Is Champion The Worst Subclass?

[Garresh]

Kind of a clickbait title, but I've been doing some comparisons of the awful/controversial subclasses, and I think that Champion may actually be the worst subclass in the game. It's just that no one notices/cares because the base Fighter is SO good that it doesn't matter.

Let's look at 3 subclasses that have various degrees of notoriety: Four Elements Monk, Beastmaster Ranger, and Champion Fighter.

If we look at the base classes, I don't think anyone here will disagree if I said Fighter is arguably the best. Next would be Monk, with Ranger coming up last.

Now, if we were to play each of those classes without any subclass features, we'd see some interesting things. Rangers would become even more boring, but Hunter's Mark and Archery Fighting Style at least give them competitive damage, and they've always got a handful of nice spells in their back pocket. Monks become even more dependent on Stunning Strike to remain useful, and they lose out on a lot of their utility and added survivability in one form or another. Fighters lose out on a lot of awesome options, but their core kit is so strong it doesn't matter.

So let's look at what the subclasses add, what their strengths are, and what their weaknesses are.


Beastmaster

Beastmaster Ranger is, at least insofar as damage is concerned, competitive with other options. It gains a lot in terms of utility over Hunter, and it opens a lot of doors to unique or interesting fighting styles. Where the class falls flat is that it wastes your actions at low levels which makes the subclass feel incredibly rigid and frustrating. At higher levels beastmaster ranger suffers because it has to actively protect its squishy companion, or modify its fighting style so that the pet doesn't die. Beastmaster in a sense *actively weakens* the ranger who picks the subclass. But what if the Beastmaster ranger opts to not use the pet except for in emergencies?

The ranger then suffers from a massively loss of utility over the alternatives, but can still remain useful and provide good dpr. In key battles, the ranger can use the pet to add some additional damage or draw fire, before being quickly killed. If the ranger doesn't modify their fighting style at all, the class becomes significantly weaker, but adapting to preserve the style ALSO makes the class weaker.

But on the other hand, if you optimize around the fact that the companion is incredibly squishy, you can make the class significantly more powerful than the base ranger kit(Edit: Not including subclasses). A few easy examples are the mounted halfling/gnome build, or the Flying Snake build which uses flyby attack to do good damage while avoiding retaliation. For all its problems, Beastmaster does at least bring SOMETHING to the table. That something comes at a high price, but it does have value.

So we can see that the Beastmaster doesn't really do much to counteract Ranger weaknesses, but if optimized for heavily, it can at least play to the Ranger's strengths. It can put out surprisingly good damage, or it can massively increase the Ranger's mobility, which enhances the Ranger's power within its role. It may be weak and frustrating, but if you work around it and avoid the pitfalls, the subclass can be made to add to the base class.


Way of the Four Elements

This is considered by many to be the worst subclass in the game, and I don't think anyone will dispute that the class is just awful. But why is it awful, and can be it be good? The first thing that sticks out like a sore thumb about this class is that(like the Beastmaster), if you use its features you become WORSE at your base class. Attempting to use Four Elements features saps your Ki reserves rapidly for marginal gains. Worse, the "gains" are objectively worse than simply using Stunning Strikes. This makes the class a trap option of the worst kind. But, if the Beast master can be viable or even good by simply not letting the subclass sap your strengths, can the same be true for Four Elements? If we consider Four Elements in the context of a fallback option, or as a plan B, then does the class bring something to the table?

The core monk has a few strengths and weaknesses which make it stand out compared to other classes. The biggest strength of the monk is that it is a crowd control powerhouse. It's ability to stunlock single enemies is pretty much THE reason to play a monk. The other big strength of a monk is that it is one of the most mobile classes in the game. The biggest weaknesses of the monk are that it is almost exclusively a melee character, yet only has a d8 hit die. Compared to the Rogue, Monks are more reliant on bonus actions for damage, and their disengage uses ki. This makes Monks somewhat more vulnerable than rogues. And this problem is compounded heavily by the fact that monks have essentially no ranged options.

So, if we look at the 4 elements archetype with the mindset of actively NOT using their features unless needed, does the subclass still weaken the main class, or can it make it stronger? Looking over the disciplines, pretty much all of them are massive Ki sinks, so the ki dependency problem is exacerbated. On the other hand, if you find yourself in a situation where you simple CAN NOT get into melee, or fighting in melee is extremely risky, then the 4 elements monk suddenly becomes an excellent fallback.

To disengage as a monk wastes your bonus action and costs a ki point. Fangs of the Fire snake costs 1 ki point, lets your use your bonus action to make attacks, and gives you reach so you don't need to disengage in the first place. This means 4 elements monk already has a cost effective option if getting into melee is risky. What about if the enemy is in the air or is evading melee, as in the case of a dragon in its lair? Fist of Unbroken Air makes an excellent readied action against a creature that is abusing its range, as it does okay damage and knocks prone, for the cost of 2 ki points. This is admittedly not great against a dragon because it targets their strength save, but on the other hand if you're unable to do ANYTHING, spending 2 ki to have a chance to knock prone(which in the air causes them to fall!) is a decently good option. Looking over the other 4 elements options, there are other great choices for counteracting the monk's weaknesses. Being able to cast Fly on yourself allows you to deal with a dragon that is keeping distance. In the event that your frontline falls and you need to shield for someone else and take a lot of abuse, Eternal Mountain Defense gives you resistance to physical damage.

So, like the Beastmaster, if you try to use the 4 elements abilities often, you get worse at being a monk, and it becomes a trap option. But if you use the abilities as a plan B when your main monk powers are not an option, it becomes a decent fallback, and brings something to the table.

Which brings us to...

Champion

Champion is a fairly polarizing subclass, but let's try to stay objective(at least as objective as we can be when we're making a clickbait thread to say Champion is the worst subclass). Fighters are, unsurprisingly, the best class at fighting. They can man fight up front. They can be the best physical damage archers in the game. They have amazing nova potential, high DPR, great survivability, and some decent sustain with their second wind. Ignoring subclasses, we see that fighters have MANY strengths, and very few weaknesses.

So what weaknesses do they have? Well, they are restricted to doing piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage. They don't really have any utility to speak of. Likewise, they don't have much in the way of control options. Their abundance of ASIs/Feats means they can pick up Sentinel, which allows them to make an incredibly powerful frontliner, as a sort of soft CC option to protect their squishies. While there are about a thousand ways to build a fighter, they don't have many options to deal with problems besides hitting it until it stops being a problem. However, I feel it would be dishonest if I didn't point out that many of these weaknesses can be counteracted via feats. The fact that fighters are absolutely rolling in ASIs/Feats means that they can choose to branch out considerably.

Technically speaking, a fighter only really NEEDS 2 ASIs on their Strength/Dex in order to be viable up to level 20. While it's clearly suboptimal to grab, say, the Skilled feat, the option DOES exist for a fighter who wishes to pretend the he's a rogue, or something. Likewise, a fighter could grab something like Ritual Caster for purely non-combat spells and become massively more useful outside of combat. Or they could grab Magic Initiate for Find Familiar. None of these are ideal, but they are at least on the table. In a sense, Fighters can be said to have no weaknesses, since they can so readily compensate for them via feats. The only weakness that remains is only doing physical damage, and being relatively poor at crowd control.

If we look at Champion in this context, we have to ask: Does it compensate the Fighter's weaknesses? The answer to that is a resounding "sort of". For the most part, it does not, but there are some edge cases where Remarkable Athlete can sneak up and be useful. If the decides to sneak off because he saw something shiny(as rogues love to do), then the Fighter can make a passable scout, can pick locks, and can pick pockets. They may not be ideal, but the fact that they can needs to be mentioned. Remarkable athlete can be a VERY underrated ability. That being said, it is also MASSIVELY situational outside of the bonus to initiative. If your party is lacking a good scout/scoundrel, or the party gets split up a lot, then this feature can be consistently useful. However, if it becomes necessary so often, you may find it better just to drop a feat for Skilled, or dip Rogue and be done with it. On the whole, its a decent way to cover for a narrow subset of skills if the rogue or bard are drunk, but it is otherwise highly situational.

So then, does it amplify the Fighter's strengths? This is an obvious case of "Kind of?". If you look at the widened crit range from the perspective of DPR, the damage gains are remarkably unremarkable. You CAN build around the increased crit range, but to do so requires taking a MASSIVE detour away from fighter. Taking a handful of levels in barbarian or paladin to gain reliable advantage and extra dice can maximize this ability. However, the need for spell slots to fuel smites requires ever more levels spent on paladin, rather than a mere dip. Rogue offers a huge supply of dice for crit-fishing, but the fact that sneak attack only applies once per turn creates a natural anti-synergy with Fighter's extra attack. And if you're crit-fishing, you want to attack more, not less.

It would be dishonest to say that Improved Critical is bad. In the context of a multiclass build involving paladin, rogue, or barbarian(why not all three?), Improved Critical can be an extremely strong ability. But for a FIGHTER, the ability is basically garbage. It's an ability that works with every class EXCEPT fighter, making it prime dipping material.

So what about Additional Fighting Style? This definitely helps a fighter out, but many of the best reasons to have a fighting style don't work well with the Fighter's kit. I'm talking of course about switch-hitter builds. The ability to switch between melee and Ranged, and having a fighting style for both, is an appealing option. Unfortunately, it requires some multiclassing or feats to utilize correctly. If you take Dueling with Archery, you're wasting one hand when you switch to Melee. If you take Two-Weapon Fighting, you don't have the actions required to switch to two weapons in one turn. Defense makes the safest option, but is also rather boring.

All these issues aside, the Fighter can easily compensate for these issues via feats and dips. The dual wielder feat allows a fighter to draw 2 weapons without needing actions(though stowing your bow is still an issue). This can be somewhat annoying if you have a magic bow, but it can be said that Champion does make the best switch-hitter build at base. If you really want to maximize your potential as a switch hitter, a 3 level dip in Rogue for Fast Hands will make Fighter the best physical switch hitter bar none. So Additional Fighting Style definitely helps a fighter to be more flexible as a fighter.

Superior Critical is more of the same. It's not enough to really stand out without dipping, and dipping alone won't make it a good feature without excessive multiclassing.

Survivor, though? This is an amazing ability. If you are finding yourself low on resources and forced into a fight later in the day, the Champion is amazing past level 18. Unlike every other fighter subclass which adds finite resources, Champion focuses on extending the resources you have. Nothing epitomizes this more than the Survivor ability.

So looking over all the advantages and weaknesses of champion, it seems clear that it doesn't really counteract Fighter's weaknesses, and it doesn't really make the fighter better at doing damage either. But it does open the option for switch-hitting reliably, and it also gives them a niche as the "last man standing" when everyone else would run out of resources. The question is, does this justify the subclass enough to pick it over the alternatives?

Conclusion

So, looking over Champion as compared to the two subclasses commonly regarded as the worst, how does it stack up? It certainly does add something to the fighter, and amplifies certain strengths of the class. But it only really shines in niche builds, and in emergencies where everyone else is out of resources. To make Champion competitive with other options requires a fair amount of system mastery and planning on the part of the player.

However, if we look at Four Elements and Beast Master under the same lens, we see that Champion may actually be equal in power to those two "garbage" subclasses. Does this mean that Champion is underpowered and is a trap option? Or does that mean that Four Elements has a niche role for Monks to counteract their weaknesses? Is Beastmaster bad if it requires specific builds in order to use correctly? Champion suffers from the same issue in that it is largely meh unless built around its strengths.

It seems to me that depending on your perspective, Champion is (one of)the worst subclass(es) in the game...OR the worst subclasses in the game aren't as bad as we think, if we simply work around their weaknesses. The thing is that Champion adds very little to the base class because Fighter is already so strong, while the other bad subclasses at least counteract weaknesses, or have some strong potential for utility or extra damage if built correctly. I'm not sure if this means that Champion is bad, or if there are no bad subclasses, but it makes for an interesting thought experiment at least.

I apologize for how long-winded this was. I've often been a proponent that Champions are awful, but I wanted to compare them to other "awful" options and see how they stacked up. I think maybe the "garbage" subclasses may not be as bad as they're believed, if only because of the strength of core class features without subclass dependency. In truth, if we stop looking at subclasses as required, and look at base classes as self-contained, with subclasses as purely "extra", then I don't think there are any bad subclasses. Even the worst still add something to their classes so long as you avoid wasting resources or falling for traps within the subclass.

[Naanomi]

I'm somewhat surprised to not see a wild sorcerer evaluation on this list... I love the class (I'm a big fan of beastmaster too, so my preference isn't a good measure of 'goodness') but it is the only class that a GM can just decide they don't like your abilities so you don't get them anymore

[RSP]

As you say, there's good versatility in the Fighter, but the Champion can make better use of that versatility in a lot of ways, particularly with the extended crit range, the most obvious of which is to double the extra bonus action attacks granted by GWM, which is a very significant ability.

If you factor in getting Advantage (like say from a Shove), and with multiple attacks, you're really upgrading your chances of getting that bonus action attack.

I could be wrong, but I see that extra attack as a huge plus.

[Specter]

Wow, all of this is really annoying to look at. What if I think Rangers are the most versatile martials in the game? What if I don't think Fighters miss out on anything? What if I believe Monks would be good even without Stunning Strike? You've made many assumptions and deliberately disguised them as facts, which is at the very least misleading, and at worst ill-intentioned.

All of this just shows the mentality of 'DAMAGEDAMAGEDAMAGE', and a poor one at that too. Please play more.

[PeteNutButter]

Champion is on of those odd subclasses that has both a good early ability and a strong late game ability (or two).

It lends itself well to multiclassing as you said, but I think it's worth noting that it is very gear dependent. If you happen to find something like a flametongue it becomes a beasty subclass. Items (or of course, abilities) that give extra dice on attacks make it more than worth it.

The big drawback for most players it its utter boringness.

[Garresh]

Wow, all of this is really annoying to look at. What if I think Rangers are the most versatile martials in the game? What if I don't think Fighters miss out on anything? What if I believe Monks would be good even without Stunning Strike? You've made many assumptions and deliberately disguised them as facts, which is at the very least misleading, and at worst ill-intentioned.

All of this just shows the mentality of 'DAMAGEDAMAGEDAMAGE', and a poor one at that too. Please play more.

Kek. I'm sticking to things that are commonly agreed upon, and things that can be measured. I'm not stating anything as absolute fact. These things can be disputed, discussed, argued for/against, etc. If all you took away was "lol damage" then you need to work on your reading comprehension. I stick to the things people commonly reference as the purpose for a given class.

Rangers are damage. Fighters are durability/damage. Monks are control. At a very superficial level, that is what those classes are good at.

[Garresh]

I'm somewhat surprised to not see a wild sorcerer evaluation on this list... I love the class (I'm a big fan of beastmaster too, so my preference isn't a good measure of 'goodness') but it is the only class that a GM can just decide they don't like your abilities so you don't get them anymore

Eh Wild Magic is not really relevant to this analysis IMHO, for two big reasons. One is that its viability is heavily DM dependent, moreso than any other class. Two is that the class isn't actually bad. Even IF you pretty much never get a surge(which would really suck), they make incredible support sorcerers by virtue of Bend Luck alone.

I've really enjoyed playing Wild Sorcerers with a dip in Life Cleric or Bard, and even with DMs who never let me surge I've never felt weak. It's a highly subjective opinion, but IMHO bend luck is so good it very nearly justifies Wild Magic by itself.

[Citan]

Kind of a clickbait title, but I've been doing some comparisons of the awful/controversial subclasses, and I think that Champion may actually be the worst subclass in the game. It's just that no one notices/cares because the base Fighter is SO good that it doesn't matter.

Let's look at 3 subclasses that have various degrees of notoriety: Four Elements Monk, Beastmaster Ranger, and Champion Fighter.

If we look at the base classes, I don't think anyone here will disagree if I said Fighter is arguably the best. Next would be Monk, with Ranger coming up last.

Now, if we were to play each of those classes without any subclass features, we'd see some interesting things. Rangers would become even more boring, but Hunter's Mark and Archery Fighting Style at least give them competitive damage, and they've always got a handful of nice spells in their back pocket. Monks become even more dependent on Stunning Strike to remain useful, and they lose out on a lot of their utility and added survivability in one form or another. Fighters lose out on a lot of awesome options, but their core kit is so strong it doesn't matter.

Well, to be honest, I'm already in a very strong disagreement with you as soon as right here.

Quite on the contrary, Fighter would be imo by far the most boring: all he knows is to smack/pierce things (Action Surge Attack) while avoiding bad effects (Indomitable)! Of course with feats allowed, you can at least give him new tactical options in fight (Mage Slayer, Sentinel) or otherwise (RItual Caster, Inspiring Leader) because he has more than enough ASI for that.
But without considering feats, he is just a grunt who uses weapons.

Monk would be already more interesting, mainly because he ends with great 3D mobility (flat speed bonus + Ki-Dash, water running, climbing) and the resilience to go with it (20 AC + Proficient everywhere and 1Ki/reroll + reaction against ranged attacks + Evasion + Slow Fall + Ki-consuming Dodge + immunity poison/disease + self-action against frightened/charmed + no need for food and water). He also gets "all spoken languages" and very strong attack features (1d10*4 with Extra Attack+Flurry, Stunning Strike, magical fists). So he can run away, scout, sneak, spy and control extremely well.

Ranger would be by far the most interesting, what with features relying on your environment (more speed, better tracking, Hide as bonus action), and a variety of spells to go with it (Fog Cloud, Ensnaring Strike, Lightning Arrow, Spike Growth, Plant Growth, Conjure Animals etc) that give him control/AOE/utility/buff options (especially Spike Growth on a STR grappler Ranger or a WIS Ranger with Magic Initiate to get Thorns Whip).

If you just look at "big fight damage potential" too, Ranger is actually a potential winner between level 9 and 17: after all Conjure Animals means up to 8 Wolfs at its level, Conjure Woodlands Being means you can have a bunch of debuff spells cast on your enemies. Of course it makes a heavy dent in his resources, so overall Monk or Fighter would probably make more damage over the day.

On sustained (melee) damage without GWM (since we are comparing Monk which cannot access it), Fighter would only take the lead at 20th level or so: with no subclass, it means Monk has only Flurry of Blows / Stunning Strike / Defensive options to blow Ki on, and succeeding on a Stunning Strike provides him advantage on the remaining attacks.
Meanwhile, Ranger gets Hunter's Mark and Horde Breaker, but the latter is necessarily another creature. Fighter only has Action Surge + dual-wielding.

So from level 1 up to 11, Monk (Flurry/SS) > Ranger (HordeBreaker) > Fighter (Action Surge).
At level 11, Fighter gets 3rd Attack while Ranger has nothing. Monk still has Stunning Strike to compete.
So Monk ~= Fighter, Ranger falls behind.
At level 17, Fighter gets 2nd Action Surge, but at level 18 Monk gets "1mn Invisible + resistance for 4 Ki". Which means in most case auto-advantage on attacks.
So only at level 20 can Fighter really emerge as "sustained damage" winner because of 5 attacks per turn as a basis (with TWF or Polearm Master).

Of course, once you put GWM/Sharpshooter into the equation, Monk would lose the first place much earlier even if in all truth it's difficult to theorycraft its effect because it depends much on enemy's CR.

But overall, without subclasses, Monk is by far the "best" class because all the essential features are included and allow him to be good everywhere:
so when you say "XXX lose out on a lot of awesome options, but their core kit is so strong it doesn't matter" I'd argue that this is much more pertinent applied on Monks than on Fighters (especially when you consider higher level fights: Monk has far higher chance to survive).
Then Ranger because of spells: potentially more versatility, although these are a much more limited resource, but some of them are great and low-level so you can count on them.
Then Fighter because well, he's "just a fighter", even if you can make it outweigh the other two in some niche thanks to feats (Sentinel / Polearm Master to get as many attacks per round -and ultimately more- as a Monk, Ritual Caster to provide more versatility -DM dependent though- than Ranger, Resilient + Inspiring Leader + Healer to improve resilience of yourself and others).

So, TL;DR:
"If we look at the base classes, I don't think anyone here will disagree if I said Fighter is arguably the best. Next would be Monk, with Ranger coming up last."
You are very wrong on that: first is Monk by far, then Ranger, then Fighter coming last is my own opinion, and I'm pretty sure I won't be one of a kind here. :)



Rangers are damage. Fighters are durability/damage. Monks are control. At a very superficial level, that is what those classes are good at.
I'm no more surprised by your initial post when I read here the extent of your misconception about classes "base fortes".
If you really wanted a "one-word qualifier" (although I find it too reductive to be any use honestly)...
Monk is actually durability. Fighter is actually damage. Ranger is actually control.

[Garresh]

Well, to be honest, I'm already disagreeing with you right here.

Quite on the contrary, Fighter would be imo by far the most boring: all he knows is to smack/pierce things (Action Surge Attack) while avoiding bad effects (Indomitable)! Of course with feats allowed, you can at least give him new tactical options in fight (Mage Slayer, Sentinel) or otherwise (RItual Caster, Inspiring Leader) because he has more than enough ASI for that.
But without considering feats, he is just a grunt who uses weapons.

Monk would be already more interesting, mainly because he ends with great 3D mobility (flat speed bonus + Ki-Dash, water running, climbing) and the resilience to go with it (20 AC + Proficient everywhere + reaction against ranged attacks + Evasion + Slow Fall + Ki-consuming Dodge + immunity poison/disease + self-action against frightened/charmed + no need for food and water). He also gets "all spoken languages" and very strong attack features (1d10*4 with Extra Attack+Flurry, Stunning Strike, magical fists). So he can run away, scout, sneak, spy and control extremely well.

Ranger would be by far the most interesting, what with features relying on your environment (more speed, better tracking, Hide as bonus action), and a variety of spells to go with it (Fog Cloud, Ensnaring Strike, Lightning Arrow, Spike Growth, Plant Growth, Conjure Animals etc) that give him control/AOE/utility/buff options (especially Spike Growth on a STR grappler Ranger or a WIS Ranger with Magic Initiate to get Thorns Whip).

If you just look at "big fight damage potential" too, Ranger is actually a potential winner between level 9 and 17: after all Conjure Animals means up to 8 Wolfs at its level, Conjure Woodlands Being means you can have a bunch of debuff spells cast on your enemies. Of course it makes a heavy dent in his resources, so overall Monk or Fighter would probably make more damage over the day.

On sustained (melee) damage without GWM (since we are comparing Monk which cannot access it), Fighter would only take the lead at 20th level or so: with no subclass, it means Monk has only Flurry of Blows / Stunning Strike / Defensive options to blow Ki on, and succeeding on a Stunning Strike provides him advantage on the remaining attacks.
Meanwhile, Ranger gets Hunter's Mark and Horde Breaker, but the latter is necessarily another creature. Fighter only has Action Surge + dual-wielding.

So from level 1 up to 11, Monk (Flurry/SS) > Ranger (HordeBreaker) > Fighter (Action Surge).
At level 11, Fighter gets 3rd Attack while Ranger has nothing. Monk still has Stunning Strike to compete.
So Monk ~= Fighter, Ranger falls behind.
At level 17, Fighter gets 2nd Action Surge, but at level 18 Monk gets "1mn Invisible + resistance for 4 Ki". Which means in most case auto-advantage on attacks.
So only at level 20 can Fighter really emerge as "sustained damage" winner because of 5 attacks per turn as a basis (with TWF or Polearm Master).

Of course, once you put GWM/Sharpshooter into the equation, Monk would lose the first place much earlier even if in all truth it's difficult to theorycraft its effect because it depends much on enemy's CR.

But overall, without subclasses, Monk is by far the "best" class because all the essential features are included and allow him to be good everywhere, then Ranger because of spells (potentially more versatility, although these are a much more limited resource) then Fighter.

Hm. Good points all. I suppose my summaries of the basic classes are off, and you've got more detailed math. That said, I don't necessarily agree with your assessment either. I've played a fair number of fighters, and the virtue of feats alone makes them incredibly versatile and powerful combatants. If a fighter wants damage, they can grab Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter and basically just annihilate everything without a single archetype. Likewise, if they want to wade in they can go for Heavy Armor Master and Sentinel. Or they can go for Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master.

