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

[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

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?

Spoiler: Ticks needed per level

Show

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.