Fighter possibility

[paladinn]

Just a crazy thought I had.. the Fighter/Champion subclass is widely considered one of the worst in the game. I've even come up with my own alternative "plain" fighter based on the Ranger/Hunter subclass that works pretty well on a fighter chassis.

Historically, or at least back to 3e, fighters would get an attack bonus equal to their level. This has removed from 5e in favor of using the character's proficiency bonus. For most characters, that is probably fine; for fighters, especially "basic" fighters, it's a pretty big nerf. I'm thinking of adding a class feature to the Champion Only: In combat, a Champion can use his/her class level in place of the proficiency bonus, whichever is higher.

By the time a Champion gets up around L15 or so, s/he is never going to miss (except on a 1, obviously), but maybe that's not a bad thing?

Thoughts? Alternatives?

[Skrum]

Would this be for attack rolls, or everything as long as the character was in combat? If it's the latter, that's going to be hard to word; it'll certainly encourage cheesy stuff like getting in "fights' with your allies to reap the benefits of near auto-success on skill checks.

But aside from that....well it would certainly make Champions good. By level 8 they'd be able to use GWM or SS and still be as likely to hit as a character that wasn't using those feats. That sounds a little absurd. It also sounds pretty boring.

Yes, champions are supposed to be the "vanilla" character. But even people new to game generally know what's up by the time they get to 5th or 6th. Champions, like all martial characters besides paladins, need actual features. Idk that giving them giant numbers is the way.

[LudicSavant]

Just a crazy thought I had.. the Fighter/Champion subclass is widely considered one of the worst in the game. I've even come up with my own alternative "plain" fighter based on the Ranger/Hunter subclass that works pretty well on a fighter chassis.

Historically, or at least back to 3e, fighters would get an attack bonus equal to their level. This has removed from 5e in favor of using the character's proficiency bonus. For most characters, that is probably fine; for fighters, especially "basic" fighters, it's a pretty big nerf. I'm thinking of adding a class feature to the Champion Only: In combat, a Champion can use his/her class level in place of the proficiency bonus, whichever is higher.

By the time a Champion gets up around L15 or so, s/he is never going to miss (except on a 1, obviously), but maybe that's not a bad thing?

Thoughts? Alternatives?

It would basically end up hard-pigeonholing Champions into builds that trade accuracy for other benefits (like GWM or SS). Also it provides a much bigger effect in the late game than the early game (starting out at a net benefit of +1 to hit, and growing to +14 to hit), which may not be desirable assuming the goal is to balance them against the Battle Mater (who I'd say has a more pronounced advantage over the Champion in early levels).

Also, numbers for this sort of thing shouldn't be chosen arbitrarily.

[Kane0]

5e's math is generally pretty tight, so this sort of thing will generally produce some wacky results. I'd say a simpler way to write it would be 'when making an attack with a weapon you're proficient in, you can choose to use your normal attack bonus (prof + stat + other) or your fighter level, whichever is higher'.

Now that said, a fighter hitting pretty much every attack will rarely if ever be an insurmountable problem for a DM, especially one comfortable with handing out high + magic items.

So if this works for you and your table, go for it. It's probably not a good idea for overall game balance, but luckily you don't need to care about that because you only have to get the approval of those you actually play with.

[Skrum]

If you want to do something like this, I would recommend something more like "Before making an attack roll, you may use this ability to automatically hit. This ability may be used proficiency bonus times, and recovers on a short rest."

I think this is more in line with the structure of abilities in 5e, and still has a similar vibe to being able to hit when it counts.

[Kane0]

If you want to do something like this, I would recommend something more like "Before making an attack roll, you may use this ability to automatically hit. This ability may be used proficiency bonus times, and recovers on a short rest."

I think this is more in line with the structure of abilities in 5e, and still has a similar vibe to being able to hit when it counts.

Actually I do something very similar for my base fighter rework, once per short rest you can turn a hit into a crit (this comes at level 13, and the capstone is turning second wind, action surge, indomitable and this crit feature into twice per short rest each)

[paladinn]

5e's math is generally pretty tight, so this sort of thing will generally produce some wacky results. I'd say a simpler way to write it would be 'when making an attack with a weapon you're proficient in, you can choose to use your normal attack bonus (prof + stat + other) or your fighter level, whichever is higher'.

More better.. Thanks!

[meandean]

If you want to do something like this, I would recommend something more like "Before making an attack roll, you may use this ability to automatically hit. This ability may be used proficiency bonus times, and recovers on a short rest."Well, you'd still want to roll in order to take advantage of that amazing Improved Critical ability :smallwink:

[AvatarVecna]

A couple nitpicks:

First, Champion Fighter isn't weak. It's strength is largely random, so you can't intentionally trigger it for tougher fights, but Fighter is a really solid class; Champion subclass is perhaps underwhelming or boring compared to the other Fighter subclasses, but it's hardly complete garbage. We could have an argument about how it compares to, for example, Battlemaster (and many people have had that argument many, many, many times), but I don't think it's fair to say it's the worst in the game when you've got things like Barbarian/Berserker (a strong class with an utterly punishing subclass), Monk/Four Elements (a slightly weak but fun class with a punishing subclass), or PH Ranger/PH Beastmaster (an underwhelming class with a punishing subclass). Champion is mediocre, but it doesn't punish you for trying to use it, it's just "not as good as it maybe should be".

Secondly, if we're being accurate: in 3e, all classes had base attack bonus, which they got on all attacks they were proficiency with (let's call that a "proficiency bonus to attack"). In 3e, that was +(half your level) for mages and the like, and +(level) for fighters and the like. If we wanted to build that dynamic into 5e, or at least build it into the Champion Fighter, then Champ should have twice the "bonus from level" to attack that wizards get. Which is to say...to do this accurately, Champion Fighter would need to get expertise on attack rolls.

The main problem with that approach, of course, is that it makes a Fighter 3 dip pretty valuable on a blaster caster build.

[Anonymouswizard]

Would this be for attack rolls, or everything as long as the character was in combat? If it's the latter, that's going to be hard to word; it'll certainly encourage cheesy stuff like getting in "fights' with your allies to reap the benefits of near auto-success on skill checks.

'I want to seduce the barmaid so I punch a random patron :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, abilities such as this just get plain ridicule. I believe Legend of the Five Rings 1e gave Unicorn Bushi bonus to skills while mounted. Want to use a katana? Horse time! Want to write poetry? Horse time! Want to climb a mountain? Horse time! Brain surgery? Horse time! Need to apologise because you've ridden your horse into somebody's house? You'd better believe that it's horse time.


If you want to do something like this, I would recommend something more like "Before making an attack roll, you may use this ability to automatically hit. This ability may be used proficiency bonus times, and recovers on a short rest."

