer to being banished (since they don't actually die, death is not a valid concern, it's just banishment... which will still really annoy the balrog).

You did read banish correct? It takes the wizard out of the fight pretty much as well. 10 rounds of concentration to make the banishment stick. Which forces the wizard to behave like a fighter and use as you infer: sub-optimal solution: damage.

[SharkForce]

wolves have been known to hunt creatures as large as moose and caribou, including such animals that travel in herds of hundreds.

a group of 3-6 human-sized people aren't exactly more threatening in appearance to a wolf than a herd of caribou (also, compared to a regular human, actually, a deer is pretty scary. it isn't until you give that human weapons and training that they become particularly dangerous).

[SharkForce]

You did read banish correct? It takes the wizard out of the fight pretty much as well. 10 rounds of concentration to make the banishment stick. Which forces the wizard to behave like a fighter and use as you infer: sub-optimal solution: damage.

the scenario above is one balor. who cares if the wizard has to concentrate 10 rounds. he has to concentrate for 10 rounds, all of which can be done while searching the area for treasure in a relatively non-threatening environment because the only stated threat has been dealt with (again, precisely why there is only a single balor with no minions at all to assist is something you can wonder about, but that is the scenario that has been described). if there is more than one enemy, there is even the option to cast at a higher level and hit more than one target.

the real drawback is that it only has a 25% chance of succeeding. that's what keeps it from being a great choice in this fight, and that's why i concentrate on options that either guarantee success (bigby's hand) or have a high chance of success (web).

but i don't understand why you think it would be so awful for the wizard to be down to non-concentration spells (not all of which are just damage, btw) after turning the fight into a cakewalk. the fight is over in all but name. why would you want to throw more of your limited high-value resources into an easy fight?

[Ashrym]

You did read banish correct? It takes the wizard out of the fight pretty much as well. 10 rounds of concentration to make the banishment stick. Which forces the wizard to behave like a fighter and use as you infer: sub-optimal solution: damage.

Successfully banishing the target (CHA save still) means the wizard made his contribution and damage or whatever is bonus.

It's incorrect that the wizard is forced to damage, however. Nonconcentration options like blindness or bestow curse exist, for example, and that would be the time for a defensive spell like mirror image so the wizard does not lose that concentration.

I think a good wizard carries a couple of nonconcentration status effect spells.

Mind you, I still think dead is the best status effect and high damage fighters pull that off pretty well. ;)

Edit: slightly ninja'd

[Cazero]

my point, from the very first time i brought it up, is that champions make bad tanks, because they have very little control (hard or soft) over who the enemy will attack. thus, their toughness is a personal resource, not a party resource.

Ok, this is why you should stop talking about tanks.

A tank cannot possibly have that sort of control over who the enemy will attack in D&D. Because in D&D, tanking suck.

The tank is not a priority target. The job of the tank is to deny his enemies from their choice of target and force them to hit him, not to provide a more important target to hit. Being a legitimate threat does not help tanking in any way, it allows the tank to not be useless when uncooperative or untankable enemies ignore him.

In D&D, tanking is limited to clever positionning to cut charge lines and occupying chokepoints, denying movement with grapple and trip, and interrupting movement with attacks of opportunity.
Every other form of crowd control is not part of the tank job because it's the controller job. Every other form of protection is not part of the tank job because it's the support job. Healing is not part of the tank job because it's the healer job. Punishment damage is not part of the tank job because it's the DPR job. Damage mitigation is not part of the tank job but a quality necessary to do it without getting killed in two rounds.

There is not a single pure tank class in D&D, and that is for the better since D&D rules make tanking vain and/or counterproductive. Having a dedicated tank to mitigate overall damage taken means having lower DPR, wich in turn draws the fight longer and increase overall damage taken, all the while being inefficient because the tank have a very limited supply of attacks to stick enemies to him. An effort in futility outside of specific scenarii, wich is why every single tank in the game also does somethign else, and why crowd controls are so damn more effective.

