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.
Also remember that most combats are over by round 5 and you're probably not going to go more than 4 medium-to-hard fights without a short rest. If they can't break even before 20 rounds the Battle Master is probably going to get their dice back.
People who played the Champion said it was 'fine'. They didn't say it was good. It's also worth noting that even if I ignore the math, the way you're requesting I do, the Champion doesn't do anything else. It underperforms in combat, and unlike other fighter subclasses it does not have any significant out-of-combat benefits. It doesn't gain any extra proficiencies or any cool out-of-combat actions, it cannot use the abilities it does have in creative ways to do Role Playing Things(TM), and it gains fewer overall abilities than any other fighter subclass. The Champion is not 'bad' compared to the base fighter. A good player can still do fine with the Champion - but that's because they're a good player, not because the Champion subclass is offering them anything of any worth to work with.
All of that is absolutely true. Wait a minute, I feel like I heard someone say something like this before... oh yeah!
Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy, specifically a fallacy of relevance, and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people, stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.
You just cracked the code to the entire “5e Design Philosophy” in all of its almighty glory in a body of text that would fit on a M:tG card. 👏👏 🥁*bu-dum-ching* 💥
But seriously folks....
“Is it bad?” is inherently a subjective question, requiring a subjective answer. Your mistake is trying to use math to form an objective answer to an ultimately subjective question, and it is doomed to failure. That is what we colloquially refer to as “trying to cram a square peg into a round hole,” or more specifically A Failure of Strategy.
You compounded your mistake by phrasing your question as “How bad is....” which presumes that a specific opinion. That would be either a Leading Question, or a False Premise, depending on one’s point of view.
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).
IamSposta, you are correct that what constitutes "bad" is subjective. But if a person considers adding 0.35 damage per attack to be bad, then Improved Critical is objectively bad.
IamSposta, you are correct that what constitutes "bad" is subjective. But a person considers adding 0.35 damage per attack to be bad, then Improved Critical is objectively bad.
I don’t consider it to be “bad.” There’s a difference between “bad” and “not as good.” What is it with the whole “if yer not 1st, yer last” mentality that has sweat D&D?!?
And DPR is not the only thing to consider. Since a Champ automatically gets multiple fighting styles, they can combine their killiness with tankiness effectively too. The most fightiest fightyperson on life. If you call a 10/10 on the generically stereotypical scale “bad....” 🤷♂️
And, for some folks, simplicity is key, and it don’t get no simplah den dat. So if you call 10/10 on the “Lowest Player Buy-In” scale “bad....” 🤷♂️
It's less about being "1st" and more about steering new players from a trap choice. A subclass like Samurai also fits the bill of solid offense and defense without any complicated choices and arguably gets the job done better. Players that like customizing or having tactical options might as well just pick Battle Master, Cavalier or Rune Knight.
If a player in my group really wanted to play a Champion for whatever reason I'd give them a free feat or some bonus to crit damage to help even things out.
And the champion fighter is perfectly fine. Two attacks per turn, or a single attack with advantage, normally has a 9.75% chance of scoring a critical hit. The improved critical feature elevates that to 19%. They later get a bonus to their initiative rolls and learn a second fighting style without multiclassing. It's solid.
The Champion can't take credit for the parts that pertain to the base class (in this case every class). Improved Critical grants the Fighter an *additional* 5% (P=0.05) chance to crit per attack. Average crit damage for a greatsword = 7. Therefore, Improved Critical grants you an average of 0.35 extra damage per attack. 7 x 0.05 = 0.35
In layman's terms: Thanks to improved critical, each time you swing your sword you're averaging 0.35 hit points of damage. That's just a mathematical fact.
You want to talk advantage? Improved Critical grants you an *additional* 9.25% chance to crit (P=.0925). That amounts to averaging 0.6475 damage every time you attack with advantage.
Question 1: According to you, are these numbers correct? 1a: If they are correct, do you consider them to be significant? 1b: If they are incorrect, what is the error in the calculation?
