Ok guys, you're moving the goalposts. When I theory crafted my piddly TWF DEX Champion to try to illustrate how rolling To-Hit dice more often increases damage output at a faster pace for the Champion than a non-Champion sub-class, you compared it to "The KING of DPR".
Then it occurred to me. 5 attacks with a crossbow means a hand crossbow. A hand crossbow is a 1d6. Same as my TWF fighter. So what gave? I asked, and I got the answer. Sharpshooter. So I rebuilt the lvl 15+ CBE+SS Blademaster into a Champion to finally be able to compare apples to apples. And what do you know!!!? Same league. But woe is the Champion... joining that elite list of high DPR builds is still doesn't redeem the sub-class. If the Champion is not beating the Battlemaster, then the sub-class sucks.
And of course, SeanJP doesn't consider ALL of a sub-classes features, only the one part that he gives priority to. So I showed a level 5 BM vs a level 5 Champion. And I intentionally showed TWO curves for the Battlemaster, because Superiority Dice are a fixed resource and it doesn't make sense to compare using averages because the very use of averages assumes it's always there (and it's not). So you ignore the chart for the BM without superiority die completely.
Then SeanJP says a BM is more versatile, being able to do a lot more than just contribute Superiority Dice to doing damage compared to a Champion which can do nothing except do more damage. However, if that were true, then that first amazing chart would go away and you would have to use the second chart because you can't have it both ways. You can't have Superiority Dice to control the battlefield and make BM's versatile, AND use your superiority dice to dominate on damage to cherry pick that nice graph. I mean, pick one. Either the BM uses Superiority Dice to jack up damage, and gets nothing else for being a BM than increasing damage, or he doesn't get to jack up damage.
Then there's stuff like this:
However, the damage output difference would likely still favor battlemaster due to the stark increase in the to hit vs. the potential critical damage add with a lower die if you use the SS + CBE build on a champion.
What?? This is an apples to apples comparison. Same weapon. Same style. Same level. Same modifiers. Same feats. Same dice. Are you thinking of some other BM build so we're no longer comparing apples to apples like I was scorned for doing?
Based on averages from the DMG you will have combat that lasts approximately 3-5 rounds and have about 2-3 of these combats between short rests. The DMG assumes around 2 short rests per day giving the battlemaster 12 dice per day on average at level 5. Even with a meger +3 to hit based on these averages for AC at that CR range (13-15 AC) the battlemaster without using the precision die will still hit 2 or more of their shots 71%-51% of the time respectively.
This too... that DPR calculator doesn't factor in limited resources. When you add those D12 superiority dice to the inputs, it's averaging that use (in other words, you'd have to play thousands of combats to approach that average). So the calculator is basically saying, "A BM will never run out of Superiority Dice. There will always be enough short/long rests." It's a big gimme for the Battlemaster, but there's no easy way to do the math, or any consensus among us as to what is a reasonable XP budget for encounters. So there it is, good for you. The Champion has to ignore his strength because the calculator can't figure that out. (The strength being, his damage output is always on as long as he's got HP. Zero resources to manage.)
All this to say, you're cherry picking. Comparing a Champion to that CBE+SS Blademaster, the Champion is in the same ballpark and the difference is negligible. I mean, if I can build a champion that finally beats a Battlemaster in damage output, I'm not going to claim the Battlemaster is garbage.
Funny because from the get go you have been picking scenarios that only benefit champion so I guess we are both bad?
The real bottom line is based on what we have posted your champion barely outperforms a stock base fighter. That's really all you need to know to make an informed decision.
Kerric, Superiority Dice offer battlefield control AND they do damage, do they not? I mean this IS a fact, correct?
How much superiority dice add (over time, averaged over all attack rolls) is impossible calculate because all campaigns are different, players will choose different Combat Maneuvers, DM's will give different amounts of short and long rests, and players will play their characters differently. But what's not in doubt is when they are used, Combat Maneuvers add massively more damage than when they're not used.
Just based on what I know, I do think the Battle Master adds sufficient damage (both direct, and indirect) - especially if you specifically build for it to do so. BUT, I'm less concerned (that's not to say I'm not concerned at all) about it because that's not all it offers. Improved Critical offers damage only. When I crunch the numbers and compare it to just basic attacks, I'm unmoved.