If your tank is also a controller, then your tank/controller is probably better at protecting the party than a straight tank. Same for a tank/support/healer. The fighter happen to be a tank/DPR. So he's not as good as a paladin at keeping his allies alive. He's not a better defender than the paladin. But he is the best at tanking. More attacks means more trip/grapple wich means more enemies stuck to the tank. Sticking enemies to your face is the only way you can tank in D&D.

If your abjuration wizard is attracting every enemy attack by being the most threatening opponent available, then he is not tanking. He is being stomped, just like a fighter would be. I hope for that poor wizard that someone will tank some of those attacks for him. Anyone would make the trick. Rogues are pretty decent at it with their ability to reposition themselves easily and their uncanny dodge class feature is probably the best damage mitigation tool in the game against opponents with limited number of attacks.

[-Jynx-]

wolves have been known to hunt creatures as large as moose and caribou, including such animals that travel in herds of hundreds.

Note those are not other predators. Considering your wizard and fighter are apex predators for the most part you're wolves have much better chances (and they would know it) against the moose and caribou.


a group of 3-6 human-sized people aren't exactly more threatening in appearance to a wolf than a herd of caribou (also, compared to a regular human, actually, a deer is pretty scary. it isn't until you give that human weapons and training that they become particularly dangerous).

You do realize in all of your examples and mine we are talking about humanoids that DO have weapons/magic and DO have training so YES they are much scarier and more dangerous than the deer.

[Ashrym]

Note those are not other predators. Considering your wizard and fighter are apex predators for the most part you're wolves have much better chances (and they would know it) against the moose and caribou.



You do realize in all of your examples and mine we are talking about humanoids that DO have weapons/magic and DO have training so YES they are much scarier and more dangerous than the deer.

Why do you think the wolves see the humans as something other than prey? It's not like they can sneak a peek at the character sheets.

As far as what a wolf sees it's a human whether it has magic or not, or whether it's 1st or 15th level. A wolf isn't even likely to understand the concept of the weapons and armor without having survived negative experiences often enough to have learned some rudimentary aspects they could recognize.

Wolves also don't go out hunting for a new alpha male. They go hunting for food so the default confrontation is a predator vs prey confrontation. It is the norm for predators to target the slow and weak.

What the DM should be doing is examining who looks weak and not taking mechanics into consideration that cannot be perceived.

That means it's generally always the halfling. :-D

[SharkForce]

Ok, this is why you should stop talking about tanks.

A tank cannot possibly have that sort of control over who the enemy will attack in D&D. Because in D&D, tanking suck.

The tank is not a priority target. The job of the tank is to deny his enemies from their choice of target and force them to hit him, not to provide a more important target to hit. Being a legitimate threat does not help tanking in any way, it allows the tank to not be useless when uncooperative or untankable enemies ignore him.

In D&D, tanking is limited to clever positionning to cut charge lines and occupying chokepoints, denying movement with grapple and trip, and interrupting movement with attacks of opportunity.
Every other form of crowd control is not part of the tank job because it's the controller job. Every other form of protection is not part of the tank job because it's the support job. Healing is not part of the tank job because it's the healer job. Punishment damage is not part of the tank job because it's the DPR job. Damage mitigation is not part of the tank job but a quality necessary to do it without getting killed in two rounds.

There is not a single pure tank class in D&D, and that is for the better since D&D rules make tanking vain and/or counterproductive. Having a dedicated tank to mitigate overall damage taken means having lower DPR, wich in turn draws the fight longer and increase overall damage taken, all the while being inefficient because the tank have a very limited supply of attacks to stick enemies to him. An effort in futility outside of specific scenarii, wich is why every single tank in the game also does somethign else, and why crowd controls are so damn more effective.

If your tank is also a controller, then your tank/controller is probably better at protecting the party than a straight tank. Same for a tank/support/healer. The fighter happen to be a tank/DPR. So he's not as good as a paladin at keeping his allies alive. He's not a better defender than the paladin. But he is the best at tanking. More attacks means more trip/grapple wich means more enemies stuck to the tank. Sticking enemies to your face is the only way you can tank in D&D.

