Can you fix a class (or subclass) with one single change?

[Eric Diaz]

This is just a thought experiment... Might be fun, I dunno.

But the other day I was considering the Champion and it is really a bit more interesting than what I initially tough. They also didn't feel underpowered during play.

So, I realized that if the Champion gained one single expertise - certainly Athletics, maybe let them choose something else - it would be a near-perfect class FOR ME.

So, what other classes or subclasses could be made perfect FOR YOU with one single change? Or maybe two? Which means, NOT rewriting the entire thing. Maybe you can fix the blade warlock with an extra attack? Or the sorcerer by using the wizard's spell list? Let me hear what you've got!

You know what - if you have a single, easy way to "fix" any other perceived problem in the game I'd like to hear it too. So, you think Intelligence is a dump stat - how you you fix with ONE change? And so on.

[Avonar]

Wild Magic Sorceror - Roll the d20 for Wild Magic on every spell cast, cantrip or otherwise, no more "The DM can make you roll" silliness. It's the signature of the class, it should be more than a once in a blue moon thing.

[Kane0]

Hmm.

Frenzy barbarian: 2 Hit Die instead of exhaustion
Elements Monk: +Wis to ki pool
Paladin smite: can use with ranged weapon attacks at d6s instead of d8s.
Sorcerer: Spell point variant, merging the two SP pools.
Advantage mechanic: Cancel on 1:1 basis
Ability checks: 2d10 instead of 1d20
Great Weapon Master / Sharpshooter: -5/+10 becomes +1 Str/Dex
Crits: Double damage, not double dice
Two Wepaon Fighting: If both weapons hit the same target add your Prof bonus as extra damage
Extra Attack: If you would double up (eg Fighter 5 / Barbarian 5) then you get +1 to a stat

Edit: I like the Champion Expertise, I think I might use that instead of bonus movespeed.

[Eric Diaz]

Hmm.

Frenzy barbarian: 2 Hit Die instead of exhaustion
Elements Monk: +Wis to ki pool
Paladin smite: can use with ranged weapon attacks at d6s instead of d8s.
Sorcerer: Spell point variant, merging the two SP pools.
Advantage mechanic: Cancel on 1:1 basis
Ability checks: 2d10 instead of 1d20
Great Weapon Master / Sharpshooter: -5/+10 becomes +1 Str/Dex
Crits: Double damage, not double dice
Two Wepaon Fighting: If both weapons hit the same target add your Prof bonus as extra damage
Extra Attack: If you would double up (eg Fighter 5 / Barbarian 5) then you get +1 to a stat

I like this! Care to share your reasoning on crits? Everything else makes sense, although it seems you made TWF a lot more useful than GWM at a first glance.

[DanyBallon]

No reading of internet forums about D&D :smallbiggrin:

[Kane0]

I like this! Care to share your reasoning on crits? Everything else makes sense, although it seems you made TWF a lot more useful than GWM at a first glance.

Simplicity and satisfaction. I've taught a handful of new players and they all respond better to 'Roll a 20, double damage!' than 'Roll a 20, twice the dice!' plus I also remove the -5/+10 thing so the bonus static damage doesn't make a huge mechanical impact. It's also super helpful when using average damage values in the Monster Manual and such.

I've yet to see the TWF part make a huge impact. You are still using your bonus action, need the fighting style and/or feat and have to hit with main and off hand, an extra 2-6 damage is just a little gravy to make it a more lucrative deal and worth considering along with other styles. For the record though a source of advantage + elven accuracy on a fighter makes a lovely blender.

Edit: And of course all of these are part of my table's houserules & homebrew, in sig.

[Hrugner]

The champion's bigger issue is their limited action types, everything is baseline for them. I'd Give them a bonus action grapple when they have a hand free and a bonus action shove when they use one attack to shove.
I'd give shillelagh, magic stone, and the melee cantrips to college of valor bards.
I'd let berserkers reduce their fatigue levels by spending ten minutes eating a full meal.
Make trickery's bonus damage psychic, stealth or deception proficiency, and give them dex/wisdom AC.
Give Land druids 1 unique (neither elemental nor animal) shapeshift for their land type.
Way of the four elements monk can cast any of the four elemental evil element manipulation cantrips as a bonus action.
Give sorcerers a version of paladin smite at 4th level that suits their bloodline.
I'd swap Wizard's arcane recovery and arcane tradition.

Something like that anyway.

[TurboGhast]

I fix frenzy's issues by making it use up an additional rage instead of causing exhaustion. Upon reaching level 20, berserker barbarians can rage an infinite number of times, but only enter frenzy up to three times per day.

This change makes frenzy still require extra resources, but without punishing you for using your class features.

[Rebonack]

Spellpoint variant for Warlock. Have 'em gain gain two spell points per level 'til 11 and then 1 per level until they cap out at 28 upon reach level 17. Using spellpoints rather than slots makes them FAR less agonizing to play at lower levels and doesn't punish them for picking spells that don't scale.

[Protato]

I fix frenzy's issues by making it use up an additional rage instead of causing exhaustion. Upon reaching level 20, berserker barbarians can rage an infinite number of times, but only enter frenzy up to three times per day.

This change makes frenzy still require extra resources, but without punishing you for using your class features.

Hm, I quite like this idea. I might use it in the future!

As for what changes I would include, I'd make Thirsting Blade free, it feels like I'm gimped for not taking it, which pidgeonholes progression a bit more than I'd like.

[Desteplo]

Way of 4 element
-2 free casting per short rest as warlock instead of using ki (1 at lvl 3/6)
-ki blast that scales with martial dice (adding 1ki to add push pull or adding extra dmg for melee)

[JackPhoenix]

Mystic: It doesn't exists. All problems solved at once.

Does using revised instead of standard ranger counts as single change?

[Potato_Priest]

To the OP: You're a man of good taste. Grappling is one of the most fun ways to shut people down in 5e.

Here's mine:

Valor bard, if Enlarge/Reduce was on the spell list or enhance ability didn't require concentration

[90sMusic]

For fighter, i'd give battlemaster combat maneuvers to all subclasses. Fighters can be very boring doing nothing but "attack" every round. Unlike other classes like rogue or monk that still essentially just attack every round, the other classes have other things they can do with their bonus actions to spice it up a little. Fighter is very mundane. I think having them be superior at actually fighting in some way would be nice.

Sorcerer, definitely needs spell point variant.

Warlock. Smoother and faster spell slot progression. Getting 2 slots at level 2 then not getting a third till like 10 or 11 is silly.

Cleric: Change divine intervention. Too much DM fiat right now as well as randomness. I'd change it to the equivalent of a "divine" wish letting you cast any spell of a spell slot you can currently cast and at that spell slot's level. Usable only once per week.

Bard: I'd really like to give them some sort of reliable way of dealing damage without burning up all their spell slots. Maybe some sort of sonic attack with their voice or instrument dealing Thunder damage (very rarely used damage type) that does maybe 1d8+charisma and scales up as eldritch blast does with multiple attacks, but limit the range to 15 feet. Still inferior to taking 2 level multiclass warlock dip due to less damage and less range, but makes it feel not quite so mandatory if you intended to actually deal any damage in fights at all while maintaining a support role.

[Eric Diaz]

To the OP: You're a man of good taste. Grappling is one of the most fun ways to shut people down in 5e.

Here's mine:

Valor bard, if Enlarge/Reduce was on the spell list or enhance ability didn't require concentration

Hahaha, Well thank you, sir! I think I didn't mention grappling but you caught my intention immediately!

[dejarnjc]

Druids: Can wear metal armor. The restriction is kind of inane and obviously a holdover from older editions.
Rouge/Thief: Fast Hands allows you to use magic items as a bonus action not just the ****ty items on the "Adventuring Gear" page in the PHB. (Yeah I get that they're useful at low levels but I've found them almost useless after level 5 or so.
Rogue/Assassin: No single fix can accomplish this IMO. But I'd definitely change assassinate. Get rid of the critical hit vs. surprised creatures aspect and just add an extra weapon die against any creature that hasn't taken a turn in combat yet. Or maybe an extra weapon die against any creature that hasn't taken damage yet.

[KorvinStarmast]

Fix the warlock by making it an Int based caster.

[Aembrosia]

Trickery Cleric Channel Divinity Invoke Duplicity no longer requires concentration.

[Dudewithknives]

Fix the warlock by making it an Int based caster.

That would at least slow down all the people who just take Warlock 2 and then everything else Bard/paladin/sorcerer.

However, it would make a crap ton of Warlock 2/ wizard x's.

Hexblade 2, bladesinger X...

[Eric Diaz]

Fix the warlock by making it an Int based caster.

Now that you mention it, I think I might do the same to the Sorcerer instead of the Warlock. I did exactly that to a Mathmagician for my Ravnica campaign and its the only way I can make sense of this class ("crazy scientist" or something).

[KorvinStarmast]

That would at least slow down all the people who just take Warlock 2 and then everything else Bard/paladin/sorcerer. Yeah. It would restore to the Warlock the whole history/arcana/investigation theme of prizing ancient secrets, lore, spells ...

However, it would make a crap ton of Warlock 2/ wizard x's. Hexblade 2, bladesinger X... That doesn't bother me, since I think the two archetypes are reasonably well represented in a lot of fiction over the years. (Raistlin being one such ...) I can't help that people like to multiclass.

[Biggstick]

I've never played a Sorcerer, and I've only ever heard that using the spell point variant would fix the class.

For those who have played it, what does recovering Sorcery Points on a short rest feel like it would do? Would it make the class too powerful? Would it do anything to making the class feel like it could way more out there?

[JNAProductions]

I've never played a Sorcerer, and I've only ever heard that using the spell point variant would fix the class.

For those who have played it, what does recovering Sorcery Points on a short rest feel like it would do? Would it make the class too powerful? Would it do anything to making the class feel like it could way more out there?

All sorcery points on a short rest? Probably way too good.

Some? Like, say, proficiency modifier? That'd be good.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'd remove Exhaustion from the Frenzy ability.

And I'm 1000% on board with KorvinStarmast's suggestion of making the Warlock Intelligence-based.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd remove Exhaustion from the Frenzy ability. I would do the same, or, failing that, come up with a different way to recover from exhaustion than one point per long rest for the Barbarian specifically. barbarians are if nothing else avatars of physicality and endurance. One still needs to pay a price for X, I just think that the Exhaustion mechanic is (at best) inelegant and at worst badly suited to this particular build: frenzy/Berserk barbarian.

[Vaz]

Not entirely sure what Int Warlock "fixes" about the class apart from reducing its synergy with Cha classes. The class still sucks ****, except now it sucks **** without having the ability to party face.

[Easy_Lee]

Four Elements Monk: reduce ki cost of most abilities by one, in keeping with shadow monk spells (1 ki / spell level).

[JNAProductions]

Not entirely sure what Warlock "fixes" about the class apart from reducing its synergy with Cha classes. The class still sucks ****, except now it sucks **** without having the ability to party face.

What do you have against Warlock? It's a good class.

[KorvinStarmast]

Four Elements Monk: reduce ki cost of most abilities by one, in keeping with shadow monk spells (1 ki / spell level).
*golf clap* yeah. Four Elements needs a little tweak, maybe that's the one it needs most.

[Tanarii]

I'd probably keep my changes pretty minor, as I think most classes are pretty well balanced.


Berserker Barbarian - Frenzy - first use doesn't give exhaustion. (Possibly second use gives 2 levels of exhaustion.)

Bard - Valor Bards, which IMX players prefer to play as Str builds, shouldn't have to wait until level 3 to get into melee. Give all Bards medium armor out the gate?

Druid - Wildshape doesn't give 100% of creature's normal hit points. Maybe 25% instead? Alternately, Druid gains some specific number of temp hps, but isn't forced out of the form when they lose them all.

Monk - 4 elements, give them a free elemental cantrip from EE every time they pick a Elemental discipline.
(Edit: They don't need cheaper Ki costs or more Ki or anything like that. Their Ki is properly balanced as a 1/3 caster on the assumption they'll use half of their pool for Elemental Disciplines, and the other half for base-class abilities. What they are missing is Ki-free effects.)

Paladin - reduce Divine Smite damage by 1d8 for spell slots. It's well worth 1d8/slot level, it doesn't need to be 1d8+1d8/slot level.

Ranger - change Natural Explorer non-expertise-like benefits to work in any natural terrain. (Probably keep expertise-like benefits limited to specific terrains.)
(Beast master doesn't need changing.)

Sorcerer - Not sure. They need a little something. Maybe 1 additional spell known? Nothing more than that, most people want to crank their 'fix' for Sorcs up to 11.

Warlock - Remove or seriously nerf Agonizing Blast Invocation. Maybe first invocation allows Cha +2 per hit, a second to unlock up to Cha. Or first invocation one works for ONE hit, and a second to allow each hit.
- hang a big sign on Pact of the Blade Boon that says "THIS BOON DOESN'T CHANGE YOUR WARLOCK INTO MELEE PRIMARY CHARACTER".

[Eric Diaz]

I would do the same, or, failing that, come up with a different way to recover from exhaustion than one point per long rest for the Barbarian specifically. barbarians are if nothing else avatars of physicality and endurance. One still needs to pay a price for X, I just think that the Exhaustion mechanic is (at best) inelegant and at worst badly suited to this particular build: frenzy/Berserk barbarian.

I am thinking maybe frenzy barbarians could get one "free" use per long rest. Maybe even short rest, I dunno.


Berserker Barbarian - Frenzy - first use doesn't give exhaustion.

....Yeah, this.


(Beast master doesn't need changing.)[/COLOR]

Care to elaborate? (not that I'm disagreeing, necessarily).

[Dr.Samurai]

I would do the same, or, failing that, come up with a different way to recover from exhaustion than one point per long rest for the Barbarian specifically. barbarians are if nothing else avatars of physicality and endurance. One still needs to pay a price for X, I just think that the Exhaustion mechanic is (at best) inelegant and at worst badly suited to this particular build: frenzy/Berserk barbarian.
Agreed. I'm not sure what might be a better fit, but I just got into a game now with a barbarian and I *briefly* considered going Frenzy, since I"m already playing a Totem in another game. But roleplaying exhaustion after each Frenzy turned me away from it (mechanically and thematically).

Is a second attack at level three *that strong*? (Serious question. I'm not a game-mechanics guy.)

[Eric Diaz]

Is a second attack at level three *that strong*? (Serious question. I'm not a game-mechanics guy.)

I think it is one of the most devastating ways to deal melee damage in the game. But then again I find exhaustion is too crippling.

[Easy_Lee]

*golf clap* yeah. Four Elements needs a little tweak, maybe that's the one it needs most.

Doesn't make them good, just playable. For good, I recommend the many homebrew revisions.

[Mister_Squinty]

I am thinking maybe frenzy barbarians could get one "free" use per long rest. Maybe even short rest, I dunno.

A class feature allowing Barbarians to recover an exhaustion level on a short rest (as long as food/water were available, etc) would be a nice little boost.

[Eric Diaz]

A class feature allowing Barbarians to recover an exhaustion level on a short rest (as long as food/water were available, etc) would be a nice little boost.

Yeah, I like the idea - although I might limit it to frenzy-caused exhaustion. I like the idea of the angry barbarian gorging on food for some reasons. Seems appropriate. "I'll eat every damn chicken..." etc.

[Mister_Squinty]

Yeah, I like the idea - although I might limit it to frenzy-caused exhaustion. I like the idea of the angry barbarian gorging on food for some reasons. Seems appropriate. "I'll eat every damn chicken..." etc.

I was thinking it would reflect on the Barbarians' heartiness and ability to recover from strenuous activity faster than the soft city folk.

However, "eating chickens" may be a requirement for that class feature.

[Tanarii]

Care to elaborate? (not that I'm disagreeing, necessarily).The quote-unquote "problem" with the Beast Master, for most people, is that it uses the Ranger's actions to do things. Words like "robot" get tossed around. This is actually a problem with people associating mechanics to strongly with what's going on in the in-game world. The Ranger using an action to have the companion doesn't necessarily mean the Ranger is closely directing the Ranger Companion's actions, and it's not acting (mostly) independently. It just means action economy is being preserved on the mechanical side. The Revised ranger addresses this by keeping the action economy the same, except it removes the option for the Ranger to ever Extra Attack. To get more attacks they must use the companion, as opposed to having the option to. It "fixes" something that is merely a perceptual problem on the part of players strongly wedded in mechanics = simulation of what's going on in the game world, and in the process breaks something else.

The revised ranger also unnecessarily increases companion power.

That said, there actually is a mechanical issue with Beast Master that is a problem, and the 'revised' does fix. PHB BMs can't TWF when their companion attacks and they get an additional attack themselves, because the Ranger is not taking the Attack Action. The revised BM is taking the Attack Action themselves, so they can TWF.

So yeah, that's something I'd fix. Allow BMs to TWF when their companion attacks, and the Ranger gets an attack out of it.

[Eric Diaz]

So yeah, that's something I'd fix. Allow BMs to TWF when their companion attacks, and the Ranger gets an attack out of it.

Ha, so you COULD fix it with one single change! :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, interesting post. Makes me reconsider the BM. It probably is only one little change away to being great.

[Vaz]

What do you have against Warlock? It's a good class.

How crap it is. Playing a Diablo 3 style dungeon crawl? Brilliant. It can throw out 6 fireballs in a day and clear out three rooms, while firing off Eldritch Blasts.

Want to do anything that's not looting a dungeon? The Warlock sucks. I mean, you could say the same for 5e in general, but the Warlock takes that theory up to 11. It's brainless, and boring. Get to play in a game where you're trying to manage your loot, you're having to play against the DM until you get your 3rd spell slot after waiting for 84,700 XP. You have to try and judge when and where to spend your resources. You have to judge "is this a combat that's worthy of me spending a spell slot?"

You're playing with a maximum level spell slot also, so 1st level spells opportunity costs get exacerbated. I'm a Hexblade with Shield spell I've preferred to take the hit, rather than risk not being able to deal damage with my smite, or not drop Hunger of Hadar.

Talking of which, the unique spells like Hunger of Hadar; awful. Why, of all the spells in the game, does this not improve in effect? Spell Slot using Invocations?

The Warlock is a trap of a class. Eldritch Blast or nah. Spend a spell slot on Armor of Agathys?

I've played 4 different variants of Warlock; Fey Warlock of the Chain 8-14, Old One Warlock of the Tome 3-12, Hexblade Warlock 9/Conquest Paladin 5 (from Pal 2/Warlock 1), and a homebrew Warlock Necromancer.

In all 3 events, the Warlock requires significant Homebrew to be let it work within a more conventional party.

The Warlock would work so much better as Long Rest Caster with a Spell Point/PP-esque/Mana style (which is how I'm currently playing the Homebrewed Necromancer, after the DM gave me a Magic item which allowed my Tome Lock to do the same and realised how much more effective it made it). This way, a Warlock can choose to Nova in the same way that any other caster can choose to throw down all of their high powered spells. No DnD game, or story I've ever really read about required any sort of spellcaster to say "nah, I'm going to save spending my highest level resources in this extinction level event, because there's going to be another one in about 4 hours, I just need to rest up first".

The Long Rest 6th+. Sweet. Now you can be like a caster, except ****ter, because you don't get any others. You can't replace it. You can't scale up. You can't even cast a 7th level Animate Dead, because you don't have a higher level spell slot to cast it out of, so you're left with non-scalar options, again, unless you metagame.

The Warlock needs so much.

The Warlock is balanced against 3 rests in a Day, 2S1L, so give it 6 spell slots and a Long rest mechanic. Even better, give it the Spell Point mechanic, based on those. 3rd level warlock with 6 2nd level spells has 18 Spell Points to spend. Instantly, it goes from being really, really ****, to being capable and more flexible in battle.

Let's look at the unique spells it gets access too. A 20ft Blind Radius Blind; wonderful. Apart from it affects your allies, and ignores their darkvision, deals rather crap AoE (it's a 5th level spell slot dealing ~4d6 damage. It's honestly a really **** use of your action unless you're fighting a ton of enemies. It's not even battlefield control apart from stopping enemies (and yourself) from seeing each other. Make it deal +1d6 for each tick as you increase in spell level, and at 5th level count as difficult terrain. At 9-20th level, you're putting out 4d6+4d6 possibly dealing twice that if they don't dash out of the area with a 5th level spell slot. Compared to say Fireball which is throwing out 10d8 damage. For that, I'd give additional Invocations to allow such signature spells to take be improved. Arms of Hadar also; 5th level spell to cause a Strength Save or suffer 6d6 damage to ALL within a 10ft radius. From a 5th level spell slot.

**** mechanics should not be balanced by being frustrating to use. Like rule 1 of game design.

I like the flavour. The execution was just poor.

And so I find it funny when you get the nodding donkeys going along "ah yes, making the Warlock an intelligence caster will fix it, because it's not like Intelligence is basically worthless in 5e for anything other than pumping your Spell Save DC".

The way that every beginning optimizer comes to the forum and goes I wanna make a Warlock 2/Generic Cha Syngery character #4623424 should explain how broken the class is, and making it even less worthwhile to synergise with, when it has so little going for it to have it contend for 18 damn levels, let alone the 12 that actually see play speaks volumes.

[Tanarii]

Ha, so you COULD fix it with one single change! :smallbiggrin:Absolutely. Thanks for making me revisit it. :smallwink:


Anyway, interesting post. Makes me reconsider the BM. It probably is only one little change away to being great.The biggest problem for many people is the beast felt too 'mechanical' or something like that. I mean, I understand it, but at the same time I don't. I can kinda see it by squinting my eyes and looking at it sideways, the same way I can when people try to claim 4e class's powers 'are all the same'. I don't agree. But folks are trying to put into words something that's really an impression or feeling, so I accept at face value that this is really the way it feels to them, even if it doesn't to me. :smallbiggrin:

(Edit: and as such, it wasn't fair of me to phrase it as a perceptual problem on the part of the players. This is how people feel about it. It rubs them the wrong way. I'm not a fan of the Revised Ranger, but I understand why lots of people are.)

[mephnick]

I think the main problem with Beast Conclave is pet survivability leaving you without a subclass for half the game. I've always found the criticisms of the rest of the subclass (especially the action sharing)ridiculous.

[Tanarii]

I think the main problem with Beast Conclave is pet survivability leaving you without a subclass for half the game.I've never really had a big problem with it. Nor have I seen players have a huge issue with it.

Keep in mind though, I've never seen a ranger in 5e's endgame level ranges (11-16), nor post-endgame levels (17+).

[jas61292]

I've never really had a big problem with it. Nor have I seen players have a huge issue with it.

Keep in mind though, I've never seen a ranger in 5e's endgame level ranges (11-16), nor post-endgame levels (17+).

I do personally think that the major problem with the beastmaster is the survivability. I do otherwise believe, that other than the whole TWF issue, it is good as is, and the problems people have is more one of perception. As is, its a melee combatant that is as durable or less than your average wizard, without any neat defensive options against most attacks. I don't think they need to make it scale as ridiculously as the revised one does, but even just one or two more HP per level would go a long way.

[Potato_Priest]

If the beast master doesn't feel thematic or fun for people to play then it ought to be changed, regardless of the balance of the original.

Should you change the mechaics because one person isn't having fun? No, just tell them to play something else.

Should you change the mechanics when a fairly decent proportion of people who choose an option regret it later because it isn't what they thought it would be, and isn't as fun as they'd hoped? I would say yes. Just because its an issue of perception doesn't mean that it shouldn't be changed.

[jas61292]

If the beast master doesn't feel thematic or fun for people to play then it ought to be changed, regardless of the balance of the original.

Should you change the mechaics because one person isn't having fun? No, just tell them to play something else.

Should you change the mechanics when a fairly decent proportion of people who choose an option regret it later because it isn't what they thought it would be, and isn't as fun as they'd hoped? I would say yes. Just because its an issue of perception doesn't mean that it shouldn't be changed.

That is a fair point of view. But I also think a lot of the dissatisfaction comes from people who think it is weak when it is not. They are misunderstanding their own frustrations.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, I also that is a completely fair point of view. I mean, the ranger, especially the Beast Master, definitely suffered from Internet group-think as well. But the perception that the mechanics are klunky is fairly widespread, and that's not something that I can in fairness claim is a 'wrong perception'. (Like I tried to at first.)

[Dr.Samurai]

I think the idea is that a beast companion would have some autonomy of course. Instead of having a companion with you, it feels more like you're playing through the beast companion by having to give up your actions to cause it to act. So it's not like Jon Snow fighting off wights with Ghost running alongside him also fighting. It's more like Jon Snow pointing at a wight and Ghost running over and attacking it.

Admittedly, this is only for two levels (3 and 4) before Extra Attack allowed them both to attack with the same Action. But I guess that was enough for some people. (I don't know, I've never really been interested in playing a ranger. It's a weird archetype to me... nature-y spellcasting dual wielder...)

[mephnick]

I think people were still too wrapped up in 3.5 pet mentality and by the time the community came to it's senses it was too late and the Beast Master had already been labeled as utterly broken by the hivemind.

[Theodoxus]

I'm DMing a PHB Beastmaster - no mods. I find the player forgets about his wolf nearly as much as V forgets about Blackwing. I don't think he's actually used it in combat - only for scouting / perception checks. The party is 5th level, so he could definitely be splitting up attacks between the wolf and himself, but the ranger has a much higher to-hit, deals more damage and can take a hit or two.

I'm always afraid that I'll kill the wolf with an aoe attack and the player will be out of his class abilities for some time (not that he's using most of them, but still.) We have another Hunter ranger in the party, and I think the BM is unwilling to rebuild, for fear of stepping on toes.

It's a subpar class that is outshone by the other ranger and pretty much everyone else in the party. Fortunately, the player isn't (obviously) a power-gaming optimizer, so he isn't pooty about it, but I am and have feels for his predicament.

I think the Revised Ranger's BM on the PHB Chassis would be a good place to start.

[DanyBallon]

I'm DMing a PHB Beastmaster - no mods. I find the player forgets about his wolf nearly as much as V forgets about Blackwing. I don't think he's actually used it in combat - only for scouting / perception checks. The party is 5th level, so he could definitely be splitting up attacks between the wolf and himself, but the ranger has a much higher to-hit, deals more damage and can take a hit or two.

I'm always afraid that I'll kill the wolf with an aoe attack and the player will be out of his class abilities for some time (not that he's using most of them, but still.) We have another Hunter ranger in the party, and I think the BM is unwilling to rebuild, for fear of stepping on toes.

It's a subpar class that is outshone by the other ranger and pretty much everyone else in the party. Fortunately, the player isn't (obviously) a power-gaming optimizer, so he isn't pooty about it, but I am and have feels for his predicament.

I think the Revised Ranger's BM on the PHB Chassis would be a good place to start.

We have a Revised Ranger in one of our game, and if not for the DM that is including the companion in combat, the player would forget about it. I not quite sure the problem is with the version of BM you are using, but more about that either version is not significant enough to contribute in combat, unless being used as a meat shield. And in order to keep balance, you can't boost the companion too much either. In the end, I would prefer that our Ranger's companion see more playtime for scouting and perception check as in your game over the way it happen in our game. :smallsmile:

[Easy_Lee]

I think people were still too wrapped up in 3.5 pet mentality and by the time the community came to it's senses it was too late and the Beast Master had already been labeled as utterly broken by the hivemind.

If it was half as powerful, but free acting and easier to revive / replace, people would have been happier with it. A halfling BM with a DM who lets him take any beast can ride a pteranodon and fly around the battlefield pelting enemies with arrows from out of range. Power was never the issue.

[NecroDancer]

I'd give the 4 element monk 1/3 wisdom casting based off the sorcerer list instead of their elemental powers.

[EvilAnagram]

I'm honestly a bit torn on the Beast Master. On the one hand, people are clearly unhappy with the character, and I want to be sympathetic to that. On the other hand, I've played both a PHB Beast Master and a Revised Beast Conclave ranger, and I was perfectly happy with both. I felt like the combat of the original was more fun for melee rangers, but my DM did rule that I could use the panther's Pounce ability, and it scaled with my proficiency.

The HP can be a problem, but I think something as simple as a level 5 feature that let's your beast take no damage on a successful Dex save a la the rogue fixes that.

[Specter]

Fixing Frenzy?

Just remove their worthless level 10 ability (or keep it) and add: "At level 10, you are no longer exhausted after a frenzy."

Everybody wins.

[Tanarii]

The party is 5th level, so he could definitely be splitting up attacks between the wolf and himself, but the ranger has a much higher to-hit, deals more damage and can take a hit or two.
That's unusual. At low levels, a wolf generally does more dpr than the ranger & has a better hit chance, and knocks down to boot. Wolves also have decent AC, sometimes better that the ranger, due to barding. They also (as a team) occupy two spaces, which is very useful at times.

Of course, a ranger that heavily focuses on dpr can eventually out damage a wolf. And of course, as always, the sharpshooter Feat breaks the game for Acher Rangers.


Fixing Frenzy?

Just remove their worthless level 10 ability (or keep it) and add: "At level 10, you are no longer exhausted after a frenzy."

Everybody wins.The level 10 ability is (incredibly) niche, not completely useless. :smallyuk:

and your "fix" is a huge damage boost. An whole extra bonus attack with a two handed weapon almost every fight getting full damage bonuses? That's clearly broken. I mean, look at PAM. Broken as hell.

[Dudewithknives]

That's unusual. At low levels, a wolf generally does more dpr than the ranger & has a better hit chance, and knocks down to boot. Wolves also have decent AC, sometimes better that the ranger, due to barding. They also (as a team) occupy two spaces, which is very useful at times.

Of course, a ranger that heavily focuses on dpr can eventually out damage a wolf. And of course, as always, the sharpshooter Feat breaks the game for Acher Rangers.

The level 10 ability is (incredibly) niche, not completely useless. :smallyuk:

and your "fix" is a huge damage boost. An whole extra bonus attack with a two handed weapon almost every fight getting full damage bonuses? That's clearly broken. I mean, look at PAM. Broken as hell.

Just wait till ancestral guardian hits print, with a 4d8 damage block, reflect back to any range, no save, and no roll, for a reaction comes out. I REALLY hope they changed that from the UA.

[Rhedyn]

When champions get expanded crit range they can also select a "half" feat, but they do not gain the stat increase from that feat.

Four elements monks half the ki cost (round up) of all four elements abilities.

Berserkers get one frenzy per short rest. No exhaustion mechanic.

Beast Masters pet has half the HP and half the HD of the Beast Master.

Paladin save aura is 1/2 as effective for allies but has double the range.

Sorcerers Twinned meta can be used on all spells except those that require concentration and overlapping effects don't stack (like fireballs), and is free for cantrips.

Warlocks use the spell point variant.

[Specter]

and your "fix" is a huge damage boost. An whole extra bonus attack with a two handed weapon almost every fight getting full damage bonuses? That's clearly broken. I mean, look at PAM. Broken as hell.

Well, it's on par with resisting all damage but psychic.

[Tanarii]

Well, it's on par with resisting all damage but psychic.
A 50% damage boost in 2/3 of your fights in a typical adventuring day is on par with something that make a significant difference maybe once an adventuring day? Barbarians already resist all PBS damage when raging, which is something like 90%* of incoming damage for front line combatants in Tier 1 & 2.

*90% of all statistics are made up on the spot :smallwink:

[JNAProductions]

Well, it's on par with resisting all damage but psychic.

Debatable. Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing are the most common damage types by a long shot, meaning in many encounters, you don't gain any real advantage from being Bear. Whereas a free extra attack will help pretty much every encounter faster, which means less damage to you and your party.

[Dr.Samurai]

A 5th level fighter with PAM is doing three attacks.

A 5th level berserker that's Frenzying is also doing three attacks.

What's the big difference here that requires one to be limited in uses per day, and smacking you with Exhaustion? Is it Reckless Attack? The +2 damage? The damage die on PAM is smaller?

[JNAProductions]

A 5th level fighter with PAM is doing three attacks.

A 5th level berserker that's Frenzying is also doing three attacks.

What's the big difference here that requires one to be limited in uses per day, and smacking you with Exhaustion? Is it Reckless Attack? The +2 damage? The damage die on PAM is smaller?

PAM is generally considered too powerful, so not exactly the point you want to be balancing on.

And considering the PAM die is d4 and the Barbarian can be swinging a greatsword...

Actually, let me math it.

Assuming the Fighter has +3 strength, and the Barb has +4 (he didn't waste an ASI on PAM, after all)...

Fighter does: 2d10+1d4+9, or 22.5, hitting on 9s probably, for 13.5 DPR.
Barbarian does: 6d6+18, or 39, hitting on 8s probably, for 25.35 DPR.

[Mister_Squinty]

A 5th level fighter with PAM is doing three attacks.

A 5th level berserker that's Frenzying is also doing three attacks.

What's the big difference here that requires one to be limited in uses per day, and smacking you with Exhaustion? Is it Reckless Attack? The +2 damage? The damage die on PAM is smaller?

Plus PAM costs a Feat and Frenzy is a free subclass feature.

[Tanarii]

A 5th level fighter with PAM is doing three attacks.PaM is broken.
If it's comparable to PAM, it's broken.



Fighter does: 2d10+1d4+9, or 22.5, hitting on 9s probably, for 13.5 DPR.
Barbarian does: 6d6+18, or 39, hitting on 8s probably, for 25.35 DPR.Fighters hit ~60% of the time, Barbarians ~84%. Because of Reckless Attack.

[Dr.Samurai]

Ok, so then back to my first question. Is it the level at which you get it? Because a fighter gets three attacks at level 11 and still keeps his bonus action. Does the fighter become broken at level 11, or does the math balance out at that level as far as extra attacks go?

[JNAProductions]

Ok, so then back to my first question. Is it the level at which you get it? Because a fighter gets three attacks at level 11 and still keeps his bonus action. Does the fighter become broken at level 11, or does the math balance out at that level as far as extra attacks go?

And Paladins get Improved Divine Smite. EVERYONE is a lot more powerful at level 11. PAM is, admittedly, less of a big deal, since it's now a lesser percentage of your attacks... Unless you're, say, a Paladin, in which case it becomes even more powerful, what with the Improved Divine Smite.


Fighters hit ~60% of the time, Barbarians ~84%. Because of Reckless Attack.

Reckless Attack comes with a major downside, though-so I did a straight, no advantage comparison.

