Redesigning D&D 5th Edition - Starting with Classes!

 I've been playing Dungeons and Dragons since I was a child, but I didn't really come to understand the mechanics and design of the game until I started DMing using the newly-released 5th Edition in 2015. That was when I started taking an interest in not only running the game, but changing it, making my own additions and modifications to the core in order to turn it into the experience I wanted it to be.

Since the release of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (2020), I've been unimpressed or outright disappointed by most of the new releases for 5th Edition, including the outright revision of some existing mechanics, advertised as "optional", but taken as the default option going forward. Suffice to say, it got me thinking about what I actually wanted from the game, from its core options, and from its future. It got me to re-examine some of my assumptions about what worked and what didn't, and how I might change things to work more to my liking. I decided that, even if nothing more than a design challenge for myself, I wanted to redesign 5th Edition into something I was happy with. This series will be doing just that.

Inspirations

While I do like D&D 5th Edition, its not my favorite edition of the game. That honor goes to oft-maligned 4th Edition. While it does have some problems, I feel that most of its ideas are good, and that many could fit well into 5th Edition. If you see inspiration (or some things lifted wholesale) from 4th Edition, don't be surprised.

In terms of 5th Edition's own books, my favorite is easily Xanathar's Guide to Everything (2017). I think it adds a lot of iconic subclasses (Glamour Bard, Forge Cleric, Samurai Fighter, Gloomstalker Ranger, and Swashbuckler Rogue, just to name a few), and I like the design direction it seemed to be leading the game in. 

Art by Alexsander Kumor

Redesigning the Classes

Firstly, I want to lay out my design goals for these Class Redesigns.

• I want each class to have its own unique gimmick. This gimmick should define the class, and should be acquired relatively early on, to help sell the idea of the class. (Example: Barbarian Rage)
• I want each class to feel like it has a unique role in the party. Each class should clearly fill a niche, and even classes with similar niches should feel like they bring something unique to the table.
• I want each class to feel relatively balanced against the other classes, while still feeling distinct to play. 5th Edition's classes are not well balanced against one another, with a few clearly stronger and weaker classes. I would consider 4th Editions classes well balanced, but many complain that they don't feel distinct enough from one another, as they all use the AEDU system for their class abilities. I'd like to strike a middle ground between these two ideas.
• I want the classes to prioritize "in-play" options over "build" options. In-play options give the player more things to do in game, while build options give the player more choices when creating their character. One of my biggest complaints with systems like Pathfinder is that they feel too focused on the build, on creating a strong character that is optimized to handle any challenge. Your options during play are limited by what you chose for your build. While a system like this does reward system mastery, it also makes it harder for new players to make effective characters. Conversely, having more in-play options (something like Rogue's Cunning Action, which allows players to Hide, Dash or Disengage as a bonus action) requires no choices during character creation, but greatly expands player agency during the game.
• That all being said, I do want the classes to have more "build" options. There are a lot of classes where the only real choices you make are picking a subclass and picking ASIs/Feats. Many classes already do this well, but some classes could benefit from having more options to pick from. However, I don't want to limit In-Play options in favor of Build options.
• I want the classes to preserve their differing requirements of resource management. A lot of 5th Edition's class balance issues stem from the fact that very few people follow the "6-8 encounters per day" formula that the game was ostensibly balanced around. Short rests go underutilized, and long rests are taken too frequently. Thus, classes based on long-rest resources (pretty much every spellcaster) can run circles around classes based on short-rest or at-will resources (fighter, rogue, warlock, etc.) because they don't have to ration out their resources over the course of the adventure. That being said, I think this spread of resource management requirements helps to differentiate classes, and provides another element of choice to class selection.

So, with those design goals in mind, let's take a look at each in more detail, and brainstorm some ideas to fill in any potential gaps.

Classes and their Gimmicks

When I say gimmick, I'm referring to a core feature of the class, obtained early on in level progression, which defines the class in the minds of players. The class gimmick is the main thing the class does, or is known for doing. A number of the classes already have these gimmicks, but others don't. Let's start with the ones which do.

