Champion Build

[Sithlord006]

I am very, very new to 5d D&D and I am looking for help with my character build. I have the concept. Basically, he is a level 4 Fighter (champion archetype). His background is Acolyte of Mystra, but he is not a cleric (could multiclass to it, but that is part of why I am here). He is the brother of a wizard and the setting is about 10 years post Spell-plague. Their task from the temple is generically to rediscover magic items, spells, scrolls, and locales that were lost/destroyed in the Spell-plague.

So far, his emphasis has been on Great Weapons, but he has stats good enough to multiclass to whatever he wants. I was thinking he would be the party's point man, so his first feat is Dungeon Delver and he also took Great Weapon Master at level 4. I was thinking he would also pick up Polearm Master and focus on the Glaive. I'm just not sure if going straight fighter is his best option from a mechanical point of view or if he should pick up Paladin, Monk, Cleric, or Wizard as a multiclass. Granted, his Wisdom and Intelligence are 14, so hardly stellar, but they could be raised if needed. Paladin sounds like a good choice, but I'm not sure the benefits would offset the high level Fighter benefits.

The short version of my question is whether a Champion Fighter is a good class to go vanilla or if I should multiclass. Short of making several pro-forma character sheets, I thought a good forum may give me the best insights. I have Player Handbook, Dungeon Master Guide, and Monster Manual as resources. Thanks in advance to everybody who helps me.

[Jeebs]

Level 5 is a big power bump, so I would wait until at least level 6 to multiclass.

Personally, I would totally avoid multiclassing, and just keep taking feats to get the flavor you want, but make the character you want to play!

[Easy_Lee]

Champion is a consistent Frontline class which can add half proficiency to plenty of rolls after level 7. I'd just go pure, based on the choices you've made so far. Take any excuse to use your athletic abilities.

[Sithlord006]

So far, it sounds unanimous, so I will go with fleshing out the Fighter levels with a few feats for flavor. So far, I have planned the following feat progression.

1 Dungeon Delver
4 Great Weapon Master
6 Sentinel
8 Polearm Master
12 Mage Slayer
14 Ritual Caster
16 Alert
19 Martial Adept/Lucky

I am a little torn on the last one, but I think I'd lean toward Lucky. Once per day abilities kind of annoy me, especially in a character of this sort who is designed to be simple (relatively speaking) and basically never runs out of steam short of being dead. I figure his profession of choice will put him in frequent encounters with evil casters, so Mage Slayer seems a no brainer about the time that 6th level spells come into play. I can even see transposing that one with Polearm Master. I have no experience with Ritual Caster, but it sounds interesting. I would like some specific feedback on specific feats above that may be really lousy or any great ones that fit my character that I may be overlooking, for example Resilient for Wisdom Save proficiency.

My only regret is that he is basically a Templar and the template does not allow for any healing, but I suppose enchanted equipment can offset that a little. As it is, the party "healer" is a bard. We have a party of 4, a Barbarian, my Champion, a Wizard, and the Valor Bard. I hope to find a ring, staff, or something that has "cast X healing spell x number of times per day." We are rotating DMs, so there is no reason I can't give that as loot to the party. I just want to be careful not to give myself good stuff at the expense of other players. Thanks again for the insights.

PS: does it seem to anyone else that Greatswords and Mauls are really lousy weapons for a Champion due to the way they roll damage? They only get half benefit from rolling a crit compared to other similar weapons.

[bid]

You should drop 2 feats, you need those ASI for Str20.

Sentinel + polearm master is a much better pair than GWM.

Lucky is the best general feat you've listed, alert might be overkill since you add half your proficiency to initiative.

Dungeon delver / mage slayer are mostly fluff, keep them to round up your RP concept.


Cleric is the only useful MC you've listed, champion 11 / tempest 9 can be fun.

[Specter]

First of all, I congratulate you for putting flavor above optimization.

Second, you're good as is. IF, however, you want to delve in magic for backstory reasons, take Magic Initiate at 1st level for some ranged cantrip, some utility cantrip and a level-1 spell.

Finally, if you do want to multiclass, go either Wizard (Diviner) or Cleric (Arcana/War), and if possible change the stat you didn't use to multiclass (INT/WIS) for something else.

[Farecry]

Also, if your taking dungeon delver, observant may be immensely useful to you for those passive checks required, assuming the DM actually uses them and has traps in use. If not then both are meh. But yeah, pure champion is boss.