I think this is more in line with the structure of abilities in 5e, and still has a similar vibe to being able to hit when it counts.

So basically the Samurai? Sure, it works differently, but it's the same core idea.

Although to be honest, the Samurai and Cavalier are much better 'simple Fighter subclasses' in my view than the Champion.

[Kane0]

The main problem with that approach, of course, is that it makes a Fighter 3 dip pretty valuable on a blaster caster build.

So limit it to weapon attacks?

[paladinn]

So limit it to weapon attacks?

Melee or missile attacks

[Psyren]

Instead of adding a bunch of fiddly/arbitrary extra math to Champion, which is supposed to be the simple fighter, I think they should just get an additional ASI - likely at 10th. That would buff them in as straightforward (or as complex) a way as your skill level would warrant.

The additional fighting style should happen at 3rd and would feel very impactful there - getting two of those so close together (1 & 3) would feel awesome for anyone, without breaking the game's math.

[Hytheter]

So limit it to weapon attacks?

I think a broader problem is that it makes it a killer dip for any attack roll character instead of a reward for sticking it out with the class. Limiting it to weapon attacks stops casters getting in on the fun but it would still be a very tempting pick for other martials. An alternative solution might just be to give a flat boost based on class level in some fashion (that may well mirror expertise without literally being based on proficiency) but that could be considered finicky.

[Rukelnikov]

What about giving Champion its most interesting feature at lvl 3?

If you are below half hit points, you can heal yourself prof bonus hp at the beginning of your turn

At lvl 3, lets assume 31 hp (10 + 6 + 6 + 9 Con bonus), below 16 you heal 2 hp /round. Verosimilitude may be out the window, but mechanically its interesting, and it gets progressively weaker (in the sense that healing 5 hp/round in combat at lvl 13 ain't that hot), so dipping late for this wouldn't be as interesting, but getting it early on would. Outside of combat its really strong, but again, I'm under the impression OoC healing gets cheaper as one levels up.

[ff7hero]

What about giving Champion its most interesting feature at lvl 3?

If you are below half hit points, you can heal yourself prof bonus hp at the beginning of your turn

At lvl 3, lets assume 31 hp (10 + 6 + 6 + 9 Con bonus), below 16 you heal 2 hp /round. Verosimilitude may be out the window, but mechanically its interesting, and it gets progressively weaker (in the sense that healing 5 hp/round in combat at lvl 13 ain't that hot), so dipping late for this wouldn't be as interesting, but getting it early on would. Outside of combat its really strong, but again, I'm under the impression OoC healing gets cheaper as one levels up.

Hot take, but I'm not a fan of Survivor. For a number of reasons. When it's active, it's often too little too late. Healing to half isn't very good for OoC healing, so at best it's a slight reduction in the resources needed for OoC healing, it never removes them. It also encourages super risky play (how low can I go) to "maximize" that OoC healing.

I'd much rather leave it at 18 and buff it to be always active. Let your Champion 18 be Wolverine.

[Rukelnikov]

Hot take, but I'm not a fan of Survivor. For a number of reasons. When it's active, it's often too little too late. Healing to half isn't very good for OoC healing, so at best it's a slight reduction in the resources needed for OoC healing, it never removes them. It also encourages super risky play (how low can I go) to "maximize" that OoC healing.

I'd much rather leave it at 18 and buff it to be always active. Let your Champion 18 be Wolverine.

Do you really think it'd be that weak? I'm just spitballing here, but I'd wager what I wrote to be comparable to Tough in a 2 or 3 encounters day, and likely better after that.

EDIT: That'd be at early levels thouh, my spitball math was, lets say it doesn't kick in the first encounter, you get 2 rounds worth for each successive encounter. Not necesarily because it would trigger in combat, but because you'd finish combat below half HP.

So, how many "ticks" do you need in order to be equal or better in amount of extra HP to Tough?


Lvl 3: 3 Ticks
Lvl 4: 4 Ticks
Lvl 5: 4 Ticks
Lvl 6: 4 Ticks
Lvl 7: 5 Ticks
Lvl 8: 6 Ticks
Lvl 9: 5 Ticks
Lvl 10: 5 Ticks
Lvl 11: 6 Ticks
Lvl 12: 6 Ticks
Lvl 13: 6 Ticks
Lvl 14: 6 Ticks
Lvl 15: 6 Ticks
Lvl 16: 7 Ticks
Lvl 17: 6 Ticks
Lvl 18: 6 Ticks
Lvl 19: 7 Ticks
Lvl 20: 7 Ticks


Now, having a higher base pool of HP will more often be better, since you are harder to down from full to 0 in a short time, and there are some fringe benefits on other things that trigger when bloodied, or up to bloodied (Preserve life, Dhamps/Beast bite regen, prolly some other).

However, this would stack with Tough, which Champ could get at next level, And they'd be wolvie lite from T1.

[paladinn]

I read another possibility.. A champion gets a 2nd fighting style at L10. At L13 or 15, maybe give the character an upgrade on one of his/her fighting styles. Archery goe to a +3 or 4; Defense goes to a +2 or 3, etc.

Too OP?

One more.. Castles & Crusades Haunted Highlands setting has a fighter class feature called "Martial Prominence". A fighter can take some of his/her attack bonus and allocate to damage or AC. I kind of like this.

[paladinn]

Here's where I'm going with all this. On another forum, the subject was brought up of possibly creating a "Basic/Classic" type game alongside 5e (and whatever version is next). This game would be mechanically compatible with 5e, and characters created in either could be played in the other. I'm thinking of this like the AD&D/D&D "split", but with more interoperability. Offering the 4 basic classes with less bells and whistles, options and choices (and no real subclasses), but still very usable in either game.

I'm going to develop this more in a different thread; but with the focus on the fighter class, how would one create a unified fighter class without subclasses that a novice player could pick up and easily play? I find the base fighter class a bit underwhelming and the champion subclass (the "core" subclass) even moreso. I'm considering adapting the Warrior "sidekick" class from the UA and Tasha's to serve as the one "Classic game fighter" class, with a few additions.

How would You design a compatible fighter class?

[Kane0]

By my vote, UA Warrior is a great option. It's almost like a champion fighter, with some things swapped for barbarian features. I think at mid to high levels it could use some secondary benefits like expertise, a little movement speed increase, etc but overall it's simple and solid.

[paladinn]

Ok, taking Kane0's advice, I'm using the UA Warrior as a starting point. I also did some comparisons between the PHB Fighter and Champion, the UA Warrior and Tasha's Warrior. I have a question about a few of the level features:

1. At L1, a Fighter gets both a Fighting Style and 2nd Wind. UA Warrior gets 2nd Wind. Tasha's gets a "Martial Role". That is defined as a warrior's focus, attacker or defender. The attacker role gains +2 to all attack rolls; the defender can impose disadvantage to an attacker within 5 ft that isn't attacking the warrior. I'm torn on which option/s to take. Is Martial Role better than a fighting style?

