Can you fix a class (or subclass) with one single change?

[Eric Diaz]

I would do the same, or, failing that, come up with a different way to recover from exhaustion than one point per long rest for the Barbarian specifically. barbarians are if nothing else avatars of physicality and endurance. One still needs to pay a price for X, I just think that the Exhaustion mechanic is (at best) inelegant and at worst badly suited to this particular build: frenzy/Berserk barbarian.

I am thinking maybe frenzy barbarians could get one "free" use per long rest. Maybe even short rest, I dunno.

Berserker Barbarian - Frenzy - first use doesn't give exhaustion.

....Yeah, this.

(Beast master doesn't need changing.)[/COLOR]

Care to elaborate? (not that I'm disagreeing, necessarily).

[Dr.Samurai]

I would do the same, or, failing that, come up with a different way to recover from exhaustion than one point per long rest for the Barbarian specifically. barbarians are if nothing else avatars of physicality and endurance. One still needs to pay a price for X, I just think that the Exhaustion mechanic is (at best) inelegant and at worst badly suited to this particular build: frenzy/Berserk barbarian.

Agreed. I'm not sure what might be a better fit, but I just got into a game now with a barbarian and I *briefly* considered going Frenzy, since I"m already playing a Totem in another game. But roleplaying exhaustion after each Frenzy turned me away from it (mechanically and thematically).

Is a second attack at level three *that strong*? (Serious question. I'm not a game-mechanics guy.)

[Eric Diaz]

Is a second attack at level three *that strong*? (Serious question. I'm not a game-mechanics guy.)

I think it is one of the most devastating ways to deal melee damage in the game. But then again I find exhaustion is too crippling.

[Easy_Lee]

*golf clap* yeah. Four Elements needs a little tweak, maybe that's the one it needs most.

Doesn't make them good, just playable. For good, I recommend the many homebrew revisions.

[Mister_Squinty]

I am thinking maybe frenzy barbarians could get one "free" use per long rest. Maybe even short rest, I dunno.

A class feature allowing Barbarians to recover an exhaustion level on a short rest (as long as food/water were available, etc) would be a nice little boost.

[Eric Diaz]

A class feature allowing Barbarians to recover an exhaustion level on a short rest (as long as food/water were available, etc) would be a nice little boost.

Yeah, I like the idea - although I might limit it to frenzy-caused exhaustion. I like the idea of the angry barbarian gorging on food for some reasons. Seems appropriate. "I'll eat every damn chicken..." etc.

[Mister_Squinty]

Yeah, I like the idea - although I might limit it to frenzy-caused exhaustion. I like the idea of the angry barbarian gorging on food for some reasons. Seems appropriate. "I'll eat every damn chicken..." etc.

I was thinking it would reflect on the Barbarians' heartiness and ability to recover from strenuous activity faster than the soft city folk.

However, "eating chickens" may be a requirement for that class feature.

[Tanarii]

Care to elaborate? (not that I'm disagreeing, necessarily).

The quote-unquote "problem" with the Beast Master, for most people, is that it uses the Ranger's actions to do things. Words like "robot" get tossed around. This is actually a problem with people associating mechanics to strongly with what's going on in the in-game world. The Ranger using an action to have the companion doesn't necessarily mean the Ranger is closely directing the Ranger Companion's actions, and it's not acting (mostly) independently. It just means action economy is being preserved on the mechanical side. The Revised ranger addresses this by keeping the action economy the same, except it removes the option for the Ranger to ever Extra Attack. To get more attacks they must use the companion, as opposed to having the option to. It "fixes" something that is merely a perceptual problem on the part of players strongly wedded in mechanics = simulation of what's going on in the game world, and in the process breaks something else.

The revised ranger also unnecessarily increases companion power.

That said, there actually is a mechanical issue with Beast Master that is a problem, and the 'revised' does fix. PHB BMs can't TWF when their companion attacks and they get an additional attack themselves, because the Ranger is not taking the Attack Action. The revised BM is taking the Attack Action themselves, so they can TWF.

So yeah, that's something I'd fix. Allow BMs to TWF when their companion attacks, and the Ranger gets an attack out of it.

[Eric Diaz]

So yeah, that's something I'd fix. Allow BMs to TWF when their companion attacks, and the Ranger gets an attack out of it.

Ha, so you COULD fix it with one single change!

Anyway, interesting post. Makes me reconsider the BM. It probably is only one little change away to being great.

[Vaz]

What do you have against Warlock? It's a good class.

How crap it is. Playing a Diablo 3 style dungeon crawl? Brilliant. It can throw out 6 fireballs in a day and clear out three rooms, while firing off Eldritch Blasts.

Want to do anything that's not looting a dungeon? The Warlock sucks. I mean, you could say the same for 5e in general, but the Warlock takes that theory up to 11. It's brainless, and boring. Get to play in a game where you're trying to manage your loot, you're having to play against the DM until you get your 3rd spell slot after waiting for 84,700 XP. You have to try and judge when and where to spend your resources. You have to judge "is this a combat that's worthy of me spending a spell slot?"

You're playing with a maximum level spell slot also, so 1st level spells opportunity costs get exacerbated. I'm a Hexblade with Shield spell I've preferred to take the hit, rather than risk not being able to deal damage with my smite, or not drop Hunger of Hadar.

Talking of which, the unique spells like Hunger of Hadar; awful. Why, of all the spells in the game, does this not improve in effect? Spell Slot using Invocations?

The Warlock is a trap of a class. Eldritch Blast or nah. Spend a spell slot on Armor of Agathys?

I've played 4 different variants of Warlock; Fey Warlock of the Chain 8-14, Old One Warlock of the Tome 3-12, Hexblade Warlock 9/Conquest Paladin 5 (from Pal 2/Warlock 1), and a homebrew Warlock Necromancer.

In all 3 events, the Warlock requires significant Homebrew to be let it work within a more conventional party.

The Warlock would work so much better as Long Rest Caster with a Spell Point/PP-esque/Mana style (which is how I'm currently playing the Homebrewed Necromancer, after the DM gave me a Magic item which allowed my Tome Lock to do the same and realised how much more effective it made it). This way, a Warlock can choose to Nova in the same way that any other caster can choose to throw down all of their high powered spells. No DnD game, or story I've ever really read about required any sort of spellcaster to say "nah, I'm going to save spending my highest level resources in this extinction level event, because there's going to be another one in about 4 hours, I just need to rest up first".

The Long Rest 6th+. Sweet. Now you can be like a caster, except ****ter, because you don't get any others. You can't replace it. You can't scale up. You can't even cast a 7th level Animate Dead, because you don't have a higher level spell slot to cast it out of, so you're left with non-scalar options, again, unless you metagame.

The Warlock needs so much.

The Warlock is balanced against 3 rests in a Day, 2S1L, so give it 6 spell slots and a Long rest mechanic. Even better, give it the Spell Point mechanic, based on those. 3rd level warlock with 6 2nd level spells has 18 Spell Points to spend. Instantly, it goes from being really, really ****, to being capable and more flexible in battle.

Let's look at the unique spells it gets access too. A 20ft Blind Radius Blind; wonderful. Apart from it affects your allies, and ignores their darkvision, deals rather crap AoE (it's a 5th level spell slot dealing ~4d6 damage. It's honestly a really **** use of your action unless you're fighting a ton of enemies. It's not even battlefield control apart from stopping enemies (and yourself) from seeing each other. Make it deal +1d6 for each tick as you increase in spell level, and at 5th level count as difficult terrain. At 9-20th level, you're putting out 4d6+4d6 possibly dealing twice that if they don't dash out of the area with a 5th level spell slot. Compared to say Fireball which is throwing out 10d8 damage. For that, I'd give additional Invocations to allow such signature spells to take be improved. Arms of Hadar also; 5th level spell to cause a Strength Save or suffer 6d6 damage to ALL within a 10ft radius. From a 5th level spell slot.

**** mechanics should not be balanced by being frustrating to use. Like rule 1 of game design.

I like the flavour. The execution was just poor.

And so I find it funny when you get the nodding donkeys going along "ah yes, making the Warlock an intelligence caster will fix it, because it's not like Intelligence is basically worthless in 5e for anything other than pumping your Spell Save DC".

The way that every beginning optimizer comes to the forum and goes I wanna make a Warlock 2/Generic Cha Syngery character #4623424 should explain how broken the class is, and making it even less worthwhile to synergise with, when it has so little going for it to have it contend for 18 damn levels, let alone the 12 that actually see play speaks volumes.

[Tanarii]

Ha, so you COULD fix it with one single change!

Absolutely. Thanks for making me revisit it.

Anyway, interesting post. Makes me reconsider the BM. It probably is only one little change away to being great.

The biggest problem for many people is the beast felt too 'mechanical' or something like that. I mean, I understand it, but at the same time I don't. I can kinda see it by squinting my eyes and looking at it sideways, the same way I can when people try to claim 4e class's powers 'are all the same'. I don't agree. But folks are trying to put into words something that's really an impression or feeling, so I accept at face value that this is really the way it feels to them, even if it doesn't to me.

(Edit: and as such, it wasn't fair of me to phrase it as a perceptual problem on the part of the players. This is how people feel about it. It rubs them the wrong way. I'm not a fan of the Revised Ranger, but I understand why lots of people are.)

[mephnick]

I think the main problem with Beast Conclave is pet survivability leaving you without a subclass for half the game. I've always found the criticisms of the rest of the subclass (especially the action sharing)ridiculous.

[Tanarii]

I think the main problem with Beast Conclave is pet survivability leaving you without a subclass for half the game.

I've never really had a big problem with it. Nor have I seen players have a huge issue with it.

Keep in mind though, I've never seen a ranger in 5e's endgame level ranges (11-16), nor post-endgame levels (17+).

[jas61292]

I've never really had a big problem with it. Nor have I seen players have a huge issue with it.

Keep in mind though, I've never seen a ranger in 5e's endgame level ranges (11-16), nor post-endgame levels (17+).

I do personally think that the major problem with the beastmaster is the survivability. I do otherwise believe, that other than the whole TWF issue, it is good as is, and the problems people have is more one of perception. As is, its a melee combatant that is as durable or less than your average wizard, without any neat defensive options against most attacks. I don't think they need to make it scale as ridiculously as the revised one does, but even just one or two more HP per level would go a long way.

[Potato_Priest]

If the beast master doesn't feel thematic or fun for people to play then it ought to be changed, regardless of the balance of the original.

Should you change the mechaics because one person isn't having fun? No, just tell them to play something else.

Should you change the mechanics when a fairly decent proportion of people who choose an option regret it later because it isn't what they thought it would be, and isn't as fun as they'd hoped? I would say yes. Just because its an issue of perception doesn't mean that it shouldn't be changed.

[jas61292]

If the beast master doesn't feel thematic or fun for people to play then it ought to be changed, regardless of the balance of the original.

Should you change the mechaics because one person isn't having fun? No, just tell them to play something else.

Should you change the mechanics when a fairly decent proportion of people who choose an option regret it later because it isn't what they thought it would be, and isn't as fun as they'd hoped? I would say yes. Just because its an issue of perception doesn't mean that it shouldn't be changed.

That is a fair point of view. But I also think a lot of the dissatisfaction comes from people who think it is weak when it is not. They are misunderstanding their own frustrations.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, I also that is a completely fair point of view. I mean, the ranger, especially the Beast Master, definitely suffered from Internet group-think as well. But the perception that the mechanics are klunky is fairly widespread, and that's not something that I can in fairness claim is a 'wrong perception'. (Like I tried to at first.)

[Dr.Samurai]

I think the idea is that a beast companion would have some autonomy of course. Instead of having a companion with you, it feels more like you're playing through the beast companion by having to give up your actions to cause it to act. So it's not like Jon Snow fighting off wights with Ghost running alongside him also fighting. It's more like Jon Snow pointing at a wight and Ghost running over and attacking it.

Admittedly, this is only for two levels (3 and 4) before Extra Attack allowed them both to attack with the same Action. But I guess that was enough for some people. (I don't know, I've never really been interested in playing a ranger. It's a weird archetype to me... nature-y spellcasting dual wielder...)

[mephnick]

I think people were still too wrapped up in 3.5 pet mentality and by the time the community came to it's senses it was too late and the Beast Master had already been labeled as utterly broken by the hivemind.

[Theodoxus]

I'm DMing a PHB Beastmaster - no mods. I find the player forgets about his wolf nearly as much as V forgets about Blackwing. I don't think he's actually used it in combat - only for scouting / perception checks. The party is 5th level, so he could definitely be splitting up attacks between the wolf and himself, but the ranger has a much higher to-hit, deals more damage and can take a hit or two.

I'm always afraid that I'll kill the wolf with an aoe attack and the player will be out of his class abilities for some time (not that he's using most of them, but still.) We have another Hunter ranger in the party, and I think the BM is unwilling to rebuild, for fear of stepping on toes.

It's a subpar class that is outshone by the other ranger and pretty much everyone else in the party. Fortunately, the player isn't (obviously) a power-gaming optimizer, so he isn't pooty about it, but I am and have feels for his predicament.

I think the Revised Ranger's BM on the PHB Chassis would be a good place to start.

[DanyBallon]

I'm DMing a PHB Beastmaster - no mods. I find the player forgets about his wolf nearly as much as V forgets about Blackwing. I don't think he's actually used it in combat - only for scouting / perception checks. The party is 5th level, so he could definitely be splitting up attacks between the wolf and himself, but the ranger has a much higher to-hit, deals more damage and can take a hit or two.

I'm always afraid that I'll kill the wolf with an aoe attack and the player will be out of his class abilities for some time (not that he's using most of them, but still.) We have another Hunter ranger in the party, and I think the BM is unwilling to rebuild, for fear of stepping on toes.

It's a subpar class that is outshone by the other ranger and pretty much everyone else in the party. Fortunately, the player isn't (obviously) a power-gaming optimizer, so he isn't pooty about it, but I am and have feels for his predicament.

I think the Revised Ranger's BM on the PHB Chassis would be a good place to start.

We have a Revised Ranger in one of our game, and if not for the DM that is including the companion in combat, the player would forget about it. I not quite sure the problem is with the version of BM you are using, but more about that either version is not significant enough to contribute in combat, unless being used as a meat shield. And in order to keep balance, you can't boost the companion too much either. In the end, I would prefer that our Ranger's companion see more playtime for scouting and perception check as in your game over the way it happen in our game.

[Easy_Lee]

I think people were still too wrapped up in 3.5 pet mentality and by the time the community came to it's senses it was too late and the Beast Master had already been labeled as utterly broken by the hivemind.

If it was half as powerful, but free acting and easier to revive / replace, people would have been happier with it. A halfling BM with a DM who lets him take any beast can ride a pteranodon and fly around the battlefield pelting enemies with arrows from out of range. Power was never the issue.

[NecroDancer]

I'd give the 4 element monk 1/3 wisdom casting based off the sorcerer list instead of their elemental powers.

[EvilAnagram]

I'm honestly a bit torn on the Beast Master. On the one hand, people are clearly unhappy with the character, and I want to be sympathetic to that. On the other hand, I've played both a PHB Beast Master and a Revised Beast Conclave ranger, and I was perfectly happy with both. I felt like the combat of the original was more fun for melee rangers, but my DM did rule that I could use the panther's Pounce ability, and it scaled with my proficiency.

The HP can be a problem, but I think something as simple as a level 5 feature that let's your beast take no damage on a successful Dex save a la the rogue fixes that.

[Specter]

Fixing Frenzy?

Just remove their worthless level 10 ability (or keep it) and add: "At level 10, you are no longer exhausted after a frenzy."

Everybody wins.

[Tanarii]

The party is 5th level, so he could definitely be splitting up attacks between the wolf and himself, but the ranger has a much higher to-hit, deals more damage and can take a hit or two.

That's unusual. At low levels, a wolf generally does more dpr than the ranger & has a better hit chance, and knocks down to boot. Wolves also have decent AC, sometimes better that the ranger, due to barding. They also (as a team) occupy two spaces, which is very useful at times.

Of course, a ranger that heavily focuses on dpr can eventually out damage a wolf. And of course, as always, the sharpshooter Feat breaks the game for Acher Rangers.

Fixing Frenzy?

Just remove their worthless level 10 ability (or keep it) and add: "At level 10, you are no longer exhausted after a frenzy."

Everybody wins.

The level 10 ability is (incredibly) niche, not completely useless.

and your "fix" is a huge damage boost. An whole extra bonus attack with a two handed weapon almost every fight getting full damage bonuses? That's clearly broken. I mean, look at PAM. Broken as hell.

[Dudewithknives]

That's unusual. At low levels, a wolf generally does more dpr than the ranger & has a better hit chance, and knocks down to boot. Wolves also have decent AC, sometimes better that the ranger, due to barding. They also (as a team) occupy two spaces, which is very useful at times.

Of course, a ranger that heavily focuses on dpr can eventually out damage a wolf. And of course, as always, the sharpshooter Feat breaks the game for Acher Rangers.

The level 10 ability is (incredibly) niche, not completely useless.

and your "fix" is a huge damage boost. An whole extra bonus attack with a two handed weapon almost every fight getting full damage bonuses? That's clearly broken. I mean, look at PAM. Broken as hell.

Just wait till ancestral guardian hits print, with a 4d8 damage block, reflect back to any range, no save, and no roll, for a reaction comes out. I REALLY hope they changed that from the UA.

[Rhedyn]

When champions get expanded crit range they can also select a "half" feat, but they do not gain the stat increase from that feat.

Four elements monks half the ki cost (round up) of all four elements abilities.

Berserkers get one frenzy per short rest. No exhaustion mechanic.

Beast Masters pet has half the HP and half the HD of the Beast Master.

Paladin save aura is 1/2 as effective for allies but has double the range.

Sorcerers Twinned meta can be used on all spells except those that require concentration and overlapping effects don't stack (like fireballs), and is free for cantrips.

Warlocks use the spell point variant.

[Specter]

and your "fix" is a huge damage boost. An whole extra bonus attack with a two handed weapon almost every fight getting full damage bonuses? That's clearly broken. I mean, look at PAM. Broken as hell.

Well, it's on par with resisting all damage but psychic.

[Tanarii]

Well, it's on par with resisting all damage but psychic.

A 50% damage boost in 2/3 of your fights in a typical adventuring day is on par with something that make a significant difference maybe once an adventuring day? Barbarians already resist all PBS damage when raging, which is something like 90%* of incoming damage for front line combatants in Tier 1 & 2.

*90% of all statistics are made up on the spot