Which base classes need the most help?

[Edea]

Not sure what classes to try homebrewing subclasses/archetypes for.

[TyGuy]

If you need to ask then you probably don't have the insight required to properly fix them.

[Old Harry MTX]

5e is pretty balanced, so I don't think there's an effective need to homebrew something. Maybe the monk and the ranger?

[Morphic tide]

The issue in 5e is breadth of power, rather than scale of it. In general, the Martials (Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue) have three issues: Area damage to clear chaff, healing for self-sufficiency, and Stuff Outside Combat. Then you have the Sorcerer's problems with its design still being mostly a process of ripping out what makes the Wizard good, including a very important sector of the spells for Stuff Outside Combat. The Barbarian is generally the worst off, as it has only Extra Attack to hit more than one enemy, it's predicated on bluntly soaking damage with only the rest recovery to regain health, and it has the absolute least to do with skills.

There's also the Warlock sinkhole, but that's mostly that they have too much stuff loaded where it shouldn't be, rather than things they're missing, like Eldritch Blast carrying true primary attack damage baked directly into the Cantrip, or the bizarre mess that is Pact of the Blade alongside Hexblade.

[Edea]

Sounds like barbarian, monk and ranger in particular, then.

[BerzerkerUnit]

Monk and Ranger.

[GalacticAxekick]

In terms of mechanical balance? All the classes are fine. The only weak class (the ranger) got an official rewrite years ago.

But in terms of subjective fun?

The martial classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue) are often criticized for doing the same thing (attack) every round. Having one powerful option can be monotonous. A variety of situational options could be exciting

The spellcasters are fundamentally fine, but their spell lists arent as large as they were in older editions. If I wanted to make an Avatar-like firebender, for example, I would not have access to enough fire spells. More than half of my spell list would be unrelated to my theme, and the spells related to my thene would not be enough for me to be effective.

I would run into similar problems if I tried to make an air, earth or waterbender, an oracle who only casts divinations, a shapeshifter who only transmutes his own body, etc.

[Old Harry MTX]

The only weak class (the ranger) got an official rewrite years ago.

Oh, I didn't know that, where can I found the new version?

[theVoidWatches]

They probably meant the revised ranger (http://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf), which was a UA that has since been abandoned. Personally, I prefer the variant features in UA Class Feature Variants (https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-ClassFeatures.pdf).

[Grod_The_Giant]

I've mostly heard Ranger, Sorcerer, and Warlock. Ranger for being kinda weak and full of features that handwave the parts of the game (exploration) they're supposed to be good at, Sorcerer for not knowing enough spells or metamagic options to be properly versatile, and Warlocks for being so finicky about long rest/short rest balance and for being too multiclass-friendly.

"Martial characters doing the same thing every turn" isn't necessarily a flaw-- there are plenty of players out there who like the simplicity. Creating SUBCLASSES that add complexity, and new base classes that fill similar roles in more intricate ways, is a worthy endeavor, but doesn't meant that there's something fundamentally wrong with the classes as they currently exist.

[Old Harry MTX]

Regarding the "Stuff outside combat" problem, I would love to see a "Sapper" subclass, maybe a fighter's one, capable to cast spells from a dedicated spell list made only of utility, like building bridges or shelters, use teleport, levitate, produce or conjure supplies, and made some heal out of combat. With few spell slots like those of the warlock, and maybe the ability to cast any spell from that list as rituals a certain number of times per long rest.

I think in a fantasy setting this can be a good version of sapper, however, the fact remains that if one does not want to play a magic class, the alternatives are few.

[Witty Username]

I would say Ranger and Monk would get the most benefit. Ranger is not weak though, so much as has readability problems, since most of its power is on its spell list instead of class features. A rewrite of the beastmaster subclass would almost certainly be better than what we have.

Other than that I think the other classes are fine.

[lukethecat2003]

In terms of mechanical balance? All the classes are fine. The only weak class (the ranger) got an official rewrite years ago.

But in terms of subjective fun?

The martial classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue) are often criticized for doing the same thing (attack) every round. Having one powerful option can be monotonous. A variety of situational options could be exciting

The spellcasters are fundamentally fine, but their spell lists arent as large as they were in older editions. If I wanted to make an Avatar-like firebender, for example, I would not have access to enough fire spells. More than half of my spell list would be unrelated to my theme, and the spells related to my thene would not be enough for me to be effective.

I would run into similar problems if I tried to make an air, earth or waterbender, an oracle who only casts divinations, a shapeshifter who only transmutes his own body, etc.

Fighter variant is a very cool change to the fighter, and it adds what i think martial classes need, variety in what they can do, with superiority and normal things, where you can instead of an attack action, make different actions, and changes maneuvers quite a lot. For example, im playing an EK with the variant rules for maneuvers, and they fit the class very well, with using force damage instead of bludgeoning damage with my warhammer, and also being able to teleport twice per rest, as well as being able to parry as a reaction, doing 3 less damage on non magical weapon damage. its such a cool modification that makes fighter so much more diverse in his moveset, and gives him more agency over the battlefield, with stuff like goading strike. I would highly recommend checking it out. (i have no association with this other than using it in a game and liking it.
Giant tips doesnt allow a new user to submit links, so just look up fighter variant on google, and it should be the second one.

[Man_Over_Game]

I've mostly heard Ranger, Sorcerer, and Warlock. Ranger for being kinda weak and full of features that handwave the parts of the game (exploration) they're supposed to be good at, Sorcerer for not knowing enough spells or metamagic options to be properly versatile, and Warlocks for being so finicky about long rest/short rest balance and for being too multiclass-friendly.

"Martial characters doing the same thing every turn" isn't necessarily a flaw-- there are plenty of players out there who like the simplicity. Creating SUBCLASSES that add complexity, and new base classes that fill similar roles in more intricate ways, is a worthy endeavor, but doesn't meant that there's something fundamentally wrong with the classes as they currently exist.

That's a good way of putting it. Barbarians and Fighters have the worst subclasses, but Sorcerers and Rangers have the worst core classes.



Put another way, the Martials start simple but don't really grow past that, while the Casters are fluid in complexity but can run into terribly optimized mechanics from all the moving parts.

[Edea]

I did a re-write of the core Sorcerer class recently, but I'm betting I over-corrected on the changes, so I don't feel especially confident or comfortable with the idea of posting it.

Tried it already with Ranger (which I'm going to get to play soon, showed the DM and he OK'd it), but unfortunately not too much interest was shown here (and that's fine, just wanted to try).

[Tempist]

Sounds like barbarian, monk and ranger in particular, then.

The ranger is...ok. The UA revised ranger helps. And the casting does go a long way. Barbs are ok as well. Not that either of these classes wouldn't benefit from help, but it's not essential.

Monks, on the other hand, are just one giant mess. If anything needs a rework asap, it is that class. Honestly, if someone wants to play an unarmed fighter type character I will recommend the Pugilist homebrew instead. :smallsmile: