Kryx's Houserules

[Kryx]

This thread will be used for people to discuss my houserules. My houserules are a collection of many balance changes and some class rewrites. I've added the Magus class and rewrote the Fighter, Sorcerer, and Warlock.

If you want to discuss the merits of balance in general please take that elsewhere. You can also read: Opinions on Kryx's houserules? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533854-Opinions-on-Kryx-s-houserules)

Kryx's Houserules (https://marklenser.com/5e)







Kryx, I've told you before, but I just want you to know I think you're a genius at designing this kind of stuff. Please make the Magus (and let me know if you do!). I love Gishes and 5e seriously lacks a good Arcane Gish at the moment.
I'm hoping Kryx can somehow pull one out of his hat. If anyone can, it's him.

I regard you and your work highly enough that I would pretty much pay to have you include just a part of my Int halfcaster.

As for your Barbarian and the Two-Weapon Fighting fixes, just in general, I wish, I really wish, they'd reprint the entire PHB with those rules as real official canon forever.

I can see that a lot of work went into these, and I may pick and choose some of the rules in my games, but obviously don't want to make such sweeping changes mid campaign. But I think that some may turn up, thanks for all of the hard work!

I dig a lot of what you did there. It provides some guidance on what I'm trying to do right now for my own game.

I like the idea of changing feats around from mechanical bonuses and fluffy bonuses.

I like the changes to the Alert feat, because that's busted and silly.

I like the idea behind specific skill checks for grappling and other strength and dexterity maneuvers, but also am unsure with how I would want to approach it myself.

Making meta-magic be feat focused seems like a good choice, and I like that.

Increasing Bow range seems a little strong. I think their might be better nuance in there then by increasing the range.

Lots of work, and something I am trying to get to myself as I build a 5e campaign setting and my own houserules.

Cool stuff man.

Just got a chance to read over Kryx's materials proper, specifically the Traits section. I wanted to address it specifically in a more relevant thread.

It's genius. I wish there were more traits, but the fault lies in the fact that there weren't enough feats to convert like this. I might include an extra one gained between levels 10 and 20 as well (maybe 15, it's mostly a dead level anyway), though that's a matter of taste and with the current dearth of options, restraining it's necessary to prevent serious overlap between players. It's something the system really should have had in the first place to emphasize that there's more to gaining levels than killing things better.

And you get to do cool things like make a master tactician that's also an awesome tracker or an experienced spelunker. Or a wizard that practices good cardio. That's just great.

I just wanted to say thank you Kryx, for the huge amount of work that you have put into this.

Most of the changes I've made at my table have been with inspiration from your houserules, and I more or less always use 'em as a reference point when making any changes (they are an always open tab in my browser :smallsmile: )

Just yesterday I was working on a backup character inspired by warhammers warrior priest of sigmar, but I've always found the war domain sorely lacking in power. I looked at your changes and found exactly what I was looking for in a war cleric - and im about to go update my houserule Gdoc with those changes.

The sorc changes we have made are also inspired by you, and the extended spell list they get based on origins, has a direct link to your houserules.

You have also been very helpful whenever I've PM'ed you with a question regarding homebrew and balance of said brew.

So to end the rant: People like you and Zman are IMO very important to the community at large. The amount of time and work that you guys spend on tinkering, enables me to enjoy the game ALOT more without having to reinvent the wheel, whenever im unhappy with certain elements of 5E such as the sorc, TWF, monk etc etc.

Keep up the good work dude, me and many others (as seen in this thread) really appreciate it.

Registered just to post praise!

I like the amount of work you put into your home brew content, it makes it easy for players to know what rules you have and what to expect when playing in your games, sadly my GM is like Phoenix Wright with his home brew rules and will tell me that such and such doesn't work the way written and explains it then never makes a decent text document with these rules available.

As most of my experience in 5e revolves around Warlock I like the work you put into it, the Warlock feels like they were a bit over cautious in the creation of it, not as bad as the Ranger, but the seems sure do show in the core rules.

Anywho, keep up the work, I'll stare wantonly at your guide and put on my wishes into getting my GM to adopt something similar.


I don't think I actually said it, but Kryx's changes heavily influenced my own material, so much that I had to create a credits page just in case I ever make the mistake of posting my crap for everyone to see.

At one point I imported everything. Then I simply eliminated changes because I didn't feel they were absolutely necessary. The half-feats, for example... loved them, but ultimately, including them would have basically meant training my players to a new system. But because of his work, I have a better idea of what stuff is balanced and what isn't, and where I don't, I can look at his work and trust he's done all the necessary math.

I would have zero problem making a character in his game. I don't know what he's like as a DM, but since I doubt Kryx lives in Toronto and/or has a free spot in his game, I can only hope to have a DM decide to wholesale adopt his changes. Because a Kryx Bladelock would be *amazing*.

Thank you Kryx for being a balancing influence and houserule inspirationist. :)

[Ugganaut]

Been trying to digest this. Love your work Kryx, thanks for sharing your hard work. A lot of great stuff here.
Some comments and questions.
1. [Pg 2] Short Rest - "can’t benefit from more than". So that supposed to be "no more"?

2. [Pg 2] Interacting with an object in an occupied space - Is this meant for disarming?

3. [Pg 4] Bulky - Was reading about the battle of Malta I think it was, as an example of sleeping in armor over extended periods of time, saying it didn't cause exhaustion. In times of war, it can be pretty deadly to be unarmored, and no one died just from sleeping in plate mail for a week(which exhaustion tends to do in 5e). Is a rule like this really necessary do you think? If so, should it be capped at some point, or does the nights rest technically remove the previous nights exhaustion level?

4. [Pg 7] Character Advancement - The table shows 14 ability score improvements(+1s) for fighter, which I'm assuming each can be traded for a half feat. When you say in addition to normal advancement you get a feat at lvl 2, is that in addition to the tables ASI(so feat and ASI at 2nd level)? And what does "With this rule Fighters will have 8+18," mean? Can't get my head around this for some reason.

5. [Pg8] Cantrip Initiate - Is choosing a spellcasting ability just for giggles, or did I miss something?

I'll try continue later in order, but one last question :)
Any intentions to add more Fighter subclasses? I want to put a lot of these changes to our group, but one guy is a Dex based Battle Master(MAM, Mobile), more an charismatic skirmisher. There's no option here he could even pretend would fit that character. Battle Master and Champion, if nothing else, were generic enough to fit almost anything. I much prefer your changes to the class by the way. I know this isn't your issue, just wondering if you had plans to add more.

Again, great work mate.

[Kryx]

Hey Ugganaut, thanks for the feedback!


1. [Pg 2] Short Rest - "can’t benefit from more than". So that supposed to be "no more"?
The wording here matches the long rest ruling that comes from the PHB.

"A character can’t benefit from more than one long rest"
"A character can’t benefit from more than two short rests"


2. [Pg 2] Interacting with an object in an occupied space - Is this meant for disarming?
I answer what it is meant for: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533854-Opinions-on-Kryx-s-houserules&p=22334419#post22334419


3. [Pg 4] Bulky - Was reading about the battle of Malta I think it was, as an example of sleeping in armor over extended periods of time, saying it didn't cause exhaustion. In times of war, it can be pretty deadly to be unarmored, and no one died just from sleeping in plate mail for a week(which exhaustion tends to do in 5e). Is a rule like this really necessary do you think? If so, should it be capped at some point, or does the nights rest technically remove the previous nights exhaustion level?
This topic is quite subjective. You'll see lots of posts on it all around the internet.
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/47136/are-there-any-penalties-for-wearing-armor-all-the-time covers this topic quite well. I'll quote the part that speaks to me:

However, while sleeping in your armour might not be that bad for your rest, prolonged armour use without breaks will eventually lead to all manners of unpleasant side effects. For example there is something called pressure ulcers also known as bedsores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_ulcer). They are incredible painful and nasty. Another nasty effect is spinal compression.
You, and that poster, are right that armor probably wouldn't impact sleep beyond a bit of stiffness as if you slept on a poor bed. But wearing armor 24/7 would surely have an impact on your health quite quickly as he points out about bedsores.
Sleeping in armor for 1 night? Not a huge issue. Sleeping in armor for multiple nights? Surely an issue for your overall rest and would surely lead to at least the first level of exhaustion.

Per the rules I have the exhaustion wouldn't increase every day unless you acquire other forms. It would be a perpetual 1 level of exhaustion which is pretty appropriate imo.


4. [Pg 7] Character Advancement - The table shows 14 ability score improvements(+1s) for fighter, which I'm assuming each can be traded for a half feat. When you say in addition to normal advancement you get a feat at lvl 2, is that in addition to the tables ASI(so feat and ASI at 2nd level)? And what does "With this rule Fighters will have 8+18," mean? Can't get my head around this for some reason.
You seem to be confusing the two different rules for feats and ASIs. There is a variant rule which provides the 14 ASIs to a fighter, it would replace the standard rule that I have written there.

8 = 8 ability score improvements = +1 = 8 ability score points
all abilities scores increase by 1 at 5,10,15 = 3*6 = 18.


5. [Pg8] Cantrip Initiate - Is choosing a spellcasting ability just for giggles, or did I miss something?
Spellcasting ability determines the ability to hit and the DC of spells.


Any intentions to add more Fighter subclasses? I want to put a lot of these changes to our group, but one guy is a Dex based Battle Master(MAM, Mobile), more an charismatic skirmisher. There's no option here he could even pretend would fit that character. Battle Master and Champion, if nothing else, were generic enough to fit almost anything. I much prefer your changes to the class by the way. I know this isn't your issue, just wondering if you had plans to add more.
Possibly if there are new UAs that come out or great quality homebrews to steal from or strong inspirations to use.
Regarding your specific character: A warlord would surely match that character.

[Ugganaut]

1. No idea how I misread that. Brain fart. Apologies.

2. An object not being held, gotcha.

3. I can see it being an issue if your not taking it off to bath. I guess the idea of punishing the heavy armor uses more for something that highly debatable rubs me the wrong way.

4. You're right, I'm definitely confused :smallsmile:

5. Except the feat says you can't pick a spell with an attack or DC. I guess the stat is for flavor. "that class's spell list". I'm guessing you're supposed to pick a class, its just not mentioned. A minor detail, ignore me.

6. A battle leader doesn't fit him at all, he's more the quiet stealthy type. I tried to convince him to be a rogue, but nope. The Samurai's mechanics come close enough, but he wouldn't choose something named Samurai, because he's not a samurai. He's a problem player :smallsmile:

[Kryx]

5. Except the feat says you can't pick a spell with an attack or DC. I guess the stat is for flavor. "that class's spell list". I'm guessing you're supposed to pick a class, its just not mentioned. A minor detail, ignore me.
Ah, I'll fix it.


6. A battle leader doesn't fit him at all, he's more the quiet stealthy type. I tried to convince him to be a rogue, but nope. The Samurai's mechanics come close enough, but he wouldn't choose something named Samurai, because he's not a samurai. He's a problem player :smallsmile:
I would suggest porting the swashbuckler to the fighter if that's the character he wants to play without going rogue. It wouldn't be too hard to make work.

[PhantomSoul]

Ah, I'll fix it.

[Re: Spellcasting stat for cantrips without Attack Rolls or Saving Throws] I'd leave it as is, both because that's how it's done in other cases (e.g. the Genasi spells) and because it makes it easier if ever the DM calls for you to do a Stat-using roll for doing something creative (e.g. Prestidigitation when dealing with Brown Mold).

[Ugganaut]

Thanks, I'll rename it Skirmisher and change the charisma themed stuff. Should work.


[Re: Spellcasting stat for cantrips without Attack Rolls or Saving Throws] I'd leave it as is, both because that's how it's done in other cases (e.g. the Genasi spells) and because it makes it easier if ever the DM calls for you to do a Stat-using roll for doing something creative (e.g. Prestidigitation when dealing with Brown Mold).

Agreed. I think he meant the "pick a class" part.

[PhantomSoul]

Agreed. I think he meant the "pick a class" part.

Oh, my bad! I guess that part kind of just goes with the idea of picking a spell from a spell list, but it's true that it could be phrased without that part.

[Ugganaut]

Path of the Berserker: Reckless Abandon - That seems incredibly weak. Compared to a bear totem, which gets Spirit Seeker and Resistance all except psychic, this gives a secondary stat thp, only when using Reckless Attack. A maximum of 5thp/round at high levels seems like next to nothing. Personally I'd prefer the thp leveled separately and higher than from Con, and maybe a temporary +2 to 4 Str(no max) on those reckless attacks.

Primal Toughness - love it. Hated that it still needed Dex in PHB. That feature should be a valid option to not wearing armor, not just a little bonus if you find yourself naked.

[UrielAwakened]

The only thing I don't like is the massive sorcerer overhaul.

All the base sorcerer needs is more spells known, unique spells learned based on your path, and a way to recover sorcery points during a short rest without having to dip 3 levels in Warlock. That's all I want as a sorcerer player.

I want to feel like a less versatile wizard but way better at cranking out damage than any evoker. Evokers should want to be me not vice versa. I thought that was one distinction 4e tried to do well even if blaster wizards still ended up doing more damage overall.

Maybe let each path gain their casting stat to a damage type instead?

[Kryx]

The RAW Sorcerer's niche of metamagic is not sufficient for my tastes.

If you would like to keep metamagic as the niche of a Sorcerer then my Sorcerer won't be one that you want to use. Everyone has different tastes and that's ok, but in my opinion the idea of metamagic being married to the Sorcerer class was a mistake.

[clash]

Most of these seem reasonable. I think there is an added level of complexity in traits/asi/feats progression but that doesn't mean it is bad. My biggest issue is with the removal of a bonus action from so many things. It seems like it might open it up to some of the brokeness of 3.5 where it becomes a game of how many actions can I squeeze into one turn triggered off other things. I remember in particular a "Jack B Quick" 3.5 build that worked off chaining different attacks that triggered off other attacks in a way that was completely broken.

I dont have the time right now to disect your rules looking for one of these exploits but one of the nice things about using the bonus action for all of these triggers is that it avoids that optimization mess. As is in 5e if you are doing something with your action, and your bonus action, and have some way to use your reaction then you are pretty optimized.

I am not saying that removing the bonus action from options isnt balanced. I am saying it makes my inner optimizer have to choose between getting that extra, extra action on my turn or building the character that I thematically want even though it will be less optimized. I just dont want to have to make that choice. If I only have one bonus action and my less optimized build only has one way to use that bonus action where more optimization could give me 3 ways to use it it doesnt really matter because it is still just one bonus action.

For example, say I wanted to play a duelist rogue instead of a twf. With the bonus action requirement on cunning action it doesnt matter that I am not twf because I am always using my bonus action to hide. With your options twf is strictly superior. I can use my cunning action and twf and lets throw in arcane trickster for advantage on all attacks. Now I can attack twice with advantage every turn and still use cunning action to hide at the end of my turn, but all I really wanted was a swashbuckler rogue fighting with a rapier but he would only get 1 attack with advantage(if hiding was successful) instead of two with advantage.

[UrielAwakened]

The RAW Sorcerer's niche of metamagic is not sufficient for my tastes.

If you would like to keep metamagic as the niche of a Sorcerer then my Sorcerer won't be one that you want to use. Everyone has different tastes and that's ok, but in my opinion the idea of metamagic being married to the Sorcerer class was a mistake.

Would you mind walking me through your thought process? Like, how did you determine the Sorcerer needed such a big rework compared to other classes? Maybe I'm wrong.

[Kryx]

Hi Clash, thanks for the feedback. I'll try to be as detailed with my response. Please take these pieces as conversation starters if you think there is further room to discuss any of them:


My biggest issue is with the removal of a bonus action from so many things. It seems like it might open it up to some of the brokeness of 3.5 where it becomes a game of how many actions can I squeeze into one turn triggered off other things.
The concern of this was the largest discussion on a thread I started on the topic: Mearls' Bonus Action Removal (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?525771-Mearls-Bonus-Action-Removal)

I found the concern to be largely unfounded when I removed most of them.


I am saying it makes my inner optimizer have to choose between getting that extra, extra action on my turn
If you think such builds exist please expose them here. The benefits of removing bonus actions far outweighed that minor cost as far as I could see, but perhaps I have missed ideas that are of serious concern.


For example, say I wanted to play a duelist rogue instead of a twf. With the bonus action requirement on cunning action it doesnt matter that I am not twf because I am always using my bonus action to hide. With your options twf is strictly superior.
A duelist rogue is suboptimal choice with or without my houserules.
In RAW a TWF rogue does 40 DPR at level 20. In RAW a Rapier rogue does 32 DPR.
In my houserules a TWF rogue does 43 DPR at level 20. In my houserules a Rapier rogue does 32 DPR.

The build is quite bad already if we're concerned about optimization. A rapier rogue having access to dash, disengage, or stealth wouldn't be enough to make up for doing 77-80% of a TWF rogue's damage. If it were then in RAW the TWF rogue would just not use his bonus action attack and he'd still do 93-98% of the damage a Rapier rogue does. That versatility to do either significantly more damage or take a bonus action already makes Rapier rogue a completely suboptimal choice via RAW. Because of that I do not consider the changes to drastically change the situation. Rapier was and still is a very suboptimal choice. If we want to fix the rapier's competitiveness with TWF (which I'd actualy like to do) then we need to provide the rapier rogue either the ability to match TWF's damage or a different niche.


I can use my cunning action and twf and lets throw in arcane trickster for advantage on all attacks.
By removing bonus action from this and cunning action it definitely makes the rogue more versatile, but I'm not really sure this is a signficant concern that would outweigh the benefits of no bonus actions.

For internal balance this feature not having a bonus action doesn't change much as all rogue can now use cunning action every round - similar to how fighters can use a maneuver every round. The feature still requires a round of setup using the rogue's action to cast mage hand which means he must cast it immediately before combat or waste a turn casting it which would cost him precious DPR. It doesn't seem to be a concern of power, but something that we should enable the rogue to do since the cost of an action is already very high.

For external balance this feature is at level 13 so the ability to dip for it is non existant. That means we're only concerned about dipping away from the class. If there are any known issues of bonus action removal on the lower levels of other classes please point them out and I will try to resolve them. Personal opinion: 5e works much better without multiclassing, whether my rules are used are not. Multiclassing is typically just a power grab for the players. If a desire isn't met by the current classes I'd much rather meet that desire via homebrew than encourage multiclassing. That said I don't want to ignore multiclassing for balance purposes - just an observation.


all I really wanted was a swashbuckler rogue fighting with a rapier but he would only get 1 attack with advantage(if hiding was successful) instead of two with advantage
Swashbucklers can't use hiding tactics. Their subclass is built on melee weapons and any stealth is lost as soon as you are in vision of an enemy.

[Kryx]

Would you mind walking me through your thought process? Like, how did you determine the Sorcerer needed such a big rework compared to other classes? Maybe I'm wrong.
I'd really rather avoid this turning into another Sorcerer thread. There are dozens of them on the main forums and across forums in 5e. I'll quote some of my earlier posts about the topic, but I'd appreciate it if we don't dive deeply into this rabbit hole as I've had this discussion many times now and I'm kind of tired of it and I'd like to avoid this turning into another one of those threads.


I'd like to make a case for metamagic being available to all casters. Perhaps we can have a fruitful discussion.
Caster Options:
By RAW a caster has 5 ASIs/feats. Assuming a caster starts with 16 in their casting stat 2/5 of those ASIs go to their casting stat. That leaves 3 options. Resilient and War Caster are pretty much only the great options. (See Treantmonk's guide to Wizards (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IeOXWvbkmQ3nEyM2P3lS8TU4rsK6QJP0oH7HE_v67QY/edit) under feats). Add Lucky to that list and you've exhausted all great caster options. There are some decent options, but there are so few options for casters.

Controller: 5 ASIs: 2 ASIs for casting ability score with 3 left for Resilient, War Caster, Lucky, or other options which are mostly mediocre.
Blaster: 5 ASIs: 2 ASIs for casting ability score with 3 left for Lucky or other options which are mostly mediocre.


By RAW a martial has 5-7 ASIs/Feats. Assuming they at least increase their attack/damage stat that leaves them with 3-5 ASIs/Feats. Assuming they also increase either their consitution (since most are on the front lines) or their casting stat (Paladin/Ranger) that leaves us with 1-3 ASIs for most martials. Add on feats like GWM, Crossbow Expert, Lucky, Martial Adept, Mobile, Polearm Master, Resilient, Savage Attacker, Sharpshooter, Shield Master and you have a ridiculous amount of options. While many of those would feats are for different styles of fighting and wouldn't be picked on the same character there are plenty of options for individual martials:

Paladin: 5 ASIs: 4 ASIs and GWM/Polearm Master/Shield Master is probably the most optimal, but some ASIs can be dropped in favor of lucky, mobile, savage attacker, or tough (since savage attack and tough are decent in my games).
Fighter: 7 ASIs: 4 ASIs for str/dex and con. 3 ASIs for GWM/Polearm Master/Shield Master and several other fun feats above.


Martials have a gluttony of options - just like it should be, but most casters wouldn't make it to level 20 without their whole progression being mostly dictated to them by their lack of options. Martials can choose to compare a secondary ASI like Con for a Fighter or Cha for a Paladin to another ASI or a feat like the buffed tough or savage attacker in order to determine what makes the most sense for their character. Casters don't have such equal comparisons as they have much fewer options and their great options are far superior to their decent options.

History of the Sorcerer:
5e chose to limit metamagic to the Sorcerer. To understand their reasoning I think it's important to understand the Sorcerer's history:
- In 3.x the Sorcerer was rather similar to the Wizard, but cast spontaneously. The spell list was the same, but the way they cast was rather different. 5e has prepared casters casting spontaneously so that difference is gone.
- In 4e the Sorcerer was chosen to be a Blaster while the Wizard was put in the Controller category. The Wizard was signficiantly more versatile and known as one of the best classes in 4e while the Sorcerer was not.
- In 5e the Sorcerer was originally planned to be cut from the game, but then the feedback from the community was very negative so the developers added it back to the game, but they were in search of a niche. In the only playtest version of the Sorcerer (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-DWooSXsiOaHBWbDNMMC16Ulk/view?pref=2&pli=1) that was released the Sorcerer focused heavily on spell points (known as willpower). It was cut, not even appearing in the final playtest packet.

Ultimately WotC decided to keep the class with a metamagic niche and put together a last minute implementation, but that last minute implementation is the least enjoyable class (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?575834-2017-Class-Satisfaction-Survey-Results). Without that specific implementation we likely would've seen metamagic feats.

Flavor of metamagic feats:

As a spellcaster’s knowledge of magic grows, she can learn to cast spells in ways slightly different from the ways in which the spells were originally designed or learned.
In 5e the description is similar:

you gain the ability to twist your spells to suit your needs.
Metamagic is about altering spells. A spell could surely be altered through intimate knowledge of a spell and experience of casting it (Sorcerer), but altering a spell could also be the result of years of other casters studying their magic (Wizards) and then passing that information down.

Strength of metamagic feats:
As you mention above the feats aren't too strong:

Take the feat once, and half the options can only be used once a day. Once you can quicken a spell. Once you can heighten it. And you can't change the option unless you want to take another feat.

Take savage attacker once, and you reroll your damage all day, every day, until you run out of attacks (hint: martials never run out of attacks).
It provides options, but those options are limited. To take metamagic early the caster would have to give up +1 spell DC and +damage in other cases. Metamagic is a good option, but in the early game it'd be decent sacrifice just like Resilient and War Caster are.

Feats as class feature emulation:
In a RAW game feats that emulate class features exist in Martial Adept, Magic Initiate, and Ritual Caster.

While I think Martial Adept is far too much emulation and don't use it, not everyone chooses the same. In a game where the Sorcerer still has metamagic and Martial Adept exists there aren't strong reasons to not allow metamagic as a feat imo.

The reasons I see to offer metamagic are far more compelling than the reasons not to from what I can see.
The survery showing the Sorcerer as having being more unenjoyable than enjoyable shows us that the Sorcerer needs far more than a minor touch up imo.

[Terra Reveene]

If we want to fix the rapier's competitiveness with TWF (which I'd actualy like to do) then we need to provide the rapier rogue either the ability to match TWF's damage or a different niche.


Question: Would changing the damage die for Sneak Attack when using a bigger damage die weapon solve this?

If a rapier rogue were to have all of their sneak attack damage be dealt in d8s, would it be on par with the TWF rogue?

A way to limit this would be to word the Sneak Attack feature so that it only works with rogue weapons and use the same damage die as the weapon that dealt the damage (minimum of a d6, so that daggers and the like doesn't get the nerfbat). This could theoretically open up some interesting subclasses that give the rogue bigger weapons to increase their sneak attack damage die to a d10 or even a d12.

EDIT: I realize now that rapiers can be potentially dual wielded. So let's put this question in a different way:
If a rogue wielding a weapon in one hand and no weapon or shield in the other hand were to use d8s for their sneak attack damage die, would that balance out against TWF rogue? Would it be fair when considering any of the other kinds of rogue fighting styles?

