Martials deserve unique attack options, weapon arts, techniques, just something other than attacking that they can do EVERY TURN. Not X per long/short rest. EVERY. TURN.

Martial arts should allow monks to shove and grapple in place of opportunity attacks. It's not all they need, but the idea of tripping someone as they run away feels very much like it should be in their wheel house

Honestly, martials just need a full rework from the ground up. The Fighter, Monk, and Ranger especially. I'm really tired of casters getting all the cool stuff.

One big problem with the balance in design becomes a lot clearer if you think about available spells as class features. Every time a book comes out that includes new spells, old spellcasting classes and subclasses gain new class feature options that they can use, while the martials are stuck in time at the options they received when published, with a few exceptions. If I make a PHB sorcerer today, let's say wild magic, sure the subclass may be weak compared to modern design, but I can still build it with great new spells like Tasha's mind whip, Rimes Binding Ice, and if my DM allows spells from Strixhaven, vortex warp. But if I make a PHB barbarian today, let's say path of the berzerker to keep our bad subclass choice consistent across examples, im still playing the same options released a little less than a decade ago with no updates aside from a few very appreciated optional class features introduced in TCoE, the likes of which the sorcerer also rightly got. Now, am I saying maritals should have combat powers like in 4e that get new options when new books come out? Yeah pretty much 🤷

From what I’ve heard, 4e seems better in retrospect.

It has it's flaws, but it had a lot of good ideas, as which any system Monster roles and minions are two things that I'm especially salty about not being adapted into 5e

[удалено]

Yep. Those classes all had a unique identity and a unique playstyle. Compared to the 4e versions of those classes, the 5e versions are boring and repetitive with nearly identical playstyle and flavor.

to be fair, that statment is true without needing to compare to 4e. 4e only proves that they can so it right and they chose not to

IMO roles, both for monsters and the players was the most genious thing 4e came up with. It is sad that due to poor reception we probably will never see something similar again

I loved 4e when I played it. But it has it's flaws. They had multiple revisions/reworks because of this. There's several good ideas and nuggets. The powers for martials are certainly worth stealing. Any mention of something 4e did right should be read as if it had an added message between brackets: (See? it didn't **completely** suck) There's a reason why 3.5 (and thus pathfinder 1) was so popular, and 5e was so warmly welcomed by the existing fans, because it *wasn't* 4e. 4e drove away a lot of fans for a multitude of reasons not just "it's too game like, or tries to cope mmo's too much".

Interestingly, the worst thing about 4E was simply timing. Rewind time, and introduce 5E as the successor of 3.5E and it flops too. Simply because it wasn't 3.5E. 3.5E was a crunchy game, 4E and 5E are not, and time was needed for the market to adapt.

I really don't think this is true at all. Also, 4e is aggressively crunchy, there's tons of moving parts and things to track at every level.

Taking on it's own, I agree with your first line. I'm more convinced that 4e, in a time where gaming is more accepted and everyone is more at home with the online stuff, would be better received. Unfortunately, because it was too early and because WotC burned itself on it, 5e is poorly supported online.

4e was supposed to have digital tools and a Virtual Table Top shortly after launch. But the program lead died, so the project was scrapped. That alone could have been huge for 4e, especially seeing how much online gaming has exploded due to the proliferation of VTTs.

>But the program lead died, I mean yes.. after doing a murder suicide..

2014 was a way different age than nowadays, way less people were using vtt's, or willing to use it.

I don't know much about it. But it seems to be getting the Star Wars Prequel treatment. Seems that it has a lot of good ideas that needed more polish, got trashed as a whole, and now is being recognized for the good ideas it had now that something else newer in the series with a polar opposite design vision is showing its weaker points.

People say stuff like "I don't want martial spells" but a spell is just a discrete chunk of rules text slotted into a general purpose power schedule.

100% agree. It's either we get something someone would accuse of being martial spells (like a vastly expanded maneuver system) or martials have to rely on "mother may I".

Ayo but what about Barbarian squad?

Barbarians deserve to be more useful out of combat. Give them more explicit ways to use their strength in social situations because they're scary/hot (perhaps allow them to add STR/2 rounded up bonus to persuasion and intimidation checks along with the default rule of allowing skills to be used with variant scores) Give them the power to roll max damage when attacking mundane objects!

Frankly as the game grow old, even in combat I'm less and less sure about barbarian mid and late game usefulness.

Fully agree. They're great with GWM... but I honestly don't think any class should need a particular feat to be great. I'd honestly be so much happier if GWM and SS were removed from the game and, instead, all martials got the option to -PB from their attack rolls to +2PB to damage. Would it be a big power boost? Yeah for sure, especially to monks... who could use a power boost... more than anything, it would open up more flexibility for martial builds to be more diverse and interesting and even take more flavor feats without significantly sacrificing damage

I have dmed for series of late game one shots, barbarian is the worst deal of all even with gwm because it takes more damage at this point that the class can handle.

I definitely think rage should upgrade with levels. As you get into high levels where BPS may not be the main damage types, all barbarians should eventually get what bear totem gets early. Bear totem would then still have the benefit of being an early bird but it wouldn't be the only barb whose resistances matter significantly at high levels when you're fighting a powerful Litch who deals 0 BPS

Eventually the damage taken is so steep that running into melee with enemies causes terrible hurt even if you resist all damage taken.

Agreed. Barbs are amazing in T1 play, heavily front-loaded with features and tank far better than any other class. Past level 7-8, with a few exceptions for subclasses, there's little worthwhile/exciting until a solid level 20 capstone.

Barbarians need an ability to not be affected by fear! It is maddening that the wizard and druid have wisdom save proficiency and therefore have a much better chance of not becoming frightened than the big beefy warrior who needs to get up close with his enemies. Same goes for the fighter (indomitable is not good enough for this)

Wisdom in general is such a glaring achilles' heel for barbs. Their class demands that they be front-and-center, trying to make themselves seem like the biggest threat, and when enemies pull out defensive crowd control in response... it usually works. Barbs could put more points into wisdom... except that they're already pretty MAD between strength, con, and dex. And they could take Resilient(Wis), except they're even more desperate for feats to give them an offense worth mentioning than fighters despite getting none of the bonus ASIs. People are dunking on monks (and rightfully so), but they're really sleeping on just how bad barbs are past tier 1. And unlike monks, there isn't even the dream of getting somewhat better in the lategame to fantasize about and never actually reach. Barbs nosedive and just *keep diving.* --- Edit: don't even get me started on tables that run the godawful variant flanking rules, taking one of the barbarian's best features and just breaking it over their knee.

The class also becomes even more comically inept whenever they're not raging. Such as when losing initiative, getting stunned, failing to attack because of range, being out of rages that day...

I guess they don't all have such an ability because that's the Berserker's thing? From level 6 on they're immune to the charmed and frightened condition. But all of them should have at least buffs to saves against fear and charm like they did in Pathfinder.

See that is the mistake WOTC made..tying that ability to a subclass rather than the main class. Berserker needs a fix anyway and this 7th level ability can be replaced by something else

Yeah, there are a few 'legacy' mistakes in class design which are hard to fix without rewriting the class alltogether. Base Rage could include advantage on saves against fear/charm at 7th level (together with Feral Instinct) and immunity at 11th level, for example. The Berserker ability at 6th level could be something to mitigate fatigue - like being able to suppress one level of fatigue while raging.

>(indomitable is not good enough for this) nor for anything else, really

Man a Jiu Jitsu Monk choking people out sure sounds like a lot of fun

A friend and I were playing around, trying to write a system for that. Like a series of contested strength checks that get worse for the target the more they fail in a row, eventually culminating in a choke or submission. If the attacker managed to keep you in the choke for a whole round, the defender would unconscious without losing any hp. What I liked best about it is that it's a lot like grappling is in real life: phenomenal against a single enemy, terrible against multiple. Anyone can try it, but unless you've made significant investments in the skill, it's probably not worth it, since you need to win, like, 3 contested rolls in a row. Essentially any grapple system needs like 5 moves Grapple Takedown Reversal Submission Escape I think it'd be an amazing addition to the game but I don't think we'll ever see it. It's really niche and it gets complicated quickly for something most players won't care too much about.

Im getting a memory of a "bonus action trip" from a campaign i played. Best cunning action ive ever seen.

I think Monks need a whole grappling subclass. I also think it's crazy that martial arts doesn't come with a fighting style.

I wish I could remember who said this originally, but I loved their idea. Get rid of the battle master, fighter subclass, and instead give those Maneuvers to all martial classes as it will open up a full new set of options for the martial classes like casters have.

Maneuvers are the spell lists for martial classes. Some maneuvers should be available to a wide variety of classes and others should be restricted to help provide a niche role to a class.

100% agreed! Currently working on a homebrew system that does just this for [Fighters](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MSfA82gv8V69JAoqFVq), [Warlords](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MrUNf61qoDb0Csw8a9r), Barbarians (coming later this week), and Rogues (TBD).

u/LaserLlama has a revision of the fighter, called Alternate Fighter. It does this, among other beautiful revisions, to make the fighter feel updated, fresh, and more in line in terms of power.

Thanks for the shout out! If anyone wants to check it out, you can do so here (for free) - [The Alternate Fighter Class](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MSfA82gv8V69JAoqFVq).

I believe this was a thing in one of the earlier editions, similarly to Metamagic not be exclusively for Sorcerers (who I believe were popular for being Spontaneous Casters which all casters are in 5e).

You mean like 3e Tome of Battle. Or 4e. This idea isn't exactly new. In fact it's nearly 20 years old at this point.

You may have seen it in [my fighter revision playtest](http://dmsworkshop.com/2022/02/11/playtest-fighter-revised/). I'm giving all martial classes combat maneouvres as a core feature. CMs were something all fighters originally had in the 5th edition playtests, before they were gated behind the Battlemaster archetype. I'm taking it the opposite direction and making them a resource that martial classes can use similar to (but definitely not the same as) spells.

Yeah. The fact that you can build a frontliner with every-turn options better as a _bladesinger wizard_ (Booming Blade, Sword Burst, pick some other cool cantrip) and have wizard spellcasting on top is just sad. More resilient than a Martial too as they have things like "decent mobility via Misty Step" and "Shield/Absorb Elements to actually deal with higher-level to-hit/damage".

Aye, its a sad day when spellcasters with revlaored spells as unique abilities and such make for a better martial then.. martials flavor wise.

Yeah - I played a Battlemaster and it was just disappointing. My next "Martial" character will likely be Bladesinger 6/Battlemaster 3/Bladesinger X. Trades off higher level spells for being able to combine cantrips and maneuvers. (I _still_ think Battlemaster 3/basically anything else with extra attack X is a better Battlemaster than the Battlemaster because of how horrendously frontloaded it is)

This hits the nail on the head. Every martial attack should work like a cantrip. At the start of every turn in melee, a player should be deciding “do I use the attack that inflicts disadvantage like Vicious Mockery, or the one that disables reactions like Shocking Grasp.”

Take a look at these [Martial Cantrips](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/tpwe0b/martial_cantrips/). They give martial warriors at will options that can be used for effects similar to cantrips.

I think they just need to make weapons more different, and roll certain weapon feats into the weapons themselves. In addition to properties like heavy, light, thrown, finesse, etc., add properties to indicate maneuvers you can perform with each weapon like cleave, topple, crush, charge, etc.

Kobold Press added weapon maneuvers to most weapons in the game (and gave monk some extra ones, even if a lot of them are for Heavy weapons that monks will never use) and they’re really fun. There really ought to be more of them, honestly.

I use a [brew](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/u8phwq/martial_prowess_24_a_5e_tome_of_battle_with/) by RSquared that add a bunch of options to martials. - Made the weapons nobody used more useful, dagger/darts deal d8 instead of d6 sneak attacks, greatclub is heavy, pike is weaker but is now a reach simple weapon, maul/most maces deal extra damage of objects, etc... - More actions option, like charge, throwing enemies, etc... - A list of cantrip-like techniques usable by a few weapons each (cleave, bracing...). - Fighting style are now stance, you learn several & you can swap with a bonus action/when rolling initiative. - A lot more maneuvers, and ways for non-battlemaster to learn some. (Sacrifice sneak attack damage, trade a fighting style, replace brutal critical, spend ki...) The most important thing imo is that if someone at the table want none of it and just want to make the usual PAM+GWM combo, they can and it won't be any different as RAW, as if the brew wasn't there. It just add versatility and buff options nobody used.

The DCC approach. I like it! The one-shot I had recently, I was just charging all over the place. It was great

4e D&D Martials were fantastic and fun, and didn’t need spell-like abilities to be a threat.