[Dr.Samurai]

And Paladins get Improved Divine Smite. EVERYONE is a lot more powerful at level 11.
So you’re okay with it at level 11 then? Because it was suggested as a fix to drop Exhaustion at level 10 and that was still considered broken according to Tanaari. So why is the Barbarian using one of his Rages to get an extra attack as a bonus action broken, but the fighter getting three attacks with his regular Attack action not broken?

I’m guessing it’s Reckless Attack. Otherwise, I’m not really seeing the problem. But again, I admit, I’m not a rules mechanics guy.

[JNAProductions]

So you’re okay with it at level 11 then? Because it was suggested as a fix to drop Exhaustion at level 10 and that was still considered broken according to Tanaari. So why is the Barbarian using one of his Rages to get an extra attack as a bonus action broken, but the fighter getting three attacks with his regular Attack action not broken?

I’m guessing it’s Reckless Attack. Otherwise, I’m not really seeing the problem. But again, I admit, I’m not a rules mechanics guy.

Your example was at 5th level-that's what I was talking about.

I'm not going to say that Frenzy is well-balanced. It's not-Exhaustion is too much. But giving it for free from the get-go is too much in the opposite direction.

[Tanarii]

Reckless Attack comes with a major downside, though-so I did a straight, no advantage comparison.barbarians will generally use reckless, even with the downside. Unless you're surrounded by many enenmies, it's still a huge benefit. Generally speaking it's better to assume it's being used the majority if the time.


So you’re okay with it at level 11 then? Because it was suggested as a fix to drop Exhaustion at level 10 and that was still considered broken according to Tanaari. So why is the Barbarian using one of his Rages to get an extra attack as a bonus action broken, but the fighter getting three attacks with his regular Attack action not broken?

I’m guessing it’s Reckless Attack. Otherwise, I’m not really seeing the problem. But again, I admit, I’m not a rules mechanics guy.
Unlimited frenzy on rage is still incredibly powerful even at level 10. Less so in a game that allows PAM, but more so in a game that allows GWM. But you're right, I was knee jerking to it at level being used in mid tier one and low tier 2, where it's far more powerful, relatively speaking. If I was going to increase it, if go with an extra 'free' use (for two total) with the option to take exhaustion after that. It still gives the player the option to push the limits if they need to.

Regardless, IMO the subclass should get at least one free use of Frenzy per day.

btw, just for comparison, barbarians get a defensive bonus at level 11 (relentless rage), as opposed to fighters offensive one.

And yes, reckless makes a huge difference. It's what gives barbarians significant damage boost.

[Theodoxus]

What about Horde Breaker? For free, extra attack at 3rd level. Rangers can make 3 attacks, with zero drawback at 5th. Only limitation is requiring 2 opponents within 5' of each other.

What if everything that provides an extra attack (other than, ironically, Extra Attack) requires said setup?

Would Frenzy be so OP then if it's still requiring Raging (a very limited resource). Would PAM be?

[Easy_Lee]

What about Horde Breaker? For free, extra attack at 3rd level. Rangers can make 3 attacks, with zero drawback at 5th. Only limitation is requiring 2 opponents within 5' of each other.

That's actually a significant limitation. The ranger in one of my current groups almost never gets to use it because the DM always throws giants and bandit archers at the group.

[Haldir]

My simple fix is for 1/3 casters. They get to round up their spellcaster level for multiclassing. It's actually a huge help for most builds at some of the most important levels.

[Theodoxus]

That's actually a significant limitation. The ranger in one of my current groups almost never gets to use it because the DM always throws giants and bandit archers at the group.

Right - which is my point. No one cares about horde breaker, even though it's completely free (not a bonus action, requires no resources) - all because it's less common in some games (my hunter regularly gets to use it, because he has a couple of melee heavies that gather enemies into packs).

So, if every other ability had the same restriction, there shouldn't be any reason why PAM, TWF or the cleave from GWM - along with Frenzy - shouldn't be likewise completely free to use.

[Protato]

Anyone else think Shadow Hound in UA Hexblade could stand to be replaced by the Eldritch Smite Invocation instead? I like the subclass and its flavor but having a lite familiar and not a new martial skill makes little sense to me.

Someone on the front page suggested the Bard could have a Thunder attack using their voice and I quite like that idea. For that matter, I think every magic class should be allowed to have a few "free" cantrips. Druids get Druidcraft, Clerics and Paladins get Thaumaturgy, and the arcane casters get Prestidigitation. Everyone also gets an attack cantrip or two for free. A Wizard/Sorcerer could choose between Shocking Grasp/Ray of Frost/Firebolt, Druids get Produce Flame, Bards get the sonic attack along with Vicious Mockery, Warlocks get Eldritch Blast, and Clerics/Paladins automatically get Sacred Flame. Other than the free cantrips mentioned, Paladins still wouldn't get any. Mostly I think it'd be flavorful but it also frees slots for interesting options.

[Specter]

I still don't think removing exhaustion at level 10 is too much. It's level 10, this is the end of Tier 2, and a dual-wielding barbarian can still accomplish the same things except for the -5/+10 from GWM. This is supposed to be what the subclass does well.

But let's pretend it is. What other fix would you implant, then?
Maybe something like this?

Fury Beyond Body
At level 10, you can recover from your frenzies more quickly. You can recover one level of exhaustion gained through your Frenzy ability on a short rest, and two on a long rest.

[EvilAnagram]

I still don't think removing exhaustion at level 10 is too much. It's level 10, this is the end of Tier 2, and a dual-wielding barbarian can still accomplish the same things except for the -5/+10 from GWM. This is supposed to be what the subclass does well.

But let's pretend it is. What other fix would you implant, then?
Maybe something like this?

Fury Beyond Body
At level 10, you can recover from your frenzies more quickly. You can recover one level of exhaustion gained through your Frenzy ability on a short rest, and two on a long rest.

How about, "You can recover one level of exhaustion every short rest."

You still have to deal with the consequences of Frenzy, but they don't last as long. This also gives Barbarians a single short rest resource to play with.

[Specter]

How about, "You can recover one level of exhaustion every short rest."

You still have to deal with the consequences of Frenzy, but they don't last as long. This also gives Barbarians a single short rest resource to play with.

You'd still have to specify Frenzy echaustion, otherwise such a character wouldnever syarve or freeze to death.

[EvilAnagram]

You'd still have to specify Frenzy echaustion, otherwise such a character wouldnever syarve or freeze to death.
Super endurance seems like a decent barbarian ribbon.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Super endurance seems like a decent barbarian ribbon.

Yeah, but giving them complete blanket immunity to exhaustion would mean that they'd never ever have to sleep again, or stop marching, of a bunch of other things. I think that it may be worthwhile to limit it to exhaustion caused by frenzy.

[Mister_Squinty]

Yeah, but giving them complete blanket immunity to exhaustion would mean that they'd never ever have to sleep again, or stop marching, of a bunch of other things. I think that it may be worthwhile to limit it to exhaustion caused by frenzy.

Allowing them to recover one level of exhaustion on a short rest as long as they slept/drank/ate, perhaps?

[EvilAnagram]

Once per long rest, you can recover a level of exhaustion on a short rest.

[Tanarii]

Once per long rest, you can recover a level of exhaustion on a short rest.
Oh I like that. Works just like Arcane Recovery. Put that on top of one exhaustion free Frenzy per Long Rest at level 3, and it fixes the problems I have with the subclass.

Edit: The reason I like it is it can be used for more than just Frenzy exhaustion ... once per long rest. Stack with the free level removed on a Long Rest, it means the Barbarian can Frenzy 3 times in one day and still be able to go the next day. But has short term consequences in the until short rest after the second, and until long rest after the third.

[DanyBallon]

Oh I like that. Works just like Arcane Recovery. Put that on top of one exhaustion free Frenzy per Long Rest at level 3, and it fixes the problems I have with the subclass.

Edit: The reason I like it is it can be used for more than just Frenzy exhaustion ... once per long rest. Stack with the free level removed on a Long Rest, it means the Barbarian can Frenzy 3 times in one day and still be able to go the next day. But has short term consequences in the until short rest after the second, and until long rest after the third.

I'm not sure I like the idea of be able to frenzy three time a day as early as 3rd level. I must say that I like Frenzy as it is because it's flavorful and it's flavorful because the offset to Frenzy is very harsh. Now, while Berserker are not meant to Frenzy all day long (their 6th level is in my opinion much better that totem barbarian and is the defining feature of the berserker), being able to do it once or twice a day if you really need to is may be a bit too limiting. I like the idea of allowing a single short rest to remove an exhaustion level (not just Frenzy exhaustion, Berserker are amazingly resilient) once per day, but I wouldn't go further than that, otherwise most of the flavor of using exhaustion level after a Frenzy is lost :smallannoyed:

[Kane0]

I like to substitute in a Hit Die cost because its both a unique mechanic, keeps some sort of limit that grows with level and balances out the reduced damage you usually take in an encounter using frenzy

[mephnick]

Yeah, I like the Arcane Recovery type ability, but stacking it with a free Frenzy seems like too much for me. One or the other in my opinion.

[Mara]

You could have frenzy consume another use of rage.

[Dudewithknives]

Warlocks are long rest half casters not short rest oddball casters, just drop the arcanum.

[Tanarii]

I'm not sure I like the idea of be able to frenzy three time a day as early as 3rd level.1/day without exhaustion at 3rd level.
2/day with exhaustion until your next short rest at 10th level.
3/day with exhaustion until your your next long rest, at 10th level.
4/day with one level of exhaustion carrying over to the next day after the long rest, at 10th level.
etc

This post was in response to the other's suggestions that exhaustion go away completely at level 10.


Now, while Berserker are not meant to Frenzy all day long (their 6th level is in my opinion much better that totem barbarian and is the defining feature of the berserker), being able to do it once or twice a day if you really need to is may be a bit too limiting.Well, 6/day is effectively "all day long" for the average adventuring day, given the way 5e encounters per day are designed to work. 4/day is "as many as you have rages per day" starting at level 5.


I like the idea of allowing a single short rest to remove an exhaustion level (not just Frenzy exhaustion, Berserker are amazingly resilient) once per day, but I wouldn't go further than that, otherwise most of the flavor of using exhaustion level after a Frenzy is lost :smallannoyed:Agreed, that's why I liked it too.

[Asmotherion]

Dragon Sorcerer Level 18 Capstone: You Become an actual Adult Dragon of your origin. No kidding. All Full casters can turn into Dragons by that Level, but Dragonic Origin Sorcerers can't and that's silly. I'd include the Shapechange ability even to Chromatics, to turn back into their previous Selves, and not include Legendary actions... Probably also Keep their own Mental Abilities (for better or for worse) in both shapes... That might actually encourage a sorcerer to play up to level 18, instead of multiclassing into Paladin (or playing a Wizard for an Arcane Caster - I don't, but most people do so).

Totem Barbarian: Remove the spellcasting restriction on rage... it's enough that you can't concentrate on spells. The Totem Barbarian/Shaman is the "Spellcaster" Barbarian, and should be able to use some Raging Spellcasting... I'd love the idea of some Raging Eldritch Blasts as a theme (without it necesserally giving any benefit whatsoever, just for the idea of an RP trope).

Eldritch Knight; War Magic: If only if worked the other way around! Either:
Option 1: When you make the Attack action on your Turn, you can use a bonus action to cast a cantrip.
Option 2: When you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can use a bonus action to use the Attack action.

Or, the perfect one:
War Magic: When you use your action to use an Attack Roll Cantrip, you can use a Bonus action on your turn to use one more Attack Roll Cantrip on your turn.

Walock, Pact of the Blade: You use your Charisma Mod for the Attack/Damage Rolls of the Blade, instead of Str/Dexterity. The Blade is made of pure eldritch energy unless you make a specific weapon your pact weapon (fluff change).

Paladin, Oath of Vengence: Darker tone to the actual oath, making him more of a neutral Paladin, with Evil tendencies, than a Chaotic Good Paladin. Fluff Changes.

Paladin/Ranger: Give them some cantrips! The only reason I'd never consider playing a Pure Paladin/Ranger is because they have no cantrips. Real Casters have Casntrip, and Even Arcane Tricksters/Eldritch Knights feel more like real casters to me, than Paladins or Rangers (eventhough they have less spells/spellcasting progression) because of this fact.

[mephnick]

You could have frenzy consume another use of rage.

I started with this rule, but Rage is the defining Barbarian feature and I found that limiting the amount of rages due to Frenzy actually made the class feel worse.

I think it's important to keep normal rage there as an option as much as possible.

[Specter]

Dragon Sorcerer Level 18 Capstone: You Become an actual Adult Dragon of your origin. No kidding.

Eldritch Knight; War Magic: If only if worked the other way around! Either:
Option 1: When you make the Attack action on your Turn, you can use a bonus action to cast a cantrip.
Option 2: When you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can use a bonus action to use the Attack action.

1) Turning into a dragon permanently is frankly just moronic, and many players wouldn't even want it. Just add True Polymorph to their list, at-will flight is awesome.

2) That makes no other Fighter be able to compete with the EK in terms of damage.

[JNAProductions]

Eldritch Knight; War Magic: If only if worked the other way around! Either:
Option 1: When you make the Attack action on your Turn, you can use a bonus action to cast a cantrip.
Option 2: When you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can use a bonus action to use the Attack action.

Or, the perfect one:
War Magic: When you use your action to use an Attack Roll Cantrip, you can use a Bonus action on your turn to use one more Attack Roll Cantrip on your turn.
[B]

Yeah, this is absolutely insanely overpowered. And Eldritch Knight is already awesome as-is.


Warlocks are long rest half casters not short rest oddball casters, just drop the arcanum.

That would seriously gimp the Warlock-they're a full caster right now, just an odd one.

[MadBear]

1) Turning into a dragon permanently is frankly just moronic, and many players wouldn't even want it. Just add True Polymorph to their list, at-will flight is awesome.

2) That makes no other Fighter be able to compete with the EK in terms of damage.

Out of curiosity, why was insulting someone here even necessary? There were many other ways of getting your point across without being insulting, so why?

[suplee215]

For Battle Rager Barbarian make spike armor a heavy weapon. Isn't even a change to the cast as much as the item itself.

[jas61292]

For Battle Rager Barbarian make spike armor a heavy weapon. Isn't even a change to the cast as much as the item itself.

A heavy weapon? Why? All that does is make small characters unable to use it properly.

[furby076]

Mystic: give heavy armor. It doesnt hinder power usage. And d12. Mystic is severely gimped

[toapat]

*golf clap* yeah. Four Elements needs a little tweak, maybe that's the one it needs most.

Monk is fundamentally constructed in a constrictive manner, which combined with 4 elements monk not giving actual casting progression, a very limited spell list, and the fact that Monk is not intended to gain offensive choices rather than support choices, means monk technically is a high priority rebuild after ranger and sorcerer

Fixes:

Barbarian: Remove the Melee restriction from range. If Homer Simpson can Rage-Javalin a host of Suitors for Marge, Viking Badass derivatives should be too.

Paladin: remove the Melee restriction from Divine Smite, Improved Divine Smite, and the Smite Spells.

Redemption paladin: Delete button. I do not trust XGE to have fixed the Mary Sue/My First Character Kitchen sink approach of this class. It should only get to be Jedi/Dex paladin, or tank paladin, or fullcaster paladin, or control caster paladin. Not all of the above.

Sorcerer: Spell points maybe?

Sword Burst: give it to paladins, rangers and clerics

Edit: Halve damage bonus of Sharpshooter and GWM

[Specter]

Out of curiosity, why was insulting someone here even necessary? There were many other ways of getting your point across without being insulting, so why?

I'm not insulting him at all. I'm saying how I feel about his idea, which is very bad in my point of view. Being offended by having your ideas attacked in a forum is sad.

Edit: just to reiterate, no disrespect.

[EvilAnagram]

Warlocks are long rest half casters not short rest oddball casters, just drop the arcanum.
That just sucks the interesting mechanics out of the class.

[mephnick]

Paladin: remove the Melee restriction from Divine Smite, Improved Divine Smite, and the Smite Spells.


It's already the best class in the game, it doesn't need ranged Smites, thanks.

[Mara]

Fighters: Free bonus feat with bonus ASIs. (Bonus feats at 6 and 14)

[Easy_Lee]

Fighters: Free bonus feat with bonus ASIs. (Bonus feats at 6 and 14)

My fix for fighters would be similar, but it's not a single fix. Fighters are great in the first tier, good in the second, but fall short in the third and fourth tiers. You'd need to add some benefits to the latter tiers to make them effective.

Some ideas:
- bonus ASI: 13th
- bonus ASI: 15th
- Extra Attack (3) moved to 17th
- A proper capstone. Maybe recover one action surge at the start of combat if they have no uses left. Not great, but at least as good as Monk...

[EvilAnagram]

My fix for fighters would be similar, but it's not a single fix. Fighters are great in the first tier, good in the second, but fall short in the third and fourth tiers. You'd need to add some benefits to the latter tiers to make them effective.

Some ideas:
- bonus ASI: 13th
- bonus ASI: 15th
- Extra Attack (3) moved to 17th
- A proper capstone. Maybe recover one action surge at the start of combat if they have no uses left. Not great, but at least as good as Monk...

That's an insane power boost for a class that already recovers its resources on short rests and deals more consistent damage than anyone else at most levels of play.

[Easy_Lee]

That's an insane power boost for a class that already recovers its resources on short rests and deals more consistent damage than anyone else at most levels of play.