[Kryx]

If a rogue wielding a weapon in one hand and no weapon or shield in the other hand were to use d8s for their sneak attack damage die, would that balance out against TWF rogue?
It would definitely be more competitive:
http://i.imgur.com/YYjAZHJ.jpg


Would it be fair when considering any of the other kinds of rogue fighting styles?
We should probably also apply it to the shortbow as hand crossbows are much stronger.

[Ugganaut]

If you think such builds exist please expose them here. The benefits of removing bonus actions far outweighed that minor cost as far as I could see, but perhaps I have missed ideas that are of serious concern.

My current character using your rules: Barbarian(Bear) 5/ Ranger(Hunter) 3, GWF stance, GWM feat, Greataxe, Hide armor.
In a round, could I cast Sudden Awakening, use Hunter's Mark, Rage, Extra Attack(with Reckless Attack and Colossus Slayer), Ensnaring Strike, with possible GWM attack and reaction?
I usually can't use Hunter's Mark, because of rage, and I take so much damage I couldn't keep the concentration up. Also raging takes a bonus, as does HM and Ensnaring(can't cast both in same round), so GWM can't be used while I get them up and running.

Devils Advocate Test Case: Wild Elf(Dex/Wis), Monk(Shadow) 6/Fighter 2/Ranger 2/Cleric 1, Speed 50ft, using one shortsword, Lunging Attacks/Riposte maneuvers, Dueling Stance - in dim light.
In a round, could you Hunter's Mark, Extra Attack(Two Attacks with +2 Dueling dmg), Martial Arts(offhand attack), Flurry of Blows(free additional attack), Knockback Kick(Push, 1 Ki) or Ensnaring Strike(assuming only 1 "on hit" effect rule), Patient Defense(Dodge, 1 Ki), Step of the Wind(Dash, 1 Ki), Shadow Step(Teleport up to 100ft due to Dash), Second Wind, Combat Superiority(Lunging Attacks), and Healing Word (plus Reaction for OA, Deflect Arrows, Riposte if not Lunging)?
It's not really MAD, and not the strangest theme :P I know it uses resources, but trying to see how many things you can get off in a round. I'm sure I've missed something.

Regarding my question before on Beserker vs Bear, the Path has Resist All for Bear, but the "Class Changes" mentions tempHp. So not sure how your tempHP version works.
The reason Reckless Abandon is so weak, is you've ported a Level 6 feature into a Level 3 slot, which is usually a lot stronger than the level 6 for combat purposes.

[Kryx]

In a round, could I cast Sudden Awakening, use Hunter's Mark, Rage, Extra Attack(with Reckless Attack and Colossus Slayer), Ensnaring Strike, with possible GWM attack and reaction?
So several of these are purposefully changed as the features are problematic in RAW. Comparing those features to raw and seeing those features fixed is a feature, not a bug.


Hunter's Mark: One of the biggest flaws of the ranger is that 1/2 of their main fighting styles (archery and TWF) was not compatible with hunter's mark. Hunter's mark is built into the DPR calculations of a ranger - it shouldn't require a bonus action (See Colossus Slayer)
Rage: When this bonus action issue came up rage was one of the items that nearly everyone agreed upon. Requiring a 1st round action economy expenditure and prevention of Rage + GWM on the first turn is madness.
Neither Reckless Attack or Colossus Slayer interacted with the action economy in any way.
Ensnaring Strike: See paladin divine smite. It requries 0 action economy expenditure. The only reason the smite spells do is because there is no "no action required" for spells. Ensnaring strike is effectively a smite spell. For smite spells to compete with smite they need a similar action economy (none).


Let me show you a similar case by RAW:
Paladin 5: 2 attacks with a greatsword, both with divine smite. Creature surely dies from that amount of burst damage, giving us GWM's bonus attack, allowing us another smite.

At level 5 that's effectively 3 spells and 3 attacks - a massive amount of burst damage. That's far more impactful than the example you give.


I couldn't keep the concentration up.
Feature, not a bug. Keeping concentration makes TWF builds bad and makes melee rangers fall behind on damage.


Monk(Shadow) 6/Fighter 2/Ranger 2/Cleric 1
Back to the multiclass topic: I have very little interest in discussing balance for anything beyond 1 multiclass. I believe the vast majority of the D&D community does not commonly play with such rules. Balancing based on those 1% of users instead of the normal case is kind of a waste of time. I wish WotC had a limit of 1 multiclass. I would greatly encourage GMs to do so.

I'm not sure I really want to delve into the cases of mass multiclass.


Regarding my question before on Beserker vs Bear, the Path has Resist All for Bear, but the "Class Changes" mentions tempHp. So not sure how your tempHP version works.
That section is outdated, the class is correct.

The reason Reckless Abandon is so weak, is you've ported a Level 6 feature into a Level 3 slot, which is usually a lot stronger than the level 6 for combat purposes.
But it's not weak.

Lets say a barbarian takes 100 damage over 5 turns:
A bear barbarian would take 50 damage.
A Reckless Abandon user would take 50 - (3*5=15) = 35

Add in casters: 50 fire damage and 50 slashing damage from other creatures:
A bear barbarian would take 50 damage.
A Reckless Abandon user would take 75 - (3*5=15) = 60

Reckless Abandon seems totally fine by that metric.

[Ugganaut]

So several of these are purposefully changed as the features are problematic in RAW. Comparing those features to raw and seeing those features fixed is a feature, not a bug.


Hunter's Mark: One of the biggest flaws of the ranger is that 1/2 of their main fighting styles (archery and TWF) was not compatible with hunter's mark. Hunter's mark is built into the DPR calculations of a ranger - it shouldn't require a bonus action (See Colossus Slayer)
Rage: When this bonus action issue came up rage was one of the items that nearly everyone agreed upon. Requiring a 1st round action economy expenditure and prevention of Rage + GWM on the first turn is madness.
Neither Reckless Attack or Colossus Slayer interacted with the action economy in any way.
Ensnaring Strike: See paladin divine smite. It requries 0 action economy expenditure. The only reason the smite spells do is because there is no "no action required" for spells. Ensnaring strike is effectively a smite spell. For smite spells to compete with smite they need a similar action economy (none).


Agree on all points, it's one of the reasons I love your rules better. I was just trying to show the amount of things that could go off in one round. Whether thats too much I don't know, but it seems stronger than normal. Maybe thats a good thing. Monk seems to be a big offender of the multi-action, but if its using resources, and not outright adding damage, it might not be an issue.



Let me show you a similar case by RAW:
Paladin 5: 2 attacks with a greatsword, both with divine smite. Creature surely dies from that amount of burst damage, giving us GWM's bonus attack, allowing us another smite.
At level 5 that's effectively 3 spells and 3 attacks - a massive amount of burst damage. That's far more impactful than the example you give.

Always thought Paladin was to strong RAW.



Feature, not a bug. Keeping concentration makes TWF builds bad and makes melee rangers fall behind on damage.

Agreed, I just think it needs to block other concentration effects, while not requiring concentration, and not be available while raging. Somehow. Sticking to only two class multiclassing, any Ranger or Warlock will be getting a +1d6 per hit without concentration. A Ranger 18/Warlock 2 will be getting +2d6 per hit(at least on a single target), with also Conjure Animals or something similar up and running. And I like that RAW HM can't be used while raging, barbarians are strong enough.



But it's not weak.

Lets say a barbarian takes 100 damage over 5 turns:
A bear barbarian would take 50 damage.
A Reckless Abandon user would take 50 - (3*5=15) = 35

Add in casters: 50 fire damage and 50 slashing damage from other creatures:
A bear barbarian would take 50 damage.
A Reckless Abandon user would take 75 - (3*5=15) = 60

Reckless Abandon seems totally fine by that metric.
Totally forgot about the standard rage resistance, stupid on my part. Is that 3 assuming Con 16?

[Strill]

It would definitely be more competitive:
http://i.imgur.com/YYjAZHJ.jpg


We should probably also apply it to the shortbow as hand crossbows are much stronger.

Why does the Rapier Rogue's damage go down on some levels?

[Kryx]

Agreed, I just think it needs to block other concentration effects, while not requiring concentration, and not be available while raging
I removed concentration from both Hex and Hunter's mark quite a while ago - far before I turned them into class features.

Hex and Hunter's Mark are class features disguised as spells. Other Ranger class features like Colossus Slayer, Slayer's Edge, Piercing Thorns, Planar Warrior add damage and have no such cost.

The Ranger already does less damage than the Fighter or Barbarian for the privlidge of having spells. It shouldn't also be further punished by having less utility when it decides to meet its expected damage by casting Hex/Hunter's mark.


A Ranger 18/Warlock 2 will be getting +2d6 per hit(at least on a single target), with also Conjure Animals or something similar up and running. And I like that RAW HM can't be used while raging, barbarians are strong enough.
And a Barbarian/Paladin can still smite while raging. Multiclassing by RAW has plenty of opportunity for abussive dips and it is why I would consider most multiclassing abussive.

Though I should add wording that hex and hunter's mark don't stack - that'll prevent that easy abuse.


Is that 3 assuming Con 16?
Con 16, ya. Con would range from 2-7 while proficiency bonus would range from 2-6. I went with con, but it could also be proficiency bonus.


Why does the Rapier Rogue's damage go down on some levels?
The DPR is based on the enemies of the game. I have a huge spreadsheet of every monster in the monster manual and the early adventures of the game. When I calculate the damage of an 8th level rogue for example that rogue is attacking against creatures typically in a CR range of CR 3-12. Probably some outside of that range as well, but less so it's less impactful so it's not reflected in the numbers. There are 221 creatures between those CR ranges and their average AC is 15.2. As the Rogue increases to level 9 the average ac becomes 15.6. At 10 it's 15.9, at 11 it's 16.2, etc.
The drops in damage come from the average monster stats being a linear progression while the rogue is not. So if there is a level where the rogue doesn't gain much the damage will decrease by a small amount, sometimes enough to be noticed with the rounding to a full number.

I like the idea of increasing sneak attack damage for rogues wielding 1 weapon. I wonder if we can write some rules that make it apply to shortbow and 1 handed weapons, but not when you're wielding two weapons (twf or hand crossbows with my twf rules - not the raw 1 crossbow shooting twice rule).

[Terra Reveene]

Sneak Attack only works with finesse and ranged weapons by RAW. So adding an extra line right at the end of the Sneak Attack feature that reads "If you're wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons or shields or a two-handed ranged weapon, your sneak attack damage uses d8s instead of d6s for its damage." would be one way of solving it.
This does mean that a rogue could theoretically pick up proficiency with bigger bows and suddenly they deal more damage than they should (I don't think that's a problem though. The increased damage is alright at best).

It might not be the most elegant way of doing this, but it does solve the problem.

[Kryx]

September 9th, 2017 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-september-9th-2017)
General

Bonus action added back to nearly everywhere in the game. It is still removed from TWF, barbarian's rage, Monk's martial arts, ending features like wings (spells end without a bonus action). Let me know if I have missed any of them.

Bonus action removal wasn't worth the effort for new players to understand in the end and the multiclass complications outweigh the "simplicity" of removing them. Some are still removed for balance purposes, but this should be an easier pill to swallow while still being a good balance solution.

The d8 idea for sneak attack seems like a decent idea. I'll think about how to implement it.

[Nu]

I must say that I really like what I see here, and if I could ever DM 5th edition again I'd probably try to convince the players to use these houserules. It'd solve most of my balance-related complaints, with perhaps the exception of non-magical classes still not having quite enough "spectacle" to compete with a spell caster. But that is a difficult thing to fix in a system like 5th edition DnD. Overall, I must say I like the changes made to the fighter in particular, using the proficiency bonus instead of a random die gives more consistent results, which is very much to my tastes.

Minor Typo: on Trip Attack, it says "if you win the content" which I assume is supposed to mean "if you win the contest".

[UrielAwakened]

I'd really rather avoid this turning into another Sorcerer thread. There are dozens of them on the main forums and across forums in 5e. I'll quote some of my earlier posts about the topic, but I'd appreciate it if we don't dive deeply into this rabbit hole as I've had this discussion many times now and I'm kind of tired of it and I'd like to avoid this turning into another one of those threads.


The survery showing the Sorcerer as having being more unenjoyable than enjoyable shows us that the Sorcerer needs far more than a minor touch up imo.

There are some good points there but I think your conclusion is off. Least enjoyable is too vague without the why behind it. You'd need a better survey to jump to such a conclusion based on nothing more than "least enjoyable."

I agree it's not enjoyable but not because the class is broken. It's just bad compared to other casters, and requires multiclassing to get the most out of its class features, which is the real problem.

Anyway, not gonna turn this into an entire thing. I just didn't understand why such an...awkward rewrite of it was necessary (and still really don't.)

[Kryx]

I must say that I really like what I see here, and if I could ever DM 5th edition again I'd probably try to convince the players to use these houserules. It'd solve most of my balance-related complaints, with perhaps the exception of non-magical classes still not having quite enough "spectacle" to compete with a spell caster. But that is a difficult thing to fix in a system like 5th edition DnD. Overall, I must say I like the changes made to the fighter in particular, using the proficiency bonus instead of a random die gives more consistent results, which is very much to my tastes.
Thanks for the feedback! I'm glad you like my houserules. Besides 4e I think 5e is the best edition in terms of minimizing the caster martial divide. Each class fulfills their role quite well (or at least does with my houserules). I would personally prefer that the martial classes had more options, but that's hard to fit into 5e as you say.


Minor Typo: on Trip Attack, it says "if you win the content" which I assume is supposed to mean "if you win the contest".
Thanks for poinging it out! I'll fix it the next time I put out a version.


There are some good points there but I think your conclusion is off.
If you aren't convinced on your own experience and my explanation then pages and pages of discussion likely wouldn't convince you either. As I said above: everyone has different tastes and that's ok.
If it were another topic it'd be worth discussing, but the Sorcerer discussion has been sufficiently discussed already imo.

[Terra Reveene]

Got two things

Ranger, Foe Slayer
I've mentioned it before, but I really don't think this should be a separate feature if all it does is improve another feature. I can't think of any example where a feature's only purpose is to increase the power of another feature. Improvements to a feature is always listed in the feature's description as far as I'm aware. A solution to this would be, as (I think) I suggested before, to move it onto hunter's mark itself.

But I don't think that is a good solution as it's a very bland capstone. So, here's what I suggest it be changed to: "At 20th level, you become an unparalleled hunter. Whenever you make a weapon attack against a creature marked by your Hunter's Mark feature, you can add your Wisdom modifier to the attack roll or the damage roll of the attack. You can choose to use this feature before or after the roll, but before any effects of the roll are applied.". This is strictly better than your current Foe Slayer (for as long as your Wisdom score is 18 or higher that is) and a lot more flavorful. Instead of just having one of their key features buffed, they get a completely new one that interacts with one of their old features in a good way. As far as I'm aware, there are very few or no class features that grant a flat increase to chance to hit, and removing that from the Ranger is a shame imo. This brings it back in a way that is actually good.


Chapter 7: Combat, Movement
Won't this rule make the Dash action strictly better for anyone who's not dual wielding pre-5th level? I don't see any reason for anyone who's S&B, GWF or Dueling to not Dash every single turn. It's free movement after all.

[Kryx]

I can't think of any example where a feature's only purpose is to increase the power of another feature.
Best examples:
Wizard: Divination: Portent and Greater Portent. Portent is 2 uses, this allows for 3.
Bard: Inspiration and Superior Inspiration. Capstone gives 1 use of the normal feature.

Some lesser examples:
Wizard: Abjuration: Arcane Ward and Projected Ward
Bard: Lore: Cutting Words enhances Inspiration
Fighter: EK: War Magic and Improved War Magic. Same idea, upgraded.

I'm sure there are several other examples. Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.


But I don't think that is a good solution as it's a very bland capstone.
I don't disagree and didn't last time, but the solution needs to fix the problem.


At 20th level, you become an unparalleled hunter. Whenever you make a weapon attack against a creature marked by your Hunter's Mark feature, you can add your Wisdom modifier to the attack roll or the damage roll of the attack.
This is effectively "Add wisdom to your attack roll against creatures you've marked" as adding to attack is typically far better, especially with a called shot.

This capstone is just as bland as the current capstone. Additionally it breaks bounded accuracy by adding more flat bonuses to attack. With archery fighting style and this we're looking at +5 to +7. That is not a feature that aligns with 5e.


Either the Ranger needs capstones per subclass like the Paladin or a general capstone as strong as the Paladin's. This is not that.




Won't this rule make the Dash action strictly better for anyone who's not dual wielding pre-5th level? I don't see any reason for anyone who's S&B, GWF or Dueling to not Dash every single turn. It's free movement after all.
I need to add bonus action back to this (It's on the Charger feat). That raises the cost and prevent the Rogue for example from using it. S&B and GWM both have bonus actions when they take a feat at 2nd or 4th level, so the cost is there for them.

Beyond that melee characters are a bit behind ranged and spellcasters. This is there to even out that balance a bit. With a bonus action cost I think it's ok. Though perhaps I've missed something?

[Kryx]

September 9th, 2017 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-september-9th-2017)
Ranger

Foe Slayer Reworked
Monster Hunter Slayer's Eye keys off Hunter's Mark now
Volley increased from 10 to 20 feet
Swift Quiver removed from the game
Adjusted some subclass spells

[Kryx]

September 10th, 2017 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-september-10th-2017)
Monk

Renamed most subclasses and added flavorful images for all of them.

Sorcerer

Added a 6th and 7th level spell to the subclass spell lists
Reduced spells known by 1
Reworked stone 6th level and changed divination to stoneskin


Preview:
http://i.imgur.com/YvHs9Ck.jpg

[Pichu]

I updated my question later. Why do Magus' get cantrips at 1st level, but Paladins and Rangers have to wait until 2nd?

[Kryx]

I updated my question later. Why do Magus' get cantrips at 1st level, but Paladins and Rangers have to wait until 2nd?
The reasoning behind that is discussed here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?534447-Kryx-s-Magus-(Draft)&p=22348782#post22348782

I'm not 100% sure I like it as it doesn't align with the other half casters. I may move it back to 2.

[Kryx]

If anyone else has thoughts on the cantrips at 1st level topic I'd like to hear them. I think matching the spellcasting starting at 2nd level progression is probably more important than the verisimilitude of getting cantrips at 1st level.

[ChaosRonin]

Hey, been looking at your various homebrews and houserules for a while, just wanted to say thanks for the amount of work and effort you have put in.

Also just wanted to clarify your two-weapon fighting rule, so as long as you are proficient in a martial weapon any martial weapon you get the +MOD damage on the offhand attack?

Lastly as I was going through the document i noticed that on pages 94-96 that there is a 3rd colloum being render onto the page as is cut off.

[Kryx]

The TWF rules no longer reference martial proficiency. Check them again.

I was redoing the psion today - probably shouldn't have pushed this version yet.

[ChaosRonin]

The TWF rules no longer reference martial proficiency. Check them again.

I was redoing the psion today - probably shouldn't have pushed this version yet.

Ah, didnt see the changes in the new version, makes more sense this way I think.

[Terra Reveene]

If anyone else has thoughts on the cantrips at 1st level topic I'd like to hear them. I think matching the spellcasting starting at 2nd level progression is probably more important than the verisimilitude of getting cantrips at 1st level.

I think all half-casters should get cantrips at 1st level to be honest. Cantrips are, in a sense, the lowest level of magic available. Having half-casters start off with the lowest level of magic available makes more sense than having them start with no magic at all imo.

Just to ask though, what is it that you don't like about half casters getting cantrips at 1st level? Or was this just specifically the Magus getting it vs Ranger + Paladin not getting it?

[Kryx]

Just to ask though, what is it that you don't like about half casters getting cantrips at 1st level? Or was this just specifically the Magus getting it vs Ranger + Paladin not getting it?
Magus getting it while paladin and ranger don't feels wrong.

Stacking 3 features on 1st level also feels wrong - only 1 other class does it (rogue) and 1 of those is thieves' cant. Moving Paladin's and Ranger's Spellcasting feature down to 1st level, while it'd only be cantrips, would have a negative perception (which does matter).

I feel like it all starting at 2nd level is probably better.

[Ugganaut]

Bow Expert(feat): Seems a bit strong to turn a bow into a dex based warhammer(two-hands only).
What was wrong with ignoring cover? Or at least ignoring cover granted from creatures(or allies only).

Cantrip Feats and Traits: Is it too much for a feat to allow an offensive cantrip choice? If Cantrip Initiate+Spell Sniper allow for an attack roll cantrip, a saving throw cantrip shouldn’t be unbalancing. Was there something you were trying to preclude in particular?

Metamagic(feat): Does taking this feat a second time increase your points, or just two options?

Blinded/Restrained(Condition): I’m assuming these are in addition to the PHB rules?

[Kryx]

Bow Expert(feat): Seems a bit strong to turn a bow into a dex based warhammer(two-hands only).
This feat makes the bows comparable to crossbows, mechanically.

Light Crossbow is d8 and Heavy Crossbow is d10. To use those weapons on a character with extra attack a feat is required (Fast Loader). To get the same damage on bows a feat is required. While this isn't a feat that brings much flavor to the game it brings internal balance to ranegd characters so that they do not feel obligated to choose the better weapon by RAW (Crossbows).


What was wrong with ignoring cover? Or at least ignoring cover granted from creatures(or allies only).
The archery fighting style already does that. Half cover is +2, archery fighting style is +2. There won't always be cover on your attack and quite rarely 3/4 cover on your attack. The fighting style already offsets the negatives of cover.

Adding a feat on top of that to ignore cover just makes that fighting style +2 which is far beyond the benefit of other fighting styles. See Fighting Styles (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=582756521)

Cover is there to balance out ranged characters vs melee characters. Ranged characters get several benefits from being at range (for example being able to sneak or avoid the melee fray). While they shouldn't be overly punished for being a ranged character I believe ignoring the cover rules not only removes a very nice mechanic of the game, but also makes ranged characters too strong compared to melee.
Speaking on that mechanic: Without cover ranged characters can just fire away every turn without worry about positioning. I find that to be a negative trait.


Cantrip Feats and Traits: Is it too much for a feat to allow an offensive cantrip choice? If Cantrip Initiate+Spell Sniper allow for an attack roll cantrip, a saving throw cantrip shouldn’t be unbalancing. Was there something you were trying to preclude in particular?
Cantrip initiate is a trait. Traits are setup to be fluff - they should not provide damaging cantrips.

If a character wants a cantrip they can take Spell Sniper as a feat. I should remove the requirement of an attack though.


Metamagic(feat): Does taking this feat a second time increase your points, or just two options?
"You can take this feat multiple times. Each time you do so select different metamagic options."
So yes, it can be taken multiple times, giving the benefit of more points each time. See the second part: "If you already have metamagic points.."


Blinded/Restrained(Condition): I’m assuming these are in addition to the PHB rules?
Correct.

[Terra Reveene]

Magus getting it while paladin and ranger don't feels wrong.

Stacking 3 features on 1st level also feels wrong - only 1 other class does it (rogue) and 1 of those is thieves' cant. Moving Paladin's and Ranger's Spellcasting feature down to 1st level, while it'd only be cantrips, would have a negative perception (which does matter).

I feel like it all starting at 2nd level is probably better.

Ah, I see. Well, if that is your worry then the options are: put one of the 1st level features of ranger, paladin, and magus at a future level; or keep cantrips at 2nd level.
One of the options is far easier to implement than the other. I'd go by your instincts on this and keep it at 2nd level.



.... Though I still don't think that having cantrips at 1st level compared to other classes is going to be a big deal, so I stand by my opinion.

[Badidea]

Your save system is really odd.

You premise is similar success rates as the goal for all saves. But doesn't it make more sense to think about expected value (which I can't find calculated anywhere, in fact there are no calculations for any non-damage spell for combat impact).

Your system greatly favors damaging saves as a successful save still results in half damage. In particular since monsters are weakest to reflex save that would be the most effective. Where as will save based spells/effects tend to have yes or no results (charmed, insane, stun). So that expected value of a charm spell is actually much lower than a damage spell, because it lacks a partial success condition.

[Kryx]

You premise is similar success rates as the goal for all saves. But doesn't it make more sense to think about expected value (which I can't find calculated anywhere, in fact there are no calculations for any non-damage spell for combat impact).
Expected value? I'm unsure what you're referring to. Perhaps you missed my saving throws spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1042389492)?

See "Distribution" for the combination of the 3. "Success rates" compares the RAW system vs my system. "Success rates w/ scaling" does so as well. I'm not understanding what your objection is.



Your system greatly favors damaging saves as a successful save still results in half damage. In particular since monsters are weakest to reflex save that would be the most effective.
Huh? Take a look at "Success rates" at 1st level. You'll see very similar levels level of success for all of the saves. The main thing my system does is maintain that across all the levels.