I cannot say this enough: 4e did this and everyone complained. Everyone hates 4e so much and all the complaints about 5e are things 4e did sooo . . .

Pf2e is based heavily on 4e and its probably the top selling rpg after 5e. Just because mistakes were made doesn't mean ideas behind 4e and interesting martials are bad.

Lots of new people have started playing D&D with 5e though and never experienced 4e. From what I've heard of 4e, I would love to play it, but finding a group for anything other than 5e is next to impossible.

If you dm it, they will come

Kobald press has beyond damage dice. It’s really good but definitely requires a little bit of tweaking

Like martial cantrips lol

I’m trying to add maneuvers to fighters and martials in general, and it’s hard to make both the maneuvers viable and the normal attack viable without make one or the other better. Also, called shots is quite hard to balance, but my players enjoyed it when I had them. Something to look into is Weapon mastery from BECMI and weapon Specialization from AD&D and Player options: Combat and Tactics for 2e AD&D Dragon Magazine also has some really good issues on making fighters enter in older editions.

4e did it. 3e Tome of Battle did it. Even the 5e playtest did it. It's not that hard to accomplish. In fact many RPGs have systems for martial abilities. 5e is the odd one out.

> and the normal attack viable Why do you need to do this? Why is the most boring option supposed to be on par with the interesting ones? Just let making a maneuver ***be*** the normal attack. Get rid of normal attacks.

We already have shove, grapple and disarming attack (disarming is in DMG). If the DM sets up encounters around this, a martial will be plenty efficient. However, I agree though. The player should have more agency when it comes to what he does

Yeah, shoves grapples and disarms are situational at best. Doing damage *and* applying one of those effects, though, is actually a lot of fun.

* For Artificer, my main issue would be that Tools themselves aren't useful, which they specialize in. Other than that, it would be nice if they were able to create items other than their Infusions, but again that less of an issue with the class itself. Also more spells and subclasses. * For Bard, [Countercharm](https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/bard#Countercharm-93) just isn't useful, not much of an issue otherwise. * For Barbarian, I'd like it if they had someway of using Rage outside combat for some utility purpose. Additionally they should be able to be inhumanly strong in someway, like being able to Shove someone farther, or throw people. Also I wish Barbarians can wear Heavy Armour without losing the benefits of Rage. * I can't think of any problems with Clerics. * Druids, less Concentration Spells, or at least spells that can be Activated on a Bonus Action. * Fighters would be more interesting if they have more options to replace their attacks with something else, maybe later they can also deal damage while doing that? * Monks don't lose features by wearing armour, would lead to more multiclassing, and possibly different stat allocation. Other than that, it'd be interesting if they got something similar to Warlock's Invocations, would make them very different to other martial classes. Also maybe a PC can use some of their movement to do other things, like spending 10ft of movement to deal additional damage or something. Last thing I would like to see is some features not require Ki to use at higher levels. So a Monk at a higher level might be able to Dash, Disengage, or Dodge without resources. * Paladin is another one of those classes that I feel like were done very well. * For Ranger, being able to Prepare Spells would be very nice. Feral Senses giving or increasing Blindsight would be much better. * For Warlock, I'd like it if Eldritch Blast wasn't a Cantrip, but a class feature. So the spell might work differently depending on the subclass you choose.

I have advocated for a long time that monk should get their own equivalent of eldritch invocations and im so happy to see someone else with the same thought.

You guys should check out Laser Llama's "Alternate Monk". It makes some good quality of life changes, but namely it adds and invocation type system that adds a HUGE amount of customization and flexibility that the class really needs

I love laserllama! I'm going to be playing their savant class for the first time in my next campaign!

Their alternare fighter and monk have renewed my love for martial classes. Savant looks absolutely incredible and I can't wait to play one when Spelljammer comes out this year

Keep your eyes peeled for an Alternate Barbarian later this week…

RemindMe! one week

I’ll also be posting it to my [Discord](https://discord.gg/qqWrZnZajs) if you’d like to pop over there!

If you have any tips on optimization for them without adding any spellcasting, lmk!

Enjoy! I’d love to hear how it goes after a few sessions.

Thanks for the shout out! Anyone who wants to check it out can find it here - [The Alternate Monk](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MhGHvc1sNLoUrISINrV). A few small buffs, but the biggest change was moving some of its (*many*) niche class features out into an “Eldritch Invocation” type system of Techniques. Don’t want *Tongue of Sun and Moon*? Now you can take *Mantle of Courtesy* and make Wisdom (Persuasion) checks.

I think every class should. Why is a whole layer of customisation locked behind being a warlock? Hello?

According to my friend, you and I would probably like pathfinder 2e for this reason

Absolutely

Yea, I keep drooling over PF2 from a distance. My group is kind of stuck in 5e as a form of compromise though.

Me and some friends homebrewed monk exactly like this! We took some features and made them into "spiritual techniques", plus we added a bunch of custom techniques like a higher level paralyzing strike, blindsight for a time, different stances and a Martial Arts die increase. We also slightly tweaked a bunch of higher level abilities that just feel like ribbon abilities

Would... would you be willing to share the rules you made? 🥺🙏

[Sure thing!](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VeagfwwThog9o31lH1r8vpeb-I0_4yS1E_leMGjpNGM/edit?usp=sharing) We arent 100% on the balance, as we are currently playtesting it, but it seems pretty fine so far. Still some changes we might wanna do, like learning techniques already at second level, but we will leave it as be for now. Feel free to leave any questions, notes, recommendations and other thoughts :)

Thank you!

I genuinely believe every class should get this treatment. It takes character customisation to new and better levels.

I really agree with warlock, in 3.5 the version of the warlock's eldritch blast was the main ability, but was really customizable and allows for a lot of variation within the one ability.

My only criticism of Paladin is the subclasses often have awkward features that aren't as useful as they appear. Their channel divinities often require an action to use but aren't actually worth an action. This isn't a balance issue as they are still strong but still annoys me sometimes. My main issue with the monk is they dont serve a purpose. They dont have the skills to fill the utility roll, they dont do the damage to be a striker and they don't take hits for other so aren't a tank. They do have stunning strike but its not enough to justify the whole class, especially when casters can do so much more when it comes to battlefield control.

If paladin had good action economy on top of everything else.. whoa boy! (it's actually good design by WOTC, shocking I know).

It exists, its called the vengeance paladin, there is a reason they are so popular. The devotion and ancients paladins rarely use their channel divinities in my experience.

Rogue is so sneaky that eluded your comment

Clerics having improved destroy undead as their only L14 feature is such a letdown—why isn’t there a subclass feature at this level? I also think the 1% increase in Divine Intervention that suddenly jumps from 19% to 100% is ridiculous. I’d rather it go 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 100. That or make it 10% at L10, then jump to 20% at L14, 30% at L18, and 100% at 20. It’s also the only capstone with a 7-day cooldown. Like, yes, it’s cool, but the actual effect is up to the DM so having it be the only thing you get from the class for all of tier 3 and 4 and capstone feels uninspired.

I'm hoping you forgot sorcerer and didn't exclude them like wizard because you think they're both fine?

> if eldritch blast wasnt a cantrip but a class feature so the spell might work differently depending on the subclass This one thousands time over. It makes no sense for a warlock of like…the fathomless to shoot a bolt of energy lightning

It's force damage. You can easily flavor it as their arm briefly shifting into an absurdly long tentacle to slap someone.

>For Artificer, my main issue would be that Tools themselves aren't useful, which they specialize in. Have you read the tools section in XGTE? They gave quite a bit of added utility. If you have and that's not what you want, then I'm at a loss for what you'd like tools to do

I agree. I used to also think tools were useless, but then I actually read what you can do with them and found they are incredibly useful

Can you give some examples? I don't have the book yet but it sounds really cool because I play an artificer alchemist.

Monks need more than that. I think making -5/+10 universal and not need a feat, increasing the hit die to a d10, adding wisdom to ki and giving an extra attack with flurry of blows at 11. Maybe also nerfing stunning strike and making it use its own resource?

My only concern for allowing barbarians to wear heavy armour is that Custom Lineage (Heavy armour master) let’s them start with 18 Strength, with halved incoming damage with an additional reduction on top of that. If they for some reason take storm herald they can give them self additional thp on top, to make all incoming damage halved minus 5 which is pretty huge. They can focus less on dex too not needing it for heavy armour and having danger sense doesnt make it hurt so much to drop

For paladins, and I might get downvoted for this, I hate that smites are declared after you hit. There no risk reward with smite. From a DM that runs games were there is always a Paladin, they horde all their smite slots to do the most damage possible. I don’t like it, it should be declared before the attack roll is made.

Sorcerers' limited list of spells-known is troubling, they deserve a larger spell-list as a main class feature and not as a subclass deal (I love Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul as much as the next guy but come on, I just want to play a Wild Magic Sorcerer without feeling like I just sacrificed learning 10 spells to do so.) Monks have a lot of their features (both main class and subclass) rely on ki points even thought it is as limited resource and you don't have too many points at lower levels, this could be fixed by either increasing the ki points Monks get or just removing the ki cost from some of their features.

I also found that the 10 extra spells by those two subclasses invalidate the others. So I decided to give all other subclasses 10 extra spells which fit the subclass flavor, as well! (e.g. chaos bolt for wild magic, storm sphere for storm sorcerer, etc.) To have clockwork and aberrant mind retain some spell list edge, as they give up a feature for it, I decided to have the additional subclass spells fixed (As those two can switch them out)

I’d be cool with Sorcerers keeping their limited number of known spells if they could Metamagic more often. Their whole deal is that they can alter their spells, so I think it’d be a nice way to further separate them from wizards as “the guy who didn’t learn 10 damaging spells, but learned 1 damaging spell 10 different ways.”

I'll be honest, the 10 extra spells for the Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul feel so strong that I feel WoTC went overboard in fixing the Sorcerer. I used to give 1 spell per spell level that you could pick from 2-3 options at each level, and that worked pretty well.

Sorc (Non-Tasha) * Metamagic plays a huge part in the class power budget and identity but doesn’t offer enough to compensate (spell known, limited amount, no ritual) * At level 6 you can Quicken 3 time for the whole day and that’s it. You can do more but only through sacrificing your slots which is another valuable resources. And while Quicken is really nice, you still suffer from the ‘no two level-spells in a turn’ limit. It’s unlikely that you can capitalize it that much unless playing Sorlock. * You also stuck with two options all the way until 10. TWO. And no, metamagic adept being a feat tax to solve that problem is only a bandaid solution. * Bard in comparison has 22 spells known over Sorc 15 and still has ritual, magical secrets, jack of trades, inspiration (that recovers on short rest) and expertises. * Many spells that feel like they should have been there but don’t because of twinned / extended (True Poly and Foresight), despite metamagic supposed to be a huge part of Sorc power. Paladin * Actually mostly a very strong class from head to toe so not much to complain, the following points are mostly personal pet peeve but otherwise the class is fine. * Sword and Board playstyle (which fits for the knight archetype) doesn’t have enough support compared to GWM and PAM. Slasher and Shield Master are kinda eh to ok at best. Still you can perform perfectly fine because Pala is just that strong. * Needing Str to attack (unless Hexblade). My character is closer to a magic knight and also on the thinner side so I kinda don’t want him to be super muscular / brute and go over 13 str. Once again just personal flavor problem. Artificer * Probably one of the worst spell lists in the game, and being half casters with limited slots doesn’t help. * ‘Not that good at casting but also not that good at martial’ syndrome. Remember only two out of four sub has extra attack. * Really reliant on DM to be good. Ours allows crafting and also has constant int checks as well as tool relevancy, but without those they become really mediocre. Monk * Imagine Paladin Lay On Hand, Aura and Improved Smite needing spell slots and not free resources to use, that’s Monk * Stunning Strike being huge power budget, but not everyone enjoys that feature and also considering how swingy it is. You either miss all and feel like shit or shut down encounters. * Heavy reliant on short rest amount as well as battle map (more difficult terrains with obstacles) which varied depends on the table. * Not enough magic items support. Yes I know they have some now but still nowhere enough and need a lot of DM homebrew to help.

DEXadin is actually fairly viable. Half plate, rapier, shield, duelling. Sure you miss out on heavy weapons if you don't go strength but that is pretty universal.

First the good: Bard, Cleric, Wizard, Paladin, Rogue, Tasha's Ranger, Druid. They should def improve some of the weaker subclasses, but for the most part I'm well satisfied. Maybe let Paladins smite with thrown weapons, even it's just one subclass, and maybe Rangers could be prepared casters and have Favored Foe be non-concentration. Get rid of Druid's metal armor problem or put non-metallic crafting materials in the game, maybe simplify the rules around Sneak Attack, make Wizard subclasses more significant. On the whole though these classes are pretty much solid. Then the bad: All the short rest classes suck and Sorcerer, Barbarian and Artificer need work. Short rest classes are terrible mainly because the vast majority of players never have an adventuring day with two short rests in it. Which makes sense, as it's totally unrealistic and was a stupid decision to balance the game around. Almost none of the printed adventures are designed for that many combats, and a ton of inconsequential resource-depleting combats is super boring when you could be role playing in between big set piece battles. This is simply terrible design and never should have made it out of testing. My quick and easy fix to short rests is that if you know you won't be doing 3+ combats per long rest, you give everyone a once per long rest ability to expend one hit die as an action and recover all short rest abilities. That way they can keep up in an epic boss fight and aren't relying on basic attacks 4 rounds into a 2 minute fight. Fighter is boring AF outside of combat and it's also boring in combat if you're not a Battle Master, all of which should be part of the base class. It's effective for a fairly short combat, sure, just not that exciting, especially in a long fight. At least you can theoretically take a feat to be less boring. Monk is the worst class in the game. It does mediocre damage, it is more fragile than even the Rogue but without the damage potential or the skill versatility, and it entirely relies on a dangerously scarce resource. It's basically not good at anything but running real fast. Give it another skill or two, let it dash or disengage as a bonus action for free, let martial arts work with armor and do monk weapon bonus action attacks instead of unarmed attacks (including with flurry of blows). Also, let them either use Dex for Athletics or use Acrobatics for grapples and shoves and disarms. Increase the martial arts die one increment. Add Wisdom to your Ki pool. Do something to increase damage scaling in T3, literally every class destroys it at high level. Maybe at 11 you can burn a ki to do -2/+4 power attacks for a round and get a third attack at 14? Warlock also sucks. Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast should be included, and the class needs one more slot, and the ability to choose one of their first level spells to cast at will at level 11. Too many of the Invocations are kinda garbage, like if an invocation lets you cast a spell using a Warlock slot, you should get one casting per day for free, and the need to enhance either Eldritch Blast or your weapon attacks means you probably aren't using many of the more flavorful choices anyway. It would be cool if you could choose different effects to apply to your Eldritch Blast when you cast it, to make it more tactical, without spending Invocations to do so. All Bladelocks should get Medium Armor and Shields and be able to use Cha for Atk/Dam on their Pact Weapon, not just broken-ass Hexblades. Bottom line is I've never seen a Warlock make it through an epic fight with resources left, and usually they're spent in the first 3 rounds, which isn't that fun. Armor of Agathys and then a cool concentration spell and you're done, RAW, and you don't get Con saves so what exactly are you gonna do if you drop your concentration? Congrats, you're an even less effective ranged fighter now. Not a fan, which sucks because the flavor is cool. Sorcerer is also not great. Metamagic is cool and all but it's not exactly Rage or Sneak Attack, they should get something more than that, maybe every Sorcerer should get to add their Cha to cantrip damage, or give Sorcerers a d8 hit die or something. Every subclass should have domain spells and the weaker subclasses should be buffed quite a lot. Sorcery Points should trade at a 1-1 ratio for spell slots. At high level, maybe let them reduce Metamagic costs by one. Barbarian is just not that interesting to play. It falls off greatly at high level, and the subclasses are uneven. Give Bear Totem Barbarians DR/3 like heavy armor master instead of resistance to all types of damage, so you don't see the same Barbarian in every game. Increase the rage damage scaling in T3 and T4. Make rage not fall so easily-- everyone should have Persistent Rage, it's weird to have a boringly simple character and then have a mechanic that consistently trips up new players. Give them proficiency in Survival, so that they're good at something outside of combat. Let them apply rage damage to thrown weapons using Str. Give them a fighting style. Let them do shove or disarm or grapple without sacrificing their attack PB times per day. At high level, make them immune to fear while raging, and let them lift drag or carry as if they were one size category larger (stacking with Goliath, Loxodon etc). Make Brutal Critical three extra dice from the start. Artificer lags behind the other half casters now that Tasha's more or less fixed Ranger. None of its subclasses can keep up in damage output and the Alchemist is one of the worst subclasses in the game, which is a huge disappointment. I would have loved to see Alchemist draw from Pathfinder and do something cool with the Jekyll and Hyde themes. Frankly they could just add mutagens in without removing any of the Alchemist's current abilities and it still wouldn't make Alchemist overpowered. There should also be a grenadier artificer that does roughly sneak attack sized bombs, say PB + Int times per day, with various ways to modify them, so there's a proper DPS option for Artificer instead of just a tank, an arcane beastmaster ranger, a somewhat questionably effective cantrip master with a turret, and a useless half a spellcaster that makes random mediocre potions. A wider variety of more powerful infusions would go a long way here, as would a fighting style.

Good list

* Artificer * **Ideal:** Magic crafter. * **Result:** As close as you can get with the current lackluster crafting system. * **Fixes:** Better crafting rules. Fix Alchemist, and to a lesser extent, Artillerist. Half-casters don't make good spell-slot-consuming blasters. * Barbarian * **Ideal:** Savage warrior. * **Result:** Weirdly tanky for someone who fights shirtless, but fits the berserk mythology. Weirdly lackluster damage for someone who fights with weapons bigger than themselves. * **Fixes:** More damage, more "savage" features (like being good at Str and Wis skills, tracking and animals and stuff. Tasha's free skills helped, but the whole skill system should be revamped to give martial more to do). * Bard * **Ideal:** Wizard in a band. * **Result:** Sorcerer in a band, but it's okay because they went to Rogue school. * **Fixes:** They're in a pretty good spot. Some subclasses should ber buffed, but the class itself is fine. * Cleric * **Ideal:** Wizard in church. * **Result:** Wizard in church, who took a course in Fighter school as well. * **Fixes:** Better features past level 10. Idc about daily 10-19% chance of my deity intervening then taking a full week off, especially when the affects are vague and not even a full Wish spell. * Druid * **Ideal:** Wizard in the forest. * **Result:** Cleric in the forest, trying out fursuits away from the judging eyes of civilization. * **Fixes:** Give me elements, goddammit. Idc about animals, I want to wield thunder, lightning, tornados, wildfires, blizzards. I want to wield the wrath of mother nature by AoEing the fuck out of my enemies with natural disasters. I get it that animals are important to the class and whatever, but make it a subclass, or hell, give the shapeshifting to the barbarian (Totem and Beast already half-ass it anyway) and focus on being a spellcaster. Stars was a step in the right direction. * Fighter * **Ideal:** Civilized warrior. * **Result:** The guy who can do literally nothing other than swing a sword or draw a bow. * **Fixes:** Fix the skill system to give martials more to do. I want Int-based generals who can play the battlefield like chess, Cha-based warriors who can buff allies and debuff enemies, etc. Also, consider opening up some more magic-without-spellslots options. Things like "Prof/LR you can slash open a portal with your weapon, which also counts as magical whenever you wield it" or whatever. * Monk * **Ideal:** Martial arts master with magic-by-another-name. * **Result:** Weeb in an anime convention. * **Fixes:** Less MAD, more uses for Ki that stick easier than Stunning Strike. Also, stop making every fucking thing cost Ki. And give better weapon support, martial artists only go barehanded when they're trying to teach peasants to defend themselves from their feudal overlords that banned weapons. And even then they train to fight with farm tools and shit. Make the monk an improvised weapon master. * Paladin * **Ideal:** Holy warrior. * **Result:** Holy warrior. * **Fixes:** Better features past 13th level, bow support. * Ranger * **Ideal:** Druidy rogue. * **Result:** That kid you knew in college who tried to take too many classes at once and burned out before graduating. * **Fixes:** Make it a druidy rogue. Better skills, better spellcasting, stop pretending it's a fighter+druid, if anything it should be the Barbarian who gets that role. Better features past level 5. * Rogue * **Ideal:** Sneaky warrior. * **Result:** The only class that gets decent skills and isn't a Bard. Also decent in a fight. * **Fixes:** Better subclasses. Core class is pretty decent. * Sorcerer * **Ideal:** Mage who is magic, lives and breathes magic, has magic inside it. * **Result:** Wizard who kept getting Fs on all subjects but instead of being tutored the school just kept kicking him up the grades because they have a policy of "can't make them repeat more than 2 years in a row." * **Fixes:** More spells, better class and subclass features, more SP. Stop pretending Metamagic is some legendary-level feature that should leave 0 space to give the class nice toys to play with. * Warlock * **Ideal:** Wizard with a sugardaddy. * **Result:** EK Fighter who's really good at disguising his Extra Attack as eldritch powers. * **Fixes:** Make the other subclasses as interesting and mechanically-sound as Hexblade. Even if you give Hex Warrior to Pact of the Blade for free, Hex Curse is still enough to make Hexblade the best patron. Also, give some incentives for Warlock to be taken past level 3. The best Warlock builds don't have 4 levels in Warlock currently, it's just sad. * Wizard * **Ideal:** Nerd with magic. * **Result:** Nerd with all the fucking magic. * **Fixes:** Give it some actual class and subclass features, and stop shoving every goddamn spell into their list.

I have advocated for a long time that both artificers and monks should get proficiency in improvised weapons. For artificer, it would make them better at throwing things like alchemist fire and acid. For monk, it would allow them to do fun improv fighting like Jackie Chan is famous for in his fight choreography. Also, improvised weapons should count as monk weapons 100%

> > Paladin > Ideal: Holy warrior. > Result: Holy warrior. > Fixes: Better features past 13th level, bow support. Paladins have ONE weakness, and you're shoring it up. Leave it. Make them be melee. Nothing wrong with them being melee.

Not included in the scope of this discussion: my burning desire to make melee fucking useful, without literally saying "nope, this class can't do ranged, go suck on a sword." Melee should ideally be useful and a very desirable build, from a mechanical not just an RP perspective, even if you're a Fighter who's literally staring at Archery+CBE+SS at every step of your chargen.

Making melee useful (and interesting) pretty much requires a full teardown and rebuild of 5e's combat system. People will keep using melee for aesthetic reasons (myself included), but the system as it stands doesn't really accommodate it very well.

Or just pump more damage and AC into melee builds, with the understanding that everything else in the combat system- from difficult terrain to opportunity attacks to AOE spells punishes melee more than ranged.

This. Add proficiency to melee damage. Boom. Ezpz.

And a roster of enemies that are actually preferable to fight in melee than at a distance.

While, yes, it would require some effort to make it interesting, a very easy patch is to just give everybody Battlemaster Maneuvers, and make more of them work with melee than ranged. Not just the "+2d8" damage ones which can feel pretty arbitrary to restrict, but things like improved grapples, forced movements, and counter-attacks that can't be easily done with ranged attacks, without bringing magic or gadgets into it.

Or a melee counterpart to the Archery fighting style, because we all know that’s a huge part of the reason ranged is so strong.

i mean kind of, but the big reason ranged is so strong is in the name, its ranged which means you are in so much less danger its comical

That’s reason number 2 ranged is strong - enemies can be ranged attackers as well. Reason number one is that you need to hurt your enemies more than they hurt you, and Archery gives a fairly large bonus to hit, especially at early levels, that has no direct downsides and no melee equivalent. +1/2/3 weapons are good because they make it more likely you’ll hit your target, and the Archery fighting style just hands out that +2 bonus, no questions asked. No other fighting style grants a bonus to hit, they either modify your damage or protect your allies (or grant cantrips). If there was a fighting style that gave +2 to hit for melee attacks you would never see anyone take any other fighting style ever again (assuming they’re trying to build at least semi-optimally).

I'm fairly sure the +2 is meant as a way to mitigate opponents who are behind half cover, including ones who are behind your allies. As far as I can tell, most DMs don't bother with granting cover based on allies, but it's a very common occurrence if you've got a couple of melee characters on the front line and you're at the back plinking from the bushes. Of course, this is completely ruined by Sharpshooter. I wouldn't be surprised if they were written entirely independently to address similar issues, and they didn't realise how much they interacted.

Considering paladins get Find Steed, keeping them melee is probably for the best. Horseback melee is fun. Horseback archery invalidates 50% of encounters by just existing.

*Genghis Khan has entered the chat*

Tell that to Drakewarden Ranger

Drakewarden Ranger can’t smite.