[ClintACK]

PS: does it seem to anyone else that Greatswords and Mauls are really lousy weapons for a Champion due to the way they roll damage? They only get half benefit from rolling a crit compared to other similar weapons.

Wait, what?

You double all the dice.

Greataxe: 1d12 goes to 2d12
Greatsword: 2d6 goes to 4d6.

Maybe you're thinking of the Half-Orc ability "Savage Attack"?

A Half-Orc would get 3d12 with the Greataxe, but only 5d6 with the Greatsword.

[Addaran]

Wich ritual caster will you take?
As an acolyte, cleric would make sense, since you could do the religious rituals and get answers from Mystra. But since you're worshipping Mystra, it also makes sense to study wizard rituals.

Probably cleric since your team already have a wizard? You could also take magic initiate cleric.

Your stats would help knowing if the build is good. If you're with point-buy, you'll probably want 20 str at some point, so less feats.

[Sithlord006]

Str 20
Dex 17
Con 16
Int 14
Wis 16
Cha 14

Obviously, the character was designed to be a fighter. Any spell casting will be mostly flavor and utility or out of battle healing. We rolled for stats and I rolled really well. We all did, but that is beside the point. After we got started, it looked like I messed up on the Human stat boost (strength is 18+2), but we decided to leave it alone since the total is the same and we were already level 3 by the time we caught it. Basically, I'm fine with where my stats are and I don't feel much need to boost them. I could, but feats are more flavorful.

Based on the input so far, I have rearranged my feat selection order and replaced Martial Adept with Lucky, but mostly the selection is the same in the end. I hadn't considered Cleric ritual casting. I was planning arcane, but cleric makes more sense, I think.

[Easy_Lee]

You probably want to take Alert sooner if you're that guy in the party. It has consistent use throughout any game.

[smcmike]

If you are having trouble getting advantage consistently, two levels of barbarian will up your crits and damage significantly.

If only add spells if you are a bit bored with just hitting things.

[R.Shackleford]

I am very, very new to 5d D&D and I am looking for help with my character build. I have the concept. Basically, he is a level 4 Fighter (champion archetype). His background is Acolyte of Mystra, but he is not a cleric (could multiclass to it, but that is part of why I am here). He is the brother of a wizard and the setting is about 10 years post Spell-plague. Their task from the temple is generically to rediscover magic items, spells, scrolls, and locales that were lost/destroyed in the Spell-plague.

So far, his emphasis has been on Great Weapons, but he has stats good enough to multiclass to whatever he wants. I was thinking he would be the party's point man, so his first feat is Dungeon Delver and he also took Great Weapon Master at level 4. I was thinking he would also pick up Polearm Master and focus on the Glaive. I'm just not sure if going straight fighter is his best option from a mechanical point of view or if he should pick up Paladin, Monk, Cleric, or Wizard as a multiclass. Granted, his Wisdom and Intelligence are 14, so hardly stellar, but they could be raised if needed. Paladin sounds like a good choice, but I'm not sure the benefits would offset the high level Fighter benefits.

The short version of my question is whether a Champion Fighter is a good class to go vanilla or if I should multiclass. Short of making several pro-forma character sheets, I thought a good forum may give me the best insights. I have Player Handbook, Dungeon Master Guide, and Monster Manual as resources. Thanks in advance to everybody who helps me.

In all honesty you will learn everything the champion can teach you in like one combat. Seriously.

What I would do is go War/Tempest Cleric and then pick the peices you want to learn and continue to learn each session.

Champion Fighters are easy but that makes them BAD for new players. Not only are champion fighters bad for d&d but they are bad for TTRPGs in general.

[Easy_Lee]

Some people believe that their character actions are limited to what they have written down under the spells and abilities sections. Those people shouldn't play champions, because they won't try anything outside of attacking.

Remarkable athlete makes champions better than anyone else at pure strength, dexterity, and constitution checks. There are actually a lot of those.

You don't have to worry about when to use your limited resources, because all of the added champion features are always on. This makes champions better at long, drawn out fights than anyone else. Even the barbarian will run out of rage, eventually.

Two fighting styles means you can whip out the weapon set appropriate to the task. Or you can just take +1 AC. 19AC with a greatsword in hand is nothing to scoff at.

