One thing that I don't think that people are taking into account is rests (if this has already been touched on, then, well, oops), particularly short rests. If you're playing in a game where short rests are common and easy to come by, the battlemaster (or just about any other fighter archetype) will out perform the champion every time. It's when the chips are down and everyone is out of spell slots, superiority dice, and the like that a champion will shine, because the only finite resource the champion relies on is hit points. The one time I played one was in a game where getting rests was a pain in the ass, so I was usually in better shape than my comrades. It was dull, but in that environment they were definitely not weak. I speculate that the class was designed with the thought that rests would be harder to come by than they are in many games (mine included).
One thing that I don't think that people are taking into account is rests (if this has already been touched on, then, well, oops), particularly short rests. If you're playing in a game where short rests are common and easy to come by, the battlemaster (or just about any other fighter archetype) will out perform the champion every time. It's when the chips are down and everyone is out of spell slots, superiority dice, and the like that a champion will shine, because the only finite resource the champion relies on is hit points. The one time I played one was in a game where getting rests was a pain in the ass, so I was usually in better shape than my comrades. It was dull, but in that environment they were definitely not weak. I speculate that the class was designed with the thought that rests would be harder to come by than they are in many games (mine included).
All the classes/subclasses were designed with an assumed balance of short rests/long rests and encounters. Otherwise, you’ll end up with classes with wildly different rest needs that gum up gameplay.
He's only looking at the mathematical combat applications too. I mean, gosh, Divination doesn't add any direct damage at /all/ to the base class. It must suck compared to every single archeype!
The fact is, that champions crit more than other classes and that's a simple fact. Some people ENJOY crit fishing. I don't, but one of the players in my normal game loves to crit fish and has built multiple characters around hunting for crits. Critting is fun and exciting. Mystra forbid, a class has a feature that players find exciting.
Remarkable athlete adds nothing to combat, however half proficiency bonus can be very useful. Now str and con aren't super useful, but half proficiency bonus to my dex checks, could be very useful. it's similar to my bardlock's jack of all trades and I find that useful constantly. This isn't a great ability but it doesn't suck either.
Additional fighting style is very nice. I /often/ want a second fighting style. I will say that Tasha's has devalued this, because now any fighter can get a second fighting style by spending a feat. In edge cases though, I am going to want 3 or more fighting styles though. A "sword/shield tank" champion for example might want duelling, protection, and defense. this shouldn't be written off, as it adds a lot of flexibility to a character. An archer champion might want archery and two weapon fighting if they get stuck in melee, and to spend feats on something else rather than picking up a second fighting style.
Superior critical. You made a champion to crit fish. This is literally why you're here.
Survivor. Regeneration. It's pretty good. Sure, it's not a huge amount, but I've been in a lot of fights that this would have made a difference.
There's nothing wrong with champions other than they're a bit boring. One could make the argument that if you get giddy over crits, it's the most exciting fighter subclass. Frankly, if the OP is THAT worried about damage, perhaps he should be looking at wizards or sorcerers anyways.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I’d say champion did just get better with the extra fighting styles in Tasha’s. That could make champions a fighterier fighter, in terms of customization.
I’ve seen a number of graphs comparing optimized break downs for a fighter battle master and a fighter champion. The battlemaster seems to always come ahead with average damage when compared on a mostly leveled playing field.
an interesting point that seems to be brought up but never added to the equation, is that remarkable athlete affects initiative. It’s effect is based on half of your proficiency, rounded up. That’s 2 and eventually a +3 at level 13. the effect this has, even though it’s handwaved, is the champion statistically gets to take its first turn quicker. Since it’s based on proficiency and not a stat, it’s effect is a static boost that also stacks with other initiative sources. the champion does more average damage than noted by a lot of these equations because it gets to take more actions over a period of time than other fighters. I’ve never seen this quantified and dont know how to do it myself, but I’d wager the damage boost is substantial.
the champion does more average damage than noted by a lot of these equations because it gets to take more actions over a period of time than other fighters. I’ve never seen this quantified and do t know how to do it myself, but I’d wager the damage boost is substantial.
It depends on the average number of rounds in your combat. For three round combats, at level 5-12, it's a 10% chance to get one extra action so a 3% real damage bonus. Which is not nothing (it's about as good as improved critical) but also not super exciting.
A question for those who argue the Champion as the most generic, most resource-free, most basic and "beautifully" simple and awesome fighter subclass there is, often citing it as "absolutely perfect for beginners!"
I don’t think da Champ is “beautiful” either, but I do think it is awfully darned generic, and that it is awfully darned simple. And if someone else finds those traits to be particularly beautiful, I can respect that. But assuming that I personally find it “beautiful” would be yet another “false premise” argument.
And I don’t think the Champion subclass specifically is “absolutely perfect for beginners,” I think the Fighter class in general is absolutely perfect for beginners. The Champion is just one subclass out of the lot. Some new players will want something as simple as da Champ. For other beginners who want something more interactive there are subclasses like the Battlemaster. Assuming that, when I say the Fighter is best for beginners that I mean only da Champ would be another example is a “false premise” argument. Besides, I am of the opinion that a first character should likely only last until the player wants to change it. So if they decide to dump a character because they’re bored with it to swap for something more interesting after a handful of sessions, why should they not be able to? That means the rest of the arguments would also fall under the category of “false premise” arguments too.
Continuing to use the same failing strategy over and over would be an example of a “failure of strategy” like I also pointed out earlier.
I dont think that it's beautiful, but when I don't want players overwhelmed while learning the SYSTEM to also be overwhelmed with their characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
And this ONLY compares damage. This foregoes Champions second Fighting Style (which could even be Superior Technique), Champion skill bonuses, and Survivor. This absolutely destroys the argument that somehow the Champion class isn't comparable to the other Fighter classes in terms of damage output.
It's hard to check the average damage/round for each build in the spreadsheet so I'm going to assume that's correct. But there's still two major problems in the rounds to break even calculation: you're assuming the Battle Master isn't crit fishing, and you're comparing the a higher damage TWF Champion build to a lower damage one-handed Battle Master build.
If you double the Superiority Dice numbers to account for the Battle Master spending dice on crits and compare a TWF Champion to a TWF Battle Master (or GWF vs GWF at 11+, which makes more sense) you'll find it takes a lot more rounds to close the gap.
Sounds like it’d be easy to use the sheet to test it yourself instead of making unfounded claims?
Brewsky, there's no calculations there. Only claimed numbers on a spreadsheet. In order to calculate the mean added damage you would have to know how often each different Combat Manouver is chosen by the players, how often they use them - and HOW. And for maneuvers like Precision Attack and Commander's Strike, you would ALSO have to know when it's used - how often it's successful, and the mean damage that is dealt from the attack (the same for Commander's Strike). I can name dozens of data points you would need and can't possibly have.
Let's start here: Improved Critical averages an extra 0.35 damage per attack with a greatsword? True or False? If false, show me the calculation demonstrating the error (not some spreadsheet with claimed numbers).
I already provided you the tool and you refuse to use it? I’ve now provided you TWO links to explain this.
Yes, the average damage per attack is 0.35, which is exactly calculated in the spreadsheet I made (it’s like staring right at you...). What you’re fundamentally missing is the ability to put that 0.35 (or 0.7) into context.
The problem you’re having is equating 0.35 and comparing it to the total possible output of damage and calling it “abysmal”. In one scenario, this is an almost 11% increase in damage each round for a Level 20 Champion Fighter with a Greatsword over your non-Champion Fighter. It’s not inconsequential in the slightest.
Stop being lazy and show your work on the spreadsheet or on your own analysis.
Brewsky, there's no calculations there. Only claimed numbers on a spreadsheet. In order to calculate the mean added damage you would have to know how often each different Combat Manouver is chosen by the players, how often they use them - and HOW. And for maneuvers like Precision Attack and Commander's Strike, you would ALSO have to know when it's used - how often it's successful, and the mean damage that is dealt from the attack (the same for Commander's Strike). I can name dozens of data points you would need and can't possibly have.
Let's start here: Improved Critical averages an extra 0.35 damage per attack with a greatsword? True or False? If false, show me the calculation demonstrating the error (not some spreadsheet with claimed numbers).