I don't have a predisposition to want to bash the Champion. I would love to be wrong and find out it's great. It would open up another option for me. In contrast, you seem to be approaching the discussion like a defense attorney. Why? You can still love playing the class even if the objective numbers aren't flattering.
Hm. What's the most damage a single superiority die can grant? My tentative thoughts
Ambush can make the difference between going first and going second, which is basically worth one turn of attacking, but it usually won't. If you're doing 2d6+10 (gwf, +3 weapon) with a 75% hit chance (+14 vs ac 20), attacking 4x/round, that's +55 damage if it works (6.5/20) for total value 17.9. With GWM, it's 56.7 damage for a total of 18.4.
Brace and Riposte both let you use your reaction to attack, which you are often otherwise unable to do, but run the risk of missing. With the above assumptions, it's a 75% chance to hit for 25.5, and thus worth 19.1 (great weapon mastery is a drawback here)
Feinting Attack converts 75% to 94%, on an attack doing 25.5, and is thus worth 4.8. With GWM, it converts 50% to 75% on an attack doing 35.5 and is worth 8.9.
Precision Attack can convert a miss into a hit; actual value depends on which attacks you attempt it on. If you limit yourself to attacks where you miss by 7 or less, there's a 75% chance to convert a miss to a hit for 18.3 (28.3 w/GWM) and is thus worth 13.75 (21.25 with GWM)
Trip Attack works similarly to Feinting Attack, but basically converts the rest of your turn. If you hit with your first attack in a turn and successfully knock the foe prone (generally around 75% for foes that are vulnerable), that's +6.5 damage, then +0.57 hits for 18.3 (10.4, reduced to 7.8 because of failure chance) for value +14.3. With GWM, it's now +0.75 hits for 28.3 (21.25, reduced to 15.9 because of failure chance) for value 22.4. Also, it affects allies.
Commander's Strike is dependent on the rest of your team, but if you've got a rogue doing +10/11d6+8 (46.5) it's a 75% chance of +53, worth (39.75), but is costing you one attack worth (13.75, 14.17 w/GWM) for a net of +26. Unlike other options, this one works just fine for a dueling or defensive style.
Distracting Strike is dependent on the rest of your team. It's worth a base of (6.5), and then the advantage is typically worth about 1/5 of the damage of the attack you're aiding, so for the rogue ally it's worth around +9.3 more (15.8), or about +34 if the rogue would otherwise be unable to sneak attack.
Pushing attack is dependent on team or environment. DC is likely 19, foes that are even susceptible often have poor strength saves, so it depends on what you can push them into. If there's a convenient Prismatic Wall that's good for 50d6 (up to 175, but usually reduced by saves), but even a more common Wall of Thorns is 7d8 and another 7d8 at start of turn.
Hm. What's the most damage a single superiority die can grant? My tentative thoughts
Ambush can make the difference between going first and going second, which is basically worth one turn of attacking, but it usually won't. If you're doing 2d6+10 (gwf, +3 weapon) with a 75% hit chance (+14 vs ac 20), attacking 4x/round, that's +55 damage if it works (6.5/20) for total value 17.9. With GWM, it's 56.7 damage for a total of 18.4.
Brace and Riposte both let you use your reaction to attack, which you are often otherwise unable to do, but run the risk of missing. With the above assumptions, it's a 75% chance to hit for 25.5, and thus worth 19.1 (great weapon mastery is a drawback here)
Feinting Attack converts 75% to 94%, on an attack doing 25.5, and is thus worth 4.8. With GWM, it converts 50% to 75% on an attack doing 35.5 and is worth 8.9.
Precision Attack can convert a miss into a hit; actual value depends on which attacks you attempt it on. If you limit yourself to attacks where you miss by 7 or less, there's a 75% chance to convert a miss to a hit for 18.3 (28.3 w/GWM) and is thus worth 13.75 (21.25 with GWM)
Commander's Strike is dependent on the rest of your team, but if you've got a rogue doing +10/11d6+8 (46.5) it's a 75% chance of +53, worth (39.75), but is costing you one attack worth (13.75, 14.17 w/GWM) for a net of +26. Unlike other options, this one works just fine for a dueling or defensive style.
