Critique my class rebalancing

[Erk]

I have two characters in my game whose power level I am getting annoyed by.

For context, I run a 6 player table including a valour bard, a stealth optimised wood elf rogue with longbow, a vengeance paladin, and a circle of the moon druid. The two problematic characters are a ranger specialising in two weapon, multi-opponent fighting, and a blaster fire dragon bloodline sorceress.

None of my players are optimisers at all, but they have all landed on some of 5e's many balanced class options (with the rogue happening on a particularly effective one, and then randomly rolling boots of elvenkind in a very early treasure find. She's bonkers). However, at level 3 the ranger is already peaking for power, and the sorceress is annoying both her player and the others with her incredibly limited spell list and generally minimal effectivenes. To make matters worse, the sorceress decided on extend spell and silent spell for her metamagic, and in general her spell selection is lackluster.

There's two ways this can go. I can tell the ranger and sorceress that they have Chosen Poorly, or I can make their choices into good/less bad ones. I am strongly opposed to the idea of a player choosing to create a character well within the stated concept space of the class, and winding up with that choice being terrible. Therefore, after discussion, my players and I have decided to fix their choices to be on par with the other players'.

Sorceress
I am still working on redesigning the draconic bloodline a little to make it work better, but in the meantime I am going to rebalance the metamagic she has chosen to be less sucky.

Distant spell Replace with Shaped spell:

When you cast a spell with a range of 1 square or greater, you can spend 1 sorcery point to double the range of the spell. Your target does not gain any bonuses from cover. Spells may target any creature you are able to detect so long as there is a path to the target, regardless of obstacles, bending around corners and squeezing through tight spaces to do so.
When you cast a spell that has a range of touch, you can spend 1 sorcery point to make the range of the spell 30'. This may be further extended as above with an additional point.
When you cast a spell with an area of effect, you can spend 1 sorcery point to add a number of 5' squares equal to your charisma modifier (minimum 1) to the area of effect: these are individual squares, not an increase in effect radius. Each added 5' square must be adjacent both to the original area, and if you add more than one 5' square the squares must be contiguous.

Extended spell: When you spend a spell that has a duration of 1 minute or more, you may spend 1 sorcery point to double its duration. If the extended spell requires concentration, your concentration cannot be broken unless you choose to end the spell voluntarily; you still may not cast any other concentration spells while this one is active.
Subtle spell: When you cast a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to cast it without any verbal or somatic components. You do not incur disadvantage for casting a ranged silent spell while an enemy is within five feet of you. Counterspell cannot be used against it, and any target that cannot detect you has disadvantage on any associated saving throws.

Ranger
I want the multiattack ranger to be able to spread damage out reasonably among two to four targets. The nature of multiple target attacking is such that the ranger can't scale upwards after learning hunter's mark and getting horde breaker; that's the big peak, at level three. There's a small boost at level 5 with extra attack and then it's really done for good. That means fighting giants with upwards of a hundred hp, the ranger is still doing 3d6+10 damage to one and 2d6+10 to the other (unless he uses whirlwind attack, then he gets to do 2d6+5 to one and 1d6+5 to a bunch. Huzzah). This is 3.5e fighter level stuff guys.

I think the easy solution is to give the multi-target ranger some limited ways to spread out his hunter's mark. This doesn't allow high stacking damage to each target, because the ranger still doesn't get a high volume of attacks on one target (maximum 3 if he uses his main attack, off-hand attack, and extra attack against a single target, and then horde breaker on another).

This is my retooled ranger google doc. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/16_szUcKhliW0vgQxIVrlTUVHXif28SETtJrctziZvD0/edit?usp=sharing) If you participate on the d&d reddit community you may have seen it already. In addition to a significant "improved hunter's mark" feature it has a lot of comparatively minor rebalancing of favoured enemy and favoured terrain as I feel these are far too situational, as are a few other less majorly rebalanced powers in the class.



Thanks for reading this overly verbose post. Hope you enjoy it, curious to hear your thoughts. I haven't posted here since the very early days of 4e, around the time I ran out of time to DM.

[Malifice]

I have two characters in my game whose power level I am getting annoyed by.

For context, I run a 6 player table including a valour bard, a stealth optimised wood elf rogue with longbow, a vengeance paladin, and a circle of the moon druid. The two problematic characters are a ranger specialising in two weapon, multi-opponent fighting, and a blaster fire dragon bloodline sorceress.

To be fair Moon druids and Paladins can seem pretty awesome.

Out of curiosity, how many rests/ encounters do they get in a standard adventuring day?

[Rusvul]

I'm not well versed in the finer points of game balance in 5e, however, despite the fact that you've worded your edits much better than most homebrew I've seen, I can see a few places your wording could be changed to better reflect (what I think is) your intention.


When you cast a spell with a range of 1 square or greater, you can spend 1 sorcery point to double the range of the spell. Your target does not gain any bonuses from cover. You may cast spells around corners and obstacles provided you can still detect the target.

I would change this to read either 'You may cast spells that target a creature or object around corners and obstacles provided you can still detect the target' or 'You may cast spells around corners and obstacles provided you can still perceive the intended target creature or area.'

Or something of the like. Point being, you refer to a target (implying a target creature) but give the ability to spells that do not target a creature. A logical change would be to either reinforce that implication or dispel it altogether.


When you cast a spell with an area of effect, you can spend 1 sorcery point to add a number of 5' squares equal to your charisma modifier (minimum 1) to the area of effect: these are individual squares, not an increase in effect radius. Each added 5' square must be adjacent both to the original area, and if you add more than one 5' square the squares must be contiguous.

This is an interesting idea. There was a similar ability in 3.5 that allowed Archmages to leave certain squares unaffected by their spells. An Archmage could, for example, cast a fireball centered on their party- vaporizing the horde of ghouls attacking them, but leaving the party unaffected.
If you're trying to buff Sorcerers, you might consider allowing the player to either add or remove their CHA mod in squares. So if a Sorcerer with 20 CHA casts a Fireball centered on herself, she could spend a sorcery point to leave herself unaffected (using 1/5 of her squares) and then use the other five to catch two ghouls who would not otherwise have been affected.

I'm not sure that would be balanced, though. You've already given Shape Spell a lot of utility, that might take it over the top. Again, though, I'm not the one who would know.

[Erk]

I would change this to read either 'You may cast spells that target a creature or object around corners and obstacles provided you can still detect the target' or 'You may cast spells around corners and obstacles provided you can still perceive the intended target creature or area.' thanks! Turns out that one is surprisingly tough to word. I think I made it clear on a second pass.


This is an interesting idea. There was a similar ability in 3.5 that allowed Archmages to leave certain squares unaffected by their spells. An Archmage could, for example, cast a fireball centered on their party- vaporizing the horde of ghouls attacking them, but leaving the party unaffected.
If you're trying to buff Sorcerers, you might consider allowing the player to either add or remove their CHA mod in squares. So if a Sorcerer with 20 CHA casts a Fireball centered on herself, she could spend a sorcery point to leave herself unaffected (using 1/5 of her squares) and then use the other five to catch two ghouls who would not otherwise have been affected.

I'm not sure that would be balanced, though. You've already given Shape Spell a lot of utility, that might take it over the top. Again, though, I'm not the one who would know. Archmage actually gave me the idea. There is already a metamagic that lets sorcs exclude allies, and I didn't want to give shape spell any more... Although I could consider combining the two and making shape spell also exclude allies, replacing the other metamagic with some of the other ideas I've had. Still thinking about it. Shape spell is definitely worth taking now but not necessarily comparable to the really potent metamagic.

[PeevedPenguin]

Distant spell Replace with Shaped spell:

When you cast a spell with a range of 1 square or greater, you can spend 1 sorcery point to double the range of the spell. Your target does not gain any bonuses from cover. You may cast spells around corners and obstacles provided you can still detect the target.
When you cast a spell that has a range of touch, you can spend 1 sorcery point to make the range of the spell 30'.
When you cast a spell with an area of effect, you can spend 1 sorcery point to add a number of 5' squares equal to your charisma modifier (minimum 1) to the area of effect: these are individual squares, not an increase in effect radius. Each added 5' square must be adjacent both to the original area, and if you add more than one 5' square the squares must be contiguous.



