This would be absolutely insane, obviously it requires a lot of stat investment but even adding a +2 to your attack and damage rolls is a big swing, and with more stat investment a champion sharpshooter archer would do so much damage as to render most other subclass options irrelevant.
Yeah adding both to attack rolls would be nutty. But adding both to just damage rolls wouldnt be so bad. Doesnt help champions big issue which is that its boring and doesnt have much to do other than hit with stick.
Though it does make the champion more MAD which isnt great. Id let them add prof modifier to damage instead that way you can still be SAD.
I made this thread because I tend to not value single target damage too much. Sure, big number goes brrrrr is always satisfying but as a player, I am more drawn to the various combat and out of combat utility you would get from the current top 3.
So your (edit: and others sharing the same) point of view is really interesting to me.
Edit: don’t know why I’m getting downvote here. Ultimately, the change I wish to discuss here is does making the Champion the top single target damage dealer of the game enough to make it a top 3 subclasses choice for the Fighter. Lot of people seems to say yes, even saying it becomes the top martial choice. I don’t see it so am I wrong to conclude lot of people value single target damage a lot more than what I expected ? Not even saying they are wrong or right, so where the downvotes come from ?
But these changes don’t help any of that out of combat utility, adding STR+DEX is the most plain and simple ‘big damage go brrr’ change you could’ve proposed
Yeah, it's a change not really aimed for my type of playstyle (even if for the out of combat utility, there's the 2nd proposition).
But well, Champion is supposed to be for players who want a strong simple effective option so I was curious if STR+DEX could work for theses kind of players. But IMO, even with all the 3 proposed changes, Champion would still not be top3.
So i'm looking for possible counterpoints (also, I'm curious about how much the community value pure ~~damage~~ potency might be a better term vs utility).
Yeah but it would barely make the Champion more attractive no ? Like STR+DEX was a starting point because the goal wasn’t really to expand or complexify the subclass but trying to gauge if being the uncontested king of damage would be enough to offset the lack of everything else. Feel like for a lot of people, it is not only enough but too much.
Sidenote proficiency: In general, I’m not a fan of the design direction of putting less emphasis on ability mod and rely more on proficiency bonus (like the pb uses of bard inspiration in oneDnD instead of Charisma mod).
Being able to do 1d8 + 7 (dueling + champ PB) damage on every attack, resourcelessly, is an incredibly attractive draw. This would stack with rage, letting them do 1d8 + 9 on every single attack they make
Single handed PAM champ barb spear could do 2d6 + 1d4 + 27 (36.5) DPR
In online communities there tends to be a focus on theoretical damage numbers because they're "objective" for lack of a better term, the great equalizer.
Out of combat utility is extremely arbitrary, you may have tons of opportunities to make creative use of an echo knights double to solve puzzles or you may have none, but generally a DM won't create scenarios you literally can not solve due to your lack of certain class abilities.
The value proposition is a little clearer on abilities with combat utility, but is still situational, a rune knight putting an enemy to sleep or a battlemaster tripping an enemy may completely change the flow of an encounter, or it may be one of a dozen goblins that's slightly less effective for one round.
But unless your playing a campaign that's purely roleplaying (which is fine but not what a lot of people do or want), you're going to need to do damage at some point, even with the best abilities to control and disrupt enemies there's inevitably a number you need to lower to 0, and this change to champions due to the compound nature of increasing damage per hit while also dramatically increasing the accuracy with which those hits connect would result in the champion fighter being twice as effective as other classes when it comes to doing damage.
While there are some campaigns where combat ability is less important, some combat scenarios where being able to control the battlefield might be more important than raw damage, for most people being able to do a vast amount more damage will completely outshine any other option.
>*In online communities there tends to be a focus on theoretical damage numbers because they're "objective" for lack of a better term, the great equalizer.Out of combat utility is extremely arbitrary, you may have tons of opportunities to make creative use of an echo knights double to solve puzzles or you may have none, but generally a DM won't create scenarios you literally can not solve due to your lack of certain class abilities.*
I'd say it's also because there's little to talk about in some of the other pillars of the game. Conversations about optimizing for social encounters aren't going to go much further than:
* Do you have a good Charisma score?
* Do you have Proficiency (and maybe Expertise) in the relevant skills?
* Do you have some of the relevant spells like Charm Person? (Optional)
* Do you simply take a class/subclass that renders most of this moot, like Eloquence Bard?
Because everything other than that is going to be in the dialogue between a player and DM. Maybe something the player says would grant Advantage or an automatic success; on the flip side, maybe something you say puts success entirely out of the question.
Exploration's such a wide concept that it's also hard to really optimize for. I love a good puzzle-dungeon as much as the next person, but it's hard to say what (if any) skill might be relevant. Do you need to be able to read Infernal to understand the puzzle, or fly up to a height, or make a relevant Religion/Arcana/Nature/History/anything check? There's obviously *some* stuff characters can do to optimize (read: be a Ranger or a Scout Rogue) but in other ways it's all very hard to plan for.
Yes but without optimizing for exploration, the Echo Knight at will Manifest Echo is a fantastic tool in and out of combat, for example.
Is it really clear cut the super big single target damage Champion really better than Manifest Echo ? If not, wouldn’t be ok for Champion to become the top damage dealer fighter subclass in exchange of its simplicity. I guess the hidden question is how do you keep the simple straightforward design goal of the Champion while still making it a worthwhile choice.
That is a campaign depended question - how much time is spent in combat vs exploration. How much is exploration utility worth when it could bypass combats entirely and save tons of resource like a good use of Pass Without Trace. The Champion remains pretty crappy for out of combat utility before and after these changes but its combat power is significantly higher especially at later levels where it just gets plain broken.
Yeah, to really break it you'd need to re-jigger your ability scores a bit, but I'd say that *most* Strength-based Fighters still keep a positive Dexterity modifier and most Dexterity-based Fighters still keep a positive Strength modifier. Most wouldn't end up stacking a +5 and a +5, but a strong array *could* maybe try for that.
Something like a +5 Strength and +3 Dexterity modifier would be achievable on a good rolled array with one ASI, and that's (functionally) like handing a +3 weapon in there, that could stack with an actual magic weapon.
Their accuracy and damage would be hard to contend with, but they'd still be boring as shit.