Distracting Strike is dependent on the rest of your team. It's worth a base of (6.5), and then the advantage is typically worth about 1/5 of the damage of the attack you're aiding, so for the rogue ally it's worth around +9.3 more (15.8), or about +34 if the rogue would otherwise be unable to sneak attack.
Pushing attack is dependent on team or environment. DC is likely 19, foes that are even susceptible often have poor strength saves, so it depends on what you can push them into. If there's a convenient Prismatic Wall that's good for 50d6 (up to 175, but usually reduced by saves), but even a more common Wall of Thorns is 7d8 and another 7d8 at start of turn.
There are also the on hit damage effects of some of the maneuvers, that make Battle master capable of doing more damage on a crit.
Kerric, Superiority Dice offer battlefield control AND they do damage, do they not? I mean this IS a fact, correct?
How much superiority dice add (over time, averaged over all attack rolls) is impossible calculate because all campaigns are different, players will choose different Combat Maneuvers, DM's will give different amounts of short and long rests, and players will play their characters differently. But what's not in doubt is when they are used, Combat Maneuvers add massively more damage than when they're not used.
Just based on what I know, I do think the Battle Master adds sufficient damage (both direct, and indirect) - especially if you specifically build for it to do so. BUT, I'm less concerned (that's not to say I'm not concerned at all) about it because that's not all it offers. Improved Critical offers damage only. When I crunch the numbers and compare it to just basic attacks, I'm unmoved.
I don't have a predisposition to want to bash the Champion. I would love to be wrong and find out it's great. It would open up another option for me. In contrast, you seem to be approaching the discussion like a defense attorney. Why? You can still love playing the class even if the objective numbers aren't flattering.
This is the best response... If you like playing the subclass that's great and you don't need us to like it too.
Personally I think it's boring and mechanically worse but that's me.
Lol, I wouldn't play a Champion either, because it is boring. Just get in melee (or not with a CBE build) and attack every round. There's nothing more to combat with that class.
I just can't let it go when I see assumptions that I can't agree with that push an argument one way.
It started out comparing two fighters swinging broadswords and comparing Superiority Dice to Improved Critical. Well, no wonder the Champion came out stinking. That's not fair.
Increasing the crit range on dice from 20 to 19-20 and then 18-20 is MASSIVELY affected by how many dice you roll To-Hit. You can't ignore that when making the above comparison. I tried to show how much of a difference it made, but I am not a min-maxer, so I didn't know of any equivalent builds to compare it to. Which undoubtedly led to the "that's not apples to apples". Which was true.
But then I was shown the CBE+SS build, which is perfect for making comparisons. The BB CBE+SS build was crowned "KING" of DPR and my TWF was shat on, so to speak. But I converted the BB CBE+SS build to a Champion CBE+SS build and all of a sudden, it's in the "KING" category of DPR. (But still pooed on because it didn't beat the BattleMaster).
But then the whole comparison was dismissed because level 20 is not indicative. OK FINE... I moved with the goalposts. So I gave you a lvl 5 comparison. The Champion was still in the same ballpark, but you all insist on dismissing the BattleMaster no-Superiority-Dice chart because when would a BattleMaster ever run out of 4 Superiority Dice when making up to 3 attacks a round at lvl 5? It's unfathomable for you all to think that you can't take that nice Superiority Dice boosted chart to declare victory!
And finally... those precision attacks that are used to land 1d6+15 damage more regularly can also do other things too! At the same time! Well, now the goal posts are so far away, I'm going to have to get in my car and drive to a completely different field...
Lol, I wouldn't play a Champion either, because it is boring. Just get in melee (or not with a CBE build) and attack every round. There's nothing more to combat with that class.
I just can't let it go when I see assumptions that I can't agree with that push an argument one way.
It started out comparing two fighters swinging broadswords and comparing Superiority Dice to Improved Critical. Well, no wonder the Champion came out stinking. That's not fair.