I already provided you the tool and you refuse to use it? I’ve now provided you TWO links to explain this.
Yes, the average damage per attack is 0.35, which is exactly calculated in the spreadsheet I made (it’s like staring right at you...). What you’re fundamentally missing is the ability to put that 0.35 (or 0.7) into context.
The problem you’re having is equating 0.35 and comparing it to the total possible output of damage and calling it “abysmal”. In one scenario, this is an almost 11% increase in damage each round for a Level 20 Champion Fighter with a Greatsword over your non-Champion Fighter. It’s not inconsequential in the slightest.
Stop being lazy and show your work on the spreadsheet or on your own analysis.
You can't possibly know all of the necessary data points to even calculate the average damage of a Battle Master.
For example; across all the D&D games that are played, all over the world, how often is Precision Attack used? When it is used, how often is it successful, and is the mean damage done on a success?
If you don't know the answer, which would mean you could not have possibly calculated average added damage from the Battle Master, please publicly announce it by making an excuse not to answer. This is one of countless needed data points you can't possibly know.
But yes, for fun I will look at your equations. Where can I see your equations? Not just a spreadsheet of claimed results.
I don't find the champion "beautiful" or "perfect for new players," but as a DM who has introduced new players to the game with both the Battle Master Fighter and Champion, I will say it was much easier for the new player to understand how the Champion worked than the Battle Master. It took me 10 minute to explain the Champion fighter and what it could do (the critical hit boost) to the new player, when it took me 30 minutes to explain the core of the Battle Master to a different player and a whole session of them experiencing it for them to fully understand it.
The Champion is simple, and new players who have never played any other TTRPG typically (not always, but most of the time) need a simpler class and subclass in order to understand how the game works.
I don't like the Champion, I find it boring and uninspiring, but I don't think it's as underpowered as some are stating in this thread, and don't consider it the worst Fighter subclass (I reserve that placement for Eldritch Knights and Arcane Archers). From what I've experienced, the Champion is not mechanically disappointing for players in the campaign when compared to other classes, but it is extremely boring.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
For reference to anyone else that says “0.35 bad”, here’s why it’s more nuanced than you think.
Champions get Improved Crit at level 3. At level 3, your Attack Bonus might be +5 if you’re lucky. And you might be wielding a rapier (1d8)+3 for ability modifier.
Total damage vs an AC 16 opponent:
Non-Champion = 10/20 chances hit. Average damage per hit is 7.5, or 12 on a crit. That’s ((7.5*9)+(12))/20 = 3.975 damage Ave.
Champion = ((7.5*8)+(12*2))/20 = 4.2 damage Ave.
That 0.35 represents an increase in output of 8.8% over normal damage output. The problem with most armchair experts is that they compare 0.35 (which is a hit-adjusted number) to an average damage of 7.5 (which is not hit-adjusted).
Throw in a feat that combines with critical hits like Greater Weapon Master and Piercer, or Vicious weapons, etc and this effect becomes more pronounced.
Nobody here needs you to "give them the numbers" for how much a critical hit may or may not add, on average, to an attack. You're allowed to think it's not impressive. Just don't go flaunting your opinion and reductive math as if it were actually impressive.
Because... how dare I offer my opinion about a class in the 'Tips & Tactics' section of a D&D forum and then defend my opinion with math? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You started this thread by using fourth-grade math to dunk on the archetype. You should understand why anyone here would take your opinion with a full salt shaker.
@Yurei1453
There's nothing wrong with playing a champion or any other "simple" archetype. A choice of subclass is in no way indicative of how interested a player is. Robin Hood is a champion fighter with the soldier background. Carmen Sandiego is a thief rogue with the criminal background.
Take that toxic attitude somewhere else.
Is the grade level of the math relevant, or is it the accuracy? If it's inaccurate, by all means show me how.
He's only looking at the mathematical combat applications too. I mean, gosh, Divination doesn't add any direct damage at /all/ to the base class. It must suck compared to every single archeype!
The fact is, that champions crit more than other classes and that's a simple fact. Some people ENJOY crit fishing. I don't, but one of the players in my normal game loves to crit fish and has built multiple characters around hunting for crits. Critting is fun and exciting. Mystra forbid, a class has a feature that players find exciting.
