My objection here is to the use of bad. Can a couple of points fewer of average DPR really be described as bad? If that fighter chose to take a rapier instead of a longsword, would that make it a bad build?
Champion is likely not the optimal subclass. It is possible that it's a good subclass, even in terms of DPR, compared to someone who plays a BM badly, making other choices which reduce their DPR. Unless, of course, you are trying to say that only the very best, most optimal build is good and everything else is bad.
PS yes, I know you clarified the area you were discussing in the OP. However, I still disagree that it is bad, it's just not quite as good as a well-played BM.
I'm not convinced it's only a couple points fewer, but additional damage is *all* the Champion's premier ability does. Contrast that with so many other Fighter subclasses, that do so many more things and additional damage. The Battle Master can do like twentysomething different things, from knocking an enemy prone, to disarming an enemy, to moving them around the battlefield, to giving your allies advantage, etc.
And it's that fine, some people want a simplier choice, but if the ONLY thing a premier ability does is add damage, it should do a lot more. The UA Brute Fighter is what the Champion ought to be.
And I will admit, my approach and math WAS too complex and wrong. But you didn't refute it, you just ignored it and then several pages later, accused me of simply using a program instead of showing actual math.
I have no idea what common Champion builds are. I tried to come up with a build that took advantage of the improved critical threat range, only to come up with a DEX TWF fighter with EA. I have admitted many times that I am not a min-maxer, so I don't and wouldn't know what an optimized Champion build is.
All I got really from this thread is it doesn't matter if you're a Battlemaster or a Champion, if your goal is to max out DPR, the path is SS or GWM. The classes/sub-classes are irrelevant. Even the DPR gain from Maneuvers are inconsequential to those feats.
I also made the point HERE that if you DON'T assume the Battlemaster use their Superiority Die every single attack, and DON'T assume that combat doesn't last beyond their resources, then things start to be much more reasonable. As the chart HERE the difference that Superiority Die or Improved Critical add to a base fighter attack is not so far apart that it can't be justified. I mean, a class with a resource SHOULD perform better than one without. And the difference isn't so great to automatically label the Champion as 'bad'.
Or in other words, if a player chooses the Champion subclass because they like the word "Champion" or they like the thought of critting more, they are not going to be hindering their party. It's not going to ruin the game for anyone else.
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.
I'm calling shenanigans. You started this thread by bashing the Champion.
And I will admit, my approach and math WAS too complex and wrong. But you didn't refute it, you just ignored it and then several pages later, accused me of simply using a program instead of showing actual math.
I have no idea what common Champion builds are. I tried to come up with a build that took advantage of the improved critical threat range, only to come up with a DEX TWF fighter with EA. I have admitted many times that I am not a min-maxer, so I don't and wouldn't know what an optimized Champion build is.
All I got really from this thread is it doesn't matter if you're a Battlemaster or a Champion, if your goal is to max out DPR, the path is SS or GWM. The classes/sub-classes are irrelevant. Even the DPR gain from Maneuvers are inconsequential to those feats.
I also made the point HERE that if you DON'T assume the Battlemaster use their Superiority Die every single attack, and DON'T assume that combat doesn't last beyond their resources, then things start to be much more reasonable. As the chart HERE the difference that Superiority Die or Improved Critical add to a base fighter attack is not so far apart that it can't be justified. I mean, a class with a resource SHOULD perform better than one without. And the difference isn't so great to automatically label the Champion as 'bad'.
Or in other words, if a player chooses the Champion subclass because they like the word "Champion" or they like the thought of critting more, they are not going to be hindering their party. It's not going to ruin the game for anyone else.
No reasonable person can interpret "you're overcomplicating this" to saying your math is too complicated.
You have no idea what common Champion builds are? You don't know the common levels of play, what their ASI modifier will likely be at different levels, the common feats that are taken, the common damage dice for weapons, and the general AC average for enemies at different levels?
If you recognize the Champion is NOT a path to high damage per attack (which is what matters, not DPS), then I'm not addressing you. A LOT of people are under the impression that the Champion a big damage buff but that's not what the math shows. If you don't think that's a common misconception then I don't know what to tell you.
