How would you go about balancing classes?

[Khrysaes]

Based on this thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?542843-2017-Class-Rank-Survey-results-are-in!

How would you go about balancing classses more than they currently are such that they would all be within the same rank?

For example, would you boost every class so that they would be on par with the A+ classes? or would you nerf/buff classes to bring them within the B range, because it is the largest?

Pick a class and describe some changes you would make.

Ranger: This would require more of a rework than detailed below.
Simple ways, give them spells prepared rather than spells known. Make hunters mark a bonus action ability and not a spell that requires concentration. And/Or, make some of the spells, like hail of thorns, not require concentration since they cant be used with hunter's mark or pass without a trace.

More specifically
I would separate spellcasting from the default class, and give it half caster subclasses at level 2. Then like the Fighter or Rogue you could have subclasses that aren't

For example, I would take the Arcane archer from the fighter and make it a subclass of ranger, maybe not acher focused but be usable to melee characters.

I would grant this subclass a casting similar akin to the warlock with short rest slots(or a spell point system like described in the DMG, but short rest), but scaling at half the speed of the warlock. The AA shots can be channeled into the weapon could then function like smites, utilizing spell slots or points. This would give the AA scaling in number of uses(based on slots or points), and power (based on slot level or points used).

[JNAProductions]

Barring some outliers (4E Monk could use a buff, Berserker needs a different penalty mechanic) the classes are pretty well-balanced. It ain't perfect, but you have to really TRY to build characters that are substantially weaker than the rest of the party. Even the examples I gave, 4E and Frenzy, are still good, because, if nothing else, they're still a Monk and Barbarian, which are kick-ass classes.

To put it in 3.5 terms, every class is a pretty solid T3. Some are better than others at different stages, but none by such a wide degree that it's likely to impact fun.

In addition, the issues with the Beastmaster are NOT mechanical in nature-they keep up with utility and combat just fine. It just FEELS bad. (Which is a big ol' stonking issue, to be sure-it's just not really a mechanical one.)

[Nifft]

Ranger needs a re-write.

Warlock could benefit from a re-write.

Otherwise, it's just some subclasses that could be replaced or ignored or fixed.

[mgshamster]

I wouldn't do anything, other than maybe a minor change here and there. The classes are already fairly balanced as is.

That survey is fairly meaningless. There's too much ambiguity for what each respondent thinks of when ranking classes, most of it shows that subclasses are ranked compared to each other and not other classes, and it isn't a viable method for comparing the power structure of each class and subclass. There's plenty of methodological errors, as well as base assumption errors within it. It most certainly does not represent the actual power differences between the classes.

Here's what's important to note: 3.X had a tier system which also ranked classes, where Tier 1 was the most powerful and Tier 6 was the weakest. Tier 1 was defined as a class that could do its own thing with ease, as well as nearly every other class's thing with ease. A Tier 6 class was one that struggled to do even its own thing.

Every single class in 5e falls within Tier 3. Some are high in their tier, some are low, but none are so strong as to advance to Tier 2, or so weak as to fall to Tier 4.

Even with the power differences in 5e classes, the delta value is small. If we were to rank the classes on a 1 to 10 power scale, we have to remember that 3.x was on a -50 to 50 scale. 1 to 10 is a small difference.

That survey only gives the false impression that there's a problem with class balance in 5e. More problematic - it gives that impression without giving the reason why people think there's a power difference.

The beast master often ranks low, despite it being mechanically viable. The issue isn't power, it's the feel of the mechanics. The champ often ranks low, despite being mechanically comparable to other martial classes. Frenzy ranks low, despite it being one of the highest damage dealers in the game - people just don't like the exhaustion mechanic. Wild Magic ranks low, because it's dependent on the DM and many power gamers hate that. Four Elements ranks low because people confuse the ki point cost system and believe that anything that detracts from stunning blow is bad; but the class works just fine (I've played it and seen others play it plenty of times and it never falls behind). None of this make the classes weak, it just means people don't like some aspects of them.

But mechanically, they're all just fine. Fine enough where they don't need drastic changes to "fix" them.

If we want to talk about the minute differences in power between certain classes, that's fine. But it must be taken into context. That survey improperly makes a mountain out of a molehill.

