# What if you were in charge of reworking classes for 5.5?



## Undrave

So, this is just a fun thought exercise, based on what we’ve all learned since the release of the game.

Let’s say you get to work on the 5.5 PHB and you’re allowed to completely change the way the various classes work. You can’t change any of the game’s core mechanics like the math of bounded accuracy, the conflict resolution, the XP charts, proficiency bonus, skills, weapons and armor classifications, etc. But you can change what kind of stuff each class gets, with no obligation to make it backward compatible with the previously published material, except adventures. Basically, the concept is that you get to remake the classes from scratch.

My question is thus, what guiding concept and fundamental changes would you want to put into places for each of the core classes? In broad strokes terms?

*Barbarian:* Only thing I would change in the PHB Barbarian is to remake the Berzerker so it’s no longer awful, while still being very simple. I’d also make the Ancestral Guardian Barbarian one of the PHB subclass.

*Bard: *I think what bards need are ‘song’ spells that are basically powerful buffs that need an action to maintain longer than a turn. Making these exclusives to the class would give it the ‘bardic song’ feel that some folks felt was missing. Would also make Toll the Dead a PHB spells for Bard and Cleric.

*Cleric:* I’d rework the Trickery Cleric so it has a clearer game plan and a stronger flavor in combat. The Cleric is just a very boring class to me, but I don’t know if there’s a big need to remake it.

*Druid:* Maybe buff the Circle of Land a little so it’s a better comparison to the Circle of the Moon. Maybe add a subclass that trades its Wild Shape for a companion for that Shaman flavor.

*Fighter:* I’d probably rebuild it from the ground up. I’ve been saying for a while that a Fighter should just be a Warlord dressed up as a Fighter. There’s a couple maneuvers from the Battlemaster that should just be things the Fighter can do (sans bonus damage) at will, such as the Goading Attack or Distracting Attack. I think these maneuvers could be the real ‘fighting styles’ and what we have right now be ‘gear specialization’ or something. The Champion would get more of those passive bonuses and be renamed ‘Weapon Master’, and the extended crit would just be one of the options any Fighter can pick (I would make it so it only works with one of the three types of weapon damage, your choice). Eldtrich Knight would be reworked so it’s not so focused on Evocation and more on Abjuration as that makes way more sense. Action Surge and Second Wind would probably be moved to the ‘Prof. per day’ model instead of short rest based. Also, some skill-based buff would be nice.

*Monk: *This class is another I would rebuild from the ground up. As it is, it feels like a pile of legacy feature with no coherent game plan. The whole ‘monks lockdown casters’ thing is more of an emergent gameplay element than a real design goal, IMO. I’d probably survey monk players before working on a new Monk.

*Paladin:* We discussed this in another thread, but instead of being a spellcaster that trades slots for Smites, the Smite would be the based feature and you could trade them for ‘Miracles’. The options available would improve in level and be expended by your Oath, giving them much stronger flavor in the process.

*Ranger: *I don’t have enough experience with that one to really speak up, but I would include the improvements from Tasha’s for sure. Also make it so they have 3 subclass in the book.

*Rogue: *One thing I would do, for sure, is codify ‘Expertise’ as a thing so I can hand it out to various characters without having to write the whole damn explanation every time. Would save on page count. I think what I would do is give an optional alternative to Thieves’ Cant and make the Swashbuckler a core subclass. Maybe cut the Arcane Trickster and Assassin and merge their feel into a shadow themed caster subclass? Just so there’s three subclasses.

*Sorcerer:* If it’s not possible to bring back the playtest sorcerer( who manifests their ancestry more the more they use up their points), I would, at the very least, rework the Wild Magic subclass. Instead of the dumb random system, it would be a push your luck type of mechanic where you can try to get strong effect at the cost of rolling on the wild magic surge table. And the more you do it, the more dice you roll (with only the highest result counting). That way the player can feel more involved and it’s more interesting than being basically dependent of the DM’s whims. I’d obviously add a third subclass, but I’m not sure who would be the best pick. Celestial? Probably the most basic.

*Warlock: *Not much to say… maybe buff the Pact of the Blade so Hexblade isn’t needed?

*Wizard: *The current subclasses are terrible and boring. Giving them 8 subclasses was just ridiculous. I think the base class shouldn’t get as many free spells known as it currently does and with less variety in the spell list, with the Subclass making up the difference with more thematic free spells. For subclasses I’d have the Academic, who picks a school specialty, gets the cheaper copying ability, and gets a bunch of free spells known from their specialty then I’d keep a version of the Diviner as a more support subclass that studies to tap into the power of the Astral Plane (I love the Diviner’s ‘roll in advance’ ability) and gets some Clerical spells thrown into their spell list, and finally the Lorehunter (or Archeologist) as a sort of rogue-ish subclass with abilities and spell well suited for dungeon exploration and a little more toughness and endurance than a normal Wizard (the 'I get dirty to find old spell books' Wizard).


Yeah I let my imagination run wild a little… your turn folks!


----------



## Morrus

I think I did!

www.levelup5e.com


----------



## Undrave

Morrus said:


> I think I did!
> 
> www.levelup5e.com



True enough! It's a different philosophy to 5e's simplified design though


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Undrave said:


> *Fighter:* I’d probably rebuild it from the ground up. I’ve been saying for a while that a Fighter should just be a Warlord dressed up as a Fighter. There’s a couple maneuvers from the Battlemaster that should just be things the Fighter can do (sans bonus damage) at will, such as the Goading Attack or Distracting Attack. I think these maneuvers could be the real ‘fighting styles’ and what we have right now be ‘gear specialization’ or something. The Champion would get more of those passive bonuses and be renamed ‘Weapon Master’, and the extended crit would just be one of the options any Fighter can pick (I would make it so it only works with one of the three types of weapon damage, your choice). Eldtrich Knight would be reworked so it’s not so focused on Evocation and more on Abjuration as that makes way more sense. Action Surge and Second Wind would probably be moved to the ‘Prof. per day’ model instead of short rest based. Also, some skill-based buff would be nice.
> 
> *Monk: *This class is another I would rebuild from the ground up. As it is, it feels like a pile of legacy feature with no coherent game plan. The whole ‘monks lockdown casters’ thing is more of an emergent gameplay element than a real design goal, IMO. I’d probably survey monk players before working on a new Monk.



both of these need rewrite, and I like where you went...

if it was me I would take warlock and artificer and rebuild all the other classes on those chasies...

2 subclass choices, 1 at 1st 1 at 3rd completely interchangeable mini feats that give new abilities or enhance abilities (mix of invocations and infusions).


----------



## CleverNickName

I'd rework them thusly:

*1.  I'd have only four "core" classes.*  These would be the foundation that the rest of the character would be built on, and would set things like Saving Throws, proficiencies, and spell slots.  (These names are place-holders, I'm sure they will come up with more iconic/traditional ones.)

Warrior (martial-focused)
Sneak (skill-focused)
Mage (full caster)
Priest (half caster)
*2.  Then I'd have dozens of interchangeable subclasses. *  You would pick your subclass at 1st level, and apply it to the framework of your choice.  This would set class-specific things like sneak attack, spell lists, turning undead, etc.  A Warrior with the Barbarian subclass would play much like a Berserker, while a Priest with the Barbarian subclass would play a lot like a Wild Magic barbarian, for example.

It's a bit of a call-back to the "kits" of old.


----------



## Quickleaf

I'd love a Sorcerer that (a) is easier for newer players to run their "mage" fantasy than other spellcasting classes, (b) breaks from Vancian spellcasting, and (c) actually _feels_ like it embodies the wonderful flavor text of the sorcerer.


----------



## Undrave

CleverNickName said:


> I'd rework them thusly:
> 
> *1.  I'd have only four "core" classes.*  These would be the foundation that the rest of the character would be built on, and would set things like Saving Throws, proficiencies, and spell slots.  (These names are place-holders, I'm sure they will come up with more iconic/traditional ones.)
> 
> Warrior (martial-focused)
> Sneak (skill-focused)
> Mage (full caster)
> Priest (half caster)
> *2.  Then I'd have dozens of interchangeable subclasses. *  You would pick your subclass at 1st level, and apply it to the framework of your choice.  A Warrior with the Barbarian subclass would play much like a Berserker, while a Priest with the Barbarian subclass would play a lot like a Wild Magic barbarian, for example.
> 
> It's a bit of a call-back to the "kits" of old.



Ah so a mix-and-match system them? Pretty interesting idea! 



Quickleaf said:


> I'd love a Sorcerer that (a) is easier for newer players to run their "mage" fantasy than other spellcasting classes, (b) breaks from Vancian spellcasting, and (c) actually _feels_ like it embodies the wonderful flavor text of the sorcerer.



Not a bad plan either. Also, I didn't mention it, but I think I'd make the Sorcerers into CON casters. It would make them the easiest class to MC with so you can show how much your character invest into their bloodline magic, or how little. You can have a character really invest in learning about the Magic left by their draconic ancestor, or a guy who thinks swords are way cooler and only knows a few tricks.


----------



## Horwath

3 classes.

warrior:
d12 HD, 
light, medium armor+shield, option for heavy
lots of extra attacks over levels
lots of martial archetypes

expert:
d10 HD, s
light armor, option for medium+shields
ingle extra attack at 5th
lots of skills/expertise, cunning actions
lots of archetypes,

mage:
d8 HD
no armor, option for light
no extra attacks, maybe option for extra 1 somewhere
all spells available, limited spells known(sorcerer amount)
subclass/theme gives 2 extra fixed cantrips and 2 fixed spells known from every level 1-5

most of current class features turned into feats/half-feats

all gain LU5E martial maneuvers and exertion pool, with different rate of learning and some get bonus exertion depending on class/subclass
lets say that mage learns one school and gains new levels every 8 levels, expert learns 2 schools and gain new levels every 6 levels and warrior learns 3 schools and gain new levels every 4 levels.


----------



## Undrave

GMforPowergamers said:


> both of these need rewrite, and I like where you went...



Monk's biggest problem, to me, is that it doesn't feel like a class built to do anything, but is just a pile of features that sound 'cool' and were used in previous versions of the game. I'd ask the Monk player what the fantasy they want to realize is and then build the Monk to do THAT and see if I can fit the legacy stuff into that goal. Nobody plays a marital artist class to 'lockdown the casters'.



Horwath said:


> 3 classes.
> 
> warrior:
> d12 HD,
> light, medium armor+shield, option for heavy
> lots of extra attacks over levels
> lots of martial archetypes
> 
> expert:
> d10 HD, s
> light armor, option for medium+shields
> ingle extra attack at 5th
> lots of skills/expertise, cunning actions
> lots of archetypes,
> 
> mage:
> d8 HD
> no armor, option for light
> no extra attacks, maybe option for extra 1 somewhere
> all spells available, limited spells known(sorcerer amount)
> subclass/theme gives 2 extra fixed cantrips and 2 fixed spells known from every level 1-5
> 
> most of current class features turned into feats/half-feats
> 
> all gain LU5E martial maneuvers and exertion pool, with different rate of learning and some get bonus exertion depending on class/subclass
> lets say that mage learns one school and gains new levels every 8 levels, expert learns 2 schools and gain new levels every 6 levels and warrior learns 3 schools and gain new levels every 4 levels.



So just one step removed from class-less then?  I guess I should have said "the editor told you to keep the same classes or the fans revolt"


----------



## Horwath

I would also change weapons.

No martial/simple category.
all are proficient with all weapons.
Investment into fighting styles, extra attack(s), investing in str or dex, picking feats, or simply by having larger HD is enough to separate martial from non martial characters.

Same option can be used for armor, just have every armor have min str score, from 8(padded) to 18(full plate), with appropriate max dex and other penalties.

Weapons:

base damage: 1d10
1d10, 1Handed, Versatile(d12)
1d8, 1Handed, finesse
1d8, 1Handed, light
1d8, 1Handed, thrown(40/120)
1d6, 1Handed, Reach 10ft, Versatile(1d8)
1d6, 1Handed, finesse, light
1d6, 1Handed, finesse, throw(40/120)
1d6, 1Handed, light, thrown(40/120)
1d4, 1Handed, finesse, light, thrown(40/120)
1d4, 1Handed, finesse, reach 10ft

2d6, 2Handed
2d8, 2Handed, Heavy
2d6, 2Handed, Heavy, Reach 10ft
1d12, 2Handed, finesse
1d12, 2Handed, reach
1d10, 2Handed, reach, finesse

shortbow;
1d6, 2Handed, ranged 100/400

longbow:
1d8, 2Handed, heavy, ranged 150/600


crossbows:
find whatever damage fits with hand, light or heavy crossbow with less range than bows and Action reload time...