• Artificer Infusions: Artificers, as a class, are the magic item experts. They craft gadgets and have a wide array of devices/potions/gizmos to cover any scenario. As such, they have the ability to infuse items, turning them into magical gadgets. I think Infusions are a perfect gimmick for Artificers, but I think they definitely need more of them. Artificers not having enough build options will be a recurring theme.
• Barbarian Rage: Barbarians are wild, savage warriors, using brute strength to overcome their foes. Rage gives them bonuses to strength, to damage, and resistance to let them shrug off hits with ease. Rage is a perfect gimmick for Barbarians, and their subclasses tend to build upon this core gimmick, making it even better.
• Bardic Inspiration: Bards, as I will discuss later, are the superb Buff/Debuff class in 5th Edition, and the Bardic Inspiration is an excellent gimmick to show the Buff side of this. Many of the subclasses add more in-play options to this core gimmick, allowing Bardic Inspiration to be used in new ways, with some even allowing it to serve as a Debuff, to further encompass Bard's Buff/Debuff excellence. 
• Cleric Channel Divinity: If Clerics could be said to have a gimmick, it would be Channel Divinity. That being said, Channel Divinity is also shared by Paladins, muddling the class identity, and while most Cleric Domains give more in-play options for Channel Divinity, it still goes largely ignored by players except for certain Channel Divinity options. Thus, I think Channel Divinity needs a buff and to be given a bit more of a unique identity to really stand out.
• Druid Wildshape: Druids are of the old magic, in tune with the ancient, natural world. As such, they can turn into animals. I'm glad that some of the newer Druids have experimented with using Wildshape 'charges' for other effects, because turning into animals isn't always what I want my Druid to be doing. That being said, the idea of Wildshape as a sort of primal-flavored Channel Divinity is solid, and I think it's a good basis to build off of.
• Monk Martial Arts: While it could be argued that Ki is the signature Monk ability, that feels like calling Spellcasting a signature ability. I think what really defines Monks in the eyes of players is their Martial Arts - the ability to effectively fight unarmed. While it is a solid basis for a signature ability, it isn't expanded on enough, and most of what does expand upon it requires Ki, a resource Monks are already starved for.
• Paladin Smites and Auras: Gee, Paladin? How come 5th Edition lets you have two gimmicks? I would argue that both of these features are essential to most views of the Paladin as a class. They are holy knights, fighting evil on the frontlines while also supporting their allies. I think both of these features lend well to that idea. However, for reasons discussed later, I want to focus on their Aura abilities more, as I think they will better support the niche I want Paladin to occupy. Also, the fact that Paladins have two defining gimmicks is hopefully enough justification to remove their Channel Divinity, leaving that as a Cleric-exclusive gimmick.
• Ranger Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer: So, Rangers also technically have two gimmicks, but since Natural Explorer is so heavily tied to a broken exploration system and further serves to invalidate that system, I won't consider it here. Favored Enemy sets Rangers up to serve as focused killers, dealing especially well with certain prey and priority targets. I like the basis of this idea, but I do think it should be reworked into something more than weaponized racism.
• Rogue Sneak Attack: Another classic defining gimmick, Sneak Attack really encompasses the idea of Rogue perfectly - stealthy, tricky, underhanded, and fighting smarter, rather than harder. I also like that some of the Rogue subclasses give addition in-play options by allowing you to use Sneak Attack in more ways (Swashbuckler, most notably). A solid core gimmick.
• Sorcerer Metamagic: I always found it weird that they gave Metamagic to Sorcerers. Sorcerers are "known" spellcasters, rather than "prepared" spellcasters, operating with instinctive understanding of their magic, channeling from the heart, rather than studied practice. So why do they get the feature which modifies spells, instead of the Wizard? As a gimmick, it works fine, but I do think it feels out of place on Sorcerers.
• Warlock Invocations and Pact Boon: I think Warlocks indisputably win 5th Editions award for most build choices. A subclass at 1st level, invocations at 2nd and pact boons at 3rd give a lot of ways for you to define your Warlock. I do think Invocations are closer to an actual gimmick, as the Pact Boons are ultimately less impactful than the eight total Invocations a Warlock will eventually get, and the Invocations themselves resemble Artificer Infusions (or rather the Infusions were likely modeled off of Invocations). I think the gimmick gives a lot of customization when creating a Warlock, which is a good way to match the Warlock's abilities to their Patron. A good core gimmick.

You'll likely notice that the list left off two of the most iconic classes - Fighters and Wizards. Quite simply, I don't think either of these classes has a gimmick. I'll postulate that they don't have a gimmick on purpose: they are meant to be the "default" or archetypal Martial and Caster characters. That being said, I think a lack of gimmick only serves to hurt the class identity.

