Which subclasses dropped the ball and how would you fix them?

[Specter]

Greetings.

I've seen this discussion in many places, but this time I'd like to hear it from you in a streamlined fashion. I'll start:

TRICKERY CLERIC
- What's wrong: No bonus proficiencies, Blessing of the Trickster is very situational and having to use your own senses for the illusion is lame.
- How to fix it: give them a choice between Deception, Sleight of Hand or Stealth, with a doubled proficiency bonus. Proficiency in (at least) shortswords and rapiers. Make the illusion have its own senses, which you can switch with yours, like Beast Sense.

BEASTMASTER RANGER
- What's wrong: almost sure everyone knows by now, but the action economy havoc created by this beast makes for the worst subclass ever.
- How to fix it: Make the beast a bit weaker, but have it act on its own, like conjured animals. Also, give the ranger an option to revive the beast with a ritual (or even a spell), instead of just sending it to its death carelessly.
_____________________

[coredump]

I have more tweaks for base classes:


Rangers: All Rangers can have a pet. A Beastmaster would get slightly more powerful pets and could do more with them. (more than now)
Rangers: All Rangers would be many more favored terrains and favored enemies. They have mostly RP interactions, but pick the wrong 1-2 and the never come into play.

Sorcerer: They don't need more spells. But they do need more metamagic. I would likely double their access to metamagic. Only a few spells, but can *really* make them do whatever he wants.

[MrStabby]

So the usual two are beast ranger for being clunky and Elemental Monk.

Beast ranger should probably never have been, but could be fixed.

Elemental monk has so many ways it could be fixed - at the moment I am thinking of just making the spells bonus action rather than an action to make it more of a nova archetype that trades Ki efficiency for peak power.


I have to disagree on trickery cleric - some of the features are not great but it is somewhat offset by an awesomely versatile channel divinity and a fantastic spell selection.

[MrFahrenheit]

Your class is your steak. Your subclass is how you eat it. I.e., if you make a steak burger and then try to eat it with a fork and knife, that's not how it was meant to be eaten. You have to realize that not all subclasses are going to be DPR focused, or that some which would seem like they should have high AC won't...but have other ways to avoid damage. You wouldn't put a rogue in plate and shield, but you would have him bonus action hide each round he can. A beast master has a bit more control versatility than the hunter's straight up DPR.

[Specter]

I have to disagree on trickery cleric - some of the features are not great but it is somewhat offset by an awesomely versatile channel divinity and a fantastic spell selection.

Hey, I left out that horrible poison damage and the fact that several classes can become invisible with less resources and in a better way.

But I see your point.

[MrFahrenheit]

And on that note, some sub classes are meant to be more altruistic than others. I haven't experienced a trickery cleric yet, but am very curious to see one (and may even mandate one of my more experienced players to have one as his backup).

And many things are situational. If you're an assassin and don't get a surprise round? Sucks for you, assassinate. Thief going up against an item-less enemy? Tough luck, fast hands. Others are quantitative: running low on spell slots? Better conserve those smites, mr. Paladin. Used up your maneuver dice? Your play is gonna be quite boring, battle master.

It's all relative in 5e. And that's why I love it.

[Specter]

I don't really care about DPR, or usefulness; what I care about is a concept that isn't properly executed. There's almost nothing a Trickery Cleric can do that a Wizard or an Arcane Trickster can't, for instance. Isn't it weird that you're devoted to trickery and you don't have any trickery skills from your class?

As for the ranger's companion, that's one of the few things 3.5 did right: it wasn't a gamebreaker, but it provided an awesome ranger-buddy feel, and in 5e I just feel like I have an animal bothering me rather helping me. Don't think it should be like that.

[JackPhoenix]

Any wizard, warlock or sorcerer. The ball in question being their arcane focus orb. I would fix them by increasing their dexterity, so such fumbles won't happen again.

[Nifft]

I don't really care about DPR, or usefulness; what I care about is a concept that isn't properly executed. There's almost nothing a Trickery Cleric can do that a Wizard or an Arcane Trickster can't, for instance. Isn't it weird that you're devoted to trickery and you don't have any trickery skills from your class? Not really.

You get to be a full Cleric, plus you have a few Trickery-themed ... er ... tricks. You're not supposed to out-Thief the Arcane Trickster. You're not supposed to out-Illusion the Illusionist.

They can't out-Cleric you, after all.

[Mongobear]

Not exactly a sub-class dropping the ball, per se, but imo, I feel that the entire 5e Ranger class from the PHB is pretty lackluster. I would much prefer if the Unearthed Arcana playtest version was introduced as a patch/SCAG-esque alternative, thos 5 levels of a test class were so much more interesting than the full class to me.

On topic of the thread though, I feel War Cleric was a pretty bad attempt at making a "Fighter-y" Cleric. The features are good, and do what they needed to do, but in practice, they have so few uses that you run out of gas quickly, and are just right back to a spell battery or generic attacks.

[Shaofoo]

I wouldn't call it drop the ball on the subclass itself but I am a bit miffed that Elemental Monks can't get more spell variety. I would think that the Elemental themed guide filled with elemental spells there would be a bone to throw to the elemental monk but it just wasn't meant to be.

[Rysto]

Overall Light Clerics get plenty of goodies, but the fifth level domain spells (Flamestrike and Scrying) are deeply disappointing. It would have to take a very strange situation for a Light Cleric to want to cast Flamestrike over another option like Fireball, and Scrying is a very situational spell. It doesn't compare well to some of the fifth level spells other domains get.

[Zalabim]

I think the Trickery cleric is supposed to be the rogue's priest. Sure, he can help with a heist. But he can also be that person you go to just before a heist for a blessing: Pass Without Trace and advantage on Stealth checks for an hour. Arcane Tricksters and Illusionists can't provide that.

With invoke duplicity, there's really no way to know which is the real cleric if you didn't see it activated until one of them hits you with a melee attack. Unless that was Inflict Wounds, or they're both in melee range. I think this ability is supposed to prevent one or more attacks from being properly targeted at the party. Assuming you have proper scouting, it's a nice extra option to bring into battle with you. If it's proving too weak, then it could drop the concentration requirement.

[Giant2005]

The Ranger dropped the ball more than most - they seemed to use a basic design concept for every class, and then strangely chose to use a reduced version of that concept for the Ranger.
As for how I would fix it, the link is in my signature.

[wunderkid]

See I actually don't think the ranger was'that' derped. You can still have a fully functional ranger throughout the day who still brings utility through his pet. It wasn't done seamlessly and doesn't have the highest dpr ill give you that but it still works.

Now the frenzy barbarian on the other hand basically shuts down class features with each rage.
1st - no longer advantage on your grappling and kicking down doors while raging, disadvantage on that and everything else while not raging.
2nd - your increased speed is nerfed.
3rd - you now need to reckless attack just to not have disadvantage on all attacks.
4th - your mega hit dice for being a barb is now effectively that of a wizards.
5/6 you're now a glorified potato/dead.

Only the 5th level spell can reduce your exhaustion level by 1. And most casters won't want to do that. (unless I've missed something).

Not to mention you need to rage to get the extra attack from frenzy so to keep relevant you need to be raging (although polearm master will only lose you a small amount of dpr without risking exhaustion or requiring rage so to me its be better choice but also takes an asi)

Simple fix - introduce a spell or mechanic that allows you to remove exhaustion more effectively. Not to the point the barbarian never has to worry about it. But so that he isn't quite so restricted to basically one rage a day before he starts getting naff. Maybe as a 2nd/3rd level spell so the casters are more likely to have the slots spare to help you?

[EvilAnagram]

BEASTMASTER RANGER
- What's wrong: almost sure everyone knows by now, but the action economy havoc created by this beast makes for the worst subclass ever.
- How to fix it: Make the beast a bit weaker, but have it act on its own, like conjured animals. Also, give the ranger an option to revive the beast with a ritual (or even a spell), instead of just sending it to its death carelessly.
It's actually one of the more powerful subclasses, with many strong options and a ton of potential. Maybe put more effort into thinking through the possibilities than reading every other knee-jerk opinion on the internet. Your fix just makes it less powerful in order to give the Ranger another attack, which is boring. When I picked a Beast Master, I did it because I wanted a useful beast companion, and that's what this class delivered.

[PoeticDwarf]

Greetings.

I've seen this discussion in many places, but this time I'd like to hear it from you in a streamlined fashion. I'll start:

TRICKERY CLERIC
- What's wrong: No bonus proficiencies, Blessing of the Trickster is very situational and having to use your own senses for the illusion is lame.
- How to fix it: give them a choice between Deception, Sleight of Hand or Stealth, with a doubled proficiency bonus. Proficiency in (at least) shortswords and rapiers. Make the illusion have its own senses, which you can switch with yours, like Beast Sense.

BEASTMASTER RANGER
- What's wrong: almost sure everyone knows by now, but the action economy havoc created by this beast makes for the worst subclass ever.
- How to fix it: Make the beast a bit weaker, but have it act on its own, like conjured animals. Also, give the ranger an option to revive the beast with a ritual (or even a spell), instead of just sending it to its death carelessly.
_____________________

I'd add berserker.

Maybe elemental monk, champion fighter and thief rogue

[EvilAnagram]

Challenge to this thread: make it about actual structural weaknesses in classes, and not about your personal preferences. Structurally sound classes that some people don't enjoy include Champion, Thief, and Elements Monk. You could probably throw in Beast Master, too, but it's so unpopular people will claim it's structurally weak anyways.

[Shaofoo]

Challenge to this thread: make it about actual structural weaknesses in classes, and not about your personal preferences. Structurally sound classes that some people don't enjoy include Champion, Thief, and Elements Monk. You could probably throw in Beast Master, too, but it's so unpopular people will claim it's structurally weak anyways.

Well I guess if killing yourself accidentally with Frenzy would be considered a structural weakness then I wonder why doesn't Wild Sorcerer get a lot more flak, Beserker needs 6 full fights before he dies due to exhaustion while a Wild Sorcerer can die with an unlucky roll on the Wild Magic table without him doing anything wrong in the first casting he makes. Sure chances are he won't have a fireball centered on him but quite frankly I would rather have a few tables that scale up with level and effect so that none of the effects can take a Sorcerer from full HP to dead in one misfire, I am not saying none of the effects should not damage but that none that can deals average damage more than twice the Sorcerer's HP.

[EvilAnagram]

Well I guess if killing yourself accidentally with Frenzy would be considered a structural weakness then I wonder why doesn't Wild Sorcerer get a lot more flak, Beserker needs 6 full fights before he dies due to exhaustion while a Wild Sorcerer can die with an unlucky roll on the Wild Magic table without him doing anything wrong in the first casting he makes. Sure chances are he won't have a fireball centered on him but quite frankly I would rather have a few tables that scale up with level and effect so that none of the effects can take a Sorcerer from full HP to dead in one misfire, I am not saying none of the effects should not damage but that none that can deals average damage more than twice the Sorcerer's HP.

The possibility that a Berserker could kill itself is kind of ridiculous. That would be analogous to suicide.

And with Wild Magic, the only possibility that's actually problematic is Fireball. The fix there is simply taking that off the list, and for most Wild Magic Sorcerers it's simply never going to pop up.

[BladeWing81]

I'd add berserker.

Maybe elemental monk, champion fighter and thief rogue
There's no maybe about it, elemental Monk and Champion fighter suck, the thief rogue is not bad just extremely lackluster compared to the other two in a DPR aspect in the first 10 levels, but when you see one in action disabling traps with a bonus action or sneak up on guards with advantage and taking a turns in the surprise round and then 2 in the first round. then you get the feeling something went right with this archetype.

[EvilAnagram]

There's no maybe about it, elemental Monk and Champion fighter suck, the thief rogue is not bad just extremely lackluster compared to the other two in a DPR aspect in the first 10 levels, but when you see one in action disabling traps with a bonus action or sneak up on guards with advantage and taking a turns in the surprise round and then 2 in the first round. then you get the feeling something went right with this archetype.

You might not like Champion Fighter, but it's great for people who enjoy hitting things.

Similarly, you might not enjoy Elemental Monks, but they're strong as monks who can occasionally spike their damage or act as controllers.

[eastmabl]

There's no maybe about it ... Champion fighter suck[s]....

If you don't want to make a lot of choices, a Champion is a pretty solid fighter. It's a great class for someone with training wheels.

What do you do? You hit things better than most people, and you're quite good at the "strong" and "tough" things.

[Spacehamster]

There's no maybe about it, elemental Monk and Champion fighter suck, the thief rogue is not bad just extremely lackluster compared to the other two in a DPR aspect in the first 10 levels, but when you see one in action disabling traps with a bonus action or sneak up on guards with advantage and taking a turns in the surprise round and then 2 in the first round. then you get the feeling something went right with this archetype.

Champion fighter is great, just bit boring that it's all passive abilities, half Orc champion fighter yes please, and as a dip it's great for martial centered classes imo. :)

[mgshamster]

If you don't want to make a lot of choices, a Champion is a pretty solid fighter. It's a great class for someone with training wheels.

What do you do? You hit things better than most people, and you're quite good at the "strong" and "tough" things.

Champion fighter is my wife's favorite class. She's effective and doesn't have to worry about tracking any abilities or uses - resource management is not a part of the game she enjoys.

[Democratus]

Agreed about Champion fighter. It's a great simple class for players who don't want to fiddle with special powers.

At our table we recognize Beast Master Ranger as the worst 5e translation of a class. Frankly, all of the Ranger class is rather uninspired.

I think the fix for this would have to be drastic. Something that has fighting capability plus cross-country/wilderness functionality. The Outlander background steals the spotlight that could have been on the Ranger for providing food and water to a party. Which is sad.

Maybe if the animal companion was more like a paladin's mount - a spirit creature that represents the ranger's bond with nature. As the ranger levels there should be special powers gained by both the PC and the creature.

[Spacehamster]

Champion fighter is my wife's favorite class. She's effective and doesn't have to worry about tracking any abilities or uses - resource management is not a part of the game she enjoys.

Exactly this, also plays well into other classes that gets lots of damage die, paladin and barbarian beeing prime examples, 3 levels champion on a barbarian that hits with advantage should net you many strong crits. :)

[Naanomi]

Beastmaster, while sound on power level, is mechanically funky so use adjustments to 'feel right'... Not sure how to implement that though. Feels 'worse' because it is built on a weakfish ranger chassis

Ranger as a whole relies on situational abilities too much. Needs a general broadening of abilities across settings; or big increase in power boost in its niche settings

Elemental monk needs broader 'spell-list' and maybe slight tweaking on Ki costs (I recommend choosing a 'specialty' element at some level and reducing the cost of everything by 1 Ki in that element); though like beastmaster is another class that 'feels wrong' more than 'plays wrong'

I'm also not terribly impressed with Undying Patron warlocks on sight but don't have any table experience with them to judge clearly

Berserker tends to feel too punitive to get just one extra attack (that takes your bonus action). Either increase the bonus (more crit chance? Big temp HP pool?) or give a 'freebie' each short rest. Making the extra attack 'free' instead of bonus would broaden appeal to more fighting styles

But my biggest: Wild Sorcerer. GM discretion shouldn't turn off my subclass at a whim. If a DM doesn't like a subclass, ban it at their table... Don't let them decide later the schtick has gotten old and you don't ever roll for wild surges anymore

[Belac93]

I feel like beastmaster ranger companions should have a way to attack without having to be ordered to every 6 seconds, and elemental monks need more options or, failing that, more ki points.