Extra ASIs means you can take all the feats you want. Great Weapon Mastery and Alert combined with remarkable athlete and expanded crit make the champion not only hit first, but hit hard very frequently. Sentinel gives you consistent reactions and makes you even harder to ignore.

Champion has a lot going for it. Not a bad archetype, really. But if you're in a campaign where you always get short rests exactly when you need them, where the difficult of mobs is carefully controlled, where there ain't much variability and it's all whiteroom style stuff, then Champion is not that great.

[Foxhound438]

paladin is a good mc for champions, as improved critical with smite is pretty effective. more or less fits into your flavor. paladin brings a few decent utility spell options as well, how many that will be depends on what oath you take.

[Easy_Lee]

paladin is a good mc for champions, as improved critical with smite is pretty effective. more or less fits into your flavor. paladin brings a few decent utility spell options as well, how many that will be depends on what oath you take.

Paladin requires spell slots to smite, though. That's why warlock and sorcerer are so popular as paladin Multiclass options.

[R.Shackleford]

Some people believe that their character actions are limited to what they have written down under the spells and abilities sections. Those people shouldn't play champions, because they won't try anything outside of attacking.


The problem is that anything you can learn from the champion that isn't written down on the paper you can learn from any other class PLUS rules that are only written down on their papers and not the champion's.

Plus if you *really* need to roll well on a skill check I'll take Enhance Ability over remarkable athlete. With the way the ability check system is set up that +3 (max) is checked by the advantage and enhance ability does so much more. Plus you can give it to others. This teaches you so much more than remarkable athlete.

Hell, it teaches you to be a team player while the champion teaches you to rely on yourself and don't help others...

[Easy_Lee]

The problem is that anything you can learn from the champion that isn't written down on the paper you can learn from any other class PLUS rules that are only written down on their papers and not the champion's.

Plus if you *really* need to roll well on a skill check I'll take Enhance Ability over remarkable athlete. With the way the ability check system is set up that +3 (max) is checked by the advantage and enhance ability does so much more. Plus you can give it to others. This teaches you so much more than remarkable athlete.

Hell, it teaches you to be a team player while the champion teaches you to rely on yourself and don't help others...

Sure, if you have concentration and a 2nd level spell slot to spare.

[R.Shackleford]

Sure, if you have concentration and a 2nd level spell slot to spare.

Why wouldn't I?

By 5th level I have 5 slots to use a 2nd level spell. I can use Enhance Ability in combat, in exploration, or in social situations. I don't always have to have bless up.

If I'm trying to learn the game then having this spell does so much more for me than remarkable athlete. Remarkable athlete doesn't actually teach me anything I can't already do without remarkable athlete. But for a better bonus I can learn when to use a spell in all three facets of the game and how to be a team player.

The cleric can teach self reliance and contributing to the team whereas the Fighter teaches self reliance and relying I others.

The cleric is a much better class to teach 5e than the Fighter. Everything the Fighter can teach is taught by the cleric PLUS so much more.

[Easy_Lee]

I believe I said up above that the primary advantage of champion is that its features are always on, meaning champion doesn't rely on spell slots. If you always have spell slots when you need them, due to your DM being gracious / reasonable about rests, then there's little advantage to playing a champ.

But, regarding teaching the game, I have a habit of starting groups out as level 0 classless commoners. That way, they only have their background skills and the actual system to work with. Players are forced to be creative, forced to think about tools and items and outside-the-box strategies. The champion, since all of its features are passive, acts kind of the same way.

[Slipperychicken]

The short version of my question is whether a Champion Fighter is a good class to go vanilla or if I should multiclass. Short of making several pro-forma character sheets, I thought a good forum may give me the best insights. I have Player Handbook, Dungeon Master Guide, and Monster Manual as resources. Thanks in advance to everybody who helps me.

Champion is solid, I say stick with it unless something else comes up. At the very least, take 5th level in it because you need that extra attack.

If you care so much about healing, I'd consider the Healer feat since your starting stats are basically endgame-tier already. If you do take it, just take like five healer kits everywhere you go (and refill them every time you get the chance) because you use them faster than you'd think. Your bard will love you for all the spell slots you save him.

You could also go into cleric, either life or war subclass, but you'll miss out on your third attack at level 11. Just remember to take the 5th level of champion before going into cleric, and don't worry about in-combat spells that cost an action; generally you'll be best off using your action to attack.