[Naanomi]

In addition, the issues with the Beastmaster are NOT mechanical in nature-they keep up with utility and combat just fine. It just FEELS bad. (Which is a big ol' stonking issue, to be sure-it's just not really a mechanical one.)
I disagree slightly... while it looks great mechanically when your pet is alive; your *subclass is fairly easily killable*, isn’t strong enough to make up for that.

Ranger suffers overall from this... it looks good when you are fighting the right enemy in the right terrain... but in a tomb fighting the ‘wrong’ enemy, your pet dead and no replacement to be found... you notice the disparity quickly. I took a Beastmaster from 1 to 20 and had fun with it, but the situational benefits were noticeable more than once

[Geodude6]

I would definitely make Eldritch Blast not be a spell any more and instead have it be a warlock class feature, so that it scales with warlock level instead of character level.

[Khrysaes]

I disagree slightly... while it looks great mechanically when your pet is alive; your *subclass is fairly easily killable*, isn’t strong enough to make up for that.

Ranger suffers overall from this... it looks good when you are fighting the right enemy in the right terrain... but in a tomb fighting the ‘wrong’ enemy, your pet dead and no replacement to be found... you notice the disparity quickly. I took a Beastmaster from 1 to 20 and had fun with it, but the situational benefits were noticeable more than once

So a potential "fix" to a Beast master ranger would involve designing it in a way similar to a cavalier, where the character is viable to good without their pet, and better with it?

[JNAProductions]

I disagree slightly... while it looks great mechanically when your pet is alive; your *subclass is fairly easily killable*, isn’t strong enough to make up for that.

Ranger suffers overall from this... it looks good when you are fighting the right enemy in the right terrain... but in a tomb fighting the ‘wrong’ enemy, your pet dead and no replacement to be found... you notice the disparity quickly. I took a Beastmaster from 1 to 20 and had fun with it, but the situational benefits were noticeable more than once

Good point, there.

[2D8HP]

2017 D&D 5E CLASS RANK SURVEY

B+: the line separating B & B+ is fuzzy.Swashbuckler Rogue

B: most classes are in the middle, where they should be.Thief Rogue

C+: just barely fell short of B-.Champion Fighter,
.
Beyond first level I've really only played Champion Fighter, Swashbuckler Rogue, and Thief Rogue, all were fun.

Maybe combine all their features into one class (for me) and then with the other classes?

Yeah no idea

More seiously, Swashbuckler and Thief seem pretty good as is, and those who say that the "Champion doesn't have enough options, miss the point of the class IMNSHO, and as to the Champion being "underpowered"? If true (no way am I going to crunch the numbers to tell) giving "Superior Critical" or "Additional Fighting Style" earlier seem like better options to me.

[JNAProductions]

.
Beyond first level I've really only played Champion Fighter, Swashbuckler Rogue, and Thief Rogue, all were fun.

Maybe combine all their features into one class (for me) and then with the other classes?

Yeah no idea

More seiously, Swashbuckler and Thief seem pretty good as is, and those who say that the "Champion doesn't have enough options, miss the point of the class IMNSHO, and as to the Champion being "underpowered"? If true (no way am I going to crunch the numbers to tell) giving "Superior Critical" or "Additional Fighting Style" earlier seem like better options to me.

The Champion lacks nova potential. Given a long enough adventuring day, it begins to pull ahead, but it cannot focus its damage on needy targets, like the BBEG. You're just as likely to get an 18 or 19 to hit on a goblin as you are on the Lord Fellwright.

That being said, it's still not bad. Worse, in most cases, than a Battlemaster or EK, but not by a massive degree. So if you like it, play it.

[Nifft]

The Champion lacks nova potential. Action Surge is decent nova potential.

[Khrysaes]

The Champion lacks nova potential. Given a long enough adventuring day, it begins to pull ahead, but it cannot focus its damage on needy targets, like the BBEG. You're just as likely to get an 18 or 19 to hit on a goblin as you are on the Lord Fellwright.

That being said, it's still not bad. Worse, in most cases, than a Battlemaster or EK, but not by a massive degree. So if you like it, play it.