[EvilAnagram]

The most accurate complaint about the Ranger I'd that it doesn't feel right. Personally, I think the class feels fine in actual play, but most people active in the community won't play it.

In actual play, there are powerful, effective builds that feel perfectly fine. The classic Wolf is a solid example. So long as you are next to your Wolf, you and he act as one. You provide him with advantage, he attempts to pull your enemy prone (giving you advantage). If your bonus action is free, he can help you get advantage, too. You're a K-9 cop working an equal partner in a very fluid way.

Or look at an archer with a flying poisonous snake. She harassed your enemies with powerfully damaging flyby bites while you unleash hell via Hail of Thorns or Lightning Arrow. Again, she can give you advantage as a bonus action if you're simply using Hunter's Mark.

And let's not forget how awesome a Halfling or Gnome with Mounted Combatant can be.

The worst thing you can truthfully say about the Ranger is that after level 12, you might get more use out of multiclassing Rogue than sticking with Ranger.

[Specter]

It's actually one of the more powerful subclasses, with many strong options and a ton of potential. Maybe put more effort into thinking through the possibilities than reading every other knee-jerk opinion on the internet. Your fix just makes it less powerful in order to give the Ranger another attack, which is boring. When I picked a Beast Master, I did it because I wanted a useful beast companion, and that's what this class delivered.

No.

Not only it's mechanically weird, but it makes no sense at all. You have to waste your action telling your companion to do something people in real life do with simple verbal commands? And then when it's already attacking someone, you have to order it to attack again with an action or it just stands there? Please.

Shall we talk about the bonus actions? People say BM gets good at level 7 with Exceptional Training, but every time you're ordering it to give you advantage you're either:
a) not casting Hunter's Mark
b) not attacking with your off-hand weapon
c) not firing another shot (for those with Crossbow Expert).

So I'll just tame a wolf in the wild and have it join me in battle, while making my own damage comparable to a Fighter's.
And don't get me wrong, I love Rangers and Beastmasters, but as I said, I don't want a baby to take care of during battle, I want a partner, like in 3.5.

[EvilAnagram]

Not only it's mechanically weird, but it makes no sense at all. You have to waste your action telling your companion to do something people in real life do with simple verbal commands? And then when it's already attacking someone, you have to order it to attack again with an action or it just stands there? Please.
How is it wasting your action when you're making effective attacks? I mean, I wouldn't be a Beast Master if I didn't want my beast to attack, but using my action to attack with the beast is wasteful? There is some sense missing there.

Plus, you get to attack, too, except during levels three and four. So, you're getting the natural benefits of a well-chosen companion, an extra op-attack, and the same number of base attacks as any other martial at level 5, but it's a waste?


Shall we talk about the bonus actions? People say BM gets good at level 7 with Exceptional Training, but every time you're ordering it to give you advantage you're either:
a) not casting Hunter's Mark
b) not attacking with your off-hand weapon
c) not firing another shot (for those with Crossbow Expert).
True, you have to not take certain options in order to gain free advantage, but the point is that you have more options. And if I cast Hunter's Mark against someone, it's cast for an hour. Aside from occasionally switching targets, I don't need to use my bonus action any more. At worst, this archetype slightly favors single-weapon Rangers, which is hardly a downside since you get two extra attacks with your companions at 11.


So I'll just tame a wolf in the wild and have it join me in battle, while making my own damage comparable to a Fighter's.
And don't get me wrong, I love Rangers and Beastmasters, but as I said, I don't want a baby to take care of during battle, I want a partner, like in 3.5.
The 5e Ranger is a solid partner without breaking action economy, and your wolf won't stand a chance against a Wolf companion.

[Specter]

How is it wasting your action when you're making effective attacks? I mean, I wouldn't be a Beast Master if I didn't want my beast to attack, but using my action to attack with the beast is wasteful? There is some sense missing there.

Plus, you get to attack, too, except during levels three and four. So, you're getting the natural benefits of a well-chosen companion, an extra op-attack, and the same number of base attacks as any other martial at level 5, but it's a waste?

True, you have to not take certain options in order to gain free advantage, but the point is that you have more options. And if I cast Hunter's Mark against someone, it's cast for an hour. Aside from occasionally switching targets, I don't need to use my bonus action any more. At worst, this archetype slightly favors single-weapon Rangers, which is hardly a downside since you get two extra attacks with your companions at 11.

The 5e Ranger is a solid partner without breaking action economy, and your wolf won't stand a chance against a Wolf companion.

You didn't answer my question. My point is not just DPR, I'm fine with that, but why does the animal stop doing something unless you keep asking him to do it over and over again, and without doing anything yourself? This is a complete abstraction from reality.

But let's say I were to talk about DPR and survivability and best builds and whatnot. At level 3 the BM gets a Wolf, woohoo! The Wolf deals 2d4 + 2 + proficiency on a hit, for an average of 9. Any ranger at that point is already dealing similar damage, so... what? Better stick to that extra 1d8 from Hunter, or maybe an extra situational attack from Horde Breaker.

At level 7, the beast can do some stuff with a bonus action, yes! Except that limits your own bonus actions, and rangers are bonus-action heavy, so... meh. The Hunter gets solid defensive buffs for either multiattacks or avoiding AoOs.

The only good Beastmaster builds are the mounted ones, precisely because the beast doesn't have to steal your actions, just move. But I'm pretty sure everything I'm saying here has already been said elsewhere, so let's move on.

[wunderkid]

You didn't answer my question. My point is not just DPR, I'm fine with that, but why does the animal stop doing something unless you keep asking him to do it over and over again, and without doing anything yourself? This is a complete abstraction from reality.

Oh yes I forgot that people shapeshifting into beasts, or calling lightning from the skies, or creating matter from nothing is firmly based in reality.

It's a game of mechanics, therefore some things may not be exactly how you would expect them to work in real life, like how a lightning bolt doesn't mess up someone's muscles and drop them prone.

You want a beast? You pay the price of using your action to have it do stuff. It's not worse than the other subclass, it's just a little more situational, e.g. someone hiding behind cover, either A) you go forward and cuddle them putting yourself into a situation you really don't want to be in or B) send your trusty companion round the corner to om nom on them.

It's like a police attack dog, they are trained not to take any action unless commanded to do so. So it's not even abstract from reality.

Yes they could have given the class a little more punch. Or some feature that would allow more flexibility from your pet. But as it stands it's not a horrible class (at least nowhere near as bad as the frenzy barbarian in my opinion).

[EvilAnagram]

why does the animal stop doing something unless you keep asking him to do it over and over again, and without doing anything yourself?
Because otherwise it breaks the action economy. They discuss this in an Unearthed Arcana. If you got to take two turns at once, everyone would complain that the Beast Master is OP and no one would want to play that terrible Hunter who only gets one measly turn each round.

Besides, it feels way more like you're instinctually connected to your companion when you attack using the same action.


This is a complete abstraction from reality.
Did you mean to use a different word? Because it seems like you meant to use a different word.


But let's say I were to talk about DPR and survivability and best builds and whatnot. At level 3 the BM gets a Wolf, woohoo! The Wolf deals 2d4 + 2 + proficiency on a hit, for an average of 9. Any ranger at that point is already dealing similar damage, so... what? Better stick to that extra 1d8 from Hunter, or maybe an extra situational attack from Horde Breaker.
The draw of the wolf is attacking with advantage and being able to pull enemies prone, not just the decent damage. Plus, an extra op attack that can knock an enemy prone is pretty sweet.

Of course, if you want DPR just grab a Giant Poisonous Snake and outshine the Hunter with ease.


At level 7, the beast can do some stuff with a bonus action, yes! Except that limits your own bonus actions, and rangers are bonus-action heavy, so... meh. The Hunter gets solid defensive buffs for either multiattacks or avoiding AoOs.
On the other hand, only TWF Rangers use their bonus action every turn, so now every other Ranger gets to fill all those unused bonus actions with free advantage! I know, I'm just seeing the glass as full instead of potentially empty.


The only good Beastmaster builds are the mounted ones, precisely because the beast doesn't have to steal your actions, just move. But I'm pretty sure everything I'm saying here has already been said elsewhere, so let's move on.
Counterpoint: there are a ton of good Beast Master builds because the companion isn't "stealing" anything, just making it more awesome. But I'm pretty sure everyone who has spent any considerable time actually playing a Beast Master instead of being mad about it on the internet already knows this, so let's move on.

[Giant2005]

See I actually don't think the ranger was'that' derped. You can still have a fully functional ranger throughout the day who still brings utility through his pet. It wasn't done seamlessly and doesn't have the highest dpr ill give you that but it still works.

I agree - the Ranger isn't that "derped", just a little short-changed.
The problem with the Ranger is that it is such a theme-heavy class that they needed to give it a whole bunch of Ribbon abilities to capture the flavor. In their usual class design, a Ribbon counts as half of an ability, so two of them are the equivalent of one ability. The problem with the Ranger is that they forgot to account for his greater than average number of Ribbons, and so he has a couple of abilities less than he should have.
There are other issues too of course - they certainly got the short end of the stick regarding their spellcasting for instance.

[EvilAnagram]

I agree - the Ranger isn't that "derped", just a little short-changed.
The problem with the Ranger is that it is such a theme-heavy class that they needed to give it a whole bunch of Ribbon abilities to capture the flavor. In their usual class design, a Ribbon counts as half of an ability, so two of them are the equivalent of one ability. The problem with the Ranger is that they forgot to account for his greater than average number of Ribbons, and so he has a couple of abilities less than he should have.
There are other issues too of course - they certainly got the short end of the stick regarding their spellcasting for instance.

Honestly, the only fixes I would suggest for Rangers would be making Hunter's Mark a short rest class feature instead of a spell, and making it clear that proficiency gets added to beast companion DCs. Suddenly, HM can coexist with Hail of Thorns and other Ranger spells, and they stay much more competitive after level 12.

[SharkForce]

the "fix" for berserker i'm liking most that i've seen (not my idea, but can't remember who) is that frenzy just costs 2 rages instead of one, and does not cause exhaustion.

it's very simple and easy to explain, applies a definite cost to frenzy that is significant until level 20, has a cost that will be felt enough to make you want to use it only when you really need to, but when you need to you can use it without worrying about gradually cascading into uselessness due to gaining levels of exhaustion faster than you can get rid of them, and you don't guilt-trip anyone into giving up their precious resources just so that you can actually use your subclass abilities.

but mostly it's the simple part. you don't need a big long explanation, you don't need to track frenzy exhaustion separately from regular exhaustion, you don't need to change any other important rules, you just make one small, simple change, and it pretty much fixes the problem.

[Specter]

Oh yes I forgot that people shapeshifting into beasts, or calling lightning from the skies, or creating matter from nothing is firmly based in reality.

Exactly. If I'm playing a fantasy game, I expect the creatures in it to be better than those in real life, not worse.


Because otherwise it breaks the action economy. They discuss this in an Unearthed Arcana. If you got to take two turns at once, everyone would complain that the Beast Master is OP and no one would want to play that terrible Hunter who only gets one measly turn each round.

Besides, it feels way more like you're instinctually connected to your companion when you attack using the same action.

Did you mean to use a different word? Because it seems like you meant to use a different word.

The draw of the wolf is attacking with advantage and being able to pull enemies prone, not just the decent damage. Plus, an extra op attack that can knock an enemy prone is pretty sweet.

Of course, if you want DPR just grab a Giant Poisonous Snake and outshine the Hunter with ease.

On the other hand, only TWF Rangers use their bonus action every turn, so now every other Ranger gets to fill all those unused bonus actions with free advantage! I know, I'm just seeing the glass as full instead of potentially empty.

Counterpoint: there are a ton of good Beast Master builds because the companion isn't "stealing" anything, just making it more awesome. But I'm pretty sure everyone who has spent any considerable time actually playing a Beast Master instead of being mad about it on the internet already knows this, so let's move on.

1) That's why I mentioned tuning the beast down in HP or something, so that it can act freely without anyone being mad. It worked for 3.5, why wouldn't it work now?
2) Who knows.
3) Good point. Except a hunter can also do the tripping with Conjure Animals, and a lot better. He may also take the venom from the snake and use it in any way he wants, both are nice.
4) Actually I have played as one, as a PC (panther) and with a level 7 NPC (rooster). My avatar here is a ranger. The takeaway from that is that I never felt adequate in melee, only in the exploration part with Beast Sense and Speak With Animals (that pillar of the BM is okay).

Also, don't be the kind of nerd that projects anger in the people he debates with, that's kind of an old trick.

[wunderkid]

Exactly. If I'm playing a fantasy game, I expect the creatures in it to be better than those in real life, not worse.

But... They are better? They add your proficiency to basically everything. They are unequivocally better than their real life counterparts.

What you want isn't something better, what you want is something imbalanced from the sounds of it. A way of having a pet that's not only stronger but also doesn't cost you anything in terms of rest resources or action economy, that will also be completely obedient.

You want a pet that acts on its own tame it. But don't be surprised when it doesn't always do what you want it to. You want reliability and actual control over your pet? Suck it up and be willing to spend your actions to do so. Because even a tamed animal will need verbal and visual prompting to attack who you want it to. So it's going to take an action either way only with beastmaster you know the pet will actually carry out your orders and not get distracted.

Yes the ranger could have been better built. I'm certainly not calling it the best class out there by a country mile. But what it does do is have its own niche of having a combat proficient pet who will follow your orders without fail.

[R.Shackleford]

But... They are better? They add your proficiency to basically everything. They are unequivocally better than their real life counterparts.

What you want isn't something better, what you want is something imbalanced from the sounds of it. A way of having a pet that's not only stronger but also doesn't cost you anything in terms of rest resources or action economy, that will also be completely obedient.

You want a pet that acts on its own tame it. But don't be surprised when it doesn't always do what you want it to. You want reliability and actual control over your pet? Suck it up and be willing to spend your actions to do so. Because even a tamed animal will need verbal and visual prompting to attack who you want it to. So it's going to take an action either way only with beastmaster you know the pet will actually carry out your orders and not get distracted.

Yes the ranger could have been better built. I'm certainly not calling it the best class out there by a country mile. But what it does do is have its own niche of having a combat proficient pet who will follow your orders without fail.

What is being asked may be imbalanced, though we have summoning spells so... Maybe not.

However what people want is an animal companion that works logically.

Growing up I had a guard dog/attack dog. If I told the dog to attack, it would continue to attack until I said so or until the thing was dead. It wouldn't stop every 6 seconds and ask if I still wanted him to attack.

The ranger's beast is worse because it stops and (essentially) asks for permission to continue attacking.

Edit

Personally I would make animal companions work like the Essential's Druid and not like the 4e Ranger.

Have them be about control and a bit about damage and you could balance them.

[Specter]

You want a pet that acts on its own tame it. But don't be surprised when it doesn't always do what you want it to. You want reliability and actual control over your pet? Suck it up and be willing to spend your actions to do so. Because even a tamed animal will need verbal and visual prompting to attack who you want it to. So it's going to take an action either way only with beastmaster you know the pet will actually carry out your orders and not get distracted.

