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

[GlassJaw]

I like that this thread uses "least performing" instead of weak/sucks/underpowered, etc. Given the nature of 5E's core mechanic, I don't think any class is truly weak or under-powered compared to any other.

That said, the PHB ranger sucks.

It's the only class that needs a heavy revision, which it largely got if you do a mashup of the UA revised ranger and class variants. It's not because the ranger is mechanically weak but that it's design is so convoluted. Its mechanics are also either heavily dependent on the DM/campaign or negate portions of the game (exploration and wilderness travel). Not to mention how borked the Beastmaster subclass is.

Otherwise every PHB class is playable as-is.

I do put the sorcerer into its own category though. Again, it's not weak and its mechanics aren't a mess like the ranger but it's incredibly bland and a massive missed design opportunity. The Next playtest sorcerer was way more interesting but it got gutted at the last minute. It also suffers from the fact it only has 2 subclasses in the PHB and one of them is totally nuts (wild magic).

The sorcerer is a little bit trickier to "fix" though because it's not broken per se. Giving more spells known, more metamagic options, and more sorcery points all help. However, those are just band-aids and don't change how the class is played.

The sorcerer needs a change to its core class to make it unique and to differentiate from the wizard. I love spell points for the sorcerer but I also know that isn't universally shared, whereas the reaction to the ranger changes has generally been positive.

The only other class "fix" that might be needed is giving the monk more ki points somehow. But again, that's subject to debate. A few subclasses make the list too: Berskerer (exhaustion), Beastmaster, Four Elements.

After that, any change is really just personal preference.

 

[ZeshinX]

There's plenty of things I'd change throughout all the classes, like the Wizard schools' eye-rollingly stupid "you get your ink and quills for half-price to write in your spellbook, and you can cram like a university student". Honestly, for a class devoted to magic...and they waste space on that as a bloody class ability?? Flavourful, sure....but yeesh.

The only class that needs serious attention is the Ranger. The UA revisions have been welcome, but they've all still missed a big point....it's too reliant on spellcasting (so is the Paladin, but to a significantly lesser degree). It's a warrior class, first and foremost, since 1e. Spellcasting should be a tool, not a necessity (and frankly should be shunted to a subclass, not part of the base). Their terrain mastery should apply to ALL terrains but require a day or two to attune to and offer benefits both in and out of combat (with some parts always "on"). If spellcasting is deemed essential to have as core, then their spells should focus on terrain and/or battlefield manipulation and not directly on combat skills (so spells like Entangle, Fog Cloud and other such terrain/weather manipulations). Their combat potential should be managed as it should be for any martial combatant...by mundane (i.e. non-magical) means. Techniques/fighting styles that offer means to harry and harass as well as damage. A sort of amalgam of Battle Master maneuvers and a Rogue's sneak attack...techniques that require specific conditions to be met to achieve certain outcomes (be it increased damage, hampering movement, causing enemy temporary loss of reactions/bonus actions, etc)...essentially take Fighting Style and Favoured Enemy and combine them into something unique to the Ranger, applicable to any opponent. It gives the Ranger something unique to the class, fits the theme, and is not by default subject to DM Design Whim.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There's plenty of things I'd change throughout all the classes, like the Wizard schools' eye-rollingly stupid "you get your ink and quills for half-price to write in your spellbook, and you can cram like a university student". Honestly, for a class devoted to magic...and they waste space on that as a bloody class ability?? Flavourful, sure....but yeesh.

The only class that needs serious attention is the Ranger. The UA revisions have been welcome, but they've all still missed a big point....it's too reliant on spellcasting (so is the Paladin, but to a significantly lesser degree). It's a warrior class, first and foremost, since 1e. Spellcasting should be a tool, not a necessity (and frankly should be shunted to a subclass, not part of the base). Their terrain mastery should apply to ALL terrains but require a day or two to attune to and offer benefits both in and out of combat (with some parts always "on"). If spellcasting is deemed essential to have as core, then their spells should focus on terrain and/or battlefield manipulation and not directly on combat skills (so spells like Entangle, Fog Cloud and other such terrain/weather manipulations). Their combat potential should be managed as it should be for any martial combatant...by mundane (i.e. non-magical) means. Techniques/fighting styles that offer means to harry and harass as well as damage. A sort of amalgam of Battle Master maneuvers and a Rogue's sneak attack...techniques that require specific conditions to be met to achieve certain outcomes (be it increased damage, hampering movement, causing enemy temporary loss of reactions/bonus actions, etc)...essentially take Fighting Style and Favoured Enemy and combine them into something unique to the Ranger, applicable to any opponent. It gives the Ranger something unique to the class, fits the theme, and is not by default subject to DM Design Whim.

I probably wouldn’t even bother playing a “ranger” with no magic in the base class.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree no class really is bad, but some have weak designs and seem lackluster compared to others. Many time subclasses make up for this, but sometimes not.

While I like a lot of the suggestions many people are writing here (and in the other threads as well), but I would caution against some of them because they make single level MC dips even more attractive. I feel this is the reason certain features were delay until level 2 or 3 (e.g. Action Surge, Metamagic, Eldritch Invocations, Ki, etc.).

I've toyed with the idea of moving such features lower, because of the appeal of getting them sooner, but since most are 2nd or 3rd levels, it really doesn't take long to get there and earn those features.

I do think one of the best things is to grant bonus points for things such as Ki, Sorcery points, Known spells, etc. equal to the ability score modifier. One of the other bumps I like is making Favored Enemy grant +2 damage and increased to +4 damage later on.

You could always ban multiclassing altogether. I've starting thinking that the narrative effect of a multiclass can be accomplished other ways, like those new UA feats. You can throw a new feat for all PCs at 1st level to facilitate this.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You could always ban multiclassing altogether. I've starting thinking that the narrative effect of a multiclass can be accomplished other ways, like those new UA feats. You can throw a new feat for all PCs at 1st level to facilitate this.

Those UA feats are even worse offenders IMO allowing characters to gain class features unique to classes and subclasses. 5E is already extremely overripe with magic involved in most classes (even if via subclasses), we don't need other features to become widespread as well.

Once you start homogenizing everything, you might as well get rid of classes altogether and just allow players to always take the "best" of the "best", and then you have even less variety (once half-a-dozen optimal builds are designed for power-players anyway...).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Those UA feats are even worse offenders IMO allowing characters to gain class features unique to classes and subclasses. 5E is already extremely overripe with magic involved in most classes (even if via subclasses), we don't need other features to become widespread as well.

Once you start homogenizing everything, you might as well get rid of classes altogether and just allow players to always take the "best" of the "best", and then you have even less variety (once half-a-dozen optimal builds are designed for power-players anyway...).

I see your point, but I see this as a mechanical question rather than a question of how much peanut butter should be in my chocolate. If the multiclassing rules allow for OP combos, we can look for another way to scratch that narrative itch. If the concept behind multiclassing is a problem, that's a different kettle of fish.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I see your point, but I see this as a mechanical question rather than a question of how much peanut butter should be in my chocolate. If the multiclassing rules allow for OP combos, we can look for another way to scratch that narrative itch. If the concept behind multiclassing is a problem, that's a different kettle of fish.

With MCing in 5E as it is, there aren't a lot of OP class combos (there are some of course, but they tend to be one-trick-ponies). But moving some of the class features to level 1 as I previously discussed, would make too many more single-level dips tempting.

So, I understand why the 5E designers made certain class features at levels 2 or even 3. The choice, mechanically, means delaying your primary class features early on or costing much more experience to gain those levels later on.

Overall, I love MCing in D&D in general, and don't mind it in 5E despite the difficult choices it sometimes forces you to make. But a lot of the new UA feats we're talking about will never see use at my tables anyway because they are cheap ways to get prime features from other classes. Not a fan. For tables that don't use MCing, they are certainly a nice option if you don't mind the blending of class features.

I prefer MY method (of course, right? ) for MCing in 5E, where you give up your subclass to gain core features of another class. This way you still continue to progress in your main classes levels and gain a bit of something from other classes. The only problem with this is the lack of balance in subclasses between classes. For instance, paladin's gain most of their power form the core class, not the subclasses (which add little IMO), so taking paladin as your "subclass" would give you more than taking something else. shrug

 

[Xeviat]

While I enjoy the Sorcerer and Warlock classes for what they are, I've sometimes wondered if they'd both be better off smooshed together into a single class.

Pacts with planar or other-worldly powers seem....well, remarkably inconsequential as implemented for the Warlock. I mean, honestly, something like that seems like it would be rather significant (especially the idea of, say, a devil offering some 0-level nobody a chance for magic powers...that one strikes me as truly strange....not implausible entirely...just a little odd). Pacts like that suggest an entire subsystem that any class could acquire.

The Sorcerer's entire schtick is natural ability to cast spells (manipulate the Weave or whatever your preferred fluffy flavour) instead of having to learn them through study, as the Wizard. Metamagic seems....rather an odd thing to be exclusive to Sorcerers. I mean sure, they need more than just innate ability to wave their hands about, speak a few arcane words and poof! a spell happens. Kinda the same as Warlocks, they just know even fewer than Sorcerers and can cast them less frequently before needing a breather.

I dunno...they just feel like they'd work well if they were put together. Or not. Just mental diarrhea happening here perhaps.

I suggested this a while ago and got yelled at so hard I had to leave the site for a little.

Together they'd work. You'd just want either an option at first or a statement in the fluff that your power CNA come from a bloodline or a pact. The lore in 4E for the Tieflings had them making a pact that cursed their bloodline, so it fits. Then you can get first generation sorcerers and multigenerational sorcerers.

My issue with Warlocks is more that their pact doesn't show up in their mechanics enough. 4E got something for sending souls to your pact maker, that felt like you had a pact.