I stand by my math, and it's not hard to calculate. You multiple the chance of failure by itself for each die you roll. The product tells you the total failure chance. In this case, the failure chance is the failure to score a critical hit. I cut my teeth on this by figuring out the probabilities in Savage Worlds during the mind-naughts. For example, an eldritch knight or paladin at level 5 has a 90.25% chance (0.95*0.95) of not hitting a natural 20 while a champion fighter of the same level has an 81% (0.9*0.9) chance of not rolling a 19 or better. This means they have a 9.75% and 19% chance of rolling a critical hit, respectively. The same champion at 11th level has a 72.9% chance (0.9*0.9*0.9) of failure; or a 27.1% chance of rolling a critical in any one round of combat. And the same eldritch knight has only a 14.2625% chance of scoring a critical hit, or an 85.7375% chance (0.95*0.95*0.95) of failing to score a critical hit.
As for your "mathematical fact", it includes a number of assumptions that should not be made. Chief among them is your assumption of a 2d6 weapon. There's no good reason a champion fighter might not be an archer with a longbow or swing a glaive or halberd. Nevermind the possibility of additional dice, be it from class or race features, magical items, or spells. It's good to remove variables when possible, but this also throws off any attempt at calculating a DPR change. This is why focusing on DPR alone is pointless. Challenge Ratings don't factor it in, so you shouldn't either.
I understand why you think this is how you calculate it, but you're wrong.
And the champion fighter is perfectly fine. Two attacks per turn, or a single attack with advantage, normally has a 9.75% chance of scoring a critical hit. The improved critical feature elevates that to 19%. They later get a bonus to their initiative rolls and learn a second fighting style without multiclassing. It's solid.
The Champion can't take credit for the parts that pertain to the base class (in this case every class). Improved Critical grants the Fighter an *additional* 5% (P=0.05) chance to crit per attack. Average crit damage for a greatsword = 7. Therefore, Improved Critical grants you an average of 0.35 extra damage per attack. 7 x 0.05 = 0.35
In layman's terms: Thanks to improved critical, each time you swing your sword you're averaging 0.35 hit points of damage. That's just a mathematical fact.
You want to talk advantage? Improved Critical grants you an *additional* 9.25% chance to crit (P=.0925). That amounts to averaging 0.6475 damage every time you attack with advantage.
Question 1: According to you, are these numbers correct? 1a: If they are correct, do you consider them to be significant? 1b: If they are incorrect, what is the error in the calculation?
I stand by my math, and it's not hard to calculate. You multiple the chance of failure by itself for each die you roll. The product tells you the total failure chance. In this case, the failure chance is the failure to score a critical hit. I cut my teeth on this by figuring out the probabilities in Savage Worlds during the mind-naughts. For example, an eldritch knight or paladin at level 5 has a 90.25% chance (0.95*0.95) of not hitting a natural 20 while a champion fighter of the same level has an 81% (0.9*0.9) chance of not rolling a 19 or better. This means they have a 9.75% and 19% chance of rolling a critical hit, respectively. The same champion at 11th level has a 72.9% chance (0.9*0.9*0.9) of failure; or a 27.1% chance of rolling a critical in any one round of combat. And the same eldritch knight has only a 14.2625% chance of scoring a critical hit, or an 85.7375% chance (0.95*0.95*0.95) of failing to score a critical hit.
As for your "mathematical fact", it includes a number of assumptions that should not be made. Chief among them is your assumption of a 2d6 weapon. There's no good reason a champion fighter might not be an archer with a longbow or swing a glaive or halberd. Nevermind the possibility of additional dice, be it from class or race features, magical items, or spells. It's good to remove variables when possible, but this also throws off any attempt at calculating a DPR change. This is why focusing on DPR alone is pointless. Challenge Ratings don't factor it in, so you shouldn't either.
I understand why you think this is how you calculate it, but you're wrong.
I did not assume a greatsword. I specifically noted that my numbers pertain to a greatword because that is the best case scenario. The numbers are worse for all the other weapons. Are you acknowledging my numbers are correct for a greatsword, yes or no?