Yes the ranger could have been better built. I'm certainly not calling it the best class out there by a country mile. But what it does do is have its own niche of having a combat proficient pet who will follow your orders without fail.

There's another issue: in 3.5 we had tricks for the companion, things it knew how to do. But in 5e, if I want it to guard a particular hall and attack any enemy, will he understand? If I tell it to fetch an object from my foe, will he do it? It's all up to the DM, and I don't like that.

Agreed, R. Shackleford.

[EvilAnagram]

1) That's why I mentioned tuning the beast down in HP or something, so that it can act freely without anyone being mad. It worked for 3.5, why wouldn't it work now?
Because it does not address the problem and instead places you in a position in which you are either OP or completely lack archetype benefits.


3) Good point. Except a hunter can also do the tripping with Conjure Animals, and a lot better. He may also take the venom from the snake and use it in any way he wants, both are nice.
Conjure Animals, according to Crawdad, does not allow you to choose the animals conjured. Even if it did, the Hunter wouldn't be able to do it any better than the Beast Master, since he'd have an extra, more powerful creature. And a Hunter with snake poison can't do as much damage as a Beast Master with a poisonous companion because he gets to add proficiency to the poison damage roll.



4) Actually I have played as one, as a PC (panther) and with a level 7 NPC (rooster). My avatar here is a ranger. The takeaway from that is that I never felt adequate in melee, only in the exploration part with Beast Sense and Speak With Animals (that pillar of the BM is okay).
Sorry you didn't enjoy yourself, but I felt quite than adequate in melee with a wolf and a panther, and that campaign ended around 9 before Bestial Fury kicked in.


Also, don't be the kind of nerd that projects anger in the people he debates with, that's kind of an old trick.
Who's projecting? I'm reading the anger from your words and intense italicizing of whole clauses when you feel like we're not acknowledging how right you are .

[wunderkid]

I agree tricks and fluffy things for the pet would be amazing. And definitely what they should have put in. But even spending your action each turn they can remain competitive in DPR. So my fix would be simply allowing them to get their pet to do more things with that action that are 'cool'

[EvilAnagram]

I agree tricks and fluffy things for the pet would be amazing. And definitely what they should have put in. But even spending your action each turn they can remain competitive in DPR. So my fix would be simply allowing them to get their pet to do more things with that action that are 'cool'

That's why I think proficiency should be added to their save DCs. Suddenly, you have a lot of creatures that can exercise more impressive battlefield control.

As it is, they're more limited. It's still fun to send the Giant Badger underneath your enemies for the surprise round.

[MrFahrenheit]

The action economy thing sucks, but that's only early on. Yes it doesn't make sense for the animal to use your action, but perhaps another way of thinking about it would be that the beast is still in training. If I tell my dog to stay after he first learns the command, he's not going to do so very long, and I may have to correct him repeatedly. But after a month of reinforcement, he will do so on his own, and for a good length of time, after a quick hand signal.

[R.Shackleford]

The action economy thing sucks, but that's only early on. Yes it doesn't make sense for the animal to use your action, but perhaps another way of thinking about it would be that the beast is still in training. If I tell my dog to stay after he first learns the command, he's not going to do so very long, and I may have to correct him repeatedly. But after a month of reinforcement, he will do so on his own, and for a good length of time, after a quick hand signal.

I think that action economy problem lasts like 7 levels... That's a long time and typically the entire life of a character.

A beast should be ready to go at level 1, hell even a background, and at least by level 3. Making someone wait for cool class features while giving them crap is a bad game design. Especially so when others get to be "then" by level 1, 2, or 3.

[rhouck]

But my biggest: Wild Sorcerer. GM discretion shouldn't turn off my subclass at a whim. If a DM doesn't like a subclass, ban it at their table... Don't let them decide later the schtick has gotten old and you don't ever roll for wild surges anymore

So much this. That was a terrible design decision. It's a really fun subclass right now as the DM lets me roll to renew whenever I ask and cast a spell, but if he ever changes his mind, the class becomes crap :(


Sorcerer: They don't need more spells. But they do need more metamagic. I would likely double their access to metamagic. Only a few spells, but can *really* make them do whatever he wants.

And also this. Especially given how situational many of them are; for example, it's hard to take Subtle over Twin just given how often the latter will be useful versus the former. Sorcerer already has to make really hard choices with respect to spell selection -- they shouldn't have to do the same with metamagics.

They should add being able to choose another at 6th level, and another at 14th (who cares if it overlaps with getting subclass features at the same time). That would give you 6 of the 8 available by 17th level, and feel like you are steadily learning more. The gap between 3rd and 10th level sucks, especially given the length of many campaigns (and especially for AL games).

[Segev]

I would suggest that any argument coming from "but that's unrealistic" should be dropped if we're going to discuss whether a class is, mechanically, up to par or not.

It doesn't matter if it's realistic that a given class can walk on the air by patting his head and rubbing his tummy; all that matters is whether the occupation of both hands and Concentration requirement for this air-walking ability is balanced.

The question, therefore, is whether the Beastmaster Ranger is, in fact, up to par with other classes. Arguments trying to demonstrate that it is not should focus on what it is lacking, mechanically, to achieve parity with other classes.

The DPR argument has, effectively, been conceded by the pro-"it's fine" side, as they have dismissed it as being "all anybody cares about" in these "internet arguments." And it has been brought up anyway, and in bringing it up it seems to have truth to it.

The counter offered by implication, of not outright declaration, is that the DPR argument is not valid because you pick up the Beastmaster subclass for something other than DPR. What does it offer that makes up for this DPR? I have not seen the suggestions, there, beyond "it's flavorful to have a beast companion."

What can it do that you can't do without taking this subclass? How does this make it on par with a Hunter Ranger, or a Moon Druid, or a Thief Rogue?

[R.Shackleford]

I would suggest that any argument coming from "but that's unrealistic" should be dropped if we're going to discuss whether a class is, mechanically, up to par or not.


The problem is that it isn't realistic within the realm of the setting or game.

Mounted combat rules make the beast master ranger companion very illogical.

An independent mount will keep attacking (if that is it's nature) without more input. A trained companion and level 3 feature should be able to the same.

[Segev]

The problem is that it isn't realistic within the realm of the setting or game.

Mounted combat rules make the beast master ranger companion very illogical.

An independent mount will keep attacking (if that is it's nature) without more input. A trained companion and level 3 feature should be able to the same.

Again, "doesn't make sense" isn't a sound argument. However, since you're comparing it to another existing mechanic, that gives us a more useful point of comparison: can a Beastmaster Ranger do anything with his companion that a rider and his trained independent mount cannot?

What do you give up playing a Hunter Ranger with a trained independent mount, vs. playing a Beastmaster Ranger? How about a Fighter with a trained independent mount? How does a Paladin or Bard with find steed compare to the Beastmaster Ranger?

[R.Shackleford]

Again, "doesn't make sense" isn't a sound argument. However, since you're comparing it to another existing mechanic, that gives us a more useful point of comparison: can a Beastmaster Ranger do anything with his companion that a rider and his trained independent mount cannot?

What do you give up playing a Hunter Ranger with a trained independent mount, vs. playing a Beastmaster Ranger? How about a Fighter with a trained independent mount? How does a Paladin or Bard with find steed compare to the Beastmaster Ranger?

Making sense, within the confides of a setting, is everything to a lot of people. Liking consistency is human nature. This is how people become immersed into the game/world.

[Friv]

You might not like Champion Fighter, but it's great for people who enjoy hitting things.

Similarly, you might not enjoy Elemental Monks, but they're strong as monks who can occasionally spike their damage or act as controllers.

So, the trick is, Champion Fighter is definitely weaker than the other Fighter subclasses at lower levels. When you compare the three, IIRC, the Champion pulls ahead of the Battlemaster at high levels for sheer damage output, whereas the Battlemaster does as much damage as the Champion at low levels and also provides a lot of tricks, but gradually peters out as its dice don't grow very fast. The Eldritch Knight is a bit stronger than the Battlemaster early on, and a bit stronger than the Champion later on.

What it is not is less fun. The things it does aren't as strong, but they're simple, as you say, and easy to deal with. And while the difference is definitely noticeable if you have a Champion in the same game as a Battlemaster who's devoting their Battlemastery to high damage output, it's not very noticeable if you have a Champion in a game with a rogue, a sorcerer, and a cleric, because the Champion is still out-damaging everyone else.

With all of that, I think the Champion could use a couple of low-level buffs that keep it simple and easy, and the Battlemaster could use more superiority die access at high levels. Of course, I would also give the Fighter as a whole a small bonus to non-combat activities, which I note only because it modifies a Champion ability. Specifically:

*) At Level 3, the Champion chooses a third Save to be proficient in.
*) (Special) At Level 6, the Fighter adds half their proficiency bonus to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution checks that aren't attacks or saves. This counts as an expertise bonus, and doesn't stack with expertise.
*) At Level 7, the Champion gets half proficiency to all saves that they aren't already proficient in.
*) At Level 10, the Champion can't roll below an 8 on any Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution check they're proficient in. The Battlemaster recovers a superiority die whenever they roll a critical hit in combat.
*) At Level 18, if the Battlemaster rolls a 1 on one of their superiority dice, it isn't spent.

[R.Shackleford]

So, the trick is, Champion Fighter is definitely weaker than the other Fighter subclasses at lower levels. When you compare the three, IIRC, the Champion pulls ahead of the Battlemaster at high levels for sheer damage output, whereas the Battlemaster does as much damage as the Champion at low levels and also provides a lot of tricks, but gradually peters out as its dice don't grow very fast. The Eldritch Knight is a bit stronger than the Battlemaster early on, and a bit stronger than the Champion later on.

What it is not is less fun. The things it does aren't as strong, but they're simple, as you say, and easy to deal with. And while the difference is definitely noticeable if you have a Champion in the same game as a Battlemaster who's devoting their Battlemastery to high damage output, it's not very noticeable if you have a Champion in a game with a rogue, a sorcerer, and a cleric, because the Champion is still out-damaging everyone else.

With all of that, I think the Champion could use a couple of low-level buffs that keep it simple and easy, and the Battlemaster could use more superiority die access at high levels. Of course, I would also give the Fighter as a whole a small bonus to non-combat activities, which I note only because it modifies a Champion ability. Specifically:

*) At Level 3, the Champion chooses a third Save to be proficient in.
*) (Special) At Level 6, the Fighter adds half their proficiency bonus to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution checks that aren't attacks or saves. This counts as an expertise bonus, and doesn't stack with expertise.
*) At Level 7, the Champion can't roll lower than 8 on those checks.
*) At Level 10, the Champion gets half proficiency to all saves that they aren't already proficient in. The Battlemaster recovers a superiority die whenever they roll a critical hit in combat.
*) At Level 18, if the Battlemaster rolls a 1 on one of their superiority dice, it isn't spent.

Simple Champion I've seen in play.

Level 3: When you hit with a weapon attack, you may push the creature up to 10'.

Level 6: Gain Expertise in Athletics or Acrobatics. This goes to whichever score is higher.

Level 7: Your attacks bypass resistance and immunity to non-magical weapons. Your aim and power is just that damn good.

Level 10: Indomitable is a short rest. When you use indomitable the reroll is a Con Save.

Level 18: When you use second wind you may also expend Hit Dice to heal. You gain 2 hit dice back for each short rest.

[jas61292]

So, the trick is, Champion Fighter is definitely weaker than the other Fighter subclasses at lower levels. When you compare the three, IIRC, the Champion pulls ahead of the Battlemaster at high levels for sheer damage output, whereas the Battlemaster does as much damage as the Champion at low levels and also provides a lot of tricks, but gradually peters out as its dice don't grow very fast. The Eldritch Knight is a bit stronger than the Battlemaster early on, and a bit stronger than the Champion later on.

What it is not is less fun. The things it does aren't as strong, but they're simple, as you say, and easy to deal with. And while the difference is definitely noticeable if you have a Champion in the same game as a Battlemaster who's devoting their Battlemastery to high damage output, it's not very noticeable if you have a Champion in a game with a rogue, a sorcerer, and a cleric, because the Champion is still out-damaging everyone else.

With all of that, I think the Champion could use a couple of low-level buffs that keep it simple and easy, and the Battlemaster could use more superiority die access at high levels. Of course, I would also give the Fighter as a whole a small bonus to non-combat activities, which I note only because it modifies a Champion ability. Specifically:

*) At Level 3, the Champion chooses a third Save to be proficient in.
*) (Special) At Level 6, the Fighter adds half their proficiency bonus to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution checks that aren't attacks or saves. This counts as an expertise bonus, and doesn't stack with expertise.
*) At Level 7, the Champion gets half proficiency to all saves that they aren't already proficient in.
*) At Level 10, the Champion can't roll below an 8 on any Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution check they're proficient in. The Battlemaster recovers a superiority die whenever they roll a critical hit in combat.
*) At Level 18, if the Battlemaster rolls a 1 on one of their superiority dice, it isn't spent.

I like a lot of these, though I would probably specifically say the level 3 thing should always be Dex saves for the Champion. Their whole thing is being the ultimate physical specimen, so giving them proficiency in all physical saves is fitting, while handing them, say, Wis saves, seems off.

[Segev]

Making sense, within the confides of a setting, is everything to a lot of people. Liking consistency is human nature. This is how people become immersed into the game/world.

I don't dispute that. That, however, is not an argument that the class is underpowered, weak, or unbalanced. It is an argument that its fluff and feel are wrong. These are two very different things. For all that I loathe 4e for its feel as a game, it IS pretty well balanced. Or at least was. Especially compared to 3e.

[Belac93]

I don't dispute that. That, however, is not an argument that the class is underpowered, weak, or unbalanced. It is an argument that its fluff and feel are wrong. These are two very different things. For all that I loathe 4e for its feel as a game, it IS pretty well balanced. Or at least was. Especially compared to 3e.

Agreed. 5th edition, I feel, took the actual D&D feel from 3.5/2e/1e games, but has the balance of 4e.

And, with the fluff and feel thing, the beastmaster fluff does not line up well with the mechanics. It took my dog a week to learn to fetch, and another 2 to bring whatever he got back. When he does, it takes less than a second for me to command him, and he will keep doing whatever he was ordered to.

Beastmaster pets on the other hand, take 8 hours to train to do everything, but then...You have to tell them to do stuff every 6 seconds. Say you want your pet to run across a large field, kill a bird, and then run back. Can you imagine how that would look to everyone else?
"Go get the bird, Fido!"
"Go get the bird, Fido!"
"Go get the bird, Fido!"
"Go get the bird, Fido!"
"Kill the bird, Fido!"
"Pick up the bird, Fido!"
"Bring it back Fido!"
And so on.

Lets say the animal you are trying to tame isn't quite as smart or obedient, as modern day dogs are. It should take at least a week to train them, but when you do, the benefits should be more flavorful than just a free Help action every round.

Although a character who does nothing but command his beast companion would be pretty funny. Maybe a technical pacifist, who doesn't want to fight themselves?

[Friv]

I like a lot of these, though I would probably specifically say the level 3 thing should always be Dex saves for the Champion. Their whole thing is being the ultimate physical specimen, so giving them proficiency in all physical saves is fitting, while handing them, say, Wis saves, seems off.

That would make sense; I left it open-ended because I like the idea of a Champion who's just too strong-willed to dominate, or too much of a leader to fail Charisma saves, or just so perceptive that he sees through illusions. But "Dex" is a pretty reasonable alternative.

[Tanarii]

I love the Beastmaster Ranger. But I agree it's a little weird in how it almost restricts what are often (at least in modern D&D) base Ranger concepts. The biggest problems on that front is it doesn't play well with TWF bonus actions or Hunter's Mark. I feel like it was custom made for a Ensnaring Strike build, or even one just saving spells for non-combat (or Healing) functionality. As well as, if your beast is going to be your primary attacker, a S&B build. Or even 2H/sentinel (including reach from polearms, although PAM has the same bonus action issues). It also gives you the advantage of being two places at once, which can be huge if you're in a tight space where zone denial via OAs or even just physically blocking is relevant.

In a nutshell, I like that it is strong with some non-traditional Ranger builds. But like I said, it seems weird to have a subclass that almost contradicts the archetype.


Berserkers (in particular Frenzy) I think is somewhat problematic. Especially when compared to the opportunity cost of not being Totem.


Sorcerers I feel both standard Subclasses are overly 'thematic', for a class that seems designed to be generic. That's more a flavor thing though.


Elemental Monks, I used to think they're balanced for Ki cost. But after several of these types of threads, I'm starting to think they're a little limited in terms of opportunity cost. As someone pointed out to me in another thread, the other subclasses get to do things without draining their primary Monk resource just to do it.

Trickery is tricky. It's clearly not designed to be a rogue replacement, so much as a standard cleric who is also a combination rogue-buffer and illusionary/tricksy self-defender. Although IMO they work well for a Cleric/Thief or Cleric/Assassin. (As a side note, I've been trying to shoehorn a "classic" Half-Orc Cleric Assassin out of the latter. It's been irritating me to no end that Str and Sneak Attack don't synergize very well.)

[Segev]

Agreed. 5th edition, I feel, took the actual D&D feel from 3.5/2e/1e games, but has the balance of 4e.

And, with the fluff and feel thing, the beastmaster fluff does not line up well with the mechanics. It took my dog a week to learn to fetch, and another 2 to bring whatever he got back. When he does, it takes less than a second for me to command him, and he will keep doing whatever he was ordered to.

Beastmaster pets on the other hand, take 8 hours to train to do everything, but then...You have to tell them to do stuff every 6 seconds. Say you want your pet to run across a large field, kill a bird, and then run back. Can you imagine how that would look to everyone else?
"Go get the bird, Fido!"
"Go get the bird, Fido!"
"Go get the bird, Fido!"
"Go get the bird, Fido!"
"Kill the bird, Fido!"
"Pick up the bird, Fido!"
"Bring it back Fido!"
And so on.

Lets say the animal you are trying to tame isn't quite as smart or obedient, as modern day dogs are. It should take at least a week to train them, but when you do, the benefits should be more flavorful than just a free Help action every round.

Although a character who does nothing but command his beast companion would be pretty funny. Maybe a technical pacifist, who doesn't want to fight themselves?

Okay, then, is the complaint that it is weird and that the flavor doesn't work? Is that the sum total of the complaint? It is not a "terrible" class in terms of being 5e's equivalent of the 3e Monk (which was the impression I got from the way it's been discussed)?

Because those are two entirely different complaints, which if related are only indirectly so. And solutions to one or the other, while needing to keep in mind the other, should be made based on what the real problem is, not based on a misperceived problem.

[Belac93]

Okay, then, is the complaint that it is weird and that the flavor doesn't work? Is that the sum total of the complaint? It is not a "terrible" class in terms of being 5e's equivalent of the 3e Monk (which was the impression I got from the way it's been discussed)?

I wouldn't say its terrible. I would say its one of the worst options in 5th edition so far, but its still not awful. It has problems with actually doing what it says it can do, but its actual mechanics, while no Sorcerer or Paladin, still deal a fair amount of damage, and are effective at other things as well.

I just hate the fact that I can't fight beside my pet wolf until a higher level, and before that, one of us has to fight on our own. It sorta takes out the "Working as a team" aspect.

Other people may have had different complaints, I skimmed the previous pages a little.

[Nifft]

I love the Beastmaster Ranger. But I agree it's a little weird in how it almost restricts what are often (at least in modern D&D) base Ranger concepts. The biggest problems on that front is it doesn't play well with TWF bonus actions or Hunter's Mark. I feel like it was custom made for a Ensnaring Strike build, or even one just saving spells for non-combat (or Healing) functionality. As well as, if your beast is going to be your primary attacker, a S&B build. Or even 2H/sentinel (including reach from polearms, although PAM has the same bonus action issues). It also gives you the advantage of being two places at once, which can be huge if you're in a tight space where zone denial via OAs or even just physically blocking is relevant.

In a nutshell, I like that it is strong with some non-traditional Ranger builds. But like I said, it seems weird to have a subclass that almost contradicts the archetype. Excellent point.

It would be really nice if Rangers had some kind of non-TWF options in the base class, so you could build a 1e Ranger rather than being required to emulate Drizzt.


Elemental Monks, I used to think they're balanced for Ki cost. But after several of these types of threads, I'm starting to think they're a little limited in terms of opportunity cost. As someone pointed out to me in another thread, the other subclasses get to do things without draining their primary Monk resource just to do it. Right.

The Shadow Monk can shadow-teleport all day long, for free, and can use Minor Illusion all day long as well. Cloak of Shadows and Opportunist don't cost Ki.

The Open Hand Monk does need to spend Ki on Flurry in order to trigger the Open Hand Technique benefits, but then gets significant buffs without further expenditure. Wholeness of Body and Tranquility don't cost Ki.

The Elemental Monk gets Prestidigitation, which is nice, but doesn't measure up to what the others get without spending Ki.


(As a side note, I've been trying to shoehorn a "classic" Half-Orc Cleric Assassin out of the latter. It's been irritating me to no end that Str and Sneak Attack don't synergize very well.)
Yeah, the Thug Rogue is sadly not a thing in 5e.

[Segev]

Yeah, the Thug Rogue is sadly not a thing in 5e.

What would the "Thug Rogue" do, thematically? I ask because it could either be a refluffed Assassin rogue, or could have enough material to make a new subclass out of it, depending on what you see it doing.

[Nifft]

What would the "Thug Rogue" do, thematically? I ask because it could either be a refluffed Assassin rogue, or could have enough material to make a new subclass out of it, depending on what you see it doing.

Basically be a balanced Str + Dex build which benefits from Str and uses heavier weapons but retains the light armor focus.

1e had a Backstab which multiplied Str bonus damage; 3e Rogues (and Thug Fighters) had the ability to Sneak Attack with anything, including a Greatsword; 4e Rogues had some powers which added Str to damage.

It'd be nice if 5e had a subclass which played into that sort of thing.

[Tanarii]

I just hate the fact that I can't fight beside my pet wolf until a higher level, and before that, one of us has to fight on our own. It sorta takes out the "Working as a team" aspect.

This complaint makes no sense to me. I often fight besides my Companion, and I started at level 3. Just because I'm not always making attack rolls didn't mean we weren't a cooperative fighting team, and I wasn't actively using my weapon to threaten the opponent. Hell, my Wolf got advantage because we fought together.

Even when split up, with one of us on the front lines and the other guarding a squishy, we still both fought. We still both got to make OA attacks (or in my case, Sentinel attacks), defended ourselves actively (ie got our base AC), and stopped enemies from waltzing through the square we occupied by virtue of fighting in it.

"Fighting" in D&D doesn't just mean "make an attack roll".

[wunderkid]

I still can't help but look at the frenzy barbarian and think that rangers have it easy despite all the complaints xD

[Segev]

Basically be a balanced Str + Dex build which benefits from Str and uses heavier weapons but retains the light armor focus.

1e had a Backstab which multiplied Str bonus damage; 3e Rogues (and Thug Fighters) had the ability to Sneak Attack with anything, including a Greatsword; 4e Rogues had some powers which added Str to damage.

It'd be nice if 5e had a subclass which played into that sort of thing.

Thug
Rogues know that there is no such thing as an "unfair" advantage, and those with strength and brute cunning will hone those advantages alongside their more dexterous and savvy endeavors. A thug may look like dumb muscle, but you know you're much more than that. Not that those whose heads you cave in for underestimating you will appreciate their error for long.

Backstab
At 3rd level of rogue, when you select this archetype, you can use Sneak Attack with any weapon. You also gain Advantage on any attack roll made as part of an Opportunity Attack.

Dirty Fighting
At 3rd level of rogue, when you select this archetype, you may choose one Dirty Fighting Technique. You may choose an additional one at levels 8, 12, and 16 in the class. Saving throws against your dirty fighting techniques are made against a DC of (8+proficiency bonus+Strength bonus). You also gain Proficiency with Strength saves.

Dirty fighting techniques
Bite: In a scrap, you use every weapon at your disposal. You gain a bite attack which deals 1d4 damage. You are proficient with this weapon attack.
Cornered Rat: When hit with an attack, you may take expend your reaction to use a dirty fighting technique you know on your attacker.
Desperate Move: You resort to your nastiest methods when pushed into an untenable situation. When making an attack for a dirty fighting technique with disadvantage, you still roll only one die and take its result. (Disadvantage can still eliminate Advantage when using dirty fighting techniques.)
Go for the Eyes: Whether you poke, gouge, hurl sand, or simply pull an article of clothing in the way, you briefly occlude your target's vision. When you take the attack action, you may forgo a weapon attack and instead make an attack roll with proficiency. If you hit, your opponent is Blinded if he fails a Constitution saving throw. He may save again at the end of each of his turns; if he succeeds, he recovers and is no longer Blinded by this technique.
Low Blow: Striking "below the belt," you can forgo damage on any attack to inflict the Immobilized condition if the target fails a Strength save. He may save again at the end of each of his turns to end the condition caused by this technique.
Sucker Punch: When you attack with advantage, you may choose to forgo the usual damage to instead force your target to make a Strength saving throw. If he fails, he is Stunned. He may save again at the end of each of his turns to end the condition caused by this technique.

Ruthless Assault
At 9th level, you may use your Cunning Action to make an attack as long as you will have advantage on it.

Frightful Presence
At 13th level, you have a talent for making people aware of how dangerous you are, just by being there. As an action, you can force as many creatures within 60 feet who see you as you choose to make a Charisma saving throw against your Dirty Fighting DC. Those that fail are Frightened of you until they take a short rest. Each time a creature Frightened by this ability deals damage to you in combat, they may make the save again. If they succeed, they are no longer affected by this technique. Once you have used this feature, you may not do so again until you have completed a short rest.

Overwhelming Presence
At 17th level, exuding your terrifying presence becomes nearly effortless. You may use your Cunning Action to engage Frightful Presence, and there is no limit to how many times you may use it. Those who successfully save against it (either initially or after dealing damage to you in combat) cannot be affected again until you have completed a short rest.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Backstab
At 3rd level of rogue, when you select this archetype, you can use Sneak Attack with any weapon. You also gain Advantage on any attack roll made as part of an Opportunity Attack.

Hello Pole Arm Master. :smalltongue:

[R.Shackleford]

Hello Pole Arm Master. :smalltongue:

Only useful if the DM Only runs stupid creatures or creatures that don't react to the world around them.

I've always wanted them to make feats work a bit differently. Have two slots for feats. One is a passive a lot and the other is an active slot.

Of all the feats you gain you may only have one active and passive slot feat working at once. Then things like Sentinel + Polearm won't cause issues.

Of course, I would say to recreate feats so it isn't like this would work perfectly with the feats we already have.

[Shriketalon]

The simple fix to the Beastmaster is to make the activation cost change based on the animal's CR.

There's no reason that a CR 1/8 critter should require the same activation cost as a mightier creature. If the level 7 class feature increases the maximum CR of the creature to 1/2 and allowed large sized beasts, they could balance it by changing the activation cost for 1/8, 1/4, and 1/2 creatures.

If your small bird friend can attack for free, it's suddenly a viable candidate for companionship compared to the giant badger.

[R.Shackleford]

Accidentally deleted my post... Damn mobile...

Perhaps Beast Master should have been a base class.

Have one archetype summon, one archetype conjure spirits, and one that has beasts.

Edit

Have your PC be the role-playing aspect but all battle stuff comes from the beast (the rollplay)

Gain a beast at level 1 and then at level two, when you chose your archetype, you can perform a ritual that bonds the beast to primal, arcane, or divine magic.

Edit 2

Level 1: Animal Companion, Natural Explorer
Level 2: Bestial Fighting Style
Level 3: Bestial Archetype
Level 4: ASI
Level 5: Bestial Extra Attack

[JackPhoenix]

Hello Pole Arm Master. :smalltongue:

Change it to weapons without heavy property. Thug with a mace or a battleaxe? Sure. Halberd or greatsword...what? That's no thug, that's a soldier.

[R.Shackleford]

Change it to weapons without heavy property. Thug with a mace or a battleaxe? Sure. Halberd or greatsword...what? That's no thug, that's a soldier.

Or say that GWM bonus damage only applies 1/turn or 1/round much like how bonus damage from the sorcerer or wizard applies once to their spells even if the spell hits multiple targets (scorching ray).

I love the idea of a Thug swinging/sneak attacking with a heavy tetsubo/great club or giant sword they just stole from the soldier.

[Naanomi]

Remember you can backstab with a finesse weapon even if you use strength. Reflavor that rapier to a big-ol-stabin'-knife (Dan Doherty is my mind's strength rogue) and get to shanking folks

[R.Shackleford]

Remember you can backstab with a finesse weapon even if you use strength. Reflavor that rapier to a big-ol-stabin'-knife (Dan Doherty is my mind's strength rogue) and get to shanking folks

You just remind me why I hate the weapon table.

[Kite474]

Remember you can backstab with a finesse weapon even if you use strength. Reflavor that rapier to a big-ol-stabin'-knife (Dan Doherty is my mind's strength rogue) and get to shanking folks

Problem is re-flavoring rarely solves the issue at hand, it just puts a rug over it. Especially for player's who desire expression via mechanical representation

[Naanomi]

Problem is re-flavoring rarely solves the issue at hand, it just puts a rug over it. Especially for player's who desire expression via mechanical representation
Well use a regular knife then and lose the few damage; fighter/rogue with heavy or medium armor still makes a functional character that probably doesn't need a subclass to realize the concept (just my opinion obviously)

[SharkForce]

Well use a regular knife then and lose the few damage; fighter/rogue with heavy or medium armor still makes a functional character that probably doesn't need a subclass to realize the concept (just my opinion obviously)

suppose you wish to have a thug that uses, oh... a club, for the sake of argument.

[Tanarii]

Remember you can backstab with a finesse weapon even if you use strength. Reflavor that rapier to a big-ol-stabin'-knife (Dan Doherty is my mind's strength rogue) and get to shanking folks


Problem is re-flavoring rarely solves the issue at hand, it just puts a rug over it. Especially for player's who desire expression via mechanical representation


Well use a regular knife then and lose the few damage; fighter/rogue with heavy or medium armor still makes a functional character that probably doesn't need a subclass to realize the concept (just my opinion obviously)
I was looking at a Str/Wis Half-Orc with Dex 13, Medium Armor,
Shield, and Mace or Longsword. Rapier just didn't feel right, although yeah, it works with Str & Sneak Attack and the mechanical difference is negligible.