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.
I'm calling shenanigans. You started this thread by bashing the Champion.
And how did you determine that I'm bashing it because I "have a predisposition to want to bash the Champion"?
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.
I'm calling shenanigans. You started this thread by bashing the Champion.
And how did you determine that I'm bashing it because I "have a predisposition to want to bash the Champion"?
Nobody forced you to make this thread. You started by dumping on its features, and you've been arguing with everyone who says it's not that bad. It doesn't matter, to you, if they raise any legitimate points. You keep comparing it to the Battle Master. There are now...what, nine martial archetypes for Fighters? And all you seem to care about is that the Champion isn't as good as (whatever that means) the Battle Master.
You don't care for an honest discussion. You're myopic and want people to fight with. I get that COVID is giving everyone a case of cabin fever, but there are more constructive ways of engaging with others.
Jounich, correct. Nobody forced me to make this thread, I chose to. That doesn't make it "shenanigans" when I say I don't have a predisposition to want to bash the Champion. Everyone has their own opinion about classes and subclasses. I shared mine, I am defending mine, and I am open to having my mind changed.
"It doesn't matter, to you, if they raise any legitimate points."
Actually, some points I have agreed with and even made myself, and other points I simply don't agree with. How do you distinguish between someone not caring if a point is legitimate, and someone who merely disagrees that it *is* legitimate?
"You keep comparing it to the Battle Master."
I'm not the one who even brought up Battle Master, someone else did. And that's where the conversation remained for some time, and I offered my own input. I think Battle Master is a great subclass, but it's not my even favorite Fighter subclass.
"There are now...what, nine martial archetypes for Fighters? And all you seem to care about is that the Champion isn't as good as (whatever that means) the Battle Master."
This thread is ABOUT the Champion, so do you mean to say I'm staying on topic?
"You don't care for an honest discussion. You're myopic and want people to fight with. I get that COVID is giving everyone a case of cabin fever, but there are more constructive ways of engaging with others."
In formal argumentation this is what's referred to as an ad hominem fallacy.
I guess the major point I would say is due to the much better options I would likely never ever suggest someone play champion. If they wanted simple fighter I would suggest samurai, echo Knight, or UA brute as they are all superior "simple" fighters. If they wanted Damage I would suggest battlemaster. If they wanted versatility I would suggest eldtrich Knight. If they wanted to tank I would suggest cavalier.
There is literally no niche the champion fills that makes it worth while over the others.
Does this make it unplayable? Of course not. You can have fun with anything and I wholeheartedly support that.
Just don't pretend it's not the bottom basement subclass and that it's design leaves something to be desired.
The reason the Champion gets compared to the Battle Master is because there are only three fighter subclasses in the PHB, and the Eldritch Knight is clearly not what you play if your goal is to just be a fighter, so it's the obvious comparison to make. As far as it goes:
Level 5 Arcane Archer: expected damage bonus per short rest is generally 4d6 (14) and secondary special effects.
Level 5 Battle master: expected damage bonus per short rest is at least 4d8 (18) and secondary special effects.
Level 5 Cavalier: this is a defensive spec, but assuming you manage to use Unwavering Mark once per short rest, that's 1d8+11 (15) on a hit, so maybe (10) average.
Level 5 Champion: assuming 16 attacks per shot rest, we expect 0.8 extra criticals worth (3.6) to (6.7) depending on your weapon.
Level 5 Eldritch Knight: in typical use doesn't get any bonus damage, unless you use Absorb Elements, so hard to value properly.
Level 5 Psi Warrior: assuming spending three psi per short rest on psionic strike (6/day and recover 1/short rest for 9/day total) and Int 14, 3d8+6(19.5)
Level 5 Rune Knight: assuming a Fire Rune on average does damage twice, that's (14) plus any other effects from being Restrained. In addition, Giant's Might can be figured to grant another 3d6 per short rest (assuming one use per short rest)
Level 5 Samurai: assuming you use Fighting Spirit the same turn you use Action Surge, average effect is about 0.8 hits (worth 8.4 with dueling style) and 0.2 crits (worth 0.9) per short rest. Also, you prevent (5) damage per short rest.