[R.Shackleford]

I believe I said up above that the primary advantage of champion is that its features are always on, meaning champion doesn't rely on spell slots. If you always have spell slots when you need them, due to your DM being gracious / reasonable about rests, then there's little advantage to playing a champ.

But, regarding teaching the game, I have a habit of starting groups out as level 0 classless commoners. That way, they only have their background skills and the actual system to work with. Players are forced to be creative, forced to think about tools and items and outside-the-box strategies. The champion, since all of its features are passive, acts kind of the same way.


Which is not an advantage when you are learning the system. Because you aren't learning the system.

There are two classes that each have a subclass (rogue has a couple more) where their features are "always on". You aren't learning the system or resource management with the champion. Everything you learn with the champion can be learned by another class that will work like the rest of the game.

Champions are the worst class to teach people 5e. Sure you can have a niche with it or some fun... But it teaches the bare bones of the system that you can get from any class.

There is nothing that the champion can teach that a cleric, bard, or paladin can't. Not a single thing. But those classes can teach the player a multitude of other things, that can be introduced at the player's convenience.

[Easy_Lee]

Which is not an advantage when you are learning the system. Because you aren't learning the system.

There are two classes that each have a subclass (rogue has a couple more) where their features are "always on". You aren't learning the system or resource management with the champion. Everything you learn with the champion can be learned by another class that will work like the rest of the game.

Champions are the worst class to teach people 5e. Sure you can have a niche with it or some fun... But it teaches the bare bones of the system that you can get from any class.

There is nothing that the champion can teach that a cleric, bard, or paladin can't. Not a single thing. But those classes can teach the player a multitude of other things, that can be introduced at the player's convenience.

Ever heard of overwhelming someone with too much information? Spell slots do that to new players. Simple classes exist for a reason.

[Flashy]

Some people believe that their character actions are limited to what they have written down under the spells and abilities sections. Those people shouldn't play champions, because they won't try anything outside of attacking.

I've been seriously considering playing a Champion or Thief lately, just to encourage myself to think more outside the box.

[R.Shackleford]

I've been seriously considering playing a Champion or Thief lately, just to encourage myself to think more outside the box.

I don't mean this as an insult but my ability to explain what I mean is horrid while using my thumbs.

If you need a lack of options to think outside the box I'm not sure you are the type of player that would think outside the box even with a champion or a theif.

It isn't like Spellcasting solves all problems. Dynamic thinking doesn't just turn on because you need it to.

From my experience as a DM, the best dynamic thinkers tend to do so with spellcasters and then use it to round out their abilities.

Especially with 5e when everything is *mother may I* which includes asking if you can alter spells in the same way.

If a champion can ask if their bow attack can knock down a chandelier then an evoker can ask if their firebolt can do the same thing... As a spellcaster you have a cast array of options in which to think dynamically with.

[djreynolds]

I have played a high level champion.

For me shield master is a must.

I used a rapier with strength and took defensive duelist, up to +6 AC as a reaction to one melee attack

Resilient wisdom is awesome, you will need it.

mage slayer is very good.

18th level class feature is nothing to sneeze at. Survivor is potent.

Also your dex is high enough that the archery style makes ranged attack viable, especially if you go with a greatsword or polearm. Stick it in the ground, fire off a few arrows, and the go into melee.

I prefer S&B, but taking an action to don or doff a shield hurts. You are stuck with hand axes and javelins.

But you can play a greatsword/longbow fighter, you have the stats to do it. Take GWF and archery as your styles, grab GWM and sharpshooter and now you can fight anywhere.

[Sir cryosin]

This is a little house role that are DM like to use with are group. With the ritual Caster feat any ritual spell you come across you can put in does it matter what list it's on try asking your DM if he would be cool with that.

[R.Shackleford]

I have played a high level champion.

For me shield master is a must.

I used a rapier with strength and took defensive duelist, up to +6 AC as a reaction to one melee attack

Resilient wisdom is awesome, you will need it.

mage slayer is very good.

18th level class feature is nothing to sneeze at. Survivor is potent.

Also your dex is high enough that the archery style makes ranged attack viable, especially if you go with a greatsword or polearm. Stick it in the ground, fire off a few arrows, and the go into melee.

I prefer S&B, but taking an action to don or doff a shield hurts. You are stuck with hand axes and javelins.