[djreynolds]

I'm unsure if this aids in the discussion.

But playing a thief and champion forces me to think out of the box. So it is more challenging to play them actually, IMO.
I must use tactics and movement to really open up my characters.

A thief's climbing speed is normal movement, right? AFB? I have literally almost 3 dimensions to attack you and gain advantage. Have you fought a beholder? No magic, eye stocks are disintegrating teammates. But the thief was able to circumvent this and the beholder's levitation which can be a real obstacle to face. Try out that climbing in combat it.

The champion fighter has access to 7 feats/ASI, shield master is awesome. Polearm master is awesome. I have 3 attacks at 11th level, even a polearm master can shove my giving up one these attacks, now my next 2 are with advantage.

The simplicity of these two archetypes really forces you to use what you have. Yes eldritch blast is powerful, but not versus a beholder. Now that 2nd fighting style allows me to pick up archery style, giving me +2 to hit from range. Even if my dex is a 10, it is effectively now a 14 with ranged weapons, I'll take my chances with a bow from distance.

Beastmaster can be effective, sentinel and polearm master can be used to soak up reaction attacks, while you beast fights. And the ranger class even without archetypes gets some powerful spells.

And all 3 of these classes easily multiclass, easily. This a strength of these classes.

A champion fighter is like an American Football linebacker, with the right feats he can rush the passer, tackle the running back, and cover receivers. A champion should be made to be versatile. The best #2 in the game

You can roll him up to make use of GWM and Sharpshooter and S&B, it takes only an action to don or doff a shield. The champion is best when made to be versatile. If you just take the defensive and duelist styles or protection, you will limit him to only tanking. But if you take GWS and archery style you open him up to cover any situation that may come up. Need to tank, one action to don a shield, now he can tank and use shield master. Ranger goes down, he can effectively shoot arrows. Wolf totem barbarian is raging, pull out the great sword and use GWM.

[PoeticDwarf]

Exactly this, also plays well into other classes that gets lots of damage die, paladin and barbarian beeing prime examples, 3 levels champion on a barbarian that hits with advantage should net you many strong crits. :)

Well, but crits add d6-d12 extra damage so not a big deal you get them more often.

I understand half-orc + Barbarian give way more dice of it, but taking levels in it will cost you crit range and extra attacks from Fighter. Taking 3 champion for a Barbarian isn't bad but not optimal at all...

If you want to crit harder, go Rogue 15 / Fighter 5. Or full pally

[PoeticDwarf]

I'm unsure if this aids in the discussion.

But playing a thief and champion forces me to think out of the box. So it is more challenging to play them actually, IMO.
I must use tactics and movement to really open up my characters.

A thief's climbing speed is normal movement, right? AFB? I have literally almost 3 dimensions to attack you and gain advantage. Have you fought a beholder? No magic, eye stocks are disintegrating teammates. But the thief was able to circumvent this and the beholder's levitation which can be a real obstacle to face. Try out that climbing in combat it.

The champion fighter has access to 7 feats/ASI, shield master is awesome. Polearm master is awesome. I have 3 attacks at 11th level, even a polearm master can shove my giving up one these attacks, now my next 2 are with advantage.

The simplicity of these two archetypes really forces you to use what you have. Yes eldritch blast is powerful, but not versus a beholder. Now that 2nd fighting style allows me to pick up archery style, giving me +2 to hit from range. Even if my dex is a 10, it is effectively now a 14 with ranged weapons, I'll take my chances with a bow from distance.

Beastmaster can be effective, sentinel and polearm master can be used to soak up reaction attacks, while you beast fights. And the ranger class even without archetypes gets some powerful spells.

And all 3 of these classes easily multiclass, easily. This a strength of these classes.

A champion fighter is like an American Football linebacker, with the right feats he can rush the passer, tackle the running back, and cover receivers. A champion should be made to be versatile. The best #2 in the game

You can roll him up to make use of GWM and Sharpshooter and S&B, it takes only an action to don or doff a shield. The champion is best when made to be versatile. If you just take the defensive and duelist styles or protection, you will limit him to only tanking. But if you take GWS and archery style you open him up to cover any situation that may come up. Need to tank, one action to don a shield, now he can tank and use shield master. Ranger goes down, he can effectively shoot arrows. Wolf totem barbarian is raging, pull out the great sword and use GWM.

Uhm, that's not being creative with champion. A normal fighter has some amount of ASIs and same amount of extra attacks. Every Fighter can shove with a shield at the same cost.

And all characters need to be creatvie sometimes

[djreynolds]

Uhm, that's not being creative with champion. A normal fighter has some amount of ASIs and same amount of extra attacks. Every Fighter can shove with a shield at the same cost.

And all characters need to be creatvie sometimes

But the champion can make full use of two distinct fighting styles, such as archery and GWS. And take GWM and sharpshooter. The last champion I played had a 20 in strength and 16 in dex. I could move in with a greatsword or drop back with a longbow.

I was not the best, but I could readily pick up the slack anywhere. That's the champions niche, versatility. I was deadly on the lines and at range. And I could both sharpshooter and GWM, sometimes you can't fit in every space in combat. But this guy could produce at range and melee. That's nice for a party to have.

Try it out, make a champion who can fight with GWM and sharpshooter. It quite effective.

And I can do all this by level 12 and be competent at both GWM and Sharpshooter.

[JackPhoenix]

Or say that GWM bonus damage only applies 1/turn or 1/round much like how bonus damage from the sorcerer or wizard applies once to their spells even if the spell hits multiple targets (scorching ray).

I love the idea of a Thug swinging/sneak attacking with a heavy tetsubo/great club or giant sword they just stole from the soldier.

That's actually why I suggested Heavy instead Two-handed: great club isn't Heavy, and it is a very thuggish weapon. And unlike greatsword, the rogue is actually proficient with it (it's a simple weapon)

[Friv]

But the champion can make full use of two distinct fighting styles, such as archery and GWS. And take GWM and sharpshooter. The last champion I played had a 20 in strength and 16 in dex. I could move in with a greatsword or drop back with a longbow.

I was not the best, but I could readily pick up the slack anywhere. That's the champions niche, versatility. I was deadly on the lines and at range. And I could both sharpshooter and GWM, sometimes you can't fit in every space in combat. But this guy could produce at range and melee. That's nice for a party to have.

Try it out, make a champion who can fight with GWM and sharpshooter. It quite effective.

And I can do all this by level 12 and be competent at both GWM and Sharpshooter.

I think the issue is, if you're a champion who's shifting between melee and ranged, at Level 12 you have better criticals, a small bonus to skills you aren't proficient in, and +2 to Archery.

If you're a Battlemaster shifting between melee and ranged, at Level 10 you have five uses per short rest of: +1d10 damage and a disarm attempt, +1d10 damage and advantage on an ally's attack, +1d10 damage and the target has to charge across the room at you, +1d10 damage and move an ally half their speed, +1d10 damage and frighten your enemy, +1d10 to hit after you roll your attack and discover that it missed, or +1d10 damage and trip. And you can do all of that in melee combat, or at range. And you don't have to use it unless you hit, so you never waste your superiority dice. (And you also have Artisan's Tools and Know Your Enemy, but those are pretty weak.)

I'd say that all of those combat options are a lot more versatile than "crit on 19 and +2 to Archery". The Champion's niche is simplicity.

[R.Shackleford]

I'm unsure if this aids in the discussion.

But playing a thief and champion forces me to think out of the box. So it is more challenging to play them actually, IMO.
I must use tactics and movement to really open up my characters.

That's completely faulty logic.

Being ancaster doesn't stop you or I or anyone else from thinking outside the box. You are turning a bug, having bad or no options, and trying to make it a feature.

It would be like saying that we are both boat salespeople. My boat can be used easily with oars or a motor. Your boat only has the option of oars. You then advertise that your boat is better because specifically of the lack of an oar/motor option and it will make you think when you are out in the water.

Many casters and partial casters need to think. Just because you apparently can't think when you play them doesn't mean this bug is a feature.

[Tanarii]

It would be like saying that we are both boat salespeople. My boat can be used easily with oars or a motor. Your boat only has the option of oars. You then advertise that your boat is better because specifically of the lack of an oar/motor option and it will make you think when you are out in the water.
That analogy only holds if your consider the Champion or Thief mechanically weaker than casters. Or even the other non-casters (Barbarian, Battle Master, Thief).

If they have less mechanical options, but are just as mechanically powerful, it's a bad analogy.

(Edit: Not that I agree with 'less mechanical options = better thinking outside the box' logic at all.)

[mgshamster]

It is true that having fewer options does not automatically equate to being able to think outside the box (or using Dynamic Thinking, which is the actual term for the phenomenon).

What is true is that if you're not used to using dynamic thinking, then you'll only use the options in front of you. A character with many options looks like it is versatile, because you are not required to think dynamically. A character with fewer options may seem mechanically weaker by comparison. But if we start to think dynamically (and the rules allow us to do so), the options for what a hard ter can do increase drastically, to the point where classes with more options built in no longer seem to have that many more options. Let's look at this numerically: the difference between 1 and 20 is the same as the difference between 101 and 120, but the later delta does have that drastic of a difference - a ratio of 20 vs 1.2 - so while the higher number (ie the class with more options) looks like it has more options, those differences fade away wth dynamic thinking.

Playing a class with fewer options can be great practice for dynamic thinking. Especially since a class with a higher number of options can potentially lead us into laziness and simply use the options already laid out in front of us without trying to think dynamically (I've seen it happen).

If you're aready used to dynamic thinking, then any class can do it. If you're not, then a class with fewer options can be great practice. If you ignore it altogether, then the classes with the fewer built-in options superficially look like mechanically weaker classes. Just to note, though - the majority of educational systems in the world breed out dynamic thinking (it's something that kids are great at, and as we age, we lose it). Video games also breed out dynamic thinking. If you're the type of person who grew up in a typical educational facility and plays a lot of video games, then it's likely that you're not used to dynamic thinking.

Fortunately, D&D (and other TTRPGs) tend to encourage dynamic thinking, so by virtue of playing this game, it's more likely that you're capable of it. That is, if the type of game you're playing allows for it - I had the hardest time getting my players to think dynamically in 3.X, they almost always only stuck to the options specifically listed on their character sheets. Now that we're playing 5e, in just a couple of sessions, they started thinking outside the character sheet and started thinking dynamically, using options creatively and in novel ways. I'm loving it. I believe the difference is that 5e actively encourages you to think outside the character sheet by having typical martial options be something everyone can just do (don't need feats, don't need lots of focused skill points, etc...). Because of this, you're actively thinking beyond just the options list on your character sheet to other sources, like the entire PHB, to do something. Likewise, skills have minimal descriptions, forcing you to use your imagination to figure out what they do. All this combined makes it much more likely for someone to start thinking dynamically, which opens up the possibilities of what a character is capable of. But - if you are playing a class that already has a lot of options, then you just may not look beyond your character sheet for other options, which means you may be closing yourself off from thinking dynamically.

And that's why some people get the impression that a champion fighter makes it so you think outside the box compared to a traditional wizard. It doesn't automatically mean so, but it is more likely, simply based on a sociological analysis of the game.

[Segev]

The counter-argument is best framed if I make some numbers up for illustrative purposes.

Let's say that Class A has 5 straight-forward abilities. Through "dynamic thinking," you can effectively expand the options offered by these 5 straight-forward abilities into 10 options.

Class B has 8 straight-forward abilities. At first glance, it might seem that applying dynamic thinking has made Class A actually have MORE options than Class B, who only has 8! Wow! But that's being inconsistent. IF you can apply dynamic thinking to 5 straight-forward abilities and get 10 options, then you can apply dynamic thinking to 8 straight-forward abilities and get 16 options.

Now, perhaps, you say, these are bad analogies because it's not linear. But claiming that you get diminishing returns on options for increased abilities when applying dynamic thinking is an awfully suspicious claim. The reverse is more likely true: the more abilities you have, the more you can apply dynamic thinking to combine them in interesting ways to create still MORE options, leading to a geometric, polynomial or even exponential increase in options per ability when used with "dynamic thinking."

[mgshamster]

The counter-argument is best framed if I make some numbers up for illustrative purposes.

Let's say that Class A has 5 straight-forward abilities. Through "dynamic thinking," you can effectively expand the options offered by these 5 straight-forward abilities into 10 options.

Class B has 8 straight-forward abilities. At first glance, it might seem that applying dynamic thinking has made Class A actually have MORE options than Class B, who only has 8! Wow! But that's being inconsistent. IF you can apply dynamic thinking to 5 straight-forward abilities and get 10 options, then you can apply dynamic thinking to 8 straight-forward abilities and get 16 options.

Now, perhaps, you say, these are bad analogies because it's not linear. But claiming that you get diminishing returns on options for increased abilities when applying dynamic thinking is an awfully suspicious claim. The reverse is more likely true: the more abilities you have, the more you can apply dynamic thinking to combine them in interesting ways to create still MORE options, leading to a geometric, polynomial or even exponential increase in options per ability when used with "dynamic thinking."

That's a fair analysis. Another thing to consider is how variable a given ability is. The more hard-coded a rule is, the less variable it is. Skills tend to be a major component for limited-option classes, meaning that have a wide variance of options with their limited options, even without dynamic thinking. Spells tend to have hard-coded rules, meaning they can only be used so many ways, even with dynamic thinking.

I believe the actual case lies somewhere in between - but where it lies is heavily dependent on the individual player.

I don't think you're wrong, but I also don't think my analysis should be discounted.

[SharkForce]

it always annoys me when people talk about casters as being weak against beholders.

look. the beholder is either using antimagic on you, or it is using all of the other eye beams on you. so if it is disintegrating your allies while holding the antimagic beam on you, it is because your allies are morons and didn't stand near you. stand close together and the beholder either lets all of you (including the casters) use their magical abilities, or it gets to find out whether its bite attack is superior to the non-magical attacks of your entire party. or it can run away, i suppose. so no, your complete and utter lack of magical abilities is not an advantage against a beholder, unless for some reason you are crazy enough to split up against a creature where its only AoE ability prevents it from being able to do anything to you at all.

[NewDM]

Personally I feel that both the entire Ranger and Fighter classes are lack luster. My changes to both would be (if I were in charge):

Fighter

Heroic Resilience
At X level you can take twice as much as a normal person. You may add double your proficiency bonus to saving throws that you are proficient in.

Heroic Experience
At X level you add 1/2 your proficiency bonus to any saving throw you are not proficient in.

Heroic Skill
At X level your experience with skills allow you to do twice as much as a normal person or work twice as fast. Pick two skills you are proficient in. You can double the effectiveness of those skills or half the time it takes to accomplish them. For instance if you choose Athletics, you can jump twice as far as normally allowed or jump twice as high. You can run long distances in half the time normally allowed. At levels X, Y, and Z you can choose 1 more skill to gain this benefit.

Quick Learner
At X level your experience at trying new things and solving difficult problems has led you to learn new skills. Choose 2 new skills that primarily use Strength, Dexterity or Constitution. You are proficient in those skills.