Less damage than the barbarian who has more beneficial features than the fighter, especially by tier 3 when rage is plentiful. You'll notice none of the things I would add increase damage, or if they do then the increase is small because it's coming from feats the fighter didn't already take by 10. There are only so many GWM type feats that you can fit on one character.

Fighters already get extra attack 3, just not until 20. Cantrips scale at 17 meaning warlocks get a fourth attack before fighters do.

Fighters have bonus feats, but they're all front-loaded. Multiclassing out of fighter at some point, usually around 12, is usually the right choice. There's little reason to stick with the class. But additional features can round out the character and provide incentive to stick with it.

Consider that monks gain a feature at 14 that's worth at least two feats. Bonus ASIs are not a huge deal, but they play well into fighter versatility. Fighters should keep gaining versatility over other classes in later tiers as well, not just in the first two.

[suplee215]

A heavy weapon? Why? All that does is make small characters unable to use it properly.

Dwarfs are medium sized this edition and by loose RAW are the only race that can be battle rager. But the reason to do it is for Great Weapon Master feat. The optimized version of the Barbarian is by far Bear Barbarian with polearm mastery and great weapon mastery due to the 1d4 butt end also getting the -5/+10 feat. Even the king DPS when in perfect conditions Berserker gets to use the feat on his bonus attack. Giving it to the Battle Rager makes the ability compete without feeling over power or you're playing the wrong barbarian. And you are attacking with your weight. Fluff wise your own body should be a heavy weapon. It also does not break the class, it just make you feel on par of what other barbarians do. A slight edge on the polearm mastery as you use a maul or greatsword for this but inferior to berseker using that weapon for the bonus.

[toapat]

It's already the best class in the game, it doesn't need ranged Smites, thanks.

Paladin, along with warlock, are the Only classes within their own design elements you cant point out some intrinsic design mistake. thats not the same as paladin being the best class in the game. In fact they pretty squarely arent the best in Theoretical optimization ever. The worst problem with paladin is that the construction of the multiclass rules does not RAW stop you from utilizing spells from their entire spell list if you only go 2 paladin/18 Bard

Barbarians suffer from the existence of the Champion fighter, and they suffer that frenzy probably should cost HP and make it much more clear that frenzy is supposed to be part of the rage bonus action rather than a second rage itself.

Champion fighter probably should have some mechanics for being a Face like a Gladiator was, or just not exist so that barbarian can truly shine with its "no thought required" subclass

Monk is built basically under the assumption you are going to take Open Palm and by extension so balanced around investiture into its core offensive mechanics it doesnt leave space for subclasses like Sunsoul and Four Elements. In fact id probably go so far as to say monk should probably be built like Warlock, except with their "Variety of Kung Fu" at lvl 1, and their reason of Kung-Fu at level 3, since their subclasses are much more a divide between these concepts, as well as their innate mechanics.

Ranger suffers from being a heap of ideas which belong to Backgrounds, Rogues, Fighter, and Druid, and because of that not really being able to shine as a class. Are they great beastmasters? no, they just get a wild buddy. are they the ultimate hunter? no, that belongs to vengeance paladin. are they good trackers? sure, but shouldnt that be something like the outlander background? are they thematic casters? yes, actually moreso than druid.

The only problem i can think of with rogue, which is the problem shared by Eldrich knight and Wizard, is that Arcane Trickster suffers from Gygaxian spell organization, which it honestly does not need. Arguably Favored enemy and Hunters Mark could be redesigned to create a less Roulette oriented, and mechanically reasonable, assassin rogue. In fact, while im more in favor of ranger not existing, the best solution to ranger existing is to make a dedicated beastmaster which specializes exclusively in having a pet and being badass with a pet, with secondary roles coming possibly from spellcasting or skills.

Which leads around to druid which arguably also suffers from existential crisis in 5E where the difference between cleric and druid is effectively and significantly reduced because of subclasses to the point of, specifically, What difference is a druid from a theoretical "Wilds Domain" and "Primal Domain" cleric? While cleric itself does not need any help in terms of diversity and power, and Channel Divinity certainly doesnt taste right even for appropriate results such as giving a "Wildshape Cleric" their 1/shortrest Elemental wildshape. Or perhaps just rework nature domain to be more Hippy and give wildhape to a Totem Incarnation barbarian.

Sorcerer suffers from having no unique personality due to the lack of dedicated spell list, suffers from accidentally giving every other caster class more spells prepared, and from diversity. They probably would have emotionally benefitted from using spellpoints instead of spellslots and Sorcery points. i dont know for certain but it does give them something different from other classes at least. Oh and the player should be able to determine when and how often wild magic surges happen.

Cleric, while very well put together, probably needs its own domains to be flavorful but also for those domains to more significantly "flick switches" within the playstyle of cleric.

Wizard is, along with the miniwizards in Eldrich Knight and Arcane Trickster, is tied to an anachronistic system people have as much issue with now as they have had with alignment in 2E and 3.5. While i feel they need to move the goalposts a few nudges on alignment, the spell categorization system in DnD is like the Dewey decimal system, it works when there is limited materials to organize, but it does not react well to new technology and expansion. But further, if i want to play a Pheonix Sorcerer, shouldnt i be able to, specifically because of the Pheonix Sorcerer, take any spell which deals fire damage? the existing wizard school subclasses could still remain, but they would use thematic tags rather than thematic schools. Although this does hurt the sorcerer if the old system were replaced with a more practical one

Bard: the largest problem i know of with bard, is that the absolute most powerful way to play bard, is extremely boring in combat. While this is just a problem with using Inspiration to buff your most powerful ally, Vicious Mockery for disadvantage on the most badass thing near you, and Counterspell for everything else, it doesnt fall into a category of broken along some axis.

Where the paladin is built correctly from the get go, warlock is the only class built in 5th edition which WotC can patch to correct the performance issues of. in the PHB, the warlock's most effective sctick is an Energiser bunny caster who uses their limited spellslots in support while eldrich blast carries the day. In XGE were going to see the Smite Invocation which allows the bladepact warlock to function regardless of patron, as well as some boosts for whichever of Chain or Tome is currently agreed to be toast compared to the other.

[MadBear]

I'm not insulting him at all. I'm saying how I feel about his idea, which is very bad in my point of view. Being offended by having your ideas attacked in a forum is sad.

Edit: just to reiterate, no disrespect.

1. Calling someone's idea moronic is disrespectful regardless of what you meant.

2. "Being offended by having your ideas attacked in a forum is sad."- I'm not saying this at all. First, it wasn't my post. Second, I don't disagree that those changes wouldn't be good, I'm pointing out that how you expressed that is rude and disrespectful.

[Vaz]

That just sucks the interesting mechanics out of the class.
Theyre not interesting.

[UrielAwakened]

1. Calling someone's idea moronic is disrespectful regardless of what you meant.

2. "Being offended by having your ideas attacked in a forum is sad."- I'm not saying this at all. First, it wasn't my post. Second, I don't disagree that those changes wouldn't be good, I'm pointing out that how you expressed that is rude and disrespectful.

It's also not even a bad idea. Flight at 18th level is pedestrian.

[Aelyn]

It's also not even a bad idea. Flight at 18th level is pedestrian.

Surely, by definition, it's the exact opposite of pedestrian?

[EvilAnagram]

Theyre not interesting.
Yes, they are.

See, I can make blanket statements without bothering to back them up with arguments, too.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

I like your thoughts, but they sound like a lot more than spotfixes.

[Dudewithknives]

That just sucks the interesting mechanics out of the class.

Another fix would be just to outlaw multiclassing or to make 2 short rests per long rest mandatory in the book.

As it stands they are only as good as often as your DM will let you be. I hate that.

Actually I would prefer them to be like they were in 3.5, a collection of easily modified at will abilities and not cast at all.

I rebuilt it to do that in 5e so far it has worked great, it took me 34 pages though.

[jas61292]

Dwarfs are medium sized this edition and by loose RAW are the only race that can be battle rager. But the reason to do it is for Great Weapon Master feat. The optimized version of the Barbarian is by far Bear Barbarian with polearm mastery and great weapon mastery due to the 1d4 butt end also getting the -5/+10 feat. Even the king DPS when in perfect conditions Berserker gets to use the feat on his bonus attack. Giving it to the Battle Rager makes the ability compete without feeling over power or you're playing the wrong barbarian. And you are attacking with your weight. Fluff wise your own body should be a heavy weapon. It also does not break the class, it just make you feel on par of what other barbarians do. A slight edge on the polearm mastery as you use a maul or greatsword for this but inferior to berseker using that weapon for the bonus.

While I guess that makes some sense, a "fix" that requires you to take a single specific feat (especially considering that feats are an optional rule) is not really something I personally consider a true fix.

When I first read your original post, I actually misread it as "heavy armor", rather than "heavy weapon." While I realized this mistake before posting, thinking about this a bit more, that would actually be a pretty neat change for the class. Make spiked armor heavy (with an appropriate AC boost) and give the battlerager proficiency with heavy armor and the ability to rage while wearing it. Obviously not a complete fix, and I'm only bringing it up because it popped into my head due to my misreading, but it would be a neat niche.

[toapat]

I like your thoughts, but they sound like a lot more than spotfixes.

which is true, basically im getting at why paladin Feels like the most powerful class in DnD when the math says that objectively its pretty middle of the pack for the mundanes, which comes down to a much larger problem where most classes suffer some form of design baggage. And killing the worst of the baggage cant be done without extremely comprehensive documents

Paladins are Melee explicitly because of tradition and not balance, which is the same deal with Barbarian. So why keep that baggage in the Edition of DnD most about killing sacred cows?

Fighters are supposed to be Weaponmasters, but one of their subclasses is designed around just being purely autonomous which thematically does not fit with the other subclasses, as well as another subclass is burdened by the one Sacred Cow that no one has ever touched even in 4E when the rest of the cows were locked in cold storage.

Monk subclasses are either support classes or irrelevant in practice. So we see Long death, Open Palm, and Shadow do Well, and yet Sun Soul and 4E effectively brick the character? Um, what? Ultimately i came to the core problem: the Monk class is Bruce Lee, but Bruce Lee is not Goku, Vegeta, Aang, or Korra. So why not take a stab at making them into warlocks? I certainly like the idea of a Sun Soul/Tranquility monk, or an Open Palm/Long death, or Four Elements of Shadow monk.

Rogue is oddly in a fairly robust slot, although i think between the Spell Categorization Sacred Cow and Ranger's hunter aspects, neither Arcane Trickster nor Assassin can truly shine as subclasses as brightly as they should, and well, lets be frank, Assassin is objectively the worst subclass before redemption paladin, because of its general ribbon features in effect.

And last of all is Ranger, a class with a general idea of what it is, but no real way to be allowed to explore those ideas effectively. I could see the class becoming a dedicated beastmaster, where your subclasses promote the strengths of different animals, but i cannot see this Drizz't/Aragorn Mashup not taking away from 5E as a whole because It CANT be the Epic Hero fighter, it cant be the backwoods survivalist any better than a background can offer, and it cant be a great beastmaster because it is not intrinsically a beastmaster. If its trying to be the Ultimate hunter, why is that part of it when mechanically rogue is both equally proficient at hunting and has a Sacred-Cow subclass that would do well with mechanics that let it designate "I want THIS guy in particular dead". and then theres the casting which could probably just be merged into a No-Cows-Included Ancients and Vengeance paladin.

Then we look at fullcasters:

Wizard and Sorcerer ultimately both suffer the most in that they, of all the fullcasters, are the most intrinsically tied to the Sacred Cow of the 8 Schools of Magic. I would much prefer Spells be sorted more akin to the tags system of construction in Ars Magica where magic is categorized by its properties and not some roughe conjecture of what it can do, such as how the Invulnerable bunker and Wall of Force are different spells despite Fluffcanically doing a minor variant of the other's effect in the creation of a Dome of cosmic nope vs a sheet of cosmic nope.

Druid I feel is in an awkward space among classes. it HAS to exist for balance purposes, but in existing it doesnt provide enough merit for its own existing, because i can see equal arguments for a Cleric Wildshape domain and a Barbarian Totem Incarnate path.

Cleric could probably do for better rules on Miracles, and domains probably need a more visibly significant effect on your cleric's playstyle. Id say theyre good as a class, if not for needing a general repass to poke their soul into line.

Bard, as i said, is probably the third class in a good position, but they also need an effective playstyle that isnt "I have all of the literally infinite answers i need and deviating from these choices is exclusively a mistake". I actually think most people would agree, a class where the most boring linear solution to play where you dont even get to throw significant numbers of pain around, is probably a bad thing.

Warlock needs some patches, but they at least built the class with the tools to fix it later in the form of invocations

[Specter]

1. Calling someone's idea moronic is disrespectful regardless of what you meant.

2. "Being offended by having your ideas attacked in a forum is sad."- I'm not saying this at all. First, it wasn't my post. Second, I don't disagree that those changes wouldn't be good, I'm pointing out that how you expressed that is rude and disrespectful.

Fair enough, harsh words.


It's also not even a bad idea. Flight at 18th level is pedestrian.

At-will flight. As in, not-dispellable, lose-concentration-and-die flight. As in, no-slot-used flight. As-in, unlimited-duration flight. That's pedestrian? Cool.


Ranger suffers from being a heap of ideas which belong to Backgrounds, Rogues, Fighter, and Druid, and because of that not really being able to shine as a class. Are they great beastmasters? no, they just get a wild buddy. are they the ultimate hunter? no, that belongs to vengeance paladin. are they good trackers? sure, but shouldnt that be something like the outlander background? are they thematic casters? yes, actually moreso than druid.

Ranger is the best martial for dealing with hordes. That's a niche.
But your comment is right on if we're talking about Ranger after level 11; the spells aren't as oomph as Paladin's, and they get a bunch of abilities that Rogues would get at much lower levels.

[toapat]

Ranger is the best martial for dealing with hordes. That's a niche.
But your comment is right on if we're talking about Ranger after level 11; the spells aren't as oomph as Paladin's, and they get a bunch of abilities that Rogues would get at much lower levels.

im looking at ranger in a grand design perspective, not a "class by level" perspective. its hard to justify ranger in the abstract view because its core concept is the "Backwoods Survivalist" which belongs moreso in a character background than a class, and the Abstract is much more important in 5E DnD since it informs a much wider array of available design possibilities over a long time.

and the problem is, if i wanted to build on the survivalist concept, the Street Urchin and Outlander backgrounds already exist

[Specter]

im looking at ranger in a grand design perspective, not a "class by level" perspective. its hard to justify ranger in the abstract view because its core concept is the "Backwoods Survivalist" which belongs moreso in a character background than a class, and the Abstract is much more important in 5E DnD since it informs a much wider array of available design possibilities over a long time.

and the problem is, if i wanted to build on the survivalist concept, the Street Urchin and Outlander backgrounds already exist

First of all, this is a thread about fixing classes mechanically.

Following this logic, we can do away with Rogues as well and take the Criminal background and be done with it. Thieves' Tools, Stealth, Deception... walks like a rogue and sounds like a rogue.

The only classes that have grand design reason to be in the game are Fighter, Thief, Wizard and Cleric. The other classes exist because people want not only thematics, but also different mechanics that increase the fun & replay factors of the game. So even though you can make a "Ranger" from Fighter and Druid, it's still not a Ranger.

[Isaire]

At-will flight. As in, not-dispellable, lose-concentration-and-die flight. As in, no-slot-used flight. As-in, unlimited-duration flight. That's pedestrian? Cool.

I mean, dragon sorcerers literally already get this from level 14. So yeah, at level 17 it is kind of pedestrian, no?

[suplee215]

While I guess that makes some sense, a "fix" that requires you to take a single specific feat (especially considering that feats are an optional rule) is not really something I personally consider a true fix.
.

If we ignore feats than Battle Rager does not even need a fix. Also yes, feats are optional. Now go show me a game where feats are optional. If this was for something like Dual Wielder I'll agree that we shouldn't worry too much about feats. But one of the Barbarians' chief roles is using reckless attack to ignore the penalty from GWM (also sorry if I said heavy weapon master at first as it caused the whole tangent). While a barbarian can function without GWM, the feat is great for it. Some argue the feat is so good it needs to be nerfed or banned so other options are taken. And this is the main knock against the Battle Rager. Beyond that the subclass is pretty good. Sure it takes away unarmored defense but at lvl 14 you want to get hit anyways. But the bonus attack it gets at level 3 is not as enticing as either Polearm Mastery or the limited Beserker frenzy attack as it lacks the GWM. I honesty think the Battle Rager can be seen as a "fixed" beserker with this one change.

[Specter]

I mean, dragon sorcerers literally already get this from level 14. So yeah, at level 17 it is kind of pedestrian, no?

Whoa, whoa, by George. I just realized I've been swapping the 14th and 18th level abilities in my head.

So looking at Draconic Presence, it does need fixing, in that it costs too many sorcery points. 5 points is abusive no matter how you look at it. The effect is cool, but when you could quicken 2 spells and heighten 1 for the same price, it's too steep.

But remember kids, turning into a dragon permanently: not even once.

[toapat]

First of all, this is a thread about fixing classes mechanically.

Following this logic, we can do away with Rogues as well and take the Criminal background and be done with it. Thieves' Tools, Stealth, Deception... walks like a rogue and sounds like a rogue.