But you can play a greatsword/longbow fighter, you have the stats to do it. Take GWF and archery as your styles, grab GWM and sharpshooter and now you can fight anywhere.

You have came across the same problem as the 3e fighter... You aren't really playing a fighter, you are playing a pile of feats (that anyone can do even if they aren't a fighter).

Survivor is awesome though active way too late.

[Osrogue]

So anyway, your stats are great, you can pretty much pick any feat you want and you'll probably do just fine. You might want to take Lucky earlier than 19th. It synergizes well with indomitable.

And since there is a lot of dissent regarding whether or not you should be a champion, have fun with it. If you start getting bored of the champion for whatever reason, multiclass into a cleric. You have the stats for it.

[Easy_Lee]

You have came across the same problem as the 3e fighter... You aren't really playing a fighter, you are playing a pile of feats (that anyone can do even if they aren't a fighter).

Can, but the other classes are less able. Fighters get the most feats, which matters this generation since feats are so hard to come by. And most fighters only care about their attack stat and constitution, meaning they have lots of opportunity to pick up feats.

[R.Shackleford]

Can, but the other classes are less able. Fighters get the most feats, which matters this generation since feats are so hard to come by. And most fighters only care about their attack stat and constitution, meaning they have lots of opportunity to pick up feats.

Feats are not all that great compared to character class features.

The most you get out of feats is either *moar damage*, *class feature lite*, or a decent ability.

Fighters don't really come ahead in feats till past 10th level as until then you are still wanting to increase ability scores. People don't tend to play those levels.

The greatest magic trick WotC ever pulled was the idea that bonus feats are worth class features. In 3e and in 5e people have been tricked in the exact same way. The phrase "Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you" comes to mind.


If feats were equal to class features (spells, wildshape, channel divinity) then it would be unbalanced to give them to classes that get those class features.

[Easy_Lee]

Feats are not all that great compared to character class features.

The most you get out of feats is either *moar damage*, *class feature lite*, or a decent ability.

Fighters don't really come ahead in feats till past 10th level as until then you are still wanting to increase ability scores. People don't tend to play those levels.

The greatest magic trick WotC ever pulled was the idea that bonus feats are worth class features. In 3e and in 5e people have been tricked in the exact same way. The phrase "Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you" comes to mind.

If feats were equal to class features (spells, wildshape, channel divinity) then it would be unbalanced to give them to classes that get those class features.

That depends on the class feature you're talking about. Some of the class features of fighters (which people who don't like fighters often forget) are having martial weapon and shield proficiency, heavy armor proficiency, and a d10 HP pool. Compared with a wizard, that's comparable to tough + moderately armored + heavily armored + Weapon Master. Action surge and extra attack 3 + 4, some of the best class features in the game, have no feat equivalents.

Meanwhile, what does a fighter need to do to gain wizard casting? There are no feats he can take to replicate signature spell or level 2+ casting, but Magic Initiate does a good job of replicating some of the wizard's level 1 features.

Some class features, particularly low level ones, really can be replicated with feats. Most high level features, from any class, don't come in feat form. And some feats, such as Alert and Keen Mind, don't exist as class features at all.

Generally speaking, feats are as good or better than low level class features, but inferior to high level class features. The main issue people have with fighters is that they don't gain any magical, reality-altering powers even at high levels. They just get better at doing what they've always done: hitting things and taking hits.

[ShinigamiKenji]

Sentinel + polearm master is a much better pair than GWM.

Lucky is the best general feat you've listed, alert might be overkill since you add half your proficiency to initiative.

GWM + Lucky + Two-handed Fighting Style can get pretty much overkill too. Add 10 damage and reroll poor damage dice, with extra chances for critical.

Add in those Champion extra attacks, Improved Critical and a Greatsword (you can actually reroll only one of the d6 if it's lower than 2, and keep the other one), and you might be on par with Barbarians in terms of damage.

Edit: But yeah, if you plan on taking so many feats, Sentinel + Polearm Master is also wonderful, especially if with another melee class.

[R.Shackleford]

That depends on the class feature you're talking about. Some of the class features of fighters (which people who don't like fighters often forget) are having martial weapon and shield proficiency, heavy armor proficiency, and a d10 HP pool. Compared with a wizard, that's comparable to tough + moderately armored + heavily armored + Weapon Master. Action surge and extra attack 3 + 4, some of the best class features in the game, have no feat equivalents.