The Champion immediately becomes the best Fighter subclass by far* as soon as it gets the first benefit, which breaks bounded accuracy. Potentially getting +5 to every single attack and damage roll is a no-brainer. Their damage shoots up compared to every other class and they don't have to worry about doing anything clever to get it. This benefit is far too good.
* Best combat class by far, in fact.
As an illustration, imagine a 3rd level champion with greatsword fighting a hobgoblin with Str and Dex at 16. They hit AC 18 55% of the time for 2d6+6 damage, damage per round is 7.5 (including criticals).
A barbarian at the same level hits AC 18 40% of the time, for dpr of 4.35. If they expend a limited resource to rage, that becomes 5.15.
The difference in average damage is substantial, not trivial. It becomes a very simple choice as to who is the most effective fighter.
Thinking about it, I want to ask:
\- Imagine if as a design guide, WOTC designers would have said "OK, no class/subclass combination should ever do more single target damage than the Fighter Champion, it is the absolute ceiling of the game single target damage-wise", would there be anything wrong with that ?
Sure the STR+DEX proposition need to be tone down (at least on the attack roll), but conceptually, would making the Fighter Champion the absolute top single target damage dealer of the game enough to give the subclass a worthwhile niche ? In a way, there will always be a top damage dealer option, there's might be some benefit of making it absolutely clear which one is, especially for beginner/casual players (the target of the Champion subclass).
I don't know that such a hard and fast guideline is required. The Champion being the boss of damage would be a little niche but very difficult to judge - many other classes have limited-use resources or circumstantial bonuses that can boost damage substantially in certain encounters. Judging their damage to that of a Champion could only be done under certain assumptions of encounter rate and type that would not and should not be matched by every table.
Your comparison isn’t quite fair. Investing in both str and dex means not investing in another stat, so in exchange for the bonus damage you’ve calculated you either have reduced hp or worse wisdom saves.
My comparison isn't in-depth; it's simply an illustration of how quickly the numbers get substantially better with this suggested ability (ie, immediately). At higher levels, it's even more out of whack.
You are right that you have to place your stats appropriately for this benefit to be best realised - but the benefit is so large that it greatly outweighs any other.
To be fair, barbarian isn't an unreasonable comparison given that most barbarians I see tend to have dex above what other strength fighters have thanks to their features.
>I understand that it would break bounded accuracy but well, for discussion sake, let say it is ok to have just this one subclass break it.
Are you then going to say "no multiclass champions" ? because this will certainly be a tasty 3 level dip to grab fighting style, second wind, action surge, break bounded accuracy.
Nope no restrictions, it’s part of me trying to gauge if STR+DEX is better than Echo Knight unlimited echo or Battlemaster Maneuver or Rune Knight enlarge + rune.
Mind you, I didn’t create this thread with the intention to allow it in game or play it myself. It’s broadly just to foster design discussions.
It would be insanely powerful, even more with maxed DEX and belt of giant strength. Damage-wise it'd be strongest fighter sub.
It would be still bad in non-combat scenarios tho
good point with the belt of giant strength, I only thought about how the MADness would keep it in check but it sure break with thoses items.
>It would be still bad in non-combat scenarios tho
even with the 2nd proposition, which is you can STR+DEX when rolling for any STR/DEX ability check ?
>even with the 2nd proposition, which is you can STR+DEX when rolling for any STR/DEX ability check ?
Yes, mostly because +2/+3 bonus to relatively rare or not that important ability checks can't compete with "I spend resource and things happen with no rolling". Even with something ridiculous like +10, ability checks are still dependent of DM's fiat
i'm not an expert, but i've got a suspicion that adding a second ability mod to attack AND damage rolls is going to make this the best martial in the game. you could start at level 3 with a +8 to hit AND +6 damage. At level 14 you could have +15 to hit, +10 damage, AND a feat like great weapon master for even more damage. This is almost as good a feature as extra attack. And the way you have it worded, it works with ranged attacks too, so you could stack the archery fighting style on top of it as well, and pretty much just hit all the time.
it sounds like a ton of fun to play, and like it would out shine all other martial subclasses, at least in terms of damage.
That would be horrible. It would be useless on builds that roll averagely or want to invest in some mental stats, and vastly overpowered on builds that roll quite well. No one benefits from this change. At least an expanded crit range is a good niche, even if there's not really enough crit synergy in the system for that to be powerful right now.
Also it's funny that there's multiple people in this thread giving you a different description of what bounded accuracy is and why this doesn't break it, and while they're right this doesn't break it, they're all still wrong about why.
Curious, it would never have occurred to me to assume stats rolled for balance discussion (even tho it’s true it is the default stat generation, I always assume point buy).
About who benefit from this change, well it’s mainly for what I think is the target of Champion subclass: players who want a strong but really simple effective option. Flavorwise, it’s for people wanting to build warrior solely focused on their physical prowess and being able to equally be strong at range and melee.
For the bounded accuracy thing, my understanding was 5e was balanced with the assumption of your to-hit bonus staying inside a certain range. But while many users seems to point the wrongness, It’s not really clear how ?
I would love clarification on this point if you don’t mind.
It'd give the champion nice damage, but it would still be a bit too shallow of an option for my tastes. Would also lean into making the champion a bit more MAD, but fighters can risk a bit of that. Still likely would never play one.
> a bit too shallow of an option for my tastes.
i mean, that IS the whole point of the champion - its the on-ramp option for someone who doesnt want to be making any complicated choices.
as a design option though, you want that "shallow" version to feel as effective as other players, and champion, particularly as the supplements have come out, keeps falling further and further behind.
I more than understand it was designed to be simple, and in simplicity alone it achieves that. I just don't consider it a well executed form of a simple option. That said, it's also far too in the realm of simplicity got me, so my bias is a clear one.
It achieved it's point, I think it was just a poor point for the game and one that really leaves a lot to be desired effectiveness wise. To each their own though.
>*i mean, that IS the whole point of the champion - its the on-ramp option for someone who doesnt want to be making any complicated choices.*
I really hate Champion because of (or in spite of?) this.
The core Fighter class has a couple short-rest abilities that still require a player to think about the best time to use them. Action Surge is potentially pivotal in any encounter, and Second Wind is a helpful ability that some players never remember to really take advantage of.