If your abjuration wizard is attracting every enemy attack by being the most threatening opponent available, then he is not tanking. He is being stomped, just like a fighter would be. I hope for that poor wizard that someone will tank some of those attacks for him. Anyone would make the trick. Rogues are pretty decent at it with their ability to reposition themselves easily and their uncanny dodge class feature is probably the best damage mitigation tool in the game against opponents with limited number of attacks.

on the contrary, being a tank is *all* about crowd control. it is generally associated with a slightly unusual form of crowd control in that you are still letting the enemy attack, but it is simply a different sort of crowd control; that of compelling the enemy to attack you rather than someone else.

now, as with all crowd control, it can be hard control or soft control. hard control is where you literally force it to be the only option. a warrior's taunt in WoW is an example of hard control. mobs cannot choose to attack someone else. they must attack you. in D&D, this is very rare, but does include choke points against enemies that are insufficiently mobile (won't work well against the balor above since he can teleport and fly), grappling a target to keep it away from the rest of the party (good only against 1-2 targets but sacrifices the use of your hands), and the sentinel feat opportunity attack ability, but not the reaction (again, only good against a single target, but at least it isn't size-limited and it doesn't require sacrificing the use of your hands.

then we have the soft control. the sentinel reaction attack against an enemy that targets someone else when you're in close range, the barbarian highest level bear totem ability that makes adjacent allies harder to hit, the protection fighting style, the paladin auras. these are all examples of soft control. they make it less desirable to target someone else. but there is another form of soft control, and that is making yourself look like the most important or desirable target. for example, if you can drop a powerful healing spell or remove all the negative status effects the monsters are inflicting (paladin), even though you are perhaps not the most dangerous offensively (which is not the same thing as being not dangerous at all), that can make you a more important target because you are still removing their offense, just not their actions. with the barbarian, reckless attacks makes it appealing to attack you because they get disadvantage... not as compelling, but still, it makes you look more appealing as a target.

the fighter is a terrible tank (or if you prefer defender) because most of the forms of control he has are available in equal measure to other people, and generally they aren't very good. they're single target in a game that massively favours multiple enemies, they are limited to one per round, and in some cases it comes at great cost (you can't use a sword and board style plus grapple, nor can you use a two-handed weapon plus grapple).

but that does not mean that there is no source of such control in the game. paladins make a very compelling argument to target them. that aura of +5 to saves means that the balor is drastically less likely to drag anyone around with its whip. it means that enemies which rely on poison for damage deal a lot less. it means that enemies with stuns, trips, and grapples (which are typically a save-based effect from monsters rather than an opposed athletics check as they are with PCs) are much less likely to land those effects, and lose a lot of power.

by providing exceptional protection from those effects, plus having the ability to just guaranteed cancel magical effects like curses and hold spells, plus the ability to heal, the paladin is costing the enemy a lot of offensive power just by existing. nothing *forces* the enemy to attack the paladin. but the paladin does provide a very compelling argument for why it might be worthwhile to attack him instead of someone else, and he does it while still dealing damage that is remarkably similar to the fighter's damage output (yes, even including nova... a pair of 5d8 smites are expensive for the paladin, but make for about as convincing an argument as the fighter's action surge, and furthermore makes it a lot more scary to be the first to ignore the one reaction the paladin gets)

[-Jynx-]

Why do you think the wolves see the humans as something other than prey? It's not like they can sneak a peek at the character sheets.


As far as what a wolf sees it's a human whether it has magic or not, or whether it's 1st or 15th level. A wolf isn't even likely to understand the concept of the weapons and armor without having survived negative experiences often enough to have learned some rudimentary aspects they could recognize.


Because wolves can also attack because they feel threatened, or a much higher and equally likely scenario, the PCs have entered their territory and are attacking. Territory I would argue to be a higher probability because regardless if the wolves can discern how strong a PC is would know that it's not as easy to kill as lesser prey.



Wolves also don't go out hunting for a new alpha male. They go hunting for food so the default confrontation is a predator vs prey confrontation. It is the norm for predators to target the slow and weak.

I absolutely agree, I would figure wolves would sooner be attacking due to territory however before hunting PCs for food. We can agree to disagree on that point since your wolves in your world are different than mine. However since Humans aren't a natural/normal food choice for wolves in the real world they're more likely to attack out of aggression rather than hunger (same for bears, lions, etc.)



What the DM should be doing is examining who looks weak and not taking mechanics into consideration that cannot be perceived.

That means it's generally always the halfling. :-D

I agree very much with this statement. Poor little halflings :smallcool:

[Ashrym]

I absolutely agree, I would figure wolves would sooner be attacking due to territory however before hunting PCs for food. We can agree to disagree on that point since your wolves in your world are different than mine. However since Humans aren't a natural/normal food choice for wolves in the real world they're more likely to attack out of aggression rather than hunger (same for bears, lions, etc.)

Wolves do go after bears on a regular basis, trying to separate and kill cubs.

When conflict with other predators occurs it's usually because one or the other is trying to snipe a kill away from the other and not just because of territory.

Predatory attacks on humans is based on experience with humans and less common in North America but more common in other areas and times. Wolves do and did target smaller, weaker humans and typically children, particularly young teens gathering in fields and forests nearby so already separated.

It is likely in an older era wolves are more accustomed to human prey and in modern times the term "child lifting" is still used on India for wolves stealing children for prey.

You may not have seen a cougar, bear, coyote, or lone wolf go after a human but l know attack survivors with the funky gross scars to demonstrate.

Wolves who are unsure still start with testing attacks to see the reaction and acting like prey is prey, not acting like prey is competition that might be eliminated, and in both cases the easiest targets are still the targets.

Poor halflings.

[Vogonjeltz]

Oh, probably a spell Dax developed on his own 'Teleport meathead to Sun' or somesuch.

I find it amusing that the consensus is only 1:100,000 is a spellcaster? Really? When there isn't even a casting stat minimum anymore - any Joe Schmoe with his head half caved in can learn to cast magic missile. That's artificial bias not present in the rules or even implied.

Which is exactly my point. Everyone is apparently stuck in the 'classical' Tolkien idea of what medieval fantasy must be like.

I'm stating that if the First Race were elves, and they were taught/inherently knew magic, and then some millennia later, humans appear (evolved, created, magical mishap, whatever) - there's a damn good chance that the elves would simply wipe them out with superior magical prowess. Even if that didn't happen, if humans also had a penchance for magic, their shaman caveman would rule - natural selection would favor the magically inclined and anyone with a prowess for non-magical innovation would be made obsolete.

It's Tippyverse as expressed from the beginning of time.

But it's cool - y'all want to act like Magic is akin to gunpowder or steam engines. Coming late to the scene, after everyone has already toiled on the world without it, developing agrarian cultures like the real world did.

Personally, I'm a bit tired of Magic as Technology - but I get that's just me.


What a "convenient" explanation you've unearthed. :p

I think the point on no restrictions for single classing is that anyone willing to devote basically all their time to a specific field of study (or a class) can become proficient at it. The game simply doesn't model people who spend all their time working on something and then still have zero capability in it, presumably because the PCs are all meant to represent heroes and not Joe Schmoe.

I appreciate Tolkien's ideas, but it's by no means my favorite style of universe. I'd prefer something set in a Glen Cook series (The Black Company, Garrett P.I., The Swordbearer, Dread Empire, or Instrumentalities of the Night) or Steven Erikson (Malazan Book of the Fallen) or Robert E. Howard/Robert Jordan (Conan the Cimmerian). Universes containing highly lethal magics, but whose protagonists and heroes are typically entirely normal humans winning through based on their wits and grit.

Typically Elves and Humans get along in fantasy literature because, as you say, they are normally related, so there's little reason for the Elves to be xenophobes (e.g., in the way everyone in the Warhammer 40k universe is a bloodthirsty xenophobe). Besides there are other considerations to take into account when two societies or species come into conflict, one in particular for the Elves v Humans is birth rate and longevity. The Humans propogate faster on account of their shorter lifespans, consequentially they can attrit at significantly greater rates than Elves can.

[-Jynx-]

Stuff and things!

I agree with that. I can concede to the point that it's equally as likey that its a food hunt as much as it is territory. Especially if said wolves aren't as accustomed to humanity as they are say in America it may even more so be tipped toward a food hunt. I'd still hold the point then that the fighter is no more or less the target than a wizard which was my original point against Sharkforce, but you're not arguing that anyway and I agree that race would play a larger factor than class/stature.

[Hawkstar]

wolves have been known to hunt creatures as large as moose and caribou, including such animals that travel in herds of hundreds.

a group of 3-6 human-sized people aren't exactly more threatening in appearance to a wolf than a herd of caribou (also, compared to a regular human, actually, a deer is pretty scary. it isn't until you give that human weapons and training that they become particularly dangerous).
Wait... if we're basing animal hunting behavior on real-world wolf intellect and behavior, we should go all the way. Wolves are, contrary to what the designers of D&D think, not stupid.
In the real world, Wolves know what humans, guns, and dogs are, and most of the things they're capable of in a fight - only rabies or severe desperation will make wolves attack a human.

In a fantasy setting, if you want real-world-style wolves (As opposed to "ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!" RPG wolves), you can damn well bet wolves know what humans, armor, swords, robes, staves. wands, and magic are.

[SharkForce]

wolf attacks happen in real life. it isn't like this is some sort of made-up thing that never really happens, because it does.

but in any event, my point was not that wolves will attack the wizard over the fighter (although they should, 9 times out of 10 the fighter should be larger, stronger, and tougher, all of which should be pretty visible). my point was that even wolves have figured out you pick the thing you can kill most easily as your target, and while not unintelligent, they aren't exactly the most brilliant creature in existence either. it doesn't take genius levels of intelligence to know that you choose for a target the thing that is easiest to kill.

[Cazero]

on the contrary, being a tank is *all* about crowd control. it is generally associated with a slightly unusual form of crowd control in that you are still letting the enemy attack, but it is simply a different sort of crowd control; that of compelling the enemy to attack you rather than someone else.
-snip-

You ignored my point about defender =/= tank.

Tanking is not about compelling the enemy to attack who you wants, even if that form of mind control has the same practical results. It's about the physical impossibility to attack someone else than the tank.
And since the enemies are not run by an AI blindly following an arbitrary threat meter, tanking in D&D is not a natural aspect of the game that must be exploited to avoid being squashed like bugs. It is a circumstancial opportunity at damage control. Everyone does his share when appropriate.


Buffing your allies is not tanking. The barbarian ability to reduce damage on his allies is an awesome defensive tool that create an incentive to target him, but it doesn't turn the barbarian into a tank. You want someone to tank damage for the barbarian even more than before since that damage would be reduced if the barbarian isn't the one taking it.

In fact, this ability is similar to the ultimate spell of the troll hero in Warcraft 3 : Frozen Throne. It makes him the only possible target for enemy attacks by granting invulnerability to every other allied unit in range, wich in Warcraft 3 means absolute immunity to everything except movement interference by collision.
Does it make that troll a tank? Heck no. You don't use that ability to redirect enemy attacks, you use it to prevent the enemy from attacking at all because your army now forms a wall of immortal units. If your wall of unit is not tanking properly, your hero gets destroyed in mere seconds. Otherwise, your enemy has no choice but to run away and cry.
The tanks here are the invulnerable units. Note how they do not need any special defensive abilities. They're just relatively large 3D models that passively block stuff that tries to go through with their hitbox.
Like in most games where hard tanking tools are almost inexistant but unit collision exists, tanking in Warcraft 3 is done by standing in the way. D&D is such a game.


Giving healing and protective powers to a resilient paladin or cleric doesn't make them tanks. It turns them into a support priority target that happens to be hard to kill. How much threat they represent and where they are on the to-kill list remain completely circumstancial.

Similarly, punitive strikes and damage output in general is not tanking. If the paladin can make punitive strikes with the sentinel feat and might nova at any time, he goes up in the to-kill list but killing the rogue first can still be the priority.

PCs do that sort of calculations all the time. Why would the barbarian hurt himself on the balor's fire aura when he can slay some minions? Why isn't the rogue risking an oportunity attack to kill the goblin cleric? 'Because the balor continuous damage will hurt me more if he isn't taken down ASAP' and 'Because I'm going to finish that goblin champion right now' are perfectly valid answers.