The reason the Champion gets compared to the Battle Master is because there are only three fighter subclasses in the PHB, and the Eldritch Knight is clearly not what you play if your goal is to just be a fighter, so it's the obvious comparison to make. As far as it goes:
Level 5 Arcane Archer: expected damage bonus per short rest is generally 4d6 (14) and secondary special effects.
Level 5 Battle master: expected damage bonus per short rest is at least 4d8 (18) and secondary special effects.
Level 5 Cavalier: this is a defensive spec, but assuming you manage to use Unwavering Mark once per short rest, that's 1d8+11 (15) on a hit, so maybe (10) average.
Level 5 Champion: assuming 16 attacks per shot rest, we expect 0.8 extra criticals worth (3.6) to (6.7) depending on your weapon.
Level 5 Eldritch Knight: in typical use doesn't get any bonus damage, unless you use Absorb Elements, so hard to value properly.
Level 5 Psi Warrior: assuming spending three psi per short rest on psionic strike (6/day and recover 1/short rest for 9/day total) and Int 14, 3d8+6(19.5)
Level 5 Rune Knight: assuming a Fire Rune on average does damage twice, that's (14) plus any other effects from being Restrained. In addition, Giant's Might can be figured to grant another 3d6 per short rest (assuming one use per short rest)
Level 5 Samurai: assuming you use Fighting Spirit the same turn you use Action Surge, average effect is about 0.8 hits (worth 8.4 with dueling style) and 0.2 crits (worth 0.9) per short rest. Also, you prevent (5) damage per short rest.
This is a good run down.
The only thing you could add is Shadow Blade to the Eldtrich Knight. But that's only going to be about 1-2 times a day at that point.
The reason the Champion gets compared to the Battle Master is because there are only three fighter subclasses in the PHB, and the Eldritch Knight is clearly not what you play if your goal is to just be a fighter, so it's the obvious comparison to make. As far as it goes:
Level 5 Arcane Archer: expected damage bonus per short rest is generally 4d6 (14) and secondary special effects.
Level 5 Battle master: expected damage bonus per short rest is at least 4d8 (18) and secondary special effects.
Level 5 Cavalier: this is a defensive spec, but assuming you manage to use Unwavering Mark once per short rest, that's 1d8+11 (15) on a hit, so maybe (10) average.
Level 5 Champion: assuming 16 attacks per shot rest, we expect 0.8 extra criticals worth (3.6) to (6.7) depending on your weapon.
Level 5 Eldritch Knight: in typical use doesn't get any bonus damage, unless you use Absorb Elements, so hard to value properly.
Level 5 Psi Warrior: assuming spending three psi per short rest on psionic strike (6/day and recover 1/short rest for 9/day total) and Int 14, 3d8+6(19.5)
Level 5 Rune Knight: assuming a Fire Rune on average does damage twice, that's (14) plus any other effects from being Restrained. In addition, Giant's Might can be figured to grant another 3d6 per short rest (assuming one use per short rest)
Level 5 Samurai: assuming you use Fighting Spirit the same turn you use Action Surge, average effect is about 0.8 hits (worth 8.4 with dueling style) and 0.2 crits (worth 0.9) per short rest. Also, you prevent (5) damage per short rest.
A good run down, but missing the PDK/Banneret that adds 0 damage at 5th level.
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.
What is more reliable?
A) Your anecdotal gut impression
or
B) Math
Yeah I will go with math....
Go ahead, but your doesn’t hold up in practicality. Kinda like Mike Tyson says, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. Guy (our fighter) had great weapon fighting, great weapon master, lucky, and a majority of the time my wizard had cat greater invis on him for advantage on just about every attack (true sight borked it a few times). We found that Haste had too much downside when concentration broke of losing and entire turn so we switched over to greater invis mostly. Throw in some magic items that further skews the numbers that I’m sure weren’t accounting for an actual party that helps each other maximize their potential.