First of all, No, this is a thread about Hotfixing classes or subclasses. I already noted a few of those much earlier. Fixing classes involves a massive technical rewrite of most classes to execute effectively

Second of all, the only class that fails the "Is the core concept of the class capable of being extrapolated further" is ranger. Rogue is not intrinsically the Criminal or Street Urchin backgrounds, the Rogue is either at its core is the Scoundrel or Cunning Hero archetypes, the characters who are willing to use dirty tricks to gain advantage and use a loose grip of morality at the best of times, like Han Solo or Catwoman, as well as Altair of Assassin's creed.

Paladins are the Chivalric Hero, such as King Arthur, Robin Hood, Charlemagne, and every Male Stark including their estranged cousin from NY.

Monks are Wuxia protagonists, such as Aang, Bruce Lee, Goku, Naruto,

Barbarians are the Noble Savage Archetype, such as Kratos, Tormund Giantsbane, and the Dovahkiin.

Fighters are the Classical Hero, such as Luke Skywalker, Aragorn, Jon Snow, or Conan the Barbarian, although jedi are more typically given over to paladins mechanically.

Rangers are the backwoods survialist, such as Aragorn and Drizzt.

But where as melee characters come from heroic archetypes, and guys who like to play in the woods, fullcasters are more interpretive of ideas or RL professions.

Clerics are literally ordained ministry of a faith, although being ordained in DnD means something much more literally dictated by god rather than passing tests and certification. {Scrubbed}, in DnD a cleric can talk to a very real god and call upon their powers along a certain thematic line of thought, such as a Cleric of the Forge literally being able to call upon the power to shape metal

Wizards are "What if studying actually made you more awesome directly"

Druids are clerics of the Old Faiths, combined with Chivalric mythos of both friendly and unfriendly spirits taking the shape of animals.

Bards are an extrapolation of how music and art can make people feel to them real emotions despite being subjective matter themselves, and being able to take that a step further and make those words and shapes become real

Sorcerers and Warlocks are extensions of the Wizard themself, one being the ideas of Prodigy in a field you struggle to understand, transformed into the caster who is naturally that good at magic, and warlocks are those who bargain with forces beyond their own comprehension to gain power and prestiege, as based off of the book faust

[Specter]

First of all, No, this is a thread about Hotfixing classes or subclasses. I already noted a few of those much earlier. Fixing classes involves a massive technical rewrite of most classes to execute effectively

Second of all, the only class that fails the "Is the core concept of the class capable of being extrapolated further" is ranger. Rogue is not intrinsically the Criminal or Street Urchin backgrounds, the Rogue is either at its core is the Scoundrel or Cunning Hero archetypes, the characters who are willing to use dirty tricks to gain advantage and use a loose grip of morality at the best of times, like Han Solo or Catwoman, as well as Altair of Assassin's creed.

Paladins are the Chivalric Hero, such as King Arthur, Robin Hood, Charlemagne, and every Male Stark including their estranged cousin from NY.

Monks are Wuxia protagonists, such as Aang, Bruce Lee, Goku, Naruto,

Barbarians are the Noble Savage Archetype, such as Kratos, Tormund Giantsbane, and the Dovahkiin.

Fighters are the Classical Hero, such as Luke Skywalker, Aragorn, Jon Snow, or Conan the Barbarian, although jedi are more typically given over to paladins mechanically.

Rangers are the backwoods survialist, such as Aragorn and Drizzt.

But where as melee characters come from heroic archetypes, and guys who like to play in the woods, fullcasters are more interpretive of ideas or RL professions.

Clerics are literally ordained ministry of a faith, although being ordained in DnD means something much more literally dictated by god rather than passing tests and certification. {Scrubbed}, in DnD a cleric can talk to a very real god and call upon their powers along a certain thematic line of thought, such as a Cleric of the Forge literally being able to call upon the power to shape metal

Wizards are "What if studying actually made you more awesome directly"

Druids are clerics of the Old Faiths, combined with Chivalric mythos of both friendly and unfriendly spirits taking the shape of animals.

Bards are an extrapolation of how music and art can make people feel to them real emotions despite being subjective matter themselves, and being able to take that a step further and make those words and shapes become real

Sorcerers and Warlocks are extensions of the Wizard themself, one being the ideas of Prodigy in a field you struggle to understand, transformed into the caster who is naturally that good at magic, and warlocks are those who bargain with forces beyond their own comprehension to gain power and prestiege, as based off of the book faust

You kinda answered your own question, placing Rangers as the backwood survivalists with a martial background.

After that, comes the mechanical niche. Fighter is the all-around martial, Paladin as the single-target martial, and Ranger as the multiple-target martial.

All DPS analyses of the ranger are always done against an imaginary 10000hp block of wood, which is why it will always seem pointless under these conditions. But when you're able to obliterate more than 50 people on the enemy's army while the other martials are busy with two, the ranger's design intent seems pretty clear.

So we have thematics and mechanics covered. If you want to argue that the mechanics don't grow too much after a certain point, I will agree with you, but other than that I can't see anything wrong.

[toapat]

After that, comes the mechanical niche

No, it does not. Designing to a mechanical Niche is a logical fallacy that serves only to create poor character experiences which drag down other player's enjoyment of the game itself. Just because Hunter ranger is the only competent at AoE Mundane does not give them a niche or design space.

This is NOT World of Warcraft where you can assume a group of 10 Raid-functionary cooldowns provided by 12 separate classes which will be functionally provided for within a group of 25 separate people, this is Dungeons and Dragons where you assume a group of 3-5 Player characters and a DM are participating in a scenario.

This means extremely granular expectations of a character cannot exist and cannot be dictated by something so ignorant as you so joyously present that a Ranger can be considered a well designed class simply because unlike Paladin, Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk, they can meaningfully contribute to fighting an army. In fact this makes ranger even more egregious in their design failure

There is objectively unexplorable design space for a Control-Oriented half caster, as well as design space for a Beastmaster character. There is not design space for the Hunter or Master of Arms to be dedicated to a secondary class

[Specter]

No, it does not. Designing to a mechanical Niche is a logical fallacy that serves only to create poor character experiences which drag down other player's enjoyment of the game itself. Just because Hunter ranger is the only competent at AoE Mundane does not give them a niche or design space.

This is NOT World of Warcraft where you can assume a group of 10 Raid-functionary cooldowns provided by 12 separate classes which will be functionally provided for within a group of 25 separate people, this is Dungeons and Dragons where you assume a group of 3-5 Player characters and a DM are participating in a scenario.

This means extremely granular expectations of a character cannot exist and cannot be dictated by something so ignorant as you so joyously present that a Ranger can be considered a well designed class simply because unlike Paladin, Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk, they can meaningfully contribute to fighting an army. In fact this makes ranger even more egregious in their design failure

There is objectively unexplorable design space for a Control-Oriented half caster, as well as design space for a Beastmaster character. There is not design space for the Hunter or Master of Arms to be dedicated to a secondary class

1) It's not "designing to a mechanical niche", it's just game design. Any game involves mechanical design. Mechanics may or may not matter more than some things, but it does matter, period.

2)Even Beastmasters get access to area spells at all levels of their progression.

3) I'm not familiar with your WoW metaphor because I haven't played it, but the Ranger can have its niche (however you want to define it) in a 3-5 group. I wouldn't build an all-Ranger party, but then again I wouldn't do this with most classes.

4) I'm assuming that by 'granular expectations' you mean destroying an army, and if that's the case of course not. /hyperbole. But contributing more in a fight than others could? Been there, done that. Out of a fight? Yep. Again: what's your point?

5) Ignorant? It's time to stop typing.

6) Even the spell-less, garbage Ranger can do control well. I move for dismissal.

[toapat]

3) I'm not familiar with your WoW metaphor because I haven't played it, but the Ranger can have its niche (however you want to define it) in a 3-5 group. I wouldn't build an all-Ranger party, but then again I wouldn't do this with most classes.

this is the Characteristic defining all of your replies to me, assuming some deeper slight of hand meaning. Blizzard has Raid-Touchstone mechanics that require a balanced composition they distribute to classes and roles for raiding. They can assume these touchstones will appear, and theres about 10 of these major touchstones (Blink-Equivalent, Taunt, Time warp, Battle Res, Limited Invulnerability, Moment of Glory cooldown, Sleep, Tankswaps, and condition breaking), because players will proactively select compositions to bring these touchstone abilities in balanced (to the encounter) measure against bosses because of the mandatory Tank - DPS - Healer Trinity, which naturally brings control spells with it.

And the spellless ranger cannot effectively perform battlefield control. it can Tarpit for a few rounds, but tarpitting once that comes on line should not be viable and certainly not last multiple rounds with CR 1/4s. In fact, Tarpitting is not quanfied as Battlefield Control in 5E DnD since other than Necromancy Wizard, no one can actually achieve a tarpit.

[SaurOps]

Paladins are the Chivalric Hero, such as King Arthur, Robin Hood, Charlemagne, and every Male Stark including their estranged cousin from NY.

I think only King Arthur counts as an inspiration. The ranger claimed Robin, and the Carolingian historical book from 2e explicitly noted that there were, oddly enough, no D&D paladins among Charlemagne's paladins.



Monks are Wuxia protagonists, such as Aang, Bruce Lee, Goku, Naruto,

First off, monks aren't actually wuxia protagonists, because they're a hot mess grab bag of general East Asian martial arts. Second off, None of the characters you mentioned are wuxia protagonists, because wuxia is very specifically a genre of pre-modern period Chinese martial arts stories (Goku from Dragonball is based loosely on Sun Wukong, but the SWK of Journey to the West is not the same character as Son Goku of Dragonball). Not Japanese, not Korean, not anything but Chinese. The 5e DMG should not be taken as evidence of good research on the genre name; they basically just slapped something onto what they otherwise had labeled "Oriental", itself a maddeningly vague clump of ancient China with not nearly so ancient Edo and Sengoku Japan, and equivalents of other regions thrown in as an afterthought.



Barbarians are the Noble Savage Archetype, such as Kratos, Tormund Giantsbane, and the Dovahkiin.

That was what they were prior to 3e, and would let out Kratos as such (he's a demigod, you can't count on anything he does being available to a D&D character that isn't also a demigod). After that, they're basically berserkers, and any attempts to declare them to be from "unsettled" cultures typically fall flat, because powerful, angry fighters that use their temper to fight can be from just about anywhere.



Fighters are the Classical Hero, such as Luke Skywalker

I don't think that jedi have ever been strict fighter concepts.



Aragorn

The model of a 1e ranger, or some kind of odd ranger/paladin from there on in.



Jon Snow

Fair enough.



or Conan the Barbarian

He's also a rogue/thief with psionic powers!

2e also mentioned Charlemagne, Hannibal, Spartacus, and Alexander the Great, though 2e also had a functional mass combat system to make being a war leader work as something that came up in a campaign.



although jedi are more typically given over to paladins mechanically

Older members of the order perhaps, Luke no (he was tossed into this and had to make up stuff on his own after Yoda died). Monks also have a lot of similarities with them due, again, to the class being a hot mess of general East Asian martial arts and philosophy thrown together, much like the jedi themselves.



Rangers are the backwoods survialist, such as Aragorn and Drizzt.

(blows whistle) Foul on Drizzt! No recursing for this concept!

(2e also gave Orion and Jack the Giant Killer as examples).



But where as melee characters come from heroic archetypes, and guys who like to play in the woods, fullcasters are more interpretive of ideas or RL professions.

Clerics are literally ordained ministry of a faith, although being ordained in DnD means something much more literally dictated by god rather than passing tests and certification. Oh, and unlike RL faiths where gods dont exist, in DnD a cleric can talk to a very real god and call upon their powers along a certain thematic line of thought, such as a Cleric of the Forge literally being able to call upon the power to shape metal

Actually, clerics were originally brought in because some DM that played with the creators had an obnoxious vampire PC that needed to be taken down a peg, and they're more than a little Abraham Van Helsing mixed in with their pseudo-Christian vestments. They were also originally followers of what 2e would regard as forces or philosophies - you didn't need to follow a god, you just had powers of the divine through your faith.



Wizards are "What if studying actually made you more awesome directly"

Though hilariously enough, out of all of the inspirational characters given in 2e, not one was actually human or even some kind of mortal being. Circle and Medea were both descended from Helios, Gandalf was a spiritual being, and Merlin was a cambion.



Druids are clerics of the Old Faiths, combined with Chivalric mythos of both friendly and unfriendly spirits taking the shape of animals.

Druids are entirely something that D&D carved out on their own. They've become a recursively-defined concept that D&D redefines whenever it needs to. They're also priests, by and large, of what D&D 2e would place as a force rather than any specific deity or even of a philosophy.



Bards are an extrapolation of how music and art can make people feel to them real emotions despite being subjective matter themselves, and being able to take that a step further and make those words and shapes become real

Inspirations noted in 2e as the Pied Piper, Will Scarlet, Homer, and Alan a Dale.



Sorcerers and Warlocks are extensions of the Wizard themself, one being the ideas of Prodigy in a field you struggle to understand, transformed into the caster who is naturally that good at magic, and warlocks are those who bargain with forces beyond their own comprehension to gain power and prestiege, as based off of the book faust

Warlocks are derived from the Witch wizard kit of 2e. They used to make flying ointment for use with brooms, even if they were dudes, too, and their strength was on cursing things. Sorcerers, like druids, are a recursive, internally-defined concept, though it's much more concrete and has changed far less than the druid has over the years.

[toapat]

(blows whistle) Foul on Drizzt! No recursing for this concept!

while Charlemagne's paladins are not mechanically paladins (just knights like Arthur), its the Oath stuff moreso than the magic. In fact paladins with magic doesnt show up that often.

In fact, the Paladin is, similar to the ranger, actually recursively defined. Except less incestuously since Paladins became a cultural archetypical touchstone almost immediately and you can keep tagging them. Samurai Jack is literally a paladin (going to far as to literally use Smite Evil in Season 2), for instance.

the examples given for mundanes are more as general "Echo stones" the classes will return to whenever the developers feel they are drifting too far from the concept, with the specific exception of the Monk because i feel while at its heart its essentially JUST Bruce Lee: The Class, the Musical, The Class, the Monk of 5E is pulling from more characters than that, such as Goku with Sunsoul, Aang with 4E, and Naruto (ewwwwww) for Way of Shadow.

In fact, if we get that far, 7th edition DnD monk will look nothing like 5E monk

Aragorn fits more effectively in the Fighter's kinda Everyman hero schtick moreso than thee ranger in 5E, expecially with the background system divorcing the idea that "History" is the same thing as "Future" In fact you have to look at that when considering 5E classes, since i can role a Paladin with the Criminal Background or a Wizard with the Outlander background. and thats a major problem. Rangers are always living in the "Who you Were" of the Background system, rather than in the present of the class system

Druid, as you admit, suffers from issues, but you are incorrect that the druid doesnt have history in myth which is the same as warlock, History matters less for the warlock than the pillar of Faust

[CircuitEngie]

Even though it is deep in the thread, I'll give the OP topic a crack:

Berserker Barbarian - At level 6, you can treat levels of exhaustion as if they were one level lower, minimum 0. You still die if your level of exhaustion reaches 6.

Trickery Cleric - At level 8, you may deal 1d8 poison damage or subject the target to the poisoned condition until the end of your next turn on a failed CON save against your Cleric spell save DC. Add 1d8 poison at level 14.

Way of the Four Elements - At level 6, Disciplines may be activated as a bonus action immediately after using the attack action to attack with only unarmed strikes or monk weapons. (This one is hard to do in one change).

Way of the Sun Soul - At level 6, you may spend 1 ki point to attempt to blind a target hit with your radiant sun bolts. CON save, lasts until end of your next turn.

Paladins - Remove the melee weapon restrictions from the Smite spells.

Beastmaster Ranger - Whenever your hitpoint maximum increases from leveling in this class, add that many hitpoints to your companion's hitpoint maximum. If you are proficient with a saving throw, add your proficiency bonus to your companion's saving throw. (Remove the static 4 hp/level)

Assassin Rogue - Advantage and add +2d6 sneak damage on creatures on the first round of combat. (Replaces surprise crits)

Sorcerer - level 2: At the end of a short rest, you can regain half of your sorcerer level in sorcery points (rounded up). You can use this ability once per long rest.

Wild Sorcerer - Bend Luck: As a reaction, you can spend up to 3 sorcery points to bend luck. Roll that many d4s and add or subtract that from the original roll. If two or more 4s are rolled, regain your tides of chaos. If two or more 1s are rolled, roll on the wild surge table.

Transmutation Wizard - Replace the level 2 ability with: whenever you cast a transmutation spell on an object or willing creature, you have advantage on any concentration checks to maintain that spell. In addition, if you cast a transmutation spell with a duration of 1 minute or more, you may double the duration up to a maximum of 24 hours. This cannot be combined with any other increase in spell duration.

[SaurOps]

while Charlemagne's paladins are not mechanically paladins (just knights like Arthur), its the Oath stuff moreso than the magic. In fact paladins with magic doesnt show up that often.

In fact, the Paladin is, similar to the ranger, actually recursively defined. Except less incestuously since Paladins became a cultural archetypical touchstone almost immediately and you can keep tagging them. Samurai Jack is literally a paladin (going to far as to literally use Smite Evil in Season 2), for instance.

the examples given for mundanes are more as general "Echo stones" the classes will return to whenever the developers feel they are drifting too far from the concept, with the specific exception of the Monk because i feel while at its heart its essentially JUST Bruce Lee: The Class, the Musical, The Class, the Monk of 5E is pulling from more characters than that, such as Goku with Sunsoul, Aang with 4E, and Naruto (ewwwwww) for Way of Shadow.