Increasing the crit range on dice from 20 to 19-20 and then 18-20 is MASSIVELY affected by how many dice you roll To-Hit. You can't ignore that when making the above comparison. I tried to show how much of a difference it made, but I am not a min-maxer, so I didn't know of any equivalent builds to compare it to. Which undoubtedly led to the "that's not apples to apples". Which was true.
But then I was shown the CBE+SS build, which is perfect for making comparisons. The BB CBE+SS build was crowned "KING" of DPR and my TWF was shat on, so to speak. But I converted the BB CBE+SS build to a Champion CBE+SS build and all of a sudden, it's in the "KING" category of DPR. (But still pooed on because it didn't beat the BattleMaster).
But then the whole comparison was dismissed because level 20 is not indicative. OK FINE... I moved with the goalposts. So I gave you a lvl 5 comparison. The Champion was still in the same ballpark, but you all insist on dismissing the BattleMaster no-Superiority-Dice chart because when would a BattleMaster ever run out of 4 Superiority Dice when making up to 3 attacks a round at lvl 5? It's unfathomable for you all to think that you can't take that nice Superiority Dice boosted chart to declare victory!
And finally... those precision attacks that are used to land 1d6+15 damage more regularly can also do other things too! At the same time! Well, now the goal posts are so far away, I'm going to have to get in my car and drive to a completely different field...
Lol, I wouldn't play a Champion either, because it is boring. Just get in melee (or not with a CBE build) and attack every round. There's nothing more to combat with that class.
I just can't let it go when I see assumptions that I can't agree with that push an argument one way.
It started out comparing two fighters swinging broadswords and comparing Superiority Dice to Improved Critical. Well, no wonder the Champion came out stinking. That's not fair.
Increasing the crit range on dice from 20 to 19-20 and then 18-20 is MASSIVELY affected by how many dice you roll To-Hit. You can't ignore that when making the above comparison. I tried to show how much of a difference it made, but I am not a min-maxer, so I didn't know of any equivalent builds to compare it to. Which undoubtedly led to the "that's not apples to apples". Which was true.
But then I was shown the CBE+SS build, which is perfect for making comparisons. The BB CBE+SS build was crowned "KING" of DPR and my TWF was shat on, so to speak. But I converted the BB CBE+SS build to a Champion CBE+SS build and all of a sudden, it's in the "KING" category of DPR. (But still pooed on because it didn't beat the BattleMaster).
But then the whole comparison was dismissed because level 20 is not indicative. OK FINE... I moved with the goalposts. So I gave you a lvl 5 comparison. The Champion was still in the same ballpark, but you all insist on dismissing the BattleMaster no-Superiority-Dice chart because when would a BattleMaster ever run out of 4 Superiority Dice when making up to 3 attacks a round at lvl 5? It's unfathomable for you all to think that you can't take that nice Superiority Dice boosted chart to declare victory!
And finally... those precision attacks that are used to land 1d6+15 damage more regularly can also do other things too! At the same time! Well, now the goal posts are so far away, I'm going to have to get in my car and drive to a completely different field...
First of all, that's revisionist history. Second of all, you're going to a website to plug in variables - with no understanding of how they come up with their numbers, and then massaging your inputs to look for something that is favorable. That's not an objective method of determination, and you still haven't managed to do it.
And while it's impossible to calculate the average damage per attack for a Battle Master (for the reasons I outlined), you can examine certain aspects. For example, we know:
a) Improved Critical adds an average of 0.35 damage per attack to a normal greatsword, for normal attacks.
b) Combat Maneuvers that add a d8 to damage, do an average of 4.5 extra damage.
For those specific combat maneuvers, it takes 12.857 attacks with Improved Critical to equal 1 application of a d8 die.
No, this does NOT represent every scenario, and I never claimed it did. It gives you a snapshot for comparison. There are things that make improved critical better, and there are things that make it worse (percentage wise).
A battle master is a fighter with resource management. This means that a battle master can *Run out* of it's resources (This makes it much more fun, as there is a strategy aspect to resting etc.). If a battlemaster runs out of resources, the champion will be better. Period. This means that a badly played battlemaster is worse than a champion.