Creating a chokepoint by erecting walls of force with your mind is not tanking. Standing in that chokepoint and stopping anyone who tries to go through is. Both actions are about protecting the party. The first is much less useful without the second, and the second is almost useless without the first. The fighter is unable to create chokepoints, that doesn't mean he can't hold them.
In fact, the fighter is probably the best class at holding chokepoints because he can lock more people in place, and creating the chokepoint is the wizard's job.
Or in other words, if the wizard is within reach of the balor's whip, it's his own goddamn fault. With long reach, teleportation and flight, the balor is a typical example of 'impossible to tank' monster. D&D provides countless of alternatives to tanking for damage control because D&D run under the assumption that an adventuring party doesn't need a dedicated tank.

[SharkForce]

eh, i disagree entirely.

whether you persuade the enemy to attack you in preference to others or force it is irrelevant.

if they're attacking you when they could be attacking someone else, that is just as effective as making it impossible for them to attack someone else.

i find your definition of tank to be extremely silly. it is a pointless distinction that exists only in your mind.

[Easy_Lee]

eh, i disagree entirely.

whether you persuade the enemy to attack you in preference to others or force it is irrelevant.

if they're attacking you when they could be attacking someone else, that is just as effective as making it impossible for them to attack someone else.

i find your definition of tank to be extremely silly. it is a pointless distinction that exists only in your mind.

Actually he's using the term as it would be used in an MMO. Ever since EverQuest, possibly before, managing threat has been a thing. A tank is someone who excels at managing threat, forcing mobs to attack him.

Outside of MMOs, many gamers don't like to use the term. I've seen entire debates on MOBA forums about use of the word tank; some people use it to mean able to take hits, while the correct meaning for the term is able to force targets to attack you.

With that in mind, there's really only one true tank right now, by a traditional definition. That is the swashbuckler. And that is exactly why I prefer to use the terms "defender" for someone good at protecting allies, and "survivability" when discussing someone who can take hits (sometimes I'll say "tanky").

Long story short, champions have high survivability, and are generally mediocre defenders.

[SharkForce]

except that threat, aggro, or whatever else doesn't force the mobs to attack you. someone else generates more, and bam, they stop going after you. because they have a choice. now, being controlled by a very simple algorithm that players can exploit, it is very much like they are forced. but the difference is that no matter how much aggro i generate, if a warrior in WoW taunts an enemy, that enemy will attack the warrior.

aggro is merely a mechanic used to decide which person the mobs want to attack. it does not force them to attack, it is merely the algorithm that governs who they will decide to attack.

[Easy_Lee]

except that threat, aggro, or whatever else doesn't force the mobs to attack you. someone else generates more, and bam, they stop going after you. because they have a choice. now, being controlled by a very simple algorithm that players can exploit, it is very much like they are forced. but the difference is that no matter how much aggro i generate, if a warrior in WoW taunts an enemy, that enemy will attack the warrior.

aggro is merely a mechanic used to decide which person the mobs want to attack. it does not force them to attack, it is merely the algorithm that governs who they will decide to attack.

Right, but my point is that there is no algorithm in D&D. The DM chooses who to attack, just how in PvP games players choose which other players to attack. So the MMO term "tank" no longer truly applies.

But it's semantics.

[SharkForce]

there is an algorithm. it's just a lot more complicated and has some RNG thrown in, and we don't know all the variables. instead of just being a relatively straightforward calculation (healing causes X amount of aggro, damage causes Y amount of aggro, special abilities A, B, and C cause Z, Z1, and Z2 amount of aggro), it is based around the DM's belief of what the monster's threat assessment of the situation is, and actually accounts for how hard the target looks to kill while most MMORPGs do not.

but that DM will absolutely be doing some rough calculations in their head.

[Sindeloke]

Why do people keep saying Champions have high survivability?

