There are a few subclasses that are on the weaker side, and a few subclasses that are slightly on the OP side, but I wouldn't say that one class is "inferior" to another - that's entirely situational. A subclass that is OP in one situation, can be severely underpowered in another.
Once you know the group makeup that will be playing in the campaign, simply tailor it to that group (strengths AND weaknesses). No need to "buff" anything. And one way to ensure that one character isn't overpowering others in the group, is to use Point Buy for the ability scores. Prior to 5e I hated the idea of point buy, but 5e really is dependent on it. I was the first DM in our extended group(s) to require its use, and since then almost every DM in our extended group now does as well - after they saw how it works out. It really makes a world of difference, and makes it MUCH easier to balance encounters across different classes/subclasses. It ensures that there won't be one character who rolled lucky, and comes in nearly god-like while another who rolled poorly comes in with one foot already in the grave. With point buy, they all come in the same.
This is true of both 2014 and 2024. But one thing I would caution against, is mixing 2014 characters with 2024 characters in the same group. Depending on the mix, the 2014 character will be underpowered - you can get around this by allowing them to at least use the 2024 version of their class (and the 2014 version of the subclass). If you are using DnDBeyond for your character sheets, there are some that you may need to homebrew to get them to work out right - but it can be done.
Not really knowing the context of your question, that's the best answer I can give.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
I'm holding a campaign and want to know how to buff classes that are inferior to magic using classes
If you are certain you want to buff weapon users, then the easiest way to do so is to make weapon damage scale like cantrips, so at 5th level increase the number of damage dice by 1, then again at 11th level, then again at 17th level. So a rapier would deal 1d8+DEX at 3rd level, 2d8+DEX at 6th level, 3d8+DEX at 12th level, and 4d8+DEX at 18th level on each attack.
I use a concept similar to Agile except I take the average and make it a straight + so if its 4d6 say for a scimitar at level 17 i leave it as 1d6 and create a homebrew description and email it to the player basically telling him to just add +9 to whatever the current +to damage is in D&D beyond that way they can roll damage in the character sheet and its all seamless.
Personally I think its only fair it not like melee classes get to timestop or anything they are there to take a beating and give a beating. A caster from 120' away should not hit harder with a firebolt - lets not even mention a warlock.
Cantrips scale damage to put them on par with weapon users gaining Extra Attacks as they level up. Making multiple attack rolls is superior to just adding damage as it increases the chances of scoring a crit.
At 5th level, when the FTR gains a second attack, cantrip users gain a second damage die. If you are going to scale weapon damage, you would need to take away Extra Attack to compensate.
A 5th level caster using Fire Bolt gets 1 attack roll for 2d10 damage.
A 5th level Fighter using a longsword two handed gets 2 attack rolls for 1d10 each (total of 2d10 damage).
Same damage, but the fighter has twice the chance to score a crit, and adds their STR modifier TWICE (once for each die, whereas the caster with the right feats can only add their modifier once per spell).
Cantrips scale damage to put them on par with weapon users gaining Extra Attacks as they level up.
The point is that magic users get a ton of other stuff in addition to scaling cantrip damage, whereas weapon users don't get much other than the additional damage from Extra Attack. Therefore a higher levels magic users are OP because they get all their levelled spells plus reliable damage via cantrips similar to that of a martial but a martial just gets the damage no uber powerful spells on top. Thus to compensate you give martials uber powerful damage so their attacks rival the power of a 5th level spell rather than be comparable to a cantrip. This is under the assumption of relatively few combats / day so your spellcasters can chuck out a 5th level spell or higher most turns in combat in tier 4 play.
I agree that there is an unbalance between spellcasters and weapon users, this has been an issue since the earliest days of the game. I just take issue with scaling weapon damage as the cure. The game is not balanced to PvP and never has been (I would argue that they should have balanced it to PvP).
If you believe spellcasters do too much damage at higher levels, then nerf them (houserule away their ability to upcast (allow the upcast, but give it no additional damage)). But adding to the power creep by making even more classes OP isn't the answer that I would support.
Personally I'd like to see the pure weapon user classes get more hp to make them a bit sturdier, or give them easier access to damage resistance (P/B/S) to allow them to absorb attacks better.
In my experience, martials are better than casters until level 5 (fireball). Level 1 and 2 spells just don't do enough damage to compensate for limited uses at low level. (except witch bolt which they decided to buff).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"A duck."
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
But adding to the power creep by making even more classes OP isn't the answer that I would support.
I completely agree, I don't find the damage of high level casters that problematic but more so their battlefield control and utility. I wished WotC had the guts to nerf spells significantly with the 2024 update but they didn't. There's a whole bunch of people who disagree and just want to buff martials so they can do equally world-breaking stuff as casters can do, which IMO solves nothing, as the problem isn't that spellcasters are more powerful than martials the problem is that spellcasting very often makes the game less fun - banishing a BBEG rather than fighting it is boring, locking an enemy in a forcecage is boring, strafing out of a prismatic wall is boring etc... etc.... having martials one-shot BBEGs with some lucky rolls is also boring. But hey, the OP wants to just buff martials so I gave them a way to do it.