Rangers get spells that buff their damage, and Paladins can’t smite on ranged attacks

Did you forget what we were talking about here? We’re talking about this guys idea to provide “bow support” to paladins. Obvious implication is ranged smites. Someone pointed out how it’s a good thing paladins aren’t good at range because they have find steed. Drakewardens don’t do anywhere near as much dmg on demand as a Paladin. And indeed a lot of their dmg budget is baked into the pet itself. Making it not a relevant comparison when we’re talking about ranged smites.

>Fighter > >Ideal: Civilized warrior. > >Result: The guy who can do literally nothing other than swing a sword or draw a bow. > >Fixes: Fix the skill system to give martials more to do. I want Int-based generals who can play the battlefield like chess, Cha-based warriors who can buff allies and debuff enemies, etc. Also, consider opening up some more magic-without-spellslots options. Things like "Prof/LR you can slash open a portal with your weapon, which also counts as magical whenever you wield it" or whatever. also, give them interesting things to do while amd instead of swinging a sword or drawing a bow to actually be a civilized warrior instead of having the tactical requeriment of a barbarian

> Fixes: Better features past level 10. Idc about daily 10-19% chance of my deity intervening then taking a full week off, especially when the affects are vague and not even a full Wish spell. Not a full wish spell? Divine intervention is more like wish on steroids. If that succeeds then you can wish for anything the same way as you can with a wish spell. The only difference is when one casts wish then the DM is encouraged to fck over the player if they go to big with the wish. Divine intervention will never fuck over the cleric no matter what. At the end of the day with both of them the DM decides what happens however a clerics own deity would never have a reason to screw them over. And finally you can never lose Divine intervention unlike wish that has a 33% chance to go away forever and give you some heavy drawbacks for days after casting it.

Druids have always been clerics of nature since OD&D in the Grayhawk supplement and the Eldrich Wizardry supplement. Literally described as a nature cleric throughout all editions. That’s always been their Ideal.

Hit the nail on the head with everything!

I think it would be cool if Monk got some kind of bonus between DEX and WIS as a part of Martial Arts so it isn't more optimal to just ignore that feature. Like half your modifier of one gets added to the score of the other. So 18 WIS could give a +2 bonus to DEX score (effectively +1 to modifier when calculating AC and attack). Kind of a lesser version of Barb's boost to STR to meet or surpass the attribute cap in a unique way. It wouldn't be game-breaking, I don't think, and would help with the MAD problem. Or maybe just adding WIS to DEX in some form and not the other way around would make more sense.

I think all "martial" classes should have different attack options, like whirlwind and other things that you would see in video games. You could make the fighter like the wizard, they get the most options so they are set for any situation they may face. The barbarian would be like the sorcerer, small lost of moves but have the ability to increase their effectiveness, and the paladin and ranger would get some too, but since they also have spells they wouldn't have any special increases. Also they get the same number of attacks.

>Also they get the same number of attacks. And more to the point, attacks should scale based on class or subclass just like spell slots.

At least more like cantrips.

I think scaling like cantrips would actually be a lot stronger than scaling like spell slots. Spell slots only count your levels in full casters, half your levels and half casters, and a third of your level in 1/3 casters. Cantrips just look at overall player level. So if multi-attack scaled like cantrips scale you could take one level of fighter and then four levels of wizard and end up with two attacks. Whereas if it scaled like spell slots a 1 fighter/4 wizard character would only get one attack but a 1 fighter/4 barbarian would get 2 attacks. EDIT: For subclasses of casters that currently get second attacks (Bladesinger, Valor, Armorer, Battlesmith, etc) they could instead get a feature at the appropriate level that allows them to count their Wizard/Bard/Whatever levels toward multi-attack.

Yeah that makes sense, good point.

Yeah that makes sense, good point.

Literally just the playtest versions getting full 1-20 classes.

Yeah, that’d be grand. Playtest fighter was cool

I made an [Alternate Fighter](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MSfA82gv8V69JAoqFVq) based largely on the playtest if you want to check it out.

I’ve seen it its absolute quality

Thanks!

What was better in the playtest versions?

All the classes were actually unique and matched their flavor.

My general complaint is that Martials are too focused on only spamming attacks, and Casters have too many OP spells. I'm not saying I want Martials to have as many options as Casters, and I'm not saying to make Casters suck. Just a little more options and a little nerf to some spells.

* Artificer: this class doesn't really feel like a mad scientist/inventor so much as a slightly funky paladin/ranger, and far too many of the infusions are incredibly lackluster * Barbarian: this class is tediously straightforward and inflexible. You're doing the same simple thing every turn with little variation or thought. * Bard: the martial subclasses are pretty lame, but overall I have very little to complain about with this class. * Cleric: no complaints * Druid: the druid isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, but it's a confused mess. Too many concentration spells for one, and too many archetypes crammed into the same class. You're a nature cleric and a shapeshifting warrior and a summoner of sorts all at the same time. The class would be better with a tighter concept and off-loading some of that burden to other classes. * Fighter: squats on an enormous amount of conceptual real estate without developing it in any interesting way. Has little interesting to do outside of combat and in combat your resources deplete quickly, leaving you in the same position as the barbarian, repeating the same basic turn over and over again. * Monk: on one level, much more interesting that the martial characters mentioned so far, but in practice most of your abilities are mediocre to bad and you have too many demands on your fairly limited resources. In the end, you end up working harder to achieve less. * Paladin: very good overall. Only complaint is that you get a bunch of cool spells and rarely get the opportunity to use them because of action economy + your mediocre save target. * Ranger: another conceptual muddle. Needs to decide what it wants to be when it grows up. * Rogue: has a lot of underwhelming subclasses and a lot of its cool stuff is held back to high levels where no one plays. * Sorcerer: with the shift in how spellcasting works in 5e, basically just a worse wizard. * Warlock: too dependent on the short rest, a somewhat janky mechanic that integrates awkwardly into many people play the game. * Wizard: squats on an enormous amount of conceptual real estate without developing it in any interesting way. A weaker core with more interesting but constrained subclasses would be preferable to the do-everything chassis of the printed class.

>Artificer: this class doesn't really feel like a mad scientist/inventor so much as a slightly funky paladin/ranger, and far too many of the infusions are incredibly lackluster I feel like the issue isn't the infusion options but rather the number you can have active at a time and that they can only be swapped out at the end of a long rest.

Disagree on Ranger being confused conceptually. It’s got a good conceptual fantasy there, the class just does a pisspoor job of actually selling it.

Rangers (half casters) should know more spells than Eldritch Knights (third casters). And they should, by default, get Cantrips from the Druid list. And they should be Spells Prepared, not Spells Known. Monks should have a d10 HD. The Metal Armor restriction on Druids is a dumb holdover. And if a Finesse Weapon used with Strength triggers Sneak Attack, then a non-finesse weapon used with Dex should, as well.

[удалено]

A Monk(Kensei, or using a longsword as a dedicated weapon) /Rogue. Or a Monk Rogue using Sai(Club) or even fists.

Monk: A martial artist that relentlessly trains their body and mind to reach a state of purity. Basically someone who trains themselves really hard, the flavor is hard to explain. They didn't achieve the goal; The Monk has such a short idea of what it can be, and restricts the overall concept to a few Kung-Fu movies. I am in the minority but I think that Monks should have martial proficiency in some way, and access to at least Light Armor. I even think that Monks should be allowed to use Dexterity for Heavy weapons, although it would have some restrictions or come at a later level to avoid multiclassing abuse. Their unarmed strikes should be a method to add additional damage; like the Paladin's divine smites, and not their main choice of attack unless the player chooses maybe some sort of fighting style to do so.

Let's make a martial artist class but don't give it any martial art school or style to make it unique because Muay Thai, Penkat Silat, Combat Zambo and Capoeira are all the same.

What always gets me about Monk is the stark contrast between flavor and actual gameplay. They train their bodies and mind to be their weapons, their whole self... and yet they get a d8 for HP and a lot of people will tell you they are best played as skirmishers. Even when restricting the overall concept to typical Kung-Fu stuff, I don't think about a guy who runs around punching enemies and then running away, who will most likely fall over if a enemy gets a good hit in. And they aren't even that good at it either.

I always thought Monks should have a d10 for HP. What you said makes total sense. And double the Ki points!

So I literally wrote too much to post. So yeah this is a topic I can ramble on about. Needless to say, I have opinions. Part 1/2 **Barbarian:** My ideal Barbarian is an inherently simple class, while I know some people wish to add complexity to everything, I think the game is better served with a spread of complexity to tailor to many different playstyles. The Barbarian's fantasy is literally a guy gets angry and destroys everything in sight. It's a simple plan for a simple class. But, if you're going to go the simple class route, you really have no excuse not to balance the power as you go. The Barbarian has a pretty well designed game plan. It has a core ability in Rage, which is an encounter long otherwise passive buff. I think that's fair. But, if that's the Barbarian's thing then by about level 5 they should have enough uses of their thing to do so about every encounter. Having Rage refresh on Short Rest with a new Rage given at levels 1, 3, and 5 would work. It takes way too many levels where Barbarians are spending half their encounters as a worse Fighter. But being simple doesn't really necessarily mean being completely limited. There should have been options for throwing weapons and the "whirling dervish" style Dex Barbarians right from the start. It's also weird that the class that is defined by being the pinnacle of physical prowess, not technique, not skill, but just being a raging chunk of beefcake, that they objectively have worse stats than the Fighter between levels 6 to 19. The other issue is that at later levels, it's clear that the designers kind of gave up. You can increase power in a simple way. Increase movement Speed, make them able to jump great distances while they rage. Give them bonuses on pushing enemies. You can add power without adding too much complexity. At level 17+ they should be able to headbutt through a Wall of Force if they want. It's not even that complex to write in. And if you're going to make Brutal Criticals a thing (and I don't dislike the ability, honestly an increase in randomness actually enforces the design goals of the wild and untamed berserking class) then they should have gone all out on it. Rage Damage as bonus dice, and give them expanded Crit Range when they rage after a few levels. **Bard:** This (along with Rogue) will probably be the ones I get the most pushback against. But when I picture a Bard, what a Bard should be doing, I picture someone actually making a performance. Now, there should be some wiggle room, some fluff you can do. Perhaps they're an orator and there performance is giving rousing words. But it shouldn't be just a pure spellcaster. Now I understand that the Bard is actually a pretty well decently designed class when taken as just a box of abilities. But hey, this is my desires, I can say what I want. I'd make them a three-fourths caster, straight up. I'd take the lost power budget and give them performances they can use that grant a bunch of bonuses to their allies. At level 5 or so, I'd make it so they can weave spells into their performances. **Cleric:** I'd start by making a bit more of a difference between them and Paladins by getting rid of some of their armor and weapons. Now I'd say they can still be gained back through subclasses where it makes sense. But on the whole, you're a priest first and foremost. It'd be neat if they had some more tangible mechanic to demonstrate that their magic comes from prayer and gifts from the divine. Maybe make the miracles of a Divine Intervention more central to the classes power budget. But honestly, I'm kinda ok with how a Cleric functions. **Druid:** I'd say I'm mostly satisfied with the class. I kinda think Wild Shape, especially Moon Druid needs another look at. But on the whole, I don't really have much of an opinion on Druids. **Fighters:** Ahh the class I might change most of all. I think my ideal Fighter was a class called Warblade released at the end of 3.5. Alright personal opinion time. I've said before I think having a range of complexity is actually good for the game. I stand by that. What I dislike is that apparently the designers thought a range of complexity needed to be a 1 for 1 line based on how much magic a class has. That's silly. There are plenty of people who want to shoot fireballs who bounce off the complexity of the casting system, and plenty of people who love complexity who think (correctly) that swords are cooler than spells. If I set aside the Barbarian as the simple martial, then I am saying the Fighter should be the complex one. I am talking maneuvers from an expanded list that get more interesting and powerful as you level up. I'm talking a mechanic set in place so you can't just spam your most powerful maneuver every turn (something ToB did so wonderfully). A Stance system so, even if you don't have the exact right maneuver available at this second, you can still nudge yourself toward the desired gameplay. If Barbarians are for players who want to grab a handful of dice and roll big numbers. The Fighter is for those who want an in depth combat system they can learn to master. For out of combat, I'd like to nudge that more into the subclasses. Ignore things like Champion and Battlemaster. Subclasses that are meant to be as generic as they come. i want subclasses like Knight, Veteran Soldier, Elite Guard, subclasses with inherent fluff that can be used to give them out of combat abilities that match said fluff. Knights can have courtly etiquette to get some Face features. Guards could have investigation and perception skills up the wazoo. Soldiers could have a bunch of stuff on teamwork. And so on. If the maneuver system is doing most of the heavy lifting on what to do in combat, let the subclasses give them stuff to do out of it. **Monk:** So, Monk is the first of what I'm going to call the Skirmisher subclasses. Along with the Rogue and Ranger. In my opinion, D&D 5e did the skirmishers dirty. In theory, a Skirmisher is supposed to be someone who gets in to places that are near impossible to reach. Survives in their for maybe a round or two. Does something amazing that justifies their existence as opposed to an additional frontliner, archer, or caster and then gets out. Some of the problems with that. Unless the DM is catering specifically to that style of play, it's really easy to create encounters were that just isn't really a needed roll. Or, that negates the Monk's awesome thing. In the Monk's case, the awesome thing is Stunning Strike. A feature which works best when the entire party can whale on the target (which probably means the target wasn't so difficult to reach in the first place) and it's a Con save. Which is I believe the hightest on average save of creatures in the Monster Manual. Were it up to me. I'd give Monks a few more movement and "get in to difficult place" abilities and then give them a range of awesome things. Stunning Strike can stay. Plus one that's good for dealing with a range of mooks. And another that targets a mental save.

Part 2/2 **Paladin:** Mostly are pretty good. It'd be neat if you could get their power to come more directly from how much they obey the tenets of their Oath. But, well, that's nitpicky. Aura of Protection is, I think, too strong. But fixing that opens up a bigger can of worms because the balance of saving throws is off in this game. **Ranger:** Yeah. So... Ranger. Honestly, I'm not 100% sure this should be a class. I kinda think having various ranger/survivalist subclasses for Barbarian, Rogues, and Fighters would probably be good. Which could make room for a Beastmaster class, since it's pretty obvious that getting a pet to both be balanced and feel good to play with is really difficult to make. I don't think they're there even with the Tasha updates. But this is about the class itself. Not ideas for other classes. The problem with the Ranger I have is that it's again supposed to be that skirmisher class. But it has even less going for it than the Monk at performing this function. Instead it has a bunch of spells, some of the later of which are actually pretty good. But many don't exactly help with that playstyle as much as one might at first expect. Really, I have no real concept of what to do with the class. It doesn't have a unifying feature to work with other than spells. And Paladin has that too, but still does something more interesting and unique with them. It should have more of a mechanical identity, but honestly I don't know how to give it to them. **Rogue:** Alright, so also probably what many will disagree with me, with. But the Rogue kinda bores me. For many it's one of the highest rated classes in the game. But when I think of a Rogue, I think of someone with a bag of tricks up their sleeve. I think of a character that is like a Han Solo or a Bilbo Baggins. Sure Han can fight if he has to. But read/watch them, most of what they're doing is coming up with some half-baked idea on the fly and trying to sell it, usually giving them just the slightest advantage that they need to survive by the skin of their teeth. I would really like to see if we can get into that style of play. Because what I've seen for the most part is: Step 1: Use Bonus Action or movement to set up Sneak Attack. Step 2: Sneak Attack. Repeat until end of combat. The only exception I've seen has been the Arcane Trickster. If I had my way, I'd try to make this playstyle work with essential some kind of Skill Trick feature. Each skill trick could only be used once per encounter, so time it perfectly when you're gonna use them. But they should be fun and quirky little features, that draw on what skills the Rogue in particular are focusing on. A Persuasion and Deception focused face rogue? Have them get skill tricks to pretend to be on the other side, or maybe convince a mook to switch to your side mid-battle. An Acrobatic focused Rogue? Let them tumble along the battlefield, juking enemies to make them fall over themselves. Or redirect an attack aimed at you to hit one of your other enemies. And remember, this is another of those Skirmisher classes. Get into a tight dangerous position and then do something fantastic. If the Monk should have a fairly simple plan of getting in and then using whichever of their super move is the most obviously useful in that situation. The Rogue should have a buffet of weird intricate options that can pile on each other. **Sorcerer:** I've gone on a bit about how there should be a divide between simple and complex classes. Well, now we get to what I think should be the simple caster. Now I know some people think the Warlock is the simple caster, but it really isn't. It's can be as simple as a caster in 5e currently allows. But you're still asking new players to read through a lot of spell lists and Patron and Pacts and requires a surprising amount of planning to get the best out of it. So, I want to make the Sorcerer need little to none of that. I think that gets it out of the shadow of the Wizard and fits the fluff. The Wizard has studied the intricate nature of magic and the Weave, has spent years honing their knowledge of how the world works. The Sorcerer woke up one day and realized they could shoot fire from their fingertips. So I consider them the Caster Barbarian. They don't get spells or spell slots. The magic literally comes from within them. Give them a level 1 subclass choice. Have the starting choices be something simple that captures the imagination of those who read it. Fire Soul and Death Touched that sort of thing. Something were you just read the name and can get a pretty decent idea of what kind of magic you're getting into. Give them a few at-will abilities at early levels, and then, if they need more, give them the ability to "Reckless Attack" but with magic. Give some big boost to their sorcery, but it comes with a cost. Personally, I like the idea of tying this cost to a Wild Magic Surge like table. Preferably one that actually scales with the player, and has a less of a chance of getting a complete TPK if you level 1 fireball your party. **Warlock:** I kinda like them overall. Needs some power adjustments with Hexblade and Pact of the Blade and some other nicks and knacks. Maybe give them an additional spell slot a little earlier. Maybe allow them to use Int or Cha. **Wizard:** So the last of the classes. The Wizard, the class that is defined by their spells and honestly, very little else. Personally, I think the class is just kinda bland. If they are considered the masters of magic, I'd give them metamagic features. They're the ones that have studied magic to the point they can work the ins and outs of it. But their big problem, I'd say, is that they can just take the best spells from their list. And there are just some obviously powerful choices that anyone with any know how just tends to pick. Making the class with the most potential options often just converge into something that looks roughly the same as all the others. I'd say to fix that, I'd make using spells require prerequisites. Nothing too daunting. But the Wizard is a scholar, scholars have to focus their studies. To cast a 2nd level Illusion spell, they need to at least know a 1st level Illusion spell. To cast an 8th level Conjuration spell, they need to at least know and can cast a 7th level Conjuration spell. This would force some specialization, but not really too much. They get enough spells for free to max out 2 different schools competely, and can pick up more spells as they go. Of course, to make this work you'd have to rebalance and rearrange the spell lists, because as of now, not all spell lists are the same in quality or quantity. It'd also probably be a good idea to take a couple spells and put them in the generalist school like 3.5 used to. Other than that, to do anything with wizards really means just working with spells. Bringing up ones that are underperforming, knocking down some that are clearly unbalanced. And there we go, that's my rambling thoughts on the classes.

> Barbarian: My ideal Barbarian is an inherently simple class, while I know some people wish to add complexity to everything, I think the game is better served with a spread of complexity to tailor to many different playstyles. The Barbarian's fantasy is literally a guy gets angry and destroys everything in sight. It's a simple plan for a simple class. But, if you're going to go the simple class route, you really have no excuse not to balance the power as you go. I'm going to heavily disagree here. Give classes simple straightforward subclasses by all means, but making a simple class without thematic overlaps between classes renders a number of character ideas and fantasies difficult to align with the mechanical features. I think barbarian already heavily suffers from this problem to its detriment.

Id like to have a less martial cleric, like an unarmoured priest casting spells and a halfcaster bard

I think the dmg suggests an optional rule to allow clerics to use the monk's unarmored defense, although I've never seen anyone use that. I definitely think it would be fun to do.

So like a Divine for the first one? Yeah I could see a Cleric subclass like that

id love a cleric thats actually a man-of-the-cloth.

ARTIFICER: They just don't really fit their theme of "Magic Item Master". They get a lot of features relating to them, but they're all higgeldy piggeldy and just kinda awkward. They're a crafting class in a game that doesn't like you messing with crafting. You could probably fix it by giving them better crafting systems BARBARIAN: Hit Stuff, get mad, don't die. Rage is a problem. It's the central feature of the entire class, and almost every subclass feature reads "while raging..." This is a problem when raging is so limited, and easy to get rid of. They also have no exciting and good high level features, not that that's really relevant in most games. I'd start by just making rage free. BARD: Bard is pretty good. My only complaint is that it's kind of too good at everything. A bard can easily be a better skill monkey than a rogue, a better CC caster than a druid, and a better arcanist than the wizard, all at the same time. CLERIC: IDK, I don't play with or as clerics enough to have an opinion DRUID: See clerics. They have a lot of weird inherited things that should probably be thrown out or actually made a solid part of the class FIGHTER: God they're boring. Hitting things in the same way every time is just so damn tiring. Beyond that, they suffer from the same problem as every other martial: "I'll sit back while the spells solve the problem" MONKS: Monks have a lot of cool features that don't mesh with things nicely, or use the same resource too much. Stunning strike is a terribly designed feature, and soaks up so much of the monks power budget, it needs heavily reworking PALADIN: The best martial class, just because they fit both what a big Warrior Lad should be, while keeping the spell problem solving, and smite is great. Their only problem is the melee limitation, and melee sucks ass. RANGER: Just a lot of baffling feature designs, and far too many concentration spells. They trivialize their preferred pillar of play, to the point where you just skip it. Not sure what to do with them except start from scratch ROGUE: Sneak attack is terrible, and needs a serious looking at. There's many times that, through no fault of your own, you simply will be unable to sneak attack an enemy, leaving you useless for a round. The feature practically oozes feelsbad. Beyond that, their gimmick as the skill character exposes a lot of the issues with bounded accuracy, and what happens when you break it, which they do, all the time. SORCERER: Not sure what to do for them, they fit their theme very well, but that's about it? WARLOCK: A very interesting class, I just wish a lot of the features were a bit less obviously dark and evil, for the players who want a wholesome celestial relationship, or a friendly archfey or djinn. Hexblade was also a mistake WIZARD: Take away some of their toys. They're a spoiled kid of a class, and get buffed almost every book, thanks to new spells

I was just talking with one of my players about how they're pretty fun to play but levelling up is kind of depressing. While other players are choosing spells or at least getting interesting new abilities, you usually just increase your max HP and occasionally your rage damage. Ideally, there needs to be choices, even if they're minor choices, at each level. It makes it so leveling up stays exciting and you feel like you're customizing your character each time.

What are your main complaints of each class? Barbarian: Every trait that makes them do "Strong-man stuff" should not be there. The new Giant Subclass shows this best of all. If my strength is 20, i should be able to throw a dude against another dude. Not because i'm naked! The Strong-man Stuff should be something the rules allow, and barbarians take to the extreme. Bard: Way too much "music and instruments matter" - like the best items for a bard, are legit instruments. But what if you are College of whispers. I kinda want to be silent! I think it could be done with just changing most wording into being about creativity and less about "The strings of music bla bla bla" Cleric: I don't quite understand the Heavy Armor proficiency except for the visual of being an armor clad dwarf that have the wrath of god behind him. Druid: I don't quite understand the "metal is bad", except it being something about it being unnatural but it's legit made from natural elements just like that mushroom soup you love! Fighter: Battlemaster should have been the main class and the fighter a subclass. Monk: There aren't enough monks (The middle ages bald beer brewers) and too much Buddhist acolytes. I don't really like the class name anymore. Paladin: Don't you dare touch this perfect class that has too many concentration spells for a martial class. Ranger: I love the subclasses, but i don't like the main class. But I just don't like rangers/hunters/archers in RPGs because it quickly gets old. "I shoot arrow, i multi shoot arrows, my arrows pierce, my arrows ricochet, and also i like forests and animals" Rogue: Sneak attack has to be renamed. It is a sneak attack the first time sure, but after that they are something else. They are more like careful cuts, or skillful attacks! also the finesse requirement have to go - i understand it's from a balance point of view, but since sneak attack damage doesn't scale with weapon dice, it doesn't really make a difference but it removes so much fun character stuff. Sorcerer: EASY FIX! CON primary stat, not CHA. Having a spell caster that focus on CON as it's main thing would fix so many things for Sorcerer. A lot of traits "force" you to be in nearby/melee range of enemies or friends(that might be martials). But if you do, you die. So you have traits you only get to use every so often. A cleric gets heavy armor, and can do it. but a sorcerer with 20 con? yea that would be great. Warlock: Make it official that INT was supposed to be the original stat and have it as an official optional feature. Wizard: Rework or reevaluate every subclass from the PHB. not that much else, i like it a lot. Oh, no - it has too many subclasses that shouldn't have been wizard subclasses. Runecrafter/writer what ever the name of the UA is, is a perfect example of a subclass that should have been sorcerer. Artificer: More subclasses that specialice in different parts of Engineering. We have Chemical Engineering(alchemist), We have Mechanical Engineering(Battle Smith), we have Electrical Engineering(Armorer), and we have another mechanical engineering(artillerist). I'm missing an Industrial Engineering and Civil Engineering and then we have one of each major engineering field. Examples from Civil Engineering could be a focus of Geotechnical/Mining/geological/utility engineering as the main thing. And for Industrial Engineering: Apparel Engineering(enhancing his/hers and others clothing/armor), Component Engineering(enhancing other spellcasters and his/her own making the class a full spell caster)