I would agree that the champion isn't bad. I like it design wise(although I think maybe it should get something in addition to that second fighting style).

But in balancing games, you need a fulcrum in which to base everything off of. I think that the champion ideally suits this purpose. It can stably perform for an entire adventuring day. And since D&D classes are all about resource management, you can then base them off of the Champion. Basing health, ac, and damage throughout a day in comparison to a champion. Yes a battlemaster can burst with their dice, but they have to short rest to get them back. A Caster has more spells than a battlemaster has dice, but has a limit per long rest. I think the stability of the champion works well as a fulcrum for these reasons.

That said, in games I play, encounters have lasted 5 rounds at most, and a champion would be behind only because of the lack of burst and versatility.

[Tanarii]

I disagree slightly... while it looks great mechanically when your pet is alive; your *subclass is fairly easily killable*, isn’t strong enough to make up for that.
I played 2 Beastmaster Rangers in AL, and only had my pet die once. Between Barding, prof bonus to AC and saves, and not trying to use my Pet as a Tank, I didn't get see any "easily killable" issues in Tier 1 or Tier 2.

That may change at higher Tiers.

[MrStabby]

Most balancing can be done by adjusting the guidance in the DMG (or actually reading it in some cases). More interesting encounter design covers a lot.

There is roughly a correlation between class emphasis on long rest resources and perceived power. Longer days helps even this out a bit. More lower level enemies (spread out) helps this somewhat as well. Enemies prepared to withdraw, regroup and come back can help. Illusions, decoys and traps can even out power of nova builds. Night ambushes and uneven days can provide an incentive to keep some long rest powers in reserve.

Yes somethings can use some fixing, but the DM can cover most of it through good encounter design.

[Nidgit]

Agree that champion is mechanically fine but a bit boring to play. Champion, outside of Action Surge, doesn't have any resource-dependent abilities to spice things up and thus most of the actions will be kind of same-y. Even Action Surge, as strong as it is, is rather straightforward and lacks the flavor of other classes' abilities.

If you're playing a Champion, you need to take interesting feats to spice things up. Since those are technically optional I don't consider Champion a great subclass.

[2D8HP]

I would agree that the champion isn't bad. I like it design wise(although I think maybe it should get something in addition to that second fighting style)....
A third Fighting Style?

[Naanomi]

I played 2 Beastmaster Rangers in AL, and only had my pet die once. Between Barding, prof bonus to AC and saves, and not trying to use my Pet as a Tank, I didn't get see any "easily killable" issues in Tier 1 or Tier 2.

That may change at higher Tiers.
My giant-crab died to a banshee at the bottom of a undead pyramid (where I was also not in my favored terrain nor fighting my favored enemy), no beasts to replace it for three seasons; and a pretty mediocre Giant Vulture for a while after that. It was arduous.

Probably less an issue in AL where if it dies you can revive it between sessions even if still ‘in the dungeon’

[MrStabby]

.
A third Fighting Style?

Allowing to take two of the same and have them stack would really be a potent mid game boost.

[mephnick]

.
A third Fighting Style?

The 2nd Fighting Style being at level 10 is my problem. That's waaaaay too late to be exciting. I'd give em one earlier and a third at level 10.

[E’Tallitnics]

The quick answer is: You don't.

The long answer is: This very question was brought up during the play test and the overwhelming response was that we didn't want the classes balanced!

Balanced classes play too much alike and the testers wanted each class to feel unique.

This PSA has been brought to you by me: E!

[Easy_Lee]

I'll back up a bit and answer the original question. In my opinion, the best way to balance classes is to make them all the best at something. This applies doubly to archetypes. Every class archetype should be the best archetype for some general purpose.

The original rogue archetypes are a good example. AT is a magical rogue good at handling arcana and such, thief is the best general thief and item user, and assassin is the best at surprise-killing a creature.

If you want to improve champion or beast master, decide what you'd like the archetype to do relative to other archetypes. Then make it the best at that.

[Khrysaes]

I'll back up a bit and answer the original question. In my opinion, the best way to balance classes is to make them all the best at something. This applies doubly to archetypes. Every class archetype should be the best archetype for some general purpose.