And yes, there are other scenarios such as Half-orc and Advantage. I've addressed some of those and the numbers are still bad. Give me any combination you please and I'll give you the numbers.
And the champion fighter is perfectly fine. Two attacks per turn, or a single attack with advantage, normally has a 9.75% chance of scoring a critical hit. The improved critical feature elevates that to 19%. They later get a bonus to their initiative rolls and learn a second fighting style without multiclassing. It's solid.
The Champion can't take credit for the parts that pertain to the base class (in this case every class). Improved Critical grants the Fighter an *additional* 5% (P=0.05) chance to crit per attack. Average crit damage for a greatsword = 7. Therefore, Improved Critical grants you an average of 0.35 extra damage per attack. 7 x 0.05 = 0.35
In layman's terms: Thanks to improved critical, each time you swing your sword you're averaging 0.35 hit points of damage. That's just a mathematical fact.
You want to talk advantage? Improved Critical grants you an *additional* 9.25% chance to crit (P=.0925). That amounts to averaging 0.6475 damage every time you attack with advantage.
Question 1: According to you, are these numbers correct? 1a: If they are correct, do you consider them to be significant? 1b: If they are incorrect, what is the error in the calculation?
I stand by my math, and it's not hard to calculate. You multiple the chance of failure by itself for each die you roll. The product tells you the total failure chance. In this case, the failure chance is the failure to score a critical hit. I cut my teeth on this by figuring out the probabilities in Savage Worlds during the mind-naughts. For example, an eldritch knight or paladin at level 5 has a 90.25% chance (0.95*0.95) of not hitting a natural 20 while a champion fighter of the same level has an 81% (0.9*0.9) chance of not rolling a 19 or better. This means they have a 9.75% and 19% chance of rolling a critical hit, respectively. The same champion at 11th level has a 72.9% chance (0.9*0.9*0.9) of failure; or a 27.1% chance of rolling a critical in any one round of combat. And the same eldritch knight has only a 14.2625% chance of scoring a critical hit, or an 85.7375% chance (0.95*0.95*0.95) of failing to score a critical hit.
As for your "mathematical fact", it includes a number of assumptions that should not be made. Chief among them is your assumption of a 2d6 weapon. There's no good reason a champion fighter might not be an archer with a longbow or swing a glaive or halberd. Nevermind the possibility of additional dice, be it from class or race features, magical items, or spells. It's good to remove variables when possible, but this also throws off any attempt at calculating a DPR change. This is why focusing on DPR alone is pointless. Challenge Ratings don't factor it in, so you shouldn't either.
I understand why you think this is how you calculate it, but you're wrong.
I did not assume a greatsword. I specifically noted that my numbers pertain to a greatword because that is the best case scenario. The numbers are worse for all the other weapons. Are you acknowledging my numbers are correct for a greatsword, yes or no?
And yes, there are other scenarios such as Half-orc and Advantage. I've addressed some of those and the numbers are still bad. Give me any combination you please and I'll give you the numbers.
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.
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.
If champion was "once per round a hit is a critical hit" it would be perfectly impressive (probably broken if multiclassed with rogue).
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.
If champion was "once per round a hit is a critical hit" it would be perfectly impressive (probably broken if multiclassed with rogue).
It would be broken, and it's a darn good thing Wizards saw fit not to do so. Improved and Superior Critical are fine, as is. They're not flashy, but they don't need to be and most fighter abilities aren't. And they didn't design the class with how the "meta" would evolve. No one really can. People talk about the battle master rolling extra damage dice constantly and...no. Just...no.
Not every maneuver is for every situation. Disarming Attack isn't going to work against natural weapons, and no sane DM would allow it. Nor would they allow Trip Attack against a target that's already down. Some maneuvers add to the attack roll instead of damage. Others, like Commander's Strike and Rally, bolster allies.
I don't care if the battle master is better at outputting damage than the champion. That's not its primary purpose. It's a controller/support archetype. The champion is basic, sure, but there's also a certain beauty in its simplicity. And getting crits more often than anyone else, even if they don't add that much more damage, is fun. Rolling dice is fun. Rolling more dice more often means more fun. And that's an intangible good that no spreadsheet can account for.