Remarkable athlete adds nothing to combat, however half proficiency bonus can be very useful. Now str and con aren't super useful, but half proficiency bonus to my dex checks, could be very useful. it's similar to my bardlock's jack of all trades and I find that useful constantly. This isn't a great ability but it doesn't suck either.
Additional fighting style is very nice. I /often/ want a second fighting style. I will say that Tasha's has devalued this, because now any fighter can get a second fighting style by spending a feat. In edge cases though, I am going to want 3 or more fighting styles though. A "sword/shield tank" champion for example might want duelling, protection, and defense. this shouldn't be written off, as it adds a lot of flexibility to a character. An archer champion might want archery and two weapon fighting if they get stuck in melee, and to spend feats on something else rather than picking up a second fighting style.
Superior critical. You made a champion to crit fish. This is literally why you're here.
Survivor. Regeneration. It's pretty good. Sure, it's not a huge amount, but I've been in a lot of fights that this would have made a difference.
There's nothing wrong with champions other than they're a bit boring. One could make the argument that if you get giddy over crits, it's the most exciting fighter subclass. Frankly, if the OP is THAT worried about damage, perhaps he should be looking at wizards or sorcerers anyways.
If a Divination Wizard causes an enemy to fail their save and become paralyzed, and then Rogue and Barbarian get auto-crits, the Divination Wizard most definitely contributed to damage output. There is no such indirect damage with Improved Critical. It's far more simple, and the numbers are dismal.
Also, I never said anyone should care if the numbers are dismal. Make any decision you like, for whatever reason.
And this ONLY compares damage. This foregoes Champions second Fighting Style (which could even be Superior Technique), Champion skill bonuses, and Survivor. This absolutely destroys the argument that somehow the Champion class isn't comparable to the other Fighter classes in terms of damage output.
It's hard to check the average damage/round for each build in the spreadsheet so I'm going to assume that's correct. But there's still two major problems in the rounds to break even calculation: you're assuming the Battle Master isn't crit fishing, and you're comparing the a higher damage TWF Champion build to a lower damage one-handed Battle Master build.
If you double the Superiority Dice numbers to account for the Battle Master spending dice on crits and compare a TWF Champion to a TWF Battle Master (or GWF vs GWF at 11+, which makes more sense) you'll find it takes a lot more rounds to close the gap.
Sounds like it’d be easy to use the sheet to test it yourself instead of making unfounded claims?
Or you can just provide the equations behind the claimed numbers and explain how you came up with the variables.
For reference to anyone else that says “0.35 bad”, here’s why it’s more nuanced than you think.
Champions get Improved Crit at level 3. At level 3, your Attack Bonus might be +5 if you’re lucky. And you might be wielding a rapier (1d8)+3 for ability modifier.
Total damage vs an AC 16 opponent:
Non-Champion = 10/20 chances hit. Average damage per hit is 7.5, or 12 on a crit. That’s ((7.5*9)+(12))/20 = 3.975 damage Ave.
Champion = ((7.5*8)+(12*2))/20 = 4.2 damage Ave.
That 0.35 represents an increase in output of 8.8% over normal damage output. The problem with most armchair experts is that they compare 0.35 (which is a hit-adjusted number) to an average damage of 7.5 (which is not hit-adjusted).
Throw in a feat that combines with critical hits like Greater Weapon Master and Piercer, or Vicious weapons, etc and this effect becomes more pronounced.
3.5 is for a greatsword. Why would you compare a the added damage from Champion carrying a 2d6 weapon, then compare that to non-Champion using a 1d8 weapon? Also your numbers are incomplete.
1d8 weapon averages 4.5 damage.
We'll use your 50% chance to hit.
Average Crit damage ÷ 20 = 0.225
__________
Normal Damage
(4.5 + 3 STR mod) = 7.5
50% chance to hit: 7.5 ÷ 2 = 3.75
Plus crit damage: 3.75 + 0.225 = 3.975
Normal Average Damage Per Swing = 3.975
Improved Critical Damage:
3.975 + 0.225 = 4.2
0.225 ÷ 3.975 = .0566
Improved Critical Adds 5.66% Damage
AND, it gets worse when more of your attacks are hitting and as non-dice bonuses increase.
