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.
I'm the author of the thread. The very first post in the OP reads: "First, the caveat, "Bad" is referring specifically to mechanical effectiveness. Ease of play, personal preference based, cool. Another caveat, just the *base* Fighter abilities are very good, so by default so would be a Champion Fighter."
In essence, the only thing the premier ability of the Champion (improved critical) does is add additional damage, and it adds very little. Obviously, it's better than having no subclass at all.
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.
This is a very potent nova combo for sure. I think they put out some of the best single turn damage of ANY class which is amazing.
They are less about DPR over a longer period of time and more "This thing needs to be dead NOW" which I do love about them.
"reliable" if you mean they can more consistently kill something that needs to be dead I would agree with.
"Reliable" if you mean average DPR for the day I would disagree with.
All in all Samurai is a better simple fighter than champion IMO because they at least get some out of combat utility with their features.
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.
Oh yeah Eldritch Knight can put out some damage especially when they can do a spell then an attack as a BA. They still fall behind due to two reasons: 1. No BA attack (CBE has 100% bonus action attack) 2. Static damage bonus (Sharpshooter has a flat +10 damage) the flat damage bonus almost always puts them ahead unless you start getting high upcast on the Shadowblade.
Also with the recent Booming Blade nerf to disallow use of the cantrip with shadow blade I feel the Cantrip + BA attack combo at 7th level becomes a bit less potent.
I mostly like Eldritch knight for its defensive capabilities. They are VERY tanky with the Shield, Absorb Elements, and Blur spells.
All in all its up there for best fighter subclass IMO due to the versatility and close approximation for damage to the top dealers. Its a far better choice than champion.
It's bad if you like complicated classes and versatility.
It's amazing if you like super high damage and simplicity.
In my only 1-20 campaign I was involved in, our fighter was a Champion and did insane amounts of damage. In a single round, I doubt there is a class or subclass that can out damage a Champion if built correctly.
It's bad if you like complicated classes and versatility.
It's amazing if you like super high damage and simplicity.
In my only 1-20 campaign I was involved in, our fighter was a Champion and did insane amounts of damage. In a single round, I doubt there is a class or subclass that can out damage a Champion if built correctly.
This is hugely incorrect about the damage. As has been stated multiple times already the champion barely outdamages the stock fighter.
Your single anecdote, while interesting, does not change math.
I am glad they had fun with it but it's just plain incorrect to say they are anywhere near the top for damage in any shape for fashion.
It's bad if you like complicated classes and versatility.
It's amazing if you like super high damage and simplicity.
In my only 1-20 campaign I was involved in, our fighter was a Champion and did insane amounts of damage. In a single round, I doubt there is a class or subclass that can out damage a Champion if built correctly.
This is hugely incorrect about the damage. As has been stated multiple times already the champion barely outdamages the stock fighter.
Your single anecdote, while interesting, does not change math.
I am glad they had fun with it but it's just plain incorrect to say they are anywhere near the top for damage in any shape for fashion.
Correct. I can build a fighter with NO subclass abilities, and still be effective.
It's bad if you like complicated classes and versatility.
It's amazing if you like super high damage and simplicity.
In my only 1-20 campaign I was involved in, our fighter was a Champion and did insane amounts of damage. In a single round, I doubt there is a class or subclass that can out damage a Champion if built correctly.
This is hugely incorrect about the damage. As has been stated multiple times already the champion barely outdamages the stock fighter.
Your single anecdote, while interesting, does not change math.
I am glad they had fun with it but it's just plain incorrect to say they are anywhere near the top for damage in any shape for fashion.
What math are you referencing to make this claim? The DPR calculator you linked?
It's bad if you like complicated classes and versatility.
It's amazing if you like super high damage and simplicity.
In my only 1-20 campaign I was involved in, our fighter was a Champion and did insane amounts of damage. In a single round, I doubt there is a class or subclass that can out damage a Champion if built correctly.
This is hugely incorrect about the damage. As has been stated multiple times already the champion barely outdamages the stock fighter.
Your single anecdote, while interesting, does not change math.