I mean, sure, compared to a wizard. They have many weapon proficiencies compared to a wizard too. That's kind of a meaningless victory, though; if you want to claim high survivability you have to compare it to other classes in the same bracket, and when you do, it falls short. A paladin built for survivability has the same AC, +2-5 on all saves over the Champ plus resistance to magic damage, better self-healing, and defensive spells the Champion can't reproduce. A monk doesn't even have to be built for survivability to have the same AC, better saves, damage resistance, at-will invulnerability, and sufficient mobility and concealment to never get hit in melee if he doesn't want; rogues likewise (worse saves & AC than monk, but better mobility). A survival-focused barbarian has nearly twice as many effective hit points, AC only 1-2 points lower, and advantage on the majority of Dex saves.

If the only thing that you care about is DPR, the Champion is without question competitive (but still not the best choice); nobody in the thread has disputed that, that I can tell. If you care about survival, the only worse martial is the ranger, unless you want to spend 4 of your 6 ASI on save proficiencies (in which case you're actually down two class features compared to anyone else). If you care about absolutely any other aspect of the game, pick a different class. Or just be like "I don't need class features to contribute, I'm creative," in which case IDK why you're playing a class-based game but I'm sincerely glad you're having fun, no sarcasm whatsoever, but that doesn't make the class a good one.

[Easy_Lee]

Why do people keep saying Champions have high survivability?

Indomitable, second wind, d10 HP, built-in strength and constitution saving throws, shield and all armor proficiencies, ability to pick up shield master or defensive duelist if they want to further enhance their defenses...

Paladins and barbarians can be harder to kill. Rogues and monks might be harder to kill in certain situations, but easier in others. But the champion is never easy to kill, which is why people say that he has high survivability.

[LordVonDerp]

Indomitable, second wind, d10 HP, built-in strength and constitution saving throws, shield and all armor proficiencies, ability to pick up shield master or defensive duelist if they want to further enhance their defenses...

Paladins and barbarians can be harder to kill. Rogues and monks might be harder to kill in certain situations, but easier in others. But the champion is never easy to kill, which is why people say that he has high survivability.

Indomitable adds little to survivability and neither does an extra fight ing style. The rest is all stuff a regular fighter gets anyway.

[Easy_Lee]

Indomitable adds little to survivability and neither does an extra fight ing style. The rest is all stuff a regular fighter gets anyway.

Indomitable let's them reroll saves, so I would say that it adds quite a bit to survival.

[LordVonDerp]

Indomitable let's them reroll saves, so I would say that it adds quite a bit to survival.

Not much. There bad saves aren't likely enough to succeed to bother rerolling and their good saves aren't the big dangers.

[MeeposFire]

Not much. There bad saves aren't likely enough to succeed to bother rerolling and their good saves aren't the big dangers.

Honestly for a melee warrior with a fairly high HD str and con saves are important. Dex saves are partly mitigated by the high HP. Int and cha are far too rare to make too much of a deal about it.

The only save needed would be wisdom which is affordable for the warrior worried about defenses. Most classes have as weak or weaker defenses in this regard.

They will not be the best but I do think it is better than you are making it out to be.

I do wish it was a short rest ability though...

[LordVonDerp]

Honestly for a melee warrior with a fairly high HD str and con saves are important. Dex saves are partly mitigated by the high HP. Int and cha are far too rare to make too much of a deal about it.

The only save needed would be wisdom which is affordable for the warrior worried about defenses. Most classes have as weak or weaker defenses in this regard.

They will not be the best but I do think it is better than you are making it out to be.

I do wish it was a short rest ability though...

His HP is the same as a paladin (who gets +cha mod to saves) and only 1 per level higher than a monk or rogue (who both get evasion).

[SharkForce]

major MAD for the paladin means that a champion will probably have a higher con, practically speaking, than a paladin. particulary with an extra 2 ASIs (and also those ASIs can be used for defensive feats).

after that, i suppose we're mostly focusing on the only particularly compelling feature the champion has, which is regeneration.

but yes, for the most part, champion is not particularly more tough than a regular fighter. but that's fairly tough.

[Easy_Lee]

but yes, for the most part, champion is not particularly more tough than a regular fighter. but that's fairly tough.

Compared to bards, wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and rangers, fighters are tough. Compared to rogues and monks, fighters are tougher in certain situations. Compared to paladins and clerics, fighters are a little easier to kill.