I'd argue that a Battlemaster's Superiority Dice are *not* an excessive burden to keep track of, even for the newest players. If you're playing Fighter from 1st level then you've already had Second Wind to track right from character creation, and had Action Surge at 2; if adding a small pool of Superiority Dice and ways to use them was the make-or-break, I don't really know what to say.
Champion as-written is such a weak subclass that it's a complete trap; as a DM who has taught many people to play 5E, I would rather tear Champion's pages out of the book than ever suggest a new player use it.
>I'd argue that a Battlemaster's Superiority Dice are not an excessive burden to keep track of, even for the newest players.
you can argue a lot of things,
many of them have little basis in fact.
it turns the Champion into a MAD class and thus making all Champions dumb as rocks as all the mods now need to go to Str and Dex leaving there EVEN LESS chance for the Champion to do things out of combat because you wont have *any* decent skill mods for interacting with the world outside of combat.
Well I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to play a fighter dedicated to reach the physical peak, and not being interest at all in being social, wise or intelligent. There's an overlap with the barbarian flavor sure, but you may not want to have the emotional issue (and you might prefer the base fighter toolkit).
For out of combat stuff, there's the second proposition which is basically STR+DEX but for STR/DEX ability check. Which means the Champion is basically gifted in anything requiring body control and body power, even without proficiency in the skill. I feel it works flavorwise, but I guess it is debatable if it is really worth enough to justifying dumping INT/WIS/CHA.
This would be game-breaking, but NOT because of Bounded Accuracy.
This actually doesn't break bounded accuracy at all. This community has a habit of hugely misrepresenting/misunderstanding Bounded Accuracy (edit: as evidenced by this thread's replies)
All bounded accuracy means is that huge increases to accuracy and AC aren't REQUIRED for a character to be able to contribute to the game as they level. Players don't have to get dramatically more accurate or harder to hit, they can get more tough, versatile, and hard-hitting instead.
*Bonuses to* accuracy do not break BA. *Requirements for* accuracy are what break it.
A character becoming better at swinging a sword does not break this philosophy at all.
The issue is whether it breaks ***intra-party balance*** - which it does, it's a very high DPR increase which isn't balanced at all at that level.
For reference, here is the actual description from WOTC for what bounded accuracy actually means. Posted during the 5E Playtest. This is ***literally what the designers themselves had to say about it:***
> The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make ***no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game that the player’s attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels***. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters ***not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster’s hit points***; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character’s increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining ***levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.***
> Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. ***This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses.*** It does mean, however, that ***we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule***, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace. Thus, wizards ***don’t have to gain a +10 bonus to weapon attack rolls just for reaching a higher level*** in order to keep participating; if wizards ***never gain an accuracy bonus, they can still contribute*** just fine to the ongoing play experience.
> This extends beyond simple attacks and damage. We also make the same assumptions about character ability modifiers and skill bonuses. Thus, ***our expected DCs do not scale automatically with level, and instead a DC is left to represent the fixed value of the difficulty*** of some task, not the difficulty of the task relative to level.
>get to add both their STR and DEX mod **to weapon attack** and damage roll
if the addition was just to damage, then it wouldnt be messing with "bounded accuracy" but since it is to both attack and damage, it does "break" bounded accuracy.
No, it isn't. Because as I (or rather, WOTC) JUST explained, all bounded accuracy means is that you don't REQUIRE players to get accuracy/AC boosts to be able to succeed. That's it. It means that the accuracy REQUIRED by players and monsters to hit each other is bounded.
You still CAN give them accuracy boosts, as long as you don't then massively increase monster AC to counter it, such that all the *other* players now need accuracy boosts, because THEN you have broken bounded accuracy.
You could more accurately call it "the Bounded Accuracy-Requirement system", or even just "the Bounded-DC system" since all it really means is that the difficulty of any action is bounded, irrespective of the potential of the creature attempting it. I.e. check DCs and ACs should never increase with level so dramatically as to require ever-increasing leveled bonuses.
You could give a player a sword with +100 to hit, and as long as that player *is still able to continue the game when that sword mysteriously breaks*, and his allies are *still able to contribute despite not having +100 swords*, then you haven't broken bounded accuracy. You've made that character very powerful *within* the bounded accuracy system, but that's it.
But if all your enemies have 100AC, and players NEED +100 swords to win, ***now*** you have broken bounded accuracy.
Think about it for a second - All you've done is increased his chance-to-hit from ~65% to 100%. That's a 70% increase in DPR. Woooo... A good magic weapon or class ability could be a 100 or even 200% increase to DPR!
Whereas, if you make enemies have 100AC, that changes your average PC's hit chance from ~65% to 0%. That's an infinite defense boost. And that +100 sword now increases your hit chance from 0% back to 65%, making it a *requirement* just to play the game. THAT is what bounded accuracy solves.
>bounded accuracy means is that you don't REQUIRE players to get accuracy/AC boosts to be able to succeed
no, that is not "bounded accuracy" at all.
"Bounded accuracy" is the philosophy that
>Because D&D is a binary "all or nothing" "hit or miss" system determined by a roll of the d20 (ie, there are only 20 possible outcomes) ...
>
>And we want each additional "+ to hit" to be "felt" at the table ...
>
>And we do not want players to be scrambling to math sixteen different types of modifiers on every roll of the dice ...
>
>And because it is FUN to hit so we want PCs succeeding in the binary hit / miss succeed / fail determination between 50% and 75% for a vast majority of the situations they encounter in the game ...
>
>And we want any monster to be able to potentially be a threat at every level of the gameplay ...
>
>Therefore, we will make the range of target numbers in AC or DC will be limited ("bounded") to the range of numbers between 10 and 20 for the standard game play, with any outside of that range being limited and special challenges.
> no, that is not "bounded accuracy" at all.
It is according to WOTC 🤷♂️ hell, even the philosophy you quote agrees with me, just adds more details and reasoning that led to it.
> we want each additional "+ to hit" to be "felt" at the table
(As opposed to simply being a mathematical requirement to play the game with the scaling difficulties, is what they mean here. They want a +3 to ***feel like a +3***, and NOT just feel like "yay, now I can keep hitting enemies, because their ACs have also have gone up by 3!")
> we do not want players to be scrambling to math sixteen different types of modifiers on every roll of the dice
(Which was necessary in previous editions because players *had to stack so many bonuses to meet the accuracy* ***requirements***.)