I would go with:
hand crossbow
1d10, 1Handed, range 40/120, loading Action

light crossbow;
2d6, 2Handed, range 60/240, loading Action

heavy crossbow;
2d8, 2Handed, range 80/320, loading Action


----------



## Horwath

Undrave said:


> Monk's biggest problem, to me, is that it doesn't feel like a class built to do anything, but is just a pile of features that sound 'cool' and were used in previous versions of the game. I'd ask the Monk player what the fantasy they want to realize is and then build the Monk to do THAT and see if I can fit the legacy stuff into that goal. Nobody plays a marital artist class to 'lockdown the casters'.
> 
> 
> So just one step removed from class-less then?  I guess I should have said "the editor told you to keep the same classes or the fans revolt"



shhhh! 

class-less is for 6E in 2034

patience young padawan


----------



## payn

Bard would be the only class. Every other archetype would be a sub-class of Bard.


----------



## Stormonu

This is pretty much my take for a 5.5 under construction:









						Mjal's Mighty Tome - Classes & Races
					

Additional homebrew options for 5E




					homebrewery.naturalcrit.com
				




Things of note: 


Give the Barbarian a fighting style, with Reckless Attack being one of the styles
Cut out Eldritch Knight and make a distinct fighter/magic-user class
An option for the fighter to trade out armor proficiencies for Unarmored Defense
Add more Fighter Battlemaster maneuvers and make some maneuvers available to anyone
Improve on the Fighter Champion, making it more resilient
Allow rogues to trade in sneak attack dice to add conditions to opponents
Rework monk to lean into the martial arts and more choices during advancement
Add a psion class that is a mix of 2E/3E abilities and 5E sensibilities
Split out Origin and Subclass for the Sorcerer (along the lines of Warlock's Patron and subclass) and make a host of both
Incorporate Eldritch Blast as a core Warlock feature to free up some Invocations
Plenty of subclasses all around
Several new conditions that I felt were missing such as Diseased, Burning, Frozen and Sleeping.


----------



## Oofta

payn said:


> Bard would be the only class. Every other archetype would be a sub-class of Bard.



They aren't now?  I mean,  we all know bards are masters of disguise?


----------



## Jer

No major changes.  Add the Artificer to the PHB as a default class.  Move the Ranger fixes from Tasha's into the core PHB.  Leave everything else basically as is.  

Oh, and add a Warlord class of course.


----------



## Morrus

Undrave said:


> True enough! It's a different philosophy to 5e's simplified design though



Well, you asked for “completely change the way the various classes work”!


----------



## Oofta

Huh.  I wouldn't change  much of anything. I'd tweak some rules,  give strength based  PCs more options (especially for ranged attacks).  But beyond that,  they work well enough.


----------



## Horwath

Oofta said:


> Huh.  I wouldn't change  much of anything. I'd tweak some rules,  give strength based  PCs more options (especially for ranged attacks).  But beyond that,  they work well enough.



I would just have more powerful bows, depending on STR rating, I would still keep precision(bonus to attack and damage) tied to dex.
For pure STR ranged option, we should get little buff to thrown weapons(more damage, little more range)

For bows, we could have:
str n/a: 1d4, range 60/240
str 8: 1d6, range 110/440
str 10: 1d8, range 150/600
str 14: 1d10, range 190/760
str 18: 1d12, range 230/920
str 20: 2d6, range 250/1000


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

The 5.5 warlock would be a fusion of 5th warlock and 3.5 Binder. Each vestige would give an optional list of spell, and when you wanted to change your list of spells, then you should summon a different vestige.


----------



## Parmandur

High level:

- Artificer is now a Core Class. Mostly keep it the same.

- Barbarian is now called the "Beserker," and any wilderness versus civilization elements are moved firmly to Background.

- Monk is now called the "Mystic," and all fluff tied to Monasticism is firmly moved to Bqckground, along with all Orientalist themes being removed. "Ki Points" are now just Spell Slots, and the Mystic is essentially a half-caster equivalent to the Warlock.

- Ranger now takes their Subclass at Level 1, and the organizing principle is making "Favored Terrain" the Subclass: Subclasses like Forester, Highlander, etc.

- On that note, all Classes take their Subclass at Level 1, allowing Subclass to alter base flavor more.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold

Hmm. OK.
Part-casters: I would up the access to spells for part-casters. Current 1/3rd casters I would probably give current 1/2 casting progression to. Current 1/2 casters would probably get up to level 7 spells (2/3rds caster), although not as many as full casters.
I would also change the (unwritten) rule that subclasses cannot take away features of the base class.
Several classes would have a major decision point in addition to subclass choice in the same way that warlocks get their Pact and subclass.

Barbarian - I would expand this class to all warriors that tap into reserves of power for periods of time, and remove the "cultural" element (tribal, outlander, bearded, etc) completely. The new barbarian will include the same subclasses, but may also include the current Samurai, as well as the Champion - a simple, damage-focused subclass that gets lower, but always-on bonuses. Also increase capabilities outside combat such as ability to spend rages to get ability score, or check boosts.

Bard:  - I would make an Intelligence-based caster. 

Cleric - Seem pretty good at the moment. Possibly just reining in outlying subclass abilities such as some of the Twilight cleric. Vary spell lists a bit more, especially the Nature Cleric.

Druid - Make reduced caster. Change Wildshape to use templates based on druid level/proficiency bonus like the Tasha's summons and primal beasts do, and give more uses.

Fighter - make maneuvers the core of the class. Reduce number of attacks and raw damage potential, but give a wide variety of special capabilities. These will include buffs and extra abilities for allies, inflicting conditions on opponents, and out-of combat capabilities. Think Warblade from Bo9S. Allow some subclasses to use magic like Monk and Swordmage. 

Monk - Folded into Fighter. "Martial Artist" is currently the core identity of two classes at the moment and doesn't need to be.

Paladin - Remove Divine Smite. Remove concentration requirement on all smite spells. Make Wisdom caster. (Really tempted to fold this into a couple of other classes, but there are enough differences to leave out.

Ranger - This class would be too similar to a Fighter or Rogue with outdoorsy skills and abilities. - Changed (and possibly renamed) to a pet class that defines basic capabilities for a class with companion(s) and some spellcasting. This will have subclasses that completely define the concept such as a necromancer, construct maker, or primal nature companion.

Rogue - Remove weapon restrictions to sneak attack. Allow them to get special use out of skills that they have expertise in. 

Sorceror - Give extra metamagic points to, but possibly remove their ability to just trade them in for extra spells. Allow some choice of casting ability. Give a few additional spells by giving chains of spells with specific themes that the sorceror can cast from metamagic points like the current Aberrant mind. Clarify that not all sorcerors tap into Arcane magic.

Warlock - Rein in Eldritch Blast/Agonising blast as a base ability, but allow subclasses to modify it. Make Intelligence-based, although some subclasses may allow other abilities.

Wizard - Possibly reduce their overall spell list so they aren't poaching from every other class in the game quite so badly. Reduce total number of spells memorised by a little, but allow Arcane Recovery to change some spells as well as regaining slots. Change spell school-based subclasses to give more tangible benefits when casting a spell from the preferred school.


----------



## Vaalingrade

I would playtest the dream wizard that does everything wizard players want for six months... only to make them a Int-based book user build of warlock last minute.


----------



## ART!

CleverNickName said:


> I'd rework them thusly:
> 
> *1.  I'd have only four "core" classes.*  These would be the foundation that the rest of the character would be built on, and would set things like Saving Throws, proficiencies, and spell slots.  (These names are place-holders, I'm sure they will come up with more iconic/traditional ones.)
> 
> Warrior (martial-focused)
> Sneak (skill-focused)
> Mage (full caster)
> Priest (half caster)
> *2.  Then I'd have dozens of interchangeable subclasses. *  You would pick your subclass at 1st level, and apply it to the framework of your choice.  This would set class-specific things like sneak attack, spell lists, turning undead, etc.  A Warrior with the Barbarian subclass would play much like a Berserker, while a Priest with the Barbarian subclass would play a lot like a Wild Magic barbarian, for example.
> 
> It's a bit of a call-back to the "kits" of old.



I like this a lot. A LOT.

Like Level Up has done, I'd weave some social and exploration features in among the combat features.


----------



## Horwath

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Hmm. OK.
> Part-casters: I would up the access to spells for part-casters. Current 1/3rd casters I would probably give current 1/2 casting progression to. Current 1/2 casters would probably get up to level 7 spells (2/3rds caster), although not as many as full casters.
> I would also change the (unwritten) rule that subclasses cannot take away features of the base class.
> Several classes would have a major decision point in addition to subclass choice in the same way that warlocks get their Pact and subclass.



I agree, that in current form there is room to return the 2/3rd casters, and 1/3 casters would be moved to 2/5th casters(slightly better, still cap at 4th level spells.

so

full casters(or 2/2), spell levels every 2 levels, at: 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19(yes, add 10th level spells)
2/3rd casters: spell levels every 3 levels, at: 1,4,7,10,13,16,19
half casters; spell levels every 4 levels, at: 2,5,9,13,17
2/5th casters: spell levels every 5 levels, at: 3,6,11,16

2/3rd casters could be: bard, druid(make moon druid default wildshape to compensate for lower spells), and warlock. Maybe even artificer.
If we reduce sorcerer to 2/3rd caster with buff to metamagic and bloodline powers with d8 HD, that would leave only Wizard and Cleric as full casters. Nothing wrong with that. Dump clerics HD to d6, they have armor and healing.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Morrus said:


> I think I did!
> 
> www.levelup5e.com



Sure, but what percentage does WotC get? 

To the OP: I'd be fired if I was in charge of 5.5E.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Vaalingrade said:


> I would playtest the dream wizard that does everything wizard players want for six months... only to make them a Int-based book user build of warlock last minute.



bitter much?!


----------



## Vaalingrade

GMforPowergamers said:


> bitter much?!



Oh so much.


----------



## Gangrel44

Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers would have the same attacks as the Fighter, and the Champion would be souped up a bit...


----------



## Oofta

Horwath said:


> I would just have more powerful bows, depending on STR rating, I would still keep precision(bonus to attack and damage) tied to dex.
> For pure STR ranged option, we should get little buff to thrown weapons(more damage, little more range)
> 
> For bows, we could have:
> str n/a: 1d4, range 60/240
> str 8: 1d6, range 110/440
> str 10: 1d8, range 150/600
> str 14: 1d10, range 190/760
> str 18: 1d12, range 230/920
> str 20: 2d6, range 250/1000



I used to do something similar but rnded up just making them finesse weapons to keep it simple.   Longbow should be strength based (keep shortbows dex) but that  goes against too much fiction.


----------



## Shadowedeyes

Probably rework some classes and subclasses like I've done for my own home games.

Rangers would get something similar to either my own reworks or Tasha's stuff as part of the base class. A few tweaks to the PHB subclasses.
Fighter's Indomitable needs a buff, and some of the subclasses reworked.
Barbarian has a few subclasses that need a rework.
Sorcerer subclasses could use a rework as well, mostly to give bonus spells to pre-Tasha subclasses.
Monk needs something, but I'm not really sure what that is honestly.

I'd like some way to rework overland travel to be more interesting, and maybe some modular rule options for different styles of game.



Gangrel44 said:


> Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers would have the same attacks as the Fighter, and the Champion would be souped up a bit...



I'm not sure why anyone would choose to play a Fighter at high levels in this instance.


----------



## Shiroiken

All classes get their subclass at level 1 or 3, and I don't really care which. Either level 1-2 are just apprentice levels experienced players ignore, of everyone's a hero at level 1. The current system drives me nuts.

Barbarian - largely keep it the same, although I'd like to rename it the berserker, axing the sub-class.

Bard - half caster with non-spell based buffs and debuffs

Cleric - mostly keep it the same, but make Light Armor the default, rather than Medium

Druid - since I conceptually hate the Moon Druid, my changes would be hugely unpopular, and so I'll ignore this.

Fighter - bringing back the martial dice from the playtest!

Monk - I'd simply axe the class. I've never been fond of it, and find that it doesn't work well in most non-asian settings.

Paladin - smite is all done by spells, not just used after hitting a creature.

Ranger - rework favored enemy to be useful in combat (proficiency modifier to damage most likely) and increase number of favored terrains until a 20th level ranger had all of them (as well as a lot of favored enemies). Beastmaster would need an overhaul to work similar to the new summon spells.

Rogue - not much really needed, but I'd make assassin better in combat and add a thug subclass that doesn't need finesse weapons.

Sorcerer - I'd probably axe this one too, unless I could find a way to make it significantly different from the Wizard. I'd review the playtest version for ideas

Warlock - Int based class. I'd rework the Sword Boon and Hexblade to basically be the same thing (serving an intelligent weapon is stupid IMO).

Wizard - get rid of school based sub-classes, focusing on archetypes (Beguiler, Battlemage, Summoner, etc).

If I could change the multiclass rules, I'd ditch them for multiclass based subclasses.


----------



## DeviousQuail

Barbarian - Gets a new attack that forces the target and an adjacent enemy to make a save or take damage. Barbs are decent but something other than reckless or normal attack is needed. 

Bard - More subclass levels. Every class should have 5 to 6 levels with subclass features and at least three of them should occur before level 10. 

Cleric - Level ups defensive blessing is all I've ever wanted for the cleric so I'd just steal that.

Druid - Wildshape is removed and replaced with Connection to Nature. It's a resource that can be used to wildshape, gain a familiar, or cast a few nature spells. All of these things grow in power as the class progresses. That includes higher CR wildshapes, higher CR familiars, and stronger spells. The more powerful options would require more uses of Connection to Nature to activate. Replace archdruid feature with the ability to concentrate on one 3rd level or lower spell with a target of self without taking up your one concentration slot (effectively double concentration).

Fighter - Get two d6 maneuver dice. All fighters get maneuvers and they are powered by the dice. After using a die you reduce it by 1 size (d6 > d4 > 0). The size of the dice increase as you level and potentially get one or more additional dice over time.

Monk - Unarmored defense becomes a multiple choice feature so that not every monk needs Dex and Wis. Current capstone becomes a class feature around level 10 or 11.

Paladin - Get rid of the generic smite and add a class feature that let's smite spells be cast as part of the attack action.

Ranger - Get rid of the magic and the beast master (that becomes it's own tamer class). Hunters mark is a feature not a spell. Move the assassin to this class. 

Rogue - More subclass levels. Otherwise it's actually a really well put together class.

Sorcerer - Whenever you get a spell you choose one metamagic feature for it to always have on and tweak the metamagics with that in mind. Can change metamagics on one spell after a long rest. Slim down the sorcerer spell list and give 2 themed spells between levels 1 and 5 like the clockwork and aberrant mind. 

Warlock - Eldritch blast is a feature and not a spell, hexblade gets rolled into blade pact, invocations that grant spells are either at-will or get a free cast of the spell as well as adding to your spell list.

Wizard - PHB wizards treat all spells of their chosen school as memorized. Non-PHB wizards pick two schools that they can memorize up to class level number of spells from. All wizards can memorize an additional Int Mod number of spells from any school. Add a few more Divination spells so that subclass has at least 20. Each subclass gets a short rest feature because it's ridiculous how much of this class is long rest focused.


----------



## steeldragons

*Class Group**Base Class**Prime Ability*/HD*Specialist Class**Abilities**Specialist
Feature**Archetype Class**MAD**Signature Feature*Warriors: Combat ExpertiseFighterStr/d12CavalierStr + ChaCode of HonorBarbarianStr + Con + ?Battle Rage, Clan BoonsSwashbucklerStr + DexSwash & PanacheMartial AdeptStr + Dex + WisManeuvers, Martial Way Rogues: Skill ExpertiseThiefDex/ d10AcrobatDex + StrAcrobatic TricksRangerDex + Con + IntWilderknacks, Favored FoesRakeDex + ChaInteraction
TricksShadow Adept (Ninja)Dex + Str + ChaInfiltration, Shadow WaysMystics: Support ExpertiseClericWis/d8TemplarWis + StrChannel SmitesDruidWis + Con + ? (Int?)Nature Magic, Channel NatureInquisitorWis + DexChannel JudgementsBardWis + Cha + Dex Bardic Magic, Channel InspirationWizards: Magic ExpertiseMageInt/d6IllusionistInt + DexIllusion Magic/ PowersPsychicInt + Con + ChaMind Talents, Discipline PowersSwordmageInt + StrMartial Skill/ Occult PowersWitchInt + Wis + DexWitch's Crafts, Coven Powers

Yeah. That'll do.

Oh wait! That's my game.


----------



## cbwjm

Although I've said it before, especially after reading through various PF2e archetypes, I'd want to rejog each class so that they gain subclasses at 1st level and at the same rate as each other which would allow for implementation of cross-class subclasses. I'd have at least 5 levels of subclass features as well so that it better flavours the base class. 

People want a warlord, I still wouldn't include it as a base class, but I would include it as one of the base archetypes which could be picked up by any class (this is how it sits in PF2e, as the marshal archetype).

I'd get rid of the 1/3rd-caster progression and instead boost them all up to half-caster, I'd probably also just give them a spellbook. 

I'd change warlocks so that eldritch blast is similar to a force fire bolt, no multiattack. Then I'd change all of their invocations that affect eldritch blast and have them affect all of their cantrips.

Even though I think a few classes could be merged with archetypes for specific flavour, I'd probably keep all of the current dnd classes. I feel like they've become firmly entrenched and don't really feel the need to reduce them down to fewer classes.


----------



## DEFCON 1

My two main tweaks would be to first make Combat Maneuvers the main system of all weapon-based classes (just like Spells are the main system of all magic-using classes.)  So Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Monks, and Rogues would all have Superiority dice and there would be many more Maneuvers available to select from.  Especially ones that add the die to certain skill checks, as that would give all these classes more viability in the exploration and social pillars (so for instance, Barbarians might receive a free Maneuver that allows them to roll and add a Superiority die to an Intimidation check they make.)

My second tweak would be to not specify one single primary ability score for each spellcasting class, but rather the choice of INT, WIS, or CHA would be based upon the subclass you chose.  So for instance for Wizards they wouldn't all use INT... but rather an Enchanter would use CHA, a Necromancer would use WIS, a Diviner would use INT etc.  For Clerics the Trickery domain would use CHA, Knowledge domain would use INT, Life domain WIS etc.  And the same types of distribution would be for Sorcerers, Warlocks, Bards and so on.


----------



## humble minion

If it were up to me and I had a clean slate to work on I'd make some pretty major changes (subclasses at level 1 and a complete Bard teardown/rebuild, in particular), but I'm fairly sure that 5.5 is intended to be back-compatible with things like the subclasses in Xanathar's and Tasha's, so people hankering after a major rewrite of the entire class and progression system are very likely to be disappointed.

So with the back-compatibility restriction in mind, some relatively parsimonious change suggestions:

more customisability after level 3.  Take the alternate class features from Tasha's and invent some new ones, when PCs advance and get a class feature from their base class they should have a selection of features to choose from more often than not.  Clerics that can swap armour/shield proficiency for Wis-based unarmoured defence and an extra proficiency.  Paladins who choose early in their career whether their smites (and spells) are going to do radiant or necrotic (or even psychic) damage, stuff like that.  The warlock's pact boon and the fighting style that various martial characters get already does this - it should be expanded heavily and keep going later into the level progression.
more flexibility on the weapons that rogues and barbarians can use for sneak attack and rage respectively, to open up more viable concepts.
more choice in casting stats.  Warlocks can choose between Cha and Int, sorcerers between Cha and Wis, and maybe even clerics and paladins between Wis and Cha too.  The current restrictions lock out too many character concepts.  Why CAN'T I play a surly unpleasant sorcerer with poor personal hygiene right now and not have him be lousy at sorcerering?  Or a good-hearted and kind, but weak-willed and easily-tempted, cleric?
fix the berserker, give them a save to avoid post-frenzy exhaustion or something.  It's the absolutely iconic barbarian subclass, it should work.  Oh and throw the damn four elements monk a bone for Pete's sake.
sorcerer subclasses get bonus thematic spells known like the aberrant and lunar sorcerers do (i reckon you can almost take this one to the bank).  Similarly, open up the Warlock spell list a bit.  The 'all things dark and edgy and kinda evil-sounding' list worked ok with the three warlock patrons in the PHB, but they make a lot less thematic sense now that the Genie and Celestial patrons etc have showed up.
loosen the integration between warlock core features and Eldritch Blast.  At the very least, make the various Eldritch Blast invocations applicable to any combat cantrip rather than just Eldritch Blast.  My undead pact warlock should be able to throw Chill Touch around and do necrotic damage by default.  Similarly, it just makes sense that a efreet pact genie would use fire bolt as a primary attack.   It shouldn't be so mechanically suboptimal to be thematic.
monks get d10 hit dice.  At least.  I mean, they're a primary melee class, they should get more hit points than frigging _warlocks_...


----------



## beancounter

1. I would spread out all of the core/useful abilities of each class over a greater number of levels instead of front-loading them at the lower levels.
2. I would really try to come up with meaningful 20th level abilities, as many are currently underwhelming as a pinnacle power.


----------



## Garthanos

Morrus said:


> I think I did!
> 
> www.levelup5e.com



And a solid job you did.


----------



## Garthanos

beancounter said:


> 2. I would really try to come up with meaningful 20th level abilities, as many are currently underwhelming as a pinnacle power.



Make the attribute buff part of the Barbarian start earlier and give it to most classes. But appropriate attributes of course.


----------



## MoonSong

Garthanos said:


> Make the attribute buff part of the Barbarian start earlier and give it to most classes. But appropriate attributes of course.



How about making it a choice between that and something else?


----------



## Kobold Stew

CleverNickName said:


> I'd rework them thusly:
> 
> *1.  I'd have only four "core" classes.*  These would be the foundation that the rest of the character would be built on, and would set things like Saving Throws, proficiencies, and spell slots.  (These names are place-holders, I'm sure they will come up with more iconic/traditional ones.)
> 
> Warrior (martial-focused)
> Sneak (skill-focused)
> Mage (full caster)
> Priest (half caster)
> *2.  Then I'd have dozens of interchangeable subclasses. *  You would pick your subclass at 1st level, and apply it to the framework of your choice.  This would set class-specific things like sneak attack, spell lists, turning undead, etc.  A Warrior with the Barbarian subclass would play much like a Berserker, while a Priest with the Barbarian subclass would play a lot like a Wild Magic barbarian, for example.
> 
> It's a bit of a call-back to the "kits" of old.



This is pretty much exactly what Shadow of the Demon Lord does. If this is what you want, I would suggest you take a look!

Four classes, as you describe, with abilities that kick in at levels 1, 2, 5, and 8.
Race/ancestry, with abilities that kick in at level 1 and 4.
"Expert paths", with abilities at 3, 6, 9 (assassin, paladin, druid, ranger, warlock, etc.)
"Master paths" with abilities at levels 7 and 10. This can be a second Expert path, or any of a wide range of niches (blade, chronomancer, diplomat, enchanter, necromancer, zealot, etc.)

It's a great system for mix-and-matching kits to create unique characters, no dead levels (as you see) and every character develops along the same progression (which some won't like, of course).


----------



## jdrakeh

I have a rather easy approach to this: I'd keep Fighters, Clerics, Rogues, and Wizards as-is. Everything else gets shuffled off to a single "class splat" book.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Fighter: add a bunch of unlimited use maneuvers (like Shove and Grapple), some of which key off of Int or Cha.  Actually, any class could use them, but I'd probably make the Fighter base class able to trade single attacks instead of their whole action.

Monk: subclass abilities that formerly cost Ki now get one free use before costing Ki.  Also increase Ki slightly.  Add a Strength-based subclass.

Ranger: rewrite as spell-less, and make a caster subclass.

Rogue: add a Strength-based subclass, and (somehow) harder to shoot into a melee and get Sneak Attack

Sorcerer: sub-class abilities that formerly cost sorcery points now get one free use before costing points.  Also, every subclass gets additional spells that don't count against spells known.  Maybe a few more sorcery points.

General: 
 - abilities are PB times per rest, instead of primary attribute modifier times per rest.
 - fewer spells are concentration
 - ranged attacks provoke opportunity attacks
 - get rid of ASIs, feats only.  Add more feats (and re-balance existing ones), some of which have a half-ASI.


----------



## Garthanos

MoonSong said:


> How about making it a choice between that and something else?



yes that was the thought though @MoonSong if we are making it start earlier as I suggested the choice of something else might need to start earlier too.  Split it up into actual ASI's? and just have more of those comes to mind too


----------



## Garthanos

Bill Zebub said:


> Fighter: add a bunch of unlimited use maneuvers (like Shove and Grapple), some of which key off of Int or Cha.  Actually, any class could use them, but I'd probably make the Fighter base class able to trade single attacks instead of their whole action.



I was considering letting the fighter trade an attack to scan for openings which would allow him to have an extra expertise die


----------



## Minigiant

Barbarian: 
It's fixed the Berserker to make it not so punishing.  I'd add a Thane/Chief (Cha) or Fury (Dex) barbarian

Bard:
Actual music spells

Cleric:
Make whether you are a Lazer, Healer, or Basher a choice seperate from domain.

Druid:
????

Fighter:
Give it one extra fighting style. Choice of Second Wind or Heroic Parry. Add fighting styles that allow use of Con, Int, Wis, and Cha in combat.

Monk: 
Have an option of being Dex,Str, or Wis based. More ki.

Ranger
3rd subclass. Add animal, plant/elemental/rock spells to base class. Add spells to hunter and beastmaster

Sorcerer
3rd subclass. More sorcery points as an option. More exclusive spells.

Warlock
Fix Pact of the Blade


----------



## Bill Zebub

Garthanos said:


> I was considering letting the fighter trade an attack to scan for openings which would allow him to have an extra expertise die



Yeah, it’s that kind of thing I like, except that I really don’t like how expertise dice are implemented.


----------



## MGibster

payn said:


> Bard would be the only class. Every other archetype would be a sub-class of Bard.



@Snarf Zagyg would roll over in their grave if they heard you say that.


----------



## payn

MGibster said:


> @Snarf Zagyg would roll over in their grave if they heard you say that.



Is Snarf undead? Would explain the evil.


----------



## Composer99

I hear if you stand in a dark room with a mirror and say "bard" three times, Snarf appears to lecture you about soulless, dead-eyed elves.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

I would almost certainly make something that a chunk of the fans would howl about, but that's neither here nor there (since, frankly, literally anything they do, including _not changing anything at all_, would cause a chunk of the fans to howl.)

As a general thing: rework spells. Lots and lots of spells. And build a ton more non-combat capacity into every class that minimally uses spells or doesn't use them at all.

Going in alphabetical order...

*Barbarian:* Either cast _yeetus deletus_ on the Berserker and fold it into the other subclasses, or completely rewrite it so it's actually good. Generally increase the non-combat utility by playing up the intuition and endurance aspects of the class.
*Bard:* Not very much, honestly. It's quite good the way it is. I'd put it down as one of the most balanced full casters. It would be nice if its capstone didn't suck so much that it _begs_ for some MC stuff, but frankly that's so low on the priority list I might not bother.
*Cleric:* Fix up some of the subclasses (particularly Nature, Trickery, and Twilight). Otherwise, it's not too bad. Maybe consider bumping Domain up to 2nd level? Most of the issues lie in spells.
*Druid:* Rework Moon Druid to try to mitigate some of its spike-plateau-spike-plateau problems. Otherwise, much like Cleric.
*Fighter:* This is probably where I'd catch flak. Like Barbarian, cast _yeetus deletus_ on the Champion, or completely rewrite it so it's actually good and not AWFUL. Likely, _slightly_ weaken the "core" of the Fighter so its subclasses can be stronger and thus carry more weight. Massively increase its non-combat features (aka GIVE IT SOME).
*Monk:* Completely rewrite some subclasses (like the Four Elements), and make every subclass have cool non-combat benefits akin to Shadow but (likely) stronger. (Buffing Shadow too, just to be clear.)
*Paladin:* Reject spellcasting, embrace monke class features. Spellcasting Paladins are bad and should never have been made a thing. Make Oaths much more relevant to gameplay. Spellcasting can still be a subclass option though. (You could even make arcane paladins! Bring back my Mystic Fire Knight, WotC!)
*Ranger:* Essentially exactly the same as Paladin, except give it lots of love (e.g. repurpose Drakewarden for Beast Master). Spellcasting can be one _subclass_ of Ranger, not a core focus where things which are BLATANTLY CLASS FEATURES are instead presented as though they were opt-in spell choices.
*Rogue:* Honestly, not the _biggest_ set of changes, but still, some tune-ups to improve non-combat stuff and further narrow the gap between haves and have-nots AHEM _casters and non-casters_.
*Sorcerer:* The only full caster on this list getting major _improvements_ rather than relatively minor tweaks or outright nerfs. Sorcerers are much weaker than they should be.
*Warlock:* More or less unchanged, though tweaking Hexblade and Pact of the Blade a bit, and addressing the short-rest-based issues. I think Warlock is one of the most well-balanced classes in the game _so long as you actually get the short rests you need_.
*Wizard:* The rework of spells, especially higher-level ones, will result in this class being nerfed indirectly. As minor compensation, I would like to add _actual class features_ that specifically support the Wizard identity in a way 5e has thoroughly failed to do: _actual research benefits_.

Also, the Artificer frankly needs a lot of love. Despite being a half-caster it's not very good. But it's also not PHB, so it gets a footnote rather than a list entry!

Edit: And of course I would add an actual Warlord class. I had figured that went without saying, but perhaps not.


----------



## jasper

If I was in charge of 5.5E hmm, I would be taking bribes for including certain classes. How much to you really want the warlord classes. But go to# of time per your proficiency and ablitity modifier things they been doing.


----------



## MichaelSomething

I would intentionally rewrite the classes to look good on paper but be terrible in play. This will force DMs and players to stop being reliance on the rules and turn to homebrew and DM judgement in order to make the game work.


----------



## CleverNickName

MichaelSomething said:


> I would intentionally rewrite the classes to look good on paper but be terrible in play. This will force DMs and players to stop being reliance on the rules and turn to homebrew and DM judgement in order to make the game work.



Sounds like your game will sell dozens of copies.  DOZENS!


----------



## SakanaSensei

Put me in camp "4 main classes with all current other concepts being subclasses for those four main classes."

Then give our Fighter equivalent DCC's Mighty Deeds of Arms mechanic straight up. Donzies.


----------



## MichaelSomething

But it worked for Gary Gygax!







CleverNickName said:


> Sounds like your game will sell dozens of copies. DOZENS!


----------



## MGibster

Honestly, about the only change I'd make is to work out some system where each class could be decent at talking to people as far as skills went.


----------



## Undrave

Minigiant said:


> Cleric:
> Make whether you are a Lazer, Healer, or Basher a choice seperate from domain.



Oooh that's a good one! Yeah I support that idea. Make it mix-and-match like a Warlock!


EzekielRaiden said:


> *Ranger:* Essentially exactly the same as Paladin, except give it lots of love (e.g. repurpose Drakewarden for Beast Master). Spellcasting can be one _subclass_ of Ranger, not a core focus where things which are BLATANTLY CLASS FEATURES are instead presented as though they were opt-in spell choices.



There's plenty of fun Ranger spell, like Zephyr Strike, but you NEED Hunter's Mark so you can't use the fun spells... And don't forget how they essentially made 'make a trap' into spells (Cordon of Arrows or somethin' like that?).


MichaelSomething said:


> But it worked for Gary Gygax!



Except for the 'learn' part.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

MichaelSomething said:


> But it worked for Gary Gygax!



I mean, it really didn't, in the sense that the classes actually were designed to have a fair amount of parity between them (I don't believe Gygax actually _succeeded_ in this aim, but he was clearly aiming for it). That's why they had different XP tables and different saving throw progressions, and why the random treasure tables massively favored Fighter weapons. Early D&D absolutely IS a mess in terms of design, but that's only because it was very, very new; TTRPGs in general were an emerging technology and nobody had learned the tricks of the trade yet. There are several very clever bits of game design too, like how heavy armor is an XP penalty you can wear to increase survival (because it is literally HEAVY, so it eats into the GP you can bring out of the murder hole...and GP is XP.)

The game has never been _designed_ to look good on paper and be utterly awful to actually use. Ever. It's just gone from wild and wooly with few past experiences to draw upon, to storied and experienced.

I guarantee that your intent to make a game that reads well but plays poorly without constant DM intervention would not succeed overall. First, because people are better at reading mechanics than you think they are, and second, because even if you succeeded, you would just convince most people to quit rather than to struggle on...and DMs in particular would become even more scarce than they are today.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I would like to see martials have some kind of abilities (maybe stances) that require concentration.  I would like the monk to spend ki points activating magical stances instead of one-shot abilities.  You can take as many stances per long rest as your proficiency bonus (one at a time because of concentration).   The idea is that fighters and monks and whatnot can pull off all kinds of crazy moves until they get hit (and since most martials have good con, it will need to be a big hit).

For warlocks, I would like to double down on laziness.  You become a warlock because you don't want to spend years studying magic, praying to gods, or getting beat up (I mean trained) by some sadistic weapons master or blind monk who calls you grasshopper.  Otherworldly form becomes the main feature.  For example, fiend form lets you use your charisma modifier for your strength modifier (who's the strongest now, steroid freak warrior dude?), and you can use invocations to be more like your favorite demon or devil.  Fey form lets you replace your dex modifier with your charisma one (warlock archer for the win), undead form replaces your con modifier with your cha modifier (and throws in a bunch of temp hit points) and you can go all vampire or wrath with invocations, aberrant form does the same for your int modifier (and gives telepathy; whose smart now, Mr. "I studied magic for 100 years" wizard?).  If 5.5 has primal spirits, that would be best for the wisdom replacement, but otherwise, I am sure we could make celestial work.  I imagine subtle form will be an invocation in case you don't want to look like a spike-covered, red-skinned, goat-eyed monster in fiend form, instead looking like your own self.

I will give more thought to the rest of the classes, but just top of my head, I think I would like barbarians to get an AC bonus instead of a strength bonus and make it so that every time they crit, they not only do extra damage, but all enemies watching need to make a save or be intimidated (you can decide if that is magical or not), I would like sorcerers to have a casting system where they don't have X number of first level spell slots, etc., but every time a sorcerer casts spells whose levels add up to twice the sorcerer's level, they get a level of exhaustion (and cantrips are level 0), and the wizard's spell list would be really cut down, but they would get magical secrets from bards, with the limitation that wizards less than level 11 can only magical secret spells from their school.


----------



## FrozenNorth

_DRUIDS_ no longer automatically get wildshape.  Instead, each subclass gets an equivalent that corresponds to their subclass and that isn’t necessarily transformation-based.  Moon druids get wildshape, stars druids get starry form, etc.  One subclass gets to summon creatures as its equivalent, and circle of the land gets to summon nature’s fury.  Other summon spells are removed from the game.

_SORCERER_ I don’t like the more recent approach to fix sorcerers by giving them more spells.  I feel it turns them into watered-down wizards.  Instead, when they cast spells, they can (but are not required to) spend sorcery points to increase the effect.  The riders are tied to their bloodline.  The increase of effect should be dramatic, the equivalent of casting a separate spell.  For instance, a dragon sorcerer may be able to spend SP to increase their AC, fly, or terrify onlookers.


----------



## Undrave

FrozenNorth said:


> _DRUIDS_ no longer automatically get wildshape. Instead, each subclass gets an equivalent that corresponds to their subclass and that isn’t necessarily transformation-based. Moon druids get wildshape, stars druids get starry form, etc. One subclass gets to summon creatures as its equivalent, and circle of the land gets to summon nature’s fury. Other summon spells are removed from the game.



That's a good one!


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Quickleaf said:


> I'd love a Sorcerer that (a) is easier for newer players to run their "mage" fantasy than other spellcasting classes, (b) breaks from Vancian spellcasting, and (c) actually _feels_ like it embodies the wonderful flavor text of the sorcerer.



Oh, that already exists. It's called Warlock!


----------



## MichaelSomething

EzekielRaiden said:


> I guarantee that your intent to make a game that reads well but plays poorly without constant DM intervention would not succeed overall.




But I thought people wanted natural language and DM empowerment to drive D&D?


----------



## CleverNickName

Crimson Longinus said:


> Oh, that already exists. It's called Warlock!



You might have meant this as a joke, but I whole-heartedly agree.  The Warlock delivers everything I wanted from the Sorcerer.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

CleverNickName said:


> You might have meant this as a joke, but I whole-heartedly agree.  The Warlock delivers everything I wanted from the Sorcerer.



No, not a joke, I completely agree. Now the official Sorcerer class as it exists, that's a joke!


----------



## Garthanos

FrozenNorth said:


> Other summon spells are removed from the game.



that's dramatic.


Undrave said:


> That's a good one!



I have seen summons spells used (abused?) once... yup shunt em.


----------



## Undrave

Garthanos said:


> that's dramatic.
> 
> I have seen summons spells used (abused?) once... yup shunt em.



You can do a LOT with 8 wolves, let me tell ya... it also REALLY slows down a game something fierce.

Personally I wouldn't remove summoning spells outright but I don't think I would place them in the first book in an edition. It's just a lot to manage and balance right out the gate.


----------



## BrokenTwin

Honestly, I had a big list of changes written up, then I actually went and looked at Level Up's class descriptions on the site, and... yeah. Not 100% what I'd do, but better than base 5E's in almost every way. I haven't bought a 5E book in years (and have gotten rid of the ones I did own), but I'm actually considering picking this up.


----------



## CleverNickName

Crimson Longinus said:


> No, not a joke, I completely agree. Now the official Sorcerer class as it exists, that's a joke!



Eh, I wouldn't go that far.  I can see what they were trying to accomplish, and all of the parts are there to make it work...I would just have to work a little harder to get there than I did with the Warlock.  Here's my recipe for a non-Warlock "Sorcerer."

*CleverNickName's Sorcerer*
Ingredients:

1 pkg. Sorcerer class, as written in the _Player's Handbook_
1 pkg. of optional rules for Spell Points, in the _Dungeon Master's Guide_
1 Find Familiar spell, from the Wizard spell list
3 Metamagic class features.
_Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, _for garnish
Instructions:

Add the Sorcerer class to a medium Word document, and add the Spell Points rules.  Stir well, then carefully strain out all of the chunks of Vancian spellcasting.  Set aside.
Combine the Find Familiar spell with the Sorcerer spell list, and add it to the Word document.  Consider flavoring with other spells and cantrips from other class lists.
Rearrange the Metamagic features, adding more as necessary, so that they are visible at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 18th levels.
Season to taste with new spells, subclasses, and feats from _Tasha's Cauldron of Everything._  Press Ctrl+P to serve.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

MichaelSomething said:


> But I thought people wanted natural language and DM empowerment to drive D&D?



_Some_ people, sure. And yet 5e is just about as full of technical jargon as any other edition. Remember that a "melee weapon attack" and "an attack with a melee weapon" are almost completely distinct things. (The former is "an attack made in melee which happens to include a weapon or an object being treated as a weapon," while the latter is "an attack made specifically using a weapon that is intended/designed for melee combat." You can make a ranged attack with a melee weapon, usually by throwing it, and you can make a melee attack with a ranged weapon, e.g. poking someone with an arrow. This causes unarmed strikes to be Weird, as they almost always are, because they are classified as "melee weapon attacks" even though you have no weapon, but they are NOT classified as "attacks with a melee weapon," because you have no weapon.)



CleverNickName said:


> You might have meant this as a joke, but I whole-heartedly agree.  The Warlock delivers everything I wanted from the Sorcerer.



[_Sobs openly in Playtest Sorcerer_.]


----------



## Garthanos

BrokenTwin said:


> Honestly, I had a big list of changes written up, then I actually went and looked at Level Up's class descriptions on the site, and... yeah. Not 100% what I'd do, but better than base 5E's in almost every way. I haven't bought a 5E book in years (and have gotten rid of the ones I did own), but I'm actually considering picking this up.



Struck me as a good starting point with plenty of subtle things that can do a lot of healthy impact things.


----------



## MoonSong

FrozenNorth said:


> _SORCERER_ I don’t like the more recent approach to fix sorcerers by giving them more spells. I feel it turns them into watered-down wizards. Instead, when they cast spells, they can (but are not required to) spend sorcery points to increase the effect. The riders are tied to their bloodline. The increase of effect should be dramatic, the equivalent of casting a separate spell. For instance, a dragon sorcerer may be able to spend SP to increase their AC, fly, or terrify onlookers.



The problem with this is that it boxes the sorcerer as a combat class and doesn't address the fact tha a sorcerer doesn't have enough spells known, and it means each subclass needs a lot of space to dedicate to each spell it modifies. It also reduces the already strained choice of spells. If you get a spell that your bloodline doesn't modify, you have lost the equivalent of a full spell known. Sorcerers need more room to choose spells, not less.


----------



## WayneLigon

CleverNickName said:


> I'd rework them thusly:
> 
> *1.  I'd have only four "core" classes.*  These would be the foundation that the rest of the character would be built on, and would set things like Saving Throws, proficiencies, and spell slots.  (These names are place-holders, I'm sure they will come up with more iconic/traditional ones.)
> 
> Warrior (martial-focused)
> Sneak (skill-focused)
> Mage (full caster)
> Priest (half caster)
> *2.  Then I'd have dozens of interchangeable subclasses. *  You would pick your subclass at 1st level, and apply it to the framework of your choice.  This would set class-specific things like sneak attack, spell lists, turning undead, etc.  A Warrior with the Barbarian subclass would play much like a Berserker, while a Priest with the Barbarian subclass would play a lot like a Wild Magic barbarian, for example.
> 
> It's a bit of a call-back to the "kits" of old.




In theory I love this idea. 

In practice I fear it would come down to the same thing that the early City of Heroes (if anyone remembers that) game faced in early development. 

For those who do not know, COH was a superhero MMO that, in early Alpha, did much the same thing: you had a basic chassis, then could pick and choose from dozens of super powers. The problem they noted was that, even when offered dozens of choices, all the players chose ONE build: the flying tank-mage, which was the most optimal damage-dealing/damage-resisting thing you could create, and ignored everything else. 

And, as I recall, the exact same thing happened with 'kits'. (Complete Book of Elves, I'm looking at you, sir, specifically)


----------



## MichaelSomething

Since many DMs find themselves unable to properly challenge 5E PCs, I'll include massive nerfs to all PC classes.


----------



## Blue

I'd redo the spell slot list to have a lot less total slots Tier 2 and upwards.  Start dropping low level slots as we're picking up higher ones.  Use that as a big part of the recalibration towards less combat encounters per day.  Other parts include continuing the replacement of short-rest powers with [PROF] times per day.

Can I add a pet class?  With a thematic choice at level 1 (necro, woodland, fey, etc) that starts with a "faithful companion", and at 3rd you get to pick summons vs. permanent - summon-able scouts/meatshields or your permanent companion turning more serious.  The companion one would have levels with various transformative options like growing large enough to use as your mount, etc.  All of them would be from templates with changes from the level 1 theme choice.

I'd also make sure to move back some too powerful level 1 & 2 powers that get multiclass dipped for often, with hexblade being the worst offender but basic cleric and fighter are also on the list.  The idea that you don't get your subclass defining powers until later is pure genius from a preventing-dips perspective.


----------



## Ayeffkay

Artificer - delete it.  Save it for the "Over-the-hill-wizard's Bucket of Ideas That Weren't Good Enough for the First Book" supplement.

Barbarian - delete it and make it a subclass of fighter

Bard - make it more like warlock than just "wizard that sings".  I like the idea from OP of songs that you refresh from round to round, but I don't know if that's fun to play (waiting for your turn and then "i keep singing").  remove auto rapier proficiency, if you want the one perfect weapon for your not-really-martial character, you have to spend something to get it or live with simple weapons

Cleric - make being support fun instead of making cleric just another dps.  if healing or damage prevention had some tactical space that would help, but the thing clerics are the best at (healing) is only a good strategy if your friend is dead.

Druid (and some others, like Find Familiar or Conjure Elemental) - remove all reliance on Challenge Rating.  It's a bad system, and worse if it's player facing.  Tasha's did this right for beastmaster ranger, and druid should get the same treatment.  Also, delete druid and make it a subclass of cleric

Fighter - anyone can do what 5e Battlemasters can do, Battlemasters are just better at it.  Tripping and Feinting aren't the sole property of the Battlemaster.

Monk - delete it and make it a subclass of fighter.  Or just delete it.  The class design is absolute crap, the subclasses hardly add anything to the base class, indicating that there's not enough interesting design space here to make it a full class with a variety of subclasses.

Paladin - tune down divine smite, or tune down divine smite crits.  Make the smite spells useful.

Ranger - Spell-less by default.  Some spell-like abilities, and a subclass that leans into spellcasting.

Rogue - Have a system for stealth/vision that isn't an adjudication headache.  remove auto rapier proficiency, if you want the one perfect weapon for your not-really-martial character, you have to spend something to get it or live with simple weapons.  Make sneak attack feel less generic.  Put in more ways to earn sneak attack through smart play, and remove the absolutely mindless "my friend is nearby" trigger we have now.

Sorcerer - delete it and make it a subclass of wizard, or actually make them distinct.  Wizard and Warlock are distinct, sorcerer is like a naughty word version of wizard with a little warlock flavor.

Warlock - kill eldritch blast, make all available shooty shoot cantrips work as split rays based on warlock level (not character level).  Be int-based.  Do something else with their spell slots, but 2 per short rest feels bad.  Lower the level 1-3 power and raise the 6-20 power so they're not just a dip.

Wizard - you've got 8 nearly identical subclasses in the PHB.  It doesn't really matter what kind of wizard you are, at the end of your day your fireballs still do 8d6 damage.  That's a waste of pages.  Make that specialty choice matter.  Boost spells of your school and nerf spells of the other schools, maybe something like "spells of your specialty school are upcast one level for free; spells not of your specialty school do not benefit from upcasting".

Help DMs actually make player decisions have ramifications rather than handwaving everything and letting the game design burden fall on DMs.  Looking at you, warlock-paladins, but every class should actually pay a price for multiclassing.  Giving up worthless capstones is not a price.

Half-casters have to go.  Nth level pal/rgr spells are designed with the knowledge that you get them when wizards are getting 2Nth level spells, so sometimes they are stronger than other Nth level spells.  Then, some intern 6 years later thinks "here's a healing spell clerics don't have?  well, let's make that available to clerics" without thinking about the reason it's exclusive to pal/rgr and somehow it gets published!

Make all classes MAD.  Martials in 5e at least have to decide between Stat1 that increases their melee damage and Stat2 that increases their melee damage and ranged damage and AC and initiative and several useful skills.  Full casters each have one stat that matters, then CON and DEX as desired, dump the rest.  Make each mental stat have a value for martials, and they choose which one of those 3 they can afford to focus on.  Make CON not universally the second best stat.  Nerf DEX.


----------



## Zardnaar

Look at a class tier list and remove all the D and S tier options. 

 Rework the moon druid or just replace it.


----------



## Blue

Undrave said:


> *Bard: *I think what bards need are ‘song’ spells that are basically powerful buffs that need an action to maintain longer than a turn. Making these exclusives to the class would give it the ‘bardic song’ feel that some folks felt was missing. Would also make Toll the Dead a PHB spells for Bard and Cleric.



How do we make this so that the player feels they are participating?  In other words, every 10 minutes when it comes back to your action in combat "I maintain my song and move.  Next." is a non-starter.  How do you envision these so that they are interesting to the player?

We already have Concentration spells which are powerful and ongoing, but allow full use of action.  Much more powerful than them, to be equal to a Concentration spell plus a full action, might be balanced, but would probably still be boring.  How do you envision these to be both balanced and fun to play?


----------



## MoonSong

Blue said:


> How do we make this so that the player feels they are participating?  In other words, every 10 minutes when it comes back to your action in combat "I maintain my song and move.  Next." is a non-starter.  How do you envision these so that they are interesting to the player?
> 
> We already have Concentration spells which are powerful and ongoing, but allow full use of action.  Much more powerful than them, to be equal to a Concentration spell plus a full action, might be balanced, but would probably still be boring.  How do you envision these to be both balanced and fun to play?



Maybe something more involved. Like you need to increase or decrease the intensity by using accords (mini cantrips) you keep a bigger picture benefit going and these effects increase or release the intensity. Some might need a certain intensity to be used. If you release too much intensity, the song ends? You could use a die to keep track.


----------



## Baron Opal II

Let's see...

Make sorcerer a sub-class of wizard.
Make barbarian a sub-class of fighter.
Re-contextualize the warlock as part binder. They don't have a single pact, but several. Balancing these pacts and the favors their patrons are owed would be an interesting complexity. Attempt to make them a "half-way point" between the spectrum of cleric to wizard.
Limit cantrips to proficiency + attribute mod times per day.

Put some serious thought into long and short rests. What would the classes look like as all long rests? All short rests? AD&D had a little table to mentioned the time required to regain spells of a given level, higher level taking longer. Maybe that would be a means for wizards to regain spells through short rests in place of or addition to arcane recovery. If we do have classes based on long and short rests, make some kind of statement of assumed number of short rests per day.

Have significantly less art. I don't want the text density of the original AD&D books (I can't read them any more), but somewhere between then and now would be nice.


----------



## Rogerd1

As they stand they make no sense at all, and there are too many of them.

Go Shadow of the Demon Lord and very few would have a stat above 15. Then make each tier of attribute more comic book - Athletic, Olympic, Peak, Superhuman etc.

Maybe even a point buy for feats, say 1-3 points.

Also each class has no access to magic unless picked as a feat, e.g. cantrips, chi, pact, training etc. These could also be scaled akin to Everway, between 1-10 (or higher if you wanted but it would add complexity).

Minor and powers could be akin to Modern Age (or Everway), on a 1-4 points. It just means that creating equivalency across classes a lot easier

This would allow a berserker to gain Warp Spasms like in Slaine

If you want classes to remain, there should only be three core classes, Magic-User, Warrior and Rogue.


----------



## Neonchameleon

For _5.5?_  As opposed to for my own game. My changes would be limited because that's part of the point.

*Artificers: *the Artificer is now core as are all the existing classes. The Alchemist is the default option - and gets tuned up.
*Barbarian: *The berserker (of course) needs a tune-up. For the semi-mundane classes (barbarian, fighter, rogue, probably monk and possibly even paladin and ranger) give a second subclass at level 12 to define just how you can hang at that level.
*Bard:* Minimal changes here - other than protecting Ranger/Paladin class features from their spell stealing abilities. I don't trust the skills to make a complete rework class.
*Cleric:* Do we have to? But War domain needs boosting - and nature and trickery need tuning up thematically.
*Druid:* Punt the Druid of the Land for the Druid of Spores. Far more evocative and, most importantly, gives you an option that doesn't require you to actually carry a stack of spare character sheets with you. Possibly rework the Moon Druid with stock forms.
*Fighter:* Replace the Champion's mechanics with the Samurai's - and add a bit more out of combat potential. Cut about half the battlemaster maneuvers and add the Tasha's skill ones. Add a Warlord fighting style that gives away your attacks - and an Inspiring Word battlemaster maneuver that lets an ally spend a hit dice for their hit dice plus your superiority dice hit points. Give a second subclass that you get at level 12.
*Monk:* Tune up the flabby levels 7-10. Rework Four Elements.
*Paladin:* If it ain't broke... Maybe a second subclass at level 12.
*Ranger:* Tasha's rules. Bonus spells known for the Hunter.
*Rogue:* Second subclass. The assassin level 7 needs a huge buff - as does most of the rest of the assassin and thief.
*Sorcerer:* Dump the wild sorcerer for a reworked storm sorcerer that knows as many spells as the Tasha's subclasses. (Far simpler concept). Buff the dragon sorcerer so it can actually hang in the front lines.
*Warlock:* Pact of the Blade should (a) allow medium armour and (b) allow Charisma to be used to wield it. Put Pact of the Talisman in there - it's quick. Throw out all the invocations that let you cast a spell 1/day at the cost of a slot (or let you cast it 1/day for free and add it to your spells known). Tune up both Archfey and GOO. Also let warlocks upcast into their high level slots.
*Wizard:* Transmuter needs a tune-up. Necromancer gets split into Necromancer (unchanged) and Nethermancer (the rest of the Necromancy school rather than about three spells total).

*Feats:* Sharpshooters powerful shot can't be used with one handed crossbows. Ditch half the feats - but add crusher, cutter, piercer, telekinetic, and Eldritch Adept (the Warlock invocations thing).

*Spells:* Add Greenflame and Booming Blade. Tasha's style summonings.

If going wilder:
*Two weapon fighting:* Needs a rework

*Fighter: *All fighters get superiority dice
*Monk: *Needs to be more focused.
*Paladin:* Give Paladins warlock-style casting (but at half speed) and Devotions as the equivalent to Invocations, making them much more customisable
*Bard:* Rework with an entirely distinct magic system that also uses their allies for extra effects.


----------



## Neonchameleon

I've just realised. If I was in charge of a radical 5.5 I'd ditch the wizard. Instead they'd become a sorcerer subclass - Int-based and empowered by books.


----------



## Undrave

Ayeffkay said:


> Bard - make it more like warlock than just "wizard that sings". I like the idea from OP of songs that you refresh from round to round, but I don't know if that's fun to play (waiting for your turn and then "i keep singing"). remove auto rapier proficiency, if you want the one perfect weapon for your not-really-martial character, you have to spend something to get it or live with simple weapons



I hadn't thought of the player experience... well, maybe you get to pick the target of your buff whenever you maintain your song? Maybe you can stack additional buffs to make your song unique? Like, you start the song and it's d4 to attack rolls to a specific ally, but then on the second you can spend a ressource to throw in a d4 to saving throws or bump the bonus to d6 and then you can decide to give it to someone else... the longer the song goes on, the more powerful it becomes?


----------



## Undrave

Blue said:


> How do we make this so that the player feels they are participating?  In other words, every 10 minutes when it comes back to your action in combat "I maintain my song and move.  Next." is a non-starter.  How do you envision these so that they are interesting to the player?
> 
> We already have Concentration spells which are powerful and ongoing, but allow full use of action.  Much more powerful than them, to be equal to a Concentration spell plus a full action, might be balanced, but would probably still be boring.  How do you envision these to be both balanced and fun to play?



Good question, see my reply to Aeffkay above for my answer to that one.


MoonSong said:


> Maybe something more involved. Like you need to increase or decrease the intensity by using accords (mini cantrips) you keep a bigger picture benefit going and these effects increase or release the intensity. Some might need a certain intensity to be used. If you release too much intensity, the song ends? You could use a die to keep track.



Hmm... that could be a place to reuse the old Psi Die mechanic where if you roll high it 'burns out' and goes down in dice size?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Undrave said:


> I hadn't thought of the player experience... well, maybe you get to pick the target of your buff whenever you maintain your song? Maybe you can stack additional buffs to make your song unique? Like, you start the song and it's d4 to attack rolls to a specific ally, but then on the second you can spend a ressource to throw in a d4 to saving throws or bump the bonus to d6 and then you can decide to give it to someone else... the longer the song goes on, the more powerful it becomes?



I'm now picturing bard buffs that don't just get stronger the longer they go on, but the more bonus actions are spent. The bard starts the buff but the more PCs that join in the more powerful the buff gets.


----------



## FrozenNorth

MoonSong said:


> The problem with this is that it boxes the sorcerer as a combat class and doesn't address the fact tha a sorcerer doesn't have enough spells known, and it means each subclass needs a lot of space to dedicate to each spell it modifies. It also reduces the already strained choice of spells. If you get a spell that your bloodline doesn't modify, you have lost the equivalent of a full spell known. Sorcerers need more room to choose spells, not less.



I disagree with all of this.  First, adding a bunch of spells just diminishes the difference between sorcerers and wizards, especially since you are drawing them from essentially the same pool of spells.

Second, it doesn’t box the sorcerer as a combat class.  Some of the modifications may be useful  in combat, but not all of them have to be.

Third, you are missing the point of the bloodline modifications.  The modifications are tied to the bloodlines, not the spells.  So, if you are a draconic sorcerer, maybe you can increase your AC for a round when you cast one of your spells, or maybe you add a dragonfear rider out of combat when casting a spell in a ballroom.

You get fewer spells, but you do more with them.  It’s what distinguishes you from wizards.


----------



## MoonSong

Undrave said:


> Good question, see my reply to Aeffkay above for my answer to that one.
> 
> Hmm... that could be a place to reuse the old Psi Die mechanic where if you roll high it 'burns out' and goes down in dice size?



I was inspired by the way planeswalkers work in MTG, but the psychic dice was also part of it.


----------



## Neonchameleon

FrozenNorth said:


> I disagree with all of this.  First, adding a bunch of spells just diminishes the difference between sorcerers and wizards, especially since you are drawing them from essentially the same pool of spells.
> 
> Second, it doesn’t box the sorcerer as a combat class.  Some of the modifications may be useful  in combat, but not all of them have to be.
> 
> Third, you are missing the point of the bloodline modifications.  The modifications are tied to the bloodlines, not the spells.  So, if you are a draconic sorcerer, maybe you can increase your AC for a round when you cast one of your spells, or maybe you add a dragonfear rider out of combat when casting a spell in a ballroom.
> 
> You get fewer spells, but you do more with them.  It’s what distinguishes you from wizards.



I disagree with the fundamental idea that sorcerers aren't crippled right now with a lack of spells. And with the idea that in order to make wizards feel special we need to keep sorcerers crippled. The idea that a wizard should be able to _prepare_ more spells than a sorcerer has _known_, and the idea that a sorcerer should know fewer spells than a _ranger_ (as is currently the case for the classic sorcerers) are to me both ridiculous. And it's not as if the wizard doesn't have e.g. the ability to learn a lot more spells, and ritual casting.

If there are bloodline modifications done well then I'll look at them. But the dragonfear rider out of combat sounds like a complete liability. Increasing your AC for a round isn't that great.


----------



## MoonSong

FrozenNorth said:


> I disagree with all of this. First, adding a bunch of spells just diminishes the difference between sorcerers and wizards, especially since you are drawing them from essentially the same pool of spells.



It is a difference, but it isn't a fun difference. A crippled spell selection makes the sorcerer harder to play and less fun to play. Two more spells known across the levels would really help to make sorcerer more accessible. As it is now, you don't have enough to fill a single niche and still do thematical stuff.

One reason Divine soul is leagues better than the three subclasses that preceded it.


----------



## Neonchameleon

MoonSong said:


> It is a difference, but it isn't a fun difference. A crippled spell selection makes the sorcerer harder to play and less fun to play. Two more spells known across the levels would really help to make sorcerer more accessible. As it is now, you don't have enough to fill a single niche and still do thematical stuff.
> 
> One reason Divine soul is leagues better than the three subclasses that preceded it.



Band aids don't fix bullet holes. The divine soul sorcerer has fixed the spell selection problem - but you can still only know level+2 spells total (up to level 11)- or about two spells per spell level. You also need to actually _know_ more spells, which takes the Aberrant Mind or Clockwork Soul. Both of which know extra spells _and_ have a spell list that's not just a crippled version of the wizard spell list.

And one thing having powerful subclasses and a weak base class allows is more variety between subclasses (an issue with the wizard class). I'd love to see a dragon soul sorcerer that, instead of giving more spells known, was actually formidable in melee, for example almost continually breathing.


----------



## MoonSong

Neonchameleon said:


> Band aids don't fix bullet holes. The divine soul sorcerer has fixed the spell selection problem - but you can still only know level+2 spells total (up to level 11)- or about two spells per spell level. You also need to actually _know_ more spells, which takes the Aberrant Mind or Clockwork Soul. Both of which know extra spells _and_ have a spell list that's not just a crippled version of the wizard spell list.
> 
> And one thing having powerful subclasses and a weak base class allows is more variety between subclasses (an issue with the wizard class). I'd love to see a dragon soul sorcerer that, instead of giving more spells known, was actually formidable in melee, for example almost continually breathing.



It is a self-perpetuating problem. Favored Soul and Draft Storm Magic where basically balanced with what you'd get from Cleric Subclasses. But because Dragon Magic was bad (ok it was good, until the designers pointed out we were playing it wrong and patched it back into sucking) and Wild Magic was unplayable, they were deemed too strong and weren't allowed to stand.

Divine Soul doesn't solve the issue, but the extra spell known + Mage initiate gives you two extra spells known which is some breathing room.


----------



## Clint_L

I would give the monk d10 hit dice, bump up their damage dice by one dice type (so d6, d8, d10, d12), maybe add their wisdom bonus to ki points to fix how boring they are until level 5 or so, and definitely limit stunning strike to one attempt per round.

I would drastically simplify weapons. For melee there would be small weapons (+damage type) D6, single handed weapons (+ damage type) D8 and two handed weapons (+damage type) D12. The range would be the same for all of them.

For ranged there would be light (D6) and heavy (D10), with different ranges attached.


----------



## d24454_modern

I’d bump Barbarian up to d20 and Fighter to d12.


----------



## Horwath

Everyone is proficient with all weapons.
All weapons are at martial "power level" with a bump in damage die for all non-finesse weapons:
Longsword/warhamme/battleaxe from 1d8 to 1d10
greataxe/greatsword/maul from 1d12/2d6 to 2d8
etc...

no armor proficiency, all armors have min str score:
from padded at STR 8 to full plate at STR 18


----------



## Neonchameleon

MoonSong said:


> It is a self-perpetuating problem. Favored Soul and Draft Storm Magic where basically balanced with what you'd get from Cleric Subclasses. But because Dragon Magic was bad (ok it was good, until the designers pointed out we were playing it wrong and patched it back into sucking) and Wild Magic was unplayable, they were deemed too strong and weren't allowed to stand.
> 
> Divine Soul doesn't solve the issue, but the extra spell known + Mage initiate gives you two extra spells known which is some breathing room.



Not entirely self-perpetuating. As mentioned the Tasha's subclasses realised it was a problem and dealt with it - as did the UA moon sorcerer in the Dragonlance Unearthed Arcana. 

Tasha's of course also boosted the cleric subclasses. I think they needed it although not as much as the sorcerer.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

the base fighter would look a lot like the Knight background/bonus feat from new UA. You get a few Superiority dice and some preset choice A/B as you level... subclasses would then open up more options. The battle master could take any.


----------



## kapars

I’ve started reading OSE and I love that at level 9 ish it is written into the rules that you get a keep, stronghold, school etc. I know the DM could just do this but having it written into the class features gives it more prominence. Right now I think only high level full casters get this kind of thing via spells. I’d like this to be added to all classes even if just as an optional feature and a nod to older editions for the anniversary.


----------



## Haiku Elvis

Parmandur said:


> - On that note, all Classes take their Subclass at Level 1, allowing Subclass to alter base flavor more.



Lets admit it we know what subclass we are going for and set up their background from the start 99% of the time so why wait until 3rd level until you get to be who you are pretending to be for the first few sessions.


----------



## d24454_modern

Haiku Elvis said:


> Lets admit it we know what subclass we are going for and set up their background from the start 99% of the time so why wait until 3rd level until you get to be who you are pretending to be for the first few sessions.



Alternatively, you can just start out at Level 3 anyways since backstories are often elaborate enough that you should’ve gained a level anyways.


----------



## Parmandur

Haiku Elvis said:


> Lets admit it we know what subclass we are going for and set up their background from the start 99% of the time so why wait until 3rd level until you get to be who you are pretending to be for the first few sessions.



Yeah, I've heard the designers admit that their initial "training Levels" idea didn't work out, and people were choosing their Subclass at Level 1. So fixing that would be nice, if they do anything so drastic. Maybe rename them "archetypes" instead of "Subclass"


----------



## d24454_modern

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, I've heard the designers admit that their initial "training Levels" idea didn't work out, and people were choosing their Subclass at Level 1. So fixing that would be nice, if they do anything so drastic. Maybe rename them "archetypes" instead of "Subclass"



So, basically Pathfinder?


----------



## Parmandur

d24454_modern said:


> So, basically Pathfinder?



Um, no.


----------



## Eltab

I liked the Druid _wildshape_ from 4e, where you changed your fluff but kept your stats.  (I may be weird that way.)  At higher levels you can add Fly or Swim or Desert Adaptation or Hold Breath to yourself.  When every L3 druid from every corner of the world turns into Grizzly Bear as first choice, the mechanics are not working with the story.

Rangers should get bonuses from Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy, in combat and in exploration / travel.  Hunters Mark should be a class feature, like the monster slayer's Ire is.

Sorcerer would get Spell Points, rechargeable per rest (half per short rest?).  Each subclass should add themed spells - hhhhhhhhellllllo, Dragon Breath - and the base class lets you pick more.  I would put Dragonblood and Elemental subclasses in the PHB.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Instead of mechanical changes in the PHB, I focus on the greatest factor in the game; the DM! I would have a chapter in the DMG on how to run/adjust the game with the presence/absence of the classes. Tips like how to encourage the Fighter to stunt, why you need anti magic zones, how to incoporate a Cleric's gods, etc.


----------



## Minigiant

Haiku Elvis said:


> Lets admit it we know what subclass we are going for and set up their background from the start 99% of the time so why wait until 3rd level until you get to be who you are pretending to be for the first few sessions.



How bout not play complex concepts at level 1?

Really the #1 thing I'd do is make ever class have 3 parts like the Warlock (Class Subclass Specialty) over the first 3 levels.


Level 1
Choose Race or Lineage 
Choose Subrace

Choose Class
Determine Ability Scores
Choose Background or Feat
Choose Setting Specific Boon if Applicable

Level 2
Choose Subclass (ie Life, Light, Nature, etc)

Level 3
Choose Specialty (ie Healer, Inquisitor, Runepriest, or Warpriest,)

Level 4
Choose Ability Score Increase or Feat


----------



## Undrave

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, I've heard the designers admit that their initial "training Levels" idea didn't work out, and people were choosing their Subclass at Level 1.



What did they expect?! They playtested with people who would plan out every level of a 3.X character before bringing to the table. Did they REALLY expect people to not even look at the subclasses before playing and building their characters?? Talk about not knowing your audience...


MichaelSomething said:


> Tips like how to encourage the Fighter to stunt, why you need anti magic zones,



Or maybe design a game where that stuff's not needed?


----------



## Parmandur

Undrave said:


> What did they expect?! They playtested with people who would plan out every level of a 3.X character before bringing to the table. Did they REALLY expect people to not even look at the subclasses before playing and building their characters?? Talk about not knowing your audience...
> 
> Or maybe design a game where that stuff's not needed?



Per Mearls, yes, they expected that people would think about it at Levek 2 or 3.


----------



## Undrave

Parmandur said:


> Per Mearls, yes, they expected that people would think about it at Levek 2 or 3.



lolwut? 

Oh yeah, I'll build my Bard and only choose my college at lv 3, so what if I want to go for the College of Valor and I didn't invest into my DEX or STR at all?


----------



## Parmandur

Undrave said:


> lolwut?
> 
> Oh yeah, I'll build my Bard and only choose my college at lv 3, so what if I want to go for the College of Valor and I didn't invest into my DEX or STR at all?



That's what he said the design expectation was when he discussed it on the Happy Fun Hour, aonce the vast majority of players don'tplan out their builds. But he admitted thst it didn't work with Subclass, since it was too central to character ide Tiny for more narrative focused players, oa he would have made all Subclasses Level 1 if he could do it over.


----------



## d24454_modern

Undrave said:


> lolwut?
> 
> Oh yeah, I'll build my Bard and only choose my college at lv 3, so what if I want to go for the College of Valor and I didn't invest into my DEX or STR at all?



Well, when did you decide what you career you? Middle school? High School? College?

They probably expected you to be molded by the campaign you’re in rather than choose before you had a good feel of what’s going on.


----------



## Aldarc

If I was in charge of reworking classes for 5.5, I would hammer out and polish the classes rather than reinventing the wheel. Anything more than that would risk the game becoming closer to a 6.0 edition rather than 5.5e, as per the OP. To that end, I would look to addressing recognized recurring class/subclass issues and sore spots from community feedback and internal testing, while also trying to increase new player accessibility and friendliness that may have been outside of the original scope of 5e D&D as a "legacy edition." As an example, I would utilize level-scaling wildshape templates that decreases druid player book-keeping, which should also even-out the power spikes of the Moon Druid.


----------



## Minigiant

d24454_modern said:


> Well, when did you decide what you career you? Middle school? High School? College?
> 
> They probably expected you to be molded by the campaign you’re in rather than choose before you had a good feel of what’s going on.



But this is D&D, you don't get to respec your ability scores after.  You really _can't_ because you don't usually record your original rolls and would have to reverse engineer the math.

And really, D&D classes are not Jobs. Real life occupations are simplified to just single skills with proficiency and expertise.  A doctor has expertise in Medicine and 16 INT and WIS.

The issue was 5e was designed as if every PC's ability scores were stereotypical and traditional. So the designers asssumed every bard, cleric, druid and warlock has 13+ STR or DEX.


----------



## Horwath

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, I've heard the designers admit that their initial "training Levels" idea didn't work out, and people were choosing their Subclass at Level 1. So fixing that would be nice, if they do anything so drastic. Maybe rename them "archetypes" instead of "Subclass"



They can keep the name sub class no problem, and as most subclasses at 3rd level gets several things, some can be split between 1st and 3rd level.

I.E. Scout rogue can get Nature and Survival proficiency at 1st level with reaction movement at 2nd level and expertise at those skills at 3rd level.


----------



## Minigiant

Horwath said:


> They can keep the name sub class no problem, and as most subclasses at 3rd level gets several things, some can be split between 1st and 3rd level.
> 
> I.E. Scout rogue can get Nature and Survival proficiency at 1st level with reaction movement at 2nd level and expertise at those skills at 3rd level.



My point was that some features are linked together in subclasses when there really should be 2 choices like how Warlock work.

What if my scout isn't a Nature scout but an Urban Military scout or an Organized Crime Lookout?

Like the Tempest Cleric is a Heavy Cleric. But you really should be able  to choose if you want to be Thor (Heavy armror, martial weapons, Divine Strike) or Storm (Bonus Cantrip. Potent Spellcasting).
Monks should be able to choose Dex based Martial Arts, Str based Brawling, or Wis based elementalism.
Wizards should be able to choose Scholary, Bladesinger, War, or Witchy wizard at level 2.

It also lets every class get specialized and complex at the same pace.


----------



## Horwath

Minigiant said:


> My point was that some features are linked together in subclasses when there really should be 2 choices like how Warlock work.
> 
> What if my scout isn't a Nature scout but an Urban Military scout or an Organized Crime Lookout?
> 
> Like the Tempest Cleric is a Heavy Cleric. But you really should be able  to choose if you want to be Thor (Heavy armror, martial weapons, Divine Strike) or Storm (Bonus Cantrip. Potent Spellcasting).
> Monks should be able to choose Dex based Martial Arts, Str based Brawling, or Wis based elementalism.
> Wizards should be able to choose Scholary, Bladesinger, War, or Witchy wizard at level 2.
> 
> It also lets every class get specialized and complex at the same pace.



sure. That is also a way.

IMHO. all classes should get one armor proficiency less and an option to take that armor proficiency or one skill proficiency.


----------



## Parmandur

Horwath said:


> They can keep the name sub class no problem, and as most subclasses at 3rd level gets several things, some can be split between 1st and 3rd level.
> 
> I.E. Scout rogue can get Nature and Survival proficiency at 1st level with reaction movement at 2nd level and expertise at those skills at 3rd level.



Yeah, not saying that the powers need to kick in, but the selection should be baked in at Level 1, since everyone does thst anyways.


----------



## Undrave

d24454_modern said:


> Well, when did you decide what you career you? Middle school? High School? College?
> 
> They probably expected you to be molded by the campaign you’re in rather than choose before you had a good feel of what’s going on.



Molded how exactly? You get one ASI. If your stats don't line up with your subclass you'd be an idiot to take it. This isn't high end optimization, this is just 'my best scores go to the ability I'm gonna use the most'. That's pretty baseline stuff.


Horwath said:


> sure. That is also a way.
> 
> IMHO. all classes should get one armor proficiency less and an option to take that armor proficiency or one skill proficiency.



Fighters would need more skills


----------



## Parmandur

Undrave said:


> Molded how exactly? You get one ASI. If your stats don't line up with your subclass you'd be an idiot to take it. This isn't high end optimization, this is just 'my best scores go to the ability I'm gonna use the most'. That's pretty baseline stuff.
> 
> Fighters would need more skills



Most people aren't doing even this "baseline" stuff, which is why WotC thought they could put off the choice. But because Subclass is important to the narrative of a character,  people who aren't rising to minimal optimization care.


----------



## Mercurius

Without having read the thread....

Re-work the ranger, paladin, and bard to be non-spellcasters, but with powers  that are spell-like, but distinct from the respective spellcasting classes.

I know that is already true to some extent, and unlikely to happen except through sub-classes, but I think it would make those classes more distinct, rather than "a fighter with a bit of cleric" (paladin) or "a rogue with a bit of wizard" (bard). Those things can be generated through multiclassing - the idea being, to really make the archetype of each class more distinct.

For the ranger, use the Aragorn archetype as the base, then double-down on a nature warrior who eventually becomes a primally-infused champion of the natural world.

For the bard, focus on the idea of "song magic" - that music itself is arcane, and every magical effect a bard can do comes through music. Maybe even incorporate concepts like the music of the spheres, mantra, etc.

For the paladin, obviously the holy warrior - the champion of a god or ethos. But like the others, differentiate it more from cleric.


----------



## HammerMan

Make the fighter a mix of 4e slayer and 4e warlord.  Make champion it’s own class. Break up mage into smaller buys no one of them getting all the spells.

Bring 2e spheres back (even if we keep domain name) so clerics don’t get all the spells either.

Edit: maybe make druids more like warlocks so they don’t get all the spells either


I mean make everyone warlocks works too. 2 subclass mix and match and mini feats. But at that point I just want 4 e classes


----------



## Horwath

HammerMan said:


> Make the fighter a mix of 4e slayer and 4e warlord.  Make champion it’s own class. Break up mage into smaller buys no one of them getting all the spells.
> 
> Bring 2e spheres back (even if we keep domain name) so clerics don’t get all the spells either.
> 
> Edit: maybe make druids more like warlocks so they don’t get all the spells either
> 
> 
> I mean make everyone warlocks works too. 2 subclass mix and match and mini feats. But at that point I just want 4 e classes



I wizard is too strong then sorcerer can be good base with subclasses giving 2 spells each level from cantrip to 5th level.


----------



## HammerMan

Horwath said:


> I wizard is too strong then sorcerer can be good base with subclasses giving 2 spells each level from cantrip to 5th level.



Yeah that could work.


----------



## Garthanos

Mercurius said:


> Without having read the thread....
> 
> Re-work the ranger, paladin, and bard to be non-spellcasters, but with powers  that are spell-like, but distinct from the respective spellcasting classes.
> 
> I know that is already true to some extent, and unlikely to happen except through sub-classes, but I think it would make those classes more distinct, rather than "a fighter with a bit of cleric" (paladin) or "a rogue with a bit of wizard" (bard). Those things can be generated through multiclassing - the idea being, to really make the archetype of each class more distinct.



This almost feels like what the Swordmage was instead of a multiclasser .. its class powers were all distinct and uniquely theirs as an amalgam of swords and magic ie what an eldritch knight really isnt, it is wielding magic in a sense distinct from casting spells but then again that is almost just flavor isn't it?


Bill Zebub said:


> Yeah, it’s that kind of thing I like, except that I really don’t like how expertise dice are implemented.



Well I like the exertions implemented in level up


----------



## Mind of tempest

Garthanos said:


> This almost feels like what the Swordmage was instead of a multiclasser .. its class powers were all distinct and uniquely theirs as an amalgam of swords and magic ie what an eldritch knight really isnt, it is wielding magic in a sense distinct from casting spells but then again that is almost just flavor isn't it?
> 
> Well I like the exertions implemented in level up



swordmage would be a great mechanical start but it would need something all its own like smite and hunters mark plus some thematics as the idea is fairly bland in most settings it appears.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Mind of tempest said:


> swordmage would be a great mechanical start but it would need something all its own like smite and hunters mark plus some thematics as the idea is fairly bland in most settings it appears.



Honestly "something all its own" would be the swordmage's challenge followed by either a shield, a teleport attack, or a throw and catch your sword.


----------



## Garthanos

Neonchameleon said:


> Honestly "something all its own" would be the swordmage's challenge followed by either a shield, a teleport attack, or a throw and catch your sword.



5e cut up and distributed a lot of the swordmage's stuff but you can never get the kind of ubiquitous practical/tactical teleporting for instance which eventually becomes the norm for the SM.


----------



## Undrave

So here’s a modification I came up with recently : Take out 9th level spells from the normal progression of classes and out of the PHB.

They instead become ‘Legendary Spells’ and are treasures. Spells that you can find through your quests. Maybe you find a forbidden tome in the library of a fallen Kingdom, maybe you find the spell carved in a primordial cave, maybe a Celestial beams it directly into your mind, maybe you find it within a magical item that crumbles once its energy unleashed. Whatever the case, those big spells now become a thing the DM can better control.

Instead of using a 9th level spell slot, you need to spend at least X spell slots with a total value of Y or more to use them, so they have a big impact and can still be given out to Half-Casters! Or you use a charge of whatever item it’s hidden within, allowing the DM to give the Martial Party access to that kind of plot warping magic.

If the whole party has adventured for a specific Legendary Spell, it becomes a sort of party resource so people won’t feel like it’s just the Wizard hogging the spot light when they decide to fire it off. The firing is just the final step of a full party effort.


----------



## Garthanos

Undrave said:


> The firing is just the final step of a full party effort.



Always thought raising the dead should be an adventure the first time a skill challenge the second time and maybe finally just a ritual but not at bloody 8th level


----------



## Mercurius

Garthanos said:


> This almost feels like what the Swordmage was instead of a multiclasser .. its class powers were all distinct and uniquely theirs as an amalgam of swords and magic ie what an eldritch knight really isnt, it is wielding magic in a sense distinct from casting spells but then again that is almost just flavor isn't it?



Yes, but the rules, while they don't _define _flavor, do _guide _it.

This is why a psion with spells doesn't work for many. You can't just reskin something and say it is something else.

Or to put it another way, you can get a spellcasting ranger through multiclassing, but you can't "de-magic" a ranger to get to the Aragorn archetype. Might as well start with that and then, if you want a bit of nature magic, multiclass into druid.

And better yet: Create a modular option for class-free characters that a player can build as they go along. Easier said than done, of course.


----------



## Garthanos

Mercurius said:


> Yes, but the rules, while they don't _define _flavor, do _guide _it.




This is where I elaborate what I feel is some of that flavor from the Swordmage as presented the mechanics contribution is not really heavy I think its more capability. Their blades are cutting holes through the fabric of reality and it bleeds elemental effects etc etc








						D&D 4E - The True Swordmage
					

Swordmage For me a swordmage is not a wizard who happens to hold a sword in one hand while using the other for weaving of spells. For me a swordmage is not even a wizard who channels their power through a magic sword like one might use a staff or wand. (while that is perhaps closer) nor one who...




					www.enworld.org
				




I generally disagree about the power of reflavoring in part because the mechanics under the hood is arbitrary... I mean dice vs points ummm shrug neither is more fighter nor more monk some people have just been trained to think spells slots somehow relate to magic nothing in myth and legend or fiction causes those to even make sense.


----------



## cbwjm

Undrave said:


> So here’s a modification I came up with recently : Take out 9th level spells from the normal progression of classes and out of the PHB.
> 
> They instead become ‘Legendary Spells’ and are treasures. Spells that you can find through your quests. Maybe you find a forbidden tome in the library of a fallen Kingdom, maybe you find the spell carved in a primordial cave, maybe a Celestial beams it directly into your mind, maybe you find it within a magical item that crumbles once its energy unleashed. Whatever the case, those big spells now become a thing the DM can better control.
> 
> Instead of using a 9th level spell slot, you need to spend at least X spell slots with a total value of Y or more to use them, so they have a big impact and can still be given out to Half-Casters! Or you use a charge of whatever item it’s hidden within, allowing the DM to give the Martial Party access to that kind of plot warping magic.
> 
> If the whole party has adventured for a specific Legendary Spell, it becomes a sort of party resource so people won’t feel like it’s just the Wizard hogging the spot light when they decide to fire it off. The firing is just the final step of a full party effort.



This is a cool idea, though I'd probably keep 9th level spells and instead use this for spells of 10th level or higher. 

I'd quite like to bring epic spells back in, with all of their requirements though I doubt I'll be playing at a level where players would be able to make use of them. I have made use of rituals that anyone can use, they tend to require more set up than a typical ritual spell, and some of them probably aren't going to be used by a heroic party (I had one which required the sacrifice of a family member to rip open a permanent portal to the shadowfell), but there are rituals that allow anyone to cast control weather, for instance, and some rituals have no spell equivalent, such as the portal to the shadowfell mentioned above.


----------



## d24454_modern

Undrave said:


> So here’s a modification I came up with recently : Take out 9th level spells from the normal progression of classes and out of the PHB.
> 
> They instead become ‘Legendary Spells’ and are treasures. Spells that you can find through your quests. Maybe you find a forbidden tome in the library of a fallen Kingdom, maybe you find the spell carved in a primordial cave, maybe a Celestial beams it directly into your mind, maybe you find it within a magical item that crumbles once its energy unleashed. Whatever the case, those big spells now become a thing the DM can better control.
> 
> Instead of using a 9th level spell slot, you need to spend at least X spell slots with a total value of Y or more to use them, so they have a big impact and can still be given out to Half-Casters! Or you use a charge of whatever item it’s hidden within, allowing the DM to give the Martial Party access to that kind of plot warping magic.
> 
> If the whole party has adventured for a specific Legendary Spell, it becomes a sort of party resource so people won’t feel like it’s just the Wizard hogging the spot light when they decide to fire it off. The firing is just the final step of a full party effort.



Why only take out 9th Level spells? It would probably make spell casting feel more natural if all spell levels were learned that way. It would also help explain why powerful mages are so rare?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Undrave said:


> True enough! It's a different philosophy to 5e's simplified design though



Was that part of the mandate?


----------



## Undrave

cbwjm said:


> This is a cool idea, though I'd probably keep 9th level spells and instead use this for spells of 10th level or higher.
> 
> I'd quite like to bring epic spells back in, with all of their requirements though I doubt I'll be playing at a level where players would be able to make use of them. I have made use of rituals that anyone can use, they tend to require more set up than a typical ritual spell, and some of them probably aren't going to be used by a heroic party (I had one which required the sacrifice of a family member to rip open a permanent portal to the shadowfell), but there are rituals that allow anyone to cast control weather, for instance, and some rituals have no spell equivalent, such as the portal to the shadowfell mentioned above.






d24454_modern said:


> Why only take out 9th Level spells? It would probably make spell casting feel more natural if all spell levels were learned that way. It would also help explain why powerful mages are so rare?




I picked 9th mostly arbitrarily, 

I just don’t like the max spell level being odd when the max character level is even  I could see the max level that a caster can learn be curtailed further, but I still like that some of your class features aren’t dependent on the DM’s whim. The everyday spells you need for adventuring should be provided, with only the big swings being treasures.

I could see this 'Legendary Spell' concept expended to cover almost all levels of play. I can totally see Raise Dead being a spell you'd need to find first. It could be a good way to expend the ritual system to feel more exciting, with lost rituals making up the bulk of legendary spells. Maybe have the rituals cost hit dice so that the whole party can contribute. You want those magical flying horses for the whole party? Well, somebody’s gotta bleed a little first!



Micah Sweet said:


> Was that part of the mandate?



I wouldn't foresee a 5.5 ditching the simplicity of 5e.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Undrave said:


> I wouldn't foresee a 5.5 ditching the simplicity of 5e.



Ah, but if I was in charge of 6e, I wouldn't feel beholden to their design philosophy, especially if, as you say, backwards compatibility isn't necessary.


----------



## Professor Murder

My big change, off the cuff:
Remove spellcasting from the Ranger base class. Beef up the Fighter non-combat features to be in line with the Rangers. 
Retool both Fighter and Ranger so Fighter is expressly the Martial class based on STR and Ranger for DEX.


----------



## MoonSong

Professor Murder said:


> Retool both Fighter and Ranger so Fighter is expressly the Martial class based on STR and Ranger for DEX.



You had me until this part...


----------



## Micah Sweet

I would take a page from superhero rpgs and create a new class, call it the warrior, that allows for superhuman/supernatural abilities without spells.  Subclasses would allow for different kinds of hero-types (blasters, brawlers, skirmishes, etc.).  It would allow for a psionics-type character as well.  Basically, the core would be extremely modular.

Most of WotC's customers seems pretty happy with what they've got, so only minor tweaks are needed.


----------



## Professor Murder

MoonSong said:


> You had me until this part..



Just feel the fighter covering both Str and Dex concepts makes less and less sense to me as time goes on.


----------



## MoonSong

Professor Murder said:


> Just feel the fighter covering both Str and Dex concepts makes less and less sense to me as time goes on.



Ranger has too much baggage for it to be the sole skirmisher, swashbuckler, dagger fighter and archer. I'd be a fan of splitting fighter into a heavy weapon and a light weapon classes, but the ranger is just not the latter.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> Was that part of the mandate?




I think yes. There is nothing to gain by turning 5e into LevelUp.
In the end, there are two losers:
Enworld, because WotC took their niche, and WotC, because they lose all the customers who actually like the game as it is.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think yes. There is nothing to gain by turning 5e into LevelUp.
> In the end, there are two losers:
> Enworld, because WotC took their niche, and WotC, because they lose all the customers who actually like the game as it is.



Well fair enough, but I have no interest in pushing simplicity as the governing design metric.


----------



## Aldarc

Professor Murder said:


> Just feel the fighter covering both Str and Dex concepts makes less and less sense to me as time goes on.





MoonSong said:


> Ranger has too much baggage for it to be the sole skirmisher, swashbuckler, dagger fighter and archer. I'd be a fan of splitting fighter into a heavy weapon and a light weapon classes, but the ranger is just not the latter.



Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved basically retooled the Fighter and Rogue slightly, so that the Warmain was the heavily armored STR warrior, while the Unfettered was the swashbuckling, roguish DEX warrior.


----------



## Minigiant

Professor Murder said:


> Just feel the fighter covering both Str and Dex concepts makes less and less sense to me as time goes on.



Wrong Axis

The fighter covering both Simple and Complex concepts makes less and less sense to me as time goes on.

The Fighter should be the Middle Ground of STR and DEX warrior complexity.
The Barbarians should officially be the Simple STR and DEX warrior.
And Some Duelist/Swashbuckler/Warblade/WarX class should be the Complex STR and DEX warrior.


----------