Before I talk about the changes I would make to any of these gimmicks, I want to establish what roles I think each class should be serving in the party, since that will have a significant impact on what changes should be made to the gimmicks.

Art by Sam Santala

Classes and their Roles

One of many things I think 4th Edition D&D does well is its 'class roles', which indicate what each class specializes in and what role they fill in the party. Ideally, a balanced party will have one of each of the four roles, but in practice, many 'mixed' parties were also quite effective. 

The roles from 4th Edition, which I will be porting over, are:

• Controller: Arguably the least appreciated of the roles, Controllers specialized in handling hordes of lesser enemies, using large, lower-damage AoEs to blast crowds, and other effects to lock down enemies with debuffs, forced movement, and difficult terrain. 
• Defender: Defenders excelled in drawing fire. They thrived on the front lines, and where they were, that was where the battle was. Defenders possessed abilities to help force enemies to target them, and their job was to take hits with their excellent defenses.
• Leader: Not to be confused with the concept of a 'party leader', Leaders focused on supporting their allies, healing and buffing them while making enemies vulnerable to combos.
• Striker: Strikers were masters of single-target offense, singling out a powerful enemy and tearing them down with concentrated offense. Strikers couldn't always take hits well, and relied on mobility, magic, or trickery to stay away from attacks and strike at their foes.

I'll be listing each class, along with what role I'd like them to fill in this new redesign, along with a brief explanation why. The first role listed is what the class will primarily focused on, with the second role being a secondary niche the class could focus on.

• Artificer (Controller/Leader): I think that, as they are now, Artificers excel at dealing with large crowds of enemies (using AoE potions, or with assistance from Artillerist turrets or Battlesmith companions), as well as inflicting debuffs and creating obstacles with their spells. Their secondary role is Leader, as they can gift Infused items to their allies to increase or support their combat potential.
• Barbarian (Defender/Striker): The damage resistance that Barbarians get from Rage make them excel at taking hits, and their Reckless Attack feature incentivizes enemies to attack them, making them good at drawing attacks. They can also dish out lots of damage with their Rage damage bonus and their brutal criticals.
• Bard (Leader/Controller): As masters of Buff and Debuff, Bards are a perfect fit for a Leader/Controller, buffing their allies while debuffing enemies. 
• Cleric (Leader/Defender): Clerics are the archetypal healers, and possess a good number of buff spells as well, making them excellent Leaders. They also possess a good selection of protective spells, and with many domains getting access to heavy armor, Clerics can also protect their allies quite effectively.
• Druid (Controller/Leader): Druid spells tend to focus on either large AoE damage or at creating obstacles on the battlefield (such as Spike Growth). They also have some access to healing spells, and with subclasses like Circle of Dreams, they can serve as decent support for their party.
• Fighter (Defender/Striker): Fighters are powerful threats on the battlefield, drawing enemy attention both with their own defensive abilities and the threat of concentrated damage that they can do.
• Monk (Controller/Striker): Monks are able to dish out a flurry of attacks, allowing them to either focus on striking many foes or laying many attacks into a single opponent. Their ability to inflict debuffs with their strikes makes them more Control-focused, overall.
• Paladin (Defender/Leader): Paladins are excellent heavily-armored warriors, drawing attention to themselves, and using their auras to buff their allies all the while. These auras also provide defensive utility for the party, further cementing their roles as protectors.
• Ranger (Striker/Controller): Rangers excel at targeted killing, hunting down marked targets to inflict massive damage. They also serve as excellent horde fighters, whether with twin blades, alongside an animal companion, or using a variety of controlling spells.
• Rogue (Striker/Defender): Rogue's role as a Striker is obvious - Sneak Attack allows for a massive blow to a powerful foe. Their role as Defenders relies more on their ability to taunt enemies as an enticing target, but use their Uncanny Dodge and Evasion to slip away from damage.
• Sorcerer (Striker/Controller): Sorcerers are the premier "Blaster Caster", dishing out concentrated offense with single-target or wide-ranging damage spells. Whether a singular boss or a crowd of foes, Sorcerers devastate no matter the opposition.
• Warlock (Striker/Leader): Warlocks operate as exceptional strikers with their powerful Eldritch Blast and a litany of upcast Pact Magic spells. Their role as Leaders comes less with healing and buffs (though Celestial Warlocks do quite well in that regard), and more in the sense of setting up combos by making enemies vulnerable to their ally's attacks.
• Wizard (Controller/Leader): Wizards have a wide variety of spells for every occasion, excelling at controlling the battlefield with their AoE spells, summons, and debuffs, while also using magic to set up their allies to succeed.

Most of these roles are already what these classes excel at, but these revisions should hopefully help to reinforce these strengths.

Art by Bad Moon Art

Revised Class Gimmicks

With these new roles in mind, we now return to the classes and their gimmicks, to fit each to their role.

Many already fit quite well: Artificer, Barbarian, Bard, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, and Warlock are already close enough to their concept to require little to no major change. Thus, we'll focus on the other six classes:

• Cleric: Channel Divinity feels too much like Spellcasting with extra steps. It also doesn't do much to play into the roles of Leader or Defender. While I would like to keep Turn Undead, as that sort of turn ability is a classic part of Cleric's abilities, it can easily be made its own ability, disconnected from Channel Divinity. I propose that Clerics should recieve access to a pool of healing energy, in the same way that Circle of Dreams and Celestial Pact do. This dice pool can even be repurposed for other in-play options: a Protection Cleric might be able to use the dice to reactively reduce damage when taken, while a War Cleric might be able to burn the dice for a "Divine Smite"-like effect.
• Druid: While Wildshape works for some Druids, there are other Druids that don't want to be focused on animals. However, all Druids have some sort of connection to nature, and a transformative effect could work well. So, instead of transforming into animals, why not give each subclass a unique way of transforming, somewhat like 4th Edition's Warden? Moon Druids can still transform into animals, but other Druids can have other transformations: Wildfire can become a Fire Spirit, Spores can become a Fungal Hive, Stars can become a Living Constellation, Land can become a Spirit of the Land, etc. However, this feature will still need some function outside of the subclasses. Instead of the base effect being to transform into animals, why not have the base effect restore spell slots, in the same way that Circle of the Land's Natural Recovery already works.
  This is definitely the ability that I'm the least satisfied with, so I may revisit it at a later point.
• Fighter: Fighters are supposed to be masters of combat and experts in their field (their field is the battlefield). I think the best way to represent this expertise is to give Fighters a form of Weapon Specialization, to represent their mastery over their chosen weapons. I'd also like to add "exotic" weapons to the game - less common weapons with superior base stats. Proficiency in these weapons would only be gained through a feat like Weapon Master (giving it another use), or through a Fighter feature, showing them once again as masters of everything Martial while also giving them stronger base options for their attacks.
• Ranger: I think that the concept of a "Favored Foe" is a good starting place for Ranger's core gimmick, though the initial implementation of "weaponized racism" was a bit silly. The Tasha's variant of a bootleg Hunter's Mark was alright, but ultimately lackluster. I want to build on that, making the Ranger a master of hunting marked foes. This will interact a lot with a new Condition I'll discuss later, but I like the idea of Ranger's marking a foe when they enter combat, and reapplying marks whenever the last mark fades, always giving them a specific foe to focus their fire against.
• Sorcerer: I'm going to start by making a controversial change: removing Metamagic from Sorcerer. Instead, I want to build upon an idea seen in the 5th Edition playtest - having Sorcerers transform as they cast spells, embodying their bloodline origin as they allow their inherited magic to manifest. I want to play this as a risk/reward mechanic, allowing Sorcerers to become even stronger and offense-focused as they transform, but at the cost of their defenses, turning into the ultimate glass cannons.
• Wizard: Since I'm removing Metamagic from Sorcerer, I'm deciding to give it to Wizards. Now, this will accompany a rebalance of Wizards, who I think are one of the strongest classes in the game right now. That rebalance will mostly be in regards to spells, as Wizards have few class features to speak of. Additionally, the Metamagic will not work like it currently does for Sorcerers. Since Wizards are prepared casters, the Metamagic (which I think I might rename to "Modified Formulae" or something similar, to reflect the flavor of Wizards tinkering with their own spellcraft) will be added to the spell when it is prepared, instead of when the spell is cast. This makes Metamagic less of a reactive addition and more closely reflects the Wizard's preparedness and forward-thinking, tinkering with their spells to suit the situation they think might arise.

Two New Conditions

As part of these class changes, I'm introducing two new conditions to the game: Marked and Taunted (the names might be changed later on). Marked is useful for Strikers and Leaders, and Taunted is useful for Defenders. Let's start with Marked.

Marked - Attacks which hit a Marked Creature can choose to consume the Marked condition in order to enhance the attack.