Mythic Resistance
At X level you can once a day replace any saving throw dice roll (before bonuses and penalties) with a 20, then subsequently add any proficiency bonus or other bonuses or penalties to it and use that roll instead.

Mythic Skills
At X level you can once a day replace any Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution check dice roll (before adding anything to it) with a 20.

Armor Mastery
At X level choose an armor type. When you wear armor of that type you gain the associated benefit:


Padded and Hide - Resistance to Bludgeoning damage from non-magical weapons.
Leather and Studded Leather or Ring Mail - You gain resistance against damage caused by effects that allow a Dexterity saving throw to reduce damage by half if you succeed on the saving throw.
Chain Shirt, Chain Mail, and Scale Mail - You gain resistance against non-magical ranged piercing attacks.
Breast Plate, Half Plate, Plate and Splint Mail - You gain resistance to Slashing damage from non-magical weapons.


Ranger

I'd take most of the sub-classes and simply merge them with the main class, replacing spells with non-magical "Nature Practices".

They would get/change features like:

Favored Enemy
Choose a favored enemy. You gain the language of that enemy type (if any) and the benefits listed below even when you are not fighting that enemy.

Aberration - You gain advantage on any saving throws for effects that are Psychic in nature or deal Psychic damage.

Beasts - When a creature or effect grapple you or knock you prone you get advantage on any check or saving throw to prevent it. If there is not a check or saving throw you gain a Dexterity saving throw with a DC equal to 8 + the Dexterity or Strength of the attacker. If the effect does not have a DC or ability scores, the DC is 13.

Celestials - Your saving throws against spells and magical effects gain a +2 bonus.

Constructs - Your weapon attacks deal an extra 1d6 damage against creatures with resistance to the damage of your weapons.

Dragons - You gain a bonus of +2 to saving throws against effects that a Dexterity save would half the damage of.

Elementals - You reduce Fire, Cold, Lightning, and Thunder damage you take by an amount equal to your Constitution modifier.

Fey - You gain a +2 bonus against Charm effects and spells that allow a saving throw. When a Charm spell or effect doesn't allow a saving throw you can make a Charisma saving throw against DC 13 to prevent the effect.

Fiends - You have advantage against Poison and Fire damage saving throws as well as reducing that damage by your Constitution modifier.

Giants - You are not limited by any rule or effect that has to do with different size categories such as the inability to grapple creatures more than one size larger than you.

Humanoids - Damage dealt to you by non-magical weapons is reduced by Your Constitution modifier. You also gain a bonus equal to your Constitution modifier to damage dealt to creatures wearing armor.

Monstrosity - You gain advantage on Initiative checks when you are not surprised.

Ooze - You gain resistance to Acid damage as well as gaining advantage on any saving throw that is acid related.

Plant - You gain advantage on any check to notice a plant monster. Instead of using your passive perception to notice a plant you automatically roll a perception check and use your passive perception if it is lower when detecting harmful plant life. You can identify harmful plants of non-magical origin as well as plant monsters on site.

Undead - You gain advantage against Fear effect saving throws. If a fear effect does not grant a save, you can make a save to prevent or end a fear effect with a DC 13 Charisma saving throw. In addition when you are Frightened you can move toward the source of your fear at half speed.

Then for the animal companion rules either let the thing act on the Rangers initiative or give the ranger some real animal companions that can keep up with other players stats so at least the Ranger gains versatility instead of doing normal ranger class stuff or sub-optimal animal companion stuff.

[NewDM]

it always annoys me when people talk about casters as being weak against beholders.

look. the beholder is either using antimagic on you, or it is using all of the other eye beams on you. so if it is disintegrating your allies while holding the antimagic beam on you, it is because your allies are morons and didn't stand near you. stand close together and the beholder either lets all of you (including the casters) use their magical abilities, or it gets to find out whether its bite attack is superior to the non-magical attacks of your entire party. or it can run away, i suppose. so no, your complete and utter lack of magical abilities is not an advantage against a beholder, unless for some reason you are crazy enough to split up against a creature where its only AoE ability prevents it from being able to do anything to you at all.

Or the beholder closes its central eye and uses its stalks and then re-opens its central eye.

[SharkForce]

Or the beholder closes its central eye and uses its stalks and then re-opens its central eye.

that's factored into the stat block. the beholder can decide whether the cone is active or not in a round... but has no capacity to turn it on and off apart from that decision (apparently it takes time to turn on or off, i guess).

like i said, if the beholder wants to change from a magical fight where it gets 6+ fairly unpleasant attacks per round to a physical fight where it gets one pretty unimpressive attack per round (its lair actions are also fairly obviously magical, so those won't work either), who am i to argue? that sounds like a great trade-off to me.

[Dimcair]

It's actually one of the more powerful subclasses, with many strong options and a ton of potential. Maybe put more effort into thinking through the possibilities than reading every other knee-jerk opinion on the internet. Your fix just makes it less powerful in order to give the Ranger another attack, which is boring. When I picked a Beast Master, I did it because I wanted a useful beast companion, and that's what this class delivered.

I'd be in favor of a revival mechanism of some sort though. Maybe survival knowledge checks after the death saves for a chance of you reviving the thing?

[Dimcair]

Now, perhaps, you say, these are bad analogies because it's not linear. But claiming that you get diminishing returns on options for increased abilities when applying dynamic thinking is an awfully suspicious claim. The reverse is more likely true: the more abilities you have, the more you can apply dynamic thinking to combine them in interesting ways to create still MORE options, leading to a geometric, polynomial or even exponential increase in options per ability when used with "dynamic thinking."





I don't think you're wrong, but I also don't think my analysis should be discounted.

If he is not wrong then he is right isn't he. And that means your assumption should be discounted. If we assume the player playing the respective characters is the same, the expectation that this dynamic/creative player will come up with exponentially more ways in applying and combining his characters abilities when they are more numerous to begin with seems logically sound. Especially if you visualize it as a geometric form that branches out and forms new connections from there.

The sociological analysis is (no offense) just your opinion formed through your experience. I had a VASTLY different experience: people without creativity/dynamic thinking tend to stay away from Wizards since they don't even want to think about what spells they should prepare for any given day/situation.

Unrelated: Thanks to you two I can call the thing that bugs me in this edition by name now. The limit through concentration spell mechanics crushes down any neat combinations of spells and ruins the beautiful geometric forms that I had in my mind for spells in 3.X. This limits the options for dynamic thinking for casters drastically. (edit: before anyone comments on this: I am well aware WHY they introduced this mechanic, I just happen to not like it)

[NewDM]

If he is not wrong then he is right isn't he. And that means your assumption should be discounted. If we assume the player playing the respective characters is the same, the expectation that this dynamic/creative player will come up with exponentially more ways in applying and combining his characters abilities when they are more numerous to begin with seems logically sound. Especially if you visualize it as a geometric form that branches out and forms new connections from there.

The sociological analysis is (no offense) just your opinion formed through your experience. I had a VASTLY different experience: people without creativity/dynamic thinking tend to stay away from Wizards since they don't even want to think about what spells they should prepare for any given day/situation.

Unrelated: Thanks to you two I can call the thing that bugs me in this edition by name now. The limit through concentration spell mechanics crushes down any neat combinations of spells and ruins the beautiful geometric forms that I had in my mind for spells in 3.X. This limits the options for dynamic thinking for casters drastically. (edit: before anyone comments on this: I am well aware WHY they introduced this mechanic, I just happen to not like it)

Exactly. It would have been better to have some mechanic for only applying one spell school effect to any one creature or object at a time with the new effect erasing the old one. This would have limited cheese, but would have allowed the versatility of 5e.

[Zalabim]

If he is not wrong then he is right isn't he. And that means your assumption should be discounted. If we assume the player playing the respective characters is the same, the expectation that this dynamic/creative player will come up with exponentially more ways in applying and combining his characters abilities when they are more numerous to begin with seems logically sound. Especially if you visualize it as a geometric form that branches out and forms new connections from there.

The sociological analysis is (no offense) just your opinion formed through your experience. I had a VASTLY different experience: people without creativity/dynamic thinking tend to stay away from Wizards since they don't even want to think about what spells they should prepare for any given day/situation.

Unrelated: Thanks to you two I can call the thing that bugs me in this edition by name now. The limit through concentration spell mechanics crushes down any neat combinations of spells and ruins the beautiful geometric forms that I had in my mind for spells in 3.X. This limits the options for dynamic thinking for casters drastically. (edit: before anyone comments on this: I am well aware WHY they introduced this mechanic, I just happen to not like it)

If the options for dynamic thinking for casters are drastically limited, then it wouldn't be logically sound to expect there to be exponentially more combinations and applications of his character's abilities. That doesn't seem unrelated at all. Those two ideas seem deeply intertwined.

[Dimcair]

If the options for dynamic thinking for casters are drastically limited, then it wouldn't be logically sound to expect there to be exponentially more combinations and applications of his character's abilities. That doesn't seem unrelated at all. Those two ideas seem deeply intertwined.

You imply I am contradicting myself in a way?

They are limited, yes, they are still more numerous than the options for the 'martial'.
The basis of the argument was that if a martial has 8 options AND he is a 'dynamically thinking' individual he may come up with as many as 16 uses for these 8 abilities. A caster by default and comparison has 16 options to begin with but may come up with 34, since number of options does not imply tuning down of the creativity of the individual (unless you want to cite your own experience or so called social analysis based on, again, a subjective experience). It both assumes that there is an actual NEED for him/her to come up with something out of the box to solve a given problem.

Here is where the numbers proof you wrong.
The concept of visualizing your options geometrically is helpful here.

34 dots in a room have more combinations and possible connections than 16. Exponentially more. Even if not every single dot can form more than one connection i.e..

Therefore: Even if we assume that the warrior is a slightly more creative person than the wizard, the wizard still has access to a vastly higher number of rabbits he can pull out of his hat (aka connections of dots).
And I'd say even if we assume that a smaller number of options facilitates a greater need for creative application, the caster will still be at an advantage by sheer number and likelihood that he will stumble over extra uses of his abilities. A greater need does not = more options. (We also disregard here that the problem in question should be complex enough to entice the character to think out of the box. For both, the warrior and the wizard. Climbing a wall with a weird combination of spells if you have levitation/spider walk prepared is quite retarded really.


And finally, if we do a sociological analysis, or with our numbers of personal experience an anthropological one:

I would argue that the average wizard in 3.x thought about his abilities and their application more than the warrior. Because (enter meme here) you don't simply play a wizard in 3.x without being 'the most Nah, lets not go down the road of subjective assumptions and experiences.

[Specter]

Don't think there's anything wrong with the Champion. It was meant to be simple, and how much damage one does is entirely defined by the d20 swing.

Its biggest selling point is not even power or versatility, it’s the fact that no matter what the DM sends your way, your resources (and your life, at level 15) will never be empty.

But I bet they have recurring nightmares with dudes wearing adamantine armor.

[R.Shackleford]

Don't think there's anything wrong with the Champion. It was meant to be simple, and how much damage one does is entirely defined by the d20 swing.

Its biggest selling point is not even power or versatility, it’s the fact that no matter what the DM sends your way, your resources (and your life, at level 15) will never be empty.

But I bet they have recurring nightmares with dudes wearing adamantine armor.

The problem isn't the subclass really. The core fighter is just bad. Champion is bad too but that could be excused if the core of the Fighter worked better.

Outside of what anyone else can do it doesn't really get much. Even the things the Fighter can do, they are just things other people can do, just typically more times or "faster", this didn't work in 3e and it isn't working in 5e.

Action Surge is nice but you only really have weapon attacks to use it with (maybe making a save if a spell requires an action to try and save against it) or spells if you are EK (but your spell selection and spell slots are vastly limited). The only saving grace is that this is a short rest mechanic... But groups don't always take short rests so it gets saves for that 1/long rest nova.

Indomitable is just... It doesn't help you with 4 out of 6 saves. If you was going to fail before you are going to fail that Wis save again. Plus this is a long rest mechanic, people tend to forget that.

The reliance on the subclass is the biggest sin the Fighter has. Most classes rely on their core class to give them their abilities but the Fighter relies on their subclass to do "their thing". It would be like if casters got cantrips from their core class and then spells from their subclass, wouldn't that be weird.

[EvilAnagram]

snip

The core Fighter chassis provides consistent damage, durability, and customizability through ASIs/feats.

Also, saying that you're going to fail again because you failed once is just wrong on a mathematical level, almost as wrong as supposing that a Fighter will only have two goof saves. What fighter can't afford Resilient?

[Segev]

The limit through concentration spell mechanics crushes down any neat combinations of spells and ruins the beautiful geometric forms that I had in my mind for spells in 3.X. This limits the options for dynamic thinking for casters drastically. (edit: before anyone comments on this: I am well aware WHY they introduced this mechanic, I just happen to not like it)It is frustrating, yeah. And in some cases makes spells I would think are great...almost not useful. Particularly the long-duration Concentration spells.

I wonder how balance would be if you could "suspend" Concentration spells without ending them, allowing you to have multiple with active durations, even if only one could be in use at a time. Maybe takes an action to switch out which one on which you're Concentrating. So you could have silent image up, creating a thug guarding a door, but when you don't need it you could cast detect magic. And switch back to the thug when you're not reading anybody's mind, but swap back again if a new mind shows up to poke.


If the options for dynamic thinking for casters are drastically limited, then it wouldn't be logically sound to expect there to be exponentially more combinations and applications of his character's abilities. That doesn't seem unrelated at all. Those two ideas seem deeply intertwined.
This is a fair point. However, the worst it does is reduce it to a linear relation.

[R.Shackleford]

The core Fighter chassis provides consistent damage, durability, and customizability through ASIs/feats.

Also, saying that you're going to fail again because you failed once is just wrong on a mathematical level, almost as wrong as supposing that a Fighter will only have two goof saves. What fighter can't afford Resilient?

So now a fighter is forced to take resilient?

Practically, in game experience, has shown me that if you don't have proficiency and a decent score then you are not making those mid to high DCs with any amount of reliability.

I used to love the Indomitable feature until I actually played a fighter, my friends played fighters, and random people I just met played fighters. You can pretend like white room experience means anything but in actual gameplay the feature is terrible.

And if you start boosting other ability scores you take away from the absolute one thing a fighter can do.

What's the point of having feats or extra ASIs if you are forced to use them in specific ways instead of making the character you want.

Pretend all you want that indomitable is decent, but between it only helping when you already have a good shot of passing a save (str/con typically) and it being totally counter to the Fighter ideology (per long rest) makes this feature absolute rubbish.

What's sad is that it would be so easy to fix, I've seen countless remakes that easily make the feature useful and balanced for a level 9 (i think 9) feature.

[wunderkid]

You imply I am contradicting myself in a way?

They are limited, yes, they are still more numerous than the options for the 'martial'.
The basis of the argument was that if a martial has 8 options AND he is a 'dynamically thinking' individual he may come up with as many as 16 uses for these 8 abilities. A caster by default and comparison has 16 options to begin with but may come up with 34, since number of options does not imply tuning down of the creativity of the individual (unless you want to cite your own experience or so called social analysis based on, again, a subjective experience). It both assumes that there is an actual NEED for him/her to come up with something out of the box to solve a given problem.