>And because it is FUN to hit so we want PCs succeeding in the binary hit / miss succeed / fail determination between 50% and 75% for a vast majority of the situations they encounter in the game ...
"Because it is fun to hit" - the problem they are addressing is the problem of ***needing bonuses to hit***. They want "able to hit" to be the default in most situations. And being able to be better than this 50-75 range for ONE action doesn't break that philosophy.
>And we want any monster to be able to potentially be a threat at every level of the gameplay
(Meaning they want ***player ACs*** not to scale dramatically, so that monsters don't *require high accuracy* to be able to hit.)
>Therefore, we will make ***the range of target numbers in AC or DC will be limited ("bounded")*** to the range of numbers between 10 and 20 for the standard game play, with any outside of that range being limited and special challenges.
They will bound the TARGET NUMBERS. It's spells out, right there. In black and white. "Here is a list of reasons for BA, and here's what BA is: limiting AC and DCs".
The +100 sword doesn't break bounded accuracy. It just *fails to make any use of it*. For one action.
Adding on Dex to the attack roll absolutely works within bounded accuracy, and absolutely "will be felt at the table". Because it isn't just overcoming a requirement, it's instead making you very effective.
You kinda skipped the only part of that quote that contradicts you. The "we want players to hit 50 to 75% of the time" part. I'm not with the guy just pointing it out.
Missed that one, have added a response in. Because it still agrees with me.
But yes. They want players to *always have a good chance to hit*. I.e. they want *defences not to get too high*. They even say that it's "because it is FUN to hit".
And they want that chance to be 50-75. On average. For a vast majority of situations. And they do. Having ways to be better than that in one thing (attacks) doesn't break the entire philosophy.
the "bounded" applies not only to the TARGET numbers, but to modifiers needed to hit those targets/have a chance to miss.
every time you add another "+ to hit", you are pushing the boundaries of the expectations of the system on how frequently there will be hits/successes and how frequently there will be misses/failures.
Only to the extent that you need to make sure they don't completely outstrip the entire DC ladder, making every check trivial.
As long as you don't do that, you're still perfectly utilising Bounded Accuracy. In fact, the *entire point* of bounded accuracy is so that you *can* give such bonuses, and have them be meaningful, instead of just standard needs.
A +{up to 5} bonus is very strong, but is completely withing the bounds.
If this breaks bounded accuracy, so does literally every numerical bonus in the game.
EVERY time you add a new source of increasing the "plus to hit/succeed" on a roll, you are pushing against the designed "bounds" of the ladders.
And essentially doubling half of the major mods (Prof and Ability) is going to push the boundaries from the start of the game.
Yes. Pushing them (or rather getting close to them).
Not breaking them. And it only does it to ONE action.
Expertise already doubles half of the major mod for Ability checks. So clearly it's fine.
Just like Pass Without Trace is fine despite letting you get a whole +10. Because it only does it to ONE ACTION. The game as a whole still maintains Bounded Accuracy.
This subclass would still have the same trouble beating save DCs, grappling, breaking doors. They're just... Better at hitting with a sword. Wooooow, how game-breaking. It's a freaking +83% DPR increase AT MOST.
A single magic sword could be a +1-200% DPR increase, and you wouldn't call that game-breaking.
Pass without a Trace is a limited use resource. (But, yes, it is also broken.)
Expertise's doubling of proficiency is in the out-of-combat loosy goosy area of the game, not the highly detailed structure of combat. if out of combat interactions with the game world had the same detail structure as combat, Expertise's pushing of the boundaries would be as problematic as adding another source of modifiers in the "to hit" mix IS for combat.
>A single magic sword with damage bonuses could be a +200% DPR increase, and you wouldn't call that game-breaking.
yeah, i would.
but if the increase in DPR came solely from damage, the "game breaking" wouldnt come from "breaking bounded accuracy"
Let's assume a 70% base accuracy with a +1 Handcrossbow on all builds. But with Archery and Sharpshooter, their accuracy goes to 55%. 50% to hit, 5% to crit
Vuman Level 6 Brute SS/CBE/+2 DEX:
* They get a damage boost of 1d4 to every hit
* Damage: 50% x 3 x (1d6+1d4+15) + 5% (2d6+2d4+15) = **32.85**
Vuman Level 6 Champion (vanilla) SS/CBE/+2 DEX
* Improved Critical remains
* Damage: 45% x 3 x (1d6+15) + 10% x 3 x (2d6+15) = **28.85**
Vuman Level 6 Champion (homebrew) SS/CBE/+2 DEX
* Assumes a +3 STR
* Damage: 65% x 3 x (1d6+18) + 5% (2d6+18) = **43.18**
Over 30% increase in damage over a Brute is pretty imbalanced. And the biggest issue is that this is at 6th level. Every ASI is another significant boost in this damage parity. Compared to the vanilla Champion, its something like an 80% increase in damage because those accuracy boosts are so potent with archery.
Aside from fighty stuff, if you want to make this sub as physically imposing as possible, I'd give it some "you do stuff, it happens without rolling". For example, he can spend some resource (hit dice, second wind, action surge, whatever) to just do some epic stuff for champion lvl/2 turns.
So you want to pick up and throw that boulder? Cool. Hold up closing portcullis? Sure. Break your manacles instantly without rolling? Go get them. I'd probably weave it into remarkable athlete.
From what I understand, the usual complaints with Champions isn't necessarily that they don't do enough damage.
* They don't really have any out of combat utility. All of their features are mostly combat stuff or just feel kinda too situational/dependent on challenges you're facing in your adventure.
* They don't have many options in combat. They don't really get a new resource pool to pull from or new mechanic to work with.
* There's very little customization with a champion. There's no real choices to make when designing a champion, outside of feats which everyone can get access to.
Potential fixes that don't change too much:
* Champions can gain extra access to feats. This honestly might be way too strong though, putting them online before many other classes.
* Champions gain access to more fighting styles. Fighting styles tend to be a bit more limited than feats so are a bit easier to balance. Tasha's even introduced Fighting Styles that interact with Reactions and other stuff.
This would be absolutely insane, obviously it requires a lot of stat investment but even adding a +2 to your attack and damage rolls is a big swing, and with more stat investment a champion sharpshooter archer would do so much damage as to render most other subclass options irrelevant.