2. At L2, fighter gets Action Surge, the UA warrior gets Danger Sense (from Barbarian), Tasha's gets 2nd Wind. Which would be more optimal?

3. At L7, a Champion gets Remarkable Athlete. UA Warrior gets Battle Readiness. Not sure that either really trips my trigger.

4. At L10, a Champion gets a 2nd fighting style; UA warrior gets Improved Defense. My gut tells me to go with the 2nd fighting style, which would make my L1 choice clear. I'm thinking to allow either a 2nd style Or a +1 upgrade to the original style.

5. At L17, fighter gets Action Surge and Indomitable; UA Warrior just gets Indomitable.

6. At L18, a Champion gets Survivor; UA Warrior gets 2nd Wind; Tasha's gets Indomitable

I want to go with simplicity, but also make sure it's powerful enough to be a viable "no-subclass" fighter.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance!

[Kane0]

I want to go with simplicity, but also make sure it's powerful enough to be a viable "no-subclass" fighter.

1. At L1, a Fighter gets both a Fighting Style and 2nd Wind. UA Warrior gets 2nd Wind. Tasha's gets a "Martial Role". That is defined as a warrior's focus, attacker or defender. The attacker role gains +2 to all attack rolls; the defender can impose disadvantage to an attacker within 5 ft that isn't attacking the warrior. I'm torn on which option/s to take. Is Martial Role better than a fighting style?

2. At L2, fighter gets Action Surge, the UA warrior gets Danger Sense (from Barbarian), Tasha's gets 2nd Wind. Which would be more optimal?

3. At L7, a Champion gets Remarkable Athlete. UA Warrior gets Battle Readiness. Not sure that either really trips my trigger.

4. At L10, a Champion gets a 2nd fighting style; UA warrior gets Improved Defense. My gut tells me to go with the 2nd fighting style, which would make my L1 choice clear. I'm thinking to allow either a 2nd style Or a +1 upgrade to the original style.

5. At L17, fighter gets Action Surge and Indomitable; UA Warrior just gets Indomitable.

6. At L18, a Champion gets Survivor; UA Warrior gets 2nd Wind; Tasha's gets Indomitable


1. Martial Role, or something like it. +1 AC or +1 attack/damage, simple choice. Maybe add +10' speed when you get extra attack at level 5 too.

2. Action Surge being a short rest thing might not play well since retroclone D&D doesn't really use short rests, i'd go with Danger Sense (roll twice, take best on rolls to dodge things you can see)

3. Roll twice, take best for initiative is simple and works well

4. Yep, just Martial Role again (pick the same one again or the other one you didn't get at 1). Another simple but effective choice.

5. Indomitable sucks, but with the aforementioned problem with translating short rests I would just do an alternative ability that basically copies Legendary Resistance (auto-pass a failed save once per long rest)

6. Survivor is solid but not fancy, only really good on long days with lots of fighting. Remove the up-to-half limit, the priest can already raise the dead and more at this point.

[paladinn]

Thanks! Work in progress. I am also pondering how to work some sort of Cleave mechanic into the mix. And/or maybe the ability to some of ones attack bonus to boost AC or damage.

[paladinn]

This is my 2nd attempt at this topic. For some reason the previous thread got shuffled off to "homebrew", where threads go to die.

I'm looking for a good alternative to the Fighter/Champion sub/class. It seems to be one of the most disliked options out there. I think there's a need for a "basic" fighter for folks that don't want to cast spells and don't want to play a tactical game. Hypothetically I'd like one unified class (no subclass); but that can be finagled.

I've been looking at the Adventures in Middle Earth RPG, which is based on 5e. There is a subclass for the Warrior (i.e. Fighter) class called the Weaponmaster. At L3, your archetype gains the Style Focus feature, which gains enhancements to your Fighting Style. You also gain Masteries with one specific weapon: a +1 attack and damage at L3, then other benefits at L7, 10 and 15. That would give options for customization without even needing a subclass. Considering a cross between this and the UA Warrior "sidekick" class.

I'm liking this a lot; but any time I bring up the topic of attack bonuses, I get "No, you can't do that.. it violates bounded accuracy!" I guess not everyone thinks that.

Thoughts?

[MrStabby]

Well I guess if your topic is primarily, or even exclusively about homebrewing a "fix" to something you don't like hen it probably belongs in the homebrew forum. It sounds like it went to the right place. No doubt someone with better judgement that myself will, in the fullness of time, form a judgement as to whether this should do the same. Till then...

The thing wih bounded accuracy isn't so much that you can't break it, but it screws the game a bit if it isn't paralleled between characters. I.e. getting a +2 to hit is fine, getting a +2 to hit but only on some classes is a bit of an issue. Look at the ratings people give to the archery fighting style for just that. The gulf that grows between different classes then when fighting high AC targets is pretty damn huge. Or look at the impact magic itens have.

The question is not whether it would break the game to include such a thing though, but whether is would be good for the game. That is a very different question. There are pleny of things that can make the game worse whilst sill leaving it playable. It doen' follow you should make things worse.

"Other benefits" are probably good, and the +1 to damage is probably fine but bonuses to hit... can be good but you need to be really careful.

[meandean]

To me, Samurai and Cavalier are the better Champions. Samurai for archers, obviously. Cavalier if the player is excited about having a mount and/or being the "protector", and doesn't mind it being a little more complex; otherwise, Samurai is fine for melee too.

[Frogreaver]

This is my 2nd attempt at this topic. For some reason the previous thread got shuffled off to "homebrew", where threads go to die.

I'm looking for a good alternative to the Fighter/Champion sub/class. It seems to be one of the most disliked options out there. I think there's a need for a "basic" fighter for folks that don't want to cast spells and don't want to play a tactical game. Hypothetically I'd like one unified class (no subclass); but that can be finagled.

I've been looking at the Adventures in Middle Earth RPG, which is based on 5e. There is a subclass for the Warrior (i.e. Fighter) class called the Weaponmaster. At L3, your archetype gains the Style Focus feature, which gains enhancements to your Fighting Style. You also gain Masteries with one specific weapon: a +1 attack and damage at L3, then other benefits at L7, 10 and 15. That would give options for customization without even needing a subclass. Considering a cross between this and the UA Warrior "sidekick" class.

I'm liking this a lot; but any time I bring up the topic of attack bonuses, I get "No, you can't do that.. it violates bounded accuracy!" I guess not everyone thinks that.

Thoughts?

If you remove or change the -5/+10 feats so that there is no more -5/+10 then attack bonuses are fine.

If not you've provided a huge incentive for your new fighter to always use SS or GWM and depending on the size of the attack bonuses you may have invalidated all other fighters at that point.