Champions are hitting machines. A champion is really hard to play badly. You hit stuff. That is it. A champion is worse than a well played battlemaster.
Champions are good. They are not like the 'ranger' subclass of fighters. I would ALWAYS play a battlemaster, because without resource management, the game is insanely boring (DnD is built on resource management due to the resting system). If a battlemaster is played well (Conserving superiority dice and only using them in key situations) Then it is better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
A battle master is a fighter with resource management. This means that a battle master can *Run out* of it's resources (This makes it much more fun, as there is a strategy aspect to resting etc.). If a battlemaster runs out of resources, the champion will be better. Period. This means that a badly played battlemaster is worse than a champion.
Champions are hitting machines. A champion is really hard to play badly. You hit stuff. That is it. A champion is worse than a well played battlemaster.
Champions are good. They are not like the 'ranger' subclass of fighters. I would ALWAYS play a battlemaster, because without resource management, the game is insanely boring (DnD is built on resource management due to the resting system). If a battlemaster is played well (Conserving superiority dice and only using them in key situations) Then it is better.
The funny thing is that Champion is hardly better than just a base fighter....its damage output from the 3rd level feature is so low as to be kind of laughable unless its paired with other means of damage increase (Barbarian MC, Half-Orc). So much so that its likely better to play another subclass that has better intrinsic abilities. Cavalier, Arcane Archer, Echo Knight, Rune Knight all provide much much much better intrinsic benefits over Champion.
With introduction of these new subclasses Champion gets beaten down so much more every time as its design is simple but also glaringly bad when it comes to what makes a simple character "good".
They are just slightly better at hitting things than a fighter with no subclass at all. I guess you could call that "good" but to me that's pretty poor design.
I wish Brute had made it because it was a better simple fighter by a country mile.
The Champion on its own is boring. If you don't want it to be boring, that's what roleplay is for. Since the Fighter isn't M.A.D. unless you play Eldritch Knight or Psi Knight, that lets you be flexible with your mental stats.
The Champion on its own is boring. If you don't want it to be boring, that's what roleplay is for. Since the Fighter isn't M.A.D. unless you play Eldritch Knight or Psi Knight, that lets you be flexible with your mental stats.
The only issue with that is it gives you exactly 0 options with with to use those mental stats in any interesting ways without taking a feat to make it interesting. If you forgo damage feats then you fall behind even more in the damage realm so you are left with bad options all around.
The Champion on its own is boring. If you don't want it to be boring, that's what roleplay is for. Since the Fighter isn't M.A.D. unless you play Eldritch Knight or Psi Knight, that lets you be flexible with your mental stats.
The only issue with that is it gives you exactly 0 options with with to use those mental stats in any interesting ways without taking a feat to make it interesting. If you forgo damage feats then you fall behind even more in the damage realm so you are left with bad options all around.
Battle Master, of course, now has Commanding Presence and Tactical Assessment.
I'm back. Because I find this stuff interesting. Reading what has been posted today, it occurred to me we can get rid of all the feats and just compare the difference that Superiority Dice and Improved Critical provides.
Variables:
Level 5, ie: Extra Attack
+3 Attack bonus
1d6 weapon + 3
1 unbonused offhand attack, also 1d6.
I collected a baseline damage profile with no Superiority Dice, and no Improved Critical.
Then I added the Improved Critical and copied 2 sets of data:
Normal attack
Attack with advantage
I did the same for Superiority Dice. I added the +d8 bonus to the main attacks and the bonus attacks and collected:
Normal attack
Attack with advantage
Now, the graph I'm going to post at the end is not this data. Because that data assumes the Battlemaster always has and uses superiority dice (precision attack, to be precise). That is not representative of actual play. So I made the following assumption: During play, for each attack made with a Superiority Die, there would be an attack without one. In other words, I divided the Delta by two for the Battlemaster. Then I cropped out any AC above 18 (as it doesn't make much sense for an attack bonus of +3).