Did you just get corrected by an "armchair expert"? Ouch!
For reference to anyone else that says “0.35 bad”, here’s why it’s more nuanced than you think.
Champions get Improved Crit at level 3. At level 3, your Attack Bonus might be +5 if you’re lucky. And you might be wielding a rapier (1d8)+3 for ability modifier.
Total damage vs an AC 16 opponent:
Non-Champion = 10/20 chances hit. Average damage per hit is 7.5, or 12 on a crit. That’s ((7.5*9)+(12))/20 = 3.975 damage Ave.
Champion = ((7.5*8)+(12*2))/20 = 4.2 damage Ave.
That 0.35 represents an increase in output of 8.8% over normal damage output. The problem with most armchair experts is that they compare 0.35 (which is a hit-adjusted number) to an average damage of 7.5 (which is not hit-adjusted).
Throw in a feat that combines with critical hits like Greater Weapon Master and Piercer, or Vicious weapons, etc and this effect becomes more pronounced.
3.5 is for a greatsword. Why would you compare a the added damage from Champion carrying a 2d6 weapon, then compare that to non-Champion using a 1d8 weapon? Also your numbers are incomplete.
1d8 weapon averages 4.5 damage.
We'll use your 50% chance to hit.
Average Crit damage ÷ 20 = 0.225
__________
Normal Damage
(4.5 + 3 STR mod) = 7.5
50% chance to hit: 7.5 ÷ 2 = 3.75
Plus crit damage: 3.75 + 0.225 = 3.975
Normal Average Damage Per Swing = 3.975
Improved Critical Damage:
3.975 + 0.225 = 4.2
0.225 ÷ 3.975 = .0566
Improved Critical Adds 5.66% Damage
AND, it gets worse when more of your attacks are hitting and as non-dice bonuses increase.
Did you just get corrected by an "armchair expert"? Ouch!
You're not an armchair expert. You're the loud uncle from the nosebleed seats who thinks they know how to call the game better than the refs of coaches.
Take a step back and listen to other people. Especially when the majority are telling you how wrong you are.
For reference to anyone else that says “0.35 bad”, here’s why it’s more nuanced than you think.
Champions get Improved Crit at level 3. At level 3, your Attack Bonus might be +5 if you’re lucky. And you might be wielding a rapier (1d8)+3 for ability modifier.
Total damage vs an AC 16 opponent:
Non-Champion = 10/20 chances hit. Average damage per hit is 7.5, or 12 on a crit. That’s ((7.5*9)+(12))/20 = 3.975 damage Ave.
Champion = ((7.5*8)+(12*2))/20 = 4.2 damage Ave.
That 0.35 represents an increase in output of 8.8% over normal damage output. The problem with most armchair experts is that they compare 0.35 (which is a hit-adjusted number) to an average damage of 7.5 (which is not hit-adjusted).
Throw in a feat that combines with critical hits like Greater Weapon Master and Piercer, or Vicious weapons, etc and this effect becomes more pronounced.
3.5 is for a greatsword. Why would you compare a the added damage from Champion carrying a 2d6 weapon, then compare that to non-Champion using a 1d8 weapon? Also your numbers are incomplete.
1d8 weapon averages 4.5 damage.
We'll use your 50% chance to hit.
Average Crit damage ÷ 20 = 0.225
__________
Normal Damage
(4.5 + 3 STR mod) = 7.5
50% chance to hit: 7.5 ÷ 2 = 3.75
Plus crit damage: 3.75 + 0.225 = 3.975
Normal Average Damage Per Swing = 3.975
Improved Critical Damage:
3.975 + 0.225 = 4.2
0.225 ÷ 3.975 = .0566
Improved Critical Adds 5.66% Damage
AND, it gets worse when more of your attacks are hitting and as non-dice bonuses increase.
