Which subclass features should have been baked into the main class?

[Saelethil]

I guess it’s a pretty simple premise. There are a number of subclasses or subclass features that I believe should have just been a part of the base class rather than only being available to one subclass. Of course there would need to be some adjustments made for balance if this were to actually be implemented but here are the first that come to mind for me.

Battle master maneuvers (Fighter)
Open Hand Technique (Monk)
Most, if not all, of the Berserker subclass (Barbarian)

What do you think of these and what are some others that come to mind for you?

[Luccan]

They should've just given Sorcerer's more spells to start with. The bonus spell lists are nice and it's been clear since the early UAs on Storm Sorcerer (might've been Sea Sorcerer then) that they felt they were necessary for either parity with other classes or for theme. But instead of giving a preset list of bonus spells, they should've just been allowed more spells as a base class and been able to select whatever they wanted from the Sorcerer spell list. Then subclasses could've given extra options to choose from

[Ashe]

In the same vein as Berserker, Land Druid's 6th, 10th and 14th are just 'normal druid things' that probably belong on the base class. I figure in this case they went "oh wait druid is too stacked already" and relegated these lesser import abilities to a subclass.

[Leon]

Champion for Fighters
Hexblade into a better bladepact

[Dr.Samurai]

I guess it’s a pretty simple premise. There are a number of subclasses or subclass features that I believe should have just been a part of the base class rather than only being available to one subclass. Of course there would need to be some adjustments made for balance if this were to actually be implemented but here are the first that come to mind for me.

Battle master maneuvers (Fighter)
Open Hand Technique (Monk)
Most, if not all, of the Berserker subclass (Barbarian)

What do you think of these and what are some others that come to mind for you?
I agree wholeheartedly with your examples!

[Dienekes]

Battle Master Maneuvers for Fighter is a given. Would give the Fighter a distinct mechanical identity, and you could do some really cool things with subclasses adding different versions and takes on the mechanic to give different playstyles they're trying to represent.

As a bit of an odd one. I think Champion Fighter should have its abilities baked into... the Barbarian. Think about it. The Barbarian class is supposed to be the class that is designed around the guys who may not be as well trained but are just naturally tougher than everyone else. And their later levels are largely based around getting a benefit to their critical hits.

Enter the Champion, it's a subclass whose entire focus is just being naturally better athletically than everyone else, and makes critical hits more consistent.

It's a match made in heaven. Hell the last Champion feature is even better on the Barbarian chassis than it is on Fighters anyway.

Other than that, I'm often kind of wary about how these sort of things go down. Because a lot of classes have that one subclass that's like the base class but upgraded. Berserkers are like the Barbarian, for those who just want to rage and don't want to be animal people or on a mission from god or whatever. They just want to be a berserker. On the same token, Open Hand Monk is for people who don't want to be a ninja or a super saiyin or do a bad Avatar impression. They just want to be an unarmed kung fu master. So we get these subclasses with abilities that are really easy to just make into the base class because that's what they're trying to do.

Now admittedly, Fighter has 2 such subclasses and in my opening I just tore them both out and slapped them onto different classes. But that's more because I think Fighter subclasses really shoulda been reworked from the ground up as is.

[KOLE]

As soon as I read the premise I was about to say Champion should be baked into Barbarian in addition to Brutal Critical, but was beaten to the punch and done so so much more eloquently. A cookie for you.

Battlemasters should 100% be base fighter, with subclasses offering at least one unique maneuver. I’m working on brewing this.

[Pex]

Champion or Battle Master for Fighter. Can even be player choice.

Level 3 Bear Totem for Barbarian.

Hexblade armor and shield proficiency and CH as attack stat for Blade Pact.

Bloodline spells for Sorcerer.

[Dienekes]

This is kinda off topic, it's more or less taking a subclass feature and baking it into the main class. But more taking inspiration from it.

I think, the single most flavorful ability that Sorcerers have to indicate what they are: a person imbued with wild naturally occurring magic, is the Wild Magic Surge Table. If I had my way to do whatever I want with classes, I'd completely rework the Sorcerer's Metamagic feature to make it more like the magic version of a Barbarian's Reckless Attack. You get the ability to superpower your spell in some way. But at the cost something negative happens. And that negative should be a roll on the Wild Magic Surge Table.

Preferably, each subclass of Sorcerer would get their own tables, and the effects would scale based on level in some way so you don't TPK your party at level 1, but also don't have an ability that was once pretty useful at level 1 only to become utterly meaningless at level 20.

And done. You now have a definite way Sorcerers feel and play different from Wizards, and have definitive rules for actually using the Wild Magic Surge Table instead of it just being whenever the DM remembers it.

[Ganryu]

Hunter's multihit/volley should have been core to ranger I think.

Hexblade's entire first level should have been baked into Pact of the Blade.

Thief I think should have been baked into rogue. I want to choose something, but, well, all of it works well.

Battle Maneuvers are a given.

Think Champion => Barbarian works well. I... actually kinda wanna play test this.

Lore's 6th level Magical Secrets should be given to Bard, it feels completely different 1-9 compared to 10-20.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

This is kinda off topic, it's more or less taking a subclass feature and baking it into the main class. But more taking inspiration from it.

I think, the single most flavorful ability that Sorcerers have to indicate what they are: a person imbued with wild naturally occurring magic, is the Wild Magic Surge Table. If I had my way to do whatever I want with classes, I'd completely rework the Sorcerer's Metamagic feature to make it more like the magic version of a Barbarian's Reckless Attack. You get the ability to superpower your spell in some way. But at the cost something negative happens. And that negative should be a roll on the Wild Magic Surge Table.

Preferably, each subclass of Sorcerer would get their own tables, and the effects would scale based on level in some way so you don't TPK your party at level 1, but also don't have an ability that was once pretty useful at level 1 only to become utterly meaningless at level 20.

And done. You now have a definite way Sorcerers feel and play different from Wizards, and have definitive rules for actually using the Wild Magic Surge Table instead of it just being whenever the DM remembers it.

Glad I wasn't the first to go off thread. But Sorc doesn't really get the fix it needs from any subclass, and most of the newer ones just add spells and make them more like other casters. I don't mind the magic surge table, but I'd just keep it simple and give them more metamagic as per the Metamagic Adept feat.

[HPisBS]

Monks need Open Hand Technique. Or at least something in that vein. (Preferably a more martial (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?625830-What-is-a-high-level-monk-like&p=24893312#post24893312) and less mystical version.)

Bard should be able to use their own Bardic Inspiration on themselves -- at least for skill checks. Why is that gated behind the 14th lvl of Lore?

For Fighter, maybe a Specialty that offers a choice between Champion's lvl 3 Improved Critical (but maybe limited to PB times / day?), lvl 7 Remarkable Athlete (perhaps with an extra 1/day advantage bullet point?), lvl 10 Additional Fighting Style, or a Battle Master's lvl 7 Know Your Enemy.

Barbarian isn't really for me, but I guess Battle Rager's Reckless Abandon, and/or maybe Berserker's Intimidating Presence?

Land Druid's Land's Stride definitely strikes me as minor and generic enough to fold in.

Rogue doesn't really need a ton of help, but it wouldn't hurt to give it Thief's Fast Hands and Supreme Sneak.

The main thing Sorcerer needs is 5 Sorcerous Origin bonus spells (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?608257-Thematic-Sorcerer-Subclass-Spells&p=24392317). The second thing it needs is more Metamagic options (← found in post #17 ←) and maybe more total Metamagics known? Maybe split between "major" and "minor" metamagics?

I can't think of any Warlock or Wizard subclass features that scream "generic Warlock or Wizard" to me, but I do think the Invocations that just let you cast a spell with a Warlock slot once / day should be removed and those spells added to the class's list. Except for Animate Dead, I guess. That could get... excessive, considering the short rest refresh.

Ranger... could honestly stand to have the whole Hunter subclass folded into the base class.

[Hytheter]

Bard should be able to use their own Bardic Inspiration on themselves -- at least for skill checks. Why is that gated behind the 14th lvl of Lore?