Here is where the numbers proof you wrong.
The concept of visualizing your options geometrically is helpful here.

34 dots in a room have more combinations and possible connections than 16. Exponentially more. Even if not every single dot can form more than one connection i.e..

Therefore: Even if we assume that the warrior is a slightly more creative person than the wizard, the wizard still has access to a vastly higher number of rabbits he can pull out of his hat (aka connections of dots).
And I'd say even if we assume that a smaller number of options facilitates a greater need for creative application, the caster will still be at an advantage by sheer number and likelihood that he will stumble over extra uses of his abilities. A greater need does not = more options. (We also disregard here that the problem in question should be complex enough to entice the character to think out of the box. For both, the warrior and the wizard. Climbing a wall with a weird combination of spells if you have levitation/spider walk prepared is quite retarded really.


And finally, if we do a sociological analysis, or with our numbers of personal experience an anthropological one:

I would argue that the average wizard in 3.x thought about his abilities and their application more than the warrior. Because (enter meme here) you don't simply play a wizard in 3.x without being 'the most Nah, lets not go down the road of subjective assumptions and experiences.

This is completely true and not arguing it, however one counter point to think about is that each time a caster wants to rely on using one of those spells to solve a situation then it's ability to 'dynamically think' will drop quickly. The martial class may have no reliance on rests or only on short so throughout the course of the day their resources devoted to dynamically thinking may end up being equal to or greater.

But first thing in the morning your entire point is spot on. As the day progresses however a different story may start to appear.

[Dimcair]

This is completely true and not arguing it, however one counter point to think about is that each time a caster wants to rely on using one of those spells to solve a situation then it's ability to 'dynamically think' will drop quickly. The martial class may have no reliance on rests or only on short so throughout the course of the day their resources devoted to dynamically thinking may end up being equal to or greater.

But first thing in the morning your entire point is spot on. As the day progresses however a different story may start to appear.

I'd still say no to this on the ground that now we are talking about finite resources. They are, in reality, relevant you are right, but it is questionable whether they'd influence the ability to think dynamically. After all, if the martial runs out of a resource like HP, he is vastly limited in his options as well.

This assumption implies that the caster only assesses the tools in his box and the solutions that are available right now. Even though his tools need a rest once he used them, they are still in the box, in his mind, and therefore in the network of dots ("If only I'd prepared SpellXXX, then I could do XXXX"). Some connections may be greyed out, since they are temporarily not available. This doesn't mean he wouldn't think about it, it just means he would think about alternatives on how to patch the greyed dot e.g.. Another point that comes up in this context is management of said resources, the caster has to think about his exponentially more and will hesitate and look for different/cheaper solutions whenever possible.




This is a fair point. However, the worst it does is reduce it to a linear relation.
And this. And a linear relation is optimistic already imo. Even if the caster is down to cantrips.... have you seen what a desperate wizard does/can do with minor illusions?

If I had anything to say I'd reinstate casters as vastly superior to martials especially in later levels. Because I believe that to play and have fun together through cooperation, you don't need perfect balance. If you want/like to play a simpler concept then the martials are for you. If you want it to be more complex, the casters are for you. The issue is then twofold in that certain casters are not trying to enable their budddies but play a lone wolf style ala "look at me I am awsome" which sucks in every cooperation context in the long run With great power comes great responsibility, bitch.. The other side are the martials who after choosing a martial suddenly realize that casters are more powerful and that they have a problem with that. They then want to apply THEIR style of play on other players which is: I like it easy and non-complex, you should like it too. OR, the dancing on the phb's grave approach, I now want my martial to get tailor-made abilities that imitate those of the wizard, but no, i don't want to reroll a wizard because wizards are too complicated.

[wunderkid]

I'd still say no to this on the ground that now we are talking about finite resources. They are, in reality, relevant you are right, but it is questionable whether they'd influence the ability to think dynamically. After all, if the martial runs out of a resource like HP, he is vastly limited in his options as well.

This assumption implies that the caster only assesses the tools in his box and the solutions that are available right now. Even though his tools need a rest once he used them, they are still in the box, in his mind, and therefore in the network of dots ("If only I'd prepared SpellXXX, then I could do XXXX"). Some connections may be greyed out, since they are temporarily not available. This doesn't mean he wouldn't think about it, it just means he would think about alternatives on how to patch the greyed dot e.g.. Another point that comes up in this context is management of said resources, the caster has to think about his exponentially more and will hesitate and look for different/cheaper solutions whenever possible.

While true adding finite resources into the equation does muddy the waters it is also the reason that a caster gets so many options, because they are finite (in a daily sense of the word unless a task is urgent then a sleep before tackling it is a very real possibility)

The martials get less resources but with less of a finite marker on them. It allows them to deal with situations as they come up without the worry of 'if I use this now it won't be available later'.

Like I said I agree with you completely I was just playing devils advocate and throwing a spanner in the works

[Dimcair]

Like I said I agree with you completely I was just playing devils advocate and throwing a spanner in the works

I know :smallwink:! No offense taken/given whatsoever <3. It does muddy the waters, which prompted my response.

Rant is unrelated to that but more related to the sub-classes issue again. I wholeheartedly agree when people say the beastmaster doesn't need a fix. In a high OP game on power-level gaming? Maybe, but on that level there always will be sub-par choices due to the nature. So, fixing any single class doesn't do ****aki-beans for this style of play anyways so why bother? So, the subclasses dropping the ball should and could only be discussed in the context of higher powergaming (not using it as a bad thing here, but rather a higher difficulty setting if you will). And in that context, balancing classes or whatever will switch around rankings on a tier list, but will not make the tier list disappear (which we can observe in this forum^^). I wonder what this kind of conundrum is called?

[R.Shackleford]

The martials get less resources but with less of a finite marker on them. It allows them to deal with situations as they come up without the worry of 'if I use this now it won't be available later'.

Any situation that a martial needs to deal with can be dealt with a caster. Especially one that doesn't need finite resources such as spells.

It may take a caster a round or two longer but there is nothing atopping, say a Tempest Cleric, from using non-spell actions to take on a challenge.

The only difference is if a spell does come in handy the cleric can use it.

This notion of "I have less options thus I have the advantage" is back buttwards.

If you play your character a specific way and ignore certain options, that is on you and not on the class.

[jas61292]

Any situation that a martial needs to deal with can be dealt with a caster. Especially one that doesn't need finite resources such as spells.

It may take a caster a round or two longer but there is nothing atopping, say a Tempest Cleric, from using non-spell actions to take on a challenge.

The only difference is if a spell does come in handy the cleric can use it.

This notion of "I have less options thus I have the advantage" is back buttwards.

If you play your character a specific way and ignore certain options, that is on you and not on the class.

I think the idea is that almost any situation can be solved without the need for magic. As you said, a cleric could likely solve anything a fighter could, even without magic. But it works in reverse too. There is almost always a way of doing things that doesn't need magic, and as such, the fighter is really not at any disadvantage. Just as sometimes the fighter could do things faster than a cleric not using magic, a caster using magic may sometimes do things faster than a fighter. But that doesn't mean the fighter cannot do it.

So, while you say "any situation that a martial needs to deal with can be dealt with a caster," I say "any situation that a caster needs to deal with can be dealt with a martial." The way it is done may be different, but you can still get results. All options, including spells, do provide tools. But the infinite options of what is not on the character sheet provide many, many times more tools than any set of spells.

Now, is it possible to come up with a situation where it is impossible to overcome without magic? Sure. But that's typically called bad DMing, and not really worth addressing.

[mgshamster]

Now, is it possible to come up with a situation where it is impossible to overcome without magic? Sure. But that's typically called bad DMing, and not really worth addressing.

I'd only call it bad GMing if the GM doesn't also have some sort of resource for the players to use to address it. For example, let's say our BBEG's encampment is on another plane of existence. You need magic to get there. Our group of martials couldn't get there on their own, but they could utilize other resources, such as a magic using NPC or a portal/gate (a la planescape) or some magic item they had to quest for. If the GM just says, "sorry, there's no casters in your party, so there's nothing you can do!" then yeah, it's crappy GMing.

[Zalabim]

Plane Shifted quests require some help from the DM anyway, since Plane Shift requires a very specific kind of expensive component. Something that requires, or essentially requires, water breathing is probably more relatable.


You imply I am contradicting myself in a way?

They are limited, yes, they are still more numerous than the options for the 'martial'.
The basis of the argument was that if a martial has 8 options AND he is a 'dynamically thinking' individual he may come up with as many as 16 uses for these 8 abilities. A caster by default and comparison has 16 options to begin with but may come up with 34, since number of options does not imply tuning down of the creativity of the individual (unless you want to cite your own experience or so called social analysis based on, again, a subjective experience). It both assumes that there is an actual NEED for him/her to come up with something out of the box to solve a given problem.

Here is where the numbers proof you wrong.
The concept of visualizing your options geometrically is helpful here.

34 dots in a room have more combinations and possible connections than 16. Exponentially more. Even if not every single dot can form more than one connection i.e..

Therefore: Even if we assume that the warrior is a slightly more creative person than the wizard, the wizard still has access to a vastly higher number of rabbits he can pull out of his hat (aka connections of dots).

Both statements can be true, to some extent, but the extent to which they are true is probably not as much as to call the limitations imposed by concentration 'drastic'. As for the numbers proving me wrong, I wasn't making such a claim in the first place, just saying that your unrelated comment was actually very related. There would be even more possible combinations if they were not limited by concentration. The numbers are also arbitrarily made up, as is the idea of them being dots, or combining them. If abilities were dots, the dot for magic missile would be smaller than the dot for conjure animals, and conjure animals would probably also be bigger than the dot for fireball. The rest of the dots to connect to would not be other abilities, but goals. The game would be to connect one or more capability dots to a goal dot and cross off the goal.


This is a fair point. However, the worst it does is reduce it to a linear relation.

This was mainly what I was thinking. Either it's drastically limited and the relationship is more linear than exponential (which was the original comparison made, I.E. everyone has the same amount of dynamic capability and then a different amount of fixed capability based on class), or it is not drastically limited, proven by the exponential combinations.


This is completely true and not arguing it, however one counter point to think about is that each time a caster wants to rely on using one of those spells to solve a situation then it's ability to 'dynamically think' will drop quickly. The martial class may have no reliance on rests or only on short so throughout the course of the day their resources devoted to dynamically thinking may end up being equal to or greater.

But first thing in the morning your entire point is spot on. As the day progresses however a different story may start to appear.

I didn't even think about this, but then that would mean some capability dots get crossed off when you use them, and some wouldn't. It's a complex game.

[Dimcair]

Both statements can be true, to some extent, but the extent to which they are true is probably not as much as to call the limitations imposed by concentration 'drastic'. As for the numbers proving me wrong, I wasn't making such a claim in the first place, just saying that your unrelated comment was actually very related. There would be even more possible combinations if they were not limited by concentration. The numbers are also arbitrarily made up, as is the idea of them being dots, or combining them. If abilities were dots, the dot for magic missile would be smaller than the dot for conjure animals, and conjure animals would probably also be bigger than the dot for fireball. The rest of the dots to connect to would not be other abilities, but goals. The game would be to connect one or more capability dots to a goal dot and cross off the goal.


The numbers 'proved you wrong' only in so far that the combinations are exponentially more in that any comparison pales against that number. I know you didn't make any claim =).

I imagine the graphic layout quite differently. All dots are the same size, but they have branches. Certain dots, like conjure animals or illusions, have vastly higher numbers of branches. Which again lead to new dots when two or three branches come together. Some branches just form their own single dot at the end. From there, the comparison is already clearly dominated by the caster side. Concentration is not thaaaaat relevant because it has already been decided. Taking concentration away would also be more of a cross-edition comparision. Sub-classes, traits, archetypes etc. give martials also a bit more to toy with, but the absence of concentration limitation simply explodes the possibilities, you are right.

[R.Shackleford]

I think the idea is that almost any situation can be solved without the need for magic. As you said, a cleric could likely solve anything a fighter could, even without magic. But it works in reverse too. There is almost always a way of doing things that doesn't need magic, and as such, the fighter is really not at any disadvantage. Just as sometimes the fighter could do things faster than a cleric not using magic, a caster using magic may sometimes do things faster than a fighter. But that doesn't mean the fighter cannot do it.

This is completely wrong.

Damaging a creature immune to non-magical weapons requires magic at some point to magic the magic weapon or magic to damage the creature.

Bypassing a wall of force requires magic.

Dispelling a magical curse or an aliement (say from Bestow Cures) requires magic.

Caster can do anything a martial can do, it may take more time, but a martial can never do a lot of things that a caster can do.

Need to placeshift to the elemental plane of fire in order to get a relic that will stop an ancient horror from coming to the material plane? Good luck.

Want to make a clone of yourself or turn into a dragon? Good luck.

Want to stop a tidal wave that is about to hit the city? Have fun with that.

At low levels things are quite close to equal but as you hit mid levels, and especially at later levels, martials no longer can do what casters do.

[Specter]

The problem isn't the subclass really. The core fighter is just bad. Champion is bad too but that could be excused if the core of the Fighter worked better.

Outside of what anyone else can do it doesn't really get much. Even the things the Fighter can do, they are just things other people can do, just typically more times or "faster", this didn't work in 3e and it isn't working in 5e.

Action Surge is nice but you only really have weapon attacks to use it with (maybe making a save if a spell requires an action to try and save against it) or spells if you are EK (but your spell selection and spell slots are vastly limited). The only saving grace is that this is a short rest mechanic... But groups don't always take short rests so it gets saves for that 1/long rest nova.

Indomitable is just... It doesn't help you with 4 out of 6 saves. If you was going to fail before you are going to fail that Wis save again. Plus this is a long rest mechanic, people tend to forget that.

The reliance on the subclass is the biggest sin the Fighter has. Most classes rely on their core class to give them their abilities but the Fighter relies on their subclass to do "their thing". It would be like if casters got cantrips from their core class and then spells from their subclass, wouldn't that be weird.

I might have expressed myself poorly. In a campaign where you have many battles on a given day, for instance, the Champion quickly rises in value compared to Battlemaster and EK, who will be a lot lamer after the first fight. Using a tournament as an example, the Champion in the more likely one to rise to the top, while BM and EK stop at midway for lack of resources.

About the fighter, I really don't feel that way. Of all the martials, I'd say the monk is the most poorly executed (but only slightly). I also find fighters the most customizable class: while other martials get fixed options, you can give yourself two feats without trading precious ASIs.

Indomitable is like giving yourself advantage on one save, and that's roughly a +5 bonus at it, nothing to scoff at. If you happen to have Resilient, even better, but it's not mandatory.

[SharkForce]

most monks don't have major problems, other than people not understanding what it is that they do.

elemental monk has a bit of a problem, mostly because their subclass mechanically doesn't work very well with their base class. there's very little synergy there (but even then, the basic monk toolkit provides some definite value if used well).

a monk is not a wall of meat, nor are they artillery. their job is disruption of vulnerable targets that are otherwise hard to reach, and they are quite well-equipped to do that.

[jas61292]

This is completely wrong.

You are missing the point. Every single one of those things can either be overcome without magic, or are part of a larger overall situation, in which they can typically be avoided.


Damaging a creature immune to non-magical weapons requires magic at some point to magic the magic weapon or magic to damage the creature.