Voila:
The vertical axis is showing the % gain from the baseline. IC = Improved Critical (IE: Champion). SD = Superiority Die (IE: BM)
Blue line: Normal attack, Champion with Improved Critical
Red line: Attack with Advantage, Champion with Improved Critical
Yellow line: Normal attack, Battlemaster using Precision Attack
Green line: Attack with Advantage, Battlemaster using Precision Attack
Interesting things to note:
Advantage reduces the benefits of a Precision Attack. The BM already hits more because of the advantage. Throwing a superiority die on top of a hit doesn't improve the damage.
Advantage increases the benefits of the Champion. Which is the point I made from the beginning. The more dice you throw (excluding disadvantage), the more the champion Benefits in a way that isn't matched by any class stuck with a 20 for a crit. If I was to do this exercise with elven accuracy and advantage (3 d20 per attack), the Delta for the Superiority dice would decrease again and the champion delta would increase again.
Taking into consideration the BM has a finite pool of Superiority Dice, then we can see that the Champion gains more above the baseline up to about AC 12, where the BM surpasses them. And that's fine by me. The BM has an added resource to manage. I also don't see anything wrong with the magnitude either. I think it's fair that a class that has to manage a resource performs better than one that doesn't.
The issue with precision attack is that it's only useful when you miss by a moderate amount, so things that make you not likely to miss in the first place make precision attack not very relevant. Against an AC 12 target, with a +5 attack bonus and advantage, that's about an 8% chance per attack (using a die isn't particularly helpful if your die roll is 1 or 2, and on a 7+ you hit anyway) so it takes 25 turns to burn through four dice, and you probably want to make use of another maneuver as well.
The other question is where you're getting your advantage. I can't think of any reliable and convenient source for advantages on champions unless your game is using flanking.
The issue with precision attack is that it's only useful when you miss by a moderate amount, so things that make you not likely to miss in the first place make precision attack not very relevant. Against an AC 12 target, with a +5 attack bonus and advantage, that's about an 8% chance per attack (using a die isn't particularly helpful if your die roll is 1 or 2, and on a 7+ you hit anyway) so it takes 25 turns to burn through four dice, and you probably want to make use of another maneuver as well.
The other question is where you're getting your advantage. I can't think of any reliable and convenient source for advantages on champions unless your game is using flanking.
Exactly. Precision Attack plus SS/GWM damage is freaking brutal.
I have seen some comparisons and an Elf Samurai with SS and Elven Accuracy leveraging Fighting Spirir triple advantage was more reliable than the Battlemaster SS/CBE. I don’t have the numbers here, so sorry for this, but I think it’s worth considering.
you should try number crunching an eldritch Knight with elven accuracy, the dueling fighting style, and shadowblade. The damage quite good and scales very well with the single class fighter.
I'm pretty new here, but from what I have seen so far, calling a class/subclass bad has 3 meanings.
The first that something is bad if they don't find it fun to play. This is very valid, but not everyone will feel the same about it.
The second is that it is broken in some way: There is an issue with the mechanics which puts it at a severe disadvantage to other options. The Ranger, for instance, is often talked about in this manner.
The final one, which this thread seems to be about, is down to a mathematical analysis in comparison to alternatives. While this is, at least, objective, very few I have seen are actually bad. They are generally sub-optimal*. There are better builds which would be an improvement. This thread, according to the OP, is relating to this final point. Champions are not the optimal subclass for fighters, but that doesn't make them bad.
* As a side note, I'm a software developer. When speaking to clients, sub-optimal is a phrase I use to substitute for those which would normally involve expletives to explain just how terrible or broken something really is. I don't mean it like that in this post.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Funny because from the get go you have been picking scenarios that only benefit champion so I guess we are both bad?
The real bottom line is based on what we have posted your champion barely outperforms a stock base fighter. That's really all you need to know to make an informed decision.
Kerric, Superiority Dice offer battlefield control AND they do damage, do they not? I mean this IS a fact, correct?
How much superiority dice add (over time, averaged over all attack rolls) is impossible calculate because all campaigns are different, players will choose different Combat Maneuvers, DM's will give different amounts of short and long rests, and players will play their characters differently. But what's not in doubt is when they are used, Combat Maneuvers add massively more damage than when they're not used.