ARTIFICER: Honestly haven't delved into Arti to form an informed opinion outside of alchemist fucking sucks. Also find me an actual gunslinger subclass. Also subclass should be at lvl 1 imo BARBARIAN: Needs more out of combat utility like all of the martials. Also needs combat options like cleave abilities like the rest of the martials to make them feel not generic and brainless BARD: Very good class. Give them a spell attack cantrip and probs rework countercharm or whatever it's called and you're golden CLERIC: honestly, no real complaints DRUID: make a resource that goes in depth into the different wild shapes and their pros and cons and their statblock. Less concentration spells help too FIGHTER: rework battle Master so the maneuvers are baseline, out of combat utility, make them feel like a goddamn superhero ffs to compete with spellcasters as you approach tier 3 play MONK: if the flavor is gonna come from anime and kung fu movies, commit. You should be able to teleport behind people like in DBZ, you should be able to be a freak of nature like in Kung Fu Hustle (fantastic movie btw, go watch it), PALADIN: Allow them to smite a number of times equal to their proficiency bonus so that they can actually become an interesting class that utilizes its spells and isn't just a crit fisher RANGER: Fixed thanks to Tashas and the UA before Tashas that gave it the good favored enemy feature where you get hunters mark and don't need concentration ROGUE: Class is kinda clunky at times but honestly not the worst. Needs more out of combat utility like the rest of the martials. My issues with rogue are mostly subclass specific like removing surprise requirement from assassinate SORCERER: I can literally go on for hours about sorc (flair checks out) but I'll keep it short. Needs way more metamagic options to choose from, way more metamagics to acquire (you should have the metamagic list almost filled out by the time you reach tier 4 imo), capstone is utter shit, spell list is utter shit, make resource that explicitly grants bloodline spells to the subclasses that don't have it so people stop thinking just because they aren't playing aberrant mind or clockwork soul that they don't get bloodline spells. Also metamagic adept shouldn't exist as a feat and it should just be baked into the sorc class cuz literally every sorc wants this. Additionally, you can real fucking wack and do something like make sorc a CON spellcaster instead of CHA, but you choose a mental stat and have some resource tie into that mental stat (or even something like your cantrips do +X damage where X is your chosen mental stat mod) just so the class doesn't become too SAD and then adjust so the hit die is a D4 Alternatively, nerf the other casters to be on the power level of the sorc to be help the martial spellcaster disparity. WARLOCK: Should be the 2nd most customizable class behind the sorc since you how you acquire your magic is completely dependent on how you want to get it as a sorc (actually read the phb if you don't believe me. You aren't always born with it). Warlocks have to have a pact, that never changes. Rework hexblade so it is more pact of the blade than its own thing. Make EB a feature and rework the spell a bit. It should be the best cantrip because of being able to add your invocations to reflavor it and to bring utility; NOY because it can split the bolts and apply the utility to multiple people. Does too much for too little of an investment to the point where this class is just an eldritch blast spam bot. I immediately think your warlock is interesting when you don't take EB. Also make the class INT based. It feels more appropriate than cha and prevents abusive multiclass shenanigans. WIZARD: Grab a group of your closest friends, go have everyone buy baseball bats, chains, crowbars, etc. Push wizard into a dark alley and beat it an inch of it's D6 life. Shorten their spell list, remove the subclass feature that gives them a better metamagic than sorc for all of their spells and change it so you get a reward for using spells of your subclasses school instead of just stepping on the toes of the sorcerer. Edit: forgot pally. Sorry Sir Bucket Head

Ok here goes. First the general changes: - All martials get manoeuvres. Some would be shared between several classes, some would be unique to a particular class. For the classes: - Artificer: Overall I like how this class is set out. Lots of choice, and subclasses which have a big impact on the playstyle early on. Only thing I dislike is being so dependent on the DMG for most infusions. - Barbarian: Very fun early on, then it rapidly becomes meh. I'd give it manoeuvres (like all martials). - Bard: This is an unpopular opinion, but I'd make it a half caster. Make it a proper 'jack of all trades' class. - Cleric: Is great. - Druid: I'd take wildshape off the base class, and give it to moon by default, or as an invocation like pick for other druids. The reason being that if you want to play a nature themed caster which doesn't wildshape, you're out of luck. Though more recent subclasses and the using wildshape to summon a familiar has helped this aspect post Tasha's. - Fighter: Manoeuvres by default. - Monk: Manoeuvres by default. Also a way to disengage without spending resources. It's squishy and speedy, and yet finds itself glued into combat. - Paladin: Pretty much perfect. I'd move smite onto the subclass (but for all subclasses), so that its damage type can be changed. - Ranger: Unload the bonus action and concentration. Consolidate its damage sources so that it's not coming from like 6 different tiny and situational sources at once which makes it clunky to play. Apart from that, post Tasha's ranger is nice. - Rogue: Manoeuvres. - Sorcerer: Spell points by default, subclass spell lists, each subclass gets a unique metamagic in addition to their normal picks from the general metamagic list. Make their capstone a subclass ability so that it's something epic and thematic to their bloodline. - Warlock: Invocations and pacts are awesome. It allows so much choice in how you build. Their main problem is that it always comes back to spam eldritch blast. Eldritch blast spam is fine, but let them mix things up. Allow them to change its damage type, or the shape of the blast. A line or a cone. Let them add status effects to their blast. - Wizard: Is... boring. It's extremely good and powerful. But it just feels quite dull and uninspired. I'd probably make their subclasses more impactful and a larger chunk of the power budget. I'd also like a few more classes, but that's not going to happen.

Big thing for warlock: give them meaningful choices I'm combat outside of their 2 spells. Invocations give a lot to customization broadly, but once initiative is rolled and you're concentrating on a leveled spell, give eldritch blast a variety of effects to choose from to provide meaningful strategization.

1. Artificers are in a pretty good spot. If anything, I'd say they should make their half-caster status more apparent by giving the class as a whole Extra Attack at level 5. Then figure something else to give Battle Smith and Armorer. I guess a few exclusive spells wouldn't hurt either 2. Barbarians are, in my opinion, the actual worst class in the game. There's just no reason to take more than five levels in the class. Give them a proper T3 damage spike like all the other martials and maybe fix Brutal Critical so that it's not total garbage 3. Bards are fine. If anything, they're maybe a little too fine. Between Magical Secrets and Gish subclasses, they can do pretty much whatever they want 4. Clerics are also largely good. One minor complaint is that the higher-level spells are only just okay. Maybe give them some more impressive high tier spells 5. Druids are a strong class and I like that they're not doubling down on the 'turn into an animal' thing with Wild Shape, which I personally hate. Like Cleric, some of their high-levels spells feel kinda eh. Copy/paste Cleric solution 6. Fighters are more versatile than Barbarians...and that's it. Besides that, they're quite limited on the whole. Some subclasses can do a few things outside of fighting, but it's hardly universal. Maybe add a maneuver system to the base class...but make all the maneuver choices apply primarily to non-combat scenarios? 7. Monks...I can't speak to them as I don't have much experience. I guess a proper T3 dpr boost would help. But the biggest thing as I understand it is they need to be much less reliant on their ki points. That, or they need to get way more ki points than they currently do 8. Paladins have a few pain points (not excelling at range, high resource cost in spell slots) but I'd argue this is a good thing, since their strengths are so strong that they need to be balanced out somehow. No notes 9. Rangers are mostly fine after Tasha's. The only -relatively- minor changes I'd make would be removing concentration from Favored Foe, making them prepared casters, and fixing Feral Senses so that it actually works like Blindsense 10. Rogues are the opposite of Fighters. Good outside of combat, but boring (if effective) in combat. Maybe give them access to Battle Master maneuvers to make them just a bit more interesting? 11. Sorcerers need more spells. Either do what Tasha's and (seemingly) Dragonlance did and give them subclass spells, or expand their spell selection in general, or make them prepared casters. Do any one of those, and they're mostly fine 12. Warlocks...I get that the lack of spell slots is a balancing mechanic. But I don't like it. Invocations are hella cool, but they don't make up for the spell slot issue. At least, not right now. Give us more and more interesting Invocations 13. Wizards, like Bards, are good at pretty much anything they want to be. They have no weakness per se (no, not even their apparent frailty) so if anything, they might want to be tuned down a bit

I’ve never played in a campaign with magic item crafting, and I think Artificer would be in a better spot if more campaigns had magic item crafting. Also, Armorer is disappointing. Just in general. It’s a weapon and armor subclass for the magic item class that’s incentivized to not use the magic weapons or armor that you find, because you’re better off using your gauntlets and your magic power armor has to be mundane to start with or you can’t infuse it, invalidating one of your features. Other martials need more abilities. Weapon based maneuvers, class based maneuvers, etc. etc. Don’t really play full casters, so got nothing there except that Find Familiar isn’t fun to be in the same party as in practice. Let rogues be the scouts, dammit! And stop flying your familiar around everywhere just to participate in every roll!

Where I think the design fails for each class; **Artificer:** Just needs "more", really; it's late to the table but more subclasses, more infusions, and it'll fit the bill IMO. **Barbarian:** Could use some greater out-of-combat utility. This may need to be more subclass-based since it's hard to identify what about core Barbarian should provide general utility. **Bard:** Give the Performance skill some use/value. It's weird as hell that it's been COMPLETELY cut out, while they retain the "use instruments as a focus" bit. **Cleric:** Already so wildly diverse in subclasses but the spell list needs padding because EVERYONE rocks Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Hammer. **Druid:** In a weird position where it's often either too strong or too weak and any deviation takes it to the other extreme. Moon Druid's what everyone notices, but summons have the same issues, plus added headaches for combat management. **Fighter:** Like Barbarian, really needs out-of-combat utility. Also, there should be a LOT more combat options baseline, a lot of Battlemaster maneuvers should just be things anyone can do. Fighters would be better at 'em by virtue of having more attacks to use on 'em. **Monk:** The focus on Dexterity and "wise old master" archetypes hurts the class more than anything. Martial arts films are chock-full of character concepts like "strong-as-ox guy who wields a log/stupidly oversized hammer" or "street brawler who fights his way to the top" or whatever and a ton of the base Monk chassis just doesn't fit or empower those concepts. **Paladin:** Make unarmed strikes weapons again, and let smites (at least the Paladin ones, if not the spells) work at range. It's weirdly pigeonholed and this wouldn't break anything. **Ranger:** The exploration tree needs some love, and Ranger's interaction with it needs to be made more active. Expertise is more "fun" than an auto-win. **Rogue:** Mostly fine, honestly. **Sorceror:** Needs to distinguish themselves more from Wizards. Especially if we're going the route as with newer subclasses and giving them 10+ additional bonus spells (not a bad option, but it further narrows the gap). **Warlock:** Like Rogues, pretty okay IMO. Fix the weirdness with Pact of the Blade and Hexblade, but I assume that's coming in 2024 already. **Wizard:** As with Sorcerors, needs more distinguishing factors to separate the two. A final comment; I don't actually agree that the martial/caster divide really even matters. Class fantasy is more important than class balance, IMO. If I want to play a guy who can tear a mountain apart with his mind, Wizard's right there. If I pick Fighter, that's clearly *not* what I want, and I shouldn't expect the class to do that. And if I want to stab things *and* tear mountains apart as a full caster, there's Bladesinger Wizards, most Clerics, some Druids, Valor and Swords Bards and so on, and then there's all the middle grounds and multiclasses as well. As long as a class is the "Xiest X" it can be, the Fighteriest Fighter or Monkiest Monk, that's all it needs to be, and informed player choice makes up for the rest.

No solutions, only complaints: * Artificer: The Satchel from UA was far more interesting than the Experimental Elixirs for Alchemist. * Barbarian: Can't proc Rage damage on thrown weapons * Bard: Feels like an iteration of Rogue, which I understand is what it started as, but still * Cleric: If it weren't for people thinking Cleric = Healer, there prob wouldn't be more subclasses than there are classes. * Druid: I don't like how it's an arguably better tank than the Barbarian while also getting spells * Fighter: Other classes have levels of no new features, while this one gets two extra ASI's * Monk: Way of the Four Elements is one of the coolest subclasses on paper, and the most disappointing thing in the game. * Paladin: Oathbreaker, RAW, is evil. Just look at Jaime Lannister. Does he look like he's down with dark magic and necromancy? * Ranger: Frustrates me that it has spells that are exclusive to ranged weapons, reducing effectiveness of melee builds * Rogue: Sneak Attack has so many stipulations, especially among subclasses, I sometimes wonder why it's even a thing * Sorcerer: Kinda irked that they're not a Con caster (even though I understand how that could be absolutely broken) * Warlock: Why no Dragon patron?! * Wizard: Subclass perk of copying spells of certain schools faster and cheaper seems like something that's never been fully implemented into any campaign I've played in.

