Champion Fighter and the Assassin Rogue are great

[BoutsofInsanity]

The Champion fighter is one of the best designed classes in the player's handbook. Outside of "remarkable athlete" it fulfills it's purpose exceedingly well, capturing the spirit of a fighter class without being bogged down by choice and bloat.

It fires bows, swings swords, and crits more often. It has one of the best end game abilities in the game and is quick to pick up and play.

It just may not be for you. And that's OK. Some classes are designed for specific play styles or players in mind. That's good game design.

The Assassin Rogue is a perfect example. It has one hell of an opening ability. Assassinate is powerful, dynamic and cool. Then everything else sucks for a standard D&D game. Dungeon Crawling with the Assassin Rogue? Gross.

However... An open sandbox game where you represent one kingdom over another? Full of political intrigue, plots, and downtime? All of the sudden the Assassin Rogue shoots up in value on the charts. In some ways they become better than the Bard at infiltration, given that they aren't reliant upon magic and a single true sight spell takes down their disguise. How much HP does a King have anyway? 5d8 Expert?

Looking at both of those sub-classes, you could see where you might want to call them out for being poorly designed. They don't fit into standard player types or standard campaigns. The champion fighter is simple, lacks options, and mostly static. The Assassin Rogue has one useful adventuring ability, and everything else requires DM buy-in and wide open sandbox campaign types. But for those specific players and specific campaigns they are perfect. They aren't for your game. But they are for other peoples game. And those people need love too.

---------
Thank you.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I mean, I don't really have a problem with the Champion Fighter (besides it being a victim of power creep). It's clean and simple and sometimes people want that.

Assassin, though, is another issue. Part of the problem, imho, is the Rogue itself. Class ability at 3rd then having to wait until 9th level just feels plain awful. So that 3rd level better be awesome and widely applicable. Assassin... isn't. Not only does it's main ability require surprise (which can happen at most 1/encounter, and even then it's nowhere near guaranteed), but beyond that first round, you get effectively nothing from it.

Again, it doesn't matter if the game is more politically focused; before 9th level, any other rogue is just as good (and some are much better) than the Assassin. You want a good infiltrator? Play a changeling.

I'm sorry, but claiming that the Assassin Rogue (and Champion Fighter, to a lesser extent) are only good with DM buy-in, but having the thread title is that they're "great" is a little disingenuous at best. Every class has it's strong points, sure, but you're not going to post a thread with the title "Banneret Fighter is great!" and get anything other than laughs.

Of course, YMMV. But very experience that I've had with the Assassin Rogue in particular disagrees with about everything that you've said.

[Chronos]

The champion is great because he swings a sword, fires a bow, and crits more often? Well, all of the martial classes can do those first two just as well as a champion can. As for those crits, they're not nearly as big as you think. If a crit doubled damage, then a 19-20 crit range would offer exactly as much benefit as getting a global +1 to hit. Except that crits are less than double damage, so it's actually less than that. And a +1 to hit isn't all that big a deal.

Being quick and easy to play is a good thing, no doubt. But you could get close to the same effect by playing some other sort of fighter, and just forgetting to use your abilities. To do the champion right, you need to not only give them abilities that are always-on, so you can't forget to use them, but you also need to make those abilities nearly as good as what other fighters get. That's where the champion falls down.

[Chad.e.clark]

Tldr: rolling more dice is not wrong bad fun, but I don't know how or even if Assassins and Champions do more damage without some specific, not-guaranteed, equipment load outs. I leave the maths to other posters.

So, just by themselves and without further DM buy-in (specific magic wrapons, specific infiltration game-style, etc...), it seems your argument boils down to this: Champions and Assassins can augment critical hits and that makes them better than other subclasses. Does this seem like a fair assessment of your statement?

Assassins have the opportunity to make devastating crits happen once per fight *IF* they can manage a surprise round, which is not guaranteed every fight and depends on DM buy-in to set up. You also mention the impersonation capstone, which can be replicated, without a level one magic spell, by any character with the actor feat, the charlatan background and a disguise kit, deception and performance expertise helps a great deal as well. Compared to all other rogues, Assassins main draw seems to be: crit much harder, sometimes. Doubling dice rolled for damage on one big attack against one enemy per round, maybe.

Champions crit more often, but require a way to stack more dice on a base attack to make it truly impressive. Multiclassing and feats are one way of doing this, magic items are another, both are DM dependent for buy-in, as no Champion feature guarantees magic items like I am talking about and feats and multiclassing are (common, but still) variant rules.

I am not a math guy. But I am confident others can bring it to light under which circumstances Assassins and Champions have the best chance of showing their worth by out-critting other Fighter and Rogue subclasses.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I mean, I don't really have a problem with the Champion Fighter (besides it being a victim of power creep). It's clean and simple and sometimes people want that.

Assassin, though, is another issue. Part of the problem, imho, is the Rogue itself. Class ability at 3rd then having to wait until 9th level just feels plain awful. So that 3rd level better be awesome and widely applicable. Assassin... isn't. Not only does it's main ability require surprise (which can happen at most 1/encounter, and even then it's nowhere near guaranteed), but beyond that first round, you get effectively nothing from it.

Again, it doesn't matter if the game is more politically focused; before 9th level, any other rogue is just as good (and some are much better) than the Assassin. You want a good infiltrator? Play a changeling.

I'm sorry, but claiming that the Assassin Rogue (and Champion Fighter, to a lesser extent) are only good with DM buy-in, but having the thread title is that they're "great" is a little disingenuous at best. Every class has it's strong points, sure, but you're not going to post a thread with the title "Banneret Fighter is great!" and get anything other than laughs.

Of course, YMMV. But very experience that I've had with the Assassin Rogue in particular disagrees with about everything that you've said.

That's the point though right? Some things aren't designed for optimal efficiency right? If you are measuring a class by the only value of efficiency, optimization or whatever the "Meta" is you aren't getting a clear picture of the class. Some of the design is around intended purpose.

I'm arguing, that the Champion fighter, despite not having a plethora of options like the Battle Master, is a well designed class specifically because it provides an opportunity for people who really only need a few things to keep track to enjoy the game. Is it as powerful or optimized as the Battle Master? No. It's not. Clearly it's not.

But does it allow my old school D&D 1e Dad the ability to play the game and have a great time without having to read a bunch of rules? Yes. It enables people of a certain play style the opportunity to buy in and play without alienating other players because they have other options.

The Warlock invocation "Eyes of the Rune Keeper" is terrible. Why would they waste precious R&D time and book space for such a niche, and honestly worthless ability? Except for when it isn't. It fits into a specific game style that the DM would run and then it's great. It isn't for your game, but it's for someone else's. It's in there for the off chance that some odd ball game can have the opportunity to buy in.

Your beef with the Assassin Rogue isn't with the Assassin part itself. Your beef is with the Rogue class design and being front loaded with so much good stuff that you don't get another subclass feature till 9th level. But at 9th level you can do bonzo things in the right campaign. But only in the right campaign. And that's ok. It's a great class, for that game. Maybe not the other game. It fulfills it's intended design, because their are other options that fulfill more generic less niche styles of play. Having niche subclasses is great, you don't want a lot of them, but having some of them opens the door to better homebrew, more varied campaigns, and more players at the table. Which is why they are well designed despite being undervalued by the community.

[Kuulvheysoon]

...

Your beef with the Assassin Rogue isn't with the Assassin part itself. Your beef is with the Rogue class design and being front loaded with so much good stuff that you don't get another subclass feature till 9th level. But at 9th level you can do bonzo things in the right campaign. But only in the right campaign. And that's ok. It's a great class, for that game. Maybe not the other game. It fulfills it's intended design, because their are other options that fulfill more generic less niche styles of play. Having niche subclasses is great, you don't want a lot of them, but having some of them opens the door to better homebrew, more varied campaigns, and more players at the table. Which is why they are well designed despite being undervalued by the community.

No, I think that I made it pretty clear that I have issues with the Assassin subclass itself. Rogue itself is unfortunate, yeah, but that's not my biggest gripe with it. I'm of the opinion that subclasses should give you new stuff to do, and be an impactful choice. The fact of the matter is, not many games pass 10th level. So for the vast majority of your assassin career, you have an ability that's usable maybe once per session. Not encounter, session.

Problem is that the "bonkers" stuff that you're talking about, basically any class can accomplish in the right campaign. Infiltration Expertise can be accomplished with a good Deception modifier and illusions (or, as I mentioned before, being a changeling). You could spend those 7 days and 25gp doing exactly what the feature says - going out as your new ability, making contacts and providing a base for the ability. It's literally a waste of a class ability in that kind of campaign, because if only the assassin can do it, that's a pretty lame time for the other characters in that campaign who can't do the same thing.

Imposter is 2/3 replicated by the Actor feat (and synergizes/requires the same Deception buy-in as before, so it's not even a novel scenario). To replicate handwriting you'd need a sample of the handwriting to be replicated, which makes it drastically less useful. Or, you know, be a Mastermind instead of an Assassin for the same benefits of the Actor feat at 3rd level, and an ability that's always useful. A creature only gets a check if it suspects anything suspicious anyways, unless your DM is a jerk who makes you roll for everything. You don't go around suspecting everyone is an imposter, so why should NPCs?