I like this; it may actually make distant spell an option worth considering. I want to point out that your wording for this is inconstant: alternating between feet and squares to measure distance. Typically the book measures distances in feet.



Extended spell: When you spend a spell that has a duration of 1 minute or more, you may spend 1 sorcery point to double its duration. If the extended spell requires concentration, your concentration cannot be broken unless you choose to end the spell voluntarily; you still may not cast any other concentration spells while this one is active.

This seems really good, like potentially too good. I haven't made a lot of concentrations checks in my time, but it seems with this metamagic option that you will always want to cast concentration duration spells using this since that means that you will have zero chance of loosing the spell to damage and it lasts twice as long. It's not going to break the game in any way but it's certainly something to look out for (unless of course you are fine with the sorcerer having concentration spells that can only be interrupted by incapacitating him).



Subtle spell: When you cast a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to cast it without any verbal or somatic components. You do not incur disadvantage for casting a ranged silent spell while an enemy is within five feet of you. Counterspell cannot be used against it, and any target that cannot detect you has disadvantage on any associated saving throws.

I like this option; it makes subtle spell a thing that isn't just a waste of sorcery points and metamagic in most situations.



If you're trying to buff Sorcerers, you might consider allowing the player to either add or remove their CHA mod in squares. So if a Sorcerer with 20 CHA casts a Fireball centered on herself, she could spend a sorcery point to leave herself unaffected (using 1/5 of her squares) and then use the other five to catch two ghouls who would not otherwise have been affected.

The thing is that evocation wizards already get something very similar to that as a single class feature. That and it's just way too many options for one kind of metamagic.

[Gwendol]

I have two characters in my game whose power level I am getting annoyed by.

For context, I run a 6 player table including a valour bard, a stealth optimised wood elf rogue with longbow, a vengeance paladin, and a circle of the moon druid. The two problematic characters are a ranger specialising in two weapon, multi-opponent fighting, and a blaster fire dragon bloodline sorceress.

Ranger
I want the multiattack ranger to be able to spread damage out reasonably among two to four targets. The nature of multiple target attacking is such that the ranger can't scale upwards after learning hunter's mark and getting horde breaker; that's the big peak, at level three. There's a small boost at level 5 with extra attack and then it's really done for good. That means fighting giants with upwards of a hundred hp, the ranger is still doing 3d6+10 damage to one and 2d6+10 to the other (unless he uses whirlwind attack, then he gets to do 2d6+5 to one and 1d6+5 to a bunch. Huzzah). This is 3.5e fighter level stuff guys.

I think the easy solution is to give the multi-target ranger some limited ways to spread out his hunter's mark. This doesn't allow high stacking damage to each target, because the ranger still doesn't get a high volume of attacks on one target (maximum 3 if he uses his main attack, off-hand attack, and extra attack against a single target, and then horde breaker on another).

This is my retooled ranger google doc. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/16_szUcKhliW0vgQxIVrlTUVHXif28SETtJrctziZvD0/edit?usp=sharing) If you participate on the d&d reddit community you may have seen it already. In addition to a significant "improved hunter's mark" feature it has a lot of comparatively minor rebalancing of favoured enemy and favoured terrain as I feel these are far too situational, as are a few other less majorly rebalanced powers in the class.



Thanks for reading this overly verbose post. Hope you enjoy it, curious to hear your thoughts. I haven't posted here since the very early days of 4e, around the time I ran out of time to DM.

Your ranger should be able to use a longbow as well, thus making good use of spells (hail of thorns, etc) as well as multi-opponent fighting. You might also want to take a look at the underdark ranger variant (November UA, WotC site), which looks like it will fit the style of play of your ranger.

[Erk]

I like this; it may actually make distant spell an option worth considering. I want to point out that your wording for this is inconstant: alternating between feet and squares to measure distance. Typically the book measures distances in feet. that's an artifact from my own game using squares... I should go back and fix it. I'm not sure a good way to calculate the added area besides defining them as added squares though.


This seems really good, like potentially too good. I haven't made a lot of concentrations checks in my time, but it seems with this metamagic option that you will always want to cast concentration duration spells using this since that means that you will have zero chance of loosing the spell to damage and it lasts twice as long. It's not going to break the game in any way but it's certainly something to look out for (unless of course you are fine with the sorcerer having concentration spells that can only be interrupted by incapacitating him).I thought about this being advantage on concentration instead, but it becomes quite situational. Concentration checks are pretty rare in my experience, and I think it's nice for the sorc to be able to guarantee a spell is going to work, that kinda seems like their schtick to me. If you think of most of the RAW good metamagic, you're going to always want to use it too (quicken spell, heightened spell, twinned spell), it's just that you can't always.


I like this option; it makes subtle spell a thing that isn't just a waste of sorcery points and metamagic in most situations.thanks!


The thing is that evocation wizards already get something very similar to that as a single class feature. That and it's just way too many options for one kind of metamagic.
That's pretty much my thought too, but it being a wizard thing seals it nicely.

----


Your ranger should be able to use a longbow as well, thus making good use of spells (hail of thorns, etc) as well as multi-opponent fighting. You might also want to take a look at the underdark ranger variant (November UA, WotC site), which looks like it will fit the style of play of your ranger.
This is kind of what I was referring to when I said I don't want to tell my players "don't play what you want to play, it's bad, here's something else". The underdark ranger has a lot of material I'm looking at for balance ideas, but my ranger really wants to be a woodsman with two axes who goes to town when surrounded. She doesn't want her bulky bearded bushman to be an archer, and really, relying on ranger aoes with the bow or thrown axes is mostly just going to allow him to be overshadowed by the paladin in melee and the sorcerer and rogue at range. It won't fix his deficiency in either of those design spaces because it still doesn't offer on par damage nor resource efficiency.

[Gwendol]

Why is that a problem? The ranger is not the King of DPR of this game, and trying to play it that way will lead to frustration and disappointment. The Underdark Ranger is new options, not a new class. Offer the player to consider elements of it in exchange for the usual Hunter abilities.
Not having a ranged weapon is gimping yourself, and for what reason exactly? It's hard to figure the ranger foraging sustenance for the team without the help of a bow, sling, or other hunting weapons.

The ranger brings a lot of utility to the team, and some truly unique abilities, but it is not a combat monster.

[Markoff Chainey]

I like your ideas with the Sorc, because I also think that they need a small buff. - The most common idea to fix the root-problem is to enlarge their spell list like the Favored Soul. I am not sure if the enhanced metamagic is that helpful. While it would be a buff, it is not solving the main problem (not enough spells).

I totally fail to see your problem with the ranger... besides the point that taking "ranged" away from ranger is like taking away heavy weapons from a barbarian.. your concern is his DPR. Please look up Kryx's DPR analysis and you will find that the ranger is quite decent but behind any other Fighter or Barbarian when it comes to damage output. If you do what you propose, you simply cut down the class.

That you do not have any troubles with the Moon Druid bewitches me and the pally, when played right, should outdamage the ranger by far as well.

[Demonic Spoon]

For your sorcerer, I'd argue that her metamagic choices weren't bad... the metamagic choices just need to match the spells she chose. Subtle Spell is at its most useful for things like charm or illusion spells. If your player does not have any of those kinds of spells, it's going to seem worse.

I would lean away from rebalancing metamagic simply because it will have unintended consequences later down the line. They're only level 3 now, they've presumably got a long way to go. I would doubly suggest not providing a way around the concentration mechanic.

Why not sit down with her and figure out what she wants her character to be able to do, and help her choose spells and metamagic based on that?

With regards to the ranger, (3d6+10) + (2d6+10) doesn't seem like bad damage to me.

[Erk]

I like your ideas with the Sorc, because I also think that they need a small buff. - The most common idea to fix the root-problem is to enlarge their spell list like the Favored Soul. I am not sure if the enhanced metamagic is that helpful. While it would be a buff, it is not solving the main problem (not enough spells).

I totally fail to see your problem with the ranger... besides the point that taking "ranged" away from ranger is like taking away heavy weapons from a barbarian.. your concern is his DPR. Please look up Kryx's DPR analysis and you will find that the ranger is quite decent but behind any other Fighter or Barbarian when it comes to damage output. If you do what you propose, you simply cut down the class.

That you do not have any troubles with the Moon Druid bewitches me and the pally, when played right, should outdamage the ranger by far as well.
Sorc: I'm working on a bloodline for this sorcerer that solves the spell list issues. It's just taking longer and I wanted to post the metamagic for critique while I finish the Planar Scion.

Ranger: I haven't taken any ranged away from the ranger, but that's not my point. The ranger isn't a strict ranged class, it's billed as a skilled and deadly hunter. Melee twf is explained and mechanically attempted as a core part of the ranger, but if my player chooses those options her character will be, frankly, pretty sad. Given the ranger's highly situational class features and lacklustre spell options as well, there really isn't much to recommend the class unless you choose a few very specific builds. That's the design space I aim to fix. I don't want to increase ranger single target dpr at all, but I want to make rangers able to inflict meaningful damage on multiple targets as they level. I think you maybe didn't look at the proposed changes though?

Druid: I actually did have some issues with moon druid but I got around them quickly. Hp gains from the shifted form are temp hp and once you get through those you lose damage to your natural hp. If your hp drops to zero you return to your natural form with 1hp. Your physical attributes cannot increase by more than your proficiency modifier. I didn't post these changes because I got most of them from elsewhere. I also haven't had much trouble finding plot reasons to force the moon druid to use up his wild shape uses.

[Gwendol]

I looked at them still think you are missing the mark.

[Erk]

I looked at them still think you are missing the mark.
I could use more to go on then. You said you were concerned about me removing ranged options, but I haven't touched those, and you described me cutting down the class when I have strictly added to it (nothing has been taken out). You also agreed that ranger damage lags behind all other melee classes, we only disagree on whether or not that needs fixing. What is missing the mark?

Edit: I just realised that I deleted my preamble in the google doc so I think I know why you're confused. My fault. The changes are for hunter archetype rangers and any class features not mentioned in the doc are not changed. I should go through and clarify that. I apologize for being a bit testy.

Update: I significantly restructured the document to describe the changes much more clearly. Hope that helps, again I'm sorry... I should have taken my own advice about reading it, I thought I'd done much of that already.

[Gwendol]

Ok, so reading through the proposed changes I make the following observations:

Favored enemy: Way too many. In 3e the ranger got 5 favored enemies, in 5e you get three, but you want to give them 7. As far as the actual benefit is concerned this isn't so bad but more below.

Natural explorer: Why one every level? Also, the text isn't quite clear what is considered familiar. Lastly you have 13 terrains listed, which means the ability kind of gets meaningless the last seven levels.

Spellcasting: nice addition, a keeper!

Hunter's mark: I agree with the basic reasoning of lifting out a spell that really should have been a class ability. My suggestion is to do that in this case, so that Hunter's mark becomes an ability rather than a special case of ranger spellcasting. Your plan for how to increase the damage and the introduction of Quarry is fine, but if you make this an ability instead you need not worry so much about concentration and casting other spells. I do not think favored enemies should become quarries automatically when detected using primeval awareness. Also, these changes combined with having a minimum of 2x the number of favored enemies just means most will be available for quarry, which goes against the idea of having a favored enemy to begin with.

Primeval awareness: You should keep the spell slot cost. Also, the info gained is way too much (no save, no way of escaping detection?). Let the ranger do some tracking to reveal number of monsters and what not. As written it invalidates diviners.

Land's stride: again, not really necessary to make those changes. Automatically pass saves vs anything plant related is ok I guess, but why include advantage vs spells like hold person, etc?

Looking at the sum of changes I have to say that this ranger variant will be over the top. Cut down the number of FE's and favored terrain to the original, revoke the changes to primeval awareness and land's stride, and I think you have a better proposal.
If you want to only focus on the dual wielding aspect I suggest inspiration from some of the proposed TWF fixes floating around.