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)_/¯
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.
If champion was "once per round a hit is a critical hit" it would be perfectly impressive (probably broken if multiclassed with rogue).
Level 5 Rogue + Level 3 Champion: With sneak attack using a rapier (or any 1d8 weapon) and no sneak attack = an average of 0.75 additional damage per attack. With advantage it = 1.3875 average extra damage per attack.
If using something like Booming Blade that's going to increase those numbers some.
It's less about being "1st" and more about steering new players from a trap choice. A subclass like Samurai also fits the bill of solid offense and defense without any complicated choices and arguably gets the job done better. Players that like customizing or having tactical options might as well just pick Battle Master, Cavalier or Rune Knight.
If a player in my group really wanted to play a Champion for whatever reason I'd give them a free feat or some bonus to crit damage to help even things out.
But the Samurai is not “Generically Stereotypical,” its “Specifically Stereotypical.” Maybe some folks are not enamored of Asian themes and dislike the concept of playing a Samurai based on that. So while the Samurai may be an 8/10 on the “Generically Stereotypical Scale,” da Champ still rings in as more generic with a 10/10.
And Fighting Spirit and Strength Before Death both require a modicum of resource management. It’s not much, but while the Samurai may ring in at an 8/10 on the “Lowest Player Buy-In Scale,” da Champ still beats it at a 10/10.
Better is subjective, and DPR is not all there is to consider.
It's less about being "1st" and more about steering new players from a trap choice. A subclass like Samurai also fits the bill of solid offense and defense without any complicated choices and arguably gets the job done better. Players that like customizing or having tactical options might as well just pick Battle Master, Cavalier or Rune Knight.
If a player in my group really wanted to play a Champion for whatever reason I'd give them a free feat or some bonus to crit damage to help even things out.
But the Samurai is not “Generically Stereotypical,” its “Specifically Stereotypical.” Maybe some folks are not enamored of Asian themes and dislike the concept of playing a Samurai based on that. So while the Samurai may be an 8/10 on the “Generically Stereotypical Scale,” da Champ still rings in as more generic with a 10/10.
And Fighting Spirit and Strength Before Death both require a modicum of resource management. It’s not much, but while the Samurai may ring in at an 8/10 on the “Lowest Player Buy-In Scale,” da Champ still beats it at a 10/10.
Better is subjective, and DPR is not all there is to consider.
Yeah, I've said from the very beginning that there's a myriad of reasons someone might want to choose a class. Many people just don't realize that damage wise, the Champion features add very, very little. If someone knows that and they choose to play it anyway, that's cool it's their choice. Everyone has their preferences.
Not every maneuver is for every situation. Disarming Attack isn't going to work against natural weapons, and no sane DM would allow it. Nor would they allow Trip Attack against a target that's already down.
The rules say otherwise, and it's pretty hard to justify not being able to do Pushing Attack, Goading Attack or Menacing Attack.
I don't care if the battle master is better at outputting damage than the champion. That's not its primary purpose. It's a controller/support archetype.
That's your opinion. It can certainly fit that niche, but there's no reason it can't ba damage dealer.
The champion is basic, sure, but there's also a certain beauty in its simplicity.
I agree with that. The simplicity's not the issue, it's the fact that every other subclass performs better.
And getting crits more often than anyone else, even if they don't add that much more damage, is fun. Rolling dice is fun. Rolling more dice more often means more fun. And that's an intangible good that no spreadsheet can account for.
And that's fair, but a TWF Battle Master, Samurai or Arcane Archer with Elven Accuracy will likely still score more crits by giving themselves advantage and using Action Surge. Or they could play a monk. Champion isn't even good at the thing people pick it for.
But the Samurai is not “Generically Stereotypical,” its “Specifically Stereotypical.” Maybe some folks are not enamored of Asian themes and dislike the concept of playing a Samurai based on that. So while the Samurai may be an 8/10 on the “Generically Stereotypical Scale,” da Champ still rings in as more generic with a 10/10.