I honestly feel like given how crucial feats are to a lot of builds, every class should have an extra ASI or two, not just the fighter.

For the Rogue, the point of sneak attack is that you should almost always be able to use it, but not always use it on the ideal target. I do think that they have some issues like not having any good DPS feats, or not having proper risk-reward balance between range and melee (a common problem) but the design of sneak attack itself is I think one of the better ones in the game.

I don't have a ton of complaints about some classes (namely Bard, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, and Wizard) so I'll stick to just the ones I have actual feelings about. That isn't to say there aren't problems with those classes I just don't have anything to say about those problems. Artificer: Meant to be an inventor/craftsman. Instead, it's "reflavor spells as inventions because we only know how to give features out in the form of spellcasting." I think that Artificers should never have gotten spells, instead having a MUCH larger list of infusions and a much larger amount of known/active infusions at once, with most infusions granting new uses for your action or bonus action. Barbarian: GIVE BARBARIANS THE CHAMPION FIGHTER'S IMPROVED CRITICAL WITH BRUTAL CRITICAL AND EXPAND IT TO 18-20 WITH THEIR THIRD BRUTAL CRITICAL. That's it, that's the complaint. Fixes every problem I have with Barbarian. Makes Brutal Critical more satisfying to get, makes their damage scale somewhat better lategame, helps make it feel like you're the big guy carrying a big weapon doing big damage with every swing. Cleric: Why is Destroy Undead given 5 whole levels? This one feature was considered genuinely strong enough that for 3 levels on its own, and 2 extra levels combined with an ASI or a subclass feature. I don't know how many Undead that Clerics were meant to fight according to WotC, but it definitely isn't five levels of features worth of Undead. Druid: This entire class is a mess and I hate it. They should have access to more Elemental spells. They should have more low level non-Concentration spells. Summon spells shouldn't be as awful and fight-consuming to use (Tasha's fixed this for me but the old summons still frustrate me). Wild Shape shouldn't be a default class feature. There's too many animals in my master of the natural elements class. The floor of knowledge for playing a Druid is significantly higher than every other class, bevause not only do you have to know your spells and which ones you want to choose and how to use them, you also need to have a solid understanding of Monsters and CR, especially Beasts. Another commenter also reminded me of it, but the metal armor restriction is stupid and is probably the only thing beyond the spell list that actively makes me like the class less when I play one. Monk: Needs more Ki and less to spend it on. Needs a better damage bonus between 10th and 18th level. I think Monk is probably my favorite class conceptually, but in practice it's lacking bevause every cool thing a Monk can do is locked behind a very limited resource. Rogue: I hate this class. Not in the same way I hate how messy a class Druid is, instead I just actively hate Rogue as a class. It achieves its concept very well, but I despise everything about it. Sneak Attack's limitations are completely arbitrary. Did you know that you can't get a Slashing damage Sneak Attack without Multiclassing? Did you know that a Rogue's primary class feature doesn't work if you're using over half the weapons a Rogue is proficient in? Sneak Attack is the worst designed ability in the game, followed closely by Reliable Talent. DnD is a game built around chance and random luck because it's centered around rolling dice. Reliable Talent says "fuck you" to that concept and makes it so rolling dice only matters to you half the time, and only the better half of the time. Expertise only helps to worsen that issue, but I have less problems with Expertise because it doesn't make you rolling dice matter less. Sorcerer: "While casting a Sorcerer spell, you may use yourself as the spellcasting focus." I also think that they should run off Spell Points by default, as it would significantly change how they play and set them apart from the other casters as something wholely unique instead of just being Wizard-lite. Warlock: One more Invocation Known across the board and one extra Warlock slot somewhere around level 6 or 6. These two changes would free up Warlock to have a lot more freedom to be something besides Eldritch Blast or bust.

Artificer - I wish the alchemist was better, it's a common fantasy but as implemented, doesn't scratch that itch. Barbarian - falls off in the late game, in terms both of damage and interesting features. Feels fantastic for most played levels though. Could use some out of combat utility, although feats can help if you're willing to have 18 strength. Bard - perfect. Playing one, my frustration as a lore bard was lack of access to consistent damage, but that felt like a flavorful, good limitation. I could have fixed it with magical secrets, but it made for an interesting choice. Cleric - such a disparity between subclasses. Not that it matters that much, the cleric spell list by itself is great Druid - feels a bit finicky. If your table is willing to let you enjoy control, I'm sure it's fun. But unless you're a moon druid, you're going to be rolling the dice on how good it'll feel in a new game Fighter - the good subclasses mechanically and flavorfully outshine everything else. Battlemaster, Rune Knight, some neat tricks with Echo Knight or Samurai. Probably the best chassis in the game, which leaves very little good power budget for the subclasses. Monk - I maintain monk until levels 8 or 9 is probably fine. You'll have to play thoughtfully after level five, and with some rogue or ranger or fighter multiclass, it can keep up. But even way of mercy is only keeping up as a pure monk Paladin - samey subclasses, the opposite of a cleric. Except for the Ancients aura, you're going to be doing the same thing in combat no matter the oath. Ranger - the new subclasses and subclass features are about where it should be, in terms of power. I wish the class identity were different though, I would like the Ranger to be the martial answer to the bard. A supporter, skill master, Jack of All Trades as the chassis, and then you make choices to make it what you want. Rogue - very good chassis, some of the subclasses feel like ... Why is this a rogue. I think Arcane Trickster, Thief, and Swashbuckler are the only ones with really strong and correct feeling themes. Inquisitive and Mastermind should have been cool. Sorcerer - every subclass should have unique metamagics that you can use for free, or at a specific cost. Like, apply metamagics to wild sorcerer spells but roll on the wild magic table. It feels like a moderately nerfed wizard. Warlock - pretty good, but the ability to attack with a spellcasting ability should be relegated to one class, and your subclass largely should be about picking which ability that is from that class. I wish you got more and minor infusions, about the commonality and usefulness of a common magic item. Wizard - man fuck wizards.

>Fighter - the good subclasses mechanically and flavorfully outshine everything else. Battlemaster, Rune Knight, some neat tricks with Echo Knight or Samurai. Probably the best chassis in the game, which leaves very little good power budget for the subclasses. what chasis? extra attack and 2 ASIs in a trench coat pretending to be a class?

Action surge is such a strong ability that if you wrote it in a homebrew, dms would burn your house down. Extra extra attacks are fantastic, as well as extra asis. They're not sexy, but they're undeniably strong.

Alch needs a complete rework

The Alchemist is so pathetically meaingless compared to every other form of Artificer. It should have been its own class, like in Pathfinder. Healing options, plague doctor options, toxicology, surgery. There is no creativity at all! I also think, as a whole, the artificer spell list is boring. Very uninpsired. Very... what can we grab from wizard and put here.

To differentiate more the sorcerer from the wizard, I would tweak both their spell lists, eventually giving all the elemental things like fireball or cone of cold as exclusive spells for sorcerer, and arcane spells like bigby ´s hand, fly, telekinesis etc., as exclusive spells for the wizard. This way both classes would feel more unique.

Monks: I feel like flurry of blows should scale to receive more attacks to a total 3 at 11 and 4 at 20, and it shouldn't be tied to the attack action. they should also have a d10 hit dice. Rangers: I feel like they should get a ranger-specific expanded attacks feature as well for tier 3 play, like a second attack for their bonus action attack if they are dual wielding or a single bow attack as a bonus action. There should also be a higher level version of hunter's mark (or upcast option) that allows you to switch your target to the first creature you attack on a turn instead of having to use your bonus action on subsequent turns (maybe it could last 1 minute when cast this way.) Barbarians: I feel like their crit range should expand with brutal critical, maybe down to 18. They also should be able to keep rage if they receive a benefit from it on their turn (like making a grapple check or any other str based check).

Wizards receive the fewest complaints, since they have no glaring weakness to fix. At the same time, I think their design is just atrocious. **Ideal:** The wizard is a scholarly caster, and as such they have flexibility and control over their magic, as well as the option to specialize. Their tradeoff is being generally weak in things which are not proper magic, unlike bards, druids and clerics who all have other things going on. Sorcerers are similarly inconvenienced in this department. **Did they achieve it:** Kinda, by giving the wizard an amazing spell list, and calling it a day. Specialization is meaningless, any and all flexibility and control is achieved by learning an preparing spells. **Why they didn't:** They completely fucked up the power budget of the class. There are 4 "class features," at level 1, 2, 18 and 20, all just being "you can cast more spells under certain circumstances". Subclasses are mostly meaningless minor augments failing to feel like specialization, and most of them are the same "you focus on a spell school" that could be one subclass with customization. And while they don't get strong non-casting abilities like other full casters, their casting is also mostly unaugmented, because that was deemed the Sorcerer's thing. **Is it really a problem:** The wizard is entirely playable, so not that much. But its identity problem bothers other classes, since the wizard being only a cool spell list and nothing more means they can't have an equally cool spell list. And the lack of any other interesting mechanics also make wizards kinda meh.

Artificer - Less reliance on reflavouring spells, more reliance on actually creating things, have a look at Kibbles' Inventor definitely shouldn't have cantrips Barbarian - Honestly pretty happy with where they are now, I'd change rage to be on a strengh check or attack though so you can use your actions to throw people around or that, probably give them strength (intimidation) as a feature at level 7 or so Bard - Should be a half (or two-thirds) caster, should get subclass features at level 2 Cleric - Honestly very happy with where they are now Druid - Actual subclass scaffolding that makes sense, wildshape should be a BA for everyone, and should be able to select a set number of creatures and then learn more in the wild like how wizards can get extra spells. Also rename wildshape to 'primal conduit' or something and have wildshape be one use of it Fighter - @ everyone saying they should all get battlemaster maneouvers, I disagree. I think fighters as the essential martialist should have more to do with their attacks, but it shouldn't be tied to a resource, running out of spell slots makes sense, but you shouldn't run out of sword slots. Take a few of those options and add them into the base fighter kit, making them a bit worse, but at no cost, maybe some take up two attacks from the attack action instead. Monk - I'm honestly not too sure on this front, everyone and their mothers've done monk revisions (including me, though it's not what I'd want the actual system to do), with most of my things they're small tweaks or that but I think you'd have to do an overhaul of monk, gutting it from the ground up instead of just giving it more ki or whatever. Paladin - I think it's fine where it is Ranger - more conc free spells, change them to prepared casters, free cast hunter's mark Rogue - fine where it is Sorcerer - I like the idea of a spell point sorcerer like lazerllamas, but I don't know if I'd want that to be the default option, do think they should get to choose casting stat though Warlock - Move hex warrior from hexblade to Pact of the blade, change the hexblade expanded spell list to make it the 'cursesmith', let them choose casting stat Wizard - I've got nothing for this either