Monsters aren't weakest to reflex. They're comparable. Fortitude is a 45% success rate, Reflex is a 44% success rate, and Will is a 43% success rate.


Where as will save based spells/effects tend to have yes or no results (charmed, insane, stun). So that expected value of a charm spell is actually much lower than a damage spell, because it lacks a partial success condition.
Half damage is indeed a nice feature, but using your same logic then why are wisdom saves at 44% by RAW for monsters (39% for dexterity, 52% for constitution)? The designers of the RAW system don't seem to agree with the statement that damage spells with half damage are more powerful, therefore int/wis/fort saves should have a higher success rate.

[Ugganaut]

This feat makes the bows comparable to crossbows, mechanically.
Light Crossbow is d8 and Heavy Crossbow is d10. To use those weapons on a character with extra attack a feat is required (Fast Loader). To get the same damage on bows a feat is required. While this isn't a feat that brings much flavor to the game it brings internal balance to ranegd characters so that they do not feel obligated to choose the better weapon by RAW (Crossbows).
I'm guessing this has to do with the crossbows "no disadvantage in melee". It just doesn't make sense to me that a bow as a melee weapon uses dex, or that it does d10 damage. The bow has better range, but I agree its needs something extra to compete with crossbow. Different but comparable.


The archery fighting style already does that. Half cover is +2, archery fighting style is +2. There won't always be cover on your attack and quite rarely 3/4 cover on your attack. The fighting style already offsets the negatives of cover.
True, I never liked that +2 to hit, bounded accuracy being a core part of the game. I'd rather the style ignored half-cover.


Cover is there to balance out ranged characters vs melee characters. Ranged characters get several benefits from being at range (for example being able to sneak or avoid the melee fray). While they shouldn't be overly punished for being a ranged character I believe ignoring the cover rules not only removes a very nice mechanic of the game, but also makes ranged characters too strong compared to melee.
Speaking on that mechanic: Without cover ranged characters can just fire away every turn without worry about positioning. I find that to be a negative trait.
I agree its a nice idea, but if the style gets +2 attack, its essentially ignoring cover anyway as you said, it just has the benefit of getting a +2 bonus that the melee don't get when they can get a clear shot. The best melee can get is +1 from flanking in your houserules.


Cantrip initiate is a trait. Traits are setup to be fluff - they should not provide damaging cantrips.
If a character wants a cantrip they can take Spell Sniper as a feat. I should remove the requirement of an attack though.
I like Cantrip Initiate as a trait, although something like Guidance feels like a bit more than fluff. Observation, not criticism.
The attack makes sense for Spell Sniper, there should just be a feat version of Cantrip Initiate that allows attack or save options.
Maybe a "basics" trait, that just allows things like Prestidigitation, Thaumaturgy, Druidcraft etc. Then a feat that allows any cantrip, alongside Spell Sniper.

Edit: Or any two cantrips, going with the half-feat Magic Initiate.
For Bow, maybe no disadvantage on non-adjacent creatures while in melee, and can be used as a club?

[Kryx]

I'm guessing this has to do with the crossbows "no disadvantage in melee". It just doesn't make sense to me that a bow as a melee weapon uses dex, or that it does d10 damage. The bow has better range, but I agree its needs something extra to compete with crossbow. Different but comparable.
Ya, Bow Expert is the comparable feat to Fast Loader. When they are taken both the bow and heavy crossbow deal d10. Heavy crossbow can continue to shoot away while bow has to melee (losing archery fighting style). Bow has the range so that's the benefit for bow. They're different, but comparable.

That said my solution is not very flavorful. It basically makes a greatbow from older editions. If you have better ideas I'd be open to hearing them.


I agree its a nice idea, but if the style gets +2 attack, its essentially ignoring cover anyway as you said, it just has the benefit of getting a +2 bonus that the melee don't get when they can get a clear shot. The best melee can get is +1 from flanking in your houserules.
+2 is essentially ignoring half cover, yes. It applies on 3/4 cover and when there is no cover so overall the archer is more accurate than melee, but does less damage per hit.

Keep in mind that melee can have cover too. Reach weapons or attacking around a corner or through a doorway are examples.


I like Cantrip Initiate as a trait, although something like Guidance feels like a bit more than fluff. Observation, not criticism.
Agreed that Guidance is a good cantrip, but I'd argue that its value is distorted by people spamming it. It's a bit overstated in value imo. It depends on playstyle, but there would be negatives for spamming like verbal components.
Traits aren't fully fluff - there are plenty of combat bonuses in the traits section, but most are minimal. Guidance fits into that category imo.


The attack makes sense for Spell Sniper, there should just be a feat version of Cantrip Initiate that allows attack or save options.
Maybe a "basics" trait, that just allows things like Prestidigitation, Thaumaturgy, Druidcraft etc. Then a feat that allows any cantrip, alongside Spell Sniper.

Edit: Or any two cantrips, going with the half-feat Magic Initiate.
Interesting Idea. Perhaps that's a better split. I'll think about that.

[Ugganaut]

Ya, Bow Expert is the comparable feat to Fast Loader. When they are taken both the bow and heavy crossbow deal d10. Heavy crossbow can continue to shoot away while bow has to melee (losing archery fighting style). Bow has the range so that's the benefit for bow. They're different, but comparable.
I like the "greatbow" aspect, its just the dex/d10 melee option that doesn't make sense.
I'm not very good at this, but maybe you could make one of these work.
* Add half Str modifier(min 1) to damage. (would give a high str/dex character more incentive to go bow)
* Once per round, when you don’t have disadvantage on a creature, you can target a second creature no more than 10 feet apart, with disadvantage on both rolls. You don’t add your ability modifier to damage against the second target. (Double Shot - something like this that could set the bow/crossbow apart)
* Reaction move 5ft after a melee attack.
* If you hit a hostile creature within 5 feet of you with a ranged weapon attack, the attacker has disadvantage to hit you on its next attack before the end of your next turn. Also, ranged weapon attacks you make while a hostile creature is within 5 feet, doesn't impose disadvantage on your attack roll if the target is not within 5 feet.




+2 is essentially ignoring half cover, yes. It applies on 3/4 cover and when there is no cover so overall the archer is more accurate than melee, but does less damage per hit.
Keep in mind that melee can have cover too. Reach weapons or attacking around a corner or through a doorway are examples.
I think the less damage per hit(assuming this is due to d12 melee weapons), is offset by not being in melee. Archery ignoring 3/4 cover instead of +2, might be similar to melee with possible flankings +1 bonus. You don't think the flat +2 is an issue?


Agreed that Guidance is a good cantrip, but I'd argue that its value is distorted by people spamming it. It's a bit overstated in value imo. It depends on playstyle, but there would be negatives for spamming like verbal components.
Traits aren't fully fluff - there are plenty of combat bonuses in the traits section, but most are minimal. Guidance fits into that category imo.
Yeah maybe I'm reading to much into it. We don't actually use Guidance that much, I just read that people spam it.

[Badidea]

Kryx if you don't understand "expected value" (a key statistical concept) then you don't understand what you are balancing. Players are trading an action for an effect.

You made a system where you kept con saves the same, averaged str and dex saves together and did a best 2 out of 3 average for the rest (in effect buffing most will saves, backed up by your data). Sure your numbers look more consistent, but the effects are very different. In playtesting it would be obvious how much worse charms are, because everything has a better average will save. And since half damaging saves are more tied to con, str and dex, you've made a system where the expected value of casting a will save is much lower. Because the failure rate has a bigger impact on if the spell had value.

Every percent increase of success or failure has a larger effect on actions that have no back up effect. They are trading an action/spell slot for nothing and will learn to stop doing it in playtesting.

[Secret Wizard]

While I love many things of Kryx's work, and some things I don't like at all (the changes to saves, principally), I am outright disgusted at the Monk changes.

Removing the ability to make a Kenshiro-style Monk that is about mastery of body and spirit, without intermingling outside influences, is the total defeat of the class in favor of some Avatar crap.

Gimme self-enlightenment and transcendence, not this Captain America nonsense.

[Strill]

While I love many things of Kryx's work, and some things I don't like at all (the changes to saves, principally), I am outright disgusted at the Monk changes.

Removing the ability to make a Kenshiro-style Monk that is about mastery of body and spirit, without intermingling outside influences, is the total defeat of the class in favor of some Avatar crap.

Gimme self-enlightenment and transcendence, not this Captain America nonsense.

I agree. I found the lack of a plain-old standard-issue monk notably absent as well.

I was also a bit iffy on the changes to the shadow monk. Shadow monks are inspired by Ninjas, but Kryx's changes to the subclass doesn't really seem to incorporate any ninja lore, and just makes them a formulaic "shadow magic" user in line with the other classes, rather than playing to the class's historical and mythological inspirations. To be fair, the standard Shadow monk doesn't really adhere strongly to ninja lore either, so I don't think it's that big of a deal.

[Kryx]

Kryx if you don't understand "expected value" (a key statistical concept) then you don't understand what you are balancing.
Expected value, in terms of success rate, is calculated. But you seemed to be implying something else. It was not clear so I was asking for more detail.
If you're going to give a vague complaint and then admonish me for not understanding your vague complaint then please leave.


They are trading an action/spell slot for nothing and will learn to stop doing it in playtesting.
The saving throw change I made was a result of playing with the RAW rules. A PC having a 15% success rate against mindflayers mind blast was the example where I said: "ya, this system doesn't work". A player having a 5-15% chance to succeed is not how the success rates work at the start of the game. The system I use is a direct result of a disatisfaction with effects of the RAW system.


=========================



Removing the ability to make a Kenshiro-style Monk that is about mastery of body and spirit, without intermingling outside influences, is the total defeat of the class
I have not removed that aspect of the class. The monk itself, in my rules, has a significant amount of body and spirit: Flurry, disorienting strike, knockback kick, sweeping strike, extra attack (2), wholeness of body on top of the RAW features: Movement, ki, deflect missiles, slow fall, ki strikes, evasion, stillness of mind, purity of body, diamond soul, timeless body, empty body.

Body and spirit are the core of the monk. They then can branch out in several different aspects beyond the normal. If you believe there is design space for an enhancement of those features then please do share your suggestions. Suggestions are far more effective.

There is definitely design space for a purely martial monk, but the mechanical implementation of one that is comparable is not easy.

According to Mearls a Kenshiro style monk isn't within RAW either as Mearls considered adding a subclass via UA (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/12/13/kenshiro-monk-build-for-unearthed-arcana/).


Gimme self-enlightenment and transcendence, not this Captain America nonsense.
It sounds like you are dissatisfied with the RAW Monk and it's four elements, sun soul, lonk death, kensei, tranquility, and shadow subclasses - all of which are incorporated into my monk. The RAW monk doesn't seem to fit what you're after.


==================



I was also a bit iffy on the changes to the shadow monk. Shadow monks are inspired by Ninjas, but Kryx's changes to the subclass doesn't really seem to incorporate any ninja lore, and just makes them a formulaic "shadow magic" user in line with the other classes, rather than playing to the class's historical and mythological inspirations. To be fair, the standard Shadow monk doesn't really adhere strongly to ninja lore either, so I don't think it's that big of a deal.
See the PHB:

Monks of the Way of Shadow follow a tradition that values stealth and subterfuge. These monks might be called ninjas or shadowdancers, and they serve as spies and assassins.
The PHB version of the shadow monk heavily focuses on the shadow aspect of the shadow monk. My version is pretty consistent with that vision. Let's compare:


RAW Shadow Monk
Houserules Shadow Monk


Shadow Arts (1 cantrip, 4 spells)
1 cantrip, 18 spells, and ki blast


—
ki features to alter shadows, hide, or gain a shield


Shadow Step
Shadow Step


Cloak of Shadows
Cloak of Shadows


Opportunist
Shadow Lord


Overall the theme is incredibly similar. RAW Shadow Monks (Ninjas) use shadows and use them quite a bit. My version does expand on spells and limits shadow step a bit, but it's the same theme. The largest change is Opportunit to Shadow Lord. Opportunist doesn't fit the theme of a shadow user or even a ninja imo. Opportunist would fit the theme of a martial monk.

Lumping the name "ninja" in this subclass seems like a mistake. Some ninjas may use shadow magic, but I'd say most would be rogues.

[Strill]

I have not removed that aspect of the class. The monk itself, in my rules, has a significant amount of body and spirit: Flurry, disorienting strike, knockback kick, sweeping strike, extra attack (2), wholeness of body on top of the RAW features: Movement, ki, deflect missiles, slow fall, ki strikes, evasion, stillness of mind, purity of body, diamond soul, timeless body, empty body.

Body and spirit are the core of the monk. They then can branch out in several different aspects beyond the normal. If you believe there is design space for an enhancement of those features then please do share your suggestions. Suggestions are far more effective.

There is definitely design space for a purely martial monk, but the mechanical implementation of one that is comparable is not easy.

It sounds like you are dissatisfied with the RAW Monk and it's four elements, sun soul, lonk death, kensei, tranquility, and shadow subclasses - all of which are incorporated into my monk. The RAW monk doesn't seem to fit what you're after.C'mon Kryx, you're smarter than this. He's referring to the Way of the Open Hand. Quivering Palm is shares common inspiration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_of_Death) with Kenshiro's Fist of the North Star technique. That technique, however, is not the problem. The problem is that you don't have any monk subclass that are based purely on martial arts, without having their concepts diluted by some elemental association. This is not a mechanics criticism, and as such I can give you no advice on that front. it's a criticism of failing to have a subclass that fits the monk's biggest inspirations - plain old kung fu movies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y7fxc-6PlA).



See the PHB:

The PHB version of the shadow monk heavily focuses on the shadow aspect of the shadow monk. My version is pretty consistent with that vision. Let's compare:


RAW Shadow Monk
Houserules Shadow Monk


Shadow Arts (1 cantrip, 4 spells)
1 cantrip, 18 spells, and ki blast


—
ki features to alter shadows, hide, or gain a shield


Shadow Step
Shadow Step


Cloak of Shadows
Cloak of Shadows


Opportunist
Shadow Lord


Overall the theme is incredibly similar. RAW Shadow Monks (Ninjas) use shadows and use them quite a bit. My version does expand on spells and limits shadow step a bit, but it's the same theme. The largest change is Opportunit to Shadow Lord. Opportunist doesn't fit the theme of a shadow user or even a ninja imo. Opportunist would fit the theme of a martial monk.

Lumping the name "ninja" in this subclass seems like a mistake. Some ninjas may use shadow magic, but I'd say most would be rogues.You say most would be rogues, and there is absolutely strong merit in that, but it's natural to fit Ninjas into the Monk class because the Monk is the kung fu themed class.

Regardless, I'll admit that you're right here.

[Kryx]

C'mon Kryx, you're smarter than this. He's referring to the Way of the Open Hand. Quivering Palm is shares common inspiration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_of_Death) with Kenshiro's Fist of the North Star technique.
I don't follow anime. You expectation that I do is unreasonable and your condescending wording is unappreciated. If you don't like my work then don't use it. If you want to help me improve it then please do so, but approaching it in a condescending way is very counterproductive.


The problem is that you don't have any monk subclass that are based purely on martial arts, without having their concepts diluted by some elemental association.
Kensei. It isn't fists, but it's pure martial. As I said there is room for a martial monk and I'm happy to include one, but mechanically it's difficult to create anything that is comparable. As I said above: If you have mechanical ideas that meet the flavor then present them.

[Strill]

Kensei. It isn't fists, but it's pure martial. As I said there is room for a martial monk and I'm happy to include one, but mechanically it's difficult to create anything that is comparable. As I said above: If you have mechanical ideas that meet the flavor then present them.

Well the easiest way would be to not remove the Open Hand monk in the first place. I've never heard anyone complain about Open Hand, so I'm honestly confused as to why it was removed, when it was one of the best archetypes in the game. Why did you feel the need to get rid of it?

[Kryx]

Well the easiest way would be to not remove the Open Hand monk in the first place. I've never heard anyone complain about Open Hand, so I'm honestly confused as to why it was removed, when it was one of the best archetypes in the game. Why did you feel the need to get rid of it?
I didn't remove it. Look at the Monk class.

Open hand technique prone = Sweeping Strike
Open hand technique push = Knockback Kick
Open hand technique no reactions = Disorienting Strike
Wholeness of body = Wholeness of body
Tranquility is part of the tranquility UA - doesn't really fit the OH monk
Quivering Palm was removed because D&D has removed nearly all save or dies. Such an idea doesn't belong in 5e.

As a damage ability Quivering Palm could totally work as a capstone, but I'd need 2nd, 6th, and 11th level features for a fists subclass.

[Strill]

I didn't remove it. Look at the Monk class.

Open hand technique prone = Sweeping Strike
Open hand technique push = Knockback Kick
Open hand technique no reactions = Disorienting Strike
Wholeness of body = Wholeness of body
Tranquility is part of the tranquility UA - doesn't really fit the OH monk
Quivering Palm was removed because D&D has removed nearly all save or dies. Such an idea doesn't belong in 5e.I'm aware that you put the individual pieces in the core monk class, but you still removed the archetype. An archetype is more than just its mechanics, it also encompasses historical and mythological inspirations. When you subsumed the Open Palm archetype into the core monk, you removed the inspirations it was associated with, because they don't fit in any of the remaining archetypes. For comparison, if you were to take the Devotion Paladin, remove it as an archetype option, and add all of its abilities to the core Paladin class, I would have the same criticism, because the inspiration of Sir Galahad and St. George would've been removed from the class, since no other archetype fits them.



As a damage ability Quivering Palm could totally work as a capstone, but I'd need 2nd, 6th, and 11th level features for a fists subclass.I don't see how this could possibly matter. Why is a level 20 feature so dramatically different from a level 17 feature in terms of balancing?

[Kryx]

you still removed the archetype. An archetype is more than just its mechanics, it also encompasses historical and mythological inspirations. When you subsumed the Open Palm archetype into the core monk, you removed the inspirations it was associated with, because they don't fit in any of the remaining archetypes. For comparison, if you were to take the Devotion Paladin, remove it as an archetype option, and add all of its abilities to the core Paladin class, I would have the same criticism, because the inspiration of Sir Galahad and St. George would've been removed from the class, since no other archetype fits them.
I have already agreed with you:

There is definitely design space for a purely martial monk, but the mechanical implementation of one that is comparable is not easy.

As I said there is room for a martial monk and I'm happy to include one, but mechanically it's difficult to create anything that is comparable.

Let me also quote the other part:

If you believe there is design space for an enhancement of those features then please do share your suggestions. Suggestions are far more effective.

As I said above: If you have mechanical ideas that meet the flavor then present them.

I'm not sure how I can be more clear.



I don't see how this could possibly matter. Why is a level 20 feature so dramatically different from a level 17 feature in terms of balancing?
huh? By Capstone I meant subclass capstone so 17th level. Quivering Palm (as damage, not save or die) would be fine as a 17th level feature.

[Strill]

I have already agreed with you:

Let me also quote the other part:

I'm not sure how I can be more clear.And so in response, I suggested you simply not remove the Open Hand archetype, and asked you to explain why you removed it in the first place when it was well regarded.

[Ugganaut]

And so in response, I suggested you simply not remove the Open Hand archetype, and asked you to explain why you removed it in the first place when it was well regarded.

Your suggestion is to keep something that no longer exists as a whole. The mechanics of it no longer exist, they are in the base class. He needs new mechanics, which he's said is hard to balance, and is asking you for ideas.

[Strill]

Your suggestion is to keep something that no longer exists as a whole. The mechanics of it no longer exist, they are in the base class. He needs new mechanics, which he's said is hard to balance, and is asking you for ideas.

I'm curious why those changes were made, and what problem they intended to solve.

[Ugganaut]

I'm curious why those changes were made, and what problem they intended to solve.

I think its the same reason as moving combat maneuvers from Battlemaster to core Fighter. PHB locked things that should be common to all in that class, to an archetype. His houserules for fighter no longer has an archetype that really suits the dex/mobility fighter in our current game. I wish it did, he is way better at this balanced housrules stuff than I am, but its not his job to cater to me. I've tried(and posted) my own effort, but I feel like I'm out of my depth.

Open Hand had the push, trip stuff, that all monks should have access to. Any time I've seen a monk portrayed, thats the sort of stuff they all do - as well as punch and kick :smallsmile:
But after you move all that stuff to the core class, the Open Hand is left with Quivering Palm. I agree his houserules are missing the Open Hand flavored monk, he's said so too.
If you want him to add one, then best you can do is make some suggestions, and hope they at least inspire him to make something that works. He doesn't get paid to provide us this stuff though.

[Ugganaut]

* Add half Str modifier(min 1) to damage. (would give a high str/dex character more incentive to go bow)
* Once per round, when you don’t have disadvantage on a creature, you can target a second creature no more than 10 feet apart, with disadvantage on both rolls. You don’t add your ability modifier to damage against the second target. (Double Shot - something like this that could set the bow/crossbow apart)
* Reaction move 5ft after a melee attack.
* If you hit a hostile creature within 5 feet of you with a ranged weapon attack, the attacker has disadvantage to hit you on its next attack before the end of your next turn. Also, ranged weapon attacks you make while a hostile creature is within 5 feet, doesn't impose disadvantage on your attack roll if the target is not within 5 feet..

Another idea to replace the Bow Experts dex/d10, "During your turn, if you make a melee attack against a creature, that creature can't make opportunity attacks against you for the rest of your turn.", and give proficiency with arrow(dex/d4) :smallsmile: So you could do an arrow stab, step back and fire. Can't stand toe to toe like a Crossbow Expert, but gives you more mobility, and gives the melee a change to step in and stop the target from following. It steps on the toes of Mobile feat, but not sure thats an issue.

[Secret Wizard]

Kryx, just trying to be constructive here.

For a purely martial Monk archetype, how about you consider adding Ki Blast as an archetype feature, rather than a baseline one for starters...

...and then have this archetype be based around Superiority dice instead of spells?

Or at least gimme a Rogue or Fighter archetype.

[Badidea]

My expected value was on actions and in addition spell slots. The edge case I was pointing out is "A player takes an action to cast a spell that targets one enemy and has no effect on a successful save". Which covers a large number of spells in your will save category, like charm person. Your system would harm those spells far more than spells with "on successful save" conditions.

I know you're not going to respect me, but just fix your math. You clearly have an error in Fort saves for monsters and you never recalculated it with 2d10. Which should show you that both systems together only work if all players are min maxing. In particular anyone with a secondary spellcasting focus like an arcane trickster will have a DC too low to succeed consistently.

[Kryx]

His houserules for fighter no longer has an archetype that really suits the dex/mobility fighter in our current game. I wish it did, he is way better at this balanced housrules stuff than I am, but its not his job to cater to me. I've tried(and posted) my own effort, but I feel like I'm out of my depth.
Side topic: A Knight, Samurai, and Warlord could all be Dexterity based. I believe your player wanted a swashbuckler and I suggested making a fighter version of it for him. I think it totally works as a fighter and it could bring the flavor you desire. If you've created such a thing that fits with my rules I'd love to see it.


I think its the same reason as moving combat maneuvers from Battlemaster to core Fighter. PHB locked things that should be common to all in that class, to an archetype.

Open Hand had the push, trip stuff, that all monks should have access to. Any time I've seen a monk portrayed, thats the sort of stuff they all do - as well as punch and kick :smallsmile:
But after you move all that stuff to the core class, the Open Hand is left with Quivering Palm. I agree his houserules are missing the Open Hand flavored monk, he's said so too.
This is exactly the reason I moved Open Hand into the monk class. Basic kicking and punching techniques are something that is central to the monk class. Additionally it helps fill the gap left by moving stunning strike away.

======


Another idea to replace the Bow Experts dex/d10, "During your turn, if you make a melee attack against a creature, that creature can't make opportunity attacks against you for the rest of your turn.", and give proficiency with arrow(dex/d4) :smallsmile: So you could do an arrow stab, step back and fire. Can't stand toe to toe like a Crossbow Expert, but gives you more mobility, and gives the melee a change to step in and stop the target from following. It steps on the toes of Mobile feat, but not sure thats an issue.
This sounds like a more flavorful option than the melee with a bow part of Bow Expert. I'd still keep the other bullet of increasing damage die for mechanical balance unless you also had a good solution there.

EDIT: This is what it looks like now:

Bow Expert

You deal d10 damage with a longbow or d8 damage with a shortbow.
Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack with an arrow. You are proficient with it, and you add your Dexterity modifier to its attack and damage rolls. Its damage is piercing and its damage die is a d4. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them. If you hit a creature with this attack you can move up to half your speed without provoking opportunity attacks from the target of your attack.


======


how about you consider adding Ki Blast as an archetype feature, rather than a baseline one for starters...
Sounds like you're using a much older version of my houserules. See the version linked in the OP.


have this archetype be based around Superiority dice instead of spells?
I don't use superiority dice in my houserules. What they were is now part of the Fighter class.