I am glad they had fun with it but it's just plain incorrect to say they are anywhere near the top for damage in any shape for fashion.
Darnit, I guess I was remembering a 2 year long campaign incorrectly of actual gameplay. Sorry, but our reality is not correct and it MAJORLY pissed off our Paladin who was regularly out damaged by a large margin and the guy that popped in as a battlemaster every once in a while was amazed at the numbers he was putting up. Run all the simulations and theory crafting all you want, doesn't change what actually happened. So as someone who has been at a table playing the actual game all the way to 20 with one I can say without a doubt that they are in fact NOT a BAD subclass, at least when it comes to total damage output. If you are not able to play one correctly or pick the right feats and ASI's then that's a build or experience issue, not a class issue.
It's bad if you like complicated classes and versatility.
It's amazing if you like super high damage and simplicity.
In my only 1-20 campaign I was involved in, our fighter was a Champion and did insane amounts of damage. In a single round, I doubt there is a class or subclass that can out damage a Champion if built correctly.
This is hugely incorrect about the damage. As has been stated multiple times already the champion barely outdamages the stock fighter.
Your single anecdote, while interesting, does not change math.
I am glad they had fun with it but it's just plain incorrect to say they are anywhere near the top for damage in any shape for fashion.
Darnit, I guess I was remembering a 2 year long campaign incorrectly of actual gameplay. Sorry, but our reality is not correct and it MAJORLY pissed off our Paladin who was regularly out damaged by a large margin and the guy that popped in as a battlemaster every once in a while was amazed at the numbers he was putting up. Run all the simulations and theory crafting all you want, doesn't change what actually happened. So as someone who has been at a table playing the actual game all the way to 20 with one I can say without a doubt that they are in fact NOT a BAD subclass, at least when it comes to total damage output. If you are not able to play one correctly or pick the right feats and ASI's then that's a build or experience issue, not a class issue.
It's bad if you like complicated classes and versatility.
It's amazing if you like super high damage and simplicity.
In my only 1-20 campaign I was involved in, our fighter was a Champion and did insane amounts of damage. In a single round, I doubt there is a class or subclass that can out damage a Champion if built correctly.
This is hugely incorrect about the damage. As has been stated multiple times already the champion barely outdamages the stock fighter.
Your single anecdote, while interesting, does not change math.
I am glad they had fun with it but it's just plain incorrect to say they are anywhere near the top for damage in any shape for fashion.
Darnit, I guess I was remembering a 2 year long campaign incorrectly of actual gameplay. Sorry, but our reality is not correct and it MAJORLY pissed off our Paladin who was regularly out damaged by a large margin and the guy that popped in as a battlemaster every once in a while was amazed at the numbers he was putting up. Run all the simulations and theory crafting all you want, doesn't change what actually happened. So as someone who has been at a table playing the actual game all the way to 20 with one I can say without a doubt that they are in fact NOT a BAD subclass, at least when it comes to total damage output. If you are not able to play one correctly or pick the right feats and ASI's then that's a build or experience issue, not a class issue.
Math is great. But it can be prone to human error in implementation and interpretation. For example:
No Elven Accuracy, Crit Chance is 0.15. Correct.
WITH Elven Accuracy. The Crit Chance is STILL 0.15. WRONG.
Notice that the column for Advantage correctly updates from .2275 to .385875.
Elven Accuracy should turn a normal attack into an Advantage attack (roll 2, keep highest), and an Advantage attack into Super Advantage attack (roll 3, keep highest). But it's not. There's an error in the script.
Math is great. But it can be prone to human error in implementation and interpretation. For example:
No Elven Accuracy, Crit Chance is 0.15. Correct.
WITH Elven Accuracy. The Crit Chance is STILL 0.15. WRONG.
Notice that the column for Advantage correctly updates from .2275 to .385875.
Elven Accuracy should turn a normal attack into an Advantage attack (roll 2, keep highest), and an Advantage attack into Super Advantage attack (roll 3, keep highest). But it's not. There's an error in the script.
lol....do you even read the feats?