Meanwhile, what does a fighter need to do to gain wizard casting? There are no feats he can take to replicate signature spell or level 2+ casting, but Magic Initiate does a good job of replicating some of the wizard's level 1 features.

Some class features, particularly low level ones, really can be replicated with feats. Most high level features, from any class, don't come in feat form. And some feats, such as Alert and Keen Mind, don't exist as class features at all.

Generally speaking, feats are as good or better than low level class features, but inferior to high level class features. The main issue people have with fighters is that they don't gain any magical, reality-altering powers even at high levels. They just get better at doing what they've always done: hitting things and taking hits.

I like how you compare this to the wizard and not say... Cleric, Druid, Bard, or Warlock. Characters that have armor proficiency (or easily get it) and class features. The Wizard doesn't really have class features as they rely on their spells primarily. Though the class features they do get are straight up awesome.

Alert is a good feat, except that it isn't consistent with the game, but good feat. However any caster can have it too and use it effectively. A lot of weapon feats can work just as well on a Paladin, cleric, or Warlock.

However the biggest issue is that fighters don't get that extra feat till they hit 6th level, this is the start of mid levels. Rogues are getting uncanny dodge and evasion. Bards got counter charm and font of inspiration. Paladins get Aura of Protection, please tell me what feat is better than Aura of Protection? Clerics hey a divine domain feature (very much nice) and an additional use of channel divinity.

Feats aren't worth mid to high level features. Sure you can optimize anything but doing *moar damage* is useless when you are already a damage dealing machine.

Fighters do 1 thing, aren't the only ones that can do that, and brings absolutely zero to the table outside of damage. At least the Barbarian gets class features that has some cool fluff.

Also, feats aren't a fighter class feature. Ability Score Increase is the Fighter class feature. To change those to feats you must get DM permission. Which is on the same level of pathetic as Wild Magic.

[Easy_Lee]

I like how you compare this to the wizard and not say... Cleric, Druid, Bard, or Warlock. Characters that have armor proficiency (or easily get it) and class features. The Wizard doesn't really have class features as they rely on their spells primarily. Though the class features they do get are straight up awesome.

Alert is a good feat, except that it isn't consistent with the game, but good feat. However any caster can have it too and use it effectively. A lot of weapon feats can work just as well on a Paladin, cleric, or Warlock.

However the biggest issue is that fighters don't get that extra feat till they hit 6th level, this is the start of mid levels. Rogues are getting uncanny dodge and evasion. Bards got counter charm and font of inspiration. Paladins get Aura of Protection, please tell me what feat is better than Aura of Protection? Clerics hey a divine domain feature (very much nice) and an additional use of channel divinity.

Feats aren't worth mid to high level features. Sure you can optimize anything but doing *moar damage* is useless when you are already a damage dealing machine.

Fighters do 1 thing, aren't the only ones that can do that, and brings absolutely zero to the table outside of damage. At least the Barbarian gets class features that has some cool fluff.

Also, feats aren't a fighter class feature. Ability Score Increase is the Fighter class feature. To change those to feats you must get DM permission. Which is on the same level of pathetic as Wild Magic.

It sounds like your gripe is not specifically with the Champion, but with Fighters in general.

Fighters actually have two roles: dealing damage and being able to take damage. The only other classes that really excel at taking and mitigating damage are Cleric, Paladin, and Barbarian. Barbarians are the best at it, but have even fewer customization options than Fighters and no extra feats. Clerics and Paladins are spell-casters, and don't deal as much consistent damage as a Fighter.

And specifically regarding Champions, they're unique among the Fighter subclasses in one way: they improve on what the Fighter is already good at, which is long-lasting, consistent usability. Champion features are always on, and never run out of uses.

Fighters compare poorly to other classes in white room scenarios, where one is assumed to have just woken up from a long rest, to have the right spells ready, and to have just won initiative. When things go to hell and people start failing saves, or don't have the correct spells ready, or don't get their rests when they need it, the Fighter in general and Champion in particular still does well. They're much like the Thief Rogue in that regard, another much-derided archetype.

And if a DM wants to make the Champion feel cool, that's exactly the type of situation he should create. Put your PCs through a wringer, ambush them in the middle of a rest, and watch the Champion go to work while the others struggle.

[bid]

GWM + Lucky + Two-handed Fighting Style can get pretty much overkill too. Add 10 damage and reroll poor damage dice, with extra chances for critical.
I feel GWM works best with battlemaster, though.