And Fighting Spirit and Strength Before Death both require a modicum of resource management. It’s not much, but while the Samurai may ring in at an 8/10 on the “Lowest Player Buy-In Scale,” da Champ still beats it at a 10/10.
If a player is so incredibly motivated to maximize crits at the expense of everything else, I highly doubt they'll mind either of these.
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!"
Why do you assume beginners are unintelligent?
Anyone who plays a game of D&D, even if it's the first game of D&D - even if it's their first tabletop game ever, or even their first game ever - is not going to be running their Champion alone. They're going to be watching other players play more advanced and capable classes in the party next to them. They're going to be watching spellcasters cast spells, barbarians shrug damage off with their rages, rogues deal huge spikes of damage with their sneak strikes, all the whatever else their party does. The player is going to have to understand those other things to at least some extent if they wish to be able to follow what their friends are doing, and being able to follow what your friends are doing is a pretty critical, non-negotiable part of the Der&Ders.
Unless the DM says "everybody's a Champion, nobody can take feats or multiclass, and ranged weapons don't exist", then proceed to never use anything but Medium enemies with basic nonmagical melee attacks to face them, your Champion-playing newbie is going to be exposed to the more complex rules of the game. If you truly think the new person is fundamentally incapable of understanding how to play anything but a Champion fighter, then they're fundamentally incapable of playing D&D
The Champion is simpler than other classes, yes. It is not that much simpler, and it is also simple poorly. There's nothing "beautiful" about the Champion's stripped-down, dumbed-up underperforming oversimplicity. Champions still have have to track their Second Wind and Action Surge, so the whole "no resource tracking, easy breezy!" thing is busted from the start by the base class. Remarkable Athlete is actually a very fiddly and awkward ability with no real clear utility, as virtually all of the checks it might otherwise cover are things you want regular proficiency in as a Champion anyways. The "Initiative is a Dexterity check! DX" thing is a cute trick for more advanced players, but something that will only screw up the person we're assuming is too unintelligent to handle anything but a Champion fighter. Everything else fails to matter because if your 'new player' hasn't gotten a grip on 5e by 10th level, something has gone horribly wrong and your game needs an intervention.
Oversimplifying a class is not how you introduce a new player to D&D. Running a stripped-down, oversimplified campaign is not how you introduce someone to D&D. Telling someone they're too stupid to run anything but the Designated Noob class is not how you introduce someone to D&D. It is, however, an excellent way to insult someone and turn them off of the game.
Furthermore, I would posit that a DM should pay attention to someone who says "I'm just gonna play a Champion, I don't really wanna deal with all that fiddly shit" and consider it the red flag it is. That sort of statement is an indication that your player is not engaged with your game, and you should maybe try to figure out why rather than celebrate their Bohemian Rules-Lite soul and change up your whole approach to accomodate their lack of engagement bold and intrepid disregard of the trappings of the Man, maaaaan.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What if there are no Feats in your game?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
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.
Also remember that most combats are over by round 5 and you're probably not going to go more than 4 medium-to-hard fights without a short rest. If they can't break even before 20 rounds the Battle Master is probably going to get their dice back.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
You just cracked the code to the entire “5e Design Philosophy” in all of its almighty glory in a body of text that would fit on a M:tG card. 👏👏
🥁*bu-dum-ching* 💥
But seriously folks....
“Is it bad?” is inherently a subjective question, requiring a subjective answer. Your mistake is trying to use math to form an objective answer to an ultimately subjective question, and it is doomed to failure. That is what we colloquially refer to as “trying to cram a square peg into a round hole,” or more specifically A Failure of Strategy.
You compounded your mistake by phrasing your question as “How bad is....” which presumes that a specific opinion. That would be either a Leading Question, or a False Premise, depending on one’s point of view.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
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).
IamSposta, you are correct that what constitutes "bad" is subjective. But if a person considers adding 0.35 damage per attack to be bad, then Improved Critical is objectively bad.
I don’t consider it to be “bad.” There’s a difference between “bad” and “not as good.” What is it with the whole “if yer not 1st, yer last” mentality that has sweat D&D?!?