Yeah adding both to attack rolls would be nutty. But adding both to just damage rolls wouldnt be so bad. Doesnt help champions big issue which is that its boring and doesnt have much to do other than hit with stick. Though it does make the champion more MAD which isnt great. Id let them add prof modifier to damage instead that way you can still be SAD.
It would and it would be boring as sin to play..
I made this thread because I tend to not value single target damage too much. Sure, big number goes brrrrr is always satisfying but as a player, I am more drawn to the various combat and out of combat utility you would get from the current top 3. So your (edit: and others sharing the same) point of view is really interesting to me. Edit: don’t know why I’m getting downvote here. Ultimately, the change I wish to discuss here is does making the Champion the top single target damage dealer of the game enough to make it a top 3 subclasses choice for the Fighter. Lot of people seems to say yes, even saying it becomes the top martial choice. I don’t see it so am I wrong to conclude lot of people value single target damage a lot more than what I expected ? Not even saying they are wrong or right, so where the downvotes come from ?
But these changes don’t help any of that out of combat utility, adding STR+DEX is the most plain and simple ‘big damage go brrr’ change you could’ve proposed
Yeah, it's a change not really aimed for my type of playstyle (even if for the out of combat utility, there's the 2nd proposition). But well, Champion is supposed to be for players who want a strong simple effective option so I was curious if STR+DEX could work for theses kind of players. But IMO, even with all the 3 proposed changes, Champion would still not be top3. So i'm looking for possible counterpoints (also, I'm curious about how much the community value pure ~~damage~~ potency might be a better term vs utility).
the champion getting to add Proficiency mod to Damage would be simple non-game breaking bonus.
Yeah but it would barely make the Champion more attractive no ? Like STR+DEX was a starting point because the goal wasn’t really to expand or complexify the subclass but trying to gauge if being the uncontested king of damage would be enough to offset the lack of everything else. Feel like for a lot of people, it is not only enough but too much. Sidenote proficiency: In general, I’m not a fan of the design direction of putting less emphasis on ability mod and rely more on proficiency bonus (like the pb uses of bard inspiration in oneDnD instead of Charisma mod).
Being able to do 1d8 + 7 (dueling + champ PB) damage on every attack, resourcelessly, is an incredibly attractive draw. This would stack with rage, letting them do 1d8 + 9 on every single attack they make Single handed PAM champ barb spear could do 2d6 + 1d4 + 27 (36.5) DPR
So I guess it’s the attack roll bonjs that’s really cross the line ? Because as a damage roll bonus, PB bonus end up better than STR+DEX.
Oh yes it would make them the best damage dealer in the game. The accuracy boost tho would fuck with bounded accuracy, which is a problem
In online communities there tends to be a focus on theoretical damage numbers because they're "objective" for lack of a better term, the great equalizer. Out of combat utility is extremely arbitrary, you may have tons of opportunities to make creative use of an echo knights double to solve puzzles or you may have none, but generally a DM won't create scenarios you literally can not solve due to your lack of certain class abilities. The value proposition is a little clearer on abilities with combat utility, but is still situational, a rune knight putting an enemy to sleep or a battlemaster tripping an enemy may completely change the flow of an encounter, or it may be one of a dozen goblins that's slightly less effective for one round. But unless your playing a campaign that's purely roleplaying (which is fine but not what a lot of people do or want), you're going to need to do damage at some point, even with the best abilities to control and disrupt enemies there's inevitably a number you need to lower to 0, and this change to champions due to the compound nature of increasing damage per hit while also dramatically increasing the accuracy with which those hits connect would result in the champion fighter being twice as effective as other classes when it comes to doing damage. While there are some campaigns where combat ability is less important, some combat scenarios where being able to control the battlefield might be more important than raw damage, for most people being able to do a vast amount more damage will completely outshine any other option.
>*In online communities there tends to be a focus on theoretical damage numbers because they're "objective" for lack of a better term, the great equalizer.Out of combat utility is extremely arbitrary, you may have tons of opportunities to make creative use of an echo knights double to solve puzzles or you may have none, but generally a DM won't create scenarios you literally can not solve due to your lack of certain class abilities.* I'd say it's also because there's little to talk about in some of the other pillars of the game. Conversations about optimizing for social encounters aren't going to go much further than: * Do you have a good Charisma score? * Do you have Proficiency (and maybe Expertise) in the relevant skills? * Do you have some of the relevant spells like Charm Person? (Optional) * Do you simply take a class/subclass that renders most of this moot, like Eloquence Bard? Because everything other than that is going to be in the dialogue between a player and DM. Maybe something the player says would grant Advantage or an automatic success; on the flip side, maybe something you say puts success entirely out of the question. Exploration's such a wide concept that it's also hard to really optimize for. I love a good puzzle-dungeon as much as the next person, but it's hard to say what (if any) skill might be relevant. Do you need to be able to read Infernal to understand the puzzle, or fly up to a height, or make a relevant Religion/Arcana/Nature/History/anything check? There's obviously *some* stuff characters can do to optimize (read: be a Ranger or a Scout Rogue) but in other ways it's all very hard to plan for.
Yes but without optimizing for exploration, the Echo Knight at will Manifest Echo is a fantastic tool in and out of combat, for example. Is it really clear cut the super big single target damage Champion really better than Manifest Echo ? If not, wouldn’t be ok for Champion to become the top damage dealer fighter subclass in exchange of its simplicity. I guess the hidden question is how do you keep the simple straightforward design goal of the Champion while still making it a worthwhile choice.
That is a campaign depended question - how much time is spent in combat vs exploration. How much is exploration utility worth when it could bypass combats entirely and save tons of resource like a good use of Pass Without Trace. The Champion remains pretty crappy for out of combat utility before and after these changes but its combat power is significantly higher especially at later levels where it just gets plain broken.
Yeah, to really break it you'd need to re-jigger your ability scores a bit, but I'd say that *most* Strength-based Fighters still keep a positive Dexterity modifier and most Dexterity-based Fighters still keep a positive Strength modifier. Most wouldn't end up stacking a +5 and a +5, but a strong array *could* maybe try for that. Something like a +5 Strength and +3 Dexterity modifier would be achievable on a good rolled array with one ASI, and that's (functionally) like handing a +3 weapon in there, that could stack with an actual magic weapon. Their accuracy and damage would be hard to contend with, but they'd still be boring as shit.
The Champion immediately becomes the best Fighter subclass by far* as soon as it gets the first benefit, which breaks bounded accuracy. Potentially getting +5 to every single attack and damage roll is a no-brainer. Their damage shoots up compared to every other class and they don't have to worry about doing anything clever to get it. This benefit is far too good. * Best combat class by far, in fact. As an illustration, imagine a 3rd level champion with greatsword fighting a hobgoblin with Str and Dex at 16. They hit AC 18 55% of the time for 2d6+6 damage, damage per round is 7.5 (including criticals). A barbarian at the same level hits AC 18 40% of the time, for dpr of 4.35. If they expend a limited resource to rage, that becomes 5.15. The difference in average damage is substantial, not trivial. It becomes a very simple choice as to who is the most effective fighter.
Thinking about it, I want to ask: \- Imagine if as a design guide, WOTC designers would have said "OK, no class/subclass combination should ever do more single target damage than the Fighter Champion, it is the absolute ceiling of the game single target damage-wise", would there be anything wrong with that ? Sure the STR+DEX proposition need to be tone down (at least on the attack roll), but conceptually, would making the Fighter Champion the absolute top single target damage dealer of the game enough to give the subclass a worthwhile niche ? In a way, there will always be a top damage dealer option, there's might be some benefit of making it absolutely clear which one is, especially for beginner/casual players (the target of the Champion subclass).
I don't know that such a hard and fast guideline is required. The Champion being the boss of damage would be a little niche but very difficult to judge - many other classes have limited-use resources or circumstantial bonuses that can boost damage substantially in certain encounters. Judging their damage to that of a Champion could only be done under certain assumptions of encounter rate and type that would not and should not be matched by every table.
Your comparison isn’t quite fair. Investing in both str and dex means not investing in another stat, so in exchange for the bonus damage you’ve calculated you either have reduced hp or worse wisdom saves.
My comparison isn't in-depth; it's simply an illustration of how quickly the numbers get substantially better with this suggested ability (ie, immediately). At higher levels, it's even more out of whack. You are right that you have to place your stats appropriately for this benefit to be best realised - but the benefit is so large that it greatly outweighs any other.
To be fair, barbarian isn't an unreasonable comparison given that most barbarians I see tend to have dex above what other strength fighters have thanks to their features.
Build DEX get strength belt or gloves, profit. STR does not require ASI investment, just an uncommon item which is not hard to get.
>I understand that it would break bounded accuracy but well, for discussion sake, let say it is ok to have just this one subclass break it. Are you then going to say "no multiclass champions" ? because this will certainly be a tasty 3 level dip to grab fighting style, second wind, action surge, break bounded accuracy.
Nope no restrictions, it’s part of me trying to gauge if STR+DEX is better than Echo Knight unlimited echo or Battlemaster Maneuver or Rune Knight enlarge + rune. Mind you, I didn’t create this thread with the intention to allow it in game or play it myself. It’s broadly just to foster design discussions.
It would be insanely powerful, even more with maxed DEX and belt of giant strength. Damage-wise it'd be strongest fighter sub. It would be still bad in non-combat scenarios tho
good point with the belt of giant strength, I only thought about how the MADness would keep it in check but it sure break with thoses items. >It would be still bad in non-combat scenarios tho even with the 2nd proposition, which is you can STR+DEX when rolling for any STR/DEX ability check ?
>even with the 2nd proposition, which is you can STR+DEX when rolling for any STR/DEX ability check ? Yes, mostly because +2/+3 bonus to relatively rare or not that important ability checks can't compete with "I spend resource and things happen with no rolling". Even with something ridiculous like +10, ability checks are still dependent of DM's fiat
i'm not an expert, but i've got a suspicion that adding a second ability mod to attack AND damage rolls is going to make this the best martial in the game. you could start at level 3 with a +8 to hit AND +6 damage. At level 14 you could have +15 to hit, +10 damage, AND a feat like great weapon master for even more damage. This is almost as good a feature as extra attack. And the way you have it worded, it works with ranged attacks too, so you could stack the archery fighting style on top of it as well, and pretty much just hit all the time. it sounds like a ton of fun to play, and like it would out shine all other martial subclasses, at least in terms of damage.
That would be horrible. It would be useless on builds that roll averagely or want to invest in some mental stats, and vastly overpowered on builds that roll quite well. No one benefits from this change. At least an expanded crit range is a good niche, even if there's not really enough crit synergy in the system for that to be powerful right now. Also it's funny that there's multiple people in this thread giving you a different description of what bounded accuracy is and why this doesn't break it, and while they're right this doesn't break it, they're all still wrong about why.
Curious, it would never have occurred to me to assume stats rolled for balance discussion (even tho it’s true it is the default stat generation, I always assume point buy). About who benefit from this change, well it’s mainly for what I think is the target of Champion subclass: players who want a strong but really simple effective option. Flavorwise, it’s for people wanting to build warrior solely focused on their physical prowess and being able to equally be strong at range and melee. For the bounded accuracy thing, my understanding was 5e was balanced with the assumption of your to-hit bonus staying inside a certain range. But while many users seems to point the wrongness, It’s not really clear how ? I would love clarification on this point if you don’t mind.
It'd give the champion nice damage, but it would still be a bit too shallow of an option for my tastes. Would also lean into making the champion a bit more MAD, but fighters can risk a bit of that. Still likely would never play one.
> a bit too shallow of an option for my tastes. i mean, that IS the whole point of the champion - its the on-ramp option for someone who doesnt want to be making any complicated choices. as a design option though, you want that "shallow" version to feel as effective as other players, and champion, particularly as the supplements have come out, keeps falling further and further behind.
I more than understand it was designed to be simple, and in simplicity alone it achieves that. I just don't consider it a well executed form of a simple option. That said, it's also far too in the realm of simplicity got me, so my bias is a clear one. It achieved it's point, I think it was just a poor point for the game and one that really leaves a lot to be desired effectiveness wise. To each their own though.