[smcmike]

Also, feats aren't a fighter class feature. Ability Score Increase is the Fighter class feature. To change those to feats you must get DM permission. Which is on the same level of pathetic as Wild Magic.

Be serious, man. This is just weak argument, and confirms that you just have some sort of bizarre vendetta against the fighter. Feats or no feats is something that is known at character creation, and is therefore completely unlike wild magic. But you knew that.

Also, doing a lot of damage and surviving a lot of punishment are both very useful abilities to have in a game that generally comes down to killing one's enemies.

[R.Shackleford]

It sounds like your gripe is not specifically with the Champion, but with Fighters in general.

Fighters actually have two roles: dealing damage and being able to take damage. The only other classes that really excel at taking and mitigating damage are Cleric, Paladin, and Barbarian. Barbarians are the best at it, but have even fewer customization options than Fighters and no extra feats. Clerics and Paladins are spell-casters, and don't deal as much consistent damage as a Fighter.

And specifically regarding Champions, they're unique among the Fighter subclasses in one way: they improve on what the Fighter is already good at, which is long-lasting, consistent usability. Champion features are always on, and never run out of uses.

Fighters compare poorly to other classes in white room scenarios, where one is assumed to have just woken up from a long rest, to have the right spells ready, and to have just won initiative. When things go to hell and people start failing saves, or don't have the correct spells ready, or don't get their rests when they need it, the Fighter in general and Champion in particular still does well. They're much like the Thief Rogue in that regard, another much-derided archetype.

And if a DM wants to make the Champion feel cool, that's exactly the type of situation he should create. Put your PCs through a wringer, ambush them in the middle of a rest, and watch the Champion go to work while the others struggle.

Champions are an even worse version of the Fighter than the Fighter. It is everything that is bad about the Fighter compounded into a subclass.

Fighters (Champion) gives you nothing that another class can't (weapon, armor, *move and attack*), teaches you absolutely nothing another class can't at first level, and pushes the ideology of "less options = dynamic thinking" which is complete and utter garbage. The Eldritch Knight, which is the best designed of the fighter subclasses but that isn't saying much, at least can teach you about the game.

I dont' deal with white room, I deal with real world experiences and a lot of gaming hours. Fighters do poorly in real world games unless the DM holds your hand. They don't even get control of their "best" features which is the bonus ASI (not bonus feats) or indomitable (which, by RAW, is a terrible feature).

I don't ssay this as someone who looks at white room experiences, I say this as someone who has played them and as someone who has DMed for them. I have DM'ed for new players and experienced players.

The Fighter (Champion) is garbage for everyone.

[Easy_Lee]

Well, I've done just fine with champions. They're quite strong at low levels, and consistent throughout. But if you're the super prepared type, or like to have lots of hard options outside of just what you can think of doing, then wizards are better.

[SmokingSkull]

I've reached level nine on my fighter/barbarian, with the last level of barb I attained I'm going fighter the rest of the way. I chose Champion because it best fit the concept, and in my real gaming experience they're strong at low, mid and even high levels (I've played more than one). Anecdotal as it may be my hands were not held, if anything I was empowered because the DM I'm playing with currently is equally challenging to everyone. I've had situations where my non reliance on long rests was a boon, and if anything a godsend to my party. Other times some battles were drawn out due to circumstances and my consistency round after round mattered, even without the barb levels my sustainability and reliability was noticeable and appreciated.

True spells can break reality, and other classes have things I don't but I'm not envious nor wanting of them. I make my fun and story for my character instead of being bound by what a class comes with baggage wise, that's how I view the other classes' toys really. True I could reflavor or reskin those things but they still have to make sense mechanically. I digress though, a Champion Fighter is so straightforward that while it seems like it has nothing, that's only what you make of it. I look at what it does give you and go with it, works for me for the most part.

It wasn't an easy choice for me giving up 3 levels of fighter for the barbarian, but story and RP reasons later here I am as both voin and varver ;) It's a lot of fun, and both mesh really well synergy wise. Whether it's for concept or power, fun, or all of the above enjoy your Champion OP.

[djreynolds]

Champions are an even worse version of the Fighter than the Fighter. It is everything that is bad about the Fighter compounded into a subclass.