Why should they be able to inspire themselves? Seems completely against the spirit of the feature's theme and purpose if you ask me.


For Fighter, maybe a Specialty that offers a choice between Champion's lvl 3 Improved Critical (but maybe limited to PB times / day?)

An X-per day limit on a feature with a 5% success rate? Why even bother?

[Waazraath]

I'm surprised about how many people argue that BM's maneuver should be the fighter default. Personally I wouldn't mind, I like characters with different sets of mechanics. But over the years, often was argued by people who like simple classes that BM is already more (as in: too complicated) than what they prefer. Optionally if the entire fighter class gets more complicated, the game could keep a simple barbarian for those players, but options do get rather limited for that group of players I would say.

Additionally, I don't really see the match with the subclasses as they are now; EK with BM maneuvers as they are would be grossly overpowered. The fighter is already a very stong class in combat due to its current base chasis, having two sets of expendable resources on top of that could be a bit too much. (of course, if we're talking about a hypothetical 6e where every fighter has maneuvers, this can be different).

Incorporating a few of the hexblade's abilities in the pact of the blade, giving every sorcerer extra thematic spells: +1. I think the adding a few extra thematic skills to the barbarian (lvl 6 tiger? totem) makes sense (but this is more or less taken care of by Tasha's). I wouldn't mind if the monk would get advantage on athletics (as Astral Self, only all the time), in general but especially to improve its grapple capabilities. For the rest I'm pretty happy with the way abilities are divided among classes/subclasses, I can't think of abilities archtypical for an entire class that are only available for a subclass.

[Angelalex242]

I like the Devotion Paladin's permanent pro evil at 15 to be a thing all Paladins get.

Devotion can get upgraded to Holy Aura or something.

[Dienekes]

I'm surprised about how many people argue that BM's maneuver should be the fighter default. Personally I wouldn't mind, I like characters with different sets of mechanics. But over the years, often was argued by people who like simple classes that BM is already more (as in: too complicated) than what they prefer. Optionally if the entire fighter class gets more complicated, the game could keep a simple barbarian for those players, but options do get rather limited for that group of players I would say.

Additionally, I don't really see the match with the subclasses as they are now; EK with BM maneuvers as they are would be grossly overpowered. The fighter is already a very stong class in combat due to its current base chasis, having two sets of expendable resources on top of that could be a bit too much. (of course, if we're talking about a hypothetical 6e where every fighter has maneuvers, this can be different).

I believe you basically get to it. If all Fighters get maneuvers or a maneuver-like mechanic then the subclasses would need to be rewritten. Which is for the best in my opinion. I do understand the issue with the need for simple classes for people who dislike resource management and you get to the point really. As far as character complexity goes, 5e is in a particularly annoying place (at least to me) in that mechanical complexity is very unevenly distributed. There are two mundane frontliner classes that have been forced to be simple. There only needs to be one. On a similar vein there are three arcane classes all of which are complex in various ways.

Now, to be fair to WotC the Warlock can be played simple. Provided you read through all the spells, invocations, subclasses, and pacts to create a class that just uses Eldritch Blast every round. This is a personal opinion, but in my experience teaching new players this option selection is the actual difficult part and requires new players to be walked through the process just to get to that simple caster position. And the simple caster rarely feels like what they want out of a caster in the first place.

If I got to restructure 5e as I see fit. And, I'm certain that people will disagree with a fair few of my changes, 5e would get a complexity overhaul. Fighters get to be complex martials. Actually complex, I'm talking juggling maneuvers and stances and refresh mechanics, going full ToB up in here. Barbarians get to simple to play. You go into a Rage and destroy things. But make it a little easier for Barbarians to use different playstyles, Whirling Dervishes should be far easier to implement.

For mages, Wizards get to be as complex a caster as you want. They're the masters of the arcane let them tinker with spells. Sorcerers get to be an actual simple caster. At level 1 you pick a subclass, the original batch of subclasses should be things that are simple to grasp and understand if they would be fun for a player without having to read through all the mechanics. Things like Fire Mage or Illusionist. Give them 3 or so flavorful at-will magic abilities that scale with their Sorcerer level and let them go out into the world.

Of course that will never happen, but hey I can dream.

[Pildion]

I think everyone believes that Battle Master's Maneuvers should be part of the fighter class. I would like to see all druids get Natural Recovery, just like all wizards have Arcane Recovery. I would like to see Thief's Fast Hands as just part of cunning action. Most of all though, I would like the HexBlade subclass to gone and rolled into Pact of the Blade, so any subclass of warlock can go Gish.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hexblade into a better bladepact Yeah, get rid of the sub class and tweak the Pact.

Hexblade armor and shield proficiency and CH as attack stat for Blade Pact. Yeah, as above.

Bloodline spells for Sorcerer. Common to all of varied by origin?

I think, the single most flavorful ability that Sorcerers have to indicate what they are: a person imbued with wild naturally occurring magic, is the Wild Magic Surge Table...I'd completely rework the Sorcerer's Metamagic feature to make it more like the magic version of a Barbarian's Reckless Attack. You get the ability to superpower your spell in some way, but at the cost something negative happens. And that negative should be a roll on the Wild Magic Surge Table.
Which might need a tweak.

Preferably, each subclass of Sorcerer would get their own tables, and the effects would scale based on level in some way so you don't TPK your party at level 1, but also don't have an ability that was once pretty useful at level 1 only to become utterly meaningless at level 20. +10. :smallsmile:

You now have a definite way Sorcerers feel and play different from Wizards, and have definitive rules for actually using the Wild Magic Surge Table instead of it just being whenever the DM remembers it. Too bad they didn't do this in the first place.

Bard should be able to use their own Bardic Inspiration on themselves -- at least for skill checks. Why is that gated behind the 14th lvl of Lore? I don't see the problem.

The main thing Sorcerer needs is 5 Sorcerous Origin bonus spells (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?608257-Thematic-Sorcerer-Subclass-Spells&p=24392317). The second thing it needs is more Metamagic options (← found in post #17 ←) and maybe more total Metamagics known? Maybe split between "major" and "minor" metamagics? I've been calling for another meta magic at level 7 since I first took a good hard look at Sorc. I see no need to split major/minor: fiddly bit that adds no value.

Why should they be able to inspire themselves? Seems completely against the spirit of the feature's theme and purpose if you ask me. That was my feel also.

I like the Devotion Paladin's permanent pro evil at 15 to be a thing all Paladins get. Hmm, since numerous Paladins aren't the good guys (conquest, Vengeance) I'll suggest that this is just fine on Devotion, thematically.

Most of all though, I would like the HexBlade subclass to gone and rolled into Pact of the Blade, so any subclass of warlock can go Gish. That's two of us. :smallsmile:

[Garfunion]

Sorcerers should have had Arcane Recovery, while Font of Magic should have allowed the sorcerer to make more sorcery points. There would be a meta-magic that would allow the sorcerer to increase the effective spell level of a spell by 1or 2 levels.

Wizards would get Quicken Ritual, which would allow the wizard to ignore the increase cast time of a number of rituals per day.

[KOLE]

Sorcerers should have had Arcane Recovery, while Font of Magic should have allowed the sorcerer to make more sorcery points. There would be a meta-magic that would allow the sorcerer to increase the effective spell level of a spell by 1or 2 levels.

Wizards would get Quicken Ritual, which would allow the wizard to ignore the increase cast time of a number of rituals per day.

I really like this, this is good stuff.

[HPisBS]

Why should they be able to inspire themselves? Seems completely against the spirit of the feature's theme and purpose if you ask me.

Why would they only be able to psych other people up with music (or whatever else)? Haven't you ever been feeling down, or unmotivated, or whatever, sang one of your favorite songs at the top of your lungs -- and found yourself immediately feeling better? Uplifted?

If you can tell someone else "You've got this!" and have them actually do better, then wouldn't you be able to do the same for yourself, too? It's not like Paladins get excluded from their own Auras, so why should Bards be totally excluded from their own basic buff?


An X-per day limit on a feature with a 5% success rate? Why even bother?

Because of extra, extra, extra attack? Because of loads of attacks while playing with flanking rules? (Especially if you layer Elven Accuracy on top.)

But yeah, it's not the most relevant limitation, I'll grant you that lol. I mostly included it because raw Improved Critical seems like it'd be much more powerful than the others I listed, so I felt it needed something to bring it more in-line with them (like with Remarkable Athlete, which feels far weaker).



I think everyone believes that Battle Master's Maneuvers should be part of the fighter class. I would like to see all druids get Natural Recovery, just like all wizards have Arcane Recovery. I would like to see Thief's Fast Hands as just part of cunning action. Most of all though, I would like the HexBlade subclass to gone and rolled into Pact of the Blade, so any subclass of warlock can go Gish.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Many Maneuvers -- or Maneuver-like things -- should be a part of the Monk, the so-called "martial artist" class. It makes no sense to me why a basic "warrior" should be better at tripping, disarming, deflecting, and counter-attacking than the "martial artist."


Hexblade's SADness could certainly be rolled into Blade Pact, though. Perhaps gated by an Invocation tax?
- Kinda begs the question of whether the other pacts should get something extra to keep up, though....

[Dr.Samurai]

Well, it goes to show how often I've looked at the bard; I had no idea that bards can only inspire others and not themselves.

That's so... sad.

[Dienekes]

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Many Maneuvers -- or Maneuver-like things -- should be a part of the Monk, the so-called "martial artist" class. It makes no sense to me why a basic "warrior" should be better at tripping, disarming, deflecting, and counter-attacking than the "martial artist."

Trained warriors are martial artist. Practitioners of codified self defense. Yeah, we know that goes back all the way to the Ancient Greeks. Hell man, are you going to tell me that Fiore dei Liberi, or Johannes Liechtenauer, or Musashi aren't martial artists?

Ridiculous.

Fighters portray the martial arts fantasy through being a Frontliner, Monks portray the martial arts fantasy through being a Skirmisher. That's about it.

[Angelalex242]

Hmm, since numerous Paladins aren't the good guys (conquest, Vengeance) I'll suggest that this is just fine on Devotion, thematically.
:

Vengeance and Conquest may not be good guys, but Protection from Evil AND GOOD protects against aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead.

Keeping Celestials and Fey out of his Conquest plans helps that guy, and Vengeance is likely to be taking revenge on any number of inhuman critters.

It also blocks charm, fear, and possession from any of those creature types, and only devotion has natural charm immunity.

[HPisBS]

Trained warriors are martial artist. Practitioners of codified self defense. Yeah, we know that goes back all the way to the Ancient Greeks. Hell man, are you going to tell me that Fiore dei Liberi, or Johannes Liechtenauer aren't martial artists?

Ridiculous.

Fighters portray the martial arts fantasy through being a Frontliner, Monks portray the martial arts fantasy through being a Skirmisher. That's about it.

Relative to the "martial artist" fantasy of Monk-ish Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, etc, the "armored knight" fantasy of Fighters / armored knights have a much weaker association with those moves. By contrast, Rally and all the tactical maneuvers have a far stronger association with the armored knight fantasy.

[Dienekes]

Relative to the "martial artist" fantasy of Monk-ish Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, etc, the "armored knight" fantasy of Fighters / armored knights have a much weaker association with those moves.

Ok, I can't think of a better way to actually show skill at arms in the way armored knights use them. If you have a mechanic up your sleeve that does portray the mechanics of actually using a knights weaponry, I'll be willing to read it. But, considering tripping, disarming, deflecting, and counter-attacking are all the basis of fighting with weaponry that's a tall order.

[HPisBS]

Ok, I can't think of a better way to actually show skill at arms in the way armored knights use them. If you have a mechanic up your sleeve that does portray the mechanics of actually using a knights weaponry, I'll be willing to read it. But, considering tripping, disarming, deflecting, and counter-attacking are all the basis of fighting with weaponry that's a tall order.

Sure, it's a part of fighting in general. But, within popular culture at the very least (which seems to be the bulk of D&D's inspiration), hand-to-hand martial arts media feels like it emphasizes it a whole lot more than sword-and-shield media.

[diplomancer]

Why would they only be able to psych other people up with music (or whatever else)? Haven't you ever been feeling down, or unmotivated, or whatever, sang one of your favorite songs at the top of your lungs -- and found yourself immediately feeling better? Uplifted?

If you can tell someone else "You've got this!" and have them actually do better, then wouldn't you be able to do the same for yourself, too? It's not like Paladins get excluded from their own Auras, so why should Bards be totally excluded from their own basic buff?


Well, yes. Psyching up yourself is good, but it's not going to be as good as someone else, specially a very charismatic someone else, doing it. When you do it to yourself there's always that little voice in the back of your head naysaying it. Until you're a 14th level Lore Bard, at least ;)

[Dienekes]

Sure, it's a part of fighting in general. But, within popular culture at the very least (which seems to be the bulk of D&D's inspiration), hand-to-hand martial arts media feels like it emphasizes it a whole lot more than sword-and-shield media.

So, why not just give Fighters their maneuvers, something that is already a part of the Fighter far more than it is part of the Monk since... it is a Fighter subclass and give Monk's their own unique way to feel like a monk.

Or even driving deeper, we agree that all this stuff is a natural part of fighting. When do we try to retool the base combat rules so it is normal that a knight feels like the kind of martial artist they were in real life, and the monks can feel like how the shaolin monks are now.

[KyleG]

For those of you who do some of these with your players do you give them cards or something with the details. I use an automatic character sheet so not as easy to add to the sheet.

[Psyren]

I'm going to disagree with some folks and say Open Hand Technique doesn't need to be baselined. I think "monk that focuses on unarmed strikes beyond all other weapons/techniques" is a valid niche for a subclass. Moreover, the OHT doesn't help monks who rely on other weapons (especially ranged weapons or spells), nor those who use their bonus action for things other than flurry.

Honestly very few of the monk subclass features feel subclass-agnostic to me, and the few that do wouldn't really help the monk in any way. As someone else said, I'd rather just give them access to Battlemaster maneuvers than baseline something that isn't going to do much for them.

As for the broader question regarding the rest of them - I'll focus on martials and partial casters, I don't think the full casters (or Artificer) need the help.

If I had to pick one feature from each to baseline it would be: UMD (Thief Rogue), Multiattack (Hunter Ranger), Purity of Spirit (Devotion Paladin), Additional Fighting Style (Champion Fighter), and Mindless Rage or Fanatical Focus (Berserker or Zealot Barbarian).

[HPisBS]

So, why not just give Fighters their maneuvers, something that is already a part of the Fighter far more than it is part of the Monk since... it is a Fighter subclass and give Monk's their own unique way to feel like a monk.

Or even driving deeper, we agree that all this stuff is a natural part of fighting. When do we try to retool the base combat rules so it is normal that a knight feels like the kind of martial artist they were in real life, and the monks can feel like how the shaolin monks are now.

It's simple: I'm staying within the framing of the topic.


I'm going to disagree with some folks and say Open Hand Technique doesn't need to be baselined. I think "monk that focuses on unarmed strikes beyond all other weapons/techniques" is a valid niche for a subclass. Moreover, the OHT doesn't help monks who rely on other weapons (especially ranged weapons or spells), nor those who use their bonus action for things other than flurry.

I'm not married to the only when using flurry limitation. My feeling is just that tripping/throwing and other moves should be baked in to the only class with a "martial arts" feature. Nevermind that shove and the like exist; I want "martial arts" to make a character be the best at it. I don't really care so much about the exact form that takes, only that it happens. :smalltongue:

[Saelethil]

Honestly very few of the monk subclass features feel subclass-agnostic to me, and the few that do wouldn't really help the monk in any way. As someone else said, I'd rather just give them access to Battlemaster maneuvers than baseline something that isn't going to do much for them.


I've posted a couple alternate fighter/monk features in the Homebrew section that make Battle Master Maneuvers baseline if you're interested in taking a peek.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?641392-Fighter-amp-Monk-alternate-additional-class-features

[TyGuy]

Barbarian - frenzy
Bard - unfailing inspiration
Cleric - arcane abjuration
Druid - combat wild shape, circle forms, primal strike
Fighter - combat superiority
Monk - leap to your feet, wholeness of body
Paladin - aura of warding, supernatural resistance
Ranger - entire hunter sub
Rogue - second story work
Sorcerer - nothing from subclasses
Warlock - hex warrior -> pact of the blade.
Wizard - awakened spell book (minus the damage type swapping)





Jk on Paladin. Just seeing if you're paying attention ;)

[Angelalex242]

Barbarian - frenzy
Bard - unfailing inspiration
Cleric - arcane abjuration
Druid - combat wild shape, circle forms, primal strike
Fighter - combat superiority
Monk - leap to your feet, wholeness of body
Paladin - aura of warding, supernatural resistance
Ranger - entire hunter sub
Rogue - second story work
Sorcerer - nothing from subclasses
Warlock - hex warrior -> pact of the blade.
Wizard - awakened spell book (minus the damage type swapping)


Jk on Paladin. Just seeing if you're paying attention ;)

Nah, let's totally give that to all Paladins.



Giving Warding to all Paladins...then you'd upgrade ancients to...what...the 5 elemental resistances? You now resist nonmagical Fire/Ice/Lightning/Acid/Poison? Upgrade Devotion at 15 to Holy Aura. This will totally be balanced. All things in balance. Yep.

[Psyren]

Sorcerer just needs every subclass/origin to have free spells like the most recent two do

[Azuresun]

Giving Warding to all Paladins...then you'd upgrade ancients to...what...the 5 elemental resistances? You now resist nonmagical Fire/Ice/Lightning/Acid/Poison? Upgrade Devotion at 15 to Holy Aura. This will totally be balanced. All things in balance. Yep.

Clearly, the solution is to buff everything else more until they're as powerful as nuPaladins?

[Sorinth]

For the whole all martials should get maneuvers topic, I wonder if they couldn't do something to make the feat/fighting style better. Right now both the feat/style feel weak (Due to the number of dice), whereas if the feat were brought up in power to be at the level of PAM/GWM/CBE/SS then you probably wouldn't need to give maneuvers to all martials. Maybe give the BM something beyond Maneuvers to give them a better niche since maneuvers would be less their thing.

Not quite subclass into class, but Shield-Masters AC bonus to dex saves should just be part of using a shield.

[paladinn]

I think everyone believes that Battle Master's Maneuvers should be part of the fighter class.

I disagree. The baseline fighter has always been the "simplest" class (except for 4e); and some people actually Like simplicity. The whole bolted-on maneuver/superiority dice mechanic is more of a supplemental thing, and should be exactly where it is. Isn't the battlemaster supposed to be the 5e analog of the 4e warlord?

If I had my druthers, I would like to have one option for at least the "big four" (cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard) or possibly even three "generic classes" (warrior, expert and spellcaster) that would work without subclassing, and could have features from some subclasses baked-in. The warrior "sidekick" class, especially as envisioned in the original UA, is a good example. I would play that instead of a Champion anytime. The spellcaster/"mage" would be able to select from any class spell list, like the one from 3e; no subclasses needed. The expert/"agent" would need some work, especially if it would be less rogue-centric.

Beyond the "big four", the Devotion paladin oath probably comes closest to the original version (as much as I love the Vengeance oath). The ranger is probably the class that most Needs some thing added to the base class. So many of the ranger's base features are ribbons; most if not all of the Hunter's features should be baked-in, and especially the favored foe (not enemy) feature.

Just my $.02.. this is all theorycraft, after all.

[Dienekes]

I disagree. The baseline fighter has always been the "simplest" class (except for 4e);

Never understood this. Why does it need to be the simplest class? Hell, if we want a simple frontliner, there already is a class who's entire shtick is just getting angry and hitting things. Of the two, that should be the simple class. The only answers I've ever gotten have been variations of "because I want it to be" and "tradition" neither of which have ever been satisfying answers.


The whole bolted-on maneuver/superiority dice mechanic is more of a supplemental thing, and should be exactly where it is. Isn't the battlemaster supposed to be the 5e analog of the 4e warlord?

By the devs, it is supposed to be the answer to both the Warlord and the Warblade. It's just kind of bad at doing either of them. It doesn't have near enough ability to be a primary support like the Warlord was. And if one enjoyed the mechanical intricacies of the Warblade the Battle Master is just worse, in pretty much every conceivable way.

And part of both those issues were caused because they tried to latch on a fairly complex mechanic and identity onto 5 levels.

[Yakmala]

Not a subclass feature, but Eldritch Blast should have been a feature baked into Warlock that scales with Warlock level. As it stands, a character with 2 levels of Warlock and 18 levels of anything else can be just as good at the Warlock’s signature spell as a level 20 pure Warlock.

[Dr.Samurai]

Barbarian - I think Mindless Rage, and I am tempted to say Retaliation, as high level barbarians are a desert of interesting or impactful features. I think Aspect of the Beast (Bear) should have probably been baked into the general barbarian. That takes a little away from Rage, since it already grants Advantage on Strength checks, but I think the trope is that the barbarian is just generally strong all the time and this would help with that.

Fighter - I am tempted to say Combat Superiority/Maneuvers, however with the caveat that I do not like superiority dice and having to ration out your combat abilities to 1 or 2 attacks per combat. I like Know Your Enemy for any fighter, as well as Additional Fighting Style.

[Tanarii]

IMo the equivalent of battle maneuvers should have been baked in Barbarian, Rogue, Fighter, and Monk ki options expanded. 3 out of the 6 martials could use a variable list of a few times per short rest features they could use and customize their character with, and monks could use a menu of options to select from instead of 3 fixed ones. It doesn't need to work exactly like battle maneuvers, but the underlying concept is valid. It worked great in 5e (encounter abilities) and it works great for the 5e equivalent (battle master). Unfortunately Mearls was so gun shy by the divisions 4e crated that he rolled the idea of encounter powers back from martials as early as 4e Essentials.

But here's the thing ... they're far more accepted by the 5e player base, in the form of short rest resources. It's (unsurprisingly) all about presentation. Not the core concept of a limited use ability for fighters / rogues being flawed/rejected on a large scale.

[LibraryOgre]

The barbarian should be a fighter subclass.

[Yora]

Saying that all fighters should have maneuvers reads to me like saying nobody should have the option to play a champion.

[tsotate]

Saying that all fighters should have maneuvers reads to me like saying nobody should have the option to play a champion.
Of course they should. On the other hand, Champion should be a Barbarian subclass.

[Dork_Forge]

Of course they should. On the other hand, Champion should be a Barbarian subclass.

This is an interesting concept, but also incredibly underpowered, people already find Champion lackluster, when you move Improved Critical to only within Rage it just gets worse.

[Dienekes]

This is an interesting concept, but also incredibly underpowered, people already find Champion lackluster, when you move Improved Critical to only within Rage it just gets worse.

Well there are two points.

1) No one is saying that Imp Crit has to be Rage only.

2) Even if it is, the features to actually make Imp Crit somewhat useful are Barbarian features, namely Reckless Attack and Brutal Critical.

[Hytheter]

This is an interesting concept, but also incredibly underpowered, people already find Champion lackluster, when you move Improved Critical to only within Rage it just gets worse.

What do you mean? Improved Critical synergises very well with Reckless Attack and of course Brutal Critical.

[paladinn]

Of course they should. On the other hand, Champion should be a Barbarian subclass.

So in your view, the entire Fighter class is a "tactical" thing? And if someone isn't interested in the tactical side, s/he needs to be a barbarian?

That is a huge departure from almost every rendition of the Fighter that has gone before. Barbarians are more savage, rage-driven, low-skill combatants. Fighters are very much skilled, even if they aren't highly tactical. And not everyone who wants to play a fighter wants to be a tactician or a rage monster.

[Tanarii]

Saying that all fighters should have maneuvers reads to me like saying nobody should have the option to play a champion.
Options that almost no one selects don't serve much of a purpose.

I speak from personal experience anecdote of course, but in a large no Multiclassing no feats campaign, Champions were only ever PCs when they were promoted from a henchmen to primary character because of PC death. Even then most players concentrated on other PCs they had in the wings, except in the very early days when many folks still only had a single PC and their henchmen.

[Dr.Samurai]

Saying that all fighters should have maneuvers reads to me like saying nobody should have the option to play a champion.
The Champion is practically a subclass with no features. If you want that you can just ask the DM to let you play the fighter without a subclass.

The level 3 feature comes into play 5% of the times you attack.

The level 7 feature gives you a +2 bonus to Initiative and probably Stealth and Acrobatics and Sleight of Hand. The Initiative boost will come into play every encounter obviously, +2 to the other skills every now and then.

Increasing your jump by maybe 1 square... cool, I guess.

Up until level 10 you're just playing a fighter with a +2 bonus to Initiative and maybe Stealth/Acro/Sleight if you haven't selected them as proficiencies. Then you get an additional fighting style.

This subclass is hardly a subclass.

And so long as we're talking about preferences, I really don't like the idea that doing stuff other than "swing my sword" in combat is somehow overly complex and needs to be locked behind a subclass or variant rules in the DMG. It just widens the disparity between casters and martials even more.

[Dienekes]

So in your view, the entire Fighter class is a "tactical" thing? And if someone isn't interested in the tactical side, s/he needs to be a barbarian?

That is a huge departure from almost every rendition of the Fighter that has gone before. Barbarians are more savage, rage-driven, low-skill combatants. Fighters are very much skilled, even if they aren't highly tactical. And not everyone who wants to play a fighter wants to be a tactician or a rage monster.

The issue is, I can't see how someone can be skilled in combat without being a bit of a tactician, at least in their personal fighting. If you are skilled you know the difference between standing in a fool's guard or a roof guard. You know why you shouldn't stay in crown guard. You know how to feint, and should have an idea when to not to. Even if you're not planning a full on tactical battle, knowledge at arms does indicate you are making informed tactical decisions as you fight. One could argue that is the defining trait between someone who is actually trained and someone who is not.

So, yeah, part of the fantasy of being a skilled well trained warrior is enforced by making the playstyle involve at least a modicum of tactical decision making. While being the Rage Monster is supported by making that playstyle literally the opposite of that.

[Dork_Forge]

Well there are two points.

1) No one is saying that Imp Crit has to be Rage only.

2) Even if it is, the features to actually make Imp Crit somewhat useful are Barbarian features, namely Reckless Attack and Brutal Critical.


What do you mean? Improved Critical synergises very well with Reckless Attack and of course Brutal Critical.

I will say that my point of view was assuming that there'd actually be integration, not just copy/pasting from one class into another:

1) Every single 3rd level Barbarian subclass gives combat relevant abilities within Rage only. All of them. To move Improved Critical over, but ignore the design framework you're putting it into... just feels messy and breaks the design structure for no reason.

2) One of the appealing things about Brutal Critical is critting more, but unless the table has very few encounters per day it's going to do far less work on a Barbarian than a Fighter (Which would be making more attacks to get more crits on top of that). Whilst you do get Reckless Attack and Brutal Critical synergy: A) I've never seen a Barbarian Reckless as much as these forums assume, and they certainly don't do it out of Rage often, and B) Brutal Critical is a 9th level ability, most time played is going to be before that and most characters won't actually have BC for long before the game ends

I will say that folding Improved Critical into Brutal Critical makes sense and would work better all around (with the 18-20 coming online with the 3rd crit die).

[Hytheter]

A) I've never seen a Barbarian Reckless as much as these forums assume, and they certainly don't do it out of Rage often, and B) Brutal Critical is a 9th level ability, most time played is going to be before that and most characters won't actually have BC for long before the game ends

That's strange. In my experience, barbarians are almost always raging and reckless attack every turn unless they already have advantage.

[paladinn]

The Champion is practically a subclass with no features. If you want that you can just ask the DM to let you play the fighter without a subclass.

The level 3 feature comes into play 5% of the times you attack.

The level 7 feature gives you a +2 bonus to Initiative and probably Stealth and Acrobatics and Sleight of Hand. The Initiative boost will come into play every encounter obviously, +2 to the other skills every now and then.

Increasing your jump by maybe 1 square... cool, I guess.

Up until level 10 you're just playing a fighter with a +2 bonus to Initiative and maybe Stealth/Acro/Sleight if you haven't selected them as proficiencies. Then you get an additional fighting style.

This subclass is hardly a subclass.

And so long as we're talking about preferences, I really don't like the idea that doing stuff other than "swing my sword" in combat is somehow overly complex and needs to be locked behind a subclass or variant rules in the DMG. It just widens the disparity between casters and martials even more.

Just FYI, I'll be working on a generic Warrior class that should provide a lot of flexibility Without being an exercise in tactical play. It's under the Fighter vs. Warrior thread.

[Dork_Forge]

That's strange. In my experience, barbarians are almost always raging and reckless attack every turn unless they already have advantage.

That... seems odd to me, what levels are you normally seeing/playing them at?

They don't get enough uses of Rage to reasonably have it in all combats until Tier 3/4, especially as they're bound to lose it at some point, in some combats.

Similarly with Reckless Attack: advantage is nice, but d12 Hit Dice and resistance (if it even applies) only goes so far. Using Reckless every single turn sounds like a recipe to down yourself unnecessarily.

[Tanarii]

That's strange. In my experience, barbarians are almost always raging and reckless attack every turn unless they already have advantage.
Rage is a limited resource and they won't be doing it every encounter unless you're running less encounters than a normal adventuring day or they're all Deadly. But agreed, Barbarian players usually choose to use Reckless attack unless the situation especially calls for them not to. As they should.

[Dork_Forge]

Rage is a limited resource and they won't be doing it every encounter unless you're running less encounters than a normal adventuring day or they're all Deadly. But agreed, Barbarian players usually choose to use Reckless attack unless the situation especially calls for them not to. As they should.

What qualifies for 'especially calls for them not to'?

[Hytheter]

That... seems odd to me, what levels are you normally seeing/playing them at?

They don't get enough uses of Rage to reasonably have it in all combats until Tier 3/4, especially as they're bound to lose it at some point, in some combats.

I play on a server that ranges from 3-20, and I've played several home games in tier 1-2. Even a level three dip (which is quite common) gets you enough rages for three encounters, which accounts for the vast majority of in game days on my experience.


Rage is a limited resource and they won't be doing it every encounter unless you're running less encounters than a normal adventuring day or they're all Deadly.

I know, but let's not pretend that's how the majority of tables actually play. :smallamused: 1 deadly fight is sadly quite common. 2-3 hard to deadly fights is fairly common and frankly I would rarely desire any more than that. Four or more fights in a day? Never seen it outside of a session I ran myself and it resulted in all the players falling asleep because it took too long. And yes, carrying an adventuring day over multiple sessions is possible but for various reasons it's usually undesirable.


What qualifies for 'especially calls for them not to'?

Theoretically because the enemy is threatening enough that giving them advantage is a bad idea, or because of the quantity of enemies. Though in the former case I find barbarians will almost always be hit whether they use reckless or not.

[Tanarii]

What qualifies for 'especially calls for them not to'?Personally I'd set the benchmark at expecting to be attacked by 3 enemies without Rage. More with. Depends on how dangerous they are tho.



I know, but let's not pretend that's how the majority of tables actually play. :smallamused: 1 deadly fight is sadly quite common. 2-3 hard to deadly fights is fairly common and frankly I would rarely desire any more than that. Four or more fights in a day? Never seen it outside of a session I ran myself and it resulted in all the players falling asleep because it took too long. And yes, carrying an adventuring day over multiple sessions is possible but for various reasons it's usually undesirable.I can only go from personal experience. Which is that official play is roughly the standard adventuring day, and my players regularly pulled off half again an adventuring day in 3-4 hours, with exploration. A medium combat doesn't take more than 15 minutes, 6 of them is only half a session. Even 3 Deadly combats, which I'll note is a standard adventuring day by the book for most levels, is 90 minutes of session time.

What I find takes the most table time (relative to difficulty/reward) are Easy (no resource usage expected) non-combat encounters.

[Dr.Samurai]

I am currently playing a barbarian up to level 8 and with 4 rages per day I can generally rage every encounter. And unless I'm going for a Grab attempt, I use Reckless Attack on every attack (assuming I don't have advantage from some other source).

I roll criticals often but critical hits do absolutely nothing on my spear so sometimes I roll as much or more damage on my normal attack as I do with a critical hit.

Brutal Critical and the other later features didn't seem worth staying in barbarian for so when we leveled up to 9 I multiclassed out (and I never considering multiclassing when I think about my builds).

I would reconsider on Reckless Attack if there's an enemy that does extra damage or something with Advantage, or I'm surrounded by a handful of enemies. If I think I shouldn't Reckless Attack, I'll Grab and Shove prone and get Advantage that way for my next turn.

[Psyren]

What barbarian needs most imo, and which it had baseline in earlier editions, is a way to protect your will/wisdom save while raging - if nothing else, from being charmed or frightened. Only two subclasses IIRC get such an ability (Zealot and Berserker) and you really feel that lack as your tier increases.

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree Psyren. It is a pretty big vulnerability. I literally was just thinking on some potential tactics for my barbarian and I keep thinking "well, it will work right up until he fails his save against that Charm effect".

I think the Berserker is practically almost perfect. The "exhaustion" mechanic is severely limiting, and Intimidating Presence should key off Strength or Constitution and duration mechanic should change. Ability should either be a bonus action to use and last for one round, or be an action to use but remain in place so long as you keep attacking the creature. Something along those lines.

I think tweaking Frenzy and Intimidating Presence would result in an exceptional barbarian subclass, and one that I would definitely play to avoid all the overtly supernatural stuff.

[Tanarii]

I roll criticals often but critical hits do absolutely nothing on my spear so sometimes I roll as much or more damage on my normal attack as I do with a critical hit.

The biggest downside of Barbarian is they're pretty much locked in to a Greataxe based on design, unless your goal is Rage-tanking.

[Dr.Samurai]

The biggest downside of Barbarian is they're pretty much locked in to a Greataxe based on design, unless your goal is Rage-tanking.
Yeah, I was inspired by this (https://www.cometlordminiatures.ca/collections/2020-releases/products/kyros-lionman-warpriest) mini to make a leonin spear and shield barbarian from the Shaar.

I noticed two things:

1. While I like the added AC of a shield, with the barbarian I prefer to have a hand free so I can grab enemies if I need/want to.

2. The spear does not synergize with the Advantage/Frequent Crits of Reckless Attacks. An extra d6 makes Criticals feel very puny.

All that said, my character, Grexes of the Sunspears, recently ran into his great grandfather, former leader of their tribe, who survived the Spellplague by making a deal with Zariel. She has kept him alive as her top enforcer, and he reluctantly keeps up his end of the bargain. But he gave my character the Sunspear, after which their clan is named and which went missing when Baragon was lost in the Year of Blue Fire.

The spear is damaged and Grexes will have to figure out how to repair it and unlock its potential. Which is to stay... I'm sticking with spear for now :smallamused:.

[Dienekes]

The biggest downside of Barbarian is they're pretty much locked in to a Greataxe based on design, unless your goal is Rage-tanking.

Sorta off-topic, but in some homebrewery nonsense I've been doing, Rage Damage is now a damage die, and Brutal Critical adds additional Rage Damage Dice instead of Weapon Damage Die.

Unfortunate downside to this is of course, now Barbarian has really no reason to take the Greataxe instead of the Greatsword.

[Psyren]

I agree Psyren. It is a pretty big vulnerability. I literally was just thinking on some potential tactics for my barbarian and I keep thinking "well, it will work right up until he fails his save against that Charm effect".

It's even worse when you remember that, before Barbarian 15, your rage ends early if you spend even one round where you neither attack nor take damage. So if you get incapacitated or feared out of melee and enemies ignore you, if an ally doesn't take the time to hit you you're out a use for the day. I couldn't believe that restriction when I first read it.



I think the Berserker is practically almost perfect. The "exhaustion" mechanic is severely limiting, and Intimidating Presence should key off Strength or Constitution and duration mechanic should change. Ability should either be a bonus action to use and last for one round, or be an action to use but remain in place so long as you keep attacking the creature. Something along those lines.

I think tweaking Frenzy and Intimidating Presence would result in an exceptional barbarian subclass, and one that I would definitely play to avoid all the overtly supernatural stuff.

Yeah - it's kind of funny how nearly every barbarian except the two worst ones injects some amount of magic.

if they had an ability like the Tasha Ranger's Deft Explorer-Tireless feature (recover exhaustion levels on short rests) it wouldn't be so bad. But without that, Berserker is nigh-unplayable unless you either ignore its key feature entirely, or use it exceedingly sparingly.

[Hytheter]

It's even worse when you remember that, before Barbarian 15, your rage ends early if you spend even one round where you neither attack nor take damage. So if you get ... feared out of melee and enemies ignore you, if an ally doesn't take the time to hit you you're out a use for the day. I couldn't believe that restriction when I first read it.

In the case of frightened, you can throw a javelin. Even if you miss you keep your rage.

[Psyren]

In the case of frightened, you can throw a javelin. Even if you miss you keep your rage.

That assumes your action is free to attack with - several fear effects force you to do something specific with your action (e.g. Dash), so if you get hit with one of those you wouldn't be able to throw anything. It also assumes you have a hand free to draw and throw with.

[Sorinth]

It's even worse when you remember that, before Barbarian 15, your rage ends early if you spend even one round where you neither attack nor take damage. So if you get incapacitated or feared out of melee and enemies ignore you, if an ally doesn't take the time to hit you you're out a use for the day. I couldn't believe that restriction when I first read it.



Yeah - it's kind of funny how nearly every barbarian except the two worst ones injects some amount of magic.

if they had an ability like the Tasha Ranger's Deft Explorer-Tireless feature (recover exhaustion levels on short rests) it wouldn't be so bad. But without that, Berserker is nigh-unplayable unless you either ignore its key feature entirely, or use it exceedingly sparingly.


It should've been worded to be something along the lines where if your able to attack and choose not to then your rage ends.

For Berserker it's nowhere close to being unplayable. It's actually kind of ironic, one of the most divisive topics on this forum is how most games don't follow the 6-8 encounters a day but instead end up doing 1 deadly encounter per LR and how that skews things so full casters are so powerful because they can nova every fight. Well in those types of games Berserker is perfect, you have one fight a day so no problem using Frenzy for essentially every fight.

[Dr.Samurai]

My group doesn't reach the 6-8 encounter standard, but we have 3-4 generally.

Frenzy is from an ancient time and needs to be updated. Why would a subclass feature give you a significant penalty, or incentivize you not to use it for most of the day? Every single Path printed after Berserker lacks this type of mechanic. Battlerager also gives you a bonus action attack at level 3, and while it requires you to wear a certain armor, it doesn't come with any significant drawbacks.

[Tanarii]

It should've been worded to be something along the lines where if your able to attack and choose not to then your rage ends.

For Berserker it's nowhere close to being unplayable. It's actually kind of ironic, one of the most divisive topics on this forum is how most games don't follow the 6-8 encounters a day but instead end up doing 1 deadly encounter per LR and how that skews things so full casters are so powerful because they can nova every fight. Well in those types of games Berserker is perfect, you have one fight a day so no problem using Frenzy for essentially every fight.
Not really. Exhaustion level 1 gives you disadvantage on all ability checks. If the majority of the session is non-combat, you're going to be making far more ability checks that if the majority is combat, barring Strength (Athletics) and possibly Dexterity (Acrobatics). If that one combat is early in the session, you may spend the next two hours with ability check penalties.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah, and instead of playing the strong tough guy, you wind up playing the tired guy with Disadvantage on his ability checks.

Meanwhile, next level, the other player takes Polearm Master and has a bonus action attack all day every day without penalty.

[Psyren]

It should've been worded to be something along the lines where if your able to attack and choose not to then your rage ends.

I'd even be fine with just moving towards your next foe being good enough. Then the barbarian isn't being penalized for difficult terrain, being slowed, obstacles etc.


For Berserker it's nowhere close to being unplayable. It's actually kind of ironic, one of the most divisive topics on this forum is how most games don't follow the 6-8 encounters a day but instead end up doing 1 deadly encounter per LR and how that skews things so full casters are so powerful because they can nova every fight. Well in those types of games Berserker is perfect, you have one fight a day so no problem using Frenzy for essentially every fight.

This is Oberoni Fallacy - my DM can run encounters in such a way that the feature isn't horrible, doesn't mean the feature isn't horrible. Worse still, you don't even need a full 6-8 encounters per LR to make this a huge problem - just two deadly encounters per LR means you're already either falling behind (using it) or weaker than you should be (not using it). No other subclass, even outside barbarian, has to deal with this.

(Also, what Tanariii said - the fewer combats you have, the more even just being at Exhaustion 1 is likely to be relevant. It's a catch-22.)


My group doesn't reach the 6-8 encounter standard, but we have 3-4 generally.

Frenzy is from an ancient time and needs to be updated. Why would a subclass feature give you a significant penalty, or incentivize you not to use it for most of the day? Every single Path printed after Berserker lacks this type of mechanic.

Agreed.


Battlerager also gives you a bonus action attack at level 3, and while it requires you to wear a certain armor, it doesn't come with any significant drawbacks.

It's true Battlerager doesn't have any blatant drawbacks like Berserker does. However there are still significant structural issues with the subclass once you examine it. For example, not a single module or treasure table I'm aware of has magical spiked armor, so by forcing you to wear that to get your subclass benefits you're relying on your DM to cater to your character specifically, and the book itself mentions how rare even the mundane version of this armor is. And while features like Reckless Abandon and Spiked Retribution aren't actively hurting you, compared to what the other subclasses give you they are almost criminally underpowered, and lack any viable kind of scaling.

[Sorinth]

Not really. Exhaustion level 1 gives you disadvantage on all ability checks. If the majority of the session is non-combat, you're going to be making far more ability checks that if the majority is combat, barring Strength (Athletics) and possibly Dexterity (Acrobatics). If that one combat is early in the session, you may spend the next two hours with ability check penalties.

I imagine most of the time they rest shortly after the deadly combat, not just because the Barbarian has exhaustion but because the paladin is out of spell slots because he smited so much, and the wizard blew through all their high level spells so they too could use a LR, etc...

Look I'm not saying it's a great feature, it's not. But it's hardly so bad that it becomes unplayable, especially for what many would consider a normal adventuring day at their table.

[Dienekes]

My group doesn't reach the 6-8 encounter standard, but we have 3-4 generally.

Frenzy is from an ancient time and needs to be updated. Why would a subclass feature give you a significant penalty, or incentivize you not to use it for most of the day? Every single Path printed after Berserker lacks this type of mechanic. Battlerager also gives you a bonus action attack at level 3, and while it requires you to wear a certain armor, it doesn't come with any significant drawbacks.

I would say, there is potential with a class having a "panic button" something that you are not supposed to do in a normal combat. Something that will have amazing returns, but also terrible consequences. An ability that should make your allies hush around the table and go "are you sure you want to do that?"

Only, Frenzy fails at eliciting that in all counts. The negative effect is one of annoyance, the positive effect isn't that great, and it's positioned as the keystone ability for the subclass. The panic button ability is not a keystone ability. It's closer to that of a ribbon.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's true Battlerager doesn't have any blatant drawbacks like Berserker does. However there are still significant structural issues with the subclass once you examine it. For example, not a single module or treasure table I'm aware of has magical spiked armor, so by forcing you to wear that to get your subclass benefits you're relying on your DM to cater to your character specifically, and the book itself mentions how rare even the mundane version of this armor is. And while features like Reckless Abandon and Spiked Retribution aren't actively hurting you, compared to what the other subclasses give you they are almost criminally underpowered, and lack any viable kind of scaling.
True. I was thinking that the feature itself to make an extra attack doesn't have an overt penalty baked into it, but the armor itself can be seen as that. I agree the path is generally underpowered though.


I would say, there is potential with a class having a "panic button" something that you are not supposed to do in a normal combat. Something that will have amazing returns, but also terrible consequences. An ability that should make your allies hush around the table and go "are you sure you want to do that?"

Only, Frenzy fails at eliciting that in all counts. The negative effect is one of annoyance, the positive effect isn't that great, and it's positioned as the keystone ability for the subclass. The panic button ability is not a keystone ability. It's closer to that of a ribbon.

I think something like this could be cool. But as you say, it can't be the Frenzy feature.

Non-warrior classes get an extra attack (Valor/Sword Bards, Bladesingers, Pact of Blade Warlocks) without penalties. I don't think an actual warrior class like the Barbarian should have to pay significantly for a bonus action attack.

EDIT: Going back to the Battlerager, I love the idea of this subclass as well lol. As Psyren said, the two non-magical barbarian Paths are generally very weak. Dash as a Bonus Action at level 10 is underwhelming, and the higher level ability of 3 piercing damage against anyone that hits you is as well. I do like con mod thp when you Reckless Attack, but it needs to scale I think. Battlerager and Berserker should both get updated in Subclasses of the Multiverse :smalleek: :smallwink:.

[Saelethil]

I would say, there is potential with a class having a "panic button" something that you are not supposed to do in a normal combat. Something that will have amazing returns, but also terrible consequences. An ability that should make your allies hush around the table and go "are you sure you want to do that?"

Only, Frenzy fails at eliciting that in all counts. The negative effect is one of annoyance, the positive effect isn't that great, and it's positioned as the keystone ability for the subclass. The panic button ability is not a keystone ability. It's closer to that of a ribbon.

That’s why I like it a class feature instead of a subclass feature. As a subclass feature it feels bad without house rules. As a base class feature it’s a decent “Oh ****” button. It could still be made more interesting but if it wasn’t expected to be use very often it could get away with greater drawbacks/benefits. A character I’m currently playing has a similar ability,
The lore and many of the ability specifics aren’t important or are irrelevant to this so I’ll skip them but the ability boils down to:

- Sometimes I can choose to get more dangerous for a period of time
- When I do I get an additional attack per Attack Action
- If I start my turn to far away from any enemies to get to and make a melee attack against them I need to make an Int. Save or attack an ally

There’s a bit more to it as a controlled form of Lycanthropy but this feels closer to what I would expect from Frenzy. You could even keep the Exhaustion and balance it with a damage bonus or something so that it really feels like cutting loose and suffering the consequences.

[Amechra]

I would say, there is potential with a class having a "panic button" something that you are not supposed to do in a normal combat. Something that will have amazing returns, but also terrible consequences. An ability that should make your allies hush around the table and go "are you sure you want to do that?"

Only, Frenzy fails at eliciting that in all counts. The negative effect is one of annoyance, the positive effect isn't that great, and it's positioned as the keystone ability for the subclass. The panic button ability is not a keystone ability. It's closer to that of a ribbon.

I wonder how strong Frenzy would have to be for it to be a reasonable panic button?

[Dienekes]

I wonder how strong Frenzy would have to be for it to be a reasonable panic button?

It's a weird balance, and I can understand why it would be hard to implement and why WotC hasn't done it yet. But off the top of my head:

The negatives of using the ability would have to not only take the character out of the rest of the adventuring day, but perhaps negatively effect them for a few following days. Otherwise it becomes an ability you can just do at the end of the day without consequences.

The positives would have to dramatically change the way an encounter is going. Being able to almost single-handedly change the dynamic of a fight from certain defeat into at least a question. Massive damage increase, removing all negative status effects, and making it very very difficult for the Barbarian to be taken out of the fight with a single spell after the effect gets turned on would all be how I would start creating such a panic button for the barbarian.

[Psyren]

Battlerager and Berserker should both get updated in Subclasses of the Multiverse :smalleek: :smallwink:.

Speaking of X of the Multiverse, it's kind of funny that Battlerager got a tiny buff from MotM. Now every dwarf can pick their ability score bonuses, which means you can pick Duergar for this class (without the light sensitivity or sunlight casting prohibitions even) and assign your bonuses to +2 Str/+1 Con or Dex while also getting access to their Enlarge and Invisibility racial spells - both of which could be nice for a Barbarian.


That’s why I like it a class feature instead of a subclass feature. As a subclass feature it feels bad without house rules. As a base class feature it’s a decent “Oh ****” button. It could still be made more interesting but if it wasn’t expected to be use very often it could get away with greater drawbacks/benefits.

That's not a bad point - if Frenzy were something every Barbarian could do in an emergency, it wouldn't be nearly as bad as there would be no opportunity cost to picking it up.

[Dork_Forge]

Speaking of X of the Multiverse, it's kind of funny that Battlerager got a tiny buff from MotM. Now every dwarf can pick their ability score bonuses, which means you can pick Duergar for this class (without the light sensitivity or sunlight casting prohibitions even) and assign your bonuses to +2 Str/+1 Con or Dex while also getting access to their Enlarge and Invisibility racial spells - both of which could be nice for a Barbarian.


It's so far ambiguous if Duergar and Snirfetc. are still going to be Dwarves and Gnomes respectively, more details may have come out, but from the leak on Nerd Immersion, it was a very real possibility that they are their own stand-alone races.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah but I believe they are "humanoids that count as...", so a duergar should still count as a dwarf and be able to take the subclass.

Assuming your DM sticks to that restriction of course. Though I am inclined to think that if they do, they would not let a duergar enter the subclass, as it seems cultural as much as it is racial.

[Psyren]

It's so far ambiguous if Duergar and Snirfetc. are still going to be Dwarves and Gnomes respectively, more details may have come out, but from the leak on Nerd Immersion, it was a very real possibility that they are their own stand-alone races.

Nah, they count - the leak includes this line:

"Creature Type: You are a humanoid. You are also considered a Dwarf for any prerequisite or effect that requires you to be a Dwarf."

Thus even if they are standalone, they are dwarves for the purposes of prereqs and can take Battlerager.

[Ulsan Krow]

Most of the 'generic' subclasses look like they could be integrated into the main class even though they shouldn't precisely so that people can play a version of the class without a unique flavoring on it. For people to play the Fighter Fighter, Barbarian Barbarian, Paladin Paladin


That said I think Battlemaster is the only subclass who's core schtick should absolutely have been integrated into the main chassis. It kind of just makes no sense why other subclasses can't do the things the Battlemaster can. Why is trying to trip your opponents in the middle of a fight, push them around, counter attacking not something a Samurai 'Fighter' can't also do? I can understand why maneuvers, both from a gameplay perspective (avoiding option bloat) and thematic perspective would be limited to Fighters (without feats like Martial Adept which are explicitly about the feat user becoming more skilled). But why is it mutually exclusive to this one subclass?


The Champion makes sense as least thematically - it focuses on physical refinement more than other subclasses, it can't do anything other subclasses can't but it does do what other subclasses do but better. Hitting a bit better, being more athletic, knowing fighting styles a bit more, tanking a bit better. Whereas other classes thematically make sense in that they specialise in things that feel like they are actually subclass exclusive - Eldritch Knights are spellcaster fighters, Arcane Archery is an Elven practice only, Rune Knight magic is learned from Giant origins, Echo Knight's echo is very, VERY specific.



Making superiority die a fighting style kind of gravitates to what I feel Battlemaster and the Fighter should've been from the beginning. And it doesn't even take any shake up to the Battlemaster subclass itself:


Just like Champion is just a physically better Fighter, Battlemaster is just a better maneuver fighter. Gets more maneuvers and bigger and better, recharging Superiority die. And now it actually has a mutually exclusive identity that makes sense - the fighter that spends more time developing its tactical acumen in these maneuvers that it can do them better and more often.

The big thing then is how do you nerf the other Fighter subclasses such that the strictly additional benefit of maneuvers doesn't overpower the class? Especially, how do you avoid making an already front loaded class even moreso, considering these maneuvers would logically come at a very early level?



EDIT: Quickest fix I can think of: Replace Second Wind with Combat Superiority. You learn 2 maneuvers and get 2 d6 Superiority die. Second Wind is now a maneuver that heals for Superiority die + Constitution modifier as a bonus action.

Battlemaster stays as is, i.e. gets 3 extra maneuvers on top of your 2 level 1 choices, 4 more superiority die, and all your die turn into d8s.


Problem here is that this increases Fighter's DPR further than it currently is as a healing feature, Second Wind now gives you the choice to pick damage boosting maneuvers to replace it. Could try this fix with 1d4s instead

[Dalinar]

I don't really agree that BM maneuvers should be baked into Fighter. I'd wager forumites have a much higher desire for complexity than the average D&D player.

That said, I don't think it's super unreasonable to possibly buff Superior Technique/Martial Adept so that those who want to spec into not-BM but still have some maneuvers can do so more easily. Unsure what exactly I'd do for that, though. (Maybe make fighting styles scale somehow?)

I do agree that CHA to attacks should be a Pact of the Blade feature, not a Hexblade feature. Blade Fiendlock would make an interesting antipaladin analogue, for instance.

[Ulsan Krow]

I don't really agree that BM maneuvers should be baked into Fighter. I'd wager forumites have a much higher desire for complexity than the average D&D player.

That said, I don't think it's super unreasonable to possibly buff Superior Technique/Martial Adept so that those who want to spec into not-BM but still have some maneuvers can do so more easily. Unsure what exactly I'd do for that, though. (Maybe make fighting styles scale somehow?)

I do agree that CHA to attacks should be a Pact of the Blade feature, not a Hexblade feature. Blade Fiendlock would make an interesting antipaladin analogue, for instance.


Probably true. The initial rendition of the Fighter in playtest did have maneuvers but feedback changed that around.

That said, a quick bandaid fix is just to make Superior Technique and Martial Adept give 2 superiority die instead of 1 (and Superior Technique learns 2 maneuvers instead of 1). Human Fighter can then start with 4 superiority die and 4 maneuver options at level 1, quite nice.

[LibraryOgre]

You know what should have been baked into the fighter class?

The awesome combat feats.

Is your fighting style Archery? You can pick up the Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter feat. Great Weapon? Choose from Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master. Give them this instead of additional ASIs (they effectively ARE additional ASIs, but they can't directly be used for +2 to an attribute or +1 to two). Champions, with their additional combat style feat, would be able to choose from several when they get their next feat. Open up some of the armor feats to every fighter.

[Ulsan Krow]

You know what should have been baked into the fighter class?

The awesome combat feats.

Is your fighting style Archery? You can pick up the Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter feat. Great Weapon? Choose from Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master. Give them this instead of additional ASIs (they effectively ARE additional ASIs, but they can't directly be used for +2 to an attribute or +1 to two). Champions, with their additional combat style feat, would be able to choose from several when they get their next feat. Open up some of the armor feats to every fighter.


I disagree, other martials should have access to these sorts of feats without having to multi-class into Fighter at all, nevermind however many levels it requires to get them. And moreover I would resent even deeper specialisation of Fighter as it is now. Single weapon builds are not problematic in themself but they shouldn't be the only choice available and the baseline progression

[LibraryOgre]

I disagree, other martials should have access to these sorts of feats without having to multi-class into Fighter at all, nevermind however many levels it requires to get them. And moreover I would resent even deeper specialisation of Fighter as it is now. Single weapon builds are not problematic in themself but they shouldn't be the only choice available and the baseline progression

No one said that others would not have access to them. Just that fighters would get them automatically.

[Psyren]

No one said that others would not have access to them. Just that fighters would get them automatically.

I had actually misread your post to mean that only fighters would get SS / CBE as well - thanks for clarifying.

I don't mind Fighters getting some feats for free; the big issue of course is that not all games even use them, and for the ones that do, technically feats are approved on a case by case basis. So giving Fighters bonus ASIs (which they can spend on feats in feat-allowing games) is the best of both worlds in that sense.