So it really depends what if any other houserules apply to your table. I don't think an accuracy boosting fighter is something you could market for 5e with feats as they currently are but for your table - assuming those feats are cared for it could work great.

[JNAProductions]

Have you checked the homebrew compendium we have here? Maintained by Twelvetrees, who is awesome.

There’s a hundred fixes at least-see if any of them work for you.

[Skrum]

I think samurai is exactly what you're looking for. One extra ability, what it does is very simple, and it even increases chance to hit, which sounds like the direction you wanted to go anyway.

Why not samurai?

[Psyren]

Are you looking for another fighter subclass that is relatively simple to use? Of the remaining ones, Samurai is probably the most straightforward.

Are you looking for a set of subclass features that could be easy to use on the Fighter chassis? Hunter from Ranger should do the job quite well.

Are you looking for a fix or replacement to Champion itself? If so, that might be what got your thread put in homebrew, though only a mod can tell you for sure.

[paladinn]

Are you looking for another fighter subclass that is relatively simple to use? Of the remaining ones, Samurai is probably the most straightforward.

Are you looking for a set of subclass features that could be easy to use on the Fighter chassis? Hunter from Ranger should do the job quite well.

Are you looking for a fix or replacement to Champion itself? If so, that might be what got your thread put in homebrew, though only a mod can tell you for sure.

I actually did a version of Hunter on a Fighter chassis and posted it on this forum. And you're right; it is pretty cool. That would be my Ranger replacement.

I'm contemplating one class, sans subclass, that could be used as a basic "just fighter" class. The closest thing I've seen has been the UA Warrior "sidekick" class. But a lot of the features like Action Surge and 2nd Wind and even Improved Critical seem to have been contrived just to fill in levels in 5e. Improvements to a fighter's Fighting Style seem like a more organic way of improving a fighter's abilities without diverting into a subclass.

[JNAProductions]

I actually did a version of Hunter on a Fighter chassis and posted it on this forum. And you're right; it is pretty cool. That would be my Ranger replacement.

I'm contemplating one class, sans subclass, that could be used as a basic "just fighter" class. The closest thing I've seen has been the UA Warrior "sidekick" class. But a lot of the features like Action Surge and 2nd Wind and even Improved Critical seem to have been contrived just to fill in levels in 5e. Improvements to a fighter's Fighting Style seem like a more organic way of improving a fighter's abilities without diverting into a subclass.

What do you have against subclasses?

[paladinn]

Have you checked the homebrew compendium we have here? Maintained by Twelvetrees, who is awesome.

There’s a hundred fixes at least-see if any of them work for you.

Not sure where this "homebrew compendium" is located. If you mean the link in your signature, no offense but nothing in there seems quite what I'm seeking.

There's nothing at all wrong with subclasses in general. For the earliest editions of D&D, paladins and rangers were both fighter subclasses. I wouldn't mind putting them back that way actually. But until 5e, if you wanted to be "just a fighter", you could be. Not everyone wants infinite choices and options at every level.

[JNAProductions]

Not sure where this "homebrew compendium" is located. If you mean the link in your signature, no offense but nothing in there seems quite what I'm seeking.

There's nothing at all wrong with subclasses in general. For the earliest editions of D&D, paladins and rangers were both fighter subclasses. I wouldn't mind putting them back that way actually. But until 5e, if you wanted to be "just a fighter", you could be. Not everyone wants infinite choices and options at every level.

No, I meant this one (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?481588-D-amp-D-5e-Homebrew-Compendium-2).

And that's kinda what the Champion is-it's your basic, no frills, minimal options Fighter.

[Skrum]

And that's kinda what the Champion is-it's your basic, no frills, minimal options Fighter.


I think they don't like that it's called Champion, though. They want a fighter.

[paladinn]

No, I meant this one (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?481588-D-amp-D-5e-Homebrew-Compendium-2).

And that's kinda what the Champion is-it's your basic, no frills, minimal options Fighter.

If you compare the Fighter/Champion with the Warrior UA sidekick class, the Warrior seems at least as good if not better, no subclass needed. A lot of the PHB abilities seem either contrived ("Uh oh, a 'dead level'! We better put something there!") or ribbons.

If a sub/class is to be the go-to for a "basic, no frills, minimal options fighter", it should be the best fighter in the game. Otherwise, who would want to play it? Which is probably why the Champion gets ragged-on constantly.

[Dork_Forge]

I would just use the Samurai as the simple Fighter, or the UA Brute

[paladinn]

Has anyone played Adventures in Middle Earth? The Weaponmaster subclass is much of what I'd have in mind if I was going for a subclass.

[JNAProductions]

If you compare the Fighter/Champion with the Warrior UA sidekick class, the Warrior seems at least as good if not better, no subclass needed. A lot of the PHB abilities seem either contrived ("Uh oh, a 'dead level'! We better put something there!") or ribbons.

If a sub/class is to be the go-to for a "basic, no frills, minimal options fighter", it should be the best fighter in the game. Otherwise, who would want to play it? Which is probably why the Champion gets ragged-on constantly.

Why should it be the best?
It should definitely be able to contribute and be competent in a typical party (which it is) but why should it be the best?

The way I see it, Champion is ragged on here because your typical Playgrounder is a pretty skilled player-they don't need the simplicity of Champion, and they generally want something more complex. But I've seen players out in the wild who had some difficulty remembering all their features-as a Champion Fighter. They did get better over time, but give them a Battlemaster and they'll forget to use Superiority Dice without someone constantly reminding them.

[animorte]

Why should it be the best?
It should definitely be able to contribute and be competent in a typical party (which it is) but why should it be the best?

The way I see it, Champion is ragged on here because your typical Playgrounder is a pretty skilled player-they don't need the simplicity of Champion, and they generally want something more complex. But I've seen players out in the wild who had some difficulty remembering all their features-as a Champion Fighter. They did get better over time, but give them a Battlemaster and they'll forget to use Superiority Dice without someone constantly reminding them.

I agree with this. In just about every game, one will discover that there is always a greater deal of simplicity/complexity and overall effectiveness the more characters that are available. Its a way to keep up with the demand for those of us that need/want more to think about, more decisions to make, more options to choose from, etc. Unfortunately that does give us the concern where you will have those extremely different classes in the same adventure next to each other, one likely played by a seasoned veteran and the other by a newcomer.

Perhaps the bigger concern comes in when a new player uses something of greater overall effectiveness and the veteran would rather play something more simple, but struggles to be as effective despite their experience, just because the nature of the class. Putting yourself in that position does look kind of silly as you should know better, but I digress.

[paladinn]

Why should it be the best?
It should definitely be able to contribute and be competent in a typical party (which it is) but why should it be the best?