Fighters (Champion) gives you nothing that another class can't (weapon, armor, *move and attack*), teaches you absolutely nothing another class can't at first level, and pushes the ideology of "less options = dynamic thinking" which is complete and utter garbage. The Eldritch Knight, which is the best designed of the fighter subclasses but that isn't saying much, at least can teach you about the game.

I dont' deal with white room, I deal with real world experiences and a lot of gaming hours. Fighters do poorly in real world games unless the DM holds your hand. They don't even get control of their "best" features which is the bonus ASI (not bonus feats) or indomitable (which, by RAW, is a terrible feature).

I don't ssay this as someone who looks at white room experiences, I say this as someone who has played them and as someone who has DMed for them. I have DM'ed for new players and experienced players.

The Fighter (Champion) is garbage for everyone.

I gotta agree with you. But this is the designers fault. They tried to make 10 or 12 classes etc equal to each other, and needed to edit but didn't.

Perhaps the paladin and barbarian are just better designed, its not the fighter's fault.

I personally would've liked to see a fighter who then became a paladin, or man-at-arms, or barbarian, etc.

However, if you play in the AL with standard array, fighters can be very powerful. They don't need to have charisma like a paladin or dex like a barbarian does. They literally have 1 stat and a decent con and then its grabbing feats. Grabbing skilled or magic initiate. They can afford to take resilient wisdom, where a barbarian may not be able to afford such a feat.

But for me, I have to work harder playing a champion than I do a wizard or paladin, because I lack resources and smites I have to make every movement count and think ahead where to position my character. Do I take the dodge action this round, and just hold the line? Do I give up an attack and prone somebody? Is that worth it to the team.

But its not the fault of the fighter, it is the design. But you can still make a very competent champion with the right feat selection to fit the party you are in now. Perhaps you have a paladin in shining armor with sword and shield, and what you need to complement him is guy who can go from ranged attacks to melee. A champion can do that. The feats are there to tailor you champion to fit your party.

I have survived many battles just taking the dodge action, using defensive duelist while other player waited to get healed... and I took magic initiate and cure wounds and got the paladin back up, or I just happened to know the goodberry spell the druid taught me through magic initiate. I took the skilled feat and took some social skills.

Too many players playing a champion try to play a tank or polearm master/sentinel, a champion should have a variety of feats so he can battle from melee, range, horseback, and not just max strength and constitution.

[Submortimer]

Champions are an even worse version of the Fighter than the Fighter. It is everything that is bad about the Fighter compounded into a subclass.

Fighters (Champion) gives you nothing that another class can't (weapon, armor, *move and attack*), teaches you absolutely nothing another class can't at first level, and pushes the ideology of "less options = dynamic thinking" which is complete and utter garbage. The Eldritch Knight, which is the best designed of the fighter subclasses but that isn't saying much, at least can teach you about the game.

I dont' deal with white room, I deal with real world experiences and a lot of gaming hours. Fighters do poorly in real world games unless the DM holds your hand. They don't even get control of their "best" features which is the bonus ASI (not bonus feats) or indomitable (which, by RAW, is a terrible feature).

I don't ssay this as someone who looks at white room experiences, I say this as someone who has played them and as someone who has DMed for them. I have DM'ed for new players and experienced players.

The Fighter (Champion) is garbage for everyone.

A) This just plainly isn't true. In literally every game I have run or been a part of (which have been many over the past 2 years), we've had fighters not only succeed, but excel, and never because "the DM was holding their hand".

B) The Battlemaster is the most well-rounded fighter, bar none. The EK has some interesting options, but was generally a sub-par choice until the SCAG came out and gave them better cantrips to use with war magic.

C) Champion Fighters are only garbage for people that play them like garbage. With a second fighting style at level 10, they have the ability to specialize in a second kind of combat and generally be just as good at it as anyone else, with or without feats (and lets not be finicky here: Feats are an intended part of the game; they wouldn't have almost an entire chapter devoted to them in the PHB otherwise); with the higher crit chance, they will hit things more often that the rest of the party can't touch; and their capstone is the best out of any of the officially available ones.

The problem that I see here is not that theres something wrong with the fighter, it's that YOU DON'T LIKE PLAYING FIGHTERS. Like it or not, the man-at-arms/wandering knight/mundane sword-swinging hero is one of, if not THE, most classic of the fantasy/mythical archetypes. They've been around since 1e, they do just about the same thing they did back then, and the do it better and more consistently than any other class.