But what you're talking about is already part of the monk chassis and subclasses: Ki features. A martial monk would definitely use those (see Kensei), but an implementation for a punching and kicing monk needs inspiration and time. If you have suggestions for ki features that would be specific for a punching and kicking monk please do suggest them. I'll also happily pilfer from other WotC sources.

=====


My expected value was on actions and in addition spell slots. The edge case I was pointing out is "A player takes an action to cast a spell that targets one enemy and has no effect on a successful save". Which covers a large number of spells in your will save category, like charm person. Your system would harm those spells far more than spells with "on successful save" conditions.
Again I would point you to my saving throws spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1095279036) which shows that charm person by RAW has a 44% success rate vs monsters. In my rules that success rate drops to 43%. The expectation that you have in not in line with the system that WotC designed.


I know you're not going to respect me.
This sounds hypocritical - you're asking for respect while also being incredibly disrespectful. I have tried to address your concerns with clarifying questions so I can further understand. I was met with hostility. I don't welcome that kind of hostile discussion and eventually block people who continue to do it.


You clearly have an error in Fort saves for monsters and you never recalculated it with 2d10.
2d10 just changes the average from 10.5 to 11. That increases the chance of saving throws across the board by about 2.5%. It would have no major impact on the rules otherwise. I haven't adjusted that sheet to use 2d10 for 3 reasons:
1. It takes a lot of time
2. Other people use that sheet to understand the system. Most of them don't use 2d10
3. The impact is very small and applies on all saves


In particular anyone with a secondary spellcasting focus like an arcane trickster will have a DC too low to succeed consistently.


Save
RAW
Houserules


Dex / Reflex
39%
44%


Con / Fortitude
52%
45%


Wis / Will
44%
43%


So the goal was consistent saving throw success rates across all saving throws so spells could be balanced to that success rate and to remove extreme outliers like a dumped int/cha/str/dex(high CR monsters)
So what you'll actually notice is that dex type spells like fireball now are 45% instead of 39% - meaning they are less likely to apply. Con type spells (typically a condition) are 45% instead of 52% - meaning they are more likely to apply. Wis type spells are 43% instead of 44% - meaning they are slightly more likely to apply.

So that kind of bursts the idea that Dex type saves are stronger - they actually got weaker in my rules.

Outlier saves with incredibly low success rate like int/cha were purposefully removed - that was a design goal.

Secondary spellcasting classes like Arcane Trickster were unchanged besides outliers. Their success rates will likely lag behind a full caster by about 5-15%, just as it is in RAW. Such characters that do not focus their spellcasting ability are better off picking utility based spells, which is the exact same situation as RAW.

[Kryx]

The attack makes sense for Spell Sniper, there should just be a feat version of Cantrip Initiate that allows attack or save options.
Maybe a "basics" trait, that just allows things like Prestidigitation, Thaumaturgy, Druidcraft etc. Then a feat that allows any cantrip, alongside Spell Sniper.

Edit: Or any two cantrips, going with the half-feat Magic Initiate.
I'll introduce "Magid Dabbler" in the next version, which is the cantrip part of RAW Magic Initiate:

Choose a class: bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard. You learn two cantrips of your choice from that class’s spell list.

Your spellcasting ability for these spells depends on the class you chose: Charisma for bard, sorcerer, or warlock; Wisdom for cleric or druid; or Intelligence for wizard.

[Terra Reveene]

Bow Expert

You deal d10 damage with a longbow or d8 damage with a shortbow.
Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack with an arrow. You are proficient with it, and you add your Dexterity modifier to its attack and damage rolls. Its damage is piercing and its damage die is a d4. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them. If you hit a creature with this attack you can move up to half your speed without provoking opportunity attacks from the target of your attack.



Wouldn't it have been simpler to change "a bow" to "an arrow" and remove the two-handed property? I could easily see an arrow being capable of dealing 1d10 damage as a makeshift knife (think of how much damage a rogue can deal with a normal knife. It wouldn't be entirely unrealistic).

I do think I prefer what you have already though, but I just thought I'd ask. One of your main concerns was that it should keep up in damage after all.
You could also quite easily keep what you already have and change the damage die to a d10. As said, wouldn't be unrealistic.

[Kryx]

d10 is too much for an arrow imo - the thing is designed to be aerodynamic, not to provide stabbing force when held in the hand. d4 seems appropriate as it matches tavern brawler's improvised weapon damage.

The arrow attack as part of an Attack action also allows you to move up to half of your speed which is quite good. The damage is less than a crossbow when both are forced into melee, but the bow has slightly longer range and the move part. If we wanted to improve that comparison we could allow the arrow to be used on a reaction as well, but I'm unsure if that's necessary since the mobility aspect is strong.

[Ugganaut]

Side topic: A Knight, Samurai, and Warlord could all be Dexterity based. I believe your player wanted a swashbuckler and I suggested making a fighter version of it for him. I think it totally works as a fighter and it could bring the flavor you desire. If you've created such a thing that fits with my rules I'd love to see it.
I went with Skirmisher and Scout (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?535987-Fighter-Archetype-Skirmisher-Scout-(for-use-with-Kryx-s-Houserules)&p=22375490#post22375490) as the options, just fixed up the post. Not great at design, so used the UA material, the Fancy Footwork from Swashbuckler, and your features which seem balanced. They still need some work I think.



Bow Expert

You deal d10 damage with a longbow or d8 damage with a shortbow.
Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack with an arrow. You are proficient with it, and you add your Dexterity modifier to its attack and damage rolls. Its damage is piercing and its damage die is a d4. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them. If you hit a creature with this attack you can move up to half your speed without provoking opportunity attacks from the target of your attack.

Looks good. The second point seems overly complicated.
1. Arrow is an improvised weapon, which you are gaining proficiency in. So "proficiency and [d4, piercing, Light, Finesse]" are all you need, then it works normally with Extra Attack.
2. Is the granted no-OA movement part of your normal movement? If yes, then its not necessary to mention half your speed, unless you are making movement cost double. If no, then you could just say "increase speed by X feet and you don't provoke opportunity attacks from the target of your attack".
You could basically grant the Mobile feat benefits, but only while using the arrow as a melee weapon.



I'll introduce "Magid Dabbler" in the next version, which is the cantrip part of RAW Magic Initiate.

Perfect :smallsmile:

[Badidea]

KRYX = Houserule saves and 2d10

DC 15 save (Mind blast from a Mind Flayer)
RAW +0 bonus = 30%
KRYX +0 bonus = 21%
KRYX +1 bonus = 28%

DC18 save (Mind Blast from an Elder Brain)
RAW +0 bonus = 15%
KRYX +0 bonus = 6%
KRYX +1 bonus = 10%

DC10 save (death save)
RAW +0 bonus = 55%
KRYX +0 bonus = 64%

Against DC 12 charm person (Arcane trickster lv 3, 14 int)
RAW +0 bonus = 45%
KRYX +0 bonus = 45%
RAW +1 bonus = 50%
KRYX +1 bonus = 55%
RAW +2 bonus = 55%
KRYX +2 bonus = 64%

Do the math. You average too much stuff.

Note that for KRYX houserules, it likely gives a +1 to will saves over RAW. Fort and con saves have equal bonuses, because there is functionally no change except 2d10 which you didn't calculate for your saves or spreadsheet. Let me point this out again, you changed nothing for fort but half the fort numbers on page 2 changed. Reflex saves will have about equal bonuses if you average everything, but likely lower in practice since most PCs will not have both high STR and high DEX. So for DEX favoring PCs (wizards/sorc/warlock, finesse, rogue/bard, monk...) they have lower saves vs fireball and higher saves vs being knocked prone.

Frequency on 2d10 [11=10%], [10,12 = 9%], [9,13 = 8%], [8,14 = 7%], [7,15 = 6%], [6,16 = 5%], [5,17 = 4%], [4,18 = 3%], [3,19 = 2%], [2,20 = 1%].

[Kryx]

I went with Skirmisher and Scout (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?535987-Fighter-Archetype-Skirmisher-Scout-(for-use-with-Kryx-s-Houserules)&p=22375490#post22375490) as the options, just fixed up the post. Not great at design, so used the UA material, the Fancy Footwork from Swashbuckler, and your features which seem balanced. They still need some work I think.
You party really hates rogues, huh? I'm having a bit of an internal debate. Rogue is definitely more applicable to the swashbuckler and scout theme than a Fighter is. The question is, should they be duplicated on the fighter? I'm not sure. I wasn't a fan of the fighter implementation of a scout in the UA.

I'll check these out later.


Looks good. The second point seems overly complicated.
1. Arrow is an improvised weapon, which you are gaining proficiency in. So "proficiency and [d4, piercing, Light, Finesse]" are all you need, then it works normally with Extra Attack.
I can simply the improvised weapon part, that's true, but otherwise the wording here is a mix of Shove and Monk's Martial arts. I know of no example where weapon terms like light and finesse are attached. Improvised with proficiency and ability to use Dex seems far more in line with 5e and would also prevent things like TWF with arrows or using an arrow for defensive duelist that you'd get from attaching the light or finesse term.


2. Is the granted no-OA movement part of your normal movement? If yes, then its not necessary to mention half your speed, unless you are making movement cost double. If no, then you could just say "increase speed by X feet and you don't provoke opportunity attacks from the target of your attack"
See Manuevering Attack from the Fighter - the wording is very similar. Also Blade Flourish (Mobile Flourish) from the UA: "You can then immediately use your reaction to move up to your speed to an unoccupied space within 5 feet of the target." I'll add a reaction cost to my version.

Thanks for the critiques. I'll clean up the wording a bit.

EDIT:

When you use an arrow as an improvised melee weapon you are proficient with it, and you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls with it. If you hit a creature with this attack you can then immediately use your reaction to move up to half your speed without provoking opportunity attacks from the target of your attack.

[Kryx]

Houserule saves and 2d10
Your complaint is really about the 2d10 system having a non-linear progression. (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/1207)).

2d10 is an item mentioned on 1 page of my houserules. If you don't like 2d10 then don't use it. It is a highly subjective topic and is not required for my houserules, at all. We've been trying it and enjoying it so far.


Note that for KRYX houserules, it likely gives a +1 to will saves over RAW.
This is very incorrect. Looking at first level:
A Wizard who previously had 65% on intelligence saves or a Cleric who had 65% on Wisdom saves now has 55% on Will saves, most likely. A Wizard's Dex save has likely gone from 65% or 50% to 45%.
A Martial character likely has Wisdom as their tertiary stat in RAW which gives them 50% while in my houserules that'd be 45%.

So the exact issue you bring up is actually the exact opposite if you look at my success rates sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1095279036).


Your dislike of 2d10 is entirely your choice and I have no intention of trying to convince you that it's right for you - that's a decision you and your group would have to make. But you're spreading entirely incorrect information in other regards. Almost everything else you've brought up is entirely incorrect and you'd see so if you looked at the spreadsheet.

[Ugganaut]

You party really hates rogues, huh?
hehe, don't hate rogues :smallsmile: For all of the 90's, our main game was a thief based city campaign in Waterdeep(started in 2nd edition). One of the characters was a medium armored fighter, dual scimitars, with hide and spot skills, and he was our lookout and muscle, but very uncharismatic. He was into parkour type stuff, and hit and run tactics. In our current game, set in Mirabar, that character has taken up the adventuring life with our current group. He was the dark broady sort, so while the Swashbuckler fighting style fits, the flavor doesn't. The definition of Skirmisher fit him quite well, which is why I think it'll suit him. Expert Flanker has a rogue vibe(we use the Flanking=Advantage from DMG).


I'm having a bit of an internal debate. Rogue is definitely more applicable to the swashbuckler and scout theme than a Fighter is. The question is, should they be duplicated on the fighter? I'm not sure. I wasn't a fan of the fighter implementation of a scout in the UA.
The Scout in the UA seemed a bit...shoe horned with the superiority dice. Not saying mine is any better, but your system allows more room to explore some other features. Personally, the fighter scout is something I was after. In that Mirabar game, I'm playing a Barbarian 5/Ranger(without spells) 3. This was before Scout came out. I took ranger, because I wanted to be a great tracker, hunter and guide, but it was hard to do outside ranger - a class with nature magic, which I didn't want him to have. A Scout, with the Natural Explorer feature, is exactly what I was after, a martial survivalist type without magic.
Scout is such a general term, it fits a number of classes, including fighter, ranger and rogue in my opinion.


I can simply the improvised weapon part, that's true, but otherwise the wording here is a mix of Shove and Monk's Martial arts. I know of no example where weapon terms like light and finesse are attached. Improvised with proficiency and ability to use Dex seems far more in line with 5e and would also prevent things like TWF with arrows or using an arrow for defensive duelist that you'd get from attaching the light or finesse term.
This is why you get paid the big bucks :smallsmile: I didn't even think of TWF/DD etc.


See Manuevering Attack from the Fighter - the wording is very similar. Also Blade Flourish (Mobile Flourish) from the UA: "You can then immediately use your reaction to move up to your speed to an unoccupied space within 5 feet of the target." I'll add a reaction cost to my version.
Ah ok, so its in addition to your normal movement. That is nice, get some extra distance at the cost of your reaction.

[Strill]

Your complaint is really about the 2d10 system having a non-linear progression. (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/1207)).

2d10 is an item mentioned on 1 page of my houserules. If you don't like 2d10 then don't use it. It is a highly subjective topic and is not required for my houserules, at all. We've been trying it and enjoying it so far.

What about this is subjective? He's pointing out that 2d10 messes up saving throw math, which is calculated under 1d20. I think it's rather important to be informed that using all of your houserules at once, does not function as described.


This is very incorrect. Looking at first level:
A Wizard who previously had 65% on intelligence saves or a Cleric who had 65% on Wisdom saves now has 55% on Will saves, most likely. A Wizard's Dex save has likely gone from 65% or 50% to 45%.
A Martial character likely has Wisdom as their tertiary stat in RAW which gives them 50% while in my houserules that'd be 45%.

So the exact issue you bring up is actually the exact opposite if you look at my success rates sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1095279036).
All of the calculations in your success rates sheet are done using 1d20, so it's not really relevant to what he was arguing.

[Kryx]

What about this is subjective? He's pointing out that 2d10 messes up saving throw math, which is calculated under 1d20. I think it's rather important to be informed that using all of your houserules at once, does not function as described.
2d10 changes the game, I haven't refuted that. I'm refuting his claim that my combination system is broken due to 2d10. The same non-linear scaling issues he's raising exist if you use 2d10 with the RAW rules so the complaint isn't about my rules, but is about 2d10 in general.

2d10 is a subjective choice. Each person will view the pros and cons differently.


All of the calculations in your success rates sheet are done using 1d20, so it's not really relevant to what he was arguing.
He said that +1 was easier to get in my system of combined saves. Those percentages show the exact opposite of what he said.

[Badidea]

Players will place their stats where they do the most good. In your system players will recognize that a 14, 10, 8 (from std array) in mental stats is a strict average improvement on savings throws over RAW, particularly with the 14 in int and the 8 in wis. So it will push them to select 1 primary mental stat (likely casting stat) and 1 mental dump stat. And never dump stat a physical stat. Min-maxers will always recognize this.

RAW [ +2, +0, -1 ], KRYX [ +1, +1, +1 ]. So players net +2.

And if you look at your numbers, comparing Monster/NPC will save to NPC int, wis and cha saves. It is a 5+% increase on int at all levels, which is what you set out to do. This is the same as a plus 1 save bonus at low levels. This is partly why I added that note about KRYX +1 is about equal to RAW +0 for will. But it's almost +6 at 20. You did this intentionally, I was merely pointing it out again so people compared similar saves. But if we look more closely at high levels Will saves beat all three other saves. Cha saves are consistently 3% below Will, which is okay but why do these effects need the nerf. In particular almost all the cha save effects are PC actions, so this is hurting player choice. Wis saves at about level 13 are hitting that +1 difference/5% gap, again a nerf to mind effects. These are just things the stand out in the table.

Even if Cha and Int saves are rare, wisdom saves are common and many classes do not use wisdom. Also as a reminder I picked Charm PERSON, as it has restricted usage. It only works on humanoids NPCs, so characters with Cha, Int or Wis scores that are similar to PCs. It is also a low level spell where your averages suggest it works better, but your averages are for ALL monsters not the subsection of humanoid monsters. So cutting out everything not humanoid you might see that those int and cha average scores go way up, wisdom might even rise. So this is a strict nerf to charm person, as many NPCs will have that extra +1 or +2 that the averaging gives PCs. As they are basically PCs. So a wizard is suddenly less likely to be charmed. And since charm person has no "on successful save" effect it makes the spell less useful and less likely to be known by any PC.

You are too focused on averages. Examples matter, particularly when they are typical cases.

A rogue with a high dex (18) and low str (10) will be hurt more by fireball (+10% on 1d20, for 2d10 it could be as high as +19% but more likely 9 -15%). This also makes evasion less powerful. So fireball is stronger in your system. And since dex is a more common stat compared to str, it hurts many classes against AoE damage effects. Reflex saves are just lower than dex saves for most classes.

But this rogue will resist being knocked prone more, which is a AC buff at range and an AC penalty in melee. So we see your system has effects on combat choices your players will make, a rogue is more likely going to be in melee range. Because being knocked prone is less likely and it reduces the chance a fireball will hit the rogue.

And I pointed out the 2d10 issue, because it negates your main reason to change the system. A character with a low will save is even more likely to fail saves against mind flayers on the 2d10 system.

[Strill]

Players will place their stats where they do the most good. In your system players will recognize that a 14, 10, 8 (from std array) in mental stats is a strict average improvement on savings throws over RAW, particularly with the 14 in int and the 8 in wis. So it will push them to select 1 primary mental stat (likely casting stat) and 1 mental dump stat. And never dump stat a physical stat. Min-maxers will always recognize this.He accounts for that in his spreadsheet. He has three different stat spreads in the spreadsheet. One "Fighter", one "Rogue" and one "Wizard".

[Badidea]

He accounts for that in his spreadsheet. He has three different stat spreads in the spreadsheet. One "Fighter", one "Rogue" and one "Wizard".

I know he accounts for it. I've read his spreadsheet. But he commented that I was "incorrect" that will save is likely at +1 bonus compared to RAW, where he showed that 2 classes have "lower" rates. But I am correct in saying that most classes get a extra +1 bonus on Will saves, which is why I mentioned it is "likely". And the fact it is in his Table shows that he should agree with me, but he doesn't.

It's not a huge point, just frustrating dealing with someone who doesn't even acknowledge their own system's facts. It's either that or he's not reading all of my posts.

[Kryx]

I know he accounts for it. I've read his spreadsheet. But he commented that I was "incorrect" that will save is likely at +1 bonus compared to RAW
I dont think you have read my spreadsheet as you keep bringing up topics that have been addressed there. For example:

RAW [ +2, +0, -1 ], KRYX [ +1, +1, +1 ]. So players net +2.

Using standard 27 point buy and a good race at level 1:
"Fighter": +5 Strength, +5 Secondary ability (likely Con), +2 tertiary ability (likely wis), +0 other ability, +0 other ability, -1 other ability
"Fighter": +5 Fort, +1 Ref, +1 Will
So Con/Fort remains the same. Strength goes down by 4 while Dex goes up by 1. Wis goes down by 1. Int goes up by 1. Charisma goes up by 1.

"Wizard": +5 Int, +4 Wis, +2 Dex, +2 Con, -1 Str, -1 Cha
"Wizard": +4 Will, +0 Ref, +2 Fort
So Con/Fort remains the same. Int goes down by 1, Wis stays the same, and Charisma goes up by 5. Dex goes down by 2 while Str goes up by 1.

Most of the "strong" saves are either the same or slightly down. The biggest change is in the outliers of Charisma and Intelligence. Those outliers being brought in line was by design of the combined system. The RAW system encourages 5-15% success rates, which this avoids.


This will be my last post in reply to you on this topic. It sounds like you don't like the goals of my system, so don't use it. We don't need to spam other users with your disagreement.

[Badidea]

Ignoring relevant criticism does not help you. You don't see the flaw with a rogue having a much worse save against fireballs and dragon breath attacks? And how that harms abilities that are based around saves. Or that charm effects against undead, constructs and oozes are part of your calculations for low level will saves. Suggesting your numbers are low. Which would raise your overall rate likely in the 3-7% range. And as I have said, mind effects are more vulnerable to failure rates.

I don't like your system because it's sloppy and hurts players in a number of in game ways that are difficult to notice. And you have it as part of your signature and nested in a set of other house rules, as if it is perfectly balanced both independently and in your houserules. But it's a lie, playtesting would highlight the flaws I am pointing out.

But if you won't reply. I will just point out that Kryx's Fort system is identical to Con saves, which Kryx acknowledged as an outlier for having too many successful saves. And Kryx decided to balanced Reflex and Will to have similar rates to the outlier Con saves. The premise is wrong.

[Kryx]

September 16th, 2017 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-september-16th-2017)
Feats

Removed variant ASI progression
Added Magic Dabbler
Bow Expert changed to be less mechanical and more flavorful in its differences from Crossbow Expert

Magus

Cantrips moved back to 2nd level

Monk

Added Way of the Open Hand
Removed Stunning Strike from Long Death (it's part of Open Hand). It has Touch of Death instead

[Ugganaut]

Not seeing the changes in the OP.

[Kryx]

It should be updated now.

[Ugganaut]

Yep, that worked. Open Hand looks simple but nice.

Clerical stuff: The Blur duration is missing "Concentration", and the Open Hand Stunning Strike is missing "Starting at level 11".

Clarifications.
1. Rapid Strike: On every attack, or just once per turn?
2. Barbarians Rage and Danger Sense features: Do these now both give advantage to Reflex saves in your system(Fort/Ref/Will)?
3. I noticed Magus owns GFB and Booming Blade. Did you remove melee attack cantrips from the general populace for balance reasons?

[Kryx]

Open Hand looks simple but nice.
Thanks!


The Blur duration is missing "Concentration"
The Spell? That's purposeful to buff Blur to compete with Mirror Image by taking away Blur's Concentration.


the Open Hand Stunning Strike is missing "Starting at level 11".
Will fix, thanks!


1. Rapid Strike: On every attack, or just once per turn?
Rapid Strike is from the UA. I will readd the bonus action cost on the next version of my rules.


2. Barbarians Rage and Danger Sense features: Do these now both give advantage to Reflex saves in your system(Fort/Ref/Will)?
Rage would give advantage on Strength checks and Reflex saving throws.
Danger Sense would give advantage on Reflex saving throws.

There is some overlap in combat, but Danger Sense is still a great ability. It would apply for dungeon crawling with traps, rounds in combat before the barbarian has raged, or rounds in combat when the babarian is out of rages.


3. I noticed Magus owns GFB and Booming Blade. Did you remove melee attack cantrips from the general populace for balance reasons?
Yes, those cantrips are removed. They are nothing close to the balance of the other cantrips in the game according to my spell balance calculations (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N4QC6EmXE0avgk8jK1aubJcaFoZDYw8b_DuPHh8aBTc/edit#gid=639488216).

[Ugganaut]

The Spell? That's purposeful to buff Blur to compete with Mirror Image by taking away Blur's Concentration.

Ah ok, makes sense.


Rapid Strike is from the UA. I will readd the bonus action cost on the next version of my rules.
Don't know all the UA stuff too well, missed that. Bonus action makes sense.


There is some overlap in combat, but Danger Sense is still a great ability. It would apply for dungeon crawling with traps, rounds in combat before the barbarian has raged, or rounds in combat when the babarian is out of rages.
Agreed, just wanted to make sure I had it right.


Yes, those cantrips are removed. They are nothing close to the balance of the other cantrips in the game according to my spell balance calculations (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N4QC6EmXE0avgk8jK1aubJcaFoZDYw8b_DuPHh8aBTc/edit#gid=639488216).
I'll miss them :smallsmile:

Thanks for the quick response.

[Ugganaut]

Illusion of Calm(1st lvl spell): If creatures can’t see you moving, and just sees an illusionary double standing still, then effectively you are invisible? Is this one minute invisibility with a built in illusionary distraction, or is it supposed to be only while you're in that square?

[Kryx]

Illusion of calm in mechanical terms: Movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks (like Dodge), but for 1 minute. The illusonary duplicate is on top of you, not left in a spot you leave.

It's kind of a bad spell tbh. It's a port of http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/illusion-of-calm which is stronger due to PF's rules about opportunity attacks and spellcasting.

[Ugganaut]

Yeah, I don't really get it. So an illusion of you standing still moves around with you. That would look....odd :smallsmile:

Edit: That spell does say its the first square of movement, so it is only while you're in the same square. I'd say it should be "invisibility while you're in the square, until you attack, or until you leave the square". Would grant you non-attack benefits like picking a pocket, adv on first attack, disadv to enemies attacking you until they hit.