I definitely put rangers towards the bottom(my biases are showing), but while Monk still gets a ton of great tricks, their weaknesses remain. Part of what makes Open Hand and Shadow so good is they enhance the Monk while also covering for their weaknesses as well. Open Hand gives a cheaper option for when you don't want to sink a ton of Ki on a stun combo, you can just flurry and still get some control. Open Hand also has some self-healing. Shadow has some nice features to help you survive better via teleports and darkness. I really do stand by my statement that vanilla fighters are the best of the three, because feats are SO powerful and flexible, and Fighters get so many.

Anyways, while you've definitely done a better analysis of base classes than me(except you added Horde Breaker as a base feature if I'm reading that correctly?), I do think my analysis of the subclasses themselves remains valid, even if I misrepresented the relative tiers of vanilla classes in terms of power. The analysis I made of the subclasses is focused more on specific categories of strengths and weaknesses rather than numerical measurements(which admittedly makes this a more subjective/opinion based argument).

I guess what I'm saying is, I definitely messed up on my summaries of base classes, but I don't think it invalidates my subclass analysis?

[Citan]

Hm. Good points all. I suppose my summaries of the basic classes are off, and you've got more detailed math. That said, I don't necessarily agree with your assessment either. I've played a fair number of fighters, and the virtue of feats alone makes them incredibly versatile and powerful combatants. If a fighter wants damage, they can grab Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter and basically just annihilate everything without a single archetype. Likewise, if they want to wade in they can go for Heavy Armor Master and Sentinel. Or they can go for Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master.

I definitely put rangers towards the bottom(my biases are showing), but while Monk still gets a ton of great tricks, their weaknesses remain. Part of what makes Open Hand and Shadow so good is they enhance the Monk while also covering for their weaknesses as well. Open Hand gives a cheaper option for when you don't want to sink a ton of Ki on a stun combo, you can just flurry and still get some control. Open Hand also has some self-healing. Shadow has some nice features to help you survive better via teleports and darkness. I really do stand by my statement that vanilla fighters are the best of the three, because feats are SO powerful and flexible, and Fighters get so many.

Anyways, while you've definitely done a better analysis of base classes than me(except you added Horde Breaker as a base feature if I'm reading that correctly?), I do think my analysis of the subclasses themselves remains valid, even if I misrepresented the relative tiers of vanilla classes in terms of power. The analysis I made of the subclasses is focused more on specific categories of strengths and weaknesses rather than numerical measurements(which admittedly makes this a more subjective/opinion based argument).

I guess what I'm saying is, I definitely messed up on my summaries of base classes, but I don't think it invalidates my subclass analysis?
Oooops, you are right about Horde Breaker my bad (I'm so used of forgetting Hunter is actually a subclass)...

BEyond that: you put Monk into the comparison, so I put aside GWM/Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter because those are usually not things a Monk take (although technically you COULD do it, you just blow away some great features of yours. But now that I think about it, a Greatsword wielder or long-bow Sharpshooter Monk that managed to survive until level 18 one way or another would totally be fun and efficient thanks to Empty Body). Of course once you weigh them in Fighter takes the lead quite earlier. But still even with those it only really takes the lead at 11th level: let's not forget the heavy malus to hit, which Fighter has nothing by itself to compensate. Let's also not forget that physical-resistant enemies appear around character level 6-8 depending on campaign (at least in my -small-experience, you are welcome to provide your own estimation anybody).

Also the point about feats is that anyone can take those. Although Monk will usually keep most ASI on bumping DEX and WIS, anyone can improve versatility by taking Magic Initiate / Ritual Caster / etc.
A Ranger could also don't care about WIS, take only non-WIS dependent spells and instead max only DEX, leaving enough space for the same "damage-oriented" feats combo as Fighter.
Even a Monk could do that by instead taking Magic Initiate Mage Armor or Lightly Armored (former clearly better though), and instead of maxing WIS (useful only for Stunning Strike without subclasses) grabbing two more feats, like Sentinel and Polearm Master.

Besides, all you think is about damage but I really don't know what "weakness" Monks are supposed to have, especially compared to Fighters: they trump them in any and every way except end-career damage.
As I hinted too, Rangers won't ever come close for sustained damage but have ways to be very useful for nova damage.

Beyond that, even with feats, there are many things a Fighter can never do (or do as efficiently), which a base Monk or Ranger can: track (Ranger), sneak&hide (Ranger), spy (Monk or Ranger), travel (Monk and Ranger each in a different way), survive (Monk), control (Ranger then Monk).
Fighter can only the best at damage, either right at the end without feats, or around half-career with feats. And ONLY if you consider it as a solo character in theorycraft.
Because as soon as you confront this to real play, Fighter without subclass will fall behind quickly: Monk's Stunning Strike or Ranger's Ensnaring Strike will benefit everyone else, so you are basically bumping "party damage" and not "self damage". Conjure Animals may be used to help give advantage to classes that need it by flanking, standing aside or shoving prone enemies. Conjure Woodland Beings's greatness depends on DM obviously, but you will probably get a few creatures like Pixies that can buff your group (Fly, Polymorph) or otherwise provide support (put a group under Confusion, prepare a kill by putting an isolated enemy to Sleep).

[Prince Zahn]

Hm. Good points all. I suppose my summaries of the basic classes are off, and you've got more detailed math. That said, I don't necessarily agree with your assessment either. I've played a fair number of fighters, and the virtue of feats alone makes them incredibly versatile and powerful combatants. If a fighter wants damage, they can grab Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter and basically just annihilate everything without a single archetype. Likewise, if they want to wade in they can go for Heavy Armor Master and Sentinel. Or they can go for Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master.

I definitely put rangers towards the bottom(my biases are showing), but while Monk still gets a ton of great tricks, their weaknesses remain. Part of what makes Open Hand and Shadow so good is they enhance the Monk while also covering for their weaknesses as well. Open Hand gives a cheaper option for when you don't want to sink a ton of Ki on a stun combo, you can just flurry and still get some control. Open Hand also has some self-healing. Shadow has some nice features to help you survive better via teleports and darkness. I really do stand by my statement that vanilla fighters are the best of the three, because feats are SO powerful and flexible, and Fighters get so many.

Anyways, while you've definitely done a better analysis of base classes than me(except you added Horde Breaker as a base feature if I'm reading that correctly?), I do think my analysis of the subclasses themselves remains valid, even if I misrepresented the relative tiers of vanilla classes in terms of power. The analysis I made of the subclasses is focused more on specific categories of strengths and weaknesses rather than numerical measurements(which admittedly makes this a more subjective/opinion based argument).

I guess what I'm saying is, I definitely messed up on my summaries of base classes, but I don't think it invalidates my subclass analysis?
I played a human champion with Xbow Xpert in a Curse of Strahd PbP (next level I would have taken sharpshooter if we'd have actually GOT there.) It was actually more fun than you give it credit for. the Improved Criticals were a welcome sight, we only fought 1 battle, but I rolled 2 criticals because I rolled that 19. the champion abilities might be vanilla, but they are really good perks that you'll never run out of. also, with my high dexterity I was very capable of becoming backup sneak (or possibly main sneak since we didn't have a rogue or ranger) at level 7, as I would get half proficiency in all dex skills. this stuff very much suited my character concept as I was mixing up being an archer and what was basically TWF with a had crossbow, which both made things interesting and kept me relevant at every range concievable.

as was already said earlier, whereas other fighters gain versatility and limited use abilities, the champions do what is expected of a fighter much better in the long run. they did this same approach with the thief rogue, and both are exceptional options for people who like their class vanilla, there are other opportunities to customize anyway.

[Garresh]

Something I want to say since it keeps getting brought up. I try to reference damage because it is a relatively constant/reliable thing to discuss. A lot of other variables such as mobility and utility vary dramatically from campaign to campaign. So when I talk about damage, it is NOT because I view it as the most important factor, or even all that important relatively. I talk about it because it will be relatively important in almost every campaign and setting, whether it be an urban campaign with lots of social encounters, to a survival based wilderness encounter. Combat always happens eventually.

As for Monks trumping Fighters, keep in mind that for all of their strengths, they remain heavily restricted in many ways. Their durability isn't as good, they have no ranged options, and they cannot utilize many of the different fighting styles available to a Fighter. Their ASI dependency for survivability and stunning strike means they can only really afford one feat. A fighter can afford like...4? Adding in the vast array of different fighting options, such as Net + Crossbow Expert DPS controller, Reach Glaive, Shield + Whip Skirmisher, Mobile + Shield Master Skirmisher Controller, and a ton more I'm not thinking of. The combination of feats, options at ANY range, durability, and weapon selection means that fighters have infinitely more options over monk, and have many options almost exclusive to fighter.

While monks have better core features than a fighter, fighters have WAY more options than a monk. I don't think that can be discounted, even if it is not necessarily an optimization factor. Seriously, I'm surprised no one has a made a guide on various weapon combos that fighters can use, because adding feats in there's at least a dozen radically different fighting styles that fighters can use...

[Findulidas]

First off I think the differences between ranger, monk and fighter in 5e are not that big.

Also if you wave access to advantage pretty often (lets say through grappling+shove or debuffs) then the extra crit from champion becomes much better.

[Garresh]

First off I think the differences between ranger, monk and fighter in 5e are not that big.

Also if you wave access to advantage pretty often (lets say through grappling+shove or debuffs) then the extra crit from champion becomes much better.

Agreed. A fun option I toyed with on paper was Champion 5, Rogue 1, Paladin 2, with the rest up in the air. Grab Shield Master feat, expertise in Athletics, and a rapier(use strength), then run up and knock a target prone then attack twice. You're not too deep into rogue so you're not too hit by the extra attack antisynergy, and if you save your paladin spell slots for exclusively crits it definitely feels awesome. The only issue is that you'll be more tempted to go Champion 3 into deep Paladin instead of deep Champion, because Paladins get the channel divinity for advantage, in addition to more spell slots. That's really my "issue" with the crit builds. They're not really fighter builds after a certain point.

[TheUser]

4E monk's only saving grace is the +Xft of movement they recieve applies to Fly they can get at level 11. As levels go up the Ki becomes more abundant and less limiting.

So at level 11 you're looking at 80ft fly speed...

Coupled with the fact you can swap out any ability at each tier increase, your elemental attunement can be swapped @ 6 and again @11 for fireball.

Fly + Fireball on short rest replenishment...the fact they cut pre-existing resources feels....mandatory. Just a little too expensive.(class feels very good with 1 ki cost reduction on spells).

If at any point they get a strength item they can stun a target and grapple it on the same turn and carry them full movement with a bonus action dash. Dropping kids 200ft is a blast.

Champion > BM Ranger if only because to use the pet at later levels requires you to hurt your own damage (especially when magic gear becomes available) and the pet feels more like a liability/damage soak later in the game. Spending healing spells to keep it alive feels like a waste of resources, but letting it die means useless archetype investment.

If we're talking UA BM then Champion is on par but far more boring.

Remarkable Athlete is neat for people who improvise; doing things that might just require a str check or dex check instead of Athletics or Acrobatics means the feature can get a lot of use but can also mean you're using actions not attacking which means not making use of that extended crit range.

Just always take Half-Orc to get extra crit damage.

I personally love Champion as a Barbarian Archetype, it works so much better! Everything seems to synergise very well and since there are only 4 tiers instead of 5 you can drop any one feature you find bad, redundant or OP. Remarkable Athlete for instance kind of overlaps with Indomitable Might so could be dropped. Obviously Second Fighting Style would just become "Fighting Style" but lets the barbarian get GWF without multiclassing. The extended crit range with brutal critical and reckless attacks feel far more impactful, and Survivor feels waaaay more useful at level 14 with Rage. Survivor is one of those "looks good on paper" abilities but is almost trivial amounts of HP @ 18 even with Heavy Armor Master to soften the hits you would take. Unless your adventuring day is full of loads of trivial wear and tear fights it's hard feel good about healing 10hp when that CR 18 Dragon Turtle just hit you for 58 damage in one round...

[Garresh]

Some good stuff

Not sure I agree with everything there, but I just wanted to say I like your perspective. Definitely some things I hadn't thought of.

[Lombra]

First thing that came at my mind: straight champion is way better than barbarian/champion for crit fishing. "Always on advantage" is achieveable if you have at least another frontliner and/or if you care about your positioning.

The commonly agreed worst subclasses are not bad. They simply aren't as appealing and flashy as others, but they definately are worthy of being played.

While I can agree that the champion is boring because it doesn't give the player choices or things to manage, (even if I actually find critical hits very not boring) I believe that it is not worse at fighting than the battlemaster or eldritch knight. Damage is worthy of debate because like it or not, the fighter is designed to deal and absorb damage, the fact that the champion doesn't have to make choices means that it's srengths are always on, the champion may not be the best fighter that deals damage, but it's the most reliable fighter, it just is, you start with 19 crits, ok, now you are more likely to score critical hits! (Works great with GWM) another fighting style? More versatility or more focus? You can get GWFS and defense and be done with your life of frontliner or be as good in melee as in ranged combat for example. Then with remarkable athlete you gain some mobility and better initiative, then more crits, and then a very good regeneration property.

What I'm trying to say is that champion is not bad. And comparing subclasses of different classes that have different purposes is not a good way to evaluate the subclass, even if you do so by comparing the benefits that each subclass gives to it's own class. Champion works, it's cool because it's the only subclass that makes pumping DEX and STR not look stupid, and stimulates the player to position itself in clever and "advantageous" positions.

[Afrodactyl]

Champions are definitely the most 'point and shoot' class. They hit things and get hit by things.

But to say they are boring is incorrect. Any class can be boring if you're a boring player. A character is only as interesting or fun as you make it.

[mephnick]

I always find these threads funny, because the worst subclass in the game is probably the Assassin. It gives you a nova attack you should very rarely get to use if you're running the game properly and...that's it.

Meanwhile, the PhB Beast Master is totally fine and Ranger itself is extremely useful if you're playing D&D the "proper" way with travel and exploration included. Champion is decent but boring. Four Elements is a bit wonky, but it's not supposed to be the Avatar like everyone assumes it is for some reason, so get over it.

[TheUser]

I always find these threads funny, because the worst subclass in the game is probably the Assassin. It gives you a nova attack you should very rarely get to use if you're running the game properly and...that's it.

Meanwhile, the PhB Beast Master is totally fine and Ranger itself is extremely useful if you're playing D&D the "proper" way with travel and exploration included. Champion is decent but boring. Four Elements is a bit wonky, but it's not supposed to be the Avatar like everyone assumes it is for some reason, so get over it.

Almost 100% agree.

False identities and voice mimicry is cool but the fact that 3 levels in any full caster (or just 8 levels in arcane trickster) can give you alter self which is comparable or sometimes greater than the level 9 and 13 features of the assassin is pretty tragic...unless you're dealing with immense amounts of anti-magic the assassin's infiltration just doesn't cut it.

Alert becomes mandatory to get your level 3 feature with any level of frequency.

[Specter]

Kek. I'm sticking to things that are commonly agreed upon, and things that can be measured. I'm not stating anything as absolute fact. These things can be disputed, discussed, argued for/against, etc. If all you took away was "lol damage" then you need to work on your reading comprehension. I stick to the things people commonly reference as the purpose for a given class.

Rangers are damage. Fighters are durability/damage. Monks are control. At a very superficial level, that is what those classes are good at.

It's amazing how you're going from the 'commonly agreed upon' things, and then none of the replies actually agree with you. Kek, as you would say.

Ranger has:
- Double proficiency on mental skills in his terrains (most importantly Survival and Perception)
- Advantage on tracking and recalling information against favored enemies
- Stealth on full speed
- Good utility with spells like Speak with Animals and Animal Messenger
- Healing and foodmaking with Goodberry
- Anticipating enemies with Primeval Awareness
- +10 to Stealth with Pass Without Trace (usually enough to beat anyone's passive Perception)
- Good AoE with spells like Lightning Arrow and Conjure Volley
- Hide as a bonus action (which coupled with Pass Without Trace can make you the best sniper in the game)
- Dungeonbreaking with Commune with Nature (seriously underrated)

All of this without considering 4th-level spells (which I don't remember) or any subclass ability.

This is where most analyses of classes fall apart, because even if the ranger were 10 points behind a Fighter or Paladin in DPR, it's still worth playing because of their other abilities.

If you consider ranger as damage, then you shouldn't even start a discussion like this. I guess that's pretty clear by now.


Champions are definitely the most 'point and shoot' class. They hit things and get hit by things.

But to say they are boring is incorrect. Any class can be boring if you're a boring player. A character is only as interesting or fun as you make it.


I always find these threads funny, because the worst subclass in the game is probably the Assassin. It gives you a nova attack you should very rarely get to use if you're running the game properly and...that's it.

Meanwhile, the PhB Beast Master is totally fine and Ranger itself is extremely useful if you're playing D&D the "proper" way with travel and exploration included. Champion is decent but boring. Four Elements is a bit wonky, but it's not supposed to be the Avatar like everyone assumes it is for some reason, so get over it.

Agreed.

[Logosloki]

You missed Frenzy Barbarian in your monologue.

Though not even Frenzy Barbarian compares to the worst subclass in the game. One subclass so bad that you almost never hear about it because of how terrible I assume it must be. The official "It was a good movie, a shame that no sequels were ever made" subclass. Land druid.

I think more digital ink has been spilt on the lesser known wizard schools or cleric domains (though some schools/domains can be pretty absent from anything as well) than land druid.

The close second would be all of the warlock patrons. The way conversations go you would almost be able to make people believe that they don't have any subclasses outside of UA. Even Assassin for all its faults exists as a mockery of a subclass, whilst warlock subclasses sublime into the nothingness that is the soul of a warlock player.

[Findulidas]

I always find these threads funny, because the worst subclass in the game is probably the Assassin. It gives you a nova attack you should very rarely get to use if you're running the game properly and...that's it.


I agree. I find it pretty funny that everyone loves the assassins burst damage but they completely ignore the fact that you can just do help as a ranged bonus action at the same level as mastermind. Granted you cant to offhand damage, but one of the buddies of your choice gets advantage every round forever. That easily more than makes up for it.

[Naanomi]

I played a beastmaster through pretty high levels and I enjoyed myself, and also a hunter through lower levels, but... even with the exploration pillar being used I agree Ranger is a class with limitations that I agree totally lend itself to these discussions:

-too many of its abilities are setting dependent. If I am fighting my favored enemy in my favored terrain, I have lots of neat stuff I can do (but none of it mind blowing)... but when I'm not, I lose a lot of my oomph. (Compounded as a beast master, who might also have his subclass killed in a fight and not immediately reclaimable even after a long rest)

-my abilities are built on skills, but I don't have enough. To access my class abilities I really need Perception, Survival, and Stealth... leaving me 2-3 choices left (depending on race choice) to get anything like Intelligence skills related to my favored enemy, or other 'classic rangery skills' like Nature or Animal Handling

-expertise + the help action equals or flatly trumps most of the non-spell benefits I have to the exploration pillar... even more so if someone is the Outlander background. Not getting lost is great, but usually this is just a skill check or two away for anyone with naturey skills (or circumvented through divination or travel magic in some way)

-reliance on spells to make up those weaknesses, but very few spells known or spell slots... and some other abilities also eat those spell slots

-many of my best abilities are just the abilities other classes already have, just gotten at a later level (evasion)

-outside of subclass stuff, very little I'm 'looking forward to' as I advance Ranger levels. Pathetic capstone (which I fully acknowledge almost never comes into play) exemplifies this

[ZorroGames]

I am planning after my Monk Experiment in trying out Mountain Dwarf Champion because after several decades away from D&D it seems like the best starting class; because I don't do accents which may twist a few minds; I like hitting Monsters (too many years as a wargamer starting back in the late 1950s;) I want to make a character up with Melee/Missile Fighter options with "fun" combat feats.

Later, if I live long enough I plan to explore other classes (all of them at least once) and races (Hill Dwarf, Rock Gnome, Wood Elf on the 'must try' list, no halflings and Tiefling/Dragonborn last,); and play what pleases me, not what consensus on forums says are the 'kewl' classes.

Have fun, defeat Evil, kill monstrous threats, find treasure, make friends, die gloriously as a PC.

Anyway, this is my approach and goals.

[JAL_1138]

You missed Frenzy Barbarian in your monologue.

Though not even Frenzy Barbarian compares to the worst subclass in the game. One subclass so bad that you almost never hear about it because of how terrible I assume it must be. The official "It was a good movie, a shame that no sequels were ever made" subclass. Land druid.

I think more digital ink has been spilt on the lesser known wizard schools or cleric domains (though some schools/domains can be pretty absent from anything as well) than land druid.



What? Land druids are fine. They're what you play if you want to be a casting-focused druid instead of a wild-shape focused druid, which is in no way a bad option. Moon Druids' Wild Shape is brokenly strong at low levels, and then tapers off a fair bit after low-mid, then gets a good power boost again at really high levels, then tops off with a stupidly-powerful capstone (unless an opponent has Power Word Kill or Disintegrate, which can obliterate/insta-kill them if they try to use their Wild Shape). Land gets better spellcasting generally and doesn't have weird spikes and valleys in power, with Wild Shape largely being more of a utility than main combat option, so they're not the subject of either as many complaints or as much cheese. Thus they fall on the back burner in forum discussions.

[Citan]

As for Monks trumping Fighters, keep in mind that for all of their strengths, they remain heavily restricted in many ways. Their durability isn't as good, they have no ranged options, and they cannot utilize many of the different fighting styles available to a Fighter. Their ASI dependency for survivability and stunning strike means they can only really afford one feat. A fighter can afford like...4? Adding in the vast array of different fighting options, such as Net + Crossbow Expert DPS controller, Reach Glaive, Shield + Whip Skirmisher, Mobile + Shield Master Skirmisher Controller, and a ton more I'm not thinking of. The combination of feats, options at ANY range, durability, and weapon selection means that fighters have infinitely more options over monk, and have many options almost exclusive to fighter.

While monks have better core features than a fighter, fighters have WAY more options than a monk. I don't think that can be discounted, even if it is not necessarily an optimization factor. Seriously, I'm surprised no one has a made a guide on various weapon combos that fighters can use, because adding feats in there's at least a dozen radically different fighting styles that fighters can use...
I'm really sorry but, yet once again, you are plain wrong here. Like dead wrong even on durability aspect.

Durability
Without subclasses, the only thing Fighter gets ultimately are armor and shields (immediately), free Dash/Dodge 2/short rest (Action Surge 2/17), and 3 save reroll/long rest (9/13/17).
With feats, you can add Resilient to get another good proficiency (Wisdom), then Inspiring Leader or Healer for some nice (T)HP per short rest or Defensive Duelist is finesse build.

Monk gets Dodge as bonus action (2nd level), free reaction against arrows (3rd level), free reaction against fall (4th level), free improvement on DEX saves (7th level), free action against frightened/charmed (7th level), immunity to poison (one of the worst conditions) and disease (10th), X/saves reroll (=multiple Indomitable) (14th), proficiency in all saves (14th), resistance to all damage for 1mn (18th level), disadvantage on attacks against him for 1mn (unless creatures can see Invisible) (18th level).

So, while Fighter starts with arguably much better AC as a STR build, Monk can still easily start with 16 AC. Admittedly Fighter is more sturdy for a few levels thanks to higher die and better starting AC, but once you reach 4th level or so you start having enough Ki to spend one or two on Dodge when really needed. Besides, Monk is not supposed to tank at low levels in the first place, he should use added mobility to stay in middle lines.
As soon as you reach level 8, Monk gets a big boost that puts it above Fighter: Evasion on a DEX class means you are far less susceptible to all DEX targeting spells including many AOE.
And once you reach level 14, Fighter is outclassed by far thanks to Diamond Soul (let's be stupid and consider you decide to always keep 2 ki points just for that feature: you still have 3* more rerolls than Fighter, to which you always add proficiency.

No Ranged options
Without feats, a Monk can always throw daggers, javelins or whatever else, exactly as a STR Fighter dedicated to melee.
Only when Fighter gets 3rd attack or Crossbow Expert would Monk fall back.
But then again, a Monk does not need ranged options as much as a Fighter since he can move much further.
Otherwise, a Magic Initiate or Spell Sniper will be enough to provide a pretty decent attack for when needed.