You don't get elven accuracy on a normal roll...****y with ADV:
Prerequisite: Elf, Half-elf
The accuracy of elves is legendary, especially that of elf archers and spellcasters. You have uncanny aim with attacks that rely on precision rather than brute force. You gain the following benefits:
Increase your Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Whenever you have advantage on an attack roll using Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma, you can reroll one of the dice once.
Math is great. But it can be prone to human error in implementation and interpretation. For example:
No Elven Accuracy, Crit Chance is 0.15. Correct.
WITH Elven Accuracy. The Crit Chance is STILL 0.15. WRONG.
Notice that the column for Advantage correctly updates from .2275 to .385875.
Elven Accuracy should turn a normal attack into an Advantage attack (roll 2, keep highest), and an Advantage attack into Super Advantage attack (roll 3, keep highest). But it's not. There's an error in the script.
?? Your crit CHANCE is still the same with or without Elvin Accuracy. EA does not effect how often you crit.
Elven Accuracy should turn a normal attack into an Advantage attack (roll 2, keep highest), and an Advantage attack into Super Advantage attack (roll 3, keep highest). But it's not. There's an error in the script.
No, there's an error in your understanding of elven accuracy. Elven accuracy has absolutely no effect on a normal attack, it only affects attacks where you already have advantage.
Saying EA doesn't change the chance of a crit is no different to saying advantage doesn't affect the chance of a crit.
(Note, I went approximate instead of exact, as it isn't necessary to calculate precise chances to show that something improves)
Yes, I worded that sloppily. I was referring to normal attacks. Your math is a bit off, it's a 14.26% chance to crit (if only a 20 is required). Not to split hairs :)
Kerrec, you are correct to point out people can make mathematical errors. But the thing is, you haven't found any errors. You haven't even done any calculations yourself (that I have seen). All you've been doing is entering numbers into someone else's algorithm.
I'm not perfect, so I'm very receptive to being corrected.
I would note that, as far as actual play goes, I have never seen someone actually track exactly how much damage each character does over the course of a campaign, and the way memory works is quirky. A crit fisher build occasionally produces really high numbers, which are more memorable than the large number of more ordinary hits.
I would note that, as far as actual play goes, I have never seen someone actually track exactly how much damage each character does over the course of a campaign, and the way memory works is quirky. A crit fisher build occasionally produces really high numbers, which are more memorable than the large number of more ordinary hits.
I think this is where the champion gets its "big numbers" bias from.
Nobody remembers the BM doing their damage because it comes from consistently putting it out there and less in NOVA damage.
TBH though if you want a full on Nova feel Samurai is the superior option IMO. Fighting Spirit is like "Holy shit yes" levels of awesome when it comes to One Big Turn.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm the author of the thread. The very first post in the OP reads: "First, the caveat, "Bad" is referring specifically to mechanical effectiveness. Ease of play, personal preference based, cool. Another caveat, just the *base* Fighter abilities are very good, so by default so would be a Champion Fighter."
In essence, the only thing the premier ability of the Champion (improved critical) does is add additional damage, and it adds very little. Obviously, it's better than having no subclass at all.
This is a very potent nova combo for sure. I think they put out some of the best single turn damage of ANY class which is amazing.
They are less about DPR over a longer period of time and more "This thing needs to be dead NOW" which I do love about them.
"reliable" if you mean they can more consistently kill something that needs to be dead I would agree with.
"Reliable" if you mean average DPR for the day I would disagree with.
All in all Samurai is a better simple fighter than champion IMO because they at least get some out of combat utility with their features.
Oh yeah Eldritch Knight can put out some damage especially when they can do a spell then an attack as a BA. They still fall behind due to two reasons: 1. No BA attack (CBE has 100% bonus action attack) 2. Static damage bonus (Sharpshooter has a flat +10 damage) the flat damage bonus almost always puts them ahead unless you start getting high upcast on the Shadowblade.
Also with the recent Booming Blade nerf to disallow use of the cantrip with shadow blade I feel the Cantrip + BA attack combo at 7th level becomes a bit less potent.