And DPR is not the only thing to consider. Since a Champ automatically gets multiple fighting styles, they can combine their killiness with tankiness effectively too. The most fightiest fightyperson on life. If you call a 10/10 on the generically stereotypical scale “bad....” 🤷♂️
And, for some folks, simplicity is key, and it don’t get no simplah den dat. So if you call 10/10 on the “Lowest Player Buy-In” scale “bad....” 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's less about being "1st" and more about steering new players from a trap choice. A subclass like Samurai also fits the bill of solid offense and defense without any complicated choices and arguably gets the job done better. Players that like customizing or having tactical options might as well just pick Battle Master, Cavalier or Rune Knight.
If a player in my group really wanted to play a Champion for whatever reason I'd give them a free feat or some bonus to crit damage to help even things out.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I stand by my math, and it's not hard to calculate. You multiple the chance of failure by itself for each die you roll. The product tells you the total failure chance. In this case, the failure chance is the failure to score a critical hit. I cut my teeth on this by figuring out the probabilities in Savage Worlds during the mind-naughts. For example, an eldritch knight or paladin at level 5 has a 90.25% chance (0.95*0.95) of not hitting a natural 20 while a champion fighter of the same level has an 81% (0.9*0.9) chance of not rolling a 19 or better. This means they have a 9.75% and 19% chance of rolling a critical hit, respectively. The same champion at 11th level has a 72.9% chance (0.9*0.9*0.9) of failure; or a 27.1% chance of rolling a critical in any one round of combat. And the same eldritch knight has only a 14.2625% chance of scoring a critical hit, or an 85.7375% chance (0.95*0.95*0.95) of failing to score a critical hit.
As for your "mathematical fact", it includes a number of assumptions that should not be made. Chief among them is your assumption of a 2d6 weapon. There's no good reason a champion fighter might not be an archer with a longbow or swing a glaive or halberd. Nevermind the possibility of additional dice, be it from class or race features, magical items, or spells. It's good to remove variables when possible, but this also throws off any attempt at calculating a DPR change. This is why focusing on DPR alone is pointless. Challenge Ratings don't factor it in, so you shouldn't either.
I understand why you think this is how you calculate it, but you're wrong.
I did not assume a greatsword. I specifically noted that my numbers pertain to a greatword because that is the best case scenario. The numbers are worse for all the other weapons. Are you acknowledging my numbers are correct for a greatsword, yes or no?
And yes, there are other scenarios such as Half-orc and Advantage. I've addressed some of those and the numbers are still bad. Give me any combination you please and I'll give you the numbers.
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.
If champion was "once per round a hit is a critical hit" it would be perfectly impressive (probably broken if multiclassed with rogue).
It would be broken, and it's a darn good thing Wizards saw fit not to do so. Improved and Superior Critical are fine, as is. They're not flashy, but they don't need to be and most fighter abilities aren't. And they didn't design the class with how the "meta" would evolve. No one really can. People talk about the battle master rolling extra damage dice constantly and...no. Just...no.
Not every maneuver is for every situation. Disarming Attack isn't going to work against natural weapons, and no sane DM would allow it. Nor would they allow Trip Attack against a target that's already down. Some maneuvers add to the attack roll instead of damage. Others, like Commander's Strike and Rally, bolster allies.
I don't care if the battle master is better at outputting damage than the champion. That's not its primary purpose. It's a controller/support archetype. The champion is basic, sure, but there's also a certain beauty in its simplicity. And getting crits more often than anyone else, even if they don't add that much more damage, is fun. Rolling dice is fun. Rolling more dice more often means more fun. And that's an intangible good that no spreadsheet can account for.
So play a battle master?
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)_/¯
Level 5 Rogue + Level 3 Champion: With sneak attack using a rapier (or any 1d8 weapon) and no sneak attack = an average of 0.75 additional damage per attack. With advantage it = 1.3875 average extra damage per attack.
If using something like Booming Blade that's going to increase those numbers some.