Not a bad idea to run the numbers to see if a build may be viable, by all means do that! It would suck to have a build that just didn’t measure up against other party members as you go up. The Champion is not bad, does massive amounts of damage, and isn’t super complex so easier to play at its highest potential.
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.
I'm calling shenanigans. You started this thread by bashing the Champion.
And how did you determine that I'm bashing it because I "have a predisposition to want to bash the Champion"?
Nobody forced you to make this thread.
Eye roll.
You know exactly what he means when he says that he doesn't want to bash the champion. It doesn't mean he doesn't want to discuss it or make threads about it, it means he wants the champion to be good enough so that his thread is unnecessary.
Go ahead, but your doesn’t hold up in practicality. Kinda like Mike Tyson says, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. Guy (our fighter) had great weapon fighting, great weapon master, lucky,and a majority of the time my wizard had cat greater invis on him for advantage on just about every attack (true sight borked it a few times). We found that Haste had too much downside when concentration broke of losing and entire turn so we switched over to greater invis mostly. Throw in some magic items that further skews the numbers that I’m sure weren’t accounting for an actual party that helps each other maximize their potential.
Not a bad idea to run the numbers to see if a build may be viable, by all means do that! It would suck to have a build that just didn’t measure up against other party members as you go up. The Champion is not bad, does massive amounts of damage, and isn’t super complex so easier to play at its highest potential.
So let me get this straight. Your Champion had Great Weapon Master, Lucky, and he spent the majority of the time fighting while invisible..... and he did massive amounts of damage... which vindicates Improved Critical as a subclass feature....
Go ahead, but your doesn’t hold up in practicality. Kinda like Mike Tyson says, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. Guy (our fighter) had great weapon fighting, great weapon master, lucky,and a majority of the time my wizard had cat greater invis on him for advantage on just about every attack (true sight borked it a few times). We found that Haste had too much downside when concentration broke of losing and entire turn so we switched over to greater invis mostly. Throw in some magic items that further skews the numbers that I’m sure weren’t accounting for an actual party that helps each other maximize their potential.
Not a bad idea to run the numbers to see if a build may be viable, by all means do that! It would suck to have a build that just didn’t measure up against other party members as you go up. The Champion is not bad, does massive amounts of damage, and isn’t super complex so easier to play at its highest potential.
So let me get this straight. Your Champion had Great Weapon Master, Lucky, and he spent the majority of the time fighting while invisible..... and he did massive amounts of damage... which vindicates Improved Critical as a subclass feature....
Um yeah, he built his character correctly and did massive amounts of damage as a fighter. That's what that subclass is supposed to do. Why would you not take feats that compliment your class and have good party composition? This is where the math doesn't hold up as it isn't taking into account other variables that are present during actual gameplay. Yes, my Wizard isn't a moron and helped his party become better at their roles.
Jounich, correct. Nobody forced me to make this thread, I chose to. That doesn't make it "shenanigans" when I say I don't have a predisposition to want to bash the Champion. Everyone has their own opinion about classes and subclasses. I shared mine, I am defending mine, and I am open to having my mind changed.
"It doesn't matter, to you, if they raise any legitimate points."
Actually, some points I have agreed with and even made myself, and other points I simply don't agree with. How do you distinguish between someone not caring if a point is legitimate, and someone who merely disagrees that it *is* legitimate?
"You keep comparing it to the Battle Master."
I'm not the one who even brought up Battle Master, someone else did. And that's where the conversation remained for some time, and I offered my own input. I think Battle Master is a great subclass, but it's not my even favorite Fighter subclass.
"There are now...what, nine martial archetypes for Fighters? And all you seem to care about is that the Champion isn't as good as (whatever that means) the Battle Master."
This thread is ABOUT the Champion, so do you mean to say I'm staying on topic?
"You don't care for an honest discussion. You're myopic and want people to fight with. I get that COVID is giving everyone a case of cabin fever, but there are more constructive ways of engaging with others."