Just based on what I know, I do think the Battle Master adds sufficient damage (both direct, and indirect) - especially if you specifically build for it to do so. BUT, I'm less concerned (that's not to say I'm not concerned at all) about it because that's not all it offers. Improved Critical offers damage only. When I crunch the numbers and compare it to just basic attacks, I'm unmoved.
I don't have a predisposition to want to bash the Champion. I would love to be wrong and find out it's great. It would open up another option for me. In contrast, you seem to be approaching the discussion like a defense attorney. Why? You can still love playing the class even if the objective numbers aren't flattering.
Hm. What's the most damage a single superiority die can grant? My tentative thoughts
There are also the on hit damage effects of some of the maneuvers, that make Battle master capable of doing more damage on a crit.
This is the best response... If you like playing the subclass that's great and you don't need us to like it too.
Personally I think it's boring and mechanically worse but that's me.
Lol, I wouldn't play a Champion either, because it is boring. Just get in melee (or not with a CBE build) and attack every round. There's nothing more to combat with that class.
I just can't let it go when I see assumptions that I can't agree with that push an argument one way.
It started out comparing two fighters swinging broadswords and comparing Superiority Dice to Improved Critical. Well, no wonder the Champion came out stinking. That's not fair.
Increasing the crit range on dice from 20 to 19-20 and then 18-20 is MASSIVELY affected by how many dice you roll To-Hit. You can't ignore that when making the above comparison. I tried to show how much of a difference it made, but I am not a min-maxer, so I didn't know of any equivalent builds to compare it to. Which undoubtedly led to the "that's not apples to apples". Which was true.
But then I was shown the CBE+SS build, which is perfect for making comparisons. The BB CBE+SS build was crowned "KING" of DPR and my TWF was shat on, so to speak. But I converted the BB CBE+SS build to a Champion CBE+SS build and all of a sudden, it's in the "KING" category of DPR. (But still pooed on because it didn't beat the BattleMaster).
But then the whole comparison was dismissed because level 20 is not indicative. OK FINE... I moved with the goalposts. So I gave you a lvl 5 comparison. The Champion was still in the same ballpark, but you all insist on dismissing the BattleMaster no-Superiority-Dice chart because when would a BattleMaster ever run out of 4 Superiority Dice when making up to 3 attacks a round at lvl 5? It's unfathomable for you all to think that you can't take that nice Superiority Dice boosted chart to declare victory!
And finally... those precision attacks that are used to land 1d6+15 damage more regularly can also do other things too! At the same time! Well, now the goal posts are so far away, I'm going to have to get in my car and drive to a completely different field...
K
First of all, that's revisionist history. Second of all, you're going to a website to plug in variables - with no understanding of how they come up with their numbers, and then massaging your inputs to look for something that is favorable. That's not an objective method of determination, and you still haven't managed to do it.
And while it's impossible to calculate the average damage per attack for a Battle Master (for the reasons I outlined), you can examine certain aspects. For example, we know:
a) Improved Critical adds an average of 0.35 damage per attack to a normal greatsword, for normal attacks.
b) Combat Maneuvers that add a d8 to damage, do an average of 4.5 extra damage.
For those specific combat maneuvers, it takes 12.857 attacks with Improved Critical to equal 1 application of a d8 die.
No, this does NOT represent every scenario, and I never claimed it did. It gives you a snapshot for comparison. There are things that make improved critical better, and there are things that make it worse (percentage wise).
A battle master is a fighter with resource management. This means that a battle master can *Run out* of it's resources (This makes it much more fun, as there is a strategy aspect to resting etc.). If a battlemaster runs out of resources, the champion will be better. Period. This means that a badly played battlemaster is worse than a champion.
Champions are hitting machines. A champion is really hard to play badly. You hit stuff. That is it. A champion is worse than a well played battlemaster.
Champions are good. They are not like the 'ranger' subclass of fighters. I would ALWAYS play a battlemaster, because without resource management, the game is insanely boring (DnD is built on resource management due to the resting system). If a battlemaster is played well (Conserving superiority dice and only using them in key situations) Then it is better.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The funny thing is that Champion is hardly better than just a base fighter....its damage output from the 3rd level feature is so low as to be kind of laughable unless its paired with other means of damage increase (Barbarian MC, Half-Orc). So much so that its likely better to play another subclass that has better intrinsic abilities. Cavalier, Arcane Archer, Echo Knight, Rune Knight all provide much much much better intrinsic benefits over Champion.
With introduction of these new subclasses Champion gets beaten down so much more every time as its design is simple but also glaringly bad when it comes to what makes a simple character "good".
They are just slightly better at hitting things than a fighter with no subclass at all. I guess you could call that "good" but to me that's pretty poor design.
I wish Brute had made it because it was a better simple fighter by a country mile.
The Champion on its own is boring. If you don't want it to be boring, that's what roleplay is for. Since the Fighter isn't M.A.D. unless you play Eldritch Knight or Psi Knight, that lets you be flexible with your mental stats.
The only issue with that is it gives you exactly 0 options with with to use those mental stats in any interesting ways without taking a feat to make it interesting. If you forgo damage feats then you fall behind even more in the damage realm so you are left with bad options all around.
Battle Master, of course, now has Commanding Presence and Tactical Assessment.
IMO the Brute (UA) is what the Champion should have been.
I'm back. Because I find this stuff interesting. Reading what has been posted today, it occurred to me we can get rid of all the feats and just compare the difference that Superiority Dice and Improved Critical provides.
Variables:
I collected a baseline damage profile with no Superiority Dice, and no Improved Critical.
Then I added the Improved Critical and copied 2 sets of data:
I did the same for Superiority Dice. I added the +d8 bonus to the main attacks and the bonus attacks and collected:
Now, the graph I'm going to post at the end is not this data. Because that data assumes the Battlemaster always has and uses superiority dice (precision attack, to be precise). That is not representative of actual play. So I made the following assumption: During play, for each attack made with a Superiority Die, there would be an attack without one. In other words, I divided the Delta by two for the Battlemaster. Then I cropped out any AC above 18 (as it doesn't make much sense for an attack bonus of +3).
Voila:
The vertical axis is showing the % gain from the baseline. IC = Improved Critical (IE: Champion). SD = Superiority Die (IE: BM)
Interesting things to note:
The issue with precision attack is that it's only useful when you miss by a moderate amount, so things that make you not likely to miss in the first place make precision attack not very relevant. Against an AC 12 target, with a +5 attack bonus and advantage, that's about an 8% chance per attack (using a die isn't particularly helpful if your die roll is 1 or 2, and on a 7+ you hit anyway) so it takes 25 turns to burn through four dice, and you probably want to make use of another maneuver as well.
The other question is where you're getting your advantage. I can't think of any reliable and convenient source for advantages on champions unless your game is using flanking.
Exactly. Precision Attack plus SS/GWM damage is freaking brutal.
I have seen some comparisons and an Elf Samurai with SS and Elven Accuracy leveraging Fighting Spirir triple advantage was more reliable than the Battlemaster SS/CBE. I don’t have the numbers here, so sorry for this, but I think it’s worth considering.
you should try number crunching an eldritch Knight with elven accuracy, the dueling fighting style, and shadowblade. The damage quite good and scales very well with the single class fighter.
I'm pretty new here, but from what I have seen so far, calling a class/subclass bad has 3 meanings.
The first that something is bad if they don't find it fun to play. This is very valid, but not everyone will feel the same about it.
The second is that it is broken in some way: There is an issue with the mechanics which puts it at a severe disadvantage to other options. The Ranger, for instance, is often talked about in this manner.
The final one, which this thread seems to be about, is down to a mathematical analysis in comparison to alternatives. While this is, at least, objective, very few I have seen are actually bad. They are generally sub-optimal*. There are better builds which would be an improvement. This thread, according to the OP, is relating to this final point. Champions are not the optimal subclass for fighters, but that doesn't make them bad.
* As a side note, I'm a software developer. When speaking to clients, sub-optimal is a phrase I use to substitute for those which would normally involve expletives to explain just how terrible or broken something really is. I don't mean it like that in this post.