Yeah, a fighter can't wack a werewolf with a non-magic sword and get results, but there are other ways to deal with it. It is immune to bludgeoning, slashing and piercing from non-magical weapons. Not all non-magical damage. Fire, be it alchemist or otherwise, works fine. Throwing someone off a cliff would work (falling is not weapon damage). Suffocation/drowning will work perfectly fine. And while it takes more time, thirst/starvation will kill via exhaustion eventually. And that's not to mention that they could just find a magic weapon, which I don't even consider the same thing as being magic yourself.


Bypassing a wall of force requires magic.

I go around it. A wall of force can only be so big. Either that or I hire someone who can get me past it. A DM that only allows this problem to be solved by a PC using teleportation or disintigration is a bad DM.


Dispelling a magical curse or an aliement (say from Bestow Cures) requires magic.

I gather information about a local cleric or shaman or something and then pay them to do it. Or I research a cure and make it myself. A DM that only allows this problem to be solved by a PC casting remove curse or whatever is a bad DM.


Need to placeshift to the elemental plane of fire in order to get a relic that will stop an ancient horror from coming to the material plane? Good luck.

Portals and planar rifts exist. I'll go find one.


Want to make a clone of yourself or turn into a dragon? Good luck.

No I don't. And I will never need to. This is like saying to a wizard: "want to make 4 attacks every round with a greatsword, all day every day? Good luck." Yeah, some people simply cannot do that. But they will never need to, so its irrelevant. I don't need a clone, I'll just not die in the first place, thank you very much.


Want to stop a tidal wave that is about to hit the city? Have fun with that.

Ok, maybe I can't stop a tidal wave (though I question how a caster could short of a risky wish or divine intervention), but I can sure as hell raise an alarm and get everyone out in time. And then I can help rebuild the city afterwards. Huh, its almost like I achieved a different, but equally satisfactory result.


The idea that you need a single spell to solve a situation is flawed. A single challenge does not represent an entire situation, and any situation should have many ways to get a satisfactory result. If you come across a situation where you absolutely need a specific spell or two to go forward, and there is no way around that, it is not a sign that casters are superior. It is a sign that your DM is bad.

[R.Shackleford]

You are missing the point. Every single one of those things can either be overcome without magic, or are part of a larger overall situation, in which they can typically be avoided.



Yeah, a fighter can't wack a werewolf with a non-magic sword and get results, but there are other ways to deal with it. It is immune to bludgeoning, slashing and piercing from non-magical weapons. Not all non-magical damage. Fire, be it alchemist or otherwise, works fine. Throwing someone off a cliff would work (falling is not weapon damage). Suffocation/drowning will work perfectly fine. And while it takes more time, thirst/starvation will kill via exhaustion eventually. And that's not to mention that they could just find a magic weapon, which I don't even consider the same thing as being magic yourself.



I go around it. A wall of force can only be so big. Either that or I hire someone who can get me past it. A DM that only allows this problem to be solved by a PC using teleportation or disintigration is a bad DM.



I gather information about a local cleric or shaman or something and then pay them to do it. Or I research a cure and make it myself. A DM that only allows this problem to be solved by a PC casting remove curse or whatever is a bad DM.



Portals and planar rifts exist. I'll go find one.



No I don't. And I will never need to. This is like saying to a wizard: "want to make 4 attacks every round with a greatsword, all day every day? Good luck." Yeah, some people simply cannot do that. But they will never need to, so its irrelevant. I don't need a clone, I'll just not die in the first place, thank you very much.



Ok, maybe I can't stop a tidal wave (though I question how a caster could short of a risky wish or divine intervention), but I can sure as hell raise an alarm and get everyone out in time. And then I can help rebuild the city afterwards. Huh, its almost like I achieved a different, but equally satisfactory result.


The idea that you need a single spell to solve a situation is flawed. A single challenge does not represent an entire situation, and any situation should have many ways to get a satisfactory result. If you come across a situation where you absolutely need a specific spell or two to go forward, and there is no way around that, it is not a sign that casters are superior. It is a sign that your DM is bad.

Your responses of "get someone else that is magical to help me" just shows that the martial needs the magical to do the thing. Just because that magic is coming from an NPC doesn't mean it isn't relying on magic.

Who made the portal? Also, a lot of settings don't have rifts in time/space just laying around. Have fun on your year long adventure while the city is destroyed by a catastrophe.

Also, Wall of Force (or force cage for that matter), is not going to be set up so that you can "just walk around it".

[Tanarii]

Your responses of "get someone else that is magical to help me" just shows that the martial needs the magical to do the thing. Just because that magic is coming from an NPC doesn't mean it isn't relying on magic.True. D&D is about Magic. One way or the other. The question is: Is (A) personal magic (ie spells) more powerful than (B) found magic items in the hands of a non-caster, or (C) Other sources of magical power available to any group.

IMO A and B should be about balanced. Not A with 'non-caster without B'. In fact, sometimes the application of A to a non-caster should be the best option. But both A and B should be better than C. Other sources of magical power (loaned items, spells cast by NPCs, magical objects or artifacts that can't be 'owned' by the PCs but can be utilized occasionally) should be there to fill in the weaknesses of the party.

A good example of this is swords in D&D BECMI and AD&D 1e. They were powerful and plentiful. More powerful than anything a caster could get, for the most part. That's because Fighter + Sword was balanced against Magic-user at higher levels. Not Fighter vs Magic-user.

[krugaan]

You are missing the point. Every single one of those things can either be overcome without magic, or are part of a larger overall situation, in which they can typically be avoided.



Yeah, a fighter can't wack a werewolf with a non-magic sword and get results, but there are other ways to deal with it. It is immune to bludgeoning, slashing and piercing from non-magical weapons. Not all non-magical damage. Fire, be it alchemist or otherwise, works fine. Throwing someone off a cliff would work (falling is not weapon damage). Suffocation/drowning will work perfectly fine. And while it takes more time, thirst/starvation will kill via exhaustion eventually. And that's not to mention that they could just find a magic weapon, which I don't even consider the same thing as being magic yourself.



I go around it. A wall of force can only be so big. Either that or I hire someone who can get me past it. A DM that only allows this problem to be solved by a PC using teleportation or disintigration is a bad DM.



I gather information about a local cleric or shaman or something and then pay them to do it. Or I research a cure and make it myself. A DM that only allows this problem to be solved by a PC casting remove curse or whatever is a bad DM.



Portals and planar rifts exist. I'll go find one.



No I don't. And I will never need to. This is like saying to a wizard: "want to make 4 attacks every round with a greatsword, all day every day? Good luck." Yeah, some people simply cannot do that. But they will never need to, so its irrelevant. I don't need a clone, I'll just not die in the first place, thank you very much.



Ok, maybe I can't stop a tidal wave (though I question how a caster could short of a risky wish or divine intervention), but I can sure as hell raise an alarm and get everyone out in time. And then I can help rebuild the city afterwards. Huh, its almost like I achieved a different, but equally satisfactory result.


The idea that you need a single spell to solve a situation is flawed. A single challenge does not represent an entire situation, and any situation should have many ways to get a satisfactory result. If you come across a situation where you absolutely need a specific spell or two to go forward, and there is no way around that, it is not a sign that casters are superior. It is a sign that your DM is bad.

With a few exceptions, spells can accomplish goals in a much easier, quicker, the more satisfactory manner than you can through mundane means. That is what makes magic "magic", because there is magic that mimics things fighters can do (eldritch blast) as well as things they cannot do (wish).

Of those few exceptions, most cannot be accomplished by mundane means at all, like stopping a spell as it's being cast, healing someone else in combat, teleporting, polymorph, etc etc. A vanishingly small percentage can't be solved by anyone, and a tiny, miniscule percentage can be solved by mundanes and can't by magic (know your enemy).

[R.Shackleford]

With a few exceptions, spells can accomplish goals in a much easier, quicker, the more satisfactory manner than you can through mundane means. That is what makes magic "magic", because there is magic that mimics things fighters can do (eldritch blast) as well as things they cannot do (wish).

Of those few exceptions, most cannot be accomplished by mundane means at all, like stopping a spell as it's being cast, healing someone else in combat, teleporting, polymorph, etc etc. A vanishingly small percentage can't be solved by anyone, and a tiny, miniscule percentage can be solved by mundanes and can't by magic (know your enemy).

Know your enemy isn't performed by mundanes, it is performed by the Fighter.

Fighters, at least as a base option, shouldn't be mundane. That's what makes it unbalanced, magic can be *not mundane* but anyone without magic must be mundane.

Extraordinary (not in the sense of 3.5) abilities don't have to be magic. Many features already show us this (rage, sneak attack, action surge, expertise, etc...). The issue is that even higher level martial features get relegated to being mundane.

[krugaan]

Know your enemy isn't performed by mundanes, it is performed by the Fighter.

Fighters, at least as a base option, shouldn't be mundane. That's what makes it unbalanced, magic can be *not mundane* but anyone without magic must be mundane.

Extraordinary (not in the sense of 3.5) abilities don't have to be magic. Many features already show us this (rage, sneak attack, action surge, expertise, etc...). The issue is that even higher level martial features get relegated to being mundane.

Well yeah, but fighter being the poster child for mundane classes.

I guess giving all mundanes magic is a way to equalize things. Although I think It would be more fun to make more unique options like "know your enemy" and give them to mundanes.

Any ideas?

[djreynolds]

I think the issue is, if you're a champion who's shifting between melee and ranged, at Level 12 you have better criticals, a small bonus to skills you aren't proficient in, and +2 to Archery.

If you're a Battlemaster shifting between melee and ranged, at Level 10 you have five uses per short rest of: +1d10 damage and a disarm attempt, +1d10 damage and advantage on an ally's attack, +1d10 damage and the target has to charge across the room at you, +1d10 damage and move an ally half their speed, +1d10 damage and frighten your enemy, +1d10 to hit after you roll your attack and discover that it missed, or +1d10 damage and trip. And you can do all of that in melee combat, or at range. And you don't have to use it unless you hit, so you never waste your superiority dice. (And you also have Artisan's Tools and Know Your Enemy, but those are pretty weak.)

I'd say that all of those combat options are a lot more versatile than "crit on 19 and +2 to Archery". The Champion's niche is simplicity.

Correct, a champion should select GWM and sharpshooter, this will help expand their uses in combat. A champion doesn't make the best tank or striker or archer. Battlemaster is way better. But archery style opens up for a strength made champion the ability to use a bow with sharpshooter. I normally will have a dex of 14 and str of 20. I use a rapier and shield and defensive duelist and shield master to tank. I use a greatsword and GWS and GWM. And I use a longbow, archery style and sharpshooter. That's 4 feats and 2 ASI in strength. Easily obtainable.


That's completely faulty logic.

Being ancaster doesn't stop you or I or anyone else from thinking outside the box. You are turning a bug, having bad or no options, and trying to make it a feature.

It would be like saying that we are both boat salespeople. My boat can be used easily with oars or a motor. Your boat only has the option of oars. You then advertise that your boat is better because specifically of the lack of an oar/motor option and it will make you think when you are out in the water.

Many casters and partial casters need to think. Just because you apparently can't think when you play them doesn't mean this bug is a feature.

Agreed champions are not the best archetype. But if you select say duelist and defensive style, you will tie yourself to just S&B. I find as someone who has played a champion a few times, I find being versatile is the key.

For me a battlemaster makes for a better "specialist" in terms of fighting. A champion to be viable is almost MAD, needing at least a 14 to 16 in dex, and a maxed strength. This will open up options for the champion.

To play a champion well at higher levels is not easy. They have no spells, no SD, no SA, no rage, no smites, etc. But they do have the feats/ASI to acquire GWM and sharpshooter and use both effectively.

If you want a challenge, play a champion at high levels and live. It is hard. And harder to stay relevant to the party as they become super powerful.

But my half-orc champion was the last guy standing in many encounters. I had a 20 in strength and 16 in dex, with archery style it was like having a 20. And I could S&B with a short sword, defensive duelist, and shield master.

And the survivor class feature is awesome.

While everyone is dropping crazy spells and smiting, I was having to use every bit of grit and tactics I could muster to just stay upright. Much more challenging to play a champion well.

[SmokingSkull]

I'm playing a Fighter/Barbarian in the current campaign, I went Champion for the Fighter subclass and I'm going Totem (Bear) for the Barbarian. I'm having so much fun tearing stuff up, and for some reason Roll20 loves me...to the point where I crit often, VERY often. Matter of fact to quote a brief conversation with a fellow player from that campaign:

Other Player: "I've never seen a player character generate as many crits as you have."
Me: "What can I say other than I'm just lucky when it comes to rolls like that?"
Other Player: "It's good to have a high roller on the team."

Pure anecdotal experiences aside I love the Champion for its simplicity, I wouldn't necessarily call it the newb friendly class mainly because it's what you make of it. Some people see it as the training wheels class, others see it as something else. I call it an easy to understand foundation to build upon, cause after all isn't it easier to start simple and build to complexity rather than the other way around? I mean I've played a full champion before and it's definitely not as bad as people make it out to be. I don't think any subclass dropped the ball, so much as there may have been a few missed opportunities for more story.

What do I mean? I forget when the article/interview was but basically Mike Mearls said that out of all the subclasses made for the classes in the game, the fighter was his least favorite because the subclasses didn't really evoke the flavor it was supposed to. Cause let's be honest: if you didn't know anything about d&d, decided you wanted to play a fighter and were told to choose your archetype you'd most likely ask "What's the difference between a Champion and a Battlemaster?". If you have to ask that right away then that means a lack of initial identity that solidifies the image of the archetype in the player's mind. Of course I could be completely wrong and after all, this is just an opinion, nothing more.

[Nu]

There are a lot of issues with the ranger, stylistically, that I have. First, two-weapon fighting tends to be weak due to the fact that it uses your bonus action to make an off-hand attack, which is a greatly weakened attack without investing in features/feats to bring it up to par. This isn't an issue with the ranger itself, mind you, though the last two editions have made TWF a "ranger thing" and I'm cool with that, except this edition doesn't support it very well.

The beast master subclass, I feel, dropped the ball significantly. The pet will die the instant a reasonably strong monster glances in its direction, which hurts its viability, considering that most (all?) options are melee attackers. From a pure mechanical standpoint, this isn't a terrible thing, as it potentially absorbs a hit that a party member would otherwise take (unless it's caught in an AoE), but from a flavor standpoint, it's awful for the beast master who wants a loyal, long-term companion. To make matters worse, the beast master for some reason lacks an easy way to resurrect its own companion, and even if the DM allows resurrection magic to work, that tends to be a hefty material component investment when a more logical choice from a mechanical standpoint is to get a new one for free. No other class has their basic damage feature tied to a weak sack of too-few hit points!

I have a ranger "variant" subclass written up, but in the interest of sparing the forum yet another homebrew, I'd just say the main issues that need to be addressed with the beast master subclass is the pet's durability--it needs to be sturdier so it doesn't end up smeared across the pavement by an appropriately-leveled challenge, and the beast master should be able to resurrect his or her fallen companion if it does end up dying in lieu of finding a new one. There are other small adjustments that could be made as well--allowing the ranger to use a healing kit to restore the companion's hit points, more features that encourage the ranger and companion to fight in tandem, etc.