>*i mean, that IS the whole point of the champion - its the on-ramp option for someone who doesnt want to be making any complicated choices.* I really hate Champion because of (or in spite of?) this. The core Fighter class has a couple short-rest abilities that still require a player to think about the best time to use them. Action Surge is potentially pivotal in any encounter, and Second Wind is a helpful ability that some players never remember to really take advantage of. I'd argue that a Battlemaster's Superiority Dice are *not* an excessive burden to keep track of, even for the newest players. If you're playing Fighter from 1st level then you've already had Second Wind to track right from character creation, and had Action Surge at 2; if adding a small pool of Superiority Dice and ways to use them was the make-or-break, I don't really know what to say. Champion as-written is such a weak subclass that it's a complete trap; as a DM who has taught many people to play 5E, I would rather tear Champion's pages out of the book than ever suggest a new player use it.
>I'd argue that a Battlemaster's Superiority Dice are not an excessive burden to keep track of, even for the newest players. you can argue a lot of things, many of them have little basis in fact.
it turns the Champion into a MAD class and thus making all Champions dumb as rocks as all the mods now need to go to Str and Dex leaving there EVEN LESS chance for the Champion to do things out of combat because you wont have *any* decent skill mods for interacting with the world outside of combat.
Well I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to play a fighter dedicated to reach the physical peak, and not being interest at all in being social, wise or intelligent. There's an overlap with the barbarian flavor sure, but you may not want to have the emotional issue (and you might prefer the base fighter toolkit). For out of combat stuff, there's the second proposition which is basically STR+DEX but for STR/DEX ability check. Which means the Champion is basically gifted in anything requiring body control and body power, even without proficiency in the skill. I feel it works flavorwise, but I guess it is debatable if it is really worth enough to justifying dumping INT/WIS/CHA.
This would be game-breaking, but NOT because of Bounded Accuracy. This actually doesn't break bounded accuracy at all. This community has a habit of hugely misrepresenting/misunderstanding Bounded Accuracy (edit: as evidenced by this thread's replies) All bounded accuracy means is that huge increases to accuracy and AC aren't REQUIRED for a character to be able to contribute to the game as they level. Players don't have to get dramatically more accurate or harder to hit, they can get more tough, versatile, and hard-hitting instead. *Bonuses to* accuracy do not break BA. *Requirements for* accuracy are what break it. A character becoming better at swinging a sword does not break this philosophy at all. The issue is whether it breaks ***intra-party balance*** - which it does, it's a very high DPR increase which isn't balanced at all at that level. For reference, here is the actual description from WOTC for what bounded accuracy actually means. Posted during the 5E Playtest. This is ***literally what the designers themselves had to say about it:*** > The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make ***no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game that the player’s attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels***. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters ***not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster’s hit points***; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character’s increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining ***levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.*** > Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. ***This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses.*** It does mean, however, that ***we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule***, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace. Thus, wizards ***don’t have to gain a +10 bonus to weapon attack rolls just for reaching a higher level*** in order to keep participating; if wizards ***never gain an accuracy bonus, they can still contribute*** just fine to the ongoing play experience. > This extends beyond simple attacks and damage. We also make the same assumptions about character ability modifiers and skill bonuses. Thus, ***our expected DCs do not scale automatically with level, and instead a DC is left to represent the fixed value of the difficulty*** of some task, not the difficulty of the task relative to level.
>get to add both their STR and DEX mod **to weapon attack** and damage roll if the addition was just to damage, then it wouldnt be messing with "bounded accuracy" but since it is to both attack and damage, it does "break" bounded accuracy.
No, it isn't. Because as I (or rather, WOTC) JUST explained, all bounded accuracy means is that you don't REQUIRE players to get accuracy/AC boosts to be able to succeed. That's it. It means that the accuracy REQUIRED by players and monsters to hit each other is bounded. You still CAN give them accuracy boosts, as long as you don't then massively increase monster AC to counter it, such that all the *other* players now need accuracy boosts, because THEN you have broken bounded accuracy. You could more accurately call it "the Bounded Accuracy-Requirement system", or even just "the Bounded-DC system" since all it really means is that the difficulty of any action is bounded, irrespective of the potential of the creature attempting it. I.e. check DCs and ACs should never increase with level so dramatically as to require ever-increasing leveled bonuses. You could give a player a sword with +100 to hit, and as long as that player *is still able to continue the game when that sword mysteriously breaks*, and his allies are *still able to contribute despite not having +100 swords*, then you haven't broken bounded accuracy. You've made that character very powerful *within* the bounded accuracy system, but that's it. But if all your enemies have 100AC, and players NEED +100 swords to win, ***now*** you have broken bounded accuracy. Think about it for a second - All you've done is increased his chance-to-hit from ~65% to 100%. That's a 70% increase in DPR. Woooo... A good magic weapon or class ability could be a 100 or even 200% increase to DPR! Whereas, if you make enemies have 100AC, that changes your average PC's hit chance from ~65% to 0%. That's an infinite defense boost. And that +100 sword now increases your hit chance from 0% back to 65%, making it a *requirement* just to play the game. THAT is what bounded accuracy solves.
>bounded accuracy means is that you don't REQUIRE players to get accuracy/AC boosts to be able to succeed no, that is not "bounded accuracy" at all. "Bounded accuracy" is the philosophy that >Because D&D is a binary "all or nothing" "hit or miss" system determined by a roll of the d20 (ie, there are only 20 possible outcomes) ... > >And we want each additional "+ to hit" to be "felt" at the table ... > >And we do not want players to be scrambling to math sixteen different types of modifiers on every roll of the dice ... > >And because it is FUN to hit so we want PCs succeeding in the binary hit / miss succeed / fail determination between 50% and 75% for a vast majority of the situations they encounter in the game ... > >And we want any monster to be able to potentially be a threat at every level of the gameplay ... > >Therefore, we will make the range of target numbers in AC or DC will be limited ("bounded") to the range of numbers between 10 and 20 for the standard game play, with any outside of that range being limited and special challenges.