I mostly like Eldritch knight for its defensive capabilities. They are VERY tanky with the Shield, Absorb Elements, and Blur spells.
All in all its up there for best fighter subclass IMO due to the versatility and close approximation for damage to the top dealers. Its a far better choice than champion.
It's bad if you like complicated classes and versatility.
It's amazing if you like super high damage and simplicity.
In my only 1-20 campaign I was involved in, our fighter was a Champion and did insane amounts of damage. In a single round, I doubt there is a class or subclass that can out damage a Champion if built correctly.
This is hugely incorrect about the damage. As has been stated multiple times already the champion barely outdamages the stock fighter.
Your single anecdote, while interesting, does not change math.
I am glad they had fun with it but it's just plain incorrect to say they are anywhere near the top for damage in any shape for fashion.
Correct. I can build a fighter with NO subclass abilities, and still be effective.
What math are you referencing to make this claim? The DPR calculator you linked?
Darnit, I guess I was remembering a 2 year long campaign incorrectly of actual gameplay. Sorry, but our reality is not correct and it MAJORLY pissed off our Paladin who was regularly out damaged by a large margin and the guy that popped in as a battlemaster every once in a while was amazed at the numbers he was putting up. Run all the simulations and theory crafting all you want, doesn't change what actually happened. So as someone who has been at a table playing the actual game all the way to 20 with one I can say without a doubt that they are in fact NOT a BAD subclass, at least when it comes to total damage output. If you are not able to play one correctly or pick the right feats and ASI's then that's a build or experience issue, not a class issue.
What is more reliable?
A) Your anecdotal gut impression
or
B) Math
Yeah I will go with math....
Math is great. But it can be prone to human error in implementation and interpretation. For example:
No Elven Accuracy, Crit Chance is 0.15. Correct.
WITH Elven Accuracy. The Crit Chance is STILL 0.15. WRONG.
Notice that the column for Advantage correctly updates from .2275 to .385875.
Elven Accuracy should turn a normal attack into an Advantage attack (roll 2, keep highest), and an Advantage attack into Super Advantage attack (roll 3, keep highest). But it's not. There's an error in the script.
lol....do you even read the feats?
You don't get elven accuracy on a normal roll...****y with ADV:
The accuracy of elves is legendary, especially that of elf archers and spellcasters. You have uncanny aim with attacks that rely on precision rather than brute force. You gain the following benefits:
?? Your crit CHANCE is still the same with or without Elvin Accuracy. EA does not effect how often you crit.
It would if you had advantage.
Ignoring improved crit
No advantage: 5% chance
Advantage: c. 10% chance
EA w advantage: c. 15% chance
Saying EA doesn't change the chance of a crit is no different to saying advantage doesn't affect the chance of a crit.
(Note, I went approximate instead of exact, as it isn't necessary to calculate precise chances to show that something improves)
No, there's an error in your understanding of elven accuracy. Elven accuracy has absolutely no effect on a normal attack, it only affects attacks where you already have advantage.
Yup. Comprehension error reading the feat. Sorry.
Edit: It's a pretty good calculator.
Yes, I worded that sloppily. I was referring to normal attacks. Your math is a bit off, it's a 14.26% chance to crit (if only a 20 is required). Not to split hairs :)
Kerrec, you are correct to point out people can make mathematical errors. But the thing is, you haven't found any errors. You haven't even done any calculations yourself (that I have seen). All you've been doing is entering numbers into someone else's algorithm.
I'm not perfect, so I'm very receptive to being corrected.
I would note that, as far as actual play goes, I have never seen someone actually track exactly how much damage each character does over the course of a campaign, and the way memory works is quirky. A crit fisher build occasionally produces really high numbers, which are more memorable than the large number of more ordinary hits.
I think this is where the champion gets its "big numbers" bias from.
Nobody remembers the BM doing their damage because it comes from consistently putting it out there and less in NOVA damage.
TBH though if you want a full on Nova feel Samurai is the superior option IMO. Fighting Spirit is like "Holy shit yes" levels of awesome when it comes to One Big Turn.