Marked, as a condition, draws a lot from the condition of the same name from Darkest Dungeon and the Lock-On condition from LANCER. The idea of the condition is that it doesn't do anything by itself, but it sets up for combos with other party members (or even subsequent attacks). An example use of how Marked might work is as follows: 

Cleary, a War Cleric, strikes a foe with a Censuring Strike, which causes the foe to become Marked. Jensen, an Assassin Rogue, attacks the Marked foe, consuming the Mark to increase the crit range on the attack, and making it more likely to double the potential damage of his sneak attack. 

Leaders mostly inflict Marked, while Strikers mostly consume Marked, though all classes will have some way to interact with the condition.

Next, let's look at Taunted:

Taunted - A taunted creature has disadvantage on attack rolls against any target except the source of the taunt. A creature can only be taunted by one target at a time, with new taunts superceding old taunts. The taunt ends if its creator dies or falls Unconcious.

Taunted, as a condition, is based on the Marked condition from 4th Edition. It was the main way that Defenders did their thing, inflicting a penalty on foes for attacking anyone else. This served as a way to draw attacks while making it harder to hit your weaker allies. In 4th Edition, the condition gave a -2 penalty (a malus equivalent to the +2 bonus from combat advantage), so inflicting disadvantage seemed the easiest way to replicate the effect in 5e. It also plays nicely with other taunt effects already in the game, such as Compelled Duel and Goading Attack. An example use of how Taunted might work is as follows:

Korrick, a Barbarian, uses his Bellowing Challenge to Taunt all enemies within 30 feet as he begins raging. This draws all attention to him, allowing his allies - a Wizard and a Rogue - to position themselves without worrying about enemies harassing them.

Defenders inflict Taunted, as it's the main way they draw aggro and defend teammates. Unlike Marked, Taunted will not appear much outside of Defenders.

These two conditions should help to reinforce class identities and align them with their assigned niches within the party.

Build Options and In-Play Options

I won't discuss much in terms of Build Options versus In-Play Options here, as that balance will very much be on a per-class basis. What I will say here is that most classes (specifically spellcasters) already have a large degree of build options, through their spell selection, granting choices every level up. Martial classes are what need a better selection of build options, as they do not already have something to choose every level. 

For Martial Classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue), I want these build options to work like Warlock Invocations, offering a choice between a few minor features. Ideally, I'd like these options to be fewer than Invocations, and have a bit more impact. Right now, my working names for these new martial options are: 

• Barbarian: Mighty Deeds
• Fighter: Techniques
• Monk: Kata
• Rogue: Tricks

These options will be discussed more in the respective class rewrites.

Class Resource Management

Right now, I would say that 5th Edition classes fall into three categories: long-rest classes, short-rest classes, and at-will classes. I want to roughly preserve these categories, but try and balance them more effectively (as mentioned before, with how most people play 5th Edition, long-rest classes are much stronger). Many classes are hybrids between these resource management styles, and will be mentioned in both categories.

Long-rest classes include Artificer (who restores spell slots and infuses items on a long rest), Barbarian (who get their Rages back on a long rest), Bard (who restores spell slots on a long rest), Cleric (who restores and prepares spell slots on a long rest), Druid (who restores spell slots on a long rest), Paladin (who restores and prepares spell slots on a long rest), Ranger (who restores spell slots on a long rest), Sorcerer (who restores spell slots on a long rest), and Wizard (who restores spell slots on a long rest).

Short-rest classes include Bard (who get Bardic Inspiration back on a short rest, after level 5), Druid (who get Wildshape charges back on a short rest), Fighter (whose features recharge on a short rest), Monk (who regain Ki points on a short rest), and Warlock (who restores spell slots on a short rest).

At-will classes include Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue, who all have a number of features that can be used at-will, and do not need to recharge.

Looking at this list, there are far too many long-rest classes, but most of these are spellcasting classes, and Warlock being the only spellcasters to restore spell slots on a short rest provides an interesting niche, and I don't want to change that. 

The only real change I want to make regarding this list is Monk, who I'd like to have more at-will features that aren't reliant on Ki points. Alongside other changes to resting and the pace of the 'Adventuring Day', I think this should help smooth out balance between the different classes and their styles of resource management.

That concludes the first part of this redesign challenge. The framework is set, and now begins the work of actually rewriting classes to fit this new model. I hope that you enjoyed reading my analysis of these classes and how I intend to rework them, and I hope you're looking forward to what's to come.

Until next time.

-Rabbit