Cantrips scale damage to put them on par with weapon users gaining Extra Attacks as they level up. Making multiple attack rolls is superior to just adding damage as it increases the chances of scoring a crit.
At 5th level, when the FTR gains a second attack, cantrip users gain a second damage die. If you are going to scale weapon damage, you would need to take away Extra Attack to compensate.
A 5th level caster using Fire Bolt gets 1 attack roll for 2d10 damage.
A 5th level Fighter using a longsword two handed gets 2 attack rolls for 1d10 each (total of 2d10 damage).
Same damage, but the fighter has twice the chance to score a crit, and adds their STR modifier TWICE (once for each die, whereas the caster with the right feats can only add their modifier once per spell).
In addition, fighters can get items. A +1 sword gives a bonus to attack and to damage on both of those longsword attacks.
Casters can get items just as easily Rod of the Pact Keeper - Blood vial - wand of the war mage and on and on.
The problem in a DM rebalancing casters is that it is a monumental task - and it would piss the players off - and you would need to rebalance all the encounters and monsters as they assume x level of magic - where as if you just buff martials its like having a party of all casters easy peasy. And as a side benefit everyone is happy - casters are never outshined by martials (battlefield control, teleport, true polymorph, wish, mass heal just to name a few)
So the easiest solution is to buff martials so they are not sitting around playing tiddly winks while the casters do all the cool stuff from 120' away. I typically balance my martials so they do 125-150% of the damage of a caster using cantrips - and lets not forget illusionists bracers and quicken spell and spelldriver. So yeah the bump to martials needs to be of a decent magnitude for the melee players to feel like they are contributing too.
That is likely why anyone that has played in one of my games is more likely to play a martial if that is there playstyle than feel like they NEED to go caster to just be effective.
I make sure that they all have the ability to meaningfully contribute on a more or less even keel.
As for power creep if WOTC wanted to fix that they would have nerfed casters with a bat in 2024 - they did not so if the game designer does not care - hell I have no issue with it. There is no D&D police that is going to raid my game if I up monsters hit points by a few hundred here and there - or let them cast what would normally be an action for a player as a bonus action, or double up the number of mobs in an encounter.
It is all about having fun the rule books are a guide not a thing etched in stone.
Its the DM's job to tell the story, be the traffic cop, teach the game to new players, make sure as best they can everyone at the table including themselves is having fun and that's it - the exact path every table takes to get there is really irrelevant.
The problem in a DM rebalancing casters is that it is a monumental task - and it would piss the players off - and you would need to rebalance all the encounters and monsters as they assume x level of magic - where as if you just buff martials its like having a party of all casters easy peasy. And as a side benefit everyone is happy - casters are never outshined by martials (battlefield control, teleport, true polymorph, wish, mass heal just to name a few)
Consistent DPS. Sure a spellcaster can get higher damage with fireball or lightning bolt, but they have limited spell slots. Also, resilience. A wizard has low AC and hitpoints, while a barbarian has high AC, high hitpoints, and resistance to BPS damage.
I'm holding a campaign and want to know how to buff classes that are inferior to magic using classes
There are a few subclasses that are on the weaker side, and a few subclasses that are slightly on the OP side, but I wouldn't say that one class is "inferior" to another - that's entirely situational. A subclass that is OP in one situation, can be severely underpowered in another.
Once you know the group makeup that will be playing in the campaign, simply tailor it to that group (strengths AND weaknesses). No need to "buff" anything. And one way to ensure that one character isn't overpowering others in the group, is to use Point Buy for the ability scores. Prior to 5e I hated the idea of point buy, but 5e really is dependent on it. I was the first DM in our extended group(s) to require its use, and since then almost every DM in our extended group now does as well - after they saw how it works out. It really makes a world of difference, and makes it MUCH easier to balance encounters across different classes/subclasses. It ensures that there won't be one character who rolled lucky, and comes in nearly god-like while another who rolled poorly comes in with one foot already in the grave. With point buy, they all come in the same.
This is true of both 2014 and 2024. But one thing I would caution against, is mixing 2014 characters with 2024 characters in the same group. Depending on the mix, the 2014 character will be underpowered - you can get around this by allowing them to at least use the 2024 version of their class (and the 2014 version of the subclass). If you are using DnDBeyond for your character sheets, there are some that you may need to homebrew to get them to work out right - but it can be done.
Not really knowing the context of your question, that's the best answer I can give.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
If you are certain you want to buff weapon users, then the easiest way to do so is to make weapon damage scale like cantrips, so at 5th level increase the number of damage dice by 1, then again at 11th level, then again at 17th level. So a rapier would deal 1d8+DEX at 3rd level, 2d8+DEX at 6th level, 3d8+DEX at 12th level, and 4d8+DEX at 18th level on each attack.
I use a concept similar to Agile except I take the average and make it a straight + so if its 4d6 say for a scimitar at level 17 i leave it as 1d6 and create a homebrew description and email it to the player basically telling him to just add +9 to whatever the current +to damage is in D&D beyond that way they can roll damage in the character sheet and its all seamless.
Personally I think its only fair it not like melee classes get to timestop or anything they are there to take a beating and give a beating. A caster from 120' away should not hit harder with a firebolt - lets not even mention a warlock.
Cantrips scale damage to put them on par with weapon users gaining Extra Attacks as they level up. Making multiple attack rolls is superior to just adding damage as it increases the chances of scoring a crit.
At 5th level, when the FTR gains a second attack, cantrip users gain a second damage die. If you are going to scale weapon damage, you would need to take away Extra Attack to compensate.
A 5th level caster using Fire Bolt gets 1 attack roll for 2d10 damage.
A 5th level Fighter using a longsword two handed gets 2 attack rolls for 1d10 each (total of 2d10 damage).
Same damage, but the fighter has twice the chance to score a crit, and adds their STR modifier TWICE (once for each die, whereas the caster with the right feats can only add their modifier once per spell).
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
The point is that magic users get a ton of other stuff in addition to scaling cantrip damage, whereas weapon users don't get much other than the additional damage from Extra Attack. Therefore a higher levels magic users are OP because they get all their levelled spells plus reliable damage via cantrips similar to that of a martial but a martial just gets the damage no uber powerful spells on top. Thus to compensate you give martials uber powerful damage so their attacks rival the power of a 5th level spell rather than be comparable to a cantrip. This is under the assumption of relatively few combats / day so your spellcasters can chuck out a 5th level spell or higher most turns in combat in tier 4 play.
I agree that there is an unbalance between spellcasters and weapon users, this has been an issue since the earliest days of the game. I just take issue with scaling weapon damage as the cure. The game is not balanced to PvP and never has been (I would argue that they should have balanced it to PvP).
If you believe spellcasters do too much damage at higher levels, then nerf them (houserule away their ability to upcast (allow the upcast, but give it no additional damage)). But adding to the power creep by making even more classes OP isn't the answer that I would support.
Personally I'd like to see the pure weapon user classes get more hp to make them a bit sturdier, or give them easier access to damage resistance (P/B/S) to allow them to absorb attacks better.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
In my experience, martials are better than casters until level 5 (fireball). Level 1 and 2 spells just don't do enough damage to compensate for limited uses at low level. (except witch bolt which they decided to buff).
Extended signature
I completely agree, I don't find the damage of high level casters that problematic but more so their battlefield control and utility. I wished WotC had the guts to nerf spells significantly with the 2024 update but they didn't. There's a whole bunch of people who disagree and just want to buff martials so they can do equally world-breaking stuff as casters can do, which IMO solves nothing, as the problem isn't that spellcasters are more powerful than martials the problem is that spellcasting very often makes the game less fun - banishing a BBEG rather than fighting it is boring, locking an enemy in a forcecage is boring, strafing out of a prismatic wall is boring etc... etc.... having martials one-shot BBEGs with some lucky rolls is also boring. But hey, the OP wants to just buff martials so I gave them a way to do it.
In addition, fighters can get items. A +1 sword gives a bonus to attack and to damage on both of those longsword attacks.
Casters can get items just as easily Rod of the Pact Keeper - Blood vial - wand of the war mage and on and on.
The problem in a DM rebalancing casters is that it is a monumental task - and it would piss the players off - and you would need to rebalance all the encounters and monsters as they assume x level of magic - where as if you just buff martials its like having a party of all casters easy peasy. And as a side benefit everyone is happy - casters are never outshined by martials (battlefield control, teleport, true polymorph, wish, mass heal just to name a few)
So the easiest solution is to buff martials so they are not sitting around playing tiddly winks while the casters do all the cool stuff from 120' away. I typically balance my martials so they do 125-150% of the damage of a caster using cantrips - and lets not forget illusionists bracers and quicken spell and spelldriver. So yeah the bump to martials needs to be of a decent magnitude for the melee players to feel like they are contributing too.
That is likely why anyone that has played in one of my games is more likely to play a martial if that is there playstyle than feel like they NEED to go caster to just be effective.
I make sure that they all have the ability to meaningfully contribute on a more or less even keel.
As for power creep if WOTC wanted to fix that they would have nerfed casters with a bat in 2024 - they did not so if the game designer does not care - hell I have no issue with it. There is no D&D police that is going to raid my game if I up monsters hit points by a few hundred here and there - or let them cast what would normally be an action for a player as a bonus action, or double up the number of mobs in an encounter.
It is all about having fun the rule books are a guide not a thing etched in stone.
Its the DM's job to tell the story, be the traffic cop, teach the game to new players, make sure as best they can everyone at the table including themselves is having fun and that's it - the exact path every table takes to get there is really irrelevant.
Consistent DPS. Sure a spellcaster can get higher damage with fireball or lightning bolt, but they have limited spell slots. Also, resilience. A wizard has low AC and hitpoints, while a barbarian has high AC, high hitpoints, and resistance to BPS damage.
Extended signature