The way I see it, Champion is ragged on here because your typical Playgrounder is a pretty skilled player-they don't need the simplicity of Champion, and they generally want something more complex. But I've seen players out in the wild who had some difficulty remembering all their features-as a Champion Fighter. They did get better over time, but give them a Battlemaster and they'll forget to use Superiority Dice without someone constantly reminding them.

Nearly every complaint I've read about the Champion has been followed by, "Why don't they just drop it and use the Battlemaster?" That's great for players who like tactical play. Likely people who really liked 3e (with minis and mats) and who were ecstatic over 4e's requiring the same. But a lot of players Don't like tactical play. There's a reason WotC went back to a "theater of the mind" approach.

One of my hopeful goals is to come up with a version of a basic fighter that is approachable for beginners and non-tacticals, but also doesn't suck. Champion accomplishes the first, but not the second.

[Skrum]

Nearly every complaint I've read about the Champion has been followed by, "Why don't they just drop it and use the Battlemaster?" That's great for players who like tactical play. Likely people who really liked 3e (with minis and mats) and who were ecstatic over 4e's requiring the same. But a lot of players Don't like tactical play. There's a reason WotC went back to a "theater of the mind" approach.

One of my hopeful goals is to come up with a version of a basic fighter that is approachable for beginners and non-tacticals, but also doesn't suck. Champion accomplishes the first, but not the second.

Um, a class can be less than "the best" and still not suck. Champions don't suck, they still get a fighting style, second wind, and action surge. Particularly in a game with flanking, improved crit is statistically quite good, if "boring".....but that's exactly what makes Champion the vanilla, simple class that it is.

If you're hellbent on homebrew, by all means. But yeah, you probably should check out the homebrew forum at that point.

[animorte]

If you're hellbent on homebrew, by all means. But yeah, you probably should check out the homebrew forum at that point.

I definitely feel you here, but I also have to say sometimes it feels easier to homebrew a new subclass than to sift through the thousands in that one thread alone. Ask JNA.

[JNAProductions]

Nearly every complaint I've read about the Champion has been followed by, "Why don't they just drop it and use the Battlemaster?" That's great for players who like tactical play. Likely people who really liked 3e (with minis and mats) and who were ecstatic over 4e's requiring the same. But a lot of players Don't like tactical play. There's a reason WotC went back to a "theater of the mind" approach.

One of my hopeful goals is to come up with a version of a basic fighter that is approachable for beginners and non-tacticals, but also doesn't suck. Champion accomplishes the first, but not the second.

Champion doesn’t suck.
Hell, a Fighter without a subclass doesn’t suck-they’re not as good as a Champion or EK, but they’re still a good PC.
What is your bar for something being so bad it needs to be improved?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The problem with Champion is its lack of class synergy. I'd honestly just make Champion a Barbarian subclass and call it good. Barbarian already gets Brutal Critical, so being able to crit more often is huge. It also gives Barbarian a much-needed fighting style, something the class is typically lacking, making it special. Remarkable Athlete works with initiative, a Barbarian wants to go first so he can rage before he's attacked. Survivor is almost twice as good on a Barbarian since rage gives him resistance to physical damage.

Just put Improved Critical and Fighting Style together at Barbarian 3, since Barbarian typically gets multiple subclass features there, or one big one. Remarkable Athlete goes at Barbarian 6, Superior Critical can be at Barbarian 10, and Survivor at Barbarian 14.

[Skrum]

The problem with Champion is its lack of class synergy. I'd honestly just make Champion a Barbarian subclass and call it good. Barbarian already gets Brutal Critical, so being able to crit more often is huge. It also gives Barbarian a much-needed fighting style, something the class is typically lacking, making it special. Remarkable Athlete works with initiative, a Barbarian wants to go first so he can rage before he's attacked. Survivor is almost twice as good on a Barbarian since rage gives him resistance to physical damage.

Just put Improved Critical and Fighting Style together at Barbarian 3, since Barbarian typically gets multiple subclass features there, or one big one. Remarkable Athlete goes at Barbarian 6, Superior Critical can be at Barbarian 10, and Survivor at Barbarian 14.

Barbarian should be a fighter subclass :smallbiggrin:

[paladinn]

The problem with Champion is its lack of class synergy. I'd honestly just make Champion a Barbarian subclass and call it good. Barbarian already gets Brutal Critical, so being able to crit more often is huge. It also gives Barbarian a much-needed fighting style, something the class is typically lacking, making it special. Remarkable Athlete works with initiative, a Barbarian wants to go first so he can rage before he's attacked. Survivor is almost twice as good on a Barbarian since rage gives him resistance to physical damage.

Just put Improved Critical and Fighting Style together at Barbarian 3, since Barbarian typically gets multiple subclass features there, or one big one. Remarkable Athlete goes at Barbarian 6, Superior Critical can be at Barbarian 10, and Survivor at Barbarian 14.

I don't think this does anything toward making a really good generic fighter sub/class

[paladinn]

Barbarian should be a fighter subclass :smallbiggrin:

I would say "barbarian" should be a background. "Berserker" would be the fighter subclass.

[paladinn]

Ok, I think I have my answer to the "basic" fighter question. I'm doing a mashup of the Champion subclass with the Brute UA subclass. Here's what I've got:

L3 - Improved Critical (as per PHB); attacks add one's proficiency bonus in damage

L7 - Durability - When you make a saving throw, roll 1d6 and add to the total. Maybe this could/should be a static bonus?

L10 - 2nd Fighting Style OR improve existing style. Working on this.

L15 - Superior Critical (as per PHB); crits add one's Level to damage

L18 - Survivor (as per PHB)

I think this gives a "basic" fighter the ummph it needs without making it more tactical and fiddly.

Thoughts?

[JNAProductions]

Simple Fighter 3/Warlock 2 would be monstrous.

1d10+Cha+Prof per tier.
Can stack on Hexblade’s Curse to do double Prof, and Hex for an extra 1d6.

[Psyren]

I think you might be drifting towards homebrew again but anyway:

- Proficiency Bonus to damage for every attack is too strong. This is stronger than Hex/AB/HM and requires no resource, concentration or action investment. At most I would let you do this on one hit per round.
- Durability is nice but it's also quite powerful for when you get it. On average it is adding +3.5 to every saving throw all day long, putting it on par with a Paladin's Aura and requiring no Cha investment. I'd consider making this 1/SR or PB/LR.
- 2nd Fighting Style is fine.
- +lvl to damage on a crit, especially combined with the stuff that came before, is too much.
- Survivor is fine

[Skrum]

I think you might be drifting towards homebrew again but anyway:

- Proficiency Bonus to damage for every attack is too strong. This is stronger than Hex/AB/HM and requires no resource, concentration or action investment. At most I would let you do this on one hit per round.
- Durability is nice but it's also quite powerful for when you get it. On average it is adding +3.5 to every saving throw all day long, putting it on par with a Paladin's Aura and requiring no Cha investment. I'd consider making this 1/SR or PB/LR.
- 2nd Fighting Style is fine.
- +lvl to damage on a crit, especially combined with the stuff that came before, is too much.
- Survivor is fine

Prof bonus to damage once per round is what genielocks get at level 1, so that seems entirely reasonable (every attack, I agree that's too good).

Durability is probably fine? I mean what's actually wrong with giving a class feature that's roughly as good as another class feature that's gained around the same level? Base fighter << base paladin, so this seems kosher.

+ Level to crit sounds like a lot, but it's at 15th level. Like who cares. If someone invests 15 levels in fighter, yes, they should get good stuff

[paladinn]

Simple Fighter 3/Warlock 2 would be monstrous.

1d10+Cha+Prof per tier.
Can stack on Hexblade’s Curse to do double Prof, and Hex for an extra 1d6.

Thanks. I wasn't thinking of the implications for multi-classing.

Work in Progress

[Psyren]

Durability is probably fine? I mean what's actually wrong with giving a class feature that's roughly as good as another class feature that's gained around the same level? Base fighter << base paladin, so this seems kosher.

Because "good at all saves all the time" is something iconic to Paladin's class fantasy, and maybe to Monks later. It's not really supposed to be a Fighter thing. And notably, unlike paladin it doesn't even make them any more MAD, it's just a solid bonus. And on top of that, this Fighter also still gets Indomitable.

[Kane0]

I like it.

[paladinn]

I like it.

Big praise coming from you, sir :)

[Saelethil]

Ok, I think I have my answer to the "basic" fighter question. I'm doing a mashup of the Champion subclass with the Brute UA subclass. Here's what I've got:

L3 - Improved Critical (as per PHB); attacks add one's proficiency bonus in damage

L7 - Durability - When you make a saving throw, roll 1d6 and add to the total. Maybe this could/should be a static bonus?

L10 - 2nd Fighting Style OR improve existing style. Working on this.

L15 - Superior Critical (as per PHB); crits add one's Level to damage

L18 - Survivor (as per PHB)

I think this gives a "basic" fighter the ummph it needs without making it more tactical and fiddly.

Thoughts?

Overall I think this is solid and would work. I might tweak it slightly differently to fit my perception of the (sub)class fantasy.

L3- Improved Critical: Crit. on a 19 or 20 & add fighter level to damage on a crit. Starting at 15th level you crit. on an18.

Glancing Strike: When you miss with a melee attack but did not roll a nat. 1 you still deal 1d4 damage (no mod.). This increases to 1d6 at level 7.

L7- Remarkable Athlete: Add 1/2 PB to all Str. Dex. & Con. checks (even if already proficient). Additionally, your speed and jump distances all increase by 10 feet.

L10- Versatile: You gain an additional Fighting Style and the lowest of your Str. Dex. or Con scores increase by 2.

L15- Improved Indomitable: You gain an additional use of your Indomitable feature. When you use Indomitable you can choose to make it a Con. save if it otherwise wouldn't have been.

L18- Survivor: Same as PHB except without the 1/2 health restriction.

I liked your Idea of adding fighter level to crits but as it has scaling built in I felt that I would be better to give it early. Another thread brought up the idea of glancing blows on not crit. failures and felt like it made sense for a "Champion" to "miss" less often than most warriors, even if they're only chipping away.
I like the Idea of the PHB Remarkable Athlete, I just feel it misses the mark so my tweak brings it to something befitting the name.
I've never been stoked about getting a second fighting style as a full levels worth of features and have proposed a full additional ASI at 10 in the past but that seems a bit much. A champion shouldn't let any part of their physique go unattended so while it still feels a bit lackluster it's not like the other changes don't make up for it.
The original Indomitable feels week and by moving the original L15 features to a scaling note at L3 it leaves open the possibility to boost defenses as a high level feature.
My minor change to Survivor is the one I'm least sure of but again, trying to fulfill the Fantasy in my head that the name and features of the PHB subclass brings to mind. Might have gone a bit overboard though...

[sambojin]

Take two levels of Moon Druid, only ever cast Goodberry. Then take x levels of fighter/ champion.

You now have all the combat styles you'll need. Well, most of them.

[paladinn]

Considering instead of a 2nd fighting style at L10, letting the warrior (my name for the subclass instead of the "brute") improve the existing style. Not sure what that might involve, but I'm open to suggestions.

Second option: if the warrior has extra attack/s, the attacks can be consolidated and do an extra die of damage for each attack consolidated

Third option: a warrior can reallocate some of his/her attack bonus as a bonus to AC or to damage (pick one) instead.

Any of these could take the place of the 2nd fighting style. I'm not sure where else they might go.

Thanks for the input!

[Yakk]

Champions problem is T1-2.

By T3, most of the problem is gone.

By T4, naive Champions match naive Battlemasters, or at least the gap is small. More attacks, possibility of damage dice from weapons, larger crit range -- all close the gap.

Anyone who proposes a scaling fix to Champions, that starts small and gets big at high levels, is solving the problem wrong.

In T1/T2, it is hard to tell the difference between a Champion and a subclassless Fighter in combat effectiveness. The additional crits are just too rare.

In T4, it isn't.

So a Champion fix should focus on L 3 and T1/2, and grant some benefit that doesn't scale to have a much larger impact in T3/T4 than it did in T1.

[paladinn]

Champions problem is T1-2.

By T3, most of the problem is gone.

By T4, naive Champions match naive Battlemasters, or at least the gap is small. More attacks, possibility of damage dice from weapons, larger crit range -- all close the gap.

Anyone who proposes a scaling fix to Champions, that starts small and gets big at high levels, is solving the problem wrong.

In T1/T2, it is hard to tell the difference between a Champion and a subclassless Fighter in combat effectiveness. The additional crits are just too rare.

In T4, it isn't.

So a Champion fix should focus on L 3 and T1/2, and grant some benefit that doesn't scale to have a much larger impact in T3/T4 than it did in T1.

How are you defining "tiers"? I don't recall reading anything in the 5e docs about "tier."

Here's my latest "generic" fighter subclass. I might just call it the "Warrior":

L3 - Improved Critical (as per PHB); attacks add one's proficiency bonus in damage

L7 - Durability - When you make a saving throw, add proficiency bonus to the total.

L10 - 2nd Fighting Style OR improve existing style. Still working on this.

L15 - Superior Critical (as per PHB); crits add one's Level to damage

L18 - Survivor (as per PHB)

[noob]

Just a crazy thought I had.. the Fighter/Champion subclass is widely considered one of the worst in the game. I've even come up with my own alternative "plain" fighter based on the Ranger/Hunter subclass that works pretty well on a fighter chassis.