In formal argumentation this is what's referred to as an ad hominem fallacy.
I wasn't aware this was formal argumentation. But, since you opened the gate, during formal argumentation, personal attacks can be, and sometimes are, relevant. For example, when the corruption and dishonesty of someone running for public office should disqualify them from holding said public office. It's permissible to call someone out for being a crook when they're a crook. Not that I'm calling anyone here a crook, but you should be able to recognize snark when you see it.
My question, one I have asked repeatedly and you have repeatedly chosen to ignore, is why did you start this thread? Because, it seems plain, that you do not care for having an actual discussion. You're not looking for anyone to sell you on the archetype. You weren't asking for second and third opinions in your OP. You weren't looking to discuss its merits or how to make the most of it for those who want to, and you're still not. (Which, if we're being honest, should be the point of any thread in a subforum titled Tips & Tactics.) You have been rude, if not outright malicious, since the outset. And by bringing up formal argumentation, you validate the criticism that you are doing this just to argue. The reasons don't matter and never did.
This could have been a friendly conversation. You set the tone. You had one reply before you clapped back, calling the champion "mechanically abysmal" without even defining the term. It's lazy. White Room theorycrafting can be fun, even cathartic, but it's also, ultimately, meaningless. Because party and enemy composition change the circumstances of the test. The sooner you all learn that, the happier you'll be.
I'll crunch some more numbers later, when I have the time, and drop in another analysis. If it'll turn just one head, It'll be worth it.
Jounich, correct. Nobody forced me to make this thread, I chose to. That doesn't make it "shenanigans" when I say I don't have a predisposition to want to bash the Champion. Everyone has their own opinion about classes and subclasses. I shared mine, I am defending mine, and I am open to having my mind changed.
"It doesn't matter, to you, if they raise any legitimate points."
Actually, some points I have agreed with and even made myself, and other points I simply don't agree with. How do you distinguish between someone not caring if a point is legitimate, and someone who merely disagrees that it *is* legitimate?
"You keep comparing it to the Battle Master."
I'm not the one who even brought up Battle Master, someone else did. And that's where the conversation remained for some time, and I offered my own input. I think Battle Master is a great subclass, but it's not my even favorite Fighter subclass.
"There are now...what, nine martial archetypes for Fighters? And all you seem to care about is that the Champion isn't as good as (whatever that means) the Battle Master."
This thread is ABOUT the Champion, so do you mean to say I'm staying on topic?
"You don't care for an honest discussion. You're myopic and want people to fight with. I get that COVID is giving everyone a case of cabin fever, but there are more constructive ways of engaging with others."
In formal argumentation this is what's referred to as an ad hominem fallacy.
I wasn't aware this was formal argumentation. But, since you opened the gate, during formal argumentation, personal attacks can be, and sometimes are, relevant. For example, when the corruption and dishonesty of someone running for public office should disqualify them from holding said public office. It's permissible to call someone out for being a crook when they're a crook. Not that I'm calling anyone here a crook, but you should be able to recognize snark when you see it.
My question, one I have asked repeatedly and you have repeatedly chosen to ignore, is why did you start this thread? Because, it seems plain, that you do not care for having an actual discussion. You're not looking for anyone to sell you on the archetype. You weren't asking for second and third opinions in your OP. You weren't looking to discuss its merits or how to make the most of it for those who want to, and you're still not. (Which, if we're being honest, should be the point of any thread in a subforum titled Tips & Tactics.) You have been rude, if not outright malicious, since the outset. And by bringing up formal argumentation, you validate the criticism that you are doing this just to argue. The reasons don't matter and never did.
This could have been a friendly conversation. You set the tone. You had one reply before you clapped back, calling the champion "mechanically abysmal" without even defining the term. It's lazy. White Room theorycrafting can be fun, even cathartic, but it's also, ultimately, meaningless. Because party and enemy composition change the circumstances of the test. The sooner you all learn that, the happier you'll be.
I'll crunch some more numbers later, when I have the time, and drop in another analysis. If it'll turn just one head, It'll be worth it.
It doesn't matter if it's a formal debate or a casual conversation. Logic is still logic. A personal criticism or accusation can be relevant if it's supporting the proposition.
Proposition: Tom would make a bad sentator because he is has a history of corruption. (not fallacious)
Proposition: Improved Critical does adequate damage, because the person who said it does not is dishonest. (fallacious)
Contrary to what you claim, if I overlooked or miscalculated something with the Champion, I absolutely do want to know about it. It would open up a new character option for me, and (with all things) I seek to align my beliefs and opinions with reality as much as possible.
I haven't answered your question about why I made this thread, because of the manner in which you asked it. I don't answer to you and I owe you no explanation. I've responded *to* rudeness with rudeness. What did you think, that you could just talk to someone any old way and not expect the same in return? There's one exception, when I misunderstood another poster and I apologized to that person.
Go ahead, but your doesn’t hold up in practicality. Kinda like Mike Tyson says, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. Guy (our fighter) had great weapon fighting, great weapon master, lucky,and a majority of the time my wizard had cat greater invis on him for advantage on just about every attack (true sight borked it a few times). We found that Haste had too much downside when concentration broke of losing and entire turn so we switched over to greater invis mostly. Throw in some magic items that further skews the numbers that I’m sure weren’t accounting for an actual party that helps each other maximize their potential.
Not a bad idea to run the numbers to see if a build may be viable, by all means do that! It would suck to have a build that just didn’t measure up against other party members as you go up. The Champion is not bad, does massive amounts of damage, and isn’t super complex so easier to play at its highest potential.
So let me get this straight. Your Champion had Great Weapon Master, Lucky, and he spent the majority of the time fighting while invisible..... and he did massive amounts of damage... which vindicates Improved Critical as a subclass feature....
Um yeah, he built his character correctly and did massive amounts of damage as a fighter. That's what that subclass is supposed to do. Why would you not take feats that compliment your class and have good party composition? This is where the math doesn't hold up as it isn't taking into account other variables that are present during actual gameplay. Yes, my Wizard isn't a moron and helped his party become better at their roles.
GWM, Lucky, or Greater Invisibility does massive extra damage with or without Improved Critical. So how do you figure out how much *Improved Critical* contributed? You do the math, which you don't want to rely on.
The thread is actually not comparing the BM and the champion. It is asking whether it is useful. it is a fighter, so it is pretty good. It is not AS good as the BM but it is not objectively bad. If you specifically wan't a crit fisher, the champion is great
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.
I'm not convinced it's only a couple points fewer, but additional damage is *all* the Champion's premier ability does. Contrast that with so many other Fighter subclasses, that do so many more things and additional damage. The Battle Master can do like twentysomething different things, from knocking an enemy prone, to disarming an enemy, to moving them around the battlefield, to giving your allies advantage, etc.
And it's that fine, some people want a simplier choice, but if the ONLY thing a premier ability does is add damage, it should do a lot more. The UA Brute Fighter is what the Champion ought to be.
THIS POST.
And I will admit, my approach and math WAS too complex and wrong. But you didn't refute it, you just ignored it and then several pages later, accused me of simply using a program instead of showing actual math.
I have no idea what common Champion builds are. I tried to come up with a build that took advantage of the improved critical threat range, only to come up with a DEX TWF fighter with EA. I have admitted many times that I am not a min-maxer, so I don't and wouldn't know what an optimized Champion build is.
All I got really from this thread is it doesn't matter if you're a Battlemaster or a Champion, if your goal is to max out DPR, the path is SS or GWM. The classes/sub-classes are irrelevant. Even the DPR gain from Maneuvers are inconsequential to those feats.
I also made the point HERE that if you DON'T assume the Battlemaster use their Superiority Die every single attack, and DON'T assume that combat doesn't last beyond their resources, then things start to be much more reasonable. As the chart HERE the difference that Superiority Die or Improved Critical add to a base fighter attack is not so far apart that it can't be justified. I mean, a class with a resource SHOULD perform better than one without. And the difference isn't so great to automatically label the Champion as 'bad'.