No Fighting Styles
TWF is basically totally useless for a Monk which has built-in bonus action attack.
Defense fighting style brings +1 AC, and Protection gives reaction, but since you don't really care about other things than damage, it's not really a big deal. XD
GWM is renowned as a very lackluster fighting style, nearly nobody takes it since the erratas.
Dueling is the only one good, but while it makes a big difference at low levels, it really changes not much later (even on a lvl 12 Fighter, it's just a +8 damage if all attacks hit).
Archery is great, but for ranged builds.

>>> Monk cannot use any of the Fighting Styles? Sure, but that's really not a big deal.

ASI Dependency
Yes, a Monk usually want to max DEX and WIS because it affects effects DC and AC. And a Monk is usually self-sufficient enough to afford this.
But you could decide to keep WIS at 16, as I said, and instead focus on DEX and feats to make another role than "Stunner" your primary: depending on the party, you could be the scout (Observant), the tank (Dodge as bonus action + Defensive Duelist/Inspiring Leader), the caster striker (Mobile + Mage Slayer) etc.

The combination of feats, options at ANY range, durability, and weapon selection means that fighters have infinitely more options over monk, and have many options almost exclusive to fighter.
Nop. Fighters actually need to spend several feats if they want to come close to Monks in many aspects. So they don't have "infinitely more" options. They are the best class though if you want to just stack as many feats as possible to make some custom thing, that's for sure.

They are also the best class if you want to be good at fighting whatever weapon is available to you.
But overall, when you put aside subclass, they are in fact feats-dependent, exactly as you say the Monk is ASI-dependent. It may be a strength or a weakness, depends of people.
Also, one last time, you consider only damage, but at higher level, a fool that spent everything on damage and forgot to build a proper defense will be a weight for a party, not an asset. Because a turn in which you are frightened/charmed/down is a turn wasted for you and maybe a turn wasted for at least one other member of your party.

I'd put my bet on a high level Monk rather than a high level Fighter any day, because the latter is much more susceptible to succomb to any disabling effect from a CR 15+ creature.

[mephnick]

Moon druid is vastly overrated. Other than a couple power spikes the wildshape is competent but nothing special. Honestly I'd say Land druid is the "better" subclass in that it focuses on casting a great spell list which is better than combat wildshape for 90% of the game.

[DragonSorcererX]

My problem with the Champion is that his entry on the PHB is so small and so "unnatractive" that I didn't even knew there was a Champion Archetype for a really long time, I thought the Fighter was either Battle Master or Eldritch Knight...

The Beastmaster only made me think: Why would I want to carry this thing that will die in the first Breath Weapon of a Dragon?

And the Four Elements Monk looked really weak not only in damage, but in utility...

[Tanarii]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but your analysis of all three subclasses is wrong. As has been shown repeatedly every time a thread about each of these notoriously 'bad' subclasses is posted.

You've bought into internet groupthink.

[Hrugner]

The big drawback for most players it its utter boringness.

Yep. You have the base set of combat actions forever. I can pretend that it's exciting, but I'd need to be an idiot to actually believe it.

[scalyfreak]

Champions are definitely the most 'point and shoot' class. They hit things and get hit by things.

But to say they are boring is incorrect. Any class can be boring if you're a boring player. A character is only as interesting or fun as you make it.

This.

I also disagree with the entire premise of this thread since it entirely ignores everything except combat and capacity for damage when determining whether a sub-class is "good" or "fun".

There is a lot more to the game than that.

[PeteNutButter]

This.

I also disagree with the entire premise of this thread since it entirely ignores everything except combat and capacity for damage when determining whether a sub-class is "good" or "fun".

There is a lot more to the game than that.

This always comes up when people talk class balance. The reality is most abilities in D&D are combat abilities.

While there is always more to the game (hopefully), when it comes down to rolling initiative there is no reason the classes shouldn't be balanced in combat.

In my opinion, out of combat abilities should balanced against each other. All that being said it is just another argument against the Champion as the fighter class typically has the least to do out of combat. A design choice that has always bothered me about D&D...

[scalyfreak]

In my opinion, out of combat abilities should balanced against each other. All that being said it is just another argument against the Champion as the fighter class typically has the least to do out of combat. A design choice that has always bothered me about D&D...

I choose to see that as "the fighter has the least restrictions outside of combat". Sure, the fighter has no non-combat skills so probably can't pick locks, be the party face/diplomat, et cetera, but that doesn't mean the player can't find things to do that aren't enjoyable for them, as long as they're willing to be a bit creative about it.

It's almost as if the class was designed to force players to actually roleplay the character rather than just sit around and wait for an opportunity to use something on the character sheet. :smalltongue:

Disclaimer: Not claiming to know anything about the thoughts behind class design, or how others choose to play their champions. How much fun or how boring any character is, is ultimately up to the player who created and plays that character, and how much effort they choose to put in.

[Tanarii]

Claiming less out of combat abilities makes you better at out of combat is a ridiculous argument that comes up every time Champion threads come up. Any class can do out of combat things not based on ability checks / skills, plus ability checks/skills they are good at. Less options on top of that doesn't make you better at doing those things.

Champions aren't fine because they have less out of combat options. They're fine because they're better at the things they do well: crits, physical checks, and an extra fighting style.

[scalyfreak]

Claiming less out of combat abilities makes you better at out of combat is a ridiculous argument that comes up every time Champion threads come up. Any class can do out of combat things not based on ability checks / skills, plus ability checks/skills they are good at. Less options on top of that doesn't make you better at doing those things.

That was kind of the point I was getting at, yes.

What a character can and cannot do does not begin and end with what's written on the character sheet.

[Random Sanity]

I'm somewhat surprised to not see a wild sorcerer evaluation on this list... I love the class (I'm a big fan of beastmaster too, so my preference isn't a good measure of 'goodness') but it is the only class that a GM can just decide they don't like your abilities so you don't get them anymore

It's also the only subclass in the game with a built-in chance to self-destruct every turn. Regardless of how small the chance is, the fact is you've got a badly-written fumble mechanic built into your class features.

[mgshamster]

These subclasses are the worst in the same way a banana is the worst fruit.

Popular enough; some people like them, some people don't. There's nothing inherently wrong with them; they're only bad as a matter of personal taste.

In other words, any subclass is only good or bad by a fractional amount, and it's fairly irrelevant to compare as if there's any meaningful difference beyond personal preference.

[Naanomi]

These subclasses are the worst in the same way a banana is the worst fruit.

Popular enough; some people like them, some people don't. There's nothing inherently wrong with them; they're only bad as a matter of personal taste.

In other words, any subclass is only good or bad by a fractional amount, and it's fairly irrelevant to compare as if there's any meaningful difference beyond personal preference.
In a sense... though if a big enough proportion of people don't like the 'taste' of a dish the chefs are wise to change their recipie even if they 'know' it is 'good' and some people love to order it

[mgshamster]

In a sense... though if a big enough proportion of people don't like the 'taste' of a dish the chefs are wise to change their recipie even if they 'know' it is 'good' and some people love to order it

I like that analogy.

Because in this case, were talking about a dish that is simple and basic. Lots of people buy it; it ranks among the most popular in customer polls. People love it for its simplicity.

But a small population of food enthusiasts who frequent a forum dedicated to the restaurant claim the dish is the absolute worst *because* of its simplicity.

[Jaycon356]

Champion is, in all honesty, my favorite subclass of fighter. I've played all three on multiple occasions, and while they may not get any crazy bells or whistles, they do the basics the best.

[Squiddish]

The thing with 5e is, people will never agree on a worst subclass because they're balanced. In terms of power level, there are some minor discrepancies but nothing to phone home about. It eventually works out to a blend of personal preference and anecdotes.

Some are certainly more sparse than others, such as champion, but the worst they ever get is lackluster. Not bad by any means.

[Naanomi]

I like that analogy.

Because in this case, were talking about a dish that is simple and basic. Lots of people buy it; it ranks among the most popular in customer polls. People love it for its simplicity.

But a small population of food enthusiasts who frequent a forum dedicated to the restaurant claim the dish is the absolute worst *because* of its simplicity.
It was more a reference to Rangers, a decent dish that polls say people think it looks unappetizing, and while people do order it they often say it wasn't very filling once they've tried it... not bad but just kind of meh compared to the rest of the menu

(Frenzy barbarians are a good dish that has big chunks of onion in it, that distract from the rest of the dish... wild sorcerers are a dish that varies from preparation to preparation so it is hard to predict if you will like it or not... assassins are a spicy dish that is good if you really like spicy food but otherwise is pretty unappetizing... land Druids are a vanilla cake that is really good, but everyone always order the chocolate cake instead because it looks (and arguably tastes) even better... Elemental monk is steak and mango salsa; neither part is bad and the dish kind of works but doesn't seem like it should go together)

[MeeposFire]

These subclasses are the worst in the same way a banana is the worst fruit.

Popular enough; some people like them, some people don't. There's nothing inherently wrong with them; they're only bad as a matter of personal taste.

In other words, any subclass is only good or bad by a fractional amount, and it's fairly irrelevant to compare as if there's any meaningful difference beyond personal preference.

Funny enough Bananas are the most consumed fruit in the USA.

[scalyfreak]

I think that was mgshamster's point. :smallwink:

Since people typically aren't force-fed bananas if they really don't want to eat them, the entire discussion is a bit of a strawman anyway.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I think that was mgshamster's point. :smallwink:

Since people typically aren't force-fed bananas if they really don't want to eat them, the entire discussion is a bit of a strawman anyway.

There is something of room to discuss shoddy mechanics, insofar as they may be a good target for homebrewing a better solution.

I don't really think champion's one of them, though. They lack options to make them more powerful, but that's kind of the point. They're for players that want a more streamlined gaming experience without being useless- good for both newbies and veterans that don't want to manage mechanics. They perform great in that capacity.

You lose a bit of power and utility in exchange for an easier character to play. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable exchange.

[Pex]

For the umpteenth time, NO, NO IT'S NOT!

I agree whole heartedly it's a simple class with few needs of decision making options. That is obvious and the point of the class. Some people want that! They don't want to bother with fiddly bits of whether or not to use a class ability or save for later. They don't want to be bothered being anxious for the next rest to get back their class stuff. They don't agonize over who eeks out one more point of average damage per round. They just want to run up to the monster and bash it silly. The Champion can do that. He has the AC. He has the hit points. He has the damage dealing.

It's like Champion is the new "Monkday".

[Specter]

I like that analogy.

Because in this case, were talking about a dish that is simple and basic. Lots of people buy it; it ranks among the most popular in customer polls. People love it for its simplicity.

But a small population of food enthusiasts who frequent a forum dedicated to the restaurant claim the dish is the absolute worst *because* of its simplicity.

Wow, why is there no 'donate' button in this forum?

[Tanarii]

In a sense... though if a big enough proportion of people don't like the 'taste' of a dish the chefs are wise to change their recipie even if they 'know' it is 'good' and some people love to order it


It was more a reference to Rangers, a decent dish that polls say people think it looks unappetizing, and while people do order it they often say it wasn't very filling once they've tried it... not bad but just kind of meh compared to the rest of the menu
That's fair. Nothing is really bad about the Ranger or the Beastmaster archetype. But the UA revisions addressed people 'I don't like it' issues with both the base class and the archetype.

[fbelanger]

Champion is there for player that don't want to bother with ressources. And you want him to bother with an excel sheet to compare their DPR with other classes?

Champion is perfect for basic play.

[Talionis]

I find it funny that the errata made the Elemental Monk worse increasing Stone Skin casting to 17 the level. Being able to cast Stone Skin without components was a big deal.

[CursedRhubarb]

Champion is fine. It deals decent and consistent damage but my favorite thing is to be a Champion with Tavern Brawler. The crazy amount of crits as you beat people unconscious with a turkey leg makes it worth a play.

[Elderand]

Champion is my favourite subclass.

I know I know, clutching of pearls and waving of tentacles and feinting shoggoth and won't someone think of the mi-go.

The champion is my favourite subclass for two reasons. One, because it goes with my taste, second because it avoid doing the one thing I absolutely abhor in dnd.

First, about my taste. When I was a wee lad and got introduced to dnd via baldur's gate, my first character was a fighter. because fighter were cool.
Then I looked at wizard and for the next....oh...say decade or so, I played nothing but spellcasters, because ultimate power and all that.
But then I got into 3.5 and suddenly my interest in spellcaster plumeted, and the more I learned about optimization the less I wanted to play a caster. Because there's way too much book keeping involved and the older I get, the simpler I like my games.

Anyway, I'm just rambling on now. But yeah, I like champion because of how simple and straightforward.

So what' sthe second thing? basically the same as the first thing, it's simple and straightforward. it doesn't load itself with all the fancy bells and whistles for all the out of combat stuff or utility thing and so on. And I like that. Because dnd, and its players, have a very nasty tendency of trying to put specific button on every action, in 3.5 it's to the point were you needed three feats to open a bloody door. Okay, I'm exaggerating but not by much. Most thing shouldn't require buttons, because inevitably, the button goes from facilitating a thing to be being seen as "not worth doing unless you have the button" and that's just....annoying.

So I like the champion, it does one thing and it does it well enough and it does so simply.

[JAL_1138]

Let's assume for a minute, purely hypothetically, that it is the worst subclass mechanically (leaving aside any and all considerations of "boring," because that's entirely subjective). If it is the worst, that speaks pretty well of 5e, because it's functional, and you're not appreciably hurting the party's overall strength by taking Champion instead of a different Fighter subclass.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Let's assume for a minute, purely hypothetically, that it is the worst subclass mechanically (leaving aside any and all considerations of "boring," because that's entirely subjective). If it is the worst, that speaks pretty well of 5e, because it's functional, and you're not appreciably hurting the party's overall strength by taking Champion instead of a different Fighter subclass.

That's a pretty good outlook. If a champion at any level still contributes plenty to a fight and is handy to have around and it's the worst thing in the game, 5e doesn't really have anything all that bad in it.

Except the cantrip true strike, which is hot garbage and cannot be made reasonably useful except in a specific niche build where it is still a lackluster option only taken when you've exhausted all other credible resources (post-15 eldritch knight).

[djreynolds]

Dave the Champion did not write himself.

The 5E designers did, go to SageAdvice and complain.

Now if you want a challenge, play a champion. IMO champions are not only for "newbies" but also for experienced gamers.

[Specter]

in 3.5 it's to the point were you needed three feats to open a bloody door. Okay, I'm exaggerating but not by much.

Not sure about doors, but you needed 3 feats just to attack and move at the same time. Not missing those times.

[MeeposFire]

Not sure about doors, but you needed 3 feats just to attack and move at the same time. Not missing those times.

And after all that you still suck because you could only attack once. You had to spend another feat to make two attacks and another after that to get 3 (and be at really high level).

Full attack actions are probably the single greatest sin against weapon users certainly in 3e and possibly of any edition of the game ever.

[Specter]

And after all that you still suck because you could only attack once. You had to spend another feat to make two attacks and another after that to get 3 (and be at really high level).

Full attack actions are probably the single greatest sin against weapon users certainly in 3e and possibly of any edition of the game ever.

Deliver us from evil.

[Scots Dragon]

And after all that you still suck because you could only attack once. You had to spend another feat to make two attacks and another after that to get 3 (and be at really high level).

Full attack actions are probably the single greatest sin against weapon users certainly in 3e and possibly of any edition of the game ever.

It's notable that in AD&D 2E not only did fighters have the ability to move and then hit with all of their attacks that round, they didn't have the iterative attack thing yet; it was just 'you attack two or three times now with no penalty'. Which is basically, yes, exactly what they brought back with D&D 5E.

[KorvinStarmast]

A character is only as interesting or fun as you make it. Yep.

I always find these threads funny, because the worst subclass in the game is probably the Assassin. It gives you a nova attack you should very rarely get to use if you're running the game properly and...that's it. Setting up the surprise is a work of art. But when it works, like you say, BOOM! Nova. Assassin IMO requires imaginative play: it is very much a thinking player's class.

Have fun, defeat Evil, kill monstrous threats, find treasure, make friends, die gloriously as a PC. Grognards be great. :smallbiggrin:


(Frenzy barbarians are a good dish that has big chunks of onion in it, that distract from the rest of the dish... wild sorcerers are a dish that varies from preparation to preparation so it is hard to predict if you will like it or not... assassins are a spicy dish that is good if you really like spicy food but otherwise is pretty unappetizing... land Druids are a vanilla cake that is really good, but everyone always order the chocolate cake instead because it looks (and arguably tastes) even better... Elemental monk is steak and mango salsa; neither part is bad and the dish kind of works but doesn't seem like it should go together) OK, I host the game, you bring the food. You know your food.

Champion is fine. It deals decent and consistent damage but my favorite thing is to be a Champion with Tavern Brawler. The crazy amount of crits as you beat people unconscious with a turkey leg makes it worth a play. Have not tried that yet, and probably won't with the current champion as he went a different way with feats.

Now if you want a challenge, play a champion. IMO champions are not only for "newbies" but also for experienced gamers. Hence my half-orc champion, sword and board. Guess what I did with my down time? (Finally, got proficiency in thieve's tools. :smallwink: )

[Prince Zahn]

Now if you want a challenge, play a champion. IMO champions are not only for "newbies" but also for experienced gamers.

Agreed. The champion is simple for players who like that, while at the same time has the potential to do interesting things, in 90% of games you'll also be able to slap stuff like feats and racial abilities that make the champion more fun.

Their level 7 feature for instance, gives you a lot of diversity by making you better at skills you couldn't afford. A wood elf champion could make great use of stealth and her racial trait, as well as all dexterity skills, and/or become a little better with athletics, which expands her options. Improved crit rate means that you are twice and eventually 3 times as likely to do crit damage than anyone else, which means that not only are you consistently good at fighting, there is a decent chance of exciting crits and doing heavy damage the more attacks you get.

It was previously mentioned half orc champions make awesome crit fishers, but also Halfling is another great race for this class because for the same reason, because you get to reroll all them nat 1s that might get in your way in addition to your higher crit rate. :3

also, your choice of race, background, feats, combat styles or even your weapons can augment a champion into an incredibly memorable PC.

It might not be as flashy as a battlemaster or an eldritch knight, it's not for everyone, and that's okay. The champion is perfect for people who don't want flashy, and still be very good fighters.

And it's definitely not weak because the rest of the fighter class was built exceptionally well, and it doesn't have to be lacklustre at all if you give some TLC and flavorful choices.

[MeeposFire]

It's notable that in AD&D 2E not only did fighters have the ability to move and then hit with all of their attacks that round, they didn't have the iterative attack thing yet; it was just 'you attack two or three times now with no penalty'. Which is basically, yes, exactly what they brought back with D&D 5E.

Depending on which part of the rules you are looking at you cold in older D&D (such as Rules Cyclopedia) and of course in 5e and in 4e (where you did not get extra attacks but your ability to attack is not penalized for moving).

2e fighters could move half of their full movement and make all of their attacks which is really similar to how in 5e where you can move your movement and make full attacks or you can move double move and not attack.

[JAL_1138]

It's notable that in AD&D 2E not only did fighters have the ability to move and then hit with all of their attacks that round, they didn't have the iterative attack thing yet; it was just 'you attack two or three times now with no penalty'. Which is basically, yes, exactly what they brought back with D&D 5E.

That, and op attacks (before Player's Option: Combat & Tactics) only triggered if you retreated at greater than 1/3 your speed (even more permissive of in-combat movement than 5e—though that was partially to balance out ranged weapons being likely to hit allies as well if fired into melee). No worries about moving through a threatened square; you could just move.

The fact that 5e combat allows for some movement other than the (kind of weird) 5-foot step without needing a crapload of special abilities to avoid op attacks for trying to circle someone and allows for multiattack with movement and no accuracy penalty for attacks after the first one is part of the reason thst to me it beings back some of the "feel" of TSR-era AD&D. Combat feels more dynamic and chaotic when you can move and act without taking an op attack for doing practically anything but standing there stock still and whaling on your opponent, and when you can break up your attacks and move around between them by default.

[Ninja-Radish]

I think the 4 Elements Monk might be worse. The Champion at least has the combat ability of a Fighter to fall back on. Although the Champion is total a$$ too.

[Citan]

I think the 4 Elements Monk might be worse. The Champion at least has the combat ability of a Fighter to fall back on. Although the Champion is total a$$ too.
Yet again someone that does not even try to keep in mind everything a base Monk has to offer (not even speaking about 4E benefits). Because otherwise he would never get such a wrong idea. So sad... XD

[Garresh]

Liking the discussion so far, but I do one to point out one of the illogical criticisms I've received. Several have said I focus almost exclusively on damage, particularly with regards to Champions. If I may point out... what else exactly does the Champion offer besides damage? A durability increase for the last few levels, and a skill bonus to a few untrained skills at level 7 that are highly situational?

My arguments with regards to Champion are because that's all it really offers.

[Garresh]

I'm really sorry but, yet once again, you are plain wrong here. Like dead wrong even on durability aspect.

Durability
Without subclasses, the only thing Fighter gets ultimately are armor and shields (immediately), free Dash/Dodge 2/short rest (Action Surge 2/17), and 3 save reroll/long rest (9/13/17).
With feats, you can add Resilient to get another good proficiency (Wisdom), then Inspiring Leader or Healer for some nice (T)HP per short rest or Defensive Duelist is finesse build.

Monk gets Dodge as bonus action (2nd level), free reaction against arrows (3rd level), free reaction against fall (4th level), free improvement on DEX saves (7th level), free action against frightened/charmed (7th level), immunity to poison (one of the worst conditions) and disease (10th), X/saves reroll (=multiple Indomitable) (14th), proficiency in all saves (14th), resistance to all damage for 1mn (18th level), disadvantage on attacks against him for 1mn (unless creatures can see Invisible) (18th level).

So, while Fighter starts with arguably much better AC as a STR build, Monk can still easily start with 16 AC. Admittedly Fighter is more sturdy for a few levels thanks to higher die and better starting AC, but once you reach 4th level or so you start having enough Ki to spend one or two on Dodge when really needed. Besides, Monk is not supposed to tank at low levels in the first place, he should use added mobility to stay in middle lines.
As soon as you reach level 8, Monk gets a big boost that puts it above Fighter: Evasion on a DEX class means you are far less susceptible to all DEX targeting spells including many AOE.
And once you reach level 14, Fighter is outclassed by far thanks to Diamond Soul (let's be stupid and consider you decide to always keep 2 ki points just for that feature: you still have 3* more rerolls than Fighter, to which you always add proficiency.

No Ranged options
Without feats, a Monk can always throw daggers, javelins or whatever else, exactly as a STR Fighter dedicated to melee.
Only when Fighter gets 3rd attack or Crossbow Expert would Monk fall back.
But then again, a Monk does not need ranged options as much as a Fighter since he can move much further.
Otherwise, a Magic Initiate or Spell Sniper will be enough to provide a pretty decent attack for when needed.

No Fighting Styles
TWF is basically totally useless for a Monk which has built-in bonus action attack.
Defense fighting style brings +1 AC, and Protection gives reaction, but since you don't really care about other things than damage, it's not really a big deal. XD
GWM is renowned as a very lackluster fighting style, nearly nobody takes it since the erratas.
Dueling is the only one good, but while it makes a big difference at low levels, it really changes not much later (even on a lvl 12 Fighter, it's just a +8 damage if all attacks hit).
Archery is great, but for ranged builds.

>>> Monk cannot use any of the Fighting Styles? Sure, but that's really not a big deal.

ASI Dependency
Yes, a Monk usually want to max DEX and WIS because it affects effects DC and AC. And a Monk is usually self-sufficient enough to afford this.
But you could decide to keep WIS at 16, as I said, and instead focus on DEX and feats to make another role than "Stunner" your primary: depending on the party, you could be the scout (Observant), the tank (Dodge as bonus action + Defensive Duelist/Inspiring Leader), the caster striker (Mobile + Mage Slayer) etc.

The combination of feats, options at ANY range, durability, and weapon selection means that fighters have infinitely more options over monk, and have many options almost exclusive to fighter.
Nop. Fighters actually need to spend several feats if they want to come close to Monks in many aspects. So they don't have "infinitely more" options. They are the best class though if you want to just stack as many feats as possible to make some custom thing, that's for sure.

They are also the best class if you want to be good at fighting whatever weapon is available to you.
But overall, when you put aside subclass, they are in fact feats-dependent, exactly as you say the Monk is ASI-dependent. It may be a strength or a weakness, depends of people.
Also, one last time, you consider only damage, but at higher level, a fool that spent everything on damage and forgot to build a proper defense will be a weight for a party, not an asset. Because a turn in which you are frightened/charmed/down is a turn wasted for you and maybe a turn wasted for at least one other member of your party.

I'd put my bet on a high level Monk rather than a high level Fighter any day, because the latter is much more susceptible to succomb to any disabling effect from a CR 15+ creature.

You make Monk sound incredibly durable, but you really are misrepresenting their defensive abilities. Monks can dodge as a bonus action, but doing so eats into their limited resources and severely limits their damage output and mobility. They have a lower hit die AND start with lower con, unless they take a hit to one of their core stats, which means 15-16 AC. After that, their AC increases by 1 every 4 levels.

Compare that to a fighter that can start with 19 AC if they're feeling cheeky, though realistically they will not because it weakens damage. If they go sword and board they start with 18 AC and an extra 2 hp per level over the monks 16 AC. If they opt for a two hander for great offense they might pick up defense for 17 AC since the TWF style is a rather bad.

By level 4 a monk AC is up to 17, while a fighter will have 18 to 21 depending on their preferences. Monks are still down on 2 hp/level. If a monk wants to use their defensive features they have a limited supply and their bonus action economy gets screwed for that round. Meanwhile a fighter's healing surge does NOT overlap with their other resources for offense and utility.

Falling damage? Really? I'll accept Deflect Arrows is a great feature and definitely makes Monks deceptively tanky vs ranged attacks. But when was the last time you were caught off guard by falling damage? It's a useful ability but it falls more into the utility/mobility camp than defense.

At high levels monks are better than fighters wrt saving vs effects, but fighters do have the needed boost in a pinch. Otherwise fighters will still remain much more durable since monks shouldn't boost Con til level 19.

You say fighters are feat dependent, but since they only need 2 ASIs to cap out, they have 4 more for "free" since they're not as MAD as a monk. Is it really dependency when they have so many options and so little that they need? If they want durability, they can go that route. More realistically they're going to decide they want to do something and just do it.

Also, you misrepresented Monk ranged options. You say they can use daggers or javelins. They cannot use javelins well because they are not finesseable. This means they are restricted to a range of 20 feet. Even a Str fighter has distance, and a dex fighter will vastly outrange you. You say a monk can sink a feat to get range, but doing so hurts them a great deal due to ASI dependency.

As for damage, a monk can put out decent damage, but saying a fighter only outclasses them at 11 is dishonest. A monk can without resources at 5 put out 3d6+12 damage, or 23.5 dpr. Realistically it will due to bonus action comflicts be 2d6+8 or 15 dpr. A level 5 fighter will put out 2d8+12 every round, or 21 dpr without conflict. This is on top of 19 AC to your 17 and better hp.

A monk can flurry for 4d6+16 which comes to 30 dpr. This is impressive, but a fighter can nova much harder though less often. A fighter's sustained dpr is better as is their nova. When feats are added in fighters can go MUCH farther. Archery sharpshooter can get way better dpr, while great weapon master can get you good melee dpr on top of 19 AC to monk's 17.

Obviously damage is not everything, and Monks get a ton of utility a fighter cannot touch. A fighter can drop a feat for skilled or something, but otherwise they are more restricted.

I am not attempting to say Monks are bad. Far from it. They remain an excellent and well designed class. However, it is dishonest to say they are as durable and damaging as fighters, or that they are their equal in ranged combat. Monks and fighters have different strengths. Durability is not a monk strength. Mobility and skirmishing is, as well as reaching targets a fighter cannot reach, and putting out excellent control.

I do not understand the scorn foisted upon damage analysis. Utility is highly contextual and campaign dependant. A monk has greater utility than a fighter, but these things are hard to quantify. Additionally, monks and fighters can both specialize or branch out to fulfill side roles. Both can become sneaky infiltrators with appropriate backgrounds and stats(though not as good as a rogue). Both can serve as excellent scouts. But a monk will face significant barriers to operating as a durable frontliner or archer, which will limit their core class features. A fighter will not. I do not find this to be dishonest or controversial, in much the same way it should not be disputable that a fighter cannot match a monk's mobility and control without significant hinderance to their own features.

[Citan]

You make Monk sound incredibly durable, but you really are misrepresenting their defensive abilities. Monks can dodge as a bonus action, but doing so eats into their limited resources and severely limits their damage output and mobility. They have a lower hit die AND start with lower con, unless they take a hit to one of their core stats, which means 15-16 AC. After that, their AC increases by 1 every 4 levels.

I am not attempting to say Monks are bad. Far from it. They remain an excellent and well designed class. However, it is dishonest to say they are as durable and damaging as fighters, or that they are their equal in ranged combat. Monks and fighters have different strengths. Durability is not a monk strength. Mobility and skirmishing is, as well as reaching targets a fighter cannot reach, and putting out excellent control.

I never said so (bold), also you just demonstrate that you never bothered playing a Monk apparently since you don't even understand how its basic feature works. A Monk does NOT care about javelin being finesse or not, because it's a "Monk weapon", so he can uses either DEX or STR (exactly the same as a quarterstaff).

You also criticizes the fact that Monk defense eats Ki, or that he has lower AC so he is less suited to sustain lots of attacks without using Ki. Of course, I never said otherwise. The thing is, a Monk is ****ing NOT supposed to stay immobile on the frontline like a stick (usually).
So it's not like you will spend every turn using Ki on Dodge. You are supposed to stay mobile and do some hit&run instead or create the conditions of a duel, especially at the lowest levels. Why do you think Monks get Deflect Arrows? It's precisely because you are supposed to be a minimum smart and stay at range, making archers and the like the most suited to try and take care of you.
And the argument about mobility is moot too, because rarely will you really need to Dash as a bonus action in addition to your already great base speed (33% increase as soon as lvl 2, up to 100% by the end of career).
On that note, that is also why Mobile is a feat of choice for any Monk (or any martial class with several attacks for that matter) that wants to stay single-class: getting a free disengage whether you suceed or miss and 10 more feet is golden for this kind of hit&run against a few enemies.

When you start facing frightening/charming effects (which target WIS or CHA, both of which being very bad for Fighter because he probably didn't take a Resilient yet), being able to take care of one-self means you don't waste an ally's turn and resource to break the effect. Even more important if you are alone for whatever reason.

And when you reach higher level, in which you are often threatened several times per day, maybe in the same encounter or round, by many various and dangerous effects that can target WIS, CON (with poison and diseases being the most usual effects -good thing Monk is immune to its-), DEX or even STR/WIS...
Having at the very least +5/6 on every save + ability to reroll half a dozen times at least per short rest makes you much more reliable to the party than a Fighter. Especially...

1. Against DEX saves, thanks to Evasion
Only a Fighter with S&B and Shield Master can come close at the price of eating its reaction, and provided he succeeds on his save which stronly implies either DEX-based Fighter or Resilient:Dexterity.
Monk will have starting +5 there, +7 at the time of learning Evasion and end with probably +11 with low-cost reroll.
A S&B DEX Fighter who took Shield Master at level 6 would still be below, and later get only 2 rerolls (at level 14) against all effects that are thrown at him.
And without Shield Master, even a successful save often means half-damage: so with a classic Fireball, Fighter would suffer 4d6 damage (average 14) unless he is an Eldricht Knight with Absorb Elements (so only 2d6 for a spell slot).
At level 7, considering the most luckiest rolls on both part when getting new hit die, the Fighter would start his day with 14 more HP because of die difference.
An Eldricht Knight would have 4 slots for Shield/Absorb Elements and 2 slots on upcast Absorb Elements or another 2nd level buff.
So to be relatively on par with a Monk (always eating your reaction which the Monk can instead spend on OA for example), you have to either be a S&B wielder and invest a feat, OR be an Eldricht Knight and keep slots solely for this kind of occasion.

2. Against CON saves, thanks to immunity to poison and diseases.
And later proficiency + 1 Ki reroll (so, again, much better than Fighter even if Monk has a CON mod inferior by 1 or 2).

3. Against WIS saves, thanks to proficiency + high WIS + action against charmed/frightened.
Fighter can never reach this level of bonus to saves although he could come decent with Resilient: Wisdom.

On other saves, Monk still has proficiency at level 14 (worst of worst case +3 at level 14 with a -1 modifier) + much more chances to reroll than a Fighter (unless the latter also takes Lucky and has good rolls).

And all of this is dependent on a short-rest resource, so something that can be replenished more or less easily (especially with a Wizard or Lore Bard that can cast some Rope Trick, Leomund's Tiny Hut and other "let's be safe for a while" spells).

That's why I said Fighter is feat dependent, as a reaction to what you said: if the Fighter wants to be much better at sustained damage (which he is already the best at in the end), he can easily trump any other by stacking everything related. If he wants to fill an offensive-geared niche ("grappler, caster shutter, sniper, heavy hitter") he will do so much more easily than others. Overall though (=considering ALL aspects of what a character can provide in different situations), he will fall behind hard compared to any other martial unless he spends several ASI just trying to come close in one or more specific aspects (Ritual Caster to get some utility, Resilient for Wisdom proficiency, Shield Master to get small Evasion, Observant to improve spying etc).

On the "durability" aspect, while Fighter easily trumps Monk on the dedicated aspect of sustained AC against melee attacks only, Monk can get an equivalent of Shield for a much lesser cost (short-rest VS long-rest) in emergency and trumps him hard on every other aspect (only a Fighter, DEX-based, wielding a finesse weapon and a shield, taking Shield Master, Defensive Duelist -except Eldricht Knight-, Lucky and Resilient:Wisdom could come to a decent distance, although still significantly behind).



But a monk will face significant barriers to operating as a durable frontliner or archer, which will limit their core class features. A fighter will not. I do not find this to be dishonest or controversial, in much the same way it should not be disputable that a fighter cannot match a monk's mobility and control without significant hinderance to their own features.
Yeah, sure, I can agree with that (until you take archetype features into account at least): Monk is not built to be a dummy target, nor a sniper, while Fighter can easily fill this kind of shoes.
That does not mean they are less "durable" or "efficient". Really not at all.



I do not understand the scorn foisted upon damage analysis.
There is no "scorn" upon damage analysis in general. There is indeed some scorn though against narrow-eyed theorycraft analysis (hinting at your comparison with Ranger or Paladin here, which totally forgot about all the concentration spells that they can use to buff party damage either directly or indirectly. Or the fact that Monk's Stunning Strike profits everyone and is built-in -although indeed a Fighter can always spend attacks to Shove people prone with good success as a STR based, then Battlemaster and mid-level EK also provide these kind of effects, but since the discussion is about base class...).

Utility is highly contextual and campaign dependant.
This is very true for some of them like Divination spells or Favored Terrains to take the first examples in mind. But everything related to locate thing, detect and disarm magic, sustain / protect people or spying enemies will be regularly useful. :)

[LordVonDerp]

Wow, all of this is really annoying to look at. What if I think Rangers are the most versatile martials in the game? What if I don't think Fighters miss out on anything? What if I believe Monks would be good even without Stunning Strike? You've made many assumptions and deliberately disguised them as facts, which is at the very least misleading, and at worst ill-intentioned.

All of this just shows the mentality of 'DAMAGEDAMAGEDAMAGE', and a poor one at that too. Please play more.

You clearly didn't read the post.

[Specter]

You clearly didn't read the post.

Yeah, I did. It's overly simplistic because I only bothered to highlight the assumptions that were wrong from the start, which already tainted the whole post. Notice carefully, for instance, that nothing other than damage is mentioned to say the Beastmaster is bad (there's 'mobility' brought up but I assume that's for combat purposes). The fighter also is not 'lacking' in the departments that were mentioned, with or without feats or dips. Etcetc.

And it's already been answered anyway.

[Vogonjeltz]

Kind of a clickbait title, but I've been doing some comparisons of the awful/controversial subclasses, and I think that Champion may actually be the worst subclass in the game. It's just that no one notices/cares because the base Fighter is SO good that it doesn't matter.

Let's look at 3 subclasses that have various degrees of notoriety: Four Elements Monk, Beastmaster Ranger, and Champion Fighter.

If we look at the base classes, I don't think anyone here will disagree if I said Fighter is arguably the best. Next would be Monk, with Ranger coming up last.

Now, if we were to play each of those classes without any subclass features, we'd see some interesting things. Rangers would become even more boring, but Hunter's Mark and Archery Fighting Style at least give them competitive damage, and they've always got a handful of nice spells in their back pocket. Monks become even more dependent on Stunning Strike to remain useful, and they lose out on a lot of their utility and added survivability in one form or another. Fighters lose out on a lot of awesome options, but their core kit is so strong it doesn't matter.

So let's look at what the subclasses add, what their strengths are, and what their weaknesses are.

Two things.

1) The question itself is incomplete. When asking the question of what is best, or what is worst, it needs to be written in context. As in: The best or worst at what exactly? What is the exact thing you are attempting to measure? Given that there are three pillars to the game-Exploration, Social Interaction, and Combat-I would expect the question to be a resolution on one of those three pillars (or perhaps where they fall across the spectrum?).

2) Popularity contests aren't the correct measure for assessing the rightness of the argument. The Beastmaster Ranger for example recieved a great deal of criticism founded on its relative aesthetic merits, the "feel" of playing as a character with an animal companion, rather than actual performance of the animal companion.

That doesn't make the subclass (or class) bad, it just means that some people have a preference for taste over results.


Rangers are damage. Fighters are durability/damage. Monks are control. At a very superficial level, that is what those classes are good at.

Rangers focus is the Exploration pillar, the same as Rogues. Every ability except Fighting Style, Extra Attack, and Foe Slayer is useful in Exploration.


You missed Frenzy Barbarian in your monologue.

Though not even Frenzy Barbarian compares to the worst subclass in the game. One subclass so bad that you almost never hear about it because of how terrible I assume it must be. The official "It was a good movie, a shame that no sequels were ever made" subclass. Land druid.

I think more digital ink has been spilt on the lesser known wizard schools or cleric domains (though some schools/domains can be pretty absent from anything as well) than land druid.

The close second would be all of the warlock patrons. The way conversations go you would almost be able to make people believe that they don't have any subclasses outside of UA. Even Assassin for all its faults exists as a mockery of a subclass, whilst warlock subclasses sublime into the nothingness that is the soul of a warlock player.

I wonder if it's related to the fact that those subclasses are for classes with pact magic or the spellcasting feature. People seem quite forgiving of things like the Bladesinger, even though I'd say it's the worst subclass of all: It gives a smidgen of melee capability to a class that shouldn't want to be in melee combat in the first place, incentivizing bad decision-making.

[chainer1216]

All this Stormwind Fallacy aside i would like to submit the paladins Oath Of The Crown as the worst subclass.

Almost all its oath spells are already on its list.

Champions Challenge is its best feature but its just a slightly different 1st level spell.

Turn The Tide is neat but the "they must at half health and within 30ft" really hurts.

Divine Allegiance is the equivalent of a fighting style.

Unyeilding spirit is extremely underwhelming for a 15th level ability.

And its capstone is a frickin joke. Oooo resistance to non magic B/S/P and advantage on death saves!

[Citan]

You missed Frenzy Barbarian in your monologue.

Though not even Frenzy Barbarian compares to the worst subclass in the game. One subclass so bad that you almost never hear about it because of how terrible I assume it must be. The official "It was a good movie, a shame that no sequels were ever made" subclass. Land druid.

I think more digital ink has been spilt on the lesser known wizard schools or cleric domains (though some schools/domains can be pretty absent from anything as well) than land druid.

The close second would be all of the warlock patrons. The way conversations go you would almost be able to make people believe that they don't have any subclasses outside of UA. Even Assassin for all its faults exists as a mockery of a subclass, whilst warlock subclasses sublime into the nothingness that is the soul of a warlock player.
I like the subtle irony of all your post. Well done. XD

[Naanomi]

All this Stormwind Fallacy aside i would like to submit the paladins Oath Of The Crown as the worst subclass.

Almost all its oath spells are already on its list.

Champions Challenge is its best feature but its just a slightly different 1st level spell.

Turn The Tide is neat but the "they must at half health and within 30ft" really hurts.

Divine Allegiance is the equivalent of a fighting style.

Unyeilding spirit is extremely underwhelming for a 15th level ability.

And its capstone is a frickin joke. Oooo resistance to non magic B/S/P and advantage on death saves!
Battlerager has to rank up there as well if we are including non PHB classes... more competition for bonus actions, forced to wear mediocre armor (that the chances of finding magic versions of in official or AL modules is 0%) to use most class abilities, mediocre damage and surivivability boosts for the level you get them...

At least oath of the crown has some rather unique 'Aggro drawing' powers

[LordVonDerp]

Agreed. The champion is simple for players who like that,

That's no excuse for the champion. A subclass can be simple and yet still make character actually better at what they do.



while at the same time has the potential to do interesting things, in 90% of games you'll also be able to slap stuff like feats and racial abilities that make the champion more fun.
Except you can put those on any fighter.



Their level 7 feature for instance, gives you a lot of diversity by making you better at skills you couldn't afford.
AKA: better at skills you actively avoid using.



A wood elf champion could make great use of stealth and her racial trait, as well as all dexterity skills, and/or become a little better with athletics, which expands her options.
Sure, that character would be better at untrained Dex skills, but still wouldn't be good enough at Athletics to bother using it.

This also requires a dex based fighter, which cuts the usefulness of crit chance.




Improved crit rate means that you are twice and eventually 3 times as likely to do crit damage than anyone else,

If only crits were actually good in 5e.




which means that not only are you consistently good at fighting, there is a decent chance of exciting crits and doing heavy damage the more attacks you get.
Crits are, by definition, inconsistent, therefore a class that depends on them is not consistently good at fighting. Also, there are no "exciting" crits in 5e, at least not for fighters.




It was previously mentioned half orc champions make awesome crit fishers,
Decent ones maybe, crits aren't great in 5e.



but also Halfling is another great race for this class because for the same reason, because you get to reroll all them nat 1s that might get in your way in addition to your higher crit rate. :3
Except halflings can't use heavy weapons.




also, your choice of race, background, feats, combat styles or even your weapons can augment a champion into an incredibly memorable PC.

That is in spite of the Champion, not because of it.



It might not be as flashy as a battlemaster or an eldritch knight, it's not for everyone, and that's okay. The champion is perfect for people who don't want flashy, and still be very good fighters.

Battlemasters aren't flashy at all, they're just better than champions at fighting.



And it's definitely not weak because the rest of the fighter class was built exceptionally well, and it doesn't have to be lacklustre at all if you give some TLC and flavorful choices.

This is a discussion about subclasses.

[BeefGood]

I agree whole heartedly it's a simple class with few needs of decision making options. That is obvious and the point of the class. Some people want that!

Yup. Perfect option for NPC or "everyone's character" if the party needs more tank.
Also, perfect option for the newbie who walks up to the table and says "can I play?" "Sure, newbie! Your attack bonus is +6, your damage bonus is+4, and if you get a 19 or 20, you roll the damage dice twice." Done.

[GlenSmash!]

Battlerager has to rank up there as well if we are including non PHB classes... more competition for bonus actions, forced to wear mediocre armor (that the chances of finding magic versions of in official or AL modules is 0%) to use most class abilities, mediocre damage and surivivability boosts for the level you get them...

At least oath of the crown has some rather unique 'Aggro drawing' powers

Yeah, I love the concept of the Battlerager, but this is all true.

[Specter]

What many (apparently) disregard are the cases where Champion shines.

- If you have a consistent way to get advantage (Mounted Combatant, Reckless Attack, etc.), Champion is excellent.
- If you have ways of adding more dice to your attacks (Sneak Attack, Hunter's Mark, Savave Attacks or even Magic Initiate for Hex), Champion is excellent.
- If you have more attacks than a regular fighter (Polearm Master, Sentinel, Retaliation, TWF), Champion is excellent.
- If your crits give you something else (GWM), Champion is excellent. (I suspect that by the time you get three attacks you're critting at least once per battle, but I haven't done math).
- If you want to build a fighter good at both melee and range, Champion is excellent.
- If you're playing in a campaign with little/risky resting (like Curse of Strahd), Champion is excellent.

So even if you think Champion is the worst fighter sub, you should at least recognize the corner cases where it's the best fighter.

[mephnick]

All this Stormwind Fallacy aside i would like to submit the paladins Oath Of The Crown as the worst subclass.


Man that's so weird to me. I mean, most of the paladin subclasses are pretty lame because the core class is so strong, but I think Crown is the best paladin subclass.

They have the best "tanking" ability in the game in their Channel Divinity with Turn the Tide being a nice little option. Their oath spell list contains Spirit Guardians which almost automatically makes it better than the others. I don't even consider capstones worth comparing because I've gotten to level 20 once in 22 years of D&D, but yes it is kind of weak. Maybe it's not as good as Vengeance (if that's the kind of thing you like) but it is in no way the worst.

[KorvinStarmast]

If only crits were actually good in 5e.
They work as designed.

Except halflings can't use heavy weapons.
I think you'll find that you are wrong.

Heavy. Small creatures have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons. A heavy weapon’s size and bulk make it too large for a Small creature to use effectively. They can use them, at a penalty.

Over the years that I have played, in games with crits and games without, I have found myself not caring for crits but as a feature they are not a deal breaker for me. And every so often, they are timely which is kinda cool.

[Nifft]

In my personal experience, the Champion is pretty good.

It's good at combat and (with Remarkable Athlete) quite useful when exploring.

The only area where I felt like it lacked was in NPC interactions -- I'd like some kind of (small) feature for that aspect of play.

Otherwise, it was quite playable, and I like that there's a good option for brand-new players who want the absolute minimum of complexity in play, yet who get to significantly contribute to the party's success.

[KorvinStarmast]

In my personal experience, the Champion is pretty good.

It's good at combat and (with Remarkable Athlete) quite useful when exploring.

The only area where I felt like it lacked was in NPC interactions -- I'd like some kind of (small) feature for that aspect of play.

Otherwise, it was quite playable, and I like that there's a good option for brand-new players who want the absolute minimum of complexity in play, yet who get to significantly contribute to the party's success. I took the Soldier background, and I now and again work the intimidate line. Other NPC interactions are less mechanical and very enjoyable, since I role play and don't rely on dice for success there.

[GlenSmash!]

I took the Soldier background, and I now and again work the intimidate line. Other NPC interactions are less mechanical and very enjoyable, since I role play and don't rely on dice for success there.

I use Insight for a lot of social encounters, since I pretty much never dump Wisdom. Sure my Champion might be dumb and charismatic as a stump, but watch out if you think that means you can get away with lying to him.

The Pirate background feature is also an excellent way to bully through some social encounters. Just be prepared for some interesting fallout.

[mephnick]

My only problem with Champion is Remarkable Athlete should add half proficiency regardless of proficiencies you've taken. It's so dumb the feature doesn't improve your Athletics if you already took proficiency in it. It's a ****ty class feature because it will probably only effect like 2 skills.

[Specter]

My only problem with Champion is Remarkable Athlete should add half proficiency regardless of proficiencies you've taken. It's so dumb the feature doesn't improve your Athletics if you already took proficiency in it. It's a ****ty class feature because it will probably only effect like 2 skills.

Agreed. If you want to fix this, just give them a +2 in STR DEX and CON checks.

[Tanarii]

I took the Soldier background, and I now and again work the intimidate line. Other NPC interactions are less mechanical and very enjoyable, since I role play and don't rely on dice for success there.
That's great. Right up until you try to get an NPC to do take a risk for you without intimidating them, and the DM decides a dice role is necessary per the DMG charts.

[djreynolds]

Well lets look at the other fighter archetypes

Battlemaster (and other SD groups)... these are really good archetypes, in fact I'm playing one now, but you can run out of these maneuvers relatively quickly, maybe in 4-5 rounds. And then you are just a fighter.

Eldritch Knight is a good archetype, some good spells for defense you can select here, but because of multiclassing options.... a champion can grab 5 levels of wizard and perhaps be as effective.

The key to champion is making it work for you, PAM, TWF, GWM can really help elevate damage. But IMO S&B half-orc champion with either the new Brawny or a level of rogue can greatly increase your critical hits. And even 2 levels of barbarian for reckless attack

Is it the best archetype...no.

And unless you plan for 15-18 levels, multiclassing out is "probably" a better option, but I suggest you try out a champion.

I have played 3 of them to 15-18 levels and they were quite fun.

Do not be afraid to give up an attack for an athletics contest, as most monsters rarely have athletics as a skills, some have a high strength mind you, but most you can dump.

I find the champion's challenge draws me out to play, it is you and your weapon and your wit. No spells, no maneuvers, nothing else.

[Zardnaar]

No there are a handful of worse subclasses than the Champion. Main problem is the Champion is outclassed by the BM at all levels and by the EK in the high levels.

[LordVonDerp]

What many (apparently) disregard are the cases where Champion shines.
Because those cases don't actually exist.




- If you have a consistent way to get advantage (Mounted Combatant, Reckless Attack, etc.), Champion is excellent.

Even with advantage on every attack the Battlemaster is better.



- If you have ways of adding more dice to your attacks (Sneak Attack, Hunter's Mark, Savave Attacks or even Magic Initiate for Hex), Champion is excellent.
Those all require going outside the fighter.




- If you have more attacks than a regular fighter (Polearm Master, Sentinel, Retaliation, TWF), Champion is excellent.
You don't need to be Champion to get those.




- If your crits give you something else (GWM), Champion is excellent. (I suspect that by the time you get three attacks you're critting at least once per battle, but I haven't done math).
Once per battle is really bad relative to Battlemaster.




- If you want to build a fighter good at both melee and range, Champion is excellent.

Not really. Being good at both requires completely different stats.




- If you're playing in a campaign with little/risky resting (like Curse of Strahd), Champion is excellent.

Unfortunately the Champion needs just as much rest as anyone else.



So even if you think Champion is the worst fighter sub, you should at least recognize the corner cases where it's the best fighter.
Because 1) they're corner cases and 2) even then the Champion can barely break even.

[LordVonDerp]

They work as designed. that's exactly the problem.




I think you'll find that you are wrong.
They can use them, at a penalty. AKA: they can't use them.

[Citan]

Because those cases don't actually exist.

1. Even with advantage on every attack the Battlemaster is better.

2. Not really. Being good at both requires completely different stats.

3. Unfortunately the Champion needs just as much rest as anyone else.
1. Unless you actually give us a proper, mathematically demonstrated proof of what you say, that is just a blatant lie. But honestly, the only corner case in which I see Battlemaster being better is the nova attack on a decently high AC target. Otherwise, Champion with a source of constant advantage will be much (MUCH) better, especially against high AC targets. Battlemaster has 6-7 (don't remember the exact amount) die per short rest. You deal up to 4 attacks in a single Attack. Let's go with the most favorable situation, a GWM wielder: you use Trip Attack on a normal attack and succeed, now target is prone you have advantage. Next turn, rinse and repeat. So you can follow this for 6 rounds against one or several enemies between short rests. You are just less dependant than a Champion on ways to get advantage (best case a Champion would have to use his first attack to Shove prone so he loses the equivalent damage).
Of course a Sharpshooter cannot use this unless he also took Crossbow Expert.

If you want to use Precision attack it's even worse. You have 6 much "very probable Sharpshooter" per short rest, to spend on someone that deal 4-5 attacks per TURN.

2. Not really. Just go DEX. You can deal very respectable damage with a finesse weapon, or just pick up Crossbow Expert and be done with it: you are as efficient whether you are at 5 feet or 150, and in both cases, you still get autocrit on 18-19-20.

3. Unfortunately you are plain wrong. The Champion has no features relying on short rest, he's always 100% efficient. What's "worse", one of those features are an auto-heal which can easily reach 10 HP per turn, so basically his hit die consumption is halved, and he is much easier to keep alive than others (Champion drop to 0 > Cleric/Bard/whatever uses a Healing Word for like 7 HP > Champion's next turn start, gains Survivor, has now immediate 17 HP. Has a decent chance of surviving a hit from OA so he could attack then run away, while most other people would need to Dodge or Disengage to go away, and most other Fighters would be tempted to use their Second Wind.

The thing that comes to mind when reading your post is really... "Hater's gonna hate".

[KorvinStarmast]

That's great. Right up until you try to get an NPC to do take a risk for you without intimidating them, and the DM decides a dice role is necessary per the DMG charts.
I get a +1 to my persuasion checks thanks to my charisma. And if it fails, so what? I then try something else. If the DM is all into roll playing his NPC's, we deal with that as it comes. I don't expect an easy button.

AKA: they can't use them.
AKA, still wrong. :smallwink:

[Tanarii]

I get a +1 to my persuasion checks thanks to my charisma. And if it fails, so what? I then try something else. If the DM is all into roll playing his NPC's, we deal with that as it comes. I don't expect an easy buttonYou sound suspiciously like a person that wants to replace their Cha score with the players personal charisma via 'roleplaying'.

There is a balance to be had. Declare what you want to accomplish (intentions and approach), and then if the DM decides it is necessary, because it's not an automatic failure or success based on your declared intention and approach, roll the dice to determine the outcome. There's a handy chart in the DMG for that, once it's been decided that it's not automatically one or the other by the DM.

Yes, 'roleplay', as in making decisions about intentions and approach, can result in an automatic result if the DM decides. Automatic success from good decisions, automatic failure from bad ones. But when the decision isn't determined to be one of those, then it'll come down to a Cha roll. That's not 'rollplay' or 'easy button', that's the way the game is designed to work.

So it's all very well to say 'I roleplay'. But that's got squat to do with being a Champion or whatever, every class can do that. And it's all very well right up until you need to make a check. Then stats matter.

[Findulidas]

1. Unless you actually give us a proper, mathematically demonstrated proof of what you say, that is just a blatant lie. But honestly, the only corner case in which I see Battlemaster being better is the nova attack on a decently high AC target. Otherwise, Champion with a source of constant advantage will be much (MUCH) better, especially against high AC targets. Battlemaster has 6-7 (don't remember the exact amount) die per short rest. You deal up to 4 attacks in a single Attack. Let's go with the most favorable situation, a GWM wielder: you use Trip Attack on a normal attack and succeed, now target is prone you have advantage. Next turn, rinse and repeat. So you can follow this for 6 rounds against one or several enemies between short rests. You are just less dependant than a Champion on ways to get advantage (best case a Champion would have to use his first attack to Shove prone so he loses the equivalent damage).
Of course a Sharpshooter cannot use this unless he also took Crossbow Expert.

If you want to use Precision attack it's even worse. You have 6 much "very probable Sharpshooter" per short rest, to spend on someone that deal 4-5 attacks per TURN.

2. Not really. Just go DEX. You can deal very respectable damage with a finesse weapon, or just pick up Crossbow Expert and be done with it: you are as efficient whether you are at 5 feet or 150, and in both cases, you still get autocrit on 18-19-20.

3. Unfortunately you are plain wrong. The Champion has no features relying on short rest, he's always 100% efficient. What's "worse", one of those features are an auto-heal which can easily reach 10 HP per turn, so basically his hit die consumption is halved, and he is much easier to keep alive than others (Champion drop to 0 > Cleric/Bard/whatever uses a Healing Word for like 7 HP > Champion's next turn start, gains Survivor, has now immediate 17 HP. Has a decent chance of surviving a hit from OA so he could attack then run away, while most other people would need to Dodge or Disengage to go away, and most other Fighters would be tempted to use their Second Wind.

The thing that comes to mind when reading your post is really... "Hater's gonna hate".

To be fair champion probably is straight up better mathematically, however its hard to calculate when you can do things like trip attack and precision strike at moments when you really need it. An example would be to just straight up pile damage on a target until they go out on the first round of combat. That could well save up damage taken and avoid being hit by hard spells. I personally prefer battlemaster only because its more fun to actually have few extra abilities to the side, not because I think its just better.

[Elderand]

So it's all very well to say 'I roleplay'. But that's got squat to do with being a Champion or whatever, every class can do that. And it's all very well right up until you need to make a check. Then stats matter.

But the thing is, fighter get more ASI than other classes, so while neither the fighter nor the champion get specific buttons to push during social or survival encounters the way other classes might, it's capable of getting a couple feat to help with that, or it can afford to put a few stats point into some stats you wouldn't normally get without crippling itself in the process.

Other classes are more specific in what they can do, and are more suited to specific roles. The fighter this edition is more....not a jack of all trades since it can't do everything at once, but it can be more easily built to handle most secondary role passably well.

[Citan]

To be fair champion probably is straight up better mathematically, however its hard to calculate when you can do things like trip attack and precision strike at moments when you really need it. An example would be to just straight up pile damage on a target until they go out on the first round of combat. That could well save up damage taken and avoid being hit by hard spells. I personally prefer battlemaster only because its more fun to actually have few extra abilities to the side, not because I think its just better.
Well, I totally agree, that was the same example I gave. But that means that at most levels, in one single turn (Action Surge + Extra Attack + manoeuver on each), you went straight from "oh-powerful Battlemaster" to "bland Fighter" until your next short rest.
So you make a big difference with the Champion in the first turn, probably taking out a big opponent, and that certainly counts. But behind, you are plain worse.

If on the contrary you prefer being more tactical and use die sparingly as in my other example (one Trip Attack per enemy only), then you will be better than Champion against up to 7 enemies per short rest.

Well, I know that I'm being caricatural here because there are many more ways to use manoeuvers, but I'm sure you get what I mean.

That's why Battlemaster is probably lesser than Champion in pure effectiveness actually in theorycraft. Now, don't mistake me, I love Battlemasters because of these shining moments. But it's just that, some shiny moments. Manoeuvers are really too scarce a resource to allow me to feel overjoyed with a prowess often enough, compared to the frustration of being "just a Fighter" all the other time when Champion or Barbarian trumps me in damage, or a caster just has to spend a low-level slot to provide a potential full-minute frigtening or goading effect for example.

How many enemies are you fighting in average (not counting the small fry that you can 1-2-shot obviously) before you get a chance to short rest?
That, combined with the manner in which you decide when and which manoeuver to use, is the big indicator of BM potency, and it varies much from one game to another between your own choices and the capability to short rest.

What irks me a bit is just people such as the one I quoted previously who just open their mouth to spit at WoTC indirectly like they were amateurs, whereas the reality is that 5e is amazingly well balanced overall, included within a class. :)

[MeeposFire]

that's exactly the problem.


AKA: they can't use them.

More accurate to say that they wont use them. Not technically accurate but close to being fully accurate. They certainly could use them but outside of desperation it does not make sense to choose to willingly.

[Vogonjeltz]

Agreed. If you want to fix this, just give them a +2 in STR DEX and CON checks.

Although I agree that it's a little bit unsatisfying that the ability doesn't stack with proficiency, devaluing it isn't worth it. I'd rather have the full +3 (+4 if you get an ioun stone of Mastery) to every check, even those to which proficiency does not apply (i.e. Initiative, Every Constitution check, etcetera).


No there are a handful of worse subclasses than the Champion. Main problem is the Champion is outclassed by the BM at all levels and by the EK in the high levels.

Not really. The Battlemaster and the EK have higher burst capacity, but the Champion has a higher sustained damage per round.

Given enough combat rounds (about 40 iirc) the Champion's total average damage output exceeds the Battlemaster or EK's given the expected 2 short rests and 8 encounters per day.

[Prince Zahn]

Ugh I can't believe we're still on this...


That's no excuse for the champion. A subclass can be simple and yet still make character actually better at what they do. you seem to be either looking for an argument or simply dismissing all the perks the champion has according to people who actually played it, simply because it doesn't fit your opinion.

Anyway, it is an excuse for the champion, because that's exactly what it does - make you a better fighter using only passive abilities so that you don't need to overthink your fighter. Passive =/= weak. Depending on your use of your extra fighting style you might have a couple of more tricks up your sleeve, as opposed to being a fighter without them. And before you say anything - yes, fighting styles do make a difference, even though they are passive.


Except you can put those on any fighter.
You missed the point entiely. Simplicity while remaining effective is a strong feature for the champion, and is a breath of fresh air for many players compared to the 3.5e "analysis paralysis" fighter that only gave a million feats (three-quarters of which were either useless or prerequisites for the feats you really want.) so that unless you optimize your fighter will fall behind.

At the same time the other details of the character make him as customizable as the player needs to feel satisfied. For the casual player who just wants to hit stuff with the Champion, "less" (options) is more. If you want some versatility, or want a secondary role in the party, or more options in combat, there are indirect options you can take to augment your fighter. The champion fighter does what he's supposed to very well, if you want more options at the price of pure reliability, you'll take something else, but I can count on the Champion to win the endurance match.


AKA: better at skills you actively avoid using. again, secondary roles are a thing. If your friend who's playing a ranger is absent or kidnapped or whatever, it helps a lot if you can scout instead.

And acrobatics is a nearly universally useful defensive skill, it can't hurt to have it in a shaky situation.

If you were a DEX fighter, half prof to acrobatics or athletics wouldn't be taken for granted, as it opens up some options in combat. Even if it isn't ideal against every enemy.



Sure, that character would be better at untrained Dex skills, but still wouldn't be good enough at Athletics to bother using it.

This also requires a dex based fighter, which cuts the usefulness of crit chance. I find your lack of creativity disturbing. There is plenty you can do with half prof, a champion fighter would be wise to have at least positive modifiers in both strength and dexterity just for this reason. Unless your fighting giants or something not every creature has maxed out athletics or acrobatics, it makes them easier targets for athletics attack options even if you only have +4 or +5 than if you had no modifiers in the first place.




If only crits were actually good in 5e.as someone who lost half a million crits because i had to roll crit confirmation in 3.5, I'd say crits work rather nice and simple, just like the champion, maybe that's why you don't like it.




Crits are, by definition, inconsistent, therefore a class that depends on them is not consistently good at fighting. Also, there are no "exciting" crits in 5e, at least not for fighters. who said the champion is "dependent" on them? I just said he is more effective at dishing them out, and dishing out crits is exciting. I fought one CoS combat on these very forums at level 3 and rolled 2 critical hits because of the double crit range. I was hyped and everyone else was jealous. It's a cute perk that makes the champion deal a little more damage every now and then without using any #shortlongrest abilities. I don't see why that wouldn't be fun, especially when it is spontaneous.




Decent ones maybe, crits aren't great in 5e.crits are fine and fun in 5e. End of story, until you can actually back up your argument.



Except halflings can't use heavy weapons.
Halflings don't need one. They can deal. the same average damage as a greataxe with just a rapier with the Dueling fighting style, and still have room for a second fighting style for a defensive or backup offensive option.


That is in spite of the Champion, not because of it.
Wrong again. Because you keep forgetting that simplicity is key here, and simplicity with modular complexity while all around remaining effective is what makes the game vastly better than its competitors. The fighter hits stuff, the champion makes it better and more reliable that's the classes job, the rest of the stuff turn the class into a character. If you want versatility, you can get it with feats. If you want fire resistance you got a race for it. If you want to wield two weapons and still kick ass with a crossbow, you have both feats and built in fighting style options to get you there.


Battlemasters aren't flashy at all, they're just better than champions at fighting.

Are they really better? BM has only so many superiority dice, which means that although being a battlemaster gets you fancy battle moves WHILE dealing damage, which seems to be where all the hype is, you got, maybe 7 of those per short?

You mentioned something before about being dependent on unreliable mechanics, right? Why don't you try this experiment at home:

0. The typical adventuring day by 5e design expects 6-8 encouters between long rests. If you are lucky, you might get two short rests in a day (AKA 3 uses/day). The average encounter lasts for 3 rounds or so, plus you get 2 more actions from action surge.

0a. To go on the generous side, I'm taking the highest variables here (sans rolling damage) - 8*3*3*2+2 =144. Times your number of attacks, let's say, 4, that's 576 attacks, if that's all your actions are about, because attacks damage is what this its all about, innit?

0b. For the sake of argument, lets assume your weapon does 2d6. Because sometimes you wanna roll lotsa damage.

1. roll 576*(1d20+11) (if you don't have that many dice, 100* (1d20+11)s will also suffice) and record each result.

2.Anything that beats 16 AC (the typical monster AC) Is a hit, so roll damage for them.

3.Using a marker, Highlight all rolls with a natural 20 and roll crit damage for them, and highlight all nat 19s and nat 18s with a different marker, for convenience, you should keep a third marker for later to highlight superiority dice where you assign them.

4. To up to 7 out of every 36 of all those rolls you can add your superiority dice to either attack or damage, the rest of the options arent important for this experiment. Marker the relevant dice with the third marker.

EDIT: 4a. Lets say 9/36=1/4, because you also get a free, single "soup" die when you start combat without one.

5.Tally up the damage, please.

5a. That was fun wasn't it?

6.Next, take those same rolls sans the soup dice, and roll damage a second time for the nat 19s and nat 18s as well.

7. tally up the total damage for the second path, and compare.

Statistically speaking, you should get to add 1d12 to roughly 1 out of every 4 of your attacks (either to hit or to damage, which means maybe 1/16th (0.0625 or 6.25%) of all the rolls you should be making) as a battle master. As a champion, your life is simplified - all the attacks you hit stay hit, and your damage is practically doubled 15% of time (0.15 or 3/20).

Even if you didn't get more damage than a battlemaster, he used all his cards for this test, while you forgot to also factor in bonuses to skills, small bonuses to attacks, AC and/or damage from having more than one fighting style (or just take protection which is a cool use of your reaction) and PASSIVE REGENERATION.

Now then, Which would you say is a more reliable fighter? :smallconfused:


I'll say it one last time, the champion is holding his own just fine, thank you for asking.

[mgshamster]

0. The typical adventuring day by 5e design expects 6-8 encouters between long rests. If you are lucky, you might get two short rests in a day (AKA 3 uses/day). The average encounter lasts for 3 rounds or so, plus you get 2 more actions from action surge.

0a. To go on the generous side, I'm taking the highest variables here (sans rolling damage) - 8*3*3*2+2 =144. Times your number of attacks, let's say, 4, that's 576 attacks, if that's all your actions are about, because attacks damage is what this its all about, innit?

I see where the 8, 3, and +2 come from. Where does the other 3 and 2 multipliers come from?

Am I just missing something horribly obvious here?

[Tanarii]

But the thing is, fighter get more ASI than other classes, so while neither the fighter nor the champion get specific buttons to push during social or survival encounters the way other classes might, it's capable of getting a couple feat to help with that, or it can afford to put a few stats point into some stats you wouldn't normally get without crippling itself in the process.
Okay, that's fair. Especially in a single class and/or no feats campaign. They can certainly choose to get +1 mod at level 6, and another at 14, that other classes can't to be slightly better at non-primary ability checks.

But that's not particularly germane to my point being made that 'roleplaying' doesn't always elminate checks, including in social situations. It can, but it's not reasonable to cry 'rollplay' when a need for random resolution occurs as the result of decisions being made (aka roleplaying). And that applies to any class, not just Champions. Champions don't get some special 'avoid having to make checks due to decisions made' ability. Nor a special 'talkytime my way around Cha checks' ability, if you want to use worse definition of roleplaying = talkytime.

[Garresh]

To be fair champion probably is straight up better mathematically, however its hard to calculate when you can do things like trip attack and precision strike at moments when you really need it. An example would be to just straight up pile damage on a target until they go out on the first round of combat. That could well save up damage taken and avoid being hit by hard spells. I personally prefer battlemaster only because its more fun to actually have few extra abilities to the side, not because I think its just better.

It's not. Lets do a thought experiment. We will create favorable circumstances for a champion. Since crits only affect dice, we'll favor sword and board since two handers crits matter less due to power attack.

Let's pick a reasonably high AC as well. We'll say fighter hit on a 15 or higher. That means it has 6 possible numbers that can hit. Lets divide 100% by 6. This gives us 16.66~. That means a given attack roll against a high AC target has a 17% chance of being boosted by improved critical. At higher levels it would be around 33%. So we established a critical hit increase threshold on an enemy that is difficult to hit. That's essentially a flat DPR increase by that amount. Technically it would be a bit less since we're ignoring the increase on 20 already present, but hey we're giving Champion the advantage here.

So we have our crit rate. Let's analyze damage. A typical sword and board fighter runs dueling fighting style, so we'll factor that in. Oh, and let's make them a half orc for good measure. We're all about that fairness here. A typical attack will do 1d8+stat+2. We will assume no magic items, as these skew against the champion as well since flat bonuses are unaffected by crits. A crit does 3d8+stat+2. So normal does 4.5+5+2 or 11.5. A critical does 13.5+5+2 or 20.5. A little high school division puts us at a 78% damage increase on a critical. This means we can multiply our .17 times .78 which gives us a 13.26% dpr increase overall.

So now let's do a little more math. A battle master at level 10 has 5 superiority dice, which add 1d10 damage in addition to a rider effect of some sort. Since the die is applied after a hit that makes our math a lot easier. We're looking at essentially an extra 5.5 damage 5 times per short rest. So whereas champion is basically a percent increase, battlemaster just does a flat 27.5 damage extra per short rest.

Now depending on how you want to look at it, you can do the math as multiplying the base damage of a champion of 11.5 and multiplying by .1326, for 1.5249. Or we can multiply the added damage of a single crit by the probability of it happening as compared to a normal crit. That would be 9 damage multiplied by .17 which was our original probability of a hit being a crit against a high AC target, which gives us 1.53(I rounded up lol). Either way, that means that a champion does an extra 1.53 damage per attack on average.

If we take our 27.5 flat increase from battlemaster and divide by 1.53, we get 17.97. This is the number of ATTACKS needed to break even with Battlemaster on damage. Note this only counts attacks which hit, because lol math. So let's again be nice and assume 11th level for the Champion, whjch gives us 3 attacks so it can catch up faster.

The hit rate of .3 is being used because we picked an enemy thst requires a 15 on the die to hit. We could have gone lower, but its worth noting that as the hit rate increases, the net dpr increase for a champion drops. We're trying to give them peak crit rate increase here. I could probably make a graph and make a perfect function describing where and exactly under which accuracy ratings champion overtakes, but uh baby steps.

So 3 attacks per turn, with a probability of .3 to hit. This gives us .9 attacks on average hitting per turn. We divide the 17.97 of attacks to break even by .9 which gives us 19.96~. So 20 TURNS of full attacking to break even. Per short rest.

So let's step back for a moment. This means you need 4 combats of 5 rounds each where you attack with your melee weapon EVERY ROUND. This is per SHORT REST. If you cannot get close, and have to use a bow, your crit damage drops massively because no orcish bonus die. If you use archery fighting style, the increased hit rate also tanks the crit rate as a factor of hit rate(I really need to graph this. I'm sure there's a way to simplify this mathematically).

That's nice for battle master. Let's look at Eldritch Knight. We're apparently using level 11 as the point of comparison so let's stick with that. We established that 11.5 was our average damage per hit. 3 hits does 34.5 damage. Compare this to Eldritch Knight making 1 attack plus 1 green flame blade hit. That does the equivalent of 2 hits plus 4d8+ int. We're going to assume our eldritch knight is rather poorly optimized, and say his int is 14, so an extra 2 damage.

11.5+11.5+18(4d8) +2. This totals up to 43 damage per round. This is a 24% increase in damage overall. Booming blade is similar but I'm getting tired of math so I'm gonna try and wrap this up. The Eldritch Knight needs to get bonus damage via green flame blade or booming blade roughly half the time in order to break even with a Champion. This is actually a bit of an amusing simplification, because eldritch knight crits harder due to extra dice, but let's just not think about that right now.

That DPR increase is remarkably situational all things considered. I think if we make a conservative estimate we can say that the Eldritch Knight will only get one of those 2 20% of the time.
That means if we do thst little adjustment then Eldritch Knight only gets like a 4% increase to the Champion's sustained 13%.

Aha you might say. See, Champion beats Eldritch Knight! Maybe. But Eldritch Knight has access to spells. If the EK uses, say, Flaming Sphere, he can put out an additional 7 damage per round for 3 fights, without wasting any attacks. First turn maybe, but if you didn't start in melee its a net gain. Also it could hit multiple. Conservative estimate is 3 regular attacks plus 7, or 41.5 damage each round for 3 combats each day. So that comparison is getting rapidly more difficult since each of the subclasses recharge on different time intervals...