Did you just get corrected by an "armchair expert"? Ouch!
but the thing is, is that having an extra chance of getting a crit, also increases you chance of even getting a hit, and so your numbers are off.
additionally, it can, as you said, be combined with half orc or GWM for even more extra damage
i personally think its very boring, and not as powerful as many other fighter sub classes, but also not the weakest, not trash, and not useless.
For reference to anyone else that says “0.35 bad”, here’s why it’s more nuanced than you think.
Champions get Improved Crit at level 3. At level 3, your Attack Bonus might be +5 if you’re lucky. And you might be wielding a rapier (1d8)+3 for ability modifier.
Total damage vs an AC 16 opponent:
Non-Champion = 10/20 chances hit. Average damage per hit is 7.5, or 12 on a crit. That’s ((7.5*9)+(12))/20 = 3.975 damage Ave.
Champion = ((7.5*8)+(12*2))/20 = 4.2 damage Ave.
That 0.35 represents an increase in output of 8.8% over normal damage output. The problem with most armchair experts is that they compare 0.35 (which is a hit-adjusted number) to an average damage of 7.5 (which is not hit-adjusted).
Throw in a feat that combines with critical hits like Greater Weapon Master and Piercer, or Vicious weapons, etc and this effect becomes more pronounced.
3.5 is for a greatsword. Why would you compare a the added damage from Champion carrying a 2d6 weapon, then compare that to non-Champion using a 1d8 weapon? Also your numbers are incomplete.
1d8 weapon averages 4.5 damage.
We'll use your 50% chance to hit.
Average Crit damage ÷ 20 = 0.225
__________
Normal Damage
(4.5 + 3 STR mod) = 7.5
50% chance to hit: 7.5 ÷ 2 = 3.75
Plus crit damage: 3.75 + 0.225 = 3.975
Normal Average Damage Per Swing = 3.975
Improved Critical Damage:
3.975 + 0.225 = 4.2
0.225 ÷ 3.975 = .0566
Improved Critical Adds 5.66% Damage
AND, it gets worse when more of your attacks are hitting and as non-dice bonuses increase.
Did you just get corrected by an "armchair expert"? Ouch!
but the thing is, is that having an extra chance of getting a crit, also increases you chance of even getting a hit, and so your numbers are off.
additionally, it can, as you said, be combined with half orc or GWM for even more extra damage
i personally think its very boring, and not as powerful as many other fighter sub classes, but also not the weakest, not trash, and not useless.
How does an increased crit chance increase your chance of a hit? The non-champion Fighter who rolls a 19 is still going to hit. Critting doesn't effect chance to hit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One thing that I don't think that people are taking into account is rests (if this has already been touched on, then, well, oops), particularly short rests. If you're playing in a game where short rests are common and easy to come by, the battlemaster (or just about any other fighter archetype) will out perform the champion every time. It's when the chips are down and everyone is out of spell slots, superiority dice, and the like that a champion will shine, because the only finite resource the champion relies on is hit points. The one time I played one was in a game where getting rests was a pain in the ass, so I was usually in better shape than my comrades. It was dull, but in that environment they were definitely not weak. I speculate that the class was designed with the thought that rests would be harder to come by than they are in many games (mine included).
All the classes/subclasses were designed with an assumed balance of short rests/long rests and encounters. Otherwise, you’ll end up with classes with wildly different rest needs that gum up gameplay.
He's only looking at the mathematical combat applications too. I mean, gosh, Divination doesn't add any direct damage at /all/ to the base class. It must suck compared to every single archeype!
The fact is, that champions crit more than other classes and that's a simple fact. Some people ENJOY crit fishing. I don't, but one of the players in my normal game loves to crit fish and has built multiple characters around hunting for crits. Critting is fun and exciting. Mystra forbid, a class has a feature that players find exciting.
Remarkable athlete adds nothing to combat, however half proficiency bonus can be very useful. Now str and con aren't super useful, but half proficiency bonus to my dex checks, could be very useful. it's similar to my bardlock's jack of all trades and I find that useful constantly. This isn't a great ability but it doesn't suck either.