[Kryx]

Ignore the wording I currently use, it's confusing. The spell has nothing to do with invisibility or even spaces. Try: "You create an illusory double that makes it look like you are standing still, even when you are not. While under the effects of this spell, your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks."

Essentially you have an illusionary facade that others see. I also increased it to 10 minutes to make it decent.

Adding other factors like "creatures have disadvantage to notice you using a Finesse check" or something similar would be flavorful. Disadvantage on attacking would be too strong - see blur. Advantage on the first attack could possibly work.

[Ugganaut]

If they can't see you, only an illusion, then you are invisible. It is a weak version of Blur, but it ends if you are hit, or if you attack, or if you leave that space. If it ends when a creature damages you, then it also ends with AoE attacks. Is that really to strong?

Edit: If it only protected against OA's, its the disengage action.

[Kryx]

They see an illusionary facade. There is no invisibility involved.

If they can't see you, only an illusion, then you are invisible. It is a weak version of Blur, but it ends if you are hit, or if you attack, or if you leave that space. If it ends when a creature damages you, then it also ends with AoE attacks. Is that really to strong?
There is already a spell like this - Mislead is a 5th level spell:

You become invisible at the same time that an illusory double of you appears where you are standing. The double lasts for the duration, but the invisibility ends if you attack or cast a spell.

You can use your action to move your illusory double up to twice your speed and make it gesture, speak, and behave in whatever way you choose.

You can see through its eyes and hear through its ears as if you were located where it is. On each of your turns as a bonus action, you can switch from using its senses to using your own, or back again. While you are using its senses, you are blinded and deafened in regard to your own surroundings.
Illusion of Calm is not that spell. Illusion of calm, as I've written it above, is like a 10 minute disengage, correct. We could possibly add on side benefits for things like enemies percieving finesse or not.

[Ugganaut]

So when the illusion appears, what happens to you if you're not effectively invisible?

Mislead is much stronger, allowing you to move it, speak, gesture, see through its eyes etc.
The duplicate sounded like a cardboard cutout, just standing calmly still while you're in that square, not attacking or taking damage.

[Kryx]

So when the illusion appears, what happens to you if you're not effectively invisible?
It's an illusionary facade - just like all the other illusion spells like Blur, Disguise Self, Magic Mouth, etc. Illusion of Calm does not make you invisible.


The duplicate sounded like a cardboard cutout, just standing calmly still while you're in that square, not attacking or taking damage.
The interpretation that you've taken is an understandable misreading of the poorly worded rules. Invisibility is a 1st level spell. The spell you're describing ("Mislead-lite") would be at least a 3rd level spell or higher.

[Ugganaut]

I'm clearly missing something. Spells like Blur and Disguise Self, they see you, and they see the illusion at the same time which is what fools them. The illusion moves with you, mimics your movements. This creates an illusionary duplicate, and they can't see what you're doing.
Invisibility(2nd level), last for an hour, and you can move and hide. This would be a 1-10 minute effect, which gives you some of the advantages of invisibility(adv first attack, disadvantage on being attacked - until hit at least), but you can't move from that square, and can't move the duplicate. And you can't hide by the spell itself, there is a visible illusion showing your position, just hiding what you are doing while in that square. Its like a weak invisibility spell with a minor illusion cantrip.

Edit: Actually, it would be like a Mirror Image type duplicate that doesn't move. So attacking it would be easier. Once its hit once, the illusion is over, and you're invisibility-lite ends. So the advantage would be similar to one Mirror Image duplicate, and invisibility unless you move, the duplicate is hit, you attack, or you lose concentration.
It would be worse than Mirror Image duplicate, because the image doesn't move. So basically, if you are attacked, it ends. Or the AC would be 5 or something(10 - 5 for Dex 0)

[Kryx]

I'm not sure how much more clear I can be about a spell that I ported from an earlier edition that did not exist in 5e: It is not intended to provide invisibility in any means. Any interpretation of such is entirely incorrect. It also is not tied to a square - that was due to poor wording. I added the updated wording above, but perhaps it's been missed:

Illusion of Calm
1st-level illusion

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V, S
Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes

You create an illusory double that makes it look like you are standing still, even when you are not. While under the effects of this spell, your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
It does not do what you think it does. If you'd like to create your own spell another thread would be the appropriate place.

[Ugganaut]

I saw it, I just got stuck on the "standing still" part. An image of you standing still floats around when you move. Having trouble visualizing it.
I'll drop it.

[Terra Reveene]

Rather than creating an illusory double, aren't you just making it appear as though you're standing still/in a neutral pose?
See the wording on blur. It doesn't create an illusory double on top of you that is blurred, it just makes it look like you are blurred.
Likewise, I think it'd be a bit less confusing if you did the same for illusory of calm.
"Your body assumes and maintains a neutral pose to all who can see you, standing still and moving around casually, regardless of what actions you take. While under the effects of this spell, your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks."
^ This is far less confusing.
For clarity, a neutral pose is the same as standing still, just worded more elegantly.

In my opinion, I think it'd be more flavorful if the spell, rather than making it impossible for creatures to make opportunity attacks against you, made it so that all opportunity attacks made against you automatically miss (along with the change I suggested above). This way your movement could be explained as you just casually dodging away from the attack.

[pagnabros]

Hello Kryx, first of all I want to thank you for the amount of work you're putting into this, it really improved my group overall enjoyment by fixing, in my humble opinion, several lack in the 5e design.
But I also want to ask you the reasons behind some of your "designer's choices". Let's start then:

1) Why giving the Barbarian the Fighting Stance feature and cantrips to the Ranger?
2) I'm a little worry about the major fixed classes to be a little bit overtuned (expecially Monks and Rangers), expecially to the DPR. My worries is partly because some of my players are "power player" and if they can exploit something, they'll
3) Why compressing so many skills? I think that expecially Investigation and Intimidation should be separate from the others
4) Isn't the Called Shot option listed in the combat rules like a kind of new -5 hit/+10 damage, removed from Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter precisely because it caused a lot of umbalance in the first place?
5) Isn't the Dueling Master Feat a little too umbalanced for the Monk? It is almost a straight +2 to AC.

And I have also a few suggestions, expecially for the Traits/Feat Chapter. Why don't using the Skill Feat and Races Feat UA to tailoring new Traits to add diversity? For example:

Quick-Fingered
Prerequisite: Dexterity 13 or higher
As a bonus action, you can make a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check to plant something on someone else, conceal an object on a creature, lift a purse, or take something from a pocket.

Stealthy
Prerequisite: Dexterity 13 or higher
If you are hidden, you can move up to 10 feet in the open without revealing yourself if you end the move in a position where you're not clearly visible.

And one original Trait from my own:

Attractive
Prerequisite: Charisma 13 or higher
Your beautiful aspect gives you advantage on Charisma (Persuasion) and Charisma (Deception) checks made against an individual who is attracted to members of your sex.

Also, I would like an expert opinion about these new Feats:

Master Tactician
Prerequisite: Intelligence 13 or higher.
You are an expert at tactics, strategy, and planning. It is to you whom your allies turn when deciding what to do next. You anticipate your enemies' moves and prepare for every outcome. You gain the following benefits:
You and your allies have advantage on any checks made to gain surprise against an enemy.
At the start of each combat, after initiative has been rolled, you may allow one target you can see within 30 feet (including yourself) to again roll initiative. They may take the higher of the two rolls.

Knife Mastery
When the result of the damage dice with a dagger or sickle is 1, you roll 1d6 and add the result as an extra damage.
When you are wielding a dagger or sickle that you are proficient with, and a creature misses you with a melee attack, you can make an opportunity attack against that creature with that weapon.

Thrown Weapon Master
Whenever you make an attack with a thrown weapon you may choose to draw a weapon either immediately before or after the attack. This does not count against your one free use of use an object each turn.
Your normal range with a thrown weapons increases to by 20 feet and your maximum range increases by 40 feet.
Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature does not impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls with thrown weapons.

Whip Master
When you hit a creature with a whip on your turn, you can use a bonus action to attempt to grapple the target.
As an action, you can also use a whip to grasp an unattended Small or Tiny object within your whip’s reach and pull that object into your square. To do so, you must hit AC 10. Further, you can use the whip to grasp onto an object within your whip’s reach, using your whip as if it were a grappling hook, allowing you to use the whip to swing on like a rope. As a bonus action, you can release the object your whip is grasping, but you cannot use the whip to attack while the whip is grasping an object.

[Kryx]

Hello Kryx, first of all I want to thank you for the amount of work you're putting into this, it really improved my group overall enjoyment by fixing, in my humble opinion, several lack in the 5e design.
Hey Pagnabros, thanks for the feedback! The below is rather long and I feel like I've made a poor argument for skills, but I'm rather tired and can't quite form the best compelling arguments right now.


1) Why giving the Barbarian the Fighting Stance feature and cantrips to the Ranger?
Fighting Styles to Barbarian: This change serves 2 purposes:
1. Slight buff to the Barbarian. The Barbarian was slightly behind where the fighter was and it was even when the Barbarian was using reckless attack 24/7. While the rage damage reduction makes up for that, the Barbarian is definitely taking a fair bit of damage compared to a more heavily armored fighter.
2. Flavor. Barbarian's might not be the smartest, but they know how to fight. Pretty much other martial class has a fighting style (Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, even the Valor Bard). It seems wrong that a strong fighter wouldn't know how to wield his weapon so well. There are surely ways to explain that reasoning (fighting styles are more schooled learning), it just doesn't seem to work for me.

Cantrips to Rangers:
The Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster (4th level spellcasters) have cantrips. The Paladin and Ranger don't. That dicotomy always bothered me.

Additionally looking at the list I gave the Ranger:

Druidcraft: Predict the weather, make flowers blossom, or falling leaves? Totally within the Ranger's flavor.
Guidance: Easily flavored as competance - same as the druid
Magic Stone: Turn a bunch of pebbles into weapons? Ranger.
Mending: Fixing a minor break or tear? Also within the Ranger's flavor.
Resistance: Resist some cold or fire for a bit? Ranger
Shillelagh: Turn a stick into a weapon? Ranger

All of those cantrips are something that I'd expect a Ranger to be able to do. I can't see a reason not to allow this extra bit of mostly flavor to the class. If we're looking at the spell-less ranger then that is an entirely different class imo.


2) I'm a little worry about the major fixed classes to be a little bit overtuned (expecially Monks and Rangers), expecially to the DPR. My worries is partly because some of my players are "power player" and if they can exploit something, they'll
If you're worried about min/maxing I would, personally, encourage your group to limit multiclass to 1 class. I think it should've been that way via RAW as I find multiclass to generally be for abusive mechanics more than anything else.
Beyond multiclass lets take each class individually:

Monk: Monk was one of the weakest classes in RAW. It was significantly buffed to purposefully bring it more in line with other classes. (See DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2035285798)). While the subclasses do have expanded spell options those subclasses all had a fair bit of spell options by RAW already. The spell options themselves are naturally a bit balanced as they compete with the same resources that that their normal mechanics use (ki). If you compare them to a Paladin for example the Paladin has all his slots to spend while a monk shares that cost across spells and manuevering. I believe my monk is well within in balance guidelines.

Ranger: The Ranger wasn't purposefully buffed (from the Revised Ranger). I would say it was more of "made functional".

Hunter's Mark was incompatible one of the two main Ranger styles (TWF) and removing the bonus action on that really helped bring that option up to snuff compared to other classes.
Primal Strike options were already available as spells. They still have the same spell slot costs, just without the bonus action weirdness that was smite-like spells.
Multiattack. Rangers struggled at the level 11 point when Paladin got improved divine smite and other classes got other benefits. The UA subclasses had quite mediocre options at 11th level and the Hunter Ranger had one of the most bemoaned abilities in the game in Whirlwind Attack. Whirlwind attack is nearly always worse than attacking normally. It's a really bad feature. Moving Volley to the core class was fine I thought and Giant Killer and Horde Breaker seemed like natural options
Foe Slayer. Another horrible ability by RAW. I think this is a much more meaningful capston without being overpowered

Everything else is pretty much the same.

All of that said: the Ranger is slightly overtuned at levels 1-10. I'll need to find a way to tone that down.


3) Why compressing so many skills? I think that expecially Investigation and Intimidation should be separate from the others
The skills are inspired by Pathfinder's unchained skills (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/consolidated-skills-optional-rules/). 5e had too many niche and overlapping skills.
Niche being animal handling, survival. Nature can quite easily cover those which helps bugg nature's limited value and gets rid of such niche skills.
Overlapping being Investigation and Perception/Insight. Investigation is quite strange in my experience. Getting a general view over a room if perception, but searching is Investigation? That doesn't really work. Additionally gut feeling is covered by insight and investigation? It's just strange. Sleight of Hand and Thieves tools also overlapped - so Finesse.
Manipulation will be a sticking point for some. I originally started with Influence covering Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation, but it was too much for 1 skill I think. Deception and Intimidation are rather similar in that the user tries to get what they want through negative reinforcement. Sure they are slightly different methods, but so are seeing and hearing (perception) while athletics allows for 3 methods. 2 methods that ultimately accomplish similar effects don't seem worth splitting except for nostalgic reasons. Perhaps it'd be fine with more finely granular skills, but it seems redundant in the current setup.


4) Isn't the Called Shot option listed in the combat rules like a kind of new -5 hit/+10 damage, removed from Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter precisely because it caused a lot of umbalance in the first place?
It's similar, but much less abusive. It's once per turn and scales to +12 instead of being +10 right away. It is also available to everyone instead of only certain classes.
While some classes will be better able to take advantage of it I think it's balanced enough as a once per turn ability.


5) Isn't Dueling Master a little too umbalanced for the Monk? It is almost a straight +2 to AC.
True. I need to word that so it doesn't work for a monk. It's meant to allow for a fencing fighting style.


Why don't using the Skill Feat and Races Feat UA to tailoring new Traits to add diversity?
All of them are half feats which shows that the size of feat design in 5e is too big.
Beyond that they all offer expertise which feels both wrong and right. Assuming we turn expertise into advantage for bounded accuracy's sake then it's a bit better. A Wizard should probably have expertise on Arcana, but they also already have the proficiency so offering proficiency + expertise doesn't fit the needs imo.

Beyond that I feel like it's WotC's attempt to focus on the 3 pillar system. I like the 3 pillar system, but I do not think that progression in the 3 pillars should all come from the same resources. Inherently players will min/max and ignore the flavorful options. This is part of the reason I split out traits and I'd place skill benefits into a traits like system, not into feats. Feats, primarily, have always been about combat. Trying to have players choose between combat and another pillar is just a failed expectation imo.

TL;DR: I should probably incorporate the idea behind them in some form, but I don't think feats is the right idea for that. Perhaps expertise so casters have more feat options, but it doesn't feel great.


Quick-Fingered
Prerequisite: Dexterity 13 or higher
As a bonus action, you can make a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check to plant something on someone else, conceal an object on a creature, lift a purse, or take something from a pocket.
What benefit does this actually have? The vast majority of Sleight of Hand/Finesse checks will happen out of combat. Action economy only really matters in combat. Adding a special case for a worthless benefit seems strange.


Stealthy
Prerequisite: Dexterity 13 or higher
If you are hidden, you can move up to 10 feet in the open without revealing yourself if you end the move in a position where you're not clearly visible.
This is better, but still incredibly niche. So you can move from wall to wall if the gap is 10 feet or less. That situation seems so incredibly uncommon that it is worthless as a choice.


Attractive
Prerequisite: Charisma 13 or higher
Your beautiful aspect gives you advantage on Charisma (Persuasion) and Charisma (Deception) checks made against an individual who is attracted to members of your sex.
I must rant about this one: Attractive is not equal to charisma. There are hundreds of blog posts about this topic. Some of the most charismatic creatures are ugly and vice versa. Inherently the name and flavor ptus me off of this idea. Additionally only making it apply to the opposite sex seems to strangely pull from fallout and encourage weird DM interactions. Diplomat fills this niche imo.


Master Tactician
Prerequisite: Intelligence 13 or higher.
You are an expert at tactics, strategy, and planning. It is to you whom your allies turn when deciding what to do next. You anticipate your enemies' moves and prepare for every outcome. You gain the following benefits:
You and your allies have advantage on any checks made to gain surprise against an enemy.
At the start of each combat, after initiative has been rolled, you may allow one target you can see within 30 feet (including yourself) to again roll initiative. They may take the higher of the two rolls.
The first bullet is far too vague. Advantage on all checks to gain surprise? Surprise isn't gained.. Do they get advantage on all dexterity checks out of combat then? Additionally how is the Tactician providing that advantage on stealth checks? This bullet doesn't match the flavor at all imo.
The second bullet is basically a copy of Ambush Master - a 13th level feature of a subclass. I think such concepts should either remain exclusive to those subclasses or only be applies to limited other ones, not all.


Knife Mastery
When the result of the damage dice with a dagger or sickle is 1, you roll 1d6 and add the result as an extra damage.
When you are wielding a dagger or sickle that you are proficient with, and a creature misses you with a melee attack, you can make an opportunity attack against that creature with that weapon.
First bullet changes a dagger from 2.5 damage to 3.9 damage (3.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). That seems strong.
Second bullet is poorly worded. Assuming it's worded better it's basically a carbon copy of Unerring Accuracy - the 17th level feature from the Kensei. It's incredibly strong and again should not be extracted from that subclass imo.
Daggers already serve their purpose. Such buffs would be massive buffs to a rogue. A decent increase in damage and almost never missing...


Thrown Weapon Master
Whenever you make an attack with a thrown weapon you may choose to draw a weapon either immediately before or after the attack. This does not count against your one free use of use an object each turn.
Your normal range with a thrown weapons increases to by 20 feet and your maximum range increases by 40 feet.
Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature does not impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls with thrown weapons.
First bullet should be part of the raw rules anyways - totally fine.
Second bullet is fine
Third bullet is fine

That said it feels like a feat tax to have thrown compete with bows, but I don't have a better option.


Whip Master
When you hit a creature with a whip on your turn, you can use a bonus action to attempt to grapple the target.
As an action, you can also use a whip to grasp an unattended Small or Tiny object within your whip’s reach and pull that object into your square. To do so, you must hit AC 10. Further, you can use the whip to grasp onto an object within your whip’s reach, using your whip as if it were a grappling hook, allowing you to use the whip to swing on like a rope. As a bonus action, you can release the object your whip is grasping, but you cannot use the whip to attack while the whip is grasping an object.
First bullet is fine
Second bullet is fine.


Thanks again for the feedback and discussion.

[Kryx]

Random thought about skill feats:

I think it's be much better design if the options were available to all classes. For example we could say at 7th and 15th level all classes can either gain proficiency in a new skill or roll with advantage (expertise) for a skill that they are proficient with. I think that's significantly better design that doesn't reinforce the idea that martials only fight and doesn't have other pillars competing with combat. It also allows for advancement of character's knowledge.

[pagnabros]

Thanks for your answers Kryx, you almost clarified all my doubts!

As you also said, I think I will try to undertune the Ranger a little bit at 1-10 level, because its a little too strong IMO. And I will also rework the Throw Weapon Master to feel less "tax feat" and incorporate some of its option into the basic combat system, and the Dagger Master to be more unique.

As for the Fighting Stance for all martial class, I think is a good decision but I dream of a "unique stance" for each class, I think it would be very flavourful and help diversification

As for the Skill Feat, I agree with you that the progression for features beyond combat (exploration and social) should be separate, infact I said to use them as Traits (as Actor or Athlete), as per your houserules

[Kryx]

As you also said, I think I will try to undertune the Ranger a little bit at 1-10 level, because its a little too strong IMO
The Longbow and Heavy Crossbow Ranger are perfectly fine. The issue is primarily around TWF and Shield Master, but that issue is present in RAW as well. I'm not sure I'd look at tweaking much.

Perhaps we should add a 1st level spell slot expenditure to use hunter's mark/hex, but it lasts until you long rest. That brings it a bit more inline with RAW while maintaining the purposeful difference.

[Ugganaut]

Totem Spirit: “Wolf. While you’re raging, your friends have advantage on melee attack rolls against any creature that you have attacked.”
Is that for one round?

Thunderous Strike. "Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 2 or more ki points to cast thunderwave as a bonus action."
Plus the 2 for the spell?

Paladin Cantrips: “At 2nd level, you know two cantrips of your choice from the cleric spell list.”
Is it supposed to be from the Paladin or Cleric list? Any reason not to be cleric?
Same with Rangers getting druid cantrips but having cantrips on their spell list.

[Ugganaut]

Perhaps we should add a 1st level spell slot expenditure to use hunter's mark/hex, but it lasts until you long rest. That brings it a bit more inline with RAW while maintaining the purposeful difference.

I think that sounds appropriate.

[Kryx]

Totem Spirit: “Wolf. While you’re raging, your friends have advantage on melee attack rolls against any creature that you have attacked.”
Is that for one round?
Reword:
"Wolf. While you’re raging, your friends have advantage on melee attack rolls against any creature within 5 feet of you that you have attacked since the end of your last turn. The spirit of the wolf makes you a leader of hunters."


Thunderous Strike. "Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 2 or more ki points to cast thunderwave as a bonus action."
Plus the 2 for the spell?
It costs 2 ki points to cast the spell as a bonus action. That includes casting the spell. More can be spent to do it at higher level - all as normal there. The wording comes from SCAG monk:
"Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 2 ki points to cast the 1st-level spell burning hands as a bonus action"


Paladin Cantrips: “At 2nd level, you know two cantrips of your choice from the cleric spell list.”
Is it supposed to be from the Paladin or Cleric list? Any reason not to be cleric?
Same with Rangers getting druid cantrips but having cantrips on their spell list.
Those should say Paladin/Ranger lists. They cannot access cleric/druid lists.

[Ugganaut]

Thanks again.

[Ugganaut]

Hey Kryx,

Ranger Multi-Attack: If Giant Killer and Horde Breaker shouldn’t stack, should Giant Killer be “one size category larger than you”, and Horde Breaker “of your size category or smaller than you”.

Second Wind: As a bonus action?

Totemic Attunement[Elk]: Bonus action?

Link on Wizard in the front page is broken, and the class has no spell list.

Why was Witchbolt removed from Warlock list, it sounds very warlocky?

“Shadowy Armor: While you are wielding your pact weapon, not wielding a shield, and wearing either no armor, leather armor, or hide armor (light armor), your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Charisma modifier.”
The formula overrides armor, so while wearing light armor, it can’t benefit you, or you choose between the two?
Warlocks don’t get hide armor, but is included in Shadowy Armor, is that just converting Light Armor?

[Kryx]

Ranger Multi-Attack: If Giant Killer and Horde Breaker shouldn’t stack, should Giant Killer be “one size category larger than you”, and Horde Breaker “of your size category or smaller than you”.
They arent intended to be mutually exclusive - both can be used in a round and the DPR accounts for this.


Second Wind: As a bonus action?
It is as a bonus action: "On your turn, you can use a bonus action regain hit points equal to 1d10 + your Constitution modifier + your fighter level."


Totemic Attunement[Elk]: Bonus action?
Fixed this and Tiger, thanks!


Link on Wizard in the front page is broken, and the class has no spell list.
Link? There are only links to the issue tracker that I can see
The spell list is available in RAW - same as Cleric.


Why was Witchbolt removed from Warlock list, it sounds very warlocky?
Witchbolt was removed from my games as it is a horrible trap spell.


“Shadowy Armor: While you are wielding your pact weapon, not wielding a shield, and wearing either no armor, leather armor, or hide armor (light armor), your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Charisma modifier.”
The formula overrides armor, so while wearing light armor, it can’t benefit you, or you choose between the two?
Warlocks don’t get hide armor, but is included in Shadowy Armor, is that just converting Light Armor?
You can benefit from this formula while wearing armor - that's the point of that wording. When you have 2 formulas to choose from you can choose either or. In this case "AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Charisma modifier." or the bonus provided by the armor.
Light armor is only provided in this context for people who play by the RAW armor rules.

[Ugganaut]

Link? There are only links to the issue tracker that I can see
The spell list is available in RAW - same as Cleric.
I was just jotting down notes as I go, wasn't a major thing. On the content page, you can click the various chapters and classes, except wizard.
I just assumed with all those new spells, the wizard list would have changed. My mistake, sorry about that.

Second Wind, not sure how I missed the bonus action. Brain fart.


You can benefit from this formula while wearing armor - that's the point of that wording. When you have 2 formulas to choose from you can choose either or. In this case "AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Charisma modifier." or the bonus provided by the armor.
Light armor is only provided in this context for people who play by the RAW armor rules.
The light armor part just sounded weird, "while wearing armor your AC equals". Makes sense.

[Kryx]

I was just jotting down notes as I go, wasn't a major thing. On the content page, you can click the various chapters and classes, except wizard.
Ah, you have my homebrewery link from long ago? Ah, I see. I distribute in the PDF format now, but will fix that.


I just assumed with all those new spells, the wizard list would have changed. My mistake, sorry about that.
All of the elemental ones I've added are also added to the Wizard list.