But the Samurai is not “Generically Stereotypical,” its “Specifically Stereotypical.” Maybe some folks are not enamored of Asian themes and dislike the concept of playing a Samurai based on that. So while the Samurai may be an 8/10 on the “Generically Stereotypical Scale,” da Champ still rings in as more generic with a 10/10.
And Fighting Spirit and Strength Before Death both require a modicum of resource management. It’s not much, but while the Samurai may ring in at an 8/10 on the “Lowest Player Buy-In Scale,” da Champ still beats it at a 10/10.
Better is subjective, and DPR is not all there is to consider.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah, I've said from the very beginning that there's a myriad of reasons someone might want to choose a class. Many people just don't realize that damage wise, the Champion features add very, very little. If someone knows that and they choose to play it anyway, that's cool it's their choice. Everyone has their preferences.
The rules say otherwise, and it's pretty hard to justify not being able to do Pushing Attack, Goading Attack or Menacing Attack.
That's your opinion. It can certainly fit that niche, but there's no reason it can't ba damage dealer.
I agree with that. The simplicity's not the issue, it's the fact that every other subclass performs better.
And that's fair, but a TWF Battle Master, Samurai or Arcane Archer with Elven Accuracy will likely still score more crits by giving themselves advantage and using Action Surge. Or they could play a monk. Champion isn't even good at the thing people pick it for.
If a player is so incredibly motivated to maximize crits at the expense of everything else, I highly doubt they'll mind either of these.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
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!"
Why do you assume beginners are unintelligent?
Anyone who plays a game of D&D, even if it's the first game of D&D - even if it's their first tabletop game ever, or even their first game ever - is not going to be running their Champion alone. They're going to be watching other players play more advanced and capable classes in the party next to them. They're going to be watching spellcasters cast spells, barbarians shrug damage off with their rages, rogues deal huge spikes of damage with their sneak strikes, all the whatever else their party does. The player is going to have to understand those other things to at least some extent if they wish to be able to follow what their friends are doing, and being able to follow what your friends are doing is a pretty critical, non-negotiable part of the Der&Ders.
Unless the DM says "everybody's a Champion, nobody can take feats or multiclass, and ranged weapons don't exist", then proceed to never use anything but Medium enemies with basic nonmagical melee attacks to face them, your Champion-playing newbie is going to be exposed to the more complex rules of the game. If you truly think the new person is fundamentally incapable of understanding how to play anything but a Champion fighter, then they're fundamentally incapable of playing D&D
The Champion is simpler than other classes, yes. It is not that much simpler, and it is also simple poorly. There's nothing "beautiful" about the Champion's stripped-down, dumbed-up underperforming oversimplicity. Champions still have have to track their Second Wind and Action Surge, so the whole "no resource tracking, easy breezy!" thing is busted from the start by the base class. Remarkable Athlete is actually a very fiddly and awkward ability with no real clear utility, as virtually all of the checks it might otherwise cover are things you want regular proficiency in as a Champion anyways. The "Initiative is a Dexterity check! DX" thing is a cute trick for more advanced players, but something that will only screw up the person we're assuming is too unintelligent to handle anything but a Champion fighter. Everything else fails to matter because if your 'new player' hasn't gotten a grip on 5e by 10th level, something has gone horribly wrong and your game needs an intervention.
Oversimplifying a class is not how you introduce a new player to D&D. Running a stripped-down, oversimplified campaign is not how you introduce someone to D&D. Telling someone they're too stupid to run anything but the Designated Noob class is not how you introduce someone to D&D. It is, however, an excellent way to insult someone and turn them off of the game.
Furthermore, I would posit that a DM should pay attention to someone who says "I'm just gonna play a Champion, I don't really wanna deal with all that fiddly shit" and consider it the red flag it is. That sort of statement is an indication that your player is not engaged with your game, and you should maybe try to figure out why rather than celebrate their Bohemian Rules-Lite soul and change up your whole approach to accomodate their
lack of engagementbold and intrepid disregard of the trappings of the Man, maaaaan.Please do not contact or message me.
I've played one in the past. They're fine. Very tactical.
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.