Let's wrap it up. You need to have 4 LONG combats per short rest for Champion to break even with Battlemaster on damage. Or more combats which are very short. Eldritch knight is harder to gauge, but appears to remain competitive in any combat involving close quarters, but also in fights where you are engaging at range so EK has a "prep" turn. So why is this bad? Two reasons.

First, that is assuming the IDEAL scenario. Enemies have high AC so crits matter more. Enemies were positioned to limit EK's ability to apply damage cantrips. Feats were COMPLETELY IGNORED because once added Champion falls woefully behind in melee or range, but I specifically wanted to avoid that because feats are optional after all. Likewise, I DID NOT optimize the EK or Battlemaster. I just ran their averages vs the Platonic Ideal of what a Champion is SUPPOSED to be. If you put them on EVEN playing fields, the break even point gets pushed WAY back. It might takr 6-8 combats of 5 rounds per SHORT rest for Champion to EVER catch up with Battlemaster. Eldritch Knights with decent positioning or terrain that isn't completely unfavorable at least match on damage, but probably pull slightly ahead.

This brings us to point 2. A common criticism of my analysis is I only talk about damage. You're right. I do only talk about damage... because Champions CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE. They have NO utility or control abilities. Remarkable athlete is uh... neat. But how often does that come up? The number of physical skills that both matter AND that you won't already have is VERY small. Not to mention physical skills are extremely common to take. Stealth, Slight of Hand, and Thieves Tools are extremely popular skills to take, and the average party will likely have expertise in them at that. Plus spells can cover some of those, such as Pass Without Trace or Knock(Noise is a factor though). Battlemasters? They don't have much utility either. I'd put Know Your Enemy firmly into ribbon category, and therefore useless for this analysis. Their control though is absolutely amazing. They can boost allies damage significantly via things like Commander's Strike with a rogue. They can use Trip Attack or Pushing Attack to force movement or knock prone...AT RANGE. They can literally SHOOT SMALL DRAGONS OUT OF THE SKY. Any creature that can be controlled by spacing/pushing can be controlled by BM. Eldritch Knights are CASTERS. It should be self explanatory why they are excellent controllers and utility platforms.

Conclusion

Math doesn't lie. A champion's only redeeming trait is a moderate DPR increase. But when you compare this to other subclasses, they actually exceed it in DPR, have nova potential AT WILL whereas Champions rely on luck, AND they have additional control or utility which makes them more useful literally all the time.

These increases are so marginal that even absolute garbage subclasses like 4 elements or Beastmaster actually do more for their base class since they have some utility.

To anyone who defends Champion, let me propose a thought experiment. Try playing a fighter WITHOUT an archetype. Literally just play them using base features. If you want some added crit potential maybe go Orc or whatever. Claim you are a Champion fighter. Don't show them your die rolls if at all possible. Maybe ask your DM if you can sit next to them and roll. See how long it takes someone to notice. I bet they never would. Or just see if you feel at all weaker for having no archetype. I think you will feel exactly as powerul as you would with the Champion archetype.

[KorvinStarmast]

You sound suspiciously like a person that wants to replace their Cha score with the players personal charisma via 'roleplaying'. AMigo, this isn't a computer game. It's a role playing game. You are treating it like point and click with that response you just made. You and I both know better. Player skill matters.

[Specter]

Because those cases don't actually exist.

Even with advantage on every attack the Battlemaster is better.

Those all require going outside the fighter.

You don't need to be Champion to get those.

Once per battle is really bad relative to Battlemaster.

Not really. Being good at both requires completely different stats.

Unfortunately the Champion needs just as much rest as anyone else.

Because 1) they're corner cases and 2) even then the Champion can barely break even.

I'd bother toanswer those, but Citan already did.

The one thing I'd like to point out is that you mention all the dice-damage methods as going 'outside the fighter', except Magic Initiate doesn't. So you're either a) not reading what you're replying to, b) misinformed, or c) just trolling.

[Garresh]

I wanted to add one little addition here. The comment above about Passive =/= Weak is true. The champion is weak because it is weak, not because it is passive. It could easily be buffed to function well passively. Make it so at level 3 it gets triple crit range and 1 extra weapon damage die on crit. If you do the math I promise it is not broken.

If you want to keep them purely passive, there are many ways to make their abilities not crap. Here's a few reworks of existing abilities at each Champion level which try to preserve the original goal.

Remarkable Ability: Whenever you score a critical hit with a weapon, you gain temporary HP equal to your fighter level. Whenever you make an ability check, if it is not made at disadvantage, you make the check at advantage.

Fighting Style Mastery. At level 10, you gain 2 additional fighting styles. Drawing a weapon, sheathing a weapon, donning a shield, and doffing a shield(including putting it in your backpack or wherever) now can be done without using an action, and without counting against your object interaction limit. Attacks at long range do not impose disadvantage on your thrown weapons.

Staggering Critical: Whenever you hit a creature with a critical strike, that creature has disadvantage on the next attack roll it makes before the end of its turn. If you hit a creature with a critical strike while it is already affected by Staggering Blow, it gains disadvantage on that many attacks it makes before the end of its turn.



That is how I would do a champion. More damage to the point it becomes statistically significant over other archetypes. Also a ton of "critical" themed abilities which make a fighter feel like they can always TRY at least, and makes them feel like they always have the potential to be a badass. Their long term DPR remains useful, and the mix of crit based durability and light CC effects make them thr masters of the sustained brawl. Plus now they can switch from shield to bow immediately which means they are absurdly good switch hitters. Strength based switch hitters now have decent range and can make thrown weapon fighters.

[djreynolds]

I have played champions, with shield master and expertise in athletics (for me from rogue... or now you can choose brawny or squat nimbleness)

Now shield master and expertise in athletics is powerful, and really any class can snag it.

Paladin/bard, barbarian/rogue, etc can make awesome use of this.

But at 15th level, its 3 attacks with advantage for a champion with possibility of crits on 18,19, and 20.

In time, the champion will rack up the critical hits and will miss... rarely

By 15th level your athletics score is 15 plus whatever you roll, most creatures will go down (size dependent)

Now at 18th level comes survivor, and with a well thought out champion with shield master and defensive duelist and resilient wisdom and lucky/mage slayer and maxed strength... you will survive

I would often plant myself in front of the enemy and take the dodge action (even stronger now with dwarven resilience) and spam my reaction (perfectly legal) with defensive duelist or mage slayer and grab advantage on spell saves vs casters or anything casting spells at me.

Now I love the battle master, I prefer GWM paired with battlemaster or sharpshooter as precision is awesome

And I love EK. IMO very tanky

But the champion is a challenging archetype to craft well, its not an easy class to play well. Yes it is tough to survive until level 15 and 18... but that's the game.

Also, the champion did not write themselves, go on sage advice and say something. When WOTC has those things to write your opinions, say something about your dislikes.

[Findulidas]

snip

You forgot to add the most important factor for a champion. A common source of advantage. Such as through spells, through grapple+shove, being a kobold, other player in team having put them prone and so on.

[djreynolds]

You forgot to add the most important factor for a champion. A common source of advantage. Such as through spells, through grapple+shove, being a kobold, other player in team having put them prone and so on.

100% correct, and gaining advantage consistently is tough. Perhaps I hide and attack from stealth, or grab magic initiate and once a day use faerie fire, etc.

A champion makes you work, its not a paladin deciding to post smite. Its not a barbarian recklessly attacking (actually a very good grab for the champion)

Could the champion be better written.... YES. Remarkable athlete is silly... I'm sorry.

Could survivor come earlier, yes.

But its okay, if you want a real challenge.

[Zalabim]

It's not. Lets do a thought experiment. We will create favorable circumstances for a champion. Since crits only affect dice, we'll favor sword and board since two handers crits matter less due to power attack.

Let's pick a reasonably high AC as well. We'll say fighter hit on a 15 or higher. That means it has 6 possible numbers that can hit. Lets divide 100% by 6. This gives us 16.66~. That means a given attack roll against a high AC target has a 17% chance of being boosted by improved critical. At higher levels it would be around 33%. So we established a critical hit increase threshold on an enemy that is difficult to hit. That's essentially a flat DPR increase by that amount. Technically it would be a bit less since we're ignoring the increase on 20 already present, but hey we're giving Champion the advantage here.

So we have our crit rate. Let's analyze damage. A typical sword and board fighter runs dueling fighting style, so we'll factor that in. Oh, and let's make them a half orc for good measure. We're all about that fairness here. A typical attack will do 1d8+stat+2. We will assume no magic items, as these skew against the champion as well since flat bonuses are unaffected by crits. A crit does 3d8+stat+2. So normal does 4.5+5+2 or 11.5. A critical does 13.5+5+2 or 20.5. A little high school division puts us at a 78% damage increase on a critical. This means we can multiply our .17 times .78 which gives us a 13.26% dpr increase overall.

So now let's do a little more math. A battle master at level 10 has 5 superiority dice, which add 1d10 damage in addition to a rider effect of some sort. Since the die is applied after a hit that makes our math a lot easier. We're looking at essentially an extra 5.5 damage 5 times per short rest. So whereas champion is basically a percent increase, battlemaster just does a flat 27.5 damage extra per short rest.

Now depending on how you want to look at it, you can do the math as multiplying the base damage of a champion of 11.5 and multiplying by .1326, for 1.5249. Or we can multiply the added damage of a single crit by the probability of it happening as compared to a normal crit. That would be 9 damage multiplied by .17 which was our original probability of a hit being a crit against a high AC target, which gives us 1.53(I rounded up lol). Either way, that means that a champion does an extra 1.53 damage per attack on average.

If we take our 27.5 flat increase from battlemaster and divide by 1.53, we get 17.97. This is the number of ATTACKS needed to break even with Battlemaster on damage. Note this only counts attacks which hit, because lol math. So let's again be nice and assume 11th level for the Champion, whjch gives us 3 attacks so it can catch up faster.

The hit rate of .3 is being used because we picked an enemy thst requires a 15 on the die to hit. We could have gone lower, but its worth noting that as the hit rate increases, the net dpr increase for a champion drops. We're trying to give them peak crit rate increase here. I could probably make a graph and make a perfect function describing where and exactly under which accuracy ratings champion overtakes, but uh baby steps.

So 3 attacks per turn, with a probability of .3 to hit. This gives us .9 attacks on average hitting per turn. We divide the 17.97 of attacks to break even by .9 which gives us 19.96~. So 20 TURNS of full attacking to break even. Per short rest.

So let's step back for a moment. This means you need 4 combats of 5 rounds each where you attack with your melee weapon EVERY ROUND. This is per SHORT REST. If you cannot get close, and have to use a bow, your crit damage drops massively because no orcish bonus die. If you use archery fighting style, the increased hit rate also tanks the crit rate as a factor of hit rate(I really need to graph this. I'm sure there's a way to simplify this mathematically).

That's nice for battle master. Let's look at Eldritch Knight. We're apparently using level 11 as the point of comparison so let's stick with that. We established that 11.5 was our average damage per hit. 3 hits does 34.5 damage. Compare this to Eldritch Knight making 1 attack plus 1 green flame blade hit. That does the equivalent of 2 hits plus 4d8+ int. We're going to assume our eldritch knight is rather poorly optimized, and say his int is 14, so an extra 2 damage.

11.5+11.5+18(4d8) +2. This totals up to 43 damage per round. This is a 24% increase in damage overall. Booming blade is similar but I'm getting tired of math so I'm gonna try and wrap this up. The Eldritch Knight needs to get bonus damage via green flame blade or booming blade roughly half the time in order to break even with a Champion. This is actually a bit of an amusing simplification, because eldritch knight crits harder due to extra dice, but let's just not think about that right now.

That DPR increase is remarkably situational all things considered. I think if we make a conservative estimate we can say that the Eldritch Knight will only get one of those 2 20% of the time.
That means if we do thst little adjustment then Eldritch Knight only gets like a 4% increase to the Champion's sustained 13%.

Aha you might say. See, Champion beats Eldritch Knight! Maybe. But Eldritch Knight has access to spells. If the EK uses, say, Flaming Sphere, he can put out an additional 7 damage per round for 3 fights, without wasting any attacks. First turn maybe, but if you didn't start in melee its a net gain. Also it could hit multiple. Conservative estimate is 3 regular attacks plus 7, or 41.5 damage each round for 3 combats each day. So that comparison is getting rapidly more difficult since each of the subclasses recharge on different time intervals...

Let's wrap it up. You need to have 4 LONG combats per short rest for Champion to break even with Battlemaster on damage. Or more combats which are very short. Eldritch knight is harder to gauge, but appears to remain competitive in any combat involving close quarters, but also in fights where you are engaging at range so EK has a "prep" turn. So why is this bad? Two reasons.

First, that is assuming the IDEAL scenario. Enemies have high AC so crits matter more. Enemies were positioned to limit EK's ability to apply damage cantrips. Feats were COMPLETELY IGNORED because once added Champion falls woefully behind in melee or range, but I specifically wanted to avoid that because feats are optional after all. Likewise, I DID NOT optimize the EK or Battlemaster. I just ran their averages vs the Platonic Ideal of what a Champion is SUPPOSED to be. If you put them on EVEN playing fields, the break even point gets pushed WAY back. It might takr 6-8 combats of 5 rounds per SHORT rest for Champion to EVER catch up with Battlemaster. Eldritch Knights with decent positioning or terrain that isn't completely unfavorable at least match on damage, but probably pull slightly ahead.

This brings us to point 2. A common criticism of my analysis is I only talk about damage. You're right. I do only talk about damage... because Champions CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE. They have NO utility or control abilities. Remarkable athlete is uh... neat. But how often does that come up? The number of physical skills that both matter AND that you won't already have is VERY small. Not to mention physical skills are extremely common to take. Stealth, Slight of Hand, and Thieves Tools are extremely popular skills to take, and the average party will likely have expertise in them at that. Plus spells can cover some of those, such as Pass Without Trace or Knock(Noise is a factor though). Battlemasters? They don't have much utility either. I'd put Know Your Enemy firmly into ribbon category, and therefore useless for this analysis. Their control though is absolutely amazing. They can boost allies damage significantly via things like Commander's Strike with a rogue. They can use Trip Attack or Pushing Attack to force movement or knock prone...AT RANGE. They can literally SHOOT SMALL DRAGONS OUT OF THE SKY. Any creature that can be controlled by spacing/pushing can be controlled by BM. Eldritch Knights are CASTERS. It should be self explanatory why they are excellent controllers and utility platforms.

Conclusion

Math doesn't lie. A champion's only redeeming trait is a moderate DPR increase. But when you compare this to other subclasses, they actually exceed it in DPR, have nova potential AT WILL whereas Champions rely on luck, AND they have additional control or utility which makes them more useful literally all the time.

These increases are so marginal that even absolute garbage subclasses like 4 elements or Beastmaster actually do more for their base class since they have some utility.

To anyone who defends Champion, let me propose a thought experiment. Try playing a fighter WITHOUT an archetype. Literally just play them using base features. If you want some added crit potential maybe go Orc or whatever. Claim you are a Champion fighter. Don't show them your die rolls if at all possible. Maybe ask your DM if you can sit next to them and roll. See how long it takes someone to notice. I bet they never would. Or just see if you feel at all weaker for having no archetype. I think you will feel exactly as powerul as you would with the Champion archetype.
Spoilered because this is level 20.
So, first off, the most favorable conditions are higher damage dice, higher level for more attacks, advantage, and (yes) being a half-orc. A greataxe or lance maximizes the specific benefit, but a greatsword or maul is still the more generally optimal weapon to use. (Actually dual wielding lances as a mounted combatant is a fun alternate thought experiment, but I'm using the 2d6 weapon today.)

So a half-orc GWF champion 20 does 2d6 damage normally and 5d6 damage on critical hits, so critical hits are worth 12.5 extra damage. (Level 20 because that's the most favorable level)

Normal critical chance is 5%, champion's critical chance is 15% so the champion's bonus critical hits amount to 1.25 bonus damage on every attack.

Advantaged critical chance is 9.75%, and the champion's advantaged critical chance is 27.75% so the champion's bonus critical hits is worth 2.25 bonus damage on every attack with advantage.

Assuming 20 Str and 19 AC on the target, the +11 to hit will connect 65% of the time, or 87.75% of the time with advantage. 5% or 9.75% of those hits will also be critical hits for the battle master, so without waiting specifically for critical hits, their dice (if used for damage) will be used on critical hits .05/.65 or .0975/.8775 of the time. This brings the average value from 6.5 at its base up to 7 for normal attacks and up to 7.22~ for advantaged attacks.

Bringing this to a close, the battle master can expect 6 or 7 dice per rest for 42-49 average damage normally or 43.33-50.55~ average damage with advantage. It takes 33.6 to 39.2 attacks for the champion to equal this damage normally, or 19.25 to 22.46 attacks to equal this damage with advantage. With two uses of action surge and 4 attacks per round, it takes 2.8125 to 7.8 rounds of combat between rests for the champion to match this damage depending on whether there's one or more encounters between rests and whether or not the fighter has advantage.

To address the elephant in the BM, precision attack and riposte can deal more damage per die, but they only deal damage. The champion has other benefits besides increased critical chance. If the battle master uses only precision and riposte, it has no utility.

To address feats, the BM probably wants GWM, PM, and martial adept. The champion probably wants GWM and sentinel.

The battle master's dice give them a controlled benefit that doesn't care about making 1 attack or 8. The champion's bonus critical chance is an uncontrolled benefit that gets better the more dice you're throwing each turn. The BM is more front-loaded, but the "champion 20 half-orc with a greatsword" works so well I don't see room to buff the subclass's damage unless you're okay with half-orcs being extraordinary as champions. That's probably actually acceptable, but there's no "extraordinary as battle master" race that I know of, for example.

[Zardnaar]

Although I agree that it's a little bit unsatisfying that the ability doesn't stack with proficiency, devaluing it isn't worth it. I'd rather have the full +3 (+4 if you get an ioun stone of Mastery) to every check, even those to which proficiency does not apply (i.e. Initiative, Every Constitution check, etcetera).



Not really. The Battlemaster and the EK have higher burst capacity, but the Champion has a higher sustained damage per round.

Given enough combat rounds (about 40 iirc) the Champion's total average damage output exceeds the Battlemaster or EK's given the expected 2 short rests and 8 encounters per day.

You probably won't get 4 rounds more like 18-24 with the 6-8 combats, maybe less with the WotC APs.

[Tanarii]

AMilgo, this isn't a computer game. It's a role playing game. You are treating it like point and click with that response you just made. You and I both know better. Player skill matters.I'm not taking some extreme stance here. I'm saying the rules explicity state that checks are a thing, at the DMs discretion, based on what the player is attempting to accomplish, how they are doing it, and if the DM determines a random ability/skill based outcome is needed. Checks are a thing. They happen. They don't happen all the time. But they happen.

You strongly implied Cha isn't important when you don't have a decent bonus or appropriate skill, because you can avoid them by 'roleplaying' instead of using the dice:
"Other NPC interactions are less mechanical and very enjoyable, since I role play and don't rely on dice for success there."

You got defensive about it, resorting to (minor) derogatory statements about rolling the dice. I mean I totally understand that. The way I'm posted about it probably made you feel attacked. And I'm sorry about that. But the implications of your comment seemed to me to go too far in the grognard 'never use the dice for talkytime' direction to me. Especially when you defended it by dismissing it as 'roll playing' or an 'easy button'.

Edit: BTW I agree player skill matters. Although what skills are required varies depending on game style. In a seriously gygaxian game, the correct skill is 'paranoia'. :smallbiggrin:

But I'm also saying player skill and roleplaying, both in the meaning of making decisions and talky-time, is not something that champions or fighters are in some way better at. (Nor, obviously, worse at.)

[Zardnaar]

Main problem with the Champion/fighters in general is a lot of their features do not kick in until the high levels so below level 11 they seem weak to the other warrior classes.

Level 20 is a bad comparison point, level 5-10 would be better,apparently most people are still not playing high levels and I don't think the fighter really cuts it level 1 to 10 vs the other warrior types.


You get your 3rd attack at 11 and 2nd action surge level 17 IIRC. The BAttlemaster is the best one, unless the champion sees a huge amount of combat the BM beats it for damage, if there is a rogue or something in the party the BM gets even better.

[mgshamster]

Why don't you try this experiment at home:

0. The typical adventuring day by 5e design expects 6-8 encouters between long rests. If you are lucky, you might get two short rests in a day (AKA 3 uses/day). The average encounter lasts for 3 rounds or so, plus you get 2 more actions from action surge.

0a. To go on the generous side, I'm taking the highest variables here (sans rolling damage) - 8*3*3*2+2 =144. Times your number of attacks, let's say, 4, that's 576 attacks, if that's all your actions are about, because attacks damage is what this its all about, innit?

0b. For the sake of argument, lets assume your weapon does 2d6. Because sometimes you wanna roll lotsa damage.

1. roll 576*(1d20+11) (if you don't have that many dice, 100* (1d20+11)s will also suffice) and record each result.

2.Anything that beats 16 AC (the typical monster AC) Is a hit, so roll damage for them.

3.Using a marker, Highlight all rolls with a natural 20 and roll crit damage for them, and highlight all nat 19s and nat 18s with a different marker, for convenience, you should keep a third marker for later to highlight superiority dice where you assign them.

4. To up to 7 out of every 36 of all those rolls you can add your superiority dice to either attack or damage, the rest of the options arent important for this experiment. Marker the relevant dice with the third marker.

EDIT: 4a. Lets say 9/36=1/4, because you also get a free, single "soup" die when you start combat without one.

5.Tally up the damage, please.

5a. That was fun wasn't it?

6.Next, take those same rolls sans the soup dice, and roll damage a second time for the nat 19s and nat 18s as well.

7. tally up the total damage for the second path, and compare.

Statistically speaking, you should get to add 1d12 to roughly 1 out of every 4 of your attacks (either to hit or to damage, which means maybe 1/16th (0.0625 or 6.25%) of all the rolls you should be making) as a battle master. As a champion, your life is simplified - all the attacks you hit stay hit, and your damage is practically doubled 15% of time (0.15 or 3/20).

Even if you didn't get more damage than a battlemaster, he used all his cards for this test, while you forgot to also factor in bonuses to skills, small bonuses to attacks, AC and/or damage from having more than one fighting style (or just take protection which is a cool use of your reaction) and PASSIVE REGENERATION.

Now then, Which would you say is a more reliable fighter? :smallconfused:




I contacted Mr. Zhan in PM about the numbers and we discovered he made a mistake. It's a simple error of trying to math while sleepy.

It's ok. Mistakes are ok; they happen to all of us. They key is we learn from it, right?

So whole reason I asked is because I was trying to follow up with your math in a different way than suggested, and found that in a single day, the champion outdoes the the battlemaster by approximately 150 damage (note: this is wrong due to the stated mathematical error).

But then I couldn't figure out where the original numbers come from.

Then I also looked at it from a reverse angle.

Basically, since the BM and Ch have the same base stats, we can eliminate all the standard damage they do (they're the same). The difference is sup dice and crits. They both can crit on a 20, so it's dice vs a +10% crit chance which doubles dice damage.

Sup dice is 1d12 (7.5) x 6 dice x 3 SR damage added to the day. 135 damage.

How many attacks would it take for the champ to reach 135 damage using crits? 2d6 = 7.

135/7 = 19.3 crits. Since we crit at a 10% rate, that's 193 attacks. Four attacks per round is 48.25, round up to 49 rounds. Average of three rounds per combat, and that's 16 combats.

At that point, I was wondering where those other multipliers come in. Because this says it takes two days worth of combat for a champion to reach one day's worth of superiority dice.

But if I was missing something (which I was also doing math while tired, so I figured​ I was), then with that other 2 and 3, that meant is would take 3 combats to match the superiority dice. Heck, even that 2 or 3 by itself would make them at least meet each other in the same day. But that's wrong.

As it stands, it takes 16 combats, with an average of 8 per day, for the champion to match the battlemaster's single day of damage.

However, there are some other ways to compensate.

If you were to find a way to add a single d6 (such as half-orc crit, magic weapon that adds d6, etc), it reduces it to 10 combats. If you were to extend combat to 6 rounds instead of 3, it would be 8 combats. If we were to add advantage to every round, it would reduce it to 9 combats (with advantage, chance to 20 is 0.098; chance to 18+ is 0.278; 0.278-0.098 = 0.18 chance to crit above and beyond the battlemaster).

Anyone of those brings them closer together, so if you were to mix them, you could match the battlemaster. If you were to use a battle ax instead of a greatsword, it would reduce it to 15 combats; but also be a half-orc, it reduces it to 7.5 combats:smallannoyed:. If you also had advantage, it would be 4.5 combats.

So a half-orc champion with a Battleaxe matches the damage potential of a half-orc battlemaster with a Battleaxe on a day with 7.5 combats and no more than 2 short rests; and if they both always had advantage, it would be reduced to 4.5 combats. If there was only a single short rest, it would be 3 combats.

Remember, everything we give to improve the Champion we *also* give to the battlemaster. It's irrelevant, because all the base damage is the same between them. At this point, we're *only* looking at the superiority dice vs the extra damage on non-20 crits.

[Naanomi]

Wait, aren't superiority dice damage doubled on a crit as well?

[Tanarii]

Average of three rounds per combat, and that's 16 combats.
&
As it stands, it takes 16 combats, with an average of 8 per day, for the champion to match the battlemaster's single day of damage.Given that 3 round combats are Easy combats, that means they fall short by about 4 / day. If you instead assume 2 combat rounds for an Easy combat, then it's 25 combats. Or a factor of 2.

Medium/Hard might run about 5 rounds, so that's 10 combats, and now they're falling short by a factor of 2.

Deadly might run 7 rounds, or 7 combats. Again by a factor of 2. Ish. (I'm being very rough here.)

Obviously "rounds per combat" is going to be a contentious thing. I'm not looking to establish that, so much as get an idea of if it's pretty off. It looks to me, roughly eyeballing it based on my personal experience with how long combats take, that we're looking at a factor of 2.

For your other factors, if your reducing it by 1/2 the number of combats, which it appears you are doing, then you're probably making them 'par' for the typical adventuring day.

Edit: (I'm just springboarding off your assumptions in your math. Because math analysis is fun. But obviously I'm making some huge assumptions in terms of length of combat rounds in a fight of X difficult, so I don't think I'm really 'proving' anything for actual table play. :smalltongue: )

[mgshamster]

Wait, aren't superiority dice damage doubled on a crit as well?

Crap.

Ok, so five percent of the time, a sup die will also crit. Alternatively, if the BM only uses them when criting, then all sup dice double.

If we assume a maximum amount, 135 * 2 = 270.

What's it take for the champion to match that?

270 / 14 (Battleaxe half orc crit) = 19.2 crits.

All advantage means 19.2 / 0.18 = 107.14 attacks.

107.14 / 4 attacks = 26 rounds.

26 rounds / 3 rounds per combat = 8.92 combats. (If it were an average of 4 rounds per combat, then 6.7 combats).

Even when we include battlemaster only using sup dice when criting, their damage is about equal across the day using a half-orc battle axe champ with all advantage.

[Solunaris]

So what I've gathered from all the math I just read over is that the Battle Master is actually better for damage than the Champion except in the case of a long adventuring day?

[Naanomi]

I know the analysis is leaving out feats and the like but...

GWM on a champion has two great advantages:
-Crits automatically hit, even with a -5 to hit
-More likely to trigger bonus attacks against opponents who don't trigger it through dying

[mgshamster]

Given that 3 round combats are Easy combats, that means they fall short by about 4 / day. If you instead assume 2 combat rounds for an Easy combat, then it's 25 combats. Or a factor of 2.

Medium/Hard might run about 5 rounds, so that's 10 combats, and now they're falling short by a factor of 2.

Deadly might run 7 rounds, or 7 combats. Again by a factor of 2. Ish. (I'm being very rough here.)

Obviously "rounds per combat" is going to be a contentious thing. I'm not looking to establish that, so much as get an idea of if it's pretty off. It looks to me, roughly eyeballing it based on my personal experience with how long combats take, that we're looking at a factor of 2.

For your other factors, if your reducing it by 1/2 the number of combats, which it appears you are doing, then you're probably making them 'par' for the typical adventuring day.

Edit: (I'm just springboarding off your assumptions in your math. Because math analysis is fun. But obviously I'm making some huge assumptions in terms of length of combat rounds in a fight of X difficult, so I don't think I'm really 'proving' anything for actual table play. :smalltongue: )

I'm not entire sure I follow you. What do you mean by "factor of 2"? That it takes twice as many combats as I stated, or twice as fewer combats? I'm not challenging you, just looking for clarity.

I used 3 rounds per combat because that's what Prince Zhan used, and I vaguely remember someone claiming that when you average out all the standard easy,medium,hard encounters, it comes to approx 3 per combat. But I haven't done such an analysis myself.

If we add more rounds of combat, it'll take fewer combats for the champ to meet the battlemaster. If we remove rounds of combat, it'll take more combats for the champ to reach the BM.

Basically, my conclusion is that those who claim giving the champion advantage are correct - that's about enough to shore up the differences between the champ and BM as far as damage goes across a single for adventuring day.

[Specter]

OKay, some hard-worked math, I appreciate that! Now we're getting closer to an absolute, as much as role-playing games will let us.

Some other things for you to consider in the math:
- Whenever you crit with Great Weapon Master, you get another attack, so for the Half-Orc example you'd actually have to add another full attack after every crit.
- At level 10, Champion will get +1 AC (if he's only interested in melee). How will that affect his survivability compared to other fighters?
- At level 15, crits are 18-20.
- At level 18, there's Survivor, which will leave a Champion always in at least 1/2HP before battle. Another one for the survivability aspect.

[mgshamster]

So what I've gathered from all the math I just read over is that the Battle Master is actually better for damage than the Champion except in the case of a long adventuring day?

Also assuming short rests so superiority dice reset, but yes.

Let's say we don't have any short rests. That's only 6 dice. So if the BM only uses it on crits, that's 86 damage. Our half-orc champ has a battle axe, so 14 damage on a crit brings the number of crits needed to match at 6. If we have advantage, that's 6/0.18 = 33.3 attacks. Four attacks per round is 8.3 rounds. 3 rounds per combat is 2.7 combats.

So on average, a half-orc champ with advantage requires 8.3 rounds of combat for every short or long rest the battlemaster gets to match damage, if the battlemaster only uses superiority dice on a crit.

If there are fewer rounds of combat, the BM is better. If there are more, the champ is better.

BM does good in bursts, champ does good in the long term.

Edit: This assumes the BM can even use all his sup dice on crits. How many attacks is that? 6 dice, criting 5%, is 30 rounds of combat. So even in this scenario, were not looking at the full 8.7 rounds for the champ, because the BM can't achieve that same amount of damage in the same time.

A closer analysis is that the BM uses it when he can and hopes for a crit, giving us an average of 47.25 damage per rest.

A champs crit can do that in 15.75 rounds as a baseline. A half-orc does it in 8.4 rounds. With advantage, it's 4.6 rounds. With an average of 3 rounds per combat, a half-orc champ with Battleaxe and advantage can match an equal BM in 1.5 combats per rest.

[Tanarii]

I'm not entire sure I follow you. What do you mean by "factor of 2"? That it takes twice as many combats as I stated, or twice as fewer combats? I'm not challenging you, just looking for clarity.Sorry I mean there are about twice the number of required encounters for a champion to be on par with a battle master as exist in the typical adventuring day. You'd have to go 2 adventuring days worth in a single Long Rest (with 2x normal amount of Short Rests) with no additional Short Rests other than the standard 2, for them to be on par.


I used 3 rounds per combat because that's what Prince Zhan used, and I vaguely remember someone claiming that when you average out all the standard easy,medium,hard encounters, it comes to approx 3 per combat. But I haven't done such an analysis myself. No way. That doesn't match my 5e gaming experience at all. That's far too low an average. But note that even with the assumption of more combats, the baseline still requires a double length adventuring day.

[Naanomi]

I know we are really focused on offense here, but Champions with Protection and Defense combat style with the regeneration factor and the Sentinal feat really hit all the 'defense master' buttons for me as well

[Findulidas]

I know we are really focused on offense here, but Champions with Protection and Defense combat style with the regeneration factor and the Sentinal feat really hit all the 'defense master' buttons for me as well

It comes so late though. I still havent really played a complete campaign at high levels and I bet most people havent.

[Naanomi]

It comes so late though. I still havent really played a complete campaign at high levels and I bet most people havent.
True enough, I've only GMed one that got that high; and of the two I've played in that got that high, one levels 'episodically' to get there quickly on purpose

[mgshamster]

Sorry I mean there are about twice the number of required encounters for a champion to be on par with a battle master as exist in the typical adventuring day. You'd have to go 2 adventuring days worth in a single Long Rest (with 2x normal amount of Short Rests) with no additional Short Rests other than the standard 2, for them to be on par.

Ah. Thank you. Yes, my own analysis has the same conclusion. A non-half-orc, greatsword champ without advantage requires twice the adventuring day as a BM.


No way. That doesn't match my 5e gaming experience at all. That's far too low an average. But note that even with the assumption of more combats, the baseline still requires a double length adventuring day.

The more rounds of com at there are, the closer the champ gets. As soon as you add something to the baseline (advantage, more dice, larger dice, etc), the gap narrows even more, to the point that where the champ can even surpass the BM.

A half-orc with a Battleaxe and no advantage needs a just over a single adventuring day. Give that Battleaxe +1d6 ice damage, and we're down to a single adventuring day. Give the champ advantage, and we're down to a single adventuring day. Give him both, and we've surpassed the BM. Edit: that assumes we give the exact same thing to the Battlemaster.

[Zardnaar]

So what I've gathered from all the math I just read over is that the Battle Master is actually better for damage than the Champion except in the case of a long adventuring day?

Yes and that excludes any other use of those dice.

The example used is also flawed, he used 4 attacks a round, most fighters are only going to have 1 or 2 attacks a round and combat in 5E only tends to last 3 rounds or so anyway.

If you only have 2 attacks a round the amount of superiority dice a BM gets doesnt change but the amount of crits a champion gets will. THose 10% xtra crits are also with the 18-20 crit range most champions will only have 19-20

So basically the highest level champion on a long adventuring day get a slight damage bonus over the Battlemaster assuming the BM only spends the superiority dice on damage (another flawed assumption) and the champion also has to use a great weapon to do it.

The Battlemaster fighter is just out right the best one, it gets beaten perhaps by the Eldritch Knight at the very highest levels (15+) and maybe by the Champion at damage over a very long adventuring day assuming the Battlemaster is not granting attacks to Rogues or someone using the -5/+10 feats as a champion with a great weapon in a ranged comnbat sucks while the BM can at least enable an archer or a ranged rogue.

Also Superiority dice scale up in size IDK if that was factored into the math.

Do the math at say level 5,11, and 16 and change the weapon to a d8 and don't use a half orc with a great weapon. The Champion example was a best case scenario, in a more likely scenario the BM beats the champion at damage with all weapons across most of the levels.

The BM is basically the best fighter all of the time, with the champion being 2nd best until the EK reaches the highest levels.

The EK is also hard to rate depending on if the SCAG cantrips are used and how hard arse the DM is with somatic components/uses errata. The Champion is decent enough for people who don't won't to worry about superiority dice and some players are bad at using the superiority dice.

Champion is still better than Beastmaster Ranger, 4 element Monk, Berzerker Barbarian and probably some others. I would also rate it better than the EK at most levels. I have some 3pp feats I want to try so my next PC is going to be a dual wielding halfling champion fighter with weapon specialization, a kensai Monk, transmuter wizard or arcane cleric depending on what the party needs.

[mgshamster]

Yes and that excludes any other use of those dice.

The example used is also flawed, he used 4 attacks a round, most fighters are only going to have 1 or 2 attacks a round and combat in 5E only tends to last 3 rounds or so anyway.

If you only have 2 attacks a round the amount of superiority dice a BM gets doesnt change but the amount of crits a champion gets will. THose 10% xtra crits are also with the 18-20 crit range most champions will only have 19-20

So basically the highest level champion on a long adventuring day get a slight damage bonus over the Battlemaster assuming the BM only spends the superiority dice on damage (another flawed assumption) and the champion also has to use a great weapon to do it.

The Battlemaster fighter is just out right the best one, it gets beaten perhaps by the Eldritch Knight at the very highest levels (15+) and maybe by the Champion at damage over a very long adventuring day assuming the Battlemaster is not granting attacks to Rogues or someone using the -5/+10 feats as a champion with a great weapon in a ranged comnbat sucks while the BM can at least enable an archer or a ranged rogue.

Also Superiority dice scale up in size IDK if that was factored into the math.

Do the math at say level 5,11, and 16 and change the weapon to a d8 and don't use a half orc with a great weapon. The Champion example was a best case scenario, in a more likely scenario the BM beats the champion at damage with all weapons across most of the levels.

The BM is basically the best fighter all of the time, with the champion being 2nd best until the EK reaches the highest levels.

The EK is also hard to rate depending on if the SCAG cantrips are used and how hard arse the DM is with somatic components/uses errata. The Champion is decent enough for people who don't won't to worry about superiority dice and some players are bad at using the superiority dice.

The BM was also at the highest level with the best advantage possible. Also, I was just informed by PM that I made an error: the average of d12 is 6.5, not 7.5 like I was using. But it balances out because it was used on both the BM and champ.

An analysis at level 5 is easy.

4 sup dice at d8. That's 16.2 extra damage per rest.

Not a half-orc, long sword (d8), no advantage will requires 33 rounds (or 11 combats at 3 rounds per combat). Battleaxe will be 25 rounds (8.3 combats) Half-orc will be 13.5 rounds (4.5 combats). With advantage? 7.2 rounds (2.4 combats).

BM is better in the short term, Champ better in long term - but champ *requires* something extra. Advantage, more dice, crit bonus, something.

That's the problem with the champ. Now, if the champ also had x3 for crit as a house rule? Now they're equal even without any in game additions.

[Solunaris]

Also assuming short rests so superiority dice reset, but yes.

Let's say we don't have any short rests. That's only 6 dice. So if the BM only uses it on crits, that's 86 damage. Our half-orc champ has a battle axe, so 14 damage on a crit brings the number of crits needed to match at 6. If we have advantage, that's 6/0.18 = 33.3 attacks. Four attacks per round is 8.3 rounds. 3 rounds per combat is 2.7 combats.

So on average, a half-orc champ with advantage requires 8.3 rounds of combat for every short or long rest the battlemaster gets to match damage, if the battlemaster only uses superiority dice on a crit.

If there are fewer rounds of combat, the BM is better. If there are more, the champ is better.

BM does good in bursts, champ does good in the long term.

Edit: This assumes the BM can even use all his sup dice on crits. How many attacks is that? 6 dice, criting 5%, is 30 rounds of combat. So even in this scenario, were not looking at the full 8.7 rounds for the champ, because the BM can't achieve that same amount of damage in the same time.

A closer analysis is that the BM uses it when he can and hopes for a crit, giving us an average of 47.25 damage per rest.

A champs crit can do that in 15.75 rounds as a baseline. A half-orc does it in 8.4 rounds. With advantage, it's 4.6 rounds. With an average of 3 rounds per combat, a half-orc champ with Battleaxe and advantage can match an equal BM in 1.5 combats per rest.

Isn't you math off a bit? I mean the average damage of the Superiority Dice on crits would be 78 and not 86 right? Unless we are saying that GWF would reroll the 1s and 2s on them as well but... That's also not be 86 it'd be 88 right?

In addition why are we working on the assumption that the Fighter has 4 attacks? That's not super useful for comparing the subclasses since 20th level play almost never comes into play right? Shouldn't we instead pick a level more appropriate to standard play? Like 5th when the Fighter get's it's first and biggest damage bump?

[Solunaris]

4 sup dice at d8. That's 16.2 extra damage per rest.


The Average of 4d8s is 18. If GWF rerolls these dice too then it's 21. Where did 16.2 come from?

[mgshamster]

Isn't you math off a bit? I mean the average damage of the Superiority Dice on crits would be 78 and not 86 right? Unless we are saying that GWF would reroll the 1s and 2s on them as well but... That's also not be 86 it'd be 88 right?

In addition why are we working on the assumption that the Fighter has 4 attacks? That's not super useful for comparing the subclasses since 20th level play almost never comes into play right? Shouldn't we instead pick a level more appropriate to standard play? Like 5th when the Fighter get's it's first and biggest damage bump?

I got the number because I was using a higher average for d12 than what is correct. 7.5 instead of 6.5.

I'm ignoring GWM on both.

4 attacks per round was used because that was the stated challenge posted by Prince Zhan. A level 5 analysis bus posted above.

[mgshamster]

The Average of 4d8s is 18. If GWF rerolls these dice too then it's 21. Where did 16.2 come from?

4 superiority dice at d8 per dice. That's all we're paying attention to. Weapon dice don't matter for BM because the champ has the same dice.

This analysis is about the superiority dice and how many crits it takes to match that. It ignore Nat 20 because both fighters get that. Remove everything that is equivalent between the two and only look at the differences.

Average of d8 is 4.5. 4.5*4=18. 18+(18*.05) = 18.9.

I've got no freaking clue where I got 16.2.

I need to stop posting while working. Multitasking is causing errors. Ugh!

I'll come back on my lunch break.

[Tanarii]

If you only have 2 attacks a round the amount of superiority dice a BM gets doesnt change but the amount of crits a champion gets will. THose 10% xtra crits are also with the 18-20 crit range most champions will only have 19-20Wait, what? How does the number of attacks change the % of crits a champion will get?

[Solunaris]

4 superiority dice at d8 per dice. That's all we're paying attention to. Weapon dice don't matter for BM because the champ has the same dice.

This analysis is about the superiority dice and how many crits it takes to match that. It ignore Nat 20 because both fighters get that. Remove everything that is equivalent between the two and only look at the differences.

Average of d8 is 4.5. 4.5*4=18. 18+(18*.05) = 18.9.

I've got no freaking clue where I got 16.2.

I need to stop posting while working. Multitasking is causing errors. Ugh!

I'll come back on my lunch break.

I was about to ask about the added (18*.05) but then I realized that was for crits. Also, I didn't think I was talking about any sort of weapon die... But perhaps I just wasn't clear enough in my double-checking of the maths.

[Solunaris]

Wait, what? How does the number of attacks change the % of crits a champion will get?

The Champions crit range expands at 15th level again. However, the BM's number of dice also increase at higher levels as well.

[mgshamster]

I was about to ask about the added (18*.05) but then I realized that was for crits. Also, I didn't think I was talking about any sort of weapon die... But perhaps I just wasn't clear enough in my double-checking of the maths.

No, I just misread you before I corrected the math. You were right.

(I'm failing at ignoring this while working)

[Solunaris]

No, I just misread you before I corrected the math. You were right.

(I'm failing at ignoring this while working)

When you get back to it, I think you probably should factor in Great Weapon Fighter (the fighting style and not the feat) because it does affect the average damage between the two differently. Assuming the Champion is an Ork it skews the crit damage slightly higher than it does for the BM causing the gap to close slightly faster I believe. And to help with the averages:

1d8 4.5 GWF: 5.25
1d10 5.5 GWF: 6.3
1d12 6.5 GFW: 7.333 (repeating)

It's about a .8 difference which would change the average damage added on a crit for an Orc Champion by a factor of 2 over what it adds to the BM Superiority Dice.

Edit: This is assuming you think GWF allows for a re-roll of Superiority Dice. If not then it is a much higher boost to the Champion.

[mgshamster]

I think that despite my errors (which are minor and don't change much), we can conclude the following:

Given a "standard number of rounds of combat of 3 rounds per combat and 2.5 combats per short or long rest

BM does higher damage than a baseline Champ on average per short or long rest, given a standard number of rounds of combat.

It takes twice the standard number of rounds of combat for a baseline Champ to match the BM.

However, if the champ has advantage and some extra dice, he can meet and even surpass the BM. But it takes 2-3 additional things.

[Solunaris]

I think that despite my errors (which are minor and don't change much), we can conclude the following:

Given a "standard number of rounds of combat of 3 rounds per combat and 2.5 combats per short or long rest

BM does higher damage than a baseline Champ on average per short or long rest, given a standard number of rounds of combat.

It takes twice the standard number of rounds of combat for a baseline Champ to match the BM.

However, if the champ has advantage and some extra dice, he can meet and even surpass the champ. But it takes 2-3 additional things.

I agree; and in the original spirit of the thread we can add that the BM Novas a bit harder since it can choose to add it's extra damage at will instead of having to luck into a crit. The BM also has the advantage of not possibly wasting it's extra damage by scoring a crit on a nearly dead enemy and has the advantage of being able to potentially double it's extra damage by adding the Superiority Dice onto crits.

[mgshamster]

I agree; and in the original spirit of the thread we can add that the BM Novas a bit harder since it can choose to add it's extra damage at will instead of having to luck into a crit. The BM also has the advantage of not possibly wasting it's extra damage by scoring a crit on a nearly dead enemy and has the advantage of being able to potentially double it's extra damage by adding the Superiority Dice onto crits.

I think that's a very fair addition.

We do have to be careful with the crits, as a battlemaster who saves *all* of their sup dice for crits will never achieve it.

Earlier I assumed 100% saved for crits, giving the BM the best advantage. A bit later I calculated how many attacks it would take for a BM to do that, and it became excessive. Without looking back, I think it was something like 30 rounds of combat for a BM to use all their sup dice on crits per short rest. That's when I started assuming a 0.05 multiplier and decided a BM would just throw it on if they happened to get a crit, but not save it for a crit.

[Solunaris]

I think that's a very fair addition.

We do have to be careful with the crits, as a battlemaster who saves *all* of their sup dice for crits will never achieve it.

Earlier I assumed 100% saved for crits, giving the BM the best advantage. A bit later I calculated how many attacks it would take for a BM to do that, and it became excessive. Without looking back, I think it was something like 30 rounds of combat for a BM to use all their sup dice on crits per short rest. That's when I started assuming a 0.05 multiplier and decided a BM would just throw it on if they happened to get a crit, but not save it for a crit.

I suppose I was trying to say that the option exists if the opportunity presents it's self. The BM has more options and potential to increase it's damage while the Champion is very... Flat.

[mgshamster]

I suppose I was trying to say that the option exists if the opportunity presents it's self. The BM has more options and potential to increase it's damage while the Champion is very... Flat.

I concur.

The appeal to the champion is it's simplicity. People who enjoy that are people who enjoy the champion.

Funny thing is, those who *don't* like the champ due to its simplicity are often prefer a simple +1 weapon over a magic weapon that would give a new button (such as 4/day +1d6 damage). I can't tell you how many times I've seen optimizers claim a simple +1 or +2 is superior because you can just plug and play, despite the fact that that's the same exact criticism they give for the champion. :)

[Zalabim]

I appreciate that you're trying to do the math for yourself. I might add in some other levels and examples later. Just wanted to remind you about Action Surge, since it cuts the number of rounds of combat needed to break even.

[Vogonjeltz]

Conclusion

Math doesn't lie. A champion's only redeeming trait is a moderate DPR increase. But when you compare this to other subclasses, they actually exceed it in DPR, have nova potential AT WILL whereas Champions rely on luck, AND they have additional control or utility which makes them more useful literally all the time.

These increases are so marginal that even absolute garbage subclasses like 4 elements or Beastmaster actually do more for their base class since they have some utility.

To anyone who defends Champion, let me propose a thought experiment. Try playing a fighter WITHOUT an archetype. Literally just play them using base features. If you want some added crit potential maybe go Orc or whatever. Claim you are a Champion fighter. Don't show them your die rolls if at all possible. Maybe ask your DM if you can sit next to them and roll. See how long it takes someone to notice. I bet they never would. Or just see if you feel at all weaker for having no archetype. I think you will feel exactly as powerul as you would with the Champion archetype.

You seem to not differentiate between the meaning of a Slope and a y-intercept in your claim that DPR applies to the champions features and the battlemaster dice. They are not the same thing.

Battlemaster's and Eldritch Knights, because of their additional short/long rest abilities have a higher y-intercept than the Champion.
The Champion, because of their improvements to always available abilities (i.e. improved crit range) have a higher Slope than the Battlemaster or Champion.

Given that, it's a basic y = mx+b equation to see that the Champion subclass exceeds the value of the other two subclasses after x rounds of combat. If you never reach x rounds, then of course the BM or EK would be better suited. If you do reach X (and given the 6-8 expected encounters of medium-hard difficulty per day, this is incredibly likely) then C is the better value.

I like playing the Battlemaster because I enjoy using the riders for situational advantages, it's a character that has clearly studied the art of combat as reflected in its abilities. Conversely, I like the Champion because he's simply better at all the physical aspects of being a Fighter. He hits harder, jumps further, and has more stamina than anyone else. There's a lot of value in that. A Champion is an exceptionally well-rounded subclass.


You probably won't get 4 rounds more like 18-24 with the 6-8 combats, maybe less with the WotC APs.

Your combats are only lasting 3 rounds? There's something wrong there. A hard encounter should be taking maybe 8-10 rounds without expending a very large number of resources from the party.


How many attacks would it take for the champ to reach 135 damage using crits? 2d6 = 7.

Point of order, a Champion would be using GWFS, so 2d6 = 8.3333 (re-roll 1s, 2s on a d6 values at 4.166667 instead of 3.5)

So those additional critical hits are worth ever so slightly more (1.3333 each), making it about 16 crits. Of course, this is only even if the Battlemaster also took GWFS, otherwise it's fewer critical hits.

[Klorox]

I like champions, but a large part of that is because I dislike extensive bookkeeping.

They're a great class for a casual player. Sure, an EK or battlemaster can do a bit more, but the champ will stay competitive with them.

[djreynolds]

Battle master maneuvers can run out, like possibly in 2 rounds

And the same thing with spells on the EK, you can go through spell slots just spamming the shield spell.

Because of GWM, SS, PAM, and shield master.... the champion is as good as any fighter.

The fighter class with its extra attacks can really make good use out of GWM and SS.

But that's the issue and I get it, what many are saying is, its not the champion archetype but the fighter class that is strong (multiple attacks, SAD, 5 feats by level 14)

And shield master and athletics works for eldritch knights and battlemasters just as well.

So for the champion, you must suffer and survive to level 15 and 18, then you are very, very tough to kill

It could be a better archetype if survivor came early, but then everyone would just poach it.

[Garresh]

The biggest issue for me is that for a subclass that is supposed to be simple, it sure is crap unless you spend a long time minmaxing it and doing math...
:smallsigh:

[djreynolds]

The biggest issue for me is that for a subclass that is supposed to be simple, it sure is crap unless you spend a long time minmaxing it and doing math...
:smallsigh:

I cannot disagree with this statement.

The paladin is simple, the champion actually isn't.

[mgshamster]

The champion is simple. There's no need to.min max, because the only people who care about the numbers are us. And hell, I'm only running the numbers because I enjoy doing the math, not because I care about ensuring they're perfectly balanced.

As we argue, I have a lizardfolk champion who dual wield battle axes with a 14 strength. Does he do less damage than the battlemaster on average? Yup. But he's a freaking blast to play - one of the most fun characters I've ever played.

In this edition, the numbers are [I[close enough[/I] that if you aren't a person dedicated to optimization and comparative analysis, you won't even notice the difference. And if it does bother you, it only takes a handful of minor tweaks to make up the difference.

Want the champ to be nearly perfectly balanced with the battle master? Do these three things: crit range eventually goes to 17-20, crit multiplier eventually goes to x3, remarkable athlete isn't limited to non-proficient skills. There - a simple change that makes them a bit more attractive while keeping the simplicity of the class and makes the numbers match up with other classes/archetypes.

[Naanomi]

The champion is simple. There's no need to.min max, because the only people who care about the numbers are us. And hell, I'm only running the numbers because I enjoy doing the math, not because I care about ensuring they're perfectly balanced.

As we argue, I have a lizardfolk champion who dual wield battle axes with a 14 strength. Does he do less damage than the battlemaster on average? Yup. But he's a freaking blast to play - one of the most fun characters I've ever played.
I agree with this. The fact that you can still have fun with the class speaks volumes to it being at least in the ballpark of well designed.

My son plays a Hilldwarf champion with axe and shield; doesn't matter his race choice wasn't optimal, that his damage is way way down compared to the party thief, that the campaign will likely never get to his big 'tank' ability... he loves the idea of a stalwart little ball of steel and champion does it for him.

[Zalabim]

The biggest issue for me is that for a subclass that is supposed to be simple, it sure is crap unless you spend a long time minmaxing it and doing math...
:smallsigh:

But once you do the math you see that the class works when you use big weapons (Greatswords, GWF, GWM, wow!), get big crits (Half-orcs, wow!), and have advantage (two dice, wow!). So you don't actually have to minmax and do the math. You just have to think like a Timmy and pick all the big numbers.

[mgshamster]

But once you do the math you see that the class works when you use big weapons (Greatswords, GWF, GWM, wow!), get big crits (Half-orcs, wow!), and have advantage (two dice, wow!). So you don't actually have to minmax and do the math. You just have to think like a Timmy and pick all the big numbers.

Works better with greataxe than it does greatsword, because half-orc can add that extra d12 instead of a measly d6. :)

Also, what's a Timmy?

[Naanomi]

Also, what's a Timmy?
Timmy is a Magic term, one of 3-5 'player profiles'... Timmy likes big numbers and big effects, even if they are not 'optimal' for winning the game

(Spike is the pure winning optimizer... Johnny is the crearive 'how fast can I run' type optimizer... Vorthos just wants her character to RP according to her vision and doesn't even care it is a Wizard/Monk... Melvin cares more that the classes are balanced than what he is actually playing)

[Garresh]

The champion is simple. There's no need to.min max, because the only people who care about the numbers are us. And hell, I'm only running the numbers because I enjoy doing the math, not because I care about ensuring they're perfectly balanced.

As we argue, I have a lizardfolk champion who dual wield battle axes with a 14 strength. Does he do less damage than the battlemaster on average? Yup. But he's a freaking blast to play - one of the most fun characters I've ever played.

In this edition, the numbers are [I[close enough[/I] that if you aren't a person dedicated to optimization and comparative analysis, you won't even notice the difference. And if it does bother you, it only takes a handful of minor tweaks to make up the difference.

Want the champ to be nearly perfectly balanced with the battle master? Do these three things: crit range eventually goes to 17-20, crit multiplier eventually goes to x3, remarkable athlete isn't limited to non-proficient skills. There - a simple change that makes them a bit more attractive while keeping the simplicity of the class and makes the numbers match up with other classes/archetypes.

Those changes would work too. The math generally shows the 18-20 is enough to catch up somewhat, and a little extra mult should do it.

Also lets be honest. The only reason that character is so great is because it's a lizardfolk. They're clearly the best race in existence and anyone who doubts it needs a head chomping.

[Specter]

But once you do the math you see that the class works when you use big weapons (Greatswords, GWF, GWM, wow!), get big crits (Half-orcs, wow!), and have advantage (two dice, wow!). So you don't actually have to minmax and do the math. You just have to think like a Timmy and pick all the big numbers.

This. Go Half-Orc with GWM, and Champion is the best option.


Conclusion

Math doesn't lie. A champion's only redeeming trait is a moderate DPR increase. But when you compare this to other subclasses, they actually exceed it in DPR, have nova potential AT WILL whereas Champions rely on luck, AND they have additional control or utility which makes them more useful literally all the time.

These increases are so marginal that even absolute garbage subclasses like 4 elements or Beastmaster actually do more for their base class since they have some utility.

To anyone who defends Champion, let me propose a thought experiment. Try playing a fighter WITHOUT an archetype. Literally just play them using base features. If you want some added crit potential maybe go Orc or whatever. Claim you are a Champion fighter. Don't show them your die rolls if at all possible. Maybe ask your DM if you can sit next to them and roll. See how long it takes someone to notice. I bet they never would. Or just see if you feel at all weaker for having no archetype. I think you will feel exactly as powerul as you would with the Champion archetype.

You mean, they won't notice I'm critting more than anyone else? Or that I have better AC than the other fighter/Can use my reaction to give disadvantage to a foe's attack? Or that I'm starting any fight with at least half HP? Or... what?

[mgshamster]

Those changes would work too. The math generally shows the 18-20 is enough to catch up somewhat, and a little extra mult should do it.

Also lets be honest. The only reason that character is so great is because it's a lizardfolk. They're clearly the best race in existence and anyone who doubts it needs a head chomping.

Ok. Fair point.

There really is nothing better than taking a bite out of your enemy *during* battle while they're still alive. "Surrender, or I will eat more of you."

[Dudu]

I'm gonna join OP here and say Fighter is usually the strongest of the three. The fighter knows his role. You need a guy to kill baddies? Fighter. Second to none.

The other two fool around. I played and in my team I had all three classes, with me usually being a full caster.

The ranger can do some damage, is extremely useful in campaigns that involve survival and has some handy spells. Depending on the campaign, he might be better than the fighter. The vannila ranger. The upgraded one is closer to fighter in fight potential so he might be better than fighter more often.

Monk is by far the worst. He stuns, he has some punches. Fightwise, his damage potential is pathetic. His stun is cool, but the fighter kills and killing is a better way to get rid of an opponent. Monk can reach far, but so does the arrow of a ranger, or the spell of a wizard. My friend who played a monk for almost a dozen of sessions couldn't help but notice that he was weighting down the party, so he decided to roll a druid instead and was since them much more useful.

Speaking of druid, this is where I think the ranger might be "fooling around". Druids get all those OP conjure spells much earlier. One subclass grants extra spells and wizardlike recovery while the other allows you to wildshape into combat form.

The reason I respect ranger is because he, no matter what, has his role. He is the undisputed champion at survival related activities. However, the campaign might not employ those, so his utility varies from "worse fighter" or "much worse druid" to "most vital member of the party", pending on how much crucial survival is.
I'm yet to play a campaign where combat is not one, if not the one, most important aspect of it. And fighter being the king of it, he deserves some recognition.

In the campaign I'm playing, I'm the cleric, we have a wizard, and this one guy is a fighter, among other players. But the best use of concentration for wizard is hasting the fighter for the sheer damage he can unleash. It helps that he has decent AC and plenty HP too, so keeping him alive is a breeze as a cleric. In some battles, my own prime use for concentration is to cast bless on said fighter to allow him to GWM more frequently.

The fighter, btw, isn't a champion. He is a BM, so he contributes more than mere damage dealing. So, to keep on topic, I do think champion ranks among the weakest subclasses... if you dedicate yourself to it. I agree with you that he is a dip class. Which is bad design, it's 3.5 all over again where fighter had at most 4 levels, monks had 2 and Rogues had 3.

[Klorox]

The biggest issue for me is that for a subclass that is supposed to be simple, it sure is crap unless you spend a long time minmaxing it and doing math...
:smallsigh:

I guess if you consider boosting strength and choosing half orc as a long time min maxing, you'd be correct.

[Zardnaar]

The other Champion I have been looking at is a half Orc with the UA racial feats. One of them grants expertise in athletics and if you take the shield master feat that is some bonus action knock em prone+ advantage to hit while down.

The numbers won't be as big as the GWF but damage might be more consistent since you get advantage to hit prone targets (twice as many crits), and any other melee PC gets advantage to hit them as well.

The other crit fisher build I want to test is a halfling dual wielder but its using 2 3pp feats- weapon specialization and small arms master. Basically it gives.

+2 strength
reroll 1's rolled (2 if halfling)
dex and strength to damage with small weapons (short swords, daggers)
ammunition property to thrown weapons. Action surge+ throw daggers or spears.

You can have 14 strength and 18 dex with the default array by level 6, 3 attacks a round for 1d6+6 per attack. Great weapon fighter without the -5/+10 part will get 2d6+4 X2 but your dex fighter will be a lot better at range with a bow and thrown weapons/skills. Halfling avg damage is 28.5, gwf 22 +cleave and situationa/ -5/+10.

Rolled stats the halfling can get some very silly things going as well without having to suck up a -5 to hit.

[KorvinStarmast]

The other Champion I have been looking at is a half Orc with the UA racial feats. One of them grants expertise in athletics and if you take the shield master feat that is some bonus action knock em prone+ advantage to hit while down. Works fine until you start dealing with creatures Huge and up, as I discovered.

Someone further up commented on Monk versus fighter. In the same party, we call that synergy: I stun 'em, you clean their clocks, next victim. :smallbiggrin: (Magic using person, slow the rest down ...)

[ZorroGames]

Right now, playing with the last adhoc group - Halfling Rogue, Two Dex archers, and warlock, my unoptimized by role play design Mountain Dwarf monk basically was the gate/rock/anvil/meat shield and, while it worked, it was too close too often for my taste. I have a Moutain Dwarf Champion (to be) I want to play and should have taken to the beginneer's AL game as an option.

Worst subclass? Debatable. Play what pleases you.

[Vogonjeltz]

Want the champ to be nearly perfectly balanced with the battle master? Do these three things: crit range eventually goes to 17-20, crit multiplier eventually goes to x3, remarkable athlete isn't limited to non-proficient skills. There - a simple change that makes them a bit more attractive while keeping the simplicity of the class and makes the numbers match up with other classes/archetypes.

Given the expected number of combats that would be imbalanced by a wide margin in favor of the Champion.

[mgshamster]

Given the expected number of combats that would be imbalanced by a wide margin in favor of the Champion.

Not against a fully damage oriented battlemaster. You're still looking at about 7-9 encounters for the champ to do as much damage as the battlemaster across an entire adventuring day with two short rests (great axe, not half orc).

Also, it helps make non-half-orc, non-gwf weapon champs better. For those who also pick the half orc gwf champ - yeah, it'll knock the champ over the edge of the battlemaster. Especially if the battlemaster also isn't focused on damage.

But remember, the champ is boring, according to the vast majority of complaints about the class. So the trade off here is better damage with a simple/boring class vs more versatility and gaming options.

[scalyfreak]

But remember, the champ is boring, according to the vast majority of complaints about the class.

That still does not make sense to me.

In a roleplaying game, your character is only as boring as you make it. Right?

[MaxWilson]

That still does not make sense to me.

In a roleplaying game, your character is only as boring as you make it. Right?

There's a distinction between claiming that a class is boring and claiming that a character is boring. If there were a class called SackOfHP that gave you no class features at all except 20 HP per level, Ragnar the 10th level SackOfHP could still be quite interesting due to his utter fearlessness (with the sole exception of his spider phobias!) and his wild tales of amorous adventures at extended family reunions--but he'd be interesting despite his complete lack of class features and not because of his class.

The problem with the Champion as written IMO is that its 3rd level feature is interesting only to people who don't know how to do math, and its 7th level feature is interesting only to those who forgot to take useful skills like Athletics and Stealth. It's ten levels in before the Champion gets an interesting feature; then at 15th level they get yet another uninteresting feature. Survivor is quite interesting but comes too late to salvage the class.

For what it's worth, here are my house rules for Champions:

Champions: Improved Critical lets you auto-crit on natural 17-20, Superior Critical lets you auto-crit on 13-20, and Remarkable Athlete stacks with proficiency. So a Str 18 Champion 9 would have +4+4+2=+10 to Strength (Athletics) checks, not just +8.


That makes both the 3rd and 7th level features interesting. Improved Critical this way winds up being a DPR boost of about 1 HP per attack with a greatsword, roughly comparable with a +1 weapon, and competitive with the Battlemaster's superiority dice or Eldritch Knight's access to cantrips/Shield.

[scalyfreak]

There's a distinction between claiming that a class is boring and claiming that a character is boring. If there were a class called SackOfHP that gave you no class features at all except 20 HP per level, Ragnar the 10th level SackOfHP could still be quite interesting due to his utter fearlessness (with the sole exception of his spider phobias!) and his wild tales of amorous adventures at extended family reunions--but he'd be interesting despite his complete lack of class features and not because of his class.

Then why play that class? Why not play another class that has more interesting features, and just ignore this one?

I guess my question is, why bother fixing what can be discarded by whoever dislikes it so much? That is kind of what house rules are for.

[MaxWilson]

Then why play that class? Why not play another class that has more interesting features, and just ignore this one?

I guess my question is, why bother fixing what can be discarded by whoever dislikes it so much? That is kind of what house rules are for.

Presumably the answer is, "Because DMs are all amateur game designers, and many of us like tinkering with empty design space." If I as a DM feel that Champion is so boring that (as you say) people are unlikely to play it, then that niche is effectively empty design space. If I can fill that design space by creating a class which is identical to a Champion except for a couple of little tweaks in my house rules, well, that's very efficient and elegant, so maybe I'll do it.

If you don't feel this urge, it would be hard to explain to you why other people do--just as you might struggle to explain to someone why you run or play TTRPGs in the first place, to someone who doesn't.

[djreynolds]

My only issue is the archetype needs just a pinch more to be great.

Now for some players it is about more damage, or being the best with weapons.

But for me I want something that is fun

I have introduced lots of changes at my table to the champion archetype. These are the most popular.

1. We tried out every time a champion crits, his team mates are under the effects of the bless spell til the next turn. But if a champion rolls a 1 or 2, the party suffers from the bane spell til their next turn... this was fun.

2. We have tried out (competitor), every time a team mate scores a critical hit, the champion gets a free attack if the champion has a reaction still... no one shows up a champion

A battle master can really define themselves with their maneuvers selection, the champion's physical prowess isn't all that spectacular....

So for me, it was more about the competitiveness of the champion

[Citan]

I have introduced lots of changes at my table to the champion archetype. These are the most popular.

1. We tried out every time a champion crits, his team mates are under the effects of the bless spell til the next turn. But if a champion rolls a 1 or 2, the party suffers from the bane spell til their next turn... this was fun.

Hey!
The first idea is extremely good, well done! Totally coherent with the word Champion itself (people indeed tend to idealize Champions and "use" them to get inspired) and very balanced.
Just to be sure, how would you rule if Champion mixes both in the same turn (crit and fail)? I'd say they both wash out...

[Zalabim]

As long as it's the subject, I'll mention again that my house rule for Champions would be adding "You get a d6. Once per turn, you can add that d6 to one ability check, attack roll, damage roll, or saving throw that you make," as a level 3 ability. Maybe make it on own turn only, or actually 1 d6 that refreshes at the start of your turn. Or opening up additional options at higher tiers, or limiting the ability checks to only the physical abilities, but any of that would be after playtesting and feedback. The quoted is what I'd do for my first trial. Simple. Powerful. Interesting? I don't know.


For what it's worth, here are my house rules for Champions:

Champions: Improved Critical lets you auto-crit on natural 17-20, Superior Critical lets you auto-crit on 13-20, and Remarkable Athlete stacks with proficiency. So a Str 18 Champion 9 would have +4+4+2=+10 to Strength (Athletics) checks, not just +8.


That makes both the 3rd and 7th level features interesting. Improved Critical this way winds up being a DPR boost of about 1 HP per attack with a greatsword, roughly comparable with a +1 weapon, and competitive with the Battlemaster's superiority dice or Eldritch Knight's access to cantrips/Shield.
Your definition of interesting seems to be "mechanically powerful." Anyway, mainly quoting this for reference down below.

Want the champ to be nearly perfectly balanced with the battle master? Do these three things: crit range eventually goes to 17-20, crit multiplier eventually goes to x3, remarkable athlete isn't limited to non-proficient skills. There - a simple change that makes them a bit more attractive while keeping the simplicity of the class and makes the numbers match up with other classes/archetypes.
I'm going to assume, mainly for the sake of convenience, that these changes would be in the stage of level 3 getting 19-20 critical range and a bonus critical die, and then level 15 getting 17-20 critical range.

Now let me table that for you-all.


1d8
20/x2
19+/x2
19+/x3
17+/x2
18+/x2
17+/x3
13+/x2


Unmodified
0.225
0.45
0.9
0.9
0.675
1.8
1.8


Advantage
0.43875
0.855
1.71
1.62
1.24875
3.24
2.88


Half Orc
0.45
0.9
1.35
1.8
1.35
2.7
3.6


Half Orc + Adv
0.8775
1.71
2.565
3.24
2.4975
4.86
5.76



This is just the amount of bonus damage that critical hits are responsible for on one attack. Analyzing that, I'm pleased that both mgshamster's and MaxWilson's changes have the same numeric result normally. They differ somewhat in how they interact with other features, like advantage (mgshamster's benefits more) and half-orc's savage attacks (MaxWilson's benefits more).

For the purpose of drawing comparisons with BM, adding damage after a hit since those have secondary effects to compare to Champion's other features, 1d8 is worth (very roughly) [4.5*(1+0.05/0.65)] 4.85 on a normal attack and [4.5*(1+0.0975/0.8775)] 5 with advantage. 1d10 is worth (same formula) 5.92 normally and 6.11 with advantage. 1d12 is worth (ditto) 7 normally and 7.22 with advantage.

Previously, a vanilla half-orc champion with a greatsword and GWF matches at 7.76 attacks per d8 without advantage, or matches at 4.32 attacks per d8 with advantage. With either change, any non-half-orc with any 1d8 weapon matches at 7.19 attacks per d8, or matches at 3.93/4.23 attacks per d8 with advantage, marking this as a stark move away from needing absolutely optimal builds to compete with BM's bonus damage at least.

[Citan]

As long as it's the subject, I'll mention again that my house rule for Champions would be adding "You get a d6. Once per turn, you can add that d6 to one ability check, attack roll, damage roll, or saving throw that you make," as a level 3 ability. Maybe make it on own turn only, or actually 1 d6 that refreshes at the start of your turn. Or opening up additional options at higher tiers, or limiting the ability checks to only the physical abilities, but any of that would be after playtesting and feedback. The quoted is what I'd do for my first trial. Simple. Powerful. Interesting? I don't know.


Your definition of interesting seems to be "mechanically powerful." Anyway, mainly quoting this for reference down below.

You are implying that MaxWilson is mixing powerful with interesting, but aren't you the same?
Getting a free 1d6 on a roll each turn is breaking all balance in the game.
Bardic Inspiration? Costs a resource.
Battlemaster Manoeuvers? Costs a resource.
Bend Luck? Costs a resource.
Bless? Costs a resource.

1. While getting a +1d6 on damage roll is very mundane, and on attack roll pretty much a Sneak Attack that does not say its name...
2. +1d6 on an ability check is Jack of All Trades, except better, because a) applies to ALL checks (even when you are proficient) and b) making a check takes an Action, so it's basically a +1d6 to every ability check you make in your life.
3. +1d6 on a saving throw is just smacking Sorcerers and Clerics in the face: saving throw is necessarily during other people's turn, so it's basically "add in average half-proficiency to every throw you make in your life".
And you would get all of that in a single package? Seriously... Champion would instantly go up into the top 3 dip for any character really.

Either keep it free but limit...
a) to own turn,
b) to attack rolls or damage roll,
c) or abilities he's proficient in and based on physical attributes.

Or keep it as is but make it a resource, like a number equal to half your Fighter level per long rest.

[Vogonjeltz]

Not against a fully damage oriented battlemaster. You're still looking at about 7-9 encounters for the champ to do as much damage as the battlemaster across an entire adventuring day with two short rests (great axe, not half orc).

Also, it helps make non-half-orc, non-gwf weapon champs better. For those who also pick the half orc gwf champ - yeah, it'll knock the champ over the edge of the battlemaster. Especially if the battlemaster also isn't focused on damage.

But remember, the champ is boring, according to the vast majority of complaints about the class. So the trade off here is better damage with a simple/boring class vs more versatility and gaming options.

It's not the number of fights per se, it's the number of combat rounds.

However, given that a Hard fight likely will take 10 rounds if no significant resources are expended, we're looking at anywhere from 64-80 rounds anyway, more than enough.

[mgshamster]

It's not the number of fights per se, it's the number of combat rounds.

True. I've been assuming 3 rounds per combat.

So to back calculate, that's approximately 21-27 rounds.


However, given that a Hard fight likely will take 10 rounds if no significant resources are expended, we're looking at anywhere from 64-80 rounds anyway, more than enough.

Yup!