The champion excels at power per effort spent on building and using it.
If you are looking at that ratio, it is a really good subclass.

[Yakk]

How are you defining "tiers"? I don't recall reading anything in the 5e docs about "tier."

Here's my latest "generic" fighter subclass. I might just call it the "Warrior":

L3 - Improved Critical (as per PHB); attacks add one's proficiency bonus in damage

L7 - Durability - When you make a saving throw, add proficiency bonus to the total.

L10 - 2nd Fighting Style OR improve existing style. Still working on this.

L15 - Superior Critical (as per PHB); crits add one's Level to damage

L18 - Survivor (as per PHB)

T1 is L 1-4
T2 is L 5-10. It starts with L 3 spells and extra attack.
T3 is L 11-16. It starts with L 6 spells, extra attack(2), improved divine smite, etc.
T4 is L 17-20. It starts with L 9 spells

The transitions between T1/2/3 are also inflection points on the XP curve. Also, cantrips auto-upgrade at the tier boundaries.

See DMG pages 36-38.

[Psyren]

How are you defining "tiers"? I don't recall reading anything in the 5e docs about "tier."

By "5e docs" do you mean the rulebooks?

Tiers are defined on DMG 36-38 and PHB 15

[paladinn]

By "5e docs" do you mean the rulebooks?

Tiers are defined on DMG 36-38 and PHB 15

Got it, thanks. I've just seen "tier" tossed around in a lot of different ways here. Even for entire classes.

[Dienekes]

Got it, thanks. I've just seen "tier" tossed around in a lot of different ways here. Even for entire classes.

In 3.5 the concept of a tier was a completely audience developed concept. You would not see any official document call anything a tier. And a tier was a general ranking of how powerful and flexible an entire class could be with roughly the same level of optimization. Basically stealing the tier ranking system that fighting games have been using for years.

5e (and I think 4e) then decided to use the term to discuss important break points in power that was used in class design.

Usually, if context clues can’t get you there. If discussing classes in 3 or 3.5 and using tiers they’re talking about the class ranking system. In 5e they’re taking about playing within the range of those leveled break points.

There are occasionally people in 5e trying to discuss class or subclass imbalance that might also bring up tiers in the 3.5/fighting game style. But usually you’ll see reference to a tier list to clue you in that’s what they’re talking about.

[paladinn]

In 3.5 the concept of a tier was a completely audience developed concept. You would not see any official document call anything a tier. And a tier was a general ranking of how powerful and flexible an entire class could be with roughly the same level of optimization. Basically stealing the tier ranking system that fighting games have been using for years.


It just seems entirely subjective and a means of imposing one's preferences on others. I could have a fighter, as optimized as possible, and hear "Oh, you're just a fighter.. You're tier 75." Or a wizard developed by a complete noob that's automatically "tier 1." Same with druids and clerics and who else. But if you have a martial character, you automatically suck, unless you're a warblade. I guess anime characters are instantly higher tier.

It's entirely a matter of opinion, and somehow some peoples' opinions have come to mean more than others'. There are people that don't want an anime game, a tactical wargame, or a slew of tacked-on mechanics.

[Yakk]

In 4e, there where 3 tiers of play -- Heroic, Paragon and Epic. They where L 1-10, 11-20 and 21-30.

4e was developed based off the observation that the math in 3e started to break down the further away you got from around level 6ish. (You could probably represent this mathematically as the information content of d20 checks was maximal around then). By L 20, the modifiers to rolls dominated the range of a d20, so most actions auto-succeeded or auto-failed (like attacks).

So 4e made the math affine. In effect, checks added your character level to them, and DCs scaled the same way. (This is a modest lie). Then mechanics where hung to make it more complex; your attack modifier was +1/2 level, +attribute, +weapon enchantment, +feat bonus.

At level 30, your attack attribute bonus would go up by +4-5 compared to level 1, your feat bonus would go up +3, your weapon enhancement +6 and 1/2 level would add +15 -- a total of +28-29 over your level 1 attack bonus.

The effect of this was a steep power curve just in modifiers and defences. If even-leveled foes hit you 50% of the time, and you hit even-level foes 65% of a time, a foe 5 levels under you would hit you 25% of the time and be hit 80% of the time. If the 5 level under foe had the exact same HP as your even level foe, you'd take 2.5x less damage before killing them than the even level foe, because they'd hit half as often, and you 'd hit them a bunch more often dropping them faster.

5e then flattened this progression. Instead of +29 to-hit over +29 levels, you get +4 proficiency, +2 attribute and +0 to 3 magic; ie, +6 to 9 over 20 levels (+1/3 or +1/2 levels). The "sweet spot" was extended by this; in 4e, foes more than +/-5 levels don't work well mechanically, in 5e you can manage +/- 15 with the same difficulty (which consists of ... well, almost every monster).

Some extra power gradient was level in T1 in 5e; in 4e, the HP/damage of a PC scales roughly with (level+3), in 5e durability scales with (level+1) while offence with (level+3). Low-level PCs in 5e are more fragile (relative to their damage output).

...

Now why does this matter? Well, with the fighter, you'll notice that they get 1 attack per tier by the end of each tier (often at the start of it, except T4). Also, non-fighty-types in 5e gain increased plot power in later tiers; the fighter does not really.

We can also talk about tiers to deal with issues, like the champion fighter. T1/T2 champion fighters are poor compared to naive battlemaster fighters; but by T4, the raw damage output of champion fighters and naive BM isn't that far apart.

You can sort of think of 5e as a 4 level game, with mini-steps within the level. A bit of imbalance within a few levels in a tier is ok, as it isn't that far to a resolution. But the champion's incompetence in T1/2, where most PCs are played, is a bad thing.

[Dienekes]

It just seems entirely subjective and a means of imposing one's preferences on others. I could have a fighter, as optimized as possible, and hear "Oh, you're just a fighter.. You're tier 75." Or a wizard developed by a complete noob that's automatically "tier 1." Same with druids and clerics and who else. But if you have a martial character, you automatically suck, unless you're a warblade. I guess anime characters are instantly higher tier.

It's entirely a matter of opinion, and somehow some peoples' opinions have come to mean more than others'. There are people that don't want an anime game, a tactical wargame, or a slew of tacked-on mechanics.

Cool.

Only if you optimize that fighter as much as you possible can, I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that I could optimize the Cleric or Druid to do everything your Fighter can do if not better.

And let’s just say that’s true. If it is, then having knowledge that the game is balanced that way is a good thing. It means you know what you’re getting into. It means if you’re picking the Druid and the player next to me is picking the Fighter, I should probably not go all out so we can all sit happily and play the game without me overshadowing them.

As a GM, it’s also useful so I know how much work I had to do to cater to the various players so they all feel relevant.

Now, can some people with some advanced knowledge be jerks? Sure. Yeah. That’s true for all advanced knowledge. I’ve seen people try to lord over others because they know more about how 6th century German tribes migrated more than others. As if that knowledge gave them any power at all.

I can understand getting mad at the jerks.

But I can’t understand not liking what people are saying about balance issues and just choosing to ignore it. You don’t like tactical combat? Cool. No one is saying you have to like it. But that doesn’t change that this is a game based around winning encounters. And certain features are going to be better at winning encounters than others. And some classes are going to have more of those features than others.

“I don’t like it” isn’t a counter argument. And shouldn’t really be treated as such. If you have data to disprove certain tier selections, show the data.

Now if you instead want to play a feel good non-tactical game, by all means do so. More power to you. Find like minded players and have yourself a blast!

It’s just odd to claim to want that, while also apparently asking for design help with fixing a balance problem.

[paladinn]

It’s just odd to claim to want that, while also apparently asking for design help with fixing a balance problem.

The "balance problem", as you put it, had to do with being less-than-thrilled about at least the champion subclass, if not the entire fighter class. Thus my reworking of the champion. It was designed to be the basic, simple fighter class for people who want exactly that. IMO, the solution to that is not, "toss it and just play a battlemaster," or "time to make a 5e warblade!" Neither of those makes for a basic, simple yet powerful fighter.

My mods to the fighter (really to the champion) draws on other WotC material, and serves to boost it within its purpose.

In 3e, the fighter was also the feat master class. They didn't have Anything else besides feats, but a lot of people liked being able to design one's character to that level. I've got it on good authority that class features can be swapped-out for feats without it overpowering anything. So if someone doesn't want to go "basic" and also doesn't want to go "tactical", it's another option.

[Dienekes]

The "balance problem", as you put it, had to do with being less-than-thrilled about at least the champion subclass, if not the entire fighter class. Thus my reworking of the champion. It was designed to be the basic, simple fighter class for people who want exactly that. IMO, the solution to that is not, "toss it and just play a battlemaster," or "time to make a 5e warblade!" Neither of those makes for a basic, simple yet powerful fighter.

My mods to the fighter (really to the champion) draws on other WotC material, and serves to boost it within its purpose.

In 3e, the fighter was also the feat master class. They didn't have Anything else besides feats, but a lot of people liked being able to design one's character to that level. I've got it on good authority that class features can be swapped-out for feats without it overpowering anything. So if someone doesn't want to go "basic" and also doesn't want to go "tactical", it's another option.

Right, but you are understanding a weakness in the Champion class.

If you were to rank the Fighter subclasses, you understand that Champion is in a worse position than, say, the Battlemaster. And that's all a tier list is.

Now, once we have that recognition, the paths to fixing it can go wildly different ways. But you do understand the concept, thus my confusion at the rage against it.

[paladinn]

So let's say we were to take the existing 5e fighter framework with one subclass and "3e-ise" it. Keep any class features in the base class and, say, the champion subclass that you wish. Anything you don't like, you can substitute feats. Probably need to put some limit on the +1's from the half-feats?

Anyway, if you could build a fighter with a bunch of feats, what would it look like? A level breakdown would be helpful.

[Yakk]

The problem with the Champion's lackluster features in Tier 1-2 (L 1-10) is that if they are played next to a Battlemaster, even a completely brain-dead BM, the Champion features ... don't show up. And the BM ones do.

Even when the Champion's features show up, the BMs ... work better in the same situation. Like, Champions get more crits? But the BM can, well, almost crit at-will (adding d8 to damage), and when they do crit their crits are bigger (adding 2d8).

But that is just relative. Even absolutely, that 19-20 crit range boost, their big L 3 feature ... happens so rarely. Unless you go and attribute all crits to it, and have a game with a pile of advantage being handed out.

By L 20, the champions 18-20 and 4x attacks means, with advantage some of the time, you are getting an extra crit almost 1 round in 2. At level 3, you are getting an extra crit 1 round in 20.

Hence the argument if you are tweaking the Champion, focus on the most-played levels (1-10) and also the levels where the Champion is most lackluster. Both absolutely and relatively.

[paladinn]

The problem with the Champion's lackluster features in Tier 1-2 (L 1-10) is that if they are played next to a Battlemaster, even a completely brain-dead BM, the Champion features ... don't show up. And the BM ones do.

Even when the Champion's features show up, the BMs ... work better in the same situation. Like, Champions get more crits? But the BM can, well, almost crit at-will (adding d8 to damage), and when they do crit their crits are bigger (adding 2d8).

But that is just relative. Even absolutely, that 19-20 crit range boost, their big L 3 feature ... happens so rarely. Unless you go and attribute all crits to it, and have a game with a pile of advantage being handed out.

By L 20, the champions 18-20 and 4x attacks means, with advantage some of the time, you are getting an extra crit almost 1 round in 2. At level 3, you are getting an extra crit 1 round in 20.

Hence the argument if you are tweaking the Champion, focus on the most-played levels (1-10) and also the levels where the Champion is most lackluster. Both absolutely and relatively.

Which is one reason I merged the Champion subclass with the UA Brute. Each is pretty lackluster. Together they're better, but likely still not as "interesting" as a Battlemaster. Still, I think there's a legitimate need for a simple fighter class for people who don't want to be overly tactical or deal with a bolt-on mechanic (like superiority dice).

[Amechra]

The "Champion fix" that I've always been fond of is merging it with the Banneret... which I actually think is better as a Fighter-for-new-players than it initially seems. I mean, look at its features:


At 3rd level, your Second Wind helps out the entire party instead of just yourself. Your party members have an incentive to remind you that you can Second Wind — and I'd argue that "hey, remember that you've got that party heal" is less obnoxious than "hey, remember that you can heal yourself".
At 7th level, you get a social skill and Expertise in Persuasion. Eh, whatever.
At 10th level, your Action Surge also grants an ally an attack (18th level makes this two allies). This is a powerful, flashy benefit that, again, encourages the rest of the party to ask you to HIT THE BUTTON and be the center of attention for the turn.
At 15th level, Indomitable helps out allies too. Less impressive, but it fits with the whole "hey, remember that you got this thing that helps out the party" angle.


The really nice thing about the Banneret's features is that they're kinda idiot-proof — using their abilities "naively" is pretty close to using them optimally. The problem with the Banneret is that it's pretty weak, and that the first feature you get is pretty niche. Slap the Champion on there, however, and you've added power without really adding complexity.

---

As for your Warrior... it looks fine, I suppose, other than "you're proficient in all saving throws — if you were already proficient in that saving throw, you have expertise instead" at 7th level. That's a massive combat-related benefit at a level where Fighters generally get a bit of out-of-combat utility.