Additional fighting style is very nice. I /often/ want a second fighting style. I will say that Tasha's has devalued this, because now any fighter can get a second fighting style by spending a feat. In edge cases though, I am going to want 3 or more fighting styles though. A "sword/shield tank" champion for example might want duelling, protection, and defense. this shouldn't be written off, as it adds a lot of flexibility to a character. An archer champion might want archery and two weapon fighting if they get stuck in melee, and to spend feats on something else rather than picking up a second fighting style.
Superior critical. You made a champion to crit fish. This is literally why you're here.
Survivor. Regeneration. It's pretty good. Sure, it's not a huge amount, but I've been in a lot of fights that this would have made a difference.
There's nothing wrong with champions other than they're a bit boring. One could make the argument that if you get giddy over crits, it's the most exciting fighter subclass. Frankly, if the OP is THAT worried about damage, perhaps he should be looking at wizards or sorcerers anyways.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I’d say champion did just get better with the extra fighting styles in Tasha’s. That could make champions a fighterier fighter, in terms of customization.
I’ve seen a number of graphs comparing optimized break downs for a fighter battle master and a fighter champion. The battlemaster seems to always come ahead with average damage when compared on a mostly leveled playing field.
an interesting point that seems to be brought up but never added to the equation, is that remarkable athlete affects initiative. It’s effect is based on half of your proficiency, rounded up. That’s 2 and eventually a +3 at level 13.
the effect this has, even though it’s handwaved, is the champion statistically gets to take its first turn quicker. Since it’s based on proficiency and not a stat, it’s effect is a static boost that also stacks with other initiative sources.
the champion does more average damage than noted by a lot of these equations because it gets to take more actions over a period of time than other fighters. I’ve never seen this quantified and dont know how to do it myself, but I’d wager the damage boost is substantial.
It depends on the average number of rounds in your combat. For three round combats, at level 5-12, it's a 10% chance to get one extra action so a 3% real damage bonus. Which is not nothing (it's about as good as improved critical) but also not super exciting.
I don’t assume beginners are unintelligent. Assuming that I assume beginners to be unintelligent would be the same type of “false premise” I pointed out to someone earlier: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/tips-tactics/88619-how-bad-is-the-champion-fighter-subclass?comment=83
I don’t think da Champ is “beautiful” either, but I do think it is awfully darned generic, and that it is awfully darned simple. And if someone else finds those traits to be particularly beautiful, I can respect that. But assuming that I personally find it “beautiful” would be yet another “false premise” argument.
And I don’t think the Champion subclass specifically is “absolutely perfect for beginners,” I think the Fighter class in general is absolutely perfect for beginners. The Champion is just one subclass out of the lot. Some new players will want something as simple as da Champ. For other beginners who want something more interactive there are subclasses like the Battlemaster. Assuming that, when I say the Fighter is best for beginners that I mean only da Champ would be another example is a “false premise” argument.
Besides, I am of the opinion that a first character should likely only last until the player wants to change it. So if they decide to dump a character because they’re bored with it to swap for something more interesting after a handful of sessions, why should they not be able to? That means the rest of the arguments would also fall under the category of “false premise” arguments too.
Continuing to use the same failing strategy over and over would be an example of a “failure of strategy” like I also pointed out earlier.
I hope that helps. 😜
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I dont think that it's beautiful, but when I don't want players overwhelmed while learning the SYSTEM to also be overwhelmed with their characters.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Sounds like it’d be easy to use the sheet to test it yourself instead of making unfounded claims?
I already provided you the tool and you refuse to use it? I’ve now provided you TWO links to explain this.
Yes, the average damage per attack is 0.35, which is exactly calculated in the spreadsheet I made (it’s like staring right at you...). What you’re fundamentally missing is the ability to put that 0.35 (or 0.7) into context.
The problem you’re having is equating 0.35 and comparing it to the total possible output of damage and calling it “abysmal”. In one scenario, this is an almost 11% increase in damage each round for a Level 20 Champion Fighter with a Greatsword over your non-Champion Fighter. It’s not inconsequential in the slightest.
Stop being lazy and show your work on the spreadsheet or on your own analysis.
You can't possibly know all of the necessary data points to even calculate the average damage of a Battle Master.
For example; across all the D&D games that are played, all over the world, how often is Precision Attack used? When it is used, how often is it successful, and is the mean damage done on a success?