In fact, if we get that far, 7th edition DnD monk will look nothing like 5E monk

Hopefully, monk becomes a monastic background and the concept of "martial artist fighter" is passed on to... the fighter. I'm not seeing how it would really hurt, and it seems more central to the concept.



Aragorn fits more effectively in the Fighter's kinda Everyman hero schtick moreso than thee ranger in 5E, expecially with the background system divorcing the idea that "History" is the same thing as "Future" In fact you have to look at that when considering 5E classes, since i can role a Paladin with the Criminal Background or a Wizard with the Outlander background. and thats a major problem. Rangers are always living in the "Who you Were" of the Background system, rather than in the present of the class system

About the only thing left is [Church Lady] The Beastmaster![/Church Lady]



Druid, as you admit, suffers from issues, but you are incorrect that the druid doesnt have history in myth which is the same as warlock, History matters less for the warlock than the pillar of Faust

You can still see Faust in the Warlock. For the druid, you can't tell where they came from, or what they were doing.

[toapat]

Hopefully, monk becomes a monastic background and the concept of "martial artist fighter" is passed on to... the fighter. I'm not seeing how it would really hurt, and it seems more central to the concept.

About the only thing left is [Church Lady] The Beastmaster![/Church Lady]

You can still see Faust in the Warlock. For the druid, you can't tell where they came from, or what they were doing.

from a conceptual design point of view, you arent wrong that Monk and Fighter share the exact same theoretical design space, although in practice the monk and fighter are better kept separate because of the more technical reason that Deleted attributed to why the fighter sucks.

Monk and Fighter give meaningfully distinct toolkits for mechanics to attach to, partially because of the idea that the Fighter is the Master of Arms or the Everyman Hero, where as the Monk is the Master of the Self. In 5E the problem is that the toolkit which fighter enjoys was gutted, and instead chosen to focus on creating a "Newbie's first class" with fighter, despite fighter not being the most linear class in concept when compared against say, barbarian whose whole thing is supposed to be "Hit it extremely hard, angrily"

Thing is, if we dig down to the Beastmaster as a class foundation, i can think of several characters that fit such an archetype. and build up from that a foundation of a robust class which seeks its own experience with the party. But you cant do that with 5E ranger, because 5E ranger is not the beastmaster.

I know and can see where the Druid originates from in mythos, but i cant really see how it got to 5E in that incarnation, nor can i see how to maintain the existance of the Druid in the same form by which it has long existed. But worse than that, is where druids come from, actually digs the very foundation out of the class itself. Druids are priests of certain naturalistic religions of the germanic and celtic tribes, the same tribes we pull totem warrior barbarian from, and the stories from which their priestly dress inspired the story of shapeshifters.

[EvilAnagram]

I like that the question the thread asks is, "Could you 'fix' a class with one change," implying a minor change that addresses some issue with the class, and toapat responds with, "Yes, I would remove it or completely redesign it."

And he's not joking! He honestly sees that as a reasonable response to the prompt! This is just delightful.

[UrielAwakened]

At-will flight. As in, not-dispellable, lose-concentration-and-die flight. As in, no-slot-used flight. As-in, unlimited-duration flight. That's pedestrian? Cool.

Magic brooms are like an uncommon item with fly speed 60.

Like three races can fly from level 1.

It's an incredibly uninspiring capstone ability. It's not even a great level 14 ability.


But remember kids, turning into a dragon permanently: not even once.

Again, Wizards can already do this with True Polymorph. It seems like an incredibly fitting capstone for a Dragon Sorcerer. You seem to not understand the scale of things that are possible at that level.

[Mara]

Sorcerer: Change meta magic: When twin spell is used on concentration spells, the targets maintain concentration not the sorceress (unless she is a target).

[Specter]

I like that the question the thread asks is, "Could you 'fix' a class with one change," implying a minor change that addresses some issue with the class, and toapat responds with, "Yes, I would remove it or completely redesign it."

And he's not joking! He honestly sees that as a reasonable response to the prompt! This is just delightful.

:smallredface:


Magic brooms are like an uncommon item with fly speed 60.

Like three races can fly from level 1.

It's an incredibly uninspiring capstone ability. It's not even a great level 14 ability.

Again, Wizards can already do this with True Polymorph. It seems like an incredibly fitting capstone for a Dragon Sorcerer. You seem to not understand the scale of things that are possible at that level.

1) A broom can be still lost and dispelled, and requires a hand. Three races can fly from level 1 if the GM allows it. Tempest Cleric gets flight at level 17, only when outdoors, and no one seems to complain. Odd, to say the least.
2)a) My problem is not with doing this, my problem is to stop being a humanoid permanently for it.
2)b) Then just add True Polymorph to the Sorcerer's list. How is that not better?

[Eric Diaz]

Even though it is deep in the thread, I'll give the OP topic a crack:

Berserker Barbarian - At level 6, you can treat levels of exhaustion as if they were one level lower, minimum 0. You still die if your level of exhaustion reaches 6.


I like this one! I think I'd even let then die at 7 exhaustion.

[UrielAwakened]

:smallredface:



1) A broom can be still lost and dispelled, and requires a hand. Three races can fly from level 1 if the GM allows it. Tempest Cleric gets flight at level 17, only when outdoors, and no one seems to complain. Odd, to say the least.
2)a) My problem is not with doing this, my problem is to stop being a humanoid permanently for it.
2)b) Then just add True Polymorph to the Sorcerer's list. How is that not better?

Well True Polymorph is better and more broken than what was being suggested for the Sorcerer.

The whole point is becoming a dragon at that level is not a big deal.

[MadBear]

Well True Polymorph is better and more broken than what was being suggested for the Sorcerer.

The whole point is becoming a dragon at that level is not a big deal.

While I wouldn't want it to be the default for how the game is played, this does make me think a homebrew campaign using this could be fun for the history of that world. Dragons aren't hatched from eggs, but rather are humans with an innate bloodline that once activated turns them into the dragons that roam the world.

[Specter]

Well True Polymorph is better and more broken than what was being suggested for the Sorcerer.

The whole point is becoming a dragon at that level is not a big deal.

Awkwardness is a better word than brokenness.

Do you take the dragon's hit dice or your own? Can you use your magic items even if they're meant for humanoids? What's the point of boosting ASI's if you will get the dragon's stats eventually? All these questions and more would be a major speed bump in every game.

[toapat]

I like that the question the thread asks is, "Could you 'fix' a class with one change," implying a minor change that addresses some issue with the class, and toapat responds with, "Yes, I would remove it or completely redesign it."

And he's not joking! He honestly sees that as a reasonable response to the prompt! This is just delightful.

you kinda missed the hotfixes i noted a while ago. And its not a resonable response to the prompt, its the reasonable response to "Youre ****ing insane, paladin is overpowered" explaining why paladin appears overpowered

for hotfixes, there were many reasonable solutions to fixing frenzy barbarian, the standard Fast and Dirty hotfix for 4 elements monk that makes it at least enjoyable in play if still not competitive with other subclasses, and to flip sorcerer to spell points because just like how fighter was designed differently in development, so was sorcerer.

the only hotfix tier thing that needs to be deleted is redemption paladin in XGE, because unless that subclass shares only its namae with what we saw in UA, its going to be broken beyond reason in terms of balance. the only broken subclass other than that due to being overpowered, is Lore Wizard, which apparently also doesnt exist although we will see if their elemental substitution isnt completely broken with XGE

Then theres the fact that at least, for ranger, a quick and dirty solution to fixing the class is "just use Revised Ranger"

the remaining major problems people have are Assassin (which needs alot of work) but that Circuitengie presented a reasonable solution to make assassinate not overpowered. Druid which no hotfix can repair, and champion fighter, which is problematic on the scale of "It Exists"

[Vaz]

Yes, they are.

See, I can make blanket statements without bothering to back them up with arguments, too.
You already were, though. What makes a warlock interesting? Is it interesting because it has Short Rest mechanics?

No. All it serves is to put limitations on what the character can achieve and forces a game to play in some unnatural use of the Short Rest mechanic, or else it's gimped in comparison to any other class.

A warlock without spell slots is autoattacking. Autoattacking ain't interesting.

You have the worst part of every full caster (splurging resources on a 15 minute adventuring day), except you force the rest of the party to join your style of play in a way that no other character does.

Other characters cannot splurge their resources without ginping your character. The DM cannot put in climactic battles of the scale the rest of the party may otherwose face.

I've played Warlocks since inception in 5e, and there's sincerely **** all interesting about SR resources. Different. Yes. Different isn't interesting. Having 3* the short rest reources over a long rest day changes nothing for the warlock. It's functionally still the same, except doesn't have 1/3rd resources any other class has.

Find that boring, give it the capstone at L2, make it Long Rest and give it +50% spell slots.

The goal is to fix the class, not making them interesting, especially when that interesting mechanic is gimping the class and the rest of the party, and forcing the DM to adopt a style of play that the DM or players aren't adept at writing or isn't interested in.

Any other class can fit into a 3 rest day as that is basic management, but a SR Warlock cannot fit in a 1rest day because of the design. And in the myriad of years I've played with various groups; 3.5 pure, 3.5-5th converts, 4-5e converts and 5e pure only the overwhelming majority of games relies on a 1 rest day.

Alternatively, if you want to prevent splurge, let Warlocks Recover spell slots up to twice a day with 1 minute of concentrating and just make them long caster.

Alternatively LR Spell Points; congrats, you've got The PHB psionic class, which is hardly uninteresting.

Make sense bro.

[rollingForInit]

Paladin and Ranger: give two cantrips. Cleric for Paladin, Druid for Ranger. These classes are more magical than AT/EK, but they lack cantrips!

Trickery Domain Cleric: change the poison damage to acid. Or let them ignore poison immunity and resistance. Or change it to just extra weapon damage. So many monsters are immune to poison damage. It really makes me not want to play that particular domain, even though I have really great character concepts. But it feels like a waste when so many things will just ignore the damage.

[Mara]

Paladins: +Cha to saves up to prof bonus but doesn't stack with prof bonus.

[UrielAwakened]

Awkwardness is a better word than brokenness.

Do you take the dragon's hit dice or your own? Can you use your magic items even if they're meant for humanoids? What's the point of boosting ASI's if you will get the dragon's stats eventually? All these questions and more would be a major speed bump in every game.

I mean there are already rules for all of that for polymorph and it would be presumably the same.

There are also items that set your abilities to 19 so it's not like the ASI thing would be unique to this either.

It's also a level 17 feature so calling it a speed bump seems silly. 99% of games will never encounter it anyway and if they did you solve it between sessions since that's when leveling up happens anyway.

[Vaz]

Paladins: +Cha to saves up to prof bonus but doesn't stack with prof bonus.
I mean that's like the least necessary thing for a Paladin to be 'fixed'. It gimps the single class and empowers the multiclass which is like the opposite of what the thread is about. +Cha is fine.

[toapat]

Paladins: +Cha to saves up to prof bonus but doesn't stack with prof bonus.

Please read the thread. I already posted 5 MS-Word equivalent pages on why people are looking at Paladin wrong


I mean that's like the least necessary thing for a Paladin to be 'fixed'. It gimps the single class and empowers the multiclass which is like the opposite of what the thread is about. +Cha is fine.

the shear fact is, the only change that is necessary for fixing multiclassing is to change . You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class.

To

. You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class of the your maximumg levels in that class.

Since as it is, the first entry does not work at all with the merged caster level rules

[Specter]

I mean there are already rules for all of that for polymorph and it would be presumably the same.

There are also items that set your abilities to 19 so it's not like the ASI thing would be unique to this either.

It's also a level 17 feature so calling it a speed bump seems silly. 99% of games will never encounter it anyway and if they did you solve it between sessions since that's when leveling up happens anyway.

1) Polymorph and True Polymorph require slots and have a duration. Meaning, a Wizard can't T.Polymorph and then cast Wish. Making this permanent means still having the 9th-level slot. It's a free, extended True Polymorph. I don't know how to say it better than this.

2) 19 is not 28. Magic items require attunement.

3) If you're becoming a dragon later, anything related to your human form along your whole career is pointless. You'd be stupid to choose anything permanent not related to dragons. So yeah, it's a lot of legwork all the way.

[Mara]

The paladin is overpowered. The only fixing it would need is nerfs.

Moon Druid: Wildshape HP pool is equal to your HP (but still separate) and refreshes on short rest. You can Wildshape an unlimited amount of times. At 20, your Wildshape HP refreshes after a minute of rest.

[Theodoxus]

While I wouldn't want it to be the default for how the game is played, this does make me think a homebrew campaign using this could be fun for the history of that world. Dragons aren't hatched from eggs, but rather are humans with an innate bloodline that once activated turns them into the dragons that roam the world.

Welcome to Athas! Though becoming a Dragon by the book is much harder and requires the deaths of hundreds of thousands of souls... so, maybe not... but I'd run with it anyway for Dark Sun.


A warlock without spell slots is autoattacking. Autoattacking ain't interesting.


So, you never play mundanes, eh? Swinging swords, shooting bows and backstabbing baddies ain't interesting, obviously. Cool story bro - but your way ain't the only way, and I know a LOT of players who actually enjoy the mindlessness of autoattacking. Or perhaps they abhor the thought of pouring over heaps of spell options and wasting minutes at the table making the best tactical decision for the moment in time their turn comes up.


Paladins: +Cha to saves up to prof bonus but doesn't stack with prof bonus.

I'm not sure what the poopoo is over this idea. I think PB is woefully underused as a resource mechanic; either as a limiting boost outlined here, or a use ability x times factor. Since it scales way better than attributes, you know for each tier exactly what the class can do - in amplitude and quantity. Sure, some things should be remained tied solely to an attribute - but there's a whole slew of things that could be changed for the better by tying them to PB.


One limit I tend to use is to allow multiclassing only with dissimilar classes. I've grouped each class into one of four categories: Adept, Mage, Scoundrel and Warrior. You can only MC between groups, not classes inside each group. It's not perfect (doesn't stop Sorcadin or Palocks) but it does curtail more of the egregious combinations. (Crit fishers, ninjas, Life druids...)

[Potato_Priest]

One limit I tend to use is to allow multiclassing only with dissimilar classes. I've grouped each class into one of four categories: Adept, Mage, Scoundrel and Warrior. You can only MC between groups, not classes inside each group. It's not perfect (doesn't stop Sorcadin or Palocks) but it does curtail more of the egregious combinations. (Crit fishers, ninjas, Life druids...)

The other 2 I can understand, but what's wrong with ninjas?

[toapat]

The paladin is overpowered. The only fixing it would need is nerfs.

Moon Druid: Wildshape HP pool is equal to your HP (but still separate) and refreshes on short rest. You can Wildshape an unlimited amount of times. At 20, your Wildshape HP refreshes after a minute of rest.

Under no objective measure is the paladin overpowered. They do not beat BM or EK fighter, Barbarian, or rogue for DPR per 6 encounter day, they do not have the versatility of any of the fullcasters except for sorcerer specifically because sorcerer is poorly designed. they cannot outperform a bard, cleric, or wizard in the support category and do not have access to incredibly powerful mechanisms of combat like the Dedicated healer Bard who utilizes Vicious Mockery, Cutting Words/Counterspell, and Aura of Vitality to just shut down oponenents entirely, or if the War Magic wizard speculation is correct, a character who can, with only 2 War Magic Wizard, 1 Celestial Warlock, 17 Sorcerer throw out so much damage in a small number of rounds that they actually surpass all previous DPR calculations when normalized over the 6-8 encounter adventuring day by over 100 DPR


Meanwhile, the only thing overpowered about the Moon Druid is that their capstone renders them literally invulnerable to every possible character build except for the aforementioned Blaster Wizard.

In fact, if you want to remove the "Unkillable Moon Druid problem" simply change wildshape to say "Starting at 2nd level, if you are in your base form, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast"

THis way, you dont have the infinitely refreshing wildshape that allows Moon druids to become invulnerable

[Mister_Squinty]

One limit I tend to use is to allow multiclassing only with dissimilar classes. I've grouped each class into one of four categories: Adept, Mage, Scoundrel and Warrior. You can only MC between groups, not classes inside each group. It's not perfect (doesn't stop Sorcadin or Palocks) but it does curtail more of the egregious combinations. (Crit fishers, ninjas, Life druids...)

Would reducing the number of classes, while increasing the number of subclasses, solve some of the problems described?

-Land Druids would become a subclass of Cleric, replacing the Nature Domain
-Beastmasters/Bards/Rogues/Monks would be subclasses of a DEX Martial class (replacing Arcane Trickster, Valor Bard, Hunter Ranger).
-Barbarians/Moon Druids/Paladins/Fighters would be combined into a STR Martial class. EK would be dropped for the half-caster Paladin.
-Warlocks/Sorc/Wizards would be a Mage class.

Needs tweaking, but the thought would be that the Martial classes would not have a full caster (Bards would have to be overhauled, I know). Martial subclasses with 1/2 casters would trade some physical abilities (sneak attack, Rage, etc) for the spells.