The original rogue archetypes are a good example. AT is a magical rogue good at handling arcana and such, thief is the best general thief and item user, and assassin is the best at surprise-killing a creature.

If you want to improve champion or beast master, decide what you'd like the archetype to do relative to other archetypes. Then make it the best at that.

This is how I have been working on the ranger. First the ranger itself doesnt seem to be the best at anything it does, a weird amalgam of fighter/druid/rogue that has nothing unique about it other than the optional beast master(which has its own problems).

[2D8HP]

Agree that champion is mechanically fine but a bit boring to play. Champion, outside of Action Surge, doesn't have any resource-dependent abilities to spice things up and thus most of the actions will be kind of same-y....
What makes Champion "boring" is it's lack of options, but that's also what makes it a wonderful "training wheels" class. When I first got the 5e PHB in looking over the PHB I immediately could tell which classes to stay away from as they'd be too confusing for my age added mind. There was no way that I could learn a new system after decades away from the hobby and keep track of all of the options for Battlemaster or any of the Spell-casting classes, but Champion was the perfect introduction class to play, once I got more familiar with the system, I tried out levels of Rogue (and Barbarian a couple of times). Multiclass Fighter/Rogues really are my favorite to play, but after Xanathar's Guide I'm thinking of trying a Gloom Stalker Ranger.


The 2nd Fighting Style being at level 10 is my problem. That's waaaaay too late to be exciting. I'd give em one earlier and a third at level 10..
Sounds good to me.

:smile:

[Easy_Lee]

This is how I have been working on the ranger. First the ranger itself doesnt seem to be the best at anything it does, a weird amalgam of fighter/druid/rogue that has nothing unique about it other than the optional beast master(which has its own problems).

I'm D&D, the ranger is a combination of wilderness scout and killer of Favored Enemies. I think revised ranger captures that well. But both the revised and regular rangers have poor scaling in terms of damage. They can't smite like Paladins, and they don't have scaling damage boosts like rogues or barbarians. Also, their spells don't add enough consistent damage. As a result they end up doing a comparable amount of damage from level 6 to level 20.

[Zalabim]

I disagree slightly... while it looks great mechanically when your pet is alive; your *subclass is fairly easily killable*, isn’t strong enough to make up for that.

Ranger suffers overall from this... it looks good when you are fighting the right enemy in the right terrain... but in a tomb fighting the ‘wrong’ enemy, your pet dead and no replacement to be found... you notice the disparity quickly. I took a Beastmaster from 1 to 20 and had fun with it, but the situational benefits were noticeable more than once
I've been playing a Hunter Ranger and I do feel the same thing, only up to level 5 so far. I've been trying to stay very neutral on weapon selection too, so I'm really dreading having to pick one for level 11. I think that's the biggest difference in the XGE subclasses for ranger: Much less of the "favored enemy problem," or reliance on situational mechanics.

[bid]

I would agree that the champion isn't bad. I like it design wise(although I think maybe it should get something in addition to that second fighting style).
Champion needs an extra action surge at level 7 to catch up with BM before it runs out of health. But the difference is minor enough that you should concentrate on fun.

You don't really need to balance class, the players disparity in skill will have a larger impact. Anything missing can be tweaked by the DM, giving the right tools to help those who contribute less and making sure everyone has fun.

[Throne12]

Based on this thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?542843-2017-Class-Rank-Survey-results-are-in!

How would you go about balancing classses more than they currently are such that they would all be within the same rank?

For example, would you boost every class so that they would be on par with the A+ classes? or would you nerf/buff classes to bring them within the B range, because it is the largest?

Pick a class and describe some changes you would make.

Ranger: This would require more of a rework than detailed below.
Simple ways, give them spells prepared rather than spells known. Make hunters mark a bonus action ability and not a spell that requires concentration. And/Or, make some of the spells, like hail of thorns, not require concentration since they cant be used with hunter's mark or pass without a trace.

More specifically
I would separate spellcasting from the default class, and give it half caster subclasses at level 2. Then like the Fighter or Rogue you could have subclasses that aren't

For example, I would take the Arcane archer from the fighter and make it a subclass of ranger, maybe not acher focused but be usable to melee characters.