Or in other words, if a player chooses the Champion subclass because they like the word "Champion" or they like the thought of critting more, they are not going to be hindering their party. It's not going to ruin the game for anyone else.
I'm calling shenanigans. You started this thread by bashing the Champion.
No reasonable person can interpret "you're overcomplicating this" to saying your math is too complicated.
You have no idea what common Champion builds are? You don't know the common levels of play, what their ASI modifier will likely be at different levels, the common feats that are taken, the common damage dice for weapons, and the general AC average for enemies at different levels?
If you recognize the Champion is NOT a path to high damage per attack (which is what matters, not DPS), then I'm not addressing you. A LOT of people are under the impression that the Champion a big damage buff but that's not what the math shows. If you don't think that's a common misconception then I don't know what to tell you.
And how did you determine that I'm bashing it because I "have a predisposition to want to bash the Champion"?
Nobody forced you to make this thread. You started by dumping on its features, and you've been arguing with everyone who says it's not that bad. It doesn't matter, to you, if they raise any legitimate points. You keep comparing it to the Battle Master. There are now...what, nine martial archetypes for Fighters? And all you seem to care about is that the Champion isn't as good as (whatever that means) the Battle Master.
You don't care for an honest discussion. You're myopic and want people to fight with. I get that COVID is giving everyone a case of cabin fever, but there are more constructive ways of engaging with others.
Jounich, correct. Nobody forced me to make this thread, I chose to. That doesn't make it "shenanigans" when I say I don't have a predisposition to want to bash the Champion. Everyone has their own opinion about classes and subclasses. I shared mine, I am defending mine, and I am open to having my mind changed.
"It doesn't matter, to you, if they raise any legitimate points."
Actually, some points I have agreed with and even made myself, and other points I simply don't agree with. How do you distinguish between someone not caring if a point is legitimate, and someone who merely disagrees that it *is* legitimate?
"You keep comparing it to the Battle Master."
I'm not the one who even brought up Battle Master, someone else did. And that's where the conversation remained for some time, and I offered my own input. I think Battle Master is a great subclass, but it's not my even favorite Fighter subclass.
"There are now...what, nine martial archetypes for Fighters? And all you seem to care about is that the Champion isn't as good as (whatever that means) the Battle Master."
This thread is ABOUT the Champion, so do you mean to say I'm staying on topic?
"You don't care for an honest discussion. You're myopic and want people to fight with. I get that COVID is giving everyone a case of cabin fever, but there are more constructive ways of engaging with others."
In formal argumentation this is what's referred to as an ad hominem fallacy.
I guess the major point I would say is due to the much better options I would likely never ever suggest someone play champion. If they wanted simple fighter I would suggest samurai, echo Knight, or UA brute as they are all superior "simple" fighters. If they wanted Damage I would suggest battlemaster. If they wanted versatility I would suggest eldtrich Knight. If they wanted to tank I would suggest cavalier.
There is literally no niche the champion fills that makes it worth while over the others.
Does this make it unplayable? Of course not. You can have fun with anything and I wholeheartedly support that.
Just don't pretend it's not the bottom basement subclass and that it's design leaves something to be desired.
Overall it is what it is.. and that's ok
The reason the Champion gets compared to the Battle Master is because there are only three fighter subclasses in the PHB, and the Eldritch Knight is clearly not what you play if your goal is to just be a fighter, so it's the obvious comparison to make. As far as it goes:
This is a good run down.
The only thing you could add is Shadow Blade to the Eldtrich Knight. But that's only going to be about 1-2 times a day at that point.
A good run down, but missing the PDK/Banneret that adds 0 damage at 5th level.
Subscribe to our channel for character builds, roleplay and DM tips: www.youtube.com/c/dorkforge
Interested in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything? Check out our playlist on Youtube
Please feel free to message us with any requests or build challenges!