Really, for a "political" campaign, the Mastermind is a far better choice than the Assassin. Hands down.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm sorry, but claiming that the Assassin Rogue (and Champion Fighter, to a lesser extent) are only good with DM buy-in, but having the thread title is that they're "great" is a little disingenuous at best.

'Great' is inherently a value judgement and matter of opinion. Differing on opinions is not disingenuous.

That said, I agree with your judgement on the actual selections. Both Assassin and Champion are attempts at the goal BoutsofInsanity is preaching, it's just too bad that they fall short by somewhere between a little and a lot.


That's the point though right? Some things aren't designed for optimal efficiency right? If you are measuring a class by the only value of efficiency, optimization or whatever the "Meta" is you aren't getting a clear picture of the class. Some of the design is around intended purpose.

I'm arguing, that the Champion fighter, despite not having a plethora of options like the Battle Master, is a well designed class specifically because it provides an opportunity for people who really only need a few things to keep track to enjoy the game. Is it as powerful or optimized as the Battle Master? No. It's not. Clearly it's not.

But does it allow my old school D&D 1e Dad the ability to play the game and have a great time without having to read a bunch of rules? Yes. It enables people of a certain play style the opportunity to buy in and play without alienating other players because they have other options.

I agree with the goal, and that attempting to address this need is a reasonable goal and something worth doing. However, there is no reason that the 'simple option' of various classes needs to underperform the other options. Champion should be roughly as powerful as the Battle Master (especially if extreme optimization hoop-jumping were not included in either case), but as it stands IMO Champion falls a little flat (IMO Assassin much moreso).

[Composer99]

Champion is okay. It is IMO incorrect to say that it's great. I think it could have been done better while still offering a straightforward playstyle.

Assassin is just terrible.

[Frogreaver]

Assassin wood elf rogues with sharpshooter work great to take out guards in guard towers or encampments.

2d8+4d6+3 damage at level 3/4 is a great enabler of that sniper playstyle.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In fairness to the Assassin, a lot of Rogue subclasses are kind of low-impact--the Inquisitor and Scout are almost as bad in that regard, offering barely-improved versions of things the base class can already be quite good at doing. (Although in the Inquisitor's defense, it was published before Steady Aim).

But the Scout gives you two new skills with Expertise. The Inquisitive gives you early Reliable Talent with a critically important skill. The Assassin gives you a pair of tool proficiencies. Not Expertise, just proficiency. And the Poisoner's Kit isn't even a very useful tool.

But at least the Scout and Inquisitive both give you meaningful features at higher levels--constant Perception advantage, bonus speed, detecting illusions, and Ambush Master are all solid, useful abilities. The Assassin's higher-level abilities, on the other hand? Establishing cover identities and imitating voices? That's not new, that's basic skill stuff. Anyone with a decent Charisma and/or proficiency with Disguise Kits can do the exact same things.

That's why the Assassin is flawed. Not because it tries to focus more on the social pillar of the game, but because it does a bad job of focusing on thr social pillar.

[elyktsorb]

However... An open sandbox game where you represent one kingdom over another? Full of political intrigue, plots, and downtime? All of the sudden the Assassin Rogue shoots up in value on the charts. In some ways they become better than the Bard at infiltration, given that they aren't reliant upon magic and a single true sight spell takes down their disguise. How much HP does a King have anyway? 5d8 Expert?



As someone currently playing a Rogue in an open sandbox game where our group is helping out one individual in their rise to power over others, I can tell you that I would absolutely not want to be an Assassin Rogue. Making a lot of use out of being a Thief though. Took the Charlatan background and that 1 secondary identity has been more than enough for me.

The 7 day time limit on Assassin's Infiltration Expertise is waaay too long of a time limit unless you actively have time to waste. And if your goal is simply getting next to someone in order to murder them, there are so many easier/faster options than this.

All Imposter does is give you Advantage on Deception checks to pass yourself off as someone else. It does this 2 levels after you get Reliable Talent, and if you took Expertise in Deception (since you know, it's a big deal to what your doing in the game) You already couldn't be rolling lower than 19 on any Deception and that's just assuming you have a 12 in Charisma by level 11. By level 13 your proficiency has gone up another +2 so that's a minimum of 21.

And it's not like you could just take a different skill to let Imposter shore up your Deception skill. As it only provides advantage to deception checks made to pass yourself off as someone else.

[Doug Lampert]

'Great' is inherently a value judgement and matter of opinion. Differing on opinions is not disingenuous.

That said, I agree with your judgement on the actual selections. Both Assassin and Champion are attempts at the goal BoutsofInsanity is preaching, it's just too bad that they fall short by somewhere between a little and a lot.



I agree with the goal, and that attempting to address this need is a reasonable goal and something worth doing. However, there is no reason that the 'simple option' of various classes needs to underperform the other options. Champion should be roughly as powerful as the Battle Master (especially if extreme optimization hoop-jumping were not included in either case), but as it stands IMO Champion falls a little flat (IMO Assassin much moreso).

Let's build a decent "simple fighter" alternative at level 3.

If you simply spam precision strike anytime you roll something that might miss, that says that +4.5 to virtually every attack that rolls low isn't over the top for a level 3 fighter subclass feature. (Note that I'm ignoring the other maneuvers.)

So just give the "simple fighter" a flat +4 to attack. That might be a decent level 3 alternative to the battle master. It's a bit weaker levels 3-4 and maybe a hair stronger levels 5-6, but it's simple.

Note that a 19 criting is substantially worse than a +1 to hit, and I'm saying that +4 to hit would not be overpowered compared to battle master. That's why champion is bad.

[Dork_Forge]

Let's build a decent "simple fighter" alternative at level 3.

If you simply spam precision strike anytime you roll something that might miss, that says that +4.5 to virtually every attack that rolls low isn't over the top for a level 3 fighter subclass feature. (Note that I'm ignoring the other maneuvers.)

So just give the "simple fighter" a flat +4 to attack. That might be a decent level 3 alternative to the battle master. It's a bit weaker levels 3-4 and maybe a hair stronger levels 5-6, but it's simple.

Note that a 19 criting is substantially worse than a +1 to hit, and I'm saying that +4 to hit would not be overpowered compared to battle master. That's why champion is bad.

A +4 to hit as an always on ability is an insanely good (if on the face of it, boring) subclass ability, particularly on a Fighter with additional ASIs.

Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master are largely part of this problem, but they're part of the game. A Fighter with Archery can now powerattack every single turn whilst still gaining a +1 to hit from Archery style... That's insane.

Magical items only go up to +3 hit bonus in 5e, a +4 as an always on subclass feature has no place in a bounded accuracy system.

If you want a simple Fighter, the Brute was actually a pretty good attempt at it imo

[stoutstien]

A +4 to hit as an always on ability is an insanely good (if on the face of it, boring) subclass ability, particularly on a Fighter with additional ASIs.

Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master are largely part of this problem, but they're part of the game. A Fighter with Archery can now powerattack every single turn whilst still gaining a +1 to hit from Archery style... That's insane.

Magical items only go up to +3 hit bonus in 5e, a +4 as an always on subclass feature has no place in a bounded accuracy system.

If you want a simple Fighter, the Brute was actually a pretty good attempt at it imo
Agreed. A slightly modified brute is the best direction for a simple to use fighter.

[quindraco]

The Champion fighter is one of the best designed classes in the player's handbook. Outside of "remarkable athlete" it fulfills it's purpose exceedingly well, capturing the spirit of a fighter class without being bogged down by choice and bloat.

It fires bows, swings swords, and crits more often. It has one of the best end game abilities in the game and is quick to pick up and play.

It just may not be for you. And that's OK. Some classes are designed for specific play styles or players in mind. That's good game design.

[...]

I'm arguing, that the Champion fighter, despite not having a plethora of options like the Battle Master, is a well designed class specifically because it provides an opportunity for people who really only need a few things to keep track to enjoy the game. Is it as powerful or optimized as the Battle Master? No. It's not. Clearly it's not.

But does it allow my old school D&D 1e Dad the ability to play the game and have a great time without having to read a bunch of rules? Yes. It enables people of a certain play style the opportunity to buy in and play without alienating other players because they have other options.


Presupposing no-one was willing to help him build his character by making choices for him, so Battlemaster, etc is right out, and ignoring setting-specific content, if the design goal is having fun without reading the rules, your father would have more fun as a Samurai. It involves less choice and rules mastery than a Champion and performs better.


The Assassin Rogue is a perfect example. It has one hell of an opening ability. Assassinate is powerful, dynamic and cool. Then everything else sucks for a standard D&D game. Dungeon Crawling with the Assassin Rogue? Gross.

However... An open sandbox game where you represent one kingdom over another? Full of political intrigue, plots, and downtime? All of the sudden the Assassin Rogue shoots up in value on the charts. In some ways they become better than the Bard at infiltration, given that they aren't reliant upon magic and a single true sight spell takes down their disguise. How much HP does a King have anyway? 5d8 Expert?

Looking at both of those sub-classes, you could see where you might want to call them out for being poorly designed. They don't fit into standard player types or standard campaigns. The champion fighter is simple, lacks options, and mostly static. The Assassin Rogue has one useful adventuring ability, and everything else requires DM buy-in and wide open sandbox campaign types. But for those specific players and specific campaigns they are perfect. They aren't for your game. But they are for other peoples game. And those people need love too.