I would grant this subclass a casting similar akin to the warlock with short rest slots(or a spell point system like described in the DMG, but short rest), but scaling at half the speed of the warlock. The AA shots can be channeled into the weapon could then function like smites, utilizing spell slots or points. This would give the AA scaling in number of uses(based on slots or points), and power (based on slot level or points used).

Why do that? Yes a few classes can't put out melee numbers like paladin. But no class is unplayable.

[Khrysaes]

Why do that? Yes a few classes can't put out melee numbers like paladin. But no class is unplayable.

Why do what? revise classes/subclasses to make them more in the same tier?
Because some classes/subclasses are more optimal or fun, this reduces how often others are played, or how they are viewed by players.

Or revise ranger to have them prepare rather than know spells?
Because I despise the ranger as it is.

or revise AA to work with the ranger?
Because AA makes sense have been on a ranger, you know, that one class that gets spells specifically for archery.

Revise ranger more broadly?
Because I find that it has a lack of identity as it is and that it isn't fun as it is.

Earlier I mentioned that maybe beastmaster should be designed in a similar capacity to a cavalier, where its abilities work with or without the companion. Like instead of limiting coordinated attack(Revised Ranger) to the animal companion, make it work with any ally. This way, the ability still works if the pet dies. The companion itself could be turned into a function similar to the find steed spell, where death or dismissal just sends them to a special subspace, they can then be summoned back with 10 minutes, although death should perhaps require a short rest before being able to be resummoned.

Other abilities that would make sense are pact tactics or the barbarian 3rd wolf feature of granting advantage to allies.

Storm of claw and fangs(also called whirlwind attack from the hunter but for the animal companion) could be usable by either ranger OR companion once per round.

Beast defense and Superior beast defense could have the option to allow allies to use them as well, within a small range(5-10 ft), making them useful even with no companion. Also make them once per round, so the choice is companion within sight, or ally within range.

[Tanarii]

My giant-crab died to a banshee at the bottom of a undead pyramid (where I was also not in my favored terrain nor fighting my favored enemy), no beasts to replace it for three seasons; and a pretty mediocre Giant Vulture for a while after that. It was arduous. IMO the PHB Ranger is pretty clearly designed with the assumption of 5e adventure-path style modules ... and that you'll know the "theme going in. So you can plan your class appropriately.

Players IMC know the three major terrains of the local area. They know that the campaign goes from Dungeon in Tier 1 to wilderness adventure sites in Tier 2. They know what are good enemies to know more about. That helps

But even so, Rangers are definitely more favored as henchmen. As are Frenzy Barbarians and non-EK Fighters. I don't think they are weaker, but players definitely don't want to play them as much in a single class no feat campaign. Which comes back around to the point: do we need to 'rebalance ' classes for perceived willingness of people to play them?

[Unoriginal]

Based on this thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?542843-2017-Class-Rank-Survey-results-are-in!

How would you go about balancing classses more than they currently are such that they would all be within the same rank?



This thread provides no data indicating the classes are not balanced.

[2D8HP]

...Which comes back around to the point: do we need to 'rebalance ' classes for perceived willingness of people to play them?.
Well we could do that with races as well, but sometimes "fluff" just rolls over "crunch".

For example: I see a lot more Dragonborn PC's than Gnomes, but going by "crunch" Gnomes look better to me.

People will play what they will play.

[Daphne]

But even so, Rangers are definitely more favored as henchmen. As are Frenzy Barbarians and non-EK Fighters. I don't think they are weaker, but players definitely don't want to play them as much in a single class no feat campaign.

Why do you think that? I would pick Battle Master over Eldritch Knight any day, as EK has too few spells for most of the game.


Which comes back around to the point: do we need to 'rebalance ' classes for perceived willingness of people to play them?

I think so, it's the perceptible reality that matters.

[Kane0]

Well my sig has a couple of these already, but going further than that I'd be redesigning whole chunks of the system as well. There's quite a list of sacred cows to kill off still.

[Easy_Lee]

My giant-crab died to a banshee at the bottom of a undead pyramid (where I was also not in my favored terrain nor fighting my favored enemy), no beasts to replace it for three seasons; and a pretty mediocre Giant Vulture for a while after that. It was arduous.

Probably less an issue in AL where if it dies you can revive it between sessions even if still ‘in the dungeon’

Your DM should have given you opportunities to either revive it or get other beasts. That said, this is a serious problem with the PHB BM. As written, it takes a long time to get the beast such that you basically need downtime days to do it, and you're limited to what your DM decides is nearby. Depending on the campaign, that could mean that basically nothing is available. And considering that your build might depend on a particular beast, that's a problem.

I'm of the opinion that players should always have full control over their own features. If a player uses a feature, a DM should have absolutely no say in what the feature does, only how the world responds to it (and obviously dice rolling or other checks, if applicable). Clearly, the designers do not agree. But that's my opinion. Therefore, if I was designing the ideal BM, then the beast he's looking for would find its way to him via a spiritual, druidic ritual the ranger could perform during a long rest.

[Khrysaes]

Your DM should have given you opportunities to either revive it or get other beasts. That said, this is a serious problem with the PHB BM. As written, it takes a long time to get the beast such that you basically need downtime days to do it, and you're limited to what your DM decides is nearby. Depending on the campaign, that could mean that basically nothing is available. And considering that your build might depend on a particular beast, that's a problem.

I'm of the opinion that players should always have full control over their own features. If a player uses a feature, a DM should have absolutely no say in what the feature does, only how the world responds to it (and obviously dice rolling or other checks, if applicable). Clearly, the designers do not agree. But that's my opinion. Therefore, if I was designing the ideal BM, then the beast he's looking for would find its way to him via a spiritual, druidic ritual the ranger could perform during a long rest.

If i was redesigning the BM, I would make the feature for attaining an animal companion similar to the find steed spell, maybe even identical, having it take 10 minutes to use, and upon death or dismissal send the companion back to the dimensional space they come from. It could have a stipulation to bind an animal to become the companion if the ranger finds one in the wild instead.

[alchahest]

champion I'd do the following:

move second fighting style to 7th level, and give them an improved fighting style choice at tenth. the improved style has to be chosen for one of the two styles you already have. These are not tested at all, just sort of an idea:



Improved Archery
You may use a bonus action to make an additional ranged attack, at a target within thirty feet.

Improved Defense
While you are wearing armor, at the end of your turn you choose an enemy, until the end of your next turn you have resistance against all melee and ranged attacks that enemy makes on you.

Improved Duelling
When hit with an attack you make with a a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons while you have advantage, the hit deals additional damage equal to your proficiency bonus

Improved Great Weapon Fighting
Immediately after using the attack action, you may use a bonus action to push every enemy you hit during your attack action. If you hit a target twice, they have disadvantage on their ability check to resist the push. If you hit a target three times, you gain advantage on your ability check to push. If you hit the target four times, and your push is successful, you immediately make one additional attack against that target.

Improved Protection
When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, That attack suffers disadvantage. You may use your reaction to move up to fifteen feet, and provide your shield bonus to an adjacent ally's reflex save. If the the save is successful, your ally takes no damage, and you take the effet of the spell as if you'd made a successful reflex save.

Two Weapon Fighting
When you are armed with two melee weapons, you can make two attacks with your offhand weapon as a bonus action instead of one.

[Tanarii]

Why do you think that? I would pick Battle Master over Eldritch Knight any day, as EK has too few spells for most of the game.
I don't think that. I'm sharing my experience. It's from a fairly large player base open table campaign that I run, so it's a fairly big sample by my standards. But it's not large by 'all players' standard nor meant to be something I hold to be true for players in general.

Battlemasters get some play, but overall my players seem to prefer classes with at least some magic for their primary Pcs. But this is probably influenced by my using henchmen, and finding henchmen of non-magical classes being easier. (Champions are the most common.),

[Dudewithknives]

1. Make 2 short rests per long rest a rule, not a guideline.

2. Make eldritch blast a warlock class ability that scales with their class level or make warlocks int based.

3. Give one handed and dual wield weapon users a boost.

4. Tone down the archery power.

[alchahest]

I think people prefer magic not because it's the aesthetic or character concept they prefer, but because it gives them mechanically supported options for interacting with the game.