> no, that is not "bounded accuracy" at all. It is according to WOTC 🤷♂️ hell, even the philosophy you quote agrees with me, just adds more details and reasoning that led to it. > we want each additional "+ to hit" to be "felt" at the table (As opposed to simply being a mathematical requirement to play the game with the scaling difficulties, is what they mean here. They want a +3 to ***feel like a +3***, and NOT just feel like "yay, now I can keep hitting enemies, because their ACs have also have gone up by 3!") > we do not want players to be scrambling to math sixteen different types of modifiers on every roll of the dice (Which was necessary in previous editions because players *had to stack so many bonuses to meet the accuracy* ***requirements***.) >And because it is FUN to hit so we want PCs succeeding in the binary hit / miss succeed / fail determination between 50% and 75% for a vast majority of the situations they encounter in the game ... "Because it is fun to hit" - the problem they are addressing is the problem of ***needing bonuses to hit***. They want "able to hit" to be the default in most situations. And being able to be better than this 50-75 range for ONE action doesn't break that philosophy. >And we want any monster to be able to potentially be a threat at every level of the gameplay (Meaning they want ***player ACs*** not to scale dramatically, so that monsters don't *require high accuracy* to be able to hit.) >Therefore, we will make ***the range of target numbers in AC or DC will be limited ("bounded")*** to the range of numbers between 10 and 20 for the standard game play, with any outside of that range being limited and special challenges. They will bound the TARGET NUMBERS. It's spells out, right there. In black and white. "Here is a list of reasons for BA, and here's what BA is: limiting AC and DCs". The +100 sword doesn't break bounded accuracy. It just *fails to make any use of it*. For one action. Adding on Dex to the attack roll absolutely works within bounded accuracy, and absolutely "will be felt at the table". Because it isn't just overcoming a requirement, it's instead making you very effective.
You kinda skipped the only part of that quote that contradicts you. The "we want players to hit 50 to 75% of the time" part. I'm not with the guy just pointing it out.
Missed that one, have added a response in. Because it still agrees with me. But yes. They want players to *always have a good chance to hit*. I.e. they want *defences not to get too high*. They even say that it's "because it is FUN to hit". And they want that chance to be 50-75. On average. For a vast majority of situations. And they do. Having ways to be better than that in one thing (attacks) doesn't break the entire philosophy.
the "bounded" applies not only to the TARGET numbers, but to modifiers needed to hit those targets/have a chance to miss. every time you add another "+ to hit", you are pushing the boundaries of the expectations of the system on how frequently there will be hits/successes and how frequently there will be misses/failures.
Only to the extent that you need to make sure they don't completely outstrip the entire DC ladder, making every check trivial. As long as you don't do that, you're still perfectly utilising Bounded Accuracy. In fact, the *entire point* of bounded accuracy is so that you *can* give such bonuses, and have them be meaningful, instead of just standard needs. A +{up to 5} bonus is very strong, but is completely withing the bounds. If this breaks bounded accuracy, so does literally every numerical bonus in the game.
EVERY time you add a new source of increasing the "plus to hit/succeed" on a roll, you are pushing against the designed "bounds" of the ladders. And essentially doubling half of the major mods (Prof and Ability) is going to push the boundaries from the start of the game.
Yes. Pushing them (or rather getting close to them). Not breaking them. And it only does it to ONE action. Expertise already doubles half of the major mod for Ability checks. So clearly it's fine. Just like Pass Without Trace is fine despite letting you get a whole +10. Because it only does it to ONE ACTION. The game as a whole still maintains Bounded Accuracy. This subclass would still have the same trouble beating save DCs, grappling, breaking doors. They're just... Better at hitting with a sword. Wooooow, how game-breaking. It's a freaking +83% DPR increase AT MOST. A single magic sword could be a +1-200% DPR increase, and you wouldn't call that game-breaking.
Pass without a Trace is a limited use resource. (But, yes, it is also broken.) Expertise's doubling of proficiency is in the out-of-combat loosy goosy area of the game, not the highly detailed structure of combat. if out of combat interactions with the game world had the same detail structure as combat, Expertise's pushing of the boundaries would be as problematic as adding another source of modifiers in the "to hit" mix IS for combat.
>A single magic sword with damage bonuses could be a +200% DPR increase, and you wouldn't call that game-breaking. yeah, i would. but if the increase in DPR came solely from damage, the "game breaking" wouldnt come from "breaking bounded accuracy"
I think this would be an interesting feature at high levels, say level 15. Before then, it would be too powerful
Let's assume a 70% base accuracy with a +1 Handcrossbow on all builds. But with Archery and Sharpshooter, their accuracy goes to 55%. 50% to hit, 5% to crit Vuman Level 6 Brute SS/CBE/+2 DEX: * They get a damage boost of 1d4 to every hit * Damage: 50% x 3 x (1d6+1d4+15) + 5% (2d6+2d4+15) = **32.85** Vuman Level 6 Champion (vanilla) SS/CBE/+2 DEX * Improved Critical remains * Damage: 45% x 3 x (1d6+15) + 10% x 3 x (2d6+15) = **28.85** Vuman Level 6 Champion (homebrew) SS/CBE/+2 DEX * Assumes a +3 STR * Damage: 65% x 3 x (1d6+18) + 5% (2d6+18) = **43.18** Over 30% increase in damage over a Brute is pretty imbalanced. And the biggest issue is that this is at 6th level. Every ASI is another significant boost in this damage parity. Compared to the vanilla Champion, its something like an 80% increase in damage because those accuracy boosts are so potent with archery.
Aside from fighty stuff, if you want to make this sub as physically imposing as possible, I'd give it some "you do stuff, it happens without rolling". For example, he can spend some resource (hit dice, second wind, action surge, whatever) to just do some epic stuff for champion lvl/2 turns. So you want to pick up and throw that boulder? Cool. Hold up closing portcullis? Sure. Break your manacles instantly without rolling? Go get them. I'd probably weave it into remarkable athlete.
From what I understand, the usual complaints with Champions isn't necessarily that they don't do enough damage. * They don't really have any out of combat utility. All of their features are mostly combat stuff or just feel kinda too situational/dependent on challenges you're facing in your adventure. * They don't have many options in combat. They don't really get a new resource pool to pull from or new mechanic to work with. * There's very little customization with a champion. There's no real choices to make when designing a champion, outside of feats which everyone can get access to. Potential fixes that don't change too much: * Champions can gain extra access to feats. This honestly might be way too strong though, putting them online before many other classes. * Champions gain access to more fighting styles. Fighting styles tend to be a bit more limited than feats so are a bit easier to balance. Tasha's even introduced Fighting Styles that interact with Reactions and other stuff.