---------
Thank you.

No, you've misunderstood the Assassin's flaws.

At L3 it gets a particularly awful Rogue ability seemingly designed for anyone but a Rogue - which is why one of the most damaging builds in the game is Fighter (Battlemaster) 12/Ranger (Gloomstalker) 4/Rogue (Assassin) 4 (or Ranger 5/Rogue 3 or Ranger 3/Rogue 5, depending on your priorities and need for ASIs). The L3 ability is a powerful, dynamic, cool opener - on someone with multiple attacks (which Rogues don't get) each of which has access to plenty of additional dice (which Rogues do get, but only on one attack, don't forget) and is particularly good at going first (which Rogues don't get - none of their ability check powers make them better at initiative) and particularly good at guaranteeing surprise (which almost no-one gets - you basically need access to Pass Without Trace to even attempt it). Assassinate is poorly designed for the Rogue, period.

L9 is incredible in terms of power - you can auto-succeed at what would otherwise be a forgery kit check and a disguise kit check, and thereafter, you generally auto-succeed at whichever of the mutually exclusive checks the PHB asserts is appropriate for pretending to be someone else. The crippling piece here is the time necessary - the ability itself invites comparison to the Actor feat, but someone with that feat can assume their new identity right now, without needing a week of set-up. Because of the crippling necessity of a week of prep, what it actually amounts to is the Charlatan background ability, which anyone can start with. In general, absolutely any subclass ability should be more powerful than a background ability (not including the OP Ravnica backgrounds).

L13 exacerbates the comparison to just getting the Actor feat - again, you get similar-but-better benefits, with the downside of needing an incredible amount of prep time you're not particularly qualified to acquire, since you're not a Swashbuckler.

L17 ties back into the downsides of L3 - Con save or double damage on what's already an auto-crit (so quadruple dice, double flat damage) would be amazing if the Assassin had the tools necessary to make the L3 ability shine. Sadly, it does not.

The net result - assuming you're trying to make the L9 and L13 abilities actually work for you - is just a Swashbuckler but worse. The campaigns you're hyping where the Assassin would shine, a Swashbuckler would shine brighter. And that's despite the substantively inferior subclass benefit Swashbucklers get at 13 that for most Swashbucklers will never come up.

If you split the Assassin into two different subclasses - one based on Assassinate, and the other based on Infiltration Expertise - and then also rewrote the abilities to actually work with Rogues, both could be very good, but WOTC dropped the ball.

Since we already have Swashbuckler as an example of how to be a particularly good Rogue at Infiltration, here's an example of how to re-do Assassin:

L3: Assassinate: Once per turn when you have advantage on a weapon attack roll, you have super-advantage, and you score a critical hit on a 19. If this attack hits, you can re-roll a number of damage dice equal to your dexterity modifier. If the target has not yet acted during this combat, you can also add your proficiency die to the damage.

L9: If your Assassinate crits, the target must make a Con save (before damage is rolled) or gain vulnerability to Piercing, Slashing, Bludgeoning, and Poison damage for the attack. When you add your proficiency die to the damage roll, you have advantage with it.

L13: Your Assassinate crits on 18-20, and if it crits and the target fails its Con save, it is blinded and deafened, and both this and the vulnerability last until the beginning of your next turn.

L17: Your Assassinate crits on 17-20, and if it crits and the target fails its Con save, it is paralyzed, stunned, and incapacitated until the beginning of your next turn.

[MaxWilson]

The Champion fighter is one of the best designed classes in the player's handbook. Outside of "remarkable athlete" it fulfills it's purpose exceedingly well, capturing the spirit of a fighter class without being bogged down by choice and bloat.

It fires bows, swings swords, and crits more often. It has one of the best end game abilities in the game and is quick to pick up and play.

It just may not be for you. And that's OK. Some classes are designed for specific play styles or players in mind. That's good game design.

It fires bows and swords swords at a slower rate than many other fighters (e.g. Battlemaster with Riposte or Cavalier guarding another PC both swing more often, and Arcane Archer gets a bonus shot on a miss after level 7). It crits barely more often. Its end game ability is worse than it looks on paper (staying at half health is a bad idea against many of the foes you'll be fighting at that level; and against foes whom you can afford to stay at half health, you probably won't be taking much damage anyway because they're weak).

Champion advertises a simple-but-powerful playstyle, but it fails to deliver, primarily because Improved Critical is such an incredibly weak ability. An extra d8 or 2d6 5% of the time just doesn't cut it, and once the person looking for a simple-but-powerful playstyle figures out that Champion really isn't adding anything at all, you've got two choices:

1.) Houserule the Champion to grant larger bonuses to crits. IMO letting them double all damage, instead of just damage dice, is enough. A GWM Champion who deals 4d6+30 (44) damage 10% of the time is getting that simple-but-powerful experience he may have been looking for, while at the same time big damage 10% of the time is not unbalancing to the game (doesn't necessarily outcompete Battlemaster, but gives a comparable experience while being much simpler). OR

2.) Encourage them to play a different "simple" fighter archetype like the Samurai or Cavalier.


I'm arguing, that the Champion fighter, despite not having a plethora of options like the Battle Master, is a well designed class specifically because it provides an opportunity for people who really only need a few things to keep track to enjoy the game. Is it as powerful or optimized as the Battle Master? No. It's not. Clearly it's not.

But does it allow my old school D&D 1e Dad the ability to play the game and have a great time without having to read a bunch of rules? Yes. It enables people of a certain play style the opportunity to buy in and play without alienating other players because they have other options.

Speaking as an old-school TSR fan: your dad would have approximately the same experience playing a fighter with no subclass, which IMO might indicate that the Fighter is well-designed but indicates that the Champion is poorly-designed.

Also, an old-school TSR player would probably have more fun if the Fighter (including the Champion) lost Action Surge and Second Wind but gained weapon specialization, e.g. 1 weapon type gains +1 to hit and +2 to damage, and at Fighter 5 you get one additional attack with it every round.

[Asmotherion]

When a design choice makes a subclass sub-par in all aspects, it's no longer "you do you", it's just bad design.

Nobody says "don't play a champion". If that's what you're into, cool. We're just saying "be careful when choosing to play one, as it is sub-par".

[JonBeowulf]

I like them as low-level hirelings for the PCs. I'd become bored playing one.

[MrStabby]

I don't think either are well designed, though one is worse than the other.

I will try and stear clear of power judgements and taste, and focus on design.

The champion is simple. It is supposed to be simple. Nothing wrong with simple for those that want it. The problem with champion is that to play to the class strengths you want advantage as much as possible: shoving enmies prone, hiding, getting the right buffs and feats... My problem is that is is simple to play in terms of activated abilities but not simple to get the most from. It is simultaniously, on the face of it, simple and a bit more complicated. It isn't that its job isn't worth doing, but that it doesn't do it well.

And it is a fighter. Fighters kind of suck if you are playing without feats but if you are playing with feats then the fighter probably wants to pick one up sooner than other classes. Your low choice subclass is bolted on to a class that either sucks harder if you are playing a simple game or faces some big choices (or lost opportunities) if you are playing a more mechanically rich game. For a player that wants simplicity this hurts.

Designing a simple class is good. Designing a simple class that sucks harder unless you make it more complex is just shooting yourself in the foot.

All in all it is forgivable though, although I would say the zealot barbarian does this job better (fewer resource types to manage, easier to play close to optimally, benefits from the more mechanically simple ASI choices).



The Assassin is basically a steaming pile of design mistake in my book.

Its fine to say that a class is not for you and to pass it by. There are other classes for you. My issue with the assassing is that not only do I not want to play it, but I don't want to be at a table where someone else is playing it. It is a class designed to provide an incentive to not speak to NPCs, to just kill them before they can speak. It shuts doen things like negotiation and shuts out diplomatic characters and diminishes the social side of the game... or if it doesn't then it just sucks harder.

And once you do get your assasinate abilities going, it still makes for an encounter with less fun. If you hit and do massive damage then that great big cinematic fight against a worthy opponent becomes a bit of a pushover... and if you miss, then another anticlimax. Killing the most important enemy (or getting them sufficiently close) denies others in the party the chance to do their cool stuff and make a difference.

I have avoided it so far, but I could see the assassin generating some party strife as well. THe assassin wants stealth, the paladin wants heavy armour and both players think they are entitled to use their class abilities. I don't think an ability that gets shut down so effectively by another player doing what their class is designed to do is a good design decision.

Honestly, I think having the assassin as an option in the first place is just a bad call - a class designed to work best alone and be self sufficient is not a great addition to a team game.

[neonchameleon]

The problem with the assassin is that it takes an entire week to use its level 9 ability and three hours for the level 13. Assassinate isn't bad (being better for other classes might be why they don't get them; it feels good for an assassin) - but the rest just takes ridiculous prep for most games.

And to me a problem with the champion is that the battlemaster exists. Even among those who like simple fighters the battlemaster superiority dice with extra to hit or damage IME go over better than Improved Critical. They're visceral, can be picked with simple rules, and are something you control. Remarkable Athlete doesn't help much and the fighting styles aren't all that. Something in front of you is easier to remember than a rare proc. And the simple hitty fighter is the barbarian anyway.

[Jerrykhor]

Champion and Assassin has been discussed to death already on why they are low tier. If you refuse to accept the facts, then its on you.

People like to bring up Political Intrigue as the reason Assassin can be good. Well, no. A Warlock with Mask of Many Faces+Actor feat+Forgery Kit can do the job of a Level 13 Assassin, without spending 7 days or being level 13. It also doesn't stop you from using an existing identity, which i think is the stupidest restriction of Assassin's level 9 feature. Yes, 7 days requirement is the worst design, you should not need a long downtime to use your subclass abilities. And what are your party members going to do while you play Agent 47? Its straight up hogging the spotlight for hours at least.

Champion can be argued to be mediocre, but Assassin is straight up poor design.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Champion I always give points to for being simple, you will see some impact from choosing this subclass with the benefit that you don't have to do much book-keeping. It's certainly not winning any awards for its effectiveness over other Fighter subclasses, there's pretty high competition, Fighter has almost exclusively great playstyle defining subclasses.

Assassin doesn't have that strength, your features are complicated (they rely on the surprise mechanic) and shut off outside of their specific triggering scenarios. The two features that aren't combat related are easily replicated by any other Rogue with the right race, proficiencies or background.

I honestly don't know why it took me so long to notice, but you genuinely have no subclass features as an Assassin outside of the first round of combat. Even if your goal is to be Agent 47 you'd be better off filling in your espionage and disguise skills in other ways, that come online even earlier than level 9 and 13.

There have been 3 Assassins in the games I've run and played, out of just 5 Rogues in total. All they'd ever gotten out of their subclass is Advantage in the first round of combat, and even that was sometimes spotty.

[Kane0]

I can vouch for the Champ, got one in the party often buddying up to the Hexblade and he has shown no sign to me of being dissatisfied.

Assassin i'm not so sure about, Assassinate is amazing but situational so I would have liked something to go alongside it at level 3 since there's such a big gap until the other benefits kick in and the next two are replicated by backgrounds, feats, etc.

[animewatcha]

Why not combine champion with brute or battlemaster?

[Dork_Forge]

Why not combine champion with brute or battlemaster?

You're then straying into too far territory, both of those subclasses are pretty great and both would be able to milk the expanded crit range (the Brute damage and the SD damage) for additional damage without needing to do anything else.

You've already got a leg up on crit fishing, it'd be very easy to push it further with Half Orc, and Elf with Elven Accuracy (Trip Attack or Feinting are easy ways to generate advantage) not to mention all the other damages you can cram onto attacks.

Honestly if you were going to add the Champion stuff somewhere, Samurai feels most appropriate. Fighting Spirit is great but it doesn't feel like a lot of uses at any level (unless you're 10+ and have a lot of encounters).

[Kuulvheysoon]

Combine Champion with Banneret, lol.

...Actually, that wouldn't be as bad as I was thinking. Champion is all about keeping it simple, and Banneret just enhances the existing features. The only new bit that it adds is purely passive.

Huh.

[Gurgeh]

...honestly, Champion and Banneret getting all of their features flat-out added to each other is probably still going to end up below par :(

[Dork_Forge]

...honestly, Champion and Banneret getting all of their features flat-out added to each other is probably still going to end up below par :(

How would it still be sub par?

[Tanarii]

The biggest problem is the defining abilities for them are a little weak. Crit 19-20 and Assassinate aren't that good. You need optional rules (feats and multiclassing) to make expanded crit range shine. And to get surprise anything approaching reliably you need an entire party that specializes in Stealth, to go it alone, or to have a DM with a permissive definition of separate party.

[Dork_Forge]

The biggest problem is the defining abilities for them are a little weak. Crit 19-20 and Assassinate aren't that good. You need optional rules (feats and multiclassing) to make expanded crit range shine. And to get surprise anything approaching reliably you need an entire party that specializes in Stealth, to go it alone, or to have a DM with a permissive definition of separate party.

I don't hand out surprise often but imo all you really need for most cases is probably a party that doesn't suck at stealth and someone with Pass without Trace. I'd say probably a +2 or higher to stealth with no disadvantage would probably be more than enough in most cases. To contrast this I have a party that makes use of PwT regularly, the Paladin wears heavy armor, has a 10 in Dex, often uses Guidance when possible/allowed and still fails a lot of the time.

A positive Dex or proficiency is usually enough to make a passable stealth party, but as a DM handing out Surprise is just a recipe for nova rounds and easy win encounters.

[animewatcha]

Everyone remembers that there was a sage advice or something that said expanded crit range were also autohits, right?

[Jerrykhor]

Everyone remembers that there was a sage advice or something that said expanded crit range were also autohits, right?

When has that ever mattered?

[Dork_Forge]

Everyone remembers that there was a sage advice or something that said expanded crit range were also autohits, right?

That... doesn't really matter that much though. If you've rolled a 19 and aren't hitting then you're in some real kind of trouble.

[Gurgeh]

Yeah, how often is a natural 19 going to be a reasonable prospect to miss?


How would it still be sub par?
Yeah, I exaggerate - I suppose a better way to put it would be that the addition still doesn't leave you with a final kit of abilities that's going to raise many eyebrows. Your combat abilities key off three different stats, and the healing keys off fighter level, which hobbles the crit-fishing (since it's going to be most useful if you multiclass for extra damage dice). The skill package is nice, I suppose.

[Dork_Forge]

Yeah, how often is a natural 19 going to be a reasonable prospect to miss?


Yeah, I exaggerate - I suppose a better way to put it would be that the addition still doesn't leave you with a final kit of abilities that's going to raise many eyebrows. Your combat abilities key off three different stats, and the healing keys off fighter level, which hobbles the crit-fishing (since it's going to be most useful if you multiclass for extra damage dice). The skill package is nice, I suppose.

Sorry but what are you talking about with combat abilities keying off of different stats? There's nothing in the Champion or Banneret package that's stat dependent, the only exception to this is Survivor which uses Con as a minor part of the formula.

As for raising eyebrows it really depends on a couple of things:

-What's your party make up and how hard are the encounters?

-Does your DM rule that Rallying Cry works on unconscious creatures?

Rallying Cry can tilt the tide from from TPK to everyone making it out depending on the circumstances and at worst is a nice party heal with a huge area for doing something you would do anyway.

Inspiring Surge is also going to depend heavily, just having a Rogue in the party would make this a good ability.

[Gurgeh]

Pardon, it seems I've made the mistake of assuming that Charisma was in the mix when it clearly isn't. Probably confused with the Battle Master's Rally.

By RAW, Rallying Cry clearly doesn't work on unconscious targets. That said, I don't think it would be a problem if it did and would be perfectly happy to play in a group that ruled it that way. God knows Martial classes could use a few nice things.

Inspiring Surge is solid but it's not significantly better than the Battle Master's Commander's Strike, especially since it comes online seven levels later and keys off a far more limited resource. The action economy is better, but you have less flexibility in when you use it.

[stoutstien]

Combine Champion with Banneret, lol.

...Actually, that wouldn't be as bad as I was thinking. Champion is all about keeping it simple, and Banneret just enhances the existing features. The only new bit that it adds is purely passive.

Huh.

I shifted champion to be part of the base barbarian and PBK took a complete rework to make it valid. Indomitable is a bad base feature so building off it will always be bad without changing it.

The barbarian is probably more complex in the math department but overall is easier for new players to pick up and run with. The samurai is the fighter keyturn option.

[Dork_Forge]

Pardon, it seems I've made the mistake of assuming that Charisma was in the mix when it clearly isn't. Probably confused with the Battle Master's Rally.

By RAW, Rallying Cry clearly doesn't work on unconscious targets. That said, I don't think it would be a problem if it did and would be perfectly happy to play in a group that ruled it that way. God knows Martial classes could use a few nice things.

Inspiring Surge is solid but it's not significantly better than the Battle Master's Commander's Strike, especially since it comes online seven levels later and keys off a far more limited resource. The action economy is better, but you have less flexibility in when you use it.

I'm aware of the RAW, which is why I said if the DM rules it.

Straight up comparing Inspiring Surge to Commander's Strike IS is far better in everything but frequency, and since you have to forego one of your attacks along with a bonus action it won't see use often. I've seen it used once in 6 years across maybe a dozen or so Battlemasters/dips.

Overall I actually like the Banneret, it's features are good it just needs a little more to be worth it. At minimum I give them a second use of Second Wind at level 3.

[luuma]

To me, the champion is dull, weak, and samey. A doubled crit rate is absolutely negligible and comes down to being roughly (2d6/20=) 0.35 damage per hit, which is not enough to be noticeable. Unless you are attacking over fifty times with a greatsword between short rests, the battle master does more damage by adding 4d8 - not even counting its other capabilities.

This is a good thing. I'm glad that a simplistic, resource free fighter subclass exists for new players, and I'm also glad that it sucks ass.

(edit: in my experience, players that want simplistic classes with low amounts of decisionmaking simply don't care about maximising damage. On the flipside, players that DO care about maximising damage like tactics, decisions, and having something to think about in combat).

The battle master requires more game knowledge, and requires more build planning and resource management. It is more powerful because it is a little harder to play, and its power makes that difficulty feel like it's worth learning and mastering.

Imagine how dull a minmaxed fighter (and all classes that dipped it) would be if the champion was stronger than the battle master! It would be absolutely dire - and players that wanted extra tactical complexity would feel like they were punished for seeking it.

I think, as a rule of thumb, complex classes should generally be stronger than simple ones, because that makes them feel rewarding (edit: *to the players that they appeal to). That's arguably the reason that beastmaster and 4 el monk ground people's gears so much, while the champion just slid peacefully into obscurity.


Overall I actually like the Banneret, it's features are good it just needs a little more to be worth it. At minimum I give them a second use of Second Wind at level 3.

Agreed - I gave a banneret three second winds per sr with some loot and realised quickly that any free conditional Mass Healing Word every short rest is Good, Actually. It's a nice, tactical little thing.

[Xervous]

This is a good thing. I'm glad that a simplistic, resource free fighter subclass exists for new players, and I'm also glad that it sucks ass.


My main gripe with this and other obvious design choices is why WotC doesn’t communicate the intent to players or the GM. It’s obvious to me after working my way to an understanding of game balance, designing towards intended uses, and all the spreadsheet gargling practice. But other people? Why should they have to go through trial and error on something rigid that already has a designed use case?

[MaxWilson]

Imagine how dull a minmaxed fighter (and all classes that dipped it) would be if the champion was stronger than the battle master! It would be absolutely dire - and players that wanted extra complexity would feel like they were punished for seeking it.

I think, as a rule of thumb, complex classes should generally be stronger than simple ones, because that makes them feel rewarding.

Even if Champion critted on 18-20 and got triple damage on a crit, optimized EKs and Battlemasters would still be far better when played in complex, optimized ways.

And yet the current Champion is so weak that even a no-brainer Battlemaster policy totally outperforms them. There's a lot of design room to have improved Champion before it would get anywhere near eclipsing other Fighter archetypes the way you're worried about.

[Eric Diaz]

Maybe fixing "remarkable athlete" would solve the issue of the champion? Just add expertise to athletics or acrobatics in addition to the usual benefits, maybe half-prof intimidation or persuasion, and you've made a good grappler (or at least you can escape from grapples easily) and some additional utility to exploration and social interaction pillars.

The assassin is trickier. Why does he have to be an actor/impostor? Shouldn't it be a ninja of some kind. The word assassin makes me think of stealth, poisoning and violence more than "conman". Maybe change their sneak attack to d8s or something.

[MaxWilson]

I think fixing "remarkable athlete" would solve the issue. Just add expertise to athletics and acrobatics in addition to the usual benefits, maybe half-prof intimidation or persuasion, and you've made a good grappler (or you can escape from grapples) and some additional utility to exploration and social interaction pillars.

That's still a 7th level ability. You have to fix the 3rd level ability first or you'll be almost almost indistinguishable from a Fighter without a subclass from levels 1-6: a looong time in some campaigns.

[Eric Diaz]

That's still a 7th level ability. You have to fix the 3rd level ability first or you'll be almost almost indistinguishable from a Fighter without a subclass from levels 1-6: a looong time in some campaigns.

Fair enough. Come to think of it, since we are adding half-proficiency to stuff, maybe we could add it to damage too. Maybe divide these things between 3rd and 7th.

[luuma]

Even if Champion critted on 18-20 and got triple damage on a crit, optimized EKs and Battlemasters would still be far better when played in complex, optimized ways.

And yet the current Champion is so weak that even a no-brainer Battlemaster policy totally outperforms them. There's a lot of design room to have improved Champion before it would get anywhere near eclipsing other Fighter archetypes the way you're worried about.

I'm quite literally not worried about it eclipsing archetypes at all (it's utter trash and we both know it), it's more that I don't personally see any good argument for making the weak dull subclass stronger. I'm glad it's this weak, because it means battlemasters, samurais, cavaliers, and EKs feel strong, and it's weak enough that its power tradeoff is arguably pretty obvious to a first time player. Yes, it could be stronger without eclipsing anything, but I don't think it should even be close to the other fighters, because really the last thing I want is players choosing to play one.

I agree that there's a vast amount of room to add more power - but I think that gulf is a good thing to have. Worst comes to the worst, a DM can fill the gap by handing it a free vicious weapon or the like.

[stoutstien]

I'm quite literally not worried about it eclipsing archetypes at all (it's utter trash and we both know it), it's more that I don't personally see any good argument for making the weak dull subclass stronger. I'm glad it's this weak, because it means battlemasters, samurais, cavaliers, and EKs feel strong, and it's weak enough that its power tradeoff is arguably pretty obvious to a first time player. Yes, it could be stronger without eclipsing anything, but I don't think it should even be close to the other fighters, because really the last thing I want is players choosing to play one.

I agree that there's a vast amount of room to add more power - but I think that gulf is a good thing to have. Worst comes to the worst, a DM can fill the gap by handing it a free vicious weapon or the like.

How is the samurai more complex than the champion? It basically has action surge 2.0 has better passive defensive abilities and isnt far behind the BM. Complexity shouldn't be a gate for effectiveness.

[MrStabby]

I'm aware of the RAW, which is why I said if the DM rules it.

Straight up comparing Inspiring Surge to Commander's Strike IS is far better in everything but frequency, and since you have to forego one of your attacks along with a bonus action it won't see use often. I've seen it used once in 6 years across maybe a dozen or so Battlemasters/dips.

Overall I actually like the Banneret, it's features are good it just needs a little more to be worth it. At minimum I give them a second use of Second Wind at level 3.

Yeah, I think the bannaret is well designed - it is elegant, fills a niche and is just generally neat... just underpowered.

[luuma]

How is the samurai more complex than the champion? It basically has action surge 2.0 has better passive defensive abilities and isnt far behind the BM. Complexity shouldn't be a gate for effectiveness.

Samurai is sort of a middle ground of complexity between champ and bm, where it has an actual resource to manage, but the resource is pretty simple. It's also a middle ground of power - it gets three uses of advantage + 5 thp per long rest, while battle master gets four uses of 1d8+chance to knock prone per short or long rest.

That is to say, champion is simpler and weaker than samurai, while battle master is more complex and stronger than it. I think this is true of not just the samurai but the cavalier and the banneret too.

Why shouldn't complexity be a gate for effectiveness? Personally, as I say, I think that the game needs to make complex classes more powerful, otherwise each class is best optimised by making it dull, which then makes for dull games.

[Dork_Forge]

Samurai is sort of a middle ground of complexity between champ and bm, where it has an actual resource to manage, but the resource is pretty simple. It's also a middle ground of power - it gets three uses of advantage + 5 thp per long rest, while battle master gets four uses of 1d8+chance to knock prone per short or long rest.

That is to say, champion is simpler and weaker than samurai, while battle master is more complex and stronger than it. I think this is true of not just the samurai but the cavalier and the banneret too.

Why shouldn't complexity be a gate for effectiveness? Personally, as I say, I think that the game needs to make complex classes more powerful, otherwise each class is best optimised by making it dull, which then makes for dull games.

The power gap between Samurai and Battlemaster is not clear cut as Fighting Spirit applies to an entire turn of attacks and mixes in the temp hp.

Depending on the amount of short rests they are usually on par if not the Samurai sometimes peaking over the BM, just with less choices to be made.

[Willie the Duck]

This is a good thing. I'm glad that a simplistic, resource free fighter subclass exists for new players, and I'm also glad that it sucks ass.

I don't think it should even be close to the other fighters, because really the last thing I want is players choosing to play one.

Why shouldn't complexity be a gate for effectiveness? Personally, as I say, I think that the game needs to make complex classes more powerful, otherwise each class is best optimised by making it dull, which then makes for dull games.
I vaguely understand the reason for this position, but wildly disagree. Games are dull when they are dull, hard stop. Some people like mechanical complexity in their resolution systems, while others find it pointless. Both player types can make the game dull or engaging. To the latter group, they would very much like the dull process of game mechanics or combat resolution (or certainly build-related resolution, as you still are choosing when to engage and with what group against what other group and under what circumstances) get out of the way so they can get to the engaging part of the game.

Beyond that, placing a mode of gameplay behind a 'must be THIS prepared to accept sub-optimal performance to play' sign to discourage its' use is the kind of gatekeeping this game does not need. And even if you do want to gatekeep, if you really don't want uncomplex gameplay, you can easily simply not include it as an option. Cuts out the middleman and self-selects out people you don't want in your (smaller audience) game.

[MaxWilson]

The power gap between Samurai and Battlemaster is not clear cut as Fighting Spirit applies to an entire turn of attacks and mixes in the temp hp.

Yeah, and it also depends on level: around level 6ish Samurai suffers slightly on action economy (Battlemaster can Precise Strike without a bonus action so can Crossbow Expert better than Samurai can, and can also take advantage of prone targets better than Samurai). Level 7 Wis proficiency helps Samurai regain some ground, and level 15 Rapid Strike helps even more, and by level 18 Samurai is probably better overall IMHO, but it's hard to compare.

[Catullus64]

Why shouldn't complexity be a gate for effectiveness? Personally, as I say, I think that the game needs to make complex classes more powerful, otherwise each class is best optimised by making it dull, which then makes for dull games.

Complex does not equal interesting. If complex combat mechanics interest you, play characters that have them, and let the enjoyment you get from that be its own reward. If someone likes engaging with combat on a fairly superficial level so that they can focus on other parts of the game, why does the game need to punish them for that preference, so that you can feel rewarded for your system mastery?

Also, even for the most complex builds, this game isn't very hard, certainly not to the extent that playing complex characters is some kind of moral virtue.

[Dork_Forge]

Yeah, and it also depends on level: around level 6ish Samurai suffers slightly on action economy (Battlemaster can Precise Strike without a bonus action so can Crossbow Expert better than Samurai can, and can also take advantage of prone targets better than Samurai). Level 7 Wis proficiency helps Samurai regain some ground, and level 15 Rapid Strike helps even more, and by level 18 Samurai is probably better overall IMHO, but it's hard to compare.

It's incredibly dependent on external factors, I'd say in deadlier games the Samurai probably takes the edge simply for combining the temp hp with the advantage.

If the comparison shifts more towards CBE/SS style Fighters then the flexibility of the BM shines a fair bit depending on the ACs you're coming up against. I think on a Samurai I'd probably just go longbow ir heavy crossbow though personally (switching to a hand crossbow once you're either out of, or no longer wish to use your Fighting Spirit).

I do think BM would probably just be straight better most of the time for a GWM though, clogging up the bonus action economy on a GWM is rough (actually as the BM GWM in one of my games recently discovered).

[luuma]

I vaguely understand the reason for this position, but wildly disagree. Games are dull when they are dull, hard stop. Some people like mechanical complexity in their resolution systems, while others find it pointless. Both player types can make the game dull or engaging. To the latter group, they would very much like the dull process of game mechanics or combat resolution (or certainly build-related resolution, as you still are choosing when to engage and with what group against what other group and under what circumstances) get out of the way so they can get to the engaging part of the game.

Beyond that, placing a mode of gameplay behind a 'must be THIS prepared to accept sub-optimal performance to play' sign to discourage its' use is the kind of gatekeeping this game does not need. And even if you do want to gatekeep, if you really don't want uncomplex gameplay, you can easily simply not include it as an option. Cuts out the middleman and self-selects out people you don't want in your (smaller audience) game.

I think I've referred to "complexity" when I mean something more akin to "involving some decision-making", not "involving a lot of crunchy mechanical complexity".

I've also said I don't want any people playing the champion because I think it is dull - which is, as you say, some total gatekeeping BS, and not fair at all.

What I think I should've said is that I don't want people who want to play optimally to be incentivised to play the champion, because I think that, generally (tm), people who enjoy playing optimally also enjoy playing with a lot of decisions, resources, and choices.

I said earlier that it's good for new players - and it is. It's ideal for players who don't want to worry about decisionmaking - and I would say that most players that don't want much decisionmaking also don't give a damn about maximising damage either. They want to hit things, roleplay, and tell a story with some RNG.

Therefore, I think that it's generally best to having a general correlation between high power and high decisionmaking.

Players that seek subclasses without much decisionmaking generally don't care about maximising power. However, players that enjoy a lot of decisionmaking do generally care about optimisation and tactics. To cater to the latter group, I think you are forced to sacrifice the power of subclasses that cater to the former group (or else the latter are compelled to play through combat with very few decisions) - but, to that group, that's not generally(tm) much of a loss.

(I'm overgeneralising here, perhaps foolishly. And yes, ideally, the game should be designed around close balance for all, but that'd be a monumental undertaking, and the current system caters well to the average player, so overall I think the decision to make champion weak and battlemaster strong is a good one)


Either way, cheers for calling me out on that, it's genuinely good to see.

[MaxWilson]

It's incredibly dependent on external factors, I'd say in deadlier games the Samurai probably takes the edge simply for combining the temp hp with the advantage.

Even then it's complex, since temp HP doesn't stack. The Battlemaster might be gaining temp HP from Inspiring Leader, a Shepherd Druid, or a Artillerist's Protector Turret; advantage might be available from the Shepherd Druid's animals knocking things prone.

Comparing Samurai to Battlemaster is heavily context-dependent. : )


If the comparison shifts more towards CBE/SS style Fighters then the flexibility of the BM shines a fair bit depending on the ACs you're coming up against. I think on a Samurai I'd probably just go longbow ir heavy crossbow though personally (switching to a hand crossbow once you're either out of, or no longer wish to use your Fighting Spirit).

I do think BM would probably just be straight better most of the time for a GWM though, clogging up the bonus action economy on a GWM is rough (actually as the BM GWM in one of my games recently discovered).

Maybe. [thinks] But GWMs will have more use for the temp HP too, and then there's Wis proficiency to consider, and eventually Rapid Strike and Strength Before Death. I think I still don't know which one would be better "most" of the time, just that each will be better some of the time.


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


I'm quite literally not worried about it eclipsing archetypes at all (it's utter trash and we both know it), it's more that I don't personally see any good argument for making the weak dull subclass stronger. I'm glad it's this weak, because it means battlemasters, samurais, cavaliers, and EKs feel strong, and it's weak enough that its power tradeoff is arguably pretty obvious to a first time player. Yes, it could be stronger without eclipsing anything, but I don't think it should even be close to the other fighters, because really the last thing I want is players choosing to play one.

I agree that there's a vast amount of room to add more power - but I think that gulf is a good thing to have. Worst comes to the worst, a DM can fill the gap by handing it a free vicious weapon or the like.


I think I've referred to "complexity" when I mean something more akin to "involving some decision-making", not "involving a lot of crunchy mechanical complexity".

I've also said I don't want any people playing the champion because I think it is dull - which is, as you say, some total gatekeeping BS, and not fair at all.

What I think I should've said is that I don't want people who want to play optimally to be incentivised to play the champion, because I think that, generally (tm), people who enjoy playing optimally also enjoy playing with a lot of decisions, resources, and choices.

I said earlier that it's good for new players - and it is. It's ideal for players who don't want to worry about decisionmaking - and I would say that most players that don't want much decisionmaking also don't give a damn about maximising damage either. They want to hit things, roleplay, and tell a story with some RNG.

Therefore, I think that it's generally best to having a general correlation between high power and high decisionmaking.

Players that seek subclasses without much decisionmaking generally don't care about maximising power. However, players that enjoy a lot of decisionmaking do generally care about optimisation and tactics. To cater to the latter group, I think you are forced to sacrifice the power of subclasses that cater to the former group (or else the latter are compelled to play through combat with very few decisions) - but, to that group, that's not generally(tm) much of a loss.

(I'm overgeneralising here, perhaps foolishly. And yes, ideally, the game should be designed around close balance for all, but that'd be a monumental undertaking, and the current system caters well to the average player, so overall I think the decision to make champion weak and battlemaster strong is a good one)


Either way, cheers for calling me out on that, it's genuinely good to see.

It seems like you're saying two different things here. In the first post, you say you don't want it even close to the other fighters. In the second post you say that you don't want optimizing players incentivized to pick the Champion--but a player who picks a close-but-not-quite-there option (like a Champion 90% as strong as a Battlemaster) is by definition not picking the optimal choice.

Say for the sake of argument that a fighter with no subclass is a 6 out of 10, a Champion is a 6.5 out of 10, a Battlemaster or Samurai is a 9 out of 10, and an Eldritch Knight is a 9.5 out of 10. In that scenario (which I would argue is approximately the RAW), there's no benefit to keeping the Champion as weak as it currently is instead of improving it to an 8 or 8.5 out of 10. It's a design mistake, not a feature.

[Chronos]

Yeah, I'll agree that it makes sense to make the simple subclass a little weaker than the complicated ones. Key word there being "a little". It's OK that it's worse, but it should still at least be reasonably close.

[stoutstien]

Samurai is sort of a middle ground of complexity between champ and bm, where it has an actual resource to manage, but the resource is pretty simple. It's also a middle ground of power - it gets three uses of advantage + 5 thp per long rest, while battle master gets four uses of 1d8+chance to knock prone per short or long rest.

That is to say, champion is simpler and weaker than samurai, while battle master is more complex and stronger than it. I think this is true of not just the samurai but the cavalier and the banneret too.

Why shouldn't complexity be a gate for effectiveness? Personally, as I say, I think that the game needs to make complex classes more powerful, otherwise each class is best optimised by making it dull, which then makes for dull games.

The overall power potential between the samurai and Battle Master is within a margin of error. The degree of decision making between the champion and the samurai is also within a margin of error (harder to quantify because it's not something that can be measured readily). From my experience from behind the screen when I get new players that have a zero experience with the game most of them actually have an easier time reading the samurai and grasping it compared to the champion. As soon as they come across a line that says round down or recover HP up to X the straightforward applicability of the Sammy wins.
The samurai does with the champion fails at with a subclass that enhances the basic fighter play style with minimal upkeep.

There isn't any truly complex mechanics in 5e with the artificer taking the spot on top. Are they the most powerful class? Not really. They sit right where they should as a more Casterish half caster. Are wizards or sorcerers more complex? Is the strategic selection of a few memorized spells easier or harder than preparing a new list everyday? Which is more powerful? Which one should be more powerful?

All optimization is dull by nature because the path is pre-selected by what is deemed the best. If the determining factor is how important the decisions you make are then you have created a paradox.

[Zuras]

I'm aware of the RAW, which is why I said if the DM rules it.

Straight up comparing Inspiring Surge to Commander's Strike IS is far better in everything but frequency, and since you have to forego one of your attacks along with a bonus action it won't see use often. I've seen it used once in 6 years across maybe a dozen or so Battlemasters/dips.

Overall I actually like the Banneret, it's features are good it just needs a little more to be worth it. At minimum I give them a second use of Second Wind at level 3.


Yeah, I think the bannaret is well designed - it is elegant, fills a niche and is just generally neat... just underpowered.

The idea of the Banneret is elegant—a fighter that can share their special abilities with others. All the design after that point dropped the ball. The idea itself is easy to rework with a homebrew implementation though.

[luuma]

I do disagree with the general assessment of the samurai in the thread but perhaps this is just me running about 1 or 2 SRs per LR and not habitually running past 14th. I won't elaborate too much on the samurai because it's utterly off topic, and I already have about a thread's worth of people disagreeing with me to start with lmao, but:
- I would say that +1d8 damage and a chance to knock prone stacks up favourably against gaining advantage for 1 round. It's about half as likely, but a prone target grants advantage to about twice as many attacks. +1d8 is better than advantage at early levels (until getting GWM/Sharpshoter).
- Precision attack also stacks up well against 1 round of advantage. You declare you're gaining advantage at the start of the round, prior to any attacks. Advantage, on average, is roughly +3.5 to hit. The advantage therefore benefits about 4.5 attacks out of 20 (3.5 misses turned to hits, and one crit from the doubled crit chance). So 25% chance for each attack to add an attack's worth of damage. Precision attack, on the other hand, is much more likely to turn a miss into a hit when used because of how it's worded - you choose to use it after seeing the roll.
- I rarely find that fighters run low on HP in combat - perhaps because my players have generally built them as damage dealers rather than tanks. There's no cost to losing HP aside from hitting 0, therefore none of their THP matters unless it becomes the deciding factor that lets them survive a hit that would otherwise have reduced them to 0hp. I just generally don't think THP matters much.
- Add the above to the fact that battle master recovers on a short rest, and can use multiple maneuvers in a single turn, and I think it's significantly better.


It seems like you're saying two different things here. In the first post, you say you don't want it even close to the other fighters. In the second post you say that you don't want optimizing players incentivized to pick the Champion--but a player who picks a close-but-not-quite-there option (like a Champion 90% as strong as a Battlemaster) is by definition not picking the optimal choice.

I don't think there's any contradiction here - I don't think it should be close to the other fighters because personally think it's important that it's also clear that it is the weaker choice. It's worth noting that, even with its weakness, people do still make a case for the champion's strength. In my mind, its clear lack of strength is in itself an added benefit of of keeping it as weak as it currently is. I also say there's not much cost to making it as weak as it is because the gap can easily be patched up with loot.

[Chronos]

To the optimizer who picks the battlemaster, even a small power difference will be enough to make it clear which one is more powerful. So that argues that the power difference should be small.

To the casual player who picks the champion, you don't want it to be clear which one is more powerful, because then they'll feel bad about choosing the champion. So that also argues that the power difference should be small.

[luuma]

To the casual player who picks the champion, you don't want it to be clear which one is more powerful, because then they'll feel bad about choosing the champion. So that also argues that the power difference should be small.

No, this isn't what I'm saying. I don't mind whether it's clear to casual players that battlemaster is more powerful. I said "most players that don't want much decisionmaking also don't give a damn about maximising damage either."

[Man_Over_Game]

I leave the maths to other posters.

You essentially add a 5% chance to deal your weapon's damage worth of damage.

So you take 5% and multiply it by your weapon damage. 0.05 * 7 = 0.35 bonus damage per attack.

So if a Battle Master spent a superiority die for an attack, and didn’t factor in the status effect (basically adding 4.5 damage to an attack), the Champion would need 13 extra attacks to keep up with that damage bonus.

[stoutstien]

No, this isn't what I'm saying. I don't mind whether it's clear to casual players that battlemaster is more powerful. I said "most players that don't want much decisionmaking also don't give a damn about maximising damage either."

Why would there be any correlation between those two? If anything dealing lots of damage is the go-to solution for those who don't want to mess with alternative decisions and solutions.

[Delnatha]

My thoughts:

The assassin is kind of niche for a particular type of campaign.

The champion fighter ranges from adequate to really good depending on certain things. I once saw a kobold champion with a flame tongue who could dish some serious damage. When you have something like pack tactics to give advantage those 19+ and eventually 18+ cries start occurring much more frequently and having extra dice on each crit helps a lot.

Most complaints are that the champion is boring but really that just means it’s not your thing and that’s ok.

[MaxWilson]

My thoughts:

The assassin is kind of niche for a particular type of campaign.

The champion fighter ranges from adequate to really good depending on certain things. I once saw a kobold champion with a flame tongue who could dish some serious damage. When you have something like pack tactics to give advantage those 19+ and eventually 18+ cries start occurring much more frequently and having extra dice on each crit helps a lot.

Color me super skeptical that the kobold wouldn't have done just as much damage or more as a Battlemaster or Samurai. As a Samurai he'd have been making 4 attacks per round instead of 3 due to Rapid Strike.

[LudicSavant]

You essentially add a 5% chance to deal your weapon's damage worth of damage.

So you take 5% and multiply it by your weapon damage. 0.05 * 7 = 0.35 bonus damage per attack.

So if a Battle Master spent a superiority die for an attack, and didn’t factor in the status effect (basically adding 4.5 damage to an attack), the Champion would need 13 extra attacks to keep up with that damage bonus.

Not quite.

In order for this to be true, you would have to have a 100% hit-rate, which of course you generally don't.

That's because it's not "5% of your hits are crits." It's "5% of your attacks are crits," and those are absolutely not mathematically identical.

For example, if you crit on 19-20, and you hit on 11-20, then 20% of your crits are hits, not 10%.

Edit I misread MOG's statement here, he's already talking in terms of "per attack" instead of "per hit."

[MaxWilson]

Not quite.

In order for this to be true, you would have to have a 100% hit-rate, which of course you usually don't.

That's because it's not "5% of your hits are crits." It's "5% of your attacks are crits," and those are absolutely not mathematically identical.

That's incorrect. As long as the +4.5 is guaranteed not to be wasted (i.e. you use it after a hit instead of a miss), and as long as a natural 19 wouldn't be a miss, Man Over Game's math is correct. After 20 attacks (not 20 hits), you gain 7 damage with Champion + greatsword.

[LudicSavant]

That's incorrect. As long as the +4.5 is guaranteed not to be wasted (i.e. you use it after a hit instead of a miss), and as long as a natural 19 wouldn't be a miss, Man Over Game's math is correct. After 20 attacks (not 20 hits), you gain 7 damage with Champion + greatsword.

Oh, you're right, he's already doing it "5% per attack" instead of "5% per hit." I misread his statement and thus rescind my statement. Thank you for the correction! :smallbiggrin:

Side note: there are some additional caveats that can make it more than 5% per attack, if you have access to some kind of rider (like GWM's bonus action, or critfishing dice like smites or maneuvers, or Crusher, or the like).

[Man_Over_Game]

Oh, you're right, he's already doing it "5% per attack" instead of "5% per hit." I misread his statement and thus rescind my statement. Thank you for the correction! :smallbiggrin:

Side note: there are some additional caveats that can make it more than 5% per attack, if you have access to some kind of rider (like GWM's bonus action, or critfishing dice like smites or maneuvers, or Crusher, or the like).

I agree, I just don't know how valuable those bonuses are when you consider the fact that you don't know when you're going to crit (when you're always going to use a S.Die when it's useful).

Even if you take the best-case scenario, with GWM, that's about 1 damage per attack (assuming ~20-damage on a hit), not accounting for the fact that you:
- Didn't kill the target that you critted on with a heavy weapon.
- Only have one Bonus Action per turn.

In contrast, Great Weapon Fighting adds about 0.7 damage. The Champion, with a very synergistic feat (nearly tripling its effectiveness), is worth slightly more than the worst fighting style.

[EDIT] It'd actually be 27 damage per 20 attacks, as you're still getting a crit off of the heavy weapon, for +1.35 damage. Which isn't terrible, but it isn't accounting for all of the other potential factors that get in the way. The fact that you need a specific feat to get more than 0.5 damage from it is just stupid.

[MaxWilson]

In contrast, Great Weapon Fighting adds about 0.7 damage. The Champion, with a very synergistic feat (nearly tripling its effectiveness), is worth slightly more than the worst fighting style.

Cogently argued. Touche!

Although to be fair, that's Improved Critical you're evaluating, not "the Champion." To evaluate the Champion as a whole you need to account for initiative bonus from Remarkable Athlete at 7 (worth about 10% of an extra round, so the value depends on how long combats tend to be and is not easy to analyze), another Fighting Style at 10, Survivor at 18, and the additional tiny boost to crits at 15.

Still though, yeah, the fact that Improved Critical is barely better than GWF (even when synergized and with favorable assumptions) is cogent.

[quindraco]

Cogently argued. Touche!

Although to be fair, that's Improved Critical you're evaluating, not "the Champion." To evaluate the Champion as a whole you need to account for initiative bonus from Remarkable Athlete at 7 (worth about 10% of an extra round, so the value depends on how long combats tend to be and is not easy to analyze), another Fighting Style at 10, Survivor at 18, and the additional tiny boost to crits at 15.

Still though, yeah, the fact that Improved Critical is barely better than GWF (even when synergized and with favorable assumptions) is cogent.

Yeah, the other thread about buffing Champions lead with focusing on improving Remarkable Athlete, and I mean, it's definitely a reasonable point to buff. But you can tell Battle Masters are compatible with the DMG's assumed 6-8 fights of 3 rounds each across 2 short rests across 1 long rest in ways the Champion just isn't.

[Corran]

My issue with the assassing is that not only do I not want to play it, but I don't want to be at a table where someone else is playing it. It is a class designed to provide an incentive to not speak to NPCs, to just kill them before they can speak. It shuts doen things like negotiation and shuts out diplomatic characters and diminishes the social side of the game... or if it doesn't then it just sucks harder.
I dont doubt that it is possible for someone to actually have had the kind of bad experience you are describing. But that's not a problem with the design IMO, that's a problem with the player's mentality. Yes, it sounds reasonable when saying that the problem exists because there is that incentive, but is it really such a strong incentive? I've seen barbarians start fights at inns more times than I care to count. I've seen rogues try to sneak absolutely everywhere, even when they could just walk right through the front door. Or try to steal absolutely everything. I've seen paladins rush for the main threat when that was a stupid decision too many times. Etc. We can all get carried away sometimes and have our characters overcommit to whatever mechanic (which in turn influences the course of action) we find cool at the time, but that's just that. Overcommiting. I'll admit that it is a bit of a pain to go back on a hard earned opportunity at surprising an enemy in order to join (or start) (a/)the conversation, but how often would you say a player faces that dilemma? Once every seven years or so?


And once you do get your assasinate abilities going, it still makes for an encounter with less fun. If you hit and do massive damage then that great big cinematic fight against a worthy opponent becomes a bit of a pushover... and if you miss, then another anticlimax.
That's a problem with nova abilities in general, and assassinate is hardly the biggest culprit here. I could start talking about how this is the DM's fault for not setting up appropriate encounters, but I get it. Nova abilities are annoying sometimes, as they can define the kind of enemy set up you will want to be using more than you might have liked.


I have avoided it so far, but I could see the assassin generating some party strife as well. THe assassin wants stealth, the paladin wants heavy armour and both players think they are entitled to use their class abilities. I don't think an ability that gets shut down so effectively by another player doing what their class is designed to do is a good design decision.
Clashes like that will always be inescapable. Some things work well together, others dont. It would be too cheap to go around the ''issue'' by giving the assassin the ability to boost the party's stealth. In the end, not everything has to work well with everything else all the time. And that's something I like about the game. As it leaves you the option to improve performance if you cooperate with other players. I dont think it's even bad if a defining subclass ability is even very situational, as long as two conditions are satisfied. First, the ability captures well the theme. And second, it's easy for the player to know what they are in for. And to that note, I think it would be beneficial if there was a small summary about how surprise rules work in the assassin's page on the PHB.

[MaxWilson]

I dont doubt that it is possible for someone to actually have had the kind of bad experience you are describing. But that's not a problem with the design IMO, that's a problem with the player's mentality. Yes, it sounds reasonable when saying that the problem exists because there is that incentive, but is it really such a strong incentive? I've seen barbarians start fights at inns more times than I care to count. I've seen rogues try to sneak absolutely everywhere, even when they could just walk right through the front door. Or try to steal absolutely everything. I've seen paladins rush for the main threat when that was a stupid decision too many times. Etc. We can all get carried away sometimes and have our characters overcommit to whatever mechanic (which in turn influences the course of action) we find cool at the time, but that's just that. Overcommiting. I'll admit that it is a bit of a pain to go back on a hard earned opportunity at surprising an enemy in order to join (or start) (a/)the conversation, but how often would you say a player faces that dilemma? Once every seven years or so?

I actually feel like I know exactly what MrStabby is talking about. With one of my player groups (the savviest one), the players know the tactical value of Pass Without Trace in theory... but in practice they don't like attacking anyone who hasn't attacked them first. If the Shadow Monk notices a ghoul lurking under a bed in a run-down shack (in a third party module), her first instinct isn't to attack it before it knows she's there, likely annihilating it before it even gets any attacks off on round 2--instead, her instinct is to reason that she has more than enough power relative to the ghoul to not need to pre-emptively attack it, and to try to communicate with it or at least bypass it and leave it in peace.

This isn't to say that that group of players doesn't benefit enormously from stealth, but it's primarily from (1) knowing what the opposition's force structure looks like, and (2) getting to set the terms of engagement. It's less about "now we get a free surprise round!" and more about "now we're negotiating with the two Frost Giants from a position of strength: one PC is waving a white flag and is escorted by a dozen wolves, and two other PCs are on top of the cliff getting 3/4 cover from ad hoc earth berms, ready to fire down on the Frost Giants if a fight starts." The Frost Giants will be the ones who start any given fight, and no one will be surprised when the encounter starts, but the PCs have still benefitted from stealth letting them cast spells and climb cliffs before the fight started.

Or if there's two dozen Frost Giants, they can use stealth to simply decline to engage.

So at least for that group of players, wanting to talk first instead of a launching surprise attack is less "once every seven years" and more like "pretty much every encounter".

[LudicSavant]

Even if you take the best-case scenario, with GWM, that's about 1 damage per attack (assuming ~20-damage on a hit)

Nitpick: Advantage and Crusher should provide a substantially better-case scenario than that.

Not enough to make it great or anything, mind (I'm very much on the "Champion isn't very strong" side). Just higher than the figures given.

For example if you Action Surge and make 4 attacks that crit on 19-20 with Advantage, you have a >57% chance of triggering the bonus action attack and Crusher (granting Advantage to the rest of your team).

If you're say... attacking with +4 Prof / +5 Str against AC 15 with GWF/GWM, then the damage jumps by nearly 2 per attack, plus the benefit of Crusher boosting ally damage. Specifically, DPR would increase by ~7.8, plus any benefit from Crusher. When not Action Surging (making just 2 attacks), the DPR would increase by ~4.7, plus any benefit from Crusher.

[luuma]

Nitpick: Advantage and Crusher should provide a substantially better-case scenario than that.

Not enough to make it great or anything, mind (I'm very much on the "Champion isn't very strong" side). Just higher than the figures given.

For example if you Action Surge and make 4 attacks that crit on 19-20 with Advantage, you have a >57% chance of triggering the bonus action attack and Crusher (granting Advantage to the rest of your team).

If you're say... attacking with +4 Prof / +5 Str against AC 15 with GWF/GWM, then the damage jumps by nearly 2 per attack, plus the benefit of Crusher boosting ally damage. Specifically, DPR would increase by ~7.8, plus any benefit from Crusher. When not Action Surging (making just 2 attacks), the DPR would increase by ~4.7, plus any benefit from Crusher.

When you say ">57% chance" (1-(0.9^8)) I think you need to make clear that you mean ">57% chance to roll a 19 or 20". All classes crit on a 20 - it's not a unique benefit of the champion! The chance of rolling exactly a 19 is roughly 27%

So by choosing the champion, DPR jumps by about 3.7 for four attacks, or less than 1 per attack

[LudicSavant]

So by choosing the champion, DPR jumps by about 3.7 for four attacks, or less than 1 per attack

That’s incorrect. In the above example, the difference between critting on 20 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1j9CmT2bEmjNSY34jA4G8LX7bIstsjQWLZiU-MkGiLJo/edit?usp=sharing) and critting on 19-20 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AhjJoV3DRKKsm9rRl2m9gN5cUvDcNI63BH0L8NUJtws/edit?usp=sharing) is 7.8 DPR *plus* the benefit of Crusher to the rest of the party.

In those linked sheets, you should be looking at the "-5/+10 DPR" line in those sheets.

Here's the math when you crit only on 20: 4 GWM/GWF attacks with +4 prof / +5 Str vs AC 15 with 20 crit range (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1j9CmT2bEmjNSY34jA4G8LX7bIstsjQWLZiU-MkGiLJo/edit?usp=sharing)
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/841980415115919381/857903679264784404/unknown.png

And here's the math when you crit on 19-20: 4 GWM/GWF attacks with +4 prof / +5 Str vs AC 15 with 19-20 crit range (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AhjJoV3DRKKsm9rRl2m9gN5cUvDcNI63BH0L8NUJtws/edit?usp=sharing)
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/841980415115919381/857903943933624330/unknown.png

87.2 - 79.4 = 7.8

And that's before counting Crusher's benefit to the party, which is potentially an even bigger variable.

[luuma]

Ah right, I wrongly assumed you'd used the 57% chance to crit to calculate 7.8 damage per round. I thought you were quantifying only the crit benefit from GWM, and calculating 0.57 * average damage from a single bonus action attack with a greatsword with GWF = 0.57*~13.7 = 7.8 extra damage. So I did 0.27*13.7