Go ahead, but your doesn’t hold up in practicality. Kinda like Mike Tyson says, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. Guy (our fighter) had great weapon fighting, great weapon master, lucky, and a majority of the time my wizard had cat greater invis on him for advantage on just about every attack (true sight borked it a few times). We found that Haste had too much downside when concentration broke of losing and entire turn so we switched over to greater invis mostly. Throw in some magic items that further skews the numbers that I’m sure weren’t accounting for an actual party that helps each other maximize their potential.
Not a bad idea to run the numbers to see if a build may be viable, by all means do that! It would suck to have a build that just didn’t measure up against other party members as you go up. The Champion is not bad, does massive amounts of damage, and isn’t super complex so easier to play at its highest potential.
Eye roll.
You know exactly what he means when he says that he doesn't want to bash the champion. It doesn't mean he doesn't want to discuss it or make threads about it, it means he wants the champion to be good enough so that his thread is unnecessary.
So let me get this straight. Your Champion had Great Weapon Master, Lucky, and he spent the majority of the time fighting while invisible..... and he did massive amounts of damage... which vindicates Improved Critical as a subclass feature....
Um yeah, he built his character correctly and did massive amounts of damage as a fighter. That's what that subclass is supposed to do. Why would you not take feats that compliment your class and have good party composition? This is where the math doesn't hold up as it isn't taking into account other variables that are present during actual gameplay. Yes, my Wizard isn't a moron and helped his party become better at their roles.
I wasn't aware this was formal argumentation. But, since you opened the gate, during formal argumentation, personal attacks can be, and sometimes are, relevant. For example, when the corruption and dishonesty of someone running for public office should disqualify them from holding said public office. It's permissible to call someone out for being a crook when they're a crook. Not that I'm calling anyone here a crook, but you should be able to recognize snark when you see it.
My question, one I have asked repeatedly and you have repeatedly chosen to ignore, is why did you start this thread? Because, it seems plain, that you do not care for having an actual discussion. You're not looking for anyone to sell you on the archetype. You weren't asking for second and third opinions in your OP. You weren't looking to discuss its merits or how to make the most of it for those who want to, and you're still not. (Which, if we're being honest, should be the point of any thread in a subforum titled Tips & Tactics.) You have been rude, if not outright malicious, since the outset. And by bringing up formal argumentation, you validate the criticism that you are doing this just to argue. The reasons don't matter and never did.
This could have been a friendly conversation. You set the tone. You had one reply before you clapped back, calling the champion "mechanically abysmal" without even defining the term. It's lazy. White Room theorycrafting can be fun, even cathartic, but it's also, ultimately, meaningless. Because party and enemy composition change the circumstances of the test. The sooner you all learn that, the happier you'll be.
I'll crunch some more numbers later, when I have the time, and drop in another analysis. If it'll turn just one head, It'll be worth it.
It doesn't matter if it's a formal debate or a casual conversation. Logic is still logic. A personal criticism or accusation can be relevant if it's supporting the proposition.
Proposition: Tom would make a bad sentator because he is has a history of corruption. (not fallacious)
Proposition: Improved Critical does adequate damage, because the person who said it does not is dishonest. (fallacious)
Contrary to what you claim, if I overlooked or miscalculated something with the Champion, I absolutely do want to know about it. It would open up a new character option for me, and (with all things) I seek to align my beliefs and opinions with reality as much as possible.
I haven't answered your question about why I made this thread, because of the manner in which you asked it. I don't answer to you and I owe you no explanation. I've responded *to* rudeness with rudeness. What did you think, that you could just talk to someone any old way and not expect the same in return? There's one exception, when I misunderstood another poster and I apologized to that person.
GWM, Lucky, or Greater Invisibility does massive extra damage with or without Improved Critical. So how do you figure out how much *Improved Critical* contributed? You do the math, which you don't want to rely on.
The thread is actually not comparing the BM and the champion. It is asking whether it is useful. it is a fighter, so it is pretty good. It is not AS good as the BM but it is not objectively bad. If you specifically wan't a crit fisher, the champion is great
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
See, this is where you're being belligerent.
These feats and conditions benefit ANY class. But, it benefits the Champion 3 times more. Or as you like to math: