D&D 5E "Fixing" 5e's Least Well Performing Classes

[UngeheuerLich]

Lots of other people feel the opposite. Likely, small changes to make people like the classes more won't make you like them less.

No. I think, the sorcerer might have an extra choice of metamagic at some point between level 3 and 10. The warlock likewise should have 1 more invocation at level 3.
I like the Idea of having a flurry of blows that is just a free action and allows for an extra attack with any weapon in hand, since often enough you don't know if the extra attack is worth it and the monk is starved for bonus actions at times. And extra attack + dodge seems like a great help in melee before level 5. I also like the error in the german book, where it is stated that any simple weapon (missing the melee tag) is considered a monk weapon. That allows for the use of shuriken with flurry of blows followup.
The elemental monk should also have a few more choices for masteries and probably a little cost reduction. Also the stoneskin discipline should be reerrated to the 1st printing level, because at the pont where they get them it is not useful anymore.
That said, i still think those 3 classes are ok balance wise, but a little 1 dimensional.

My bigger concern is the ranger as a whole, because they are all over the place with their abilities. They are not underpowered in any way, but even the hunter or even the xanathar's guide classes have their problems, because of the bonus action juggling.
As much as I think, bonus actions have their place in the rules, they are too much of a hassle if you want to fight with two weapons on a regular base. Also concentration is annoying for rangers if they want to stay in melee. Hunter's mark should never be considered as a go to spell for a melee ranger.

Edit:
I want to iterated, why I made my former statement. I am not ok with the premise of the thread. It is nit that those classes are underperforming in any way. It is more that too much of their character building depends on early choices that they are stuck with for many level and that they need to juggle with too limited resources (bonus action, sometimes ki, sorcery points or spell slots).
The trick however is not making them more powerful, but just allowing a bit more freedom and the ability to partially undo some "bad" choices from many levels ago.

I think a lot could be done with downtime.
Actually i would have no problem with sorceres learning a new metamagic while training with a different sorcerer, a fighter training with a different one to learn a new fighting style. To make the fighter not overpowered, you can just say that he can't have two of them active at once unless he has learned a second fighting style somehow (multiclass/champion).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

cool. None of that is really relevant to the topic of the thread, though. This isn’t one of the threads with “suck” in the title. No one is claiming that any given class is dull, or underpowered, or anything of the sort.

if it ain't broke don't fix it'

Ergo, if you start a thread about how to fix something it implies that you think it is broken.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

if it ain't broke don't fix it'

Ergo, if you start a thread about how to fix something it implies that you think it is broken.

No, it doesn’t.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To fix (non-Four Elements) monks or warlocks is simple - five minute short rests. Or a long rest takes a full (three night) weekend, a short rest is overnight. As things are set up you need a long lunch to have a rest during the day.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No, it doesn’t.

As per the axiom, it is extremely unwise to try and fix something that is not broken.

 

[Pauln6]

As per the axiom, it is extremely unwise to try and fix something that is not broken.

But it can be beneficial to fine tune something that is not performing as well as it could...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As per the axiom, it is extremely unwise to try and fix something that is not broken.

That isn’t what the axiom means, necessarily. It’s more about it being unnecessary and coming with some risk.

But also, axioms don’t matter.

And lastly, I never implied these classes were broken.

Them being said, sometimes a thing can be functional in general, but produce bad results for a subset of users. There is no particular reason to not make some optional changes for those users to get a better experience.

 

[CleverNickName]

The biggest problem I have with the classes listed are a lack of options and variety in the game. How a class 'performs' for me has nothing at all to do with probability curves, DPS, action economy, and other mechanical features...those are all pretty much the same for each class, with a +/- 5% in either direction depending on how much you want to argue about it. But if I look at my character sheet and I don't see a good mix of options and features for both on and off the battlefield, I know right away that it's going to feel clunky and ineffective to me.

So "fixing the monk" for me just means starting with an interesting race and background, the Way of the Four Elements subclass, and picking up Magic Initiate at the first opportunity. Anything to make it more than "just stand around waiting for combat to start, then do the same action over and over again until we win." This is the same problem I have with Fighters and Barbarians: they need a larger role outside of combat.

The sorcerer and warlock are already "fixed," in my opinion. The hexblade is the perfect "gish" build, and the pact of the tome makes a pretty fun blaster. The Fey Magic sorcerer is probably the best subclass for sorcerer...it feels really close to the Shannara mages, and they're my favorite. If you need to shape the class in any direction, you can easily do it with feats (Skilled, Resilient, and Magic Initiate are probably the best gap-fillers for these classes, but you do you.)

But I think that "fixing the ranger" is a lot more difficult, because the class is just too muddled to me...it's trying to do too many things at once, and trying to mash together too many idioms from fantasy literature. (Maybe I'm just playing it wrong?) Personally, I'd give it a miss altogether. If I wanted to play a "ranger type" character, I would start with a woodsy race (forest gnome, firbolg, any elf or half-elf) and give her the Outlander background. I'd start out with Druid to get better magic, then multiclass with Fighter to get the Archery or TWF style. When the time comes, I'd go with Circle of Land and Eldritch Knight, respectively, for subclasses, and ask my DM if I could choose my EK spells from the Ranger list. (Not a deal-breaker, but worth asking.)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The biggest problem I have with the classes listed are a lack of options and variety in the game. How a class 'performs' for me has nothing at all to do with probability curves, DPS, action economy, and other mechanical features...those are all pretty much the same for each class, with a +/- 5% in either direction depending on how much you want to argue about it. But if I look at my character sheet and I don't see a good mix of options and features for both on and off the battlefield, I know right away that it's going to feel clunky and ineffective to me.

So "fixing the monk" for me just means starting with an interesting race and background, the Way of the Four Elements subclass, and picking up Magic Initiate at the first opportunity. Anything to make it more than "just stand around waiting for combat to start, then do the same action over and over again until we win." This is the same problem I have with Fighters and Barbarians: they need a larger role outside of combat.

The sorcerer and warlock are already "fixed," in my opinion. The hexblade is the perfect "gish" build, and the pact of the tome makes a pretty fun blaster. The Fey Magic sorcerer is probably the best subclass for sorcerer...it feels really close to the Shannara mages, and they're my favorite. If you need to shape the class in any direction, you can easily do it with feats (Skilled, Resilient, and Magic Initiate are probably the best gap-fillers for these classes, but you do you.)

But I think that "fixing the ranger" is a lot more difficult, because the class is just too muddled to me...it's trying to do too many things at once, and trying to mash together too many idioms from fantasy literature. (Maybe I'm just playing it wrong?) Personally, I'd give it a miss altogether. If I wanted to play a "ranger type" character, I would start with a woodsy race (forest gnome, firbolg, any elf or half-elf) and give her the Outlander background. I'd start out with Druid to get better magic, then multiclass with Fighter to get the Archery or TWF style. When the time comes, I'd go with Circle of Land and Eldritch Knight, respectively, for subclasses, and ask my DM if I could choose my EK spells from the Ranger list. (Not a deal-breaker, but worth asking.)

My fixes for the ranger are pretty simple, and seem much less muddled than what you’re describing, and less restricted in race and background.

and yeah, for some folks Sorcerer and Warlock are fine. That’s great. For others, especially folks that don’t want to use feats, it’s worth discussing how to address what makes them unsatisfying and trying to address that.

 

[CleverNickName]

My fixes for the ranger are pretty simple, and seem much less muddled than what you’re describing, and less restricted in race and background.

and yeah, for some folks Sorcerer and Warlock are fine. That’s great. For others, especially folks that don’t want to use feats, it’s worth discussing how to address what makes them unsatisfying and trying to address that.

I wasn't trying to be dismissive; a lot of folks have some valid issues with these classes and there are dozens of ways to fix them. Those issues (and fixes) are definitely worthy of discussion. I was only pointing out the issues that I personally have experienced and how I would address each of them. I try to work within the rules as much as possible, so I tend to lean in the direction of feats and multiclassing before house-ruling. That's just how I do things; it's not the only way to go.

And your fixes for the ranger are pretty good, I might give it a try sometime.