Way off the OP, I know, but this discussion got me thinking bout things.

[UrielAwakened]

1) Polymorph and True Polymorph require slots and have a duration. Meaning, a Wizard can't T.Polymorph and then cast Wish. Making this permanent means still having the 9th-level slot. It's a free, extended True Polymorph. I don't know how to say it better than this.

Rules as Written you can cast spells while dragon-shaped. They have the ability to speak and their claws are dextrous enough. And there are lots of ways to cast wish without using a 9th level spellslot.

[toapat]

Would reducing the number of classes, while increasing the number of subclasses, solve some of the problems described?

Needs tweaking, but the thought would be that the Martial classes would not have a full caster (Bards would have to be overhauled, I know). Martial subclasses with 1/2 casters would trade some physical abilities (sneak attack, Rage, etc) for the spells.

Way off the OP, I know, but this discussion got me thinking bout things.

1: your suggestions, barring the land druid one, are too ambitious and a bit hammer-handed when compared to what should be done, but you are correct the base 12 classes are probably a bad idea. You cant Cut whole classes just because part of the system is bad and maintain an effective gameplay diversity
2: ya i really should throw up a thread for "Theory behind the classes and the issues those cause"

[Mister_Squinty]

1: your suggestions, barring the land druid one, are too ambitious and a bit hammer-handed when compared to what should be done, but you are correct the base 12 classes are probably a bad idea. You cant Cut whole classes just because part of the system is bad and maintain an effective gameplay diversity
2: ya i really should throw up a thread for "Theory behind the classes and the issues those cause"

Perhaps approach the issue from the other way, then? Set out what an "effective gameplay diversity" set of classes would be and build from there?

-Defensive STR Melee
-Offensive STR Melee
-1/2 Caster STR Melee
-Ranged DEX
-Melee DEX
-1/2 Caster DEX
-WIS Caster
-INT Caster
-CHA Caster

That makes at least one class for each stat (except CON, which everyone usually needs)

Are we reaching "New Thread" territory? :smallbiggrin:

[DracoKnight]

Paladin and Ranger: give two cantrips. Cleric for Paladin, Druid for Ranger. These classes are more magical than AT/EK, but they lack cantrips!

Trickery Domain Cleric: change the poison damage to acid. Or let them ignore poison immunity and resistance. Or change it to just extra weapon damage. So many monsters are immune to poison damage. It really makes me not want to play that particular domain, even though I have really great character concepts. But it feels like a waste when so many things will just ignore the damage.

For Trickery Domain, I use two simple fixes:

1) you can use Blessing of the Trickster (the 1st level ability) on yourself.

2) Divine Strike deals psychic damage, not poison damage.

[Specter]

Rules as Written you can cast spells while dragon-shaped. They have the ability to speak and their claws are dextrous enough. And there are lots of ways to cast wish without using a 9th level spellslot.

The point, as I'm sure you know, is: Wizard has to choose between wishing and dragoning. This changed sorcerer can do both in one day.

I feel I've made my point clear. If you want to discuss this further, implement this is your own campaign and bring it forward.

[SaurOps]

from a conceptual design point of view, you arent wrong that Monk and Fighter share the exact same theoretical design space, although in practice the monk and fighter are better kept separate because of the more technical reason that Deleted attributed to why the fighter sucks.

Monk and Fighter give meaningfully distinct toolkits for mechanics to attach to, partially because of the idea that the Fighter is the Master of Arms or the Everyman Hero, where as the Monk is the Master of the Self. In 5E the problem is that the toolkit which fighter enjoys was gutted, and instead chosen to focus on creating a "Newbie's first class" with fighter, despite fighter not being the most linear class in concept when compared against say, barbarian whose whole thing is supposed to be "Hit it extremely hard, angrily"

Being trained a monastery is very much a background type of thing. In the stories that monks draw material from, martial arts doesn't have to be taught in them, and often doesn't lead to being "enlightened" in the way that the monk is pushing. The characters in question are very good at hitting things and fighting, but can be absolutely terrible at asceticism and still not end up disadvantaged by that factor in the least. I think that D&D also needs to stop putting concepts that are related to East Asia in distinct classes and subclasses. Even OA managed to let just about anyone pick up martial arts styles; trying to isolate that again and keep it locked down seems counter-productive.



Thing is, if we dig down to the Beastmaster as a class foundation, i can think of several characters that fit such an archetype. and build up from that a foundation of a robust class which seeks its own experience with the party. But you cant do that with 5E ranger, because 5E ranger is not the beastmaster.

The 5e ranger isn't a lot of things.



I know and can see where the Druid originates from in mythos, but i cant really see how it got to 5E in that incarnation, nor can i see how to maintain the existance of the Druid in the same form by which it has long existed. But worse than that, is where druids come from, actually digs the very foundation out of the class itself. Druids are priests of certain naturalistic religions of the germanic and celtic tribes, the same tribes we pull totem warrior barbarian from, and the stories from which their priestly dress inspired the story of shapeshifters.

I wouldn't really place the religions of ancient peoples, particularly those two, as necessarily naturalistic. Especially since there isn't much surviving material, and a lot of new age claptrap has attempted to fill in the gaps with thoroughly anachronistic sensibilities and fabrications.

[imanidiot]

I would do the same, or, failing that, come up with a different way to recover from exhaustion than one point per long rest for the Barbarian specifically. barbarians are if nothing else avatars of physicality and endurance. One still needs to pay a price for X, I just think that the Exhaustion mechanic is (at best) inelegant and at worst badly suited to this particular build: frenzy/Berserk barbarian.

You could add a feature to a Berserker barbarian, and only a Berserker, that allows them to heal more levels of exhaustion and heal them on a short rest.

[Mister_Squinty]

You could add a feature to a Berserker barbarian, and only a Berserker, that allows them to heal more levels of exhaustion and heal them on a short rest.

I don't remember if it was mentioned, but what about spending Hit Die on a short rest to cure a level of exhaustion. That way it scales, and forces the Barb to make a decision between recovering HP and a level of exhaustion?

[xroads]

Change beastmaster such that animal companions can attack on their own without the ranger taking an action to command them too each round.

[Vogie]

Change beastmaster such that animal companions can attack on their own without the ranger taking an action to command them too each round.

That may be too strong. I could certainly see an attack command action, then the companion will continue to attack until target is dead. Changing attack targets should require a new attack command action.

[Mister_Squinty]

That may be too strong. I could certainly see an attack command action, then the companion will continue to attack until target is dead. Changing attack targets should require a new attack command action.

Bonus action to switch targets, call the companion off, etc.

[toapat]

Perhaps approach the issue from the other way, then? Set out what an "effective gameplay diversity" set of classes would be and build from there?

this doesnt work the way you suggest either, core class mechanisms are anchor points for the subclasses, trying to build generic classes like this is the most efficient way to get an end result that no one is happy with in play ever. The only reason this worked in 3.5 DnD was because the end product felt alot more personal to the player and was not nearly so absurdly broken as 3.5 was in normal experience.


Being trained a monastery is very much a background type of thing. In the stories that monks draw material from, martial arts doesn't have to be taught in them, and often doesn't lead to being "enlightened" in the way that the monk is pushing. The characters in question are very good at hitting things and fighting, but can be absolutely terrible at asceticism and still not end up disadvantaged by that factor in the least. I think that D&D also needs to stop putting concepts that are related to East Asia in distinct classes and subclasses. Even OA managed to let just about anyone pick up martial arts styles; trying to isolate that again and keep it locked down seems counter-productive.

The 5e ranger isn't a lot of things.

the general trained in a monastery thing is in backgrounds, thats what the Acolyte background is for. While yes its an issue using eastern vs western storytelling heritage when designing characters, i cant see how to justify fighter from a storytelling perspective Other than that the characters that the fighter chassis most effectively represent when fighter is not hamstrung by last minute design decisions, are not compatible with the characters that the monk is most effectively capable of representing. Ironically i dont think Monk is emotionally effective at representing Sun Goku of DBZ, and yet i would never not expect the mechanics for a Dragonball character to appear anywhere but monk.

The first and most critical thing 5E ranger is not, is a robust, general core character concept. Instead it chooses to be a specific character, which the only other specific character class is Monk, and monk is only a specific character because of the monk's sacred cows, because there are few people who dont see Ninja anime behind the Shadow monk, AtLA behind the 4E monk, or Goku behind the Sunsoul monk, monk is trying to transcend its limitations where as ranger, being a half caster, is more heavily invested in its native toolkit. Id rather see an Epic Game Hunter rogue and a beastmaster where your subclass influences how you interact with your companion over a base ranger.

[Theodoxus]

Would reducing the number of classes, while increasing the number of subclasses, solve some of the problems described?

-Land Druids would become a subclass of Cleric, replacing the Nature Domain
-Beastmasters/Bards/Rogues/Monks would be subclasses of a DEX Martial class (replacing Arcane Trickster, Valor Bard, Hunter Ranger).
-Barbarians/Moon Druids/Paladins/Fighters would be combined into a STR Martial class. EK would be dropped for the half-caster Paladin.
-Warlocks/Sorc/Wizards would be a Mage class.

Needs tweaking, but the thought would be that the Martial classes would not have a full caster (Bards would have to be overhauled, I know). Martial subclasses with 1/2 casters would trade some physical abilities (sneak attack, Rage, etc) for the spells.

Way off the OP, I know, but this discussion got me thinking bout things.


Perhaps approach the issue from the other way, then? Set out what an "effective gameplay diversity" set of classes would be and build from there?

-Defensive STR Melee
-Offensive STR Melee
-1/2 Caster STR Melee
-Ranged DEX
-Melee DEX
-1/2 Caster DEX
-WIS Caster
-INT Caster
-CHA Caster

That makes at least one class for each stat (except CON, which everyone usually needs)

Are we reaching "New Thread" territory? :smallbiggrin:

I started working on something akin to this, using each attribute as the basis for a overclass, then grouping classes by their primary saves, and subclasses by secondary saves. It got complicated quickly... with 6 Overclasses, 18 Classes and 72 subclasses... Needless to say, I ditched the concept after working through one set of Overclasses and trying to differentiate between a Con based caster with an Intelligence secondary save vs a Con based caster with a Charisma secondary save...

Even your list, Mister_Squinty would probably end up needlessly complicated. I think a 5E take on the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana generic classes (Mage, Scoundrel, Warrior) compilation would be a better starting point.

Have a basic chassis for each generic class. Mage gets half caster progression and a d6 HD, Scoundrel gets 3 skills to start, simple weapons with hand crossbow, longsword and rapier, light armor proficiency and a d8 HD, Warriors get martial weapon proficiency and light and medium armor proficiency and a d10 HD.

Then you get build points at 1st level, and an additional point every level, which you can spend or save for higher cost abilities. Could make it simple, and have each ability tied to a generic class (so only Warriors would be able to buy a d12 HD or Rage; only scoundrels could buy Sneak Attack or access to Illusion wizard spells, etc.) or have all abilities be available to all classes, but "classic" abilities for a specific generic (as Rage or Sneak above) would be cheaper on the pertaining chassis.

Would need to do some balancing tweaks, but I think it would make for a more interesting "multiclass" feel - building up each level with abilities you'd want to take. Maybe tie somethings to level - so Extra Attack requires 5th level in Warrior, and 6th level in Scoundrel... Rage might be tied to d12 HD - and probably cost your full allotment in points to buy. So you could rebuild the PHb Barbarian, but not be full d12 HD every level on top of buying a fighting style and an animal companion and the Champion's Crit range, etc.

I've always liked the idea of generic classes - it makes things like Conan so much easier to build without trying to cram x levels of rogue onto barbarian onto psychic warrior onto fighter...

[alchahest]

whoa, shuffling classes into well defined roles based on design goals with attribute specialty in mind?

what is this, 4E?

[KorvinStarmast]

Even though it is deep in the thread, I'll give the OP topic a crack:{snipped much goodness}
I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. :smallbiggrin:

[toapat]

*snip*

Actually, Squinty's list leads to a set of design problems, in that the core foundational elements that allow the differentiation of Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter, and Monk, cant be crushed down as far as they may appear.

i feel like, in 5E, creating generic classes in the same functional way as in 3.5 would not emotionally benefit the game, at least in the same way as it did in 3.5. 5th Ed needs tweeks, and the Most Sacred of Bovine slain and never spoken of again, but its problems have clear reasons why they exist except for the "fighter" problem. Comparatively, 3.5 is objectively the most Documented in how universally as a system it is broken, with characters able to achieve DC40 skillchecks reliably at lvl 1, Mundanes being irrelevant, and fullcasters so powerful they are more comparable to the DM than the player in terms of agency within the universe.


whoa, shuffling classes into well defined roles based on design goals with attribute specialty in mind?

what is this, 4E?

honestly it felt like GURPS kidnapped UA's Generic Classes system and raised it in secret.

[KorvinStarmast]

The paladin is overpowered. Nope, unless you subscribe to the 5 minute adventure day.

2: ya i really should throw up a thread for "Theory behind the classes and the issues those cause" please do.


You could add a feature to a Berserker barbarian, and only a Berserker, that allows them to heal more levels of exhaustion and heal them on a short rest.

I don't remember if it was mentioned, but what about spending Hit Die on a short rest to cure a level of exhaustion. That way it scales, and forces the Barb to make a decision between recovering HP and a level of exhaustion? Both good ideas.
(Though quite frankly, Monks ought to be given the same tool since they are supposed to be masters of their bodies ...)

[Vaz]

So, you never play mundanes, eh?
I've just said that I've played Warlocks since inception. Are you blind, or just inept?

[Specter]

For Trickery Domain, I use two simple fixes:

1) you can use Blessing of the Trickster (the 1st level ability) on yourself.

2) Divine Strike seals psychic damage, not poison damage.

Gold here. Also add rapiers.

[DracoKnight]

Gold here. Also add rapiers.

Ah, yes. I forgot they don’t get rapiers natively. That’s a 3rd fix I unconsciously gave them :smalltongue:

[Mister_Squinty]

Even your list, Mister_Squinty would probably end up needlessly complicated. I think a 5E take on the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana generic classes (Mage, Scoundrel, Warrior) compilation would be a better starting point.

I was too vague in my description. The Mage/Scoundrel/Warrior base chassis was what I was aiming for, I just also included a proposed set of subclasses as well. My apologies.

For the casters, Wizards would stay prepared, Sorc would be "Spells Known" or spell points. Alternately, Sorc could be combined with Warlock (BLASPHEMY) with a Red/White/Black Mage subclass for each Stat, giving you 6 subclass options.

Basically, I'm not sure enough sacred cows were sacrificed.... ie. 3 CHA casters seems unnecessary. Given the amount of discussion about this, there appears to be room for additional nudges.

[toapat]

Basically, I'm not sure enough sacred cows were sacrificed.... ie. 3 CHA casters seems unnecessary. Given the amount of discussion about this, there appears to be room for additional nudges.

youre mistaking technical considerations with sacred cows. in the PHB there are 3 int classes, 4 wisdom classes, 4 Charisma classes, and one Lift class. the problem is that mechanically theres very little technically important to intelligence, which probably comes from not using the 4 Defenses system from 4E. (Armor, Reflex Save (Dex/Int), Fortitude Save (Con/Str), Will Save (Wis/Cha)), as well as 2 of the 3 classes not being absolutely required to be Int based because thats primarily only part of a subclass

with Mystic and Artificer, there actually 5 Int classes, 4 wisdom classes, and 4 charisma classes, and 1 lift class.

the most egregious Sacred Cows alive in 5E are the Fighter's "Newbie's First Class" changes which choose fighter to be that role because "Fighter is always that role" rather than organically selecting for that because they are naturally a very linear class unlike say, barbarian who has 2 states of play: Punch or Unprepared-to-Punch, as well as the Gygaxian spell classification system. after that are the ranger and druid since they are traditional in the same way that the monk is traditional, so the fact that clerics cannibalize one of the sacred cows would have annoyed alot of people much sooner than moon druid being invincible and land druid being a boring caster.

[Mister_Squinty]

youre mistaking technical considerations with sacred cows. in the PHB there are 3 int classes, 4 wisdom classes, 4 Charisma classes, and one Lift class. the problem is that mechanically theres very little technically important to intelligence, which probably comes from not using the 4 Defenses system from 4E. (Armor, Reflex Save (Dex/Int), Fortitude Save (Con/Str), Will Save (Wis/Cha)), as well as 2 of the 3 classes not being absolutely required to be Int based because thats primarily only part of a subclass

with Mystic and Artificer, there actually 5 Int classes, 4 wisdom classes, and 4 charisma classes, and 1 lift class.

the most egregious Sacred Cows alive in 5E are the Fighter's "Newbie's First Class" changes which choose fighter to be that role because "Fighter is always that role" rather than organically selecting for that because they are naturally a very linear class unlike say, barbarian who has 2 states of play: Punch or Unprepared-to-Punch, as well as the Gygaxian spell classification system. after that are the ranger and druid since they are traditional in the same way that the monk is traditional, so the fact that clerics cannibalize one of the sacred cows would have annoyed alot of people much sooner than moon druid being invincible and land druid being a boring caster.

Given the statement about EK and Trickster being 1/3 casters in subclasses otherwise martial focused, I would propose that there are 1 and 2/3 INT classes in the PHB. For the EK and AT builds I've seen, IN is the 3rd most important stat, after ST/DX and CON. YMMV. Similarly, there are 2 and 1/2 Wisdom and 3 1/2 Charisma classes. I am not familiar with the concept of "lift class". I tried to look it up and accidentally joined a gym...:smallsmile:

The main sacred cows I'm referring to are Rangers, Monks, and Druids being going concerns, some of which has been discussed already. I would also, if given ultimate power, either give all classes some short rest resource recovery or get rid of all of it, which would kill some of the distinctiveness of the Warlock. The fact that two identical parties could run the same adventure but have completely different gaming experiences based on how often they short rest seems "meh".

[toapat]

Given the statement about EK and Trickster being 1/3 casters in subclasses otherwise martial focused, I would propose that there are 1 and 2/3 INT classes in the PHB. For the EK and AT builds I've seen, IN is the 3rd most important stat, after ST/DX and CON. YMMV. Similarly, there are 2 and 1/2 Wisdom and 3 1/2 Charisma classes. I am not familiar with the concept of "lift class". I tried to look it up and accidentally joined a gym...:smallsmile:

The main sacred cows I'm referring to are Rangers, Monks, and Druids being going concerns, some of which has been discussed already. I would also, if given ultimate power, either give all classes some short rest resource recovery or get rid of all of it, which would kill some of the distinctiveness of the Warlock. The fact that two identical parties could run the same adventure but have completely different gaming experiences based on how often they short rest seems "meh".

1: you forgot monk is functionally a full wisdom class.

2: Barbarians are Lift classes. They theoretically have value for wisdom because of Totems, however in practice because they only get ritual casting, Spell DCs are irrelevant to them. They only benefit from praying at the Iron temple of Gains

3: Rogues still benefit technically the most after wizard from int, because of their lack of equivalent to bardic inspiration when functioning as Dungeoneering technical support.

4: Paladins and rangers have to fully commit to their casting stats, since Ranger DCs do matter, while paladins have other charisma anchored mechanics, and it determines their spells prepared.

5: while i feel ranger suffers horribly from being a sacred cow, Druid does have its place in the strictest sense as a measure of counterbalance to the cleric, and the sacred cows in Monk are detrimental to monk but not to other characters, because they are the cows that determined that the Way of the Open Palm monk is almost functionally a duplicate of the 3.5 monk.

[SaurOps]

the general trained in a monastery thing is in backgrounds, thats what the Acolyte background is for. While yes its an issue using eastern vs western storytelling heritage when designing characters, i cant see how to justify fighter from a storytelling perspective Other than that the characters that the fighter chassis most effectively represent when fighter is not hamstrung by last minute design decisions, are not compatible with the characters that the monk is most effectively capable of representing. Ironically i dont think Monk is emotionally effective at representing Sun Goku of DBZ, and yet i would never not expect the mechanics for a Dragonball character to appear anywhere but monk.

I wouldn't expect to see mechanics for Dragonball anywhere in D&D, unless you wanted NPCs threatening to blow up the planet. Again. After demonstrating that they could on a different planet, from which one of the other characters hailed. This is rather far beyond Epic Level, and it's what the series started doing when the Turtle Hermit blew up the moon in the original manga to prevent Goku from continuing on his Great Monkey warpath.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that this shouldn't be a consideration for the monk. All design efforts should be concerned with making "martial arts" fit into fighting styles for martial characters. And in tuning the fighter back up, it's probably going to be necessary to give them three fighting styles instead of just one, or two if they go Champion. You'd also be making these available to paladins and presumably whatever ranger you settle on, if that's possible for the fanbase.



The first and most critical thing 5E ranger is not, is a robust, general core character concept. Instead it chooses to be a specific character, which the only other specific character class is Monk, and monk is only a specific character because of the monk's sacred cows, because there are few people who dont see Ninja anime behind the Shadow monk, AtLA behind the 4E monk, or Goku behind the Sunsoul monk, monk is trying to transcend its limitations where as ranger, being a half caster, is more heavily invested in its native toolkit. Id rather see an Epic Game Hunter rogue and a beastmaster where your subclass influences how you interact with your companion over a base ranger.

Goku has picked up so many techniques and transformations that one subclass cannot hope to describe them all, in any class. He even got yet another one in DB Super 111! So unless your subclass is "I learn other peoples' class features, permanently," it's not going to cut it, and a feature like that would probably need to be a general thing to avoid the same problem we get with casters.

[Mister_Squinty]

1: you forgot monk is functionally a full wisdom class.

Given that Monks, at least the ones I've seen, push DEX first, then CON/WIS, I would not rate WIS as their primary stat. I would rate them like Rangers, as a 1/2.


3: Rogues still benefit technically the most after wizard from int, because of their lack of equivalent to bardic inspiration when functioning as Dungeoneering technical support.

INT is useful for any class with the stat points to spare. With Expertise, a Rogue (or Bard), can do trap-finding well with a 10 INT.


4: Paladins and rangers have to fully commit to their casting stats, since Ranger DCs do matter, while paladins have other charisma anchored mechanics, and it determines their spells prepared.

Like Monk, I would argue these are Martial classes first, with STR/DEX primary, with their casting stat secondary. Given that they have to hit to trigger their most powerful class features.


5: while i feel ranger suffers horribly from being a sacred cow, Druid does have its place in the strictest sense as a measure of counterbalance to the cleric, and the sacred cows in Monk are detrimental to monk but not to other characters, because they are the cows that determined that the Way of the Open Palm monk is almost functionally a duplicate of the 3.5 monk.

Given the enormous variety of Domains available, I have a hard time finding a narrative counterbalance to the Cleric besides a Cleric of an opposing domain. Especially with Nature domain, Druid is a strange legacy, another WIS full-caster with a shape shifting mechanic that feels tacked on to give the class a point of difference.

Good talk though

[2D8HP]

For fighter, i'd give battlemaster combat maneuvers to all subclasses....


I find the "maneuvers" of the Battlemaster too difficult for me to keep track of, similar to casters actually.

I almost always play Champion Fighters with Rogue Thief or Swashbuckler levels mixed in for spice.

Anyway, the way I'd improve the Champion would be to have them Critical Hit even more often!


...and I know a LOT of players who actually enjoy the mindlessness of autoattacking. Or perhaps they abhor the thought of pouring over heaps of spell options and wasting minutes at the table making the best tactical decision for the moment in time their turn comes up....


Present!

[toapat]

Given that Monks, at least the ones I've seen, push DEX first, then CON/WIS, I would not rate WIS as their primary stat. I would rate them like Rangers, as a 1/2.

INT is useful for any class with the stat points to spare. With Expertise, a Rogue (or Bard), can do trap-finding well with a 10 INT.

Like Monk, I would argue these are Martial classes first, with STR/DEX primary, with their casting stat secondary. Given that they have to hit to trigger their most powerful class features.

Given the enormous variety of Domains available, I have a hard time finding a narrative counterbalance to the Cleric besides a Cleric of an opposing domain. Especially with Nature domain, Druid is a strange legacy, another WIS full-caster with a shape shifting mechanic that feels tacked on to give the class a point of difference.

Good talk though

1: Monks and rangers max their combat stat first typically because it has more immediate application, paladins max charisma over Str or Dex always. Everyone considers them as still needing their magic stat as much as their mundane state.

2: outside of Wizard, EK, Rogue, and bard for trapfinding, Int is literally useless except for making the 4 knowledge checks

3: Druids are not supposed to be as formally trained as clerics, but moreso they exist so clerics arent the only class with a large number of those spells. While they serve. Favored Soul however does that set of stipulations better, which leaves the mechanical reason for druid which is to balance the attribute spread and to ensure cleric isnt versatility wise overpowered.


I find the "maneuvers" of the Battlemaster too difficult for me to keep track of, similar to casters actually.

I almost always play Champion Fighters with Rogue Thief or Swashbuckler levels mixed in for spice.

Anyway, the way I'd improve the Champion would be to have them Critical Hit even more often!

Honestly, Battlemaster maneuvers are horribly worded, and very mechanically lacking in the kind of depth that the system they replaced served to create.

Champion Fighter really shouldnt exist though, if only because, imagine if instead of having a Fighter that crit more, a barbarian that crit more and harder.

[Mister_Squinty]

1: Monks and rangers max their combat stat first typically because it has more immediate application, paladins max charisma over Str or Dex always. Everyone considers them as still needing their magic stat as much as their mundane state.

I will differ. Four classes with CHA as the primary stat.


2: outside of Wizard, EK, Rogue, and bard for trapfinding, Int is literally useless except for making the 4 knowledge checks

Agreed. Which is why I would recommend moving a primary CHA class to INT.


3: Druids are not supposed to be as formally trained as clerics, but moreso they exist so clerics arent the only class with a large number of those spells.

Like the Ranger, a lack of formal training sounds like a background, not a class. Both Druids and Clerics are prepared casters, with a largely shared spell list. Given the Favored Soul Sorcerer now has access to that list, the Druid seems even less needed. If we agree that the Stats should have some parity across classes, a Spells Known caster, can even call it a Druid, Favored Soul, Shaman, or whatnot, would offer more diversity than the status quo Druid.


Honestly, Battlemaster maneuvers are horribly worded, and very mechanically lacking in the kind of depth that the system they replaced served to create.

Agreed. A 1/2 caster Heavy Melee subclass with battlefield control spells would serve as well, or better.


Champion Fighter really shouldnt exist though, if only because, imagine if instead of having a Fighter that crit more, a barbarian that crit more and harder.

I would agree with merging some Champion Fighter features into Barbarian to make a Heavy Melee Offensive subclass. Seems as good a place to start as any.

[toapat]

Agreed. Which is why I would recommend moving a primary CHA class to INT.

Like the Ranger, a lack of formal training sounds like a background, not a class. Both Druids and Clerics are prepared casters, with a largely shared spell list. Given the Favored Soul Sorcerer now has access to that list, the Druid seems even less needed. If we agree that the Stats should have some parity across classes, a Spells Known caster, can even call it a Druid, Favored Soul, Shaman, or whatnot, would offer more diversity than the status quo Druid.

Agreed. A 1/2 caster Heavy Melee subclass with battlefield control spells would serve as well, or better.

1: If charisma should loose a class, its warlock, who is basically the only class that effectively could use any caster stat: Int to figure out how to sell your soul for profit, Wisdom to know youre getting a good deal for your soul, or charisma to convince the entity your soul is worth it in trade for power, expecially because without druid or ranger, theres only 2 wisdom classes.

2: Sacred Entrails of the Sacred cow cause further problems, but again its just to keep cleric from being too diverse when they dont have to pay anything for their spells unlike paladins and wizards.

3: Not what i meant, something closer to how Tome of battle was constructed would be better than battlemaster for clarity and for balance.

[Theodoxus]

I've just said that I've played Warlocks since inception. Are you blind, or just inept?

Sorry, I'm not psychic. "...played Warlocks since inception" neither expressly, nor implicitly means "I've only ever played Warlocks and no other class".

So, take your moronic criticism of my reading comp skills and shove it.

[Eric Diaz]

The Champion gets plenty of criticism - and, as you can see, I proposed a "fix" in the OP, so I can't call it perfect. But is is one of the most popular PC class I've ever had TBH. I would never ban it.

[Vaz]

Sorry, I'm not psychic. "...played Warlocks since inception" neither expressly, nor implicitly means "I've only ever played Warlocks and no other class".

So, take your moronic criticism of my reading comp skills and shove it.

The Warlock is mundane. It's tongue in cheek. Just because it deals magic damage doesn't mean that magical.

[Mara]

Champion: Their crits auto roll max damage. Remarkable Athlete causes physical checks that you are proficient in to treat of rolls of 9 or lower as if you rolled a 10.

[MrStabby]

So some classes are worse than others in terms of mess and cannot simply be fixed with a single tweak. Others are fine.

Of those in the middle:

Frenzy barbarian: whenever you would take a level of exhaustion make a constitution save. If you pass instead to not gain a level of exhaustion.

Champion Fighter: (probably 7th level), whenever you would fail a save you may expend a hit die. Roll that die and add it's result to your score

Warlock: on board with the spell point casting rules. Replacing short rest mechanics with a mechanic for recovery on rolling initiative might help for games where short rests are irregular. I do also like the idea of making it an Int based caster - fits with a lot of the invocations; at this point we are getting into rework territory though.

Sorcerer: chose the spell list from which you pick your spells from: sorcerer, druid, cleric, bard, warlock.

Wizard: Lose arcane recovery. Instead gain arcana points that can be used to cast spells but only from your chosen school.

[mr-mercer]

I'm also in the boat of loving the Champion for its simplicity and feel that adding maneuvers or other moving parts would make me want to play it less, but I also wouldn't want it removed in favour of a Barbarian doing the simple crit stuff for one reason and one reason only: heavy armour. The image of a mighty warrior coated in steel and throwing hordes of enemies about with just a few swipes of his greatsword/maul/greataxe/halberd/weapon of choice is an idea I love too much to let go. I will say that I love the idea of expertise in athletics, though: while I have no qualms with the Champion as it is, I'm not about to say no to more physical badassery.

As far as actual changes go, I've complained numerous times on here about how there's no good way to make an unarmed character that emphasises strength and/or doesn't have anything unmistakably magical about them: even the Open Hand Monk gets the ability to cast Sanctuary, and the less said about Empty Body the better. Sadly there are too many changes that would have to be made to the Monk for it to match my desires, so I'd instead suggest a fighting style for Fighters that provides a boost to unarmed combat: I would have suggested a subclass for one of the martials instead (and I wouldn't be too picky about who got it) but I don't want to have to wait until 3rd level to be allowed to punch things good. The only trouble is figuring out exactly how this fighting style would work: I wouldn't want it to step on the Monk's toes too much, but I need a good way to brawl without Ki.

[Kane0]

You could start with a fighting style for brawling at level 1, then a subclass to expand on that at level 3 plus a feat if you feel the need.

[toapat]

I'm also in the boat of loving the Champion for its simplicity

Killing Champion for the sins of the developer is not the scope of this thread, and depending on explicit response to a "Path of the Tyrant" barbarian giving them heavy armor possibly wouldnt be out of the question.

going on Kane0's sugestion, Crawler fighting style would probably be "Whenever you make an unarmed weapon attack, roll 1d4 instead of roll 1"

[Mara]

Champion expanded crit feature should also add a flat +1 to all weapon attack damage.

That would be a total of +3 damage per hit by the end.

[Arkhios]

I'm torn whether you should change how fragile the Beast Master's companion is or how the attacking works in conjunction with it. Ranger basis is fine, but Beast Master might not be possible to fix with one single change. I want to like the PHB Beast Master, but I can't unsee its obvious faults.

[EvilAnagram]

I'm torn whether you should change how fragile the Beast Master's companion is or how the attacking works in conjunction with it. Ranger basis is fine, but Beast Master might not be possible to fix with one single change. I want to like the PHB Beast Master, but I can't unsee its obvious faults.

In play, the only thing that has a noticeable negative effect on the BM is the fragility of the animal. At level 5, the attack actually works really well and makes it feel like you and the beast are attacking as one. More like Lying Cat than Sweet Boy, to put it in freelancer terms.

[Easy_Lee]

In play, the only thing that has a noticeable negative effect on the BM is the fragility of the animal. At level 5, the attack actually works really well and makes it feel like you and the beast are attacking as one. More like Lying Cat than Sweet Boy, to put it in freelancer terms.

While true, my issue is requiring the Ranger's action (or bonus action) to command the beast. It makes TWF a non-option for the base BM. On the other hand, TWF is the only way to go for the Revised BM who doesn't get extra attack.

Simplest thing to do would be to limit the beast to only one attack, and otherwise let it act freely. As per hoard breaker, one extra attack per round is hardly broken.

The feel I prefer is for there to be a magical psychic connection between beast and ranger so they truly become one unit. But that's just me.

[Theodoxus]

Sure, grant it a similar limitation to Horde Breaker: if you and your animal companion are within 5' of each other, you can take the Attack Action and your companion can attack for free. This works for nearly every BM build I've seen. For the "archery only, fool!" type ranger, they'd still get a ranged and an animal companion attack at 5th. Before then, call it "training the beast."

If that's still considered too powerful (because F martials in the B), then further require it exactly as Horde Breaker - that two enemies must be within 5' of each other and you and your beast must attack separate targets. This does free up the archer ranger to be cool again... so maybe it's a wash with the first proposal... and of course, you could combine them for the most restrictive idea...

[Easy_Lee]

Sure, grant it a similar limitation to Horde Breaker: if you and your animal companion are within 5' of each other, you can take the Attack Action and your companion can attack for free. This works for nearly every BM build I've seen. For the "archery only, fool!" type ranger, they'd still get a ranged and an animal companion attack at 5th. Before then, call it "training the beast."

If that's still considered too powerful (because F martials in the B), then further require it exactly as Horde Breaker - that two enemies must be within 5' of each other and you and your beast must attack separate targets. This does free up the archer ranger to be cool again... so maybe it's a wash with the first proposal... and of course, you could combine them for the most restrictive idea...

I'd say the other Hunter features in conjunction with Horde Breaker are about equally strong as a single free beast attack. Remember the Hunter gets to use his own weapons (potentially magical), fighting style bonus, potential feat bonuses, and potential Hunter's Mark bonus on his own attacks. None of those apply with a beast, and you'd need additional special magic items (such as Insignia of the Claw) to buff your beast's attacks.