If you don't know the answer, which would mean you could not have possibly calculated average added damage from the Battle Master, please publicly announce it by making an excuse not to answer. This is one of countless needed data points you can't possibly know.
But yes, for fun I will look at your equations. Where can I see your equations? Not just a spreadsheet of claimed results.
I don't find the champion "beautiful" or "perfect for new players," but as a DM who has introduced new players to the game with both the Battle Master Fighter and Champion, I will say it was much easier for the new player to understand how the Champion worked than the Battle Master. It took me 10 minute to explain the Champion fighter and what it could do (the critical hit boost) to the new player, when it took me 30 minutes to explain the core of the Battle Master to a different player and a whole session of them experiencing it for them to fully understand it.
The Champion is simple, and new players who have never played any other TTRPG typically (not always, but most of the time) need a simpler class and subclass in order to understand how the game works.
I don't like the Champion, I find it boring and uninspiring, but I don't think it's as underpowered as some are stating in this thread, and don't consider it the worst Fighter subclass (I reserve that placement for Eldritch Knights and Arcane Archers). From what I've experienced, the Champion is not mechanically disappointing for players in the campaign when compared to other classes, but it is extremely boring.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
For reference to anyone else that says “0.35 bad”, here’s why it’s more nuanced than you think.
Champions get Improved Crit at level 3. At level 3, your Attack Bonus might be +5 if you’re lucky. And you might be wielding a rapier (1d8)+3 for ability modifier.
Total damage vs an AC 16 opponent:
Non-Champion = 10/20 chances hit. Average damage per hit is 7.5, or 12 on a crit. That’s ((7.5*9)+(12))/20 = 3.975 damage Ave.
Champion = ((7.5*8)+(12*2))/20 = 4.2 damage Ave.
That 0.35 represents an increase in output of 8.8% over normal damage output. The problem with most armchair experts is that they compare 0.35 (which is a hit-adjusted number) to an average damage of 7.5 (which is not hit-adjusted).
Throw in a feat that combines with critical hits like Greater Weapon Master and Piercer, or Vicious weapons, etc and this effect becomes more pronounced.
Is the grade level of the math relevant, or is it the accuracy? If it's inaccurate, by all means show me how.
If a Divination Wizard causes an enemy to fail their save and become paralyzed, and then Rogue and Barbarian get auto-crits, the Divination Wizard most definitely contributed to damage output. There is no such indirect damage with Improved Critical. It's far more simple, and the numbers are dismal.
Also, I never said anyone should care if the numbers are dismal. Make any decision you like, for whatever reason.
Or you can just provide the equations behind the claimed numbers and explain how you came up with the variables.
3.5 is for a greatsword. Why would you compare a the added damage from Champion carrying a 2d6 weapon, then compare that to non-Champion using a 1d8 weapon? Also your numbers are incomplete.
1d8 weapon averages 4.5 damage.
We'll use your 50% chance to hit.
Average Crit damage ÷ 20 = 0.225
__________
Normal Damage
(4.5 + 3 STR mod) = 7.5
50% chance to hit: 7.5 ÷ 2 = 3.75
Plus crit damage: 3.75 + 0.225 = 3.975
Normal Average Damage Per Swing = 3.975
Improved Critical Damage:
3.975 + 0.225 = 4.2
0.225 ÷ 3.975 = .0566
Improved Critical Adds 5.66% Damage
AND, it gets worse when more of your attacks are hitting and as non-dice bonuses increase.
Did you just get corrected by an "armchair expert"? Ouch!
You're not an armchair expert. You're the loud uncle from the nosebleed seats who thinks they know how to call the game better than the refs of coaches.
Take a step back and listen to other people. Especially when the majority are telling you how wrong you are.
but the thing is, is that having an extra chance of getting a crit, also increases you chance of even getting a hit, and so your numbers are off.
additionally, it can, as you said, be combined with half orc or GWM for even more extra damage
i personally think its very boring, and not as powerful as many other fighter sub classes, but also not the weakest, not trash, and not useless.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
How does an increased crit chance increase your chance of a hit? The non-champion Fighter who rolls a 19 is still going to hit. Critting doesn't effect chance to hit.