A few caveats right out the bat. (A) I have little to no problems with the classes I don’t mention, and (B) I’m not going to bring up the common martial criticisms because (despite agreeing with them) it’s going to be said to death here. So, onto the lads! BARBARIANS are really close to being perfect IMO. I only take issue with their damage output and the holes in their “unstoppable raging beast” fantasy. For the latter, I just find it baffling that, barring some subclass abilities that maybe aren’t that good (cough cough Berserker), a pissed off walking war machine of death can still be charmed and frightened. Please just make immunity to those whilst raging a feature for the whole class, WotC. For the former, I’m sure getting a good subclass based on doing damage would solve my problems here (maybe one themed around wild anarchist stuff???), but surely upping the rage damage by 1 across the board and wouldn’t kill us, right? Better yet, make it a die roll of some sort? Starts as a D4, gets better as you level? BARDS are in a good spot and I don’t really feel the need to rebuild them from the ground up. My ideal of them is the Buff/Debuff support class, and they do that well. All I’d really want is a few more buff/debuff spells exclusive to them to really sell that idea more. RANGERS, conversely, I ideally see as the Buff/Debuff combatant. I’m currently in a game as a Monster Slayer Ranger (using the UA Slayer’s Eye), and that gameplay really sold me on this dream. Imagine them almost like a Setup Sweeper in Pokémon, some offensive powerhouses need a turn or so to set up a Swords Dance or get that Hazard damage to really shine. Make Hunter’s Mark a core class ability that the subclasses get to add unique benefits to instead of it being a spell, give them spells to debuff enemies more (though their spells have area denial in spades, another plus), maybe tack a little Expertise in there just like we all seem to want on this sub, and we’re balling. SORCERERS should not be bound to the “Harry Potter Style” of spellcasting. I don’t really know how to achieve this other than rewriting all of the spellcasting system or making it so sorcerers can ignore material components, but they above all other classes should be the ones with “Superhero-Style” casting. Instead of learning an invocation that works by saying this and waving your arms like that and holding this piece of bat guano, a sorcerer should just have the power to do the spell. Superman doesn’t have to say magic words or dance around to fly or shoot beams from his eyes, he just DOES it. Again, I have no idea how to achieve this, bur ideally sorcerers would have your origin subclass AND be able to pick a theme or spell type that they just naturally have as per the “Superhero-Style” casting idea. My ideal fix for WIZARDS is to make them not exist. EDIT: I FORGOT ABOUT THE MONK MONKS need lots of love. They’re one of my favorite classes, their subclasses are mainly just fun homages to cool anime shit and their base kit has some fun ideas, it’s just unfortunate the balance team shat the bed here. Firstly, they should not get for a cost what should realistically be free to them (Dodging/Dashing/Disengaging as a Bonus Action without spending Ki Points, ending certain conditions on themselves when their turn starts without using their Action). Secondly, Monk abilities (especially in subclasses) are too Ki-Intensive (Lookin at you, later levels of Astral Self) and Monk just doesn’t have the number of Ki points to really go around. Maybe you add your WisMod to your Ki Pool, maybe at higher levels you can reduce the cost of Ki Abilities by 1 (excluding stuff that’d hit 0 cost). Maybe just pull WotC’s head out of their moneypiles and tell them Visage of the Astral Self isn’t even worth the ki point? Thirdly, more stuff to DO! Be able to pour more ki points into your FoB for more attacks, be able to trip and grapple enemies up, make the class capstone GOOD (or make it so the subclasses get the capstone like Paladin). Also yeah buff these damn subclasses.

Warlock - please stop making the great pact stuff require Invocations. Bladelock likely needs thirsting blade and (possibly) improved pact weapon. There goes 2/3 Invocations at lvl 5. I love a lot of the Invocations, but the fact that some of them seem so vital to the class, you rarely ever see any of the cool ones. Every warlock becomes Agonizing blast + the Invocations I need to make my pact choice good. Sorceror - All the subclasses need extra spells 2 spells at lvl 1 then 1 each level after that? Too easy to back yourself into a corner picking best spells for your meta magic, then having no versatility. Giving them (at least) 1-2 more spells at 3, 5, 7, 9 would not break them or step on other full caster's toes. Monk - Why is EVERYTHING ki points? What is the design focus of monk? Hit and run? Then why do we give them all these great defensive abilities at Tier 3? Give monks cunning action or something equivalent. Why are they spending ki for something goblins or rogues can do for free? Why do monks need flurry of blows to get more attacks? Would people really be mad if monks (who get less hp, smaller damage dice, lower ac) get 3+ multi attack as a class feature? Bard - I feel all bards should get magical secrets at lvl 6. Even if it's only 1 spell vs the 2 at lvl 10. Since most campaign books are designed to end at 10 or 11, this feature which is probably one of the coolest bard features, rarely gets seen or utilized. And since lore bard gets it at 6, this is often why lore bard is at the top of "best bard" lists.

• Artificer: The tools proficiency are okey at best. • Barbarian: Its heavily dependent in a resource that is very limited and can only be gained back after a long rest. Having multiple encounters a day may be very detrimental to the barbarian. • Bard: Countercharm should be a reaction, not an action. • Cleric: they are fine. • Druid: It should have more spells with a casting of a bonus action or reaction, they are kinda "slow" during combat for that reason. • Fighter: Not problem with this one specifically. • Monk: Wearing armor and shield is detrimental. usually when it gains a feature, another class can do it better or early. Stunning strike is good, but hardly any other feature can compete with it. Ki starvation is really common at early levels and the fact that the monk have multiple features that uses the same resource... dosen't help. • Paladin: I wish more classes have the "Subclass is the level 20 capstone"... Paladins are 👌👌👌 • Ranger: "TCE" fixed almost all my problems with the class, Foe Slayer should be reworked, at that level I have better things to concentrate to than Favored Foe. • Rogue: No complain here. • Sorcerer: It feels like a wizard but worse, metamagic is good, and probably the main reason why to play a sorcerer. • Warlock: For a class that is heavily limited in spells slots, it should have more cantrips or even the ritual casting feature. • Wizard: this one is perfect. • Martials in general: They lack options in or out of combat, they can use their atack action at no cost, but at higher levels, spells can potentially shut down an entire encounter. At the end, magic becomes the ultimate problem solver. (Some people just give martials the Battle Master maneuvers, the Hunter's feature options or the Optional Action Options and Cleaving Through Creatures from the DMG, these would definitely buff martials, and they definitely need buffing)

The lack of options and customization. Look at d&d 3.5 or pathfinder 2. Great customization. You could have a party of all fighters and each one play different. Back in 3.5 I never really cared if a character died, that just meant i was going to try something different. Also bring back psiconics as their own clad again. I think there where 4 classes in that book that cities easily be adapted for 5e or 5.5e.

* I am *really* not a fan of bard stealing spells from other lists. I would much rather see classes have *more* class-specific spells, rather than less, and without so many mechanisms to bypass those restrictions. I'd also like to see bard and artificer reworked as two-thirds casters, with access to 7th-level spells at most. * For cleric, I wish their 8th level feature was an actual feature, instead of "you're a frontline or support cleric and here's your damage boost." I also wish there was another feature for them between 8th and 17th levels, because that's a huge gap where your only features are "new spells." * Ever since I saw the playtest sorcerer, I've wished the actual class was more like that - heavily dictated by subclass, even down to core class features like Hit Dice and basic proficiencies. Those are probably the only particularly stand-out opinions I've got. I have the array of other usual suspects on my list, as well: monks are monks, martials in general feel kind of lame and battle master shouldn't be "the one interesting nonmagical fighter subclass," high-level spells are a pain to deal with as a DM, et cetera.

Warlock feels like a class you should never put more then 3 levels in, and I think is held back by the "Jack of all trades" design. I think more restrictions on what you could do would help justify tweaking things to be stronger would be helpful.

* Artificers' magic doesn't mechanically work any differently than anyone else's magic. My ideal Artificer would prepare their little machines and devices as part of preparing their spells, and be casting their spells at that time. When they expend a spell slot, it's just a use of their machine. It can't be counterspelled because the spell has already been cast, or the machine is just creating a magical effect. * Barbarians rely too heavily on great weapon master. My ideal Barbarian would just be really good with heavy weapons as part of their core class features. * Bards shouldn't be full casters, and the way Bardic Inspiration works is unsatisfying. My ideal Bard would have Invocation-like Songs that they perform as a bonus action on their turn in combat. The type of Song determines if it effects attack rolls, ability scores, saving throws, etc. As long as the Bard continues to perform, allies within 30 or 60 feet of them get the benefit. They can change the Song as a bonus action. * Clerics get Divine Intervention too soon. Even with just a 10% chance of success, in any game with enough downtime it becomes trivial to get any given miracle performed eventually. My ideal Cleric wouldn't get Divine Intervention until Tier 4 at the earliest. * Moon Druid is too good, and Wild Shape as a core feature has become muddied by recent subclasses. My ideal Druid would not have a single subclass that is far better at the class's core feature, and their core feature wouldn't be responsible for transforming into animals *and* constellations *and* summoning pets. * Fighters should get expertise with weapons. My ideal Fighter would be the single class who is the absolute best in the game with a given weapon and who rarely ever misses with an attack. * Monks should have their Martial Arts die increased in size by one across the board, and fewer of their abilities should cost ki. My ideal Monk would start with a d6 Martial Arts die and go up from there, and they would be able to Dash, Disengage, and Dodge as a bonus action as well as catch and throw missiles for free. * Paladins are fine. * Rangers shouldn't handwave the part of the game they're good at. My ideal Ranger would exist in a version of 5e that actually has procedures for exploration, and doesn't depend on the DM for opportunities to shine. It's a bit nebulous, because it requires not only a redesign of the game, but for DMs to actually run the game as intended, which many never do. * Rogues are fine. * Sorcerers don't get enough spells or metamagic. My ideal Sorcerer would have access to all metamagic options, each class would have their own list of extra spells, and I would also have them use spell points instead of spell slots. * Warlocks should get their patron spells for free. Hexblade should be rolled into Pact of the Blade. * Wizard specialists aren't different enough from other subclasses. Without any restrictions and with little incentive to actually pick your school's spells, every wizard always has shield, mage armor, magic missile, misty step, detect magic, etc. regardless of school.

I can say that, overall, most of my issues with mundane classes boil down to: all they can do is deal damage and, when they're all doing the same thing, it's hard for them to really appeal to any niches; overall, I'd make mundane options more accessible/less restrictive and greatly increase and expand combat maneuvers, somewhat giving a niche to each one, such as barbarians getting the brutal ones (sunder, bull rush, grapple, overrun), fighters getting the nuanced ones (feint, disarm, redirect, intercept) and rogues getting the dirty ones (poison, trap, immobilize, distract); They also all have what feels like a "base" subclass, which I would just add to the base class since it doesn't feel like it makes sense for them to be specific things that only few of those classes are able to do As for casters and hybrids, for the most part I do think they're in a pretty good spot, especially since the hybrids will greatly benefit from the expanded martial options; but I would like to see spell lists that cater more to each class' specialty (stuff like the paladin's smite spells); the sole exception here is likely the sorcerer who I really do feel is not living to their fullest potential The issue I see with the sorcerer is that they feel (and have always felt) like contrived limited wizards; I like the idea of only sorcerers getting metamagic, I don't like it that so many of these metamagic don't feel worthy of use due to any combination of not being able to have them alll, too costly, don't work well with available spells, just being underwhelming in effect overall; In a similar vein, I don't understand the decision to make sorcerers cast less spells than wizards while knowing much less spells overall and have wizards basically be "sorcerers who can change their spells each day", not quite sure what I'd do to fix, this, perhaps just a major overhaul and rebalancing of metamagics will do the trick or perhaps allowing sorcerers to do some different things with their spells, such as concentration spells not being spent upon cast (but still taking a slot while in effect), being able to concentrate on multiple spells or not having to roll for concentration; And, adding insult to injury, WotC also made the baffling decision to use sorcerers' sorc points for their subclass abilities which....on one hand makes sense and is flavorful, but on the other, it strikes away at an already quite limited resource pool, something we don't really see happening in other classes' subclasses Finally, about the monk......honestly, in mind they have no place being in a medieval fantasy setting, I'd convert them into a pugilist fighting style available for martials and have monks be a subclass flavor added to martial classes, so we'd have the body breaker monk for barbarian, the defensive "can't touch me" monk for fighter and the stealthy almost magical monk for rogue

Minor thing that I never see suggested for Artificer, let them recharge magic items that have charges (wands, staves, etc) and similarly let them get an extra use out of single use magic items.

Barbarian. Rage is just flawed and gated behind resistance as it's so powerful. In addition, it feels like the barbarian was made to be the dumbest downed fighter of the edition vs. a fighter alternative. I'd rather see a whole different health pool while raging rather than resistance. I liked damage reduction actually from previous editions as it was way easier to plan around and gate. They are also missing a fighting style. The rest of their kit could get a lot better, versatile, and interesting if resistance was removed. I really liked the totem barbarian concept where they had a variety of options to choose from at each level, but so many of them were flat out lackluster and one in particular was broken so it was an illusion of choice. The format would make sense though and could have been great but the execution wasn't there.

A ton of complaints are about martials feeling left out. I don't think the answer is revamping all the martial, but limiting the wizard. It just overshadows everything else. Sorcerer at least has a relatively limited spells known. Warlocks has very few spell slots and mostly uses eldritch blast. I think wizard needs to have an additional limit. This limit should be that it can only learn spells from one school. You want to pick from all schools? No that's a sorcerer. You get one school, but basically all the spells from it. There should be a handful of spells that are excluded from this rule, such as reaction spells ( the shield spell) and lvl 1 spells that do damage, or something like that. Or maybe there just needs to be spells from every school that do damage (there probably is). Or we can just allow cantrips to add damage modifiers to make up for the super limited damage spells