The light armor part just sounded weird, "while wearing armor your AC equals". Makes sense.
It allows you to wear either no armor or leather/hide. Both are allowed. Some warlocks would want to wear leather for thematics, but gain no ac benefit. This feature shouldn't disallow that.

[Terra Reveene]

It allows you to wear either no armor or leather/hide. Both are allowed. Some warlocks would want to wear leather for thematics, but gain no ac benefit. This feature shouldn't disallow that.

I always thought the main reason it granted the AC calculation even while wearing armor was to make sure that if you're ever disarmed of your pact weapon, you'd have some armor to get AC from as a backup .-.

On that note, would allowing warlocks to gain that benefit while wearing any kind of armor be better? So warlocks taking the armored feat can fall back on higher AC?

[Kryx]

On that note, would allowing warlocks to gain that benefit while wearing any kind of armor be better? So warlocks taking the armored feat can fall back on higher AC?
Most AC calculations say "When you aren’t wearing armor". Perhaps I should just do the same as I don't think there is a case with wording that always applies.

If they take the option as fallback for when they don't have armor it'd already apply.

[Terra Reveene]

If they take the option as fallback for when they don't have armor it'd already apply.

Untrue. The way it's worded now, chain armor warlocks don't gain the benefit of shadowy armor, meaning they can't fall back on anything (technically, they're always on their fallback armor, but I don't think that's what you meant)



Most AC calculations say "When you aren’t wearing armor". Perhaps I should just do the same as I don't think there is a case with wording that always applies.

If you're planning on changing it to this, please make sure that they don't have to wield their pact weapon to gain the shadowy armor AC. Otherwise it'll feel really bad when they get disarmed (potentially a -5 to AC until you can get your hands on your pact weapon again. It's like a reverse Shield spell, except it lasts a lot longer).

[Kryx]

Untrue. The way it's worded now, chain armor warlocks don't gain the benefit of shadowy armor, meaning they can't fall back on anything (technically, they're always on their fallback armor, but I don't think that's what you meant)
I don't know what you mean by "fallback". I assumed without armor, which the wording I suggest would cover.


If you're planning on changing it to this, please make sure that they don't have to wield their pact weapon to gain the shadowy armor AC. Otherwise it'll feel really bad when they get disarmed (potentially a -5 to AC until you can get your hands on your pact weapon again. It's like a reverse Shield spell, except it lasts a lot longer).
I'll likely remove the weapon requirement with how the pacts are split now.

[Terra Reveene]

I don't know what you mean by "fallback". I assumed without armor, which the wording I suggest would cover.


With "fallback" I mean the AC you get while not wielding the pact weapon for whatever reason.

It doesn't matter if you're planning on removing the weapon requirement though, so nevermind.

[Mith]

Typo error, on page 85, the first paladin smite option mentions a magus spell save DC.

[Ugganaut]

Magus Prepared Spells: “Intelligence modifier + your magus level”, you forgot 'half', which seems intended by the example.

Is Arcane Channeling too much with so many options? Its effectively six free cantrips. Each is stronger than a combat maneuver(which has similar mechanics), but no 'learn 2, then 1 at lvl X' etc. Magus already has the versatility of Arcane Strike like the Paladin’s Divine Strike, but nothing the Paladin has is similar to Arcane Channeling(which I'm assuming this is balanced against.

[Kryx]

Small update (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog)


Magus Prepared Spells: “Intelligence modifier + your magus level”, you forgot 'half', which seems intended by the example.
Half was purposefully left out. See Caster Comparison (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wJAnGX7qgsPqpXv3h76QGGn5vmPgjU1bCzU-7kgBjvw/edit#gid=2077828504), specifically "Spells Prepared" which shows that Magus is in line with both Paladin and Ranger (Ranger has the same as the Paladin). Paladin and Ranger get half + ability score modifier + 10 from their subclasses. Magus gets none from their subclass.


Is Arcane Channeling too much with so many options? Its effectively six free cantrips. Each is stronger than a combat maneuver(which has similar mechanics), but no 'learn 2, then 1 at lvl X' etc. Magus already has the versatility of Arcane Strike like the Paladin’s Divine Strike, but nothing the Paladin has is similar to Arcane Channeling(which I'm assuming this is balanced against.
See DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2035285798), specifically the Magus sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=666841381) which shows how effective each arcane channeling item is.

Arcane Channeling options are quite different from maneuvers. Definitely wouldn't say that they are stronger (trip for example is very strong). If I wanted to be more in line with 5e's structure then I'd limit Paladin's Smite, Ranger's Primal Strike, Magus' Arcane Channeling and Arcane Strike options to more slowly scale, but the restrictions seem unnecessary as the alterantive options aren't really a power increase - it's just a different way to do the same thing.

[Ugganaut]

Half was purposefully left out. See Caster Comparison (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wJAnGX7qgsPqpXv3h76QGGn5vmPgjU1bCzU-7kgBjvw/edit#gid=2077828504), specifically "Spells Prepared" which shows that Magus is in line with both Paladin and Ranger (Ranger has the same as the Paladin). Paladin and Ranger get half + ability score modifier + 10 from their subclasses. Magus gets none from their subclass.
Ah ok, then the example is wrong. "[Magus level 5], with an Intelligence of 14, your list of prepared spells can include four spells of 1st or 2nd level, in any combination, chosen from your spellbook."


See DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2035285798), specifically the Magus sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=666841381) which shows how effective each arcane channeling item is.
I wasn't questioning the dpr balance(those sheets may as well be in a foreign language to me), more the number of Arcane Channeling options available as soon as you get the feature.


Arcane Channeling options are quite different from maneuvers. Definitely wouldn't say that they are stronger (trip for example is very strong). If I wanted to be more in line with 5e's structure then I'd limit Paladin's Smite, Ranger's Primal Strike, Magus' Arcane Channeling and Arcane Strike options to more slowly scale, but the restrictions seem unnecessary as the alterantive options aren't really a power increase - it's just a different way to do the same thing.
Paladin's Smite, Ranger's Primal Strike and Magus' Arcane Strike have versatility that is limited by spell slots they share with actual spells. Arcane Channeling is at-wills, similar to the Combat Maneuver mechanic. Combat Maneuver's are spread out, and cantrips are limited in all classes that have them. Magus, like the Paladin and Ranger, gets its versatile Strike ability, as well as 6 free cantrip-like effects, on top of its actual cantrips. It probably isn't much of an issue, it just seemed a bit much.

I really like what you've done with the Strike features by the way. Makes sense for each class, and really highlights the signature move/style of those classes.

[Ugganaut]

Monk: “You must spend at least 30 minutes of the (short) rest meditating to regain your ki points.”
How does this interact with your 5 minute short rest rule?

Sorcerer: Tremor [pg 127]
“...30 feet of you to make a saving throw against your sorcerer spell save DC. “
What type of save?


Edit: Also, how does Master of Intrigue(Mastermind) interact with your new skill system.
"When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency with the disguise kit, the forgery kit,"

[Kryx]

Monk: “You must spend at least 30 minutes of the (short) rest meditating to regain your ki points.”
How does this interact with your 5 minute short rest rule?
I'll change the wording to "You must spend at least half of the rest meditating to regain your ki points." so it works for both cases.


Sorcerer: Tremor [pg 127]
“...30 feet of you to make a saving throw against your sorcerer spell save DC. “
What type of save?
Strength/Reflex.


Edit: Also, how does Master of Intrigue(Mastermind) interact with your new skill system.
"When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency with the disguise kit, the forgery kit,"
Proficiency in Manipulation and Society.

I'll make those changes on the next version, thanks.

[Terra Reveene]

Opinion on Hunter's Mark and Hex
If you're gonna make the Ranger and Warlock spend a spell slot using their respective feature, you may as well keep them as spells.
EDIT: Or just as spells that you get at 2nd level as a spell known/prepared if it's important to you that they always get those spells. It makes the class description shorter.

[Ugganaut]

Opinion on Hunter's Mark and Hex
If you're gonna make the Ranger and Warlock spend a spell slot using their respective feature, you may as well keep them as spells.
EDIT: Or just as spells that you get at 2nd level as a spell known/prepared if it's important to you that they always get those spells. It makes the class description shorter.

HM and Hex always felt like a tax to me, if you don't pick them and cast them each fight, you're damage suffers greatly. By doing it the way he has, its a core feature of the class, and most importantly, it doesn't require concentration. That allows you to actually look at other spells you might want to try, instead of having to use HM/Hex only each and every fight. It also stops other classes just grabbing it with Magic Initiate just for the damage boost, although not sure that is a consideration.

[Kryx]

Agreed that Hex and Hunter's mark are core features of their respective classes. Having them as features makes that apparent - allowing for other features to key off of them. It also removes concentration, spell components, the spell casting bonus action limit, other classes dipping the spell, etc. So even if I keep the spell slot expenditure they should stay as class features imo.

Beyond that I had a a few thoughts about refactoring:

I'd like to remove about 5 spells from the 25 that Magus, Paladin, and Ranger can prepare. Paladins get ~6 or 7 smite spells for free so they can prepare 15/39 of their spells with another 10 from their list or another list. 20 is more reasonable compared to full casters which generally have about 25-30 in my rules.
I'd like to condense Ranger's additive damage from things like Colossus Slayer and Piercing Thorns into hunter's mark if possible. Doing normal damage + hunter's mark on each + once per turn damage seems overly complex. This could also allow me to slightly tone down the early ranger if I do it correctly (by reducing/elimnating the extra damage) but I worry it'll make TWF stronger. I'll have to do the math and see if those should be more CC mechanics or what works best.
Remove the spell slot expenditure from Hunter's Mark/Hex - if I do the above correctly.
Illusion of Calm should be removed - it's worthless and UA: Starter Spells has 1 or two illusion spells to fill the early level gap.

[Terra Reveene]

My main gripe was with the spell slot tax. If you intend on solving it then I think that's good. Bt the looks of it you have a lot more planned than that though. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with!

[Ugganaut]

Eye for Detail (Rogue Inquisitive)
UA - "Starting at 3rd level, you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action feature to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a hidden creature or object, to make an Intelligence (Investigation) check to uncover and decipher clues, or to use Insightful Fighting."
Houserules - "Starting at 3rd level, you can use Cunning Action to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a hidden creature or object, to make a Wisdom (Insight) check to decipher clues, or to use Insightful Fighting (see below)."

Because in your rules, Perception now includes the "uncover" part(search), wouldn't it be all Wisdom (Perception), not just the hidden creature/object part(and Wisdom (Insight) to decipher clues)?


Acrobatics(Soften Fall) + Monk(Slow Fall): Level 4 Monk, +5 on check, that would be 26-45 reduced damage.
Do they combine? Isn’t the full check a bit much?

[Kryx]

Eye for Detail (Rogue Inquisitive)
UA - "Starting at 3rd level, you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action feature to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a hidden creature or object, to make an Intelligence (Investigation) check to uncover and decipher clues, or to use Insightful Fighting."
Houserules - "Starting at 3rd level, you can use Cunning Action to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a hidden creature or object, to make a Wisdom (Insight) check to decipher clues, or to use Insightful Fighting (see below)."

Because in your rules, Perception now includes the "uncover" part(search), wouldn't it be all Wisdom (Perception), not just the hidden creature/object part(and Wisdom (Insight) to decipher clues)?
Perception is to see things. Perception is not used for deciphering clues, that's Insight. I'd definitely allow Insight to use intelligence in this case.


Acrobatics(Soften Fall) + Monk(Slow Fall): Level 4 Monk, +5 on check, that would be 26-45 reduced damage.
Do they combine? Isn’t the full check a bit much?
A 4th level monk can reduce 20 damage (4x5). Soften Fall allows you to reduce the distance fallen, not the damage. So in most cases that means 1d6 less damage. 2d6 if the result is greater than 20. This would basically change the monk's 20 damage reduction to 20, 23.5, or 27 assuming the average.

[Ugganaut]

Perception is to see things. Perception is not used for deciphering clues, that's Insight. I'd definitely allow Insight to use intelligence in this case.
I was referring to the uncovering clues, search, which now comes under Perception. "Uncovering and deciphering" used to be Investigation, but now its split.


A 4th level monk can reduce 20 damage (4x5). Soften Fall allows you to reduce the distance fallen, not the damage. So in most cases that means 1d6 less damage. 2d6 if the result is greater than 20. This would basically change the monk's 20 damage reduction to 20, 23.5, or 27 assuming the average.
Ah ok, missed that, makes more sense.

[Kryx]

I was referring to the uncovering clues, search, which now comes under Perception. "Uncovering and deciphering" used to be Investigation, but now its split.
Original wording: UA - "Starting at 3rd level, you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action feature to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a hidden creature or object, to make an Intelligence (Investigation) check to uncover and decipher clues, or to use Insightful Fighting."
Uncovering is Perception, Deciphering is Insight - so both are still represented in the new wording.

[Ugganaut]

Original wording: UA - "Starting at 3rd level, you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action feature to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a hidden creature or object, to make an Intelligence (Investigation) check to uncover and decipher clues, or to use Insightful Fighting."
Uncovering is Perception, Deciphering is Insight - so both are still represented in the new wording.

Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a hidden creature or object - Present
Intelligence (Investigation) check to uncover clues - Missing. This is the search part of Perception in your new rules.
Intelligence (Investigation) check to decipher clues - Present

Edit: What I'm suggesting, is you remove the "to spot hidden creatures or object", so its just Wisdom (Perception) and Wisdom (Insight) to decipher clues.

[Kryx]

so its just Wisdom (Perception) and Wisdom (Insight) to decipher clues.
Perception is not used to decipher clues, that's insight.

Perception, in this case, is being used to spot a hidden creature or object. Uncovering clues is part of that. Deciphering them is part of Insight.

[Kryx]

September 30th, 2017 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-september-30th-2017)
Magus

Spells prepared is now equal to 1/4 level (rounded up). Each order now has order spells. The total amount of spells that a magus will be able to prepare is 20.
Arcane Channeling gated a bit by level - some are gained at 3, 5, 9, 13, and 17.

Paladin

Spells prepared is now equal to 1/4 level (rounded up). The total amount of spells that a Paldin will be able to prepare is 20, instead of RAW 25. Smite spells moved to the core class makes up for this difference.

Ranger

Spells prepared is now equal to 1/4 level (rounded up). The total amount of spells that a Ranger will be able to prepare is 20.

Warlock

Removed Aspect of the moon as it's already in the Archfey archetype. Cleaned up the wording there.

Spells

Illusion of Calm removed


I refined some math on my DPR sheet - ranger is totally fine as is except TWF is a bit ahead of where it should be at early levels. So I'm leaving it as is besides the spells prepared change until I come up with some option for that - it should be fine enough for play.

I'm still undecided on the spell slot expenditure of Hunter's Mark/Hex. Ideally it shouldn't be there, but it feels necessary for balance.

[Mith]

Maybe this won't be a solution to the hunter's mark/Hex problem, but perhaps spend a full round studying an enemy to "get your head in the game" that allows you to do the extra damage? It avoids a spell slot but costs a full turn. Perhaps getting hit during this time forces a Concentration check to maintain the mark/hex forming?

[Kryx]

Using 1 action in combat would rarely ever be worth losing a round of DPR - only on bosses.

Hex and Hunter's Mark both allow the Warlock and Ranger to do significantly higher DPR. I think it's totally appropriate that they have some kind of spell slot cost - especially with the little riders.
Now if Ranger lost some other features like Collosus Slayer or the other 3rd level subclass features then the spell slot cost wouldn't be necessary. Similar the Warlock would have to lose something to account for it. Otherwise they're both a bit too strong.

I think the spell slot cost is the best implementation currently.

[Mith]

Using 1 action in combat would rarely ever be worth losing a round of DPR - only on bosses.

Hex and Hunter's Mark both allow the Warlock and Ranger to do significantly higher DPR. I think it's totally appropriate that they have some kind of spell slot cost - especially with the little riders.
Now if Ranger lost some other features like Collosus Slayer or the other 3rd level subclass features then the spell slot cost wouldn't be necessary. Similar the Warlock would have to lose something to account for it. Otherwise they're both a bit too strong.

I think the spell slot cost is the best implementation currently.

That's fair. I was just trying to think of what other resources one could use besides spell slots that makes sense.

[Terra Reveene]

Using 1 action in combat would rarely ever be worth losing a round of DPR - only on bosses.


What about outside of combat just before engaging?

[Kryx]

What about outside of combat just before engaging?
Those occasions are incredibly rare in my experience and are likely very dm dependent. Even then that'd limit it to 1 creature per combat which would be a huuuge nerf.

Additionally that method is not consistent with the history of the abilities in previous editions where they were bonus action style abilities.

[Ugganaut]

Perception, in this case, is being used to spot a hidden creature or object. Uncovering clues is part of that. Deciphering them is part of Insight.

As written, uncovering clues is not part of that. It is part of Perception, but you limited it by saying "Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a hidden creature or object". I thought it should be "Wisdom (Perception) check to Notice Creatures and Details and Search, to make a Wisdom (Insight) check to decipher clues, or to use Insightful Fighting".
Under your skills, Perception has Notice Creatures and Details, Search and Discern Undead. Search is missing in Eye for Detail. Unless you meant "spot object" is covering the uncover part?

[Ugganaut]

Magus:
Divinest Order(Foresight): “You have advantage on attack rolls, saving throws, or ability checks”. Is it “and” or do you have to pick one of the three options?

“Poisoning Strike. The first creature you hit with your bonded weapon is covered in injected with poison.” Covered in or injected with?

Couldn’t find Storm Step in your spell pdf.


Was looking at an 11th level Magus(Evoking Order), and it's rather brutal. Two melee weapon attacks, Green-Flame Strike(+2d6 primary, 2d6 secondary), Bursting Strike(3rd lvl slot, 4d6+Int dmg in 10ft), Fireball(3rd lvl slot, 6d6+Int dmg 20ft radius in 150ft), and a True Strike to set up the next round, all in the one turn. Just admiring how nasty that is to run in and nova a crowd :)

[supergoji18]

Just want to say that I love the majority of these edits, and that the Sorcerer is much better than the original version. If I play a sorcerer again in this edition, I will without a doubt ask my DM to use these rules because it is so much more unique and flavorful.

Were you by any chance considering doing monster house rules?

Edit: one thing I want to ask is why the nerf to Meteor Swarm?

[Kryx]

Divinest Order(Foresight): “You have advantage on attack rolls, saving throws, or ability checks”. Is it “and” or do you have to pick one of the three options?
“Poisoning Strike. The first creature you hit with your bonded weapon is covered in injected with poison.” Covered in or injected with?
Couldn’t find Storm Step in your spell pdf.
Fixed these - spells are released. The others are minor wording (foresight is all) that I will update in the next release of my houserules


Was looking at an 11th level Magus(Evoking Order), and it's rather brutal. Two melee weapon attacks, Green-Flame Strike(+2d6 primary, 2d6 secondary), Bursting Strike(3rd lvl slot, 4d6+Int dmg in 10ft), Fireball(3rd lvl slot, 6d6+Int dmg 20ft radius in 150ft), and a True Strike to set up the next round, all in the one turn. Just admiring how nasty that is to run in and nova a crowd :)
It cannot do all of that. It can:

Make 2 attacks
Make one Arcane Strike (similar strength to Paladin's Smite)
Use one Arcane Channeling (less damage than a cantrip, stronger than improved divine smite, but only on one attack)

Spell Strike uses Arcane Strike, so therefore in your combo above it's either Bursting Strike or Fireball, not both.
True Strike Requires an action. I'm unsure how you are using it here.


============================



Just want to say that I love the majority of these edits, and that the Sorcerer is much better than the original version. If I play a sorcerer again in this edition, I will without a doubt ask my DM to use these rules because it is so much more unique and flavorful.
Thanks! Though I am tempted by recent discussions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?538605-I-don-t-get-the-Sorcerer) to merge the Sorcerer and Warlock. I agree with Rebonack that the classes are nearly identical in flavor - even several of their subclasses have overlap. I may consider it at some point.


Were you by any chance considering doing monster house rules?
My houserules primarily exist to fix areas that I consider lacking. Monsters are lacking a bit in their one dimensional nature, but to fix that would be a significant overhaul and be significantly harder than the work that I have done so far. Besides my saving throw changes which fix up monsters in that regard I believe monsters are pretty balanced. Though perhaps I'm missing what you mean here.


why the nerf to Meteor Swarm?
All spells are measured against eachother in my Spell Balance spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N4QC6EmXE0avgk8jK1aubJcaFoZDYw8b_DuPHh8aBTc/edit#gid=639488216). Meteor Swarm, even with my adjustments, does the most damage in the game. Before it was doing about 583. Now it does about 364.

[Ugganaut]

Spell Strike uses Arcane Strike, so therefore in your combo above it's either Bursting Strike or Fireball, not both.
True Strike Requires an action. I'm unsure how you are using it here.


Missed that in Spell Strike. Still awesome though.
In the doc I've got, it has "1 bonus action" in purple as the Casting Time for True Strike. Maybe I have an older edit. This is the one in mine:

True Strike
Divination cantrip
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: 30 feet
Components: S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 round
You extend your hand and point a finger at a target in
range. Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target’s
defenses. On your next turn, you gain advantage on your first
attack roll against the target, provided that this spell hasn’t
ended.

[Kryx]

In the doc I've got, it has "1 bonus action" in purple as the Casting Time for True Strike.
That's what I put and I've gone back on this a few times now, but as I pointed out in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?433069-Buffing-True-Strike-and-Other-Fun-Things&p=19649632#post19649632) years ago - changing it to bonus action would be mandatory for many builds.

True Strike and Blade Ward are both awful cantrips. I cannot conceive reasonable fixes, so I will revert True Strike to RAW and let it be terrible.

[Ugganaut]

RAW is horrible for those two cantrips.
I like your True Strike. It's strong, but is still limited by concentration, which I think balances out the bonus action quite well.
Sorry if it sounded like I was saying I didn't like it.

[Kryx]

I like your True Strike. It's strong, but is still limited by concentration, which I think balances out the bonus action quite well.
It's overpowered. Imagine an Arcane Trickster for example. They can spam it every round for advantage in addition to their normal 2 attacks. There are several threads about it on reddit and elsewhere - a few of them by me saying how OP it is as a bonus action.

I've reverted it to RAW.

[Ugganaut]

Good point. Would it help making it only work on spell attacks?

The only idea we could come up with for Blade Ward, was make it a reaction, and it reduces damage from a weapon by 1. 2 at 5th, 3 at 11th, 4 at 17th. It does make it spammable, but there are so many things that compete for your reaction across all the classes, I doubt it would be abused. Its weak, but at least its useful.

The other idea for an abjuration cantrip was Kinetic Ward, cast outside of combat, lasted a long time, and had a few temp hit points(less than False Life). Never got around to play testing though.

[supergoji18]

Thanks! Though I am tempted by recent discussions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?538605-I-don-t-get-the-Sorcerer) to merge the Sorcerer and Warlock. I agree with Rebonack that the classes are nearly identical in flavor - even several of their subclasses have overlap. I may consider it at some point.


My houserules primarily exist to fix areas that I consider lacking. Monsters are lacking a bit in their one dimensional nature, but to fix that would be a significant overhaul and be significantly harder than the work that I have done so far. Besides my saving throw changes which fix up monsters in that regard I believe monsters are pretty balanced. Though perhaps I'm missing what you mean here.


All spells are measured against eachother in my Spell Balance spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N4QC6EmXE0avgk8jK1aubJcaFoZDYw8b_DuPHh8aBTc/edit#gid=639488216). Meteor Swarm, even with my adjustments, does the most damage in the game. Before it was doing about 583. Now it does about 364.

I could see it working, but personally I like having the distinction. Yes there are overlaps, but there are also key differences in both the story and the gameplay that make each unique. If you do end up merging them though, I’d still at least keep the current separation as an option.

Regarding the monsters, if you are interested, I did some edits to a few monsters that I personally felt were lacking in 5e. I could share the edits with you to give a head start or some creative inspiration.
Though yes, revamping every monster is far too much work. I was referring to houseruling only the more popular monsters, like the Pit Fiends, Balors, Dragons, and similar creatures of such fame within d&d.

And ok, that makes more sense. But I think it is worth noting that Meteor Swarm’s damage doesn’t overlap on each impact, so it’s closer to 140 damage (old) and 100 damage (new). Still a lot though.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the more I do like the idea of having a merge of the Warlock and Sorcerer classes. Personally, I feel the Sorcerer should have been defined by having a bunch of spell-like abilities and passive magical effects, which is pretty much what the Warlock is.

EDIT 2: If you're looking for some inspiration for abilities for a Warlock/Sorcerer merged class, there's a 3.5 book called Dragon Magic that adds several classes that are focused primarily on spell-like abilities and passive effects like auras and self-buffs. It also introduces the idea of Dragon Pacts. This is the wikipedia page about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Magic

[Kryx]

October 21st, 2017 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-october-21st-2017)
Sorcerer / Summoner / Warlock

These classes have been replaced with the new Sorcerer. See Kryx's Sorcerer/Warlock Combination (Draft) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?539031-Kryx-s-Sorcerer-Warlock-Combination-(Draft)) for that discussion

Spells

Cantrips have been rebalanced. Instead of adjusting every cantrip up to the level of Fire Bolt and Eldritch Blast I have lowered those cantrips to d8s. See Spell Balance and the spells pdf of mine. Now I only adjust a few cantrips, mostly adjusting their damage upwards.

[HasegawaTakumi]

October 21st, 2017 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-october-21st-2017)
Sorcerer / Summoner / Warlock

These classes have been replaced with the new Sorcerer. See Kryx's Sorcerer/Warlock Combination (Draft) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?539031-Kryx-s-Sorcerer-Warlock-Combination-(Draft)) for that discussion



Is there any way we can still get the previous version of your PDF? I love your work and I get why you combined these 3, but there are still cases where I'd rather use the old classes

[Kryx]

The old version of those 3 classes is linked from the first page of the new Sorcerer.

[Kryx]

Changes:

"All Ability Scores improve" and "Competency" added to each class at 6th, 11th, and 16th as well as 7th and 15th respectively.

[Ugganaut]

Rage: “Your rage lasts for 1 minute. It ends early if you are knocked unconscious. You can also end your rage on your turn.”
vs
Persistent Rage: “Beginning at 15th level, your rage is so fierce that it ends early only if you fall unconscious or if you choose to end it.”

What exactly does Persistent Rage do for you?

Sweeping Attack: "When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can attempt to damage another creature with the same attack. Make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target and within range of your weapon."

An extra attack each round seems stronger compared to the others. Riposte requires you are missed, while Sweeping requires another enemy in reach. Riposte uses your reaction for an extra attack, Sweeping is just free.
It’s almost identical to Horde Breaker except it requires a hit, and is available at Level 2 instead of 11. It is just strong, or too strong I guess is my question.

Spells: Eldritch Blast - The last paragraph is repeated.

The new Sorcerer is looking good. Was skeptical at the start, mainly because it bundled so much into the one class. I made a halfling dual shortsword(Dex) Ranger(Horizon Walker) 5/Sorcerer(Astral)3 as a test case, and it looked good. I liked the differences between Hunter's Mark and Hex. They still stack which can get nasty. Was talking to my DM about it, and we decided to limit "on hit" effects to one class only. So you could use Hunter's Mark and the 1d4 from Planar Warrior on your first hit, then Hex on your second hit. So pointless really on a single target, but if you HM one target, and Hex another, it's possible to get some benefit, but not too much.

Went Arcane Manifestation after I realized Armored Husk was going to end up useless for a Dex based character very quickly. Resilient Husk has no Dex limit, so AC 17(18 Dex @ 8th level) going to AC 18 when Dex hits 20, where Armored Husk starts and ends at AC 17 for this character. Pretty sure the armor from Armored Husk can't be enchanted either, and can't use Bracers of Defense because its actually armor(was reading those bracers were good for non-armored toons to make up for not having armor to enchant). So a Dex based Bladelock doesn't seem like a valid option.

Quickened Cantrips: Why not allow the same cantrip? Just seemed odd I could throw Sacred Flame and Firebolt, but not two Firebolts. The +Cha/melee restrictions are great for balance, but felt forced without any fluff explanation for why. If that's what it takes to balance a cool feature, I'll roll with it :smallsmile:

Don't like the word Eidolon, probably because I've never come across it in my dnd life. This isn't a critique, I was just wondering where the word came from?

Haven't gone right through the class yet, but I'll chip away.

[Kryx]

Rage: “Your rage lasts for 1 minute. It ends early if you are knocked unconscious. You can also end your rage on your turn.”
vs
Persistent Rage: “Beginning at 15th level, your rage is so fierce that it ends early only if you fall unconscious or if you choose to end it.”

What exactly does Persistent Rage do for you?
Thanks for calling this out. I thought about it a few weeks ago, but forgot about it. I'll address this likely in a few days (as I play tonight and won't have time)


Sweeping Attack: "When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can attempt to damage another creature with the same attack. Make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target and within range of your weapon."

An extra attack each round seems stronger compared to the others. Riposte requires you are missed, while Sweeping requires another enemy in reach. Riposte uses your reaction for an extra attack, Sweeping is just free.
It’s almost identical to Horde Breaker except it requires a hit, and is available at Level 2 instead of 11. It is just strong, or too strong I guess is my question.
The feature is strong. Likely too strong. It is meant to be a similar power level as Acid Splash in that it is uncommonly used for a bit of damage on each creature. I will need to nerf it in some way or remove it. One option is to make a single attack that targets both and split the damage across the targets, but that'd be a bit messy in the wording.


Spells: Eldritch Blast - The last paragraph is repeated.
Perhaps you're looking at an old version? I fixed this about a week ago. https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0BxGh_mU9ihaPR1pPSDV0dnlIbzA


The new Sorcerer is looking good. Was skeptical at the start, mainly because it bundled so much into the one class. I made a halfling dual shortsword(Dex) Ranger(Horizon Walker) 5/Sorcerer(Astral)3 as a test case, and it looked good. I liked the differences between Hunter's Mark and Hex. They still stack which can get nasty. Was talking to my DM about it, and we decided to limit "on hit" effects to one class only. So you could use Hunter's Mark and the 1d4 from Planar Warrior on your first hit, then Hex on your second hit. So pointless really on a single target, but if you HM one target, and Hex another, it's possible to get some benefit, but not too much.
Thanks! I was skeptical at first as well, but the more I put it together the more natural it seemed to work.
Hunter's Mark and Hex both require a both action so I don't think there is too much concern about them stacking. Limiting either Hex or Hunter's Mark seems like a reasonable choice though.


Went Arcane Manifestation after I realized Armored Husk was going to end up useless for a Dex based character very quickly. Resilient Husk has no Dex limit, so AC 17(18 Dex @ 8th level) going to AC 18 when Dex hits 20, where Armored Husk starts and ends at AC 17 for this character. Pretty sure the armor from Armored Husk can't be enchanted either, and can't use Bracers of Defense because its actually armor(was reading those bracers were good for non-armored toons to make up for not having armor to enchant). So a Dex based Bladelock doesn't seem like a valid option.
Blade and Arcane should both be equally viable. Armored Husk is meant to allow a Strength based Sorcerer (equivalent to medium armor). A Dex based Blade Sorcerer already has 13+Dex from Resilient Husk (equivalent to Mage Armor). Armored Husk is optional so you don't have to use it - you can keep Resilient Husk instead (see the words "you can").

Overall it should be:
13 + dex = max 18 for Dex Sorcs
15 + dex (max 2) = max 17 for Strength Sorcs.

I thought about limiting dex to 13 + dex(max 4), but monk doesn't do that. Maybe I should anyways.

Regarding +1/2/3 magic items: several other builds don't work with them (Wild Shaped Druid, Unarmored Barbarian, Unarmored Monk, RAW Draconic Sorcerer, Mage Armor spell). This is effectively Mage Armor the spell. Bracers of Defense can't be enchanted. See https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/36u48q/5emnk_ways_to_increase_ac_through_magic_items/?st=j95eqcld&sh=ae886eea for a discussion about ways to increase a monk's AC. If your game heavily uses +1/2/3 magic items (I would recommend against doing so from a balance perspective) then I'd recommend working with your GM to allow you to disenchant normal +X armor into a necklace or some other item so that it can provide +X to your AC. Based on the other cases in RAW I don't think I need to handle this from a class perspective.


Quickened Cantrips: Why not allow the same cantrip? Just seemed odd I could throw Sacred Flame and Firebolt, but not two Firebolts. The +Cha/melee restrictions are great for balance, but felt forced without any fluff explanation for why. If that's what it takes to balance a cool feature, I'll roll with it :smallsmile:
Primary reason: To allow other cantrips to compete with Eldritch Blast. EB x2 + hex is still 4x hex which is far too strong. With this implementation you can have 2x hex which is strong, but still limited.
Secondary reason: To force diversification of cantrips. Spamming the same cantrip over and over is repetitive.

Melee restrictions are there to prevent Booming Blade/Green-Flame Blade as they are significantly more powerful than other cantrips. Using each of them would be insanely overpowered
+Cha restrictions are there for balance.

Not all restrictions need fluff reasons. For example the restrictions on casting bonus action spells are somewhat arbitrary and have no explanation. Others exist as well.


Don't like the word Eidolon, probably because I've never come across it in my dnd life. This isn't a critique, I was just wondering where the word came from?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner/



TODO:

Address Persistent Rage
Address Sweeping Attack
Think about limiting Resilient Husk to max 4 dex.

[Ugganaut]

Perhaps you're looking at an old version? I fixed this about a week ago. https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0BxGh_mU9ihaPR1pPSDV0dnlIbzA
Must do, only been updating the main Houserules doc.


Limiting either Hex or Hunter's Mark seems like a reasonable choice though.
Yeah seemed to fix a few issues, and probably others we weren't looking at. Paladin and Fighter(CM's) to a lesser extent. Anything that allows something to apply per hit and isn't limited by per turn were the biggest multi-class issues.


Blade and Arcane should both be equally viable. Armored Husk is meant to allow a Strength based Sorcerer (equivalent to medium armor). A Dex based Blade Sorcerer already has 13+Dex from Resilient Husk (equivalent to Mage Armor). Armored Husk is optional so you don't have to use it - you can keep Resilient Husk instead (see the words "you can").
Overall it should be:
13 + dex = max 18 for Dex Sorcs
15 + dex (max 2) = max 17 for Strength Sorcs.
I thought about limiting dex to 13 + dex(max 4), but monk doesn't do that. Maybe I should anyways.
Personally I'd go the other way, increase Armored Husk to 15 + Dex(max 3), to bring it in line with all other similar mechanics.


Not all restrictions need fluff reasons. For example the restrictions on casting bonus action spells are somewhat arbitrary and have no explanation. Others exist as well.
Good point. Was just something I noticed.

Have a good game :smallsmile:

[Kryx]

Personally I'd go the other way, increase Armored Husk to 15 + Dex(max 3), to bring it in line with all other similar mechanics.
Max 3 doesn't solve the issue. There are many threads on the topic, but even expecting a Strength build to take 14 Dexterity is already too high. Expecting them to take 16 Dexterity on a Strength build is ridiculous.

I've never found a good solution to this core 5e problem, but this wouldn't solve the issue for this class.

[Ugganaut]

Max 3 doesn't solve the issue. There are many threads on the topic, but even expecting a Strength build to take 14 Dexterity is already too high. Expecting them to take 16 Dexterity on a Strength build is ridiculous.

I've never found a good solution to this core 5e problem, but this wouldn't solve the issue for this class.

Primal Toughness uses Constitution, would something like that work? Probably not, as it would still be a tertiary ability.
Maybe instead of creating armor, you create a magic effect similar to mage armor, but based on force of personality/self belief :smallsmile: 13+Cha. Letting a Blade sorc use the primary stat might fix any issues, just gotta work on the fluff.

[Kryx]

I'm quite fond of the armor fluff, though 13 + Cha isn't a terrible idea. It's a secondary ability score instead of a 4th/5th/6th priority ability score.

[Mith]

Don't like the word Eidolon, probably because I've never come across it in my dnd life. This isn't a critique, I was just wondering where the word came from?

Also, D&D got it from an Ancient Greek concept of a spirit image of a living or dead person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidolon_(apparition))

[Ugganaut]

Also, D&D got it from an Ancient Greek concept of a spirit image of a living or dead person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidolon_(apparition))

I found that all very interesting :smallsmile: Never new its original definition, and never heard of it in dnd. That SRD is very groovy, I see where you got Magus from now Kryx :smallsmile:

[Kryx]

That SRD is very groovy, I see where you got Magus from now Kryx :smallsmile:
Many of my ideas come from Pathfinder. I'm actually not so great at fluff - my strength lies in mechanics. :D

[Mith]

Doing a re read of the document, and have these questions:

For the Feat "Centered Caster", does the +1 boost to all attributes count for the ASI bonus to Constitution?

For the user of Arcana to identify a spell being cast, does this slow down combat of caster duels rolling to determine if they want to Counterspell?

Also, while this isn't the the rules you are playing with, but I really like your analysis of the system and am curious bout what are your first impression of the following ideas to be used in game:

- Fighters gains full proficiency with save that they have half proficiency with when getting a second and third use of Indomitable. THis is inspired by the fact that Fighters had the best save track at high level in older editions of the game. hile they don't have the control and versatility of spells that casters have, they are not as impacted by the spells as much.

- Death saving throws: Make the roll a Constitution check so that the hardier characters have a higher chance of success, and keep stabilization at total scores of 20 or higher (or 18, 19, 20 with 2d10), and a roll of 20 means you can spend 1 Hit Die to regain health.

[Kryx]

For the Feat "Centered Caster", does the +1 boost to all attributes count for the ASI bonus to Constitution?
"You must have taken an ability score improvement in Constitution." All Ability Scores Improve =/= taken an ability score improvement. So no. The purpose of this requirement is to add a bit of extra cost to centered caster as it is likely too strong for half a feat.


For the user of Arcana to identify a spell being cast, does this slow down combat of caster duels rolling to determine if they want to Counterspell?
Counterspell is rare. If you are concerned about speed you can use passive arcana and then the counterspeller will know all spells up to a certain level.



- Fighters gains full proficiency with save that they have half proficiency with when getting a second and third use of Indomitable. THis is inspired by the fact that Fighters had the best save track at high level in older editions of the game. hile they don't have the control and versatility of spells that casters have, they are not as impacted by the spells as much.
Using the normal saving throws? It's a decent boost. Nothing too overpowered. Beyond that RAW saving throws are too unbalanced for me to play with.


- Death saving throws: Make the roll a Constitution check so that the hardier characters have a higher chance of success, and keep stabilization at total scores of 20 or higher (or 18, 19, 20 with 2d10), and a roll of 20 means you can spend 1 Hit Die to regain health.
I wouldn't recommend this. There were a few threads about this when 5e first came out. DC 20 Con check would be a 5-15% chance for wizards. That's crazy.

[Kryx]

October 25th, 2017 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-october-25th-2017)
Barbarian

Removed Persistent Rage as it's already given at 1st level

Fighter

Changed Sweeping Attack to RAW, but replace the superiority dice with Ability Modifier + proficiency

Sorcerer

Resilient Husk changed to max 4 dexterity.
Blade Manifestation: Armored Husk: Armor bonus changed to "your armor manifests as a Scale Hauberk or Scale Mail". So either 15 + Dex (max 2) or 17 if you have Strength 14.

[Mith]

"You must have taken an ability score improvement in Constitution." All Ability Scores Improve =/= taken an ability score improvement. So no. The purpose of this requirement is to add a bit of extra cost to centered caster as it is likely too strong for half a feat.

That is fair. I figured as much but it occurred to me that the All score improvement could be used as a potential level gateway as well.



Counterspell is rare. If you are concerned about speed you can use passive arcana and then the counterspeller will know all spells up to a certain level.

If in your experience this isn't a problem, then I will accept that. I do not have much experience with a party that has access to counterspell to judge this mechanic.



Using the normal saving throws? It's a decent boost. Nothing too overpowered. Beyond that RAW saving throws are too unbalanced for me to play with.

If this was using your saving throw system, would it be considered too much since Fighters get extra ASIs to potentially boost their stats?

Using Standard array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10 8, and boosting to maximize stats (Preference to Str and Con, but this stands in for any +2, +1 race. I just picked this due to how I listed my array). I will assume Half Orc. From this you get +2 racial Str, +1 racial Con you and +3 to all stats from All Scores improvement for (20, 17, 17, 15, 13, 11), +7 ASI boosts from the class. If we focus on CON first, then round off the rest of the stats, we get (20, 18, 20, 16, 14, 12) for modifiers of (+5, +4, +5, +3, +2, +1) for the attribute bonus to saves as; Fort: +5, Ref: +5/+4 (Round up or down?), Will: +3/+2 (Round up or down?).

As your rules stand, the 20th level fighter full proficiency to Fort and half to Ref and Will for a bonus of Fort:+11, Ref:+8/+7, Will:+6/+5 with a chance to reroll 3 failed saves per long rest. My write up would give the fighter Fort:+11, Ref:+11/+10, Will:+9/+8 with a chance to reroll 3 failed saves per long rest.



I wouldn't recommend this. There were a few threads about this when 5e first came out. DC 20 Con check would be a 5-15% chance for wizards. That's crazy.

I mistyped there, I think. You still get the 3-5 successes to stabilize or die, but the DC 20 allows you to stabilize with 1 HP and a 5% chance to immediately spend a Healing Surge.

Other questions that have arose: In my reading of reviews for the Banneret, the criticism is that sometimes the features such as rallying cry and inspiring surge were frustrating to use because the fighter didn't feel like they wanted to personally spend the resource to boost themselves (action surge or Second Wind), only to help their party member. I notice that your Warlord has the features as written from the Banneret as far as I can tell (don't have SCAG). In your experience, are the features not a problem in that they force conservation of resources because the player doesn't feel like they need both parts of the class feature to come into effect?

[Kryx]

If this was using your saving throw system, would it be considered too much since Fighters get extra ASIs to potentially boost their stats?
In my system everyone gets half proficiency already: "At 5th level, you can add half your proficiency bonus, rounded down, to any saving throw you make that doesn’t already include your proficiency bonus."

See https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=117474516 to compare


I mistyped there, I think. You still get the 3-5 successes to stabilize or die, but the DC 20 allows you to stabilize with 1 HP and a 5% chance to immediately spend a Healing Surge.
Either way I wouldn't recommend adding Constitution modifier to death saving throws.

Your wording above reads the DC is 20. Even with 3 chances at 5-15% is horrible. Though perhaps I've misunderstood. If your goal is to limit people falling to 0 then I suggest other solutions like I have done with exhaustion.


In my reading of reviews for the Banneret, the criticism is that sometimes the features such as rallying cry and inspiring surge were frustrating to use because the fighter didn't feel like they wanted to personally spend the resource to boost themselves (action surge or Second Wind), only to help their party member. I notice that your Warlord has the features as written from the Banneret as far as I can tell (don't have SCAG). In your experience, are the features not a problem in that they force conservation of resources because the player doesn't feel like they need both parts of the class feature to come into effect?
The Banneret/Warlord is all about a martial support type character. The features, as I've modified them, allow the Warlord to help their allies and themselves. Warlords are leaders from the front, not supporting from the back like a caster bard. So helping both is the goal. If the player often doesn't feel like they need both parts of it then I'd wager the Warlord is not the correct class to be played.

[Mith]

In my system everyone gets half proficiency already: "At 5th level, you can add half your proficiency bonus, rounded down, to any saving throw you make that doesn’t already include your proficiency bonus."

The difference in my case would be that Fighters will get proficiency in a save they do not have proficiency with at 13th and 17th level. This would put them ahead of the curve in that way from other classes. When they already have bonus ASIs to further boost stats if they choose. Combined with the rerolls on failed saves, is this too much ahead of other classes? This is compared to the Monk feature that grants proficiency with all saving throws at 14th level, but a reroll costs 2 ki points. The fighter gets the same at 17th level with 3 rerolls available.


Either way I wouldn't recommend adding Constitution modifier to death saving throws.

Your wording above reads the DC is 20. Even with 3 chances at 5-15% is horrible. Though perhaps I've misunderstood. If your goal is to limit people falling to 0 then I suggest other solutions like I have done with exhaustion.

Let me try rewording, as I picture this as a potential extension of your own modifications:

When reduced to 0 HP, you gain a level of exhaustion and fall unconscious. On your turn roll 1d20 + Con modifier. If you succeed, you move 1 step closer to life. If you fail, you slip closer to death. At 5 successes or failures, you either stabilize or die. If you make a DC 20 Constitution check, you automatically stabilize and gain 1 HP. A roll of 20 allowing you to spend a healing surge if you have one. A roll of 1 counts as 2 failures. If you take damage while making death saving throws, you automatically fail that rounds death saving throw. A critical hit counts as two failed saving throws.

So I tie this to Constitution since it feels to me that Constitution shows how tough a character is to kill, and I like a death throws mechanic that reflects this. It might be too much in favour of the Barbarian and Fighter though, who already have the high Hit Die and a good incentive to boost Constitution. My intent is not to make things harder for casters unless they specifically dump Constitution. If they keep a neutral Con score, that gives them a 50% chance to succeed a single death saving throw.

If you think this is too unbalanced then I'll take your word for it and not implement it.

As for the Warlord, that reasoning makes sense. I never played the class, only taking what I know of it from other people's documented experience.

[Kryx]

The difference in my case would be that Fighters will get proficiency in a save they do not have proficiency with at 13th and 17th level. This would put them ahead of the curve in that way from other classes. When they already have bonus ASIs to further boost stats if they choose. Combined with the rerolls on failed saves, is this too much ahead of other classes? This is compared to the Monk feature that grants proficiency with all saving throws at 14th level, but a reroll costs 2 ki points. The fighter gets the same at 17th level with 3 rerolls available.
Opinion: I don't think my Fighter needs such a boost nor do I think it's the most fighter flavored boost if you decide my fightter or the RAW fighter needs a boost.



Let me try rewording, as I picture this as a potential extension of your own modifications:

When reduced to 0 HP, you gain a level of exhaustion and fall unconscious. On your turn roll 1d20 + Con modifier. If you succeed, you move 1 step closer to life. If you fail, you slip closer to death. At 5 successes or failures, you either stabilize or die. If you make a DC 20 Constitution check, you automatically stabilize and gain 1 HP. A roll of 20 allowing you to spend a healing surge if you have one. A roll of 1 counts as 2 failures. If you take damage while making death saving throws, you automatically fail that rounds death saving throw. A critical hit counts as two failed saving throws.

So I tie this to Constitution since it feels to me that Constitution shows how tough a character is to kill, and I like a death throws mechanic that reflects this. It might be too much in favour of the Barbarian and Fighter though, who already have the high Hit Die and a good incentive to boost Constitution. My intent is not to make things harder for casters unless they specifically dump Constitution. If they keep a neutral Con score, that gives them a 50% chance to succeed a single death saving throw.

If you think this is too unbalanced then I'll take your word for it and not implement it.
That is different than the above read. Consider my 5-15% numbers disregarded.
There were several threads about adding constitution to death saving throws when 5e came out, but I can't find them now. If you feel like it's a good fix then you should make a separate post about it and others will give you their feedback. I wouldn't do it.

[Mith]

Opinion: I don't think my Fighter needs such a boost nor do I think it's the most fighter flavored boost if you decide my fightter or the RAW fighter needs a boost.



That is different than the above read. Consider my 5-15% numbers disregarded.
There were several threads about adding constitution to death saving throws when 5e came out, but I can't find them now. If you feel like it's a good fix then you should make a separate post about it and others will give you their feedback. I wouldn't do it.

Fair enough. The suggested Fighter boost is only because I learned D&D with the Basic set, so some of the ideas such as Fighters ending the game with the best save track overall still stick in my head. The death saving throws might just be overly biased due to my love of the Barbarian class from a player's standpoint.

I realize that this was a bit of a side track from the regular thread discussion, they only came to mind while reading. Part of the reason I appreciate your homebrew rules is that you have a much better feel for the game mechanics then I do and can probably make a much better judgement call than I on how things work from a gameplay perspective.

Thanks for all your work so far and continued work in the future.

[Ugganaut]

October 25th, 2017 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-october-25th-2017)
Barbarian

Removed Persistent Rage as it's already given at 1st level

Fighter

Changed Sweeping Attack to RAW, but replace the superiority dice with Ability Modifier + proficiency

Sorcerer

Resilient Husk changed to max 4 dexterity.
Blade Manifestation: Armored Husk: Armor bonus changed to "your armor manifests as a Scale Hauberk or Scale Mail". So either 15 + Dex (max 2) or 17 if you have Strength 14.


Barbarian 15 feels like a graveyard :smallsmile: Shouldn't there be something to replace Persistent Rage, even if its just a ribbon. Too early to for my brain to work, but I'll try think of some suggestions.

Sweeping Attack looks more on par with the rest, nice.

Sorcerer: Not a fan of the changes. Both now feel like armor proficiency(without general proficiency in the armor), you can summon rather than buy it, but can't be enchanted. Personally I liked Resilient Husk as free Origin-styled Mage Armor because it suits the caster types.
Suggestion 1: Revert Resilient Husk to 13+Dex, and change Armored Husk to Scale Proficiency + Bonded Armor(they already get Bonded Weapon).
Suggestion 2: Change Resilient Husk to Hide Armor prof+Bonded Armor, and Armored Husk to either Scale prof or Enchant Bonded Armor(improving the core feature).
Suggestion 3: Could change Resilient Husk to 13+Cha, and Armored Husk improves it to 14+Cha or something. I don't know the numbers of course, thats your domain :smallsmile:

[Kryx]

Both now feel like armor proficiency
That is the point of the features - to provide armor within the balance of the current armor offerings.


You can summon rather than buy it, but can't be enchanted.
As mentioned above there are several class features that do not work with armor. If you're using one of those features and using +1/2/3 magic items then best to work with your GM for how to enhance them for your game.


I liked Resilient Husk as free Origin-styled Mage Armor because it suits the caster types.
It's exactly that. For the vast majority of builds this change will have no impact. It'll primarily only impact Dex Blade Manifestations at higher levels. Otherwise Dex > Str in terms of AC which isn't the goal. Raising Str to 18 isn't the goal either.

This change brings the armor provided by this class in line with the game. The basic rule is some specific classes have access to 18 AC. Everyone else using normal armor caps at 17. There are a few exceptions: Mage Armor and Monk. Monk only scales to 20 and 20 is the equivalent to a fighter in plate + a shield. A monk does similar damage to a fighter in plate + shield (lower end) so I believe that is an acceptable amount. Mage Armor is almost never used by a character with +5 dex so it's less of a concern, but I may limit it to 4 as well or use some other solution

[Ugganaut]

That is the point of the features - to provide armor within the balance of the current armor offerings.
Ah ok, I thought it was to mimic Unarmored Defense/Mage Armor(no Dex limit). If its mimicking Hide armor, that fits.


Mage Armor is almost never used by a character with +5 dex so it's less of a concern, but I may limit it to 4 as well or use some other solution
So your thinking of giving the Dex limit to Unarmored Defense/Mage Armor across the board? Primal Toughness for Barbarian probably doesn't need the nerf, its base is 12 without armor already.

[Mith]

Primal Toughness for Barbarian probably doesn't need the nerf, its base is 12 without armor already.

Since Kryx is using a 17 cap for all non plate users, it is fine since unarmoured is 12 +CON mod.

[Ugganaut]

Since Kryx is using a 17 cap for all non plate users, it is fine since unarmoured is 12 +CON mod.

Thought that might be the case.

[Kryx]

The maximum AC that each class can achieve:


Barbarian: 17 (Hide). At 20 this can increase to 19.
Bard: 17 (Hide)
Cleric: 16/17 (Chain/Scale) + 2 for shield = 18/19.
Druid: 17 (Hide)
Fighter: 17/18 (Scale/Plate) + 2 for shield = 19/20
Magus: 17 (Hide/Scale) + 2 for shield = 19
Monk: 20 at very high levels. Similar damage as using a shield.
Paladin: 18 (Plate) + 2 for shield = 20
Psion: 18 (Inertial Armor: 13+dex)
Ranger: 17 (Hide)
Rogue: 17 (Leather + 5 dex)
Sorcerer: 17 (13+dex max 4 or scale for blade manifestation)
Wizard: 18 (Mage Armor: 13+dex)


So there are some martial classes (Monk, Fighter, and Paladin) that can have 18+2 = 20, but everyone else is maxed out at 17. The investment to get that far depends on class. The outliers in this case are spellcasters, surprisingly. It'd be super rare that a Wizard or Psion gets +5 Dex, but I should perhaps limit it to 17 as well.

[Mith]

Couldn't Clerics get a shield in some cases as well?

[Kryx]

Couldn't Clerics get a shield in some cases as well?
Yes, for 18/19, but that's a class feature (shield prof). I'll add it to the list.

[Ugganaut]

It'd be super rare that a Wizard or Psion gets +5 Dex, but I should perhaps limit it to 17 as well.
Personally I don't see it necessary to nerf Mage Armor/Unarmored Defense/Resilient Husk(original), because a Wizard/Psion/Sorcerer has to invest to get their Dex up that high as you said, and also it makes no sense(no armor means there is nothing restricting you from using you full dex/mobility). Outside of keeping things even across the board.

With my Ranger/Sorcerer test case, I came across the Hunter's Mark/Hex stacking and the solution we'll be using at our table as I mentioned before. But I noticed within the Sorcerer class, Hex is the only way to get that extra 1d6 damage per hit. Whatever else the class gets, Hex always goes on top of it, and my first thought was "tax". You changed the Hunter's Mark to a class feature which worked really well, and Hex only really suits the warlock branches of the new Sorc class. I was wondering if there was a way to bring it to the core class though. Ignoring my crappy names, something like Spell Boost, which had two options: Hex(1d6 + its unique rider), and Arcane Mark(1d6 + a different unique rider). Maybe even a third option focused on control over damage.
In my test case, I didn't choose Hex, didn't fit. Character still feels solid, so its probably not an issue.
If the Sorcerer dpr doesn't include Hex, and you're happy with where its at in regards to damage, does Hex even need the 1d6? You could just boost the rider, make it apply to 2 or more stats, and it can be boosted further with the other Hex sparks like Maddening etc. Just some thoughts.

[Kryx]

Personally I don't see it necessary to nerf Mage Armor/Unarmored Defense/Resilient Husk(original), because a Wizard/Psion/Sorcerer has to invest to get their Dex up that high as you said, and also it makes no sense(no armor means there is nothing restricting you from using you full dex/mobility). Outside of keeping things even across the board.
It would be very uncommon on a Wizard/Psion/Normal Sorcerer, but would be the norm for a Dex based blade Sorcerer. I believe offering a full caster 18 AC and a fair amount of martial prowess is not so balanced. In that case Dex would also achieve 18 AC while a Str build would be limited to 17. Both of those are problems and both are solved by limiting it to 13+dex(4). A Wizard or Psion could still receive 18 through investment though. While it may be rare it feels inappropriate when other classes - especially martial classes like Ranger and Rogue cannot.


With my Ranger/Sorcerer test case, I came across the Hunter's Mark/Hex stacking and the solution we'll be using at our table as I mentioned before. But I noticed within the Sorcerer class, Hex is the only way to get that extra 1d6 damage per hit. Whatever else the class gets, Hex always goes on top of it, and my first thought was "tax". You changed the Hunter's Mark to a class feature which worked really well, and Hex only really suits the warlock branches of the new Sorc class. I was wondering if there was a way to bring it to the core class though. Ignoring my crappy names, something like Spell Boost, which had two options: Hex(1d6 + its unique rider), and Arcane Mark(1d6 + a different unique rider). Maybe even a third option focused on control over damage.
In my test case, I didn't choose Hex, didn't fit. Character still feels solid, so its probably not an issue.
If the Sorcerer dpr doesn't include Hex, and you're happy with where its at in regards to damage, does Hex even need the 1d6? You could just boost the rider, make it apply to 2 or more stats, and it can be boosted further with the other Hex sparks like Maddening etc. Just some thoughts.
Hex provides a fair amount of DPR for many forms of the Sorcerer - both melee and spellcasting. The class (a full caster) having so much DPR necessitates a cost. A Spark is a pretty minimal cost to achieve such high DPR.
Hex (or renamed to Arcane Mark) isn't a core flavor of a Sorcerer. Some would have it and some wouldn't so a Spark is an appropriate place for it.

[Ugganaut]

It would be very uncommon on a Wizard/Psion/Normal Sorcerer, but would be the norm for a Dex based blade Sorcerer. I believe offering a full caster 18 AC and a fair amount of martial prowess is not so balanced. In that case Dex would also achieve 18 AC while a Str build would be limited to 17. Both of those are problems and both are solved by limiting it to 13+dex(4). A Wizard or Psion could still receive 18 through investment though. While it may be rare it feels inappropriate when other classes - especially martial classes like Ranger and Rogue cannot.
I agree a full caster shouldn't be able to match a straight martial class in straight martial ability. Usually a Wizard/Psion/Normal Sorcerer would be primarily, or at least partially, ranged, and therefore not getting attacked as much. In theory at least. Classes that step into melee as their primary role, usually have something to back it up. Most have higher HP than a full caster, have the option of either higher AC or resistance(Barb), or some other trick like Uncanny Dodge. Ability to use shields, defensive fighting style - they don't always use them, but they have the option. Blade Sorc has Resilient or Armored Husk, and spells limited by slots. If a Blade sorc can't match the melee AC, melee dpr or HP, it doesn't sound very viable for them to take a primarily melee role. They should be able to match what the martial does, but via magic, so some resource expenditure would be required. Normally, Wizard could possibly get AC18 with Dex 20, but as you said its rare, they don't have the HP or other at-will AC boosts like shield/style, and shouldn't be getting into melee. So an AC18 doesn't seem broken to me.



Hex provides a fair amount of DPR for many forms of the Sorcerer - both melee and spellcasting. The class (a full caster) having so much DPR necessitates a cost. A Spark is a pretty minimal cost to achieve such high DPR.
Hex (or renamed to Arcane Mark) isn't a core flavor of a Sorcerer. Some would have it and some wouldn't so a Spark is an appropriate place for it.
Maybe a spark option a normal Sorc can take, that doesn't stack with Hex? So a Sorcerer who isn't into cursing people, isn't missing out on a major dpr boost.

[Kryx]

Normally, Wizard could possibly get AC18 with Dex 20, but as you said its rare, they don't have the HP or other at-will AC boosts like shield/style, and shouldn't be getting into melee. So an AC18 doesn't seem broken to me.
A 17 AC melee build is entirely a viable choice - most melee builds in the game are unable to achieve higher AC than 17.

The Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter (subclass without plate), Magus, Ranger, and Rogue are all incapable of 18 AC (ignoring shields because a Blade Sorcerer can do that too). Some have some benefits to offset that, but others don't. Either way it's not appropriate that a Dex based Blade Sorcerer has acess 18 AC while those classes and the Str based Balde Sorcerer do not. Same situation for Mage Armor imo. A Wizard/Sorcerer/Psion would have other options of defense like Shield which is very strong to boost their AC in the cases where they need it.

Note: I've noticed the Blade Manifestation does not have access to shields. I'll resolve that - it was an oversight.


Maybe a spark option a normal Sorc can take, that doesn't stack with Hex? So a Sorcerer who isn't into cursing people, isn't missing out on a major dpr boost.
Decent idea. Now how to flavor it...

[Ugganaut]

Note: I've noticed the Blade Manifestation does not have access to shields. I'll resolve that - it was an oversight.
That would definitely be good.[/QUOTE]



Decent idea. Now how to flavor it...
I'm no good at flavor or mechanics. I'm really good at vague ideas and being annoying though :smallsmile:

[Ugganaut]

Monk[Silent Shadow]: Shadowy Shield - I like the idea of this thematically, but it doesn't mechanically feel right.
The “1 ki point as a bonus action” is slightly inferior to Dodge(Patient Defense) due to the “unless you don’t rely on sight to see”.
The “2 ki points as a reaction” works fine from a balance stand point of view. I very well could be wrong here, but I thought disadvantage was something that applied to the attacker due to its circumstances. So on a pre-existing effect like the bonus action(or Dodge), or Blur etc. As a reaction, you can apply disadvantage when they attack you, but once they hit, its the defenders defenses that are modified, like a Shield spell. Not sure I'm explaining this right. A possible solution, assuming there is a problem, is to have the monk go temporarily "shadow form"(incorporeal?) on being hit, gaining resistance to bludgeoning/piercing/slashing until the start of their next turn.

Monk[Silent Shadow]: Shadow Step - The original version just teleported you 60ft as a bonus action, so was limited by only one bonus action per turn. This uses your movement, so can therefore be used anytime your movement can be used. So at 6th level Human, you can bonus action Step of the Wind to bring movement to 90ft, can move 30ft, [Attack action, Extra attack, plus TWF]one attack, teleport 20ft, one attack, teleport 20ft, one attack, teleport 20ft out of melee combat. As an example. Is this intended? Just looking for clarification.

[Ugganaut]

Also, could you post a link to the current Spells doc, the last link didn't work, and I can't seem to find it anywhere else.
Thanks

[Kryx]

Monk[Silent Shadow]: Shadowy Shield - I like the idea of this thematically, but it doesn't mechanically feel right.
The “1 ki point as a bonus action” is slightly inferior to Dodge(Patient Defense) due to the “unless you don’t rely on sight to see”.
The “2 ki points as a reaction” works fine from a balance stand point of view. I very well could be wrong here, but I thought disadvantage was something that applied to the attacker due to its circumstances. So on a pre-existing effect like the bonus action(or Dodge), or Blur etc. As a reaction, you can apply disadvantage when they attack you, but once they hit, its the defenders defenses that are modified, like a Shield spell. Not sure I'm explaining this right. A possible solution, assuming there is a problem, is to have the monk go temporarily "shadow form"(incorporeal?) on being hit, gaining resistance to bludgeoning/piercing/slashing until the start of their next turn.
I'll remove the 1 ki option and reword the 2 ki option:

Shadowy Shield. You can spend 2 ki points as a reaction to being hit by an attack to cause your body to become blurred, shifting and wavering to all who can see you. The attacking creature must reroll the attack and must use the new roll. Additionally until the start of your next turn, any creature has disadvantage on attack rolls against you.

An attacker is immune to this effect if it doesn’t rely on sight, as with blindsight, or can see through illusions, as with truesight.


Monk[Silent Shadow]: Shadow Step - The original version just teleported you 60ft as a bonus action, so was limited by only one bonus action per turn. This uses your movement, so can therefore be used anytime your movement can be used. So at 6th level Human, you can bonus action Step of the Wind to bring movement to 90ft, can move 30ft, [Attack action, Extra attack, plus TWF]one attack, teleport 20ft, one attack, teleport 20ft, one attack, teleport 20ft out of melee combat. As an example. Is this intended? Just looking for clarification.
This feature does not give you extra movement, so the movement would be the same as normal, just via teleporting through shadows.

A 6th level monk's speed is 45. Step of the wind would give you 90 feet of movement. That movement can be used just like normal movement. The only difference being you can teleport over gaps or avoid Opportunity Attacks if there is darkness.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Attack action, Extra attack, plus TWF". The monk would have the same number of attacks with Martial Arts or TWF.


Also, could you post a link to the current Spells doc, the last link didn't work, and I can't seem to find it anywhere else.
It's linked on the last page of the houserules. Click the blue words "Spells".

[Ugganaut]

A 6th level monk's speed is 45. Step of the wind would give you 90 feet of movement. That movement can be used just like normal movement. The only difference being you can teleport over gaps or avoid Opportunity Attacks if there is darkness.
Ok, so it works the way I thought it did. Groovy :)


I'm not sure what you mean by "Attack action, Extra attack, plus TWF". The monk would have the same number of attacks with Martial Arts or TWF.
Brain fart. Should have just said three attacks :)



It's linked on the last page of the houserules. Click the blue words "Spells".
Forgot about those links, sorry.

Thanks again as always :)

[Ugganaut]

Did you remove the "save for half" effect from cantrips like Sacred Flame?

[Kryx]

Yes, see the change from October 21st:


October 21st, 2017 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-october-21st-2017)
Spells

Cantrips have been rebalanced. Instead of adjusting every cantrip up to the level of Fire Bolt and Eldritch Blast I have lowered those cantrips to d8s. See Spell Balance and the spells pdf of mine. Now I only adjust a few cantrips, mostly adjusting their damage upwards.




I have an exciting idea in the works that is quite far along. Basically every caster uses mana which recovers on a short rest (similar to my current warlock). 9th level casters get more mana than classes like a Ranger for example. All these classes would have Talents - the same structure as Invocations and Sorcerer Sparks.
It's going quite well. I'll probably post the idea for feedback on another thread in a few days. I expect I'll move over to that system when it's done.

[Ugganaut]

Yes, see the change from October 21st:
Shame, I really liked the save for half ones. Too often I try to use Frostbite and they make their save far too often, and there is nothing to do about it. A to-hit spell you can get advantage in a number of different ways, but disadvantage on their save is much rarer. Even if the damage needs to be lowered accordingly I'd like it.


I have an exciting idea in the works that is quite far along. Basically every caster uses mana which recovers on a short rest (similar to my current warlock). 9th level casters get more mana than classes like a Ranger for example. All these classes would have Talents - the same structure as Invocations and Sorcerer Sparks.
It's going quite well. I'll probably post the idea for feedback on another thread in a few days. I expect I'll move over to that system when it's done.
Are you mentioning this in relation to cantrips, or just on the topic of spells?
I'm always hesitant with big changes like that, it's usually hard to get past the rest of the group, and personally I get trapped in the way I know, so a total overhaul....I'm just resistant. But I was skeptical of the new Sorcerer, and after making a couple toons, it seems to be working well. I find because I don't know it well enough yet, and the class is now rather large, it takes more time to make up the characters. But once its done, its no harder than normal to use.
Those are supposed to be compliments if it wasn't clear :smallsmile:

[Kryx]

Shame, I really liked the save for half ones. Too often I try to use Frostbite and they make their save far too often, and there is nothing to do about it. A to-hit spell you can get advantage in a number of different ways, but disadvantage on their save is much rarer. Even if the damage needs to be lowered accordingly I'd like it.
I can see that and that is why I chose to balance them in that way before, but that balance was only necessary because of 2 specific cantrips. Easier to address those than the rest.


Are you mentioning this in relation to cantrips, or just on the topic of spells?
I'm always hesitant with big changes like that, it's usually hard to get past the rest of the group, and personally I get trapped in the way I know, so a total overhaul....I'm just resistant. But I was skeptical of the new Sorcerer, and after making a couple toons, it seems to be working well. I find because I don't know it well enough yet, and the class is now rather large, it takes more time to make up the characters. But once its done, its no harder than normal to use.
Those are supposed to be compliments if it wasn't clear :smallsmile:
It's unrelated to spells. Spells will stay the same.

If I go through with this change the old versions will still stay around - as you say not everyone will want to switch and this is a large enough change to warrant a split. Perhaps I shouldn't have teased it until it's ready. To ease your mind: The changes are prompted by the Sorcerer rework that I did and very much in line with that idea.

[Ugganaut]

I can see that and that is why I chose to balance them in that way before, but that balance was only necessary because of 2 specific cantrips. Easier to address those than the rest.
Firebolt and Eldritch Blast I'm assuming. I'm surprised the numbers indicated they were too much. The "no resource" options for melee seems so much stronger, both in damage, and frequency of getting that damage through(or some of it). Even a rogue without Extra Attack just needs to put a dagger in his offhand for an extra chance to apply his sneak attack.



If I go through with this change the old versions will still stay around - as you say not everyone will want to switch and this is a large enough change to warrant a split. Perhaps I shouldn't have teased it until it's ready. To ease your mind: The changes are prompted by the Sorcerer rework that I did and very much in line with that idea.
Tease away, I'm not that worried :smallsmile: Didn't think I was going to like the Sorcerer at all, but its grown on me quickly.
The only issue I've had with our main DM(I haven't put this system to the other two in the group yet until I've gone through it with a fine tooth comb), is Saving Throws and the Magus class. Saving Throws he just didn't like that he might have to modify NPC's/monsters(extra work with his limited time). The Magus class he didn't like because it was balanced against the Paladin. He hasn't read it mind you, he just hates Paladin's, thinks they are far to OP - High burst damage tanks that can heal(plus cure poison and disease far earlier than a cleric). So I continue to go through it slowly(as you're painfully aware), talk it over with our main DM, and when it looks like their won't be anymore big changes, and I've gone through it all, I'll put it to the others. One guy hates change, so gotta have my ducks in a row :smallsmile: Was planning to wait until after Xan's guide, in case you made some more changes then. But a mana system might be worth waiting for too :smallsmile:

[Kryx]

Firebolt and Eldritch Blast I'm assuming. I'm surprised the numbers indicated they were too much. The "no resource" options for melee seems so much stronger, both in damage, and frequency of getting that damage through(or some of it). Even a rogue without Extra Attack just needs to put a dagger in his offhand for an extra chance to apply his sneak attack.
I don't disagree that d10 is an ok balance point for cantrips. In the RAW game it's totally fine. The main issue is the amount of cantrip changes to align the other cantrips with the d10s. Every cantrip but those 2 had to change in order to balance them - that seems like a problem. If those changes aren't made then other cantrips are a tier below fire bolt and especially eldritch blast.

Additionally the d10 doesn't work with my quickened cantrips idea - so it was a bit 2 birds with 1 stone kind of idea.


he just hates Paladin's, thinks they are far to OP - High burst damage tanks that can heal(plus cure poison and disease far earlier than a cleric).
I agree with his claim. The changes I made to only allow smite once per turn and reducing the effectiveness of aura of protection really bring it in line with the other classes imo. The Ranger is actually stronger in terms of DPR compared to both.


So I continue to go through it slowly(as you're painfully aware), talk it over with our main DM, and when it looks like their won't be anymore big changes, and I've gone through it all, I'll put it to the others. One guy hates change, so gotta have my ducks in a row :smallsmile: Was planning to wait until after Xan's guide, in case you made some more changes then. But a mana system might be worth waiting for too :smallsmile:
I appreciate the very thorough feedback - I miss a lot of things so it's good to have a second pair of eyes seriously considering each and every feature.


I'll send you a PM with the current working version of my mana system. It's too raw of a draft to share publicly as I want it to be more polished before soliciting feedback otherwise people will write it off outright.

[Ugganaut]

I don't disagree that d10 is an ok balance point for cantrips. In the RAW game it's totally fine. The main issue is the amount of cantrip changes to align the other cantrips with the d10s. Every cantrip but those 2 had to change in order to balance them - that seems like a problem.
Not a problem if you've already done the work :smallsmile:


If those changes aren't made then other cantrips are a tier below fire bolt and especially eldritch blast.
Additionally the d10 doesn't work with my quickened cantrips idea - so it was a bit 2 birds with 1 stone kind of idea.
Fire Bolt I have no issue with, I think its a good starting point. Long range, high damage, "poor" damage type.
Eldritch Blast is the killer. On top of range/damage, it has a great damage type, and you have multiple changes to get damage through. For things that add damage per hit like Hex, its far superior to anything else. For things that add damage once per turn, you've got more chance of getting that through due to multiple attacks. EB+Hex is the warlock bread and butter, but if the class is reworked(liked you've done), and doesn't rely on that to be effective, then I'd much prefer your old "balance against Fire Bolt", and nerf EB down to d8 or even d6. I'm sure thats not a popular opinion though.


I agree with his claim. The changes I made to only allow smite once per turn and reducing the effectiveness of aura of protection really bring it in line with the other classes imo. The Ranger is actually stronger in terms of DPR compared to both.
I agree, DM and I have talked about that. Bringing Divine Smite into the same pool as all other smites was helpful too. Lay on Hands though, on top of half-caster is still an issue for DM. He was thinking of having the pool at 2HP/Level, and Cure Disease/Poison cost around 5, so you're at least 3rd level before you can even do it once per day. Again, this wouldn't be a popular opinion, so something for our table to address.

[Kryx]

I have an exciting idea in the works that is quite far along. Basically every caster uses mana which recovers on a short rest (similar to my current warlock). 9th level casters get more mana than classes like a Ranger for example. All these classes would have Talents - the same structure as Invocations and Sorcerer Sparks.
It's going quite well. I'll probably post the idea for feedback on another thread in a few days. I expect I'll move over to that system when it's done.
If anyone is interested in this see Kryx's Houserules (Mana) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?541724-Structural-Class-Changes-(Mana-Talents-Clear-gish-structure)) to view it and provide feedback. My group has started using these rules.

I'll keep the older version available for others as well, just FYI.

[Kobard]

If anyone is interested in this see Kryx's Houserules (Mana) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?541724-Structural-Class-Changes-(Mana-Talents-Clear-gish-structure)) to view it and provide feedback. My group has started using these rules.

I'll keep the older version available for others as well, just FYI.Your group must jump around new houserules a lot. How do they ever get time to get through a campaign without new major class/mechanical adjustments?

It looks interesting, but far too removed from 5E's more streamlined simplicity.

With Xanathar's Guide out, will you be making additional adjustments to your houserules?

[Kryx]

Your group must jump around new houserules a lot. How do they ever get time to get through a campaign without new major class/mechanical adjustments?
They change over. In most cases the changes only take a minute or two.


It looks interesting, but far too removed from 5E's more streamlined simplicity.
I'd argue the mana system I have is more clear than 5e's default classes, but that's subjective.


With Xanathar's Guide out, will you be making additional adjustments to your houserules?
Xanathar's is already incorporated in my rules. The rules in this post will continue to exist, but will not be worked on. The mana version is the version I use now.

[Kobard]

They change over. In most cases the changes only take a minute or two.So they don't?


I'd argue the mana system I have is more clear than 5e's default classes, but that's subjective.It's not just the mana system but all the various bolts, nails, and pieces and how they fit together. But if it works for your group, then that's between you and your table.


Xanathar's is already incorporated in my rules. The rules in this post will continue to exist, but will not be worked on. The mana version is the version I use now.Good to know. I do have questions about that, but I will try giving your houserules several additional reads and ask my questions on the appropriate thread.