And indomitable is there for the off chance that the fighter fails a physical save like CON or STR, to almost guarantee that he'll pass the reroll. And it may help with other saves from time to time, particularly since fighters get extra ASIs. So I'd say they're at the high end of survival.

[Ashrym]

Indomitable on a good save is safety against a bad roll and on a bad save similar to ~4 bonus because it's not that different from advantage. It's a decent enough ability that one might use after failing an important save.

Second wind also helps, and 2 bonus feats that could be used for more defensive and offensive options is pretty good. That's still all fighters.

Champions can work the numbers for a better overall average on skills and get a bonus to CON checks that might be applicable for a small benefit over other fighters. They can fit in a defensive fighting style and an offensive fighting style to use the better based on circumstances which generally ends up being 1 AC higher. Those are minor but there.

Survivor comes late but it's solid. Regaining 8-10 hp each round under half hit points is the equivalent of a lot more hit points than other fighters. When resources are lower and the going gets tough that's when the high level champion keeps on keeping on.

[Malifice]

Not much. There bad saves aren't likely enough to succeed to bother rerolling and their good saves aren't the big dangers.

Its effectively advantage on a save. Which works out to a roll of around @15.

Looking over the DC's in the monster manual, thats a damn fine ability that will see more success than failure.

[Troacctid]

Why do people keep saying Champions have high survivability?

I mean, sure, compared to a wizard. They have many weapon proficiencies compared to a wizard too. That's kind of a meaningless victory, though; if you want to claim high survivability you have to compare it to other classes in the same bracket, and when you do, it falls short. A paladin built for survivability has the same AC, +2-5 on all saves over the Champ plus resistance to magic damage, better self-healing, and defensive spells the Champion can't reproduce. A monk doesn't even have to be built for survivability to have the same AC, better saves, damage resistance, at-will invulnerability, and sufficient mobility and concealment to never get hit in melee if he doesn't want; rogues likewise (worse saves & AC than monk, but better mobility). A survival-focused barbarian has nearly twice as many effective hit points, AC only 1-2 points lower, and advantage on the majority of Dex saves.

No one said they had a monopoly on survivability.

[georgie_leech]

No one said they had a monopoly on survivability.

Or even that they were the toughest. Just that they were pretty tough to kill, which the above posts do a decent job of demonstrating.

[Giant2005]

Or even that they were the toughest. Just that they were pretty tough to kill, which the above posts do a decent job of demonstrating.

They actually are the toughest once they get their hands on Survivor although that comes in far too late to even be counted imo. But when they do get it, they become pretty much the only class in the game that can tank hordes of enemies. Also, with the inclusion of the Mariner Fighting Style, they have the second highest, un-buffed AC potential in the game. They come in second to the Barbarian but the masses don't even seem to consider a Dex-based Barbarian a character of worth, so for all intents of purposes the Champion may as well claim top position.

[LordVonDerp]

They actually are the toughest once they get their hands on Survivor although that comes in far too late to even be counted imo. But when they do get it, they become pretty much the only class in the game that can tank hordes of enemies. Also, with the inclusion of the Mariner Fighting Style, they have the second highest, un-buffed AC potential in the game. They come in second to the Barbarian but the masses don't even seem to consider a Dex-based Barbarian a character of worth, so for all intents of purposes the Champion may as well claim top position.

Survivor lets you recover 8-10 HP per round if you're below half HP. That doesn't help much against hordes.

[JNAProductions]

Combine Heavy Armor Mastery with a high AC and Survivor and low-level mooks will probably not be able to kill you, or at least have one hell of a time trying.

[Ashrym]

Survivor lets you recover 8-10 HP per round if you're below half HP. That doesn't help much against hordes.

As opposed to other fighters who don't have that benefit?

It's definitely more survivability, works with other defensive options, and also works during movement or breaks in the combat. Aside from that, the hordes of orcs surrounding the champion with 10% chance to hit for 6 damage (heavy armor master) with 9 surrounding enemies on a sword and shield champion who regains 10 hp per round is barely going to feel those attacks once survivor kicks in; he's only taking damage from critical hits.

In a situation like that it's more than worth dropping damage for defense and letting survivor really work for you.